Hi Ham, Ham: > I take it you want to refute common sense.
Steve: I don't have any problem generally with common sense, but neither philosophy nor science is in the business of confirming it. *Einstein said that common sense is just a bundle of prejudices**acquired before the age of eighteen. We need those predjudices to get by, but we also do well to question our predjudices.* Ham: > As for epistemology, I quote from John L. Mackie, an Australian philosopher > and Fellow of Oxford University and the British Academy: > > "For value to exist at all there must be a valuator - an agent - to impose > a standard on what is otherwise an indifferent universe. Things are good to > agents, for the sake of attaining some goal; they are not simply good in > themselves. Put differently, reality comes before morality. Prior to all > good and evil, there must be a world of things that can become good, evil, > or neither. In that regard, value is conditional: it predicates on the > existence of agents who have some standard for the material state of > affairs." > -- [Mackie, J.L. “The Subjectivity of Values”] Steve: This is not an argument in support of your position. This quote just takes for granted what you wish to prove. You have yet to explain how epistemology does not support Pirsig's postulate that Value precedes subjectivity and objectivity. All you've said is, "it's common sense." > > Steve: > >> You think Pirsig has it all backwards, but is no big incite. That is >> precisely the point. Pirsig says, suppose we've had it all upside >> down all along. Pirsig is *deliberately* turning everything on its head. > > Ham: > Playing 'let's suppose' may be amusing as a child's game, but it doesn't > shed any light on experiential values. Similarly, I could change my > perspective by imagining a flying cow or a talking lizard (Geico?), but this > won't change the way the world works or how knowledge is acquired. There is > simply no epistemological support for unexperienced or unrealizable value. > Asking me to "try it out" is like asking me to believe in the Truth Fairy. > Steve: This is a very closed-minded comment. Was it a child's game when Copernicus said, let's suppose the sun rather than the earth is the center of the universe? Was it a child's game when Einstein said, let's suppose that gravity is not a force but rather the expereince of curved space? Ham: > Steve, while I can appreciate RMP as an accomplished writer and novelist, I > don't regard metaphysics as an art form. Judging a philosopher by these > criteria demeans Philosophy. It's not like trying on a shoe. I hope you > don't think I'm gullible enough to believe everything a gifted novelist sets > in print. Steve: So you have no appreciation for Pirsig as a philosopher? How do you regard metaphysics and philosophy if not as an art form? Best, Steve 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/
