Bonaventure’s metaphysics is superior to that of Aquinas insofar as it preserves the intrinsic intelligibility of being by refusing to sever ontology from its epistemic and exemplar causes. Against Thomistic abstractionism, Bonaventure argues that ens creatum cannot ground its own intelligibility through the mere actus essendi abstracted from sensibles, since abstraction yields at best a conceptual universal lacking the necessity required for certitude. In the Collationes in Hexaëmeron and the Itinerarium mentis in Deum, he insists that intelligibility presupposes participation in the rationes aeternae, such that every act of genuine intellection implicitly refers to an exemplar order in the divine intellect. This move avoids the latent nominalism implicit in Aquinas’ account, wherein being is treated as epistemically neutral and self-disclosing prior to illumination. By contrast, Bonaventure’s metaphysics secures the conditions of possibility for knowledge by grounding ontology, logic, and epistemology in a single explanatory principle: participated likeness to the first Truth. The result is a system in which necessity, universality, and intelligibility are not postulated but metaphysically explained.Moreover, Bonaventure’s rejection of the primacy of esse in favor of the transcendentals of goodness, light, and exemplarity yields a more coherent account of participation and causality. Aquinas’ analogy of being, while formally elegant, risks rendering the analogate opaque, since ipsum esse subsistens is posited as metaphysically primary without a corresponding account of how finite intellects can apprehend being as such without already presupposing illumination. Bonaventure avoids this circularity by articulating an analogy of light, in which being is intelligible only insofar as it is irradiated by divine exemplarity, thus preserving the hierarchical structure of reality without collapsing epistemic access into angelic intuition. His metaphysics therefore maintains a strict asymmetry between Creator and creature while still accounting for real participation, something Aquinas’ autonomous natural metaphysics struggles to secure without supplementary theological premises. In this sense, Bonaventure’s system is not merely more theologically integrated but more logically coherent, since it explicitly thematizes the conditions under which being can be known at all rather than tacitly assuming them.
It's like watching an ape spray on perfume.
>>25004858Isn't Bonaventure just a budget Augustine?
>>25004858So why did the Thomists become dominant
Too bad you couldn't preserve any of that intrinsic intelligibility yourself, OP
>>25004858Word salad.
>>25004876>>25004953>>25004986Most intellectually minded /lit/ posters
>>25004950>So why did the Thomists become dominant"you should remember that he who writes for fools always finds a large public." - Arthur Schopenhauer
>>25004986Look. Bonaventure deadass on some next level shit. Aquinas be tryna act like being just explain itself, like it wake up in the mornin and be like “yup, I make sense today.” Nah bruh. Bonaventure like nah nah nah, that ain’t how nothin work. You cannot just say somethin exist and think you really know it. That’s lazy. That’s bare minimum thinking. Aquinas over there like “just abstract it from what you see” and Bonaventure like man stop playin with me. All you get from that is some dusty idea floatin in your head. That ain’t certainty. That ain’t knowledge. That’s just vibes. A created thing cannot explain why it make sense just cause it here. That’s like sayin you smart just cause you got a head. Bonaventure say if you really know somethin, like know know, no fingers crossed, no hopin you right, then you already tappin into God’s blueprint. You might not even know you doin it, but you doin it. Every time your brain go click and it finally make sense, you touchin them eternal ideas in God mind. Ain’t no neutral thinkin. Ain’t no “I’m just lookin.” You already in the mix whether you like it or not. That’s where Aquinas start actin funny. Lowkey funny. He treat being like it neutral, like it just show up and your mind read it raw, no light, no help, just vibes. That’s basically sayin words and concepts do all the heavy liftin by themselves. Bonaventure like nah senpai, that is cap. Knowledge only pop off cause everything share in God truth. Ontology, logic, epistemology, all that locked together like a group chat you cannot leave. Stuff make sense cause it reflect God. Period. End of discussion. Necessity and universals ain’t just stuff we made up cause it sound nice. They got a real reason to be there.
>>25005162Now peep this part cause this where it get spicy. Aquinas be puttin existence itself on a throne like that’s the main character. Bonaventure like nah bruh, you got the wrong lead actor. He center goodness, light, and divine examples. That make participation make way more sense. Aquinas analogy of being sound real clean when the professor talkin, but in real life it be shaky. Cause he say God is pure existence, cool, but then how regular folks like us supposed to know being at all unless we already illuminated. That is like sayin you gotta see the light before the light turn on. Make it make sense. That a circle. That some Scooby Doo logic.Bonaventure not fallin for that. He say knowledge work like light. You do not see stuff cause your eyes special. You see cause it lit up. Turn the lights off and watch how smart everybody get real quiet. Same with being. Reality only make sense cause God light it up with exemplars. Humans ain’t angels. We not out here downloadin truth like WiFi. We gotta receive it. Slow. With light. With help. That keep the hierarchy straight without actin like humans got cheat codes to the universe. So yeah..... Bonaventure keep God and creation separate for real, but still explain how we actually participate in divine truth. Aquinas natural metaphysics be tryna stand on its own like “I got this,” but then gotta call theology for backup when it start wobblin. Bonaventure built the conditions for knowin straight into the system from jump. That why his metaphysics hit harder. Not just more churchy, but more solid. He actually explain how knowin even possible instead of actin like everybody just magically understandin stuff.
>>25005162>>25005166Word salad
>>25005049PewDiePie had Schopenhauer on his reading list. Thomism isn't popular among the public, he's popular specifically among Catholic philosophers. Ironically Schopenhauer has found a large public.
>>25005455The real problem, initially, is that his post just name drops a Latin phrase, quickly describing a few words but not enough about the subject, and does not do anything to substantiate any singular part of what is suggested. Luckily I know enough Latin to breeze through what might be dense for some readers, but reading your post and the other guys, you probably don't need to know it or even finish the OP to figure out that it's just rambling. Phrases like "without collapsing epistemic access into angelic intuition" are just nonsense in part, and when backtracked to the rest of the previous clauses leading up to it, is still nonsensical. At other times, it's presupposed that being is somehow thematized, but the method by which that is done is not even touched upon in the slightest. It's like reading a book and skipping every even paragraph. I think my favorite bit of gibberish is "participated likeness to the first Truth", which basically just sums up the entire post's aim: created things participate in a subordinated manner to the creator. As if this is somehow anti-Aquinas or unique a thing to say in the slightest. It really should read something like "participating in the likeness of/for the first principle", or "participating while subject to God".
>>25005479>you probably don't need to know it or even finish the OP to figure out that it's just rambling.Translation: “I’m stupid but am going to pretend like I know what I’m talking about”>Phrases like "without collapsing epistemic access into angelic intuition" are just nonsense in partNo, that refers to how Bonaventure provides an account of how knowledge occurs via illumination provided by God but without endowing humans with direct unmediated apprehension in a manner equivalent to that of angels (who for Aquinas are the only contingent beings to possess intellectual intuition).> At other times, it's presupposed that being is somehow thematized, but the method by which that is done is not even touched upon in the slightest. Except it’s explicitly stated that he does so by grounding the intelligibility of being in a single and consistent explanatory principle that is built into the structure of the metaphysics itself instead of this explanation being added after the fact in an ad-hoc manner due to the metaphysics being inadequate from the start.> created things participate in a subordinated manner to the creator. As if this is somehow anti-Aquinas or unique a thing to say in the slightest. It is anti-Aquinas to say that since Aquinas gives an implicitly nominalist account of knowledge without any direct participation in universals by the individual.
>>25004998Yeah whatever retard, come back when you actually can post this in Latin, then I will recognize your interest in Catholicuck theology as actually intellectual. Until then it's just as intellectual as fantasy lore
>>25005811
>>25004858based
>>25004858>Bonaventure avoids this circularity by articulating an analogy of light, in which being is intelligible only insofar as it is irradiated by divine exemplarity, thus preserving the hierarchical structure of reality without collapsing epistemic access into angelic intuition.Excellent, but you still need the essence/energies distinction to explain true theosis and the Tabor Light. The next stop is becoming a Palamite.
>>25007184>Excellent, but you still need the essence/energies distinction to explain true theosis and the Tabor Light.Bonaventure’s metaphysics are designed to address a central theological tension: God must remain absolutely simple and undivided, yet human beings must be able to participate truly in God through theosis and encounter real divine light, such as the light revealed at the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. Eastern Orthodox theology resolves this tension by distinguishing between God’s unknowable essence and His uncreated, participable energies. Western theology has generally resisted this move, seeing it as a threat to divine simplicity. Bonaventure, however, offers a different solution that preserves both divine simplicity and real participation without adopting an essence–energies distinction. At the heart of Bonaventure’s approach is a metaphysics of emanation rooted in Christian Neoplatonism. God is understood as perfect, infinite light that communicates itself without loss or division. What proceeds from God is truly divine, yet it is not God as He exists in Himself. This means that God can be genuinely present to creatures without being partitioned or diminished. The key distinction is not within God, but between God as He is in Himself and God as He freely gives Himself.This self-giving is explained through Bonaventure’s doctrine of divine exemplarism. All creatures exist and are known according to eternal divine ideas that reside in God. These exemplars are not created intermediaries standing between God and the world; rather, they are God’s own self-knowledge and self-expression as ordered toward creation. When creatures participate in these exemplars, they are not participating in something other than God, but in God as He is expressed and communicated outwardly. Participation thus remains real while avoiding any division within the divine essence. Within this framework, theosis is understood not as an entry into or sharing of the divine essence, but as an ever-deepening conformity to God through likeness, illumination, and grace. Grace elevates the soul’s capacity to receive divine light, intensifying its participation in God while maintaining the Creator–creature distinction. Deification is therefore a matter of increasing participation and transformation, not ontological identity with God’s essence.
>>25007363This metaphysical vision naturally accommodates the reality of the Tabor Light. The light manifested at Christ’s Transfiguration is uncreated because it comes directly from God, yet it is visible and participable because God can manifest Himself through light. For Bonaventure, light is the ideal metaphysical medium: it communicates itself fully without ceasing to be what it is, remaining undivided even as it is shared. The Tabor Light is thus God truly manifesting Himself, not God’s essence as such and not a separate divine “energy,” but God as self-giving illumination. Bonaventure’s account remains logically and metaphysically coherent because it distinguishes modes of presence rather than parts within God. He differentiates between God-in-Himself and God-as-given, and he understands participation analogically rather than univocally. In this way, God remains simple, fully transcendent, and yet truly present and operative in creatures. Bonaventure’s metaphysics therefore accomplish the same explanatory work as the Eastern essence–energies distinction, but do so through relational and metaphysical distinctions rather than an ontological division within God.
>>25005785>that refers to how Bonaventure provides an account of howThis should have been your message and it wasn't,so obviously if the jargon isn't explained then you can't appeal to your statements that refuse to explain them. It doesn't matter what Bonaventure said if you don't substantiate them. Tldr show your work because no one else cares about your appeals to authority from a literal who.>Except it’s explicitly stated that he does so by grounding the intelligibility of being in a single and consistent explanatory principle that is built into the structure of the metaphysics itselfExcept it wasn't at all. That was not only never proven- it was never even stated. It's a presupposition you make as a Christian. But,and this is the hard part for you, Christianity does this constantly. It calls Jesus the Logos and never bothers to substantiate that Matthew. Making baseless sweeping claims is baked hard into Christian rhetoric so much that you don't even realize it. But even if you had thematized that version of being then you're only doing it for the Monad and nothing else. You never even bothered to prove that metaphysics requires a Monad at all.In short: you're an idiot.
>>25007426>so obviously if the jargon isn't explained then you can't appeal to your statements that refuse to explain them.If you can't understand the thread OP then this thread wasn't intended for you. The world and the board does not revolve around you. Consequently, threads aimed at special topics are not obligated to cater to the limits of yours or anybody else's knowledge.> it was never even stated.Yes, it is, if you cannot understand where it states that in OP's post then you don't know enough about this topic to be posting about it and you should just stop embarrassing yourself.
>>25007458>If you can't understand the thread OPIt's clear you thought you wrote at a high level, but you didn't. It reads like a high schooler discovering primitive Christianity for the first time. If you're not open to figuring out your mistakes then you're just going to continue making them. >The world and the board does not revolve around youNot sure what you're talking about. It looks like you're just deflecting away from the points so you don't have to answer for the many, many mistakes posted in the OP.>Yes, it isNo it isn't. In fact, all of the definitions are stated without substantiation. Just because you state something doesn't make it true. Nothing in the OP was substantiated. When I tell you that you're OP is missing elements in discussion and then you admit that Bonaventure makes the argument elsewhere then you're confessing to the problem. The reason you're here is to argue Bonaventure's case, but you fail to do that. Again: the presuppositions that Bonaventure are arguing with, and you're insisting upon, were not stated in the OP and are not proven anywhere in the text or yet in the thread. If you're going to make these cases you need to build them from the ground up instead of spouting out random key points and hoping others will do your homework for you.
>>25007474>Just because you state something doesn't make it true. Nothing in the OP was substantiated.The OP’s post is not a proof-oriented post or demonstration by itself, it’s just a summarizing Bonaventure’s metaphysics vis-à-vis Aquinas. There’s a difference between summarizing a philosophical stance and fully proving it from first principles. To any reasonable and good-faith person it's evident that the post is simply doing the former and is clearly not even attempting to do the latter. For you to even act like the post was doing the latter is laughable and is actually a sign that you are duplicitously arguing in bad-faith. It's even more absurd because you seem to be getting worked-up over a fictional account of what the OP post was doing that wasn't even true to begin with. > many, many mistakes posted in the OP.There are none, it is just a series of factual descriptive statements about the inner architecture of Bonaventure's metaphysics and how it compares to Aquinas.
>>25004858>Bonaventure’s metaphysics secures the conditions of possibility for knowledge by grounding ontology, logic, and epistemology in a single explanatory principle: participated likeness to the first Truth.Literally Platonism
I read the Itinerarium in college, what else of Bonaventure's should I read?
>>25007521>it’s just a summarizing Bonaventure’sIf he were to summarize Bonaventure he should have done so from the beginning. He makes the ideas sound hollow by not introducing them at their start. Vis-a-anyone is a waste of time if those ideas are taken as assumptions. /lit/ isn't a particularly Catholic or even Christian heavy board, so it's a bizarre strategy and allows for too many holes to be instantly poked in all of the things we're supposed to be addressing.>There’s a difference between summarizing a philosophical stance and fully proving it from first principlesThe best place to start would be from the beginning, not interspersing intermedial conversation points and wondering why people are becoming mildly critical.>To any reasonable and good-faith personInsinuating that people who don't instantly agree are being bad faith is itself bad faith. Don't be a poor sport.>For you to even act like the post was doing the latter is laughableI wasn't acting like that. I was criticizing it explicitly on those grounds. Did you just not understand my criticisms? That was where I started the criticism FFS. >actually a sign that you are duplicitously arguing in bad-faithThere was no deception- I literally started with the criticism that he was posting every even paragraph without going through the odd ones, in other words, leaving so much out that of course he created a raving nonsensical and irrationally disconnected rant of a post.>It's even more absurd because you seem to be getting worked-upYou'll know when I get worked up when the Stalin edits come out.>There are noneThe entire OP is mistaken in its attempt to introduce jargon half-heartedly, describe them in dismembered brevity, not bother to substantiate anything, then cry when nobody cares for it. The substance is lacking and the execution is worthy of an execution
>>25007426>Saint Bonaventure>Literal who.Imagine using your own ignorance as a criteria. This is a bit like:>Proclus, who the fuck is that lol, amirite.
>>25007675>Imagine using your own ignorance as a criteriaIf the goal is to introduce why you believe Bonaventure is correct, then yes, it should be used to address an audience who is not familiar with him. It's unreasonable to expect everyone to read everything. Arguing that not every tract has been written is no excuse for failing to explain or debate one's ideas, since they should be provided by the poster themselves. >Proclus, who the fuck is that lolIf I were making a thread about Proclus' ideas and especially his reactions to others, then yes I would lay out exactly where Proclus starts from the beginning and why anyone ought to care.
