Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Caws argues that America The Philosophical is a misnomer (at best).

http://philosophynow.org/issues/100/Ame ... lin_Romano

Peter Caws is wrong and Carlin Romano is right about 'America The Philosophical'.

America is more philosophical and a product of philosophy than Caws imagines or sees. It is Caws' romantic and ancient notion of philosophy that obscures his seeing that America is truly a philosophical nation. Caws' clouded vision remains me of the problem Hannah Arendt had with her critics, that they were incapable of standing back or being detached enough from their subject to understand the broader picture. Caws' problem is that he has an ethereal sense of philosophy and not of a discipline that require activity to keep it alive and awake. I think Americas is far to tumultuous for Caws. For him philosophy should be a gentile sport, not a raucous activity like it is in America.

Philosophy and its outcomes is not for the faint of heart. Peter Caws seems a bit faint.

Peter Caws comes across a bit smarmy in his crisis of Carlin Romano. Caws acts as the typical academic in his ivory tower while Romano sees the toil and and swept behind philosophy. It also comes across that Caws is not one to get his hands dirty.

No nation has put philosophy to work as America has done. More than any nation it has put its money where its mouth is. America is the real thing, the true culmination of the main points philosophy has made through the centuries about how things should be and what works best. It has applied better than any the full spectrum of philosophy from idealism to materialism and all the manifestations in between. (Caws is preoccupied with idealism.) To be all things to all people America discovered a middle ground - pragmatism, which, by the way, has become the applied philosophy of the world. Without that philosophy the world would be in far worse shape than it is today.

Caws doesn't understand that America is the one who made philosophy operational and not just a Reason that you stack on bookshelves.

For book description and other, less Cawstic, reviews, see:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/America-Philoso ... lin+romano

One thing that Carlin Romano didn't delve into in his book "America The Philosophical" is the philosophical impact of television and movies on the American mind. The entertainment business constitutes a large dynamo in the philosophical making and jawing of America. This industry helped congeal America into a single nation.

Prof. Peter Caws' epitaph in his review of Carlin Romano's "American The Philosophical":

"One last and in a way touching point. Precisely this prolongation has pushed the book into the Obama administration, and allows Romano a coda on Obama as ‘philosopher-in-chief’. I too think that the election of a President of Obama’s humanity and learning represents a giant step forward in the history of the United States. But his philosophical leadership – if that is what it is – has been running up against unprecedented hostility and misunderstanding. If America really were as philosophical as Romano represents it this would not be the case. His vision of America the Philosophical has a very long way to go."

To really understand where Caws is coming from we have to imagine all American thinking being on the same page. He thinks America should be on the same page with its philosophy. But that is an impossibility considering the diversity of America, and its thinking. But Caws doesn't consider this in his sneering critique questioning America's philosophical prowess. And to make his critique less worthy he doesn't even examine the common ground America has carved out to bridge its philosophical differences, that of pragmatism.

The chief aims of philosophy is to achieve the moral high ground and to forge a mutual beneficial human governance. However, this is always a work in progress. Caws doesn't see it that way. He things the high ground and the ideal in governance have been arrived at and no more need be done. The text book is written, according to him, and American is not following it. But to see it this way is to see the world as stagnant instead of always in flux and changing. America's philosophy reflects this flux and changing better than any nation in the world, hence a philosophy Caws doesn't appreciate or understand.

Caws views illustrates why philosophers in general should not be politicians or govern. They are two idealistic. They are too focused on their niche and unable to think in expansive terms. They have little regard for extenuating circumstances, which politics and governance requires. America's philosophy is fashioned around extenuating circumstances. It is done this deliberately for its own survival.

Obama is philosopher-in-chief. But Caws sneers at this because outwardly Obama is not acting according to the philosophical "playbook". However, Obama is quite philosophical in comparison to other presidents. (Caws should note America's philosophical achievement in having elected him into office not once but twice.) But he has balanced credentials and understands the world around him and the consequence of his actions. Philosophers like Prof. Caws rarely understand the consequence of actions, thus why outright philosophers like him are poor at running countries.

The Crimea situation is an interesting test of Obama's philosophical strength and because of the opposition be is receiving from other Americans, who would like him to be more forceful. He is taking the highroad, which I'm sure Caws would approve of, of using sanctions instead of force. Obama's initial non violence approach is a very high-minded philosophical principle not easily come by.