I have always been puzzled by the term “influence”. Explain to me the different meanings when applied to , e.g., philosophers.
ChatGPT said:
The term “influence” is indeed puzzling, especially when used in discussions about philosophers or philosophical ideas. It’s a word that straddles the line between metaphor and causality, and its meaning changes depending on context. Here’s a breakdown of the main ways “influence” can be used when applied to philosophers:
1. Historical or Causal Influence
This is the most straightforward use: one philosopher read or responded to another, and their thinking was shaped as a result.
- Example: Kant was influenced by Hume — meaning Kant read Hume’s work and, as he said himself, was “awakened from his dogmatic slumber.”
- Here, “influence” implies causal impact: Hume’s writings led Kant to change or develop his views.
Complication: Influence isn’t always easy to trace—did the later philosopher actually read the earlier one? Or did they absorb ideas secondhand?
2. Conceptual or Doctrinal Influence
Sometimes philosophers are said to be influenced by ideas or conceptual frameworks, not necessarily individual thinkers.
- Example: Heidegger was influenced by Greek ontology — this means his thinking incorporated, reworked, or responded to ideas from ancient Greek metaphysics, such as the notion of “Being.”
This kind of influence might be:
- Affirmative (he accepts or builds on it)
- Critical (he reacts against it, but is still shaped by it)
3. Stylistic or Methodological Influence
A philosopher might be influenced in how they write, argue, or frame problems.
- Example: Nietzsche was influenced by the aphoristic style of La Rochefoucauld.
- This isn’t about ideas, but about mode of expression, tone, or structure.
4. Cultural or Intellectual Milieu
Sometimes “influence” refers to being part of a shared intellectual climate.
- Example: Sartre was influenced by existentialism and post-war French thought.
- This doesn’t mean he read a particular thinker, but that he was shaped by a cultural atmosphere, including literature, politics, or general intellectual currents.
5. Retrospective Attribution (Constructed Influence)
Scholars often construct lines of influence after the fact to create historical or conceptual continuity.
- Example: A scholar might claim that Foucault was influenced by Nietzsche, even if Foucault reinterpreted Nietzsche in a radically different way.
- Influence here becomes a tool for explanation, not an observed fact.
6. Mythologized or Symbolic Influence
In some cases, “influence” is almost mythical: it evokes prestige or association rather than a real connection.
- Example: Plato’s influence pervades all of Western philosophy.
- This might mean little more than that Plato is seen as foundational, not that every later philosopher engaged with him directly.
Summary Table
| Type of Influence | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Causal | Direct impact from reading/responding | Kant on Hume |
| Conceptual | Adoption or opposition to certain ideas | Heidegger on Greek ontology |
| Stylistic | Manner of writing, tone, or presentation | Nietzsche’s aphorisms |
| Cultural/Milieu | Shaped by context or zeitgeist | Sartre in postwar France |
| Retrospective/Constructed | Later framing of intellectual lineage | Foucault as a “Nietzschean” |
| Symbolic/Mythical | Evokes prestige or foundational status | Plato’s “influence” on the West |
Would you like examples of ambiguous or misused “influence” claims, or help sorting out a specific case?
4o
You said:
ambiguousnand misused
ChatGPT said:
Great — let’s dig into ambiguous and misused cases of the term “influence” in philosophy. These often arise when the term is used too loosely, imprecisely, or rhetorically. Here are some common types, with examples and what’s misleading about them:
1. “Influence” as Mere Similarity
Claim: “Wittgenstein was influenced by Zen Buddhism.”
Why it’s ambiguous: There may be similarities between late Wittgenstein and Zen (emphasis on silence, rejection of metaphysical theorizing), but there’s no evidence Wittgenstein read Zen texts or interacted with Buddhist thinkers.
Misuse: Mistaking convergent thought or thematic parallels for historical or causal influence.
2. “Influence” Without Mediation or Transmission
Claim: “Aristotle influenced Descartes.”
Why it’s ambiguous: Descartes certainly read Aristotle (often critically), but often this is said as though Aristotle’s essence flowed into Descartes. The chain is long, filtered through scholasticism, Renaissance thinkers, etc.
Misuse: Overlooking the complex mediation of ideas across centuries.
3. Over-Inflated Claims of Influence
Claim: “Nietzsche was the primary influence on postmodernism.”
Why it’s misleading: Nietzsche’s ideas were selectively appropriated by postmodern thinkers, often with radical reinterpretation. Foucault, Derrida, and others used Nietzsche against many of his original intentions.
Misuse: Treating influence as a linear inheritance, rather than selective adaptation or even distortion.
4. Retrospective Imposition
Claim: “Plato influenced modern cognitive science.”
Why it’s a stretch: While there may be distant conceptual antecedents (like ideal forms vs. mental representations), Plato didn’t influence cognitive science in any direct or intentional way.
Misuse: Projecting modern categories backward onto historical figures.
5. “Influence” by Reputation or Myth
Claim: “Hegel was deeply influenced by Spinoza.”
Problem: Hegel says Spinoza is essential to philosophy, but what he does with Spinoza is highly idiosyncratic. He reshapes Spinoza into a dialectical thinker, which many scholars think distorts Spinoza entirely.
Misuse: Using “influence” to forge a lineage that serves the later thinker’s prestige or agenda, not accuracy.
6. Influence Used to Flatten or Simplify
Claim: “Marx’s political philosophy was influenced by Hegel.”
Why it’s problematic: While true, this claim often flattens Marx’s radical break from Hegel, especially in terms of materialism vs. idealism.
Misuse: Ignoring dialectical opposition as a form of development — sometimes someone is influenced by rejecting a thinker.
Summary: Red Flags for Ambiguous/Misused Influence
| Red Flag | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Vague similarity | Mistakes thematic overlap for influence | Wittgenstein & Zen |
| No transmission | Jumps centuries or ignores intermediaries | Aristotle → Descartes |
| Overreach | Credits a thinker with later movements | Nietzsche → Postmodernism |
| Anachronism | Retrofits modern ideas into the past | Plato → Cognitive Science |
| Prestige projection | Claims influence to elevate reputation | Hegel → Spinoza |
| Oversimplification | Ignores break or criticism as part of the story | Marx → Hegel |
If you want, I can help you analyze a specific influence claim (e.g., “Was X really influenced by Y?”) or develop criteria for legitimate influence vs rhetorical flourish.