Yes.

Moments ago I finished After Virtue.

Very exciting.

It took me quite a long time.

I'm not sure why.

I just wanted to take my time with it.

I think I got a lot out of it.

Seems as though I might be able to produce an essay now.

Reading the conclusion I had all kinds of ideas on how to frame it all.

The central thesis would be that any attempt at reinvigorating moral philosophy from its present dilemmas will requite a thorough reworking of the philosophy of history and the humanities. MacIntyre insists that modern liberal individualism, which he is arguing against, finds its philosophical support in the claims of social science. That the issue of moral philosophy concerns "the understanding of human action" in general, and therefore that an adequate moral philosophy will explore "such topics as those of the concept of fact, the limits of human predictability in human affairs and the nature of ideology" (MacIntyre, 259).

In other words, to revamp our moral philosophy we must revamp our understanding of how we understand people in general. I think that the philosophy of history can help a good deal with this. Because if MacIntyre is right when he claims that our stock of moral concepts come from the social science's and their claims at law-like generalizations, then the introduction of historical concepts (which are thoroughly anti-law-like) into moral philosophy may have some interesting results.

In particular, we may find ourselves embracing forms of morality that are expressly anti-regularian, that is,  that do not find their justification in a set of existing rules. Rather, we would claim responsibility for acts of creative judgement.

Yeah all of this is starting to sit pretty firmly in my mind.

I need to start working on this outline.

It looks like I'm going to be able to collapse two possible essays into one.

'Duty, Agonistic Pluralism, and Historical Thinking', and 'Art, History, and Narrative Self-Creation', will have to become one essay. I totally see how I can do it.

Hermmmmmm.