Robbins Library Notes

Good morning, readers!

After over two years of blogging, I’ve decided to put this blog on hiatus for awhile.  I’m not getting the traffic or interaction for which I’d hoped, and quite honestly, I’ve run out of ideas.

So, this is goodbye, but not farewell.  I’m going to take the next several months to do some thinking about where to go next.

Thank you to all who have stopped by, and who have commented.  I’ve enjoyed serving you, and hope to do so again in the near future.

So, hello, I must be going — and no, I’m not a schnorrer…

Cheers!!

Good morning, readers!

Here’s a link to the November 2009 Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.  Should we be looking into acquiring any of these for the Robbins collection?

What else would you like me to address in this blog in the coming year?  I’m open to suggestions.

Clearly something important and fundamental is happening to books and reading. Libraries need to be part of this reading revolution, supporting and defending the rights of digital readers, experimenting with new reader services, collecting new genres and media formats, and providing access for all readers to the devices, networks, content, and online communities that will continue to emerge.

Tom Peters — Library Journal, 11/1/2009

Good morning, readers!

Three weeks ago, I wrote about an editorial/advertisement for the vook that appeared in The Crimson.  This week, I want to follow up with a recent article by Tom Peters from Libraryjournal.com, titled “The Future of Reading.”  Peters talks about the crisis facing reading now — will reading and literacy decline and become the province of historical reenactors?  Or will it morph and change as new technologies emerge?  Or will it remain as one, but not the only, way of interacting with a text?

Again, I don’t think we need to adopt an either/or mentality.  A plurality of ways of reading and interacting with texts, both traditional and new, should be able to co-exist peacefully and learn from each other.  I’m actually very intrigued by and excited about these new forms of reading, even while I remain a practitioner of the more traditional form of reading.

What are  your thoughts, readers?

Administrative note: With next week being the Thanksgiving holiday break, I will not be posting then.  Posts will resume on 4 December.  See you then!

Good morning, readers!

One of my earliest blog posts was on the LibX tool. Since then, the tool has added a version for Internet Explorer 8.

Now, with the launch of the new HOLLIS interface, a new version of LibX for HOLLIS is available for download at http://lib.harvard.edu/tools/libx.html. Rather than defaulting to the HOLLIS Classic interface, the new LibX tool goes directly to the new interface.

But, as the notice from OIS states:

Please note, OIS will continue to support and maintain the versions of LibX for HOLLIS Classic for Firefox and Internet Explorer for the foreseeable future.

In case you’ve forgotten what LibX is,

LibX is a browser toolbar add-on that allows you to quickly search the HOLLIS Catalog, E-Journal List, E- Resource List, Citation Linker, and Google Scholar, and links to other search tools and library resources. LibX allows you to select text on a web page and right-click for a menu of search options. LibX embeds a Harvard shield “cue”  on search results in Amazon, New York Times Book Reviews, Yahoo! and more that leads you to Harvard’s print and licensed e-resources. LibX automatically links ISBNs, ISSNs, PubMed IDs and DOIs to Harvard’s print and licensed e-resources.

You can find detailed installation instructions and browser requirements on the Harvard Libraries portal at http://lib.harvard.edu/tools/libx_more.html

At left: “The Book Fool,” from Sebastian Brandt’s The Ship of Fools (1494).  This woodcut, along with many of the others in the book, is believed by many to have been executed by a young Albrecht Dürer.

Good morning, readers!

Bibliophilia seems to be a common ailment amongst academics and those devoted to the life of the mind.  For any bibliophile Harvard students reading this blog who are book and art collectors, you may be interested in entering the Philip Hofer Prize in Collecting Books and Art.

Here’s the description from the Houghton Library Web site:

The Philip Hofer prize is awarded each year to a student whose collection of books or works of art best exemplifies the traditions of breadth, coherence, and imagination represented by Philip Hofer, A.B. ‘21, L.H.D. ‘67, founder and first Curator of the Department of Printing and Graphic Arts in the Houghton Library and Secretary of the Fogg Art Museum. The entries are judged on purpose, consistency, and quality; cost, rarity, and size are not criteria. The prize, which is to encourage student interest in collecting, was established by Melvin R. Seiden, A.B. ‘52, L.L.B. ‘55. The panel of judges reserves the right to make the award only to candidates whose collections are considered to be of exceptional quality. A first prize of $2,000 and second and third prizes of $1,000 and $500 will be offered in 2009-2010. Winners will also be invited to lend representative books or works of art to an exhibition at the library.

For further information, contact Hope Mayo, Philip Hofer Curator of Printing and Graphic Arts in Houghton Library, via e-mail.

A few things to note:

• Entry Rules – The complete entry rules for 2009-2010 can be found here.
• Deadline — The deadline for submissions is 18 February 2010.
• Who is eligible — The contest is open to all Harvard students, whether in the undergraduate program, graduate programs, or the professional schools.
• The Objective of the Prize –  The memo about the prize that I received states: “The objective of this prize is not reward wealthy students who collect fine art or rare books, but rather to encourage and acknowledge students who use their resources, however small, in a thoughtful and organized way to build collections expressive of their own interests.”

I also have a flyer here at my desk, which interested students may come and photocopy.

You may enjoy reading Nicholas Basbanes’ A Gentle Madness: Bibliophiles, Bibliomanes, and the Eternal Passion for Books, to whet your appetite.

Good luck!  And happy collecting!

Good afternoon, readers!

I’m posting Thursday afternoon, rather than Friday morning, this week as I will be out tomorrow.

Today’s offering is an editorial on the vook that appeared in a recent edition of The Crimson.  While I think the author, James McAuley, raises some interesting points, his claims for the imminent demise of the “traditional reader” and the printed book are, I think, a bit exaggerated.

There’s no doubt that electronic media and books will reshape the way we read and interact with words and text.  There’s no doubt that certain things will fall by the wayside and be lost.  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, either.  Admittedly, the change will be difficult at time, but, then, when is change otherwise?

Nonetheless, I still fail to understand why there must be a simplistic either/or when it comes to the future of books and print media — i.e., it’s either print/or electronic, nothing else, or so the message seems to be.  Why?   Isn’t the vook a blending of print text with multimedia?  Why can’t hybrids such as the vook exist comfortably along print-only and electronic-only texts?  Why can’t different forms of reading exist without one “having” to vanish?  For a good counterpoint along these lines, see Lane Wallace’s recent piece in TheAtlantic.com.

And “must” the “traditional reader” vanish completely?  Seems more like marketing hype to me.  (Indeed, the second comment makes the interesting claim that the piece is merely an advertisement for the vook masquerading as an editorial.  I’m inclined myself to agree.)

While I’m no longer a Luddite, I still must repeat — caveat lector.  Don’t mistake marketing hype, propaganda, and advertising spin for the way things “must” be.  And don’t throw out print texts simply to ride the wave of mere novelty for novelty’s sake.

What are your thoughts on this, readers?

Good morning, readers!

After finishing the research for the Bechtel Room portrait guide, I can’t help wondering: is the path that Anglo-American philosophy took in the 20th century really “progress,” the natural evolution of the discipline?  Or is it merely the result of a set of personalities, egos, historical circumstances, ideologies, and such that came together at a particular point in history to drive Anglo-American philosophy down a particular path that was not inevitable?

I realize that I’m being provocative with my questions, given that there is a common perception that what did happen is precisely natural and progress.  Yet, I don’t want to slip into some post-modern silliness, either.

What do you think, readers?  I’m genuinely curious to know your views.

Good morning, readers!

As  I’m working on the guide that I mentioned in my post two weeks ago, I want to share with you some good general histories and critiques of and guides to American philosophy and philosophers that I’ve uncovered.  A few of these overlap with the earlier post, but I want to include them here as well.

Alcoff, L. M.  (2003).  Singing in the Fire: Stories of Women in Philosophy.  New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Campbell, J.  (2007).  One Hundred Years of Pragmatism.  Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 43(1): 1-15.

Charles S. Peirce Society.  (2009).  Retrieved 8 October 2009 from http://www.peircesociety.org/.

DeArmey, M. & Good, J. A. (Eds.) (2001).  The St. Louis Hegelians.  3 Vols. New York: Thoemmes Continuum.

Ferguson, A.  (1994).  Twenty Years of Feminist Philosophy.  Hypatia 9(3): 197-215.

Field, R.  (2005).  The St. Louis Hegelians.  Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  Retrieved 5 October 2009 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/hstlouis.

Floyd, J. & Shieh, S.  (2001).  Future Pasts: The Analytic Tradition in Twentieth-Century Philosophy.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Goodman, R. (2009).  Transcendentalism.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. E. N. Zalta (Ed.).  Retrieved 5 October 2009 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/transcendentalism.

Haldane, J.  (2002).  American Philosophy: ‘Scotch’ or ‘Teutonic’?  Philosophy 77(301): 311-329.

Hollinger, D. A. (1980).  The Problem of Pragmatism in American History.  Journal of American History 67(1): 88-107.

Kaag, J.  (2008).  Women and Forgotten Movements in American Philosophy: The Work of Ella Lyman Cabot and Mary Parker Follett.  Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 44(1): 134-157.

Karnos, D. D. & Shoemaker, R. G.  (1994).  Falling in Love with Wisdom: American Philosophers Talk About Their Calling.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Kuklick, B.  (1977).  The Rise of American Philosophy: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1860-1930.  New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kuklick, B.  (2002).  A History of Philosophy in America, 1720-2000.  New York: Oxford University Press.

Marsoobian, A. T. & Ryder, J.  (Eds.) (2004).  The Blackwell Guide to American Philosophy.  New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Miller, P.  (1970). The Life of the Mind in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War.  New York: Mariner.

Outlaw, L. T. (1996). The “Future” of Philosophy in America. In On Race and Philosophy.  New York: Routledge.  183-204.

Outlaw, L. T. (1997).  Africana Philosophy. Journal of Ethics 1(3): 265-290.

Pragmatism Cybrary.  (2009).  Retrieved 8 October 2009 from http://www.pragmatism.org/.

Rorty, R.  (1980).  Philosophy in America Today.  In Consequences of Pragmatism: Essays, 1972-1980.  Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.  211-230.

Soames, S.  (2003).  Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century.  2 vols.  Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy.  (2009).  Retrieved 9 October 2009 from http://www.american-philosophy.org/index.htm.

West, C. (1989).  The American Evasion of Philosophy: A Genealogy of Pragmatism.  Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Wettstein, H. & French, P. A. (Eds.).  (2004).  The American Philosophers. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Vol. XXVIII.  New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Yancy, G.  (Ed.).  (1998).  African-American Philosophers: 17 Conversations.  New York: Routledge

Are there others that I’m missing?

Good morning, readers!

The September 2009 book reviews from Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews are available.

The reviewed books cover Hannah Arendt, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Ernst Cassirer, David Kaplan, Rene Descartes, David Hume, Socrates, Stephen Stich, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Topics covered include aesthetics, Asian philosophy, ancient philosophy, moral & political philosophy, and time, among others.

Are any worth considering for the Robbins collection?

Good morning, readers!

Right now, I’m working on a guide to the portraits in the Bechtel Room, Emerson Hall 107.  It’s been fascinating to research the history of the twenty-two faculty portrayed in painting, photography, and sculpture in this room.

In doing so, I have uncovered several histories of philosophy about the Department.  Most cover from the founding of Harvard in 1636 through the 1930s. You may find these of interest:

*Campbell, J. (2006).  A Thoughtful Profession: The Early Years of the American Philosophical Association.  Chicago: Open Court Publishers.

*Kuklick, B. (1977).  The Rise of American Philosophy: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1860-1930.  New Haven: Yale University Press.

*Joralemon, D. R. (1980).  Too Many Philosophers.  American Heritage Magazine 31(6).  Retrieved 22 September 2009 from  http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1980/6/1980_6_16_print.shtml.

*Menand, L. (2000).  The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America.  New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

*Palmer, G. H. & Perry, R. B. (1930).  Philosophy: 1870-1929.  In The Development of Harvard University Since the Inauguration of President Eliot, 1869-1929. S. E. Morison, Ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press: 3-32.

*Rand, B. (1929).  Philosophical Instruction in Harvard University from 1636-1906.  Boston: Harvard Graduates Magazine Association.

The history of the Department of Philosophy in the latter seven decades of the twentieth century and the early decades of the twenty-first century remains to be written.  Nonetheless, there are a few sources that give a broader context to this historical period, and which include references to the Department during this time.  These include:

*Brightman, E. S. (1947).  Philosophy in the United States 1939-1945.  The Philosophical Review 56 (4): 390-405.

*Floyd, J. & Shieh, S. (2001).  Future Pasts: The Analytic Tradition in Twentieth-Century Philosophy.  New York: Oxford University Press.

*McCumber, J. (2001).  Time in the Ditch: American Philosophy and the McCarthy Era.  Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

*Reisch, G. (2005).  How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

*West, C. (1989). The American Evasion of Philosophy: A Genealogy of Pragmatism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

I have reviewed McCumber and Reisch in an earlier post, if you are interested in learning more about those two books.

Are there other items to add to this list?  Please let me know in the comments box.