Talk:G. E. M. Anscombe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Philosophy Portal

This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

1 Polymath?
2 Signs with bad sounds
3 ?
4 Truman

[edit] Polymath?

She's in the polymath category, but I don't see anything here in the article that really confirms that status. I don't know much about her myself... can anyone explain this a bit more? (The honor seems to have been bequeathed here. Kindly, David Bergan 06:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Polymath seems fair: she contributed significantly to nearly every branch of philosophy, to theology, to logic (at, I believe, a fairly advanced level), she translated extensively from German, and, I believe, Greek and Latin--maybe I'm wrong there, and her translations, particularly of Wittgenstein, are usually considered definitive. She was a noted public intellectual and debater as well.

On the other hand, if we're looking only at the range of her work rather than its degree of importance, she's no more a polymath than any number of professional scholars. How many maths does it take to be poly?

I think what stands out is her prominence both in ethics and theology and in logic and metaphysics--the two "ends" of philosophy, on a common picture. This is, increasingly, a rarity even among professional philosophers.

[edit] Signs with bad sounds

It is not true that she decided to retain, because of cacophony, her surname after marrying Peter Geach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.43 (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] ?

I don't see that it says this. It is true that she received his marriage proposal on the condition that she would not have to take his name.

Was that the only condition? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.27 (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Who knows, but the facts about her name are well known and were frequently addressed to her. She must have been asked about it in public, after colloquia for example, literally hundreds of times. She and her husband are/were among the very best known philosophers, decades before people were familiar with women not following the tiresome (modern) tradition of taking their husbands'last names. It is surprising from a present day standpoint that there should be so much interest in such a thing, and thus so much common knowledge about it, but on reflection it is obvious that there would have been.