Metaphysical Animals: How Four Women Brought Philosophy Back to Life

Product Information

Adding to its fragmentary quality is the peculiar use of first names throughout the book. What actually brought this book to my attention was a review of it in Philosophy Now Magazine, where the reviewer criticized the authors’ use of first names for the women, but not for the men. While this is actually far from accurate, the alternative is not much better. It is true that the authors only refer to the women as Iris, Mary, Elizabeth, and Philippa, but they are inconsistent with the men and other women, at one point even referring to Rousseau as ‘Jean-Jacques’ weirdly enough. Wittgenstein is never referred to as ‘Ludwig’ unless in combination with his last name. A.J. Ayer is referred to as ‘Freddie Ayer,’ ‘A.J. Ayer,’ or simply ‘Freddie.’ And so on. I will make no attempt to critique this issue of naming from a feminist perspective and I can only assume the authors’ intention is to further humanize these women (although Ludwig’s personal life is discussed just as much as his philosophy as well…One could argue he is better known by his last name than his first so it is meant to be clear, but this is just as true for Murdoch, Midgley, Anscombe, and Foot, as well as *cough cough* Jean-Jacques??) I mainly note this because to me it added to the confusion I was already experiencing. A vivid picture of the times, and of the formative experiences of the four women who would go on to become some of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. . . As with any good history, there is something eerily prescient in Mac Cumhaill and Wiseman’s account of a university educated cultural elite for whom moral discourse had declined to the point of linguistic one-upmanship—and the subsequent need to reconnect with a more robust notion of virtue, human flourishing, and what makes for a good life.” The narrative is of four brilliant women finding their voices, opposing received wisdom, and developing an alternative picture of human beings and their place in the world. They studied among refugee academics who taught Greek and Latin in small apartments and filled the streets of north Oxford with sounds of eastern Europe. And they shared their ideas – in cafes, on sofas, in common rooms. It is a tale that is rightly attracting attention, not just in this book but also in Benjamin Lipscomb’s excellent The Women Are Up to Something, published by Oxford University Press at the end of last year. To read this story is to be reminded of the institutional barriers preventing women from studying philosophy

As already noted, the book serves as kind of an origin story for the four philosophers; the main part of the book follows them only to the 1950s, when they were just beginning their careers. Their work after that is touched on only briefly in the final "Afterwards" chapter. As a result, their most important work is not described in detail here. This is a bit of a disappointment, but it is understandable, as an adequate presentation of each woman's mature work would probably have doubled the length of the book, at least. Another slight defect is that the book begins with a preface that summarizes the argument of the book, as if readers need to have the argument spoon-fed to them in advance. I recommend skipping that preface (or at least saving it for later) and starting with the chapter about the Truman incident. Otherwise, the book is excellent: the biographical content is vividly narrated, and the philosophy is described and summarized as clearly as possible given the demands of brevity (although it does help to have some general knowledge of philosophy before reading). Yet such philosophy had no space for meaning or beauty, it treated human life as if it was nothing but a machine and empty of inner life or value. This was the context in which all 4 women were brought up in their philosophical careers, and they all opposed it. The historical progression and philosophical debates between those perspectives are covered in detail, and a big emphasis in covered about Wittgenstein's role, in part because of how he deviated from logical positivism later in his life, but also because he was a good friend of the group and heavily involved. The big difference is that it looks at four philosophers, all of whom are women, and it is spread out over a number of years. By focusing on a disputed encounter of just a few minutes, Edmonds and Eidinow gave themselves a tight structure that offered a tidy means of exploring deeper questions of philosophy. In the late 1930s, British philosophy, at least at Oxford, was dominated by AJ Ayer I wanted to like this book, but ultimately I think it could have been so much better. I find the authors’ use of first names deeply annoying. It’s overly familiar to our main characters, which annoys my feminist sensibilities, as well as some well known philosophers. I hated the references to Ayer as Freddie, but almost threw the book against the wall when they referred to Kant as Immanuel. Forget the rudeness; it’s unkind to readers to have to do mental calculations to figure out who they’re talking about. Ayer is Ayer and Kant is Kant. Anscombe, for example, wanted to establish an ethical basis on which it could be established that the Nazis were objectively wrong. She is said to have coined the term “consequentialism” – the notion that it is the consequences rather than the intentions by which your conduct should be judged. She was arguably the most eminent of the four in terms of philosophy, though of course Murdoch made a larger impact as a novelist.

Select a format:

The argument of the book is that these four women developed their moral philosophies in opposition to the philosophy of logical positivism as presented by figures such as A.J. Ayer (in some ways the central antagonist of the book). According to Ayer and his followers, only that which was empirically and logically verifiable could serve as the basis for philosophy; all traditional metaphysical philosophy, such as that which argued for an objective but non-empirical basis for morality, was nonsensical, obsolete, and should be discarded. Cumhail and Wiseman provide a list of players at the front of the text. This was a smart decision as real life doesn't limit itself to a small list of characters which readers can easily follow. However, I was confused at times by the choice of using first and last, only first, or only last names.

They do a very good job of explaining some important differences between schools of philosophy in the early and mid twentieth century, but throughout the book the authors use the term “analytic” to refer to the anti-metaphysicians who our heroines are up against. What a surprise, then, to find them referred to as analytic philosophers in the afterword. How could that be? While I agree that the label applies, there is nothing in the main text to explain it. The history of European philosophy is usually constructed from the work of men. In Metaphysical Animals, a pioneering group biography, Clare Mac Cumhaill and Rachael Wiseman offer a compelling alternative. In the mid-twentieth century Elizabeth Anscombe, Mary Midgley, Philippa Foot, and Iris Murdoch were philosophy students at Oxford when most male undergraduates and many tutors were conscripted away to fight in the Second World War. Together, these young women, all friends, developed a philosophy that could respond to the war's darkest revelations. It's a well-edited piece, it’s also quite dense, and there were times when the detail was a little overwhelming. But it also comes with extensive notes and useful suggestions for further reading, as well as an impressive list of contemporary thinkers whose work has been influenced by one or more of these women. In the late 1930s the women’s colleges at Oxford were but a marginal appendage to the University, very much as the Somerville alumna Dorothy Sayer describes in Gaudy Night. They were recent foundations with none of the wealth or magnificent architecture of the ancient men’s colleges. But the devotion of the fellows to scholarship and to the success of their students was uncompromising. Women students pursued to same curriculum and took the same examinations as the men. Iris, Mary, and Elizabeth took first in ‘Greats’ – a tremendously demanding combination of Classics and ancient and modern philosophy that makes any contemporary humanist scholar (such as myself) feel like a scarcely literate barbarian. Mary and Iris also participated in Eduard Fraenkel’s Aeschylus seminar, contributing to his awesome edition of the Agamemnon and enduring his deplorable habit of groping women students, behaviour intolerable today. In the late 1930s, British philosophy, at least at Oxford, was dominated by AJ Ayer, whose groundbreaking book Language, Truth and Logic was published in 1936. Ayer was the chief promoter of logical positivism, a school of thought that aimed to clean up philosophy by ruling out large areas of the field as unverifiable and therefore not fit for logical discussion.Engaging. . .Stories that rival in passion and intrigue anything that Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan Novels have to offer and contain much to interest specialists as well as general readers.”

Anscombe, Murdoch, Midgley and Foot were not fans of logical positivism dogmatism or conclusions. Fortunately for them, if not for the world, the second world war intervened in their studies, removing Ayer and his acolytes from Oxford, and bringing a large influx of European émigré philosophers. A few weeks ago I finished reading The Women Are Up to Something by Benjamin J.B. Lipscomb & found it an excellent book. This is yet another excellent book about four female philosophers who “set to work on an account of human life, action & perception that could reconnect morality with what really matters.” And what did Elizabeth Anscombe, Mary Midgley, Iris Murdoch & Philippa Foot think really matters? Seeing the everyday reality of our world, of people’s lives, “as something astonishing & fragile & in need of constant care & attention.” It is not a world where moral language is reduced to dictionary definitions, but where language is woven “together to create living patterns of significance & sense.” It’s a compelling story, about four brilliant thinkers . . .This is a world where people gossip. This is a world that is — that most criminally unphilosophical of all things perhaps — cozy. . .It might not always be recognizably “philosophical”— but this is the point of the book .. .a masterful argument, made not only by the book’s content, but by its form. Philosophy and life are united, the book seems to be saying: not only by default, but as upbringing; as education. A philosophical life is a life lived with others — however cozy those relationships might be.”Elizabeth meets Wittgenstein. She is perplexed but she has religious faith which makes her serious. Murdoch is already well-known as a novelist and as the subject of a Hollywood biopic starring Kate Winslet and Judi Dench. Foot's name is not so well-known, but the so-called "trolley problem" that she originated has become famous in recent years thanks to the TV show The Good Place. Anscombe and Midgley are still largely unknown outside of philosophy departments. This book serves as a welcome introduction to the lives and moral/ethical philosophies of these four impressive thinkers. Dishy and intimate, you’ll feel as if you’ve been invited to afternoon tea with the smartest set on campus.” Spectacularly clever . . . Cozy and yet cosmic, Metaphysical Animals is a great choice for amateur philosophers and appreciators of well-written, history-making accounts alike.”