Materialism and short-sighted hedonism must be tackled before it is too late. Simultaneously, religious extremism and a tendency to drift away from each other in the name of preserving one's unique nature also have to be addressed. India's first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, emphasised the need for having a scientific temper and material progress. At the same, he understood that life has a variety of dimensions, which is why a one-size-fits-all approach is likely to be insufficient. The Discovery of India, his most famous work, shows his love for the ancient as well as the modern.

"She was like some ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed , and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously."

—Pandit Nehru's description of India in 'The Discovery of India'

Unfettered selfishness is undoubtedly a recipe for disaster. As someone from India (a society which is fairly collectivistic even now), I hope that we will find the apposite balance.

Yes, Buddhists do delve into the nature of desires. Whilst they mention the negatives, they also believe that we can transcend our problems (nirodha). Although perfect satisfaction may not be possible (in this existence), we can nevertheless continue trying to limit unnecessary needs (something that can be influenced by a shift in one's perspective). To the extent we do have them, it can be worthwhile to choose a path to happiness that isn't surface-level and that aids most people.

The pleasure is all mine. :pray:

I would imagine that such a perfect state would simply not involve the desire for novel experiences, or it would somehow be fulfilled without significant effort (perhaps like a simulation). However, in this existence, new journeys will continue to await us.

As a Hindu, I would not outrightly reject such an idea (though I don't think that it would be necessary if Mahatma Gandhi's version of Hinduism prevailed). At the same time, there are many factors that influence the formation of nations. Culture and religion can have a link that is deeper than what meets the eye. One cannot know what could have taken the place of existing structures if they never existed. In India, it's difficult to know if religion is the means or the end. People have no objection to embracing someone as long as they are willing to support their ideology. Mr Savarkar believed that cows (and other animals) only deserved to be treated well for the value they had for humans, but he is seen as a hero by some Hindus, even though it was Mahatma Gandhi who believed in ethical vegetarianism (The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism).

Pt. Nehru's The Discovery of India does a decent job in trying to boost the confidence, I think.

I thought that this new username represented my philosophical inclinations in a more apposite way. @Wayfarer was kind enough to help me change my username

Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru was unafraid to voice his opinions when it came to superstition and religious extremism. He writes about the "horror" that organised religion arose within him in his autobiography. He also frequently emphasised the necessity of having a "scientific temper" (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/society/nehru-did-not-set-the-natural-experimental-and-exact-sciences-in-opposition-to-human-sciences/article37988383.ece/amp/). The person who keeps going on despite facing multiple assassination attempts (https://theprint.in/opinion/the-many-plots-to-kill-jawaharlal-nehru-from-1948-to-1955/170035/?amp) is unlikely to not present themselves as they honestly were. I believe that Pt. Nehru genuinely loved the culture of his nation and the pantheism of Advaita Vedanta. The analogy of the palimpsest demonstrates the former and the latter gave him a spiritual/transcendent vision that did not have to involve a personal God (as Advaita's "God" is essentially impersonal, beyond any qualities, and identical to the individual). He also used to give addresses to the Hindu pluralistic organisation Ramakrishna Mission (https://swarajyamag.com/culture/it-would-do-a-great-deal-of-good-to-the-present-generation-if-they-went-through-swami-vivekanandas-writings-and-speeches) without really publicising what he was doing (which we would have expected from an insecure man). I believe that Pandit Nehru ended up suppressing many of his religious/spiritual views as he did not want to encourage religious extremism in any manner. It is due to this that most people thought (and still do) that he was an atheist. Many don't have any idea about his sympathetic position towards the non-dualistic Advaita or his relationship with the Ramakrishna Mission.

India has had non-theistic schools of thought like Charvaka and most forms of Buddhism (many Buddhists). The increasing popularity of the atheistic Mr Savarakar appears to show that having a belief in God is not the most important thing for numerous Indians

Those who belong to the concerned organisations would, predictably, deny that their ideas were influenced by the views that emerged in 20th-century Europe. There are those who argue that such claims as a consequence of a "colonised" mindset and that India needs to think about "decoloniality" (which means criticising principles that are a part of India's constitution, such as secularism). The person who popularised Hindutva, Mr Savarkar, was actually an atheist. He was primarily concerned with the relationship Hindus have—and should have —to the political and cultural realms. Pt. Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi were both against Hindutva (despite being Hindus themselves).

Thank for sharing your insightful comments on those articles. The first one ('India Against Gandhi—A Legacy Rewritten' by Ramchandra Guha) is also quite fascinating. If you have any difficulties accessing it, please do let me know.

diluted as much as possible — universeness

This is where the threat lies.

We can only do our best. The rest lies in the lap of the future.

As the number of sources of influence increase, complexity does arise. At the same time, the fragments, even if they break and are consequently difficult to see, can continue to linger.

Unpredictability has its own charm (mainly when it entails unforeseen positives that one had not/could not have asked for).

I would say it could probably be seen as a reasonable interpretation.

:victory: (This conveys your triumph, not mine)

The fact that you begun and already have a name is a leap over me and many others. I am sure you will get there someday. Quality matters over unnecessarily restrictive deadlines.

That alone is enough to make my day. Honestly, I never many t-shirts as some of my relatives are biased against them. Now, I have a good reason to show them that my interests are not idiosyncratic. Thank you for being there.

So true. Infinity is bewitching. Still, if you can ever find the time to have a merely cursory look, I shall await your opinions.

Or, you may end up as a practically infinite source of hope, love, peace, unity, and joy when the night comes. If I am (and many others) are here today, much of the credit goes to such people. At a smaller level, similar goods can be done. I believe that opportunity of being able to play even a minuscule role in making someone's life better, it can be good enough. Once one is dead, reputations don't affect them. But people tend to either entirely forget or unnecessarily demean those who did not even do anything particularly evil. If the alternative to permanent amnesia is a marginally or, possibly, significantly better impression, it would be adequate for me. At the end of the day, however, I only wish to see a happier world (and this product has had and will have countless workers behind it). Whether or not I am remembered or praised for doing anything is immaterial.

In case the first article asks for subscribing, I would suggest that it is opened through Google. Searching using the following words should be sufficiently efficacious:

"India against Gandhi — a legacy rewritten"

I know that this is somewhat off-topic, but I wanted to ask if you have read Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's The Discovery of India. This book covers the breadth and depth of Indian history in quite a comprehensive manner (which is particularly impressive considering the fact that Pt. Nehru was imprisoned for a long time by the British government). India's current government recently removed the name of Prime Minister Nehru from his own memorial and converted it into a memorial for all leaders. The official position is pointing towards lofty ideals of democff 5⁵55f5racy, but the present regime does appear to have an aversion to Pt. Nehru (who was quite close to Mahatma Gandhi).

You may also be interested in the following articles:

1. https://www.ft.com/content/a0b17ed9-092d-4e83-90fe-2a6cea952518

2. https://indianexpress.com/article/education/references-to-gujarat-riots-purged-from-social-science-books-for-ncert-classes-6-12-8538768/

Alternative if the article doesn't load: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ncert-textbooks-mahatma-gandhi-godhra-riots-removed-2356040-2023-04-05

3. https://m.thewire.in/article/history/why-rss-cannot-help-hating-jawaharlal-nehru-and-his-connection-with-the-people-of-india

I would highly appreciated your thoughts on these writings. The book, obviously, will take some time. However, I do hope that you (or anyone else who sees this comment and finds their curiosity being piqued by it) will be able to send your views on the articles.

I would say that moral responsibility (as opposed to one that may have a legal dimension) transcends existence (though this would obviously lead to neither punishment nor reward for the person) as one does have access to at least some knowledge and the consequences are always there. But I am sceptical of attempts to judge others from the eyes of the present as if those who came before us were omniscient and that we have reached the apex of ethical progress. I do agree that there is an inexpressible beauty in not losing the trees for the forest.

Influences can be big and diminutive. Although one's misunderstanding of human nature could indirectly influence someone and worsen their immoral tendencies (or give them a justification), I, too, don't hold Marx directly responsible for what Stalin did. Given the turbulent and troublesome environment he grew up in, his desire to help others (often at a great personal cost to himself) cannot be forgotten.

I am thankful for your gracious support. My own view on utopia (assuming it can ever be achieved, of course) is that it would have to necessarily avoid the kind of pitfall that you mentioned. Without resolving the problem of needing to solve problems, something would remain amiss. In our day-to-day lives, after a certain point, most of us do appear to require novel experiences that constitute an enduring chain of days of value. To that end, I have nothing other than admiration for the project of hope that people like you unfailingly fund with your actions.

Sometimes, effulgence is enhanced by a sojourn in a Stygian cavern.

I understand. I was only trying to stress that ideas such as a legacy and a potent positive impact can be meaningful. The negatives may not have ceased, but we could have been in a much worse place if certain people had not acted in a particular way.

Yes, and the key word there is "necessarily". They could be better (and we often tend to think so), but the opposite is not out the question either. I do think that we can reasonably conclude that one outcome was better than another. For example, having studied India's past and its continual conquests as a result of internal conflicts, I find it improbable that further fragmentation (after the loss of countless innocent lives) would have been good for humanity as a whole.

It will see definitely continue, and the extent to which we are hampered will always be altered by factors that are both within and outside our control.

The possibility of improvement does not nullify the good that does exist as a consequence of past actions. Personally, I don't think that the brutal end of the lives of people is unlikely to lead to a positive outcome. Survival, at such a cost, is hardly worth it (if a better alternative is available). Counterfactuals are always interesting, but they are not necessarily more desirable. The consequence of a war would have probably ended the dream of Indian unity and cemented a future of divisions and conflicts that would have continued to affect us for decades if not centuries. The world keeps moving on (and not irreversibly moving back) because there are always good people doing the right thing. The degree is bound to vary, but the fact of its existence is difficult to deny.

Also, I don't think that perfection (like stopping wars altogether) is necessary for something to be enormously valuable. Just as the German dictator did not have to end the majority of societies in order to be seen as a source of unimaginable horror, people don't have to eliminate our issues completely for their work and life to be worth appreciating. If even one life is saved/made better as a result of our actions, I think that the present (which is another name for what would become history) has been changed.

As far as legacy is concerned, I agree that the benefit at a personal level in a materialistic framework would not go beyond the grave. Nevertheless, for those who care about the well-being of those who exist and will exist, being able to make a difference can bring them a non-trivial kind of joy. This, in and of itself, can be enough of a reason to act. We cannot know everything, but the chance for a rewarding result should not be casually discarded.

:up:

"GSOH"

I was, sadly, unaware of this crucial philosophical concept. Happily, I know about this now. Application might be shoddy, but knowledge always has value.

Without Mahatma Gandhi, India would have most probably faced a civil war when the partition occurred that would have set in India back for decades. His life and works influenced Muslim leaders like Maulana Azad who helped temper the impact of hatred and violence. Even today, when there are those who wish to adopt a rather parochial outlook with respect to Hinduism, Mahatma Gandhi's pluralism stands as a rock that possesses great countervailing force.

Having said that, I don't think that there is some sort of obligation to do something monumental if one doesn't wish to. In my discussions with Schopenhauer1, I have routinely emphasised my belief that non-existence cannot be good or bad for anyone, which also means that what happens once we are gone is also not going to directly affect us. Concurrent with that view, however, is the truth that I am inclined to think that, if there are those whom we deeply care about, it could give us meaningful satisfaction to do whatever we can to help make the world a nicer place for them. Undoubtedly, we cannot be certain that we will do everything we wish to or have to, but it may be preferable to no good being created. The wheel doesn't merely flatten; it is also capable of carrying. I hope that you will have a pleasant week ahead.

Thank you for sharing this. I am sure it will be a wellspring of intellectually-stimulating ideas for many.

"Non-existent, verily, this (world) was in the beginning. From that verily was born existence. It made itself as the Self (of the existence). Therefore it is called a virtuous act. Verily, that which is well made is the delight of existence; for truly on obtaining the delight of existence one becomes blissful."

—Taittiriya Upanishad, 2.7.1.

:pray:

:up:

The intensity of some risks is undeniable, which is why they would not be classified as "unnecessary" risks. My point was we should not intentionally seek them if we don't have to.

In addition, great risks also can also give us great opportunities. If the risk involves a fundamental perversion of a religion or democracy, then the opportunity entails their redemption. People should definitely not avert their gaze if something invaluable is being taken away.

Yes, I completely agree. This is why I wrote about the danger of "stagnation".

I think that "no pain, no gain" is indeed cautious as long as we don't focus too much on the gain part and don't assume that it would always be there.

I would consider myself risk-averse when it comes to unnecessary risks (ones that are created out of a temporary but strong desire). However, I would not wish to single-mindedly obsessed over the risks and ignore the opportunities that lie before us.

Maybe we could draw a line. But then again, balance as a concept is only required in a diverse reality like ours.

This part of my previous reply to you is essentially an expression of agreement with your position:

"Howebeit, I do understand that there can be a threat stagnation, so we should always continue to explore new ideas. I would simply argue that adoption should not be done without consultations and too hastily."

You are undoubtedly right that we should not cease moving forward altogether. My view would be that we should not do so at a breakneck speed so that we could spot potentially better roads.

I don't think that pain is always crucial for gaining something good (as that seems to make the positives depend upon the negatives). Still, I do believe that, once we have lost something valuable, we can overcome our difficulties and achieve an adequate degree of happiness. It's surely better to do so rather than being deprived of even more good aspects of existence as a consequence of inaction and trepidation.

In the context of this discussion, I was referring to (1). But I wouldn't even propose that we ought to focus on "spiritual" values. I think that being able to not neglect our relationships and our place in nature could do wonders for our collective well-being. At the same time, I wouldn't become a primitivist and suggest that all technology and materialism is inherently bad.

It's a complex idea (because the world is not a one-dimensional place) and much depends upon our intuitions. I don't necessarily deny the existence of good and evil, but I do think that the boundaries are more nebulous than we may believe. For example, it may not always be clear when we transition from a benevolent desire to ensure equality to a seemingly unending tyranny. At a more individual level, it does appear to be advantageous to the welfare of a family if a healthy balance between discipline (which doesn't turn into oppression) and freedom (which doesn't morph into utter chaos) is maintained. It is, of course, harder to know where exactly we have to stop, which is why constant evaluation and dialogue can be useful.

I think that, unfortunately, people do tend to get "bored" with certain good elements of life without appreciating their value. Here in India, it has become almost a fashion for people to incessantly attack people like Mahatma Gandhi and Pandit Nehru without recognising the fact that they were dealing with a situation that necessitated a holistic outlook. Howebeit, I do understand that there can be a threat stagnation, so we should always continue to explore new ideas. I would simply argue that adoption should not be done without consultations and too hastily. In the end, I remain optimistic that people will do the right thing. If we have managed to reach a point where people from all over the globe can jointly form a community around life's most profound questions, where smallpox is no longer a reality, where millions have been lifted out of poverty instead of being lost to a Malthusian pit of doom, I think that we possess good reasons to be careful but not unreservedly pessimistic.

Thank you for your reply. By "balance", I only meant that we should, generally, be cautious when it comes to accepting absolute views (like life is always good or always bad). Mahatma Gandhi (who was a Hindu) was able to unify a large number of people (not everyone, of course) because he was always willing to see things from the perspectives of others and did not believe that his own views were the sole path to the truth. His belief in Advaita Vedanta (which is non-dualistic and can support more than one interpretation of ultimate reality) did influence him tremendously.

In my own life, I have seen the pitfalls of leaning too much towards abstract ideas or going uncomfortably close to materialism. Therefore, I try my best not to be pigeonholed. This doesn't mean that I never adopt a definite stance; it merely makes it true that I, usually, do not go extremely near any pole.

I hope that you will have a wonderful day/night.

To complement your point on pessimism (if I may be allowed to do so), the dawning of the realisation that problems are not our inevitable default state as the worthwhile parts of our lives are not so frail that they cannot ultimately triumph over our afflictions could also help. What may initially seem inappreciable could assume a power of mythical proportions once we begin to restrict unnecessary desires and a proclivity for fixating on the negatives. I would not say that this would work for everyone, but I believe that it would be wrong-headed to depreciate the positives.

I would consider it, but my primary focus would be on removing the cause of suffering before it can affect someone. If that can't be done and the harms would outweigh the good, one would still have to ask if a world with greater suffering (and comparatively less good) would be better. Once again, I don't think that a state that does not cause any meaningful benefit/loss to someone can be good or bad, but I am willing to accept this could be true for the sake of the discussion. If it would be good to not create someone who could suffer, then it would also be bad to not do so despite knowing that they could experience happiness.

Because if impositions (which cause harm) matter, then so do actions that bestow beneficial positives upon someone (which cannot be asked for before existing). Some decisions that were made for us when we were unable to make them ourselves can be good (and this would apply if the concept of consent can be relevant despite the fact that no existing interests of a person are ignored when they are created). A limitless focus on the negative does not seem like a good idea to me.

You do raise a very relevant point about the role of one's psychological state in influencing their views on fundamental topics, such as the value of life.

Conceivably, one could not discover a treasure trove in their life and still think that, overall, the positives do outweigh the negatives. The opposite could be true as well, bur I acknowledge that these scenarios forming the greater percentage of people is a doubtful proposition.

My view may be unorthodox, but I do not believe that unfading bliss would be inherently bad as long as it did not cause more harm than good in the long term. I do, however, recognise that life is permeated with various dimensions.

I am grateful for your contribution. It would be remiss of us to turn a blind eye to the emotions underlying our arguments. It's just that discussions revolving around ideas like AN entail a substantial amount of accusations concerning one's psychological state, so it gradually becomes a habit to avoid touching upon anything except the arguments. Nevertheless, they are an indispensable part of our reality. Thank you for the reminder. I hope that your day will go well.

Oh, I understand. I apologise for causing any unnecessary confusion.

I agree that we cannot entirely divorce our passions from our philosophical positions. What we learn is inescapably going to traverse the multifarious territory of the experiences of sentient beings. It is unlikely that all biases will evaporate, but we can perhaps attain a reasonably good understanding by not letting extremes (optimistic, pessimistic, or of any other kind) guide us to possible oblivion.

I wouldn't say that all those who hold this view are depressed. Additionally, even if this was true, it would not mean that their ideas are without merit.

I wouldn't say that my life has been particularly pleasant. A chunk of it was spent in a room as a consequence of a myriad of health-related issues. I have had an isolated life (I don't blame anyone for it), and I am not overly optimistic about my future. Nonetheless, I don't think that I would ever be able to rationally affirm the idea that there are incredibly delightful features of life that will always matter (whether or not I experience them).

And you can't predict that the future would be filled with overwhelming harms. It isn't for you to determine that the powerful positive experiences that monks, people who recognise the strength of love, and and many others have is entirely insignificant. One tragedy, like being taken away from one's loved ones, can still be a cause of a great good, such as being able to possess a genuine sense of gratitude for what one has and the willingness to bring joy to the lives of others. My view is that there is no absolute need to create people (or to never do so). Non-existent beings don't benefit or lose anything she they do not exist. At the same time, if the absence of suffering is good, then the claim that the absence of happiness isn't bad is, I think, untenable.

Procreation must not be done impetuously. I believe that I and many others have pointed out the fundamental flaws with your unrestricted pessimism and universal anti-natalism multiple times. The valuable aspects of life will always matter immensely, which is why any view that seeks to end life in the name of compassion/ethical behaviour will always be, most probably, wrong. Still, I continue to admire your intentions and your desire to help make the world a better place. The true beauty of its fulfilment will lie in a world that could actually witness the wondrous existence of this good. I hope that you will have a beautiful weekend.

Not if there aren't any negatives that don't have a detrimental impact one's well-being. And the problems can be solved to a degree that allows one to appreciate the potent joys of life.

Hinduism is definitely diverse and so are the views on karma (which range from ignorance to an intentional separation from God). Not having unnecessary attachments and desires is doubtlessly good for existing beings who are capable of experiencing positive experiences (which is why Mokhsa does not mean the elimination of being itself).

It is true that dharma (and most things in life) should not be seen in isolation. Right conduct is only a part of the bigger picture that also includes one's own well-being (kama) and even material resources (artha). Of course, dharma and moksha occupy a higher position.

The "problem" of existence, for a Hindu, does not have a specific beginning. A cyclical perspective is preferred, and each person's path is going to be unique. While the state of perfect existence (not existence) would certainly have been better than our flawed reality, Hindus (and Buddhists) would say that, now that the material world does exist, simply not creating people will not do anything as people will simply be created in another form (even if this takes some time). But having a human birth does give people their best chance to begin the journey towards Moksha in earnest.

Those who have already reached moksha will not suffer again. Instead, new souls will continue to be provided with the opportunity to gain liberation. Everything isn't about problems; some facets of life are also about what lies beyond them. Unlimited pessimism is an incomplete worldview.

The world would be a nicer place if we understood that having unrealistic expectations only makes us more miserable. I agree that it would be unethical to expect that everyone should adopt an optimistic perspective, but it would be equally problematic to suggest that it isn't just one's own existence (or the lives of some people) that may be mostly bad, but this is true for the majority/everyone. The existence of the negatives does not nullify the value of the good elements of life.

Deontological solution: Assuming that procreation can even cause any kind of harm (even though it doesn't go against anybody's existing interests and does not diminish their well-being), it would not be ethical to deliberately not give positives that one cannot demand before they exist. This is, of course, also depends upon other factors, such as one's economic conditions and other moral obligations.

Identity solution: Potential/counterfactual people don't receive any palpable benefits. Nobody is twirling in delight in nothingness. And if these are somehow apposite considerations, then the prevention of the lives of beings who could have experienced love, aesthetic value, and knowledge is nothing other than shockingly bad.

If nobody is deprived, there isn't anyone who is saved either. You give privileges to pessimism that cannot be justified.

There's a veritable mountain of experiences that cannot be hastily forgotten, friend.