The thomistic scotist screams for deeper explanation

😄 agree!

I love his ASMR sleep stories 😆 😴

Now that you mention it it really does sound like a gentler northwestern NoDak accent. Speaking of, seeing a fellow North Dakotan online feels finding a needle in a haystack lol

I don’t understand what you mean so you’re probably right that we need more discussion on why TOB would be perceived as a bad thing. I have no clue what you might be referring to

@@ryancampbell3020 I wasn't asking for a discussion on why one would perceive as a bad thing rather why it is controversial and a novelty. Also more importantly, has this been the reason today's marriages are running the risk like never before?

@@punleashed8891 theology of the body is in line with St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas, it's just that many adherents (like Christopher West) introduce novelties

TOB has contributed to bridging the gap between subjective and objective stances, not to making the gap wider.

That's totally out of line. From what I've read of theology of the Body it seems like it's far more the answer to the problems of the modern view of sexuality rather than its cause. You'll recall that theology of the body didn't even come out until the 70s, well past the sexual revolution, and the excesses of sexual vice thrust upon the world because of contraception in earnest began more in the 20's and 30's of the 20th century.

It's good to stretch

@@DavidMatias79 Stretched so much it broke.

Ha! I felt exactly the same! 😄😄

@@MrJiffitz Lol...Well thanks Mr.Jiffitz, glad I'm not alone. I've never picked up a cup, looked at it, then tugged at my forelocks in existential angst about the meaning of it all.

Many Neo-Thomists were interested in Phenomenological Thomism e.g. St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. So it's not as simple as Thomism vs other philosophies. The founder of Phenomenology Edmund Husserl ended up leading many of his students to convert to Catholicism through phenomenology despite he himself not being catholic. At the same time the likes of Heidegger and Sartre, very famous atheists, were also heavily influenced by Phenomenology therefore not making it an obvious cure all philosophy so to speak.

They addressed this. Phenomenology and it's approach is good, but it needs to be balanced by the Thomistic, objective approach. It's a both/and, not opposed to each other

Most philosophies have something real to offer. They get into trouble when they try to make partial truths into the whole truth.

@@kingofmaglos3 Heidegger probably wasn’t an atheist. Started off Catholic, became Protestant with his wife and was buried by the Catholic Church.

Can you elaborate? What scenario comes to mind specifically? Because when it comes to children I would think that placing the child at the centre of your consideration is paramount especially when you in a position to teach

@Shana Hendricks I meant this more in the sense of overall philosophical framework. I feel like my personhood is grounded in my being, so it is more appropriate to start with being and then explore personhood, rather than what appears to be going the other way around.

That’s why Heidegger described our being as dasein (being there) and it’s mode of being is sorge (care). Such that phenomenology doesn’t become the new idealism, but it rather becomes an investigation of being and it’s relation to the being who question is being and dies. And if we interpret being as possibility, then death is the ultimate opening of the possible. Thus the question of death and being become bound up together. Placing the person at the center of being (dasein). A less jargoned response would be that of the logos. In Christianity the logos is the creator, the animating principle, and is a person. I suppose you must ask which takes priority. Being or logos? Is that the right question? Philosophy is an endless pit, and we are it’s shovel.

Phenomenology only teaches that you begin your study of reality with the immediate phenomena of sense experience; it does not say to end with that or be satisfied with that. It says to think deeply about things and recognize that is a real distinction between real and apparent goods.

@@musicarroll Yes, you can dress a pig up as much as you want, but you're missing the point I was trying to get across that it is still very subjective & many systems have come and gone based upon that, stoicism is one of them. Without God's revelation we cannot properly reason up using natural theology unlike what Catholicism believes, not to mention that it would almost suggest pelaganism.

@ThruTheUnknown If you judge every belief system by the bad use people have made of it through faulty interpretation, the same can be done regarding faulty interpretations of God's revelation. Think Cotton Mather and his supposedly "scriptural" justifications of slavery and witch hunting. You have to make use of some amount of reason to even properly understand revelation. The Bible itself exhorts us to be ready to give reasons for the hope that is within us, not because the truths of revelation can be proven by reason alone, but rather because objections to the contents of faith can be answered in reasonable fashion by proper use of both natural reason and Divine Revelation. It's not either/or; it is both/and.

@@musicarroll I'm not judging by bad believers (some of the stoics might have been very virtuous) once you are misunderstanding my argument. My argument is that without God's revelation due to man's fallibility & fallen nature it sets itself up as being ambiguous and inevitably prone to error, this is the problem with Catholic natural theology & it borders on being heretical as it reeks of pelaganism (I'm a bit miffed as to why the two Catholic scholars on this show didn't mention that, but in a way I also understand that's typical of Catholic reasoning).

@@musicarroll And while you believe it's not either/or (I'm glad you're not a philosopher of natural theology) that's not how this type of 'theology' developed. Natural theology presupposes that one can reason up to the triuine God through reason alone.