Re: MD Pirsig a liberal?

From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 09 2003 - 22:58:33 GMT

  • Next message: Matt the Enraged Endorphin: "Re: MD No to absolutism"

    Platt,

    Platt said:
    What is the "new" meaning of rational?

    Matt:
    I've referenced it before as "persuasion rather than force," but here's Rorty:

    "Another meaning for 'rational' is ... [that] the word means something like
    'sane' or 'reasonable' rather than 'methodical.' It names a set of moral
    virtues: tolerance, respect for the opinions of those around one,
    willingness to listen, reliance on persuasion rather than force. These are
    the virtues which members of a civilized society must possess if the
    society is to endure. In this sense of 'rational,' the word means
    something more like 'civilized' than lik 'methodical.' When so construed,
    the distinction between the rational and the irrational has nothing in
    particular to do with the difference between the arts and sciences. On
    this construction, to be rational is simply to discuss any topic --
    religious, literary, or scientific -- in a way which eschews dogmatism,
    defensiveness, and righteous indignation." ("Science as Solidarity")

    What I'm saying is that I don't think we need to make our morals
    methodical, though making them civilized is certainly in order.

    Platt said:
    Do you think Pirsig's logical argument would have worked against
    Communists who killed more innocents than the Nazis? After all,
    Marxism appeals above all else to rationality, as the number of
    intellectuals duped in the 30's shows.

    Matt:
    Depends on how many premises Pirsig and the Communist shared and how
    strongly the Communist held his beliefs. If both Pirsig and the Communist
    construe "rational" as "method," then they would both hold that belief in
    common. After that, if the Communist was first and foremost a committed,
    thorough, convinced, and dogmatic _rationalist_ (the method), then it is
    possible that he could be converted. If, however, the Communist was a
    committed, thorough, convinced, and dogmatic _communist_ (the mode of
    government), then it is doubtful.

    Matt said:
    So all we have left is that sloppy "soup of sentiments" with which to
    converse about. We attempt to show the Nazi some of the inhumanity that he
    is causing in the hopes that it touches his heart strings. That's the only
    way to reach a convinced, and philosophically adept, Nazi.

    Platt said:
    Good luck.

    Matt:
    Thanks, we'll need it.

    Platt said:
    Emotional appeals rely on biological level responses, not the best
    guides to direct public or private policy. Often, good intentions based on
    what one's "heart strings" lead to disastrous consequences, just as
    rational decisions based on mistaken premises can.

    Matt:
    Well, the interpretation of emotions as biological is your interpretation.
    Bo happens to interpret them as social. I myself would rather not try and
    rank it in the MoQ's levels. I don't think it fits very well in that
    context. I also didn't say that emotions were the "best guide to direct
    public or private policy." What I'm insisting is that we aren't going to
    be able to argue with people about public policy if they don't share
    certain basic premises (like the sacredness of democracy). After we
    convince the Nazi of their heartlessness by showing them pictures of the
    Holocaust, we can then enter into debate about what the best way would be
    of keeping something like that from ever happening again.

    Platt said:
    If you deny the rational morality that Pirsig advocates, you deny the
    validity of the MoQ. That's fine. But that leaves me to wonder what, if
    anything, you do find valid in the MoQ? Something must have appealed
    to you besides Pirsig tugging at your heart strings to bring you here.

    Matt:
    I don't follow you in your affirmation of your first conditional. I don't
    think denying Pirsig's attempt for a "rational morality" denies the
    validity of the MoQ, though I've attempted to undermine its _metaphysical_
    validity already.

    On what appeals to me about the MoQ, it used to be a kind of blind "the MoQ
    is valid" type of faith. Now what appeals to me _is_ more like the tugging
    at my heart strings. Or, rather, I find Pirsig eminently interesting.

    Matt

    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 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 09 2003 - 22:53:37 GMT