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 bookThe Idea of Historymuch of my own position is based.1There 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