From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Philosophical Influence
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:44:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Aug14.124501.14732
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.meta
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

Please observe the Followup line.

In article <1992Aug14.021754.27883@a.cs.okstate.edu> 
onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:

>From article <1992Aug11.144438.14629@husc3.harvard.edu>, by
>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny):

>>In article <Bsrszn.BwE@unx.sas.com>
>>sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

>>>In article <1992Aug9.020648.14556@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
> [Long list of mathematical philosophers along with Marx not categorized
>as such.]

COO:
> Well, you do work in mathematics don't you.

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

COO:
>					      Although I had already
>stated that he could be "thought of" as the most influential, not intendting
>do tread on anyones toes, I think in terms of philosophical publishing
>we find his name most frequently.  

I challenge you to corroborate this claim with references to, say, the
Philosophical Index.  You know how to do research, don't you?

COO:
>				   In terms of deliniating the philosophy
>of mathematics and mathmatics itself, we run into a bit of a problem.
>But there are clearly those who insist that math is philosophy, or
>ought to replace it, and those who view math as a branch of philosophy
>and as such probably do not find, as Heidegger clearly doesn't, that it
>answers any of the classical philosophical questions.  Since, of course,
>in Sein Und Zeit, Heidegger is concerned with classical philosophical 
>questions, I do not find that many of your mathematicians apply.

I find the question of the nature of meaning to be the second most
important classical philosophical question, the first being that of the
structure of reality.  The contributions of Frege, Russell, Cantor, Tarski,
Church, et al. to one or both of them, as the case may be, could hardly be
overestimated. 

MZ: 
>>In psychology, no one seems to come close to Freud; however in social

COO:
> I think here you will find that Carl G. Jung comes quite close to 
>Freud, in particular in recent years. 

To be consistently unkind, I think that the above will hold for you only if
you either watch a lot of television, or have a preference for Aryan
psychoanalysis over the pernicious Jewish kind.  (Check out Jung's
occupation during the ascendancy of the Third Reich, if you have any
lingering questions about that last one.)

MZ:
>> Phenomenology would have
>>Heidegger trailing Husserl by quite a distance, separating the founder from
>>a mere epigone; as for the former's other philosophical accomplishments, I
>>place them in the same category as Hitler's triumphs in the area of race
>>relations. 

COO:
>   Ah-ha, I now get the impression that you haven't read much of 
>Heidegger, OR, you have read Derrida's De L'espirit.  The statement
>of Heidegger and Hitler is completely unjustifiable.  Perhaps you should
>study the history of Heidegger's relationship with the Nazi's(and his
>later withdrawl over the defense of Husserl, a jew) before vous bandez.
>Further, you might actually take a look at his concept of
>At-Homeness readily understandable from a first reading of Poetry, Language
>and Thought.

Aside from making a suggestion that you read the text more thoughtfully
before dashing off an ill-considered retort, I can only say that, having
studied the history of Heidegger's relationship with the Nazis in some
detail, I find your attempted rebuttal of the same quite bereft of
substance, and highly suggestive of bad faith.  In particular, I direct
your attention towards the 1953 republication of the _Introduction to
Metaphysics_ with its encomium to Hitler and National Socialism intact, the
vain post-war attempts of Karl Jaspers, Rudolf Bultmann, and many others to
obtain a retraction of Heidegger's Nazi views, the odious assimilation of
the moral import of Nazi Judeocide to that of the postwar displacement of
Germans from East Prussia, and last, but not least, the withdrawal of the
dedication to Husserl from _Sein und Zeit_, which gives lie to your claim
of defense.  Finally, I note Heidegger's lifelong glorification of one of
the most vicious German antisemites, Abraham a Santa Clara.  In short, we
are dealing with the single most scrofulous figure of modern philosophy,
and your halfhearted attempts to rehabilitate his person put you in a very
bad light indeed.

MZ:
>>Jules Vuillemin's observation:
>>
>>"The whole of Anglo-Saxon philosophy has undergone Russell's influence, for
>>better or worse.  This is, moreover, the only living philosophy.  It is
>>sufficient praise of an author to state that a philosophy that ignores him
>>is a dead philosophy."

COO:
> In American philosophy, unfortunately, we find that this statement is
>rather justifiable for there exists a large group of people still
>caught up in this representational crap.  Of course, we found that
>AI, founded on such ideas, (and here I mean the logic-based AI tradition), 
>failed miserably in terms of explaining how humans think.
>NOw, you can either claim that we are detached and
>distanced from the world by means of a representation, or you can
>look to the other side and see how we are so involved in the world 
>thanks to the function of the sign.  On this, you might find the
>neuro-physiological theories of Humberto Maturana quite interesting.

You might have noticed that I am not terribly fond of the grandiloquent
claims made by the artificial intelligentsia; however I like even less the
sort of pretentious label-mongering found in your remarks on American
philosophy.  If you have something cogent and meaningful to say on the
subject of "this representational crap", by all means go ahead and say it;
otherwise kindly try to channel your vacuous vitriol in the far more
fruitful direction of religious studies, whose practicioners fortunately
can't be expected to know any better.

MZ:
>>Charles must mean the ongoing relativist project to supplant the reigning
>>philosophical ideal of honest mathematical rigor with that of legalistic,
>>retro-flavored, sincere eristic bullshit, on which see another thread
>>in talk.philosophy.misc and elsewhere.

COO:
> Nothing could be farther from the truth.  But alas, I don't feel that
>you understand Heidegger very well and as such don't feel compelled to
>explain him to you.  Of course, I don't believe in the ideal that 
>honest mathematical rigor will solve the most basic philosophical
>question ever posed -- "what is?"  Math presupposes that fundamental 
>question and as such, fails to answer it.  This does not mean, however,
>that math is not useful--but in so far as my concern it is not..  Which
>leads us back to the issue of Heidegger's influence on philosophy.....

You really must bone up on your interpretive skills, or your knowledge of
the history of philosophy, whichever is found to be responsible for your
incomprehension.  No one expects mathematics to solve "the most basic
philosophical question ever posed" (though I note in passing that it does a
very good job of telling what is); in fact, my reference was to the famous
Platonic project of addressing all philosophical questions with strict
mathematical rigor.  As you may know, the rival approach, that of the
Sophists, was characterized by a deliberate methodological deflation of
philosophy, bringing it down to the level of a kitchen debate.  Heidegger,
and his followers like Rorty, are quite explicit about favoring the latter
tactic; unfortunately it looks like you are doing the same.  If this is not
so, please tell me why not; on the other hand, if this is indeed the case,
I wish you all the best of luck in the pandering business.

MZ:
>>>>Umm, right.  Far be it from me to argue with a true believer.

GM:
>>>I don't think I care to do better than this.

MZ
>>Soit.

COO: 
>Oui, Soit.  

So why are you still arguing?

>>>-- 
>>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
>>who will be in Paris two weeks from today!

COO:
>Ah, now he is trying to make me jealous.  First he argues with me,
>then he pulls this one--really below the belt Mikhail.  I was
>supposed to be in Bretagne for this month...

Tough titty, mon vieux, but it's every man for himself.

MZ:
>>"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."

COO:
>C'est ca vrai et tres evidement.

If you want to make yourself understood, you really have to do something
about that grammar.  On the chance that the above represents an expression
of apreciation, I recommend further explorations of the writings of D.A.F
de Sade, whose thesis that God, if he exists, must be a Nazi sympathiser
(my paraphrase), would go over particularly well in your chosen field of
studies.

>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
>------------------------------------------------------------------------

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
eleven more days and counting...
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."