#Charvaka Philosophy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ayushrajbhu · 2 years

Text

The Interesting Case of the Charvaka School of Thought

The Charvaka school of the heterodox Clan of Indian Philosophy has been subjected to enormous ridicule, and apart from some research papers and the Lokayat Literature and Brihaspati Sutra and a few mentions in the astik literature and Mythologies, there is no substantial literature to get an actual impression of their dogmas and ideals. However, the very relentless nature of their very existence is what intrigues me, they are neither on the heterodox extreme like Buddhism and Jainism, nor do they accept the authority of the Vedas. But first, it would be fitting to talk about the various classes of Philosophies that have flourished over the years in the Indian Sub-Continent.

Over centuries, India’s intellectual exploration of truth has come to be represented by six systems of philosophy. These are known as Vaishesika, Nyaya, Samkhya, Yoga, Purva Mimansa and Vedanta or Uttara Mimansa. These six systems of philosophy are said to have been founded by sages Konada, Gotama, Kapila, Patanjali, Jaimini and Vyasa, respectively. These schools of thought are still very relevant in modern times, even though they are all very distinct from each other. There can be two broad classifications of the schools of thought.

The first one is the astika or the orthodox school of thought, known as the Sanatan dharma, collectively known as Hinduism in modern times. Now the astika comprises the six-system ideology, the Samkhya or the Kapila, which postulates that everything stems from Purusha and Prakriti. The Central Idea is that Purush cannot be modified or changed while Prakriti brings a change in all objects. Next is the Philosophy of Yoga, or Patanjali; the Central Idea of this philosophy is that Yogic techniques control the body, mind & sense organs, thus considered a means of achieving freedom or Mukti. This freedom could be attained by practising self-control (Yama), observation of rules (niyama), fixed postures (asana), breath control (pranayama), choosing an object (pratyahara) and fixing the mind (dharna), concentrating on the chosen object (dhyana) and complete dissolution of self, merging the mind and the object (Samadhi). Next Comes Nyaya Philosophy or the Gautama Muni, which states that everything is acceptable unless it is in accordance with reason and experience (scientific approach). Nyaya is considered a technique of logical thinking.

Another philosophy close to the Nyaya school of thought is Vaisheshika; the basis of the school's philosophy is that all objects in the physical universe are reducible to a finite number of atoms and Brahman is regarded as the fundamental force that causes consciousness in these atoms. Next Comes the Purva Mimamsa or the Jaimini philosophy, which states are eternal and possess all knowledge. This philosophy encompasses the Nyaya-vaisheshika systems and emphasises the concept of valid knowledge. As Per this Philosophy, religion means the fulfilment of duties prescribed by the Vedas. It says that the essence of the Vedas is dharma. By the execution of dharma, one earns merit, which leads one to heaven after death.

The last of the orthodox or astika school is the Vedanta philosophy or the Uttara Mimamsa, which is widely known in the Indian Diaspora. This school focuses on the philosophical teachings of the Upanishads rather than the Brahmanas (instructions for ritual and sacrifice). The school is separated into six sub-schools; they Go like Advaita (Adi Shankara): It states that both the individual self and Brahman are the same, and knowing this difference causes liberation. Visishtadvaita: It believes that all diversity is subsumed into a unified whole. Dvaita: It considers Brahman and Atman as two different entities and Bhakti as the route to eternal salvation. Dvaitadvaita: It states that the Brahman is the highest reality, the controller of all. Shuddha Dvaita: It states that both God and the individual self are the same and not different. Achintya Bheda Abheda: It emphasizes that the individual self is both different and not different from Brahman.

So, this is all about the astika school of thought, although very vibrant and very diverse, in my opinion, is rather focused on a certain way of life based on certain dogmas, i.e., following dharma to attain the freedom of self (Mind) or Moksha. Arguably to me, it is sort of regressive; I happen to be a pragmatic person when it comes to spirituality and would even go to the extent, I am skewed toward the Nehruvian Idea of an amalgam of India’s Tradition and Culture with Modernity. In Layman’s way, Fabian Socialism by Mills.

So, as per my biasness, I have a very keen interest in the unorthodox or nastika schools of thought. Now this clan has three major schools of thought, Buddhism, Jainism, and our thought of Interest, the Charvaka Philosophy. The former two can be found in almost every textbook, they have a worldwide influence because of the emphasis on self-consciousness rather than on ritualistic dogmas. Buddhism is a non-theistic philosophy whose tenets are not especially concerned with the existence or nonexistence of God. Buddha considered the world as full of misery and considered a man’s duty to seek liberation from this painful world. He strongly criticized blind faith in traditional scriptures like the Vedas. The best phrase I came across from the Buddhist Doctrine is Atmo Deepa Bhava (Enlighten your ‘self’). It is, in my way, the first rational philosophy that disregards any sort of what I call a “Feudal attempt to rule”. Talking about Jainism, A basic principle is an anekantavada, the idea that reality is perceived differently from different points of view and that no single point of view is completely true. According to Jainism, only the Kevalins, those who have infinite knowledge, can know the true answer, and all others would only know a part of the answer.

So enough of the long, rich list of the various philosophies that have flourished on this glorious land; a particular one not talked about is the charvaka philosophy Talked about in the prologue. Charvaka is a materialistic, sceptical, and atheistic school of thought. According to Charvaka there is no other world. Hence, death is the end of humans & pleasure is the ultimate object in life. According to Charvaka there is no other world. Hence, death is the end of humans & pleasure is the ultimate object in life. Let us Dive Deep Into it.

Origins:

The Charvaka idolators have been denounced as demons in disguise because of their unceremonious nature and relentless attitude to Vedic supremacy. In a segment from the Mahabharata, when Yudhishthira made his return to Hastinapur after the battle of Kurukshetra, he was welcomed with showers of petals by the noble brahmin sages; among the greeters and fellow people was a charvaka who refuted to the whole ceremony by saying that there was nothing to feel like stallion from the fact that he killed his own brothers (Kauravas) with no absolute cause and “unwarranted”, this remark grieved Yudhishthira to such an extent that he self-doubted himself to a very adverse effect, it was only when the sages reminded him that he had just done what ought to be done in coherence with his dharma, he was consoled. And as per the texts, charvaka, for his “relentless” attitude, was set on fire later.

Charvakas have been very vociferous in their outlook; materialism in India, as per se, has been as old as philosophical thought itself. There is a famous hymn in the Rigveda which is translated as “Being came from the non-being”, It signifies that self and spirituality are nothing but mere thoughts and Matter is the Ultimate Reality. Another is the Story of Indra, Prajapati and Virochana in the chandogya Upanishad. Prajapati, in an excerpt, says that the body is the same as the self. The Katha Upanishad also gives reference to a sect of people who doubt the existence of self after death. In the Brihadarviyaka Upanishad, Yagyavalkya explains to his wife Maeitry that when four elements, namely wind, water, earth and fire, integrate, Consciousness is born and when these fundamental elements disintegrate, death arrives. Thus, any supernatural trait of the soul has no mention.

Although, one should not assume that these were the actual teaching of the sacrosanct Vedas of the Upanishad. There but existed people who believed in such doctrines and were willing to abide by them firmly. Nevertheless, Charvakas were sceptics, agnostics, and Materialists. Or anti-spiritual in a manner of saying. Modern Philosopher’s Dilemma is when did this materialist school of thought emerge. There are two versions to the story, some believe this school of thought to be the oldest because all other schools have unfailingly refuted the system, and some go to the extent of saying that materialism is the only authentic school of thought in the ancient Indian diaspora. All other schools emerged only for the sole reason of criticizing it. A very strong case indeed. One more interesting reason to prove the point is that philosophy means Darshana. Darshana means perception. Charvaka is the only school of thought that states that perception is the only means of knowing. Thus, it is because of the charvaka that philosophy came to be labelled as darshan shastra. And everyone will find it affirmative that all other schools have acknowledged this label.

There are others of the opinion who believe materialism is as old as the other schools of thought. It cannot be older as it has criticized the doctrines of the other schools of thought. All schools clearly state that there is nothing Constructive about the charvaka thought; it has come into existence for the sole reason of criticism. Whatever may be anyone’s opinion, one thing is very substantial the charvaka school has a very profound impact on the diverse philosophical fabric of India. We infer from the other schools that there were two books related to the charvaka philosophy, one the Brihaspatisutra and the other one lokayat shastra. According to tradition, Brihaspati is regarded as the founder of materialistic thought in India. There is no concrete proof as to who he was, some believe him to be the teacher of gods.

Let us throw light on the arguments which form the basis of all inferences to their emergence:

As a protest against the extreme dogmas of the priestly class, the charvaka thought emerged who regarded Upanishads teachings were idealistic and of no use to the common man. Treatment of the common masses by the priests and the rich led to the emergence of the materialistic school of thought as a form of uprising, which advocated pleasure and gratification of desires. A very well-known shloka sums up the last comment:

“YAVATJIVETA SUKHAM JIVET, RHAM KRTUAGHRTAN PIVET,

BHASMIBHUTASYA DEHASYA, PUNARAGAMAN KUTA”

One interpretation of the word Charvakas, is that of a person who led to the foundation of the school of thought. Charvaka is the kind of person who eats, drinks, and remains jolly, as the word char signifies graze. Another interpretation is that charvaka is the kind of person who has a sweet tongue and eats his own words. Thus, has no regard for morality. Lokayat (Another name given to this thought) means for the lok or the masses as this aims to appeal to the common masses, often meant for the lowly of ‘bad taste.

No Original Works are available for any concrete derivative study of the charvakas. I have depended mainly on the writing of the analysis in Sarva Darshana sangraha by Madhavacharya, Tauto palavasinha by Jairashi Bhat and Natakapravodhchandroday of Krishna Mishra. And, of course, there are mentions in the various schools of Indian Philosophy. Dakshina Ranjan Shastri, in his Book, History A Short History of Indian Materialism Sensationalism Hedonism, discusses the materialistic thought of the Indian Diaspora. According to him, there are four stages of Materialism Development in India. Let us take up each one by one:

The first stage is that of opposition; Barhaspatya Sutrasutra depicts that in this stage, knowledge of all ‘colour” and authority of the Vedas was put into question. In the second stage, a structure was given to this opposition. The perception was given importance. Swabhavawad (It states that nature exists and sustains itself without any need for a supernatural agency) was Promulgated. This stage of Materialism had the main proponent by the name Ajeet kesh Kambalan. The Idea of Hedonism of self-Indulgence has its roots in this stage. This, for obvious reasons, was a subject of huge criticism as such an environment invites corruption to prevail.

The third stage is followed by the amalgamation of mild amounts of spirituality in the thought. A Slight Change in the notion of self is observed and incorporated. Self is Identified by the sense organs and the organs of thought. Probability and inferences are sources of knowledge. The key person involved in the development of this stage was purandhara. In the last stage, along with Buddhism and Jainism, the charvaka school of thought were given the term nastika for contesting or rather challenging the authority of the Vedas.

Basic Tenants of the Charvaka school of thought:

The characteristic philosophy of this school has been comprehended only by the aphorisms of the works of Brihaspati. These were quoted for purposes of criticism and rejection by other schools. Only fragments of the system are available. All info that can be gathered through such aphorisms:

Earth, Water, Fire and Air are only Basic Elements.

Organisms, sense organs and objects are a result of a combination of these elements.

Consciousness arises out of these elements, like the intoxicating ability arising out of kinva seeds when fermented.

The physical body is endowed with consciousness called Purusha or the soul.

The jivas or the empirical selves perish just as water bubbles perish.

There is no other world, and there does not exist any living being in any other world.

Death itself is liberation.

The three Vedas- Rig, Sama and yajur are like the inconsequential chatter of the cunning and crafty persons in so far as the experience of pleasure in swarg is considered.

Material welfare and the gratification of one’s usual day-to-day desires are the two aims of life.

Politics, including agriculture (Important in the Vedic period), is the only perfect science.

Perception is the only source of knowledge. The approach, direction or method aspired by common men must be followed.

These aphorisms and tenants are testimony to the fact that the charvakas advocated radical and unrestrained views. There are many stories in the Upanishads, Vedas, and Puranas, which make the system more enigmatic.

Folklore:

In ancient times, there was a constant tussle between demons and gods. To make the situation worse for the gods, the demons started practising Strict austerity as prescribed in the vedas. This worried the king of Gods Indra; at his invocation Mayamoh was created, a teacher to the demons who preached the corrupt and wicked doctrine of Brihaspati for their destruction. As soon as the demons gave up their austerity and became hostile to the Vedas, Indra Defeated them easily. But there is another version of this story in the Maitreyan Upanishad; Brihaspati himself plays the role of the saviour of Indra; to do so, he takes the form of shugra, the teacher of demons, to impart false knowledge to them, reversing the thought of good and evil. Consequently, the demons averted from the teachings of the Vedas, and Indra Defeated them easily.

In the Taiterya Brahmana, there is an episode Brihaspati hits goddess Gayatri in her head. This resulted in the breaking of her head into pieces; being immortal, she did not die, and every part of her brain remained alive. This is a very interesting allegorical reference; Gayatri represents religion. Brihaspati, by hitting on her head, tried to demolish the Vedic religion by giving counterthought (Figuratively, of course). But as the Vedas are eternal or Sanatan, he failed drastically.

Let us talk about the aphorisms again: I have already hinted earlier that the entire philosophy of the charkas, be it ethics, metaphysics, or epistemology. Digging deep into the epistemology part. The charvakas were the upholders of rigorous empiricism. They regarded pratyaksha or perception as the only form of pramana of knowledge. They did not believe in anything that was beyond the realm of one’s perception. Anything that cannot be perceived cannot exist. Their acceptance of perception made them reject: number one, the principle of causation. In causation, as per se, cause and effect are two events that stand by themselves as solitary and unrelated. On what grounds can one prove that the two are related, to determine if an event precedes another as its cause, we need to be certain about the universal relations between the two, but we cannot guarantee any such universal and omniscient law between two events, the relation cannot be perceived. Perception is the actual contact of objects with sense organs, meaning it concerns only with the present, which universal causations make bigger claims stretching the past, present to the future. So, if perception is the only source of knowledge, there can be no law of causation. The second thing they reject is anuman or inference as a source of knowledge, Inference is invariable and universal relation between two entities/ events, which is called vyapti. And thereby making propositions about the vents. The charvakas did accept probability or sambhavna, which is itself a weak version of Inference. It is not generally perceived; it may or may not exist. The inference is based on vyapti, based on invariable and universal relations, and it is impossible to have infallible vyapti. One cannot rely on inference alone, as it can be solely a matter of coincidence if the universal law supports the inference, like inferring fire from the smoke without any perception of the cause. So, Perception is the only source of knowledge. Charvakas have been heavily criticized by the other schools of thought on this proposition. They Make the assertion that perception is the valid source of knowledge and inference is an invalid one. The opponents argue that this assertion is itself an inference. A conclusion is arrived at by various instances and Experiments, which clearly suggest that their claim is another inference. By rejecting inference, the charvakas come into a trouble situation as they are blocking all means of discussions, debates, thoughts, hypotheses, and theories. Thoughts, ideas, and Discussions are not material in nature, they cannot be perceived, but they can only be inferred. It is because of Inference that the charkas understand the other, and so is the case with the others too. Other schools of thought thus proclaim this assertion of the charkas as absurd and non-sensical in nature. An example is that the sun appears smaller relative to the earth, but without any perception, we know that the proposal is not true at the sole discretion of Inference.

The third thing they reject is Shabd or testimony as a source of knowledge. It is based on the Testimony of those who are considered Intellectual and Honest. Thus, the Knowledge acquired by them is true. The Charvakas Question Testimony on numerous grounds. The first one is how one can ascertain the honesty of the so-called noblemen. It is based-on Inferences based on certain instances, but this may not be always a reliable way. How to ascertain the testimony provided by the individual, if the testimony is verified by another testimony, and how to verify the genuineness of the other testimony. It leads to an infinite regress that can only be broken by bringing in direct experience. Ultimately, Shabd becomes redundant, and Perception becomes the only pramana of knowledge by the charvakas.

The Metaphysics of Brihaspati is what interests me the most about this philosophy; it contrasts with all sorts of philosophical thoughts prevalent even today, if I may say so. It goes on as the following in the sarv Darshana samgraha:

There is no Heaven, no heaven, no final Liberation, nor any soul in any other world. Nor do the actions of the four castes’ orders produce any real effect. The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetics three staves and smearing one’s self with ashes were made by nature as the livelihood of that destitute of knowledge and manliness. If a beast slain in the jyotistoma rite will itself go to heaven, why doesn’t the sacrifice forthwith offer his own father? If the Shradh produces gratification to beings who are dead, then here, too, in the case of travellers where they start, it is needless to give provisions for the journey. If being in heaven are gratified by our Offering in the Sradh here, then why not give the food down below to those who are standing on the housetop? While life remains, let a man live happily; let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt; once the body becomes ashes, how can it ever return? If he who departs from the body goes to another world, how is it that he comes not back again, restless for the love of his kindred? Hence, it is only as a means of livelihood that brahmins have established here all these ceremonies for the dead- there is no other fruit anywhere. The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and demons. All the well-known formulas of the pandits and all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in the Ashvamedha were invented by buffoons, and so all kinds of presents to the priests, while eating of flesh was similarly commanded by night prowling demons.

This Was Brihaspati. Quiet like the Bolsheviks, if I may say so!

The charvakas were naturalists, they explained everything in terms of the four constituent elements, earth, water, fire, and Wind. They denounced all sorts of spiritualism, be it the idea of the soul, heaven, hell, or God, as absurd.

The charvakas are divided into two schools, one is the dhurta or the one who denounced the existence of the soul, and the other is sushikshita, who asserts the existence of the soul if the body is alive. The sushikta are further divided into subsects on basis of their connectivity to the soul. Nevertheless, the charvaka considered subconsciousness and soul to be a by-product of Matter (A combination of the four constituent elements, Matter Secrets Mind as Liver Secrets Bile, to be specific) and denounced anything spiritual and immaterial about it. And when this combination of elements disintegrates, the body dies, and consciousness vanishes. The Charvakas say:

JADABHUTAVIKARESU CAITANAYAM YATTU DRSYATE,

TAMBULAPUGACURNANAM YOGADRAGA IVOTTHITAH.

It means that intelligence or consciousness, which is found to be embodied in modified forms of non-intelligent or unconscious elements, is produced in the same way in which red colour is produced from the combination of betel, areca nut and lime. Soul or Consciousness is the only principle governing the Life of a person. What he sees, hears, smells, feels, remembers, and thinks are its by-products. Those depicting the soul as different from the body are only talking in metaphors. The shrutis have misguided innocent men by inducing in them that the soul is different from the body, just as a cheater trades precious stones for pieces of glass. So, has the Vedas displaced the belief system? The charvakas in a similar tenure denounce the existence of God, rebirth, and moksha. According to them, Vedas are nothing but confused and illogical blabbering of priests who use them as means of livelihood. There is no concept of karma in the charvaka system, there is no mysterious concept of fate in which a person is punished or rewarded in his afterlife based on his action in his previous life. According to the charvakas the man is punished or rewarded for his action in this very life according to his swabhava. Religion, for them, is the biggest evil, created for those who deceive their fellow being for the profit of their own self. The Prayers are chanted by priests who are the biggest liars, they fool their innocent beings for their livelihood. Heaven and hell are not recognized by them as nothing supernatural exists. It is just another name for prosperity and mundane troubles experienced by the common man, respectively.

God is nothing but an earthly monarch whose existence can be proved by perception. Their thoughts on Moksha and liberation are also well-conveyed. It is just a distraction of the self. Many counter that if consciousness is to be identified with the body, then how does one differentiate between human and animal consciousness, the former being the rational one? The charvakas respond to this by saying that it is due to the different combinations of the constituent elements that humans possess a rational consciousness, inseparable from the body, while the latter one does not, although this proposition has been subjected to loads of criticism. Another criticism is that if consciousness is a material part of the body, why can’t it be perceived? Critics argue that if the existence of consciousness after death cannot be proved, then its non-existence as a part of the body goes hand in glove in a similar fashion of disapproval.

The ethics of the charvaka school of thought: outwardly pleasure-seeking, going by the term of the western philosophers, they were hedonists. Eat, drink, and be merry were their motto. Their ethics developed as a part of their rejection of the Vedic scriptures. And thus, from the prevalent notions of God, heavens, and Afterlife. The Vedas describe four goals for men, known as the purushartha. The first is dharma, the guiding principle that instructs an individual on how to lead a moral life. Next is artha, or wealth accumulation for leading a comfortable life, then Kama or fulfilment of desires in life and finally moksha, liberating the soul from the cycle of birth and Death. Of course, charvakas would choose the artha and Kama part. The means for accumulating wealth for fulfilling desires was not of much thought and introspection of the charvakas if it serves the desires be it moral or immoral means. The Vedas specifically warn one too careful about the fulfilment of desires, as generally fulfilment of desires by sensible objects is accompanied by pain. The charvakas found this idea to be ridiculous, and they discarded it by saying that the berries of paddy rich with the Finest white grains, what man seeking his true interest would fling away!!! Because they are covered with husk and dust. The gist is that pleasure will always be accompanied by pain, but that cannot be the reason to relinquish it. Further, it is idiotic not to sow the seeds in view of the animals eating them.

Of all the criticisms and demonising the charvakas were subjected to in the Vedic hegemony, this school of thought will always be one of its kind in the eyes of its reader, for the prevalent nastika philosophies generally known to the masses are Jainism and Buddhism, which in a manner of saying are “outside the Hinduism basket.” Philosophy is all about giving way to any system of thought which is consistent in its assertion, protests and concerns and redressals; the charvaka school of thought was in its approach nothing but relentless. The existence of this school within the web of Hinduism is a testimony of how vibrant and plural this way of living is, where contrasting thoughts are permissible, although it is quite a known fact that most of the charvaka philosophical writings were destroyed or subjected to extreme demonization for its radical take on the prevalent thoughts in those times.

Ayush Raj

0 notes

tanadrin · 6 years

Text

I feel like one of the latent assumptions of the pro-UBI crowd (of which I count myself a member) is that we're living in a time of historically unprecedented prosperity, when broadly distributing the wealth society generates might actually substantially raise the general quality of life.

I wonder if that's really the case though. I mean specifically, whether it's the case that relative to the size and privation of its poorest strata, our civilization as a whole really is uniquiely productive--could utopian visions of economic egalitarianism have been viable in the Renaissance? The Middle Ages? Antiquity? I have always sort of assumed not, that not only were past preindustrial societies poorer than our own, but that they were so much poorer that even a total wealth redistribution would have to spread the wealth of such a small elite across such a broad population of the poor that general living standards wouldn't rise much.

But this infographic--if it is anywhere close to accurate, and random internet infographics are naturally extremely untrustworthy--is of interest to me, because it suggests there are some people (say, the Shenzhong emperor) for whom even a very rough estimate of their wealth yields a fantastical comparative sum, on the order of a nontrivial fraction of the entire continent they lived on, or of the world. That suggests that the gains past societies could have made in general prosperity are not nearly as constrained as I had assumed, and that the (much, much, much) more even distribution of wealth in the last couple hundred years is due mostly to improvements in politics, not technology, i.e., democracy finally letting us soak the rich so people don't starve to death.

It is a mostly pointless question except from the perspective of alt-history or conworlding, but it is very interesting to me to try to understand the economic structure of past eras and how economic systems are constrained by social factors versus by technology. I think many people--certainly me, at any rate--have a background assumption that the arrow goes something like technological improvement yielding greater prosperity yielding more social improvement, that people being able to worry about things higher on the Maslovian hierarchy is a precondition of them having the energy to work on organizing society better. This is functionally identical to the neoliberal assumption that economic development is more important than political freedom, because having a healthy middle class is what drives political reform.

That is not heretofore an assumption I've much questioned or indeed been very aware I possessed. I am only aware of a handful of preindustrial societies that experimented with unusual forms of economic organization (the Inca for instance), but sort of like the Roman Empire inventing capitalism over a millennium early, I think it would be fun to try to sketch out a historically plausible scenario by which, say, ideas like class consciousness and universal political rights could have caught on centuries earlier than they did. After all, there are historical movements that certainly hint at these things, or at allied ideas we now associate with modernity: the gender equality of the Cathars, the economic programs of the Diggers and Levellers, the meritocracy and consequentialism of the Mohists, the materialism and empiricism of Charvaka, and even some of the principles the Circumcellions advanced (when they weren't deliberately trying to get themselves killed so as to achieve an extremely dubious sort of martyrdom).

One of the interesting things about modern (in the broad sense of the term, i.e., Renaissance and after) political theory is that it's divorced from religious and mystical bases of ethics. That is, political philosophy seems, at that juncture, to slowly begin to understand that it must try to justify itself to people who can't be guaranteed to share the same metaphysics, which becomes all the more acute (in Europe, anyway) as the Reformation sets in, and a greater diversity of religious perspectives comes into play. So it seems to me that a precondition for a theory of politics and ethics that *isn't* ultimately predicated on religious tribalism has to await either a materialist foundation for philosophy (empiricism, or something like it), or at least a secular one.

I think very early Taoism *could* have been this, if the Tao Te Ching is any indication. Charvaka, at least based on the Wikipedia summary of it, certainly seems like it could have, though it seems to have been marginal historically. And I think it's interesting that in Europe so many attempts at reforming society's understanding of ethics had to start with reforming society's understanding of western Christianity--the Catholic Church had wedded itself so firmly to existing structures of authority and power and political and social control that to criticize those necessitated criticizing the Church. Some branches of the Protestant Reformation, and many of the movements that prefigured it, feel to me like arguments against authoritarianism that got sidetracked by the fact that they had to reach all the way back to foundational elements of religious doctrine--which informed every aspect of society in the day of Wycliffe or Waldo--to say "ok, if you don't fuck up your theology using some really bad theoretical frameworks, *these* are the conclusions you get to instead." Only they had to spend so much time explaining what the *metaphysical* part of those conclusions were that they didn't have time to get around to the ethical ones (or took them as read).

(Basically this is a very long way of saying that I didn't think I could convincingly write a feudal society having a communist revolution in my conworld, but now I'm not so sure!)

#nothing new under the sun #including apparently incisive critiques of how society is organized #and persuasive visions of how to improve it

28 notes · View notes