Hi LS:
Writing in the New York Times book review, A. C. Grayling, who teaches
philosophy at Birkbeck College, London, and editor of "Philosophy: A
Guide Through the Subject,” says:
"The perennial ideas that grip the philosophic imagination and more or
less exhaust (in both senses) its endeavor can be summarized as two:
the idea of meaning or value in the universe, and the idea that reality has
an ultimate nature. The two are linked, in that they supply or at least
suggest interpretations of each other. The first is connected with all our
questions about whether there is a transcendent source of value, one that
specifies goals and makes demands on how we live and behave.
Questions of deity, morality and esthetics lie under this heading, and
even an answer that says there is no transcendent grounds of value, and
that we must find them within, is vitally important to us. The second idea
might seem now to be the possession of the natural sciences; but they in
turn generate new forms of the ancient question, and so far have made
slow progress with such puzzles as, for example, the nature of mind. The
idea of reality prompts questions about knowledge, truth and meaning --
in short: the relation of mind to the world -- and like the first idea, it invites
us seek not merely knowledge but understanding of everything
comprehended under it."
A couple of things struck me in reading this passage:
First, I wonder if members of the LS agree with the general proposition
suggested by Grayling that philosophy boils down to these two basic
ideas.
Second, it seems obvious that the MOQ falls directly under the scope of
the first idea in that it espouses a "transcendent source of value.”
Third, when Grayling said, "The idea of reality prompts questions about
knowledge, truth and meaning -- in short the relation of mind to the world
..." I gagged at his "relation of mind to the world" assertion. We
Pirsigians can spot a subject/object assumption a mile away, making me
wonder just how many so-called academic philosophers in the colleges
today recognize that "relation of mind to the world" is just an assumption,
nothing more, and a most questionable assumption at that. Not many I
wager.
It's always a source of great pleasure to me to be able to see current
affairs and commentary through the lens of the MOQ. It's like getting a
new pair of eyeglasses with which to see truth more clearly. Or, to avoid
the S/O paradigm, to see that what one is is the truth.
Platt
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST