Great review, great book. I struggled to get my head around the challenges in metaethics many years ago when working on my masters thesis. I wish I'd had Parfit's OWM to refer to then. Parfit found plausible answers to many of the challenges that stumped me!
Just got it... he wants it to be a different sort of book which is an entirely fair critical position. The philosophical critique, as far as I can tell as a non philosopher, seems to justify his position. But, he treats a biography, which goes no further than the individual under review, as if it were generalisable in some
way, which it cannot be. He also lacks common sense.
Thank you so much for this recommendation. The audiobook looks excellent as well - I've snapped it up. The story of him crying for Bach's composing time being cut short --to our loss-- is incredibly moving. I look forward to getting to know Parfitt better.
Would it have been better for Parfit to have more teaching work? At some margin, all that freedom encouraged him into paying too much attention to criticisms and being more pressured on time might have got him writing sooner, thus being more original, less contorted.
How much was he simply philosophising his own psychology and to what extent should we therefore distrust his thinking?
Was he treated like that because of the English class system?
How do we reconcile his belief about suffering with his treatment of people who were, once, close friends, girlfriends, etc? Surely his rudeness, coldness, would cause something like suffering to at least some of them?
Oooh. Interesting. Some of that quite pointy too. I do think All Souls (and hence class system) is a big part of the answer. I also think that he was in part - at times - blind to his own coldness, but it would be interesting to know from someone who knows more closely.
May 28, 2023·edited May 28, 2023Liked by Henry Oliver
Interesting thoughts. He was certainly cold to other people. We could say this was selfish, but perhaps his monomaniacal focus on his work is explained by his own psychological makeup. (It's likely he was on the autism spectrum, as some other great thinkers probably were.) He seemed to feel that his work was so important that it justified his behavour. If he was right about free will, then, arguably, his behaviour wasn't blameworthy. He couldn't help himself! He certainly succeeded in changing some influential minds with his two works, but he was working in philosophy, so expecting unform respect for his work would be too high a bar.
Great review, great book. I struggled to get my head around the challenges in metaethics many years ago when working on my masters thesis. I wish I'd had Parfit's OWM to refer to then. Parfit found plausible answers to many of the challenges that stumped me!
Thanks!
What do you make of Stephen Mulhall’s negative LRB review of Edmonds’ book?
Just got it... he wants it to be a different sort of book which is an entirely fair critical position. The philosophical critique, as far as I can tell as a non philosopher, seems to justify his position. But, he treats a biography, which goes no further than the individual under review, as if it were generalisable in some
way, which it cannot be. He also lacks common sense.
Havent read it and don't have a subscription...
I am very excited to read this one.
Enjoy!
Thank you so much for this recommendation. The audiobook looks excellent as well - I've snapped it up. The story of him crying for Bach's composing time being cut short --to our loss-- is incredibly moving. I look forward to getting to know Parfitt better.
Oh good! You won’t be disappointed. Top shelf stuff.
I am going to podcast with Edmonds in late June. What are your other questions? !
Lost my notes but I would ask...
Would it have been better for Parfit to have more teaching work? At some margin, all that freedom encouraged him into paying too much attention to criticisms and being more pressured on time might have got him writing sooner, thus being more original, less contorted.
How much was he simply philosophising his own psychology and to what extent should we therefore distrust his thinking?
Was he treated like that because of the English class system?
How do we reconcile his belief about suffering with his treatment of people who were, once, close friends, girlfriends, etc? Surely his rudeness, coldness, would cause something like suffering to at least some of them?
Oooh. Interesting. Some of that quite pointy too. I do think All Souls (and hence class system) is a big part of the answer. I also think that he was in part - at times - blind to his own coldness, but it would be interesting to know from someone who knows more closely.
I’m not one one side or another particularly but those were the biographical challenges that occurred to me
Interesting thoughts. He was certainly cold to other people. We could say this was selfish, but perhaps his monomaniacal focus on his work is explained by his own psychological makeup. (It's likely he was on the autism spectrum, as some other great thinkers probably were.) He seemed to feel that his work was so important that it justified his behavour. If he was right about free will, then, arguably, his behaviour wasn't blameworthy. He couldn't help himself! He certainly succeeded in changing some influential minds with his two works, but he was working in philosophy, so expecting unform respect for his work would be too high a bar.
Yes it’s an interesting to what extent his behaviour was justifiable on his own terms