A Philosopher's Ruminations

Instrumentalists believe science is not in the business of explanation, and ontology is not its concern. Science is concerned only with making successful predictions based on observable data. If positing electrons, protons, etc., helps make these predictions, then we need not bother ourselves with the further question about their existence. If they do not exist, then they also need not explain anything. Quine, an empiricist, joined pragmatism with realism. Our most successful theory of the world is true in the sense that it gets the world’s ontology right. But he also adds that the only evidence we have for deciding between two competing theories is sensory evidence, and it is possible in theory that two incommensurable theories may fit all observable evidence without our being able to tell which is the correct one. He concludes that there is no fact of the matter that decides which theory is the correct one, and ultimately, the choice of preferring one over the other will be pragmatic...

  What is consciousness? Generally consciousness is taken to be illumination; either of something outside itself or of itself or both. But Bhartrahari points out that illumination of content does not allow us to discriminate that content. Mere illumination is blind, deaf and dumb. Real illumination involves discursivity; the ability to discriminate a content of consciousness from everything else and in every movement of consciousness we always note there is some discriminatory capacity. Even when we are walking and our mind is elsewhere we are not explicitly conscious of the ground we are walking on but even then there is some discrimination occurring because in a way I know what kind of ground I am walking on and I can note any significant change in it that may occur suddenly. So there is no state of consciousness without discursivity and hence illumination of consciousness is intertwined with Vak (speech). However Vak if understood as audible sound then the proposition is manifes...

  In the following passage, we find JK linking thought, identification and possessiveness, the sense of me-mine that is at the root of all conflict: “It is thought that is breeding violence — my house, my property, my wife, my husband, my country, my God, my belief, which is utter nonsense. Who is doing this, creating this everlasting ‘me’ opposed to the rest? Who is doing it? Education, society, the establishment, the church are all doing it, because I am part of all that.” “Thought must inevitably divide; look what has happened. Thought says ‘Nationalism is pretty rotten, it has led to all kinds of war and mischief, let us have brotherhood, let us be united’. So thought forms a league of nations or United Nations, but thought is still operating separatively and maintaining separation: you who are an Italian, you keep your Italian sovereignty and so on. Talk about brotherhood and yet keep separate, which is hypocrisy; that is a function of thought to play double games with itself....

  The ability to distinguish right from wrong is a sign of good moral sense; the ability to distinguish good reasons from bad reasons is a sign of rationality. Our conduct in everyday life depends on the ability to distinguish what is good from what is bad; whether that be morally or rationally. We allow our thinking and our actions to be regulated by a value system where it is necessary to distinguish the good from bad in order to achieve a certain goal which in case of a theoretical inquiry is Truth. The Philosopher tries to understand the normative force behind this rational order – what is a reason, what makes a certain reason good or bad, what is Truth and can we know what is true. This investigation requires that we understand the subject and the way he experiences the world and the place of the subject within this world. Down the ages the best minds of the world have been engaged in resolving this question but with no unanimity in sight. Philosophy differs from other discipl...

  I.   PURE LOGIC   Logic is the study of validity—an inference is valid if, and only if, the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid . A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true . Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. Logic however is concerned with validity and not soundness. The logician wants to be able to recognize truth-preserving inferences by their structure. The logician wants to be able to recognize, from the structure of one set of sentences, that the members of another set of sentences are true and how we pass from the truth of one set of sentences to the truth of other sentences or to put it in another way how is that being committed to the t...