Main | The Lewis-Stalnaker Analysis of Counterfactuals: What about Sprigge? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I'm confused.

On the one hand you say that the goal of the blog is to "bring to light *general* instances of work not receiving due credit or citations." On the other, you say that the blog is a forum for people to "argue that particular works or authors have been unfairly neglected."

Can you explain how it can be both? "General" is apparently bolded to indicate that you are not interested in specific cases. But it seems you are. And what is a "general instance" anyway?


Warning: rant coming.
The frustration that leads to the existence of this blog, and the posts that have appeared so far, is experienced nearly every day when those of us who do medieval philosophy look at contemporary philosophy. Here's an example from last week: NDPR celebrates a book from OUP on omissions, a book touted by the press as "the first comprehensive account of these phenomena". [Moderator note: sentence deleted according to blog mission]. However, medieval thinkers from every stripe theorized extensively on sins of omissions with great philosophical precision. Ok. Rant over. Back to Latin texts.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)