Category Archives: books/articles
Using expressions like “it seems unlikely” or “I am not convinced” without specifying the reason for their use is a bane of historical research writing. Unfortunately this practice, which can mislead a reader into thinking that a counter-argument has been made when in fact no argument has been made, is not rare in Indology. The ultimate import of expressions of the specified kind is usually “I, the researcher, am not willing to change my view, even if your argument is sound” or “I, the researcher, am not going to be so adventurous as to differ from the majority or mainstream view, even when the erroneous nature of that view has been exposed”.
Sucarita Miśra on apoha —On Kataoka 2014a
Who is the most productive scholar on Indian Philosophy? Kei Kataoka is surely in the top-10 (have a look at his publications here).
Possible applications of Mīmāṃsā deontics: on Chaudhuri and Vardi
There are fields in which the contribution of applied ethics and deontics are more than needed, such as that of the programming of artificial intelligence connected to robots which might interact with human beings. Chaudhuri and Vardi (their article can be downloaded here) quote the following case:
Will the journey ever come to its goal? On Clooney 2013
Several years ago I had some pain in convincing a friend working on Husserl that the “phenomenologist” J. Mohanty which he knew too well was the same as the scholar of Sanskrit Philosophy J.N. Mohanty (I had similar problems in convincing the same person that avatar is a Sanskrit word). Just like there are two Mohantys, with two different target audiences, so there are two F.X. Clooneys.
Was Yāmuna the real founder of Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta? (On Mesquita 1971 and 1973)
Yāmuna (967–1038 according to Mesquita 1973) is one of the chief figures of the philosophy later known as Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta. In fact, to me one of the most intriguing questions regards his role in the formation of this school. It is only with Rāmānuja (who lived two generations after Yāmuna) that the school becomes clearly Vedāntic and it is not by chance that it is only Rāmānuja who decided to write a commentary on the Brahmasūtra.
Do you think that Sanskrit is hard? Have a look at what our fellow logicians are doing! —On Srinivasan and Parthasarathi 2012
This article uses Mīmāṃsā tools for a non-exegetical purpose, i.e., in order to build a system of representations of imperatives. The purpose of the system is even further away, since it regards Artificial Intelligence. In fact, the authors start with the (evident, but often overlooked) observation that we communicate with computers mostly through imperatives and not assertive statements (do this, then if x, then do z…).
शब्दविषये रसेल(Russell)मत: संस्कृतायां वाचि निरूपितः
पूर्वस्मिन् मासे, मृणालकौलमहोदयः संपूर्णानन्दविश्वविद्यालयस्य ३९-तमां संस्कृतां पत्रिकां मह्यं दत्तवान् (अतीव धान्यवादः, मृणाल!) ।
पात्रिकायां भारतीयपण््डितानां संस्कृतसंवादः रसेल(Russell)महोदयस्य शब्दस्वरूपविषयमते संक्षिप्तः । संवाद: शब्दस्य सत्यत्वमिथ्यत्वयोः, संज्ञार्थे, वाक्ये, संबनधे च वर्त्तते स्म ।
शब्दस्य सत्यत्वमिथ्यत्वविषये, अर्थो यदि बहिरवतिष्ठते, तदा वस्त्वेव— इति निरूपितम् (रसेलमहोदयः कदाचित् “नाईव् रीअालिस्ट” (naive realist) इति मह्यं प्रतिभाते, साध्यार्थोपेक्षात्) ।
व्याख्यानं विशुद्धं, रुचिकारं च, न केवलं रसेलमतं निदर्शितमपि तु संस्कृतविवादेष्वनुयोजितं च –इति कारणात् । उदाहरणमिव, चैत्रो वह्णिना क्षेत्रं सिञ्चतीति, अर्थोऽवस्तु, अपितु शब्दरूपः (proposition) अवज्ञेयः । शब्दरूपार्थयोः भेदेन मिथ्यावाक्यावगतिर् सुलभा । तद्विना तु, वह्निणा सिञ्चतीतिवाक्ये योग्यताभवात् वाक्यं किमवगच्छामः ? अनवगते च, केन प्रकारेण मिथ्येति वदेमः ? एवमेव, कथं नैयायोकाः मीमांसकाश्च शब्दनित्यत्वविषये चर्चां कर्तुं शक्नुवन्ति ? यदि शब्दोऽनित्य इतिवाक्यस्यार्थो वस्त्वेव, तर्हि कथं शब्दो नित्य इतिवाक्यमवगम्यते ? रसेलमतः एका एव गतिः इति विद्वांसः मन्यन्ते ।
तत्पश्चात् रसेलमतेन वाचस्पतिमिश्रस्य, शाब्दिकानाम् (इत्युक्ते वैयाकरणानामित्यहं मन्ये) अद्वैतवेदान्तिनां च मतानां भेदो स्फुटीकृतः । रसेलमते बहिरसतः अर्थाः बुद्धावपि नावतिष्टन्ते –इति भेदः । ते तु केवलं बुद्धिविषयाः ।
तत्रभवान् किं किं मन्यते ? रसेलमतं विना किं नैयायिकानां मीमांसकानां मिथः संवादः शक्यो वा न वा ? शक्ये च, कुत्र कुत्र रसेलमतमुपयोजनीयम् ?
Economic structures and philosophic superstructures: On Scott 2013 and Eltschinger 2013
How was Capitalism born? And, more in general, 1. does the economic structure determine its superstructure (including philosophy or religion), as in Marx; 2. does a certain philosophy, religion, etc. determine a certain economic result, as in Weber; or 3. do important actors select a certain philosophy, religion, etc., because it is more adequate for their needs? Or are there still other solutions (as in Hirschman’s 1977 The Passions and the Interests)?
This is a very interesting Carnival, which lists posts I either knew and liked or discovered through it and liked even more. I am very grateful for being mentioned (not because of this blog, though, but because of this post on Free Will in heaven) although I did not even submit my post. Even more interesting is the mention of Matthew Dasti’s post on “Indian Philosophy in One Paragraph”. Thanks Kenny Pearce!
The most amusing version of the Philosophers’ Carnival I know of! With a reference to Jonathan Edelmann’s piece on Theology and Philosophy in the Indian context which you can read here.