tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post672850406031517317..comments2024-03-28T12:50:25.792-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: THE PITSRobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-44434158775019433822021-08-17T15:19:08.966-04:002021-08-17T15:19:08.966-04:00MCA Live Transfer Leads professional guarantees ...<a href="https://businessleadsworld.com/pricing/" rel="nofollow"> MCA Live Transfer Leads </a> professional guarantees to deliver best qualified for <a href="https://businessleadsworld.com/pricing/" rel="nofollow"> MCA Aged Leads </a> with precise and updated knowledge prepared for conversion MCA Live Leads.Jacob Weberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16789254916564205967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-58957380562121738122021-01-06T18:17:45.119-05:002021-01-06T18:17:45.119-05:00>>... it had not occurred to me that those w...>>... it had not occurred to me that those were actual human beings. It was a revelation.<br /><br />Thanks for these reflections Prof Wolff. I had the same thing happen to me at the beginning of my academic career when I met Dan Dennett. The "scales" fell out of my eyes.<br /><br />Best for 2021. DanielDANIELhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00102083853706680581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-8015546452278690202021-01-06T18:13:41.399-05:002021-01-06T18:13:41.399-05:00>>Some people with a very high IQ often have...<br /><br />>>Some people with a very high IQ often have a relatively low EQ. Robert Oppenheimer, for example, who was a genius in nuclear physics, often offended the people he worked with, which ultimately resulted in his security clearance being revoked when he made a snide remark which insulted the then Director of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis Strauss. <br /><br />See the Kai Bird biography of Oppenheimer. This was one of many reasons--Chevalier affair, his brother's activities, etc. DANIELhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00102083853706680581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-2862877495382622972021-01-05T07:06:33.766-05:002021-01-05T07:06:33.766-05:00Thanks, LFC. I did like Kogelmann's review, b...Thanks, LFC. I did like Kogelmann's review, but as you say, tastes differ. (I've written a fair number of book reviews myself, and suppose different people have different reactions to them, but given that, I did generally like his.) I have no objections to people discussing works in the context in which they were written. As I understand Forrester, though, her work seems too reductive to me - as if a work cannot go beyond the context in which its written, and must be an attempt to justify that time and place. That seems obviously wrong - to misunderstand philosophy to a great degree. In any case, I'd be glad to see your review when it's done. Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446428606119200980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-75754573727043502062021-01-04T21:26:44.055-05:002021-01-04T21:26:44.055-05:00Thanks, Matt, for the link to those two reviews. A...Thanks, Matt, for the link to those two reviews. As it happens I'd read the New Rambler review by Kogelmann already (I will say something about it a bit later in this comment). [I may offer my review, when I finish it (I have some other things on the plate right now) to Crooked Timber as a guest post. They may or may not want to use it. But in any event, I'll make sure to send it to you.]<br /><br />What I'm going to do is, first of course, finish reading the book carefully; then, finish my review; then, before I send it anywhere, I will read the Freeman review and see if it changes my mind about anything. It may do so; then again -- despite Freeman's deep expertise on Rawls, which of course I acknowledge -- it may not. <br /><br />Now on the New Rambler review. I read it late at night several weeks ago (or longer ago) but it didn't strike me as fully engaging with Forrester's book (not that *any* review can cover everything in the book, since the book covers too much ground for that). But a problem with that review is that Kogelmann says that Forrester thinks the point of political philosophy is to guide political action, and she -- as best I can tell so far -- never says that in that kind of bald way. Sure, chaps 2 and 3 are about civil disobedience and the Vietnam War etc., but chapter 1, where, among other things, she traces the evolution of Rawls's ideas through the 50s and into the 60s and what influenced him, makes clear that she understands that Rawls's project was more general and abstract.<br /><br />Just b/c Forrester is not a big fan of ideal theory doesn't mean she doesn't understand what ideal theory is about or what motivates it. I'd say she and Kogelmann may disagree about what's valuable and important, but that's a different matter. <br /><br />Kogelmann complains that at times it's hard to identify an underlying thesis in Forrester's book. That may be a more legitimate complaint, it strikes me. But bottom line, I think Kogelmann sort of barely reviewed the book. Rather, he used the occasion to make some points about Rawls that he wanted to make and to defend ideal theory (at least of a certain sort).<br /><br />I'd never heard of Brian Kogelmann before reading the New Rambler review, and I have no reason at all to doubt that he's a "good young political philosopher" (your words), and he seems to be a successful and v. competent academic. However, I've written a fair number of book reviews over the years, and I take, generally speaking, a different approach to book reviewing than he did in that review. <i>De gustibus</i>, I guess; or in plain English for those whose fragmentary Latin tags may be rusty, it's a matter of taste. LFCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-14093995907373147582021-01-04T19:27:12.458-05:002021-01-04T19:27:12.458-05:00LFC - I'd be glad to see the review you write,...LFC - I'd be glad to see the review you write, if you feel like sharing it. I understand that Forrester is an intellectual historian. And, philosophers often have a hard time reading things that touch on philosophy, but are not philosophy, treating them as if they were bad philosophy instead of something else. That's a mistake when it's done, for sure, and philosophers are the worse for doing this too often. But - I also think that to do intellectual history on philosophy (or economics, or science, or cooking, or anything) it's necessary to have a good idea of what the people in question are trying to do - what _their_ project is or was. That's where Forrester seems to go wrong in what I have read. You can get a taste of that in this review, which I liked a lot: https://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/philosophy/political-philosophy-and-the-search-for-the-possible I also liked this review by Samuel Freeman: https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/in-the-shadow-of-justice-postwar-liberalism-and-the-remaking-of-political-philosophy/ That said, while few people know more about Rawls than Freeman does, the first review has the virtue of being by someone who, while a very good young political philosopher, isn't a Rawlsian, and so who doesn't have the same sort of interest as Freeman does. Both show some of the philosophical misunderstandings, though, I think. (I should note that Freeman was my dissertation advisor, in case that influences what people say about his work.) Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446428606119200980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-11079007382075987132021-01-04T10:49:20.717-05:002021-01-04T10:49:20.717-05:00Rorty bridges the division.
I've read all the...Rorty bridges the division.<br /><br />I've read all the books of and seen lots of Youtube lectures of Dario Sztajnszrajber, an Argentinian philosopher, who's almost a rock star in Latin America. <br /><br />His favorites are Marx (the young Marx), Nietzsche (read not as Leiter reads him, but as a proto-deconstructionist), Heidegger, Foucault and Derrida. <br /><br />However, he very frequently refers to one and only one analytic philosopher and that's Rorty.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-52649493526791173362021-01-04T09:39:25.506-05:002021-01-04T09:39:25.506-05:00P.s. Her book is basically intellectual history, a...P.s. Her book is basically intellectual history, and she is interested in the intersection between political philosophy and the political and historical context in which it's written. I suppose it's possible to object to that whole approach. I myself don't much object to it, provided the author is transparent about what she or he is doing.LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-49179653027689690862021-01-04T09:33:54.522-05:002021-01-04T09:33:54.522-05:00Matt,
I'm not defending Forrester's statem...Matt,<br />I'm not defending Forrester's statement. My current impression is that, even if it is obviously wrong, nothing much hangs on it in terms of her main arguments or the main lines of her narrative.<br /><br />I'm planning to write a review of the book, which may (or may not) appear somewhere. In the meantime, I'd be interested in an elaboration of your statement that she misunderstands what the point of political philosophy is. Are you talking about her book as a whole when you say that? Or what? I am genuinely interested, otherwise I wouldn't be asking. On the other hand, I believe I have your email address, and this is perhaps a conversation that we should have privately rather than on this blog. I'm not sure...LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-14793422974942079112021-01-04T07:16:11.712-05:002021-01-04T07:16:11.712-05:00A few thoughts:
LFC quotes Katrina Forrester sayi...A few thoughts:<br /><br />LFC quotes Katrina Forrester saying thus: <i>With exceptions like Robert Paul Wolff and the New Left followers of Herbert Marcuse, [Anglophone] philosophers in the 1970s steered clear of Marxism." </i><br />I am not a fan of Forrester's take. I think she seriously misunderstands what the point of political philosophy is. But, that aside, this is a really odd claim, because it is, at least, grossly under-inclusive. To see why, you can just note that the volume of essays originally published in the main-stream analytic philosophy journal _Philosophy and Public Affair_ entitled "Marx, Justice, and History" is all made up of articles published in the 1970s. This is even ignoring books (not good ones, but nonetheless books) by Isaiah Berlin and he successor as Chichele Professor of Social and Political Thought, John Plamenatz, who also published on Marx. Several of those publishing on Marx in the 70s were (and are) "big names", and a few were even students of Rawls (Richard Miller, for example.) It's really just an amazing statement, and obviously wrong. <br /><br />As for whether "analytic" philosophers read "continental" ones or not, there is of course lots of variation. Hilary Putnam read (and comments on) a fair number. Richard Rorty, who is perhaps an atypical analytic philosopher, but who is still properly counted as such, I'd say (*), wrote heavily on Sartre, Derrida, Foucault, etc. Foucault visited Berkeley regularly in the later 70s, and was friendly with Searle, Davidson, and Sluga, among others. Hans Sluga, in addition to being an expert on Frege and Wittgenstein, wrote regularly on Heidegger. The young Gilbert Ryle had been very interested in phenomenology. And so on. No doubt there are good examples of people who never read "the other side", but that's far from universally true. (The same applies on the "continental" side, of course.) <br />(*) Lots of "analytic" philosophers dislike Rorty - but Rorty was a major contributor to analytic philosophy, and his biggest philosophical heros were core analytic philosophers like Davidson, Wittgenstein, and Sellars. He has more in common with Daniel Dennett than with Sarte or even Foucault, I'd say.<br /><br />Finally, in relation to getting in to law school, law schools care about, in order: 1) your LSAT score, 2) Your undergrad gpa, 3) grad school gpa, if any, 4) where you studied, 5) what you studied. They care about the first two the most, in part because they are modestly good indicators of likely success in law school, but even more so because they make up a significant portion of the US News law school rankings. I also briefly taught LSAT classes for Kaplan, and it's clear that these can help people. They can only help so much - I'd guess that they can move a dedicated student up 4 or 5 points, maybe a bit more, out of 180, but that can be a big difference as to where you get in, or if you get a scholarship or not. (I didn't take any classes myself. I took the LSAT while I was in the Peace Corps and so had no money for such things, even if they were available, but because I qualified for a fee waiver for the exam, I was given 3.5 practice exams, and even just doing those on my own improved my score a fair amount, as I learned to do things faster. I also am among a tiny handful of people who have taken the LSAT in Moscow.) Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446428606119200980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-71587045700669576812021-01-03T22:56:39.779-05:002021-01-03T22:56:39.779-05:00The discussion her about intelligence need to acco...The discussion her about intelligence need to account for a distinction between intelligence and high functioning which often appears as intelligence, Pathological individuals are often capable of high functional capabilities which mask people’s perceptions of them. <br /><br />I take Trump to be a malignant narcissist, i.e., a clinically pathological person. He is, however, highly functional in certain areas, and in certain contexts. He is a huckster/con-man/snake oil salesman who relies on personality (charisma), an ability to read an audience and adjust his patter to the situation. He has had a protective bubble, so to speak, that has allowed him to develop those traits and a persona that worked. That he was able to develop the persona of builder/developer/ reality show host were a function of inherited wealth that bought him an Ivy league education (the appearance of on Ivy League education), and allowed him to develop an organization the staff of which did all the analysis, and implemented what he wanted.<br /><br />I can’t speak to the situation with Pinochet. But like and Hitler, he had political and military organizations that did what he wanted. The knowledge and ability to get things done lies in the organization, the state bureaucracy. Pinochet, as the leader of a military coup d’etat, and Hitler who had a state of emergency which gave him total control of the government, had all the resources of the state available to them. Trump had constraints that he couldn’t get around, so it was primarily through executive orders and rule changes that he governed. Other accomplishments, if you can them that, like the tax package, were party initiatives that he backed and for which he took credit. Incidentally, one can have a pathological personality disorder and be highly intelligent in the conventional sense of the word.<br /><br />I agree with Wallerstein’s point regarding our limited awareness of the damage he has done to the conduct of politics, and to government. We don’t appreciate the full extent of it, and how it will impact things in the future. To develop one point further: Republicans had started the election fraud story to support their disenfranchisement of Black voters. Trump brought it to levels, claiming well before the election that it would be fraudulent. These claim have no evidence yet are widely believe by republicans, and the new Gang of Eleven Senators who, with their House allies, will push this narrative to new levels this week. We are well into a new era of mass social psychopathology fueling the far right for who knows how long. Christopher J. Mulvaney, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15817420454023465228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-282850612551425942021-01-03T11:22:07.772-05:002021-01-03T11:22:07.772-05:00GJ, glad to hear that you're relieved. I provi...GJ, glad to hear that you're relieved. I provide relief whenever I can, not least to the exasperated and outraged.jeffrey g kessennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-21362098976552375882021-01-03T00:35:17.102-05:002021-01-03T00:35:17.102-05:00"Prof. Wolff mentioned Quine and Sellars. Qui..."Prof. Wolff mentioned Quine and Sellars. Quine first. For all this gentleman's travels, fluency in multiple languages, and learnedness in the ways of logic and analytic philosophy, he's always struck me as something of an American bumpkin. Nothing really wrong with that, I guess."<br /><br />Quine, a yokel? Really? What did I just read? I'm relieved, though, that, per Kessen, there's 'nothing really wrong with that'. GJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05405004325909934516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-71715554593957667382021-01-02T19:21:51.448-05:002021-01-02T19:21:51.448-05:00Glad to see Iris Murdoch mentioned (though her boo...Glad to see Iris Murdoch mentioned (though her book on Sartre is not one of the Murdoch books that I've read).LFCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-27731119039391442472021-01-02T18:25:37.219-05:002021-01-02T18:25:37.219-05:00There are exceptions (such as Iris Murdoch and Art...There are exceptions (such as Iris Murdoch and Arthur Danto on Sartre), but generally it would have been unusual for Anglo-American philosophers/philosophy professors to read works of Continental philosophy from WWII through the mid-1970's. In England in the 1960's the young Charles Taylor stood out as someone whose work was marked by a strong interest in Continental philosophy (in Taylor's case, it was especially Merleau-Ponty). And it was Taylor's book on Hegel, published in 1975, that stimulated Anglophone interest in Hegel that really started to effloresce with Robert Pippin's Hegel's Idealism (1989). Conversely, in retrospect, and maybe even back in the day, it's hard to see why the Continentals should or would have been interested in the Anglo-American analytic folks. The latter made no large contribution to any of the central interests of the Continentals from 1945 to nearly 1970; I mean, nothing the philosophy of history, or the philosophy of art, or political philosophy. In the 1980's Richard Rorty's prominence seemed to herald the collapse of the division, and I'm quite sure that it's not unusual now for there to be reading across the divide. But it seems to me that intensified specialization in academic philosophy and the inveterate monolingualism of the Anglophones has hampered the border passage.John Rapkonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-16202751020422654762021-01-02T18:08:50.048-05:002021-01-02T18:08:50.048-05:00Algren wrote some very negative stuff about De Bea...Algren wrote some very negative stuff about De Beauvoir. He reviewed her book on Ageing in the U.S. media and panned it. He wanted to marry her at one point and she refused. She loved her him a lot and the sex was better than with Sartre, but she, for obvious reasons, did not want to give up her life in France and become Mrs. Algren. Remember that this is the woman who wrote the Second Sex. Hell hath no fury like a novelist scorned!s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-362763175783825012021-01-02T17:52:04.507-05:002021-01-02T17:52:04.507-05:00s. wallerstein,
I cannot resist asking this quest...s. wallerstein,<br /><br />I cannot resist asking this question. When Nelson Algren wrote, “Never play cards with a man called Doc. Never eat at a place called Mom's. Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own,” regarding the romantic advice, did he have Ms. Beauvoir in mind?<br />MSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-8228420754087791452021-01-02T17:03:14.759-05:002021-01-02T17:03:14.759-05:00S. Wallerstein has it about right. Quine never rea...S. Wallerstein has it about right. Quine never really seemed interested in the broader perspective of European philosophy. Let me just quickly add that I have no doubt whatever that I am the least worldly of any Commentator on this blog. I seldom get out and about, though I did travel to Daytona Beach three years ago---so exotic a place I won't soon forget.jeffrey g kessennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-51055309896994005052021-01-02T16:52:01.272-05:002021-01-02T16:52:01.272-05:00Heidegger was very provincial and more of a bumpki...Heidegger was very provincial and more of a bumpkin than Quine. At least some members of the Frankfurt school read analytic philosophy; for example, Marcuse dedicates a large portion of One Dimensional Man to a critique of analytical philosophy. I'm fairly sure that Adorno read some analytic philosophy too. Hannah Arendt, as a charter member of the so-called New York intellectuals in the 50's and 60's, was more than familiar with analytic philosophy. Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir read lots of contemporary American literature; de Beauvoir even had a long love affair with Nelson Algren. They both served as members of the Russell commission on war crimes in Viet Nam and had some idea of what was happening in contemporary British philosophy.<br /><br />Of other continental philosophers, Foucault traveled frequently to the U.S. and was very aware of what was happening in U.S. academic philosophy. <br /><br />So the people I mention, except Heidegger, were very sophisticated and worldly. s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-35520216136075204602021-01-02T16:15:37.781-05:002021-01-02T16:15:37.781-05:00One might ask if Heidigger, Arendt or de Besuvoir,...One might ask if Heidigger, Arendt or de Besuvoir, or Sartre, or any of the continental philosophers read Quine? Why would the claim of provincialism be uni-directional?MSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-36083849371096177572021-01-02T15:38:10.152-05:002021-01-02T15:38:10.152-05:00I don't know almost anything about Quine or hi...I don't know almost anything about Quine or his autobiography, but did he have any sense of what was happening in 20th century European philosophy? Had he read Heidegger or anybody from the Frankfurt school or Hannah Arendt or Sartre or Simone de Beauvoir? I would guess that Jeffrey is referring to something a bit provincial about him. s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-81749554807516516632021-01-02T15:26:29.798-05:002021-01-02T15:26:29.798-05:00Jeffrey,
Not sure what you mean by your reference...Jeffrey,<br /><br />Not sure what you mean by your reference “American bumpkin.” Lacking in a certain measure of worldliness and sophistication? Certainly not a measure of one’s intellect or creativity. I know nothing about Quine’s autobiography, but the quality of his philosophical thoughts, by which I am sure he would prefer to be evaluated, are indisputable. Newton – whose genius no one would doubt – served in Parliament representing the district of Cambridge and is reported to have spoken only once – asking an usher to close a window because he felt chilly. Regarding his worldliness, it is believed he died a virgin.<br />Anonymoushttp://msnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-44253421516444832552021-01-02T14:46:17.998-05:002021-01-02T14:46:17.998-05:00correction: *as* he receives themcorrection: *as* he receives themLFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-3930500251809317372021-01-02T14:43:31.154-05:002021-01-02T14:43:31.154-05:00P.s. The trivial sentence being one where he tells...P.s. The trivial sentence being one where he tells the reader that his practice is to pay bills as soon he receives them. I don't know why that stuck with me, nor do I remember the context, though it must have been in a passage where he's talking about how he manages his daily affairs, or his time, or something like that.LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-53942022852145151822021-01-02T14:31:59.132-05:002021-01-02T14:31:59.132-05:00Once when I was procrastinating or wasting time in...Once when I was procrastinating or wasting time in a university library, I happened to pull Quine's autobiography from the shelf. I remember basically nothing of the parts I read, except one trivial sentence. As far as Quine's philosophical work goes, I've read very little of it, just one or two pieces I had to read in an intro to analytic philosophy course that I took as a freshman, and disliked.LFChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551197682770555147noreply@blogger.com