Sign in to follow this  
Vortez

The fibonacci numbers... and god?

Recommended Posts

AoS    935

Any undergrad psych major can make arguments better than Aquinas did.

Isn't it crazy that he's one of the most influential writers in history?

Maybe to Christians in the west, mostly Catholics. Billions in China and India are thinking: "Who the fuck is Thomas Aquinas?" Besides, influential is a function of time more than correctness. Jesus is more important that Mill not because of inherent value but because he is like more than 1000 years older.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cowsarenotevil    3003

Ya might want to crack open a copy of Plato some time.  You know, the guy whence came the concept of platonic solids.  He knew a bit about mathematics and the perceived divine perfection of creation.

 

Plato actually didn't have much of anything to do with the concept of platonic solids, being neither the first person to conjecture that they were the only regular convex polyhedra nor the first person to prove this.

 

Also, a lot of Plato's most significant beliefs relating to the "divine" are either empirically false or "not even wrong." He certainly got a lot of things right, but he's probably not a good source if you're looking for either true facts or arguments without strange leaps and assumptions.

Aquinas would also be a good read if you want questions about absolute and logical proof of the divine.

 

Questions, perhaps, but certainly not answers. Aquinas had a fairly poor understanding of proof, even compared to his ancient predecessors, to say nothing of the 19th century founders of formal logic.

 

 

(...) psych major can make arguments better than Aquinas did.

 

This may, strictly speaking, be true. It is nonetheless probably not what you wanted to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AoS    935

Ya might want to crack open a copy of Plato some time.  You know, the guy whence came the concept of platonic solids.  He knew a bit about mathematics and the perceived divine perfection of creation.

 

Plato actually didn't have much of anything to do with the concept of platonic solids, being neither the first person to conjecture that they were the only regular convex polyhedra nor the first person to prove this.

 

Also, a lot of Plato's most significant beliefs relating to the "divine" are either empirically false or "not even wrong." He certainly got a lot of things right, but he's probably not a good source if you're looking for either true facts or arguments without strange leaps and assumptions.
 

>Aquinas would also be a good read if you want questions about absolute and logical proof of the divine.

 

Questions, perhaps, but certainly not answers. Aquinas had a fairly poor understanding of proof, even compared to his ancient predecessors, to say nothing of the 19th century founders of formal logic.

 

 

(...) psych major can make arguments better than Aquinas did.

 

This may, strictly speaking, be true. It is nonetheless probably not what you wanted to say.

 

Woops. Well it was obvious what I meant anywho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Khatharr    8812



Any undergrad psych major can make arguments better than Aquinas did.

Isn't it crazy that he's one of the most influential writers in history?


"Influential" does not equate to "right."


 
"It" tends to equate to "existentially relevant", though.
 
 

Billions in China and India are thinking: "Who the fuck is Thomas Aquinas?"

 
That's only because they're so uneducated in China and India...

OR

ARE

THEY...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this