Great to hear from a first tier philosopher, Jeff McMahan, on a philosophical genius - Derek Parfit! It's a pity more people don't read Parfit directly, but at least the works of other philosophers, many of whom reach a wider audience, like Peter Singer, now reflect some of the profound insights that first appeared in Parfit's work.
Your point on the profundity of some of his insights, and their relative ubiquity today, is something that has really surprised me now that I have opened my copy of Reasons and Persons. The way that he breaks down a claim, tests the water with thought experiments and ends up with a near-veridical proposition has really helped clarify all the issues in Part 1 of the book.
Misleading title. The first two and a half minutes are mainly about why John Rawls is significant, and the video’s second half also goes into very little detail about why Derek Parfit is significant.
Great to hear from a first tier philosopher, Jeff McMahan, on a philosophical genius - Derek Parfit! It's a pity more people don't read Parfit directly, but at least the works of other philosophers, many of whom reach a wider audience, like Peter Singer, now reflect some of the profound insights that first appeared in Parfit's work.
Your point on the profundity of some of his insights, and their relative ubiquity today, is something that has really surprised me now that I have opened my copy of Reasons and Persons.
The way that he breaks down a claim, tests the water with thought experiments and ends up with a near-veridical proposition has really helped clarify all the issues in Part 1 of the book.
Misleading title. The first two and a half minutes are mainly about why John Rawls is significant, and the video’s second half also goes into very little detail about why Derek Parfit is significant.
I had the same impression. Thought I was just being a troll. Guess I wasn't.
Change the title guys!
A poor summary