1-0. We know who wins.

Aristotle and Aquinas both see stinginess and extravagance as moral failures that arise from an improper relationship with wealth, and both emphasize the importance of what Aristotle called the “Golden Mean”—the virtuous balance between extremes. For Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics (Book IV), the virtue connected to wealth is liberality, a generous and thoughtful use of money, particularly in giving and spending for noble purposes. On either side of liberality lie the vices: stinginess, or meanness, as a deficiency, and prodigality or extravagance, as an excess. Stinginess, in Aristotle’s view, is particularly destructive because it is inward and isolating—it corrodes community by hoarding wealth and refusing to share even when it is proper and just. He observes that such individuals are unwilling to spend on good causes but may still spend when it directly benefits themselves, showing a distorted view of what is truly valuable. This is strikingly similar to people I know who are extremely reluctant to spend, unless it is for their own indulgence; even then, they require no justification, while others must offer layers of explanation to be deemed "worthy" of their generosity.

Aquinas builds on Aristotle’s framework in his Summa Theologiae (II-II, q.117), where he also locates liberality between the vices of covetousness (stinginess) and prodigality. For Aquinas, stinginess is even more serious because it is rooted in an inordinate love of money and a lack of trust in God’s providence. It is not simply a personal quirk—it becomes a moral and spiritual fault. He connects it with the sin of avarice, pointing to Scripture such as 1 Timothy 6:10: “The love of money is the root of all evils.” Stingy people, he argues, can become unjust, withholding what is due to others, such as fair wages, help to the poor, or support for the common good. A powerful biblical image Aquinas uses is the Rich Fool from Luke 12, who hoards his grain, only to die that very night—an example of how useless and foolish hoarded wealth becomes when separated from virtue. Yet, he notes that extravagance, though wrong, often comes from a misdirected generosity. Prodigals can still be open-hearted; their vice lies in being undisciplined rather than closed off. That’s why Aquinas says the prodigal is easier to correct than the miser.

Both thinkers agree that stinginess is a dangerous vice not only because it harms others, but because it hardens the soul. A person who clutches their money tightly, who constantly demands justification from others but is lax when indulging themselves, reveals a profound imbalance. They do not relate to others with charity or justice, and they treat money not as a tool for virtue, but as a shield or idol. By contrast, true liberality—a virtuous use of wealth—requires freedom of heart, generosity of spirit, and the ability to recognize that money is meant to serve the good, not dominate it.

Primary Source Citations:

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book IV, Chapter 1:
“The liberal man is praised not in respect of the amount he gives, but in respect of his giving in a certain spirit. This giving must be according to his means, and to the right people, at the right time, and for the right purpose… The mean is liberality, the excess and the deficiency are prodigality and meanness.”

Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.117, a.6:
“The prodigal is more easily corrected than the miser, for he is generous in heart, though immoderate in action; while the miser is hard-hearted and narrow-minded.”
And II-II, q.118, a.1:
“Covetousness denotes immoderation in the desire for wealth, inasmuch as a man desires more than he ought.”

Scripture cited by Aquinas: 1 Timothy 6:10:
“For the love of money is the root of all evils.”

Gospel of Luke 12:20–21 (The Rich Fool):
“But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.”



#short_note@naturaltheology

Justin Martyr after proving Christianity from many passages of the Old Testament:

“Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours” - St. Justin Martyr, Dial. 49.2

Brother Benignus, F.S.C., Ph.D. - Nature, Knowledge and God - An Introduction to Thomistic Philosophy (1947) #thomism

Dorothy Sayers - Lost Tools of Learning (1948) #education - Source: 🔗

From the point of view of practical logic, the most important distinction between two types of terms is the distinction between ambiguous terms and unambiguous terms. However, there are also other distinctions between different types of terms. A term can be:

(1) Unambiguous or ambiguous
(2) Clear or unclear
(3) Exact or vague
(4) Univocal, analogous or equivocal
(5) Literal or metaphorical
(6) Positive or negative
(7) Simple or complex
(8) Categorematic or syncategorematic
(9) Universal, particular or singular
(10) Collective or divisive
(11) Concrete or abstract
(12) Absolute or relative

— Peter Kreeft, in Socratic Logic #logic

(1) Terms are either unambiguous or ambiguous. “Ambiguous” means “having more than one meaning.”

Strictly speaking, no term as such is ambiguous until it is used ambiguously. “Good” is not ambiguous when I use it in only one way. For example: “A saint is a very good person,” and: “Saint Francis was a very good person.” But it becomes ambiguous when I use it with two different meanings. For example: “That is a good axe,” and: “A murderer is not a good person,” because the evil murderer needs a good axe to commit the evil deed of cutting off his victim’s head.

A term used ambiguously is misleading; we don't know what we're talking about. Worse, we think we do. Most ambiguity is hidden.

We don't realize we're using terms ambiguously unless we're deliberately trying to mislead or making a pun.

[...] Defining a term is the way to cure the disease of ambiguity.

— Peter Kreeft, in Socratic Logic #logic

The most esteemed twentieth-century apologist was the Englishman C. S. Lewis (1898–1963), an atheist who converted to Christianity. Lewis in many works sought to draw out the ways in which Christianity makes sense of the world and human life. He did this through a wide variety of writings, from essays and scholarly works to fictional books for children. Many people today regard him as among the most insightful and wise thinkers in the history of the Christian church.


Another major twentieth-century apologist, mentioned already in this book, was John Warwick Montgomery (1931–), a convert to confessional Lutheranism. Montgomery worked primarily in the tradition of Sherlock and Greenleaf, in that he attempted to show how a fair-minded appraisal of the historical facts relevant to Christianity should lead to a verdict in its favor.


Today many people are continuing to do excellent work in the area of apologetics. It should be noted, however, that those apologists who receive the most attention in the world of Evangelical Christianity are not always entirely sound from a theological standpoint. They sometimes hold novel views about the nature of God, the incarnation, and other doctrines. Hence it is important to approach apologetic works coming out of Evangelicalism with some caution. A recent Roman Catholic figure who has written several excellent books that are highly relevant to doing apologetics and which are generally free from such problems is Edward Feser (1968–). Feser has sought to show how the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas continues to be relevant and suitable for doing apologetics and philosophy. His work happens to coincide with a recent revival of interest in Aquinas’ ideas among many Protestants. Such Protestants believe that Aquinas managed to develop a compelling Christian philosophy that successfully synthesized biblical truth with the best insights of ancient philosophy. For those who share this view, the great medieval thinker remains of more use to biblically faithful Christians today than virtually any philosopher since his time.

—Nathan Greeley, Lutheran Apologetics

College education doesn't make you a cultural person. It only qualifies you to work in your major and get a better job opportunity.

College doesn't define you.

My reading list of books and articles for this month🏳️‍🌈:

Books:
–Abigail Shrier, Irreversible Damage, The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.
–Edward Feser, Neo-scholastic Essays The PFA Argument.
—Jordan-Young Rebecca M, Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences.
—Priston Sprinkle, Embodied: Transgender Identities, The Church and What the Bible Has to Say.

Articles:
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/11/byrne-on-why-sex-is-binary.html

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/12/byrne-on-why-sex-is-not-social-construct.html

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-sexual-revolution-devours-its.html

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2019/03/byrne-on-gender-identity.html

https://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/search/label/gender?m=0

Morality is essential for society's existence and human flourishing.

Failure to Find Dark Matter Doesn’t Agree with the Big Bang

“The rotation of stars in the outer parts of galaxies is not what one would expect from the visible mass present. The favoured idea for solving this mystery is that galaxies are surrounded by a halo of 'dark matter', an unknown, unobserved substance providing the 'missing mass'. In fact, the currently favoured big bang model now requires 95% of the universe … to be made up of dark matter and the equally mysterious dark energy (creation.com/dark-energy-elusive). This is needed to reconcile aspects of the cosmic microwave background, and the rate of expansion, with the big bang.

[Continued]...

"Calov and Scherzer, [are] authors well versed in Scholastic philosophy," - Leibniz, Preliminary Dissertation on the Conformity of Faith with Reason (n. 17)