>>17775463Dialectics have very rarely yielded interesting results. In fact all of the interesting things that have come from philosophers who used the dialectical method were just axiomatic reasoning, or applying the dialectical method to the axiomatic reasoning of others but adding nothing of value to it.
English philosophers are undervalued because they are clear and easy to understand. Locke, Hume, Mill, Kuhn, even modern day philosophers like Bryan Singer or David Chalmers, are so straight forward and easy to understand that even first year undergrads can master the majority of their thought with little effort beyond simply reading them. As a result they are considered "basic" or at best "introductory" while the German, French and Russian philosophers are considered "advanced" and "worthwhile".
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the insistence of syncretism with eastern philosophers based on nothing more than the wish that their "different" perspective will reveal something our "limited" perspective cannot. But with only a few unimportant exceptions the reality is they either already agree with us, or they're wrong, and there is simply nothing to synthesize.
