Zen, Motorcycles, and Nihilism ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,’ though it is not widely known, is indeed a book about overcoming nihilism. The idea of quality which the book deals with is an antithesis to nihilism and the author hopes that in proving the existence of quality, he will prove the non-existence of nihilism. To do this, he takes a non-traditional path because he sees that rationalism has thus far failed to overcome nihilism. In response, Pirsig adavances an irrationalist mysticism to overcome nihilism. ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ is a fairly good fiction book. The somewhat nebulous specter of insanity adequately got the book through its slow parts. It’s when Pirsig tries to make it into a philosophical work that it loses steam. At least, that is the impression from a rationalist philosopher. The very fact that Pirsig thinks that his philosophy can best be understood through a fictional format raises doubts about its intellectual merits. Even if it were possible to know things without our rationality, how would we know them? Rationality is the faculty by which we know things. Any ideology that attempts to garner knowledge through non-rational means is mysticism. I’m not so interested in the use of non-rationalism per se, but more interested in the reasons for choosing this route. Besides the fictional perspective, the audience first becomes aware of the existence of irrationality with the analogy between ghosts and the law of gravity. The author argues that belief in the law of gravity is just as unfounded as a more primitive people’s belief in ghosts. For, he says, if gravity existed in a way different than the way ghosts do, why don’t you just point to it then? We can’t point to something and say “this is gravity,” therefore it doesn’t exist. More so, gravity, like ghosts, didn’t exist before humans did. The law of gravity did not exist before Newton. Gravity and ghosts are just a part of people’s imagination. In the book, when this analogy is given, the spectators at the time find no objections, allowing the author to conclude that he is correct. Yet the only spectators to the rant were his twelve-year old son and an old motorcycle couple. The fact that these non-academics found no objections is no reason to suppose the author is right. Some very obvious objections do exist. First, he confuses between ideas which are representations and the things represented for the same thing. The idea the law of gravity is much different from the actual thing gravity. The confusion stems from the original false analogy. For ghosts, the idea of the ghost and the actual ghost are the same thing because the idea of a ghost is materially ghost – ghosts do not exist outside of our minds. The representation of a ghost represents nothing that exists. The idea of the law of gravity did not exist before Newton, but the represented gravity has always existed. The fact that gravity cannot be pointed to is irrelevant because it is the nature of gravity that it cannot be seen by a human eye. From the author’s perspective, wind would not exist in reality because we cannot see it and point to it. We have other means of knowing its existence. We have precise machines that measure the forces of gravity. Physical measurements are made of physical things. Of course gravity has always existed, we knew that even before Pirsig’s ridiculous sophistry. The point to be made is, why did he go to such a length to try to trick his audience into taking an irrationalist perspective (If gravity exists only in men’s minds, rationality is weakened)? An answer to this question is discovered when the topic that governs the last half of the book emerges: quality. Quality is a term that we all know. It is similar to terms like “value.” It’s the reason we take one thing to be more desirable than another. But what is it? The author soon realizes that there is no essential definition for this thing which seems to govern everything we do. This is were the rationalist critique comes in and states that if something cannot be defined, it doesn’t exist. Thus we see why so much time and effort was put into the attempt to discredit rationalism: the author couldn’t allow himself to come to the conclusion that quality exists only in men’s heads, like a ghost. At this point, Pirsig gives a supposed quote for the existence of quality. Say, he says, that quality really did not exist, and picture the world that would result. Nothing would get done because nothing would be better, or have more quality, than any other thing. Just think of sporting events. People get so wound up and excited over events which seem to have very little quality. The only reason one team is rooted for over another is the location of their practice facility. If quality did not exist, no one would care which team won. Really, this argument, and the entire book, is an attempt at a solution to existential nihilism which states that quality does not objectively exist; therefore, no one thing or activity is in any way better than another. It is the extremity of this topic that leads Pirsig to make his bogus remarks. Take the sports example. Pirsig does that our intuition tells us that if quality did not exist, no one would be a sports fan. Yet there is another intuition frequently voiced regarding sports that does admit of their meaninglessness. That they are just something used to keep the masses entertained. Bread and circus, as it was called in Roman times. When our intuitions differ, how do we decide which is correct? The latter intuition is correct because it is based on rationality while the former is based upon an appeal to emotion. The sports example is really an example of a pragmatist argument. It doesn’t answer the question of whether something is true or not, it answers the question of whether it should be true. I agree with the author that if there were a choice between a world of quality and a world of non-quality, the prior would be preferable, but this is not a proof for its existence. In actuality, quality does not exist, and this fact frightens our author. He realizes that a world in which quality ceases to exist subjectively in addition to objectively is a terribly bleak place. Also understood, is the fact that rationality leads to the conclusion that quality does not exist. Add them together and we arrive at the reasons for Pirsig’s eastern mysticism. He claims that this quality must be some everlasting “One” that has been spoken of for ages in the east. Things like subjectivity and objectivity – things which ruin his argument – come after. The claim that this “quality” is now synonymous with God and has causal power illustrates the depths of Pirsig’s mysticism. Yet, I do feel a twinge of fellowship with Pirsig, he is a fellow active nihilist. He knows that the outcome is inevitable and that in the end all will result in nothing, but he drudges on. Thus, though his ideas are ill-founded philosophically, they were founded on a human survival instinct, a will to life and power, and in that sense this book is of some worth. It is another failed attempt to overcome nihilism, which through its ridiculousness teaches us that all attempts are welcome.