Asian Philosophy


Order

Search forums
Subscribe to this forum      feed for this page

 1 - 8 / 8 
2013-08-09

Methodologically speaking, I wonder why Matilal and S's article has not been enough for  further studies of this sort to be the rule on Mind (and other philosophical journals). Does this failure depend on their style? (Or should we just start working as a task-force and submit many articles of this kind?)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/7866 Reply

2013-08-09

Can there be linguistics without ontology?

The context principle and some Indian controversies over Meaning is a milestone in Indian studies, and in the history of their interaction with mainstream (i.e. Western) philosophy. Since it was published in 1988 on Mind (one of the top-5 journals in Philosophy, inaccessible for most authors), virtually everyone (in Indian philosophy) has read it.

Have you also re-read it?

I re-read it after some years this Summer and I have to admit that it was again a surprise. The article starts with a discussion of the Context principle in Frege and Quine (does the principle mean that words HAVE no meaning outside a sentence, or that their meaning can only be UNDERSTOOD within a sentence?). In this connection, Matilal and Sen discuss a strong and a weak interpretation of the Context principle (according to whether it should answer the first or the second question). They end up saying that the strong interpretation clashes with Frege's later work (see belo ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/7865 Reply

2013-05-25

Heritage of the Yoga Philosophy and Transcendental Phenomenology:

 The Interlocution of  Knowledge and Wisdom across Two Traditions of Philosophy

 

Koshy Tharakan

Associate Professor

Department of Philosophy

 Goa University

koshy@unigoa.ac.in

 

Abstract  Comparative philosophy has been subjected to much criticism in the latter half of the last century, though some of these criticisms were appropriate and justified. However, in our present cultural milieu, where traditions and culture transcend their geographical boundaries, seeping through the global network of views and ideas, it seems to be a legitimate enterprise to understand one’s own traditions and culture through the critical lens of the ‘other culture’. It is such cross-cultural understanding that paved the way towards legitimizing “human rights” as a universal discourse. So also, the discourse on “environmental ethics” has gained acceptance in a similar manner across cultures and traditions.  The paper attempts at an understan ... (read more)

Latest replies:
  • Joseph Alia, 2013-06-11 : I find this article refreshing and appreciate this kind of work as enabling development of more and better ways of think... (read more)
Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/7806 Reply

2012-11-20
I am a reader of Asian Philosophy, and also involved in research and study of 'Asian Philosophy', the ' Vedic Philosophy. In this course, what surprises me is the 'term used 'Indian Philosophy'. Vedic Philsophy is neither an Indian Philosophy nor Nepali Philosophy, nor Bengali. In South Asia, there are otther countries with traditions based on Vedas, Nepal is one of them. In Bangladesh, there are Hindus who believe in this tradition. There are people following traditions in Burma, Thailand, Malayasia, Indonesia, Sri-Lanka and also Tibet, and most recently in many countirs. Ancient South Asia was a nation called India. India is known to be so called after East India Company occupation. In South Asia, there were nations like 'Beidhe' where King Janak ruled.

I therefore express my reservation on word called 'Indian' philosophy. Something, which is recently developed may called Indian philosophy. Mahatma Gandhi's ahimsa theory can be Indian Philosophy. But How people can put Bu ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/7448 Reply

2010-08-06

I have not yet read the full version of Joseph's book, but I can tell this ties directly into my own theoretical perspectives involving assessment, learning, behavior, and consciousness. To me, as laid out in my Education PhD dissertation at Colorado State University (2005), the core essence of being (reality) is individual and collective consciousness interacting and interconnecting with consciousness at every level of existence (seen and unseen) as an ongoing here and now creative process." Thus, primary learning is intuitive and secondary learning is rational-objective.

Rational objective, is by my definition, fixtional thinking that allows one to "fix" or position relations "as if" they were separate and disconnected in a cause and effect relationship and in which they must of necessity substantiate existence "as if" it were true. It entails a sort of machine mentality of parts, in which the parts equals the whole and the whole is what the parts c ... (read more)


2010-06-23
Not withstanding their disparate temporal and socio-cultural context, both Sankara and Heidegger share a degree of commonality in thought and in their allegiance to their predecessors which is more than isomorphic in nature to escape attention.Sankara reaffirms his faith in Vedantic teachings and insists on doing philosophy in so far as it truely reflects the former's insights and intutions.Heidegger,similarly,is reputed to have traced his ontology to ancient philosophers such as
Hearclitus,Parmenides and, as some would say,even to Aristotle to find out the meaning of Being.Both are critical of any attempt to ontologise Being(Brahman, in case of Sankar)with categories and concepts derived from sources whose ontological merits are suspect.Intellect for Sankara is a rough equivalent of what Heidegger would say calculative thinking as opposed to mediative thinking.In this sense both find in logic-the rule of pure thought- a common enemy to be attacked and be rendered inadequate as it tric ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/4126 Reply

2010-04-02
This is a thread to get a discussion started on Ancient Indian Philosophy.

Indian Philosophy has evolved in 2. One which accept the authority of Sruthi "The vedas" the one which does not. 

Sruthi means heard, authority, etc, 

Sruthi is something believed to be permanent in this world and does not need any other source of knowledge to reveal itself, just like sun does not need a torch light's presence to announce its own presence.

Samkhya, Vaiseshika, Mimamsa, Vedanta, Nyaya, Yoga, forms the schools which accept the authority of vedas.

Jainism, Buddhism, and Materialism or Carvaka Philosophy constitute the class of schools which do not accept the authority of vedas.


Tantra forms another greater development of philosophy. This is said to be evolved as a distinct branch independent of vedas but later accepted the authority of vedas and got merged with it. Tantra stands independent and many of its ideas are unique. 

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/3416 Reply

2009-04-06
The mystical philosophy of the Tantric origin is based on a higher level of experience. There are several extraordinary dimensions of experience yet to be explored in view of this philosophical tradition. Many articles can be written on the topic.
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/581 Reply

 1 - 8 / 8