Hi dmb, On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:45 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark said to dmb: > ...When you bring in the psychological concepts of feelings and motives, you > are straying from philosophy and really discussing psychology, not > philosophy. This seems more like the psychology of philosophy. I could just > as easily say that that philosophical visions play a role in feelings and > motives. The question is, which do you put as the primary endeavor? Do we > explain philosophy in terms of psychology or psychology in terms of > philosophy? Which one is more important to you? It would seem that you are > trending towards the discipline of psychology. There is no need to reduce > philosophy using psychological terms. This method of encapsulating > philosophy denies the whole purpose of philosophy. > > dmb quotes Pirsig and James: > In Zen and the Art, Robert Pirsig says: > "In the past our common universe of reason has been in the process of > escaping, rejecting the romantic, irrational world of prehistoric man. It's > been necessary since before the time of Socrates to reject the passions, the > emotions, in order to free the rational mind for an understanding of nature's > order which was as yet unknown. Now it's time to further an understanding of > nature's order by re-assimilating those passions which were originally fled > from. The passions, the emotions, the affective domain of man's > consciousness, are a part of nature's order too. The central part."
Mark: Yes, I like that quote, the inclusion of the romantic into everyday life. That is also to see the Classical (such as motorcycle maintenance) as Romantic. There is an estrangement from "knowing thyself" intuitively which manifests itself as "reading about thyself" in a book, or having the sages of science tell us what is real in our heart of hearts. > > dmb continues: > As William James puts it - I think this is almost exactly the same sentiment, > although he is speaking to the Hegelians in particular: > "Their persistence in telling me that feeling has nothing to do with the > question, that it is a pure matter of absolute reason, keeps me for ever out > of the pale. Still seeing a that in things which Logic does not expel, the > most I can do is to aspire to the expulsion. At present I do not even aspire. > Aspiration is a feeling. What can kindle feeling but the example of feeling? > And if the Hegelians will refuse to set an example, what can they expect the > rest of us to do? To speak more seriously, the one fundamental quarrel > Empiricism has with Absolutism is over this repudiation by Absolutism of the > personal and aesthetic factor in the construction of philosophy. That we all > of us have feelings, Empiricism feels quite sure. That they may be as > prophetic and anticipatory of truth as anything else we have, and some of > them more so than others, can not possibly be denied. But what hope is there > of squaring and settling opinions unless Absolutism will hold parley on this > common ground; and will admit that all philosophies are hypotheses, to which > all our faculties, emotional as well as logical, help us, and the truest of > which will at the final integration of things be found in possession of the > men whose faculties on the whole had the best divining power?" > > See, traditionally, philosophers have repudiated and rejected the personal > and aesthetic factors in the construction of our philosophies. Scientific > objectivity and it's ideal of disinterested observation is just one form of > this tendency. This tendency, as James and Pirsig, is the main reason that > philosophy needs to be radically reconstructed. Re-integrating the affective > domain is part of the solution to this problem. Mark: Yes, I fully agree with you here. Let me just say that my post concerning the use of modern psychology as high value, was not directed at you, although I used your post as example. It was more a cry to the effect of: "When do we stop going down that road that Pirsig is exhorting us to get off of?!!" At the time of Newton, the poets decried the direction which the "laws" of physics would take us. And rightly so, for Newton described a deterministic world which was completely at odds with their vision of reality. Painting also took a turn from faithfully transcribing sight to more impressionistic interpretations of such sight. However, many determining philosophies continued to travel down the path of positivism and other rigorous "scientific" based analysis of reality. By the way, I reject Hegel's umbrella, I much preferred singing in the rain. All through this science marches on until it is telling us how to feel. What happened to objective science? It has now infiltrated the subjective, "It has now been scientifically proven that what we see as blue is actually green, and our reality is like a line of dominoes. Personally, I see little value in modern psychology, except perhaps as the function a priest (psychiatrist) provides during confessional. I still have high regard for Carl Jung, however, who was more of a mystic. Popular psychology is being reduced to DNA where women blame their grandmothers for their determined unhappiness, and are therefore victims of some dastardly plan. I do not accept this as a good reality. In this place and time, I guess I could be classified as "insane", using that word in the same way the Pirsig uses it to describe both Lila and Phaedrus (of old). I completely reject most of modern psychology, for how can a mind explain how the mind works? However, psychology has gotten such hold on our beliefs and reality that it is scary to me. I better go ask someone why I feel this way...Get me an expert on how I feel!! I will deal with specifics more in my post to Matt. Cheers, Mark > > > > 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
