Sent in by a reader:
“Of all kind of authors there are none I despise more than compilers, who search every where for shreds of other men’s works, which they join to their own, like so many pieces of green turf in a garden: they are not at all superior to compositors in a printing house, who range the types, which, collected together, make a book, towards which they contribute nothing but the labours of the hand. I would have original writers respected, and it seems to me a kind of profanation to take those pieces from the sanctuary in which they reside, and to expose them to a contempt they do not deserve. When a man hath nothing new to say, why does not he hold his tongue? What business have we with this double employment?”
Point taken, but, is the quote from Wikipedia, or did you actually read the ‘Persian Letters’?
‘Montesquieu would make most everyone’s top-ten list of political philosophers, but he is not prominent in the ranks of natural philosophers. Following the lead of the American Founders, who referred to him as “the celebrated Montesquieu,” we associate his name with new discoveries and improvements in the science of politics rather than science proper.’
Related On This Site: Isn’t Dennett deeper than that? From The Access Resource Network: Phillip Johnson’s “Daniel Dennett’s Dangerous Idea’…Repost-Steven Weinberg’s Essay ‘On God’ In The NY Times Review Of Books…How far will utilitarianism go: Peter Singer Discusses Hegel And Marx,
Hilary Putnam On The Philosophy Of Science: Bryan Magee’s Talking Philosophy On YouTube