Reading older philosophers it is clear that they must have been on the spectrum to devise their all-encompassing systems of metaphysics, their projects of perfect commonwealths and the like. By contrast modern philosophy is largely a business of well-adjusted and sociable neurotics anxious to gain social recognition by policing the morals of society which is why modern philosophy feels incredibly shitty, unimaginative and derivative, consisting as it does largely in commentaries to older philosophy. A question arises - when and why did autistic people lose their interest in philosophy and how can we get humanities back by populating them with autistmos?
>>23817855If anything, the inverse is true and analytic philosophy is the playground of autists.What is lacking in philosophy is the classical curriculum that teaches rhetoric and science.Also, consider that Leibniz, like many great modern philosophers, studied law, and did not formally study philosophy as the contemporary academic discipline.>Descartes: Law (Poitiers, 1616)>Leibniz: Law (Altdorf, 1667)>Hume: Law, no degree (The Law which was the Business I design'd to follow, appear'd nauseous to me, & I cou'd think of no other way of pushing my Fortune in the World, but that of a Scholar & Philosopher.)>Locke: Medicine>Berkeley: Divinity (Anglican Bishop)>Spinoza: No degree>St. Thomas Aquinas: Divinity (Dominican friar)
>>23817871no degree chads... we are going to make it
>>23817871>no degreeReassuring.
>>23817878>>23819595Remember that Plato did not have a degree either.
Hardly. The autism of older philosophy is what makes it so lacking in real substance - just look at Bentham. It was all just mental constructs barely corresponding to reality at all.
>>23817871Analytic philosophy is way less rigorous than people think imo.
