FOM: Re: f.o.m./TIME Magazine

[Everdell@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/28/01 9:57:00 AM, a.hazen at philosophy.unimelb.edu.au 
writes:

<< Charles Silver's reply in the "f.o.m./TIME Magazine" string suggests two 
problems for getting academic philosophers interested in f.o.m. >>

Isn't it historians rather than philosophers whom you would like to interest? 
 After all, it's really historians, conscious or unconscious, amateur and 
professional, who make up those "100" lists.  Since I'm a historian who has 
just joined you, I'm of course pleased to sense a use for my specialty on 
FOM, and for my book, which claims that all of 20th-century cultural history 
began in the 1870s with set theory and the Dedekind Cut; but let me instead 
begin by thanking you all for the discussion I stumbled into when I 
joined--this one on the TIME 100 and its implications.  It's already been 
enormously helpful to someone like me whose academy is a school and who must 
learn the newer FOM developments on his own.

-Bill Everdell, Brooklyn