Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

The Essence of Philosophy
The Essence of Philosophy
The Essence of Philosophy
Ebook1,556 pages18 hours

The Essence of Philosophy

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

The essence of philosophy is the pursuit of fundamental knowledge and understanding. It is a discipline that asks the most basic questions about existence, reality, knowledge, value, reason, mind, and language. Philosophers have been grappling with these questions for centuries, and there is no one definitive answer to any of them. But that does

LanguageEnglish
PublisherGo To Publish
Release dateOct 18, 2023
ISBN9781647499471
The Essence of Philosophy
Author

Saul Silas Fathi

Saul Silas Fathi was born to a prominent Jewish family in Baghdad. Iraq. At age 10, he and his younger brother were smuggled out of Baghdad through Iran and eventually reached the newly formed state of Israel. He began writing a diary at age 11 and had several stories published in Israeli youth magazines.Saul enrolled at the Israel Airforce Academy of Aeronautics, a4-year program, where he earned his high-school diploma and became certified in electrical engineering. In 1958, he worked his way to Brazil where he nearly starved. Through perseverance and luck, he started his own electrical business and earned a patent for climate controlled windows used in the building of Brasilia, Brazil.In 1960, he came to the US. on a student exchange visa, studying sculpture at the Brooklyn Museum of Art and American history and public speaking at the New School of Social Studies After 8 months. Saul volunteered to serve in the LLS. Army for three years, having been promised a college education and US citizenship at the conclusion of his duties. After Basic Training in Fort Benning, Georgia, he was sent to helicopter school at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and there enrolled at the University of Virginia. Within a few months, Saul was shipped to South Korea where he served as Chief Electrical Technician with the 1st Cavalry Division, 15th Aviation Company. the famed helicopter division in the Vietnam War.Back in the US., Saul battled the immigration department while studying at the University of Virginia, finally earning a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering. This launched an impressive career as a high-level executive with several Fortune 500 companies. Later, he founded and managed three high-tech companies.Saul retired in 2003 and began writing his memoirs, Full Circle. Escape from Baghdad and the Return, Today, he lives in long Idand. New York with his wife Rachelle. He is also a certified linguist, fluent In English. Hebrew, Arabic, and Portuguese.

Read more from Saul Silas Fathi

Related to The Essence of Philosophy

Related ebooks

Education Philosophy & Theory For You

View More

Related articles

Related categories

Reviews for The Essence of Philosophy

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    The Essence of Philosophy - Saul Silas Fathi

    Absurdism

    Absurdism is the philosophical theory that existence in general is absurd, meaning that the world lacks meaning or a higher purpose and is not fully intelligible by reason. The term "absurd" has a specific sense in the context of absurdism: it refers to a conflict or a discrepancy between two things but there are several disagreements about their exact nature. These disagreements have various consequences for whether absurdism is true and for the arguments cited in favor and against it.

    An important aspect of absurdism is its claim that the world as a whole is absurd. It differs in this regard from the less global thesis that some particular situations, persons, or phases in life are absurd. Various components of the absurd are discussed in the academic literature and different theorists frequently concentrate their definition and research on different components. On the practical level, the conflict underlying the absurd is characterized by the individual’s struggle to find meaning in a meaningless world.

    Traditionally, the conflict is characterized as a collision between an internal component, belonging to human nature, and an external component, belonging to the nature of the world. Certain accounts also involve a metacognitive component by holding that an awareness of the conflict is necessary for the absurd to arise.

    Objections to absurdism often contend that life is in fact meaningful or point out certain problematic consequences or inconsistencies of absurdism. Defenders of absurdism often complain that it does not receive the attention of professional philosophers it merits in virtue of the topic’s importance and its potential psychological impact on the affected individuals in the form of existential crises.

    The three responses discussed in the traditional absurdist literature are suicide, religious belief in a higher purpose, and rebellion against the absurd. Later theorists have suggested additional responses, like using irony to take life less seriously or remaining ignorant of the responsible conflict.

    The term "absurdism" is most closely associated with the philosophy of Albert Camus. However, important precursors and discussions of the absurd are also found in the works of Søren Kierkegaard. Its basic outlook is inspired by existentialist philosophy. Absurdism and nihilism share the belief that life is meaningless.

    Definition

    Absurdism is the philosophical thesis that life, or the world in general, is absurd. There is wide agreement that the term "absurd" implies a lack of meaning or purpose but there is also significant dispute concerning its exact definition and various versions have been suggested.

    In a general sense, the absurd is that which lacks a sense, often because it involves some form of contradiction. The absurd is paradoxical in the sense that it cannot be grasped by reason. But in the context of absurdism, the term is usually used in a more specific sense. According to most definitions, it involves a conflict, discrepancy, or collision between two things.

    In regard to the conflict, absurdism differs from nihilism since it is not just the thesis that nothing matters. Instead, it includes the component that things seem to matter to us nonetheless and that this impression cannot be shaken off. This difference is expressed in the relational aspect of the absurd in that it constitutes a conflict between two sides.Various components of the absurd have been suggested and different researchers often focus their definition and inquiry on one of these components. A different disagreement concerns whether the conflict exists only internal to the individual or is between the individual’s expectations and the external world. Some theorists also include the metacognitive component that the absurd entails that the individual is aware of this conflict.

    The philosophical thesis of absurdism is much more wide-reaching since it is not restricted to individual situations, persons, or phases in life. Instead, it asserts that life, or the world as a whole, is absurd. The absurd becomes a problem since there is a strong desire for meaning and purpose even though they seem to be absent. In this sense, the conflict responsible for the absurd often either constitutes or is accompanied by an existential crisis.

    Practical and theoretical

    An important component of the absurd on the practical level concerns the seriousness people bring toward life. This seriousness is reflected in many different attitudes and areas, for example, concerning fame, pleasure, justice, knowledge, or survival, both in regard to ourselves as well as in regard to others. It is absurd that people continue to care about these matters even though they seem to lack importance on an objective level. The collision between these two sides can be defined as the absurd.

    Some theorists characterize the ethical sides of absurdism and nihilism in the same way as the view that it does not matter how we act or that "everything is permitted". But usually, a distinction between absurdism and nihilism is made since absurdism involves the additional component that there is a conflict between man’s desire for meaning and the absence of meaning.

    Some theorists also link this problem to the circularity of human reason, which is very skilled at producing chains of justification linking one thing to another while trying and failing to do the same for the chain of justification as a whole when taking a reflective step backward. This implies that human reason is not just too limited to grasp life as a whole but that, if one seriously tried to do so anyway, its ungrounded circularity might collapse and lead to madness.

    Internal and external

    An important disagreement within the academic literature about the nature of absurdism and the absurd focuses specifically on whether the components responsible for the conflict are internal or external. The absurd has both internal and external components: it is due to the discrepancy between man’s internal desire to lead a meaningful life and the external meaninglessness of the world. Humans have among their desires some transcendent aspirations that seek a higher form of meaning in life.

    The absurd arises since these aspirations are ignored by the world, which is indifferent to our "need for validation of the importance of our concerns". This implies that the absurd is not in man... nor in the world, but in their presence together. This position has been rejected by some later theorists, who hold that the absurd is purely internal because it derives not from a collision between our expectations and the world, but from a collision within ourselves.

    It is not just that absurdism is true in the actual world. Instead, any possible world, even one that was designed by a divine god and guided by them according to their higher purpose, would still be equally absurd to man. When this process is applied to the world as a whole including God, it is bound to fail its search for a reason or an explanation, no matter what the world is like.

    In this sense, absurdity arises from the conflict between features of ourselves: our capacity to recognize the arbitrariness of our ultimate concerns and our simultaneous incapacity to relinquish our commitment to them. This view has the side-effect that the absurd depends on the fact that the affected person recognizes it. For example, people who fail to apprehend the arbitrariness or the conflict would not be affected.

    Metacognitive

    A central aspect of the absurd is that the agent is aware of the existence of the corresponding conflict. This means that the person is conscious both of the seriousness they invest and of how it seems misplaced in an arbitrary world. It also implies that other entities that lack this form of consciousness, like non- organic matter or lower life forms, are not absurd and are not faced with this particular problem.

    Defenders of the metacognitive component have argued that it manages to explain why absurdity is primarily ascribed to human aspirations but not to lower animals: because they lack this metacognitive awareness. Opponents have argued that not recognizing the conflict is just as absurd as consciously living through it.

    Arguments For

    Various popular arguments are often cited in favor of absurdism. Some focus on the future by pointing out that nothing we do today will matter in a million years. The thesis of absurdism is also sometimes based on the problem of death, i.e. that there is no final end for us to pursue since we are all going to die. In this sense, death is said to destroy all our hard-earned achievements like career, wealth, or knowledge.

    Thomas Nagel has objected to these lines of argument based on the claim that they are circular: they assume rather than establish that life is absurd. For example, the claim that our actions today will not matter in a million years does not directly imply that they do not matter today. The tendency to posit the existence of a benevolent God may be seen as a form of defense mechanism or wishful thinking to avoid an unsettling and inconvenient truth. This is closely related to the idea that humans have an inborn desire for meaning and purpose, which is dwarfed by a meaningless and indifferent universe.

    For example, René Descartes aims to build a philosophical system based on the absolute certainty of the I think, therefore I am just to introduce without a proper justification the existence of a benevolent and non-deceiving God in a later step in order to ensure that we can know about the external world. A similar problematic step is taken by John Locke, who accepts the existence of a God beyond sensory experience,

    Another argument for absurdism is based on the attempt of assessing standards of what matters and why it matters. It has been argued that the only way to answer such a question is in reference to these standards themselves. This means that, in the end, it depends only on us, that what seems to us important or serious or valuable would not seem so if we were differently constituted. The circularity and groundlessness of these standards themselves are then used to argue for absurdism.

    Against

    The most common criticism of absurdism is to argue that life in fact has meaning. Supernaturalist arguments to this effect are based on the claim that God exists and acts as the source of meaning. Naturalist arguments, on the other hand, contend that various sources of meaning can be found in the natural world without recourse to a supernatural realm. Others find meaning in objective values, for example, in morality, knowledge, or beauty. All these different positions have in common that they affirm the existence of meaning, in contrast to absurdism.

    Another criticism of absurdism focuses on its negative attitude toward moral values. Value judgments are to be discarded or that the rejection of God implies the rejection of moral values. On this view, absurdism brings with it a highly controversial form of moral nihilism. These two sides can be linked by the idea that without a higher purpose, nothing is worth pursuing that could give one’s life meaning.

    This worthlessness seems to apply to morally relevant actions equally as to other issues. In this sense, elief in the meaning of life always implies a scale of values while elief in the absurd... teaches the contrary.

    Due to this ambiguity, other critics of absurdism have objected to it based on its inconsistency. The moral values defended by absurdists often overlap with the ethical outlook of existentialism and include traits like sincerity, authenticity, and courage as virtues.

    Absurdists seem to be committed both to the claim that moral values exist and that they do not exist. Defenders of absurdism have tried to resist this line of argument by contending that, in contrast to other responses, it remains true to the basic insight of absurdism and the "logic of the absurd" by acknowledging the existence of the absurd instead of denying it.

    But this defense is not always accepted. Another defense of absurdism consists in weakening the claims about how one should respond to the absurd and which virtues such a response should exemplify. Absurdists have tried to resolve the apparent inconsistency in their position.

    Examples

    According to absurdism, life in general is absurd: the absurd is not just limited to a few specific cases. Nonetheless, some cases are more paradigmatic examples than others. The myth of Sisyphus is often treated as a key example of the absurd.

    Another example of the absurdist aspect of the human condition is given in Franz Kafka’s The Trial. In it, the protagonist Josef K. is arrested and prosecuted by an inaccessible authority even though he is convinced that he has done nothing wrong. Throughout the story, he desperately tries to discover what crimes he is accused of and how to defend himself.

    But in the end, he lets go of his futile attempts and submits to his execution without ever finding out what he was accused of. The absurd nature of the world is exemplified by the mysterious and impenetrable functioning of the judicial system, which seems indifferent to Josef K. and resists all of his attempts of making sense of it.

    Importance

    Philosophers of absurdism often complain that the topic of the absurd does not receive the attention of professional philosophers it merits, especially when compared to other perennial philosophical areas of inquiry. It has been argued that acknowledging the existence of the absurd has important consequences for epistemology, especially in relation to philosophy but also when applied more widely to other fields. The reason for this is that acknowledging the absurd includes becoming aware of human cognitive limitations and may lead to a form of epistemic humbleness. The impression that life is absurd may in some cases have serious psychological consequences like triggering an existential crisis. In this regard, an awareness both of absurdism itself and the possible responses to it can be central to avoiding or resolving such consequences.

    Possible responses

    Most researchers argue that the basic conflict posed by the absurd cannot be truly resolved. This means that any attempt to do so is bound to fail even though their protagonists may not be aware of their failure. Traditional absurdism, as exemplified by Albert Camus, holds that there are three possible responses to absurdism: suicide, religious belief, or revolting against the absurd. Later researchers have suggested more ways of responding to absurdism.

    A very blunt and simple response, though quite radical, is to commit suicide. According to Camus, for example, the problem of suicide is the only "really serious philosophical problem". It consists in seeking an answer to the question "Should I kill myself".

    Camus identifies this response as a form of suicide as well, pertaining not to the physical but to the philosophical level. It is a philosophical suicide in the sense that the individual just assumes that the chosen higher purpose is meaningful and thereby fails to reflect on its absurdity.

    Despite the gravity and inevitability of the absurd, they recommend that we should face it directly, i.e. not escape from it by retreating into the illusion of false hope or by ending one’s life. In this sense, accepting the reality of the absurd means rejecting any hopes for a happy afterlife free of those contradictions.

    Instead, the individual should acknowledge the absurd and engage in a rebellion against it. Such a revolt usually exemplifies certain virtues closely related to existentialism, like the affirmation of one’s freedom in the face of adversity as well as accepting responsibility and defining one’s own essence. An important aspect of this lifestyle is that life is lived passionately and intensely by inviting and seeking new experiences. Another aspect lies in creativity, i.e. that the agent sees themselves as and acts as the creator of their own works and paths in life.

    Absurdism may also lead to a form of irony. This irony is not sufficient to escape the absurdity of life altogether, but it may mitigate it to some extent by distancing oneself to some degree from the seriousness of life. According to Thomas Nagel, there may be, at least theoretically, two responses to actually resolving the problem of the absurd. This is based on the idea that the absurd arises from the consciousness of a conflict between two aspects of human life: that humans care about various things and that the world seems arbitrary and does not merit this concern.

    The absurd would not arise if either of the conflicting elements would cease to exist, i.e. if the individual would stop caring about things, as some Eastern religions seem to suggest, or if one could find something that possesses a non-arbitrary meaning that merits the concern.

    Other theorists hold that a proper response to the absurd may neither be possible nor necessary, that it just remains one of the basic aspects of life no matter how it is confronted. The passionate rebellion against an apparently trivial or unimportant state of affairs seems less like a heroic quest and more like a fool’s errand.

    History

    Absurdism has its origins in the work of the 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who chose to confront the crisis that humans face with the Absurd by developing his own existentialist philosophy. Absurdism as a belief system was born of the European existentialist movement that ensued, specifically when Camus rejected certain aspects of that philosophical line of thought and published his essay The Myth of Sisyphus.

    Immanuel Kant

    An idea very close to the concept of the absurd is due to Immanuel Kant, who distinguishes between phenomena and noumena. This distinction refers to the gap between how things appear to us and what they are like in themselves. For example, according to Kant, space and times are dimensions belonging to the realm of phenomena since this is how sensory impressions are organized by the mind, but may not be found on the level of noumena. The concept of the absurd corresponds to the thesis that there is such a gap and human limitations may limit the mind from ever truly grasping reality, i.e. that reality in this sense remains absurd to the mind.

    Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard

    Kierkegaard designed the relationship framework based (in part) on how a person reacts to despair. Absurdist philosophy fits into the ‘despair of defiance’ rubric. A century before Camus, the 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard wrote extensively about the absurdity of the world. In his journals, Kierkegaard writes about the absurd:

    What is the Absurd? It is, as may quite easily be seen, that I, a rational being, must act in a case where my reason, my powers of reflection, tell me: you can just as well do the one thing as the other, that is to say where my reason and reflection say: you cannot act and yet here is where I have to act... The Absurd, or to act by virtue of the absurd, is to act upon faith... I must act, but reflection has closed the road so I take one of the possibilities and say: This is what I do, I cannot do otherwise because I am brought to a standstill by my powers of reflection.

    Kierkegaard, Søren, Journals, 1849

    Kierkegaard says:

    I gladly undertake, by way of brief repetition, to emphasize what other pseudonyms have emphasized… The absurd is a category, the negative criterion, of the divine or of the relationship to the divine. When the believer has faith, the absurd is not the absurd—faith transforms it, but in every weak moment it is again more or less absurd to him.

    The passion of faith is the only thing which masters the absurd—if not, then faith is not faith in the strictest sense, but a kind of knowledge. The absurd terminates negatively before the sphere of faith, which is a sphere by itself. To a third person the believer relates himself by virtue of the absurd; so must a third person judge, for a third person does not have the passion of faith.

    Journals of Søren Kierkegaard X6B 79

    Another instance of absurdist themes in Kierkegaard’s work appears in The Sickness Unto Death, which Kierkegaard signed with pseudonym Anti-Climacus. Kierkegaard describes how such a man would endure such a defiance and identifies the three major traits of the Absurd Man, later discussed by Albert Camus: a rejection of escaping existence (suicide), a rejection of help from a higher power and acceptance of his absurd (and despairing) condition.

    Albert Camus

    Though the notion of the ‘absurd’ pervades all Albert Camus’s writing, The Myth of Sisyphus is his chief work on the subject. In it, Camus considers absurdity as a confrontation, an opposition, a conflict or a divorce between two ideals.

    Specifically, he defines the human condition as absurd, as the confrontation between man’s desire for significance, meaning and clarity on the one hand—and the silent, cold universe on the other. He continues that there are specific human experiences evoking notions of absurdity.

    For Camus, suicide is a "confession" that life is not worth living; it is a choice that implicitly declares that life is "too much. Suicide offers the most basic way out" of absurdity: the immediate termination of the self and its place in the universe.

    The absurd encounter can also arouse a "leap of faith," a term derived from one of Kierkegaard’s early pseudonyms, Johannes de Silentio (although the term was not used by Kierkegaard himself), where one believes that there is more than the rational life (aesthetic or ethical). To take a "leap of faith," one must act with the "virtue of the absurd", where a suspension of the ethical may need to exist. Camus considers the leap of faith as "philosophical suicide," rejecting both this and physical suicide.

    Camus states in The Myth of Sisyphus: "Thus I draw from the absurd three consequences, which are my revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death, and I refuse suicide. Revolt" here refers to the refusal of suicide and search for meaning despite the revelation of the Absurd; "Freedom" refers to the lack of imprisonment by religious devotion or others’ moral codes; "Passion" refers to the most wholehearted experiencing of life, since hope has been rejected, and so he concludes that every moment must be lived fully.

    Existentialism and nihilism

    Absurdism originated from (as well as alongside) the 20th-century strains of existentialism and nihilism; it shares some prominent starting points with both, though also entails conclusions that are uniquely distinct from these other schools of thought.

    All three arose from the human experience of anguish and confusion stemming from existence: the apparent meaninglessness of a world in which humans, nevertheless, are compelled to find or create meaning. The three schools of thought diverge from there. Existentialists have generally advocated the individual’s construction of their own meaning in life as well as the free will of the individual.

    Nihilists, on the contrary, contend that it is futile to seek or to affirm meaning where none can be found. Absurdists, following Camus’ formulation, hesitantly allow the possibility for some meaning or value in life, but are neither as certain as existentialists are about the value of one’s own constructed meaning nor as nihilists are about the total inability to create meaning.

    Camus himself passionately worked to counter nihilism, as he explained in his essay "The Rebel", while he also categorically rejected the label of "existentialist in his essay Enigma" and in the compilation The Lyrical and Critical Essays of Albert Camus, though he was, and still is, often broadly characterized by others as an existentialist.

    While absurdism can be seen as a kind of response to existentialism, it can be debated exactly how substantively the two positions differ from each other. The existentialist, after all, does not deny the reality of death. But the absurdist seems to reaffirm the way in which death ultimately nullifies our meaning-making activities, a conclusion the existentialists seem to resist through various notions of posterity or, in Sartre’s case, participation in a grand humanist project.

    Existential crisis

    The basic problem of absurdism is usually not encountered through a dispassionate philosophical inquiry but as the manifestation of an existential crisis. Existential crises are inner conflicts in which the individual wrestles with the impression that life lacks meaning. They are accompanied by various negative experiences, such as stress, anxiety, despair, and depression, which can disturb the individual’s normal functioning in everyday life. Realizing this incongruity is usually not a pleasant occurrence and may lead to estrangement, alienation, and hopelessness.

    Accepting the position of absurdism may also have certain positive psychological effects. In this sense, it can help the individual achieve a certain psychological distance from unexamined dogmas and thus help them evaluate their situation from a more encompassing and objective perspective. However, it brings with it the danger of leveling all significant differences and thereby making it difficult for the individual to decide what to do or how to live their life.

    Epistemological skepticism

    It has been argued that absurdism in the practical domain resembles epistemological skepticism in the theoretical domain. In the case of epistemology, we usually take for granted our knowledge of the world around us even though, when methodological doubt is applied, it turns out that this knowledge is not as unshakable as initially assumed.

    Others

    It has been argued that absurdism is opposed to various fundamental principles and assumptions guiding education, like the importance of truth and of fostering rationality in the students.

    ***

    Advaitism (Advaita Vedanta)

    Advaita Vedanta ( Sanskrit:, IAST: Advaita Vedānta, literally, not-two), originally known as Puruṣavāda, is a school of Hindu philosophy, and is a classic system of spiritual realization in Hindu tradition. The term Advaita refers to its idea that the true self, Atman, is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality (Brahman). The followers of this school are known as Advaita Vedantins, or just Advaitins or Mayavadins, and they seek spiritual liberation through acquiring Vidya, meaning knowledge, of one’s true identity as Atman, and the identity of Atman and Brahman.

    Advaita Vedanta traces its roots to the oldest Upanishads. It relies on three textual sources called the Prasthanatrayi. It gives a unifying interpretation of the whole body of Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras, and the Bhagavad Gita. Advaita Vedanta is the oldest extant sub-school of Vedanta, which is one of the six orthodox (Āstika) Hindu philosophies (darsana). Although its roots trace back to the 1st millennium BCE, the most prominent exponent of the Advaita Vedanta is considered by tradition to be the 8th century scholar Adi Shankara.

    Advaita Vedanta emphasizes Jivanmukti, the idea that moksha (freedom, liberation) is achievable in this life in contrast to Indian philosophies that emphasize Videhamukti, or moksha after death. The school uses concepts such as Brahman, Atman, Maya, Avidya, meditation and others that are found in major Indian religious traditions, but interprets them in its own way for its theories of moksha. Advaita Vedanta is one of the most studied and most influential schools of classical Indian thought. Many scholars describe it as a form of monism, others describe the Advaita philosophy as non-dualistic. Advaita is considered to be philosophy or spiritual pathway rather than a religion, it does not require those who follow it to be of a particular faith or sect.

    Advaita Vedanta texts espouse a Spectrum of views from idealism, including illusionism, to realist or nearly realist positions expressed in the early works of Shankara. In modern times, its views appear in various Neo-Vedanta movements. It has been termed as the paradigmatic example of Hindu spirituality.

    Darsana (philosophy) - central concerns / Hindu philosophy

    Advaita is a sub-school of Vedanta, the latter being one of the six classical Hindu darsanas. Traditional Advaita Vedanta centers on the study of the Sruti especially the Principal Upanishads, along with the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita.

    Within the Vedanta tradition of Hinduism are many sub-schools, of which Advaita is one. Unlike Buddhism, but like Jainism, all Vedanta schools consider the existence of Atman (real self, soul) as self-evident. The Vedanta tradition also posits the concept of Brahman as the eternal, unchanging metaphysical reality.

    Advaita Vedanta believes that the knowledge of one’s true self or Atman is liberating. Along with self-knowledge, it teaches that moksha can be achieved by the correct understanding of one’s true identity as Atman, the dispassionate and un-moveable observer, and the identity of Atman and Brahman.

    The process of acquiring this knowledge entails realizing that one’s True Self, the Atman, is essentially the same as Brahman. This is achieved through what Sankara refers to as anubhava, immediate intuition. Sankara contends that this direct awareness is construction-free, and not construction-filled. Self-knowledge is, therefore, not seen as an awareness of Brahman, but instead an awareness that is Brahman, since one will transcend any form of duality in this state of consciousness.

    The Vedanta tradition of Hinduism rejects the dualism of Samkhya. The Samkhya school of Hindu thought proposes two metaphysical realities, namely Purusha (spirit) and Prakriti (inert primal matter), then states that Purusha is the efficient cause of all existence while Prakriti is its material cause. Advaita, like all Vedanta schools, states that Brahman is both the efficient and the material cause, that from which the origination, subsistence, and dissolution of this universe proceed. What created all existence is also present in and reflected in all beings and inert matter, the creative principle was and is everywhere, always.

    Various theoretical difficulties arise which Advaita and other Vedanta traditions offer different answers for: first, how did sat Brahman without any distinction become manifold universe? Second, how did cit Brahman create material world? Third, if Ananda Brahman is pure bliss, why did the empirical world of sufferings arise?

    Advaita establishes its truths, in part, from the oldest Principal Upanishads (Sruti), the Brahma Sutras, the Bhagavad Gita and numerous other Hindu texts. Reason is used to support revelation, the Sruti, the ultimate source of truth. Reason clarifies the truth and removes objections, according to the Advaita School, however it believes that pure logic cannot lead to philosophical truths and only experience and meditative insights do. The Sruti, it believes is a collection of experience and meditative insights about liberating knowledge. Much of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy focuses on gaining liberation in one’s current life.

    Moksha is attained by realizing one’s true identity as Atman, and the identity of Atman and Brahman, the complete understanding of one’s real nature as Brahman in this life. This is stated by Shankara as follows:

    I am other than name, form and action.

    My nature is ever free!

    I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.

    I am pure Awareness, always non-dual.

    Adi Shankara, Upadesasahasri 11.7,

    Liberation can be achieved while living, and is called Jivanmukti. The Atman-knowledge, that is the knowledge of true Self and its relationship to Brahman is central to this liberation in Advaita thought. Atman-knowledge, to Advaitins, is that state of full awareness, liberation and freedom which overcomes dualities at all levels, realizing the divine within oneself, the divine in others and all beings, the non-dual Oneness, that Brahman is in everything, and everything is Brahman.

    Jivanmukta

    In Advaita Vedanta, the interest is not in liberation in after life, but in one’s current life. This school holds that liberation can be achieved while living, and a person who achieves this is called a Jivanmukta. The concept of Jivanmukti of Advaita Vedanta contrasts with Videhamukti (moksha from samsara after death) in theistic sub-schools of Vedanta. Jivanmukti is a state that transforms the nature, attributes and behaviors of an individual.

    Stages and practices

    Advaita Vedanta entails more than self-inquiry or bare insight into one’s real nature, but also includes self-restraint, textual studies and ethical perfection. It is described in classical Advaita books like Shankara’s Upadesasahasri and the Vivekachudamani, which is also attributed to Shankara.

    Guru

    Advaita Vedanta School has traditionally had a high reverence for Guru (teacher), and recommends that a competent Guru be sought in one’s pursuit of spirituality. However, the Guru is not mandatory in Advaita School, states Clooney, but reading of Vedic literature and followed by reflection is. This reflects the Advaita tradition which holds a competent teacher as important and essential to gaining correct knowledge, freeing oneself from false knowledge, and to self- realization.

    A guru is someone more than a teacher, traditionally a reverential figure to the student, with the guru serving as a "counselor, who helps mold values, shares experiential knowledge as much as literal knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who helps in the spiritual evolution of a student. The guru is more than someone who teaches specific type of knowledge, and includes in its scope someone who is also a counselor, a sort of parent of mind and soul, who helps mold values and experiential knowledge as much as specific knowledge, an exemplar in life, an inspirational source and who reveals the meaning of life.

    Metaphysics and Ontology

    The swan is an important motif in Advaita. It symbolizes two things: first, the swan is called hamsah in Sanskrit. Upon repeating this hamso indefinitely, it becomes so-aham, meaning, I am that. Second, just as a swan lives in a lake but its feathers are not soiled by water, similarly a liberated Advaitin lives in this world but is not soiled by its Maya.

    Levels of Reality, Truths / Two truths doctrine

    The classical Advaita Vedanta explains all reality and everything in the experienced world to be same as the Brahman. To Advaitins, there is a unity in multiplicity, and there is no dual hierarchy of a Creator and the created universe. All objects, all experiences, all matter, all consciousness, all awareness, in Advaita philosophy is not the property but the very nature of this one fundamental reality Brahman.

    With this premise, the Advaita School states that any ontological effort must presuppose a knowing self and needs to explain all empirical experiences such as the projected reality while one dreams during sleep, and the observed multiplicity of living beings.

    Shankara proposes three levels of reality, using sublation as the ontological criterion:

    Advaita Vedanta acknowledges and admits that from the empirical perspective there are numerous distinctions. It states that everything and each reality has multiple perspectives, both absolute and relative. This absolute and relative truths explanation, Advaitins call as the two truths doctrine. This Advaita doctrine with the example of light and darkness. From sun’s perspective, it neither rises nor sets, there is no darkness, and all is light.

    From the perspective of a person on earth, sun does rise and set, there is both light and darkness, not all is light, there are relative shades of light and darkness. Both are valid realities and truths, given their perspectives. Yet, they are contradictory. What is true from one point of view is not from another. This does not mean there are two truths and two realities, but it only means that the same one Reality and one Truth is explained or experienced from two different perspectives.

    According to Candradhara Sarma, Turiya state is where the foundational Self is realized, it is measureless, neither cause nor effect, all pervading, without suffering, blissful, changeless, self- luminous, real, immanent in all things and transcendent.

    Those who have experienced the Turiya stage of self-consciousness have reached the pure awareness of their own non-dual Self as one with everyone and everything, for them the knowledge, the knower, the known becomes one, they are the Jivanmukta. One of the earliest mentions of Turiya, in the Hindu scriptures, occurs in verse 5.14.3 of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

    Absolute Reality / Brahman and Satcitananda

    According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the highest Reality, That which is unborn and unchanging, and not sublatable, and cannot be superseded by a still higher reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and therefore Maya. Brahman is Paramarthika Satyam, Absolute Truth, and

    "The true Self, pure consciousness... the only Reality (sat), since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublatable". Brahman is the primordial reality that creates, maintains and withdraws within it the universe. It is the creative principle which lies realized in the whole world.

    Atman (Hinduism) / Samadhi, Buddha-nature, Sunyata, and Choiceless awareness

    Atman (IAST: atman, Sanskrit: is a central idea in Hindu philosophy and a foundational premise of Advaita Vedanta. It is a Sanskrit word that means real self of the individual, essence, and soul.

    Atman is the first principle in Advaita Vedanta. It is the true self of an individual, a consciousness, states Sthaneshwar Timalsina, that is "self-revealed, self-evident and self- aware (svaprakashata)". Atman, is the "pure, undifferentiated, supreme power of awareness", it is more than thought, it is a state of being, that which is conscious and transcends subject-object divisions and momentariness.

    Advaita Vedanta philosophy considers Atman as self-existent awareness, limitless and non- dual. It asserts that there is spirit, soul, self (Atman) within each living entity, which unifies all beings, in which there is the divine in every being, in which all existence is a single Reality, and in which there is no divine distinct from the individual Atman.

    Atman is not the constantly changing body, not the desires, not the emotions, not the ego, nor the dualistic mind in Advaita Vedanta. It is the introspective, inwardly self-conscious on-looker (saksi). Human beings, in a state of unawareness and ignorance, see their I-ness as different than the being in others, then act out of impulse, fears, cravings, malice, division, confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of distinctiveness.

    Identity of Atman and Brahman

    Atman and Brahman seem different at the empirical level of reality, but this difference is only an illusion, and at the highest level of reality they are really identical. Moksha is attained by realizing the identity of Atman and Brahman, the complete understanding of one’s real nature as Brahman in this life.

    This is frequently stated by Advaita scholars, such as Shankara, as:

    I am other than name, form and action.

    My nature is ever free!

    I am Self, the supreme unconditioned Brahman.

    I am pure Awareness, always non-dual.

    Adi Shankara, Upadesasahasri 11.7,

    Empirical reality - illusion and ignorance

    According to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the sole reality. The status of the phenomenal world is an important question in Advaita Vedanta, and different solutions have been proposed. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are ever-changing and therefore Maya. Brahman is Paramarthika Satyam, Absolute Truth, and "the true Self, pure consciousness, the only Reality (sat), since It is untinged by difference, the mark of ignorance, and since It is the one thing that is not sublatable".

    Causality / Cause and effect in Advaita Vedanta

    All schools of Vedanta subscribe to the theory of Satkaryavada, which means that the effect is pre-existent in the cause. But there are different views on the causal relationship and the nature of the empirical world from the perspective of metaphysical Brahman.

    Māyā (illusion)

    The doctrine of Maya is used to explain the empirical reality in Advaita. Jiva, when conditioned by the human mind, is subjected to experiences of a subjective nature, states Vedanta school, which leads it to misunderstand Maya and interpret it as the sole and final reality. Advaitins assert that the perceived world, including people and other existence, is not what it appears to be". It is Māyā, they assert, which manifests and perpetuates a sense of false duality or divisional plurality.

    The Self, that the Self (Soul) in oneself is same as the Self in another and the Self in everything (Brahman). In Advaita Vedanta philosophy, there are two realities: Vyavaharika (empirical reality) and Paramarthika (absolute, spiritual Reality). Māyā is the empirical reality that entangles consciousness. Māyā has the power to create a bondage to the empirical world, preventing the unveiling of the true, unitary self—the Cosmic Spirit also known as Brahman.

    Maya and Brahman together constitute the entire universe, just like two kinds of interwoven threads create a fabric. Maya is the manifestation of the world, whereas Brahman, which supports Maya, is the cause of the world.

    Brahman is the sole metaphysical truth in Advaita Vedanta, Māyā is true in epistemological and empirical sense; however, Māyā is not the metaphysical and spiritual truth. The spiritual truth is the truth forever, while what is empirical truth is only true for now. The goal of spiritual enlightenment, state Advaitins, is to realize Brahman, realize the unity and Oneness of all reality.

    Avidya (ignorance)

    Due to ignorance (avidya), Brahman is perceived as the material world and its objects (Nama Rupa vikara). According to Shankara, Brahman is in reality attributeless and formless. Also due to avidya, the true identity is forgotten, and material reality, which manifests at various levels, is mistaken as the only and true reality.

    If the concept is logically analyzed, it would lead the Vedanta philosophy toward dualism or nihilism and uproot its fundamental position. To Advaitins, human beings, in a state of unawareness and ignorance of this Universal Self, see their I-ness as different as the being in others, then act out of impulse, fears, cravings, malice, division, confusion, anxiety, passions, and a sense of distinctiveness.

    Pramana and Epistemology

    The ancient and medieval texts of Advaita Vedanta and other schools of Hindu philosophy discuss Pramana (epistemology). The theory of Pramana discusses questions like how correct knowledge can be acquired; how one knows, how one doesn’t; and to what extent knowledge pertinent about someone or something can be acquired.

    Pratyaksa (perception)

    Pratyaksa perception, is of two types: external - that arising from the interaction of five senses and worldly objects, and internal - perception of inner sense, the mind.

    Anumana (inference)

    Anumana, inference, is defined as applying reason to reach a new conclusion about truth from one or more observations and previous understanding of truths. Observing smoke and inferring fire is an example of Anumana.

    The inference is conditionally true if Sapaksha (positive examples as evidence) are present, and if Vipaksha (negative examples as counter-evidence) are absent. A conditionally proven hypothesis is called a nigamana (conclusion).

    Upamana (comparison, analogy)

    Upamana comparison, analogy. Some Hindu schools consider it as a proper means of knowledge. Upamana, states Lochtefeld, may be explained with the example of a traveler who has never visited lands or islands with endemic population of wildlife. The subject of comparison is formally called upameyam, the object of comparison is called upamanam, while the attribute(s) are identified as samanya.

    Anupalabdi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof)

    Anupalabdi non-perception, negative/cognitive proof. Anupalabdhi pramana suggests that knowing a negative, such as there is no jug in this room is a form of valid knowledge. If something can be observed or inferred or proven as non-existent or impossible, then one knows more than what one did without such means. In Advaita school of Hindu philosophy, a valid conclusion is either sadrupa (positive) or asadrupa (negative) relation - both correct and valuable.

    Ethics

    Advaitin ethics includes lack of craving, lack of dual distinctions between one’s own soul and another being’s, good and just Karma. The values and ethics in Advaita Vedanta emanate from what it views as inherent in the state of liberating self-knowledge. It does not alienate or separate an Advaitin from his or her community, rather awakens the truth of life’s unity and interrelatedness.

    One who sees all beings in the self alone, and the self of all beings,

    feels no hatred by virtue of that understanding.

    For the seer of oneness, who knows all beings to be the self,

    where is delusion and sorrow?

    Isha Upanishad 6-7, Translated by a Rambachan

    Texts

    Adi Shankara’s Bhashya (commentaries) have become central texts in the Advaita Vedanta philosophy, but are one among many ancient and medieval manuscripts available or accepted in this tradition. The subsequent Advaita tradition has further elaborated on these Sruti and commentaries.

    Textual authority

    The identity of Atman and Brahman, and their unchanging, eternal nature, are basic truths in Advaita Vedanta. The knowledge claims about self being identical to the nature of Atman and Brahman are found in the Upanishads, which Advaita Vedanta has regarded as errorless revealed truth.

    Advaita Vedanta, like all orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, accepts as an epistemic premise that Sruti (Vedic literature) is a reliable source of knowledge. The Sruti includes the four Vedas including its four layers of embedded texts - the Samhitas, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the early Upanishads. The Bhagavad Gita, similarly in parts can be interpreted to be a monist Advaita text, and in other parts as theistic Dvaita text.

    Bādarāyana’s Brahma Sutras

    The Brahma Sutras of Bādarāyana, also called the Vedanta Sutra, were compiled in its present form around 400–450 CE, but "the great part of the Sutra must have been in existence much earlier than that". Estimates of the date of Bādarāyana’s lifetime differ between 200 BCE and 200 CE.

    Historical context / Late-Classical Age and Hinduism Middle Ages

    Shankara lived in the time of the so-called Late classical Hinduism, which lasted from 650 to 1100 CE. This era was one of political instability that followed Gupta dynasty and King Harsha of the 7th century CE. It was a time of social and cultural change as the ideas of Buddhism, Jainism, and various traditions within Hinduism were competing for members. Buddhism in particular influenced India’s spiritual traditions in the first 700 years of the 1st millennium CE.

    Advaita Vedanta sub-schools

    After Shankara’s death, several sub-schools developed. Two of them still exist today, the Bhamati and the Vivarana. Two defunct schools are the Pancapadika and Istasiddhi, which were replaced by Prakasatman’s Vivarana School. These schools worked out the logical implications of various Advaita doctrines.

    Advaita Vedanta was projected as the central philosophy of Hinduism, and Neo-Vedanta subsumed and incorporated Buddhist ideas thereby making the Buddha a part of the Vedanta tradition, all in an attempt to reposition the history of Indian culture.

    Unifying Hinduism

    Advaita Vedanta came to occupy a central position in the classification of various Hindu traditions. To some scholars, it is with the arrival of Islamic rule, first in the form of Delhi Sultanate thereafter the Mughal Empire, and the subsequent persecution of Indian religions, Hindu scholars began a self-conscious attempts to define an identity and unity.

    The scriptures such as the Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, texts such as Dharmasutras and Puranas, and various ideas that are considered to be paradigmatic Hinduism are traceable to being thousands of years old. Unlike Christianity and Islam, Hinduism as a religion does not have a single founder, rather it is a fusion of diverse scholarship where a galaxy of thinkers openly challenged each other’s teachings and offered their own ideas.

    Influence on Hindu nationalism

    Along with the consolidation of the British imperialist rule came orientalism wherein the new rulers viewed Indians through colonially crafted lenses. In response, emerged Hindu nationalism for collective action against the colonial rule, against the caricature by Christian and Muslim communities, and for socio-political independence. In this colonial era search of identity, Vedanta came to be regarded as the essence of Hinduism, and Advaita Vedanta came to be regarded as then paradigmatic example of the mystical nature of the Hindu religion and umbrella of inclusivism.

    Mahatma Gandhi professed monism of Advaita Vedanta, though at times he also spoke with terms from mind-body dualism schools of Hinduism. The rise of Hindu nationalism as a counter weight to Islam-infused Muslim communitarian organizations such as the Muslim League, to Christianity-infused colonial orientalism and to religious persecution of those belonging to Indian religions.

    Mahatama Gandhi

    Gandhi declared his allegiance to Advaita Vedanta, and was another popularizing force for its ideas. This to Gandhi meant the unity of God and Humans that all beings have the same one soul and therefore equality, that atman exists and is same as everything in the universe, ahimsa (non- violence) is the very nature of this atman. Gandhi called himself Advaitist many times, including his letters, but he believed that others have a right to a viewpoint different than his own because they come from a different background and perspective.

    Non-dualism

    Advaita Vedanta has gained attention in western spirituality and New Age, where various traditions are seen as driven by the same non-dual experience. Nonduality points to a primordial, natural awareness without subject or object. It is also used to refer to interconnectedness, the sense that all things are interconnected and not separate, while at the same time all things retain their individuality.

    Shankara’s monastic tradition

    Shankara, himself considered to be an incarnation of Shiva, established the Dashanami Sampradaya, organizing a section of the Ekadandi monks under an umbrella grouping of ten names.

    Sankara organized the Hindu monks of these ten sects or names under four Mathas (Sanskrit: मठ) (monasteries), called the Amnaya Mathas, with the headquarters at Dvārakā in the West, Jagannatha Puri in the East, Sringeri in the South and Badrikashrama in the North. After

    Sankara’s Samadhi at Vadakkunnathan Temple, his disciples founded four mathas in Thrissur, namely Naduvil Madhom, Thekke Madhom, Idayil Madhom and Vadakke Madhom.

    Vishishtadvaita

    Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita school and Shankara’s Advaita school are both nondualism Vedanta schools, both are premised on the assumption that all souls can hope for and achieve the state of blissful liberation; in contrast, Madhvacharya and his Dvaita Subschool of Vedanta believed that some souls are eternally doomed and damned. Shankara’s theory posits that only Brahman and causes are metaphysical unchanging reality, while the empirical world (Maya) and observed effects are changing, illusive and of relative existence.

    Smarta Tradition

    The Smarta tradition of Hinduism is an ancient tradition, particularly found in south and west India, that revers all Hindu divinities as a step in their spiritual pursuit. Adi Shankara is regarded as the greatest teacher and reformer of the Smarta. According to Alf Hiltebeitel, Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta and practices became the doctrinal unifier of previously conflicting practices with the Smarta tradition.

    Philosophically, the Smarta tradition emphasizes that all images and statues (murti), or just five marks or any anicons on the ground, are visibly convenient icons of spirituality Saguna Brahman. These serve as a step and means to realizing the abstract Ultimate Reality called Nirguna Brahman.

    Relationship with Buddhism / Buddhist influences on Advaita Vedanta

    Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism share similarities and have differences, their relationship a subject of dispute among scholars. The Japanese Buddhist scholarship has argued that Adi Shankara did not understand Buddhism.

    Some Hindu scholars criticized Advaita for its Maya and non-theistic doctrinal similarities with Buddhism. The non-Advaita scholar Bhaskara of the Bhedabheda Vedanta tradition, similarly around 800 CE, accused Shankara’s Advaita as "this despicable broken down Mayavada that has been chanted by the Mahayana Buddhists", and a school that is undermining the ritual duties set in Vedic orthodoxy.

    Similarities with Buddhism

    According to a 1918 paper by the Buddhism scholar O. Rosenberg, a precise differentiation between Brahmanism and Buddhism is impossible to draw. Both traditions hold that "the empirical world is transitory, a show of appearances, and both admit degrees of truth or existence". Both traditions emphasize the human need for spiritual liberation (moksha, nirvana, Kaivalya), however with different assumptions.

    Differences from Buddhism / Atman and anatta

    In Buddhism, Anatta (Pali, Sanskrit cognate An-atman) is the concept that in human beings and living creatures, there is no eternal, essential and absolute something called a soul, self or atman. Buddhist philosophy rejects the concept and all doctrines associated with atman, call atman as illusion (Maya), asserting instead the theory of "no-self" and no-soul. Most schools of Buddhism, from its earliest days, have denied the existence of the self, soul in its core philosophical and ontological texts. In modern era studies, scholars such as Wayman and Wayman state that these self-like concepts are neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality.

    Shankara on Buddhism

    With regard to the Sunyavada (Madhyamaka), Shankara states that being contradictory to all valid means of knowledge, we have not thought worthwhile to refute and "common sense (loka-vyavahara) cannot be denied without the discovery of some other truth".

    Advaitic Meditation (Bhramara-kita-nyaya)

    Bhramara-kita-nyaya is based on the analogy of the butterfly and the caterpillar, which states how the caterpillar gets transformed into a butterfly by transformative changes in time. Similarly, the Jiva (Atman) becomes Brahman itself by ultimately transforming on Brahman.

    ***

    Agnosticism

    Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.

    According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist. Agnosticism is a doctrine or set of tenets rather than a religion.

    English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869. Sanjaya Belatthaputta, a 5th-century BCE Indian philosopher who expressed agnosticism about any afterlife; and Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher who expressed agnosticism about the existence of the gods. The Nasadiya Sukta in the Rigveda is agnostic about the origin of the universe.

    Defining agnosticism

    "Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

    That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions.

    -Thomas Henry Huxley

    Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

    - Thomas Henry Huxley

    A hypothesis with no supporting objective, testable evidence is not an objective, scientific claim. As such, there would be no way to test said hypotheses, leaving the results inconclusive. His agnosticism was not compatible with forming a belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim at hand. Agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.

    George H. Smith rejects agnosticism as a third alternative to theism and atheism and promotes terms such as agnostic atheism (the view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist) and agnostic theism (the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence).

    Etymology

    Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning ‘without’, and γνῶσις (gnosis), meaning ‘knowledge’) was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869 to describe his philosophy, which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge.

    Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe spiritual knowledge. Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry. In recent years, scientific literature dealing with neuroscience and psychology has used the word to mean not knowable. In technical and marketing literature, "agnostic" can also mean independence from some parameters.

    Qualifying agnosticism

    Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt. He asserted that the fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition (e.g. tautologies such as all bachelors are unmarried or all triangles have three corners).

    Types

    Strong agnosticism (also called hard, closed, strict, or permanent agnosticism) The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.

    Weak agnosticism (also called soft, open, empirical, or temporal agnosticism) The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, I don’t know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out.

    Apathetic agnosticism

    The view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest.

    Greek philosophy

    Agnostic thought, in the form of skepticism, emerged as a formal philosophical position in ancient Greece. Its proponents included Protagoras, Pyrrho, Carneades, Sextus Empiricus and, to some degree, Socrates, who was a strong advocate for a skeptical approach to epistemology.

    Pyrrho said that we should refrain from making judgment as we can never know the true reality. According to Pyrrho, having opinion was possible, but certainty and knowledge are impossible. Carneades was also a skeptic in relation to all knowledge claims. He proposed a probability theory, however. According to him, certainty could never be attained. Protagoras rejected the conventional accounts of the gods. He said:

    Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be. Many things prevent knowledge including the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of human life.

    Hindu philosophy: Sanjaya Belatthaputta

    Throughout the history of Hinduism there has been a strong tradition of philosophic speculation and skepticism. The Rig Veda takes an agnostic view on the fundamental question of how the universe and the gods were created. Nasadiya Sukta (Creation Hymn) in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda says:

    Who really knows?

    Who will here proclaim it?

    Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?

    The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.

    Who then knows whence it has arisen?

    Hume, Kant, and Kierkegaard

    Aristotle, Anselm, Aquinas, and Descartes presented arguments attempting to rationally prove the existence of God. The skeptical empiricism of David Hume, the antinomies of Immanuel Kant, and the existential philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard convinced many later philosophers to abandon these attempts, regarding it impossible to construct any unassailable proof for the existence or non-existence of God.

    In his 1844 book, Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard writes:

    "Let us call this unknown something: God. It is nothing more than a name we assign to it. The idea of demonstrating that this unknown something (God) exists, could scarcely suggest itself to Reason. For if God does not exist it would of course be impossible to prove it; and if he does exist it would be folly to attempt it.

    But if when I speak of proving God’s existence I mean that I propose to prove that the Unknown, which exists, is God, then I express myself unfortunately. For in that case I do not prove anything, least of all an existence, but merely develop the content of a conception". Hume was Huxley’s favorite philosopher, calling him "the Prince of Agnostics".

    Thomas Henry Huxley

    Agnostic views are as old as philosophical skepticism, but the terms agnostic and agnosticism were created by Huxley to sum up his thoughts on contemporary developments of metaphysics about the "unconditioned (William Hamilton) and the unknowable" (Herbert Spencer).

    In a letter of September 23, 1860, to Charles Kingsley, Huxley discussed his views extensively: "I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1