CLASSROOM INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
(Understanding the nature of Reality, Knowledge and Value)
It is often felt that teaching a course in ‘Introductory Philosophy’ is far more difficult than teaching a course on a specific philosophical area at a relatively higher level. The ‘introductory’ nature of Philosophy is not elementary in nature. Indeed, there is not ‘elementary’ philosophy with which one can begin as a way of introducing the student to Philosophy. Philosophy is, by nature, intrinsically ‘deep’ right from the beginning. The pool of philosophy is deep all over, with no shallow banks. Any enduring academic experience of teaching Philosophy surely testifies to this claim.
If a teacher has to introduce Philosophy as a specific discipline in an under-graduate class, how would he or she go about doing that? Are there basic chapters of a typical text to start with, in the way there are in other disciplines like Physics and Economics and Biology? Even if certain basic chapters are touched upon, how basic are the contents of those topics or concepts? It seems that the so-called ‘basics’ of Philosophy are far too dense in meaning to help the student make a smooth and easy entry into the subject.
It is almost pointless to begin the discourse with the etymological meaning of ‘Philosophy’, e.g. ‘Love of Wisdom’. After all, the term ‘wisdom’ itself is not too clear or free from ambiguity. Besides, wisdom is not what the teacher is going to teach in a professional academic discourse of Philosophy. The teacher would therefore do well to think of a more ‘practical’ and ‘relevant’ way of accompanying the student in the journey
of Philosophy.
Perhaps the best strategy is to begin with the illustration of the central samples of philosophical discussion that have traditionally been the occupation of philosophers. Here the move would require making use of the traditional classification of Philosophy into three broad categories of discourse: Metaphysics or the Theory of Reality; Epistemology or the Theory of Knowledge; Axiology or Value Theory. The introductory discourse of Philosophy ought to take up the principal concerns of these three sectors.
The two-week long WINTER SCHOOL IN PHILOSOPHY is conceived as an interactive
workshop for young philosophy teachers and doctoral students, who will be instructed by a team of experts on how to deliver effectively introductory lectures in the classroom. Attention is to be drawn specially towards the role of being a teacher of philosophy inculcating philosophical knowledge to beginners in Philosophy. But the teacher himself or herself needs to be sufficiently clear about the way one ought to unfold the conceptual story of Philosophy. That unfolding is to follow the principal issues and arguments available in the discussions of metaphysics, epistemology and axiology.
Metaphysical issues relate to the question of being, whether it is the “Being of God, the World, or the Self”. There are traditional “Arguments for the existence of God: Especially the Ontological Argument”, arguments of “Realism or Idealism about the existence of the World”, and both “Substance-essentialist and Anti-substantivist arguments regarding the existence of the Self”. Furthermore, there are subsidiary metaphysical questions concerning “Mind-Body Dualism”, “Causality, Determinism and freedom of the Will”, and about “Universals and Particulars”.
Epistemological issues that prominently figure in discussion include the “Platonic Definition of Knowledge and the Gettier Problem”, “Perceptual Knowledge”, “A Priori Knowledge”, “Internalist and Externalist theories of Epistemic Justification”, and the general “Problem of Skepticism”.
Axiological questions basically concern Ethics and Aesthetics. Some major issues include “Morality and Egoism/Altruism”, “Moral relativism/Absolutism”, Moral Theories like “Eudaimonism, Utilitarianism and Deontology”, “Virtue Ethics”, and the rise of “Applied Ethics”. Aesthetic problems related to questions about the “Ontology of Art”, “Aesthetic Detachment”, theories of “Artistic Representation/Expression/Form”, and the “Value of Art in Human Culture”.
The Winter School will consist of discussions on a chosen set of topics that relate to these three branches of Philosophy. It is presumed that a basic understanding of Philosophy as an intellectual discourse is an understanding of the principal problem of metaphysics, epistemology and value theory. This understanding is supposed to be uniform and wellintegrated, so that a teacher of Philosophy is capable of rendering that understanding in a format which conduces to a systematic and coherent grasp of the subject.
Emphasis will be laid on thematic discussion and understanding of Philosophy rather than a historical understanding. Reference to history of philosophy would be subservient to thematic relevance. The Indian/Western division of Philosophy would be circumvented by an attempt to tackle a given problem from different angles.
It is most important to realize that the young mind of the student is quite likely to be puzzled by the kind of questions that arise in Philosophy. That is because of the unique peculiarity of the discourse. The teacher must therefore be able to explain why at all such peculiar problems arise, and how they inevitably arise given human rational inquisitiveness. The Winter School will take special care to alert the participants to the utmost need of grasping the rationale of philosophical questions.
It is expected that the two weeks of rigorous philosophical training and interactive exercise of reflection will create enough confidence in the mind of the young teacher/scholar of Philosophy. Towards the final stage of the School, some particular sessions will be exclusively devoted to the demonstration of teaching by the participants.
This exercise will be accompanied by regular written assignments on relevant issues. It is hoped that the result of this exercise in the Winter School will eventually be a rough working paper that synoptically describes a fairly standard programme of ‘A Classroom Introduction to philosophy’. The urgency of such an outcome cannot be denied at least for one reason. Philosophy is certainly unlike other academic discourses because of its peculiar nature. The ‘justification’ of Philosophy is often demanded in view of its apparently ‘impractical’ and abstract character. A young philosopher therefore must be well-versed in the arguments that lend justification to the philosophical enterprise. And the ‘arguments for justification’ must be amenable to their grasp at the introductory level.
It is known that the patterns of courses/papers taught in different Universities are not always the same, and not all Universities have Semester-system method of teaching. But the Winter School programme is catered to a generality of pattern that would be compatible with these variations. In other words, a participant duly trained in the course of these two weeks can be reasonably expected to play a better role in inculcating philosophical ideas in any pattern in which he or she is supposed to adjust to in his or her home-institution. On the whole, the Winter School programme is supposed to have a tutorial flavour. In this respect, it is supposed to be rather different from the usual Refresher Courses in Philosophy. The level of interaction is supposed to be much greater, and constant attention is to be maintained towards improving the analytical teaching potential of the participant.
From the Circular of:
Winter School in Philosophy (December 30, 2008 – January 10, 2009)
Organized by Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati in association with Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla
Link:
http://niyamakreference.blogspot.com/2009/10/classroom-introduction-to-philosophy.html
Friday, October 9, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Relevance of Philosophy in Social Sciences and Humanities
In the early 20th century, with the attainments of the science and technology human values of life have changed. Cultivating of ethical, moral, cultural and spiritual ideas by studying philosophy at various levels of education can change the mindset of the people. Recent research in ethics and moral science has proved that studying ethics has a tremendous influence on people all over the world. Philosophy because of its closeness to life and living, it should be a part of any scheme of education relevant to anyone. Philosophy will provide the ways to acquire knowledge and good behavioural patterns. Philosophy should be creative and practical, that is the exigency of modern society. Before knowing about philosophy for social sciences and humanities with its implications, we should know how philosophy will help to understand the problems of society.
Philosophy in Modern Context
Philosophy includes three major aspects:
The Reality of a thing.
The Process of Knowing that Reality.
The Use of that knowledge to the individual who knows it. These three aspects are technically, known as: (1) Metaphysics (2) Epistemology (3) Axiology.
The progress of science had a great effect on philosophy. The scientists emphasized that concepts, which are not verifiable by scientific method, are useless or unbelievable. All questions about metaphysics and epistemology became useless and unbelievable because some of these questions were not verifiable by scientific method. By this reconstructiveness, modern philosophers omitted discussion about these types of problem. As a result, modern philosophers also omitted an important method of knowledge i.e. Intuition. According to Bertrand Russell, there is no philosophical problem, which cannot be solved by the scientific method. He suggested that in philosophy this method should be used. Philosophers now became preoccupied with larger issues or meta issues. The effect of science, was such that even in philosophy the emphasis was given on universals. Every concept was studied in a broad manner. Science was taken to be perfect. Their attempt centered only on the logical and analytical study of language. This made them the slave of science. This was the general situation of modern philosophers. Human civilization has been deprived of creative philosophy.
Scientists and Technicians make new inventions to provide necessities and comforts of life. Doctors work to eradicate human sufferings. Sportsman and artists provide entertainment. But what does the study of philosophy or philosophers do for their fellow man? In the other hand, Science and Technology developments tell us how to heal and how to kill; it reduces the death rate in retail and then kills us wholesale in war. But only wisdom can coordinate all experiences quite intelligibly, critically and enlighten us when to heal and when to kill. In the age of science and technology, this wisdom is most emergent need of the day.
New Developing Areas of Philosophy
But in the middle of the century, the trend changed. Now the emphasis shifted from universal to particular. Thinkers realized that progress of science was not eternal. Now individual (particular, local or regional) became center of the study. This trend is being called Postmodernism, while the earlier trend is called Modernism. In modernism emphasis was given on reason and universal.
Post-modernism is both a break and a continuation. Some of the issues which the modernists discussed has their moorings and the regional and the particular, though their over all emphasis was towards the universal. In this sense, Post-modernism is both a reaction and a continuation. It is in a way subaltern study. A study of the marginalized or the deprived. Here regional issues are given importance. Lyotard is a seminal thinker of Post-modern era. His book The Post Modern Condition is worth reading.
I feel that Philosophy is an open-ended, pioneering discipline, forever opening up new areas of study and new methods of inquiry. The present conception of philosophy and its methodology is much important for the Social Sciences and Humanities. If we have the clear conception of their nature, it is due to reason of Philosophical Investigation only. Philosophy effects Social Sciences and Humanities since many hundred years. We should think about the implication of philosophical methods on Social Sciences and Humanities.
Philosophy is a growing phenomenon, a developing sphere. Each step in the walk of human existence adds new grains to the development of philosophy. We have to be a perpetual innovator. An innovator is one who does not know that it cannot be done. To innovate is to introduce something, make changes into anything established, or to innovate on another’s creation, renewed or altered. An innovator could be a rebellion because he breaks the established methods, norms, standards and redefines the layers of thought. Hence an innovator is one who knows what one is doing could be alone on the basis of certain method. Innovation not simply implies questioning, reshaping, restructuring, but also developing through transformation.
Philosophy should be one of the foundation courses in the curriculum of the modern schools, colleges and universities. Awarding Ph.D.(Doctor of Philosophy) in all fields of knowledge is not enough to fulfill the need and significance of philosophy in educational system. It should be approached as a context to relate an integrate what is learned in the various specialized fields. If this intent is realized the study of philosophy can yield one of the choicest fruits of education. I summed up this presentation by the saying of Plato: percepts (Science) without concepts (Philosophy) are blind and concepts without percepts are empty. To put this is an other way, science without philosophy, facts without perspective, cannot contribute to shape a skillful, wise and virtuous citizen or a nation.
Link:
http://niyamakreference.blogspot.com/2009/10/relevance-of-philosophy-in-social_4440.html
Date: 10-10-2009
Philosophy in Modern Context
Philosophy includes three major aspects:
The Reality of a thing.
The Process of Knowing that Reality.
The Use of that knowledge to the individual who knows it. These three aspects are technically, known as: (1) Metaphysics (2) Epistemology (3) Axiology.
The progress of science had a great effect on philosophy. The scientists emphasized that concepts, which are not verifiable by scientific method, are useless or unbelievable. All questions about metaphysics and epistemology became useless and unbelievable because some of these questions were not verifiable by scientific method. By this reconstructiveness, modern philosophers omitted discussion about these types of problem. As a result, modern philosophers also omitted an important method of knowledge i.e. Intuition. According to Bertrand Russell, there is no philosophical problem, which cannot be solved by the scientific method. He suggested that in philosophy this method should be used. Philosophers now became preoccupied with larger issues or meta issues. The effect of science, was such that even in philosophy the emphasis was given on universals. Every concept was studied in a broad manner. Science was taken to be perfect. Their attempt centered only on the logical and analytical study of language. This made them the slave of science. This was the general situation of modern philosophers. Human civilization has been deprived of creative philosophy.
Scientists and Technicians make new inventions to provide necessities and comforts of life. Doctors work to eradicate human sufferings. Sportsman and artists provide entertainment. But what does the study of philosophy or philosophers do for their fellow man? In the other hand, Science and Technology developments tell us how to heal and how to kill; it reduces the death rate in retail and then kills us wholesale in war. But only wisdom can coordinate all experiences quite intelligibly, critically and enlighten us when to heal and when to kill. In the age of science and technology, this wisdom is most emergent need of the day.
New Developing Areas of Philosophy
But in the middle of the century, the trend changed. Now the emphasis shifted from universal to particular. Thinkers realized that progress of science was not eternal. Now individual (particular, local or regional) became center of the study. This trend is being called Postmodernism, while the earlier trend is called Modernism. In modernism emphasis was given on reason and universal.
Post-modernism is both a break and a continuation. Some of the issues which the modernists discussed has their moorings and the regional and the particular, though their over all emphasis was towards the universal. In this sense, Post-modernism is both a reaction and a continuation. It is in a way subaltern study. A study of the marginalized or the deprived. Here regional issues are given importance. Lyotard is a seminal thinker of Post-modern era. His book The Post Modern Condition is worth reading.
I feel that Philosophy is an open-ended, pioneering discipline, forever opening up new areas of study and new methods of inquiry. The present conception of philosophy and its methodology is much important for the Social Sciences and Humanities. If we have the clear conception of their nature, it is due to reason of Philosophical Investigation only. Philosophy effects Social Sciences and Humanities since many hundred years. We should think about the implication of philosophical methods on Social Sciences and Humanities.
Philosophy is a growing phenomenon, a developing sphere. Each step in the walk of human existence adds new grains to the development of philosophy. We have to be a perpetual innovator. An innovator is one who does not know that it cannot be done. To innovate is to introduce something, make changes into anything established, or to innovate on another’s creation, renewed or altered. An innovator could be a rebellion because he breaks the established methods, norms, standards and redefines the layers of thought. Hence an innovator is one who knows what one is doing could be alone on the basis of certain method. Innovation not simply implies questioning, reshaping, restructuring, but also developing through transformation.
Philosophy should be one of the foundation courses in the curriculum of the modern schools, colleges and universities. Awarding Ph.D.(Doctor of Philosophy) in all fields of knowledge is not enough to fulfill the need and significance of philosophy in educational system. It should be approached as a context to relate an integrate what is learned in the various specialized fields. If this intent is realized the study of philosophy can yield one of the choicest fruits of education. I summed up this presentation by the saying of Plato: percepts (Science) without concepts (Philosophy) are blind and concepts without percepts are empty. To put this is an other way, science without philosophy, facts without perspective, cannot contribute to shape a skillful, wise and virtuous citizen or a nation.
Link:
http://niyamakreference.blogspot.com/2009/10/relevance-of-philosophy-in-social_4440.html
Date: 10-10-2009
THE STATE OF TEACHING, STUDY AND RESEARCH IN PHILOSOPHY IN INDIA
One thing that appears not to have been done in the country in recent times is to take a serious look at where the teaching, study and research in philosophy are actually heading. Such stock-taking is absolutely vital because philosophy itself has always been a very core area in the history and culture of our country. But, for all practical purposes, philosophy appears to have become just like any other routine academic discipline in the country since its teachers appear to have lost the vision of its special place and role in the general scheme of things. This is an extremely unfortunate development. It is sad that philosophy needs to be rescued from some of those very persons whose duty it happens to be to nourish and promote it. Philosophy should never become a tool for self-promotion and if it is being so used anywhere, every attempt must be made to stop it. We must also note that if such misuse is taking place at all, it is only because regular stock-taking by the community of philosophers in the country has stopped taking place long ago.
Philosophy teachers in our country seem to be perfectly satisfied in carrying on their teaching just like any other academic teaching the students if they like such teaching, doing some reading and preparing academic papers and attending academic seminars like all others in other fields. They are not playing any pro-active role. They have not been examining their own actions and roles critically. One of the chief purposes of this National Seminar is to focus on this serious shortcoming which has come to threaten the very survival of philosophy in our country where there was a time when philosophy was at the pinnacle of serious study and research.
While completely granting the academic character of philosophy, we should remind ourselves that in our country philosophy was always used as a tool for self-transformation and for the making of total and complete human beings. Philosophy was almost never pursued just for its own sake. This role of philosophy has become gradually lost on us probably under the inescapable and wide-spread spell of the colonizing West whose philosophy has for a very long time been fiercely autonomous and with no defined human purpose as its chief goal. In fact, the very notions of self-transformation and self-discovery have today come to be regarded as old-fashioned and have been relegated to the blind and ineffective sphere of religion. It is completely forgotten that self-examination necessarily involves self-criticism and self-assessment which are invaluable in themselves irrespective of whether they are rooted in any philosophical need or religious regimen. Having lost the benefit of self-criticism, some of our teachers of philosophy have gradually ceased to uphold any value even in public and private life and have thus ceased to lead a life of value. Such teachers are no more an asset to philosophy because no person not leading a life of value can value philosophy. They can only hypocritically claim to value it and live for it when they are actually living on it.
This sort of development must be arrested and systematically reversed in the interest of protecting and promoting philosophy. When some philosophy teachers themselves do not value philosophy, it is futile to expect the members of the general public to value it. That is how, it seems, philosophy is fast losing public esteem which it had gloriously enjoyed in the classical past. Nobody can dispute the idea of philosophy as a discipline valuable in itself even if s/he disputes it as a valuable tool for self-realization. Therefore it is high time that all of us in the field of philosophy pay serious attention to its study and teaching, to proper research in it. We are uniquely fortunate in the Government of India itself recognizing the importance of philosophy and we should try to make the best use of the assistance of the Government.
The Indian Council of Philosophical Research has already being doing whatever it can to promote the study of, and research in, philosophy all over India for the past several years. The present National Seminar is to bring together all like-minded individuals in order to take stock of all that has been done well and also of all that has gone wrong in teaching and research in philosophy. The attempt is to arrive at a generally acceptable diagnosis and also a general plan of attacking the maladies. Specific issues concerning the teaching of philosophy in India and also the shortcomings in philosophical research need to be clearly identified and addressed. This document is only tentative and indicative of the enormous task lying ahead and therefore the participants are welcome to add new dimensions and issues relating to the main theme of the National Seminar. The chief aim is to take into confidence one another and proceed as a united group with the generally accepted common goal of improving the quality of teaching and research in philosophy in the interest of philosophy itself and in the interest of all those engaged in the teaching and research in philosophy in India. It is hoped that this most urgent issue of revitalizing philosophical studies in India is as dear to your heart as it is to ours and that you will therefore join us in seriously trying to do what best we can for the future of philosophy in India since this future seems to be under serious threat from within the community as well as without.
Reference:
NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE STATE OF TEACHING, STUDY AND RESEARCH IN PHILOSOPHY IN INDIA in Mumbai between 23rd to 25th October 2009. From the Notice of the ICPR New Delhi, October, 2009.
Link:
http://niyamakreference.blogspot.com/2009/10/state-of-teaching-study-and-research-in.html
Date:10-10-2009
Philosophy teachers in our country seem to be perfectly satisfied in carrying on their teaching just like any other academic teaching the students if they like such teaching, doing some reading and preparing academic papers and attending academic seminars like all others in other fields. They are not playing any pro-active role. They have not been examining their own actions and roles critically. One of the chief purposes of this National Seminar is to focus on this serious shortcoming which has come to threaten the very survival of philosophy in our country where there was a time when philosophy was at the pinnacle of serious study and research.
While completely granting the academic character of philosophy, we should remind ourselves that in our country philosophy was always used as a tool for self-transformation and for the making of total and complete human beings. Philosophy was almost never pursued just for its own sake. This role of philosophy has become gradually lost on us probably under the inescapable and wide-spread spell of the colonizing West whose philosophy has for a very long time been fiercely autonomous and with no defined human purpose as its chief goal. In fact, the very notions of self-transformation and self-discovery have today come to be regarded as old-fashioned and have been relegated to the blind and ineffective sphere of religion. It is completely forgotten that self-examination necessarily involves self-criticism and self-assessment which are invaluable in themselves irrespective of whether they are rooted in any philosophical need or religious regimen. Having lost the benefit of self-criticism, some of our teachers of philosophy have gradually ceased to uphold any value even in public and private life and have thus ceased to lead a life of value. Such teachers are no more an asset to philosophy because no person not leading a life of value can value philosophy. They can only hypocritically claim to value it and live for it when they are actually living on it.
This sort of development must be arrested and systematically reversed in the interest of protecting and promoting philosophy. When some philosophy teachers themselves do not value philosophy, it is futile to expect the members of the general public to value it. That is how, it seems, philosophy is fast losing public esteem which it had gloriously enjoyed in the classical past. Nobody can dispute the idea of philosophy as a discipline valuable in itself even if s/he disputes it as a valuable tool for self-realization. Therefore it is high time that all of us in the field of philosophy pay serious attention to its study and teaching, to proper research in it. We are uniquely fortunate in the Government of India itself recognizing the importance of philosophy and we should try to make the best use of the assistance of the Government.
The Indian Council of Philosophical Research has already being doing whatever it can to promote the study of, and research in, philosophy all over India for the past several years. The present National Seminar is to bring together all like-minded individuals in order to take stock of all that has been done well and also of all that has gone wrong in teaching and research in philosophy. The attempt is to arrive at a generally acceptable diagnosis and also a general plan of attacking the maladies. Specific issues concerning the teaching of philosophy in India and also the shortcomings in philosophical research need to be clearly identified and addressed. This document is only tentative and indicative of the enormous task lying ahead and therefore the participants are welcome to add new dimensions and issues relating to the main theme of the National Seminar. The chief aim is to take into confidence one another and proceed as a united group with the generally accepted common goal of improving the quality of teaching and research in philosophy in the interest of philosophy itself and in the interest of all those engaged in the teaching and research in philosophy in India. It is hoped that this most urgent issue of revitalizing philosophical studies in India is as dear to your heart as it is to ours and that you will therefore join us in seriously trying to do what best we can for the future of philosophy in India since this future seems to be under serious threat from within the community as well as without.
Reference:
NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE STATE OF TEACHING, STUDY AND RESEARCH IN PHILOSOPHY IN INDIA in Mumbai between 23rd to 25th October 2009. From the Notice of the ICPR New Delhi, October, 2009.
Link:
http://niyamakreference.blogspot.com/2009/10/state-of-teaching-study-and-research-in.html
Date:10-10-2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
DR. AMBEDKAR’S VIEWS ON HUMANISM AND BUDDHISM
“One should always cherish some ambition to do something in the world. They alone rise who strive.”1 is the great wording of Dr.Ambedkar. There are two fundamental types of human nature. Creative and possessive. Creative humans use human intellect for creative endeavors which enriches human thought; knowledge and wealth thereby contribute to the development of human heritage for the posterity. Possessive people, on the other hand do not believe in the use of human intellect for creative purpose. Gautam Buddha, Jesus Christ, Guru Nanak, Kabeer, Ravidas, Tukarama, Krantiba Jotirao Phoolay, Periyar and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar they all belong to the great class of Ceative humans called as Humanists in Indian context.
Apart from his father, three names or figures- Gautama Buddha, Jotibha Phule, and Kabir-are the most important. They were regarded by Ambedkar as his three masters or gurus.
Dr। Ambedkar stayed in America, the land of liberty, for his higher studies. There he studied the western liberal thought and the humanitarian philosophy expounded by great thinkers such as Prof. John Dewey, who was also his teacher, John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, and Prof. Harold Laski to name a few. The impact of these original thinkers on Dr. Ambedkar's mind is evident from the frequent quotations one comes across in his writings and speeches. Whereas the West gave Ambedkar his ‘weapon’, the Indian masters gave him his soul force. According to Sonawane, “Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's personality had strong humanistic underpinnings. It is only regrettable that the press in the past as well as the contemporary has projected Ambedkar mainly as a great social rebel and a bitter critic of the Hindu religion. Critics of Dr. Ambedkar have ignored his basic humanistic instincts and strong humanitarian convictions behind his every act or speech throughout his life. It is important to trace the origin and consolidation of his humanistic convictions.”2
Apart from his father, three names or figures- Gautama Buddha, Jotibha Phule, and Kabir-are the most important. They were regarded by Ambedkar as his three masters or gurus.
Dr। Ambedkar stayed in America, the land of liberty, for his higher studies. There he studied the western liberal thought and the humanitarian philosophy expounded by great thinkers such as Prof. John Dewey, who was also his teacher, John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, and Prof. Harold Laski to name a few. The impact of these original thinkers on Dr. Ambedkar's mind is evident from the frequent quotations one comes across in his writings and speeches. Whereas the West gave Ambedkar his ‘weapon’, the Indian masters gave him his soul force. According to Sonawane, “Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's personality had strong humanistic underpinnings. It is only regrettable that the press in the past as well as the contemporary has projected Ambedkar mainly as a great social rebel and a bitter critic of the Hindu religion. Critics of Dr. Ambedkar have ignored his basic humanistic instincts and strong humanitarian convictions behind his every act or speech throughout his life. It is important to trace the origin and consolidation of his humanistic convictions.”2
In his article “Buddha and the Future of his Religion” published in 1950 in the Mahabodhi Society Journal, Ambedkar has summarized his views on religion and on Buddhism in the following manner:
1. The society must have either the sanction of law or the sanction of morality to hold it together. Without either, the society is sure to go to pieces.2. Religion, if it is to survive, it must be in consonance with reason, which is another name for science.3. It is not enough for religion to consist of moral code, but its moral code must recognize the fundamental tenets of liberty, equality and fraternity.
4. Religion must not sanctify or make a virtue out of poverty.3
In May 1956, a talk by Ambedkar titled "Why I like Buddhism and how it is useful to the world in its present circumstances" was broadcast from the British Broadcasting Corporation, London। In his talk Ambedkar said: “I prefer Buddhism because it gives three principles in combination, which no other religion does. Buddhism teaches Prajna (understanding as against superstition and supernaturalism), Karuna (love), and Samata (equality). This is what man wants for a good and happy life. Neither God nor soul can save society.”4
Dr. Ambedkar will be remembered for all time to come as the architect of the Indian Constitution, specially for the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles Chapters which, aim at eradicating “all injustice and tyranny” and ushering in social democracy and social equality. He was however, disappointed that the dominating section of our society did not rise to the occasion and did not water the plants that he had planted. Our political rulers have failed Ambedkar and his vision. It is now for human rights groups and grassroots activists to make social democracy and equality a way of life in the absence of which political democracy will always stand on a shaky foundation. “To translate into action the cherished dream of Dr. Ambedkar in an honest manner requires strong commitment, honest approach and effective implementation of the constitutional mandates upholding the ethos of secularism and eschewing ulterior considerations, narrow party politics, deep-rooted prejudices based on historical events and the so-called religious bigotry.”5 As Ambedkar himself says: “Men are mortal. So are ideas. An idea needs propagation as much as a plant needs watering. Both will otherwise wither and die.”6Dr.Ambedkar also laid down distinction between Dhamma and Religion. He says, “Religion, it is said, is personal and one must keep it to oneself. One must not let it play its part in public life. Contrary to this, Dhamma is social . It is fundamentally and essentially so.”7 So, for him it is system. But in reality when we give an analysis of Buddhist countries then we found that it fails to established equality, freedom, peace and socialism in China and Japan etc. being as a national religious system. They are suffering from the same problems as another countries do. It is another sound matter of consideration. In the West most people come to Buddhism for psychological reasons. In India it is different. Dr Ambedkar's followers were moved by his vision of a new society brought about by the practice of Buddha Dhamma. In the word of T.K. Tope: “Dr. Ambedkar’s erudition and learning were no doubt great….The generations to come may not remember the political achievements of Dr. Ambedkar, Ambedkar the social revolutionary, Ambedkar the modern exponent of Buddhism, may be forgotten, but Ambedkar the scholar, will be immortal.”8
Notes & References:
१. Ambedkar’s citation from Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, p.२३४
2. Vijay Chintaman Sonawane, Dr. Ambedkar as a Humanist, p.०२
3. Ambedkar’s citation from Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission, p.४९०
4. R. M. Pal, Remembering Dr. Ambedkar ,p.०२
5. Mohammad Shabir, “Dr. Ambedkar’s Quest For Social Justice: An Analysis of Contemporary Scenario,”p.७६
6. Ambedkar, The Buddha and His Dhamma, p.३१५
7. ibid, p.३१६
8. D.C. Ahir, The Legency of Dr. Ambedkar, p.251
Link:
http://niyamakreference.blogspot.com/2009/07/dr-ambedkars-views-on-humanism-and.html
Tuesday, July 7, २००९
Last Modified:१०-१०-2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Foundations of Marxism
We are here to give you a starting point, a grounding in what Marxism is about. A Marxist has a certain kind of practice, a way of living and working, that we call being a Communist. A Marxist’s thought is based on this daily practice, a philosophy called Dialectics. Thus, Marxism is both a theory and a practice. The theories of Marxism are sometimes called dialectical materialism; to be clear there is no one answer to a question – theory is based on a particular set of conditions that are always finite, and thus, any theory is necessarily limited. To test the validity of theory, Marxists rely on practice as the criteria of truth. Using such a methodology Marx and Engels examined history, which lead them to elaborate theories of the class struggle, the basis of social relations through economics, and the form of society that could follow capitalism. These theories are not immutable truths, they follow something similar to the scientific method. Naturally, there are countless examples of Marxist theories that have been modified, revised, or altogether changed: starting with Marx’s own changes! In this sense, in reading the classics of Marxism your most important task is to comprehensively understand the method; having accomplished that, you’ll begin to see relevant and up to date answers for modern times on your own. :)
What does this mean past all the words and definitions? We are judged by our historical practice and our understanding of the past, present, and future. You can find information about our history in the History of Marxism section. You can see an enormous spectrum of our ideas, the vibrance of debate within our movement, in our Marxist Writers archive. You can find a wealth of ideas we find invaluable to understanding, from the Physics of Einstein to the morality of Lao-Tzu, in our Reference Archive. If your mind is on certain subjects, like the women's movement, art, philosophy, etc, look into the Subject Archive. When you come across some term that just doesn't make sense, a word which has a meaning you want to explore or critique, go to our Encyclopedia of Marxism. Lastly, if you love educating people around the world about Marxism as much as we do, feel free to volunteer! :)
Whew! Okay, so there is enough material up there to fill your nearest public library. It is helpful to have an area of concern, a topic of interest, and work from there. :) To start your journey, a grounding in the basics is important! Read a couple of the Selected Works of Marx/Engels, and to better engage these works you may like to read our study guides. Read Lenin's The State and Revolution, compare and contrasts that with Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed. Alternatively, before going to the classics you can read What is Marxism? by Emile Burns. In this handful of material you will gain a view of what Marxism is capable of. If you take one step further and embrace critique, you will then begin learning and understanding Marxism.
Marxists Internet Achieves, २००९
What does this mean past all the words and definitions? We are judged by our historical practice and our understanding of the past, present, and future. You can find information about our history in the History of Marxism section. You can see an enormous spectrum of our ideas, the vibrance of debate within our movement, in our Marxist Writers archive. You can find a wealth of ideas we find invaluable to understanding, from the Physics of Einstein to the morality of Lao-Tzu, in our Reference Archive. If your mind is on certain subjects, like the women's movement, art, philosophy, etc, look into the Subject Archive. When you come across some term that just doesn't make sense, a word which has a meaning you want to explore or critique, go to our Encyclopedia of Marxism. Lastly, if you love educating people around the world about Marxism as much as we do, feel free to volunteer! :)
Whew! Okay, so there is enough material up there to fill your nearest public library. It is helpful to have an area of concern, a topic of interest, and work from there. :) To start your journey, a grounding in the basics is important! Read a couple of the Selected Works of Marx/Engels, and to better engage these works you may like to read our study guides. Read Lenin's The State and Revolution, compare and contrasts that with Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed. Alternatively, before going to the classics you can read What is Marxism? by Emile Burns. In this handful of material you will gain a view of what Marxism is capable of. If you take one step further and embrace critique, you will then begin learning and understanding Marxism.
Marxists Internet Achieves, २००९
http://www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm, dated,08-04-2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Definition of Social Change
The Definition of Social Change
Jo Hazelhurst
When I looked this up on the internet there were not many variations on the definition of social change. What is lacking is what it might mean practically. So I would like to invite you to make contributions of what it means for you, and how you see these changes making a difference to the lives of your own community.
For now here is a summary of the Wikipedia definition. It defines social structure as:
* change in social structure: the nature, the social institutions, the social behaviour or the social relations of a society, community of people, and so on.
* When behaviour pattern changes, in large numbers and is visible and sustained it results in a social change. Once there is a deviance from culturally inherited values, it may result in a rebellion against the established system, causing a change in the social order.
* any event or action that affects a group of individuals that have shared values or characteristics.* acts of advocacy for the cause of changing society in a normative way (subjective).
Others speak about it as any change that alters cultural or social patterns of a society.
This includes patterns of behavior influenced by a system and people in different social positions in relation to: patterns of modus operandi; the patterns that emerge as a result of belief systems; the goals and aspirations; the communication modes
Another interesting site I found offers visitors a chance to say what they think it means. You may have to wade through some rubbish and vulgarities. Go to Grace.evergreen.edu
What I would be interested to explore is what changes you would like to see in the social structure.
If you were president how would you go about creating change in a social context?
What is the ideal? What is missing? How would we know change has happened? i.e. In order to say change has taken place - enough to change the world - what would need to look and feel different?
Give practical examples. Try to look at it from Wilbur's model. i.e. What would need to change internally and externally in both the individual and the social context?
Jo Hazelhurst
When I looked this up on the internet there were not many variations on the definition of social change. What is lacking is what it might mean practically. So I would like to invite you to make contributions of what it means for you, and how you see these changes making a difference to the lives of your own community.
For now here is a summary of the Wikipedia definition. It defines social structure as:
* change in social structure: the nature, the social institutions, the social behaviour or the social relations of a society, community of people, and so on.
* When behaviour pattern changes, in large numbers and is visible and sustained it results in a social change. Once there is a deviance from culturally inherited values, it may result in a rebellion against the established system, causing a change in the social order.
* any event or action that affects a group of individuals that have shared values or characteristics.* acts of advocacy for the cause of changing society in a normative way (subjective).
Others speak about it as any change that alters cultural or social patterns of a society.
This includes patterns of behavior influenced by a system and people in different social positions in relation to: patterns of modus operandi; the patterns that emerge as a result of belief systems; the goals and aspirations; the communication modes
Another interesting site I found offers visitors a chance to say what they think it means. You may have to wade through some rubbish and vulgarities. Go to Grace.evergreen.edu
What I would be interested to explore is what changes you would like to see in the social structure.
If you were president how would you go about creating change in a social context?
What is the ideal? What is missing? How would we know change has happened? i.e. In order to say change has taken place - enough to change the world - what would need to look and feel different?
Give practical examples. Try to look at it from Wilbur's model. i.e. What would need to change internally and externally in both the individual and the social context?
Social Change
Social Change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social change is a general term which refers to:
change in social structure: the nature, the social institutions, the social behaviour or the social relations of a society, community of people, and so on.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social change is a general term which refers to:
change in social structure: the nature, the social institutions, the social behaviour or the social relations of a society, community of people, and so on.
When behaviour pattern changes, in large numbers and is visible and sustained it results in a social change. Once there is a deviance from culturally inherited values, it may result in a rebellion against the established system, causing a change in the social order.
any event or action that affects a group of individuals that have shared values or characteristics.
acts of advocacy for the cause of changing society in a normative way (subjective).
The term is used in the study of history, economies, and politics, and includes topics such as the success or failure of different political systems, globalization, democratization, development and economic growth. The term can encompass concepts as broad as revolution and paradigm shift, to narrow changes such as a particular cause within small town government. The concept of social change imply measurement of some characteristics of this group of individuals. While the term is usually applied to changes that are beneficial to society, it may result in negative side-effects or consequences that undermine or eliminate existing ways of life that are considered positive.
Social change is a topic in sociology and social work , but also involves political science, economics, history, anthropology, and many other social sciences.
Among many forms of creating social change are theater for social change, direct action, protesting, advocacy, community organizing, community practice, revolution, and political activism.
Models of Change
Hegelian-- The classic Hegelian dialectic model of change is based on the interaction of opposing forces. Starting from a point of momentary stasis, Thesis countered by Antithesis first yields conflict but subsequently results in a new Synthesis.
Kuhnian-- Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argued with respect to the Copernican Revolution that people are unlikey to jettison an unworkable paradigm, despite many indications that the paradigm is not functioning properly, until a better paradigm can be presented.
Heraclitan-- The Greek philosopher Heraclitus used the metaphor of a river to speak of change thus, "On those stepping into rivers staying the same other and other waters flow." (DK22B12) What Heraclitus seems to be suggesting here, later interpretations notwithstanding, is that in order for the river to remain the river change must constantly be taking place. Thus one may think of the Heraclitan model as parallel to that of a living organism, which, in order to remain alive must constantly be changing.
Daoist-- The Chinese philosophical work Dao De Jing, I.8 and II.78 uses the metaphor of water as the ideal agent of change. Water, though soft and yielding, will eventually wear away stone. Change in this model is to be natural, harmonius, and steady, though imperceptible.
References:
Gene Shackman, Ya-Lin Liu and Xun Wang. Measuring quality of life using free and public domain data. Social Research Update, Issue 47, Autumn, 2005. Available at http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/
Cited from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_change, date of citation:02-04-2009.
Social change is a topic in sociology and social work , but also involves political science, economics, history, anthropology, and many other social sciences.
Among many forms of creating social change are theater for social change, direct action, protesting, advocacy, community organizing, community practice, revolution, and political activism.
Models of Change
Hegelian-- The classic Hegelian dialectic model of change is based on the interaction of opposing forces. Starting from a point of momentary stasis, Thesis countered by Antithesis first yields conflict but subsequently results in a new Synthesis.
Kuhnian-- Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions argued with respect to the Copernican Revolution that people are unlikey to jettison an unworkable paradigm, despite many indications that the paradigm is not functioning properly, until a better paradigm can be presented.
Heraclitan-- The Greek philosopher Heraclitus used the metaphor of a river to speak of change thus, "On those stepping into rivers staying the same other and other waters flow." (DK22B12) What Heraclitus seems to be suggesting here, later interpretations notwithstanding, is that in order for the river to remain the river change must constantly be taking place. Thus one may think of the Heraclitan model as parallel to that of a living organism, which, in order to remain alive must constantly be changing.
Daoist-- The Chinese philosophical work Dao De Jing, I.8 and II.78 uses the metaphor of water as the ideal agent of change. Water, though soft and yielding, will eventually wear away stone. Change in this model is to be natural, harmonius, and steady, though imperceptible.
References:
Gene Shackman, Ya-Lin Liu and Xun Wang. Measuring quality of life using free and public domain data. Social Research Update, Issue 47, Autumn, 2005. Available at http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/
Cited from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_change, date of citation:02-04-2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
