Rating: 
Summary: Conserving our Culture.
Review: I am ecstatic to inform you of the noble presence of Roger Kimball. This man, the Managing Editor of The New Criterion, had made his career a tenacious crusade to save our history and to publicize the great minds and ideas that have made our culture the greatest on this earth.
Kimball is one of the few men who recognized the cultural calamity from its beginnings. His Tenured Radicals was one of the first publications to identify and showcase the current bizarre practices in our universities. It came out over a decade ago and, since that time, he has written numerous books that examine the major figures and trends within literature, art, philosophy, history, and political science. Unlike the rest of us, Kimball has the ability to specialize in the liberal arts on the whole.
Even though it lacks the earth-shattering power of The Long March; Lives of the Mind is an exquisite endeavor.
The book showcases 18 "minds" or intellectuals and its theme is that "intelligence, like fire, is a power that is neither good nor bad in itself but rather takes its virtue, its moral coloring from its application." Although, no chapter is assigned for him in the text, Karl Marx would be the perfect example of the misapplication of intelligence. Hegel and Wittgenstein, who both receive treatment in Lives of the Mind, would be two others.
All of the 18 essays originally appeared in The New Criterion, and, as I have a subscription to the excellent journal, it was my second chance to read many of them. My favorites involved Plutarch, P.G. Wodehouse, and George Santayana. Yet, all of them have value as they inform us of lives and works of writers who are rarely discussed within the current Kultursmog.
Many of his subjects like Descartes, Schopenhauer, Plutarch, and Tocqueville are familiar to most of our readers, but how much time do we have as adults to devote ourselves to their actual achievements? The answer is not much. One of his most enjoyable essays concerns G.C. Lichtenberg, and I can honestly state that I had never even heard his name before I read Kimball's chapter. Lives offers a brief tutorial for those of us who have forgotten about these men or never had a chance to learn about them in the first place.
What makes Kimball so important? Well, first of all, Kimball stands up to phonies and charlatans with a combination of bravery and erudition that few others possess. There appears to be no living person that he is afraid to refute, and he could care less about popular opinion.
This may sound odd but I think that his intelligence is best expressed in the way that he makes his paragraphs accessible to the reader. There's no need for him to hide behind amalgamations of post-modernist verbal diarrhea like other contemporary scholars. Kimball readily reveals his words and analysis to the reader.
Yet, to leave it at intelligence and courage is to sell the writer short. I would be leaving out his wit, which has to be his most endearing characteristic. For a man who is earnestly serious, his very creative sense of humor is integral to his success.
There's no reason to take my word for it. Let's let the author speak for himself. At one point, he labels the leftist obfuscators, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, as having crafted a "reader-proof tome." He, later in the text, describes Alcibiades as being "the perfect contemporary hero: rich, handsome, brilliant, amoral: he had it all. He was even bisexual, virtually a prerequisite for appearing well-rounded these days."
This next line, concerning the German poet Schiller, made me laugh aloud: "Schiller once spoke of himself in a letter as an intellectual Zwitterart, a hermaphrodite, a remark that doubtless will form the basis of some Ph.D thesis in 'queer theory' before long." Apparently, Kimball has forgotten that Schiller was too white, too male, and too talented to be the focus of modern dissertations.
Lastly, in reference to the moronic quote of one of his subjects ("I think to be born under Bolshevism would not be worse than to be born in Boston"), he sardonically adds, in reference to the Brahmin families of Boston, "Moscow, where Stalins speak only to Lenins, and the Lenins speak only to Marx."
The book is rife with primary source materials and Kimball always uses his subjects' words to enliven his discussion. A good example would be in his essay on Walter Bagehot (one of Kimball's favorites) . He quotes "the greatest Victorian" statement that, "the best institutions will not keep right a nation that will go wrong." Bagehot's analysis proves to be surprising topical considering that he wrote them over a century ago. In this same lively chapter, we read Bagehot's unknowing description of the post-modernist malarkey that suffocates our current university scholarship: "In the faculty of writing non-sense, stupidity is no match for genius." After reading this line, one has the sensation of Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida whisking into the room and clamoring for more flouts of Krug and packs of Sobranies.
Rating: 
Summary: A work of generous humanity
Review: I enjoyed this book very much. I purchased it after reading a review by Stephen Barbara, writing in the Weekly Standard, who wrote: "'Lives of the Mind' is a work of generous humanity. "The intention of 'Lives of the Mind' is to hold various intellectuals up to ethical standards, so that figures from Schiller to Kierkegaard are judged in part by their use of their intellectual gifts. "The essays are so well written, and in general so full of color and biographical anecdote, that even the intellectuals Kimball comes out against, like Hegel, survive." I'd say this commentary is right on the money.
Rating:
Summary: A work of generous humanity
Review: I enjoyed this book very much. I purchased it after reading a review by Stephen Barbara, writing in the Weekly Standard, who wrote: "'Lives of the Mind' is a work of generous humanity. "The intention of 'Lives of the Mind' is to hold various intellectuals up to ethical standards, so that figures from Schiller to Kierkegaard are judged in part by their use of their intellectual gifts. "The essays are so well written, and in general so full of color and biographical anecdote, that even the intellectuals Kimball comes out against, like Hegel, survive." I'd say this commentary is right on the money.
Rating:
Summary: I feel smarter, to say the least
Review: I was completely blown away by the power of this book. Not only was it informative for its content, but it really did make me feel quite smarter after completing it. While it did at times appear very dense, and I wished I payed more attention in college, I cannot say enough good things about this book. This collection of essays are truly wise and full of passion. His command of the written word is borderline on staggering. I highly recommend this book to anyone who ever said, "If the world only uses 10% of their brain, how much can I possibly be using right now?"
Rating: 
Summary: A catalog of tormented souls
Review: Kimball's essays evoke memories of classroom disputes over philsophy. Classical philosophers seemed so self-focussed that attempts to translate them into a global human framework proved futile. This essay collection reinforces that image admirably. As "Lives", each essay offers a pithy biography of his subjects with references to recent studies of their work. It's not quite accurate to label this collection book reviews - for starters you must go the Index to retrieve the titles. A "collection of observations" seems more accurate, since there's no common theme nor particular view endorsed. He ranges from Plutarch to David Stove [who?] with pauses in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Kimball's focus on classical philosophers allows him to steadfastly ignore the many advances made in cognitive science over the past generation. This severely limits his views and our enjoyment of an otherwise lively series. In dealing with his subjects, Kimball places strong emphasis on their capacity for expression. The sole graphic artist in the collection, Daumier, is extolled for his vivid caricatures, providing an interesting comparison with Wodehouse in that Kimball sees them both as "timeless". Whether any of the philosophers fall into that descriptive is left for the reader to determine. Philosophy, which purports to deal with "universals", isn't granted that capacity here - the subjects being entirely Western European [and its colonies]. Kimball's entertaining style diverts us from that narrow outlook. Still, if he is dealing with "the Mind" it might do well to reach a bit further than he has in this collection. While the essays provide Kimball opportunity to take of few swipes at things he finds distasteful, such as rock music and "political correctness", his reach sometimes leads him to stumble. In resurrecting the Australian philosopher and social critic David Stove, Kimball launches into a diatribe against Darwin's natural selection being applied to humans. "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" has long been viewed askance by philosophers for a variety of reasons. Kimball, using Stove, exhibits this abhorrence vividly, launching an assault on Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene" concept while ignoring the power of memes as cultural transmitters. In his tirade, he displays Stove's lack of understanding of natural selection. In Stove's case, there might be some excuse - for Kimball it demonstrates his ignorance of a generation's research. Most of Kimball's commentary may be forgiven in a man with a classical outlook. One paean stands out for remarkable shortsightedness, however. In his essay on Santayana, he declares as "eloquantly said" the philosopher's assessment of British Imperialism: "Never since the heroic days of Greece has the world had such a sweet, just, boyish master"! This of a people who foisted smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans, expanded the harshness of human slavery beyond anything the ancient world would have condoned and declared an entire continent "devoid of humans" as the rationale for its occupation and conquest. Hardly "sweet" or "just". Classical European philosophers struggled mightily to understand the human mind. Kimball's chosen representatives of that effort exhibit the intensity they endured in their striving. Descartes chose "dualism" - an idea that persisted for three centuries. Kimball's presentation shows the concept isn't yet fully cast away. He "doesn't admire" Hegel, but we remain unclear whether it's the philosophy or the man. Bertrand Russell is "a brilliant, tortured enigma" struggling to merge technical competence with social causes. With Wittgenstein, however, we see the futility philosophy endured. Kimball cites him as agonizing over his realisation that "the unsayable alone has genuine value" - thus empirical knowledge cast into the philosophical dustbin. Kimball's collection is a comprehensive glimpse into the lives and works of noted and forgotten figures in philosophy and the arts. He deals well with what he knows, but his errors are glaring. His style is deceptively readable, but the reader is cautioned that there is little of substance here. Read him, then go to the works he reviews, thence to the originals. Keep in mind that cognitive science is rapidly widening the view we have of the mind and its workings. There is much to be learned and dwelling on classical speculations is turning away from what needs to be done. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: A catalog of tormented souls
Review: Kimball's essays evoke memories of classroom disputes over philsophy. Classical philosophers seemed so self-focussed that attempts to translate them into a global human framework proved futile. This essay collection reinforces that image admirably. As "Lives", each essay offers a pithy biography of his subjects with references to recent studies of their work. It's not quite accurate to label this collection book reviews - for starters you must go the Index to retrieve the titles. A "collection of observations" seems more accurate, since there's no common theme nor particular view endorsed. He ranges from Plutarch to David Stove [who?] with pauses in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Kimball's focus on classical philosophers allows him to steadfastly ignore the many advances made in cognitive science over the past generation. This severely limits his views and our enjoyment of an otherwise lively series. In dealing with his subjects, Kimball places strong emphasis on their capacity for expression. The sole graphic artist in the collection, Daumier, is extolled for his vivid caricatures, providing an interesting comparison with Wodehouse in that Kimball sees them both as "timeless". Whether any of the philosophers fall into that descriptive is left for the reader to determine. Philosophy, which purports to deal with "universals", isn't granted that capacity here - the subjects being entirely Western European [and its colonies]. Kimball's entertaining style diverts us from that narrow outlook. Still, if he is dealing with "the Mind" it might do well to reach a bit further than he has in this collection. While the essays provide Kimball opportunity to take of few swipes at things he finds distasteful, such as rock music and "political correctness", his reach sometimes leads him to stumble. In resurrecting the Australian philosopher and social critic David Stove, Kimball launches into a diatribe against Darwin's natural selection being applied to humans. "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" has long been viewed askance by philosophers for a variety of reasons. Kimball, using Stove, exhibits this abhorrence vividly, launching an assault on Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene" concept while ignoring the power of memes as cultural transmitters. In his tirade, he displays Stove's lack of understanding of natural selection. In Stove's case, there might be some excuse - for Kimball it demonstrates his ignorance of a generation's research. Most of Kimball's commentary may be forgiven in a man with a classical outlook. One paean stands out for remarkable shortsightedness, however. In his essay on Santayana, he declares as "eloquantly said" the philosopher's assessment of British Imperialism: "Never since the heroic days of Greece has the world had such a sweet, just, boyish master"! This of a people who foisted smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans, expanded the harshness of human slavery beyond anything the ancient world would have condoned and declared an entire continent "devoid of humans" as the rationale for its occupation and conquest. Hardly "sweet" or "just". Classical European philosophers struggled mightily to understand the human mind. Kimball's chosen representatives of that effort exhibit the intensity they endured in their striving. Descartes chose "dualism" - an idea that persisted for three centuries. Kimball's presentation shows the concept isn't yet fully cast away. He "doesn't admire" Hegel, but we remain unclear whether it's the philosophy or the man. Bertrand Russell is "a brilliant, tortured enigma" struggling to merge technical competence with social causes. With Wittgenstein, however, we see the futility philosophy endured. Kimball cites him as agonizing over his realisation that "the unsayable alone has genuine value" - thus empirical knowledge cast into the philosophical dustbin. Kimball's collection is a comprehensive glimpse into the lives and works of noted and forgotten figures in philosophy and the arts. He deals well with what he knows, but his errors are glaring. His style is deceptively readable, but the reader is cautioned that there is little of substance here. Read him, then go to the works he reviews, thence to the originals. Keep in mind that cognitive science is rapidly widening the view we have of the mind and its workings. There is much to be learned and dwelling on classical speculations is turning away from what needs to be done. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable Essays
Review: Roger Kimball is managing editor of The New Criterion, a neo-conservative journal of arts and letters. I gather that most of these essays were published as book reviews and essays in that publication. (Strangely, the book nowhere tells you where the essays come from.) I enjoyed this book a great deal. Kimball is an excellent writer and all of the essays are well written and lively. Because many of the essays are book reviews, the essays actually provide handy introductions to certain thinkers. The essays on Schopenhauer and Descartes are a good mix of biographical background and philosophical explanation. There is also an enjoyable introduction to David Stove, an Australian philosopher that Kimball helped introduce to the American public when he edited a collection of his essays a few years back (called AGAINST THE IDOLS OF THE AGE).
Rating:
Summary: ILLUMINATIONS
Review: That Roger Kimball is armed with a formidable erudition has been conceded even by those whose loathing is his highest honor. But an arsenal of erudition is available to anyone with the time, the interest and an IQ slightly above average; it is the deployment of his intellectual armament that distinguishes this author above all but a few others now writing. All the essays in this volume exhibit identical elements: 1) an elegant, lucid, and vigorous style that carries the reader smoothly into, and through, the subject; 2) command of the writings of the author under consideration; 3) mastery of a wide range of the best biographical and critical material; 4) an extended examination of some recent work; 5) a structure which binds all the elements seamlessly together; 6) evaluations that excite an interest in further exploration OR clarify the reader's predilections OR summarize in a cogent manner the reader's pre-existing distaste OR justify the reader's disinclination to waste his time on some over-rated windsock. It is my considered judgement--founded upon prayer and long hours of solitary meditation--that any reader who fails to find these essays interesting should consider confining his future intellecutal explorations to the pages of the TV Guide.
Rating:
Summary: A lively and highly recommended discourse
Review: The use and abuse of intelligence is covered in Lives Of The Mind, a lively and highly recommended discourse blending philosophy, psychology, science and social criticism. Intelligence can be abused and used, and the love of ideas and language can be detrimental at times: individual chapters probe the work of intellectual psychologists and philosophers examining the nature of intelligence.
Rating:
Summary: This book is funnier than this review
Review: This book is smart and well educated, but not quite scholarly. There are very few notes, no bibliography, but some books are listed under their author's names in the index. Many of the chapters are similar to a journalist's review of biographies published in the last 20 years. THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCHOPENHAUER by Bryan Magee was published in 1983. In the case of Descartes, Stephen Gaukroger is mentioned as the author of a biography published by Oxford University Press in 1995, but the title is not mentioned in the text (titles are becoming too long to be mentioned in any book which is this entertaining) and does not appear in the index. Kimball praises a biographer's apt description of the philosophical process. "Gaukroger is right that `the MEDITATIONS read like an account of a spiritual journey in which the truth is only to be discovered by a purging, followed by a kind of rebirth.' " (p. 86). Kimball is also interested in the "fondness for psychoanalytic interpretations" (p. 85) and other influences on "Gaukroger, who teaches at the University of Sydney, proposes to extract the `real' Descartes from the integument spun by his multifarious interpreters. Whether what we actually get is an unencumbered Descartes, or only one bedecked with Gaukroger's preoccupations, is an open question." (p. 85). This book, LIVES OF THE MIND: THE USE AND ABUSE OF INTELLIGENCE FROM HEGEL TO WODEHOUSE, is divided into three parts. Each of the chapter titles in Part Two mentions a major thinker, except you might not have heard of the one at the end, "Who is David Stove?" I recently read a philosophical biography of Thomas Kuhn by Steve Fuller, so the question did not surprise me as much, though Fuller possibly mentioned everyone who has ever written a book about Karl Popper. If Fuller mentioned a name and year in his book, there was usually something in his Bibliography to substantiate whatever thoughts were being attributed to the mentioned person, but LIVES OF THE MIND is not quite that scholarly. David Stove is some kind of hero to people who crave logical opposition to the typical scholarly drivel, but the logic is difficult for most people. This book praises mainly whatever strikes Kimball as being brilliant. What is ordinary in this book is the use of the word, Absolute. The index begins with an entry for Acton, John, Lord, 277, so each occurrence of the word, Absolute, was mostly unexpected for me, except in the chapter on Hegel, who is mentioned in the subtitle. The first chapter, on Raymond Aron, includes the statement by Aron, "The last word is never said and one must not judge one's adversaries as if one's own cause were identified with absolute truth." (p. 8). It is easy to ridicule the major French thinkers of the 20th century when one is able to find one who spent his life doing it because of "what was and must remain the heart and soul of the unending human adventures: freedom of enquiry; freedom of controversy, freedom of criticism, and the vote." (p. 10). In the real world, "The problem is that the poetry of the absolute is an inhuman poetry. As Aron dryly observed, in real life ideal emancipation turns out to be `indistinguishable from the omnipotence of the State.' " (pp. 10-11). The absolute was important in an argument for Descartes. "In 1628, at a meeting on Aristotelian philosophy at the residence of the papal nuncio, Descartes had a famous public confrontation with a certain doctor Chandoux, a chemist/alchemist who argued against the dominance of scholastic philosophy and in favor of a science based on merely probable knowledge. His training in rhetoric standing him in good stead, Descartes gave a dazzling public refutation, arguing that only absolute certainty could serve as a basis for knowledge. (It is a nice detail that Chandoux was later executed for counterfeiting.)" (p. 93). In the chapter, "Schiller's `Education'," Kimball seeks a link to religion. "Especially in times when traditional religious commitments are in retreat, many people look to art for spiritual dividends previously sought elsewhere. This burdens art, and intellectual talk about art, with intoxicating expectations. The expectations are consistently disappointed, but the intoxication remains. The result is the hothouse rhetoric of romanticism, full of infinite longings, sublime impatience, impetuous raids on an ever-retreating, capital-A Absolute." (pp. 103-04). The chapter called "The Difficulty With Hegel" mentions the book, HEGEL: A BIOGRAPHY by Terry Pinkard on pages 120-27, and Absolute Knowledge on page 121. "Artists have an intuitive grasp of the Absolute, Hegel thought;" (p. 131). "What is true, I think, is that in Hegel we see a theological student who became disenchanted with theology but could not see his way clear to dispensing with the aura of profundity that theology offered. The result was the attenuated theology of Hegelian idealism, in which the Absolute stands for God." (p. 124). Hegel could easily criticize this in others. "He castigates his immediate precursors--Kant, Fichte, Schelling--for getting everything wrong (Schelling's idea of the Absolute, Hegel memorably said, was `cognition naively reduced to vacuity,' a `night in which all cows are black')." (p. 133). The chapter "Who Was David Stove?" ties perfectionism to what his critique calls irrationalism. "They all acknowledge that absolute certainty is impossible; but they assume that only absolute certainty will do as a warrant for rational belief." (p. 268). That was certainly what Descartes argued in 1628, and it worked so well for him, some philosophers are still at it.
|
