As we move through the fall and to the end of the year, I’ve put together an eclectic group of books this month. For readers looking for variety, this will be a great list.
Read on for this month’s list.
Continue reading
Page 4 of 127
It’s unclear how many people want to read a 600 page biography of Oxford philosopher J.L. Austin. But count me among them. As an undergraduate, I made Austin’s paper ‘Other Minds’ the topic of my honors thesis. And even 20 years later, I’ve never lost the sense that there was something right about the method of ‘linguistic phenomenology’ Austin used in much of his work.
What was right about it? And how did it influence my own philosophical work? It can be difficult to say. I didn’t directly develop Austin’s ideas in my own articles and books. But my conceptual work begins from an understanding – we should situate philosophical concepts in relation to the everyday. This is to say that we must first understand – and only then expand upon or improve – ordinary notions.
As Austin put it, ordinary language is the first word.
On this blog, I’ve written a couple of reviews of books on Austin’s work. Readers can check those out here and here.
And so, with all this said, I was excited to read M.W. Rowe’s biography of the giant of ordinary language philosophy.
So, we held another city council election in Iowa City. As usual, we can pull a few lessons from the results.
But first, let’s talk about the big picture. Three incumbents ran for office – Megan Alter and Bruce Teague in the At-Large race and Shawn Harmsen in District B – and they all won. Who’d they defeat? Newman Abuissa and Clara Reynen in the former race and Amy Hospodarsky in the latter.
At first glance, it feels mundane. The voters gave a new term to three popular incumbents. Big deal.
But to many Iowa Citians, the race held interest for its impact on the factions the six supposedly represent. Progressive and activist circles took this as a loss, with most backing Abuissa, Hospodarsky, and Reynen. And those who oppose them chalked it up as a win, because they backed Alter, Harmsen, and Teague. Even though more than a few of them would’ve opposed Alter, Harmsen, and Teague in the not so distant past.
As it goes.
However, I find this all very misguided. I’ll say a word about why the three challengers lost. But in the process of getting there, I’ll need to deal with all this folderol about ‘factions.’
I should start by saying that I found Christoph Schuringa’s A Social History of Analytic Philosophy enjoyable and informative. But it’s also rather spicy. Above all, it’s never dull.
I can live with that combo.
As someone trained in analytic philosophy, readers might expect me to dislike A Social History of Analytic Philosophy. After all, Schuringa takes an unsympathetic approach to the field. On the other hand, I did work that crosses the borders between the analytic and the Continental. And I sympathize with the critique of even ‘dissident’ analytics as using abstract and disengaged methods. So, readers might expect me to love it.
In reality, I neither disliked nor loved the book. I thought it had its merits and shortcomings.
First of all, this month’s reading list is coming out late due to my earlier travel to London. Sorry about the lateness!
Next, readers will find this an unusual version of the monthly reading list. In preparation for his new novel, I re-read a lot of John Scalzi in the last couple of months. I’ve collected all that into October’s reading list.
Hope you enjoy!
