In the Guide of Maimonides there is the story about a king and the levels of closeness to him in his country. [1.] People outside the country. [2.] People inside the country. [3.] People around the palace. [4.] People on the inside of the palace in the outer areas. [5.] People with the kind in the inside area of the palace. The allegory refers to God. People outside the country are barbarians. People inside are people with morality of reason (the Rambam calls this level the "laws of the ancient Greeks"). People around the palace are those who learn and do the Talmud ("the Talmudiim"). The people inside the palace are the physicists. People on the very inside are the prophets and the philosophers.
See also Michael Huemer. [Dr Kelley Ross also. Plus Allan Bloom]
Basically I have an idea that philosophy comes in stages. The Ancient Greek Philosophy started with the question how is change possible? Then Plato answered it and from then until Plotinus was tying up loose ends.
Then the problem of Faith and Reason began with St. Augustine and Philo. That went until Descartes. With Descartes began the Mind Body Problem. That went until Kant made his sort of synthesis. Now the reason philosophy is a mess is that the next problem has not been found.
I myself think the argument between Hegel and Fries [as represented in the writings of Kelley Ross, and Leonard Nelson] is the most important issue today. How do you deal with it?
One way I have thought of is along the lines of Michael Huemer. [I assume he gets this from the school of the intuitionists like G.E. Moore]. That reason recognizes universals. But even with that knowledge tends to be as things appear prima facie unless further evidence is forthcoming. He holds there is no such thing as pure empirical knowledge. Even what we thing is empirical always has a element of a priori.
The putting of philosophers on the inside with the king does not seem to be applicable nowadays.
See also Michael Huemer. [Dr Kelley Ross also. Plus Allan Bloom]
Basically I have an idea that philosophy comes in stages. The Ancient Greek Philosophy started with the question how is change possible? Then Plato answered it and from then until Plotinus was tying up loose ends.
Then the problem of Faith and Reason began with St. Augustine and Philo. That went until Descartes. With Descartes began the Mind Body Problem. That went until Kant made his sort of synthesis. Now the reason philosophy is a mess is that the next problem has not been found.
I myself think the argument between Hegel and Fries [as represented in the writings of Kelley Ross, and Leonard Nelson] is the most important issue today. How do you deal with it?
One way I have thought of is along the lines of Michael Huemer. [I assume he gets this from the school of the intuitionists like G.E. Moore]. That reason recognizes universals. But even with that knowledge tends to be as things appear prima facie unless further evidence is forthcoming. He holds there is no such thing as pure empirical knowledge. Even what we thing is empirical always has a element of a priori.
