The Visionary and Philosophy
Have a good week.
There is a saying of the Chazo’a about someone who wrote that until Kant, all philosophy is vanity and wretchedness (or something like that, etc.). The Chazo added to this, “until and until in general.”
Do you know whether the Chazo’a opposed philosophy because of its conflict with religion or whether he considered it worthless in itself?
Isn’t the fact that every so often a new method in philosophy is renewed a weakness in your eyes?
I don’t know.
Even in science, more and more knowledge is constantly being renewed. To me, philosophy is like science, except that the observation is made with the eyes of the mind. See my series of articles on what philosophy is.
I would add that the number of disagreements between philosophers is smaller than one might think, and even when there is disagreement, it usually reflects two correct pieces of evidence from two angles (the truth includes both), or just a misunderstanding or just plain silly miscommunication (different wordings for the same thing, or a non-existent issue). I hope to write a column about this later.
A collection of letters from the prophet ”a, Ch”b, Si’ Kaa:
“And in general –
The word “and” is written on the margins of the book Tolda on the HaGar”a, where it is written: The philosophy “and”and” which Kant added was nothing but vanity and evil spirits”
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
