Back to the Flux
SIR,—Dr. Flew, in his review of my book, Lan- guage, Thought and Comprehension, in your issue of April 23—a review 1 have only just come across - says that my book is about the work of I. A. Richards, but that such a subject does not 'deserve' a book of the length of mine., not even a shorter book, but 'one or two articles.' he says, could have done the job better. But in my introductory chapter (page 6) I pointed out that the book was attempting more than an exposition and evaluation of the work of I. A. Richards, and that it was concerned with the general problem of comprehension and the relation of language to thought (hence my title). Though I used Richards's writings as case material for the theories I put forward, the purely factual blurb on the dust•cover made it clear to the reader that I was also taking into account 'the views of
Linguistic Philosophers and their predecessors'i views which Dr. Flew in an editorial capacity has done much to propagate.
Without actually reading the book, the easily accessible sources of information to which I have referred, plus judicious use of the index, should enable anyone to judge its range within half an hour or so more accurately than Dr. Flew has done.
Or am I to take his misrepresentation of what my book was about as a device of criticism?
W. H. N. HOTOPF
The London School of Economics. Houghton Street, Aldwych, WC2
Previous page
