Another way of looking at it might be to divide German-language philosophy into German vs. Austrian, look at key positions in ontology and epistemology, and go from there. Then Austrian philosophy divides still further, but one being a division in 'phenomenology'. In which case, I know I repeat myself, but Brentano, Husserl, and Carnap are the key figures.
I guess the question for people interested in the history of thought would be: why given all the commonalities and interchanges, do little fissures develop into gulfs? For one thing, you can't over-estimate how influence is often based on social position, and the way people react to others based on a defense of their status--or an attack on that status. See the way Frege comes across as sarcastic and dismissive, a stance he apparently adopted because he himself had such low status and little recognition compared to the people he reviewed and cited. It might have helped had he not alienated Husserl, who did treat Frege as a serious thinker and one whose work-- and criticisms of his own work --he did acknowledge and use. Here is a book online that is also available in pdf download (but can't find link right now). It's a good secondary source as a way into the primary sources. http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/book/austrian_philosophy/ It's probably already been reviewed here or cited as reviewed somewhere else but I don't have time to verify that. So sorry if I hadn't noticed it before in previous discussions. CJ _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
