That is my major concern at the moment when writing my thesis. I can generally see when some one has taken CvC out of context. For example, Jim99 back on page 2 has taken CvC out of context by quoting a phrase from his logical line of inquiry, without realizing that CvC disputes this assumption in his material line of inquiry. Unless you know the Kantian theoretical method of inquiry then a lot of CvC work seems to be contradicting itself and is easily quoted out of context. Moltke and Ludendorf are prime examples. In most of the books I've read about CvC the writer generally argues that Book 1 is a guide to Books 2-8. However, I'm of the impression that Books 2-8 can show how CvC arrived at his conclusions in Book 1. To use a mathematical analogy, Book 1 is the answer, Books 2-8 is the equations he used to get to that answer. Although that is a fairly tenuous position.
Bookmarks