I am very interested in philosophy and I've been studying the past few months the first Critique in great detail. Now, I'm not a Christian, per se, but I wanted to read the main Scholastic philosophers eventually, since they are the foundation that modern philosophy is built upon. My problem is that, after embracing Kantian epistemology, I worry that I'll find it very dull to "go back" to (what he called) the dogmatic philosophers, that, in contrast, they will feel like a downgrade.I've been meaning to read Suárez, among others, since Schopenhauer claimed that he was the best at summing up the most important Scholastic debates, so he must be a great introduction, but now I'm not so sure about the merit of their polemics...Is there anything of value in Aquinas, for instance, that doesn't get thrashed by the critical enterprise? How does one reconcile the transcendent/transcendental dichotomy, which, in Kant's opinion, conclusively demonstrates that we can't attain any actual knowledge beyond experience?I don't want this thread to collapse into religious infighting or whatever, so please, don't post if you haven't read either Kant or some Scholastic philosophy.Also, I'd appreciate recs with counterarguments by rationalists who, even after reading Kant, still claim that we can reach transcendent knowledge by reason and not just by faith alone.
>>25308094iirc the entire point of Kant is to go back to medieval philosophy while the 17th/18th century stuff was trying to restart philosophy without any of it
>>25308111nope
>>25308094You're looking for Bernard Lonergan
>>25308094>Is there anything of value in Aquinas, for instance, that doesn't get thrashed by the critical enterprise?You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the scholastics were conclusively refuted by Kant and/or other philosophers. This is not true. What has actually happened is that they have misunderstood the arguments that Aquinas and others have made and refuted only strawman versions of their arguments. Often they make faulty arguments that Aquinas has anticipated and already refuted.I recommend you read Edward Feser. He has written extensively on what he usually refers to as Aristotelian-Thomism. He also has a blog, so you could start reading some entries there before diving straight into one of his books.
>>25308094>I am very interested in philosophyno>Now, I'm not a Christian, per se, but I wanted to read the main Scholastic philosophers eventuallyaquinas is over there https://www.newadvent.org/summa/> Kantian epistemologygay>Is there anything of value in Aquinas,ii-ii>reconcile the transcendent/transcendental dichotomy, which, in Kant's opinion, conclusively demonstrates that we can't attain any actual knowledge beyond experience?gay>claim that we can reach transcendent knowledge by reason and not just by faith alone.ok google tell alexa to say information theory proves that infinite information cant be encoded in finite propositions
