anti-history: I have been in architectural history courses this whole year, and it always seems like the philosophers are either advocates of copying antiquity or totally against it. Saarinen can't stand the imitation of historical forms, which I think is a little sad.
single-minded: Saarinen just doesn't want to admit that anyone else could possibly be right in this matter. I think this hurts him, because I am such a huge enthusiast of historical archictecture. Argument-wise, he might lose his readers early on as he lost me.
Questions: Everyone is very single-minded when it comes to historical forms. Would it be possible to carve a niche stylistically by combining modern concepts with the classical forms of the past? Would he think that studying architectural history is a bad thing for students? Isn't that invaluable to our education?