From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Philosophical Influence & Goedel
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:12:36 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <MARTINC.92Aug11215203@grover.cs.unc.edu>, martinc@grover.cs.unc.edu (Charles R. Martin) writes:
|> 
|> I dunno, MZ... the overwhelming importance of Goedel-Roesser and via
|> them Turing on philosophy I think would be hard to overestimate.  (I
|> agree with you about Heidegger et al -- I suspect that by 2092 they'll
|> be about as well known as the Thomists and neo-Platonists, but no longer
|> an active influence.) 

In general I agree.  However, I think Michael's view of Quine's contributions
is less than accurate.  (I will not debate the issue regarding students.)
It is, oddly enough, a view that I might well have agreed to until
recently when my participation in this group caused me to look back
over a number of papers and then further into Quine's autobiography
and contributions.  Even if you restrict attention to the purely
technical contributions (in set theory, concatenation theory, etc.)
these are impressive.  (I agree that it may be argued that the
contributions may not be as truly "foundational" as those of Tarski
et al., although I think a lot of the set theory stuff compares
favorably to contributions of Zermelo or von Neumann.)  Add to this
the contributions in the areas of epistemology and philosophy of
language (which cannot be painted with the broad brush of "negative")
which one does not find in Tarski, Goedel, et al. and you begin
to see a philosopher much along the lines of Russell (minus any
moral philosophy which, in Russell's case, is probably best left
unanalyzed).  Then there is the general area of metaphysics --
in which we must include not only the "negative" (but major)
contributions of such works as "Two Dogmas", "On What There Is",
complaints about modal logic, etc., but also the positive contributions
(sometimes with Goodman) in the area of nominalism.

In short, one tends to forget how much (and in how many areas) Quine
has done, and how much this has stood the test of time (however briefly
measured that may be at this point).  In addition, unlike such
philosophers/logicians/mathematicians as Tarski and even Carnap, and
unlike such philosophers/non-logicians/non-mathematicians as
Heidegger, Sartre, et al., Quine's influence spans many diverse
"schools" of philosophy.  Again, there are many reasonable criteria
one might choose to determine "influence" or "importance".  While
I have usually favored the intuitions and approach of Tarski and 
Carnap over Quine, I think it must be conceded that the influence
of Quine has, and will continue to be, substantial.

(I detest this talk of "influence", by the way.  It is usually
done completely in the absence of any clearly stated criteria,
and it is never clear to me what the point is of attempting to
establish that A had more "influence" than B.  Having participated
in it even to the degree that I have above, I feel somehow "unclean".
I'm done with it.)


-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm