Walter
OK Realist/Idealist done.
All the "power" quotes in the previous post were from pragmatist philosophers
basically starting in the mid 1800 to present(top to bottom).
[Walter]
> I even think that this discord is so big that Pirsig's claim above, can never be true.
[Dave]
This is MoQ remember,about the time you are convinced that the pattern is so
stable that it will "never" change and along comes DQ to mess things up.
In a nutshell here's my take on this: Many of the characteristics, qualities
if you will, that Pirig uses in MoQ (the big ones-values, morals, static and
dynamic) are central in the discussions of pragmatism. And there are many
other similarities of issues and positions.
Early pragmatists didn't need a separate metaphysics. God as their basis of
reality. That tradition carry right on though (not necessarily for religious
reasons) to the anti-foundationism proposed by modern day pragmatist Rorty.
But one of the big reasons that pragmatism is primarily an American venue and
still a very small power in the philosophic world is the charge that it can't
be a "real,serious, philosophy" without a metaphysics.
Here's a snip about this from my latest LS post:
> I think the point must be made though that for early pragmatist's, Emerson, Pierce,
> James, their metaphysics was religion (Christianity). I point to "the ever
> blessed one" in your post, this is straight off the Sunday morning pulpit circa 1840 whatever. The first paragraph in the chapter "The historic emergnece of American Pragmatism" ends with this.
>
> "Much like Emerson, they [first articulators of pragmatism] were intent on
> viewing science as continuous wih religion-both shot through with moral
> purpose." One can safely say that what "religion" means here is Judeo/Christianity.
>
> IMHO what Pirsig does with an undefined, transcendent, DQ is leave it open for use by all religions as their "place of God(s)" with little change of individual religious dogma or MoQ necessary.
> [Kevin]
> > My problem with pragmatism remains that anti-foundationalism can never provide any
> > meaning to life, the universe, and everything.
>
> But MoQ seeks to put a foundation under it! What then? Then maybe, just maybe, some of
> pragmatists insights into power, provocation, personality will be helpful in
> understanding the implications of MoQ.
So the question is not whether Pirsig believes or is in the pragmatism
tradition but whether the pragmatists would accept him.
Dave Thomas
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:55 BST