"The theoretical point of view which the author has adopted appears to me to lie beyond the limit of paradox," the referee said. "As a work of controversial pleading, his work would do credit to any living author . . . But it is my duty to point out that I have never met with a stronger case of the paradox that a man may be exceedingly able and devoted, and yet, for some inexplicable reason, may fail to take up a sound position in his science."
Had the essay been sent to him by the editor of Mind, the referee ends, "I should have treated it respectfully as a brilliant essay by a very able writer, but should have endeavoured to point out that its positive stand-point and consequently its treatment of the subject were hopelessly inadequate."
Bosanquet was specifically commenting on a part of the essay that argued that Truth and truth-bearers could be understood independently of Knowledge, and hence independently of mind. It was published in Mind in 1899 as "The Nature of Judgment".
The author of the essay under review was G. E. Moore. The essay was submitted to Trinity College for a Prize Fellowship, which Moore won that year. However, when he later applied for a Research Fellowship (in 1904), he was turned down, because of another unfavourable report from Bosanquet, who once again expressed the view that he (Moore) was a brilliant critic, but inadequate positive theorist.
After he lost the Research Fellowship in 1904, Moore did not find a job teaching Philosophy until 1911, when he was 38.
(The above is taken from Tom Regan's Bloomsbury's Prophet, 1986. Many thanks to Tom Hurka for regaling me with the tale.)
Recent Comments