What do you think?
Rate this book
A Terribly Serious Adventure: Philosophy at Oxford 1900-60
It was under a generation of thinkers that included Gilbert Ryle, JL Austin and Iris Murdoch that ordinary language philosophy developed at Oxford in the mid-20th century. Taking a biographical approach Nikhil Krishnan explores the movement as ‘just one more stage in the slow evolution of a basically Socratic picture of philosophy’ and seeks to understand it in terms of the virtues it aspired to embody.
416 pages, Hardcover
Published March 16, 2023
72 people are currently reading
2395 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
March 12, 2024
But then, philosophy was no place for the lazy, nor for the easily bored.
Krishnan gives us the best sort of intellectual history; it is a nuanced history of the practice as well as the course study of philosophy at Oxford University in the first sixty years of the 20C. It is a tapestry of biography sewn with methodical comparisons of concepts. The insular integrity at times appears xenophobic. There's a resistance to those fanciful ideas from the Continent (i.e. Germany and France) and their metaphysical foundations. The impact of Wittgenstein can't be overstated (even if he was at that alien outpost Cambridge) even as he broached the mystical while eschewing the emotive baggage which he felt was obscuring analytic philosophy.
I loved the portraits of Ayer, Austin, Murdoch and Ryle.
Krishnan gives us the best sort of intellectual history; it is a nuanced history of the practice as well as the course study of philosophy at Oxford University in the first sixty years of the 20C. It is a tapestry of biography sewn with methodical comparisons of concepts. The insular integrity at times appears xenophobic. There's a resistance to those fanciful ideas from the Continent (i.e. Germany and France) and their metaphysical foundations. The impact of Wittgenstein can't be overstated (even if he was at that alien outpost Cambridge) even as he broached the mystical while eschewing the emotive baggage which he felt was obscuring analytic philosophy.
I loved the portraits of Ayer, Austin, Murdoch and Ryle.
May 3, 2023
This was an absolute delight to read. I recently read Bryan Magee's confession, and there he very much trashed Oxford Linguistic/ordinary language Philosophy school. This is a much more balanced view. Furthermore, the author deals with Oxford and uses the characters to explore other places like Cambridge, Vienna School, etc. There are many references to Wittgenstein, Russell, and Moore of Cambridge. In a way, Russell/Wittgenstein inspired the language movement, even though they distanced themselves from it.
I have read the works of Ryle, Ayer, and Isaiah Berlin. And so this was really fun to explore. Obviously, a lot of discussion about Austin and Ryle: Hare on Ethics was new to me. I wish there were more material on Isaiah Berlin; he is one of my favorites. The last chapter, which discusses what has died and what has lived in Oxford philosophy, is fascinating. The bibliography is rich, and I have bought four memoirs from that list—very engaging, lucid, and fun to read. I hope the author writes a similar one on Cambridge with Keynes, Ramsay, Russell, Wittgenstein, and the Apostles.
I have read the works of Ryle, Ayer, and Isaiah Berlin. And so this was really fun to explore. Obviously, a lot of discussion about Austin and Ryle: Hare on Ethics was new to me. I wish there were more material on Isaiah Berlin; he is one of my favorites. The last chapter, which discusses what has died and what has lived in Oxford philosophy, is fascinating. The bibliography is rich, and I have bought four memoirs from that list—very engaging, lucid, and fun to read. I hope the author writes a similar one on Cambridge with Keynes, Ramsay, Russell, Wittgenstein, and the Apostles.
July 24, 2024
Not as informative as Cumhill and Wiseman's Metaphysical Animals and not nearly as philosophically weighty as Egginton's The Rigor of Angels, Nikhil Krishnan's book is sort of an apology for the tradition of dead white males who make up the legacy of Oxford's philosophical tradition. Three stars.
decided-not-to-read
October 10, 2023The book focuses more on the personalities & habits of these various philosophers than on the ideas themselves. I knew that ahead of time & thought it would be more interesting than it was. However, I did enjoy one of the chapters on some of the female philosophers & the trials & prejudices they faced.
November 6, 2023
Really superb, as history and philosophy.
December 29, 2025
much to my dismay I might be a bit too stupid for philosophy
November 10, 2025
A thorough study of 6 decades of philosophy that fails to convince me that any of these authors are worth reading. While these bozos are talking about ordinary language and how we think about verbs, I could be reading Foucault. Prisons are real, spectacles of punishment for the benefit of power are real, and they're becoming more real every day.
December 15, 2023
I have been on an Oxford Philosophy kick recently. I read David Edmonds biography of Derek Parfit. He was a leading Oxford philosopher from 1970 to his death in 2014. This book tells the story of the two generations before him. I read the books in the wrong order.
Krishman is focused on the story of the analytic movement in philosophy. A group of philosophers in the 20th century, centered in Oxford, became convinced that the job of philosophy was to correctly analyze how words were used. The most well known explanation was in Frederick Ayer's book, "Language, Truth and Logic".
Krishnan summarize Ayer's argument. "Philosophy is analysis, not speculation. Metaphysics is folly. There is no knowledge to be had of any "transcendent" (what does that even mean?) reality. To try to gain such knowledge is to disobey the rules that determine what language is meaningful."
The approach gives great opportunities for very clever philosophers to argue at length over what it means when I say "I am seeing a tomato." or "I think you are having a headache." The arguments and theories got amazingly complex despite the fact that the philosophers prided themselves on using every day examples.
Many philosophers found the approach to be entirely unsatisfying. Krishnan profiles Isiah Berlin who abandoned philosophy for the history of ideas because he saw no value in the squabbles. Iris Murdoch became a novelist. Her novels wrestled with philosophical issues and she continued to also write philosophy , but it seems that she was frustrated with the arid air of pure philosophy.
This is not a philosophy book. It is a history. Krishnan is interested in explaining what it was like to be a philosopher in Oxford in the 20th century. Most of the philosophers were eccentrics The field attracts monomaniacal types and the setting let them indulge their eccentricities. He does not sugarcoat. Eduard Fraenkel was a prominent Oxford philosopher. He was also a sexual predator who was notorious for pawing and molesting female students. The Oxford tradition of tutors meeting weekly with students in their room allowed him the opportunity.
The movement seems driven in great part by the failure of any agreed upon objective truths to survive into the 20th century. Skepticism, agnosticism and atheism had triumphed in most college settings. The horrors of WW1 and 2 had destroyed any argument of moral progress or even agreed upon moral views. And so the philosophers shrunk down to arguing about grammar and sentence structure.
There is a general agreement these days that the Oxford analysis movement was somewhat of a dead end but there is no generally agreed upon way, even now, to get out of the dead end. As a result, formal philosophers today are less influential or considered, then ever.
Krishman is focused on the story of the analytic movement in philosophy. A group of philosophers in the 20th century, centered in Oxford, became convinced that the job of philosophy was to correctly analyze how words were used. The most well known explanation was in Frederick Ayer's book, "Language, Truth and Logic".
Krishnan summarize Ayer's argument. "Philosophy is analysis, not speculation. Metaphysics is folly. There is no knowledge to be had of any "transcendent" (what does that even mean?) reality. To try to gain such knowledge is to disobey the rules that determine what language is meaningful."
The approach gives great opportunities for very clever philosophers to argue at length over what it means when I say "I am seeing a tomato." or "I think you are having a headache." The arguments and theories got amazingly complex despite the fact that the philosophers prided themselves on using every day examples.
Many philosophers found the approach to be entirely unsatisfying. Krishnan profiles Isiah Berlin who abandoned philosophy for the history of ideas because he saw no value in the squabbles. Iris Murdoch became a novelist. Her novels wrestled with philosophical issues and she continued to also write philosophy , but it seems that she was frustrated with the arid air of pure philosophy.
This is not a philosophy book. It is a history. Krishnan is interested in explaining what it was like to be a philosopher in Oxford in the 20th century. Most of the philosophers were eccentrics The field attracts monomaniacal types and the setting let them indulge their eccentricities. He does not sugarcoat. Eduard Fraenkel was a prominent Oxford philosopher. He was also a sexual predator who was notorious for pawing and molesting female students. The Oxford tradition of tutors meeting weekly with students in their room allowed him the opportunity.
The movement seems driven in great part by the failure of any agreed upon objective truths to survive into the 20th century. Skepticism, agnosticism and atheism had triumphed in most college settings. The horrors of WW1 and 2 had destroyed any argument of moral progress or even agreed upon moral views. And so the philosophers shrunk down to arguing about grammar and sentence structure.
There is a general agreement these days that the Oxford analysis movement was somewhat of a dead end but there is no generally agreed upon way, even now, to get out of the dead end. As a result, formal philosophers today are less influential or considered, then ever.
July 11, 2023
"A Terribly Serious Adventure: Philosophy and War at Oxford, 1900-1960" by Nikhil Krishnan is an engaging and enlightening exploration of a fascinating era in both academia and global history. This book offers a thought-provoking perspective on the intersection of philosophy and war during a tumultuous period, and it deserves recognition for its extensive research and captivating narrative.
One of the standout qualities of this book is Krishnan's meticulous attention to detail. The author's thorough research is evident in the wealth of historical facts, documents, and primary sources included throughout the text. This scholarly approach not only lends credibility to the narrative but also provides readers with a deeper understanding of the context and significance of the events discussed.
Moreover, Krishnan's ability to intertwine personal anecdotes and stories of prominent figures at Oxford adds a human element to the historical analysis. This approach brings the narrative to life, making it more relatable and engaging for readers. It provides a deeper understanding of the individuals involved and their contributions to the philosophical discourse during times of war.
Another commendable aspect of "A Terribly Serious Adventure" is its broader societal implications. The book goes beyond the boundaries of academia to explore the profound influence of war on philosophical thought and vice versa. Krishnan skillfully connects philosophical ideas to their real-world applications and consequences, prompting readers to reflect on the complexities of war, ethics, and intellectual pursuits.
Thanks to the publishers and NetGalley for the opportunity to read a temporary digital ARC and provide my honest opinions.
One of the standout qualities of this book is Krishnan's meticulous attention to detail. The author's thorough research is evident in the wealth of historical facts, documents, and primary sources included throughout the text. This scholarly approach not only lends credibility to the narrative but also provides readers with a deeper understanding of the context and significance of the events discussed.
Moreover, Krishnan's ability to intertwine personal anecdotes and stories of prominent figures at Oxford adds a human element to the historical analysis. This approach brings the narrative to life, making it more relatable and engaging for readers. It provides a deeper understanding of the individuals involved and their contributions to the philosophical discourse during times of war.
Another commendable aspect of "A Terribly Serious Adventure" is its broader societal implications. The book goes beyond the boundaries of academia to explore the profound influence of war on philosophical thought and vice versa. Krishnan skillfully connects philosophical ideas to their real-world applications and consequences, prompting readers to reflect on the complexities of war, ethics, and intellectual pursuits.
Thanks to the publishers and NetGalley for the opportunity to read a temporary digital ARC and provide my honest opinions.
Read
December 10, 2023This book covers very similar ground to other recent books about Oxford philosophy, including Rowe’s biography of J L Austin and two recent books about Murdoch, Anscombe, Midgly and Foot. If you read those you don’t need to read this, and vice versa.
June 28, 2023
This book is interesting but comes across as a series of sketches of personalities associated with Oxford Philosophy in the mid-20th century.
August 12, 2023
Tried twice and couldn't get through the 1st chapter. The author's writing style didn't do it for me. Disappointing.
February 26, 2024
In his introduction he proposes to see philosophy at Oxford during this period As edifying and representing a number of virtues, notably, humility, self-awareness, collegiality, restraint, elegance, concision, and directness.
Chapter 1 begins with a discussion of Gilbert Ryle. It looks at the idealism of Bradley and Green, Moore’s arguments against it, then Russell’s theory of definite descriptions, and finally Ryle’s definition of analysis.
Chapter 2 introduces us to AJ Ayer, Susan Stebbings and more Ryle. Isaiah Berlin arrives and is Fred Ayer’s neighbor.
Chapter 3 brings us to the arrival of J.L. Austin, and also to the publication of AJ Ayer’s book Language, Truth and Logic, which becomes a topic of much discussion in many groups
Chapter 4 the women arrive, and the war begins.
Chapter 5 early on, the focus is on Collingwood. Ryle writes a book and Austin holds Saturday seminars. Anscombe goes to work for Wittgenstein. He visits Oxford on her coaxing to hear a paper by Oscar Wood. The subject was to be cogito ergo sum, but it is lost to history. Wittgenstein spoke for some time, ignoring Wood. H. A. Prichard asked a question of Ludwig but did not receive a satisfactory answer. He left early.
Chapter 6 Anscombe and Harry Truman. R.M. Hare arrives on the scene, having survived a POW camp. Anscombe writes her paper, Modern Moral Philosophy, and Philippa Foot begins writing.
Chapter 7 Iris Murdoch returns to Oxford after travelling for a government agency. She spent time in Paris and met Sartre. She studied Wittgenstein from a distance. She begins to write a book on Sartre. Austin gives his “Sense and Sensibilia” lectures. Talk of sense data becomes a big thing. Austin thought the theory implausible. Murdoch writes Under the Net.
Chapter 8 Ernest Gellner writes Words and Things(oh, how I wish I had read this in graduate school.) Ved Nehta arrives. Blind, two essays into his education, he realizes philosophy is not for him. Austin debates Anscombe: “Where Austin was arch and funny, Anscombe was plodding, careful and relentlessly serious.” Austi was not by any means the clear victor.
Strawson arrives at Oxford. The planets orbit him for a while.
Chapter 9 devotes a lot of time to Austin and his speech act theory, which is in itself a very humanistic rather than dry activity. Herbert Marcuse arrives and criticized analytic philosophy for only analyzing the world and not changing it, a la Marx. Stanley Cavell writes a defense. Austin dies in 1960.
In chapter 10, the author looks at the failings of philosophy at Oxford, but more importantly, at the value of philosophy teaching at Oxford. “Oxford, that is to say, is not so much a school of philosophy as a school for philosophers.” Austin was doing a kind of linguistic phenomenology.
In the Epilogue, he looks at the final days of Anscombe, Hare, Murdoch, Ayer, and finally lingers with Ryle, where he began.
This is an excellent book. He spends time looking at Russell’s theory of descriptions, Ryle’s ghost in the machine, Anscombe’s Intention, Hare’s prescriptivism, Austin’s speech act theory and other prominent theories of the time. He lingers on the significance and impact of Austin’s work.
Chapter 1 begins with a discussion of Gilbert Ryle. It looks at the idealism of Bradley and Green, Moore’s arguments against it, then Russell’s theory of definite descriptions, and finally Ryle’s definition of analysis.
Chapter 2 introduces us to AJ Ayer, Susan Stebbings and more Ryle. Isaiah Berlin arrives and is Fred Ayer’s neighbor.
Chapter 3 brings us to the arrival of J.L. Austin, and also to the publication of AJ Ayer’s book Language, Truth and Logic, which becomes a topic of much discussion in many groups
Chapter 4 the women arrive, and the war begins.
Chapter 5 early on, the focus is on Collingwood. Ryle writes a book and Austin holds Saturday seminars. Anscombe goes to work for Wittgenstein. He visits Oxford on her coaxing to hear a paper by Oscar Wood. The subject was to be cogito ergo sum, but it is lost to history. Wittgenstein spoke for some time, ignoring Wood. H. A. Prichard asked a question of Ludwig but did not receive a satisfactory answer. He left early.
Chapter 6 Anscombe and Harry Truman. R.M. Hare arrives on the scene, having survived a POW camp. Anscombe writes her paper, Modern Moral Philosophy, and Philippa Foot begins writing.
Chapter 7 Iris Murdoch returns to Oxford after travelling for a government agency. She spent time in Paris and met Sartre. She studied Wittgenstein from a distance. She begins to write a book on Sartre. Austin gives his “Sense and Sensibilia” lectures. Talk of sense data becomes a big thing. Austin thought the theory implausible. Murdoch writes Under the Net.
Chapter 8 Ernest Gellner writes Words and Things(oh, how I wish I had read this in graduate school.) Ved Nehta arrives. Blind, two essays into his education, he realizes philosophy is not for him. Austin debates Anscombe: “Where Austin was arch and funny, Anscombe was plodding, careful and relentlessly serious.” Austi was not by any means the clear victor.
Strawson arrives at Oxford. The planets orbit him for a while.
Chapter 9 devotes a lot of time to Austin and his speech act theory, which is in itself a very humanistic rather than dry activity. Herbert Marcuse arrives and criticized analytic philosophy for only analyzing the world and not changing it, a la Marx. Stanley Cavell writes a defense. Austin dies in 1960.
In chapter 10, the author looks at the failings of philosophy at Oxford, but more importantly, at the value of philosophy teaching at Oxford. “Oxford, that is to say, is not so much a school of philosophy as a school for philosophers.” Austin was doing a kind of linguistic phenomenology.
In the Epilogue, he looks at the final days of Anscombe, Hare, Murdoch, Ayer, and finally lingers with Ryle, where he began.
This is an excellent book. He spends time looking at Russell’s theory of descriptions, Ryle’s ghost in the machine, Anscombe’s Intention, Hare’s prescriptivism, Austin’s speech act theory and other prominent theories of the time. He lingers on the significance and impact of Austin’s work.
March 29, 2024
I wonder what Krishnan's idea was for this book when he started it, or what his pitch to the publisher was. You could call it, roughly, a group biography/history of some philosophers at Oxford. There you have a few stools to fall between, and NK succeeds in so falling. There is not enough philosophical substance for a contribution to the history of thought... and so on.
In fairness, it is most nearly adequate as a series of biographical sketches. Also in fairness, I'm sure he didn't aspire to contribute much to the history of ideas. On the other hand, he does seem to want to form a concluding judgement on "Oxford philosophy" as a whole, which will seem unnecessary to those who know much of it and will be beyond the grasp of everyone else. As so often with books of and about philosophy, it is full of material, and even themes, of doubtful meaningfulness in its own terms.
But I read it to the end, because I'm well into some of the philosophers concerned, namely Wittgenstein and Austin, and I have some curiosity about many of the others, and I like Murdoch as a novelist. As a series of stories about the people behind the work, it's okay. I certainly learned much more than I'd known about Austin as a man, for instance. It wasn't all that appealing, but it was interesting.
I haven't been able to find out much about Krishnan's own biography in the 2 or 3 minutes I spent googling him. I was curious about his relationship with English, which he writes fairly competently but with irritating repeated lapses, such as using "like" for "as" - fine in conversation or in a demotic-style text, but this isn't one - and misusing "as such" without an antecedent for "such". Otherwise, his style is functional, if a bit undisciplined (the book could easily shed 1/3 of its pages without loss to the reader). He's not the worst writer knocking about these days, by a long shot, but he's not particularly good either. And I'm still not sure what the point of the book is.
Perhaps he just wants to be a writer, which seems to be the prime motivation of so many writers nowadays. If so I'd remind him of the excellent advice to philosophers that he quotes a couple of times, from Ayer (or was it Ryle?): better to write a short good book when you're older than a long bad book while you're young. (If only all our 'creatives' would heed this advice, maybe we wouldn't be drowning in quite so much crap.)
In short: easily the best book of its kind. If you are curious about the lives behind 'Language, Truth and Logic', 'The Concept of Mind' or 'How to Do Things with Words', this will get you started. (I believe there is now a full-scale biography of Austin, which I may well get around to at some point.)
In fairness, it is most nearly adequate as a series of biographical sketches. Also in fairness, I'm sure he didn't aspire to contribute much to the history of ideas. On the other hand, he does seem to want to form a concluding judgement on "Oxford philosophy" as a whole, which will seem unnecessary to those who know much of it and will be beyond the grasp of everyone else. As so often with books of and about philosophy, it is full of material, and even themes, of doubtful meaningfulness in its own terms.
But I read it to the end, because I'm well into some of the philosophers concerned, namely Wittgenstein and Austin, and I have some curiosity about many of the others, and I like Murdoch as a novelist. As a series of stories about the people behind the work, it's okay. I certainly learned much more than I'd known about Austin as a man, for instance. It wasn't all that appealing, but it was interesting.
I haven't been able to find out much about Krishnan's own biography in the 2 or 3 minutes I spent googling him. I was curious about his relationship with English, which he writes fairly competently but with irritating repeated lapses, such as using "like" for "as" - fine in conversation or in a demotic-style text, but this isn't one - and misusing "as such" without an antecedent for "such". Otherwise, his style is functional, if a bit undisciplined (the book could easily shed 1/3 of its pages without loss to the reader). He's not the worst writer knocking about these days, by a long shot, but he's not particularly good either. And I'm still not sure what the point of the book is.
Perhaps he just wants to be a writer, which seems to be the prime motivation of so many writers nowadays. If so I'd remind him of the excellent advice to philosophers that he quotes a couple of times, from Ayer (or was it Ryle?): better to write a short good book when you're older than a long bad book while you're young. (If only all our 'creatives' would heed this advice, maybe we wouldn't be drowning in quite so much crap.)
In short: easily the best book of its kind. If you are curious about the lives behind 'Language, Truth and Logic', 'The Concept of Mind' or 'How to Do Things with Words', this will get you started. (I believe there is now a full-scale biography of Austin, which I may well get around to at some point.)
October 19, 2023
I really enjoyed the first half of this book. It is a clearly written, often funny, history of the Oxford School of Philosophy (just like the sub-title) during the height of the "linguistic turn." I love group biographies and this is excellent at describing the people, as people: their lives, interests, personalities, and styles as well as the philosophy they developed. Ryle, Austen, and Ayers are at the center, but the quartet of Midgely, Anscombe, Foote, and Murdoch are at least as interesting and get a lot of space. There are currently two other books that focus on just these four women. I haven't read those, but I suspect this book is a good place to get their story in less space and with a broader view and context.
Unfortunately, I thought the book somewhat faded in the second half. This partly reflects that the Oxford school's linguistic turn itself lost momentum and eventually became what is widely considered (according to this book) a dead end. Krishnan does a good job of summarizing writers like Strawson who were responsible for moving past this phase, and also tries to put the best possible face on what they accomplished, but can't cover up that the people and their thoughts became less innovative and increasingly irrelevant. I also think he missed a few opportunities. He mentions Chomsky in passing but doesn't follow up. Chomsky was influenced (at least negatively) by Quine and Austen who were at Harvard when he was an undergraduate (and Quine was influenced by Ayer and others). I'd love to hear whether Chomsky's cognitive linguistics was at all inspired by the "linguistic turn" in philosophy, and if not, whether it had a role in that school's decline. Similarly, with LLMs providing new insights on language, I'd be interested in Krishnan's thoughts on how or if that changes the legacy of the Oxford philosophers.
Finally, Krishnan's style eventually grated on me. He sounds like Will Durant (who I mostly like) with an upbeat, forward-moving narrative punctuated with lots of "Buts" and "Sos" and rhetorical questions. A typical paragraph reads something like "X said Y. But A said B. So, that means K. And is there anything wrong with that?" It's engaging at first, but when this same form appears on page after page, I found it tiring.
Unfortunately, I thought the book somewhat faded in the second half. This partly reflects that the Oxford school's linguistic turn itself lost momentum and eventually became what is widely considered (according to this book) a dead end. Krishnan does a good job of summarizing writers like Strawson who were responsible for moving past this phase, and also tries to put the best possible face on what they accomplished, but can't cover up that the people and their thoughts became less innovative and increasingly irrelevant. I also think he missed a few opportunities. He mentions Chomsky in passing but doesn't follow up. Chomsky was influenced (at least negatively) by Quine and Austen who were at Harvard when he was an undergraduate (and Quine was influenced by Ayer and others). I'd love to hear whether Chomsky's cognitive linguistics was at all inspired by the "linguistic turn" in philosophy, and if not, whether it had a role in that school's decline. Similarly, with LLMs providing new insights on language, I'd be interested in Krishnan's thoughts on how or if that changes the legacy of the Oxford philosophers.
Finally, Krishnan's style eventually grated on me. He sounds like Will Durant (who I mostly like) with an upbeat, forward-moving narrative punctuated with lots of "Buts" and "Sos" and rhetorical questions. A typical paragraph reads something like "X said Y. But A said B. So, that means K. And is there anything wrong with that?" It's engaging at first, but when this same form appears on page after page, I found it tiring.
January 4, 2024
This book caught my attention because one of its protagonists is AJ Ayer, author of the slim volume, Language, Truth and Logic, which was on the syllabus of a course I took as a freshman in college that nominally was focused on religious ideas. I had the impression that Ayer thought he had cornered philosophy and was preparing to skin it by debunking the notion of religious ideas (and all metaphysics) in his emphasis on the limits of language and what we can "know" through its use, but since there is nothing about religion in the book, I could only infer that to be the case.
Ayer and other logical positivists (empirically minded) philosophers were determined to boil the nonsense out of what we say and think. The present volume takes the reader through a long string of these Oxford philosophers in mid-20th century who read as the product of a Protestant, Little England, conservative ethos, although they would violently dispute the notion that something as vague as "ethos" has any meaning at all. Their thrust was toward the particular; ethos is some kind of fuzzy generalization. Ergo, what I have written here is nonsense.
Well, maybe so, but as I read through the interdependent biographies of Ayer, Gilbert Ryle, Stuart Hampshire, I did have the uncharitable sense that they were not quite philosophers; rather, they saw themselves as quasi-scientists in the fields of philology and/or lexicography. At best they all seemed to ascribe to a reasonable proposition: Clarity of thought yields clarity of expression. Put another way, I would say that in order to write well, you must think well. This is not really headline news.
What was Ayer's book doing in this course, really? I'm still not sure. I suppose the message was that "religious ideas" is an oxymoron, similar to "military intelligence." But the course professor was more histrionic and exhuberant than clear in what he was up to. He could have said what I've said here and even if it is nonsense, made more sense than what he did say.
Ayer and other logical positivists (empirically minded) philosophers were determined to boil the nonsense out of what we say and think. The present volume takes the reader through a long string of these Oxford philosophers in mid-20th century who read as the product of a Protestant, Little England, conservative ethos, although they would violently dispute the notion that something as vague as "ethos" has any meaning at all. Their thrust was toward the particular; ethos is some kind of fuzzy generalization. Ergo, what I have written here is nonsense.
Well, maybe so, but as I read through the interdependent biographies of Ayer, Gilbert Ryle, Stuart Hampshire, I did have the uncharitable sense that they were not quite philosophers; rather, they saw themselves as quasi-scientists in the fields of philology and/or lexicography. At best they all seemed to ascribe to a reasonable proposition: Clarity of thought yields clarity of expression. Put another way, I would say that in order to write well, you must think well. This is not really headline news.
What was Ayer's book doing in this course, really? I'm still not sure. I suppose the message was that "religious ideas" is an oxymoron, similar to "military intelligence." But the course professor was more histrionic and exhuberant than clear in what he was up to. He could have said what I've said here and even if it is nonsense, made more sense than what he did say.
September 18, 2023
A couple of months ago, I read "Metaphysical Animals" a book about four female philosophers at Oxford in the mid-twentieth century who struggeled against the dominant male tide of language-based analytic philosophy that grew out of the Vienna Circle and the work of Wittgenstein. This book takes a broader look at the dominant male philosophers at Oxford in the same time period. They were certainly a smart group, and they mostly seem to have had great fun posing crazy hypotheticals and trying to drill down into the meaning of simple statements that might seem obvious at first glance but that hid ambiguities or non-provable statements of values or emotions. The problem was that reducing philosophy to an analysis of language hobbled it, cutting off large areas of productive inquiry. And the cries of "nonsense" and "but what do you mean?" that met any assertion that could not be dissected and validated were, to say the least, disrespectful. Mr. Krishnan tries hard to find things that were good and right in this approach to philosophy, but I honestly don't think that it is worth rescuing. Yes, there were some good ideas that remain worth exploring and yes there were some productive philosophers who emerged from this school of thought, like the four women discussed in "Metaphysical Animals," but in most respects, even after reading this book, I continue to believe that these gentlemen are better consigned to the rubbish heap of philosophical history.
May 17, 2023
I love intellectual group biographies! There have been a bunch of good ones published lately, including the two about Anscombe, Foot, Midgley and Murdoch, which overlap with some of what is covered in this thoroughly enjoyable plunge into the eccentric and oh-so-English world of mid-20th century Oxford philosophy.
I'm very much on Krishnan's side about the value of this period of philosophizing, and contemporary analytic philosophy would not be recognizable without it. I think J.L. Austin is a magnificent philosopher and much more enjoyable to read than any other philosopher since Hume. I was moved by the final couple of chapters that assess what is still living from this era of philosophy, and am totally sympathetic with his assessment of the role that Stanley Cavell plays in redeeming the more ascetic aspects of the movement.
I'm very much on Krishnan's side about the value of this period of philosophizing, and contemporary analytic philosophy would not be recognizable without it. I think J.L. Austin is a magnificent philosopher and much more enjoyable to read than any other philosopher since Hume. I was moved by the final couple of chapters that assess what is still living from this era of philosophy, and am totally sympathetic with his assessment of the role that Stanley Cavell plays in redeeming the more ascetic aspects of the movement.
June 23, 2023
This is one of the clearest, most readable and enjoyable books on philosophy I’ve encountered for a very long time. It’s a history of linguistic/analytic philosophy at its hub, the Oxford of roughly the first sixty years of the twentieth century. What sets it apart is not just Krishnan’s ability to relate ideas, issues and debates clearly but the way he captures atmosphere and character. And these people were characters! So if you want, read it as a sociological study of a sort of intellectual hothouse populated by some very er individual individuals. At whatever level you choose to digest this book, you will learn something
August 11, 2023
Competent execution of a somewhat unsound idea -- i.e., a halfway-breezy introduction to the dozen or so figures most central to a particular intellectual niche. The tone worked perfectly well at the paragraph and page level. But the scope was too wide to give adequate attention to any specific person, place, or idea. I was left without a particularly clear image of any of the individuals (bar Wittgenstein, about whom I have already read a good deal) or their major contributions. They all blend together. Contrast with Menand's "The Metaphysical Club," where we get more words on just four thinkers and are left with vivid pictures of who they were and why their ideas mattered.
December 29, 2024
If there was the possibility of giving half stars this would have gotten a 3.5.
This was a very mixed read for me, some passages I found fascinating and breezed through and other ones took me a long time to get through. This is probably because even though I tried to go into this with an open mind, I find this branch of philosophy of language hard to understand and therefore be fascinated by it. I do feel like I have a better overview of its key characters and history now though!
This was a very mixed read for me, some passages I found fascinating and breezed through and other ones took me a long time to get through. This is probably because even though I tried to go into this with an open mind, I find this branch of philosophy of language hard to understand and therefore be fascinated by it. I do feel like I have a better overview of its key characters and history now though!
November 4, 2024
A very English read, occasionally compelling but a touch dull and haunted by Jane Austen. As a history of ideas it’s reasonably successful, non-technical and accessible to a lay reader. But one gets the sense in reading as the author obliquely touches on Wittgenstein and the postwar French thinkers that Oxford in the time period isn’t a terribly interesting story.
November 10, 2025
Very readable but poorly sourced. And Krishnan seems much more interested in the mental conditions of Austrian would-be Nazis, trivia about universities (that aren’t Oxford) and everything else under the sun than he is in the supposed subject of his book. At least half of the book is irrelevant and it does not give a good view of Oxford’s philosophies.
June 10, 2023
Gilbert Ryle, Iris Murdoch, J. L. Austin and more in one book. What is not to like! Fab, fab, fab.
If you have no interest in philosophy, the turn of the century - 1950s Oxford ideas then this is probably not a book for you. Take the dog for a walk instead.
If you have no interest in philosophy, the turn of the century - 1950s Oxford ideas then this is probably not a book for you. Take the dog for a walk instead.
September 21, 2023
An arcane subject, sure. But Krishnan is the man to write about it, having experienced it (philosophy, in Oxford) first hand. One of those books that leaves you with the feeling your mind, and your sympathies, have been enlarged.
October 19, 2024
Fascinating
I wish I had had this book to read when I studied philosophy at Oxford in the 1960s. The mixture of biography with philosophy makes it easy to read as well as illuminating the ideas. Good to see proper weight given to Murdoch, Anscombe and Foot.
I wish I had had this book to read when I studied philosophy at Oxford in the 1960s. The mixture of biography with philosophy makes it easy to read as well as illuminating the ideas. Good to see proper weight given to Murdoch, Anscombe and Foot.
June 5, 2023
4.75 – Really loved this. It's presented in such an engaging and accessible way but isn't patronising.
September 28, 2023
they sure do like their talkin
December 13, 2023
Beautifully written. An education on philosophy for me, as well as a fascinating subject, expertly told, philosopher by philosopher.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews