Abstract

Nott, a novelist, poet and writer on philosophy and criticism, examines current Anglo-American philosophers and finds them too parochial in that they analyze language scientifically and by doing so limit the scope of philosophy. The real problems are endless moral ones in Nott’s estimation, and they have been ignored by analysts who have concentrated on what we say not on what we do or ought to do. She believes that philosophy is a humane study which cannot help being ethical and social. The development and direction of philosophy as being critical are acceptable if the criticism is concerned with metaphysical concepts and the structure and use of language in a way that is not abstract and syntactical. A reference is made on Chomsky’s Aspects by Nott who reveals her inability to comprehend the philosophical implications of deep structure analysis. Peirce in his relativistic approach to truth and knowledge, however, is singled out because truth as he analyzed it was not a collection of certainties but a function of belief inside a human world of common meanings. An inquiry, we are told, is valid if it moves toward a logical method of science. With this approach emphasis is placed on knowing rather than what is to be known provided the knower represents our common capacity for arriving at judgments on which we agree. The pragmatism of Peirce gives us a natural concrete expansion to our concepts. Understanding means understanding part of our world in a pragmatic sense as opposed to the analytic approach that does not concern itself with the world. In the concluding chapter, Nott states that the present day philosophical act has been narrowly circumscribed and by implication wrongly defined. The philosopher does not want to commit himself to practical opinions nor write a comprehensive treatise on the human situation. Nott ends by saying that the philosopher must examine his environment and the distinctness of the human person. Unfortunately, Kathleen Nott has not considered the complexities of human existence nor has she made an attempt to consider them seriously as seen by her rejection of philosophers who attempt to define the complexities of human existence.—G. D.