What do you think?
Rate this book
Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate: Unfashionable Essays
Forthright and wryly humorous, philosopher Susan Haack deploys her penetrating analytic skills on some of the most highly charged cultural and social debates of recent years. Relativism, multiculturalism, feminism, affirmative action, pragmatisms old and new, science, literature, the future of the academy and of philosophy itself—all come under her keen scrutiny in Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate .
"The virtue of Haack's book, and I mean virtue in the ethical sense, is that it embodies the attitude that it exalts. . . Haack's voice is urbane, sensible, passionate—the voice of philosophy that matters. How good to hear it again."—Jonathan Rauch, Reason
"A tough mind, confident of its power, making an art of logic . . . a cool mastery."—Paul R. Gross, Wilson Quarterly
"Few people are better able to defend the notion of truth, and in strong, clear prose, than Susan Haack . . . a philosopher of great distinction."—Hugh Lloyd-Jones, National Review
"If you relish acute observation and straight talk, this is a book to read."— Key Reporter (Phi Beta Kappa)
"Everywhere in this book there is the refreshing breeze of common sense, patiently but inexorably blowing."—Roger Kimball, Times Literary Supplement
"A refreshing alternative to the extremism that characterizes so much rhetoric today."— Kirkus Reviews
"The virtue of Haack's book, and I mean virtue in the ethical sense, is that it embodies the attitude that it exalts. . . Haack's voice is urbane, sensible, passionate—the voice of philosophy that matters. How good to hear it again."—Jonathan Rauch, Reason
"A tough mind, confident of its power, making an art of logic . . . a cool mastery."—Paul R. Gross, Wilson Quarterly
"Few people are better able to defend the notion of truth, and in strong, clear prose, than Susan Haack . . . a philosopher of great distinction."—Hugh Lloyd-Jones, National Review
"If you relish acute observation and straight talk, this is a book to read."— Key Reporter (Phi Beta Kappa)
"Everywhere in this book there is the refreshing breeze of common sense, patiently but inexorably blowing."—Roger Kimball, Times Literary Supplement
"A refreshing alternative to the extremism that characterizes so much rhetoric today."— Kirkus Reviews
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
1 person is currently reading
90 people want to read
About the author
Susan Haack
27 books47 followersHaack is a graduate of the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. At Oxford, she studied at St. Hilda's College, where her first philosophy teacher was Jean Austin, the widow of J. L. Austin.
She studied Plato with Gilbert Ryle and logic with Michael Dummett. David Pears supervised her B.Phil. dissertation on ambiguity. At Cambridge, she wrote her Ph.D. under the supervision of Timothy Smiley. She held the positions of Fellow of New Hall, Cambridge and professor of philosophy at the University of Warwick before taking her current position at the University of Miami.
Haack's major contribution to philosophy, in the 1993 book Evidence and Inquiry is her epistemological theory called foundherentism, which is her attempt to avoid the logical problems of both pure foundationalism (which is susceptible to infinite regress) and pure coherentism (which is susceptible to circularity). She illustrates this idea with the metaphor of the crossword puzzle. A highly simplified version of this proceeds as follows: Finding an answer using a clue is analogous to a foundational source (grounded in empirical evidence). Making sure that the interlocking words are mutually sensible is analogous to justification through coherence. Both are necessary components in the justification of knowledge. At least one scholar has claimed that Haack's foundherentism collapses into foundationalism upon further inspection.
Haack has been a fierce critic of Richard Rorty. She wrote a play, We Pragmatists ...: Peirce and Rorty in Conversation, consisting entirely of quotes from both philosophers. She performed the role of Peirce. Haack published a vigorous essay[8] in the New Criterion, taking strong exception to many of Rorty's views, especially his claim to be a sort of pragmatist.
Haack (1998) is highly critical of the view that there is a feminine perspective on logic and scientific truth. She holds that many feminist critiques of science and philosophy are overly concerned with 'political correctness'.
She has written for Free Inquiry magazine and the Council for Secular Humanism. Haack's work has been reviewed and cited in the popular press, such as The Times Literary Supplement as well as in academic journals.
Source
She studied Plato with Gilbert Ryle and logic with Michael Dummett. David Pears supervised her B.Phil. dissertation on ambiguity. At Cambridge, she wrote her Ph.D. under the supervision of Timothy Smiley. She held the positions of Fellow of New Hall, Cambridge and professor of philosophy at the University of Warwick before taking her current position at the University of Miami.
Haack's major contribution to philosophy, in the 1993 book Evidence and Inquiry is her epistemological theory called foundherentism, which is her attempt to avoid the logical problems of both pure foundationalism (which is susceptible to infinite regress) and pure coherentism (which is susceptible to circularity). She illustrates this idea with the metaphor of the crossword puzzle. A highly simplified version of this proceeds as follows: Finding an answer using a clue is analogous to a foundational source (grounded in empirical evidence). Making sure that the interlocking words are mutually sensible is analogous to justification through coherence. Both are necessary components in the justification of knowledge. At least one scholar has claimed that Haack's foundherentism collapses into foundationalism upon further inspection.
Haack has been a fierce critic of Richard Rorty. She wrote a play, We Pragmatists ...: Peirce and Rorty in Conversation, consisting entirely of quotes from both philosophers. She performed the role of Peirce. Haack published a vigorous essay[8] in the New Criterion, taking strong exception to many of Rorty's views, especially his claim to be a sort of pragmatist.
Haack (1998) is highly critical of the view that there is a feminine perspective on logic and scientific truth. She holds that many feminist critiques of science and philosophy are overly concerned with 'political correctness'.
She has written for Free Inquiry magazine and the Council for Secular Humanism. Haack's work has been reviewed and cited in the popular press, such as The Times Literary Supplement as well as in academic journals.
Source
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
October 26, 2021
I came up Susan Haack through Jonathan Rausch, who mentions her appreciatively in his recent The Constitution of Knowledge. He sites her “classic” 1996 essay, “Preposterism and its Consequences” which was is included in Haack’s 1998 collection of essays Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate. Though not likely to be high on readers’ lists, given that the essays were originally published in the 1990’s, I was intrigued so I bought the book and I’m glad I did.
The “Moderate” in the title, is not so much a political moderate. Haack is a philosopher whose primary interests are the philosophy of science, philosophy of logic, epistemology, and pragmatism. Her moderation is in relation to the debates within these fields, where she identifies extremes and argues for the middle.
As good example is her fifth essay, “Puzzling Out Science”, in which she reviews the state of the field of the philosophy of science in which she pits the “New Cynics”, those who do not believe that science is a rational enterprise, against the “Old Deferentialists”, those who believe there is a uniquely rational method of inquiry exclusive to the sciences. She argues that neither side gets it right; the “Old Deferentialists” are too uncritically deferential to science, the “New Cynics” too uncritically critical. She leans on the metaphor of a crossword puzzle to explain how she believes science is in fact conducted. It is similar to other types of inquiry, making conjectures about a problem – the crossword entry – testing the conjectures again the clues of the crossword and the other completed entries – but going further to include the social aspects of science: its systematic commitment to mutual scrutiny (many people participate in trying to solve the puzzle), the division of labor (some people are better at clues about geographic locations, others good a references to popular culture), and by reliance on the findings of the community (those clues that already been solved by others).
Her writing is incisive, witty, and unsparing. To be sure, most of her ire is aimed at those who in one way or the other deny the possibility of the pursuit of truth – those who argue that knowledge is “merely” a social construct, that feminism or multiculturalism have a unique hold on the truth, or that all knowledge is the outcome of power struggles between the privileged and the oppressed. Pointing out that these positions are self-undermining (if knowledge is a social construct, then of course, that claim is merely the outcome of a social process, and hence, not true), she goes further to explore the motivations of those who go down these roads of relativism. Here, in her final essay “Proposterism and Its Consequences”, she lays her sights squarely on the twisted incentives of modern academia, where the pressures to publish, to gain renown, to represent a controversial or contrarian coterie, leads academics away from sound inquiry towards what she calls either “sham” reasoning or “fake” reasoning. The sham reasoner builds arguments for a position already believed. The fake reasoner builds arguments to accomplish goals not related to the inquiry. Sadly, it seems, little has changed since 1998 and if fact it could be argued that things have gotten worse.
Hence the value of returning to Haack and her influences (primarily Charles Sanders Pierce), to remind ourselves why honest inquiry is so important.
The “Moderate” in the title, is not so much a political moderate. Haack is a philosopher whose primary interests are the philosophy of science, philosophy of logic, epistemology, and pragmatism. Her moderation is in relation to the debates within these fields, where she identifies extremes and argues for the middle.
As good example is her fifth essay, “Puzzling Out Science”, in which she reviews the state of the field of the philosophy of science in which she pits the “New Cynics”, those who do not believe that science is a rational enterprise, against the “Old Deferentialists”, those who believe there is a uniquely rational method of inquiry exclusive to the sciences. She argues that neither side gets it right; the “Old Deferentialists” are too uncritically deferential to science, the “New Cynics” too uncritically critical. She leans on the metaphor of a crossword puzzle to explain how she believes science is in fact conducted. It is similar to other types of inquiry, making conjectures about a problem – the crossword entry – testing the conjectures again the clues of the crossword and the other completed entries – but going further to include the social aspects of science: its systematic commitment to mutual scrutiny (many people participate in trying to solve the puzzle), the division of labor (some people are better at clues about geographic locations, others good a references to popular culture), and by reliance on the findings of the community (those clues that already been solved by others).
Her writing is incisive, witty, and unsparing. To be sure, most of her ire is aimed at those who in one way or the other deny the possibility of the pursuit of truth – those who argue that knowledge is “merely” a social construct, that feminism or multiculturalism have a unique hold on the truth, or that all knowledge is the outcome of power struggles between the privileged and the oppressed. Pointing out that these positions are self-undermining (if knowledge is a social construct, then of course, that claim is merely the outcome of a social process, and hence, not true), she goes further to explore the motivations of those who go down these roads of relativism. Here, in her final essay “Proposterism and Its Consequences”, she lays her sights squarely on the twisted incentives of modern academia, where the pressures to publish, to gain renown, to represent a controversial or contrarian coterie, leads academics away from sound inquiry towards what she calls either “sham” reasoning or “fake” reasoning. The sham reasoner builds arguments for a position already believed. The fake reasoner builds arguments to accomplish goals not related to the inquiry. Sadly, it seems, little has changed since 1998 and if fact it could be argued that things have gotten worse.
Hence the value of returning to Haack and her influences (primarily Charles Sanders Pierce), to remind ourselves why honest inquiry is so important.
October 18, 2013
The title of this book is somewhat misleading. I thought it was a book about political moderation. Most manifestos are political, and the word "moderate" is usually a political label applied to people. This book does have a little bit of politics in it, but mostly it's a philosophy book. Serious philosophy. It was so packed with jargon that every sentence had a word I'd never heard of. But still, I powered through, because when she was being explicable, she was making some good points, often with humor.
It's popular in academic philosophy to deny that there's a reality, so any attempts to understand reality is just a big popularity contest. Most of this book is focused on arguing against this. The politics she touches on are mainly related to her career as a philosophy professor. She exposes some of the absurdities of academic feminism, while pointing out what feminism has right. She also makes some good points about the dangers of affirmative action.
Overall, this book was barely worth reading, unless you're an academic philosopher.
It's popular in academic philosophy to deny that there's a reality, so any attempts to understand reality is just a big popularity contest. Most of this book is focused on arguing against this. The politics she touches on are mainly related to her career as a philosophy professor. She exposes some of the absurdities of academic feminism, while pointing out what feminism has right. She also makes some good points about the dangers of affirmative action.
Overall, this book was barely worth reading, unless you're an academic philosopher.
July 18, 2015
Simultaneously witty and earnest, scathing and disarming. Against obfuscation and fashionable relativism, Haack offers a sound philosophical defense of the possibility and value of legitimate intellectual inquiry, the pursuit of truth.
January 3, 2025
This was the first book by Susan Haack that I read, having been attracted by the catchy title.
Another philosopher from the Peirce - C.I. Lewis - Rescher branch of pragmatism. (Or, following Peirce, perhaps I should call it pragmaticism, to distinguish it from the Wm. James - Richard Rorty variety?) I.e., less aggressively subjective or relativistic in her epistemology.
Another philosopher from the Peirce - C.I. Lewis - Rescher branch of pragmatism. (Or, following Peirce, perhaps I should call it pragmaticism, to distinguish it from the Wm. James - Richard Rorty variety?) I.e., less aggressively subjective or relativistic in her epistemology.
January 10, 2008
Anyone interested in honest inquiry must read this book. Haack's hope that one can remain objective in observation is sure to be dismissed by some. But her argument for such an approach is very compelling.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews