Oakeshott on Rome and America

By -
I have reached an agreement with Imprint Academic to publish my new book, which currently has the title above, in the first half of 2012.

Comments

  1. PH11:48 AM

    Congrats. Do you get to pick the title?

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah12:10 PM

    I certainly will have input into the title.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PH12:50 PM

    You might want to make "Oakeshott on Rome and America" the subtitle, and use something flashier—perhaps a pithy line from Oakeshott himself (cf. this)?—for the title itself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. gcallah2:02 PM

    I certainly DO want a flashier title -- I just don't have one yet! Suggestions are welcomed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Daniel McCarthy6:26 PM

    Congratulations. I'm greatly looking forward to it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. PH1:18 PM

    It's hard to judge a work by its table of contents, so these titles might be hilariously inapposite. Even so, they are the best I could come up with:

    1. Constitutionalism's Empty Promise: Oakeshott on Rome and America

    2. Rome, America, and the Failure of Rationalism: Oakeshott on the Fate of Two Civilizations

    3. The Imaginary Chains of a Constitution: Oakeshott on the Roman and American Experiments

    That last one is of course an allusion to the famous Jefferson quotation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. gcallah1:21 PM

    Good work, PSH.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more