Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

I wrote here last week about William James' discussion of what "philosophy" means in the early pages of his last book.   I paraphrased his views somewhat, saying that "James believes that philosophy is only thinking about the world in an exceptionally rigorous way.”  A friend wrote and questioned the validity of this paraphrase. In one of my direct quotes from James, after all, I have him referring  to exceptional men’s “imagination,” not their “rigor.” My friend finds this significant because if we define philosophy by the “rigor” of one's thought, we suggest that any intelligent person, by dint of application, can make a contribution to philosophy.  On the other hand (says further my inquisitive and analytical friend) to say that philosophers are distinguished by “imagination” implies that some faculty of which some people have far more than others is required.  So which is it: are philosophers a specialized caste, naturally as well...

I'm working on something for  Just sheet music about the large portion of the operatic canon that has Shakespearean inspiration. Consider this a preview. One of the operas I plan to highlight is Le Marchand de Venise (1935), by French composer Reynaldo Hahn and librettist Miguel Zamacois. I've just described Hahn as a "French" composer advisedly. Though he was born in Venezuela in 1874, he arrived in Paris at the age of three, and stayed there through two world wars, dying there in 1947. Indeed, one reference book calls Hahn "one of the most fragrantly Parisian of composers." I'm not sure that isn't a misprint. Wouldn't "flagrantly" have been a more natural turn of phrase?  Nothing in the context supports the notion that it's an intentional pun. But, hey, follow the above link and decide that for yourself. The opera involves the usual compressions: the five acts of the Shakespeare original are turned into three, and some...

I recently read a book, or much of a book, called The Philosophy of Physics , by Tim Maudlin. I say "much of it" because, quite frankly, I couldn't follow it and gave up on it well before the end. But there were parts that I believe I did understand, and on the basis thereof I can say that this was a good book to read so soon  after reading Ratcliffe.  Ratcliffe, as you may remember, had a quite idiosyncratic take on Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries. It was an eccentricity that for me rather vitiated his efforts to contribute to cosmology. Anyway: back to M audlin. In one portion of the book he considers at some length the "twins paradox," a puzzle arising from, and often commented upon in the context of, the theory of relativity.  Here it is in my understanding, not his. An astronaut takes off for a distant spaceport, travels at near the speed of light, so time slows. Comes back. He is now only, say, 1 year older than he was when he ...

Somebody recently asked me what was Germany "going through" during the peak of Friedrich Nietzsche's literary productivity. I thought it was an oddly worded question, but I'll answer it anyway.  Nietzsche was born in 1844 and died in 1900, his  years of flourishing were the 1880s, the decade of THE GAY SCIENCE, THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA, BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, THE CASE OF WAGNER, etc. The end of that decade saw his descent into incoherence and madness. For social/political context, let's back up a bit. In 1871 Prussia, under the leadership of the Hohenzollern family and their minister, Otto von Bismarck, declared the creation of the German Empire, comprising the northern German-speaking states (Austria was deliberately excluded). This was what would later be known as the Second Reich, following upon the death of the Holy Roman Empire early in the 19th century, the so-called First Reich. The 1870s as a whole is remembered for the Kulturkampf , a deliberate at...

I've recently completed a read of Albert Schweitzer's book on J.S. Bach , and will here offer a brief observation. The Germany of Bach's prime, especially the 1730s and 1740s, had its own music critics. Among these was a fellow named Johann Adolph Scheibe, the son of an organ builder and the kapellneister of the King of Denmark, who edited a magazine called Kritische Musikus. Scheibe saw himself as the literary champion of a distinctively German style of music, one that would break away from the Italian models. The Italian influence was toward artifice and complexity. The German impulse was toward naturalness and simplicity, to Scheibe's way of thinking. This theory made it "impossible for him to do justice to Bach," Schweitzer wrote. Bach was much too complicated, and thus too Italian, for his taste. Although of course acknowledging Bach's talents (because Scheibe was not altogether an idiot) he did conclude that Bach, tragically, had fallen ...

The opening two paragraphs of William James' last book, Some Problems of Philosophy are presented below. "The progress of society is due to the fact that individuals vary from the human average in all sorts of directions, and that the originality is often so attractive or useful that they are recognized by their tribe as leaders, and become objects of envy or admiration, and setters of new ideals. "Among the variations, every generation of men produces some individuals exceptionally preoccupied with theory. Such men find matter for puzzle or astonishment where no one else does. Their imagination invents explanations and combines them. They store up the learning of their time, utter prophecies and warnings, and are regarded as sages. Philosophy, etymologically meaning the love of wisdom, is the work of this class of minds, regarded with an indulgent relish, if not with admiration, even, even by those who do not understand them or believe much in the truth which they...

I wrote in early August of  Jonah Lehrer , and of the circumstances that led to his departure from The New Yorker. Briefly, he invented Bob Dylan quotations with which to fortify his thesis in his book, Imagine, about the neurology of imagination and creativity (two terms he uses as synonyms). I said in that post that I hoped this scandal would prove "a setback for the cause of contemporary neuroscience or for its prestige with the broader public." It now appears I may have had that wish granted. My evidence is a piece in a recent issue of The New Statesman , "Your Brain on Pseudoscience: The Rise of Popular Neurobollocks." (For those who don't know the Anglicism, "bollocks" literally means "testicles," and is used as a general term of exasperation. One of the Urban Dictionary's definitions for it is "unfathomable rubbish," which seems to fit.) Steven Poole, the author of this article, couples Lehrer with Malcolm G...