From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 13 2002 - 22:45:57 GMT
Platt,
>Would you be willing to convey your position now regardless of what a
>"rhetorical community" might conclude?
Now that you've asked, sure ;-)
>I presume your position would be that of a rational person who thinks
>humans are morally superior to deadly germs.
In Pirsig's language, I would agree that humans are morally superior to
deadly germs. However, I prefer not to use Pirsig's formulations in these
cases. Call it personal preference. Remember, though, that, following
Rorty, the reason I agree with that position is because of the social
context out of which I've come, not an ahistorical imperative. The moral
community that I'm situated says essentially, "In a choice between you and
the germ, kill the germ."
>Does Pirsig claim "objectivity" for his system? Has anyone? Not to my
>knowledge. I agree that "objective" is different from "rational." Pirsig
>does claim that the MoQ is rational.
I don't think Pirsig does. But I do think people do from time to time. I
recall a certain phrase used to describe the MoQ that I've seen here before
(I think): "science of morals." And since many people claim science can
attain objectivity, the phrase might infer that the MoQ can attain
objectivity. I added the objective caveat for Rudy because he asked about
it ("How do we objectively determine what is "higher" in evolutionary terms?").
I will add this bit about rationality (because of our conversation from
before, a month or two ago, about irrationality, I thought you might be
interested). I follow Rorty in interpreting "rationality" as "the use of
persuasion". This means that the sense given to "irrationality" is "the
use of force". This is partly what I mean by saying, "I don't make a
distinction between rhetoric and dialectic."
>I don't think Pirsig's position is any easier or harder for clever
>rhetoricians to take advantage of than the position of any other
>philosopher. Hitler's use of Nietzsche comes immediately to mind. I'm
>sure you'd agree that Rorty's position, for example, is not immune to
>rhetorical abuse.
While my "from the hip" response is still that Pirsig's position might be
easier than other positions, for your and my impressions to resolved we'd
have to do some real deep empirical digging, for which I'm not prepared to
do and I'd just as soon let the matter rest at the level of impressions.
Its just not that important because I think you are absolutely right in
saying that Nietzsche and Rorty (and I would add "and most anyone") are not
immune to rhetorical abuse. Certainly Nietzsche was. And Rorty is many
times reviled by leftists (whose political community Rorty considers
himself to be apart of) as a crypto-conservative.
And thank you, Platt, for not taking my frustration very seriously. It was
a passing phase.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 13 2002 - 22:42:06 GMT