No philosophers at all wrote in Spanish at all
A nation that was hit hard by the curse of Trent, from having to read the Vulgate due to the imperatives of Rome to having to read philosophy in foreign languages (Latin, German, Arabic, Greek, etc.) because they never surpassed the limitations of papal censorship.
>But what about Suarez, Molina, Soto, blablabla
They all wrote in Latin.
All the so called philosophy written in Spanish Golden Era was written in Latin (a dead tongue for more keks), not in Spanish. There were not equivalents to Suarez writting in Castilian. An Spanish man can't not go and read Suarez's "Metaphysical Disputations" or "On Laws and God the Lawgiver" since these works are in Latin, unlike a German or Englishman who can read Hobbes's "Leviathan" or Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" in their native tongues.
>but what about John of the Cross, Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Gracián, blablabla
Mystics and writers, not systematic philosophers. They are authors who can be didactic and inspirational since good literature always carry some philosophy, but they lack models that close and categorize an entire system of thought at the ontological, epistemological and physical levels.
>heh, but what about Ortega y Gasset, Primo de Rivera and Unamuno?
The essay genre is the lowest model a "philosopher" can fall in. It is the genre to which mediocre thinkers incapable of generating a totalizing system of thought resort to in order to ramble on in little objective digressions. And these authors were mostly redolent of shitty schools such as German and French existentialism, Italian Fascism or American progressivism. Not original at all and lacked of systematicity of true philosophers. There is not method, rigor, or systematicity in these works.
At least they have good philologists, anthropologists and writers. That's the only thing Ultramontanism didn't take away from them.
Said that, goodnight, I am going to sleep. It is late here.
>But what about Suarez, Molina, Soto, blablabla
They all wrote in Latin.
All the so called philosophy written in Spanish Golden Era was written in Latin (a dead tongue for more keks), not in Spanish. There were not equivalents to Suarez writting in Castilian. An Spanish man can't not go and read Suarez's "Metaphysical Disputations" or "On Laws and God the Lawgiver" since these works are in Latin, unlike a German or Englishman who can read Hobbes's "Leviathan" or Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" in their native tongues.
>but what about John of the Cross, Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Gracián, blablabla
Mystics and writers, not systematic philosophers. They are authors who can be didactic and inspirational since good literature always carry some philosophy, but they lack models that close and categorize an entire system of thought at the ontological, epistemological and physical levels.
>heh, but what about Ortega y Gasset, Primo de Rivera and Unamuno?
The essay genre is the lowest model a "philosopher" can fall in. It is the genre to which mediocre thinkers incapable of generating a totalizing system of thought resort to in order to ramble on in little objective digressions. And these authors were mostly redolent of shitty schools such as German and French existentialism, Italian Fascism or American progressivism. Not original at all and lacked of systematicity of true philosophers. There is not method, rigor, or systematicity in these works.
At least they have good philologists, anthropologists and writers. That's the only thing Ultramontanism didn't take away from them.
Said that, goodnight, I am going to sleep. It is late here.