Reasons and Persons (1984) and
On What Matters (2011).
Parfit is married to the philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards. Here is a picture of them I got from the August 2014 issue of Prospect Magazine. Perhaps we should start a meme of cute philosophers and see if it goes viral.
I do not know if Prospect is correct to suggest Derek Parfit, may be "the world’s most important living moral philosopher." I do know he doesn't think clearly about cats. Since a concern for language is a major characteristic of last century's contributions to his field, let's pause a minute on his mention of a cat in On What Matters, which reads:
Parfit is married to the philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards. Here is a picture of them I got from the August 2014 issue of Prospect Magazine. Perhaps we should start a meme of cute philosophers and see if it goes viral.
I do not know if Prospect is correct to suggest Derek Parfit, may be "the world’s most important living moral philosopher." I do know he doesn't think clearly about cats. Since a concern for language is a major characteristic of last century's contributions to his field, let's pause a minute on his mention of a cat in On What Matters, which reads:
.... there would be facts that had normative importance, and reason-giving force. But that importance would be unknown to us- as it is unknown, for example, to some active intelligent cat.
I assume Parfit refers to something theological in this sentence. My interest is his description of the cat. Why not just say there could be some larger importance but that importance would be unknown to us- as it is unknown, for example, to a cat.
I assume Parfit refers to something theological in this sentence. My interest is his description of the cat. Why not just say there could be some larger importance but that importance would be unknown to us- as it is unknown, for example, to a cat.
Are we to imagine a cat struggling to discern some truth. Are we to assume this cat is not neutered. What is an intelligent cat? Do active intelligent cats, if there was such a thing, differ in their ability to catch birds? When they stare at an invisible point on the wall, are they really trying to rewrite sections of Parfit's arguments? Is the dark wood less dark to an intelligent cat, rather than the snoozer in the library cat. Otiose words make me suspicious.
Suspicious particularly of whether Parfit can access the same sense of rational boundaries and the unknown, that Montagine did when he compared himself to a cat.
Suspicious particularly of whether Parfit can access the same sense of rational boundaries and the unknown, that Montagine did when he compared himself to a cat.
No comments:
Post a Comment