Are the arguments against objective ethics/morality, motivated by persons unable to deal with shame and/or thier previous bad decisions? Similarly, do you people that believe in subjective ethics/morality do so because it is easier to just do/say whatever they want if they don't get caught?

Just a quick thought. I might edit if I can better adjust or articulate what I am think. Thanks in advance!

Why did he did he deem it necessary for philosophy to become science?

Based on The Phaedo's theory of the soul could an argument be made that Scientists are very young souls whereas Sages' souls would be the oldest?

Lol I'm less than a college freshman. In philosophy at least.

>Do you intend, further, that there is otherwise nothing new in philosophy since Aristotle?

There is "new" of course. But isn't it just "building" on Aristotle like science of his philosophy. Idk. I can't make the argument itself. Which is why I said "could" there be an argument. Maybe I should have said "could there be a good argument".

Something doesn't feel right about post ancient philosophy. Just seems like "the science of". Can't put my finger on it. In A history of Western Philosophy I remember Russell explaining the difference between science and philosophy. And post ancient philosophy just seems like what he described science as...

>Do you suggest that we don't come up with anything new, but just recite and study old wisdom?

No, not necessarily, but is the "new" still philosophy? Is it just science Of philosophy? Or intelligence, but not wisdom?

I'm not sure. There is just something "there" in ancient philosophy that isn't there in philosophy after Aristotle. Maybe it's the wisdom vs intelligence (or a better suited word). Maybe an over reliance on our limited senses/perceptions? Less to zero intuition?

Could there be an argument made that all philosophy since the ancients' should just be considered science OF philosophy?