Thought of Thomas Aquinas was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 September 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Thomas Aquinas. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Thomas Aquinas was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Thomas Aquinas is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
No - for Thomas, following Aristotle, all living creatures have a soul. Anima, which is 'soul' in English, is the scholastic term for the subtantial form of an embodied living being. Like all material things, animals are composites, on this view, of 'form' and 'matter', though neither of these terms means precisely what it means in modern parlance. What is true about Thomas, but is by no means unique or original to him, is that he believes that animals have material souls, where human beings have immaterial, intellectual souls, which are capable of post-mortem disembodied existence. 2A02:C7C:CB3F:4000:ADDE:6997:AEF1:70B2 (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is not correct. In Aristotle and St. Thomas, all souls, even those of plants, are not material. They are related to the material bodies they inform as act to a potency. If they were material they would be in place and so not exist in all places of the body. In Thomas, what makes a human soul different from an animal or plant soul is not its immateriality but its completely immaterial functions, such as knowing immaterial universal concepts. This alone is the foundation of Thomas's view that the human soul is per se immortal. That does not mean that even the human person per se is immortal. The human person is a body-soul composite and so will only have full existence "immortally" after the bodily resurrection. 138.51.33.22 (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The editing notice When referred to by a single name, he should always be referred to as simply "Thomas" is absurdly prescriptive. It should be removed. Srnec (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
He is called both 'Thomas' and 'Aquinas' in reliable sources. There's no right or wrong. It's one thing to keep this page consistent, but another to tell people you should never call him 'Aquinas'. That's just not true. It wasn't a last name, but that doesn't matter. The form 'Aquinas' does not represent a standard form for medieval Italians in either Italian or English. It's like "Charlemagne". Srnec (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Modern and postmodern bias through the whole article.
If you meant that this article has a style that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, or that parts are not accurate, it would be helpful for other editors if you would point out the sections that need improvement. It is, however, a 21st-century encyclopedia article, not a medieval treatise, so it won't express things the way a scholastic would. Tikwriter (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
This isn't related directly to your concern, but I reverted your recent change because it's generally not ever a more ideal option to make "considered one of the greatest"-class claims in own voice. We can quibble about who we should quote as to be representative, but claims of those kind in own voice are both trouble to source, as well as of comparatively little substance as to be better avoided, imo. Remsense ‥ 论10:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
