From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Philosophical Influence (was re: The Use of Philosophy)
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 02:17:54 GMT

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:

> 
> very influential philosopher among the nurses of a certain Odessa Clinic
> No.XXX, not to mention assorted neigborhood vodka drinkers and domino
> players.  I think he influenced my father, and through him, me.  Then
> again, his philosophy was expressed entirely as an oral teaching in the
> vernacular, so it didn't get very far.  He's retired now, but may still be
> forthcoming with wise homilies on occasion.
>
CO:

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

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

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

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


  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. 

    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.

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."
>
  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.

 
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.
>
  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.....

 
> 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.

CO: Oui, Soit.  
> 
>>-- 
> mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
> who will be in Paris two weeks from today!
 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...

> "Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."i
C'est ca vrai et tres evidement.

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------