[MD] Pirsig's revenge

[david buchanan]

Howdy MOQers:

I was nervous to read Strawson's review because I assumed it would be very tough to dispute a professional. I was shocked at his lack of substance and excessively insulting tone. In fact, if I had read that without knowing he's a pro, I would have assumed it was a high school kid or something. It's petty and even a bit stupid. 

The thing that shocked me most was his claim that subject-object metaphysics is a straw man. He thinks it doesn't exist, that it's a view held by no one. But I read other philosophers who talk about subject-object metaphysics all the time and I think he's obviously wrong, demonstrably wrong. For example, an article by Charles Hobbs for the William James Society includes these points....

"A theme running throughout James's writings is one of countering dualistic tendencies as opposed to strongly asserting any form of phenomenalism. That is, a prominent goal of James involves the repudiation of any epistemological and/or metaphysical "divide" between an objective external world and a subjective knower. As Suckiel has said, he aimed "…to demonstrate that there is no epistemological or metaphysical gap between the knower and the known, and hence no need for either constructing bridges or lamenting their absence."
"James contends that experiences are pure before being subjected to analysis or conceptualization. He says that "The instant field of the present is at all times what I call the 'pure' experience." It is only in retrospect that such pure or primary reality can be dichotomized or even reflected upon. In seeking to overcome the mind-body dualism that is so prevalent in the history of philosophical discourse, James advocates the bringing of attention to bear on life as it is lived, and the theme of pure experience involves the abandonment of those theories exemplified by their emphasis on the terms mind and body, as if these are separate and substantial entities."

This shows that James thought SOM was a problem worthy of his attention. It shows that the author of the article knows what it is and thinks it's worth grappling with and he quotes a third philosopher (Suckiel) who also recognizes it and wants to get rid of it. If I had the chance to ask Strawson a question, it would be about this so-called straw man. I think this open discussion of SOM and how we ought to get rid of it also shows that SOM and intellect are not identical, that intellect is what you use to attack SOM. 


Thanks,
dmb






> Craig wrote:
> 
> > Galen Strawson--who gave a less- than- favorable review of Lila --is
> > speaking this month at the local junior University.
> > http://www.moq.org/forum/Strawson/strawson.html Does anyone have a 
> > devastating critique  or clever retort that I can bring up  in the
> > question & answer period?      
> 
> Bodvar squeeled:
> Regrettably it's impossible to counter Strawson because the only 
> approach that would render his criticism irrelevant - namely the SOL
> interpretation - is vehemently opposed by the self-appointed MOQ
> pundits. I can only watch with glee the impotence of  those very same
> persons. Hey Horse, Daves of all denominations, Andre ..., you who are
> so dead sure that the SOL isn't the MOQ, this is your great chance.
> Come on tell Craig what "devastating critique" he could present
> Strawson with! 
> 
> 
> Ron:
> Bodvar, why is it you expect everyone else to do the work? in fact, if the SOL 
> interpretation is the only counter, then, it is your time to shine ,,no?
> come on chicken shit. Offer an explaination that strawson would'nt laugh at you
> about.
> See Strawson has an agenda,
> He argues for this position with what he calls his "basic argument", which aims to show that no-one is ever ultimately morally 
> responsible for their actions, and hence that no one has free will in the sense that usually concerns us. In its simplest form, 
> the Basic Argument runs thus:
> 	1. We do what we do, in a given situation, because we are what we are. 
> 	2. In order to be ultimately responsible for what we do, we have to be ultimately 
> 	3. responsible for what we are — at least in certain crucial mental respects. 
> 	4. But we cannot, as the first point avers, be ultimately responsible for what we are, 
> 	5.  because, simply, we are what we are; we cannot be causa sui 
> 	6. Therefore, we cannot be ultimately responsible for what we do.
>  
> Strawson is a relativist. So a metaphysics of value, one that states reality is composed
> of morals is a very frightening, threatening concept to even entertain.
> 
> Simply dear Bodvar, and dearest anal retentive Craig, state that strawson neglects the good.
> In his opinion, there is no account for it, his view undermines social quality. Dmb would tear
> him limb from limb.
> 
> Stawson insists we are slaves to biology. Even Ham would make mince of his views....
> How about you Bo? what, would be your arguement?
> 
> answer if you dare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------- End of forwarded message -------
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 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
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/