From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 04:57:00 GMT
DMB asked, "Why is Pirsig's non-technical use of the word "metaphysics" not
legitimate?"
Matt:
Never said it wasn't. I've discussed this at length with Wim, and my basic
answer is that, if we keep metaphysics as wide and ubiquitous as we'd need
it to be to accomadate irony and an undefined Quality, then it ceases to be
useful. I find it more useful, particularly when talking about Rorty and
pragmatism, to make a distinction between "philosophy," which I define in a
way that looks exactly like what you guys want metaphysics to mean, and
"metaphysics," which I reserve for a particular way of doing philosophy. I
never said that a ubiquitous use of metaphysics was not legitimate. I just
don't agree to it. However, I also think that Pirsig shows signs of using
"metaphysics" in the way Rorty describes. As such, I think he should just
purge himself of the whole thing and get on with the good stuff that
doesn't look like metaphysics (as Rorty defines it).
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 - 04:58:04 GMT