Colin McGinn's Blog

This blog has been archived for posterity and is no longer active.

Through the good offices of Charles Carlini there is now a new website dedicated to me. Such self-importance! Such narcissism! It's called "ColinMcGinn.net" and looks very spiffy. I gather it's still under construction. Anyway, there it is.

The Future

Now that the basic facts of the case have been disclosed, and the roles of various agents in this wretched melodrama have been exposed, I think it is time to move on to more positive things (though there may be some mopping up to do later). It is now surely clear enough what happened and what did not, and the requisite normative conclusions can easily be drawn. I want to get back to being fully productive philosophically. To this end I have just signed a three-book contract with MIT Press. Two of the books are already written and the third is complete as a first draft. They are: Philosophy of Language: A Student Text, which undertakes to explain classic writings in philosophy of language; Prehension: A Philosophical Anthropology, which is mainly about the role of the hand in human cognitive and linguistic evolution; and Innate Ideas: Why Descartes Was Right, which is about what it says it is about. Expect to see these books appear in the next year or so. I would like to look beyond the recent nonsense and try to make the best of a bad situation. I advise all involved to do the same. This has been good for no one and nothing can be gained by prolonging it.

  A Movie Experience

Last night I attended the premiere of the film “The Silver Mirror”, written, directed and produced by Ali Habashi, based at the University of Miami. The film is about aging and mortality and is a marvelous film in many ways. It was my first visit to the UM campus in many months and the Cosford theater is near the building in which the philosophy department is located. Various university bigwigs were present. I went with my wife. I attended because the director personally asked me to. Why? Because I was myself in the film—not as someone aging (!) but because I contributed to the panel discussion that was part of the film. It was extremely odd to sit and watch myself in that environment, all the while conscious that I had been forced from my position at the university less than a year ago. Many in the audience were aware that this was the situation, and some may have been instrumental in bringing it about. There was a palpable tension in the air.

            Afterwards, at the reception, various members of the audience approached me to congratulate me on my contribution (a philosopher among scientists), asking me if I were a teacher at UM. This was awkward, as I had to inform them that I had been (effectively) dismissed from the university for reasons that I found entirely bogus. Looks of incredulity ensued. Was I trying to be funny? I assured them that it was true and that they could consult that day’s Slate for an account of the matter. So there I was, a “star” of the film (the director’s description, not mine), attending its premiere at a university from which I had recently been removed. Does anyone think this is a good thing? Was it really warranted?

I advise a close reading of Katie Roiphe's article that has just appeared in Slate.

It was never completely you

You came in black and blue

Nothing through and through

Miley, I salute you!

Truthfulness involves two virtues: the virtue of Sincerity and the virtue of Accuracy (I borrow Bernard Williams' terminology). One should speak what one believes to be the truth, but one should also strive to discover the truth. A person who (intentionally) fails to do the former is a liar, but a person who is gulled by a lie often fails in the duty of Accuracy. It is no excuse for making false statements that one was misled by someone else--if these lies were within one's power to detect. Sincerity is not enough in the goal of speaking the truth. You can be culpable for being complicit in a lie, even when you don't know that it is a lie. 

The truth can be slow coming, but when it arrives it is clad in shining armor.

“Logical Positivism”

That’s an odd label for the view it purports to describe. The most conspicuous feature of the doctrine in question is its negative attitude toward traditional metaphysics: it is a form of philosophical “negativism” i.e. metaphysics is meaningless and should be abandoned. And what is with the adjective “logical” here? Doesn’t every philosophical doctrine regard itself as “logical”? Who would call their view “Illogical Idealism” or “Poorly Reasoned Relativism”? Doesn’t every proponent of a philosophical position take it to be both “logical” and “positive” (i.e. on the side of the good)? A better description of the doctrine would surely be “Methodological Negativism”, since it subscribes to the view that correct methodology excludes metaphysics. Or it might be called “Semantic Nihilism”, since it declares so much philosophical discourse to be devoid of meaning. But these labels don’t carry the same uplift. Doctrines often catch on because of catchy labels.

            I think the phrase “logical positivism” well describes the pro-metaphysical metaphilosophy I favor: that all of philosophy is really logic (the a priori analysis of concepts), but that this conception is maximally inclusive, i.e. “positive”. Even the most non-empirical branches of metaphysics are respectable, because grounded in logic. There is nothing “negative” here! But to avoid confusion I might call this doctrine "Positive Logicism". 

“Logical Positivism”

That’s an odd label for the view it purports to describe. The most conspicuous feature of the doctrine in question is its negative attitude toward traditional metaphysics: it is a form of philosophical “negativism” i.e. metaphysics is meaningless and should be abandoned. And what is with the adjective “logical” here? Doesn’t every philosophical doctrine regard itself as “logical”? Who would call their view “Illogical Idealism” or “Poorly Reasoned Relativism”? Doesn’t every proponent of a philosophical position take it to be both “logical” and “positive” (i.e. on the side of the good)? A better description of the doctrine would surely be “Methodological Negativism”, since it subscribes to the view that correct methodology excludes metaphysics. Or it might be called “Semantic Nihilism”, since it declares so much philosophical discourse to be devoid of meaning. But these labels don’t carry the same uplift. Doctrines often catch on because of catchy labels.

            I think the phrase “logical positivism” well describes the pro-metaphysical metaphilosophy I favor: that all of philosophy is really logic (the a priori analysis of concepts), but that this conception is maximally inclusive, i.e. “positive”. Even the most non-empirical branches of metaphysics are respectable, because grounded in logic. There is nothing “negative” here! But to avoid confusion I might call this doctrine "Positive Logicism".