Timeline for According to St. Thomas Aquinas, do "being" (ens) and "truth" (verum) differ?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2018 at 21:30 | answer | added | Kjetil Kringlebotten | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 2, 2017 at 13:53 | comment | added | user20253 | A truth is something we know to be true. As Aristotle notes, certain knowledge is only ever 'knowledge by identity' or by 'Being'. Thus all (absolute) truths are truths of Being. We can know what we are and all the rest is a theory. So Truth (in its stongest sense) and Being are ultimately one Aquinas seems on-track to me, and in agreement with the Oracle. | |
| Nov 1, 2017 at 0:25 | comment | added | virmaior | A major (if not the only ) point of Aquinas' argument is the claim that being and truth stand in a special relation and are not regular descriptive categories. That's why truth always comes with being. | |
| Oct 31, 2017 at 18:44 | answer | added | Geremia | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 31, 2017 at 18:34 | history | edited | Geremia | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 8 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2017 at 18:28 | history | edited | Geremia | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 8 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2017 at 18:23 | history | edited | Geremia | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added link, Latin original, and Robert W. Mulligan, S.J.'s translation
|
| Oct 29, 2017 at 12:46 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/924618380962861056 | ||
| Oct 28, 2017 at 17:10 | comment | added | EnlightenedFunky | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Oct 28, 2017 at 17:07 | comment | added | EnlightenedFunky | I was just thinking because I read more into the argument and the idea of have truth, and being definitions in one another, like if something has being it has truth, and if something has truth it has being. | |
| Oct 28, 2017 at 17:04 | comment | added | Santiago Estupiñán | @EnlightenedFunky That's a very interesting question! My intuition says you should not be able to, but I cannot prove it's not the case | |
| Oct 28, 2017 at 16:40 | comment | added | EnlightenedFunky | But aren't they also the same in some manner? I am just thinking about how your example has roots in each other, because a prime has root in twin primes, but does twin primes have roots in primes? Like can you define a prime using twin primes? | |
| Oct 28, 2017 at 16:32 | comment | added | Santiago Estupiñán | @EnlightenedFunky Truth and being are instances of the argument that two things that differ in reason ought to be understood without the other. My problem is with the general argument, where I use primes and twin primes as instances, and I don't know why it isn't a contradiction | |
| Oct 28, 2017 at 16:28 | comment | added | EnlightenedFunky | I just thought of something you said truth, and being so which one is truth, and being in your instance? So the truth, could be the prime, and the being the twin the prime. | |
| Oct 28, 2017 at 16:27 | comment | added | Santiago Estupiñán | @EnlightenedFunky Not necessarily their existence, but at least it should be possible to understand the definition of twin prime without the definition of prime | |
| Oct 28, 2017 at 16:11 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 30, 2017 at 23:28 | |||||
| Oct 28, 2017 at 16:07 | history | asked | Santiago Estupiñán | CC BY-SA 3.0 |