DM:> >> 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. > Ham> 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?
DM: You know, I am sure it is useful to consider whether certain ideas or theories contain contradictions, and whether they can be improved, but often they get along fine with contradictions in them because they have some use or work in certain situations. I find appeals to logic outside of a specific example to improve a specific argument or theory is an appeal to nothing. There are many forms of logic and whilst logic has played a role in intellectual history it is not such a big one. How could a philosophy attain great value? Well just look at the past and imagine whether it has a future or not. In the last it has been our way into various forms of knowledge, whether science itself or moral theory or aesthetic theory. At times philosophy has supported and justified the status quo at others it has unleashed critical thought and played a prt in revolutions. How great do you want? Of course, at this time interest in philosophy is very limited, it has been badly served by professional/specialist philosophers. When I say leading my life, this is a life as potentially full of large considerations as that of any other human being who can think and act, whether contemplating cosmic, moral, aesthetic, political, social, biological evolution or whether acting to change any of these as far as a human being can. You seem to think that being centered on human experience (which is inescapable unless you are a god Mr Ham) is some kind of limitation. I am no more limited in what I can consider and find through my experience and its possibilities than anyone else who has come before. Ham:> 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? DM: I gave you 'useful and beautiful' only as two aspects of what we might value in philosophy, there is of course much else. Against science, philosophy should be a less specialist form of enquiry, against art, I would expect art to lean towards an understanding and expression of particularity. But why abstract? There are great philsophical works whose value we can recognise. I see various levels of value in the different thinkers of all periods. But I think the real problem you have Ham is that you do not like the understanding of reality that modernity has given us. We live in a world of much more chance and change than the one that the metaphysicians dreamed about. This dream is now passing away. I want a philosophy that helpsme to make sense of this change, history and evolution. I think you are dreaming of some kind of unchanging other world or final end state that can give you some sense of meaning about the living world of evolution, conflict and change. Sadly for you, there is no such comfort to be had. Living with the be-coming and be-going is far from easy, but it can be done, and when we consider it al in all, perhaps a more dynamic and open life and cosmos is the more interesting oneto be living in. > Ham: Since "man is the measure of all things" DM: I think there is more to life than measuring, , what he experiences as valuable is > relative to his subjective experience. DM: I don't think we live alone or could ever get by if we were not able to consider experience from multiple perspectives. 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. DM: Again why do you try to reduce life to certain aspects that you wish to distain? You are reducing it and projecting it on me, but that is not my view. 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." DM: Experience is not self-transparent, without all forms of culture and thought it would remain opaque in its plurality and fullness. > > 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. DM: Well some old saying are great & some are crap but I am sure I have spent 25 years reading philosophy for some good reasons that might imply that there is more to thinking than old sayings. Your argument here is very silly. If you have a much better way of explaining philosophy's value I'd happily read it. But at bottom I think my values are very different from yours. So if we all adopted your philosophy how would that change the world? 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. DM: & give us what? > > 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? DM: See, you think this question is out of court for me, but it is not. I think the question of the meaning of the evolution of the cosmos resulting in beings like us on this rock swinging roundthe sun is something we should ponder. I think asking good questions is good philosophy. Rather silly and implausible answers to such questions is another matter though. > 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/
