Walter
OK Realist/Idealist done.
All the "power" quotes in the previous post were from pragmatist philosophers
basically starting in the mid 1800 to present(top to bottom).
[Walter]
> I even think that this discord is so big that Pirsig's claim above, can never be
>true.
[Dave]
This is MoQ remember,about the time you are convinced that the pattern is so
stable that it will "never" change and along comes DQ to mess things up.
In a nutshell here's my take on this: Many of the characteristics, qualities
if you will, that Pirig uses in MoQ (the big ones-values, morals, static and
dynamic) are central in the discussions of pragmatism. And there are many
other similarities of issues and positions.
Early pragmatists didn't need a separate metaphysics. God as their basis of
reality. That tradition carry right on though (not necessarily for religious
reasons) to the anti-foundationism proposed by modern day pragmatist Rorty.
But one of the big reasons that pragmatism is primarily an American venue and
still a very small power in the philosophic world is the charge that it can't
be a "real,serious, philosophy" without a metaphysics.
Here's a snip about this from my latest LS post:
> I think the point must be made though that for early pragmatist's, Emerson, Pierce,
> James, their metaphysics was religion (Christianity). I point to "the ever
> blessed one" in your post, this is straight off the Sunday morning pulpit circa 1840
>whatever. The first paragraph in the chapter "The historic emergnece of American
>Pragmatism" ends with this.
>
> "Much like Emerson, they [first articulators of pragmatism] were intent on
> viewing science as continuous wih religion-both shot through with moral
> purpose." One can safely say that what "religion" means here is Judeo/Christianity.
>
> IMHO what Pirsig does with an undefined, transcendent, DQ is leave it open for use
>by all religions as their "place of God(s)" with little change of individual
>religious dogma or MoQ necessary.
> [Kevin]
> > My problem with pragmatism remains that anti-foundationalism can never provide any
> > meaning to life, the universe, and everything.
>
> But MoQ seeks to put a foundation under it! What then? Then maybe, just maybe, some
>of
> pragmatists insights into power, provocation, personality will be helpful in
> understanding the implications of MoQ.
So the question is not whether Pirsig believes or is in the pragmatism
tradition but whether the pragmatists would accept him.
Dave Thomas
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
