[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[Steven Peterson]

Hi DMB,


> dmb said:
> ... We should be able to move forward knowing that Pirsig and James are offering Pragmatism and Radical empiricism as an alternative to those things [representationalism, correspondence, Platonism]. In that sense, we all share the same enemy. By transferring Rorty's anti-Platonism into this context, you just end up making enemies where there aren't any, see?
>
> Steve said:
> That's not the issue. You've got it twisted. Matt and I obviously don't see Pirsig and James as enemies. Far from it. The issue is that you seem to see Rorty and anyone else as an enemy who doesn't embrace the terms "direct" or "pure" or "primary" with regard to experience.
>
> dmb says:
> Huh? If you are not refusing to embrace Pirsig's terms for anti-Platonic reasons, then what reasons do you have? And if you're refusing to embrace Pirsig's anti-Platonism because of Rorty's anti-Platonism, then how is that not a mix up?
> I'm saying that you and Matt have no legitimate anti-Platonic reasons to reject those terms. Seriously, what OTHER reason can you cite? If Platonism isn't the problem with those terms, then what is the problem?

Steve:
Platonism IS the problem with those terms, but it's not that I think
Pirsig is a Platonist or intends those terms to punch up Platonism. I
don't. I understand that like Rorty and others he is doing
anti-Platonism even when he uses these terms.

I prefer not to use the terms that Pirsig uses for doing
anti-Platonism when I do anti-Platonism because I think those terms
are too easily construed as more Platonism. Since I can do
anti-Platonism quite well without those terms, I am free not to use
them. Further, I think Pirsig and James would have done better never
to have used them so as to avoid being misunderstood.


DMB:
> And may I remind you that these terms refer to Quality? If you refuse to accept those terms, you've rejected the whole MOQ in a very big way. So I don't think this issue is at all trivial.

Steve:
Since Pirsig says that the quality that can be defined is not Quality,
I can't legitimately be faulted by a Pirsigian for avoiding defining
Quality with those or any other specific terms. I certainly have not
"rejected the whole MOQ [the philosophy of Robert M Pirsig] in a very
big way" though I have more than a couple quibbles with it. I can't
see how you don't have any quibbles. Any two philosophers worth their
salt ought to be able to find some things to disagree about.