Visit: https://financeclub.viden.io
Aristotle
The main question that is asked in this book is how to achieve happiness. Epictetus says that happiness requires freedom. He explains the difference between things that don’t depend on us, such as fame and power, as compared to things that do depend on us, such as our judgment. He says that if u want to be free, then we should only focus on things that depend on us and not pay any attention to the things that don’t depend on us.Epictetus claims that we misjudge death to be terrible. He says that we should change our perception about death and view it as something positive. He also talks about the body and says that the disease is bad for the body and lameness is an impediment for the legs but both, not the will, if it wants to.He also claims that we can be invisible, provided that we do not get into any fights as it does not depend on you to be victorious. He also tells us not to laugh much and to do so without restraint as this could lead us to vulgarity. He explains that there are 3 parts of philosophy- first is that we should not lie. Second is the question, ‘where does it must not lie.’ The third one is the question, ‘where does it demonstrate? What is a demonstration, a consequence, an objection which is true, or the false.’
Kartik Mathur
Aristotle
There are 3 bad states of character- vice, incontinence, and bestiality. The opposite of these is a virtue, continence, and superhuman virtue. There is a lot of inconsistency that surrounds the views of incontinence such as what sort of correct supposition someone has when he acts incontinently?Aristotle gives us four solutions. Firstly, he suggests that if a person has any knowledge of doing wrong but does not reflect on it, then he does wrong without thinking about it. Secondly, a person might reach a false conclusion while using syllogism because of ignorance of facts. Thirdly, a person who is not in his right state of mind might not be able to think clearly. Fourthly, if a person has a desire for something, that may influence him to act hastily and without reasoning.Licentiousness and incontinence are closely connected. The difference between licentiousness person and an incontinent person is that a licentiousness person acts out of choice but on the other hand, an incontinent person lacks self- restraint. As a licentiousness person acts on desire and choice, that person can be reasoned with, therefore they are more reasonable than incontinent people. A licentiousness person is wicked, while an incontinent person performs wicked actions without being willfully wicked.
Creation myths
Creation myths are those myths that explain how the world came to be as it is and how it all started. The Rig Veda in particular, does not offer a single theory of creation but many theories. The Rig Veda deals with cosmogony and anthropogony of Hinduism.There is a traditionalist view that creation is the process of developing order out of chaos. There is an example given in the Rig Veda which says that the primeval man is changed into many life forms which is not an actual creation out of nothing, but rather a re-arrangement.There are also many other views that state that for the creation of something new- something must perish. There is a prime example in the Rig Veda which states that the man (purusha) has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes and a thousand feet. It also states that all creatures make only a quarter of him. It has also been written how the social norms were formed as it is specified that,:” His mouth was the Brahman, his arms were made into the nobles, his two thighs were the populace, and from his feet the servants were born”.(page 28, Hindu Myths, Wendy Doniger). Through this we know how the Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudra’s were created respectively according to the Rig Veda. It is also interesting that whenever something gets created, incest is almost always involved. We can see this in the Rig Veda in which the universe was formed from the seed of the father when he was satisfying his desires for his daughter.There are also a lot of creation myths of the western society. If we do the comparison between the creation myths in the Rig Veda and the myth of Adonis more specifically, we can see that they share some similarities but also have some differences. Both these myth have incest in them, but the difference is that in the myths of the Rig Veda, the father has sexual desires for the daughter and in Adonis, it is the opposite as it is the daughter who has sexual feelings for her father. In the Ovid version of Adonis, even after his death, Venus mourned his death and she sprinkled nectar on his Adonis’s blood and thus sprouted the flower anemone. So even though Adonis has multiple versions, there is still the creation of something new.In a religious sense creation myths deals with theology and it also helps us to find answers to questions such as- how and when did we come into existence? All religions have their own creation myths such as Christians have their old testament and the myth of Adam and Eve and Hindu’s have their Rig Veda etc. A lot of creation myths deal with theology in the formation of the universe. They also put our imagination to the test as we see the absurd ways in which they have described the creation of the universe.In a literary sense creation myths helps us to compare them with myths of the western society so that we can find the difference in texts. They also help us date when the texts were first written. Also since ancient times myths were verbally passed down from generation to generation and thus over the years the myths would be told and retold and could be changed. This also helps us to find multiple versions of the myth that has been retold over the years.
AN UNJUST LIFE IS BETTER THAN A JUST ONE
The ‘Republic’ is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato around 380 BCE (19 years after Socrates was executed). It is a philosophical treatise on ethics, morality and political theory amongst other timeless questions which have significance and influence in every age and society. In Books I and II, Socrates discusses the meaning of justice during a lively and heated argument with Thrasymachus, Glaucon, Adeimantus and others. One of the points raised is whether to live an unjust life is better than to live a just one. Prima facie, the answer to this seems obvious. However, I am going to place this in the context of today’s world and argue in favour of living an unjust life. Theoretically living a just life is better, ethically and morally. However, that may be true only in an ideal society as envisaged by Socrates, the great thinker. We live in modern times, and one has to adapt and modify ancient philosophical teachings accordingly. In order to be successful, one cannot afford to be bound by rigid walls of what is just and unjust. It will be my attempt to show that in the context of the modern world it is better to lead an unjust life than a just one. I will examine the material and moral implications of this point of view and also address the objections some of my readers may raise against my argument. Early in Book I, we have Thrasymachus make two statements –“I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.” (Book I Page 14, 338c), and that it is “……the advantage of the established rule”. (Book I page 15, 339a). History is witness that this is true. Through the ages, kings and emperors have acquired land, wealth and power through unjust means. But once attained, albeit unjustly, these riches and power have been used for making lives of the multitudes better. In India, for example, Akbar the Great waged wars and subjugated neighbouring kingdoms. The immense wealth and power he acquired was used not only to maintain an opulent Court, but also to build enduring architectural marvelslike Agra Fort and Fatehpur Sikri. He also extended patronage to art and culture and to the “Nine Jewels” of his Court. Various reforms in judiciary and revenue collection for ‘just’ administration and the welfare of his subjects were put into place. Another example is of the British who got a foothold in India through the unjust trading practices of the East India Company. The British may have used unjust means to colonise India, but they then used their superior knowledge and resources to bring about improvements in transportation, communication and education systems. Besides construction of impressive buildings like India Gate, Parliament House and RashtrapatiBhawan, to name a few, reformatory laws for women for abolishingSati and child marriage were also passed during this time. The cut-throat competitive world of business is the best illustration of Glaucon’s statement that the Unjust who appears Just “gets the better of his antagonists, and gains at their expense, and is rich, and out of his gains he can benefit his friends….”. (Book II 50-51,362)Multi-million dollar corporate houses routinely decimate their smaller competitors in unjust hostile takeovers. Their increased revenues not only earn their Board of Directors handsome profits but the smallest share-holder too receives increased returns. Their thousands or lakhs of employees also benefit from infrastructures like housing colonies, schools and hospitals built specially for their use. Many corporates funds charities, adopt villages and perform other CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) activities. So, their use of harsh/unjust means to build their profits leads to a better life for so many people. Socrates may say “injustice is never more profitable than justice.” (Book I Page 31 354a)But in the recent past, in India itself, we have live examples of men who, when they perceived themselves to be in a situation whereby they can profit and lead a good life, have chosen unjust measures to ensure that profit. Such men do not even care for the ‘appearance of being just’. Take examples of Vijay Malaya, Lalit Modi, Nirav Modi and many others – they are all unjust men, having fled the country after duping the banks and taking the hard-earned savings of thousands of Indians. Before fleeing they all accumulated wealth and transferred it to foreign bank accounts. Did they feel any remorse for looting the hardworking people of their country? No. Are they happy and enjoying their wealth secured by unjust means? Yes. For philosophical argument’s sake,Socrates’ discourses about justice and just life being more virtuous and good are fine and correct, but in today’s life a just man will only talk virtuously, remain a pauper, discontent and subjugated, whilst an unjust man, even though knowingly leading an unjust life, will be enjoying a full and content life. In today’s world, it is seen that an unjust man leading an unjust life becomes adept at concealing his injustice under the guise of justice – and the rewards are great – he can enjoy the fruits of his unjust life as well as enjoy the reputation of being a just man. Thus, a man leading an unjust life profits both from the injustice and the “appearance” of justice. Even though this person knows that he is unjust, he is happily unjust because he is enjoying this life to the fullest. There is no doubt in my mind that the example of “Ring of Gyges”, given by Glaucon to Socrates to establish his point, is very true in our lives – an unjust man will behave unjustly, whilst a just man, having been given the opportunity to become invisible and do whatever he wants, will behave unjustly. Even though Socrates argues that justice is a virtue, whatever the circumstances, Glaucon, very correctly, brings out, quoting the example of the shepherd in the story, that it is more rewarding for the unjust man, reaping the benefits of injustice, to “appear” to be just, thereby incurring the honours and reputations consequent upon the “appearance” of justice.This is what Glaucon means when he says of the perfectly unjust man, “…...he must be one who can speak with effect; if any of his deeds come to light, and who can force his way where force is required by his courage and strength, and command of money and friends.” (Book II Page 49 361). Most of our country’s politicians too seem to follow Adeimantus when he says, “No one has ever blamed injustice or praised justice except for the view to the glories, honours, and benefits which flows from them.” (Book II page 56 366). With unjust and corrupt means, they ferret government money into their personal pockets and spend a little of that on charity or on vote-giving public to show that they are very ‘just’ and they and their followers continue to enjoy the good life of their high office. All the above instances amply demonstrate my support of the argument that it is better to live an unjust life than a just one as it leads one to gain materially and enjoy both worldly comforts and an elevated social standing. One can then help not only one’s friends and family but also contribute towards alleviating the problems of those less fortunate. One has to be honest and face the unpalatable truth as stated by Thrasymachus, “a just man always gets less than an unjust one.” (Book I page 19 343d). Here I would like to bring out the fate of some of the “just people” of our country in recent times – the seekers of truth, RTI activists, renowned writers and rationalists like Gauri Lankesh, MM Kalburgi, Govind Pansare, Narendra Dabholkar – to name a few. All were killed. Did they or their loved ones gain anything from their living a Just life? Some of my readers may be upset by my apparently cynical and materialistic views. “It is morally and ethically wrong to be unjust”. “Our religion forbids us from being unjust,” they may say. They may quote Socrates too, when he says “…...justice is a soul’s virtue, and injustice it’s vice.” (Book I page 31 353e). However, I feel one has to keep things in perspective. I am a part of Gen Y, eager to conquer the world on the basis of my own capabilities and enthusiasm. I believe this is one short life we have to live and we must make the most of what we have been given. So, my way of thinking may perhaps be a bit scandalous but it is honest. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that in today’s world one cannot afford to forgo life’s opportunities. There is no point living a just life and being miserable. It is better to live an unjust life if it is the means to reach, nay, surpass one’s potential to do well for oneself and others. This, I feel, is the realistic and practical way to move forward.
BOMBAY STORIES – BY SAADAT HASAN MANTO
In the book Bombay Stories SaadatHasanManto has given a very clear description of the daily life of those living in the rural slums of Mumbai during the 1930’s and the 1940’s. He vividly describes his memories and experiences and incorporates them into stories ranging from those of alcoholic delirium to the daily activities of a young prostitute.The poverty at the time is evident as nearly all the women in the novel have been portrayed as prostitutes who also have pimps. Manto plays with our expectations many times,for example- when a young prostitute of 15 years who goes by the name Sarita returns the money she was offered for her ‘job’. In “Ten Rupees' , Sarita unexpectedly returns to the men the 10 rupees that they paid for her services as they didn’t do anything to her and when asked why ,she simply replies, : “ why should I take it ?”.( page 25, Bombay Stories , SaadatHasanManto).One of the most interesting characters in the novel is Manto himself, who appears in some stories as himself. He also brings some bitter humour about what people go through. Often,he is also unorthodox with the endings of his stories. We can see this in many cases such as in “ Ten Rupees” when Sarita unexpectedly returns the money or as in “Barren” when Naim confesses that he had made up the story about himself and Zahra, but amazingly felt that he had still lost her and because of that he commited suicide. It is also fascinating that Manto is not interested in writing stories about the elite and the rich class of Mumbai but focuses instead on the pimps and prostitutes of the lowly slums of Mumbai. Another interesting aspect of this book is that all the stories in the book are written in first person.That brings a sense of immediacy to the narrative. Manto may not be the biggest admirer of women ( regarding the fact how he has portrayed them in Bombay Stories), but he has in a way correctly portrayed how Mumbai was in the 1940’s amidst the chaotic times of independence and partition. He discussesissues regarding many problems such as depression , poverty, satire and moral decay. This helps us get a better view of one of the most violent , turbulent and brutal chapters of Indian history. He also on multiple occasions portrays men as stifling figures, most notably in the story “Insult”, in which Madho was a man who takes advantage of Saugandhias he keeps asking for money and also keeps making false promises. The story “ Insult” is also one of the few stories in which the female character has her own voice and her own opinions and she stands up for herself.This novel with its controversial and radical stories is, unsurprisingly, not short of critics with a few stating that Mumbai had been falsely portrayed as a dangerous place full of ‘gangsters’ and ‘brothels’. In the end it all comes down to the creativity of Manto and how he has depicted pre- independence Bombay. One of his most wonderful quotes is “If you find my stories dirty, the society you are living in is dirty. With my stories, I only expose the truth.”It would also be an understatement to say that Manto was one of the best short story writers in Indian
girls
I feel that the conversation taking place is between a mother and her daughter. I assume this because the mother is telling her daughter how to iron her fathers khaki shirt and khaki pants. The mother acts as a authoritarian figure as he keeps telling her daughter how she likes things to be done . It could be said that the mother could be giving advice to her daughter that she would need in her life . The mother is also protective of her daughter as she tells her not to speak to wharf – rat boys and she also tells her the proper way to dress so she doesn’t look like a slut. The mother in this narrative could also be a step mother as in many stories, step mothers are almost always portrayed as an authoritarian figure and don’t really like their step children. It could also be possible that the mother could have been preparing her daughter with the notion that she will be a housewife in the future and not a working woman. She keep explaining to her daughter on how to do basic household chores such as sweeping the whole house , cooking pumpkin fritters and washing and drying cloths rather than giving her advice on what she could do with her life in the future. The mother wants to make sure that she makes a good impression on others as she explains to her how to smile in front of someone you like completely , how t smile in front of someone you don’t like very much and how to smile in front of someone you don’t like at all. The mother Is also preparing her daughter for the hard ships she herself could have gone through such as heartbreak and also in case of unwanted pregnancies ,how to abort a child. The daughter very rarely gets a say in matters concerning her own life. The information that the mother is giving her is not for that day but for the rest of her life. The assumption that the daughter would be frustrated is an under statement as the mother is very commanding . The mother also wants her daughter not concentrate on her studies and she tells her not to sing benna in Sunday school. The information that the mother is giving are less advice and more like guidelines on how to
From state feminism to market feminism
Johanna Kowtola from the University of Helsinki and Judith Squires from the University of Bristol are the leading researchers in the world today on Gender Studies and Feminism. The initial impression on reading this article is that it is full of citations and references and the two authors' contribution is little. And for the non- initiates in the realm of feminism, this piece goes over one's head!However, on overcoming the complexity of the article, it is interesting how the authors have analyzed and discussed the concepts of State Feminism vis-a-vis the emerging Market Feminism. The feminist NGOs and the women's policy agencies which used to turn to the State for funding and governance of gender equality are now turning to the market to pursue their goals.The terms like 'Femocrat', 'Gender experts', 'Neo-liberalism', 'Neol-iberal feminism', are abundant in this article and represent examples of this dominant ideology, called Market Feminism. The article brings out the transformation challenges and problems faced nowadays by the traditional societal practices and policies of State in promoting gender equality, advancement of women, women's movements, feminist activism and institutionalizing women's policies and agendas.Thus, to overcome these trials and tribulations of the State, the 'Femocrats' started looking to the civil society for offloading these policy responsibility of 'neo-liberalism' and the new changing form of governance - "encourage feminist NGOs and gender experts to deploy economic rather than political discourses to frame their gender analysis"(page 388).The authors also clearly bring out that they "do not intend to suggest that the State and the Market are distinct; clearly, these are not separate realms - Market relations are shaped by State activity and non-activity and vice versa"(Page 389).Market feminism besides being a successful alliance between women agencies and activism with the State, also "entails specific strategies, funding and discourses that rely on market ideas and practices" (page 390), and "promote gender equality by turning to the channels and mechanisms offered by the market ."(Page 390)The authors have finally drawn upon examples from three different regions of the world, viz, Australia and New Zealand, Chile and the EU, to give illustrative instances of the emergence of the shift from state to market feminism.
PHILOSOPHY AS A WAY OF LIFE
The husband in the Havell's ad is of a parochial mindset, accustomed to being pampered and attended to, by wife and mother. The wife, too, seems quite used to this and is happy to stand and serve a meal to her husband, sitting only after she has done so. She takes umbrage only when she is compared unfavourably with her mother-in-law. The husband is taken aback when she becomes assertive. "25 types of chatni, banao"and "chatni......patni". He is flabbergasted with, for him, the unthinkable, that if he wants to eat something, he can prepare it for himself. The advertisement tries to show us, and succeeds to an extent, that housework is not a woman's job alone. The advertisement's tagline, "Respect Women", though well-intentioned, does not quite hit the mark. The second advertisement does a far better job of breaking gender stereotypes. A woman is shown seated confidently with her male colleagues in a boardroom. The male speaker addresses both her and the woman over the intercom politely and respectfully. The other two male colleagues are intrigued by "Rajat ki recommendation" of "Kiran" who is automatically assumed to be feminine, and the visuals accentuate this impression. The qualities of being hardworking, personable, eager to learn and willing to put in long hours would all have been commendable in a man, but their sneering and knowing expressions convey that these very attributes are feminine wiles to flirt and charm her way to a promotion. When "Kiran" is about to enter, one of the men sits up and straightens his tie, no doubt to make a favourable impression on the young woman he expects "Kiran" to be. When they realise that "Kiran' is a man, the change of expression from curiosity to embarrassment is very telling. The tagline " Change the way you look at a woman's success. She is unstoppable now", is effective and gets a thumbs up for being a successful advocate for gender equality in the workplace. The third advertisement starts on a promising note, with the daughter being a busy working professional. She has learnt responsibility and a good work culture from her mother, " tum hi se to seekha hai". But the archetypal mother is the selfless caregiver, juggling career and housework and worrying about her child's nutrition. She is indulgent but does not take her daughter's job responsibilities too seriously, " company ka sara bojh to tumhare kandhon par hi hai.". Why cannot a man be shown packing a tiffin for his wife and daughter as they dash off to work? Why can't the two women unabashedly drink milk or eat almonds for their own health, for themselves? Why is the mother so self-effacing? Why can't a woman find a little time for herself?. The tagline, "Amul raises a glass to woman power" is thus only partially effective. In conclusion, I feel that all three advertisements do try to shake us out of our preconceived notions about the role of each gender in society, but they still have a long way to go before they portray gender equality.
Is memory important in continuation of self? Refer to any of the theories that you have learned so far.
The movie 'Memento' explores the connection between memory and one's self-identity. The movie gets its name from tattoos and Polaroid photos. When the main protagonist, Leonard Shelby suffers a head injury during an assault, he loses the ability to form new memories and uses these two mementos to remember the present.The deliberate back - and - forth in time scenes, alternatively in color and black-and-white, confuse the audience as much as Leonard is confused as the continuity of his memories is lost. In the above attack, Leonard's wife is presumably killed, and the movie is all about his past identity (before the attack), and his present identity (after the attack) in which his aim is to find his wife's killer and take revenge by killing him despite suffering from brain damage that precludes him from forming new memories.Leonard very aptly describes his condition to a motel attendant, "I have this condition; it is my memory; I have no short-term memory.I know who I am, I know all about myself.It is just, since my injury, I can't make new memories-every thing fades."One can feel Leonard's frustration and helpless rage as he tries to cope with his condition. This makes us ponder deeply on how important continuity of memory is in making us who we are and forming our identity. John Locke (1632-1704), also propounds the same theory that consciousness is key to self and continuity of consciousness plays an important role in the identity of a person. As per Locke, I am the same person as I was 10 years back as I have memories of what I did when I was 8 years old. Similarly, after waking from a night's sleep, I am the same person in the morning because I have a conscious memory of myself before I had gone to sleep the night before. Thus, I am morally responsible for my past actions.On the contrary, Leonard has a short-term memory and has to store every new memory as mementos. He does not remember what he did a few minutes ago. Teddy says to him,"You don't even know who you are. "Leonard's past memory is till the attack in which his wife was killed, and that is why vengeance is so important to him. But if Leonard's existing memories of his life up until the injury are removed, then, who-is-Leonard?Thus, in John Locke's view, the 'present memory' Leonard is not responsible for the killings that he does in the movie, as he would not have been the same person as the actual 'past memory' Leonard. He does not have any conscious memory of the murders he commits. There is no conscious continuity in his mind.Continuity of memory makes up our 'self' or 'who we are.' However, sometimes our consciousness or memories deceive us; or maybe sometimes we deceive ourselves by choosing to forget or manipulate our memories of the past. I do remember many things from when I was 8, and I also do not remember so many incidents of that time that my parents relate to me. Thus I cannot be held responsible for many of those actions, even though I am the same person as that child of 8. In the movie, at the end, Teddy tells Leonard the 'truth' about the attack on him and his wife's'death. But is that what actually happened? Memento is thus a very complex and intriguing film but it does vindicate Locke's theory that one's consciousness is one's identity. If the memory of the act is not there, then that person is not responsible for the act. Without continuity of memory, one's self-identity cannot be maintained.
Answer the question by referring to any one of the theories of mind, body, soul and consciousness you have learnt so far.
Hinduism speaks of the cycle of “birth and rebirth”. It says one’s “Karma” in this life determines one’s future births until the soul,”Atman”, escapes to attain “Moksh”. Similarly Plato says that the soul of those who indulge in vices like ‘gluttony, wantonness, and drunkenness” (Page 39), “And those who have chosen a life of injustice, tyranny, and violence” (Page 40) will be reborn as animals as diverse as asses, wolves, hawks and kites. John Locke says, “The same immaterial substance, without the same consciousness, does not make the same person” (Page 14), which I interpret to mean that if a man’s soul has no consciousness of being the same “person” as when he committed a particular action, then he cannot be held accountable for that action. I, honestly, find these thoughts extremely fanciful. I cannot fathom how one can be punished for what others think one may have done in the previous birth. I feel we have just this one life in which to act and face the consequences of our actions. One cannot mourn and despair over the troubles and miseries of this life and put the blame on the mistakes one may have made in the previous birth. One cannot feel guilty about wrongs one may have committed in a previous life that one cannot even recollect! Why should one be punished by suffering in this life for the so-called past life’s offences?
Analyzing the approach taken by Anaximenes in his philosophical doctrine in relation to science
The Milesian school of philosophy developed during the Pre-Socratic period. The importance of this school and its doctrines are relevant in the fact that they were trying to formulate theories on the origin of the universe. The major philosophical doctrines that emerged from this school has been credited to mainly three philosophers- Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes. The focal point of this essay will be to analyze the scientific approach taken by Anaximenes in his philosophical doctrine. Anaximenes shares the basic foundation of his theory with Thales. Both these philosophers believed in one unifying element that is the building block of the entire universe. For Anaximenes, this material substance was air. Although Anaximenes uses a primitive element, just as Thales did with water, what could classify as scientific in his theory is his methodology. In order to explain how concrete objects are formed from the primitive element, he introduces the notion of condensation and rarefaction. ( Copleston 1983, p.26) Anaximenes used the density of the air to explore the ways in which the universe is comprised of air. He explained how the condensation of air results in the air getting colder, resulting in the formation of solids such as stones, rocks and eventually the Earth. His theory of rarefaction revolves around the assumption that during the process, the air becomes warmer, eventually culminating in fire. These concepts of condensation and rarefaction are now used actively in science. Another key element in his doctrine is his attempt to establish the relationship between quality and quantity with reference to air. The important point in his doctrine, however, may be said to be his attempt to found all quality on quantity—for that is what his theory of condensation and rarefaction amounts to in modern terminology. (Copleston 1993, pp. 26-27) Anaximenes also bases his theory of air being the unifying element, by empirical observation- “We are told that Anaximenes pointed out that when we breathe with the mouth open, the air is warm; while when we breathe with the mouth shut, the air is cold—an experimental proof of his position”( Copleston 1993, p.27) Through the above quotation, a conclusion can be made on how Anaximenes has taken a different approach with respect to other philosophers of his time. Most philosophers, including Thales, made fallacious theories based on little or no evidence. There were also no proper experiments done at the time by philosophers to give their theories a proper backing. In comparison to said philosophers, Anaximenes used experiments to back up his theory or a claim made by him. Disregarding the simplicity of his experiments, we can identify a certain paradigm-shift from philosophical theories with no pragmatic evidence to philosophical theories with empirical backing. Thales and Anaximenes share similar foundations in their respective theories, along with other aspects in common. However, there is one major area where these two philosophers share different views. That area is the inclusion of divinity in their theories. Thales chose to drift away from the relationship between anthropomorphic gods and natural processes. On the other hand, Anaximenes chooses to include gods and everything divine as something originating from the air itself. According to Copleston:- “Air then is the Urstoff of the world, from which the things that are and have been and shall be, the gods and things divine, arose, while other things come from its offspring." (Copleston 1993, p.26) Another interpretation of this can be that Anaximenes considered air itself to be a god. A reason for this being as he considered air to be both eternal and infinite, qualities that are often associated with a god. He also makes the statement- "Just as our soul, being air, holds us together, so do breath and air encompass the whole world.” ( Copleston 1993, p. 26) The above quotation is another example of how Anaximenes considers air like a god. He refers to the soul, as a product of air. The relation he makes between the function of the soul and the air that surrounds the earth shares the similarity of the air holding us together. Thus an interpretation can be made on how he is considering air as a substance that regulates all life on earth, a similar function to that of a god. Anaximenes also attempts to explain natural phenomenon through a rational hypothesis. Taking the same views as in Thales, even Anaximenes understands the Earth to be a flat disk. For him, the earth drifts or floats on air like a leaf. Considering the period of time he lived in, and the fact that scientific discoveries were looked down upon, the assumption of the earth as a flat disk was a controversial claim- “In the words of Professor Burnet, "Ionia was never able to accept the scientific view of the earth, and even Democritus continued to believe it was flat.”( Copleston 1993, p.27) Anaximenes also attempts to explain another natural phenomenon. In the instance of a rainbow, he concludes that it is the sun’s rays that are falling on an impenetrable cloud. His account on how hail is frozen rainwater was also later scientifically proven to be true. As a conclusion, we can make the assumption that Anaximenes was using a quasi-scientific approach in his philosophical doctrine. What set him apart from Thales was how even though he used a scientific approach, he did not completely abandon the notions of myth and divinity and instead included them in his doctrine. His concepts of condensation and rarefaction exemplify the different atomic densities of air, which would make him one of the very first philosophers to engage in and analyze different densities in substances. His doctrine, which can be considered as a material monistic doctrine, paved the way for the fusion of science and philosophy. REFERENCES- Copleston, Frederick. 1993. A History of Philosophy. Double Day: New York
Is the writing of history necessarily political?
In the words of Sir John Seeley, a 19th century British historian: 'History is past politics; and politics, present history'. History, at its barest essential, is a compilation of facts – a record of important people, decisions, wars and events which have moulded and influenced society over time. Any historian worth his salt cannot just enumerate such facts blandly. As E.H. Carr says -“History means interpretation”. A historian looks back in time and examines past events in light of his knowledge of the present. He shifts through archaeological evidence, written and oral records and then selects material he considers relevant and weaves them into a narrative that his readers can appreciate. During this process, he cannot but be influenced by the present environment and the social milieu he is a part of. Again, in the words of Carr, “we can view the past, and achieve our understanding of the past, only through the eyes of the present…..the very words he uses – words like democracy, empire, war, revolution – have current connotations…..” (Carr 1961, p.13). Politics is one factor that is an intrinsic part of every social environment. The influence of politics is prevalent throughout different time periods and nations. The views of the leaders of the State, the policies they formulate, the agitations they initiate, the institutions they create for governance – all shape and influence the character and course of a nation. However much a historian may try, he cannot but be a conduit through which these major influences of the past are conveyed to the present reader. It is not possible for a historian to write about past events in a vacuum; he must necessarily build the backdrop against which such events occur, as well as provide a character study of the chief players of the plot. Unless this is done, he will lose grip on the narrative flow of his tale as well as the attention of his reader. Since political leaders and their influence dominate the making of historically relevant events, historical writing per force has to give due importance to politics in its narrative. At the most, different historians from different schools of historiography may present a particular point of view but their narrative has to have its basis in the political events of the period they are writing about. For instance, different historians have diametrically differing views while writing on India’s history, especially the National Movement for Freedom. While the major milestones of the freedom struggle as they unfolded are common knowledge, but they have been given dramatically different interpretations depending on the political affiliations of the historians concerned. When we look at older historical writing in India, treatises like Rajtarangani and Akbarnama, for instance, extolled the virtues and magnanimity of the emperors concerned, primarily because their writers enjoyed royal patronage and were obligated to present a positive and laudatory picture of the time. During modern times as well, we have historians with loyalties towards the British, justifying colonialism and the British rule in India. MrityunjayaVidyalankar, a Brahman scholar in the employment of the East India Company in Calcutta in the early 19th century, wrote of history as that of gods and kings where dynasties were founded by divine grace and kingdoms retained so long as the ruler was true to dharma. His position was that of the 'praja', the ordinary subject. His 'Rajabali' was written in 1808 in Bengali for the instruction of company officials in the history of India. Utilitarians like James Mill believed in enlightened despotism to uplift backward Indian society. His 'History of British India' published in 1828 divided ancient and medieval periods of Indian history into Hindu and Muslim and modern as British. The same periodization was followed by other British historians as well. The idea of centuries of despotic rule of maharajas and sultans with absolute power and an autocratic bureaucracy ruling over ignorant and stagnant masses was propagated. Historians of the Imperialistic school of historiography justified colonialism. "The outline of the present situation in India is that we have been disseminating ideas of abstract political right, and the germs of representative institutions, among a people that had for centuries been governed autocratically, and in a country where local liberties and habits of self-government had been long obliterated or had never existed"(Chirol 1910, p.viii). Cambridge historians like Anil Seal, John Broomfield and Gordon Johnson gave new interpretations to colonial rule. According to them, political organisation was based along caste and religious lines. The national movement was an elitist movement where one group fought against another to find favour with the British. They felt the national leaders were power hungry and motivated by their own selfish interests. Like the Imperialists, they tried to justify colonial rule. There were also 'administrative historians' like V.A. Smith and Macaulay who based their writing mainly on official reports and documents and so presented a one-sided view of history. "Nationalist sentiments grew easily among the people because India was unified and welded into a nation during the 19th and 20th centuries. "(Bipan Chandra, 'History of Modern India', p. 202). Nationalist writing in India started as a reaction to the above grossly distorted depiction by British historians. "It is, needless to say, a primary sign of the nationalist consciousness that it will not find its own voice in histories written by foreign rulers and that it will set out to write for itself the account of its own past."(Partha Chatterjee, page 77). Only after Western education during British rule, did such historical writing start when newly educated Indians studied colonial writings and countered with their own version of events. "It was, in fact, in the course of writing the history of British rule in India that English educated Bengalis abandoned the criteria of divine intervention, religious value, and the norms of right conduct in judging the rise and fall of kingdoms."( Partha Chatterjee, page 90). Recent history of Bengal, especially after the revolt of 1857 and the atrocities committed, demonstrated that acts of immorality could also win kingdoms. "History was no longer the play of divine will or the fight of right against wrong; it had become merely the struggle for power."(Partha Chatterjee, page 96 ) Many text book authors in Bengal, like Mrityunjay earlier mentioned, considered themselves as ordinary subjects. But later educated middle class Bengali writers learnt to play the role of mediator between the elite rulers and their subjects. As Partha Chatterjee puts it, they "had acquired a consciousness in which they were already exercising the art of politics and stagecraft."(Partha Chatterjee, page 92) Nationalist writers like J.N.Sarkar, Lala Lajpath Rai, C.F.Andrews and H.C. Roychoudhary tried to promote political integration and arouse patriotism. This kind of writing inspired national pride and became part of and strengthened the national movement. During the Swadeshi movement, patriotic journalism, prose and poetry reached a high. Patriotic songs written by Rabindra Nath Tagore and Rajani Kant Sen have become historical icons and are sung even today. These writings have also influenced historians while writing about that period. Bipan Chandra points out that on the one hand, "British officials and writers of the time constantly advanced the thesis that Indians had never been able to rule themselves in the past, that Hindus and Muslims had always fought one another, that Indians were destined to be ruled by foreigners, that their religion and social life were degraded and uncivilised making them unfit for democracy or even self-government. Many of the nationalist leaders tried to arouse the self-confidence and self-respect of the people by countering this propaganda" ( Bipan Chandra, page 204-205) Thus they pointed to the cultural heritage of India with pride and referred to the political achievements of rulers like Ashoka, Chandragupta Vikramaditya and Akbar. Some, on the other hand, went the other extreme and by glorifying ancient India and ignoring the achievements of the medieval period, encouraged communal disharmony between Hindus and Muslims- "The struggle between Pratap and Akbar, or Shivaji and Aurangzeb had to be viewed as a political struggle in its particular historical setting. To declare Akbar or Aurangzeb a 'foreigner' and Pratap or Shivaji a 'national' hero was to project into past history the communal outlook of 20th century India. This was not only bad history; it was also a blow to national unity."(Bipan Chandra, page 265) It is also important to note that historians made use of press publications, records of meetings of provincial and local associations, Indian National Congress conferences and nationalist newspapers as source material. One such example would be of ‘Kesari' newspaper which Tilak started to edit from 1839 and preached nationalism in its columns. Use of all this source material also caused a political slant to enter the historians' writing. Marxist writers like M.N.Roy in 'India in Transition'(published 1922) and R. Palme Dutt in 'India Today' (published 1940) focused more on the economic exploitation by the British and put more emphasis on social and economic organisations and their effect on historical events. Some like Jyotibhai Phule postulated that Sanskrit speaking Brahmans descended from the alien Aryans while the indigenous people were considered lower caste. He demarcated between the dominant upper caste and oppressed lower caste and used caste confrontation to justify political movements. In the 1960s, historians like Sumit Sarkar, E.P.Thompson and Partha Chatterjee wrote history from the point of view of the subjugated, the poor, workers and women. Ranajit Guha, in 'Subaltern Studies 1' states, "The historiography of Indian nationalism has for a long time been dominated by elitism-colonial elitism and bourgeois-nationalist elitism."(Guha, page 1)"What is clearly left out of this unhistorical (elitist) historiography is the politics of the people."(Guha, page 4) Even though these historians focussed their attention on the problems of the masses, the downtrodden and on class inequalities, they could not separate this from the politics of the day as it is that which determines all other aspects of society. Even today, the major political parties of the country use the press and social media for tom-toming their achievements and denigrating the opposition. Whether Gandhi or Sardar Patel, all past political luminaries are fair game in this race. The public records of these bombastic claims and counterclaims are going to be the source material for future historians when they research and write about this period of Indian history- "every journalist knows today that the most effective way to influence opinion is by the selection and arrangement of the appropriate facts...The facts speak only when the historian calls on them, it is he who decides to which facts to give the door, and in what order or context."( Carr 1961, p.5) Depending on which ideology the historian favours, whether Hindutva or Communist or Dalit etc, his writing is bound to be biased. Politics is so firmly entrenched in our society that it is impossible to be totally objective. No matter which branch of history he may be a scholar of- social, economic, anthropological or cultural- no historian can avoid the overreaching dominance of politics from influencing his work. Lastly, another important point to be considered is the financial aspect of being a historian. A historian needs financial support for carrying out his research and study. He depends on scholarship grants, stipends and royalties from published works, and unpalatable it may be, but the truth is that politics sells. The twists and turns of political battles, the rise and fall from power of political parties, the rise in favour or fall from grace of party leaders. All these are of immense interest for the common man as they affect his life in myriad ways. Such dramatic political ups and downs also dominate media headlines and television debates. All this provides plenty of grist for the historian's mill. He knows that an informed account and in-depth analysis of all such developments will be of value for present and future students of history and politics. So, it makes sound economic sense to focus on such political matters in his historical writings. Thus, after considering the points discussed in this paper, I think it is right to say that the writing of history is necessarily political. BIBLIOGRAPHY- Chirol, Valentine. 1910. Indian Unrest. London: Macmillan and co., Limited. Carr, E.H. 1961. What is History? Cambridge University Press Bipan Chandra. 2001. History of Modern India. ( Chapter 10 and 11) Chaterjee, Partha. 1993. “ The Nation and Its Fragments”. USA: Princeton University Press Guha, Ranajit.2009. The Small Voice of History. India: Permanent Black