Lokayata :Journal of Positive Philosophy, Vol.III, No.02 (Sept 2013)

7/27/2019 Lokayata :Journal of Positive Philosophy, Vol.III, No.02 (Sept 2013)

1/101

1 | P a g e

http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

ISSN: 2249-8389

LokyataJournal of Positive Philosophy

Centre for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies (CPPIS)Milestone Education Society (Regd.), Ward No.06, Pehowa (Kurukshetra)-136128

Volume III, No. 02 (Sept., 2013)Chief-Editor:

Desh Raj Sirswal
http://lokayatajournal.webs.com/http://lokayatajournal.webs.com/http://lokayatajournal.webs.com/


2/101

2 | P a g e


Lokyata: Journal of Positive Philosophy (ISSN 2249-8389)Lokyata: Journal of Positive Philosophy is an online bi-annual interdisciplinary journal of theCenter for Positive Philosophy an d Interdisciplinary Studies (CPPIS) . The name Lokyata can betraced to Kautilya's Arthashastra, which refers to three nv kiks (logical philosophies), Yoga,Samkhya and Lokyata. Lokyata here still refers to logical debate (disputatio , "criticism") ingeneral and not to a materialist doctrine in particular. The objectives of the journal are toencourage new thinking on concepts and theoretical frameworks in the disciplines ofhumanities and social sciences to disseminate such new ideas and research papers (with strongemphasis on modern implications of philosophy) which have broad relevance in society ingeneral and mans life in particular. The Centre publishes two issues of the journal every year.Each regular issue of the journal contains full-length papers, discussions and comments, bookreviews, information on new books and other relevant academic information. Each issuecontains about 100 Pages. Centre for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies, Pehowa (Kurukshetra)Chief-Editor:

Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal (P.G. Govt. College for Girls, Sector-11, Chandigarh)

Associate Editors:

Dr. Merina Islam, Dr. Sandhya Gupta

Editorial Advisory Board

Prof. K.K. Sharma (Former-Pro-Vice-Chancellor, NEHU, Shillong)Prof.Sohan Raj Tater (Former Vice-Chancellor, Singhania University, Rajasthan)

Dr. Anamika Girdhar (Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra)

Dr.Ranjan Kumar Behera (Patkai Christian College (Autonomous), Nagaland)

Fr. V. John Peter (St. Josephs Philosophical College, Nilgiris, T.N.)

Dr. Aayam Gupta (Kurukshetra, Haryana)

Dr. Geetesh Nirban (Kamala Nehru College, University of Delhi)

Dr. Vaishali Dev (Mahamakut Buddhist University, Thailand)

Dr. Narinder Singh (GHSC-10, Chandigarh)

Dr. Vijay Pal Bhatnagar (Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra)

Mr. Praveen Kumar Anshuman ( Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi, Delhi)

Declaration: The opinions expressed in the articles of this journal are those of theindividual authors, and not necessary of those of CPPIS or the Chief-Editor.


3/101

3 | P a g e


In this issue..

Author & Title of the Paper Page No.

Sandhya Gupta: ARGUMENT FORMATION : INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF AN

ARGUMENT

04-11

Jitendra R. Ranka:NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY 12-24

Mane Pradeepkumar Pandurang : SWAMI VIVEKANANDAS CONCEPTION

OF PHILOSOPHYY

25-30

Devartha Morang & Prabhu Venkataraman: PRINCIPLES OF

ENVIORNMENTAL PRAGMATISM AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUE

31-37

Kaizar Rahaman: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT : RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE 38-46

Siddhartha Shankar Joarder:PRIVATE EXPERIENCE AND ITS EXPOSITORY

MEANING

47-57

Viswaja S.Nair:EVOLUTION OF SANSKRIT DHATUPATHA A STUDY 58-64

Preet Kumari, Gargi Sharma, Swami Pyari, Umang Verma: CONSCIOUSNESS

AS A PREDICTOR OF SPIRITUAL INTELLIGENCE

65-70

Jyoti George: YEATS THE SORROW OF LOVE 1825: A STYLISTIC ANALYSIS 71-84

Sanjay Chhabra: EMPOWERING WOMAN: A STUDY ON NAGALAND 85-95

NEW PUBLICATIONS 96

PHILOSOPHY NEWS IN INDIA 97-98

CONTRIBUTORS OF THIS ISSUE 99


4/101

4 | P a g e


Argument Formation: Internal Structure of an Argument

Sandhya Gupta

Introduction

Argument formation is a topic related to western logic. Every argument in logic has a

structure & to know any argument it is mandatory to understand the structure of that

argument. A student of philosophy or western logic should have an ability to differentiate an

argument from other sentences which are not arguments & which is possible only by

knowing the structure of an argument.

Argument

In common parlance, the term argument refers to discussion, dialogue or debate between two

persons of different points of view.

Technically, arguments are the basic logical units. The term argument refers to any group

of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the other/s and which are regarded as

providing support for the truth of that one. Any argument should have at least two or more

propositions and these propositions should have logical relationship between each other in

such a way that one proposition provides support for accepting the truth of another

proposition. (Copi & Cohen, 2003)

Example: The following argument has two premises and one conclusion and both premises

together provide support for accepting the truth of the conclusion.

All islands are surrounded by water. Tonga is an island. Therefore, Tonga is surrounded by water.

To qualify as an argument it must have at least one premise and one conclusion. Every

argument has this basic structure, a proposition and an inference. While every argument is astructured cluster of propositions, not every structured cluster of propositions is an argument.

To qualify as an argument they must have a structure. (Copi & Cohen, 2003)

Lokyata: Journal of Positive Philosophy(ISSN: 2249-8389)

Volume III, No. 02 (September, 2013), pp.04-11


5/101

5 | P a g e


The figure given below illustrates the structure of an argument.

Note:

A simple Argument has one premise and one conclusion. A complex argument may have many premises and one or many conclusions. Premise and conclusion may come together in one sentence or in different sentences.

The most general number and sequence of premise and conclusion in an argument is as follows:

Premise, Premise, Premise, Conclusion i.e. Premises are followed by a conclusion. Conclusion, Premise, Premise, Premise i.e. Conclusion is followed by premises.

(Martz & Robinson, 2007)

Sometimes conclusion comes first and sometimes it comes in the last in an argument. Even

sometimes the conclusion of an argument becomes the premise of other argument or premise andconclusion may come in one statement. So, the number and sequence of premise and conclusion

varies in all the arguments.

Arguments are different from questions, commands, emotional discourses, requests,

exclamations, explanations etc. Sometimes in a given text we find so many sentences but they

form no argument (Copi & Cohen, 2003). To know an argument and to differentiate it from other

sentences (which are not arguments), we must have a good understanding of its internalstructure.

Proposition: A proposition is a building block of an argument. A proposition is always adeclarative sentence i.e. acceptance or denial is one of the essential feature of a sentence to

qualify as a proposition. A proposition should either be true or false but never both. If a sentence

is neither true nor false then it is not a proposition and is not able to make any argument. (Copi &Cohen, 2003)


6/101

6 | P a g e


Both premise and conclusion are propositions. Sometimes premise and conclusion are clearly

indicated by their indicators but at times they are hidden in the paragraph as these indicators arenot always present so it becomes hard to identify them.

Premise: The proposition which gives support for accepting the truth of conclusion or whichprovides reason for accepting the other proposition as conclusion is called as a premise. Some ofthe premise indicators, which help to find the premise in the passage, are as follows: (Martz &

Robinson, 2007)

After all As a result of As follows from As shown by Because Derived from Due to Firstly For Given that In light of the fact In view of May be inferred Secondly Since

Conclusion: The proposition which is concluded from that (premise) is called conclusion. A

conclusion is a very important structure of an argument. It would be easy to find out the premise,after knowing the conclusion. A conclusion is the proposition which is affirmed, concluded oraccepted on the basis of the premise. Some conclusions indicators are as follows: (Copi &

Cohen, 2003)

Accordingly As a result of Because of this reason Clearly Consequently

Demonstrates that Hence Implies that Indicates that It proves that So Suggests that Therefore Thus


7/101

7 | P a g e


Inference: Inference is the process of reasoning or psychological process by which we reach the

conclusion from given premise. This process helps us to know the logical relation between itspremise and conclusion.

Recognising Arguments:All statements are not arguments. As discussed earlier a proposition is a declarative sentence.

Statements that do not qualify as propositions may be in the form of:

Commands or orders which are given or ordered and are not declarative in nature. Requests made or humbly asked for doing something. Questions which are asked and are not declarative in nature. Greetings and wishes which do not have truth value. Explanations as they do not declare anything but explains why something

Happened or occurred i.e. which provide causal relation rather than logical

relation. Conditional Statements (If, Then etc.)

Two main types of Arguments are deductive and inductive.

Deductive argument is an argument whose premise supports its conclusion with absolute

necessity i.e. no additional information has power to change the conclusion drawn from givenpremises. (Copi & Cohen, 2003)

Example:

All men are mortal.Akshay is a man.

Therefore, Akshay is mortal.

Note: Here no additional information can change the conclusion.

Inductive argument is an argument in which conclusion is not supported by its premises withabsolute necessity or certainty but with a probability i.e. any degree of additional information has

the power to change the conclusion. (Copi & Cohen, 2003)

Example:

All teachers go to the college to teach every day.Raman is a teacher.

Therefore Raman goes to the college every day.

Note: Now the additional information that Raman retired last month from the college will changethe conclusion drawn that now Raman is not going to the college.


8/101

8 | P a g e


Validity and Invalidity of Arguments:

As the terms true and false are related with propositions, the terms validity and invalidity arerelated with deductive arguments only. They are not related with inductive arguments because

there is always a possibility of changing the conclusion drawn with some additional information.

Therefore any information may strengthen or weaken the argument. In an argument a claim ismade by its premises for the truth of its conclusion drawn. If this claim is correct then argumentis valid otherwise it is invalid.

An argument with true premise, correct reasoning and true conclusion is called a sound

argument.

Figure:Eight possible combinations of deductive argument with regard to validity orinvalidity: ( Kemerling, 2011)

Premise Inference/Reasoning Conclusion Argument

True Correct True Valid (Sound)True Correct - No deductiveargument with true

premise and correct

inference has falseconclusion.

False Correct True Valid (Unsound)

False Correct False Valid (Unsound)

True Incorrect True Invalid

True Incorrect False Invalid

False Incorrect True Invalid

False Incorrect False Invalid

Analysis of an Argument

It is easy to know premise and conclusion in a simple argument but in a complex argument they

are hard to find. An easy way to analyse a complex argument in order to find a premise and a

conclusion is by using the popular techniques of diagramming and paraphrasing.Paraphrasing

Paraphrasing

It simply means to rewrite a statement in a simple or lucid language for the sake of clarity. Thesteps to be followed in this process are as follows:

Step-1. List all the components of a statement in an easy and clear way.Step-2. Find the conclusion first.Step-3. List the premise which is supporting the conclusion.Step-4. Check if there is more than one argument in a passage. If yes, list their premise and

conclusion separately and find their relation with each other.
http://lokayatajournal.webs.com/http://lokayatajournal.webs.com/http://www.philosophypages.com/http://www.philosophypages.com/http://www.philosophypages.com/http://www.philosophypages.com/http://lokayatajournal.webs.com/


9/101

9 | P a g e


Step-5. Verify if the reasoning is correct or incorrect.Step-6. On this basis, check if argument is valid or invalid.

Diagramming

This technique was first developed by a distinguished logician Monore C. Beardsley in 1950 inPractical Logic (Prentice Hall, 1950). Later it was perfected by many other logicians (Stephen N.

Thomas, 1973; Michael Scriven 1976 etc). (Copi & Cohen, 2003)

With the understanding of diagramming or mapping, one can easily identify the components of

an argument and make diagrams accordingly. In order to map an argument, first of all, we give

numbers to premise and conclusion in a particular order and later encircle them. Then draw an

arrow pointing from premise to conclusion as shown in the examples below:

Example-1: When there is a straight forward simple argument with one premise leading to

conclusion.1. Yesterday was the last day of the month of August (Premise).

2.Therefore,Today is the first day of September (Conclusion).

Example-2: When two or more premises are required together to reach the conclusion.

1. All the judges of Supreme Court work very hard (Premise).2. Justice Ali is the Judge of Supreme Court (Premise).3. Therefore, Justice Ali works very hard (Conclusion).

+

or

1

2

1

3

21

3

2


10/101

10 | P a g e


Example-3: When two or more premises are supporting the conclusion independently.

1. Apple is a fruit, which is sweet (Premise).2. Water-melon is a fruit, which is sweet (Premise).3. Pineapple is a fruit, which is sweet (Premise).4. There is at least one fruit, which is sweet (Conclusion).

Example-4: When two or more premises together support two different conclusions.Raman is a scholar (Premise).

All the scholars are intelligent and hard-working (Premise).

Raman is intelligent (Conclusion).

Raman is hard-working (Conclusion).

+

Example-5: When a conclusion of an argument becomes the premise of another argument.

1. Bulo has some urgent work at home (Premise).2. Therefore, Bulo is not going to her work (Conclusion of 1 and Premise of 3)3. So, Bulo will not be paid because anybody not going to work will not be paid for that day

(Conclusion).

1

4

2 3

1

4

2

3

1

2

3


11/101

11 | P a g e


Example-6: When there are many propositions with one conclusion and other premises, every

premise gives support for the conclusion in different ways i.e.

1. Desert mountaintops make good sites for astronomy (Conclusion).2. Being high, they sit above a portion of the atmosphere, enabling a stars light to reach a

telescope without having to swim through the entire depth of the atmosphere (Premise

supporting the conclusion independently).3. Being dry, the desert is also relatively cloud-free (Premise).4. The merest veil of haze or cloud can render a sky useless for many astronomical

measures (Premise) .(Copi & Cohen, 2003)

Note: Here premise 3 and 4 support the conclusion together

Summary

The term argument refers to any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from

the other/s and which are regarded as providing support for the truth of that one.Argument formation is a topic related to western logic. Arguments are the basic logical units.

Any argument should have at least two or more propositions. Without knowing arguments, we

cannot study Logic. Every argument comprises of a proposition and inference. The propositionfurther comprises of a premise and conclusion. Arguments are of many types. The two main

types which are important for the study of Logic are deductive and inductive arguments. The

techniques for analysing arguments are diagramming/mapping and paraphrasing.

References:

Adam, R.,& Martz, G. (2007). The Princeton review-Cracking the GMAT. New York:Random House Inc.

Cohen, C., & Copi, M. I. (2003). Introduction to logic . United Kingdom: PearsonEducation Limited.

Jacquette, D. (2011). Enhancing the diagramming method in informal logic .Argument,12, 327360. Retrieved on October 5, 2013 from http://argumentwp.vipserv.org/wp-

content/uploads/2012/pdf/11_argument-2-09-jacquette.pdf

Kemerling, G. (2011). Arguments and inference. Philosophy Pages, Britannica.Retrieved on Oct 5 2013 from http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm

32 4

1
http://lokayatajournal.webs.com/http://lokayatajournal.webs.com/http://argumentwp.vipserv.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/pdf/11_argument-2-09-jacquette.pdfhttp://argumentwp.vipserv.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/pdf/11_argument-2-09-jacquette.pdfhttp://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htmhttp://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htmhttp://argumentwp.vipserv.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/pdf/11_argument-2-09-jacquette.pdfhttp://argumentwp.vipserv.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/pdf/11_argument-2-09-jacquette.pdfhttp://lokayatajournal.webs.com/


12/101

12 | P a g e


NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY

Jitendra R. Ranka

Hkkjrh; nkZu ,oa /keZ bfrgkl esa ihM+k vkrZ&ukku ewy eUrO; gSA f=fo/k nq %[kksa ls vkR;fUrd fuo`fr izkIr dj vH;qn;dk y{; vftZr djuk bgyksd@ e`R;qyksd dk ms; jgk gSA bgyksd ds vuUrj fu%Js;l dh izkfIr dks pje iq:"kkFkZdgk x;k gSA blh iq:"kkFkZ dh izkfIr bl thou dk eq[; /;s; ekuk x;k gSA /keZ] vFkZ o dke dh bl f=os.kh :ihf=oxZ dks ikj dj eks{k :ih lkxj dh xgjkbZ;ksa esa mrjuk gh lEiw.kZ thou dh flf) gSA Hkkjrh; nkZu esa lk/kd /keZ;k cz dh ftKklk ls ysdj vfLro esa ck/kd leL;kvksa ij fot; gkfly djuk fotsrk dk nkZu Hkkjr dh fofk"VijEijk jgh gS vFkkZr~~Hkkjrh; nkZu esa [k.Mu o e.Mu ij leku :i ls cy fn;k x;k gSA blh izdkj O;fDr o

lef"V ij i;kZIr cy fn;k tkuk n"VO; gSA lEiw.kZ foo ds nkZu esa ;g /;kro gS fd nkZu dk izkjEHk ftKklk ;kleL;k ds :i esa gqvk gSA euq"; ,d cqf+)khy izk.kh gSA cqf) dh foks"krk ds dkj.k euq"; iqk if{k;ksa ls fHkUu] mPpLFkku esa vofLFkr gSA tc og vius vkUrfjd rFkk ckg~; txr dh vksj ns[krk gS rks vusd ftKklkRed izu mldseu esa mBrs gSaA ;s fofo/k izdkj ds foks"k] lkekU; o xw


13/101

13 | P a g e


rkfRod Lo:i tkuk tk lds vFkok lk{kkr~Kku izkIr fd;k tk,A euq"; cqf) dh lgk;rk ls tho ,oa txr~ds fo"k;esa ;qfDr iwoZd Kku izkIr dj ldrk gSA bl n`f"V ls Hkh dgk x;k gS fd nkZu ;qfDr iwoZd Kku izkIr djus dk iz;RugSA nkZu ,d ,slh fnO; n`f"V iznku djrk gS tks vkRe nkZu ;k ro nkZu dks lEHko cukrh gSA bl izdkj nkZu lEiw.kZtxr~ds ckjs esa ,d O;kid n`f"Vdks.k gS tks mlesa lfEefyr lHkh fo"k;ksa dh u dsoy O;k[;k djrk gS vfirq ekuo dks

leqfpr ekxZ ij pyus ds fy, uo fuekZ.k ,oa iqu#Fkku dh vksj izsfjr djrk gSA ^izkf.kek= dh n%[kfuo`fk dh vksjizofk* ;gh vFkZphilosophy 'kCn ls vorfjr gqvk gSA vaxzsth 'kCnphilosophy nks ;wukuh 'kCnksa ls mRiUucrk;k tkrk gS] vFkkZr~~(philos + sophia)A philos dk vFkZ gS izse vFkok vuqjkx(Love) vkSjsophia dk

vFkZ gS fo|k vFkok Kku (knowledege or widdom)A bl izdkj nkZu'kkL= dk 'kfCnd vFkZ gS fo|kxqjkxA

ikpkr; nkkZfud {ks= esa philosophy dk ;gh vFkZ izpfyr gSA

lk{kkr~ Kku dks gh ro Kku vFkok ro nkZu dgk tkrkgSA ;gh dkj.k gS fd ro Kkfu;ksa ;k _f"k;ksa dks Hkkjr esan`"Vk dgk x;k gSA vc izu ;g gksrk gS fd dkSu lk inkFkZ ns[kk tk,\ mkj LokHkkfod gS& oLrq dk lR;Hkwr roAvr% vuqHkwfr;ksa dh ;qfDr laxr O;k[;k ij okLrfodrk dk ;FkkFkZ Kku izkIr djuk nkkZfud fpUru dk mn~ns; gSA

vuqHkwfr;ka nks izdkj dh gksrh gS& ,sfUnz; ,oa vusfUnz; vk/;kfRed nksuksa gh nkZu ds {ks= esa vkrh gSA pkokZd dsvfrfjDr leLr Hkkjrh; nkkZfudksa ds vuqlkj vusfUnz; vuqHkwfr gh vf/kd egRo iw.kZ gSA ;FkkFkZ lkk dk lk{kkr~dkjvk/;kfRed vusfUnz; vuqHkwfr ls gksrk gSA ;g vuqHkwfr dsoy ckSf)d Kku dh Hkkafr ughaa gksrhA dsoy ckSf)d Kku esarks Kkrk vkSj Ks; dk }Sr cuk jgrk gS] ysfdu bl vuqHkwfr esa nksuksa ,d gks tkrs gSaA ;g vuqHkwfr vuk;kl izkIr ughaagksrh gS izR;qr bls izkIr djus ds fy, lk/ku dh vko;drk iM+rh gSA

nkZu okLro esa ,d ltx ftKklk gSA os rks dksbZ Hkh Kku dk {ks= rRlEcU/kh ftKklk dh viss{kk j[krk gSA fcukftKklk ds KkuksiyfC/k ughaa gksrhA ,d LFkku ij _Xosn dk dfo iwNrk gS fd& ^fda fLonu d m l o`{k vkl ,rks |koki`Foh fu"Vr{kq%* vFkkZr~~og dkSulk ou Fkk] og dkSulk o`{k Fkk ftlls lz"Vk us i`Foh vkSj vkdkk dk fuekZ.k fd;k\,d vU; LFkku ij n`; l`f"V dks ;K ls miek nsdj oSfnd _f"k izu djrk gS fd bl ;K ds fy, vko;d ?k`r olfe/kk bR;kfn lkezxh dgk ls vk;hA izFke izu txr~ds miknku dkj.k ls lEcfU/kr gksrs gq, Hkh fufer dkj.k dhdYiuk ls vksrizksr gSA f}rh; izu i= esa miknku fo"k;d dkj.k vf/kd izcy gSA _Xosn ds iq#"k lqDr vkSj uklnh;lqDr eas miknku vkSj fufer dkj.kksa dh vfHkUurk dh dYiuk fokq) :i ls dh xbZ gSA blds vfrfjDr _Xosn esa bZojehekalk dk foospu Hkh dkQh fodflr :i ls gqvk gSA oSfnd _f"k;ksa ds vuqlkj& ^,da lf}izk cgq/kk onfUr vfXu ;eaekrfjokuekg%*A _Xosn 1A 144A 46 vFkkZr~~,d gh dks fo}ku yksx vusd ukeksa ls iqdkjrs gSaA dksbZ mls vfXudgrk gS rks dksbZ mls ;e o ok;qA

Hkkjrh; nkZu dk okLrfod foLrkj mifu"kn dky ls ekuuk pkfg,A oSfnd dky ds cht mifu"kn dky esa vadqfjr gksx,A ,slk vuqeku fd;k tkrk gS fd ftKklq yksx viuh&viuh 'kadkvksa dks ysdj _f"k;ksa ds ikl tkrs Fks vkSj _f"kyksx ,d&,d djds mudh 'kadkvksa dks rdZ&forZd rFkk viuh vuqHkwfr;ksa ls nwj djrs Fks] rHkh ije ro ds okLrfodLo:i dk ifjp; mu yksxksa dks feyrk FkkA ;s fopkj/kkjk,a mifu"knksa ds fo"k; gSA ;s gh mudh foks"krk,a gSA ;s 'kadk,arFkk buds lek/kku fdlh ,d e ls ughaa gksrs FksA blfy, mifu"knksa esa ijokhZ 'kkL=ksa dh rjg dksbZ fopkj/kkjk gesafdlh ,d e esa ughaa feyrh ro ds Lo:i dk fofHkUu :i ls] fHkUu&fHkUu n`f"Vdks.k ls] izfriknu rks lHkh mifu"knksals gesa feyrk gSA mifu"knksa dh ftKklk dk izeq[k fo"k; foo dk ewyro gSA og roftlds tkuus ls lc dqN tkuusls lc dqN tkuk tkrk gSA


14/101

14 | P a g e


NkUnksX; esa vk#f.k vius fo|kfHkekuh iq= 'osrdsrq ls iwNrs gSa& ^D;k rqe mls ml ro dks tkurs gks] ftlls fcuklquk gqvk Kkr gks tkrk gS] fcuk le>k gqvk le>k gks tkrk gS vkSj fcuk tkuk gqvk Kkr gks tkrk gSA* NkUnksifu"kn6A 1A 3 eq.Md esa 'kkSud egkkky vafxjl ds ikl tkdj izu djrs gSa dh& ^Hkxoku ! fdlds tku ysus ls ;g lcdqN Kkr gks tkrk gS*\ eq.Mksifu"kn 1A 1A 3 ^rSfkjh; esa o#.k ds iq= Hk`xq vius firk ls cz fo|k fl[kkus dhizkFkZuk djrs gSa*A Hk`xqoYyh] 1 dsuksifu"kn~dk vkjEHk eu] ok.kh ds izsjd cz dh ftKklk ls gksrk gS vkSj ogha mldkizfrik| gSA o`gnkj.;d esa ckykfd ds ;g dgus ij fd eSa] rqEgsa cz fo|k fl[kkxk* vtkrk=q mRlkfgr gksdj cksymBrs gS fd& lglesrL;ka okfl o%A vkids ;g dgus ek= ds fy, vkidks eSa ,d gtkj xkS,a nwaxkA foolkfgR; esaKku&fiikl dk bruk rhoz mnkgj.k feyuk dfBu gSA foo ds ijero dks mifu"knksa esa izk;% cz vFkok lr~uke fn;kx;k gS vkSj cz ;k lr~dh ftKklk mifu"knksa dh i zeq[k leL;k gSA mudh ftKklk dk nwljk eq[; fo"kd vkRek gSAmifu"knksa dk eq[; izfrik| fo"k; vkRek gSA lafgrk ls ysdj vkj.;d i;ZUr tks cz vkRek ls fHkUu :i ls izfrikfnrgS] og mifu"knksa esa mlls vfHkUu ekuk x;k gSAo`gnkj.;d] 2A 5A 19 okLro esa bu nksuksa ds vfHkUu gksus ls vFkkZr~~nSoh rFkk vk/;kfRed] bu nksuksa 'kfDr;ksa ds ,d gksus ls vkRek ds vfrfjDr foo esa vc vkSj dksbZ inkFkZ ughaa jgkAvkReu~gh loZO;kih gS vkSj foo ds lHkh inkFkZ blh ds xHkZ esa foyhu gks tkrs gSaA ;gha dkj.k gS fd o`gnkj.;d

mifu"kn esa dgk x;k gS fd&l ok v;ekRek c foKkue;ks eukse;% izk.ke;p{kqeZ;% Jks=e;% i`fFkohe; vkikse;ks ok;e;vkdkke;Lrtkse;krtkse;% dkee;ksdkee;% ks/ke;ksdks/ke;ks /keZe;k/keZe;% loe;% bR;kfn*ANkUnksX; esa ukjn lurdqekj ls tkdj dgrs gSa fd&^Hkxou~! eq>s fk{kk nhft,A* lurdqekj ds iwNus ij fd mUgksaus dgkrd v/;;u fd;k gS] ukjn dgrs gSa fd ^eSaus _Xosn i


15/101

15 | P a g e


vkSj blfy, iq#"kkske Kku dks gh Kku foKku ekukA U;k; us izek.k foKku dks gh og Kku Bgjk;k rks ehekalk us deZfoKku dksA osnkUr us mifu"knksa dh ijEijk dks tkjh j[kkA ckS)ksa esa Hkh ;gh ro Kku gSA lqxr us izrhR;leqRikn dks ghog oLrq cryk;k] ftlds tkuus ls lc oLrq,a Kkr gks tkrh gS] ftlus bldks u le>k mlus dqN ughaa le>kA vkxspydj ukxktqZu us izrhR;leqRikn dks 'kwU;rk dk gh i;kZ; dgkA1muds er esa tks 'kwU;rk dks tkurk gS og lc phtksadks ughaa tkurkA tSfu;ksa us vkjEHk esa leUo; dk n`f"Vdks.k viuk;kA mUgksaus Hkh ,dRo Kku dks ekuk] ftlls loZRoKku gks ldrk gSA ij os brus ls lUrq"V u gq,A mUgksaus mDr okD; dk iwjd nwljk okD; Hkh tksM+k loZRo foKku gksusij gh ,dRo foKku lEHko gSA ,d inkFkZ dk Kku mlh dks gks ldrk gS] ftldks lkjs inkFkZ dk Kku gS vkSj lkjs inkFkZdk Kku mlh dks gks ldrk gS] ftldks ,d inkFkZ dk Kku gSA dkj.k ,d inkFkZ ds Lo:i esa lc inkFkkZsa dk Lo:i fNIkkgS vkSj lc inkFkksZa dk Lo:i ,d inkFkZ ds Lo:i ds vuq:i gh gSA bl izdkj tSfu;ksa us ro Kku ds fofo/k Lo:iksadks vius vusdkUrokn ;k leqPp;okn esa lekfo"V fd;kA

lkjkakr% ;qfDriwoZd roKku izkIr djus ds izRFkku dks gh nkZu dgrs gSa] ftlds }kjk leLr oLrqvksa dk lkjHkwr KkuizkIr gks ldrk gS ogha roKku gSA

nkZu dk Lo:inkZu ds Lo:i esa nks er izpfyr:igyk ikpkR; er vkSj nwljk Hkkjrh; erA

ikpkR; er%&lH;rk ds izkjfEHkd ;qxksa esa equ";ksa ds fy, cgq:ih okrkoj.k vkSj izkd`frd lk/kuksa ds lkFk vius lEcU/k dk lUrqyucuk, j[kus esa ds fy, ;g t:jh Fkk fd og muds ifjorZukhy jgL;kRed i{k dks le>us dk izR;u djrkA vkjEHk esablh izdkj ds jgL;ksV~?kkVu ds iz;Ru dks nkZu dgk tkrk FkkA vkjEHk esa nkZu iw.kZr;k HkkSfrd inkFkZ ls gh lEcfU/kr FkkvFkkZr~~og HkkSfrd lalkj ds inkFkksZa ds ewy ro dh [kkst esa gh O;Lr jgrk FkkA nkZu dh nwljh /kkjk dk fodkl

lksfQLVksa ds lkFk gqvkA bu yksxksa dh n`f"V czk txr~ij mruh ughaa Fkh ftruh fd vius gh fopkj vkSj LoHkko ijAlksfQLVht us Hkh czk txr~ dh leL;kvksa ij foks"k cy ughaa fn;kA euq"; D;k gS vkSj D;k cu ldrk gS bR;kfn izdkjds izuksa dks gh mUgksaus nkZfud /kjkry ij j[kk] fdUrq IysVksa us nkZu ds bl uSfrd Lo:i dks ,d rkfRod vkoj.k fn;kvkSj vfjLVkfVy us ,d oSKkfud rFkk rkfdZd /kjkryA IysVksa ds vuqlkj nkZu dk iz;kstu 'kkor dk vFkok oLrqvksa ds

;FkkFkZ Lo:i dk Kku gSA nkZu ds bfrgkl esa loZizFke IysVksa us gh vkHkkl (appearance) vkSj lkk realityesa vUrj LFkkfir fd;kA IysVksa ds fk"; vfjLVkfVy ds vuqlkj nkZu og foKku gS tks ije ro ds ;FkkFkZ Lo:i dh

tkap djrk gSA blds vykok mUgksaus dgk fd v/;kRe 'kkL= gh eq[; 'kkL= gksus ds ukrs okLro esa nkZu first

philosophy gSA2

ykWd dk eUrO; gS fd roKku fdlh oLrq dk Kku ughaa] oju~Kku dk gh Kku gSA ;g og Kku gS] ftlesa lHkh izR;;ksadh mRifr] fodkl vkSj izkek.; ij fopkj fd;k tkrk gSA cdZys vkSj g~;we us Hkh bZoj dh lkk dks Lohdkj fd;k gSA

MsdkVZ] czsdu] ykWd] ykbcuht vkfn ds vuqlkj HkkSfrd(physics) nkZu dk gh egRoiw.kZ vax gSA ;s fopkjd nkZu

dks foKku dk pje fodkl ekurs FksA3dk.V ds vuqlkj nkZu laKku(congnition) dk ,oa foKku mldh leh{kkgSA (Philosophy is the sciences and criticism of cognition) blds vfrfjDr ,d vk/kqfud er dsvuqlkj ftls rdhZ; izR;{kokn dgrs gSaA nkZu 'kkL= dk dke dsoy oSKkfud fo/kkuksa dk foys"k.k ,oa Li"Vhdj.k gSA


16/101

16 | P a g e


bl eUrO; dks Lohdkj ughaa fd;k tk ldrk fd nkZu dk dk;Z dsoy eD[kh dks cksry ls ckgj fudkyus dk jkLrkfn[kykuk gS] tSlk fd foVxsaLVkbu us ekuk gS fd bldk dk;Z u rks fopkjksa dks Li"V djrk gS vkSj u gh ^Hkk"kk dk lghO;ogkj crkuk gS* nkZu vusd oLrqvksa ls lEcfU/kr gSA fQj Hkh ;fn ,d gh 'kCn esa nkZu dh eq[; foks"krkvksa dks

vfHkO;Dr djuk gS rks ok;lu dh Hkkafr bls nf"V(vision) dguk mfpr gksxkA fdlh Hkh nkZu ds dsUnz esa ,d n`f"V

dk gksuk vko;d gSA vkSj fdlh nf"V ij nkZu dk viuk fofk"V Lo:i vk/kkfjr gqvk djrk gSA nkZu dh foks"krkgS] ijEijk vkSj :fus ,oa muds vkyksdu esa thou dh fnkk fu/kkZfjr djus dk iz;Ru gSaA

Hkkjrh; er %&Hkkjro"kZ dh HkkSxksfyd ifjfLFkfr] bldk ukfrkhrks".k tyok;q] ?kus Nk;knkj taxyksa dk vkf/kD;] vusd izdkj dk izkdfrdlkSan;Z] ;gka fd mitk Hkwfe] dan&ewy ,oa Qy&Qwyksa rFkk lqLokn [kk| inkFkksZa dk LoYi gh ifjJe ls i;kZIr ek=k esafey tkuk vkfnA Hkkjro"kZ dh foks"k ifjfLFkfr us ;gka ds jgus okyksa dks vukfn dky ls 'kkUr vkSj xEHkhj cuk j[kkgSA bUghaa dkj.kksa ls ;s yksx viuh leLr ekufld 'kfDr;ksa dks thou rFkk foo dh xgu vkSj my>h gqbZ leL;kvksa dks]e`R;q ds jgL; dks] ejus ds ckn thokRek dh ckrksa dks] nsoh 'kfDr dks rFkk vk/;kfRed roksa dks le>us vkSj vKkfu;ksa

dks le>us esa yxk ldsaA ;gh dkj.k gS fd Hkkjrh;ksa dk izR;sd dk;Z vykSfdd rFkk vk/;kfRed Hkkoksa ls ifjiw.kZ gSA6

Hkkjrh; nkZu ds yxHkx lHkh nkkZfud lEiznk;ksa us pkgs os vkfLrd gks ;k ukfLrd] viokn Lo:i tM+oknh vFkokHkkSfrdoknh vFkok lq[koknh pkokZd dks NksM+dj eks{k izkfIr dks vius nkkZfud fpUru esa ewj/kUo; eaa= dgk tkrk gSAfHkUu nkkZfud lEiznk;ksa us thou ds pje y{; eks{k ds fy, fHkUu&fHkUu 'kCnksa dk iz;ksx fd;k gSA tSls tSu nkZu esadSoY; ls izkfIr] ckS) nkZu esa fuok.kZ dh miyfC/k] lka[; nkZu esa vioxZ] ;ksx nkZu esa lekf/k] U;k; oSksf"kd esafu"kskflf)] ehekalk esa dSoY; rFkk osnkUr esa c/;Kku ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkrk gSA "k~nkkZfud lEiznk; esa eks{k izkfIr gsrqftu&ftu lk/kuksa dk dFku fd;k tkrk gS os izeq[k :i ls nks Hkkxksa esa foHkDr fd, x, gSa ;Fkk cfgjax 'kqf) ds lk/kuvkSj varjax 'kqf) ds lk/kuA xhrksifu"kn lk/ku f=fo/k ;ksx gS tks ek% deZ] HkfDr vkSj Kku ;ksx ekxZ dgykrk gSA

ftUgsa eq[; :i ls osnkUr nkkZfudksa us viuk;k gSA

egf"kZ ikartfy }kjk of.kZr v"Vkax ;ksxekxZ lHkh nkkZfudksa ds fy, vuqdj.kh; rFkk 'kSD; jgk gSA U;k; nkZu v"VkaxekxZ ds vfrfjDr Jo.k] euu%] fuf)/;klu rFkk vkRe lk{kkRdkj bl lk/ku prq"B; dks Lohdkj djrk gSA v}SrosnkUrh vkfn vkpk;Z 'kadj mifu"knksa esa of.kZr cfgjax rFkk vUrjax 'kqf) ds ekxZ dks viukrs gSaA v}Sr osnkfUr;ksa usKku ;ksx ekxZ dks eks{k izkfIr ds lk/ku ds :i esa Lohdkj fd;k gSA tcdh jkekuqt us HkfDr ekxZ dks viuk;k gSA tSunkZu f=fo/k lk/ku rFkk lE;d Kku] lE;d pfj=] lE;d nkZu rFkk iapkhy ds fl)kUr dks viukrs gSaA ckS)


17/101

17 | P a g e


nkkZfud] izKkkhy] lekf/k] prqFkZ vk;Z lR;] v"Vkafxd ekxZ] iapkhy o nkkhy vkfn dks eks{k izkfIr ds lk/ku ds :iesa Lohdkj djrs gSaA

ikpkR; fopkjdksa us tgka nkZu dk ms; KkukRed Lrj ij lR; dks vf/kf"Br djuk crk;k gS ogha Hkkjrh;ksa us blsroKku uke fn;k gSA lk/kuk ls izkIr roKku ds vk/kkj ij Hkkjrh;ksa us eks{k dh dkeuk dh eSDlewyj ds 'kCnksa esa

Hkkjr esa nkZu dk v/;;u ek= Kku izkIr djus ds fy, ughaa oju~thou ds pje ms; dh izkfIr ds fy, fd;k tkrkFkkA7

Hkkjrh; nkZu dh izeq[k 'kk[kk,a %&Hkkjrh; nkZuksa dk mn~Hko ,oa fodkl vusd :iksa esa gqvk g S] ftlds vk/kkj ij mudk oxhZdj.k fd;k tkrk gSA izkphuekU;rkuqlkj Hkkjrh; nkZu dks nks Hkkxksa esa ckaVk x;k gSA vkfLrd ,oa ukfLrdA bl foHkktu ds nks vk/kkj gSA ,d osnvkSj nwljk bZojA tks osnksa dks izek.kcqf) ls ns[krs gSa os vkfLrd nkZu ekus tkrs gSa vFkkrZ~osnksa dh izkekf.kdrk esafookl djus okyk vkfLrd rFkk osnksa dh izkekf.kdrk esa fookl u dj mldh fuUnk djus okyk ukfLrd nkZu dgykrk

gSA blfy, dgk x;k gS fd ^ukfLrdks onfuUnd%*A ;g Li"V gS fd osn Hkkjr dk vkfn lkfgR; gS vkSj mldhfopkj/kkjk us tuthou dks izHkkfor fd;k gSA bl izdkj osn dh izkekf.kdrk dks ekuus okys U;k;] oSkSf"kd] lka[;] ;ksx]ehekalk rFkk osnkUr dks vkfLrd nkZu dgk x;k gSA bUgsa "knkZfud lEiznk; Hkh dgrs gSaA osnksa dh izekf.kdrk ughaaekuus ds dkj.k pkokZd] tSu o ckS) nkZu ukfLrd nkZu dgyk,aA orZeku lUnHkZ eas vkfLrd dk vFkZ bZojoknh vkSjukfLrd dk vFkZ vuhojoknh gS] fdUrq izkphu erkuqlkj vkfLrd dk vFkZ osnkuq;k;h rFkk ukfLrd dk vFkZ osn fojks/khgSA

nkZu 'kkL= dh izeq[k 'kk[kk,a %&Kku vkSj foKku dh n`f"V ls nkZu'kkL= dks lkoZHkkSe ;k lkekU; foKku dg ldrs gSaA vr% vU; foKkuksa dh Hkkafr

bldh vyx&vyx 'kk[kk,a ughaa gSaA dsoy foospu dh lqfo/kk ds fy, fofHkUu leL;kvksa ds vk/kkj ij nkZu lkfgR; dkfoHkktu fHkUu&fHkUu oxksZa esa fd;k x;kA fdlh foks"k izdkj dh leL;kvksa ds lek/kku esa yxs fpUru ds ,d foks"k ukefn;k x;k gSA ;s ,d&nwljs ls fHkUu ughaa izR;qr ijLij lEc) gSaA vr% bUgsa nkZu ds vo;o vFkok 'kk[kk,a dguk ghlaxr gSA nkZu dh eq[; 'kk[kk,a fuEufyf[kr gS%&

1- ro&ehekalk

2- Kku&ehekalk

3- ewY;&ehekalk

1- ro&ehek alk %&nkZu dh ftl 'kk[kk esa lkk ds vfLro vkSj /keZ ds lEcU/k esa ewyxr izuksa dh ehekalk vFkokikjekfFkZd lR; dk foospu fd;k tkrk gS] mls ro ehekalk ;k vaxzsth esa Meta physics dgk tkrk gSA ehekalk dkvFkZ gksrk gS O;ofLFkr&foys"k.k ls gksrk gSA ro ehekalk esa foo ds ewy ro dk vuqlU/kku fd;k tkrk gSA ewy rodks ije lkk ;k ikjekfFkZd lkk dgk x;k gSA ml ije ;k ikjekfFkZd lkk dk Lo:i D;k gS] mldh la[;k D;k gSvkfn ro ehekalk ds izeq[k izu gSA czk.k] cz] bZoj rFkk vej vkRek vkfn ro ehekalkRed lkk,a gS] ftudsvk/kkj ij ro ehekalk dks vkReiw.kZrk dh izkfIr gksrh gS] vkSj vkRe iw.kZrk izkfIr ekuo dh egkh euksoSKkfud izsj.kk


18/101

18 | P a g e


gSA bldh lUrq"Vh esa fopkjdksa dks ijekuUn gksrk gSA ;gh ro ehekalk dk euksoSKkfud vk/kkj gS vkSj ro ehekalk dkKku ,slk Kku gS ftlds vk/kkj ij og Lo;a ije ro cu tkrk gS vFkkZr~~^czfon~ czeSo HkofrA*8ro&ehekalk dsvUrxrZ rhu mikk[kk,a vkrh gS D;ksafd bu rhuksa mikk[kkvksa esa gh lexz lkk lekfgr gS] lkFk gh ;s rhuksa gh lHkh dkewy Hkh gSA

1-1 bZoj&ehekalk %&bZoj ehekalk dks vaxzsth esa Theology dgrs gSaA Theology 'kCn dh mRifr nks 'kCnksa ls gqbZ gSA Theos

=god bZoj rFkklogia = study or sciences ehekalk ls gqbZ gSA bZoj ehekalk dk iz;ksx izk;% nks vFkkZsaesa gksrk gS%&

1-bZoj dk ckSf)d ;k nkkZfud foospu

2-fdlh /kkfeZd ijEijk ds vUrxrZ bZoj ds Lo:i rFkk txr~ds lEcU/k esa v/;;ubZoj dk ckSf)d foospu dj mlls lEcfU/kr izuksa ds lek/kku dh ps"Vk ge bZoj ehekalk esa djrs gSaA lkFk gh bZojdk vfLro gS ;k ughaa] mlds vfLro ds D;k izek.k gS] izek.k rFkkdfFkr ;qfDr laxr gS ;k ughaa bZoj dk Lo:i D;kgS] ;fn bZoj gS rks mldk O;fDr vkSj foo ls D;k lEcU/k gS] bZoj lEcU/kh psruk D;k gS blds dkSu&dkSu ls y{k.kgS bR;kfn izuksa dk mkj Hkh nsus dk iz;kl fd;k tkrkgSA

1-2 txr~&ehekalk %&nkZu dh og 'kk[kk ftlesa foo dh mRifr vkSj jpuk ls lEcfU/kr leL;kvksa dh foks"k :i ls foospuk dh tkrh gS

mls foo&foKku] txr~&ehekalk ;kCosmology dgk tkrk gSA cosmosdk vFkZ gS fooA vr% foo dh mRifr]foo&izf;k dk Lo:i] fnd~ vkSj dky rFkk mudk lEcU/k vkfn txr~&ehekalk ds v/;;u dh leL;k,a gSA roehekalk ls bldh fHkUurk ;g gS fd ro ehekalk esa ge lh/ks txr~ds ewy ro ds fo"k; esa izu djrs gaS] fdUrqtxr~&ehekalk esa foo dh fofHkUu ?kVukvksa dh lef"Vxr O;k[;k }kjk txr~ds lkekU; Lo:i] mRifr o fodkl vkfndks le>kus dh ps"Vk djrs gSaA ;fn ro ehekalk ls gesa ije ro ds Kku dh izkfIr gksrh gS rks txr~&ehekalk esa ;gfn[kykus dk iz;kl fd;k tkrk gS fd bl ije ro ls bl n`; txr~dh l`f"V ;k fodkl fdl izdkj lEHko gSArkfRod nf"V ls lka[; nkZu esa ije rokssa dh dYiuk dh xbZ gS iq#"k vkSj izd`frA tgka lka[; bu nks ije roksa dsfo"k; esa foospu djrk gS ogha ;g Hkh Li"V djrk gS fd bu ije roksa ds vk/kkj ij bl txr~dk fodkl dSls gqvkAn`; txr~dh O;k[;k djus ds fy, 'kadjkpk;Z dks ek;kdh dYiuk djuh iM+hA bl HkkSfrd txr~dks pkgs lR; ekuktk, vFkok ughaa] ysfdu bldh O;k[;k vko;d gks tkrh gSA fLiukstk dsoy ,d fuxZq.k nzO; dks ije ro ekurs gq,

bl n`; txr~dh O;k[;k dhA1-3 vkRek&ehekalk %&vkRe nkZu ;kuh fdlh dkYifud vkRek dk nkZu ughaaAvkRe nkZu ;k vkRe&ehekalk dk vFkZ gS Lo nkZu] lR; nkZu;k lR; dk Lo:iA vius ckjs esa tks lPpkbZ gS mudk vUos"k.k&vuqla/kkuA ;g ,d ,slh fo/kk gS] ftlds lgkjs lk/kdvius Hkhrj dk;k vkSj fpk ds {ks= esa vfuR; LokHkko okyh ,sfUnz; vuqHkwfr;ksa dk nkZu djrs gq, bfUnz;krhr fuR;]


19/101

19 | P a g e


'kkLor] /kzqo ije lR; dk lk{kkRdkj dj ysrk gS vkSj bl mie esa vius eu ij iM+s fodkjksa ls lgt gh NqVdkjk ikysrk gSA ekuo dk ftKklq eu vkRe ro dks tkuus ds fy, fujUrj iz;kl djrk gSA D;ksafd vkRek Kku dks ghloZJs"B Kku dh laKk nh xbZ gSA vkRek dks cz dk Lo:i ekuk x;k gSA txr~xq# 'kadjkpk;Z us dgk gS fd& ^c lR;txfUeF;k thoks cSo ukij% vFkkZr~~cz gh ,d ek= lR; gS vkSj vkRek cz dk gh :i gSA* vkRek vkSj cz esa }Srughaa gSaA blfy, vkRe Kku gh cz Kku gSA vius vki dks tkuksa bl okD; ls vkRe ro dks tkuus dh izsj.kk feyrhgSA tks vkRe lk{kkRdkj dj ysrk gS og cz ds lkFk rknkRE;hdj.k dj eqfDr ikrk gSA vkRek ds lEcU/k esa o`gnkj.;dmifu"kn esa dgk x;k gS fd&

^iw.kZ en% iw.kZ fena iw.kkZRiw.kZeqnP;rsiw.k ZL; i w.kZeknk; iw.k Z esokofk";rsAA* 11A 3A 19

2- Kku&ehekalk %&Kku&ehekalk dk 'kkfCnd vFkZ gSEpistemology Kku ds Lo:i] mlds izek.;] mRifr] lhek] Kkrk rFkk Ks; ds

lEcU/k] Kku izkIr dgka ls gksrk gS] bldk mn~xe ;k mn~Hko D;k gS\ D;k bfUnz;ka ds }kjk Kku izkIr gksrk gS vFkok rdZcqf) ds }kjk ;k bfUnz;ksa vkSj rdZ cqf) nksuksa ds }kjk ;k vr% izKk ds }kjk\ D;k ekuo tSls vYi cqf) tho ds fy,txr~] cz vkSj vkRek tSls fo"k;ksa dk fufpr rFkk okLrfod Kku lEHko gSA ;fn gk rks ekuoh; Kku dh lhek D;k gS\Kku dh os nkk,a dkSulh gS] ftuesa gesa Kku dh izkfIr gksrh gS bR;kfn izukssa dks mBkuk rFkk mudk lek/kku nsuk vkfnfo"k; dk nkZu dh ftl 'kk[kk esa v/;;u fd;k tkrk gS mls Kku&ehekalk dgrs gSaA

la{ksi esa Kku&ehekalk Kku dh leh{kk gS vFkkZr~~ Kku ls lEcfU/kr leLr ftKklkvksa dk ckSf)d rkfdZd foys"k.kKku&ehekalk dgykrk gSA lk/kkj.kr;k Kku dks czkf oLrqvksa dk Kku eku fy;k tkrk gS foo esa jgus okys O;fDr fooesa gksus okys lkoZHkkSfed fu;eksa dks Kku le> ysrs gSaA ijUrq] nkZu ds {ks= esa Kku ,d fofk"V fLFkfr ls ;qDr gksrk gSA

ikpkR; nkkZfud Kku dks cqf) dk fo"k; ekurs gSa rks dqN nkkZfud Kku dks vuqHko ij vk/kkfjr ekurs gSaA Hkkjrh;nkZu esa Kku vf/kdkakr% ije ro ds :i esa tkuk tkrk gS] ftls vkRek }kjk xzg.k fd;k tkrk gSA bl ehekalk dsvUrxrZ ,d mi&kk[kk vkrh gS ftls rdZ&kkL= dgrs gSaA

2-1 rd Z&'kkL= %&rdZ kkL= og 'kkL= gS] ftlesa U;k; laxr fopkjksa vkSj fu;eksa dk ;Fkk jhfr v/;;u fd;k tkrk gS vFkkZr~~rdZiw.kZ

fopkjLaw of Reasonig ds fu;eksa ds v/;;u dks Logic;k rdZ&kkL= dgrs gSaA rdZ 'kkL= fo"k; fu.kZ; gSAfu.kZ; dh vfHkO;fDr okD;ksa ls gksrh gSA bl izdkj rdZ 'kkL= gekjs fu.kZ; okD;kas dk foys"k.k djds mudh lR;rk vkSjvlR;rk dks LFkkfir djrk gSA fdlh fu.kZ; dh lR;rk ds fy, okLrfod vk/kkj dh vis{kk gqvk djrh gS rFkk okLrfodvk/kkj ls lR; fu.kZ; rHkh izkIr gks ldrk gS tc fu.kZ; izkIr djus dh fof/k vFkok iz.kkyh lR; gksA ekuo vkf[kj gSrks euq iq=A eu ls mitk gqvk gSA euu vkSj fpUru djds gh fdlh lR; dks Lohdkjuk gh mldk tUetkr LoHkko gSAblfy, fdlh fu;e] jhfr ;k fu.kZ; dks tkapus ij[kus] cqf) ds rjktw esa rkSyus rFkk cqf) dh Hkh esa rik, tkus] rdZdh dlkSVh ij dlus vkSj ;qfDr;ksa ds gFkkSM+ksa dh pksV yxkus ds ckn gh vkxss c


20/101

20 | P a g e


3- ewY;&ehekalk %&ekuo ds leLr iz;kl pkgs os oS;fDr gks vFkok lkekftd ;k jk"Vh; vFkok vUrjjk"Vh; ;k vkfFkZd vFkok jktuhfrdgks fdlh u fdlh bfPNr oLrq dh izkfIr ds fy, gqvk djrs gSaA og bfPNr oLrq dh izkfIr dsoy blfy, pkgrk gS fdog mlds fy, ewY;oku gSA ewY;oku blfy, dh mldh izkfIr ls gesa lUrks"k gksrk gSA ewY; ehekalk esa ewY; lEcU/kh

rkfRod rFkk lkekU; izuksa ij fopkj fd;k tkrk gSA ,sfrgkfld n`f"V ls ewY; ehekalk ds izkjfEHkd lw= IysVksa dsizR;;okn esa foks"kr% fu%Js;l ;k ije iq#"kkFkZ ds izR;; esa vkSj vfjLVkfVy ds bZoj lEcU/kh fopkjksa ls feyrs gSaAvk/kqfud ;qx esa dk.V us Kku&ehekalk vkSj ewY;&ehekalk dks la;qDr djus dk iz;kl fd;kA ewY;ksa dh dYiuk dk dqNvk/kqfud fopkjdksa us fojks/k fd;k gS] D;ksafd muds vuqlkj ewY;&ehekalk nkZu dks /kqU/kysiu dh vksj ys tkrh gSA ,;jus rks ;gka rd dgk fd ^ewY; fujFkZd gS*A8bl ehekalk dh rhu eq[; mi'kk[kk,a gS%&1-uhfr 'kkL=

2-lkSUn;Z 'kkL=

3-ije&ewY; 'kkL= ;k eks{k&kkL=

uhfr'kkL= esa uSfrd psruk] 'kqHk&vkqHk] lR;&vlR;] uhfr&vuhfr] vPNs&cqjs dk;ksZa dh O;k[;k dh tkrh gSA ogha lkSUn;Zehekalk esa lkSUn;ZuqHkwfr ;k lqUnj vkSj vlqUnj ds Hksn dks cqf)xr cukuk] lkSUn;Z dk Lo:i D;k gS] blds D;k&D;ky{k.k gS] lkSUn;Z dh vuqHkwfr fdl izdkj gksrh gS rFkk bl vuqHkwfr dk vU; izdkj dh vuqHkwfr;ksa ls fdl izdkj dklEcU/k gqvk djrkgS bR;kfn izuksa dh O;k[;k dh tkrh gSA lkFk gh ije ewY; 'kkL= esa ekuo ds ije ewY; o eks{k dkfoys"k.k fd;k tkrk gSA euq"; ,d psru izk.kh gS blfy, og vius thou esa fofHkUu y{;ksa ,oa ms;ksa dh izkfIr dsfy, dk;Z djrk gSA ijUrq] gekjs thou dk ije y{; D;k gS\ vkfn bu leL;kvksa dk v/;;u ;k foys"k.k ije ewY;'kkL= esa fd;k tkrk gSA

nkkZfud lEiznk;%&fopkj/kkjk vkSj nkkZfud lEiznk; ,d gh ughaa gSaaA D;ksafd nkkZfud lEiznk; rHkh curk gS tc mlds vUrxZr ijelkkls lEcfU/kr ro&ehekalh;] Kku&ehekalh; o ewY;&ehekalh; leL;kvksa dk leqfpr rkfdZd foys"k.k fd;k x;k gksA vr%izR;sd nkkZfud lEiznk; dh viuh&viuh ro&ehekalk] Kku&ehekalk o ewY;&ehekalk gksrh gSA lkFk gh buesa ijLij ;FkklEHko laxfr gksuh vfuok;Z gS ughaa rks bls nkkZfud lEiznk; ughaa dgk tk ldrkA

blh ds vuq:i vusdkusd Hkkjrh; o ikpkR; nkkZfud lEiznk; fodflr gq,A Hkkjrh; nkkZfud lEiznk;ksa esa lka[;nkZu] ;ksx nkZu] U;k; nkZu] oSksf"kd nkZu] ehekalk nkZu] osnkUr nkZu] tSu nkZu] ckS) nkZu o pkokZd nkZu vkfnizeq[k gSA buesa ls izFke Ng dks lfEefyr :i ls "k~nkkZfud lEiznk; ;k vkfLrd nkZu Hkh dgk tkrk gSA ogha vfUrerhu dks ukfLrd nkZu dgk tkrk gSA vkfLrd nkZu osnksa dh izekf.kdrk esa fookl djrs gSaA tcfd ukfLrd nkZu osnfojks/kh gS o os osnksa dh izekf.kdrk esa fookl ughaa djrs vFkkZr~~^ukfLrdks osnfuUnd%*A ukfLrd vkSj vkfLrd 'kCnksa dkiz;ksx ,d&nwljs vFkZ esa gksrk gSA vkfLrd mls dgk tkrk gS tks bZoj esa vkLFkk j[krk gS rFkk ukfLrd mls dgk tkrkgS tks bZoj dk fu"ks/k djrk gSA bl rjg vkfLrd o ukfLrd dk vFkZ bZojokjh vkSj vuhojoknh gSA O;kogkfjd :i


21/101

21 | P a g e


esa vkfLrd o ukfLrd 'kCn dk iz;ksx blh vFkZ esa gksrk gSA ysfdu] nkkZfud fopkj/kkjkvksa esa vkfLrd o ukfLrd 'kCndk iz;ksx bl vFkZ esa ughaa gqvk gSA ;fn Hkkjrh; nkZu esa vkfLrd o ukfLrd 'kCn dk iz;ksx bl vFkZ O;kogkfjd :iesa gksrk rks lka[; o ehekalk nkZu dks ukfLrd nkZu dh Js.kh esa j[kk tkrkA gkykafd lka[; o ehekalk nkZuvuhojoknh nkZu gSA ysfdu] fQj Hkh ;s osnksa dh izekf.kdrk esa fookl djrs gSaA

;fn ge vkfLrd nkZuksa ds vkilh lEcU/k ij fopkj djrs gSa rks ge ikrs gSafd U;k; vkSj oSksf"kd] lka[; vkSj ;ksx]ehekalk vkSj osnkUr la;qDr lEiznk; gSA U;k; vkSj oSksf"kd nkZu feydj ,d lEiw.kZ nkZu dk fuekZ.k djrs gSaA oSlsbuesa flQZ lS)kfUrd Hksn gSA fQj Hkh nksuksa vkRek o ijekRek ds lEcU/k esa leku er j[krs gSaA blfy, nksuksa dksla;qDr :i ls U;k;&oSksf"kd lEiznk; dgk tkrk gSA lka[; vkSj ;ksx nkZu Hkh iq#"k vkSj izd`fr ds leku fl)kUr dksLohdkj djrs gSaA bl dkj.k nksuksa dk ladyu lka[;&;ksx ds :i esa gksrk gSA U;k;&oSksf"kd o lka[;&;ksx dk fodklLora= :i ls gqvk gSA blfy, bu nkZuksa ij ijks{k :i osnksa dk izHkko iM+k gSA

blds foifjr ehekalk vkSj osnkUr nkZu dks oSfnd laLdfr dh nsu ekuk x;k gSA ;s iw.kZr% osnksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA osn dsizFke vax] deZdk.M ij ehekalk vk/kkfjr gSA osn ds f}rh; vax] Kkudk.M ij osnkUr vk/kkfjr gSA nksuksa gh nkZuksa esa

osnksa dh vfHkO;fDr gksrh gSA blh dkj.k nksuksa dks dHkh&dHkh ,d gh uke ^ehekalk* ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkrk jgk gSAosnkUr ehekalk ls fHkUurk nkkZus ds fy, ehekalk nkZu dks iwoZ ehekaklk vFkok deZ ehekalk dk uke fn;k x;kA oghaehekalk nkZu ls fHkUurk nkkZus ds fy, osnkUr nkZu dks mkj ehekalk o Kku ehekalk dgk x;kA Kku ehekalk Kku dkfopkj djrh gSa tcfd deZ ehekalk deZ dk fopkj djrh gSA

ikpkR; nkZu ds lUnHkZ esa izR;;okn] ;FkkFkZokn] oLrqokn] iziapokn] cqf)okn o vuqHkookn vkfn vusd nkkZfudlEiznk; gSA ikpkR; nkZu dk fodkl ,d nwljs ds ipkr~gksrk jgkA ogka ,d nkZu ds u"V gksus ds ckn nwljs dkfodkl gqvkA lqdjkr ds ckn IysVks dk vkxeu gqvkA MsdkVZ ds nkZu ds ckn fLiukstk dk nkZu fodflr gqvkA fLiukstkdk nkZu MsdkVZ dh dfe;ksa dks nwj djus dk iz;kl gSA cdZys dk nkZu ykWd dh dfe;ksa dks nwj djus dk iz;kl dgk

tkrk gSA ogha Hkkjr esa lHkh nkZuksa dk fodkl ,d lkFk ughaa gqvkA Hkkjrh; nkZu ds vkfLrd lEiznk;ksa dk fodkl lw=lkfgR; ds }kjk gqvkA izkphu dky esa fy[kus dh ifjikVh ughaa FkhA nkkZfud fopkjksa dks vf/kdkakr% ekSf[kd :i ls ghtkuk tkrk FkkA tSls&tSls le; cnyrk x;k oSls&oSls nkZfud leL;kvksa dk laf{kIr :i lw=ksa esa vkc) fd;k x;kA blizdkj nkZu ds iz.ksrk us lw= lkfgR; dh jpuk dhA U;k; nkZu dk Kku xkSre dsU;k; lw= ls] oSksf"kd dk Kku d.kknds oSksf"kd lw= ls] lka[; dk Kku dfiy ds lka[; lw= ls] ;ksx dk Kku iratfy ds ;ksx lw= ls] ehekalk dk KkutSfefu ds ehekalk lw= ls rFkk osnkUr dk Kku oknjk;.k ds cz lw= ls izkIr gksrk gSA lw= ds vR;Ur gh laf{kIr] vxE;o lkjxfHkZr gksus ds dkj.k lk/kkj.k O;fDr;ksa dh le> ls ijs FksA vr% budh O;k[;k ds fy, Vhdkvksa dh vko;drkgqbZA bl izdkj cgqr ls Vhdkdkjksa dk izknqHkkZo gqvkA U;k; lw= ij okRL;k;u dk] oSksf"kd lw= ij izkLrikn dk] lka[;lw= ij foKku fHk{kq dk] ;ksx lw= ij 'kcj dk rFkk osnkUr lw= ij txr~xq: 'kadkpk;Z ds Hkk"; izkphu o izfl) gSA

Hkkjrh; nkZu dh izeq[k foks"krk, a %&1- Hkkjrh; nkZuksa esa izR;{k ;k ijks{k :i ls vkRek o ijekRek dh lkk dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA

2- vKku ;k vfo|k dks cU/ku ekuk x;k rFkk ro Kku dks eks{k ekuk x;k A

3- eks{k dks thou dk loksZPp y{;] ije iq#"kkFkZ Lohdkj fd;k x;kA


22/101

22 | P a g e


4- deZ ds fl)kUr esa fookl rFkk iqutZUe ,oa tUe&tUekUrjokn dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA

5- bl yksd ds lkFk&lkFk vrhfUnz;] ijyksd dh lkk dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA ;|fipkokZd nkZu viokn gSA

6- nkZu dk rkfdZd ;k ckSf)d foys"k.k ek= u ekudj] thou dh i)fr ds :i esa Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA

7- vk/;kfRed mUufr rFkk uSfrd mUufr dh egkk dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA

8- Hkkjrh; nkZu esa] nkZu vkSj /keZ] nkZu ,oa uhfr dk lkeatL; feyrk gSA

9- lHkh Hkkjrh; nkZuksa "k~nkkZfud lEiznk; dk dsUnz osn gSA ukfLrd nkZu Hkh osnksa ds fojks/k ;k [k.Mu ds :i esafodflr gq, gSA vr% osn fdlh u fdlh :i esa lHkh Hkkjrh; nkZuksa ds dsUnz jgs gSaA

10- Hkkjrh; nkZu txr dh ;FkkFkZrk ,oa lR;rkdks Lohdkj djrk gSA ;gka rd fd v}Sr osnkUr esa Hkh tc rd czvuqHkwfr u gks tk, txr~dks feF;k o vlr~ughaa dgk x;k gSA

11- Hkkjrh; nkZu esa vkRela;e ,oa bfUnz;fuxzg dh egkk dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA ysfdu] ;gka bfUnz; fuxzg] bfUnz;ksads neu ds :i esa ughaa] oju~ bfUnz; fu;a=.k o lUrqyu ds :i esa iz;qDr gqvk gSA

12- Hkkjrh; nkkZfud n`f"V] leUo;kRed ,oa lexzksUeq[k jgh gS] ftlesa fd 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld] HkkSfrd ,oavk/;kfRed] ykSfdd ,oa ikjykSfdd] O;f"V ,oa lef"V] O;fDr ,oa lekt] fl)kUr ,oa O;ogkj] cqf) ,oa Hkkouk] Kku]deZ ,oa HkfDr vkfn lHkh esa ,d leUo;kRed n`f"V viukus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gSA

dqN yksxksa dh vkifk gS fd nkZu O;kogkfjd ughaa gSaA okLro es bl HkzkfUr dk eq[; dkj.k nkZu rFkk O;kogkfjd thoudks Bhd ls u le>us ds dkj.k gSA foo ds izk;% leLr nkkZfudksa dk ;gh fopkj gS fd nkZu dh lQyrk bl ckr esagS fd og thou ds fy, lgk;d gks vkSj ogha nkkZfud lQy gS tks vius nkZu dks thou esa mrkj ldsaA dqN yksxksa dk

vkis{k gS fd nkZu dsoy ekufld O;k;ke gS] mldk thou esa dksbZ ykHk ughaa gSaA bl fo"k; esa izks- tksM us viuk erfn;k gS fd ^;fn nkZu dsoy ekufld O;k;ke gS rks blls ;g ykHk vo; gksrk gS fd eu dk O;k;ke gks tkrk gS tkseu ds LokLF; ds fy, vko;d gS( eu dks LoLFk j[kuk vko;d Hkh gS vkSj bl dk;Z esa nkZu ykHknk;d gSA*10oLrqr% nkZfud fpUru ls cqf) dk fk{k.k gksrk gS vkSj fu"i{k Hkko ls ;qfDriwoZd lkspus dk vH;kl gks tkrk gSA gekjsvf/kdkak erHksn LokFkZiw.kZ] ladqfpr rFkk vlaxr


23/101

23 | P a g e


Hkkjrh; nkZu

vkfLrd nkZu ukfLrd nkZu

"kM~nkkZfud lEink; on fuUnd lEink;

U;k; oksf"kd lka[; ;ksx ehekalk onkUr pkokZd tu ckS)

ykSfdd fopkjks ls mRiUu ofnd fopkjks ls mRiUu

deZdk.M ij vk/kkfjr Kkudk.M ij vk/kkfjr

ehekalk nkZu onkUr nkZu


24/101

24 | P a g e


References:

1. ek/;fed dkfjdk ;k izrhR;leqRikn 'kwU;rkarka izp{ke gS 24A 182. nkZu dh ewy/kkjk,a& MkW- vtqZu flag feJ e/;iznsk fgUnh xzUFk vdkneh] Hkksiky& 1997 i"B la[;k 1&33. Paulsen: Introduction to Metaphysics (1930 Edn.) Page No. 23.4. nsf[k,] nkkZfud =Sekfld] tuojh 1963 i`"B la[;k 11&215. ok;lu dk ys[k% How I See Philosophy? ,-ts-,;j }kjk lEikfnr ykftdy iksftfVfoTe esa lax`fgr

i"B la[;k 374&3776. nkkZfud] tqykbZ 1961 esa MkW- ;kdwc elhg dk ys[k7. mesk feJ% Hkkjrh; nkZu mkj iznsk fgUnh laLFkku 1990 i"B la[;k 3&48. Six Systems of India. Page No. 3709. ekufodh ikfjHkkf"kd dksk nkZu [k.M jktdey izdkku i`"B la[;k 30 rFkk 18610.C.E.M. Joad: Return to philosophy page No. 141.


25/101

25 | P a g e


SWAMI VIVEKANANDAS CONCEPTION OF PHILOSOPHY

Mane Pradeepkumar Pandurang

Introduction:

Like other philosophers Swami Vivekananda talks about the nature, function and aims of

philosophy. Throughout The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda his ideas regarding

conception of philosophy are found.1 Here in this paper I am systematizing these ideas in order

to present it. Vivekananda considers himself as a follower of path of religion than of theoretical

philosophy.2

With exception of some, many philosophers from western tradition were

academicians (means they taught philosophy in school or universities) but Vivekananda did not

teach philosophy in this way. Through his lectures and discussions we found his thoughts onphilosophy. When we talk of Indian philosophy in general and Vivekananda in particular it

becomes important to make distinction between the western and Indian conceptions of

philosophy. Indian philosophy is known as Darsana which literally means vision or

realization. It is a way of life rather than theorization of life.3

Theorization has its role but what

it aims is realization of this theory or to live this theory. So the concept of Darsana is not

intellectual analysis only but going beyond this it is a realization of truth, knowledge and reality.

While in western philosophy the meaning of philosophy is very diverse. In the paper I am going

to consider Indian and western conceptions of philosophy and in that light I am going to evaluate

Vivekanandas conception of philosophy. So for this purpose paper is divided into three sections

i.e. general conception of philosophy, Vivekanandas conception of philosophy and evaluation ofhis conception of philosophy.

General Conception of Philosophy:

About the conception of philosophy there are various definitions given.4

No any certain,

particular, universal definition can be given. Every philosopher in order to define it gives new

definition. Some philosophers give importance to reason while some to emotions, some to

objective analysis while some to subjective analysis; some to individuals while some to society

etc. Philosophy in this way is subjective venture.Philosophers have their own perceptions and

conceptions and they look things through these conceptions and perceptions. The same World is

matter for materialists while it is illusion for idealists. For some ultimate reality is dynamic in

nature while for others it is static in nature. So it is a subjective way of thinking. Even though

metaphysics, epistemology, ethics are chief braches of philosophy analytic philosophy reject

metaphysics. For some philosophers ethics is only philosophy.So philosophy becomes way of

thinking.




26/101

26 | P a g e


The word philosophy is originated from the Greek word philossophia. Its etymological

meaning is love of wisdom (Philo means love and Sophia means wisdom). Pythagoras

calls it as the knowledge based on contemplation. Plato says that it is search for ultimate reality.

Aristotle studied physical sciences and tried to know nature empirically still he went beyond

these fields and proposed that natural science cannot give us knowledge of ultimate reality which

only philosophy can give. For David Hume philosophy is the first science which studies human

nature. Every other branch of knowledge is based on human mind and philosophy studies human

mind so it becomes first science. Bertrand Russell calls philosophy as a study of unsolved

controversial problems.Isaiah Berlin claims that philosophy is important exercise because it

studies the basic assumptions on which beliefs are based. Philosophers make analysis of these

beliefs so these beliefs are can be accepted, rejected or modified. In this way philosophy expands

our intellectual capacities. Considering all these definitions we can say that philosophy is a

conceptual and critical analysis of ideas, values and life.

Indian conception of philosophy is different from western conception of philosophy. There is noany particular synonymous word for philosophy in Indian philosophical literature.Anviskhiki,

Tarkvidya, Tattavajnana are the words which can be related with it. But while talking about

Indian philosophy the word Darsana should be considered. The reason is that the meaning of

Indian philosophy is different from western conception which can only be expressed in the word

Darsana. This word is used many times in Indian context. The meaning of Darsana is

realization. Indian philosophy aims at realization of life. Life should be realized in its spiritual

form and content is the motto of Indian philosophy. It is not only intellectual analysis of things

but its a way of life. Its not a criticism of thought only but to live that thought. In a way it is a

process where thought is converted into practice, ideas become reality and in this aim of the life

achieved.i.e Moksha. It may be logically developed Nyaya or metaphysically sophisticatedVedanta the aim of these schools is not to get logical or metaphysical analysis but to go beyond it

and realize lifes spiritual potential. Though Indian philosophy talks about ethics, logic and

epistemology but it goes beyond it and desires spiritual realization. Max Muller has very aptly

explained it.

Our (means western) idea of a system of philosophy is different from the Indian

conception of a Darsana. In its original meaning philosophy, as a love of wisdom,

comes nearest to the Sanskrit (Gignasa), a desire to know, if not a desire to be wise.

If we take philosophy in the sense of an examination of our means of knowledge

(Epistemology), or with Kant an inquiry into the limits of human knowledge, there

would be nothing corresponding to it in India. Even the Vedanta, so far as it is based,

not on independent reasoning but on the authority of the Sruti, would lose with us its

claim tobe the title of philosophy.

So we can realize the difference between Indian and western conceptions of philosophy. While

studying Vivekandas conception of philosophy we should be aware of this distinction.


27/101

27 | P a g e


Vivekanda throughout his literature used the word philosophy than Darsana. When he talks

about philosophy he is using western or general conception of philosophy. For Indian philosophy

hegenerally uses the word Darsana. But we should be note that he is aware of the difference

betweenDarsana and philosophy.

Vivekanandas Conception of Philosophy:

Swami Vivekananda was a man of religious world. If we see his life and thought we realize that

all of his life he struggled for propagation of thought that the aim of human being is to realize the

spiritual potential. Everything that helps for realizing this potential should be accepted as proper

way of life. He is not orthodox minded person who rejects things without looking its worth.5

His

view is that one should be liberal minded and tolerant enough to respect others. This is the

uniqueness of Vivekanandas thought. And this is reflected in his conception of philosophy. For

him philosophy is intellectual analysis of things. He calls it as intellectual gymnastics. He

thinks that intellectual analysis can refine our thought or ideas not spiritual potential. Philosophyuses the way of reasoning to do the things. Reasoning he thinks should be used but through it we

cannot arrive at the truth which is spiritual in nature. Reason according to him works in the area

of intellect. And the capacity of intellect is limited because it bound by categories of time, space

and causation. Like Kant he proposes that the spiritual world cannot be grasped by faculties of

empirical world. So what is required to transcend these faculties so one can realize ultimate truth.

When Vivekananda talks about western philosophy he argues that philosophical reasoning is

bound by ways of induction and deduction which are logical operators.Logical analysis cannot

get even little glimpse of reality.Vivekananda while talking about ways of knowledge consider

instinct, reason and inspiration as three categories/modes of knowledge.Instinct through innatecapacities while reason through thinking gives us knowledge but these two kinds of knowledge

cannot be called as real/true knowledge. The real knowledge can only be experienced (not

understood) by inspiration/experience. Only inspiration/experience can grasp the ultimate. So the

way of realization is way of inspiration or experience. When he talks about western philosophy

he is critical about it but this is not there in case of Indian philosophy which has a very different

conception than western philosophy. For him Indian philosophy means concept ofDarsana only.

So he explains that in Indian culture there is not isolation between religion and philosophy. Both

are intertwined in a way that there separation is not possible.

In Indian context he calls philosophy as essence of religion. While discussing about religion he

says that every religion is combination of three parts i.e. philosophy, mythology and rituals.

Philosophy is core/essence of religion. And this essence is expressed in mythology through

stories and examples. And at last ritual is kind of behavior which is essential for realization of

aim of religion. He calls ritual as concretization of philosophy. He is the follower of Darsana

tradition so he criticizes western conception of philosophy. He calls this kind of philosophical


28/101

28 | P a g e


exercise as guesswork of mind. All this is work of argument, logical analysis, and conceptual

analysis. This may be essential for refinement of thought but refinement of thought is totally

different from refinement of spiritual condition. This refinement can only occur through

Sadhana. So he argues that philosophy is different from religion like the plan of building is

different form building. Plan only can signify building but if we see plan we cannot perceive

building. For doing that we should walk to see building. Here he signifies that theory helps us to

understand but it has no value in action except guiding compass to it. He while explaining this

argues that mere intellectual/philosophical assent or dissent cannot make us religious. One

should experience the reality which is spiritual in nature. One more interesting thing is that he

says that every philosophy has three stages- concrete, generalized and abstract.As philosophy

passes though these stages it becomes more systematic, rigorous and refined.So in this way while

talking about philosophy he discusses about limitations of philosophical methods but still

propose it. But beyond this he proposes that one should go beyond this intellectual exercise and

try to realize and experience realization. He gives emphasis on realization of life not knowing its

meaning. He is seeker of true knowledge which is spirituality not the knowledge of empiricalworld. If we take philosophy as an exercise to satisfy our intellectual thirst Vivekananda is not

against it since he proposes that human should always try to achieve knowledge but philosophy

for him is not highest exercise. For him realization of ultimate truth is the aim of life. And this is

possible not by intellectual exercise but is only possible through Sadhana.

While philosophy in general sense, is theoretical analysis of concepts which discusses truth,

reality and knowledge. Since he studied history of philosophy he is aware of western

conceptions. It is very interesting to know about his conception because it can be compared with

many of the western philosophers. Like Aristotle Vivekananda was interested in ultimate which

in Indian context can be called asAtman/Brahman.But Vivekanandas way is more religious andspiritual than Aristotle. With Kant he has similarities because there are some common threads

which bind both schools of Kant and Vedanta. Like Wittgenstein he proposes that language has

limitations.

Evaluation of Vivekanandas Conception of Philosophy:

If we study Vivekanandas conception of philosophy we can say that his conception of

philosophy is not unique contribution but definitely it gave new and modern kind of

interpretation to it. Like Indian schools of philosophy he follows the model ofDarsana. For him

intellectual analysis is important because many times he mentioned it worth. Human is thinking

being and to be alive means he should think, contemplate because thinking makes man active

intellectually and guides our life. But thinking has limitations. It can go up to certain stage

beyond it cannot go. So this leap into area of light is required and this is possible through

Sadhana. One thing is that for Vivekananda life enrichment is the primary task. Though material

enrichment is also essential component of human enrichment still he proposes that material


29/101

29 | P a g e


enrichment cannot make human being satisfy. Since spiritual satisfaction is the only thing which

explore his true nature so rather than propagating thoughts of Vedanta he focused on practical

aspect ofVedanta because life realization is primary aim of human beings not life theorization.

Thats why we can say he carries Indian tradition ofDarsana which can be called as practical

philosophy. I think his thoughts regarding philosophy are relevant today for world of intellectual

and life also. Though intellectually speaking his thoughts on conception of philosophy are not

new but they are refined than earlier thoughts.

The tradition ofDarsana is more systematically presented through his conception of philosophy

so we can say that he was protecting and proposing side of Indian philosophy i.e. Darsana.

Considering his thoughts on philosophy related to life we can say that the way ofDarsana can be

also one of the ways to realize meaning of life. The meaning of life can be realized not by

thinking on it but acting on it. Reasoning is great tool of thinking but verification is also that

much important as reasoning. Only speculation, analysis and critical study are not going to help

us always. It may be possible that some things are beyond our human capacities but then what isleft for human endeavor? Human is not only thinking animal but he is also feeling animal. In

order to universalize knowledge we have ignored emotional/experiential aspect of human life

because it is conceived that it is subjective part of human world. But we should not forget that

emotion/experience is also that much important as reason. Here my claim is that when we will be

focusing on this emotional aspect of life we may know many things which are hidden for us. We

always want to be rational so we use thinking methods. But we should also feel/ experience in

respect to understand. Religion talks about spiritual aspect but at the same time it also talks about

psychological aspect of life. We are not aware about religions power to change humans spiritual

potential but today it is proven that Sadhana like meditation brings some inner and basic changes

in human mind and nature. In this way we can realize that religious transformation bringpsychological transformation which makes human being happy. So through scientific study and

experience we should test psychological theories so we can check religions claim that it tries to

make human life happy.6

So, theory and practice, ideas and realities, reason and experience all are required for human.

Here one can change or modify other i.e. like if particular theory is accepted as invalid because it

doesnt gives result but may be after restudying it with the help of new data or new devices or

new way it gives right results then it changes our perception about that theory. So here, if we

consider philosophy as a way of critical analysis of concepts it can help us to check claims of

various sciences as well as religions. Here philosophy can work as guide to any branch of

knowledge by criticizing its ways of study, its methods and of course its results also. So

proposing that one is more important than other or only one is important doesnt seems to be

proper. Here Vivekananda can guide us through the conception of philosophy.


30/101

30 | P a g e


Notes:

1. But unlike other philosophers who have explained the conception of philosophysystematically his ideas are found to be scattered throughout the collected works.

2. Vivekananda thinks that thinking is essential part of human life. Even many times hefeels proud that man is thinking being and this thinking capacity should be used to

improve his intellectual and practical life. But he is firm about the limitations of thinking.Thought can grasp empirical world only. Beyond it, it cannot go. It is very interestingthat today also some group of scientists and philosophers propose that human brain has

limited capacities. Godels incompleteness theorem, Heisenberg uncertainty principle,

neurobiological limitation of brain evolution, limitation of human senses- these entireissues support claim that human thinking capacity is limited. Vivekananda says that

beyond the sphere of reason lies the sphere of religion.

3. Intellect ends where religion begins. The Collected Works of Swami Vivekananda .vol7 page 91 (Digital version).

4. For details see Encyclopedia of Philosophyby Paul Edwards, ed 1967 .5. Throughout The Collected Works of Swami Vivekananda we see that Vivekandass

thought are liberal in nature. Though he is strict proponent ofAdvaita Vedanta still he isready to accept others views. Even he proposes that variety is the sign of life. Variety of

thoughts is not damaging because he propose that due to variation through debate and

discussion thought refinement takes place. He can be called as intellectual democrat. He

proposes that difference in thought is not a problem but every thought should be studiedcritically.

6. See Science probes spirituality. Scientific American Mind (www.sciammind.com), Feb-March 2006, pp 40-43. Here in this article psychological effects of meditations are given.It shows that meditation has positive effects on human mind, brain and behavior. So we

can claim that religion has psychological potentional to change human behavior. Some

years ago the claims of religion were considered as fake claims but today they are proven.

So definitely we can say that only reason cannot give us true picture of the world. Ourexperiential/inner world can also guide us to rethink on our rational claims. Here

Vivekanandas position on philosophy can help us because he considers that philosophy

as a theory that guides our practice.

Reference Readings:

Burke, Marie (2000). Swami Vivekanda in the West- New Discoveries, vols 6.Calcutta:Advaita Ashrama.

Dasgupta, Surndanath (2010). A History of Indian Philosophy, vol 1.Delhi: MotilalBanarasidas Publishers.

Hiriyana, M. (2009).Outlines of Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal BanarasidasPublishers.

Magee, Bryan (1986).Men of Ideas, New York: Oxford University Press Max Muller (1919). Six systems of Indian Philosophy, London: Longmans Green and

CO.

Swami, Vivekananda (1989). The Collected Works of Swami Vivekananda. 9 vols.Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama.


31/101

31 | P a g e


PRINCIPLES OF ENVIORNMENTAL PRAGMATISM AND SUSTAIBABILITY

ISSUE

Devartha Morang & Prabhu Venkataraman

Abstract

Environmental pragmatism is an emerging school of thought in environmental ethics. Andrew Light and

Eric Katz mentioned three central tenets of environmental pragmatism as moral pluralism, decreasing

theoretical debate between theories and engaging in public policy making in social and political sector for

resolving environmental crisis. (Light & Katz, 1996). In the central tenets mentioned by Light and Katz,

there is no explicit mention of sustainability as one of the tenet of environmental pragmatism. Andrew

Light and Eric Katz did not mention it as a central aspect in the introduction of their edited book entitled

Environmental Pragmatism. (Light & Katz, 1996). Environmental pragmatism usually tends to the

anthropocentric (not necessarily) position and inevitably indicates to the sustainability issue. We claim

that this sustainability issue can be considered as another important principle of the environmental

pragmatism along with the other three. We argue for our claim by citing works of key pragmatist thinkers

like Bryan G. Norton.

Key Words: Moral pluralism, intrinsic value, anthropocentric, sustainability, environmental pragmatism.

Environmental pragmatism is an emerging school of thought in environmental ethics. Within theenvironmental ethics anthropocentric and the non-anthropocentric approaches are two main

perspectives of human relationship to the nature. Anthropocentric approach usually insists on the

instrumental benefit of the natural objects to the human beings. On the other hand, non-

anthropocentric approach insists on the intrinsic value of the natural objects, including the

nonhuman beings and does not support for mere instrumental benefit to the human beings. In

some specific environmental cases, such as preservation of forest or mountain or natural species

ideological clash among different groups of people arise time and again in the form of natural

resource management. Environmental pragmatism tries to reconcile between anthropocentric and

the non-anthropocentric approaches to address the environmental problems and want to work

beyond the ideological conflicts. Thus it emerged in 1990s as a new kind of thought to work

among various ideologies for the smooth conduct of the environmental issues. (Hull 2009).

It is quite difficult to consider pragmatist school of thought as a homogeneous one. Nevertheless,

attempts were made by writers to see the similarities among the different philosophers who

subscribe to environmental pragmatism. Andrew Light and Eric Katz in their edited book

Environmental Pragmatism mentioned three central tenets of environmental pragmatist school of




32/101

32 | P a g e


thought as moral pluralism, decreasing theoretical debate between theories and engaging in

public policy making in social and political sector for resolving environmental crisis. (Light &

Katz, 1996). They indicate these three main aspects as central to the environmental pragmatist

school of thought.

the call for moral pluralism, the decreasing implication of theoretical debates and theplacing of practical issues of policy consensus in the foreground of concern, are central

aspects of our conception of environmental pragmatism (Light and Katz, 1996, p.5).

Moral pluralism implies that there are many values in nature and each value has its own worth.

Light and Katz claim that environmental pragmatism strongly supports moral pluralism. There

are various values and these values can be valued under different moral theories such as

utilitarian, deontology, virtue ethics etc. Value actually leads to different philosophical moral

theories. For example, happiness is the ultimate value for utilitarian and reason or end is the

ultimate value for the deontology. Again happiness or pleasure may be defined in various ways

such as mans pleasure and animal pleasure etc. But these are the degrees of values and thesevalues give us the moral theories. As there are different kinds of values, so there are different

grounds or principles under which those values can be measured. As J. B. Callicott says that

values are embedded in different philosophical moral theories and they can play as a ground or

basis of values under its purview. (Callicott, 1984). Where there is value, there is a moral

principle. Rosenthal et al observes, Different moral theories are possible depending upon which

values or principles are included (Buchholz & Rosenthal, 1996, p. 265).

Pragmatists believe that human experiences are very complex and are in ongoing process with

nature. Out of these various experiences different values emerge. So values emerge as a result of

contact between subject and object which are ontologically real in experiences. From thisperspective values can neither be wholly subjective nor objective. Thus, for pragmatists,

acknowledging the possibility of different values is the starting point for deliberation on

environmental issues.

The pluralism proposed here is motivated by methodological considerations and need not

be understood as a doctrine about ultimate values. It is part of broader experimental

strategy that seeks first to express diverse values in multiple and perhaps

incommensurable ways, and then seeks ways to organize and present those diverse goals

as a starting point for a more holistic analysis. (Norton, 2003, p. 517).

Acknowledgement of different values may lead to conflicting viewpoints and ideological

differences. While the pragmatists accept moral pluralism, they try to reduce the conflicts that

may arise because of moral pluralism. Thus, another important aspect of the environmental

pragmatism emerging out of pluralism is the possibility of consensus among various groups

through a democratic process to resolve the environmental crisis. For example Andrew Light

(Light, 1996) talks about the compatibility between social and political ecology to address the


33/101

33 | P a g e


environmental problems, while Bryan G. Norton talks about the convergence hypothesis among

different stripes of environmental groups. In this way environmental pragmatism proposes for a

Collaborative Adaptive Management (CAM) to address the environmental crisis in a mutual

way. (Norton, 1991) .

Light and Katz maintain that pragmatists attempt at reducing the theoretical debates in spite ofpluralism in values. On the other hand, by not engaging in theoretical debates, environmental

pragmatists focus on policy formation on environmental issues. Thus, policy formulation for

amicable settlement of a particular disputed environmental situation is another important feature

of the environmental pragmatism. Based on the pluralistic liberal attitude, pragmatism at least

tries to give a good form of policy decision for the environmental problems. As Robert James

Scott says, The intent of environmental pragmatism is to make environmental philosophy

relevant to environmental policy. (Robert, 2000, p. 196). Environmental philosophers want to

contribute in environmental policy making process. They usually want to influence in three

heads- agenda settings, evaluation of the setting policies and making alternative ways for the

policy to save and conserve the wild species. (Kingdon, 2003). Environmental policy can be

formulated from various perspectives, such as anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric to take

care of threatened and endangered species and other flora and fauna. Usually when policies on

these issues are formulated debates tend to arise from anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric

positions. Environmental pragmatism insists on the reconciliation of both of these two

approaches while making policy for the environment. In critical situation regarding the

environmental decision, environmental pragmatists prefer for a convergence of various

ideologies for the smooth solution of the problem. But, how do this convergence happen and on

what basis? We claim that the pragmatists attempt at reconciliation and convergence is based on

the principle of sustainability. Hence, we argue that sustainability should be considered asanother core principle of environmental pragmatism. Thus, apart from the three central aspects of

environmental pragmatism, we want to bring the sustainability issue as another core principle of

pragmatist school of thought.

Apart from Lights understanding of the core principles of environmental pragmatism, Parker

includes two other principles as essential to environmental pragmatists. (Parker, 1996)

Environmental pragmatism usually (not necessarily) tends to the anthropocentric position. As

mentioned earlier, anthropocentrism is the view which measures the value of natural objects

from the human perspective. In other words, all the natural entities and beings are treated as

resources for the human kind. Human being is the only locus of valuation and natural things canbe used for the welfare and benefit of the people in various ways. So, anthropocentric view

insists that human being can only values things and also use those things as resources. The issue

here resource utilizations is for the present generation or for future generations as well?

Environmental pragmatists from the anthropocentric position subscribes to the view that resource

utilization should also include future generations. So, there is a need to preserve the current

resources so that future generations can use them as well.


34/101

34 | P a g e


Though environmental pragmatism insists on the anthropocentric and tries to measure all values

from the human point of view, still environmental pragmatists are more inclined to the

sustainability of the nature. It is to be noted that all the pragmatists are not wholly

anthropocentric, because, some pragmatists insist on the intrinsic value for the environmental

pragmatism. For example, Ben A. Minteer calls for such intrinsic value for the pragmatism.

(Minteer, 2001). From an ecocentric position, sustainability is taken care of as ecocentric

position talks of intrinsic value of entire ecosystem. Through this perspective, it takes care of

preserving the ecosystem for the present and future as well.

From an anthropocentric position, the environmental pragmatists accept the instrumental value of

nature and its objects, but the issue is whether use of nature and its objects are to be governed by

the concerns of the present generations alone or along with future generations? This line of

discussion takes us to view anthropocentric position from different viewpoints. Michel Stenmark

finds two type of anthropocentric attitude. These are - traditional and intergenerational

anthropocentrism. Traditional view is that all the natural things are for the use and benefit of

now-living people. And the view that all natural things are for the use and benefit of the present

and future generation of the people is called as intergenerational anthropocentrism. (Stenmark,

2009, p. 83). In the similar way B. G. Norton also talks of two kinds of anthropocentric -weak

and strong. B. G. Norton argues for the weak anthropocentric position that suggests use of

natural resources for the present and future generations by adopting different approaches in our

usage.

Kelly Parker finds that pragmatic cut the Gordian Knot between the intrinsic and instrumental

values. (Parker, 1996, p. 34). His point is that these two concepts are not exclusive in the sense

that any natural object has both these qualities. When it is used in human purpose then it

becomes instrumental value and still it possesses intrinsic value. Thus it is seen that nature can

be seen from anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric, instrumental or intrinsic, or individualistic

or holistic etc. It is also seen that whatever may be the perspectives of valuation of nature, its

main intention is to preserve some amount of natural resources for the future generation for the

fulfillment of their needs. Thus environmental pragmatism also tries to preserve the natural

resources as much as possible by reconciling debate between anthropocentric and non-

anthropocentric environmental dispute. This way it leads to the sustainability approach in

relation to the natural resource management.

As a matter of fact, Light acknowledges that Antony Weston and Bryan G. Norton were the

writers whose works carry such pragmatic ideology in the field of environmental ethics (Light,

2010). Between these two philosophers, B. G. Nortons works talks about the intergenerational

ethics for resource distribution and resource management for the future generation. In spite of

such evidence, why dont Light and Katz include sustainability as an import

Lokayata :Journal of Positive Philosophy, Vol.III, No.02 (Sept 2013)

Documents

Transcript of Lokayata :Journal of Positive Philosophy, Vol.III, No.02 (Sept 2013)