[MD] Knockouts

[Matt Kundert]

Mike,

I think Adams is wrong, at least in the case of philosophy.  The only way 
knockouts could occur is if two people are playing by the same rules.  The 
trouble with philosophy is that there are no rules, or rather that all the 
rules are potentially up for grabs.  If one of the rules of philosophy that 
we learned from Socrates is "question everything" then that doesn't leave a 
whole lot stapled down.  What we end up with are proliferating subject 
matters and conversations, some that dovetail together, some that go in 
different directions, and a meeting of two philosophers can be a great 
exchange, but rarely are there any definitive blows delievered and rarely 
are minds changed because of the debate.  I think its extraordinarily rare 
to be able to uncover bad dogmatic reasons for lack of change in the 
"loser," and when looking at such debates its important to try and figure 
out _why_ they end up as standoffs--find the crux of the issue.  What you'll 
usually find at the crux are contradictory assumptions that lead both 
philosophers in different directions and its usually impossible to argue for 
those assumptions conclusively.

And that's not to mention that Adams' examples aren't universally correct 
either.  The introduction of a strawman usually doesn't bode well, but 
sometimes there's a different point being worked towards.  The author is 
willing to sacrifice whatever particular point his opponent is writing in 
detail about to say something broader (look at Pirsig's SOM).  Slippery 
slope arguments are also usually bad, but in philosophy the slippery slope 
can usually be constructed through diligence and ingenuity--its what's 
called following an idea to its logical conclusion.  And guilt by 
association arguments are sometimes entirely in point---as when an opponent 
tries to drain the history out an idea, making it lose its context, and 
making us forget the lessons of history.  And sometimes you have to ignore a 
simple, direct question because the question is all wrong (look at Pirsig's 
S/O Dilemma).

I love Dilbert.  Having read a bunch of Scott Adams, I think he's the 
latter-day Marx.  But I've also read some of his attempts at philosophy.  
Its wild and fantastic, but he definitely has a strong grasp of how to 
insulate a position.  What I don't think he understands is that when you put 
up tough insulation--an impregnable defense--you usually then preclude 
yourself from delievering knockouts.  When you build a wall around yourself, 
nobody can hit you, but how are _you_ supposed to hit anybody else?

I developed something like this topic (including Hitler) in relation to 
Pirsig a few years ago in a series of posts call "Begging the Question, 
Moral Intuition(s), and Answering the Nazi" (Oct 11, 2003) (and even further 
back in my "Confessions of a Fallen Priest" post from July 2002).  Its an 
underdeveloped set of interrelated ideas with much to expand on (and I've 
continually been trying to go back and develop them), but I take the issue 
to be pretty important to understanding the activity of philosophy.

Matt

p.s.  If anybody does go back and read that little sketch, just remember 
that I wrote it when I was being less careful about what I called 
"metaphysics."  By metaphysics I meant then (and I mean now) "Platonic/SOMic 
metaphysics," not "Pirsigian metaphysics."  (I usually call Pirsigian 
metaphysics "philosophy.")  The suggestion of many of my articles is that 
Pirsig appears to be more Platonic in some places.

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/