What humbug. I liked the title, but the booklet is childish and contains no real discussion (deliberate or otherwise) about Hindu belief systems, the What humbug. I liked the title, but the booklet is childish and contains no real discussion (deliberate or otherwise) about Hindu belief systems, the real questions of atheism and ethics, or about science. Instead it has stuff like this:
“Astrology is the science which can predict what has happened in the past and what will happen in the future based on the way the stars and planets were at the time of the person’s birth. In essence it actually is like working out the DNA of the person. DNA is now being studied by the scientists in detail. I would suggest that they study astrology too and try to find some connections. I believe that there is. In fact if you look at who is the Paradevatha (Ancestral god) it is possible to find out a person’s likely educational and career background as well as predict the diseases that he is likely to fall prey to. That is what Astrology can be very useful in HR practices and diagnosis in medicine even.�
A Hindu might not be able to become an atheist, but he sure can be as irrational as anyone else. And that is the whole point of moving beyond any static belief system....more
Two core principles of difference are drawn out in the course of all the selective history that is presented:
1. The West was the realm of individual f Two core principles of difference are drawn out in the course of all the selective history that is presented:
1. The West was the realm of individual freedom and the East was the realm of despotism. Hence the East could never develop incentives. (Italics are my extrapolation) 2. The West was the realm where laws were made of, by and for humans, the East was the realm where laws were made of, by and for gods (or their representatives). Hence the east could never develop institutions. (Italics are my extrapolation)
This is why the two world views so incompatible had to clash and clash violently. Such differences cannot easily co-exist, especially since one is clearly superior. Of course the wars of West with West would have spoiled the narrative. Hence we have a sweeping history book that ignores the greatest theater of war, including the two greatest showdowns, the world wars. Wonder what small differences of opinion and worldview precipitated those minor conflicts....more
Armstrong tends to view all of history through the prism of the specific conflicts of our day -- to be accurate: from a vantage point situated near thArmstrong tends to view all of history through the prism of the specific conflicts of our day -- to be accurate: from a vantage point situated near the Arab-Israeli Conflict. That is helpful, but also distorting, occasionally. Not a good book to learn about Islamic history, but useful as a corrective read for those already familiar. It gets quite tiring to be repeatedly referred back, even if with every justification, to the crusades and to the colonial harassments when referring to the west, and to the cultural superiority and religious universalism of Islam... ...more
Read primarily to get a better fix on Mann. But Schopie is so fascinating. I am hooked now. Can't see how I am going to avoid reading W&R. Read primarily to get a better fix on Mann. But Schopie is so fascinating. I am hooked now. Can't see how I am going to avoid reading W&R....more
Doesn’t tell one: how to read the bible, the nuances, the symbolisms, the internal structure, the immediate impacts, the inter-communications among thDoesn’t tell one: how to read the bible, the nuances, the symbolisms, the internal structure, the immediate impacts, the inter-communications among the biblical texts, the many parallels, the mythic origins, the historical scholarship, the civilizational conflicts; textual discussions on: the evolution of two religions, the reasons for conflicts between the two, the rise of the cousin; the role of the greek and roman philosophies, the difficulties of interpretation, etc. That could have been a wonderful VSI.
This is instead a VSI about: the history of the bible � on how it was constructed, put together, contested; has been read, argued for, interpreted, defended, codified, canonized, regaled, defiled, blamed, contested, disproved, reinterpreted, etc. And I should stop � I am making it sound better than it really is. Anyway, not anywhere near as good as it could have been if it was about the Bible itself instead of about its history. At the very least it could have been a book about how to read the Bible. But then it would only serve as introduction for newcomers to the Bible� but wait, isn’t that the purpose of a VSI? A book about an eastern text wouldn’t have taken it for granted that the reader is familiar with the text and just discussed the ‘interesting� tidbits of its later development. What exactly is being 'introduced' then? This is where some of the west-centric aspects of this series peep through, well, a bit....more
This is a response-review to Nandakishore Varma's excellent review. It started as a comment and then I thought I might as well put it up here as well.This is a response-review to Nandakishore Varma's excellent review. It started as a comment and then I thought I might as well put it up here as well.
Cliteur has much to say about Agnosticism:
"It seems not unreasonable to first ask the agnostic what he understands by “God� before entering into a discussion of whether we can know whether God exists. And one thing is sure. The theistic god as “He� appears to us in the Bible and Qur’an has some definite characteristics we can talk and argue about. If the agnostic does not want to join this debate, fine, but that is more a manifestation of his aversion to the philosophy of religion than an interesting religious or quasi-religious position in itself."
But why not ask the same question of the atheist - to define what he denies? Bit of a double standard, if you ask me.
Cliteur tries to wriggle out of it, but I don't think he succeeds.
"Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist.� This is partly true - he says... but which part is wrong then?
Huxley and Russell got the real meaning of the position.
In 1953 he (Russell) gave a clear indication of what he thought was the essence of the agnostic position. He responded to the question of whether an agnostic was an atheist, and said: “No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds for affirmation or for denial.�
From these words it appears that Russell and Huxley were in agreement. Theism and atheism are rejected for the same reasons. Theists and atheists alike pretend to have knowledge about matters one cannot have knowledge of.
It is clear that when two of the most critical minds in the history of freethought � or what is presented here as the secular outlook � prefer the position of the agnostic above that of the atheist, this is cause for serious concern. Agnosticism has always attracted people who scorn the straight- forwardness of the atheist position.
And so on... where are the arguments to refute these stalwarts?
This is the problem with a non-dogmatic 'atheist" - he is an agnostic who wants to call himself an atheist and hence decides to reinterpret the words so as to assign himself more comfortably.
+++
But in the end I like how Cliteur reconciles the issues:
Since agnosticism feels weak, just invent and use different words!
That means that although atheism is a defensible position, the odds appear very much against it. This has brought many people to the conclusion that it may be better to keep the position but to change the name. We find this with A.C. Grayling (1949� ), for instance. He avoids the term “atheism� when he writes: “I subscribe to a non-religious outlook, and criticize religions both as belief systems and as institutional phenomena which, as the dismal record of history and the present both testify, have done and continue to do much harm to the world, whatever good can be claimed for them besides.� So Grayling speaks of a “non-religious outlook.� He also writes: “As it happens, no atheist should call himself or herself one. The term already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground. A more appropriate term is ‘naturalist,� denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature’s laws.�
Another author who avoids the term “atheism� as a designation for his own position is Paul Kurtz (1925� ). Kurtz favors the term “humanism� and speaks of humanism as eupraxophy (good wisdom and practice). By this he means “that humanism expresses a distinctive nonreligious life- stance.�
Holyoake coined the word “secularism.� He did this because he was convinced that “atheism� was in bad repute. He defined secularism as concern with the problems of this world. He summarized his position in the following words:
(1) Secularism maintains the sufficiency of Secular reason for guidance in human duties. (2) The adequacy of the Utilitarian rule which makes the good of others, the law of duty. (3) That the duty nearest at hand and most reliable in results is the use of material means, tempered by human sympathy for the attainment of social improvement. (4) The sinlessness of well-informed sincerity. (5) That the sign and condition of such sincerity are � Freethought � expository speech � the practice of personal conviction within the limits of neither outraging nor harming others.
It does not matter if god exists or not. We may never really know. But we don't need god, so let us not be atheists and waste our time fighting the theists. Let us just take religion out of public life and let people believe what they want! Secularism!...more
Singer looks at Marx, the Philosopher, and relegates Marx, the Economist to the background. This allows Singer to put aside all the 'refuted' aspects Singer looks at Marx, the Philosopher, and relegates Marx, the Economist to the background. This allows Singer to put aside all the 'refuted' aspects of Marx and focus on the key and relevant ideas. Singer discusses alienation and historical materialism in some detail and tracks their evolution in Marx's thought, but the most interesting segment is when he tries to pin down marx's own conceptions of what a communist utopia should be like. Turns out Marx was extremely pragmatic about it and let slip such ideas only in moments of weakness. As I always like to say to anyone discussing Stalinism wrt Marxism -- just because the prescribed treatment turned out to be off the mark, the diagnosis is not to be dismissed (and that is if the Soviet Russia was even remotely Marxist! Marx must have anticipated all this and is known to have cried out in later life: "All i know is that I am not a Marxist!").
Marx is strongest when he is identifying the deficiencies of capitalism, not when he is trying to propose solutions. Those are our responsibility too. After all, we shouldn't leave everything to one man....more
A Critical (& Patronizing) Survey of Western Philosophy
Russell is consistently opinionated throughout his presentation and it might confuse some of th A Critical (& Patronizing) Survey of Western Philosophy
Russell is consistently opinionated throughout his presentation and it might confuse some of the readers that he is so casual in writing off some of the major philosophers and their key ideas. This is because the book is not a mere history of philosophy, a mere account of ideas, by any stretch. Instead it is a critical survey, a long catalogue of what Russell agrees and disagrees with among all the major doctrines. The format followed is: a brief historical sketch to give context to a doctrine, an even briefer explanation, and then a long critical take that will put forward Russell’s opinions, usually about why it is misguided in the light of modern scientific approach. And more often than not, he is wary of those ideas which, from the point of view of his war-torn present, seemed 'dangerous.'
In fact, I think that three strands of vexation can be discerned:
1. Leading to orthodoxy in religion 2. Leading to rigidity in logic 3. Leading to Totalitarian fantasies
Any idea which Russell felt was tending towards these were roundly attacked and put in place. Must have felt like a humanitarian act, writing this book! After all, the long stretch of time that allowed Russell to undertake the tome was granted him by a stay in prison � his crime was distributing pacifist literature during the First World War. Hitler caused him to later renounce his pacifism, to the point that he wished he were younger so that he might don a uniform himself.
If you were to attempt a history of philosophy, you can write a history without imposing on the reader what your own opinions are. Or you can write a history just to let the reader know exactly what you (as a thinker of some standing yourself, you might add!) think of each philosopher. Or you can write a history and try to justify why you prefer some, even one, more than the others.
Russell has opted to for a mix of the last two options � and he prefers himself over all others, that’s all!
As the book progresses it becomes more and more clear that it is a summary of Russell’s views, and not of the philosophers being discussed. This means that most of them gets short shrift. And as we approach modern times it is amusing to see how Russell is almost impatient for the history to quickly reach and culminate in his own position of Logical Positivism, which he clearly thinks is the best approach to philosophy and in the light of which he judges everyone else. This allows him to narrate the entire historical progress in a patronizing and all-knowing tone that might be jarring to a reader who is not willing to take the same attitude towards Russell’s own naivete!
You have to out-patronize the patronizing author to enjoy this fully. That is the trick. And if you do, there is no end of fun to be had form this eminently readable epic....more
Invitation Complications or Who is the Best Spokesperson for a Religion?
Who can write about a religion best? An insider or an outsider? Obviously it Invitation Complications or Who is the Best Spokesperson for a Religion?
Who can write about a religion best? An insider or an outsider? Obviously it takes a lifetime’s learning to understand the religion, just to get a ‘feel� for it. It might even need a lifetime's ‘practice�, and it could very well be that the first innocent impulses can only be absorbed at a very young age � like a language, a religion is also a mode of expression.
Then surely the insider is the one best placed to introduce others to this sacred mystery?
Rahula has tried in this little book to address himself to the general reader interested in knowing what the Buddha ‘actually� taught. This is done by adhering to a faithful and accurate presentation of the actual words used by the Buddha as they are to be found in the original Pali texts of the Tipitaka, universally accepted by scholars as the earliest extant records of the teachings of the Buddha. Almost all the material Rahula commands so effortlessly are taken directly from these originals. That way it must be admitted that only a scholar of his stature could have brought us so close to the original teachings.
However, Rahula’s book comes off as slightly evangelizing and despite all the cool wisdom as occasionally irritating in its complete confidence and conviction that Buddhism is the best in the world
A non-evangelical introduction/invitation should only be an invitation to come visit and appreciate the ancient house, not to come and reside. In that case, the real purpose of such a book would have to be to show the relevance of one religion to another, to the modern world and to show how its philosophy can make a difference to the visitor’s life even if he exits the next day not entirely convinced of the package deal. He/She should still be able to carry something away. What that something is has to be judged by the author. That is the only question in such an introductory/welcoming sermon. The rest can be kept for later, if the guest decides to stay awhile.
Now to return to our problem. Can an insider do this? After all, the insider is as much an alien to other religions as the visitor is to his own. So how can he write for the visitor? How can he inhabit his viewpoint and judge what would suit him best? Could it be that the one best placed to understand the house is not so well suited to understand the visitor?
So a Christian reader would need a christian author to interpret Buddhism for him? A 21st century reader would need a 21st century guide? Who else can understand the reader as well?
And in any case, since we are going down this road, who can understand both - the ancient house and the modern visitor?
I think the best compromise would be to allow the welcome sermon to be delivered by a scholar outside the tradition, but steeped in it. One who has stayed in the house long enough to feel at home there.
This is why every age needs to reinterpret its holy texts and greatest works. Every age and culture needs its own representatives to walk into those monuments, spend a while there and then walk out with a welcome sermon, which in turn would be relevant enough to his own culture’s or age’s readers. Only then would they take the trouble to go visit too. And maybe stay awhile....more
Robert Bellah has said that "every religion tries to remake the world in its own image, but is always to some extent remade The Adaptive Disciples
Robert Bellah has said that "every religion tries to remake the world in its own image, but is always to some extent remade in the image of the world." This is true of most religions, but how they are remade reflects also the extent to which, and the manner in which, they themselves actually try to remake the world.
In this VSI, Gardner takes us through the beginnings of the Confucian movement where we see Confucius transmit an idealized sociopolitical vision from the early Zhou past to a select group of followers, who then keep the light alive even though the Master did not get much popular acclaim in his own day. Then we follow along as the faithful followers and their disciples, over the centuries, elaborate on this vision, some emphasizing one aspect, others another, such as Mencius and Xunzi � sometimes even managing to take a common tradition in entirely opposite directions.
Later we encounter the Neo-Confucian movement, now almost a millennium after the Master’s time, reacting to new developments by interpreting his core ideas from the stand point of new metaphysical concepts (such as qi, li, yin and yang, among others) � converting the original practical vision into a universal vision that is meant to explain the how and why of the original thoughts� and to explain everything else too since they are at it, all with the help of philosophical terms and concepts that would have meant little to Confucius himself.
Gardner maintains a firm focus on this realm of ideas, showing us how the original vision of the Master has been adapted into such a variety of interpretative shapes over the centuries. And this adaptability is the primary reason why confucianism has managed to stay relevant for such an astoundingly long time. It is a religious/philosophical tradition that has managed to continuously adapt and remain relevant over time.
And I would venture that while Confucius himself deserves our respect for creating a philosophy with such an encompassing vision so suited to his people, no small credit is due to the fact that the keepers of the tradition were the very top brass of this wide country -- and it was their capacity for innovation and creative adaption that has allowed the tradition to reinvent itself so elegantly and relevantly every time. They have shown a unique capacity to hold fast to tradition without slipping into a dogmatic slumber that would let modernity pass them by, and even if they did occasionally they have been alert enough to pick up on it and take positive action in defense of their philosophy, shaping its message to address the pressing issues of the day.
If only every religious and philosophical tradition was in such capable hands, we would have fewer dogmatic religions and more enlightened ones. And a less dangerous world....more
Sankara's Advaita Vedanta is perhaps the best known of Indian ‘philosophies.� It was the first to be exported to and pr The Multifarious Inbred Monster
Sankara's Advaita Vedanta is perhaps the best known of Indian ‘philosophies.� It was the first to be exported to and propounded in the West, being presented by the Vedantin practitioner Vivekananda at the World Council of Religions in Chicago in 1893 as ‘Hinduism�, and subsequently established in various centres, such as ‘Ramakrishna Missions�, in many Western countries. It has since enjoyed such a high profile worldwide that not only do outsiders often not realize it is only one among many of India's schools of thought but it is also sometimes promoted as ‘the orthodox religio-philosophical tradition of India� within the subcontinent itself.
This VSI gives a glimpse at the multifarious monster that Indian Philosophy really is. However, in the interest of making it comprehensible is such a short space, it tries to put an organic structure on indian philosophic ‘growth� � it focuses on the most accessible aspects of the Indian tradition to extrapolate for consideration in the context of Western thought, debating its structure, relative methodological merits and inter-linkages in the process. It emphasizes the ‘context� of each school so as to demonstrate the factors that led to its ‘branching out�. It also uses loaded terms from the western tradition such as ‘idealism� and ‘transcendental logic� to make the general thrust of the various schools intellectually available to the western reader.
As is often the complaint: In order to be taken seriously on the international stage of modern Western philosophy, Indian Philosophy has had to compete only on those terms that are of interest to modern Western philosophers. And, there has also been a tendency to separate philosophy in the sense of rational argument from any context that incorporated more religious issues.
Similarly, works on Indian philosophy adopts a western view on compartmentalization and wants to look at it as ‘philosophy� � something alien to these schools, since all (well, most) of them would not have made a distinction of religion vs philosophy. It was not a case that Indian philosophy was more ‘mystical�; in fact, indian religious thought was more practical and incorporated the full range of speculations, not allowing theology to move away from philosophy. Whether that was a good thing is, of course, open to debate.
This VSI would not have been able to do an ‘introduction� in 35,000 words without adopting the format and approach it eventually did. And as long as the reader is made aware that the whole book is an illusion of coherence, then it is fine by me. This is hinted at, but should have been made much clearer:
While the different logical arguments can be extrapolated and removed from the context of the tradition as a whole for intellectual interest and for the purposes of comparison with Western forms of logic, the classical Indian context was one in which there was no such formal separation.
All this is very fine and makes for interesting reading � but the thing is that indian philosophy does not always follow the outgrowth-model that is used to introduce the students of western histories of philosophy, it is more often ingrowths that guide its paths.
The philosophic traditions were quite often self-contained and hermetically sealed from one another, and hence grew almost independent of each other (not all, and not always� this is a gross simplification � a conceit by this reviewer, if you will). So minor differences are enhanced in this process just as small populations of the Galapagos finches develop such distinct beaks by inbreeding and mutual separation.
So to look at ‘Indian Philosophy� as an organic whole and impose a structure of ‘growth� and interrelation to the different schools is a retrospective western conceit � useful only for comprehending/seeing the whole picture, but at the cost of reducing the individual philosophies to non-entities, losing their real identity as rich self-contained traditions (inside each of these schools the dominant ideas that give it its identity might have wrestled with contending views before one triumphed temporarily � so to present another view as another 'school' makes no real sense when both schools are fighting the same battles...)
Such an introductory work which focuses on the distinct process of evolution available for study among the Indian traditions is what I would be really excited about. Such a work could go beyond presentation of ideas and attempt a glimpse at how they evolved in a medium that is not too distinct from the hyper-connected world of today (with collective enterprises taking precedence over individual investigations) where ideas bounce off each other, inbreed and mutate at the speed of thought, not waiting with patient discipline for neat out-branchings from previous ideas in any logical order. It is all a-tangle, and it is a lot of fun....more
Loading...
