From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Mar 26 2005 - 08:43:12 GMT
Matt:
Kindly explain what you mean by this sentence --
> The only reason it appears that I glorify "philosophology" is because
> you think the distinction can be held.
What distinction?
I take your point about the need for a background of intellectual history in
the study of philosophy. On the other hand, it frequently leads to a lot of
names being tossed about, so that Pirsig tends to get categorized as
something like
Kantian-problematical/Jamesion-modified/Plotinus-based/Schlieremacher-influe
nced/ etc., etc. Again, it's what I see as the "comparative analysis"
methodology of philosophology that constantly circles the campfire without
ever actually getting hot. It certainly must be confusing to newcomers who
may not be acquainted with these philosophers. (But I guess that's why
you're arguing for conclusions based on more substantial knowledge of
philosophical history. )
> Without so-called "philosophology," comparative analysis,
> I think you've drained the content out of philosophy.
See, that's going a bit too far, Matt. The *content* of philosophy has to
be more than its comparative history, or evolution. That's what we're
supposed to learn in Philosophy 101. Aren't you, in effect, throwing a
monkey wrench in the works?
If philosophy is reduced to a discipline in which everyone compares his
philosophy with another's, ad infinitum, philosophy will indeed have come to
the "dead end" you speak of. (Frankly, I think there's too much of this
now.)
> I think modern philosophy has shown itself to be a
> dead end. We need to find something else for philosophy to be.
Isn't there an inconsistency here? On one hand you seem to be advocating an
intellectual understanding of the development of philosophical thought from
the pre-Socratics to Pirsig, while on the other, suggesting that the modern
philosopher throw away all that has gone before and start afresh.
> (I am also
> generally skeptical that Pirsig's philosophy would receive more academic
> recognition _because_ he became more traditionally metaphysical. It seems
> to me that the only reason he hasn't is because he wrote two novels,
rather
> than treatises. I also think that contemporary philosophy is moving in
the
> wrong direction for metaphysicians to receive more recognition. I think
> he'd receive more recognition if he were connected more with pragmatism.)
I agree that he would have better served his cause by writing treatises; but
what would they contain, if not a full-blown theory including the
metaphysics? Certainly not philosophology.
Also, when you find the time, I'd very much like your comments on the Thorn
essay,
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/AFE/Metaphysical_Primacy.htm .
I don't know whether you consider Ayn Rand a pragmatist or not, but this
analysis of Objectivism cites several conclusions about it that sound
nihilistic to me. I wonder how you would view them.
Regards,
Ham
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 : Sat Mar 26 2005 - 08:47:16 GMT