Hi DMB, Nice one " It seems quite artificial even to me. it's not really about facts or values so much as it's about statements. I can see that it's all very carefully thought out and exact and yet it's empty and lifeless. I mean, I don't think that way of defeating the problem isn't very moving. i'd even say this analytic approach is part of the problem or a symptom of it."
Exactly, I think each younger generation is as mixed up as the previous grey beard generation. None of us has a monopoly. Oh and btw ... "Did you know that human, humility and humble all come from a common root meaning "dirt"? I kid you not." Etymology is a major reason I like Pirsig. In order to avoid the (dirty word) "evolutionary psychology" or EvoPsych, I would point out that the MoQ is "evolutionary" and the top two levels we spend miles of email debating are ... err ... "psychological" That dirt is the physio-biological bottom half of the story. Doh ! How perfectly the story fits. Ian On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:08 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > steve said to all: > 20 years after Lila, I wonder how it would be read by someone new to Pirsig. > Would the ideas seem relevent? As we get more and more distance from the > positivists, I wonder how young people today would read Pirsig's attacks on > the fact-value dichotomy. Would they wonder just who it is Pirsig thinks he > is arguing against? > > > dmb says: > I'd very much like to know what seems relevant to young people these days and > I wonder how many college freshmen could say what "positivism" or "the > fact-value dichotomy" means. If the stories I've heard from university > professors can be taken as a generalization, kids these days are shallow, > complacent and conservative. What is today's version of beatniks, hippies, > punks or goths? Isn't there supposed to be some kind of creative form of > rebellion in every generation? I digress. Back to the point. I'd say Pirsig > is pretty clear and concrete about what he's arguing against. One of the > things he's working against is the irrelevance of philosophy. Long before he > identified with the pragmatists, he said "metaphysics is good if it improves > everyday life; otherwise forget it." > > Less than one percent of college students choose philosophy as their major > field but the majority will take a class or two. I wonder how many poor > freshman sign up for philosophy 101 expecting to learn profound secrets or > deep truths and find arcane nonsense instead. Pragmatism was practically > invented to help us dispense with the fake problems and endless verbal > disputes that dissuade so many freshman. Supposedly, pragmatism is a method > for solving human problems more than philosophical problems. In fact, the > parameters of radical empiricism (all experience counts and whatever is > beyond experience should not count) can be seen as a kind of epistemological > humility. It's humanism in the sense that it recognizes the limited nature of > our truths. James thought humanism was another name for pragmatism. Some > people take that whole "man is the measure" idea as a form of arrogance but I > think it's quite the opposite. Did you know that human, humility and humble > all come from a comm > on root meaning "dirt"? I kid you not. > > If you were a freshman and my aim was to get you excited enough about > philosophy to take at least one more class, which would be more likely to > enthuse them? A) Assign Descartes, Hume and Kant or B) Assign Zen and the > Art? Richard Rorty told Cornel West that he'd give his right arm to write > like William James. Ever seen Cornel West give a sermon - er um - I mean - > give a lecture? He's like a jazz artist of ideas. Dewey helped to found the > ACLU and NAACP and for decades he had an opinion on everything that mattered > and people wanted to know what it was. I mean, teachers should be able to > show that philosophy is a living, breathing thing. I wish some professionals > would step up with a response to the new atheists. Wouldn't that be fun to > watch? I mean, let's face it, we're talking about two scientists and a > journalist - but I digress. The point is simply that young people will not > see the relevance of philosophy if their introduction to it means grappling > with arcane jargon in > order to entertain fake doubts and consider artificial problems. We can save > that kind of grappling for more advanced students and those headed to grad > school. I guess it's obvious. The first-year reading assignments have to be > readable by first-year students. You want to challenge but not overwhelm. The > pragmatists are good for that too. > > The fact-value dichotomy seems like such a clinical name for the issue, > especially when you think about the kind of thing James and Pirsig are doing. > Values are so central that facts are something like a subspecies of value. > Pirsig's objection to SOM could be boiled down to an objection to the > supremacy of facts (objective truths) and the denigration of values (merely > subjective preferences). Radical empiricists say that value judgements come > first and the reasons come later so that it's prioritized in some sense even > epistemologically. This is part of the reason they both talk about the role > of one's basic temperament in taking the views we take - and that's just one > of the ways that different values produce different perspectives. As they > paint it, values are so intertwined with facts and knowledge that the > distinction starts to seem quite untenable and downright unrealistic. > > Steve said: > Maybe this aspect of SOM that attracted most of us to the MOQ is a straw man. > If Pirsig and the other antiSomers are successful, at least at some point it > will be a straw man, right? Someday young people just won't even know what > Pirsig was going on about. At the time I got into Pirsig, I really felt like > the notion of objectivity was being used to push values into some realm of > noncognitive babble. Is that still happening today? > > dmb says: > > They say that ideas have a life cycle. They begin as heresy, become truth, > and then they end on a greeting card. > > > I couldn't tell you if the realm of "noncognitive babble" is still a > happening place these days because I don't know what that means. > > > How can I put this? > > > If anti-SOMers are successful - and let's say that success means philosophy > is taught from their critical perspective - then every philosophy student > will still be challenged to re-think everything. In our culture at least, > there is a common sense realism in everyone's basic, unphilosophical beliefs. > In this sense, anyone who's ever worn a band-aid is a realist, you know? > These young people might realize that reality is a lot more plastic and > intimate than they thought. And, just to go a bit too big with this, if this > realization were widespread it might inspire a for the art in all things and > general atmosphere of creativity and engagement. > > Also, please notice that a former problem is not the same thing as a straw > man. The first is one means success or progress and the second is a bogus > fiction. > > > > Steve said: > > Here are some examples of the views that Pirsig attacks with regard to the > dichotomy between facts and values taken from an article on Hilary Putnam who > also made such critiques on SOM: (1) No statement is both evaluative and > factual. (2) There is no logical connection between evaluative and factual > statements. (3) Factual statements are true or false independently of any > value judgments. (4) Facts can, and values cannot, be established beyond > controversy. (5) Evaluative statements are neither true nor false. > Are these dogmas ones that people still adhere to? Or have Pirsig, Putnam, > and the other critics of the fact-value dichotomy been successful? > > > > > > dmb says: > > Well, those are philosophical dogmas that most people will never entertain, > at least not in those terms. It seems quite artificial even to me. it's not > really about facts or values so much as it's about statements. I can see that > it's all very carefully thought out and exact and yet it's empty and > lifeless. I mean, I don't think that way of defeating the problem isn't very > moving. i'd even say this analytic approach is part of the problem or a > symptom of it. > > > > > > 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 > 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
