In ancient India the materialist sect was represented by the Charvakas.
The sect is very old and was prevalent during the time of the historical
Buddha, 563 BCE. It is really no philosophy having died out sometime
shortly after the Buddha's passing. However, there are rank materialists
and there are refined materiasts, the latter represented by Vatsyana the
author of the Kama Sutra.
The Charvakas rejected the idealism of the Upanishads. They accepted
only four means of valid knowledge: earth, air, fire and water and that
from these three we could understand the world and all of its events.
They did not accept inference as a valid means of knowledge. Brhaspati
is the reputed founder of this sect. His Sutra is now lost but according
to Sharma, we have no reason to doubt that it once existed.
In a nutshell, the name Charvaka signifies a person that believes in
"eat, drink and be merry", or a person whose doctrine is superficially
attractive. I must admit that when I first read about this sect, it
seemed to make a lot of sense because it seemed so dirt simple. Later,
after having read and contemplated real Indian philosophers I came to
realize the superficiality of the metaphysics of materialism.
The materialistic sect of Brhaspati taught that perception is the only
authority; the elements are the only means of epistemology or valid
knowledge. Enjoyment is the only end of human existence; mind is only a
product of matter. There is no other world; death means a simple
liberation. Earth, air, fire, and water are the elements. Consciousness
arises from matter and is the result of a combination of matter; the
soul is nothing but the conscious body.
There is no heaven, no liberation, nor an individual soul-monad - nor do
the actions of any rituals produce any real effect. If food given to the
gods are enjoyable,then why not give it to the poor down below? How can
a man burned to ashes return here to live again? The three authors of
the Vedas were buffoons, knaves, and liars.
So, perception is the only means of valid knowledge for the Charvaka.
Inference is just a leap in the dark; going from the known into the
unknown, though sometimes inference is accidentally true. So, inference
is rejected and verbal testimony too and even induction and deduction is
considered by them to be argument in a circle.
This sect and the doctrine of materialism has been reject by all systems
of Indian Philosophy and criticized in numerous writings. The view that
rejects inference is itself a product of inference. Thoughts and ideas,
not being material objects, cannot be perceived; they can only be
inferred. So, the Charvaka materialist is self-refuted and really no
system of philosophy or metaphysics at all. Perception itself is often
proved to be false and untrue.
If consciousness means self-consciousness it means they are humans and
cannot be identified with the body. Animals also have bodies, but not
rational consciousness. If consciousness is an essential part of the
body it should be inseparable from the body, but it is not - it dies,
faints or is otherwise is in a dream state, etc. The knower cannot be
reduced to only a body because all objects presuppose the existent of
the knowing subject. The cause of consciousness cannot be a material
object - if consciousness is a property of the body it should be able to
be perceived like other material objects.
Transcendentalists accept sense-perception and inference as a valid
means of knowledge, as well as verbal testimony and the scriptures.
Work cited:
/'A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy'/
by Chandrahar Sharma, M.A., D. Phil., D. Litt., LL.B.,
Shastri, Dept. of Phil., Benares Hindu U.
Rider, 1960
pp. 40-44
>
Most people are realists, that is, they get their knowledge from using
common sense or logic. Almost everyone get knowledge through our eyes
and sometimes our ears. Other forms of valid knowledge we get through
the verbal testimony of others, inference, and through the scriptures,
that is, /anything that is recorded by any means, graphic or textual./
But, are these forms of knowledge the only valid means of obtaining
knowledge? /Epistemology/ is the investigation of what distinguishes
justified belief from opinion.
So, let's review the valid means of knowledge:
* Sense experience
* Verbal testimony
* Inference
* Scriptures
We transcendentalists postulate that Consciousness is the ultimate
reality - without it people would not be conscious - there would be no
perception. This is a dirt simple fact of life requiring no further
proof. No rational person would claim that they don't exist, unless
they were insane or demented - it's just not rational. We are
conscious of ourselves enough to know that we exist and are
self-conscious.
So, we are agreed that the physical world contains numerous
contradictions. Everyone experiences the world mostly with their
senses: mainly our eyes and our ears; sometimes taste and smell. We
observe the world over time and take note with our senses: we see a
flower; watch an event; hear a sound or a voice and from our sense
impressions we deduce and analyze. But, sometimes the sense do NOT
perceive the world exactly as it is. When sense perceptions do not
agree, or are contradictory and conflicting, which sense should we
accept as true?
If appearances derived through one sensory channel appear
contradictory, it is natural to appeal to other senses for
corroboration. We hear the distant carpenter's hammer strike once
after we see it stop striking. We see lightning flashes now, but hear
thunder later. The steam of a distant whistle stops while the sound
continues. How do we decide between conflicting senses?
What are thoughts? Are thoughts physical objects that we can see with
our eyes or hear with our ears?" /Or, are thoughts transcendental
sources of valid knowledge? /
>
In a previous post, (Naive Realism) this fellow proposed that:
/"Meditators are transcendentalists, whereas naive realists are
materialists." /
That report was a reflective account of an un-reflective view. For,
strictly speaking, the moment a naive realist reflects upon his view
he is no longer completely naive. According to my professor, A.J.
Bahm, the naive realist is something of a strawman set up by
epistemologists to represent us in our un-reflective moments. This
straw man may not be quite like any of us, or you, because most of us
have reflected somewhat on the transcendental view as opposed to the
materialistic view. Yet, we can recognize that it represents a view
we transcendentalists hold much of the time.
In order to remind the good reader of all the salient points covered
in that cogent post by this fellow, it would be perhaps beneficial to
review here, to wit, those salient points:
There are six statements which summarize the doctrine of a
Transcendentalist:
1. Objects do NOT exist independently of their being known. They
cannot endure or continue to exist without being experienced by
anyone. Knowing objects creates them.
2. Objects derive their existence or nature from the knower.
3. Objects, including their qualities, are affected merely by being
known. Knowledge of objects changes their nature.
4. Objects are not as they are and are not as they seem. Or, as we
sometimes say, appearances are not realities. What seems
obviously so is sometimes not so.
5. Objects are not known directly; that is, there is something
between them and our knowledge of them. We do not experience them
exactly as they are because they are distorted by the intervening
senses.
6. Objects are not public; that is, they can not be known by more
than one person. exactly alike. Several people can see the same
object and see it differently.
Are we agreed so far?
