Talk:Bernard Williams/Archive 1

Critique of Utilitarianism
The examples of Jim and the Tribespeople and George the Chemist are stated well; only I think it would be well to state that Williams does not necessarily condone either action (shoot one person to save many, or refuse to shoot); he merely wishes to point out the moral difference between actions we carry out and actions we fail to prevent. Ispollock (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Inline lists
The Bernard Williams History is getting a bit complicated, and especially with the slowness of the servers today I may be getting it wrong, but I think Taxman changed a rather long and cumbersome parenthetic list to a footnote, and Slim reverted him. I'd like to weigh in on the footnote issue. OK, there are three possible ways of doing the "extensive inline reference", the mention by name and year of what BW's works of the 70s„80s were:
 * 1) Having the list inline like Slim wrote it. Advantage: the reader gets told, immediately and at a glance, what the works were. Disadvantage: flow is interrupted by a long, heavy inline ref.
 * 2) Having neither list nor footnote. Advantage: no interruption. Disadvantage: the reader has to go to the foot of the page to learn what the works were (the list of works by BW is chronological, so they're admittedly easy to find once you have scrolled down).
 * 3) Having a footnote like Taxman did it. Disadvantage 1: it interrupts flow. While footnote numbers in the text are visually small, academic writers tend to agree that they interrupt and distract a lot. I'll find a quote about that, if you like. Disadvantage 2: the reader still has to go to the foot of the page to learn what the works were, by clicking on the footnote number. Disadvantage 3: having the same info twice at the foot of the page (immediately adjacent, yet) doesn't look...well, elegant. Smart. Trim. None of those.

I strongly recommend choosing one of the first two options, according to which advantage/disadvantage is thought to be the weightiest. (Personally I'd go with 2 any day of the week.) Option 3 doesn't have any advantages, as far as I can see. I hope you don't think I mean to be mean, Taxman, or unappreciative of the good work you do on WP:FAC, I just think footnotes are overrated. They're unwelcoming to unacademic readers, for one thing. Sometimes they're the best or only way to go, but IMO you need to consider, for each individual footnote, whether it's worth teasing the reader into looking at the foot of the page. Nothing breaks flow more effectively than that.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 00:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Bishonen. the inline references regarding the works of the 70s and 80s were there as part of the text i.e. I intended them to be part of the paragraph, not just a citation, if you see what I mean. The only reason I did that was that Taxman insisted I find a quote to support the claim that Kantianism was the main rival to utilitarianism. I felt no quote was necessary, because this is a fact no moral philosopher would dispute. However, I went off in search of a quote. I found one in the Nussbaum obit of Williams. She talked about how his works of the 70s and 80s (and she named the books) demolished the . . . I can't recall the phrase . . . two opposing ideologies of Kantianism and utilitarianism, or something like that. My own view is that the paragraph was better without that, and without the references. But once you mention the works of the 70s and 80s, I felt I had to say which ones upfront, and not, as you say, make the reader wander off to a footnote. Not all Williams' works of the 70s and 80s were about Kantianism and utilitarianism.


 * When I've written academic papers, I always have footnotes, not inline references, but that's because there are so many citations, the text looks silly with them inside it; and they're being read by other academics, who are often footnote-obsessed. But in Wikipedia articles, which are always relatively short, and where the citations are few in number (even in well-referenced articles), I personally see no harm in having the citations in the text. It's easier for the reader, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to be read. But really I don't mind which is done, so long as it's consistent.


 * The thing I definitely don't agree with is the no-short-paragraphs and no-one-sentence-paragraphs rule. Sometimes short and one-sentence paras are necessary. Often they are elegant. Often they make the most sense. Often they are easy on the eye. Professional writers are usually taught that short is good. I do feel that the Bernard Williams article was improved by merging the paragraphs, because I have a tendency to write in too-short paragraphs, and overdo it. But speaking generally, there is no rule against short or one-sentence paragraphs, and I feel Featured Article candidates shouldn't be told there is. I should stress that this isn't meant as a dig at Taxman, just constructive criticism and dialogue. I've discussed with another editor the possibility of writing a Wikipedia page about this to perhaps lay out how many paragraphs introductions should consist of; how long paragraphs should be, and so on. Perhaps if we get that going, I can let you and Taxman know, and you can both weigh in.  Slim 01:43, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

U.S. and British English
To the anonymous editor, I reverted your changes because the Wikipedia guideline is that articles written in one style of English should not randomly be changed to another style by a later editor. SlimVirgin 02:55, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * The change was not random. Wikipedia policy is that articles should be written in the form of English spoken in the country relevant to the article. This is a British English topic (because it is about a British philosopher) so should be written in British English.


 * The rule against arbitrary changes only applies where there is no one form of English appropriate to an article. In that case you go with the form of English used by the article's first editors.


 * 213.202.130.154 03:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. Please show me where it says that. The only thing I know of is a guideline suggesting that, if an article is about something inherently British, it should not be written with American spelling and vice versa. So the British Labour Party should never be written "labor". But otherwise, the policy is that articles should be continued in the style started by the first major contributer. September 11, 2001 attacks, for example, is written in British English, because it was a British person who started it, even though it is about an American issue. As for Williams being British, he was born and worked in the UK, but he also worked in America, and was an academic there when he died. I don't think he saw himself as tied to any particular nationality.

I created the stub for this, I wrote the entire article, I took it alone through the featured article nomination process. At that point, several other editors (from different countries) joined in the editing process, and the version you currently see is as a result of that consensus. Then it was made a featured article. You cannot come along as one anonymous editor after the fact and change that entire consensus, and I hope you would not try to. SlimVirgin 05:14, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin wrote:


 * The only thing I know of is a guideline suggesting that, if an article is about something inherently British, it should not be written with American spelling and vice versa.


 * That's correct and the convention (in my experience) is not to apply this to political parties and not to people. I'm suprised to hear about the 9/11 article because I honestly think it is going against standard practice.


 * I don't think you can seriously suggest that Williams was American. He was born in England, lived most of his life there, had British citizenship and bore a Knighthood. The introduction quotes the Times as saying he was the "most brilliant and most important British moral philosopher of his time." This description is not limited to British newspapers. I have never heard him described as anything other than British or English.


 * It just jars (if you don't write in American English) to read about an English philosoper in US English. Just as it would be jarring and anomalous to read about George Bush in British English.


 * The use of non-US forms of English on Wikipedia means a lot to some of us but the large majority of American Wikipedians means that we cannot rely on the "first major contributor" rule to protect it. There needs to be a realm reserved for British English (or other relevant dialects) only. This realm comprises a pretty small number of articles already. So please don't attempt to reduce it further.


 * Albion 22:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) (previously 213.202.130.154)

Albion, you'll have to show me the policy or guideline you're referring to, then we can discuss it. The only thing I know is that if something is inherently American, say, then British English should not be used to describe it. The key is the word "inherently". Like the U.S. Defense Intelligence Dept, or the British Labour Party. Bernard Williams is just a person, not an institution. I'm not attempting reduce anyone's realm, and I do take your point about BE being important to you, but can you take my point about September 11, 2001 attacks being written in British English, even though that is an American event? No one has tried to change that so far as I know, so it does work both ways. Someone tried to change Alan Turing to American English the other day, and I changed it back, not because Turing was British (that was an added reason) but because the article had been started in British English. I'm just arging for that rule (otherwise there would be chaos), not for AE or BE specifically. SlimVirgin 22:39, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again Albion, I feel I was a bit harsh the other day over the American/British English thing, so I have changed Bernard Williams to British English for you. There wasn't in fact much to change. On The 19th when you wrote, the article was the featured article on the main page, and spent the day being vandalized, which is why I was a bit tetchy with you, for which I apologize. As the issue matters to you, I have changed it. I did retain universalize, rather than universalise, as the former is also used in England (Oxford style), and I very much prefer it, but other than that, any American spelling I spotted has been changed and if I spot any others in future readings, I'll change those too. SlimVirgin 10:17, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the magnanimity SlimVirgin. I think magnanimity is something that's in too short supply among Wikipedians, and I'm sure I can include myself in that criticism. Don't apologize because I didn't read our exchange as tetchy, just an honest disagreement among editors who take Wikipedia seriously. Albion 16:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, Albion; thanks for being so gracious. SlimVirgin 21:22, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:MOS at "Usage and spelling" states (in part) "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country (for instance the British "Labour Party")."


 * Although there is nothing explicit in WP:MOS to say that Wikipedia's view is that an article on a British citizen is an article "that focus[es] on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country", I think it's fair to say that in most cases, this is true. I am also conscious, as I am sure other readers are, that at least one editor is in the habit of changing articles on the main page into US English just before they get to the main page, which, even though this has nothing to do with SlimVirgin, no doubt adds to the annoyance here.


 * I have tweaked the article so that it adopts standard British English punctuation rules. Kind regards, jguk 17:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Who's the user who "is in the habit of changing articles on the main page into US English just before they get to the main page"? Proteus (Talk) 17:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's User:Neutrality. He doesn't always do it; it comes in occasional waves. After all, recently he has been busy moving Category:Paediatrics to Category:Pediatrics after the decision on Categories for Deletion to transfer everything to Category:Paediatrics and make Category:Pediatrics a redirect! :) jguk 23:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The MOS citing British "Labour Party" is very bad example. That's the party's name with 'u' wherever you refer to it. The Australian Labor Party doesn't have a 'u' and you shouldn't use one. Using Labor in reference to the UK party would be like referring to the Capitol as the 'Capital'. Jooler

Other anonymous editors

 * What's with this article suddenly being attacked by anonymous editors? To the latest, your deletion of the word "analytic" has made the sentence wrong, because of course continental philosophers had explored it. What does Kant have to do with it? SlimVirgin 06:00, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Similarities to Russell and Hume
Both Hume and Russell have been critical to "external reasons" to act. In his nobel lecture Russell says:

''All human activity is prompted by desire. There is a wholly fallacious theory advanced by some earnest moralists to the effect that it is possible to resist desire in the interests of duty and moral principle. I say this is fallacious, not because no man ever acts from a sense of duty, but because duty has no hold on him unless he desires to be dutiful.''

What is Williams' unique contribution to this view? Is it possible to explain it in the short space available in the article?

Davidw 10:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi David, Williams wrote a well-known paper in 1980 called "Internal and External Reasons", in which he argued that there are only internal reasons for action. You can find an account of his argument here. It would be possible to explain his argument in the article. The reason I didn't is that I was afraid of losing the reader by going into too much detail. SlimVirgin 11:48, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Other anonymous editors
I am the anonymous editor. I deleted "analytic" because I have always understood the division between analytic and continental philosophy to have begun after Kant--there was no distinction before him. The wikipedia article on analytic philosophy is even more particular, essentially restricting it to the 20th century. I object to "This was a question few Western analytic philosophers had explored since the Greeks" because it implies an anachronism--that there were analytic philosophers between the Greeks and Kant (or worse, between the Greeks and Frege, according to the wikipedia article). Perhaps it would be better to remove the sentence entirely. --Iridius 09:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see what you mean. Perhaps instead of deleting "analytic," it would make more sense to say "a question few Western analytic philosophers had explored"? The point I'm trying to make is Williams' approach was unusual by analytic standards. Can you think of a better sentence to describe that? SlimVirgin 09:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't think of anything better than "a question few Western analytic philosophers had explored" that still implies that Williams was working in the analytic tradition, except perhaps "a question few other Western analytic philosophers had explored," possibly dropping the redundant "Western" to keep the sentence reasonably short. Iridius 10:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, a question few other analytic philosophers had explored. That makes most sense. Thank you. SlimVirgin 10:12, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's changed. Iridius, if there's anything else you feel you could improve, by all means edit it. I was only a bit proprietorial the other day because the article was on the main page and had been vandalized, so I was jumpy about anonymous edits. But now that it's off the main page, and you're no longer anonymous (plus you seem to know philosophy), you're most welcome to step in. SlimVirgin 10:16, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Williams as having a positive moral theory
I'm slightly worried that Williams is presented as having a (relatively) easily distinguishable moral approach. The one thing that I'd say most philosophers agree on (aside from his cleverness and capacity for – possibly inadvertent – cruelty) is that he was extremnely good at criticising other people's moral positions and arguments, but almost impossible to pin down with regard to hiw own view. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 14:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd managed to convey that without getting into specifics. I took the piece through the featured article process, and I guessed it would fail if too detailed, so it's written in very general terms. Also, other editors sometimes object if a biography has too much of the subject's ideas in it, rather than in a separate article. But I felt that phrases like him being a good synthesist, taking us back to the Greeks, leaving a philosophy for real lives being lived in difficult circumstances and so on, signalled that he was hard to pin down. By the way, there have been a few recent edits that I haven't looked at, so there may be turns of phrase in there that I can't be blamed for. Feel free to wade in. SlimVirgin 20:23, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I think that I'll steer clear for the moment at least. I seem to have just walked into a page that needs a huge amount of work (African philosophy, if you're interested in joining in). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I know nothing about it but that's never stopped me before. ;-) SlimVirgin 21:39, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't forget about Nkrumah! I said, don't (don't) ! El_C 08:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll probably add something about his consciencism. On the whole, writers like him have tended to produce Aficanised variants of standard political models (with a preference for forms of Marxism), so I'm not so interested, but he can't be left out, certainly. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * And here I was, thinking, that I could indoctrinate you in a single sentence. My head hurts. El_C 09:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Knightbridge
When I first saw the anon.'s unexplained change from "Knightsbridge" to "Knightbridge", I did a quick search on Google, and found that the evidence was pretty well balanced. I thought it safest to revert until an explanation was forthcoming. I've only just thought to check in books (o tempora, o mores), and "Knightbridge" seems in fact to be correct, so I've reinstated it. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 07:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:20th Century philosophers|Williams, Bernard?
Why's this so contentious, as to be becoming the subject of a silent mini revert war? It looks somewhat silly to the naive eye that he end up as one of two "unsubcategorised philosophers". In fact, if he's not "20th century", we should probably just remove that, as he's already in another subcategory, after all. Alai 07:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

British/American English Confusions
There was a sentence in the article reading:

"However, Margaret Thatcher's first administration put paid to the liberal agenda on sex, and almost put paid to Williams as well, who was not asked to chair another public committee for almost 15 years."

As an American, I stumbled over this sentence. I decided to change it to:

"However, Margaret Thatcher's first administration put an end to the liberal agenda on sex, and nearly put an end to Williams' political career as well; he was not asked to chair another public committee for almost 15 years."

Is this in violation of your current debate over the British English? I think the British English is fine to preserve -- as long as it does not cause confusion among American readers. An expression like "put paid," meaning "ended" or "resolved" is likely to confuse almost all American readers. I hope such a simple change as mine which brings about a universal comprehension would not be looked on disfavorably.


 * That's fine, and thanks for leaving an explanation. We're not supposed to use terms that aren't widely known outside one country, so your change is helpful. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting, though, that the anon. editor is confusing his or her knowledge with American usage in general (always a danger in such a linguistically diverse nation). "Put paid to" is common in the U.S. (it appears in the The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms in fact); I've often read it in American novels and (less often) in academic works.  A quick Google will indicate its wide usage.
 * Being on Wikipedia has alerted me to this mistake, which I've often made myself; for example, I would have sworn that "theatre" was wholly un-American (as it were), but I've been assured (and been given proof) that it is in fact quite common in parts (geographical and social) of the U.S. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 19:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that "theatre" is mostly an affectation, imitating British and French spellings. "Olde", "Shoppe", and "Pointe" are somewhat common too, if you include subdivision names and retail stores. I don't hear anyone using "put paid". I ran across it while reading Terry Eagleton in college and had to ask someone what it meant. --goethean &#2384; 19:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes &mdash; you're doing it too. It's a natural response; we tend to assume that our idiolects are in fact standard. I've been told with great authority that in modern English we don't pronounce the "t" in "often" &mdash; this by people who seem not to notice that I do pronounce the "t", as do roughly half the population (it's partly a regional thing). The U.S. detective novels that I read (yes, my guilty secret) aren't being affected when they use "put paid to", any more than those whose usage reflects the lingering of the original (pre-Webster?) spelling of "theatre". It's all part of life's rich tapestry. (Interestingly, I asked around, and most people I spoke to assumed that "put paid to" was an Americanism. it probably isn't, but I've not been able to track down its origin yet.)  As I said above, try Google. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Self-Interest, Truth, History of Philosophy
This page has obviously gotten a lot of work--I thought I'd screen some ideas before changing anything.

First, it's misleading to say that Williams advocates a "self-interested" ethical theory. This aligns him with the ethical egoism assumed by some work in economics -- a view which couldn't be further from his. On the contrary, Williams (following Aristotle) stressed that we can and should care about others for their own sake. He just thought that such concerns have to flower out of an individual's psychology, not from some transcendent external realm, like Kant's pure reason.

Second, I don't know what the Guardian article said, but the paragraph on Truth and Truthfulness gets it wrong. I don't think Williams even mentions Derrida in that book--certainly he doesn't discuss him at any length. And while one of his goals is to refute "deniers" like Richard Rorty, he cares just as much about refuting realists and reductionists. Truth and Truthfulness doesn't take sides so much as carve out a subtle middle ground.

For similar reasons, it's wrong to say that Williams was "far from" a moral relativist. As one obituary (New York Times?) said, his discussions of relativism are so subtle, it's sometimes hard to make out his own position. Many, including Martha Nussbaum, list him as a target in their attacks on relativism. We could fix this up by saying something like "Williams stressed that we can only work from within a certain culture and within a certain moral point of view. Some critics took this to show that he was a relativist, but Williams insisted that philosphy can uncover significant universal truths about human beings (even if these always must be filled in historically); likewise we can pronounce confidently about ethics: he believed, with..."

Also, his expression is "thick," rather than "fat," ethical concepts.

Finally, it would be nice to say a bit more about his nonmoral philosphy (although I'm no expert in it). His book on Descartes, for example, made a lot of waves in the philosphical community.

If you're agreeable, I'll get to work on all this. (I'll do my best to live up to the high standards of English style.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.181.44 (talk • contribs)


 * Please do go ahead. I await your improvements with interest. I've just looked in Truth and Truthfulness, and you're right that the index doesn't mention Derrida. The Guardian article quoted says:


 * "With his eye for non-academic significance, Williams latterly tackled the contemporary relativist tendency to undermine the notion of truth. His last book, Truth And Truthfulness (2002) analyses the way Richard Rorty, Derrida and other followers of politically correct Foucaultian fashion sneer at any purported truth as ludicrously naive because it is, inevitably, distorted by power, class bias and ideology. It explores "the tension between the pursuit of truthfulness and the doubt that there is (really) any truth to be found", and, unusually for a philosophy book, it makes the reader laugh aloud or want to cry."


 * It might help you to take a look at our content policies. These are WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Please try to source your edits as far as is sensible. Also, you can produce your signature after your posts with four tildes like this ~ . See Sign your posts on talk pages. Happy editing! SlimVirgin (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, thank you for checking first. It's very much appreciated. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a really misleading summary of Truth and Truthfulness: Williams' discussion of what he calls the Critical Theory Principle actually expresses rather a lot of sympathy with the idea that what are purported to be truths are distorted by power, class bias and ideology. It'd be better to describe it as an attempt to give a naturalistic genealogy of the virtues of truthfulness (or something conveying that, but less wordily). Also, it's not his last book any more, with the three posthumous publications. If no-one else wants to, I'll have a go over the weekendRobJubb 00:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * By all means have a go at it, Rob, but you'll need to supply sources for your edits; also, please don't remove sourced material. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I remove sourced material if it's misleading - from the blurb of 'Truth and Truthfulness', available on the Princeton University Press page, for example, "Williams approach, in the tradition of Nietzsche's genealogy, blends philosophy, history and a fictional account of how the human concern with truth might have arisen... Truth and Truthfulness presents a powerful challenge to the fashionable belief that truth has no value, but equally to the traditional faith that truth guarantees itself" which rather gives the lie to the idea that it is solely about Derrida et al, as implied by what you changed it back to - and why did you take out the reference to the three posthumous publications, two of which appear in the list of works at the end of the article? If you'd prefer, I'll just quote the blurbs - including those of the three new books - rather than change it back to what I originally wroteRobJubb 00:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You removed material from the Guardian, which is misleading in your opinion, but we simply publish what reliable sources say, and the Guardian is a reliable source. If you like, you can add what some other reliable source has said for balance. The posthumous publications are in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Sod it. You want to have misleading material because it comes from a reliable source - why a newspaper - not a literary or philosophical periodical, but a newspaper - counts as a reliable source on philosophy, I don't know - fine. I'm changing it back to what I originally wroteRobJubb 15:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, we want to have material that is sourced, and not just your opinion. Please review our content policies. Also, it would help if you would read articles before editing them; the posthumous material is, as I said above, already mentioned. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. How about this:

Williams' last finished book, Truth And Truthfulness: An Essay In Genealogy (2002), attempts to defend a non-foundationalist attachment to the values of truth, which Williams identifies as accuracy and sincerity, by giving a vindicatory naturalistic genealogy of them. The debt to Nietzsche is again clear, most obviously in the adoption of a genealogical method as a tool of explanation and critique. Although as The Guardian noted in its obituary of Williams, describing the book as an examination of those who "sneer at any purported truth as ludicrously naive because it is, inevitably, distorted by power, class bias and ideology", part of Williams' intention was to attack those who he felt denied the value of truth, the book's blurb cautions that to understand it simply in that sense would be to miss part of its purpose: it "presents a... challenge" to both "the fashionable belief that truth has no value" and "the traditional faith that [truth's] value guarantees itself".

I'm not sure how to put references in, so that reference might not work, but the link is good. I'm sorry about the snark: I just find it very frustrating that, having actually read the book, that can be used as a summary of it. I also realise the posthumous stuff really doesn't help my case, but, really, I struggle to think how anyone could see that as a sensible or objective summary of 'Truth and Truthfulness'.


 * But this is your argument. We need someone else's argument. Do you have source for:


 * "Williams' last finished book, Truth And Truthfulness: An Essay In Genealogy (2002), attempts to defend a non-foundationalist attachment to the values of truth, which Williams identifies as accuracy and sincerity, by giving a vindicatory naturalistic genealogy of them. The debt to Nietzsche is again clear, most obviously in the adoption of a genealogical method as a tool of explanation and critique."


 * "the book's blurb cautions that to understand it simply in that sense would be to miss part of its purpose ...": does the book's blurb actually say that? Or is that your take? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

for the first:

"Williams's approach, in the tradition of Nietzsche's genealogy, blends philosophy, history, and a fictional account of how the human concern with truth might have arisen. Without denying that we should worry about the contingency of much that we take for granted, he defends truth as an intellectual objective and a cultural value. He identifies two basic virtues of truth, Accuracy and Sincerity, the first of which aims at finding out the truth and the second at telling it" (from the blurb)

also (this does for the second, too, I'd guess):

"Truth and Truthfulness presents a powerful challenge to the fashionable belief that truth has no value, but equally to the traditional faith that its value guarantees itself" (from the blurb again)

I think the Nietzsche claim, and the anti-foundationalist one, are reasonably well justified by those (reading "the traditional faith that its value guarantees itself" as foundationalist, which seems reasonable to me). The vindicatory naturalistic genealogy is the fictional account. By all means change the style: it's a bit awkward and almost certainly over-wordy, but please keep the meaningRobJubb 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that, under the guise of 'restoring deleted material' you have deleted all the changes I made (as well as the assertion, perfectly truthful, that Williams early in his career worked on Personal Identity). I'll be reverting that thenRobJubb 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

King's College Image
The image shown of "King's College" only shows King's college chapel on the right and the centre of the photo is of Clare College. I think the picture should be replaced. -- Tompsci 10:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with one of the chapel, but there are others here if you'd like to choose another instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal identity?
Of course Williams made his name working on the concept of personal identity. Bizarrely there doesnt seem to be any mention of it in the article - although I've just now added a somewhat clumsy sentence to the intro. Williams is still probably most known, at least among english undergraduates, for writing about brain swaps and the reincarnation of guy fawkes. Avaya1 14:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reductionism quote
"The people I really do dislike are the morally unimaginative kind of evolutionary reductionists who in the name of science think they can explain everything in terms of our early hominid ancestors or our genes, with their combination of high-handed tone and disregard for history. Such reductive speculation encourages a really empty scientism." There is no way that that translates into a blanket condemnation. "The morally unimaginative kind of..." leaves open the possibility that there are evolutionary reductionists who are not morally unimaginative, namely those who do not wish to explain everything in terms of our early hominid ancestors. (This is the bit about BW that always irritated me, so I know that he was very circumspect about what he said.) I invite you to attempt an alternate summary. Relata refero (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He was opposed to reductionism, which is what the quote highlights, so I'm not seeing the problem with it. Can you give an example of an evolutionary reductionist who isn't really a reductionist? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can give several examples of evolutionary reductionists who do not choose to explain - in BW's somewhat stilted words - everything - in terms of our genetic heritage. However, that's not the point. He is careful to qualify himself in the quote; the quote may "highlight" in your opinion that he is opposed to reductionism, but that is not a good enough reason to misrepresent it. Relata refero (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But how is it a misrepresentation? Can you give some concrete examples of the kinds of reductionists you feel Williams' comment would not cover? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 07:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SV, I don't need to. You need to defend why you are choosing to write text that interprets "kind of..." as "all...".

Relata refero (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you do need to provide an example to show that the class exists. You think he was being circumspect. I see no evidence of that. So please name someone who's the kind of evolutionary reductionist his statement might not apply to.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SV, this is a problem. You have made up your mind that you, and nobody else, know what a source actually means; you will not choose to discuss the actual phrase in the source; you instead attempt to set up a debate, about something external to the source. Why the devil do you "see no evidence of that"? If you cannot see any evidence of that, instead of demonstrating why what I've already said is not evidence, I suggest you take a break. Completely ignoring the points someone has made and saying "I don't see X" is not an argument. You have to say "X is wrong because..." OK? Now, can you even slightly attempt to explain what you think "the kind of..." means?
 * Ridiculous conduct. As if you expect someone who disagrees with you to trawl through his library for a couple of names that you probably wouldn't recognise, instead of discussing the material that is most relevant. Can you explain why that's a helpful and sensible approach? Relata refero (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please answer the first question and give an example of the kind of person you're referring to? Just one name will do. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 07:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Read this and kindly answer my question now. Relata refero (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is one man's argument, designed to show that his reductionism isn't really reductionism, or isn't the "bad kind," when in fact his work is precisely an example of the problem. My question to you is whether you can name a reductionist you feel Williams would not have had a problem with. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, now we're reading his mind, are we? I thought you wanted someone his statement would not apply to. Relata refero (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right, I asked for a name his statement would not apply to. You wrote: "I can give several examples of evolutionary reductionists who do not choose to explain - in BW's somewhat stilted words - everything - in terms of our genetic heritage." So I asked for an example. It would surely be faster just to give one than to engage in this back and forth. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have given one example of someone who thought he doesn't. I can give you at least two more names with quotes, and a couple of overall summary quotes from elsewhere. That is not the point: the point is that you haven't accepted that BW, even if he thought they were all a lot of boring sods, didn't say so out loud in those terms, because it would have made him look a bit of an antiquated ass - which, incidentally, is precisely the impression your preferred wording creates.
 * The reason we're having this back and forth is because you are so attached to your interpretation that you choose not to discuss the careful paraphrasing of the statement, instead focussing on what we believe about the actual problem BW is describing. That is -er- original research.
 * Incidentally, you asked me first which theorists BW's comments would not cover. You seem to think that is the same as saying "whom didn't BW like, actually?" Remember, those are two different things. Relata refero (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, you wrote that you could give "several examples of evolutionary reductionists who do not choose to explain ... everything - in terms of our genetic heritage." So, I am asking for one. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 08:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I have explained, eloquently, why that's irrelevant. Also, Dennett claims he doesn't choose to explain everything in terms of our genetic heritage. Now, can we stop asking for names and doing our own little bits of research and deal with how to paraphrase what BW said, please Relata refero (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you've reverted instead of responding. This is inappropriate behaviour.
 * To repeat:"The morally unimaginative kind of..." leaves open the possibility that there are evolutionary reductionists who are not "morally unimaginative", or do not wish to explain everything in terms of our early hominid ancestors. Can you explain how it does not? We are not going to discuss individual examples, which is second-guessing the source, but examine how to paraphrase this source accurately. Relata refero (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)t

Cite templates
Just curious, but why aren't cite templates used in this article?--Rockfang (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't use templates, Rockfang. I find it takes more typing to add refs with templates than without, and I find texts with templates hard to read in edit mode. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply.--Rockfang (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

References mostly from newspapers and magazines
The entire lead is a series of quotations from the Times obituary. Could not the quotes at least be rewritten. And much of the rest of the article is sources to newspaper and magazine articles. Are there not high qualities sources available for Williams, "most brilliant and most important British moral philosopher of his time"? And the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Is this the best that can be done? I am surprised. Also, the article does not explain very well what was so brilliant and important about him. He seems rather topical rather than enduring. Regards, &mdash; mattisse (Talk) 22:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The references do not pass current FAR criteria 1C in my opinion: (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.

Is this man just not important enough to merit anything more? The article is very superficial and does not explain his thinking in any depth. Regards, &mdash; mattisse (Talk) 12:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation?
Searching for this man by the name "Bern Williams" from a quote from a book was impossible and it took me a long time to think to try bernard. maybe we could make this easier to find by redirecting it from a search for bern williams? kthxbye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.178.225 (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This would be a good idea if Bernard Williams had ever been known as Bern Williams, but I can find no reference using this name. Maybe your quote comes from another person entirely? Rachel Pearce (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Williams and 'analytic' philosophy

 * the paras below were originally tagged on a discussion from 2005 about Williams as an analytic philosopher.' The points in that discussion (as well as the rest of the discussion history) were archived 6 minutes after I had added these comments. Davdevalle (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

McGinn is taking liberties with describing Williams as an 'analytic' philosopher with the soul of humanist. It's a little like calling Wittgenstein an analytic philosopher. Its a lazy parochialism and misunderstands the analytic-continental tension. (BTW I would not attempt to edit or comment upon the Analytic Philosophy and Wittgenstein articles in Wikipedia, you would be there forever, but that is probably so when you know areas well. Many philosophy pages seem to suffer from this.  I would say to my students, I wouldn't start from there!)  Williams is closer to Wittgenstein than Austin and certainly against anything Hare did especially Williams penchant for a destructive particularism yet some claim Wittgenstein to be in the Kantian tradition! So it misses the point to even refer to analytic as is usually meant in originating from Moore's refutation of idealism. But Williams anti-Kantian approach does not inhabit the same trajectory which Russell and Austin inspired nor that which Ryle coaxed into the mainstream of UK philosophy by his pernicious influence on all of the Philosophy posts in the UK! (personal communication from Bernard Williams) davdevalle (talk 17:45 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed here is Williams himself! "The contrast between 'analytic' philosophy and 'continental' philosophy means neither an opposition in terms of content, of interest, or even of style. Indeed, there are some differences, some of which are important, between typical examples of philosophical  writing to which these terms could be applied, but these differences do not rest upon any significant basic principles. It could even be said that these terms mark a difference without a distinction." Bernard Williams, Preface to the French translation of his Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (Fontana, Collins, 198 ), L'éthique et les limites de la philosophie, tr. M. Lescourret, Paris, Gallimard, 1990, p. V.davdevalle (talk 18:00 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BW did go on to maintain the analytic-continental distinction as unhelpful and said "I say this as one who is, both deniably and undeniably, an analytic philospher: deniably because I am disposed to deny it, and undeniably, because I suspect that few who have anything to say on the subject will accept the denial. from his paper "What Might Philosophy Become?" collected in Philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline ed A.W.Moore (2006). Of course those who prefer the secondary sources of newspapers to create Wikipedia articles will not be able to deal with this. davdevalle (talk 18:10 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In summary this article begins with the wrong perspective, meant in the sense Williams would use it. Williams as a 'synthesist' with its sniff of systemisation would be the last thing Williams would advocate. This article shows little understanding of BW's way of doing philosophy davdevalle (talk 18:11 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a serious issue that arises in the use of the phrase 'analytic philosophy' and those philosophers who came out of Oxford in the 1950's. Most of these Oxford philosophers were against being defined as 'analytic' or even 'ordinary language' philosophers. And certainly they were not 'positivists' of any kind. They saw themselves as 'doing philosophy' and there was a tradition that could be traced in the history of philosophy from Parmenides onwards. Williams, echoing Nietzsche, wrote 'Nothing that has a history can be defined', and it is this stance which would The periodicisation of philosophy and the definition of philosophy and philosophers into kinds would not be encouraged. They rarely wanted to pushed as to 'method'. This is difficult for later commentators as the tendency to classify seems endemic to how many practice commentary. In philosophy this is often a mistaken tactic. One way around this is to stick to philosophical questions or maybe topics (but of course conceptual schemes will be found in questions and topics, which is why philosophy occurs in the first place according to Williams - philosophy demands we 'reflect on the pre-suppositions of what we think and feel' Classifying is a tendency to the general and may not reflect philosophy or a philosopher at all which will have a particular and a absolute, whatever they may be and how or not as the case may be these have been answered. Encyclopedia's should try to therefore use primary sources and not newspapers to try to get at the problems of definition, -isms and categories in philosophy. A few of the commentators in the discussion history of this article had made this point. I expect some would think this material should be in the discussion of the 'analytic philosophy' page. However as I am using Williams to address  the matter of classification in the history of philosophy I prefer it to be on the page of a real person rather than on a (confused) page for an abstract categorisation which only exists in some mis/un/informed minds!Davdevalle (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Incompleteness
The Stanford article on Williams is six times longer than this one (whether you include or don't include biographical details). This alone should point to a lack of depth in the coverage of Williams' detailed philosophical positions. Just as one example, Problems of the Self is a major philosophical work in the field of personal identity, and yet its contents are not discussed at all.

Is anyone actively maintaining this article and interested in helping expand coverage? Regards, - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 13:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Jarry, the article was written several years ago, and has been maintained since then, but not expanded. If you'd like to give it a go, you'd be very welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll certainly try to have a go. I'm concerned that it might have to go back to FAR otherwise :( - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 19:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * By all means expand it as you see fit. If you need someone to discuss it with once you've written it, you can drop me a line; and if you need to discuss any of the issues in depth, I can get hold of the books you're using. Reading Bernard Williams (2009), a collection of essays edited by Daniel Callcut, would be a good secondary source to start with, if that would be of any help. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Posthumous work
I have added three Williams's books on list published after his death by Princeton University Press.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bernard Williams. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150416205626/http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/inmemoriam/bernardaowilliams.htm to http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/inmemoriam/bernardaowilliams.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

FAR concerns
The lead of the article jumped out to me as needing improvement to reduce excessive quotations and better summarize Williams' accomplishments. I'm also concerned that the article is not comprehensive. For example, there are multiple papers about Williams' use of political realism but the article says next to nothing about politics and realism. In terms of sourcing, there's a recently published OUP book about Williams that could be used to expand the article or reduce the amount of self-sourcing. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)