Complete Term Paper

Talia Akerman

May 4, 2014

Period 1

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Term Paper

Though not shared by all, the pursuit, desire, and even need for higher levels of intellect has become increasingly common. Nevertheless, people are striving for a level of knowledge that has, in a way, become glamorized: the published papers, the renown, even the ability to outwit enemies. However, those who are truly intellectual are some of the most inactive people in society, past or present. To have such a heightened level of knowledge actually impedes one's ability for success as it takes away to ability to communicate. 

This complication has become prevalent in many novels. Through the careful crafting of his character Phaedrus, Robert M. Pirsig is able to demonstrate the struggle that an intellectual goes and suffers through in his novel, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. By way of what seems to be an indirect comparison, Pirsig is able to orchestrate his characters and plot in a manner similar to Dostoyevsky's Notes from the Underground.

 Through the main character's account of his own life, it becomes well understood by the reader that Phaedrus is an extremely intelligent man. Nevertheless, Phaedrus in all his intellectual glory is actually much more limited than the much less intelligent average human. The biggest struggles that Phaedrus encounters seem to ironically occur behind the confined walls of the classroom and school setting. In his attempt to bring in new styles of teaching, many confront Phaedrus and ask if he is "really teaching quality this quarter" (Pirsig, p.183). The teachers ask waiting for a response, nevertheless, to them the answer has been set and it is no. The innovative methods that Phaedrus employs, including his disregard for letter grades, is too much for the "by the books" teachers to bear. They do not seem to ask out of a true concern, but rather because it does not seem to be in congruence with the manner in which everybody else teaches. 

The question of whether or not he is teaching quality ends up setting off a thought in Phaedrus that goes on for the remainder of the novel. He reluctantly replied that he is "definitely!" teaching quality, only to realize seconds later that "he [did not] have a clue as to what Quality was." (Pirsig, p. 182-4) Phaedrus' inability to define quality begins to introduce the idea of Phaedrus as an inactive man. He resembles Dostoyevsky's main character in Notes from the Underground in these moments the most. However, Phaedrus is only fairly limited where as the Underground man is limited in all aspects. They draw the most similarities in Phaedrus' repeated and entirely failed attempts to even begin to define quality. In fact, Phaedrus is so limited in defining it that he concludes that it cannot be defined at all. 

Phaedrus' inability to define quality and limitedness as a whole is a microcosm for the entire issue in and of itself. Phaedrus represents only a small part of the underground man's inability to function in society. Furthermore, Phaedrus' small issue is what eventually leads to his "destruction". Though the inability to function is detrimental to the person it affects, it seems to be a necessary evil in the world. The inactive nature of the intellectual man allows for enlightenment amongst the active men. They are able to see and comprehend the more intellectual people when said people are unable to function. When these people cannot function, they seem to exist at a standstill, which coincidentally, and ironically, seem to be the only time when the "common people" can understand them. Despite the fact that this brings enlightenment and knowledge to the rest, this inability to function halts any sort of forward motion for the human race as a whole.  

For any sort of progress to occur, be it socially, scientifically, etc. the more intelligent people need to be functioning. Nevertheless, if these people are functioning, they function at a level of understanding beyond that of the average man. The average man, being as he is named, average, cannot begin to comprehend the ways of the more intellectual persons of the world. The inability to understand stops any sort of forward movement. However, if the most intelligent people were to retard their success, humanity would be at a standstill. Therefor, this inability to communicate and understand each other is vital to the success and progression of people as a whole. 

When Phaedrus decided to challenge and manipulate the school system he was able to almost perfectly demonstrate why the discrepancy between the two types of people is necessary. When he decides to completely disregard the grading scale system and implement his own, as well as when he deciding to ask his students what the definition of quality is, many are opposed to his methods. His disregard for grades is treated skeptically by his fellow teachers and his students alike. Many proceed to question his sanity and whether or not he is teaching quality if there is no way to measure the work in terms of success. While the reader gets an in depth account of the reasoning behind throwing out the grades, neither the teachers nor the students do and that is why they are unable to understand his methods. While he is trying to make progress, even if it is rather small in perspective, he is treated with skepticism because of the lack of communication and understanding. Many told him that he "can not eliminate the degree and grading system. After all, that's what [he] is there for." (Pirsig, p. 195) Ironically so, people continue telling Phaedrus that he cannot get rid of the system for the very reason he decides to get rid of it. The other teachers and students are unable to comprehend even the most basic principle his intentions, which in turn halts the progress that it is supposed to be making. 

As the title of the novel clearly depicts, Pirsig makes use of a motorcycle in order to convey his message to his readers. The actions that occur on the motorcycle trip with the main character and his son exist as a sort of parallel for the story that is being told about Phaedrus. The vehicle itself is symbolic of the ideas that Phaedrus fails to explain to the general public, which inevitably drives him insane. 

There is no doubt that Pirsig most likely selected "the art of motorcycle maintenance" because of its simplistic nature. The motorcycle itself is a vehicle that can be broken apart and put together in a mechanical nature. With or without a set of instructions, one may "destroy" and "repair" the machine almost instinctively. It goes without saying that the simplistic nature of putting together a broken motorcycle or simply maintain a good one is much like the act of an individual trying to explain a new concept to people. An idea, just like a motorcycle, can be picked apart and put together once again. The only conceivable difference between the two "objects" is that the motorcycle in concrete while the idea is not. Despite the simplistic nature of the motorcycle and the idea, it is not something that is simple to all. In theory, both should be able to be understood by anyone. Nevertheless, in practice not everyone is able to grasp the concept. Pirsig uses the motorcycle as a symbol for Phaedrus' ideas in a way that they both seem like a puzzle. While Phaedrus and a select amount of people seem to comprehend the idea, many others do not. Going along with the "pieces of a puzzle" concept, it seems that Phaedrus and those that understand have all the pieces, while those that do not are missing a large portion of the pieces. Ironically so, Phaedrus ends up incapacitated because no one else can comprehend. Despite the fact that he is the one with the "finished puzzle" he can do nothing because the others lag so desperately behind him. 

If one takes a look into specifics, Phaedrus and Dostoyevsky's "underground man" seem to share a few ideologies. Neither of the two characters seem to thing that they are wrong in what they are saying. In other words, neither Phaedrus nor the underground man seem to think that the response they receive to their "ideas" is due to the fact that his idea could be wrong. The determination and fixation on what they believe them inevitably drives both characters insane. Nevertheless, when Notes from the Underground begins the underground man has already reached his point of insanity and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance displays Phaedrus' progression towards insanity. 

Both characters draw a high level of similarity to one another in terms of their limitations in society. Phaedrus has a confrontation with the issue of being limited when he attempts to define quality. With a certain degree of clarity, it becomes difficult for him to define quality as a single entity or a few words.  It seems that in light of this limitation he ends up saying that there is no true definition of quality. Here is where Phaedrus distinguishes himself from the underground man. While Phaedrus was highly distraught over the issue of defining quality, inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the definition is that there is no definition. In other words, he does reach a conclusion. The underground man has completely clarity and would have never been able to reach any such conclusion. He would have gone from saying that there is no definition, to switching back and forth from the possible definitions. It is evident that the underground man would behave in such a way judging from his actions in Dostoyevsky’s work. In Notes from the Underground the underground man undecidedly goes back and forth between many of his opinions; this includes those of humanity as a whole, religion, and the way humans act in a manner that is potentially dangerous to their lives. Due to the fact that the underground man has complete clarity, he is unable to commit to any of his choices. He sees equal merit in any of the arguments that he makes and thus is rendered inactive. While Phaedrus is extremely intelligent and has a certain degree of clarity, his is not equal to that of Phaedrus’.  Phaedrus spends a good portion of the novel being unable to commit to anything. However, as the reader comes to see, Phaedrus does end up committing to the idea that quality has no definition. While some might argue that not defining quality shows complete clarity, it does not. In his choice to say that quality has no definition Phaedrus is committing to something. Someone with complete clarity such as the underground man would not have been able to do that at all; he would be undecided between the idea of having a definition and not having a definition.

The differences in the degree of clarity between the two characters are also seen in the degree of alienation that the two have. The underground man has thoughts so progressive and a mentality with such a high degree of clarity that it has forced him to almost completely alienate himself from society. The greater portion of Notes from the Underground is spent with him completely secluded from society. He does, in the end, make the conscious decision to immerse himself in society. However, even that conscious attempt ends in failure as well. The underground man has thoughts at a level so much higher than the rest of the world that it pushes him away from an sort of interaction. Contrastingly though, Phaedrus has everyday interaction with all kinds of people. The only sort of alienation that he confronts is the one from himself. He is a professor at a college with what seems to be a large amount of students and does have his own child that he sees everyday on the motorcycle trip. Though it does become evident to the reader that Phaedrus temporarily alienates himself from his family and himself, he does end up “coming back” in the end of the novel.

Word Count: 2026

Works Cited 

Pirsig, Robert M.. Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance: an inquiry into values,. New York: Morrow, 1974. Print.