Philosophical study of Yajurveda, Hindu canon.

Analytical study of the principles of Advaita philosophy of Śaṅkarācārya.

Systematic study of the fundamentals of Indian philosophy.

In this paper, we would like to discuss Wittgenstein’s critique of the idea that a person’s experiences are necessarily private, and these experiences can only be expressible in a private language. Taking a clue from Wittgenstein, we intend to say that the person’s experiences though private, can also be known by others. In the following sections 243 of his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein argues against the possibility of a private language about the subject’s inner experiences. He contends that by coining names/words (...) to name sensations and our inner experiences, we cannot create a private language. If we have a list of names, that cannot function as a language. We need predicate terms; we need the syntax to link the words in the form of a sentence. If we use private names and use the predicates from the language that everyone knows, then the private words will acquire public status like the terms ‘pain’ and ‘sensation.’ These terms are already part of the public language, and if private experiences like pain and sensation cannot be made public, we would not have these terms in our language at all. This is the reason why any application of words is public, and therefore, there is no possibility of a private language. Wittgenstein concentrates on the public rules that govern the correct application for the use of words. And the expressions are meaningful only when these are used according to rules of grammar; if these expressions do not follow any rules of grammar, these are simply meaningless. (shrink)

Expression is the central concept in Wittgenstein’s philosophy of mind, and our experiences are reflected in our bodily expressions or gestures, facial expressions, behaviors and linguistic expressions. It seems true that we have no access of other people’s experiences but we can know or talk about them in so far as they are the common experiences of all. This inaccessibility of other’s experiences may create a genuine thinking that one’s experiences are private and the first person present tense psychological utterances (...) are not descriptive at all. They are understood solely as expressive and expression is the outer concept of a mental phenomenon. In this paper, an attempt will be made on the basis of Wittgenstein’s critique of the relationship between the concepts of experience and expression we shall argue that certain uses of the dichotomy between the inner and the outer are mistakes. According to Wittgenstein, the inner is not a set of experiences which are or are not expressed by our immediate (primitive) expressions or linguistic expressions rather it is the capacity of the subject to express himself genuinely. (shrink)

In this paper, we will discuss solipsism and the limits of experience in the light of Wittgenstein’s TLP. One cannot draw the limits of experience without bringing in the notion of the experiencer. That is to say, the notion of self is very relevant to the discussion on the limits of experience. Solipsism means that ‘I’ is the only reality, and what I experience is all that I could know. We will focus on solipsism from two points of view, the (...) empirical point of view and the transcendental point of view. The empirical approach to solipsism makes the self as a matter of its experience. However, from the transcendental point of view, the transcendental or metaphysical self becomes the transcendental ground of our experiences. In the second section, we will discuss the relationship between solipsism and realism. Then how the self is related to the world will be discussed in the third section. For Wittgenstein, the self ‘I' is neither causally nor logically related to the world. This self is the metaphysical subject, and it is the limit of the world. In the fourth section, we will discuss the importance of the limit-self. The limit-self is not the matter or object of experience; rather, it is the ground of our world's experience. For Wittgenstein, it is not an item of the world; rather, it is the limit of the world. The limit-self cannot be described in language, and thus it is beyond our language. It is the limit of our language and also the limit of the world. Then, we will critically analyze the limit of experience, and the metaphysical self is placed on the limit of experience. This self is the non-solipsistic self. (shrink)

Analytical study of logic (Pramāṇa) in Mimamsa school of Hindu philosophy; includes text of Mīmāṃsāsūtra of Jaimini.

Background The global migration of nurses from resource-constrained to affluent nations raises complex ethical concerns, often rooted in historical power imbalances and neocolonial legacies. The Nepal-UK Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on nurse recruitment, while presented as a solution to workforce shortages, exemplifies this complex dynamic, prompting critical questions about its implications for individual nurses and the healthcare systems involved. Aim This qualitative study explored the ethical complexities and dilemmas associated with the Nepal-UK nurse recruitment Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This bilateral (...) agreement has sparked debate about its potential impact on both individual nurses and the healthcare systems of Nepal and the UK. Research Design A qualitative exploratory design utilizing semi-structured interviews was employed. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Participants and Research Context Twelve Nepali nurses from two private hospitals in Kathmandu, Nepal, participated in the study. Ethical Considerations The study was approved by the Nepal Health Research Council. All participants provided informed consent and were assured of confidentiality and anonymity. Results Four themes emerged from the data: (1) The lingering legacy of colonialism casts a shadow on the Nepal-UK relationship, raising concerns about potential exploitation and unequal power dynamics. (2) Nepali nurses grapple with the ethical dilemmas of pursuing personal dreams while acknowledging their responsibilities towards their communities and Nepal’s healthcare system. (3) The MoU’s claims of ethical recruitment are scrutinized, with nurses questioning its fairness and sustainability. (4) The agreement is challenged as a potential band-aid solution that may perpetuate global health inequities rather than fostering a genuine partnership. Conclusions The Nepal-UK MoU, while offering opportunities for individual nurses, also raises alarms about brain drain, exploitation, and the perpetuation of global health disparities. The study underscores the urgent need for a paradigm shift in international nurse recruitment practices, prioritizing genuine partnership, equitable distribution of benefits, and sustainable solutions that address the root causes of healthcare workforce challenges in both source and destination countries. (shrink)