Home

Daniel Menaker | A Good Talk

Read Dan's Blog

Philosophy of Mind

I loved your letter concerning Tom McCarthy’s review. I’m so glad to see you are as philosophically sharp as ever.

I myself gave up the attempt to understand the gap between the neurological and the conscious 15 years ago and retired from philosophy. I got a degree in marriage and family therapy and have been working in the trenches ever since. The mind-body problem still exercises me, but at very practical level. I love being a therapist.

I try to keep up on things, although I must say there has not been much philosophical progress on this issue, in my opinion. I did just bring out a second edition to my “Philosophy of Mind” book on Kindle. That was a lot of fun.

Dan, I have followed your career with great pleasure. So nice to see you flourish in so many ways. I hope this finds you well.

Best regard,
Jerry Shaffer

Dear Jerry, if I may–

Thank you for your note and the kind words about my letter in the Times. For anyone else reading this repsonse, Jerome Shaffer is a brilliant teacher and philosopher whose student I had the excellent luck to be in college. He went on to be Chairman of the Philosophy Department at the University of Connecticut for many years and, as you can see, is now a therapist. My only conversational response to his post would be that as I think he is somewhat slyly suggesting, the mind-body problem does indeed tend to become more acute as one gets a little older–at least insofar as the body has more of a problem with what the mind wishes it could do. I highly recommend Dr. Shaffer’s “Philosophy of Mind” to anyone even remotely interested in the issues of consciousness and will and the history of ideas about such subjects. His courses have deeply affected the way I and thousands of other people think and live and–yes–converse.

My best,
Dan Menaker

Want to get in touch?  Have a conversation question?
Ask Dan here!

Filed under: Ask Dan > Answers by Daniel Menaker
Wednesday, May 11th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
No Comments »

Double Negative

Dear Dan:

Why not attribute the anecdote recounted on p.169f. to Sidney Morgenbesser (responding during a talk by J. L. Austin)?  Fairness, plus greater pungency, would both accrue.

There’s even a Swarthmore connection: Morgenbesser, before his long and distinguished career at Columbia, taught at S’more.

This quibble aside, I very much liked the book.

Peter Walch

OK, I herewith attribute the anecdote to Sidney Morgenbesser and I thank Peter Walch for the suggestion, and for the kind word about the book.

Speaking of double negatives, the professor who taught me in my Milton seminar at Swarthmore, Thomas Blackburn, once roasted me for writing that some point of criticism was “not uninteresting.” He didn’t like me in general, and vice versa.

Dan Menaker

Want to get in touch?  Have a conversation question?
Ask Dan here!

Tags:
Filed under: Ask Dan > Answers by Daniel Menaker
Tuesday, January 18th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
No Comments »

Interviewing?

For the last few years, my wife and I very much enjoyed your interviewing at BAM’s Eat, Drink, and Be Literary series.  In fact, if we had to decide between writers appearing there to round out our annual choice of five programs, we would favor whomever you were interviewing.  I was disappointed to see that you will no longer be participating there in 2011.  Have you lost interest in interviewing, or had that particular gig just played itself out for you?

Harry Kaplan

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kaplan,

Thank you for the kind note. It seems that BAM and the National Book Foundation have a policy of rotating interviewers out every two years, and I’ve had my two. I have to admit that I was disappointed myself, as I really love that audience, that venue, and that occasion. It seemed to me I got better and better at the job and enjoyed it more and more, but I guess policy is policy–unless there is an UPRISING OF THE MASSES demanding that I be returned to the podium.

In the meantime, I’ll be content with this wonderful compliment–it is very kind of you to have written.

My best,
Dan Menaker

Want to get in touch?  Have a conversation question?
Ask Dan here!

Tags:
Filed under: Ask Dan > Answers by Daniel Menaker
Saturday, December 11th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
No Comments »

Renewed Zest

Dan,

I read your book, A Good Talk last night – I’m a fast reader – and I have to tell you that I loved it!  I found myself thinking that what I was having was a good conversation with an intelligent, insightful and revealing friend.  Way to go – good writing at its best as far as I’m concerned.

Here are the parts I liked best – the CHI – I loved how you identified these three attributes – Curiosity, humor and impudence as being what creates a lively and interesting conversation. I totally agree but don’t often find this – many people have one or two but seldom all three, at least here in Denver, not the most intellectually stimulating place on earth, what with all the faux cowboys and ski bums.

I liked how you revealed yourself too and didn’t hide behind your credentials as a celebrity writer from the New Yorker but showed your self to be a flawed human being like the rest of us.

I also liked what you said to Ginger when you told her she would need to be aggressive and annoying in order to get herself heard and responded to as a writer – that was really good advice for an up and coming writer or one who wants to be.

Anyway, it was a great book and I loved your style – I’m a writer too and this little book inspired me to make some changes in my own approach – not that I will be copying you – we all have our own voice, as they say, but I shifted in my perspective when I woke up this morning and now I feel a renewed zest for getting back to my project.  So thank you and keep writing.

Lorraine

Dear Lorraine Banfield,

Thank you for the extraordinarily kind note.  Being a writer, the best kind of writer, is indeed to be in a conversation with the reader, even though the reader is silent. The job of a writer is not only to tell a story or report on events or suggest ideas but to remember that there is a reader involved as well, and that he or she is actually talking to the reader, and anticpating questions and asnwering them at just the right time, and varying sentence length and tone, and expanding a point of view–providing surprises that have been earned. When you read a really good book or magazine piece, you are drawn in not only by the content but because the writer knows that he or she must hold your attention and think of what questions you might want to ask at which points and figuratively take  your hand and guide you through the material in an entertaining and disciplined way. If you think I did one-quarter of that, I’m flattered.

I wish you luck with your own work and hope to see your name on the bestseller lists someday. It’s a hard road, and, these days, more than ever an unpredictable one. But contributing to our culture of letters, in a major or even minor way, remains a worthy goal.

Sincerely,

Dan Menaker

Want to get in touch?  Have a conversation question?
Ask Dan here!

Tags:,
Filed under: Ask Dan > Answers by Daniel Menaker
Monday, September 13th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
No Comments »

Merci Encore Une Fois

Thank you for sharing you!   You are v Mark Twainish.   I laughed my way thru most of it and actually had a great conversation on a beach here in Door County WI with a park ranger while I was reading the book after bouncing in the waves…I am curious and at least wry,  I plan to be more impudent because I have had emotional surgery of the heart, have found a sort of enlightenment and am glowing, so what the hell…behaving hasn’t worked.  Is good conversation ever the best?!   It’s what I miss more than sex (well most of the time) since the cause of the surgery of the heart said bye-bye.  Merci encore une fois, you rock, and I agree totally about raising the level of gettingalongness in the world.  It’s what I’m writing about in a special way.

Julie Amelie

Dear Ms. Amelie,

Thank you for the compliments about the book–they are much appreciated. And I’m sorry to hear about the emotional cardiac surgery, which I assume was painful. You haven’t exactly asked a question, but within your energetic and delightful prose lurks a small fear that the surgery may have impaired your ability to converse.  But since you also mention having struck up such a gratifying spontaneous talk with the park ranger, my guess is that you’ll be fine. Time heals most wounds, even to a ventricle or auricle.

Dan Menaker

Want to get in touch?  Have a conversation question?
Ask Dan here!

Tags:
Filed under: Ask Dan > Answers by Daniel Menaker
Monday, August 16th, 2010 at 8:36 am
No Comments »

Next Page »