Philosophy cannot just be about conceptual analysis that is very profoundly determined by the West. Philosophy is not an exhaustive subject and therefore in this paper I try to justify other ways of doing philosophy. I take help of Krishna Chandra Bhattacharya’s essay “Swaraj in Ideas” and try to show how the philosophy that is going on India is very much valid as that of the West. My main focus point is the rejection of the word ‘darshana’ and how it is replaced by the word ‘ankviksiki’, because of its analytical connotation. I therefore try to justify the usage of the word ‘darshana’ through my essay.
The silencing of woman in a patriarchal society by adopting the method of threats, menace, warnings and insults is a common scenario witnessed in contemporary times. Though, this phenomena is not only seen in the present times but has been customary in the Vedic times as well. As an example, a famous debate between the philosopher sage Yajnavalkya and Rsika Gargi from the Yajnavalkya Kanda of Brihadaranyaka Upanisad has been taken into account. This debate is an epitome of male egoism and women subordination which can be related to the position of women in present times as well. An important weapon to place our point of view in front of the society and reach to the conclusive answers is by the method of debate through apt justifications and reasoning and one must not stop till indisputable answers are reached. Thus, this paper is a tentative elucidation of how a woman is silenced in a quest for answers from Vedic times to present time.
We, as human beings, generally think living peacefully and happily is the purpose of this life. Therefore, we always expect peace in all our actions. But from various bitter experiences such as educational insecurity, job insecurity, wars and future expectations and so on, peace in human life seems like a myth. The possibility of it seems impossible. However, some ancient theories, in particular, four ashrama dharmas and some modern thinkers in India tried to show peaceful living is not impossible. They thought it is possible by bringing order and harmony in our thought process and in our day to day practices. They tried to provide a path by which one can live peacefully. Also, they tried to show what kind of results one can get from a peaceful life. The main aim of this paper is to understand those principles and their significant role to bring peace and consequently the positive results of it in human life.
Dr. B.R Ambedkar was a twentieth century political and social reformer. Born as a Dalit, his works and efforts have impacted millions of people residing in India. He stood as the leader to ensure social justice and peace among the Dalit community. This article illustrates the relationship between casteism, and Ambedkar’s adoption of a new religion called Buddhism in two stages. First, I shall define what caste system is, and why there was a need for Ambedkar to abolish Hinduism and adopt Buddhism. Second, I will explain how Buddhism helped Ambedkar to accomplish his aim of social justice and equality for Dalit community. I conclude my suggestions by stating that the principles of ‘rationality’ and ‘freedom’ play an essential role in guiding one’s moral lives.
The Leibniz and Clarke correspondence encompasses the substantivalist relativist debate on the reality of space. Clarke represents Newton’s view, advocating substantivalism. Leibniz on the other hand, heavily influenced by Descartes, advocated relationism and discounts the existence of absolute space, that material objects can only be described by their relations to other objects, not by objective locations within some sort of underlying space. Within the correspondence he gives three main refutations to Newton: a critique of God’s mind as a sensorium, the Principle of Sufficient Reason [PSR] and the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles [PII]. I will not be addressing the former in this essay, instead I will evaluate the arguments formed around the two principles and assess the examples Newton gives to counteract this. I argue that Leibniz’s arguments against the reality of space are unconvincing as he fails to respond to Newton’s confutations against PSR and PII.