TBIETER'S BOOK REVIEWS

[tbieter]

Hi,

When you previously expressed your opinion on the book I concluded that it was a must-read. You are one of the few critics that I trust.

Tom

Finally, this morning I finished reading Ray Monk's How to Read Wittgenstein. A useful book for me. I'm interested in W's notion of "imponderable evidence" mentioned by Monk in the last chapter. Next I'll read the Tractus, then Monk's biography, The Duty of Genius.

The Duty of Genius

is one the finest books I've ever read. I can't recommend it highly enough.

[bus2bondi]

hi tbieter, i have alot of great memories there too (at Roosevelt National Park & the 'badlands,'), and still go there or drive through often, and now when i do in the future i'll have one more thought as i pass by:) i hope you didn't roll into the cactus there has been some recent additions along a highway there, if you go again you might like, you'll see it, i forgot if its past the park or before, it may be closer to montana, but the closer you get to montana the better anyway, but they are immense sculptures, & if you get a chance i recommend taking the side roads that have the rest of the sculptures too. they are amazing. i'll try to post a couple pictures too. its definitly worth seeing if you drive out west again. It's right off I94. hope all is well, toodleloo

[tbieter]

I've decided to take a short break from my Wittgenstein studies and read Professor Nussbaum's latest book (on the pile of books gotten from my beloved son's $100 Amazon gift certificate). The subtitle of the book is "In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality".

Is the notion of the "office of philosopher" a useful concept in criticizing an activity of a particular philosopher? Specifically, I raise the question relative to Nussbaum's criticism of Philosopher Daniel Dennett's anti-religious writings. By office I mean a position of duty, trust, or authority, esp. in the government, a corporation, a society, or the like.

Here is Nussbaum's criticism:

"These people are right about something: religion is enormously important and precious. Not every American believes this personally, but all ought to be prepared to see, and respect, the importance of religion for many, if not most, of their fellow citizens. I myself believe religion important personally as well: I am a committed Jew whose membership in a Reform Jewish congregation is an important part of my life and my search for meaning. It is certainly supremely annoying when intellectuals talk down to religious people, speaking as if all smart people are atheists. Philosopher Daniel Dennett is particularly guilty of this. In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, he coined the term "brights" for nonbelievers, suggesting very clearly that the right name for believers was "dummies." In his popular new book Breaking the Spell - whose very title drips contempt - he contrasts religious people with philosophers, as if there were no such thing as a religious philosopher. I am a philosopher, but I and many of my professional colleagues disagree with Dennett personally: we are ourselves religious people. Almost all, furthermore, would disagree with Dennett about respect for others: we think that people's religious committments should be respected, and that it is simply not respectful to imply that religion is a "spell" or that people who accept such beliefs are dummies." (Introduction: A Tradition Under Threat, pp. 9-10)

Are Dennett's two writings violative of the office of philosopher? The legal profession maintains offices of professional responsibility that consider complaints of professional misconduct against individual lawyers. Should such offices be established to handle complaints against philosophers? Should Nussbaum file a complaint against Dennett with the appropriate society or organization of philosophers?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement

Tom

[Richard Baron]

Is the notion of the "office of philosopher" a useful concept in criticizing an activity of a particular philosopher? Specifically, I raise the question relative to Nussbaum's criticism of Philosopher Daniel Dennett's anti-religious writings. By office I mean a position of duty, trust, or authority, esp. in the government, a corporation, a society, or the like.

Hi Tom

My initial reaction is that someone can be in a position of duty, trust or authority:

1. because he or she has some special powers conferred by law, eg a power to spend taxpayers' money or a power to arrest citizens, or

2. because he or she has dealings with someone of whom it would be wrong to think they have full capacity to know what they are doing and to run their own lives. This would cover schoolteachers in relation to their pupils, and those who cared for the mentally ill or mentally handicapped. I am not at all sure where the boundaries of this category lie. What about a doctor? The patient may be adult and compos mentis, but usually has to take the doctor's word on the best treatment simply because of the patient's lack of expertise. That difference in expertise can shade into a more general relationship of dependence.

Philosophers are not going to fit into category 1. So can we fit them into category 2? I think that they would be excluded if we could say that those who listened to what they said could, and generally did, make up their own minds on whether to agree with what they said. That is, they would be excluded if they put forward opinions for discussion, rather than injecting opinions into the unsuspecting.

My inclination is to say that philosophers should be excluded from category 2, on these grounds. And trying to implement some control would have its own massive disadvantages. Intellectual debate is already stifled, to varying degrees, by concern in some professions that you might lose your job for expressing a politically incorrect view. I would not want to encourage that trend.

For a view that philosophers should be careful what they say, we have this response to Mary Warnock's recent pro-euthanasia comments:

Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire, said: "I believe it is extremely irresponsible and unnerving for someone in Baroness Warnock's position to put forward arguments in favour of euthanasia for those who suffer from dementia and other neurological illnesses.

"Because of her previous experiences and well-known standing on contentious moral issues, Baroness Warnock automatically gives moral authority to what are entirely immoral view points."

Source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... o-die.html

[tbieter]

Hi Richard,

Please disregard these words from an idiot:

Tom: "Are Dennett's two writings violative of the office of philosopher? The legal profession maintains offices of professional responsibility that consider complaints of professional misconduct against individual lawyers. Should such offices be established to handle complaints against philosophers? Should Nussbaum file a complaint against Dennett with the appropriate society or organization of philosophers?"

I think that I need to check this conservative tendency in my thinking to seek to order society through institutional constraints (law, formal complaint systems, etc.).

[tbieter]

Richard,

Here is the op-ed piece in the New York Times by Dennett that Nussbaum objects to. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bright/ ... index.html

Nussbaum errs: Dennett did not coin the term 'brights'

[reasonvemotion]

Uncle Tom's Cabin; or, Life Among the Lowly is an anti-slavery novel by American author Harriet Beecher Stowe. Published in 1852.

Suggested reading for tbieter.