Behind every eminent Philosophical Woman, Stands a Man?

Peter Geach, who has died aged 97, was a formidable logician and happened to be married to one of the 20th century’s leading English-language philosophers, Elizabeth Anscombe.

In a way this meant he was overshadowed. He did, though, have a strong philosophical life of his own, and without the thousands of hours of discussion that Elizabeth Anscombe had with him, her philosophy would not have attained the eminence it did.--The Telegraph

The quoted passage above are the first lines of an unsigned obituary of Peter Geach. It makes a remarkable claim: that his presence was decisive in her achievements. It's possible to read it as a sociological point: Geach was needed for Anscombe's status in the profession. But the more likely intended reading is that talking to him made her a much better philosopher. It's offered without evidence. Even if Anscombe says something as much somewhere, the counterfactual is hard to evaluate.* In addition, the obituary also offers an unflattering comparison between Geach and Anscombe: "Unlike the dense, unsignposted [sic] prose of Anscombe, Geach’s style was a pleasure to read." It does not occur to the author that, perhaps, on the whole, Anscombe was struggling to make genuinely original points on unwieldy topics, while Geach was working with a lot more self-imposed constraints.

In a curious lack of symmetry, the obituary does not assign Anscombe any responsibility for Geach's eminence or achievements. I am not an expert on the thought of either, but if one claims that Geach is a "honorary founder of the philosophical school that called itself “analytical Thomism,”" why not mention Anscombe at all? So, it's quite possible, of course, that Geach improved her philosophy, but we can't rule out the possibility that either his ideas sometimes made hers worse or that his presence was a net-zero in her philosopher career (etc.) Perhaps, one day there will be careful dispassionate scholarship on the issue.

One final thought: while I have always admired Geach's loyalty to McTaggart, who was long unfashionable in professional philosophy, Geach's philosophy does not much exhibit the capacity to see the best in alternative, competing approaches. (This virtue may not, in fact, be needed for philosophical eminence.) His intellectual ferociousness (that's a polite word, right?) toward others is lovingly re-described as follows, "he could seem fiercer than an Old Testament prophet and did not fear to give hard knocks to living philosophers." My philosophical tradition, Analytical philosophy, has had a whole bunch of 'intellectual enforcers/hit-men' that helped its rise to prominence; in a fallen world, it's probably indispensable for any intellectual school to have staying power to have a few some such enforcers along the way. One day, perhaps, there will be genuine scholarship on philosophical hitmen and women of twentieth century philosophy; without wishing to downplay Geach's other intellectual and personal achievements, I am pretty confident he could play a starring role in that story.

 

*I think it is almost certainly less true than the comparative claim that without Wittgenstein, Anscombe's philosophy might have been very different. 

Comments

[Skef]

Perceptions of Anscombe's "style" tend to be based on her most influential works (notably "Intention" and "Modern Moral Philosophy"), which can admittedly be frustrating to read and interpret. But not all of her work is like that. "Under a Description", which responds to what she felt were misinterpretations of "Intention", is both readable and clear. And although it is a different kind of work, I find her guide to the "Tractatus" to be very well written, so much so that I think anyone undertaking that kind of project should take a look.

So taken as a whole I think her writing supports the possibility you raise: the best known works are difficult not because of her style, but because of the difficulty in what she was trying to accomplish with them.

[Bence]

Well, is it worth philosophically engaging with the Telegraph? Knowing the readership of this paper (which of course includes many dons who voted against the admission of women at various Oxbridge colleges in the days), I find this offhand condescension towards women in academia not at all surprising...

[Eric Schliesser]

Well, this obituary was forwarded two philosophy list-servs.
But I don't think of the post above (unlike most others on my new blog--I am glad you found it, Bence!) as philosophical engagement.

[Catherine]

Thank you for this. I was very upset when I read the telegraph article. I am wondering whether the author of the original article would react the same way when a prominent male philosopher died who is married to a less well-known female philosopher. I sincerely doubt it.

[Charlotte]

I think that the contribution made to anyone's work by having a life partner who is able to discuss and occasionally improve it is worth considering.

This headline raises hackles - as, surely, it was intended to do - but if it was framed the other way and dropped the ridiculous "every" and narrow-minded assumption that peoples' life-partners have to be of the opposite sex, then fewer people would be upset.

Consider the headline "Behind many eminent Philosophers stand life-partners (and other supporters) who contribute to their success"

Few people would try to deny or dispute this.

In my opinion it is a fact, and a fact to be celebrated, that achievement is rarely in a vacuum. We should make more of those acknowledged at the front of books or in acceptance speeches, as well as the unknown ranks of muses, tutorial assistants, researchers, squash-partners, willing unpaid editors and typists etc. whether they are male or female. Undoubtedly, without their contributions advances would be slower in coming.

We should also stop this corrosive approach which compares successful partners' achievements with the apparent intention of belittling one or both.