Philosophy at Cambridge Newsletter of the Faculty of Philosophy

Issue 2 May 2005

From the Chairman “It’s the newspapers I can’t stand” Onora O’Neill The Newsletter again, and so soon. On behalf of all of us here thanks to those One of Tom Stoppard’s characters Appeals to rights to self-expression who sent us messages of encouragement explained to another: “I’m with you also won’t justify unconditional press after last year’s, and to those who have on the free press. It’s the newspapers I freedom. John Stuart Mill argued that contributed to the production of this one. can’t stand.” It is a thought many of individual freedom of expression We have for some years been aware us have had. Are grisly newspapers an should be limited only by requirements of gradually rising student numbers in inevitable cost of press freedom? If so, not to harm others, and then claimed the Cambridge Philosophy Tripos, why have British newspapers earned the same right for the press. The fuelled by a steady rise in the number of worse reputations than those in other analogy is unconvincing. Individuals applications. But recently the steady rise countries where the press is free? Are who are cavalier about accuracy may has become a flood, resulting in a arguments for press freedom beyond do little harm (even so, there are laws statistic that some will find startling: challenge? What exactly do the best against libel, slander and inciting there are more applications to of them show? Do any of them show hatred). Powerful organisations – Cambridge for Philosophy than for that press freedom is unconditional? governments, businesses – that are Computer Science. And when it comes Four arguments for press freedom cavalier about accuracy can do great to ratios of applications to admissions are in common use. One is harm. We don’t permit companies to in the University Philosophy is very jurisprudential: it simply appeals to invent their balance sheets, or public close to the top – only Architecture is constitutional or other authorities authorities their accounts and reports. significantly higher, Economics, Law that proclaim rights to a free press, If powerful media conglomerates have and the Vet School, with their obvious such as the First Amendment to the unconditional freedom of expression vocational emphasis, are slightly higher, US Constitution (“Congress shall they will be free to be cavalier about and no other Arts subject is near. This make no law abridging the freedom accuracy, to harm others and to of course brings problems, and they of the press”) and Article 10 of the undermine democracy. remain problems even though we can European Convention on Human Appeals to democracy also won’t take satisfaction in their very existence. Rights (clause 1; but note clause 2!). justify unconditional press freedom, It becomes particularly important to Unfortunately, arguments from since democracy needs a press that maintain staffing numbers in spite of the authority don’t provide deep informs citizens accurately. However, current tightening of the University’s justifications. if requirements for accurate reporting belt – for which our fundraising project Other arguments go deeper. Press are too tightly drawn, the press will has obvious relevance. freedom has been variously defended be intimidated. Nobody can be sure That project is now gaining as necessary for discovering truth, as of getting everything right – even with momentum. And there is one clear piece analogous to individual rights of self- zealous ‘fact checking’. So a press that of good news in the establishment by expression, and as required for serves rather than damages Trinity and Churchill Colleges of a joint democracy. None of these lines of democracy needs to aim for accuracy: College teaching post. So despite present thought justifies unconditional press we can require truthfulness, but not financial restrictions we have every freedom. truth. This standard can be met by reason to be cheerful. Appeals to truth seeking won’t providing evidence, by including Well before the next Newsletter justify unconditional press freedom caveats and qualifications, by prompt appears the Faculty will have a new because, as Bernard Williams points correction of error, by distinguishing chairman, Professor Jane Heal. So, out in Truth and Truthfulness, “in reporting from commentary, rumour wishing everyone all the best and hoping institutions dedicated to finding out and gossip. These and other forms of to see many of you at the Alumni the truth, such as universities, epistemic responsibility allow readers Weekend in September, I sign off. research institutes, and courts of law, to judge for themselves. speech is not at all unregulated.” Any Ostensibly the British Press is Edward Craig FBA search for truth needs structures and committed to accuracy. It is the first Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy disciplines, and is undermined by demand in the Press Complaints Chairman of the Philosophy Faculty casual disregard of accuracy or Commission’s Code. But good Board evidence. Unconditional freedom is reporting is a public good, not a not optimal for truth-seeking. continued on page 8

Philosophy at Cambridge page 1 May 2005 Cambridge Conferences The 2004 Annual Royal Institute of Philosophy Conference

In July 2004, the Royal Institute of support of the Faculty of Philosophy and University Press, under the auspices of Philosophy annual conference was held in the Analysis Trust. the Royal Institute of Philosophy. Cambridge for the first time. I organised A volume based on the conference, the conference, together with Ross which will also include further Harrison, and the theme was ‘Preference- contributions, will be published as a Serena Olsaretti, University Lecturer in Formation and Well-Being’. The idea was special issue of Philosophy and as a self- Philosophy to bring together moral , standing volume by Cambridge political philosophers and philosophers of economics to address a number of questions concerning the formation of Postgraduate Conference preferences and its relevance for theories of well-being. This was both a timely and The 8th Annual National Postgraduate graduate work in under-explored topic. In various debates Analytic Philosophy Conference was held today. Professor Onora O’Neill FBA, in moral and political philosophy, at Magdalene College, Cambridge, in July provided a keynote address to preferences are thought to have 2004. The Conference consisted of complete the three-day event. A large normative significance. For example, thirteen papers presented by graduates number of philosophy graduate their satisfaction is said to contribute to from across Britain and the US. Over students from all over the world met on individuals’ well-being; and the choices eighty submissions were received and this occasion making the event a great that people make in line with their thirteen were selected as the very best in success. preferences – such as the choice to pursue a costly goal or ambition – are said to legitimately justify inequalities. Mathematical Knowledge Conference In all these debates, it is assumed that the preferences individuals aim to satisfy, Goldbach’s conjecture (every even in part as a result of the high level of and make choices on the basis of, are number greater than two is the sum of interest in the philosophy of mathematics ‘authentic’ preferences, formed under two primes) has been confirmed for all amongst Cambridge mathematicians. some but not other conditions (for numbers less than 1016. Should that Since 2002, the Cambridge University example, that they are not preferences count as evidence that it is likely to be Society for the Philosophy of formed under hypnosis); or that they are true? What can the behaviour of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences not ‘adaptive’, in the sense that they adolescent monkeys tell us about the (CUSPOMMS) has been holding should not be preferences formed in nature of mathematics? These were fortnightly seminars on the philosophy of stifling circumstances under which people amongst many questions addressed at mathematics in the Centre for come to prefer what is readily available the conference on ‘Mathematical Mathematical Sciences, organized by over what is not. In other words, these Knowledge’, held at Fitzwilliam College undergraduate mathematicians and various debates assume some account of in the summer 2004. This philosophers. These seminars have preference-formation. Nonetheless, interdisciplinary conference, organized regularly attracted large audiences of despite the central importance of by Dominic Gregory, Mary Leng, mathematicians and philosophers, and accounts of preference-formation, there is Alexander Paseau and Michael Potter, showed the potential for fruitful relatively little sustained and explicit aimed at bringing together interactions between both groups, based discussion of them. The conference was mathematicians, philosophers, and on a shared fascination with the nature of intended to initiate such a discussion. psychologists to present their mathematics. We were delighted to have, as our perspectives on questions concerning The conference was well attended by speakers, Richard Arneson (University of mathematical knowledge. 98 delegates from 16 countries, California, San Diego), Johan Brännmark Our invited speakers thus included representing disciplines including (University of Lund, Sweden), Daniel two mathematicians (set theorist philosophy, mathematics, psychology, Hausman (University of Wisconsin), Akihiro Kanamori, from Boston mathematics education, and computer Philip Pettit (Princeton University), University, and Fields medallist science. We would like to take this Christian Piller (University of York), Timothy Gowers from Cambridge), opportunity to thank all of our speakers Mozaffar Qizilbash (University of East who presented us with practitioners’ and chairs, and our student helpers from Anglia), Connie Rosati (University of views of the subject, as well as two the CUSPOMMS committee, for their California, Davis), and Alex Voorhoeve psychologists (Susan Carey from contributions to a successful and (LSE). The event was a successful one. Harvard, and Brian Butterworth from stimulating conference. We are also Both during the formal conference UCL), who discussed the mind’s grateful to the Analysis Trust, for sessions and outside them, participants capacities to acquire arithmetical providing funding for student bursaries, discussed a number of questions that knowledge. Representing philosophy, and especially to the Jesus College were being raised by the papers. These Mary Leng, Alexander Paseau and Science and Human Dimension Project, included questions on the relation Michael Potter were joined by Alan whose generous funding enabled us to between deliberation and preferences; on Baker (Swarthmore), Mark Colyvan put together this ambitious event. Look whether we should always prefer to do (Queensland), Charles Parsons out for the book Mathematical what is better; and on whether successful (Harvard), Gideon Rosen (Princeton) Knowledge, containing articles based on parenting should be taken as a model and Crispin Wright (St Andrews) to talks presented at the conference, which case of preference-formation. The success discuss philosophical issues about should appear next year. of the conference and liveliness of the mathematical knowledge. debates that were set alight were in no Having initially decided to hold a small part due to Katherine Harloe’s help philosophy of mathematics event in Mary Leng, Research Fellow, with the organisation, the ideal setting of Cambridge, we were led to the idea of St. John’s College St. John’s College, and the financial organizing an interdisciplinary conference

Philosophy at Cambridge page 2 May 2005 Facts, Fables and Funds Events in 2005 Jane Heal Annual Heffer Lecture

Professor Frank Jackson of the How and when exactly did the So the question comes to us – what Australian National University will come into responsibility for the future will we deliver this year’s Heffer Lecture – being? The question is debated. But at take? ‘What we learn about reference from least we know that it was not founded Our last appeal in 1997–8, drew a asking why we have proper names’ – in 287 AD by Athenian philosophers warm response from our alumni, on 13 May 2005, at 5pm in the Lady in the train of Cantaber, Spanish son- whose generosity enabled our Mitchell Hall, Sidgwick Site. in-law of Gurguntius Brabtruc, King accommodation, library, computing of Britain, nor yet in the 7th century and other facilities, especially for Alumni Weekend by St Felix and Sigebert, King of the graduate students, to be greatly Angles. (These fine stories appeared in improved. As part of the University’s ‘A Philosophical Evening at Trinity’ the 14th century as part of our historic 800th anniversary campaign, to be Friday 23 September 2005 rivalry with Oxford.) Rather it is clear launched in the near future, we shall Winstanley Lecture Theatre, that it came into being in the first be appealing to you again. The Blue Boar Court, Trinity College decade of the 13th century. And so the constantly changing political and University will shortly be gathering financial circumstances of higher For over one hundred years itself to celebrate its 800th education mean that the Faculty Cambridge has consistently produced anniversary.1 cannot rely on a steady level of many of the most influential thinkers Another thing we are certain of is support. Our aim is therefore to raise and teachers in philosophy. But who that Philosophy has always been an money to provide a permanent fund do you think has made the most important impact? Come along and be important part of the Cambridge to endow the second Chair of convinced by current Cambridge curriculum. Aristotle’s Logic, together Philosophy (founded in 1896 and philosophers who will champion the with Grammar and Rhetoric, provided hitherto neither named nor endowed), cases for Bertrand Russell, Frank the foundation of the medieval and to sustain the work of the Faculty Ramsey and Ludwig Wittgenstein. trivium, while Moral, Natural and more generally. If there is enough Metaphysical Philosophy were central support among the donors we would There will be an opportunity for in the later years of study. like to name the chair for questions and the evening will end in a Philosophers were prominent in the Wittgenstein, who occupied it from vote. far-sighted 19th century movement 1939–47. This project, which will which reformed and reinvigorated the greatly reinforce the Faculty’s security Cheese and wine will be served. For more information please contact University. And the great Cambridge and independence, has already Mrs Angela Elliott, Faculty of philosophers of the last century and a attracted several generous offers of Philosophy – email: [email protected], half have been immensely influential, donations, and we have no doubt that phone: +44 1223 330525 not only in philosophy itself but in the a very substantial sum will be raised. world more broadly. We are not at this moment asking ‘A Philosophy Lecture’ For all of us who have studied or you directly for support – but we give practised Philosophy at Cambridge, you frank warning that we shall do Saturday 24 September 2005 the depth and richness of this tradition so. (And of course we would be more Sidgwick Site, Sidgwick Avenue. “Who owns your ideas?” is something we relish and delight in. than delighted to hear from you if It is part of what makes us who we are you have ideas for the campaign or This presentation will be given by and is something to be inspired by and would like to be involved.) Alex Oliver and Dominic Scott, Co- added to, both for its own sake and as Meanwhile we would be very pleased Directors of the Forum for Philosophy a legacy to our successors. But it is a to see you at any of the various events in Business, in the Faculty of legacy which cannot be taken for listed in this Newsletter. And if you Philosophy, and Lionel Bently, Herchel granted. are in Cambridge, you are most Smith Professor of Intellectual Doubtless you are already familiar welcome to call in at the Faculty, to Law, in the Faculty of Law. with the rhetoric of fundraising – the find out more about what we are Intellectual property rights are fiercely ‘new challenges’, the ‘building on doing. contested, not least in this University. In what promises to be a lively and traditions of excellence’ and so forth. challenging session, we shall explore But what this rhetoric says is not less some of the ethical problems that lie at true for its familiarity. When we look Jane Heal FBA the heart of these debates. at history, at the striking personalities Professor of Philosophy and the great achievements of the past, Secretary of the Endowment Fund The lecture will be followed by a we see that good things do not happen Appeal; email: [email protected] reception in the Faculty of Philosophy. unless someone makes them happen. Light refreshments will be served.

For more information please contact 1 For more interesting details see A Concise History of the University of Cambridge by Mrs Mariella Pellegrino Elisabeth Leedham-Green (CUP 1996). Faculty of Philosophy email: [email protected]

The Faculty gratefully acknowledges support for this newsletter from 3M library security systems.

Philosophy at Cambridge page 3 May 2005 Uses and Abuses of Probability Hugh Mellor results of clinical trials and for acceptance by practitioners and the acceptance or rejection philosophers alike. of scientific theories. And These controversies do not, Ramsey was the first to however, prevent the exposure of many make a subjective view of mistakes in the application of probability credible by probability, some of considerable showing how our practical or theoretical importance. decisions are affected by – Most people know that the so-called and can be used to ‘gambler’s fallacy’ – the idea that, for measure – the probabilities example, landing heads ten times in a we attach to their possible row makes a normal coin less likely to consequences: as when land heads next time – is just that: a people decide to stop fallacy. (If that sequence of heads tells smoking because they us anything, it tells us that the coin is think they are less likely to more likely to land heads than we get cancer if they stop than thought.) if they don’t. Other errors can be less easy to spot. On the face of it, these Take the extreme probabilities invoked three applications of when a defendant in, say, a rape case is probability are quite identified by DNA evidence. Suppose distinct. The chances of for simplicity that the probability of a rain tomorrow, of false match – i.e. of DNA samples from offspring being male, of two different people matching – is one catching flu, or of winning in ten million, and that a sample from a lottery, are features of the scene of the crime matches the the natural or social world defendant’s DNA. It may be tempting, that do not depend on given the enormous odds against a false what we know or think match, to think that this evidence alone about them. Not so the proves the defendant’s guilt. But it does In 1963 I anticipated later changes in epistemic probabilities of a defendant’s not. For suppose the only other the UK economy by leaving guilt, the safety of a new drug or the evidence about the rapist is that he is manufacturing for a service industry: in theory of evolution by natural an adult male in the UK, which my case, by leaving chemical selection: they only measure how far contains well over ten million such engineering at ICI to do a PhD on the our evidence counts for or against these males. Then all the DNA evidence tells philosophy of probability at hypotheses. While subjective us is that the rapist is likely to be one Cambridge. I then discovered that this probabilities measure neither of the of at least two people, of whom the subject is a very good example of the above, merely the actual strengths of defendant is one. So on this evidence intellectual service which Cambridge our beliefs, which are what determine the epistemic probability that the philosophy renders to many disciplines. how we act when we are uncertain – as defendant is the rapist, far from being 1 Cambridge is a great place not only for we often are – of what effects our over 99.99%, is less than ⁄2, which is the mathematical theory of probability actions will have. too low to prove his guilt even on the and its scientific applications, but also Yet distinct though these three kinds ‘balance of probabilities’ needed to win for its philosophical foundations. From of probability are, they are not wholly a civil case, let alone ‘beyond John Venn in the nineteenth century, independent. They are not, for reasonable doubt’, as required for a through Maynard Keynes, Frank example, like light, sound and water criminal conviction. Ramsey and Richard Braithwaite in the waves, none of which implies anything Errors with fewer practical twentieth, to expatriates like Ian about the other two, despite all being implications but perhaps more Hacking and Donald Gillies now, waves, i.e. all obeying similar theoretical interest are made by some nowhere has contributed more than mathematical equations. Our three cosmologists and theologians who are Cambridge to our understanding of it. kinds of probability, by contrast, are over-impressed by the apparent Take Venn, the first great advocate linked by more than a shared improbability of those features of our of a frequency view of the chances – mathematics. Smokers’ chances of universe needed to produce more or objective probabilities – postulated by getting cancer also tell us how far the less intelligent life. This so-called ‘fine- physicists, geneticists, meteorologists, evidence that they smoke supports the tuning’ of our universe’s laws, insurance companies and casinos: the prediction that they will get cancer, and constants and initial conditions has view that a smoker’s chance of getting therefore how probable we and they seemed to many to call for some cancer, for example, is just the fraction should take that prospect to be. The natural or supernatural explanation. of smokers who do get cancer. Keynes, greatest challenge for philosophical The latter may be that our universe by contrast, originated a logical view of theories of probability is in fact to was made to support intelligent life; the the so-called epistemic probabilities explain not just these three applications former that we live in a ‘multiverse’ used to measure how far evidence of it but why they are linked as they containing many universes, with many supports conclusions drawn from it, are. That remains an unsettled different features, which makes it not such as the verdicts of law courts, the question, with rival theories still vying only probable but inevitable that

Philosophy at Cambridge page 4 May 2005 intelligent life will arise only in the few probability of our kind of universe, universes that can support it. relative to no evidence at all, would Where is the error in this? Not in have been very low, which again is just We want to hear the platitudinous conclusion that life to say that it’s only the evidence – from you! can only arise in a universe that can including the evidence of our own support it. The error lies in assuming existence – which tells us what our that such a universe is improbable in universe is like. The Editor welcomes all comments any sense that makes its existence call None of this shows that design or and suggestions or material for for explanation, an error rooted in a multiverse theories are false, merely future editions of the Newsletter. failure to distinguish chances from that some bad but common reasons for Please contact: epistemic probabilities. Of course our thinking or wanting them to be true are Mrs Mariella Pellegrino evidence gives the relevant features of based on too undiscriminating a view Faculty of Philosophy our universe a high epistemic of probability. A more discriminating University of Cambridge probability, since all this means is that view helps us to adopt the attitude Sidgwick Avenue it tells us what those features are. It expressed in Thomas Carlyle’s alleged Cambridge does not follow from this that there is comment on one Margaret Fuller’s CB3 9DA any such thing as the chance of a reported remark that she accepted the U.K. universe having these features, let alone universe: ‘Gad,’ said Carlyle, ‘she had that only something like a design or better.’ And so, I think, had we. Phone: +44 1223 331889 multiverse theory can make that chance Fax: +44 1223 335091 email: [email protected] high enough to make our existence D. H. Mellor FBA unsurprising. Nor does this follow Emeritus Professor of Philosophy from the fact that our universe could A downloadable version of the His book Probability: A Newsletter is available from the have been different in many ways, most Philosophical Introduction of which would not have allowed it to Faculty website: (Routledge, 2005) is available in http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/ support life. The most that follows hardback and paperback. from this is that the epistemic

Philosophy at Cambridge page 5 May 2005 Recollections Nobody Knows Anything: Philosophy, Film and Me Amanda Boyle (St. John’s) I was slightly surprised to be asked to on the rebuilding of the World Trade write about philosophy at Cambridge Center and last year wrote and directed because I wasn’t exactly a stellar student. my first film Hotel Infinity which is doing My first two years of Tripos were tricky the international festival circuit. This for many reasons. Boys, alcohol and the short is about a man who understood his ten plays I just had to act in didn’t really unusual hotel by rigorous mathematical help. After year one I tried to change to calculations. English but that Faculty cleverly dodged Those years at Cambridge have had a my eagerness suggesting my essays were deep impact on me. I’m glad I didn’t just too ‘philosophically minded’. Despite change subject and sometimes think their claims, I knew I wasn’t adept at about studying aesthetics again. Trying to philosophy – the disciplined structures of understand a foreign way of thinking was Jamie Whyte logical arguments were alien to my good for me and there are many kaleidoscopic, scatter-gun way of moments and ideas from that time I often Seven Years at Cambridge thinking. I wanted to understand, I was ponder. From the superb lecture about fascinated, but it was as if everyone else Beauty which discussed the voices of Jamie Whyte involved in philosophy was following a Maria Callas and Billie Holiday; to the (Darwin, St. John’s, Corpus) script I hadn’t been issued. hilarious political whose In 1985 I was an undergraduate at Things started to make more sense in mantle piece was littered with crude Auckland University studying philosophy. my third year. This was partly due to the sketches of tomb stones under which A travelling salesman had pinned up an addition of aesthetics. Finally there was a ‘Past Cambridge Students’ was written. advertisement for the LSE masters degree. subject I had an affinity for, which I was In my report he wrote ‘she deserves not I was seriously considering it. able to combine with another new to do well but I have a feeling she is an At the same time, the department was passion, film. These two curiosities led to over-achiever’. That line will appear in a visited by Hugh Mellor. When I two extended essays, one on Arthur Danto film, mark my words. mentioned the LSE, he suggested that I and the other on the glamour of horror Equally unforgettable were the was aiming 50 miles too low. I should films. I left with an acceptable degree but I supervisions I had with my Director of apply to do the MPhil in the History and was most proud of those essays. Studies. She had an amazing skill at at Cambridge (the I’m now a film director and producer. turning my head upside-down. In the first Philosophy MPhil did not then exist). After Cambridge I worked briefly as a five minutes I would be made to see things That’s what I did. I will be glad if I runner for a company that made lifestyle from a position I had never considered. make an equally good decision in the cookery programmes for cable television. My essays in the first year weren’t second half of my life. Not feeling entirely satisfied, I wrote researched well. But in the last two years I In my seven years at Cambridge, the hundreds of letters trying to get a job in was working hard and she still had the university’s various institutions provided film. One of the people I targeted was a ability to make me see afresh. I would like me with two degrees, a job (I was a producer who had made his name in to create films that do the same thing – research fellow at Corpus), two fiancées horror films. He had read my CV and that show another possible vision of the and one wife. one day called saying he wanted to talk world, tell tales from another angle. It may seem strange to say that to me about my Cambridge essays. Why The similarities to my work today and Cambridge provided me with fiancées did people enjoy being scared out of their my forays in philosophy don’t end there and a wife. But it reflects the fact that wits by horror films? Why had he spent and indeed it may not be a coincidence Cambridge takes over not just your his life making them? I refused to that one of the directors I admire, education but your life. This is especially enlighten him until he gave me a job. Terrence Malik, is also a philosopher. true for foreign students. With no old A week later I was working as his Now, just as then, I struggle with friends or family within striking distance, assistant. A month later structure. I’m interested a square mile of colleges, libraries, lecture he was sacked off the in thoughts and halls, common rooms and pubs becomes film, but by luck I kept emotions but I still have your whole world. And, as far as you are my job and although the to fight to make a good inclined to notice, it is populated by no film was a critical flop of story without letting it one but other students and fellows, in extraordinary strangle my ideas. What which your arcane enquiries are the proportions, I finally had film and philosophy burning issues of the day. my foot in the door. ultimately have in Apart from All Blacks matches, I from Hotel Infinity, by Amanda Boyle Sadly I never had time to common is that they watched no TV. Politics, in which I had divulge the secrets of my essay to the both deal with the known, unknown and been actively engaged, faded in my producer before he packed his bags for the unknowable. Don’t even get me consciousness, until it seemed to concern LA, but without it who knows Nanette started on the complexities of trying to another planet. Great cultural Newman and I might still be working make an original and successful film. As movements, such as the emergence of together. William Goldman famously put it ‘Brit art’, failed to draw my attention. Since then I have set up the low “Nobody knows anything”. Well I This temporary loss of the external budget division of Working Title Films certainly wouldn’t argue with that. world was beneficial. It allowed me to and was closely involved in the making of concentrate on philosophy with an Billy Elliot and the horror flick My Little Amanda Boyle is a film producer and intensity that I do not think I would have Eye. I’m now producing an IMAX film director managed in a city university, or even Philosophy at Cambridge page 6 May 2005 specific organisations, private or public sector. For instance, we are working with Acevo (The Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations) perhaps in Oxford. I finished my PhD in on a project examining public trust in slightly under three years. My speed was charities. Nick Aldridge, Acevo’s Head of assisted by a rapidly growing overdraft Policy and Communications, is a recent and by not joining the University Library. Cambridge Philosophy alumnus. Our Libraries, like churches, have always industrial links include BT and Pfizer. given me the creeps: all that hushed • Our research feeds directly into the reverence. This saved me from wasting Since its launch in 2002, the Forum for Tripos. We are currently running a hours every day flirting and gossiping in Philosophy in Business has been dedicated seminar series investigating whether the UL coffee shop. to strengthening the link between academic corporations are in any sense persons or My research concerned truth and philosophy and practitioners in business morally responsible agents. We have mental representation. Several and public life. No one high up in a large also conducted a philosophical audit of philosophers at Cambridge – David organisation can avoid grappling with company corporate social responsibility Papineau, Tom Baldwin and Hugh abstract problems. The Forum provides a statements and ‘business principles’ – Mellor, among others – were then space to think, enabling them to articulate from BAT to the Body Shop. We are working on the same or closely related and address such concerns. As Aristotle pleased to report that the undergraduates topics. Most of what I have learnt in said: ‘It is impossible to untie a knot that are as sharp as ever, and left no target philosophy, I got from these people and one does not understand.’ Philosophy is standing. the way they approached the subject. able to isolate the different Philosophy can easily descend into a strands in the knot and help point-scoring game where victory is to be point the way forward. had, not by answering philosophical When we started, the idea of questions, but by refuting others’ bringing together philosophers answers. That was not the culture I and practitioners in this way encountered at Cambridge. I usually felt was very much an experiment – that discussions were collaborative efforts a chemical experiment, if one aimed at getting to the truth. thinks of the potential for It helped that influential figures in the explosive reactions. But to Faculty – especially Hugh Mellor – judge from the range and disagreed with Wittgenstein and believed calibre of interested that philosophical problems were both practitioners over the last year, real and solvable. When that is what you this experiment is proving believe, debate will often be robust, but extremely successful. not petty or pointless. Throughout 2004, we engaged in research We would like to thank the many alumni Cambridge philosophy then had a on trust funded by a Faculty Award from who wrote in to express their support for reputation for treating speakers harshly. I IBM. We looked at trust in different the Forum and to suggest possible avenues think it was exaggerated. Some speakers contexts – in the civil service, the for research. Please keep up the dialogue got roughed up; Cambridge philosophy professions and the media. Participants at and please come to the forthcoming 2005 never has been, and hopefully never will one seminar included Sir David Omand Alumni weekend (see ‘Events’), when we be, a touchy-feely love-fest. More often, (Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator, will be discussing the ethics of intellectual however, seminars turned into ‘working Cabinet Office), Anthony Williams (former property with Prof Lionel Bently of the sessions’ where contributions from the HM Inspector of Constabulary) and Lord Cambridge Law Faculty. audience aimed at developing the speaker’s Wilson (former Cabinet Secretary), as well ideas or suggesting solutions to problems. as senior figures from the medical, The prestige of a PhD from Cambridge actuarial and accounting professions. At is valuable. It has helped me get jobs inside the seminar on trust in the media and outside academia. But what has participants included Philip Graf (Press helped me to do those jobs, and now to Complaints Commission), Dame Patricia write professionally about politics and Hodgson (former Chief Executive of the logic, is what I learnt at Cambridge. It was Independent Television Commission), John not a body of information; philosophy Lloyd (Editor, FT Magazine), Graham isn’t that kind of subject. It was the values Mather (President, European Policy of intellectual honesty and rigour. Forum). On the philosophical side we are When faced with difficult decisions, greatly indebted to Simon Blackburn, Ross many American Christians ask Harrison and Onora O’Neill for their from left, Professor Ross Harrison, themselves: ‘what would Jesus do?’ I contributions and support. Mr Graham Mather and Mr Philip Graf don’t. But sometimes when I am writing something for public consumption about The Forum operates in a number of ways: which I am not quite sure, I ask myself, • With sponsorship from outside ‘how would this go down at the Moral organisations, we organise seminars and Alex Oliver and Dominic Scott Sciences Club?’ The real benefit of my conferences (normally in Cambridge), For information about the Forum, see seven years at Cambridge is that I can bringing together participants with very www.phil.cam.ac.uk answer that question. different backgrounds. We are grateful The Forum can be contacted at the to IBM and the consultants SHM for Faculty’s address or via email Jamie Whyte is an author and freelance their support in this area. ([email protected]) journalist • We also take on projects sponsored by Philosophy at Cambridge page 7 May 2005 continued from page 1 Faculty News consumer product, and complaints procedures for individuals can’t This year again many members of the Faculty have had their achievements secure public goods. This doesn’t recognised by promotions, awards, elections and invitations to give lectures show that a self-regulating free press around the globe. can’t achieve adequate standards. It It would be impossible to list them all but here are a few highlights: shows that the weak self-regulation Simon Blackburn gave the Jack Smart lecture at the Australian National that we currently have in the UK is University and the Lindley lecture at Kansas. Ross Harrison was promoted inadequate. If we think statutory to a Personal Chair; from September 2005 he will be the Quain Professor in regulation of the press too risky, we Jurisprudence, University College, . Onora O’Neill will be the next need more serious self-regulation. President of the British Academy, from July 2005. Michael Potter was promoted to a Readership. Professor Onora O’Neill FBA is A number of our graduate students and Research Fellows have secured Principal of Newnham College, jobs in philosophy academia, among them are: Carrie Jenkins at St. Andrews, Cambridge Fiona Macpherson at Bristol, Alex Paseau at Wadham College, Oxford.

Justify Yourself – Tim Button

The Amoral Sciences Club, under- description of his love of philosophy with science, and noted optimistically that graduate foil to the Moral Sciences Club, the paradox that he is drawn to it in philosophers are taking an increased last year organised a series of talks alternating waves of optimism and interest in genealogy. Heal was more entitled ‘Justify Yourself’. Five Cambridge pessimism about the possibility of societal cautious. She was happy that so many stalwarts – Simon Blackburn, Hugh change. intelligent people are philosophers, but Mellor, Jane Heal, Peter Lipton and What is philosophy for these expressed concern that the volume of Raymond Geuss – and one visiting philosophers? Mellor argued that it is not philosophical literature is becoming so scholar – Bob Hanna – bravely justified a spectator sport: only those who can large that it is escaping from themselves and their subject. philosophise can really criticise or enjoy philosophers. Philosophy should allow its Mellor started the series by the subject. But Lipton noted that the participants to sit back and think for distinguishing two senses in which boundaries of philosophy are vague. fifteen or twenty years. philosophy might require justification: Much of philosophy is ‘philosophy of X’, Here we saw alienation between either as a professional practice or in where X is some other subject (e.g. philosophy and philosophers, itself. To attempt to justify philosophy science), and the philosophy of X is foreshadowing some of the tensions itself would mistakenly treat philosophy usually also found within the X-subject highlighted by Geuss. Although we can as a means to an end, rather than as an itself. But while many other subjects need see the flaws in our own creation, it is end in itself. Accordingly, he said little to justify themselves in terms of the unclear how to change it for the better. about philosophy per se. practical value of what they do, ‘studying Geuss also noted that only two ‘schools’ Mellor claimed that the professional philosophy is self-justifying.’ of philosophers – the positivists and the practice of philosophy is for a society, not Philosophy captures something of the Hegelians (both left and right) – were an individual, to justify. Society sets aside scale of cosmology, Heal argued, but in immune to the attractions of National funding for professional philosophers, the study of people. With the subject so Socialism, and thus cast doubt on the and we may rightly ask what the loosely defined, it could only be a ability of philosophy and philosophers to appropriate level of funding should be. question of examining your life. All sorts do more than justify extant systems. However, since society makes some of question arise during this enterprise, Amidst such weighty material, we money available to philosophers, there’s only some of which will interest you. were also treated to light-hearted insights www.cambridgeprinting.org no reason why he shouldn’t take Little wonder then that what is called and hilarious anecdotes, most memorably advantage of that and make a living out ‘philosophy’ varies so much across the stunning impressions, by Blackburn of what he loved. cultures and times. and Heal, of the ‘Wittgenstein-slump’: Jane Heal asked us to imagine a With the human condition at its core, body posture de rigueur of post- society in which professional philosophy Hanna claimed that philosophy aims ‘to Wittgenstein Cambridge. The sheer was not supported. She conjectured that get a priori insight into this subject intellectual and emotional variety such a society would be largely uniform, matter, whether cognitively or non- displayed during the series reveals that with an enforced, dictatorial orthodoxy, cognitively.’ The first is ‘conceptual the philosopher’s life – the examined life or it would be comprised of turnips, analysis’; the second is Aristotle’s – is self-evidently worth living and worth incapable of reflection. ‘wonder’ or Wittgenstein’s ‘mystical’. examining, and that sometimes these The distinction between professional Philosophy is a synthesis between the cannot be properly distinguished. and pure philosophy was invoked by two. This found resonance in Mellor’s Hanna in a different context. He feared argument that philosophy cannot be In 2005, the ASC is holding a series of that the pursuit of tenure can obliterate purely analytic, since analysis provides ‘Confrontations’, reenacting famous the love of the subject. For him ‘getting too little and an analytic incendiary disputes from the history of “interested” in philosophy was precisely argument (e.g. a mathematical one) is philosophy. like falling in love: hot & cold flushes, won by knockout, but philosophical http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/asc/ shivers, complete absorption in it to the arguments are won on points. neglect of everything else, alternating What does the future of philosophy manic intellectual excitement & abysmal hold? Blackburn enthused about recent Tim Button is an MPhil student

depression.’ Geuss supplemented his progress in logic and philosophy of Printed by Cambridge Printing, the printing business of University Press.

Philosophy at Cambridge page 8 May 2005