From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Philosophical Influence & Goedel
Date: 16 Aug 92 07:38:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Aug16.033821.14784
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Aug14.164819.20890@uwm.edu> 
hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:

>From article <1992Aug14.001359.14717@husc3.harvard.edu>, 
>by zeleny@husc8.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny):

>>In article <1992Aug13.154426.28735@uwm.edu>
>>hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:

MP:
>>>But more to the point....
>>>
>>>It's interesting to remember that back around, oh, 1795 to maybe 1817,
>>>Fichte was thought to be considerably more important than Kant and for
>>>a while there Immanuel was all but forgotten.  I just *know* that more
>>>of you have read Science of Knowledge than Critique of Pure Reason....;-)

MZ:
>>"All but" is quite right; Immanuel seems to have been second only to
>>Jean-Jacques among certain radical elements of the period.  In any case, I
>>do not propose to concern this discussion with questions of popularity.
>>Some value judgments just don't have any factual content, don't you agree?

MP:
>Fact/value dichotomies?  You can say this to somebody who works in
>Hegel? ;-)  

Remind me to send you a sed file containing supplementary punctuation of
the sort you are using above, next time you feel befuddled by one of my
dichotomies.

MP:
>But... this *is* a discussion about popularity.  The thread has
>bantered about who has had the most influence on 20th century
>philosophy and who from the 20th century will be seen to have had the
>most influence.  I don't think we'll know until it's over.  And any
>judgment ahead of this must depend on popularity.  Despite the fact
>that I work with Hegel I am willing to concede that history hasn't
>ended just yet.

I think popularity has to participate in this kind of judgment only as a
limiting factor: if X is not popular enough, we might not be aware of his
great destiny.  But I trust this possibility may be safely disregarded.

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.

MP:
>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.

MP:
>Today you still hear the experts talk about who's passe and who isn't.
>But as far as I can tell, 19th century continental went into the bin
>because the British couldn't translate German very well, and
>existentialism has followed largely because the deconstructionists
>couldn't read Danish.  ;-)
>
>[ignore that, I'm just in a mood...]

I seem to recall seeing you claim the same thing before.

MP:
>>>In any case, this is what I think of every time I hear (or see, I
>>>guess) these discussions.  It would be interesting if, in 2092, it was
>>>Jacques Ellul and Levinas that are remembered from the 20th century.
>>>Or one of y'all... hmm.

MZ:
>>Interesting indeed.  However, if you are prepared to accept this
>>possibility, I would like to hear more about your reasons.  By the way, I
>>am glad to see that you haven't joined the crowd in dismissing this subject
>>as philosophically unimportant, if not outright frivolous.  Contrary to the
>>heartfelt prejudice of certain philosophasters, I regard the history of
>>philosophy, up to and including the present moment, as inseparable from
>>philosophy itself.  Naturally, questions of influence are of paramount
>>importance for any historical enterprise.

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.

MP:
>Nah, you're right.  But when does a recent something count as
>'history'?  Thorny, but my own sense is that you have to wait more
>than a few years to determine what someone's influence is going to be
>over the long term.  Short term influence does come down, I think, to
>popularity.  Levinas is not all that popular right now.  Set theory
>and analytic philosophy is.  

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.

MP:
>[You know, I gave a paper this summer to an international gorilla
>workshop (yes, really...) on eco-terrorism and the ethics of
>extinction that was pretty popular....  hmm.]
>
>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:

In article <1992Aug13.212707.16159@guinness.idbsu.edu>
holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:

RH:
>It doesn't matter who influences you or whom you influence; is what
>you say true?  It all comes back to this...

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.  In this
sense, even notorious misreadings, like that perpetrated by the Nazis on
the corpus of Nietzsche, are quite relevant to the question of its content.
Writing doesn't stop the moment your pen leaves the paper; indeed, it goes
on as long as your words retain their power to provoke, inspire, debauch,
irritate, edify, challenge, exasperate, and befuddle their readers.  As
Sade said through one of his characters, writing is the perfect form of
crime, one which continues to inflict its corruption and derangement on the
world long after the demise of its perpetrator.  How can we hope to
understand any of its substance without taking into account this endless
daisy chain of perpetual influence?

>-- 
>The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
>above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
>opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
>or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu


>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.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."