Tom Stoppard's Yumpers1 is a play which contains an abundance of philosophical materials. Its main character, George Moore, is a professor of moral philosophy, a good deal of the play consists of long philosophical discourses, it is loaded with references to philosophers past and present, and the title itself refers to a group of philosopher-gymnasts. It is therefore to be expected that philosophers and indeed anyone giving thought to the play should raise questions concerning the worth of these philosophical materials and their relevance to an interpretation and evaluation of the play. These questions have been raised by Jonathan Bennett, in his article 'Philosophy and Mr Stoppard'.2 His conclusions are that Jumpers is a mildly surrealistic farce and not a significantly philosophical play, that its philosophical content is 'thin and uninteresting', serving the play 'only in a decorative and marginal way', and that the play, 'in short, lacks structure, and lacks seriousness'.3 Although I agree with Bennett that Jumpers is not a significantly philosophical play, I think he has seriously misinterpreted the play and that, as a result, his evaluation of it is supported by bad reasons. Because I agree with most of his appreciative and perceptive comments on Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, I shall not refer to the section of his article dealing with that play, a play which he does consider philosophically significant. In Bennett's opinion, the philosophical content of Jumpers is to be identified with the many pages devoted to the lecture Moore is preparing on the topic 'Man-Good, Bad or Indifferent', a lecture whose main theme concerns arguments for the existence of God and for the objectivity of moral judgments. Further, he identifies it with philosophical gossip or jokes and with the parodies of some contemporary styles. Bennett's evaluation of these materials as thin and uninteresting is incontrovertible. The arguments are bad, there are inaccuracies in reporting philosophical positions, the whole tone is farcical, and the philosophical content is marginal rather than central to the structure of the play.
Read full abstract