Here’s Roger Sandall’s blog (smart arguments against romanticism, among other good ideas). I’ll snag two quotes:
His own description of his essays:
They attack modern decadence, defend science, and laugh at academic follies. Sometimes controversial but never party political, they might praise the Pope in one place and Al Gore in another.”
and…
“His [Sandall's] guiding philosophy is suggested by the saying that life is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.”
There certainly is a place for Sandall and I recommend the blog. He seems to remain intellectually nimble.
I can’t help but think that Sandall is one who felt deeply, and wanted to express those feelings through his art and somehow along the way, like so many others, outgrew his art, or outgrew the ideas behind the art.
Might this still make him more susceptible to radical rightist thinking, or not to see the failings of totalitarianism/authoritarianism?
Maybe, maybe not.
Reading his blog reminded me of the differences between John Stuart Mill and Thomas Carlyle as expressed in this New Yorker article.
What struck me most is that Mill applies highly rational thinking to liberal principles. This seems strange in light of our current two-party split, where liberalism is too readily associated with “feeling.” It’s odd to think that of the two men, Carlyle (who grew more conservative) is the more choleric, intuitive, and less rational in many ways, and Mill the more tempered, logical and rational.
I could be persuaded that investigation into liberal, rational principles wouldn’t hurt right now, and of course, I’m not the first or last to think such thoughts.
See Also: Christopher Hitchens’ long arc from committed Marxist to anti-Marxist to anti-religion atheist…but maybe what I’m noticing here is that habit and one’s relation to the passions (artististic or otherwise) die hard. I was glad that the Independent noticed it too.
Addition: Review of a new Mill biography here.
