[MD] The Dynamics of Value

[david buchanan]

dmb said:

As I see it, laying these quotes side by side only adds to the richness and texture of the idea they commonly discuss. It's a chance to hear the song by three different singers, if you will, or a chance to shed light on the notion from three different angles. Surely it can't hurt...

Marsha replied:
... The quote's meaning might be quite obvious within a Jamesian discussion, but needs an explanation relating them to the MoQ for those of us not focusing on the Jamesian tradition.  Laying the quotes side by side without explanation may demonstrate your lacking the ability to explain the points you are trying defend or promote, or it may demonstrate intellectual laziness.

dmb says:
I think the meaning of the quotes should be obvious. They are all statements made in plain American english. But then again you think wikipedia is too perplexing and you've claimed that those very basic explanations are too difficult and need to be explained. How simple does it have to get before your analytical skills are no longer overwhelmed? 

"Metaphysics is good if it improves life." (Pirsig)
"Thought should serve life and not the other way around." (me)
"The whole point of philosophy is to see what difference world-formulas make to you and me at definite moment in actual life." (james)
"Plato ..deified conceptualization and denigrated the ever-changing flow of experience" (Seigfried)

Sorry, but I sincerely do not understand how the meaning of these statements could elude you. I honestly don't see how the meaning could be more obvious. Maybe you could explain why this confuses you?


Laying the quotes side by side makes a point so obvious that it doesn't need to be said. But for your sake, Marsha, I will say it. Putting two items side by side is what we do when we want to compare those items to each other. We do this to find the differences and similarities between those items. In this case we are comparing statements that all make a claim about the point and purpose of philosophical thought, especially in relation to our actual experiences in life. In each case the authors are all making the same claim; thought serves life. The three authors refer to thought using three different terms; "metaphysics", "philosophy" and "conceptualization". Life is just called "life" or "direct everyday experience" or "the ever-changing flow of experience" or "the temporal flux" or "the immediate flux of life". This is life as its lived dynamically, as opposed to conceptualization, metaphysics and philosophy.

I sincerely wonder if anyone else was perplexed. 

In fact, I can hardly believe that you're being sincere about this, Lucy.