At 03:13 AM 10/21/2007, you wrote: >Hi David -- > > > > > It is the very job of the philosopher to come up with a language > > and an approach to our existence that makes good sense and has > > great value. But its value and meaning and use have to be found > > in real lived experience. This is why I find the MOQ very useful > > and beautiful. It makes good sense of the life I find I am living > > and the life I need to find a way of directing and shaping. And what > > I know from experience that this life is like and has been in the past > > as far as we can discover. > >Thank you for this candid response to my question about the purpose of >philosophy. It is clearly written and expresses a position that at first >reading seems irrefutable. I have no reason to doubt your sincerity. And I >agree that the "meaning and use" of a philosophy must be not only relevant >but vital to one's life-experience. > >Having said that, I look at the first sentence and note that the >qualifications you cite for philosophy are that it "makes good sense" and >"has great value". I can accept the former as suggesting "logical >plausibility", but I find the latter somewhat problematic. How do we know >that a philosophy has great value? > >If our criterion for value is what is "useful and beautiful," which is what >satisfies you about the MOQ, then your standard is utilitarian (i.e., what >works) and what pleases you esthetically. Inasmuch as science and >technology do a fairly creditable job of making things work--certainly >surpassing philosophy's record in that regard--and literary prose and poetry >both relate to life and can please by virtue of their beauty, what does >philosophy offer that science and the arts don't? > >Since "man is the measure of all things", what he experiences as valuable is >relative to his subjective experience. If the value of philosophy is >measured only in terms of experience, then experience becomes fundamental >and philosophy only reflects the pragmatic goals and perceived pleasures of >human beings. In that case, philosophy would seem to be superfluous: it >provides no more insight on what life is about than your own experience. As >you said about the MOQ, "I know from experience what this life is like." > >Now, maybe there is something in Pirsig's philosophy that helps you in >"directing and shaping" your life. You're the best judge of that, and of >its value to you. But there are loads of platitudes out there that "make >sense" and can be regarded as having value. The Golden Rule for one, or the >old adage about people in glass houses throwing stones, for another. Such >admonitions are not philosophy. They may be poetic and reasonable, but they >merely reflect what we already know from experience. Pragmatism is fine for >getting along with people and solving the problems of our environment. But >philosophy, in my opinion, must give us something more than an experiential >understanding of reality. We can (and do) learn that from a study of >history, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and the natural sciences. > >I've forgotten just what the theme "100% confident" initially referred to, >but perhaps my closing question will give it some new relevance. We humans >may not be concerned about an ultimate reality beyond our finite experience, >but how confident can we be that ultimate reality is not concerned with us? > >Essentially yours, >Ham >
And you would kill it with words... Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
