For the same reasons that literary movements like romanticism have fallen out of style in the wake of modernism and post modernism. The conditions of man change.

I would not argue that Scholasticism is irrelevant: knowing the history of a subject is vital to the future progress of the subject, so we should know Scholasticism. However, to seriously practice Scholasticism today would be pointlessly anachronistic.

Modern bands cover Robert Johnson tunes in their own modern style. That's fine. But should a group spend their time writing and recording original tunes in the style of Robert Johnson, the group's music will wind up corny and irrelevant. A professional philosopher working in the style of Aquinas would also be irrelevant.

And this is precisely why philosophy (insofar as it has a content) as an academic subject should not pervade other subjects, but rather should remain firmly fixed in the philosophy department. I disagree. I think logical positivism and certain other philosophical movements are -wrong.- I think that human nature is a constant.

By most accounts, you could probably consider me a Scholastic. My favorite philosopher is St. Bonaventure, and I focus a lot of the emphasis of my thinking on God, natural law, and idealism, specifically insofar as it is related to the Christian faith.

I don't think that Scholasticism is outdated. I think that, insofar as Scholasticism has a philosophical content, that content continues to be as true now as it ever was.

Theaetetus is probably correct when he talks about the pointlessness of his Philosophy course - but isn't that true of most university courses (and probably was always so). They seem to try to cover too much ground and never the ground you are really interested in! But even if you studied something which was totally relevant to today, in a few years time it would be out of date. If I want a good laugh I can look at my computer studies books of 20 years ago.
I must admit to really enjoying reading about the history of philosophy, which I am doing very slowly and taking time to meander down any facet which catches my attention. It fascinates me to see how different ideas and thinking changed attitudes, and how some questions never really go away.

My favourite subjects includes ethical theory, logic, Kierkegaard, epistemology and philosophy of science.

I hope that "pervade" was a poor choice of words. " to become diffused throughout every part of" If philosophy did not "pervade" other subjects, not only would students of other subjects such as history, literature and psychology be unable to really understand their subject, but the vital influence of philosophy upon other subjects would be lost - and I am not sure that many subjects could survive the removal of philosophy.



That's fine. Really, I do not see how your disagreement with certain philosophical movements means that we disagree. I am simply saying that philosophy evolves over time in the same way that the other subjects evolve. Philosophy and other subjects are often changed by the same events: consider the influence of the atomic era on philosophy and literature, for example.



And that may be so. But the human condition is in constant flux and subjects, including philosophy, address not only human nature but also the human condition.



I am not trying to contest the truth or falsehood of Scholasticism or any other philosophical tradition. No philosophy is perfectly true: describing human nature/condition is one step from the truth of human nature which is the experience of it.

To be a Scholastic is not to be "wrong" necessarily; my own philosophy contains a plethora of anachronisms. Scholasticism's relevance in other subjects is naturally less than more modern philosophies because Scholasticism is so old. When something is new it excites innovation; as it ages, the room for innovation decreases and eventually newer ideas take prominence as they offer greater room for innovation.

I think philosophical systems in general are rather silly, because how things are is so much more complex than can be defined in the systems. That is why one system after another is replace by something different. But one method of investigation still remains valid, and that is the Socratic Method. Understanding the world is about knowing how to see the dialectical relationships between things.

I would say political philosophy, and ethics, maybe u can generalize all those subjects as "axiology" and I have interest in most of them - philosophy's goal may well be, as Plato says, to find the Idea of the Good, the highest good. I have a little bit peripheral knowledge about philosophy of science, but i won't go into it, as I am not a natural sciences major nor am I a science person in general.

I'm into philosophical anthropology, so I naturally find myself immersed in philosophy of mind, language, and religion. But I'm trying to get a little bit at least of everything.