have you read her books? What exactly did she propose to re-define our view of Nature? How did she explain what makes humans and other species different?

I read Evolution as a Religion, which was sound, albeit rather schoolmarmly. Read the profiles above - they provide a synopsis.

Mary Midgley has died at the ripe age of 99. She was a staunch critic of 'scientism' not from the perspective of religion but of humanism (and in that respect, somewhat similar in her views to her younger compatriot Raymond Tallis.) Her Guardian profile page is here. — Wayfarer

I read a bit about her here:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/The_Philosophy_Now_Festival

In 2012, her son accepting her PN Award for Contributions in the Fight Against Stupidity.
Excerpt:

'It comes as rather a surprise to me to discover that I’ve been raised by a fire-breathing dragon, and it’s not a picture completely in accord with my own view. In fact, with all due respect to Andrew Brown, I think it’s nonsense. But to quote my mother from the same piece, “I keep thinking that I shall have no more to say – and then finding some wonderfully idiotic doctrine which I can contradict – a negative approach, as they say, but one that doesn’t seem to run out.”

But her approach is not just negative. In 1991 she published a book entitled Can’t We Make Moral Judgements?, spurred on by a useful piece of stupidity. In a discussion with students concerning the duty of toleration, one of the participants pointed out, ardently and confidently, that “Surely, it’s always wrong to make moral judgements.” I don’t need to point out to Philosophy Now readers that there’s a problem here. The point is that this confident but self-defeating statement of a ‘blindingly obvious truth’, this moral judgement about moral judgements, makes it clear that there’s a ruck in the conceptual carpet here. The result, in the form of my mother’s book, was a typically lucid examination of the nature of moral judgements. She mentioned the concluding passage of this book to Rick [Lewis, PN Editor] and me when discussing this award, so here it is:

“Throughout this little book, I have been suggesting that, far from being helpless in the matter of thinking morally, we have considerable powers for doing that very difficult thing. If this is so, it seems to be somewhat wasteful to entertain confused taboos and inhibitions that stop us doing it. To name a parallel, it is worthwhile remembering the fate of the Margrave of Brandenburg. He seems not to have bothered to look at his post, and therefore he never opened a particular parcel of music that had been sent to him as a present by some tiresome choirmaster. It was found unopened at his death.

“The choirmaster’s name was J.S. Bach, and the parcel contained what we now call the six Brandenburg Concertos. Not much else is known about the Margrave. No doubt he was a man who got a lot of presents. All the same, it seems possible that he, like the rest of us, sometimes reflected that life was hard on him, and that he had never had the luck that he deserved. It does not seem to have occurred to him that he could have improved the situation just by opening his mail.

“It would surely be a great pity if we were to repeat this mistake in regard to that very remarkable gift, our power of making moral judgements.”

(Can’t We Make Moral Judgements? p.165, The Bristol Press, 1991.)

Marvellous anecdote!

Marvellous anecdote! — Wayfarer

Marvellous Mary !
Another philosopher I have been attracted to but haven't followed up on...

as noted above I read her Evolution as a Religion about ten years ago. Didn’t read another of her books but a number of online essays. As I commented above, she has a rather school-marmly style, but overall I found her writing immensely congenial.

I’ve found her books extremely refreshing and persuasive.

she has a rather school-marmly style, but overall I found her writing immensely congenial. — Wayfarer

I’ve found her books extremely refreshing and persuasive. — Brett

Andrew Anthony interviewed her, describing in context, her spirit and intellect.
Re any school-marmly style, Mary responds to his question on consciousness 'with a professorial air of correction'. Quite the character and driven to write.

On her latest book ( 2014) - provocatively titled Are You an Illusion? 

'There's nothing like a heated debate to whip up interest and Midgley, as spry as she is dry, is glad of the background buzz. "I don't know why the news of this current book has travelled quite widely," she says. "It hasn't happened in the past. I think this topic of the self is rising in fashion. Well aren't I lucky.'

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/23/mary-midgley-philosopher-soul-human-consciousness

'She was one of an extraordinary group of female philosophers at Oxford during the war that comprised Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch, Elizabeth Anscombe and Mary Warnock, all of whom went on to work in moral philosophy or ethics. Was that a coincidence, I ask, or was it a female response to the male world of logical positivism that dominated British philosophy at that time?

"Well some chaps did as well," she replies. "The fact that we were all women, as I keep saying, [is because] in the war there were so few men around, and the men who were around tended to be conscientious objectors or disabled, so there simply wasn't the sort of fighting and squabbling that there was later."

In a recent letter to the Guardian, explaining why she thought there was a shortfall in women philosophers, she wrote: "The trouble is not, of course, men as such – men have done good enough philosophy in the past. What is wrong is a particular style of philosophising that results from encouraging a lot of clever young men to compete in winning arguments. These people then quickly build up a set of games out of simple oppositions and elaborate them until, in the end, nobody else can see what they are talking about."

It has remained one of Midgley's principles to write in such a way that the maximum number of people can see what she's talking about. The philosopher and historian Jonathan Rée says: "She has always written in a language that's not aimed at the cleverest graduate student. She's never been interested in the glamour and greasy pole" associated with Oxbridge and London.'

I think this comparison of women and men philosophers interesting.
Elaborate competitive games v simple clear communication of ideas.
The term 'school-marmly' could be seen as pejorative and off-putting to some.
An elderly women philosopher discounted -
Mary would eat you for breakfast :cool:

I’ve found her books extremely refreshing and persuasive. — Brett

Shame this conversation is taking place in the Lounge.
I think Mary would like to be out there in the bigger forum. The more people to reach the better.
Wittgenstein already given far too much space in convoluted long-winded arguments ! :wink:

I wonder if she altered her style depending on the subject. Perhaps more prickly when against Dawkins?
Any thoughts ?

I’ve read ‘Beast and Man’, ‘Wickedness’ and ‘Heart and Mind’. The last seems to require more concentration than ‘Beast and Man’, but that could be me. But there is certainly nothing complicated in her. Of all the people I’ve read she appeals the most.

I’ve read ‘Beast and Man’, ‘Wickedness’ and ‘Heart and Mind’. The last seems to require more concentration than ‘Beast and Man’, but that could be me. But there is certainly nothing complicated in her. Of all the people I’ve read she appeals the most. — Brett

I read her Evolution as a Religion about ten years ago. Didn’t read another of her books but a number of online essays. — Wayfarer

Interesting to see the books you both chose to read and also that there is a collection of online essays.
I note her appeal as a clear writer. But what of her ideas - the content of her work ?

I was amazed when I scrolled down this compilation list by Ian James Kidd.

http://www.womeninparenthesis.co.uk/about/visit-the-midgley-archive/the-works-of-mary-midgley/

From his Introduction:

'It is a sobering experience to compile the writings of Mary Midgley, for two reasons. The first is the sheer quantity of her writings: over two hundred and eighty items are detailed below. The second is the diversity of her outputs. Alongside her single and co-authored books and edited books, there are articles and essays for philosophy journals, scientific periodicals, newspapers, popular environmental and intellectual magazines, as well as pamphlets, prefaces, interviews, forewords, and, in more recent years, podcasts. Midgley speaks clearly and eloquently on many topics to many audiences – a good mark of a ‘public intellectual’.

Agree. Remarkable intellect, and a long-lived one; didn't start her public career until she was in her 50's and then published for half a century! That's something.

There's another UK philosopher I mentioned above, Raymond Tallis. He's really good, too. I actually emailed him about one of his books, and he answered. Look into him also.

[ Midgley ] didn't start her public career until she was in her 50's and then published for half a century! That's something. — Wayfarer

Totally agree. I think I read somewhere that she waited until she felt she had something to say.
Perhaps...but more likely because she took time out to have a family.

Raymond Tallis. He's really good, too. I actually emailed him about one of his books, and he answered. Look into him also. — Wayfarer

Raymond Tallis.Yes. I read some of his articles in 'Philosophy Now' a while back.
Even bought one of his books 'The Kingdom of Infinite Space: a Portrait of Your Head'.
Not sure if I ever finished it...

The Guardian provides useful book reviews:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/raymond-tallis

What interested me about Mary Midgley was her ideas on morality; that we were moral creatures, even though we did not always act morally, and that we are social creatures. That we had a dark side, our animal nature, that should not be denied. That we don’t have a ready-made system priority system to deal with our conflicts, but that we must find one, we cannot live without some kind of morality.

So for her it was a fight against relativism, against the idea of morality being subjective. She was adamant that we could not shift the blame onto the idea of ‘culture’.

Her disagreement with Dawkins seemed to be against ‘the selfish gene’, the idea that altruism was an act of survival and not of our moral nature. That society was built not through people caring about one another but through caring as a selfish act. How could you even pretend to care about someone if you had no idea what caring was?

https://marymidgley.wordpress.com

Mary on Mary Midgley:

I am a free-lance philosopher.

My special interests are in the relations of humans to the rest of nature, particularly to animals, and the relations between science and religion – especially where  science tends to become a religion.

I formerly lectured in Philosophy at the University of Newcastle on Tyne, UK.  I still live in Newcastle and try to investigate these things when I can.

My most recent books are Science and Poetry, The Myths We Live By,  The Solitary Self; Darwin and the Selfish Gene and a memoir, The Owl of Minerva.

I have three sons.

----------

What interested me about Mary Midgley was her ideas on morality — Brett

Yes, I will have to look into that.

...we don’t have a ready-made system priority system to deal with our conflicts, but that we must find one, we cannot live without some kind of morality. — Brett

Well, it seems that some can and do live without morality. Their own selfishness and greed for power given priority over the care of others. How could any 'ready-made priority system' deal with that?
Here, she seems a bit idealistic ?

Her disagreement with Dawkins seemed to be against ‘the selfish gene’, the idea that altruism was an act of survival and not of our moral nature. That society was built not through people caring about one another but through caring as a selfish act. How could you even pretend to care about someone if you had no idea what caring was? — Brett

In some sense, altruism is a selfish act. But that's another debate. It depends on clarifying definitions.

The idea of caring - that is at the heart of the matter, I think.
As to how people can pretend to care - you just have to look at politics...

Mary Midgley has died at the ripe age of 99. She was a staunch critic of 'scientism' not from the perspective of religion but of humanism (and in that respect, somewhat similar in her views to her younger compatriot Raymond Tallis.) Her Guardian profile page is here. — Wayfarer

If she was so smart she wouldn't have died.

If she was so smart she wouldn't have died. — Hanover

if you were smart you wouldn't write inane comments.

If she was so smart she wouldn't have died. — Hanover

Do you wear smarty-pants ?

Mary Midgley's are just some of the eternally quaint ideas discussed in this esteemed forum.
Anyway, you interrupted my thought processes. How very rude of you :naughty:

I had jumped to wondering about her politics. And what priority system she might have preferred for the wellbeing of individuals and society.

I think she might have been attracted to this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/29/labour-to-propose-wellbeing-law

'Labour is to push for a national law to ensure that new policy decisions are gauged against people’s future health and wellbeing, with an ambitious idea modelled on similar schemes already in place in Wales and New Zealand...

...In New Zealand, the Labour government of Jacinda Ardern said it would plan future national budgets around the concept of wellbeing. The first of these, published in late May, included billions of dollars for mental health services and child poverty as well as record investment in measures to tackle family violence.'

Another in-depth Mary Midgley interview.
Simon Jenkins, Feb 2013.
https://highprofiles.info/interview/mary-midgley/

Some gleanings:

Politics: Socialist

'... I think my parents’ ideas and ideals were jolly sensible and they have remained with me. They were terribly keen on peace and internationalism; they voted Socialist – but they were never extreme: there was never any question of being Communist or anything of that sort.'

Religion: Couldn't believe in the Christianity of her father but didn't doubt the reality of the religious experience.

'Our powers of seeing and hearing vary greatly – somebody who really understands Mozart hears very much more than I do. No, my thought is that there is somethingout there – or things out there – extremely obscure to us; and we express our insights, our suspicions, our guesses about them in ways that suit the culture of the time...We always believed in evolution.'

Writing philosophy:

'I think the main reason I didn’t start writing books earlier was that I was not confident enough that I’d got things right. It wasn’t that I was unwilling to commit myself – I did use to review books, and I used to write articles sometimes when people asked for them – but I didn’t have anything big enough to write a book about, that’s the point.'

Dawkins:

'I think the suggestion that everything is selfish is particularly pernicious because it’s very close to a lot of market economics and, you know, similar, pernicious political thinking today. And providing that with what appears to be solid scientific backing [is] particularly disastrous given the status science enjoys. I mean, the way the idea caught on shows that. And the state of the world at the time was so obviously such that you’d make it worse by encouraging selfishness, you know?

Dawkins had not worried about this word ‘selfish’. He hadn’t seen all the sort of sociological and economic and moral [implications]...
And then, 30 years after The Selfish Gene came out, Dawkins said that perhaps it would have been better to call it ‘The Co-operative Gene’! It didn’t seem to strike him that it’s not just a trifling alteration –'

Significant question:

Iris Murdoch:‘It is always a significant question to ask about any philosopher; “what are they afraid of?”’

'I suppose I am frightened of going wrong in the sense of saying something mistaken which really has serious consequences....I have, in fact, tried quite hard over the years not to say things that might give unnecessary offence to people...I try to concentrate on the cause rather than the person.In general these days we do tend to think that we ought not to attack people, and indeed we ought not to, but we have still to attack things.'

Death:

Obviously, I don’t see any way of being cheerful about the fact that people have to die and leave their children....It certainly prompts this thought: I had hoped to do so-and-so. Well, I’d better get on and do it! You know? If I can.'

Why Philosophy?

'The reason I’m in philosophy at all is that I think it matters to try to bring together the various thoughts we have in a harmonious whole to deal with the sort of gross conflicts that [arise in life]. And if philosophers are moving in a direction that impedes that, that goes positively contrary to it, they are doing wrong.'

What interested me about Mary Midgley was her ideas on morality; that we were moral creatures, even though we did not always act morally, and that we are social creatures. — Brett

Which of the 3 books you read would you say expressed her ideas on morality succinctly. I like the sound of 'Heart and Mind'. When I said earlier that the idea of caring is at the heart of the matter, I stopped short. It is not enough: it should also be at the Head, in more ways than one.

So for her it was a fight against relativism, against the idea of morality being subjective. She was adamant that we could not shift the blame onto the idea of ‘culture’. — Brett

Could you explain this further, please. *
'A fight against relativism' suggests to me that she was an absolutist. A black and white thinker.
That's not the impression I had formed in my mind.
What 'blame' is being talked of here?

The disagreement with Dawkins seems to have been a bitter one, over 30 years ?
At one point, she apologised for her extreme, hostile reaction.
Seems almost obsessive...
Was she right ?

* Edit to add:
Earlier from her son's acceptance speech, quoting from her book:
(Can’t We Make Moral Judgements? p.165, The Bristol Press, 1991.)
' It would surely be a great pity if we were to repeat this mistake in regard to that very remarkable gift, our power of making moral judgements.'

Seems that she wasn't 'against the idea of morality being subjective'.

'A fight against relativism' suggests to me that she was an absolutist. A black and white thinker.
That's not the impression I had formed in my mind.
What 'blame' is being talked of here? — Amity

My impression is that she meant that our morality is not subjective, that it is not relative to different cultures or ideas, that it is common to all people and behind our social evolution.

In regards to ‘culture’ she meant that our acts that have been so abhorrent, our behaviour, are not the results of our culture, as if it was something removed from us and directed our behaviour, but are the acts of an animal quite capable of appalling acts.

What she had said was that ‘ our inborn emotional constitution is our only source of ideas about what is good ... On the other hand, that constitution does not itself supply a ready-made priority system by which we can arbitrate among those wishes when they clash ...that’s why we have to find ... such a priority system ... why we cannot live without some kind of morality, and why in fact every human culture has one’.

Final words. Last book on the list:
http://www.womeninparenthesis.co.uk/about/visit-the-midgley-archive/the-works-of-mary-midgley/

'What is Philosophy For?' (London: Bloomsbury, 2018).

Review
Engaging and accessible, this vigorous swansong exemplifies many of Midgley's virtues, and revisits many of her favourite themes ... [it helps] us to see that many of our problems arise from trying to fit everything into a single explanatory template, rather than realising that one and the same reality can be understood from irreducibly different points of view. * The Tablet * Her final answer to the question "What is philosophy for?" is that its aim is not at all like that of the sciences. Scientists are specialists who study parts of the world, but philosophy concerns everybody. It tries to bring together aspects of life that have previously been unconnected in order to make a more coherent world-picture, which is not a private luxury but something essential for human life. * Philosophy Now *

rather than realising that one and the same reality can be understood from irreducibly different points of view. — Amity

What does that mean?

My impression is that she meant that our morality is not subjective, that it is not relative to different cultures or ideas, that it is common to all people and behind our social evolution.

In regards to ‘culture’ she meant that our acts that have been so abhorrent, our behaviour, are not the results of our culture, as if it was something removed from us and directed our behaviour, but are the acts of an animal quite capable of appalling acts. — Brett

OK, appreciate your impression. I think I need to read her own words and unpack them.
I think that I both agree and disagree with her !
Now which book do I need to peek into ?

rather than realising that one and the same reality can be understood from irreducibly different points of view.
— Amity

What does that mean? — Brett

Good question. Ask 'Philosophy Now' - It's their review on Amazon.

What do you think it might mean ?

I don’t know.

Ask 'Philosophy Now' - It's their review on Amazon. — Amity

Sorry, my mistake. Didn't think it sounded like PN. That bit of the review was from The Template.
Amazon uses asterisks to highlight and separate review comments.

Better here :
https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/what-is-philosophy-for-9781350051102/

'In her last published work, Mary Midgley addresses provocative questions, interrogating the various forms of our current intellectual anxieties and confusions and how we might deal with them. In doing so, she provides a robust, yet not uncritical, defence of philosophy and the life of the mind.

This defence is expertly placed in the context of contemporary debates about science, religion, and philosophy. It asks whether, in light of rampant scientific and technological developments, we still need philosophy to help us think about the big questions of meaning, knowledge, and value.'

Helpful 'Table of Contents' follows.

I don’t know. — Brett

Mary would be upset.
But would smile at reviews - clearer and not trying to sound clever.
Like this one,

Tim Lukeman
5.0 out of 5 starsSumming up a life of thought
27 March 2019 - Published on Amazon.com

'The late Mary Midgley's final book, published a few months short of her 100th birthday, is both a summing up & a reminder of the importance of the philosophic life. Reiterating & reaffirming her opposition to scientism, reductionism, and what she so wonderfully called "nothing buttery" as a too-narrow vision of life, Midgley takes a gently-toned but scathingly incisive scalpel to those ideas.

And again, she makes clear that she isn't opposed to science, not when it's used properly. She describes it as a precision tool, superb for doing what it was made to do. What she denies is its use as an all-purpose tool, as if a hammer could do the job of a screwdriver or an acetylene torch with equal facility. (And this use of homely, down-to-earth metaphors & similes is one of her greatest strengths, making complex philosophical ideas accessible to all, without any dumbing down.)

Of course, it's no wonder that philosophy is under assault in a world that values highly-skilled drones who don't think too much about their lives. That might lead to questions, and that might undermine the pursuit of endless profit & power & control. Midgley barely touches on this aspect, but it's there nonetheless. She's asking the questions that philosophy should ask: what is a life for? What is it about? What does it mean?

For many, these are uncomfortable or even frightening questions. Hence the disdain for & dismissal of philosophy by so many, including many otherwise intelligent & well-educated folk. Hence the drive to reduce human existence, even mind itself, to an illusion, a matter of blind chemical or atomic reactions … and human existence as a bizarre, freakish accident at best. But is that all we are, in the end? Is that how you feel? Do your feelings even matter or count? Midgley argues that they do.

And for all the calm, clever, conversational tone of Midgley's prose, hers is a deeply felt & passionate argument. It's nothing less than a call to reclaim yourself — your Self — from a worldview that diminishes you in both subtle & overt ways. For anyone who believes in being & becoming more humane & human, most highly recommended!'

Just downloaded her 'The Myths We Live By' - currently free on kindle edition :smile:
Review:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/aug/16/highereducation.news1

About the highprofiles interview I linked to earlier:
Simon Jenkins, Feb 2013.
https://highprofiles.info/interview/mary-midgley/

I didn't realise that the site and its interviewers had a Christian core.
Underlying agenda behind its interviews is spelled out in its Manifesto.

https://highprofiles.info/#manifesto

List of those interviewed: https://highprofiles.info/interviews/

Dawkins is there. Linked to Third Way online magazine.
And
Daniel Dennett
https://highprofiles.info/interview/daniel-dennett/