My Father's Philosophy

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/28/2019 My Father's Philosophy.

    1/9

    My Fathers Philosophy.

    Bharatwaj Iyer.

    Dedicated to my Father on his birthday.

  • 7/28/2019 My Father's Philosophy.

    2/9

    Every man has an inherent philosophical inclination, so we have

    known. Most of our philosophical inclinations tend to come to us

    from what we read, whom we meet and mainly what our customs

    dictate to us. But my fathers case is very different, Ive not knownhim reading any books on philosophy whatsoever, actually Ive never

    seen him read anything at all. But his conclusions on matters

    important and unimportant bring to me a shock like no other; some

    of them seem to resemble, very closely, some of the most profound

    conclusions and understandings of philosophy in our time. So how

    did he learn them? From where did he get them? Schopenhauer, one

    of the greatest names in western philosophy concluded that matter

    and energy are one and the same. He concluded this a century

    before Einsteins discovery. Now how did he do that? Through

    steady, analytic, rational thought. My father can be placed decisively

    among those people who revel and flourish through rational thinking

    alone, unburdened by the weight of big books.

    Now, Ive known my father for eighteen years and so I know a

    great deal about what his thoughts about literally every single matter

    are and as it is obvious that I cannot place every single of them in this

    small essay, which is a birthday gift, Ill reserve a larger account of his

    philosophies in a later work. But for now Ill deal only with a few of

    his thoughts. So Ill take up first the most brilliant and elegant of his

    ideas, on nature, which have striked me deeply as pure genius.

    Hence I begin in this short account an illustration of his views on

    nature.

    1.On Nature.My father is a pantheist. A pantheist is a person who believes that

    nature is God. I dont know if my father thinks that nature itself is

  • 7/28/2019 My Father's Philosophy.

    3/9

    God in the strict sense, but I do know that to him Mother Nature

    is an agent, an agent who is the driving force in bringing order,

    perpetuity and life in this world. By believing in an agent who

    brings about order may mean the risk of theism, but no let meexplain his points in a better manner.

    The main aim of the world (seen as a super-organism) is to

    survive. Survival is the pivot around which the world revolves and

    there is strictly no other principal which guides the world. Survival is

    the means and end in itself. Isnt that the conclusion of modern

    evolutionism? Remember my father hasnt read The origin ofspecies, thats what astounds me. So nature, its anthropomorphic in

    his view, has a plan, a plan to survive. It has diverse plans but each

    and every plan has only one object in view: Survival. He believes

    that natures plans are precursor. Which means what should happen

    a million years henceforth, of that, nature has the archetype, the

    plan, the blueprint now itself. Yes, this is unscientific but not

    unphilosophical. Evolution is not a pre-plan but a slow yet steady

    gradient, nature has no plans but everything happens of itself

    through the help of various conditions. But though sciences

    conclusions be different from his, what is more important than

    thought? May it be right or wrong.

    An example would help to explain what he means. He has it that a

    lion cub loves its mother only till the suckling period and after that

    period both the parties dont give a whit about each other. According

    to him nature has herself intervened and made up this plan because

    it has an advantage, an advantage helping you to survive. What is

    that survival advantage? The Lioness feeding her young has to spend

    a great deal of energy in the process, and she sacrifices her own

    health for it. Her sacrifice is not some Gandhian selflessness but

    issues out due to the command of Nature, she exhorts the lioness to

  • 7/28/2019 My Father's Philosophy.

    4/9

    sacrifice because otherwise the survival of the cubs would be at

    stake. So love is nothing but utility, utility not to the mother lion but

    to Mother Nature, she thrives on the efforts of her creatures, and

    her craving is for nothing else but perpetual survival. Now, thereason why the cubs lose affection to her mother after a period is

    that they become self-sufficient, they dont need their mother.

    And the reason for this mentality being good is very simple. If the

    mother keeps to her children even when they can keep themselves

    then the mother sacrifices unnecessarily, without utility, and risks

    her own longevity. And Mother Nature (that unseen designer lurking

    somewhere in obscurity) desires nothing but longevity and

    perpetuity and hence shakes away the bonds of maternal love seeing

    it to be unnecessary. And hence the advantage here of not loving is

    the survival (longer life) of both the cubs and their mother, so love is

    traded for existence. This is one instance of the many views my

    father holds about nature, this seemed to me very prominent and

    hence I added it here in this short account.

    Another word that he is fond of using all the time is selfishness.

    He believes that every natural constituent is essentially selfish and

    looks only after its own welfare, and the welfare has ultimately no

    other end but survival. His favourite example of the principal of

    selfishness in nature is that of the monkey and her child. Whenever a

    mother monkey comes across an object which it suspects would do it

    harm if touched, say fire, then it has the tendency of checking the

    object and it checks in the goriest way imaginable. What it does is

    that it touches the object with its own childs hand and thus makes

    out whether the object is safe using or not. This is the most glaring

    example according to him illustrating the principle of selfishness in

    nature, selfishness so intense that even the mother is not free from

    its command. This has proven to him that to make ones way to

  • 7/28/2019 My Father's Philosophy.

    5/9

    success any means whatsoever may be employed and any means is

    justifiable.

    My readers would wont to say that such a world is most difficult to

    live by and most immoral, black and heartless. Alas! It is so, but can

    we change it? No we cannot, so let us look at it without the lenses of

    romanticism, obscurantism, poesy and instead with the lenses of

    truth and fearless admittance of reality. Let us not tint our glasses

    with the colour of rose, let it be as it is. Looking at a thing as it is is

    horrible in the first instance and it requires great strength to see the

    world with the fearless and unbiased vision of truth.

    These four pages are but a fragment of his views on nature, much

    is left to be said, and it must be said but I have to, due to restraint of

    length and occasion, reserve it to be said in the future.

    2.On Conduct.My father, as it would have been guessed on reading the

    preceding section, is a utilitarian. He believes that human conduct is

    and should be guided by the principle of utility. He is of the opinion

    that human society must be modelled on natural society. According

    to him good and evil do not exist, if they dont exist for animals they

    dont exist for us too. The Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope also

    believed that animal society must become the model for human

    society and human social conduct, but unlike my father he took it to

    the practical level and used to live his life like a dog (which means

    like a person who does not believe in the accepted conventions of

    modern society). His idea that good and evil do not exist in essence is

    a very impressive ideology and yes, he hasnt read Nietzsche.

  • 7/28/2019 My Father's Philosophy.

    6/9

    He believes in absolute freedom of conduct, the idea that man

    must be allowed to do everything which his whim demands. If you

    rape a woman you have the freedom to it, obviously you dont have

    the legal freedom but only the moral freedom. Emotional and moralfreedom is an important point and was first introduced by

    Existentialism. Isnt it praiseworthy that my father developed the

    same idea without ever touching an existential book in his life? He

    holds it important that man must be truthful to his instincts, he

    mustnt lie to himself. Honesty to instinct is the highest morality.

    What a civilized man does is that he covers up his instinctive

    tendencies with outward coatings of mannerisms, morality and lofty

    conduct but in the heart of everything the same carnal propensities

    reign.

    He is also a pragmatist. That is, he believes in activity, duty and

    strife rather than inactivity, resignation and abnegation. He believes

    in the proper performance of duties to be the easiest way to a better

    and worthy life and hence his hate of sannyasa. His revolt against

    life-denial resembles, in jest, the revolt of Nietzsche against

    Schopenhauer and Wagner with his new thought of life-affirmation.

    But unlike Nietzsche my father is an epicurean. An epicurean

    believes in the idea of eat, drink and make merry which is

    supposedly phrased by the Greek philosopher Epicurus. He is also

    fond of Krishnas idea of Karma-yoga, wherein importance is given to

    activity as the fulfilment of knowledge. But as it often happens with

    even the greatest minds of the world, that what we theorise may not

    be feasible when carried out in reality. To take a glaring example look

    at what the Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins thinks about social

    Darwinism, he believes that although nature is commanded by

    Darwinian instincts it would be better that human society be formed

    on the very opposite foundations of Darwins law. In similar wise,

  • 7/28/2019 My Father's Philosophy.

    7/9

    although my father believes in the idea of whimsical conduct he is

    normally morally outraged at crime, disobedience of law, wishful

    indolence of the people he is normally in contact with. So whatever

    is talked in theory as philosophy can happily be limited to the privacyof ones drawing room and need not be applied in actuality.

    3. On Knowledge.

    Arjuna asks Krishna in the beginning of the third chapter of the

    Bhagavad Gita a question in dilemma,Jayasi cet karmanaste mata buddhir Janardana,

    Tat kim karmani ghoremam niyojayasi Keshava

    O Janardhana it was you yourself you told to me that knowledge has

    precedence over work, then why O Keshava do you ask me to

    commit such a horrendous act?

    What Arjuna asks has weight in what we intend to discussbecause the question is of immeasurable importance: Is knowledge

    more important or work? The Gitas achievement is in the synthesis

    of both these opposing virtues (not opposing in the highest sense).

    The Gita combines both knowledge as well as work by making both

    of these complementary to one another. So it concludes that work is

    most important, but only that work which is done in knowledge. So I

    think my father also has attempted the fusion of both these rivals in

    a way unknown to himself. He believes that knowledge can be

    gained either by intense learning or through direct experience. It is

    needless to say that the method of intense learning throws

    experience to the background and makes knowledge completely

    bereft of it, but on the other hand the method of knowledge through

    experience is rich with the fragrance of both work as well as wisdom

  • 7/28/2019 My Father's Philosophy.

    8/9

    and hence can act as fulfilment of both. The greatest modern

    philosopher Immanuel Kant extolled the value of experience, in the

    process of knowing, a great deal in his works, not only that but he

    also criticises and proves the flawed nature of knowledge by purereason working in a vacuum. My fathers views on epistemology may

    not be as advanced as that of Kants, which is obvious, but it sure

    does have some semblance.

    So to round up the matter we may conclude that that knowledge

    is most valuable which has been won by experience rather than that

    gained through years of study of books. My fathers philosophy ofknowledge is limited to what Ive said above and does not exceed

    further, he not being an academic philosopher. He believes in the

    perpetual accumulation of knowledge but only of that kind which has

    real and pragmatic use, rest is all tinsel. Rajagopalachari says only

    that knowledge is valuable which can be transformed into Bhakti,

    and Bhakti in lay terms only means practical work.

    Here I feel proper to end this short exposition of my fathers

    ideas although my fathers ideas are not limited only to what has

    been said. Philosophy is a common mans property, all have the right

    to claim it and claim it they must. Philosophy as Bertrand Russell puts

    it involves nothing but speculation, speculation of any sort, the right

    or wrong of which must not bother the philosopher in pursuit of

    truth. Having said what little I could say I place this short work in the

    hands of anybody who wishes to touch it. Appraise it or criticise it,

    keep it or throw it, that is all your wish but always remember that

    the common minds opinion on matters of profuse gravity is as

    important as those of the greatest intellectual giants, for as

  • 7/28/2019 My Father's Philosophy.

    9/9

    Nietzsche says, My way is my way, your way is your way, and for the

    right way and the only way: there is none.