[MD] The Art of Philosophy

[X Acto]

dmb says:
Nietzsche and Pirsig are both OPPOSED to the idea that "Truth is the highest good". Nietzsche is OPPOSED to the idea that, as he puts it, "the virtuous hero must henceforth be a dialectician". It is Socrates, not Nietzsche, who thinks the dialectic is "the highest exercise of man’s powers, nature’s most admirable gift" such that all moral accomplishments, noble deeds, and heroism is "ultimately derived from the dialectic of knowledge". This is Nietzsche describing the PROBLEM, not his own position. 

The sentence you're asking about begins with the phrase, "as a consequence" and that phrase is being used to connect with the previous sentence, which says that Nietzsche is asking us "to consider the consequences of the Socratic idea that virtue is knowledge". Even further, the sentence you're asking about is followed immediately by a block quote from Nietzsche wherein he twice names Socrates as the culprit!

“[E]ver since Socrates the mechanism of concepts, judgements and syllogisms has come to regarded as the highest exercise of man’s powers, nature’s most admirable gift. Socrates and his successors, down to our own day, have considered all moral and sentimental accomplishments — noble deeds, compassion, self-sacrifice, heroism, even that spiritual calm which the Apollonian Greek called sophrosune — to be ultimately derived from the dialectic of knowledge, and therefore teachable.” — Nietzsche

Let me repeat that. Socrates and Plato are the problem BECAUSE they are the ones who think the dialectic is "the highest exercise of man’s powers, nature’s most admirable gift" such that all moral accomplishments, noble deeds, compassion, and heroism is "ultimately derived from the dialectic of knowledge".  

Again, your question never needed to be asked in the first place. It only serves to show what a careless reader you are. How is it even possible to miss this point? What the heck do you think it means when I say these two thinkers "disagree with Plato and Socrates on this point"? Is there something cryptic or mysterious about the claim that "Friedrich Nietzsche and Robert Pirsig both make a case that there is something terribly wrong with this Platonic legacy"? 

“Plato’s hatred of the rhetoricians was part of a much larger struggle in which the reality of the Good, represented by the Sophists, and the reality of the True, represented by the dialecticians, were engaged in a huge struggle for the future mind of man. Truth won, the Good lost, and that is why today we have so little difficulty accepting the reality of truth and so much difficulty accepting the reality of Quality, even though there is no more agreement in one area than in the other.” -- Robert Pirsig

“It’s been necessary since before the time of Socrates to reject the passions, the emotions, in order to free the rational mind for an understanding of nature’s order which was as yet unknown. Now it’s time to further an understanding of nature’s order by reassimilating those passions which were originally fled from. The passions, the emotions, the affective domain of man’s consciousness, are a part of nature’s order too. The central part.” — Robert Pirsig  

They're both reaching back into the origins of philosophy, finding the same problem and reacting to it in very similar ways too. Even if this weren't explicitly stated, how is it even possible to miss this point? Pirsig's philosophical journey takes us back to this point of origin and he's horrified. In ZAMM, he calls Aristotle an asshole, want to "rub him out" Chicago-style. He calls Socrates a liar and Plato a vicious slanderer. And why? It's all about the dialectic, the great usurper. Since the only requirement here is to read Pirsig's books, I think it's reasonable to expect that every moqer would already know this, at least be vaguely aware that the story leads to back to the Sophists and rhetoricians. I would have thought that you could, at least, distinguish the good guys from the bad guys in this story. I mean, your question is even worse than I thought. You're asking me to provide textual evidence for a claim that nobody made, to produce quotes
 that support the very opposite of what I actually. And you did this even though my actual claims were immediately followed by the textual evidence from Nietzsche. It hard to understand how anyone can be so preposterously confused. It's like some weird game. some philosophical version of "opposite day", where the goal is to be as wrong as possible. 

[Ron]
Truth won over the Good because of empiricism. The philosopher uses rhetoric based in empirical experience
and therefore it posesses more rhetorical power than of the Sophist. Which is why the true is the highest form
of the "Good" not the "Good" itself. "Truth is a species of the Good" a high quality static pattern which can be
argued as the highest empiricaly. So why does Pirsig blame the dialectic? well, the dialectic was but one tool
used in the Eleaic method which employed a variety of tools such as the method of division all in an attempt
to better clarify meaning and shed predjudices. Dialectic was never a tool to divine the "truth" the aim was
always clarity in meaning, a better understanding. So, where DID it all go wrong? ..With Plato.
  Plato began to form his own philosophy of a fusion of Parmenidian One and his theory of forms with
 Pythagorean number. Truth is then what IS, fixed and eternal.
What both Nietzsche and RMP do is to blame the modern notion of the dialectic because the modern
notion DOES hold it to divine the "Truth" BUT it is NOT the source of the understanding and meaning
of that Platonic ideal of the TRUE, it remains that old Eleaic tool aimed at clarity which fails to really address
the origin of that ideal, that final destination. TRUTH.
Where Nietzsche and Pirsig differ is that Pirsig does believe the Good can be taught and explains how
in his 1961 paper to Edith Buchanan.
Pirsigs ideas place him closer in the company of Socrates and Aristotle than what he probably be
comfortable with but the bad guy of the story remains Plato and the neo-Platonist tradition as it directly
relates to Christian dogma.
In conclusion I think clarity in meaning is the highest Good. Understanding is the greatest virtue and that
Pragmatic truth IS the highest static value. I think Pirsigs work agrees with these statements and they
agree with Socrates and Aristotle, for them, the true was a clarity in meaning not the modern Platonic
fixed ideal of the Parmenidian ONE.
Apon reflection:
Pirsigs journey invites us to inquire for ourselves it was his burning interest which gave rise to my own,
inspiring me to read Plato and Aristotle and as much about the pre-socratics as I could to better under
stand the both the problem and the origins of it. I dont think this conflicts with Pirsigs aim nor his
meaning and it simply illustrates his own journey to clarity and meaning which included as Nietzsche
wrongly accusing the method and not the aim.
 
thanx Dave.
 
 
.. 




                        
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