Skip to main content

Akhil Reed Amar


Akhil Reed Amar is one of the outstanding scholars of our country's constitutional history. 

Here is his blog: Welcome (akhilamar.com)

His latest book is THE WORDS THAT MADE US (2021).

I'll just leave you today with a link to a review of that book. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/books/review/the-words-that-made-us-akhil-reed-amar.html



Comments

  1. Akhil (Universal) and Amar (Immortal) are Sanskrit names for men, both of which are very common in India (and among people of Indian origin). But the 'Reed,' I guess, shows that his ancestral roots are not exclusively Indian. I used to enjoy listening to him, mostly on PBS, explaining the subtleties of constitutional issues. This was a decade back, when I was a resident of the US. During the 1995-2005 period there was an influx of IT professionals from India into the US, so much so that the perception of Indians in the US was that we were all a bunch of computer and engineering professionals. (Of course, this applied only to those Indians who were not slum dog 'millionaires.') Seeing high-profile people of Indian origin like Akhil Reed Amar, Neal Katyal, Atul Gawande, Indra Nooyi etc. used to make me happy -- we weren't all just high-tech coolies, some of us could think philosophically, and had the ability to discuss larger social, legal, political and economic issues as well!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With all respect, I have to say that the idea of India as a subcontinent full of techies was confirmed NOT merely by the influx of IT pros, but by many of the IT professionals who seem to have stayed over there and are at the other end of all the computer Help phone calls. ;-)

      There is also "Raj" on The Big Bang Theory.

      So yes, I can see how the academic stature of Prof. Amar in a non-STEM field could come as welcome news.

      Delete
  2. As an Indian, I am supposed to feel and express outrage at the 'racist stereotype' perpetuated by Raj (Big Bang Theory). Unfortunately, I really like the goofy, loveable Raj -- I even know a few people who have very Raj-like characteristics. As for stereotypes, Sheldon, Howard and Penny were all far more standardized group generalizations. When you mix all these stereotypes to create a really great show, your sins are forgiven! Nothing succeeds like success!

    Having said this about Raj, I can only hope that nobody reports me to Big Brother!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak