\
And further more I want to take note of the very significant Neo Platonic approach to reason There he divides reason into three parts reason in potential, reason in actuality and reason that is acquired. This seems highly Kantian. It assumes a kind of process where reason has gotten a hold of the data that is out there, and now has to process the data.
This has already been noted by Edward Fesser concerning the general Aristotelian idea of potential and actuality.
This essay I wrote yesterday. But today I just wanted to add a few ideas concerning the implications of the above essay.
And most philosophers of the twentieth century have been trained in linguistics and existentialism and thus lost their ability to think logically. So in fact the only interesting thing today in philosophy is this debate between California and Colorado. (And also Edward Feser-- for Catholics.)
There is among Catholics and effort to get back to work on Aquinas and Aristotle. This is a good thing but Aquinas never made a bridge between the First Cause who is total actuality and the God of the Old Testament. Aristotle also I see as an important aside to Plato. But his Metaphysics has an essential contradiction in it that to me makes Plato much more interesting
And further more I want to take note of the very significant Neo Platonic approach to reason There he divides reason into three parts reason in potential, reason in actuality and reason that is acquired. This seems highly Kantian. It assumes a kind of process where reason has gotten a hold of the data that is out there, and now has to process the data.
This has already been noted by Edward Fesser concerning the general Aristotelian idea of potential and actuality.
This essay I wrote yesterday. But today I just wanted to add a few ideas concerning the implications of the above essay.
And most philosophers of the twentieth century have been trained in linguistics and existentialism and thus lost their ability to think logically. So in fact the only interesting thing today in philosophy is this debate between California and Colorado. (And also Edward Feser-- for Catholics.)
There is among Catholics and effort to get back to work on Aquinas and Aristotle. This is a good thing but Aquinas never made a bridge between the First Cause who is total actuality and the God of the Old Testament. Aristotle also I see as an important aside to Plato. But his Metaphysics has an essential contradiction in it that to me makes Plato much more interesting
