Navigation: current directory home
18 August 2026
Reading this post by Joseph Rahi, I was reminded by him of Nietzsche's idea that philosophies reflect the personalities of the philosophers who come up with them or espouse them. Rahi describes the links between his personality and his philosophy. MSL does reflect some of my tastes and values, which I had before developing it. Could Rahi (or any number of other people with various philosophical tastes) ever accept MSL, or would it simply not interest them, not appeal to them to even think about? Maybe they would think about it from a conversation online which forced them to consider it for a time, think about it a bit, but never really get into it.
I can't change MSL much (without making it something it's not), but I think it might be possible to at least bridge some of this aesthetic and gustatory gap by a project of explicit interrelationship with the philosophies of the world. For instance, literally writing footnotes to Plato (in the text of a public domain ebook, perhaps) from an MSLian perspective, or footnotes to Aristotle, Plotinus, etc. all the way down to the present. What would be the MSL response to the distinction between formal, material, efficient, and final causes? To non-cognitivism? To questions about the authenticity of the self? To Platonic Forms? To what extent must these things be argued against by MSL, and to what extent can they be folded into it?
I don't think I have the brain for this right now, but someone who liked philosophy and was into MSL could work on something like this. The benefit would be to reach a philosophically literate audience (for each philosopher, a subset of their audience), which is a niche audience, but I think that MSL could specialize in niche audiences, rather than only trying to reach a large number of people, and as MSL is based in a natural theology, the philosophically literate (thus philosophically formed, educated, opinionated, and even prejudiced) may end up being a big part of those who adopt MSL.