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

[ian glendinning]

Great post Matt.

I didn't want to be the first to respond, but I see no-one else has.
Sam (who no longer links to MD) has seen it and promises a considered response.
Julian (who I've corresponded with in a "letter to the editor") has
seen it too and found it "interesting", and relevant to his "Art of
Dialogue" theme.

Links at http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1194
Watch this space.
Ian


On 1/14/06, Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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/
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>