PHL101 Bhagavad Gita and Indian Culture Reading Questions I have attached 4 documents.. The first two documents “week 4 & 5 Discussions” have the questions
PHL101 Bhagavad Gita and Indian Culture Reading Questions I have attached 4 documents.. The first two documents “week 4 & 5 Discussions” have the questions for the related document “PHL 101 Bhagavad Gita” The other two documents “week 3 & 4 Discussions” have questions for the related document “PHL (F&D)” and might do a little bit of research I’m not sure.Fairly easy and straight forward Week 4 & 5 Discussion
1) What’s Arjuna ( one of the two main characters of the Bhagavad Gita) duty?
(2) Should he go to war?
(3) Is Arjuna free to choose what he would like to do (given the above religious text)?
(4) What’s the role of Shri Krishna, the Hindu God, in that religious book?
(5) Is Shri Krishna’s role praiseworthy?
Reason & Reality
Phil: 101
Summer 2012
Class Notes on the Bhagavad Gita
1. The Gita and Indian Culture: The Gita is one of the most important and widely read texts on
the Hindu view of life. It shares the most features of Indian culture1. Features of Indian culture:
(I) One feature in general is its concentration upon the spiritual. Both in life and in philosophy,
the spiritual motive is predominant in India. Philosophy and religion are intimately related
because philosophy itself is regarded as a spiritual adventure, and also because the motivation
both in philosophy and in religion concerns the spiritual way of life in the here-and-now and the
eventual spiritual salvation of man in relation to the universe. (II) Another characteristic view of
Indian culture is the belief in the intimate relationship of philosophy to life. The close
relationship between theory and practice, doctrine and life, has always been outstanding in
Indian thought. Every Indian system seeks the truth, not as academic knowledge for its own
sake, but to learn the truth which will make men free. (III) Indian culture is characterized by the
introspective attitude and the introspective approach to reality. Philosophy is thought of
knowledge of self. In its pursuit of the truth, Indian culture has always been strongly dominated
by concern with the inner life and self of man rather than the external world of physical nature.
(IV) Another feature of Hinduism is the acceptance of authority. While the specific doctrines of
the past may be changed by interpretation, the general spirit and frequently the basic concepts are
retained from age to age. Reverence for authority does not militate against progress, but it does
lend a unity of spirit by providing a continuity of thought which has rendered culture especially
in Indian life and solidly unified against any philosophical attitude contradicting its basic
characteristics of spirituality, inwardness, intuition, and the strong belief that the truth is to be
lived, not merely known.
2. Key notions of the Gita: In addition to sharing these features of Indian culture, the Gita also
uses some concepts. (I) The caste system (Varnashram): In Indian culture, society is divided into
four groups (varna, frequently translated as castes) determined generally according to
occupational ability, namely the priest-teacher (Brahmin), the king-or political and military
leader (kastriya), the merchant (vaishya), the laborer (shudra). The first three of these are called
the twice-born, that is, they are religiously initiated Hindus, whereas the Shudra are not accepted.
(II) Four Stages of the Twice-born people: The lives of the twice-born are to consist of the four
stages of the student (brahmacarin), the householder (grhastha), the forest-dweller (vanaprastha),
and the wandering monk ( sannyashin). (III) Four goals of life: The goals which are accepted by
all Indians (i.e., all Hindus) are righteousness or obedience to the moral law (dharma), wealth or
material welfare (artha), pleasure (kama), and emancipation (moksa). Dharma prevails
throughout life, that is, neither pleasure nor wealth is to be obtained through violation of the rules
of morality. Moksa is the ultimate goal to which all men should aspire. This social philosophy is
accepted without question by all Hindus.
1
I am using the expressionsIndian cultureand Hinduism interchangeably.
3. The Gita and the theory of Karma (action): The notion of karma plays a pivotal role in the
Gita. It seems that the notion of selfless action (nishkama karma) is its predominant theme. By
selfless action, we mean that the agent should perform her duty without thinking of the
consequence of that action. If this is the basic notion of karma, then perhaps it is not a mistake to
identify a Kantian theme in the Gita. According to Kantians, moral laws are
categorical/unconditional. One cant disobey these laws at any cost even though disobeying them
may lead to some bad consequences. For example, we may lose money or it may result in a death
of a person. Undoubtedly, many passages in the Gita are ready for nice Kantian interpretations.
The interesting aspect of the Gita, however, is that some passages also point out the need for a
different interpretation. Shri Krishna sometimes talks about maintaining the world. Here, we
take maintaining the world, to mean improving the quality of social life. The kind of karma
Shri Krishna has in mind when he introduces the idea that the wise man is intent on maintaining
the world (Chapter III, verse 25) seems to be teleological in nature. An ethical theory which
assesses the worth of an action in terms of how well it serves its intended purpose is not clearly
Kantian in spirit. Kants theory is regarded by experts as deontological in spirit. A deontological
theory is committed to the view that an agent should perform her duty independent of any
purpose, good or bad attached to her action. Utilitarianism which is a version of consequential
theory, by contrast, is teleological in nature. An action, according to utilitarianism, is morally
right if and only if it maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. Utilitarianism is a teleological
theory because it aims at maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. If we consider a teleological
theory like utilitarianism to explain the above passage in the Gita, then we find that the utilitarian
construal of actions goes well with that passage. The pertinent question is: How to interpret the
Gita? One answer is that some actions Shri Krishna asks Arjuna to perform here sometimes are
liable to straightforward Kantian interpretations, whereas some other actions are liable to
utilitarian interpretations. In short, Shri Krishna does not have in mind only Kantian notion of
duty when he discusses actions. This interpretation of the Gita is also compatible with historical
records of human thought and culture. Remember that the Gita was written long before the
Western ethical theories (i.e., the kinds of theories we discuss in the class) came into being.
4. War, morality and death: (I) Why should Arjuna go to war? The first argument: Arjuna should
go to war because being a warrior his dharma is to defend his kingdom. A counter-argument: He
should not go to war because he neither likes to kill his relatives nor likes to be killed. The
second argument: When an agent dies, her spiritual existence (soul) continues to exist, although
her material existence ceases to be. Therefore, she should not regret that she will die because her
spiritual existence continues to flourish even after her death. The third argument: (This argument
addresses the issue related to the nature of death. It is a better argument than the second
argument because unlike the second argument it does not depend on the dubious assumption that
soul is indestructible.): One should not regret that one would die one-day because there is
symmetry between birth and death. According to this argument which is known as the symmetry
argument if we should regret for we will die one-day, we should also regret for not being born
earlier. Suppose the agent regrets that she will die someday. She thinks that if she could survive
few additional years, she could enjoy the sights and sounds of the world for few more years. Her
regret is justified because her death will take away future possibilities of her life. [Here we
assume that something good waits for her in the future] Taking away future possibilities of ones
life is morally bad. Hence death seems to be an evil. The symmetry argument wants to show why
this argument is fallacious. If regretting death is morally justified, then regretting for not being
born, for example, ten more years ago is equally morally justified. If you were born ten years
earlier than the actual time of your birth, then you would have enjoyed life for a longer period.
Since, we dont regret for not being born ten years earlier, according to the symmetry argument,
we should not regret for not surviving ten more years. So one should not regret that one will die
one-day. Is there any objection?
5. Does the Gita contain any contradiction? It seems that there are at least two. The first
seeming contradiction is this: Shri Krishna persuades Arjuna to go to war because he should not
worry about killing his relatives. In fact, according to Shri Krishna, what Arjuna will do in this
situation, will just kill their material beings. He will do no harm to their spiritual beings (souls)
by killing them. Shri Krishna argues that a soul remains unaffected by mundane qualities. At the
same time, he advises Arjuna to go to war, otherwise, he will be despised by his own folks. The
contradiction seems to be this: If soul is the most important thing that one should care about and
soul is something which remains unaffected by worldly qualities, then why should Arjuna be
bothered by the fact that if he does not go to war he will be forsaken by his fellow humans?
According to Hindu philosophy, his soul wont be affected by his bravery or cowardice. One
answer is that although it is evident that Hindu philosophy rests on the idea of an indestructible
soul and Shri Krishna is, in fact, right about that, it is also evident that Arjuna is a person who
does not reflect much on his own life. Shri Krishnas purpose is to persuade him to go to war. If
the purpose is better served by kindling Arjunas sentiments, then why not does that. This seems
to be what goes on in Sri Krishnas mind. He has ultimately succeeded in achieving his purpose
by kindling Arjunas sentiments about folk heroes. Is there anymore contradiction in the Gita?
An answer to this question will take us to the last section of our discussion.
6. Fatalism, determinism and free-choices: Shri Krishna says to Arjuna that he should go to war
because he does not need to be concerned with killing his cousins and relatives anymore. For,
Shri Krishna has told him that they will be killed (Chapter 11, verses 32-34) at the end of the
war. The natural question is: If Shri Krishna has decided to kill most of the warriors of the
Kaurava, then why he is so much keen on persuading Arjuna to go to war? It seems that another
seeming contradiction lurks behind these verses. One response to the question is related to our
interpreting the Gita in a particular way. Lets spell out the seeming contradiction. If everything
is fated (here we assume that whatever Shri Krishna says is true), then there is no free-will. If
everything is fated, then why does Shri Krishna try to convince Arjuna about his going to war? If
every thing is fated, then what Arjuna wants to do is also fated. Philosophers who dont
distinguish between fatalism and determinism may argue that the above verse shows that there is
a manifest contradiction in the Gita. Is there a way-out for Shri Krishna? The way-out is to take a
compatibilists route.
A compatibilist argues that even though things and events are determined, an agent still
has freedom. In a deterministic world things and events are determined. Being the Lord of that
world, Shri Krishna has already decided the fate of the Kauravas. They will be killed at the end
of this war. The fact is that they will be killed, if not by Arjuna, then by somebody else. So
Arjuna has the choice to kill or not to kill them. Since Arjuna has the choice, Shri Krishna wants
to persuade Arjuna to do the job. Although things are determined, Arjuna has that choice to
decide what to do with respect to the Kauravas. This compatibilists reading shows that there is a
way-out for Shri Krishna without committing a contradiction.
Summer 2012
Phl: 101
Freedom and Determinism
1.The first approximation to the problem between freedom and determinism:
What is freedom? (I) An agent has freedom of will only if the agent could have done something
otherwise.
What is determinism? Determinism is the theory that all events, including all human actions and choices,
are without exception, determined.
2. At first sight, it seems that there is an incompatibility between determinism and freedom of will. If
determinism is true, then there is no freedom of will. Conversely, if there is freedom of will, then
determinism is false.
If determinism is false, then this shows that there are some events which are not determined.
Indeterminism is the thesis that some events are not determined. Libertarianism is the theory that believes
in radical freedom and therefore it rejects determinism.
3. A first approximation to several approaches to solve the inconsistency between determinism and freewill.
(A) Determinism is true.
(B) Libertarianism: It solves the problem by claiming that determinism is false.
(C) Compatibilism: Determinism is consistent with free-will. An agent is free just in case she does not
act under compulsion, coercion, or constraint. These factors apply just when the agent is prevented from
realizing her natural desires. Freedom as the absence of these factors is quite compatible with
determinism since natural laws do not entail them–laws of nature do not prescribe what happens, but
only describe it.
4. A closer look at the proper understanding of freedom.
(I) An agent has freedom of will only if she could have done something otherwise.
A problem with (I). Example: There are two bridges on a river. You could cross the river by taking either
of the bridges. There is no other way you could cross the river. Suppose you decide to cross the river by
taking the bridge to your left. Whatever you have decided to do, you have decided based on your free
choice. Suppose further a mad scientist could read your mind. She could tell what you are thinking right
now. As soon as you made up your mind, she exploded the left bridge immediately. Now you could not
have done otherwise, since you must take the bridge to your right if you would like to cross the bridge.
Although you acted freely by choosing the left bridge, you could not have done otherwise. The purpose of
this example is to argue that you could have done something otherwise cannot be taken to be necessary
for your having free-will.
(ii) An agent is free only if what she does, she does without any compulsion or coercion.
5. A closer look at the different theses of determinism.
(I) Ontological thesis: Whenever two worlds agree with respect to there past, they also agree with
respect to their future. In other words, the future has no ambiguous possibilities hidden in its womb.
(II) Causality thesis: All events are causally determined. Every event has a cause. Although determinism
could be false in the first sense, causality could be true.
(III) Epistemological thesis: It is the doctrine that the state of any physical closed systems at any given
future instant of time can be predicted, even from within the system, with any specified degree of
precision, by deducing the prediction from theories, in conjunction with initial conditions. It is possible
to have the inability to ascertain initial conditions with mathematically exact precision. This leads to a
breakdown in prediction. So you cannot predict with exact precision what is going to happen in the future.
Failure of prediction does not lead to failure of determinism. Prediction and determinism do not go hand
in hand.
6. Sometimes determinism is taken to be saying that all things including our desires and choices are fated.
Fatalism is the thesis, which states that if all events, including our own actions are fated, then we have no
control over them. Here is how a fatalist argues for her position. Call the fatalists argument A. If the
statement you will recover from that illness has been true from all eternity, you will recover whether
you will call in a doctor or do not; and similarly if the statement you will recover from that illness has
been false from all eternity you will not recover whether you will call in a doctor or not,… therefore,
there is no point in calling in a doctor when you are ill. Two objections to this argument.
(I) By providing a counter-example to A, we could argue that A is invalid. If I will be a father of a baby
as been true from all eternity, I will be a father of a baby whether I have sex with a woman or not; and
similarly if the statement I will be a father of a baby has been false from all eternity, I will not be a
father of baby whether I have sex with a woman or not. Therefore, there is no point in having sex with a
woman if I want to be a father of a baby. The counter argument is clearly invalid because it does not
follow any of the structures we have discussed in the class. Recall also that its entire premise is true and
its conclusion is false. Any argument sharing the same structure must be invalid. Hence A is invalid. (2)
A rests on the principle of bivalence. According to this principle, all statements must be either true or
false. This principle is, however, subject to a serious criticism. Suppose a person who died without ever
having been put in danger. Consider the following statement about that person: The person was brave. Is
it true or false? Very likely we cannot discover any information about this person that is relevant to the
statement. Hence, this statement cannot be regarded as either true or false unless we assume that there
was something about that person, whether we can discover it or not, that makes the statement true or
false.
7. Is fatalism different from determinism? Whether determinism is different from fatalism depends on
your approach to the resolution of the freewill problem. A compatibilist who thinks that determinism is
consistent with freedom of will distinguishes determinism from fatalism. She contends that even if all
events are determined, we still have control over our choices concerning them. A determinist, by contrast,
identifies determinism with fatalism. So for her, there is no difference between them. A libertarians
position regarding the distinction is not clear-cut. She may differentiate one from the other. However, the
relevant point to remember is that she rejects both determinism and fatalism.
Week 3 & 4 Discussion
We will both ask and explore the following perennial questions which have been agitating human
minds since the cradle of their civilizations.
1. Am I free ( to make choices of my own)?
2. Are you free?
3. Are all of our desires and actions determined?
Hawking in his recent book “The Grand Design” wonders that question and holds the stance that our
actions and desires are all deterministic ( not by God, but by our previous actions and thoughts). He
thinks further that perhaps we won’t ever be able to know how or whether things are determined
because it might be beyond our comprehension. The probable reason he offers is that there are so
many variables at work that it would be humanely impossible to predict and determine the
trajectories of those variables. Consequently, we are perhaps never be able to uncover that riddle.
Spinoza also adopts a more or less a similar line. He says that perhaps our thoughts, feelings, and
actions are all pre-determined. Consider a stone in the air thinking itself to be free, but forgets that
some human being has actually tossed it in the air. We, according to him, are just like that stone
which thinks that it is free, where, in fact, it is not.
Do you agree with these thoughts?
4. When we say actions, thoughts and feelings are determined do we have only one sense of the
expression “determinism”? Could “determinism” mean more than one thing?
4. Can we have both, freedom and determinism tog…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
