Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Suggesstions for the forums and issues for moderation.

**Posted by John West** 6/27/2015 4:28 pm

If it's all the same to you, I would rather not add any temporal categories like that. Since classical theism spans Neo-Platonism and Scholasticism, I think classical theism gets that point across fine.

I also think it would be a shame to implicitly exclude contemporary philosophy. For example, a lot of the people at Ed's blog are analytically trained, including Ed himself.

Last edited by John West (6/27/2015 4:29 pm)

**Posted by iwpoe** 6/27/2015 4:36 pm

Well, all I mean is that some indication that philosophy is done here as opposed to just apologetics or devotional ought to be in the title, methinks.

Also, I didn't consider it an implicit exclusion since, for instance, most work on Plato, is done in some style informed by analytic philosophy, whereas the strain I come from is informed by phenomenology and German idealism. I would not consider myself to not be practicing phenomenology when I'm talking about Plato.

Last edited by iwpoe (6/27/2015 4:39 pm)

**Posted by John West** 6/27/2015 4:39 pm

Got to take that period out of the title, either way.

**Posted by John West** 6/27/2015 4:40 pm

Ancient Philosophy refers explicitly to the type of philosophy done by the Ancients, which was not analytic.

**Posted by iwpoe** 6/27/2015 4:45 pm

I suppose so, but I think it's also right to indicate that it has some kind of flavor or bent to it. 'philosophy' alone would be adequate or we could some other descriptor. Suggestions?

**Posted by John West** 6/27/2015 4:48 pm

Maybe add "Philosophy of Religion". Though, creating those sub-forums Daniel mentioned would also accomplish the task of letting people know philosophy is done here. I wouldn't want to create too many more sub-forums than those (I think you're correct that we should avoid dividing the forum into too many sub-forums), but people will go where good conversation is, whether it's here, in a sub-forum, or somewhere else.

Last edited by John West (6/27/2015 4:50 pm)

**Posted by iwpoe** 6/27/2015 4:58 pm

John West wrote:
Ancient Philosophy refers explicitly to the type of philosophy done by the Ancients, which was not analytic.

I've seen it used different ways. I thought going into this discussion needlessly pedantic, and I think you are right when we're talking about historical periodization and an object of scholarship, but what I'm thinking about is guys like Lloyd Gerson, Stanley Rosen, Leo Strauss, Eva Brann, Gadamer sometimes, etc. I would be inclined to say that these people are practicing ancient philosophy. (I think that Rosen would go so far as to demand that much, but I understand that he was a difficult man.)

Thomism might run into the same kind of discussion. Does Feser practice ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, modern philosophy, or analytic philosophy or some combination of all of these? The labeling, as in everything, would depend on this sence you want to put to the terms.

**Posted by John West** 6/27/2015 5:13 pm

We don't need to pontificate about it in vague language:

iwpoe wrote:
Does Feser practice ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, modern philosophy, or analytic philosophy or some combination of all of these?

The Thomistic Tradition Part I, Part II. Ed identifies as an Analytic Thomist of the third type, which he characterizes in part two.

**Posted by iwpoe** 6/27/2015 5:23 pm

Well, whatever the language, all I was trying to flag was something I think we can all agree with, namely that philosophically everyone here he is more sympathetic to a position that is largely continuous with something like what Plato and Aristotle were doing as opposed to something more like what Descartes, Hume, Kant, or Ayer were trying to do.

I don't know if we should strive to explicitly flag that in some way or not- whether or not it will benefit us in constructing an audience.

Last edited by iwpoe (6/27/2015 5:24 pm)

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 6/27/2015 5:27 pm

Okay lots of suggestions.

I was trying to come up with the best title for the forum, but was unsure of what that would be. We could add a description instead of changing the title?

We could aways change the subforum arrangements according to need? That is, when there are more threads, we can think about finding a home for them.

Letting those at Dr. Feser's blog know about the place is a good idea, although I am guessing most regulars already do. Other than that, generating discussion would probably get more people joining and contributing. I would guess, ultimately, we want people joining who have just googled us. Maybe a forum title that would fit a broad google search for religious philosophy and discussion?

I have access to articles from many journals. If we were sharing through private messages or something then there would be no problems sharing them. I would be a little hesitant about uploading them publically to the forum though.

iwpoe,

If you are interested in those Platonists that have a cross-over with German idealism, then Samuel Taylor Coleridge is a great place to start. Coleridge was certainly influenced by German idealists, though he was far more the Platonist. He is a great introduction to Platonism generally, especally the Platonic approach to unity and the one and the many, although he himself is not easy to read on his own, so you would need good interpreters, such Owen Barfield and James Cutsinger.

Last edited by Jeremy Taylor (6/27/2015 5:29 pm)