Criticism

Many come up with criticisms like ‘Buddhist logics are different’ or ‘one has to follow Indian logics’. These criticisms sound profound! They are damn shallow, unless they answer the following questions. What is their structure? What are their axioms? What are their rules of inferences? What are some some crucial meta-logical theorems (do they all have deduction theorems?) etc.

I would have liked to make the following points on the IER forum but either of the two moderators are (obviously) willing to be courteous enough to post my letter on their forum, despite my explicit request. Let me react to their letters on this forum, and I shall leave it there for the time being. Neither Michael Witzel nor Steve Farmer answers my request for clarifications but simply take off on …

Steve Farmer is not an expert on secularism only in the sense that he has followed it from the ‘outside’ (meaning, probably, he has not written anything about the issue himself). Apparently, the reason why he has not contributed to the debate has to do with the fact that (a) no legitimate researcher can take the debate seriously; and (b) Farmer is one such. Witness how he describes it: “I’ve …

I do not assume that, as you put it, “we are living in complete barrenness of thought but for the light which Balu has thrown.” One would be doing the members of this forum a great disservice by attributing such an assumption to them. They do not believe in this claim anymore than I do. I do not accept this claim at all. From the many reasons I have for not accepting this ridiculous claim, let me …

Balagangadhara points out an inconsistent reasoning of the western and westernized Scholars, as well as the last 400 years of humanities scholarship. “Let me summarise the dilemma. Some properties are necessary for some traditions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) to be religions. If one accepts this, the threat is that other cultures appear not to have religions at all. For some reason or another (I …

I have also come across expressions of similar thoughts and feelings both in India and in Europe and the United States. However, I think there are multiple grounds that generate such questions. Here are some I have been able to identify. When people hear me say that the western intellectuals of the last three hundred years or more are completely wrong, invariably people skeptically wonder whether …

If we want to speak about the meaning of human existence, at least one condition has to be met: such an existence (from birth to death at least) must embody a plan or a reason. Such a plan or reason cannot be that of the individual in question for the simple reason that his/her birth (at the least, not to speak of the first years of his/her existence) does not instantiate any of his/her plans. …

I want to go deeper into the claim of my earlier post that Shabnum Tejanis and Neera Chandhokes of this world do not think but merely talk. In other words, is it possible to identify the problems with their accounts (that explicates more clearly why I say that they do not think) in such a way that it is susceptible to some sort of solution? If, indeed, we can show that such people do not think and …

You do not want to call our natural sciences as ‘knowledge’. I do not even mind that. (For instance, you might want to define ‘knowledge’ as ’true and justified belief’. You might show me that our theories in natural sciences are only believed to be true and are not proved to be true. Therefore, you might want to say that our natural sciences are not ‘knowledge’ according to your definition. Fair …

Consider the following possibility: let us assume that in some of my writings, I reach the same conclusion as some or another ideologue from Hindutva. (Of course, neither Steve Farmer nor Michael Witzel shows that this is the case. But that is not the issue.) In other words, let us assume that, with respect to some or another issue, I arrive at the same conclusion as people from the Hinudtva …

X says that Christological dilemma is some kind of theological logic and suggests that ordinary Christians are not affected by this artificial problematic. There are two issues here worth looking at separately. Is the problematic artificial? Well, it depends. I am not claiming that every Christian (past, present and future) is aware of this problematic, of course. This is a general formulation …

What does it matter where they came from and how? Newton did not travel through the Cosmos and visit planets in order to formulate his theories of planetary motion. That guy did not even visit India to find out whether the naked fakirs levitate or not. With the proverbial falling of the apple on his head (this story is too beautiful to let go!), Sir Isaac made claims about gravitation and flatly …

My book is not about India but about the western culture. It is a study of the western culture using one thread, namely, religion. To the extent I talk about India, I do so using some of the ‘facts’ that Indologists (and others) have so far used. My use of their facts (to show the opposite of what they believe they have shown) illustrates the consensus in the philosophies of sciences (of the last …

The ascription of professional competence to oneself when one does not have that. Each is in a position to say what ’the Caste System’ is, what ’ethics’ is, what ‘corruption’ is, what ‘religion’ is, what ‘Hinduism’ is… Why does one need to build new social science, when ’every Hindu specimen’ is an authority on these subjects? I suppose one can also be a physicist, biologist and chemist on these …

Dear Patrick Hogan, It is jolly good of you, as the British say, to contribute to the ’literary landscapes’ column in Sulekha at this particular juncture. I am glad too that you put across some thoughtful considerations without being polemical, and that can only help generate a stimulating discussion among all the concerned parties. However, the way you frame your points make the task an exercise …

Imagine that I were to say the following: Christ and Ganesha are manifestations of the same divinity; Christ came about 2000 years ago in the Middle East, whereas Ganesha is how he has appeared in India some 4000 years ago. Now no one can forbid me from saying this and calling myself a Christian. Question: what should a theory about Christianity do? Show how anyone who decides to call himself a …

Criticism: You are spreading hate by citing Deschner’s work–Kriminalgeschichte des Christentumsand ANY idiot knows even the title is stupid. I have not cited a single atrocity that Christianity has committed in order to incite hate towards Christianity. In fact, I have not even discussed any specific theological doctrine of any kind of Christianity, except to speak of the Christological dilemma. …

Consider the thought that ‘meanings’ (leave aside the distinction between words and sentences on the one hand and concepts and categories on the other) do not exist outside historical contexts. What exactly does this thought say? Begin with ‘historical context’. Either every situation that an individual human being finds himself is a ‘historical context’ (because human beings are always ‘in a …

Let me just focus on one important and one not-so-important claim from Will Sweetman’s article “Hinduism” and the history of “religion”: Protestant presuppositions in the critique of the concept of Hinduism. He suggests that I argue the following. First premise: Christianity is prototypically what religion is. Second premise: Hinduism does not share all (or perhaps any) of the relevant properties …

Criticism: I use jargon and twisted arguments on a mundane topic. And that every Swami says that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life. And so on. If anything, I have avoided jargon (i.e. the use of technical language) in my book. I would like to know where I use technical language without explaining it. As far as twisted arguments go, I presume you to mean invalid arguments. If you can …