#philosophyblr

My new Bible just arrived

This is the third part of Hegel's Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences (Encyclopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse). In this volume, Hegel deals with the philosophy of subjective spirit like nowhere else. The book consists of the course materials from his lectures and transcriptions made by his students.

This blog is about me and my interests.

Philosophy: Hegel, idealism, Nietszche, Marx, Eastern philosophy

Animes: Monster, Evangelion, HxH, Black Buttler, Moriaty, Tokyo Ghoul

Psychology: Jung, Freud

Authors: Dostoiévski, Anne Rice, Carlos Castañeda, Edgar Allan Poe, Clive Barker

Games: Hello Charlotte, Disco Elysium, Chess, Poker, RPG

Occultism: Hermetism, Thelema, Left hand path, chaos magic, tarot, astrology, yoga

Database:

ENTP • 5w4 • VELF • sx/so • Scorpio Sun • Gemini Rising • Chaotic Neutral • Vampire

Feel free to share your thoughts with me

This raises fundamental questions about the relationship between a philosopher who is alien to a culture and the "metaphysical or transcendental" regions of the world. It questions how their interpretations are built upon factors that—while not entirely false—are ultimately shortsighted; they only perceive the immediate action while ignoring its aftermath or anticipated consequences.

Dr. Anwar has pointed out a parallel between Khomeini’s rejection of capitalism and the foundational principles of the Left, noting that this shared opposition was a primary catalyst for solidarity. This brings us to another point regarding the "causality of simplistic solidarity"—a trap into which otherwise rigorously logical philosophers often fall. It exposes how easily seemingly rebellious ideas are transmitted and swiftly adopted.

However, I suspect that the broader Leftist solidarity with Khomeini and his revolution involves a sort of "circular religious dissidence." The Left finds the Shiite departure from the Sunni majority commendable and welcome—driven by a desire to disrupt the status quo—even though this dissidence still revolves within the exact same religious sphere. This observation applies not only to the Left but is also evident in the stances of many secular enlightenment intellectuals.

What is particularly striking is that the ruling elite in Iran wields a distinct type of authority. The Supreme Leader is not merely a conventional dictator; he is a figure with a philosophical grounding that colors his legitimacy, drawing upon the theology of the faith and the concepts of "destiny and historical grievance." This very aspect appeals to Western "intellectual inclinations," as the ruler possesses a profound philosophical justification for his existence, the legitimacy of his decisions, and the significance of his historical role.

Another factor in this context is that Iran is a Shiite country. This distinction appeared intriguing and exotic to Foucault, given the general absence of major Shiite states at the time, which gave the event the aura of a novel type of revolution with a "different blend."

There is another angle—one that may seem tangential but is inherently connected in my view—which is observing a philosopher who has lived through events close to our contemporary reality and voiced their opinions on them. This has become a new metric in the realm of assessment and critique. Foucault’s stance on the Iranian Revolution and Levinas’s defense of Israel are two instances that have provoked significant rethinking regarding the impact of philosophy. They highlight the necessity of subjecting philosophy to a degree of realism and rigorous critique, while keeping emotional biases in check.

philosophy bibliographer, your nature has a name: metaphysician

Also when I had asked about that karma question, and indeed that was a gross conclusion I had come to. I think, the reason why my mind went there was because how westernized "karma" Has gotten—with all the 'karma is a bitch' and 'your karma gonna bite you'. And now I understand better thanks to your example of draupadi.

Which brings me to question that whether certain events in life happen just because? There being no link in causation and effect? Then if that's the case then can bhagvan randomly alter the niyati too? Why do they always sorta say 'I cannot change niyati' when technically niyati IS them?

Also do you think there are any hindu counter against the usual atheistic argument regarding the whole if God is all powerful and all good yet they're not changing the world for better then maybe the God is not all good and if they ARE all good yet they cannot change the world then maybe they are not all powerful.

And, the whole immortal thing in hinduism like alha udal, hanuman ji, are they really immortal or is immortality a state of consciousness?

True. Also, sadly, too many Indian youths feel deeply ashamed when someone calls them cow worshipper or gobar eater / gomutra drinker, and desperately try to distance themselves from that. Even hiding behind terminology, such as saying that "Hindus respect or venerate the cow, not worship". This doesn't matter to non-Hindus at all, they can see a Hindu simply refrain from beef and the first thing they do is mock Hindus for that. Whenever they see a Hindu write positively about cows, or just explain that Hindus had a deep connection with cows in the agrarian society when our sustenance depended on milk, they say something weird and offensive. Even the westernised Indian vegans start barking about how "Hindus abuse cows by taking their milk", and that "gauraksha (cow protection) is only there to harass minorities". As if there wasn't an entire history of Muslim invaders and British and other European missionaries using the consumption of cow meat as a conversion rite, as if they didn't torture and kill cows in front of Hindus to intimidate Hindus before ethnically cleansing us. Goras, ricebag converts and Mohammedans all make fun of Hindus by talking about "juicy steaks" or "gaai ka gosht". This is different from the carnivores or omnivores spamming steak gifs under vegans' posts or comments because these type of people erase the Hinduphobic violence associated with cow theft, mutilation and killing. Carnivores may like a juicy steaks but Hinduphobes enjoy knowing that they're violating a Hindu's humanity. This is why there's absolutely no equivalence to Hindus with cows. An East Asian eats dogs not to intimidate a westerner but as sustenance or "medicine", yet westerners take a personal offence about dog eating tradition. A dhimmi secular Hindu (only in name, HINO) doesn't have the vocabulary or the ability to understand these things so they never speak up, instead they get intimidated, which creates resentment and frustration in them, then disillusionment, which is why they act like mocking Hindus with beef isn't a big deal. Only if a white person starts veganism because of *cow protection* then they find that form of pro-cow activism as civilised and wholesome, whereas they see Hindu gauraksha as regressive.

Also, I totally understand your musings about karma! I wasn't criticising you. Actually I was expressing my frustration towards the situation where Hindus have themselves started to internalise that specific notion of karma. When you mention the phrase "karma is a bitch", you actually nailed on the head! This notion, that "karma is a bitch", is a Western New Age invention. Just like they stole आर्य and स्वस्तिक and twisted their meanings to something bad, they did it with कर्म too. In reality, why bad things happen, especially to good people, is way too complex to explain with just "karma", universe is vast and time is "unforgiving" (as in, time isn't linear, but travelling through space and time isn't possible for most, not without entering some black hole or travelling faster than light which is currently impossible).

Answering your next question, which is the continuation of the subject of "problem of evil". In the Christian discourse, God is Good, God is omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent. The existence of evil is, therefore, a major contradiction to all of these attributes of God. The Christians have a couple of arguments to explain the "problem of evil". One is the Irenaean Theodicy; Saint Irenaeus from the early Christian Church argued that God gives humans challenges and suffering because they are necessary for humans to develop virtues like courage, compassion, and perseverance. Another Christian explanation for the problem of evil has been that God has endowed humans with free will, so to have a genuine free will, humans also must be able to choose poorly which can lead to suffering. If God stopped every bad decision, then humans wouldn't have a truly free will but they would rather be puppets. In Islam, evil happens because it is the Hikmah (wisdom) of Allah and a necessary part in the human experience to grow belief in Allah's mercy and in piety and patience, kind of like how Saint Irenaeus explained. I bring up Christianity and Islam just to give you a little contrast so that you can understand better. In Ancient India too, the philosophical debate about the problem of evil has been prolific. If God is truly omnipotent, why does evil exist? Both the Buddhist nastika philosophers and even astika philosophers debated fiercely about it. Buddhists actually rejected the existence of an eternal Brahman due to the question of the "problem of evil". According to nyaya philosophers, who refuted the nastika shunyavadas (nihilists) and vijnanavadas (idealists), Ishvara is beyond good and evil, possesses absolute equanimity and only upholds cosmic order. Because one of the core tenets of Buddhism is anatta (no atma, no self), astika philosophers argued that for someone to experience suffering or justice, there must be a permanent atman to link past pain to present memory, this entity can only be supported by a cosmic order which is upheld by a divine force. 

One key difference between Hindus and Christians is that Parabrahman is nirguna, it has no attributes. We humans superimpose attributes like omnipotence and omniscience to Parabrahman because that is the only way we can fathom Parabrahman (only Vishishtadvaita differs here but that's another topic). Parabrahman is the substratum of the universe, the supreme consciousness that is the first cause of everything. Our universe wasn't created with a certain goal. It just exists and there's the cosmic balance that is upheld by Bhagavan. In our perceivable world, we see Bhagavan as Benevolent, Compassionate, Wrathful etc., therefore we pray to Bhagavan to sustain us, to remove our obstacles. Bhagavan helps the sincere Bhaktas. Bhagavan appears when Adharma has started to proliferate too much. There's always a cosmic balance, good exists to fight evil, or good would be obsolete. In Hinduism, humans are given free will, but our choices are all subjects to cosmic order. So, much like in Christianity, Hinduism too is about free will, where actions have consequences, and goodness exists to combat evil. Our difference is that in Hinduism, the consequences of actions aren't dispensed by the will of God but by the cosmic order, Bhagavan doesn't make humans suffer just to build human character unlike Allah or God. Hindu gods intervene in human lives only if Adharma has grown too much and Bhaktas call for Bhagavan.

Chiranjivis aren't immortal but can live on for an entire kalpa until their bodies merge back to prakriti in pralaya - the cosmic dissolution. Only Atman and Brahman are indestructible (in astika belief).

I believe your gaze reveals something your lips do not, if I try fast to put it to words then I may not be listening well. I trust the senses. I trust the art and the place both reveal things we only speak about on the depths of our insides. I believe the body craves something language can provide: body language. You tense and you relax and I believe the things that you reveal when you do A or you do B. I believe words carry an immense weight and we should be wise on the ways we use them: words can close doors but the body wants to move freely through space, deep inside you want to move freely across space and so you do. I believe my power is immense and so I should be wise. Heat on the core and things that exist within.

Here are some various theories of perception and memory that I have just recently learned about.

Direct realism - We perceive our memories and sensory experiences "directly", that is, our concepts and schemata of the world directly come from what real-world objects are. Thus, there is no "middle-man" for our experiences and their relationship with the real world. With regards to memory (the section in Audi's book that I am reading), this involves our memorial beliefs (crystallized memory in the form of beliefs, roughly) not being produced by any type of intermediary. It also supposes that must be no broken chain or link between our memorial beliefs to a remembered event. Even outside of the field of the philosophy of memory, this is still used to justify that we perceive the world "as is". But this is pretty obviously complicated by hallucinations/source errors…

Representative Theory - also called Representative Realism, it posits that, with regards to memory, memorial images of sensory experiences are "residues of perception". This is what is called an indirect realist philosophy.

Phenomenalism - This posits that objects are not just “objects-in-themselves”, but as collections of perceptual information or sensory stimuli.