people are not marbles rattling in anbox. The American classic philosophers—Pierce,nRoyce, James, Santayana.nMead, Dewey—lived,nafter all, in the twilight of the Hegeliannphilosophical empire. But it isnHegel held at arm’s length, for, likenWilliam James, McDermott believesnthat the relations between things arenobjective and “external”—he certainlyndoes not hold that the Prussian (ornSoviet or American) state is “mind onnearth.”n”Marx, Durkheim, Mead, Dewey,nhave it right. The self is a socialnconstruct,” writes McDermott. He is anpragmatist who is more Hegelian thannthe classic American pragmahsts, andnsometimes he wants to be a flower in ancrannied wall: “What, for example,ncould time do to us if every time wenmet a person, or thought a thought, orndreamt a dream, we involved everynperson ever met, every thought evernthought, and every dream everndreamt?”nHe praises pluralism, interrelatedness,ntransience, flux, tensions, andnprocess; this is our “form of life” whichnis precious and unique—an offeringnwe have to give ourselves and thenworld in the 21st century. But, Mc­nDermott sees it faltering:nPut directly, the . . . originalitynof America is strapped to itsnbelief in the sacredness of time,nits celebration of journey andntransiency, and its aversion tonideology, eschatology, and finalnsolutions. The inversion of thisnorder of priorities will sink usnas a culture.nWe are guilty, he says, of a failure ofnnerve and the ability to be true tonourselves.nMcDermott swims effortlessly innAmerican intellectual history and currentsnof thought. He speaks of thenperpetual conflict between individualismnand community, personified innJames and Royce. He reminds us howngood a philosopher Dewey can be, andnhow his Hegelian youth makes Deweynunderstand our social selves. Dewey,nhe says rightiy, is the most sophisticated,nhonest, and imaginative of Americannsocial thinkers. Probably the reasonnJohn Dewey is not read innphilosophy departments is because henis cited so much in education depart­nments.nMcDermott sees causes of our presentnsocial plight in World War II,nVietnam, and Watergate; but how cannhe cover the subject without mentioningnblacks? He is devoted to classicnAmerican philosophers, from Piercenand Emerson through Dewey, butnwhen he says what they have to tellncontemporary America, he gets fuzzy.nThis may be because he has thoughtnlonger, harder, and better about Emerson,nJames, Royce, and Dewey thannabout the problems confronting presentnday America. Or, it may be becausenthe philosophers themselvesnhaven’t as much to tell contemporarynAmerica as McDermott would like.nIn his chapter on “Classical AmericannPhilosophy” McDermott triesnagain to relate his philosophers tonAmerican society. It is not easy. Exceptnfor Dewey, they were almost asndistant and unconcerned about societynas the linguistic analysts who followednthem, while the positivists of the 30’snand 40’s had something new to saynabout science and philosophy, Anglo-nAmerican philosophers reached theirnnadir of irrelevance and preciousnessnin the 50’s and 60’s, when they werencompletely absorbed in the minutenscholastic analyses of words and “concepts.”nA sizable segment of philosophersntoday carry on the tradition ofnthe 50’s and 60’s, but a growing numbernare willing to dirty their hands withnthe empirical and talk about moralnproblems and public policy.nOn the topic of education, McDermottnasks for cultural literacy. Accordingnto him, the gap between rich andnpoor, more than between black andnwhite, is what endangers the nation.nHis solution is to make the “historicalndimension of every discipline an integralnaspect” of education. DemocritusnEscape rows of writing desks,nslavish notetaking, lecture classes altogether.nMeet 15 serious minds around a table. Probe anreal question, read a real book. Wonder. Argue.nDiscover. We call it Liberal Education. We’dnlike to talk to you about it.nCall toll free:n1-800-634-9797nFrom Canada,ncall collect:n(805) 525-4417nnnis to be a part of the physics curriculum.nAfter providing for basics, educationnis to concentrate on “autobiography/biography,nbotany andnphysiology, sculpture, and theater.”nThis is, to say the least, quaint, givennthe terrible problems of slum schools.nIt does not sound like thinking ofnsomeone closely connected with thenproblems of the schools.nMcDermott extends his organicnconception to architecture and thenbody—the body, he thinks, is not ancontainer in a world of boxes. We arennot atoms in the void, bumping, permeable,ndiaphanous, interpenetrating.nYes, but even when what he says aboutnsociety’s problems sounds right, it isnhard to find it in the philosophers, andnwhen the philosophers are stating theirnmain concerns it has little to do withnsociety. McDermott thinks that thengolden age of American philosophynunderstood American society and itsnproblems better than the philosophersnof today. The sad truth is that none ofnthem, then or now, took the time asnprofessional philosophers to really examinenAmerican institutions and socialnproblems. Dewey comes closest.nWhereas Streams of Experience isnpanoramic, Lee Bollinger’s The TolerantnSociety is narrowly focused. It is anclosely reasoned book which wonderinglynexamines our tolerance of extremistnand intolerant speech that isnclearly more dangerous than some behaviornwe unhesitatingly make illegal.nWhy is it that “[njowhere else in lifendo we insist on such a level of selfrestraint”?nBollinger presents two models ofnfree speech defense. According to then”classical model,” free speech helpsntruth emerge and is essential for democracy.nThe classical model, Bollingernsays, insufficientiy recognizes thatnOr write:nThomas J. Susanka, Director of AdmissionsnBox 106nTHOMAS AQUINAS COLLEGEn10000 N. Ojai Rd., Santa Paula, CA 93060nOCTOBER 1987131n