"The romantic mode is primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative,
intuitive. Feelings rather than facts predominate. "Art" when it is opposed to
"Science" is often romantic. It does not proceed by reason or by laws. It
proceeds by feeling, intuition and esthetic conscience. In the northern
European cultures the romantic mode is usually associated with femininity, but
this is certainly not a necessary association.The classic mode, by contrast,
proceeds by reason and by laws... which are themselves underlying forms of
thought and behavior. In the European cultures it is primarily a masculine mode
and the fields of science, law and medicine are unattractive to women largely
for this reason. Although motorcycle riding is romantic, motorcycle maintenance
is purely classic." (Pirsig in ZAMM)
"James classifies philosophers according to their temperaments: in this case
“tough-minded” or “tender-minded.” The pragmatist is the mediator between these
extremes, someone, like James himself, with “scientific loyalty to facts,” but
also “the old confidence in human values and the resultant spontaneity, whether
of the religious or romantic type” (P, 17)." (Stanford encyclopedia of
Philosophy)
"if I now proceed to define more fully what I have in mind when I speak of
rationalists and empiricists, by adding to each of those titles some secondary
qualifying characteristics, I beg you to regard my conduct as to a certain
extent arbitrary. I select types of combination that nature offers very
frequently, but by no means uniformly, and I select them solely for their
convenience in helping me to my ulterior purpose of characterizing pragmatism.
Historically we find the terms ’intellectualism’ and ’sensationalism’ used as
synonyms of ’rationalism’ and ’empiricism.’ Well, nature seems to combine most
frequently with intellectualism an idealistic and optimistic tendency.
Empiricists on the other hand are not uncommonly materialistic, and their
optimism is apt to be decidedly conditional and tremulous. Rationalism is
always monistic. It starts from wholes and universals, and makes much of the
unity of things. Empiricism starts from the parts, and makes of the whole a
collection-is not averse therefore to calling itself pluralistic. Rationalism
usually considers itself more religious than empiricism, but there is much to
say about this claim, so I merely mention it. It is a true claim when the
individual rationalist is what is called a man of feeling, and when the
individual empiricist prides himself on being hard- headed. In that case the
rationalist will usually also be in favor of what is called free-will, and the
empiricist will be a fatalist– I use the terms most popularly current. The
rationalist finally will be of dogmatic temper in his affirmations, while the
empiricist may be more sceptical and open to discussion." (William James in
"The Present Dilemma in Philosophy")
I was thinking about this the other day when it occurred me that there is an
interesting parallel between James's relationship with Royce and Pirsig's
relationship to John Sutherland. In both cases, they were friendships that
persisted despite their opposed temperaments. And in the final analysis James
and Pirsig both come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is combine the
two types of approaches into a more well-rounded and integrated approach.
Neither one of them recommend one to the exclusion of the other. And where do
they land? Radical empiricism is tough-minded because it is empirical but it is
also tender-minded because it puts Quality or pure experience at the front edge
of that empirical reality so that feeling is at the very center of thought.
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/md/archives.html
