Dummett is probably the most eminent living British philosopher; certainly one of the most respected philosophers and logicians of the last hundred years.

In his Wikipedia article, his philosophical work is covered in just over 200 words; his hobby - the history of the tarot pack - receives almost twice as much coverage.

I can hardly express how much that says about Wikipedia, and I don't doubt that many editors would insist that the tarot is at least as important, if not more important, than philosophical logic. A view Dummett himself would doubtless find highly amusing.

I don't disagree in general, but Dummett is enough of a grand old man that there are plenty of biographical sources. And there is an inexhaustible secondary literature on his philosophy. It's the philosophy, rather than the life, which the article lacks. The one substantive paragraph on his work in philosophy gestures at a position he did indeed hold, but describes it really badly.

Thanks for pointing that out KD. Quite. Most articles about other philosophers devote a substantial amount to what the philosopher said.

I have Dummett's long and stupendously boring 'Frege: philosophy of language' on my shelf. Perhaps I should polish up the article. Oh what am I saying.

[edit] The IEP http://www.iep.utm.edu/dummett/ gives you a sense of what it should like. No BLP issues either.

Dummett is not my favourite philosopher, I have to say.

Dummett is probably the most eminent living British philosopher; certainly one of the most respected philosophers and logicians of the last hundred years.

In his Wikipedia article, his philosophical work is covered in just over 200 words; his hobby - the history of the tarot pack - receives almost twice as much coverage.

I can hardly express how much that says about Wikipedia, and I don't doubt that many editors would insist that the tarot is at least as important, if not more important, than philosophical logic. A view Dummett himself would doubtless find highly amusing.

I'm saying this only to emphasise again that Wikipedia is a long way from being 'complete' as so many people believe.

Any work that specialises in pop culture can never be complete, it will remain a work in progress until its demise, whereupon it will find its true niche as intriguing internet detritus.

Any work that specialises in pop culture can never be complete, it will remain a work in progress until its demise, whereupon it will find its true niche as intriguing internet detritus.

Dummett is probably the most eminent living British philosopher; certainly one of the most respected philosophers and logicians of the last hundred years.

In his Wikipedia article, his philosophical work is covered in just over 200 words; his hobby - the history of the tarot pack - receives almost twice as much coverage.

I can hardly express how much that says about Wikipedia, and I don't doubt that many editors would insist that the tarot is at least as important, if not more important, than philosophical logic. A view Dummett himself would doubtless find highly amusing.

Just be glad there has never been a passing reference to his work about tarot on Family Guy.

Peter Geach http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=309286537 has equal claim to 'most eminent British philosopher' and his article is even more pitiful. He is also more interesting both as a philosopher and a person (I have a stock of Geach stories that unfortunately would not pass BLP nor 'reliable sources').

The article on Strawson, probably better and greater than either of them, is rubbish

Just because people get old and doddery and forgetful doesn't mean they weren't great in their heyday. And my uni experience is there's not much connection between people's eminence in their field and their ability to lecture well.

The position of Frege in this story is rather strange, and often misrepresented; so, unusually, we have to begin after his end. Much commentary is available on analytic philosopher of language writing in English about meaning and its meaning(s), and putting forward some attendant philosophy of mathematics. The historical record, however, reveals a different figure: Gottlob Frege, a mathematician who wrote in German, in a markedly Platonic spirit [...] his highly Platonic concern with objective 'thoughts' (Gedanken) and centrally preoccupied with the possible reference of well-formed phrases or propositions, especially with naming abstract objects such as truth, rules him out as a founder of the Anglo-Saxon tradition of analytic philosophy of this century

Only in his last years and soon afterwards were his merits publicised; but usually they fell upon the consequences of his contributions to formal logic and to language ... Hence was born that philosopher of language and founder of the Anglo-Saxon analytic tradition; most of the massive Frege industry, especially in English, is devoted to him and his development

Much of what Dummett writes about Frege is complete fantasy (what Wikipedia calls "OR").

Just because people get old and doddery and forgetful doesn't mean they weren't great in their heyday. And my uni experience is there's not much connection between people's eminence in their field and their ability to lecture well.

the lecturing standard was worst at the most emminent.