The Neocon Who Isn’t
A couple of days ago, Scott passed along this piece The Neocon Who Isn’t by Robert S. Boynton from the 10.05.05 American Prospect.
The piece looks at Fukuyama's views of the Iraq war and examines his disagreements with the Neocons who were in favor of it.
The article mentioned Fukuyama's new publication, the American Interest, which looks like it is worth reading.
Curious thing, how that can happen. Think I need to chew on that for a while.
The first thought that comes to mind is that it might be a case of "Don't understand me so fast, Harry."
A second thought:
Maybe they fall into one of those many lacunae (forgive me, I love the sound of the word) that can trap those that are "too smart, but not quite smart enough" for their own good
As in "Samana, you are clever. Beware of too much cleverness."
Whatever.
The piece looks at Fukuyama's views of the Iraq war and examines his disagreements with the Neocons who were in favor of it.
The article mentioned Fukuyama's new publication, the American Interest, which looks like it is worth reading.
And the article also helped me more clearly identify the conflicting reactions that I have had to Fukuyama's work, starting with "End of History":
- I have generally been impressed by the "process" of his thinking, but
- I have been surprised by problematic nature of so many of the conclusions that he reaches.
Curious thing, how that can happen. Think I need to chew on that for a while.
The first thought that comes to mind is that it might be a case of "Don't understand me so fast, Harry."
A second thought:
Maybe they fall into one of those many lacunae (forgive me, I love the sound of the word) that can trap those that are "too smart, but not quite smart enough" for their own good
As in "Samana, you are clever. Beware of too much cleverness."
Whatever.
posted by TLCGroup at 2:30 PM
1 Comments:
"... characteristic of Bloom's work -- really interesting thinking, juxtaposed with surprisingly mistaken conclusions." Could you give a specific example? Seems to me Bloom and Fukuyama do not start with a conclusion and then figure out a way to reason to it, but simply follow the train of their thinking wherever it leads. That means they may can end up with unpopular or unfashionable results. The challenge for any critic, who disagrees with these results, is to show how and where the reasoning falters. If you cannot do that, then you need to reassess why you prefer one result over another.
Post a Comment
<< Home