From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue May 03 2005 - 22:11:10 BST
Hi Mark,
I thought this may as well have its own thread as it is separate from the
religious questions.
In the 'Access to Quality' thread I quoted Alasdair MacIntyre, and then
said: What really strikes me as odd is that, for someone so lucidly critical
of modern ideologies in the political and economic spheres, you seem
remarkably at home with the very same ideology in the philosophical sphere -
which is ironic, in that it is precisely the ideology which you are here
defending which provides the main justification for the practices which you
so cogently condemn elsewhere.
I also said, in the religion/science thread: I don't think it's possible to
'create our own purposes'. I may have quoted this before, in discussion with
DMB, but I still think it important (Iris Murdoch, quoted in Fergus Kerr's
'Theology After Wittgenstein'): "How recognisable, how familiar to us, is
the man so beautifully portrayed [by Kant] who confronted even with Christ
turns away to consider the judgement of his own conscience and to hear the
voice of his own reason. Stripped of the exiguous metaphysical background
which Kant was prepared to allow him, this man is with us still, free,
independent, lonely, powerful, rational, responsible, brave, the hero of so
many novels and books of moral philosophy." Kerr goes on to say "...the
picture of the self-conscious and self-reliant, self-transparent and
all-responsible individual which Descartes and Kant between them imposed
upon modern philosophy.... is a picture of the self that many modern
philosophers, Wittgenstein certainly among them, have striven to revise,
incorporate into a larger design, or simply obliterate." Is it not at all
disquieting that this ideology (the glorification of human choice) should a)
be born at the same time as SOM, b) be the dominant ideology of US/Western
culture and therefore, c) be a very good example of a socially reinforced
pattern of thought?
The drivers for the above comments were your claim that "existentialists
believe there are no answers "out there" and therefore maximize their
freedom and create their own purposes in life", and your comment to Matt
"The concept of liberty, personal freedom, is immediately accessible to
everyone. No one needs to be told that freedom is better than being buried
alive. That the concept of God is not immediately accessible to everyone is
obvious in that not everyone believes in God. Pirsig's Quality, like Mill's
Liberty, is immediately accessible to everyone. This, I suggest, is why
belief in God is idolatrous and belief in Quality or Freedom or Liberty or
Equality is not."
Now, it seems to me that:
a) modern capitalism gears up at the same time as SOM;
b) it is given an intellectual articulation and defence by (principally)
Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, building on foundations laid by Locke;
c) that intellectual articulation and defence is geared around the
desirability of maximising "human freedom";
d) that "human freedom" presupposes an anthropology along the Kantian lines
that MacIntyre, Murdoch and Kerr (and most of all Charles Taylor) delineate;
e) the flaws in the anthropology are one of the major reasons why capitalism
so often has inhumane consequences, and why it is resisted by many cultures
(eg Islam);
f) it is the natural bed-fellow of the defenders of the economic status quo,
like your good friend GWBush.
I guess it is d) or possibly e) where we disagree, but I thought I'd unpick
the steps along the way (there might be more) because it might make any
disagreements clearer. What's interesting is that I think I'm a) more
pro-capitalism than you are, and b) less enamoured of the notion of human
freedom (in that I think freedom is meaningless without a functioning
society - the fourth level is dependent upon a healthy third level).
I just find it notable that you seem to be in bed with Ayn Rand -
"Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political
freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market
are corollaries."
By the way, I realise I'm missing some of the humour (ie not responding to
it). I'm just pressed for time, so if I'm being po-faced, I apologise :o)
Cheers
Sam
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 : Tue May 03 2005 - 22:57:32 BST