[MD] Classic or Romantic? Yes, definitely.

[X Acto]

"The romantic mode is primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative, intuitive. 
Feelings rather than facts predominate. "Art" when it is opposed to "Science" is 
often romantic. It does not proceed by reason or by laws. It proceeds by 
feeling, intuition and esthetic conscience. In the northern European cultures 
the romantic mode is usually associated with femininity, but this is certainly 
not a necessary association.The classic mode, by contrast, proceeds by reason 
and by laws... which are themselves underlying forms of thought and behavior. In 
the European cultures it is primarily a masculine mode and the fields of 
science, law and medicine are unattractive to women largely for this reason. 
Although motorcycle riding is romantic, motorcycle maintenance is purely 
classic." (Pirsig in ZAMM)


"James classifies philosophers according to their temperaments: in this case 
“tough-minded” or “tender-minded.” The pragmatist is the mediator between these 
extremes, someone, like James himself, with “scientific loyalty to facts,” but 
also “the old confidence in human values and the resultant spontaneity, whether 
of the religious or romantic type” (P, 17)." (Stanford encyclopedia of 
Philosophy)


"if I now proceed to define more fully what I have in mind when I speak of 
rationalists and empiricists, by adding to each of those titles some secondary 
qualifying characteristics, I beg you to regard my conduct as to a certain 
extent arbitrary. I select types of combination that nature offers very 
frequently, but by no means uniformly, and I select them solely for their 
convenience in helping me to my ulterior purpose of characterizing pragmatism. 
Historically we find the terms ’intellectualism’ and ’sensationalism’ used as 
synonyms of ’rationalism’ and ’empiricism.’ Well, nature seems to combine most 
frequently with intellectualism an idealistic and optimistic tendency. 
Empiricists on the other hand are not uncommonly materialistic, and their 
optimism is apt to be decidedly conditional and tremulous. Rationalism is always 
monistic. It starts from wholes and universals, and makes much of the unity of 
things. Empiricism starts from the parts, and makes of the whole a collection-is 
not averse therefore to calling itself pluralistic. Rationalism usually 
considers itself more religious than empiricism, but there is much to say about 
this claim, so I merely mention it. It is a true claim when the individual 
rationalist is what is called a man of feeling, and when the individual 
empiricist prides himself on being hard- headed. In that case the rationalist 
will usually also be in favor of what is called free-will, and the empiricist 
will be a fatalist– I use the terms most popularly current. The rationalist 
finally will be of dogmatic temper in his affirmations, while the empiricist may 
be more sceptical and open to discussion." (William James in "The Present 
Dilemma in Philosophy")

Dave remarks:
I was thinking about this the other day when it occurred me that there is an 
interesting parallel between James's relationship with Royce and Pirsig's 
relationship to John Sutherland. In both cases, they were friendships that 
persisted despite their opposed temperaments. And in the final analysis James 
and Pirsig both come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is combine the 
two types of approaches into a more well-rounded and integrated approach. 
Neither one of them recommend one to the exclusion of the other. And where do 
they land? Radical empiricism is tough-minded because it is empirical but it is 
also tender-minded because it puts Quality or pure experience at the front edge 
of that empirical reality so that feeling is at the very center of thought. 


Ron adds:
In book Iota Aristotle terms it as unity and pluralism, the one and the many
Which James also address in "Pragmatism" as Empirical and Rational.
He seems to place Protagoras and Plato in the same camp as James' Rationalists 
for
the same reasons. Here's the interesting part, he states we derive meaning 
predicated on these most
general of ideas. He begins with an explanation of unity and it's meaning 
because, he states that it is 

through unity we understand the many there fore unity is primary in explanation.
This is what he uses as a starting point for the investigation into the meaning 
of "being".
"For it is not an adequate explanation to say that the nature of unity is to be 
one or simply
be." he states unity is a number of attributes definitly united, to be
"one" is to be something definite.
" The meaning of unity becomes clear  when contrasted with what is divisible, 
plurality or the
the divisible is more perceptable than the indivisible so that the definition of 
plurality is prior
in sense experience to that of the indivisible."

Also interesting, he mentions some natural philosophers who find unity in the 
indefinite.




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/md/archives.html