Routledge new edition in Metaphysics (groan, groan)

You guessed it.  One women, Elizabeth Anscombe.

Now I have to confess I’m speculating a bit.  All I could find were listings of the last names of the authors.  There were some I didn’t recognize, so I looked them up on  For “Heller, metaphysics” google turned up two names.  One is a man at SMU who is moving/has moved to Syracuse.  The other is a woman who writes about desconstructing metaphysics.  Now it is possible that the latter is the one included, but I’m not betting on that.

Readers might be  interested in the discussion of women’s representation in metaphysics that occurs in the comments to this post.  Notice comment #8, with its list of some prominent women metapysicians.  Given the Routledge volume has a new section on causation, one might add Nancy Cartwright to the list.

8 thoughts on “Routledge new edition in Metaphysics (groan, groan)

  1. Yes, that’s it. It would be great if it were Penny, but I’m afraid it probably isn’t. The writers for the earlier edition are identified by name and it’s “J.L. Mackie.”

  2. BTW, having mentioned Anscombe, let me briefly picked up a question Jender asked some time ago: How do you put together a picture of someone who was both disdained ordinary demands on women and was a devoted Roman Catholic.

    Having thought about this a lot, I’ve begun to suspect there’s an easy answer. She was indifferent to, or even despised, lots of rules and regulations, but certainly not all. It may be that what make this possible for her was a perhaps muted ability to register social censure. I’m not sure about the latter, but it would put her into an actually familiar category.

  3. I stand corrected: that’s a shame (the lone woman, not my being wrong!)

    At least the Routledge companion to metaphysics will do a little better – still just about 20%, I’m afraid, but we tried

  4. 20% is at least about the percentage of female philosophy profs.

    I had forgotten you are doing the Routledge volume, but now remember Jender’s very positive comment about it. Every time counts!

  5. On reflection, we should have tried to do much better – I don’t think we made much of a conscious decision to try to get women involved, and it’s probably just luck our percentage of women isn’t totally pathetic. There’s a bad self perpetuation going on, where you’re inclined to invite X to write on topic Y because X has done things like that before and are known on topic Y – so if men have been overrepresented, there’s an inertia that helps keep them overrepresented. It just shows what we all know: that it’s not enough to just not be consciously biased against inviting women, you need to make a conscious effort to overcome your implicit biases.

  6. Ross, I really don’t think that if you are at the beginning of a change, you should worry very much about not doing better.

Comments are closed.