I feel sympathy for both your Leibnizian Adrian and your Rousseauian Milo, the former deluded by his calculation and the latter by his sentiment. Of course, you are their Kantian synthesis, lurking in the background, correcting some of their faults, while inheriting some others.
Speaking for philosophy closer to the present, consider this alternative synthesis. From Adrian, keep the public and exacting reason, drop the fixation on necessity and universality. From Milo, keep the self and subject, and drop the mess and bleeding. There are many ways to mix and match, and so the conversation goes on.
Adrian saw your comment and asked me to invite you to their next chat at the bar to discuss why reason does not necessarily imply universality, 'modus ponens,' and such. He adds that Leibniz and Rousseau are your way of "classifying our temperaments, but there is no reason for our conversation to inhabit those eras. The philosophical quarrel between calculation and immediacy is not 18th-century. It is human." We are just the latest masks, he says, worn by the same permanent duel. He says that you are offering another synthesis, sure, but that proves the timelessness rather than the datedness.
I feel sympathy for both your Leibnizian Adrian and your Rousseauian Milo, the former deluded by his calculation and the latter by his sentiment. Of course, you are their Kantian synthesis, lurking in the background, correcting some of their faults, while inheriting some others.
Speaking for philosophy closer to the present, consider this alternative synthesis. From Adrian, keep the public and exacting reason, drop the fixation on necessity and universality. From Milo, keep the self and subject, and drop the mess and bleeding. There are many ways to mix and match, and so the conversation goes on.
Adrian saw your comment and asked me to invite you to their next chat at the bar to discuss why reason does not necessarily imply universality, 'modus ponens,' and such. He adds that Leibniz and Rousseau are your way of "classifying our temperaments, but there is no reason for our conversation to inhabit those eras. The philosophical quarrel between calculation and immediacy is not 18th-century. It is human." We are just the latest masks, he says, worn by the same permanent duel. He says that you are offering another synthesis, sure, but that proves the timelessness rather than the datedness.