Good book for getting a very basic gist of the main outline of the life-philosophies of these thinkers/schools. Not really good for getting a detailedGood book for getting a very basic gist of the main outline of the life-philosophies of these thinkers/schools. Not really good for getting a detailed account of any of them. But a good light read which was a refreshing change of pace. ...more
Quite literally a survey of Panini Studies -- Cardona provides a comprehensive introduction to the field and bibliography for further consultation. PaQuite literally a survey of Panini Studies -- Cardona provides a comprehensive introduction to the field and bibliography for further consultation. Panini's system itself is not treated in much detail. The book deals more with the scholarly discussion around Panini and the various facets of Panini Studies. However, there is some interesting, albeit short discussion of the basic facets of the system in the middle part of the book....more
Clear and lucid. Surendranath Dasgupta's translation of the Mahabhasya, despite the technicality of the work, manages to convey the information in reaClear and lucid. Surendranath Dasgupta's translation of the Mahabhasya, despite the technicality of the work, manages to convey the information in readable and clean prose. This book only contains Ahnikas I-IV whereas the original contains LXXXVI (86) Ahnikas. My first deep dive into the Paninian Tradition through a translation of a work of primary literature. ...more
This is a wonderful translation by K.A. Subramania Iyer of Bhartrhari's Vakypadiyam -- Brahmakanda with Bhartrhari's own and Harivrsabha's commentary.This is a wonderful translation by K.A. Subramania Iyer of Bhartrhari's Vakypadiyam -- Brahmakanda with Bhartrhari's own and Harivrsabha's commentary. Loved the book. Bhartrhari is so profound!...more
Beautiful and profound. Bhartrhari is one of my favourite thinkers. The translation and formatting of this book however, leaves much to be desired. AdBeautiful and profound. Bhartrhari is one of my favourite thinkers. The translation and formatting of this book however, leaves much to be desired. Additionally, there is an error in ŷ formatting -- this book is a 101 pages long, not 1101. ...more
Good, although very brief. Panini is absolutely fascinating. He anticipates modern linguistics by at least 2300 years. The systematic nature of his woGood, although very brief. Panini is absolutely fascinating. He anticipates modern linguistics by at least 2300 years. The systematic nature of his work is quite compelling. Also read a book on Panini's traditional Grammar called Vyakarana-Pravesah by learnSanskrit.org. It was a very good read. ...more
Case as a grammatical phenomenon fascinates me. In the languages which I am most closely acquainted with -- case is either all-pervading or almost comCase as a grammatical phenomenon fascinates me. In the languages which I am most closely acquainted with -- case is either all-pervading or almost completely absent. I am interested in what repercussions an analysis of case could have for philosophy. This was a good introduction to the subject and seemed comprehensive to me. ...more
A sweet potted guide to Kant's first critique with lots of relevant quotations. A good summary of all the main terms and concepts in the first critiquA sweet potted guide to Kant's first critique with lots of relevant quotations. A good summary of all the main terms and concepts in the first critique. However, its brevity naturally leaves much to be desired -- and can hardly get at the depth, subtlety and ambiguity of the source-material. ...more
A good read. The author describes Ancient Indian Literature as broken into periods: (in reverse chronological order) The Sutra Period, The Brahmana PeA good read. The author describes Ancient Indian Literature as broken into periods: (in reverse chronological order) The Sutra Period, The Brahmana Period, The Mantra Period, and the Chhandra Period. The early Vedic period is broken into two -- older hymns and newer hymns. Learnt a lot!...more
Thoroughly enjoyable read, gives a comprehensive overview of the Pramana theory of the Nyaya school. Read everything except the Appendix: which is an Thoroughly enjoyable read, gives a comprehensive overview of the Pramana theory of the Nyaya school. Read everything except the Appendix: which is an extract from the Analogy chapter of Gangesa's Tattva-Cinta-Mani. ...more
A beautiful book. Damasio convincingly and articulately attempts to combine Spinoza's ideas with modern neuroscience -- showing us how to live fruitfuA beautiful book. Damasio convincingly and articulately attempts to combine Spinoza's ideas with modern neuroscience -- showing us how to live fruitfully and happily along the way. Interspersed with reflections on the author's personal quest for Spinoza; and Spinoza's own life and background -- this book was beautifully written. ...more
A lucid introduction to Popper which brings out the revolutionary tenor of his thought. I found his philosophy of science, especially the notion of thA lucid introduction to Popper which brings out the revolutionary tenor of his thought. I found his philosophy of science, especially the notion of the logic of scientific discovery, interesting and his epistemology, especially the notion of a third objective world of social phenomena especially profound. His defense of liberal democracy as leads from his epistemology is a fascinating attempt to ground preference for it as opposed to other governments. I attempt a brief summary.
Karl Popper was not part of the Logical positivist circle but rather considered by them to be the main opposition. Magee makes the argument that Popper's social and political theory are closely related to his philosophy of science and his epistemology.
Popper's main contribution to the philosophy of science has been to offer a solution to the problem of induction. The traditional view of the scientific method utilised the inductive method. Popper's solution was to emphasise the process of conjecture formation through a process of irrational imaginative leaps which then deductively led to propositions that were refutable. The traditional view may be termed verificationism, Popper's view falsificationism. Inherent in this view is the point that what we call knowledge is provisional and permanently so. Truth, on this account, is a regulative idea. Note that Popper's theory of conjectures and refutations is not a psychological account but a logical account of method. Scientists need irrational, imaginative leaps to come up with new theories. Note too that the observations and experiments, far from giving rise to thte theory, are partially derived from it and designed to test it. Theories must take risks in order to be falsifiable. Observations are always interpretations and thus inevitably theory-laden. Theories derive from previous theories and these previous theories ultimately derive from inborn expectations.
According to the traditional view, induction divides science from non-science. But this is not plausible. Popper proposed the criterion of falsifiability as the distinction between science and non-science. Note that this is not a distinction between sense and nonsense, as per the logical positivists. A theory must first of all provide a solution to a problem. But it must also be compatible with all known observations and contain its predecessor theories as first approximations and account for their failure. Magee notes that Popper and Kuhn's account of science is reconcilable, Popper focuses on the logic of scientific discovery whereas Kuhn focuses sociologically on normal science. Marxism and Freudian psychoanalysis are not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. This does not mean that they are valueless. Popper attacked logical positivism on this point noting that universal statements such as scientific statements were certainly eliminated by the positivist verificationist principle -- as they were not subject to empirical verification. Secondly, it is out of metaphysics that science has emerged. Third, if tautologous assertions alone are meaningful then the debate about the concept of meaning must itself contain meaningless statements. Popper also attacked both theories of Wittgenstein -- seeing philosophy not just as an arid analysis of concepts, but of studying the world.
The traditional view of the scientific method went like this: (1) observation and experiment (2) inductive generalisation (3) hypothesis (4) attempted verification of hypothesis (5) proof or disproof (6) knowledge. Popper's replacement was: (1) problem (2) proposed solution (3) deduction of testable propositions from new theory (4) tests i.e. attempted refutations by observation and experiment (5) preference established between competing theories. He is an evolutionist and believes that knowledge emerges as organisms engage in problem-solving for the purpose of survival. He also conceptualised the existence of three worlds: the objective world of things, the subjective world of thoughts, and the intersubjective world of social phenomena. This third world exists importantly and is the locus of knowledge. He challenges traditional epistemology for focusing too much on the second world at the expense of the third objective world.
Popper characterises the underlying pattern of development of knowledge as: Initial Problem (P1) --> Trial solution (TS) --> Error Elimination (EE) --> Resulting Situation (P2). This is not cyclical and does lead to genuine progress. Nor is it dialectical. Magee also makes the interesting observation that E.H. Gombrich was very influenced by Popper -- will have to read him to see in what manner. Another consequence is that changes in theories have to be gradual, not gestalt shifts.
As to politics, Popper believes that an Open Society will be the best to solve problems, a direct consequence of his epistemology. A policy is a hypothesis which is to be tested against reality and needs constant correction. A democracy is the best kind of society for doing that. A democracy needs to be defended against fascist and authoritarian elements, with force if necessary. A democracy is not equivalent to majoritarianism because a majority may prefer an authoritarian government. He sees democracy as the preservation of free institutions. He outlines some paradoxes -- the paradox of democracy (which we just discussed), the paradox of tolerance (that a very tolerant society will collapse due to intolerance), the paradox of freedom (unqualified freedom produces its opposite), the paradox of sovereignty (if power is put into the hands of one kind of authority, they might delegate it to others based on good intentions which would lead to undesirable consequences). Popper is in favour of state interventionism in the economy due to these factors. This seems to Magee to be a philosophy of social democracy, anti-conservative as conservatism is generally opposed to change and anti-authoritarian at the same level. The general directive for public policy is: Minimise avoidable suffering. Characteristically, this draws attentions to problems -- which are conducive to a gradual resolution. The second formulation is: maximise the freedom of individuals to live as they wish. This gives provision for positive measures like funding for education, the arts, health etc.
Near the centre of Popper's explanation for the appeal of totalitarianism is a socio-psychological concept which he calls the 'strain of civilisation' -- i.e. our innate discomfort with freedom and desire to cede responsibility to others. Popper critiques Plato and Marx as proponents of a closed society. Marxism has been repeatedly falsified and is therefore no longer a tenable theory. Popper is quite opposed to historical determinism and is an indeterminist -- we cannot predict the future in any significant sense. He critiques Utopian approaches to politics and advocates for gradual change. This is firstly because we must always start from a context, and secondly, our actions will always have unintended consequences that may be at odds with our blueprint. Also, acting according to a blueprint will always face opposition and this opposition will have to be radically dealt with and suppressed; which is immoral. The logic of the revolutionary government will lead to collapse in the end. Our task should instead be to maximise our control over the actual changes that occur in a process of change which is never-ending and to use that control wisely. We need 'an unending feedback process in which the bold propounding of new ideas is invariably attended by their subjection to rigorous elimination in the light of experience'. In philosophy he calls this critical rationalism, in politics, he calls this piecemeal social engineering.
Loading...
