[MD] Taking words Seriously

[Matt Kundert]

Hi Marsha,

Marsha said:
I will dismiss your evaluations of RMP as a limited scholar, as well 
as your evaluation of what is a 'bad argument'  because as presented 
they seem just your opinion.  It brings to mind the differences 
between an artist and an art critic.

Matt:
I'm not sure if you meant "dismiss" as in a "dismissive" attitude, but 
I'm not sure why you should think of Pirsig's philosophology 
arguments.  If "philosophology" really is understood as historical 
scholarship that has nothing to do with "real philosophy," then if 
Pirsig does present an argument from bad historical premises, why 
should the distinction have anything to with the suggestion I made, 
which uses pretty much that distinction?

As presented, they are indeed my opinion, though I'm not sure why 
"just," unless it's part again of a dismissive strategy on your part.  
The value of that strategy against my opinion I wonder about, 
mainly because I'm not trying to dismiss Pirsig's scholarship.  We 
are all limited in our ways.  Perhaps I shouldn't have said I "cringe," 
because that implies, coupled with what I judge to be a weak point 
in Pirsig's scholarship, that Pirsig's own philosophy is hurt by these 
particular remarks that strike me as wrongheaded.  I shouldn't 
cringe, because we shouldn't have such halos over the heads of even 
our heroes.  We should take there limitations, like our own, in stride, 
while keeping the manner in which we judge and appreciate ours 
and others philosophies in the right perspective (whatever that 
perspective may be).  

As an effort of good faith, I would suggest John Herman Randall as 
an example, whose book on Aristotle is pretty much what Aristotle 
would look like had he been a Deweyan pragmatist.  His book was 
published in 1960.

Matt