From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 11 2005 - 02:50:35 GMT
Hello Chin,
Chin said:
Just for my own curiosity, and not making a statement in either direction,
may I ask if what you are saying is that any philosophy that is inconsistent
with knowledge you already have will be rejected? -- and this philosophy
must be consistent with what most philosophers would agree upon?
Matt:
Certainly not. I would never forward a radically conservative, static,
conversationally debilitating idea like “any philosophy that is inconsistent
with knowledge you already have will be rejected” (not to mention the idea
is incoherent).
I assume you are thinking of the section where I say that “we have to
realize that Descartes and Kant, whatever their faults, were steps
_forward_.” As I alluded to at the end of that sentence, I think the
importance of Descartes and Kant were in bringing us closer to the _demise_
of both metaphysics and epistemology (traditionally conceived). Which isn’t
to say that we _have_ to work through the Plato-Kant canon. We can just
bypass them. But when you ask the kinds of questions they asked, you’ll
find yourself squarely in their sights and so have to answer _their_
questions. The bonus of having worked through the Plato-Kant canon is that
you will gain some measure of knowledge: you’ll know which kinds of
questions lead to dead-ends and so be able to better see them elsewhere.
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Tue Jan 11 2005 - 02:54:00 GMT