Skip to main content

Maybe just a little bit obsessed...

Philosopher and intellectual-of-quite-a-few trades Joseph Heath hasn’t found the time recently to post anything to his blog In Due Course (well, not his blog as such, but a blog he regularly contributes to). I’m not paranoid enough to think that this is because I left a very ill-tempered comment on his most recent post all the way back in May. But still...anything is possible.

But luckily he hasn’t been completely off the radar, giving this keynote speaker address at a Canadian college in the beginning of October and in the process dropping the real reason for his absence from his blog (he's writing a book on climate change): 




It’s only been viewed about a hundred times, and the one comment amusingly notes that Heath is a much better writer than a speaker. It is true that Heath talks a lot like a highly enthusiastic IT service officer, and he did drop the interesting biographical detail that he was interested in AI design when he was still in his “anarchist phase”. (This certainly explains why his writings sometimes have a somewhat technocratic flavour to them). He at least proves to be much livelier company than, say, Richard Sennett, who seems intent on putting all his listeners into a coma.

It’s probably too much to ask that Enlightenment 2.0 – the ostensible reason for him giving this address – gets a bit more of a sales boost as a result of his talk. But there’s still not much evidence that Enlightenment 2.0 has been much appreciated beyond Canadian academia. I recently got the library I work at to purchase it, so now it's just a matter of badgering people to check it out. 

On top of that, my library/employer is also, due to my best nerd efforts, the only library in Australia to have a copy of his first book, The Efficient Society

Yep, I'm definitely just a little bit obsessed with this guy...


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

'I will be as modest as possible': A brief foray

In my experience it is rare to come across a book that is entirely without merit; rarer still that I would actually own one. At worst, some books qualify as being  almost completely useless, without quite going all the way. Even the stupidest book I’ve ever read, Three Horsemen of the New Apocalypse  (1997) , written by the five-foot-tall, super-conceited, ultra-reactionary, Indian-born Anglophile Nirad Chaudhuri, provides some useful insight into how political thinking works in the absence of intelligence. (Chaudhuri is the subject of a chapter in Clive James’ Cultural Amnesia , which I guess makes sense). Luckily, I've been able to extract something, even if it is something small, from all the books I own.  L. T. Hobhouse’s Social Evolution and Political Theory (1911), which I ordered via Abebooks late last year, is on the whole not a satisfactory book. This is mainly due to its datedness. The lengthiest chapter is a very mild critique of eugenics that gives the i

On Adam Gopnik's A Thousand Small Sanities

In reading and thinking about Adam Gopnik’s A Thousand Small Sanities: The Moral Adventure of Liberalism (2019), I am reminded of a line from Richard Rorty’s review of a very different kind of book, Hans Blumenberg’s The Legitimacy of the Modern Age (1983). Rest assured I don’t have a photographic memory of every review-essay published in the 1980s by The London Review of Books ; I just happen to have read this one a couple of times, mainly because it’s Rorty and he’s never dull. Besides, if you can get through a thunderously difficult (and Germanic) tome such as The Legitimacy of the Modern Age , washing it down with a bit of Rorty doesn’t hurt. Anyway, the line in question was Rorty’s belief that Blumenberg’s treatise (which I’ll avoid a summary of for mental health reasons) championed those ‘whose highest hopes are still those of Mill’. Rorty for one was adamant that however large or small a group there was that regarded Mill as their hero, this group needed a shelf of books tha

What is the liberal temperament? The case of Alan Wolfe

Alan Wolfe, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston College and Adlai Stevenson-style liberal, had a family connection to Dwight Macdonald growing up, the exact nature of which isn’t clear. He revealed this factoid during a lecture commemorating the 50-year anniversary of Michael Harrington’s The Other America (1962), which Macdonald helped popularise through a monograph-length review in The New Yorker (the transcript of Wolfe’s speech was reprinted in The Chronicle of Higher Education ). This connection of Wolfe to a figure who formed part of that famous group known as the NYPIs – New York public intellectuals – makes the job of describing Wolfe’s output a bit easier. His writing is in that ‘not quite scholarship, not quite journalism’ genre that resembles what was produced in the era of ‘little magazines’ from the 1920s to the 1960s of which Macdonald was a prominent, if flaky, contributor. Although a lifelong academic, most of Wolfe’s output has been in the form