Can one defend the path of Torah based on Reason? My approach to is that I became aware of some of the questions. But at the same time I also was looking at Spinoza, and discovered Dr Kelley Ross.[Simply because he has a nice analysis of Spinoza.] But then I began to take note of Kelley Ross's other writings. Kelley Ross is more or less based on Kant, Fries and Leonard Nelson.
The idea there is that there is a kind of knowledge that is not through sense perception nor through pure reason. Which would be faith.
However this is not the only possible approach to Kant.
This approach [Leonard Nelson] is not anywhere near academia nor even near any kind of Neo Kantian approach.
Neo Kantian approaches were mainly three: Heidelberg, Marburg, and Gottingen.
But all Neo Kant and Neo Hegel approaches were more or less dismissed in the West by Frege, and the Analytic school.
An upside down Hegelian-ism however continued in the USSR. The official philosopher of the USSR Ernst Kolman was very much into Hegel. He claimed science was doomed in the West, and only true science was happening in the USSR. That seems funny to me since my own dad was working on numerous inventions for the USA, and the USSR got their hands on inventions from the West only by theft. [The USSR never came up with a single invention. Everything was copied from the West.] In fact, KGB agents had a running name for Silicon Valley: "the laboratories of the KGB".
Kolman slandered a very great mathematician Luzin and was responsible for the Luzin Affair. Kolman ironically fell from favor, and placed in the prison of the KGB for three years, and eventually asked for asylum in Sweden. "Payback is a bitch".
So to me twentieth century philosophy looks pretty weak. As Robert Hanna says "Analytic Philosophy: from Frege into the Trash Bin". The problem with twentieth century philosophy is the obsession with language and the delusion that language tells us anything about reality.
But Hegel also seems a bit awkward.
So by default I would say that Kant is the winner. The only question is how to deal with Kant which of the schools was right? or is right?
[No one else seems to be anywhere near the finish line. However I admit that perhaps new reworking of Hegel might be. It is hard to know. Going back to the Middle Ages also seems to ignore some of the major problems with Mediaeval philosophy. Even Thomas Reid who noted the problems in Berkeley and Hume did not deny that they had good critiques on Aristotle. ]
[I should add that there is a difference between trying to replace the tzars with communism which to a large degree I would say was a great improvement. But trying what to replace the Constitution of the USA with socialism is the road to hell.]
The idea there is that there is a kind of knowledge that is not through sense perception nor through pure reason. Which would be faith.
However this is not the only possible approach to Kant.
This approach [Leonard Nelson] is not anywhere near academia nor even near any kind of Neo Kantian approach.
Neo Kantian approaches were mainly three: Heidelberg, Marburg, and Gottingen.
But all Neo Kant and Neo Hegel approaches were more or less dismissed in the West by Frege, and the Analytic school.
An upside down Hegelian-ism however continued in the USSR. The official philosopher of the USSR Ernst Kolman was very much into Hegel. He claimed science was doomed in the West, and only true science was happening in the USSR. That seems funny to me since my own dad was working on numerous inventions for the USA, and the USSR got their hands on inventions from the West only by theft. [The USSR never came up with a single invention. Everything was copied from the West.] In fact, KGB agents had a running name for Silicon Valley: "the laboratories of the KGB".
Kolman slandered a very great mathematician Luzin and was responsible for the Luzin Affair. Kolman ironically fell from favor, and placed in the prison of the KGB for three years, and eventually asked for asylum in Sweden. "Payback is a bitch".
So to me twentieth century philosophy looks pretty weak. As Robert Hanna says "Analytic Philosophy: from Frege into the Trash Bin". The problem with twentieth century philosophy is the obsession with language and the delusion that language tells us anything about reality.
But Hegel also seems a bit awkward.
So by default I would say that Kant is the winner. The only question is how to deal with Kant which of the schools was right? or is right?
[No one else seems to be anywhere near the finish line. However I admit that perhaps new reworking of Hegel might be. It is hard to know. Going back to the Middle Ages also seems to ignore some of the major problems with Mediaeval philosophy. Even Thomas Reid who noted the problems in Berkeley and Hume did not deny that they had good critiques on Aristotle. ]
[I should add that there is a difference between trying to replace the tzars with communism which to a large degree I would say was a great improvement. But trying what to replace the Constitution of the USA with socialism is the road to hell.]
