Jy 9 - Anderson, Introduction and ch1-2; McDermott, foreword/preface-ch1-3; Romano, Intro-Part 1.
Here are some discussion prompts, you can reply to any of them you like, or to questions of your own, or to classmates' posts, or just share your comments without the prompting of a question. Remember, for participation credit you want to post at least three distinct comments on the assigned readings prior to class each week (prior to the day of class, if you can manage it). Also remember to find and claim a report date/topic, by this Tuesday if you can. And remember, McDermott and Romano (and Kaag's American Bloods) are available on reserve for 3-day checkout at the library circulation desk, and you can check out the e-text edition of Anderson's Philosophy Americana.
- Anderson says bookstores' philosophy sections are usually poorly and misleadingly stocked with "a large dose of California Zen, self-help, and spirituality books. We professional philosophers joke about this phenomenon but don't take seriously enough what it says about our own invisibility." (11/1-ebook/pb) How do you think philosophers in America (and Canada, Jada?) could make themselves more visible and appealing to the general public? Is it their fault if they're not? AND: what is a "spirituality book"? What is your definition of spirituality? What does it mean to you to be SBNR, "spiritual but not religious"?
- "One gets release time from teaching as a reward for research production, but one does not get release time from research for excellence in teaching." 11/2 Why? Does American culture generally under-value teaching, at every level? Why do so many public school teachers have to supplement their needed classroom resources with their own money?
- "American scholars and philosophers are strange and culturally estranged... My most memorable picture of this estrangement came when a group of American philosophers, in full tweed, met for a conference in the Tropicana Hotel in Las Vegas." 23/15 I was at this conference, in 2001, and was similarly struck. But shouldn't everyone feel estranged, when in Vegas?
- Notice Anderson's shout-out to John McDermott, my mentor John Lachs (27/19) and others, and his notice of James's and Dewey's explicit meliorism. (29) Are you a meliorist? Or an optimist (thinking that nothing needs our ameliorative energies)? Or a pessimist (thinking that there's nothing we can do to make things better)? Do you think of progress as possible but not inevitable? (35)
- "The problem of Emerson's American Scholar-his Man Thinking-is essentially McDermott's problem, how to use the past without becoming trapped in it, how to make culture a tool for amelioration and improvement." (xiii) Do you think some Americans today are "trapped" and are using the past in a way that does not ameliorate or improve our present situation?
- What do you think McDermott/Emerson means by saying "not the literal but the symbolical character of life is the source of our humanity"? (xvii) Do you agree?
- "The message of William James is that there are possibilities 'not yet in our present sight.' That is also the message of philosophy." 26 Are the real "troublemakers" those who call our attention to possibilities for change, amelioration, and progress? Or those who reflexively defend the status quo as the only possibility?
- Was Santayana right about "the good things" in America? 41
- What do you think of young William James's diary entry of April 30, 1870? 48 Do you agree that what we call our essential "self" is largely a construction of will and not an "act of intellect"?
- Any comment on the Carlin Romano videos?
- Why do you think Romano says, after making a compelling case for America's general indifference (compared to Britain, France, Norway et al) to philosophy, that it is "a perfectly designed environment for the practice"? 16 Do you agree?
- Would you ever consider consulting a philosophical counselor like Lou Marinoff (in addition to, or instead of, a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst)? 27-31
- Do you like James's borrowed definition of free will? 75 Do you think you possess free will in this sense? Has the Internet (among other modern inventions) made it harder to be free? And what do you think of his view of "success" in America?--“The moral flabbiness born of the exclusive worship of the bitch-goddess SUCCESS. That - with the squalid cash interpretation put on the word 'success' - is our national disease."
- "[F]or a generation no major issue was clarified until John Dewey had spoken." 86 Would America benefit from the presence of such a philosopher today? Are there any public figures now, other than celebrity entertainers and maybe Trump (although his supporters seem less interested in his views than in what they apparently see as his charisma] whose views a wide swath of the populace cares about?
- Any thoughts on John Rawls' theory of justice as fairness? 105-7
- Any thoughts on Richard Rorty's account of "the key pragmatic move" to regard truth and objectivity as dependent on "intersubjective agreement within a particular community"? 148
- Any comment on Independence Day, The American Philosopher film, "On Bullshit,"or the Philosophers' Song (below)?
- Pose your questions and share your comments about anything else in this week's assigned texts (in the comments section below)
Happy Independence Day! I'll commemorate the date by revisiting one of my favorite novels... [Substack post]
“The impulse to read Self-Reliance is significant here, as is the holiday itself—
my favorite secular one for being public and for its implicit goal of leaving us
only as it found us: free.” Richard Ford, Independence Day
A new public art exhibit in Philadelphia examines the Declaration of Independence through the eyes of the enslaved people of Monticello.
Carlin Romano came to MTSU to discuss America the Philosophical...
More recently...
A film featuring contemporary American philosophers:
Harry Frankfurt's "On Bullshit"...
Monty Python's Philosophers' Song:
#10: Carlin Romano's Videos
ReplyDeleteIt's so cool he came to MTSU. Wish I had been there, but glad I can see the video. I watched the other one, too. I haven't read Part 1 yet. But I'm interested in knowing what he will say in Part 1. The Introductions to America the Philosophical intrigued me. The arguments against America being philosophical are a unique path to take to get to the argument that America is philosophical. I'm looking forward to reading the book and trying to understand his ideas. Well, at least skimming the book. LOL. "America is...a perfectly designed environment for the practice." I'm interested to read why he thinks this.
I like learning about the people we study so the videos were informative. I'm going to research him further before I peruse his book. Without researching him, I guessed him to be Jewish. (My dad grew up in a Jewish household, went to Hebrew school, etc., etc. yet switched religions as an adult, although culturally he still carries much Judaism.) We are also from the Philly area, so it's cool that he worked for the Philadelphia Inquirer for 25 years. And I enjoy writing as he does, too, although I'm certain we write about different themes. I enjoy discovering things I have in common with other people.
Anyway, I also look forward to diving into the section about women in philosophy. For obvious reasons. And I've decided to make this my project's topic. I'm not going to say much more about the videos in case someone else wants to watch. I will say: "Watch. You won't regret the time spent."
Carlin's a very nice man. I ran into him at the American Philosophy conference in Boston last March and reminded him of the time I nearly knocked him out with the bike rack on my trunk, unloading his bags at the hotel when he came here ten years ago. He was gracious, laughed and pointed at his noggin: "no scar."
DeleteThere are many prominent women in philosophy these days (including the chair of our department, Prof. Magada-Ward). Martha Nussbaum is maybe the most famous contemporary female philosopher. Historically, Simone de Beauvoir, Hannah Arendt... going all the way back to Hypatia of Alexandria. Looking forward to seeing who else you choose to spotlight.
Recent books on women in philosophy I've enjoyed: "Metaphysical Animals: How Four Women Brought Philosophy Back to Life" by Rachael Wiseman and Clare Mac Cumhaill... "The Visionaries: Arendt, Beauvoir, Rand, Weil, and the Power of Philosophy in Dark Times" by Wolfram Eilenberger... "The Philosopher Queens: The lives and legacies of philosophy's unsung women" by Rebecca Buxton and Lisa Whiting... "The Women Are Up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics" by Benjamin Lipscomb... Also see Maria Popova's "Figuring" and her excellent website "The Marginalian"... https://www.themarginalian.org/ and her book
DeleteThank you.
DeletePart 2
ReplyDelete"The message of William James is that there are possibilities 'not yet in our present sight.' That is also the message of philosophy." 26 Are the real "troublemakers" those who call our attention to possibilities for change, amelioration, and progress? Or those who reflexively defend the status quo as the only possibility?
As someone who has been labeled a troublemaker, I think we would need to define the term a bit before start pointing to troublemakers out in the wild. I think that troublemakers are those that disrupt, those that shake foundations, and those that refuse to take things at face value. By that definition, troublemakers are those that would call for change, that point out the flaws and shortcomings, and that aren’t content to sit back when mistakes are being made. I do wonder who comes to mind when you’re reading that? Is it the progressives who are pushing for reform with big changes to the current status quo? Is it the far right groups who are also pushing for reform with big changes to bring us back to a status quo of the past? Both are troublemakers by definition, both are calling for major shifts in the current status quo that will impact the lives of many. I know that is kind of a cop out, but I’ll end with saying that I don’t think being a troublemaker is a negative thing. Its is how societies progress through history, it only becomes negative when the changes being pushed are negative themselves.
Was Santayana right about "the good things" in America? 41
I think it is interesting that Santayana chose football, kindness, and jazz bands as the examples of the good things in America. I understand the sentiment, that the “common” things are the good in American and not the grandiose trappings usually found in western culture. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity for the common man, which would mean that the enjoyments of the common man would make up the good things in America. These things are authentically American (though kindness could be argued to be found worldwide, and often done better in other places). Without waxing too poetic, I do agree that the common things found in America are the good things in America. They make up the fabric of America, collectively they are what makes America unique.
Part 3 (last part, I promise!)
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of young William James's diary entry of April 30, 1870? 48 Do you agree that what we call our essential "self" is largely a construction of will and not an "act of intellect"?
I had to marinate with this one for a while, to puzzle out the difference between will and intellect and how they interact with each other, and which one I feel informs our “self”. What I have landed on is that it is more of a combination of both will and intellect that composes the “self”, where intellect is the ability to puzzle out the world and will is the ability to decide what to do once its been puzzled out. Will and intellect acting in tandem is what makes up “self”, how we interpret and understand a given stimulus (intellect) and then the reaction to that interpretation and understanding (will) are unique to each person and thus make up the “self”.
Great comments. Re: "troublemakers" I think of the late civil rights legend, Congressman John Lewis:"Do not get lost in a sea of despair. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Our struggle is not the struggle of a day, a week, a month, or a year, it is the struggle of a lifetime. Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble."
DeleteRe: intellect and will, I'm sure you're right that each works best in tandem with the other. Young Wm James was troubled by the intellectual problem of free will, which (on intellectual grounds) he doubted he OR we possess. But when he unleashed his will to ACT on belief in his own "creative power" etc., even in advance of compelling proof, his life took a sharp turn to the better.
To respond to the question Dr. Oliver prompted, question #1, I think that lies in a bigger issue within the US. Philosophy isn't openly talked about. Much like Erica suggested in our first class, you follow what is taught to you and not what others suggest, much like in the church. I think a way to make philosophy more appealing to the public is creating the generalization that everything is welcomed and talked about. Much like the course of debate, but rather an open region to think and consider without being shot down by another person. As a subject, it is open to camaraderie and acceptance of all, but it isn't the mainstream idea, especially in the bible belt. It is more based on the individualistic ideals of a person, to be open or not to be.
ReplyDeleteSpirituality to me is how you hold yourself towards what you believe is true and not. It is open to interpretation. For religion, it can represent the "who you pray to" and "what you believe in", but for me it is how i carry myself and act towards my community. How open you are to understanding the differences of people and the world.
"you follow what is taught to you and not what others suggest"-others from other traditions and nations, you mean? Generally so, but if it were entirely so I don't think we'd ever have any philosophers at all. An incipient philosopher is a young person who is not content to "follow what is taught" without asking questions. So one way to change that (but of course many or most do NOT want to change it) would be to encourage philosophical thinking from the earliest ages. Philosophize (& read and converse) with our kids, answer their Big Questions (even if the answer is: "I don't know"), never say "just because I said so"...
DeleteI like your definition of spirituality, as it implies an acceptance of others' different varieties. The word spirit is rooted in the ancient word for "breath," making spirituality the most NATURAL of phenomena. I say if you're alive and breathing and thinking, you have spirituality. The word is often linked to supernaturalism and spooky magic but it really needn't be.
#4
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the chapters for Anderson, I did get to thinking of who I am and how I see the world. I believe I am both meliorist as well as an optimist. Meaning that there are active things that people can be doing as well as the world has a mysterious way of playing throughout the day. I do believe that somethings happen for a reason without intervention as well as either helping/ hurting to alter the outcome.
Progress can always be made possible, but without the act of starting a change than it won't be inevitable. I've stuck to the saying of "it only takes one person", and sometimes I think that I could be that person.
A meliorist can be an optimist so long as she acknowledges that nothing is "inevitable" and failure is always possible. That's why we must WORK to make things better, and can't sit back and assume that it'll all just work out because "everything happens for a reason" or because there's some transcendentally divine "Plan" for the universe. So, no Leibnizian/Candide style optimism, but the kind that sees the struggle and fight for what's right as itself an intrinsically valuable activity.
DeleteAlso: Anderson says the pragmatists are not Enlightenment-style believers in the inevitability of progress, and that's right. But I do think they share many Enlightenment values. The big one of course is the value of using one's own reason, daring (as Kant said) to use our own understanding rather than rely on superstition and hearsay and what the crowd affirms. Enlightened pragmatists are not afraid to go against the crowd and be non-conformists. They're not afraid to think for themselves... but not BY themselves. Pragmatists believe in community, collaboration, and pluralism (multiple points of view being required to fill out our comprehension of reality and possibility).
DeleteTo reply to your first response. I think that is a fair statement to make that "When was America great". Some people get so hyped up about the elections and the different sides of each party. But i do feel like Trump has appealed to his generation of people and some later, not so much the younger, adult, generations. He plays more towards the people that grew up around the time he recalls or the children of those parents. There is a great distance in understanding between the older and younger generations and it seems that the younger generation realizes that while some of the older generation are stuck in their ways. Your input is important to understand and realize because a lot of people dont.
ReplyDelete#1
ReplyDeleteI feel like philosophy would have to be almost reintroduced to the public. Currently, philosophy has an image of being difficult to understand, or even boring. It might be difficult to change this image because philosophy has become such an academic-based topic. However, philosophy topics are very relevant in our daily lives. I would say the easiest way to change this view would be to include more literature with introductory and beginner topics. They could be placed in bookstores, libraries, online, and in school curriculums. I think this form of literature would be much more appealing to the public.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete#5
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe that some Americans are “trapped” in the past. I believe there is a line in the sand when it comes to history, especially historical events that affect people to this day. On one hand, people should openly speak about these events to keep their stories alive and to not be repeated in present day. On the other hand, constant talking and thinking about these events can drag people down and negatively affect their lives. Many historical events have this fine line, and some Americans do cross this line in certain situations. At this point, they become trapped and begin to reduce their or others’ situation. I did not want to mention slavery because there are many other past events that this quote speaks to; however, slavery is the best example where some Americans from BOTH sides seem trapped. With this example, some are trying to erase slavery from history, while others spend too long focused on its long-standing effects, and this impacts their ability to move forward. If we were able to properly educate everyone about this event, then we could take away valuable lessons and move forward while appropriately implementing them.
#2
ReplyDeleteThis quote stood out to me because I have also recognized this connection between teaching and research in academia. I did not fully understand the relationship until I came to university. It was explained to me by one of my first professors in the Exercise Science program. She mentioned that some professors got into the teaching profession because of a unique link to research. I was a bit confused by the statement, until she explained how professors can receive time off teaching depending on the progress in their research. My assumption was that it works the other way as well, but I was quickly mistaken. This one-sided relationship has always seemed like a mystery to me. The one point I can argue would be the difficulty of calculating a professor’s excellence when teaching. It could be harder to determine a professor’s progress in teaching over progress in research. Only in this case can I understand the reasoning for it being so one-sided. However, there would be a larger importance and focus on teaching if the reward was granted to both sides. I think the best way to fix this is to make the reward equal and provide the professors with a choice. If they excel in either teaching or research, they can be rewarded time off the other field to continue their work. The professors would then need to allocate a certain amount of time to the neglected field to maintain a balanced relationship between the two fields.