Why was a faculty of noesis/intellectus removed from Western thought, such that by the Enlightenment Hume and Kant feel they can just axiomatically *assume* that human reason is wholly discursive? If reason were truly nothing but calculative rule following, wouldn't understanding be more like Searl's Chinese Room? This also renders reason wholly inert and so instrumental, leading to Hume's sentimentalist and values anti-realism.By the time of Wittgenstein, he could circle around the same issue of how "justification must end somewhere" that Aristotle takes up in the Posterior Analytics, and not even recognize noesis as a potential option.But why? It seems to go from being essential to Western psychology and epistemology to just being ignored (and mocked without understanding whenever it is brought up). But this move obviously reduces reason to contentless rule following and pattern recognition, and so seems falsified by the phenomenology of the act of understanding.Pic related is from C.S. Lewis book made from his lectures of Medieval and Renaissance literature; it's a pretty good summary.This dissertation: https://www.bookpump.com/dps/pdf-b/9423812b.pdfAlso documents how this once crucial notion (which also secures virtue epistemology) is basically only dealt with in caricatures by modern thought.It is worth noting that Eastern thought probably has if anything an even bigger role for this sort of knowing.
>>24927356
>>24927358Lewis' book can be found here. https://classicalastrologer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/c-s-lewis-the-discarded-image.pdf
>>24927360Hadot's Philosophy as a Way of Life is also relevant because it is the deflation of reason to calculation, and the assumptions of Charles Taylor's "buffered self" that turns philosophy from the pursuit of virtue into discourse alone.
>>24927363
