A blog dedicated to the in depth study of the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and its author Robert M. Pirsig, by the 2nd period AP Literature Class group.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Thoughts on the Narrator’s Discussion on the Existence of Things (Monica Rodriguez)
“Do you believe in ghosts?”
It seems like a fairly easy question for an adult to address. One would expect
a simple answer, especially when such a question comes from an eleven-year-old
child, and the narrator does give a simple answer. The issue I have with him is
that after giving an acceptable answer the narrator takes his thought process a
bit far. He goes from saying that ghosts are unscientific to questioning the
existence of science itself, leading the conversation to a brand new territory
that could easily entrap the mind. A territory in which we must face the
question of whether everything we learn is real or a consequence of the human
mind. I honestly think that in bringing up this question of existence the
narrator is being quite dense, and annoyingly so. It is not to say that the
subject should not be broached, although I personally prefer not to because it
just leads to staying up late thinking in circles, I just don’t think it was
the appropriate time to bring it up. That is not how you answer a question
about ghosts in a normal converstion because with his reasoning, nearly any
question about anything could be answered with the question of whether anything
really exists (and now I am writing in circles). I do not believe that this
line of thinking is really productive, because an answer will not be found.
Bringing it up in everyday conversation will only serve to confuse those who
hear it, just as confuses the person who thinks of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although I do agree with Monica in the sense that talk like that will end up in circles, it cannot be ignored that this circular motion of thought is what makes philosophy so beautifully annoying. Apart from this, the reason why the narrator chooses to change his outlook is because, at an instant, his outlook alters a bit, partially to be nicer to his son, partially because he has found a different way to think about it. He then fleshes it out, in depth, to his traveling buddies. They don't seem to understand it, which is a little bit annoying to me because that puts the narrator in some "enlightened" position that places him a bit higher than the rest, as if everyone is incapable of understanding it but the narrator and (hopefully) the reader. What he says is not senseless, after all, from a man who so deeply relied on science and fact, the way he presents the information has to make some sort of logical sense, if not, even he would not understand it. Confusing, yes, but not senseless. I suppose that's the risk of delving into such a controversial topic. Not many will understand, or think the same way, or even agree on the matter, one must remember to keep an open mind when reading, even if it does not make much sense.
ReplyDelete