In this work, the author tries to give an ontological foundation and framework for relationalism, by interpreting the meaning of being in terms of particular (individual) in its relationality. This work provides many an insight into how we can look at not only metaphysics but epistemology and ethics as well from a relationalist point of view.
Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta has been very influential in India, both as a well-articulated philosophical system and a weighty theological position. However, Advaita’s supposedly dismissive attitude toward the world always remained its Achilles’ heel. Thinkers whose sympathies lie firmly with Advaita are at pains to give a philosophically satisfactory explanation of the ontological status of the world. This article briefly discusses the efforts and resultant views of four such contemporary thinkers – K.C. Bhattacharyya, S. Radhakrishnan, P.T. Raju, and Richard De Smet.
The importance and relevance of philosophy has come to be recognized more today than ever before in recent history. In many colleges and universities philosophy is now an essential component of interdisciplinary studies. The public interest in philosophy is increasing. UNESCO’s initiatives to promote philosophy are laudable. All these call for reimagining the study and teaching of philosophy for our contemporary time − a task worthwhile for philosophy studies in ecclesiastical institutes as well.
When Western philosophy was introduced to Indian academia in the late nineteenth century, there arose for Indian philosophers a two-fold need: the need to preserve the self-identity of Indian philosophy and the need to dialogue with Western philosophy. In their attempt to defend the distinctiveness of Indian philosophy, the philosophers of the first half of the twentieth century affirmed that classical Indian philosophy was essentially spiritual. The philosophers of the second half of the twentieth century, however, did not have a (...) compulsion to defend Indian philosophy in the face of Western philosophy. Many of them critiqued the traditional view about classical Indian philosophy. For them classical Indian philosophy, too, was a rational discourse and it is equally capable to contribute to the enrichment of philosophy. Today the two traditions—Indian and Western—are known to each other fairly well and hence there is little need to pursue comparative philosophy as a distinct discipline in philosophy. Instead, what should be promoted is an open philosophizing—philosophizing that is characterized by our openness to diverse ways of thought. (shrink)
This monograph contains the author’s initial reflections on "critical ontology." Conceived primarily as a method of doing philosophy in general and ontology in particular, critical ontology approves of the Kantian critique of knowledge, without, however, endorsing its agnosticism of metaphysics.
This book is an attempt to understand the human being, using the method of critical ontology. The human person, as an embodied conscious being, stands in triple relationality with the world around them, maintains the author. I-exist, I-know and I-act are respectively the ontic, epistemic and ethic relationality of our being.
In this work, the author elaborates on his position on philosophy and ontology. Not only does he defend critical ontology and metaphysics but he also dismisses any kind of speculative ontology and metaphysics as epistemologically untenable. Furthermore, in this work, the author puts together for the first time his relationalist theory of being, called ontic (ontological) relationalism.
Even as dismissive of pursuing Comparative Philosophy for achieving East-West synthesis in philosophy, the author maintains the need for “open philosophizing.” “Open philosophizing” is one characterized by dialogical openness to culturally diverse philosophical traditions and thought-patterns.