Hi DLT and All
OK. So it's a bit late. However I still want to venture an opinion or two
in this thread as I haven't had a good opportunity to do so until now.
On 18 Oct 99, at 15:42, David L Thomas wrote:
> Platt, I believe you would agree that is reasonable to say that the MoQ
> is moral or meta-ethical philosophy. So let's ask a moral question.
>
> Is it ethical to write philosophy and publish it in the guise of novels?
Yes. Of course it is. Anyone who says otherwise has no
understanding or knowledge of the history of Philosophy.
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, Candide by Voltaire, The Misfortunes
of Virtue by de Sade, many of the French Existentialists, and scores
of others.
It's quite often the case that philosophy in the form of novels, in the
same way that politics or science in the guise of novels, is intended
to reach those that may be suspicious of scholarly work or who have
just not been introduced to these fields of knowledge at any time in
their 'education'. And in novel form philosophy can even be ... Gasp!
... humourous and satirical.
It would seem to me to be highly UNethical if the only way you can
get to grips with some of the most fundamental and important
questions in and of existence is by way of many of the dull as
ditchwater academic philosophical treatises that a great deal of
philosophy students encounter and is held up as 'real' philosophy.
This isn't to say that academic philosophy cannot be engaging and
readable or that philosophy in the form of novels is always well
written or worthwhile, but most academic philosophers write for other
academic philosophers with the result that very few non-academic
philosophers are inclined to read it or when they do have the faintest
idea of what they're going on about. Philosophy doesn't need to be
obscure and/or inscrutable - it's just that a lot of it is.
Popularization of philosophy via the novel, as with other technical or
scientific subjects has it's drawbacks but it does broaden the scope
for many and can create a genuine interest and desire to read the
more academic texts.
>
> Here are the patterns of value we need to morally adjudicate.
>
> 1. The cards are stacked against him,
As is often the case with non-members of the club
> 2. He refused to "play the game"
And why should he?
> 3. Wrote two books that were published, promoted, and can be read as
> "novels"
As are many philosophical works - 'serious' and popularizing.
> 4. He defends his work, in part, as original, serious, philosophy.
Which it is.
>
> But the kicker is this approach avoids the need to accredit any sources.
> After all it's only FICTION!
And Metaphysics is only assumptions! And, as Platt has said, Pirsig
is the first to posit Quality as the underlying 'stuff' of the world so it
would be pretty tricky to accredit any sources but himself in this
respect.
Sure, he could have alluded to the more modern references to Value
but many of the recent attempts to get to grips with Value have been
to force it into either a subjective or objective box -
Intrinsic/Instrumental value in the current environmental ethics debate
being a reasonable example.
> The criteria we would like it to meet is "If everybody did this would
> the world be a better place."
What's with the all or nothing position. Can't there be a balance
between philosophy in the novel form and philosophy as academic
papers. There has been up until now so why should there be a
change.
Would the world be a better place if all philosophy was confined to
academia and the academic style.
There's a place for both dialectic and rhetoric, both serve to approach
the same subject from different directions and give a different
perspective. Sounds good to me!
Horse
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:13 BST