[MD] The Hero's journey

[david buchanan]

Mark said:
My Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D.) was in the discipline of biotechnology. ...Now, you may say that a Ph.D in Biotechnology is not a degree in Philosophy.  However, you would be mistaken since any of the sciences are considered philosophies.  A presentation of the world through biology, or physics for that matter, is no different from the presentation of the world through metaphysics.  They are both presentations.  A science is a metaphysics.  To believe otherwise implies that somehow the depiction of reality through science is not a man-made depiction.

dmb says:
While it's true that any Ph.D. qualifies you as a philosopher in some broad sense, biotech and metaphysics are distinctly different disciplines. And of course this biotech background explains why I was unable to detect any signs of philosophical expertise. 

Mark said:
...Too many academics seem to think that they are superior to others because of their degree.  All that a degree is, is a lot of hard work.

dmb says:
...too many professional athletes seem to think that they are superior to others because they made the team. All that means is a lot of talent and hard work. It's nothing. Imagine if everyone made such an effort. What would the world look like then? What did accomplishing stuff ever accomplish? Huh?


Mark said:
...My tools are different than say, somebody who has come through the ranks of philosophical training and must resort to the words of others to make themselves believable.


dmb says:
Within philosophy "the words of others" is called textual evidence. Philosophers don't "resort" to quoting other philosophers just like scientists don't "resort" to citing empirical data. That's just how the game is played. That's how it's SUPPOSED to be played. It's an ongoing conversation and so "the words of others" should play a very important role. Pirsig engages with the words of all kinds of philosophers from the pre-Socratics to the logical positivists. He and James are both described as reconstructing philosophy, as effecting a Copernican revolution in philosophy and one certainly needs to know something about the history of philosophy in order to do that. 

Mark said:
...How about if we discuss the ongoing battle between Ontology and Epistemology which is what MoQ delves into.  Let us do so without invoking some dead philosopher. Want to give it a try?

dmb says:
Actually, that was one of the comments that made me question your philosophical expertise. The battle between ontology and epistemology? That's what the MOQ delves into? I don't know what you mean by that.

Mark said:
dmb, what is your interpretation of spiritual rationalism?


dmb says:
"Rationalism" and empiricism the two great rivals in the history of philosophy. Plato and Descartes would be rationalists while Aristotle and Hume are empiricists. I'd guess that you're asking about the meaning of Pirsig's aim to expand rationality, not rationalism. In our time the term "rational" is usually opposed to things like magic and religion but back in the day rationality was considered a divine gift and the laws of math and logic were considered to be windows into the mind of God. Descartes, Spinoza, Hegel and Einstein all had this idea that God loves math and logic. 

Pirsig's expansion of rationality, in a nutshell, adds values, morals, the affective domain of consciousness and otherwise pushes back against attitudes of objectivity, of disinterested observation. It says that philosophy is a form of art, one that grows out of your own life and its purpose is to serve humanity and the ongoing process of evolution.