Donald T Palmgren (lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 04:53:45 +0100
Hello, all; I'm glad I could join you.
I'm going to start by throwing out some responces to what's been
said here:
First: the daunting "So what?" question.
Now if you know Joseph Campbell you know he was a brilliant
scholer who dedicated his life to the study of myth. Once asked, "Why are
myths important? Why should we care?" He responded along the lines of: I
don't believe in studying something because people say it's important. If
you can get along without this stuff, fine. That's wonderful; go live your
life and be happy. If your exposed to it and it catches you, just as well.
If it dosn't catch you, you don't bother w/ it; that's someone else's
path.
Now, that works for me. I have an unfinished 2nd major in
Philosophy and I don't feel the need to dedicate my time to philosophical
apologetics -- I'm not a missionary. :-7
Okay, so that might not work for everyone. If that dosn't cure
your woes then let me recomend a broadening of the question.
Why is philosophy important?
That's the same as asking, "Why do you study it? What's the
pay-off?" Now reflect on that.
My most influential professor here at the University of Tennesse
(always start where you are) has been a great Hegel scholer now retiered,
but a personal friend, named Dwight. He said once: "People ask me what I
do for a living and I tell them I'm a metaphysition. 'What's that?' they
say, and I tell em 'We pursue the question 'What really exists,'' and if
that dosn't make one feel like a goof-ball I don't know what would."
The pay-off of science is clear: better things for better living.
The pay-off in medicine is clear, but what do you hope to get out of
philosophy? In other words, once you start, how do you know when to stop?
I think Diana said, "I've got the great answer here, and people
ask, 'What was the question?'" Well, how the heck does the question,
"what really exists?" arise naturally -- out on the street, in real life?
Does it? I will have far more to say about that later, but I want to get
out my initial responces first.
Martin Striz suggests that Kant "practically defined SOM." I'm no
Kant scholer, but my understanding is that beyond us and the
thing-for-us ("object," by the way, litteraly means "that which stands
over-against") he posited a thing-in-itself which was unknowable but
presumably a trancendent unity that could be called God or Tao or Quality
(if it's a trancendent then really to name it anything is to go off track
because that's to knife it -- it's X as opposed to everything not X). So
Pirsig is what Kant would have said if he studied the Tao te Ching and
could write as well as Mark Twain.
SOM (in "modern times") starts w/ DeCartes (about 100 years
before Kant). He talked in terms of 'mind' and 'body,' and left open the
question of: What is the link between the two? How can one know the other?
And that is what Kant answered.
Now broadly speeking there are three types of metapysics: Monism:
all is one, Dualism: everything is either one of two things, and
Pluralism. SOM is a clear dualism, but it's quite false to say (as Magnus
said) that all metaphysics between Aristotle and Pirsig has been dualism.
The most important guy in here that's overlooked is Hegel.
Hegel came along 25 years after Kant, demonstrated that Kant's
system still had a few flaws, cleaned them up and colapsed DeCartes'
duality into a very imposing and impressive monism.
This is starting to run long, and I just wanted to open with a
quick volly before droping the bomb, but a breef final point:
Magas asked about demonstrating that science employs a set of
presumptions. There are numerous ways to do this but what I find most
interesting is this question:
We know what it means to say F=ma is true, or for E=mc2 to be
true. We know what it means to say that all vertabrets have backbones. But
what does it mean to say, "Science is true?"
? ? ?
We know what it is for something to be scientifically true, but in
what way is science true? Or, (another approch) if you disagree on the
truth of X you employ a proof in order to settle the question... so (upon
reflection) the one thing which X cannot be is a method of proof itself.
Two teams oppose one-another in a baseball game; one wins. But if the game
of baseball opposes the game of basketball...
Now I'll tell you this, science IS true; it's just not
scientifically true. It's true how? What's the truth, not IN the game of
baseball, but OF the game of baseball?
So there's three quick shots in the night (whether that's gunfire
or wiskey I leave up to you). Once again, I'm happy to be abord, and I'm
looking forward to your thoughts.
TTFN (Ta-ta for now),
Donny
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:47 CEST