Genetics and the Aryan invasion/Out of India theories
From time to time someone tries to have settled a cultural issue through biological elements. I tend to think that this is a fallacy of false cause. Consider, in this regard, the following comment by Jan Houben on the Indology mailing list (published with his consent):
The Error was (19th cent and nazi-time Aryan Invasion Theory) and is (Out-of-India-Theory) to think that GENETICS (and racial theories) can provide explanations in cultural questions in history, such as the well-attested spread of vedism between 1500 BCE (north-west of Indian subcontinent) and 1500 AD (throughout Indian subcontinent). Many scholars have remained unconvinced and unhappy with explanations in these terms from the beginning, innumerable are those who suffered from attempts to base state implemented policies on these theories but scientific ‘truth’ is ‘truth’ and in the absence of any other explanation … As I have been arguing in several studies, however, in our understanding of the phenomenon of the spread of vedism GENETICS need not be invoked at all as a crucial factor as it is to be understood rather in terms of MEMETICS and MEMORY CULTURE taking into account vedism’s interaction over centuries with its ecological and economic environment (for instance http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00673190). Worries about genetic lineage became obsessively important only secondarily in the last or K-strategist (niche-exploitation) phase of vedism reflected in a relatively late work such as Manu (on Hitler and Manu see Halbfass India and Europe p 139).
What do you think? Do you trust biological explanations?
Self in Indian and Greek Philosophy
Lots of interesting people (and friends) will discuss the issue in July in Exeter.
Note that there will be an interesting methodological section: On which basis can one compare Greek and Indian philosophy? Because of their common origin? Because of a convergence in human thought?
Kumārila on language
Workshop with Lars Göhler
The aim of the workshop is the translation and analysis of the Ślokavārttika sections on the status of language and on meaning. The workshop will focus on the sections about language in Kumārila’s Ślokavārttika (especially śabdādhikaraṇa and vākyādhikaraṇa). These include interesting discussions of the main philosophical positions about word- and sentence-meaning. (more…)
Who are the opponents in Kumārila’s Ślokavārttika (henceforth ŚV), chapter on sentence-meaning? And did the ŚV set the standard for all further discussions on the topic?
The Indian Philosophy Blog has hosted the Philosophers’ Carnival for this month. You can read there and here my selection of this month’s philosophical blogs:
Is Jayanta referring to Vyāḍi when he lists various positions at the beginning of his discussion about the sentence-meaning, in his Nyāyamñjarī, book 5?
The Department of Religion at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, invites applications for a full-time, non-tenure-track position in Buddhist Studies during the 2014-2015 academic year. The position will be in a one-year, non-renewable contract.
Who invented the apoha theory? If you, like me, are prone to answer “Dignāga” and to add that Dignāga (as shown by Hattori) was inspired by Bhartṛhari’s theory and that Dharmakīrti and Dharmottara later fine-tuned Dignāga’s one, you are ready to have your view challenged by K. Kunjunni Raja’s article in Buddhist Logic and Epistemology (ed. by B.K. Matilal and R.D. Evans, 1986, I am grateful to Sudipta Munsi who sent me a copy of it).
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”.
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.