I think that modern philosophy dissect much more dailiy problems of modern human by way of integrated psychology, sociology and cultural antropology. Because modern man is involved in a violent fight. Malthus was right, 7 billion people in our planet... It is terrible even thinking it. Ancient philosophy interrogate enduring and modern philosophy analyse just only being.

Thank you so much for your answer Mehmet I agree we are more multidisciplinary today indeed. I didn't think of it before.  It just seems that modern philosophy is a dialectic with or against ancient Greek Principles.  Beyond Carnap and the Logical Positivists and phenomenologists I can scarcely define a unique or distinct voice.  Well there's Derrida and Wittgenstein arguing about language but I don't see an independence much of western philosophy from origins of Greek thinking and I find that problematic.  I want to form a uniquely North American philosophical sensibility.  I will see how these matters go of establishing any new non derivative standard expression into a new tradition.  I have attempted to do this by speaking to the soundbite a reduction of the generative development of an era conditioned by technology weaned on TV and the automobile, an era of machines of automatic kinds of creativity a language of the reflex and the importance of random and progressive with poetry that is anti-rational, anti-emotional....a soothing juxtapositional massage of new information and static polysyllabic noise.  I have written 100 books in three years.  I am still transcribing them. Your input helps me very much and I appreciate it, thank you!

Dear Peter Kaleb,

yours is a stimulating question but at the same time difficult to answer for reasons that you understand very well, and that relate to the various schools of philosophy both Greek and Sumarian, Jewish, Chinese etc. The same for the topics discussed which obviously form the basis of the content of the modern philosophical schools. For example, Stoicism is a philosophical and spiritual movement, rational and pantheistic, founded around 300 BC in Athens by Zeno of Citium, with a strong ethical orientation; Stoic morality is influenced by that of the Cynics. Epicureanism represented one of the major philosophical schools of the Hellenistic age.

Another example is the 'Socratic Maieutica' aimed at liberation from false knowledge. The Socratic method, based on questions and answers between Socrates and an interlocutor, proceeding by refutation, i.e. by subsequent removal of contradictory or unfounded assumptions led to ‘aporia’, a rhetorically useful expression of doubt. The process consisted - precisely - to gradually emerge in the groundlessness of the convictions that were considered as granted. As an example, if an interlocutor of Socrates, in the presence of the master who constantly asked him what was being discussed, went into ‘aporia’, declaring his incompetence in giving a definitive and exact answer and thus recognizing that his initial certainty was inexistent .

Modern philosophy ‘starts’ conventionally in the age of Humanism and the Renaissance  (XV century or so) and its appreciation of man and his eminently earthly experience, and ends with the figure of Immanuel Kant ( 1724 - 1804), the thinker who will open the road  to romantic idealism.

In particular the medieval parallelism of reason and faith becomes problematic once again with the emergence of modern science in the Renaissance; philosophical research shows in fact always increasing difficulty to reconcile with the restrictions of religious doctrine, as the rational survey results contrast with the dogmas and the truths of Revelation, challenged the principle of authority with which these conflicts were solved.

Some of the great protagonists of this era among others is Galileo, who was forced to recant his findings and what he had deduced from them.

This conflict will end, in a sense, with Enlightenment, particularly through the figure of Kant, who will delimit the field of reason, freeing it from all the mistakes that would sully its purity and autonomy.

I appreciate your most well thought out answer Gianrocco Tucci, and I eagerly look forward to your input and help with future problems...you're very brilliant and I appreciate the amount of time it takes to chisel the mind into an erudite tool of such an eloquent design and expression.

There is no difference between classical philosophy and modern philosophy. The process of thinking is on. The basic issue of philosophy is to solve the riddle of existence - the cycle of birth and death and ,according to some, rebirth. As civilization advanced, the issue of religion was added to philosophy. Until the 17th century, philosophy included all branches of education, and it is still there, e.g. Ph.D. denotes Doctor of Philosophy. Modern philosophers like Kant, Hegel, Marx, J.S. Mill have thought over the role of  'pure reason', ' humanism', dialectics, historical materialism, dialectical materialism, 'idealism' with its root in Pythagoras, globalism being the latest addition. All branches of positive sciences and normative sciences, including physics, chemistry, mathematics and even economics come within the scope of philosophy. This is a post in brief. 

Sibaprasad Dutta

Dear  Sibaprasad,

a rather intelligent and 'dense' post! My compliments and thanks, Gianrocco

From my view -- it seems that the new style has gotten away from the approach people like Plato, Pythagoras, and Aristotle were giving philosophy. It seems that every generation of philosophical thought has some absurd answers ( take the Eclectics for example), but generally I observe that people are answering overwhelming questions differently. To compare existentialism with Plato's allegory of the cave -- will on the surface show that the two line-up -- but their approaches are quite different. What do you guys think -- do modern schools affirm the classics or seek a more "futurist" approach? 

One way to approach that question is realizing the change of perspective in some concepts like reason and individual. Historical changes allow to think the viability of a person who is independent of the society in diferent aspects like social and epistemic, ideas that has no place in the anicient philosophy, e.g. the contractualism theory parts of the hipothetical situation of a man by his own and ends en the foundation of the state. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle take for granted the existence of the political organisation and focus on the social relations in the polis because the categorical definition of a human being is a social animal therefore in the logical order the polis is always first.

Other way to see this point is the historical changes brings other aproximations to the same questions. The approach of problems like the action problem is diferent in the ancient philosophy in contrast whit the modern philosophy. This problem is studied with concepts like fate, necessity or deliberation in the ancient philosophy but in the modern times the problem of the action inmediatly calls the concept of free will. I suggest that this kind of study, the diferentiation of thought of diferent times, have to consider revaloration and redefinition of concepts.

I thank you Brayan for your answer, but if I may be so bold as to ask you what are the redefinitions of concepts that you speak of. Beyond the entitlement of the individual what are the concepts that have been redefined.  Have the concepts accurately been redefined or is it an invalid change in definitions? What also do you mean by revaloration of concepts?  Is it the function now of philosophy to valorize concepts?

A big difference is that for the Greeks philosophy was almost a fresh start. For us, doing philosophy cannot avoid taking into consideration what the great thinkers of the past have thought (or how they have thought).