Monday, 11 December 2017

Just for Today

Just for today, I will try to live through this day only,
and not tackle my whole life problem at once.
I can do something for twelve hours
that would appall me if I felt that I had to keep it up for a lifetime.

Just for today, I will be happy.
This assumes to be true what Abraham Lincoln said, that
"most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be."

Just for today, I will try to strengthen my mind.
I will study. I will learn something useful.
I will not be a mental loafer.
I will read something that requires effort, thought and concentration.

Just for today, I will adjust myself to what is,
and not try to adjust everything to my own desires.
I will take my "luck" as it comes, and fit myself to it.

Just for today, I will exercise my soul in three
ways: I will do somebody a good turn, and
not get found out. I will do at least two
things I don't want to--just for exercise.
I will not show anyone that my feelings are
hurt; they may be hurt, but today I will not show it.

Just for today, I will be agreeable.
I will look as well as I can, dress becomingly, talk low, 
act courteously, criticize not one bit, not find fault with anything 
and not try to improve or regulate anybody except myself.

Just for today, I will have a program.
I may not follow it exactly, but I will have it.
I will save myself from two pests: hurry and indecision.

Just for today, I will have a quiet half hour all
by myself, and relax. 
During this half hour,
sometime, I will try to get a better perspective of my life.

Just for today, I will be unafraid.
Especially I will not be afraid to enjoy what is beautiful,
and to believe that as I give to the world, so the world will give to me.

- Kenneth Holmes.

Thursday, 30 November 2017

Reconciling the Opposites

The story of Noah and the Flood and the Ark (Genesis 6-8) is not a cute children’s story merely. It is a story for the adults mainly. God tells Noah to bring into the Ark all the opposites: the wild and the domestic, the crawling and the flying, the clean and the unclean, the male and the female of each animal, and locks them together inside the ark. God puts all the natural animosities, all the opposites together, and holds them in one place. This is about balancing the opposites. How important that is in our lives! But this story is also about “holding” things even when they do not make sense.

Mother Mary is a beautiful example of this practice. Even when she does not understand many things (during the Birth of Jesus or when Jesus is lost and found), she holds (keeps) them in her heart and ponders over them. In fact, the Bible says, “Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Luke 2:19) and once again, almost repeating the previous verse, “she treasured all these things in her heart” (Luke 2:51). So the story of Noah is not about God punishing “bad” people, but it is about us: that we need to befriend all the opposites that we encounter in our lives. Like Mary we could treasure and ponder in our heart all the contradictions that come our way, and one day we may know why all “those things” good and bad happened to us.

Therefore, when Jesus asks, “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44), it is about befriending our enemies both outside ourselves and inside ourselves. We are called to accept those people whom we don’t like; to accept people who are different from us. Similarly, we are also called to befriend our inner enemies of anger, resentment, vengeance, greed, hatred, selfishness, restlessness, violence, irritations, disrespect, emotional chaos, bitterness, cynicism, impatience, etc. That’s when we can fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy: “The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest” (Isaiah 11:6-9).

Whether it is the story of Noah or the life of Mary or the life of Jesus Christ, each of them is an invitation to us to expand our hearts. And that we may hold and even treasure in our hearts not just the good things but also all the opposites (light and darkness, good and bad, right and wrong, likes and dislikes, virtues and vices, positives and negatives) that we experience in our lives. Ultimately, it is love that can reconcile opposites. It is God’s love that can unite and reconcile everything in the world and in our hearts; it is God and His love that can help us accept, own, integrate and reconcile all the shadows.

(Inspired by Fr Richard Rohr OFM’s meditation on Forgiveness, August 30, 2017 .)

Monday, 27 November 2017

Relationship, Love, Mystery

When you submit to love, you lose control.
In relationships you always lose control.
If prayer is relationship you always lose control, you become passive.
When you even skim the edges of relationship, you submit to mystery and lose control.
Mystery isn’t something that you cannot understand—it is something you can endlessly understand!
If you have control over your relationship, then it is not friendship or marriage, it would be abuse, it might even be rape.
Love is not love if I don’t lose control, give the reins to the other person.
Marriage or friendship or intimacy would be so much easier if there wasn’t another person involved, but then it would be meaningless, too.
When and if you love, you lose control.
Without love and relationships, life has no colours, and no meaning.
In the beginning was the Relationship. God is Relationship. God is Community. God is Love.

(Thanks to William Paul Young and Richard Rohr.)

Sunday, 26 November 2017

Digital Authenticity

We carry our obstacles in our pockets now, vibrating and notifying and emoji-ing us about everything and nothing. And let’s be honest: most of our digital and personal conversation is about nothing. Nothing that matters, nothing that lasts, nothing that’s real. We think and talk about the same things again and again, like a broken record. We do everything possible to avoid being in the present, and even “kill” the presence by means of more and more entertainment, more and more highly excitable and sensational stuff. We need always something that entertains us, that excites us more and more because being in the present is boring.

Even the videos that we share and the picture-quotes that we share have to excite us on the sense level. (I’m not talking of pornography, mind you.) We are not worried about the truth. Remember how we shared the news about Fr Tom’s crucifixion, the sudden death of Jackie Chan or other celebrities… we don’t know what is true, what is false. Our television channels keep bombarding the news that are negative (sometimes only negative), sensational, and their business seems to concentrate on all the “bad” news in the world, and also gossips about movie stars and sportspersons.

It’s amazing that we have enough and more time for WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and all social networking. At our dining tables, we give more attention to the messages received than to enjoying the food at hand or in our mouth.

We even have stopped eating broilers… we keep changing our diets according to the whims and fancies of our WhatsApp groups. Fruits before or after the meal? How many litres of water? Let’s not deny the positives of all these… but are we paying a high price for these? Someone said he even stopped reading books, there is enough and more stuff on WhatsApp. Wow.

We have become restless. We don’t know when and how to end a digital conversation. Ok. Ok. Thanks. Welcome. Ok. Ok. Then the emoticons… then…. Endless almost.

Superstitions galore. Please pass this message to at least 20 more idiots, otherwise something bad will befall you. The black cat era has not passed yet.

If some of us can be blamed for gossip, I think almost all of us can be blamed for “detraction.” If gossip is about falsity and evil, detraction is about spreading evil though it’s true. Do you know what…?

We feel in ourselves the compulsion to answer each and every damn thing. Otherwise what will they feel? When were we so needy for love and attention?

Haven’t we become more ego-centric? Hasn’t the already fragmented consciousness breaking up even more? We are easily distracted. We boast ourselves with our capacities for multi-tasking. What does it mean? We are not able to do one thing properly, are we? Even our meetings (especially the boring ones) warrant our cell phones out… “I’d better reply some messages now, and thus use my time!” And this is no laughing stock!

Aren’t we like Martha “distracted” with all our serving? We are serving the Lord, but we are distracted.

Martha is doing the reasonable, hospitable thing—rushing around, fixing, preparing, and as the text brilliantly says, “distracted with all the serving” (Lk 10:40).

Martha was everything good and right, but one thing she was not. She was not present—most likely, she was not present to herself, she was not present to her own feelings of resentment, perhaps her own martyr complex, her need to be needed. This is the kind of goodness that does no good! If she was not present to herself, Martha could not be present to her guests in any healing way, and spiritually speaking, she could not even be present to God. Presence is of one piece. How you are present to anything is how you are present to everything. How you are present to anything is how you are present to God, loved ones, strangers, those who are suffering.

Unless you are present to yourself, you can’t be present to others, or to God.

Jesus, in the same passage of Martha and Mary, doesn’t lose the occasion to affirm Mary, “who sat at his feet listening to him speak” (Luke 10: 39). Mary knows how to be present to him and, presumably, to herself. She understands the one thing that makes all other things happen at a deeper and healing level. Prayer is not one of the ten thousand things, but it is the one thing necessary to see all those ten thousand things. It is the presence that is needed to live those ten thousand things in a healing way.

(Expanded from Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditations on “Living in the Now.”)

Saturday, 25 November 2017

Monkey Mind

"I can’t escape my monkey mind even on retreat. Daily contemplative prayer is crucial to helping me live in the now. It takes constant intention and practice to remain open, receptive, and awake to the moment. We live in a time with more easily available obstacles to presence than any other period in history. We carry our obstacles in our pockets now, vibrating and notifying and emoji-ing us about everything and nothing. And let’s be honest: most of our digital and personal conversation is about nothing. Nothing that matters, nothing that lasts, nothing that’s real. We think and talk about the same things again and again, like a broken record. Pretty soon we realize we’ve frittered away years of our life, and it is the only life we have." (Richard Rohr, "Living in the Now: Practicing Presence," Daily meditation of Friday, November 24, 2017.)

Unless I am present to myself, I can't be present to others or to God. Unless I'm present to myself, I can't realise that God is not out there, but God is in here: He is right here right now. All that I need is right here right now. The only way to access these is to be present here, to be present now, to be present to myself. I know the hardest place to be is to be here, the hardest time to live through is right now right here. Unless I am present to myself here and now, I can't be present in a healing way to others. In discovering myself, I discover God. In discovering God, I discover myself and my communion with others.

Monday, 20 November 2017

Here and Now

Living in the present moment, here and now. That's spirituality. The patterns of resistance and ego-centredness do arise when you sit now, when you are present here. To be in the present moment is a boring thing.  The mind moves forward or backward: either to future to plan or worry about things, or to replay the past. Jesus asks not to worry about times and seasons, not to worry about past or future. He asks us to forgive the past, and not worry about tomorrow. Not even to worry about food or drink or clothing. God's kingdom is not a matter of food and drink, of clothing and shelter. Jesus asks us not to worry or fret or be anxious about anything or anyone or any "time." The Lord reveals himself in the present; only in the here and now we will know that we are already in union. So the spirituality about the here and now is about living the union with God just now just here. All that we need now is here, all that we need for here is available just now. God is available just here just now. He is present. The boundaries around the present keep increasing and the peace too increases. The past and the future don't matter. No boundaries in space and time are needed to experience God. To lose yourself into this present moment, and waste your time into this present moment is the key to living here and now with God. That lonely, deserted place, where you don't expect anything for your past or future is that place you need to arrive at. That place is here just now. Always in the now. And that is the hardest place to be, the hardest period of time (point) to be conscious of. This is the moment where the point or spark of nothingness is revealed (of which Thomas Merton is speaking).

Spirituality is about seeing

"Lord, let me see." Isn't that a beautiful prayer? Yes. Prayer is not one of the ten thousand things. It's that by which we see those ten thousand things. In prayer we see all things in a new light. (Richard Rohr, Everything Belongs, 93.) Spirituality, therefore, is about seeing. It's not about earning or achieving. It's about relationship rather than results or requirements. Once you see, the rest follows. (Rohr, Everything Belongs, 33.)

Friday, 17 November 2017

Love is Your True Self

The love in you—which is the Spirit in you—always somehow says yes. Love is not something you do; love is someone you are. It is your True Self. Love is where you came from and love is where you're going. It's not something you can buy. It's not something you can attain. It is the presence of God within you, called the Holy Spirit, who is uncreated grace.

You can't manufacture this by any right conduct. You can't make God love you one ounce more than God already loves you right now.

You can't.

You can go to church every day for the rest of your life. God isn't going to love you any more than God loves you right now. You cannot make God love you any less, either—not an ounce less. Do the most terrible thing—steal and pillage, cheat and lie—and God wouldn't love you less. You cannot change the Divine mind about you! The flow of divine love is constant, total, and 100 percent towards your life. God is for you.

We can't diminish God's love for us. What we can do, however, is learn how to believe it, receive it, trust it, allow it, and celebrate it, accepting Trinity's whirling invitation to join in the cosmic dance.

That's why all spirituality comes down to how you're doing life right now.

How you're doing right now is a microcosm of the whole of your life.

How you do anything is how you do everything.

Richard Rohr, The Divine Dance: The Trinity and Your Transformation (London: SPCK, 2016), 193, slightly edited.

Tuesday, 7 November 2017

At the Margins

Those who are marginal in the world are central in the Church (or that's how it is supposed to be). Going to the margins revitalizes the Church. We thus find ourselves going to the edge, going to the bottom, going to those who are excluded at the margins. This is to imitate our Master who is constantly going to the lepers and those whom society labels "sinners." The Church will always be renewed when our attention shifts from ourselves to those who need our care. If we go out to the edges, to the poor, then we discover that petty disagreements, fruitless debates and paralysing rivalries will eventually recede and gradually vanish. The most remarkable experience of those who work with the marginalized and the poor is that, in the end, the blessings flow through the poor; and the poor are those who give more than they receive. The poor give food to us. "Blessed are the poor." (See Henri Nouwen, Bread for the Journey, Nov 1; see also Richard Rohr, The Divine Dance, 133.)

Saturday, 4 November 2017

Humility and Honesty

Humility is the mother of all virtues; it is mother of all growth. To be humble is to be honest. Humility and honesty are essentially the same thing. One who is humble is brutally honest about oneself and is open to truth. Only those who are humble and honest can grow in truth. Without these two qualities, we don't grow. The only honest response to life is a humble one. Our growth, in other words, is by a letting-go. It is accomplished by the release of our current defense postures, by the letting go of fear and our attachment to self-image. Thus, we grow more by subtraction than by addition. So our growth is not a matter of accumulating more and better information, but a matter of letting go of our ego and "decreasing." Growth, paradoxically, (in spiritual terms) is not about increasing, but about decreasing. I must decrease, He must increase. (See Richard Rohr, Everything Belongs, 120-121.)

Tuesday, 30 May 2017

Inner Journey

Paul’s farewell discourse. (See today’s first reading.) He is going to Jerusalem. Remember Jesus’ journey. But this is not merely an outward journey: it is symbolic of an inner journey. The most difficult journey is an interior one. Paul …. discerns God’s will. Though people tell him not to go, he knows God’s inspiration.

Prayer, reflection, contemplation => the most important aspects of our religious life. Work and activities should not stifle our contemplative spirit. (Active contemplation.)

Contemplation = long, loving, lingering look at something. To see God in everything, in everyone. It is allowing the God in me to meet the God in the world. Allowing the divine to meet the divine the world. It is surrender. Not an action. It is a passion.

Prayer or contemplation is surrendering; not about saying or doing something. It is tuning into God’s presence, His active presence. It is allowing oneself to be moved by the Spirit.

As we prepare for the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, let us allow God to work in us powerfully.

Thursday, 9 March 2017

Words of Fire

“The Lord God Almighty, said to me, I will make my words like a fire in your mouth.” (Jer 5:14)

Wednesday, 11 January 2017

With Differently Abled Children

It was a beautiful day today. I joined in the celebration of the first death anniversary of Francis’ brother-in-law. The family sponsored the meal for the mentally retarded children and other differently abled persons here at Podanur. It was an overwhelming experience. I could control my tears, but not others. God is our Father; God is their Father too. He takes care of them too. Just before lunch, the children prayed for us all, and kept a couple of minutes of silence for the deceased. "Give him eternal rest, O Lord. Be with all those children and all those people whom we met today."

Friday, 28 October 2016

Divisions

When divisions arise against my desire, I have to find the courage to live them as lovingly as I tried to prevent them. (Henri Nouwen)

Tuesday, 25 October 2016

Recognition of Darkness

Nouwen writes in Sabbatical Journey: "I feel lonely, depressed, and unmotivated. The same old pain that has been with me for many years and never seems to go completely away. I realize that my busyness is a way to keep my depression at bay. It doesn't work. I have to pray more. I know that I need to just sit in God's presence and show God all my darkness. But everything in me rebels against that. Still, I know it is the only way out."

Monday, 24 October 2016

A Bullet

The heroine (Alia Bhatt), with a gun in her hand, asks the hero (Randeep Hooda) in the movie Highway, "A bullet can kill only one person, right?" The hero removing the weapon from her hand says, "It kills two persons, the one who is shot at, and the one who shoots."

Sunday, 23 October 2016

The prayer of the humble pierces the clouds

The prayer of the humble pierces the clouds, and it will not rest until it reaches its goal; it will not desist until the Most High responds and does justice for the righteous. (Sir 35:21)

Saturday, 22 October 2016

Light of Forgiveness

Forgiveness does not change the past, but it enlarges your future. You can't rid darkness by means of darkness. You can't overcome evil with evil. You can't wage a war against war or terror. Violence is not the solution to violence. You can overcome evil only with good. The solution for war is forgiveness, fraternity, compassion, love. To dispel darkness you need to bring light in. "O Lord, in your light, we see light." Let the God in me see the God in the world; let the divine in me meet the divine in the world.

Friday, 21 October 2016

What should I focus on?

The way for us to be in this world is to focus on the spiritual life - our own as well as the spiritual life of each one of the people that we meet. All the rest pales before these "spiritual events," which will become part of our enduring search for the truth of life and the love of God. (Henri Nouwen, Sabbatical Journey.)

Thursday, 20 October 2016

“The Solitary Reaper” by William Wordsworth

“The Solitary Reaper” is a short lyrical ballad, composed of thirty-two lines and divided into four stanzas. As the title suggests, the poem is dominated by one main figure, a Highland girl standing alone in a field harvesting grain. The poem is written in the first person and can be classified as a pastoral, or a literary work describing a scene from country life. The eyewitness narration conveys the immediacy of personal experience, giving the reader the impression that the poet did not merely imagine the scene but actually lived it. However, Wordsworth’s sister, Dorothy, writes in her Recollections of a Tour in Scotland that the idea for “The Solitary Reaper” was inspired by an excerpt from Thomas Wilkinson’s manuscript Tours to the British Mountain: "Female who was reaping alone, she sang in Erse as she bended over her sickle, the sweetest human voice I ever heard. Her strains were tenderly melancholy."

“The Solitary Reaper” begins with the speaker (or it could be the author himself perhaps) asking the reader to “behold” the girl as she works in the field. The first stanza is a straightforward description of the scene. The girl is standing alone in the field, cutting grain, and singing a “melancholy strain (tune).” Wordsworth emphasizes the girl’s solitude by using words such as “single,” “solitary,” “by herself,” and “alone.” Solitaries are common figures in Wordsworth’s poetry and are usually surrounded by a natural environment. The act of reaping alone in the field binds the girl intimately to the earth. Also, as the girl sings and the melody fills the lonely valley, she becomes almost completely merged with nature.

The next two stanzas describe the speaker’s reaction to the maiden’s song. The words of the song are in a language unknown to him, but he remains transfixed by the melody, which seems to stretch the limits of time and space. He associates the sweetness of the reaper’s song with the beautiful cries of the nightingale and the cuckoo, both familiar images of transcendence in Romantic poetry. As he allows the song to engulf his consciousness, he envisions far-off places and times of long ago. His imagination transports him from the field in which he stands to the edge of infinity.

In the fourth stanza, the speaker abruptly shifts his attention from his musings to the scene before him. He continues to listen, but the transcendent moment is past. He again calls attention to the reaper, who is unaware of the speaker’s presence or the effect her song has had on him. As the speaker walks away from the field, the song fades from his hearing, but its plaintive (sad) melody echoes in his heart and his imagination.

Taken from: http://www.enotes.com/topics/solitary-reaper/in-depth, slightly edited.

Wednesday, 19 October 2016

Personal Encounter with the Lord

Life becomes an unbearable burden whenever we lose touch with the presence of a loving Saviour and see only hunger to be alleviated, injustice to be addressed, violence to be overcome, wars to be stopped, [problems to be solved, order to be achieved] and loneliness to be removed. All these are critical issues, and Christians must try to solve them; however, when our concern no longer flows from our personal encounter with the living Christ, we feel oppressive weight. (Nouwen)

Saturday, 15 October 2016

Jubilee and Provincial Community Day Celebrations

We had the Jubilee celebration of the Salesians of Guwahati Province, and also of the Provincial Community Day at Provincial House, Guwahati. I thank the Lord for these confreres, and for Fr V.M. Thomas, our Provincial. May God bless them all!

Monday, 10 October 2016

Enhancing Teacher Skills

The four-day course "Enhancing Teacher Skills: Effective Communication and English Language Skills for Better Teaching" began today at Don Bosco College, Tura. There are 31 participants for this course from all over the Garo Hills. It is basically an English improvement course desgined for teachers. We can see a lot of interest and enthusiasm in these teachers who want to learn the language well in order to teach better, and thus inspire their students.

Friday, 7 October 2016

Most worth telling...

I believe what is most worth telling is always what cannot be told.  (Gadamer, "Die Kunst, unrecht haben zu können: Gespräch mit dem Philosophen Hans-Georg Gadamer," Süddeutsche Zeitung 34 [1990] 16; quoted in Jean Grondin, Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics 166 n. 37.) What we say always mean more than is actually expressed. "A meaning, an intention always goes above and beyond what is actually captured in language, in words that reach others. An insatiable yearning for the right word – that is what constitutes the genuine life and nature of language." (Gadamer, "Grenzen der Sprache," 99; quoted in Grondin 123.)

Thursday, 6 October 2016

Consumerism = Consuming Desires?

The basic problem with consumer society is not that it makes us desire too much, but that it makes us desire too little. We are distracted from our true freedom. (Tony Kelly, Consuming Passions: Christianity and the Consumer Society [Sydney: Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, 1995] 11; quoted in Gallagher, Clashing Symbols: An Introduction to Faith and Culture, new and revised edition [London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2003] 129.)

Wednesday, 5 October 2016

Youth Ministry

The current challenge in youth ministry is not religious but anthropological: it is about who they are becoming. This question of identity requires a prior critique of the manipulative images in the dominant culture. (Riccardo Tonelli, unpublished paper on youth ministry, European Symposium, Rome, May 1994;  quoted in Michael Paul Gallagher, Clashing Symbols: An Introduction to Faith and Culture, new and revised edition [London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2003] 145.)

Tuesday, 27 September 2016

Cosmic Christ

Richard Rohr writes: Trinitarian theology offers us perhaps the best foundation for true interfaith dialogue and friendship we’ve ever had, because now Christians don’t have Jesus as our primary or only trump card. This makes mutual respect and intelligent dialogue with other religions easier and much more natural. Up to now, we’ve generally used Jesus in a competitive way instead of a cosmic way, and thus others hear our Gospel at a tribal, “Come join us—or else” level. This is a far cry from the Universal Christ of Colossians “who reconciles all things to himself . . . in heaven and on earth” (Colossians 1:20). In short, we made Jesus Christ into an exclusive savior instead of the totally inclusive savior he was meant to be. As my friend Brian McLaren likes to put it, “Jesus is the Way—he’s not standing in the way!”

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

Method of Philosophy

The method of philosophy is rational reflection. Philosophy starts with the experience of facts, events, or phenomena of matter, life and mind. In other words, philosophy employs not only data of sense but also data of consciousness. We can call this a generalised empirical method. (If natural and physical sciences use an empirical method consisting only of data of sense, philosophy uses a generalised empirical method that includes not just data of sense but also data of consciousness.) Philosophical method is not divorced from the world of our common experience, and so its method is empirical. Experience leads to a formulation of hypothesis, and a critical reflection and verification on it to give a satisfactory philosophical judgment. Here, verification does not mean an experiential verification by experiment or observation (as in the natural sciences). Philosophical verification should be consistent with the facts of experience; it must be able to harmonize the judgments of facts with judgments of values.

But what is a method? A method is a normative pattern of recurrent and related operations yielding cumulative and progressive results. It is not a recipe like for a cake or for making biriyani – yielding the same results again and again. Method is not a set of rules to be blindly followed. It is a framework for collaborative creativity.

Substance and Causality

Space, time, causality and substance are fundamental categories of knowledge. That is why a thing is defined as a substance existing somewhere in space and at a certain point of time having the power to produce changes in other things. Let us in this section try to understand what we mean by the notions of substance and causality.

Substance or Thing
(1) A substance or thing is that which is permanent in the midst of changes--that which remains essentially the same throughout all the successive changes of state which it undergoes in course of time, and sustains and holds these changes together, gives them a certain continuity, connection, and unity.

(2) A substance, regarded as a permanent entity amidst all changes, implies also the notion that it is a centre of effort, energy, and activity. For its permanence implies a continuous effort of self-assertion and self-preservation, which consists in resisting and overcoming the external forces acting upon it. By substances we mean the permanent principle of identity in the midst of change and difference. Qualities and activities exist in it.

(3) A substance has an essence and manifestations. Qualities are the manifestations of a substance. Without qualities it is a meaningless essence, just as qualities are meaningless without a substance.

(4) Things or substances have powers and capacities. They have powers of acting on other things. For instance, water can moisten the soil, fire can burn combustible things. Capacities are the passive, latent powers.

Descartes defines substance as what exits in itself and conceived by itself. For him, God is the absolute substance; mind and matter created by God are relative substances.

Causality
Cause and change are related notions. Why does a change happen? It is produced by its cause. Here we shall discuss only the notion of  causality. It shows that a cause produces an effect, and that a particular cause produces a particular effect. Cause, according to popular conception, can be thought of as a power or force which produces the effect. We are familiar with the dilemma, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Here is an effort to understand the cause-effect relationship. From the very beginning, the investigation of the natural world consisted in the search for the relevant causes of a variety of natural phenomena.

Aristotle recognises four types of things that can be given in answer to a why-question:
(1) The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue.
(2) The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue.
(3) The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child.
(4) The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools.

Causality, therefore, is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first.

Tuesday, 20 September 2016

Space and Time

These notions are both puzzling and very interesting. To begin, let us define space as the ordered totality of concrete extensions and time as the ordered totality of concrete durations. (Space, time, causality and substance are fundamental categories of knowledge. That is why a thing is defined as a substance existing somewhere in space and at a certain point of time having the power to produce changes in other things.)

Space
It is characterised by relations like above, below, inside, outside, near, far, distance, here, there, right, left, in front, behind, etc. Space which is perceived is perceptual space; portions of space are perceived by means of vision, active touch, or movement. For example, our experience of the horizon of the sky as touching the ocean or the sea, or the convergence of a road or a highway are all perceptions of space. From the many perceptual spaces we may gradually frame a concept of space. It is perceived as shape, size, distance, etc. It is the ground of co-existence of things.

Therefore, we can say that the notion of space has the following characteristics:
(1) Space is one: particular spaces are all parts of one space.
(2) It is infinite.
(3) It is infinitely divisible.
(4) It is continuous.
(5) It has three dimensions: length, breadth, and depth or distance.
(6) Things exist in space.

Descartes identifies space with extension. It is not a real substance, but an attribute of matter. According to him, extension is the essence of matter.

Time
Now, let us discuss the notion of time. It is characterised by relations like now, then, soon, recently, long ago, today, after, etc. One can also think of time in connection with such questions as what is the time, what is the date, how soon, how long ago. On that basis one arrives at the Aristotelian definition that time is the number or measure determined by the successive equal stages of a local movement. It is a number when one answers three o'clock or January 26, 1969. It is a measure when one answers three years or 1969 years. One can push this line of thought further by asking whether there is just one time for the universe, or, on the other hand, there are many distinct times as there are distinct local movements. According to Einstein, there are as many standard times as there are inertial reference frames that are in relative motion.

Besides the above, there are other questions concerned with "now." Aristotle asked whether there is a succession of "nows" or just a single "now." It may be described as the meeting point of the immediate past and the immediate future; it emerges from the immediate past and grows/flows into the immediate future. It is not a mathematical instant but a duration filled with an event. There results what is called the psychological present, which is not an instant, a mathematical point, but a time-span, so that our experience of time is sometimes a "leisurely" now and sometimes a rapid succession of overlapping time-spans. The past is known by memory and the future is known by expectation. Only from such a perceptual time can we move to notion of time which is an ordered totality of concrete extensions.

The notion of time thus can be said to have the following characteristics:
(1) Time is one: particular times are all parts of one time.
(2) It is infinite.
(3) Time is also infinitely divisible.
(4) It is continuous.
(5) It has only one dimension. It is irreversible. The flow of time cannot be reversed.
(6) Time is filled with events. We cannot think of time apart from succession of events, outer or inner.

According to Henri Bergson, time is duration, or change, the continuous progress of the past which gnaws into the future. It is the vehicle of perceptual novelty. It is very heart of reality.

Sunday, 18 September 2016

We become what we behold!

We always become what we behold. We become what we eat; we become what we read; we become what we take in; we become what we see. I am now a part of what I am trying to see. It’s exactly the principle: We know by what we are. Our perceptions are nothing but the projections of my depth – both conscious and “unconscious” (=twilight consciousness). I see what I project on to reality. Potentially, everything in the universe becomes a mirror.

Saturday, 17 September 2016

The Village by the Sea by Anita Desai

The Village by the Sea is set in a small village called Thul, a village which is near to Alibagh. It is a story about the life of a family of six which consists of the parents and their four children; Lila, Hari, Kamal and Bela. Lila, the eldest child among four siblings, is thirteen years old, yet she already has the maturity of an adult. Lila’s family represents the typical lives of families in the small fishing village of Thul. While other children are fortunate enough to have parents or at least the fathers to go fishing and provide food for them, Lila’s siblings have to survive on their own since their mother is sick while their father has always been drunk. For that reason, Lila plays the role as the mother by doing the house work. Her brother Hari, just twelve, is the only person with whom she can share her troubles. He works in the field behind their hut.Their mother is ill and needs constant care and nursing. She is anaemic due to malnourishment and she grows weaker and weaker with each passing day. Their father, who has been out of work for months, is in a permanent drunken stupor. With two younger sisters to take care of as well as their mother, life for Lila and Hari is not easy. Their father is not very useful as he is often away at the local toddy shop, getting drunk. There is a constant need for money as the family is almost always in debt.

One day, Hari is being told by his good friend, Ramu that their fishing village is going to transform into an industrial place with many factories to be built. Since that, he keeps thinking about the idea that the factories would give the villagers new jobs. However, Hari is not sure about the idea since it seems to take long time for the transformation to happen that he should think of another way to earn a living. Then one day, Hari decides he has had just about enough and decides to leave for Bombay – the Bombay where dreams come true and ambition yields. Hari leaves for Mumbai secretly, leaving Lila the full responsibility to take care of the family. She is left alone to manage her sisters Bela and Kamal, as well as her mother, and somehow keep the family strings together. Help comes from an unexpected source, the rich de Silva's.

 There, Hari builds a strong friendship with Mr. Panwallah, the lovable watch repairer whose shop is just beside Jagu’s. Through his experience with Mr. Panwallah and Jagu and the chain of events that take place in Bombay, Hari realises that he should return to his village with savings and help his family overcome their hardships.

Meanwhile, in Bombay, Hari works at Sri Krishna Eating House owned by Jagu, a kind person, and he is also a watchman of the de Silva’s house in Bombay. Hari being new in the great city of Bombay, and all alone, Jagu takes pity on him and welcomes him to work in his restaurant. De Silva has a vacation house in Thul and he knows Hari since Hari used to help him to settle down in Thul. While working at the restaurant, Hari builds a good relationship with a watch mender, Mr. Panwallah who then teaches him watch mending. Hari acquires the skill that he manages to repair a watch of Mr. Panwallah’s customer and make money for that. Mr. Panwallah inspires Hari to learn the skill so that one day it could be useful for him to earn a better living.

Meanwhile, Lila and her sisters Bela and Kamal are doing well since the de Silva’s family come for summer vacation in Thul. They work for the family like Hari used to during his presence. Mr. de Silva is the one who sends their mother to the hospital in Alibagh when Lila asks for his help. Their father turns over a new leaf, and accompanies their mother throughout her seven month treatment without drinking and without having any debts. After that, a bird researcher Sayyid Ali replaces Mr. de Silva’s place to stay at the house but Lila and her sisters still continue their job at the house. 

It has been seven months since Hari left his village and it is right before Diwali that Hari goes back to Thul, surprising his sisters with the money he has earned. He eagerly tells them everything that has happened in Bombay and his dream of building better life for them in Thul. He plans to adapt with the transformation which is soon to take place by working on poultry farm first. His watch mending skill would make him money when the factories are built since people from town who wear watches will come and stay in Thul to work. Hari also has been told by Lila about their father’s change and their mother’s health condition. That year, their family celebrate Diwali much better than the previous years. Their mother has been discharged from the hospital and their father is not drinking anymore.

Anita Desai has explicitly described in her very own style of writing how Hari in the dilapidated conditions of the Sri Krishna Eating House finds warmth and affection through Mr Panwallah-owner and watchmender of the Ding-Dong watch shop. Mr Panwallah instills confidence in Hari and comforts him when he is terribly home sick. He even gives Hari a vivid and inspiring future and teaches him watchmending .This shows that even in one of the most busiest, rickety and ramshackled cities such as Bombay (now Mumbai) there is still hope, love and affection.

Friday, 16 September 2016

"The Relique" by John Donne

The Relique is a poem in which Donne makes fun of the superstitions attached to the 'purely' platonic ideas of love; he also manages to satirize the society's blind prohibition against the attachment between the sexes. (Satire = A poem or prose composition in which prevailing vices or follies are held up to ridicule or scorn; or a vein of such mockery found incidentally in many kinds of literary work, especially comic drama and fiction.) The persona addresses his beloved, with whom he has not yet been allowed to be intimate. They have only kissed out of the courtesy at meeting and parting, but not yet otherwise.

He has taken a strand of hair from the lady out of love; and he has bound it around his wrist. Now he imagines that after some centuries, when superstitious people dig up the grave in order to bury another dead body, they will find this strand of hair around his wrist (still not decayed!) and begin to make myths about it. The digger will interpret that the man (the speaker, when dead and dug up) had bound the strand of hair of his beloved so as to make it magically possible for him to meet his beloved (whose hair is magical). He will take that bone and hair to the king and the bishop and request them to declare the two as saints of love.

It is funny that the two have done nothing of the sort in reality. The speaker implicitly requests the lady not to worry because at least that kind of canonization might happen in the future. Those foolish people will regard the hair and bones as things for doing miracle by the lovers; to the man, however, the miracle is a different one. He does regard that his beloved is a real miracle. He is writing the present poem to tell the truth to those who will read and know the reality of those future times when people will make nonsense myths out of such incidents. In a sense, the poem is a satire on the superstitious ideas of love and magic, rather than believing in the actual contact and attachment between man and woman.

The 'relic' of the title refers to the hair and bone that people will declare relic out of superstitious belief. (A relic means 'a thing belonging to a person who is believed to possess saintly or magical power preserved for its religious or magical value'.) The poem is a pure product of fancy. The persona here comes close to being critical of the lady who seems to have allowed nothing more than formal kisses and a strand of hair a keepsake. We know that, physical contact, in Donne's philosophy of love, is essential even for spiritual love and physical contacts are not absent even from this admirable lyric. There is, to the man, first the bracelet of the beloved's hair tied round the lover's wrist, and thus uniting him physically as well as spiritually to her. Secondly, there are kisses which he could exchange. Further, the poet expressly states that a love which is purely spiritual is a miracle of nature, and not an ordinary human achievement. The lyric is based on a tension between spiritual and physical love and the tension is not resolved.

The poem is perhaps one of the most subtle and implicit works in Donne's corpus.

Sunday, 11 September 2016

Love and Failure

"If your only goal is to love, then there is no such thing as failure." (Richard Rohr)
Love doesn't expect the other to change; it changes you. Love changes everything.

Thursday, 1 September 2016

Heidegger's Existentialism

Existentialism has the basic tenet that existence precedes essence. Soren Kierkegaard is the father of existentialism.

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) is one of the Big Four of the existentialists; the other three being Jean-Paul Sartre, Gabriel Marcel, and Karl Jaspers. Martin Heidegger was born in a devout Catholic family at Messkirch, Baden, Germany. He was so attached to his home soil, that he even refused lucrative offers at Bonn and Munich. At the age of seventeen, he read Franz Bentano's dissertation. This was one of his first awkward attempts to penetrate into philosophy. Bentano deals with the question "Ti to on" (What is being?) in this work.

In 1913 he completed his Ph.D. He then enlisted himself in the war though only for two months. Heidegger was a Greek scholary, an expert in medieval philosophy (especially Duns Scotus). He was also interested in mathematics.  In 1917 he was back in the army, then he married Elfride Petri. Between 1920 and 1923 he was assistant to Husserl in Freiburg. In 1927 he hastily published Being and Time, only to revise it in 1953. Heidegger succeeded Husserl in 1928, and became the Rector of the university in 1933.

One of the darkest and the most painful moments for many biographers is to deal with Heidegger's support of Adolf Hitler. Though his support of Hitler lasted only ten months, some can never forgive him that. Heidegger wouldn't dismiss the opposing professors in the university, he eventually resigned his post. In 1944 he was even sent to dig trenches by the same Nazi regime. After 1945 Heidegger retired.

Some of his notable friends were W.K. Heisenberg, Hannah Arendt, Rudolf Bultmann, and Viktor Frankl.

A major hurdle in understanding Heidegger would be his language - poetic, flowery, twisted, and even convoluted. Heidegger is difficult, often obscure. Even a fellow German would find him difficult. E.g., Die Welt weltet (= The world worlds); Things think; Blessing muses. Hannah Arendt calls him a "secret king of thought." Heidegger had an old eagle's mind.

Here we shall deal with the following four topics:
(a) Being
(b) Dasein: Understanding and Truth
(c) Being-in-the-World
(d) Authenticity

Being
Heidegger was concerned about the ontological question about the originary meaning of being and its main articulations. According to Heidegger, Nietzsche was the last great metaphysician of the West. He was pre-Socratic in his thought. In fact, Heidegger, along with Nietzsche, considers the pre-Socratic age as the golden age. The pre-Socratics, especially Parmenides, engaged in the study of Being, not beings. After that in the West, there has been a forgetfulness of Being. Heidegger says we have forgotten what it is to attend to Being, for we have lost our amazement at Being, our wonder. Being is a wonder, something wonderful, and yet we do not feel that wonder any more. Modern man does not understand the question of Being.

Therefore, true metaphysics should focus on existence, not existents or concretely existing things. Unfortunately in history we see metaphysics has been involved in distractions by abandoning the original quest to focus on Being, existence. (Let us not forget his attempt at understanding Franz Bentano's dissertation which dealt with the question "What is being?") So to correct this wrong approach, according to Heidegger, the conventional usage of words need to be broken.

Heidegger grew up not far from the centre of Black Forest and retained a deep love for earth and soil (Grund) of his native place.

We can never come upon pure existence as such.

Dasein: Understanding and Truth
Since Be-ing  (the to-be) does not manifest itself directly, we must settle for questioning it through a manifestation of it. This is best provided by the human person, der Mann. S/he is the best link between beings and Be-ing; s/he is the Dasein (there-to-be).

"Dasein" is a term coined by Heidegger. In German "da" means "there" and "sein" means "to be" or "Sein" means "being." So literally we can Dasein is "there-to-be." Dasein therefore signifies presence, thereness, thrownness.

The human person is the only being that questions Be-ing. S/he is Existenz; s/he ex-sists; s/he is the only being that has a greater role with regard to consciousness in this world.

The analytic of Dasein, therefore, is a central feature of Heidegger’s thought. Dasein becomes important because of its peculiar ontological structure. It is characteristically different from other entities, as it has an understanding of Being and can raise the question of Being. In other words, in its being, this being itself is an issue for it. Heidegger says that Dasein understands itself in its being. Another feature that distinguishes Dasein from other entities is the fact that it is a being-in-the-world. Dasein finds itself in the world, but in a very different way than other entities are in it. Dasein’s comporting to the world is different. It understands the world as a range of possibilities and it always has understood itself in terms of its possibilities.

This factor makes Dasein’s engagements with the world and its entities very different. It cannot escape from the world, as its facticity and throwness are inevitable and inescapable. But again, as mentioned above, its relationship with the world is also different. Unlike other entities it needs a world populated with entities for it to engage with.

Now, what is "understanding" for Heidegger? According to Heidegger, human understanding takes its direction from the fore-understanding deriving from its particular existential situation, and this fore-understanding stakes out the thematic framework and parameters of every interpretation. Rarely has anyone given much thought to the question of what this fore-structure is really “fore” to, and so (to put it awkwardly) the “wherefore” or “thereafter” of the fore-structure has remained for the most part in the dark. Forestructure is “fore” to assertion, if not language itself. Fore-structure means, then, that human Dasein is characterised by an interpretive tendency special to it that comes be-fore every statement. It has a fundamental character of care but very often concealed by the fact that propositional judgments tend to take centre stage.

For Heidegger, understanding should be divested itself of its purely "epistemic" character. Earlier, understanding had been understood as a theoretical intelligere that concerned itself with construing meaningful entities in an intelligible manner. But for Heidegger such epistemological understanding is secondary and derivative from a still more universal hermeneutical understanding. This understanding is "being at home with something" (sich auf etwas verstehen), which refers to a kind of understanding that is more like readiness or facility than knowledge. It is a "knowing one's way around." "To understand something" in this sense means to be equal to or master of it. This understanding is a mastery or an art. For instance, we understand how to get along with people, to care for things, to kill time, and so forth, without having any special knowledge at our disposal. This "practical" understanding Heidegger calls "existential" because it is a way of existing, a fundamental mode of being, by the power of which we deal with and try to find our way around in our world. This everyday understanding almost always remains implicit.

Being-in-the-World
A human individual is not solitary or alone, s/he is a being-in-the-world, i.e., s/he finds herself within a group of other men and women. Dasein is also "Mitsein" (being-with). Being in a group is always a mixed blessing - sometimes a blessing, sometimes a curse. That is, one could become one among the crowd, and abandon the quest. In other words, there is a possibility that instead of being der Mann, s/he could settle down to be an anonymous, impersonal "one," das Man. In other words, while Everydayness is the lived context of Dasein's being-in-the-world, ironically it also refers to the natural tendency of Dasein to conceal things, to regard them superficially often accepting what everyone say about them. This propensity of Dasein to dissipate itself in the crowd is expressed through Heidegger's notion of das Man (the 'They'). Das Man renders everything common, comparable, interchangeable. A levelling effect takes place; all that is unique and creative is stifled. A certain drive towards homogeneity takes place, which in turn encourages mediocrity and complacency. Because of Dasein's already constituted immersion in this they-self, Dasein automatically and unreflectively surrenders its own potentiality for being a true Self in order to dwell in tranquillized familiarity. In short, the they-self relieves Dasein of the burden of its own Being.

The human person therefore has two choices: either to take responsibility as der Mann (der Mann implies authentic Existenz) or surrender to anonymity and be lost in the crowed as das Man (das Man implies inauthentic Existenz). The former signifies personal conviction, the latter false security and assurance.

Sorge (concern, care) for the other is basic to man's being. According to Heidegger the very structure of Dasein's being is one of care. "Dasein's Being is care." Moreover, man is a care-taker, shepherd, and is thus open to Being. He has a vague notion of Being already. However hazy, he can develop and deepen this notion.

Throwness (Dasein's facticity) also implies finitude and abandonment. Being is therefore finite and temporal according to Heidegger. (Remember the title of his magnum opus: Being and Time.) This also signifies that man is destined for death, which creates an existential experience of Angst (dread). On the face of this experience, the human person has again two responses: to be authentic or to be inauthentic. Acceptance and recognition of his finitude is needed from the part of man. That is an authentic response.

Authenticity
It is Heidegger who is most instrumental in making the question of human authenticity prominent within and without philosophical circles. For Heidegger the importance of authenticity (conversio vitae) resides in the need to provide a foundation for fundamental ontology - the question of Being. We have already mentioned the dialectic of authenticity and inauthenticity in our discussion above. Authentic historicity is by overcoming such a dialectical relationship and thus bring to light the truth of human existence.

(Sources: Cyril Desbruslais, Western Philosophy Notes; Brian J. Braman, Meaning and Authenticity.)

Tuesday, 30 August 2016

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) written by Mark Twain is one of the most popular novels. It has proved significant not only as a novel that explores the racial and moral world of its time but also, through the controversies that continue to surround it, as an artifact of those same moral and racial tensions as they have evolved to the present day.

Author: Mark Twain
Mark Twain was born Samuel Langhorne Clemens in the town of Florida, Missouri, in 1835. When he was four years old, his family moved to Hannibal, a town on the Mississippi River much like the towns depicted in his two most famous novels, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876) and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884).

Clemens spent his young life in a fairly affluent family that owned a number of household slaves. The death of Clemens’s father in 1847, however, left the family in hardship. Clemens left school, worked for a printer, and, in 1851, having finished his apprenticeship, began to set type for his brother Orion’s newspaper, the Hannibal Journal. But Hannibal proved too small to hold Clemens, who soon became a sort of itinerant printer and found work in a number of American cities, including New York and Philadelphia.

While still in his early twenties, Clemens gave up his printing career in order to work on riverboats on the Mississippi. Clemens eventually became a riverboat pilot, and his life on the river influenced him a great deal. Perhaps most important, the riverboat life provided him with the pen name Mark Twain, derived from the riverboat leadsmen’s signal—“By the mark, twain”—that the water was deep enough for safe passage. Life on the river also gave Twain material for several of his books, including the raft scenes of Huckleberry Finn and the material for his autobiographical Life on the Mississippi (1883).

Clemens continued to work on the river until 1861, when the Civil War exploded across America and shut down the Mississippi for travel and shipping. Although Clemens joined a Confederate cavalry division, he was no ardent Confederate, and when his division deserted en masse, he did too. He then made his way west with his brother Orion, working first as a silver miner in Nevada and then stumbling into his true calling, journalism. In 1863, Clemens began to sign articles with the name Mark Twain.

Throughout the late 1860s and 1870s, Twain’s articles, stories, memoirs, and novels, characterized by an irrepressible wit and a deft ear for language and dialect, garnered him immense celebrity. His novel The Innocents Abroad (1869) was an instant bestseller, and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876) received even greater national acclaim and cemented Twain’s position as a giant in American literary circles. As the nation prospered economically in the post–Civil War period—an era that came to be known as the Gilded Age, an epithet that Twain coined—so too did Twain. His books were sold door-to-door, and he became wealthy enough to build a large house in Hartford, Connecticut, for himself and his wife, Olivia, whom he had married in 1870.

Twain began work on Huckleberry Finn, a sequel to Tom Sawyer, in an effort to capitalize on the popularity of the earlier novel. This new novel took on a more serious character, however, as Twain focused increasingly on the institution of slavery and the South. Twain soon set Huckleberry Finn aside, perhaps because its darker tone did not fit the optimistic sentiments of the Gilded Age. In the early 1880s, however, the hopefulness of the post–Civil War years began to fade. Reconstruction, the political program designed to reintegrate the defeated South into the Union as a slavery-free region, began to fail. The harsh measures the victorious North imposed only embittered the South. Concerned about maintaining power, many Southern politicians began an effort to control and oppress the black men and women whom the war had freed.

Meanwhile, Twain’s personal life began to collapse. His wife had long been sickly, and the couple lost their first son after just nineteen months. Twain also made a number of poor investments and financial decisions and, in 1891, found himself mired in debilitating debt. As his personal fortune dwindled, he continued to devote himself to writing. Drawing from his personal plight and the prevalent national troubles of the day, he finished a draft of Huckleberry Finn in 1883, and by 1884 had it ready for publication. The novel met with great public and critical acclaim.

Twain continued to write over the next ten years. He published two more popular novels, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1889) and Pudd’nhead Wilson (1894), but went into a considerable decline afterward, never again publishing work that matched the high standard he had set with Huckleberry Finn. Personal tragedy also continued to hound Twain: his finances remained troublesome, and within the course of a few years, his wife and two of his daughters passed away. Twain’s writing from this period until the end of his life reflects a depression and a sort of righteous rage at the injustices of the world. Despite his personal troubles, however, Twain continued to enjoy immense esteem and fame and continued to be in demand as a public speaker until his death in 1910.

The story of Huckleberry Finn, however, does not end with the death of its author. Through the twentieth century, the novel has become famous not merely as the crown jewel in the work of one of America’s preeminent writers, but also as a subject of intense controversy. The novel occasionally has been banned in Southern states because of its steadfastly critical take on the South and the hypocrisies of slavery. Others have dismissed Huckleberry Finn as vulgar or racist because it uses the word nigger, a term whose connotations obscure the novel’s deeper themes—which are unequivocally antislavery—and even prevent some from reading and enjoying it altogether. The fact that the historical context in which Twain wrote made his use of the word insignificant—and, indeed, part of the realism he wanted to create—offers little solace to some modern readers.

Overview
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn opens by familiarizing us with the events of the novel that preceded it, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Both novels are set in the town of St. Petersburg, Missouri, which lies on the banks of the Mississippi River. At the end of Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, a poor boy with a drunken bum for a father, and his friend Tom Sawyer, a middle-class boy with an imagination too active for his own good, found a robber’s stash of gold. As a result of his adventure, Huck gained quite a bit of money, which the bank held for him in trust. Huck was adopted by the Widow Douglas, a kind but stifling woman who lives with her sister, the self-righteous Miss Watson.

As Huckleberry Finn opens, Huck is none too thrilled with his new life of cleanliness, manners, church, and school. However, he sticks it out at the bequest of Tom Sawyer, who tells him that in order to take part in Tom’s new “robbers’ gang,” Huck must stay “respectable.” All is well and good until Huck’s brutish, drunken father, Pap, reappears in town and demands Huck’s money. The local judge, Judge Thatcher, and the Widow try to get legal custody of Huck, but another well-intentioned new judge in town believes in the rights of Huck’s natural father and even takes the old drunk into his own home in an attempt to reform him. This effort fails miserably, and Pap soon returns to his old ways. He hangs around town for several months, harassing his son, who in the meantime has learned to read and to tolerate the Widow’s attempts to improve him. Finally, outraged when the Widow Douglas warns him to stay away from her house, Pap kidnaps Huck and holds him in a cabin across the river from St. Petersburg.

Whenever Pap goes out, he locks Huck in the cabin, and when he returns home drunk, he beats the boy. Tired of his confinement and fearing the beatings will worsen, Huck escapes from Pap by faking his own death, killing a pig and spreading its blood all over the cabin. Hiding on Jackson’s Island in the middle of the Mississippi River, Huck watches the townspeople search the river for his body. After a few days on the island, he encounters Jim, one of Miss Watson’s slaves. Jim has run away from Miss Watson after hearing her talk about selling him to a plantation down the river, where he would be treated horribly and separated from his wife and children. Huck and Jim team up, despite Huck’s uncertainty about the legality or morality of helping a runaway slave. While they camp out on the island, a great storm causes the Mississippi to flood. Huck and Jim spy a log raft and a house floating past the island. They capture the raft and loot the house, finding in it the body of a man who has been shot. Jim refuses to let Huck see the dead man’s face.

Although the island is blissful, Huck and Jim are forced to leave after Huck learns from a woman onshore that her husband has seen smoke coming from the island and believes that Jim is hiding out there. Huck also learns that a reward has been offered for Jim’s capture. Huck and Jim start downriver on the raft, intending to leave it at the mouth of the Ohio River and proceed up that river by steamboat to the free states, where slavery is prohibited. Several days’ travel takes them past St. Louis, and they have a close encounter with a gang of robbers on a wrecked steamboat. They manage to escape with the robbers’ loot.

During a night of thick fog, Huck and Jim miss the mouth of the Ohio and encounter a group of men looking for escaped slaves. Huck has a brief moral crisis about concealing stolen “property”—Jim, after all, belongs to Miss Watson—but then lies to the men and tells them that his father is on the raft suffering from smallpox. Terrified of the disease, the men give Huck money and hurry away. Unable to backtrack to the mouth of the Ohio, Huck and Jim continue downriver. The next night, a steamboat slams into their raft, and Huck and Jim are separated.

Huck ends up in the home of the kindly Grangerfords, a family of Southern aristocrats locked in a bitter and silly feud with a neighboring clan, the Shepherdsons. The elopement of a Grangerford daughter with a Shepherdson son leads to a gun battle in which many in the families are killed. While Huck is caught up in the feud, Jim shows up with the repaired raft. Huck hurries to Jim’s hiding place, and they take off down the river.

A few days later, Huck and Jim rescue a pair of men who are being pursued by armed bandits. The men, clearly con artists, claim to be a displaced English duke (the duke) and the long-lost heir to the French throne (the dauphin). Powerless to tell two white adults to leave, Huck and Jim continue down the river with the pair of “aristocrats.” The duke and the dauphin pull several scams in the small towns along the river. Coming into one town, they hear the story of a man, Peter Wilks, who has recently died and left much of his inheritance to his two brothers, who should be arriving from England any day. The duke and the dauphin enter the town pretending to be Wilks’s brothers. Wilks’s three nieces welcome the con men and quickly set about liquidating the estate. A few townspeople become skeptical, and Huck, who grows to admire the Wilks sisters, decides to thwart the scam. He steals the dead Peter Wilks’s gold from the duke and the dauphin but is forced to stash it in Wilks’s coffin. Huck then reveals all to the eldest Wilks sister, Mary Jane. Huck’s plan for exposing the duke and the dauphin is about to unfold when Wilks’s real brothers arrive from England. The angry townspeople hold both sets of Wilks claimants, and the duke and the dauphin just barely escape in the ensuing confusion. Fortunately for the sisters, the gold is found. Unfortunately for Huck and Jim, the duke and the dauphin make it back to the raft just as Huck and Jim are pushing off.

After a few more small scams, the duke and dauphin commit their worst crime yet: they sell Jim to a local farmer, telling him Jim is a runaway for whom a large reward is being offered. Huck finds out where Jim is being held and resolves to free him. At the house where Jim is a prisoner, a woman greets Huck excitedly and calls him “Tom.” As Huck quickly discovers, the people holding Jim are none other than Tom Sawyer’s aunt and uncle, Silas and Sally Phelps. The Phelpses mistake Huck for Tom, who is due to arrive for a visit, and Huck goes along with their mistake. He intercepts Tom between the Phelps house and the steamboat dock, and Tom pretends to be his own younger brother, Sid.

Tom hatches a wild plan to free Jim, adding all sorts of unnecessary obstacles even though Jim is only lightly secured. Huck is sure Tom’s plan will get them all killed, but he complies nonetheless. After a seeming eternity of pointless preparation, during which the boys ransack the Phelps’s house and make Aunt Sally miserable, they put the plan into action. Jim is freed, but a pursuer shoots Tom in the leg. Huck is forced to get a doctor, and Jim sacrifices his freedom to nurse Tom. All are returned to the Phelps’s house, where Jim ends up back in chains.

When Tom wakes the next morning, he reveals that Jim has actually been a free man all along, as Miss Watson, who made a provision in her will to free Jim, died two months earlier. Tom had planned the entire escape idea all as a game and had intended to pay Jim for his troubles. Tom’s Aunt Polly then shows up, identifying “Tom” and “Sid” as Huck and Tom. Jim tells Huck, who fears for his future—particularly that his father might reappear—that the body they found on the floating house off Jackson’s Island had been Pap’s. Aunt Sally then steps in and offers to adopt Huck, but Huck, who has had enough “sivilizing,” announces his plan to set out for the West.

Critical Appreciation
[to be posted.....]

Monday, 29 August 2016

Love for Love by William Congreve

Love for Love is a Restoration comedy written by William Congreve, premiered in 1695. Restoration comedy refers to English comedies (plays) between 1660 and 1710. Another term used for the same is Comedy of Manners. Restoration is significant because it marks the reopening of theatre in 1660 after eighteen years ban by the Puritans. It is a renaissance (re-birth) of the English drama. It is also notorious for sexual explicitness. It introduced the first professional actresses (females on stage).

Author: William Congreve (1670-1729)
He was born in Bardsey, Yorkshire. In 1672 his family moved to London, and then in 1674 to the Irish port town of Youghal. Jonathan Swift (now well-known for his work Gulliver's Travels) was a few years ahead in college. At Trinity College Congreve became a devotee of the theatre. He moved to London, and soon became a member of one of the literary circles that met at Will's Coffeehouse; here he met John Dryden. Congreve's first play The Old Bachelor (1693) became an instant hit. His other works are The Double Dealer (1693), Love for Love (1695), The Way of the World (1700), this last being his masterpiece. But ironically The Way of the World did not meet with the expected success, because the audience thought the satire was too sharp, and they were not comfortable with it. After that Congreve didn't write. Congreve in his comedies gave new emphasis to sententiousness, feeling, and melodrama.

Love for Love
This play looks back in atmosphere and relative formal freedom to The Old Bachelor. The Double Dealer has presented an upper-class society, physically contained within a country-house. Love for Love is set within the middle and merchant classes. Love is more important than the legacy-intrigue in this play, unlike in the two earlier plays.

The play opens with Valentine imprisoned in his chamber by the heavy debts he has incurred in his attempts to win Angelica, a rich heiress. The first four Acts are taken up with Valentine's rejection of the earlier answers supplied by Restoration comedy for men in his dilemma. In Act I, Valentine tries out various role - that of the wise man scorning poverty, that of the poet, that of the railer. (To rail here means to utter bitter complaint against someone.) Debarred from all means of livelihood except inherited wealth, Valentine has only two alternatives. He first asks his father's mercy, but Sir Sampson's refusal brings about a struggle between father and son. Valentine is driven to his last resort, trickery. His feigned madness is the climax of his attempts to free himself from his debts in order to win Angelica. Only when such attempts have failed completely can the plot be resolved. Finally, convinced that Angelica really wishes to marry his father, he gives up his pursuit of her. Angelica now admits her love for him; she realises that, in signing away his inheritance , Valentine has performed a most generous act. Angelica's affectation of pretending indifference to Valentine until he has acted generously, re-defines the problems traditionally set by the comedy of manners. Her dominance and her persistent refusal of Valentine as long as he seemed to be worldly, conclude in the statement that love require love in return, and not a reconciliation between love and material interest.

Love for Love is in many respects more reminiscent of the Jonsonian comedy of humours than the Restoration comedy of manners; the devices of an impoverished gallant to avoid his creditors and restore his fortunes as well as to win the love of his mistress, the war between the generations represented by the conflict between Valentine and his unloving father, type characters such as the bluff sailor, the credulous astrologer, the witty and resourceful servant, the awkward country girl, the boastful beau - all this suggests not only Jonson but at time also Plautus. The element of satire in the play is not, however, truly Jonsonian: the exposure of sophisticated manner in the scene where Mr Tattle teaches Prue, the country girl, the importance of saying one thing and doing another brings into the open the contrast between public reputation and private behaviour which is implicit in so many of the Restoration wit-combats. Love for Love is the most satirical of all Congreve's plays: in the prologue Congreve deliberately stated his intention of lashing the age.

Plot Summary
Act 1
Valentine Legend, a gentleman without means, is in his chamber and is trying to avoid his many creditors. He tells his servant Jeremy about his desperate financial situation and his plans to become a playwright; he also confesses that he intends to court Angelica. Scandal, Valentine's best friend, enters and mocks both the resolutions of Valentine (to become a writer and to court Angelica). Then several creditors and Trapland enter; they demand to be paid but they only find Jeremy's false promises. At this point a message from Valentine's father, Sir Sampson Legend, offers a painful way out of his poverty: to hand over his rights of inheritance to his younger brother for four thousand pounds. (Ben, Valentine's younger brother, has recently returned from abroad.) Valentine complains but finally accepts the deal as the only possible way to get rid of his creditors and to continue his courtship of Angelica. The Tattle, a pretender to all ladies and a gossip, and Mrs Frail, a relative of Angelica, enter; they all engage in a witty conversation about female reputation and marriage. Scandal closes Act 1 by mocking Valentine's project of gaining back his mistress "with a losing hand."

Act 2
The action moves to Foresight's house. His niece, Angelica, asks him for his coach and horses only to find an angry refusal. He argues he must keep her at home on account of a prognostication he has read in the stars. Then Angelica threatens to expose him as a fake astrologer and runs away as Sir Sampson enters. He has come to pursue the marriage arrangements between his son Ben - now his official heir - and Foresight's daughter, Miss Prue. Valentine arrives expecting to find Angelical but meet, once more, his father's accusations. As they leave Mrs Foresight and her sister, Mrs Frail, arrive. They chide each other for their impudence but finally resolve to make peace and see to their real problems: Mrs Frail wants to marry Ben Legend, now a suitable wealthy match, but first she will have to break up his engagement with Miss Prue. In order to do so she has been fostering the young girl’s infatuation with Tattle. So as these two characters come on stage, the two ladies leave them alone. Tattle instructs Prue about the right attitudes of fashionable ladies when courted.

Act 3
Still at Foresight's house, Valentine accuses Angelica of inconstancy and leaves as his friend Scandal promises to help him. When Ben Legend arrives he proves a rude fellow without manners but Mrs Frail, who is ready to take advantage of the situation, praises his plain humour and flirts with him until Sir Sampson asks everybody to leave Ben and Prue alone. This encounter proves a complete disaster: Prue rejects him and confesses she is in love with Tattle, and Ben retaliates speaking of his admiration for Frail; after a strong argument they call off their marriage. Scandal enters to tell Sir Sampson and Foresight that Valentine has suddenly taken ill and has some secrets to reveal to both of them. Sir Sampson fears a trick but Foresight is too much intrigued by the prospect of Valentine's newly acquired visionary powers. As Mrs Foresight enters, Scandal flirts with her and she arranges to meet him later in her room; in the meantime, Frail and Ben agree to marry but she asks him to keep it secret until he secures his estate.

Act 4
Act four takes place at Valentine's lodgings. Angelica, who has heard news of his mental illness, feels guilty. Nevertheless she immediately suspects the truth and leaves. Sir Sampson comes in with a lawyer in order to make Valentine sign off his primogeniture rights; now Scandal's plan comes to the open: as Sir Sampson demands his signature, Valentine speaks and behaves madly. The lawyer consequently declares him non compos mentis and the legal transaction impossible. Sampson leaves in a rage as Foresight, his wife and Mrs Frail enter to pay a visit to Valentine. As they learn the latest news Frail reconsiders her marriage to Ben. So when Ben tells her he has informed his father he will marry for love, she accuses him of ill-treating his father and calls off her love promises. But she is determined to marry an estate and Sir Sampson's fury against his two sons looks like a potential path to get the old gentleman to marry her. But Mrs Foresight comes up with a better plan. Now that Valentine is insane but keeps his rights of inheritance, they will try to make him marry Frail. In the meantime, Tattle tries to court Angelica, but she manages to get rid of him and the rest of the company. When Valentine and Angelical are left alone, Valentine tells her the truth about his madness and about his renewed love for her, only to be challenged by Angelica's wit.

Act 5
At Foresight's house, Angelica meets Sir Sampson and tells him she is ready to marry and asks his advice to find someone who is neither "an absolute with nor a fool." She also confesses that Valentine is feigning his madness, and suggests a plan: to let Valentine know she and Sir Sampson are about to get married; this will force him to reveal the truth if he wants to stop them. Sir Sampson apparently agrees, but in fact has decided to marry her himself. Angelica asks him to provide a special settlement to secure an estate for her descendants instead of his two sons. In the meantime, Jeremy pretends to help Tattle meet Angelical and advises him to disguise himself as a friar since she will be dressed as a nun. The Foresight enters and informs the company that his daughter Prue will not marry Ben and has chosen Tattle; but Tattle refuses to mary her. Angelica, Sir Sampson and the lawyer enter and announce their engaement. Then Tattle and Frail enter and complain that Jeremy has tricked them into marrying each other. Finally Valentine, Scandal and Jeremy come in, and Valentine declares his ready to sign off his rights, as his counterfeited madness has proved useless to gain Angelica. At this point Angelica admits that she loves Valentine. Sir Sampson leaves in anger, while the rest of the cast join in a dance.

(Sources: Ramji Lall, introduction to the play [Delhi: Surjeet Publications, 2011] xix-xx, xxiii; and http://institucional.us.es/restoration/samples/love_for_love.pdf.)

Sunday, 28 August 2016

Theories of Reality

What is epistemology? What is metaphysics? These two questions can be simplified by asking, What is truth? and What is real (reality)? Knowing is a complex process of experiencing, understanding, and judging through which we attain truth. Through our knowing we attain the known, i.e., being (= reality). (It is more proper to say that we know by what we are.) But what is the nature of being that is known? There are many theories of reality that answer this question, we shall deal with a few of them.

(a) Monism, Dualism, and Pluralism

Monism
Monism comes from the Greek term monos meaning one, oneness, single, or without division. It is the metaphysical or theological view that all is one, that there are no fundamental divisions, and a unified set of laws underlie all of nature. That is, the universe at the deepest level of analysis is one or composed of one fundamental kind of stuff. Monism is against the views of dualism (that reality is two) and pluralism (that reality is many).

Monism is also based on the concept of monad, derived from monos. The pre-Socratic philosophers describe reality as monistic, i.e., consisting of a monad, or one substance. For Thales reality is made of water; for Anaximander reality is made of apeiron (the undefined infinite); for Anaximenes reality is composed of air; for Heraclitus fire; and for Parmenides the reality consists of One (an unmoving perfect sphere, unchanging and undivided).

There are many types of monism. One way to divide monism is into (1) abstract monism and (2) concrete monism. Another way to divide is into (1) substantial monism [one thing], (2) attributive monism [one category], and (3) absolute monism [one being]. Yet another way to classify monism is into (1) idealistic monism or mentalistic monism [mind is all that exists], (2) materialistic monism [one reality is matter], (3) neutral monism [one primal substance is neither mental nor physical], and (4) reflexive monism [one basic stuff manifests both physically and as conscious experience].

Abstract Monism
Benedict (or Baruch) Spinoza (1632-1677) is a typical exponent of abstract monism. For him the One Substance is God. In other words, God is the only reality according to Spinoza. Spinoza accepts Descartes’ definition of substance “as that which exists in itself and is conceived by itself.” God is the only being that exists in Himself and is conceived by Himself. Therefore, God is the only substance.

Though Spinoza accepts Descartes’ definition of substance, he does not recognise matter and mind as substances, because they do not exist in themselves.

God or substance is an absolute indeterminate being. Determination implies negation and limitation. To ascribe some some qualities is to deny other qualities of it. God is infinite, absolute, unqualified, attributeless. He is both unqualified substance, and also infinitely qualified substance. (This is how the human intellect understands this, as having an infinite number of attributes.)

God, according to Spinoza, has infinite thought and infinite extension. In Him modes are infinite: motion, intellect, and will are without beginning or end. Moreover, God is the causal chain or process, the law and structure of the world, the underlying condition of all things. He is the immanent cause of all things, not extraneous. “All is God; all lives and moves in God.”

In our evaluation, Spinoza lands into pantheism which in turn leads to acosmism and illusionism. Such a thought denies human freedom and saps the very foundation of morality. Furthermore, religion thus becomes a myth because God is just Substance without knowledge or will or purpose, or love or grace.

Spinoza’s monism is right insofar as it recognises the reality of one substance or God. It is wrong insofar as it denies the reality of many objects and minds.

Concrete Monism
G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) is a typical exponent of concrete monism, which regards both One and many as real. He identifies God with the Absolute Mind. God is an identity-in-difference, unity-in-diversity, one-in-many.

Hegel considers Nature, Finite minds, and God to be all real. According to him, Nature or the world is the externalization of the Absolute Mind. There is no world without God, and no God without the world. God is both immanent in and transcendent of the world.

Secondly, Finite minds are the finite reproduction of the Absoulte Mind through the medium of human organisms. They share in the thought and freedom of the Absolute Mind; they have relative and limited freedom but genuine. This entails spontaneity and creativity. The human person, moreover, can have communion with God. So prayer and worship become possible.

Thirdly, God is the Supreme Person. He is not an impersonal force. He is the Absolute Spirit, the source and goal of finite minds and nature. He is not an abstract One, but a concrete unity which is expressed in different objects and minds.

According to Hegel, matter is the lowest degree of God’s manifestation. We can see an increase in gradation with regard to the manifestation of the Absolute Spirit. If matter forms the lowest rung of such an evolutionary stage, life, animal mind and human mind form the successive stages.

Individual mind is the subjective mind; society is the objective mind; God is the absolute mind.

Hegel, in our evaluation, is right when he considers God as real, and also many as real. Finite minds and nature (as many) are real. We need to appreciate Hegel in explaining the relative freedom of the finite minds, their morality and religion. Other positive points are evolution, teleology of nature, transcendence and immanence of God in relation to the universe and finite minds.

However, an overemphasis of the immanence of God in nature and history minimizes the relative freedom of finite spirits and seems to regard them merely as His puppets in the world drama.

The elements of chance, contingency, freedom, creativity, disorder, evil, change, progress, and values all need to be explained better in Hegel’s thought.

Dualism
Now, let us move on to our second topic: dualism. Dualism implies there are two fundamental kinds or categories of things or principles. If monism talks of “one,” dualism talks of “two.”

Plato advocated dualism and believed in two fundamental realities, viz., God and matter (hyle). The Creator, or God, creates the world according to the Idea as the pattern which He follows. The God of Plato is the Idea of the Good, the highest in the hierarchy of Ideas. The Idea of the Good is the absolute Idea, the One, the Lord of the spiritual world, as the sun is the lord of the visible world. So it is identical with God. He is the most real, because the Idea is supremely real. God, or the Idea of the Good, is the absolute Idea, pure reason free from matter and evil. He is supreme wisdom beyond human understanding. He is eternal source of truth, good, and beauty. He is the supreme good. God therefore cannot create evil; He is the highest law, supreme law-giver, supreme justice. Thus the Idea becomes the formative principle, a creative being.

Matter or hyle, in comparison to the Idea, is non-being. In fact, out of the matter the Idea forms the sensible, material world. Matter is the primal, original matter but it is not corporeal. It is capable of becoming corporeal through the action of the Idea. It is indeterminate, unlimited, qualified. It is indefinable, formless, imperceptible matrix of sensible objects through the plastic action of the Idea of the Good or God, the Creator.

Critical Evaluation of Dualism
If there are two co-eternal realities of equal strength, conflicting with each other, one will ultimately overpower the other and rule over the universe. If God overpowers matter, then evil and imperfection will be eliminated, and good will prevail. If, on the other hand, matter overpowers God, then good, truth, and beauty will be eliminated; and moral evil, error, and ugliness will prevail. But both these contingencies appear to be improbable. Therefore, we cannot accept dualism as a theory of reality. Dualism, ditheism, or dualistic theism is an unsatisfactory metaphysical position.

Pluralism
Pluralism is the anti-thesis of monism. It is a theory that states reality is manifold, plural, many. Monism starts with One, and derives many from it. But pluralism starts with many, and derives unity from them. In other words, monism derives plurality from unity, whereas pluralism derives unity from plurality. Pluralism, therefore, stresses on the individuals and their functions in the organisation of the world. It stresses its manifoldness and variety, its infinite diversities and novelties. Pluralism formerly took two forms: materialistic and spiritualistic. Materialistic pluralism regards the individual entities as material; spiritualistic pluralism regards them as spiritualism. Atomism is materialistic pluralism; monadism is spiritualistic pluralism.

Greek Atomism
Democritus, an ancient Greek philosopher and disciple of Leucippus, propounds the theory that the world is composed of material atoms. These atoms are endowed with perpetual motion; motion is their essence. They do not receive motion from any external agent; they move about, combine with others, and form physical objects as a result of the combination. They have no design or purpose. Democritus also states that the atoms are eternal. The world was not created by God. Rather, the atoms combined to form the world. Mind and soul are made of finest, smoothest, nimblest atoms. Brain is the seat of thought; liver is the seat of desires; and heart is the seat of feelings and emotions.

Another exponent of atomism is Epicurus. According to him, the world is neither created nor destroyed; it is composed of atoms moving in empty space, which have weight. Mechanical causes explain the world. Final causes are not necessary to account for its unity. The soul is material and composed of exceedingly fine matter. It is destroyed with the body.

Monadism
Leibnitz is the father of spiritualistic pluralism which assumes the form of monadism. According to him, the ultimate units of the reality are are spiritual atoms or forces called "monads." Monads are unextended, immaterial substances, spiritual atoms, which are essentially self-active in nature: they are metaphysical points as opposed to physical and mathematical points. Monads are self-active and develop from within. They are self-existent and self-centred entities. They are "windowless": no influence can come into them and no influence can pass out of them. They were created by God, the Monad of monads, and pre-adjusted to one another. This pre-established harmony accounts for correspondence among them and correspondence between body and mind.

(b) Realism and Idealism
There are various types of realism that answer the questions: What do we know? What is the nature of the being that is known? Do we know external objects or subjective ideas? Let us now discuss a few types of realism and idealism.

Realism
Realism is the doctrine which recognizes the reality of the external world independent of minds. We shall here discuss two types of realism: naive or popular realism and scientific or critical realism.

Naive or Popular Realism
According to naive realism, our ideas are exact copies of the external real things and their qualities. All the qualities of matter are real and objective existences in nature; they exist in things themselves. Thus colour, taste, smell, heat and cold are as much absolute and objective qualities of things as extension, impenetrability, motion, rest, solidity and the like are. Extension, solidity, etc., are called primary qualities, while colour, taste, etc., are called secondary qualities.

Primary qualities are thought to be properties of objects that are independent of any observer, such as solidity, extension, motion, number and figure. These characteristics convey facts. They exist in the thing itself, can be determined with certainty, and do not rely on subjective judgments. For example, if a ball is spherical, no one can reasonably argue that it is triangular.

Secondary qualities are thought to be properties that produce sensations in observers, such as color, taste, smell, and sound. They can be described as the effect things have on certain people. Knowledge that comes from secondary qualities does not provide objective facts about things.

Primary qualities are measurable aspects of physical reality. Secondary qualities are subjective.

Scientific or Critical Realism
John Locke advocates scientific or critical realism, which draws a distinction between primary qualities and secondary qualities of matter. He regards the former as real and objective qualities of matter, whereas he regards the latter as only subjective states or ideas of our mind. For example, what is sweet to one is bitter to another. Heat and cold are very subjective. Therefore, secondary qualities are not objective qualities, rather they are subjective modes of our sensibility. Colours, sound, odours, tastes, temperatures, etc., cannot exist apart from our sensibility. They are sensations. They do not belong to the objects themselves. But, on the other hand, primary qualities of motion, solidity, etc., belong to the physical objects themselves. They are universal and permanent. Therefore, according to scientific realism (also called empiricism by some) our ideas are representations of actual realities only in respect to secondary qualities of matter.

Idealism
According to idealism, the ideal is the real and the real is the ideal. Idealism denies the reality of external objects independent of the knowing minds. The mind is the primary reality. According to idealism, reality is the projection of our ideas / our mind.

Subjective Idealism
George Berkeley is the advocate of subjective idealism (also considered by some a type of empiricism). According to him, esse est percipi (Existence is perception). Berkeley states matter is a cluster of qualities (primary and secondary). Both primary and secondary qualities, for him, are subjective ideas of the mind. Thus the world is just a projection of our ideas or perceptions. Now,  according to Berkeley, these ideas or perceptions are not created by ourselves, but are communicated to us by God. God is the cause of our sensations. Berkeley, moreover, denies the existence of the external world. But is he a solipsist? (Solipsism means: I don't know anything beyond myself and my ideas. Each person is shut up to herself alone, souls ipse.) Since Berkeley at least maintains that it is God who creates the sensations in us, we can say that he does not deny the possibility of objects or being outside one's own mind. Thus Berkeley is not to be considered a solipsist.

Critical Idealism
Here we shall discuss the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. He divides reality into phenomena (things-as-perceived) and noumena (things-in-themselves). According to him, we can only know phenomena. Though noumena exist outside and are independent of the mind, they are unknown, they cannot be known. We know only phenomena or appearances, through pure reason or theoretical reason.

According to Kant's critical idealism (also called transcendental idealism), our mind has categories of understanding. Category for him does not mean a classificatory division, but a pure concept of understanding, it is a condition of possibility of objects (knowing them). Therefore our mind is not a tabula rasa (blank slate). It has categories like substance, causality, number, reality, sensation, etc., within a framework of space and time. Hence we can only know impressions and sensations (phenomena), not reality in itself.

Moreover, it also implies that there is no mind-independent world. The order we see, the world we experience are all dependent on our mind. There is not order out there, but it is I who give order. For example, if I talk of planetary "system," such an order or system is imposed by my mind onto reality. Co-existence, succession, substance, quality, cause, effect, unity, plurality: all these do not exist in things themselves, they are contributions of the mind. (Two people meet with an accident in the same place and at the same time. One becomes bitter about that experience, the other becomes better, positive, etc., as a result of the same accident which has made the first one bitter. How is this possible?)

Idealism of Absolute Identity
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling (1775–1854) is, along with J.G. Fichte and G.W.F. Hegel, one of the three most influential thinkers in the tradition of ‘German Idealism’. Schelling was born in Leonberg near Stuttgart on 27 January 1775. He attended a Protestant seminary in Tübingen from 1790 to 1795. For some time, he was a close friend of Hegel. He changed his thinking so often, that it is difficult to attribute one specific philosophic conception to him.

Though influenced by Fichte, Schelling was more interested in Nature than Fichte himself. Schelling therefore propounded a theory of Absolute Identity of Subject and Object (Nature). On the one hand, the Absolute as Subject gives rise to finite subjects with human consciousness. On the other hand, the Absolute as Object gives rise to finite objects which in human consciousness move towards the Spirit.

Schelling’s standpoint is more pantheistic than Fichte’s, since he upheld the ultimate Identity of subjects in a Subject, of objects in an Object, and of Subject and Object in an Absolute Identity. And more importantly, he landed into an eclecticism: he tried too many disparate views, that not even the mysticism of St. John could provide him with the platform to realise his eclectic dream. Hegel’s criticism is that Schelling’s Absolute is like a dark night in which all the cows look black. Hegel in his turn will try to show clearly all the distinctions within the Absolute.

Objective or Absolute Idealism
The thought of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831)  can be termed as objective idealism or absolute idealism. Hegel can be considered as “The German Philosopher.” The greatest German philosopher since Kant. The most systematic of the post-Kantian idealists, Hegel attempted, throughout his published writings as well as in his lectures, to elaborate a comprehensive and systematic ontology from a “logical” starting point. He is perhaps most well-known for his teleological account of history, an account which was later taken over by Marx and “inverted” into a materialist theory of an historical development culminating in communism.

Born in 1770 in Stuttgart, Hegel spent the years 1788–1793 as a theology student in nearby Tübingen, forming friendships there with fellow students, the future great romantic poet Friedrich Hölderlin (1770–1843) and Friedrich von Schelling (1775–1854), who, like Hegel, would become one of the major figures of the German philosophical scene in the first half of the nineteenth century. First, he was a journalist, then a principal of High School, finally a Professor of Philosophy and Rector of the University of Berlin. Some of his works are: The Phenomenology of the Mind (1807), The Science of Logic (1812-1816), The Philosophy of Right (1821), The Philosophy of History (posthumous).

His Triadic Division of Philosophy
Hegel divides philosophy into: Logic, the Philosophy of Spirit and the Philosophy of Nature. His vision of reality envisages an Absolute (Logos or Idea) which manifests itself in a triadic process of dialectic: Nature (the World) and the Finite mind or spirit (in effect, the human spirit) are the fields in which this Absolute unfolds or realises itself. We need to realise that all these divisions are for unity and unification. “Philosophy is concerned with the whole and the true is the whole.”

Consequently, Hegel criticises Kant for having encouraged too many divisions in philosophy: phenomenon and noumenon, sensibility and understanding, and so on. Moreover, Hegel envisaged the Absolute not as the vanishing-point of all differences, not even an impenetrable something existing above and beyond all differences but something constructed out of the reconciliation of them all: identity-in-difference.

His Philosophy of God
Hegel does not hesitate to speak of the Absolute as God. The Absolute, according to him, is “self-thinking thought.” These are the words of Aristotle for God. This Absolute is dynamic: it is being (thesis), non-being (antithesis), and also becoming (synthesis). That is, it is in a process of self-development. “The real is the rational, and the rational is the real.” Reality is dynamic. If Absolute is God, then Nature is Creation.

For Hegel, Christianity is the highest level of religious awakening. The first stage of religious awakening is the moment of “natural” religion, where the divine is seen in the sensible things of nature - in plants, trees, stones, and animals. In the second stage, the divine is seen in anthropomorphic statues, as in Greek religion. Finally, in Christianity, the “absolute religion,” the Absolute Spirit is seen and recognised as the pure Spirit. Religion, even Christianity, is in the second stage. Christianity must shed its pictorial language and be elevated into the still higher sphere of philosophy.

The Absolute is Spirit. Hegel states this is the highest definition of the Absolute. All religion and science have striven to reach this point. Now, Nature in itself is divine but its being does not correspond with its concept. It is self-alienated spirit, or God in his otherness.

Hegel often writes of the State in the most exalted terms. More than once he explicitly hails it as God. It is the highest manifestation of the objective spirit, also expressed in the two inferior movements of the family and civil society. But this is the State in its ideal essence and is in no way ever immune from error. At the same time, private freedom was important for Hegel.

His Philosophy of the World
Though there are texts in Hegel to suggest that Nature is the free creation of a personal God, we must claim that according to Hegel the Absolute manifests itself in Nature necessarily, not freely. There are three stages of Nature, of which one proceeds necessarily from the other. They are: Mathematics/Mechanics, Physics, and Organics (Organic Physics). As we move from mathematics through physics to organics, we move from space to organism. In animal organisms, the subjectivity is not yet self-consciousness.

His Philosophy of the Human Person
Hegel makes a distinction between the following: subjective spirit, objective spirit, and absolute spirit. The first two are finite, the last is the Absolute Spirit. (“Geist” can be translated as either “mind” or “spirit.”)

The emergence of freedom is of key importance for the philosophy of Hegel. In fact, the basic difference between Nature and Spirit is that while necessity reigns over the former, Spirit is the sphere of freedom. As the Absolute Spirit objectifies or expresses itself in Nature, so also the human spirit expresses itself in the world--again, in three stages. First, there emerges the notion of right, whereby the individual expresses her awareness of freedom with regard to material things. Second, is the notion of contract, whereby an individual can enter into an agreement with others to buy or sell property.  Third, there emerges the notion of wrong (or crime), for free beings can dishonour or break contracts that they have made.

Next, Hegel makes a distinction between morality and ethics. He looks into the interior of the human person and asks which actions of hers are to be considered morally imputable to her. There are three aspects here again: past purpose and intention and conscience. This last stage leads us to ethics. And ethical substance is made up of three concrete moments: family, civil society, and the state.

With regard to Hegel’s political thought, we can reiterate again his deification (divinisation) of the State, which is the highest expression of objective spirit. But even this must be interpreted within the context of his metaphysics. Moreover, the State is the objectification of a people’s culture and values--in short, its spirit. Hegel also saw war as a justifiable and necessary means, when treaties (contracts) between states have been broken. War, for Hegel, was also an inevitable moment in the dialectic of history: a necessary means to rejuvenate the spirit of a people and to remove dead systems.

Another important point here is Hegel’s conception of history. Perhaps no contemporary thinker has done so much to advance the cause of the philosophy of history as Hegel. He recognises three basic ways of writing history: original history (first-hand account of events), reflective history (presentation of events outside historian’s experience), and philosophical history (thoughtful consideration of history). Hegel’s philosophy of history, in sum, bears out the truth that world-history is but the self-unfolding of Spirit.

The divine Spirit is manifested in history as World-Spirit (Weltgeist). And the encounter with the World-Spirit must be sought through an examination of the spirt of a people (Volkgeist). Hegel’s philosophy of art is part of the last stage in the dialectic of the spirit.