HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Heidegger, Nazism
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:36:38 GMT

	From Kant to Heidegger to Hitler the evil of nihilism spread thru Ger-
many. See "Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff, 1983(?). And it's spreading
here. Kant was a nihilist who opposed values for duty, sacrifice as an end in
itself. Ergo, deathcamps.
From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophical Influence & Goedel
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:53:24 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Aug13.155837.12893@sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.143151.11881@klaava.Helsinki.FI> amnell@klaava.Helsinki
>.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
>
>   >But let's not continue with this "who's the greatest of them all"
>   >silliness further (I already regret joining the fray).
>
>  I care nothing about "greatest of them all" blather. I'm just curious.
>What philosophical work, ideas, conclusions, theories, whatever, of Ramsey's
>prompt you to regard him as the greatest philosopher of the century? 

The whole of his corpus.  So I don't care what anyone says, Ramsey's
still a big man in my book ...well over 17 stone they said...

Marko
From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophical Influence & Goedel
Summary: test
Date: 13 Aug 92 08:20:47 GMT
Followup-To: %r
Organization: University of Helsinki, Department of Philosophy

In article <1992Aug12.121000.14661@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc8.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <MARTINC.92Aug11215203@grover.cs.unc.edu>
>martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
>
>CRM:
>>I dunno, MZ... the overwhelming importance of Goedel-Roesser and via
>>them Turing on philosophy I think would be hard to overestimate.  (I
>>agree with you about Heidegger et al -- I suspect that by 2092 they'll
>>be about as well known as the Thomists and neo-Platonists, but no longer
>>an active influence.) 
>
>Let me begin that I am in no way interested in belittling the importance of
>the incompleteness results, to which you are alluding.  However, it is
>quite clear to me that their philosophical influence is far inferior to
>that of such disciplines as set theory, model theory, and \lambda-calculus.

This is a test to see if I can post more successfully than my previous
embarrassing attempt.  Your allusion to lambda-calculus caught my eye
since I'm reading an unpublished paper my Thomas Forster right now in 
which he shows that certain permutation models of NF preserve the
well-typed formulae of lambda-calculus.  This backs up Gary Merrill's
assertion about the importance of Quine's work in logic.  I don't know
about influence, but to me the greatest philosopher of the century was
Frank Ramsey.

Marko Amnell
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Huh?!?  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:46:12 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

> In article <1992Aug12.185711.9520@gecko.uucp> josh@Tekelec.gecko.uucp   
> (Josh Barinstein) writes:
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Philosophical Influence
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:12:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <vh6m8nc.abell@netcom.com>, abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell) writes:

|> 
|> It's also interesting that many philosophy departments are being taken over
|> by the CS people, presumably because a computer scientist's philosophy is
|> required to *work*. Some people even care about this. The realistic ones
|> understand that CS->AI->Philosophy is still a work in progress.

Interesting.  My impression (over, say, the past ten years) is the opposite:
that very good philosophers are abandoning philosophy departments for CS
departments (or frequently for "joint" appointments in which they spend most
or all of their time in CS).  *I* thought that many philosophy departments
were being taken over by what might (for lack of a better term) be referred
to as "non-analytic" or perhaps "loosely analytic" types.  My own view of the
CS/philosophy relation is that we now have a laboratory in which our philosophical
theories (regarding, for example, perception, reasoning, etc.) can be put
to the test.  They can actually be tried out and compared in the real world
as opposed to simply constructing arguments and thought experiments.  I regret
that I am not a part of this program.  When I left academia I had several opportunities
to go into AI work, but I felt that AI (at the time -- and still to some degree)
was a sham and was not involved in the correct research programs (non-deductive
inference, for example).  I think that this is improving -- partly because of the
interchange of people between AI and philosohy.  I do believe that what will drive
advances here is the use of AI in the commericial (and defense) sector -- which
will impose selection pressures and incentives not present in pure academia.  And
I think the benefits of this, for both philosophy and CS, will run very deep.

-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: "Is truth good?" or "Is good truth?"
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:00:39 GMT

In article <13216.226925611@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz
 (Hakki Kocabas) writes:

   >hahahahhahahhhahahahahhahahaaaaa...  

  Quite. But isn't this kind of levity unbecoming in a scientific philosophy
group?
From: bcushman@sloth.Reed.Edu (Ben Cushman)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:32:50 GMT
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

> "Empowering?" [Ah, is there no limit to the uses of this fatuous word?]
> Mind telling me how erasing the distinction between a lust-crazed  
teenager
> and Mother Theresa is in any way illuminating or [swallow gorge]
> _empowering_?
> 

Sure-- there is a commonality, a unity, between the hormonal fervor of the  
lustful teenager and the religious sublimity of a saint.  The word love  
does not, in fact, erase the distinctions.  They are still preserved in  
other words-- like "devotion", "piety", "lust", "eros", "duty", and  
"respect".  The only thing that the conflation of all these distinct  
feelings into the term "love" does is allow us to recognize the common  
element they all share.  That is, we do not lose the distinctions, which  
are preserved in other words; we gain an understanding of the union of all  
the constructive passions.

				Ben Cushman
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Objectivism/Existence
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:41:33 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Aug19.200255.25775@cis.umassd.edu> 
pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:

SG:
>>>	 Now, my critics know why it was childishly easy to debate the
>>>creatures who inhabit university "philosophy" departments.      

MZ:
>>Your "critics" are still awaiting the full details of these legendary
>>engagements, without which there is nothing to distinguish you from any
>>other inarticulate and incoherent, yet boastful and garrulous randroid twit.

SG:
>    We can have engagements now should you comment upon the various messages 
>on philosophy I've sent to this group. Despite the psycho-epistemological dis-
>integration of Harvard you may request my 1985 essay, "Existence 2."

Of course I can comment upon the various messages you have sent to this
group: I find them to constitute prima facie evidence of mild aphasia.
Aside from that, I have nothing to add.  More detailed criticism will be
forthcoming if and when you submit details of your prior engagements.

SG:
>    As British rocker Marianne Faithfull so tartly sang, "We've been trying to
> get high without having to pay." 

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Obj, Exist
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:45:57 GMT

	Kranowski's Aug. 18 comments on Rand on existence deserve a reply. I have only a few moments now but more later.
	Recalling that all exists equally, relativism is not a meta. or episte.
privileged limit, thing, or context. It all exists, the things you consider
and the things you don't want to consider. Objectivity exists and you cannot
claim, from a non-objective view (eg, relativism) that it does not. There IS
objectivity, ie, I can connect my mind, via coice and logic, to objective
reality, a reality in which existence is identity, ie, that things are what
they, not some language game or text, are. Your concern with your subjectivi- 
ty also exists. So?!
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Reflections on Heidegger(Philo, Nazi, etc.)
From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:34:28 EDT
Organization: The Phallococentric Cabal.

In article <1992Aug21.170152.28415@ccu.umanitoba.ca> 
feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:

COO:
>> However, I feel it my purpose in life at this
>>time to create a sort of academic infidelity so as to achieve a certain
>>reaction out of Zeleny that I find humorous--but my purpose stops not
>>at that, but rather to allow Zeleny the luxury of going beyond the
>>normal "rough and rigour" of his books and venture into a world of
>>temporary insanity.  Thus, my methods have employed vauge argumentation
>>and philosophical sophistry.  Let us be reminded, however, that philosophy
>>was first founded on sophistry and as such it remains a tool to expanding
>>our minds even in light of "academic progress."
>>
>>BCnya,
>>  Charles O. Onstott, III
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
>>Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
>>University of Chicago
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
MF:
>I'm out.  "This has gotten silly."  I'm taking my doll and dishes and
>going home.
>Luck to those who stay in the pool.

Good call, Michael.  I am following your example.  This "free play of
the signifier" has gone on long enough.
To those who stay in the pool: get a life jacket.

>-- 
>Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
>University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
>Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada	                     

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."
From: zeleny@husc8.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophical Influence & Goedel
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:09:58 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <MARTINC.92Aug11215203@grover.cs.unc.edu>
martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

CRM:
>I dunno, MZ... the overwhelming importance of Goedel-Roesser and via
>them Turing on philosophy I think would be hard to overestimate.  (I
>agree with you about Heidegger et al -- I suspect that by 2092 they'll
>be about as well known as the Thomists and neo-Platonists, but no longer
>an active influence.) 

Let me begin that I am in no way interested in belittling the importance of
the incompleteness results, to which you are alluding.  However, it is
quite clear to me that their philosophical influence is far inferior to
that of such disciplines as set theory, model theory, and \lambda-calculus.
As I said earlier, I am not qualified to pass judgment on the status of
categories, topoi, and cylindric algebras (I wish someone else would), but
my basic influence metric is founded on the premiss that positive
developments are far more important than limitative results.  Of course, I
am open to any arguments to the contrary.  

As for the active influence of the neo-Platonists and the Thomists,
methinks you underestimate it.  Consider Plotinus' influence on the English
Romantics (e.g. Coleridge) and French Moderns (Baudelaire and Mallarm\'e),
whose historical importance for our time is really hard to overestimate,
and Aquinas' stature within the ideology of the Catholic Church, which is,
regrettably, still quite influential.

>--
>Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/martinc@cs.unc.edu/(ne crm@cs.duke.edu) 
>O/Dept. of Computer Science/CB #3175 UNC-CH/Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175
>H/3611 University Dr #13M/Durham, NC 27707/(919) 419 1754
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>"I am he who walks the States with a barb'd tongue, questioning every
>one I meet,/Who are you that wanted only to be told what you knew
>before?/ Who are you that wanted only a book to join you in your
>nonsense?"  _Leaves of Grass_ xxiii.4.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 20 Aug 92 04:44:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <403@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca> skataria@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca (skataria) writes:
>
>WHAT IS LOVE? 
>Can somebody give me a convincing answer?

Undoubtedly yes.


But perhaps not me.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:14:02 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Aug20.213124.27227@reed.edu> bcushman@lust.reed.edu (Ben Cushman) writes:
>In article <403@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca> skataria@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca  
>(skataria) writes:

>> WHAT IS LOVE? 
>> Can somebody give me a convincing answer?

What kind of love? As any classical scholar knows, the ancients had several
different words that are today regrettably subsumed under the same English
word. For example, "eros" was quite different from "caritas"--only in
modern times does one use the same word for teenagers who are smitten by
one another and for Mother Theresa's regard for humanity: we call both
"love". No wonder we're confused, and puzzle about the meaning of "love".

"Romantic" love, incidentally, is a modern invention. It wasn't around
before...oh, the 1200s. (C.S. Lewis wrote a scholarly work about this; I'll
track down the reference if anyone is interested.)

>Here is a first attepmt at a reading list--
...

I'd like to add: I Corinthians 13, by the apostle Paul.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: rolfl@karl.uio.no (Rolf Lindgren)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: The Cogito is mistaken
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:44:39 GMT
Organization: Institutt for Humanistisk Informatikk, Blindern, Oslo, Norway

In article <9208211944.AA14290@lenny.kaman.com> rob@KAMAN.COM (Rob Vienneau) writes:
>
>   Why Descartes' cogito argument is mistaken:
>
>	.
>	.
>	.
>
>

The most common refutation of his argument is, I think, worked out by
Nietzsche and Hume (and others?).

"I think, therefore I am" presupposes existence before it is postulated.
The logical form of his argument is something along the lines of

	p (Cogito)
	q (Sum)

	p
	_
	q

Which is meaningless.




(setq humility-mode t)

How far off track am I?


--
       Rolf Lindgren           |       "The opinions expressed above are
       616 Bjerke Studentheim  |        not necessarily those of anyone"
       N-0589 OSLO 5           |           rolfl.lindgren@usit.uio.no 
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.meta:1525 sci.logic:1263 sci.math:10281
From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Is There a Set of All Truths?
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:22:06 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Aug20.102802.6006@sics.se> torkel@sics.se 
(Torkel Franzen) writes:

>In article <1992Aug20.075850.20324@klaava.Helsinki.FI> amnell@klaava.Helsinki.
>FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
>
>   >Finally, there is also Unger's book where he claims that the only way
>   >to escape Cartesian skepticism is for there to be a Whole Truth about
>   >the world (since if there is no such object, a non-existent object
>   >cannot have parts -- which are what everyday limited truths like 
>   >'China is bigger than India' are).
>
>  I forgot to comment on this part. Surely nobody is as silly as this,
>even in philosophy? You must have missed something.

Decide for yourself -- I quote from Peter Unger, _Ignorance: A Case for
Scepticism_ (Oxford Univ. Press, 1975), Chapter VII, "The Impossibility
of Truth", pp.272f:


  I shall argue that in each case, when someone knows about something,
  or knows something to be so, what he knows is either the whole truth
  about the world or, if less than that, something which is part of that
  first thing.  The former is of course the far more exotic case,
  occurring only where there is true omniscience.  The latter is
  supposed to occur in our daily lives.  My contention will be the
  rather obvious one that there really is no thing which is the whole
  truth about the world.  For this reason, there can be nothing either
  which is any part of the whole truth about the world.  Accordingly,
  nothing can ever be known to be so, for the non-existence of these
  things is hardly a contingent matter.


I don't know how Unger feels about this stuff today.

Marko Amnell
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Philosophical Influence & Goedel
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:01:32 GMT

zeleny@husc8.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>In article <MARTINC.92Aug11215203@grover.cs.unc.edu>
>martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:

>CRM:
>>I dunno, MZ... the overwhelming importance of Goedel-Roesser and via
>>them Turing on philosophy I think would be hard to overestimate.  (I
>>agree with you about Heidegger et al -- I suspect that by 2092 they'll
>>be about as well known as the Thomists and neo-Platonists, but no longer
>>an active influence.) 

>Let me begin that I am in no way interested in belittling the importance of
>the incompleteness results, to which you are alluding.  However, it is
>quite clear to me that their philosophical influence is far inferior to
>that of such disciplines as set theory, model theory, and \lambda-calculus.
>As I said earlier, I am not qualified to pass judgment on the status of
>categories, topoi, and cylindric algebras (I wish someone else would), but
>my basic influence metric is founded on the premiss that positive
>developments are far more important than limitative results.  Of course, I
>am open to any arguments to the contrary.  

In a strict interpretation Goedel's results could be said to be limitative.
However, the implications of that limitation are, as you pointed out earlier,
profound, at least for mathematics. As for limitative results in general, I'm
of the opinion that limits tell us more about reality than proofs of 
existence. They structure things wonderfully, channel our inquiries into
productive areas, produce order where there was only chaos.

Since this thread deals with philosophical influence, loosely defined,
I am somewhat surprised that no-one has as yet mentioned the impact of
quantum theory. Our notions of causality, continuity, simultaneity are
being profoundly affected by the implications of quantum chromodynamics.
Of course, it may well be that this impact had not yet been felt by the
proverbial "man in the street", but philosophers and physicists have to
grapple with it.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Subject: Re: Reflections on Heidegger(Philo, Nazi, etc.)
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:01:52 GMT

> However, I feel it my purpose in life at this
>time to create a sort of academic infidelity so as to achieve a certain
>reaction out of Zeleny that I find humorous--but my purpose stops not
>at that, but rather to allow Zeleny the luxury of going beyond the
>normal "rough and rigour" of his books and venture into a world of
>temporary insanity.  Thus, my methods have employed vauge argumentation
>and philosophical sophistry.  Let us be reminded, however, that philosophy
>was first founded on sophistry and as such it remains a tool to expanding
>our minds even in light of "academic progress."
>
>BCnya,
>  Charles O. Onstott, III
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
>Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
>University of Chicago
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
I'm out.  "This has gotten silly."  I'm taking my doll and dishes and
going home.
Luck to those who stay in the pool.
-- 
Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Non-Existence of Existence (and God, too).
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 11:52:56 +0000

holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes..

>There is no problem with the universe being "in" itself in the sense
>of membership, either.

In what context?

>NFU is a consistent and practical set theory.
^^^^^

NFU? I have two associations for that Mnemonic, National Farmers
Union and No F***ing Use. Neither seems appropriate in the context
(well...actually - Hmm. No). what did you mean by that?



Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta