Jerusalem, Athens, and Kant

Bill Vallicella has once again started an interesting discussion over here.  For those like me who find ancient and medieval philosophy much more interesting than the modern and contemporary, read David Tye’s comment.


3 Responses to Jerusalem, Athens, and Kant

  1. Theseus says:

    David Tye did have a lot of interesting things to say but I think it would be wrong to say that Vallicella started an interesting discussion. There is no discussion, just Tye. And though he made some good points, it appears that not only did he misconstrue Vallicella’s position but also interpreted him as a Kantian (which presents some trouble in light of his “Kant, Heidegger, and the Problem of the Thing In Itself” in International Philosophical Quarterly). Anyway, it just seems to me that Tye would have been better off posting his own blog on the issue rather than flooding Vallicella’s blog with comment after comment after comment.

    Anyway, this was my first time to this blog and I really enjoyed it. I will certainly be back.

  2. Xavier says:

    Theseus, you’re right. As it turns out, this really isn’t a discussion at all. I think Tye’s point was that the modern philosophers were not at all interested in continuing the dialectical tension between Athens (philosophy) and Jerusalem (religion). In fact, the early-modern thinkers were more interested in casting religion aside, and along with it, philosophy as traditionally uderstood (that is, first philosophy or metaphysics).
    Bill didn’t seem too interested in taking the bait though. Thanks for stopping by!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: