My parents had a friend, Neil Patterson, who used to lecture in Philosophy at Bradford. A couple of Americcan exchange students once asked him, for further reading, what he thought the most important work of philosophy from the last ten years in the English language was. He thougth for a moment, said "The hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy, by Douglas Adams", and thought no more of it.

Until a few days later, of course, when he had to explain to an irate Dean that he'd been completely serious.

I'm reminded, of course, of the marvellous, sad, warm, funny, heartbreaking article Richard Dawkins wrote on the occasion of Douglas Adams' death. But then, I so frequently am, whenever I hear of anyone expressing either surprise at how scientifically literate and philosophically astute Adams was (or for that matter, claiming that Dawkins has no soul).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/may/14/books.booksnews

(I'm sure there's a cheap shot about atheism somewhere in there, along the lines that Dawkins indeed has no soul and neither does anyone else...)

I wasn't really intending to express surprise that Adams was philosophically astute. I've lost count of the number of times I've quoted from Hitch-Hiker because it contains an eloquent passage making exactly the point I wanted in some discussion (and, as an added bonus, is funny in the process). I was more surprised that in this particular case his influence on my thinking appears to have been subtle and subconscious, whereas usually I know it's happening.

I was using soul in the non-technical sense, as well you know.

No, I wasn't suggesting that you were surprised that Adams was a philosopher at heart - but I've certainly heard his books dismissed as 'funny science fiction stuff' by people who simply missed the point.

Has it really been nearly seven years? I still remember being shocked when I heard.