On one hand I find philosophy interesting because at least ancient philosophy deals with the humanizing questions that matter. Justice. Beauty. Menchlichkeit [to be a mensch/decent human being]. However the frustrating thing about it is no conclusion. So you can ask why waste the time?
People of the Middle Ages that wrote the great Musar books were definitely depending on Aristotle. Especially Ibn Pakuda. [author of the Obligations of the Heat חובות לבבות ]. But if you look at the Obligations of the Heat חובות לבבות Hovot Levavot] right at the beginning, [end of Shaar I.] you can see that he is along the lines of Neo Platonics. [That system of Plotinus had a kind of synthesis between Plato and Aristotle.]
Some rishonim [mediaeval authorities] put metaphysics and physics in the category of learning the command to learn all the time. That usually means Gemara, but they expand that definition [to include some subjects that are considered secular but not all. Physics and the Metaphysics of Aristotle is open in the Rambam that they are part of learning Torah. But other secular subjects are forbidden, e.g. literature. which he forbids in the commentary on the Mishna in Perek Helek.
Dr Michael Huemer brings the idea that philosophers have said a great deal of nonsense. But on the other hand you can look at it like Ayn Rand--that where philosophers go that is where people go afterwards. And then the ideas of the philosophers becomes common sense. And after the ideas are common sense then you go back and look at the person that introduced the concept in the first place and see that he was just going around it. He was fishing for it because he was the first one to think of it. So now it looks naive. But that is only because his original idea became thanks to him common sense.
[My feeling about Philosophy is to learn Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Hegel.]
A number of more modern thinkers have taken note that most of 20th Century Philosophy is "obviously false" in the words of John Searle. And that is good in terms of clearing the field. But it does not go much further.
Some modern people deserve good mention.
Scruton I have no recollection of hearing about until he was gone. But now I see a lot of important ideas.
Ed Feser is working on the issue of a synthesis of Aristotle and modern Physics.
Leonard Nelson had a kind of understanding on Kant which seems to get around a lot of the problems in Kant. [That is on Kelley Ross's web site]
Hegel also seems in need of explaining and Mc Taggart does a nice job.
But none of this would be interesting to me if not for that fact that they all seem to me to be revolving around a single point-faith.
People of the Middle Ages that wrote the great Musar books were definitely depending on Aristotle. Especially Ibn Pakuda. [author of the Obligations of the Heat חובות לבבות ]. But if you look at the Obligations of the Heat חובות לבבות Hovot Levavot] right at the beginning, [end of Shaar I.] you can see that he is along the lines of Neo Platonics. [That system of Plotinus had a kind of synthesis between Plato and Aristotle.]
Some rishonim [mediaeval authorities] put metaphysics and physics in the category of learning the command to learn all the time. That usually means Gemara, but they expand that definition [to include some subjects that are considered secular but not all. Physics and the Metaphysics of Aristotle is open in the Rambam that they are part of learning Torah. But other secular subjects are forbidden, e.g. literature. which he forbids in the commentary on the Mishna in Perek Helek.
Dr Michael Huemer brings the idea that philosophers have said a great deal of nonsense. But on the other hand you can look at it like Ayn Rand--that where philosophers go that is where people go afterwards. And then the ideas of the philosophers becomes common sense. And after the ideas are common sense then you go back and look at the person that introduced the concept in the first place and see that he was just going around it. He was fishing for it because he was the first one to think of it. So now it looks naive. But that is only because his original idea became thanks to him common sense.
[My feeling about Philosophy is to learn Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Hegel.]
A number of more modern thinkers have taken note that most of 20th Century Philosophy is "obviously false" in the words of John Searle. And that is good in terms of clearing the field. But it does not go much further.
Some modern people deserve good mention.
Scruton I have no recollection of hearing about until he was gone. But now I see a lot of important ideas.
Ed Feser is working on the issue of a synthesis of Aristotle and modern Physics.
Leonard Nelson had a kind of understanding on Kant which seems to get around a lot of the problems in Kant. [That is on Kelley Ross's web site]
Hegel also seems in need of explaining and Mc Taggart does a nice job.
But none of this would be interesting to me if not for that fact that they all seem to me to be revolving around a single point-faith.
