Mistaken conception of philosophy as 'theoretical'

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael,

 

Thank you for the clarification (in message #34060, Nov 23) that

your use of the term 'metaphysics' is 'the standard one of

philosophy,... [which] in general ... would encompass theories of

fundamental structure which underpins our world.'

 

Yes, this does help. I'm the odd one out here; because I don't go

along with a conception of philosophy which has indeed become a

pretty well accepted standard, in modern universities and academic

institutions. To me, this academically standard conception is

problematic. It has developed in the West, from a problematic

conception of the West's own philosophical tradition.

 

The problem is that modern academics have come to think of

philosophy as an essentially theoretical subject, which falls under

their academic jurisdiction. To me, this is a sad mistake. I take

philosophy to be a living practice of reflective enquiry, which goes

essentially beyond all theories and all academic jurisdiction.

 

I'd say that academics cannot be any more than theoretical

reporters. They cannot do any more than give a merely theoretical

and therefore limited account of some ideas that are used in

philosophy. The actual practice of philosophy is taught and learned

by living individuals, who each reflect profoundly back into their

living individuality, completely beyond the reach of theoretical

ideas and thus beyond the jurisdiction of any academic institution.

 

In short, philosophy cannot be bound by any academic standards. Nor

can it be taught or learned or practised theoretically, in any

academic context. From this perspective, 'metaphysics' cannot

rightly be described as an academic subject that 'in general ...

would encompass theories of fundamental structure which underpins

our world' (as you so neatly put it).

 

So, for a better understanding of this term 'metaphysics', I would

go back to its older and original usage, as a study that reflects

into principles of being which are found to underlie the phenomena

of nature. In this older usage, these underlying principles are not

just theoretically assumed, for the purposes of building any

theories that describe any surface or deep structures in the world.

Instead, the underlying principles have to be found and realized, by

the actual practice of reflective enquiry. It's only then that

philosophy is actually alive -- as an enquiry that clarifies a

living understanding, which is then naturally expressed through

clearer feelings, thoughts and actions in personality and world.

 

In Sanskrit, the underlying principles of being are called 'tattvas'

(literally 'that-nesses'). And the metaphysical aspect of philosophy

is thus described by the term 'tattva-shastra' (literally, the

'science of that-ness or underlying principle').

 

I find it useful here to note that 'tattva-shastra' is a perfectly

general and neutral term for philosophy, which is specifically

associated with the jnyana marga (the way of knowing) and hence with

epistemology. Metaphysics and epistemology are thus taken

together -- not as opposing compartments, but as complementary

approaches in the one same subject of philosophy. In the same way

that being (sat) and knowing (cit) are taken to be complementing

aspects of a single truth.

 

Essentially the same complementarity is found in the European

tradition -- beneath the currently entrenched academic reduction of

philosophy to a theoretical subject that is described and taught by

mere scholars, in schools and universities. I find it sad to see so

many Indian institutions and individuals giving in to this degraded

understanding of an enquiry that must essentially reflect beyond all

instituted jurisdiction in the world.

 

But this is only one view, which I personally favour. It is of

course only natural that such views will somewhat differ between us,

as different persons. Thank you for helping to clarify the

differences.

 

Ananda