Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

[shiv]

I'm not sure why you've chosen to focus exclusively on American history. The 'West' isn't just America.

But even in the American context the ideas of political freedoms and equality were important from the start - the problem is that large sections of the society were convinced that this didn't apply to people who were different from them.

But there were powerful impulses from within the society to make enlightenment values lived values - that is why abolitionism grew as a movement to the point that it actually became the single most divisive issue in America in the first half of the 19th century. You couldn't believe in Enlightenment values and accept slavery. This was long before America was a superpower, or even dominant in that hemisphere.

Could America have been powerful and wealthy if it had been willing to apply universal values universally? I don't see why not.

Treating Native Americans like US citizens with full and equal rights as Americans would not have in any way weakened the country, or impeded its growth.

Johann you mentioned the USA and Germany in 1900. That is why I mentioned America.

With respect, you have used an "If my aunt had a di(k, she would have been my uncle" argument. You are telling me that if the US had not been racist and unjust all would have been equally well if not better. You are redefining history to your convenience. As it happens all those great universal values became fine and dandy after the US had got past a degree of wealth and power and after the Red Indians had had the stuffing kicked out of their land and rights.

Interestingly race relations got a real boost after WW2 where the Nazi Germany put the entire European idea of the superiority of white European races to shame. Nazi Germany played a great role in defining the superior Aryans - a myth that was eagerly internalized by the British. But Germany went a step further and "othered" the despicable Shemites/Jews. And during this period all European economies were busy helping themselves to resources from their colonies.

[Johann]

Shiv,

Well I also mentioned medieval Europe and the Middle East and Germany as well, but we can stick to the US if you prefer.

You have chosen to argue that liberal enlightenment values are a by product of strength rather than one of its sources.

So once again I must ask, why the abolitionist movement? How could it have grown to such strength?

The corollary seems to be that liberal values inhibit growth rather support it. I'm challenging that corollary - counter-factual history is a useful intellectual exercise to test arguments. What reason is there to believe that racism made America stronger and wealthier? If that's not actually a position you hold we can drop that part of the discussion.

For example America's willingness to welcome Indian immigrants from the 1960s onwards as part of its racial reforms has been to America's gain. Certainly their contributions have helped grow the US economy and American power.

Secondly, you also seem to suggest that those liberal values or their roots had no real force of conviction behind them, and no material consequences before reaching the heights of power.

Lets look at US versus Brazil (which incidentally imported far more slaves than the American colonies) and Argentina. All of these countries started as European settlements in the America. Why has the US done better for its people, including its minorities? Could it be perhaps those values that you seem to insist are mirages?

[shiv]

Shiv,

Well I also mentioned medieval Europe and the Middle East and Germany as well, but we can stick to the US if you prefer.

You have chosen to argue that liberal enlightenment values are a by product of strength rather than one of its sources.

So once again I must ask, why the abolitionist movement? How could it have grown to such strength?

The corollary seems to be that liberal values inhibit growth rather support it. I'm challenging that corollary - counter-factual history is a useful intellectual exercise to test arguments. What reason is there to believe that racism made America stronger and wealthier? If that's not actually a position you hold we can drop that part of the discussion.

Johann you are starting from a point in American history where liberal movements such as abolitionism were beginning to take off. These Americans were the descendants of European migrants who had pretty much eliminated Red Indians wherever they resisted. The took over vast lands that they then needed to use for settling, and slaves were later imported for working on those lands. After the Indians were deprived of their lands and slaves had been in use for a century, abolitionism started in America. And those slaves ultimately gained nominal equality with whites in the 1960s. Did lack of liberalism contribute to growth of the economy? Well, if the European migrants had respected Red Indian views on land ownership they would not have owned quite so much land.

For example America's willingness to welcome Indian immigrants from the 1960s onwards as part of its racial reforms has been to America's gain. Certainly their contributions have helped grow the US economy and American power.

Johann this is an example of "desirable universal values" being bandied about after power and wealth have been attained. Maintenance of that power and wealth cannot continue with manpower to fill manpower shortage areas because employing locals gets too expensive. The US has filled skilled manpower shortage areas with educated Indians and unskilled manpower shortage areas with Mexicans, Haitians, Somalis and others

Secondly, you also seem to suggest that those liberal values or their roots had no real force of conviction behind them, and no material consequences before reaching the heights of power.

If I have said this I cannot prove it. Liberal convictions and noble intentions have always been secondary to the raw pragmatism of power projection and resource grabbing when possible. When society gets rich and settled all these noble thoughts that were tucked away begin to look good.

Lets look at US versus Brazil (which incidentally imported far more slaves than the American colonies) and Argentina. All of these countries started as European settlements in the America. Why has the US done better for its people, including its minorities? Could it be perhaps those values that you seem to insist are mirages?

Johann, look at the following statistics
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... /2097.html
Brazil
arable land: 8.45%

United States
arable land: 16.29%

Brazil population in 1800: 3.2 million
US population in 1800: 5.2 million with 800,000 slaves

Brazil population in 1900: 17.4 million
US population in 1900: 76 million

The US was a much better land to migrate to with more open land for settlement and agriculture and for that matter mining. Brazil was covered with dense, impenetrable and unexplored rainforest.

I think Brazil was better off than the US but is now worse. A paper I linked in an earlier post shows how lack of development and poverty are linked to biodiversity.

[JwalaMukhi]

Well, if the European migrants had respected Red Indian views on land ownership they would not have owned quite so much land.

There are only title insurances in many cases in US. This is to cover the fee of the lawyers to recognize title deed, whenever there is dispute, which sometimes happens when natives (native Indians) sue and try to get money. As there aren't many of them left, such disputes are rare.

BTW, it was way easier to say "All men are created equal..." only after many of the natives didn't have a chance to hear or read about that.

The US has filled skilled manpower shortage areas with educated Indians and unskilled manpower shortage areas with Mexicans, Haitians, Somalis and others

And peruvians and others for security purposes. The outer ring of green zone in Iraq was predominantly made of peruvians and they are not private contractors. They are regulars. Human resources management (exploitation) is well honed.

[Manish_Sharma]

As it happens all those great universal values became fine and dandy after the US had got past a degree of wealth and power and after the Red Indians had had the stuffing kicked out of their land and rights.

Interestingly race relations got a real boost after WW2 where the Nazi Germany put the entire European idea of the superiority of white European races to shame. Nazi Germany played a great role in defining the superior Aryans - a myth that was eagerly internalized by the British. But Germany went a step further and "othered" the despicable Shemites/Jews. And during this period all European economies were busy helping themselves to resources from their colonies.

Christian missionaries both from america and uk distributing blankets to natives peppered with smallpox wiped out tribe after tribe, thus laying the foundation of great western univarsalism.

[shiv]

It has become fashionable to reach international consensus on "universal values" because universal traits like looting and racism are no longer desirable or easy to implement. However the "human development" of advanced nations commenced with their becoming wealthy riding on conquest, racism and slavery (and, incidentally deforestation, reduction of biodiversity and environmental degradation in every "developed" society) The goal of "human development" as defined in this day and age simply cannot be attained without technology and technology cannot be created, bought or implemented without money. Wealth is the first step.

So when you exclude all the methods of making money that existed from 1800 to 1950 from "universalism" and then claim that wealth is still possible without looting, you are left only with mineral wealth (oil) as a way of making money. Every developed nation in the world today made its money from conquest, slavery and colonies and built up their economic systems and industry that way. Conquest and slavery were also universal but they have been disqualified. So "human development" now has to take place without that advantage and the money needed for human development is now harder to get under the new rules.

Let me introduce over here a few complicating data points. Data that has come up in the course of this discussion has only reinforced and supported certain uncomfortable truths. "Development" itself leads to loss of biodiversity, degradation of the environment, pollution and conversion of previously "poor" but self sufficient populations into destitute populations.

These facts lead to some hard choices. Should "development" itself be eschewed? That is certainly a cheap alternative in terms of money, but will be costly in terms of "human development" (maternal/child mortality/nutrition etc). In other words certain "rights" that are pushed as part of universalism will have to be ignored. The theoretical payoff is a less developed population that places less demand on resources and is less damaging to the environment. That is the theory but in practice it is unlikely to pan out that way. Burgeoning populations have become "universal" and small arms ("Kalashnikovs) are also universal. There will be wars and in those wars there will be plenty of death and deprivation. These have already started in many parts of the world.

I cannot blame "universalism" for all of this - but I still see western universalism is snake oil that must be taken only in doses that result in obvious, visible monetary benefit. if not - dismiss it. It is about money, ultimately. The human values will always have to be kept secondary because human development needs money. No money - no way of protecting your values.

[A_Gupta]

According to a widely accepted story, the expansion of the middle class — the collapse of older social hierarchies, the decline of inherited privilege and the rise of a new meritocratic order — unfolded according to something like a natural law. The nature of capitalism, we have been taught to believe, tends toward greater equality, wider opportunity and the leveling of archaic, invidious distinctions based on pedigree. Mr. Piketty throws cold water on this conventional wisdom, which has been part of the intellectual birthright of nearly everyone born in the West since the end of World War II.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/arts/ ... lture.html

[Vayutuvan]

A glaring absence in Indian past is the utter brutality shown by the west to suppress intellectual non-violent thought by the likes of Kepler, giordano Bruno, Galeleo and several others.

[shiv]

Here is a screen grab from Google books speaking of what the "universal" goal of removal of poverty has done. When you learn what has happened - it is clear that Indians have swallowed and internalized western definitions of poverty and have actually helped push poor but mostly self sufficient people into a state of destitution.

[ramana]

The Great Society immigration reform in 1960s was driven by he need for qualified scientists and engineers to drive the space program. It was not to throw open doors for Indians.
BTW the stated reason was for the contributions of Indians in winning world war II.

[brihaspati]

I had to hunt down this gem.

See why universalism is so useful for hardcore bullshiters! Without the crutch of "western universalism" to lean on, how could KrishnaK bullshit about "part of unique culture that is not hurting anyone"! "hurt" is a matter of perception. So KrishnaK type of bullshitting will have to support Khomeinis call for execution of Salman Rushdie as the latter's unique "culture" of lampooning a claimed prophet of a certain religion based on actual verses attributed to that prophet - "hurt" Khomeini. Also support the beheading of a filmmaker by a Muslim in an European country - because that filmmaker's unique culture of making critical documentaries on Islam in his country hurt some muslim.

Even cursory reading of *western universalism* would involve right to life and ... And some here treat you like a intellectual That argument is pretty well thought out, and I'd suggest you not make further fool of yourself.

Is your khujlee about any fallacy or weakness in the argument I made, or your abusive persona right from beginning of any interaction is about abusing the person rather than discuss the merits or gaps in his/her argument? Oh I forgot, you are always abusive, especially if you feel the person concerned is against the "secular/left/or Congress" or any of your idols like JLN/MKG. That argument is NOT "pretty well thought out", and no, any cursory reading of "western universalism" would involve "pretty contradictory to the point of ludicrous" views on "right to life". You also made a typically "universalist" statement, one that omits the unstated value-preference system that the particular "universalist" subscribes to. This helps the "universalist" to suitably change his claims as per his opportunistic needs.

Unfortunately bullshit argument producers like you don't think out your own quoting of half-baked strands of particular schools of thought convenient for your own bullshit agenda. You did not notice in your eagerness to abuse, that my argument did not even raise the idea of whether "right to life" was universal or not, BUT, that your supposed brilliant claiming-to-be-intellect-busting argument was a sly tangential deflection of the main issue without realizing your own stupidity.

You, unfortunately in your intellectual pretensions, failed to realize the unsolved issue of relative priority of "values" within any scheme of universalism, and hence a fatal weakness long recognized in "western universalism" that I was pointing to.

If something is so "universal", in time, peoples, place, why does it have to be broken so quickly and so often and in such systematic manner by the very propagators of such values? Because these values are often self-contradictory or mutually clashing. After creating such asinine concepts, "western universalists" always have to justify special qualifiers to provide exceptions to these very concepts to justify their own breaking of these constructed principles.

If "right to life" was really "universal" in "western universalism", there would be no wars started by societies holding such values, no colonial genocide even in the days "western universalism" was coined, death penalties would have been abolished in all of them, and states, even democracies would not leave monopoly of violence to the extent of taking life, in the hands of the state they supposedly legitimize by their political participation.

I very much enjoy your pretentiousness. I mean something like

carefully hides under

As if there was some deviousness to the claim that you have unearthed with your intellect.

Human behaviour and drive everywhere is indeed the same. That doesn't mean a million other variables and human imagination doesn't result in a lot of diversity. People from different cultures, religions might paint different things, but all human populations have wanted to draw (scratch on a cave would be more like it ?) and paint. All peoples have come up with the concept of a religion, no matter if the tale they tell is very different. Most people moved through various stages of evolution from hunter gatherers, to pastoralists to urban conglomerations in exactly the same order. Would it be also roughly around the same times ? All of them have come up with kingdoms and more importantly a justification for why some person should be king. The story again varies widely, but a story there almost always is. Every sort of governance has tried to come up with some moral justification to find legitimacy to their rule. When I mean human behaviour and drive everywhere is the same I claim that The language of psychopaths would be mostly applicable to Indian psychopaths just as well, in spite of vast differences in culture, language and religion. Just like almost everything else that involves human interaction will apply, no matter what the race or religion. Democracy just happens to be one of it. This equality will apply even if Hindus came up with something worth adopting, whether in the past or the future.

I also sometimes enjoy the wriggling that you do to escape from acknowledging your errors. Your basic statement illustrates the stupidity of "universalism". Universalism is very much like start making statements like yours: "Human behaviour and drive everywhere is indeed the same". Then the universalist sees trouble, because its a super generalization that is only possible by abstracting away all actual observed differences, and picking only those that can linguistically be apparently made to fit some claimed commonality.

The universalist dumb immediately realizes that he can get away with that statement if he claims, "when thirsty all humans desperately seek hydration" because at that biological/physiological level, behaviour is indeed predictable. But to extend that to the complexity of social/political/large scale interactions, it all depends on constructing fancy new artefacts sufficiently vague that can be stretched suitably to fit a wide variety of observed differences to the artefact.

Your lack of serious reading up of even the philosophy you claim to defend shows in your claims on "religion" or "stages of evolution(?)" [you didnt read the self-critical post-social-Darwinist sociologists?]. Those two are hilarious indicators, especially the second, of the pseudo-Marxian sociological schools. The results on "Asian" case has been hilarious too - when devoted acolytes of that pseudo-theology tried to desperately fit the model to India, China and Russia. I thought even in the west this unilinear early 19th century "stages of "evolution"" has been kind of quietly dropped by the wayside by the end of the 1970's - the heyday of neo-marxianism. And you still are devotedly stuck on it?

Oooh - all of them have come up with "kingdoms"! really, dont you even stop to think how much of your intellectual gaps you show up when you write such stuff? don;t you realize that by vomiting so much on different terms, you show the dilemma and problems in universalism? The very idea of "kingship" and "kingdom" has to be made vague, with almost a linguistic execution of the words themselves to try and fit them to all systems people want them to fit. Ultimately to fit all cases, the very meaning of the original words have to be dropped, so that in the lingo of guys like you : the only meaning that remains is the definition that "king/kingdom" is defined by all the cases that you want it to represent.

I guess it will be extremely difficult for you to follow the argument that universalism beyond biological similarities and physiological reactions, extended into social/political/large scale interaction scenarios requires the imagined constructions of artefacts: abstract categories and concepts, often derived from some particular linguistic source associated with some concrete historical experience in someone's mind, but then extended or redefined according to the fancy of the constructor to fit some other case he/she wants to model. "Democracy", "class", "religion", "king/kingdom" all are examples of such artefacts. Different intellectual pretenders (no not you - copiers or parroters of pretenders are not pretenders themselves, they are stupid folks who dont realize their own stupidity) create these artefacts thinking the rest of the world must agree to their construction extending/modeling all the cases they want to.

The idea behind creating such artefacts is again a very limited and straightjacketed view of the world as a complex machine, with fixed set of laws and rules even if not entirely revealed, and therefore in the end deterministic. It rose in the 19th century, helped fill up the vacuum the church had left, proved useful in justifying imposition of concepts on others that would restrict them in competition while breaking those concepts themselves to gain advantage while others could be restricted. But each of those ideas had severe problems when used as models to describe social phenomena not only in societies other than where they were first invented as artefacts, but in those very societies themselves.

Its no longer followed as a sound approach in most modern sociological research. They have seriously rejected the "modeling" - "categorizing" - "one shoe fits the head, hands, waist, legs and feet" type of approach. That is why there are increasingly "case studies", ensemble comparisons of behaviour facing more or less identical situations strictly characterizable by concretely observable commonalities not dependent in turn on controversial or multi-meaning abstractions - rather than vague studies using classical terms you have used.

[brihaspati]

shivji,
each of the claimed "universal values" are deliberately coined in abstract terms. Look at "right to life". the word "right" "life" and "to". Each of them are interpreted according to convenience of the writer, or user. "Right" itself in this context is abstract, subject to what is understood as "right", by whom (in turn connected to identity), on what/whom (in turn connected to the legal/social/ideological institutional framework within which that right is recognized and exercised), and "life" which in itself is a hugely controversial issue.

When "western universalists" first used the words, they had in mind the "white European Christian man", so that it became easier to restrict that right to exactly the group that needed to be given that right in order to consolidate that society into an identity that might have an incentive to trust and join each other in collective projects of imperialism and conversion.

The terms used had to be abstract so that various pre-existing identities within this proposed new identity could be brought together for the purpose at hand. So that right didnt extend to the enemy soldier in war, in targets of assassinations even in in-group situations, and of course didnt extend to those deemed racially inferior.

Abstraction is used deliberately so that its interpretation could be suitably altered to suit the needs of the user. I guess thats why its so popular among the Left/or Congress in India.

The universalist is deliberately promoting vague terms, which can never be concretized - so that it can be suitably and contextually differently applied for the advantage of the "universalist".

"Basic human values are irreducibly multiple...and they may be conflicting and incommensurable" leading free subjects who assign value to the world through their choices to opt for different options...
Isaiah Berlin.(Liberty, Pluralism, and Liberalism, 2004, p114)

In the real world, drastically different perceptions not only exist, but they lead to diverse and irreconciliable claims of universalism.

There is something in the wider debate on this known as the "universalism versus relativism" debate, and examples would be say Adamantia Pollis, and Peter Schwab. (Human rights : cultural and ideological perspectives, 1979). Folks batting for "universalism" here are most likely aware but will remain deliberately silent on American Anthropological Associations criticism of the so-called universal-human-rights declaration of UN, or the relativist critique.

Pollis and Schwab write: "The declaration is predicated on the assumption that western values are paramount and ought to be extended to the non-western world...[in reality however] it is becoming increasingly evident that the western political philosophy on which the charter and the UDHR are based provide only one particular interpretation of human-rights, and that this western notion may not be successfully applicable to non-western areas for several reasons: ideological differences whereby economic rights are given priority over individual civil and political rights and cultural differences whereby the philosophic underpinnings defining human nature and the relationship of individuals to others and to society are markedly at variance with western individualism"

this is a very old debate, and universalists on this thread know that this is an old debate which had opponents of universalism even within the very societies and academia that invented the meme. We are repeating many of the arguments given some 40-50 odd years ago. And yes they very much know, that even the very academic community that first led the abstraction had its dissenters recognizing the cultural aggression that lay behind the pushing of the meme, and saw it as a continuation of imperialism in a different form.

People blindly supporting universalism are the same Indian mindsets that blindly adopted Marxism and sought to impose it on India, failing to recognize the compromises Stalin or Mao shrewdly made seeing the failure of the universalist approach and methodlogy.

[ShauryaT]

The term "right" is used by most informed on the matter in context of rights granted by law. By definition, applicable on a defined territory and peoples. The term "Free Will" is used in context of what is NOT explicitly defined by law. So one is free to do what they want, until they infringe upon the rights of an individual, protected by law. My understanding of the context of the terms.

So, the argument of the universalists would be so called "universal" rights should be defined into law in its respective states and outside of these universal laws, people should be free to do what they want to, except for other local laws. Local laws should not be in conflict with these universal laws. The adjudicator of universal laws is the west, led by the United States.

[shiv]

Pollis and Schwab write: "The declaration is predicated on the assumption that western values are paramount and ought to be extended to the non-western world...[in reality however] it is becoming increasingly evident that the western political philosophy on which the charter and the UDHR are based provide only one particular interpretation of human-rights, and that this western notion may not be successfully applicable to non-western areas for several reasons: ideological differences whereby economic rights are given priority over individual civil and political rights and cultural differences whereby the philosophic underpinnings defining human nature and the relationship of individuals to others and to society are markedly at variance with western individualism"

And this is pretty much what we have been saying all along

People blindly supporting universalism are the same Indian mindsets that blindly adopted Marxism and sought to impose it on India, failing to recognize the compromises Stalin or Mao shrewdly made seeing the failure of the universalist approach and methodlogy.

Like I said, some naive Indians have swallowed this "universalism" stuff wholeasle. To me it appears that at least some Indians believe that the material-economic status of the west has resulted from the fact that they have always espoused these "universalist values". That of course is complete nonsense. The material and economic advancement of the west was aided in no small part by the now illegal universalist traits of racism and looting. And the current "universalist ideals" are being pushed as if everyone needs them, having conveniently sidelined and buried all the methods that were applied universally to actually gain economic clout. And we have Indians who have internalized this travesty and are actually busy implementing it in India, apart from people talking as if they are handing down the truth when they preach the snake oil of western "universalism"

[shiv]

The term "right" is used by most informed on the matter in context of rights granted by law. By definition, applicable on a defined territory and peoples. The term "Free Will" is used in context of what is NOT explicitly defined by law. So one is free to do what they want, until they infringe upon the rights of an individual, protected by law. My understanding of the context of the terms.

So, the argument of the universalists would be so called "universal" rights should be defined into law in its respective states and outside of these universal laws, people should be free to do what they want to, except for other local laws. Local laws should not be in conflict with these universal laws. The adjudicator of universal laws is the west, led by the United States.

Shaurya, these are wstern ideas that are derived from Christianity. SN Balagangadhara has explained this in a post linked by Arun Gupta.

By definition the free will of a sovereign are his rights in his domain. For example "God is the sovereign. All of creation is God's domain. Therefore God's free will in his domain is his unquestionable right" Technically, no man can have any rights and no man can exercise free will in God's domain.

In order to allow man rights to exercise his free will over his domain, he has to be allowed to have a domain. This is actually a contradiction because it allows two sovereigns, God and man both of whom have complete rights to exercise their free will over their respective domains. It also devalues the one God who is supposed to be sovereign of all creation with no competition.

Anyhow the idea of giving rights to man was somehow fudged and created so that every man had rights over his domain. But his rights were restricted over someone else' domain. in fact man had a restriction of ability to exercise his free will both in terms of restrictions that God placed on him (morality) and other restrictions when he breached some other human's domain. So rights became a "restriction of free will". In due course "God" was removed and rights became secular and the restriction of rights was coded into law. In other words your rights are not rights. They are restrictions of your free will. Your free will is bounded by laws that define your rights. So much for "freedom". Balagangadhara points out that if a man has the coercive power to expand his rights over someone else - he could do that, rendering the concept of "universal rights" complete nonsense

This was illustrated beautifully in the quote by Pulikeshi

Man has only those rights he can defend

In short all these "universal" concepts of rights are rubbish to start with. For a free born human being, anything that he can do is his birthright. Anyone who stops him is restricting that man's rights. Morals, and any agreement between the individual and society are restrictions of rights.

None of this has anything to do with Hindu dharma. Every man is part of a larger whole and has some duties to perform within that larger whole. The idea that "man is free" is correct only in a miniscule, vulgar sense.

[shiv]

If something is a "universal right", is one born with this right, or does it have to be forced and implemented in society?

If a right must be implemented in society, which specific rights can be implemented to the fullest degree with no financial economic consequences to anyone?

As usual anyone is free to post a reply and I will not mock or be sarcastic if I respond to answers. These are serious questions.

[ShauryaT]

Shaurya, these are wstern ideas that are derived from Christianity. SN Balagangadhara has explained this in a post linked by Arun Gupta.

Yes, Shiv ji. This entire lexicon and framework is western and rooted in the evolution of the west is well recognized. The spin is to try to make their evolution "universal" artificially overriding other peoples evolutions. It is an invasion of sorts.

Man has only those rights he can defend

Which in current parlance means those framed into law.

In short all these "universal" concepts of rights are rubbish to start with. For a free born human being, anything that he can do is his birthright. Anyone who stops him is restricting that man's rights. Morals, and any agreement between the individual and society are restrictions of rights.

Rubbish as far as the idea of universal rights are concerned. Within the societies where these concepts have evolved they may make sense for their society.

None of this has anything to do with Hindu dharma. Every man is part of a larger whole and has some duties to perform within that larger whole. The idea that "man is free" is correct only in a miniscule, vulgar sense.

True. SD's claim is man is ALSO inherently spiritual. Living by SD's precepts is our evolution to promote and protect the spiritual side of man and subdue the vulgar. We have done this through a framework of obligations and instilling in our works the idea of Yagnya eventually leading to renunciation and for a small and disciplined group Moksha, during their life times.

[A_Gupta]

FYI, NYT article.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... or-vishnu/

The interviewee for this installment is Jonardon Ganeri, currently a visiting professor of philosophy at New York University Abu Dhabi and the author of “The Lost Age of Reason: Philosophy in Early Modern India 1450–1700.”

There is a nice metaphor there, which I had forgotten. I'll put it in my way, namely, the religionist (Abrahamic) is one who thinks a tree must have a single, central, trunk, and then comes to India and encounters the banyan tree.

Other ideas that Ganeri mentions are: "...religious texts are often not viewed as making truth claims, which might then easily contradict one another". "...One such concept sees the text of the Veda as itself divine. Its language, on this view, has a structure that is prior to and isomorphic with the structure of the world and its grammar is complete (although parts may have been lost over the centuries). The divinity of the text inverts the order of priority between text and author: Now, at best, assignment of authorship is a cataloging device not the identification of origin. Recitation of the text is itself a religious act."...."...The essence of Hinduism is that it has no essence. ...." (this last is of course, the middle school laziness ).

Gary Gutting: How might looking at Hinduism alter philosophical approaches to religion that take Christianity as their primary example?

Jonardon Ganeri: Taking Christianity as the exemplar of religion skews philosophical discussion towards attempts to solve, resolve or dissolve difficult philosophical puzzles inherent in monotheism: problems about God’s powers, goodness and knowledge; attempts to provide rational arguments for God’s existence; the problem of evil; and so on. Hindu philosophers have traditionally been far more interested in a quite different array of problems, especially questions about the nature of religious knowledge and religious language, initially arising from their concerns with the Veda as a sacred eternal text and as a source of ritual and moral law.

G.G.: Does this mean that Hinduism is a religion without God?

J.G.: Many Hindus believe in God, but not all in the same God: For some it is Vishnu, for others Shiva, for others again it is rather the Goddess. Some of the more important Hindu philosophers are atheists, arguing that no sacred religious text such as the Veda could be the word of God, since authorship, even divine authorship, implies the logical possibility of error. Whether believed in or not, a personal God does not figure prominently as the source of the idea of the divine, and instead non-theistic concepts of the divine prevail.

G.G.: What do you mean by “non-theistic” concepts of the divine?

J.G.: One such concept sees the text of the Veda as itself divine. Its language, on this view, has a structure that is prior to and isomorphic with the structure of the world and its grammar is complete (although parts may have been lost over the centuries). The divinity of the text inverts the order of priority between text and author: Now, at best, assignment of authorship is a cataloging device not the identification of origin. Recitation of the text is itself a religious act.

Another Hindu conception of the divine is that it is the essential reality in comparison to which all else is only concealing appearance. This is the concept of one finds in the Upanishads. Philosophically the most important claim the Upanishads make is that the essence of each person is also the essence of all things’; the human self and brahman (the essential reality) are the same.

This identity claim leads to a third conception of the divine: that inwardness or interiority or subjectivity is itself a kind of divinity. On this view, religious practice is contemplative, taking time to turn one’s gaze inwards to find one’s real self; but — and this point is often missed — there is something strongly anti-individualistic in this practice of inwardness, since the deep self one discovers is the same self for all.

G.G.: Could you say something about the Hindu view of life after death? In particular, are Hindu philosophers able to make sense of the notion of reincarnation?

J.G.: Every religion has something to say about death and the afterlife, and hence engages with philosophical questions about the metaphysics of the self. While Christian philosophy of self tends to be limited to a single conception of self as immortal soul, Hindu philosophers have experimented with an astonishing range of accounts of self, some of which are at the cutting edge in contemporary philosophy of mind.

G.G.: Could you give an example?

J.G.: The self as an immaterial, immortal soul is consistent with the Hindu idea of survival through reincarnation. But some Hindu philosophers have concluded that mind and the mental must be embodied. If so, reincarnation requires that mental states must be able to be “multiply realized” in different physical states. This led to the idea, much later popular among analytic philosophers of mind, that the mental is a set of functions that operate through the body. Such an approach supports the idea that there is a place for the self within nature, that a self — even one that exists over time in different bodies — need be not a supernatural phenomenon.

G.G.: What sort of ethical guidance does Hinduism provide?

J.G.: One of the most important texts in the religious life of many Hindus is the Bhagavadgita, the Song of the Lord. The Gita is deeply philosophical, addressing in poetic, inspirational language a fundamental conundrum of human existence: What to do when one is pulled in different directions by different sorts of obligation, how to make hard choices. The hard choice faced by the protagonist Arjuna is whether to go to war against members of his own family, in violation of a universal duty not to kill; or to abstain, letting a wrong go unrighted and breaking a duty that is uniquely his. Lord Krishna counsels Arjuna with the philosophical advice that the moral motivation for action should never consist in expected outcomes, that one should act but not base one’s path of action on one’s wants or needs.

G.G.: This sounds rather like the Kantian view that morality means doing what’s right regardless of the consequences.

J.G.: There are ongoing debates about what sort of moral philosophy Krishna is proposing — Amartya Sen has claimed that he’s a quasi-Kantian but others disagree. More important than this scholarly debate, though, is what the text tells us about how to live: that living is hard, and doing the right thing is difficult; that leading a moral life is at best an enigmatic and ambiguous project. No escape route from moral conflict by imitating the actions of a morally perfect individual is on offer here. Krishna, unlike Christ, the Buddha or Mohammed is not portrayed as morally perfect, and indeed the philosopher Bimal Matilal very aptly describes him as the “devious divinity.” We can but try our best in treacherous circumstances.

G.G.: How does the notion of “karma” fit into the picture?

J.G.: Let me be clear. The idea of karma is that every human action has consequences, but it is not at all the claim that every human action is itself a consequence. So the idea of karma does not imply a fatalistic outlook on life, according to which one’s past deeds predetermine all one’s actions. The essence of the theory is simply that one’s life will be better if one acts in ways that are ethical, and it will be worse if one acts in ways that are unethical.

A claim like that can be justified in many different ways. Buddhism, for example, tends to give it a strictly causal interpretation (bad actions make bad things happen). But I think that within Hinduism, karma is more like what Kant called a postulate of practical reason, something one does well to believe in and act according to (for Kant, belief in God was a practical postulate of this sort).

G.G.: How does Hinduism regard other religions (for example, as teaching falsehoods, as worthy alternative ways, as partial insights into its fuller truth)?

J.G.: The essence of Hinduism is that it has no essence. What defines Hinduism and sets it apart from other major religions is its polycentricity, its admission of multiple centers of belief and practice, with a consequent absence of any single structure of theological or liturgical power. Unlike Christianity, Buddhism or Islam, there is no one single canonical text — the Bible, the Dialogues of the Buddha, the Quran — that serves as a fundamental axis of hermeneutical or doctrinal endeavor, recording the words of a foundational religious teacher. (The Veda is only the earliest in a diverse corpus of Hindu texts.) Hinduism is a banyan tree, in the shade of whose canopy, supported by not one but many trunks, a great diversity of thought and action is sustained.

G.G.: Would Hinduism require rejecting the existence of the God worshiped by Christians, Jews or Muslims?

J.G.: No, it wouldn’t. To the extent that Hindus worship one God, they tend to be henotheists, that is, worshiping their God but not denying the existence of others (“every individual worships some God,” not “some God is worshipped by every individual”). The henotheistic attitude can accept the worship of the Abrahamic God as another practice of the same kind as the worship of Vishnu or Shiva (and Vaishnavism and Shaivism are practically different religions under the catchall rubric “Hinduism”).

Without a center, there can be no periphery either, and so Hinduism’s approach to other religions tends to be incorporationist. In practice this can imply a disrespect for the otherness of non-Hindu religious traditions, and in particular of their ability to challenge or call into question Hindu beliefs and practices. The positive side is that there is in Hinduism a long heritage of tolerance of dissent and difference.

One explanation of this tolerance of difference is that religious texts are often not viewed as making truth claims, which might then easily contradict one another. Instead, they are seen as devices through which one achieves self transformation. Reading a religious text, taking it to heart, appreciating it, is a transformative experience, and in the transformed state one might well become aware that the claims of the text would, were they taken literally, be false. So religious texts are seen in Hinduism as “Trojan texts” (like the Trojan horse, but breaking through mental walls in disguise). Such texts enter the mind of the reader and help constitute the self.

The Hindu attitude to the Bible or the Quran is the same, meaning that the sorts of disagreements that arise from literalist readings of the texts tend not to arise.

G.G.: What ultimate good does Hinduism promise those who follow it, and what is the path to attaining this good?

J.G.: The claim is that there are three pathways, of equal merit, leading in their own way to liberation. Hindu philosophers have employed a good deal of logical skill in their definitions of liberation. To cut a long story short, for some it is a state defined as the endless but not beginingless absence of pain; others characterize it as a state of bliss. The three pathways are the path of knowledge, the path of religious performance and the path of devotion. The path of knowledge requires philosophical reflection, that of religious performances various rituals and good deeds, and that of devotion worship and service, often of a particular deity such as Krishna.

G.G.: Could you say a bit more about the path of knowledge and its relation to philosophy?

J.G.: Knowledge can liberate because epistemic error is the primary source of anguish, and knowledge is an antidote to error. I might err, for example, if I believe that I only need to satisfy my current desires in order to be happy. The antidote is the knowledge that the satisfaction of one desire serves only to generate another.

According to the Nyaya philosopher Vatsyayana, this is why philosophy is important. Doing philosophy is the way we cultivate our epistemic skills, learning to tell sound doxastic practices from bogus ones, and the cultivation of epistemic skills is what stops the merry-go-round between cognitive error and mental distress. So it isn’t that philosophy and religion are not distinct, but that there is a meta-theory about their relationship.

G.G.: The liberation you’ve described seems to be a matter of escaping from the cares of this world. Doesn’t this lead to a lack of interest in social and political action to make this world better?

J.G.: The great narrative texts of Hinduism are the two epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. These epics are drawn on as resources in thinking about ethical conduct; forms of just society; and the possibility of various kinds of political and social agency. They are vast polycentric texts, and are read as such by Hindus. One of the important virtues of these epics is that they give voice to a range of participants within Hinduism that tend to go unheard: women, the disenfranchised, the outsider, the migrant. They provide these groups with important models for social and political intervention. That’s one reason they have always been very popular works within the Hindu diaspora.

The mirror image of the idea that liberation consists in the absence of distress is that a free society consists in the absence of injustice; thus the removal of injustice, rather than the creation of a perfect or ideal society, is the target of political action. Just as the absence of distress is a minimal condition compatible with many different kinds of human well-being (we are back to the theme of polycentricism), so the absence of injustice is compatible with many different types of well-ordered community or society.

G.G.: How do you respond to the charge that Hinduism has supported the injustices of the caste system in India?

J.G.: I think it is important to see that Hinduism contains within itself the philosophical resources to sustain an internal critique of reprehensible and unjust social practices that have sometimes emerged in Hindu societies. The Upanishadic idea that all selves are equal, and one with brahman, for example, can be drawn on to challenge the system of caste. There are thus forms of rational self-criticism that the diverse riches of Hindu philosophy enable, and an individual’s social identity as a Hindu is something to be actively fashioned rather than merely inherited.

[shiv]

That's an excellent article Arun and sort of proves the point Balu made about how a person from the West is able to see and describe something Indian better than most people I have come across.

[Vayutuvan]

Shiv

At the moment I can think of only one universal right with which people are born but laws are made to take away that right. Right to freely migrate from one geographical location to another. But this has been prevented by national borders and immigration laws. Sorry if this has been discussed already.

[Arjun]

That's an excellent article Arun and sort of proves the point Balu made about how a person from the West is able to see and describe something Indian better than most people I have come across.

Name suggests he is a PIO. Is he Indo-Carribean ?

[UlanBatori]

Terrific resource! So he sits in Abu Dhabi and writes/teaches on Hinduism?

[A_Gupta]

That's an excellent article Arun and sort of proves the point Balu made about how a person from the West is able to see and describe something Indian better than most people I have come across.

Well, the description Jonathan Ganeri gives is a great improvement on the 19th and 20th century European descriptions. But we should not be satisfied with it.

PS: For instance, I find Ganeri's answer to Indian ethics to be round-about; and his description of the Gita to be misleading.


PPS: http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/artha-in ... hilosophy/

[A_Gupta]

Some random comments:

What ultimate good does Hinduism promise those who follow it, and what is the path to attaining this good?

If you think about it, what is this "Hinduism" that promises anything?

Lord Krishna counsels Arjuna with the philosophical advice that the moral motivation for action should never consist in expected outcomes, that one should act but not base one’s path of action on one’s wants or needs.

This is, to me, so muddled, I don't know where to begin to straighten it out. I'll just try - Gita says, don't be attached to the outcome of your actions. It still means Arjuna has to aim his arrow and release it (i.e., all the calculation of why he aims his arrow, who he aims it at, why at this instant, etc. has to take place) - but despite Arjuna's best efforts, if the arrow misses the target, Arjuna continues, unperturbed. If the arrow hits the target, Arjuna continues, unperturbed (though another arrow may not be necessary.)

[TSJones]

Or we could just use the Copenhagen theory that is to say, all is wave form probability.

[A_Gupta]

From several years ago:
https://blogs.worldbank.org/endpovertyi ... omment-364
and there in.

One of my responses there about Amartya Sen and this "act without consideration of the consequences".

a. First, to read any text is to interpret it. There is no mathematical proof of what the correct interpretation is. But we can talk of good interpretations and bad interpretations. If the text is not gibberish and not fiction, a good interpretation is possible. We postulate that a good interpretation of the Gita is possible.

b. Second, we note that it is almost impossible for humans to do anything without the consequences in mind. I raise my hand to scratch my nose - even in this simple action, there is a goal that I hope to reach.

c. Third, as you find from any sane teacher of the Gita, (ranging in orientation from Eknath Easwaran to "Dadaji" Pandurang Athavale to Swami Dayananda Saraswati) the non-attachment to the consequences does not mean that you do not strive for a particular goal. One is irresponsible if one does not use the right means for the right goals.

What it means is that success does not elate you nor does failure depress you.

d. Fourth, while the Gita is indeed a rich text and admits many interpretations, one still has a responsibility to not mangle the text.

To illustrate the category of mistake that Amartya Sen makes here, consider the Quran as a rich text that admits of many interpretations. I can quote chapter and verse and prove to you that the true believer is obliged to fight and kill the non-believer. At least, it is within the scope of possible interpretations (and such interpreters exist).

But notice what I have done by this interpretation - I have turned every Muslim into a homicidal maniac and every peaceful Muslim into a hypocrite who does not follow the tenets of his/her religion. (Indeed, a lot of Muslim-phobia is created in exactly this way - by creating mistrust of peaceful Muslims, saying that they cannot be following their religion, the true religion is that preached by al Qaeda.)

Like Amartya Sen, I can turn this interpretation into a wonderful and beautiful philosophical discourse on the First Amendment and the Freedom of Religion in the Light of Islam. Amartya Sen has made exactly this category of mistake. With his interpretation of the Gita, he turns the Hindus of the present and of the last two thousand years into cretins; a central book of theirs supposedly tell them to act without thinking of the consequences. My advice to people like Elaina Cardoso is: no matter how brilliant Albert Einstein is you wouldn't learn the Torah from him.

[shiv]

Some random comments:

What ultimate good does Hinduism promise those who follow it, and what is the path to attaining this good?

If you think about it, what is this "Hinduism" that promises anything?

Lord Krishna counsels Arjuna with the philosophical advice that the moral motivation for action should never consist in expected outcomes, that one should act but not base one’s path of action on one’s wants or needs.

This is, to me, so muddled, I don't know where to begin to straighten it out. I'll just try - Gita says, don't be attached to the outcome of your actions. It still means Arjuna has to aim his arrow and release it (i.e., all the calculation of why he aims his arrow, who he aims it at, why at this instant, etc. has to take place) - but despite Arjuna's best efforts, if the arrow misses the target, Arjuna continues, unperturbed. If the arrow hits the target, Arjuna continues, unperturbed (though another arrow may not be necessary.)

The idea that something is promised in Hinduism by some one else is based firmly on the religions that postulate that there is an agency (like God) who promises you heaven or houris or some such worldly goodies. A blatant quid pro quo. It is from that approach that the question has been asked. Hinduism asks that you do things yourself and that no one is there to pull you out of any mess that you get yourself into. There is no concept that you can commit a sin first and then God will save you or pardon you.

As for the consequence of action business - I liked your rebuttal of Amartya Sen. In the article you have posted I think the man is trying to translate and explain "Karmanye Vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana, Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani" (posted courtesy Googal )

Roughly translated it would be "You have the right to do your duty, but you have no rights to a specific end result. Do not make a specific end result your only goal, lest you fail to perform your duty"

In other words you need to do your duty regardless of whether you are going to reach a specific goal or not. It is the duty that is mandatory, not the fruit of your labor. What is missing here is the context.

The important thing is to first know your duties because the statement can be corrupted badly. For example if your goal is "I am going to sleep with my neighbor's wife" - you find that it is not a duty. It is not your duty to sleep with your neighbour's wife under any circumstances. It is your duty to be loyal to your wife and look after your family. On the other hand, in the course of doing your duty of looking after your family, educate your child/children - which is your duty, but do not aim for a specific end goal like "My son will be a mechanical engineer and will go to the US". Your duty is to educate your son - not educate him with the specific end result in mind. Those duties are defined as part of dharma.

[Vayutuvan]

shiv ji:

>> "Karmanye Vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana, Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani" (posted courtesy Googal )

Word breakage is wrong in that above transliteration. A couple of "savarNa dIrgha sandhulu" have been completely butchered. Just a caution.

[johneeG]

The first thing that Lord Shree Krushna tells Arjuna is: Fight! If you win, you will get kingdom, if you die, you'll go to heaven. If you don't fight, everyone will laugh at you. Don't be a coward and faggot. Fight!

Is this not very similar to the concept of Jihad and crusade?

It is indeed. Jihadic concept is just a continuation of this particular thought process. Other creeds stop here. But, Hindhuism is just beginning.

But, Arjuna is not satisfied with this extortion. He wants to know how can killing people for selfish reasons be a good thing when it results in mass casualties. Of course, Arjuna never asked these questions before. He is asking them now because he is forced to fight his kith and kin for property. So, he is confused. He starts raising some basic questions about life and death. This is where the philosophical aspects of Hindhuism are revealed by the Lord Shree Krushna. This knowledge is Upanishadhic knowledge(i.e. Vedhanthic knowledge).

Broadly, there are these basic aspects: Aathma(Gyana), Karma, Desire, Dharma, Bhakthi.

Firstly, Lord explains to Arjuna that he should not worry too much about death(of people in general) because that which dies is impermanent and that which is permanent will not die. This entity which is the soul of all beings is: Aathma. Aathma is a sanskruth word for 'soul' or 'self'. It is the real being. It is the body which dies. The soul or self does not die. Since, it does not die, it cannot be killed. So, there is no need to worry about that which is not going die.

Now, the concept of Karma: Why does a person go to hell or heaven? Infact, why does a person suffer or enjoy? If the God/Goddess punishes or rewards people arbitrarily, then that would be injustice. So, God/Goddess punishes or rewards people based on their actions/deeds. This is the theory of Karma. 'Karma' is a sanskruth word for 'action' or 'ritual'. Of course, all things have a manufacture date and expiry date. So, the results of Karma also have a manufacture date and expiry date. The good results or bad results will not go on forever(so eternal hell or eternal heaven are not possible). That means, after the results of good or bad deeds have been enjoyed by the soul, then the soul has to be again born on the earth. A soul is born on the earth when its good and bad deeds are in balance.

He goes on to explain that the soul is again and again born and again 'dies' i.e. basically the soul changes the bodies like a person changing his clothes. In a long period, different bodies may have been taken up by the soul. The soul may have become woman, man, animal, bird, human, ...etc. It may have gone to hell or heaven also depending on its good or bad deeds. After some time, it came back to earth again.

If one follows this particular thought, then the basic question is asked: why is soul born in the first place? What is the motive for this creation? What is the whole purpose of it?
The reason for the birth of the soul is desire of the soul. The soul has some desires and to fulfill those desires the soul is born. So, if the soul wants to avoid births(and thereby deaths), then the soul must give up desires.

This raises a question: Just before it was said that the actions(Karma) lead to births. Now, it is being said that Desires lead to birth. Which is correct?
The answer is: The actions(karma) lead to birth only when those actions are done with a desire. So, it is indeed only the desire which leads to births(or bondage). If one can perform actions without desires, then such desireless actions will not lead to births(or bondage).

Then Arjuna says, "But, how can only perform actions without a desire? It is very difficult, if not impossible."

Lord Shree Krushna agrees. He then says,"Yep, it is very difficult. Since, performing actions without desires is difficult. Try to do actions without being attached to results."

Arjuna thinks even this not so easy. So, Shree Krushna says,"Then, offer all your actions and results to me(God/Goddess). And think of yourself as mere tool in divine hands."

All this may raise a basic doubt: why not just avoid all actions? Krushna answers this, "Don't avoid all actions and become lazy. If you avoid all actions, you won't even be able to live. So, one cannot escape actions."

Now, concept of Dharma:
Krushna advises Arjuna to do his Dharma. Dharma has two categories:
Saamanya Dharma: General Duty.
Vishesha Dharma: Special Duty.

Saamanya Dharma is the general duty for all human beings.
The general Dharma applicable to all are(in order of priority):
Ahimsa(Non-violence),
Satyam(Truth),
Asteyam(Non-Stealing),
Shaucham(Cleanliness) and
Indriya-nigraham(Control of senses)

These 5 are the general rules for all.
Then, there are special rules. The special rules are based on the time, place, circumstance and subject. It varies from person to person, from gender to gender, from place to place and time to time.

The Special Duties have higher priority than the General rules. So, a soldier, whose special duty is to kill, is exempted from the general rule of Ahimsa.

Arjuna is a warrior whose special duty(Dharma) is to fight the war. Krushna tells him to do this duty without desire. And if it is done in this manner, then it will not be binding on Arjuna.

Arjuna thinks that all this seems very difficult. Krushna explains that thought it is difficult, it is not impossible. One needs to practice it regularly and imbibe it. One needs Yoga to prepare the mind adequately.

Krushna also clearly assures Arjuna that if Arjuna does contact any sins by his actions, then Krushna will free him from all such sins. This is the path of Devotion(Bhakthi)

sarva dharman parityajya mamekam sharanam vraja
aham tva sarva papebhyo mokshayishyami masuchaha! (Chapter 18. Verse 66. Geetha)

"Forget everything else and take refuge in me alone,
I will release you from all sins, don't worry."

----
Frequently, Hindhuism is the super-set of all creeds in the world. All creeds and philosophies in the world are directly or indirectly sub-set of Hindhuism. All ideas are already present in Hindhuism. I don't think there is really any idea in any other creed which is not present in Hindhuism.

The difference is that Hindhuism has all the ideas, so many ideas counter each other and provide a balance. In other creeds, one central idea becomes dominant and it assumes a monopoly.

To give an example: Hindhuism is like a living habitat. All the ideas are like animals of the habitat. In a habitat, different animals counter each other and keep checks and balances. Similarly, different ideas keep checks and balances. There is a auto-correction system. Whenever, carnivores become too many, herbivores will die. Then when the herbivores become scarce, carnivores will also die due to lack of food. When carnivores reduce, then herbivores again become numerous. When herbivores become numerous, the tree cover reduces. Herbivores die due to lack of food and also because they are easily hunted down by the carnivores. It is a cycle. Similarly, different ideas within Hindhuism gain traction. Gyana(knowledge), Bhakthi(devotion), Karma(ritual). Pravruthi(good materialism) and Nivruthi(renunciation).

However, when one of these ideas is taken by some group and used as the core central dominant idea for their creed and given a monopoly, then it creates an imbalance which cannot be corrected in any way. At some point, it becomes untenable.

For example, if you take Tigers or deers and put them up in a special sanctuary and provide for them and protect them in an artificial manner. At best, it is a temporary arrangement. But, if it is used as a permanent solution, it is untenable and costly.

The right method is to let the animals grow in their natural habitats where different animals counter each other. The same applies in agriculture also.

These days chemical pesticides, fungicides, ...etc are used to kill pests, fungus, bacteria ...etc. in farming. When the chemicals are used to create an imbalance in the habitat, it leads to more and more imbalance at each stage. And at each stage, there will be need for further intervention through use of more chemicals. On the other hand, if the chemicals were not used in the first place, then the nature will adjust itself(due to predator-prey relation).

Similarly, in terms of ideas, there is an auto-correction system in Hindhuism due to Hindhuism containing all ideas. Other creeds are based around one single idea which is then sought to be implement universally without worrying about constraints of time, place and circumstance.

Whenever, a single idea(even if inherently good) is sought to be implemented without worrying about the time, place, circumstance and object; then the results will be negative.

For example: Gandhism.

Gandhism is based on the idea of Ahimsa. Hindhuism itself agrees that Ahimsa is the highest Dharma. However, how to practice Ahimsa?

Gandhi insisted that his followers should not resort to force under any circumstances. However, the same Gandhi supported World War 2. Many people died in partition riots. Gandhi was the national leader at the time and he had the responsibility to stop these riots. So, the deaths during these riots showcase the failure of his ideology. Further, the fact that Gandhi supported World War 2 shows that he could not stick to his stated stand of 'avoiding violence under all circumstances'.

Gandhi actually may have caused the death of more people by insisting on Ahimsa during colonial rule and later partition riots. Gandhi may have actually caused more violence by insisting on absolute non-violence. If people had revolted against the brits, then what is the number of people who would have died? How many people died under the brit rule(including the famines and riots)?

That means even though Ahimsa is a good idea, it cannot be implemented universally(all times, all places, all circumstances and all objects). So, constraints of time, place, circumstance and objects have to be taken into consideration.

[Pulikeshi]

Regarding Sens Rational foolishness –

Here is an example from his book “The Idea of Justice”

Three children and a flute?

Three children make demands of a single flute

1. Anne – claims the flute because only she can play the flute
2. Bob – claims the flute as he is poor in toys and deserves at least one
3. Carla – claims the flute because she is the only one who toiled to make one

In this premise, various positions by utilitarian, egalitarians & libertarians.
Briefly – the egalitarians go with Bob, the libertarians with Carla and the utilitarian after some somersaults goes with Anne.
Of course Sen discusses the subtleties of each of these persuasions to come to a solution. However, per him and what is
pretty much the keystone of the Rawlsian original position, there may not a perfect social arrangement on which impartial
agreement would emerge.

At the outset this example may seem very clever, but no one notices the fundamental flaws (imho) to this example above.
Firstly, claimants to resources are never just individuals. This may seem like a trivial argument, but it turns out not to be
the case. They usually have a family, a social group, a state, a nation-state, etc. Further, there is a context, beyond the
simple claims made by each claimant.

Secondly, the idea of fairness is perhaps a childlike trait and I am fully aware “fairness” is Anglo-saxon in origin and cannot
be translated into most Indian languages. That is if there were three flutes, then they could be fairly divided among Anne,
Bob and Carla, but indeed several social persuasions and corresponding institutions arise due to scarcity of resources.

Thirdly, Anne, Bob and Carla all claim a right to the flute. Whereas one could easily argue that none of them deserve a
flute from a moral point of view, in that they are behaving like spoiled children and need a firm disciplining. That is ever
since Political-Economics in the West calculatedly moved away from the normative morality and ethics since Stuart Mill and
Marshall, individual claims have taken precedence over normative morality.

Finally, the whole example and argument is based on rights over a flute that are prima-facie considered true claims and
that the claimants have such inalienable rights either by nature or due to their creator.

We cannot expect any probing from an SD framework from Sen, he is lost to SD and himself...
The tragedy is that in college after college in India teaching and writing papers on Rawls and social sciences not one has
argued a coherent SD position. What would the position be from the different schools of thought in SD, from Dharma for
example? Indeed, could the example be apriori rejected as framed incorrectly? Thoughts?

[Vayutuvan]

johneeG: One can be brave and still a faggot or a cowardly non-faggot. Examples can be found in MB itself. shikhandin (if one believes the scientifically incorrect theory of transgender being the same as gays/lesbian) is an example of the former and uttara kumAra for the second kind.

[johneeG]

Here is an example from his book “The Idea of Justice”

Three children and a flute?

Three children make demands of a single flute

1. Anne – claims the flute because only she can play the flute
2. Bob – claims the flute as he is poor in toys and deserves at least one
3. Carla – claims the flute because she is the only one who toiled to make one

In this premise, various positions by utilitarian, egalitarians & libertarians.
Briefly – the egalitarians go with Bob, the libertarians with Carla and the utilitarian after some somersaults goes with Anne.

There are 4 aspects: Dharma(Justice), Artha(Utility/Profits/Gains), Kaama(Desires), Moksha(Renunciation).

From Moksha(Liberation) perspective, anyone who wants Moksha should not have desire for Flute. Even if they own the flute, they should renounce it and learn to share it.

From Kaama(Desire) perspective, all the 3 of them want to have the flute.

From Artha(utility/profits/gains) perspective, Anne seems to be best placed to utilize the flute. However, the others can also claim the flute because they can also learn to play the flute or sell/loan the flute.

From the Dharma(justice) perspective, the flute should go to those who deserve it. The one who earned it, deserves it. So, Carla deserves it because she helped make it.

However, the Dharma has another very important side to it: sharing or charity i.e. Dhaana.

So, from different perspectives different people are worthy. Then, what is the correct solution? The correct solution is to be arrived at locally in each case. There is no universal solution. The problem arises when it is assumed that there is an universal solution and the unique circumstances of the local condition are ignored.

So, further factors about Anne, Carla, and Bob will change how the flute is to be distributed to them. The age, gender, mental maturity, physical maturity, ...etc ...etc. Basically, all the factors will have a role on how the resources are distributed. Further, whoever has the resources is told to learn to share them with those who have lesser resources and those who need it or deserve it.

This also makes sense from economic/social perspective: the richer people of the society have more stakes in the keeping the system alive. If the system breaks down and there is anarchy, then the rich have more to lose. The poor are anyway poor and nothing to lose. If the rich take care of the poor and do not drive them towards desperation, then they can keep the system alive which is beneficial to them. So, the rich people have the need to share their resources with others.

There is also a concept of renunciation in Hindhuism. Ultimately, people are told to go beyond the material objects. So, at some point, people have to strive to go beyond materials. Anyway, happiness is not attained by materials. Material objects give comforts and convenience. However, sometimes, giving up the material objects can lead to convenience and comfort.

So, the point is that the solution to this problem will be unique in each case depending on the local conditions. Trying to devise one universal formula would be foolhardy as that would be ignoring the many factors which make each situation unique. Further, all participants have to be taught to share it with others as much as possible along with a sense of renunciation.

----

johneeG: One can be brave and still a faggot or a cowardly non-faggot. Examples can be found in MB itself. shikhandin (if one believes the scientifically incorrect theory of transgender being the same as gays/lesbian) is an example of the former and uttara kumAra for the second kind.

a) Lord Shree Krushna uses the word 'faggot' (Klebyam) in the sense of a coward. (Its to poke Arjuna because he had been recently been a transgender for an year during Viraata Parva).
b) Uttara Kumara was a straight man as far as I understand.

[Pulikeshi]

Continuation of Sen's realizations and inconsequence of his agency </sarc off>

Purva paksha - Sen makes these claims in "The Idea of Justice - Realizations, Consequences and Agency"

1. Arjuna's reasoning is that what happens in the world matters and be significant in our moral and political thinking.
2. Arjuna argues that a person whose decisions bring about serious consequences must take personal responsibility for his choices.
3. Arjuna identifies that relatives and friends would be killed and he is bothered about his impending actions.

Key assumptions made by Sen - that Arjuna is a lay person and not a philosopher, that Krishna is a deontologist who is
making duty-centered arguments and indulging in consequence-independent reasoning.
Yet, Sen acknowledges that Gandhiji used the same theory to argue ahimsa/satyagraha and that it was every
Indian's duty to fight the British Empire.
Please correct me if I got anything wrong.

Arguments against the above claims:

We do not need to indulge in much sophistry to demolish Sen's nonsense -

Firstly, Sen incorrectly assumes that the arguments are Arjuna versus Krishna. That is, the former is a 'babe in the woods'
and the latter is a shrewd deontologist politician leading them all to a slaughter without any concern for consequences.
Krishna was not an independent arbitrator as Sen makes him out to be, the truth is indeed entirely the opposite
Sen is being intentionally mischievous here as anyone who knows the story well knows that Krishna's Narayani (Akshauhini)
Sena under Kritavarma were fighting on the Kaurava side. Was Krishna unaware of the consequences? He has his personal
kin's skin in the game, he was not making consequence independent claims. Indeed he was making consequential claims!

Secondly, Sen looks at the issue extremely superficially from a niti/nyaya perspective and jumps to conclusions that are
sophomoric brining into question his intent. Fundamentally, multiple schools in SD have argued the issues presented in the
Gita threadbare. Sen completely ignore the Mimasa point of view that Moksha maybe, but our human faculty could not
fathom the human actions (Karma) that consequence upon it, that therefore is the reason to follow Dharma as per ones
duty.

Thirdly, most importantly, whether Sen agrees with normative frameworks or not, Krishna was reminding Arjuna that he
is a Kshatriya, his Dharma is to defend with weapons that which is Dharma and kill as many as needed if necessary.
Kumarila much later makes similar robust arguments against the Buddhists on why even if Ahimsa is the highest Dharma
Himsa is not Adharma, that indeed it is sanctioned based on context and calling.

Finally, coming to Sens three points on Arjuna's argument, even if true - we can make the following counter, even if we do
not propose that Krishna is divine or that Arjuna is indeed a 'babe in the woods.' 1) Arjuna is correct in his reasoning,
2) Krishna is merely reminding Arjuna of his personal duty as a Kshatriya upholding Dharma as his Uncle and well wisher
3) Indeed, Arjuna will suffer the consequences of his action, even though the path of Dharma demands his action today.
We could even ignore Krishna's normative claims that those who think they are killing or those who are killed are all part
of me, etc. It could very well be that they are all part and parcel of the vast infinite the label-less entity.
4) Further, Sen completely ignore something significant, what if the 'babe in the woods' Arjuna refuses to fight?
Will the world be a better place? Krishna warns that inaction itself is an action that will have consequences. Worse for all,
these consequences maybe even more devastating and grievous to society. We could go on but...
5) Krishna himself is bound by the consequence of his actions, indeed Sen's deontologist Krishna himself is aware of this..

Where in all of this is either of them free from Dharma and what it demanded of each of them?
Sen's argument is therefore that of an ignoramus misapplying frameworks at best and malicious mischievous interloper at worst.

[Pulikeshi]

a) Lord Shree Krushna uses the word 'faggot' (Klebyam)

I will read the rest of your post as time permits...
but quick note the word Klebyam means "unmanly behaviour," "neuter gender," "unmanly," etc.
I've not come across the word for homosexual in Sanskrit, will look up the Kama Sutra original as time permits -
समलिङ्गकामिन् is what it would be I think from quick look at my dictionary...

[shiv]

Regarding Sens Rational foolishness –

Here is an example from his book “The Idea of Justice”

Three children and a flute?

Three children make demands of a single flute

1. Anne – claims the flute because only she can play the flute
2. Bob – claims the flute as he is poor in toys and deserves at least one
3. Carla – claims the flute because she is the only one who toiled to make one

The tragedy is that in college after college in India teaching and writing papers on Rawls and social sciences not one has
argued a coherent SD position. What would the position be from the different schools of thought in SD, from Dharma for
example? Indeed, could the example be apriori rejected as framed incorrectly? Thoughts?

I cannot claim any special ability to offer a solution from the SD viewpoint. However let me simply state my intuitive view, for what it is worth.

Assuming that none of the three already owns a flute and none is allowed to exert any violent coercive force on the others, I would say that Anne the flute player has the most justifiable claim to the flute. A flute has only one reason for its existence (creation) and that is to be played. If a flute is not played it is simply a stick. It is not even a pipe/tube/conduit

Just because someone has the ability to make something, it does not give that person right over every object that he or she is capable of making as long as it has not been made by that person. If I can make drums it does not give me an extra special right over all drums. So Carla is out.

"Poverty" is a very western word. Or at least it has a unique western meaning - that is "material poverty" or lack of things. One could lack an iPhone, clothes, shoes, a house, a condom or a flute. Poverty of material things cannot simply give a person the right to own something he does not have. I have poverty in terms of a luxury cruise boat. That does not mean that I can use my material poverty as a reason to claim an unclaimed luxury cruise boat as mine. Bob is out.

Anne can play the flute. Among the three the word "flute" can have meaning only in her hands. A flute can only be identified as a flute without any doubt when it is payed. A tube with holes that cannot be made to produce music like a flute is not a flute any more than a dead cat is a cat. Apart from this is the additional (but insufficient) condition that others too might enjoy and benefit from listening to someone playing the flute. it should be Anne's.

[Johann]

Johann you are starting from a point in American history where liberal movements such as abolitionism were beginning to take off.

Because that is the period when the Enlightenment values were trickling down and the slow process of challenging and transforming older attitudes.

The *particular* humanist values you're talking about in the modern context are drawn from the Enlightenment, so its only fair to look at the periods that follow it.

Of course the concept of universal values was drawn from earlier religious frameworks, but its content in terms of willingness to recognise humanity outside religious categories was severely limited.

But even within the Enlightenment there were different competing streams of values - one that was based on nationalism, and utilitarianism and the other on humanism, which rejected ethnic categories.

Did lack of liberalism contribute to growth of the economy? Well, if the European migrants had respected Red Indian views on land ownership they would not have owned quite so much land.

I've just come back from Hawaii, where there wasn't a bloody period of massacres, and where the population was more resistant to disease, and where colonisation happened in an era of much more liberal values.

Settlers bought land (there was plenty to be had) from the Hawaiian ruling classes (rather than simply taking it) and grew incredibly wealthy from sugar and later pineapple and coffee plantations before it was annexed. For labour they brought invited Japanese labourers on contracts.

So even in America when you move the clock forward there were very different models of colonisation driven by differences in values.

For example America's willingness to welcome Indian immigrants from the 1960s onwards as part of its racial reforms has been to America's gain. Certainly their contributions have helped grow the US economy and American power.

Johann this is an example of "desirable universal values" being bandied about after power and wealth have been attained. Maintenance of that power and wealth cannot continue with manpower to fill manpower shortage areas because employing locals gets too expensive. The US has filled skilled manpower shortage areas with educated Indians and unskilled manpower shortage areas with Mexicans, Haitians, Somalis and others

I have to disagree here - ideas do matter. The racial elements of US immigration law were added in 1914, which was the time when Eugenicist ideas had perhaps the greatest respectability across the West, and when nationalism was seen in its most racial terms, and when race was seen in quasi-biological terms.

The US was no more short of labour in 1964 than it was in 1954 or 1884. Nor was India recognised as a potential source of highly skilled manpower at the time.

The changes in immigration law was a product of the Civil Rights Act and the civil rights movement - a conscious collective decision to end racial discrimination in law.

Meanwhile in South Africa in the same period (post WWII), the racialisation of law was actually deepening.

Lets look at US versus Brazil (which incidentally imported far more slaves than the American colonies) and Argentina. All of these countries started as European settlements in the America. Why has the US done better for its people, including its minorities? Could it be perhaps those values that you seem to insist are mirages?

Johann, look at the following statistics
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... /2097.html
Brazil
arable land: 8.45%

United States
arable land: 16.29%

Brazil population in 1800: 3.2 million
US population in 1800: 5.2 million with 800,000 slaves

Brazil population in 1900: 17.4 million
US population in 1900: 76 million

The US was a much better land to migrate to with more open land for settlement and agriculture and for that matter mining. Brazil was covered with dense, impenetrable and unexplored rainforest.

I think Brazil was better off than the US but is now worse. A paper I linked in an earlier post shows how lack of development and poverty are linked to biodiversity.

The physical size of the country or the size of its population has nothing to do with its standard of living, or inequality.

Japan and Norway are not particularly ideal for agriculture, but their citizens enjoy freedom from both want, and fear of arbitrary violence by the state or criminals.

Argentina is composed overwhelmingly of the descendents of European immigrants, and Brazil of European and Asian immigrants as well as African slaves and some native tribes.

The greater reliance on slavery has left Brazil with a larger legacy of poverty and inequality. Argentina hasn't done as well as say Canada or New Zealand, or even Costa Rica, or neighboring Chile, or Europe.

These are not because of purely material conditions.

[ShauryaT]

it should be Anne's.

Disregarding all context, the only reason for someone to make a flute is so that it can be given to someone who has use for it. At the end of the day, the flute is an object of value. The maker of the flute has created something of value. Assuming Carla has no use for the flute, once made, it would be dead asset. The flute player can add additional value through its use. It is in Carla's interest to let Anne have the flute with the idea that Anne will reciprocate by playing the flute for Carla's benefit. The last thing Bob needs as "dana" a flute is if music has died.

Added: The idea of reciprocation is powerful and was at the heart of India's self sustaining village communities. I heard of a thought experiment, where one person sent a 100 christmas greeting cards to random people from an address book, with a return name and address. None of these recipients were known to him. As is customary in the US, if you receive a card you send a card back, for such greetings.

The sender had sent the card just once in one year, but kept on receiving christmas greeting cards from his recipients, for 20+years by about 20 of the original recipients. That is the power of reciprocity and shows people reciprocate to deeds done. Same concept applies to waiters with a big and warm smile and courteous service, who get good tips - even if the service provided is not qualitatively different.

[member_20317]

it should be Anne's.

Disregarding all context, the only reason for someone to make a flute is so that it can be given to someone who has use for it. At the end of the day, the flute is an object of value. The maker of the flute has created something of value. Assuming Carla has no use for the flute, once made, it would be dead asset. The flute player can add additional value through its use. It is in Carla's interest to let Anne have the flute with the idea that Anne will reciprocate by playing the flute for Carla's benefit. The last thing Bob needs as "dana" a flute is if music has died.

This actually is an interesting trivia query. So I will also participate. Remember I am merely a student. Let others more trained judge us from both the western perspective and the SD perspective. Basically I also want to test how well I am inside the SD tent. Here goes and I submit:

Bob will get a tight slap from me merely for asking.

Carla made it for either of the two reasons - (1) her personal usage or (2) so she can give/sell/store/break it without actually using it essentially treating it like a stick but again only for herself. Her personal effort in making it gives her the ownership of it. I would advise her to use it and open up her learning process. If that is out of the question only then sell it/give it/store it. Breaking it is not advisable at all unless the flute got made wrong in the first place.

Anne can play the flute and there is nothing to stop her from making one for herself. Also her music cannot remain subservient to her instrument. She can seek the flute from Carla too for compensation of the quantity and quality Carla seeks and in no other manner. Anne's music remains subservient to Carla's ownership so long as Anne cannot make/acquire one for herself. Anne is advised to free herself from dependency on Carla anyhow.

As for the flute - it is an object. Objects are made for a purpose and using it as a stick is actually not outside the scope of its use (Jugaad). Sacrifice of the flute is also a use. Our job has been limited to decide, who gets the flute and not what is the ultimate use of the flute should ideally be.

Re. Reciprocation - Carla and Anne can reciprocate and probably should.


I am trying to use the idea of Self as (as narrated by Swami Vivekanand) taught by Maharishi Yagyavalka to his wife. Gurujan kindly advise.


........................

I think a presumption that Carla has no use for it is justifiable only when Carla says so else the only reasonable presumption is that Carla made it because she needs it anyhow she deems fit.

........................

I still need to presume the claims are all truthful.

[shiv]

Because that is the period when the Enlightenment values were trickling down and the slow process of challenging and transforming older attitudes.

The *particular* humanist values you're talking about in the modern context are drawn from the Enlightenment, so its only fair to look at the periods that follow it.

Fair to whom? It is certainly not fair to the people who were colonized and looted and enslaved before "enlightenment" made a dent in the laws of the looter countries. Every single looter/colonizer nation consisted of different interest groups and the interest in looting colonies and subjugating people certainly had a greater following than the enlightenment movement because it meant more wealth to the colonizer nation. Once European nations reached the summit they were able to sit back and philosophize about good and bad and made up some rules - of which a few are called "Universalism". That is an egregiously fake name because much of it cannot be applied universally without much wealth.

The US was no more short of labour in 1964 than it was in 1954 or 1884. Nor was India recognised as a potential source of highly skilled manpower at the time.

Johann I believe you are talking through your hat. YOU just don't know and you are bluffing your way through this. Every one of us - starting from a set of people a decade older than me to a decade or two younger than me, right through the 1960s to the 90s (and perhaps even now) typically applied for skilled jobs (eg doctors) in god-forsaken areas where American doctors could not be induced to go. There areas were all clearly described as manpower shortage areas because locals did not give a damn about going there.Hence immigrants were taken in. Immigrants were informed that they had much better chances of getting in an settling if they chose manpower shortage areas. A whole lot of Indian immigrants are in the US because they agreed to live in god forsaken US towns.

The physical size of the country or the size of its population has nothing to do with its standard of living, or inequality.

Japan and Norway are not particularly ideal for agriculture, but their citizens enjoy freedom from both want, and fear of arbitrary violence by the state or criminals.

Argentina is composed overwhelmingly of the descendents of European immigrants, and Brazil of European and Asian immigrants as well as African slaves and some native tribes.

The greater reliance on slavery has left Brazil with a larger legacy of poverty and inequality. Argentina hasn't done as well as say Canada or New Zealand, or even Costa Rica, or neighboring Chile, or Europe.

These are not because of purely material conditions.

Very nice Johann. You are spraying country names at me faster than I can say anything. You were the one who asked for a comparison of Brazil and the USA. I pointed out that the US was a much better area for immigrants to settle. I was talking about "arable area", not overall area.

The Norway and Japan examples are specious. Both nations depended on sea fishing and did not have landlocked regions thousands of Km inland like the US and Brazil do. It is such countries that do better if they have arable land. Brazil was and is less livable and less cultivable than the USA.

All those slaves who went to Brazil, whom you claim kept Brazil down were brought in by colonizers. Fewer people colonized Brazil for reasons that include simple geographical facts. Sailing west from almost any part of northern Europe - especially Britain, the US is 1500 to 2000 km closer than Brazil. It is only from Spain and Portugal that Brazil and the US are equidistant - and with the Royal navy having defeated the Spanish navy early on it is easy to see why Northern Europeans went to the US in larger numbers and much larger numbers of people settled in a geographically more friendly and more livable North America with a lower population density of local natives.

I know that you will not deliberately make a racist comment - but you have stated that the presence of much larger numbers of slaves in Brazil kept Brazil down compared to the US. It follows that either the slaves were inferior people or they were simply not allowed to develop by their European masters. They came as slaves and lived as inferior laborers with lesser education and rights, unlike European migrants. No wonder the countries with more slaves have not done so well. The reason you quote is, unfortunately, fundamentally racist. The countries that had more non-slave immigrants from European colonizer nations have done better than countries with more slaves. You say so yourself, and you claim that it was because of enlightened values that the Europeans had. Do you mean the slaves did not have the enlightenment that the European settlers had? Would you be able to expand on this?

[shiv]

it should be Anne's.

Disregarding all context, the only reason for someone to make a flute is so that it can be given to someone who has use for it. At the end of the day, the flute is an object of value. The maker of the flute has created something of value. Assuming Carla has no use for the flute, once made, it would be dead asset. The flute player can add additional value through its use. It is in Carla's interest to let Anne have the flute with the idea that Anne will reciprocate by playing the flute for Carla's benefit. The last thing Bob needs as "dana" a flute is if music has died.

Added: The idea of reciprocation is powerful and was at the heart of India's self sustaining village communities. I heard of a thought experiment, where one person sent a 100 christmas greeting cards to random people from an address book, with a return name and address. None of these recipients were known to him. As is customary in the US, if you receive a card you send a card back, for such greetings.

The sender had sent the card just once in one year, but kept on receiving christmas greeting cards from his recipients, for 20+years by about 20 of the original recipients. That is the power of reciprocity and shows people reciprocate to deeds done. Same concept applies to waiters with a big and warm smile and courteous service, who get good tips - even if the service provided is not qualitatively different.

Agreed Shaurya - I assumed that Carla had not made the flute herself. The statement read "She (Carla) had toiled to make one" Did she make that partciular flute? I assumed a flute was available and she claimed to be able to make flutes. If Carla had made that flute I guess she has rights over it. But here the example suggests that each of these people would keep the flute for themselves - a fundamentally selfish act. Anne could borrow it perhaps and Bob could play with it while Carla claimed ownership.