THINKING ON PHILOSOPHY II
The Art of Disagreement
“Blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue: it is an intellectual crime”
-Imre Lakatose, Science and Pseudo Science.
Philosophy is an art of disagreement, disagreements to the fundamental or foundational beliefs of any system. Philosophizing (for me) is the act of finding ways of disagreement. About what or on what to be disagreed is also carved out during the act of philosophizing. It is not to say that philosophy/philosophizing is mere disagreements with everything. Instead, the point is, philosophy begins as well as grows with disagreements. Rational disagreements naturally lead to questions and questions in turn to endeavors. So, in a sense philosophy is an art of questioning. Since one cannot disagree or question blindly, the disagreements need a peculiar kind of formulation, strictly speaking, a ‘mode of formulation' that can be agreed upon throughout the discourse. I call this agreed mode of formulation as logic. Since logic is all about arguments, philosophy is also an art of argumentation. An argument as a substantiated affirmation or rejection is always a disagreement in some form to something, for mere agreements or disagreements never form an argument.
Disagreements to the fundamental beliefs usually arise out of dissatisfactions. Since dissatisfactions can arise out of many reasons-from personal to societal- subsequent disagreements and following investigations are also of infinitely many things. Categorization of such inquires will end up with branching of philosophy, like metaphysics (inquiries about existence, God and many), epistemology(inquiries about knowledge per se), ethics(about morality), aesthetics(about nature of beauty, art and taste) and so on. One can always ask what metaphysics per se is disagreeing with. But is there anything as metaphysics per se? All our endeavors are always for or against something. Or they are always about something. In all such acts one has to counter the available established believes. So I think, we don't have something as metaphysics per se rather what we have is metaphysical inquires, a token name for inquiries about fundamental questions regarding reality, existence and many of that sort. One is always free to use the term metaphysic to broaden all these inquiries. So the question “what metaphysic per se is disagreeing with?” seems to be a false question for there is no such thing as metaphysic per se as in the above explained sense. This might answer the similar questions about other branches of philosophy.
All intellectual pursuits seem to have two ends. The starting point is the one with a few basic assumptions which are agreed upon within the community of inquirers. For example physicists certainly agree about the existence of matter and they cannot question the existence of matter within physics. This I call a closed end for these are unquestionable affirmations within the system of inquiry. Next is a culminating end which may or may not be closed. For example the Human Genome project was an inquiry which is closed at both ends. Its opening end is closed as that of the basic assumptions of biological sciences. Its culminating end is also closed because the progress of that project was towards a fixed goal (mapping of the human genes, when loosely speaking.) But science in general is closed at its starting point and open at its culminating point. It is open because it is progressing but not towards a fixed goal[1]. What makes philosophy different from science or sort of intellectual pursuits is its openness at both the ends of its inquiry. There is no agreed basic and general assumption to the opening end of any philosophical inquiry. There is nothing beyond contention in the opening end of a philosophical inquiry. The culminating end also seems to be open because, like science, philosophy is also progressing but not to a fixed goal. This is not to say that philosophy is an activity of futile questioning rather to make it clear that nothing is taken for granted in philosophical inquiries. (Here I prefer to say that philosophy should not take anything for granted. Historically philosophy has taken several things at least for some period of time.[2] Even such facts those seems to be most certain, like the existence of a world out there is not taken for granted in philosophy. When compromises are made about what is and what is not to be questioned, investigations become either science or a system in philosophy. When one agrees upon the existence of a physical world out there and going after the physical properties of that word we call it physics. When the compromises are made about the real existence (whatever it may be) [and is of a world of ideas which is not this world, as what Plato had done] then that is metaphysics and is a branch of philosophy.
As already said there are many reasons for intellectual dissatisfactions which results in inquires. Since no such reason can be neutral (whatever this term neutral means) or impartial, philosophical investigations are also not neutral as it is/was thought to be. Like any other human activity, philosophy is a product of its time and space. It seems that any sort of neutrality in investigations that philosophy can claim is its willingness to check and recheck its own nature and positions at any point of the investigation.
In a sense philosophy is the product of uncompromising skepticism. (I am using the term skepticism not in the traditional way as that of the rejection of the possibility of knowledge. By skepticism I mean the continuous disagreement with any sort of final principle which might close any of the end points of inquiry.) Skeptical even to one’s own believes and positions. It is an art of arguing to show that nothing within and out there is non-vulnerable.
I am thankful to Sreejith for the time he spent and critical comments he made over the first draft of this write up.
[1] Reyden Thomas A C, and Huene, Paul Hoyningen, 'Kuhn's evolutionary Analogy in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and “ the Road since Structure”, Philosophy of science,Vol.77, July 2010
[2] Pointed out by Sreejith K.K, PhD Scholar, Dept of Philosophy, UoH.
*****************************************
Religion:an Unnecessary Evil!
Xalxo writes….”we do not require tagging anyone as atheists, naturalists or humanists etc. We have enough categories to hate one another.”
“Philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point however, is to change it.” —Karl Marx.
Religion has been the most important component of human society. With the event of 9/11, the declared wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, centuries’ old brutal battles between Israel and Palestine, civil wars in Somalia and Sudan, terrorist attacks on various parts of India and the world compel philosophers to rededicate themselves to understanding Religion and society. They cannot be mediocre kings. Above incidents points to the fact that religious sentiments are viruses that cause pandemic more than any infectious diseases. The need of the hour is to reinterpret religion only in order to change our society for better. There have been more people tortured, hated and killed for religious reasons than for any other reasons. Religion can boast off for being charitable, kind and the path that leads to salvation, but these are not the excuses to justify a single life deprived of its freedom to live- and live peacefully.
Understanding the root of the problem consists naturally in its origin. In order to understand it seeking the origin of Religion in historical time frame is unintelligible and an age long dead criterion. However, there are philosophers and thinkers who have postulated theories such as Naturalism, Animism, Collectivism etc., which suggest the possible birth and growth of religious attitudes. Then there are some established world religions with approximate historical dates to begin with. But neither of those great social reformers desired a religion on their names- “Christ”ianity, “Buddh”ism, “Jain”ism, “Muhammad”ens in Islam etc. According to Emile Durkheim, these religions came into existence due to the needs of social identity. He opines that the religion is a form of collective consciousness that actively (through “community” rituals) keeps society together. Then there are people who continuously assert that religion is a malicious design of the people with vested interest and power. Therefore, Marx draws the conclusion that it is a facilitator in the process of exploitation of the proletariat class. It is an ugly social phenomenon which does the dirty work of keeping the oppressed with their oppression. Hegemonic structure brought forth by Gramsci highlighted Religion as a subservient to the culture of power and politics. Althusser on the other hand suggested that religious interpellation, whatever may be the cause of it, is so strong that people virtually become intellectually blind. And this becomes a fertile ground for fundamentalism and fanatics.
The availability of Historical data for the origin of a religion is not a certificate for its genuineness. Religion is social and humane; therefore it is a genuine phenomenon. Being an important human factor, its analysis in the context of human nature throws some light on vast complex canvas called religion. The sense of respect, sacredness, and beliefs on supernatural powers coupled with human desire for happiness, prosperity and occasional fears are the reasons that gave birth to a system called religion. Just as sense of justice, feelings of love and hatred did not arise at a particular time in history, so is the case with the sense of sacred and belief system. These can arise any time of a human existence. A child has no idea of the sense of sacred until it knows how to respect others. Therefore, child does not have religious obligations. Happiness, pain, peace, sense of justice and love are universal human qualities. Similarly belief systems, the sense of sacred and religious sentiments are characteristic essential human features. This is the reason why many tribes and people in communication with the rest of the world have their own deities. It is not because of “god commanded so”.
Thus religion is a human creation. “God” is a human creation. “The divine being is nothing else than the human being, or rather, the human nature purified…all the attributes of divine nature are, therefore, attributes of the human nature.”-Feuerbach. We “consciously and involuntarily create God” in our own image to quench our thirst for the sense of sacred, or to dispel the fears of future. As our knowledge widens we keep on purifying our beliefs and religious practices. Had it not be the case our Patriarchal society would have never propagated ‘androcentricism’ in all world religions. Today, with feminists coming front with the sense of equality, many religions are forced to mend their ways. If Donkeys were to possess and express the sense of sacred and religious feelings, they would have made a ‘god’ which was definitely a donkey, not a human in spite of human being its master!
The Sense of sacred and religious sentiments, being the human qualities can be easily suppressed, just as one can suppress anger or decides not to love. Therefore, we do not require tagging anyone as atheists, naturalists or humanists etc. We have enough categories to hate one another. They are equally happy, balanced, morally upright and intellectually contented. It is the law that governs the universe and not someone whom people worship. It is a law that action bears fruit, it is a law that seeds need water to grow, it is a law that fire burns, it is a law that earth rotates. Law is not governed by another law; one law supplements the other. It is the law of the universe to govern in unison and not designed by an intelligent being.
If religion is made, god is made then do we have a problem of ethical issues? I think, not at all. Ethical issues must be seen not as a part of Religion, but as a part of human existence in social atmosphere. We do not need religion to be good and just. Kantian view that the reward and punishment ought not to be the motives must be the criterion for human actions. Human actions are either right or wrong, but never sinful. Wrong actions are those that hurt either to the self or to the society. Any other actions are either good or just neutral. The idea of sin and bondage, one is born in ignorance, born in sin etc are burden laid upon the fragile shoulder of free human existence.
There is nothing divine in religions. The feeling of divinity, daivic-darshana and the sense of holiness are the overflow of the sense of respect to the other—what Darwinists have called altruism. One can always choose not to express it. Knowing fully what “religions” have done in our society, is it appropriate to keep silence? One cannot be at the side of an evil knowingly. Religion is an Unnecessary Evil in our society. To spread message of love, peace, brotherhood, equality and justice does one need to light candles, burn incense sticks offer flowers and spend hours in a shrine or in front of a wood or stone? Do we need to buy God?
Roshan Praveen Xalxo
PhD Philosophy
You can also join these debates!!! Reach the editorial desk @ uohphilosophy@gmail.com |
@SINOD:An argument as a substantiated affirmation or rejection is always a disagreement in some form to something, for mere agreements or disagreements never form an argument. Is affirmation of an argument a disagreement?
ReplyDelete@ Rosh
ReplyDeleteIn each affirmation we are directly or indirectly rejecting something that are disagreeing with our conclusion. This is what I had in mind.