How Words Mean Thomas Aquinas
3. In his work “How Words Mean” Thomas Aquinas’ assertion to the idea first developed by Aristotle “in composing and dividing … truth and falsity are found” debates the existence of these forces in the first place and then remarks that truth and falsehood are in opposition to each other. However, just as truth exists in the intellect but “the intellect does not know truth except by composing and dividing through its judgment.” it is clear that falsehood is found in the exact same way. Truth, as defined by Aquinas, is the conformity of the thing which is being presented and the intellect which judges it to be true. Sensory cognition alone does not have the understanding of divisibles which seem to be necessary in order to define truth and falsehood in the first place, as it only involves the use of the senses for perception. Intellectual cognition however deals with the immaterial and gives humans the ability to arrange the
…show more content…
world in a meaningful order in their mind as well as a clear understanding of that which can be divided and composed.
It is important to note the differences between composition and division in order to better understand what Aquinas is trying to assert in the first place. Composition seems to be the act of applying a subject to a predicate in conventional patterns, often through the use of language. Division is denying a subject to a predicate and is the direct opposite of composition. If one were to only use composition, it would imply that everything is true and create a fallacy. In the same way, if one only uses division, suddenly everything perceived and judged becomes false and the existence of what is being seen can never be affirmed. Therefore, that which is perceived through sensory cognition goes through a certain process of division and composition so that in the end what is true and what is false are known to the thinker.
4. The debate regarding whether or not hagiography is inherently misogynistic is certainly not one that can end with an easy and acceptable answer. The assertion made in “The Passion of Our Lord” in regards to Eve being the direct cause of sin on the world does not directly attribute this to the fact that she is a woman, but it is very likely that this portion and many other parts of the Bible involving the deception of men through women; Jezebel, Delilah, etc. particularly through the use of their uniquely feminine attributes and wiles, might have created negative imagery regarding females in general. Hagiographies involving female saints particularly seem to emphasize either initial virginity or their choice later on regarding sexual purity.
It could be theorized that Adam was unable to deny Eve’s “coercion” because she used her feminine “wiles” to convince him to consent to sin, just as Delilah and Jezebel did centuries later with their respective male partners.
The Legenda Auria could be somewhat misogynistic in the fact that perhaps the male population which made up the majority of the clergy automatically believed that all women are inherently prone to the desires of the flesh and females that turn away from this should be considered noble and worthy of sainthood.
Personally I might venture to say that these stories about female saints could have been exaggerated, as many such hagiographies were, so that women would hear these stories and be encouraged to follow in footsteps not necessarily made by the saints themselves but rather those men writing about the saints. I do believe however, the Legenda Auria was almost certainly a mixture of misogyny and admiration for women, perhaps in an attempt to capture the negative and positive influence we can have over the opposite
gender.
5. One text which particularly influenced and challenged me ethically and even spiritually was “The Murder of a Feudal Lord” an account written by Galbert of Bruges which was biased from the start in favor of the Feudal Lord that was murdered, depicting the family of freedom fighters who refuse to be drawn into serfdom as ignorant and even barbaric for their “misunderstanding” of the Feudal Lord who only wants to “bring back good order to the realm” and that these fighters were too stuck in their old traditions and needed to accept a progressive and ordered society. I never expected to be so incredibly influenced by this short text, but there was a sense of familiarity in the story as I read it. I had the uncomfortable feeling that I had heard a similar rhetoric in present day, particularly from those who are more liberal thinking than I. As someone who has always aspired to one day write for magazines and even newspapers, the lack of objectivity in this text frankly unnerved me.
I will not venture to say my own religious and political views have drifted into my writing as well, but for something that should have been written very factually, portions of the account seemed almost hagiographical. Surely the count was not as saintly as Galbert makes him out to be, surely he was not simultaneously praying for his life while handing out pennies to the poor, (although that is an impressive display of multi-tasking ability). Time has a tendency to muddle history. Facts often find themselves lost in the maze of theories or are ravaged by the passage of time.
world in a meaningful order in their mind as well as a clear understanding of that which can be divided and composed.
It is important to note the differences between composition and division in order to better understand what Aquinas is trying to assert in the first place. Composition seems to be the act of applying a subject to a predicate in conventional patterns, often through the use of language. Division is denying a subject to a predicate and is the direct opposite of composition. If one were to only use composition, it would imply that everything is true and create a fallacy. In the same way, if one only uses division, suddenly everything perceived and judged becomes false and the existence of what is being seen can never be affirmed. Therefore, that which is perceived through sensory cognition goes through a certain process of division and composition so that in the end what is true and what is false are known to the thinker.
4. The debate regarding whether or not hagiography is inherently misogynistic is certainly not one that can end with an easy and acceptable answer. The assertion made in “The Passion of Our Lord” in regards to Eve being the direct cause of sin on the world does not directly attribute this to the fact that she is a woman, but it is very likely that this portion and many other parts of the Bible involving the deception of men through women; Jezebel, Delilah, etc. particularly through the use of their uniquely feminine attributes and wiles, might have created negative imagery regarding females in general. Hagiographies involving female saints particularly seem to emphasize either initial virginity or their choice later on regarding sexual purity.
It could be theorized that Adam was unable to deny Eve’s “coercion” because she used her feminine “wiles” to convince him to consent to sin, just as Delilah and Jezebel did centuries later with their respective male partners.
The Legenda Auria could be somewhat misogynistic in the fact that perhaps the male population which made up the majority of the clergy automatically believed that all women are inherently prone to the desires of the flesh and females that turn away from this should be considered noble and worthy of sainthood.
Personally I might venture to say that these stories about female saints could have been exaggerated, as many such hagiographies were, so that women would hear these stories and be encouraged to follow in footsteps not necessarily made by the saints themselves but rather those men writing about the saints. I do believe however, the Legenda Auria was almost certainly a mixture of misogyny and admiration for women, perhaps in an attempt to capture the negative and positive influence we can have over the opposite
gender.
5. One text which particularly influenced and challenged me ethically and even spiritually was “The Murder of a Feudal Lord” an account written by Galbert of Bruges which was biased from the start in favor of the Feudal Lord that was murdered, depicting the family of freedom fighters who refuse to be drawn into serfdom as ignorant and even barbaric for their “misunderstanding” of the Feudal Lord who only wants to “bring back good order to the realm” and that these fighters were too stuck in their old traditions and needed to accept a progressive and ordered society. I never expected to be so incredibly influenced by this short text, but there was a sense of familiarity in the story as I read it. I had the uncomfortable feeling that I had heard a similar rhetoric in present day, particularly from those who are more liberal thinking than I. As someone who has always aspired to one day write for magazines and even newspapers, the lack of objectivity in this text frankly unnerved me.
I will not venture to say my own religious and political views have drifted into my writing as well, but for something that should have been written very factually, portions of the account seemed almost hagiographical. Surely the count was not as saintly as Galbert makes him out to be, surely he was not simultaneously praying for his life while handing out pennies to the poor, (although that is an impressive display of multi-tasking ability). Time has a tendency to muddle history. Facts often find themselves lost in the maze of theories or are ravaged by the passage of time.