One cannot deny the fact that we all have some understanding of moral issues. Each one of us can be said to have some sense of what is right, what is wrong, what is good, what is bad, what ought to be done, and what ought not to be done. This moral understanding can be in the form of some vague idea, notion, or simply a gut feeling. No matter who the person is, from which culture or community the person (...) belongs to, everybody faces a moral quandary sometime or other in one’s life. All of this presupposes that there is some fundamental sense or understanding of what is right and what is wrong. We all seem to have some understanding about actions that are right and those that are wrong. Some actions, for instance, torturing babies just for fun, killing an innocent person, raping, etc. are exemplars of morally wrong actions. Assisting a person in need, giving to famine relief, etc. on the other hand are examples of morally right actions. The present essay is an attempt to delve into the question of the source of moral knowledge. Three sources, experience, reason, and intuition have been identified. Views of philosophers like G.E Moore, WD Ross, Immanuel Kant, JS Mill, Plato, Samuel Clarke, Aristotle Hume, and Anthony Ashley Cooper have been discussed to gain clarity about the issue. (shrink)

Metaphors have been inserted by philosophers in philosophical discourses to simplify abstract and intricate concepts. The practice of using metaphor denotes its rhetorical, aesthetic, linguistic and cognitive function. In basic formulation, metaphor has also been used by philosophers as a device, strategy, method, stylist ornament and a medium of expression. In this background, the following paper intends to vindicate the intimate interaction between philosophy and metaphor, with marked emphasis on the domain of feminist philosophy. Categorically, by considering the context of (...) feminist philosophical discourses, in this work, I explore the contributions of two influential feminist thinkers, namely, Young and Irigaray to elucidate the proposed metaphorical narrative. I suggest that these feminist philosophers ‘talk metaphorically’ beyond its ornamental or aesthetic value; beyond objectivism. To the contrary, I propose and argue that their employment of metaphor appeals to an epistemological thematic. Furthermore, I shall exhibit the close affinity between the metaphors they insert in their respective pursuits. Questions that shall be considered here are: Why metaphor matters in philosophical contexts? What does it mean to talk metaphorically in feminist philosophical scholarship? What and how do these feminist thinkers contribute to this endeavor? What is the implication of their respective contributions? Thus, I aim at uncovering and deepening the appearance, connotation and influence of metaphor in feminist scholarship. (shrink)

This paper seeks to provide a renewed meaning to the idea of truth by enclosing it within Gandhi’s rhetorical use of the term religion. The religion that he seeks to present to us as Hinduism is absurd on all fronts, it is argued here. It is through such absurdity that he infuses notions of validity and obeyance on his own terms to take us to profuse criticisms of not only colonial but civilizational modernity as well. Further a newer meaning is (...) given to Hinduism in a rather unexpected manner even in the context of the Indian national movement. The point about political conservatism, the element of exoticism and God takes us to adventures around truth by a thinker-activist speaking as a colonial subject. (shrink)

Nowadays, it is very debatable among philosophers, psychologists, linguists and artificial intelligence scientists that what mind actually is, where it exists and how it works? Chomsky, the great philosopher and the main exponent of cognitive revolution tries to sketch the description of mind, its nature, mental processes, its structure as well as its relation with its other cognitive modules. It also examines innate and acquired knowledge of mind. In this paper, I shall argue about the capacities of the mind, why (...) Chomsky called mind capacity as different from its ability and other faculties. This paper also describes the theories that are connected with the field of mind i.e, mind and language, linguistic mentalism, Modular mind, Cartesian mind, mind-body problem, Philosophical grammar, and thought processes like reasoning and perceptions. Firstly, I shall argue about, does Chomsky consider mind different from brain, consciousness and thought? Secondly, does Chomsky consider mind as a separate concept or he regards it as the constituent of language only? And thirdly, how Chomsky responds to rationalists and empiricists? (shrink)