Taken in the right spirit, the article, “Philosophical investigations” (Jan.9), can trigger an interest in a philosophical interrogation away from a mediocrity that flaunts “achievements” from a partly imagined past. It is not the alleged sectarianism of chauvinists that keeps Indians away from learning about the unexplored tradition of ancient India’s “philosophical scrutiny”, but the fact that there has been a cultural disconnect and incomprehension and an upper class exclusivism that has effectively prevented knowledge from spreading. Years of rote learning and a strong sense of fatalism are what render even educated Indians incapable of seeing an abstract world beyond astrology, rituals and pilgrimages. On television, for example, one can see both the saint speaking on the science in the Shiva Purana — and in turn getting less TRP ratings — and a quack talking about “lucky” stones — with more TRP. We animatedly discuss the possibility of flying yogis even though most of us do not have the patience to meditate for even five minutes. One also sees the right wing appropriating national icons rather than thinking of introducing the world of Annie Besant to youngsters. The reason is that appropriating an icon demands less brain power than in prompting us to learn what a theosophist could see in Sanatana Dharma.
Viswanath V.,Kurnool
From time immemorial, ancient Indian seers have tried to come to terms with the problem of human welfare. Even by chanting mantras thrice to end all philosophical treatises, they invoked the idea of intellectual certitude and happiness in all the three worlds — the physical, psychological and the cosmological (or the spiritual). For this, the great masters of thought, puzzles of metaphysics, ontology, aesthetics and epistemology were the pathways to arrive at a value notion between the dicta of “general good” and “good of all” through their age-old “dialectical reasoning” or “yoga sastra” as the Gita would unequivocally put it.
Brahman Valkalam,Thiruvananthapuram
The gravity of our native philosophy, though worthy of consideration, is not without its own precincts. Brahmagupta and Varahamihira might suffice to inspire our country’s prospects in space. Susruta’s works may encourage modern medicine. I fail to see the same line in the case of philosophy, especially when no two schools agree on the same idea as far as choice and freedom are concerned. The writer may brush aside the need to test claims regarding “airplanes and plastic surgery” in ancient India, but verifying claims is a prerequisite in any democratic discourse.
P. Ben Shalom,Secunderabad
It is neither a novel nor an original temptation to argue, as physicists and rationalists are fond of doing, to decry philosophy with disdain and contempt. Once a physicist’s study of the mysteries of universe’s existence provoked an angry comment from another of his fraternity that the physicist was foolish. He argued that philosophy, unlike physics, makes no progress and is rather boring if not altogether useless. Stephen Hawking, the much-acclaimed scientist, once declared at a conference that philosophy was dead. Richard Feynman, in his famous lectures on physics, complained that “philosophers are always with us, struggling in the periphery to try to tell us something but they never really understand the subtleties and the depths of the problem.” Voltaire declared long ago that philosophy consists in stopping when the torch of science fails us. The Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, who dismissed philosophers as mostly inconsequential, has also recorded that there are limits to scientific explanation, which is after all a philosopher’s issue. Surprisingly, Neitzche wrote, “As the circle of science grows larger, it touches paradox at more places.” It is to be hoped that the article will serve to restore some balance in minds warped by ignorant prejudices.
Neduntheru S. Kannan,Chennai
