[MD] What does Pirsig mean by metaphysics?

[Steven Peterson]

Hi DMB,


dmb said to Steve:

> Where you see a denial of relativism, I see a confession of relativism. And
> yes, the confession comes in the last sentence. "I'm just as provincial and
> contextualist as the Nazi" is the groundless part and "I serve a better
> cause" is the social hope.
>
> Steve replied:
> Do you disagree with this passage or do you just think philosphers
> shouldn't admit such things? Are you asserting that there actually is a
> philosophical foundation that can be appealed to? Or are you saying that
> philosophers should still be in the business of trying to find such a
> foundation?
>
> dmb says:
> Yes, I disagree but not because for foundationalist reasons. I'm saying
> that we don't need a philosophical foundation to distinguish fascism from
> liberal democracy. Like I keep saying, relativism and foundationalism aren't
> the only two options and I'm opposed to them both.
>

Steve:
I agree, and so does Rorty. The key difference may be that you see "other
options" as middle ground, while I see the alternative as dropping the
notion of grounding all together.





Steve:

Are you different from a liberal ironist in this regard? (A liberal who
knows there is no basis for his liberal beliefs except his own provincial
context.) Since you also claim no ahistorical foundation I can't see how.

dmb says:
You don't see how I could differ without an ahistorical foundation?

Steve:
How could you differ from the claim that there is no ahistorical foundation
to call upon when also deny the claim that there is some ahistorical
foundation we can call upon?


DMB:
Well, that certainly explains why the all-or-nothing-ism been so hard at
work here. But I don't need irony any more than I need a foundation to
believe that liberal democracy is better. I don't even agree that they are
the products of different provinces, let alone different contexts. I think
most of us know what fascism sounds like in standard American english. And
the fundamentalism he's happy to eradicate in his students is just as
distinguishable from just about any principled position, let alone one based
on rights, laws and the consent of the governed. In Pirsig analysis, context
and history are key factors. There you see a way of asserting the difference
in terms of evolved value systems so that the clash between them is painted
as a conflict between social and intellectual values. This is a way to
assert one over the other without any ahistorical foundations or unrealistic
claims about eternal certain
 ties. (And doesn't that seem kind of grandiose and quasi-theological
anyway?) But we can find warrant in the past to make assertions about one
being better than the other for the future.

Steve:
There are lots of ways of asserting the superiority of liberalism over
faccism, and Rorty has done actually just that in many ways. All Rorty was
doing in the quote was saying that "philosophical grounding" is not one of
those ways.





>
> Steve:
> Rorty is saying here that all perspectives are not equal, which is exactly
> what you said was lacking in Rorty's philosophy: "we liberal teachers no
> more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots
> than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students."
>
>
>
> dmb says:
> Okay, but nobody said that Rorty can't distinguish between a professor and
> a bigot or claimed that he likes all perspectives equally. A bit like you,
> apparently, he just doesn't see how to assert such a thing without a
> foundation, he just doesn't see how to address even the simplest ethical
> issues, even if he personally thought cruelty is bad and kindness is good.


Steve:
This is just not true. Rorty is happy to assert such things without a
foundation and the full quote is a prime example of his doing that sort of
asserting. It wasn't his best shot at doing so because his point in the
passage was not to explain why liberalism is superior to fascism, but rather
to say that foundationalism will not help us make the case. It doesn't mean
that Rorty couldn't supply other ways just like anyone with half a brain
can. The question Rorty raised was, "which is the better tool in the broad
on-going struggle against institutionalized cruelty?  philosophy or getting
people to read first-person accounts form the victims of such cruelty?"
Which one of these do you think is more likely to make a dent in someone's
thick skull?

Best,
Steve