Thanks Jack, I appreciate your sincere and thoughtful response. Though I must say, Aquinas did keep some of the same Aristotelian stances on women/slavery, and Catholicism would never consider Aristotelian ideas narrow-minded today (though on those more subjective, non-dogmatic ideas, the Church has in fact changed its approach/thought).
I think Thomas would be a bit in horror to see himself being framed as a ‘feel’ guy. He taught the difference between reason and feeling, and always went for reason, just like Aristotle. But a Reason that went with Faith, and an aim for the Godhead and the Supernatural, and yes – Charity, which is not a feeling – it is the most important Virtue and the main attribute of the Godhead. He is in fact credited as the man who balanced faith and reason in the world.
Remember, he called Aristotle the Philosopher. While considered pagan, the Church, thanks greatly to Aquinas, embraced much of Aristotle’s philosophy and still does to this day (see the Pope’s Regensburg speech as an example of Church’s defense on its adoption of Greek thought).
I am interested in more of the metaphysical subtleties of their differences. Theologically speaking, Aquinas, through Supernatural Revelation, had an insight that Aristotle could not have. But how does this translate philosophically? Aquinas used Aristotelian concepts and did the translation, thus surpassing the Philosopher in substance, but staying faithful to his methodology. I would love to see this expounded in more detail.
Love the diversity of answers that I’m getting though, nice!