Epistemology: Notion of knowledge in Sankya School of Philosophy

Introduction

According to Indian philosophical history, the Sankhya is one of the oldest philosophical Schools. This school of thoughts has its roots in Indian Vedic knowledge. Sankhya is the essence of the Vedas. This philosophy is believed to be founded by Maharishi Kapil.  Sankhya philosophy begins with the knowledge of nature and its origin.This school is comparable to Yogic school of thought and also similar to Nyaya School of Philosophy.  Knowledge is the modification of mind. Knowledge process in Sankhya, mind goes towards the object.

Nature and condition of valid knowledge

Validity of knowledge is anexplicit and reliable cognition of some object. It is obtained through the process of adaptation of the willor the intellect.Will reflects the consciousness of the self in it. The mind or intellect, according to this school, is an unconscious material entity. “Consciousness or intelligence or caitanya really belongs to self. But the self cannot immediately apprehend the object of the world.” The self is all in all-encompassing. The self, therefore, comes to know objects through the intellect, the mind and the senses; when objects’ forms are impressed on the intellect, which reflects the light or consciousness of the self.

The factors of valid knowledge

In all valid knowledge, according to Sankhya, there are three pivotal factors namely the subject -pramata; the object- prameya and the medium-pramanaof knowledge. The subject of knowledge-pramatais a conscious principle that receives and recognizes knowledge. It is the self, which is the pure consciousness. The object of knowledge or prameya is presented to the self. The medium of knowledge or pramanais the modification of the intellect. It is throughthe selfthat we come to know an object.It is, therefore, the source or the medium of knowledge. Valid knowledge, therefore, is the reflection of the self in the intellect, without which the unconscious intellect cannot cognize anything, and which is modified into the form of an object.

Sources of Valid Knowledge

In the Sankhya school of philosophy, the theory of knowledge follows in the main its dualistic metaphysics and in epistemology, this school accepts only three independent sources of valid knowledge. The validity of knowledge is possible through the three following pramanas namely:-

1.        Pratyaksha- Perception,

2.        Anumana - Inference

3. Sabda- Verbal testimony. 

The other sources of knowledge like comparison, postulation and non-cognition are not recognized as separate sources of knowledge but included under the above three pramanas or sources of knowledge.

Perception

All the schools of thoughts accept perception even the western philosophy.  Perceptive knowledge denotes knowledge deriving from any five senses. According to Samkhya the mind, or the intellect or buddhi and the purusha plays a vital role in producing knowledge.Purusha is active in Sankhya thought. “Perception is the direct cognition of an object through its contact with some senses.” When the sense-organs come in contact with an object, the sensations and impressions reach the mind. In order words, when an object like apen comes within the range of your vision, there is contact between the pen and your eyes. And this is a perceptual knowledge.

The mind, which processes these sensations and impressions into proper forms, converts them into determinate percepts. These percepts are carried to the Mahat. Mahat, by its own applications, gets modified. Mahat takes the form of the particular object. This transformation of Mahat is known as modification of will. But still the process of knowledge is not completed. Mahat is a physical entity. Mahat, due to its lack of consciousness, cannot generate knowledge on its own. It has potential and can reflect the consciousness of the Purusha or self. “Illumined by the consciousness of the reflected self, the unconscious Mahat becomes conscious of the form into which it is modified (i.e. of the form of the object).” This can be better explained by an illustration with the theory of mirror. The mirror cannot produce an image on its own. The mirror needs light to reflect and to produce the image and therebyreveals the object. Mahat, in a similar way, needs the light of the consciousness of the Purusha to produce knowledge.

Kinds of Perceptions

Sankhyaschool of thought recognizes two kinds of perception namely- Indeterminate (nirvikalpa) perceptions and Determinate (savikalpa) perceptions.Indeterminate perceptionis mere impression. So there is merely seeing object. It arises at the moment of contact between the senses and the object. It is before mental analysis and synthesis of sensory data. In this state there is not recognition of any specific. But there is only a vague cognition of the object. This indeterminate perception is without understanding or knowledge. It is like that of a baby’s initial experience, which is full of impressions. Therefore there is a lot of sense data. But there is not any judgmental recognition involved. Most of them are indeterminate perceptions.

Determinate perception is the mature or more advanced state of perceptions. Determinate perception is the result of the analysis, synthesis, and interpretation of sensory data by the mind. It is because the forms of objects or names have been fingered and differentiated appropriately. So once the sensations have been dealt with, categorized, reflected and interpreted properly, they become determinate perceptions. This leads to identification and also generates knowledge. These forms or names of objects are determinate perceptions.

Anumana - Inference

“Inference is the knowledge of one term of a relation, which is not perceived, through the other which is perceived and known to be invariably related to the first. In it what is perceived leads us on to the knowledge of what is unperceived through the knowledge of universal relation (vyapti) between the two. We get the knowledge of universal relation between two things from the repeated observation of their concomitance.”  Sankhya largely accepts the Nyaya account of inference. Sankhya, however, uses a variety of inference known as analogical reasoning in its account of reality.“It should be noted here that we infer the existence of organs from acts of perception, not because we have observed the organs to be invariably related to perceptive acts, but because we know that perception is an actions and that an action requires a means of actions.”

Kinds of inference

In Sankhya, there are two types of inference namely-Vita-affirmative proposition and Avita- Negative proposition:-, Positive proposition is based on a universal affirmative proposition. Positive inference has got two of its kinds: Purvavat and amanyatodrsta. “Purvavat inferenceis that which is based on the observed uniform uniformity of concomitance between two things.”For example, one can infer the existence of fire from the existence of smoke. It is because one has always see smoke accompanied by fire.

“Samanyatodrsta inference, on the other hand, is not based on any observation of the concomitance between the middle and major terms, but on the similarity of the middle with such facts as are uniformly related to the major.”This type of inference does, however, require facts that are uniformly related to the middle and major terms. For example, how can we know that we have senses? One cannot perceive one’s senses because they are beyond their own reach. We can only infer their existence. “Forall action some kind of instrument is needed; seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching are actions that must have their corresponding instruments; the senses are these instruments.”

Negative inference or Avita, is explained in the Nyaya system as sesavat. Sesavatisis an inference resulted by the elimination of all other possible alternatives. For example, the sound must be a quality because it is neither a substance nor relation or no anything else.Like Nyaya, Sankhya regards the logical form of inference that the five syllogisms are the most convincing forms of inferential proof.

Testimony- Sabda

Sabda or testimony literally means ‘words.’ Testimony is the knowledge of objects derived from words or sentences. A word is a sign or a symbol denoted to an object. Testimony cannot be known by perception or inference. But all verbal are not valid knowledge.In general we can say that for testimony to be reliable source of knowledge, the person who gives must be reliable. Reliability depends on person who must be morally honest, trustworthy and master of the subject matter. Sankhya solely accepts the Vedas as infallible, perfect, true knowledge and truth. This shows that theology and philosophy are intrinsically one.

Kinds of Testimony- Sabda

There are two kinds of Testimony- Sabda.  They are Laukika and vaidika. Laudikais an ordinary testimony by trustworthy persons. This category includes the trustworthy assertions of ordinary persons, saints, sages

Vaidika or the extra-ordinary testimony is the testimony which cannot be false. It is the testimony of Sruti or the Vedas which give us true knowledge about the transcendental realities, which cannot be known either by perception or by inference. The sacred scriptures- Vedas are free from all defects and imperfection and thus they are infallible. They are eternal.

Theory of Error

Asatkhyativasa means a perception of some unreal things. It is an erroneous perception. We perceived at time silver in the shell. It is shell-silver illusion, which is neither real as something external nor even real as something internal. It is absolutely unreal. “Thus the erroneous perception is declared to be non-being’s apprehension. One becomes aware of the non-being of silver only when the erroneous perception is sublated by the valid perception.”  We apprehend totally non-existent as existence. It is neither exists in the present situation nor even anywhere else. Error arises in taking something totally non-existent as existence. Thus Sankhya school rejects the subject- knower and object known.

Asatkyati stands for complete void- both ordinary and valid perception are declared to be erroneous. Many schools critique on this saying “the defect lies with asatkyativada that it not only negates silver but also the ‘this’ on the very basis of error along with error. 

Critical Analysis and comparison with the western Epistemology

There are some similarities between Indian and western Philosophies in their treatment of this topic- Epistemology. Western philosophy pays more important to experience and reason as the two vital sources of knowledge. In treating experience, western philosophy tends to identify experience with perception but not in Indian philosophy. Strictly speaking the concept of a priori knowledge is not to be found in Sankhya philosophy. There is either not clear opposition between rationalism and empiricism.Testimony is acknowledged as a source of knowledge both in India and west, but the west pays much less stress on it compare to Indian philosophy.

Critically comparing will demonstrate that the epistemologies of both the Platonic and Sankhya systems incorporate the knowledge revealed by experiences originating in internal consciousness, that both systems present the philosophical activity as the means to recovering these experiences, and that both hold that this activity is a necessary one for man,given one’s condition. One must admit that differences in cultural and social aspirations and intentions prevent these systems from being identical, but this is not what concern is here; I hope only to make clear that the fundamentals which underlie these systems at a radical level are open to comparison. What we directly perceive are contents of our own minds, but the statement we make is about things that exist independently.

If knowledge is necessarily true, then perceptive knowledge must necessarily be true cognition. But it is an undesirable fact that occasionally we do make mistakes in our perceptual judgment. We tend to see things or object covered by our cultures and prejudices. This occurs in the mind of the observer and we can be certain of these. I may be mistaken in saying that object in front of me is an orange, but I cannot be mistaken in saying that it appears yellowish, and that I get a sweet smell, that it has a certain shape etc. what I directly perceive are these sensation from which I come to the conclusion. I do this on the basis of some background knowledge that I have experienced of this sort before. There is a problem to go from how a thing appears to me to how things really are. How do I know it is really an orange? This problem is similar to the one that Descartes faced, namely the problem of the bridge.

Sankhya logic is built according to the psychological process involving in inference whereas Aristotelian logic deals more with the formed validity of arguments and not how reasoning is actually done. They make a clear distinction between the form and the validity of arguments and truth, but Sankhya logic makes not such clear distinction. 

Sankhya inference deals with the formal and the material with induction and deduction at the same time. This logic has advantage that it reflects better the way we actually reason with clear remembrance of vyapti.It has disadvantage too. In western logic,Hume shows how acute the problem of induction is.

A special point to be noted here is that in Indian theory of testimony source of knowledge or sabdapramana and the western theory ofHermeneutics hold that understanding a sentence is to know the truth expressed in it. And this is rightly said by J.N. Mohantyin his book- In Companion, ‘there are no such things as understanding a false sentence.’ This is something which I find difficult to agree with. However, if the identification of understanding with knowledge is not acceptable, understanding is a necessary pre-requisite for knowledge.

 Conclusion

            InSankhya notion and sources of knowledge are alike to any other systems. This philosophy accepts three pramanas: perception (drsta), inference (anumana) and verbal testimony (aptavacana or sruti). Perception is thought to take place through images or ideas of objects. During perception the intellect or will upon stimulation by an object through the sense organs, undergoes modification. Thus the intellect assumes the form of the object it stimulates. Therefore, objects are not directly perceived, but only representations of them. Sankhya assumes the reality of the external object -representational realism. Sankhya largely accepts the Nyaya account of inference. However, its usage of effectiveness is in Sankhya philosophy often questions. For example, it uses the analogy of the lame man-blind man to explain the relationship between consciousness and matter. This might work, if matter had intelligence, but it doesn't. Although Sankhya accepted verbal testimony as a valid means of knowledge, it considers Vedas perfect and infallible. The Sankhya notion of knowledge has its own advantages and disadvantages like any other schools both east and west.

           

References:

1. Bhatt, G. P, The basic ways of knowing, new Delhi:MotilaBanarsidas, 1989

2. Chatterjee, S. andDatta, D., An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, New Delhi:Rupa com, 2008

3. Kar, Bijayananda, The Theories of Error in Indian Philosophy, New Delhi: Ajanta publication, 1979.

4. Thachil, Dr. An Initiation to Indian Philosophy, Always: Pontifical Institute of Theology and Philosophy, 2000.

5. Vatanky, John, Darsanas, Pune:Jdv.

6. Vehari Banerjee, N., The spirit of Indian Philosophy, New Delhi: Arnold-Heinemann publishers, 1974.

7. http://hinduonline.co/Scriptures/SankhyaDarshana.html.

Should Valentine's Day be Celebrated?

Valentine’s Day is a popular global feast that is becoming increasingly popular in India over the years. It is celebrated on February 14 in Gregorian calendar. The symbols of Valentine Day are flowers, cupid, arrows, love birds, the colour red and hearts. Hearts symbolize Love. It is also a symbol of life. Giving one’s heart to another person, so to speak, is the ultimate expression of love. Valentine’s Day is a day to express one’s love to one’s loved ones. Please note that we are not wild or domestic animals doing whatever we feel like to do; there is something called law which every citizen should abide by. We are not only emotional beings but rational and social beings; we, therefore, need to follow laws or rules of the society. We should not go with the winds of the crowd either, but do anything with at least some dept reasonable conviction.

Are we afraid that our rich culture will die by celebrating love day? Is our culture so weak and fragile? I don't understand, why should not we celebrate Love day if we can celebrate any other feast like Diwali or Id etc.?  Here are some important solid reasons why we should celebrate Valentine’s Day. They are:-

1.    Valentine day is a feast of Love. Every human being wants to love and to be loved. Everyone has right to love and right to express love too.

2.    Every culture or religion invites us to Love. And God is love and we share that divinity of God in us. So we ought to love and to be loved.

3.    Valentine day is a global feast of love. Every religion or culture celebrates Love in a variety of ways. It happens to be celebrated Love day on 14^th Feb only because St. Valentine, who showed true love, was murdered on that day, so in honour of that true love, we celebrate it on that day. Any society can celebrate Love day on any fixed day. It depends on a society or a religion or a community or a state.

4.    It should be celebrated because married or unmarried couple can renew their love to one another on this day. Valentine day can be a good day for any couple to have a quality time with their loved ones. They can relive on this day their commitment to love, cherishing the beautiful moments of their love life.

5.    If Valentine day is celebrated properly, many divorces or other love problems could be solved. By celebrating this day, the couple can strengthen their friendship and love. They can forgive and forget one another’s misconduct too on this day.

6.    It is a day to give one’s heart to another person so to say, give oneself fully to the other.

7.    Every culture has a binary pole- good and evil. We need to acculturate good cultures of others and banish the evil practices of our culture. So that we can build a better global world to live in.

The above reasons, therefore, strongly support that we should celebrate ‘Valentine Day’. It is a day of love. We should celebrate love. By celebrating this love, we will know the true meaning and true value of love. So friends let us celebrate Valentine’s Day and grow in love.

Evolutionary perspective of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ

INTRODUCTION

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) is one of the greatest leaders of thoughts in last century to integrate pure scientific research with a religious vision. He was a Jesuit scientist, who made scientific research as his personal mission to reconstruct the most basic Christian doctrines from the perspectives of science and, at the same time, to reconstruct science from the perspectives of faith. He would be very critique to science and religions but deep love in them too. He, therefore, would single-handedly remake the dogmas of the Church and also would at the same time remake the world of modern science on the model suggested by his personal experience of God. Religion and science are the two sides of a coin.

Evolution is a philosophy or view that the universe and material realties within it did not come into existence as finished products; rather they appeared in the course of a gradual, continuous and process. Evolution has a direction and it is directed towards the Omega Point. Teilhard disagreed with Darwin- the evolution took place by a sheer chance.  Man is the result of evolutionary processes.

COSMIC MATTER

Physicists used to stand on their ground regarding the world as being unchangeable elements maintaining each other in equilibrium while biologists maintaining the evolution theory- beginning with Charles Darwin in his classic work ‘The Origin of Species’. “Darwin’s explanation of evolution as resulting solely from the natural section and the battle for existence was incomplete since the mutation factor was not yet known, but his basic theory that life on our planet had developed from a single source was correct.” This evolutionary theory has greatly challenged the creation story in the Bible. In other words the Christian concept of man as the unique, transcendental, spiritual and immortal image of God was threatened by this evolutionary concept of creation. But today we know both the above theories are not fully correct.

In this critical time of crises of faith in the Church, Pierre Teilhard De Chardin came to a stage of the world to reconcile and reunion between science and religion. “The scientist first turned his attention to the stage before life, in other words to the material of which the world is made up.”  Many of Teilhard's ideas have widely accepted; still his pioneering philosophy has been taken seriously only by a minority of thinkers who see science and religion entering into a new era of cross-fertilization and creativity. For the vast majority, Teilhard's thought seems to be neglected and his insights are not studied in the depth they deserve.

The world appears static only to our momentary view of it. In reality the world is changing and will be continually changing mass. “Everything in the world originated from an arrangement of a few elements and transforms itself according to the law of increasing complexification.” The material of the world has inherent natural tendency to move towards the complex. “Cosmic matter concentrates itself into increasingly highly or organised material form.” According to him there is only one sufficient, logical explanation. He calls it the “within” of things, which are the cosmic phenomena.

In man (human being) what makes him more complex and what makes stand at the summit of creation is obviously ‘within’ or ‘consciousness’’. We cannot even explain the conduct of insects without a ‘within’. “But we find this “within” less easy to grasp as soon as we move on to the planet world. The farther we go down the scale, the more difficult it becomes to establish the existence of this “within. Bacteriologists and, still more, physicists and chemists, only deal with the “without” of their subjects because, due to its low intensity, the “within” is no longer significant.”

The “within” or “consciousness” is a dimension that informs all cosmic matter. Just as the body goes back to the first atom so as the spirit goes back to its prime source which we cannot demonstrated experimentally. This “consciousness” is too complex in nature. In a similarly way G. Marcel says that mystery cannot be solved because we are part and parcel of it. Teilhard says that in so called inanimate matter, this “consciousness” is not a coherent structure, but similarly composes to the matter itself.

According to Teilhard nothing can suddenly come to light after various stages of evolution. In a lesser form everything in the world, including man, has existed sine the beginning of time.  That is cosmic embryo genesis. “An intrinsic part of the “within” of cosmic matter is a force that drives the universe toward an every more complex and centralized state. The cosmos is rising in a spiral towards an every denser inwardness.” He conjectured the every existence of similar conditions in the rest of cosmos, which are beyond the universe.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE

Teilhard after the evolution of comic matter turned his attention to the origin of life. In his opinion we will never know exactly “how the organic developed from chemical, the living from the not-yet- living, since the matter involved in the transition was so delicate that it has dissolved in strata long since transformed. The secret lies forever with God.” Life is the explosion of interior energy under the biological high tension in to the nest stage of development. The emergence of life from lower to higher form of life, the higher form of life is always more complex than lower form of life. This higher external complexity is always accompanied by a higher grade of “consciousness” or “interiority.”

Million of years ago, at once the most fateful moment arrived from the planet. Silently the most mysterious human being appeared, like a new bud on the tree of life, disrupting being in the cosmos. It was he, who turned the biosphere of the world into a new order of the noosphere. He made fire, fashioned stones etc. This man possesses knowledge but he did not only look around himself, he looks into himself.  This man is somebody, a personality.

Man has emerged after a long evolutionary process. Every passage from one state to the other is one step forward towards the finishing of the final product of man. Man for him is nothing but evolution becoming conscious of itself. Man is till an unfinished product. Evolution is not stopped with man. Anatomically it is come to an end but psychologically, intellectually, socially and spiritually man has been growing. There are two phases in man’s evolution namely expansion and convergence

“Man is the peak toward which all biological efforts on this earth have been aiming, and without which the biosphere would have been remained a headless body, a mere torso.” He is the flower of evolution. The first and unique Being, who looks up heaven and try to comprehend everything existing on the universe and even tries to transcend beyond the matters. The rest of creation was only preparation for his habitation, making possible his existence. Man alone gives significance and meaning to every stone, every plant, every animal, indeed to the whole universe. “From pre-human times the new being had retained: sexual instinct, the law of propagation, the instinct to fight for life, the curiosity to see and to find out, the urge to hunt and kill for food. All this has survived in us and stems from the unfathomed depths of the biosphere. But everything is transformed by command for the thinking intellect and becomes human.” The human soul makes a body a human body.

THE FUTURE MAN

Teilhard wrote what he called "a little book on piety" in this book he speaks of its very title suggests his theme:

All around us, to right and left, in front and behind, above and below, we have only to go a little beyond the frontier of sensible appearances in order to see the divine welling up and showing through. But it is not only close to us, in front of us, that the divine presence has revealed itself. It has sprung up universally, and we find ourselves so surrounded and transfixed by it, that there is no room left to fall down and adore it, even within ourselves. By means of all created things, without exception, the divine assails us, penetrates us and moulds us. We imagined it as distant and inaccessible, whereas in fact we live steeped in its burning layers.

Teilhard tries to remarriage or re union of science and religion.  “If religion has seen its purpose as raising human life to higher consciousness in a vertical dimension and if science has seen its purpose in moving humanity forward on a horizontal plane within the boundaries of the material world, the obvious frontier of consciousness involves a movement both upwards and forwards.” Again he emphasises on his faith, “Leaving aside all anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism, I believe I can see a direction and a line of progress for life, a line and a direction which are in fact so well marked that I am convinced their reality will be universally admitted by the science of tomorrow.”

Science and religion will continue go hand in hand; “it becomes obvious that neither can develop normally without the other. And the reason is simple: the same life animates both. Neither in its impetus nor its achievements can science go to its limits without becoming tinged with mysticism and charged with faith.”  But in this contemporary he has become a hero and a role model for a whole generation of younger priests and theologians.

POINT OMEGA

Teilhard tells us that since time began, even inorganic matter, evolution has been and will be an increase of “consciousness.” “Since this “conscious” has risen to the self-conscious in man, to personalization, man’s future course must follow a supper-personal.” It is very obvious that man’s spirituality is moving towards higher level of “consciousness” around one point, evolutionary goal, which he calls “Point Omega”. All the mental and spiritual energies are directed towards this Omega. There is an attractional force and energy causing this centripetal movement which he calls LOVE.

This Divine Love plays a vital part in uniting force of evolution towards Omega.  There is not an idea or mathematical point or not a thing it is a person. And LOVE can exist only between and among persons. It is independent. It does not depend on other being. It cannot go back. It cannot disintegrate. The worst case of disintegration is death, but the Omega point cannot die. There has to be point around which the individual centres can converge. They have to make themselves in love and freedom without loosing their personalities.

THE DIRECTION OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

            Teilhard de Chardin, a man who was at once priest, scientist, mystic, prophet, and lover of life.  Teilhard sees three directions in the human advance towards the theoretical Omega Point: The first is the increasing improvement in the organization of scientific research. Everything must be explored and attempted. Man has capabilities to discovery new things. He has potentials and abilities to    produce a living organism. He has to made dangerous discoveries too.

The second line of approach towards Point Omega is towards mankind itself. He has hope for the better future that mankind is the goal of evolution, the science of man. Therefore through dept research the entire universe and even beyond to understand how the world came into being and how it will continue to develop. The third direction to Point Omega is the alliance of science and religion. They are two sides of a coin. They need to reconcile and reunion again. He insists “The more man becomes man, the more necessary will it be for him to worship and to deepen his religion.” 

CHRIST

Where can we find this Omega point? The Omega can be found only in the Christ of ST. John’s Gospel and Christ of St. Paul the apostle. And no other being or place can be found this Omega Point. Only Christ can be the Omega, because he satisfies all the requirement of the Omega. When Christ is brought in science and religion is reconciled. Prayer is the rising of the spirit to commune with the divine. Work also takes us to the Omega point, work is matter to God and prayer is spirit rising to God. It is through prayer and work we can achieve the Omega Point. From here on faith comes into system. Up to the Omega point, science can lead us, from there on religion or faith takes on. Here science and religion meet and reason and faith meet.

CRITTICAL ANALYSIS

With his profound knowledge and deep love for Christ made him to bring together science and religion. He, therefore, tried to reconstruct some basic Christian doctrines from the perspectives of science which could not go alone with science; at the same time, to reconstruct science from the perspectives of faith. He would be very critique to science and religions but deep love in them too. He, therefore, would single-handedly remake the dogmas of the Church and also would at the same time remake the world of modern science on the model suggested by his personal experience of God. He comes to reconcile science and religion as Immanuel Kant to reconcile between the idealists and empiricists- the claiming of the objective knowledge. He also suggested a program for the reconstruction of science. He put forward equally a systematic critique on traditional science and religion. Religion and science are the two sides of a coin.

Teilhard tries to prove that life didn't come out by accident, but was a product of evolution. Therefore man has own place in the evolution of the universe. Heraclites has rightly said that everything is flux- changing and all is becoming. Heraclites says “We cannot step into same river twice, for the fresh waters are flowing in upon you.”  And thus this dynamic nature of the universe is nothing but evolution of inorganic matters to a highly complex being of consciousness.  There is nothing permanent in the universe. Everything is in the constant process of change, and a particular kind of change - evolution.

           According to Teilhard, God is the God of cosmic synthesis, in whom we would evolve, and in union with whom we will preserve and magnify our personalities. This reflects the philosophy Indian that everything is emerged from God like a spider emits its web. For him Love is the force of attraction.  Yet a few renounce scientists have taken his ideas seriously enough to structure their own work on Teilhard’s model, but the majority of scientists have reacted as defensively as the Vatican theologians.

CRITICSM

Each theory has its draw back and strength like the co-existence of the opposites- light and darkness, good and evil and above all there is not so called absolute theory as Teilhard rightly says, because  the cosmos is striving towards the more and more complex consciousness. The universe is ‘flux’ as Heraclites says and ‘nothing is permanent’. This does not mean we have to neglect their drawbacks but critically analysis will help us to stand on our own feet.

When analysed critically Teilhard’s evolutionary theory is more of transforming of the universe from the primordial atom to the present state rather than the origin of the universe. ‘Where did the primeval atom come from?’ is another question to be explored? The scientist at last landed in faith. He was over optimistic without considering the pain and suffering of mankind. He mixes science and philosophy. It is vague and not exact and mixes with science and religion. Some scholars criticise on his illegitimate generalisation- consciousness co-exists with matter on the basis of brain and nervous system.  There is a discontinuity in his evolutionary perspective on beings below human undergo divergence, then process of convergence starts. All beings have within and without, at Omega Point only within.

CRITICAL APPRECIATION AND EVIDENCES

Before the world was made, he chose us, chose us in Christ, to be holy and spotless, and to live through love in his presence, determining that we should become his adopted sons, through Jesus Christ. (Eph. I, 4-5). These powerful words of St. Paul in his first letter to the Ephesians, I think, best characterize the spirit of Teilhard the Chardin, his idea of man and man's place in the universe, and of the common goals of humanity. He is a man who was at once priest, scientist, mystic, prophet, lover of life and Christ. He considered the problems of man’s continued existence after death as seen from the evolutionary perspective.

 To appreciate his unique place in the science of Physical Anthropology- discovery of Peking man in China, we must bear in mind he was far ahead  of his time regarding to his ideas. Due to his far sightedness, the Church failed to see his ideas and visions leading him to banish from preaching and even expelled him from native country.

His evolutionary theory has some empirical evidence that is the expansion of universe, forming of stars, forming of other elements, e.g. a few weeks ago we saw in the newspapers that scientists has discovery another planet which is much brighter and bigger than the present sun.

His evolutionary theory of brain and nervous system has some evidences by our present scientists- the gradual development of brain system in all living being. The present scientists agree with his theory that psychologically, intellectually and mentally evolution is continuing

Every being has got with aspect and without aspect. Within aspect refers to the concourse aspect or immaterial aspect while without aspect refers to measurable and material aspect. The more developed a being the more developed or noticed the within aspect and vice versa.

Emergence of consciousness was indeed a breakthrough in the evolution of the world. There is a direct relationship between the complexity and consciousness of the organism. The more complex an organisms is the higher the level of consciousness as well.

The evolutionary movement of transition from one sphere to other- Lithosphere to Biosphere; Biosphere to Noosphere and Noosphere to Omega- the centre of everything, is incredible uniting science and religion as two sides of a coin. Here he reconciled science and religion when Christ, Omega, is brought in.

The fundamental energy is love which attracts the matters to unite and leading towards the Omega Point. The horizontal energy of love unites beings or the cosmos and the vertical energy of love unites being and systems upwards or forwards.

REFERNCE

1. Chardin, Pierre Teilhard de, 1968, The Divine Milieu: An Essay on the Interior Life, New York:            Harper and Row.

2. Chardin, Pierre Teilhard de, 1961, The Future of Man, New York: Harper and Row, 1969.

3. Chardin, Pierre Teilhard de, 1961, The Phenomenon of Man, New York: Harper and Row

4. Kopp, Joseph V., 1964, Teilhard de Chardin Explained, The Mercier Press, 4 Bridge Street, Cork.

5. Cosmology, II Bph class notes 2011.

Notion of Popper's Falsification.

              Karl popper denied that science is merely a collection of laws, theories, methods etc. according to him Hypothesis resting is primary function of science. Science is a series of conjectures and refutations. Everything in science is modifiable and nothing is absolute. Truth in science is not fully attainable. He bridged the two extremes of logical positivism and historical realism. According to him induction is not valid scientific methods. He stresses the role of observation and at the same time doesn’t make a sharp distinction between theory and observation. All observations are theory laden.

Popper was of the opinion that the criterion of demarcation between science and non- science is Falsification. Thus a statement is scientific if it can be falsified. Thus the question of God is not a scientific one. If a theory is truly science, it can stand opposition. The more theory resists the attempts of Falsification the more is it strengthened and well established as science.

As Popper notes it, “every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it.” Popper’s falsification clearly denies any induction as part of scientific method. This is not an entirely jointed theory, yet it makes sense. Popper, then, repudiates induction, and rejects the view that it is the characteristic method of scientific investigation and inference and substitutes falsifiability in its place. He believes that theories are always falsified at a later date. Moreover, he argues that “theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred.”Popper thinks that in every step of the way, these theories find verifications and this in fact, is their weakness.

 “A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory but a vice.” Popper calls these theories “non-scientific” because they are not disproved or proven erroneous.On the other hand, scientists might argue that the best scientific theories are the ones that have multifarious verifications and confirmations.

He added that experience can never verify a theory as true, only falsify it. Generalizations are first conjectured, and then held up to the scrutiny of experience for refutation.

"He asserted that if a statement is to be scientific rather than metaphysical it must be falsifiable .... He then based his philosophy of science on the hypothetico-deductive method, claiming that enumerative INDUCTION is invalid, and indeed does not in fact occur, while verification and CONFIRMATION (as opposed to his own ‘corroboration’) are impossible. As his philosophy of science said we should aim to eliminate the false rather than establish the true."

In short whatever is falsified is scientific and whatever is not falsified in unscientific. Science is in nature cannot be absolutely proved but approximately proof. Besides that whatever is not falsified is not necessarily be scientific and whatever is not falsified, is not necessarily be unscientific.

What does he aim to solve with this?

Popper was trying to solve the problems of Logical positivism. The logical positivists claimed that science is a set of laws, concepts, theories, etc. Scientific knowledge is governed by strict rules of rationality. Scientific knowledge is totally objective. None scientific factors like prejudices, upbringing, status of scientist have nothing to do with science. Science is valid for all place and persons and all times.

The logical positivism claims that the verification theory of meaning says that statement is meaningful if only it is empirically verifiable. They make a sharp distinction between observational and theoretical terms. Theoretical terms are messy, vague and controversial whereas observational terms are trouble free. According to them science grows cumulatively. Once a scientific law is establish it doesn’t change.

Each of the above claiming of science is rejected bluntly by Popper. For Popper science primary concern is Hypothesis. Falsification is a belief that for any hypothesis to have credibility. It must be inherently disprovable before.  It can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory. Karl Popper notes “science is more concerned with falsification of hypothesis than with the verification.” Falsification is explicitly stated by Sir Karl Popper as a way of distinguishing science from pseudoscience. Popper's argument for a convention as a criterion of demarcation largely stemmed from his rejection of the inductivist thought and the positivist tradition.

Popper himself fell in to the same pit instead of claiming the absolute truth or supremacy of science and neglecting the other disciplines. McHenry notes, “Positivist usage of "meaningful statements" or similar attempts to show that the problem of demarcation or induction were merely pseudo-problems were largely refuted by Popper in his search for a new criterion of demarcation.” Popper had also been made uncomfortable by Marxism and Freudianism. How their advocates always seemed to have an answer for everything, even clear falsifications. Thus, he decided that a proper scientific theory ought to be "falsifiable", meaning that it ought to be possible for some observation to be contrary to it.

Does he succeed? If so how? If not, why not?

No, Popper did not succeed. The failure of the verification principle led to a new challenge. In order for a statement to be meaningful, the Falsification Principle demands that the proposer must account fir what might be the case in its falsification.Karl Popper notes that “science is more concerned with falsification of hypothesis than with the verification.”

Chalmers shows the problems of falsification of science. These problems stem from the logical situation. When observation and experiment provide evidence that conflict with the predictions of some law or theory, it may be the evidence which is at fault rather than the law or theory."Falsification is not itself falsifiable. The notion of degree of falsifiability is problematic. Popper cannot account for our expectations about the future. Scientists sometimes ignore falsification.

Influenced by Karl Popper, Antony Flew applied the Falsification Principle to religious language and concluded that religious statements are nothing more than non-sensical utterances of little significance.Religions has important role to play, even the hypothesis or deduction is very much connected to religion. In short I would say Popper fell into a pit which he himself dug it.

Falsification of Popper, in its basic form, is the belief that for any hypothesis to have credibility. It must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory. For example, if a scientist asks, “Does God exist?” then this can never be science because it is a theory that cannot be disproved. The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if not falsified, it can be accepted as truth. For example, Newton’s Theory of Gravity was accepted as truth for centuries, because objects do not randomly float away from the earth. It appeared to fit the figures obtained by experimentation and research, but was always subject to testing.

However, later research showed that, at quantum levels, Newton’s laws break down and so the theory is no longer accepted as truth. This is not to say that his ideas are now useless, as the principles are still used by NASA to plot the courses of satellites and space probes. Popper saw falsifiability as a black and white definition, that if a theory is falsifiable, it is scientific, and if not, then it is unscientific. Whilst most ‘pure’ sciences do adhere to this strict definition, pseudo-sciences may fall somewhere between the two extremes.

One observation does not falsify a theory. The experiment may have been badly designed, data could be incorrect.Quine states “a theory is not a single statement; it is a complex network. You might falsify one statement e.g. all swans are white in the network, but this should not been you should reject the whole complex theory.”

Conclusion

Popper's 'scientific method' requires an infinite number of hypotheses, yet is not robust, fails with existential statements, fails with probabilistic statements and fails in practice anyway due to the necessity of auxiliary assumptions. How has Popper's falsification performed in practice? Newton's gravitational theory, Bohr's theory of the atom, kinetic theory, the Copernican Revolution and the theory of evolution were all falsified, despite being excellent examples of science. Popper's falsification fails in both theory and practice.

References

1. Curd, Martin and Cover, J. A., 1998,Philosophy of Science- the Central Issues, New York; W.W Norton and Company, p. 2-9.

2. Ladyman, J., 2002, Understanding Philosophy of Science, London: Routledge and KegaPual, p. 59-89

3. McHenry, Leemon. 2009, Popper and Maxwell on Scientific Progress,

4. Popper, Karl, 1959,The Logic of Scientific Discovery, MohrSiebeck Publisher. p. 57-72.

5. Popper, K. 1963, Conjecture and Refutation, Roudege,

6. O’her, Anthony, 1980, Popper Karl, London: Routledge, p.124-131.

7. Class Notes and Collection of Articles- Philosophy of Science.

8. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

9. http://www.xenodochy.org/article/popper.html

10. http://theorymaze.blogspot.com/2011/02/karl-popper-falsification.html