Hi Marsha, Marsha said: I will dismiss your evaluations of RMP as a limited scholar, as well as your evaluation of what is a 'bad argument' because as presented they seem just your opinion. It brings to mind the differences between an artist and an art critic.
Matt: I'm not sure if you meant "dismiss" as in a "dismissive" attitude, but I'm not sure why you should think of Pirsig's philosophology arguments. If "philosophology" really is understood as historical scholarship that has nothing to do with "real philosophy," then if Pirsig does present an argument from bad historical premises, why should the distinction have anything to with the suggestion I made, which uses pretty much that distinction? As presented, they are indeed my opinion, though I'm not sure why "just," unless it's part again of a dismissive strategy on your part. The value of that strategy against my opinion I wonder about, mainly because I'm not trying to dismiss Pirsig's scholarship. We are all limited in our ways. Perhaps I shouldn't have said I "cringe," because that implies, coupled with what I judge to be a weak point in Pirsig's scholarship, that Pirsig's own philosophy is hurt by these particular remarks that strike me as wrongheaded. I shouldn't cringe, because we shouldn't have such halos over the heads of even our heroes. We should take there limitations, like our own, in stride, while keeping the manner in which we judge and appreciate ours and others philosophies in the right perspective (whatever that perspective may be). As an effort of good faith, I would suggest John Herman Randall as an example, whose book on Aristotle is pretty much what Aristotle would look like had he been a Deweyan pragmatist. His book was published in 1960. Matt 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
