One of the gifts of European Enlightenment was the visualization of a rational world, which may be discovered by proper way of seeing and listening. Can there be a science without listening the whisper of nature? Can there be any possibility of knowledge in a cahoot, secluded from other views, echoing the voices from narrow window, from where the world is projected as an objective reality? Answer may be probably in negative. In Madhyamika school of Buddhist philosophical tradition, it is generally believed that the differences in opinion are absolutized as an objective truth. In that sense, one as an expert of narrow domain remains in alienated reality, devoid of any understanding of the state of affairs at the macroscopic level. Who is listening, anyway? Listening is an art, a therapy, the best possible method to perceive what is true and real. Only through listening one can heal the narcissistic attitude, which has brooding presence in the age of information and technology. I remember the zeal of classical literalists like John Stuart Mill or John Rawls who had all the emphasis on "public reasoning". Many critics from post modern culture, like Nietzsche, had profound disbelief in public reasoning. Platonic philosophical attitude, right from the height of Greek civilization, was aristocratic in attitude. So a dichotomy is visible in the history of ideas; which is again and again reflected in the works of political commentators. Ishaih Berlin, one of the greatest historians of ideas, rightly demarcated a thin like difference between negative and positive liberty. And contemplated on latter as a byproduct of aristocratic attitude, whereas public reasoning is suspected for their inability to excersise freedom of choice. And here comes an expert culture; someone as detached onlooker has all the opinions about someone who is living his life. In this attitude, people don't find their own agency to fail and learn; a professional is hired for taking care. Notably such care is without any love and compassion, often services are provided in exchange of monetary value. Where is "moral sentiment", to use a nomenclature of Adam Smith, in the expert culture? Can there be any sense of society without moral sentiment?
I Introduction: Bridging Physiology and Psychology William James, in his landmark work The Principles of Psychology, provides a foundational framework connecting the brain's physiological mechanisms to the purposive, selective, and unified nature of conscious mental life. This blog analyzes James’s synthesis, which grounds psychological phenomena in the material workings of the nervous system without reducing consciousness to a mere epiphenomenon. We will explore his hierarchical model of the brain, which evolves from simple reflex actions in the lower nerve centers to the complex, deliberative functions of the cerebrum. Key themes include the role of the cerebrum as an organ of foresight and prudence, the physiological mechanism of habit as the process by which experience physically imprints itself upon the brain’s plastic matter, and consciousness's essential function as a “selecting agency” that is causally efficacious in steering the organism toward its own interests. Ultim...
Comments
Post a Comment