Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) was a fascinating and powerful thinker whom I do not think I discuss enough in this place.   But someone asked a question on Quora thus: whether there was anyone who continued Nietzsche's work in something akin to the way in which Hegel continued that of Kant.  There are many ways I might have gone about answering it.  To be quite honest, the querent actually mentioned how "Kant" had continued the work of "Hegel".  That is a chronological absurdity of course, so I presume that Kant (1724 -1804) and Hegel (1770 - 1831) were simply reversed in the question by typographical haste.   If as I suspect the querent meant to ask about a continuance of Nietzsche in the manner of the continuance of Kant by Hegel, we also have to consider what kind of continuance THAT is. I infer that the querent meant not someone calling him/herself a Nietzschean and dedicated to exegesis of a Master, but someone who continued-with-a-difference. So I repl...

Routledge has published a 14 essay collection of work b y some renowned neuroscientists. NEUROCOGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS OF MIND.  https://www.routledge.com/Neurocognitive-Foundations-of-Mind/Piccinini/p/book/9781032602981      Consider that title. It is NOT saying that the mind simply IS the cognitive consequence of neurology. It is saying that there is genuine cognitive activity going on at different levels, and that the cognitive activity we recognize as ourselves is distinct from but dependent upon cognitive activity at a more primal level, neutral.  The latter is, as the title sounds, foundational re the functioning mindful brain in its environment.   Gualtiero Puccinini and  colleagues call this an "integrationist" view as distinct from  autonomism on the one hand and reductionism on the other. The mind  can be neither reduced to nor is it autonomous from the body. The book appears to have begun as a conference at the University of Turin in ...

  Tried to make a regular post here. Going all haywire. C'est la vie.     

 Back in late January I wrote here about a book by David A. Phillips that examined efforts at re-organizing the World Bank.  Phillips, who worked at the Bank for 14 years himself, looks with especial care at a 20 year period, 1988 - 2008. He ends up quite disenchanted.   I continue to read the book in small pieces. In chapter 8, Phillips quotes Gavin and Rodrik thus: "There is something more than a little schizophrenic about an agency that preempts potential private lenders because they are allegedly too risk averse (a main rationale for Bank lending), then demands that its loans should be senior to any other, thereby shifting most of the risk onto private lenders."  Yes, you might say,  "rings true, but who are Gavin and Rodrik?"  The answer, M. Gavin and D. Rodrik are the co-authors of an article in the American Economic Review in 1995, "The World Bank in Historical Perspective." That's what I get from a footnote in Phillips book.  Can I dig a ...

  I indicated in a late January post in this blog what I thought the Supreme Court was going to do about tariffs.  I said that it would likely affirm the decisions in the courts below striking down the tariffs, but that as to remedy it would find a way to allow the administration to avoid rebates.  I was right as to the questioning of the permissibility of the sweeping tariff powers the President sought to assign to himself here. I was wrong as to remedy.  As you surely all know by now, the Supreme Court by a 6-3 reading upheld one of the central pillars of our constitutional system, the unique role of the legislature in matters of taxation. And noted the obvious point that tariffs ARE taxation.  What did it say about remedy? Nothing, really. It left the matter open for further litigation, with the implication (I submit) that the importers who have been paying these charges since "Liberation Day" have a claim. The litigation is already underway. THAT I did not e...

A new collection of the writings of Henry James Jr. on fiction as an art, published by NYRB Classics, has drawn my attention.  A reviewer of the collection quotes HJ saying, "The old superstition about fiction being 'wicked' has doubtless died out in England, but the spirit of it lingers in a certain oblique regard directed  towards any story which does not more or less admit it is only a joke.”  Some of James’s eminent contemporaries were casualties of the notion that fiction was a moral embarrassment — that its very falsity amounted to a sort of nefarious deception. In the novels of Anthony Trollope, for instance, James detected “a suicidal satisfaction in reminding the reader that the story he was telling was only, after all, a make-believe."  Becca Rothfeld, reviewing this collection for WaPo, wonders whether we are to take this as a banner James was raising on behalf of his own work.  Come into my tent, he would be saying and get fiction that is not apologe...