Western Philosophy For Indians

[acharya]

The History of Western Philosophy-Bertrand Russel

History of Western Philosophy

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3054580/The-Hist...Bertrand-Russel

The Catholic Church was derived from three sources. Its sacred history was Jewish, its theology
was Greek, its government and canon law were, at least indirectly, Roman. The Reformation
rejected the Roman elements, softened the Greek elements, and greatly strengthened the Judaic
elements. It thus co-operated with the nationalist forces which were undoing the work of social
cohesion which had been effected first by the Roman Empire and then by the Roman Church. In
Catholic doctrine, divine revelation did not end with the scriptures, but continued from age to age
through the medium of the Church, to which, therefore, it was the duty of the individual to submit
his private opinions. Protestants, on the contrary, rejected the Church as a vehicle of revelation;
truth was to be sought only in the Bible, which each man could interpret for himself. If men
differed in their interpretation, there was no divinely appointed authority to decide the dispute. In
practice, the State claimed the right that had formerly belonged to the Church, but this was a
usurpation. In Protestant theory, there should be no earthly intermediary between the soul and
God.


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Betrand Russell was an eugenist:
<b>
"The ideas of eugenics are based on the assumption that men are unequal, while democracy is based on the assumption that they are equal. It is therefore, politically very difficult to carry out eugenic ideas in a democratic community when those ideas take the form, not of suggesting that there is a minority of inferior people, such as imbeciles, but of admitting that there is a minority of superior people. The former is pleasing to the majority, the latter unpleasing. Measures embodying the former fact can therefore win the support of the majority, while measures embodying the latter cannot." ( from The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law)</b>

These are the words of Bertrand Russell, who is being quoted by Professor Glanville Williams. Williams is the Rous Ball Professor of English law at Cambridge University, a fellow of the English Eugenics Society, and, for the last twenty three years, head of the English Abortion Law Reform Association. What Williams is saying is that the elitist ideas of eugenics can come to power in democracies by encouraging attacks on minorities, much as Hitler came to power by scapegoating the Jews.

...
It's time to debunk the myth of this "grand philosopher"
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7629742/Philosop...ential-Thinkers

<b>
Philosophy 100 Essential Thinkers</b>

Philosophy Essential Thinking. have a look, it might you to doing assignment or own reference.




http://www.scribd.com/doc/2916145/Dictio...Philosophy

<b>
Dictionary of Philosophy</b>

A useful dictionary for a philosophy student...

[Guest]

This is an important thread, and i hope there will be a robust participation. We need to master the essentials of the Occidental worldview or darsana, to understand the motivation behind his actions and strategies. For example Karl Potter has written about "Presuppositions in Indian Philosophy" to explain to his western counterparts the basic structure of Indian philosophy. One of the perceptive remarks that Potter makes is that the modern Indic has pretty much capitulated and take the same worldview that his western counterpart makes. Be thart as it may, we need to study the "underlying presuppositions of western philosophy to position ourself accurately in the world stage and defend ourselves from attacks especially from those claiming to be our friends

[acharya]

From another forum

Some interesting points have been made here. My take on some for example..when we say we're thinking from a 'Western' or what i prefer 'Modern' moral perspective, is it unfair to ask how much of these modern moral perspectives have been influenced from Indian thought and literature. Indeed most Renaissance thinkers openly acknowledged most of the much debated schools of Western philosophy having 'Eastern' roots. Voltaire was most brazen and unashamed about it. Even as Europe colonized India, it's vast knowledge made available fired up the thoughts of some of Europes greatest thinkers that resulted in Modern perspectives and mores. When Europeans came in large numbers to India, it would seem surprising and strange that this land of Fakirs was indeed the source of much of their knowledge and humanity. Compare the Hindu code of War with the Geneva convention formed possibly 5 millenia after..the former is still more humane. Additionally the Europeans that made it into India started justifying Western morality as superior basically on Race issues. Justification took the course of exceptions being applied as rules for natives (e.g Sati) so 800 Sati deaths in few years was more for us, while 800 witch burning incidents in Europe was just an aberration. The moral distortion originates principally from a racial perspective and sought to be justified even till the present day, though in lot subtler terms by the Wendy Doningers and Mark Witzels. But a reason for our own sense of inferiority possibly lies in not comprehending how 'Western' morality was really developed through Upanashidic and Vedic shruti and thought even as we were being colonized. Looking at it this way helps also solve the dilemna, why of all British colonies India turns to Modern (and not Western) democratic tradition so much like a duck takes to water. Why India gravitates continuosly towards guaranteeing minority rights, valuing Human rights and other so called Western moral initiations to the savage world.

One has to see how easy it is for those that move out of a village setup forget a so called deeply entrenched and discriminatory caste system, or how easily abhorred we are of a single case of Sati in a decade, or even in the 18th century how easy it was for the Arya Samaji's to propagate a rational system of thought amongst the 'pious Casteist Hindu'..while the Arthashastra would have had some verses on how it's ok for 25 year olds to marry 9 year olds, the marriage was essentially a social pledge and the book not exactly one that was implemented on a large scale before that era. Because it states so, it is solving some moral dilemna in a village type set up in that era and because it deems it Ok, it indeed was a moral problem of sorts even then. The point is not what a smriti said or what society started implementing after it was written, the point is today it is considered abhorrent very easily. It is not resisted. So while discrepencies might and had indeed creeped into our societies, the moral initiative to curb those always lay within the spiritual and philosophical framework of Hindu society.


.it was the protestent denominations that gathered the maximum from India..whether Germany or England or France. It were philosophers and thinkers from here that discovered Grammar as analyzed by Panini and then thought about analyzing their own languages in such detail. The interest of the Max Muellers in India originated essentially from the firing up of knowledge in Europe that was happening from large influx of Indian thought (though only to top level thinkers in Europe). And as mentioned racial motives to morality sought to be exemplified by Schopenhauer and implemented using contorted Hindu symbols by Hitler for example. However as society developed the protestent denominations did realize the folly in colonization and sought to rectify the same by implementing fairer laws within their own societies.

A look at catholic countries such as dominated by Spain and Portugal shows a much lesser infiltration to Indian thought and thus lagging behind the present moral standards of the "West". One look at the South American continent confirms why democracy and human rights comes more easy to India than essentially catholic and European origin ruled states, while India does this steadily for 6 decades and more.

Same with the Phillipines and other Catholic dominated countries. Democracy and rights issues don't come easy. The least influenced by Indian thought, philosophy are ofcourse the Arabs and Islamic countries. We know where they stand in the 'rights and morality department'. The third lot come are those countries of East and South East Asia (most were influenced over several centuries by Hindu/ Buddhist) thought. They've had trouble implementing democracy too as they did not imbibe philosophical influences like what protestent denominations did. India subtly passed the 'Morality' baton to the protestent denominations even while it was being colonized them and besieged by Muslim conquerors. A clever thing to do..coming to think.


But in the continuing post, i did want to emphasize a linkage between those who prospered firstly through devouring knowledge and philosophy from here, then through wealth attained part by colonization and part by ethics that encouraged industriousness and hard work from here. Germans, French and the British are leaders in that and they subsequently dominated. Knowledge in Medieval Europe flowed from these centers more than from Greece unlike ancient times where Greeks again prospered and learnt from their links to India. Europe has always benefitted from India's amazing quest for knowledge and more, ancient as well as medieval times. Take China for example, they'll not say this open, but India is reverred as an elder brother. This countries quest for Truth is continual, and sometimes we do self flagellate more so than citizens of any other nation..precisely because we search deeper for Truth,.

When large sections of our population were beseiged by onslaughts lasting more than a thousand years, it was prudent that knowledge be kept confined for fear that open bearers of the same would face the fate of the monks in Nalanda or Taxila, but it was prudent so too that it be transmitted. Like the ancients said about Knowledge..it would to the best future bearers of it,.with all their shortcomings and growth pangs, the protestent denominations of the Christian religion did do a fair enough job of revitalizing and translating texts to significant sections of their own population, even though through their own kind disseminating those views in hardly subtle different ways. The consequence of such was an enlightenment within their own societies that disengaged the Yoke of Islam from large parts of India and freed it not only of themselves but of Islamic rule. That was India's destiny and it achieved it with understatably some pain. The quest for truth remains alive on this forum, heartburn too in varying degrees, but it's all too visible.

I've met too many Westerners and Chinese and Japanese who are simply too astonished at India's leap into the knowledge fold. It took them much too long to attain a society that prides a large part of it's GDP from a knowledge based economy. India did that easy. More stark is many of their knowledge based economies and tech shortages are propped up by a disproportionately large percent of Indians..coupled with the fact that Indians compromise the least percentage of people in their prisons or with criminal records of all other nationalist or religious denominations. (US maintains such records and available on adherents.com). Thus this is not just a fluke as some make it out to be. Or a result of British influence..it runs much deeper and it's something we've all carried within our souls for thousands of years and amongst the greatest trepidations. So while their may be exceptions to what i say, the general thrust is that ancient and medieval societies with max contact with India and it's culture were the biggest beneficieries of wealth and moral values. To think we're falling for 'Western' morals may be very incorrect to assume in case we look at things this way. JMT though think their is much value and truth to this POV IMHO.

[Husky]

<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Mar 3 2009, 10:09 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Mar 3 2009, 10:09 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> And as mentioned racial motives to morality sought to be exemplified by Schopenhauer and implemented using contorted Hindu symbols by Hitler for example.
[right][snapback]95122[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That bit is wrong though. It was not India but <i>Europe and America</i> that invented and kept elaborating on and rephrasing their idea of Oryans (and this was much after their contact with India and the initial influx of Dharmic ideas into the west). So Hitler was in love with a <i>European</i> idea that was in its origins based solely on the biblical Japhetic-Hamitic thing which christian Europe willfully read into the Dharmic world and which was entirely unknown to the Dharmic Indian subcontinent.

Next to that, Hitler copied eugenics and other racist ideas from <i>America</i> (this is also known and verifiable history). Again, not from India. For instance consider the christoterrorist fiction 'protocols of zion' which, though tsarist Russian in origin, was popularised in AmeriKKKa and overseas by that anti-semitic christoterrorist and Hitler-aide Henry Ford.

Hitler commandeered indigenous European symbols, not Indian ones. Moreover, I have yet to see evidence that the hakenkreuz was called Swastika by the christonazis of Germany (in the original German, not in English translation).

[Guest]

Hitler only abused the stupidness of white German people, after the economical crisis. Now we Hindus must correct history and our swastika must be restored as a symbol of peace.

dewanand
the Netherlands

[Shambhu]

****************
Admin, can you delete the post above and kick this dewanand out?
Thanks.
(Open his link and see)

[acharya]

Look at USA as a gaint social engineering experiment where each generation is "influenced" by some outside group.







A write-up by person X



This morning, Times of India celebrates the headlines that, "Harvard gets biggest international donation in 102 yrs, from Tata Group." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/busi ... 752185.cms The timing on the eve of Obama's India visit has strategic importance. This whopping $50 million gift is part of a massive trend that deserves some thought, so here I go...



One talk I gave compared how harvard studies China with great respect, while India is seen through the human rights lens - caste, women's "oppresion", minority "oppression", etc... Others gave specific areas of biases as well - from Aryan theory on. The result was that Mishra went back and advised the Ambanis to NOT give Harvard a dollar, until they would make changes to their stance on India. China, I was able to show, gets treated as a serious civilization. One factor was that China studies is done largely in Mandarin while India is studied in English. Also, China regulates visas for western scholars such that it blacklists those it finds troubling, whereas India is open and welcomes everyone without supervision, and fails to do any analysis after the fact as to whats being produced. In fact, Indians find it a compliment when westerners study them, as though suffering from an inferiority complex of feeling left out. [size="7"]Finally, a key difference is that Indian intellectuals are heavily anti-India because of pseudo-secularism and marxism deeply entrenched in Indian intellectual circles, and most important Indian scholars are western trained and/or funded and/or craving to be in their good books for fame and prestige. Chinese do not suffer such complexes, which in India are the after-effects of colonization.[/size] This is because Gandhi got superseded by Nehru in defining the elitist Indian ethos. Gandhi was emphatic about his Indianness, whereas Nehru bragged to John Kenneth Galbraith that he was the "last white man to rule India."



But the lure to become famous in harvard and dine with the who's who of white american establishment is too powerful for Indians to resist. The real "success" for most is when they are recognized by the west. This is what the west knows well, having studied Indian culture for centuries, and used precisely this knowledge to manage, control and topple one raja after another in the 17th and 18th centuries. Take the kids to Cambridge, play polo with them, have western women to flirt, etc. - so they can feel like admitted to the club as honorary whites in front of other Indians. After independence, the brits got replaced by the americans, hence the strategic importance of places like harvard.



Some years later, there came a call from a prominent Indian that Anand Mahindra was being roped in by Harvard, and he had given them office space in his Mumbai HQ. So I was set up for a persional one-on-one meeting with Anand Mahindra. He is a very decent, gentle, open-minded executive for sure. He listened to my frank talk. He was unaware of these issues which clearly bothered him. But he made clear that he owed a lot to harvard, as they had given him a scholarship to study there when his father had refused to support him go there. So it was payback time for him, nothing more. I also suggested to him that Indians who want to fund Harvard should fund their business school, which has become pro-India, but NOT the humanities which are the nexus of this "south Asian" nonsense. A few days later, at Mr. Mahindra's suggestion I had a brief phone chat with Harvard's Sugata Bose who was visiting India as harvard brand ambassador to raise funds. I have publicly criticized Sugata Bose for his writings that depict pre-Mughal India as uncivilized, his idea of colonial problems focusses only on British but exempts the islamic colonizers, and he sees de-colonization as the return to a unified south asia under quasi-islamic civilization (positioned as "secularism"). This, of course, his girlfriend and co-author, Ayesha Jalal, has very skillfully managed to make into the core curriculum on south asia at places such as Harvard. (Jalal while not on the Harvard faculty was on the committee of their South Asia program until I pointed this strange anomaly out, and then she suddenly left that visible spot.) Prof Bose was cordial and frank, and we agreed to continue to chat later - which never materialized. Bose also lashes out against his great grand-uncle, Subhash Chandra Bose, the freedom-fighter, portraying him as a fascist. Music to the ears of the harvard establishment. These folks bring in Kashmir separatists, Maoists, "abused Hindu women", Dalit activists, etc. routinely as the "voices of the real India." Anand Mahindra announced last month that he is donating $10 million to Harvard specifically designated for the Humanities.



I mentioned that Chinese government and Chinese private donors do an annual report on the state of China Studies in the west, just like any industry analyst would do for an indistry, and this guides them where and how to invest. This gives them the basis for evaluating a given program and negotiating from a position of knowledge about what is what in the discipline. He was candid in confessing that he had not studied the south asia studies discipline to be able to tell me what went on in depth. But, he remarked in typical India style, he thinks the persons involved in such studies seem like "nice guys" and decent folks. I responded that in evaluating a business investment, the due dligence would not be based on whether the management team were "nice guys" or decent folks in their personal lives, but that it would look for hard-hitting data and evidence to evaluate. Had he or anyone else studied the writings of such departments over the past 50 years, to be able to evaluate what was going from the Indian point of view? The answer then reamins the same today - no, they have not!

[size="7"]

In one meetng after another for 15 years, I have raised such issues. One example of such an article I wrote in 2003 is on Rediff.com, titled, "Does South Asia Studies undermine India?" (See: http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/dec/08rajiv.htm ) I have also proposed that India could use its own India Studies and even South Asian Studies based in Indian universities (as a way to study neighbouring countries with an India-centric lens). I have argued that the money used to fund one Harvard chair (at least $5 million) could fund a whole department of scholarship in India. The irony is that even those who claim to be patriotic, nationalists, including those being described as "Hindu nationalists," seem confused and mixed up. [/size]The GOI has given major funding to western studies of South Asia - including both BJP and Congress led governments. Yet there is not a single government or private philanthropist report on the state of this "industry" that studies India, which consists of several thousand scholars full-time who come from various disciplines - religious studies, history, anthropology, sociology, political science, human rights, women's studies, etc. On the other hand, China Studies in the academy is secure in China's hands, with western scholars are "outsiders" craving to be allowed entry.



Before spending money, one must have a strategic clarity as to what ideas of India are to be promoted. Otherwise, well formulated ideas of India by various other institutions get to dominate - such as ideologies of seminaries, US government thinktanks, academic south asian marxists-islamists, etc. Indians participate but not on their own rules. Tragically, Indians do not even have clarity on this amongst themesleves much less being able to project it. At a gathering at Ram Jethmalani's house last year, I was invited as the featured speaker for the evening. I spoke on this very issue that Indians must take control of India Studies. One prominent woman activist (Madhu Kishwar) diverted the issue by asking whether the studies would be done in Hindi! The whole gathering easily got distracted by any odd and irrelevant idea, that should not have diverted them from the core proposition being discussed. Some others asked "whose idea of India" would be studied, would it be the Muslims' idea and dalit idea, or would brahmins dominate? Indians do not even have a consensus on what is India as we want to see it.



Earlier this year, there was a rumor that Infosys founder Narayan Murthy was giving $15 million to harvard to translate and publish ancient Indian texts into English, for popular reading. On the surface this seems good for us. But the details count and such details are typcially glossed over by Indians. The editor appointed for the series is none other than Prof. Sheldon Pollock (Columbia), even though he takes an explicitly Marxist view of Sanskrit - explotation by brahmins of dalits, women, muslims, etc. His famous writing, "The Death of Sanskrit" laid out his idea of its history as a source of power in the hands of a few. He has been editor of the CLAY series of Indian Classics already, and one has to see that to get an idea of his biases. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Sanskrit_Library ) While doing a great job bringing out the "beauty" of the indian materials, the fact remains that he simply assumes and states the Aryan invasion/migration theory as a given without even raising any issue with it. Very elegant and beautifully produced, this series already has 46 volumes in print, and its influence is considerable. My concern was that the Murthy family might not have invested time and resources to go into the details of the issues at stake in the translation of Indian classics in the west. The Murthy donation will also take this new series from harvard, and send it back into Indian education, making this "Made in USA" depiction of Indian Classics the canon for Indians to study as their definition of themesleves. This is what max Mueller's works did a century ago. It is their money and they have a right to do what they please with it. But wouldn't it have been wiser if they had funded something to do with their area of expertise and competence, so they could at least evaluate and monitor professionally, and not depend on "they are nice fellows" level of naivete. When this rumor was critiqued by me, the head of the Hindu American Foundation inquired and concluded that the runor was false based on his "inside" information from the Murthy's. A few days later the official announcement was made. Also, Prof. Pollock was awarded the Padma Shri award by GOI at a Republic Day ceremony in Rashtrapathy Bhavan, for his great contributions to the study of sanskrit.



None of the reactions from the "Hindu activists" have made any sense either, be it issuing petitions or writing angrily to the parties concerned. They have failed to understand the deeper mechanisms at work. You dont fight a patient's infection by holding playcards shouting slogans against the germs! The doctor has to understand the mechanisms of the disease and how/where to intervene. But a lazy, incompetent man (despite his good intentions) would have no time to go to med school and learn all that, and THEN be competent to defeat the disease. He is in too much of a hurry, wants to make a big splash in public to look important; and hence he stands outside the hospital shouting slogans against the germs. This sounds like a strange analogy, but if you examine closely the "activists" at work, it is a fairly accurate one.

[ramana]

X-post....

There is no doubt about the fact that many if not all of the foundations of western law have been influenced by Christian doctrine. Having said that, western law itself was a layered cumulative sum of pre-Christian and non-Christian practice.



Original Christianity most probably started out as an anti-establishment Judaic movement that borrowed from previous Judaic memes to mobilize Jews against the Romans [as is every revolutionary movement forced to borrow from pre-existing memes]. These tools were found useful by other disgruntled sections of Roman society and elite who combined to use it against the Roman establishment. So another shrewd elite saw a chance to mobilize such disgruntlement to secure his own power and modified Christianity as an imperial doctrine.



But layered within the doctrine remains memes from the earlier days that are seized upon by elite factions from time to time to use for their own bid for power or hegemony. This was the case for Reformation in Europe and to an extreme in the colonial USA. They focused on the supposed universalist aspects to seek independence from Europe and monarchy, and ultimately also for the Abolition. All of it was a combination of undermining some other authority as well as mobilize support from sections of population.



The so-called progressive values in "western" society are firmly based on ideas that have lain inside the European culture from pagan times, and a lot of the structures are based on Roman and Greek concepts - which also got interlaid with European Christianity.



But significant to note is that those "progressive" ideas were almost always the result of "revolutionary changes" and at the hands of dictators - like the Parliamentarians under Charles I in England, Napoleon, or French Revolution, or the "religious pioneers" settling USA (Penn's first draft Constitution for his settlement for example) - and they inevitably drew inspiration or justified their changes by appealing to rare memes in the body of concepts that had entered or remained in Christianity (although not all of whose origins are in Judaism).