Daya Krishna’s creative criticism of the prevalent traditionalist interpretation of classical Indian philosophy is analytically stated and evaluated. His objections to classifying Indian philosophies into orthodox and heterodox systems, applying to a group of differing philosophies the common labels of vedānta or vedāntic, making these terms multi-referential, inappropriately titling some books as Nyāyasūtra, Sānkhayarikārika, etc., though they discuss a miscellany of themes, etc., are also discussed and assessed. His calling of these terms and some others of their like, or the (...) practice of using them, mythical is examined. It is shown that they may not be accurate but their use has not become disutile. In their prevailing usage, seemingly misleading characters have become sterile and therefore they have ceased to be misleading and continue functioning as convenient classificatory terms. Enjoying his calling of the concept of puruṣārtha and the theory of puruṣārtha too mythical, it has been shown that the concept is not because it means any object of anyone’s and there are many such objects; the theory is not because it is historically an important component of classical Indian value theory. I have also shown that as presented by traditionalist writers, it is not a logical elegant theory, but a fairly workable one can be carved out of the classical theory by linking together some elements of it in newer ways with the logical cement obtainable from modern value theorizing. Something similar has been done with Daya Krishna ’s analysis of the traditionalist claim that Indian philosophy is spiritualist. DK links it with Indian culture through the concept of mokṣa. I have shown that it is the result of linking philosophy too tightly with religion, of course, through the doorway of the concept of mokṣa, by pointing out that mokṣa is a religious, and not an ethical, value. (shrink)

Of the six complaints that Professor Prasad lodges against my article, three are complaints about general remarks I make, two of which are from my unpublished abstract. Of these three, one incorrectly rejects my evaluation of the tone of his article; the second misattributes a claim from the abstract to the beginning of the article, rejects the claim without support, and mistakenly asserts that my claim is unsupported; and the third mistakenly rejects a characterization I make of Strawson's position. Of (...) the three purported claims that Professor Prasad entertains (and rejects) from the main body of my article, only one turns out to be a claim I actually make, and his rejection of it is mistaken. In my article I examine Professor Prasad's original arguments in some detail, asserting that they can be grouped into seven types of argument and that four of them are directly aimed at Strawson's four types of argument in support of optimistic determinism. I then assert that three of Prasad's four types succeed and one fails. Of the three remaining types, one succeeds, and the others fail. None of these assertions draws substantial comment in Professor Prasad's response. (shrink)

I highlight three features of P.F. Strawson’s later, neglected work on freedom and responsibility. First, in response to a criticism by Rajendra Prasad, Strawson explicitly rejects an argument put forward in ‘Freedom and Resentment’ against the relevance of determinism to moral responsibility. Second, his remarkable acceptance of Prasad’s criticism motivates him to take the ‘straight path’, that is, to be straightforward about the relation between determinism, freedom, the ability to do otherwise and the conditions of responsibility. He claims that (...) the ability to do otherwise is a necessary condition of responsibility and provides a list of additional conditions, including a knowledge condition. Third, he clarifies the relation between responsibility, quality of will and the reactive attitudes. The latter do not figure essentially in his answer to the question, ‘What are the conditions of responsibility?’, but they do play an essential role in his answer to the question, ‘Why do we have the concept of responsibility?’ We have it, Strawson suggests, because of our natural concern about the quality of will with which people act, a concern expressed in our reactive attitudes. I argue that, although Strawson’s later work definitely involves a shift of emphasis when compared to ‘Freedom and Resentment’, his overall account of freedom and responsibility is coherent. The later work helps to better understand the nature and significance of Strawson’s contribution, and to identify problems with common interpretations of and objections to ‘Freedom and Resentment’. (shrink)

This paper is a tribute to Rajendra Swaroop Bhatnagar. Bhatnagar Saab was a philosopher of the here and now, of the worldly, of the social, who did not hesitate to look into violence, poverty, pain, and suffering. He was an activist through his writings, and worked to establish social awareness. Metaphysics and the spiritual, considered by many as a central leitmotif of Indian philosophy, he saw as secondary or even marginal. The first part of the paper surveys and contextualizes (...) Bhatnagar Saab’s work as a philosopher and translator of Plato into Hindi. The second part of the paper is a multilingual manifesto, which calls attention to philosophy in Hindi and other modern Indian languages and challenges the over-dominance of English. The third part of the paper is a jugalbandi, a philosophical duet. It includes one of Bhatnagar’s last essays, “No Suffering if Human Beings Were Not Sensitive”, published here for the first time, interwoven with my “commentary,” in which I aim to amplify different points raised by him and to expand the boundaries of the discussion. The main theme to be addressed is suffering. What could be more relevant during the present Covid-19 days? (shrink)

P. F. Strawson's influential article "Freedom and Resentment" has been much commented on, and one of the most trenchant commentaries is Rajendra Prasad's, "Reactive Attitudes, Rationality, and Determinism." In his article, Prasad contests the significance of the reactive attitude over a precise theory of determinism, concluding that Strawson's argument is ultimately unconvincing. In this article, I evaluate Prasad's challenges to Strawson by summarizing and categorizing all of the relevant arguments in both Strawson's and Prasad's pieces. -/- Strawson offers four (...) types of arguments to demonstrate that determinism and free agency cannot be incompatible, showing that the reactive attitude is natural and desirable and the objective attitude is not natural, not desirable, not sustainable, and not compatible with the reactive attitude. Prasad targets Strawson's incompatibilist arguments, showing that determinism and free agency are incompatible. Of Prasad's seven types of arguments, four target Strawson's four above. Three of these succeed and one fails. The remaining three target Strawson's support of the reactive attitude, and of these, one succeeds, and the others fail. Although Prasad's arguments miss the mark at times, he does succeed in putting forth a legitimate challenge to Strawson's notion that determinism is no inhibitor of the reactive attitude. (shrink)

The theory is presented that the sexual process is a repair mechanism which maintains redundancy within the sub-structure of hierarchical, self-reproducing organisms. In order to keep the problems within mathematically tractable limits , a simple model is introduced: a wheel with 6 spokes, 3 of them vital and 3 redundant, symbolizes the individual . Random accidents destroy spokes; the wheels replicate at regular cycles and engage periodically in pairing and repair phases during which missing spokes are copy-reproduced along the intact (...) spokes of the partner wheel.The hierarchical structure of such a system is analysed and an ‘autonomous unit’ is defined: this is the unit of minimal hierarchical complexity which is capable of perpetuating autonomously all higher and all lower levels of the hierarchy; this is the central unit of selection.Four basic, physical parameters are isolated which determine the essential features of any eucaryotic life cycle: 1. The number of levels of the hierarchy ; 2. the relation between the phases of replication and repair ; 3. the duration of potential repair ; 4. the position of the sexual partners within the hierarchy .The evaluation of fitness components is considered in relation to trends of reproductive patterns in evolution. (shrink)

Political science - Iran - History ; Political science - Philosophy.

t. 1. Igry rynka -- t. 2. Torgovet︠s︡ v Khrame.

Literature; hermeneutics; theory, etc.; history and criticism.

-- ch. 2. Tekhnosfera i osnovy sovremennykh tekhnologiĭ.

Eserlerin mukaddimeleri, müelliflerin konuya hâkimiyetini gösterdikleri ve adeta ilmî yeterliliklerini okuyucuya sundukları bölümler olmuştur. Bazı tefsir mukaddimelerinde de bunu görmek mümkündür. Kur’ân ilimleri ve tefsir metodolojisi hakkında önemli bilgiler veren ve çalışmamıza konu olan Tabersî, Âlûsî ve Sıddîk Hân da eserlerinin mukaddimelerinde Kur’ân ilimlerinin bir kısmınasathi yorumlar getirirken, bir kısmına ise teferruatlı bir şekilde yer vermektedirler. Örneğin Tabersî i’caz konusunu, Âlûsî i’câzla birlikte yedi harf meselesini detaylı bir şekilde ele alırken, Sıddîk Hân Kur’ân ilimleri konularına daha kısa bir şekilde değinmektedir. (...) Müfessirlerimiz mukaddimelerinde genel olarak metodoloji konusuna daha detaylı bir şekilde değinerek takip edecekleri yöntem hakkında bilgi vermektedirler. Tefsir metodolojisi konusunda benzer kaidelerlekonuyu ele alan müfessirlerimiz, bazen de kendilerine özgü yöntemlerikullandıkları müşahede edilmektedir. Bu bağlamda Tabersî Şîa mezhebinin görüşlerini önemsemekte, imamlardan nakledilen rivayetleri Peygamber’den nakledilen rivayetle eşit tutarak mezhebî taassupla konuya yaklaşmakta; Âlûsî tasavvuf ehli tarafından yapılan yorumları önemsemekle birlikte konuya temkinli yaklaşarak, yapılan batınî yorumun ayetin zahirine uygun olması gerektiğini söylemektedir. Diğer iki müfessirden daha fazla tefsir metodolojisine değinen Sıddîk Hân ise mezhep taassubundan uzak durulması gerektiğini söyleyerek birçok tefsir yöntemini eleştirmekte ve bu yaklaşımları tefsir olarak değerlendirmemektedir. Tefsir metodolojisinde naklin önemine değinen müfessirlerimizden Tabersî doğru bir tefsir için sahih naklin gerekli olduğuna, Sıddîk Hân ise tefsirin sadece sahih nakille bilineceğini söyleyerek, bunun dışındaki yorumları te’vil olarak değerlendirmekte böylece tefsir ve te’vil arasındaki farka değinmektedir. (shrink)

Данная работа является попыткой рассмотреть проблему рациональности, главным образом, как проблему познания, не исключая при этом ее мировоззренческого и аксиологического аспектов.

Sanskrit treatise on Jaina ethics and doctrines.

Cultural education for the soldiers of People army of Vietnam.

-- 3. Escrits d'economia i finances, 1925 / pròleg de Francesc Roca.