In the Preface of the Tractatus Wittgenstein presents his proposal of “drawing limits” separating sense from nonsense as a way to get rid of philosophical problems caused by “misunderstandings of the logic of our language.” Such limits, we will later discover, will be drawn by means of a method which allows one to determine whether a given projection of a strings of signs was made in accordance with the rules of logical syntax, or else violated them, thus generating (pseudo) metaphysical propositions (6.53). Notwithstanding its centrality for the Tractatus, the idea of drawing such limits seems to be in tension with Wittgenstein’s actual procedure in most of the book, which from its very first numbered proposition introduces “metaphysical” (pseudo?) theses again and again in order to achieve the results programmatically indicated in the Preface—hence the need for the self-undoing message of 6.54, urging the reader to recognize those propositions “as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb up beyond them.” That tension creates some of the most challenging questions in the debate about how to read the Tractatus—questions such as: how are we supposed to use Wittgenstein’s propositions (and which ones?) as “steps in a ladder”? What exactly does “throwing the ladder away” amount to? And what does it mean to “see the world aright” after “overcoming” those propositions? This paper attempts to answer those questions by means of a close reading of an exemplary set of propositions dealing with solipsism and the limits of language (5.6n’s). Although limited in scope, the hope is that such reading might stand as a test case for parallel readings of other parts of the book.

In this paper I offer a discussion of chapter 3 of Adrian Moore’s The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics, which is titled “Leibniz: Metaphysics in the Service of Theodicy.” Here Moore discusses the philosophy of Leibniz and comes to a damning conclusion. My main aim is to suggest that such a conclusion might be a little premature. I begin by outlining Moore’s discussion of Leibniz and then raise some problems for the objections that Moore presents. I follow this by raising a Moore-inspired problem of my own and offer a possible response. The response is based on a little-known essay of Leibniz’s called “Leibniz’s Philosophical Dream” and leads me to consider Leibniz’s deepest motivations for engaging in philosophical reflection.

In this paper I discuss the largely obsolete notion of ‘metaphysical foundations for science’ and the problems of representation, truth, and embodiment in Descartes identified by Adrian Moore. I explain why rather than enaging in a project of pure inquiry Descartes needed to fit the pursuit and findings of the physical and life sciences into a theological framework. His much misunderstood scientifc image of the human being as a psychosomatic unity is defended as coherent and influential, as is his rejection of the correspondence theory of veridical perception.

This paper discusses a number of different aspects of Moore’s reading of Hume as engaged in the metaphysics of ‘sense-making’. After a brief discussion of the semantic strains, I turn to consider Moore’s views of Hume on epistemic ‘sense-making’ where I criticize Moore’s reading of Hume’s epistemology as assimilated to the more basic natural process of human beings. I consider some of the ways in which Moore thinks that Hume is involved in a positive metaphysical project.

In the discussion of Spinoza contained in his Evolution of Modern Metaphysics, Adrian Moore argues that Spinoza views metaphysics as a kind of sense-making that enables us to live more affirmative and joyful lives. I engage with two aspects of Moore’s argument. Where he claims that Spinoza regards metaphysics as the fruit of reasoning, and thus as a species of what is labeled in the Ethics as knowledge of the second kind, I argue that metaphysics also belongs with what Spinoza calls imagining or knowledge of the first kind. And where Moore holds that, in order to render metaphysical knowledge practical, one must take a leap to a kind of knowledge that is partly ineffable (so-called knowledge of the third kind), I argue that each of Spinoza’s three kinds of knowledge is practically oriented.

Adrian Moore argues that Kant’s transcendental idealism is incoherent, and that its incoherence gives us an invaluable insight into the fundamental nature of metaphysics, motivating the reconception of metaphysical inquiry with which Moore concludes his story of the development of modern philosophy. My discussion has three parts. First, I focus on the treatment of Kant’s transcendental idealism in Moore’s earlier book, Points of View, and highlight ways in which Moore is, I argue, open to challenge. Second, I suggest that the historical record does not bear out Moore’s criticism of Kant’s transcendental idealism. Third, I compare Moore’s response to the alleged incoherence of transcendental idealism with that of the German Romantics.

I review Adrian Moore’s lucid account of Fichte’s contribution to the Evolution of Modern Metaphysics. I support Moore’s contention that Fichte should indeed be considered a metaphysician, but I propose an adjustment to Moore’s interpretation, guided by Fichte’s own claim that the infinite I is an unattainable ideal, rather than a fact about the constitution of reality as it actually is. The resulting position embeds Fichte’s metaphysics firmly within his ethics and politics. In reconstructing Fichte’s position I demonstrate the centrality of work in Fichte’s proposed resolution of Kant’s third antinomy.

This paper considers A. W. Moore’s treatment of Hegel in his book The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: Making Sense of Things. The paper begins by setting out the context that Moore gives to his discussion of Hegel, and the themes that he focuses on. It then considers the ways in which Moore judges Hegel to fall short, showing how they relate to Moore’s reading of Spinoza and of Deleuze. It is argued that there are ways of conceiving of Hegel’s position that could be said to escape Moore’s objections, but at the very least he shows how they can be pressed against some important parts of Hegel’s text, if not others; thus one of the many ways in which Moore’s book is significant is in underlining the importance of this challenge.

In this essay, I respond to A. W. Moore’s instructive chapter on Frege. I respond by asking various questions, and I question particularly Moore’s claim that Frege, in reacting to Benno Kerry, falls into Hegelian excess. I toy with responding to my question by regarding Frege as anticipating a Wittgensteinian-Heideggerian exaction. It remains unclear whether this constitutes (much) progress.

In this paper, I respond critically but sympathetically to Adrian Moore’s treatment of the early and the later Wittgenstein in his book The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics. With respect to the later work, I utilize Cavell’s reading of the status of the first-person plural in Wittgenstein to undermine Bernard Williams’s interpretation of it, and thereby to question Moore’s skepticism that the later Wittgenstein can accommodate the possibility of radical conceptual innovation (the Novelty Question). With respect to the early work, I utilize a resolute reading of the Tractarian treatment of value to contest Moore’s understanding of the way in which transcendental idealism is woven into that treatment, and so into the book’s more general treatment of sense-making.

Quine’s naturalism has no room for a point of view outside science from which one might criticize science, or a transcendental point of view from which one could ask questions about the adequacy of science with respect to reality (‘as it is in itself ’). Adrian Moore sniffs out some genuine tensions in this, arguing in effect that Quine is forced by his own views to admit those sorts of questions as legitimate. I venture that Quine, even if he would grant that the posing of such questions is an inevitable feature of reason in some sense, would take such curiosity to be strictly speaking a mistake, something like that of thinking there must be a single truth-predicate for all levels of Tarski’s hierarchy.

This paper discusses Moore’s chapter on Carnap in The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics. Even though different conceptions of metaphysics are defended by Moore and attacked by Carnap, common ground can be established on which to discuss Moore’s dismissal of Carnap. After correcting some infelicities in the characterization given of Carnap’s position, the paper sets out to show how Carnap can respond to Moore’s challenge and argues that Moore has failed to establish that Carnap’s philosophy is self-contradictory in conception or bound to be fruitless in practice.

This paper explores the place of realist and idealist themes in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. It takes as its starting point Adrian Moore’s denial that transcendental idealism (TI) is present in that text only as an “enemy”—to be “diagnosed and dispelled,” as Peter Sullivan puts it. I question whether reflection on TI can perform the positive task which Moore’s reading assigns to it—in particular, whether coming to recognize its ultimate incoherence leads us to a recognition of “the forces that give this nonsense the appearance of sense in the first place.” On the basis of an understanding of those forces that is present in Moore’s own work, I argue that reflection on the quasi-realist themes manifest in Wittgenstein’s remarks on picturing perform that task more successfully. In this way, I question the special status that Moore assigns to TI in the Tractatus, his claiming—“with . . . myriad qualifications”—that “Wittgenstein is a transcendental idealist.”

I begin this paper by orienting Michael Dummett’s work in relation to what Adrian Moore identifies as the central concern of metaphysics: making sense of things. The metaphysical issue that most exercises Dummett is the adjudication between a realist and an antirealist conception of reality, and he believes that it is by careful attention to theories of meaning that we can come to see difficulties for a realist metaphysics. Fregean realism gives way to Dummettian antirealism. But Moore is not convinced. While Dummett connects truth with our capacity to know, Moore challenges Dummett to say more about this capacity. Moore accuses Dummett of attempting, with his theory of meaning, to identify limits to our sense-making. As well as running into trouble with (what he identifies as) the limit argument, Moore believes that there may also be a lurking conservatism in Dummett’s work insofar as it can be accused of making no provision for radical conceptual innovation in metaphysics. I attempt to defend Dummett against both criticisms.

In this paper, I discuss Moore’s assessment of Lewis’s metaphysical theorizing. While I am sympathetic to Moore’s complaint that much contemporary metaphysics lacks the scope and reach of older metaphysical theories, I take issue with Moore’s diagnosis: neither lack of self-consciousness, nor Quinean naturalism, nor the post-Quinean restitution of necessity is to blame. Rather, the lack of impact of Lewis’s system should be attributed to the very high weight he attaches to conservatism: the preservation of commonsense and ordinary thought and talk. Yet one can agree with Quine that there should be no first philosophy without, as Lewis does, putting philosophy last. Finally, I argue against Moore that, for the Quinean naturalist, there is no conflict between the metaphysician’s armchair methodology and the view that the truths so discovered are on a par with science.

In this paper I explore a “variation” on the “theme” of intuition in the evolution of modern metaphysics. My aim is not to criticize A. W. Moore’s account of intuition as one of two ways by which Bergson makes sense of things (the other way is analysis). Instead I will suggest the significance in extending Bergson’s metaphysics to mystical life as “the ‘very life of things’ into which intuition installs itself.” When the metaphysical drama, in The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics, reaches chapter 16, “Bergson: Metaphysics as Pure Creativity,” Moore expresses astonishment that Bergson could have thought philosophers have ever agreed on aligning “analysis” in science with the impossibility of non-perspectival sense-making and “intuition” in metaphysics with the possibility of absolute (non-perspectival) knowledge. Using a method of intuition, not of analysis, as non-perspectival sense-making is the opposite of what Moore himself finds in other philosophical contributions to modern metaphysics as “a most general attempt to make sense of things.” He takes an influential example: Bernard Williams associates analysis, not intuition, with the possibility of non-perspectival sense-making and absolute knowledge. My response defends Bergsonian intuition in giving it a positive—and, why not, non-perspectival?—role in metaphysics as mystical; that is, as unique and inexpressible life. Moore describes intuition in Bergson as both the faculty and the method for the evolution of new concepts and new ways of making sense of things. I will stress that Bergsonian intuition is “an effort to place oneself into a movement, such as that of philosophy itself,” expressing “what is ‘living in philosophers’ rather than what is ‘fixed and dead in theses.’ ” This mystical life pushes out the limits set up by Kant for metaphysics (and science) by allowing intuition (with analysis) to reach for absolute, non-perspectival knowledge.

This paper examines Moore’s account of Husserl in chapter 17 of The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics. I consider in particular the threat of a gap between natural sense-making, which takes place within what Husserl calls the “natural attitude,” and phenomenological sense-making, which is made from within the perspective afforded by the phenomenological reduction. Moore’s concerns are an echo, I suggest, of the radical account of Husserlian phenomenology developed by Husserl’s student and final assistant, Eugen Fink, in his Sixth Cartesian Meditation. Fink’s account shows just how wide a gap there is between natural and phenomenological sense-making. Given that gap, I argue that it is not clear whether phenomenological sense-making really can make sense of natural or ordinary sense-making, nor is it clear that we can even make sense of that kind of sense-making at all.

This paper argues that Moore’s compelling reading of Nietzsche as a metaphysician in The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: Making Sense of Things (EMM) largely ignores Nietzsche’s philosopher-psychologist approach to metaphysical, general sense-making. Nietzsche’s metaphysical sense-making is often psychologically framed, i.e. sense is made of sense-making as the expression of specific psychological perspectives and types. Nietzsche’s own most general “acts of sense-making,” such as the will to power, nihilism, and eternal return, often need to be interpreted as targeting specific perspectives and types with the goal of affecting their values. Section 2 considers Moore’s definition of metaphysics and asks what evidence there is that Nietzsche is a metaphysician in his inclusivistic sense. Section 3 provides evidence that Nietzsche pursues also a psychological project and introduces the idea of “psychological framing.” Sections 4–6 argue that Moore takes will to power (4), nihilism as suffering (5), and eternal return (6) as Nietzsche’s own, most general “metaphysical” sense-making, thereby neglecting the philosopher-psychologist who may elude Moore’s inclusivist conception of metaphysics.

Moore claims, refreshingly, that Heidegger’s Being and Time is a metaphysical work. Moore also claims, strikingly, that Heidegger, indeed phenomenology more generally, would be better off dropping its metaphysical pretensions. Moore objects that phenomenology can have genuine metaphysical import only by incurring commitment to an untenable idealism. I defend Heidegger against this objection. Heideggerian phenomenology is metaphysical—it raises the question of, and makes commitments about, what it is for things to be—without any untenable idealism.

R. G. Collingwood’s writings do not sit neatly within any of the major approaches to metaphysics. Moore’s Evolution of Modern Metaphysics corrects the conventional exclusion of Collingwood’s thought, only to position him as contributing an ‘interlude’. I argue that this treatment does little to bring the far-reaching implications—and problems—of Collingwood’s reversible treatment of history as metaphysics and metaphysics as history to the fore. In particular, I highlight Collingwood’s not having worked through the ontological implications of historians actively making meaning of the past, including potentially creating absolute presuppositions. In the end we are not sure whether this is ontologically committing or even a variety of modal fictionalism.