Collected Miscellany

Interesting book review over at Reason by Loren E. Lomasky who was once a professor at my graduate alma matter Bowling Green State University. Lomasky reviews William Galston’s 2002 work
Liberal Pluralism : The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice. Galston is an interesting writer. He is a professor at the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland and Director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy. He is not limited to academics, however, having served from 1993-1995 as President Clinton’s Deputy Assistant for Domestic Policy.

Lomasky description of the book is both provocative and intriguing:

Building on theories enunciated by Isaiah Berlin (and, a century earlier, by John Stuart Mill), Galston argues that there is no such thing as the good life. Rather, there are many good modes of human life, and no one of them outranks all the others. That is not because they are equally good or because goodness is simply in the eye of the beholder. Rather, it is because some, though not all, values are incommensurable . . . Because values are multiple and incommensurable, a liberal regime committed to supporting pluralism is superior to one wedded only to some particular conception of the good life. Its ends are not superior — incommensurability precludes such a judgment — but it does better by according respect to all the goods that merit it, not only the popular ones.

It sounds like Galston is seeking out a classical liberal view that is separate from contemporary liberalism but also from a more traditionalist perspective. It sounds attractive but I am leery that it would breakdown into relativism too easily. Virtue must play a role in a well ordered society. My reading list is long already but I just might attempt to work this one in somehow.

I promised myself I wouldn’t have any lame announcement posts but I’ll be darned if I am not going to post one right now.

Sorry about the lack of posts. I ran into a bit of the writers block/lacking inspiration thing (fear of the blank paper kinda thing). I will have some new book reviews up soon. Thanks for your patience and please come back.

Man, that was ugly but necessary

Terry Teachout has some interesting musings on the future form of books. He quotes a email from a reader who loves to read on his PDA but still loves his actual physical books too. This prompts TT to muse:

I’ve never collected books qua books, precisely because I feared acquiring an expensive addiction, but I do love a handsome volume, and I’ve always been fussy about the design of my own books . . . At the same time, I’m not at all sure that I wouldn’t be perfectly content to ditch the text-only books in my library and replace them with e-books. Naturally we’re not talking about art books, and I imagine I’d also want to hang on to my uniform edition of Henry James…but maybe not. As I said in the posting to which my reader is referring, I’m interested in essences, not their embodiments, and even though I’m a hopeless typeface junkie, there’s never been any doubt in my mind that it’s the words that matter . . . Perhaps the bottom line is that I’m open, at least in theory, to the possibility of abandoning the book-as-art-object, just as I’ve already taken the first step toward abandoning the album-as-art-object.

I can’t say that I am on the same wavelength as Terry. Although I do read a lot online, I prefer reading paper. I do in fact print out longish articles and even blog posts. I also often need to print out my own prose in order to edit it.

But when it comes to books there is no contest. The physical characteristics are a crucial part of buying books. I love the way books are packaged and am often attracted to books simply by their cover. I could not imagine turning in my library for an electronic version or reading books via an electronic reader. The pleasure of reading a book would be diminished without the physical and visual component. Perhaps this explains my book buying problem! I would love to know what other readers think. Could you exchange your library for a CD and a electronic reader?

For some time now I have been day dreaming about writing an autobiography (of sorts) called “Up From Mediocrity.” This autobiographical extended essay would explore the life of a middle-class mid-American of middling talents as he wrestles with his own mediocrity (how’s that for illiteration?). It would explore what happens when you realize that you will never go to Harvard or Yale, or even the University of Michigan, and that you are trapped in a sort of no-man’s land between intellectual flights of fancy and the workaday world. You can glimpse the heady heights of “the life of the mind” but inertia seems to keep you tethered to a comfortable but rather boring existence. You seem stuck in limbo: one part of your mind has endless ambition but the other part is realistic about your talents and potential.

I raise this rather self-indulgent issue because it came to mind when reading the reviews of The Middle Mind : Why Americans Don’t Think for Themselves by Curtis White.

Continue reading →

John Derbyshire set for himself a daunting task in writting Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics: to bring the complex world of math down from its ivory tower and present a glimpse of its magic to the laymen reader. For his challenge Derbyshire picked a riddle, the Riemann Hypothesis (RH), that has been tantalizing mathematicians for over a century; a conundrum that Derbyshire labels as the “greatest unsolved problem in mathematics.” In Prime Obsession, he not only attempts to tell the story of Bernhard Riemann and his famous hypothesis but to communicate the complex and high level math involved down in such a way that a laymen reader might glimpse its meaning. It is to his immense credit that Derbyshire makes this interwoven tale of math and history both interesting and illuminating.

Continue reading →

Interesting article over at Slate: Barnes & Noble knows how to buy and sell stocks By Daniel Gross. Apparently, Barnes and Noble has pulled a lucrative stock switcheroo:

Dumb money always comes in at the top and leaves at the bottom. After a string of poor investments, Bertelsmann in September 2002 decided to abandon das Internet and focus exclusively on books and music. And the Riggios were happy to oblige. In July, Barnes & Noble agreed to buy Bertelsmann’s stake for $2.80 per share, or about $164 million. In the end Bertelsmann lost—and Barnes & Noble made—45 percent on the transaction. Leonard Riggio said, “We sincerely thank our partners at Bertelsmann for their many contributions to Barnes & Noble.com.” A contribution—not an investment—is precisely what it turned out to be. The deal closed on Sept. 15.

I have always wondered about online bookstores other than Amazon. I do a lot of shopping at Barnes and Noble stores, I even have one of their reader’s advantage cards, but never shop online with them. It will be interesting to see if this new cash infusion will set them on the road to profitability.