1 learnt from him just about all the things which one can be taught by someone else, as distinct from the things which one has to teach oneself. More specifically, my initial rationalism was developed under his guidance into a belief that philosophical questions are to be settled by reason, that is to say by argument; I learnt also from him how to argue, and in learning how to argue I came to learn that the ability to argue is a skill involving many aspects, and is much more thanan ability to see logical connections (though this ability is by no means to be despised). I came also to see that though philosophical progress is very difficult to achieve, and is often achieved only after agonizing labours, it is worth achieving; and that the difficulties involved in achieving it offer no kind of an excuse for a lowering of standards, or for substituting for the goals of philosophical truth some more easily achievable or accessible goal, like rabble-rousing. His methods were too austere for some; in particular the long silences in tutorials were found distressing by some pupils (though as the years went by I believe the tempo speeded up). There is a story, which I am not sure that I believe, that at one point in one tutorial a very long silence developed when it was Hardie's turn to speak, which was at long last broken by Hardie saying. 'And what did you mean by "of""y' There is another story, which 1 think I do believe, according to which Isaiah Berlin, who was a pupil of Hardie's two or three years before me, decided that the next time a silence developed in one of his tutorials he was not going to be the one to break it. In the next tutorial, after Berlin had finished reading his essay to Hardie, there followed a silence which lasted twenty-five minutes, at which point Berlin could stand it no longer, and said something

These tutorial rigours never bothered me. If philosophizing is a difficult operation (as it plainly is) then sometimes time, even quite a lot of time, will be needed in order to make a move (as chess-players are only too well aware). The idea that a professional philosopher should either have already solved all questions, or should be equipped to solve any problem immediately, is no less ridiculous than would be the idea that Karpov ought to be able successfully to defend his title if he, though not his opponent, were bound by the rules of lightning chess. I liked the slow pace of discussion with Hardie; I liked the breath-laden "Ooohhh!" which he would sometimes emit when he had caught you in, or even pushed you into, a patently untenable position (though I preferred it when this ejaculation was directed at someone other than myself):