David Biale’s survey of Jewish secular thought is fascinating. It is wide-ranging, covering from the premodern periods into the medieval and modern erDavid Biale’s survey of Jewish secular thought is fascinating. It is wide-ranging, covering from the premodern periods into the medieval and modern eras and up through twentieth century thinkers. While Biale does bring in the various precursor traditions, most of the book, understandably, focuses on ways in which the Jewish thinkers dealt with, wrestled with, and tried to reconcile the various movements of modernity: rationalism, mysticism, nationalism, and so on. There is a way to read this book as a history of European modernity from the Jewish perspective(s). As such, much of it centers around Spinoza: his specific contributions to what becomes secular thought and also how later thinkers take and use Spinoza’s ideas for their own secularism.
The book looks at idea from philosophy, language, culture, or nationalism; and explores how Jewish thinkers responded to, innovated in, and rejected aspects of these on their paths to and through secularism. One of the themes, though not explicitly so, is that much of Jewish thought is focused on what it means be to be Jewish and to be a Jew. This takes on heightened importance in secular thought where one cannot merely point to religion, but even the religious traditions in Judaism struggle with this issue -- as evidenced in the Talmud itself. There are so many ways to be Jewish, even religiously, that this question is inescapable. And importantly, it provides the space within which secularism is born and grows.
Biale highlights key thinkers and how they deal with these issues. Some of these are more obscure, others are well known (figures such as Freud, Einstein, and Ben-Gurion). The intellectual tradition is rich and fruitful (though there are many dead ends as well). It is not a long book, though at times dense. By necessity, much is left out in order to provide the focus it needs. There are extensive notes and references for those wishing to use this as a jumping off point. I profited much from book and think it will provide a framework for future thought.
Nadler has given us a readable and concise account of Spinoza's philosophy. The focus, as can be intuited from the title, is on living and mainly his Nadler has given us a readable and concise account of Spinoza's philosophy. The focus, as can be intuited from the title, is on living and mainly his Ethics. But to understand Spinoza's views on how best to live, one has to understand his broader philosophical system. So Nadler does get into some of the more complex metaphysical, epistemology, and theological issues in Spinoza's thought, but only insofar as it is important for getting the context and basis for Spinoza's Ethics.
One of the more interesting elements for me was the connections that Nadler draws out to other philosophers. Nadler discusses the influence of Descartes and Hobbes, as well as ancient thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. This shows the continuity of Spinoza with the history of philosophy while also demonstrating his uniqueness and his innovations. Lastly, Nadler shows how Spinoza's thoughts on how to live can be still be relevant and useful today....more
The focus of this book is primarily on how Pythagoreanism influenced thinkers from ancient times up through Kepler in the 17th century. My main take aThe focus of this book is primarily on how Pythagoreanism influenced thinkers from ancient times up through Kepler in the 17th century. My main take away is that Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism really become a catch-all symbol of a sage-like, mystical philosophical/mathematical musings. It's not even really clear to me that the ideas later referred to as something called Pythagoreanism is all that connected to the historical Pythagoras--of whom we seem to know very little. Pythagoras seems to become a kind of omniscient sage symbol rather than a philosopher of distinct ideas and arguments.
Kahn argues for some influence on Plato and his Academy and through this and Neoplatonism gets picked up by others in later antiquity and in the Renaissance. The content of this influence on Plato is somewhat opaque, and seems centered on two main ideas: the cosmological role of numbers and geometry and the transmigration of souls. But it's also not entirely clear where these ideas really come from and how they find their way (and the extent that they really do) into Plato (though I think they are there in Academic Platonism and later Neoplatonism -- I'm less sure about Plato himself).
The book doesn't really get into the ideas themselves as such, it's more focus on tracing the lines of influence from thinker to thinker. It won't really be of interest to someone looking for a precis of Pythagoras or his ideas. I found it enlightening at times but not really what I was looking for....more
I'm writing a review of this book for a journal, so I can't say much here. But here's the short of it. This a well-written book that tackles some inteI'm writing a review of this book for a journal, so I can't say much here. But here's the short of it. This a well-written book that tackles some interesting and important questions but is really disappointing because it utterly fails to take account of and engage with the philosophy of sport literature. (Not a single reference!) This is a book published by a prestigious academic press that failed to do the basic research necessary. ...more
I'll be posted a more thorough review of this book on The Sports Ethicist soon, so this will be short. Overall, I liked Kadlac's book. It is clearly wI'll be posted a more thorough review of this book on The Sports Ethicist soon, so this will be short. Overall, I liked Kadlac's book. It is clearly written, free of jargon and doesn't get dragged down into minutia. It is well situated in the philosophy of sport literature on the various issues, but also personal and relatable. My main issues are that I don't think many of the arguments Kadlac makes work: that is, either I think the premises are inaccurate or the reasoning doesn't establish the conclusions he thinks they do. That said, Kadlac does a good job of balancing his arguments and conclusions with nuance and perspective: he is not dogmatic or intellectually arrogant. I'd recommend it to someone who's interested in philosophical and ethical issues related to being a sports fan. I also think it would be good as a text or supplemental resource for a class on those topics....more
I really got into this book. Galef's presentation style is clear. Although in some ways this is a 'self-help' book with tips and suggestions for impr I really got into this book. Galef's presentation style is clear. Although in some ways this is a 'self-help' book with tips and suggestions for improving one's mindset, she does a great job of balancing that with the conceptual framework, explanation, and justification of the mindset. She avoids the pitfalls of some self-help books which oversell their advice and make their advice all-encompassing. After all, that would be soldier mindset!
In many ways, there is nothing knew here. The basic idea is to avoid motivated reasoning and other cognitive biases so that one can get an accurate and objective picture of themselves and their world. But instead of just saying those biases are bad, don't do them, Galef explains why we so often fall into the trap and how we can work to create a mindset that makes it easier to avoid them. This is where the solider vs scout mindset comes. I love this metaphor: it worked right away in mind for making sense of this.
The soldier's job is defense and protection (and offensive as well). As a mindset, this becomes a matter of defending our beliefs or persuading others. This mindset develops to protect ourselves and those we love from harm; from false or wrong ideas. However, it can often lead to motivated reasoning (as well as other biases) in order to serve that protection. And this can actually undermine that goal--because it can lend itself to evasion and avoidance of realty and hard truths.
The scout on the other hand is sent out to survey the landscape, get the lay of the land. Their mission is one built on getting the most accurate understanding of the landscape one faces (exactly where is the bridge? where are the enemy positions? etc). Hoping the bridge is where you think it is doesn't make sense: you have to go and look where it is and make sure. As a mindset, this translate to a commitment to accuracy and the search for truth. Motivated reasoning doesn't make much sense here: if the goal is accuracy, we need to be focused on arriving on the truth as best we can. If we are motivated by some state of affairs to be true we can be blinded by that and miss the actual state of affairs. We'd fail as scouts.
That's the basic difference and from that Galef explains ways on how to foster and encourage a scout mindset. I found it very useful; and I've already felt the difference it is making on my approach to things....more
A fascinating book! I was fully engaged throughout listening to it. The author does a good job, I think, of balancing the philosophical and the biograA fascinating book! I was fully engaged throughout listening to it. The author does a good job, I think, of balancing the philosophical and the biographical. And the philosophical is handled well: I am familiar with Foot and Anscombe’s work and I don’t think there were any egregious errors or missteps. Moreover, I think a reader not as familiar would be able to get a handle on the ideas as discussed here.
While I knew that Foot and Anscombe were associates, I had no idea the depth and intimacy of the relationships between the four women on which the book focuses: Philippa Foot, G.E.M. Anscombe, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch. That these women were not only at Oxford around the same time, but were friends and intellectual interlocuters sort of blew my mind. A convergence of brilliance and ability like one rarely sees. The author details their friendships, but also the ways in which they intellectually influenced each other.
I am most familiar with Foot, having read much of work of the years. I have read little of Anscombe outside of the few works in moral philosophy she wrote. I was familiar with Murdoch, though never really read any of her work. And Midgley, I was only vaguely aware of the name. However, after reading this work, I ordered Midgley’s Beast and Man and hope to get to it sooner rather than later. She sounds like she pulls together many of the insights of Foot and the others in some promising ways.
I was also fascinated by the intellectual life of Oxford at this time. First, the depth of the education these women received is amazing – I am so jealous! What it took to get into Oxford and then proceed through successfully sounds incredibly challenging but also rewarding. Second, the seriousness with which intellectual life was treated came through and also makes me jealous!
These thinkers and their ideas should be more front and center in the philosophical world. They still are on the margins, but their insights continue to inspire and influence.
I was disappointed in and at times frustrated with this book. While there is a lot interesting and useful – Ciulla traces the history of the meaning oI was disappointed in and at times frustrated with this book. While there is a lot interesting and useful – Ciulla traces the history of the meaning of work through time as well as laying out various theories of work and management ideas – I found it somewhat one-sided, platitudinous, and over-generalized. (Though obviously not the author's fault, it is is a bit of date as well.)
While Ciulla is by no means anti-work, anti-business, or anti-markets, there is an ideological flavor, shall we say, in much of the book. There are few philosophers or economists referenced that offer heterodox views of the sociological, economic, or moral claims asserted. In this way, the book is rather uncritical of its own claims, even as the author does catalog a range of views of work and life.
The paradox of a study like this is that it tries to draw from a wide range of views and takes on ‘work’, across time, but in so doing it tends to become somewhat superficial. There is this view, and there is that view, and then this other view. As the author acknowledges, “work” covers a lot of different activities and comes with a multitude of attitudes and views about it. Many of these are contradictory. And so in trying to something about ‘work’ it tends towards the superficial. Work is important, work is unimportant. Work is primary, work is secondary. Work is a source of meaning, work is destructive of meaning.
At its best, the book does challenge one to think more about the concept of work, the meaning of work in our lives, and the role it plays (or ought to play) in our lives. It’s just that it wasn’t often at its best.
After listening to a podcast interview with Wilson about this book, I was really looking forward to reading it. Unfortunately, it was quite disappointAfter listening to a podcast interview with Wilson about this book, I was really looking forward to reading it. Unfortunately, it was quite disappointing. I found it superficial both in its explication of Epicureanism and its application to contemporary life. There was little insight about Epicureanism or how to apply it to one’s life today. With the title of How to Be an Epicurean, I expected it to be “self-helpy” but I didn’t expect it to be as trite and insipid as the worst of the self-help genre.
Though each chapter starts with epigraphs of quotations from Epicurus and Lucretius, there is not a lot inside the chapters that connects directly to their writings. There is almost no way for the reader to check Wilson’s assertions about what Epicureanism says. There are no footnotes to indicate the sources. There is an appendix with quotations but there is no indication how these connect to the text itself. I get this is not a scholarly work, but this is a serious flaw and weakens Wilson’s analysis and presentation since it can be hard to tell where Epicurus ends and Wilson’s interpretation and views begins.
The application of Epicureanism to contemporary life is unfortunately as superficial.. Wilson frequently uses the rhetorical device of “The Modern Epicurean believes” but it is not at all clear to whom this refers or how the claims made in the guise of the Modern Epicurean connect to Epicureanism proper. It is hard to not to conclude that The Modern Epicurean is just Wilson and her views of how to think about the various contemporary issues regardless of how well these views cohere or not with ancient Epicureanism.
There are few caveats to my disappointment and criticism that might not apply to other readers. First, I’m a professional philosopher and this book is clearly pitched to a general readership, not those trained in philosophy. Second, I regularly teach Lucretius’s On the Nature of Things, and so while no expert on Epicureanism, it’s fair to say I’m quite familiar with Epicureanism. It might be that as a general introduction to Epicureanism, this is a good starting point for those with no background in the subject and that Wilson provides a spur to further interest in Epicureanism. However, the flaws I discuss here probably undermine it being that spur. ...more
This book caught my eye at the bookstore; the title and description were right up my alley. I cover the Milesians in my ancient philosophy course, so This book caught my eye at the bookstore; the title and description were right up my alley. I cover the Milesians in my ancient philosophy course, so I was interested to see what Rovelli’s take would be. The overall thesis is that Anaximander introduces into humanity two main ideas at the central core to science: a willingness to question every tenet, no matter its source, and the demand to put the answer in naturalistic terms. After explaining how Anaximander does this, Rovelli proceeds to show the importance and influence of these key ideas. The latter gets a bit too general, mostly because it is very broad over of the history of science. There was little new or insightful in these chapters. The connection that Rovelli draws back to Anaximander is pretty thin.
Rovelli’s presentation of Anaximander and some of the other pre-Socratics is pretty good. He also does some basic comparisons with civilizations in China, Babylon, and Egypt. However, in terms of trying to establish his claim that Anaximander was doing something novel and not done before, Rovelli needed to do some more of this kind of comparison.
One of the most interesting aspects of Rovelli’s account is his discussion of how Miletus, at the intersection of several different cultures, made these important scientific and philosophical advances. The decentralized nature of the Greek world at this time while also being in contact with the Mesopotamian and the Egyptian cultures gave Miletus the soil in which these new approaches could flourish.
The book is approachable and well-written. I think Rovelli does a good job of telling the history of science; though anyone already familiar with this material will likely not find much new. ...more
In this brief book, Kitcher offers his take on what is wrong with the discipline of philosophy and what he thinks it needs to do to fix itself.
I thinkIn this brief book, Kitcher offers his take on what is wrong with the discipline of philosophy and what he thinks it needs to do to fix itself.
I think Kitcher nails many of the ongoing problems in academic philosophy: the over-formalization, the reliance on intuition and thought experiments, the superficial understanding of other disciplines (in particular science), to name a few. Another focus of his criticism is that the discipline sees itself as having a core, namely metaphysics and epistemology, that gets all the prestige, leaving the peripheral to be neglected. While I think he’s correct in broad strokes, I’m not as persuaded that these pathologies, as he calls them, are quite as ubiquitous as he suggests. He captures some general trends, but it is not clear how deep or far these go. Kitcher himself acknowledges that since he first starting working on this project, the discipline moved in more positive directions.
Two things he doesn’t mention, or barely mentions, are (1) the teacher-researcher split and (2) the prestige of stardom.
In the last chapter, he does raise the teacher-research split; but I think he’s missing the important shift in higher ed towards large parts (and majority parts) of the faculty being teaching faculty instead of research focused faculty. I think his thesis might be interesting to explore in terms of how teaching philosophy is different than being focused on cutting-edge research. The former tends to fit more his view of the direction philosophy should take: syncretic, tied into practical concerns, and with an eye towards the audience. It will typically avoid most of the formalist and technical pathologies he’s concerned with, since the classes are not pitched at that level. In terms of (2) above, there is far too much prestige given to the big names, the big programs, and the big journals. This feeds a lot of the problems he discusses. This is general academic problem, not peculiar to philosophy. (Indeed, it might even be somewhat better in philosophy as things go.) Still, if the concern is on how to cure the pathologies, there has to be some focus on one of the major causes of these pathologies.
My biggest disagreements with Kitcher lie in his positive project. It’s far too based on (philosophical) pragmatism and a bit too focused on the extrinsic value of what philosophy does. There is a value of philosophy that is more internal: that is, it has value that is not based on how it contributes to the university and other disciplines. And I think Kitcher dismisses that too quickly. That said, the syncretic, less formalistic, more practical approach is appealing to me. I just don’t want that to be it. There is a great value in diving deeply into the details. There is a great value of streaming to the 10000-foot view. We need both. The latter is not as well value in the discipline, but it’s not a zero-sum game where valuing the syncretic, big picture view means devaluing the analytical, minute focus.
The book is quick and easy to read. It likely wouldn’t interest any not in the field, though other academics might find it interesting to look inside another discipline. ...more
This is a fantastic book. Sandefur does a masterful job of explaining the importance of these three remarkable women: Isabel Patterson, Rose Wilder LaThis is a fantastic book. Sandefur does a masterful job of explaining the importance of these three remarkable women: Isabel Patterson, Rose Wilder Lane, and Ayn Rand. He takes their ideas seriously, pulls no punches but is also exceedingly fair and charitable in his accounting of their ideas, works, and personalities.
I knew vaguely that Patterson, Lane, and Rand knew each other, but I had no inkling of the depth of the connections between them: personal connections as well intellectual and ideological. All three wrote important and influential works in the mid-20th century. Though Rand is likely best-known today, Patterson and Lane were important voices for (economic, intellectual, and personal) liberty and freedom in a time when then were few such voices. Patterson is best known today for God of the Machine and her decade’s long column at the New York Herald Tribune; and Lane for her work The Discovery of Freedom: Man's Struggle Against Authority and the Little House series she wrote with her mother, Laura Ingalls Wilder. Though the three had important differences, together they provided a robust vision and defense of moral individualism and human freedom.
One of the most surprising things I learned is the role Sinclair Lewis played in the development of the work of all three writers. Sandefur explores how Lewis’ novels, as well as other works that formed what is called the “Revolt from the Village” literary movement provided by the inspiration and the foil for the novels of Patterson, Lane, and Rand. This movement challenged the conformity and oppressiveness of small town life, and arguably culminated in Lewis’ Main Street. Sandefur persuasively argues that Patterson, Lane, and Rand shared the concerns that works of the revolt focused on, but that they offered more optimistic and positive ways beyond what Lewis called the “village virus."
Sandefur’s book is a bit hard to categorize: it’s part biography, part literary criticism/analysis, part political history, and part intellectual history. How ever you categorize it, it’s a remarkable achievement and anyone with any interest in American history of the 20th century or the history of intellectual ideas should read this book. It should be a touchstone for any scholar thinking about the ideas of Patterson, Lane, or Rand....more
Greenblatt’s The Swerve purports to explain how Epicureanism, in the form of Lucretius’ great poem, De Rerum Natura, created the modern world. This ovGreenblatt’s The Swerve purports to explain how Epicureanism, in the form of Lucretius’ great poem, De Rerum Natura, created the modern world. This overstates, however, both the impact that Lucretius’ rediscover probably had as well as what Greenblatt actually shows. Nevertheless, it’s a wonderful book.
It is far more about the intellectual and theological world of the 15th and 16th centuries than it is about anything else. This is not the book to turn to in order to learn Epicurean philosophy, though Greenblatt provides a adequate sketch. The claims made about Epicurean influence on the early modern thinkers are interesting and provoking, but all together to thin. Lucretius’ work obviously had an influence and was important in helping to shape the thought of this period; but the extent of it is less clear. That is, Greenblatt is not able to make the counterfactual claim that had Poggio Bracciolini not found the manuscript in the early 15th century, the course of history would have been all that different. That said, it was discovered and did influence thinkers such as Giordano Bruno, Galilee, and Jefferson, among many others.
What makes this book so wonderful, though, is the tale Greenblatt weaves. His narrative explains how the ancient works found their ways into monasteries, how and why they were copied, and how they were lost. And then, of course, how they were rediscovered by likes of Bracciolini and other humanists. Greenblatt ends the book with discussions of how the Church responded to the growing influence of the work. As Greenblatt tells it, the Church saw Epicureanism as a particularly threat, in a way it didn’t see the other ancient others. The physics of Epicureanism as presented in Lucretius’ beautiful lines of poetry seemed to them utterly incompatible with Church dogma and thus merited special attention. So, while Aristotle, Plato, and the Stoics could all be made to fit in some way, Lucretius’ poem was stubbornly indigestible by Christian theology. Greenblatt doesn’t come right and out and say it, but I think he sees this utter inconsonance with Christianity as why it is the set of ideas so central to the making of the modern world. ...more
On one hand, I really rather enjoyed this book. The chapters are short and pithy. Noe’s musings about baseball are thought-provoking; and his love of On one hand, I really rather enjoyed this book. The chapters are short and pithy. Noe’s musings about baseball are thought-provoking; and his love of baseball shines through out. His idea that baseball is all about deciding who’s responsible for what, left me thinking about baseball from a new perspective. The relation of baseball to language and linguistics was intriguing. Anyone interested in baseball will find the book charming.
On the other hand, I found myself annoyed and disappointed at times with the book. Clearly aware of the philosophy of sport literature, the author makes almost no mention or reference to it. So many of the topics he dives into he treats as novel and original, as if he’s the first to consider these topics philosophically, when they are well-trodden in the literature. Noe has some interesting insights, but these too could have been better had he engaged with the writings by philosophers of sport.
Noe is explicit that he’s not trying to write a philosophy of sport book; that his is more the musings of a philosopher obsessed with baseball. And there is much in the book that fits this vein. But much of the book is also engaged in philosophical analysis of arguments about topics central to sport. As such, it is, necessarily, a work in philosophy of sport. And on that front, one has to grade it down a bit because it doesn’t enter the dialogue where those conversations are taking place. To strain the metaphor, he’s swinging the bat, but not stepping into the batter’s box to face the pitcher. ...more
My review of this book is published on the Nordic Sport Science Forum.
There are some excellent chapters in this new anthology on sport and the pandemi
My review of this book is published on the Nordic Sport Science Forum.
There are some excellent chapters in this new anthology on sport and the pandemic, but my overall assessment of the volume is mixed. There are some issues with it that prevent me from recommending this work without qualification.
This collection of essays by Pierre Hadot was mixed. Hadot is clearly deeply knowledgeable about ancient and modern philosophy, history, and literaturThis collection of essays by Pierre Hadot was mixed. Hadot is clearly deeply knowledgeable about ancient and modern philosophy, history, and literature. He brings this knowledge to bear on his discussions of the purpose of philosophy. I certainly learned a lot reading it. However, I didn’t find his overall argument persuasive.
Hadot has two main goals. First is to argue that philosophy, in the ancient period in particular, was primarily meant as a way of life, a distinctive, all-encompassing approach to living. He claims that most of the written works we have capture more of what he calls philosophical discourse, and not philosophy itself. These discourses are meant to train one in the transformative methods of living that constitute what philosophy actually is.
This leads to the second goal: the idea that the philosophical schools consisted mainly of what he calls spiritual exercises. This is where I found myself most critical. Hadot never really clearly defines or describes what is meant by spiritual exercises. He gives several examples, but it’s not clear what makes something an exercise and what sort exercises spiritual exercises are. This makes several the essays too wide-ranging; the ill-defined concept is able to be stretched to nearly anything that suited Hadot’s purposes.
Another problem with Hadot’s discussion about the role of spiritual exercises in ancient philosophy is that nearly all his examples come from the Stoics. He also references Plato and Lucretius’s Epicureanism as well. But Hadot frequently claims that these exercises are part of all six of the major ancient schools. This would have been more convincing if had drawn more evidence from all the schools. If Hadot had just focused on the Stoics and kept his claims tied to them, it would have been far more persuasive.
The essays did tend to be repetitive as well; the overall thesis and purpose was pretty much established in the first essay. The rest of the essays do not add all that much to it. ...more
A.A. Long's classic work on Hellenistic Philosophy is a great primer for anyone looking to do a deep diver into the thinkers of this period. At times A.A. Long's classic work on Hellenistic Philosophy is a great primer for anyone looking to do a deep diver into the thinkers of this period. At times a bit dated, but otherwise the writing is clear and detailed. Long covers the main thinkers, but also gets into some of the secondary figures as well. ...more
I’ve tried over the years to adapt Socratic dialogue and methods to my classroom. It’s not always easy or feasible due to large class sizes or being oI’ve tried over the years to adapt Socratic dialogue and methods to my classroom. It’s not always easy or feasible due to large class sizes or being online. Ward Farnsworth book reinvigorates my motivation to do so and also gives me some helpful ideas on how I might continue to adapt Socratic methods. It’s not a teaching guide, though, but his discussion of the methods, the examples he uses, and the identification of the core processes and principles of the method will help me in using more of these methods in the classroom.
The book actually got a lot more into Socrates qua philosopher than I expected. The publisher is clearly trying to sell the book as an antidote to the stupidity, fruitlessness, and antagonistic ways in which contemporary conversations so often go – especially online. Farnsworth does discuss that, but really only in the last few chapters. Most of the book is a dive into Socrates and his use of the methods as depicted in Plato’s dialogues. He explores how the method encapsulates not just a way of reasoning, but a way of living. Farnsworth also explore Socrates’ influence on later philosophers, including the Stoics and the Skeptics.
I enjoyed the book. It’s clearly written with no presumption of a philosophic background. It lacks pretension and jargon. I learned a lot from it. The book is not (just) meant for philosophers or teachers; it’s really meant for anyone who wants to know how to think more clearly and engage in more rational and productive conversations with others. ...more
This is James Stacey Taylor's critique of Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski's Markets without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests. I'm a bigThis is James Stacey Taylor's critique of Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski's Markets without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests. I'm a big fan of B&J's book, notwithstanding some concerns I would make of aspects of their arguments. I've also followed Taylor's work, and was hoping for an interesting dialogue. Unfortunately, we don't get that. Some of Taylor's criticisms hit the mark, but I am unpersuaded by his deeper points. At times I think he's uncharitable and other times he seems to be misunderstanding them (the same could be said of some of B&J's criticisms of Taylor's book). There are important things Taylor brings up about scholarship and some of its problems, though I'm not convinced his diagnosis is accurate or that his prescription is warranted.
Loading...
