DaveVH, “The Metaphysical Club” isn’t nearly as interesting an account of the movement as a C.S. Peirce biography (there’s only a couple, and owning to Harvard’s continued refusal to allow full access to it’s Peirce collection even those are incomplete).

“The Fixation of Belief” was (I believe) written initially in French, not English. “How to Make our Ideas Clear” is a response to the Cartesian problem. Regarding Hegel, as well as much of the confusion that is current in certain popular philosophy in France and Germany today, see:

http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/writings/v2/w2/w2_14/v2_14.htm

Tobias… In philosophy and physics departments in both Germany (EU) and the US, I suspect that you are correct that theoretical Idealism is more important than Classic Pragmatism. That said, considering Germany’s deserved fame for engineering, it’s safe to assume that German (and Austrian and French and Polish) engineers and logicians don’t share that particular vice (certainly Godel didn’t). In as much as Newton/Bacon’s “experimental philosophy” relies on a method that’s easy to confuse with Idealism, it’s a common error to mistake the temporary and qualified axioms of the one with conclusive and necessary “truth” derived from the other.

John Farren… I’ve just finished reading B.H. Liddle Hart’s biography on Sherman (the arch-Realist), and it strikes me that there’s nothing that’s more dependable than the British establishment’s (Oxbridge) tendency to take the national habits of understatement and/or academic faction to absurd extremes. Russell was a fine thinker, but it’s worth noting that he certainly isn’t even among the top five British contributors to the field of Logic (errrr… Scotus, Ockham, Boole, Von Neumann, R. Bacon, F. Bacon, Mill… etc.). Furthermore, some might find Russell’s brand of Secular Humanism hard to stomach considering Thomas More was canonized (”Why I’m not a Christian, but am nevertheless pitching the exact same Humanist creed as an English Catholic martyr, current patron Saint of Writers, and author of the satire, ‘Utopia’”… might have been a more apropos title).

>Who can deny that the roots of Middle Eastern >jihadism lie in political repression? Unless, >of course, you’ve swallowed the “It’s all the >joooooz fault!” canard.

I think political repression is one reason for jihadism. But there’s clearly a lot of other reasons like growing alphabetization, demographic change and lack of economic prospects, and, also the Middle East Conflict.

I think it would be fair to say that most people agree on the origins of the problem, while they do not agree on the risks associated and thus the measures needed.

Idealistically, there’s some merit to the neo-conservative “shake it to shape it” – approach. Practically, I’m afraid, it’s very likely not going to work and might actually soon wear off as a semi-credible cover for strategic interests.

You’re right, Tobias, it is idealism. But it’s a practical application of idealism, not simply rhetoric.

Who can deny that the roots of Middle Eastern jihadism lie in political repression? Unless, of course, you’ve swallowed the “It’s all the joooooz fault!” canard.

Time will tell if our policy in Iraq is successful. Much relies in our ability to learn how to midwife the birth of a free nation.

Well, if that is not idealism, what is?

In my book, if something walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, there’s a pretty good chance it’s actually a duck. And I hope you don’t mind that I express my hope it also becomes a lame duck in November.

I actually believe what Bush says about it. He thinks that we can reform Iraq, which will transform the region, which will reduce the threat of Islamic/Arab terrorism in the long run. Bush does tend to say what he really means. It is weird for a politician, and it takes some getting used to. So, no, I think it really was a concrete, policy-based initiative to invade Iraq — just one which is extremely ambitious and, unusually, serious about addressing “root causes”.

But there is a difference between a philosphical approach and political symbolism. Of course, Europe is an idea, as well as a political symbol, and shared perception is often a necessary requirement for a shared programme if there are veto players.

Europe as a polity may have a different policy style and a different political rethoric than the US (well, the “evil” part of the US, the one that is currently running the country). But rethoric aside, I think most people will be astonished by the cold pragmatism that is necessary to keep the idea afloat. Much more of this will be needed in the near future.

Quite to the contrary I think that much of the current US administration’s policy was more about symboliy acts of “shared perception” than policy pragmatism – including the rethoric on the “War on Terror” and the war in Iraq. It is hardly possible to claim that the American attempt was driven all the way to Baghdad by a rational calculation of risks and possible rewards. In fact, it was driven by a shared perception that amounted to some kind of idealism, don’t you think?

“Certainly the BBC and some other media (Guardian, Independent) seem increasingly to act as if there is one set of “correct” views, to which all educated, civilised folk should subscribe.”

I believe this is why organizations like the Le Pen’s Front National and the UK’s British National Party are gaining followers. If you don’t allow everyone a voice, freedom to speak, it will eventually rise up and bite you in the ass in very nasty ways.

I think, though, that this is unlikely to become as general a worldview in Britain as it has, in particular, in Germany. (Incidentally, German blogger Hans Zee Beeman’s Cum Grano Salis is enlightening on German attitutes.)
I also suspect that French governments often use German susceptibility on “mood” to pursue their own self-interest, rather than any conviction on their part. I think this may be very important. This idealistic worldview is very prominent in Germany, as is an elevation of Europe over nation.

Elsewhere, the moderate left may endorse the “mood”, but it is far less a motivating force than political expedience, and the EU less the German “escape from history” and more a comfortable, familiar and everyday affair.

By comparison, the UK continues to be far more suspicious of both viewpoints (see UK opinion polls re EU constitution; IIRC about 60% are against in principle, still more against present proposals.)

600,000 had to die to make that happen, and while the North and the South certainly had different ideas and customs (the least of which was slavery) on trade, money, culture and what form government should take, they at least shared a common language and roughly common ancestry.

The EU is going in one of two directions: disintigration or fascism (although they certainly won’t call it that). The EU constitution far from mirroring the simple declarative, general rules of the US document, is basically hundreds of pages of conflicting regulations and peculiar rantings. It is a rule book not a constitution.

The EU is going to be ugly one way or the other. The only question is : is a giant pasifistic fascist nation a danger to the world or only to it’s own citizens?

I confess I don’t understand objections to ideals, dreams, visions and so on. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the bare ideal of pooling one’s sovereignty in order to achieve peace and common strength. Isn’t this the vision which inspired Hamilton, Jay and Madison?

Moreover, there’s nothing particularly bad about an interpretation of history in terms of ideas, movements and myths. Menand’s “The Metaphysical Club” is a case in point, since it shows how the idea of pragmatism evolved from new ideas in evolutionary biology, statistics, and the tension between labor and big business. If one’s interpretation of history is limited to the influence of ideas though, it’s clear one will be guilty of a narrow view. The importance of significant events such as constitutional change, and even significant individuals, is an important part of historiography. Surely the wise thing is to strike a balance between the two?

Perhaps your post might explain better whether you’re frustrated by the idea and dream of Europe, or by the fact that European politicians pay lip-service to the ideal without actually getting things done.

They certainly do pay lip-service to the ideal, but one can hardly claim that nothing gets done. Europe has moved from an organisation of six countries agreeing tariffs on coal and steel in 1956, to a free trade organisation of twenty-five countries, equipped with a court, common trade policy, and extremely high standards of individual rights and liberty. Some of the policies are misguided, others just crazy, and yet more are merely talked about by politicians anxious for domestic credibility, but for all that, things unquestionably get done.

In addition, I’m doubtful whether one can move directly from Schivelbush’s faults as an academic to a grand explanatory theory that Europe suffers from rampant Cartesianism resulting in a mood of make believe. There is such a thing as taking reductionism too far.

Just my two cents.

James

Given time, a common language (English?), I think the federal Europe will emerge.