🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug28.133107.8402@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>For some reason that I don't
>understand, philosphers still devote much time to original 
>works from Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, etc, etc, 
>rather than merely focusing on the concepts themselves, divorced
>from their proponents (and their proponents generally inferior
>original presentations).

I missed this last phrase in my previous article.  How do you divorce the
concept of "Being-in-the-world" from Heidegger, or "Absolute Spirit" from
Hegel?  Such divorcing is not as easy as you seem to make it out to be.

Secondly, if the originals are inferior, where can we find these superior
presentations that you seem to imply exist?  In Cliffs notes, perhaps?  Or
in modern journal articles?  Much of what appears in modern journals is
decidedly inferior to the work of the philosophers you cite.
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949