Profile for Desh Raj Sirswal

Desh Raj Sirswal, Positive Philosophy: An Approach to Consider Practical Problems.

The aim of this paper is to give an analysis of a positive attitude towards philosophical problems in which we leave religious and metaphysical speculations and only consider practical problems. The motive is to achieve an intellectual detachment from all philosophical systems, and not to solve specific philosophical problems, but to become sensitively aware of what it is we do, when we philosophize. Abstraction without relevance to life and living in high sounding is nothing, but leading to darkness. The usefulness (...)

No categories

In my reading list | Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

|

Export citation

| Scholar | More..

Desh Raj Sirswal, Ryle's Dispositional Analysis of Mind and its Relevance.

In this seminar I have discussed the traditional approach to the relation of mind and body which assumes that there is a basic distinction between Mind and matter. According to Ryle, the classical theory of mind, as represented by Cartesian rationalism, asserts that there is a basic distinction between mind and matter. Mind is just the way the human body and its brain function. Thus, according to Ryle, a dualist makes a big category mistake by confusing the terms of different (...)

Metaphysics of Mind in Philosophy of Mind

Gilbert Ryle in 20th Century Philosophy

In my reading list | Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

|

Export citation

| Scholar | More..

Desh Raj Sirswal (2009). GILBERRT RYLE ON DESCARTES' MYTH. Darshna:Electrical Journal of Indian Philosophy.

The aim of this paper is to critically examine the Ryle's conception of “Descartes Myth”. Ryle has two objectives in his book The Concept of Mind: (i) to refute a current philosophical theory about mind. (ii) to substitute at least in blue print, a satisfactory alternative. This paper gives a descriptive analysis of what Ryle calls Descartes-Myth and arguments for it. Conclusion of this paper drawn as he does not succeed in dispelling the myth but only substitutes a peculiar logical (...)

Metaphysics of Mind in Philosophy of Mind

René Descartes in 17th/18th Century Philosophy

Gilbert Ryle in 20th Century Philosophy

In my reading list | Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

|

Export citation

| Scholar | More..

Desh Raj Sirswal (2009). The Official Doctrine and its Relevance Today. PARISHEELAN.

This seminar is an attempt to show that “official doctrine” is dead in only one of its ontological aspects: substance dualism may well have been repudiated but property dualism still claims a number of contemporary defenders. Here we will discuss Ryle’s explanation of Descartes’ dualism and also about its relevance. This doctrine of separation between mind and body is referred by Ryle as “the dogma of the ghost in the machine.” Ryle argues that there is no ghostly, invisible entity called (...) ‘the mind’ inside a mechanical apparatus called ‘the body’. Ryle argues that the traditional approach to the relation of mind and body assumes that there is a basic distinction between Mind and Matter. According to him this assumption is a basic ‘category mistake’, because it attempts to analyze the relation between mind and body as if they were terms of the same logical category. Ryle argues that traditional Idealism makes a basic ‘category-mistake’ by trying to reduce physical reality to the same status as mental reality, and that materialism makes a basic ‘category-mistake’ by trying to reduce mental reality to the same status as physical reality. The Ontological commitments: The ontological commitment of the view is that there are two different kinds of things, body and mind, that are somehow harnessed together. The view that mind and body are somehow fundamentally different or distinct, but nonetheless interact, leads to the philosophical conundrum known as the mind-body problem. Thus two ontological aspects of the official doctrine – finding a place for the mental in the physical world and the problem of mental causation – still survive today. The Epistemological Commitments: According to the traditional view, bodily processes are external and can be witnessed by observers, but mental processes are private, “internal” as the metaphor goes. The epistemological commitments of the official doctrine lead to the philosophical conundrum known as the problem of other minds. Descartes was contributing to the field of cognitive science hundred of years before it was officially established. Descartes changed the way rational thinkers believed then and continues to influence people now. Most modern philosophers have rejected the view that mind and matter are different substances, but many remain realists about the mind. It is fair to say that Descartes is as an integral part of cognitive science as anyone, despite the fact that he didn’t ever know it. (shrink)

Dualism in Philosophy of Mind

René Descartes in 17th/18th Century Philosophy

Gilbert Ryle in 20th Century Philosophy

In my reading list | Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

|

Export citation

| Scholar | More..

Desh Raj Sirswal (2008). Human Beings Have No Identical Self. DARSANA-Electric Journal of Indian Philosophy.

‘What am I’ is the question which is generally asked and answered differently , since the history of thought. It is related to one’s identity, so everyone gives different answer according to their personal history, physical features and circumstances. For Hume self is neither a body, nor a mind, nor a combination of both, nor an unknown substance as some thinkers generally say and defend. It is only a series of experiences, a strew of feelings, sensations, desires, thoughts, beliefs etc (...) After that he considers the problem of personal identity by adopting the classical exposition of the positivist’s theory of personal identity. It is the view of those thinkers, who adopted sceptical view and also think that the idea of self can be described in the empirical or linguistic formula. It is common to all positivist that they think self is an abstraction from the facts with no ontological status of its own. Hume is against those philosophers, who believe in the conception that we have an idea of a permanent, independent and immaterial self and its continuous identity. He is not satisfied with this thinking that the idea of self is the foundation of all our emotions, passions, thoughts and desires etc. He thinks that all these are different and separate from each other and may be separately consider and exist. Hume says there should be one impression that gives rise to every real idea. But we don’t have any such impression about the self. Hume refutes the existence of all material and immaterial substances. Hume argued that if we can directly know, we know nothing but the object of our sense experience as ideas and impressions only. He says these are all different and separable so, there is no need for their support. When we examine we found nothing, what we call it a self or any certain principle. Our mind is like a stage of a theatre in which thoughts and ideas come in a procession. All thoughts are transitory and temporary. The only reason for suspecting the existence of self is that the rapidity of their change causes an illusion. He says we should try to be clear that we are just concentrating mind on only successive perceptions, not where they are presented. So, self is merely a composition of successive impressions. We can compare this idea of Hume with Buddha. He also rejects commonly believed conception of self though he does not deny the continuity of the stream successive states that compose life. The self or the ego denotes nothing more than this collection and the existence of man depends on this collection and it dissolves when the collection breaks up. But there is much difference between above conception of the self and Hume’s conception of self. Now, here a problem arises about this view that if we have not any permanent self, then how can we explain personal identity ? And how can we justify this conception? Firstly, John Locke introduced problem of personal identity in his book An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Locke defines a person as a “thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places.” This self-consciousness, which is inseparable from thinking ,constitutes the essence of personality. Consequently the identity of a person is to be found in the identity of consciousness. Of course, we are not always conscious.In contrast toLocke, Hume does not believe in an identical self. For him there are no constant and invariable impressions of such a self and that introspection does not discover anything, but particular perceptions. Thus we can have only particular sensation and emotions, but no impression of self. Hume’s discussion of personal identity is primarily built on the major role of the imagination, which it plays in the formation of belief. From this formation of belief in general, we arrive at belief in causes, continued existence, and then on to the personal identity. Hume uses the word ‘feign’ to explain this conception of personal identity. By the reason of memory and imagination we “make believe” in the continued existence of a “self” or identical personality during these interruptions by the same methods and for the same reasons as I feign the continued existence of external world. For Hume identity depends upon the three relations of resemblance, contiguity, and causation. It follows from these principle that the notion of personal identity proceeds from the “smooth and uninterrupted progress of the thought ” by its continuity. Hume thinks that the identity which we ascribe for the human mind is same as the identity what we ascribe to vegetables and animals, it is fictitious one. This is only by the reason of imagiantion that we do with another objects. With reference to the personal identity, Hume’s above said theory is not far from fallacies and difficulties. Actually, he himself knows that his principle is not completely satisfactory. In the “Appendix” of his Treatise, he mentioned a difficulty which is not solvable by him. It is related to inheritenceness and composition of perceptions. If all our perceptions are different and independent to each other and there is no idea of self then, Hume questions how were they organized and related to each other. In other words, we ask this question as what is the prime substance and principle by which we integrate and organize our perceptions. Hume himself asks this question and he found himself incompetent to answer it. Hume sums up the discussion of personal identity by saying that his whole examination of this question reveals that most of the disputes about personal identity are ‘merely verbal’ he says it is a grammitical rather than a philosophical problem. Modern logical positivists have tried to give an empirical explanation of this theory, as Hume does. But, it has also some dogmaticism and it failed to give any satisfactory solution. Many philosophers have criticized Hume’s ideas by various points. Some are related to memory that it is not the only criterion for the self. Although memory seems to be the most important and the primary criterion to the discovery of the personal identity, but it is not only based on memory and continuity but on some other factors also. Chisholm attacks on Humean position to say that Hume made a conceptual error in his notion of what constitutes the idea of self, he seems contradictory when he examine self in experience and lastly, he is only aware about particular mental data. According to Flage Reid’s and Beattie found Hume’s theory of mind have many misconceptions and it is not much clear. And lastly, we cannot perceived self as an object as Hume does. Because we cannot deny our experiences about the authority of awareness of self. This self awareness makes possible all concentration and contemplation. The self which is the basis of all knowledge cannot be perceived as an object. Copleston found that Hume’s use the ambiguous word ‘identity’ and memory not possible in his theory and Ayer also defends it. Finally, it is also to be considered that Hume accepts scepticism in his all logical and philosophical speculations. According to scepticism, we cannot get the definite knowledge of anything. Therefore, we should think all our knowledge suspicious and shouldn’t try to give any definite judgment about any problem or principle. Hume follows this rule in his entire speculation, but softly. He realizes that one cannot follow this rule in his practical life, if we will adopt this we cannot do anything faithfully and cannot live whole life easily. So, David Hume is both an epistemological and metaphysical subjectivist and a moral and ethical relativist. His theories make both philosophical knowledge and scientific knowledge impossible. Hume solution for the problem of personal identity is not satisfactory, but it has a great relevance in today’s era. Hume’s ideas not only effected Eighteenth and Nineteenth century philosophy, but also effects contemporary philosophy. Most problems which are discussed as contemporary issues are due to Hume’s critical philosophy. In present times, analytical point of view is more dominant., it also gets inspiration and effect from Hume. His thinking not only effects epistemology and metaphysics, but every field of philosophy. Two major theories of contemporary ethics Emotivism and Prescriptivism have originated from his thinking. Mostly thinkers like Moore, Russell, Wittegenstein, Carnap, Ayer etc. are inspired by Hume’s speculations. So, we can concludes that, Hume is pre-eminently a breaker of new ground: a philosopher who opens up new lines of thought, who suggests to us an endless variety of philosophical explorations. Nothing as ultimate except the spirit of enquiry. In this sense Hume is the fore runner of postmodernism and deconstruction, post-structuralism, feminism, post-colonialism, new historicism, et al. REFERENCES: Ayer, A.J. (2006) Hume: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Beloff, John (1962) The Existence of Mind, Macgibbon & Kee, London. Chennakesavan, Sarasvati (1991) Concept of Mind in Indian Philosophy, Motilal Banarsidas Publisher Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Clack, R. Jerold (1973) ” Chisholm and Hume on Observing the Self”, Philosophy & Phenomenological Research ,Vol.XXXIII, March, No.3,pp.338-348. Copleston, Frederick (2003) A History of Philosophy, Vol.5, Continuum, London & New York. Dutta & Chatterjee(1984) An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, University of Calcutta. Flage ,Daniel E.(1990)David Hume’s Theory of Mind, Routledge, London and New York. Flew, Antony (1962)Hume on Human Nature and the Understanding, (Edi.),Collier Books, New York. Fuller,B.A.G. (1989) A History of Philosophy, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Gould, James A. ,Mulvaney, Robert J.(2001)Classic Philosophical Questions, (Edi.) , Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Tenth Ed. Gupta, Suman (1983) The Origin and Theories of Linguistic Philosophy : A Marxist Point of View, Intellectual Publishing House, New Delhi, First Ed. Hume, David (1978) A Treatise of Human Nature, Edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge Oxford University Press, London. Nayak, G.C. (2002) Philosophical Reflections, ICPR, New Delhi. Passmore,John(1980) Hume’s Intentions, Gernald Duckworth &Co. Ltd.,London,Third Ed. Smith, N. Kemp (1960) The Philosophy of David Hume, Macmillan & Ltd. New York and St. Martins Press, London. Verma, V.P. (1978) David Hume ka Darshan, Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy, Jaipur, First Ed. Williams,J.Anthony (2006) “Is Hume a Sceptic with regard to Personal Identity and Ontology in General ?” . (shrink)

No categories

In my reading list | Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

|

Export citation

| Scholar | More..

Desh Raj Sirswal, A Class-Room Introduction to Logic. A Class-Room Introduction to Logic.

These class notes were prepared for first paper entitled Principles of Logic in Diploma-in-Reasoning of Department of Philosophy, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, to help the students, when I taught in this course last three years. Basically I used collection of materials from different sources viz. printed books as well as internet sources to prepare it. You can find our course syllabus in my post “Philosophy is Nothing without Logic” at The Positive Philosophy page. This is only a first draft, kindly send (...)

No categories

In my reading list | Discuss this article | Edit | Categorize |

My bibliography

|

Export citation

| Scholar | More..

Applied ethics	Epistemology	Meta-ethics	Metaphysics	Normative ethics
Philosophy of biology	Philosophy of language	Philosophy of mind	Philosophy of religion	More ...

Online research in philosophy