[WOSG]

hmmmm. ... im going through a bookshelf of the classics of western philosophy in recent months and days, I cant 'recommend' one thingor even much except the whole canon - or avoid it because it induces one to navel gazing

Anyway for me the 3 great 'synthesizers' of the rational and empirical were Aristotle, Aquinas, and Kant - merging of differing schools into a common thread. Kant is good for insomnia. I am about to attack "grouding for the metaphysics of morals' I trust the empiricists more than the 'rationalists'. Locke is good. The only modern work with enough clarity is A J Ayer's work - this is an attack on metaphysics from the posivitism/materialism's view. I have identified the 'chinks' and the strong points and want to compare vs Kant.

Existentialism is IMHO cr*p and mere proof of Chesterton's remarks about non-Christians believing in anything. From this I conclude that the only modernist philosophy worth anything is the materialist philosophy of the positivists.

Also, the utilitarians are wrong for reasons I can go into at length elsewhere. (think prisoner's dilemma test.)

As a retort to the quotes about mysticism, it is *not* correct to call mysticism the sole ("soul"? :-) ) source
of religious motivation and faith. Indeed religion has a
moral/ethical, and in primitive culture a factual/evidentiary motive and basis. Christian theology since the TIME OF ST AUGUSTINE has been informed by reason by incorporating the works of the ancient philosophers and adding to it. The modern philosophers are descendents of those ancient philosophers, sallying forth to ask and answer the same questions and build knowledge in different ways.

Also, consider that much of art and poetics is a form of mystic expression - the emotional/moral/feeling side of human experience and expression. there is more to human expression than pure reason.
Nevertheless, mysticism seeps in and makes claims
it cant support; when it does - when mysticism tries to sustitute for superior ways of knowing (like fact-based reason and evidence) it does harm. (see also my comment on marxism and freudianism).

The real enemy of orthodox Christianity is not reason and philosohpy, with which it has coexsited for 1500 years, but these baser forms of moral schemata.

[Hank Kerchief]

Thanks for the interesting comments.

As a retort to the quotes about mysticism, it is *not* correct to call mysticism the sole ("soul"? :-) ) source of religious motivation and faith.

All religions are an amalgum of undeniable facts, (you will find things about eating, for example, in almost all religions, so they all at least admit that physical food has some value) with some aspects of credulity, {just believing something is true, without basis in either evidence or reason}. The general religious term for this credulity is faith. The generic term for credulity is superstition.

An ideology or system of beliefs that included no elements of credulity would not be a religion. It is those elements of belief (by which I mean only those things held to be true, and can inlude both the rational and irrational) that require "faith" that distinguish between religious and non-religious ideologies. The unnamed source for all notions or beliefs call faith based only on credulity is mysticism. Exclude mysticism, and whatever you have, it is not religion.

the emotional/moral/feeling side of human experience and expression. there is more to human expression than pure reason.

Just one comment. Emotion and feelings are generally terms for the same class of human experience, though feeling is broader and includes some things that could not rightly be called emotions (like the physical sensations). It is a bad mistake to mix feeling and morals. Moral or ethical values are rational, based on the nature reality, and determine what is correct or incorrect behavior for moral (rational/volitions) beings who must live by conscious choice.

More often than not, for those people who confuse moral values and feelings, their emotional experience and their moral values are in conflict. Those who clearly understand, truth is truth, right is right, and regardless of how one feels, the truth cannot be violated and one cannot do wrong and get away with it, do not suffer emotional conflicts. The feelings reflect values. First you must have the values, then the emotions can evaluate them and provide the visceral experience of them. Those who look to their feelings for values have it backwards and their experience (and behavior) will relfect it.

Locke is good.

Yes, and then came Hume, and that was the end of philosophy. Every philospher since Hume, whether following his lead or refuting him has implicitly or explicitly accepted his false premsises, and thus perpetuated the errors. Because all philosophers since Locke embrace Hume and Plato (whether they know it or not) and reject Aristotle, there is no sound philosophy today. The Objectivists, for all their faults, at least reject Plato and Hume explicitly, and for the right reasons, and do embrace Aristotle, which at least is a beginning.

Hank