anyone familiar with them? i have a paer to write about 'em.........and i must say, they are somewhat confusing........

What is confusing about this? They were two entirely different people.

Here's some helpful links:

Aristotle. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aristotl.htm

Aquinas.
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=2530

Hope that this demystifies things for you.

Protocol.

yes, they are two different people, but have the same philosophy.......its about the soul and shit.....

Scatologists?

haha

So you get that word but not Kull..

Blimey..

p.s stop taking back my philosophy section..I had it OWNED!

oh.....sorry........

WOW.

That's not even close. Which dimension are you from?

Take a look at those links I provided. Aquinas and Aristotle did not share the same philosophy at all, the only way that makes sense is when you try to make a generic statement like (Yeah they both lived on this planet, so they probably had the same philosophy)

Unbelieveable.

Protocol.

dude, hylomorphism.....i'm taking a course in it.....but thanx anyway, i got my paper figured out......oh, and aquinas admired aristotle greatly, in fact many of his essays concern aristotle.....

Dude. You asked for help, and that's what you got. So please don't preach to me about what you're learning, and what similarities exist.

Dude. There is a yawning chasm of difference between Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas. That chasm is created by geographical differences, sociological differences and chronological differences. Those differences affect both individuals greatly, and influence what Aquinas had to say and why.

Dude. Aristotle studied at the feet ot Plato for years, and he admired him greatly. Am I therefore to draw comparison between Plato and Aristotle, and what they thought, and point out what's similar and what is not?

It's fairer to say that one learnt from another and speculate (Where applicable) that one furthered thought processes began by another.

Dude. Hylomorphism, as discussed by Aristotle has one fundamental stumbling block that Aquinas pointed to numerous times as being incorrect. Aristotle states that: The soul is a first actuality of a natural body which has life in potentiality” This theory is said to apply to all forms of life whether they be plants, animals or humans. Not a concept that is easily reconciled by Aquinas. Given of course, Aquinas obvious spiritual leanings and biases.

Oh, Dude? I'm glad you're taking a course.

Protocol.

oh dude, than you for preaching to me how big of a dumbass i am!!!!!!!! i'm glad i finally know that aristotle and aquinas are two seperate individuals seperated by societies, time, geological.....and here i thought they were one and the same........and by the way, you don't have to ridicule my ass for misinterpreting aquinas' philosophy pertaining to hylomorphism, as i understood it he used it to reason through where the soul could theoretically be located.....but, oh, i'm just an idiot.....

You asked for help, you got it. That was not good enough for you, and you wished to be sarcastic. I didn't deserve it then or now.

You chose to preach to me, and I chose to correct your sermon. So if you don't like sarcasm, then don't try to use it on me.

Dude.

Protocol.

you started it

No, I gave you assistance.

If you did not like it, then you did not have to take it. Whatever. I won't point fingers, or argue. Do what you wish.

Protocol.

yeah, same here......argument over......

no wait, i wanna argue again.........uh, slum-bum-walla!

nah.......

You both are dumb and your ideas suck as do the ideas of the philosophers you study who both believe in souls which do not exist...You are both owned now lets all go get drunk..

I've no idea what owned means, and if you wish to argue you're better or I know nothing, then I have nothing to say to you, except that you should be quiet and reflect upon the limbo that is your mentality.

Now, Shoo. You bother me.

Protocol.

Well I'm not buying you a round..