To her credit. That line I quoted earlier so succinctly shows the flaw in his approach.She certainly succeeded in annoying Dawkins. — Ludwig V
I've italicised that last to emphasis it. Seems poignant.Philosophers did not want the human soul to be mixed up in the world of objects, as it must be to make knowledge possible. They were too sensitive about its dignity. — Rings and Books
Mary read Honour Moderations and Literae Humaniore, along with Iris Murdoch, at Somerville. No, she does not disregard the history of philosophy. Indeed, one of the claims of Metaphysical Animals is that the (women) were to a large degree responsible for the rejection of Ayer's positivism and a returned emphasis on the classics. Certainly one would not sensibly claim Anscombe or Foot ignore Aristotle.It was the novelty and promise of 20th century analytic philosophy to which many at Oxford and elsewhere were enamored. A disregard for the history of philosophy at its root. A return to Aristotle was a response to this novelty. — Fooloso4
Interesting - as do I, and more. The triviality that so often infests the open threads pushes many a discussion into the Inbox. The three more interesting discussions in which I am presently involved are found there, not in the forums. It avoids feeding the "trolls".I do occasionally get a PM from someone appreciating something I said. — Fooloso4
True. But perhaps their attachment to ataraxia or apatheia shows their attitude to it.The Stoics and Epicureans did not disregard daily life or human attachments either. — Fooloso4
Yes. But I think that putting her point in this rather abbreviated way is a hostage to fortune, given that not all her readers will be sympatheticThey were too sensitive about its dignity. — Banno
They thought they were revolutionizing philosophy - making a new start. So they were aware they had a history. As Russell shows, they read their history entirely in their own terms, which is a sure way to misunderstand it. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that they misinterpreted it, rather than disregarded it?A disregard for the history of philosophy at its root. — Fooloso4
So I don't think you are on the right track here. — Banno
Indeed, one of the claims of Metaphysical Animals is that the (women) were to a large degree responsible for the rejection of Ayer's positivism and a returned emphasis on the classics. — Banno
There are many in these parts who fall short for being enamored of novelty. — Leontiskos
It was the novelty and promise of 20th century analytic philosophy to which many at Oxford and elsewhere were enamored. A disregard for the history of philosophy at its root. A return to Aristotle was a response to this novelty. — Fooloso4
But perhaps their attachment to ataraxia or apatheia shows their attitude to it. — Ludwig V
As Aristotle reminds his readers, Heraclitus said to some visitors who were surprised to see him by the oven warming himself:
Here too there are gods.
Cicero said:
Socrates was the first to call philosophy down from the heavens… and compel it to ask questions about life and morality.
(Tusculan Disputations V 10–11).
Xenophon wrote the Oeconomicus, a Socratic dialogue about household management.
The Stoics and Epicureans did not disregard daily life or human attachments either. — Fooloso4
I'm sorry I missed that. The idea that the panic about Communism that prevailed in the USA after WW2 affected philosophy is attractive. But it doesn't explain anything that Russell, for example, said before WW2 and the atmosphere was not at all the same in Europe.Yes, a new start. A break with the past. Bringing clarity to what was confusion. There was a thread last year that addressed this — Fooloso4
The encyclopedias say that the sources say that he inherited the role of "king of the Ionians". Little (actually, nothing) is known of what this actually involved, but it is known that he resigned the office in favour of his younger brother. One might argue that his philosophy betrays aristocratic, rather than democratic, attitudes.I'm not sure about Heraclitus. — Leontiskos
Er, except Cicero, Socrates, Xenophon, and Aurelius were all married men. — Leontiskos
My criticism is not about her misrepresentation of Descartes, it is about her misrepresentation of the history of philosophy. — Fooloso4
Practically all the great European philosophers have been bachelors.
how does it come that you don't practise what you preach by yourself educating Xanthippe, but live with a wife who is the hardest to get along with of all the women there are—yes, or all that ever were, I suspect, or ever will be?
Because I observe that men who wish to become expert horsemen do not get the most docile horses but rather those that are high-mettled, believing that if they can manage this kind, they will easily handle any other. My course is similar. Mankind at large is what I wish to deal and associate with; and so I have got her, well assured that if I can endure her, I shall have no difficulty in my relations with all the rest of human kind.
She refers to Aristotle but neglects to address the natural household relation that Aristotle discusses first, namely, master and slave. Nor does she address the numerous problems he discusses regarding marriage including war, destruction of cities, and revolution. Much of what he says regarding marriage centers around the division or labor and property. (Politics, Book 1) — Fooloso4
Philosophers did not want the human soul to be mixed up in the world of objects, as it must be to make knowledge possible.
It seems rather unlikely that Midgley was talking about marriage ancient-Greek-style. Wouldn't the natural assumption be that she meant marriage 20th century style?Is this the kind of married life Mary advocated and you imagine marks an important distinction between philosophers? — Fooloso4
What does that tell us about their philosophy - or indeed about their science?Natural science was a part of the studies at Plato's Academy. Descartes wrote on medicine and optics. — Fooloso4
Well, we do think it is important to read their work in its context, and sometimes details of their lives give us pause for thought. I'm sure you can think of examples.The history of philosophy is not the biography of philosophers and their marital status. — Fooloso4
It seems rather unlikely that Midgley was talking about marriage ancient-Greek-style. Wouldn't the natural assumption be that she meant marriage 20th century style? — Ludwig V
What does that tell us about their philosophy - or indeed about their science? — Ludwig V
Philosophers did not want the human soul to be mixed up in the world of objects, as it must be to make knowledge possible.
Well, we do think it is important to read their work in its context, and sometimes details of their lives give us pause for thought. I'm sure you can think of examples. — Ludwig V
What Midgley does not mention is that Descartes' mother died a year after his birth, that he was sent away at about age ten to the Jesuit college of La Flèche, or that he had a daughter, Francis, who died at the age of five. Rather than a deliberate and immature choice to not develop attachments, his attachments were severed from him. — Fooloso4
I'm reminded of the arguments about celibacy between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches about celibacy - and, no doubt, in the Protestant movement. I wonder whether that influenced her in this piece. — Ludwig V
True. But this is short talk for the BBC, not a scholarly disquisition. So the assumption that her audience would assume that she was talking about marriage as popularly conceived in the mid-20th century is not unreasonable.Well, she does not make the distinction, which is part of the problem with her misrepresentation of the history of philosophy. — Fooloso4
Yes, of course that's true. The sciences did not spin off from philosophy until much, much later. But how does that show that Plato and Descartes, in their different ways, did not both regard the human soul as radically distinct from physical objects? Or, as MIdgley summarizes their philosophies and her objection to them:-No distinction was made between philosophy and science. Science is from the Latin word for knowledge. — Fooloso4
Philosophers did not want the human soul to be mixed up in the world of objects, as it must be to make knowledge possible.
Fair point. You seem to be suggesting that this is an alternative explanation for someone having difficulty with interpersonal relations. So the most you can say is that Midgley does not consider that a philosopher might have difficulty with interpersonal relationships for more reasons than one, or even that not being married and liking solitude might not be related as cause and effect, but both have a common cause.Rather than a deliberate and immature choice to not develop attachments, his attachments were severed from him — Fooloso4
So we agree on that. But that legitimates asking the question whether they were married or not and considering whether it may have affected their philosophy. It seems likely to me that we would not find a strong correlation between marital status and specific philosophical doctrines, but we need at least to consider the possibility, don't we?Context has more to do with their historical and cultural situatedness than with their marital status. Marriage too must be put in this context, as you point out. — Fooloso4
Midgley certainly thought it did.The question stands as to whether solitude and self-sufficiency caters to philosophy. — Leontiskos
Virginia Woolf (admittedly not strictly a philosopher) is making a similar point in her famous "A Room of One's Own"Philosophers need above all to concentrate. They are not like poets (nearly all good poets marry, however madly). What they most need is space for thought.
Well, I was taken. by this line:Is this the kind of married life Mary advocated and you imagine marks an important distinction between philosophers? — Fooloso4
A curiously accurate characterisation of marriage. It acknowledges the difference between a flatmate and a partner. There is a very different commitment, the willingness to work together while accepting those aspects of one's partner that are not within in one's control. More than a recognition of the other, marriage seeks the likes of Joy in the presence of the other....most people recoil towards experience, and attempt to bring their strengthened self to terms with the rich confusion from which it fled. Marriage, which is a willing acceptance of the genuinely and lastingly strange, is typical of this revulsion. — Rings and Books
So the assumption that her audience would assume that she was talking about marriage as popularly conceived in the mid-20th century is not unreasonable. — Ludwig V
People leading a normal domestic life would not, I believe, have fallen into this sort of mistake.
But how does that show that Plato and Descartes, in their different ways, did not both regard the human soul as radically distinct from physical objects? — Ludwig V
Philosophers did not want the human soul to be mixed up in the world of objects, as it must be to make knowledge possible.
You seem to be suggesting that this is an alternative explanation for someone having difficulty with interpersonal relations. — Ludwig V
It seems likely to me that we would not find a strong correlation between marital status and specific philosophical doctrines, but we need at least to consider the possibility, don't we? — Ludwig V
My course is similar. Mankind at large is what I wish to deal and associate with; and so I have got her, well assured that if I can endure her, I shall have no difficulty in my relations with all the rest of human kind.
More than a recognition of the other, marriage seeks the likes of Joy in the presence of the other. — Banno
Midgley points out that it is redundant to deduce the existence of one's wife or husband from first principles. Doubt here is absurd. — Banno
I think that's a false opposition and that the test of time is not so much whether the text is right or wrong, whether on its own terms or ours. It is whether it helps us to understand ideas about philosophical problems that may not take for granted what we take for granted.Perhaps, but: 1) We are not that audience. We could read it as a quaint period piece, but if we are to evaluate it on its philosophical merits we might ask if it stands the test of time. — Fooloso4
I don't see any such intention here. Though I agree that the claim that marriage is normal and even mature might lead young men astray (but not, of course, mature people like ourselves).2) If her intention was to persuade young men to marry it is revisionist history. — Fooloso4
Yes, and that is puzzling. It could be a rhetorical gesture towards the detailed argument about dualism. After all, such ideas are present, if only as unacknowledged background. For Plato, for example, it is clearly not an inappropriate description of his story of the ascent of the soul to heaven. For Berkeley, it is very clear, since he says, loudly, that the concept of matter is an excuse for scepticism and atheism and he is motivated by the desire to put paid to it. However, I prefer to think, in this context, that she uses the word to surprise her audience into thinking of a familiar model in a different way. This isn't a scholarly philosophical text.Philosophers did not want the human soul to be mixed up in the world of objects, as it must be to make knowledge possible.
As I read it she is claiming a concern to avoid contamination by the world of objects. — Fooloso4
Yes, and I agree that those claims are problematic. I just think that there's a baby in the bathwater.No. There are various reasons why someone does not marry. It was in response to Midgley's sweeping claims about immaturity and forming attachments. — Fooloso4
I'm very much in favour of judging from the fruits that it bears, though maybe the intentions should also be taken into account - not necessarily as an excuse.That is something I would judge from the fruits it bears. It would have to go further than just marital status, however. — Fooloso4
My course is similar. Mankind at large is what I wish to deal and associate with; and so I have got her, well assured that if I can endure her, I shall have no difficulty in my relations with all the rest of human kind.
Socrates doesn't speak of taming Xanthippe, more of getting along with her. Your comment takes us to yet another model - the courtship of Petruchio and Katherina in "The Taming of the Shrew". That is indeed a story of oppression. But it is true that Socrates sounds far too cold-blooded for our expectations. But then, arranged marriages disappoint us Westerners. Yet one can't arbitrarily say that they aren't marriages or even that they exclude the possibility of love.His course in marrying Xanthippe is similar to that of a horse-trainer breaking a willful horse. — Fooloso4
I also like it a lot. But commitment is tricky. I don’t think one can do it in advance. No matter what ceremony is supposed to establish the commitment, it needs to be maintained, or perhaps performed from day to day and even from hour to hour. If and when circumstances change, it may need to be renewed – life throws things you did not sign up for at you.A curiously accurate characterisation of marriage. It acknowledges the difference between a flatmate and a partner. There is a very different commitment, the willingness to work together while accepting those aspects of one's partner that are not within in one's control. More than a recognition of the other, marriage seeks the likes of Joy in the presence of the other. — Banno
Quite so. We should not say that marriage is like this, or like that, only that it can be like this or like that – even swopping from one to another in the course of a day. What it will be turn out to be may not be what you expect. It is very much down to the complicated interaction between the parties.Yes, it is like that in some cases. In others it is transactional or a battlefield. — Fooloso4
So her argument is that traditional philosophy privileges one kind of human experience, typified by Descartes' solitary thinker (and, perhaps Rodin's statue, which also suggests the thinking is a solitary occupation) or Virginia Woolf’s desire for a room of her own. But still, she should have concluded with "That, I suggest, is a typical and equally valid human experience." Her attempts to give a balanced view, acknowledging that solitary thinking has achieved some good results, lead me to think that this is what she was aiming for...an account of human knowledge which women’s whole experience falsifies is inadequate and partial and capricious. Philosophers have generally talked for instance as though it were obvious that one consciousness went to one body, as though each person were a closed system which could only signal to another by external behaviour, and that behaviour had to be interpreted from previous experience. I wonder whether they would have said the same if they had been frequently pregnant and suckling, if they had been constantly faced with questions like, “What have you been eating to make him ill?”, constantly experiencing that strange physical sympathy between child and parent, between husband and wife, which reveals the presence of an ailment and often its nature when experience is silent; constantly lending eyes and hands to the child that requires them, if in a word they had got used to the idea that their bodies were by no means exclusively their own? That, I suggest, is typical human experience.
So her argument is that traditional philosophy privileges one kind of human experience, typified by Descartes' solitary thinker (and, perhaps Rodin's statue, which also suggests the thinking is a solitary occupation) or Virginia Woolf’s desire for a room of her own. — Ludwig V
It looks like a simple question, but it isn't. I wouldn't want to reply without looking up his argument for a start. One reply might start from the argument here, that solitary thinking (which may or may not be what he is talking about) doesn't produce the best ideas on its own. The answer from that stand-point would be, no. But that might mean rejecting his argument about "contemplation". That is thinkable. I'm not a fan of his hierarchical argument for the Supreme Good.Now, Aristotle shows how contemplation is the highest virtue. So can we conclude that philosophy provides us with the very best ideas? — Metaphysician Undercover
While you and I might know better, Cartesian scepticism is unfortunately not uncommon. — Banno
I also agree, though sometimes my conscience pricks me. Someone should, at least from time to time, try to introduce a little doubt into their thinking.I agree, but it is one battle I usually choose not to fight. — Fooloso4
Socrates doesn't speak of taming Xanthippe, more of getting along with her. — Ludwig V
Mankind at large [and not Xanthippe] is what I wish to deal and associate with ...
You could be right. If the name Xanthippe was just dreamed up by Xenophon that the idea that there's something else going on here would have some legs. As it is, I think you are reading too much into this.Xenophon is making a little joke. — Fooloso4
I think that this refers to mankind in the sense that Xanthippe is also part of mankind. All he wants to achieve isMankind at large [and not Xanthippe] is what I wish to deal and associate with
That doesn't sound like he's thinking of training horses.I shall have no difficulty in my relations with all the rest of human kind.
Well, Descartes does say that he wants to doubt everything that can be doubted. So I don't doubt that I'm justified in disrupting their doubt.Yes. Introduce a little doubt into there their doubtful thinking, that is, into what is doubtful about their doubting. — Fooloso4
Ah, now, that's pretty much true. You can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.Perhaps the philosopher can only teach those who have been made ready. — Fooloso4
It looks like a simple question, but it isn't. I wouldn't want to reply without looking up his argument for a start. One reply might start from the argument here, that solitary thinking (which may or may not be what he is talking about) doesn't produce the best ideas on its own. The answer from that stand-point would be, no. But that might mean rejecting his argument about "contemplation". That is thinkable. I'm not a fan of his hierarchical argument for the Supreme Good. — Ludwig V
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.