Commenter Ockham raises an interesting question:
Does anyone read philosophy books through? Thomas Reid made a famous admission, in a book about Aristotle's logic, that he had never read Aristotle's logical works in their entirety, because of the 'dryness' of their subject matter (i.e. they are boring, as indeed they really are). He was terribly criticised for this. But, in mitigation, the bits he did read, he clearly read very carefully, and his comments on the logical works are among the most insightful I have read.
Frege also criticises reviewers for not finding the time to read his work carefully. So, in general, who admits to not reading philosophical works through?
Well, Wittgenstein is one. M. O'C. Drury asked Wittgenstein, "Did you ever read anything of Aristotle's?" Wittgenstein replied, "Here I am, a one-time professor of philosophy who has never read a word of Aristotle!" (Recollections of Wittgenstein, ed. R. Rhees, Oxford 1984, p. 158.)
Another is C. J. F. Williams who in the preface to one of his books, What is Truth?, practically brags that he hasn't read Hegel and indicates in no uncertain terms that he never will. I find this attitude deplorable. Hegel is not hogwash, contrary to what many analytic types think. But I can't defend this opinion now -- not that I want to give any aid and comfort to the Continental types who confuse philosophy with genuflection before the texts of obscure Germans.
Hegel is interesting in the present connection because he did most seriously mull over the history of philosophy, with the exception of the medieval period. As I point out in my post Epochism:
When he [Hegel] comes to the medieval period in his Lectures on the History of Philosophy, he puts on his “seven-league boots” the better to pass over this thousand year period without sullying his fine trousers. (Humanities Press, 1983, vol. III, 1) Summing up the “General Standpoint of the Scholastics,” he has this to say: “...this Scholasticism on the whole is a barbarous philosophy of the finite understanding, without real content, which awakens no true interest in us, and to which we cannot return.” “Barren,” and “rubbishy” are other terms with which he describes it. (vol. III, 94-95)
I once heard tell of a freshly-minted Ph.D. in philosophy from a prestigious institution who bragged that he had never read a Platonic dialogue. That is disgusting in my view, which tells you something about my metaphilosophy. Imagine trying to write footnotes about an author you have never read. I trust that the allusion is clear.
The allusion to Whitehead is clever. Along with Hegel, he's another often-neglected philosopher.
I must admit that I try to read philosophy books through. Occassionally I succeed, but more often than not I get distracted by another book.
Yes, one book often distracts from another. I see you read a paper on Fumerton. I'll have to take a look at it. I recently read his Metaepistemology and Skepticism -- but not all the way through.
Welcome. Given Rand's nasty nonsense about Kant and Rawls, I think you're right.
Dean,
Derrida is probably not worth reading at all; and I'll forgive you for giving up on Hegel. But Plato, Kant, and Moore are essential reading. To give up on Plato is to give up on philosophy. Who was it that said that to be tired of London is to be tired of life? Was that Dr Johnson too?
According to Albert Speer in his Spandau Diary, Hitler read only the last chapter of a book. He thought that that was where the essential stuff was.
Ian,
What happened to your blog? Looks like it got hijacked or something.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.