"Talking of references, another dreary complaint: there are far, far too few of them in this book. Whether this is an editorial or authorial matter I do not know, but the general reader and serious scholar alike are manifestly ill-served by (for example) a chapter on Hegel which contains not one specific reference to any page among the 1200 or so that make up his lectures on fine art (as Wicks tells us, 56). An introduction should send the reader to the original texts, and so if a book like this is to be of use to a student of any sort, it is not enough to tell her that Hegel said P; she needs to be told also where Hegel said P."--Nick Wiltsher
I so agree. I often suspect that philosophers are terrified to be taken for scholars (thus, being 'mere historians' and/or being 'not really philosophical').
Wiltsher continues:
More references would also help the reader attribute blame in the occasional passages where things seem to go awry... Similarly, they would help to sort the occasions when Wicks is reporting from those when he is extrapolating....I shouldn't need to guess about whom to credit here.
Yes, yes, yes!
Recent Comments