>>> >>> Marsha quoted from Pirsig: >>> "I also have a concern of my own. This is the concern that >>> philosophers, instead of coming to grips with the philosophy at hand, >>> sometimes dismiss it by saying, “Oh he is saying the same as >>> someone else,” or “someone else has said it much better.” This is the >>> latter half of the well known conservative argument that some new >>> idea is (a) no good because it hasn't been heard it before or (b) it is >>> no good because it has been heard before. If, as has been noted by >>> R.C. Zaehner, once the Oxford University Professor of Eastern >>> Religions and Ethics, I am saying the same thing as Aristotle; and if, >>> as has been noted in the Harvard Educational Review, I am saying the >>> same thing as William James; and if as has been noted now that I >>> may be saying the same thing as Spinoza: then why has no one ever >>> noticed that Aristotle and Spinoza and William James are all saying >>> the same thing?" >>> (RMP, 'A brief summary of the Metaphysics of Quality") >>> >>> Matt: >>> Yes, that is an ironic zinger to what Dave just said, but I always find >>> myself cringing when I hear Pirsig talk this way. I've never been >>> impressed with Pirsig's philosophology sections in Lila and after, and >>> mainly because it just seems to misunderstand what professional >>> philosophy is good for. For example, such dismissals as "someone's >>> said it" or "someone hasn't" are never real responses in the >>> community. At most, they are expressions of the fact that it hasn't >>> been made clear to the expresser why time and energy should be >>> spent "coming to grips with the philosophy at hand." The longer >>> history marches forward, the more philosophy gets thrown out there >>> to come to grips with. Is it a bad mode of expressing, "I don't have >>> time to properly deal with your arguments because it isn't clear >>> there's any profit for me to do so--after all, I do have my own >>> philosophy to get to"? Probably. And not many people do use it, at >>> least people we should take seriously (in my experience). >>> >>> What's worse about that particular comment is that it shows Pirsig's >>> own limitations as a scholar of philosophy. People _have_ noticed >>> the similarities between Aristotle, Spinoza, and James. Does Pirsig >>> _need_ to be a good scholar? No, of course not. But we shouldn't >>> take seriously bad arguments even when they come from our >>> heroes. >>> >>> Matt >> >> >> Marsha: >> 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. >
Marsha: I dismissed what I thought were _negative_ statements without supporting arguments. I can accept that they were your personal opinion. If you would like to present the standards by which one is judged an adequate vs limited scholar and why RMP failed, please do so. If you would like to present standards by which an argument is ultimately judged good or bad and why RMP presented a bad argument, please do so. If you would like to present any other evidence, examples and explanation to support your claim please do so. And if you do address your argument to me, please write down to my level. Though I am often interested in what you might have to say, I have never enjoyed or felt adequate to unpack your rhetoric. I can also see this type of labeling (good and bad) as reification, a som habit; a som habit which I too often fall into myself. Thank, Marsha 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
