Mark said:
My Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D.) was in the discipline of biotechnology.
...Now, you may say that a Ph.D in Biotechnology is not a degree in Philosophy.
However, you would be mistaken since any of the sciences are considered
philosophies. A presentation of the world through biology, or physics for that
matter, is no different from the presentation of the world through metaphysics.
They are both presentations. A science is a metaphysics. To believe
otherwise implies that somehow the depiction of reality through science is not
a man-made depiction.
dmb says:
While it's true that any Ph.D. qualifies you as a philosopher in some broad
sense, biotech and metaphysics are distinctly different disciplines. And of
course this biotech background explains why I was unable to detect any signs of
philosophical expertise.
Mark said:
...Too many academics seem to think that they are superior to others because of
their degree. All that a degree is, is a lot of hard work.
dmb says:
...too many professional athletes seem to think that they are superior to
others because they made the team. All that means is a lot of talent and hard
work. It's nothing. Imagine if everyone made such an effort. What would the
world look like then? What did accomplishing stuff ever accomplish? Huh?
Mark said:
...My tools are different than say, somebody who has come through the ranks of
philosophical training and must resort to the words of others to make
themselves believable.
dmb says:
Within philosophy "the words of others" is called textual evidence.
Philosophers don't "resort" to quoting other philosophers just like scientists
don't "resort" to citing empirical data. That's just how the game is played.
That's how it's SUPPOSED to be played. It's an ongoing conversation and so "the
words of others" should play a very important role. Pirsig engages with the
words of all kinds of philosophers from the pre-Socratics to the logical
positivists. He and James are both described as reconstructing philosophy, as
effecting a Copernican revolution in philosophy and one certainly needs to know
something about the history of philosophy in order to do that.
Mark said:
...How about if we discuss the ongoing battle between Ontology and Epistemology
which is what MoQ delves into. Let us do so without invoking some dead
philosopher. Want to give it a try?
dmb says:
Actually, that was one of the comments that made me question your philosophical
expertise. The battle between ontology and epistemology? That's what the MOQ
delves into? I don't know what you mean by that.
Mark said:
dmb, what is your interpretation of spiritual rationalism?
dmb says:
"Rationalism" and empiricism the two great rivals in the history of philosophy.
Plato and Descartes would be rationalists while Aristotle and Hume are
empiricists. I'd guess that you're asking about the meaning of Pirsig's aim to
expand rationality, not rationalism. In our time the term "rational" is usually
opposed to things like magic and religion but back in the day rationality was
considered a divine gift and the laws of math and logic were considered to be
windows into the mind of God. Descartes, Spinoza, Hegel and Einstein all had
this idea that God loves math and logic.
Pirsig's expansion of rationality, in a nutshell, adds values, morals, the
affective domain of consciousness and otherwise pushes back against attitudes
of objectivity, of disinterested observation. It says that philosophy is a form
of art, one that grows out of your own life and its purpose is to serve
humanity and the ongoing process of evolution.
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
