5 ms·

If you don’t mind me asking, which parts feel like nonsense? I hear this from people trained in philosophy every so often, but haven’t really seen anyone lay it

by thrav 7y ago

If you don’t mind me asking, which parts feel like nonsense? I hear this from people trained in philosophy every so often, but haven’t really seen anyone lay it out yet. They often just kinda say what you said.

0kl 7y ago
It may just be this creeping understanding that all you’re going to get is a frustrating surface treatment of any of the concepts contained. As someone well versed in all three, the book gives a light treatment to philosophy, zen, and riding motorcycles. Honestly I’d have to reread the work for an in the weeds critique, but when I ask the question: “What of it?” I just never had a good answer. * It may also be that if you approach the book looking for philosophy, wisdom, or zen, then you are doing it just as wrong as approaching the book looking for maintenance advice. That is, it may be a great book, just not of the type someone reading it from a philosophical perspective expects.
- jacobush 7y ago
  That is how I view it too - it just happens to slap you gently with some philosophy, wisdom and zen. Maybe it's very zen to be slapped with that when you least expect it.
falcolas 7y ago
A philosophy outsider’s point of view: when the main character started bringing ghosts - and their importance to his viewpoint - into the story is where it went off the rails.
- taurath 7y ago
  That’s where I stopped last time. The book for me is more about focusing around a concept and then circling it, finding the contours and at least marking it so you know when it’s there and can identify it.
- sideshowb 7y ago
  I thought ghosts were just a metaphor for his own surpressed memories?
  - thrav 7y ago
    Agreed. Ghosts were anything but the conventional definition in the book.
sideshowb 7y ago
Ok it wasn't recent enough that I remember clearly! But looking at litcharts notes I think it was this part: Torn between whether Quality is a subjective or objective phenomenon, Phaedrus eventually comes to the epiphany that it is in fact neither. Quality precedes subjectivity and objectivity—in fact, it is what allows for the separation of the world into subjective and objective realms in the first place. Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh in calling this nonsense but I am quite harsh on philosophy in general (though I do have time for some of it). Maybe this epiphany is true for all I know but the text didn't seem to communicate why he thought so. I remember having many objections the text didn't answer, and being frustrated at lack of properly defined terms, even making allowance for his claim that quality is undefinable. If anyone can justify the claim quoted above I'd be interested to hear it?
- thrav 7y ago
  I’ve been drinking tonight, so I apologize if I fail, but I’m going to do my best. Is quality purely subjective? Everyone has their own version? No. There are levels of quality that we can all agree on, even if we don’t always understand why. Art. Writing. Photography. You know quality when you see it, but it defies a true definition. First instinct says it’s subjective, but universally pleasing forms and displays say otherwise. They suggest there is such a thing as objective beauty (quality). Faces that are perfectly symmetrical are objectively more appealing. They are quality. They invoke a feeling of being drawn in. Accepting. Gravity. Conversely, there are things that are objectively off-putting. Everyone hates them. They (almost) universally disgust us. Push us away. Anti-gravity. Plenty of people will argue I’m wrong and anything Landing in either category is still subjective. There are people who enjoy having human feces in their mouth. Seems like that might be right. Pirsig’s point is that the quality judgement, the thing that makes it possible for a thing to like or dislike (going all the way to electrons, neutrons, and protons “liking” and ”disliking” each other) another thing it’s engaged with is what makes it possible for the thing to begin to define subjects and objects, period. What differentiates a subject from an object, if not some deep notion of “I like this, give me more of this” and “this hurts me, get it away”. That’s what he calls quality, and what he posits is at the basis of all that matters. —-alright. I’ve had 3 Pliny’s tonight and I tried. If this is all nonsense, I’m eager to hear why so I can learn a thing or two and know more than I do now—-

by thrav 7y ago

0kl 7y ago

It may just be this creeping understanding that all you’re going to get is a frustrating surface treatment of any of the concepts contained. As someone well versed in all three, the book gives a light treatment to philosophy, zen, and riding motorcycles. Honestly I’d have to reread the work for an in the weeds critique, but when I ask the question: “What of it?” I just never had a good answer. * It may also be that if you approach the book looking for philosophy, wisdom, or zen, then you are doing it just as wrong as approaching the book looking for maintenance advice. That is, it may be a great book, just not of the type someone reading it from a philosophical perspective expects.

jacobush 7y ago
That is how I view it too - it just happens to slap you gently with some philosophy, wisdom and zen. Maybe it's very zen to be slapped with that when you least expect it.

falcolas 7y ago

A philosophy outsider’s point of view: when the main character started bringing ghosts - and their importance to his viewpoint - into the story is where it went off the rails.

taurath 7y ago
That’s where I stopped last time. The book for me is more about focusing around a concept and then circling it, finding the contours and at least marking it so you know when it’s there and can identify it.
sideshowb 7y ago
I thought ghosts were just a metaphor for his own surpressed memories?
- thrav 7y ago
  Agreed. Ghosts were anything but the conventional definition in the book.

sideshowb 7y ago

Ok it wasn't recent enough that I remember clearly! But looking at litcharts notes I think it was this part: Torn between whether Quality is a subjective or objective phenomenon, Phaedrus eventually comes to the epiphany that it is in fact neither. Quality precedes subjectivity and objectivity—in fact, it is what allows for the separation of the world into subjective and objective realms in the first place. Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh in calling this nonsense but I am quite harsh on philosophy in general (though I do have time for some of it). Maybe this epiphany is true for all I know but the text didn't seem to communicate why he thought so. I remember having many objections the text didn't answer, and being frustrated at lack of properly defined terms, even making allowance for his claim that quality is undefinable. If anyone can justify the claim quoted above I'd be interested to hear it?

thrav 7y ago
I’ve been drinking tonight, so I apologize if I fail, but I’m going to do my best. Is quality purely subjective? Everyone has their own version? No. There are levels of quality that we can all agree on, even if we don’t always understand why. Art. Writing. Photography. You know quality when you see it, but it defies a true definition. First instinct says it’s subjective, but universally pleasing forms and displays say otherwise. They suggest there is such a thing as objective beauty (quality). Faces that are perfectly symmetrical are objectively more appealing. They are quality. They invoke a feeling of being drawn in. Accepting. Gravity. Conversely, there are things that are objectively off-putting. Everyone hates them. They (almost) universally disgust us. Push us away. Anti-gravity. Plenty of people will argue I’m wrong and anything Landing in either category is still subjective. There are people who enjoy having human feces in their mouth. Seems like that might be right. Pirsig’s point is that the quality judgement, the thing that makes it possible for a thing to like or dislike (going all the way to electrons, neutrons, and protons “liking” and ”disliking” each other) another thing it’s engaged with is what makes it possible for the thing to begin to define subjects and objects, period. What differentiates a subject from an object, if not some deep notion of “I like this, give me more of this” and “this hurts me, get it away”. That’s what he calls quality, and what he posits is at the basis of all that matters. —-alright. I’ve had 3 Pliny’s tonight and I tried. If this is all nonsense, I’m eager to hear why so I can learn a thing or two and know more than I do now—-