[MD] Pirsig and TITs

[david buchanan]

Krimel said to DM:
Well yes but I am still partial to a mild form of skepticism, call it 
critical thinking or avoiding gullibility. Micah seems on the extreme 
skeptical side and dmb on the extremely gullible side. I just like to keep 
Descartes and Hume in the background as reminder that there are limits on 
what we can know...

DM had said:
skeptism is sitting about moaning about a realm we have no access to, that 
is the bad use of metaphysics. ..What use skepticism? Well, yes it has a 
use, to question bad postulates and suggest that there are better 
postulates. You can sit and worry about the value and uncertainty of our 
postulates but who wants to turn into Micah or DMB on his bad days?

dmb (on this rainy day) says:
So which is it, guys? Am I extremely gullable or do I sit around worrying 
about uncertainty? I'm sure that would be a fascinating (huge sarcastic 
yawn) debate. Let me know how it turns out. Until then, I'd just like to 
agree with Krimel; skepticism isn't necessarily "about a realm we have no 
access to". Its just a good, solid intellectual value. Science and 
philosophy couldn't do without it. Religion shouldn't do without it. 
Skepticism is among the cognitive skills we use to keep oursleves from 
buying bullshit.

But I don't think Descartes is the best role model of skepticism. In fact, 
that's the sort of Modern (SOM) version that DM is using as thee definition 
skepticism. That's where Micha's solipsism comes from too. ZAMM's skepticism 
toward the West's metaphysical assumptions makes it the prime example of a 
non-Cartesian skepticism. (Because its one that we all know, if for no other 
reason.) I mean, if your whole point as a philosopher is to be skeptical 
about SOM then its certainly possible to be skeptical without adopting that 
metaphysical stance.

The MOQ's radical empiricism still insists that our intellectual 
descriptions agree with experience and that they make sense. It doesn't 
include the kind of skepticism that goes with the Cartesian self trying to 
get at the objective reality, but it still has some rules about what we can 
assert as true and right. Without something like that, we'd be paralyzed by 
nihilism. In any case, I think a philosopher or any serious thinker who 
abandons skepticism is a big shithead.

It is very much needed on the practical level too. You know, to guard 
against cheaters, preachers and con artists. But I repeat myself.

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more! 
http://mobile.msn.com