Scan barcode
slow_spines's review against another edition
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
3.25
The introduction is excellent, setting the historical, social and intellectual scene in an exciting way. It is a whirlwind tour from antiquity to modernity, following our understanding of the universe from a rich, organic tapestry of drive and purpose, to a cold, inert and uncaring wasteland where value and first person experiences have been drained. Lipscombe calls this view The Dawkins Sublime - that we "simply confront reality as it is". What does such a view do to us? What does it do to our ethics? Why does it feel so final and irrefutable, and where has our passion for exploring new ways of thinking gone? The unspoken question: who is going to challenge all this?
Enter "the women". Each is given her own chapter, the kernel of which is an overview of their thought. From the 30s to the 00s they weave themselves through each others lives, supporting each other along the way. They bicker, they drift apart, they come back together, they visit each other in youth and old age. Four friends with very different personalities and philosophies, painted in bright and bold colours. We follow these women, from young members of Somerville College - Somervillians - right to the end of their lives, always with an eye on the Dawkins Sublime. That problem, Lipscombe argues, is addressed by all four women in a sort of intellectual relay, with Midgley holding the baton at the end in her public spat with Dawkins.
Some issues: its written in a way only an American could write about post-war Oxford - romanticised, sometimes with a cosiness and pluckiness to it which I personally find irritating. A bigger problem is the framing of the narrative and its focus on The Dawkins Sublime. The fact that The Dawkins Sublime is named after a man who didn't appear on the scene until the 70s, and yet it the supposed target for "the women" from the late 30s, should tell you something. Although Dawkins might be the latest proponent of a kind of reductionism or positivism, there are various opponents throughout: Ayer, Hare, Austin to name a few. And while each is addressed, to put them all under this umbrella - while narratively understandable - does muddy the waters a little, and gives the impression of their being a collective objective for "the women" when its not clear there was one. I think that there were shared concerns but this could have been appealed to without a concocted term. There are existing philosophical terms that could be used that would offer a more precise picture, especially when its metaphysics or ethics which are up for grabs. Finally, I'm not sure exactly who the audience of this book is. Its relatively light on philosophy, which will frustrate those who expect to learn *how* "the women" revolutionised ethics, and its embellished in a way you don't expect from a biography, with various thoughts and feelings raising a mental "citation needed".
I come away from the book not knowing much about the nuts and bolts of *how* these women revolutionised ethics, but do have a clear idea about who they were and the general thrust of their arguments. Even if it was unsuccessful in its stated aim, I do think thats enough of a reason to read it.
Enter "the women". Each is given her own chapter, the kernel of which is an overview of their thought. From the 30s to the 00s they weave themselves through each others lives, supporting each other along the way. They bicker, they drift apart, they come back together, they visit each other in youth and old age. Four friends with very different personalities and philosophies, painted in bright and bold colours. We follow these women, from young members of Somerville College - Somervillians - right to the end of their lives, always with an eye on the Dawkins Sublime. That problem, Lipscombe argues, is addressed by all four women in a sort of intellectual relay, with Midgley holding the baton at the end in her public spat with Dawkins.
Some issues: its written in a way only an American could write about post-war Oxford - romanticised, sometimes with a cosiness and pluckiness to it which I personally find irritating. A bigger problem is the framing of the narrative and its focus on The Dawkins Sublime. The fact that The Dawkins Sublime is named after a man who didn't appear on the scene until the 70s, and yet it the supposed target for "the women" from the late 30s, should tell you something. Although Dawkins might be the latest proponent of a kind of reductionism or positivism, there are various opponents throughout: Ayer, Hare, Austin to name a few. And while each is addressed, to put them all under this umbrella - while narratively understandable - does muddy the waters a little, and gives the impression of their being a collective objective for "the women" when its not clear there was one. I think that there were shared concerns but this could have been appealed to without a concocted term. There are existing philosophical terms that could be used that would offer a more precise picture, especially when its metaphysics or ethics which are up for grabs. Finally, I'm not sure exactly who the audience of this book is. Its relatively light on philosophy, which will frustrate those who expect to learn *how* "the women" revolutionised ethics, and its embellished in a way you don't expect from a biography, with various thoughts and feelings raising a mental "citation needed".
I come away from the book not knowing much about the nuts and bolts of *how* these women revolutionised ethics, but do have a clear idea about who they were and the general thrust of their arguments. Even if it was unsuccessful in its stated aim, I do think thats enough of a reason to read it.
mariekev's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.25
paulsnelling's review against another edition
5.0
A lovely book combining the philosophical and the personal. Very readable too.
jbradney's review against another edition
4.0
An enjoyable book that details how four philosophers challenged the prevailing ethical view and opened the field for future generations.
theciz's review against another edition
challenging
informative
medium-paced
3.5
A biography of four female philosophers who were at Oxford together before and during World War II. The book sets up how the four were apparently pivotal to the development of ethics in philosophy - and there lies its biggest failing for me. Despite having read the whole thing, if you asked me what any of them thought and what their impact on the field was, I honestly couldn’t tell you. The discussion of their ideas and their impact is there, but it was so poor I couldn’t follow what it was supposed to mean at all (except one of them was very catholic and therefore anti-abortion). Was it just AJ Ayer says ethics doesn’t exist, but Anscombe, Foot, etc. thought it did? Surely there was more to it, but I couldn’t divine what that was.
So overall you could say it’s too focussed on their life stories, and very unclear (at least to me) on their ideas and legacy/context. Perhaps its the sort of thing you need to be already well versed in early-to-mid-century English academic philosophy discussions to fully grasp the relevance, but I got the impression it was supposed to be more general reader. A shame, as I was looking forward to reading it.
So overall you could say it’s too focussed on their life stories, and very unclear (at least to me) on their ideas and legacy/context. Perhaps its the sort of thing you need to be already well versed in early-to-mid-century English academic philosophy discussions to fully grasp the relevance, but I got the impression it was supposed to be more general reader. A shame, as I was looking forward to reading it.
cmaples's review against another edition
Returned to person I borrowed it from, it's a very good book that I'd have enjoyed finishing!
roaming_enn's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
This book chronicles the lives and philosophical views of four female philosophers educated together at Oxford University: Mary Midgley, Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, and Iris Murdoch. It also describes the philosophical background into which they entered university. It honestly does a great job explaining the views of the dominant school of thought at the time, that of A. J. Ayer's and Richard Hare's. (I took a philosophy of language class this past year and learned about both of their views, but I wasn't sure I understood the point of Hare's view until I read this book.) They believed that ethics was nonsense (Ayer) or subjective (Hare), but each of these female philosophers resisted this dominant view in their own way, whether by critiquing it or by proposing a new view. I had heard about all of them before (I mean, who hasn't, right?), but I haven't really read anything from them. Now I'm gonna have to.