On to Palo Alto

So I’m sorry I haven’t time to say more about the great professors and students at the ISI conference.

I was going to explain how Dr. Pat Deneen was right to connect Bloom and Dewey on the proposition that the past—including devotion to God, country, and so forth—is dead to contemporary sophisticated Americans. For Dewey, that means we’re all about creativity, growth, and experimentation, whatever they are. For Bloom, that means that our choices seem to be philosophy or nothing—and philosophy is all about noticing that there’s no difference between particular human beings and particular leaves in terms of real significance. Bloom says that sophisticated young Americans are characterized by flatness of soul or being unmoved by love and death. Dewey, who wrote lots and lots and lots of pages, himself seemed so unmoved that he never said anything about the experiences of personal love and personal death. (For that reason, Dewey is much more boring than even Rawls.) Dewey, as Rorty sort of figured out, decided to put death to death by refusing to talk about it. Bloom counters by saying that philosophy is all about one’s own death infusing every moment of one’s thought. (And for that reason alone Bloom is not at all boring.) That might be thought to put the philosopher in a bad mood (see Nietzsche or Pascal or Woody Allen), but in the true philosopher’s case there’s the pleasurable compensation of insight. My own view (which is close to Pat’s and found in my POSTMODERNISM RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD) is that Dewey’s (Rorty is better) anti-erotic and anti-thanocentric pragmatism and Bloom’s hedonistic, thanocentric (Epicurean or non-activist) existentialism are two extremes that, if taken too seriously, cause us to miss present-tense personal reality. Personal eros remains everywhere. It seems more lame than it really is because it’s so inarticulate these days.

More later on that, not to mention on Jim Stoner’s great talk on science. Meanwhile, I’m off to Palo Alto (Stanford) to be a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution for a week (with Mark Blitz and Harvey Mansfield). Let me know if you’ll be in the area.

Dear Reader,

Can I be direct with you?

War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.

First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.

But we can’t do it without readers like you.

Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.


Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.

Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.

GIVE NOW

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.

Next
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

The Church in the Age of Therapy

Matthew Loftus

In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…

Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot

Anna Farrow

On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…

The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen

Mike Aquilina

Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…