While I appreciate the sentiment behind the thoughts about truth (c.f. Rorty), I don't quite agree that truth is a construct of human mind. Nagel wrote "There would have been transfinite numbers even if everyone had been wiped out by the Black Death before Cantor discovered them. But one might also believe that there are facts which could not ever be represented or comprehended by human beings, even if the species lasted forever-simply because our structure does not permit us to operate with concepts of the requisite type".
Mathematicians would certainly disapprove of the idea of the absence of universal truth. The question of universal truth in Math boils down to the age old question "Is Mathematics invented or discovered?"
The Jaina Doctrine of Anekantavada is similar to what is described here. It comes across as PoMo doctrine of "No objective Truth" (paraphrased) but on a deeper epistemological level it is not. Otoh, it shows limitations of human mind to understand meta-reality but it does state that there is a Truth out there but we just have different ways to see them.
And when I relate Anekantavada with Thomas Sowell's argument in Knowledge and Decisions, it makes much more sense. I may be wrong as I am still a student learning philosophy.
Thank you for the notes - I am enjoying some of the scope - and I am very amused that the best you can do for philosophy is Rorty! If you want contingency and irony, then at least Derrida (even if you do not want to do Spivak) - at least he speaks from an intimate understanding of the fissures created by euromodern violence.
Your second concern - about engaging Indian thoughts is asking an inadequate question (in many Taoist/Moist traditions, the answer would be "MU" - ie your question is inadequate ty the topic! . The Indic tradition has little need for "invention" as its focus on end states and ultimate values is clearly delineated a few thousand years ago. The concerns we have now are purely pragmatic - e.g. one of my favorite avatars is asking her ashram residents - how do we help people enmeshed in the world realize how much spiritual inquiry can enrich their lives?
The question - pragmatic and mildly ironic - is using the resources of tradition to address questions in an interesting manner - without being too esoteric, let us use the Hanuman Chalisa to address your questions - For Rorty, the social policy that we seek for a nation must be compatible with its history, culture and language. It has to emerge from within. Once it does so, a strong sense of community and solidarity will shape the society. "
If you read Derrida and Foucault (or Agamben, Deleuze, Cixous, Kristeva, Spivak, Appadurai etc) you would laugh at that sentence which is unreformed Durkheim taken too seriously -
On an engaged note - let me share some chaupai excerpts for context
Bidyavaan guni ati chatur ।
Ram kaj karibe ko aatur II (Ch 7)
The point of existence here is service to the principle of goodness - once we have a personal experience of the Divine we can bring all our qualities - even those like cunning that might not be relevant to bear on our work. So the sense of mission and value is critical (which is one reason to be amused by your neurotic-necro-capitalistic model that sees econ growth as an end in itself. This is where Western secularists miss the boat (and maybe the ocean) - "final values" are not a matter of choice - they are a matter of engagement and dialog and learning = and it is vital to people of quality to be part of the discussion. Can we misuse the idea of quality - of course we can - we are human = and caste is a great example of misusing human hierarchies for gain and greed
Skipping ahead to ch 21
Sab sukh lahe tumhari sarna ।
Tum rakshak kahu ko darna
There are psychological and social regularities in life. People who - like me= are Macaulay's bastards tend to find it first in eurolimited knowledge - e.g. Maslow's hierarchy, Bandura's prosocial efficacy, Dweck's growth mindset etc/ And then this verse reminds is that the point of societal genius is actually very minor - some comfort, some safety, some relationships - "strong sense of solidarity etc is pre-euromodern fantasy- there is no such stability to be regained - it is our ability to engage with the contingent and changeful with the securing from the world around and within us
Anyway - this is not to "convince" = it is to invite you think in a more commenting/storytelling manner as the way to engage with Indic knowledge rather thank looking to replicate Euromodern thought forms.]
As my favorite Euroliberating philosopher invokes - The point is not to understand the world but to change it
While I appreciate the sentiment behind the thoughts about truth (c.f. Rorty), I don't quite agree that truth is a construct of human mind. Nagel wrote "There would have been transfinite numbers even if everyone had been wiped out by the Black Death before Cantor discovered them. But one might also believe that there are facts which could not ever be represented or comprehended by human beings, even if the species lasted forever-simply because our structure does not permit us to operate with concepts of the requisite type".
Mathematicians would certainly disapprove of the idea of the absence of universal truth. The question of universal truth in Math boils down to the age old question "Is Mathematics invented or discovered?"
The Jaina Doctrine of Anekantavada is similar to what is described here. It comes across as PoMo doctrine of "No objective Truth" (paraphrased) but on a deeper epistemological level it is not. Otoh, it shows limitations of human mind to understand meta-reality but it does state that there is a Truth out there but we just have different ways to see them.
And when I relate Anekantavada with Thomas Sowell's argument in Knowledge and Decisions, it makes much more sense. I may be wrong as I am still a student learning philosophy.
Thank you for the notes - I am enjoying some of the scope - and I am very amused that the best you can do for philosophy is Rorty! If you want contingency and irony, then at least Derrida (even if you do not want to do Spivak) - at least he speaks from an intimate understanding of the fissures created by euromodern violence.
Your second concern - about engaging Indian thoughts is asking an inadequate question (in many Taoist/Moist traditions, the answer would be "MU" - ie your question is inadequate ty the topic! . The Indic tradition has little need for "invention" as its focus on end states and ultimate values is clearly delineated a few thousand years ago. The concerns we have now are purely pragmatic - e.g. one of my favorite avatars is asking her ashram residents - how do we help people enmeshed in the world realize how much spiritual inquiry can enrich their lives?
The question - pragmatic and mildly ironic - is using the resources of tradition to address questions in an interesting manner - without being too esoteric, let us use the Hanuman Chalisa to address your questions - For Rorty, the social policy that we seek for a nation must be compatible with its history, culture and language. It has to emerge from within. Once it does so, a strong sense of community and solidarity will shape the society. "
If you read Derrida and Foucault (or Agamben, Deleuze, Cixous, Kristeva, Spivak, Appadurai etc) you would laugh at that sentence which is unreformed Durkheim taken too seriously -
On an engaged note - let me share some chaupai excerpts for context
Bidyavaan guni ati chatur ।
Ram kaj karibe ko aatur II (Ch 7)
The point of existence here is service to the principle of goodness - once we have a personal experience of the Divine we can bring all our qualities - even those like cunning that might not be relevant to bear on our work. So the sense of mission and value is critical (which is one reason to be amused by your neurotic-necro-capitalistic model that sees econ growth as an end in itself. This is where Western secularists miss the boat (and maybe the ocean) - "final values" are not a matter of choice - they are a matter of engagement and dialog and learning = and it is vital to people of quality to be part of the discussion. Can we misuse the idea of quality - of course we can - we are human = and caste is a great example of misusing human hierarchies for gain and greed
Skipping ahead to ch 21
Sab sukh lahe tumhari sarna ।
Tum rakshak kahu ko darna
There are psychological and social regularities in life. People who - like me= are Macaulay's bastards tend to find it first in eurolimited knowledge - e.g. Maslow's hierarchy, Bandura's prosocial efficacy, Dweck's growth mindset etc/ And then this verse reminds is that the point of societal genius is actually very minor - some comfort, some safety, some relationships - "strong sense of solidarity etc is pre-euromodern fantasy- there is no such stability to be regained - it is our ability to engage with the contingent and changeful with the securing from the world around and within us
Anyway - this is not to "convince" = it is to invite you think in a more commenting/storytelling manner as the way to engage with Indic knowledge rather thank looking to replicate Euromodern thought forms.]
As my favorite Euroliberating philosopher invokes - The point is not to understand the world but to change it