Talk:Derek Parfit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

old merge proposal[edit]

This really needs a merge with Reasons and Persons.... Evercat 00:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

In general: this (good) article could use guideline-std info such as year of birth, nationality, etc; and a little more NPOV (vs eg "bury").

Re Ethics and Rationality: I just finished a copyedit, but paragraph 6 had two things that confused me: 1] Sentence 1 mentions "directly collectively self defeating", but only "indirectly" has yet been addressed, and nothing on individually/collectively (explicitly, at least). 2] Sentence 3 speaks of "The appeal to full relativity" when all that has been mentioned is "partial relativity".

Thx, and hope this helps, "alyosha" 06:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions 2, check my edits[edit]

I did the best i could (quickly) with the future section, but a couple things were unclear enough that i'd like someone expert in parfit or attached to the article to check that i got the right sense of things. The article and future section could use more work, esp the last sentence, IMO. Thx and hope this helps, "alyosha" 04:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"something close to a work of genius"[edit]

This is also quoted on the book cover of "Reasons and Persons" and I find it rather lowering. What would be required to call it a "genuine work of genius"? I know this is not the Derek Parfit discussion board but I would'nt know where else to ask. Herbert heart 07:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kant[edit]

Parfit's knowledge and study of Kant, as seen in Climbing the Mountain should be noted. --70.111.218.254 21:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influence diminished[edit]

This man had the great misfortune of being used as a source for Richard Dawkins, and now his influence has suddenly diminished. Poor guy! --Merzul 12:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, anyone who would look at the over 2000 google scholar hits, and just look at how people refer to his book, e.g. "the fascinating and ingenious arguments of part 3 of Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons", and "the most thorough and authoritative treatment of this subject is in Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons (1984, Part IV), which also gives references to..." could easily verify that this book has been highly influential in the field. I'm putting the statement back.
(In case anyone wonders what this is all about, then it has nothing to do with Derek Parfit, but is a little edit dispute that has spilled over from Darwin's Angel. --Merzul 12:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking Sources[edit]

This article sorely needs some source references. Cosmic Philosopher (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Cosmic Philosopher[reply]

Agreed. Also, note that the change made by 24.45.2.63 was actually me (I forgot to log in). I changed the name of the forthcoming book to On What Matters (this is the title given in the updated manuscript given by Parfit to a reading group I'm participating in). The linked pdf is still called Climbing the Mountain - I don't know if there's a newer copy under the other title floating around on the web somewhere. The announcement of Parfit's Tanner Lectures at Berkeley mentions three book projects, one of which is On What Matters (since these lectures were in 2002 it suggests the book has had that title for several years now).

Also, I'd be happy to start incorporating some of the material from OWM into the article as soon as our reading group ends, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate. The book hasn't been published yet; however, it's also been freely distributed by Parfit himself for commentary. Thoughts? I could just start working on a section about the book and withhold putting it on WP until the book is being published. Anthony Mohen (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Identity[edit]

I've just finished Part 3 of Reasons and Persons (on personal identity) and I'm going to revise this section in light of it. It misdescribes Parfit in some key respects as written. Anthony Mohen (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self interest theory as self-defeating[edit]

I don't understand this passage:

For instance, it might be in my own self interest to become trustworthy in order to participate in mutually beneficial agreements, despite the fact that in maintaining the agreement I will be doing, ceteris paribus, what will be worse for me. In many cases S instructs us precisely not to follow S, thus fitting the definition of an indirectly self-defeating theory.

Is there not more to this? The obvious response would seem to be that under self interest theory, you just subtract the cost from the benefit, and then do whatever puts you more ahead. I can only guess his real argument has to do with discontinuous identity over time... but as far as I can see this passage goes right ahead to assuming that future benefit can't be taken into account without explaining why or even clarifying if that's what is self-defeating. Sestibel (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, if self interest theory tells you to go ahead and break promises for immediate gain, then how is that self-defeating? That's the answer, then: break the promises. It would only be contradictory if it simultaneously told you to ignore immediate gain for future gain, but that isn't in the explanation. Sestibel (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea, which is not made very clear in this article, is that deliberately trying to achieve the aims S gives us causes these aims to be worse achieved; i.e. if we consciously try to maximize our self-interest, this is worse for us than having some other disposition. In the long run we might be better off being honest, even (especially?) in cases where, if we were consciously thinking in terms of following S, we would break promises or otherwise act dishonestly. To whatever extent that this is true, S tells us not to believe S, but some other theory, because this will make us more successful in achieving the aims S gives us. This does not mean S is self-contradictory or anything but it is a strange result that might be seen as a problem with S.
It is a familiar, though disputed, claim that utilitarianism is self-defeating in this same sense (Williams had some rather famous things to say about this). Parfit is showing that S has the same problem, if it is a problem. 99.69.65.1 (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of R&P[edit]

My copy of Reasons and Persons has three reviews of the book tucked in the cover (I bought it second hand). The citations are below:

  • P. F. Strawson, "The Parfit Connection", The New York Review, June 14, 1984, p 42-44
  • Bernard Williams, "Personal Identity", London Review of Books, 7-20 June 1984, p. 14-15
  • Steven Lukes, "The expendable I", The Observer, Sunday 24 June 1984, (page number is possibly p.97; on the reverse is the television schedule)

If anyone is interested in refactoring the article, I can help by quoting material from the reviews (as for Parfit's book? It's on my long list of things to read.) —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Derek Parfit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Derek Parfit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasons and Persons (1984) has been described as the most significant work of moral philosophy since the 1800s"[edit]

The sources cited for this claim are inappropriate. The sources given are William Grimes of the New York Times, and Larissa MacFarquhar of the New Yorker. They are both news reporters, not professional moral philosophers, do not provide citations for their claims, and are not themselves in a position to make authoritative claims about which books are "the most significant works of moral philosophy since the 1800s". Moreover, when professional philosophers were asked to make a list of the 10 most important philosophy books since the 1950s – top 10 since the 1950s, not number 1 since the 1800s – "Reasons and Persons" still didn't get that honor for moral philosophy. It went to "A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls in a landslide. (See http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/05/the-most-important-philosophical-books-since-1950.html)

This claim is hyperbolic, and should be toned down. Recommend: "has been described as one of the 10 most important philosophy books since 1950", and replacing the irrelevant newspaper citations with the Leiter survey of professional philosophers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.161.0.114 (talk) 12:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts on this: First, the citations aren't to professional philosophers, but they are reliable secondary sources that report that Reasons and Persons "has been described" as most significant (which they are qualified to report), not that it is most significant (which they might not be). It would be better if they cited sources, but this doesn't seem atypical for newspaper and magazine articles. Second, the link you provided (as you point out) is about philosophy books in any domain. It could be cited in support of the claim R&P has been judged one of the 30 most important philosophy books. But, citing it in support of a claim about position among works of moral philosophy would require parsing which on the list are works of moral philosophy (e.g., as opposed to political philosophy; and, most problematically, to what extent, in that important works may touch on moral philosophy, but not be as important as works of moral philosophy). GoodnightmushTalk 15:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated sources[edit]

I did a bit of tidying on the numerous citations to Reasons and Persons, but I did not consolidate ref #1 (published by Oxford University Pres) with the rest at ref # 11 (Clarendon Press) because they appear to be two different editions. Since ref #1 is souced to prefatory material, it seems likely the preface for the Clarendon Press edition may be by a different person? Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death[edit]

After speaking with those close to Derek the matters surrounding his death are that he passed at some point between 11pm on Jan 1 and 7am Jan 2. Since he was only confirmed to have died on Jan 2 I think this should be the date of death. I could source his death certificate if need be as this states January 2. TBase2 (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be Jan 2 in that case. I'd think that a citable death certificate is definitive and overrides other, conflicting published sources. Is it publicly accessible? (Note that it need not be publicly accessible online.) GoodnightmushTalk 14:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any update on this? If not, I'd say going with Jan 2 seems sensible. Throughthemind (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should say Jan 2 if that's what the death certificate says. I hesitate to change it myself, as I've only seen the news articles (which disagree about Jan 1 vs. Jan 2), but anyone who has access to the death certificate and has checked it should update the page accordingly. GoodnightmushTalk 01:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The death certificate needs to be requested from the General Register Office. However, this may be unnecessary since Jeff McMahan, Parfit's literary executor and one of his closest friends, lists January 2 in his Philosophy Now obituary and also in an unpublished brochure circulated during Parfit's celebration event, the first line of which reads: "For many years before his death on 2 January 2017, Derek Parfit was widely regarded as the best and most important moral philosopher in the world." My opinion is that this evidence warrants using January 2 as the only date in the article. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The death certificate is in the public domain yes. All UK DCs are. --TBase2 (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derek_Parfit&oldid=1194431908"