G. E. Moore and the Cambridge Apostles.
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
| ||||||||||||||||||
Book Description
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
1.0 out of 5 stars
Why is Levy's Book So Bad?,
By Charles Pigden (Dunedin, Otago New Zealand) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Moore: G.E.Moore and the Cambridge Apostles (Hardcover)
Why is Levy's MOORE so awful? Well it is sloppy, inaccurate and marred by misunderstandings and a pronounced anti-Russell bias. It is badly put together (just one damn thing after another) and above all it is BORING. It is true that Moore was not as exciting a person as either Russell or Wittgenstein, but as his rather good) autobiography reveals, there was a mind and personality there of some interest and distinction, and Levy fails dismally to make it come alive. For a more detailed critique see Nick Griffin's excellent review 'The Acts of the Apostles' in RUSSELL vol. 1, 1, 1981. To show I am not just sounding off, I suggest you read Russell's apostolic essay 'Was the World Good Before the Sixth Day' in the light of either MY comments (RUSSELL ON ETHICS pp. 8-10 & 87 or the editorial commentary to CPBR vol. 1. p. 112 . Then read Levy's commentary on pp 204-6. To begin with Levy supposes that the paper is addressed to Moore's apostolic paper of the previous week when Russell says quite explicitly that it is addressed to the lectures that Moore had delivered in London (and which he had seen in typescript). Having begun with this blunder, Levy accuses Russell of misrepresenting Moore's position in the previous week's paper. Had Russell's paper been addressed to Moore's it would have misrepresented it, but since it was not, it did not. Moore DOES contend in the lectures (which survive and have been reprinted by Tom Regan) that beauty is objectively good whether or not there are any eyes to behold it, a view he continued to defend in PRINCIPIA ETHICA. This is precisely the view that Russell facetiously characterizes as follows: 'Moore contends that God, when he looked down on the world in its early stages was right in maintaining it to be good - that it was already good in and of itself, and would have continued so even if God had not been looking. A world of matter alone ... may be good or bad. for it may certainly be beautiful or ugly and beauty is better than ugliness. ' That Moore thought this and that he continued to think this is evident from Principia revised edn, pp. 133-138 and particularly p. 135 (that's ch. III, sections 49-51 for those with older editions). These passages come unchanged from the London Lectures. See Baldwin's revised edition of Principia, p. 313.) On the basis of this blunder Levy develops a gratuitous anti-Russell speculation. Russell must have INTENDED to give offence by misrepresenting Moore out of jealousy of Moore's influence.Having misrepresented Russell as misrepresenting Moore, Levy goes on to misrepresent Moore himself. He says 'Russell goes on to accept what as to be the main assumption of the last chapter of Principia Ethica, that the only things that are good in themselves are states of mind.' This is NOT the doctrine of Principia Ethica (as my previous citations prove). What Moore actually says in the last chapter is 'By far the MOST valuable things [my emphasis} we can know or can imagine [NOT 'the ONLY valuable things we can know or can imagine'] are certain states of consciousness which may be roughly described as the pleasures of human intercourse and the enjoyment of beautiful objects'. But the fact that these states are the MOST valuable things we can imagine implies of course that there are other valuable things we can imagine even if these things are a lot less valuable. Where Levy got this crass misunderstanding of Moore from God alone knows, certainly not from people like Keynes and Woolf who are quite clear on this point. This misunderstanding is no minor blunder. For in so far as Levy's book has a theme (which is not very far given that it is so poorly structured) its theme is the explanation of Principia Ethica, an exploration of the mind and the milieu that produced such a masterpiece. But you cannot explain what you do not understand and Levy does not understand the basic doctrines of Principia Ethica. As we have seen he doesn't really understand the milieu that produced it either, but that is a different story.) One other thing before I end this tirade. Levy accuses Russell of a 'nonogenarian fib' in denying that he had strong views as to whether Wittgenstein should have been elected to the apostles in 1912, mainly on the say-so of Lytton Strachey who took the Society rather more seriously than Russell did. But as Monk makes plain, both in his life of Russell and his life of Wittgenstein, Russell was telling the truth. He did NOT have 'strong views' on this matter. He rather suspected that the Society wouldn't suit W (as indeed it did not) but was not violently opposed to his joining. As for Strachey's idea that Russell was mortified at W's joining the Society because he wanted to keep W to himself this was a complete fantasy. (See W: the duty of Genius pp. 66-69 and BR: the Spirit of Solitude 285. I appeal to Ray [Monk's] authority here not only because he has gone into the matter thoroughly but because he is by far the most critical of Russell's biographers. Had Russell been lying he would not have been loath to say so.
5.0 out of 5 stars
a largely forgotten but interesting philosopher & his life,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Moore: G. E. Moore and the Cambridge Apostles (Paperback)
G.E. MOORE WAS PROBABLY OVERSHADOWED BY WHITEHEAD AND RUSSELL AS WELL AS BY WITTGENSTEIN. YET HE WAS AN INFLUENTIAL FIGURE, AND ONE OF A HORDE OF BRILLIANT CAMBRIDGE UNDERGRADS (AND LATER PROFESSORS). AS I AM NOT PHILOSOPHICALLY INCLINED, MY MAIN INTEREST IN THE BOOK WAS BIOGRAPHICAL. MOORE KNEW "EVERYONE". HE WAS FOR MANY YEARS A CRUCIAL PART OF THE STUDENT, AND THEN FACULTY AT CAMBRIDGE. HE AND RUSSELL WERE FRIENDS, AND RIVALS. WHEN WITTGENSTEIN ARRIVED HE WAS BASICALLY RUSSELL'S "DISCOVERY" AND MOORE MAY HAVE FELT JEALOUS. FOR ME VERY FASCINATING IS THE DESCRIPTION OF A SECRET SOCIETY- "THE APOSTLES". PROSPECTIVE MEMBERS WERE "FATHERED" (BROUGHT IN BY A MEMBER FOR VERY EXTENSIVE SCRUTINY); MEMBERS WHO LEFT 'TOOK WINGS' (BECAME ANGELS), AND SO ON. THERE WERE MORE OR LESS REGULAR MEETINGS WHERE A MEMBER OR TWO WOULD READ ERUDITE PAPERS ON ANY SUBJECT, OFTEN FRIVOLOUS BUT SERIOUSLY AND OFTEN HEATEDLY ARGUED. - A NUMBER OF MEMBERS (INCLUDING SOME OF THE MOST FAMOUS NAMES) WERE, AT LEAST AT THAT TIME, HOMOSEXUAL AMD QUITE FLAMBOYANT. SOME, HOWEVER, SUBDUED THEIR SEXUALITY. - THE VAST MAJORITY BECAME LEADING LIGHTS IN BRITISH GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY, CULTURAL AND ARTISTIC AFFAIRS, ETC. WORLD WAR I SPLIT THE UNIVERSITY AS WELL AS THE APOSTLES INTO VEHEMENT PRO AND ANTI-WAR FACTIONS. FOR ME ONE OF THE MOST MOVING ASPECTS OF THE WAR WAS THE RETURNING OF 2 OR 3 MEN TO THEIR HOMELANDS - MEMBERS OF THE CENTRAL POWERS. WITTGENSTEIN WAS ONE OF THESE. THE BOOK PORTRAYS NOT ONLY MOORE, A FASCINATING MAN IN HIS OWN RIGHT, BUT (THOUGH NECESSARILY TO A LESSER EXTENT) RUSSELL, KEYNES, THE BRILLIANT MATHEMATICIAN HARDY, THE STRACHEY BROTHERS AND MANY MORE. IF THESE PEOPLE, OR UPPER CRUST EARLY 20TH CENTURY BRITAIN, OR PHILOSOPHY, INTEREST YOU, THIS MAY BE A BOOK FOR YOU. IT IS WELL WRITTEN AND NOT SWOLLEN TO OFF-PUTTING LENGTH.
5.0 out of 5 stars
Secret society in England!,
By a-to-b books "a-to-b books" (Hollywood) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Moore: G.E. Moore and the Cambridge Apostles (Paperback)
Combo philosophy and biography of Moore, who Leonard Woolf called, "The only great man whom I have ever met in the world of ordinary, real life."How did Moore get to have such a big influence on English intellectual life in Bloomsbury? That's what the author wanted to find out. Chapters include the Intellectual Aristocracy, Moore at Cambridge, the Apostles (secret society in the UK), Moore as an Apostle, Moore's apprenticeship, working for a Fellowship, his time as a Prize fellow of Trinity, Principia Ethica and much more. Out of print and hard to find. Recommended.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items. |
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
