am I the only one that thinks what Plato, Aristotle, the Empiricists (especially Hume, Locke) and Rationalists (especially Descartes, Leibniz) and finally Kant thought is really interesting stuff... but whatever came after Kant is just incredibly boring and uninteresting ?
>>25310234Not quite. I find the German romantics and later German idealists interesting. Hegel in particular.With Anglo-analytic deflationary ontologies, I still find them interesting because the geneological work done on them shows how "anti-metaphysics" itself has a ton of metaphysical commitments, it just tends to hide them. In particular, criticisms of Wittgenstein, Quine, etc. show how much modern thought has tended to become blind to assumptions it gained through the Reformation, but which are by no means universal (indeed, they the notable premises, like reason being wholly discursive, cosmic homogeneity, etc. are actually almost unique to the modern West)."Naturalist" metaphysics can seem boring because we all grew up with them, but I find their intellectual history, and why things like an aesthetic preference for mindless mechanism came to be seen as uniquely "scientific" and "rational" really interesting.Plus, there has been a ton of interesting changes in the reception of older thought. The whole resourcement movement and "New Theology" in Catholic thought (ironically focused on antiquity and the early middle ages) meant readings of Late Platonists and Patristics, and also Aquinas and co, got a ton of plausible updates from how modernity had tended to read them (reading modern categories into them). Plus this work is genuinely touching on new ground (e.g., Lonergan, who I don't like as much, Von Balthasar, Ulrich, Schindler, etc.).I also find the whole complexity studies and systems theory/information theory space really fascinating. That's what drew me over into philosophy. And it is remarkable how well it tends to flow with Aristotle, the Platonists, the Patristics, the Islamics, the Medievals etc., that whole "classical paradigm," as *opposed* to modern mechanism, which it sits unevenly with. Philosophy of information is super interesting.Plus, I enjoy maths and formalisms and the new logics. I just think popular metaphysical interpretations of them are bonkers.Also we get good East West syntheses like pic related.
Philosophy peaked with the Medieval Scholastics and it's all been downhill since then
>>25310249>the geneological work done on them shows how "anti-metaphysics" itself has a ton of metaphysical commitments, it just tends to hide themWhere to start with this?
>>25310249>Plus, there has been a ton of interesting changes in the reception of older thought. The whole resourcement movement and "New Theology" in Catholic thought (ironically focused on antiquity and the early middle ages) meant readings of Late Platonists and Patristics, and also Aquinas and co, got a ton of plausible updates from how modernity had tended to read them (reading modern categories into them). Plus this work is genuinely touching on new ground (e.g., Lonergan, who I don't like as much, Von Balthasar, Ulrich, Schindler, etc.).I'm not religious, but reading von Balthasar, Ferdinand Ulrich, etc. makes me feel the inner godly spark, the Gottesfunken in us.
>>25310234You're just reading the wrong people, Anon.
