From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 13 2005 - 13:41:19 BST
Hi Ham,
> While you appear to be a defender of the faith, I'm still not sure of your
> philosophical position. I find it strange that a believer would express
> such a cavalier attitude about the survival of the soul. Isn't that a
> cardinal belief of Christianity?
In so far as it is possible to separate out my philosophical position from
my religious commitments I'd say it is an uneasy combination in three equal
parts of Aquinas, Wittgenstein and Pirsig - in reverse order of their
influence on me (although the Aquinas came in early via the second hand
source - but first rate thinker - of Alasdair MacIntyre). As for whether it
is possible for a believer to have a cavalier attitude to cardinal beliefs,
I would just repeat what I said before about there being a great variety of
belief possible *within* Christianity.
> Also, you've probably noted from my postings to Mark and Matt that I am
> not
> pro-religion. My stand on religion has to be neutral, though, because
> that
> is where "spirituality" still lives. I contend that at the core of every
> individual's belief system is the expectation that life has some purpose
> beyond finite existence. Some deny it, others are unsure, and we all lack
> empirical proof.
I'm happy with that. I think the biggest division is between the
materialist/nihilist point of view, and one that asserts some meaning that
is greater than an individual's point of view. Compared to that, the
difference between Buddhist and Christian is comparatively minor.
> To me, Philosophy is a non-dogmatic approach to the unknown that draws
> upon
> logic, reason, and sensibility. For Philosophy to dismiss man's core
> belief
> on the ground that it is "faith-based", "non-empirical", or "supernatural"
> is intellectually short-sighted and reflects the bias of our culture's
> creeping nihilism.
Agreed, in part, but I'm happier with philosophy as a wisdom tradition than
something based on 'logic, reason and sensibility'. I think that's too much
of a commitment to Western forms (like SOM).
> Robert Pirsig has enlightened us to the possibility of a qualitative
> essence
> as the ground of reality which, to me, is a brilliant concept.
> Unfortunately, (and I suspect in order to maintain a cult appeal) he has
> tied his concept to the evolutionary nature of empirical existence,
> leaving
> it up to his followers to "figure out" the epistemology and ontology of
> the
> MOQ. That may provide a 'fun game' for those who enjoy parsing phrases,
> matching up assertions, and trading insults, but it's a problem for those
> discerning enough to realize that they have a stake in the answers. That
> certainly applies to the "believers" in this group.
I think I see philosophy differently to you. I like RMP's analogy of the
paintings in an art gallery, which are variously useful and beautiful. I'm
not sure that there could possibly be a single painting which contains all
of the truth (because I think that assumes a certain understanding of truth
which I do not share).
> I've attempted to demonstrate my Philosophy of Essence as an alternative
> to
> Pirsig's multi-level Quality thesis. <snip>
> Admittedly, Essentialism doesn't address some of the elements of your
> faith -- "the way of truth and life", "life everlasting", "reward after
> death", "resurrection of Christ", for example. These are, indeed, matters
> of personal faith that are best left to one's personal religious
> inclinations rather than a metaphysical thesis. Ideally, I would want a
> "core belief system" to have precedence over religious dogma, and I think
> this can be achieved. But at the same time, as philosophers, we can't
> afford to carry a chip on our shoulders by way of anti-religious bias. It
> impugns the basic concept of a free-thought forum.
Agree with that last bit. But I think you're trying to rebuild the ship
whilst still at sea. Possible, but it requires great care - you can only do
one plank at a time. The philosophy - I would say - is derivative from the
religious aspects. You can't start with the philosophy (that would be like
setting out to sea, without the boat, and trying to build it whilst you're
afloat...)
> Thanks for your consideration, Sam. Are we still on the same page?
I think there's a great gulf between us on the status of metaphysics, but
I'm sympathetic to much else that you have written.
Sam
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 : Wed Apr 13 2005 - 18:01:56 BST