From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 03:38:55 GMT
DMB,
Matt said:
Pirsig seems to stike the view that you don't need epistemology. It's all
intuitive.
DMB said:
No epistemology? Its all intuitive? Well, if empiricism isn't epistemology,
the MOQ's version of it or otherwise, then nothing is and the word has no
meaning.
Matt:
I think you are right. I think I was a little heavy-handed in saying that
Pirsig doesn't have an epistemology. You are right, empiricism is an
epistemology, but I think it could best be described as "thin" as opposed
to the fuller epistemologies offered by the Cartesian and Kantian
traditions. The reason is that empiricism in the twentieth-century is
usually aimed at disabusing itself of metaphysics (take the example of
logical postivism). So it offers a thin epistemology based on having an
intuitive grasp of reality ("we intuitively know things"), which possibly
leads to a thin metaphysics (like Quine's ontology).
So I think Pirsig falls into this tradition of offering a thin
epistemology. Pragmatists like Rorty say that people offering a thin
epistemology should just follow through on their arc and skip the whole thing.
Matt
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 Mar 11 2003 - 03:40:19 GMT