Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259 Share this video!
I have a Master's in English literature and have a published book of poems and also written articles on art appreciation.Valued a modern writer like D .H Lawrence and have read all of Iris Murdoch particularly after she got the Nobel prize.Her 'Diary of Mary Somers ' meant so much to me.
I taught English ,both language and literature at High School level for 24 years in leading Indian public schools.My mother was a professor of Western philosophy so I did some reading of them This is a fascinating podcast for literrateurs like me.Thank you.
I cannot imagine any television networks making these sort of programs these days. It is rather depressing, because 1980's is rather recent for some of us. At that time we were worried about dumbing down of culture & yet there were still plenty of high brow culture covered by main stream media. In retrospect 1980s may have been the last era in which high culture would have any part to play in television.
Maybe this sort of discussion programme isn't playing to televisions strengths and as such , with the diversification of media, has shifted elsewhere. I don't see this as some great shame or dumbing down. There is plenty of great television being made nowadays; I think the best of the 2010s in regards to drama and documentary television comfortably stacks up to that of the 1980s. As for philosophical discussion programmes browse itunes or indeed youtube, I promise you you're unlikely to exhaust either of them. Granted it's a slight bonus to see Bryan Magee and Iris Murdoch as they talk but as soon as I'm finished writing this reply I'll probably turn to another screen and continue listening as though it were a podcast.
@@thomastereszkiewicz2241 I cannot think of another quite so good at interviewing as well as so highly qualified in the field. I recommend to you one of his books called Confessions of a Philosopher.
I couldn’t disagree with you more. Although it’s difficult to find programmes such as this that deal with the history of ideas full on, our screens are now awash with commercial long form television dramas from the late 90’s through to now that deal explicitly with philosophical enquiry head-on. Programmes such as Westworld, The Sopranos, Oz, Lost, Breaking Bad, The Wire, and even Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead incorporate complex discussions about ethics, civics, freedom, aesthetics, identity, meaning and language in ways that bring ideas to a generation who’ve shown that they’re more than up to the task.
@@markofsaltburn I think you're right on, the new age has brought if not more ideas and culture from more great minds, especially through the internet. It's only the saturation that comes with it which is greater than its growth, the same saturation that misleds people into assumptions. Culture growth and change is unaffected by this, and rears its head if you look for it.
27:00 Defeats her on this point (philosophical ideas in novels) Iris glares at him, but then throws her head back laughing and declares "Yes, alright" Very enjoyable
Magee always manages to frame his questions with great clarity, but without condescending to the putative audience, who are assumed to be reasonably intelligent and educated.
I'm reading a book called "Existentialists and Mystics -- Writings on Philosophy and Literature" "by" Iris Murdoch, edited by Peter Conradi, which has in it what purports to be a transcript of this interview with Bryan Magee. But the sentences are different; many words are added or deleted or changed. It's almost as if someone decided that the actual interview wasn't polished or "eloquent" enough and the editors made changes. Or is it possible that Iris Murdoch got the transcript and modified to her own writing standards? Does anyone out there know?
To offer some additional information, Bryan himself did publish all the transcripts of these interviews into two books called "Talking Philosophy" and "The Great Philosophers" It might be possible, Iris recognized the value in the interview and adapted the transcript. Or, and this is also likely, that she just has had an unchanged stance or position on the subject. Gore Vidal for instance talked about politics much the same way in the later quarter of his life.
Yes, you are correct, and the answer to your question can be found in the Preface of the same book: "It was decided to start the volume with Iris Murdoch's conversation with the philosopher and broadcaster Bryan Magee, originally show on BBC television in 1978, but substantially reworked by Iris Murdoch before publication." p. xxix
Answering Thomas Chinaski here. I have listened the introduction of Bryan Magee again and it´s mind-blowing to see from our perspective of the 21st century how strong his gender-hole was when speaking of great philosophers that were great writers. He did not cite any single woman at all, while citing Saint Thomas Aquina, he forgets Hildegard von Bingen and Santa Teresa de Ávila. Ignorance is something that affects us all in various degrees. Sometimes we are conscient and sometimes not. We can´t pretend to know the whole human reality in its complexity and what has happened in all cultures and in all times, especially nowadays. Our knowledge of reality is fragmented and biased in a way, that it is as if we were condemned to think and speak wrongly about everything that interests us. Therefore, we tend to speak about what we know, our culture, our language, our gender, our tradition and the canon we learned in younger years...and then make a generalization of this particular experience, forgetting other experiences, other languages, the other gender, other possible canons we never learned in our youth and other cultures. We rarely speak about what we don´t know although this is an interesting subject of imagination. As Magee was speaking here other great women philosophers had already been recognized as great writers such as Simone de Beauvoir, Simone Weil, Angela Davis and other Americans, French and Germanophone ones. As for literary writers of the 19th century in England and the USA, we have already some examples of very brilliant women writing excellent poems and novels then. I am not the best one here to cite them and I am sure that the cultured reader in his or her native culture will remember them easily. As for other traditions, cultures, historic times and languages there are names too we could cite. I would cite in my humble ignorance of all things past and present, Murasaki Shikibu in Japan, Lubna of Córdoba, Wallada bint al-Mustakfi, Sor Juana Isabel de la Cruz, French, Italian, German female writers and of other cultures which I can only imagine. What is interesting here is to notice the level of internalization of this biased gender-canon, not only in Magee but also in a respectable female philosopher and writer, Iris Murdoch. Another striking Aspekt of this interview is to see Mrs. Murdoch´s attire and compare it with what we see on TV nowadays in women in general. I have seen a very respectable American female philosopher giving a lecture with bare arms showing her respectable gym-trained muscles and if I compare it with Mrs. Murdoch here, then I have to conclude that I prefer Murdoch´s style and that the old times were also better in at least this sense.
I dont think Iris Murdoch could have given a toss about what she wore. She inhabited the life of the mind, like other great thinkers and wasnt in the slightest interested in the superficiality of how she dressed or looked. She didnt give a jot. I agree with her one hundred percent. Was the American Philosopher you referred to Martha Nussbaum?
@yvonneheald6456 Well, you said it, not me. I think that a lot of women nowadays tend to think that freedom of women means presenting themselves before audiences in a way that would be judged utterly laughable for men of the same level of expertise. For example, no respectable masculine philosopher would give a lecture with bare arms up to the shoulder, or wearing a pink suit, such as we see with female politicians. In a way, gender roles and stereotyypes remain deeply ingrained and internalised in the minds of academics and politicians, no matter how intelligent and cultured they are. Society too remains deeply gendered in matters of attire. For my part, I am profoundly suspicious of people that use their bare or flashy image as a presentation card in intellectual or political circles. Another thing is the show business, singers for example. But again, here we see that female artists use their bare bodies in oversexualized performances. In doing so, using nudity as a presentation card and banner, they pay a bad service to the cause of feminism, to the millions and millions of girls born in other cultures and oppressed by patriarchal structures.
@@yvonneheald6456 Well, you said it, not me. It's important to notice here that women dress in public in a way that would be completely laughable for men. No respectable masculine philosopher would appear in public giving a lecture with his bare arms up to the shoulders, like a neighborhood basketball-player in summer. In a sense, gender roles and ideas of gender are profoundly internalized in the minds of the most cultured philosophers and politicians. No male politician would appear in public wearing a whole pink suit, like I saw Angela Merkel and other female politicians doing in the past. Also, this way to affirming the freedom of women by showing their sexualized bodies in the show business for example, does not pay a good service to the millions of girls born in/and oppressed by patriarchal structures forbidding them all sorts of fundamental freedoms. If we are to improve the future chances of these oppressed girls not enjoying any freedom of choice whatsoever, then we must give example and exercise restraint in how we dress in public, so as not to present any angle of attack from patriarchal powers everywhere in the world. This is why I deplore how Taylor Swift and other similar starlets of the music business appear on stage. This is no good image for feminism, on the contrary, this is only wood for the bonfire of patriarchalists and arch-conservatism, and a condemnation for girls suffering lack of freedom. Take a look a the most rebellious female performer ever. Does she need to appear half-naked on stage? th-cam.com/video/X1zFnyEe3nE/w-d-xo.html Women don't need and should not show their bodies to gain intellectual respectability.
@@yvonneheald6456 My reply to you has been twice deleted, although it contained neither abusive language nor hate speech. So much for freedom of speech in TH-cam.
@@StuffMadeOnDreams Sorry to hear that your replies had been deleted.Why who knows. Recently I have observed the diminution of free speech in the media in particular and the written word in general. It's not so much the words that are the problem but the ideas that exist behind these words. Voltaire is turning in his grave at this state of affairs.
Oh, you know Jimbo Eagleton too, do you? Funny enough, I went to Jimmy's service station to fill up the car here in Lompoc just last week, and he says to me, he says: 'Trev, I could refute you both!' and I says: 'Whooooa, Jim! Ain't there a problem with singularity versus plurality here to begin with?' And Jim (you know what he's like) says to me: 'Well King Pretzel told the world I could 'bout a year ago now.' Well, we just looked at each other for a while, and I says, I says: ' Um...yes, all right. Perhaps it's just that I feel in myself...'
On first viewing I didnt like this,,but the more I watch it the better it is, She is so hostile to the novel of ideas,She says she has,,,an abhorrent horror of putting theories as such into a book ,Yet elsewhere she says she puts philosophy into her novels because she knows about philosophy,,but not about sailing ships This is contradictory, I like her modesty and honesty, She says,,,,we are not anything like as good as the great C19 novelists, I think her philosophy books are excellent,,,she is very good on Plato,,and Simone Weil,
Regarding her re-characterization of her first statement against the novel of ideas, I think that she was backtracking because Magee expressed a contradictory point of view on its value. I don't know exactly what she was getting at by her original statement but I would surmise she was expressing dismay at the kind of novel that puts its theoretical concerns front and center instead of dramatizing a story with characters in a believable manner. The former is a sham kind of philosophical treatise masquerading as literary fiction. The author might as well have written an essay as a novel. Philosophical concerns should arise from a particular situation in a work of fiction in a natural, unforced manner.
Poor Iris, repeating the mistake of using labels without giving an example. For instance using the word mimetic as if it's understood universally. These bad habits drive away thousands of people trying to get a grip on philosophy. Even the word 'form', if we use these words we must forever remember that there are very simple people listening with their mouthes wide open waiting for us to feed them. Please use simple language and break the very very bad habit of using technical jargon. If you do that you're likely to be making the world a better place. I mean, it's just not neccesary and shows something quite inadequate actually.
Magee clear? Not really, not a good interviewer at all. Is there a real interest what Murdoch thinks or wants to think? The interviews are always overprepared to fit in the TV schedule, that thinkers hardly get the space to roam, and Magee functions as some kind of railway track. It's false clarity. Clarity is only interesting is when there is real obscurity first, a territory he doesn't dare to go. Pretty horrible actually, cliche'd, and bad philosophy in fact. Any seminar in this format would be a disaster. In Britain philosophy is always confused with being smart, but then the world is filled with people being smart but without proper talent to explore, test and be courageous in thinking. Great though that some Brits, like Murdoch, have been rereading Plato.
![[RÚV] Iris Murdoch interviewed by Steinunn Sigurðardóttir (1985)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JetiBnax8zo/mqdefault.jpg)
Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259
Share this video!
I have a Master's in English literature and have a published book of poems and also written articles on art appreciation.Valued a modern writer like D .H Lawrence and have read all of Iris Murdoch particularly after she got the Nobel prize.Her 'Diary of Mary Somers ' meant so much to me.
I taught English ,both language and literature at High School level for 24 years in leading Indian public schools.My mother was a professor of Western philosophy so I did some reading of them
This is a fascinating podcast for literrateurs like me.Thank you.
Thank you, Dame Iris Murdoch, for everything.
Bryan Magee 1930-2019 R.I.P
Didn't know he'd died. R.I.P. A wonderfully lucid communicator.
I cannot imagine any television networks making these sort of programs these days. It is rather depressing, because 1980's is rather recent for some of us. At that time we were worried about dumbing down of culture & yet there were still plenty of high brow culture covered by main stream media. In retrospect 1980s may have been the last era in which high culture would have any part to play in television.
Maybe this sort of discussion programme isn't playing to televisions strengths and as such , with the diversification of media, has shifted elsewhere. I don't see this as some great shame or dumbing down. There is plenty of great television being made nowadays; I think the best of the 2010s in regards to drama and documentary television comfortably stacks up to that of the 1980s. As for philosophical discussion programmes browse itunes or indeed youtube, I promise you you're unlikely to exhaust either of them. Granted it's a slight bonus to see Bryan Magee and Iris Murdoch as they talk but as soon as I'm finished writing this reply I'll probably turn to another screen and continue listening as though it were a podcast.
I stumbled onto Bryan Magee, definitely the most elucidating and clarifying videos on philosophy that I know of.
@@thomastereszkiewicz2241 I cannot think of another quite so good at interviewing as well as so highly qualified in the field. I recommend to you one of his books called Confessions of a Philosopher.
I couldn’t disagree with you more. Although it’s difficult to find programmes such as this that deal with the history of ideas full on, our screens are now awash with commercial long form television dramas from the late 90’s through to now that deal explicitly with philosophical enquiry head-on. Programmes such as Westworld, The Sopranos, Oz, Lost, Breaking Bad, The Wire, and even Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead incorporate complex discussions about ethics, civics, freedom, aesthetics, identity, meaning and language in ways that bring ideas to a generation who’ve shown that they’re more than up to the task.
@@markofsaltburn I think you're right on, the new age has brought if not more ideas and culture from more great minds, especially through the internet. It's only the saturation that comes with it which is greater than its growth, the same saturation that misleds people into assumptions. Culture growth and change is unaffected by this, and rears its head if you look for it.
She suddenly comes alive on art and the moral - always brilliant🔥
27:00 Defeats her on this point (philosophical ideas in novels)
Iris glares at him, but then throws her head back laughing and declares "Yes, alright"
Very enjoyable
Magee always manages to frame his questions with great clarity, but without condescending to the putative audience, who are assumed to be reasonably intelligent and educated.
Great conversation. Thank you.
She is the best
Shakespeare's works emit the "breath of tolerance" alongside many other emissions, to include the breath of intolerance and of contempt.
anything better to hear but literature & philosophy
Iris was nearly 60 when she gave this interview and looks about 40!
God bless them both
A lovely conversation ❤
She was mystical. Like Anscombe.
“Fortunately artists don’t pay too much attention to philosophers” 😹👍
Mimetic is a great word!
I'm reading a book called "Existentialists and Mystics -- Writings on Philosophy and Literature" "by" Iris Murdoch, edited by Peter Conradi, which has in it what purports to be a transcript of this interview with Bryan Magee. But the sentences are different; many words are added or deleted or changed. It's almost as if someone decided that the actual interview wasn't polished or "eloquent" enough and the editors made changes. Or is it possible that Iris Murdoch got the transcript and modified to her own writing standards? Does anyone out there know?
I’d like to look into this as well
To offer some additional information, Bryan himself did publish all the transcripts of these interviews into two books called "Talking Philosophy" and "The Great Philosophers"
It might be possible, Iris recognized the value in the interview and adapted the transcript.
Or, and this is also likely, that she just has had an unchanged stance or position on the subject.
Gore Vidal for instance talked about politics much the same way in the later quarter of his life.
Yes, you are correct, and the answer to your question can be found in the Preface of the same book:
"It was decided to start the volume with Iris Murdoch's conversation with the philosopher and broadcaster Bryan Magee, originally show on BBC television in 1978, but substantially reworked by Iris Murdoch before publication." p. xxix
@@ianfryer Thank you! I guess I didn't read the preface! I often don't, depending.
True that most students look for 'rules' and 'solutions' but, they should be brave and leave thoughts hanging, just exposed...🙂
5:33 It is vast and multifarious, the question is partially of comparison
or of the opposite
They are there to those to whom they are there
Answering Thomas Chinaski here. I have listened the introduction of Bryan Magee again and it´s mind-blowing to see from our perspective of the 21st century how strong his gender-hole was when speaking of great philosophers that were great writers. He did not cite any single woman at all, while citing Saint Thomas Aquina, he forgets Hildegard von Bingen and Santa Teresa de Ávila.
Ignorance is something that affects us all in various degrees. Sometimes we are conscient and sometimes not. We can´t pretend to know the whole human reality in its complexity and what has happened in all cultures and in all times, especially nowadays. Our knowledge of reality is fragmented and biased in a way, that it is as if we were condemned to think and speak wrongly about everything that interests us.
Therefore, we tend to speak about what we know, our culture, our language, our gender, our tradition and the canon we learned in younger years...and then make a generalization of this particular experience, forgetting other experiences, other languages, the other gender, other possible canons we never learned in our youth and other cultures. We rarely speak about what we don´t know although this is an interesting subject of imagination.
As Magee was speaking here other great women philosophers had already been recognized as great writers such as Simone de Beauvoir, Simone Weil, Angela Davis and other Americans, French and Germanophone ones.
As for literary writers of the 19th century in England and the USA, we have already some examples of very brilliant women writing excellent poems and novels then. I am not the best one here to cite them and I am sure that the cultured reader in his or her native culture will remember them easily.
As for other traditions, cultures, historic times and languages there are names too we could cite. I would cite in my humble ignorance of all things past and present, Murasaki Shikibu in Japan, Lubna of Córdoba, Wallada bint al-Mustakfi, Sor Juana Isabel de la Cruz, French, Italian, German female writers and of other cultures which I can only imagine.
What is interesting here is to notice the level of internalization of this biased gender-canon, not only in Magee but also in a respectable female philosopher and writer, Iris Murdoch. Another striking Aspekt of this interview is to see Mrs. Murdoch´s attire and compare it with what we see on TV nowadays in women in general. I have seen a very respectable American female philosopher giving a lecture with bare arms showing her respectable gym-trained muscles and if I compare it with Mrs. Murdoch here, then I have to conclude that I prefer Murdoch´s style and that the old times were also better in at least this sense.
I dont think Iris Murdoch could have given a toss about what she wore. She inhabited the life of the mind, like other great thinkers and wasnt in the slightest interested in the superficiality of how she dressed or looked. She didnt give a jot. I agree with her one hundred percent. Was the American Philosopher you referred to Martha Nussbaum?
@yvonneheald6456 Well, you said it, not me. I think that a lot of women nowadays tend to think that freedom of women means presenting themselves before audiences in a way that would be judged utterly laughable for men of the same level of expertise. For example, no respectable masculine philosopher would give a lecture with bare arms up to the shoulder, or wearing a pink suit, such as we see with female politicians.
In a way, gender roles and stereotyypes remain deeply ingrained and internalised in the minds of academics and politicians, no matter how intelligent and cultured they are.
Society too remains deeply gendered in matters of attire.
For my part, I am profoundly suspicious of people that use their bare or flashy image as a presentation card in intellectual or political circles.
Another thing is the show business, singers for example. But again, here we see that female artists use their bare bodies in oversexualized performances. In doing so, using nudity as a presentation card and banner, they pay a bad service to the cause of feminism, to the millions and millions of girls born in other cultures and oppressed by patriarchal structures.
@@yvonneheald6456 Well, you said it, not me.
It's important to notice here that women dress in public in a way that would be completely laughable for men.
No respectable masculine philosopher would appear in public giving a lecture with his bare arms up to the shoulders, like a neighborhood basketball-player in summer.
In a sense, gender roles and ideas of gender are profoundly internalized in the minds of the most cultured philosophers and politicians. No male politician would appear in public wearing a whole pink suit, like I saw Angela Merkel and other female politicians doing in the past.
Also, this way to affirming the freedom of women by showing their sexualized bodies in the show business for example, does not pay a good service to the millions of girls born in/and oppressed by patriarchal structures forbidding them all sorts of fundamental freedoms.
If we are to improve the future chances of these oppressed girls not enjoying any freedom of choice whatsoever, then we must give example and exercise restraint in how we dress in public, so as not to present any angle of attack from patriarchal powers everywhere in the world.
This is why I deplore how Taylor Swift and other similar starlets of the music business appear on stage. This is no good image for feminism, on the contrary, this is only wood for the bonfire of patriarchalists and arch-conservatism, and a condemnation for girls suffering lack of freedom.
Take a look a the most rebellious female performer ever. Does she need to appear half-naked on stage?
th-cam.com/video/X1zFnyEe3nE/w-d-xo.html
Women don't need and should not show their bodies to gain intellectual respectability.
@@yvonneheald6456 My reply to you has been twice deleted, although it contained neither abusive language nor hate speech. So much for freedom of speech in TH-cam.
@@StuffMadeOnDreams Sorry to hear that your replies had been deleted.Why who knows. Recently I have observed the diminution of free speech in the media in particular and the written word in general. It's not so much the words that are the problem but the ideas that exist behind these words. Voltaire is turning in his grave at this state of affairs.
you could almost include bf skinner in this list of philospher/writer with his "waldon two"
One wonders what Iris would have made of Gogglebox.
what was the book they said they liked?
Sartre's novel Nausea
Eagleton would definitely refute you both.
Oh, you know Jimbo Eagleton too, do you? Funny enough, I went to Jimmy's service station to fill up the car here in Lompoc just last week, and he says to me, he says: 'Trev, I could refute you both!' and I says: 'Whooooa, Jim! Ain't there a problem with singularity versus plurality here to begin with?' And Jim (you know what he's like) says to me: 'Well King Pretzel told the world I could 'bout a year ago now.' Well, we just looked at each other for a while, and I says, I says: ' Um...yes, all right. Perhaps it's just that I feel in myself...'
Odd to hear an Irish philosopher talk about great philosophers or Art and not even mention Edmund Burke ...
Rousseau is as great a writer as Plato and Augustine! It's impossible to compare e.g. Descartes' style with Rousseau's.
On first viewing I didnt like this,,but the more I watch it the better it is, She is so hostile to the novel of ideas,She says she has,,,an abhorrent horror of putting theories as such into a book ,Yet elsewhere she says she puts philosophy into her novels because she knows about philosophy,,but not about sailing ships This is contradictory, I like her modesty and honesty, She says,,,,we are not anything like as good as the great C19 novelists, I think her philosophy books are excellent,,,she is very good on Plato,,and Simone Weil,
Regarding her re-characterization of her first statement against the novel of ideas, I think that she was backtracking because Magee expressed a contradictory point of view on its value. I don't know exactly what she was getting at by her original statement but I would surmise she was expressing dismay at the kind of novel that puts its theoretical concerns front and center instead of dramatizing a story with characters in a believable manner. The former is a sham kind of philosophical treatise masquerading as literary fiction. The author might as well have written an essay as a novel. Philosophical concerns should arise from a particular situation in a work of fiction in a natural, unforced manner.
dimitrovajunkie ahh so nice to read genuinely good conversions. Very nice.
Poor Iris, repeating the mistake of using labels without giving an example. For instance using the word mimetic as if it's understood universally. These bad habits drive away thousands of people trying to get a grip on philosophy. Even the word 'form', if we use these words we must forever remember that there are very simple people listening with their mouthes wide open waiting for us to feed them. Please use simple language and break the very very bad habit of using technical jargon. If you do that you're likely to be making the world a better place. I mean, it's just not neccesary and shows something quite inadequate actually.
I've always disliked this series. It smells of superficiality.
No “technical jargon” is in use here and the language spoken is lucid and understandable.
Use your google machine if you don’t understand a term.
Yis.
Kant is a lousy writer 😄. Harsh critique of the great sage of Konigsberg, hehehe 😄
Magee clear? Not really, not a good interviewer at all. Is there a real interest what Murdoch thinks or wants to think? The interviews are always overprepared to fit in the TV schedule, that thinkers hardly get the space to roam, and Magee functions as some kind of railway track. It's false clarity. Clarity is only interesting is when there is real obscurity first, a territory he doesn't dare to go. Pretty horrible actually, cliche'd, and bad philosophy in fact. Any seminar in this format would be a disaster. In Britain philosophy is always confused with being smart, but then the world is filled with people being smart but without proper talent to explore, test and be courageous in thinking. Great though that some Brits, like Murdoch, have been rereading Plato.