[MD] continental and analytic philosophy

[X Acto]

Matt said:
Is it because I fear Plato, Descartes, and Kant?  Sure.  We 
just have different judgements about whether or not this 
fear is unreasonable.

Ron said:
Its unreasonable if you read them, not if you take the 
tradition of misinterpretation that has become the body of 
thought on to itself.

Matt:
Ah, well now, that's only if tradition was getting them 
completely wrong.  I tend to think that Plato and Aristotle, 
for instance, were too fertile and complicated to be either 
exactly one way or the other.  Which is to say, tradition 
picked up one thing going on in them, and played out the 
consequences.  But it's not so hard to "read them" and still 
not be able to pin down what they exactly meant.  Same 
goes for Descartes and Kant.  If was a simple as returning 
to the original writings of people, we'd be looking at 2500 
years of stupid people.

Ron :
I agree,
I believe we can't simply shrug off the idea that these
traditions do not account for the philosophical context
in which they are based on. Thus, I can appreciate
your fear of Platonism distinct from the works of Plato.
In your defense,  Aristotle also
faults Plato with incorporating Pythagorean principles
of number with the theory of forms so your assessments
and concerns hold much weight in regard to Platonism.

In the same light, thank you for the link to your own
philosophical biography into how you understand
philosophical conversation, It helped me to understand
just how you interpret the enterprise.