Charvak\'s Philosophy - Lecture notes 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

Charvak's Philosophy...

Description

Charvak’s Philosophy

Lokâyatika is another name for Cârvâk's philosophy. Historians of Indian philosophy claim that no systematic work has been published on the Cârvâk school of thought. It is not uncommon for philosophers from a wide range of systems to attempt to discredit Cârvâk's ideas. As a result, the Cârvák system is associated with materialism and the pursuit of pleasure. Cârvâk is derived from two distinct sources. "Charu" translates as "to eat or chew" in Tamil. As a result, the "eat, drink, and be merry" philosophy is promoted. In the second etymology, charu and vâk mean sweet and nice, respectively, and the word 'charu' means words or speech. In other words, Cârvâk has a pleasant and pleasant voice. There is historical support for the claim that Brhaspati is the originator of materialism in Indian philosophy. This discussion does not necessitate knowledge of the history of Cârvák philosophy or its development. Here, we'll focus on Cârvâk perspectives on knowledge's origins and dissemination.

Cârvâk philosophy is an advocate of empiricism when it comes to its theory of knowledge. Humans can only know things through their senses, which are the only reliable information sources we have. It is highly critical of the information that can be found elsewhere. According to Cârvák, both inference and verbal testimony are ineffective at providing certainty in knowledge. Uncertainty surrounds any inference made from the known or observed to the unknown or unobserved. There is a distinct odour of smoke in the air on the hill. Making a leap of

faith, we move from a perception of smoke to an unperceived fire. Hetu (reason) and Sadhya (truth) are universally linked in inference, according to logicians (fire). However, this is not a certainty.

In

order

to

establish

a

conclusive

universal

relationship of invariant concomitance, it is impossible. We have no idea how many fires have broken out or even if there is fire present. We've seen some smoke and seen evidence of fire in the area. What's the best way to go from a few cases to a large number of cases?

Perception makes it impossible to establish even the most basic of causal links. It is impossible to establish the validity of one inference by referencing the validity of another. In some cases, inference even determines whether or not a witness' testimony is reliable. Considering that inference is an invalid basis for inferring truth, how can we accept oral testimony as a valid basis for this knowledge? Thus, testimony based on inference or reasoning is just as ill-founded....