INTERVIEW FOR CSE 2019
All ForumIAS members selected for CSE 2019 Personality Test must submit their details and DAF and register below to receive further instructions and guidance from ForumIAS. Click here to register now
INTERVIEW 2020 CHANNEL
ForumIAS Channel for Interview Preparation is now Active! Please join the channel by clicking here
We are hiring!

Philosophy Mains 2015 Preparation.

12325272829

Comments

  • can anybody please clear my doubt:page 58 chatterjee and dutta says-"...testimony consists of words..so far as words are heard through our ears,they are perceived.knowledge of words is,therefore,knowledge through perception and is quite valid..."does it mean that Carvakas do not reject testimony per se,but the inference of it is rejected?
    It means that Charvaka refutes to accept testimony as a separate pramana independent of perception. For Charvaka testimony is subsumed under perception and thus quite valid.Their argument is that testimony should not be given independent status of pramana.
    Absolutely wrong! Charvaka does not accept testimony as a pramana. It is not subsumed under perception.
  • someone plz explain me ONTOLOGY..If possible with example
    thanks in advance
    Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of existence or reality. For example, Plato's ontology considers ideas as the objective reality. Or for example Heraclitus considers change to be the only reality and does not accept any unchanging/eternal objective reality.
  • someone plz explain me ONTOLOGY..If possible with example
    thanks in advance
    Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of existence or reality. For example, Plato's ontology considers ideas as the objective reality. Or for example Heraclitus considers change to be the only reality and does not accept any unchanging/eternal objective reality.
    I think ontology basically deals with categorization. Of course, nature of reality is one way to categorise it , but so there can be many other ways.
  • can anybody please clear my doubt:page 58 chatterjee and dutta says-"...testimony consists of words..so far as words are heard through our ears,they are perceived.knowledge of words is,therefore,knowledge through perception and is quite valid..."does it mean that Carvakas do not reject testimony per se,but the inference of it is rejected?
    It means that Charvaka refutes to accept testimony as a separate pramana independent of perception. For Charvaka testimony is subsumed under perception and thus quite valid.Their argument is that testimony should not be given independent status of pramana.
    Absolutely wrong! Charvaka does not accept testimony as a pramana. It is not subsumed under perception.
    Can you please provide your understanding then?..Above explanation could be one view.
  • can anybody please clear my doubt:page 58 chatterjee and dutta says-"...testimony consists of words..so far as words are heard through our ears,they are perceived.knowledge of words is,therefore,knowledge through perception and is quite valid..."does it mean that Carvakas do not reject testimony per se,but the inference of it is rejected?
    It means that Charvaka refutes to accept testimony as a separate pramana independent of perception. For Charvaka testimony is subsumed under perception and thus quite valid.Their argument is that testimony should not be given independent status of pramana.
    Absolutely wrong! Charvaka does not accept testimony as a pramana. It is not subsumed under perception.
    Can you please provide your understanding then?..Above explanation could be one view.
    Look, Charvaka only considers perception as a valid source of knowledge. In this, ears are one of the senses and their power is the sense of hearing. So the words that we hear provide us definitive knowledge. For example, if we hear x saying mangoes are red, the knowledge that we get is- "x said mangoes are red".

    Now come to verbal testimony. It only includes words by a reliable person or vedas and charvaka refutes it because trust or reliability is itself based on inference. So if a reliable person x says that mangoes are red, we cannot accept "mangoes are red" as certain knowledge. However, there is no doubt about the fact that "x said mangoes are red" as we percieved it and perception gives us certain knowledge.

  • In what ways is humanism different Marxism ?
  • Carvaka subsumes tesrimony under inference
  • Bhailog ab to fatt rhi h
  • anyone has material on amartya sen theory of justice and hobbes sovereignty.. last year in dono topic pe question tha but its not there in the notes i have
  • Can anyone interested in vision philosophy test series. 7 test @7000. (One of my friend enrolled but did not cleared prelims)
    If anybody interestd ping me.
    Price negotiable.
Sign In or Join to comment.

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google