This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
R¯ hula Koth¯ r¯ a . aı January 12, 2012
Structure Of The Article
1. What am I writing this article? 2. How should this article be used? 3. What is the meaning of “Ontology”? 4. What do I mean by “Argument?” 5. What is the meaning of Ontological Argument as a whole? 6. Epilogue 7. Appendix 8. References
explains in his S¯ nkhya Dar´ana. The very Indian life a˙ s style has “simple living & high thinking” inbuilt in it. 3. According to Pythagoras2 thinking and reﬂection (about say immortality) represents a clear contrast to a life of trade and competition for various honours. So if you are thinking about some higher aspects of life like benevolence of all living entities, or even sciences and mathematics then you are obviously not thinking about honours, other carnal desires. 4. Similarly about Thales (another Greek philosopher) Aristotle wrote in politics that it is easy for philosophers to become rich if they so desire, though it is not the business which they are really about. They love thinking about things for example: (a) Do I really exist? (b) How do I know that I exist?
Why Am I Writing This Article
This article is supposed to be read by school kids, for whom I suppose it is necessary to study philosophy even at their age. There are a large number of beneﬁts of studying philosophy, viz. 1. The word philosophy itself means love (philos) for wisdom (sophia), so the etymology of the word philosophy is love for wisdom. If it is taught at their age, that would help in their academics, because by appreciating nonobviousness of certain “obvious” topics like existence, sense perception1 etc. they would also not accept “obvious” things written in their books “obviously”. They would begin start asking questions about these so called ´ ı “obvious” topics and as Sr¯la Prabhup¯ da says that aska ing questions is a sign of intelligence, so that in turn would increase their “intelligence” level. 2. Especially in Indian context the study of philosophy is important because it helps us understand our position and the world we live in. So philosophy would then help us getting out of the bondage of material world as Kapila
(c) What is the nature of this world? (d) Does this world really exist? (e) Who am I3 ? So philosophers in this sense can be considered as the br¯ hmana of the varna system, for they are considered a . . as intellectual class in Indian context. It is interesting to note that Plato also proposed to divide the society into three categories (1) Philosophers or the intellectual class (2) Military men (3) Artisan and peasant class. According to him philosophers must be included in making all kinds of important decisions and they must help the military men in ruling. ¯ 5. Brhad Arayanaka Upanisad also says that don’t remain . . . in darkness, come in the light of knowledge. Philosophy is in particularly helpful for us to ask questions about the things we don’t know, because before asking question how can you know the answers?
1 It is contrary to what most of us say as “Seeing is believing,” which is obviously not the case. We can’t be sure when our senses may deceive us, again I should say that if one has to know about God he has to rely on sources (scriptures and authoritative speakers), because in that case God may help us to remove the illusion or the hallucination that our senses may have while listening to the messages of a bona ﬁdé speaker. 2 Pythagoras Theorem is generally attributed to Pythagoras but I would like you tell you that this theorem is also found in Vedas like Satapatha Br¯ hmana ´ a . ´ ´ ´ (part of Sukla Yajur Veda) and Sulba s¯ tras. Also it’s one of the indigenous proof is found in Bh¯ skar¯ c¯ rya’s Siddh¯ nta Siromani. u a a a a . 3 Ved¯ nta S¯ tras also ordains that a human must have this kind of enquiry in ath¯ ’ho brahma jijñ¯ s¯ , that now you have got the human life, so you should a u a aa enquire about brahman, who am I, who is God, what is my relationship with Him and so on.
asato m¯ sadgamaya a tamaso m¯ jyotirgamaya a mrtyorm¯ amrtam gamaya a . ˙ .
Also sir (Prof. Laksm¯dhara Beher¯ ) told me to write an artia . ı cle for the Bhaktived¯ nta Gurukula Vrnd¯ vana for their school a . a magazine. So ﬁnally I pray to God4 to help me writing this 3 What Does “Ontology” Mean? article which I’m writing to glorify Him only. This is an instance that shows how everything can be used in the service Ontology is a word used in philosophy & is a branch of metaof God, even the philosophy can glorify God and can do what physics5 that deals with the nature of existence. Ontology tries Prabhup¯ da calls as Hari K¯rtana as he explains the purport of a ı to give solutions to these kinds of problems like ´ ı Sr¯madbh¯ gavtam 1.5.22. a • What there is i.e. what things in the world exist? “Scientiﬁc knowledge engaged in the service of Lord and all similar activities are all factually Hari • What are they made of? K¯rtana or gloriﬁcation of the Lord.” ı • What is the relation between the things that constitute the Although God is beyond human senses, but if I’ve a sincere entity about whose existence we are questioning? desire to know Him and His attributes then He may give me • Does God exist? the knowledge to know Him, as He says in the Bhagavad G¯t¯ , ıa “dad¯ mi buddhi yogam tam.” I’ve no quality to speak or write a ˙ ˙ anything about Him, also I’ve no intellect to understand what He is; but still I’ve to understand Him in order to believe Him and I’ve to believe Him in order to understand Him. • Do I exist? • What is the very meaning of “existence?”
it a few times, and you’ll see that if not all at least some of the things will start making sense. Presumably this is your ﬁrst exposure to these kind of things, but at least try to appreciate the objective of the article that how philosophy can glorify God and can do Hari K¯rtana. ı
How Should This Article Be Used?
What Do I mean By An “Argument”?
While writing this article I assume no prior exposure to any of the things that I’m going to describe. I’ve written this article so that you can have a feel of another realm of what is called as “intellectual enjoyment.” It is totally different kind of enjoyment, different from what we experience by tasting nice food preparations, its a kind of enjoyment one gets by thinking. I’ve also included an appendix in the end, that describes some new concepts and some of the already introduced concepts. The appendix is meant to enhance your learning. The appendix can be safely neglected, if you don’t feel motivated from within to read the ideas there. The article can be read from beginning to the end without any impediment in the logical ﬂow (even footnotes can be skipped). So now I’ll describe the meaning of each and every word of the title of this article. But before that I would like to say is that although it may be possible for you to not to be able to understand some or rather anything in this article, but please don’t give up & try to read
Before understanding what is an argument according to Western Logic6 , I would like to give some of basic deﬁnitions that will make the work of understanding the meaning of “Argument” easier. So the terms are as follows:
The state of falsity or truth of a statement is called as truth value, for “True” truth value we write T and for “False” truth value we write F.
It is a sentence that is either true (T) or false7 (F), it can’t be anything in between. For example the sentence:- It’s raining is a statement, because either it’s raining or not raining, it is not possible that there is raining and not raining. There can’t be anything in between8 . Some more examples are given below:
4 God is word of Germanic origin and means “The Good One.” Our Vedas declares Krsna as the supreme personality of Godhead, in krsnah tu bhagav¯ n a .. . .. . . ˙ a svayam (Brahma Samhit¯ Chapter 5). Knowledge about God is also revealed in Holy Quran or Holy Bible also but to a lesser extend (For example in John 16.12 Jesus said to His followers, “I’ve yet many things to say unto you, but your ears can’t bear them yet.” Also Quran says that Allah gave three kinds of knowledge of God (Allah) to Mohammad out of which one was supposed to be totally private, 2nd one was optional to be given to His pupils and third kind of knowledge was necessarily to be given to everyone). In this sense Allah, Jehovah, R¯ ma, N¯ r¯ yana are all names of God. I can call Him by any name, all of His names have a aa . the same potency. But I would prefer Him calling as Krsna, so where ever I’ll use God, I would mean Krsna. .. . .. . 5 Besides metaphysics there are other branches of philosophy (See Appendix). 6 Besides this Indian system of logic called Ny¯ ya also exists whose propounder was Gautama Rsi as I stated before. a .. 7 Now its very difﬁcult to explain what is falsity and truth, but let us take the “common sense” route. As far as I can see only God can decide what is true or false, because only He can be beyond the pangs of matter and decide unbiasedly, for matter can’t effect Him. Truth and falsity can be objective only when it is deﬁned in terms of someone who is above the persons for whom they are deﬁned. In order the statements like – killing animals is sin, parent’s advice must be followed etc. be true God has to exist, and people in general must follow His sovereignty, only then the peace for which we are always anxious can come. 8 Right now we are talking about 2-valued logics, but multiple values logics also exist that take intermediate values into consideration too. For example the Sorites Paradox (See Appendix) can’t be analyzed under 2-valued logics, you need multiple values logics to analyze this.
1. Aluminium is attacked by Hydrochloric acid. – is a statement having truth value T
˙ . In samskrt it is called as tarka. An argument contains both 2. Is aluminium attacked by HCl? – not a statement rather premises and conclusions. It is divided into two categories as shown below. a question ´ 3. Siva is the Supreme Personality of Godhead – is a state4.5.1 Deductive Arguments ment with truth value F They are those arguments from which the conclusion will fol4. Wow! These Krsna and Balar¯ ma deities are very beau- low necessarily. For example in the item 3 above given these a .. . tiful. – not a statement but an exclamation. many premises, the conclusion must necessarily follow. Or in other words if we assume that all premises have the truth value ´ ı 5. Sr¯ Caitanya Mah¯ prabhu was God Himself who came in a T, then the conclusion has to have the truth value T. the disguise of a devotee – is a statement with truth value T 4.5.2 Inductive Arguments
For these kind the conclusion may or may not follow necessarily, i.e. to say that even if the premises are true the conclusion These are those “statement” sentences that provide the evidence need not be true. For example consider: or reason. For example 1. For the last 5 years there has been rain on the eve of 1. Socrates is mortal. Janm¯ stam¯. a.. ı (a) All men are mortal (What it means is that anyone who has taken birth has to die.) 2. So there will be rain this Janm¯ stam¯ too10 . a.. ı
Here (i) is the premise and (ii) is the conclusion. It is not (b) Socrates is a man (This is a special instance, you necessary that because there was rain during the previous 5 can also put R¯ hula in its place, so in that case it’ll a Janm¯ stam¯s, there will be rain this Janm¯ stam¯ too, so even a.. ı a.. ı be concluded that R¯ hula is mortal.) a if (i) is true (ii) may not be. So for concluding that Socrates is mortal (i) and (ii) are the providing reasons or evidences, thus they are both premises. 1. Existence of God9 :
Ontological Arguments v/s Empirical Arguments
(a) Every creation presupposes a creator. (b) Material world is also a creation. (c) Material world exists. 5.1.1
Both these kind of arguments are used to prove the existence of (d) The only person whose existence supersedes cre- God. We’ve already encountered one empirical argument beation can be God. fore when we were discussing about premises. We have ﬁve sense organs with which we interact with the world outside(e) So God must exist In the example given (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) are the premises and (v) is the conclusion 1. Nose (Smell): Nose is used to identify the fragrances. 2. Skin (Touch): Sense of touch can be used to have a feel of temperature, “softness11 ” of rose etc. 3. Ears (Hear): Ears are used to hear sounds. It is said that one should “see” holy places like Vrnd¯ vana by ears. . a Aural reception has also been considered as an authentic way to learn lessons about transcendence.
This is also a statement. It is what that is intended to be proved by the premises. For example in example (a) and (b) the conclusions are Socrates (R¯ hula) is mortal and God exists. a
9 This 10 Although
is an instance of what is called as empirical argument to “prove” the existence of God. its a prediction but prediction has to be either T or F, so this is also a statement. 11 Actually softness is an instance of feeling what is called as qualia by philosophers. According to them qualia is the attribute of consciousness. Qualia feelings are those feelings that are personal, so there is no way to communicate these feelings amongst each other. For example the feeling of softness of rose is a private experience, I’ve my own feeling of softness and you’ll your own, but we can’t compare these feelings. I can’t tell you what do I mean by “softness” when I say that the rose is soft, neither you can tell me your feeling. It is totally different from what is called as the “objective” experience which must be the same for everyone. For example the feeling of say weight of an object since can be quantiﬁed are therefore same for everyone, 10 Kg weight will be 10 Kg weight for everyone, given that we’ve a consensus on the standards of weight.
4. Eyes (See): Eyes are “most” frequently used sense or- seeking an argument that somehow would prove the existence gan, through which we interact with the world outside. of God together with describing His attributes like omnipres12 ence, omniscient and omnipotent. His arguments presuppose no belief in the existence of God, rather it is followed from 5. Tongue (Tastes): Tongue has taste buds on it through his arguments that God exists just by assuming that God is a ¯ which it sense taste. According to Ayurveda13 tastes are supremely perfect being. He actually gave two distinct arguof many kinds (again qualia feeling!) like: ments to prove the existence of God on the basis of reasoning: (a) Sweet (b) Sour (c) Bitter (d) Salty (e) Pungent (f) Astringent 1. The mere deﬁnition of God as supremely perfect being implies that God must exists, for existence is one of the quality of supreme being, so if He doesn’t exist, then how He can be supreme?
2. God exists necessarily for He possesses that kind of exThe empirical arguments use sense perceptions (use sense oristence that isn’t possessed by any other being, there gans) and argue on the basis of empirical (experimental) ﬁndwouldn’t be any problem in saying that say unicorns ings that because there is creation, and creation presupposes a don’t exist, there isn’t even any problem in saying that creator and only God can live before the creation, so since maI (humble author of this article) don’t exist, but God posterial world is also a creation and since it exists therefore God sess a different kind of existence, so He has to exist. must also exist. Whatever we eat, see, hear etc. is but a part of The form of the Argument: The Argument goes in this fashthe creation. ion by reductio ad absurdum16 5.1.2 Ontological Arguments 1. God is a being from which nothing greater being can be conceived. (Deﬁnition of God according to St. Anselm) 2. God exists in the understanding (intellectu) but not in reality (re). (Assumption for reductio) 3. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise) 4. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise) 5. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From (3) and (2), because God is existing in understanding only and the being is existing in reality as well as understanding.) 6. A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (5) and (4).) 7. A being greater than God can’t be conceived. (From definition of “God”.) 8. Contradiction between (6) and (7) will lead us to believe that our assumption in (2) is wrong. Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (2), (6), (7).) If p: God exists in the understanding, q: God exists in reality then the form of (2) is p ∧ ¬q. 9. Since this p ∧ ¬q as our hypothesis is wrong, its negation must be true which is ¬p ∨ q, which according to logic is same as p → q, which means that if God exists in understanding then he must also exist in reality
On the other hand there are ontological arguments that prove the existence of God without any appeal to senses, just by the help of pure reasoning, we can conclude that God exists. According to the believers of science, the religion is just some sort of feelings, and has nothing to do with any sort of reasoning, but these arguments give an instance which shows that how the religion can be so logically rigourous, that may even leave the sciences behind14 , in the sense that we deducing something in religion just on the basis of premises. In sciences we most of the time rely on induction (see appendix), mathematics in this sense is more rigorous in the sense that once we’ve the axioms the theorems necessarily follow from them, but this is not the case with science15 . We are talking of that kind of logical rigour in the ontological arguments. Before giving the arguments I would like to discuss the history of these arguments. The term “ontological argument” for the ﬁrst time was used by Emmanuel Kant (a 17th century German philosopher). These kind of arguments for the ﬁrst time were given by St. Anselm, after that in somewhat different form Descartes presented them. In modern times Platinga, Gödel and others gave their own arguments. But here we would discuss the arguments of Anselm and Descartes only.
St. Anselm’s Arguments
St. Anselm was an Arc Bishop of Canterbury. He is credited to have given the ﬁrst ontological argument. He gave these arguments in his Proslogian and Monologian. He was actually
world really exists! For example for idealists like Hegel the world exist only in our thought without any independent existence of its own, but Vedic literature says that it does exist. 13 Ayurveda is considered as Upa-Veda along with dhanurveda, gandharvaveda etc. in contrast to the four main Vedas. ¯ 14 This story is better told in another ﬁeld of philosophy called as the Philosophy of Science (See Appendix) 15 But that does not mean that we should stop reading sciences for this is the aim of this article to show how everything can be used in the service of God. We can also use science in God’s service by explaining the scientists in their language the science of God. 16 It is a technique used in logic in which opposite of what is to be proved is assumed. That in the end leads to a contradiction.
10. God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even prevailing in the world. Truth and falsity can become objecthe Fool agrees.) tive only in God’s presence. So that motivates us to know God and His nature, knowing God can answer to question about my 11. Hence God exists in reality. (From (10), (9) by modus own existence, truth falsity etc; which we can have by studying ponens17 .) scriptures like Quran, Bible, G¯t¯ etc. ıa
René Descartes’ & Leibnitz Arguments
HARE KRSNA ...
As you must be knowing Descartes was a philosopher mathematician. He was the one who developed the Cartesian Coor- 7 Appendix dinate Geometry that used algebra in proving geometrical theorems. His argument comes in his ﬁfth meditations. The form 7.1 PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE of the argument by Descartes is as shown below, but Leibnitz 18 pointed out some loopholes in the argument. I’ll together 7.1.1 Philosophy Of Science: adding the corrections (made by Leibnitz) in the argument will The generalization that are made in science are based on experimental ﬁndings for example in order to say that all metals present their (Descartes and Leibnitz) ontological argument expand upon heating. You’ve to show 1. God is a supremely perfect being. (Deﬁnition of God) 1. That all metals be it Fe, Cr, V, Cu etc. will expand upon 2. We do have an idea of such supremely perfect being. heating 3. The existence in reality of such a being is possible (Due to Leibnitz) (a) Perfections are unanalyzable (b) So it is impossible to demonstrate that perfection is incompatible. 3. Expansion is independent of time, whether you heat them at 7:00 PM or 7:00 AM they will expand. (There can be many more things that one may need to show!) 2. They will expand irrespective of place they are heated, for example they will expand in BGIS, IIT Kanpur, MIT, Cal Tech whatever may be the place.
(c) So it is possible for an entity who is embodiment of But to show that you’ve to do experiments everywhere in the perfections to exist. universe, so the thing scientists did is that they will do the ex4. If supremely perfect being has no existence then He can’t periment on some metals at some place at some time and on be supremely perfect similar to the existence of a Eu- some of the metals, and from that they’ll say Ha! this proves clidean triangle19 implies the sum of the internal angles that all metals expand upon heating. You see, how does it posof the triangle must add to 180 degrees. If the angle are sibly imply that because a given metal expanded at 7:00 in the morning and in the evening then it will always expand, and not equal to 180 degree then it can’t be a triangle also it may be possible say for the metal to not to expand at say 5. So a supremely perfect being (God) must exist. some place like Timbuktu etc. So this is called as the problem of induction which is our next entry.
As I stated in before that this article was supposed to do Hari K¯rtana. I suppose if you read it carefully enough including all ı footnotes and appendix then it can also help to increase your faith on your beliefs (God and His service) so that you can confront your mind and also the “priests of deity of science.” There may be other issues related that might be of interest to others, for example as I pointed out that presumably on account of omnipotence and being beyond matter only God can decide what is true or false, and that in turn can remove all the duality
The meaning of this is generalization of some speciﬁc instances. For example people in the western countries say that all what is there in Indian philosophy is Monism (it is the idea that God and other living entities are on one and the same level, the meaning of liberation is that one merges into the brahmjyoti after liberation), because mostly they’ve been exposed by this monistic idea (or the M¯ y¯ v¯ da philosophy), so they’ve genera a a alized it from some speciﬁc instances to “all.” But you see that Madhva Gaud¯ya Samprad¯ ya (the one we the Hare Krsnas are a .. . .ı
17 The form of the modus ponens is (p → q, p) ⇒ q. For example consider if today is tuesday then today is ma˙ galav¯ ra, today is tuesday thereﬁr today is n a ma˙ galav¯ ra. This can also be analyzed by using the so called hypothetical syllogism. n a 18 He was also a philosopher and mathematician and was a contemporary of Newton. He was also a genius in other ﬁelds like law, religion, statecraft, history, literature etc. He and Newton independently developed Calculus, and that too caused hatred among them as to who is the genuine inventor of calculus and who d is a pretender. The symbols like derivative of a function dx that we use in calculus are all attributed to Leibnitz. 19 This is the case with Euclidean geometry, other types of geometries which are called as non-Euclidean geometries also exist. In them it is possible for a triangle to have the sum of internal angles more or less than 180 degrees. Euclidean geometry is called as plane geometry, for all the theorems of it are valid on a plane. The geometry on the surface of a sphere is non-Euclidean.
following) is what is called as Vaisnavism. It is the idea the .. God is the supreme enjoyer we are but His servants. So we are always sub-ordinate to Him. So this is logical fallacy. This fallacy appears in the philosophy of science as Raven’s Paradox. So scientists just can’t say that religion is some sort of feeling and only science is logic (actually in the strictest sense only mathematics can be considered as science), it’s also the case with science. 7.1.3 Raven’s Paradox
logic if one particle is removed from the heap then the resulting thing is a heap or not heap, both of which are inadequate. So here we see that the 2 valued logic weren’t useful in this case. To analyze such kind of paradoxes one of the option is that we give some degree to the thing being as heap, for example suppose originally the heap had 1,000,000 particles then if one particle is removed then we can say that the resulting thing is a heap to a degree of 999,999/1,000,000. SO THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS THAT EVEN THE 2 VALUES LOGICS AREN’T SUFFICIENT TO ANALYZE ALL KINDS OF ARGUMENTS.
The meaning of the statement that all crows are black is same as saying that the net crow you are going to ﬁnd is going to be black. So we are proving that, “All crows are black” by ﬁnding speciﬁc instances of the crows. You go out to look for crow and where ever you went and found a crow, you found it to be black, so on the basis of this you concluded that all crows are black. Now the statement, “All crows are black” is same as saying that “All things which are not crows are not black.”20 So to prove this you have to have just a green apple, for green apple is not “black” and also it is not crow. So in this sense you can just by ﬁnding green apples, yellow ﬂowers and so on can prove that all crows are black. In this sense it is a paradox. 7.1.4 The Sorites Paradox
CLASSIFICATION OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
I’ll try to give the most detailed account of this paradox as possible. Sorites is a Greek word that means heap, so we can call it a heap paradox. Informally it is stated as: 1. Suppose there is a heap of sand 2. If you remove one particle out of it then it will still remain a heap 3. So if you keep on doing this by one by one removing particle of sand in the end you’ll have only one particle left 4. But you’ve assumed that removing one particle won’t matter in (b) 5. So if this last particle is removed, you’ll ﬁnd that there is no heap but according to (b) removing one particle won’t matter so it is a heap. So it is a heap as well as not heap. 6. This is what we call as Sorites paradox If we analyze our structure of argument carefully then we’ll ﬁnd that step (b) above is problematic. According to 2 valued
It is a branch of philosophy that is used to examine arguments (deﬁned below). The aim of logic is to systematize the way we examine the arguments of others and when we give our own arguments. For example consider the conversation below between a scientist (Mr. S for brevity) and a lay person (Mr. L for brevity) Mr S: Do you know that all of the religious observances are just a matter of faith but the practice of science is very logically rigorous. We now and then do experiments to verify our theoretical ideas. But religious ideas can’t be tested. Mr. L: But Mr. S as far as I know the laws that you deduce from the experiments are all inductive (see index) for they are generalized from speciﬁc to general, in that sense you also have to have faith that the experiments you do at some place and at some instant of time do always hold. And as far as the religious observances are concerned it is more of an internal affair, after that only it manifests outwards. In that case you can also do experiments to see how religious observances are changing the beliefs, the way he lives, his compassion for others is emerging on account of religious observances. So it is not the case that experiments can only be done in sciences and not in religion. Faith is required in religion as well as in science. Here we see how Mr. L used the ideas of logic to counteract another person Mr. S. It is important to note that the system of Nyaya (we’ll include some of its ideas in the index) was also developed to counteract Jains, C¯ rv¯ kas and Buddhists to a a establish the authority of Vedas at the time when these philosophies anti Vedic (or in other word n¯ stika philosophies) were a getting prominence.
can be proved by using the standard techniques of Boolean algebra, for the statement All crows are black can be written as P → Q, where P is X is a crow & Q is X is black, so P → Q will mean that whenever X is crow it is black. Now this statement is logically equivalent to ¬Q → ¬P P T F T F Thus we see that the two columns are equivalent. Q T T F F ¬P F T F T ¬Q F F T T P→Q T T F T ¬Q → ¬P T T F T
It has the following subject matters 1. It deals with things that don’t change in other words it deals about the very fundamentals, for if they are fundamentals then they cannot change. For example the S¯ nkhya Yoga deals with the very fundamental nature of a˙ the material world, what is world made of. It states that pradh¯ na in the excited state (excited by God) is called as a mahat tattva and is responsible behind all what is there in this world. There is a Godless version of S¯ nkhya Yoga a˙ too but it fails to describe how mahat-tattva by its own give rise to the creation. 2. Deals with the ﬁrst causes behind every effect, in this sense this is related to the previous entry because if we know the fundamentals then they have to be behind every cause. For example the string theory describes particles, forces whatever in terms of different vibration modes of a single string. So here string is the cause behind all effect (so metaphysics will deal with strings), but here is a catch! what or who makes the string to vibrate in a particular fashion. (You know who! Right) God is presumed to be the cause of everything and hence metaphysics also deals with nature of God, His existence (separately studied under ontology) 7.2.3 Ethics
defects in us viz. we are easily illusioned, we make mistakes, we’ve cheating propensity and limited senses. Given all these shortcomings in us how can we know the knowledge that we are acquiring is “correct?”
1. Socrates to Sartre, A History of Philosophy, SE Stumpf, McGraw Hill Book Company 2. The Ontological Argument from St. Anselm to Contemporary Philosophers, Alvin Platinga, Doubleday Anchor Books Company 3. A Concise Introduction to Logic, Hurley 7th Edition 4. Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia 5. A Very Short Introduction to Consciousness, Susan Blackmore, OXFORD University Press 6. A Brief Review of Vedas, Stephen Knapp, Internet Article 7. Krsna Consciousness and Christianity, East West Di.. . alogue, Satyar¯ ja D¯ sa Adhik¯ r¯ & Rev. Alvin P. Hart a a aı 8. Islam and The Vedas Reconciled 9. “QURAN, The ﬁnal Testament” by Rashid Khalifa, Islamic Productions, 2003 10. What is this thing called science, AF Chalmers, Hackett Publishing Company 11. Theory and Reality, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Peter Godfrey Smith, Chicago University Press 12. Beyond Illusion and Doubts, BBT Publications 13. The Science of the Sacred, Ancient Perspectives for Modern Science, edited by David Osborn, David O’Hara 14. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, SEP 15. Men of Mathematics, ET Bell, Touchstone Publications ˙ a 16. Sams¯ ra ke mah¯ natam ganitajña, Gunakara Mule a .¯ . R¯ jakamala Publications New Delhi a
This branch of philosophy questions about morality21 . What is good-bad, what is evil, virtue, right, crime etc. It addresses questions like 1. Whether there should be death sentence to a murderer? 2. Is it right to kill animals just to satisfy one’s tongue or for that matter even if someone’s hungry? 3. Why should one follow his elder’s orders? 7.2.4 Epistemology
It is connected with the scope, nature and limitations of knowledge. It addresses the questions: 1. What is knowledge? 2. How knowledge is acquired? Sr¯la J¯va Gosv¯ m¯ points ı ı a ı out in his tattva sandarbha that we’ve four inherent
21 In contrast to this there is a hedonistic school of thought. Hedonists don’t believe in any ethics, their philosophy is eat drink and be merry. In addition Western schools we also have these types of schools in India. They are called as C¯ rv¯ kas. C¯ rv¯ ka Muni or Lok¯ yata says beg, borrow or steal but drink ghee a a a a a and be merry, for after death when the body is turned into ashes nothing is left.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.