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: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:48:19 GMT

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....;-)
> 
> "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?

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


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.

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?

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....]

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...]


> 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.
> 
> 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.

My lord, something we agree on?  Maybe I'm wrong then.  -) 

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.  

[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?



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