Oh, no, none at all:
Sounds like hostility to me. Maybe not personal hostility, but certainly intellectual hostility.
Yes it is, and you are the one who disputed it. You spoke of contributions to “Western intellectual history” – which history includes more than science, and more than metaphysics, and more than commentaries on Aristotle which have gone mostly unread by anyone but specialists for over a thousand years; Western intellectual history includes philosophy, theology, science, law, political theory, ethics, aesthetics, and many other things. And you said that Philoponus was “far more formidable” in his contribution to that history. But Aquinas’s thoughts on theology, philosophy, war, ethics and many other matters entered into the mainstream of Western discourse and debate, and have helped to shape Western culture for centuries. Philoponus’s influence at the beginning of modern science may have been considerable at a key juncture, but his writings are not read now by anyone but academic specialists in history of science or history of philosophy. Aquinas’s thoughts helped to shaped the later theology of the Roman Church, and of other churches (there are many Anglican Thomists, for example, and even Calvin read Aquinas with great attention and respect), and his thoughts on natural law, war, human nature, etc. went into the mainstream of Western thought. His writings are still commonly read not just in Catholic institutions but in secular Great Books programs throughout the world. His overall contribution to Western culture is greater and more pervasive than that of Philoponus. That does not denigrate the contribution of Philoponus. There is no need for you to belittle Aquinas in order to praise Philoponus. But you seem determined to take shots at mainstream, historically orthodox, non-sectarian forms of Christianity at every opportunity.