What do you think?
Rate this book
Heart and Mind: The Varieties of Moral Experience
With a new introduction by the author. It is a book of superb spirit and style, more entertaining than a work of philosophy has any right to be.’ – Times Literary Supplement. Throughout our lives we are making moral choices. Some decisions simply direct our everyday comings and goings; others affect our individual destinies. How do we make those choices? Where does our sense of right and wrong come from, and how can we make more informed decisions? In clear, entertaining prose Mary Midgley takes us to the heart of the the human experience that is central to all decision-making. First 1983.
- GenresPhilosophy
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
4 people are currently reading
156 people want to read
About the author
Mary Midgley
50 books163 followersMary Beatrice Midgley (née Scrutton; 13 September 1919 – 10 October 2018[1]) was a British philosopher. She was a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Newcastle University and was known for her work on science, ethics and animal rights. She wrote her first book, Beast And Man (1978), when she was in her fifties. She has since written over 15 other books, including Animals and Why They Matter (1983), Wickedness (1984), The Ethical Primate (1994), Evolution as a Religion (1985), and Science as Salvation (1992). She has been awarded honorary doctorates by Durham and Newcastle universities. Her autobiography, The Owl of Minerva, was published in 2005.
Midgley strongly opposed reductionism and scientism, and any attempts to make science a substitute for the humanities—a role for which it is, she argued, wholly inadequate. She wrote extensively about what philosophers can learn from nature, particularly from animals. A number of her books and articles discussed philosophical ideas appearing in popular science, including those of Richard Dawkins. She also wrote in favour of a moral interpretation of the Gaia hypothesis. The Guardian described her as a fiercely combative philosopher and the UK's "foremost scourge of 'scientific pretension.'"
Midgley strongly opposed reductionism and scientism, and any attempts to make science a substitute for the humanities—a role for which it is, she argued, wholly inadequate. She wrote extensively about what philosophers can learn from nature, particularly from animals. A number of her books and articles discussed philosophical ideas appearing in popular science, including those of Richard Dawkins. She also wrote in favour of a moral interpretation of the Gaia hypothesis. The Guardian described her as a fiercely combative philosopher and the UK's "foremost scourge of 'scientific pretension.'"
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 9, 2022
Wow! I'm not sure I could have picked a more challenging book to start the new year with but I got through it. While it's one dense read, it's also really thought provoking.
Midgley sets out to argue that when it comes to morality there is no question about whether it is a matter of reason or feeling, it is obviously both. And boy, is she one tough nut. She's very witty and sharp and it's clear that throughout the entire book she's working tirelessly to make all of the concepts accessible.
Once you finish looking up Intuitionism, Emotivism, Prescriptivism, Naturalism, Materialism, Idealism, Behaviourism, Subjectivism, Solipsism and the rest, you can stop being overwhelmed and start sinking in to what she is saying.
The book is made up of a series of essays and in each, Midgley explains a common notion of thought or understanding so you're sitting there thinking, "yeah, that makes total sense" and then she proceeds to tear it apart making you wonder why you ever accepted the original notion on face value. "C'mon reader, think!" is what it feels like Midgley would be inculcating if she was watching you read.
Three essays left a particular impression on me, ‘Freedom and Heredity’, 'Trying Out One’s New Sword' and 'The Objection To Systematic Humbug'. I'll now discuss each in further detail.
In ‘Freedom and Heredity’ I enjoyed the exploration of individualism from birth which refutes the notion that conditioning could produce the whole of who we are. Addressing freedom and equality by defining them as those which allow our differences to be embraced and promoted rather than working under the false assumption that everyone is the same and therefore equal from birth.
I loved 'Trying Out One’s New Sword' where Midgley discusses how moral judgements (both positive and negative) are a natural way for us to communicate from a place we understand with a place or peoples we don't, so eventually we can close this gap. She argues there is no place for moral isolationism because although it may at first seem respectful on the surface, it just leads to lack of understanding and ultimately, apathy. Reading all of this resonated with me and feels particularly pertinent for the time we find ourselves in. People don’t know how to talk about social or cultural things they don’t understand and by fear of getting it wrong, they say nothing. Not passing judgement doesn’t mean you’re being respectful, it means you’re not trying to understand by comparing it to the way you understand the world. It’s natural to pass moral judgements but perhaps it’s about ensuring truly open-minded and curious questions follow.
With 'The Objection To Systematic Humbug' I felt that there is merit in what both Aristotle says about how we must start by doing just acts even if we don’t enjoy them and Midgley saying that we just first change our feelings so they are not duplicitous to our actions. I feel both can be true in different situations and can have an interrelated relationship affecting one another. Sometimes you need to do what is right despite your feelings not having full reconciled with the matter at hand in order to help with that reconciliation. It seems to me that what matters here is intent. You do the thing because you know it to be right and you want to move past the incongruous feelings you have on the matter. Likewise and in step, you try your best to work through your emotions so you earnestly want to do the right thing. Both thoughts and actions each help other to create the good will provided the intentions are pure. As Midgley’s put it in one of her closing statements, “Thought, feeling and action are conceptually, not contingently, connected. They are aspects of the one thing; conduct”.
Midgley sets out to argue that when it comes to morality there is no question about whether it is a matter of reason or feeling, it is obviously both. And boy, is she one tough nut. She's very witty and sharp and it's clear that throughout the entire book she's working tirelessly to make all of the concepts accessible.
Once you finish looking up Intuitionism, Emotivism, Prescriptivism, Naturalism, Materialism, Idealism, Behaviourism, Subjectivism, Solipsism and the rest, you can stop being overwhelmed and start sinking in to what she is saying.
The book is made up of a series of essays and in each, Midgley explains a common notion of thought or understanding so you're sitting there thinking, "yeah, that makes total sense" and then she proceeds to tear it apart making you wonder why you ever accepted the original notion on face value. "C'mon reader, think!" is what it feels like Midgley would be inculcating if she was watching you read.
Three essays left a particular impression on me, ‘Freedom and Heredity’, 'Trying Out One’s New Sword' and 'The Objection To Systematic Humbug'. I'll now discuss each in further detail.
In ‘Freedom and Heredity’ I enjoyed the exploration of individualism from birth which refutes the notion that conditioning could produce the whole of who we are. Addressing freedom and equality by defining them as those which allow our differences to be embraced and promoted rather than working under the false assumption that everyone is the same and therefore equal from birth.
I loved 'Trying Out One’s New Sword' where Midgley discusses how moral judgements (both positive and negative) are a natural way for us to communicate from a place we understand with a place or peoples we don't, so eventually we can close this gap. She argues there is no place for moral isolationism because although it may at first seem respectful on the surface, it just leads to lack of understanding and ultimately, apathy. Reading all of this resonated with me and feels particularly pertinent for the time we find ourselves in. People don’t know how to talk about social or cultural things they don’t understand and by fear of getting it wrong, they say nothing. Not passing judgement doesn’t mean you’re being respectful, it means you’re not trying to understand by comparing it to the way you understand the world. It’s natural to pass moral judgements but perhaps it’s about ensuring truly open-minded and curious questions follow.
With 'The Objection To Systematic Humbug' I felt that there is merit in what both Aristotle says about how we must start by doing just acts even if we don’t enjoy them and Midgley saying that we just first change our feelings so they are not duplicitous to our actions. I feel both can be true in different situations and can have an interrelated relationship affecting one another. Sometimes you need to do what is right despite your feelings not having full reconciled with the matter at hand in order to help with that reconciliation. It seems to me that what matters here is intent. You do the thing because you know it to be right and you want to move past the incongruous feelings you have on the matter. Likewise and in step, you try your best to work through your emotions so you earnestly want to do the right thing. Both thoughts and actions each help other to create the good will provided the intentions are pure. As Midgley’s put it in one of her closing statements, “Thought, feeling and action are conceptually, not contingently, connected. They are aspects of the one thing; conduct”.
November 8, 2023
4/5
Only read one part of it but it was eye-opnening and really well written!
Only read one part of it but it was eye-opnening and really well written!
January 22, 2024
3.5 stars
November 15, 2012
Very clear-thinking philosopher.
In a field where fragmentation seems t be the norm, the author forcefully argues for a complete view of human moral nature, including all the fragments in their place. I found her Aristotelian emphasis on clear definitions that actually distinguish extremely enlightening.
In a field where fragmentation seems t be the norm, the author forcefully argues for a complete view of human moral nature, including all the fragments in their place. I found her Aristotelian emphasis on clear definitions that actually distinguish extremely enlightening.
September 5, 2017
Some interesting content, but at times ponderous and it's age shows in a number of places. Some of the debates were clearly contemporary at the time, but psychology has moved a long way since the facile behaviourism/Freudian split these days and many of the comments need to be abandoned or revised.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews