12
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1,309:
Line 1,309: + + + + + + + + +
User talk:1990'sguy (view source)
Revision as of 21:15, December 11, 2018
, 21:15, December 11, 2018Further Defence of Thomas Aquinas
:Once again, the quote mentioning hunger was already quoted in the paragraph. Also, the paragraph doesn't say that he supported socialism, but that it represented a slippery slope. Either way, his position is weaker than that of some other intellectuals who wrote on property rights. I might (possibly) be OK with a single short sentence/phrase saying that overall he supported property rights, if you can back it up, but the specific info you're citing does not back it up. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:03, 11 December 2018 (EST)
:Once again, the quote mentioning hunger was already quoted in the paragraph. Also, the paragraph doesn't say that he supported socialism, but that it represented a slippery slope. Either way, his position is weaker than that of some other intellectuals who wrote on property rights. I might (possibly) be OK with a single short sentence/phrase saying that overall he supported property rights, if you can back it up, but the specific info you're citing does not back it up. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:03, 11 December 2018 (EST)
Yes hunger is mentioned, but the meaning has been distorted, I can assure you that having studied the Summa Theologica in a monastery guided by a Thomist professor that the section on Politic Philosophy is wrong. It is not a correct interpretation of Aquinas's political views. Thomas Aquinas clearly upholds property rights in the Summa Theologica:
I answer that, Two things are competent to man in respect of exterior things. One is the power to procure and dispense them, and in this regard it is lawful for man to possess property. Moreover this is necessary to human life for three reasons. First because every man is more careful to procure what is for himself alone than that which is common to many or to all: since each one would shirk the labor and leave to another that which concerns the community, as happens where there is a great number of servants. Secondly, because human affairs are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking care of some particular thing himself, whereas there would be confusion if everyone had to look after any one thing indeterminately. Thirdly, because a more peaceful state is ensured to man if each one is contented with his own. Hence it is to be observed that quarrels arise more frequently where there is no division of the things possessed.
The second thing that is competent to man with regard to external things is their use. In this respect man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need. Hence the Apostle says (1 Tim. 6:17, 18): "Charge the rich of this world . . . to give easily, to communicate to others," etc.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum322.htm
Yes, I can back up my claims. The quoted I cited are from authorized sites. I have used the quotes as written and provided links, so please explain how I am wrong?