Actually there are three. The two you note and those who suggest that what is either learned or not learned from history is embedded existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
And [thus] that philosophers are impotent in determining that which all rational and virtuous people ought to learn from history.
Though that’s just here on this planet.
And I’m not at all sure where Leibniz fits in here. This part for example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology
What’s that make “conspiracy” then? One point of view: npr.org/2018/07/31/63436923 … difference
I’m more or less with PK on this one. On his thread [as I recall] he recently noted he had difficulty connecting the dots between what he has posted and what you posted in turn.
Same here. You often make points that [to me] seem to reflect that which I construe to be the sort of contributions the “serious philosophers” flock toward here. They sound “deep and insightful”, but I can never quite grasp what the hell they have to do with the points that I am actually making.
Or so it seems to me.
You might consider bringing your own points [as I like to frame it] “down to earth”.