INTERVIEW FOR CSE 2019
All ForumIAS members selected for CSE 2019 Personality Test must submit their details and DAF and register below to receive further instructions and guidance from ForumIAS. Click here to register now
INTERVIEW 2020 CHANNEL
ForumIAS Channel for Interview Preparation is now Active! Please join the channel by clicking here
We are hiring!

Philosophy optional mains 2016 - discussion, progress, doubts, sources, answer writing, etc

13468924

Comments

  • Charvaka " prince of heterodox"- comment.
    @zil-i-ilahi i had this confusion about atheist and heterodox philosophies. now it is clear. we should mention about buddhism because buddhism also refuted the authority of vedas hence they are heterodox but the question has asked to comment on charvaka whether he was a heterodox or not and to what extent he succeeded in proving his philosophy. charvaka was a heterodox and to refute authority of vedas he refuted verbal testimony as pramana. we can show how he used different fallacies by involving inference in knowing the wise person who can be relied upon to give verbal testimony but then other philosophers criticized charvaka for using inference to prove his philosophy and how charvaka fails to prove his heterodox philosphy.
    There are 3 different means to differentiate b/w othodox and heterodox:

    1. on vedas and upanishad - orthodox- yes
    heterodox- no

    2. God - orthodox - yes
    heterodox- no

    3. hell/heaven/ moksha - orthodox - no
    heterodox - ( jainism, buddhism- yes
    charvaka - no)
    but the most dominant aspect is GOD.. but we have to mention other criteria also in 1-2 lines to make heterodox definition complete
  • @zil-i-ilahi i still believe that heterodox or nastik school of philosophy only deals with the question of authority of vedas. it is theist/atheist schools of philosophy which deal with the questions regarding god.
  • and few heterodox schools of philosophy do believe in god ex. jainism.
  • @zil-i-ilahi i still believe that heterodox or nastik school of philosophy only deals with the question of authority of vedas. it is theist/atheist schools of philosophy which deal with the questions regarding god.
    thodi mistake ho gai
    Charvaka " prince of heterodox"- comment.
    @zil-i-ilahi i had this confusion about atheist and heterodox philosophies. now it is clear. we should mention about buddhism because buddhism also refuted the authority of vedas hence they are heterodox but the question has asked to comment on charvaka whether he was a heterodox or not and to what extent he succeeded in proving his philosophy. charvaka was a heterodox and to refute authority of vedas he refuted verbal testimony as pramana. we can show how he used different fallacies by involving inference in knowing the wise person who can be relied upon to give verbal testimony but then other philosophers criticized charvaka for using inference to prove his philosophy and how charvaka fails to prove his heterodox philosphy.
    There are 3 different means to differentiate b/w othodox and heterodox:

    1. on vedas and upanishad - orthodox- yes
    heterodox- no

    2. God - orthodox - yes
    heterodox- no

    3. hell/heaven/ moksha - orthodox - no
    heterodox - ( jainism, buddhism- yes
    charvaka - no)
    but the most dominant aspect is Vedas from philosophical POV and GOD from religious POV.. but we have to mention other criteria also in 1-2 lines to make heterodox definition complete accordint to the pov
  • @zil-i-ilahi i still believe that heterodox or nastik school of philosophy only deals with the question of authority of vedas. it is theist/atheist schools of philosophy which deal with the questions regarding god.
    upar wale comment ko dekho correct kiya h..ab thik h shayad
  • @zil-i-ilahi wo toh sahi h yaar. but i searched on internet too, heterodox concept solely deals with vedas question. also this is what i was told by my teacher. and btw, religious point of view involves vedas too. i don't think there is any such demarcation like religious POV and philosphical POV.
  • @zil-i-ilahi wo toh sahi h yaar. but i searched on internet too, heterodox concept solely deals with vedas question. also this is what i was told by my teacher. and btw, religious point of view involves vedas too. i don't think there is any such demarcation like religious POV and philosphical POV.
    Maine bas kha ki dominant aspect religious m god h baki ko refute nai kiya h
  • Q. Charvaka " prince of heterodox"- comment.

    The heterodox systems do not accept the authority of vedas. Among the Indian system Buddhism, Jainism and Charvaka are heterodox system.

    Charvaka is an empiricist philosopher who believes perception to be the only pramana. Thus , Charvaka rejects transcendental entities. Of all the heterodox system, Charvaka alone advocates materialism. But Perception do gives wrong result somes (for e.g. earth seems to be flat). Also with rejection of inference, no debate, discussion , argument is possible. In charvaka system, the ultimate reality can’t be established as it is based on perception.

    Jainism philosophy is known as realistic and relativistic pluralism. It tries to determine the ultimate reality with its core philosophy of anekantvada and syadvada . However, they have strong biasedness against absolutism, which makes it inconsistent.

    Buddhism philosophy gives metaphysics in the form of pratityasamutpada. He says no thing in this is world is impermanent and hences gives theory of momentariness (Kshanikvada). Kshanikvada logically implies an ultimate reality i.e. Bodhi or Pragya.

    Among the heterodox school, Charvaka neither describe the Ultimate reality nor gives a path to achieve it. Thus, It can’t be said to be the Prince of Heterodox. Buddhism, on the other hand gives a single ultimate reality which makes it a consistent system and “Prince of Heterodox”.


    P.S: I considered it to be a very difficult question, Nonetheless , I attempted to write it. Please review guys.
    1. in the first line- we also have to write that along with vedas, charvaka do not belive in soul, heaven, hell, moksha too unlike jainisn and buddhism which believe in soul.
    2. charvaka alone advocates materialism- 'alone' word i think we should not use such extreme because in samkhya too they have accepted prakriti (unconscious, material) then refute it to prove the only UR is purusha. ( please make me understand it if i m taking it wrong)
    3. in jainism part we have to write that tey didnt belive in god but didnt outrightly reject the soul either. have to mention the soul, liberation, word.
    4. buddhism to.

    5. in charvaka ave to mention "dehatmavad "


    bhai last line m apne conclude kiya ki buddhism prince of heterdox h..par maine to q. hi isliye likha ti ki charvaka hi prince of heterdox h..ye to ulta hi hogya.. plzz clear m galat bol rha hu kya
    @zil-i-ilahi @ray05
    Thanks very much for your feed back.
    1: I believe heterodox/orthodox classification is based on who believe in authority of vedas. I have mentioned Charvaka do not believe in heaven, hell, moksha in 2nd para. (they reject transcendental entitites).
    2: I agree alone word is harsh, (wont use it again), Regarding Sankhya, I wont say they are materialist like Charvaka. In materialism, matter is the ultimate reality, and all other things (mattr and soul) came as a result of it. In sankhya, Prakriti is the material cause, Purusa is the efficient cause. They are two fundamental realities.Thats why we say Sankhya is a dualist school.
    Point no 3, 4 , 5 are something I should have mentioned. Thanks for your advice.
    Regarding conclusion of the answer, even I am not sure whether what I have written is correct or not. My criteria for calling a system “Prince of heterodox” is the consistency. But I am not sure what this phrase means. Could you please post 2 lines as to how to conclude it.
  • Q. 'Charvaka philosophy saved Indian Philosophy from Dogmatisim'- Discuss

    Indian philosophy is misconceived as dogmatic. This stems from the fact that most of the schools believe (without examination) that this world is full of suffering and Moksha/Liberation is the end of life. Also, Vedas are accepted as a source of knowledge in orthodox system which is again without examination.
    However, Charvaka with his analysis and rejection of inference and testimony as pramana shows the critical nature of Indian philosophy. When many people were seeking liberation, he asks people to focus on this world rather than some transcendental entity.He said “A sure shell is better than a doubtful gold coin”. His used critical approach and hence, saved Indian Philosophy from dogmatism.
    Other Indian Philosophical system (both orthodox and heterodox) also discussed epistemological problems in a critical way. Thus, Indian Philosophy can’t be termed as a whole as dogmatic. Though, It was the different and innovative analysis of Charvaka which gives Indian Philosophy a different colour.
  • Q. 'Charvaka philosophy saved Indian Philosophy from Dogmatisim'- Discuss
    Ans. charvaka is an atheist, heterodox, realist, naturalist, positivist, materialist. charvaka philosphy is the only materialistic indian philosophy. it does not believe in authority of vedas and has refuted god, soul, heaven, hell, life after death and rebirth. charvaka accepts perception as the only source of valid knowledge and has refuted inference, verbal testimony, comparison. charvaka believes that liberation can not be the ultimate goal of life and therefore, to reduce pain and to maximize pleasure is the only aim of life hence, it gave rise to hedonism.
    Indian philosophers were made to give more sound arguments to prove their philosophies and to refute charvaka's points. jainism, buddhism, nyaya philosophers came forward to criticize charvaka's belief of perception as the only source of valid knowledge and proved the instances where perception provides invalid knowledge and they showed how charvaka used inference to prove his philosophy. they also established the reasons to accept god, soul and authority of vedas.
    charvaka challenged the traditional thoughts which were earlier accepted to be true unfailingly and this way, charvaka helped indian philosophy come out of slumbers of dogmatism.

    Bahut Badiya likhe ho... Apna answer likhne ke baad tumhara answer padha to sharam aa gayi. Pehle padh leta to likhta hi nahin :smiley:
Sign In or Join to comment.

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google