> > This is out of context, so I don't know what is meant. It is true that I
>do know Judge Posner, but that doesn't mean that I have understood him.
>
>But it would presumably mean that you've read him in the past...
>
>-- Luke
no. i have met/know social theorists even though i haven't read their work. knowing them doesn't presuppose that you have read them at all!
relatedly, one thing you must learn! entire books have been written about others books that people have never really read. well, that's hyperbole, but verbal arguments criticizing social theorists are freqently made when others haven't read the texts/author in question. i have had arguments with colleagues over whether we should include a certain text in a course or not, only to learn that they never read the article in question!
if you are really good at this--and good thing you're going to be a whore for justice--you must realize that one quality of being good is being able to pretend that you've actually read an author when you haven't. (not that justin is doing this! :)
this is not a suggestion that you should actually make a career of claiming to have read social theorists that you haven't. rather, it is a suggestion that learning this lesson sooner rather than later will serve you well in your interactions with others.
heh. sorry, couldn't resist.
kelley