No morality, no self : Anscombe's radical skepticism
Author(s)
Bibliographic Information
No morality, no self : Anscombe's radical skepticism
Harvard University Press, 2018
- : hardcover
Available at 4 libraries
  Aomori
  Iwate
  Miyagi
  Akita
  Yamagata
  Fukushima
  Ibaraki
  Tochigi
  Gunma
  Saitama
  Chiba
  Tokyo
  Kanagawa
  Niigata
  Toyama
  Ishikawa
  Fukui
  Yamanashi
  Nagano
  Gifu
  Shizuoka
  Aichi
  Mie
  Shiga
  Kyoto
  Osaka
  Hyogo
  Nara
  Wakayama
  Tottori
  Shimane
  Okayama
  Hiroshima
  Yamaguchi
  Tokushima
  Kagawa
  Ehime
  Kochi
  Fukuoka
  Saga
  Nagasaki
  Kumamoto
  Oita
  Miyazaki
  Kagoshima
  Okinawa
  Korea
  China
  Thailand
  United Kingdom
  Germany
  Switzerland
  France
  Belgium
  Netherlands
  Sweden
  Norway
  United States of America
Note
Includes bibliographical references (p. [223]-230) and index
Description and Table of Contents
Description
Frequently cited and just as often disputed, Elizabeth Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy" (1958) and "The First Person" (1975) are touchstones of twentieth-century analytic philosophy. Though the arguments Anscombe advances in these papers are familiar to philosophers, their significance remains widely misunderstood, says James Doyle.
No Morality, No Self offers a fresh interpretation of Anscombe's still-controversial theses about ethical reasoning and individual identity, specifically, her argument that the term "moral" (as it occurs in such contexts as "moral obligation") is literally meaningless, and that "I" does not refer to some special entity called a "self"-a pair of claims that philosophers have responded to with deep skepticism. However unsettling Anscombe's conclusions may be, Doyle shows the underlying seriousness of the British philosopher's reasoning, exposing with clarity and concision how the counterarguments of Anscombe's detractors are based on a flawed or incomplete understanding of her ideas.
Doyle zeroes in on the central conundrum Anscombe posed to the referentialist school: namely, that it is impossible to give a noncircular explanation of how "I" refers to the person who utters it. He shows where the refutations of philosophers including Lucy O'Brien, Gareth Evans, and Ian Rumfitt fall short, and throws light on why "I" developed features that make it look as if it functions as a referring expression. Reconciling seemingly incompatible points of view, Doyle argues that "I" does refer to a self, but not in a way anyone suspected-a surprising conclusion that is entirely a propos of Anscombe's provocative thought.
by "Nielsen BookData"