Q.     Discuss in detail the notion of human person as described in the haterodox Indian philosophical systems. (Dec. 11)

Ans.  Brahminical arguments for a subetantial, persistent and non-material self, has been bluntly rejected by the heterodox Indian systems like Chamaka and Buddhism. The metaphysical moral and political grounds given by them have no rolid basis according to heterodox systems. According to them, Brahmins tried to exploit human beings by misinterpreting the vedic verues. As Pravas writes. “The Vedas are in their opinion nothing but a means of livelihood for the Brahmins who are lazy, lacking intellect, energy, self-respect and sense.

Charuakas retate the existence of coal, other than body like this. “the soul is but the body characterized by the attributes signified in the expressions, “I am stoat,’ I am youthful, ‘I am grown up, ‘I am old’ etc. It is something other than that’.

Whereas Buddhists reject the idea of soul in there words. ‘A centient being does not exist you think, O mora? You are misled by the conception. This bundle of elements is void of self, in it there is no sentient being just as a set of wooden parts receives the name of marriage, so do we give to elements the name of fancied being.” (Parfit – 1984).

Charvaka say that there is nothing other the conscious body. Existence of self is myth. They say that since we cannot perceive the self and good perception is the only source of knowledge for us. So, we cannot accept its existence. Since, they have rejected inference and other sources of knowledge like verbal testimony, therefore, they have refuted this concept.

But their assertion seems unreasonable, since Brahminical systems have accepted the direct and immediate perception of soul. We don’t find any counter argument from Charvaka for this assertion.

Whereas a piece of discussion between Kind Milindo and Buddhist monk Nagarena suffices the claim of Buddhist philosophers. King Milinda said that if there were no person, there could be no merit and no demerit… “in reply to the king’s query Nagarsena said that none of the individual parts of the chariot, are the chariot. Nor the combination of the parts in teh chariot. He cannot discuss a chorit at all, only the word that denotes the idea of the chariot. The denomination chariot or self takes place in dependence of the individual parts. In ultimate reality, the person cannot be apprehended.”

Opposing this view of Buddhism, Shankara says that this theory provides nothing to hold together the various ingredients either of one time or through progression in time.

(Pravas – 2010)

But this story of original sin and their expulsion has been interpreted by Dicoeur as : “the exile is a primary symbol of human alienation … “It is injustice to force people to accept the literal meaning of the story. He further says that the datum is the experienced fact of human being unfinished working of evolution. We haven’t “quite ungrown” the law of the jungle and this final vestige of our lower, beauty nature still lingers on within us to cause disharmony.

Q.     Animal Symbolism

The special characteristic of human being is the fusion of spirituality with which has been described by contemporary thinkers as animal symbolism, which means ‘symbols – using animal” is an integrated interference of human being this holistic expression has been given by Marechels intellectual dynamism, which describes human being open to not nearly world and beyond but upto the level of God. Being a part of the ultimate, external world in conducive in conducive for human being in achieving his goal of perfection.

A symbol indicates something other then itself of which it is the symbol. And in this sense ‘All reality is symbolic” since it represents ultimate though it has been asserted by contemporary thinkers that we don’t need symbols and their further developments like myths and rites, yet often all we require it.

The argument behind this refusal of symbols is this, that since our ancestors hadn’t evolved upto that level of consciousness so that they can understand the obstruct reality, that’s why they needed symbols. But, we people of this new age can dispense with this device easily and deal with abstract.

Since, we live in the world which is a concrete reality and at the same time we are ourselves embodied persons, it is not possible for us to visualize abstract reality. We cannot talk or experience our interpersonal relationships only in terms of abstract. This embodiedness of disembodied is symbol itself. To express feelings of love, which is something abstract, we need gestures which include bodied persons, so we need rituals, statues, holy pictures etc to express our religious condiments. All these are symbols and we must be aware of the significance of their use to which they symbolize. They must not be treated as idels as the use of ideols is in the significance which they symbolize. That’s why it is said that idols must die so that symbols can live”.

The irony is this that we have an inclination that we problematize the mystery and reduce the symbols into merely idols, Pandikattu asserts. Pandikattu, 2000).

Q.     What is life phenomenologically?

Ans.  The very word ‘life’ denotes a complex of activities. Any being having those complex of activities is called ‘olive’. One of the traits of those complex of activities is movement. When we find something moving, we declare that entity as alive. But that is not the sole criterion for being alive because many inert objects like vehicles also move and so do the machines. But we cannot call them as alive. Now, we can redefine life by replacing ‘motion with self motion’ ‘clocomotions’. A being which is able to move itself without any apparent bulling of strings or choving or pulling from outside is alive.

But this motion is not meant as local motion only but its widened from, which is possible for animals only not to plants. This movement implies growth, reproduction etc. also Movement of that type which is that of subatomic world, neutrons, protons etc is also not meant here. Because this movement must include growth, nourishment, reproduction and repair. Whereas these subatomic parts are able to maintain only their clothes quo.

While plant life is much more active than subatomic entities. It positively develops and in dynamic in nature. Pandikattu concludes it as “Let us then sum up these activities as “self developmental’ or ‘self perfective’ activities and conclude that to have life means to exhibit signs of such activity. Phenomenological definition of life can be phrased like this. Though there is another scope of metaphysical definition which includes a deeper meaning of life as a ‘degree of having being”.

Q      Human being in its uniqueness

Ans   The unique characteristics of human being are use of conceptual language, creative art, transcendental religion, writes Destoru slais. Though it is not the case that only human being has a language as a means of communication. Even bees and arts communicate with each other but their communication is confined to certain topics and is all about concrete topics. Whereas abstract ideas and concepts are the properties of human language. And only concrete and visible reading is not the subject of our discussion but we transcend this limitation.

The second characteristics of human being i.e. art and creativity makes him unique among the creatures of the world. Human person has so many innovative ideas about architecture and dress. Through bolik sculpture, dance and painting, he expresses his creativity. Birds and animals have some innate ideas about how to construct their nests or burrows. But they don’t have any sense of art and creativity. Almost all create the nests in the same manner. The snakes and Scorpios continue with the same dance steps of their mating game whereas human being has innovated numerous styles and techniques in the fields of architecture, dance, dress and in their social life.

Human person is the only creature who has been able to introduce Gods and Goddesses or doities and spirits. Religion is the property of only human being and it encompasses his whole life. Since the beginning of the human species various religious rites and rituals have existed which is absent in other species.

Q.     Is human beings made of body and soul according to Thomistic philosophy. How does Teilhard understand human uniqueness?

Ans.  “… according to Thomistic philosophy, the human person is not a composite of body and soul as we may be led to think: it is prime matter informed by the human soul, which is its substantial form, that accounts for a human reality”. These words of author, philosopher Pandikattu suffices to describe the thomietic view of “body and soul”.  

But, the integral approach of mind body makes it difficult to solve the issues raised about death and rebirth. Apart from it, the holistic approach denies the subscription to the view that human beings are something different from others. But, we cannot deny this fact that human beings have certain qualities like abstraction, transcendence etc. which other creatures don’t have. At the same time, we don’t have any reason to deny the possibility of development of these qualities in matter.

Obvlisouly, Teilhard is pro to the potential of transcendence in matter. He holds the view that though it is true that human beings have certain special qualities but it is not the case that human beings have special qualities which others don’t have but due to this reason that the same matter has reached upto a higher “threshold” level of ‘complexicification’ in us and such types of activity can only proceed when this threshold has been covered.

Incarnation theory, which has the very idea of God as becoming enpleshed would become impossible if the diamentrical opposite view of mind and matter will be approved.

Further it is not something which irreligious or blasphemous. It can be viewed as Gods will that matter should transcend itself, when a certain level of complexity has been attained.

Q      Explain humans as dependent interdependent and independent beings. (Dec. 12 

Ans. Human as dependent: Technological advances has taken its toll of environment. Growth of business are dependent on the exploitation of finite natural resources. The natural outcome of culthroat competition is deserts. Pollution has permeated to the very work and cranny of the land.

Directing various parts of living organisms and treating them as separate from the whole organism is the trend of modern science. While there is also a parallel trend of system theory which analyses the basic principle underlying the life. This basic principle is a process and in a process very depends on each other. Disorder in even one step cause disarray in the whole system. In the same way world and its inhabitants are interdependent. The whole ecosystem is an integrated whole. So, every constituent of this system has maintains cooperative relationship.

Cut throat competition, which apparently seems cruelty is nothing chort of cooperation. Some old, weak fiehes sancriptice their lives for the good of etrong and young ones survival. According to the theory of evolution this is good for the species for survival of etronger fich will produce stronger offspring.

Everything depends on everything else for survival. For example if shrimps need decomposed leaves for survival then they themselves in return give life to other animals like kingfichers etc. The same is the relation between mud and its many dependents in the managing forests.

Mud is the food for bacteria, which itself is the food for immature crabs. These crobs are food for small fishes which in return is food for bigger ones. At the topmdt petition is the human being who eat fish. So, the absence of mud will itself create a long series of love for several species.

Thus we say that everything is interdependent. So it is our moral responsibility to protect the whole ecology and preserve it for future generation by limited use. Because human beings are also dependent on the world for their survival.

Humans as Inter-Dependent

Q      Earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth explain this statement with view of interdependent theory of human existence. (June – 14)

Ans.  Man is a part of nature, not nature a part of man. And everything in this nature is interconnected with each other. The web of life which spreads through this universe connects everything and man is merely a strand of it. Being a part of nature what ever happens to it, happens to man, also. At the same time, each and every act done by him, affects him also with the nature.

Even though some religious have concept of God as friend, but they will also love to suffer, if they will try to harm the earth. God, being the creator of earth loves this creation and punishes those who tries to destruct it. Nobody can escape from the clutches of the destiny. Only those persons will survive here, who will abide by the laws of the universe and eternize with it. To survive on this earth, one has to show reverence to the earth as part of his own existence.

The air we inhale is the cause of our existence in this world. So, by polluting the environment we will spoil our lives, as well. If we will try to destroy the other specious, we will become alone on this land. So, to live on earth is to live harmoniously with each other and respect other rights, also. Survival is a struggle based on ‘might is right’. Here big fish swallow is the small one. But when deer and lion can drink waters on the same place is living like situation. When the weaker is assisted by the stronger and considered as a part of his own existence they are living. Only integral and holistic approach can save the human species.

Biologically, also, we are dependent on nature. Out body is constituted out of five physical elements.

Are humans absolutely free: discuss (Dec. 21)

Are we really free? Reflect philosophically on the concept of freedom.

Definition of Freedom: The supposed answer for the meaning of the word ‘freedom’ is ‘doing whatever one wants. And obstruction or restriction in it is ‘anti freedom’. The consequent of this antecedent will be the result similar to Hiroshima Nagasaki we wouldn’t have been able to discuss this issue. To opposite this answer is self destructive. Thus will annihilate ourselves. Kant’s freedom of will allows only that type of actions which will become the universal law. And it this rule will become the universal law than nobody will be there to kill or be killed. We will be relieved all problems.

If we try to compromise in our assertion and say: “Doing, whatever I with, so long as no one else gets hurt.’ But everybody is quite aware of this fact that there are situation of dilemma when taking any decision will hurt someone. So, this definition is also defecting according to desbruslais.

The offshoot of either of the definitions will result in the annihilation of every type of human relationships. Satre echoes the same voice when he criticizes all inter personal relationships as either veiled forms of sadism or of masochism. For Sartre, man is freedom incarnate and freedom for him is absolute freedom, something that must never surrender even the slightert shred of personal antinomy to any norm or rule, however noble or spiritual it may round.

Are we really free? Discuss (Dec. 11)

Are we really free? Replied – philosophically on the concept of freedom. (Dec. 12)

Critically examine nature of human freedom.

Freedom is impervious to heredity, environment and that all sort of things. Freedom in its full sense includes the whole area of appetite in general and the faculty of will in particular Appetite is the word to be used for ‘tendency’, ‘drive’, ‘striving’ or for ‘dynamism’. But the word ‘incliniation’, indicates genuine tendency whereas ‘drive’ is used in a etrogon sense, laced with ambition. Need is related to something which is necessary for subsistence. Our feelings and emotions have special drive which is called passion. Instinct is an innote tendency and intustive by nature, like intellectual dynamision. Donceel has explained all these terms like this.

There is a crucial distinction between the two questions ‘Are we free?’ and ‘Are we really free?’ the very word ‘really’ indicates the recent events and findings which suggest something different from what we are naturally inclined to think i.e. we are free. Taking in consideration views of Freus and Skinner, who challenge this self assurance of ours, we have to deal with this concept of freedom.

Freudian interpretation of our behaviour shows that the cause of our whims and cynicism and arbitrariness lies in our unconscious or sub conscious mind. We leman persons are unaware of the fact that our ‘decisions’ are decided by our past condition, which we think that we are freely going to choose. ‘Man proposes, God disposes’ is the famous saying which remind us often of our independent existence. Then where is the scope of our freedom and choice?

Also, the very term ‘freedom’ can be used in many contexts like, psychology, politics, religion and so on. At the same time, may be so that the context is the same yet the meaning and interpretation of the very word ‘freedom’ differs. For example; even though the context is the political freedom yet ‘freedom to have more’ differs from freedom to be more ‘regarding capitalism.

Freedom of choice, i.e. is psychological freedom of martery over one’s action, is the sole matter of concern for any anthropologist philosopher. Other forms of freedom are derived from it. But we cannot deny this fact that ultimately we have to take shelter of the philosophy of God for the reconciliation of the matter.

For Sartre, every human inter-relationship involves the collision of two autonomous worlds. So to develop any permanent kind of relationship either of the two persons would have to surrender himself before other or to dominate and suppress the other. In both way it will be the condition dilemma of masochism or sadism. So, the misconception of loyal relationship is ‘bad faith’ or ‘self deception’ for him.

For Sartre, the freedom of saying proud and relentlers “No” is the only freedom. But, Paul Dicoeur doesn’t agree with Satre and say that he cannot conceive of the possible ‘yes’ which not only does not destroy a freedom but actually enhances it.

Undeniably there are two aspects of human beings: divine and devil. The inner conflict mentioned by St. Paul describes the situation of interior struggle, between a bser selfish urge and a more loving, nobler drive. Since, we are still in the process of evolution; it will depend on which of these two forces take us to the red deep down ‘I’ in us.

To think of freedom as devoid of every kind of outside condition is a wrong notion. Never there will be a situation like this that no internal or external factor will be there. Freedom only means that ever we are going to choose is our own decision and we not forced by someone else. And at the same time some option must be there.

Another aspect of Freedom of will is the law of karma. It says that whatever conditions or restrictions we have, it is due to our own karmas. At that point of time, we were free to create this obstruction for ourselves. So, it is our moral duty that whatever may be the situation, we have to choose only good actions and best possible to avoid the bad one.

Ramsey defines freedom as “… A free decision is either, on the one hand, merely a reaction to stimuli, nor on the other hand is it.. sole altogether circumscribed independent isolated going on which is all my own. A free decision is a personal response something certainly my own – but it is a response to a diserned obligation which exceeds ‘observables’. (Iarn Ramsey. 1960:16).

The only thing or being free is that there must be some option. The very agent could have chosen something else instead of whatever he choec is the only thing required for freedom. In nutshell, we can say that it is wrong to define freedom in terms of absence of restraint. Even, we should not differentiate between moral and physical freedom. Freedom doesn’t mean that all laws and restraints are anti-freedom. Further, self-discipline and self-restraint and regulation is also a part of freedom itself. Freedom doesn’t mean amarchism. As Disbursals ironically raises the question. Should we counterance a language that seems to imply that the main job of mortality is to take away freedom by bringing restraint? Can there not be good laws which protect and enhance freedom? Positively describing, mortery over one’s act is freedom. If the jagent can retrain his baser urge, he will be feeling a pervarive peace and joy, though temporarily he may feel sadness.

Indeterminism: (Dec. 2014 – 100 words, June 2014)

Is human action determined? Discuss. (Dec. 2012 250 words)

According to the deterministic theory every act of human person is caused by some other proceeding action or event, though, philosopher like Davi Hume rejected the theory of causality. In his view it is due to our past experience that we connect two things as cause and effect. But they cannot be proved to be connected as course and effect. There is every possibility of their not being concomitant.

But counter argument given by Freud has also some ground reality in it. The discovery of the ‘unconscious’ and its influence on human conduct will prove determination. Theory of coursation is law which governs all the physical reality. Than excluding human behaviour from the realim of the theory would seem invalid. But this theory is not also flowless or foolproof. To assert determination is to give scope to irresponsibility as well. If someone is not free to act, then that very person wouldn’t be held accountable for certain act. C Darrow and P Edwards are two contemporary philosophers to hold the deterministic view.

This theory of determination is something different from the theory of fatalism contrary to the theory of determination, according to which everything is explainable by the preceding cause and is predictable, fatalism rejects this theory of cause and effect. Fatalism asserts that nothing can be cause of anything else. Events occur, things happen spontaneously and are unpredictable.

While according to moderate determinism, though every event has a cause yet it is enough that this cause is internal to the subject to hold them responsible for their activities. Cause of any action is something different from the reason or motive of the action. It may be argued that it is difficult to ascertain the motive of any agent, but external causes are also in the same amount inscrutable. It may be argued by some authorities that had one’s beliefs, character etc. were different then one would have chosen different option than one did. But for them it is a question related to human existence, which is the realm of metophysics. An ethiciets duty is to ascertain the prevent existence as cause of one’s action. One cannot but assume that of a different situation. According to consequential justice, it is justified to attribute moral responsibility to the agent.

Interminism is the proponent of freedom of will. According to it nothing causes anything to happen, whether internal or external. It is dead against any kind of determination. Further any person can be held responsible for his action only if he has freedom of will to chose the option. But indeterminism doesn’t mean anarchism, being, human person determines his own options. Kant is to staunch supporter of freedom of will but Sartre’s contribution in this realm is unparallel.