tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post6207639789534269809..comments2023-10-11T06:50:10.494-04:00Comments on The Glass-Bottom Blog: Parfit, carpet knightZedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10623092831367861959noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-39134597909623713872011-09-05T21:32:27.950-04:002011-09-05T21:32:27.950-04:00I guess I don't have a problem w/ Parfit as Ma...I guess I don't have a problem w/ Parfit as Major Thinker purely on the basis of Reasons & Persons, which introduced a fair number of new ideas (the Mere Addition Paradox etc.); I think his approach to trying to reconcile commonsense morality with consequentialism -- by saying that you have to patch both for independent reasons and once you patch them they look suspiciously similar -- was also fairly novel. In fields that are at all technical it is difficult, as a rule, to justify the profile-worthiness of one's subject without appealing to authority or derailing the profile.Zedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623092831367861959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-62410593504060190482011-09-05T20:06:00.291-04:002011-09-05T20:06:00.291-04:00I guess my larger discomfort is that: if it's ...I guess my larger discomfort is that: if it's supposed to be, on any level, a profile of a Major Thinker qua Major Thinker, shouldn't there be either an earnest appreciation of his (absurd) goal of finally solving morality, and a thorough explanation/defense of his achievements thus far? Or otherwise, contend the actual argument of his philosophy, which from many perspectives (JRR's among them) seems extremely problematic? I guess my impression is that it's a human interest story masquerading as an appreciation of a Major Thinker. (If it's not obvious already I do not subscribe to the belief that he justifies that designation.)zbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14795831846754083167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-29417723713146103372011-09-05T18:11:10.054-04:002011-09-05T18:11:10.054-04:00Yes, I honestly would not have known about Sidgwic...Yes, I honestly would not have known about Sidgwick if I hadn't read Parfit. The piece seems to me quite explicitly meant as a human interest story on a Major Thinker -- e.g. no attempt is made to review the new book, or to explain the arguments of the old one -- but I suppose the guy is odd enough to be amusing even if you don't know the work. I do think the horn-tooting is necessary though, as otherwise it's not clear why Parfit should be profiled by the NY'er.Zedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10623092831367861959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5145200404704322540.post-48685674406222527092011-09-05T17:59:15.255-04:002011-09-05T17:59:15.255-04:00The situating of this piece struck me as strange, ...The situating of this piece struck me as strange, all the "Parfit is thought by many to be the most original moral philosopher in the English-speaking world" and then one of his books is "the most important book in its field [moral philosophy] ... since Henry Sidgwick"—readers are expected to be so ignorant of contemporary philosophy that these statements are necessary and unqualified, inserted as asides, and not even really explained until p. 3 or so? As you suggest, the piece also works much better as a personality-profile than any sort of critical reading—seems a sloppy way of underlining "this guy is important."zbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14795831846754083167noreply@blogger.com