Re: Classicism vs humanism
- --- In carfree_cities@y..., "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@c...> wrote:
> Now, the Cartesians never succeeded in identifying such a point,Is it really? Your description of Cartesian philosophy makes me doubt
> but our contemporary philosophy remains mostly based on Cartesian
> philosophy. (Please, if you know what book this is, tell me!)
it. Contemporary philosophy is nothing like mathematics, even as it
was practiced two millenia ago. If anything, what's notable about
contemporary philosophy is how verbiose it is, how useless, how error-
prone, how flawed. Actually, that does sound like Descartes; his
writings being all too often complete and obvious nonsense.
> Another point is that Cartesian thought is itself non-rational,I realize it's fun to bash philosophers but this is one area where
> being based as it is on a religious revelation to Des Cartes that
> this was the correct method of thought. The very foundations of our
> philosophy are thus religious mush - there's nothing really
> scientific about it after all.
contemporary philosophy *radically differs* from Cartesian. There is
no room for either divinity or revelation in modern philosophy. In
fact, if you refer to Descartes' method in the specific (as you must
since you refer to specific flaws) then your accusation that
contemporary philosophy is founded on his methods is completely false.