Nothing can impede the path of social change whether it is in right way or wrong. Crisis is the catalyst for social dynamism. Fourteenth century Europeans were facing a situation full of crisis. Social life was too difficult, and doing any new things was as challenging as death penalty. So called Pop, the God’s seraph, were exerting cruelty over people. However, people did not end the way of challenging God rather they struggled against Pops. This challenge to God in the time of renaissance is conceived as rise of Humanism. All the norms and prejudices, pre-established in the name of God, Church, and Pops, what all were causing difficulty in human life, were attacked in mass.
Humanism
is an approach that emphasizes the importance of human interests rather than sacrificing
to God. Until this century, so many
theories have been developed about Humanism, and the human history has witnessed…
John
Rawls (1921-2002) stands in, the exactly opposite pole with Marx, the
liberalist standpoint and the social contract tradition, of which Marx has
criticized immensely. Nevertheless, conventional
liberal society is also unfit to Rawls as he stands very closely with Marxism
in many respects. Viewing from his
contemporary Nozick’s viewpoint, he seems to be very intimate with Marxism, and
viewing form Marxist tradition, he seems to be one of the main charioteers of
Capitalism. However, if we observe Rawls
objectively, he seems to be a great respondent of Marxism in order to sustain
Capitalism solving its problems raised by Marxism.
Key
words:
Marxism,
Distribution, Inequality, Exploitation, Liberty, Justice as Fairness, Capitalism,
Original Position, Veil of Ignorance
Marxist Problem:
Marxism
is a teleological viewpoint, which tends to reach the communism through
socialist revolution. It is not a theory
developed at once. It was developed in a
long period and hence there is somehow contradiction within itself too, because
its developer Karl Marx and Frederick Engels lived in a crucial historical
periods, being influenced differently. Marxism was greatly influenced from
1830’s and 1848’s revolution, and 1852’s takeover by monarch -happened in
France. Somehow, Marx and Engels were influenced
from 1789’s French revolution either positively or negatively. Among three slogans – liberty, equality, and
fraternity raised in 1789’s revolution, it seems that Marxism had a great faith
upon equality as much as its opponent liberalist’s faith upon liberty. Both the
tradition somehow attempts to harmonize liberty and equality. However, none has become successful to
harmonize either theoretically or practically and it is still controversial in
politics as to which should be prioritized if there is contradiction between
liberty and equality.
It
is obvious that Marxism prioritize equality.
We can see it in the light of Marx’s critiques on Natural Right. For Marx, liberty is the secondary things
that must go on without affecting equality.
If it goes on uncontrolled, then liberty becomes means of inequality
because it gives property right which later yields the situation, in which few
people captures large amount of property.
On
the other hand, Marxism does not deny liberty, and if there is no liberty, even
Marxist revolution is impossible. In
other words, Marxism tends to find place for liberty guaranteed by equality. If there is no equality, liberty becomes
means of exploitation. Communism is that
state of society, which is based upon equality.
It preserves only that amount of liberty, which cannot be means of
exploitation.
However,
before deciding to establish the communist society, Marx tends to find out as
to what the main problem existing in contemporary society is. As for the problem, it seems that there are
two Marxism; early Marxism attempting to overcome alienation, and later Marxism
attempting to overcome exploitation.
Early Marx’s problem: Alienation
As
a Young Hegelian, Marx was highly influenced by Hegel. Hegel had introduced the concept of
Alienation. According to Hegel,
alienation is failure of subject to identify object. Moreover, it is the failure of the will of
the individual to identify with the larger will of society. It is the disintegration process of society. Marx changed the Hegel’s ontological
explanation of alienation into socio-economic context. According to Marx in his Economic and
Philosophic Manuscripts (1844), human alienation in capitalism takes mainly
four forms: Man is alienated a) from the product of his work, b) from the act
of his producing, c) from his own social nature, and d) from his fellow men.
a)
Worker alienate from the product because his products exist independent of him,
as something alien to him. Strangers use
his products as their own private property.
Worker’s products do not belong to him.
More he produces, less he gets as wages.
Then he also becomes a cheaper commodity.
b)
Worker alienates from his own producing activity because he cannot determine
his own interest or creativity. Producing
is not for his use rather for other. Slightly
worker finds himself as a mechanical machine.
c)
When one feels himself as machine, he cannot find himself fitted in human
culture. He acts only to get wages to satisfy his personal physical needs.
d)
Last form of alienation is that he gets other people as competitor with him. So he alienates from his fellow man.
For
early Marx, this problem of alienation is the main problem, which has to be overcome.
Mature Marx’s problem: Exploitation?
Marx
was greatly influenced from the 19th century’s development in
science. So, the Marx, after publication
of Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844), indulged into the
scientific explanation of society, being rigorously influenced from Darwin’s
theory of Evolution and escaping out from Hegelian ontological language. Marx tended to interpret social history as like
as how Darwin interpreted biological history.
Another
influence on later Marx was from Ludwig Feuerbach, who supplied the
materialistic interpretation of world, according to which, matter is the
ultimate stuff. Nevertheless,
Marx did not accept the Feuerbach’s rigid mechanistic materialism. Marx’s matter is
dynamic and always progressive. This is
because Marx had to show as to how man creates history,
culture, society, and economy. His basic
conviction was that man is the creator of history and not a slave of
circumstances. Marx’s such view
contradicts with his own philosophy not only when
he criticizes Natural Rights but also in many other points.
Mature
Marx holds quite opposite standpoint than Hegel, however Marx has not been
escaped away from Hegelian way of explaining ‘truth as whole‘. Marx borrows the ‘Dialectical’ Method, from
Hegel, for the interpretation of development of history. One important thing here is that Marxist
Dialecticism is, somehow, opposite to Hegelian dialecticism. In Hegel’s theory, Thesis (X) gets Antithesis
(Y). Y exists externally outside X. Now, Antithesis (X) negates Y. Having negated
Y, X is synthesized yielding another idea (Z).
Z contains the tenable parts of both X and Y and then Z negates both X
and Y. This is called Negation of
Negation and this is how evolution occurs in Hegelian philosophy; while in
Marx’s view, it is not necessary for X to be negated by Y. The negative element may not be always
external rather it is mostly internal. That
means, a single Marxist metaphysical matter (X) contains opposite element
within itself or there are X+ and X– within one X.
This way, Marx develops a Philosophical method called ‘Dialectical Materialism’, according to which, dynamic matter is the ultimate reality, whole universe whether mental or non-mental are expression and evolution of matter, and matter evolves dialectically, even the creative human consciousness is nothing more than a byproduct of material evolution.
In
the light of Dialectical Materialism, Marx develops an approach called
Historical Materialism, according to which, matter is the driving force of
history. When matter evolves as a man –
a conscious being, having empirical power with physical hands, it becomes a crucial
departure of natural history towards human history. Man invents labor by using hands. Laborhood
distinguishes man from animal. For many
philosophers, human is different with animal by
virtue of reason.
However, Marx holds, the very different idea, that the main
distinction between man and animal is laborhood. Laborhood makes the life systematic and
decrease the anxiety for food. Developing
laborhood, human being become able to gather food, which can be used in crisis
or any time at future. Men do not need
to wander for food every day. During this progress and separation of
human from animal, men start settlement as well as begin agricultural farming,
and animal feeding. Subsequently, men
increase the volume of labor so that life would become systematic. While
systematizing life, their needs were also increasing. Not everyone could become able to produce
whatever he or she would need. Thus,
people set out exchanging produced things and commodities in order to fulfill
their needs. Thereby, production gets
the exchange value, whereas there was only use value of product
before starting exchange. The invention of exchange becomes the
crucial departure of primitive society into the way of raising exploitation. When there was
only use value, men used to collect and produce the commodity solely to fulfill
own immediate need.
By the invention of exchange value, men increased production so
that they could collect more things in order to sustain their life. It increased
the greed; they started to capture natural means as like as their own property. This way, almost natural means of production
came in hand of strong people and those who could not capture the natural means
of production became mere means of production as slaves of strong people. Since then, two classes, owners and slaves,
formed in society.
This
way, society got the economic structure, in which there is relation between
human beings and nature. Humankind have labor
energy, nature provides means or raw materials to be modified and to be produced
as new exchangeable things by labor. This
relation is called Force of Production. Besides this, there is also another
relation built on between human and human, either as owner and slaves or as any
other form, which is called Relation of Production. This Force of Production and Relation of
Production is collectively known as Modes of Production.
Since
Modes of Production includes all factors of social life, it is the foundation
of society and hence regarded as Base Structure of society.
It
is already mentioned that when means of production are gathered within the
hands of limited strong people, two different classes, slaves and owner, form
in the Base Structure of primitive society.
Owner class creates many rules and institution in order to preserve, to
increase their business and property, and to continue the exploitation of
slaves. They create different cultural
and moral values, laws, and state. These
are called Superstructure of society.
Now the superstructure tends to determine and control Mode of Production
(or Base structure). The class struggle
and many quantitative and qualitative changes in Mode of Production also change
the Superstructure. This process occurs
in dialectical form. (Since the
limitation of this paper, here I am going to close the process of class
struggle and social change.)
When
society (Base and Superstructure) arrive at Capitalist system by Class struggle
in Feudal System, Superstructure becomes much powerful. In the Capitalist system, workers produce the
goods but productions are used and sold by others. Workers do not have control over their own
production. Let
us consider, when workers produce commodities, owner of industry sales it for
200 Rupees, provided 60 Rupees wages to workers, and another 60 rupees for the
cost of raw materials, then production cost becomes 120 Rupees, and another 60
Rupees becomes profit in the hand of Capital owner of industry. According to
Marx, this 60 Rupees profit is the Surplus Value. Workers do not have any right upon surplus
value though it was his production. The
Capital owner’s property is increased by surplus value but Worker can just
sustain his life by the wages. This increases the gap of inequality,
and in Marxist view, it is high level of exploitation when worker looses
everything and become proletariat. This
exploitation is the main problem, of mature Marxism, as to how to distribute
that surplus value and means of production equally among the base structure of
society.
Unequal
distribution: same problem for both Marx
Though there are two problems in Marxism
(or there are two Marxism), both have the same cause and that is unequal
distribution of means of Production. The
unequal distribution of means of production forms two classes in society: Haves
and Have nots or Capitalist and Proletariat. Means of production along with
political power gathers in the hand of one upper class who suppresses the lower
worker or proletariat class. Marxism
tends to end the system of that unequal distribution.
Therefore,
Capitalist Society is Unjust
Marx
was not ethicist and he has not paid much attention to ethical question. In the history
of western philosophy, Justice is mostly an ethical issue. If we need to connect Marxist theory with
ethics, it seems that justice is “getting from society according to one’s need”. There is a
famous dictum (or somehow a slogan of communism) that “One should
contribute to society according to her/his ability, and s/he must get from
society according to her/his need”.
This slogan emphasizes duty as well as right (of state and individual), also,
gives clue about justice and injustice. It
is injustice if people do not get anything from society according to their need. Marxism
insists that, in the Capitalism, proletariat people are not getting from
society according to their need though they have contributed according to their
ability because what they should have to get has been gathered in the hands of
very few rich bourgeois people. This
unequal distribution of means of production makes the society unjust. In other word, there is injustice in society because worker class has been exploited from
their basic right. So, according to Marxism, capitalist society is always unjust because
it exploits weakest section of society by unequal
distribution of means of production and produced goods too.
This
unjust Capitalist system must be overthrown by the class struggle of
proletariat. Class struggle happens as
socialist revolution. By the success of
socialist revolution, exploited sector conquer the superstructure of society, then
they will distribute all means of production according to need of people.
Rawlsian Problem
John
Rawls’s problem is very much similar with mature Marxist problem. However, his liberty principle prevented him
from being Marxist. In his writings,
Rawls does not analyze much about Marxism. Regarding the problem, he is somehow very
close towards Marxism whereas regarding the solution; he seems extremely far
from Marxism. Here, I will see as to how
Rawls comes towards Marxism and how he goes beyond Marxism.
Yes indeed! the problem is unequal
distribution
For
Marx, the great problem is the superstructure of society that conserves unequal distribution in base structure, which later leads to
exploitation and alienation. Rawls does
not deny the Marxist claims insofar as there is
unequal distribution in society that leads to inequality in every aspect of
life. For Rawls, only one thing that
makes society unjust is the inequality.
It is that reality pervading in every society of the globe. The difference
between Marxism and Rawlsianism, here, is former goes beyond inequality and
looks upon superstructure preserving exploitation as the main problem while
later rests on inequality that leads injustice.
Hence, Rawls finds out injustice as the main problem. Making society just by eliminating inequality
is the main objective of Rawlsian theory.
Yes
indeed! Capitalism creates the problem
As
like as Marxism, the interesting thing in Rawls is he accepts the argument that
Capitalism is the main source of inequality. Rawls explicitly argues that
inequality is the result of liberal capitalist system, which badly affects the
weakest and poorest section of society. Nonetheless, Rawls belongs to Capitalist
tradition and he is not against it while Marxism stands quite opposite of
capitalism.
Then,
overcoming Inequality or unequal distribution created by Capitalism is the main
objective for both philosophers, but how to overcome is the challenging question
that has been answered by Marx and Rawls both in their own way.
One
way of overcoming inequality will be the ending of Capitalist system that has
been extremely advocated by Marxism. According to Marxism, we need to
concern on root cause rather than on outwardly appeared things. Capitalism is
the root cause of inequality and hence removal of Capitalism results the end of
inequality.
However,
Rawls is not Marxist, he is not against Capitalism. He has to end inequality
preserving its cause (Capitalism). How
can we stop the product keeping its cause alive is the logically very difficult
question that Rawls has to answer. Hence, Rawls has more challenge than that of
Marx, and somehow he has succeeded it.
But Justice is possible even in Capitalism
To
reduce the complexity, Rawls somehow modifies the problem. His theory seems to be an answer to the question – how to make Capitalism just overcoming
inequality? Marxist philosophy seems like answer to the question- how to
end inequality. Both questions have the
same meaning but yield the different ways to overcome inequality. The question, which Rawls answers, seems like
how to improve Capitalism in order to overcome inequality or in order to
maintain justice and the question which Marx answers seems to be how to eliminate
Capitalism in order to bring equality ending exploitation. This way, two options emerge in order to
overcome particular problem-inequality raised by particular system Capitalism. One option is
Marxist’s option and another is Rawlsian. In a
simple way, Rawlsian option seems to be Improvement of Capitalism that has been
explained extensively in his “Theory of Justice (1971)”, according to
which it is possible to overcome inequality or to make society just even in Capitalist
system, and we do not need to eradicate Capitalism.
Moreover,
in order to show how possibility of achieving justice in Capitalist system, Rawls distinguishes inequality in two ways: one is
negative and another is positive. In the negative way, inequality is that which badly affects
the poorest and weakest people of society.
It harms their development making tough
competition and exploitation.
Nevertheless, in positive way, inequality
is just if it helps poorest and weakest section of the society. For Rawls, positive inequality
is just and negative inequality is not. Unjust
inequality degrades the people, so it must be eliminated
and just inequality benefits the people and it must keep up. In society, there
is not merely negative impact of inequality, we can find the positive effect of
inequality in many respects and hence Capitalism per se is not problematic
rather the problem is how to make negative inequality just. According to Rawls, fair distribution of all
social values makes inequality beneficial.
Distributive
Justice:
Rawls
thinks that in any society, there must be fair distribution of social values
that is called distributive justice. Social values such as liberty, opportunities,
income and wealth (mostly, Rawls focuses on these four values) must be
distributed equally. If there is no equal distribution
of such social value, that situation of inequality will be unjust. However, in practical
life, sometimes it becomes impossible to distribute social values
equally. According to Rawls, if there is
such value that cannot be distributed equally, that must be justified.
For
Rawls, justified inequality means such inequalities which helps to poorest
people of society. That means if
inequality uplifts the have nots group, then it is justifiable. So, justified inequality, here, is nothing
but a positive aspect of inequality that I have already explained.
Now,
Rawls modifies theory because he is not overcoming inequality at all. What he
is doing is making society just and any inequality that helps society to be
just is acceptable. This is the Rawlsian
point of departure from traditional and Marxist conviction of inequality.
In
other words, Rawls insists on “fair distribution” rather than on equality. Fair
distribution is nothing but the way by which we can justify unequal
distribution, or the way by which we can make unequal distribution in favor of
poor people.
However,
for the fair distribution of social values, we need some principles and rules. According to Rawls, peoples in original
position come together with the veil of ignorance and decide the principle for
the fair distribution of social values.
Original
Position and Veil of Ignorance
To
be a society, just and fair principles are needed, that just and fair principle
should be acceptable for all members of the society. So, people make consensus about the
basic principles which governs the society. Moreover, to be a just and fair society, even
the principles must be fair. According
to Rawls, representatives of society come together and decide such fair and
just principle.
However,
problems arise when people come together and debate to form just and fair
principles. Problem is that strong
people want principle that favors strong section of society, similarly
marginalized, weak, and poor people wants a principle that favors them. It means people of particular status want to
fulfill their own interest that may not be just for people of other status.
Rawls
wants to establish society based on just and fair principles but it becomes
difficult because of people’s own interest.
Then
he assumes a condition on which people would not prioritize their own interest,
or the principles made by people would be just and fair for all. That condition is known as original
position on which people decides the principle for their society being in veil
of ignorance. Here, original
position is not a historical point rather it is a hypothetical situation. It is
solely imaginary assumption or the thought
experiment of Rawls. Veil of ignorance means people in original
position will be unaware about their own status; they will be unknown about
what would be their position in future society.
In the original position where people gather to promulgate just and fair
principles in order to make society just and fair, people of rich section will
not know that in which section they will belong to in the newly established
society, similarly poor will not know either they belong to rich section or
poor section. Then it will be situation
of bearing risk for everyone. In the newly establishing society, anyone will be
either rich or poor, either strong or weak. Everyone will have fear that they
might be poor and weak. Then none will make principles that benefit the certain
class of society.
Viewing
in Indian context, if people gathered to form a just and fair society, they
must be in veil of ignorance about whether they belongs to Brahmin or Shudra,
whether they belong to Hindu or Muslim, whether they belong to Sikh or Jain,
whether they belong to poor or rich class.
Then
in this situation, whatever the principle they promulgate, that will be fair
and just for all.
However
one things Rawls emphasize is that veil of ignorance does not mean being
totally ignorant of anything. People in
original position with veil of ignorance do not know merely their status, that
is to say, what will be their status in the society, which section of society
they will occupy. People do not know the
things related to them, they do not know their own sectarian interests. Nevertheless, they know certain basic facts
or proved condition such as science, society, economy, polity etc. They will have knowledge of what is society,
what is politics, what things people need to be in just and fair condition and
so on.
Illustration:
Let
us consider two people A and B.
They just got a piece of Gold while moving on the road. A first saw the Gold and he shown it to
B. B took it. Then the controversy
occurred in between them about who have the ownership on that Gold. A claimed he had seen first, so he has
right on that Gold and B also claimed he caught the gold first, so he is
the owner of that gold. To get rid of such controversy, they made a consensus
that B will cut the gold into two pieces, and A will choose any
piece freely out of two. Now if B
cuts the gold making one piece small and another large, A will choose large
piece. Here B is in veil of
ignorance as to which piece he would get though he is going to cut; also, A
is in veil of ignorance as to how B would cut. Then the only one possibility is that B
will cut into equal part because if he cut making it different weight, A
chooses larger one. So in veil of
ignorance, both get equal. It means
people choose that principle which will be equally justifiable and fair for
all.
Comparing
to the Marxism, this situation is, entirely, opposite. Because Marxist proletariats know of their
status and they will have revenge with capitalist. Proletariats choose that principle-beneficial
for them, and futile for capitalist.
Two
Principles of Justice
Rawls
explicate about the principle, which people in original position will choose
under veil of ignorance. According to
him, they will choose two principles as follows.
First
Principle: Liberty Principle
Second
Principle: a) Equal Opportunity Principle and
b)
Difference Principle
Such
principles will be chosen regardless of anyone’s status.
First
Principle: Liberty Principle
People
under veil of ignorance in original position agree that everyone must have
equal political liberty. Justice is impossible in absence of political
liberty. That liberty includes the freedom of thought
and expression, right to acquire property, freedom of participating in
political activities, and so on. It has the two aspects; on the one hand,
there will be equal liberty for all and on the other
hand, whatever amount of freedom I have, other must get that. It means I will not want more freedom than others will.
Second
Principle:
In
this point, Rawls is very controversial and implicit. However, his whole theory based upon this principle.
Above
in 4.3 and 4.3.1, I have mentioned that Rawls does not deny the existence of inequality. Though
his objective is to overcome inequality, he looks on equality on the frame of fairness within the capitalist system. That means he
endeavors to justify the inequality of capitalism or he looks for the way of
fairness. He argues that inequality is
just if it is open to all and if it benefits
all. Inequality, that is open to all
means that all will have equal opportunity, inequality benefits all means that
people of difference class will be able to gain the advantages of that
inequality. These
two assumptions are the ways by which Rawls justifies inequality or he shows
how the society in capitalist system with inequality can have fairness and
justice. Let us see each aspect
separately:
Equal
Opportunity Principle:
This
is the condition when inequalities become open to all. That means people are opened to choose and
utilize their opportunity. So, this
principle claims that if there is equal opportunity to all or opportunities are
open to all, then that society is just and fair.
Let
us consider two people X and Y. X is from Bihar and Y is from Mumbai. Y is teacher
in Mumbai University who earns 70,000 Rupees per month and X is a taxi driver
who earns 20,000 Rupees per month. Now
there is income gap of 50,000 Rupees between X and Y. According to Rawls, this situation is
just and fair though it is unequal but if and only if there was equal
opportunity for both X and Y. That means
if there was opportunity open to X to be teacher and if he did not choose, that
is not fault of capitalist system. Such
inequalities are justifiable.
However,
it is not always the case that both X and Y had same opportunity. There might have had other source of inequality
that determined such gaps. Therefore, for Rawls, inequality is
not acceptable without considering the terms and conditions or sources.
Rawls
has discussed mainly three sources of inequality in the society, which are as follows:
a)
Legal Inequality: In the society, there might be some
already existed laws which close the door for opportunities. For example, in India studying Vedas by
female and shudras were prohibited until medieval historical age that made such
people incapable of living standard life. Still in many countries, women are
prohibited to do various jobs such as military work, driving etc. In above illustration, if X from Bihar were
prohibited either to study or to choose any other opportunity that made him
lower than Y, then this situation is unjust.
Rawls extremely argues that legal inequality can never be justifiable
and fair; it must be relinquished from society.
b)
Inequality by Birth Status: Mostly, birth status
determines our capabilities. Anyone born in USA will get much opportunity than
who born in India, similarly X might have had less opportunity in Bihar and Y
might have had more opportunity in Mumbai, X might have had to go in such a school
where the teaching quality were not good, or there might have had poverty in
family which made him unable to go school, Y might have had family support for
education, then Y became teacher and X could not. Such
a situation creates income gap amidst people. According to Rawls, that type of
inequality must be eliminated because it makes people unable to choose
opportunity.
c)
Inequality by Personal talent and effort: Now, if X’s mind
was dull and he had not interest in education,
if Y’s talent were better, if both of them chose their opportunity without resistance of legal and birth status inequality, then
according to Rawls, such a situation is just and
fair.If anyone gainsmuch
by her own talent without affecting other, such inequality cannot be removed.
In
this way, Rawls justifies the inequality and lead the way as to how capitalism
can be fair and just.
Difference
Principle:
Difference
principle is another aspect of Rawls’ second principle of Justice. According to this principle, the capitalist
society is just if and only if the inequalities benefit all. If it is not supportive to poorest and
weakest people, it can never be just and fair.
The word ‘difference’ simply means income gap here.
one
very important things which throws Rawls from conservative capitalism is that
he insists on having such an institution which
must play role to minimize the income gap between X and Y. That institution is the government. This is
because he has already held that inequality must be supportive to poorest and
weakest class in order to be a society fair and just. Government should have tax from Y or
rich and that should be invested to create the opportunity for poor class or X. He arrived at this point because the source
of inequality is not always talent and effort; rather mostly, it occurs by
legal discrimination and birth status. So,
state must have objective of welfare for all.
Rawls’ such concept of welfare state has been much criticized by
conservative capitalist, and his justification of inequality has been much
criticized by communists.
In
the context of India, provision of reservation quota comes under Rawls’ such
concept because Indian Government is distributing social values or income (by
tax) to the backward class so as to make poor people able to choose
opportunity.
This
concept is also against the Marxist concept of distribution because Marx
insists upon equal distribution of all income and surplus value, which is not
acceptable for Rawls. In Rawls’s view, some amount of surplus value can be
distributed taking as tax by government to uplift those who are suffering from
legal and birth status inequalities, but all amount of surplus value and income
cannot be distributed because there is also labor and effort of rich.
Though there is equality, Marxism is Unjust Because of absence
of Liberty, which is 1st priority to be just. Therefore, Capitalist
liberalism is needed to maintain liberty:
Marx
concludes that capitalism is unjust, because it exploits working class people
by unequal distribution of production and means of production. In order to get rid of such inequality, Marx
arrives at the position that capitalism must be eliminated from the society. However, Rawls has the conviction that
Inequality can be justified even in capitalism by the fair distribution of
social values using the principles determined by people in original position
under the veil of ignorance. Rawls shows the way
as to how to make inequality beneficial for least advantaged. Reason behind why Rawls explored such
indirect way to overcome inequality clarifies as to why Marxism is unjust even
though it attempts to establish egalitarian society.
For Rawls, if there is conflict between these two principles of justice, he gives priority to first principle or the liberty principle. Secondly, he prioritizes to the second aspect of second principle that is Difference Principle, and he places first aspect of second principle that is Equal opportunity principle in third priority.
Hierarchy :-
1. Liberty Principle
2. Difference Principle
3. Equal opportunity Principle
Rawls maintains, if there is no
liberty, then Justice, fair distribution and equality is impossible. Nevertheless, this
is quite opposite idea for Marx. Marx
conceives that, liberty or any kind of Natural right leads to exploitation
because liberty yields property right, then there will be competition in
bourgeois society to capture property, in such a condition, only mighty people
captures the property. Collection of
property or means of production in the hand of few mighty leads inequality. Therefore, liberty can never be just as per
Marxism.
Rawls opposes such Marxist idea
claiming that society without liberty will destroy the person’s ability. In addition, equal distribution of liberty to
all gives rise to every people’s own ability and inequality occurred by talent
and effort is just. A loop hole, Rawls
left here, is state can take tax for the welfare of poor though the inequality
is due to mental talent.
Conclusion:
Viewing
much similarity in the problems, which Rawls and Marx addresses, It can be
supposed that Rawls might have had respect to Marxism, although he did not show
up clearly. He might have had fear with
conservative capitalist world. Or, he
might have had to investigate better way to harmonize liberty and equality,
which never existed harmoniously in his predecessor’s view.
His view on equality is somehow in equilibrium position within
Marxist and Liberalist divided line. He
does not show up extremely at any pole.
Marx
seeks to eliminate injustice by revolution against capitalism while Rawls seeks
to make capitalism just improving its way of distribution. Marx is revolutionary
while Rawls is improver. For
Marx, only that society is just if and only if it ensures equality, or Marxism
insists on equality rather than on liberty while for Rawls only
that society is just if it ensures liberty and then equality, or Rawls insists
on liberty rather than on equality. Inequality by talent and effort is just in
Rawls view. Marxist justice seems solely for proletariat while Rawlsian justice
is for all without class discrimination and struggle. Marxist justice will be
attained by violent class struggle and thereafter proletariat dictatorship
while Rawlsian justice will be accomplished by Good Governance or welfare
state. At last one things must be left is that Rawls’s view on distribution of
social values seems very nearer to the Marxist view of distribution of Surplus
Value. Rawls’s view on compensating birth created inequality by welfare state keeps
him very close with Marxist critique of property right and distribution of
means of production. Therefore, John
Rawls, a philosopher of liberalism seems to be a respondent of Marxism and it
also seems that he is an interpreter of Marxism in Capitalist language.
Bibliography:
Collected writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin,
Stalin, Mao, Dialectical Materialism
and Historical Materialism: Fundamental Theories of Marxism, (Editor:
Ramesh Sunuwar) Pragati Pustak Sadan, Kathmandu
Rawls,
John, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, ed. Erin Kelly, Harvard
University Press, 2001
Rawls, John, A
Theory of Justice, rev. ed., Harvard University Press, 1999
Marx, Karl, Frederic Engels, Communist
Manifesto, [Nepali Edition]
There is no any problem in Modern Western Philosophy that is so largely debated than Mind-Body Problem. Rene Descartes, Father of Modern Philosophy was the founder of Mind-Body Dualism, which is also called Cartesian Dualism. By the foundationalist epistemological approach, Descartes recognizes the distinct and independent existence of Mind (Soul) and Body (External to Mind or Matter), clearly and distinctly, by using reasoning as source of knowledge.
Descartes’ project on philosophy is to find out the exact axiomatic truth. As a mathematician, he looks into the accurate philosophical axiom, as in Geometry, which is self-evident ipso facto and can never be falsified. For Descartes, Reasoning power of Mind is the proper source of Knowledge. His whole philosophy presupposes the basic assumptions that Human intelligence has the capacity of obtaining exact knowledge of Reality, and has the capacity of distinguishing Truth and falsity. Such presupposition is called Natural Light of Reason that all men have. Moreover, he believes that human intelligence has two kind of activity; Intuition and deduction. Intuitive knowledge is self-evident; deduction needs to have logical validity. Deduction presupposes intuition and in ordinary level, we may not have proper apprehension of intuitive knowledge. So, we need to investigate the self-evident Intuitive knowledge until when criteria of truth is not satisfied. Clarity and Distinctness are the criteria of truth. Method of investigation for that clear and distinct truth is ‘to doubt’. So, according to him, we need to doubt until when we don’t find out clear and distinct idea. Such clear and distinct idea must have the mathematical nature of universality as self-evident axiom. Method of doubt is performed by intuitive action of intelligence. Sense experience and brain functioning cannot yield the accurate knowledge. Hence, giving priority to Natural Light of Reason as exact source of knowledge, his epistemology is called Rationalism.
Descartes philosophical method of doubt ends after identifying Mind-Body and God three substance as clear and distinct idea. God is not the subject matter of this paper and hence, this paper is intended to review Descartes’ Dualistic Mind-Body approach, its problem, responses and critiques.
Key Words: Cogito ergo sum, Mind-Body Dualism, Res Cogitans,
Interactionism, Parallelism, Occasionalism
Cartesian Dualism
In his book, Meditation on first
Philosophy, Descartes sets outhis philosophical investigation from
doubting. He finds out that nothing in
the world is doubtless that is why all material things surrounding his sensory
ability appears to be fiction of his Mind.
Having doubted all things in the first Meditation, Descartes
hopes to look for one thing that is certain and indubitable as like as Archimedean
fixed and immovable point. However, he
assumes that an evil demon is deceiving him.
He says, “It is possible that all knowledge of external object
including my body could be false as the result of the action of evil deceiver.” Nevertheless, even when he is deceived, one
remarkable point is that there is something existing that thinks about being
deceived by evil demon. Thought of evil
demon must have the reason or one thing, which has not been deceived, is the
thought of deceiver. For doubting, there
must be existing thing that is able to doubt.
Further he says, “it is not however possible that I could be
deceived about my existence or my nature as thinking thing.” This way, he concludes that the thing that
has been deceived and thinks about being deceived by demon must be he himself. In other words, it is doubtless that he is
thinking of something (deceiver). So he
conceives himself as thinking thing.
Again, he says, “I find here that thought is an attribute that
belongs to me, it alone cannot be separated from me. I am, I exist, that is certain.” Moreover, “I am however a real thing and
really exists but what thing? I have
answered a thing which thinks.”
This was the crucial point attained by
Descartes in philosophical history when he recognizes himself that, “I
think, therefore I am (Cogito ergo sum)” as a self-evident axiom. He finds his Mind as a thinking thing;
however, evil demon did not go away of him, as he is unknown of his body.
Descartes elaborates the existence of body by Wax Argument. When he heated the solid wax, that melted and then loosed all property, which wax had in solid state and the property remained same in melted and solid state was the extension in spatiality.
In this way, Descartes established the clear and distinct idea of Mind as thinking thing (res cogitans) and Body or all the matter as extended thing (res extensa) very certainly. Both are independent of each other. Proof of the Mind follows solely the process of intuition whereas proof of matter follows intuition and then deduction too. Since no need of deduction for proving Mind and since necessity of Mind for deduction of material existence and property, he concludes that Mind is undoubtedly known than body.
Mind as Res Cogitans
According to Descartes, Mind as a thinking thing is that that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, also imagines and feels. It does not have any other attribute besides thinking. He explains some substantial nature of Mind too, such as self-evidentiality, clearness, distinctness, indivisible, plural or quantitatively in large number etc. Descartes’ Mind can be viewed from two sights, one is realist, and another is idealist. From the realist point of view, Mind exists as a substance. From idealist point of view, ideas or consciousness is identical with Mind or there is no duality between Mind and its content. In philosophy of consciousness, idealistic view has more utility.
Consciousness also has two modes: 1) Ideas, and 2) Will Idea also has three different types: Innate, Adventitious, and fictitious. Judgment, feelings, desire, emotions etc. are some sorts of ‘Will’.
Mind has complete free-will. God or any other power and physical matter cannot intervene it.
Consciousness in Cartesian
conception is not just awareness; rather all sorts of emotive and rational
thinking belong to it. Consciousness is mode of thinking and mode of Mind
both. It is identical to Mind that means
there is no duality between Mind and its consciousness. Conscious Mode of Mind has two dimensions,
one is idea, and another is ‘will’. ‘Will’
includes all psychological urges that governs Brain such as emotion,
aesthetical awareness, feeling, volition, desires and so on and it happens only
when Mind is in contact with Body although these are the intrinsic attributes
of Mind. Consciousness is controversial
in Cartesian philosophy because he does not explain it separately. Idea is another Mode of Mind, some ideas are intrinsic,
and some are Adventitious. Innate idea
such as idea of God is the intrinsic idea of Mind. Ideas of external world are Adventitious
ideas. Descartes has also considered fictitious
ideas that are imaginary and illusive. Some
fictitious ideas may be intrinsic and some may be adventitious because it
always does not represent the externally existed things.
Response to Mind-Body Problem
On the one hand,
Descartes says that the Mind is an independently thinking thing, which has
innate ideas, and on the other hand, he says that Mind bears the adventitious
ideas too. How Mind bears the
adventitious ideas being unaffected from any other existence or how the
knowledgeable relation can be established between two completely different and
unrelated things is the crucial question in History of Modern Philosophy, which
had been raised even in his time and still raising without adequate solution.
Descartes
replies this question proposing Mind is interactive with body through Pineal
gland. As a physiologist, such
understanding may be remarkable on his time but in this day, such response is
not satisfiable to anyone.
Arnold Geulinex
proposed occassionalism as a solution to such questions. It is a type of theistic determinism and it
accepts Mind-Body dualism in same fashion of Descartes. According to this, ‘Will’ of Mind provides
occasion to the sense impression to impress Mind. This is because both substances are under the
harmony governed by God. But it is not
at all condition that our Mind catches the ideas after providing occasion by
desire of ‘will’, Many ideas, like pain which we don’t want to feel also come
in our Mind. Hence, even Geulinex’s
occassionalism is not satisfiable.
Nicholas
Malebranche responds Mind-Body Dualism turning it towards Idealism. Malebranche
doubted on the independent existence of Body.
According to him, only ideas are intelligible and ideas are God’s
possession, not of extending matter.
Spinoza responds
Mind-Body dualism as a two intelligible aspect of God. He says, God has the infinite aspect, however
we can apprehend only res cogitans and res extensa, these are not different
things, rather both are manifestation of same God, and hence, as aspect of same
God, interaction is not matter of problem.
Spinoza’s such pantheistic argument is called Parallelism.
Conclusion:
Descartes turned
medieval philosophy to the rational approach.
His foundation of Mind-Body dualism is not only an attempt of defining
metaphysical reality, rather it is the question left for next generation
regarding the Mind-Body relation. For
him, Mind is identical with consciousness and he does not have explained about
consciousness separately. By his
explanation of Mind, consciousness is the summation of innate idea,
adventitious idea, fictitious idea, and will.
How consciousness takes adventitious idea from unconscious body is
mostly debated unsolved problem in philosophy.
Bibliography:
Descartes, Rene,
Meditations on First Philosophy,
Heil, John, Philosophy of Mind, Routledge, London, Third Edition, 2013
Lavine, T. Z., From Socrates to Sartre: The
Philosophic Quest, Bantam Book, 1984
Masih, Y., A
Critical History of Western Philosophy (Greek, Medieval and Modern),
Motilal Banarsaidass, Delhi, First Edition, 1994
Schleiermacher turned the Biblical Hermeneutic realm into Romantic realm and made hermeneutics a distinct discipline. His successor Wilhelm Dilthey distinguished the Natural Science and Social science claiming understanding (verstehen) as method of Social science. Both philosophers are associated with German Romanticism. Both of them used the Hermeneutic Circle for understanding. Schleiermacher used hermeneutic circle grammatically and emphatically whereas Dilthey used the hermeneutic circle in larger historical context. Schleiermacher defined man as psychological being whereas Dilthey defined man as historical being. Dilthey’s doctrine of hermeneutics can be viewed as the further advancement of Schleiermacher rather than critical rejection. Purpose of this paper is how Dilthey broadened Schleiermacher’s view.
In the 18th century Europe, an Artistic, literary and intellectual movement originated as a response to Enlightenment which is called Romanticism. It was the emotional reaction to the wisdom and truth oriented intellectualism. It divides the world into two categories: Rational and Emotional. Romanticism had captured the heart of ideological slogan raised by French Revolution. It drew back the intellectual eye from universal truth (Rational) and then focused on individual human action, beauty, feelings and emotions.
Schleiermacher was deeply engaged with Romantic literature movement. He invited Romantic tradition in Hermeneutics defining it as an Art of Understanding. He looked actor as an Artist. Before Schleiermacher, there was the tradition of interpreting only Biblical text (i.e. truth about Bible, not any individual Author). Hermeneutics had assumed as the interpretation of God’s message. It was attached with specific field Theology, Jurisprudence and philology. Schleiermacher brings out many specific Hermeneutics into a one province which is called General Hermeneutics or Universal Hermeneutics. He proposed a universal Hermeneutic method applicable to interpret all kinds of text. Assisting futility of divine inspiration for interpretation, he set out to interpret individual action. This was the crucial shift in Hermeneutic tradition from specific branch to general discipline. So, Schleiermacher has been regarded as Father of Modern Hermeneutics. He played the same role as Descartes who had shifted the Scholastic Philosophy into Modern and hence he can be regarded as Descartes of Modern hermeneutics.
Schleiermacher’s hermeneutics goes to grasp the foundation of subject of text. For him, goal of Hermeneutics is ‘understanding text in higher sense’ or the revelation of its meaning. Unlike Biblical Hermeneutics, Content or Truth and Validity of text is not the subject matter of Understanding in Schleiermacher’s Modern Hermeneutics .As a romanticist, he conceived every text as a unique expression of Author. He attacked to the tradition of interpreting without concerning Author’s Intention. That’s why his contemporary period of philosophy was taking psychology seriously. According to him, reading a text is discourse between the interpreter and text itself or text is the means by which authors communicates his thought. So the subject matter of understanding and interpretation is that which has expressed by author. In any action or text, author expresses his inner thought by language. Language expressed by Author is determined by his thought and thought bounds by language. So, he realized the need of understanding author’s intention through expressed language because language is the only one way which reflects the author’s thought.
In this way, Schleiermacher invented two sides of hermeneutics; 1) Grammatical and 2) Psychological. Linguistic or Grammatical part is the understanding of every part of text expressed by author through language. Psychological part of Hermeneutics is the understanding of inner thought of author. It can be revealed by knowing why particular work produced, knowing other works in similar genre by other author and knowing other works by same author in different genre.
The system or Method used by Schleiermacher for the understanding is not philological approach rather the artistic that the cyclical movement from part to whole and whole to part. He looks every grammatical part within the context of whole text and again looks whole text from the perspectives of part. According to him, Inner thought reflects in whole while outer expression reflects in part. Hence understanding whole is related with Psychological interpretation and understanding part is related with Grammatik interpretation. Both the Psychological and Grammatik understanding must goes in balance. Here the key inquiry of Schleiermacher is how to understand author’s Mind which he fulfills by understanding whole. Hence Meaning is given by the understanding of psychology of author which is possible by the interpreter’s Whole-Part discourse with him and hence it is divinated and empathized. He declares that part gives the sense of whole and whole gives the meaning of text. Meaning of text is what author is trying to communicate with reader through language. Revelation of Meaning is the proper understanding of author’s intention which is possible by the fact that author and reader (interpreter) both shares the same reasoning ability. Moreover, he claims that “There is potentiality of Understanding Author’s Thought better than Author.” However, despite his claim on potentiality of Understanding, he also argues that: Good interpretation can only be approximate and hermeneutics is not a Perfect art.
Dilthey’s Critiques on Schleiermacher:
Dilthey saw that Schleiermacher was missing social science on his theory of interpretation. He limited the actor or Author within own inner world. In other word, Schleiermacher conceived the belongingness of text only to author’s period. According to him, we could not interpret it in social context. Dilthey’s project was to link up actor’s inner world with outer socio-cultural context. For Dilthey, Inner world is real but does not reside alone; it always connects with outer world. Criticizing Schleiermacher, Dilthey claims that Man cannot understand himself through reflection or introspection, but only through history. Dilthey wants to emphasize the “intrinsic temporality of all understanding,” that man’s understanding is dependent on past worldviews, interpretations, and a shared world whereas Schleiermacher emphasized on the understanding of permanent author’s intention. It can be assumed as the Dilthey’s shift from Schleiermacher’s text to historical society. Schleiermacher’s methods moves from intuitively from inner intention to outer expression whereas Dilthey moves from outer context to inner expression of author that is why Schleiermacher’s method has based on empathy with state of mind of author. Unlike Schleiermacher, for Dilthey, understanding is not a process of reconstructing the state of mind of author but articulation of what is expressed in his text.
However, Likewise Schleiermacher, Dilthey starts with grammatical analysis and linguistic study, he also says about need of understanding psychology or the intention of writer and actor. He does not rejects the Schleiermacherian view, rather he advanced. He discovered four crucial ideas in Schleiermacher that 1) Hermeneutics is method of understanding, 2) the interpreter and author shares the general human nature which permits the understanding of others, 3) this shared human nature gives understanding of inner life of another (author) and 4) Interpreter can grasp the whole meaning of text. These four ideas flows within the Dilthey’s historical method of interpretation.
Dilthey’s Interpretation on Historicity:
Dilthey endeavored to invent the universal law of social science and interpreting in such basis. First he distinguished between social (human) science and Natural Science. According to him, Natural Science is the explanation of facts and information while Social Science is the understanding of Meaning. For the Understanding of Meaning, Social Science requires interpretation. Interpretation of understudied meaning is the unique method of hermeneutics which is quite different with experiential method of Natural Science. Meaning of any particular sentence in human science cannot be fully understand unless we know the historical circumstances of its utterance and thus historical understanding is very requirements to understand human science.
Granting the method of Hermeneutic Circle established by Schleiermacher, Dilthey viewed the action as individual situation within the series of history. He conceives history as the nexus of particulars interconnected to form a whole. He does not look at isolated event rather understood meaning of action from larger socio-cultural context of past. Individual human actor is the focus point in history. Since we are temporal being in the history, understanding is possible only when we place human action in their historical context. An action as individual situation is part of history which must be viewed within the whole series of history because any action is not only the one’s production, historical context always affects upon it.
According to him, the human sciences give form to the historical world by analyzing the structural systems in terms of which human beings participate in history. Dilthey’s method of interpretation combines understanding of both individual psychology and socio-historical description.
Conclusion:
Hence both Schleiermacher and Dilthey as a romantic, emphasized to interpret meaning of text rather than scholastic emphasis on truth and validity of text. Both of them gave priority to individual author and understanding rather than universal divine inspiration. Both of them belong to the methodological tradition but Dilthey broadened Schleiermacher’s divinatory and empathetic meaning searching it in larger historical context, not only in author’s intention and grammatical text. In other words he mixed Schleiermacher with social science. His whole theory conceives author or writer as the founder of social history.
Bibliography:
Dilthey, Wilhelm, (selected works, Vol. IV), Hermeneutics and the study of History, Princeton University Press, 1985
Schmidt, Lawrence k., Understanding Hermeneutics, Acumen Publishing Ltd., Durham, UK, 2006
Sherratt, Yvonne, Continental Philosophy of Social Science, CUP, 2006
Two basic foundations of Rig Vedas
are Rta and Satya. Vedic concept Rta is the ultimate principle of universe
responsible for cosmic, natural and social order based on Satya. It is the
static principle of changeable world. Rta is Satya but Satya is not only Rta.
Satya is broad concept which includes all happenings and even super natural
being. Rta is within the sphere of Satya and all the worldly creation are its
effect while creation of whole universe is not by Rta. Rta includes the concept
of creation and dissolution of just worldly things. Mythologically, Rig Veda
says Deity of sky Varuna has the form of Rta and Indra is the protector of Rta.
Other deity are either desirous, either knower or enjoyer of Rta. Here,
intention of interpreting Rta is not mythological. The subject matter here is what
is Rta, Who follows it, how it manifest in world and how is it applicable in
our action as value and morality.
Key Words: Vedas, Rta. Satya, Dharma, Karma, Vrata
Vedic Rta:
Etymologically, Rta is the antonyms
of Chao. It refers to the harmony and order in whole cosmos, nature and
society. Entire universe follows an ultimate process, there is no discontinuity
in the process, like sun rises every morning from east and sets every evening
in west, like every planet revolves their stars, environment follows the
ecosystem etc. Rta is the coordinator and regulator of the whole operation in
universe and it is all pervading. Anything in the universe is not apart this
process. It indicates the regular dynamism of world. Vedas says ऋतं च
सत्यञ्चाभीद्ध्यात्तपसोsध्यजायाताम् which means the whole
true action of universe, creation and dissolution of everything is the
manifestation of Rta. Rta is the creator of all things[1]. The negative system of Rta is Anrit which
leads chaos. Anrit associates with Asat and it is responsible for destruction
of harmony. So there is need of deity to protect Rta in order to establish
harmony.
Basically,
Rta concerns the dynamics of manifestation, the process of world unfoldment at
all levels. In the Vedic vision the universe manifests in accordance with an
inherent law which is the very basic of its structure; it unfolds not in a
haphazard way but in strict order, a progression, all other laws being but the
development of and, therefore, subordinate to this one fundamental law.[2]
Three
fundamental aspect of Rta are:
Natural: the one law that underlies the basic structure of the
universe, in accordance with which all evolves and from which derive all other
laws; hence the law o f becoming, of transformation, of harmony is the natural
aspect of Rta.
Social: the one truth which in the human context of
Socio-ethical norms can be translated as integrity- integration: man fulfills
himself in as much as he lives truly and can therefore integrate himself in the
cosmic order. Truth at the human level is equivalent to harmony at the
universal level. Human society must follow their duty in accordance with Rta to
preserve harmony.
Religious-sacrificial: the one sacrifice
with which the cosmic order is identified, a constant give and take of all its
units, an eternal sharing and exchange which itself is rooted in the law o f
transformation.
The first natural
aspect is the metaphysical interpretation of Rta. Second Social and third
religious aspects are applied metaphysics which generates the ethical ideas.
Specific Application of Rta:
The dynamic nexus of Rta demonstrates that
this term represents a force which operated for the benefit of the established
cosmos. It is significant only when man follows it. The Specific Application of
Rta by human is Vrata. Vrata is the ordered right conduct follows by Vratani in
accordance with the path of Rta[3].
The god Varuna, the perfect follower of Rta, is dhrtavrata who steers
unalterable moral laws of the universe.[4]
Rigveda says, “madhu vrata rtayate/madhu ksaranti sindhavah/madhumanno
vanaspatih” which means the earth is sweet, the rivers shed sweetness, the
trees and forests become nests of sweetness to the men who follows Rta. By the
self dedication (vrata) in accordance with Rta, one gets fit for consecration
(diksa). By the grace of Guru diksa, one attains faith in one’s own self
(sraddha) and by sraddha, truth (satya) is attainable. Rna is the debts of
human being given by cosmos. Rta can be enjoyed by paying Rna. Vratani are
those who pays the Rna. There are three Rnas; Deva Rna, Pitri Rna and Guru Rna.
Deva Rna is the debts towards Deity who controls the Rta. Guru Rna (also called
Rsi Rna) is the debts towards the knower of Rta and Pitri Rna is the debts
towards our creator. Payment of Pitri Rna is to continue the human life. Latter
Vedic Scriptures has added the fourth Manusya Rna too which is debts towards
human, according to which every human individual is responsible for the benefit
of other human individuals and it keeps the fraternity in society by which
social Rta can be preserved.
Ethics of Vedic Rta:
The Vedic verse says ” O Indra,
lead us on the path of Rta, on the right path over all evils.”[5]
This verse shows that Rta ia the only way for moral virtue. So, in its moral
aspects, in human life, Rta is more pervasive than a mere knowledge of truth,
it includes justice and goodness or the way of realizing beauty of higher
truth. Latter Vedic scriptures do not retire from the concept of Vrata. They
have extended it into Dharma and Karma. They have interpreted Rta as director
and controller of human actions. The purpose of life in latter Vedic scriptures
is the realization of Satya or the Ultimate truth which is possible if an individual
follows the moral path of Rta. Path against Rta has been defined as a-dharma.
Conclusion:
Rta in cosmos is automatically
preserved by God while in society man has capacity of disturbing it and
producing Anrit which results the disorder in society. Hence, human being must
follow the vrata in order to preserve harmony in society. The metaphysical
concept Rta is an instrument for morality, it is not an ethical theory. It
provides the way for moral action in correlation with nature. The Concept of
Dharma and Karma are the extension of the concept of Rta. Dharma and Karma must
be instrument to preserve the socio-cosmic order by which we can realize the
ultimate truth.
[1] मिश्र,
जगदीशचन्द्र,
भरतीय दर्शन, चौखम्बा सुरभारती
प्रकाशन, वाराणसी, प्रथम
संस्करण, २०१५, पृष्ठ संख्या ५२
[2] Miller,
Jeanine, The vision of Cosmic orders in the Vedas, Routledge and Kegan
Paul, London, 1985, Page no. 38
[3] Goure, Archana
Malik, Virtue Ethics in Indian Philosophy, International Journal of
Academic Research, Vol.1, Issue-2(1), July-September, 2014
[4]
Jiatmananda, Swami, Rta-Satyam – Modern Relevance, Madhu Khanna
(Editor), Rta: The Cosmic order (Anthology), D. K. Printworld (P) Ltd., New
Delhi, 2004
Jiatmananda,
Swami, Rta-Satyam – Modern Relevance, Madhu Khanna (Editor), Rta: The
Cosmic order (Anthology), D. K. Printworld (P) Ltd., New Delhi, 2004
Miller,
Jeanine, The vision of Cosmic orders in the Vedas, Routledge and Kegan
Paul, London, 1985
Goure,
Archana Malik, Virtue Ethics in Indian Philosophy, International Journal
of Academic Research, Vol.1, Issue-2(1), July-September, 2014
Since the known history of Civilization, human
beings are suffering from many unsolved mysteries and they have had endeavored extensively
to satisfy such wonders. Consciousness is still most debated problem which has
not gained exact definition and explanation. Philosopher and Scientist both are
suffering from this mystery and Modern Psychology is being detached with it
centralizing only on behavior to get rid from this problem. What consciousness
is? Either is it prior to existence or is it essence of existence? Is animal
cognition consciousness or just material property? Who is the owner of
consciousness? Is it identical with body or is it special power of advance
organism or is it separate existence independent of body? Does it have
functional character? Can it be capable
to know or realize the ultimate stuff of this universe? These questions are
suffering researcher from antiquity to current time. Various seers of the Truth
to whom we say ‘sages’ of ancient oriental world had paid attention vastly and
succeeded in some sort to solve such questions. The Vedāntic tradition
culminates huge ideas in spiritual manner about consciousness but that
tradition also is not free from contradictions.
As George Miller wrote in 1962, “Consciousness
is a word worn smooth by a million tongues.”[1]
However, few people think about it and try to reveal its nature. Since the
known history of Philosophy, it has been most debated and unsolved
philosophical problem.
There is no any exact
foundational doctrine of consciousness in Indian philosophical tradition. Consciousness
has been taken as the essence of Soul. So, to elucidate the notion of
consciousness, we should view the notion of soul. According to various
Upanishads, soul is the presence of ultimate reality in living being or it is
the embodied ultimate reality. Upanishads has consideration of Brahman as
Ultimate reality which is essentially conscious blissful eternal being and
which lies in living being as Jiva or Ātman.
Famous sage of
Upanishadic tradition, Yājṅavalkya has defined Ātman conclusively as “the
central principle seen, heard, reflected upon and contemplated upon by
everyone” (आत्मा वा
अरे द्रष्टव्य: श्रोतव्य: मंतव्य: निदिध्यासितव्य ।) this
elaboration shows that Ātman is experienceable for everyone. Moreover this
emphasizes the existence of Ātman in everyone who has the capability of
experiencing which can be further assumed as every conscious being has Ātman.
Hence consciousness is identical with the essence of Ātman.
Generally, Consciousness means the awareness of
something. Upanishadic tradition, also called jṅānakānda of Vedas has the
similar notion about consciousness in some extent. Upanishads explains
consciousness as awareness or inner perception of ultimate reality. On the
other hand, it explains ultimate reality as conscious being.
MānDukya Upanishad explains consciousness of
different levels. Taittiriya Upanishad explains consciousness as essence of
different seath (Seath). Advaita Vedānta explains Consciousness as essence of
Brahman-means to realize Ānanda-Means to know sat. According to Advaitins, We
have impure consciousness (vyavahĀrik and pratibhāsik), pure consciousness
belongs to Brahman-identical with our self (soul or Jiva).
Sānkhya assumes it as essance of subatance-Purusa. Vaishesika
assumes it as essence of substance (ātma), Manas is antarindriya for perceiving
Ātma.
Consciousness in
different KoShas:
ḳrisna Yajurveda
belonging Taittiriya Upanishad in its Brahmānanda Valli has stated the five
sheath of human body on which consciousness belongs to.
Annamaya KoSha: It is our physical body made up of food which
embodies conscious soul. All living being has this Kosha.
Prāṅamaya KoSha : It
is the breathing sheath inside our body which has the vitality. It is
advancement of and pervasive in it Annamaya Kosha.[2]
This kosha present even in those who has not realization or awareness of
breathing. Death happens by the loss of this sheath.
Manomaya KoSha: Manomaya Kosh lies inside Prāṅamaya Kosha.It
is the sheath which acts by direction of soul consciousness. It is comparable
with the Mind of western philosophy. According to Radhakrishnan, Manas defined
in Taittiriya Upanishad is Principle of Consciousness Activities[3].
It represents the thought, emotion and expression of emotion too. Plants has no
capability of expressing emotion, hence plants lacks the Manomaya Kosha. Moreover
it can be defined as the psychological sheath.
Vijnānamaya KoSha:
Vijṅānamaya Kosha lies inside
Manomaya Kosha or it forms by the advancement of Manomaya Kosha. It is the sheath
which contains epistemic ideas. It is rational or Intellectual rather than
empirical Manomaya Kosha. It includes ego and intellect both. Animal has also
epistemic ideas but they lack the way of interpreting ideas. They are not
thinking by nature; hence they have no Vijṅānamaya Kosha. It is rationalistic
in nature and its task is the intellectual reasoning. It has the distinct type
of cognitive content like wisdom and ethics.
Ānandamaya KoSha:
It is the Sheath with complete
bliss. It does not contain any rational or empirical ideas. It is the human
consciousness which realizes ultimate conscious being. It is non-intentional
and completely identical with Ultimate Reality (soul or Brahman). It has been
labeled as parabrahman, Ātmatattva and citta.[4]
In
above division, the former four Koshas are the embodied state while the fifth
is the consciousness of disembodied state.
Cyclic
embodiment in Taittiriya Upanishad:
Consciousness
essentially embodied by the soul and soul embodied by the Body. But Upanishadic
view does not retire from this assertion. Whole Koshas has the capacity of
evolution or transformation towards higher conscious Koshas because matter is
also consciousness in potential form which can be actualized. [5]
Man having former four Koshas can attain the Ānandmaya Kosha. That is why all
the Koshas are manifestation of single Ānandamaya Kosha which has pure
consciousness and which is Ultimate Reality too. In one sense Ānandamaya Kosha
is the actualization of potentialities of vijṅanamaya Kosha, vijṅanamaya Kosha
is the actualization of potentialities of Manomaya Kosha. Manomaya Kosha is the
actualization of Prāṅamaya Koshsa and Prāṅamaya Koshsa is the actualization of
the potentialities of Annamaya Kosha. Thus every internal body is enclosed
within an external one.[6]
Again all the former Koshas are different Upādhi for Ānandamaya Kosha (Ātman or
parabrahman). This seems that the embodiment is cyclic here i.e. subtle
enclosed into gross and gross made up of by subtle. Upanishads says that the
consciously realization of final Ānandamaya Kosha leads to the liberation of
soul from such former Kosha but there is no guarantee that the self realizing
Ānanda either returns to embodiment or not. If all realize the complete Ānanda,
does the creation of other Kosha stop? Since they are manifestation of final
Ānandamaya Kosha, we cannot be sure for whether we evolve again as other Kosha
or not. In my opinion, this cyclic embodiment of Kosha leads to the
impossibility of being liberated.
Empirical State of
Consciousness: AnubhavacatuShTaya
Atharva Veda belonging Mānduky Upanishad is the very
short Upanishad which contains only twelve verses but it is very important in
Philosophy of Consciousness. Some Vedantist assumes that the grasping of this
short Upanishad is sufficient to attain MokṠa[7].
This Upanishad has stated the four state of consciousness. They are empirical
in nature and bear the sound energy AUM.
Jāgrata Avasthā:
It
is the wakening state or our
ordinary consciousness bound by fetters of sense perception and desire which
contains the knowledge of Vishwa (world). Hence it is also called the
Vaishwānara. Five senses, Mind (Manas), Intellect (Buddhi) and Ego (Ahankāra)
all belongs to this state.[8]
Swapna Avasthā: It is the dreaming state or seer of swapna (dream).
Swapna comes as the light in dark sleep, hence it is called Taijas. In this
state, soul is conscious of internal object and enjoys the subtle things.[9]
This state is the preparation for ShuSupti state but man may return to the Jāgrata
state too.
SuShupti Avasthā:
When the person in Swapna desires
no desire and dreams no dreams, that state is to be called the state of
ShuShupti[10]. It is the consciousness in
deep sleep without dream but intentionally it may have centralized attention
(dhyāna) on some symbol like AUM. Hence it is called Prajṅa. In SuShupti state,
Man is aware about his own existence and he is nearer to the Pure Consciousness.
Turiya Avasthā: It is the last state which does not contains any
cognitive content. In this state, soul is not a mass of intelligence. Knower
finds himself as identical with known and known is nothing but an eternal
blissful Ātman. It just realizes the ultimate reality or Ātman. So, it can be
called ‘Self Consciousness’.[11]
Epistemological Intuition found in
modern philosophy is comparable with this state in some extent. It has been
explained as (एस सर्वेश्वर: एस सर्वज्ञ: एसो अन्तर्यामी एस योनि: सर्वस्य प्रभवाप्ययाउ हि भुतानाम[12] ।)
knower of all, source of all knowledge, source of all things, all pervasive,
beginning and end of all beings. Here whatever I said earlier as contentless
means having no content except ultimate reality. In simple sense, it is the
apprehension of ultimate reality, hence this state knows everything. It
is the equilbrium state of Sat, Cit and Ānanda. Consciousness in this state
becomes pure and does not contain anything else except the realization of soul.
This state is like as the state of Nirvikalpaka Samādhi as explained in latter
philosophical Āstika tradition. In this state, knower transforms into or
acquired the Ultimate Consciousness (cit) and knower knows only the Ultimate
Principle (cit). So, in Turiya state, subject-object duality vanishes. Experience
of this state is ineffable, invisible, incomprehensible, beyond thought and any
intellectual symbol. This state is called Ātman.
These four states of
consciousness is the experience (Anubhava) of different realities. Hence it is
called the AnubhavacatuShTaya. Sometimes, intellectuals say the former three as
Avasthātraya. Here in any state, Consciousness
in itself here is not different. This categorization is in accordance with the
content of consciousness. Pure consciousness remains unchangeable associating
with Ātman[13]. Difference is just the
former three state has not realization of Ātman and bears cognitive content.
Vritti
and SākṠi caitanya:
Vritti means the
impureness and SākṠi means the witness. The former three states are Vritti
caitanya while last one, the Turiya state is the SākṠi caitanya. This is
because the former three bears something awareness as cognitive content while
Turiya state realizes the Pure Consciousness without any cognitive content. In
Turiya state, Individual becomes witness of pure consciousness or Ultimate
Reality or his Soul.
Cyclic Embodiment:
Likewise
in Taittiriya Upanishad,cyclic embodiment can be found in MānDukya Upanishad
too. The Cosmic consciousness comes to
be regarded as corresponding state by state to the Individual consciousness,
and what is in the Individual comes to be found also in the World.[14]
Turiya Awasthā is the possession of subtle Ātman and again what we perceive in
other Awasthā is made up of Ātman i.e. everything is Ātman. What MānDukya
Upanishad is saying is that we have no realisation of Ātman in other Awasthā
although other Awasthā’s cognitive content is also Ātman. Second verse of
MānDukya Upanishad says (सर्वं हि एतद ब्रह्म,
अयम आत्मा ब्रह्म, सोअयं आत्मा चतुष्पात ।[15])
“All this is verily Brahman, This soul is Brahman and this soul has
four quarters”. This means, even the consciousness possessed in Awasthātraya
is possession by the soul. We are soul and what we perceive in Turiya Awasthā
is also soul, so it is realization of soul by soul.
Influence
from Sramaṅa Tradition (Atheism)
As in Sramaṅa
tradition, Upanishads does not presupposes any divine blessing. The realization
of pure consciousness is attainable for everyone. It does not urge to any Deity
as in Vedas. Upanishads believes in self power which can act independently.
Moreover Upanishads does not propose any punishment like hell to those who
don’t try to attain the Turiya state or Samādhi or MokṠa.
Ādhyatmika
Interpretation:
Upanishadic account of
Consciousness is Ādhyātmika in nature. It does not explain the nature, behavior
and function of consciousness. It is intended to aware, to realize, to be
witness of the ultimate being, to be identical with the consciousness of
ultimate being. It is a spiritual
endeavor rather than psychological and rational. Its aim is not to be aware
about external but only a internal world and according to Vedanta, we becomes
aware about even external world in the end of this process because individual
self is completely identical with Universal Being. Here a controversy can be
found that either consciousness is things to be realized or Means of attaining
final realization. Consciousness is essential power of soul which we should
realize and again consciousness is means by which we realize consciousness.
This leads the fallacy of petito percipii that if we arrange the former sentences
as conclusive syllogism, we will obtain ‘consciousness realizes
consciousness’. Considering this sentence, we all are known about that we
have consciousness even in Jāgrata Awasthā, then why should we move to Turiya
Awasthā to realize consciousness? This question leads the Upanishadic endeavor
as just the Mystical feeling.
Mind-Body
Problem
In Western Philosophy,
Consciousness is identical with Mind whereas in Vedantic tradition, Mind is the
embodied bearer of Consciousness. Mind is distinct from Soul. In Vedanta, Mind
is Psychological things whereas in Western Philosophy, Brain is Psychological
things. In Vedantic Philosophies, Soul regulates the function of Mind. Pure
Consciousness belongs to soul. Mind has two states: Antahkaraṅ and bāhyakaraṅ.
Antahkaraṅ is spiritual, thinking, have inner consciousness. bāhyakaraṅ is
sensical. In Western Philosopohy, Soul as synonymous with Mind functions the
inner consciousness but in Vedantic Philosophy, Antahkaraṅ also belongs to
Mind. Soul in itself is not bearer of inner and outer both consciousnesses,
both belongs to Mind, Soul has just the contentless Pure Consciousness (Cīt).
Disappearance of the subject-object
duality is very crucial in Upanishadic tradition. It raises the idea that Mind
(a thinking thing) and Body (extended thing) are nothing but just different
Upādhi to same pure conscious Ultimate Being. MānDukya Upanishad in seventh
verse says directly the non duality of known in Turiya state.
Phenomenological
Interpretation: Intentionality
Ramānuja emphatically
rejects the idea of pure, contentless consciousness. Instead consciousness is
irreducibly intentional: it is always someone’s consciousness of something[16].
Advaita Vedantists, Brahmasutra and MānDukya Upanishad claims that our
consciousness in Turiya state is content less. Here I am agree with the
Ramanuja’s position that conscious can’t be contentless. Even in Turiya state,
it is intended to realize the objective consciousness or becomes the sākṠi of
objective ideal (Brahman). Consciousness explained in Upanishads is always
intentional to something. In Jāgrata state, it accepts all, in Swapna state, it
brackets the visible world. In SuShupti state it brackets the visible world and
dream both but cannot bracket the awareness of own existence. In Turiya state,
it becomes identical with objective truth as a witness (SākṠi). Although it is
identical with pure consciousness, it assumes external existence of Brahman
too. it cannot bracket awareness of self existence. The difference between
SuShupti and Turiya state is just that Knower is not identical with objective
truth in former while in later knower finds himself identical with ultimate
objective truth.
Personal Identity:
If Consciousness
is consciousness of someone’s about something, then do we have personal
identity in acquiring pure Consciousness? This question is immediate regarding
the Upanishadic view of consciousness. Almost Upanishads accepts consciousness
in itself as self awareness. Even in disembodied state, it is pure
consciousness which realizes the sat (Being). Hence our consciousness denotes
the awareness of our self. However self is identical with the cosmic absolute,
person looses the distinct identity in Turiya state and he becomes only the
part of identical cosmos. Since there is no place for memory, plan, desires and
action and so on in Turiya state, person becomes part of eternal calmness and
he loses all his relation with Jāgrata World. In Jāgrata state, what we
conceive as our identity in accordance with Upanishad is different given Upādhi
to same oneness. Thus in Vritti caitanya, individual have personal identity
while SākṠi caitanya, individual looses personal identity, since there is no
difference between individual self (I or Thou) and cosmic self.
Critics:
Philosophy of Retired Life (Mystical Myth)
Whatever I interpreted
above, Upanishadic endeavor was neither bridging Mind-Body gap nor incorporating
phenomenologically, Upanishadic endeavor is just Ādhyātmik attempt. It urges
people to apprehend the mystic reality which may be a special kind of emotional
realization. We cannot come to the certain point about the pure consciousness
which they realized because it varies in Upanishad’s differently. Assumption of
Brahman and soul with contentless consciousness is nothing but just a type of
mythological mystic and miracles. If there was possibility of realizing such
complete oneness, description of such oneness wouldn’t be varied because one
cannot be many at the same time. Hence it is the Philosophy which has utility
in retired life to maintain calmness in inner heart.
Conclusion
Upanishadic way of
categorization of consciousness and conscious sheath are the quite peculiar
approach. Upanishadic Consciousness as essence of existence, Transcends the
debate of essence-existence priority. Western Philosophy has long debate upon
the priority of essence and existence. Some Philosophers argued that
Consciouness is becoming of something Unconscious Existence whereas others
believed that all type of unconscious things is the qualitative transformation
of ultimate conscious being. The great contribution of Upanishads which I
realized is that it ends such debate. According to Upanishads, Ultimate Reality
is objective which has existence and essential consciousness both
simultaneously, by this argument the priority of which comes first vanishes.
Peculiarity of this tradition is that there is no room for Mind-Body duality in
Upanishadic tradition. All are the becoming of objective ultimate reality whose
existence contains consciousness essentially. As Ātman is non-dual and since
all matter and self transcends to this subtle element, Upanishadic ideal,
although Ādhyātmika in nature provides space for the materialist too because
matter is not completely different with soul as in western philosophy.This type
of knowledge has been shared by western scholars like Arthur Schopenhauer,
Nietzsche, and Henry Bergson and so on other. Bergson, who proposes conscious
elan vital as ultimate principle would have Upanishadic influence.
[1]
Max Velmans, Goldsmith, HOW TO DEFINE CONSCIOUSNESS—AND HOW NOT TO DEFINE
CONSCIOUSNESS, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(5) 2009, Page 139
[16] Perret, Roy W., An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, First Edition, 2016, Page 178-179
Bibliography
Deussen,
Paul, The Philosophy of the Upanishads, (trans. A.S. Geden) Edinburgh T.
and T Clark, 1906
Deussen, Paul, The Philosophy of the Vedanta and
the Vedantasara, Rupa Co. New Delhi, 2007
Max Velmans, Goldsmith, HOW TO DEFINE CONSCIOUSNESS—AND HOW NOT TO DEFINE
CONSCIOUSNESS, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(5) 2009, Page
139-156
Perret, Roy W., An
Introduction to Indian Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, First
Edition, 2016
Radhakrshnan, Sarvepalli, The Principle Upanishads,
George Allen and Unwin Ltd. London 1968
Ranade, R.D., A Constructive Survey of
Upanishadic Philosophy, Oriental Book Agency Poona, 1926
दीक्षित, पंकज, उपनिषदों में क्या है?, पुस्तक महल, दिल्ली, प्रथम संस्करण, संवत २०००
माण्डुक्य उपनिषद
तैत्तिरिय उपनिषद
ब्रह्मसुत्र
ब्रह्मसुत्रशंकरभाष्य
मिश्र, जगदीशचन्द्र, भारतीय दर्शन, चोखम्बा
सुरभारती प्रकाशन, वाराणसी, प्रथम संस्करण २०१५
(The
bibliographies no. 8, 9, 10 has been taken from the different sources for same
text for my convenience since the difficulty of Saṅskrit language and since they are
universal in nature, their publishers has not been mentioned)
Historically, Western
Epistemology and Metaphysics can be traced as the Realism-Idealism debate. Metaphysical Idealism is the doctrine that
holds non-natural Ideal Substance as Ultimate Reality whereas Metaphysical Realism,
being very close with Materialism, conceives all things or this dynamic
universe as Real, not illusive. In
Epistemology, Realism-Idealism debate is not equivalent to Metaphysical debate. Epistemological Realism conceives Known
things (external to knower) exist independent of Knower (Mind or Soul) whereas Epistemological
Idealism maintains only mental ideas are Real, Known things (as mental idea)
does not exist without Knower.
G. E. Moore, a believer of Idealist tradition in his early
age, became most critical of Idealism and founder of common sense Realism
too. His doctrine of Realism is
Epistemological in nature, he has not challenged the existence of any conscious
things, he has not involved in metaphysical debate of ultimate substance, and his
endeavor in Philosophy is to prove the independent existence of things that we
perceive by common sense. In other word,
his philosophy is also a response to Kantian Agnosticism that believes the
things-in-itself are unknowable.
This paper is intended to examine Moore’s Common Sense
Realism, as to how he refutes Idealism in order to provide ground for Realism
and as to how he proves the existence of Mind independent things by common
sense.
Key Words: Common Sense Realism, Idealism,
Esse est Percipii, External World, Fallacy of Petito Percipii
Common Sense Realism
Moore is the propounder of Sense data theory. For him, sense
data is the source of all kinds of knowledge.
Common sense realism is the doctrine that believes on actual reality of
things, which we know as sense data. Basic
notions of common sense realism has been traced in his writing ‘‘Defence of
common sense’. Proof for this has
been supplied in his lecture ‘Proof of external world’.
Moore expelled from idealism to realism because of idealist
disconnection with ordinary people’s belief.
They use the ambiguous and very intellectual language that is difficult
to understand. They claim the unreality
of space-time on which we are living and except which we cannot imagine our
existence. We are flowing with time in every
moment but they say the dynamism is unreal.
According to them, whatever we perceive does not exist in reality and it
is just apparently real. In idealists
such belief, Moore could not find out his existence too, then he reveals the
unimportance of such philosophies. Moore
argues that idealism is inappropriate with our ordinary life and language. According to Moore, rejecting all our common
beliefs makes the life meaningless but he could not be convinced with the
meaninglessness of life rather he endeavors to show the meaninglessness of
Idealism and all other philosophies that conceives our common sense
meaningless.
Common sense is that proposition, which we certainly know. Moore differentiates the common sense
proposition into two types; 1) That basic proposition, which we know certainly
without any other proposition, and 2) Those propositions that are based on
basic proposition. In his Article, ‘Defense
of common sense’ Moore gives various examples of such propositions. ‘I know that I have body’ is the basic
proposition, which we know certainly, and its rejection makes our life
impossible. This type of proposition is
knowable by common sense and no intellectual vague language needed to explain
it. ‘Other people likewise me, also
know that they have body’ is the propositiondependent upon basic
proposition ‘I know that I have body’.
From these examples, it is clear that Moore is talking about Common
Sense belief to those beliefs that are acceptable to all in the ordinary life,
which is completely related with our life, which we know certainly, whereof
rejection is impossible and so on.
Refutation of Idealism (To be is to
Perceive)
In his famous article “Refutation of Idealism”,
Moore, very genuinely, criticizes the Idealism for the sake of Common Sense
Realism. He finds Idealism is very broadly
developed perspectives, thereof criticizing is not easy. Hence, he looks for
the central theme of Idealism by criticizing which whole aspect of Idealism
would be criticized. He finds Berkley’s
‘Esse est Percipii’ as the foundational doctrine of Idealism, that includes all
aspects of Idealism. Its critique
fulfills the demand of Realism, and criticizing other Idealist’s doctrine would
not be needed.
Moore’s critique on ‘esse est percipii’ is Analytical rather than
substantial. He does not elaborate the feature of ultimate substance. He is just saying ‘to be’ does not need
perception. Anything can be there in the absence of perceiver. In addition, his Analyticity is ordinary
rather than symbolic. Regarding the
sense of understanding given by copula (est), he criticizes as follows:
In ordinary
sense, use of copula (est) indicates the identical nature of subject (Esse)
with Predicate (Percipii). If Esse (to
be) is exactly synonymous with Percipii (to perceive), then Percipii cannot
indicate anything, which is not indicated by Esse. Thereby, Percipii become the
definition of Esse (even though idealists do not hold it as definition). As it is definition, result must be opposite
of Idealists’ conception, that means ‘being’ is definable as that substance
which we perceive. Here, definitional
approach leads to realism[1]
because being is equivalent to what is perceived.
In another
sense, copula (est) indicates the Predicate (Percipii) as part of Subject
(Esse). If Percipii is part of Esse,
then whatever we perceive is being but only partially, being is something more
than perceived, Perceived is dependent of being, Hence Perceived is not Being. Hence, this is just opposite to Idealist view
of ‘to be is to perceive’.
In third
sense, Copula indicates the Predicate (percipii) as neither identical to
subject nor as part of Subject, rather Predicate may be the necessary character
of subject. For example, esse and
percipii is related alike smoke-fire relation.
So long as idealists hold the notion thereunder, then thereon,
proposition becomes synthetic, and it seems idealist argue this as necessary
relation rather than coincidental. For a
synthetic sentence to be necessary, it needs evidence but nobody has such
evidence of something that loosed existence in absence of perception. Hence, Idealists’ view of world is
fallacious.
Proof for Common Sense Realism
Attempt of proving the existence of external world dates back
to Greek Philosophy, even idealist Plato conceived world not as mental idea,
Aristotle as a realist was believer of existence of soul independent of world.
Descartes, father of modern philosophy conceived world as distinctly separate
existence without any relation with mind, he believed on external world as
rationally knowable. Kant also believed on
the existence of world independent of Mind as Noumenon (thins- in-itself) but
Kant argues that we can know only the mental ideas of external world, real
things in itself is unknowable.
Moore looks on these attempts of history but he finds them very
ambiguous and difficult to understand. According
to Moore, existence of external world in philosophical history has been a
scandal wherein almost philosophers give their view but no one give appropriate
proof. Apart from these attempts, Western philosophy was also suffering from
Skepticism, which argues that concrete knowledge of the external world is
impossible for human reasoning power. Idealist
and Skeptics did not give importance for proof of things outside of us, but for
Moore, that is the fundamental task of philosophy.[2] Moore’s
project of rescuing the scandal of external world with appropriate proof can be
viewed as the response to such Kantian Agnosticism as well as Skepticism. In his lecture, Proof of an External
World, He argues External World exists and can be known in a very simple
way by our common sense.
Before proving, first he distinguishes the ‘things met with
in space’ and ‘things presented in space’. This distinction is to get rid of
the philosophical ambiguous phrases.
Former corresponds to the Kantian Noumenon (things-in-itself), later
match up with the Kantian Phenomenon (mental idea). Former is external to our
mind and later is internal. Moore’s operation is on the former; however, he does
also believe in the existence of internal ideas (Private to us; like pleasure
and pain).
‘Things met
with in space’ is a broad and clear term which includes all type of matter as
well as our human body. Moore believed that there is a much simpler proof for
the things met with in space. At last of his lecture on proof of external
world, he says, “By holding up my two hands, and saying, as I
make a certain gesture with the right hand, ‘Here is one hand’, and adding, as
I make a certain gesture with the left, ‘and here is another’. And if, by doing
this, I have proved ipso facto the existence of external things, you will all
see that I can also do it now in numbers of other ways: there is no need to
multiply examples. “[3]
Now,
let us keep his argument in syllogism,
First Premise (P1)……..Here is one hand.
Second Premise (P2)…Here
is another hand.
Conclusion (C1)………… ∴There are at least two hand.
Third Premise (P3)…….Hands
is External things to Mind, met up with in space.
Last Conclusion (C2)…. ∴There are at least two external
things met up with in space.
In this
way, Moore proved the existence of external world or things met up with in
space. He believes that such proof is easier and better proof than Descartes
proof in Meditation and is able to refute all types of Epistemic and
Metaphysical Scepticism and Idealism.
But this
proof cannot satisfy the existence of things of our memory which we perceived
in past. Then he gave second proof based on memory in similar way:
1) I lifted
one hands two minutes ago.
2) I lifted another hand two
minutes ago.
∴ There have existed at least two hands (Mind independent
object) in the past.
By this
conclusion, it is obvious to say, Hands might have existed at another time
without being perceived, it might have existed at another time without being
perceived at other time, during the whole period of time, it need not have been
perceived at any time at all.
This second
proof is more crucial because it proves the existence of things without being
perceived. It fulfills his project of ‘Refutation of Idealism’ and
provides solid argument for common sense belief while first argument is just
proving the ordinary realism that Mind Independent things exists.
Again, he
judged his proof by certain logical criteria that 1) Premise must be different
from the conclusion; 2) Premise must be known to be true, 3) Conclusion must be
follows from premises. It is obvious that all the premises are different with
conclusion and by the simple reasoning; we can judge that the conclusion is
drawing from premises and hence criteria first and third satisfies but second
criteria is difficult to explain. He argues that premises (for truth) are known
by common sense and it is absurd to discard the existence of hands which is
connected with our all functioning. Moore raising hand while lecturing in a
room is certitude for those who are hearing and seeing him. In this way he
satisfies the second criteria.
Fallacy:
Fallacy can be found in Moore’s fulfillment of second
criteria in above proof. His whole
project is to prove “Here is a Hand” but he maintains it as true, supposing
its truthfulness is knowable by common sense.
Common sense is not a provable matter.
He says it is ipso facto. If it is ipso facto, why he needs to prove it
is a crucial question. In common sense,
no one rejects the existence of world surrounding us. What Idealist and Skeptics challenge to the
common sensical world is because of either lack of our knowledge power (as in
Kant) or searching an ideal that regulates this dynamic world as its
manifestation (as in Berkley).
Moore is proving ‘Here is hand’ (hand; as representation of
external world) and again he is assuming this in premise as true and ipso facto. Taking to be proved thing as ipso facto is
the fallacy of petito principii found in his proof of external world.
Conclusion:
Before Moore, No proof had been given to things outside of us
and Moore successfully established the proof based on his common sense realism. In his lecture, ‘Proof of external world’ He
concludes two fundamental conclusion that 1) Things outside of our mind exists
and 2) there is no need of perceiver for the existence of external things. For
him, these two conclusions are sufficient to refute all kinds of Idealism (esse
est percipii), and to believe the authenticity of common sense without skeptics. However, fallacy of petito principii found in
his syllogism again faces the skeptical challenge, to which he has not responded,
and I think common sense realism is unable to face that challenge.
[1]
As ‘Being’ is equivalent to ‘what is perceived’, things what is perceived must
be being-in-itself, and no other thing exists beyond it. So it leads to metaphysical realism.
Nothing can impede the path of social change whether it is in right way or wrong. Crisis is the catalyst for social dynamism. Fourteenth century Europeans were facing a situation full of crisis. Social life was too difficult, and doing any new things was as challenging as death penalty. So called Pop, the God’s seraph, were exerting cruelty over people. However, people did not end the way of challenging God rather they struggled against Pops. This challenge to God in the time of renaissance is conceived as rise of Humanism. All the norms and prejudices, pre-established in the name of God, Church, and Pops, what all were causing difficulty in human life, were attacked in mass.
Humanism
is an approach that emphasizes the importance of human interests rather than sacrificing
to God. Until this century, so many
theories have been developed about Humanism, and the human history has
witnessed so many struggles for the sake of humanism. So long as we summarize the history of human
struggle, the conclusion would be that ‘all the struggles are to conserve and
to achieve human interests’. Subsequent
to Renaissance, world history saw the enlightenment age, French Revolution,
Industrial Revolution and so on other struggles. However challenging to God
could not secure ordinary people’s interests. Upper class people start out
exploiting lower class. Meanwhile, Karl Marx appeared as the seraph for lower
class people, but again when lower class representing Marxists achieved the
power and authority, they exerted cruelty over their opponents. That time, global
societies were being introduced with romantic and liberalist movement too.
Twentieth century were the most fertile time for growing humanistic approach as
it was in full of crisis, world war were happening, anti colonialist movement
were in peak. Peoples of the every part of world were ready to die for their
emancipation. Marxism and all other governing system were being failed. A
synthetic approach between Marxism and Anti-Marxism came in the surface, which
is called Neo-Marxism.
M. N.
Roy, a strong Marxist in the early life, turned into Neo-Marxist realm in his
later life criticizing original Marxism as Anti Humanistic Approach. His turn was crucial when Marxist
totalitarianism of Soviet Union was in peak. When he was in Communist
International, he dared to claim the right of independent thinking, which was
his great audacity against proletariat dictatorship, and consequently it became
the cause for expelling him from Communist International. Then he came in India
and sentenced to six year imprisonment by colonial government. Jail became the
most fertile place for his intellectual progress, where he decided to leave off
faith on violent Marxism. He reformulated the Materialism and made resolution
to bring Renaissance Movement in India.
Movement
which Roy was endeavoring to bring in India was a Humanistic Movement, beyond
Marxist class struggle. This paper is an attempt of viewing the facets of
Humanism with respect to M. N. Roy’s Critical Marxism. What the position of Humanism in Marxism, Why
Roy emphasized the necessity of Neo Marxist Radical Humanism, How he redefined
Materialism in order to supply idea for Humanism are the basic questions which
I am attempting to answer here.
Humanism, in ordinary
sense focuses upon the human emancipation.
The term ‘Humanism’ as a philosophy in the Intellectual history appeared
in nineteenth century to define the Renaissance Movement of later Medieval
Europe. Renaissance was the revolution of Human against feudal cruelty of
Christian Pop’s political rule. That time, any scientific human endeavor had
indirectly banned by Pops as against biblical command. Various philosophers,
Scientist and Intellectuals had been sentenced to death alleging them as non-follower of the Bible. People raised revolution,
against such cruelty of Pop’s rule, in pursuit of Human sovereignty. This was the first human challenge to
Catholic God. This Renaissance Movement gave birth to various intellectuals in
Philosophy, Astronomy, Physiology, Mathematics, and Literature and so on other discipline.
Human reasoning reached the peak. Philosophical Rationalism came in intellectual
world claiming the possibility of knowing all by Human Reason. This emphasis on
Human Reason rather than omnipotent supernatural power is called Enlightenment
that occurred in the seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe and this time is
called ‘Age of Reason’.
However, all knowing
capabilities or so called rationalist enlightenment could not satisfied people
because of placing human’s emotive nature in shadow. Rationalism, failed to
capture the human’s intrinsic nature. End of eighteenth century came with
Romanticism grasping the aesthetical part of human life. It was the response to
enlightenment, but not against as it does not deny the Reason. Romanticism
assumes man as the beautiful creatures of Nature rather than God and it focuses
on individual emotion rather than common rationality. It flows with nature’s
glory as Bird’s free fly in the sky.
Renaissance provides
the importance to human. Enlightenment emphasizes the power of human reasoning
and Romanticism emphasizes on human freedom. Enlightenment was the byproduct of
Renaissance whereas Romanticism was the response to Enlightenment. These three
historical events of Humanism can be viewed as awakening human position,
emphasizing reason and emphasizing emotional freedom respectively. However all
these movement was unaware of solving the human’s problem, especially of those
who were struggling for existence. Humans got intellectual freedom, economical
freedom but on the other hand, gap between people in society was, lower class
were suffering from exploitation of higher class, fruits of humanism were
enjoying by those who was not in economical scarcity. Karl Marx appeared in
European socio-political theatre with the way of enhancing such exploited
people.
Marxism
Hegel, an objective idealist and profounder of
dialectic approach claimed that all rational are real and all real are
rational.[1]
This was the quote which compelled Marx to develop his revolutionary philosophy.
Marx alleged that Hegel built philosophy standing by head rather than foot. In
his endeavor of standing philosophy by foot[2],
Marx took the dialectic idea from Hegel and Materialism from Feuerbach then ruled
out the Idealism. Marx’s claim is that the Ultimate Reality is matter, not a
rational spirit.
What
Marx was doing is an attempt of rescuing people from exploitation. He saw how
the rationalistic approach is exploiting to the society. So called Rightist of
Contemporary German were using rationalism in such a way that what is happening
is real which ought to accept by all. All events happening against the human
life had interpreted as rational necessity. Marx attempted to find out the way
for Humans (to whom he called proletariat) who were being exploited by the
capitalist.
Hard Materialistic Approach
Marxism is a hard
Materialism. In a long historical debate of priority of essence-existence,
Marxism forcefully claims that all essence is qualitative transformation of
quantitative, or Existence of Matter is prior to consciousness or consciousness
is the product of Material dialectics. He
called the concept of any supernatural power is means to exploit proletariat showing
them divine determinism that’s why he rejects the metaphysical concept of Soul,
Ultimate Mind and all transcendental subject matter. He didn’t paid attention
to the consciousness and alleged that all theories emphasizing consciousness
prior to matter is due to the poverty of philosophy. That time Rutherford and
Bohr’s invention of Proton and Electron had made deep influence on him and Marx
has taken the materialism as a grant without viewing critically.
Man as Economical Machine (Economical determinism)
Before Marx, Man was
either representation of God or evolution of conscious ideal. But Marx
conceived Man as economical being. He fully ignored the Psychology and affirmed
man as evolution of matter. Human consciousness is the knowledge gained by his
behavior. Foremost behavior of Man is economical. According to him, Economy is
that matter which differentiates the people into Capitalist and Proletariat.
Those who earn the Surplus Value are exploiter of workers. Marxist philosophy
views man as only economical exploiter and exploited. This division led Marxism
to a kind of determinism; hereby, it can be called Economical extremism. Marx interpreted socio-economic history in a
teleological way such that society must turn to capitalism from feudalism,
again to socialism from capitalism and at last from socialism to communism.
Nobody can turnabout this array of economical teleology, everyone must follow
this evolution, and there is no other alternative. Marxism neglects the
individuality of Romanticism; rather it is the romanticism enjoyable by group. In
another word, it can be said that it is Revolutionary Romanticism wherein a
proletariat has loosed his personal feelings because of his exploitation.
Mechanical Change of Society (Dialectical Materialism)
What Marx conceived about
social process is Mechanical approach. He used Hegel’s Dialectic approach in a
very materialistic manner. The ultimate substance matter grows mechanically by
the process of dialectics. Quality like consciousness is the byproduct of Quantitative
change of matter which he calls Law ofQuantitative to Qualitative
Change. This change occurs because of presence of opposite as intrinsic
attribute in substance. In the process of this dialectic change, two opposite
poles forms. For example, if x1, x2, x3…..xn
is the oppositeof y1, y2, y3….yn,
then all x factor makes unity and all y factors also makes unity. Unity of X
struggles with Y; this is called Law of Unity of Oppositions and Struggles. This struggle is for the negation of one by
another factor but at last both X and Y factors fully disappears and New things
appear with different quantity and quality which he defines as Law of
Negation of Negation. This dialectical process of evolution of matter is
called Dialectic Materialism. According to him, even the society runs by
such Laws and in society, factor which differentiate X and Y factor is the Surplus
Value or Capital[3]
(Profit). Here, Marx gives all attention to surplus value and he didn’t
have conceived any other factor as cause of change and struggles. Hence, in
Marxism,Society runs by the train of economical determinism. Keeping aside the economy, man has no free
will.
Class struggle
Theory of class
struggle is based on his dialectic materialism. As mentioned previous, all
physical and social existence follows the three laws of Dialectic Materialism.
World history, as evolution of civilization, cannot be distinct from dialectic
process. Society is also material things. The evolution of society in dialectic
process is called Historical Dialecticism or Historical Materialism. Thus, two opposition poles (which he calls
the Class) forms in society, regarding the owner (Capitalist) and
producer (Proletariat) of surplus value, they struggle between each other,
which negates by formation of new poles.
So, in the first sentence of Communist Manifesto, Marx concludes that World
history is the history of class struggle.[4]
This class forms by the economical differentiation. In Marxist sense, Class
Struggle can be conceived as the revolution of proletariat against capitalist
in order to gain full rights on surplus value.
Violation may be utile in the revolution if needed.
Concluding Remarks: Humanism against Humanism
The so called doctrine
of class struggle fully supports the right of Proletariat Class and argued that
the struggle ends after the attainment of Proletariat Dictatorship. This
doctrine emphasizes the Humanism of Proletariat people who were exploited
before. Socialism attained by class struggle ceases all the private property to
distribute the proletariat. Moreover, distributed property does not belong to
ordinary proletariat, which will be the property of only socialist government. Confiscation
of property is to end the economical differentiation. Further, after destroying
the private property system, Marxism aims to eliminate the political state.
Abolition of political state is the attainment of communism when there will not
be proletariat-capitalist division, all people will have equal power. However
the defect is that there is no place of Humanism for capitalist. Proletariat
class will revenge the capitalist and they will be suppressed. Before Marx, in
the era of reason (Enlightenment), it was true in some extent that Humanism was
only for powerful because powerless could not faced the every circumstances to
which Hegel had said reasonably real. That time, suppression of powerless was
indirect whereas Marxism assumes forcefully that all opposition of Proletariat
dictator must be suppressed. This can be called the doctrine of proletariat Humanism
against Humanism.
Critiques on Marxism: M. N. Roy
In
the history of philosophy, there is no any other theory rather than Marxism
which has been applied as much and criticized as much. Since the arrival of
this theory in world, its critiques were started or in other word it had
entailed its objection since its pregnancy. Most debated topics in the Marxism
are theory of class struggle, dictatorship of socialist proletariat and
abolition of political state. Communism in ordinary sense is peaceful,
egalitarian society. Criticizer raised the questions that how the peaceful
communism will be attained through violent socialism. Marxism had left the
psychological part of human which became most criticizable points for Anti
Marxist.
M.
N. Roy who had extreme faith in Marxism in his early political career could not
remain untouched by the criticizers point. Roy’s charge is upon the lack of
humanism in Marxism. The Marxian doctrine of state, according
to which the state is an instrument of exploitation of one Class by another, is
clearly rejected by Roy. According to Roy, the state is “the political
organization of society” and “its withering away under communism is a
utopia which has been exploded by Experience”.[5] Roy
emphasizes the necessity of state’s existence because state is that institute
which can protect the humanism. Moreover, he says, in reality, Marxist
doctrine of economic determinism betrays a woeful ignorance of the dynamics of
human culture.[6]
“The economic interpretation of
history has brought Marxism to grief. A Philosophy of history, which ignores
other factors of human life than the forces of production, particularly the
dynamics of ideas and disregards moral problems, cannot be a reliable guide for
constructive social action. Marxist historicism has been put to test and found
wanting.”[7] According to
Roy, a new, more comprehensive, philosophy of history which can provide freedom
to individual and which can rescue man from all kinds of teleological
determinism is the crying need of the day.
However, as a criticizer, Roy is not a
complete opponent of Marxism, What he did is the reform of Marxism or attaining
the Communist value by the way of democratic practice without violation. Roy is
not missing the need of emancipation of exploited proletariat.
Neo Marxist Realm and M. N Roy
The failure of Marxism
starts from its early delivery. Paris Commune could not survive more than
seventy two days. Then different
responses to Marxism started to manifest. Some responses were from Marxist side
in the desire of reforming Marxism and some responses were from Capitalistic
side to fulfill the positive demand of Marxism. These responses apart from core
Marxist
trend are called Neo-Marxism. Critical theory, Post structuralism, Atheist
Existentialism, Post Modernism and so on other theories flourished, which
somewhat bears the Marxist approach.
Atheist Existentialist Jean Paul Sartre who belongs
to Neo-Marxist tradition emphasizes the consciousness rather than matter. He
defined human existence as conscious being. In Humanistic tradition, Sartre’s
endeavor of viewing conscious man from Marxist point of view is the best
example of Neo Marxism. Max Weber’s understanding of social inequality, post
modernist’s emphasis on Indigenous society’s
Anthropology, etc. also falls under the Neo-Marxist zone. Neo Marxism
escapes violent class struggle and it connects Marxism with liberal democracy
too. Classical Marxism keeps Capitalist in opposition while Neo Marxist talks
about preservation of all human’s interest and objects any kind of exploitation
as well as proletariat and other kind of dictatorship.
Actually, M. N. Roy’s critic of Marxism also is not
in opponent with classical Marxism, rather his endeavor can be conceived as
reform of making Marxism for Humanism. M. N. Roy was fully introduced with the
recent development of Science, Psychology, and Sociology. He had seen the
downfall of Marxist revolution and Lenin’s Totalitarianistic way of ruling had
very negative influence on him. He saw the application of Marxism in Soviet
Union as loss of Humanism. He says, “The picture of the proletariat
revolution had lost its original moral appeal and the glamour of humanist
romanticism.”[8]Moreover,
“The era of the proletariat revolution heralded by the Communist
Manifesto, and believed to have been actually inaugurated by the Russian
revolution, has thus opened up the perspectives not of a higher civilization.
Rather, has the optimism of a whole century been a day dream to end in grand
frustration? Or was it all a nightmare?”[9]
Thus Roy’s project is to make Marxism pragmatic in human life rather than a
nightmare.
Metaphysical divorce: Physical Realism
According to Roy, What
world needing is philosophy of freedom[10].
Being hard materialist, Roy could not found the place for Humanism associated
with freedom of thought. He endeavored to develop a philosophy that can supply
idea for humanism; consequently, Roy fully divorced with Marxist Materialism
and then he interpreted Materialism as Physical Realism. It is Realism because
he assumes that external world exists without existence of Mind. Mind is
physical things and can be explained physiologically. In his time, Quantum
physics was developing, and hence he conceived ultimate reality as more subtle
than Marxist solid matter. As a Marxist, he rejects the speculative metaphysics
and accepts those problems as philosophy (ontological, Cosmological and
Epistemological) insofar as they can be solved by Science or rational humanistic
endeavor.
Man as Psychological Being
Classical Marxism neglects the psychological aspect
of man. Getting rid of Classical
Marxism, M. N. Roy replaced the ‘Economical Being’ by ‘Psychological Being’. Roy
rejects historical materialism and advocates a humanist interpretation
of history; wherein, he gives an important place to human will as a determining
factor in history, and he recognizes the autonomy of mental world.[11]
Regarding the Marxist’s failure of incorporating moral nature of man, he says,
the desire to be moral is inherent in man, and it is so because this desire
results from man’s innate rationality. Historical
events occur by human desire. Only
economy cannot be whole account of human behavior. Economy is only the means of
fulfilling psychic desire. Influencing from Romanticism, Roy emphasizes the
emotive urges of human. Furthermore,
preventing human psychical power from supernatural divine explanation, he says,
Ideation is a physiological process, once ideas are formed in the mind of man;
they exist by them-selves, governed by their own laws. Explaining Man as
psychological being leads to the humanistic approach to history rather economically
deterministic approach. According to Roy, Human need and psychological understanding
of circumstances are the key factors of historical dynamism.
Radical Humanism
In order to bring the
liberation of people, Roy promoted a renaissance movement in India. The
Renaissance broadly means the revolt of man against all the fetters spiritual
and temporal that restricts the human freedom as man in Europe had restricted.[12]
Roy’s point herein is that he was conceiving his contemporary India alike
Europe of just before Renaissance. He was inviting Renaissance in India.
If Communism is the primacy
and sovereignty of commune (society) over people, Radical Humanism is the
primacy and sovereignty of people over any kind of institutional and religious
determinism. Roy Elaborates the Radical Humanism in his “New Humanism-A
Manifesto” and further he summarizes this in ‘Twenty two thesis’, Radical
Humanism or Neo Humanism is the name given to his “New Philosophy of
Revolution”. [13]
Marxism restricts all kinds of intellectual activity
that is not analogical with their classical belief whereas M. N. Roy thinks
that Man is essentially a rational being. His nature is not to believe, but to
question, to acquire and to know.
As said by Roy, a revolutionary is one who has got
the idea that the world can be remade, made better than it is today, that it
was not created by a supernatural power, and therefore, could be remade by
human efforts.[14]
He interpreted history by Humanistic approach giving priority to Human Will. A
conscious human is able to hold the force of circumstances. He refused all
kinds of fatalism, orthodoxy prejudice and blind passion of Marxism. Actually,
what he did is an appeal to raise the voice of reason as in enlightenment.
Aspects of Radical Humanism
Individual
freedom and Humanistic approach to history are the outlining aspect of Radical
Humanism.
Roy argues that no amount of welfare and prosperity can bring happiness unless
they are enjoyed in freedom.
“All thoughtful believers in a future of
Humanity must be deeply perturbed by the gloomy perspectives. But they must not
simply stand aghast, paralyzed by the feeling of the helplessness amounting to
fatalism. They must think furiously so as to lay bare the cause of the malady
threatening the very existence of the civilized world, and act boldly to
exterminate the cause.”[15]
Radical humanism shares the idea
of freedom from democratic pole and equalitarianism from Marxist pole. Summing up the history of Humanism, it
conceives man as emotive, rational being with complete emancipation. “Our approach to
the problems of political theory and practice,” says Roy “is claimed to be free
from any dogmatic presupposition.[16] So,
the freedom does not mean only political liberty, rather it is the freedom of
thought too.
Moreover,“political
philosophy must start from the basic idea, that the individual is prior to society,
and that freedom can be enjoyed only by individuals”.[17] This
conception of Roy leads to the Invidualism which can be regard as the main
aspect of Radical Humanism. According to him, Social urge is less important
than individual urge. Marxist social Authoritarianism cut off the individual’s
mental capacities.
Relevance
Now, the two extremism
of world – Conservative Capitalism and Marxism are meeting in a point which Roy
had emphasized. So called Marxist is attempting to be part of open society and
the capitalist are attempting to make democracy for all not only for
capitalist. Soviet Union has been declined, social democracy is flourishing.
This facet of the global world is quite analogous to Roy’s critiques of
Marxism. However, World is still facing the violent civil war and gap between
rich and poor is increasing even in this time that’s why Roy’s synthesization
of violent Marxism and Anti Marxism is still utile.
Conclusion
As a
man of spiritual land: India, and as a Materialist, what Roy did is an indirect
attempt of integrating the materialistic and spiritualistic views, which
prevented him from being extremist. Propose
of his moderate theory is to awaken India, for the reason that his contemporary
colonial India had missed Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Industrial and
Scientific Revolution. He believed that sovereignty and primacy of man over God,
and any determinism is attainable by such revolution. His thesis of Radical
Humanism can be assumed as the synthesization of Human emancipation of
Renaissance, Reasoning power of enlightenment, emotional beauties and psychic
nature of Romanticism, Political liberty of French revolution, Man as conscious
being of existentialism, all these from Marxist point of view. Rejection of economical determinism with all
sorts of teleology, violent class struggle and proletariat dictatorship are the
fundamental features of his doctrine of Humanism. Providing complete free wills
to man, he argues that the world can be remade better by human efforts;
thereby, he is prevented from full divorce with Marxism. Giving highest value to Individual freedom
(Unlike social freedom in Marxism) and presenting humanistic approach to
history (i.e. history as made by human will, not by economy) are the key
features of his Radical Humanism. His humanistic approach in history lies in
the reduction of solid Marxist Materialism to Physical Realist approach
interpreting human consciousness as physical (definable by science) rather than
material.
Bhattacharya, G. P., M. N. Roy and
Radical Humanism, A. J. B. H. Wadla Publication, First edition, July 1961
Engels, Freideric, Ludwig Feurbach
and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Foreign Language Press,
Pecking, 1976
Dr.
Goswami, Karabi, Humanism of M. N. Roy and R.N. Tagore- A Comparative
Study, International
Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Science Society and Culture (IJIRSSC)Vol: 1, Issue: 2, (December Issue), 2015
Marx, Karl and Frederic Engels, Communist
Manifesto, English Edition, 1848
Nath, Ramendra, (Ph. D., D.
Litt.) M.
N. Roy’s New Humanism and Materialism, Buddhiwadi Foundation, Patna,
First edition, 2014
Nath, Ramendra, (Ph. D., D.
Litt.), Manbendra Nath Roy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Dr. Lalitha, S., M. N. Roy – Father
of Indian communism,Imperial journal of Interdisciplinary Research,
Vol – 2, Issue- 4, 2016 (page 283-287)
Roy, M. N., New Humanism: A
Manifesto, S. Balwant for Ajanta Publication, First edition (Third Reprint)
1981
Roy, M. N., Reason, Romanticism and
Revolution, Volume I & II, Renaissance Publishers Ltd.,First
edition, 1952
Dr.
Shivakoti, Gopal, History of Political Idealogy, Ratna Pustak Bhandar,
Kathmandu, Fourth Edition, 2002
Sunuwar,
Ramesh (Editior), Dialectic Materialism and Historical Materialism; basic
principles of Marxism, Edited collections of writings of Marx, Engels,
Lenin, Stalin and Mao, Pragati Pustak Sadan, Kathmandu, 2008
There
is a problem in Western Philosophy-the problem of dual existence of soul and
matter which has not been solved yet. A Muslim man-Mohammad Iqbal from India
went to Cambridge and endeavored to solve the problem proposing “Ego”
as Ultimate principle. Before him, a
French Scholar Henry Bergson had made similar attempt to solve the dualist
problem proposing “Vital Force or Elan Vital” as fundamental
principle. The objective of both was to emphasize the importance of human than
God and to provide the insight of Free Will in order to revive the human
emancipation, that is why their contemporary time was in the influence of
Romanticism.
Iqbal was from religious tradition of
Muslimism and Sufi Mysticism and he was trained under the British Idealist
McTaggart. His Predecessor Bergson was from scientific tradition and he was
trained by the Darwin’s Theory of Evolution influencing from Herbert Spencer
too.
Main aim of this project is to connect
the spiritual insight of Iqbal with the scientific insight of Bergson bearing
in mind how Iqbal was influenced from Bersonian view and how both of them used
Intuition as source of Knowledge to reveal their analogous kind of Metaphysical
doctrine.
Key Words: Intuition,Elan Vital, life impetus, instinct,
ego, creative evolution, Time, Free will, desire, fatalism, finalism
Chapter I: Introduction
Brief Introduction to Iqbal
Iqbal resurrects Man from the
Lilliputian assumption of Islamic Religion.
Such an attempt made him the reconstructor of Religious thought in Islam. He bridges up the big metaphysical gulf
between God and Man. Unlike Nietzsche,
he revives the man’s position keeping God alive. According to him, Man (self), who comprehends
both passional vitality and its spiritual proclivity, is the complete
individual. His postulation of Man as
the creative truth (Anal Haq) raises individual’s position from dead
capitulator to the representative being of God on Earth.
Iqbal’s project of reconstructing
Islamic thought captures the area of Epistemology and Metaphysics that is why
he was precisely a Philosopher than Theologian.
As he carried out his study in Philosophy under McTaggart in Cambridge,
he was much more influenced by his contemporary western philosophical
tradition. He takes the main metaphysical
concepts from Quran and epistemic concepts from Sufi mysticism, and then
interprets in a new way capturing critically the ideas of Nietzsche, McTaggart,
Bergson, and Whitehead. Apart from this,
The Realistic Idealism[1]
growing in contemporary India had a great influence upon his writing. It is prima facie that the firm faith in
Quran is the heart of his philosophy which breathes in western environment,
contemplates mystically as Sufi and clothes in Indian fashion, all these sorts
lead to establish his original philosophy providing more spiritual capacity and
role to Individual human than in traditional Islam. Among these macro aspects
of his reconstructing project, here, I am intended to connect his thought with
the influencing French philosopher Henri Bergson in both Epistemological and
Metaphysical aspects.
Brief Introduction to Bergson
In Western Philosophy, 20th
century begins with Anti-intellectualists’ responses to Hegel’s Intellectualism.
F.H Bradley endeavors to explain Absolute Idealism in empirical manner that is
called Neo-Hegelianism. Pragmatist
philosophers attack on Hegel’s Intellectualism arguing that intellect grows to fulfill
the biological necessities. They argue
that Absolute is intrinsically dynamic and changeable rather than rationally certitude. French Philosopher Henry Bergson enhances
this Anti-intellectualist idea in a very new way, which enables him to solve
the most debated Mind-Body problem of Western philosophy[2]. He was deeply influenced from Romanticism, Pragmatism,
and Existentialism of his time, which were the Anti-Intellectualist traditions. Taking fundamental idea from Darwinism, he
proposes the Ultimate Reality of Biological nature and further he criticizes
the Herbert Spencer’s Mechanistic explanation[3]. Bergson is a distinct philosopher in Western
Philosophy who explains universe on the basis of creative evolution of Elan
Vital. He focuses on the life-world and his philosophy is applicable equally in
life philosophy, traditional rational philosophy and evolutionary biology as
well as Quantum Physics. In addition, His project was to overcome the Agnostic
challenge of Kant too. Kant’s Problem
arises due to the duality of Rational and Empirical, both of which belongs to
the capacity of Mind. Bergson bridges
the Mind-Body gap and explains ultimate reality in terms of vital force. He claims that Mind-Body is the evolution of
vital force, which in Human Beings, appears with distinct kind of Intuitive
power.
Analogy of objectives
Although there are huge similarities
between Iqbal and Bergson, there is a quite difference in objectives too.Iqbal’s
project is to reconstruct the religious thought in Islam which he satisfies by
raising individual man’s position to Perfect Man whereas Bergson’s project is
to philosophizing the scientific biological ideas which he satisfies by developing
the theory of creative evolution. But
there is not only this difference. Iqbal bridges up the metaphysical gap
between God and Man too, similarly Bergson bridges up the Mind-Body gap. Iqbal
summes up the God and Man as ego principle whereas Bergson connects Mind-Body
through Elan Vital. Both, the Ego and Elan Vital, has the complete Free Will,
both are intuitively apprehensible and have the infinite creativity.
Analogy of Approach
As I mentioned above, although there is a
difference between Berson’s and Iqbal’s philosophy regarding the objectives, we
can get great similarity of bridging metaphysical gap. Similarly while comparing their approach, we
may find out dissimilarities in some extent and similarities in some extent. Dissimilarity is that Bergson’s approach is
scientific while Iqbal’s approach is Religious.
Bergson intends to reveal the metaphysical wonder of life-world while
Iqbal intends to realize and to make contact with ideal of life-world. Iqbal
emphasizes on spirituality while Bergson emphasizes on process of Reality.
Whatever their approach is, intention of selecting such approach is to revive
the immaterialist and anti-intellectualist, simple intuitive perspectives about
the life-world.
Chapter II: Epistemic Ground
Epistemic Intuition: Iqbal
For
Iqbal, the spirit of Philosophy is one of free inquiry[4]
which suspects all authority. Pure reason or a rational way is incapable of
accomplishing the final goal of such inquiry. Free inquiry is alike the bird’s
trackless way. In some extent, a religious faith shows the hidden object of
inquiry that’s why faith has something like cognitive content[5].
Ultimate reality (Allah) is the cognitive content of such faith. Hence, Iqbal’s
epistemic aim is to accomplish the cognitive content of faith. The general
truth which faith embodies must not remain unsettled as in so called
Rationalism and Empiricism. Although
Iqbal does not deny the Empirical and Rational way of Knowing, that he does not
say these ways yield false knowledge, he claims that both lack the direct
apprehension of content of faith or Ultimate Reality[6].
Hume has already shown that the end of Empiricism is Skepticism and in Kantian
Transcendental Idealism, both of them combine together to form an Agnosticism. For
Kant, perceptual constituents must fulfill certain rational (formal) conditions
in order to constitute knowledge but Noumenon or the ideas of things-in-itself
cannot be demonstrated by Reason formally when we experience it. Kantian
conclusion is that the subject matter of Metaphysics falls outside the
boundaries of experience and cannot be systematized by space-time and therefore
Metaphysics is impossible. According to
Kant, Religious faith also constitutes such Noumenal Ideas as mystical
experience and hence Religion is equally impossible. But according to Iqbal, it
is possible to attain knowledge of Ultimate Reality and therefore both
Metaphysics and religion are possible[7].
He says that Quran has spoken about such a process. He gathers Quranic notions
and elucidates in a simplest manner. For
him, knowing Ultimate Reality is very simple as knowing as the existence of himself. Iqbal accuses of Kant that “Kant’s verdict
can be accepted only if we establish an idea that all experience other than the ordinary
level of experience is impossible.”[8]
In simpler way, Kant’s such declaration makes all empirical knowledge false
because things-in-itself are knowable directly and more precisely through
experience by a very simpler manner. Moreover, Metaphysical and Religious ideas
are easily knowable than Kantian Phenomenon.
So, According to Iqbal, denying the simple empirical knowledge
(Noumenon) makes fallacious to the general empirical knowledge (phenomenon) or
Kant is walking on opposite path which makes simpler unknowable and general
knowable.
Iqbal unhesitatingly asserts that Reality in itself
is knowable by experience in a very simpler manner that is called Intuition. Intuition is the task of heart (feeling)
rather than Mind (Rational). “The ‘heart’ is a kind of inner
intuition or insight which, in the beautiful words of Rumi, feeds on the rays
of the sun and brings us into contact with aspects of Reality other than those
open to Sense perception.”[9]
Intuition is empathetic or makes relation with
Reality per se. It is the direct awareness of Reality, which comes to us
immediately.
Iqbal’s view on intuition is more or less influenced
by Sufi Mysticism. In his time, not only Muslimism, but also Sufi Mysticism was
growing up in Indian poetry and Aesthetics, which were greatly influenced by Upanishadic
and Vedantic tradition[10] .
So, Iqbal’s view on intuition has become the combo of Sufism, Hinduism and
Muslimism.
Epistemic Intuition: Bergson
Alike Iqbal, Bergson
has developed the Intuitive Epistemology as an attempt to overcome Kantian agnosticism.[11] He gives
higher value to the intuition than sense perception and reason. Showing the
inadequacy of empirical and intellectual knowledge, Bergson claims that
intuition is obligatory for the knowing of Reality. Intellect captures only the external aspect
whereas intuition enters into the inner aspect of Reality[12]. For Bergson, Intuition is the advance
rationality. Moreover, Intuition is
Instinct plus consciousness. Instinct is
the property of elan vital. Original
instinct of elan vital is unconscious whereas advancement of elan vital as
Human Being bears the consciousness and hence human being contains the
intuitive capacity. Distinguishing with
Rationality, he defines Intuition that, “It follows from this that an
absolute could only be given in an intuition whilst everything else
falls within the province of analysis. By intuition is meant the kind of
intellectual sympathy by which one places oneself within an object in
order to coincide with what is unique in it and consequently inexpressible.[13]
For him all philosophical categories are knowable by Intuition, further he
says, “There is one reality, at least, which we all seize from within, by
intuition and not by simple analysis.”[14]
Comparative Intuition: Iqbal and Bergson
Bergson
overcomes the Kantian Metaphysical Agnosticism.
Likewise, Iqbal overcomes the Kantian Religious Agnosticism. For Iqbal and Bergson, Reality in itself is
apprehensible in a very simple manner. Bergson and Iqbal both accept
experience, intellect and intuition as source of knowledge starting their
philosophy explaining from experience and giving more priority to intuition.
Both of them criticized the doctrines which claim either intellect or
experience as adequate source of knowledge. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier,
Bergson can be categorized as the anti-intellectualist. According to them, only
intuition is able to grasp the inner aspect of Reality whereas intellect grasps
outer aspect symbolically.
Iqbal
defines knowledge as “sense perception elaborated by understanding”[15]. Similarly, in his book creation and
evolution, Bergson affirms himself as empiricist. He makes resolution of building up his
Philosophy based on ‘Experience’[16]. However, here, one things must be kept in mind
is that ‘Experience’ for Bergson and Iqbal is not as explained by so called
British Empiricist. Both of them claim that the ‘experience’ explained by
British Empiricist is mere subjective state into which the individual retires. Bergson distinguishes three level of
experience: 1) Sense Experience, 2) Mental Experience, and 3) Inner Experience. First two lead the knowledge and information
of external world as well as our private feelings. The third is the exactly intuitive experience
which yields knowledge of Ultimate Reality.[17] Similarly,
Iqbal differentiates mere subjective experience with inner experience. For him,
Inner experience is the experience of heart, which realizes ultimate truth;
nevertheless, Iqbal does not split the Subjective experience as in Bergson’s
manner. Iqbal’s subjective experience
include both Mental and sensual experience.
Because
of influence from Sufism, Iqbal’s notion of Intuition seems to be Mystic
experience whereas Bergson’s Intuition seems to be advancement of intellect rather
than attainment and realization of higher mystical experience.
Metaphysical Comparison
Metaphysics: Iqbal
Iqbal’s Metaphysics based on Intuitive
epistemology is an endeavor of providing centrality to the man in Islamic
Religious thought. His metaphysical aim
is to make room for perfect man which seems to be an influence from Nietzsche’s
Superman in some extent but the Iqbal’s Perfect Man is not similar to
Nietzsche’s Superman.[18] His
metaphysics is an elaboration and explanation of monistic principle which
defines self, World and God as an Ego. Iqbal rejects the mechanistic view of
Universe and delineates the intuitive teleological view.
Ego
In
his lecture “Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam”, Iqbal
says, “The ego reveals itself as a unity of what we call mental
states. Mental states do not exist in mutual isolation. They mean and involve
one another. They exist as phases of a complex whole, called mind. The organic
unity, however, of these interrelated states or, let us say, events is a
special kind of unity. It fundamentally differs from the unity of a material
thing; for the parts of a material thing can exist in mutual isolation. Mental
unity is absolutely unique.”[19] Individual
Ego is definable as self, World is definable as totality of Egos and God is
definable as supreme Ego. Every individual ego is representation of Divine God.
Ego is eternal, not created. It is Divine direction towards creation of new
things.[20]
Ego comprehends both the passional vitality
and spiritual propensity. For individual self, Ego is essentially private and
unique[21].
Soul and Body are system of act. Bodily act is mechanical while soul’s act is
free. Body is accumulated action or habit of soul, they are undetachable[22]. In
this way, Iqbal bridge up the Mind-Body gap by single Ego principle.
Creativity
Iqbal mentions the view of devotional
Sufism, especially a famous expression of Hallai-‘Anal Haq’ which means ‘I am the Creative
Truth’. Moreover, quoting a relevant verse from the Quran and expressing
the significance of the word Khalq which means creation, he asserts that
the Ego is creative in nature[23].
Time
Regarding
the Space-Time relation, Iqbal denies the Newtonian objective conception of
Space-Time. For him, Time is Relative with space[24] ,
But he didn’t has paid more attention to space-time relation. What he explains
is about how we apprehend time in Intuitive level.
Iqbal’s
notion of Time develops criticizing the Serial Time, McTsaggart’s Unreality of
Time and Nietzsche’s Cyclical Time. Serial Time is the view regarding Time as
absolute apart Space which measures Time as succession. Acceptance of
relativity of Time and viewing ego’s activity as free act without mechanical
determinism is sufficient to reject the notion of Serial Time. According to
him, Serial Time is applicable only to the material motion, not to the ego
activity. McTaggart rejects the reality of time. As a Idealist, he says Time is
just illusive appearance. Iqbal says McTaggart’s such notion is due to the
belief on Serial Time[25].
McTaggart’s viewed the Time as material movement only and he could not find the
movement of subtle activity of Ideal. Nietzsche claimed Time as Periodical
measurement. According to Nietzsche, eternal ideal which is immortal follows
cyclical existence that is like evolution and involution process. This shows
the repetition of periods. But for Iqbal, since Ego is the representation of
God, it is immortal but not periodically repetitive. [26]
Iqbal
believed that “a keen sense of the reality of time and the concept of life as a
continuous movement in time is typical of Islam.”[27]
He
attaches pivotal importance to time in his own philosophy. According to him, the
measurement of ego’s act of creation cannot be measured as by mathematical
time. Since the ego is intuitively knowable and in intuitive level, we cannot
grasp the known things as succession with certainty, he explains ‘Time’ as Duration.
Moreover he says, “The duration of the physical event is stretched out in
space as a present fact; the ego’s duration is concentrated within it and
linked with its present and future in a unique manner.”[28]
Free Will
The debate between predestination and free will has
been an ancient debate within in Islam. Iqbal comes down strongly in favor of
free will. Iqbal has established that the Ego shares in divine practice of free
will. The ego, therefore, is not space-bound.[29] Ego
is not created rather it is directed towards creation of things. Iqbal used the
word AMR means direction which is essential nature of ego. Iqbal
uses another word Khalq (for created things) which means
creation. He does not use the word Khalqfor Ego because ego is
not created things rather it is creative.[30] Ego
is eternal and essential free to act. Life exists for ego-activity, which man
is free to engage in. Since ego self’s act is free, Man is responsible to his
every right and wrong action. Free will is a unique quality of the ego, which
no other creation has. Every ego has the characteristics of God (supreme ego)
and God is free, then his manifestation cannot be freedom less. Iqbal writes,
“The ego shares in the life and freedom of the Ultimate Ego who, by permitting
the emergence of a finite ego, capable of private initiative, has limited this
freedom of His own free will.”[31]
Prayer in Islam is the ego’s escape from mechanism to freedom. Iqbal provides
free will to man in a way of directing towards attainment of perfect manhood.
Metaphysics: Bergson
Bergson’s Metaphysics deeply rooted in his
intuitive Epistemology is an attempt of explaining universe organically.
Criticizing the rationalist view, he argues
“Metaphysics, then, is the science which claims to dispense with
symbols”[32]. His main contribution in Metaphysics
can be viewed as the bridging Mind-Body gap. Bergson’s Lebensphilosophie can be seen as a response to the mechanistic
philosophies of his time. [33]
For Bergson, Reality in itself is completely free.
Elan Vital: (Life impetus or life force)
The concept of Elan Vital first appeared
in his book ‘Creative Evolution’. He defined elan vital as the vital force
which has the creativity of evolution. It is the Bergson’s invention of
ultimate stuff. He is the first who conceived living force as ultimate
being. Such vital force progresses in
organic (biological) manner rather than mechanistic manner.[34] He
also protects the life impetus from so called determined teleology. Life force
pervades in all matter and mind. Bergson does not believe in the duality of
Matter and Mind. A Pure thinking consciousness belongs to the Ultimate Stuff
(Elan Vital). Moreover he conceives Matter as the movement inverse that of
life. Bergson’s this endeavor of explaining the world process establishing life
force as ultimate lead him to establish base for the libenswelt philosophy in
Continental Europe.
The life force
or Elan vital is intuitively graspable. He says,”We may sympathize
intellectually with nothing else, but we certainly sympathize with our own
selves.”[35]
Elan vital contains the instinct or an impulse which leads to its biological
creativity. The vital force acts freely. In his writing, ‘Time and Free will”,
Bergson appreciates the philosophical Free will.
Creative Evolution
More specifically, Bergson’s project in Creative Evolution is to offer a philosophy capable of
accounting both for the continuity of all living beings—as creatures—and for
the discontinuity implied in the evolutionary quality of this creation.[36]
His argument consists of four main steps. First, is that the original common
impulse which explains the creation of all living species; this is his famous
vital impulse (élan vital). Second is the diversity resulting from evolution.
If the original impulse is common to all life, then there must also be a
principle of divergence and differentiation that explains evolution. Third, the
two main diverging tendencies that account for evolution can ultimately be
identified as instinct on the one hand and intelligence on the other. Human
knowledge results from the form and the structure of intelligence. Intelligence
consists precisely in an analytic, external, hence essentially practical and
spatialized approach to the world. Unlike instinct, human intelligence is
therefore unable to attain to the essence of life in its duration. The
paradoxical situation of humanity (the only species that wants to know life is
also the only one that cannot do so) must therefore be overcome. Fourth is the
effort of intuition what allows us to place ourselves back within the original
creative impulse so as to overcome the numerous obstacles that stand in the way
of true knowledge.[37]
The Creative Evolution against traditional mechanistic cosmology, in particular is an attempt to explain
whole universe as the evolutionary development of creative Elan Vital. The world is nothing than the dynamism of
Elan Vital. This dynamism by creative evolution is the eternal, has no end.
Time
Henri Bergson’s discovered his theory of Duration, when he was trying to improve the inadequacies of Herbert Spencer’s mechanistic philosophy[38].
Bergson,
criticizing the traditional assumption of “Time as Succession” argues
that such explanation is incapable to express the flow of Time. For Bergson,
Time is not a ‘succession’ rather it is ‘Duration‘. “Duration is
the continuous progress of past which grows into the future and which swells as
it advances.”[39] “It
has one foot in the past another in the future”.[40] Time
is nothing but a continuous flow of Elan Vital through Creative Evolution. What
Bergson trying to say is that event in Creative Evolution cannot be measured
mathematically, that is just apprehensible as ‘Duration’.
‘Time as Succession’ is the external aspect of Time
which can define only the rational aspect of world whereas apart this external
aspect, we have our inner aspect which does not flow as succession of one point
to another. Motion of inner aspect flow as Duration which can be felt at Love,
deep melancholy and so on[41]. He says “analysis operates always on the
immobile, whilst intuition places itself in mobility or, what comes to the same
thing, in duration”[42]. Thus,
time in real sense is graspable only through intuition.
Free Will
Darwin proposed the
evolution in a very mechanistic manner. Darwin’s theory of evolution is limited
only upon the evolution of animals whereas Bergson’s theory is broad which
includes material evolution too. Darwinian Theory argued that only that survives
which wins the struggle for existence. Darwin postulates some mechanical
process like Theory of Natural selection, Struggle for existence, survival of
fitness and so on. Herbert Spencer continued Darwinian mechanistic explanation.
Darwin’s and Spencer’s account of world is deterministic. Apart this, so called
spiritualist accounts world as determined by God. They describes world as
following certain teleology towards final end. Bergson criticizes all this kind
of determinism. According to him, evolution in every Duration is free.
Rejection of serial time (time as succession) is sufficient to refute
determinism because in serial time, future is determined effect of past in one
direction whereas for Bergson, evolution is like the bomb explosion in multiple
direction.[43]
Evolution process has no end, Elan Vital acts freely in multiple directions.
Comparative Metaphysics: Iqbal and Bergson
Bergson
and Iqbal both rejected the mechanistic view of causality. For them creativity
is the free act. Their whole metaphysics based on this view. But Iqbal does not reject the teleological
explanation whereas Bergson’s rejection of finalism rejects teleological
explanation of universe too. Iqbal accepts teleological explanation in so far
as that does not leads to fatalism. Both of them promulgate a pluralistic
principle (i.e. Ego and Elan Vital). But for Iqbal, God as a Supreme Ego cannot
be accounted as Pluralism. However, his explanation of world as totality of Ego
or the Ego of egos leads him to be a pluralist. This Plurality of ultimate
stuff leads to the variation and diversity in world. For both of them, the
Ultimate stuff has infinite creativity. Desire of Iqbal’s ego and Instinct of
Bergson’s Elan Vital is the fundamental attribute which directs towards
creation.
For
Bergson and Iqbal both, “Pure Duration is the matrix of the whole
Universe”[44].
Both of them rejects the Newton’s view of Absolute Time, McTaggart’s view on
unreality of Time, Nietzsche’s view on Cyclic Time. Time as Duration is
knowable by Intuition. Time is creative motion. Every Duration has Unique
Creation. But one difference between them is that Bergson completely rejects
the teleology of Time whereas Iqbal accepts the teleology.
Another
similarity found in Bergon’s and Iqbal’s Philosophy is the concept of Free Will.Free will in their philosophy based on the rejection of mechanistic
explanation of life world. Bergson rejects the so called finalism and Iqbal
rejects the so called fatalism of Quran and they provide free will to their
elan vital and ego respectively.Our action is the results of our free
will hence doer is responsible for his all activities.
Concluding Remarks
Analogy of Revolt:
Iqbal
revolts against the Islamic consideration of Man as completely surrendered
being. He demonstrates the centrality of Man in Islamic thought. He
argued that followers of Islam instead of providing centrality to man,
concentrated on some other futile metaphysical question on account of which
even the centrality of man was thrown in the background and the metaphysical
nature of man remained unclear. Providing centrality to the man is the
essential revolution of Iqbal against traditional Islamic thought. Explaining
self as Ego principle and rejecting the fatalism, he provided free will to the
man, not only to the God. Similarly, explaining the ultimate stuff as Elan
Vital, Bergson provided centrality to the life force. Viewing Mind-Body as
evolution of Elan Vital, he provided complete free will to the human self
instead of traditional mechanistic and teleological explanation of life. In Philosophy, their revolution can be viewed
as against the Kantian Agnosticism. Both of them explained that which was
Agnostic for Kant. In other word, their revolution with traditional philosophy
can be said as the orientation towards life instead of solid wisdom.
Conclusion
As
Iqbal belongs to the synthetic tradition of Indian Philosophy, we can, precisely,
claim he is successful in the synthesizing of both East-West Philosophical
Tradition. Mixing Sufism with Bergsonian Intuition gives Iqbal’s notion of
Intuition. According to both philosophers, all Metaphysical and Religious ideas
are knowable in a very simpler way by Intuition. Mixing Quranic idea of self
(i.e. creative direction of God) with Bergson’s Elan Vital gives Iqbal’s
intuitively knowable ego principle. Iqbal explained ego taking the Bergson’s
notion of instinct. Adding desire (IInstinct) to the essence of ego leads to
the free act of ego and further to the capacity of man being perfect. Hence
Iqbal’s endeavor to revive the Islamic thought satisfies because of
revitalizing the Individual’s level with Bergson’s Life-force. Bergson’s
anti-mechanistic explanation of cosmology on the basis of life force had great
influence upon the iqbal’s Religious mission of resurrecting man’s position in
Islamic thought. Hence Iqbal revolt against traditional Islamic thought
synthesizing Quranic idea with his contemporary Western philosophical realm
capturing the heart of Bersonian Philosophy.
Hence both are comparable.
[1]
Realistic Idealism means Epistemic Realism as per knower-known relationship and
Metaphysical Idealism as per ultimate substance.
[9]
Dr. Begum, Shagufta, Iqbal’s Epistemology, International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, Vol.3, No.12, Center for
Promoting Ideas, USA, June 2013, Page 173
[10] मिश्र, जगदीशचन्द्र,
भरतीय दर्शन, चौखम्बा सुरभारती प्रकाशन, वाराणसी,
प्रथम संस्करण २०१५, पृष्ठ ७०२, ७०३,
७०४
[11]
Lawlor, Leonard and Moulard Leonard, Valentine, Henry Bergson, Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016
[44] Hassan, Riffat, The Concept of Time in Iqbal’s Thought, Journal of the Regional Cultural Institute, Tehran, Vol. VI, Nos. 3 and 4, 1973
Bibliography
Primary References
Bergson,
Henry, Creative Evolution, (A. Mitchel Tr.) Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Inc. New York, 1911
Bergson, Henry, Time and Free Will,
(F.C. Pagson Tr.) The MacMilan Co. New York, 1913
Bergson, Henry, An Introduction to
Metaphysics, trans. T.E. Hulme
Bergson, Henry, Matter and Memory, Dover
Publication, 2004
Iqbal Mohammad, Reconstruction of
Religious Thought in Islam, (Editor:M. Suheyl Umar), Iqbal Academy
Pakistan, 2011
Secondary References
Dr.
Begum, Shagufta, Iqbal’s Epistemology, International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol.3, No.12, Center for Promoting
Ideas, USA, June 2013
Durant, Will, The Story of Philosophy,
TIME INC., New York (Publisher: Jerome s. Hardy), 1962, page (from
417-433)
Hassan, Riffat, The Meaning and Role
of Intuition in Iqbal’s Philosophy
Hassan, Riffat, The Concept of Time
in Iqbal’s Thought, Journal of the Regional Cultural Institute, Tehran,
Vol. VI, Nos. 3 and 4, 1973, Page 103-128
Lal, Basant Kumar, Contemporary
Indian Philosophy, Second Edition, Motilal Banarasidas, Delhi, 1978
Lafrance, Guy, Bersonian Vitalism,
Edinburgh Encyclopedia of Philosophy
शिक्षा मानिसको नैसर्गिक अधिकार हो । राष्ट्रसंघले यसलाई आर्थिक, सामाजिक, सांस्कृतिक अधिकार अन्तर्गत राखेको छ । औपचारिक रुपमा व्यक्तिलाई शैक्षिक अधिकारको प्रत्याभूती गर्नु जुनसुकै राज्यको दायित्व हो । शिक्षाले नै मानिसलाई ज्ञान, सिप, क्षमता तथा असल व्यवहार सिकाउंदै सबलिकृत मार्गमा अग्रसर गराउंछ । सामान्य अर्थमा शिक्षाको कार्य सिकाउनु हो, यद्यपी शिक्षा सिकाई मात्र होइन, अपितु सिर्जनशिलता र व्यवहारिकताको अभिवृद्धि पनि हो ।
नेपालको सन्दर्भमा शिक्षाको संकुचित अर्थमा मात्र प्रयोग भएको छ । त्रिभुवन विश्वविद्यालय स्थापनाको पाँच दशक नाघिसक्दा पनि शिक्षाले अनुकरणात्मक सिकाई बाहेक गुणात्मक रुपमा सिर्जनशिलता र व्यवहारिकतामा कुनै फड्को मार्न सकेको छैन । फलतः नेपाली समाज विदेशी चिन्तकको मार्गदर्शन अनुकरण गर्दै असफल बाटोमा हिंडिरहेको छ । हाम्रा विद्यालय र माहाविद्यालयहरु ले विदेशी विद्धानको मार्ग अनुकरण गर्न मात्र सिकाउंछन्, यहाँको वातावरण र परिवेश अनुरुपको सिर्जना र व्यवहारको आविष्कार तर्फ पटक्कै ध्यान दिन सकेका छैनन्, जसकारण हाम्रो राजनीति, समाजव्यवश्था, संस्कृति, रहनसहन, भोगाई सबै मौलिकता विपरित गएका छन्, अर्काको अनुकरण गर्न खोज्दा समाज र राज्य कतै अल्मलिएको छ–सहि निकास पाइरहेको छैन ।
हामीले सिक्यौँ मात्र–दर्शनमा थेल्स देखि सुकरात, प्लेटो, अरस्तु, हिगेल, कान्ट, माक्र्स, विट्गेन्सटाइन सम्म, विज्ञानमा ग्यालिलियो, न्यूटन देखि हाइजेनबर्ग र हकिंग्स सम्म, गणितमा पाइथागोरसदेखि लाइब्निज् हुँदै कान्टोर र रस्सेल सम्म, राजनीतिमा आदिम साम्यवाददेखि वैज्ञानिक समाजवाद–साम्यवाद हुँदै भुमण्डलीकृत उदारवाद सम्म वा वैदिक सभ्यतादेखि आजको प्रजातन्त्ररुपि भिडतन्त्र सम्म, समाजशास्त्रमा कम्टेदेखि वर्गसंघर्षको सिद्धान्त हुँदै तथाकथित अनिश्चित भ्रमरुपी–कृष्णको लिला झैँ उत्तरआधुनिकताको गफसम्म अनि पूर्वीय वेद, वेदाङ्ग, उपाङ्ग, वेदान्त, आजिविका, पञ्चतन्त्र आदि–आदि । तर यतिबिध्न सिकिसक्दा पनि हाम्रो समाज अभैm किन रुग्ण छ ?–यसको चिरफार हामीले कहिल्यै गरेनौँ, हाम्रा विश्वविद्यालयहरुले गरेनन्–जो अब नगरी हुँदैन ।
प्रचिन आर्यसभ्यता, प्राचिन ग्रीक र रोम तथा आधुनिक यूरोपले शिक्षाको मार्पmत सिकाईको आदान–प्रदान मात्र गरेनन्, तिन्ले आ–आफ्नो कालमा व्यक्ति, समाज, राज्य र विश्व–व्यवश्थाका अवयवहरुलाई जरैदेखी हल्लाउँदै, परिवर्तन र विकाश गर्दै लगे–त्यसका लागी अनेकन् चिन्तकले अथक खोज–अनुसन्धान गरेर नविन चिन्तनको सिर्जना गर्दै त्यसलाई व्यवहारमा उतारे । तर हामी आपूm सुहाउँदो चिन्तनको सिर्जना गरेर त्यसलाई हाम्रो परिवेश भित्रको व्यवहारमा उतार्न कहिल्यै लागेनौँ । हाम्रो शिक्षा पद्धतीले लागेन । खालि अर्काले देखाएको मार्गमा हिँड्नका लागी झगडा मात्र ग¥यौँ–न त सहि ढंगले तिन्को अन्धाधुन्ध अनुकरण वा प्रयोग नै गर्न सक्यौँ । ठिक यहिँनेर हामीले अँगालेको मार्ग वा प्रयोग गर्न खोजेको सिद्धान्त असफल भयो र यस अवश्थामा हाम्रो शिक्षा पद्धतीले मैलिक बाटो आविष्कार गर्नुको सट्टा असफल बाटोमै हिँडिराख भनेर अबुद्धिसंगत, अथार्थगत अबौद्धिक जोताई पेलिरह्यो । हाम्रो शिक्षाले रटान लगाएर घोकाएको विदेशी चिन्तकको, विदेशी विश्वविद्यालयबाट आयातीत आर्थिक, सामाजिक, राजनीतिक सिद्धान्त अन्धाधुन्ध प्रयोग गर्न खोज्दा र हाम्रो सापेक्ष गर्न नजान्दा–नसक्दा नेपाली समाज, बुद्धिजिवीतन्त्र, राज्य सबै अन्धकार र भद्रगोलमा रुमल्लिन पुगेका छन् । गोपालवंशिहरुले शासन गरेयता हामीले थाहा पाएको नेपाली इतिहासमा प्राचिन कालका मिथिलाका न्यायसुत्रकार अक्षपाद गौतम, याज्ञवल्क्य, कपिल तथा गौतम बुद्ध बाहेक कुनै मौलिक चिन्तनको आविष्कार नहुनु नै हाम्रो पछौटेपनको प्रमुख कारक हो । आजको यूगमा त्यस काममा अघि सरेका वि.पि. कोइराला लगाएतका काँग्रेसी प्रभृत्तीले पनि यूरोपीय फेवियनवादको परिष्कार, नेहरुको अनुवाद र लोहियाको शब्द सापटी लिनु बाहेक केही गर्न सकेन । अझ त्यसयताका रामशरण महत, मिनेन्द्र रिजाल, प्रकाशचन्द्र लोहनी लगायतले त अमेरिकी सरकारी थिंक ट्यांक र त्यहाँका विश्वविद्यालयले समाजवाद मास्न दिएको अस्त्रको प्रयोग र भाषानुकरण तथा विश्व बैँक, एडिबि र यूएनडिपिका आदेश कार्यान्वयनका लागी सिद्धान्त र नीतिको तर्जुमामा मात्र ध्यान केन्द्रित गरे–राज्यको नीति र सिद्धान्तमा स्वदेशीपना हटाएर नेपाललाई तिन्ले शिक्षार्जन गरेको विदेशि विश्वविद्यालय परिसरको अत्याधुनिक पुँजिबादी थलो भैmँ सम्झे । अझ गहिरिएर हेर्ने हो भने एमाले प्रभृत्तीले त कतिसम्म भने विदेशी दाता रिझाउन आफ्नो विद्यमान सिद्धान्तलाई बेचेर जबज खरिद ग¥यो जसको सोझो नियत यहाँको सामन्तवादी संस्कृति र दलाल पुजिबादी बजारको विस्तार थियो र भयो पनि त्यस्तै । अझ अर्को अर्थमा त्यो काँग्रेसले पहिल्यै आयात गरिसकेको मोडेललाई दिइएको अर्को उपमा थियो । यिनै शक्तिहरुको सुक्ष्म प्रतिक्रान्ती स्वरुप नेपालको शुदुर भविष्यसम्मका लागी पुग्ने मौलिक स्वदेशी चिन्तन, सिप, कौशल र निती स्थापीत गर्न ज्यानको बाजी थापेर जनयूद्धमा होमिएका योद्धाहरुको नविन मुल्य र मान्यता संस्थागत हुन नदिने दुश्चेष्टा गरियो–जुन यहाँ साँझको राँकेभुतभैmँ भित्रभित्रै सल्बलाएको दलाल पुँजिबादि अभ्यास र बुर्जुवा मनःस्थितीको उपज हो जसको उत्पादन आर्थिक–सामाजिक–साँस्कृतिक मात्र नभएर बौद्धिक र शैक्षिक परनिर्भरताले गरिरहेको छ । अब हाम्रा विद्यालय र माहाविद्यालयहरुले बौद्धिक परनिर्भरताको सट्टा हाम्रो परिवेश सुहाउँदो राजनीतिक, सामाजिक, साँस्कृतिक, आर्थिक चिन्तनमा लागेर नविन सिद्धान्तको खोजि र आविष्कार गर्दै त्यसको प्रयोगमा लागेन र अभैm विदेशि चिन्तकको अनुकरणमा मात्र सिमित भयो भने हामी अभैm पछौटेपनको सिकार हुने निश्चित छ ।
शिक्षाको काम सिकाईको आदान–प्रदान हो भने त्यस्तो सिकाई सिर्जनशिल, नैतिक र व्यवहारिक हुनैपर्दछ । सिर्जनशिलताको अर्थ हो पुराना र अरुका कुरा सिकेर त्यसको जगमा नयाँ सिद्धान्त, चिन्तन र मार्गदर्शनको खोजि, नैतिकताको अर्थ हो सिर्जीत चिन्तन र मार्गदर्शनको वैयक्तिक, सामाजिक, राजनीतिक जीवनमा प्रयोग गर्दै व्यवश्थित समाजको निर्माण र व्यवहारिकताको अर्थ हो सिकिएको र सिर्जीत ज्ञान, सीपको व्यवहारमा प्रयोग गरी कार्यक्षमताको अभिवृद्धि गर्नु । यिनै तीन आयामलाई समेट्न सक्ने सिक्षा पद्धती र पाठ्यक्रम हाम्रा विद्यालय, माहाविद्यालयहरु ले लागु गर्न सके भने हाम्रो अहिलेको अवश्थामा कायापलट हुन सक्दछ र हामी आधुनिक यूरोप झैँआफ्नो मौलिकताको परिष्कार गर्दै विकाशको पथमा अघि बढ्न सक्दछौँ ।
तर शिक्षाले अहिलेको सन्दर्भमा किन त्यस्तो कायापलट गर्न सकेन ? किन यसले हाम्रा सामाजिक, आर्थिक, सांस्कृतिक, राजनीतिक समस्याहरुको हल गर्ने यथेष्ट उपायको सिर्जना गर्न सकेन ? नेपालको शैक्षिक क्षेत्रका निति निर्माताहरुका लागी यो निकै जटिल प्रश्न हो । शैक्षिक विषयवस्तु र पाठ्यक्रममा नक्कल र अनुकरण मात्र हाम्रो समस्या होइन, हाम्रो समाज र बौद्धिक क्षेत्रको चरित्र नै अध्ययनहीनता, अल्पज्ञान, एक विषयको ज्ञातालाई सबै विषयको सर्वज्ञ ठानेर उसैबाट सबै समस्याको हल खोज्नु तथा हासिल भएको ज्ञानलाई समय सापेक्ष नविन अर्थमा नहेरेर सधैँ आपूmले जानेको एकमात्र ज्ञान सही, अपरिमार्जनीय र निरपेक्ष हो भन्ठान्नु । समयको माग र गति अनुसार ज्ञानको प्रशस्त ढोकाहरु नखुल्नु नै हाम्रो विश्वविद्यालयीय अनुसन्धानात्मक रुग्णता हो । यहाँका प्राध्यापकदेखी समाजका प्रतिष्ठित बाहक सम्मले हाम्रो समाज, हाम्रो परिश्थति, इतिहास र समुल नेपाली चरित्रको अध्ययन नै गरेनन् । त्यसलाई सधैँ पाश्चात्य परिवेशमै बुझ्ने र ढाल्ने चेष्टामात्र गरे । तिनले नेपाली मौलिक परिवेशको अनुशिलनात्मक अध्ययनको साटो सर्टिफिकेट देखाएर बिक्न मात्र खोजे । फोस्रो मक्किइसकेको पाश्चात्य बौद्धिकताको ढोंग बोकेर विश्वविद्यालय, योजना र निति निर्माणका क्षेत्र तथा जुनसुकै क्षेत्रमा नियूक्ति लिए, पद पाए र भरपुर उपयोग गरे अनि नेपाली समाजको मुल चरित्र भन्दा नित्तान्त भिन्न सिद्धान्तहरुको विभिन्न वाद र दर्शनका नाममा कार्यान्वयन गरेर, गर्न खोजेर विदेशी दाता रिझाउन मात्र लागी परे । परिणामतः समाज संक्रमणमा त गयो तर निकास पाएन र नेपाली समाजमा यूगीन परिवर्तनको सट्टा भिडतन्त्र मडारियो । यसको कारण हो तिनले लिएको पाश्चात्य शिक्षा शिल्प नेपाली परिवेशसंग नमिल्नु । तिनै बुद्धिजीवि का कारण हामीले अभ्यास गर्दै आएको आर्थिक उदारवादको सिद्धान्त, धर्मको बहस, समावेशिता, संघियता जस्ता सबै कुरामा हाम्रो मौलिकता भन्दा बाह्य समाजको परिश्थितीबोध बढी हावि भएका छन् । फलतः तीन्को उन्नतता भन्दा नकारात्मकता यहाँ छताछुल्ल भइरहेको छ । हाम्रो शिक्षा पद्धतीले उत्पादन गरेका बुद्धिजीवीहरु ले नेपालको सन्दर्भमा यस्तो आर्थिक सिद्धान्त चाहिन्छ, यस्तो कानुन, नियम, यस्तो संघीय मोडेल चाहिन्छ भनेर बोल्नुको सट्टा यूरोपमा यस्तो भयो यहाँ भएन भनेर खिन्नता मात्र ओकलिरहे । देशभित्र पद हत्याउनका लागी, आफ्नो संस्थामा अनुदान भित्य्राउनका लागी र विदेशी सेमिनार र भ्रमणका लागी मात्र लालायित हाम्रो शैक्षिक–बौद्धिक जगत विदेशी बजारमा बिक्ने महंगा गहना, खेलौना, पोशाक तथा विलासिताका सामाग्री हेरेर यहाँको किसानका लागी निती बनाउँछन–विश्व बैँक, यूएनडिपी, एडिबि आदि–आदिको निर्देशनमा । अन्ततः त्यसले यहाँ ठूलो आर्थिक– सामाजिक विभेदको सिर्जना गरेको छ । सिमान्त जनता उठ्नै नसक्ने गरी पछारिएका छन् । यस्तो विषमतालाई बुझ्ने परख भएको कुनै सिद्धान्त विश्व–बौद्धिक बजारमा छैन र अब नेपालको शिक्षा क्षेत्रले त्यसको खोज गर्नु अनिवार्य छ । हाम्रो शैक्षिक अनुसन्धानले अफ्रिकाको आदिम अश्थिपञ्जरको विश्लेषण र रटानमा मात्र ध्यान केन्द्रित नगरेर यहाँका थारु, किराँत, मधेशी, भोट–बर्मेलीहरुको उहिल्यै अनुसन्धान गरेर राज्यलाई तिन्को वास्तविकता बुझाएर योजना निर्माण र कार्यान्वयनमा घच्घच्याएको भए आज अधिकारका लागी दिनदिनै मानिसले ज्यान गुमाउनुपर्ने अवश्था आउने थिएन । देशका मनोरम शान्तीमय दुरदराजका ठाउँमा निषेधाज्ञा लगाएर बारुद झोस्नुपर्ने थिएन ।
ज्ञातव्य रहोस कि हिटलरले बाँच्न, पेटपाल्न र आफ्नो सौख चित्रकला पढ्न पाएका भए उनी मान्छे मार्न उद्दत हुने थिएनन् । यहि अवश्था हो शुदुरपश्चिमका थारुहरुको पनि जसले बौद्धिक अभ्यास गर्ने मौका कहिल्यै पाएन । हाम्रो शिक्षा पद्धती देशका सिमान्त वर्गको बाँच्ने, पेट पाल्ने, छनौट गर्ने र छनौटअनुसार उपभोग गर्न सिकाउने अनि राज्यलाई नागरिकले छनौट गरेबमोजिमको अधिकार दिने मार्ग सिकाउन सक्दैन भने यहाँ सधैँ दुर्गतीले स्थान पाईरहने छ । तसर्थ समाज सुहाउँदो शिक्षापद्धती निर्माणमा आजैदेखि लागौँ ।
Prakash Chandra Gajurel 