Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:54:12.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vico after Three Hundred Years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2010

H. S. Harris
H. S. Harris
Affiliation:
Glendon College, York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Giambattista Vico was born in Naples on June 23, 1668. Several years ago Dr. Giorgio Tagliacozzo conceived the project of celebrating his centennial by assembling and publishing an International Symposium of papers by eminent authorities on Vico or on various aspects of contemporary philosophy and culture to which Vico's thought and work had some obvious relevance. He corresponded indefatigably with a great many potential contributors, advisers and helpers, gathered unto himself a co-editor and a board of three consulting editors, and in 1969 the Symposium duly appeared, in a large volume, beautifully printed and produced—though not, in the opinion of this reviewer, beautifully bound—by the Johns Hopkins Press.

Type
Critical Notices/Études critiques
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , December 1970 , pp. 410 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Giambattista Vico: An International Symposium. Edited by Tagliacozzo, Giorgio. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. 1969. Pp. xxiii, 636. U.S. $12.00Google Scholar

2 The only exception is Belaval who fairly plainly thinks that Vico's attacks on Descartes were as unsound as they were unscholarly. I cannot share this view, but amid a chorus of witnesses presenting Vico as the greatest critic of Descartes it is immensely stimulating to be brought up short by a serious suggestion that he never even read Descartes at all carefully.