Do I understand this correct? So basically Augustine distinguishes between two types of wisdom: Eternal Wisdom, which is the Logos, and created wisdom, which is the rational order of creation participating in divine wisdom. Lower corporeal creatures, such as us humans, with the aid of divine grace, can have their intellects illuminated, whereby our capacity to understand intelligible forms (like abstract objects, moral truths, the existence of God, etc.) is actualized, allowing us to "see" and, subsequently, contemplate these forms, thereby imparting to us a share in created wisdom and, in turn, participating in divine wisdom, and the fullness of this contemplation is citizenship in the heavenly Jerusalem, the Church, the "heaven of heavens", the presence of God. Did I get that right? Basically created wisdom bears the form of that which is in the intellect of God. As I understand it, Aquinas held that supernatural illumination like Augustine describes is not necessary, since we, individually, bear the "natural light" of reason, making it unnecessary for us to all share in a single divine act of illumination or rational order. Instead, through the active intellect, we can, by our own capacity, abstract intelligible forms on our own. Albeit, the ultimate source of this is still rooted in God as God is still the actual or first cause of all things. Did I get that basically correct, /his/ theologians? You guys are the designated religion board so enlighten me (pun intended).
Did you read just Confessions or On the Trinity? They both basically expound the same thing, only Augustine states that God hands over Wisdom, sometimes. Short version, Augustine's just viewing our ability to think, reason and understand as an aspect given to us by god. Wisdom, true Wisdom being knowledge of the Divine, comes from God. And some wonk about time stretching the soul and making it closer and more pure but that's neither here nor there. Aquinas mostly agreed with Augustine but makes extra steps on the human intellect.
>>18219283I read both.
>>18219339Fair enough, well, we're on an equal footing. Short version, Aquinas thinks there's no divine inspiration outside Divine matters, Augustine thinks that God might occasionally tip his hand in non-divine matters. Or. That eas my read.
>>18219339Oh. And check out Pelagianism. He had some vaguely heretical ideas that touch on the difference between Aquinas and Augustinian thought. Despite Pellyboy being roughly contemporary to Augustine.
>>18219237>jew worshiper says bla bla blaadam and eve weren't real because neandethals are real and theology is all a load of theatrics and rubbish
>>18219484Does this imply that Augustine believes in created grace? Or is that not really relevant here?
>>18219237Augustine was a retard who hated himself and the world> “[According to Augustine] Rome, in particular, is the Babylon of the west. At its beginning is a fratricide, that of Romulus, which reproduces the fratricide of Cain […]. The Roman virtues themselves are only apparent: they are actually vices, because virtue without Christ is not possible. […] In regards to the creation of the Empire, the philosopher states that it does not derive from the will of the “false gods” of mythology, but from the superior designs of Providence.”
