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

CFP Of Interest: Essays in Philosophy

This upcoming issue of Essays in Philosophy looks like it's begging for a contribution from an intellectual historian. I mean, the best predictor of the future is past performance, right? That's what the investment adds tell us. Anyway, I've put passages of interest in bold. - TL

---------------------------------------------------------

Call for papers: Special issue of Essays in Philosophy

Philosophy's Future: Science or Something Else?

It has been well over two centuries since Kant asked, essentially, whether philosophy is possible as a science. What is the answer? Analytic philosophers today talk as if our discipline is a branch of science: We aspire to the rigor of mathematics, the objectivity of physics, the explanatory power of biology, and so forth. But if philosophy is like a science, then it is a science like no other. Philosophical proposals that are hundreds or even thousands of years old are taken seriously in the present, even as it is widely believed that those ideas don't solve their respective problems. No philosophical idea ever dies, and no philosophical idea ever gains full acceptance, either. No other solution-based, intellectual discipline has this property. Philosophers hypothesize answers like scientists, structure arguments like mathematicians, and end up with theories as inscrutable as art. It is time to ask again where philosophy stands as a problem solving discipline-to ask again, have we advanced even one step? Can we?

Essays in Philosophy, Volume 12, Number 2
Issue date: July 2011
Submission deadline: December 31, 2010
Editors: Eric Dietrich (SUNY Binghamton) and Zach Weber (University of
Melbourne)

All submissions should be sent to the general editor via email:
boersema@pacificu.edu.

CFP Of Interest: Essays in Philosophy

This upcoming issue of Essays in Philosophy looks like it's begging for a contribution from an intellectual historian. I mean, the best predictor of the future is past performance, right? That's what the investment adds tell us. Anyway, I've put passages of interest in bold. - TL

---------------------------------------------------------

Call for papers: Special issue of Essays in Philosophy

Philosophy's Future: Science or Something Else?

It has been well over two centuries since Kant asked, essentially, whether philosophy is possible as a science. What is the answer? Analytic philosophers today talk as if our discipline is a branch of science: We aspire to the rigor of mathematics, the objectivity of physics, the explanatory power of biology, and so forth. But if philosophy is like a science, then it is a science like no other. Philosophical proposals that are hundreds or even thousands of years old are taken seriously in the present, even as it is widely believed that those ideas don't solve their respective problems. No philosophical idea ever dies, and no philosophical idea ever gains full acceptance, either. No other solution-based, intellectual discipline has this property. Philosophers hypothesize answers like scientists, structure arguments like mathematicians, and end up with theories as inscrutable as art. It is time to ask again where philosophy stands as a problem solving discipline-to ask again, have we advanced even one step? Can we?

Essays in Philosophy, Volume 12, Number 2
Issue date: July 2011
Submission deadline: December 31, 2010
Editors: Eric Dietrich (SUNY Binghamton) and Zach Weber (University of
Melbourne)

All submissions should be sent to the general editor via email:
boersema@pacificu.edu.

The Benefits of Intellectual History (first in a possible occasional series)

(h/t Scott McLemee)

The Benefits of Intellectual History (first in a possible occasional series)

(h/t Scott McLemee)

The Revenge of the Eustonians; or Benda It Like Berman

This Sunday, the New York Times Book Review featured a glowing assessment by Anthony Julius of Paul Berman's new book, The Flight of the Intellectuals, which angrily accuses Western left-wing intellectuals of embracing the Oxford University Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan while failing to come to the defense of the Somali-Dutch refugee and American Enterprise Institute Resident Fellow Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ramadan, according to Berman, is a slippery character whose opposition to Islamic radicalism is more ambivalent than is often said; while Hirsi Ali is a brave secularist who has devoted her career to truly opposing Islamic extremism in the name of Enlightenment values. But Berman and Julius seem more interested in their opponents on the Western intellectual left, who, they argue, have betrayed their vocation and their intellectual heritage through (in Julius's words):

the false identification of liberal values with an oppressive West, and of political Islamism with an oppressed third world; an unreflective, unqualified opposition to every exercise of American power; a certain blindness regarding, or even tenderness toward, contemporary expressions of anti-Semitism.

For Julius, Berman's book is an impressive entry in a genre that includes Richard Wolin's Seduction of Unreason: the Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism and the many books devoted to Martin Heidegger's Nazism, works which call intellectuals to account for monstrous political failings. As Julius notes, the urtext of this genre is Julien Benda's La Trahison des Clerc (The Betrayal of the Intellectuals) (1927), which attacked intellectuals who abandoned dispassionate reason in favor of nationalism, racism, and militarism.

"Berman," writes Julius, "has a fair claim to being regarded as the Benda of our time. In The Flight of the Intellectuals he continues his work of redeeming the good name of intellectuals by exposing the corrupt among them."

Berman's book has also been lavishly praised by Ron Rosenbaum in Slate, who had personally encouraged Berman to expand an already extensive 2007 New Republic piece attacking Tariq Ramadan.

What links Berman, Julius, and Rosenbaum, is that each is strongly connected to the self-described Decent Left that emerged following 9/11. And the elephant in the room of their discussion of left intellectuals and Tariq Ramadan is the Decent Left's signal project, the War on Iraq.

Paul Berman, in particular, has been an unusually committed and dogged proponent of that war, seeing it as the first necessary step in a long war against "Muslim totalitarianism."* Along with Berman, Anthony Julius was an early signatory to the Euston Manifesto, a 2006 British document that excoriated the anti-war left and has been the chief institutional manifestation of the pro-war left in the UK.

Ron Rosenbaum, for his part, was ambivalent about the upcoming Iraq War in October 2002, but he knew what he didn't like--the anti-war movement. How dare leftist academics attack George W. Bush and John Ashcroft, Rosenbaum wrote, when they had yet to atone for the crimes of Josef Stalin and Pol Pot:

Goodbye to the brilliant thinkers of the Left who believe it’s the very height of wit to make fun of George W. Bush’s intelligence—thereby establishing, of course, how very, very smart they are. Mr. Bush may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer (I think he’s more ill-informed and lazy than dumb). But they are guilty of a historical stupidity on a far greater scale, in their blind spot about Marxist genocides. It’s a failure of self-knowledge and intellectual responsibility that far outweighs Bush’s, because they’re supposed to be so very smart.

"I guess today," Rosenbaum concluded dramatically, "Left means never having to say you're sorry."

Say what you will about the Eustonian "leftists," they certainly seem to have adopted Rosenbaum's accusatory credo as their own when it comes to the Iraq War.

There have been many more appalling crimes in the last bloody century of the world's history, but in this young millennium, the War on Iraq stands as one of the greatest wastes of human life and national treasure. It helped destabilize a region. It ushered in new threats to civil liberties in two of the world's great democracies. It placed the United States in the company of the world's open torturers. And unlike Stalin's and Pol Pot's genocides, this one is our responsibility as Americans and Brits. And special responsibility lies with the war's unrepentant cheerleaders.

So while I don't have a studied opinion about Tariq Ramadan, I do know that Paul Berman, Anthony Julius, and Ron Rosenbaum are pretty much the last people who ought to be lecturing us about the trahison des clercs.**
________________________________________
* Berman's view of the war is on fine display in the Slate forum entitled "Liberal Hawks Reconsider the Iraq War" (in Berman's case, not very much).

** For an alternate view on Tariq Ramadan, see this recent Andrew March piece from The American Prospect.