tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post895570869572466582..comments2024-03-28T17:53:43.541-04:00Comments on DarwinCatholic: The Doctrine is Fixed, the Explanation Can ChangeDarwinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-26666635529540173942018-07-15T12:39:35.756-04:002018-07-15T12:39:35.756-04:00I hadn't meant "system" with the imp...I hadn't meant "system" with the implication that you mention, and I'm certainly open to another word. <br /><br />I do agree that Aquinas and Aristotle were trying to grasp what reality really is. And I think they got closer than most. I'd argue that other philosophers have done this as well, though Im a bit hampered here by the fact that the philosophy I know most about is indeed Aristotelianism and Platonism. But, for instance, my understanding is that when JPII discussed marriage and contraception in terms of phenomenology, it's because he believed that philosophy was able to shine light on real truths in some ways that Aquinas perhaps was not pulling off.Darwinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08572976822786862149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13522238.post-18089468731043650462018-07-15T10:27:21.600-04:002018-07-15T10:27:21.600-04:00I love St. Thomas Aquinas’s prayer
Sed si quid ma...I love St. Thomas Aquinas’s prayer<br /><br />Sed si quid male dixi, totum relinquo correctioni Ecclesiae Romanae<br /><br />It seems misleading to use philosophy and system together, especially in the context of Aristotle and Thomas. Philosophy tries to grasp what (really) is; it may be in error, but there is no “system”. Systems try to impose a model to ”save the appearances; they are more sophistic than philosophical.Atque Laudationoreply@blogger.com