Perhaps Saint Thomas Aquinas was more attuned to the moral wonder within (the true man as reflecting God's image and likeness) and the natural wonder without (Natural law). Perhaps he lived in a time, and in a place (a monastery), which encouraged the attunement.
<span>A scientist (one who cultivates control of natural forces) is more inclined--as Kant observed--to leave aside God, morality, Soul, and suchlike, focusing only upon that which can be materialistically measured, quantified, and controlled. Many inventions, not so much development of soul-field awareness. </span>
Chesterton shows how Aquinas's philosophy accepted reality as, "It is what it is." Chesterton contrasts this idea with the shallow realism of anthropologists and other philosophers who just want to see man as a beastly animal while Aquinas looks at man as a whole. "But he wanted the light from without to shine on what was within. He wanted to study the nature of Man, and not merely of such moss and mushrooms as he might see through the window, and which he valued as the first enlightening experience of man." The anthropologists saw man as a savage. Thomas stated, "Every thing that is in the intellect has been in the senses. The senses are able to know. What they generally did produce was a wildly unscientific contradiction." Most Monist moralists simply said, "Man has no choice; but he must think and act heroically as if he had."
I would rather have super sensitive taste because, it would be fun tasting spicy foods and sour foods. I also believe that super sensitive hearing could be very painful. I don’t think that having super sensitive tasting would be painful so that’s another reason I would prefer it.
