Mimamsa

 Q Explain the realism of mimamsa (June 2013 -250 Words)

Ans . Mimamsakas are relist thinkers in the sense that they accept the reality of the external world. Their metaphysical concept is based on their theory of knowledge. According to them we perceive the  real objects which exist for ever. Mimamsakas say that validity of knowledge is intrinsic . The validity of knowledge arises with the knowledge itself. World exists independent of mind. A part from being resist they are also pluralist. The world is external according to them. It is neither created nor destroyed. They have also accepted existence of innumerable atoms and other external and infinite substances. At the same time they have accepted as many souls as there are bodies and liberated souls as well. Though they are realists but at the same time they have accepted transcendental realities as soul heaven hell, deities. The most significant –concept given by them is the concept of Apurva, the unseen power based on the concept of Law of Karma. But they don’t accept God as the giver of the fruits of karmas or for the arrangement of the atoms. It is their belief that the arrangement of atoms are being according to the law of karma.

Rta.

Being realist thinkers like Naiyalyikas, they have divided reality into eight categories  which are ; substance (dravya) quality(guna), action(karma), generality(samanya), inherence(paratantrate), force(sekti), similarity(sadrisya) and nimber(sankhya).

          Kumarila has divided all categories into two groups: positive(bhava) and negative(adhanva) . There are four kinds of negative categories – prior, posterior, obsolete and mutual. Substance, quality, action and generality are four groups of positive categories. Kemarila has included force and similarity into substance. Kumarila has included force and similarity under the category of substance. Kumarila has accepted nine substances of Vaispika i.e. earth, water, fire , air ,ethos, time space, spirit and mind and added two more i.e. sound and darkness in it. He rejects particularity and inherence. Particularity has been included in the quality of difference while inherence is reduced to identity –in- difference.

Question:- Give a detailed account of Mimamsa theory of knowledge            ( Dec.2013- 500 words)

Question:- Explain Mimamsa epistemology in detail (Dec-2014-500 words)

Ans. Definition f Knowledge:- Both Pro and Ku have accepted knowledge itself as pramona. They define valid knowledge as knowledge with new information, un-contradicted and generated by sound means. Immediate and mediate are two kinds of valid knowledge. Mimansakas says that knowledge arises when self through mind and sense organs, come into contact with the object. Though Naiyeyikas say that indeterminate perception is only earlier stage of determinate perception, Mimansakas oppose it by saying that it is the indefinite stage of perception. In this state we are able to know the object as ‘that’ but not ‘what’ it is. In the later stage of determinate perception we gain clarity and definite description of the object. They say that indeterminate perception also serves the purpose. Kids and  animals are not interested in the details of any object. Immature adults and any person in hurry, needs a not the details of any objects. A person waiting for the metro, rashes towards it, without taking into consideration, its shape, size, colour etc. Indeterminate perception is the bare awareness (alochnamatra) of the pure object( uddha vastu) .

Dharma in Mimanisa (June 2012- 100 words)

The word ‘dharma’ has been used in the Mimanisa  philosophy in the sense of duty. It indicates command which forces men to action . Janine defines it-as:

Apodanalaksanortho dharmah

To follow the commands of the veda is to follow dharma because it consists in the commands of the Veda. It gives instructions to follow certain acts and to refrain form others. Dharma and adharma are related to the happiness and sorrow in his life and life after death. Apurua is the concise power through which actions bear fruits. There are three types of actions - Obligatory, optional and prohibited. Earlier Mimansakas believed obly in dharma but later accepted moksha instead of heaven. The cause of bondage in karma. Therefore, liberation will happen only other abstention from karma. The state of liberation is devoid of pain and desire. It is devoid of conscious and bliss also. According to both Prabhakaran and Kumarila objection from optional and prohibited karmas has been mentioned. Because both lead either to merit to demerit. But seeks for liberation should perform obligatory actions. These actions should be performed without any detachment to the result because these actions are means to attain the ultimate end i.e. liberation. One has to exhaust part sin and avoid future sin in order to become liberated. Thus we can say that dharma is the way to liberation as per mimamsakas.

Question:- Explain inference(anuman) as a valid source of knowledge (June,2012, 250 words)

Question:- Discuss Anumana(Inference) as a valid source of knowledge (Dec-2012,150 words)

Question:- Examine the status of inference (Anumana) as a valid pramana in Indian philosophy(Dec2014,250 worlds)

Question Explain Aumana or inference in Indian philosophy ( June,2013- 150 words)

Question: Give detail descriptions of the criticism of inerence by Corvaka-10

Refutation of Inference:-

1.   Inference is indirect medium of knowledge, so it cannot be accepted as valid means of knowledge. We inter about fire from the instrument knowledge to smoke .  Here we proceed from known to unknown and there is no certainty in this since the knowledge of fire through smoke is indirect. It may turn out to be accidently true but it is not necessarily true. We cannot say anything with certainty about the unperceived cases. Charvaka says that it is only due to the association of ideas that we assume their definite relation which is based on causality.

Charvaka says that inference is based on invariable concomitance and invariable concomitance is based on the theory of causation. The limit of the knowledge gained through sense –organs is restricted to the particulars. We cannot know anything about universals through sense organs. So, when our knowledge is limited to the particular then we cannot cross the limit and assert something about universal. Thus deduction of universal from particular is only figment of our imagination. It is not something real. Through perception we can know only the association and succession of particulars but we cannot perceive the necessity, universality and certainty of these particulars. Cause precedes the effect. But its causality cannot be proved through sense organs. It gives only probable knowledge.

           Though Shunnyava dab  Buddhism ana Advaita Vedanta have also rejected the ultimate validity of inference. But the Shungavadin and the Advaitin reject the ultimate validity of all means of knowledge as such including perception though they insist on the empirical validity of all means of knowledge. The dirstination between ultimate and empirincal knowledge is unknown to the Charvaka C d Sharma writes, ‘to accept the validity of perception and at the same time and from the same standpoint, to reject the validity of inference is a thoughless self –contradiction’

1.   CD Sharma-Indian Philosopher 43.

C D Sharma further writes that to refuse the validity of inference from the empirical standpoint is to refuse to think and discuss. All thoughts, all discussions, all doctrines, all affirmations and denials, all proofs and disproof’s are made possible by inference. The Charvaka view that perception is valid and inference is invalid is itself a result of inference. The Charuaka can understand others only through inference and make others understand him only through inference. Thoughts and ideas, not being material objects cannot be perceived; they can only be inferred. Hence the self-refuted Charvaka of Philo.  Perception itself which is regretted as valid by the Charvaka is other found untrue.

Linga Paramarsa: (June 2012 100 words)

Out of five component parts of Nyoya syllogism, this middle te4rm is the mot important one because it establishes the relation between minor and major terms. On the basis of the validity or invalidity of this middle term, the validity of any argument is ascertained.

     To establish the relation of middle term with the middle term is the function of ligaparamarsha . The five distinguishing features of a middle term are :

1.   Presence of middle term in minor term is necessary. E.g. smoke must be present in the hill.

2.   In all the instances of major term this middle term must be present. Wherever there is fire, smoke must be necessarily there. In Naiyayika terminology it is called ‘sapakshasattva’.

3.   Absence of middle term in all the negative instances of major term is also necessary. For example : in the river. This absence of smoke in negative instances is called ‘vipakshasattva’ in Nyaya Philosophy.

4.   Compatibility of middle term with minor term is necessary for the validity of any argument. It must not contradict the major term.

5.   Middle term must be devoid of counteracting reasons. It will lead to the contradictory conclusions like: creation is eternal because of its being caused.

Vyapti:

          When paksha and sadhya are invariably related, there exists this relation of vyapati. This whole process of the inference pramana is based on this relation of vyapti.

          Vyapti is of two types: Anvaya vyapti and vyotikeka vyapti. As this relation of vyapti is based on invariable concomitance of two things, the first type of vyapti is all about presence of both things with each other. For example: ‘where there is fire, there is smoke’. Whereas the second type of vyapti is based on the invariable absence of both things with each other. For example ‘where there is no fire there is no smoke’. This relation of invariable concomitance is established by logic. In this process of inference, the relation of paksha with sadhya is establish with the help of middle term i.e. hetu..

Inference is of two types: svarthanumana and pararthamumana.

Question What is Hetyvabhasa (fallaaj) ? Explain(June2012- 150 words)

Question:- Explain five kinds of hetvabhasa( Dec-2014- 250 words)

Ans. Appearance of something like that it must be considered as reason, but not actually being the reason is called hetvabhasa(fallacy). It is merely abhasa (appearance) of hetuc reason. In Indian logic the term used for fallacy is hetabhasa . All fallacies are material fallacies.

          There are five characteristics of valid middle term, devoid of which any argument will hve the fallacy. Related to five characteristies of valid middle term, there are five kinds of fallacies:

1.   Assiddha or sadhyasama- when the middle term is not proved, this fallacy    accurse.

2.   Savyabhicara- when the presence of middle te4rm is not regular, this fallacy occurs.

3.   Satpatipaksha- when the middle term is contradicted by another middle term, the argument is invalidated by this fallacy of satpratipaksa.

4.   Badhita- If the middle term of any argument is refueled by further knowledge, this fallacy of badhita will invalid the argument.

5.   Viruddha – Any argument having contradictory middle term will be invalidated due to this fallacy of viruddha.

Inference:-

The etymological meaning of the word ‘anumana’ is ‘after knowledge’. Knowledge which arises after other knowledge. It is mediated any son mark which is termed as ‘hetu’. This ‘hetu’ has relation of invariable concomitance with the ‘sadhya’ which is the observed feature. This relation between the two is is termed as ‘gvyapti’ . Throght  ‘hetu’ we get the knowledge of the qualities of paksa and statement regarding this is called ‘paramorsh’. Hence, inference is the knowledge of the presence of sadhya in the paksa through the linga. For example knowledge of presence of fire in the hill by perception of smoke through relation of invariable concomitance between fire and smoke is inference.

Mimansak as have rejected the five proposition of Nyaya and accepted only three either the first three or the last three. Their syllogism is similar to Aristotelian logic. The following is the structure Nyaya syllogism:

1.   The hill has fire(pratijna)

2.   Because it has smoke(hetu)

3.   Whatever loss smoke has fire  e.g. an oven(udaharana)

4.   This hill hs smoke which is invariably accociate3d with fire(upanaya)

5.   Therefore this hill has fire(nigamana)

6.   Mimomsakas say that either first three or last three are sufficient to prove the knowledge.

 Nyaya Syllogism

Quest:-What are the conditions for testimony to be availed source of knowledge?

Sabada, in Indian philosophy is interpreted as ‘aptavacana’, which means vacana(words) of a trust worthy(opta)

Person. Any verbal testimony is valid only if its source is reliable. Any person, who has authentic knowledge and can convey it correctly, is trust worthy. Spromana is also based on scriptures. Which are said to be statements of divine?

Further, verbal testimony is of two kinds: Vaidika and laukika (secular). Vaidika testimony is considered the authentic and accurate because of being spoken by God. This is perfect and infallible type of pramana. Secular testimony is words of human beings; therefore, there is every possibility of its being inaccurate an unauthentic.

Rejection of Verbal Testimony of Sabda-5 Give Carvakas justification for rejection.

          Charvaka has rejected verbal testimony  also. The basis of the validity of the statements made by Rsis is based on inference only. And when inference, itself is not valid source of knowledge then we can assume the validity of verbal testimony. So, being based on inference, verbal testimony is also rejected by Charnaka. Charvaka says that if they talk about something which is knowable through sense organs, then it comes within the realm of perception. But if they talk about Adrishta, Apurva, etc. then it is based on only imagination. Charvaka has rejected the validity of Vedas.

Describe the importance of sabda Pramana in Indian though.

Jain view of Verbal testimony (Dec-13 150 words).

          Jainas call verbal testimony as, Agana. It is that type of instrument of knowledge which is based on the words of are liable person. An apta person expresses his views without any prejudice and correctly. He knows the truth and reality of things. That’s why knowledge given by him is accurate. His words accomenurate with the object he is trying to express. According to Jainism. Agama is of two kinds –Lavkika and Alavkika.

Verbal Testimony in Advaita Vedanta:

          Advaitic philosophy considers God as the author of the Vedas. He disseminated the wisdom through rishis. They intuitively listened the verses of the Vedas and even they didn’t themselves compose them. It was composed by their disciples, whom they transmitted this wisdom. That’s why it is called, Apaurusheya.

          Naiyayikas are of this view that God himself is author of the Vedas. While, Mimamasakas consider the Vedas as self-existent.

Sabda Pramana (Dec.2012, 100 words)

Ramanuja, on verbal testimony:

          Ramanuja, the profounder of the concept of qualified Brahman, believes in the knowledge of qualified objects. He doesn’t believe in the existence of any nirguna( unqualified) thing. By the word nirguna he means devoid of bad qualities not to all qualities.

          He considers , all the portions of the Vedas as equally important. Ritual portions of the Vedas are of as much importance as portions regarding metaphysical  social wisdom.

Nyaya View of Sabda Pramana:

Knowledge of objects, derived from words and sentences, constitutes Sabda Pramana which means verbal knowledge Naiyayikas have accepted verbal testimony as pramana i.e. valid source of knowledge. But it does not mean that any verbal knowledge is valid source of knowledge.

As , Sabda  is the instructive assertion of a reliable person, the real problem is, how to ascertain that who is reliable one? Now, Naiyayika view about this is, it may be a Risi or a layman, whoever is an expert in certain mater and willing to communicate his experience of it.

The definition of verbal testimony has been given like this: ‘sentence is which the relation among the meaning of words, that is the object of its intention, is not contradicted by any other means of valid knowledge’.

Explain Sabda pramana(verbal testimony) and Upamana (companion) according to Nyaya philosopher.  (200 words)

Sabda Pramana:- According to Nyaya philosopher  verbal testimony is the reliable statement of trust worthy person and assists in understanding its meaning. According ancient nyaya system, this power of meaning is due to God while according to later Nyaya philosophers it is endured by tradition. Only the words of scares can become the source of valid knowledge a not all words. Comprehension, of meaning contains knowledge not merely words. Hence, the knowledge of the meaning of the statements of seers is testimony. A sentence is intelligible only when it conforms to certain conditions which are – akankas, yogyata, sannidhi and tatporya. The first condition is mutual  expediency . Second is that the word should not contradict the meaning. Third are is that proximity of the words is necessary. Fourth one is the intention of the speaker.

          Testimony is of two kinds- Vaidika and lavkika(securlar) Since Vedas are the statements of God therefore they are authentic one. Lavikka9secular) testimony may be both authentic and un authentic because it is based on the words of human being . It is defied as:

Aptavakyam shabdah a ptastu yatharthavakta . Vakyam

Pada sancihah skaktam opadam . “Ishavara-sanketah shaktih.

Verbal Testimony:-Knowledge obtained from verbal authority is ‘Sabda. Sabda is considered to be of two kinds-personal and impersonal. Words spoken or written by authority is considered as personal while knowledge based on the Vedas which is called ’apaurusheya’ i.e. not written by any individual authority is considered a impersonal knowledge despised from verbal testimony is either related to the description of Reality or it is related to the injunctions and prohibition regarding the performance of certain rituals. Since Mimansakas a accept dharma and karma only as means of liberation, they are interested in only importations related to the rituals. They say that descriptions in Vedas regarding Reality are useless.

They have denied this view also that the Vedas were witten by God. According to them it is impersonal. To assent their viewpoint  they raise certain questions:

1.   Why the name of the author of the Vedas are not known.

2.   Why there is dissent among the proponent of the personal source of the Vedas

3.   Personal authority of the Vedas are accepted on the basis of the philosophy’s knowledge of other similar books which are written by some authority.

4.   The names of certain persons mentioned in the Vedas are of seers  whom the Vedas were revealed.

5.   According to them, though Vedas are written in words yet since these wo4rds are also eternal, Vedas cannot be considered as personal.

6.   They raise the question regarding the existence of the person who is omniscient and knows about the apurva.

Since, we do not find any lacuma, in which is the common factors in the works by human being, it must be written by divine authority.

Thus they prove that Vedas are impanel .Since the applicability of the concepts of the Vedas are eternal, they must be creation of some eternal Being.

Mimansa View of Verbal Testimony:

Verbal Testimony:-

Four conditions:-

1.   Expectancy

2.   Contiguity

3.   Consistency

4.   Intention

Types of meanings:-

1.   Primary

2.   Implied

Implication

1.   Pure

2.   Implication  of the Implied

                  )(

                  )(

)(                                                  )(                                           )(

)(                                                  )(                                           )(

Exclusive                                   Inclusive                   Quasi-inclusive

Comparison:-   Comparison is defined as the knowledge of the relation between a word and its denotation. (Knowledge of the relations between name and thing so named id comparison). This knowledge is based on the comparison or similarity between the two objects. In this activity of comparison we see the one object, which ins compared and recollect. The memory of the previous one, with which it is compared. Then after finding the similarity between the two, we reach to the conclusion that our knowledge is valid. For example, being told by someone that wild cow resembles cow, if we see the wild cow and remember the idea of cow and find the similarity between the two then our knowledge is valid. This form of knowledge is called upamiti and instrument for this knowledge is called ‘upamana’. It is based on analogy. It is defined as:

Samijna samijni sambandhajananam upmiti h. tatkaranam sadrswhya jnanam.

Comparison:- Mimamsakas accept  comparison as an independent source of knowledge. In comparison, what is already known is compared with what is to be known. Mimmsakas hold that knowledge of new object is not acquired here by the knowle4dge of similarity. Instead knowledge of similarity is acquired by perceiving the one object and remerging another one. While for Naiyayikas we desire the knowledge of a new object by comparing it what was already known. For example when we see a wild cow, and are told that the wild cow is similar to the domestic cow, then we get the knowledge of a new object by comparing it with known one i.e. domestic cow while Mimamsakas say that when we see the wild cow and remember the domestic cow, we get the knowledge of similarity between the two.

          Buddhist philosophers have rejected the validity of comparison as an instrument of valid knowledge. It has been included in comparison and verbal testimony. Whereas Samkhya and Vaisheshika philosophers have included comparison in inference. Mimamsakas have accepted Upanana pramana, like Naiyayikas, but their account of it is different from Nyaya.

          In this process of Upamana, the knowledge of the relation between a name and the object it dendes is gained through comparision. Tht’s why it is called also comparision and analogy. Due to being based on comparison, it is called Upamana. It is defined as the knowledge of the relation between a word and its denotation. It is procuced by knowledge of resemblance and similarity.

Samijna samijni sambandhajnanam upamithih tatkaranam sadrashyajnanam.

          Therefore, Upamana is just the knowledge of the relation between a name and the object donated by that name. Since, it is produced by the knowledge of similarity, it is called analogy, also. Knowledge of similarity between wild cow and cow in cause of t its production . There are four steps involved in the production of knowledge of an object in Upamana:

1.Verbal knowledge of a word and its denotation is achieved in this first step.

2. This second step is related to the observance of denoted object with the knowledge of its similarity.

Write a note on Upamana(analogy). (Dec-2013 150 words)

Upamana-(Short Note -100 Words Dec.2014).

3.   During this third step the knower recalls the authoritative statement received from authority.

4.   In the fourth and last stage analogical knowledge is produced like this that a this very object is denoted by the word(Samjna).

That’s why this knowledge is called Upamana . This word has been desired from two words, ‘upa’ and ‘mana’. The word ‘upa’ means similarity and the word ‘mana’ means ‘cognition’.

Explain Sabda pramana (Verbal Testimony) and Upamana(Co0mparison) according to Nyaya Philosophy (200 words).

          Critically evaluate Arthopatti (Postulation) and Anupalabhi(non-apprehension) as sources of valid knowledge in the philosophy of mimamsa.

Implication:-

Prabhakar and Kumarila both have accepted orthapatti (postulation or implication or presumption) as a valid means of knowledge. Defining it CD Sharma writes, ‘ It is the assumption of an unperceived fact in order to reconcile two apparently inconsistent perceived facts”. ( A critical survey of Indian Dhilosophy – p.222) The Naiyayikas have included implication into inference. But Mimamsakas accept it as an independent premana. Prabhakara holds that due to the element of doubt, it is different from inference. Here the two different facts are inconsistent with each other. For example: It Devadotta doesn’t eat in the day time still he is growing father continuously then it raises the suspicion about his habit of not eating totally. This doubt can be overcome by assuming the fact that he might be overeating in the night. When we don’t get the expected fact then we have to draw another fact to establish the former one. As Dharmraj Adhvareendra defines it:

“Arthapatti consists in the postulation , by a cognition of what has to be made intelligible , of what will make (tat) intelligible. It is the procedure of apatti i.e. postulation, of something (arth) to the cognition of fatness, cause of postulation.

While according to Kumarila, instead of doubt, the mutual inconsistency of the two perceived facts is the basis of distinction between inference and implication.

To remove the inconsistency postulation of something(arth) is necessary. This is not the case with inference. At the same time in implications, there is no middle term, which is the basis of inference. They say t5hat neither of the two perceived facts can secure as middle term and combining both will to the conclusion itself. Hence, implication is different from inference.

Discuss the method of Arthapatti(Postudation) (June2012  150 words)

Arthapatti (Dec-13 Dec-14 100 words)

Quest: Distinguish between Arthapatti and Anupalabdhi.

(June-13 ,250 words)

Negation:- Kumarila has accepted anupalabdhi, as an independent source of valid knowledge while Prabhakara has rejected it. According to Naiyaykas, rejection is known either by perception or by inference because the correlate of negation is a subject of perceptions or of internee. Though, they have c accepted as a separate category, that’s why he says that there is no need of separate pramnana for it. But he describes negation as a positive element. According to him, there is no non-existence distinct from existence. Perception of empty locus of the jar proves its non-ex9ostence. The obscene of jar before its existence is the presence of clay.

          While according to Kuarila relation exists as a separate category and exists independently of the bore ground. Deceiving the empty ground is neither perceiving the jar nor its non-existence. Hence, positive perception of bare ground is different from non-existence and non-perception may be reduced to perception or inference. Due to lack of sense object contact and invariable con-comitence. Legation can be considered as independently source of knowledge. According to him relation can’t be known through verbal testimony also because there is no verbal cognition here. Non-connate known through comparison or presumption. There fore, negation as an in dependent category can be known only by separate source of knowledge, which is non-après pension (anupalabothi).

Describe the concept of abhava(non-existence) according to Vaisheshika Philosophy (200 words).

Anupalabdhi( Non-apprehension): (December 2013 -100words).

Non- Apprehension:-

Whether the object which is missing is competent or the substrate is competent that is the question raised by the opponents.

Quest: How does Western Classical tradition deal with justification of knowledge? Critically analyses(Dec-2011- 500 words).

Quest:- Write an essay on the nature and types of certitude.( June-2012 – 500 words)

Quest:- Describe in detail ‘Certitude’. Discuss various kinds of certitude possible.

Quest:- Explain the different kinds of certitude possible in the context of justification of knowledge(Dec2014- 500 words)

Quest:- Moral Certitude: ( Dec-2013- 100 words)

Ans:- The use of the word ‘in orally sure’ is ambiguous one. It is used in the philosophical sense as well as in common sense. To be morally sure ‘ means pretty sure in common sense use, while its philosophical meaning is, according to the norms of the society. There are thr4ee different uses of the term ‘moral certitude’.

          Ethics is the study of the norms and principles of deciding ‘right and wrong’ behavior. So, certitude in this field calms from the discussion of the moral justifiability of certain actions , especially of these is a conflict. Issues like nuclear war face, capital punishment., abortion, birth control etc. Are discussed in this realm. Relevance of certain norms is of utmost importance in this field, because according to the situations and circumstances and also cultural advancement, the norms of the society, change. It is relative to time and space, both .Issues, which were condemned a few years back are now appreciated. On the other hand, issues which were appreciated sometime back are now condemned. So, now there si a theory of dynamic morality which that there cannot be any absolute norm for all time and for societies. It may be conducted from this fact that, no certitude is possible in the field of ethics and every individual has to guided by his own inner conscience. This may lead to the state of anarchism.

          So, the crucial problem is, how to attain the ‘evidence’ of truths in moral matters. Being based on the immediate data of moral consciousness some truths of moral matters can be known with absolute certainty. This type of truths are self evident and have a ontological basis. Therefore, the certitude regarding this type of truths is ontological one. Whereas, evidence of other type of truths can be attained thorough reasoning and arguments. Habermas, theory of ‘Discourse Ethics’ is the best example of it.

          The second meaning of ‘moral certitude’ is related to the field of knowledge of human nature, mainly its psychological aspect, his social relationships and history as well. In the words of Heidegger it is related to the being –in-the –world.

          Each and every subject of Social Sciences has its own method. So, the kind of certitude will depend on the kind of method used by these disciplines. The human behavior contents studied by sociology and psychology are different from those of physical laws, because of the freedom of human beings, constants of social sciences are variable. The evidences of social sciences, are based on the observation of the human behavior. That is why the certitude obtained in this field is ‘moral certitude’.

Religious Certitude: The possibility of religious certitude is something different from other fields of knowledge because of its being  a special nature. In most of the cases, it is inherited knowledge from our portents, educators etc. Therefore, the conditioning factor is wrought by ‘society’ on one’s religious beliefs. Now, it is obvious that the genuinely of this type of knowledge is questionable. This type of knowledge is based on the witness and testimony of others. The conditions on which this type of knowledge is based, can determine only its ‘moral certitude’.

          Religious beliefs will remain beliefs, even though it is based on the evidence of its respective scripture. And the certitude of tis type of knowledge can be ascertained as ‘moral certitude’ only.

          Even though the believes tries to justify his particular belief and its reasonableness, and the un tenability of the opposite beliefs, he can be said to be ‘morally certain’ only. Further, even reaching to the point of convergence will ascertain only its ontological certitude which is ultimately based on ‘self-evident truth’. This type of self-evident truths are acquired by intuitive knowledge.

          Many great religious –philosophers have propounded two levels of knowledge and certitude  in this realm of religious certitude. This two levels of experience i.e. vyavaharika and parmarthika – dristi is based on the two levels of reality i.e. empirical and transcendental. It is the assertion made by these philosophers that t6hey can directly perceive the noun mental or supra sensible Reality. The most important aspect of this assertion is this that all these philosophers belong to different religious traditions.

Quest:  What do you understand by ontological certitude( June 2013  -150 words)

Quest:- Explain ontological certitude in the context of Epistemic justification(June 2014 – 150 words)

Ans. The realm of ontology is the counterpart of logical realm because the laws of mind are based on the ‘laws of being’, itself . The truth of a judgment can be ascertained by both sense  experience and reflection on the nature of the judgment itself as judgment.

‘Maya ‘ of Advaistic philosophy is neither ‘real’ nor ‘unreal’, nor ‘both ‘. It is ‘indescribable’. This ‘three –valued’ logic of Samkara, gives birth to the contrary relation between ‘true’ and false’. This is dissimilar to ‘two-valued’ logic of west, where a proposition is either ‘true or ‘false’. The falsity of a certain proposition, for example, B  cannot prove the truth of non-P . It may be like  maya , neither ‘true nor false. The falsity of the statement, ‘Maya’ is not real’ doesn’t prove tits reality.

          This standpoint of Samkara should disprove the laws of non-contradiction and excluded- middle. But, it is not the case . Because, these can be applied for only terms, which have univocal sense. In the realm of religion and philosophy they have to be applied in a g qualified way. But, this ‘two – valued’ logic can be applied on this ‘three-valued’ logic, to ascertain that whether this ‘three valued’ assertion in ‘true’ or ‘false’, valid’ or un-valid’

          Some is the case with Nagorijuna in Buddhism. Nothing falls within the fair categories of thought and speak. One cannot ascertain about any object, whether it is real’ or ‘unreal’ or ‘neither or ‘both’. This destructive dialectic is used by Madhyamikass, just to disprove the ultimate reality of the phenomenal world. That’s why it is indescribable and beyond the categories of thought and speech. To put any statement in the third or fourth category would be similar to creating non-conical statement and give contradictory propositions. The only option for this type of statements is to use them in analogical sense. Then only, they will be comprehensible.

          Thus, we can say that this logic of beyond categories of Buddhism doesn’t disprove the laws of contradiction and excluded Middle. At the same time this Madhyamika logic tells as about the limitations and inability of the categories of thought and speech. To describe the nominal reality. Language and logic is not a medium to understand the reality from an ultimate point of view’.

          A near about similar perspective has been given by Jain doctrine of Anekantavada. Jain theory of  reality as ‘indeterminate’ and ‘multi-faceted’ gives a something similar view. According to them, to know something thoraghly is to know it from all points of view and a in all its relations. And that is possible only from an ‘ultimate point of view’. According to Jain theory Kaualajnana is the only option through which one can know everything about the reality. So, all our empirical statements must have a prefix like ‘somehow’ true or ‘some how’ false. This theory of Jain epistemology is called ‘Syadavada’.

Quest: Knowledge as justified true belief (December -2011- 100 words)

Quest:- Briefly explain foundationalism(Dec-2011 150 words)

Quest Explain foundationalism as a theory of Justification.(Dec-2014 150 words)

Ans . Foundationalism seeks an analogy between the structure of justified though and a building. Any foundational belief which cannot be refuted by any further argument must be the basis of the structure of the thought  this foundational belief must be self justified. Just as the higher levels of building seats on its lover post can the foundation, so also, the higher level of beliefs depend on the over level of beliefs.

          According to foundation lists, beliefs based directly on perception are self evident and irrefutable. But opponents assert the opposite view. They say that perceptual belief cannot be included in the list of implacable prepositions. A few indubitable beliefs cannot provide justification for all the others. Another controversy has been created by non-foundation lists by seating their theories on foundational beliefs.

          There may be two conditions: a foundational belief may be required to imply some non-foundational belief or it may not be required. But there is some draw back in both options. Most of the beliefs will be proved unjustified. The only option left for foundation lists will be to reject their assumption that foundation list beliefs imply non-foundation list beliefs. It will d reduce foundational beliefs to non-logical arguments which can be replaced by another information. Being redundant for non-foundat5ional beliefs. Foundational beliefs will loose its very gou7nd, because being irrefutable is the very essence of these beliefs.

          So, we can say that possibility of indubitable beliefs are is uncertain. The justify action of our  beliefs depends on its global eohere4nce. This position denies the existence of any foundational belief and asserts that all beliefs may be justified by their relation to others by mutual support . The foundation of justification is based on the fitting together of the poarts supportive of each other.

          According to the coherevtists justification is needed in case of some claims of knowledge being disputed. Coherentism has two aspects: negative and positive. Just like sustah pramangavada in Indian philosophy coherentists assert that a person will take any propostion for granted till be doesn’t have any reason to disbelieve it. But, positive coherencism, just like paratahpra manyavada, needs to produce positive support. According to Keith Lehrer , any person is justified in believing a proposition, if that very proposition coheres with other beliefs belonging to a system of belief to be justified. Now, the very kind of the system and the way any belief must cohere with other  beliefs, are two important factors to be taken into consideration.

          According to traditional Coherentists, there must be a relation of necessary connection or entailment between the very proposition and the system. But, opponents have rejected this condition. Further, the r elation of a belief with the system is another issue. And, there is every possibility of erroneous system, coherence with which wil lead to unjustified belief.

          Ultimately, the proponents of Coherent theory could not find any uniform solution for the problem. The option of maximal coherence is also not satisfactory solution of the problem

Quest: Explain the debate  between Internalism and Externalism.(June2012 – 250 words)

Quest:- Internalism versus Externalism(Dec 2013 – 100 words)

Internalism: According to internalists any believed can justify only those items that are within him . Now, the question of the accessibility and its limit is of utmost important. What kind of access any thinker has? And ‘what is the limit of his accessibility?’ Internatists use this phrase in two senses. first one is : Being within the subject’s perspective and second one is : Being accessible to the subject in some special way. In technical terms used be internalists, the first a one is, perspective internalism whereas the second one is. Access Internalism.

          Since, the evidential status of the believer depends on the sensory information so long as his beliefs and sensory intimations remain the same, his belief will also remain constant. But, soon after he moves to a rigged situations ,the truth of his beliefs will not be known.

          So, we may conclude from the above argument that Internalistically conceived justification theories may not become the ground for epistemic situation. Any rigged circumstance may mix up with non-rigged circumstance.

Externalism; Extremist thinkers define epistemic justification of a belief like this that by obtaining causal or neurological relation between the believer and the world, the epistemic justification of any belief can be derived. Justification may be defined in terms of the goal of truth of epistemology. The relationship between the belief and the external world has to be established to convert belief into knowledge.

          The sole duty of an epistemologist is to establish the r elation between the belief and the external world. he need not to explain, how that relation con be established. It is not necessary for the believer to have the cognitive vision of the reason of its truth. Though, it is necessary to establish the truth of the basic empirical belief. This truth may be established through the process of reliabilism. Thus, Externalism changes its track from the general tradition.

Reliabilism: The core point externalism i9s ‘Reliabilism’. According to this theory is this that justification must be based on the accuracy of belief forming processes. It must be expressed in conditional preposition like this:

“Some one’s belief in any proposition is justified if and only if his belief in that proposition is produced by a realizable process”.

Reliability of ‘Reliabilism’ lies in these factors:

1.   Truth being the aim of epistemology. It is necessary to use reliable belief forming process must be used to achieve the aim.

2.   Reliobilism has also various gradation or hierarchy like justification. The level of the grades of justification will depend on th4e availability of evidences. Justification also comes in grades like reliability.

3.   The level of reliability of evidences affects the grade of justification. Both synchronize with each other and are in sync with each other. Both coincide with each other. Though reliabilism seems tenable solution for the problems faced by epidemiology yet, the questions raised by Internalist thinkers, like: Is reliabilism necessary for s justification? Or ‘Isa reliability sufficient for justification’ lessen its creadibility7.

Quest:- What is Hermeneutics? (June 2012)

Ans. Hermeneutics is the understanding of the complex conditioning of human knowing. Found in all people, it is one of the ways through which knowledge grows. As far as its etymological meaning is concerned, it is derived from the Greek word Hermeneutic which means to express, explain, translate or interpret the sacred message. It originated in Greek philosophy. It was also used in the interpretation of the Bible in later period.

          As an important part of Christian theology, it has various schools of interpretations’ such as literal, allegorical, analogical and anagogical etc. As a scriptural interpretation it was limited to the sacred texts only. But, now it has art, aesthetics, literature, architecture and all the walks of human life, within its realm. It applies its methods and principles on the object of interpretation in the present context.

          Hermeneutics has two categories: General Hermeneutics and special hermeneutics. General hermeneutics is related to context, language, history and culture etc., whereas special hermeneutics is related to figures of speech, symbols, poetry, prophecy, typology, doctrinal teachings  and various literary forms.

The three Components of Hermeneutical Enterprise(June2012 -500 words-Dec2012 -150 words)

Ans. The development of hermeneutics passes through the interpretations of text to the understanding of ‘understand’, existence and life-world. Hermeneutical enterprise includes: the text, the rear and the author. However, language, culture and other elements are also involved in the hermeneutical enterprise.

The capacity of the Text: The central theme of hermeneutics is the text. Text, which is a stretch of written language with a beginning and end, includes messages generated by sign-systems of various religious, economic ,social etc. structures, non-verbal body indicators etc. Operations of hermeneutics are based on texts. Text has been defined as  a group of entities, used as signs, selected , arranged, and intended by an author to convey a specific meaning to an audience in a certain context.

     It may be in printed form, written form or in the form of mental images. Emotions can be expressed, commands can be issued, answers can be drawn, requests can be made, actions can be caused through texts. Texts imply understanding, which is different from the meaning of it. Author and reader, both has partial role the text is being written and author is absent while text is being read. The text has great impact on its reader. The text contains threefold meaning viz. meaning of the author reader and of itself.

     Hermeneutics involves the study of the processes and operative conditions of transforming texts. Communication of knowledge takes place when the necessary conditions for interpretation are fulfilled. This communication happens within the temporal existence of the reader has three different angles: act, narrative world, and interpersonal understanding, which are parts of speech. Though the reader has a ‘horizon of expectation’ from the text, it may not be according to his expectation and may contradict his expectation and surprise him.

The Capacity of the Reader /Interpreter: This interaction of text with the reader is reciprocal. Both influence each other This ‘horizon of expectation’ of the reader is based on his perception or system of references. Reader’s standpoint is influenced by his existence in time and history and has its own limitations. Though he tries to understand the view point of the author and comprehend the text also. But his comprehension is influenced by the previous knowledge and his situation in which he lives.

     At six different levels the reader influences the text, which are: Inter –textual, situational, horizontal, semiotic, hermeneutical and theoretical frameworks.  The changes brought by the interpreter in the object of interpretation are fourfold. He may impose his own ideology on the object of the text or segment the object in a different way. He may find out any underlying object in the text or reconsider it.

The capacity of the Author:  It is impossible for the author to remain neutral while writing the text. He doesn’t mealy give the facts regarding the object but imposes his own view point on it. His historical back ground always plays major role in his expression. His writing is blending of actual meaning and intended meaning. These impacts of the author can be farced through hermeneutics.

Quest: Examine the reconstruction of metaphysics by the linguistic philosophy.(Dec-2013 -250 words)

Ans. Unlike the logical positivists linguistics analysts think that philosophical problems are not –pseudo- problems But it cannot be polarized into either phenomenology alone or formalism only. According to them, the problems of philosophy are linguistic one instead of metaphysical or epistemological. Further, philosophical propositions are used in both common sense of language and in complex ideal sense, with fixed meanings.

     The next assumption of linguist philosophers is, that grammatical form may mislead in understanding the philosophical problems. Therefore, instead of grammatical language, technical symbolization must be used in the form of ideal language.

     Further linguistic philosophers consider the syntax of language, as the object of analysis. This analysis especially of ideal or formal language will create the proper meaning of expressions.

     The properties of signs and of the patterns in which these signs are arranged are dealt with in syntax. In the words and expre3ssions of natural language, syntax is implied. The signs of syntactical language are to be interpreted and arranged through definition.

     In the syntactic language undefined signs of the language can be defined by defined signs of the same.  Words and expression used for such signs produce meaning.

     Based on these certain norms, the language school tries to reconstruct metaphysics. In their view, the distend views of philosophers can reach to the point of convergence because they have a commonsense core.  Through the analysis of language, linguists try to solve the problems regarding the understanding of reality, which is diverse and unified, as well.

     The second type of reconstruction is related to the notion of truth. The certainty of the truth and its synthetic and analytic aspects are analyzed by linguistic philosophers. The notion of certainty is applicable only on synthetic truths not on analytic one. When applied on synthetic truths, certainty becomes absolute regarding the objective world. Analytic truth may not give any certain facts regarding the objects of the world.

     To deal with abstract entities, from the point of view of empirical facts is a crucial problem. On the basis of its logical or factual framework, the problems regarding abstract entices can be solved.

          The language philosophy divides three abstract entities into two categories. The first category includes the internal question within the framework whereas the second category involves the entities as whole as external equations. The reality of internal equations arises as empirical reality having a framework of ‘thing-language’. Being based on the theoretical framework, the external questions are answered from the point of view of realism, idealism etc.

Quest:- Examine the reconstruction of metaphysics by the linguistics philosophy(Dec-2013 -250 words)

Quest:- What do you understand by Epistemic justification? Discuss various modern theories of justification.(June 2014- 500 words)

Quest:-What is epistemic justification? 9Dec-2014-150 Words)

 Ans. A paradigm shift occurred in the realm of epistemology by shifting its focus from discussing the traditional questions of knowledge to the deeper areas of perception in relation to beliefs. As the study of knowledge and justification of beliefs, epistemology deals with the questions like ‘which’ beliefs are justified and which are not? What is the difference between knowing and having a true belief? Or ‘what is the relation between seeing and knowing? etc. Theories regarding discussion of this entire question are realism, idealism, or foundationalism etc.

Knowledge and its Relation to Justified True Belief: Knowledge arises in experience of objects which are external to us. Through reflection and inference, knowledge, develops with distinctive structure and content . Whereas, other forms of knowledge includes mental states, imaginations and mathematics etc. After some time recurring facts become beliefs, which are assumed to be true. Hume has written in his treatise about such type of beliefs. Of course the source of such type of knowledge is perception but it is not limited to perception. It goes beyond the realm of perception and can behave in the form of memory , reflection etc. That’s why its analysis as content of knowledge and its justification as belief is necessary. Its truth must be verified and proved.

          It has been found that such type of beliefs are grounded on causal, justificational and epistemic grounds. The experience on which this belief is grounded is causal nature. And the justification for it comes from the recurring knowledge and experience. At the same time it is epistemically justified because the knowledge which constitutes the belief has been accepted as true.

What is Justification? : Since, natural knowledge is based on sense experience, we cannot go farther to verify it. Sense organs are the ultimate source of natural knowledge. But, the proposition regarding this type. must be verified and justified. Empirical knowledge related to the world and its truth needs justification. Though, this justification is a mental process, yet it is needed for communication knowledge arises from the same sources as justification .That internal process which justifies our beliefs connect  our beliefs with external facts on account of which beliefs are true. Often belief is based on knowledge. But, when knowledge is indirect one, it needs to be verified and justified as true one. Though the knowledge, on which certain belief is based, may be based on knowledge and so on ad infinitum. Sometimes it may be a affected by circular fallacy. It may be so that in some cases, ultimately there will be no knowledge at all or that very knowledge on the basis of which we are going to verify certain belief is itself based on some belief.

          So, the criterion of epistemic justification is direct knowledge on the basis of which belief can be justified. Without the fallacy of infinite regress or circularity. Ultimately it must be based on direct or non-inferential sources of knowledge like perception, memory, introspection or reason. The last of step of this procedure must be directly justified belief which can be termed as foundational belief and from which there is no further regress.

Theories of Epistemic Justification:  Epistemic justification decides norms for justifying beliefs. That’s why it is a normative notion. The norms governing the beliefs are called epistemic norms.  are the rules mentioning the conditions under which the belief is epistemic ally valid. This epistemic condition is mandatory for knowledge. This epistemic condition is based on the analysis of source or foundation of knowledge.

          Thus, epistemic theories can be categorized as: Doxastic theories and Non-Doxastic theories. While the first one includes foundation theories and coherence theories, the second one includes externalism and externalism, which has sub-categories like reliabilism and probabilism.

Epistemic Justification: (June-2013 – 100 Words)

Question: What is epistemic justification? Why is it important in the linguistic philosophy? (Dec-2013-250 words)

Quest: How is ‘language game’ a paradigm? (June 2013 -150 words)

Ans. Language game is a new paradigm shift, from absolute to relative, from static to dynamic, from fixed to variable, from beyond the realm of life forms nominal reality to the forms of life. The philosophical problems dealt with here are related to the forms of life. So, the solutions to these problems must be found within the framework of philosophical discussions. Based on the notion of family resemblance, this view assumes a paradigmatic shift in the investigations. Problems of forms of life may have similarity with each other. Though, language is governed by rules of language game yet it is not separated from the forms of life.

          The rules governing one particular type of language may be applicable to other forms of life. Its logical aspect may have similarities and dissimilarities regarding other languages.  to various forms of life, these are various language rules. So, the concepts of logical space and logic – rule-governed determinate language finds a new inter forestation. Each form of life has its own logic which determines the type of language. On account of the life world to which language is related to, it acquires meaning and structure.

Paradigm (Dec 2014-100 words)

 Paradigm is an established framework within which many unsolved problems are answered . According to oxford dictionary the very word means, model, type or pattern of something. First of all it was used by philosopher. Scientist Thomas S Kuhn in his book ”The structure of Scientific Revolutions”.

          Paradigm is not a fixed, static norm to be implemented forever. It emerges with its finding, it advances and becomes gradually more refined. The very term paradigm has been used by Kuhn in two senses. In one sense it means ‘the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a community’. In another sense, the word. Paradigm denotes one sort of element in that constellation, the concrete puzzle –solutions which, employed as models or examples, can replace explicit rules as a basis for the solution of the remaining puzzles of normal science.

Quest: Explain briefly “linguistic turn” in western philosophy.(Dec.14-250 words)

Quest: What do you understand by the “Linguistic turn in philosophy? (June 2013 -150 words)

Ans. History of philosophy shows that there was paradigm shift from speculation through reason to, analysis of knowledge. In this procedure of shift, philosophy has included techniques from various sciences to understand the world. The revolution was brought by understanding reality through focus on language . This major change has been termed as ‘linguistic turn’ in the realm of philosophy.

          The linguistic analysis of the pre-suppositions behind a particular philosophical concept brings clarity and preciseness in it. After this linguistic analysis whatever was found was merely option or perception of certain philosophers. To recourse to the language in which any philosophical problems are formulated was the way through which new answers were found to new problems. Therefore, the linguistic turn in philosophy refers to the analysis of language as the potential for providing answers to the philosophical problems.

This linguistic turn bifurcated into two different ways, of which one was of ideal language philosophy and another was of ordinary language philosophy. The aim of this linguistic turn was to arrive at truth through the analysis of language. This linguistic turn gave birth to the anti-metaphysical view and was influenced by the theory of verification of Vienna Circle.

Instead of discussing about reality these linguistic philosophers discussed and analyzed the language in which reality was described. Linguistic philosophy assumes that language reflects the reality. So the analysis of the logical syntax of language was very crucial to understand the reality. Therefore, the linguistic turn proposes to describe the world by introducing a suitable language.

It was impact of science and scientific world which helped in developing the linguistic analysis. But the difference between the two was that of one propounding particular truth which the other was proponent of general and universal truths about the world and reality. Though the philosophers  who were propounding the general truth were deistic from each other . Resultantly there were many views about the reality and truth.

Language Game of Wittgenstein ( Dec-2011 –June 2012)

Quest: How is “language game”  a paradigm? (June-- 150 words)

Quest: Explain Wittgenstein ‘Language game’. (Dec-11- 250 words)

Quest: Language game(June-2012 -100 words)

Quest: What is a language game? Examine its significance in bringing about revolutionary change in philosophical thinking (June-2014-500 word)

Ans. “Wittgenstein converted large number of philosophers to the view that philosophy is essentially linguistic. It is in large part owing to his work that this view is dominant in Anglo-American philosophy today.” V C Chappell . Ordinary language – P – 1-2 Ryle, Vrmeon and Warnock are also of the same view.

                   Wittgenstein’s Tractatus depicts the world as static, clear cut and binary world .But this description through the clarification of language failed to give a holistic account of the world. His realization of failure gave way to understanding philosophical problems in a new light and resultantly ‘Philosophical Investigations’ came into existence.

                   While, the central theme of Tractatus was logical analysis of propositions , Investigations deals with the nature of the world. It includes the language of wider forms of life. Now, various languages within the language are matter of concern for him.

                   Even totality of names and totality of elementary proposition wouldn’t provide the evince of language and the essence of the world. It was the presupposition of Tractatus  that propositions contains in it whole of language. Presupposition of any proposition is a ‘language game, but it is only a small part of the whole of language.

                   Forms of life took place of the limited under standing of language, in the Investigations. There was provision of rearrangement of objects in Tractatus. But Investigations disagreed from this provision. It says that a new language game would embody a new ‘form of life’ which is different from rearrangement of already existing objects. Since, it includes with it behaviors and reactions etc. it is new form of life.

                   The universal form of language has been rejected in the Investigations. Different forms of languages have no common factor, like games, which has something common to all the games. It has various types of relationships ’overlapping and crisscrossing’. Instead of unity of essence, now he asserts difference oat the root of reality, which is similar to the concept of family resemblance.

Further, names which were mentioned as absolute are now relative in the Investigations. It was mentioned in the Tractatus that names denote objects but in the Investigations he says that names are neither simple nor complex . Only with reference to language game their simplicity or complexity can be ascertained. Also, he changes his standpoint from tractatus and says that meaning of award is never an object. Another significant change brought in the investigations is this that names are a prior for meaning . So, one must already have the language game to which the name belongs before ascertaining its meaning.

Another important change brought by Investigations is, the logical necessity of simple objects are not absolute one. Their sense is not definite in relation to a particular language game. Language analysis differs according to the language games. Analysis of language is not based on propositions only rather its accuracy is determined with reference to a particular language game when assessed with reference to philosophical ideals, the actual language is found as imperfect.

                   Analysis of the actual language doesn’t lead to the reality of the philosophical ideals. So, instead of analysis their needs description, so tht reality can be unveiled. Through description, it can be exposed that there is no structure beneath language.

                   A major shift from his earlier view is brought by Investigations when he says that it ‘use’ or application of the proposition which gives meaning to it. It is just opposite to his view that sentence or proposition has meaning or sense.

                   It is the situation in which word or a proposition is used, gives it meaning, not its analysis. By the word ‘use’ Wittgenstein means its meaning, not its correct use.

                   Thus we may say that, according to Wittgenstein, meaning and sense of a word or proposition depends upon its reference.

Quest:- What is the world view we get out of the picute theory?(June 2013-250 words)

Quest:- sentence is a picture or nodal of reality. Explain(June 14 -150 words)

Quest:- Picture theory of Wittgenstein(Dec-2011-Dec-2012)

Quest:- Picture theory of meaning ( Dec-2014-100 words)

Ans. The main aim of picture theory is to explain this fact that what makes it possible for a combination of words to represent a fact in the world? Because:

5(*1) A proposition is a truth function of elementary propositions.

And an elementary proposition is a mere. List of names. A mere list of names cannot stage a fact and therefore, cannot be true or false as propositions are what the essence of an ordinary picture is? What is it about a picture that makes it a representation of a situations? Wittgenstein answers this question like this:

2.14     What constitutes a picture is that its elements are related to one another in a determinate way.

2.14(1)  A picture is a fact

Wittgenstein maintains that what represent the scenes is certain facts, not objects he writes:

     2.15(1) The fact that the elements of a picture are related to one another in a determinate way represents that things are related to one another in the same way.

                   A picture represents certain features of reality depicted because it is a fat. It is only the structural features of reality that the picture fact represents. The non-structural features are represented by the patches of paints the writes:

2.131 In a picture the elements of the picture are the representatives of objects.

According to Wittgenstein, a picture is a fact composed of elements i.e. patches of paint. The elements represent the objects, and the fact that the elements are arranged in the way they are, represents the fact that the objects are so arranged in reality. So, Wittgenstein never said that any elementary proposition is merely a series of names but he says that it is a nexus, a concatenation of names”( T.4.22) Her further writes:

3.141(1)  A proposition is not a medley of words.

                   He meant to say that there is a definite relationship among the component names. They are arranged in a certain way which is significant. Just as the patches of paint in a picture are arranged in a certain way that is significant.

                   He holds the view that as propositional sign, unlike proposition, is composed of actual ink marks and is thus much more like an ordinary picture them is the proposition itself. He says that a propositional sign like a picture is a fact: He writes:

3.14 What constitutes a propositional sign is that in its elements (the words) stand in determinate relation to one another.

                   That’s why propositional sign can represent something and can be used to describe a state of affairs, He writes:

3.14 Only facts can express a sense, a set of names cannot.

                   If a person knows the meanings of the constituent words of a proposition then he understand the sense of the proposition. The old, known words can convey a new sense to us. A person can understand the sense of a proposition even if he has never come across if before, is sense has never been explained to him.

                   Further he says that it is propositional sign that is a picture not the proposition. Just like the picture, the elements of a propositional sign are related in the way . They are represents only the restructure feature of the situation represented.

3.21 The configuration of objects in situation corresponds to the configuration of simple signs the propositional sign.

                   Therefore, it must be a propositional sign, not the proposition, tht is a picture. He says that a group of marks on proper do not in themselves depict a specific situation. They can describe a situation if the marks are correlated with certain things or persons. The pictorial elements have one to one. Correspondence with the things in the state of affairs it represents. The fundamental principle of picture theory is this that  it must have something in common with what it pictures.

                   The propositional structure of language is the basis upon which ordinary language is built up . In the same manner, reality is at the roof of thought. Ordinary language represents the surface structure, whereas the deep structure of language represents the thought.

                   He says that only thoughts can be expressed in words. Anything which cannot be thought cannot be expressed in words. So, it is the function of philosophy to differentiate between what can be said and what cannot be said. As he writes:

7. Where of one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

                   Wittgenstein applied truth table method to ascertain the truth and falsity of the propositions. According to him, elementary propositions are either tautologies or contradictions. Anything which doesn’t fall within the realm of logic, like ethics or meth physics, was not matter of concern for him. Metaphysical and ethical propositions are, according to him, neither true nor false one . They are pseudo-propositions and are accidental one.

Question: Examine Rorty’s views on epistemology –centered philosophy( June -250 words)

Ans. “ I am not putting hermeneutics  forward as a ‘successor subject’ to epistemology ----On the contrary, hermeneutics is an expression of hope that the cultural space left by the demise of epistemology will not be filled” . This statement of Rorty confirms the demise of epistemology. The cause of death of epistemology was assumed to be the hermeneutic circle with its two destructive weapons i.e. semantic holism and theory leader observations.

                   So, first of all, it is necessary to analyze this concept of epistemology of which death Rorty claims. As epistemology is the study of human knowledge, it could be understood in broad and narrow both sense. Knowledge is an attempt to understand the nature, structure limits and conditions of our cognitive achievements. In the broad sense, it is information of which we become aware. And this broader sense of epistemology includes even the refutation of objective knowledge. Epistemology is not confined to merely the positive analysis of the possibility of truth and knowledge. So, it would be unreasonable to declare the demise of epistemology.

                   In the realm of epistemology knowledge is not merely information but it is justified true belief. Adjudicate the truth and falsity of propositions is the prime task of epistemology. Rorty took epistemology inits narrower sense of the justification of beliefs and only tic approach of hermeneutics makes it impossible to turn belief into knowledge.

Just like epistemology . Hermeneutics also can be understood in two ways: Broad and narrow sense . Hermeneutics of narrow sense includes the philosophy of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Wilhelm dithery, martin Heidegger etc. However, hermeneutics of Rorty is not limited to this continental school only but it includes the later philosophy of Wittgenstein treads in sociology of knowledge and post empiricist philosophy of science of Thomas Kuhn and post modernism.