Coming Soon:

The following books by Robert Paul Wolff are available on Amazon.com as e-books: KANT'S THEORY OF MENTAL ACTIVITY, THE AUTONOMY OF REASON, UNDERSTANDING MARX, UNDERSTANDING RAWLS, THE POVERTY OF LIBERALISM, A LIFE IN THE ACADEMY, MONEYBAGS MUST BE SO LUCKY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE USE OF FORMAL METHODS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON KANT'S CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for "Robert Paul Wolff Kant." There they will be.

NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON THE THOUGHT OF KARL MARX. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for Robert Paul Wolff Marx."





Total Pageviews

Saturday, August 25, 2018

POP QUIZ

If you have nothing better to do, try this.  I got 15 out of 17.  Not bad.

18 comments:

Unknown said...

16.

jeffrey kessen said...

Just one last thing (Damn, Robert, I'm losing my touch). I should have ended my last comment with this: If I were omniscient, and discovered that your book had found it's way back into some out-of-the-way book-store or impoverished library, I would go steal it again---just for old time's sake. Notwithstanding my omniscience, I suspect there might still follow "months lost to incomprehension".

Robert Paul Wolff said...

The theft that keeps on thieving

s. wallerstein said...

14 out of 17 correct.

jeffrey kessen said...

You seem a little too dismissive of my genius. "Life cannot all be care and industry", wrote Hume. This is true even in the Age of Trump. We all must have our little diversions of sentiment and temperament, lest Care consume entirely---to what end we know.

MS said...

This is perhaps off message, but I cannot resist reporting the following instructive story. (I trust Prof. Wolff will forgive me for yanking us back to the miseries of contemporary politics.)

The case that convinced me that Gorsuch was not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court was his dissent from the 10th Circuit’s affirmance of an OSHA ruling that an employer had unlawfully fired a truck driver who had left his broken down vehicle in the dead of winter, rather than staying in the vehicle and risk dying from the cold. Gorsuch believed that the employer had rightfully fired the truck driver for abandoning his post.

Today, CNN.com reports this about Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh dissented from a D.C. Circuit 2014 decision affirming a decision by the Labor Department sanctioning Sea World for its misconduct resulting in the death of a Sea World employee who was killed by a killer whale. Kavanaugh’s position was that the Labor Dept. had exceeded its authority and rejected the traditional deference that judges pay to the expertise of administrative agencies. Kavanaugh, referring to the Labor Dept.’s ruling as “paternalistic,” questioned whether the Labor Dept. would soon be intruding its regulatory nose into issues of safety in such risk laden occupations as that of rodeo and circus performers. The majority disagreed with Kavanaugh’s analogy as inapt, stating that the dangers inherent in the work at Sea World did not relieve the company from its obligation to protect its workers from recognized hazards. Who was on the Court’s majority? Judges Judith Rogers and Merrick Garland.

“For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, “It might have been.;”

David Palmeter said...

15 out of 17.

Anonymous said...

How do we know that Trump didn’t say all those things? Are there missing tapes or missing non-disclosure agreements? Or—so to speak—missing “contracts?” Not everything Trump utters is in tweets. Just because Gotti said some of them doesn’t mean Trump didn’t say them. Maybe Trump said them first. Gotti doesn’t strike me as the kind of person who would refrain from plagiarism. We need three-valued logic here—Trump, Gotti, Undecidable. Also, all this reminds me of that Watergate shibboleth—plausible deniability: Take Hume’s advice and commit your paper trail to the flames. --Sol Lipsizt

Anonymous said...

12 of 17 (on account of not being a fan of either)

jeffrey kessen said...

Wow. Weird. I'm out.

s. wallerstein said...

Out of what?

Anonymous said...

I managed only 12. The differences were just too subtle. I did better in organic chemistry. By the way, I noticed a couple of things about the pictures of Gotti and Trump that accompany the article. First, Gotti was a better dresser than Trump—maybe he had a better tailor: look at the respective suits. (Maybe Gotti actually paid for his suit, or plausibly threatened to kill his tailor. Either way would get good results. Just sending Michael Cohen around as a fixer wouldn’t have impressed the best NY tailors.) Second, Gotti was better looking. Much more “continental,” as one of the quotations had it. And, with a nod to Marco Rubio’s observation in the Republican primaries, Gotti had much bigger hands than Trump.

jeffrey kessen said...

"Out of where?" Out of this fucking rabbit hole

David Auerbach said...

15

s. wallerstein said...

This is a rabbit hole?

MS said...

"Much madness is divinest sense [t]o a discerning eye[.]"

MS said...

I guess I should qualify my prior quotation to state that, of course, Dickinson was not referring to Trump when she wrote this, and, presumably, would not be referring to Trump were she alive and repeated her great lyric today.

Arlen Fast said...

16 of 17! Luck, I guess.