From: Ant McWatt (antmcwatt@hotmail.co.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 06 2005 - 02:38:58 BST
Matt,
Firstly, thanks for explaining what you meant by “natural kind” in the
philosophical context. I have now gone through your “Philosophology” essay
and made various comments. I highly doubt anything I’ve written will
surprise you but maybe one or two comments will be of use.
I think the “Philosophology” paper is a well written one though it is
essentially misleading and disingenuous. This is because it tends to
replace Pirsig’s real views about the philosophy-philosophology distinction
with a more extreme anti-academic strawman which is easier to knock down.
This strawman is largely created by the selective editing of the Pirsig’s
quotes used throughout this essay to make him appear more extreme. For
instance, Pirsig didn’t leave Benares University just because he was tired
of the professor “blithely expounding on the illusory nature of the world”
(as you state in your paper) but rather because of the professor’s more
controversial statement that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki (and the carnage they created) was illusory. The full quote from
ZMM (Chapter 12) reads:
“But one day in the classroom the professor of philosophy was blithely
expounding on the illusory nature of the world for what seemed the fiftieth
time and Phædrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed that
the atomic bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory.
The professor smiled and said yes. That was the end of the exchange.”
“Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that answer may have been
correct, but for Phædrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers regularly
and is concerned with such things as mass destruction of human beings that
answer was hopelessly inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and gave
up.”
The quotes from Chapter 26 of LILA (where Pirsig introduces the
philosophy-philosophology distinction) suffer especially heavily from this
Stalinist re-editing. I don’t know why you bothered to do this as anyone
referring to LILA while reading your essay (as I did) would quickly see this
re-editing and realise that your portrayal of Pirsig was highly distorted.
As regards your contention that Pirsig requires “an ahistorical sense (i.e.
“natural kind”) of philosophy” to maintain his philosophy-philosophology
distinction the philosophical tradition of the Far East indicates that the
study of the Western canon is not a necessary pre-requisite to construct an
analysis of the perennial problems of philosophy (such as the nature of the
self). Moreover, these problems can arise from the contemplation of nature,
the general human condition and what the arts and modern sciences indicate.
The latter can also suffice as the indicators for showing when philosophical
problems have been solved (as in the evidence provided by quantum mechanics
regarding the Buddhist notion of the self) without requiring reference to
traditional Western philosophy.
Tellingly, you also provide evidence yourself in (footnote 15 of) the
“Philosophology” essay that prior study of traditional Western philosophers
can actually hinder (rather than help) a student’s philosophical
development:
-------------------------------------------------------
David Hall provides anecdotal evidence from his own classroom experience in
teaching Rorty's later philosophy. “I was truly surprised to discover how
accessible these [later] essays turned out to be to my students, many of
whom were taking their first course in philosophy. I believe that this was
so in part because the philosophically naïve are less likely to suffer from
what Richard Bernstein calls ‘Cartesian Anxiety….' Ironically, therefore,
the ‘nonphilosophical' … will find Rorty's message somewhat easier to
grasp.” (Hall, “Richard Rorty”, p. 4)
“Cartesian Anxiety” is Bernstein's name for the fear one experiences when
faced with this “grand and seductive Either/Or” situation: “Either there is
some support for our being, a fixed foundation for our knowledge, or we
cannot escape the forces of darkness that envelop us with madness, with
intellectual and moral chaos.” (Bernstein, “Beyond Objectivism and
Relativism”, p. 18) This is the type of fear one might have after
experiencing something analogous to the 17th Century's Skeptical Crisis or
after reading [Descartes’] “Discourse on Method”.
-------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the philosopher-philosophology distinction is certainly not
original with Pirsig nor is it a particularly new one. For instance, the
distinction is also noted by J.M. Spier on page one of “An Introduction to
Christian Philosophy” (originally published in 1954):
‘Before we can enter into an examination of the philosophical system before
us, we must answer the question: “What is philosophy?” The word philosophy
is commonly employed in a dual sense. It can denote the result of
philosophic activity, and it is in this sense that one speaks of the
philosophy of Plato and Kant. In this case one refers to their
philosophical system, which still exists though these men have long since
ceased to be active philosophically [i.e. philosophology]. Philosophy can
also designate philosophic activity itself, the act of philosophizing, which
is a human activity bound to our temporal life. We shall employ the term in
its second sense.’
The fact this is on page one of Spier's book indicates that he thought the
philosopher-philosophologist distinction was an important one to make.
Moreover, I highly doubt that he was the first philosopher to make this
distinction.
Finally, though you don’t mention this, I guess the underlying reason that
you are so concerned with the philosopher-philosophologist distinction is
because Rorty essentially perceives himself as being a philosophologist.
For instance, note this remark of Rorty’s from this 1995 interview:
“I don't think I have any original ideas. I think that all I do is pick up
bits of Derrida and bits of Dewey and put them next to each other and bits
of Davidson and bits of Wittgenstein and stuff like that. It's just a talent
for bricolage, rather than any originality. If you don't have an original
mind, you comment on people who do.”
“A Talent for Bricolage: An Interview with Richard Rorty” by Joshua Knobe,
“The Dualist”, Issue 2, 1995, pp.56-71
(also found at: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/rorty03.htm)
I suppose therefore that you think the philosopher-philosophologist
distinction must be dismantled to prevent Rorty (as a philosophologist)
being considered as being in a derivative and secondary class to Robert
Pirsig and other (original) philosophers. However, isn’t your project of
trying to undermine the philosopher-philosophologist distinction rather
inane as you can’t really believe that Rorty is as unoriginal as he might
modestly seem to claim?
Best wishes,
Anthony.
www.anthonymcwatt.co.uk
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Wed Apr 06 2005 - 02:42:09 BST