, but I think it needs to go on my "to read" list.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Anscombe and Davidson
I really have nothing to add to the comments thread, but I feel that I ought to link to this discussion over at Leiter Reports. It features good comments by Daniel Lindquist, Dave Maier, and Jimmy Doyle (who was the other Englishman at the University of Virginia Philosophy Department when I was there). If Stoutland really implies that Anscombe believes in Aristotelian physics then that would be unfortunate, but I suspect that he means to imply no such thing. I haven't read any of the book in question, but I think it needs to go on my "to read" list.
, but I think it needs to go on my "to read" list.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Leiter really needs to approve comments more quickly. It's taken hours for each of my comments to get posted -- so if you ignore the two or three posts before each of mine, you can see what I was actually responding to!
ReplyDeleteI'm curious why he made a post about this. I guess the Anscombeans at Chicago have started to get to him?
I think you manage to make a lot of sense despite the time lag.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why he posted about it, but my first guess was that he (like a great many people) hadn't been able to make much sense of Intention and found Stoutland's summary helpful, roughly in the way that some people who don't get Wittgenstein find Kripke helpful, perhaps. This might not be Stoutland's fault, but what Leiter seems to like is the impression he gets from Stoutland that Anscombe is Aristotelian about physics, i.e. nuts. It's always a relief when people outside your area that you don't have time to read are reliably reported to be not worth reading anyway. That's my suspicion, anyway, but I might be overly cynical.
The last bit certainly sounds right to me (I don't think you're being too cynical), but I don't know why Leiter would be working at making sense of Intention. From what I've seen, his work on action-theory is strictly a subset of his work on Nietzsche and his work on "experimental philosophy" -- I would think he could just ignore Anscombe and do whatever it is he likes doing.
ReplyDeleteSearching his blog, though, I am reminded about this post from January, which confirms that he's talked with Vogeler about Anscombe. Her rabid enthusiasm for the old man could easily make Leiter curious enough to pick up a new book abour her work. And Leiter had posted about her ethics back in 2005, so I'm guessing this is related to his distaste for her.
Vogeler is in the weird position of being a self-declared "Anscombean-Marxist", incidentally, and Leiter seems to also think of himself as some sort of Marxian, so I imagine they've had some interesting discussions.
It occurs to me that Leiter's Nietzscheanism might give him a more subtle view than your overly-cynical take credited him with: He might think that if Anscombe needs there to be natural teloi *anywhere* (not just in physics, but in biology or psychology) he has good grounds to reject it. It might not be as simple as "Aristotelian physics is nuts because rocks don't naturally try to fall down."
ReplyDeleteYes, I think he probably does reject all natural teloi. And you're right that Vogler, with whom Leiter might well agree on much, is likely to have caused him to be interested in Anscombe. Thanks.
ReplyDelete'that Anscombe is Aristotelian about physics, i.e. nuts.'
ReplyDeletenot really knowing, i read the original and gathered that 'wittgensteinian about causes/cause-talk' was being mistaken for 'aristotelian about physics'.
That looks like a possible interpretation. A bit odd, but there you go.
ReplyDeletewell, i assume it is closely related to thinking that anything weird that anscombe thinks must be catholic somehow.
ReplyDeletei eagerly await late-thread comments at leiter accusing her of 'popery'.
Yes, but do Catholics still believe in Aristotelian physics? It would seem odd to think so.
ReplyDeleteI thought that comments thread was moving nicely towards a fairly full (relatively speaking) and accurate picture of the relation between Davidson and Anscombe. Now I half want it to degenerate into name-calling.
i don't know, but it sure is a convenient insinuation. (THOSE guys believe in the MUSIC OF THE SPHERES! haw haw etc)
ReplyDeleteQuite. The discussion looks much too sensible at the moment for that kind of comment to show up though.
ReplyDelete