God's inadequacies

 Watching the movie, Karuppu, reiterated even God's inadequacies in the face of human free will.  In a fantasy world, God can play the 'God mode' and 'set right' all things! But in reality, even God is limited! The movie attempts to 'liberate' God and assist him work 'outside the God-mode'. It even throws an open challenge to God to work in and as the human mould.  So far so good! 

However, the rest of the movie takes recourse to a fantasy, without making any serious effort at addressing an evil plaguing our Indian judicial system. The closest the movie comes to making a possible response or proposing a way forward, through the maze of the judiciary is citing fear.  Fear among the people, especially those directly involved in judicial matters: lawyers, judges, court staff... Fear primarily of the Divine.  But, that is a very lame attempt.  

For if those involved in the court process were God-fearing, the whole system would have never got corrupted in the first place.  And if everyone was so obedient to God, the courts would be redundant! 

In comparison to this movie, the other recent movie of Surya titled Jai Bhim is a much more powerful and sensible one. 

Nonetheless, the movie is a rather good trigger for discussion in a Theodicy class.  God is omnipotent, and almighty, all powerful; but before the human free will, God makes himself and is 'limited'. 

Irony!

 

Measuring tapes, sewage pipelines and philosophy

 Three years ago, I was asked to take up this task of being the Economer of the Province.  At first when told, it did not make any sense to me.  All my Salesian life I was being prepared and had been working in the formation line, that too teaching Philosophy.  Now all of a sudden, one is asked to take up a task, which is astronomically miles away from teaching philosophy! 

The first time that the actual reality of taking on a totally different responsibility hit me was when measuring land at Mallepally.  Thathi was still around. It was not even a month after taking charge and both of us were at Mallelpally, assisting in the land survey.  While assisting, at one point, it was just Thathi and myself at one end of the measuring tape and he smiled. When asked what that smile meant, he replied, "Instead of a chalk you are now holding a measuring tape!" Of course, he was kidding and he knew the context even before his tenure as the Provincial. 

Even this morning was a crude reminder of the same 'change of line'. It struck me that the toilet pipeline of the second floor need not come down right to the ground level and run under the basement of the dining hall and kitchen to exit at the other end of the building.  Now that there evidently is some issue with its free flow, why break our head (again) digging up and investigating that 'underground' pipeline.  Why not run the sewage pipe along the first floor parapet and get it down at the other end of the building.  There is no toilet or bathroom on that side of the building, neither on the ground floor nor on the first floor!! 

And I said to myself, what lovely philosophical thoughts are these!!! 

That said, I hold no regrets! Being a Salesian has helped me see the great value of diversity and the utility of being a jack of all trades! 

Perspective of God, from God's side

This morning during our common discussion, Palli made a very profound intervention.  Though very many were up in arms against him for that statement, without actually giving it a thought, they actually proved him right - even in their criticism of him! 

What he pointed out to us all was that we Catholics often project ourselves out of the world and speak of ourselves as if there is the world outside of me and then there is me (or us).  

While elaborating that point he made another distinct point which went unnoticed.  It was about our perspective of God or even that of Jesus.  We hold onto that perspective, most often what is commonly preached in the church, and refuse to see that perhaps sometimes even God himself may not be happy with that imagery we have of him.  

To drive home the point Palli stated that Jesus said, whatever you do to the least of your brethren you do it for me... he never said, do it to your brethren because you love me.  This reference to the Scriptural quote was to drive home the point that God does not wait for us to do good out of love for him. The very fact that we do some good to those in need is already done for God - even if we do not have that intention of attributing or sourcing it from God. 

While trying to get my head around his passionate appeal, I was reminded of Richard Rorty's book Philosophy and the Mirror of nature.  Remembering a philosophical title after long!!!

Hypatia and Christian militantism

 It is easy to grow blind to one's own mistakes or faults.  The same can very specially be true of one's own belief, religion, family or group.  Once we realise this drawback, one ought to beware of it consciously and repeatedly check ourselves, to be open to criticism and feedback.  

One such historical blunder that Christianity made in its early history was the 'murder' of Hypatia.  The following video clearly spells out the incidents that led to the death of this scholarly woman and eventually the decline of philosophical thinking in Greece.  In a way, if Christianity replaced the 'crude' paganism of the Roman era, it also did away with other good things... not all of which can be classified under 'collateral damage'. 

Of course, to now blame Christianity for this, in the twenty-first century, would not be any wiser.  But important lessons from history should always be learnt.  

Emptiness

I distinctly remember Fr TD John sending out a Christmas greeting to all the Salesian communities, years ago on the theme of 'Emptiness'. He basically used the following text from Lao Tzu and connected it to Jesus' kenosis, showing how of all things great and noble, emptiness offers them all the possibility. 

THIRTY spokes converge upon a single hub; 

It is on the hole in the center that the use of the cart hinges. 

We make a vessel from a lump of clay; 

It is the empty space within the vessel that makes it useful. 

We make doors and windows for a room; 

But it is these empty spaces that make the room livable. 

Thus, while the tangible has advantages, 

It is the intangible that makes it useful.

[From Lao Tzu, chapter 11]

Philosophy and wisdom

If philosophy is the love or study of wisdom, then by that logic philosophers should be the most wise people on earth.  Now that statement can be treated more as a joke than a reality!  Why the lacuna between study of wisdom and being wise? 

I think the chasm lies in the fact that most philosophers get embroiled with logic, arguments, reasoning and reading, it is purely at the intellectual level.  In life, these hardly make an impact.  When these do not percolate my convictions, principles, values and day-to-day decisions of life, how would it make impact others, leave along the society at large?  Wisdom comes from letting these ideas and theories being worked out in real life, with real people and relations. Not merely in the abstract world of ideas and thoughts.  In that sense, I still hold that my Mum is a more wise person than I, in spite of my years of study of philosophy!

I agree that reading and thinking and philosophising helps.  But wisdom comes from living life, not merely reading about life or thinking about life.  We become wise engaging with real life-situations and people - the more challenging and complex these are, the better the possibility of we growing wise.  Reading and thinking and engaging in an intellectual debate (however intense) are safe bets - not life-altering.  Real life situations and the challenges they throw up, demand radical decisions and careful consideration.  That's the route to wisdom. 

Philosophy lectures

Compiled list of philosophy lectures (videos) on various topics available online...

The accompanying sheets also contain lists of some lecture notes and online softwares.

Came across the list and details of its origin here. https://mymodernmet.com/philosophy-video-lectures/

A conversation

A conversation with an ant... and with the universe and oneself!

Mind, Cognition and Consciousness

Bibliography and resource tank for 'Mind and consciousness':

• Interview with Robert Lawrence Kuhn 'What is extended mind' (Aeon)
• Andy Clark and David Chalmers (1998) 'The Extended mind'
• Chalmers, 'The logical possibility of Zombies'
• Chalmers, 'Consciousness and its place in nature'
• Rorty, 'Incorrigibility as the mark of the mental' (self-knowledge, awareness, consciousness)
• Jackson, 'What Mary didn't know'  ... video: https://aeon.co/videos/can-you-know-everything-about-colour-if-you-see-in-black-and-white-a-thought-experiment 
• Crane, 'Intentionality as the mark of the mental' 
• Searle, 'Minds, brains and programs'
• Rorty, 'Mind-body identity, privacy and categories'
• Smart, 'Sensations and brain processes' (materialism)
• Sellars, Empiricism and the philosophy of mind XI-XVI 
• Putnam, 'The nature of mental states' 

• Philosophical problem of consciousness (consciousness - scientific and philosophical answers)
• Why science can't explain consciousness (scientific perspective)
• Consciousness is real (phenomenal C vs Access C; dualism and illusionism;  a different way of speaking about 'illusionism';  argument to show C as an efficacious biological reality)
• Neither person nor cadaver (who decides when a person is dead?  Issues with 'brain-death', how the controversial theory of brain-death was approved, dilemmas with regard to the 'point' of death...) 
• How to make the study of consciousness scientifically tractable (redefining 'subjectivity') 
• Our reality and why Consciousness is important (discusses objective consciousness)
• Science and the turf war of consciousness (Book review of Galileo's Error: Foundations for a new science of consciousness... where in the author is proposing panpsychism as a solution for the whole debate about consciousness, especially the body-mind problem since Galileo's days)
• Consciousness: how can we solve the greatest mystery in science? (Contemporary - 2019 - theories of consciousness;  the Templeton competition, initiated to arrive at a definitive understanding of consciousness;  a set of rival theories - IIT, GNWT, Mechanistic, magicalist, Higher order theories, Predictive coding theories, Attention schema theory, Illusionism, Quantum theories...;  good summary of contemporary names and theories working in the field of consciousness)
• The transition to minimal consciousness (article defending the proposal that animals too have consciousness.  Consciousness requires 'unlimited associative learning' - "refers to an animal's ability to ascribe motivational value to a compound stimulus or action pattern and to use it as the basis for future learning" (p. 5).  This is found in  invertebrates. 
• Semi-unlimited associative learning (Critique of the article: gap between unlimited and limited associative learning.) 
• The evolution of the sensitive soul (Book that states learning is the driving force behind the evolution of basic consciousness)
•  Inflate and explode (Critique of eliminativism and illusionism)
• Why your brain is not a computer (newspaper article: arguments and reasons from the field of psychology and neuroscience to show that the brain/mind cannot be considered or is not reducible to a computer; how the metaphor of 'the brain as a computer' has been eroded and is no longer valid)
• We are the world (Aeon) The object identity theory which holds that the consciousness is not in the brain or the mind, but outside us.  It is in our experience of the world, through the body.  So consciousness is not in the brain within us, nor in the world outside, but in our experience of the world, as a bodily being.  We are the experience.  It is the world relative to our experience that moves us. 
• Frames of Consciousness (Aeon) Latest technological advances and ethical questions related to study of brain, especially deciding when is a patient conscious or not?

Does or Is

We find it reasonable and easy to answer certain direct questions about things we see around us.  But the same ease and rationale fails us when we ascend further to the domain of persons and non-material realities. 
Why does this biscuit exist?
Why does this bulb exist?
Why does this car exist?
Why does this building exist?
Why does this office exist?
Why do I exist?
Why does the world exist?
Why does anything exist at all?
Note the increasing difficulty in answering the above set of questions. Why so?

The more distanced and uninvolved we stay, the easier to answer.  The more intimate and involved we get, the more difficult it gets to answer.

Gets us back to 'know thyself'.  Same with language. 

Perhaps we have been answering the wrong question all along: instead of answering what it IS we have been answering what it DOES.  We have been answering 'what does language do?' rather than 'What IS language?'.  We have equated DOES and IS.

Perhaps we don't have an access point beyond 'does'.  To answer, 'is' we need to get out of language.  (Do we?) And there is no 'getting out of language'.

Kids and philosophy

This video is really funny and insightful at the same time... children speaking of philosophical questions (creation, God, death, meaning of life).  The answers of the children show how they perceive things, how they pick up thoughts from the grown-ups, and how they put it all together.  Lovely, especially their thoughts about creation!

Les grands penseurs (The Great Thinkers) from karina garcia on Vimeo.

Directed by Karina Garcia Casanova
Illustrations by James Braithwaite
Animation by Darren Pasemko
Produced by John Christou and Karina Garcia Casanova
Year: 2009

Philosophizing as...

The other day while listening to a paper on Schelling, and his efforts at recognizing and addressing the alienation of humankind from nature, it was interesting to hear a particular nuanced approach that lies at the heart of the issue.  Schelling says that in order to restore the lost connection, one has to become a philosopher of nature.  And how does one become one? 

Among the other ways and descriptions of what and who a nature philosopher is, the author was stating that it is not so much about a person doing 'philosophy of nature' rather it is philosophizing as nature.  In the former instance, of doing 'philosophy of nature' or 'philosophizing about nature', the person is still maintaining a separation between nature and oneself.  There is already a disunity, right at the outset of one's effort at rectifying the brokenness.  The latter perspective, of 'philosophizing as nature' is whereby one realizes oneself as part of nature, not separate or disunited from.  Humankind is part of nature.  In so far as this is true, it is nature philosophizing nature!

This perfectly sums up what Taylor is trying to say about language.  We have no vantage point outside of it, so as to speak about it.  If we do so, we are already alienating ourselves from our own reality.  Language is to be understood from the inside, not from the outside - unless one is merely doing philosophy of language. 

Strength in/of weakness

This is getting more and more intriguing.  Another quote this morning from the Scriptures to make the point I've been trying to get my head around this week.  This time from the scripture reading during morning prayer. A quote from 2 Corinthians 12: 9-10. 

I am most happy then, to be proud of my weaknesses, in order to feel the protection of Christ's power over me. I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and difficulties for Christ's sake. 

And then the bombshell... 

For when I am weak, then I am strong. 

Again the same story: for a Christian this passage, especially the last line wouldn't really be odd or strange.  For one who has spent months, and years listening, reading and meditating on this passage, there is no contradiction there. Rather a very consoling reassurance.  

But for someone reading it as 'just another regular text', without the background of Christian life and living, the logical conclusion would be, it has to be either weakness or strength.  Both of them cannot be said to be true at the same time.  It is either-or. They are not compatible in the same breath (same line/same thought).  

Cultures and traditions which have a rich history of viewing the inter-relatedness of everything stand at a real advantage here when it comes to language and meaning.  When everything is connected to everything else, there is nothing that is explicitly or exclusively true or false.  One is more prone to see the underlying network rather than the contradiction and incompatibilities. For instance, the Buddhist notion of Pratityasamutpada. 

Those without grandmothers...

Most academic philosophers never had grandmothers!  Nor did they ever have any good relationship with their own mothers!  Of this I'm sure!  If they did have grandmothers and lived with them even if for a little while in their grown up years, they'd never have become what most of them are: jargon monsters! 

It is said that comprehension of an idea, however complex it may be, is tested when you can explain it to your grandma and she'll understand.  Don Bosco had his mother.  And the first time he wrote a verbose sermon, she almost tore it up!  Then there is the Salesian tradition of goodnight thoughts.  Again, Mamma Margaret offering the boys some good piece of advice before they hit bed for the night.  I really prefer that. 

I'm not against grand and complex ideas and thoughts.  I certainly deem them very essential for growth and progress.  However, that's what we do within ourselves or at the most with like minded people.  We don't experiment those thoughts in their epistemological and metaphysical laden jargon with everyone.  And if we can't or don't want to, break it down so that all benefit from the richness of the thought, without the burden of academic jargon, then there is something wrong with us!  

Why philosophy?

By way of specialisation, every course designed at the higher education level is meant for a particular profession.  So if one is studying computer science, one intends to become a computer specialist.  One studying physics, a sort of scientist.  One studying history, goes into library sciences, archiving, writing, perhaps even into teaching.  It is more evident in arts: a music student gets into the music industry; one studying media, gets into that particular stream of work.  Generally!  Though no rule that one should choose a career only based on what one has studied!  

However, I think philosophy is the only subject or course, that is undertaken by students for no particular single profession.  Of those who opt for philosophy, just a handful of them enter into academia.  The rest, what do they do?  Or why do people study philosophy?  No one undertakes a philosophy course to become a philosopher - certainly not most!  

Perhaps the answer to this lies in the fact that philosophy is a discipline rather than a content-based course.  It actually enables one to evaluate, explore and enact what is most relevant, not just about concepts and texts but in life as well.  As such, philosophy assists any and every field of work or profession.  That can actually be the greatest strength - and also the worst quality - one can acquire studying philosophy.  

Priests and religious who have this 'compulsory' study of philosophy, indeed are greatly privileged.  But unfortunately are the worst prepared or ready for it, by way of willingness. And thereby the ones who make the least use of it. 

Diversifying syllabus

One of the presenters at the Symposium on Diversifying curriculum in the multi-cultural context of the UK, spoke of their department's attempt to understand that there are nuances in this endeavour.  She pointed out that to

• democritize - to go beyond the elite
• diversity - go beyond the white
• decentralize - go beyond the Western
• decolonize - involve local experience and have a multi-dimensional approach, or in the least be critical of prevailing popular sources

It was interesting to note that, in the context of teaching history, she stated that doing one does not automatically mean doing all the other too!

As I listened to the various points spoken about, I felt how greatly philosophy, a subject dealing with critical outlook, can help in this endeavour.  That philosophy content itself needs to be filtered through these biases, is a task not less important!

There were also proposals of how we can ask and get the students to suggest authors or ideas they wish to discuss form a small portion (perhaps the concluding part) of the lecture series.  Thus their preferences or likes of their own background or interest could resonate in the curriculum.  Another aspect was a thorough review of the sources, especially primary sources, cited as part of the reading for a particular course undertaken.

Besides the points I gathered from the symposium, I thought the aspect of a conscious and continuous process of self-awareness regarding the biases and perspectives from which I, the educator, carries out the task of teaching (and learning), forms a very fundamental aspect of this diversification.  It could be as simple as being conscious of the vocabulary that I use, the examples I quote, the authors or ideas I refer to... This personal awareness does go a long way in creating a sensitive and inclusive classroom ambiance, especially with regard to the syllabus.  

Diversifying curriculum

I attended a teaching and learning symposium at the Uni today.  The theme was diversity and employability.  The first three talks on diversity were good: more questions than answers.  On the positive side a step further for the better.  But the actual fact: not much of a move away from a very colonial or racial mindset. 

I distinctively remember my agitated mood when I finished my interview at the Philosophy department in Madras University in 2016, where I went to explore if I could initiate my PhD there.  The panel of professors were very clear and adamant that I should do/study Indian philosophy alone.  They were so fixated on it that, at the end of the meeting, I was greatly tempted to ask, "Where is the department of Western philosophy?"  It was with a great amount of self-control that I restrained myself. 

I guess it is the same mentality here in the West.  That philosophy stemming from the Greek tradition is the only 'philosophy'.  What about the equally ancient and profound thoughts around the world, especially of the two great Indian and Chinese traditions?  Does that not count as philosophy?  I understand no university can cover all the philosophical traditions of the world, certainly not giving equal importance to all, but to go about as if thoughts of the Greek heritage are the only worthy philosophical topics and authors, is certainly impoverishing oneself. 

One of the philosophy professors who spoke, mentioned of him designing a new course for philosophy undergraduates including prominent Islamic thinkers from the middle-east.  So far so good.  But why did he choose those thinkers and what thought of theirs? That which actually stemmed from Western thought or later fed into the European thinking.  What of the remainder of their thoughts or contribution?  That did not feature at all!  Such cosmetic changes, while at least being credited as an attempt, are still not claims of diversifying curriculum to be inclusive. 

I went to this symposium with a definite purpose of getting some ideas of how to diversify curriculum in our post-novitiates back in India.  I returned home convinced that we, back in India, (at least in our Salesian circles) are way ahead (in ages) by way of inclusion and diversity and sensitivity, with regard to our philosophical curriculum than here in the West.  

Faith

Soren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, in a way, redefines faith. In a normal sense, faith would be a spiritual assent to a fact or conviction.  However, Kierkegaard's notion is a very radical call to much more than a mere spiritual assent.  It is a radical surrender.

Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith, so anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith, for only in infinite resignation does an individual become conscious of his eternal validity, and only then can one speak of grasping existence by virtue of faith (p. 46).

But this rides on the notion of the Infinite as distinct from me.  There is someone other than me, outside of me, to whom I surrender.  This demarcation is not an issue for Schleiermacher who would consider the world, and God as an organic being (organic monism). Though I've not really got my head around all the implications of going along with that notion of Schleiermacher, I find most of his writings (at least those in the initial chapters of On Religion) quite open and very much 'Catholic' - certainly not popular protestant thought. 

Another point regarding the 'infinite resignation' that Kierkegaard speaks of as pre-requisite for faith, is with regard to the identity of the one submitting.  The difficulty in making this resignation is that one has given up his or her will for ever.  What else is left of the identity of the individual to sustain his being as distinct from the one to whom he or she has submitted his or her will.  For me, faith is not a once-and-for-all act done sometime ago; it is an ongoing-commitment that I make, as me.  Even my perpetual profession as a religious brother, is an act of commitment that I made verbally in 2005, but something that I live consciously every moment of my life. 

Last of all, Kierkegaard's faith, sounds more like an achievement than a grace.  I strongly feel that grace does not work in vacuum, and that there is a great element of giftedness, but it certainly is not pure achievement on my part.  

Teasing the mind

Assisting in teaching philosophy of religion at the University has indeed been a very special experience, so far.  I've taught the same course, albeit with a different content, but more or less the same themes, earlier as well.  That's in a seminary. But this experience here at the University has been very enriching. 

Comparatively I can say that back in the seminary we teach a group of students who are all believers.  So there is not a huge deal to convey proofs or arguments in favour of God or religion.  Convincing them of arguments for theism is pretty much a cake's walk. Unfortunately even the arguments against God and religion that are used and cited are mostly like paper tigers - appearing strong but somehow easily thrashed.  We do not really offer hardcore anti-theistic rational arguments for a robust philosophical study.  We merely tease or tickle the mind rather than crank it up to its maximum capacity. 

Perhaps we're afraid that the rational arguments may really challenge their faith.  Perhaps we, the educators ourselves, have not really been challenged.  Whatever it be the case, this opportunity to teach philosophy of religion has indeed been a great challenge for me.  Look forward to it, from further perspectives, in the next term as well.