Protagoras and The Sophists

A sophist was a man who made his living by teaching things that would be useful to them and are not taught in regular curriculum. As there was no public provision for such education, the Sophists taught only to those who had private means. This tended to give them a certain class bias which was increased by political circumstances of the time.

In Athenian democracy, judges and most executive officers were chosen by lot and served for short periods. They were thus average citizens with their characteristic prejudices and lack of professionalism. The plaintiff and defendant or prosecutor and accused appeared in person, not through professional lawyers. Naturally, success and failure depended largely on oratorical skill in appealing to popular prejudices. Although a man had to deliver his own speech, he could hire an expert to write the speech for him, or, as many, preferred, he could pay for instruction in the arts required for success in the law courts. These arts the Sophists were supposed to teach. They taught the art of arguing, and as much knowledge as would help in this art. Broadly speaking, they were prepared, like modern lawyers, to show how to argue for or against any opinion and were not concerned to advocate conclusion of their own. Those, to whom philosophy was closely bound to religion, were naturally shocked; to them, the sophists appeared frivolous and immoral. The sophists were prepared to follow an argument wherever it might lead them. Often it led to skepticism. One of them, Gorgias, maintained that nothing exists; that if anything exists; and to be knowable by any one man, he could never communicate it to others.

Protagoras was most prominent amongst the sophists. Protagoras was born about 500 B.C; at Abdera in Thrace, the city from which Democritus came. He twice visited Athens. His second visit to Athens is described somewhat satirically in Plato’s Protagoras, and his doctrines are discussed seriously in Theaetetus. He is chiefly noted for his doctrine that “Man is measure of all things, of things that are that they are, and of things that are not that they are not.” This is interpreted as meaning that each man is the measure of all things and that when men differ there is no objective truth in virtue of which one is right and other is wrong. The doctrine is essentially skeptical and is presumably based on deceitfulness of the senses.

Russel quotes Plato, in the Theaetetus, to explain Protagoras. One opinion can be better than other but not necessarily truer. For e.g. when a man has jaundice everything looks yellower to him. There is no sense in saying that things are not really yellow, but the color they look to a healthy man, one can say, however that since health is better than sickness, the opinion of man in health is better than that of man who has jaundice. This point of view is akin to Pragmatism.

Anaxagoras

Anaxagoras was born at Clazomenae, in Ionia, about the year 500 B.C. He spent about thirty years of his life in Athens around 462 B.C to 432 B.C. He was probably induced to come by Pericles and was the first one to introduce philosophy to Athenians. As Pericles grew week his men, including Anaxagoras, were troubled by his enemies. What happened actually is not certain, except that Anaxagoras had to leave Athens. He returned to Ionia, where he founded a school.

Anaxagoras carried out on the scientific, rationalist tradition of Ionia. He was from the school of Anaximene. He was first to suggest mind as primary cause of physical change. Anaxagoras held that everything is infinitely divisible, and that even the smallest portion of matter contains some of each elements. Things appear to be that of which they continue most. For e.g. everything contains some fire but what we know as fire is one in which fire is preponderant.

Like Empedocles, he agrees against the void. His greatest achievement is that he differed from his predecessors in regarding mind (nous) as a substance that enters into the composition of living things and distinguishes them from dead matter. In everything, he says, there is portion of everything except mind. There are certain things which contains mind also. In such things mind has power over all things that have life; it is infinite and self ruled and is mixed with nothing. Mind is the source of all motion. It causes a rotation, which is gradually spreading throughout the world, and is causing the lightest things to go to the center and the heaviest to fall towards centre. Mind is uniform and is just as good in animals as in man. Man’s apparent superiority is due to the fact that he has hands; all seeming differences of intelligence are really due to bodily differences.

Aristotle and Socrates complain that Anaxagoras, after introducing mind, makes very little use of it. Aristotle points out that Anaxagoras introduces mind as a cause when he know no other. Wherever he can, he gives mechanical explanation.

In cosmology he had great achievements. If we discount Parmenides cryptic suggestion, Anaxagoras was the first to explain that moon shines by reflected light. He gave the correct theory of eclipse. The sun and stars, he said, are fiery stones, but we do not feel the heat of stars as they are distant. The sun is larger than Peloponnesus, the moon has mountains and inhabitants.

Bertrand Russell summarizes Anaxagoras contribution as:

“Anaxagoras kept alive the rationalist and the scientific tradition of Ionians. One does not find in him the ethical and religious preoccupations which, passing from Pythagoras to Socrates and from Socrates to Plato, brought an obscurantist bias in Greek Philosophy. He is not quite in the first rank, but he is important as the first to bring philosophy to Athens, and one of the influences that helped to form Socrates.”

A brief history of Athens

Attica at the beginning of the historical period was a self supporting agricultural region. It's capital was a small town inhabited by artisans and craftsmen. The town was called Athens.

In the Homeric age Attica, like other Greek cities, was a monarchy. Over the period the king became just a titular power and the control passed to aristocracy. The aristocrats oppressed both the artisans and the countrymen. A compromise in the direction of the democracy was affected by Solon early in the sixth century, and much of his work survived through a subsequent period of tyranny under Peisistratus and his sons. When the tyranny became week the aristocrats, as an opponent of tyranny, advocated democracy. Democratic process gave power back to aristocracy.

The greatness of Athens begins at the time of the two Persian wars (490 B.C and 480-79 B.C). Before this Ionia and Magna Graecia, which comprised of cities of South Italy and Sicily, were center of learning which produced great men.

The victory of Athens against the Persian king Darius at Marathon (490 B.C) and combined Greek fleet against his son Xerexes (480 B.C) under the Athenian leadership gave Athens great Prestige.

The Persian occupied Ionia and a part of mainland Asia Minor rebelled after the Persian were driven out of mainland Greece by the combined Greek force. Athens became the leader against the war against Persia. The other cities gave Athens the monetary help and Athens provided them with soldiers and ships. Gradually Athens acquired naval supremacy over the other empire and gradually transformed the empire into Athenian empire.

Athens became rich and prosperous under the leadership of Pericles, who governed by the free choice of people. The age of Pericles was the glorious time in the Greek history. Literature and Philosophy made a great Leap.

Pericles rebuilt the temple on Acropolis which was destroyed by Xerxes. He also built the Parthenon at the end of this period. Athens was most beautiful and splendid city of Hellenic world. In Philosophy, Athens contributes only two great names, Socrates and Plato. Plato belonged to later period but Socrates passed his youth and early manhood under Pericles. Pericles ruled for 30 years until his fall in 430 BC.

Until the fall of Pericles, democratic process gave power to the aristocracy. But towards the end of his life the leaders of Athenian democracy began to demand a larger share of Political power. At the same time, his imperialist policy caused increasing friction with Sparta, leading to Peloponnesian war (431 – 404 B.C) in which Athens was completely destroyed.

Empedocles

Empedocles lived around 440 BC in Acreages’, on the south coast of Sicily. He was a younger contemporary of Parmenides, though his doctrines were somehow akin to Heraclitus.

In most Greek cities, including Sicily, there was a constant conflict between democracy and tyranny. The leader of whichever party was defeated was executed or exiled. Those exiled seldom scrupled to enter into negotiation with the enemies of Greece-Persia in the east and Carthage in the west. Empedocles who was a democrat didn’t choose any of them after his banishment and rather preferred a life of sage.

Empedocles was a queer mixture of a scientist, a philosopher and a heretic.

Science: His most important contribution to science was his discovery of air as a separate substance. This he proved by the observation that when a bucket or any similar vessel is put upside down into water, the water does not enter into the bucket. He also discovered an example of centrifugal force: that if a cup of water is whirled round at the end of a string, the water does not come out. He had his own theory for evolution and the survival of the fittest. He also believed that moon and sun shines from the reflected light.

Cosmology: He established that the earth, air, fire and water are four basic elements. Each of these is ever lasting and every other thing in this world is a compound of these basic elements. These substances are combined by Love and Strife. Love and Strife are also basic substances along with the four. Period of dominance of love and strife keeps changing. Every compound substance is temporary; only the elements together with love and strife are everlasting.

Empedocles held that the material world is a sphere; that in golden age strife was outside the sphere and love inside and then gradually strife starts entering the sphere and displacing love at worst completely outing it. The process then reverses.

Religion: He had an orphic/Pythagorean view of religion. At times he speaks himself exuberantly as God and at other as a great sinner undergoing expiation for his impiety. It is said that he jumped into the crater of Mount Etna to prove that he is God.

Parmenides

Parmenides was native of Elea, in southern Italy. His date is uncertain but it is said that young Socrates met him when Parmenides was 65 years of age. This makes his birth around 515 BCE. He was the founder of the Eleatic school of philosophy.The southern Italian & Sicilian philosophy was more related to mysticism unlike the Ionian philosophy which was scientific and skeptical in nature. Mathematics, under the influence of Pythagoras, flourished in Magna Gracie in southern Italy and was entangled with mysticism and was not scientific as it is today.

Parmenides was influenced by Pythagoras but the extent to this influence is conjectural. Parmenides is historically important as he is considered to be inventor of Logic but what he really invented was metaphysics based on Logic.

His doctrine is divided into two parts “the way of truth” and the “the way of opinion”. The Way of Truth discusses that which is real, which contrasts in some way with the argument of the Way of Opinion, which discusses that which is illusory. In his poem ‘In Nature’ he illustrates his doctrine .He considered the senses deceptive, and condemned the multitude of sensible things as mere illusion. The only true being is “the One” which is infinite and indivisible. It is not, as in Heraclitus, a union of opposites, since there are no opposites. He apparently thought for instance, “Cold” means only “not Hot”, and “Dark” means only “not light”. “The One” of Parmenides is different from “The God” we conceive because Parmenides considered the one as a material and extended, for he speaks of it as a sphere present everywhere, encompassing everything hence indivisible and indestructible. Heraclitus maintained that everything changes; Parmenides retorted that nothing changes. The essentials of his teaching as follow:

“Thou canst not know what is not-that is impossible-nor utter it; for it is the same thing that can be thought and that can be”

“How, then, can what is be going to be in future? Or how could it come into being? If it came into being, it is not, nor is it if it is going to be in the future. Thus is becoming extinguished and passing away not to be heard of."

"The thing that can be thought and that for the sake of which the thought exists is the same; for you cannot find thought without something that is, as to which it is uttered.”

Bertrand Russell explains this argument as:

“When you think you think of something; when you use a name, it must be the name of something. Therefore both thought and language requires objects outside themselves. And since you can think of a thing or speak of it at one time as well as at another, whatever can be thought of or spoken of must exist at all the time. Consequently there can be no change, since change consists in things coming into being or ceasing to be”

Parmenides contends that, since we know what is commonly regarded as past, it cannot be really be past, but must, in some sense , exist now. Hence he infers that there is no such thing as change.

Xenophanes & Heraclitus

Xenophanes’ date is uncertain between c 570 - 475 BCE. He was from Colophon, a city in the region of Lydia, but lived most of his life in southern Italy. He lived in between the times of Pythagoras and Heraclitus. This is concurred as he alludes to Pythagoras and Heraclitus alludes to him.

Xenophanes philosophy shows a streak of skepticism. He satirized the polytheistic beliefs of the Greeks. He believed in one God and considered it as formless. He argued that if Horses and Cows could paint they would paint God as themselves just like Humans give a humanly form to god. The Ethiopian God is black and the Thracian god is blue eyed with red hairs. Xenophanes is often seen as one of the first monotheists, in the Western philosophy of religion.

His epistemology held that there exists a truth of reality, but that humans as mortals are unable to know it. Therefore, it is possible to act only on the basis of working hypotheses - we may act as if we knew the truth, as long as we know that this is extremely unlikely. This aspect of Xenophanes is the basis of Critical rationalism. Xenophanes can be considered the first amongst the rationalists.

Xenophanes ridiculed Pythagoras’ theory of transmigration. Xenophanes considered that all things are made up of earth and water.

Heraclitus flourished around 500 B.C. He was citizen of Ephesus in Ionia. Though an Ionian, he didn’t belong to the scientific schools of Miletus. From the solitary and melancholic life he led, and still more from the riddling nature of his philosophy and his contempt for humankind in general, he was called "The Obscure," and the "Weeping Philosopher." He was a mystic of different type. He regarded fire as the primordial substance. He is famous for his doctrine of flux and doctrine of strife.

Doctrine of Flux: The doctrine that everything is in the state of flux is most famous of Heraclitus.

“This world, which is same for all, no one of gods or men has made; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be an ever living fire, with measures kindling and measures going out. The transformed fire are , first of all, sea, and half of the sea is earth, half whirlwind.”

Such a world, Heraclitus believed, is always in a state of flux.

“You cannot step twice into the same river ; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you.”

Doctrine of Strife: This doctrine is about mingling of opposites to create harmony. “Men do not know”, he says, “how what is at variance agrees with itself. It is and attunement of opposite tensions, like that of bow and lyre”. His belief in strife is connected with this theory, for in strife opposite combines to produce motion which is in harmony. There is unity in the world, but it is unity resulting from diversity. This doctrine contains the germ of Hegel’s Philosophy, which proceeds by synthesizing of opposites. The metaphysics of Heraclitus, like that of ‘Anaximander’ is dominated by a conception of cosmic justice, which prevents the strife of opposite from ever issuing in the complete victory of either.

Heraclitus’s ethics is a kind of proud asceticism, very similar to Nietzsche’s. He regards the soul as a mixture of fire and water, the fire being the noble and the water being ignoble. The soul that has most fire he calls “dry”. “The dry soul is the wisest and the best”. It is pleasure to soul to become moist. It is death to soul to become water.

La- sharika-La hu

मरकज़-ए-ज़ुस्तुजु,
आलम-ए-रंग-ओ-बू,
दम-बा- दम जलवागर,
तू ही तू चार सू,
हो के माहौल में ,
कुछ नही ईल्लह हू,
तुम बहुत दिलरुबा,
तुम बहुत खूबरू,
अर्श की आज़मातें,
फर्श की आबरू,
तुम हो कोनैइन का हासिल-ए-आरज़ू,
आँख ने कर लिया आँसुओं से वज़ू,
उब तो कर दो अता दीद का इक सबु,
आओ पर्दे से तुम आँख के रु-बॅ-रु,
चंद लम्हे मिलन, दो घड़ी गुफ्तगू,
नाज़ ज़ब्ता फिरे जा-बा-जा,कू-बा-कू,
वाहदा हू, वाहदा हू
ला-शरीका-ला हू
अल्लाह हू, अल्लाह हूं

[मरकज़ = center; ज़ुस्तुजु= search/Desire; आलम = Universe; रंग-ओ-बू = Color and Smell, दम-बा- दम = In every breath ; जलवागर = visible; खूबरू = Handsome; अर्श = heaven; आज़मातें = magnificence; फर्श = floor; = dignity

कोनैइन = both worlds,वज़ू = ablution; दीद= vision ; सबु =grain; जा-बा-जा = place to place

कू-बा-कू = street to street; वाहदा = Unity; ला-शरीका = no partners, हू (arabic) = divine presence, beyond definition]

The english translation is given below.

You are the center of every search,
the world of fragrance and color,
in every heartbeat you are apparent
in all four corners you are present
You are in the surroundings

nothing is there to refutes you
you are the beloved, you are the handsome

You are the magnificence of Heaven,

You are the dignity of the surface,
You are the yearning desire of the two worlds.

The eyes have completed the ablution with tear,
so now grant the flak of your vision,
Come beyond the veil, in front of the eyes
Meet for few breaths, Converse for two seconds
Your pleasure links every where; from place to place, from Street to street
The One Alone, The One Alone
With No Partners
Is God, IS God

Tum ek gorakhdhandha ho.

The poet Naaz Khaalivi is confounded by God's action. He is unable to understand the contradictory acts of God and is complaing to him about his enigmatic nature. The Lyrics is thought provoking. Listen to this transcendental qawaali by ustad Nusrat.

कभी यहाँ तुम्हें ढूँढा, कभी वहाँ पहुँचा,
तुम्हारी दीद की खातिर कहाँ कहाँ पहुँचा,
ग़रीब मिट गये, पा-माल हो गये लेकिन,
किसी तलक ना तेरा आज तक निशाँ पहुँचा
हो भी नही और हर जा हो,
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[ दीद = vision, पा-माल = Trodden under foot, Ruined, गोरखधंधा = puzzle, enigma]

हर ज़र्रे में किस शान से तू जलवानुमा है,
हैरान है मगर अक़ल, के कैसा है तू क्या है?
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[ज़र्रे = grain/speck of dust, जलवानुमा = magical/divine, अक़ल = mind/Thought]

तुझे दैर-ओ-हरम मे मैने ढूँढा तू नही मिलता,
मगर तशरीफ़ फर्मा तुझको अपने दिल में देखा है
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[दैर-ओ-हरम = temple & mosque; तशरीफ़ फर्मा = to take position ]

जब बजुज़ तेरे कोई दूसरा मौजूद नही,
फिर समझ में नही आता तेरा परदा करना
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो

[बजुज़ = except]

जो उलफत में तुम्हारी खो गया है,
उसी खोए हुए को कुछ मिला है,
ना बुतखाने, ना काबे में मिला है,
मगर टूटे हुए दिल में मिला है,
अदम बन कर कहीं तू छुप गया है,
कहीं तू हस्त बुन कर आ गया है,
नही है तू तो फिर इनकार कैसा ?
नफी भी तेरे होने का पता है ,
मैं जिस को कह रहा हूँ अपनी हस्ती,
अगर वो तू नही तो और क्या है ?
नही आया ख़यालों में अगर तू,
तो फिर मैं कैसे समझा तू खुदा है ?
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[उलफत = love/enamoured; अदम = lifeless; हस्त = life; नफी = precious; हस्ती = life/existence ]

हैरान हूँ इस बात पे, तुम कौन हो , क्या हो?
हाथ आओ तो बुत, हाथ ना आओ तो खुदा हो
अक़्ल में जो घिर गया, ला-इंतिहा क्यूँ कर हुआ?
जो समझ में आ गया फिर वो खुदा क्यूँ कर हुआ?
फलसफ़ी को बहस क अंदर खुदा मिलता नही,
डोर को सुलझा रहा है और सिरा मिलता नही
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो

[बुत = idol; अक़्ल = mind/Thought; ला-इंतिहा = boundless; फलसफ़ी = philosopher; बहस=debate]

छुपते नही हो, सामने आते नही हो तुम,
जलवा दिखा के जलवा दिखाते नही हो तुम,
दैर-ओ-हरम के झगड़े मिटाते नही हो तुम,
जो असल बात है वो बताते नही तो तुम
हैरान हूँ मैरे दिल में समाये हो किस तरह,
हाँलाके दो जहाँ में समाते नही तो तुम,
ये माबद-ओ-हरम, ये कालीसा-ओ-दैर क्यूँ,
हरजाई हो जॅभी तो बताते नही तो तुम
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[ माबद-ओ-हरम = temple & moseque; कालीसा-ओ-दैर = church & temple ]

दिल पे हैरत ने अजब रंग जमा रखा है,
एक उलझी हुई तस्वीर बना रखा है,
कुछ समझ में नही आता के ये चक्कर क्या है?
खेल क्या तुम ने अजल से रचा रखा है?
रूह को जिस्म के पिंजड़े का बना कर क़ैदी,
उस पे फिर मौत का पहरा भी बिठा रखा है
दे के तदबीर के पंछी को उड़ाने तूने,
दाम-ए-तक़दीर भी हर सिम्त बिछा रखा है
कर के आरैश-ए-क़ौनाईन की बरसों तूने,
ख़तम करने का भी मंसूबा बना रखा है,
ला-मकानी का बहरहाल है दावा भी तुम्हें,
नहन-ओ-अक़लाब का भी पैगाम सुना रखा है
ये बुराई, वो भलाई, ये जहन्नुम, वो बहिश्त,
इस उलट फेर में फर्माओ तो क्या रखा है ?
जुर्म आदम ने किया और सज़ा बेटों को,
अदल-ओ-इंसाफ़ का मेआर भी क्या रखा है?
दे के इंसान को दुनिया में खलाफत अपनी,
इक तमाशा सा ज़माने में बना रखा है
अपनी पहचान की खातिर है बनाया सब को,
सब की नज़रों से मगर खुद को छुपा रखा है
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो

[हैरत = confusion; अजल = time immemorial; रूह=soul; जिस्म =body; तदबीर = action/diligent दाम-ए-तक़दीर=trick of luck; सिम्त = direction; आरैश-ए-क़ौनाईन = decoration of both world ला-मकानी = homeless; नहन-ओ-अक़लाब = place for praying; अदल-ओ-इंसाफ़ = justice and equity मेआर = benchmark; खलाफत = kingdom]

नित नये नक़्श बनाते हो, मिटा देते हो,
जाने किस ज़ुर्म-ए-तमन्ना की सज़ा देते हो?
कभी कंकड़ को बना देते हो हीरे की कनी ,
कभी हीरों को भी मिट्टी में मिला देते हो
ज़िंदगी कितने ही मुर्दों को अदा की जिसने,
वो मसीहा भी सलीबों पे सज़ा देते हो
ख्वाइश-ए-दीद जो कर बैठे सर-ए-तूर कोई,
तूर ही बर्क- ए- तजल्ली से जला देते हो
नार-ए-नमरूद में डळवाते हो खुद अपना ख़लील,
खुद ही फिर नार को गुलज़ार बना देते हो
चाह-ए-किनान में फैंको कभी माह-ए-किनान,
नूर याक़ूब की आँखों का बुझा देते हो
दे के युसुफ को कभी मिस्र के बाज़ारों में,
आख़िरकार शाह-ए-मिस्र बना देते हो
जज़्ब -ओ- मस्ती की जो मंज़िल पे पहुचता है कोई,
बैठ कर दिल में अनलहक़ की सज़ा देते हो ,
खुद ही लगवाते हो फिर कुफ्र के फ़तवे उस पर,
खुद ही मंसूर को सूली पे चढ़ा देते हो
अपनी हस्ती भी वो इक रोज़ गॉवा बैठता है,
अपने दर्शन की लॅगन जिस को लगा देते हो
कोई रांझा जो कभी खोज में निकले तेरी,
तुम उसे झन्ग के बेले में रुला देते हो
ज़ुस्त्जु ले के तुम्हारी जो चले कैश कोई,
उस को मजनू किसी लैला का बना देते हो
जोत सस्सी के अगर मन में तुम्हारी जागे,
तुम उसे तपते हुए तल में जला देते हो
सोहनी गर तुम को महिवाल तसवउर कर ले,
उस को बिखरी हुई लहरों में बहा देते हो
खुद जो चाहो तो सर-ए-अर्श बुला कर महबूब,
एक ही रात में मेराज करा देते हो
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[नित = everyday, नक़्श = copy/model; ज़ुर्म-ए-तमन्ना = crime of desire; सलीबों = cross; ख्वाइश-ए-दीद = desire for divine vison; सर-ए-तूर = one with a halo/Saint/prophet; बर्क- ए- तजल्ली = blessing of divine menifestation; नार-ए-नमरूद = Furnace of King Nimrod;ख़लील = friend;गुलज़ार = garden;नूर= light शाह-ए-मिस्र= king of Egypt; अनलहक़ = I am the Truth/I am the God; कुफ्र = apostacy; फ़तवे= religious decree तल = desert; तसवउर = think; सर-ए-अर्श = In heaven; मेराज = exaltation]

जो कहता हूँ माना तुम्हें लगता है बुरा सा,
फिर भी है मुझे तुम से बहरहाल गिला सा,
चुप चाप रहे देखते तुम अर्श-ए-बरीन पर,
तपते हुए करबल में मोहम्मद का नवासा,
किस तरह पिलाता था लहू अपना वफ़ा को,
खुद तीन दिनो से वो अगरचे था प्यासा
दुश्मन तो बहर तौर थे दुश्मन मगर अफ़सोस,
तुम ने भी फराहम ना किया पानी ज़रा सा
हर ज़ुल्म की तौफ़ीक़ है ज़ालिम की विरासत,
मज़लूम के हिस्से में तसल्ली ना दिलासा
कल ताज सजा देखा था जिस शक़्स के सिर पर,
है आज उसी शक़्स क हाथों में ही कासा,
यह क्या है अगर पूछूँ तो कहते हो जवाबन,
इस राज़ से हो सकता नही कोई शनसा
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[अर्श-ए-बरीन = from heaven; नवासा = son of one's daughter; फराहम = offer,तौफ़ीक़=concent/support]

आह-ए-तहकीक में हर गाम पे उलझन देखूं,
वही हालत-ओ-ख़यालात में अनबन देखूं,
बन के रह जाता हूँ तस्वीर परेशानी की,
गौर से जब भी कभी दुनिया का दर्पण देखूं
एक ही खाक से फ़ितरत के तzआदत इतने,
कितने हिस्सों में बटा एक ही आँगन देखूं,
कहीं ज़हमत की सुलगती हुई पतझड़ का सामान ,
कहीं रहमत के बरसते हुए सावन देखूं ,
कहीं फुन्कारते दरया, कहीं खामोश पहाड़ ,
कहीं जंगल, कहीं सेहरा, कहीं गुलशन देखूं ,
खून रुलाता है यह तक्सीम का अंदाज़ मुझे ,
कोई धनवान यहाँ पर कोई निर्धन देखूं ,
दिन के हाथों में फक़त एक सुलगता सूरज ,
रात की माँग सितारों से मज़्ज़यन देखूं ,
कहीं मुरझाए हुए फूल हैं सचाई के ,
और कहीं झूट के काँटों पे भी जोबन देखूं ,
रात क्या शै है, सवेरा क्या है ?
यह उजाला यह अंधेरा क्या है ?
मैं भी नाइब हूँ तुम्हारा आख़िर,
क्यों यह कहते हो के तेरा क्या है ?
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[आह-ए-तहकीक = desire to enquire; गाम = step, उलझन = confusion; हालत-ओ-ख़यालात = reality & thought; फ़ितरत= Nature/Characteristic; तzआदत=division/Contradiction/Lie; ज़हमत = Inconvenience ; रहमत= compassion; नाइब=assistant]
नाज़ खियालवी

Here I have tried to put a rough english transalation to the lyrics.

I looked for thee hither and thither
For a look of thee, I went everywhere
The dear ones got ruined and downtrodden
But no one got thee where bout.
Thou art and thou art not
Thou art an Enigma

With what splendor thou art in every speck
But confused is mind that what art thee? Who are thee?
Thou art an Enigma

I do not find thee in temple and Mosque
But see thou in my heart
Thou art an Enigma

If thou art the only one
Then from who do thou you conceal thyself?
Thou art an Enigma

Blesses are those who are lost in thy love
Thou could not be found in temple nor Kaabah
But can be found in broken heart
Thou art hidden as barren
And thou appear as life
If thou art not, then why deny thee?
Even the negation confirms thy existence
What I call existence if not you who is that?
If thou didn’t come in my thoughts then
How did I learn that you are God?
Thou art an Enigma

Confounded I am that what thou art and who thou art?
When palpable then thou become an idol and when not thou become god.
One that can be bounded by logic how can it be boundless?
One that is understood how can it bee God?
Sophist does not find God in philosophy
He tries to untangle the cord but cannot find the end
Thou art an enigma

Neither thou hide nor thou reveal thyself
Thou show thy divinity but do not show thyself
Thou do not solve the fight over temple and mosque
Thou don’t reveal the real thing
I am perplexed that how thou art housed in my heart
Even though thou could not be contained in both the worlds
Why art these temple & mosques and church and synagogue?
Thou are faithless for not showing thy countenance
Thou art an enigma.

The mysticism has taken strange possession of my heart
A confused picture it’s drawn within it
I do not understand what all this puzzle is
What is this game thou have been playing since time immemorial
Thou had made the soul a prisoner of the body
and then had put the sentry of death on it.
Thou make the bird of endeavor fly ‘yet
Thou have spread the net of fate everywhere.
For years thou have decorated the world and hereafter
thou have made the plan of its destruction
Though you claim to be homeless
Yet thou preached places of worship.
This is bad, that good, this is hell, that is heaven
Please tell me what is in this perplexity?
For Adam’s crime thou punish his Progeny
Is that the standard of thy justice?
By giving the earthly kingdom to the man,
Thou have made it into a spectacle
For thy own recognition thou created all
But thou hide thyself from all
Thou art an enigma.

Thou draw pictures and erase it thyself
I don’t know for which crime of desire thou you punish us
Sometimes thou turn a pebble into a diamond
Other times thou will turn a diamond into dust
The prophet who gave life to many dead
thou made him adorn the cross
The one that longed to have thy sight on the Mount Sinai
thou reduced the Mount to ashes with the Lightning of thy Manifestation
thou wished Abraham to be thrown into Nimrud’s Fire
Then thou turned that fire into flowers thyself
Sometimes thou throw a Canaanite into the well of Canaanites
And then deprive Jacob of his sight
thou make Joseph to be put into the slave-mart of Egypt
And then thou only make him the king of Egypt
When someone reaches to the destination of higher spirituality
thou make him to voice: I’m the Truth
Then allow the verdicts of infidelity against Him
Thou send Mansoor to the crucifix
One day he too loses his life
Whom thou make to see Your sight
If a Ranjha goes in thy quest
Thou make him in the charity of Jhang
If some Qais goes in thy quest
thou make him Majnu of some Laila
If Thou love awakens in Sassi’s heart
thou scorch her in a burning desert
If Sohni imagined thee as her Mahival
thou drowned her into the ragging currents
Thou do as thou wish by summoning to the Heaven
in a single night thou can make the Prophet’s Accession to Heaven
Thou art an Enigma

I know thou you feel umbrage about my sayingsyet I’ve a little complaint to makethou were sitting quiet on thy Throne in heaven
When Muhammad’s grandson was scorching in the desert of Karbala
he gave his blood for Your Love
though he was thirsty for three days
His enemies were after all enemies,
but what’s sad is that even thou didn’t offer him Water
Every favor of oppression is the approval of the oppressor
But the oppressed is neither consoled nor comforted
Yesterday he who had a crown on his head
Today I see him with a begging bowl
What is this? If I ask, thy answer is
That no one can get acquainted with this secret
Thou art an enigma

Thou enquiry makes me confused at every step
There is discord between the reality and Ideas
I have become a picture of distress
Whenever I see in the mirror of the world
I see so many contradictions in a single eye
I see one place divided into so many parts
Somewhere I see the autumnal smoke of hardship
Somewhere I see the monsoon showers of blessing
Here I see hissing rivers and there silent Mountains
Here I see a forest, there I see a desert and somewhere else I see a garden
This style of division writhes me
I see some rich and some poor here
In Day’s share, I see only one sun shinning
While the night is bedecked with millions of stars
Here I see the withered flowers of truth
There I see the thorns of lies abloom
What is night? What is morning?
What is light? What is darkness?
After all I’m also your deputy, why thou say “what is thy?”
Thou art an enigma.

Naaz Khiaalvi

For web search convenience I am putting the English transliteration here.

Kabhi Yahaan Tumhein Dhunda, Kabhi Wahaan Pahuncha
Tumhari Deed Ki Khaatir Kahan Kahan Pahucha
Gareeb Mit Ga'ay, Paa-maal Ho Gaye lekin
Kisi Talak Na Tera Aaj Tak Nishaan Pahuncha

Ho Bhi Nahi Aur Her Jaa HoTum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho
Her Zarray Mein Kiss Shaan Say Tu Jalwa Numa Hai
Hairaan Hai Magar Aqal, Ke Kaisay Hai Tu Kya Hai?
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Tujhay Dair-O-Haram Maine Dhunda Tu Nahi Milta
Magar Tashreef Farma Tujhko Apne Dil Mein Daikha Hai
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Jab Bajuz tere koi Dosra Maujood Nahi
Phir Samajh Mein Nahi Aata Tera Purdah Karna
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Jo Ulfat Mein Tumhari Kho Gaya hai,
Usi Kho'ay Huay Ko Kuch Mila Hai
Na But-Khanay, Na Kabay Mein Mila Hai,
Magar Tutay Huay Dil Mein Mila Hai
Adam Bun Ker Kaheen tu Chup Gaya Hai,
Kaheen To Hast Bun Ker Aa Gaya
Nahi Hai Tu To Phir Inkaar Kaisa,
Nafi Bhi Tairay Honay Ka Pata Hai
Mein Jiss Ko Keh Raha Hoon Apni Hasti,
Agar Wo Tu Nahi To Aur Kia Hai
Nahi Aaya Khayaloon Mein Agar Tu,
To Phir Mein Kaisay Samjha Tu Khuda Hai
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho


Hairan Huoon Is Baat Pay, Tum Kaun Ho Kya Ho?
Haath Aao to But, Haath Na Aao to Khuda Ho
Aqal Mein Jo Ghir Gaya La-Intiha Kiyoon Ker Hua?
Jo Samajh Mein Aa Gaya Phir Wo Khuda Kyun Ker Hua?
Falsafi Ko Behas K Ander Khuda Milta Nahi
Dor Ko Suljha Raha Hai Aur Sira Milta Nahi
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Chuptay Nahi Ho, Samnay Aatay Nahi Ho Tum,
Jalwa Dikha K Jalwa Dikhatay Nahi Ho Tum
Dair O Haram K Jhagray Mita'tay Nahi Ho Tum,
Jo Asal Baat Hai Wo Batatay Nahi To Tum
Hairaan Hoon Mairay Dil Mein Sama'ay Ho Kiss Tarah,
Haan'la K Do Jahan Mein Samatay Nahi To Tum
Yeah Mabud O Haram, Yeah Qaleesa-o-Dair Kiyoon,
Harjayii Ho Jabhi To Bata'tay Nahi To Tum
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho


Dil Pe Hairat Nai Ajab Rung Jama Rakha Hai,
Aik Uljhi Howi Tasveer Bana Rakha Hai
Kuch Samajh Mein Nahi Aata K Yeah Chakkar Kia Hai,
Khail Kia Tum Nai Azal Say Yeah Racha Rakha Hai
Rooh Ko Jism K Pingray Ka Bana Ker Qaidee,
Us Pay Phir Mout Ka Pehraa Bhi Bithaa Rakha Hai
Day K Tadbeer K Panchi Ko Uraaney Tune,
Daam-E-Taqdeer bhee Her Sumt Bicha Rakha Hai
Kar K Araish-e-Qounain Ki Barsoon Tu Nai,
Khatam Karne Ka Bhi Mansooba Bana Rakha Hai
La-Makaani Ka Bahr Haal Hai Dawa Bhi Tumhein,
Nahan-o-aQalab Ka Bhi Paighaam Suna Rakha Hai
Yeah Burai, Wo Bhalai, Yeah Jahannum, Wo Bahisht,
Is Ulat Phiar Mein Farmao To Kia Rakha Hai
Jurm Aadam Nai Kiya Aur Saza Baitoon Ko,
Adl O Insaaf Ka Mi'aar Bhi Kia Rakha Hai
De K Insaan Ko Dunya Mein Khalafat Apni,
Ik Tamasha Sa Zamanay Mein Bana Rakha Hai
Apni Pehchaan Ki Khaatir Hai Banaya Sub Ko,
Sub Ki Nazaroon Say Magar Khud Ko Chupa Rakha Hai
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Nit Naye Naqsh Banatay Ho, Mita Daitay Ho,
Janay Kiss Jurm-e-tamanna Ki Saza Daitay Ho
Kabhi Kanker Ko Bana Daitay Ho Heeray Ki Kani,
Kabhi Heeron Ko Bhi Mitti Mein Mila Daitay Ho
Zindagi Kitnay He Murdoon Ko Ata Ki Jiss Nai,
Wo Maseeha Bhi Saleebon Pay Saja Daitay Ho
Khuwahish-E-Deed Jo Kar Baithay Sar-E-Tuur Koi,
Tuur Hee Bark- e- Tajaali Say Jala Daitay Ho
Naar-e-Namrood Mein Dalwatay Ho khud apna Khaleel,
Khud Hee Phir Naar Ko Gulzaar Bana Daitay Ho
Chah-e-kinaan Mein Phainko Kabhi Maah-e-Kinaan,
Noor Yaqoob Ki Aankhon Ka Bujha Daitay Ho
Day Ke Yusuf Ko Kabhi Misr K Bazaaron Mein,
Aakhir Kaar Shah-E-Misr Bana Daitay Ho
Jazb O Masti Ki Jo Manzil Pe Pohonchta Hai Koi,
Baith Ker Dil Mein Analhaq Ki Saza Daitay Ho
Khud He Lagwatay Ho Phir Kufr K Fatway Us
Khud He Mansoor Ko Sooli Peh Charha Daitay Ho
Apni Hasti Bhi Wo Ik Rooz Gawa Baith'ta Hai,
Apne Darshan Ki Lagan Jiss Ko Laga Daitay Ho
Koi Ranjha Jo Kabhi Khooj Mein Nikle Teri,
Tum Usay Jhang K Bele Mein Rula Daitay Ho
Justujo Lay K Tumhari Joh Chalay Qais Koi,
Us Ko Majno Kisi Laila Ka Bana Daitay Ho
Jot Sassi K Agar Mun Mein Tumhari Jagay,
Tum Usay Taptay Hoay Thal Mein Jala Daitay Ho
Sohni Gar Tum Ko Mahiwaal Tassawur Ker Le,
Us Ko Bikhri Howi Lehroon Mein Baha Daitay Ho
Khudh Joh Chaho To Sar-E-Arsh Bula Ker Mehboob,
Aik He Raat Mein Mairaaj Kara Daitay Ho
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Jo Kehta Hoon Mana Tumhein Lagta Hai Bura Sa,
Phir Bhi Hai Mujhay Tum Say Baharhaal Gila Sa
Chup Chaap Rahay Daikhtay Tum Arsh-E-Bareen Per,
Taptay Hoay Karbal Mein Mohammad Ka Nawasa
Kiss Tarah Pilata Tha Laahu Apna Wafa Ko,
Khud Teen Dino Say Wo Agarchay Tha Piyasa
Dushmun To Bahar taur Thay Dumshun Magar Afsoos,
Tum Nai Bhi Faraaham (offer) Na Kia Pani Zara Sa
Her Zulm Ki Taufeeq Hai Zaalim Ki Wirasat,
Mazloom K Hissay Mein Tasalli Na Dilasa
Kal Taaj Saja Daikha Tha Jis Shaqs K Sir Per,
Hai Aaj Usi Shaqs K Haathon Mein Hi kasa
Yeh Kia Hai Agar Pochon To Kehtay Ho Jawaban,
Is Raaz Say Ho Sakta Nahi Koi Shanasa
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Aah-e-Tehkeek mein har gam pe uljhan dekhoon
Wohi haalat-o-khayalat mein anban dekhoon
Ban ke reh jaata hoon tasweer pareshani ki
Ghaur se jab bhi kabhi duniya ka darpan dekhoon
Ek hi khaak se fitrat ke tazaadat itnay
Kitnay hisson mein bata ek hi aangan dekhoon
Kahin zehmat ki sulagti hui patjhar ka samaan
Kahin rehmat ke baraste huay sawan dekhoon
Kahin phunkaarte darya, kahin khamosh pahaar
Kahin jangal, kahin sehra, kahin gulshan dekhoon
Khun rulata hai yeh takseem ka andaaz mujhe
Koi dhanwaan yehan par koi nirdhan dekhoon
Din ke haathon mein faqat ek sulagta sooraj
Raat ki maang sitaron se muzzayyan dekhoon
Kahin murjhaaye huay phool hain sacchai ke
Aur kahin jhoot ke kaanton pe bhi joban dekhoon
Raat kya shai hai saweera kya hai
Yeh ujala yeh andhera kya hai
Mein bhi nayib hun tumhara akhir
Kyon yeh kehte ho ke tera kya hai
Tum ek gorakhdhanda ho

History of Philosophy: Periodization of Western Philosophy

Periodization of any evolutionary phenomena is always subjective and hence certainly moot. But then there are certain features which are so prominent that they become the logical parameters for demarcation. Time is one such parameter. Ancient, Medieval and Modern these are the most common periodization that can be applied in any temporal phenomenon. So here just for our convenience we divide western Philosophy in three ages: The ancient, the medieval and the modern age.

1) Ancient Age: The period stretches from 600 to 400 BC. In the development of ancient Philosophy, we have two separate periods: A period of Spontaneous creation and one of Skeptical reflection and reproduction. The problem that dominates the period of Spontaneous creation is the problem of the origin of things: The problem of becoming. It consists of two schools, the Ionian and the Italian Philosophers. Ionian propagated materialistic pantheism. The age of critical reflection is inaugurated by the motto of the Sophists that man is the measure of all things. It outlined that human understanding is a coefficient in the production of the phenomenon.

2) Medieval Ages: It stretches from 400 BC to about 15th Century.Although the development of philosophy is less transparent during the middle ages, we notice the two epochs that runs parallel with those of ancient philosophy. One, Platonic, realistic turned towards the past (from St. Augustine to Saint Anslem), the other, peripatetic, nominalistic towards future.

3) Modern Philosophy: It Dates from scientific and literary revival in the fifteenth century. It history represents:
i) A period of expansion and ontological synthesis (Bruno, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz)
ii) A period of critical reflection and analysis (essays concerning human understanding: Locke; Hume; Kant)
iii) A period of metaphysical reconstruction (Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, etc)
iv) A period of varied critical and constructive tendencies.

History of Philosophy: What is Philosophy?

When I was a child, every summer, like most of my friends I would visit my grandparents. My paternal grandfather lived in a village about 800 KMs away from Jamshedpur (Where I spent 17 years of my life) and about 200 years back in time.
I found him intelligent even though he had a very minimal formal education. He dropped out of class 3 when was beaten by his master. Still he had all answers to my inquisitive mind.
In every visit of mine at least once he would talk about an earthquake which occurred when he was young. It was difficult for me to imagine him as young. I have always seen him old and sick lying folded on his bed with a towel tied around his back and legs enabling him to rock on his back. Every visit he would tell me that I have grown taller but to my surprise he always looked the same. I never found a change in him. Always lying on his bed and rocking on his back.
I asked him, what causes an earthquake? With an authority like a head master he explained that the Earth is placed on the hump of a giant tortoise that is in Vaikunth (the abode of Lord Vishnu). When the tortoise makes any movement the earth shakes and there is an earthquake. I believed him because he himself believed in this thesis. It was not a simple solution to a curious child’s mind but it was a deeply ingrained belief carried to this date by mythology . The exposition perfectly satisfied my curiosity.
Time passed by. My visit to my grandfather became more and more infrequent. The reason was my studies. But I vividly remembered his stories and his logics. As I studied Geography and Physics, I started doubting my Grandfather’s hypothesis. Gradually the doubt turned into negation and then ridicule. The reason of this was the ‘Plate tectonic’ theory's explanation of Earth quakes. It was very logical and made a lot of sense. I was convinced the same way as I got convinced about a decade back by the 'Tortoise hump' theory.
And then I read more of Geography and more of Science. From a Shallow Surface I dug deep into theories and again my beleif started shaking. From conviction it led to doubt, to utter confusion and then to despair. Many scientists have expressed the limitation of Science in predicting phenomenon. There are phenomena which cannot be expressed with available tools (mathematical formulas, theories, Logic etc) and this is the limitation of Science. It’s inability to express. The biggest challenge in front of scientists today is to express their understanding and this is where Science, like Theology or religion, becomes subjective.
So at this point I am unsure about the cause of an Earthquake. I can not take my grandfather’s theory and Science does not give me a definite and conclusive explanation.

Where I am now with respect to earthquake, early human beings were with respect to their existence. They wanted to know why they exist, what is this universe, who created it , what happens after death? And their quest was neither satisfied by categorical theologians nor the empiricists. There was a vast chasm between theology and Science. And that is when philosophy came into existence as a subject. It occupies the No man’s land between theology and Science. Like Science it is logical. Like theology it was speculative.
The book I am reading now is “The history of Western Philosophy” by Bertrand Russell. In that book Russell write:
"Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and Science. Like Theology, it consists of Speculations on matter as to which definite knowledge has so far, been unascertainable, but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation."

In this Blog series, which I have named same as the book titled by Russell, I intend to collate philosophies of various philosophers from the time of antiquity till Date. The ideas would primarily from the books which I have read and it include 3 books.
1) The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant
2) The History of Philosophy by Weber & Perry
3) The History of Western Philosophy.
If all goes as I intend then I will take up Indian Philosophy and I am very keen on that.

Now coming back to earthquakes, how does Philosophy deals with it?
As of now, it doesn’t. Through ages philosophers have been trying to come up with answer to the primal question of being and becoming. Once that is done then probably philosophy will take up other issues, till that time I have to choose between the ‘Plate tectonics’ or the ‘Tortoise hump’ theory. Or else I will have to come up with my own theory which will convince me.

Immanuel Kant - The sage of Konisberg

DICHOTOMY IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY
In seventeen century Europe, philosophical fraternity was divided over the question of how knowledge is gained. Broadly there were two schools of thought. Though this classification was done by the Subject of this article in retrospect and the distinction was not clear at that time. One school was proponent of Logic and Reason. They were called as the Rationalist. Another school apotheosized knowledge gained from experience. They were called the Empiricist.

RATIONALISM

(Rene Descartes)
In the beginning of seventeenth century, philosophy was dominated by Scholasticism propounded by Christian theology whose ideas were derived from Plato, Aristotle and early church writings.
Rene Descartes categorically refuted Scholasticism. But this does not mean that he advocated Atheism. He proposed starting the philosophy from scratch and thus emanated the Modern Rationalism. Descartes is considered as Father of Modern Rationalism. The Rationalists were the believer in the Reason and Logic. They attributed knowledge to “innate ideas” in mind. The source of knowledge is intellectual and deductive and not sensory. Descartes belief in logic, reason and idea was so strong that he attributed his existence to his cogitative capacity (Cogito Ergo Sum: “I think, therefore I am”). He said that he can doubt anything: history, Science, theology but one thing is certain, that he doubts. He says that his doubting proves that he exists. From this he builts his knowledge backward and finds that some of the ideas could not have originated from him alone but from God. Thus he proves the existence of God.

(Leibniz)

The idea propounded by Descartes was extended by Leibniz and established into a system with a proper framework by Spinoza. According to them the universe is a mathematical system and can be described a priori by pure deductions from accepted axioms. In Hobbes rationalism took shades of atheism and materialism. He said nothing exists but atoms and void. Faith reached its nadir and reason was triumphant.

EMPERICISM
This philosophical thought believes that knowledge arises from experience which in turn comes through our senses. Mind at birth is a clean slate a “tabula rasa”. Experience puts writing on it. It discounted the concept of “innate ideas” of the rationalists. Empiricism emphasized that all hypothesis and theories must be tested against observation and experiment rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning and intuition.

The notion of mind as “tabula rasa” dates back to Aristotle. It was developed more clearly in medieval period by Persian philosopher Avicenna (Ibn Sinna) in 11th century. It was demonstrated as thought experiment by Andalusian-Arabian philosopher Abubacer (Ibn Tufail). The major Empiricists of 17th century were John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume.

( John Locke)
John Locke in an “An Essay of Human Understanding” proposed that only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori i.e. based upon experience. That there is nothing in mind except what was first in senses. Since only material things can effect our senses, we know nothing but matter and must accept materialist philosophy. If sensations are stuff of thought matter must be material of mind. According to him, there are two sources of idea: Sensation and Reflection and there are two types of idea: Simple and Complex with later being derived from former. The former ideas are unanalysable and are broken down into primary and secondary qualities. Complex ideas are divided into substance, mode and relation.
( George Berkeley)
Anglican bishop, George Berkeley (1685-1753) realized that Locke ideas lead to eventual atheism. In his response to Locke in his “Treatise concerning the principle of Human knowledge” he says that thing in itself is nothing but perception. What we call a rose is nothing but an aggregate perception of shape, color, smell etc. Berkley said that God does the perception for humans when they are unaware. Berkeley approach to empiricism would later be called Subjective Idealism. He destroyed the matter with his doctrine and apotheosized perception.
( David Hume)
David Hume, in his book “Treaties of Human Nature” says that no one has seen mind. What is perceived as mind is nothing but a collection of perception, ideas, memories, feelings etc. The mind is not a substance or organ; it is only an abstract name for series of ideas. Hume had effectively destroyed mind as Berkeley had destroyed matter. After destroying mind Hume moved on to science. In Science one perceives effect and sequence and infers causation and necessity. A necessity then becomes law. Since effect and sequence are gathered through senses which can never ascertain to represent the totality hence a law is then just a mental summary of repetitive sequence. It cannot be said with certainty that sequence will repeat again. A law is not a necessity but a mental summary and shorthand of our experience. In hands of David Hume, Empiricism went to the extremes to the extent that it became Skepticism. He argues that all knowledge derives from Sense-Experience. Hume divides knowledge into two categories:
i) Relation of ideas : e.g. Mathematical and logical proposition
ii) Matter of fact.: Contingent observation (Sun rises in the east) i.e. ideas derived from impression (sensation)
To remember are to make such impression is to have an idea. Ideas are faint copy of sensation. All knowledge perception is then bundle of sensation. It is the history that one remembers. But is there a certainty that future will resemble the past. Can anyone with certainty say that Sun will always rise in the east? Only mathematical formulas are necessity.
He started questioning the scientific method. The problem of inductive logic, Hume argued that it requires inductive reasoning to arrive at premises for the principle of inductive reasoning and therefore justification for inductive reasoning is circular argument.

For a century the philosophical world was divided between doctrines or Rationalism and Empiricism. It had to wait for Kant to bridge the gap with his ground breaking work. No wonder many people consider him the greatest philosopher of modern century. Whether he is greatest or not is a moot point but what is certain that he left an indelible impact on philosophy. Post Kant most philosophical works have influence of his theories.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF KANT

( Immanuel Kant)

Baptized as 'Emmanuel' after the Jew Messiah, Immanuel Kant, was born to Johann George Kant a German Craftsman and Anna Regaina Porter a daughter of Scottish saddle and harness Maker, in 1724 in the city of Konisberg (erstwhile Kalingrad) the capital of erstwhile Prussia. He was raised under strict regimen adhering to puritan way. Throughout his life he enjoyed good health and was absolutly regular in daily habit. Such was his punctuality that his neighbours used to set their watches as per his evening stroll. At the age of 16 he got himself enrolled at the University of Konisberg. There he studied, inter alia, physics, mathematics, philosophy and geography. Demise of Johann George Kant put a break to his studies. He took up private tutorship around towns of Konisberg but continued with his research work. In 1749 he published his first philosophical work, 'Thoughts on the true estimation of living force'. By the age of 46, Kant was an established philosopher and a professor at the University of Konisberg. His most important work is the 'Critique of Pure Reason', a critical investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the 'Critique of Practical Reason', which concentrates on ethics, and the 'Critique of Judgement', which investigates aesthetics and teleology.In 1804 he died a bachelor rich in fame and years.

KANTIAN PHILOSOPHY
As per Kant, his age was age of criticism where the meaning of criticism is a bit different from literal sense. Criticism in Kantian sense is analyzing critically. It is weighing before affirming and inquiring before assuming. His philosophy is critical, as distinguished from extreme theories of Leibniz & Locke, in that it discriminates in the formation of ideas, between the products of spontaneous activities of pure reason. Neither criticism neither aims to be sensationalistic nor intellectualism in the extreme sense, but transcendental, i.e. going beyond the sensationalist and idealist doctrine.
In its examination of “reason” criticism distinguishes between the theoretical order, the practical order and the aesthetical order. In the theoretical sphere, it manifests itself as the faculty of knowing, or the sense of truth, in the practical sphere as the sense of goodness, in the aesthetical sphere, as the sense of beauty and teleological fitness. Let have a look at his three most important works.
Critique of Pure Reason
What is Knowledge?
An idea alone is not knowledge. E.g. An Idea of man, earth, heat does not make knowledge. In order to make knowledge an idea must combine with other ideas. There should be a subject and a predicate. E.g. Man is a responsible being, Earth is a planet, and Heat expands bodies. All knowledge is a proposition. All knowledge is judgment but not all judgment is knowledge. And there are two types of judgment
i) Analytical judgment: It analyzes an idea without adding anything to it i.e. predicate is derived from subject. E.g. Bodies are extended. Predicate “extend” adds nothing to subject. It’s already contained in it. This judgement is not knowledge.
ii) Synthetic judgment: It adds knowledge. E.g. “Earth is a planet”. It took years to establish this fact. Hence synthetic judgment adds knowledge.
But not every synthetic judgment is knowledge. To constitute real knowledge a judgment must be true in all case. It must be a necessity. The union of subject and predicate should not be accidental but necessary.
Illustration: “Weather is Warm” is a synthetic judgment but not knowledge as it can be cold tomorrow. The judgment is contingent. But “heat expands” will be true any day, a necessary proposition.
But does one has the right to assume that this proposition is universally necessary i.e. how can one say that heat always expands. Because it has come from experience over the period of time. But there remains a possibility that heat might contract and this mankind has never experienced but nevertheless it might happen. So based on human experience this phenomenon does not occur and heat always expands. According to Hume since experience always furnishes only a limited number of cases, it cannot yield necessity and universality. Hence, a judgment a posteriori, i.e. based solely on experience cannot constitute knowledge. In order to be necessary a judgment must rest on rational basis rooted in reason as well as observation, it must be judgment a priori. Mathematics is the synthetic judgment a priori.
Thus answer to the question that “What is knowledge?” is that Knowledge is a synthetic judgment a priori.

Now under What condition Knowledge is possible or how can we form synthetic judgment a priori?
This is the fundamental problem which Kantian criticism undertakes to solve. Sense furnishes the material for judgment and reason the cement needed to unite them.
Illustration: Heat expands bodies. This proposition has two elements.
i) Elements furnished by sensation. E.g. heat, expansion, bodies.
ii) Elements not given by sensation but derived purely from intellect. The causal relation which sentence in question establishes between heat expansion and bodies.
Every scientific judgment (Knowledge) then thus consists of sensible elements and pure or rational element. The rationalist or the idealist completely forgot about the sensible elements. A congenitally blind person has no idea about colors because it does not exist for him. And in denying the innate, rational a priori elements the empiricist forgot that most refined senses of a mentally challenged are incapable of suggesting scientific notion of his.

Let us take each of these elements separately.
Critique of Sensibility, or Transcendental Aesthetics.
Knowledge is product of sensibility and understanding.
What are the conditions of sense-perception or as Kant use to say intuition (Anschauurg)?
When sensation perceives something it does not perceive the absolute thing but puts a stamp on it. For e.g. dogs see everything in black and white. So in the world of dogs a banyan tree as perceived by a human does not exists. It is black and white for dogs and green for human. So who is seeing the absolute thing? Bees can see more colors than humans. So probably bee’s banyan tree is different than humans. So what a person sees is not the thing in itself but a perception of it given to him by his perception? Hence Sense receives a mysterious substance from sensations and makes an intuition of it. Hence, there are in every intuition, two elements:
i) a pure or a priori element
ii) a posteriori element, form and matter
These a priori intuitions, which sensationalist denies, are Space, the form of outer sense and Time the form of inner sense. Space and time are original institutions of reason, prior to all experience. This is the fundamental teaching of critical philosophy and an immortal discovery of Kant. The sense of space and time is a priori, comes from reason and not experience. Illustration: A new born child has a sense of space and time. He does not learn it from experience but is innate. Arithmetic is a science of duration. Geometry is science of space. And arithmetic and Geometry possess the character of absolute necessity i.e. they are synthetic judgment a priori. They are not results, but principles conditions a priori and sine quo non of perception.
All perception presupposes the ideas of space and time; and unless we had these ideas a priori sense perception could never take place.
Time and space are not objects of perception, but modes of perceiving objects. Hence sensation does not show thing in itself, but as they appear to it through it spectacles the one glass of it being Space and other Time. Hence sensibility gives us appearance, or phenomenon and that it is incapable of giving the thing in itself; the noumenon and since understanding always gets the material of knowledge from senses it necessarily gets phenomenon and not the noumenon.

Critique of understanding or Transcendental Logic
In the faculty of understanding Kant distinguishes between two elements.
i) The Transcendental Analytics i.e. the faculty of connecting the intuitions with each other according to certain a priori laws (verstand)
ii) The Transcendental Dialectic i.e. The faculty of arranging our judgments under a series of universal ideas (vernuft , reason in the narrower sense of world)

Transcendental Analytics
Understanding (reason) moulds its judgment based on certain forms or general concepts called categories. According to Hume, the highest category, the idea of cause, conceived as necessity relation between two phenomena, is not derived from experience, Kant agrees. Where Hume and Kant disagree is that Hume regards it as the result of our habit of seeing certain facts constantly conjoined together, and consequently considers it as a prejudice useful to science but without any metaphysical value. Kant on other hand infers it as innate.
Thus as per Kant the idea of cause and other categories are a priori and hence are modes of knowledge and not objects of knowledge.
According to Kant, categories are the forms according to which we judge. Hence there are as many categories as there are judgments. Logic enumerates twelve of them
1) the Universal Judgment e.g. All men are mortal
2) the Particular Judgment e.g. Some men are philosopher
3) the Singular Judgment e.g. Peter is mathematician
4) the affirmative judgment e.g. Man is mortal
5) the negative Judgment e.g. the soul is not mortal
6) the limiting judgment e.g. the soul is immortal
7) the categorical judgment e.g. God is just
8) the hypothetical judgment e.g. if god is just, he will punish the wicked.
9) The disjunctive judgment e.g. either the Greeks or the Romans are the leading nation of antiquity
10) The problematic judgment e.g. the planets are perhaps inhabited
11) The assertory judgment e.g. the earth is round
12) The apodictic judgment e.g. the god must be just

The first three express totality, plurality, and unity, i.e. in a word the idea of quantity; the fourth, fifth, and the sixth express reality, negation, and limitation, or, the idea of quality; the seventh, eigth, and ninth express substantiality and inherence, causality and dependence, and reciprocarity, or, in short, idea of relation; finally the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth express possibility and impossibility, being and non being, necessity and contingency, i.e., the idea of modality.
Hence there are four fundamental categories: quantity, quality, relation and modality. Relation governs and embraces all the rest. It is highest category.
From these four cardinal categories four principle follow, which are also a priori:
i) Every phenomenon is quantity i.e. exists in space and in time. This principle excludes the hypothesis of atoms.
ii) Every phenomenon has quality i.e. a certain degree of content, a certain degree of intensity. The principle excludes the hypothesis of void.
iii) All phenomena are related i.e. all phenomena are united by the tie of causality. This excludes the hypothesis of fate.
iv) From the standpoint of modality every phenomenon is possible that confirms to law of space and time, and every phenomena is necessary, and absence of which imply the suspension of these law; which excludes miracles.
The first and second principles constitutes the law of continuity; the third and fourth the law of causality. These categories and the principles which follow from them form the pure, innate, a priori element and is very basis of understanding (verstand)

How can reason act upon the data of sensibility? How can reason lay hold of sensible intuitions and make notion of them?
The operation is effected by means of the ideas of time, the natural intermediary between intuitions and concepts. Owing to its resemblance to the categories, the idea of time serves as an image or symbol to express that a priori notion in terms of sense and becomes a kind of interpreter between the intuitive faculty and the understanding. This operation is called Schematiscism of pure reason.

To paraphrase, the phenomenon is the product of the reason; it does not exist outside of us, but in us; it does not exist beyond the limit of intuitive reason. . It is reason which prescribes its sensible law to the sensible universe; it is the reason which makes the Cosmos.
When Kant says that reason creates the universe, or at least assists in its creation he means the phenomenal universe. The totality of phenomenon and he admits that there may be beyond the phenomenal world, a world of noumenon or realities which cannot be perceived which are inaccessible and consequently superior to reason. Transcendental dialectics demonstrates this hypothesis.

Transendental Dialectics
According to Kant, Ideas are the totality of our judgment under certain general points of view. The concepts of “reason”, or Ideas are: the thing-in-itself; or the absolute, the universe, the soul and the God. Just as the former arrange the impressions of sense, and the latter, the intuitions, so the ideas arranges the infinite mass of judgments and reduce them to a system. Hence from the co-operation of sensibility judgment, and “reason” arises the Knowledge.
Illustration: The outer sense, by means of it’s a priori intuitions of space and time, furnishes us with a series of phenomena; the understanding, with the help of its categories, makes concepts, judgments and scientific propositions of them; finally “reason” embraces these disjoint members under the ideas of cosmos, and makes Knowledge of them. E.g. by viewing the totality of phenomena from the standpoint of absolute or of god, reason creates theology.
The universe, the soul, and God are a priori syntheses of reason and not being existing independently of the thinking subjects. At least it is impossible for reason to demonstrate their objective existence. The Ideas do not receive any content or sensibility; they are supreme norms, regulative point of view, no more, no less.

Critique of Practical Reason
Critique of pure reason portends Skepticism, but its not where Kantianism ends. In his Critique of pure reason, Kant says that, the Will, and the reason, forms the basis of faculties and of things. This is the leading thought of Kantian philosophy. While reason becomes entangle in inevitable antinomies and involves us in doubts, the Will is the ally of faith, the source and therefore, the natural guardian of our moral and religious beliefs. Kant does not deny the absolute, the soul, the God but only the possibility of proving the reality of the idea.
What Kant combats to the utmost and pitilessly destroys is the dogmatism of theoretical reason. By way of retaliation he concedes a meta physical capacity of practical reason, i.e. to Will.
Like the understanding, the will has its own character, its original forms, its particular legislation, a legislation which Kant calls “practical reason”. In this new domain, the problem raised by the Critique of Pure Reason changes in aspect. The moral law differs essentially from physical law, as conceived by theoretical reason. Physical law is irresistible and inexorable; the moral law does not compel, but bind; hence it implies freedom. Theoretical knowledge declares: Freedom, though impossible in the phenomenal world, is possible in the absolute order; it is conceived as a noumenon; it is intelligible and practical knowledge adds: it is certain. Hence there is no contradiction between faculty of knowledge and will. Our acts are determined, in free, in so far as the source whence they spring, outer intelligible character, is independent of these two forms of sensibility. The real god of Kant is freedom in the service of the ideal, or the good Will (der gute Wille).
Theoretical and practical reason, though not directly contradicting each other, are slightly at variance as to the most important question of ethics and religion, the former tending to conceive liberty, God, and the absolute as ideals having no demonstrable objective existence, the latter affirming the reality of the autonomous soul, responsibility, immortality and the supreme being. The authority of practical reason is superior to that of theoretical reason, and in real life the former predominates. Hence we should, in any case, act as if it were proved that we are free, that the soul is immortal, that there is supreme judge and rewarder.

Critique of Judgment
Aesthetics and teleology forms the subject matter of Critique of Judgment. In this book he bridges the chasm that exists between theoretical reason and the conscience.
The aesthetical and the teleological sense is an intermediate faculty between understanding and the will. Truth is the object of the understanding, nature and natural necessity its subject matter. The will strives for the good; it deals with freedom. The aesthetical and the teleological sense (or judgment in the narrow sense of term) is concerned with what lies between the true and the good, between nature and liberty.
1) Aesthetics: The aesthetical sense differs both from the understanding and the Will. It is neither theoretical nor practical in character; it is a phenomenon sui generic. But it has this in common with reason and will, that it rests on essential subjective basis. Just as the reason constitutes the true, and will the good, so the aesthetical sense makes the beautiful. What characterizes the beautiful and distinguishes it from the sublime is the feeling of peace, tranquility, or harmony which it arouses in us, in consequence of the perfect agreement between understanding and imagination.
2) Teleology: There are two kinds of purposivness. The one arouses in us, immediately and without the aid of any concept, a feeling of pleasure, satisfaction, and inner harmony: This is subjective finality, which constitutes the beautiful. The other also arouses pleasure, but mediately, in consequence of an experience or an intermediate process of reasoning: this is objective finality, which constitutes the beautiful. Thus, a flower be both the object of an aesthetical judgment in the artist, and of a teleological judgment in the naturalist, who has tested its value as a remedy. Only, the judgment which stamps it as beautiful is immediate and spontaneous, while that of the naturalist depends on previous experience. Teleology is nothing but a theory concerning phenomena. It is no more expresses the essence of things than mechanism.

Kantian Philosophy started a wave called 'German Idealism'. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding the Kantian system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism.

SPINOZA – The Absolute Philosopher

Background
Towards the end of 15th Century, around the time when Columbus was in pursuit of discovering India, Ferdinand the King of Spain, who financed Columbus Journey, started persecuting the Jews in his kingdom of central Europe, not for any religious acrimony but to grow his exchequer.

Jews who were wealthy merchants and traders then fled for their safety. From the many ports in Europe they boarded vessels in search of a peaceful refuge. In predominant Christian Europe and Islamic Africa they were not welcomed in most of the places. They were killed in Africa for the jewelries they were expected to have swallowed. Some settled in Venice but a majority of them took refuge in small but large hearted country of Holland. Espinoza, a Portuguese Jews family was one among them.

Jews prospered in Holland. They built there first Synagogue in 1598. Seventy five years later they built there second synagogue with the help of local Christians. The perennially persecuted Jews were indebted to the Christian inhabitants for giving them shelter when they were thrown out from Europe and not only that they got a peaceful and conducive environment in which they flourished in trade.

So when Jew Uriel A Costa wrote a treatise vigorously attacking the Concept of Afterlife, which was not very contrary to the Jews belief, the synagogue compelled him to retract publicly lest it hurts the religious sentiments of the Christians who till now have been very benevolent and tolerant towards the Jews. Uriel A Costa had to undergo the penance and the ritual required him to lay prostrate in front of threshold of synagogue and members of congregation would walk over him. After the ritual Uriel A Costa went home with a pride of a dead man. Agitated, he wrote denunciation of his persecutors and shot himself dead.

This was 1640. Brauch Espinoza (Spinoza), the brightest student of aforementioned Synagogue was then just 8 years old. This incident made a big impact in his life.The precocious boy, to whom the community was looking forward, then drowned himself in the study of Jewish philosophy and theology. Unsatiated he started learning Latin so that he could read Hellenic philosophy. But aside Latin he also got interested in the beautiful daughter of his master. He is not to be blamed because in youthfulness such dalliance are natural and more so when beauty was this ethereal. But the girl didn’t find our boy worthy enough in front of precious gifts bestowed on her by another suitor. She left Spinoza and the world should be indebted to her for her infidelity. This was the event which turned the Spinoza into a philosopher and arguably the most important philosopher of modern time.
Unrequited in love he found solace in Latin, which he mastered. He read Greek masters like Plato and Aristotle but consented more with Stoics, Democritus, Epicurus and the atomist. But he was influenced most by Descartes(of "'Cogito Ergo Sum' : I Think, therefore I am" fame) the father of subjective and idealist tradition in modern philosophy to whose concept of ‘Homogenous substance’ he concurred the most. Not only he concurred but he took it from where Desecrates left and propounded it further removing the duality of matter and mind saying that all being in this world arose from one homogenous, infinite, free 'Substance'.Reader must not take the word 'Substance' literally for we'll see later that it is much more profound, in fact the profoundest thing.
For his iconoclastic view, this once poster child of synagogue, was called by the Jews Clergy and asked to publicly agree with the normative Jews beliefs, at least externally for which he was offered an annuity of $500.
The difference between an ordinary man and an extraordinary man is that of an extra which he engenders. Ordinary man concurs to the views which are prevailing in the society but an extraordinary man creates his own which can be contrarian to popular views. Not only he creates but also he sticks to it despite all odds.Spinoza was an extraordinary man. He refused the offer.
Hence he was excommunicated not much because Clergy have started disliking him but more to appease the native Christians lest there religious sentiments are hurt. But Spinoza was no A Costa and he took excommunication with a great courage.
He shifted to Hague and subsisted for rest of his life by grinding lenses. On 20 Feb. 1677 he died leaving a great work unpublished the task of which he bestowed to his friend. His sublime work 'Ethics' was published after his death. ‘Ethics’ brought him his due greatness though posthumously. Lets us have a glimpse at what he taught.

Philosophy
Just as in Geometry where in conclusion follows from axiom which is taken as universal truth, in Spinoza’s system moral and physical facts which philosopher considers follows from their Definition. The three main elements of Spinoza’s system are Substance, Attribute and Mode.

Theory of Substance: Substance exists in itself and is conceived by itself. Substance is its own cause, otherwise it would have been produced by something else and in that cased it would not have been substance. Substance is infinite. If it was finite it would be limited by other substance and consequently depend on them and in that case it would not be a substance. There is only one substance. If there is more than one then they would limit each other and hence dependent on each other hence not a substance. Hence there is only one substance which depends on nothing and on which everything depends. Now substance should not be taken in literal term. Here we should avoid referring anything as substance which ceases to exist by itself. The term should signify the being which exist in itself and is conceived by itself and on which all other things are dependent and derived and if that makes it a God then lets accept that God alone is substance and substance is God. Since Substance is all by itself, infinite and alone its free. But its liberty is synonymous with necessity but not with constrain. To act necessarily means to determine one’s self, to act under constrain is to be determined, in spite of one’s self, by an external cause. It has neither intellect nor will. Had it had these it would have acted for an end in view but it doesn’t. It is the efficient cause of the things.

Theory of Attributes: Attribute means the essence of the substance. Substance (God) has infinite attributes each of which expresses distinctively the essence of it. Human intellect knows two attributes of substance: extension and the thought. Now attributes are not inherent to God. It is the way in which intellect can perceive god which can be in infinitely different ways (attributes) Spinoza holds that God has neither will nor intelligence yet he attributes thought to him and speaks of infinite intelligence. This is contradicting in nature. This opposition can be cleared if we understand that Spinoza’s God is not the creature of universe but universe it self. Now indeed there is reason and logic in universe but that has not come consciously by thinking of God but is inherent to universe and comes unconsciously. Just as a spider weaves it web without slightest notion of geometry and reason the Spinoza’s god is unconsciously intelligent.

Theory of Mode: Mode signifies the modification of the substance, i.e. that which exists in and is conceived by something other than itself. The modifications of extention are motion and rest and modification of thought are intellect and will. Thus movement, intellect and will are modes (modification) of substance or its attributes. Like substance and its infinite attributes modes are also infinite in nature. Each infinite mode consists of infinite series of finite mode e.g. motion is eternal but the corporeal form which it constitutes originates and decays. The human soul like all intellectual modes is modification of infinite thought. Similarly human body is modification of infinite extension. Since the intellectual or ideal order and the real or corporeal order are parallel, every soul corresponds to a body, and every body corresponds to an idea. The mind is therefore the conscious image of body. Sensation is a bodily phenomena; it is prerogative of human and animal bodies and result from the superior organization of their body. Similarly Perception is the mental phenomena. As a body is affected by sensation, mind creates and image or idea about this sensation.

Reverence
Late 20th century Europe demonstrated a greater philosophical interest in Spinoza, often from a left-wing or Marxist perspective. Gilles Deleuze’s, the French philosopher, doctoral thesis, published in 1968, refers to him as "the prince of philosophers”. He called Spinoza the Absolute philosopher for his philosophical accomplishments. George Eliot translated, for the first time, ‘Ethics’ in English. W. Somerset Maugham alluded to one of Spinoza's central concepts with the title of his novel, “Of Human Bondage”. Albert Einstein named Spinoza as the philosopher who exerted the most influence on his world view Spinoza equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, consistent with Einstein's belief in an impersonal deity. In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

Also Sparch Zarathustra

"Zarathustra and '2001: A space odyssey'"

'In search of Zarathustra' by Paul Kriwaczekia is aptly titled. The blurb of the book quotes Boston review:

"Vital… Remarkable…It is written with prescient elegance of a curious traveler and in the hope that ideas that once changed the world may do so again"

The review is true to each word. In this travelogue Kriwaczekia writes about places he went in search of Zarathustra. But the book is more a travelogue back in time than in physical space. Kriwaczekia picks up the a thread in present and spooling it traverses back in time finding Strauss, Kubrick, Nietzsche Bogomils , Catharses, The Sassanid , The Achemenids and finally at the other end the prophet Zarathustra.

In most recent times people who have made Zarathustra name familiar to common man are composer Richard Strauss and film director Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick's cult movie '2001: A space odyssey' features prominently Richard Strauss's tone poem 'Also Sparch Zarathustra'. The movie depicts the evolution of apes into human and human into superhuman. The theme of movie is that human beings are the midway between the evolution of apes and superman. This concept was first propounded by Nietzsche in his book 'Thus Sparch Zarathustra'. Kubrick, it seems, had taken inspiration from this book. Kriwaczekia gets his second link and he moves on to Nietzsche to know why he has chosen Zarathustra.

"Also Sparch Zarathustra"

Karl Ludwig, the Lutheran pastor of a little country town of Rocken bei Lutzen near Leipzig in eastern Germany, in the baptism ceremony of his son asked "what will become of this child? Will it be good or will it be evil". He was not prescient but was just getting rhetorical.

But ever since the young boy's life would deal with the issue of good and evil trying to fathom the two opposite end of moral spectrum. The child became Fredrick William Nietzsche.

'Also Sparch Zarathustra' ('Thus spake Zarathustra') is a masterpiece by Nietzsche. In this book which is written in a first person account has Zarathustra as the main character. But before discussing about the book we need to know why Nietzsche chose Zarathustra, an obscure prophet of antiquity. For this we need to traverse further back in time to look at Nietzsche earlier days that shaped his thoughts.

Nietzsche was born on 15 Oct, 1844 in deeply religious family. From the very beginning his life was marked with distress. His father died when he was only five years old. One year later his younger brother, Joseph, died. These deaths left a deep impact on Nietzsche's mind. He became reserved and melancholic. His family, of which he was the only male member, moved to a small town of Naumberg. For next eight years Nietzsche remained in Naumberg living with his two aunts, grandmother, mother and younger sister Elisabeth. These women, who wanted that he never misses his father, loved him a lot. It is this extreme affection that might have given Nietzsche the idea about women which he has written in his book "Old and Young Women"

'Let man fear woman when she loves,

Then she makes all sacrifices,

Everything else she regards as worthless.'

Despite all the affection he cocooned himself in solitude. Older he grew loner he became. He was unable to reconcile with the fact that such good and innocent people like his father and brother met such a cruel fate. In search of peace he resorted to religion. He took a deep interest in Christianity and studied Bible thoroughly. For others this was a natural act on his part for he was following what his family had been doing for generations, but no one could sense the storm within him.

But those were the time when world was going through intellectual turbulence. The two opposite ideas were at loggerhead. The churning gave rise to many philosopher and theologians. 'Enlightenment' that developed during 17^th and 18^th centuries was one of the ideas. Though on decline it was a massive force for it stood for rationality, reason, order, norm, restrain and progressiveness. The other idea, 'German Romanticism', was at its peak. Romanticism symbolized irrationality, mysticism, dissonance and excessiveness. The 'Enlightened' thinkers had painstakingly developed the framework for how world works but romanticist casted a doubt on the validity of all factual knowledge. Enlightenment stood for victory of mind over body whereas Romanticism emphasized a preeminence of body over mind.

Those were the time when society was divided into two extremes. The Apollonian spirit (after Greek Sun God Apollo who symbolizes balance and rationality) of measured and restrain in confrontation with Dionysian spirit (After Dionysus, God of nature, drunkenness and sensuality). Romanticist felt that everything wrong with this world is because of overemphasis of Apollonian spirit in contrast to Dionysian spirit.

Amid this dichotomy something happened that changed the course of cognition world over. Charles Darwin had published his 'Origin of Species'. This book not only took head on with book of Genesis but seemed to be over powering it. In a stroke, human being became descendent of apes and was no more the favorite creation of God. God didn't create Adam in a day. Over the centuries he evolved from apes. This book raised many questions.

Nietzsche tried to find these answers in theological text but got engulfed in more questions. He got confused. Disappointed, he took diametrically opposite stance. From an ardent Christian he became its most vociferous critic. He started opposing what he revered once. His quest for knowledge continued but his path had changed. In his quest, he got impressed by two philosophers, Schopenhauer and Wagner. According to Schopenhauer life does not have any meaning. He argued that it is better not to be born or at least die quickly. Mesmerized by these two philosophers, Nietzsche wrote 'Birth of tragedy'. This book brought him public attention.

After few years, Nietzsche became acutely ill. He was in the second stage of Syphilis. His proposal for marriage was turned down. His illness and solitude increased. His friend circle became narrower and narrower. Stateless, caustic and peripatetic he hopped between Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Naumberg.

This was also the time when west was discovering Oriental charms. Sir William Jones, the famous Indologist, had found out that most of the Europe's, Iran's and half of Indian languages have a common origin. This new found relation helped in deciphering many Iranian scriptures which were similar to Sanskrit and were undeciphered till then. Central to this was Zoroastrian text brought to Europe by Frenchman named 'Du Peron'. Zoroaster and his teaching became the talk of time and it was during this period that Nietzsche met 'Zoroaster'.

Zoroaster text shows a struggle between good and evil. 'Ahura Mazda', the God, stands for goodness and 'Ahirman', the evil spirit, stands for everything bad. Unlike other religions where God is supreme power, in Zoroastarism evil is equally powerful. According to Zoroaster this world is a battle ground for good and evil. Anything good done by human being is victory of God and anything bad is victory of evil. So it is the duty of every human being to act with propriety and to transcend himself of the worldly things and evolve himself into super being. And this is the central philosophy of Nietzsche. According to Nietzsche Zoroaster has been the first to see in the struggle between good and evil as the essential wheel in the working of things. He believed that Zarathustra was the first prophet who brought concept of morality. Nietzsche believed that Zoroaster was the source of profoundest error in the history of mankind by inventing morality and it is upto Zoroaster to undo his mistake.

In the summers of 1881 two thousand meters above good and evil in the mountain village of Sils-Maria amid the idyllic environment surrounded by snow covered alpine peaks Nietzsche had a revelation. Zarathustra passed him by. Hence begot the first few lines of 'Thus sparch zarthushtra'

'I sat there waiting – not for anything.

Beyond good and evil, enjoying now the light

now the shades, now only play, now

the lake, now the noon, wholly time without end.

Then suddenly, friend, one became two –

And Zarathustra passed me by.'

The spirit of Zarathustra had engulfed him. It was not that Nietzsche chose Zarathustra to convey his philosophy but as if it was Zarathustra who had manifested Nietzsche and was speaking through his words. Nietzsche wrote:

"one hears-one does not seek; one takes-one does not ask who gives; a thought suddenly flashes up like lightning, it comes with necessity, unhesitatingly – I have never had any choice in that matter."

Kriwaczekia succinctly summarizes Nietzsche new teaching in two paragraphs:

"God is dead.. Religious belief is a comforting but a debilitating self delusion. A Christian God can no longer express the highest ideals of western civilization. Belief in God is now a burden on the individual and on society. A system of ethics and morality founded on faith is no longer valid; the time has come for new set of values to take its place, beyond good and evil as religion has until now defended them.

Values are the creation of human being. One person's good is another's evil. None the less, we all are responsible for creating values of ourselves and for the living up to them. And the highest of all values is the duty to transcend ourselves, to struggle for the next step in our personal evolution: to leave behind the animal natured "blond beast: and strive for the "super human". Though most will never achieve it, this self overcoming, this "will to power", is the proper task of all human beings. Anything that supports this goal is good and anything that undermines it is evil:

What is good? Everything that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? Everything that is born of weakness"