From: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark Peterson)
Subject: Re: Philosophical Influence & Goedel
Originator: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 16:27:36 GMT

From article <1992Aug16.033821.14784@husc3.harvard.edu>, by zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny):
> In article <1992Aug14.164819.20890@uwm.edu> 
> hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:

[...]

> MP:
>>And what would 'influence' mean?  Number of footnote citations or
>>articles generated?  Fichte was all the rage, but I'd be willing to
>>argue that Kant -- probably -- had more influence on philosophy.
>>--although not where the 18th century was concerned.  At that time any
>>philosopher with any brains at all would have pointed out that Kant
>>was interesting, but passe.  I mean, why deduce transcendental
>>categories when you have identity philosophy and <gasp>dialectic?
> 
> Well, there you are then.  Just try and articulate what constitutes Kant's
> influence, in all its splendor and magnitude.


Eek.  The number of other philosophers who felt compelled to borrow,
reconstitute, or rebel against his content and method, I suppose.  But
I'm not sure this is all of the question.


>>Anyways, short form: 'most influence' means 'most influence on my work'
>>means 'who I like the most' means 'who I find the easiest to
>>understand.'  
>>
>>[geez, pretty cynical today....]
> 
> I have no problem with that.  In fact, these days my claims to universality
> of judgment are pretty much limited to a priori matters.

Analytic apriori, or synthetic apriori?


> MP:
>>My lord, something we agree on?  Maybe I'm wrong then.  -) 
> 
> The sheer diversity of your ascii iconography never ceases to amaze me.
> Aside from that, our agreement has been noted and cherished.

Hmmm, sure.  Well, in the Toronto electronic community, -) was used
more often than ;-).  It implies 'tongue in cheek,' a much better and
more useful emoticon, I think, than smileys....  Never caught on on
the internet.  A slip of the fingers.



> Both set theory and analytic philosophy have histories, reaching back as
> far as any other philosophical subject.  Surely their content is not not
> limited to the popularity of their subject matter.  I am willing to wager
> that Frege and Cantor will have a far more lasting influence on philosophy
> than any of their contemporaries, with the possible exception of Nietzsche.
> The nature of this influence is of great interest to me.

Cantor, definitely.  And Frege.  


>>Following influence through the history of the discipline is useful,
>>mostly, as an aid to understanding why someone wrote as they did, and
>>thus getting a handle on just what they meant.  I couldn't have
>>understood Hegel without knowing something about Kant, or Heidegger
>>without Nietzsche, or Ian Hacking without some Popper, or a host of
>>Anglo-Americans without some Russell or Lewis.  So where does that
>>leave us?
> 
> Just at the point where we must recognize that understanding is a
> historical process; so, for example, I must protest when Randall says
> this sort of thing:

[...]

> On the contrary, without detailed knowledge of who influences you, it is
> impossible to tell what you mean, and consequently impossible to tell
> whether it's true; as for the complementary question of whom you influence,
> it can be most valuable in determining the pragmatic ramifications of your
> theses, which, I believe, are inseparable from their meaning.  

Well frankly Mikhail, I'm not sure how much more of this I can stand.
We are in accord on this....


> Sade said through one of his characters, writing is the perfect form of
> crime....


This, I'm willing to bet, gets closest to the answer.



hiho
-- 
mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | (414) 335-5200        

     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta