07 April 2005

A Note on 'Recent Comments'

It's an infirmity of the 'Recent Comments' hack I'm using that it shows only comments added to posts currently on display, not archived posts. For instance, a commentator posted recently a vigorous defense of the study of influences, arguing that:

...studying influence is a form of comparison; in fact it is one of the most rigorous forms. It is far more rigorous and interesting, I’m sure, than what Jon [Miller] later calls “analysis of the proximity of arguments.” If idea B of philosopher Y was influenced by idea A of philosopher Z, then “we” should surely be interested in why and how. Suppose it is a direct influence, e.g. Leibniz got some idea from the Stoics as reported in Cicero. Presumably it is interesting why and how Leibniz himself came to adopt and adapt the idea—that is, how exactly he was influenced by it. And this applies perhaps all the more so where there is a less direct line of transmission (as between Augustine and Descartes—see Stephen Menn’s book on this—very philosophical, and I think a lot of “us” philosophers are very interested in it).
And yet since this was a comment on a post from March, now archived, it unfortunately was not noted on the main page.

I originally thought that this wouldn't be much of a problem, but clearly it is, as the blog attracts new readers who review older posts and controversies. I'll keep looking for an improved comments hack, to remedy the problem. And, in the meantime, I'll draw attention to particularly noteworthy comments by posting on them.