Iris Murdoch sounds worth a follow-up (thank you), but I'm going to take issue with this lazy characterisation of therapy.
Far form being about paying "too much attention to what we feel, to the drive to be right" decent therapy is inherently relational, and all about supporting the choice to "...get out into the world, to other people", as well as a process that "...should not [just] console...but shock you out of yourself". I'm more ambivalent about your comments about philosophy, but I would suggest a powerful philosophical antidote in the writings of David Deutsch.
Remember, I am trying to explain Murdoch, not give my own view. I say, before the section you quote, "On Murdoch’s account..." She was a professional philosopher, and her scepticism about whether it can "help anyone" (again her phrase) is worth taking seriously.
I hope you do follow up, her books are very interesting on this and many other topics. A good novel of hers that deals with therapy questions is "The Good Apprentice".
I recently read my first Murdoch - A Fairly Honorable Defeat (1970). Has about 7 main characters, who are arranged in most chapters into one-on-one conversations (most dialog is untagged, you get to know each voice pretty well), as a kind of mischief-maker goes about stressing other relationships through innuendos and suggestions. Interesting!
Thanks for this introduction to Iris Murdoch. I have never read any of her novels. Do you have a suggestion for a first one? Also, I'm always fascinated to learn the literary tastes of an author. Proust's style is more traditional than Joyce of Woolf, consistent with what you write about her love of the 19th century classic novel form.
Excellent survey of Murdoch's concerns. I hope you read and enjoyed at least one of the two books published about the four Oxford friends and philosophers, Murdoch, Midgley, Anscombe and Foot.
I laced Murdoch's ideas through this cri de coeur explaining ten years of perseverance in social policy with very little benefit to anyone to show for it — because of 'the system's relentless preference for going through the motions over engaging the other.
The other one is excellent too. One's written by a man, the other by two women and it shows (in exhibiting the good — but different points of both genders!)
Iris Murdoch sounds worth a follow-up (thank you), but I'm going to take issue with this lazy characterisation of therapy.
Far form being about paying "too much attention to what we feel, to the drive to be right" decent therapy is inherently relational, and all about supporting the choice to "...get out into the world, to other people", as well as a process that "...should not [just] console...but shock you out of yourself". I'm more ambivalent about your comments about philosophy, but I would suggest a powerful philosophical antidote in the writings of David Deutsch.
Thanks again.
Remember, I am trying to explain Murdoch, not give my own view. I say, before the section you quote, "On Murdoch’s account..." She was a professional philosopher, and her scepticism about whether it can "help anyone" (again her phrase) is worth taking seriously.
I hope you do follow up, her books are very interesting on this and many other topics. A good novel of hers that deals with therapy questions is "The Good Apprentice".
Thanks!
Roger that. Yes, I should've said "the" rather than "your".
Always a boss move to disregard your own profession too, so well done that lady.
Appreciate the recommendation, and the great writing more generally.
Thanks!
I recently read my first Murdoch - A Fairly Honorable Defeat (1970). Has about 7 main characters, who are arranged in most chapters into one-on-one conversations (most dialog is untagged, you get to know each voice pretty well), as a kind of mischief-maker goes about stressing other relationships through innuendos and suggestions. Interesting!
Yes that’s her style—so much dialogue! Later works are different though and also worth trying
Henry,
Thanks for this introduction to Iris Murdoch. I have never read any of her novels. Do you have a suggestion for a first one? Also, I'm always fascinated to learn the literary tastes of an author. Proust's style is more traditional than Joyce of Woolf, consistent with what you write about her love of the 19th century classic novel form.
Honestly they are all good starting points. The Bell for short, The Black Prince for full intensity.
Thanks Henry
Excellent survey of Murdoch's concerns. I hope you read and enjoyed at least one of the two books published about the four Oxford friends and philosophers, Murdoch, Midgley, Anscombe and Foot.
I laced Murdoch's ideas through this cri de coeur explaining ten years of perseverance in social policy with very little benefit to anyone to show for it — because of 'the system's relentless preference for going through the motions over engaging the other.
https://insidestory.org.au/orwell-that-ends-well/
I thought metaphysical animals was great but I haven’t read the other one yet. Thanks for the link!
The other one is excellent too. One's written by a man, the other by two women and it shows (in exhibiting the good — but different points of both genders!)