RE: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?

From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Sun Mar 23 2003 - 23:17:37 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Pirsig the postmodernist?"

    DMB,

    I think most of your complaints about Kevin are about stage-setting rather
    than about what Kevin is arguing. But, on two notes I would take the time
    to offer plausible responses:

    DMB said:
    Justify ourselves in a formal, systematic, foundational, air-tight way!? Are
    we talking about Pirsig's book? Are you talking about the MOQ? I don't see
    how you could be?

    Matt:
    Really? How about this: if Kevin had said that about ZMM, I might have
    been more inclined to agree with you. However, Kevin is saying this about
    Lila and it is not hard at all to see Lila as an effort in justifying the
    statements he made in ZMM. Like to Rigel, for instance.

    DMB said:
    No philosophy has stopped tyranny?! Are you kidding? Don't you think the
    heart and soul of the Enlightenment project was the development of political
    philosophies aimed at liberty and the overthrow of tranny? I do.

    Matt:
    I tend to agree with Kevin when he says, "No philosophy is armor against
    tyranny." I take his point to be that, even if the Jew is a better
    philosopher than the Nazi, that won't stop the Nazi. When Kevin says,
    "Historically, no philosophy has stopped tyranny," I take his point to be
    that liberal philosophy hasn't stopped tyranny, liberal institutions
    have. I follow Rorty in thinking that political philosophy is parasitic on
    politics and that political philosophies are typically simply summaries of
    current political intuitions. This is not always the case. Sometimes they
    offer us revolutionary new ways of seeing how things hang together. But
    just because you've worked out philosophically how to maximize liberty
    (whatever that could mean) doesn't mean you've stopped tyranny. You have
    to work these things out in the political sphere. I take Kevin's point to
    be that philosophy is a good servant of politics, but a poor ruler.

    As a side note, I follow Rorty in thinking that the Enlightenment had two
    distinct projects. One was the liberal political project which is still
    the best option we have. The other is the modern philosophical project
    which, as far as I'm concerned, is dead.

    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 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 23:19:10 GMT