[MD] Pirsig, Baggini, and the First Rule of Philosophy

[Matt Kundert]

The first rule of philosophy is to keep the conversation going.

Socrates was told by the oracle that he was the wisest in Athens.  Socrates 
had no idea why the oracle would say such a thing because he knew nothing.  
So he spent his days wandering Greece to prove the oracle wrong by engaging 
others who thought they were wise.  Socrates marked the beginning of 
philosophy and we live in his image and by his example.  Without the 
conversation, there is only the dogmatism of those who think themselves 
wise.

It would appear that in Baggini's interview with Pirsig that the 
conversation did indeed breakdown and founder.  I'm not entirely sure why it 
did.  But the thing that struck me the most about the interview was Pirsig's 
certainty about his own wisdom.  For instance, his specious contrast between 
"one who only tries to explain a few things and succeeds or one who tries to 
explain everything and succeeds."  Of course more is better than less, but 
_success_ is exactly what is at issue.  If it is indeed wisdom is exactly 
what is attempting to be determined.  And the only way to make strides is to 
keep the conversation going, to keep searching, to always be questioning.

Kant said that you can't learn philosophy, you can only learn how to 
philosophize.  Philosophy is an activity.  Pirsig brings that out well when 
he says that philosophy is like chess and "real chess is the game you play 
with your neighbor."  Some of those neighbors we play against, of course, 
are those who are no longer alive, those great masters.  We engage them to 
learn how to philosophize, we engage them to steal their wisdom.  Baggini's 
interview brings out strongly Pirsig's desire to not engage with those of 
the past, but it also shows him not really egaging with those of the 
present, like Baggini.

I think Pirsig's desire to ignore other philosophers, other chess partners, 
is tied into the anxiety of influence, Pirsig's unwillingness to see himself 
in anybody else's eyes.  But unlike strong poets like Socrates, Nietzsche, 
and Hegel, Pirsig's tactic is more like closing his eyes then staring down 
his predecessors and saying with Nietzsche, "Thus I willed it."  Pirsig does 
indeed want to be original and, like Nietzsche, not owe it to anybody, but 
without engaging in the conversation, how are we to know if it is indeed 
wisdom?  Wisdom arises through the conversation, not outside of it.

What I think we see in the interview is the playing out of static and 
Dynamic as they are instantiated in intellectual virtues: focus and 
curiosity.  When we focus on one thing we are following through as far as 
possible on a single idea or subject.  We are focusing our attention, like 
Phaedrus' laser beam cutting through the darkness.  But curiousity is what 
keeps us on our toes.  Curiousity is the virtue of the fallible conversant, 
always engaging others in the hopes of finding something better than they 
already have.  Curiosity is what led Pirsig from chemistry to philosophy and 
then to Benares.  Focus is what led Pirsig from Montana to the University of 
Chicago, where he chides himself on not learning more than he could of 
because of his obsession with his own Quality thesis.  As Pirsig says in the 
interview, both static and Dynamic are absolutely essential.  A balance is 
needed between focus and curiousity.

In philosophy, you always need to keep the conversation going.  Without the 
conversation, we'll all just sit around with our own little ideas of what is 
good and right.  Philosophy is indeed an individual's activity as Pirsig 
says.  Every individual is a collection of beliefs and attitudes and it is 
the activity of philosophy that causes them to clash to see which ones are 
best.  But because of philosophy's high level of abstraction, it is fairly 
easy (given time and ingenuity) to build a fairly impregnable fortress.  
Philosophy is the game of changing the rules, of questioning everything.  
When you do philosophy, potentially everything is up for grabs.  The 
question then becomes, is the fortress you've built useful?  Does it 
constitute wisdom?

That is why the conversation must always be kept going.  If Pirsig's right 
in saying that "the best way to examine the contents of various 
philosophological carts is first to figure out what _you_ believe," then we 
really are solipsistic monads if not for the conversation with other 
philosophers.  The game of philosophy demands that we keep building bridges 
between each of our fortresses, all the fortresses that have been built 
throughout history.  Good philosophy is performed when we both focus on 
ourselves and are curious about others.

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/