First Rule of Defeating Leftists: Don't Call Them 'Liberals'

I'm 41 posted an excellent entry the other day, "The Blogger’s Rules For Defeating Liberals."

However, I cringed with all the references to "liberals." These goons are not "liberal." They're progressive collectivists (as the most hardened of them self-identify) or, frankly, simply radical leftists.

Zilla has more:

I can’t stand to see them called “liberals” because there is nothing “liberal” about them. Words matter, as they say. Call ‘em what they really are: LEFTISTS. The edit to the [blog] title is from me, because I don’t want to see the freaks called by their preferred misnomer at any place that I have editorial control over.

When referring to "liberals," the proper meaning makes reference to those early thinkers evoking the ideology of individual liberty and limited government, most importantly John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Adam Smith. The Democrat Party until roughly John F. Kennedy espoused a form of "modern liberalism" that by default drew on America's constitutional foundations in liberty but increasingly sought an expanded role for the state in promoting economic equality and social welfare. Yet, the left today is almost completely unrecognizable from the Cold War liberalism of Kennedy and Harry Truman. Today's left is a quasi-Marxist, state-collectivist ideological apparatus, intent to delegitimize private property and wealth accumulation and to elevate extreme ethnic tribalism as the blunt cudgel of radical redistributionist class warfare. President Obama is the chief class warrior and national divider in this mode, the perfect vessel of the vengeful fever swamp ghouls of the Democrat Party.

Zilla might not even be this charitable, although that's the pretty well-understood ideological bastardization of "liberalism" over the last couple of generations. Today's leftists are the Orwellian zombies who spout tolerance but practice extreme racism, anti-Semitism and viewpoint intolerance. These ghouls preach "peace" and "respect" as the highest principles but instead practice union thuggery and anti-speech bullying and lawfare as standard operating procedures. And more than ever, the left phantasmagorically operates under a false consciousness of objective lies as progressive truth. The "tent trutherism" coming out of Lansing is just the latest manifestation, but President Obama's 2012 campaign will perhaps be remembered by traditional historians as the most dishonest (and morally reprobate) in post-modern history, marked especially by a media empire in service to state power, with journalists effectively functioning as party apparatchiks for the endlessly voracious tax-and-spend regime of the soul-crushing collectivist machine.

That's why people should simply refuse to call these people "liberals." They are precisely the opposite of the great classical liberals, and are indeed the very kinds of tyrants for which the latter developed theories to frustrate, prevent, and destroy.

Coping With Existential Angst

I think Robert Stacy McCain is much too modest, but if you're going to emulate someone, you'd hardly choose better than AoSHQ.

See: "The Neitzschean Existential Angst of Blogging in the Same Sphere as Ace."

Tim's Light Reading (10/11/2012)

1 (of 5). Shocks v. Non-Shocks

At Notes From Ironbound, Werner Herzog's Bear posits that there are two categories among employed academics, "shocks" and "non-shocks." WHB then discusses the implications of their experience (i.e. "the experential divide") in the profession. What do you think? Does this divide exist, as described by WHB? How would you modify the story? What does this mean for intellectual historians?

2. Reading "The Great Books" Of Philosophy

Check out James Garvey's discussion and survey, at Talking Philosophy, of philosophers (and intellectual historians, if he only knew it) on which of "the great books" of philosophy they have actually been read cover-to-cover. For my part, I've read six. Although that seems low in relation to the list, my results match up well with a great many of those surveyed. How many have you read? And does the full reading of these works actually matter, for either philosophers or intellectual historians? Is there a philosophy canon? Should there be one?

3. Husserl in America

The "___X___ in America" meme has the potential to be endless and tiring, but I think this paper on "Husserl's Phenomenology in America," by Richard Lanigan, will be of interest to USIH readers. I've never seen a tracing of Husserl's influence on twentieth-century philosophy and intellectual life in the United States, and Lanigan's piece will perhaps start that line of literature. Which American philosopher or intellectual was most influenced by Husserl? Or are there any?

4. Hobsbawm Obits

In case you missed them, here are three that merit your reflection. And don't forget Andrew Hartman's reflections on Hobsbawm's influence on him (especially Genovese's review of Hobsbawm's Age of Extremes. Since that book introduced me to Hobsbawm, here's a passage on it from the Jacobin Obit:

Hobsbawm’s final addition to his ["Age of..."] series, The Age of Extremes (1994), on the “short twentieth century,” was written in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. As Perry Anderson noted, the bourgeoisie as such nearly altogether fell out of the picture in this volume. Instead, the big theme was that of Communism, by chastening bourgeois hegemony, saving Western states from the excesses of divisive capitalism. This, the defeat of Nazism, and the Soviet Union’s ultimate rationality in helping to keep the Cold War mostly cold, was for Hobsbawm the historic justification for Communism. As a positive alternative to capitalism, however, it had proven to be a dead end. Notoriously, however, he told an interviewer that had Stalinism proven to be the fount of a new, higher civilization, its body-count would have been justified.

5. Ratner-Rosenhagen at the Chicago Humanities Festival

Next week I plan to post my review of American Nietzsche. As a preview, or lead-in, you should know that Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen will be presenting on her book at the Chicadgo Humanities Festival on Saturday, November 10. Details here. Let me know (timothy.n.lacy-at-gmail.com) if you're thinking about going as I'm working on trying to attend.

Noteworthy Quote From U.S. Intellectual History

"There is no philosopher in the world so great but that he believes a million things on the faith of other people and accepts a great many more truths than he demonstrates." --- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume 2, Chapter 2

Noteworthy Quote From U.S. Intellectual History

"There is no philosopher in the world so great but that he believes a million things on the faith of other people and accepts a great many more truths than he demonstrates." --- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume 2, Chapter 2

Tim's Light Reading (12/17/2009)

1. What Today's Philosophers Think: Although I understand some of the questions given here by The PhilPapers Surveys, another subset are beyond me---at least as of today. The authors of the quiz concede that they framed many of the questions within the analytic tradition, and my strengths (the few I possess) do not lie in the history of that era, or in its terminology, so my ignorance should not have surprised me. Still, I'm intrigued by what I do know of the issues. The demographics portion of the survey included a question (at the bottom) about the non-living philosophers with which today's group identified. Notice Foucault garnered only 11 votes, and Adorno only 6. I was shocked to see Hume at the top, as well as Aristotle---one of my favorites---still holding at #2. My other favorite is Aquinas, who came in at #24 with 69 votes. Dewey, Sellars, and Peirce came in at 29, 30, and 31 with 31, 30, and 28 votes, respectively. James entered at 34 with 22 votes. Based on my more recent, less historical observations of Catholic thought and the analytical framework of the questions, I'm somewhat surprised to see neither this guy nor this movement on the lists. I figured one or the other would get the 5 minimum nods to be counted.

2. Livingston At HNN: Here's a partial reprise of James Livingston's USIH address, which is also an excerpt from his new book, The World Turned Inside Out: American Thought and Culture at the End of the 20th Century. And here's his new blog address. There he takes on the criticisms of Eric Alterman given during the conference, and reveals---at the end of the post---that he told a (white) lie to Alterman and the rest of us during Q&A.

3. Culture Wars at "The Great Books College of Chicago": As an observer and student of trends in the history of the great books idea, I can't resist bringing to your attention a story out of Chicago. The gist is this: Some faculty and and students at Shimer College are worried that the administration, headed by President Thomas K. Lindsay, is engineering a conservative take over of the institution. A bit of background is necessary. Shimer began as a small liberal arts college in Illinois, originally located in Mount Carroll, that took on a great books curriculum in the 1950s. That curriculum derived from the thinking of Robert Maynard Hutchins, former University of Chicago president, and probably Mortimer J. Adler, Hutchins's friend and intellectual advisor. The college's great books list originally looked a lot like the one comprising Britannica's 1952 Great Books set, but evolved to something more liberal and inclusive as time passed. With regard to its staff, faculty, and students, Shimer became known, especially in the 1970s, for its liberal social and cultural atmosphere. This was evident not just in behavior (which hearsay has probably amplified) during the "Me Decade," but also---and more importantly---in Shimer's radically democratic shared governance scheme, the "Assembly," discussed in the first link above. While some comments to the article express dismay at the culture wars overlay in the piece, saying this is an administrative issue only, there does appear to be a right-ward trend in relation to new Board of Trustees members. This weblog is documenting student, faculty, and staff resistance to the changes. There's a lot to say about this story, but my biggest surprise is that this political-social tug-of-war is only just now hitting Shimer. I'm shocked it didn't happen in the 1980s or 1990s, well before its move to Chicago.

4. The Great Books College of C.S. Lewis: Thanks to John Fea, I have learned that a C.S. Lewis-inspired, ecumenically Christian college is opening in Northfield, MA. The curriculum is, of course, to be based on the great books idea. John didn't say which version of the great books idea they'd be utilizing, but I can imagine a Britannica connection. I'd have to explore their website to learn more. I'll wait on that project, however, until they actually open and host a first class.

5. So you read the Encyclopedia Britannica?: Continuing the great books/Britannica subtheme of today's entries, A.J. Jacobs reflects on the proportion of things-remembered to things-learned after having read the Encyclopedia Britannica near the beginning of this decade. He recorded much of that endeavor in his 2004 book, The Know-It-All. Two parts from the Youtube clip caught my attention. Jacobs emphatically declares that he's forgotten "a huge amount" right off the bat-- about 97-98 percent he thinks. But he also reflects, around the 55 second mark, on the fact that he's gained a deeper, more useful-than-trivia kind of knowledge from that reading. For instance, he cited a justified, affirming optimism about humanity's ability to adapt and grow (my words) that has resulted from his survey of the accomplishments of human civilization.

6. Midsouth Philosophy Conference: I bring this to your attention because of the openness of the call---meaning historians of the Lovejovian variety might be welcome: "The thirty-fourth annual Midsouth Philosophy Conference is scheduled for Friday afternoon and Saturday, March 5-6, at The University of Memphis. Papers in any area are welcome. There will be a $25 registration fee, payable by cash or check at the conference (but not by credit or debit card). Alastair Norcross (University of Colorado at Boulder) will deliver the keynote address."

Tim's Light Reading (12/17/2009)

1. What Today's Philosophers Think: Although I understand some of the questions given here by The PhilPapers Surveys, another subset are beyond me---at least as of today. The authors of the quiz concede that they framed many of the questions within the analytic tradition, and my strengths (the few I possess) do not lie in the history of that era, or in its terminology, so my ignorance should not have surprised me. Still, I'm intrigued by what I do know of the issues. The demographics portion of the survey included a question (at the bottom) about the non-living philosophers with which today's group identified. Notice Foucault garnered only 11 votes, and Adorno only 6. I was shocked to see Hume at the top, as well as Aristotle---one of my favorites---still holding at #2. My other favorite is Aquinas, who came in at #24 with 69 votes. Dewey, Sellars, and Peirce came in at 29, 30, and 31 with 31, 30, and 28 votes, respectively. James entered at 34 with 22 votes. Based on my more recent, less historical observations of Catholic thought and the analytical framework of the questions, I'm somewhat surprised to see neither this guy nor this movement on the lists. I figured one or the other would get the 5 minimum nods to be counted.

2. Livingston At HNN: Here's a partial reprise of James Livingston's USIH address, which is also an excerpt from his new book, The World Turned Inside Out: American Thought and Culture at the End of the 20th Century. And here's his new blog address. There he takes on the criticisms of Eric Alterman given during the conference, and reveals---at the end of the post---that he told a (white) lie to Alterman and the rest of us during Q&A.

3. Culture Wars at "The Great Books College of Chicago": As an observer and student of trends in the history of the great books idea, I can't resist bringing to your attention a story out of Chicago. The gist is this: Some faculty and and students at Shimer College are worried that the administration, headed by President Thomas K. Lindsay, is engineering a conservative take over of the institution. A bit of background is necessary. Shimer began as a small liberal arts college in Illinois, originally located in Mount Carroll, that took on a great books curriculum in the 1950s. That curriculum derived from the thinking of Robert Maynard Hutchins, former University of Chicago president, and probably Mortimer J. Adler, Hutchins's friend and intellectual advisor. The college's great books list originally looked a lot like the one comprising Britannica's 1952 Great Books set, but evolved to something more liberal and inclusive as time passed. With regard to its staff, faculty, and students, Shimer became known, especially in the 1970s, for its liberal social and cultural atmosphere. This was evident not just in behavior (which hearsay has probably amplified) during the "Me Decade," but also---and more importantly---in Shimer's radically democratic shared governance scheme, the "Assembly," discussed in the first link above. While some comments to the article express dismay at the culture wars overlay in the piece, saying this is an administrative issue only, there does appear to be a right-ward trend in relation to new Board of Trustees members. This weblog is documenting student, faculty, and staff resistance to the changes. There's a lot to say about this story, but my biggest surprise is that this political-social tug-of-war is only just now hitting Shimer. I'm shocked it didn't happen in the 1980s or 1990s, well before its move to Chicago.

4. The Great Books College of C.S. Lewis: Thanks to John Fea, I have learned that a C.S. Lewis-inspired, ecumenically Christian college is opening in Northfield, MA. The curriculum is, of course, to be based on the great books idea. John didn't say which version of the great books idea they'd be utilizing, but I can imagine a Britannica connection. I'd have to explore their website to learn more. I'll wait on that project, however, until they actually open and host a first class.

5. So you read the Encyclopedia Britannica?: Continuing the great books/Britannica subtheme of today's entries, A.J. Jacobs reflects on the proportion of things-remembered to things-learned after having read the Encyclopedia Britannica near the beginning of this decade. He recorded much of that endeavor in his 2004 book, The Know-It-All. Two parts from the Youtube clip caught my attention. Jacobs emphatically declares that he's forgotten "a huge amount" right off the bat-- about 97-98 percent he thinks. But he also reflects, around the 55 second mark, on the fact that he's gained a deeper, more useful-than-trivia kind of knowledge from that reading. For instance, he cited a justified, affirming optimism about humanity's ability to adapt and grow (my words) that has resulted from his survey of the accomplishments of human civilization.

6. Midsouth Philosophy Conference: I bring this to your attention because of the openness of the call---meaning historians of the Lovejovian variety might be welcome: "The thirty-fourth annual Midsouth Philosophy Conference is scheduled for Friday afternoon and Saturday, March 5-6, at The University of Memphis. Papers in any area are welcome. There will be a $25 registration fee, payable by cash or check at the conference (but not by credit or debit card). Alastair Norcross (University of Colorado at Boulder) will deliver the keynote address."

CFP Of Interest: Special Liberal Arts Issue Of Philosophy in the Contemporary World

I noticed this CFP a few weeks back and meant to transfer it here sooner. I've highlighted some parts of interest below. It appears that historians are welcome as authors. It might pay, however, to run your idea by guest editor Peter J. Mehl, e-mail address below. - TL

--------------------------------------------
Call for Papers: Special Issue of Philosophy in the Contemporary World

Topic: The Future of Liberal Arts Education

The future of liberal arts education is a highly contested matter. Some argue that the liberal arts are more important than ever, while others say that they will soon fade away. Many argue that a liberal arts education must be reformed; others say that it retains its intrinsic value despite calls for more relevance for professional careers. This issue of the journal, Philosophy in the Contemporary World, intends to focus philosophical clarity and creativity on this broad topic.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of possible topics:

Liberal arts education and professional education
How do we assess liberal arts education?
Philosophy’s role in liberal arts education
Liberal arts education and the meaning of life
What are the liberal arts?
Liberal arts education and the natural sciences
Intrinsic vs. instrumental value of liberal arts education
Liberal arts education and accreditation
Liberal arts education and on-line education
Uses of a liberal arts education
Liberal arts education and the culture wars
What can history tell us about the future of liberal arts education?
Liberal arts education in a pluralistic world
Liberal arts education and consumer culture
Liberal arts education and technology

Deadline of submission: 30 April 2010

Submissions and queries: Guest Editor: Peter J. Mehl, Professor of Philosophy & Religion, Associate Dean of Liberal Arts, University of Central Arkansas

Electronic submissions are required. Send manuscripts as email attachment (in Word or rtf format) to the Editor at: peterm-at-uca.edu

Preparation of Manuscripts: Manuscripts should be prepared for anonymous review and should be accompanied by a short abstract. Manuscripts should be double-spaced, with endnotes and a list of works
cited following the text. Word count should be 3,000-5,000 words. Explanatory notes should be used sparingly; citations should be made in parentheses (author date). On matters of style and documentation
consult Chicago Manual of Style and recent issues of the journal.

For further information about the journal, contact the Editor, Andrew Fiala: afiala-at-csufresno.edu

Journal website here.

CFP Of Interest: Special Liberal Arts Issue Of Philosophy in the Contemporary World

I noticed this CFP a few weeks back and meant to transfer it here sooner. I've highlighted some parts of interest below. It appears that historians are welcome as authors. It might pay, however, to run your idea by guest editor Peter J. Mehl, e-mail address below. - TL

--------------------------------------------
Call for Papers: Special Issue of Philosophy in the Contemporary World

Topic: The Future of Liberal Arts Education

The future of liberal arts education is a highly contested matter. Some argue that the liberal arts are more important than ever, while others say that they will soon fade away. Many argue that a liberal arts education must be reformed; others say that it retains its intrinsic value despite calls for more relevance for professional careers. This issue of the journal, Philosophy in the Contemporary World, intends to focus philosophical clarity and creativity on this broad topic.

The following is a non-exhaustive list of possible topics:

Liberal arts education and professional education
How do we assess liberal arts education?
Philosophy’s role in liberal arts education
Liberal arts education and the meaning of life
What are the liberal arts?
Liberal arts education and the natural sciences
Intrinsic vs. instrumental value of liberal arts education
Liberal arts education and accreditation
Liberal arts education and on-line education
Uses of a liberal arts education
Liberal arts education and the culture wars
What can history tell us about the future of liberal arts education?
Liberal arts education in a pluralistic world
Liberal arts education and consumer culture
Liberal arts education and technology

Deadline of submission: 30 April 2010

Submissions and queries: Guest Editor: Peter J. Mehl, Professor of Philosophy & Religion, Associate Dean of Liberal Arts, University of Central Arkansas

Electronic submissions are required. Send manuscripts as email attachment (in Word or rtf format) to the Editor at: peterm-at-uca.edu

Preparation of Manuscripts: Manuscripts should be prepared for anonymous review and should be accompanied by a short abstract. Manuscripts should be double-spaced, with endnotes and a list of works
cited following the text. Word count should be 3,000-5,000 words. Explanatory notes should be used sparingly; citations should be made in parentheses (author date). On matters of style and documentation
consult Chicago Manual of Style and recent issues of the journal.

For further information about the journal, contact the Editor, Andrew Fiala: afiala-at-csufresno.edu

Journal website here.

Do Intellectual Historians and Philosophers Play Well Together?

Last month, the Chronicle of Higher Education published an interesting interview (for the moment at least available online to non-subscribers) with the Harvard sociologist Michèle Lamont, whose new book How Do Professors Think examines multidisciplinary peer-review panels and compares the different ways in which the various American academic disciplines understand themselves and what constitutes quality work.

At the end of the interview, Lamont briefly summarizes some of her conclusions, beginning with two disciplines of interest to this blog's small exclusive readership:

In history there is a high degree of consensus among scholars about what is good. But it is not based so much on a common theory, or method, or whether people think the discipline is part of the humanities or social sciences. It's a shared sense of craftsmanship. People care about whether the work is careful. They believe they can identify careful work. And that they can convince others about it. The degree of consensus has varied over the years. In the 1960s, for example, the discipline was polarized politically. But it has found consensus in the practice of scholarship.

Historians believe that contrasts sharply with English literature. As one told me, "The disciplinary center holds." That sense of consensus makes history proposals and applicants very successful in multidisciplinary competitions like the national fellowship and grant programs.

Philosophy is a problem discipline, and it's defined as such by program officers. Philosophers do not believe that nonphilosophers are qualified to evaluate their work. Perhaps that comes out of the dominance of analytic philosophy, with its stress on logic and rigor. Philosophers think their discipline is more demanding than other fields. Even its practitioners define the discipline as contentious. They don't see that as a problem; argument and dispute are the discipline's defining characteristics.

All that conflict makes it difficult to get consensus on the value of a philosophy proposal — or to convince people from other disciplines of its merits. The panels I studied are multidisciplinary. Nonphilosophers are often frustrated with the philosophers. They often discounted what philosophers had to say as misplaced intellectual superiority.

The Lamont interview has sparked an interesting discussion of philosophers (inside and outside of philosophy departments) and their relationship to their discipline and other disciplines over on Crooked Timber, a site which has always featured a robust philosophy presence among its posters and commentariat.* Much of the discussion focuses on Lamont's contention that philosophers don't get along with other scholars and that there is an unusual lack of mutual understanding between philosophy and other disciplines.

I'm always interested in the relationship between intellectual historians and philosophers (and philosophy). Many, if not most of us, spend much of our time reading philosophers from the past. Certainly any intellectual historian has spent a lot of time thinking about philosophy. However the level of actual engagement between contemporary philosophers and U.S. intellectual historians seems rather limited to me. Among the more analytically inclined philosophers, there's still a strong "history of philosophy, just say 'no'" strain that makes them disinclined to be interested not only in historical accounts of philosophical thought, but also in older philosophy even taken out of its historical context.**

At last year's USIH Conference, David Marshall of Kettering University gave an interesting talk on the methodological lessons that intellectual historians might take from the work of the philosopher Robert Brandom. I was struck by how unusual it is to hear an intellectual historian--especially, it must be said, a U.S. intellectual historian--explicitly draw on the work of a contemporary philosopher in this way (my purely anecdotal sense is that European intellectual historians have a more lively interface with contemporary Continental philosophers).

How would you describe the current relationship between U.S. intellectual history as a (sub) discipline and philosophy? Do you find yourself turning to contemporary philosophy in your own work (and do you do so as an object of study or for some other reason)? If you work on philosophy/philosophers, do you share your work with actually existing philosophers? Are they helpful readers?***

_________________________________________________________

* I assume most readers of this blog already read CT. If you don't, you should. It is an excellent multidisciplinary group academic blog which more often than not features not only interesting posts but also interesting comment threads. You really learn stuff over there.

** Princeton philosopher Gil Harman used to have a sign on his office door that read "History of Philosophy: Just Say 'No'" It was intended as a protest against philosophers being required to study the history of philosophy. Harman believed that philosophers needn't study the history of philosophy for the same reason that physicists needn't study the history of physics: today's philosophers were often asking different questions and almost by definition had better answers than philosophers from the past. In a 2005 volume entitled Analytic Philosophy and History of Philosophy, which he coedited with G.A.J. Rogers, Tom Sorrell uses Gil Harman's sign as a starting point for his reflections on the place of history of philosophy in analytic philosophical practice.

*** Upon reflection, I fear that the conclusion of this post reflects the fact that I've spent most of the past two weeks giving and grading exams! Please consider outlining your answers before posting them ;-)

Do Intellectual Historians and Philosophers Play Well Together?

Last month, the Chronicle of Higher Education published an interesting interview (for the moment at least available online to non-subscribers) with the Harvard sociologist Michèle Lamont, whose new book How Do Professors Think examines multidisciplinary peer-review panels and compares the different ways in which the various American academic disciplines understand themselves and what constitutes quality work.

At the end of the interview, Lamont briefly summarizes some of her conclusions, beginning with two disciplines of interest to this blog's small exclusive readership:

In history there is a high degree of consensus among scholars about what is good. But it is not based so much on a common theory, or method, or whether people think the discipline is part of the humanities or social sciences. It's a shared sense of craftsmanship. People care about whether the work is careful. They believe they can identify careful work. And that they can convince others about it. The degree of consensus has varied over the years. In the 1960s, for example, the discipline was polarized politically. But it has found consensus in the practice of scholarship.

Historians believe that contrasts sharply with English literature. As one told me, "The disciplinary center holds." That sense of consensus makes history proposals and applicants very successful in multidisciplinary competitions like the national fellowship and grant programs.

Philosophy is a problem discipline, and it's defined as such by program officers. Philosophers do not believe that nonphilosophers are qualified to evaluate their work. Perhaps that comes out of the dominance of analytic philosophy, with its stress on logic and rigor. Philosophers think their discipline is more demanding than other fields. Even its practitioners define the discipline as contentious. They don't see that as a problem; argument and dispute are the discipline's defining characteristics.

All that conflict makes it difficult to get consensus on the value of a philosophy proposal — or to convince people from other disciplines of its merits. The panels I studied are multidisciplinary. Nonphilosophers are often frustrated with the philosophers. They often discounted what philosophers had to say as misplaced intellectual superiority.

The Lamont interview has sparked an interesting discussion of philosophers (inside and outside of philosophy departments) and their relationship to their discipline and other disciplines over on Crooked Timber, a site which has always featured a robust philosophy presence among its posters and commentariat.* Much of the discussion focuses on Lamont's contention that philosophers don't get along with other scholars and that there is an unusual lack of mutual understanding between philosophy and other disciplines.

I'm always interested in the relationship between intellectual historians and philosophers (and philosophy). Many, if not most of us, spend much of our time reading philosophers from the past. Certainly any intellectual historian has spent a lot of time thinking about philosophy. However the level of actual engagement between contemporary philosophers and U.S. intellectual historians seems rather limited to me. Among the more analytically inclined philosophers, there's still a strong "history of philosophy, just say 'no'" strain that makes them disinclined to be interested not only in historical accounts of philosophical thought, but also in older philosophy even taken out of its historical context.**

At last year's USIH Conference, David Marshall of Kettering University gave an interesting talk on the methodological lessons that intellectual historians might take from the work of the philosopher Robert Brandom. I was struck by how unusual it is to hear an intellectual historian--especially, it must be said, a U.S. intellectual historian--explicitly draw on the work of a contemporary philosopher in this way (my purely anecdotal sense is that European intellectual historians have a more lively interface with contemporary Continental philosophers).

How would you describe the current relationship between U.S. intellectual history as a (sub) discipline and philosophy? Do you find yourself turning to contemporary philosophy in your own work (and do you do so as an object of study or for some other reason)? If you work on philosophy/philosophers, do you share your work with actually existing philosophers? Are they helpful readers?***

_________________________________________________________

* I assume most readers of this blog already read CT. If you don't, you should. It is an excellent multidisciplinary group academic blog which more often than not features not only interesting posts but also interesting comment threads. You really learn stuff over there.

** Princeton philosopher Gil Harman used to have a sign on his office door that read "History of Philosophy: Just Say 'No'" It was intended as a protest against philosophers being required to study the history of philosophy. Harman believed that philosophers needn't study the history of philosophy for the same reason that physicists needn't study the history of physics: today's philosophers were often asking different questions and almost by definition had better answers than philosophers from the past. In a 2005 volume entitled Analytic Philosophy and History of Philosophy, which he coedited with G.A.J. Rogers, Tom Sorrell uses Gil Harman's sign as a starting point for his reflections on the place of history of philosophy in analytic philosophical practice.

*** Upon reflection, I fear that the conclusion of this post reflects the fact that I've spent most of the past two weeks giving and grading exams! Please consider outlining your answers before posting them ;-)