pscil
January 29th, 2008, 03:59 AM
Hi
That was a lot of questions and caught me in the middle of my holidays in India.Let me try to answer your questions.
The western system of thought is based on deductive logic and leads to reduction, differentiation, alienation and disassociation. Here mainly logic is treated as supreme, while in actual fact logic is only knowledge which can lead to differentiation but not choice. The freedom of choice is what defines a person and that freedom is based on what action one does. Mind you even a thought is an action because you can hurt someone with your thought more than what you can hurt him with a stone.Thought leads you to action and action leads you to the thoughts all this is self perpetuating.
Matter has always been treated as supreme and dominates mind and therefore all western philosophies have absolutes. This is why each revolution leads to greater anarchy because all absolutes are basically cultures that have been appropriated by the ruling elite to serve them. Aristotle produces a Alexander and Nietzsche produces a Hitler. Philosophy filters events through a preconceived network of cultural, moral and intellectual references and makes no attempt to cut through established cliches.Basically philosophy appropriates the culture.
Indian philosophy has always treated mind over matter. The Heisenberg's principle of subatomic matter behavior being determined by the observer is the ultimate credence to this theory. In this view (unlike the western view which views time as linear) time is nonlinear and your age is determined by how you think.
To come to your question of the books to read. I can say read the gita where you will get different levels of reality, which normally appear as contradictions to people.This is a book beyond absolutes and even an athiest can read it with full pleasure. I hope I have answered some of your questions broadly. There are actually no easy answers and each one has to find his own answers there are on sign posts which you can get.There are no absolutes.
Pritpal Grewal <grewalps@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Hi Parvir,
Good to hear from you, wishing you and yours a very Happy New Year too. Since my college days I have had an interest in philosophy too but didn't get around to doing any reading for a long time. Lately I have read some Nietzsche, Volatire and Plato. Right now I am reading "In the Footsteps fo The Prophet" by Ramadan. What interests me is the distinctions among the various Philosophers even though the ultimate goal is the same (or maybe not?). You seem to be well read so perhaps you can shed some light on why Nietzsche believes the world belongs to the rich and strong, Voltaire seems to say all is for the best, Plato (and Socrates) try to get to the essence of right and wrong without actually getting to it. I have pretty much been an avowed atheist for most of my life and I draw a distinction between spirituality/religion and morality. I do not believe religion is necessary for morality, perhaps humans are weak and they use religion as a crutch to dictate morality. I believe in humanity and the social contract and the person who does good for the sake of good without expectation of a reward, wether in this life or the afterlife is better than one who does good because of the fear of hell or to gain heaven. Of course this leads to the question of what is 'good' and for that I refer you to Plato's 'Euthyphro'. I am writing candidly and I don't believe in religion, however, I do respect the right of others to do so. Live and let live, no offense or hurt feelings intended.
I look forward to hearing from you, and perhaps you can suggest some books on Indian/Eastern philosophy.
That was a lot of questions and caught me in the middle of my holidays in India.Let me try to answer your questions.
The western system of thought is based on deductive logic and leads to reduction, differentiation, alienation and disassociation. Here mainly logic is treated as supreme, while in actual fact logic is only knowledge which can lead to differentiation but not choice. The freedom of choice is what defines a person and that freedom is based on what action one does. Mind you even a thought is an action because you can hurt someone with your thought more than what you can hurt him with a stone.Thought leads you to action and action leads you to the thoughts all this is self perpetuating.
Matter has always been treated as supreme and dominates mind and therefore all western philosophies have absolutes. This is why each revolution leads to greater anarchy because all absolutes are basically cultures that have been appropriated by the ruling elite to serve them. Aristotle produces a Alexander and Nietzsche produces a Hitler. Philosophy filters events through a preconceived network of cultural, moral and intellectual references and makes no attempt to cut through established cliches.Basically philosophy appropriates the culture.
Indian philosophy has always treated mind over matter. The Heisenberg's principle of subatomic matter behavior being determined by the observer is the ultimate credence to this theory. In this view (unlike the western view which views time as linear) time is nonlinear and your age is determined by how you think.
To come to your question of the books to read. I can say read the gita where you will get different levels of reality, which normally appear as contradictions to people.This is a book beyond absolutes and even an athiest can read it with full pleasure. I hope I have answered some of your questions broadly. There are actually no easy answers and each one has to find his own answers there are on sign posts which you can get.There are no absolutes.
Pritpal Grewal <grewalps@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Hi Parvir,
Good to hear from you, wishing you and yours a very Happy New Year too. Since my college days I have had an interest in philosophy too but didn't get around to doing any reading for a long time. Lately I have read some Nietzsche, Volatire and Plato. Right now I am reading "In the Footsteps fo The Prophet" by Ramadan. What interests me is the distinctions among the various Philosophers even though the ultimate goal is the same (or maybe not?). You seem to be well read so perhaps you can shed some light on why Nietzsche believes the world belongs to the rich and strong, Voltaire seems to say all is for the best, Plato (and Socrates) try to get to the essence of right and wrong without actually getting to it. I have pretty much been an avowed atheist for most of my life and I draw a distinction between spirituality/religion and morality. I do not believe religion is necessary for morality, perhaps humans are weak and they use religion as a crutch to dictate morality. I believe in humanity and the social contract and the person who does good for the sake of good without expectation of a reward, wether in this life or the afterlife is better than one who does good because of the fear of hell or to gain heaven. Of course this leads to the question of what is 'good' and for that I refer you to Plato's 'Euthyphro'. I am writing candidly and I don't believe in religion, however, I do respect the right of others to do so. Live and let live, no offense or hurt feelings intended.
I look forward to hearing from you, and perhaps you can suggest some books on Indian/Eastern philosophy.