The Sovereignty of Good (Routledge Classics)
- Downloads：3495
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-04-20 11:57:51
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Iris Murdoch
- ISBN：0415253993
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Iris Murdoch once observed: 'philosophy is often a matter of finding occasions on which to say the obvious'。 What was obvious to Murdoch， and to all those who read her work， is that Good transcends everything - even God。 Throughout her distinguished and prolific writing career， she explored questions of Good and Bad， myth and morality。 The framework for Murdoch's questions - and her own conclusions - can be found here。
Reviews
Prateek
，
This is a collection of three essays on the subject of good。 Here is a review of each of them separately。1。 The idea of perfectionWriting on the background of the then popular trends in psychology - behaviorism and philosophy - existentialism， Murdoch's account of morality must have been a timely one。 It tries to restore to the idea of inward looking self dignity， for it was so vehemently criticized on account of Wittgenstein’s logic and theory of language。 It is clear from her vantage point tha This is a collection of three essays on the subject of good。 Here is a review of each of them separately。1。 The idea of perfectionWriting on the background of the then popular trends in psychology - behaviorism and philosophy - existentialism， Murdoch's account of morality must have been a timely one。 It tries to restore to the idea of inward looking self dignity， for it was so vehemently criticized on account of Wittgenstein’s logic and theory of language。 It is clear from her vantage point that philosophy of Wittgenstein created voids which attracted many philosophers to fill them。On one account it is said that all thought is thought in so far as it is directed towards a judgement or action in the outer world which is empirically observable， rest all that goes inside our brains is mere day-dreaming or musing。 This attitude reminiscent of Wittgenstein is married to the existentialist idea that at the moment of choosing （a course of action in the external world） one encounters a strange emptiness。 To move and make a choice now is either determined by reasons which one chooses freely or no reasons at all。It is to this notion of choosing she is responding and she put forwards her analysis of attention。 Attention is the loving survey of the world which is always going on and with which we construct our system of values。 And at the moment of choosing one simply makes the decision， obediently and readily as the choice has already been made on account of knowledge gathered。 In so far this faculty of attention is located within and is not explained away just by theories of language， the nature of moral being is restored。Coupled to this is her idea of the indefinability of the good。 Good is not a bounded variable， one can only grasp only some limit of it at a time and not understand it completely and wholesomely。 At certain moments， in the rush of things some acts obviously appear to be good and one simply obliges。 This she says is a fact that is clear to any artist。 And moving on she describes her understanding of conflation of the good and the beautiful。To approximate to the ideals of good and the beautiful more and more in one’s attention is the idea of perfection which every moral being aspires to。2。 On ‘God’ and ‘Good’Here， Iris Murdoch presents her interpretation of the idea of moral realism - that moral concepts like good and virtue are the attributes of the real。 She recommends to fix one’s attention on the good and not on freedom or right action for with reflection on good， freedom and right action will result as by-products。 She is trying to put forward a theory of self when the old substantial self （soul） has been destroyed by positive Philosophy and the struggle to find a real self in Philosophy has begun。In concluding paragraph of this essay， Murdoch says that she has nowhere in the essay assumed the existence of God and was motivated to present a positive account of Good that can stand against the prevalent trends in thinking about humans on the basis of utilitarianism， linguistic behaviorism and existentialism。 This she does with an attempt to rescue art and ethics from being swallowed up by science。 Art and Ethics on her account must guide and check the increasing power of science。3。 The Sovereignty of GoodIn this essay， Iris paints her picture of attributes of the moral self like Good， Art， Beauty， Truth， Love， Freedom and humility。 She presents her argument for the sovereignty and primitiveness of Good over other virtues。 She inspires the reader to look beyond the petty self-interest towards the superior human values。It is her unflinching conviction that fixing one's attention on the Good， reveals the other attributes of the world in a truer spirit。 Love becomes refined， art becomes sublime and the resolve of courage is deepened。 The dilemma of moral choices that one encounters on a daily basis is made easy with the true knowledge and understanding of the good。She equates chance with death for life is revolt against the tyranny of chance and everyone from the humble peasant to the philosopher toils to tame chance and regulate his affairs， unknowingly in the case of humble peasant and knowingly and systematically in the case of philosopher。 It is here lies the sovereignty of the Good。 。。。more
Tomos
，
Solid。 Big fan of Murdoch。
Rasmus Tillander
，
Filosofi-kirjailijan viisaita pohdintoja Hyvyyden luonteesta。 Iris Murdoch on todella kiehtova hahmo。 Siitä asti kuin luin erinomaisen Kellon on filosofia sisälläni kutkuttanut tutustua myös Murdochin akateemiseen puoleen。 The Sovereignty of Good on siis moraalifilosofina kunnostautuneen Murdochin tunnetuin teos ja se koostuu kolmesta luennosta， jotka hän piti pitkin 1960-lukua。 Luennot ovat intohimoinen puolustus hyvän käsitteelle filosofiassa。 Kiinnostavaa tässä onkin juuri se kuinka vahvasti Filosofi-kirjailijan viisaita pohdintoja Hyvyyden luonteesta。 Iris Murdoch on todella kiehtova hahmo。 Siitä asti kuin luin erinomaisen Kellon on filosofia sisälläni kutkuttanut tutustua myös Murdochin akateemiseen puoleen。 The Sovereignty of Good on siis moraalifilosofina kunnostautuneen Murdochin tunnetuin teos ja se koostuu kolmesta luennosta， jotka hän piti pitkin 1960-lukua。 Luennot ovat intohimoinen puolustus hyvän käsitteelle filosofiassa。 Kiinnostavaa tässä onkin juuri se kuinka vahvasti Murdoch asettuu eksistentialismia vastaan （ja toki vähemmän kiinnostavasti myös mm。 Ayerin emotivismia vastaan）。 Murdochille hyvä on jotain todellista， osa maailmaa， eikä vain nimi jonka annamme suhteellisen sattumanvaraisille valinnoillemme。 Murdochin mukaan hyvyys samaistuu monella tapaa Jumalaan （johon Murdoch ei siis ainakaan klassisessa mielessä itse usko）。 Mikäli uskotaan hyvyyteen ja hyveellisyyteen on niin sanottu ontologinen argumentti hyvyydestä tällaiselle ihmiselle pätevä。 Hyvyys taas antaa itsestään merkkejä esimerkiksi taiteen kauneudessa。 Taide on Murdochille ehkä se keskeisin inhimillinen pyrintö， koska hyvä taide voi aidosti erottaa meidän itsekkäästä， liki perisynnin tahraamasta， itsestämme ja näyttää meille maailman kuten se on。 Huolimatta tästä itsekkyyden taakasti erinomaisuus （excellence） vetää kuitenkin ihmisiä puoleensa。 Useasti siteerattu Jeesuksen ohje "Olkaa siis täydelliset" on kaikessa kammottavuudessaan kutsuva。 Hyvyys on täydellisyyttä: eräänlainen magneetti， joka vetää meitä puoleensa - tai aurinko jota on vaikea katsoa suoraan。 Olipas freesiä lukea jotain tällaista filosofiaa。 Murdoch on kyllä tässä， kuten myös roomaaneissaan jotenkin säihkyvän viisas。 Vaikka en ihan platonilaiseksi hyve-eetikoksi tämän lukemisen jälkeen varmaan alakkaan niin olihan tämä vakuuttavaa luettavaa。 。。。more
Italo Perazzoli
，
There are three essays where she discuss on how to reduce our Ego， and how the western society will take form above the concept of the personal and all seeing God。 These essays are very complex， they must be read many times， it suits for writers and readers， the key reading is to think if it is possible philosophise through literature and our concept with God， why we behave good for the others or for ourselves？
Tiago Faleiro
，
This book was harder than expected and at times I was quite lost without really grasping what Murdoch was trying to say。 But I managed to grasp enough of it to make some coherence of her worldview， and I started to appreciate it the more time it passed after I read it。 What I find so useful about this book and why I decided to read it is the focus with the Good， in the typical Platonic form。 The formless yet hyper-real ground of reality that humans seek but can only glimpse of。 It is very theolo This book was harder than expected and at times I was quite lost without really grasping what Murdoch was trying to say。 But I managed to grasp enough of it to make some coherence of her worldview， and I started to appreciate it the more time it passed after I read it。 What I find so useful about this book and why I decided to read it is the focus with the Good， in the typical Platonic form。 The formless yet hyper-real ground of reality that humans seek but can only glimpse of。 It is very theological and religious in nature， but she approaches it from a purely secular perspective which is much needed to make such important philosophical topics intelligible。 A lot of the book is actually about refutation， in order for her worldview to make sense in the culture and context she was in。 A lot of time is spent arguing against the over-valuing of the will present in existentialism or the obsession with will and neglect of the "inner" with behaviourism。 While the latter seems very obvious now， her arguments against existentialism are as valid as ever， as our culture seems to have deeply absorbed its philosophy， I believe for no other reason than thinking there is no other valid alternative。 It seems egotistic in a way with its infatuation with freedom which that I didn't fully appreciate until I read this book。In order to seek the Good， one must retreat from an obsession with the self。 Even positive attributes which we take for granted， such as self-discovery， are in her view misguided。 Attention should be aimed at the Good， and the self is just as prone to illusion as everything else and trying to decipher it won't be fruitful。 A lot of it is incredibly abstract， but yet it seems too hard to deny its reality。 She gives reasonable examples in everyday life which these views are easily accepted， but we don't see its implicit philosophy behind it。 We may live in a mechanistic worldview that can't find objective morality， but in fact， our lives are primarily moral and not scientific。 To me， it always seemed almost self-evident of how the Good is directly tied with Truth and Beauty， yet I've always struggled to articulate why that's the case。 In the last part of the book， she explores the notion that the Good can be most easily found in great art。 Her articulation of Beauty was deeply poetic and yet at the same time the most helpful philosophy I have encountered on the topic。 It allows us to see the world and humanity beyond the self which we are typically so obsessed with， and that allows to have both a more accurate view of the world but also have a greater connection to the Good and thus to embody morality。 I also found her description of attention very interesting and not something I have thought of before。 For example， her description of prayer and viewing it as an exercise of exposing the soul to "God" by selflessness managed to make me better appreciate the practice。 This type of attention in praying （to God， The Good） is also present in art， which shows itself in what makes art meaningful by redirecting your attention to what truly matters。 It is deeply entrenched in a metaphor of seeing， which of course alludes to the connection with Truth。 The journey of becoming a good person is the journey to learn to see， of properly paying attention。 She often uses Plato's allegory of the cave and its themes of knowledge and light to better articulate these ideas which were both fascinating and helpful。 It's a book that I should re-read at some point， for there is much that I missed。 If you want to read it， be aware that is difficult， and some philosophical background is not absolutely required， but would definitely be helpful as she often focused on critiquing other philosophical views in order to validate her own。 While I think anyone can read it， it requires a lot of effort。 I thought about giving up on the book often out of frustration。 I initially planned to rate it 4 stars after finishing due how difficult it was， but as it is often the case with hard books， when writing the review itself I can't help but think the effort was worth it and give it 5 stars。 If you have been captivated by the Platonic notion of the Good in its quasi-religious form， but you find it hard to ground it in religious metaphysics， I think this book will be helpful to show a different way of conceptualizing it。 Furthermore， her articulation of how the Good relates to art， especially literature and painting， is a gold-mine in itself regardless if you end up agreeing with her worldview as a whole。 。。。more
VII
，
It’s a quite brave little book， basically arguing in favour of her variety of Platonism in ethics。 The main point is that we need to believe in some kind of external guide or else we will despair， since life is so full of suffering and we are prey to chance。 God can’t cut it anymore but maybe the Good can。 Maybe if we look hard enough we can see beauty in art or nature and while admiring it， forget ourselves for a moment。 Beauty can act as evidence of something greater or as an example of the po It’s a quite brave little book， basically arguing in favour of her variety of Platonism in ethics。 The main point is that we need to believe in some kind of external guide or else we will despair， since life is so full of suffering and we are prey to chance。 God can’t cut it anymore but maybe the Good can。 Maybe if we look hard enough we can see beauty in art or nature and while admiring it， forget ourselves for a moment。 Beauty can act as evidence of something greater or as an example of the possibility of becoming less egoistic。 One can even use the Good as a way to realign himself during one’s weak moments。 She， unlike the moral philosophers of her era， doesn’t proclaim neutrality， she explicitly identifies egoism - the default state of humans - as the enemy。 To overcome it， the first step is to really look。 Great artists managed to put their ego aside and create something that reveals reality and is beyond their personal preoccupations。 She thinks that to be good the same thing is required: to see what is out there without one’s ego， and contemplating the Good can help us re-orient ourselves when we are feeling weak， the same way Christians ask for help from their God when praying。I kind of disagree with most of the book。 I certainly don’t believe that there is something like the Good that she describes but I can’t see it ever working even as some kind of psychological mechanism。 It might have worked a few dozen or hundred years ago but I think it’s too late， especially for the Western culture。 Too much cynicism and too much scientism。 Still， there was something direct and honest in this little book that intrigued me。And a more detailed summary:She reacts against the behaviourism of her age that painted an image in which inner life is either useless or non-existent， making the only thing that counts， actions。 In this behaviouristic image what's publicly available is neutral and objective similar to the Humean sense-data。 In every human what's publicly available is captured by the use of reason and immediately forces her to form the appropriate beliefs。 With everything open and clear and objective， choices become strictly a matter of the person's will plus the value system that each individual happened to form growing up。 Against this static and obviously misguided image， Murdoch reminds us that there can be changes in a person that can't be cashed out in overt behaviour。 She tells us that there can be an inner struggle that results in a better image of what is out there and a changes of attitute towards it。 Her model is based on vision， not action。 Even if there is something publicly available common to everyone it is not relevant for morality （but for science） so those instant beliefs are either impossible or irrelevant for morality。 What's important and more fundamental （even from science） is reasons for acting and the concepts， the vocabulary one uses。 People use different ones and see things differently and effort is required to see them clearly or -since her concern is not epistemological but moral- justly， fairly， lovingly。 This introduces struggle and progress towards an ideal -but never-reaching- point of a clear， just vision of the right action or even of love， making her model platonic， with concrete universals。 It is correct vision of things that make one act rightly。 It also makes the moment of decision less important。 The actual work has been done before by seeing and in the moment of choice， perhaps the goal can be to have no choice but to do what's right， an image that sometimes artists use for what they do （Nietzsche and Nehamas also talk about this）。 In the second essay she goes one step further。 Against that optimistic image of the powerful will， she agrees with Freud and all the others who see humans as selfish creatures and "largely determined by [their] own individual history"， identifying this Ego as the enemy that we should surpass in order to become "good men"。 Something that can help is having an object of attention that one can focus on when trying to reorient oneself， akin to Christians praying to God to give them strength。 This role will be played by "the Good" in her thinking。 Certainly， believing in something higher， in a kind of unity and hierarchy is beneficial and can shield us against despair， but is this a real transcendent authority or just a psychological mechanism？ She believes that it possible to connect morality with realism， an attempt to see things clearly。 It is easier to see it in art， when an artist overcomes his personal obsessions， her self， and ends up creating something real。 Great art is «unsentimental， detached， unselfish， objective attention»。 Then creating or even looking at art is connected with morality as it is an attempt to overcome the self。 It is also connected with realism as beauty is realistic。 Goodness， the Good， is similar。 It is to suppress your ego and to believe that "true vision occasions right conduct"， something that happens with love and compassion。 This， again， makes our will and our decisions less important， as it is looking at reality that guides us。 She thinks then that the Good can be that object of attention， with contemplation replacing prayer， in moments that our intent to be virtuous coexists with some unclarity。 Without the Good «"freedom’ is readily corrupted into self-assertion and ‘right action’ into some sort of ad hoc utilitarianism»。 "The only genuine way to be good is to be good ‘for nothing’"。 Still， she admits that it's hard to be convinced that this "Good" exists and it might not be as effective as a combination of utilitarianism， existentialism， perhaps Marxism and psychology， which are much closer to common sense， but finds that it's hard to properly look at evil and suffering without despairing。 Besides art， only believing that there is something "more than this" might do it and for her beauty is the evidence of this something。 In the third essay she tries to describe this Good。 Kant， even though he pushed emotions outside morality， allowed achtung， "a kind of suffering pride which accompanies， though it does not motivate， the recognition of duty" and the sublime， the experience we have "when we confront the awful contingency of nature or of human fate and return into ourselves with a proud shudder of rational power"。 It is an "exciting suffering freedom" that inspired romanticism taking refuge in sublime emotions and freedom。 Murdoch commends this search for something clean， pure and non-egoistic that can make us better but thinks that it should be outside of us。 Evidence of its existence is beauty in nature and in art that allows us for a moment to escape our ego and almost be one with them。 In a more pessimistic tone， she tells us that «we take a self-forgetful pleasure in the sheer alien pointless independent existence"， that "the pointlessness of art is not the pointlessness of a game; it is the pointlessness of human life itself" and that with art we "conceal death and chance by the invention of forms"， by imposing a "pattern upon something which might otherwise seem intolerably chancy and incomplete"。 In art we see "the nature of morality" and it "involves a recognition of hierarchy and authority"， it shows us reality and with that， virtue。 But even intellectual virtues are connected with the moral ones and reality as they involve «such concepts as justice， accuracy， truthfulness， realism， humility， courage as the ability to sustain clear vision， love as attachment or even passion without sentiment or self"。 Learning a language for example has a distant， perhaps unattainable goal， requires respect to its authoritative structure and it is a progressive revelation that leads to a knowledge of reality。 It requires love for the language， honesty and humility。 It is "an exercise of virtue as well as of talent， and shows us a fundamental way in which virtue is related to the real world。» The image of the Good is what connects everything but it's hard to see it directly。 Plato uses the sun， which is "real， it is out there， but very distant" and in "its light we see the things of the world in their true relationships"， but looking at it is "supremely difficult and is unlike looking at things in its light" and not through our ego。 The road towards the Good is not to reach "a non-hypothetical first principle"， something abstract but also to descend and see in its light true relations and a kind of ranking， for example which （art， family， law， knowledge） is more important than the other in particular situations an application of wisdom and love。 We have to make the right decisions， not only about the matter than concerns us， but also about its relative importance compared to other matters。 Unity is important as we can be good in one part of our life and evil in another。 Good is indefinable， perhaps because of how distant it is， since our lives are full of death and chance and perhaps it can become nearer when we improve ourselves by becoming less selfish， similar to appreciating art。 There are false suns too though， one can be addicted to one's own conception of the good and her own ego in general。 And though we might be tempted to replace good with love， there can be a false， degraded kind of love that requires the good to purify it （loving a murderous child for example）。 It is more of "the unmistakable sign that we are spiritual creatures"。 And goodness is connected with accepting real death， chance and transience， our own nothingness。 It entails a humbleness。 "The humble man， because he sees himself as nothing， can see other things as they are。 He sees both the pointlessness of virtue and its unique value and the endless extent of its demand。" 。。。more
Ella Goldblum
，
Not sure I agree with a lot of this book or， perhaps better put， relate to Murdoch’s way of viewing the world。 That said， a few ideas in here have really shaped the way I think and I find myself returning to them every day。
Almir
，
3。5
Tucker
，
Brief and abstract。 Seems to me to be a pragmatist approach to "the good": we know it when we see it， or， more accurately， when we are pursuing it。 More on Books Are Our Superpower。 Brief and abstract。 Seems to me to be a pragmatist approach to "the good": we know it when we see it， or， more accurately， when we are pursuing it。 More on Books Are Our Superpower。 。。。more
Ciahnan Darrell
，
Sovereignty is a deceptive little book。 One imagines at the checkout counter that they will devour its 150 pages in an afternoon， and devote the evening to the pursuit of other conquests， a notion of which they are disabused upon opening the book。 The first 29 pages are a slog， a schematic gloss of philosophical discourse on agency， action， and value delivered in the hermetic language proper to British analytic philosophy circa 1970。 Murdoch's periodic glances at existentialism provide some leav Sovereignty is a deceptive little book。 One imagines at the checkout counter that they will devour its 150 pages in an afternoon， and devote the evening to the pursuit of other conquests， a notion of which they are disabused upon opening the book。 The first 29 pages are a slog， a schematic gloss of philosophical discourse on agency， action， and value delivered in the hermetic language proper to British analytic philosophy circa 1970。 Murdoch's periodic glances at existentialism provide some leavening， given that， her early admiration of Sartre notwithstanding， she seems to regard existentialism in the manner of a librarian watching an unruly toddler with its head stuck in a bucket ricochet from stack to stack—entertaining， but ancillary。 This is not to say that Murdoch is dismissive of existentialism， but rather that she believes its fundamental premises are misleading。 We are， she argues， not our own starting point， or awash in an absurd universe， but given ourselves by the images we confront， and the manner and degree of our attention （Weil's influence here is immense）。 Murdoch's true target in Sovereignty is the very man to whom she dedicated the book， Stuart Hampshire， and especially his contention that human beings are objects in perpetual flow from intention into action。 Murdoch spends the bulk of the first twenty-nine pages addressing him directly， before mercifully cracking on and reintroducing aestheticized notions of Platonic moral philosophy that will permit her to revive the concepts of morality and value disavowed by her contemporaries。Murdoch devotes the preponderance of Sovereignty to reinserting philosophy into the realm of everyday life and action， and does so with such elegance and insight that there are times in the reading that I find myself standing before the bare fact of Beauty， the bare fact of Good， and gratefully amazed that my smallness does not put me beyond their reach， and I understand my place and purpose with a scalding clarity。 And what I understand is not teleological， and has nothing to do with the mastery of a content， but is rather a call to aesthetic self-discipline so that I might resist the temptation to remake the world and those I meet in my own image。 I'm to live in a state of receptivity to humanity and habitat， to watch， and to make pictures。 And having made them， I'm to scrutinize them， and ask myself if anything of what I've written or drawn resonates deeply。 My purpose is to live cyclically， to watch， create， regard， and repeat， and thereby， to see with increasing clarity， to recognize that something other than myself is real。 。。。more
Sarah George
，
It was a slow start with Essay #1 The idea of perfection being a little bit hard to get in to。 It's also the longest of the 3 essays， so I was struggling to get through; however！ There was a shift midway where suddenly things were leaping off the page！ Essay #2 was amazing！ I will be revisiting "On God and Good" in the future （even if the ending was kind of a letdown--I think upon re-read I'll pretend the last page and a half is blank。 Essay 3 （for which the book is named） was okay。 It eased me It was a slow start with Essay #1 The idea of perfection being a little bit hard to get in to。 It's also the longest of the 3 essays， so I was struggling to get through; however！ There was a shift midway where suddenly things were leaping off the page！ Essay #2 was amazing！ I will be revisiting "On God and Good" in the future （even if the ending was kind of a letdown--I think upon re-read I'll pretend the last page and a half is blank。 Essay 3 （for which the book is named） was okay。 It eased me out well enough。 Overall， a solid read 。。。more
Georgina Lara
，
Reading Philosophy resets the way I think about ordinary things and opens my mind to new perspectives。 This time is was the concept of Good as moral imperative。
João Vaz
，
The Sovereignty of Good is a collection of three essays about moral philosophy centered around the concept of Good。 In them， Murdoch debunks the dominant schools of thought on the normative aspect of morality: what is right or wrong and what we ought to do。 The three schools being （1） behaviorism， （2） utilitarianism， and （3） existentialism。 Some context is in order。 Behaviorists emphasize scientific scrutiny and claim that behavior is learned through the interaction with the external world， as o The Sovereignty of Good is a collection of three essays about moral philosophy centered around the concept of Good。 In them， Murdoch debunks the dominant schools of thought on the normative aspect of morality: what is right or wrong and what we ought to do。 The three schools being （1） behaviorism， （2） utilitarianism， and （3） existentialism。 Some context is in order。 Behaviorists emphasize scientific scrutiny and claim that behavior is learned through the interaction with the external world， as opposed to internal mechanisms， like thought。 Utilitarians advocate actions that promote happiness/well-being and they emphasize outcomes as the criterion for moral judgment， not intentions。 Existentialists stress individual existence， freedom， and choice; they argue that we are born as a blank slate， colored through unique experiences， and that our individual development happens through deliberate acts of will。 Now that that is out the way， in this book， what Murdoch does is to provide a critique to the way these theories explain moral behavior。 Her contention is that morality can be informed by one’s inner life， whereas， according to said theories， we form the concept of a good deed， or a moral act， based on our external experiences alone: utilitarians say that what matters is void of intentions and that only public acts matter; existentialists maintain that morality is informed by our physical experiences; behaviorists join the mix since only observable acts can show proof of morality at work。 Not much space for the voices within， is there？ Well， Murdoch gives them ample room。 To justify that moral activity can be separated from external expression， she describes the case of a mother （M） who despises her daughter-in-law （D）， but who always behaves nicely toward her， although secretly， in her mind， she believes her son could have done better。 Because M feels like she is being unfair， slowly and by giving just attention to D， she starts to see her in a different light。 According to the accepted paradigm， M has always been a good person， since she’d always behaved affectionately toward D。 But given her change in mental state， one cannot but agree that she engaged in moral activity by trying to be me more accommodating of D。 Using this description as a running example， Murdoch fundamentally rejects that the reality of morality excludes that which is unobservable。 I say she makes a compelling argument against using observability as the sole criterion of reality。 But， my absolute favorite part was when she applies her concept of morality to the idea of freedom。 This is where her confrontation with existentialists reached its climax。 Existentialism， and most other contemporary theories， places freedom at the moment of choice， immediately before a person decides to act in the public world。 To Murdoch， there’s more to freedom than what meets the eye （literally）。 Freedom is the deliberate act of paying attention to reality。 Both observable and unobservable reality （our thoughts， our motives， our concept of self）。 Freedom is the act of trying to see the world clearly， in both its corporeal and immaterial manifestations。 To achieve that， we use the concept of Good to make sense of reality， to illuminate it， and to act upon it to produce an inward change for the better。 This is where it becomes interesting。 Murdoch argues that this perfect ideal of Good exists independently of man。 Good as the inherent value that illuminates thought toward moral improvement。 This idea is in direct opposition to existentialists， like Sartre， Camus， or Saramago， who believe that existence precedes essence。 That is， that individuals， informed by their environment and through existence and consciousness， create their own values and identities。 Although I （self-evidently） agree with Murdoch， this was perhaps where she was least persuasive， since it wasn’t clear to me how she isolated the existence of something so immutable and structural as Good from， yes， God。 Overall， really interesting。 The writing was a bit hard to follow in the beginning （she clearly had her peers as target audience， rather than laymen， like myself）， but you quickly get over her verbosity to get to the Good stuff。 。。。more
Kevin Mckinney
，
this gets better and builds on itself as it goes along- the second two essays in particular were really powerful。 murdoch talks shit against overly simple forms of "consolation" but this book really was comforting in its own way and helped me find clarity with a lot of things i've been dealing with recently。 this gets better and builds on itself as it goes along- the second two essays in particular were really powerful。 murdoch talks shit against overly simple forms of "consolation" but this book really was comforting in its own way and helped me find clarity with a lot of things i've been dealing with recently。 。。。more
Jon Stout
，
Iris Murdoch’s best known work on philosophy consists of three lectures that she delivered in 1964， 1967 and 1969。 While each essay stands on its own， the three essays develop a common theme， which is a defense of Plato’s concept of the Good。 Her approach is not to endorse Plato’s theory of forms in an unqualified way， but rather to argue， along with Plato， that good is something real in the world， rather than being merely an emotion or a choice。She starts out by outlining what she regards as th Iris Murdoch’s best known work on philosophy consists of three lectures that she delivered in 1964， 1967 and 1969。 While each essay stands on its own， the three essays develop a common theme， which is a defense of Plato’s concept of the Good。 Her approach is not to endorse Plato’s theory of forms in an unqualified way， but rather to argue， along with Plato， that good is something real in the world， rather than being merely an emotion or a choice。She starts out by outlining what she regards as the prevailing contemporary view of a moral agent， which she calls the behaviorist-existentialist-utilitarian view。 This holds that a person’s inner life can only be defined in terms of external behavior， that it is largely determined by our biological drives and our personal histories， that in the context of these determinants we make turn-on-a-dime choices that can be anything， and that our choices are evaluated by the public results。 Murdoch criticizes this view by trying to restore an account of one’s interior （mental， emotional） processing as central to moral decision making。Murdoch uses the example of a woman who has a rather judgmental attitude towards her daughter-in-law。 Realizing that her attitude may be biased， and is neither helpful nor fair， she tries to attain a more realistic attitude， by understanding her daughter-in-law as she is， just as a scientist tries to reach truth by understanding reality as it is。 This is an example of a moral act， a reaching toward the good， which does not necessarily have behavioral consequences （the daughter-in-law might be living abroad or might be dead）， but which represents a development for the good in the woman’s life。Murdoch’s analysis presents moral action not as an erratic break in a causal chain， but as a process in which one puts aside biases and other sources of error in order to reach a more honest or realistic， conclusion。 She likens the process to a scientist’s being faithful to the data， or to an artist’s trying to be true to what he is portraying。 She says that the guiding metaphor for moral action should be “movement” rather than “vision。” Good is not a quality that one can “see” in the world， but rather a way to “move” forward。Murdoch’s conception is not easy to grasp。 She herself says， “what I have been offering here is not and does not pretend to be a ‘neutral logical analysis’ of what moral agents or moral terms are like。” Rather， “the image which I am offering should be thought of as a general metaphysical background to morals and not as a formula…。” What is clearest is how she connects moral choice to freedom: “the exercise of our freedom is a small piecemeal business that goes on all the time and not a grandiose leaping about unimpeded at important moments。” Attaining the good is a matter of working toward a clear understanding of reality and of individual circumstances， and then of being obedient or faithful to that insight。 Murdoch describes her view as an “inconclusive non-dogmatic naturalism，” suggesting a kind of Taoism， doing what comes naturally while trying to be as clear-sighted as possible。What I have written pertains to the first essay alone， but gives a good sampling of Murdoch’s thought。 Appropriately for an accomplished novelist， Murdoch has created a rich description of moral life， with quotable asides in every paragraph。 I read through her book three times in order to write this review， and I expect that I will go back to her work again for the sake of my own personal growth。 。。。more
Miguel Angel
，
La obra， un conjunto de conferencias reunidas y editadas para ser leídas en forma de ensayo， tiene un doble valor。 El primero lo encuentro en cómo el pensamiento filosófico de Murdoch enriquece la lectura de su narrativa al permitirnos curiosear y buscar en qué personajes se cuelan las convicciones filosóficas de la autora。 En alguno de los ensayos nos dice Murdoch que， antes de estudiar a un filósofo， tenemos que encontrar qué le da miedo， pues su pensamiento se construirá contra ese temor。 Hab La obra， un conjunto de conferencias reunidas y editadas para ser leídas en forma de ensayo， tiene un doble valor。 El primero lo encuentro en cómo el pensamiento filosófico de Murdoch enriquece la lectura de su narrativa al permitirnos curiosear y buscar en qué personajes se cuelan las convicciones filosóficas de la autora。 En alguno de los ensayos nos dice Murdoch que， antes de estudiar a un filósofo， tenemos que encontrar qué le da miedo， pues su pensamiento se construirá contra ese temor。 Habiendo leído "La soberanía"， uno se puede imaginar cuál es el miedo fundamental de Iris Murdoch: la vacuidad del Bien。 Lo sorprendente es cómo sus novelas se vuelven un campo de batalla en el que temores y convicciones luchan en algo que podríamos denominar "dramatización del debate filosófico": Charles vs。 James （"El mar， el mar"） o Pearson vs。 Baffin （"El Príncipe Negro"）。El segundo valor es el de la obra filosófica en sí misma， es decir， no en su relación con la obra literaria。 Reconozco que acudí a "La soberanía" por cómo me atraparon sus novelas， pero creo （como filósofo amateur） que Murdoch expone en la obra un pensamiento tremendamente atractivo y una lectura de Platón estimulante y， en cierto sentido， contraria a la filosofía moral contemporánea。 En ella confluyen virtud， misticismo y una especie independencia que le hace volver （en contra de sus coetáneos） a temas fundamentalmente clásicos。 Para el que comparte miedos con ella， estos ingredientes pueden ser reveladores。 。。。more
Ross
，
One to mull over。 Worthy of deep attention and reading again。
Jonah Dunch
，
A crisp and illuminating volume。 I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by Murdoch's "Platonism，" but I'm inspired by her aspirational vision of ethical life as involving increasingly honed faculties of just and loving *seeing* and "unselfing。" A crisp and illuminating volume。 I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by Murdoch's "Platonism，" but I'm inspired by her aspirational vision of ethical life as involving increasingly honed faculties of just and loving *seeing* and "unselfing。" 。。。more
E。
，
I first read the third essay in this collection when I was a graduate student and have long admired it as one of the best things ever written in moral philosophy。 I have returned to it often， including it in sermons and teaching it in Ethics class。 Finally got around to reading the entire， short collection。Murdoch is insightful， witty， and （of course） a beautiful writer。 One feels better after reading her work。
Richard S
，
There's something specially boring about English philosophers， they are very wordy and unclear and despite the occasional nugget of wisdom， one imagines sitting in a room with them and not understanding a word they are saying。 It's not like， or maybe it is like， you need to have read and understood a thousand philosophers before them， but when you read the great philosophers， they are generally comprehensible， and sometimes entertaining。I "sort of" got her points， but I'm not entirely sure I did There's something specially boring about English philosophers， they are very wordy and unclear and despite the occasional nugget of wisdom， one imagines sitting in a room with them and not understanding a word they are saying。 It's not like， or maybe it is like， you need to have read and understood a thousand philosophers before them， but when you read the great philosophers， they are generally comprehensible， and sometimes entertaining。I "sort of" got her points， but I'm not entirely sure I did， she seems to believe in the good， was anti-nihilist and anti existentialist。 She had nice things to say about literature。 A lot of the book was about the philosophy of mind and perception。 When you understand philosophers， it's sometimes like you feel cobwebs being removed from your brain。 Here I felt like I was staring into a cobweb。 I don't understand。 Maybe I'm stupid， but rather maybe I should read all of Nietzsche again。 。。。more
Robert Reinhard
，
Within and related to the idea of the Good， Murdoch also provides powerful ideas of how art - indeed it explains much of her novel technique - operates， as in this quote:"Good art reveals what we are usually too selfish and too timid to recognize， the minute and absolutely random detail of the world， and reveals it together with a sense of unity and form。 This form often seems to us mysterious because it resists the easy patterns of the fantasy， whereas there is nothing mysterious about the form Within and related to the idea of the Good， Murdoch also provides powerful ideas of how art - indeed it explains much of her novel technique - operates， as in this quote:"Good art reveals what we are usually too selfish and too timid to recognize， the minute and absolutely random detail of the world， and reveals it together with a sense of unity and form。 This form often seems to us mysterious because it resists the easy patterns of the fantasy， whereas there is nothing mysterious about the forms of bad art since they are recognizable and familiar rat-runs of selfish day-dream。 Good art shows us how difficult it is to be objective by showing us how differently the world looks to an objective vision。 。。。 Art transcends selfish and obsessive limitations of personality and can enlarge the sensibility of its consumer。 It is a kind of goodness by proxy。。。"On the Good， her mentor is Plato。 In a related essay in this volume she gives the smartest short summary of Freud I can remember reading and doesn't have to mention terms like "unconscious":"Freud takes a thoroughly pessimistic view of human nature。He sees the psyche as an egocentric system of quasi-mechanical energy， largely determined by its own individual history， whose natural attachments are sexual， ambiguous， and hard for the subject to understand or control。 Introspection reveals only the deep tissue of the ambiguous motive， and fantasy is a stronger force than reason。 Objectivity and unselfishness are not natural to human beings。"The first essay in this short volume was too hard for me to grasp - it's a professional philosopher's study。 。。。more
Andrew Bertaina
，
Philosophy I can read！ Also， it's pretty damn good。 Probably just read her essays。 In short， moral decision theory is problematic when it doesn't consider the in-between time that accumulates between big or moral decisions。 Rather than trying to weigh in with a strict adherence to one moral principle， Murdoch submits that contemplation of the Good is the centerpiece of right or moral decision making。 If we contemplate the Good， the decision， even about difficult things like the relationship with Philosophy I can read！ Also， it's pretty damn good。 Probably just read her essays。 In short， moral decision theory is problematic when it doesn't consider the in-between time that accumulates between big or moral decisions。 Rather than trying to weigh in with a strict adherence to one moral principle， Murdoch submits that contemplation of the Good is the centerpiece of right or moral decision making。 If we contemplate the Good， the decision， even about difficult things like the relationship with our significant others， shouldn't be all that hard to arrive at。 Or rather， it probably will be because paying attention to the Good is quite hard because we love fantasy， delusion， things that reinforce the idea that our lives have some hidden or deeper meaning。 Attending to the Good means attending to a reality that isn't skewed in our favor。 Murdoch holds up the highest artists， Tolstoy etc。 as exemplars of prepping us to experience the truth of our human condition。 。。。more
Matthew
，
Oh， what a disappointing muddle。
Rasamandala Das
，
Great book。 Have read it at least twice， though not always in strict order。 Would recommend for anyone interested in the state of modern ethics， and alternative viewpoints。 I especially admire how Murdoch had the courage to confront the then prevalent trends。 Her return to exploring personal ethics - and， we might add， responsibilty （rather than， say， 'saving the planet'） is much needed， and her argument for moral realism and the role of the inner life， I found convincing。 I recommned this book Great book。 Have read it at least twice， though not always in strict order。 Would recommend for anyone interested in the state of modern ethics， and alternative viewpoints。 I especially admire how Murdoch had the courage to confront the then prevalent trends。 Her return to exploring personal ethics - and， we might add， responsibilty （rather than， say， 'saving the planet'） is much needed， and her argument for moral realism and the role of the inner life， I found convincing。 I recommned this book for anyone dismayed at the highly polemical state of current moral discourse which often seems to ignore accountabilty to the world as it is， and thus to favour forms of wishful thinking。 。。。more
Marts （Thinker）
，
This book is excellent， but as a beginner in philosophy it wasn't a very easy read。 Murdoch's papers generally present views on moral philosophy， considering a Platonist approach and an overview of man as a moral agent amongst other objects。。。 I'll stop right here。。。 This book is excellent， but as a beginner in philosophy it wasn't a very easy read。 Murdoch's papers generally present views on moral philosophy， considering a Platonist approach and an overview of man as a moral agent amongst other objects。。。 I'll stop right here。。。 。。。more
Nathan Anderson
，
4/5
Matt
，
An underappreciated treasure。 This book collects three of Iris Murdoch's essays on the foibles and failings of that beast that Elizabeth Anscombe once called "modern moral philosophy"。 A fascinating exploration of topics as seemingly diverse as art， the meaning of words， the import of history to philosophy， and the nature of goodness。 Murdoch was almost single-handedly responsible for many of the not-so-flattering thoughts I have about the limitations of over-specialized and professionalized aca An underappreciated treasure。 This book collects three of Iris Murdoch's essays on the foibles and failings of that beast that Elizabeth Anscombe once called "modern moral philosophy"。 A fascinating exploration of topics as seemingly diverse as art， the meaning of words， the import of history to philosophy， and the nature of goodness。 Murdoch was almost single-handedly responsible for many of the not-so-flattering thoughts I have about the limitations of over-specialized and professionalized academic philosophy。 Which is no surprise， since she left it to become a novelist。 。。。more
Cristina Popescu
，
Brilliant！ A life-changing read。An absolute must-read for anyone interested in philosophy， morality or literature。
Caleb
，
This book has puzzled some readers who have argued that the author either fails to elaborate an argument for her position or does so in such an obscure manner as to make impossible to evaluate her claims。 This is unfortunate but not surprising given the novelty of the author's claims - novel at least in terms of the dominant strands of analytic moral philosophy （and existentialism） to which she was responding。 But Murdoch's argument is perfectly straightforward; she has offered an extended argum This book has puzzled some readers who have argued that the author either fails to elaborate an argument for her position or does so in such an obscure manner as to make impossible to evaluate her claims。 This is unfortunate but not surprising given the novelty of the author's claims - novel at least in terms of the dominant strands of analytic moral philosophy （and existentialism） to which she was responding。 But Murdoch's argument is perfectly straightforward; she has offered an extended argument for the indispensability of a particular Platonic account of the notion of good。 Kant argues somewhere that formal concepts ought only to be introduced insofar as they are necessary to conceptualize some object。 In these term's the author argues that a Platonic notion of good is required to appreciate a wide range of phenomena that are linked because they fall under this concept。 This text can be seen as a response to Hare's claims concerning the priority of the prescriptive sense of good。 According to Hare， saying that some x is good is to say that x somehow figures within an imperative prescribing some action。 For example， to say that this is a good car， is to say that persons suitably situated who want a car， ought to choose this car。 For Murdoch， Hare's prescriptivist understanding of good is hopelessly inept to conceptualize the phenomena relevant to a proper understanding of goodness。 Good things might require all sorts of actions but to say that something is good is to appreciate its value as something worthy of love。 It is also a matter of recognizing that one must become perfect or at least better than one is at any given point in time to fully appreciate the value of that which is good。 Because of this good can never be cashed out in purely prescriptive terms。 Not because good is a purely descriptive notion， but rather because goodness outstrips any given appreciation of the set of actions required by the goodness in question。 In this sense good is indefinable; not because it is empty but because of its fullness。 Murdoch reminds us that ethics may often be mundane but that it ought to drag us from our cave in effort to offer a passing glimpse of a more noble form of life。 。。。more
Elenabot
，