Airport Notes

I flew to Philadelphia this weekend and had hoped to get some posts up, but it turns out that you have to pay to get internet access in airport terminals— something like five bucks an hour. That's a 1 1/4 gallons of gas! Or a beer at the airport bar! Tired from a day of work/travel and overwhelmed by the sprawling Atlanta airport, I chose the beer. I would be interested to see what Cass Sunstein might think of that choice. He's got a new book in which he directs his behavioral economics gaze at libertarian paternalism. An interesting review of the book that also offers some insight into the direction that Obamanomics might be headed can be found here.

Anyway, I wanted to make a couple more comments about interdisciplinary studies, post-modern intellectual smorgasbords, etc.

1) One of my undergrad professors used to say that Friedrich Schiller was a crappy philosopher because he wrote poetry and that he was a crappy poet because he fancied himself a philosopher. An argument for intellectual purity?

2) Martha Nussbaum wrote a book review in the New Republic (couldn't get the link to work) about philosophers who tackle Shakespeare. Her conclusion: it can be done, just avoid the Phil 101 line of questioning. But there is a difference between the critical standards that Nussbaum outlines in her review and the pop-intellectualism of say, "The Simpsons and Philosophy." Both the complex, nuanced approach and the facile approach have their pros and cons. That's why most worthwhile book reviews consider the author's purpose and intended audience— does the author want to contribute to an ongoing academic inquiry? Or does he want to provide a general philosophical overview using a well-known pop-culture icon as an illustration?

3) Finally, re: TNR/NYRB/New Yorker type publications, do they cater to/breed dilettantes? And is that a bad thing? First, the articles written by academics can be so dense that only a similarly knowledgeable professional will catch all of the references; the rest of us wikipedia them and like to think that we're smarter for it. Second, the staff writers sometimes seem like they heavily rely on wikipedia and/or that Phil 101 course they took as an undergrad at some east coast liberal arts school. My thought, though, is that if you have varied interests, this is one of the best ways to be exposed to a lot of information/ideas/arguments short of going back to grad school.