From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Sat Aug 27 2005 - 21:47:35 BST
Platt, Erin, Ham, and all pragmatists,
[I've changed the subject, was: Fwd: Re: MD the MOQ conference hoax]
The usual use of "essentialist" in philosophy is to claim the reality of the
essence of things beyond the transitory appearance ("existence") of things.
It is, as far as I can tell, the same universalist stand as opposed to the
nominalist: horses are horses because they have partake in horseness, which
exists (if one is an essentialist) in addition to the particular horses. A
Platonic Form, in short, which a nominalist or anti-essentialist (same
thing, as far as I can see) will call "just" a word or concept.
However, suppose one doesn't insist that all essences be eternal and
unchanging. Then the MOQ would appear to be essentialist, only it calls
essences "static patterns of value". Note that a particular horse in a given
instant is not an SPOV. Rather it instantiates SPOV (by being a horse, also
by being a particular horse, say Trigger, over time). Because it follows a
bunch of SPOV we can to some extent predict its behavior. And we can talk
about it. Without essences there would be no language. But Paul (and
probably Pirsig) claim that the MOQ is anti-essentialist. From this I guess
one must conclude that they assume that until there was language, there were
no SPOV. But if that were the case how could there have ever been a horse,
even if there was no one around to say "that is a horse"?
In other words, one cannot say that essences exist, and one cannot say that
essences do not exist, etc.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: MD the MOQ conference hoax
Erin, Platt --
Platt asked:
> I don't know if I'm essentialist or anti-essentialist since I have no idea
> what the term means. Does it have anything to do with Ham's essentialism?
I've been wondering the same thing. I note that Erin uses the phrase "more
left-wing as anti-essentialist". Can we infer that "right wingers" are
Essentialists? If so, maybe there's some hope yet for raising the current
administration's flagging public opinion numbers. (Since Pirsig is
considered to be anti-essentialist, I assume it is the politically correct
MoQ position.)
Could you enlighten us with a definition, Erin? Perhaps I can use it in my
thesis.
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
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 Aug 27 2005 - 22:30:27 BST