Stoic pragmatism makes sense of our moral obligations in a world driven by perfectionist human ambition and unreachable standards of achievement. Lachs proposes a corrective to pragmatist amelioration and stoic acquiescence by being satisfied with what is good enough.
This personal, yet modest, philosophy offers penetrating insights into the American way of life and our human character. Product details Format Paperback pages Dimensions x x Other books in this series. Genealogy as Critique Colin Koopman.
John Lachs, Stoic Pragmatism - PhilPapers
Add to basket. The Essential Santayana Martin A. Stoic Pragmatism John Lachs. Revealing Whiteness Shannon Sullivan. The Normative Thought of Charles S. Peirce Cornelis De Waal. The Practical Anarchist Crispin Sartwell. Thinking Through the Imagination John Kaag. Susanne Langer in Focus Robert E. The Metaphysics of Experience Elizabeth M.
Pragmatism as Post-Postmodernism Larry A. Levinas and James Megan Craig. Habits of Whiteness Terrance Macmullan.
What Pragmatism Was F. John Dewey's Ethics Gregory Pappas. Studying the class composition of this period illustrates why workers escalated the intensity of their tactics, even using tactical violence, to extract concessions and reforms when all other efforts to do so were blocked, coopted or repressed. Authors: Lauren Langman and George Lundskow. America, beginning as a small group of devout Puritan settlers, ultimately became the richest, most powerful Empire in the history of the world, but having reached that point, is now in a process of implosion and decay.
This book, inspired by Frankfurt School Critical Theory, especially Erich Fromm, offers a unique historical, cultural and characterological analysis of American national character and its underlying psychodynamics. Specifically, this analysis looks at the persistence of Puritan religion, as well as the extolling of male toughness and America's unbridled pursuit of wealth. Finally, its self image of divinely blessed exceptionalism has fostered vast costs in lives and wealth.
But these qualities of its national character are now fostering both a decline of its power and a transformation of its underlying social character. This suggests that the result will be a changing social character that enables a more democratic, tolerant and inclusive society, one that will enable socialism, genuine, participatory democracy and a humanist framework of meaning.
Terms and Conditions Privacy Statement. Powered by: PubFactory. Sign in to annotate. Delete Cancel Save. Or what if you persist for years and get nowhere?
I recently encountered it in the philosophy of science: When should a hypothesis be abandoned or pursued? An overly tractable scientist may give up on a truly promising theory with the first hint of difficulty; and an overly stubborn scientist may spend a career working on a bankrupt idea, in the vain hope of making it work. Lachs is attempting here to combine the pragmatist doctrine that we must improve the world with the stoic resignation to the inevitable. Insofar as truly answering this question would require knowing the future, it is unanswerable. Uncertainty about success and the need to commit to potentially doomed actions are inescapable elements of our existential situation.
The best we can hope for, I think, are a few good rules of thumb; and these will likely depend on personal preference. Lachs promises a new philosophical system, but delivers only a disorganized gallimaufry of opinions that do not cohere. For example, Lachs begins by denigrating the professionalization of philosophy, holding that philosophy is not a discipline that seeks the truth—he asserts that not a single proposition would command assent by the majority of practitioners though I disagree!
But the book includes lengthy analyses of ethics, ontology, and epistemology, so apparently Lachs does see the value in answering the traditional problems of philosophy. To make matters worse, Lachs continually excoriates philosophers who do not practice what they preach; and then he goes on to outline an ethical system wholly compatible with a middle-class, bourgeois lifestyle our main obligations are to do our jobs and to leave other people alone, it seems. I am being unfairly satirical. I actually agree with most of what Lachs says; and this of course means I must make fun of him.
Lachs is an inspiring example of an academic trying to address himself to broader problems using more accessible language. He is an attractive thinker and a skilled writer, a humane intellectual capable of fine prose. Nevertheless, I must admit that this book makes me despair a little. Here we have a man explicitly and repeatedly repudiating his profession and trying to write for non-specialists; and yet Lachs is so palpably an academic that he simply cannot do it. Lachs's primary example of committed moral action, to which he returns again and again, is signing a petition to remove the president of his university and he notes that most of his colleagues refused to do even this!
I am being unduly harsh on Lachs. Really, he is one of the very best examples of what academics can and should do to engage with the world around them. And yet his example demonstrates, to me, the enormous gap that separates academia from the rest of society. Lachs dwells again and again on the pointless abstractions of professional philosophers and the wisdom of everyday people, and then the next moment he launches into an analysis of the concept of the individual in the metaphysics of Josiah Royce—Royce, someone who not even most professional philosophers are interested in, much less the general public—and all this in the context of a book that emphasizes self-consistency over and over again.
This makes me sad, because I think we really do need more intellectuals in the public sphere, intellectuals who are capable of communicating clearly and elegantly to non-specialists about problems of wide interest. And yet our age seems to be conspicuously bereft of anyone resembling a public intellectual. Yes, we have popularizers, but that's a different thing entirely. Seeking an answer to this absence, I usually return to the model of specialization in the university.
To get a doctorate, you need to write a dissertation on something, usually a topic of excessive, often ludicrous specificity—the upper-arm tattoos of Taiwanese sailors, the arrangement of furniture inside French colonial homes in North Africa in the s, and so on. This model originated in German research universities, I believe; and indeed it makes perfect sense for many disciplines, particularly the natural sciences. But I do not think this model is at all suited to the humanities, where seeing human things in a wide context is so important.
This is not to deny that specialized research can make valuable contributions in the humanities—indeed, I think it is necessary, especially in fields like history—but I do not think it should be the only, or even the dominant, pattern for academics in the humanities.
- Top Authors!
- John Lachs and Patrick Shade?
- Granddad, Did You Wash Your Hands?.
- Pragmatic Stoicism, anyone? | How to Be a Stoic.
- The Works of Ellen G. White: Steps to Christ, The Acts of the Apostles, The Desire of Ages, The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, The Story of ... (5 Books With Active Table of Contents)!
- 009: Ep5 – John Lachs on Stoic Pragmatism?
- Similar books and articles.
These scholars would be mainly responsible for teaching courses, not publishing research; and this would give them an incentive to communicate to undergraduates, and by extension the general public, rather than to disappear into arcane regions of the inky night. These scholars could also be responsible for writing reviews and critiques of research. Their more general knowledge might make them more capable of seeing connections between fields; and by acting as gatekeepers to publication in the form of a reviewer , they could serve as a check on the groupthink, and also the lack of accountability, that can prevail within a discipline where sometimes research is so obscure that nobody outside the community can adequately judge it thus proving a shield to shoddy work.
Even if you agree with it, the Lotz Theory of Agreement will apply. But whatever the solution, I think it is a palpable and growing problem that there is so much intellectual work—especially in the humanities, where there is far less excuse for unintelligibility and sterile specialization—that is totally disconnected with the wider society, and is unreadable and uninteresting to most people, even well-educated people.
We simply cannot have a functioning society where intellectuals only talk to each other in their own special language. Lachs, to his credit, is doing his best to break this pattern. But this book, to me, is evidence that the problem is far too serious for well-intentioned individuals to solve on their own. View all 12 comments. Mike rated it liked it Mar 03, Jared Eckman rated it it was amazing Jan 25, Elfin Buddha rated it really liked it Nov 09, Ruth rated it liked it Oct 08, Matt Cummings rated it really liked it Nov 25, Outis rated it liked it Feb 17, Seth rated it it was amazing Aug 29, Carl rated it it was ok May 21,