Greetings,
The distinction between 'is morality' and 'is the source of morality' is
not one made by the Idealists mentioned. They would see both as being
inseparable. E.g., God IS Good and God DOES Good. Platt's argument that
there is a distinction and that Pirsig was the first to make it is
conceded when he recognises that there have been 'those who attribute
reality to God or an 'absolute good' . . . etc'.
Rather oddly, Platt then goes on to preach a list of supposed
philosophical 'firsts' from Pirsig with the implication at the end that
I disagree with them. In fact the only point I made that Platt attempts
to refute is:
STRUAN
"He claims that Pirsig has an original view of the ontological primacy
of value. He does not and to claim that he does is risible."
Moq taxonomy does not interest me one iota, so I will skip over those
bits in Platt's list, the better to concentrate upon those that pertain
to the point I was making above.
Pirsig, for Platt, is the 'first philosopher in history to':
PLATT:
'To flatly state that reality is morality'
The 'flatly state' might get Platt out of jail here if he means that the
exact words have to be used, but he has already conceded the point in an
earlier paragraph where he recognises that there are 'those who
attribute reality to God or an 'absolute good' . . . etc'.
PLATT:
'To declare that morality created the world'
Fichte, as I wrote in my previous e-mail, believed that God was the
all-good essence of all there is. Platt thinks that simply calling
Fichte an 'obscure greybeard' is sufficient to allow him to ignore this
and continue to claim something that is patently false. I need say no
more apart from to point out that this reinforces the point of my first
paragraph.
PLATT:
'To proclaim that evolution is a moral process'
Many people have done this ever since Darwin released his thesis. My
favourite is Tielhard de Chardin in his 1955 book, 'Le Phénomène
humain'. Even the Vatican has taken the line that evolution reveals the
will of God. And, of course, God IS Good (Psalm 34 v8).
PLATT:
'To free morality from the exclusive domain of the social/cultural
context'
I wonder if Platt has ever heard of Sartre.
"To achieve an authentic human existence, an individual must overcome
the tendency to bad faith, recognize his or her own absolute freedom,
and assume responsibility for any decisions made, unaided by society,
traditional morality, or a belief in God." (From Encarta 2002)
Again, to claim this as a philosophical first for Pirsig is simply
wrong.
PLATT:
'To unite mind and matter, subjective and objective under the same
umbrella of morality'
The refutation of this has been accomplished by the refutation of
Platt's previous points.
PLATT:
'To see that intellect based on subject-object metaphysics is incapable
of ruling society'
Given Platt's flag-waving trumpeting of the good ole US of A along with
lectures upon how great his country's democracy is I am delighted to
hear him now admit that his leaders are incapable of ruling society.
This is however, I admit, a philosophical first, but it is no more
impressive a first than me claiming that Hedgehog Rabbit Metaphysics has
no answer to the question of 2 + 2.
The rest of Platt's points rely upon Pirsig's taxonomy, for which I have
absolutely no interest. I am happy to let Platt claim these as firsts
for Pirsig.
Now Platt turns to the circular, 'If you want to refute the moq you have
to make a moral judgement thus proving the moq'. This is not an
interesting argument to an academic philosopher as it incorporates one
of the premises into the conclusion. You have already to have accepted
the moq (or something like it) to accept that refuting it is a moral
judgement, but this is the very issue in question. Great for the
believer but pointless to a philosopher, except as an example of a
common fallacy.
Finally, Platt seems to think that I have attempted to reject the fact
that Pirsig combined 'all of these propositions into a single
metaphysics'. I did not do so and can only assume that Platt invented
this for his own immoral ends. He did combine them all, but the
interesting bits are unoriginal, alone or in combination, and the other
bits are, at least for me, uninteresting. Strawson was spot on when he
described Lila as incorporating, 'ruminations which vary from the
worthless to the plausible but rigorously unoriginal'. The morality =
reality stuff is rigorously unoriginal and the taxonomy, worthless.
Of course, none of this is to say that Pirsig was wrong, but that was
not the function of my previous posting.
See you in a few months time for another portion of sense directed at
the next batch of Newbies, by which time I expect to see 'Focus'
thriving and a stack of academic interest <grin>.
Bye,
Struan
P.S. Sam - prevalent does not mean everyone. We agree that, Pirsig 'is
not original in placing value at the centre of his metaphysics' and we
agree that the moq 'cannot be brought happily within mainstream Western
philosophy'. Great, those were the main points I was trying to get
across. Could you persuade some others here?
P.P.S. Squonk - Au contraire, you do not annoy me at all. I always like
to see your contributions on this forum and hope you send a thousand
more. Could you write a few essays as well and get them posted
prominently on the website?
-------------------
Struan Hellier
struan@clara.co.uk
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:41 BST