So. I'm reading Aquinas. And I quickly realize. Wow. I really don't like this. And it makes no sense for me to not like it. He does so much right. He stays objective. Unemotionally attached to the subject. He's scholarly. Drawing from trustworthy wells of knowledge and wisdom. I didn't always agree with him. But I have much respect for him for his technique and tact in his writing. However, I really hated reading it. Perhaps the specifics of his writing style didn't fit me or something. I don't know. I felt like he was talking in circles. Or that it didn't really come to an end. He'd state one side of an argument. And then its opposite. And then he just tried to reconcile, or maybe mesh(?), the two together. It just didn't suit me.
I commented on the post of Abbie George.
I think the fact he is writing objectively is what makes his writing so blah. Like Augustine wrote from his soul and his views. Same for Anselm and several of the other people we have read. You can tell in the writing when the author is passionate or not, and Aquinas' writings feel overly objective as if almost a robot had put some god acts together. It's missing that passion that makes one fall in love or even just simply understand the work better.
ReplyDelete