Hi Paul. Just to let you know that I am finding my exploration! fruitful; here is but one talk I have just listened to. I'm still following these discussions, but believe I shall find the 'strength' not to indulge. Thanks again for your concern. Perhaps you will have time to listen to some Rabbinic counsel! Take care. http://www.meaningfullife.com/mlc-tv/faith/ Oh yes, and Hassidic, Chabad, and Kabbalah (the mystical) are all 'related'.

There is no question that most of those listed were "influential." Hypatia was not, and was likely included only for political reasons. (Who, for example, did she influence in philosophy?) The quality of the write-up on her was cited as possibly indicative of the quality of write-ups for others -- but only possibly. A lot of these coffee table books are basically boilerplate.

But a second point is worth making: there are plenty of philosophers who were influential in their own culture but who had no influence outside of it. So the question arises: "influential on whom?" The Modern Ages are essentially a Western thing. South of the Mediterranean and east of Transylvania, terms like "Renaissance" or "Age of Reason" had no traction. Not that nothing happened there, but they had their own internal histories: al-Ghazali, the "closing of the gates" and so on. (Oddly enough, two muslim philosophers who did influence Europe -- though medieval, not modern Europe -- ibn Sinna and ibn Rushd -- were better known and more widely read in Europe than in the House of Submission.) But al-Ghazali had no influence on India (outside muslim-conquered regions) or China. Likewise Confucius and Lao-tzu had little influence on Islam. The Buddha had enormous influence on Chinese and Japanese thought, but that was exceptional. Influence on the Modern West was virtually nil.

So what? My point is simply that Catholic philosophers were certainly influential, but they have by no means been the dominant element in philosophy. Certainly they were dominant in Europe during the time of Catholic domination. But if we zoom out we find ancient Greece an post-Catholic Germany do be more influential.

Sure, can you find me a better list of important and influential philosophers of all time?

We have here a list and discussion of a number of philosophers of varying relevance, who were Catholic. Lets look not just at Catholics but the whole so that we can see the Catholic ones in context.

Thanks for the upvote. Regarding maintaining textual integrity in the midst of copying copies and the notion that error and decay are inevitable (some might be tempted to think it is even deterministic). The case of the OT text is amazing. Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the earliest copy of the OT was the Masoretic text from the 10th cent. (don't have time to fact check at the moment). The 2 documents are almost virtually the same. That's 200BC - 200AD age of the Dead Sea Scrolls to 900 AD (not sure of the exact date). That is a long time passing.

Thanks Paul. Why do I always forget to consult Wikipedia! There is the constant 'language barrier' with respect to these studies. I also hesitate to make definite 'conclusions', because I know from experience that some hours, days, months, years, later that perhaps even a single comment will overthrow my previous 'theory'. Like Copernicus. Sure, of course he was Jewish. Why didn't I think of that? And Mendelssohn, well I thought he had joined up with the Catholics, as a 'smart' thing to do. There is always so much 'hearsay', or even 'heresy' even among 'academia'. I also get to understand more and more the 'dominance' of Christianity within the world order, since about the 12th century. (!!)
I do believe that ontological arguments might be associated more with introspection/a la beauty than with 'rationality'. (language based; edit!!!) (which for me would actually make them more 'empirical'!!!) (edit: and a la Augustine - theological. rather than philosophical/rational???) Still exploring the relation between beauty and truth. Indeed, can we not be 'empirical' within the study - self-reflection of our interior, esoteric, and perhaps what can even be labeled as our 'metaphysical' thoughts, -beyond the external perceptions of the external world..(yes another 'edit' here!) (I guess I mean it's the experience that would be important. Yes, empirical has a definite meaning).

And yes, I'm expanding on the Trinity. After all, the Credo does include the apostles, so why not follow this pattern, (with the modalities of Kant as another example of a fourth term) and allow for maybe 'secular society', 'nature', 'secular government' or what not for the fourth category. All the rest fits into Heidegger's fourfold, including the four divisions of Mathematics, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division - right? have I got it?. If so I think I can 'extend the thesis'.....Yeah it can work, the pairing off of opposites, on two different levels, which can possibly work in the same way that the ( heliocentric? What? )(Correction. Lost word for a moment. Yes I was right hylomorphic- what was I doing here, a sub-plot-conscience association with Copernicus?) hylomorphic synthesis works for Christianity??? per se??? Well, I try anyway. Unlike those that don't like being caught in a 'matrix' --- well I like 'structure'. or 'need structure!'

Thanks so much again... The best. (And have faith. Yes! That is 'different' from 'belief'. and it doesn't matter what you think, it can indeed pay to be 'crazy'...) (Edit: I have eliminated my 'advice' 'reference' etc. to ongoing- dialogue. I'm not always that 'crazy' after all....am I?

For medieval Jewish philosophy, you have the giant, Rambam. Wikipedia's article on Jewish philosophy actually divides the philosophers before Rambam, and after Rambam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_philosophy . There are dozens on both sides. Henry Abramson gives excellent lectures on select figures in Jewish history, if you wish to learn more ( http://jewishhistorylectures.org/ ).

As for Muslim Philosophy, I'd probably start with the Wikipedia article on Islamic Philosophy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_philosophy , although it sounds like you are already getting somewhere on this front. It is interesting one of the most famous versions of the cosmological argument, the Kalam argument, has Islamic roots. I'm not aware of the Islamic version of the Ontological Argument, and didn't know that Islamic philosophers preferred rationalistic arguments over empirical arguments.

DELETED

Well I looked for years before I could find info on Israel. Then I found the (for me) incomprehensible Kabbalah and now Chabad, same tradition I think. So perhaps I can wait for a 'translation' here too. But even my Iranian friends on FB often speak in the Islamic dialect, which of course you know is necessary for an appreciation of the Koran! I 'know' that Aquinas, definitely objected to Avicenna, Averroes, etc. but I think Islam was definitely responsible for the switch to Ontological proofs, over cosmological proofs, even from Anselm...I will keep attempting to understand these structures, which I still believe are more fundamental than any 'logics'....But at least I can give you some 'evidence'...hope all articles are included - from Academic website: (I hope this is of interest to you.)https://www.academia.edu/20138646/%C3%82lim_ve_Filozof_Kutbuddin_%C5%9E%C3%AEr%C3%A2z%C3%AE_Scholar_and_Philosopher_Qutb_al-Din_al-Shirazi_Do%C4%9Fudan_Bat%C4%B1ya_D%C3%BC%C5%9F%C3%BCncenin_Ser%C3%BCveni_ed._Bayram_Ali_%C3%87etinkaya_%C4%B0stanbul_%C4%B0nsan_Yay%C4%B1nlar%C4%B1_2015_VI_961-975 Edit: Hey- I've got to have more patience. There is one on Modern philosophy, and in English!!!! So......maybe later? P.S. And of course, to use a 'bit of logic' the philosophy of Aquinas/Aristotle is surely not 'ontological'....would you say?