PHILOSOPHY AND GEOGRAPHY IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY: A REPLY

So far as I can make out, Sitwell's comment on my essay says little that is relevant to its content. In fact he goes so far as to declare that my essay can in large part be ignored, presumably for purposes of gaining an understanding, or getting at the essence, of Margarita Bowen's book. I assume that Sitwell is writing a book review, more or less of the conventional sort, since he remarks that he is undertaking 'a review of the type May chose not to write.' I do not pretend for one moment that what I wrote is a book review. Perhaps it should not even have been called a 'review essay.' But Sitwell is not unaware of this, since he remarks that my 'essay is almost bound to be taken as a review,' which he regards as 'unfortunate.' Despite the fact that the tasks we have each undertaken are substantially different, and hence that our respective papers have little in common, I nevertheless think a few comments are in order.     

THE IDEALIST DISPUTE IN ANGLO-AMERICAN GEOGRAPHY: A COMMENT

Curry has raised some new and important issues concerning the value of the idealist philosophy in geography, and his paper makes a significant contribution to a clearer understanding of this approach. Although in his final judgment Curry comes down hard on my position, declaring it to be 'fundamentally misguided,' his actual view of idealism is more ambivalent and not nearly as clear-cut as the words 'fundamentally misguided' might suggest. This is revealed by his defence of the position in the earlier part of the paper and his mild treatment of Collingwood, on whose book The Idea of History much of my own position is based.¹ There are also parts of Curry's paper that would seem compatible with idealism as I understand it, and with some clarifications and modifications to both our positions a basis of broad agreement between us would appear to exist.     

SOME NOTES ON THE GEOGRAPHY OF TOURISM: A COMMENT

In his article ‘Some notes on the geography of tourism,’ Britton raises a number of interesting issues about this relatively new branch of geography. Certainly he makes a thoughtful contribution to the discussion of the concepts, viability, and tasks of the geography of tourism, but there are points on which I disagree with him. I will address them through two main themes: the costs and benefits of tourism, and the conceptual questions of the geography of tourism.