2024/04/13

Charvaka - Wikipedia Indian materialism

Charvaka - Wikipedia

Charvaka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Cārvāka)

Charvaka (Sanskritचार्वाकIASTCārvāka), also known as Lokāyata, is an ancient school of Indian materialism.[1] It is considered as one example of the atheistic schools in the Ancient Indian philosophies.[a][3][b][5][c] Charvaka holds direct perceptionempiricism, and conditional inference as proper sources of knowledge, embraces philosophical skepticism and rejects ritualism.[4][6][7][8][9] It was a well-attested belief system in ancient India.[d]

Brihaspati, a philosopher, is traditionally referred to as the founder of Charvaka or Lokāyata philosophy, although some scholars dispute this.[10][11] During the Hindu reformation period in the first millennium BCE, after Buddhism was established by Gautama Buddha and Jainism was re-organized by Parshvanatha.[12] Its teachings have been compiled from historic secondary literature such as those found in the shastrassutras, and the Indian epic poetry.[13]

In other words, the Charvaka epistemology states that whenever one infers a truth from a set of observations or truths, one must acknowledge doubt; inferred knowledge is conditional.[14]

Charvaka is categorized as one of the nāstika or "heterodox" schools of Indian philosophy.[15][16]

Etymology and meaning[edit]

The etymology of Charvaka (Sanskrit: चार्वाक) is uncertain. Bhattacharya quotes the grammarian Hemacandra, to the effect that the word cārvāka is derived from the root carv, 'to chew' : "A Cārvāka chews the self (carvatyātmānaṃ cārvākaḥ). Hemacandra refers to his own grammatical work, Uṇādisūtra 37, which runs as follows: mavāka-śyāmāka-vārtāka-jyontāka-gūvāka-bhadrākādayaḥ. Each of these words ends with the āka suffix and is formed irregularly."[17] This may also allude to the philosophy's hedonistic precepts of "eat, drink, and be merry".[18]

Others believe it to mean "agreeable speech" or pejoratively, "sweet-tongued", from Sanskrit's cāru "agreeable" and vāc "speech" (which becomes vāk in the nominative singular and in compounds). Yet another hypothesis is that it is eponymous, with the founder of the school being Charvaka, a disciple of Brihaspati.[19]

As Lokayata[edit]

According to claims of Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, the traditional name of Charvaka is Lokayata.[20] It was called Lokayata because it was prevalent (ayatah) among the people (lokesu), and meant the world-outlook of the people. The dictionary meaning of Lokāyata (लोकायत) signifies "directed towards, aiming at the world, worldly".[18][e]

In early to mid 20th century literature, the etymology of Lokayata has been given different interpretations, in part because the primary sources are unavailable, and the meaning has been deduced from divergent secondary literature.[22] The name Lokāyata, for example, is found in Chanakya's Arthashastra, which refers to three ānvīkṣikīs (अन्वीक्षिकी, literally, examining by reason,[23] logical philosophies) – YogaSamkhya and Lokāyata. However, Lokāyata in the Arthashastra is not anti-Vedic, but implies Lokāyata to be a part of Vedic lore.[24] Lokāyata here refers to logic or science of debate (disputatio, "criticism").[25] Rudolf Franke translated Lokayata in German as "logisch beweisende Naturerklärung", that is "logically proving explanation of nature".[26]

In 8th century CE Jaina literature, Saddarsanasamuccaya by Haribhadra,[27] Lokayata is stated to be the Hindu school where there is "no God, no samsara (rebirth), no karma, no duty, no fruits of merit, no sin."[28]

The Buddhist Sanskrit work Divyavadana (ca. 200–350 CE) mentions Lokayata, where it is listed among subjects of study, and with the sense of "technical logical science".[29] Shantarakshita and Adi Shankara use the word lokayata to mean materialism,[30][31] with the latter using the term Lokāyata, not Charvaka.[32]

In Silāṅka's commentary on Sūtra-kṛtāṅgna, the oldest Jain Āgama Prakrt literature, he has used four terms for Cārvāka viz. (1) Bṛhaspatya (2) Lokāyata (3) Bhūtavādin (4) Vāmamārgin.[33]

Origin[edit]

The tenets of the Charvaka atheistic doctrines can be traced to the relatively later composed layers of the Rigveda, while substantial discussions on the Charvaka is found in post-Vedic literature.[30][34][f] The primary literature of Charvaka, such as the Brhaspati Sutra, is missing or lost.[30][34] Its theories and development has been compiled from historic secondary literature such as those found in the shastras (such as the Arthashastra), sutras and the epics (the Mahabharata and Ramayana) of Hinduism as well as from the dialogues of Gautama Buddha and Jain literature.[30][36]

In the oldest of the Upanishads, in chapter 2 of the Brhadāranyaka (ca. 700 BCE), the leading theorist Yājnavalkya states in a passage often referred to by the irreligious: "so I say, after death there is no awareness."

This declaration arises in a discussion with his female philosophy interlocutor, Maitreyi, who notices that this might mean there is no afterlife – no religion: "After Yājñavalkya said this, Maitreyi exclaimed: 'Now, sir, you have totally confused me by saying 'after death there is no awareness'."[37]

Substantial discussions about the Charvaka doctrines are found in texts during the 6th century BCE because of the emergence of competing philosophies such as Buddhism and Jainism.[30][34][38] Bhattacharya posits that Charvaka may have been one of several atheistic, materialist schools that existed in ancient India during the 6th century BCE.[39] Though there is evidence of its development in Vedic era,[40] the Charvaka school of philosophy predated the Āstika schools as well as being a philosophical predecessor to subsequent or contemporaneous philosophies such as AjñanaĀjīvikaJainism and Buddhism in the classical period of Indian philosophy.[41]

The earliest Charvaka scholar in India whose texts still survive is Ajita Kesakambali. Although materialist schools existed before Charvaka, it was the only school which systematised materialist philosophy by setting them down in the form of aphorisms in the 6th century BCE. There was a base text, a collection sūtras or aphorisms and several commentaries were written to explicate the aphorisms. This should be seen in the wider context of the oral tradition of Indian philosophy. It was in the 6th century BCE onwards, with the emergent popularity of Buddhism, that ancient schools started codifying and writing down the details of their philosophy.[42]

E. W. Hopkins, in his The Ethics of India (1924), claims that Charvaka philosophy predated Jainism and Buddhism, mentioning "the old Cārvāka or materialist of the 6th century BC". Rhys Davids assumes that lokāyata in ca. the 5th century BC came to mean "skepticism" in general without yet being organised as a philosophical school. This proves that it had already existed for centuries and had become a generic term by 600 BCE. Its methodology of skepticism is included in the RamayanaAyodhya kanda, chapter 108, where Jabāli tries to persuade Rāma to accept the kingdom by using nāstika arguments (Rāma refutes him in chapter 109):[43]

O, the highly wise! Arrive at a conclusion, therefore, that there is nothing beyond this Universe. Give precedence to that which meets the eye and turn your back on what is beyond our knowledge. (2.108.17)

There are alternate theories behind the origins of Charvaka. Bṛhaspati is sometimes referred to as the founder of Charvaka or Lokāyata philosophy, although other scholars dispute this.[10][11] Billington 1997, p. 43 states that a philosopher named Charvaka lived in or about the 6th century BCE, who developed the premises of this Indian philosophy in the form of Brhaspati Sutra. These sutras predate 150 BCE, because they are mentioned in the Mahābhāṣya (7.3.45).[43]

Arthur Llewellyn Basham, citing the Buddhist Samaññaphala Sutta, suggests six schools of heterodox, pre-Buddhist and pre-Jain, atheistic Indian traditions in 6th century BCE, that included Charvakas and Ajivikas.[44] Charvaka was a living philosophy up to the 12th century in India's historical timeline, after which this system seems to have disappeared without leaving any trace.[45]

Philosophy[edit]

The Charvaka school of philosophy had a variety of atheistic and materialistic beliefs. They held perception and direct experiments to be the valid and reliable source of knowledge.[46]

Epistemology[edit]

The Charvaka epistemology holds perception as the primary and proper source of knowledge, while inference is held as prone to being either right or wrong and therefore conditional or invalid.[14][47] Perceptions are of two types, for Charvaka, external and internal. External perception is described as that arising from the interaction of five senses and worldly objects, while internal perception is described by this school as that of inner sense, the mind.[14] Inference is described as deriving a new conclusion and truth from one or more observations and previous truths. To Charvakas, inference is useful but prone to error, as inferred truths can never be without doubt.[48] Inference is good and helpful, it is the validity of inference that is suspect – sometimes in certain cases and often in others. To the Charvakas there were no reliable means by which the efficacy of inference as a means of knowledge could be established.[49]

Charvaka's epistemological argument can be explained with the example of fire and smoke. Kamal states that when there is smoke (middle term), one's tendency may be to leap to the conclusion that it must be caused by fire (major term in logic).[14] While this is often true, it need not be universally true, everywhere or all the times, stated the Charvaka scholars. Smoke can have other causes. In Charvaka epistemology, as long as the relation between two phenomena, or observation and truth, has not been proven as unconditional, it is an uncertain truth. In this Indian philosophy such a method of reasoning, that is jumping to conclusions or inference, is prone to flaw.[14][48] Charvakas further state that full knowledge is reached when we know all observations, all premises and all conditions. But the absence of conditions, state Charvakas, can not be established beyond doubt by perception, as some conditions may be hidden or escape our ability to observe.[14] They acknowledge that every person relies on inference in daily life, but to them if we act uncritically, we err. While our inferences sometimes are true and lead to successful action, it is also a fact that sometimes inference is wrong and leads to error.[39] Truth then, state Charvaka, is not an unfailing character of inference, truth is merely an accident of inference, and one that is separable. We must be skeptics, question what we know by inference, question our epistemology.[14][34]

This epistemological proposition of Charvakas was influential among various schools of Indian philosophies, by demonstrating a new way of thinking and re-evaluation of past doctrines. Hindu, Buddhist and Jain scholars extensively deployed Charvaka insights on inference in rational re-examination of their own theories.[14][50]

Comparison with other schools of Hinduism[edit]

Charvaka epistemology represents minimalist pramāṇas (epistemological methods) in Hindu philosophy. The other schools of Hinduism developed and accepted multiple valid forms of epistemology.[51][52] To Charvakas, Pratyakṣa (perception) was the one valid way to knowledge and other means of knowledge were either always conditional or invalid. While the Charvaka school accepted just one valid means for knowledge, in other schools of Hinduism they ranged between 2 and 6.[51][52] Advaita Vedanta scholars considered six means of valid knowledge and to truths: Pratyakṣa (perception), Anumāna (inference), Upamāna (comparison and analogy), Arthāpatti (postulation), Anupalabdhi (non-perception, cognitive proof) and Śabda (word, testimony of past or present reliable experts).[51][52][53]

Metaphysics[edit]

Since none of the means of knowing were found to be worthy to establish the invariable connection between middle term and predicate, Charvakas concluded that the inference could not be used to ascertain metaphysical truths. Thus, to Charvakas, the step which the mind takes from the knowledge of something to infer the knowledge of something else could be accounted for by its being based on a former perception or by its being in error. Cases where inference was justified by the result were seen only to be mere coincidences.[54]

Therefore, Charvakas denied metaphysical concepts like reincarnation, an extracorporeal soul, the efficacy of religious rites, other worlds (heaven and hell), fate and accumulation of merit or demerit through the performance of certain actions.[42] Charvakas also rejected the use of supernatural causes to describe natural phenomena. To them all natural phenomena was produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things.[55]

The fire is hot, the water cold, refreshing cool the breeze of morn;
By whom came this variety ? from their own nature was it born.[55]

Consciousness and afterlife[edit]

The Charvaka did not believe in karmarebirth or an afterlife. To them, all attributes that represented a person, such as thinness, fatness, etc., resided in the body. The Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha states the Charvaka position as follows,[56]

There is no world other than this;
There is no heaven and no hell;
The realm of Shiva and like regions,
are fabricated by stupid imposters.

— Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verse 8[56]

Pleasure[edit]

Charvaka believed that there was nothing wrong with sensual pleasure. Since it is impossible to have pleasure without pain, Charvaka thought that wisdom lay in enjoying pleasure and avoiding pain as far as possible. Unlike many of the Indian philosophies of the time, Charvaka did not believe in austerities or rejecting pleasure out of fear of pain and held such reasoning to be foolish.[46]

The Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha states the Charvaka position on pleasure and hedonism as follows,[57]

The enjoyment of heaven lies in eating delicious food, keeping company of young women, using fine clothes, perfumes, garlands, sandal paste... while moksha is death which is cessation of life-breath... the wise therefore ought not to take pains on account of moksha.

A fool wears himself out by penances and fasts. Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings.

— Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verses 9-12[58]

The scholar Bhattacharya argues that the common belief that "all materialists are nothing but sensualists" is a misconception, as no authentic Carvaka aphorism have been cited by the movement's opponents to support this view.[59]

Religion[edit]

Charvakas rejected many of the standard religious conceptions of Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Ajivakas, such as an afterlifereincarnationsamsarakarma and religious rites. They were critical of the Vedas, as well as Buddhist scriptures.[60]

The Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha with commentaries by Madhavacharya describes the Charvakas as critical of the Vedas, materialists without morals and ethics. To Charvakas, the text states, the Vedas suffered from several faults – errors in transmission across generations, untruth, self-contradiction and tautology. The Charvakas pointed out the disagreements, debates and mutual rejection by karmakanda Vedic priests and jñānakanda Vedic priests, as proof that either one of them is wrong or both are wrong, as both cannot be right.[60][61][62]

Charvakas, according to Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha verses 10 and 11, declared the Vedas to be incoherent rhapsodies whose only usefulness was to provide livelihood to priests. They also held the belief that Vedas were invented by man, and had no divine authority.[55]

Charvakas rejected the need for ethics or morals, and suggested that "while life remains, let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt".[55]

The Jain scholar Haribhadra, in the last section of his text Saddarsanasamuccaya, includes Charvaka in his list of six darśanas of Indian traditions, along with BuddhismNyaya-VaisheshikaSamkhyaJainism and Jaiminiya.[63] Haribhadra notes that Charvakas assert that there is nothing beyond the senses, consciousness is an emergent property, and that it is foolish to seek what cannot be seen.[64]

The accuracy of these views, attributed to Charvakas, has been contested by scholars.[65][66]

Public administration[edit]

An extract from Aaine-Akbari (vol.III, tr. by H. S. Barrett, pp217–218) written by Abul Fazl, the famous historian of Akbar's court, mentions a symposium of philosophers of all faiths held in 1578 at Akbar's instance. The account is given by the historian Vincent Smith, in his article titled "The Jain Teachers of Akbar". Some Carvaka thinkers are said to have participated in the symposium. Under the heading "Nastika" Abul Fazl has referred to the good work, judicious administration and welfare schemes that were emphasised by the Charvaka law-makers. Somadeva has also mentioned the Charvaka method of defeating the enemies of the nation.[67][68]

Mention in Mahabharata[edit]

In the epic MahabharataBook 12 Chapter 39, a rakshasa who dresses up like a Brahmin and appoints himself as spokesperson for all Brahmins is named Charvaka. Charvaka criticizes Yudhishthira for killing his kinsmen, superiors, and teacher, and claims that all the Brahmins are uttering maledictions to him. Yudhishthira is ashamed of this, but the Brahmin Vaishampayana reassures him. The Brahmins, now filled with rage, destroy Charvaka with the power of their mantras.[69]

Mention in other works[edit]

No independent works on Charvaka philosophy can be found except for a few sūtras attributed to Brihaspati. The 8th century Tattvopaplavasimha of Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa with Madhyamaka influence is a significant source of Charvaka philosophy. Shatdarshan Samuchay and Sarvadarśanasaṅ̇graha of Vidyaranya are a few other works which elucidate Charvaka thought.[70]

One of the widely studied references to the Charvaka philosophy is the Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha (etymologically all-philosophy-collection), a famous work of 14th century Advaita Vedanta philosopher Mādhava Vidyāraṇya from South India, which starts with a chapter on the Charvaka system. After invoking, in the Prologue of the book, the Hindu gods Shiva and Vishnu ("by whom the earth and rest were produced"), Vidyāraṇya asks, in the first chapter:[71]

...but how can we attribute to the Divine Being the giving of supreme felicity, when such a notion has been utterly abolished by Charvaka, the crest-gem of the atheistic school, the follower of the doctrine of Brihaspati? The efforts of Charvaka are indeed hard to be eradicated, for the majority of living beings hold by the current refrain:

While life is yours, live joyously;
None can escape Death's searching eye:
When once this frame of ours they burn,
How shall it e'er again return?[71]

Sanskrit poems and plays like the Naiṣadha-carita, Prabodha-candrodaya, Āgama-dambara, Vidvanmoda-taraṅgiṇī and Kādambarī contain representations of the Charvaka thought. However, the authors of these works were thoroughly opposed to materialism and tried to portray the Charvaka in an unfavourable light. Therefore, their works should only be accepted critically.[42]

Loss of original works[edit]

There was no continuity in the Charvaka tradition after the 12th century. Whatever is written on Charvaka post this is based on second-hand knowledge, learned from preceptors to disciples and no independent works on Charvaka philosophy can be found.[42] Chatterjee and Datta explain that our understanding of Charvaka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of its ideas by other schools, and that it is not a living tradition:

"Though materialism in some form or other has always been present in India, and occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as well as in the later philosophical works we do not find any systematic work on materialism, nor any organised school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for refutation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these."[72]

Controversy on reliability of sources[edit]

Bhattacharya 2011, pp. 10, 29–32 states that the claims against Charvaka of hedonism, lack of any morality and ethics and disregard for spirituality is from texts of competing religious philosophies (Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism). Its primary sources, along with commentaries by Charvaka scholars, are missing or lost. This reliance on indirect sources raises the question of reliability and whether there was a bias and exaggeration in representing the views of Charvakas. Bhattacharya points out that multiple manuscripts are inconsistent, with key passages alleging hedonism and immorality missing in many manuscripts of the same text.[65]

The Skhalitapramathana Yuktihetusiddhi by Āryadevapāda, in a manuscript found in Tibet, discusses the Charvaka philosophy, but attributes a theistic claim to Charvakas - that happiness in this life, and the only life, can be attained by worshiping gods and defeating demons. Toso posits that as Charvaka philosophy's views spread and were widely discussed, non-Charvakas such as Āryadevapāda added certain points of view that may not be of the Charvakas'.[73]

Buddhists, JainsAdvaita Vedantins and Nyāya philosophers considered the Charvakas as one of their opponents and tried to refute their views. These refutations are indirect sources of Charvaka philosophy. The arguments and reasoning approaches Charvakas deployed were so significant that they continued to be referred to, even after all the authentic Charvaka/Lokāyata texts had been lost. However, the representation of the Charvaka thought in these works is not always firmly grounded in first-hand knowledge of Charvaka texts and should be viewed critically.[42]

Likewise, states Bhattacharya, the charge of hedonism against Charvaka might have been exaggerated.[65] Countering the argument that the Charvakas opposed all that was good in the Vedic tradition, Riepe 1964, p. 75 states, "It may be said from the available material that Cārvākas hold truth, integrity, consistency, and freedom of thought in the highest esteem."

Influence on Europe and China[edit]

According to reports, the Europeans were surprised by the openness and rational doubts of the Mughal emperor Akbar and the Indians. In Pierre De Jarric's Histoire (1610), based on the Jesuit reports, the Mughal emperor is compared to an atheist himself: "Thus we see in this Prince the common fault of the atheist, who refuses to make reason subservient to faith (…)"[74]

Hannah Chapelle Wojciehowski writes this concerning the Jesuit descriptions in the paper "East-West Swerves: Cārvāka Materialism and Akbar's Religious Debates at Fatehpur Sikri" (2015):

…The information they sent back to Europe was disseminated widely in both Catholic and Protestant countries (…) A more detailed understanding of Indian philosophies, including Cārvāka, began to emerge in Jesuit missionary writings by the early to mid-seventeenth century.[75]

The Jesuit Roberto De Nobili wrote in 1613 that the "Logaidas" (Lokayatas) "hold the view that the elements themselves are god". Some decades later, Heinrich Roth, who studied Sanskrit in Agra ca. 1654–60, translated the Vedantasara by the influential Vedantic commentator Sadananda (14th). This text depicts four different schools of the Carvaka philosophies.

Wojciehowski notes: "Rather than proclaiming a Cārvāka renaissance in Akbar's court, it would be safer to suggest that the ancient school of materialism never really went away."

In Classical Indian Philosophy (2020), by Peter Adamson and Jonardon Ganeri, they mention a lecture by Henry T. Coolebrooke in 1827 on the schools of the Carvaka/Lokayata materialists.[76] Adamson and Ganeri compare the Carvakas to the "emergentism in the philosophy of mind," which is traced back to John Stuart Mill.

They write that Mill "sounds like a follower of Brhaspati, founder of the Cārvāka system, when he writes in his System of Logic that 'All organised bodies are composed of parts, similar to those composing inorganic nature (…)'"

The historian of ideas Dag Herbjørnsrud has pointed out that the Charvaka schools influenced China: "This Indian-Chinese materialist connection is documented in a little-known but groundbreaking paper by professor Huang Xinchuan, "Lokayata and Its Influence in China," published in Chinese in 1978 (English version in the quarterly journal Social Sciences in March 1981). Xinchuan, a senior researcher at the China Academy of Social Science, demonstrates how the Indian Lokāyata schools exercised an influence on ancient Chinese over the centuries. He lists 62 classical texts in China that refer to these Indian material-atheistic schools, from the Brahmajala Sutra translated by Zhi Qian (Chih Chien, 223–253), of the Kingdom of Wu, to An Explanation for Brahmajala Sutra written by Ji Guang (Chi-kuang, 1528–1588) of the Ming Dynasty. In addition, Xinchuan mentions four texts on Lokayata in Chinese by Japanese Buddhist writers."[74]

Xinchuan's paper explains how the Buddhists regarded the Lokayatikas as fellow-travellers of the Confucian and the Taoist Schools, and how they launched an attack on them because of their materialistic views. Xinchuan cites, as also Rasik Vihari Joshi noted in 1987, dozens of texts where Chinese classical works describe Lokayata either as "Shi-Jian-Xing" ("doctrine prevailing in the world"), "Wu-Hou-Shi-Lun" ("doctrine of denying after-life"), or refers to "Lu-Ka-Ye-Jin" (the "Lokāyata Sutra").[citation needed]

Commentators[edit]

Aviddhakarṇa, Bhavivikta, Kambalasvatara, Purandara and Udbhatabhatta are the five commentators who developed the Carvaka/Lokayata system in various ways.[77][78]

Influence[edit]

  • Dharmakirti, a 7th-century philosopher deeply influenced by Carvaka philosophy wrote in Pramanvartik.[79]
  • Pyrrho
  • The influence of this heterodox doctrine is seen in other spheres of Indian thought.

Organisations[edit]

  • The Charvaka Ashram founded by Boddu Ramakrishna in 1973 has stood the test of time and continues to further the cause of the rationalist movement.[80]

Criticism[edit]

Ain-i-Akbari, a record of the Mughal Emperor Akbar's court, mentions a symposium of philosophers of all faiths held in 1578 at Akbar's insistence[81] (also see Sen 2005, pp. 288–289). In the text, the Mughal historian Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak summarizes the Charvaka philosophy as "unenlightened" and characterizes their works of literature as "lasting memorials to their ignorance". He notes that Charvakas considered paradise as "the state in which man lives as he chooses, without control of another", while hell as "the state in which he lives subject to another's rule". On state craft, Charvakas believe, states Mubarak, that it is best when "knowledge of just administration and benevolent government" is practiced.[81]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ "some of the ancient Hindu traditions like Carvakas have a rich tradition of materialism, in general, other schools..."[2]
  2. ^ "Of the three heterodox systems, the remaining one, the Cārvāka system, is a Hindu system."[4]
  3. ^ For a general discussion of Charvaka and other atheistic traditions within Hindu philosophy, see Frazier 2013, p. 367
  4. ^ "Aside from nontheistic schools like the Samkhya, there have also been explicitly atheistic schools in the Hindu tradition. One virulently anti-supernatural system is/was the so-called Charvaka school."
  5. ^ See loka and ayata, Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon, Germany; (लोक, loka which means "worlds, abode, place of truth, people", and आयत, āyata means "extended, directed towards, aiming at"[21]
  6. ^ "These atheistical doctrines existed from the earliest times as their traces are visible even in the Rigveda in some hymns of which Prof Max Muller pointed out the curious traces of an incipient scepticism. (...) Two things are therefore clear that the Brihaspatya tenets also called Charvaka tenets are of a very old standing..."[35]
  1. ^ Seema Chishti (21 August 2018). "Indian rationalism, Charvaka to Narendra Dabholkar"The Indian Express.
  2. ^ Thomas 2014, pp. 164–165.
  3. ^ Raman 2012, pp. 549–574.
  4. Jump up to:a b Tiwari 1998, p. 67.
  5. ^ Cooke 2006, p. 84.
  6. ^ Perrett 1984, pp. 161–174.
  7. ^ Bhattacharya 2011, pp. 21–32.
  8. ^ Radhakrishnan & Moore 1957, pp. 187, 227–234.
  9. ^ Flint 1899, p. 463.
  10. Jump up to:a b Bhattacharya 2002.
  11. Jump up to:a b Jeaneane Fowler (2015). A. C. Grayling (ed.). The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Humanism. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 114 with footnote 17. ISBN 978-1-119-97717-9.
  12. ^ Quack 2011, p. 50:See footnote 3
  13. ^ Balcerowicz, Piotr (2016), "Jayarāśi", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 8 July 2020
  14. Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Kamal 1998, pp. 13–16.
  15. ^ Radhakrishnan & Moore 1957, pp. 1–3, Contents.
  16. ^ Flood 1996, p. 224.
  17. ^ Bhattacharya 2011, pp. 166–167.
  18. Jump up to:a b Isaeva 1993, p. 27.
  19. ^ Sharma 1987, p. 40.
  20. ^ Chattopadhyaya 1992, p. 1.
  21. ^ Stöwe 2003.
  22. ^ Bhattacharya 2011, pp. 187–192.
  23. ^ Hacker 1978, p. 164.
  24. ^ Bhattacharya 2011, pp. 188–190.
  25. ^ Bhattacharya 2011, pp. 27, 189–191.
  26. ^ Bhattacharya 2011, p. 188.
  27. ^ Chapple 2003, p. 2.
  28. ^ Haribhadrasūri 1989.
  29. ^ Bhattacharya 2011, pp. 193–195.
  30. Jump up to:a b c d e Radhakrishnan & Moore 1957, pp. 227–249.
  31. ^ Bhattacharya 2011, pp. 196.
  32. ^ Bhattacharya 2002, p. 6.
  33. ^ Joshi 1987.
  34. Jump up to:a b c d Koller 1977, pp. 155–164.
  35. ^ Vaidya 2001, p. 503.
  36. ^ Bhattacharya 2011, pp. 21–44, 65–74.
  37. ^ Herbjørnsrud, Dag (16 June 2020). "The untold history of India's vital atheist philosophy"Blog of the APA. Retrieved 5 November 2020.
  38. ^ Riepe 1964, p. 53-58.
  39. Jump up to:a b Bhattacharya 2013, p. 133-149.
  40. ^ Sinha 1994, pp. 235–241.
  41. ^ Bhattacharya 2011, p. 9.
  42. Jump up to:a b c d e Bhattacharya 2011a.
  43. Jump up to:a b Schermerhorn 1930, pp. 132–138.
  44. ^ Basham 1981, pp. 11–17.
  45. ^ Bhattacharya 2011, pp. 65–74.
  46. Jump up to:a b Acharya 1894, p. 3.
  47. ^ Bhattacharya 2010, pp. 529–542.
  48. Jump up to:a b Bhattacharya 2011, pp. 55–67.
  49. ^ Acharya 1894, p. 5.
  50. ^ Chatterjee 1977, pp. 195–209.
  51. Jump up to:a b c Deutsch 2001, pp. 245–248.
  52. Jump up to:a b c Grimes 1996, p. 238.
  53. ^ Flood 1996, p. 225.
  54. ^ Acharya 1894, p. 9.
  55. Jump up to:a b c d Acharya 1894, p. 10.
  56. Jump up to:a b Billington 1997, p. 44.
  57. ^ Billington 1997, pp. 44–45.
  58. ^ Billington 1997, p. 45.
  59. ^ Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (2009). Studies on the Carvaka/Lokayata. Florence: Societa Editrice Fiorentina, 2009.
  60. Jump up to:a b Hayes 2001, p. 187-212.
  61. ^ Madhavacharya n.d., pp. 3–7.
  62. ^ Acharya 1894, pp. 5–9.
  63. ^ Potter 2003, pp. 435–436:See verses 78-end (ET99-end)
  64. ^ Potter 2003, pp. 435.
  65. Jump up to:a b c Bhattacharya 2011, pp. 10, 29–32.
  66. ^ Riepe 1964.
  67. ^ Salunkhe, A. H. (16 October 1998). "Astik Shiromani, Charvak". Lokayat – via Google Books.
  68. ^ Smith, Vincent Arthur (16 October 1917). "The Jain Teachers of Akbar". Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute – via Google Books.
  69. ^ Roy 1894, pp. 121–122.
  70. ^ Joshi 2005, p. 37.
  71. Jump up to:a b Acharya 1894, p. 2.
  72. ^ Chatterjee & Datta 2004, p. 55.
  73. ^ Del Toso 2010, pp. 543–552.
  74. Jump up to:a b Herbjørnsrud, Dag (24 June 2020). "India's atheist influence on Europe, China, and science"Blog of the APA. Retrieved 5 November 2020.
  75. ^ Wojciehowski, Hannah Chapelle (1 July 2015). "East-West Swerves: Cārvāka Materialism and Akbar's Religious Debates at Fatehpur Sikri"Genre48 (2): 131–157. doi:10.1215/00166928-2884820ISSN 0016-6928.
  76. ^ Colebrooke, H. T. (1837). Miscellaneous Essays. Vol. 1. H. Allen.
  77. ^ Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna; BHATTACHARYA, BAMKRISHNA (2010). "Commentators on the "Cārvākasūtra": A Critical Survey". Journal of Indian Philosophy38 (4): 419–430. doi:10.1007/s10781-010-9088-6JSTOR 23497726S2CID 170270323.
  78. ^ Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna (15 January 2000). "Materialism in India; After Carvaka"Indian Skeptic12: 31–36 – via ResearchGate.
  79. ^ "Carvaka-The Ancient Indian Rebel Philosophy | Dr. V.K. Maheshwari, Ph.D".
  80. ^ "At the heart of Andhra's booming capital lies a quaint ashram for rationalists". 17 April 2019.
  81. Jump up to:a b Mubarak 1894, pp. 217–218.

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

  • Bhatta, JayarashiTattvopaplavasimha (Status as a Carvaka text disputed)
  • Gokhale, Pradeep P. The Cārvāka Theory of Pramāṇas: A Restatement, Philosophy East and West (1993).
  • Nambiar, Sita Krishna (1971). Prabodhacandrodaya of Krsna Misra. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass.

External links[edit]

유동식, ‘한국문화와 기독교 2009

유동식, ‘한국문화와 기독교’ 

유동식 교수님의 <한국문화와 기독교>는 2009년 봄, "연세신학 시민강좌"의 강의 내용 중 결론
부분을 정리한 것으로 어쩌면 한 평생 계속해 온 연구의 결론이라고도 볼 수 있을 듯합니다. 유
교수님은 학문적인 신학강의라기 보다는 신앙고백적인 신학수첩이라고 말하고 있습니다.(흰돌
출판사 간, <한국문화와 기독교>) 감리교신학대학과 연세대학교 신과대학 교수를 역임한 유동
식 교수의 주요 저서로는 
  • <한국종교와 가독교> 1965, 
  • <한국무교의 역사와 구조> 1975, 
  • <한국신학의 광맥> 1982,
  •  <풍류도와 한국의 종교사상> 1997, 
  • <풍류도와 예술신학> 2006 등이 있습니다.

===

유동식 교수의 ‘한국문화와 기독교’

차례
1. 가나안 복지와 금수강산
2. 풍류도와 한국문화
3. 한 멋진 삶의 복음
a) 한의 성취로서의 하나님
b) 멋의 성취로서의 복음
c) 하늘나라와 영원한 지금

2024/04/12

The Brain and the Meaning of Life eBook : Thagard, Paul: Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store

The Brain and the Meaning of Life eBook : Thagard, Paul: Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store



Paul ThagardPaul Thagard

The Brain and the Meaning of Life Kindle Edition
by Paul Thagard (Author) Format: Kindle Edition


3.8 out of 5 stars 18


How brain science answers the most intriguing questions about the meaning of life

Why is life worth living? What makes actions right or wrong? What is reality and how do we know it? The Brain and the Meaning of Life draws on research in philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience to answer some of the most pressing questions about life's nature and value. Paul Thagard argues that evidence requires the abandonment of many traditional ideas about the soul, free will, and immortality, and shows how brain science matters for fundamental issues about reality, morality, and the meaning of life. The ongoing Brain Revolution reveals how love, work, and play provide good reasons for living.

Defending the superiority of evidence-based reasoning over religious faith and philosophical thought experiments, Thagard argues that minds are brains and that reality is what science can discover. Brains come to know reality through a combination of perception and reasoning. Just as important, our brains evaluate aspects of reality through emotions that can produce both good and bad decisions. Our cognitive and emotional abilities allow us to understand reality, decide effectively, act morally, and pursue the vital needs of love, work, and play. Wisdom consists of knowing what matters, why it matters, and how to achieve it.

The Brain and the Meaning of Life shows how brain science helps to answer questions about the nature of mind and reality, while alleviating anxiety about the difficulty of life in a vast universe. The book integrates decades of multidisciplinary research, but its clear explanations and humor make it accessible to the general reader.
===
Product description
Review
"[R]eaders will find much of the author's advice to be beneficial. The book contains many good suggestions for making one's life better including advice on how to be happier and how to make good decisions, all based on solid research in psychology and neuroscience. For anyone who is curious about current research in these fields, Thagard's book provides an accessible introduction to important concepts and theories."---Margery Lucas, Society

"One of Choice's Outstanding Academic Titles for 2011"

"The name of this well-written and ambitious book understates the breadth of its scope. The book deals with the relation of modern neuroscience not only to the meaning of life, but also to ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. . . . The discussion is rich, unorthodox, and frequently exciting."---Iddo Landau, Metapsychology Online Reviews

"A thoughtful and well-researched attempt to answer that most fundamental existential question: why not kill yourself? Or, to give it a positive spin, what gives life meaning? Thagard lays out detailed arguments that reality is knowable through science, that minds are nothing other than material brains and that there are no ultimate rights and wrongs handed down by a supernatural being."-- "New Scientist"

"Thagard's 'neural naturalism' promises nothing short of a conceptual revolution, or better, a paradigm shift. His evidence-based strategy uses the data from psychology and neuroscience to expose empirically based answers to questions such as, What is the meaning of life? What ought one to do? . . . Thagard's reader-friendly text includes a glossary, endnotes, and extensive references."-- "Choice"

"The book integrates decades of multidisciplinary research, but its clear explanations and humor make it accessible to the general reader."-- "Gaia Media News"

"Thagard has published a string of distinguished books and papers on reasoning and scientific explanation, and was a pioneer in using cognitive science to study the way scientists think. The sections on reasoning bear the imprint of this work, and pack a lot of philosophy into a short span."---Dominic Murphy, Australian Review of Public Affairs

"[Thagard] offers a tightly reasoned, often humorous, and original contribution to the emerging practice of applying science to areas heretofore the province of philosophers, theologians, ethicists, and politicians: What is reality and how can we know it? Are mind and brain one or two? What is the source of the sense of self? What is love? What is the difference between right and wrong, and how can we know it? What is the most legitimate form of government? What is the meaning of life, and how can we find happiness in it? Thagard employs the latest tools and findings of science in his attempts to answer these (and additional) questions."---Michael Shermer, Science
From the Back Cover
"The Brain and the Meaning of Life provides a highly informed account of the relevance of recent neuroscience to human life. It compellingly tells how humans, as biological creatures in a physical world, can find meaning and value."--William Bechtel, University of California, San Diego

"Engagingly written for general readers, Thagard's book provides a nice description of current knowledge about the brain and explains how brain research bears on philosophical issues."--Gilbert Harman, Princeton University

About the Author
Paul Thagard is professor of philosophy and director of the cognitive science program at the University of Waterloo, Canada. His books include Hot Thought: Mechanisms and Applications of Emotional Cognition and How Scientists Explain Disease.

Read less
Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B006YGG3WS
Publisher ‏ : ‎ Princeton University Press (25 January 2010)




===
Paul Thagard
Adapted from the Canadian Encyclopedia:

Paul R. Thagard, philosopher (b at Yorkton, Sask, 1950). Paul Thagard received a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Saskatchewan (1971), and completed degrees in philosophy at Cambridge University (1977) and the University of Toronto (1977). In 1985 he studied computer science at the University of Michigan (receiving an MSc), where he spent 8 years teaching philosophy at the Dearborn campus before accepting a position as a research psychologist at the University of Princeton (1986). Thagard later joined the University of Waterloo as a professor of philosophy, with a cross appointment to psychology and computer science, and director of the Cognitive Science Program. His considerable body of work (including many books and some 200 articles) has been profoundly influential to the study of human cognition in a wide range of practical and theoretical contexts.

Full article:

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0010477

Web site:

http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~pthagard/Biographies/pault.html
===
From other countries
Book Shark
5.0 out of 5 stars Fascinating!
Reviewed in the United States on 17 March 2011
Verified Purchase
The Brain and the Meaning of Life by Paul Thagard

"The Brain and the Meaning of Life" is an ambitious book about answering some of the most important philosophical questions. Mr. Thagard makes use of research from philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience to come up with evidence-based answers to such questions. This 292-page book is composed of the following 10 chapters: 1. We all Need Wisdom, 2. Evidence Beats Faith, 3. Minds Are Brains, 4. How Brains Know Reality, 5. How Brains Feel Emotions, 6. How Brains Decide, 7. Why Life is Worth Living, 8. Needs and Hopes, 9. Ethical Brains, and 10. Making Sense of It All.

Positives:

1. An accessible, well-written book with a touch of humor that tackles some of the most important philosophical questions, such as: What is reality? Why is life worth living? What is reality and how can we know it? What makes actions right or wrong?
2. Great use of the most current scientific evidence and theories to answer the aforementioned profound questions.
3. A very fair and reasonable approach throughout the book. The author does a wonderful job of conveying what we do know versus what remains to be known, in other words a sound scientific approach.
4. An enlightening book indeed. Lucid arguments backed by sound scientific research and Mr. Thagard has the innate ability of pulling everything together in a coherent manner.
5. Why evidence-based arguments are superior to faith-based arguments, an excellent chapter.
6. Compelling defense of why "inference to best explanation" is the best approach to determine the best explanation.
7. How science works.
8. A sound materialist approach to the brain. The mind is what the brain does.
9. Fascinating tidbits and facts throughout.
10. There is no scientific evidence for the soul, "soul" get used to it.
11. We admit enough to say state that conscious experience within the scope of causal explanation is still provisional but plausible. Science is indeed driven by doubt.
12. Mind-brain identity hypothesis stands out.
13. Inferences as neural processes.
14. Brain functions in perception supports constructive realism over empiricism and idealism.
15. Scientific theories as a more reliable guide to reality.
16. Great quotes abound. "Wisdom without knowledge is empty, but knowledge without wisdom is blind."
17. The EMOCON (emotional consciousness) Model illustrated.
18. The concepts of goals like you've never seen before.
19. How decisions occur without free will. The Brain Revolution explored.
20. The meaning of life...work, love and play.
21. Psychological needs as biological needs.
22. Interesting take on morality.
23. How a naturalistic system of evidence-based philosophy is highly coherent with scientific information.
24. Great notes and glossary.
25. An extensive bibliography worthy of this excellent book.

Negatives:

1. Theists and some philosophers may take offense to the attacks on their views.
2. The author does an excellent job of conveying his worldview in an accessible manner but let's face it some concepts are complex no matter how you slice and will require further reading.

In summary, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It was a very satisfying and enlightening read. Mr. Thagard provides compelling arguments for his theories and along the way debunks inferior philosophies. If you are looking for a book that gives you the meaning in life in a reasoned manner this is clearly it. I can't recommend this book enough and hoping that Mr. Thagard provides a follow up in the future when more evidence is known. Bravo!

Recommendations: "Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, "Human" by Michael S. Gazzaniga, "Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality" by Laurence Tancredi, "Supersense" by Bruce M. Hood, "The Third Basic Instinct..." by Alex S. Key and "The Myth of Free Will" by Cris Evatt.
13 people found this helpful
Report
Stoic
5.0 out of 5 stars Difficult read but worthwhile
Reviewed in Canada on 17 February 2019
Verified Purchase
I got this book after reading the authors articles about Jordan Peterson. The book was far better than Peterson's. I was looking struggling to understand why nihilism or the low expectations was not a sound direction for one's life, and the book did provide good arguments against those positions.
Report
Paul Vjecsner
1.0 out of 5 stars Unintended science fiction
Reviewed in the United States on 20 July 2010
Verified Purchase
We have heard stories of the "mad scientist", and perhaps now we can speak of "mad scientism". It concerns scientists and their contemporary emulators like philosophers who insist beforehand that all reality must be material, admitting no distinct entity like consciousness or the spiritual, with particular dread of the supernatural.

Professor Thagard is an intense practitioner of scientism. He rejects not only a God and immortality, but also free will, found incompatible with a mechanistic brain, which he identifies with mind. The brain is of course dominant in the book's title, and, if I be allowed the pun, I question how well equipped with it the author is, let alone with wisdom, about which he tries to lecture the reader beginning with the first chapter (p.1).

He argues (p.120) that "free will is an illusion we can do without", saying subsequently that the chapter is concerned "with the normative question of how people ought to make decisions". If there is no free will, what is the point to "normative", "ought to", or "decisions", considering we have no choice in these matters? This contradiction occurs throughout the book, with many other illogicalities. He incessantly falls back on scientific particulars observed in the brain, connecting them with conscious events in the effort to demonstrate that conscious events are identical with the connected brain particulars. He and his colleagues do not claim to have established that identity, but hope springs eternal. But one may ask: what would establish the identity? All one can find is more detailed association of brain occurrences with conscious events. Their appearances are not the same, and they can only by fiat be decided to be the same.

Comparisons are made with such as "water [as] H2O" (p.43) or atoms, that we "once defined in terms of indivisibility, but [which] now we divide...into myriads of subatomic particles" (p.36). The last comparison is nonsense. If atoms are defined as indivisible, then they cannot be divisible. What happened was a redefinition, not an elucidation. The case with water concerns physical, 3-dimensional, objects, identified in various ways: seen from different angles, composed of certain material, and so on. But consciousness is distinguished from its objects by consisting of its ingredients and no more.

With the author's presumed absence of any reality outside the material one, he aims to substitute any hope for, for instance, an afterlife with a "meaning" of life, as also given in the book's title. It is not clear what his meaning of "meaning" is here. The word usually concerns linguistic content, and used elsewhere it becomes obscure. The author appears to look for some justification for living, offering some odd proposals. He is in the entire book stuck on the triad of love, work and play as the "meaning", which appears quite shallow. We seem to have deeper motives behind, at least, work and play. Might it be attaining happiness? But no. He discards happiness as a goal, considering it merely "a product of goal satisfaction" (p.146). Goodbye "pursuit of happiness". Apparently he wants to substitute "meaning" for "happiness" to dissuade one from hoping for more than a mundane life.

The author nonetheless struggles with the role of morality in a world barren of clear moral guidance. Striking is his distorted sense of proportion, evidently due to an extreme political bias in the direction of "political correctness". He ad nauseam holds up alleged "torture" as somehow the ultimate in immorality, with particular reference to the supposed torture of men held in connection with terrorism. He cites the known dilemma when one evil can only be prevented by another, presumably lesser, evil. This, however, deals chiefly with saving some life in compensation for some other. A lesser evil than death is hardly balanced opposite death. Even so there have been non-murderous crimes much more horrible than the infliction of displeasure or even pain our author views myopically as inadmissible "torture" in order to save many lives.
42 people found this helpful
Report
James Preston
4.0 out of 5 stars Excellent analysis of research to date
Reviewed in the United States on 20 December 2010
Verified Purchase
Professor Thagard has done a fine job of bringing together various research to support a hypothesis that love, work, and play are the basic elements of meaning in life.

Of course you still know little about meaning if you don't study and understand how he supports his conclusion. This is where Mr. Thagard messes things up a little. Much of the book is a repudiation of philosophical theories. This content would be fine of course in an academic paper but I found it is distracting in this book. I have nothing against picking on philosophers who base their work on speculation but I would have preferred this effort to be in later chapters instead of sprinkled throughout the book. They keep diverting a reader's attention from the well constructed flow.

I have studied the human relationship to meaning for decades but especially in the past dozen years. Thagard's hypothesis fits in nicely with what I've found if you take the definitions of love, play, and work liberally as he does. People can attach meaning to pretty much anything physical or non-physical. That they do that through love, work, and/or play is new to me but so far I've found the hypothesis works to explain what is happening in the real world - including religion.

For an explanation of love, work, and play in a religious context think of "Protestant work ethic", "Love one another", and the numerous fun activities and songs hosted by most religious groups.

Mr. Thagard is very clear about what issues are not yet supported by enough research. He doesn't have all the answers. However, as many of us know, the gaps in knowledge are closing fast. It is difficult to see at this time that closing those gaps will make a material difference in Thagard's conclusions. We seem to be close to game over.

At the time of this review there is an extensive review of the book by an obvious theist. He's upset that the religious concept of Free Will is under attack and that our concept of mind is actually within a physical brain. He looks to religion to explain what is now mostly explained by rational research. He also practices "religion of the gaps" - trying to use the remaining unanswered questions to justify his beliefs.

I understand his frustration but really folks, we've been in this situation at least hundreds of times in the past 400 years of scientific reasoning and research methods and theist opinions consistently fail to explain the real world -- including how non-theists have lots of meaning and morality in their lives. Thagard's work covers all the bases to the extent of existing research. However, there are still a few gaps left in the research and theists try hard to use those gaps to discredit scientifically supported hypotheses.

The theist reviewer believes that we need gods for morality. He has clearly missed out on the huge amount of research that supports another more compelling view that fits the real world. For example, he conveniently omits the results from dozens of research reports that some 96% of the prison population in the U.S. are now and were religious when they committed their crimes. While there is little evidence that religion causes crime (sorry atheists) there is no evidence to support that religion has morality benefits any greater than secular communities. This topic is discussed elsewhere in detail so I'll avoid it here but Thagard's work is supportive of that overwhelming evidence.

My favorite analogy about our minds being material within brains is the simple case of dementia and brain injuries. As the brain deteriorates humans clearly lose parts of their minds. (Same with chemical imbalances.) So when we die and our brains do the ultimate deterioration why are we supposed to suddenly have whole minds again? Theists, there is a pattern here that is a big gap in your hypothesis.

I'll favor Thagard's hypothesis unless a better explanation comes along - and that is also his view.
16 people found this helpful
Report
Jeroen Versteeg
5.0 out of 5 stars There is meaning in life without a soul or free will, and we can find it
Reviewed in the United States on 14 December 2010
Verified Purchase
I couldn't wait to finish this excellent book so I could finally write a review and recommend it to anyone looking for a rational, evidence-based justification for meaning of life and ways to determine it.

Thagard first explains how minds (appear to) work, and why there is no need to appeal to any supernatural explanation to explain them. I had heard about neural networks, of course, (who hasn't? - I also took some college psychology classes and have read several books about psychology) but never really understood how this model actually explains our minds. This book explained the idea so well that this revelation alone would have been worth the read.

The second part of the book takes the concepts of the first part (minds are brains, free will is an illusion) and builds upon them to discuss the big questions of morality and the meaning of life. How can we be moral if there's no free will? How can there be any meaning in life if we haven't been created for a particular purpose?

To answer these questions, the author not only describes the scientific point of view (often describing competing theories), but regularly switches to normative philosophic arguments to show what we "ought" to value (e.g. why we should trust the scientific method, or why we should reject moral relativism). This combination of science and philosophy creates real synergy and succeeds in offering a very intellectually and emotionally satisfying account of the mind and meaning of life.

I read Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape just before this book and found its argument for a scientific basis for objective morality lacking. This book succeeded in showing - with lucid style and dispassionate (in a good sense!) argumentation - that we can find meaning in life without resorting to supernatural ideas.

I can't put in words how much I enjoyed reading this book and how much it has strung a chord. This is one of the best books I've read in a long time. If you've ever pondered the questions mentioned above, do yourself a favor and read this book!
28 people found this helpful
Report
Thomas Atwater
5.0 out of 5 stars Powerful perspective
Reviewed in the United States on 24 October 2010
Verified Purchase
Thagard brings his rich understanding of cognitive neuroscience and his background in academic philosophy to bear on these fundamental questions: what is reality? how do we know reality? why is life worth living? and what makes actions right or wrong? Answering these questions, he maintains, is essential to the pursuit of wisdom: knowledge about what matters, why it matters, and how to achieve it. Thagard argues that what matters is love, work, and play, and that these goals are the meaning of life because they satisfy vital human needs.

Inspection of his table of contents reveals the systematic manner in which Thagard develops his argument. His writing style is clear, informed, well-documented, persuasive, and engaging. The book concludes with reports of or proposals for relevant research on politics, creativity, the nature of mathematical knowledge, and cosmology.

Thagard's book should be read by all students of "human nature," and beyond that, anyone interested in developing a scientifically and philosophically informed world view. It should be especially useful for any undergraduate considering majoring in philosophy.
6 people found this helpful
Report
Positive Evolutionary Psychology
1.0 out of 5 stars Logic, Reason, Scientific Method
Reviewed in the United States on 14 December 2020
Verified Purchase
It is ironic that in this book the author rightly touts the application of logic, reason and the scientific method over faith as the best path to truth, but then goes on to criticize evolutionary psychology. I have noticed a pattern in some neuroscientists who reject evolutionary psychology even though they have not studied the evidence for it. Evolutionary psychology explains the origin of the human mind/brain; it is about how the brain/mind produce human behavior. Neuroscience is about the brain as a physical organ. Almost all evolutionary psychologists also study and accept neuroscience. Steven Pinker who is an evolutionary psychologist brands himself as a cognitive neuroscientist. Evolutionary psychology and neuroscience are complementary fields that are linked. Some neuroscientists cling to the discredited Standard Social Science Model rather than embracing the evidence for the validity of evolutionary psychology. This author suffers from cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, the very things he objects to in others. Most critics of evolutionary psychology have never studied or reviewed the evidence for it.
3 people found this helpful
Report
William
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in the United States on 9 June 2016
Verified Purchase
Great book!
Report
Wayne Adreon
4.0 out of 5 stars Good item, and prompt
Reviewed in the United States on 3 June 2018
Verified Purchase
Good item , and prompt delivery
Report

Sponsored 
Need customer service?
‹ See all details for The Brain and the Meaning of Life

===
Taechang Kim
캐나다 월타루대학 에서 철학과 심리학과 컴퓨터과학을 연구하고 가르치는 폴 타갈드교수가 다음에 제시하는 중요문제에 대한 철학적 심리학적+뇌신경과학적 해명과 그 최적대응을 시도한다.
1. 삶은 삶살이할 가치가 있는
2. 무엇이 행함을 옳고 그르게
하는가
3. 현실이란 무엇이며 우리가
어떻게 알 수 있는가
사람의 의식과 현실세계의 실상을 제대로 인지하고 무한대의 우주 속에서 이어가는 삶의 어려운 문제들에 대한 당혹과 불안을 경감하는 지혜를 밝혀준다. 중요내용:
1. 우리 모두에게 지혜가 필요
하다
2.증거가 신념을 이긴다
3. 의식이란 뇌이다
4. 어떻게 뇌가 현실을 아는가
5. 어떻게 뇌가 감정을 갖는가
6. 어떻게 뇌가 판단하는가
7. 왜 삶살이가 가치있는가
8. 욕구와 희망
9. 윤리적인 뇌
10. 모든 일의 뜻찾기
1 d
Reply
차춘희
Taechang Kim 인간의 신비체를 알아간다는 것은 참으로 경이로움의 감탄사가 절로 나올때가 많습니다.
과학이 증명하고 있는 뇌와 인간의 생각과 심리가 어떻게 관련되어 지는지 하나하나 밝혀 내어지고 있는 현제 증명되어 지고 있는 지식들의 축적 또한 놀라운 성과에 지식인들에게 참으로 경이를 표합니다.
우리의 감정이 시작되는 것이 뇌라고 생각했는데 뱃쪽 장기로 이어진 미주신경에서 출발한다는군요,
그리고 그 신경물질이 대뇌로 이어져 그동안 축적된 기억과 함께 결합해서 새로운 감정을 만들어내고 또 기억으로 축적된다고 하는데 그때그때의 상태에 따라 인체에서 나오는 물질들이 이러한 것을 관장한다는 뇌과학자들이 발견한 것을 보면 우리의 이 몸을 어떻게 의지를 가지고 운행하느냐가 장수와 신성으로 나아가는 비결이 된다는 것을 보면 참으로 우주적 차원의 객체는 원소의 결합으로 이루어진 물질에 지나지 않지만 그 無인 인간이 우주를 만들어내는 씨알됨 또한 위대한 존재인것 같습니다.
1 d
Reply
차춘희
선생님 어제 책 두권 배송 했습니다.
오늘 선생님 글을 읽으며 박문호 박사님. '뇌 생각의 출현' 이라는 책도 함께 보내 드렸으면 좋았을텐데 하고 생각해 보았습니다.
이책은 혹, 읽어 보셨는지요
May be an image of ‎studying and ‎text that says "‎Ptaat 9 ら本ベア本味 AS/a An 許港 문금 ሁሎቶር 甘iねい や 食中 국슘 台 ん中め ا١۱٣ Teachang 나는 አል 보원 철용합니다 낚 세무의 문의: 립합작 电港 컴과로 태프로소 존지합니다. RELA 문화는 HE 현어와 일부합니다. 입간에 네로소 결각한다는 가능하게 기원과 파식 뇌 판성에서 시작해 력과운 가역, 그리고 장의싱미 아트는 건과전을 황구입니다. 생각의출 출현 대칭, 대칭의 붕괴에서 의식까지 박문호ㅈ 지음 Humanist‎"‎‎
1 d
Reply
Taechang Kim
차춘희 예. 차근차근 동서양 전문연구자들의 연구성과를 살펴보고 있습니다. 미국에서는 양자물리학을 공부했는데 일본에 와서는 뇌과학과 로봇학에 관심이 옮겼습니다. 초고령사회에서 초고령자로 살아가는데 있어서 일본은 이미 3인중 1인이 65세이상이고 한국도 내년이면 그렇게된다니까
이 문제를 남의 문제가 아닌 나자신이 깊이 관련된 문제로 당사자적 문제관심을 가지고 새삼 파고 들고 있습니다.
1 d
Reply
Taechang Kim
차춘희 그리고 뇌 생각의 출현은 모르는 책입니다. 기왕에 보내주신 책들과 연계되는 거라면 읽어보아야지요. 보내주십시오.
1 d
Reply
차춘희
Taechang Kim 녜
한국도 초고령 사회로 가면서 이제 사회 구조적으로 약자들이 누구인가?를 세심히 들여다 봐야 할것 같아요.
특히 한국은 초고속 성장으로. 문화적으로 나타나는 윤리적 정체성이 너무 혼돈 상태인것 같아요.
이런 상황 속에 복음을 올바르게 실천하는 삶은 어떻게 하는것인지?를 신중하게 고심하고 공부하지 않으면 않되겠다는 생각으로 저도 노력하는 중입니다.
1 d
Reply
Edited
Taechang Kim
차춘희 아마도 초고령자를 보듬는 일은 사람보다 로봇이 담당하는 사회가 도래하고 있는 것같습니다.
1 d
Reply
차춘희
Taechang Kim 그렇겠죠!!
로봇은 입력해 놓은대로 상대가 필요한 부분을 도와주고 배려하겠지만. 인간은 감정이 어떻게 형성되어 져 있느냐에 따라 짐승과 같은 폭력을 약자에게 가할수 있으니까요.
그래서 인간을 로봇보다 더 무서운 존재로 여기게 되면 인간과의 사회적 관계는 허물어져 버려 접근보다는 회피로 공존의 사회적관계는 허물어 지고 말겠죠!!
1 d
Reply
Taechang Kim
차춘희 어린이들의 영어선생도 로봇선생이 사람선생보다 더 인기가 있답니다. 귀엽고 애교있으면서도 몇십번씩 같은 내용를 반복 가르치면서도 귀찮아 하거나 짜중내는 일이 없이 늘 생그생글 웃눈 얼굴에 아이들도 호감을 갖게 되는 봐요.
1 d
Reply
Kyoshi Yamamoto
この著者は何かをつかんでいるようですね。
1 d
Reply
See translation
===