No coincidence our heroes were scholastics, and so adept at coming at issues from all angles in order to get to the truth of the matter.

Thank YOU.

🤟

Good Girl! 👌 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

@@ReverendDr.Thomas You doin’ ok there, bud? Need me to call someone for you?

Do you know any works on suarez you would recommend.Its hard for me to find any of his works

Thanks, man! As for why I don't engage in more dialogues/debates, rather than host them? Simple answer: I'm just a wee bit too busy. This podcast (for listeners who don't know) is really a side/hobby project. My fitness business -- the real source of income for my family -- takes up an enormous amount of time and energy. Also wrote two books this past year and lots of articles on lots of topics. Moreover, I play in a local band (gigging and prepping for gigs takes a lot of time) and compose a fair bit of my own music as well. Above all, I have five children : ) So, it's much the same reason I keep interactions on social media to a minimum. I have to allocate my time extremely wisely to keep everything afloat and myself productive. Nevertheless, you'll see my most developed thought and responses to what I think the strongest objections from skeptics are in my upcoming book with Sophia.

God bless you Pat! We have three children and a lot of side deals going on as well. I can certainly sympathize.

@@MountAthosandAquinas I'll be praying for you!

He drinks our milkshake.

Truth is, Gaven and Tom mostly arranged it, I was just lucky to come along for the ride : )

Plug away, my dude. Always good to have you joining in the conversation.

@@PhilosophyforthePeople thanks pat, you always make great content. My blog is The Armchair Thomist for anyone wondering. First thing that comes up in a google search or the link is in my channel About page

Great points. I agree with your reading of the issue of individuation when comparing a Scotistic account vs Thomistic.

@@MountAthosandAquinas thanks!

Reply for traction

Reply to the reply for traction

@@andrewvillalobos5686 Snarky retort for traction

@@markbirmingham6011 Witticism for traction

@@markbirmingham6011 Appreciative counter-retort for traction.

Good clarification.

@@PhilosophyforthePeople yeah, no problem. I actually really like Pasnau’s interpretation of Aquinas. I am partial to it. Pasnau states that for Aquinas there’s no mode of existence apart from the concrete and particular. Consider this passage SCG II 75.8 “although the generic nature and the specific nature never exist except in individual things, the intellect nevertheless understands those natures without understanding the individuating principles; and to do this is to understand universals. Thus, there is no incompatibility between the fact that universals do not subsist outside the soul, and that in understanding universals the intellect understands things that do exist outside the soul.” For Aquinas the universal is not universal on account of it existing universally, in the sense that there is multiple location. Because again for Aquinas there is no such thing, only concrete particular existences. Aquinas says in De Ente “the universality of the form does not arise from the existence the form has in the intellect but rather from its relation to things as a likeness of such things. It is as if there were a corporeal statue representing many men; that image or species of statue would have a singular and proper existence insofar as it exists in this matter, but it would have an aspect of commonality insofar as it was a common representative of many” We have to consider also a distinction between esse naturale and esse intentionale that exists in Aquinas. Wherein the essence as it exists in the substance is as the primary act. And in the intellect the essence of the object of our knowledge is as a universal. Absolute form does not exist, there’s always something which accrues to it, whether it is the intention or the matter. - this comment is somewhat scatter brained but I’m typing it on a phone. I’ve written a couple papers on this.

If you really think about it, Aquinas is basically a nominalist in the eyes of most people, but in the Middle Ages universals we’re not understood in the way that we understand them. Universals that don’t involve multiple location, don’t involve existence outside of the mind, and only exist in particularity isn’t what most people think of as realism. And even most people think that universals by their nature are incompatible with the insistence there’s no mode of existence apart from the concrete / particular mode. But again, Aquinas clarifies that it’s not universality in its way of being, but universal in its way of relations. It can stand for / stand in relation to many things. Like a corporeal statue.

@@ZacharyRobert Again, great stuff. I'm partial to Jeff Brower's paper on Aquinas and universals. Have you come across that one?

@@PhilosophyforthePeople I actually haven’t. I’ll read it.