Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Response to Christopher Framarin

A Response to Christopher Framarin SomeoftheseauthorstakethesupposedlackofcogencyinKa'sargumentsto supporttheirinterpretation.TheargumentsoftheGt(forexample)failbecausethe textisfundamentallypolitical,ratherthanphilosophical hegoalofthearguments --t istomotivateratherthanconvince.AsBagcheesays,paraphrasingtheviewofJacobi,Oldenberg,Garbe,andHauer, thebasicobjection[is]thatifArjunawerecompletelydesireless,hecouldnotfightin battle.Consequently,Ka'saimcannotbethenullificationofalldesireinArjuna,but rathertoplantcertaindesiresratherthanothersinArjuna'smind,namelythoseconducivetomakinghimfight. IftheGt'sargumentsavoidtheobjectionsthattheseauthorsraise,however uch --s astheobjectionthatdesirelessactionisanobviouscontradiction henpartofthe --t justificationforthepoliticalinterpretationisundermined. ItisfurtherunderminedbyBagchee'sdevastatingobjection,whichisworthrepeating.IfKa'sgoalissimplytomotivateArjuna,thenwhydoesn'thementionthe factthattheKauravasdraggedDraupadbyherhairintocourtwhilemenstruating andattemptedtostripherinpublic?Thisisnottosaythatthereisnopoliticalmotive behindtheGt.It'sjustthatthisfactshouldnotprecludeourappreciationofthe philosophicalcontentofthetext. Joydeep Bagchee IthankChristopherFramarinforhisresponseandwouldliketoaddressthreepoints heraisesinthisbriefrejoinder. Framarin'sbookisaself-standinganalysisofthecentralargumentoftheGt, andthereadershouldtakemycommentsabouthispapersasadditionalmaterialin supportofthebook.Indrawingattentiontothem,myaimwastostressFramarin's longengagementwiththesubject. n AlthoughFramarin'sbookdealsquiteextensivelywithothertextsfromtheI dian tradition,theGtiscentraltotheanalysis.Infact,Framarinexplicitlyturnstothe other texts "[a]s a means to answering the second question," namely whether the claim that action entails desire is widely held in the Indian tradition.The reader shouldnotskipthechapterscoveringtheseothertextsastheyentailcarefultextual workandprovideacriticalcomponentofthemainargument. Finally,althoughIhaveemphasizedtheepistemologicalaspect,thequestionof rightactioncannotbeposedwithouttakingthekindofactionitselfintoconsideration.Itisimplicitthatthe"fullyknowledgeableagent"wouldnotperformcertain kindsofactions,andIthinkFramarinwouldbeinagreementthatanintentionor purposeisdefinedastherightoneonlyifitistheoneafullyknowledgeable(and PhilosophyEast&WestVolume61,Number4October2011720­722 ©2011byUniversityofHawai`iPress rational)agentwouldhave.Inturn,thefullyknowledgeableagenthastheintention or purpose that brings about the most valuable states of affairs. One could hence expresstheirrelationas:anintentionorpurposeistherightonejustincaseitisthe onethatbringsaboutthemostvaluablestatesofaffairs. This analysis has significant implications for our evaluation of the Gt's doctrineofaction.ContrarytothecriticismthattheGtraisesthequestionofaction from a purely political and hence implicitly self-serving perspective, this analysis demonstratesthatthequestionofactionisneverassimpleasrecommendingwhatis politicallyadvantageoustoaspecificgroup.Thiscriticismismostlyassociatedwith GermanIndology,whichclaimsthattheGt'sviewonactionispropagated,narratively,byaKaeagertoachievehisownpoliticalendsand,historically,byBrahmins eager to shape the text to their own ideological purposes n interpretation --a we may call the Siegerjustiz (victors' justice) reading in that its underlying assumptionisthattextsarereshapedbythevictorstolegitimizetheirpointofview and can be understood exclusively from this perspective. Seen in this light, it becomes in particular clear why German philology sees its historical and destinal mssiontobethatofdeployinga"hermeneuticsofsuspicion"againstthereceived i interpretation. ButthereisanothercriticismoftheGtassociatedmorewithGermanphilosophy:thewell-knownchargeof"quietism,"madeby,amongothers,Hegel.Here,too, Framarin's insightful analysis shows that the Gt's reflection on action is always concrete: although epistemologically sophisticated, it is never merely abstract or lackingpracticalapplication. Letmeconcludewithsomegeneralreflections.Framarin'sbookisimportantas oneofseveralnew,philosophicalinterpretationsofthetextthatimplicitlychallenge dominantOrientalistattitudes.Inlanguagereminiscentoftheearlytwentiethcentury,vonSimsondismissestheworkofS.K.Belvalkar,theeditoroftheCriticalEdition oftheBhagavadgt,onthegroundsthatheisa"devoutHindu"(vonSimson 1969,p.161),1theimplicationseeminglybeingthatonecannotsimultaneouslybea "devoutHindu"andaconscientiousscholar.Ihavealreadydrawnattentiontothe languageemployedbyMalinar,vonStietencron,andHannederinthereview.Such unscientificprejudicesmustbecounteredthroughlogicalargumentationandphilosophicallyclarifiedmethodologicalapproaches,asFramarinhasdone.Theallegedly critical approach http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Philosophy East and West University of Hawai'I Press

A Response to Christopher Framarin

Bagchee, Joydeep.
Philosophy East and West , Volume 61 (4) – Oct 15, 2011
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/a-response-to-christopher-framarin-uQB40z5zqm

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1529-1898
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

SomeoftheseauthorstakethesupposedlackofcogencyinKa'sargumentsto supporttheirinterpretation.TheargumentsoftheGt(forexample)failbecausethe textisfundamentallypolitical,ratherthanphilosophical hegoalofthearguments --t istomotivateratherthanconvince.AsBagcheesays,paraphrasingtheviewofJacobi,Oldenberg,Garbe,andHauer, thebasicobjection[is]thatifArjunawerecompletelydesireless,hecouldnotfightin battle.Consequently,Ka'saimcannotbethenullificationofalldesireinArjuna,but rathertoplantcertaindesiresratherthanothersinArjuna'smind,namelythoseconducivetomakinghimfight. IftheGt'sargumentsavoidtheobjectionsthattheseauthorsraise,however uch --s astheobjectionthatdesirelessactionisanobviouscontradiction henpartofthe --t justificationforthepoliticalinterpretationisundermined. ItisfurtherunderminedbyBagchee'sdevastatingobjection,whichisworthrepeating.IfKa'sgoalissimplytomotivateArjuna,thenwhydoesn'thementionthe factthattheKauravasdraggedDraupadbyherhairintocourtwhilemenstruating andattemptedtostripherinpublic?Thisisnottosaythatthereisnopoliticalmotive behindtheGt.It'sjustthatthisfactshouldnotprecludeourappreciationofthe philosophicalcontentofthetext. Joydeep Bagchee IthankChristopherFramarinforhisresponseandwouldliketoaddressthreepoints heraisesinthisbriefrejoinder. Framarin'sbookisaself-standinganalysisofthecentralargumentoftheGt, andthereadershouldtakemycommentsabouthispapersasadditionalmaterialin supportofthebook.Indrawingattentiontothem,myaimwastostressFramarin's longengagementwiththesubject. n AlthoughFramarin'sbookdealsquiteextensivelywithothertextsfromtheI dian tradition,theGtiscentraltotheanalysis.Infact,Framarinexplicitlyturnstothe other texts "[a]s a means to answering the second question," namely whether the claim that action entails desire is widely held in the Indian tradition.The reader shouldnotskipthechapterscoveringtheseothertextsastheyentailcarefultextual workandprovideacriticalcomponentofthemainargument. Finally,althoughIhaveemphasizedtheepistemologicalaspect,thequestionof rightactioncannotbeposedwithouttakingthekindofactionitselfintoconsideration.Itisimplicitthatthe"fullyknowledgeableagent"wouldnotperformcertain kindsofactions,andIthinkFramarinwouldbeinagreementthatanintentionor purposeisdefinedastherightoneonlyifitistheoneafullyknowledgeable(and PhilosophyEast&WestVolume61,Number4October2011720­722 ©2011byUniversityofHawai`iPress rational)agentwouldhave.Inturn,thefullyknowledgeableagenthastheintention or purpose that brings about the most valuable states of affairs. One could hence expresstheirrelationas:anintentionorpurposeistherightonejustincaseitisthe onethatbringsaboutthemostvaluablestatesofaffairs. This analysis has significant implications for our evaluation of the Gt's doctrineofaction.ContrarytothecriticismthattheGtraisesthequestionofaction from a purely political and hence implicitly self-serving perspective, this analysis demonstratesthatthequestionofactionisneverassimpleasrecommendingwhatis politicallyadvantageoustoaspecificgroup.Thiscriticismismostlyassociatedwith GermanIndology,whichclaimsthattheGt'sviewonactionispropagated,narratively,byaKaeagertoachievehisownpoliticalendsand,historically,byBrahmins eager to shape the text to their own ideological purposes n interpretation --a we may call the Siegerjustiz (victors' justice) reading in that its underlying assumptionisthattextsarereshapedbythevictorstolegitimizetheirpointofview and can be understood exclusively from this perspective. Seen in this light, it becomes in particular clear why German philology sees its historical and destinal mssiontobethatofdeployinga"hermeneuticsofsuspicion"againstthereceived i interpretation. ButthereisanothercriticismoftheGtassociatedmorewithGermanphilosophy:thewell-knownchargeof"quietism,"madeby,amongothers,Hegel.Here,too, Framarin's insightful analysis shows that the Gt's reflection on action is always concrete: although epistemologically sophisticated, it is never merely abstract or lackingpracticalapplication. Letmeconcludewithsomegeneralreflections.Framarin'sbookisimportantas oneofseveralnew,philosophicalinterpretationsofthetextthatimplicitlychallenge dominantOrientalistattitudes.Inlanguagereminiscentoftheearlytwentiethcentury,vonSimsondismissestheworkofS.K.Belvalkar,theeditoroftheCriticalEdition oftheBhagavadgt,onthegroundsthatheisa"devoutHindu"(vonSimson 1969,p.161),1theimplicationseeminglybeingthatonecannotsimultaneouslybea "devoutHindu"andaconscientiousscholar.Ihavealreadydrawnattentiontothe languageemployedbyMalinar,vonStietencron,andHannederinthereview.Such unscientificprejudicesmustbecounteredthroughlogicalargumentationandphilosophicallyclarifiedmethodologicalapproaches,asFramarinhasdone.Theallegedly critical approach

Journal

Philosophy East and West – University of Hawai'I Press

Published: Oct 15, 2011

There are no references for this article.