Are You There Kant? It's Me, Mark Bukowski.

[Guest]

You may be right, it isn’t like the American Humanities in the late 20th century ever had a publish or perish atmosphere. Search committees often use loose associations in lieu of demonstrable acts of expertise such as publishing record. Really, what kind of person would consult multiple reference works and bibliographies to gain a sense of who is influential in an industry driven by writing things and then making those written works publicly available to like minded scholars?

Except we're not talking about search committees (although one would hope they'd notice the place of Kant in Solmon's works) Rather we're talking about an offhand comment about whether Solomon is an expert on Kant as a way of situating his work in a paper written to a popular audience.

It is like a transitive property, specializing in Hegel necessarily grants expertise in Kant. Does becoming a specialist in Kant necessarily grant expertise in any of his influences? Or is he a historical anomaly that grounds all philosophy that came after him?

Except he's not just specializing in Hegel. He's specializing in German Idealism. If you have a philosophical background I'd assume you know the role of Kant in that. One can of course always disagree with his reading. But that doesn't appear to be what you're doing. Rather you're questioning using him as a source at all which frankly just seems extremely odd to me given what books he has published - in particular the volume quoted from.

I noted with some regret that Kant wrote extensively about religion and Mark had decided to forego those areas to quote from Solomon’s 19th century background to Existentialism. Even my meager Kant selection contains Wood and Clark’s translation of Kant’s ‘Lectures on Philosophical Theology’ and Greene and Hudson’s translation of of Kant’s ‘Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone’ which would seem to have much more in common with Givens’ topographical book about Mormon religious thinking that Mark is ostensibly reviewing.

But Mark doesn’t draw on any of that.

I'm rather confused here.

First let me note in advance that I tend to disagree with Mark on quite a few key issues even though we both largely come out of the pragmatist tradition. He's more Dewey/James while I'm much more influenced by Peirce. To me he verges upon relativism whereas I'm pretty much a realist of the Peircean stripe. I bring this up just to note we have fundamentally different stances and have regularly butted heads.

All that said the only reason Mark brings up Solomon was to quote from one of his many books on German Idealism about Kant. I just don't quite get the objection. Are you saying the quote is problematic and that Solomon is not to be trusted? If so, I think you're just off your rocker given the large, large number of books on German Idealism he's published and that are well respected. Of course again one can disagree with him, but again that's not what you're doing. You're questioning the validity of quoting him as a source. Second, by focusing in on him trying to explain why Solomon's views here are relevant, you have completely missed it's place in the argument.

The last of my efforts were spent on Google Scholar and Philpapers searching for an article or book authored by Robert C. Solomon on Kant and my search was fruitless, I found nothing. I can’t seem to find any evidence that Solomon wrote about Kant and his work exclusively.

You didn't look terribly hard. Go to JSTOR. You'll find a few with the Kant tag. More particularly though almost all his books on German Idealism have a focus on Kant. Even his books on Hegel or the existentialists are all grappling with Kant. So I think you missed the trees when looking at the forest.

I find the distinction between a person being competent on a given subject and a person being regarded as an expert or specialist on that same subject to be a helpful one. In fact it is common practice for C.V.s today to include areas of specialization and areas of competency.

The issue is your criteria for deciding who is or isn't an expert though. Again, I don't know your background. I'll just ask this simple question. Can one be an expert on German Idealism without being an expert on Kant? Note the issue isn't whether he's among the top scholars on Kant proper. One can, after all, be an expert without necessarily being in the top 20 writers on the topic. (Which is why I found your initial post odd)

[_MrStakhanovite]

This is outstanding work, Mr. Stakhanovite. I gather that you'll be defending, soon?

Thank you. Yes, I've found being ABD being more stressful than the oral examinations. Rumor has it that Professor EA's NEA Grant is getting the green light and he has some excellently funded post-doc positions I'd like to get in on.

You are, of course, correct about the name of the Journal. I'm fairly confident DCP was not an editor of this piece and it is driven by the fact that Bukowski made this very odd comment:

The implications of this position are vast: God becomes an immanent being capable of interacting with his children, as opposed to the Neoplatonic God of Aquinas...

I was going to investigate this assertion next, but I think it might be better if I walked through Kant's first Critique and some of his lesser known works. I think comparing what those texts say with what Brother Bukowski wrote might be more edifying to the Saints here.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Rather we're talking about an offhand comment about whether Solomon is an expert on Kant as a way of situating his work in a paper written to a popular audience.

Here is the take away: Mopologetics is a practice driven by appearances only.

Mark is simply name dropping Solomon to give the appearance of being some well read wit that is part of the Mormon intelligentsia. He most emphatically is not. The issue isn’t that Solomon was quoted, it is the fact that he couldn’t help but exaggerate Solomon’s reputation when he didn’t even need to. Why? Because he “studied” under the man who could only have been at UCLA for an academic year.

Are you saying the quote is problematic and that Solomon is not to be trusted in this quotation? If so, I think you're just off your rocker given the large, large number of books on German Idealism he's published and that are well respected.

I agree with you, but I thought using Solomon was lazy. I’d have liked to seen some interaction with Kant and not some broad generalization from a secondary source. It would have helped him too, since he really makes a mess of Kant’s beliefs.

Second, by focusing in on him trying to explain why Solomon's views here are relevant, you have completely missed it's place in the argument.

Well to be fair, it is Mark’s views about Solomon’s summary of Kant’s views. That is big part of the reason why this article is terrible.

You didn't look terribly hard. Go to JSTOR. You'll find a few with the Kant tag. More particularly though almost all his books on German Idealism have a focus on Kant. So I think you missed the trees when looking at the forest.

Got any titles for me?

The issue is your criteria for deciding who is or isn't an expert though.

Well I find it significant that scholars who would have been Solomon’s peers and actively publishing in Kantian studies when he was active don’t mention his name. In the bigger bibliographies even Hannah Arendt and Hans Gadamer got mentioned and Kant is largely on the periphery of their work, that is how inclusive the standards were and Solomon is not mentioned at all.

I'll just ask this simple question. Can one be an expert on German Idealism without being an expert on Kant?

Yes.

[_ClarkGoble]

I'll just ask this simple question. Can one be an expert on German Idealism without being an expert on Kant?

Yes.

That's quite interesting. Without in the least trying to just be argumentative I really am intrigued as to why you think that. I ask simply because almost all 19th century German idealist movements seems emphatically reacting to Kant. I just can't quite understand how you could understand Hegel without understanding Kant in depth. Now of course I'm anything but an expert here. I know just enough to be able to better understand the figures I do care about. But could you perhaps explain your thinking here?

Mark is simply name dropping Solomon to give the appearance of being some well read wit that is part of the Mormon intelligentsia. He most emphatically is not. The issue isn’t that Solomon was quoted, it is the fact that he couldn’t help but exaggerate Solomon’s reputation when he didn’t even need to. Why? Because he “studied” under the man who could only have been at UCLA for an academic year.

I can't really comment on that. I tend to try and read charitably even those like Mark I disagree strongly with. It seems the more charitable reading is that he was just finding a quote to explain a point in Kant that Mark sees as key to his more Rorty like view. Say what one will, but Solomon has many well regarded overviews that get at this issue. That seems more likely than blowing his own horn. Maybe he is blowing his own horn, but nothing you've shown really seems a terribly strong argument for that.

I agree with you, but I thought using Solomon was lazy. I’d have liked to seen some interaction with Kant and not some broad generalization from a secondary source. It would have helped him too, since he really makes a mess of Kant’s beliefs.

Kant is a notoriously poor writer. I'll fully confess to finding Kant the worst philosopher to read. And I've read a lot of pretty poorly written philosophy. I think quoting from an overview summarizing the point he sees as important makes tons more sense than quoting Kant directly in an article written for a lay popular audience. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm again hardly a Kant expert. As I said I hate reading Kant. But if you can think of a short passage that explains the concept in a fashion a lay reader could comprehend I'm all ears. I'd certainly never even bother looking myself. I'd just quote a summary like Mark did. Unless one is interested in creative readings of Kant (say like Heidegger does) I tend to find it's more useful to just cut to the chase. There are lots of philosophers (like Heidegger) that are important thinkers who revolutionize philosophy. I'm not always convinced that reading them directly is always the best approach to understanding the revolution in thought. The initial argument for an idea and what best explains the idea usually are quite different.

You didn't look terribly hard. Go to JSTOR. You'll find a few with the Kant tag. More particularly though almost all his books on German Idealism have a focus on Kant. So I think you missed the trees when looking at the forest.

Got any titles for me?

"Truth and Self-Satisfaction", just looking quickly. Again I'm anything but well read on Solomon but I believe much of his work on the self is engaging Kant and the reactions to Kant on the topic.

The issue is your criteria for deciding who is or isn't an expert though.

Well I find it significant that scholars who would have been Solomon’s peers and actively publishing in Kantian studies when he was active don’t mention his name.

But again that seems an odd criteria given the examples you gave. The overviews quite expectedly focus on books primarily explaining Kant. It's undeniable that Solomon hasn't written such books - rather his focus are on broader trends across the century starting with Kant. I don't see how that indicates anything about Solomon's expertise. There are hundreds if not thousands of Kant experts out there. The majority haven't written oft quoted books. Solomon is unusual for having written or edited a considerable number of highly regarded works that deal with Kant and the post-Kantian reactions to him. It's hard to understand why you're so swift to dismiss that.

As I said I can understand disagreeing with Solomon. Many consider his takes on Hegel, for instance, to be somewhat idiosyncratic albeit quite interesting. I'm just surprised that you're instead objecting to him as a legitimate source.

[_Symmachus]

It may not happen every Friday, but it sure is a treat when the scholars of Cassius do publish their work (there is a lesson in that for the absentee editor of Interpreter, and for his on-call Egyptologist, who thinks rapidity of turnover means something about quality).

It is this kind of intellectual excavation—finding a great truth in small detail—that marks all scholarship worthy of the name.

Here is the take away: Mopologetics is a practice driven by appearances only.

Mark is simply name dropping Solomon to give the appearance of being some well read wit that is part of the Mormon intelligentsia. He most emphatically is not. The issue isn’t that Solomon was quoted, it is the fact that he couldn’t help but exaggerate Solomon’s reputation when he didn’t even need to. Why? Because he “studied” under the man who could only have been at UCLA for an academic year.

I am reminded of Dr. Nibley, who dropped so many names over so many volumes that my right hand grew sore from having constantly to brush them off the page. If it wasn't the "great Ivan Linforth", it was the "famous William Popper." Of course, he "studied" under both (i.e. took a class from them once or twice in graduate school), but practically the only people who'd heard of either were their students. I'm great and famous by that standard. Linforth compiled a forgettable edition of Solon's fragments, while Popper, who was a student of a very great and famous scholar (Theodor Nöldeke) made some important contributions. Linforth had no influence at all on anyone (beyond Nibley, I guess), and Popper's was more local and administrative. But of course one didn't need to know who they were—all that mattered is that they were named, like the beasts of the Eden, and most importantly, it mattered to know that Nibley knew them (or rather, that they knew Nibley).

If you ever go on to listen to any of his lectures (which are widely available online), take care not step in any of the name droppings, which are unfortunately all over the place. The FARMSian's can't help it, though. The slightest connection to legitimate scholarship renders them incontinent.

[_MrStakhanovite]

That's quite interesting. Without in the least trying to just be argumentative I really am intrigued as to why you think that. I ask simply because almost all 19th century German idealist movements seems emphatically reacting to Kant. I just can't quite understand how you could understand Hegel without understanding Kant in depth. Now of course I'm anything but an expert here. I know just enough to be able to better understand the figures I do care about. But could you perhaps explain your thinking here?

I’m going pair this comment with another since answering both is going to require some overlap.

But again that seems an odd criteria given the examples you gave. The overviews quite expectedly focus on books primarily explaining Kant. It's undeniable that Solomon hasn't written such books - rather his focus are on broader trends across the century starting with Kant. I don't see how that indicates anything about Solomon's expertise. There are hundreds if not thousands of Kant experts out there. The majority haven't written any books. Solomon is unique for having written or edited a considerable number of highly regarded works that deal with Kant and the post-Kantian reactions to him. It's hard to understand why you're so swift to dismiss that.

I don’t think the relationship between German Idealism and Kant’s Philosophy is one of equivalency. That is why I brought up the difference between competency and expertise. Solomon is certainly competent enough to discuss Kant’s Philosophy, but is he an expert? Well I guess that is going to depend on your standards.

I decided to adopt the conventions of the English speaking academy because their metric is at least quantifiable in a meaningful sense: what did you publish and what did/do your peers say about you? Now of course there are going to be outliers that get missed because their activities don’t register on the academy's self serving scale, but Solomon was very much apart of the academy and MormonInterpreter.com is very concerned with appearing to be part of that milieu. The author bio on Mark was very very keen on trying to establish Mark as being conversant with the goings on of said academy, hence the ham handed references that are supposed to be lexical cues to the readers of the Mormon Interpreter.

Now I’d like to revisit the notion that because of Kant’s unique relationship to German Idealism, expertise in the latter assumes expertise in the former. I think this idea is being anachronistic because what we call “German Idealism” is just a rough label we use to group a number of authors based on a few shared characteristics. This wasn’t some established school of thought that Kant consciously identified with, he was very much concerned with other expressions of philosophy that wouldn’t be grouped with German Idealism at all.

I own a copy of Alexander Baumgarten’s ‘Metaphysics’ that also happens to includes all the handwritten notes and marginalia that Kant put on his personal copy. Here are some comments from the introduction (pp.3-4/italics in original):

Apart from this, the Metaphysics is arguably the single most important textbook on the topic published in the German tradition prior to Immanuel Kant. It went through seven Latin and two German editions over a span of twenty-seven years ad formed the basis of Kant’s lectures on metaphysics, anthropology and religion over four decades. At several places in his writings, Kant makes it clear that he regarded the Metaphysics as the most perfect textbook of traditional metaphysics and as the chief source of the views of many of the metaphysicans of his generation. This is in part due to the fact that the Metaphysics provided by far the richest, clearest, and most systematic attempt at constructing a complete metaphysical system of the kind envisioned by Leibniz and Wolff. In addition to this, the development of many key arguments and concepts in Kant’s own pre-critical and critical philosophy are documented in Kant’s handwritten comments on Baumgarten’s text and in many respects cannot be understood apart from it. Naturally, this is even more the case with the transcripts of Kant’s lectures, many of which have been available in English for some time.

If expertise in Hegel requires an expertise in Kant then I think it follows that an expertise in Kant requires an expertise in Alexander Baumgarten.

[_MrStakhanovite]

"Truth and Self-Satisfaction", just looking quickly. Again I'm anything but well read on Solomon but I believe much of his work on the self is engaging Kant and the reactions to Kant on the topic.

Paper about what Hegel's theory of truth would look like if it was expressed in modern jargon. Alfred Tarski gets more attention than Kant.

Kant is a notoriously poor writer. I'll fully confess to finding Kant the worst philosopher to read. And I've read a lot of pretty poorly written philosophy. I think quoting from an overview summarizing the point he sees as important makes tons more sense than quoting Kant directly in an article written for a lay popular audience. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm again hardly a Kant expert. As I said I hate reading Kant. But if you can think of a short passage that explains the concept in a fashion a lay reader could comprehend I'm all ears.

This is a good idea, I think my next post will deal with this.

[_MrStakhanovite]

It may not happen every Friday, but it sure is a treat when the scholars of Cassius do publish their work (there is a lesson in that for the absentee editor of Interpreter, and for his on-call Egyptologist, who thinks rapidity of turnover means something about quality).

It is this kind of intellectual excavation—finding a great truth in small detail—that marks all scholarship worthy of the name.

Dr. Symmachus, your praise makes my soul leap. I've always wanted to ask Mopologists where they would place Parmenides on Nibley's Mantic/Sophic distinction, now that you bring the man up.

[_ClarkGoble]

If expertise in Hegel requires an expertise in Kant then I think it follows that an expertise in Kant requires an expertise in Alexander Baumgarten.

Just to be clear. In a thread you started criticizing name dropping you're bragging about having a copy of Baumgarten's Metaphysics and even post a picture of it? Is that intended to be dramatic irony?

To the point though, Kant defined a whole period in philosophy. Everyone reacted to Kant. Kant remains one of the greatest philosophers of history. Hegel is overtly engaging with Kant in a close way as are most figures of 19th century philosophy. To compare having to become expert in Kant to become expert in major figures of the 19th century really is in no way shape or form the same as becoming an expert in Baumgarten. Now people who specialize in the historical background of Kant will. But is that all experts in Kant? I don't think so.

However again I'm completely open to you explaining what you mean by expert because I confess I'm completely confused at how you're using the word. It's clearly quite different from how I use it.

[_Kishkumen]

Just to be clear. In a thread you started criticizing name dropping you're bragging about having a copy of Baumgarten's Metaphysics and even post a picture of it? Is that intended to be dramatic irony?

That's quite a leap there, Mr. Goble.