Possibly too Simple?

I found the style of the writing this week quite intriguing. I'm sure that if I did a bit of research I could get some context to the stream of arguments we read and the voices that spoke them, but as it was I felt very much like I was inside my own head. Aquinas talks to himself about the randomest things and only partially comes to conclusions with himself. So much like me! 

But in all seriousness, the reading did seem a bit like a chess game where both sides are taken on by the same person. While there are moves and counter moves, the game is really set from the start. While I suppose this could be a recounting of a two person conversation, the arguments seemed a bit flat to me, and didn't really pick apart all sides of the problem. It was as though the questions were chosen in view of the answers. 

Perhaps it's the little debater crying out inside of me, but I felt that points were surrendered so cheerily and flawlessly that certainly the original speaker could not have truly believed their own stance. While there were some great points and counter points, I leave thinking "That was too easy..."

Comments on Matt's musings