Jan 26, 2004, 12.00am IST
Since ages we have been witness to an incessant face-off between faith and logic. European enlightenment exposed certain flaws in blind faith and ushered in an era of rationality, and logic became the dominant paradigm.
Metaphysics walks a tightrope between rationality and faith and it is here that the dissension between the two is sometimes at its peak.
Oriental metaphysical thought like the Advaita Vedanta are expounded on as rational a ground as metaphysics could ever be.
But at a certain point they have to forsake logic due to its inherent limitations and enter a realm where tools of logic are no longer applicable and things have to be taken on faith.
To understand these limitations, we have to first understand the nature and mechanism of logic.
Logic is a continuous build-up, a rearrangement of certain propositions whi-ch are known as elementary or object-propositions. These propositions, which we call 'facts', are based on direct perceptual know-ledge or empiricism.
These elementary building blocks of the logical process hinge upon the validity of human perception and are limited by the latter's scope and validity.
That's why theories such as the geocentric theory or even Newtonian mechanics that were once accepted as empirical truths, were later discarded when such perceptions were invali-dated in light of newer revelations of modern science.
Amongst western logicians it was Ludwig Wittgenstein, the Austrian philosopher who came nearest to proving the futility of all logical speculations to attain the Supreme Truth.
In his seminal work Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus Wittgenstein argued that logic is always conveyed through the instrument of language which itself is based upon direct human perception.
Language by its very definition is based upon the collective consciousness of all human beings, and is not drawn from perceptions particular to an individual.
So it can deal with and arrange relationally only those propositions that are commonly and nearly identically perceived through human senses.
Moreover, he argued that since the method of logic starts with elementary propositions as the premises and works upon its rearrangement, all it ends up with is another proposition dependent entirely upon the earlier ones, and thus is a result of a tautology.
It reveals everything already known; so it reveals nothing new.
Wittgenstein analogises the logical process with mathematical equations and says that starting from certain equations when we transform an equation, or generate new equations, we are actually doing nothing but playing with the same identity.
The same applies to any other logical process dealing with forms. Veda-nta and Wittgenstein upheld that even the elementary propositions that purportedly act as absolute premises, are not actually absolute. So if we start wrong we would always be wrong.
Any method dependent upon the senses is inadequate in capturing the Absolute. We can never speculate upon what is beyond our senses. The human thought process is logical in nature as it uses words as the building propositions.
What we sense could be known and expressed; but not what we do not. Every individual has to himself experience this extra-sensual Absolute premise that we call God.
The universe, which is the macrocosm, is just a chimerical reflection of the microcosm that is our 'I', and is therefore limited by it. The Absolute cannot be achieved through either thought or language.
Wittgenstein, who announces that one's conception of the world by logical necessity has to be limited by one's thought and language, is only confirming that the world is not what it is, but what we think it is.
Vinayak Lohani
Since ages we have been witness to an incessant face-off between faith and logic. European enlightenment exposed certain flaws in blind faith and ushered in an era of rationality, and logic became the dominant paradigm.
Metaphysics walks a tightrope between rationality and faith and it is here that the dissension between the two is sometimes at its peak.
Oriental metaphysical thought like the Advaita Vedanta are expounded on as rational a ground as metaphysics could ever be.
But at a certain point they have to forsake logic due to its inherent limitations and enter a realm where tools of logic are no longer applicable and things have to be taken on faith.
To understand these limitations, we have to first understand the nature and mechanism of logic.
Logic is a continuous build-up, a rearrangement of certain propositions whi-ch are known as elementary or object-propositions. These propositions, which we call 'facts', are based on direct perceptual know-ledge or empiricism.
These elementary building blocks of the logical process hinge upon the validity of human perception and are limited by the latter's scope and validity.
That's why theories such as the geocentric theory or even Newtonian mechanics that were once accepted as empirical truths, were later discarded when such perceptions were invali-dated in light of newer revelations of modern science.
Amongst western logicians it was Ludwig Wittgenstein, the Austrian philosopher who came nearest to proving the futility of all logical speculations to attain the Supreme Truth.
In his seminal work Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus Wittgenstein argued that logic is always conveyed through the instrument of language which itself is based upon direct human perception.
Language by its very definition is based upon the collective consciousness of all human beings, and is not drawn from perceptions particular to an individual.
So it can deal with and arrange relationally only those propositions that are commonly and nearly identically perceived through human senses.
Moreover, he argued that since the method of logic starts with elementary propositions as the premises and works upon its rearrangement, all it ends up with is another proposition dependent entirely upon the earlier ones, and thus is a result of a tautology.
It reveals everything already known; so it reveals nothing new.
Wittgenstein analogises the logical process with mathematical equations and says that starting from certain equations when we transform an equation, or generate new equations, we are actually doing nothing but playing with the same identity.
The same applies to any other logical process dealing with forms. Veda-nta and Wittgenstein upheld that even the elementary propositions that purportedly act as absolute premises, are not actually absolute. So if we start wrong we would always be wrong.
Any method dependent upon the senses is inadequate in capturing the Absolute. We can never speculate upon what is beyond our senses. The human thought process is logical in nature as it uses words as the building propositions.
What we sense could be known and expressed; but not what we do not. Every individual has to himself experience this extra-sensual Absolute premise that we call God.
The universe, which is the macrocosm, is just a chimerical reflection of the microcosm that is our 'I', and is therefore limited by it. The Absolute cannot be achieved through either thought or language.
Wittgenstein, who announces that one's conception of the world by logical necessity has to be limited by one's thought and language, is only confirming that the world is not what it is, but what we think it is.
Vinayak Lohani
No comments:
Post a Comment