Abhinav Philosopher

2012-05-19T23:28:00.002+05:30

Success at the IPO 2012
I am very pleased to inform you all that our team has put up an excellent show at the International Philosophy Olympiad 2012 at Oslo, Norway. Nishith Khandwala has bagged a silver medal and Abhinav Menon a bronze. I am feeling extremely proud and content at this.
Heartiest congratulations to the boys and a kudos to all the participants who attended the training camp. I hereby take the opportunity to thank our guest lecturers Prof. Minal Katarnikar and Jerry Johnson whose valuable guidance made this possible.

Looking forward to receive the team back home.

Hobbes on need of Government

2012-05-10T22:28:00.000+05:30

Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition, which is called war; and such a war as is of every man, against every man. (Hobbes, Leviathan, Ch. XIII)

Hobbes Argument (probably)

A) Each man follows his principles / ideals
B) Society consists of many men where
1) the ideals of two people are the same
2) they are different
3) they are in opposition
C) Men are not rational (either impulsive / not clear enough reasons / ignorance of other possibilities) hence not tolerant; hence believe in
ideological superiority
D) A + C + B2/B3: disharmony / conflict since the only way to remove differences is through coercion
E) Common Power: Authority which poeple hold in awe
1) Fear of being harmed if you dont agree with the authority
2) In your own interest to hold the superiority of the authority in order to gain benefits from it
F) Common Power needs to be just or else corruption & injustice will lead to more conflict
G) C + F: Objectivity required in resolving conflict
F) Common Power can keep people away from conflict,disharmony or "war"

My Counter-Argument
If a "common power" is feared by the people, it will eventually lead to corruption of the power. For it to be just and objective, it needs to be transparent and thoroughly rational. Such a power wont be feared but respected and would actually solve conflicts.

Sartre & Human Impotence (Incomplete)

2012-05-09T14:22:00.000+05:30

The decisive argument which is employed by common sense against freedom consists in reminding us of our impotence. Far from being able to modify our situation at our whim, we seem to be unable to change ourselves. I am not “free” either to escape the lot of my class, of my nation, of my family, or even to build up my own power or my fortune or to conquer my most insignificant appetites or habits.

(Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness)

Sartre's Argument

A) Freedom consists of being able to change one's state of existence, without coercion by any external entity and only via our rational thinking.

A1) "Social Freedom" consists of being able to change our state of existence without having to confirm to the ideas of any group (family, friends, class, nation, ...)

A2) "Economic Freedom" consists of being able to acquire wealth (change state) without having to succumb to attempts at control and misappropriation by others

A3) "Personal Freedom" consists of being able to change our physical / mental desires (change state)

B) Our potentials lies in changing our states of existence, i.e. exercising our freedom and our goal should be to achieve to the best of our potentials

C) By observation - We cannot achieve freedom in either of the senses given in A1, A2 and A3, i.e. we are impotent.

F) Free Will does not exist OR the idea of Free Will is illusory

Arguments in Support

Necessitarianism / Determinism) Actions are predestined or consequences of previous actions by self and others. Hence our state of existence is bound to be affected by external causes/entities. Free Will is an illusion.

Pragmatism) Things may be deterministic or otherwise, but in any case, its too complex a calculation to decide what to do next. Hence Free Will is a meaningless proposition.

Kant) Moral judgement needed to change state; which in turn depends upon categorical imperatives which themselves are beyond the control of Man. Hence, acts appear to be out of free will, while actually being governed by divinity / society / innate moral sense.

Locke / Hume) "... man is not permitted without censure to follow his own thoughts in the search of truth ..." - Locke; No innate thoughts or ideas - every knowledge / thought has to be acquired via experience; hence change of state is not possible without being influenced by surrounding entities.

Arguments against Sartre

Liberatianism: All actions are allowed except those that inflict or encroach upon the rights of other people (He is still allowed to perform actions inflicting upon his own rights). This limitation is required to omit the problem of contradiction and anarchy among the actions of the people. Hence, the actions of the people are not bound by any other external cause. Therefore, free will is not illusory.

Internalism: No external agent can affect the action of an individual since only he has control over his thoughts and emotions.Hence, there are no restrictions over his actions. Therefore, free will is not illusory.

Individualism/personalism: The thought or opinion of an individual is supreme. Man is selfish. Hence, he will perform those actions beneficial to him. Therefore, the external opposition against his opinion do not matter. free will is not illusory.

Anarchism: Absence of Government allows all actions, even those which inflict upon the rights of others. Govt. should be absent since laws are broken and crime takes place even in the presence of a govt. Hence, there are no restrictions whatsoever, in any form. Man is absolutely free.

Accidentalism: Opposite to indeterminism. Man has no control over some events. This is beyond the capacity of a human to perform and not, rather, any limitation to the actions of a person. Hence, no restrictions bound but some events are out of control of ANY other being. However, the man still falls under the defintion of a free person.

compatibilism: Possible to achieve free-will and be deterministic at the same time without any contradiction. Man is free to follow and move on the path that is already pre-destined. Their notion of freedom is different. Acc. to their notion, there should be no restriction. Hence, free will is not illusory.

Some more topics

2012-05-08T13:39:00.002+05:30

1) The limits of your language are the limits of your world. - Ludwig Wittgenstein

2) Everyone is someone else and no one is himself. - Martin Heidegger

Understanding Nietzsche on Ethics

2012-05-07T14:09:00.000+05:30

Hedonism, pessimism, utilitarism, eudemonism – all these systems that measure the value of things
taking into account the pleasure or pain that go along with them, that is to say, according to any noncore
condition or facts, are seen as if they do not go in depth and being naive. Any man with
his constructive faculty in place and a conscience of an artist can only regard this with irony and pity
from a distance.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)
TOPIC
(1) UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPTS BEHIND THE QUOTE:
The man uses a certain set of guidelines, a set of ideals and principles to direct himself in the course of his
life. The man bases his beliefs upon certain ideals or principles which he considers to be existent or true.
The principles or the set of guidelines form a school of thought which is called an –ism. In a particular
situation, the school of thought or the –ism forms the point of view of a person. The person forms his
thoughts and develops his beliefs and ideas which are consistent with this school of thought. The person also
tries to achieve the good and acts accordingly as per the –ism. For example, let us take the case of two –isms
and compare them in order to find out how a person who follows one out of two –isms will formulate his
ideas. Consider the following schools of thought: a dualist and a realist/idealist1. Before I give an example, I
shall first explain what the schools of thought preach or propagate. A dualist is of the view that our
perceptions of the world are just reflections of the real world. According to them, we cannot not perceive the
reality but merely imagine that matter exists around us. The real world (not equivalent with the world we
perceive) contains the real objects-real matter. On the other hand, a realist would believe that what we see,
what we perceive is the reality – the truth. An idealist would suggest that the thoughts in his mind are real
and hence, everything he thinks about is real. Now, consider three men – Bob (a dualist), Alex (an idealist)
and Steve (a realist). The three men are sitting on the dining table, discussing the properties or the
characteristics of the table. Steve says that the table appears to have different shades of brown – dark in
some areas, light in other areas of the table. Alex also perceives the same difference of colours. However, he
knows that the difference of colour is apparent due to properties of reflection of light and due to the uneven
distribution of lighting in the room. Hence, according to Alex, the table would appear to be of the colour
brown. But, Bob is under the impression that the table he perceives actually does not exist in the position he
considers it to. The real table exists in a different world that cannot be comprehended or perceived. Hence,
he is not able to comment on the colour of the table. The purpose of using this example was to illustrate that
people develop their ideas/thoughts/opinions based on the certain principles (which are also called –isms).
Here, it is important to note that the man, for example Bob, does not say that the table, he perceives, is just a
product of his imagination because he is a dualist. Instead, he is considered to be a dualist since he believes
that the real table exists in a different or the real world. It is this difference in the school of thought that
makes philosophers different from one another (Of course, there are other factors such as their way of
argumentation which make one philosopher different from the other. However, the point of view is different
because of their different schools of thought). Apart from dualism, realism and idealism, various other
schools of thought exist like rationalism, hedonism, eudemonism, nihilism, hedonism, pessimism etcetera. I
will explain those –isms relevant to the quote in detail.
Let us now focus on those schools of thought relevant to subject of the quote. In order to understand the
quote better, it is recommended that I define the following –isms – hedonism, pessimism, utilitarianism and
eudemonism. As I mentioned earlier in my essay, a person acts such that he is able to achieve the ‘good’ as
defined by the particular school of thought. The person, before performing the action, would think whether
the action would be consistent with the ideals of his/her –ism. Since the ‘good’ defined by different –isms
are dissimilar2, I will try to explain these –isms by the ‘good’ they represent. While defining the –isms, I
will ask the question – what value does this –ism think is most important? Here, value refers to that which
we can gain and keep. I shall dive further into the topic of value in the coming paragraphs.
I will now classify the relevant –isms with the help of a chart as depicted below.
1 I do not consider realism and idealism to be equivalent. However, for the purpose of this example, the two schools of
thought give more or less the same result.
2 If the ‘good’ of any two isms is represented in the form of a Venn diagram, there could be intersections. However,
according to me, no two isms propagate the same or equivalent ‘good’
With the help of this diagram, I shall now explain the terms – Hedonism, Simple form (of hedonism),
Epicureanism, and Utilitarianism. In the most general form, hedonism and all other sub-categories of
hedonism are subjective i.e. although all the individuals following this -ism aim for the same kind of value,
the value depends on the individual. For Hedonism:
• Maximizing individual pleasure is the ultimate good.
• All hedonistic philosophers aim for individual pleasure.
The simple form of Hedonism advocates:
• Those actions that shall result in the attainment of physical pleasure.
• For example – For a person X, driving a fast sports car gives him physical pleasure. So, his act of
spending money in order to buy a sports car is simple hedonistically appropriate.
In contrast to the simple hedonistic form, Epicureanism3 suggests that:
• Mental pleasure is more important then physical pleasure.
• Hence, the act of consuming alcohol in order to de-stress your mind is more favourable than the act
of buying a sports car.
Utilitarianism is a slightly different concept when compared to the simple hedonistic form and
Epicureanism.
• As the name suggests, Utilitarianism favours the ideal of maximizing utility. More the utility, more
is the ‘good’ achieved. Also, more the utility more is the happiness achieved.
• Many Utilitarinists like Bentham and John Mill are of the view that the pleasures/pains of everyone
affected by the action should be taken into account. According to them, the greatest good for the
greatest number of people is better.
• Also, Hume was under the impression that utility is measured only through others’ approval.
Now that we have covered two of the four schools of thought that Nietzsche has mentioned in his statement,
let us now discuss pessimism. According to me, pessimism consists of those principles and ideals that
encourage a person to have negative thoughts and to expect a negative option for any situation. A pessimist
has contradictory views with an optimist. A person can be said to be a pessimist when:
• Out of any two options, he would expect the less favourable (by the people and not on probabilistic
bases) disregarding the probability of each of the other options to occur.
• For example – consider a person appearing for a job interview. Even though he must have had
valuable previous experiences and graduated from a prestigious university, he will not expect the
interviewers to offer him a job, despite the fact that the chances of him being offered a job are quite
high.
3 Although Friedrich Nietzsche has not mentioned Epicureanism in his statement, I included this school of thought
since it is generally considered to be a sub-category of Hedonism.
[cldnt paste ur diagram]
After pessimism, let us now move on to eudemonism. As far as eudemonism is concerned:
• The actions performed by a person are decided based on their capacity to produce happiness.
• Although, this might not appear to be subjective, it actually is. It has not been specified as to whose
happiness needs to be measured while deciding whether one should perform a particular action or
not. But, it is usually the person who performs the action whose happiness is measured.
• The ideals of Eudemonism is, on a general scale, parallel to Aristotle’s ethical theory4 since one tries
to fulfil life by the doing the best one can.
It is important to keep in mind that I have, yet, not criticised these schools of thought and have also not,
provided the opinion of Nietzsche against them. Here, I have tried to explain what these schools of thought
generally refer to. Nietzsche, in his statement, also mentions and emphasises on the word – constructive
faculty. What does Nietzsche refer to when he says ‘Any man with constructive faculty….’? Faculty of a
person can refer to the mind (if we consider the mind and brain to be separate). If such is the case, then, the
mind is the non-physical thinking part of the body whereas the brain is the physical non-thinking part. Even
if do not consider the mind and the brain to be separate, the faculty of a person indicates towards the
thinking part – the fraction that can formulate thought, ideas and solve problems. So, by constructive
faculty, Nietzsche, must have pointed towards the minds (or the non-physical thinking body part) that
generate productive thoughts – thoughts or ideas that are backed by rationality and help us understand the
world better.
(2) WHAT DO WE UNDERSTAND FROM THE QUOTE? NIETZSCHE’S ARGUMENT AND MY
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF NIETZSCHE
From comparing the definitions of the –isms – Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Pessimism and Eudemonism, do
we find certain similarities? According to Nietzsche, we see the following implications:
• The –isms stated above all regard either the pleasure or the pain associated with the actions
(performed under the ideals of the –ism) as the ultimate value.
• Since they only consider pleasure/pain as the factor to decide whether an action should be
performed or not, they are thought to be lacking depth. Here, depth refers to the effort involved in
arriving at a conclusion. In this context, it also refers to how basic or primitive their values are.
• According to Nietzsche, any person who has a rational/logical thought process can understand that
these –isms are completely in conflict with that of theirs.
• He also says that, for a person to understand the point above, needs to have a sense of right and
wrong similar to that of an artist.
According to me, these schools of thought - Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Pessimism and Eudemonism have
certain flaws or loopholes. Let us consider these –isms Hedonism, Utilitarianism (and Epicureanism) first
since they stem from branch of Good – to arouse a desirable subjective stage. After looking at the
definitions of these schools of thought, the first thought that crossed my mind was – Whose pleasure were
they referring to? Whose utility were they trying to maximize? Whose happiness would be measured in
order to check whether one should perform this action or not? Was the answer to this question the people
who were performing the actions? Or was it the people being affected by their actions? But, since the
definition assumes that the basis for hedonism is individual pleasure, it would be safe to assume here that
the pleasure, happiness and utility in question are of the person performing these actions or acting according
to these –isms. This shows us that these –isms or schools of thought or ethical systems are not normative
(i.e. taking the societal norms as factors), but purely subjective. The above argument clarifies this point.
But, now, since these –isms are subjective in nature, the general argument against subjectivism also poses
itself before these schools of thought. What is the actions of two people (who are acting in consistency with
the –isms) contradict each other? What if the consequence of one of these actions requires the compromise
of the other? Although this argument works against any subjectivist theory and therefore, is not specific; it,
however, questions the foundation of such schools of thought. For example – consider the problems
associated with the construction of a large dam. The people living in the to-be inundated regions have to
move their household away from that area, leaving the comfort associated with the availability of fertile soil,
4 According to Aristotle, a ‘good; action signified maximum use of one’s potential. His ethical theory is often referred
to as Perfectionism.
evergreen water supplies etcetera. These displaced people are forced to migrate to areas far away from the
dam. Hence, they begin to face difficulties regarding the availability of water, fertility of soil etc. This, not
only, deprives them of physical pleasures, but also, of mental pleasure. They are under the constant pressure
of finding new modes of living. On the other hand, for the people living in the urban areas, the construction
of the dam provides them with more comfort. The dam would be used to produce electricity and channel
water towards the urban area for domestic use. Hence, the dam sacrifices the physical and mental pleasure
of one section of the society to increase the level of lifestyle of another section of the society. I have
presented this example to illustrate that the action of one according to the ideals of his school of thought
(here, hedonism, utilitarianism etc.) may go against the action of another also according to these –isms. This
is the fundamental problem of all subjectivist theories.
Also, stemming from the above argument against subjectivist theories, it is obvious that subjective theories
lack objectivity. For example - The importance of an object or its value does not remain constant for a
subjectivist at all given times. In times of greater need, the value or the craving for the object increases and
vice-versa. This is not the same as the economic rule of demand and supply. Here, the demand or rather the
wants of a single individual and not a region/society is taken into consideration, unlike in the case of
economics.
Now, I will frame specific arguments against the –isms we have been taking into considerations:
• I agree – there will be many instances when the values these –isms seek intersect or overlap with the
values other –isms such as rationalism, perfectionism also preach. But, this, according to me,
happens only due to co-incidence. The guiding principles of these –isms are very different and in
conflict with those of other –isms which are backed by rationality, logic and depth of thought. To
illustrate why I am against the set of guidelines these –isms propagate, let us go back to the example
I used to explain the simple form of hedonism. A Person X5 derives physical pleasure from driving a
sports car. In order to do so, he may buy or rent a sports car. However, the price of these cars is
exorbitant. In the process of attaining physical pleasure, the person X spends a substantial portion of
his wealth. After this incident, it may become very difficult for him to sustain his daily requirements
and pay for a medical emergency, if one arose. The point which I wish to make is that these schools
of thought satisfy the immediate needs (pleasure) of the people and hence, do not give a thought
about the future requirements of the person. To illustrate this better, consider an obese person who
has been given strict dietary requirements by a doctor. If this person is a hedonist or a eudemonist,
he will follow those thoughts that have the capacity to make him happy. So, this person will still dine
out and eat items that are forbidden to him. In this case, he attained physical pleasure by doing so,
but, it has ultimately had an adverse effect on his health.
• Parallel to Nietzsche thoughts, it is important to notice that these –isms preach very primitive values.
According to many philosophers, the main distinction between humans and animal forms is
rationality and the ability to comprehend and decide. However, these elements of distinction seem to
be absent here - the values of these –isms are also sought after my animal life forms.
• Another point which I wish to make is that these –isms do not lead to quantifiable or measurable
values. I am not saying that the logic behind rationality or faith behind mysticism is measurable. My
point, here, is that Hedonists, Utilitarinists and Eudemonists cannot deduce what path to choose, or
what action to perform when the two options provide the doer with the same amount of happiness or
pleasure. If this situation is presented to a rationalist or an objectivist, he will deduce from the
options given to him.
(3) SOME ADDITIONAL REMARKS:
The only objection that one could have against Nietzsche’s argument is that, according to him, only those
with the conscience of an artist (and a constructive faculty) will be able to argue against these –ismatic
points of view. But, to argue against Nietzsche, I first have to explain what I inferred from the word –
conscience of an artist. According to me, conscience refers to the sense of right and wrong in the individual.
In a more general sense, it could also refer to the principles of the person. So, how does the conscience of an
artist defer from that of someone not involved in the field of art – a physicist for example. First, it would be
5 I am considering Person X to be of limited means i.e. in terms of wealth. Also, in this example, Person X
is a hedonist.
important to note that there is nothing called ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in art. But, perhaps, Nietzsche took this
concept of conscience, not to the context or the subject of the artistic artefact, but to the process of
producing art i.e. for example – painting scenery. A third-party artist would be able to criticise the work of
another artist by observing the confidence in the strokes, the texture but not by arguing against the theme of
the artwork – hence removing the element of subjectivity6. This can counter the argument presented by
those in conflict with Nietzsche’s statement. Why Nietzsche must have mentioned the conscience of an
artist specifically? – As I mentioned above, criticism against an object of art can be done by observation
itself. It does not heavily require the process of deduction. However, the sense of right and wrong in a
physicist is developed by the process of experimentation, correspondence to reality and the reasoning
behind a phenomenon. So, according to me, Nietzsche must have meant that anyone (with a constructive
faculty and the conscience of an artist) would be able to see how primitive the values sought by these
subjective –isms are by mere observation which did not require high amount of deducing.
(4) CONCLUSION:
In this essay, I started by explaining what schools of thought were. Then, I focussed on the –isms in context
here and proved that they were purely subjective and not normative in nature. After highlighting the
loopholes in subjective theories, I argued specifically against Hedonism, Utilitarianism, Eudemonism and
Pessimism and supported Nietzsche. Ultimately, I presented the possible counterarguments against
Nietzsche and showed how Nietzsche was still consistent with his thoughts. Now, I would like to conclude
by emphasizing on the fact that objective schools of thought provide a more rational and meaningful life.
NISHITH KHANDWALA

6 A person’s opinion towards the theme of an artwork can be subjective. However, as far as the texture of a painting or
the confidence of strokes in an artifact is considered, the criticism can only be objective

Aristotle's idea of Justice

2012-05-04T18:47:00.001+05:30

And for this reason justice is regarded as the highest of all virtues,… and as the proverb has it, “In justice every virtue is summed up.” It is complete virtue and excellence in the fullest sense, because it is the practise of complete virtue. It is complete because he who possesses it can make use of his virtue not only by himself but also in his relations with his fellow men. - Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

Paine on Political Liberty

2012-05-04T08:43:00.001+05:30

Political Liberty consists in the power of doing whatever does not Injure another. The exercise of the Natural Rights of every Man, has no other limits than those which are necessary to secure to every other Man the Free exercise of the same Rights; and these limits are determinable only by the Law
Thomas Paine

Chitra on Wittgenstein's meaning of Meaning and another topic

2012-05-03T19:14:00.001+05:30

A) For a large classes of cases – though not for all – in which we employ the word “meaning” it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language.
(Ludwig Wittgenstein)

For a large classes of cases – though not for all – in which we employ the word “meaning” it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language.
Think About This-
other cases- different from meanings different from definition, thus the mentioned sense clarified.
etymology of 'word'- what does stand for, purpose of having words
consider words having anything apart from straightforward meaning, reconsider words having more than one meaning- is there similarity between those concepts
Backward Approach-
Language- define, holds what??? Again purpose of words- thus limiting the meaning of meaning as far as language is concerned.
Therefore-
what could meaning otherwise imply? or how to define a concept and ascribe words for it-analyze the process. Does 'meaning ' serve anything more than convenience or contextual definitions? examples again

B) Does science need philosophy?
Who needs philosophy? What does mean by 'need philosophy'? Define philosophy, its purpose- it is because that's the way it is or it is the way it's ought to be or it helps us understand how it is. which of these can apply to science.
How does science develop? how does philosophy develop? overlaps , interdependence and interactions- which of these?
discuss instances where philosophy had had its impact on science- from anecdotes to greek mythology to Kuhn. establish these instances to have alternate explanations
Would science perish without philosophy? obviously not!!!! [or will it]
Further suggest according to what you have to say about this question, with examples.
Avoid the customary format for this essay- DONT give your abstract before the main content of the essay because you'll have to go for Y or N

On Love & Knowing

2012-05-02T12:31:00.001+05:30

Try to frame arguments for the following two quotes (previous IPO topics).
Will discuss them online today evening (2 May, at 5 IST) at the tinychat chat room (link on the right side bar)

1) To know a thing we must love it, and to love a thing we must know it.
(Kitaro Nishida)

How I would Define Love
All kinds of love have a common cause, i.e. they are a form of achieving something for one-self - whether physical pleasures, mental satisfaction or spiritual peace of mind; and thus are a manifestation of loving oneself. Nishida's "Love" has two distinct meanings - First clause) Passion to know, Second clause) Considering one-self worthy of achieving and acquiring.

Is Truth an Error?

2012-04-29T18:34:00.001+05:30

"Truth is a kind of error without which a particular kind of living creature could not live. The value for life is ultimately decisive." - Friedrich Nietzsche

T) Truth is the idea that our thoughts correspond with reality
A) Man (or any living creature capable of thought) needs an idea of "truth" - Creatures cannot hold an idea without having the "idea about something", i.e. existence has to be taken as a priori.
B) Truth may not be "real" - i.e. Things may not have truth value and they need not be absolute - since any investigation into the "truth" of something ends up in having to take certain things for granted, w/o knowing their truth value.
C) T + A + B: In absence of "truth", no basis for thought OR ideas cannot be validated via "reality checks"
Nietzsche) T + A + B: Assuming things are "true" leads to false assumptions of existence. Hence the concept of truth is a wrongly held belief. + C: validation of ideas (a process required to decide about the correctness of any object - whether psychological/mental or material) is done by evaluating the "Value for Life" the creature holds (read selfishness). Nietzsche's target "ideas" was (sic) Morality

Arguments in Support
Skepticism) B cannot be disproved, since the process of finding the truth about something inherently demands acceptance of things which may not be true.
Nihilism) C can imply that their is no reality Or at least Man's conception of reality is spurious. However, may also argue that the value for life is ill-founded and can be arbitrarily different for different people, thus may not lead one (or many) to a rational end.
Mysticism) Since C, therefore the mind fabricates reality. This implies that reality may not exist or also that one has no way of knowing what is real; hence any "grasp" of reality would be illusory and any decision taken on the basis of such a illusory basis would necessarily be in error. In such an ideological vacuum, decisions can be taken on any arbitrary basis and that is what Man does. The preferred basis could be derived from divinity or self-interest.
Pragmatism) B implies that it is not always useful to investigate the Truth. "Value for Life" is a practical way to decide about things. (read: moral judgments)

Arguments in Opposition
Realism) B is false. Reality exists regardless of your wishes or knowledge of it. Thus A is the only way to "know" and think about something and hence the only way to live. If not then you could live in your hypothetical/imaginary world and your desires (arbitrary sense of Value for Life) could bear out to be "real" / applicable. This doesn't happen.
Rationalism / Empiricism / Representational-ism) Variants of Realism: Truth can be observed by trusting the senses or finding the logic to necessitate the existence of it. In effect whatever we conceptualize after a reasonable investigation is "The Truth".C would imply a negation/denial of our own existence.
Objectivism / Naturalism) Goes further from the above to claim that reality cannot be other than what is observed and perceived by us and to claim that Truth may not exist is a "criminal" error as it would completely nullify Man's faculty for thinking and render Man impotent, thereby creating severe impediment in realizing the Value for Life. It maintains that "Value for Life" cannot be contradictory with Truth (or reality) and thus would be equally (or rather synonymous-ly) decisive about moral judgments.

I adhere to the last point of view

Response to Nishit

2012-04-25T13:51:00.000+05:30

Nishit's Argument,
You haven't followed the pattern of argument as mentioned. A1 and A2 are supposed to be the two implications of perception. Perception of the world is pure sensory perception which is a good case of it as in not an illusion to many. Perceptions of the world should be understood as isms, various points of view; for instance empiricism vs mysticism, or other forms of dualistic isms. Justify possible existence of A2 with examples where reality may be not entirely explained by perceptions.
B should entail the counterargument to possible differences between A1 and A2; as to why they are not completely or almost overlapping sets. Thus analyze examples of both A1 and A2.
Consider that your conclusion is perception of the world is more important than perceptions of it or vice versa, C should entail precise of the entire argument point wise [put it all together].
Choose more sensible examples that justify every nuance a concept. Language needs to be more straight, the given argument isn't very effective because of the same.

About Perceptions & Reality

2012-04-23T19:40:00.001+05:30

Hello Young Philosophers,
Here's an assignment for the team and others who are interested.

Question: What can we trust more: a) our perception of the world Or b) our perceptions of the world?

My Argument

A) "Our" could imply that the perceptions are of one and the same person Or
Ax) "Our" implies that of humanity
B) "perception" => process of using sense data to form ideas about the world outside
C) "perceptions" => individual implementations of the process in (B) either spread out in time or 'maybe' spread out between different people (although the second does not sound very correct)
D) The process of perception is known to falter due to cognitive bias or incomplete or faulty sensory data
E1) However for most individuals it falters in the same way each time
E2) For others - may falter differently
Skepticism) A + B + D + E2: You can give NO garunty of what you know
Coherentism) A + B + D + E1: There would always be some bias in Knowing
Foundherentibilism) A/Ax + B + D + E1/E2: You need to establish "Reliable" methods which are in turn "Founded" on "Coherence" between common perceptions of most people. (requires C and not necessarily an efficient way, however, its the only path towards human knowledge)
Pragmatism/Empiricism) Ax + C + D + E1/E2: Will have sufficient confidence in knowledge after having got the same picture from most people in areas where knowing is essential (read tangible/practical/useful)
Rationalism/Realism/Objectivism) A + C + D + E1/E2: Only way to for you to know is to check for "Consistency" & "Coherence" between different ideas; "Rely" upon your past perceptions; judge your perception using these evidences; hence trust your perception.

Conclusion) For us to know - Realism ... requires us to rely more upon C than B
ConclusionX) For us to know as mankind - Foundherentibilism requires us to rely more upon C than B

Training program 2012

2012-04-05T08:13:00.001+05:30

The rigorous training for the 2012 team and prep for others trying to make it to 2013 is scheduled to begin in a few days - 8th Apr, 2012. It will be a 9 to 5 schedule up to 13th Apr. After that the training proceeds to be only online. This may be the only opportunity for the rest of the academic year for those who nearly missed the olympiad last year, to learn systematic philosophy.
Info at our site and a rough schedule (being finalized as you read)

New assignment

2012-03-28T16:01:00.002+05:30

All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope? -Immanuel kant

Link to critique of pure reason: http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Critique-of-Pure-Reason11.html

Hi ppl

You need to write an essay on this quote; let's begin by posting the drafts first. Read the page in the link and some background reading about Kant from SEP.

You need to dedicate enough argumentation to what Kant said and why. That could be followed by your own comments about the topic; however dont skip his reasoning no matter if you justify it or not.

Lets start preparing for Oslo

2012-02-07T10:37:00.001+05:30

Hey There Young Philosophers!!!
I know that some of you are preparing for your exams and so may not do this assignment, but you must stay in touch with whats going on.
Team IPO 2012 ... You guys need to however, complete the assignment posted long ago on the google group. You should write your answers / comments / opinons on the discussion thread below the post.

Announcing Team India 2012

2012-02-02T18:36:00.001+05:30

The Stage II results were declared on 24 Jan 2012 and the top three students recieving awards in the order of their scores are:

Abhinav Menon Dubai International Academy, Dubai - (Abhinav Philosopher)
Nishith Khandwala Our Own English High School, Mumbai - (Excellence in Philosophy)
Archita Mitra Gundecha Education Academy, Mumbai - (Excellence in Philosophy)

As per the rule, I have asked Abhinav Menon & Nishith Khandwala to join the team and they have both agreed. The IPO 2012 is in Oslo, Norway from the 16th to 20th of May, 2012.
Training would proceed in the following manner:

Online Assignments

Starting in a week
Bi-weekly
Reading of a paper/article and browsing concepts from the web followed by pondering over questions posed in the assignment
Write-up: either an essay if the assignment requires a thorough opinion OR simply a few paragraphs for answering the questions posed
Three days for each work to be submitted, including the day the assignment is posted
Direction and subject-area of topics will be decided on the basis of the capacity and interest of the team members

Online Discussions

When most of the other students (also preparing for future IPO's) become free from exams; tentatively end-of-March
Skype or similar tech for video conferencing (local students will meet in my school)
3-4 hour discussions on a pre-decided topic (team IPO has to prepare and lead the discussions)

Stage II - Critical Thoughts

2012-01-08T08:58:00.002+05:30

Essay (10 Mk)

Given below are three quotes of certain philosophers on different subjects. Choose any one of them to write an essay of about a few pages of your notebook. The essay should not only explain the given view, but should either support it or oppose it with examples and logic. You do not need to have knowledge of the Philosopher’s work, but rather should be able to grasp the central idea and analyze the different aspects of the statement. Usually one goes about establishing the meaning and relevance of each phrase/clause separately and then sums up the whole argument. Your coherence, reasoning and depth of thought are most important. For more detailed instructions, refer http://philo.abhinav.ac.in/InPOInstructions.htm

i. Art is parasitic on life, just as criticism is parasitic on art. - Harry S Truman

ii. We should not say that one man’s hour is not worth another man’s hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time’s carcass. - Karl Marx, Das Capital

iii. Is Man one of God’s blunders? Or is God one of Man’s blunders? - Friedrich Nietzsche

iv. An object as separate from its cause is not perceptible, and the cause of the object as separate from the object itself cannot be perceived. – Nagarjun, Madhyamik Sutra, Ch. IV

Indian Team - Selection around the corner

2011-12-15T14:53:00.000+05:30

Stage I of the Indian Philosophy Olympiad begins 22 Dec 2011. Students (std 8 to 12) should download the paper linked to the site - http://abhinav.ac.in/DoV/Stimulus/Philosopher.htm - on the morning of 22 Dec. Then attempt the MCQ and subjective questions meant to test the student's language and reasoning skills. The solutions must be emailed to events@abhinav.ac.in by the 3rd Jan 2012. Instructions on how to send the solutions will be given in the paper. Those who cant email, may send by post / hand delivery by the same deadline.
20% from the top will be invited to the next stage.
Stage II will be an essay competition conducted on Sunday 8th Jan 2012 between 9 am and 12:30 pm. 4 essay topics will be announced at 9 am to the participants by email and on this blog. Students have to write an essay on one of them and submit by 12:30 pm (about 3 hrs writing time) by email.
Topper recieves the medal among other prizes. Top 10 percentile students get a prize.
Students are invited from the top to participate in the team going to Oslo in May 2012. If one refuses, the next in list is asked. Please remember - no part of this competition is charged a fee. However, the travel costs to Oslo and back and travel costs to the training center (Abhinav Vidyalay, Dombivli) for about a month, have to be borne by the student.

2011-12-14T22:05:00.000+05:30

2011-11-23T20:11:00.001+05:30

Hello,

Due to some unforeseen circumstances, the Abhinav Philosopher competition (first stage of the selection for IPO - team India) is postponed a bit. It will now be held from 19th Dec onwards, i.e. The first stage - Objective and Subjective questions will be put up on 19th Dec and the (thoughtful) answers will be expected by roughly the end of Dec. (So you get plenty of time) This is only a filter to go to the next level and it is a lenient one. The next stage (Essay round) will be taken on a given day (so only 3-4 hours of writing allowed) on 8th Jan 2012. Only those who clear the first stage will be allocated the essay topics by email.

Also, please look at the box on the top (below the title) for tasks / discussions related to the training. we need to gear up for the competition and need to learn to think elaborately with adequate reasoning. If you are participating, then please join the group (by sending me a mail at director@abhinav.ac.in).

Reviews from Chitra

2011-11-10T08:36:00.002+05:30

Shlok Bhurke: Lack of argument; No examples discussed; Deeper understanding of the topic and the corresponding philosophical issue, here- free will, determinism and comaptiblism isnt seen

Rutwik Borkar: Very less amount of the argument dedicated to 'compatiblism'; 'literal' explanation of the quote isnt required; argumentation, counter examples lack

Rounak Majumdar: missing discussion about possiblity of a 'better organized'; the concept of greater good should have been mentioned; both sides of the issue of 'superiority being far from being a bad thing'; examples not analogous to the whole issue, only sufficient to explain a term; conclusion is plainly assertive

Kinjal Shah: Point wise presentation and structure was good; conclusion actually comes out the presented arguement [again a plus]; less focus on dictates of the mind, no countering to it; more explanation about 'compatiblism' required

Anunay Kulashetra: Various possible angles of 'relative' not explored; Unanswered 'whys' all over; necessary to disprove belief in absolutes to strengthen the argument

Devendra Chavan: dictionary oriented explanation for 1 & 2; better examples required for the same; all possible interpretations of 'sign' required in 3 & 4 is a positive, quite complete and convincing

Ayushi Singh: good structure and flow; more examples should be quoted; mention compatiblism

Apurva Shinde: 'Relative' and 'related' are not as closely related that they will be the same; unecessary focus of human psychology about strong beliefs; conclusion doesnt come from the argument

Anand Chitrao: 'Relative' confused with all other types of non-confirmation; examples not analogous to the argument; Non conclusive

Ajayanand Chari: Focus on desire instead of free will; argument not analysed from opposite points of view

Abhinav Menon: Structure and flow is very logical; All nuances of the key term have been explored, which creates better understanding; More concrete examples required, at least two of them should be critically explored; Countering the believers in absolutes is required

Reviews from Vallari

2011-11-10T08:29:00.001+05:30

The positive things:
Great attempt by all of them. I could sense the interest and the efforts taken to write the essay and to analyse the topic. There were attempts by a few of them to be critical about the analysing the topic which was good, because I guess you really need to be very well prepared with your explanation when you go for a critical analysis. Good job. I’m happy, not satisfied!
Things to be worked on!
Usage of the words should be proper. You can’t be casual in using certain words. Be particular. Infect, VERY particular. Elaborate more on your views. The explanation that you offer to the reader is not sufficient. It should be simple n elaborate such that even a layman can understand it very clearly. Try and give better examples n explain them properly. It seems you assume certain things while writing the essay but you don’t mention about your assumptions. Look after your grammar. Though not very important, but it is definitely important. Your views won’t be clear enough to the reader if you don’t use proper grammar. In conclusion just don’t say that you agree or don’t with the philosopher but also try and add your own different view point about the topic. Try and hold the reader throughout your essay. Don’t make him disinterested in the essay as he proceeds through it. Make the presentation interesting. Not as if you tell a story but definitely better than a mathematical proof which has the pattern ‘Following are the points and so the conclusion’. You all are writing an essay so its very important that you hold the interest of the reader.

Individual Observations:

Shlok Bhurke: The choice of heading should have been little better. Form small, simple sentences instead of using too many conjunctions. It confuses the reader. Improve on the grammar part. It’s very poor. The explanation should have been little bit more. Try to think beyond the lines given to you but take care that you don’t get diverted from the main point which is to be discussed. Read in between the lines (for the topic) Avoid too many brackets. It might just suggest the reader that you aren’t sure about the words you are using or the point that you are listing.

Rutwik Borkar: Please be careful when you highlight certain points. Don’t just presume things. Mention about your presumptions especially when you are using them in your highlighted points. [This is for the 4 points which you have mentioned in the starting of the essay]

Kinjal Shah: The attempt was really good but a very poor approach towards the topic. The starting was different, as in quite a different point of view but the explanation presented was very poor. Moreover you lost the track of your point midway n so it seemed that you were just gathering points from here and there. It could have been much better had you thought over the topic little more deeply. One thing that is noticeably nice about the essay is that the conclusion is really presented in a good way. Different and nice.
Devendra Chavan: Use better words while mentioning ur sub-points in d essay than just saying ‘point 1’, ‘point 2’etc. Limited thinking or limited writing! The topic was such that you could have elaborated much more than you have.

Apurva Shinde: Sorry but I had quite a tough time reading this one. Too confusing for me. ‘Bohot ghuma firaake baat ki hai’ So I couldn’t really read through her mind!
Ajayanand Chari: No heading! Heading is very important. It tells the reader that what should he expect from your essay! Different approach or I would say different usage of words. But again, the explanation is not enough.
Anand Chitrao: Dunno whether the approach was correct or no but the presentation is nice. Convincing power is good. A layman would easily understand what you are tryin to say and will get convinced with your viewpoint as well. Again limited thinking but the explanation was pretty good [whatever chhota explanation is given]
Ayushi Singh: “But such a choice will drag the child to the sufferings of being hungry. Hence here the child was completely free and had entire freedom to react in any manner in order to fulfil his wish to eat something.” Here the later part is a conclusion of the point mentioned but is not derived actually from the 1st sentence. In fact the explanation provided does not lead you to this conclusion. I feel the explanation for this conclusion should have been different. So be careful about it. The reader won’t find the link in between your views. It’s a pretty clean essay compared to others. Clean in the sense, I could make out what your thought process was, though you need to work on detailing. I could read your mind through and I guess that’s important. Keep up the good work!

Rounak Majumdar: I appreciate the choice of topic! According to me it was the most difficult one!!! Nothing much to say. The general reviews are enough for this one.

Abhinav Menon: The views presented are good but the way of presentation needs to be cleaner. The language used is simple yet complicated and tends to confuse the reader [at least me!]. Here I mean, I had to actually keep the record, ‘This is the first point, ok so now he’s starting a new one and ok fine now that’s the conclusion!!!!’ I like the confidence!

Selection of Indian entries to Baltic Sea Competition

2011-11-05T19:26:00.000+05:30

Hello there,

The Baltic Sea Competition held as a celebration of UNESCO World Philosophy Day was conducted on 4th Nov, 2011. About 11 candidates, 3 of whom were from schools in Delhi, Dubai and the rest from Abhinav Vidyalay, Dombivli, participated. Out of these 2-3 essays are to be sent to Finland as entries from India. The scores of all those who appeared for the BSEC from India are listed here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ag1_UBDDhAZ1dDFpVWNIT2cwT0JfNlBGOUlqN1otUUE

I have asked each examiner to post their comments so that the students will be guided into improving their performance for the Abhinav Philosopher Competition (Selection for IPO-Indian Team, roughly in Dec Week 1). We have sent the following students' essays to the Finnish Organizers:
1. Abhinav Menon (IB-MYP-Sophomore, Dubai Int'l School, Dubai)

2. Rounak Majumdar (SSC-X, Abhinav Vidyalay, Dombivli)

3. Ayushi Singh (SSC-X, Abhinav Vidyalay, Dombivli)

Results of BSEC will be posted at www.feto.fi on or soon after 17th Nov

On a personal note - I was amazed at the overall performance of most of the candidates. It has been much better in quality than previous years.

My observations:

Starting with Shlok, Apurva & Anand. Your performance has improved considerably from last year - you have written more and elaborated the points well. However, either you failed to grasp the full relevance of the issue or gave examples inconsistent with the topic. You should improve your reasoning and critical thinking by participating in brain storming sessions more often. Otherwise you seem to write well, especially Shlok.

Now Anunay. Being your first attempt, no regrets. However, the physics of Einstein's Relativity is that although things seem relative - their are always some invariants/absolutes that can help correlate observations. Thus it is in contrast with the metaphysics of Nagarjun. Also, an example cannot prove an idea correct, but only proves it possible. It can however, prove an idea as incorrect.

Then Ajayanand, Kinjal & Devendra. You guys have elaborated well and even structured your approach to the issue. You have tried to analyze the different clauses in the philosopher's quote. However, you either ignored a possible outcome of the quote or were slightly incoherent through the essay, i.e. your ideas did not connect well with the examples and the other ideas. Kinjal, you need to improve your language to make yourself crystal clear. Devendra needs to write simpler sentences and elaborate the idea rather than simply stating things as facts/rules. Ajay you need to discover beyond what the philosopher has already provided in the quote. (in terms of examples and mechanisms)

Rutwik. You present well. You even elaborate the ideas very critically and try to frame the arguments. This is expected from you since you have been to the IPO once. However, you need to take care of your language. Sometimes casual use of language causes misunderstandings when evaluated in a critical manner. Also, the argument of the author, which you presented (since you agreed with him) needs to be water-tight. The justifications for the observations of the author (which you provided) were not very critical. One can find a few slips and loopholes. Try to read more philosophers and brood over the meanings. But this is much better than your performance last year.

Ayushi & Rounak. You are both methodical and critical in presenting the argument. However, you also need to be watchful about your use of language/words. Using a word in a wrong context (Ayushi) or casual phrases where interpretation is left to the reader (Rounak) can cost a philosopher dearly. Avoid using bombastic words (Ayushi) or eccentric examples (Rounak). Also, you could have given the mechanisms of the effects described by the author in greater detail, analysing psychology / sociology in detail. I guess you can improve this by reading more works of philosophers. Also, you need to explore all possible interpretations of the quote (you have taken most, but left one or two very important ones out of the discussion)

Finally Abhinav. You have a good command over language and logic. Thus although you made a very strong attack on Nagarjun, "proving" him incorrect, thus causing a flutter, you pulled it off with grace. However, you should have elaborated more about the possible interpretations of the quote and their possible analyses as well as their supporting arguments. This would have either shown you that your dis-proof was acceptable only in a limited context or it would have helped you make a more convincing argument to prove the author wrong given any interpretation. At the IPO your essay would have come under a lot of flak and ultimately would have gown way below in ranking due to the above lacuna. I guess you need lots of brain storming to be able to "see" variety of angles into a quote.

Overall, I hope all of you who participated and others who may be "inspired" by this will stay focused on philosophy. We will try to remedy your shortcomings through our discussions as soon as I get some free time. Meanwhile, I intend to push some more essay-writing on you, say once-a-week throug this blog. (Those who are new to the whole idea are also welcome to try)

Baltic Sea Event

2011-11-03T20:17:00.001+05:30

The Baltic Sea event will be held tomorrow. This event can seen as an
opportunity for different schools from different countries to search
for their philosophy talent and then match it with each other. Idea is
to give the student an essay to write, based on either a philosophical
question or a quote by some philosopher. The student has to present
his/her views regarding the quote (or question) and argue either in
favor of or against the author, using proper reasoning to prove or
disprove the quote. You may support your arguments with examples but
you shoud not prove or disprove your point of view exclusively with
your examples.

The student has to choose an essay topic from among the four that will
be given. You have two hours to finish the essay. During this time,
you should not access the Internet or any other reference that will
help you with the essay (Use of a dictionary is allowed.). The essay
should be atleast 2-3 computer pages and the font size should 11 or
12.

All interested Abhinav students should come to the school tomorrow at
9 am for the competition. Others who are interested should contact
Prof. Kedar Soni (soni.kedar@gmail.com) for further details.

For more information about the Baltic Sea Event, visit
http://philo.abhinav.ac.in/PhiloDay.htm

All the best!!

Resources for philosophy

2011-10-27T17:26:00.000+05:30

Hi!!

The link attached below contains resources to different areas of philosophy. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZBcKiLo98JVmFzBhPIiduBmkVW_Fz7gf7...

This will give you a general idea about the important topics in each area of philosophy and will help you to train for the Baltic Sea event. I have not put up resources for all the areas now. I will keep on updating the document and inform you like-wise.

As these links will only give you a general idea, it will always be better if you read from other resources as well.

The Baltic Sea event will be conducted as scheduled- on 4th Nov. Topics will be disclosed only on 4th. Abhinav students are to come to the school premises to write the essay at on 4th at 9am.

Others who are interested will have to be online. The essay topics will be e-mailed to them on the 4th at 9, and they are to write the essay and email it back. For further queries please contact Kedar Soni (soni.ke ...@gmail.com).

You may post whatever doubts you may have.. All the best!!