What do you think?
Rate this book
America the Philosophical
This bold, insightful book argues that America today towers as the most philosophical culture in the history of the world, an unprecedented marketplace for truth and debate.
With verve and keen intelligence, Carlin Romano—Pulitzer Prize finalist, award-winning book critic, and professor of philosophy—takes on the widely held belief that the United States is an anti-intellectual country. Instead he provides a richly reported overview of American thought, arguing that ordinary Americans see through phony philosophical justifications faster than anyone else, and that the best of our thinkers ditch artificial academic debates for fresh intellectual enterprises. Along the way, Romano seeks to topple philosophy’s most fiercely admired hero, Socrates, asserting that it is Isocrates, the nearly forgotten Greek philosopher who rejected certainty, whom Americans should honor as their intellectual ancestor. America the Philosophical is a rebellious tour de force that both celebrates our country’s unparalleled intellectual energy and promises to bury some of our most hidebound cultural clichés.
With verve and keen intelligence, Carlin Romano—Pulitzer Prize finalist, award-winning book critic, and professor of philosophy—takes on the widely held belief that the United States is an anti-intellectual country. Instead he provides a richly reported overview of American thought, arguing that ordinary Americans see through phony philosophical justifications faster than anyone else, and that the best of our thinkers ditch artificial academic debates for fresh intellectual enterprises. Along the way, Romano seeks to topple philosophy’s most fiercely admired hero, Socrates, asserting that it is Isocrates, the nearly forgotten Greek philosopher who rejected certainty, whom Americans should honor as their intellectual ancestor. America the Philosophical is a rebellious tour de force that both celebrates our country’s unparalleled intellectual energy and promises to bury some of our most hidebound cultural clichés.
688 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2012
27 people are currently reading
208 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
August 31, 2020
Good Philosophers Do Not a Culture Make
Philosophical boosterism is an unusual enthusiasm, especially in someone as articulate and intelligent as Carlin Romano. And it seems particularly unnecessary in an era when professional American philosophy has been long recognised as important and globally influential. C.S. Peirce, William James, Josiah Royce, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Rory are not only famous American names in philosophy, they are also links in a chain of philosophical tradition which is uniquely American, a tradition which has seeped, often subtly but nevertheless decisively, into European thought. There seems little reason to write at length about what has been apparent for at least a century. Why then the effort?
Romano, it seems, has a much broader agenda. He would like to convince us that the philosophical prowess of these intellectual giants, who happen to be American, are really the tip of an enormous intellectual iceberg. Below the professional/academic surface, according to Romano, lies a culture which forms the intellectual gene-pool responsible for such achievement. He uses decidedly un-philosophical prose to praise the elements of this culture:
So America is not just the home of a respectable philosophical tradition, it is the new Athens, the modern Rome: “America in the early twenty-first century towers as the most philosophical culture in the history of the world, an unprecedented marketplace of truth and argument that far surpasses ancient Greece, Cartesian France, nineteenth-century Germany or any other place one can name over the past three millennia.” There is apparently a sociology, a politics, and an inherent progressive attitude in America that make it a truly exceptional place.
It is the culture, therefore, not just the philosophy that Romano wants us to admire, and to respect as one “that suits the twenty-first century and jibes with accelerating trends of globalization in economics, politics, culture, ethics and communication.” America is the future of the world, and deserves to be based on its intellectual contribution if nothing else. Well, I suppose this might be considered in the same genre as the patter of a used car salesman, mere nationalistic puffery, possibly debatable but really intended as encouragement for the young to buy the product. But overselling is risky business.
Because then along came Trump. Trump is the antithesis of everything Romano claims for American culture. And he has populated the government, the courts and federal positions throughout the country with officials as mendacious, as ill-read, as self-serving and as lacking in aesthetic and ethical sense as he is. Even more damning: approximately half the American population considers him a valiant representative and defender of the culture they want to preserve - one that values religious cant over thought, racial tribalism over national solidarity, and intimidation over democratic process. Trump is the one fact which entirely destroys Romano’s pitch
It is clear today that the America Romano wrote about in 2012 is an illusion. That place and it’s people may be unique, but not because of a socio-political substrate that makes it culturally superior. Throughout the book I found myself thinking of Robert Venturi’s gushing praise for the architecture of Las Vegas in the 1960’s. Frank Lloyd Wright certainly produced some great American architecture. But the garish hideousness of the Las Vegas Strip is much more typical of aesthetic taste in the country. Romano is the cultural Venturi, elevating the ugly to the sublime because it happens to occur in the same geography.
The overwhelming anti-intellectualism and parochialism of American culture that can be seen in Trump, his associates and his supporters show the American philosophical tradition is a cultural aberration not an example. It emerged despite not because of its cultural matrix. It is clearly resented and considered as suspect by even those few Americans who know about it. The clichés about American disdain for intellect, it turns out, are truisms; the platitudes about the lack of any real interest in the welfare of the whole are really axioms of American culture.
Much in the way that Francis Fukuyama’s claims about the End of History with the rise of democratic capitalism came shortly before a series of financial crises in the West and the dramatic emergence of a decidedly un-democratic China, Romano published at just the wrong time. “Events, dear boy, events,” as a British Prime Minister once said. Events tend to foul the most promising hypotheses in so many annoying ways. If the future really is American, heaven help us all, including American philosophers.
Philosophical boosterism is an unusual enthusiasm, especially in someone as articulate and intelligent as Carlin Romano. And it seems particularly unnecessary in an era when professional American philosophy has been long recognised as important and globally influential. C.S. Peirce, William James, Josiah Royce, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Rory are not only famous American names in philosophy, they are also links in a chain of philosophical tradition which is uniquely American, a tradition which has seeped, often subtly but nevertheless decisively, into European thought. There seems little reason to write at length about what has been apparent for at least a century. Why then the effort?
Romano, it seems, has a much broader agenda. He would like to convince us that the philosophical prowess of these intellectual giants, who happen to be American, are really the tip of an enormous intellectual iceberg. Below the professional/academic surface, according to Romano, lies a culture which forms the intellectual gene-pool responsible for such achievement. He uses decidedly un-philosophical prose to praise the elements of this culture:
“The openness of its dialogue, the quantity of its arguments, the diversity of its viewpoints, the cockiness with which its citizens express their opinions, the vastness of its First Amendment freedoms, the intensity of its hunt for evidence and information, the widespread rejection of truths imposed by authority or tradition alone, the resistance to false claims of justification and legitimacy, the embrace of Net communication with an alacrity that intimidates the world: all corroborate that fact.”
So America is not just the home of a respectable philosophical tradition, it is the new Athens, the modern Rome: “America in the early twenty-first century towers as the most philosophical culture in the history of the world, an unprecedented marketplace of truth and argument that far surpasses ancient Greece, Cartesian France, nineteenth-century Germany or any other place one can name over the past three millennia.” There is apparently a sociology, a politics, and an inherent progressive attitude in America that make it a truly exceptional place.
It is the culture, therefore, not just the philosophy that Romano wants us to admire, and to respect as one “that suits the twenty-first century and jibes with accelerating trends of globalization in economics, politics, culture, ethics and communication.” America is the future of the world, and deserves to be based on its intellectual contribution if nothing else. Well, I suppose this might be considered in the same genre as the patter of a used car salesman, mere nationalistic puffery, possibly debatable but really intended as encouragement for the young to buy the product. But overselling is risky business.
Because then along came Trump. Trump is the antithesis of everything Romano claims for American culture. And he has populated the government, the courts and federal positions throughout the country with officials as mendacious, as ill-read, as self-serving and as lacking in aesthetic and ethical sense as he is. Even more damning: approximately half the American population considers him a valiant representative and defender of the culture they want to preserve - one that values religious cant over thought, racial tribalism over national solidarity, and intimidation over democratic process. Trump is the one fact which entirely destroys Romano’s pitch
It is clear today that the America Romano wrote about in 2012 is an illusion. That place and it’s people may be unique, but not because of a socio-political substrate that makes it culturally superior. Throughout the book I found myself thinking of Robert Venturi’s gushing praise for the architecture of Las Vegas in the 1960’s. Frank Lloyd Wright certainly produced some great American architecture. But the garish hideousness of the Las Vegas Strip is much more typical of aesthetic taste in the country. Romano is the cultural Venturi, elevating the ugly to the sublime because it happens to occur in the same geography.
The overwhelming anti-intellectualism and parochialism of American culture that can be seen in Trump, his associates and his supporters show the American philosophical tradition is a cultural aberration not an example. It emerged despite not because of its cultural matrix. It is clearly resented and considered as suspect by even those few Americans who know about it. The clichés about American disdain for intellect, it turns out, are truisms; the platitudes about the lack of any real interest in the welfare of the whole are really axioms of American culture.
Much in the way that Francis Fukuyama’s claims about the End of History with the rise of democratic capitalism came shortly before a series of financial crises in the West and the dramatic emergence of a decidedly un-democratic China, Romano published at just the wrong time. “Events, dear boy, events,” as a British Prime Minister once said. Events tend to foul the most promising hypotheses in so many annoying ways. If the future really is American, heaven help us all, including American philosophers.
September 18, 2025
Philosophical America
In a 1908 essay, "On Certain Limitations of the Thoughtful Public in America" the American philosopher Josiah Royce took issue with those who denied the thoughtful character of much of the American public. Royce said: "when foreigners accuse us of extraordinary love for gain, and of practical materialism, they fail to see how largely we are a nation of idealists." Royce proceeded to explain that by "idealist" he did not mean a commitment to a philosophical doctrine but rather "a man or woman who is consciously and predominantly guided, in the purposes and in the great choices of life, by large ideals, such as admit of no merely material embodiment, and such as contemplate no merely private and personal satisfaction as their goal". In this sense, Royce found considerable idealism in the Puritans, the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War, and in the America of his day.
Carlin Romano's book, "America the Philosophical" (2012) carries out at length some of the ideas Royce briefly sketched in his essay. Romano is Professor of Philosophy and Humanities at Ursinus College, and served for many years as literary critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Among other things, Romano has edited a book of noir literature centered on his native Philadelphia, "Philadelphia Noir (Akashic Noir)", thus maintaining strong ties to both popular and intellectual culture. In fact, one of the goals of Romano's book is to soften the claimed distinctions among "high", "middle", and "low" cultures.
Romano sets forth the major theme of the book in his title. Far from being an anti-intellectual, dumbed-down, or philistine culture, the United States shows an extraordinary level of thought and activity in the life of the mind. In the course of a wide survey of American thought, inside and outside the Academy, Romano makes some broad claims. He argues in favor of a pragmatic view of American thought as developed by James, Dewey, and Richard Rorty. He also sees, the relatively little-known Greek philosopher Isocrates rather than the familiar Socrates as emblematic of the direction of philosophy in the United States. Romano summarizes the course of his study at the close of his lengthy Introduction:
"In the post-positivist, post-Cold War, pan-Google era in which we live, America the Philosophical -- the country, not the book-- can be seen as a coruscating achievement in the pragmatist project that's been unfolding for centuries. It's a rough-hewn implementation of what truth, ethics, beauty and a host of core philosophical notions must be in an interdependent nation and world village no longer able to ignore variant traditions and conceptual categories of others, but equally unwilling to give up the notion that some beliefs are better than others. Our country is not 'Idiot America' but 'Isocratic America' -- a place where the battle between dogma and doggedness in seeking answers never ends, from sea to shining sea."
Romano explores many divergent thinkers and ideas with clarity, enthusiasm and judgment. He offers expositions of many books together with criticisms. He includes both biography and analysis, as one of Romano's important claims involves the interrelationship of life and thought. It is humbling in itself to read the stories in this book of highly intelligent, driven, and creative individuals. The individuals discussed in the book range from the familiar to the obscure. In its text and in its detailed bibliography, which Romano states is a "mark, in part, of the singular productivity of writers and scholars in America", the book encourages readers to pursue in greater detail the topics and issues it addresses.
The early sections of the book discuss what Romano perhaps unhappily describes as the white male story in philosophy ranging from the early Puritans, through Emerson, followed by the pragmatists Peirce, James, and Dewey, through modern analytic philosophy, including practitioners such as W.V.O. Quine. This section culminates in a discussion of Richard Rorty, a philosophical hero of Romano's book. For Romano, Rorty properly changed the focus of American philosophy from epistemology and the search for foundations and certainty to a sense of shared narratives, dealing with concrete issues, and storytelling. With Rorty, Romano takes much, but not all, of his picture of American philosophy outside the scope of American philosophy departments in universities.
Romano examines philosophical thought in academics from other disciplines including physics, psychology, mathematics, and literary criticism. He examines various non-academic writers, among them Hugh Hefner and his Playboy Philosophy. Bill Moyers finds an honored place in the study as a philosophical broadcaster Romano admires.
Romano offers lengthy discussions of philosophical thinking outside of what he terms the white male establishment among African Americans, women, Native Americans and gays. The individuals and the books he discusses are much more fascinating than the categories in which they are too-readily pigeon-holed. The longest and most varied of these sections is the long chapter on women which ranges over Susan Sontag, Martha Nussbaum, Hannah Arendt, Ayn Rand, and many others. Romano follows his consideration of individuals outside the category of white males with a rather brief, wandering discussion of the "cyber" revolution and its varied impacts on literature, religion, philosophy and more. This discussion of the impact of computers and the Internet is the least convincing section of the book.
In a chapter called "Isocrates: A Man not a Tyro", Romano argues that Socrates, with his search for a dogmatic, fixed form of truth through definitions and verities, is a poor conceptual model for American pragmatic philosophy. He develops the figure of Isocrates instead, for his openness, non-dogmatism and commitment to democracy without falling into relativism. In favoring Isocrates over Socrates and Plato, Romano differs from a new study of the importance of philosophy to American life by the American philosopher, Rebecca Goldstein. In her book, "Plato at the Googleplex", Goldstein argues for the value of the Platonic search for objective truth, even if Plato himself frequently proved mistaken. Romano, through Isocrates, argues that the Socratic/Platonic search is misguided in an American, pragmatic age. He writes:
"Socrates, in the predominant picture of him drawn by Plato, favors discourse that presumes there's a right answer, an eternally valid truth, at the end of the discursive road. Isocrates favors discourse, but thinks, like Rorty and Habermas, that right answers emerge from appropriate public deliberation, from what persuades people at the end of the road."
The concluding sections of this book include a critical discussion of John Rawls' famous work of political philosophy, "A Theory of Justice" together with an epilogue praising President Obama as "Philosopher in Chief" for what Romano sees as his erudition, eloquence, moderation, and willingness to engage with all sides of issues.
Romano has written a wide-ranging book about philosophical and intellectual life in the United States and about its continued promise. Readers with an interest in philosophy or in the American experience will benefit from this book. It brings to fruition an idea Josiah Royce had outlined over a century earlier in the essay discussed at the outset of this review.
Robin Friedman
In a 1908 essay, "On Certain Limitations of the Thoughtful Public in America" the American philosopher Josiah Royce took issue with those who denied the thoughtful character of much of the American public. Royce said: "when foreigners accuse us of extraordinary love for gain, and of practical materialism, they fail to see how largely we are a nation of idealists." Royce proceeded to explain that by "idealist" he did not mean a commitment to a philosophical doctrine but rather "a man or woman who is consciously and predominantly guided, in the purposes and in the great choices of life, by large ideals, such as admit of no merely material embodiment, and such as contemplate no merely private and personal satisfaction as their goal". In this sense, Royce found considerable idealism in the Puritans, the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War, and in the America of his day.
Carlin Romano's book, "America the Philosophical" (2012) carries out at length some of the ideas Royce briefly sketched in his essay. Romano is Professor of Philosophy and Humanities at Ursinus College, and served for many years as literary critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Among other things, Romano has edited a book of noir literature centered on his native Philadelphia, "Philadelphia Noir (Akashic Noir)", thus maintaining strong ties to both popular and intellectual culture. In fact, one of the goals of Romano's book is to soften the claimed distinctions among "high", "middle", and "low" cultures.
Romano sets forth the major theme of the book in his title. Far from being an anti-intellectual, dumbed-down, or philistine culture, the United States shows an extraordinary level of thought and activity in the life of the mind. In the course of a wide survey of American thought, inside and outside the Academy, Romano makes some broad claims. He argues in favor of a pragmatic view of American thought as developed by James, Dewey, and Richard Rorty. He also sees, the relatively little-known Greek philosopher Isocrates rather than the familiar Socrates as emblematic of the direction of philosophy in the United States. Romano summarizes the course of his study at the close of his lengthy Introduction:
"In the post-positivist, post-Cold War, pan-Google era in which we live, America the Philosophical -- the country, not the book-- can be seen as a coruscating achievement in the pragmatist project that's been unfolding for centuries. It's a rough-hewn implementation of what truth, ethics, beauty and a host of core philosophical notions must be in an interdependent nation and world village no longer able to ignore variant traditions and conceptual categories of others, but equally unwilling to give up the notion that some beliefs are better than others. Our country is not 'Idiot America' but 'Isocratic America' -- a place where the battle between dogma and doggedness in seeking answers never ends, from sea to shining sea."
Romano explores many divergent thinkers and ideas with clarity, enthusiasm and judgment. He offers expositions of many books together with criticisms. He includes both biography and analysis, as one of Romano's important claims involves the interrelationship of life and thought. It is humbling in itself to read the stories in this book of highly intelligent, driven, and creative individuals. The individuals discussed in the book range from the familiar to the obscure. In its text and in its detailed bibliography, which Romano states is a "mark, in part, of the singular productivity of writers and scholars in America", the book encourages readers to pursue in greater detail the topics and issues it addresses.
The early sections of the book discuss what Romano perhaps unhappily describes as the white male story in philosophy ranging from the early Puritans, through Emerson, followed by the pragmatists Peirce, James, and Dewey, through modern analytic philosophy, including practitioners such as W.V.O. Quine. This section culminates in a discussion of Richard Rorty, a philosophical hero of Romano's book. For Romano, Rorty properly changed the focus of American philosophy from epistemology and the search for foundations and certainty to a sense of shared narratives, dealing with concrete issues, and storytelling. With Rorty, Romano takes much, but not all, of his picture of American philosophy outside the scope of American philosophy departments in universities.
Romano examines philosophical thought in academics from other disciplines including physics, psychology, mathematics, and literary criticism. He examines various non-academic writers, among them Hugh Hefner and his Playboy Philosophy. Bill Moyers finds an honored place in the study as a philosophical broadcaster Romano admires.
Romano offers lengthy discussions of philosophical thinking outside of what he terms the white male establishment among African Americans, women, Native Americans and gays. The individuals and the books he discusses are much more fascinating than the categories in which they are too-readily pigeon-holed. The longest and most varied of these sections is the long chapter on women which ranges over Susan Sontag, Martha Nussbaum, Hannah Arendt, Ayn Rand, and many others. Romano follows his consideration of individuals outside the category of white males with a rather brief, wandering discussion of the "cyber" revolution and its varied impacts on literature, religion, philosophy and more. This discussion of the impact of computers and the Internet is the least convincing section of the book.
In a chapter called "Isocrates: A Man not a Tyro", Romano argues that Socrates, with his search for a dogmatic, fixed form of truth through definitions and verities, is a poor conceptual model for American pragmatic philosophy. He develops the figure of Isocrates instead, for his openness, non-dogmatism and commitment to democracy without falling into relativism. In favoring Isocrates over Socrates and Plato, Romano differs from a new study of the importance of philosophy to American life by the American philosopher, Rebecca Goldstein. In her book, "Plato at the Googleplex", Goldstein argues for the value of the Platonic search for objective truth, even if Plato himself frequently proved mistaken. Romano, through Isocrates, argues that the Socratic/Platonic search is misguided in an American, pragmatic age. He writes:
"Socrates, in the predominant picture of him drawn by Plato, favors discourse that presumes there's a right answer, an eternally valid truth, at the end of the discursive road. Isocrates favors discourse, but thinks, like Rorty and Habermas, that right answers emerge from appropriate public deliberation, from what persuades people at the end of the road."
The concluding sections of this book include a critical discussion of John Rawls' famous work of political philosophy, "A Theory of Justice" together with an epilogue praising President Obama as "Philosopher in Chief" for what Romano sees as his erudition, eloquence, moderation, and willingness to engage with all sides of issues.
Romano has written a wide-ranging book about philosophical and intellectual life in the United States and about its continued promise. Readers with an interest in philosophy or in the American experience will benefit from this book. It brings to fruition an idea Josiah Royce had outlined over a century earlier in the essay discussed at the outset of this review.
Robin Friedman
November 25, 2012
Written by a philosopher but in a journalistic style, which almost fits in with his general thesis, which is in keeping with the neo-pragmatism of Richard Rorty. He would like to broaden the scope of the definition of what counts as philosophy to include a whole host of intellectual activities. I am sympathetic to much of his project, but I think he pushes it a bit hard. There were a few passages that were genuinely fascinating to read, but many others that felt more like he was running for a political office. He definitely has an agenda here. It smacks in parts to be in line with Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue," in the sense that what counts as philosophy is up to the masses to decide. The basic point being that it has been insiders who have defined the discipline, and (he thinks) it shouldn't be up to them. This kind of attitude does go back to classical pragmatists (at least some varieties of it) if you want to read into that tradition an implicit appeal to consensus as a standard for judgment. I think the book is worth reading, but only if you have nothing more pressing to accomplish. I found the part on the Harlem Renaissance the most interesting. You can probably skip the rest.
May 20, 2013
This book was an almost year-long project, though that testifies to how much the book has to offer knowledge-wise. That being said, I am both amazed at the sheer amount of research that went into it, as well as feeling constantly over my head. The book lived up to the premise that philosophical discourse happens daily in this country, despite the popular opinion that Americans are mostly idiots. Oddly enough, the people reviewed in this book are mostly academics and are a part of the higher echelons of intelligent accomplishments, which might not have much to do with his claim...
Those who do not already know of Isocrates will find that chapter (or rather, a series of short chapters) most fascinating. I walked away from that happy to know that once again, all my best thoughts are stolen by the ancients.
Those who do not already know of Isocrates will find that chapter (or rather, a series of short chapters) most fascinating. I walked away from that happy to know that once again, all my best thoughts are stolen by the ancients.
June 14, 2020
On page 262, Romano talks about how Anthony Storr "helpfully thumbnail[s] the theories of each of his thinkers" in Feet of Clay, but it struck me that this phrase neatly summarizes America the Philosophical itself. Luckily for me, this "thumbnailing" was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for in order to distract myself during these quarantined months. Granted, I'm still in need of a Virgil to guide me through the contours of 20th century continental philosophy, but I figured Romano would be a good start and luckily French figures such as Foucault do make an appearance. Anyways, the title was clear enough—this book is about America and all of its unique varieties of philosophy; as conducted by the Harvard elites, the Bill Moyers, the Hugh Hefners, the Susan Sontags, marginalized groups and so on.
For this purpose, America the Philosophical really is an excellent read. Romano has a punchy writing style, which reflects his years as a book critic for the The Philadelphia Inquirer, and the book reads like an extended New Yorker piece, although I'm sure Romano himself would pooh-pooh such an attribution and insist that The Chronicle of Higher Education is a more favorable comparison. Anyhow this sort of fawning preoccupation with publishers is a constant throughout America the Philosophical and Romano makes repeated reference of how person 'X' wrote a book published by 'Y'. Among the many things I learned from reading this, I now know that Knopf is a very good publisher and that we all should be impressed that Romano's book is of that stock.
Although, this sort of pretentiousness occludes the warmer aspects of America the Philosophical, it portends a more problematic core that ultimately earns the book its middling marks in my mind. Because although Romano wears the hat of a journalist quite comfortably, which makes him the perfect evening entertainment for the dentist from Scarsdale who wants Rorty thumbnailed over a glass of Scotch, he also walks the halls of academe, and thus feels compelled to bend and twist America the Philosophical to serve some grand thesis. And what is this grand thesis? It's that America really is quite philosophical—if you think of New Yorkers yelling at each other in traffic as philosophy. I joke, of course, but to this point, Romano tries to anticipate the criticism that "America the Philosophical threatens to make Howard Stern our Plato, Michael Moore our Kant" by instead insisting that Isocrates, which he assures us in the title of Part 5 is "a man, not a typo," is our Socrates. Luckily this thesis doesn't occupy much of the book and you only need to tolerate the whiplash of the last 70 pages where he bends back an otherwise intelligible arc to Ancient Greece before snapping forward to a self-refuting hagiography of John Rawls and a drooling homage to Barack Obama as "philosopher in chief".
But never mind all that, I came here for the thumbnails and not the thesis, and although Romano spends too much time wielding his groan inducing pun-cil, he makes for a reliable cartographer of American philosophy and helps humanizes his subjects for a (somewhat) wider audience.
For this purpose, America the Philosophical really is an excellent read. Romano has a punchy writing style, which reflects his years as a book critic for the The Philadelphia Inquirer, and the book reads like an extended New Yorker piece, although I'm sure Romano himself would pooh-pooh such an attribution and insist that The Chronicle of Higher Education is a more favorable comparison. Anyhow this sort of fawning preoccupation with publishers is a constant throughout America the Philosophical and Romano makes repeated reference of how person 'X' wrote a book published by 'Y'. Among the many things I learned from reading this, I now know that Knopf is a very good publisher and that we all should be impressed that Romano's book is of that stock.
Although, this sort of pretentiousness occludes the warmer aspects of America the Philosophical, it portends a more problematic core that ultimately earns the book its middling marks in my mind. Because although Romano wears the hat of a journalist quite comfortably, which makes him the perfect evening entertainment for the dentist from Scarsdale who wants Rorty thumbnailed over a glass of Scotch, he also walks the halls of academe, and thus feels compelled to bend and twist America the Philosophical to serve some grand thesis. And what is this grand thesis? It's that America really is quite philosophical—if you think of New Yorkers yelling at each other in traffic as philosophy. I joke, of course, but to this point, Romano tries to anticipate the criticism that "America the Philosophical threatens to make Howard Stern our Plato, Michael Moore our Kant" by instead insisting that Isocrates, which he assures us in the title of Part 5 is "a man, not a typo," is our Socrates. Luckily this thesis doesn't occupy much of the book and you only need to tolerate the whiplash of the last 70 pages where he bends back an otherwise intelligible arc to Ancient Greece before snapping forward to a self-refuting hagiography of John Rawls and a drooling homage to Barack Obama as "philosopher in chief".
But never mind all that, I came here for the thumbnails and not the thesis, and although Romano spends too much time wielding his groan inducing pun-cil, he makes for a reliable cartographer of American philosophy and helps humanizes his subjects for a (somewhat) wider audience.
June 22, 2021
John Dewey's hope for philosophy was that it would turn from an investigation of the "problems of philosophers" to that of the "problems of men". This is to say, Dewey hoped that philosophy, done "properly", would no longer concern itself with the "quest for certainty"- a search for certain immutable "facts" concerning the natures of such things as "good" or "truth"- as the discipline had since the days of Socrates and Plato. Philosophy would, instead, be a form of cultural criticism; an application of intelligence for the purpose of ameliorating social conditions.
The result of this would be that "Professionalized philosophy" as a self standing discipline, a Fach, would cease to exist. Philosophy would stop being a discipline that troubled itself with the abstract questions that had concerned philosophers prior - the relationship between mind and body, ontology, the distinction between true knowledge and simple belief etc. It would not trouble itself with the abstract questions that concerned philosophers now - the hard problem of consciousness; our moral duty to future generations etc. Philosophy, rather, would become simply the inquiry into, as Wilfrid Sellars put it, "how things, in the broadest sense, hang together, in the broadest sense". In this vision of Philosophy, any intelligent person could do "philosophy". Philosophy would involve intelligently speaking about the innumerable conditions that affect contemporary human life - war, hunger, the state of democracy, poverty - with a view to solving them; to making human life better in the most practical sense.
It is this Deweyan ideal that Carlin Romano tries to advance here (but ultimately fails) when he, in response to accusations of anti-intellectualism levelled at America generally, proclaims the contemporary United States to be "the most philosophical culture in the history of the world". Leaving aside the brash Americanism, the uncontrolled tendency towards superlatives that tends to alienate most of us non-Americans ("most philosophical"/ "greatest country" etc), and leaving aside Romano’s attempt, in line with his vulgar Americanism, to pronounce American philosophers as the epoch of philosophical thinking; Romano's claim, seen in the light of Dewey's view of philosophy, might have some merit to it.
It is true that many Americans, in fact I'll be so brash as to say, most Americans, neither know nor care much about what Hegel thought of history, or what the traditional Cartesian problems of early modern philosophy are. At the same time, many Americans have strong opinions on what the prevailing mode of modern economic organisation ought be. They have thoughts on whether the electoral college still has some purpose, and on whether the views of the founders should still have such a strong bearing on how modern America functions. Is this then the invasion of the idiots, where everyone throws in their half-baked opinions? Or is it "philosophy" done as Dewey envisions? Ought we to require a certain level of education or reading before we deem it ok for people to engage with certain issues? Is reading Hegel a precondition to having an opinion on Donald Trump's impeachment? I think, on all these questions, hopefully not. Insofar as philosophy is conceived of as cultural criticism, I think that Romano is correct: modern America is quite critical.
But perhaps we should look into how this criticism is conducted; not so much an assessment of the relationship that the various criticisms have to "truth" or "reality" (that would not be in line with Romano's - and my - belief in the tenets of American pragmatism), but rather, the intellectual atmosphere in which this criticism occurs. Romano undertakes a brilliant take-down of Socrates - the fore-bearer of most western Philosophy - or, at any rate, Socrates as he was portrayed by Plato. Anyone who has read any of Plato's Socratic dialogues will have noticed Socrates' tendency towards asking questions - What is justice? What do you mean by "good"? Socrates' goal was simple: He believed that we could not know the true essence or nature of something (which was to be found in its "true" definition), yet still act incorrectly with regards to it. If I desired food, and I knew that the food was in the kitchen, I could not then conceivably go to the dining room in search of that same food. I had no other option but to go to the kitchen if I really wanted that food. Knowledge was not a slave. But this Socratic focus on meanings and definitions also had another, perhaps more pernicious side to it. it enforced certitude; did not leave room for contingency and fragility - the space for things to not be the same over time, or, for us simply to not know know what to do. If, pace Socrates, we knew the meaning of something, well then, that was it. Nothing further to be said.
Romano thus, in opposition to Socrates, champions Isocrates (“A man, not a typo”). Isocrates was a (now mostly forgotten) rhetorician who, in his day, was one of the ten Attic orators - supposedly the greatest orators of the classical era (5th to 4th C BC). Isocrates, like Dewey and William James millenia after him, famously rejected certainty; holding the existence of objectivity to be, in the words of James, "one more subjective opinion that a person could add to their list of other subjective opinions". Inquiry, especially public inquiry, was supposed to be "stuttering" - rigorous yet pliant. Beliefs were to be held firmly but not blindly - such that people, presented with new and compelling information, could change their minds and adopt new beliefs. Until those beliefs were themselves challenged by even newer information. This is what, for Dewey and for Isocrates before him, constituted moral progress.
The question to be posed to Romano is therefore this: Is the contemporary intellectual environment in America reflective of this Deweyan and Isocratic orientation towards uncertainty and pliability? And here, I think the answer is resoundingly "No". Many opinion polls have documented the unprecedented divide within American politics - certainly on an ideological left-right spectrum; but also on generational, socioeconomic and cultural planes that do not neatly map onto the left-right divide. Americans are, more than ever before, more sure of themselves, and less likely to change their minds when confronted by information that contradicts their beliefs and opinions. They are more likely than ever to seek friends and lovers that affirm their world views. They are likelier to only engage with people they agree with; even to raise their children with certain ideological bents, to, in future, hold beliefs similar to those of their parents.
The result of this is that, cultural criticism, in the way Dewey envisioned it, simply does not happen that much in America. People have opinions, and, admirably, these opinions are divorced from the traditional authorities of religion and state and philosophical doctrine. They are not dogmatic in the "traditional" sense. Nevertheless, these opinions are are still quite unpliable. They are not critical in an ameliorative sense and are not meant to be engaged with. They are simply to be stated for in-group moral validation. They do not push the culture towards social reconstruction-Dewey's term for progress. In this regard therefore, America is certainly not, even by Romano's own Deweyan pragmatic standards (which are of course not universally held), the "most philosophical culture in the history of the world"
The result of this would be that "Professionalized philosophy" as a self standing discipline, a Fach, would cease to exist. Philosophy would stop being a discipline that troubled itself with the abstract questions that had concerned philosophers prior - the relationship between mind and body, ontology, the distinction between true knowledge and simple belief etc. It would not trouble itself with the abstract questions that concerned philosophers now - the hard problem of consciousness; our moral duty to future generations etc. Philosophy, rather, would become simply the inquiry into, as Wilfrid Sellars put it, "how things, in the broadest sense, hang together, in the broadest sense". In this vision of Philosophy, any intelligent person could do "philosophy". Philosophy would involve intelligently speaking about the innumerable conditions that affect contemporary human life - war, hunger, the state of democracy, poverty - with a view to solving them; to making human life better in the most practical sense.
It is this Deweyan ideal that Carlin Romano tries to advance here (but ultimately fails) when he, in response to accusations of anti-intellectualism levelled at America generally, proclaims the contemporary United States to be "the most philosophical culture in the history of the world". Leaving aside the brash Americanism, the uncontrolled tendency towards superlatives that tends to alienate most of us non-Americans ("most philosophical"/ "greatest country" etc), and leaving aside Romano’s attempt, in line with his vulgar Americanism, to pronounce American philosophers as the epoch of philosophical thinking; Romano's claim, seen in the light of Dewey's view of philosophy, might have some merit to it.
It is true that many Americans, in fact I'll be so brash as to say, most Americans, neither know nor care much about what Hegel thought of history, or what the traditional Cartesian problems of early modern philosophy are. At the same time, many Americans have strong opinions on what the prevailing mode of modern economic organisation ought be. They have thoughts on whether the electoral college still has some purpose, and on whether the views of the founders should still have such a strong bearing on how modern America functions. Is this then the invasion of the idiots, where everyone throws in their half-baked opinions? Or is it "philosophy" done as Dewey envisions? Ought we to require a certain level of education or reading before we deem it ok for people to engage with certain issues? Is reading Hegel a precondition to having an opinion on Donald Trump's impeachment? I think, on all these questions, hopefully not. Insofar as philosophy is conceived of as cultural criticism, I think that Romano is correct: modern America is quite critical.
But perhaps we should look into how this criticism is conducted; not so much an assessment of the relationship that the various criticisms have to "truth" or "reality" (that would not be in line with Romano's - and my - belief in the tenets of American pragmatism), but rather, the intellectual atmosphere in which this criticism occurs. Romano undertakes a brilliant take-down of Socrates - the fore-bearer of most western Philosophy - or, at any rate, Socrates as he was portrayed by Plato. Anyone who has read any of Plato's Socratic dialogues will have noticed Socrates' tendency towards asking questions - What is justice? What do you mean by "good"? Socrates' goal was simple: He believed that we could not know the true essence or nature of something (which was to be found in its "true" definition), yet still act incorrectly with regards to it. If I desired food, and I knew that the food was in the kitchen, I could not then conceivably go to the dining room in search of that same food. I had no other option but to go to the kitchen if I really wanted that food. Knowledge was not a slave. But this Socratic focus on meanings and definitions also had another, perhaps more pernicious side to it. it enforced certitude; did not leave room for contingency and fragility - the space for things to not be the same over time, or, for us simply to not know know what to do. If, pace Socrates, we knew the meaning of something, well then, that was it. Nothing further to be said.
Romano thus, in opposition to Socrates, champions Isocrates (“A man, not a typo”). Isocrates was a (now mostly forgotten) rhetorician who, in his day, was one of the ten Attic orators - supposedly the greatest orators of the classical era (5th to 4th C BC). Isocrates, like Dewey and William James millenia after him, famously rejected certainty; holding the existence of objectivity to be, in the words of James, "one more subjective opinion that a person could add to their list of other subjective opinions". Inquiry, especially public inquiry, was supposed to be "stuttering" - rigorous yet pliant. Beliefs were to be held firmly but not blindly - such that people, presented with new and compelling information, could change their minds and adopt new beliefs. Until those beliefs were themselves challenged by even newer information. This is what, for Dewey and for Isocrates before him, constituted moral progress.
The question to be posed to Romano is therefore this: Is the contemporary intellectual environment in America reflective of this Deweyan and Isocratic orientation towards uncertainty and pliability? And here, I think the answer is resoundingly "No". Many opinion polls have documented the unprecedented divide within American politics - certainly on an ideological left-right spectrum; but also on generational, socioeconomic and cultural planes that do not neatly map onto the left-right divide. Americans are, more than ever before, more sure of themselves, and less likely to change their minds when confronted by information that contradicts their beliefs and opinions. They are more likely than ever to seek friends and lovers that affirm their world views. They are likelier to only engage with people they agree with; even to raise their children with certain ideological bents, to, in future, hold beliefs similar to those of their parents.
The result of this is that, cultural criticism, in the way Dewey envisioned it, simply does not happen that much in America. People have opinions, and, admirably, these opinions are divorced from the traditional authorities of religion and state and philosophical doctrine. They are not dogmatic in the "traditional" sense. Nevertheless, these opinions are are still quite unpliable. They are not critical in an ameliorative sense and are not meant to be engaged with. They are simply to be stated for in-group moral validation. They do not push the culture towards social reconstruction-Dewey's term for progress. In this regard therefore, America is certainly not, even by Romano's own Deweyan pragmatic standards (which are of course not universally held), the "most philosophical culture in the history of the world"
November 20, 2013
With America the Philosophical, Carlin Romano takes on the ambitious task of establishing the US in the upper echelons of the philosophical tradition. Along the way, he takes aim at the American Philosophical Association, introduces us to some excellent cultural critics and thinkers unknown to those of us outside of philosophy and posits a strong argument in favor of assigning a fundamental role in the development of the American psyche and philosophy to Isocrates (436-338 B.C.), an orator whose concept of philosophy clashed with those of his more famous counterparts, Aristotle and Plato.
The journey that Mr. Romano takes us on is a long one and like most trips it can be exasperating at times with some questionable stops. But ultimately, we will remember what we most enjoyed about the experience that Mr. Romano provides us as he guides us through the American philosophical landscape. What cannot be disputed is how well read the author is. I was impressed with the numerous references he made to books that he views as integral components to the foundation of America the Philosophical.
I learned quite a bit from this book and there are some thinkers I will look into with more interest as a result of my having read America the Philosophical. However, there are some concerns I have. Mr. Romano never really reveals what in his mind are the criteria that define a philosopher, or cultural critic. I say this because later in the book I could not reconcile the inclusion of some authors whose background and work did not really fit with what Mr. Romano was trying to do. I was never really convinced that the left-wing journalist I.F. Stone (1907-1989) should have been given the amount of attention that he received for his efforts to debunk the stature of Socrates. Bill Moyers is another figure that I have great admiration for and whose work in public broadcasting has influenced many people. But I had trouble picturing him as a philosopher. All we learn about him is that he would like to focus more on the concept of religion. The question we should ask is “Does this make him a philosopher?” Romano never answers that question. It was a nice touch to include the renowned mythologist Joseph Campbell, who Moyers interviewed in a groundbreaking session, but he should have received much more attention. Journalists and broadcasters as philosophers is a tough sell and Romano should be commended for his effort, but I just cannot see the connection here.
Another area that I was disappointed in, not because of lack of quality, but because of the exclusion of certain individuals is the chapter that dealt with philosophers from underrepresented groups. Ample text is given to African-American philosophers (rightly so!), but there is no mention of Hispanic philosophers. Someone like Richard Rodríguez could easily have made this list. Furthermore, Romano only devotes seven pages to Native American Indian philosophers (he gave 100 pages to female philosophers) and excluded the controversial Ward Churchill. We may not like Mr. Churchill’s comments, but it would have been interesting to read a bit more into his philosophy. The acclaimed Native American Indian philosopher Vine Deloria, Jr. only receives a passing mention. Why?
I thoroughly enjoyed the section on female philosophers, although I was disappointed that Susan Faludi was not included. At the very least she should have received some mention in the chapter on journalist/philosophers.
The chapters on cyber culture are excellent and very relevant. In fact, Romano features some cyber thinkers who I will follow more closely. He concludes the book with a nice take on President Barack Obama’s cosmopolitanism and pragmatism, but I wish it had been longer.
America the Philosophical is a wonderful read, although a bit heavy at times. I plan on encouraging my colleagues in the field of international education to read it. Romano provides us with a wealth of material and this book will serve as an invaluable resource for the professional and novice philosopher alike. Bravo, Signore Romano!
The journey that Mr. Romano takes us on is a long one and like most trips it can be exasperating at times with some questionable stops. But ultimately, we will remember what we most enjoyed about the experience that Mr. Romano provides us as he guides us through the American philosophical landscape. What cannot be disputed is how well read the author is. I was impressed with the numerous references he made to books that he views as integral components to the foundation of America the Philosophical.
I learned quite a bit from this book and there are some thinkers I will look into with more interest as a result of my having read America the Philosophical. However, there are some concerns I have. Mr. Romano never really reveals what in his mind are the criteria that define a philosopher, or cultural critic. I say this because later in the book I could not reconcile the inclusion of some authors whose background and work did not really fit with what Mr. Romano was trying to do. I was never really convinced that the left-wing journalist I.F. Stone (1907-1989) should have been given the amount of attention that he received for his efforts to debunk the stature of Socrates. Bill Moyers is another figure that I have great admiration for and whose work in public broadcasting has influenced many people. But I had trouble picturing him as a philosopher. All we learn about him is that he would like to focus more on the concept of religion. The question we should ask is “Does this make him a philosopher?” Romano never answers that question. It was a nice touch to include the renowned mythologist Joseph Campbell, who Moyers interviewed in a groundbreaking session, but he should have received much more attention. Journalists and broadcasters as philosophers is a tough sell and Romano should be commended for his effort, but I just cannot see the connection here.
Another area that I was disappointed in, not because of lack of quality, but because of the exclusion of certain individuals is the chapter that dealt with philosophers from underrepresented groups. Ample text is given to African-American philosophers (rightly so!), but there is no mention of Hispanic philosophers. Someone like Richard Rodríguez could easily have made this list. Furthermore, Romano only devotes seven pages to Native American Indian philosophers (he gave 100 pages to female philosophers) and excluded the controversial Ward Churchill. We may not like Mr. Churchill’s comments, but it would have been interesting to read a bit more into his philosophy. The acclaimed Native American Indian philosopher Vine Deloria, Jr. only receives a passing mention. Why?
I thoroughly enjoyed the section on female philosophers, although I was disappointed that Susan Faludi was not included. At the very least she should have received some mention in the chapter on journalist/philosophers.
The chapters on cyber culture are excellent and very relevant. In fact, Romano features some cyber thinkers who I will follow more closely. He concludes the book with a nice take on President Barack Obama’s cosmopolitanism and pragmatism, but I wish it had been longer.
America the Philosophical is a wonderful read, although a bit heavy at times. I plan on encouraging my colleagues in the field of international education to read it. Romano provides us with a wealth of material and this book will serve as an invaluable resource for the professional and novice philosopher alike. Bravo, Signore Romano!
August 22, 2015
Moving the Goalposts
Alright, that's it, I quit. At 350 pages nothing like a claim or thesis has emerged; instead, the first half of America the Philosophical offers a series of chapter-length snapshots of American intellectual history among Dead White Men, living white men, self-help quacks, Hugh Hefner (?!), African-Americans, women,and queer folks. Carlin Romano's analyses of philosophical and literary ideas are good, but slight, and therein lies the problem: you'd be better served just reading actual full-length texts and surveys of American philosophy as practiced by Dead White Men, living white men, women, people of color, and so forth, rather than push out unwieldy 80-page chapters that say too much to stick with the book's theme and too little to stand on their own as insightful reading.
Not to be completely defeated by this book, though, I did take some time to look ahead and at least scan where Romano eventually goes.
And then it gets weird.
Judging from what I saw, Romano's agenda is to argue that Americans are great philosophers...by using a different definition of philosophy. Americans, as it turns out, are the ideological heirs to the somewhat obscure Isocrates, precursor to Socrates & Plato. He encouraged a more argumentative, pragmatic, and utilitarian form of public discourse that didn't rely on rigorous logic like Plato & Aristotle. By that definition, yes, Americans are philosophical titans, brutish and loud in our public discourse, but damn it all if we aren't sincere and sensible as an old shoe!
The problem here is that this is public discourse, not philosophy, and I don't just mean that in a snooty ivory tower sense; philosophy takes specific and measured positions on carefully-defined issues. By moving the goalposts to accommodate self-help gurus and CNN, Romano lets Middle America into philosophy at the cost of, well, doing good philosophy. And as much as I love a rousing, provocative defense of the low-brow, it's not worth wading through 600 pages of middling, unfocused scholarship to get there.
I rarely quit books halfway through, but this time it had to be done. Reader, life is short, and books are long. Pick the right books.
Alright, that's it, I quit. At 350 pages nothing like a claim or thesis has emerged; instead, the first half of America the Philosophical offers a series of chapter-length snapshots of American intellectual history among Dead White Men, living white men, self-help quacks, Hugh Hefner (?!), African-Americans, women,and queer folks. Carlin Romano's analyses of philosophical and literary ideas are good, but slight, and therein lies the problem: you'd be better served just reading actual full-length texts and surveys of American philosophy as practiced by Dead White Men, living white men, women, people of color, and so forth, rather than push out unwieldy 80-page chapters that say too much to stick with the book's theme and too little to stand on their own as insightful reading.
Not to be completely defeated by this book, though, I did take some time to look ahead and at least scan where Romano eventually goes.
And then it gets weird.
Judging from what I saw, Romano's agenda is to argue that Americans are great philosophers...by using a different definition of philosophy. Americans, as it turns out, are the ideological heirs to the somewhat obscure Isocrates, precursor to Socrates & Plato. He encouraged a more argumentative, pragmatic, and utilitarian form of public discourse that didn't rely on rigorous logic like Plato & Aristotle. By that definition, yes, Americans are philosophical titans, brutish and loud in our public discourse, but damn it all if we aren't sincere and sensible as an old shoe!
The problem here is that this is public discourse, not philosophy, and I don't just mean that in a snooty ivory tower sense; philosophy takes specific and measured positions on carefully-defined issues. By moving the goalposts to accommodate self-help gurus and CNN, Romano lets Middle America into philosophy at the cost of, well, doing good philosophy. And as much as I love a rousing, provocative defense of the low-brow, it's not worth wading through 600 pages of middling, unfocused scholarship to get there.
I rarely quit books halfway through, but this time it had to be done. Reader, life is short, and books are long. Pick the right books.
April 14, 2014
This is a very good tour of the mind of the US. A former book reviewer, Romano makes a strong case that while Sarah Palin exists and academic analytical philosophy may be a dead end (insofar as it's struggling to replicate itself or engage the general public), the US is a very intellectual, even philosophical society.
We all half know this. Most of the era-defining authors headed to, or are products of the American system. And if we take Philosophy as more than an academic degree in logic, and view it an active process of public debate and discussion of ideas, then America has a rightful claim to one of the most vibrant philosophical societies on the planet.
While I like the argument, even more important for me was the chance to build and extend my 'interested/must read' author list. Everyone knows the Nietzsches/Kant/Hume/Berkley's of this world. But what about mid-late twentieth century thinkers who are little known beyond the academy. Or those in the fields of sociology, linguistics, political theory, psychology and so on who have made important [dare we say it] philosophical contributions to how we understand modern life.
It was an extra pleasure to read this book while in the US, but for anyone who has visited the classics and is looking for a new reading list, that is engagingly discussed within a larger argument for the importance and significance of America for the frontiers of thought today, this is a welcome addition to your bookshelves.
We all half know this. Most of the era-defining authors headed to, or are products of the American system. And if we take Philosophy as more than an academic degree in logic, and view it an active process of public debate and discussion of ideas, then America has a rightful claim to one of the most vibrant philosophical societies on the planet.
While I like the argument, even more important for me was the chance to build and extend my 'interested/must read' author list. Everyone knows the Nietzsches/Kant/Hume/Berkley's of this world. But what about mid-late twentieth century thinkers who are little known beyond the academy. Or those in the fields of sociology, linguistics, political theory, psychology and so on who have made important [dare we say it] philosophical contributions to how we understand modern life.
It was an extra pleasure to read this book while in the US, but for anyone who has visited the classics and is looking for a new reading list, that is engagingly discussed within a larger argument for the importance and significance of America for the frontiers of thought today, this is a welcome addition to your bookshelves.
November 11, 2017
After reading more than a third of the book, I had to put it down. I can accept his argument that philosophy is more than what is taught in philosophy classes in college; but more difficult is his complete denigration of academic philosophy in general. He admires Rorty highly, which is fine, but in the next breath pooh poohs Putnam since he believes Rorty manages to follow in the footsteps of James and Dewey more closely. Putnam follows the same tradition, but because he still worked hard at problems in metaphysics and epistemology Romano doesn't consider him an heir to the early pragmatists. While some of his choices of people doing interesting work that Romano considers philosophy are acceptable in my view--such as Skinner and Chomsky--other of his choices of journalists and literary critics are dicier. He also heavily favors people from the Northeast, which is only part of America. While his argument that the book is supposed to support is that America has a richer and more varied intellectual tradition than it is usually given credit for, that is only partially true. His examples are drawn from America's educated and intellectual elite. Given the political events of the the last year or so, his view that Americans in general are more philosophical than given credit for is highly questionable given the evidence. He overstates his case.
January 19, 2017
What should I read over the holidays? A 600 page survey of 250+ years of philosophical thought in America? YES!
Six weeks later: Maybe not my best idea, but I'm done. Really really done. Carlin Romano's is a cavalcade of biographies and philosophical ideas that belie the idea that Americans are anti-intellectual and non-philsophical. Romano asserts that Americans just come at philosophy from a tradition of rhetoric and argument more in line with Isocrates, than the more formal and classical tradition of, them ore famous, Socrates.
Beyond citing traditional scholars like Rorty, Rawls, and other "great white men" Romano puts forward cultural, and philosophical, influencers as varied as Barack Obama and Hugh Hefner.
As with any survey there are parts I found more interesting than others. Having lived through Dot.com 1.0 the section on cyber (-cynism, -liteature, etc) didn't hold many new takes. But I was able to find something in almost every other section (arts, criticism, gender politics, etc) to grab my interest and inspire me to look deeper into women and men I'd either never heard of or had only passing familiarity with.
Six weeks later: Maybe not my best idea, but I'm done. Really really done. Carlin Romano's is a cavalcade of biographies and philosophical ideas that belie the idea that Americans are anti-intellectual and non-philsophical. Romano asserts that Americans just come at philosophy from a tradition of rhetoric and argument more in line with Isocrates, than the more formal and classical tradition of, them ore famous, Socrates.
Beyond citing traditional scholars like Rorty, Rawls, and other "great white men" Romano puts forward cultural, and philosophical, influencers as varied as Barack Obama and Hugh Hefner.
As with any survey there are parts I found more interesting than others. Having lived through Dot.com 1.0 the section on cyber (-cynism, -liteature, etc) didn't hold many new takes. But I was able to find something in almost every other section (arts, criticism, gender politics, etc) to grab my interest and inspire me to look deeper into women and men I'd either never heard of or had only passing familiarity with.
September 22, 2014
It's a blind grab bag of American intellectuals, a potpourri combo of insights that hang on the slimmest of threads masquerading as a current of philosophy. It basically claims that America, in the 20th century, has demonstrated a prodigious output rarely equalled in the history of philosophy. Right.
The best parts are in the beginning and in the end: it begins with a decent recap of Rorty's argument that philosophy is only another form of conversation, in order to set up his premise, and ends with several interesting chapters that champion Isocrates over Socrates and a rejection of Rawls' masterwork that pretends to be a repudiation.
The worst part is a bloated middle that surveys the 20th century of American heavyweights in academia and intelligentsia. It's just too bad that this comprehensive collection only shows the diversity of American thought, rather than how potent it is as a philosophical movement or school or trend.
I would give it 2.5 stars, but the software doesn't allow for half-measures. Unlike the book. :(
The best parts are in the beginning and in the end: it begins with a decent recap of Rorty's argument that philosophy is only another form of conversation, in order to set up his premise, and ends with several interesting chapters that champion Isocrates over Socrates and a rejection of Rawls' masterwork that pretends to be a repudiation.
The worst part is a bloated middle that surveys the 20th century of American heavyweights in academia and intelligentsia. It's just too bad that this comprehensive collection only shows the diversity of American thought, rather than how potent it is as a philosophical movement or school or trend.
I would give it 2.5 stars, but the software doesn't allow for half-measures. Unlike the book. :(
February 23, 2013
The jacket flap writer must not have read this book. It does not argue "that America today towers as the most philosophical culture in the history of the world." It is a boring and tedious history of American philosophers, albeit well-written, including marvelous use of rarely used words. I am interested in a well formed argument that in America "public debate and intellectual engagement never stop," and how that is imbedded in American culture, but I did not find that here. The only two things worth reading (unless you really do want to read a textbook on American philosophers) are (1) the commentary on justice and justification, including the misuse of the word "justified" in popular media and discourse, and (2) the Philosopher in Chief chapter about President Barack Obama, which would have made a great magazine article*, but didn't belong tagged at the end of this book.
*Google tells me it was June 16, 2009 in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
*Google tells me it was June 16, 2009 in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
September 12, 2012
For me, this book was an uneven read – dribbles of boredom between spurts of interest. Particularly slow-going were surveys of thoughts of 19th Century and early 20th Century American philosophers. Interest picked up as author began scrutinizing current quasi-philosophers and their works: writers and celebrities involved in politics, law, literature, mathematics, journalism, etc. He reviews other philosophical types and “different drummer” characters: African-Americans, women, native Americans and gays. A few short chapters are given to “cyber” this and that. Toward end the author critiques philosophy of the late Harvard professor John Rawls. Though his “theory of justice” received acclaim in the 1970s when first announced, it’s now considered mostly utopian.
December 16, 2015
America the Philosophical is largely just a who's who of philosophy, which is just what I was looking for. But the book also makes the case that philosophy is more than a group of PhDs with degrees in Philosophy (capital P, very serious stuff). Indeed, the book claims that philosophy is the environment that frames human discourse. It is in this sense that America is philosophical. We allow a multiplicity of voices to speak freely, which creates a sort of philosophic truth, just by the act of discourse. America's framework, diversity, and freedom of thought is inherently philosophical.
May 4, 2019
I enjoyed this book, which reminded just how much thinking happens in the United State. Yes, there's a lot of intellectual trash here. But there are a lot of thinkers in the realm of philosophy, ethics, the law, etc. I loved his chapters on cyber thinkers. And I loved his material on Kenneth Burke. I'm not sure I bought Romano's thesis that we live in the shadow of Isocrates, but it was interesting to hear.
August 8, 2012
Besides covering the mainstream philosophers,this book branches out to cover journalists, psychologists, WWW experts, political theorists, and others. There is also specific coverage of women, African Americans, gays, and other subgroups. Isocrates, as the precursor to pragmatic concerns and analyses, is covered. There is a lot of information, here.
April 5, 2013
I thought this was well-written overall, but really not what I was looking for. I was hoping for something more anthropological/sociological in scope, and instead got a bunch of short profiles of different philosophers. There was a little bit of analysis right at the beginning and near the end, but not enough.
September 8, 2012
the sections on Ayn Rand and Susan Sontag are particularly satisfying.
March 13, 2013
Nice book, but the author's idea of philosophical is a little too broad.
April 17, 2015
This looks at philosophers in the United States and how they influence current thinking. An interesting and unusual opinion makes the book rather unique.
December 18, 2019
Alas, a true mixed bag of a book. I'd hoped for so much more. The first half far outshone the second half, which -- jumping from subject to subject -- had a rushed, often arbitrary feel. Romano's thesis amounts, more or less, to the propositions: 1) there is an X such that X is American and thinks; 2) thought is philosophical --> therefore, there are some philosophical Americans. That's fine as far as it goes. It just didn't go all that far. Romano's observations were, at times, quite interesting. But the genuinely interesting bits were too few and far between in a 600 page small font book. I appreciate what Romano set out to do in this book, I simply found the results scattershot and, for the most part (in particular as the book progressed to some of its quintessential 20th century subject matter) uncompelling. Not the subjects themselves, but Romano's commentary on them. America the Philosophical was a long and ultimately disappointing read.
November 3, 2020
I have been reading this book off and on for at least a month. I found it a bit of a grind. Even though I took three or four philosophy courses in college many decades ago, including a class on American Philosophy and Pragmatism, I struggled with the content. Not the author’s fault, as philosophy is not an easy intellectual walk in the park. However just like my college philosophy classes, I understood maybe 30-40% of it. Many of the names I was familiar with like Dewey, James, C.S. Pierce etc, I had problems with what they were contributing in terms of thought.
I read about a third of the book. I may try to re-read it at a later date.
There was a Goodreads reviewer who argued that Trump, his followers and his era have proved that Americans are no so wise and certainly not so philosophical. I agree. A shame, as I viewed Obama as a philosopher-President who thought, wrote and spoke very wisely.
I read about a third of the book. I may try to re-read it at a later date.
There was a Goodreads reviewer who argued that Trump, his followers and his era have proved that Americans are no so wise and certainly not so philosophical. I agree. A shame, as I viewed Obama as a philosopher-President who thought, wrote and spoke very wisely.
May 4, 2021
Going into this book, I had the mindset of 'I will be as skeptical of the claim as possible.' An easy mindset to adopt, as it is conventional wisdom- and a common quip- that America has as much to do with philosophy as it does with modesty and collectivism.
Yet, as I continued to read, Carlin Romano succeeded in changing my mind. It is true that America tends to have relatively little to do with conventional, academic philosophy. But it is also true that we have brought philosophy to the main stream, using methods other than the round of academic journals and weighty tomes to explore the topics and implications of philosophy as it is lived.
In addition, I learned of many new philosophers that I will need to follow up on, those who I had never heard of before and now regret only how little time I have to go through everything. But, hopefully, I will be able to make at least some inroads.
All in all, Carlin succeeded in his goal, at least for me.
Yet, as I continued to read, Carlin Romano succeeded in changing my mind. It is true that America tends to have relatively little to do with conventional, academic philosophy. But it is also true that we have brought philosophy to the main stream, using methods other than the round of academic journals and weighty tomes to explore the topics and implications of philosophy as it is lived.
In addition, I learned of many new philosophers that I will need to follow up on, those who I had never heard of before and now regret only how little time I have to go through everything. But, hopefully, I will be able to make at least some inroads.
All in all, Carlin succeeded in his goal, at least for me.
February 15, 2022
Seems like a solid overview of American philosophy. It blazes past most philosophers, sometimes focusing on a thinker's key ideas and sometimes focusing on their personal lives or their academic reputations. The writer seems center left and I often felt frustrated as he heavily criticized thinkers like Chomsky and John Rawls in favor of more centrist and conservative figures (the epilogue, which is devoted to arguing Obama was America's philosopher in chief, aged like milk). Overall interesting and thought provoking.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 13, 2020
This hilariously overstuffed book attempts draw a picture of an America that is a positive example of the marketplace of ideas and the crucible of new thinking. Unfortunately it's just an interminable bibliography with a much more right-wing slant than I think is necessary.
As others have pointed out here, Trump's Presidency is disconfirming evidence of what Romano says here about our philosophical culture.
As others have pointed out here, Trump's Presidency is disconfirming evidence of what Romano says here about our philosophical culture.
April 7, 2020
An exhaustive survey of life and works of American philosophers. and their impact on growth of philosophy in America.
April 18, 2020
Enjoyed the first two-thirds or so, but then it really went downhill. The chapters on Rawls and Isocrates really got tedious.
October 3, 2021
Ended up putting it down at some point and never picked it up back up. I suppose after 3 years on my "currently reading" shelf I can finally admit it's not getting finished anytime soon.
May 9, 2020
Decent, not great.
244,000 words. No footnotes (sigh).
I harbor a grudge against this book—it's too wild, disorganized, flippant—so I don’t recommend reading it en toto. Instead, I recommend readers go to the index, find the names that interest one, read those sections & then skip all the rest.
I will say, as a compliment to Romano, whom I've read with some pleasure in the past, that I may someday reread my favorite parts from this book & give it a third star. But not today (shakes fist).
A good idea animates this too long, mish-mash of a book, but Romano can't quite pull it off. He hasn't got the right mien. He's too flippant, silly, jejune, stuck on his favorites—Richard Rorty, Isocrates. His summaries of authors are serviceable, but his inclusion of so many unremarkable persons & his summaries of their careers often made me often wish that I were reading the same book by a different author, the same questions/issues addressed in a more tightly organized & edited book.
This book struck me as way too long & scatter-shot. Reading it had the effect of lowering my (previously) high estimation of Romano as a trustworthy guide to intellectual matters, a guide to the perplexed.
Over the years I’ve liked many of Romano’s book reviews, but will admit that he often comes across as juvenile, annoying—like a know-it-all teenager, a sense of which can be gleaned from this Q & A:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/bo...
At many points in this book I wondered why he included a particular author, and why I was continuing to read a text that rewarded my labor only intermittently.
This book doesn't have chapters but instead six lengthy “Parts,” each of which is broken down into a varying quantity of sub-sections that consist of two- or three-thousand-word profiles of various thinkers. A short (3700 words) Epilogue devoted to Obama neither illuminates him nor summarizes the book's previous 240,000 words.
I presume that many profiles included in this book first appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education because Romano himself occasionally appears as a character in his text. The verb tense of his narrative occasionally changes; readers are suddenly transported to real-time conversations—You Are There! But why? That gambit, like so much else in this book, repays nothing for the reader's attention.
Overall, the narrative is very much like the CHE style of taking on a big meaty subject by profiling the proponent of the idea, and then reducing the idea to bite-sized morsels, or gossip, submitting the person or idea to a know-it-all, smarmy, often condescending interrogation, taking the grand person/idea down a peg—“a whole peg!” (to quote Principal Skinner).
America The Philosophical is like reading a very long, upmarket version of People Magazine for eggheads—not a bad niche to tap but I had a recurring, nagging sense that by reading this book front-to-back I was wasting my life.
Romano (like me) is an acolyte of Richard Rorty, the only person who makes repeated cameos in this book, often getting the last word on competitors and would-be aspirants to the throne Romano has placed him upon. If one already knows Rorty's thinking/opinion on a subject one therefore knows Romano’s, for they do not disagree.
Too many of Romano’s profiles didn’t interest me, but I have to say that I'd happily read his riffs on thinkers that do interest me, people like Milton Friedman, Christopher Lasch (Rorty's arch-enemy), Theodore Lowi, Daniel P. Moynihan, Daniel Bell, Irving Kristol, Norman Mailer, Mike Milken, Gordon S. Wood, David Bromwich, Joan Didion, The New York Review of Books, Nicholas Lemann, Paul Krugman, Ta-Nehisi Coates, David Brooks, Laura Kipnis, the New York Times' 1619 Project—and other fun People Magazine-type celebrity topics.
244,000 words. No footnotes (sigh).
I harbor a grudge against this book—it's too wild, disorganized, flippant—so I don’t recommend reading it en toto. Instead, I recommend readers go to the index, find the names that interest one, read those sections & then skip all the rest.
I will say, as a compliment to Romano, whom I've read with some pleasure in the past, that I may someday reread my favorite parts from this book & give it a third star. But not today (shakes fist).
A good idea animates this too long, mish-mash of a book, but Romano can't quite pull it off. He hasn't got the right mien. He's too flippant, silly, jejune, stuck on his favorites—Richard Rorty, Isocrates. His summaries of authors are serviceable, but his inclusion of so many unremarkable persons & his summaries of their careers often made me often wish that I were reading the same book by a different author, the same questions/issues addressed in a more tightly organized & edited book.
This book struck me as way too long & scatter-shot. Reading it had the effect of lowering my (previously) high estimation of Romano as a trustworthy guide to intellectual matters, a guide to the perplexed.
Over the years I’ve liked many of Romano’s book reviews, but will admit that he often comes across as juvenile, annoying—like a know-it-all teenager, a sense of which can be gleaned from this Q & A:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/bo...
At many points in this book I wondered why he included a particular author, and why I was continuing to read a text that rewarded my labor only intermittently.
This book doesn't have chapters but instead six lengthy “Parts,” each of which is broken down into a varying quantity of sub-sections that consist of two- or three-thousand-word profiles of various thinkers. A short (3700 words) Epilogue devoted to Obama neither illuminates him nor summarizes the book's previous 240,000 words.
I presume that many profiles included in this book first appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education because Romano himself occasionally appears as a character in his text. The verb tense of his narrative occasionally changes; readers are suddenly transported to real-time conversations—You Are There! But why? That gambit, like so much else in this book, repays nothing for the reader's attention.
Overall, the narrative is very much like the CHE style of taking on a big meaty subject by profiling the proponent of the idea, and then reducing the idea to bite-sized morsels, or gossip, submitting the person or idea to a know-it-all, smarmy, often condescending interrogation, taking the grand person/idea down a peg—“a whole peg!” (to quote Principal Skinner).
America The Philosophical is like reading a very long, upmarket version of People Magazine for eggheads—not a bad niche to tap but I had a recurring, nagging sense that by reading this book front-to-back I was wasting my life.
Romano (like me) is an acolyte of Richard Rorty, the only person who makes repeated cameos in this book, often getting the last word on competitors and would-be aspirants to the throne Romano has placed him upon. If one already knows Rorty's thinking/opinion on a subject one therefore knows Romano’s, for they do not disagree.
Too many of Romano’s profiles didn’t interest me, but I have to say that I'd happily read his riffs on thinkers that do interest me, people like Milton Friedman, Christopher Lasch (Rorty's arch-enemy), Theodore Lowi, Daniel P. Moynihan, Daniel Bell, Irving Kristol, Norman Mailer, Mike Milken, Gordon S. Wood, David Bromwich, Joan Didion, The New York Review of Books, Nicholas Lemann, Paul Krugman, Ta-Nehisi Coates, David Brooks, Laura Kipnis, the New York Times' 1619 Project—and other fun People Magazine-type celebrity topics.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews