Yes, I have indeed read almost the whole thing. That's what happens when you're raised in an isolated religious environment and you try to be a thinker. ( )

This giant work is worthy of the Great Ideas. However, if there's one entry for which a well-chosen sampling is sufficient, this is it. Aquinas lived in the middle part of the 1200's. He was born to better-than-average means and was often offered high places within the church. He declined the latter in order to teach. He was a defender of the Dominican sect, bringing a new rigor to the form of religious "science" and also great reputation for himself. He brings the dialectic format of Socrates and the precision of Aristotle to the ongoing refinement of religious doctrine. Within that context, his ideas and style were novel and for this he did indeed offer a new, great idea. He falls short, however, of offering the type of religious truth one might hope for. His premise begins with the Bible, existing Catholic doctrine, and a number of philosophers, those other than Aristotle primarily religious. He quotes the vulgate and Aristotle most frequently. With this base of "facts," it is hard for his great format to proceed to build anything other than a solid castle built on that which might not be. The new leap he made was the setting of a hypothesis, along with supporting evidence, followed by rejection based more evidence. He also argues a lot of points that, while surely important at the time, strike me as something I could just as well wait to find out (Whether God is the Same as His Essense, Whether the Human Soul Was Produced Before the Body, Whether the Body of Man was Given a Fitting Disposition, How Angels Move). I'm sure the church felt differently, having a strong scholarly drive and a need to be able to project a doctrine consistent within itself. ( )