Struan, All
Something new, thank you. Listening to you parrot Strawson's "strawman"
argument over the years with much of your focus on Phaedrus's "SoM"
rants I couldn't help wonder why you bothered. (aside from your obvious
relish for tweaking noses) But a few posts back you "claimed" to
subscribe to empiricism. Of course you also have a history of changing
identities and arguing just as passionately other positions so one must
be skeptical of any position you claim to hold. But assuming you hold
something like empiricism to be so, I now hear ,at least to me,
something new:
> There is a difference between the 'claim' that empiricism is followed by the
> moq and the 'actuality' that it isn't.
While Strawson is willing to admit Pirsig "sounds like a good
old-fashioned strict empiricist, a neo-Humean extremist, and a heavily
hierarchical proto-Hegelian" you suggest that he is not in the
empirical camp at all. (Prediction: You would have/will jump on "sounds
like" as support from Strawson)
You "claim" to be an empiricist and as an academic intellectual one
should hope up-to-the-instant on the latest trends and positions in this
camp. Along come this academic dropout a "big nosed, poor-postured,
rigorously unoriginal, drifter" with "brittle and insubstantial"
positions who claims to be one of your camp. Your ire becomes more
understandable. Not only that, but the facts are he achieves celebrity
status and that his first published book was and is one of the most
widely sold "philosophy" books ever. ( "philosophy" in quotes in
deference to your possible objection to the sullying of the word by
associating it with Pirsig's writing.) Given the "publish or perish"
nature of academic intellectual success I understand how this might
keep one perpetually pissed off.
> But, most importantly, you simply cannot conclude that one philosopher (James) not concluding
> what Pirsig concludes is conclusive evidence that no other philosopher does.
What a lovely tail chaser. But my conclusion is based not on one
philosopher's position but at least four PoV's. One James, Two, an
immanent Oxford metaphyician who has already stated that "no one" holds
Pirsig's position. Three, you who agree with that position. Four, in two
or three years of discussion "no one" here has been able to bring to
light any philosophic source that makes Pirsig's "SoM" claim. I realize
my use of logic is shaky but how can you logically hold both the "no
one" and the "unoriginal" position at the same time. Don't bother, I
understand that boiled down what you and Strawson are saying is :
1. Because Pirsig's knowing or unknowning created a strawman position
called "SOM" any of his claims made to a philosophic position are
forfeit. Kind of like high school algebra, and showing your work, step
by step, precisely as the teacher dictated, never mind the answer being
right or wrong. I had a problem with it then, still do, even though I
now understand its limited academic value.
AND
2. Everything else philosophical that Pirsig says is either "rigourously
unoriginal", just plain wrong or both.
But the question remains, Why do you bother? If all of what Pirsig says
is "rubbish" mere rhetorical babbling that "no one" could possibly
understand, let alone believe; Why do you waste your precious time with
it? Surely it is no threat to your empirical point of view or any point
of view for that matter.
But really, most importantly, if we start with James who wrote "the
common sense notion of subjects and objects as . . . the "natural
mother-tongue of thought" You agree.
If we fast forward to Richard Rorty who my sources indicate lies
somewhere in the radical empircist/pragmatist thread after James. Near
the end of his " Philosophy as a Kind of Writing: An Essay on Derrida"
we read Rorty saying, " Derrida's point, I take it, is that that
crosstalk is all we are going to get, and that no gimmick like " the new
science of grammatology" is going to end or aufheben[transcend] it. Once
one thinks of philosophy as a kind of writing, one should not be
suprised at this results. For to think this is to stop trying to have a
philosophy of language which is "first philosophy" a view of all
possible views."
So within the empiricist tradtion there are thoughts, "thinking about
what the senses provide", which James claims and you agreed are
dependant on, "the common sense notion of subjects and objects as . . .
the "natural mother-tongue of thought". We also have some group or
school of thinkers which Rorty refers to, for which "a philosophy of
language ... is , 'first philosophy' a view of all possible views."
Along comes Pirsig's suggesting that maybe just maybe their might be
"some one" or possibly as lot of "some ones" who fall into both camps.
Rigourously unoriginal!
> Sorry if that causes offence,
I doubt it.
>but this is a forum devoted to rhetoric rather than a search for
truth, is it not??
Suggest you re-read James "Pragmatism's Conception of Truth" for some
possible insight into seaching for truth.
Whoops, I'm late, I'm late, got to get New Year's eve approaches!
Happy New Year All
3WD
PS: I want to apoligize to the rest of the MD members I vacilated back
and forth between posting my initial comments on Struan "Strawman &
Harmony" post to MF but because he only post here I thought it would be
some what like whispering behind his back. In retrospect should have
done that as in the past my posts commenting on Struan's posts get this
type of response.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:55 BST