Has someone come right out and said that Stuart Hampshire plagiarized pages 39-85 of his "Thought and Action"? Or is it more polite to say "cribbed extensively"? What can be said about the 1st Ed. having no reference to Brentano or Merleau-Ponty?
The text is clearly that of Merleau-Ponty. Russell is mentioned along with the usual Hume, Descartes, empricists, idealists ...
Gilbert Ryle was no better. His 'knowledge how" versus "knowledge that" was taken straight out of Heidegger (he reviewed Sein und Zeit for Mind.)
And from their work during and after the war, perhaps one can understand how they may have felt uneasy referencing the Nazi or the Marxist.
In the Hampshire text it is often so painfully obvious - was he never confronted over this? The dust jacket touts his originality and imagination. The Times Literary Supp. seems to have been completely taken in. Has no one ever responded?
Someone who might have spoken up was John Searle. Did he? Nancy Cartwright might know ...
What if Chatto and Wind-up had asked Sam Beckett to look over the text?
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
