Philosophy

The 7th century Indian philosopher and proponent of Purva Mimamsa (realistic view based on the pre-upanisadic Vedas) argued in favor of Vedic fideism in lines similar to what the Reformed Epistemologists, especially the Foundationalists, are arguing. Following is an excerpt from an article on this philosopher in Standford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: ...if it is thought that any cognition finally counts as a reliable doxastic practice only insofar as it can be demonstrated to be such (for example, by appeal to a subsequent cognition of the causes of the initial one), infinite regress ensues; for the subsequent, justifying cognition would, as itself a cognition, similarly require justification, and so on. Or, as Kumārila here suggests, if the initial cognition isn't credited with the intrinsic “capacity” for conferring justification, then no further cognition could be able to bestow that, either—unless, of course, the further cognition is itself credited with immediately having that...

A placebo is a non-therapeutic substance administered under the camouflage of medication to deceive patients into believing that they are receiving medications; this done solely for psychological and not for physiological effects. Placebo may usually be used to compare its effects with the effects of other drugs in drug research. Let's take the case of an experiment that tries to establish whether a particular drug, say to treat weariness, is genuine or merely has the effects of a placebo. Suppose 20 candidates are chosen for this experiment. 10 are given the drug and the rest are put on a placebo while they are told that the placebo is a genuine medication. They need to make sure that the deception is well carried on for the success of the experiment. If both the groups make similar improvements after taking the treatments, the new drug seems to only function as a placebo in effect. The basic hypothesis of the placebo raises the question of mind over matter. Of course, this pushes...

It's proper to understand the difference between "Philosphy of..." and "...philosophies". For instance, philosophy of religion refers to the philosophical study of the epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical aspects of the phenomenon and concept of religion, including questions raised by it; whereas a religious philosophy is a particular philosophical viewpoint of a particular religious tradition--examples include samkhya, yoga, advaita, shunyavada. There are religious philosophies in the same manner that there are secular philosophies. While the start point of the former is revelation, tradition, or faith, the start point of the latter is reason. Following are some examples of the above distinctions: 1. Philosophy of Religion - Existence of God, Essence of Divinity, Death and Afterlife, Knowlege of God, etc. Religious Philosophy - Calvinist Epistemology, Advaita, Yoga, Zen 2. Theology of Religion - Essence of Religion, Goal of Religion, Salvation Religious T...

Modern (or post-postmodern) ethic inclines more towards a secular humanism that is aversive to hard justice. The form of secular humanism is sympathetic towards rapists, murderers, and looters and in some cases, would even dare to eulogize criminals as heroes. Thus, they will eulogize a rapist-murderer as hero who has been sentenced to death by hanging, just because they hate capital punishment. They turn sympathetic towards mass murderers not because they do not hate murder, but because they do not wish for justice to be so brutal after all, so exacting. Movies and novels try to highlight the humane part of a villain and arouse sympathy towards his weaknesses. Thus, real heroes who want to put an end to evil become villains in their eyes and villains become heroes. Media plays a villainous role in warping public opinion. Also, historical amnesia is becoming a characteristic of modern world. In the past, histories were preserved in family tales and social narratives. In the modern per...

The Enlightenment thinkers felt that reason had come to age and elevated it above faith. But, mathematics is not the book of life. It is impossible to expel faith. As the wise sage Pascal observed, reason has to be find support on something, and that something can't be reason itself, to avoid circular reasoning. Reason is also based upon faith. Again, he showed that reason cannot irrefutably prove God, but it can neither disprove His existence. It proves nothing. Spiritual skepticism is the willingness to concede that our minds cannot have certainty alone by themselves. This is not to deny certain certainties that are axiomatic and undeniable. For instance, one can't contradict the law of non-contradiction. However, it certainly means that one has no confidence in his own reasoning and wisdom. Only this form of skepticism regarding self can truly set us free to find our fullness and certainty only in Him.

flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. (Matt.16:17) People usually do have reasons for their beliefs, though not all may be able to instantly enumerate all their reasons when asked for. The believer in Chi power might even demonstrate his grounds of belief. So will the homeopath, the allopath, the evolutionist, the Yogi, the Advaitin, and the astrologer. But, it is also possible that one cannot demonstrate proofs and yet decide to go on with what one is convinced about, in whatever sense whatever. The Jews knew that there were no witnesses to incriminate the Christ; however, when He announced who He was, they decided that His statement was proof enough of blasphemy. But, on what grounds? The work of a preacher is certainly to persuade by means of reasoning. For some it may mean persuasion through exposition of scriptures; to others, through spiritual encounter and signs and wonders; to others, through contextually relevant reasoning (as in the cas...

The butterfly-or-man problem isn't far-fetched. For instance, there is the case of a man who sleeps and has a dream and the events and arguments in the dream are as rational and congruous to him as he has the sense of rationality and congruity during his waking hours. However, on waking up, he is shocked to realize that the dream arguments were inconsistent and incongruous, but wonders that they possessed strong credibility and sense during the dream-state or the semi-waking state. Much similar might be the case of a lunatic. Yet, psychologists observe that humans possess some form of lunacy at given moments. For instance, take the case of an angered man who is convinced that his anger is justified until he comes to his senses. Therefore, the Scriptures advise us not to trust in our own understanding, but trust in the Lord with all our heart.

Ref: The Republic Gymnastic is for the body, and music is for the soul. Gymnastic as well as music should begin in early years; the training in it should be careful and should continue through life. Music includes literature and literature can be true or false. Therefore, censorship is necessary. When modes of music change, the laws of the State always change with them. The music style must be more narrative than imitative; the artist, willing to imitate only the good and virtuous. A song or ode has three parts--the words, the melody, and the rhythm. The melody and rhythm must depend upon the words The State must not allow mixed styles that create confusion. The State must banish melodies that express lament and sorrow, and also banish instruments such as flute for promoting such melodies. Thus, only the lyre and harp are allowed. When a man allows music to play upon him and to pour into his soul through the funnel of his ears sweet and soft and melancholy airs, and his whole life is p...

Excerpted from Omniscience Time-fictions that imagine oneself traveling to the past or the future and being able to see oneself as another self only cash on the imagery of a realistic video playback. One can go to the past in the same way that one can go back to a time frame in a video and playback from there, they imagine; the exception in this reality playback: one can interfere. Similar is the imagination about the future. Of course, this involves the paradox of going back and killing oneself and yet being able to survive in the present. Some have even tried to suggest theories about several parallel universes and possibility worlds, which look interesting to the mind, but pose an interesting plurality. Of course, this could be one area where fiction allows for man to imagine a unity of being and yet a plurality of persons at the same time. For instance, in this imaginary time-trip, I find myself in 2010 at a University campus where I am presenting a paper. I (standing under a tree)...

The rationalists would answer that God is timeless; the empiricists, that God is temporal. So, what is the truth? I think we must first begin by admitting our limitations. If we are yet having difficulty understanding metaphysics, theology is even a more impossible arena, unless, of course, God intervenes to reveal Himself. However, we also know that He only reveals to us in the limits and the terms that are understandable to us. More importantly, the Bible emphasizes on knowing God personally through a loving and obedient faith. But, it doesn't mean that if a question regarding the nature of God arises, we are not required to give an answer. I wish to present some thoughts here. For a pure rationalist, ultimately, time itself is illusory, as all experience is (as in monism and non-dualism). For a rationalist who accepts divine revelation and the validity of empirical knowledge, God is atemporal or timeless; He is beyond time; He is transcendent to time: however, at the same time, ...

Christian philosophers have debated this issue for some time. Some believe that abstract objects exist; others, that they don’t exist; still others, that the question is meaningless. Views such as Platonic realism hold that abstract ideas and objects (such as the laws of logic and mathematical objects) have objective existence independent of minds. Some Christian theologians believe that abstract objects cannot exist independently; for if they did, they would nullify the doctrine of divine aseity , which states that there is nothing that is co-eternal with God. But, what about the view that abstract objects were created and are part of the invisible creation of God? For example, can it be possible that numbers don’t exist (not number of things, but the numbers themselves)? If numbers don’t exist, how can numbers be the object of our knowledge and how can mathematical propositions be called true if they do not correspond to reality? If knowledge a subject-object relationship, how can o...

Excerpted from Epistemics of Divine Reality (2009, 2011), pp.105-107 Kant resolutely argues that the traditional arguments for the existence of God, viz. the ontological, the cosmological, and the physico-theological (teleological) arguments are based on false premises. They proceed from the false assumption that quantity, quality, relation, and modality are inherent in the universe and not merely subjective to the knower alone. The arguments against the arguments for the existence of God are as follows: a. The Ontological Argument: The ontological argument of St. Anselm (1033-1109) proceeded from the assumption that God was ‘that than which a greater cannot be conceived.’ However, if this God did not exist then everything conceived of would be greater than the conception of God for reality is greater than an idea. Therefore, God as ‘that than which a greater cannot be conceived’ must of necessity exist. Rene Descartes had his own form of the ontological argument in which he argued th...

Sometimes philosophers have been misunderstood. It could be because the philosopher's communication was vague. It could also be because the philosopher didn't use Ockham's razor and multiplied terms unnecessarily forcing reviewers to impose the razor, with the result that what needs to be cut is not cut and what was essential is taken out of the equation. But, it could also be because the reviewer was too much in a hurry and his choice of sample writings and quotes intepreted in light of his hypothesis of what the philosopher might be meaning committed the fallacy of hasty generalization (even if his critique of the philosopher was voluminous). Whatever, it is an unfortunate sight when one observes that a scholar may have misinterpreted another scholar and the other scholar is alarmed that that is not what he meant. Some philosophers give rise to various conflicting schools of interpretation; to quote an example, the left Hegelian and the right Hegelian schools that emerged...

We have earlier noted that the conflict between reason and experience has sometimes led to either reason jettisoning experience or vice versa. Examples of rational cosmologies are non-dualism and monism, if not some form of idealism that denies the reality of empirical perceptions. Examples of empirical theories are anything ranging from pluralistic realism to logical positivism and the like theories that reject the validity of non-empirical postulates. We also noted that Zeno's paradoxes are epistemic paradoxes of conflict between reason and sense-experience. Rational Problems: 1. Aristotle's Time Paradox. Regarding Time, he writes in his Physics, "the following considerations would make one suspect that it either does not exist at all or barely, and in an obscure way. One part of it has been and is not, while the other is going to be and is not yet. Yet time-both infinite time and any time you like to take-is made up of these. One would naturally suppose that what is ma...

The first objection is that only propositions can be necessary; for instance, "Bachelors are unmarried men" is a proposition having necessary value: it would be self-contradictory to assert that "Bachelors are married men". The proposition is necessary. However, can this be said about beings? Pruss answers in the affirmative: Yes, because the statement "God is a necessary being" can be claimed to be a necessary proposition (as in the ontological argument). But, it is often claimed, the notion of a necessary being is absurd. For it is propositions that are necessary, not beings, and hence talk of a necessary being is a category mistake. However, this is an uncharitable argument, since the claim that A is a necessary being can be translated into the claim that the proposition ∃ x(x=A)  is necessarily true, or perhaps that there is some individual essence E of A that is a property that only A can have and that is such that ∃ x ( x  has E ) is necessarily ...

"Tell a lie, speak it loudly, repeat it often, and the majority of people will believe it." ~ Adolf Hitler Sinister as this quote appears, deliberate lying is part of propaganda and advertisement all around. And, while people recognize much of it as false (for instance, an ad that shows women swarming on a man using a particular body spray), it is held that somehow the elevated picture one paints will have a psychologically deterministic noetic effect. But, are truth and determinism compatible? That is a vital question the answer to which will decide two things: 1. Whether humans have epistemic freedom; that is the choice to know. 2. Whether knowledge entails moral responsibility. While some sort of psychological determinism exists, as evident from experiments in group conformity, Milgram's authority experiments, and Piaget's experiments on cognitive ability with children, the determinism of psychology argues in support of uniformity of experience and not diversities ...

Contrary to popular assumptions that yoga is just about exercises, the Hindu scriptural text, Yoga Sutras declares yoga as the path to self-realization or union with God. The doctrines of karma, reincarnation, and spiritual powers are integral to the philosophy. If this aspect of philosophy is removed from yoga, then it becomes just a set of exercises and is no longer worthy of being called yoga. It would do injustice to call a set of exercises as "yoga" after subtracting from them the ground on which they are based. Therefore, the government of India website has tried to make it clear to the world to not misunderstand yoga as just a mere set of exercises (especially as the recently adopted International Day of Yoga on June 21 draws closer). The following are some statements quoted from the site. "Yoga is an invaluable gift of ancient Indian tradition. It embodies unity of mind and body; thought and action; restraint and fulfillment; harmony between man and nature and ...

Satapatha Brahmana Part II (SBE26) , Julius Eggeling tr. [1885], at sacred-texts.com There is no indication of temples in the Vedic period. Also, there is no record of idol worship in the Vedas. However, there is mention of altars. The altar ( vedi ) was considered to be earth’s extremest limit; and sacrifice, the navel of the world (RV.1.164.35). One of the altars was made to sit on the earth, was considered to be eye-shaped, and the sacrifice was directed sun-ward. Trimmed ladle was used to pour oil into the altar’s fire (RV.6.11.5). However, there were altars of various other shapes as well. B.G. Sidharth suggests a possible “connection between the fire altars in Turkmenistan (Togolok) and Afghanistan (Dashly) and the Harappan civilization, particularly Kalibangan, where there are seven fire altars, and also with the Harappan seal showing worship at a fire altar with seven accompanying deities.”[1] He tries to reconcile these archaeological discoveries with the concept of the seven ...

Max Mueller (1823-1900) There have been various interpretations of Vedic theology throughout history. But, one of the most original was suggested by Max Muller (1823-1900), an authority on the Sanskrit language and translator of several ancient scriptures, which helped him compare religions not only theologically but also linguistically. In his Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the Religions of India (1878), Max Muller considered Vedic religion to preliminarily involve mainly the worship of the Sky God or the Heavenly Father. He writes: Five thousand years ago, or, it may be earlier, the Aryans, speaking as yet neither Sanskrit, Greek, nor Latin, called him Dyu patar, Heaven-father. Four thousand years ago, or, it may be earlier, the Aryans who had travelled southward to the rivers of Penjab, called him Dyaush-pita, Heaven-father. Three thousand years ago, or, it may be earlier, the Aryans on the shores of the Hellespont, called him Ζευς πατηρ [Zeus pate...