Logical Positivism vs Vedanta: Post 1of 2

[Guest guest]

Dear Baghavatas,

Namo Narayana.

 

Some of you may be wondering, why I always refer to the futility of equating

mutually exclusive theories; why I always object to posts that attempt to

reconcile western materialistic concepts and vedantic concepts, like cloning.

So I thought I would post two short notes summarizing the substratum of the two

differing notions of reality; the vedantic conception or reality and the

western, logical positivist, conception of reality.

 

Logical Positivist View on the Rationality of statements:

 

The logical positivist view of a rational statement can be succinctly stated as

follows. The notion of a rational statement is a fundamental truth; an axiom.

A statement is rational, only if, the individual uttering the statement knows

the conditions under which the statement is true. The conditions under which

the statement is true must be related to the phenomenal world (the external

world of activity.) Further, knowledge of the criteria for establishing truth of

a statement implies knowledge of the procedure leading to the determination of

truth. Moreover, the procedure for verification is an inherent property of a

rational statement.

 

Criticism Form A Vedantic Perspective:

 

The fundamental axiom of the phenomenal world is that you have accept something

to establish something. Given this, it follows directly that no theory can

claim to be totally devoid totally of belief. Failing to digest this most

elementary truism, the logical positivists undertook a futile attempt, expending

an enormous amount of time and energy, to establish the supremacy of a

pragmatic/materialistic conception of reality and effect the outright dismissal

of metaphysics on a rational basis.

 

According to the logical positivist all that is real exists within the

phenomenal world; the world comprehended by the sense organs. This is

equivalent to saying verbal testimony has no meaning unless it refers to the

world perceived by the senses. The statement *verbal testimony has no meaning

unless it refers to the world perceived by the senses*

is an untenable premise. Sense organs are limited to the world of matter,

energy, and properties of matter and energy (within their realm.) There are

many existents in the phenomenal world that cannot be classified as matter,

energy, or properties of matter and energy. If one does not accept verbal

testimony as a valid, independent, means of acquiring knowledge, then he or she

will have to deny the existence of these reals.

 

The notion of truth is essential to formulate any theory, including the logical

positivist theory. Truth cannot be classified as matter, energy or properties

of energy or matter; thus, the notion of truth does not exist as far as the

logical positivist is concerned. However, the logical positivist requires the

notion of truth to formulate his or her theory. How ironic the logical

positivist denies the existence of the notion of truth, but uses it to formulate

his theory! This is synonymous to how the nihilistic Buddhist claims that

nothing exists, but uses something to prove that nothing exists.

 

Note: Post 2 of 2, tomorrow.

 

ramanuja dasan,

Venkat