Status Updates From On What Matters: Volumes 1 ...

A little light reading? = what the waitress asked me. Nah, just the usual survey of non-analytical non-naturalist non-cognitive normativity and stuff like that = i wish i'd replied.

Finally got back to reading Parfit's responses to Scanlon. The upcoming Normativity chapters are undeniably the most daunting and i doubt the essays in Kirchin's collected essays will act as sherpas for this otherwise solo mountaineer.

Finally got back to reading Parfit's responses to Scanlon. The upcoming Normativity chapters are undeniably the most daunting and i doubt the essays in Kirchin's collected essays will act as sherpa's for this otherwise solo mountaineer.

Finished Parfit's first response (of 3?) to Scanlon's essay. I'm pretty sure they're pals, which i might've intuited from the writing but it also might be that i soaked up this impression somewhere else. I keep thinking how much i think i would've liked to have dinner with Parfit. Y'know like that parlor conversation starter "Name 5 famous/historical people you'd like to meet for dinner."

*Finally* finished reading Parfit's reply to Herman and almost immediately went to+thru Scanlon's piece. I have a feeling i'll like *What We Owe to Each Other* and not just because it was one of the more explicit philosophical works on *The Good Place*.

I had trouble following Barbara Herman's essay, especially the beginning and end. There was a middle portion during which i didn't feel mostly lost. Might've been influenced by how much personal stuff was on my mind. Haven't yet read Parfit's response to her and i fear it's gonna be just as difficult to grasp.

Allen Wood doesn't have time to project an air of objectivity or impartiality. The dude has strong beliefs and he's not holding them back (mostly?). I really like having responsorial essays in the same volume, but i'd prefer them to be one right after the other (minus 0.1 stars).

My response to Wolf's critique: She asserts something akin to "In the real world *everyone* will not understand, agree upon, or act according to a single unifying principle of morality" but that observation is irrelevant to the goal of trying to devise and state such a principle. (Parfit's response to Wolf includes nothing in that vein, so maybe i've misrepresented her idea.)

If only i could read *half* of the sources that sound good and glean *half* of what they're talking about before i die.

Next stop, The Conclusion. And i probably won't read all the appendices; certainly won't read *all* of the notes and references; and absolutely will not *read* the index. So i'll be on to vol 2 pretty quickly.

Next stop, Consequentialism. Then the biggie, the vaunted Triple Ascent.

Finally finished the chapter that pretty much compares Kant's "formulas" with The Golden Rule.

At this pace, i will need about 60 days to read these 2 volumes and that's assuming i don't read all the notes.

Wow, only 25 pages since yesterday and i thought i'd read a TON! Probably misled by the fact that i finished Part Two.

Just barely into the "Merely as a Means" chapter.

Note to self: remember that you must be willing to read this stuff many many many times if that's what it takes for the meaning of the more byzantine sentences to finally register.

I took Parfit's suggestion and skipped ahead to chapter 6. It was the right thing to do.

ah shit, man, i just found out that Derek Parfit died on Jan 1st, wft?

Failed to make any progress last night. Something's not clicking and i'm pretty sure it's due to my lack of fundamentals. Or maybe i should take Parfit's suggestion and read only the chapters/sections that seem of most interest to me (first).

I must not feel discouraged. I must not feel discouraged. I feel discouraged. But i must not feel discouraged.