What follows is a minor pet-peeve: there is a CFP for the Arthur Prior Centenary Conference in August 2014 in Oxford. It looks like a wonderful event. I am a bit annoyed that Prior's role as a historian of philosophy is not part of the list of official topics of the conference. For, Prior is absolutely crucial figure in the revival of interest in the history of philosophy within an Analytical context. In 1950 C. D. Broad reviewed Prior's Logic and the Basis of Ethics in Mind, and aptly summarized it as follow:
"This book is concerned primarily with the so-called 'naturalistic fallacy' in ethics, with the history of its occurrence and the refutations of it in the works of English moralists before the publication of Principia Ethica, and with the logical questions involved... The first and last chapters are explicitly devoted to the refutation of this fallacy, the former to the logic and the latter to the history of such refutations. Chapters II, III, and IV deal with the autonomy of ethics, with special reference respectively to Cudworth, to Clarke and Reid, and to Sidgwick and his contemporaries. Chapter V, entitled Promising as Special Creation, is concerned with a theory as to the nature of promises which was held by Reid and has been revived by Mr. Carritt. The remaining three chapters are devoted to theories which identify or assimilate moral fittingness and unfittingness with truth or falsity. Chapter VI deals with the early history of this doctrine with special reference to Wollaston and Adam Smith; Chapter VII with a form of it which Mr. Prior ascribes to Dr. Popper; and Chapter VIII with one which he ascribes to Professor Findlay."
Now to be clear: one might reasonably think that in the CFP (a) "Prior’s early work on theology and ethics" covers his work in the history of philosophy; and (b) that the CFP does not exclude papers on Prior's role as a historian, because the list of topics is introduced with: "Topics include but are not limited to the following." So, I have no doubt that papers on Prior as historian of philosophy will not be excluded from the conference. Even so, the word "historian" nor any of its cognates are mentioned in the review of Prior's significance anywhere in the cfp. While I do not deny that Prior's enduring fame is founded on his contribution to logic, we should also not ignore his seminal contributions as historian of philosophy and his role in renewing interest in it.
Now you might wonder why does this matter to Schliesser? I quote again from the concluding passage of Broad's review:
Mr. Prior's book seems to me to be excellent. It combines logical insight and analysis with most interesting historical matter. I hope that it will be widely read, and that it will lead many readers to make or to renew acquaintance with the outstanding ethical work of the eighteenth century English moralists, in particular with that of Adam Smith which is fallen into quite undeserved neglect.
Recent Comments