On What Matters is a major work in moral philosophy. It is the long-awaited follow-up to Derek Parfit's 1984 book Reasons and Persons, one of the landmarks of twentieth-century philosophy. Parfit now presents a powerful new treatment of reasons, rationality, and normativity, and a critical examination of three systematic moral theories - Kant's ethics, contractualism, and consequentialism - leading to his own ground-breaking synthetic conclusion. Along the way he discusses a wide range of moral issues, such as the significance of consent, treating people as a means rather than an end, and free will and responsibility. On What Matters is already the most-discussed work in moral philosophy: its publication is likely to establish it as a modern classic which everyone working on moral philosophy will have to read, and which many others will turn to for stimulation and illumination.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
"already the most-discussed work in moral philosophy"
Just so you know (from the publisher)....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
"Let me give an example. Parfit prefers circulating his manuscripts for extensive discussion and review and endorsement before publishing them. I think a couple of serious reasons against doing that are, firstly that unlike publication, it seems to divide the community into the cozy haves and the frozen-out have-nots. Secondly and more seriously having the work borne aloft by a chorus of attractive cheerleaders inflates its own interest. Taking these facts as reasons, I agree, is adopting an irreducibly normative stance. . . ."
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/PAPERS/Allsoulsnight.htm
It's also now being talked about on blogs! This book is hot!
Say what you will of this book (I'll waive judgment until I read thru it carefully), but you cannot help but admire the mind that wrote REASONS AND PERSONS.
I thought that Parfit largely engaged in funsterism.
Does circulating manuscripts really "divide the community into cozy haves and the frozen-out have-nots"? Like every academic discipline, philosophy has plenty of ways of doing this. But circulation of manuscripts is no longer one of them. Like most people circulating manuscripts these days, Parfit had the then-titled "Climbing the Mountain" online at least half a decade ago. It's true that those without internet access may have been frozen out, though.
For what it's worth, I wish he'd stuck with the original title.
To 10:57:
Neither I, nor anyone I know, can easily find several of Kripke's unpublished manuscripts.
I agree, though, that in Parfit's case, it was readily accessible to anyone with an internet connection.
Yes, but at least volume 1 of Kripke's papers is supposed to come out this summer.
Also: although I'm sympathetic to Blackburn's concerns about being misinterpreted by Parfit, I didn't really understand his (Blackburn's) objection to putting the manuscript on line for anyone with internet access to read before publishing it. It wasn't like Parfit just circulated it among friends. Methinks that Blackburn was just taking a pot shot because (understandably) bitter about being misunderstood by Parfit.
The pre-pub circulation thing rubs me the wrong way too, but not for Blackburn's reason. To me it's more like, "I'm so awesome that I can just send you my shit and you'll read it and send me comments and feel privileged." (What do you think Derek would do if I sent him 280 pages and asked him what he thought of it?) And the perfectionism also seems a bit narcissistic.
I dunno. I'm not really as down on the idea as it sounds in that paragraph. He's a good guy, but this seems just a little dickish.
I agree with anon 5:22pm. It does seem to me like Blackburn was misunderstood by Parfit (or maybe I just find Blackburn's expressivism more to my liking), but in the quoted statement Blackburn sounds like a jilted lover. Parfit thanks both Simon and Angela (his wife?) Blackburn in the Preface to his last book, but looks like Blackburn was kept out of the loop this time.
@Anon 6:17pm Narcissitic and dickish, would you go that far really? It seems to me most perfectionists are so because it's psychologically impossible for them to do otherwise. It's not like they can help it. Would you like it if those who publish often and aplenty with lower standards are called attention whores?
Would you like it if those who publish often and aplenty with lower standards are called attention whores?
We can do both, you know.
6:52, I'm pretty sure that people very frequently can't help their most dickish behavior -- that it's psychologically impossible for them to refrain. That doesn't make it better or excusable. Note that I did say "a bit" and "just a little". (This is Anon 6:17 again, by the way.)
And no, I don't particularly mind if you call frequent publishers "attention whores", although I don't agree with that assessment.
And yes, Angela is Simon's wife. She works (or at least used to work) as an editor for OUP.
To me it's more like, "I'm so awesome that I can just send you my shit and you'll read it and send me comments and feel privileged." (What do you think Derek would do if I sent him 280 pages and asked him what he thought of it?)
Hey, if you're well-known and well-respected enough that you can circulate your stuff and get lots of useful comments prior to its being published, it seems to me that doing so is a great way of trying to make your stuff as high-quality as possible. Sure, lowly anonymous me might not have might not be in a position to do such a thing. But that's tough shit for me, and I don't see that as any reason for Parfit or people in his position to refrain.
Excuse me. Shouldn't the focus of this thread be on the publisher's claim that Parfit's book "is already the most-discussed work in moral philosophy"? Get with it, people.
I don't generally have a problem with manuscript pre-circulation.
'on what matters' does seem to have taken this to a new level, though. First, it's a book not a paper!
Notwithstanding that it has been online for a few years, isn't there an inner circle effect in that the most recent revisions are not posted online?
It really does go a bit far when there is a published collection of reactions to the book by major philosophers, but the book itself is nowhere to be seen.
PA: yes. Doesn't hyperbole of this kind undermine itself? I mean, if it really were "already the most-discussed work in moral philosophy," would OUP really have to say that it is?
Is there any hint at how the "brilliance" of this book works out? I understand that we are supposed to kowtow to him but a justification would be nice.
It is widely discussed, of course, but not deeply or comprehensively discussed in publications (to my knowledge). The issue of the actual value of the book, whatever it might be, has largely been obscured by the aura of being Parfit's next *big* book. I'm not sure it will ever get the reading it deserves.
I'm not sure it will ever get the reading it deserves.
If that turns-out to be correct, then is the hyperbole of the publisher partially responsible?
Maybe that, but I'm more inclined to compare it to DeLillo's "Most Photographed Barn in America"
In fairness, this book (Parfit) is the only one I know of where a special issue of a journal (Ratio) *and* a new book were both published about this book (e.g., Parfit)...before it was actually published. This is quite a feat. Any others...?
Quite a feat of what?
Post a Comment