Feser thinks that everything good about Kant and later people can all be found in scholastic philosophers. This is true to some degree. [Especially with Scotus]. The trouble for Jewish people is that they were defending Christianity . What has been my suggestion is to take the Jewish equivalent of the Scholastic philosophers. That is Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, Aberbnal, Albo. Ibn Gavirol. [But not that alone. I say to learn both Musar (Ethics) and the Jewish Scholastics. That is I do not think to separate Jewish Philosophy from action. One needs both Musar (Ethics) and also the great Jewish thinkers of the Middle Ages. There is no substitution for Musar, Everyone who has tried to substitute something else in place of Musar fell flat on their face.
There are people that think one does not need to learn Ethics. If one has great parents like I had that might be true. But in general I think it is an error. Maybe Musar itself has gone off in fanatical directions but the basic idea of Israel Salanter is still valid.
This might even have the advantage that you don't have to defend the Trinity.
To make a synthesis of the Jewish scholastics and Kant is a worthwhile endeavor in any case.
You might say that this is the equivalent of identity politics. That is a true critique, but in any case the Jewish scholastics have a lot to teach us anyway (as the Christian scholastics noticed anyway).
To Feser philosophy after the Middle Ages has been devoted to repeating mistakes. That much is true.
Philosophically, the Yeshiva approach is the equivalent of hiding one's head in the sand to save oneself from danger. If it would work, then by all means, do it. But it is an illusion. Philosophically what happens is that by not engaging with philosophy people pick up their world view from post modernism and think that they see it in Torah. Joseph Soloveitchik picked up existentialism from Kierkegaard and Sartre.. Rav Shick picked up Pantheism from the Bahavagad Gita. Most of the people that we were expecting would teach us Torah values instead taught us false gods and idols. But they were doing lots of important rituals and dressing in black coats so they must have been OK.
Appendix: 1) I am not sure that everything in Kant was in the scholastics. Individual autonomy and the whole Kant approach seems to me to be new, and even an improvement. But this is based on my first impressions. I have sadly not had the time to do a thorough study of Kant, Fries, Aquinas or Scotus. Not that I would not like to. It is just I have not yet merited to do so. I after all have to do my regular Talmud and natural science studies. After that, I just can't seem to find the energy or time.
2) My idea about Musar {Jewish Ethics} from the Middle Ages is based on the idea that in the next world what matters is a person's actions in this world. And I believe there is a close connection between the way a person acts in this world and where they end up in the next world. So building up political movements or religious movements I see as the work of the Devil that is meant to distract a person from what really matters--menchlichkeit.--being a decent human being. Not lying or cheating and working honestly for a living and not depending on charity. If a person's actions in this world are not decent, then I do not think that they are going anywhere but to hell surrounded by demons created by his actions, no matter what his beliefs were.
There are people that think one does not need to learn Ethics. If one has great parents like I had that might be true. But in general I think it is an error. Maybe Musar itself has gone off in fanatical directions but the basic idea of Israel Salanter is still valid.
This might even have the advantage that you don't have to defend the Trinity.
To make a synthesis of the Jewish scholastics and Kant is a worthwhile endeavor in any case.
You might say that this is the equivalent of identity politics. That is a true critique, but in any case the Jewish scholastics have a lot to teach us anyway (as the Christian scholastics noticed anyway).
To Feser philosophy after the Middle Ages has been devoted to repeating mistakes. That much is true.
Philosophically, the Yeshiva approach is the equivalent of hiding one's head in the sand to save oneself from danger. If it would work, then by all means, do it. But it is an illusion. Philosophically what happens is that by not engaging with philosophy people pick up their world view from post modernism and think that they see it in Torah. Joseph Soloveitchik picked up existentialism from Kierkegaard and Sartre.. Rav Shick picked up Pantheism from the Bahavagad Gita. Most of the people that we were expecting would teach us Torah values instead taught us false gods and idols. But they were doing lots of important rituals and dressing in black coats so they must have been OK.
Appendix: 1) I am not sure that everything in Kant was in the scholastics. Individual autonomy and the whole Kant approach seems to me to be new, and even an improvement. But this is based on my first impressions. I have sadly not had the time to do a thorough study of Kant, Fries, Aquinas or Scotus. Not that I would not like to. It is just I have not yet merited to do so. I after all have to do my regular Talmud and natural science studies. After that, I just can't seem to find the energy or time.
2) My idea about Musar {Jewish Ethics} from the Middle Ages is based on the idea that in the next world what matters is a person's actions in this world. And I believe there is a close connection between the way a person acts in this world and where they end up in the next world. So building up political movements or religious movements I see as the work of the Devil that is meant to distract a person from what really matters--menchlichkeit.--being a decent human being. Not lying or cheating and working honestly for a living and not depending on charity. If a person's actions in this world are not decent, then I do not think that they are going anywhere but to hell surrounded by demons created by his actions, no matter what his beliefs were.
