[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[david buchanan]

John said:
You can't fault Platt for villifying academia; it is a running thread through ZAMM and the evolution of the MoQ, after all. And in Pirsig's words (Intro to Lila's Child)  the mouth of the man himself... "But If dissenters didn't exist we would have to invent them because no set of philosophic ideas is worth much until it is tested by dialectical opposition."


dmb says:

I think it's way too generous to call Platt a "dissenter" and I find nothing but fault in his vilification of academia. As luck would have it, I just went through that section of ZAMM and it's pretty clear that Phaedrus was defending the church of reason from a politically motivated lowering of standards, as Arlo pointed out. The right-wing Governor of Montana had decided to fine the college for every student that failed, which was virtually an order to pass everyone no matter what kind of lazy blockhead they were. Pirsig was branded a "subversive" for defending the most basic of academic standards. And, obviously, this defense was being made while he was employed as a college professor. This was years after he studied at the Hindu University in India and just before he went to the University of Chicago to rub out Aristotle. And all this is told in his philosophical novel. Any one of these biographical facts is enough to dispute the notion but when they are taken all together the idea that Pirsig or his MOQ would support anti-intellectualism or the vilification of academia is just absurd. 
I'd also point out that the central mission in ZAMM is to expand rationality and that the MOQ's moral hierarchy of static patterns puts intellect at the top. I mean, the content of Pirsig's philosophy doesn't support anti-intellectualism either. There just no way that a reasonable case can be made. It can only be made through distortions and deletions. 
And that's why Platt doesn't count as a dissenter. Dissenters can test us to the extent that they're capable of dialectical opposition, capable of making a coherent, informed case against us. It's like chess or any other game. There is only a real contest to the extent that the other guy might defeat you within the rules of game. If I say "checkmate", he'll say "go fish". That's how much of an opponent he isn't. 


_________________________________________________________________
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail®. 
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_express:082009