Dr. John Mohan Razu
Professor of Social Ethics
Philosophy is related to all aspects of life and vice versa. This is why we come across people asking and thus saying it’s my philosophy of life. We also tend to come across our life struggles by ways of songs, stories, fictions, poems, literature, and in other forms. In India, the academia in recent times seem to have junked philosophy. Since demand for philosophy seem to be marginal, the custodians of education do not see philosophy generating money and also no-takers.
The appetite for exploring knowledge and discovering unknown terrains and treasures of mystery hidden in the universe resulted to move towards different scientific genres. Each and every branch of science and humanities manifests ceaseless painstaking pursuit of wisdom. Great men and women find their bliss and mental satisfaction by indulging in deep-thinking and reasoning. Nonetheless, philosophy per se is a study of the common and fundamental problems that concerns the reality of life, human existence, knowledge, values, rationality, governance, ideologies, and linguistics.
Undoubtedly philosophy has an edge over all other sciences because of its inclusivity, creative and critical and well-arranged way of presenting arguments that makes people to critically think, reflect and act. At the same time questions that surface constitutes ‘good life’ in totality, how decisions ought to be made—morally-bound and ethically-grounded? Do the technologies and its subsidiaries are created and innovated with the object of making life better or misery for humans? In politics, for governance, we go to Plato’s Republic, and Edmund Burke, for economics, we turn to Utilitarian namely Bentham, Mill, and Locke, for education and its values; we refer John Dewey, Paulo Freire, and Jiddu Krishnamurti and others as John Rawls and Emmanuel Kant.
“Mind” and “consciousness” have occupied the center stage as concepts and categories within the academia and amongst the social and political activists. In recent times “mind” and “consciousness” have assumed significant importance not only in the areas of social, philosophical, psychological, neuro, and cybernetics, but also in theology and ethics. However, as regards to defining “mind” and “consciousness” we seldom come across consensus or unanimity on these two. There have been diverging responses, views and perceptions on the notions of “mind” and “consciousness”.
Obviously, mind cannot be an object of its own nor can it? Unless and until we come to point of understanding the chemical and electrical processes in the brain completely then there is a possibility of explaining or defining mind with some levels of clarity. Likewise, consciousness is a fascinating phenomenon but elusive. Therefore, it is not possible to precisely specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Unless and until we understand the chemical and electrical processes in the brain completely, we would not be in a position to explain mind comprehensively.
Amidst a maze of definitions, I would like pick up a few definitions which I think seem to be more comprehensive and apt. Mind is “That which is possessed by a creature who has the ability to think, feel, and will, to be aware of its environment and, in highly developed minds, to be aware of itself.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines mind as “The collective conscious and unconscious processes … that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.”
These two definitions specifically inform us that brain, nerve and sensory processes continue to function in fabulous ways, but what is that element or that process that drives mind into faculties involves a great deal of investigation. However, we should be cautious not to be influenced by reductionist tendencies reducing the whole process into sheer abstraction, but in reality, there are no clear boundaries between them.
Functioning of brain and nervous system along with other organism or parts have their autonomous status but highly connected with each other. Explanation of these processes is more complex because the way in which these parts and processes are webbed and functions and in that where does mind fit-in itself are very vast areas to ponder. In such a complex scenario whether science is capable of offering adequate explanation to a phenomenon called mind in a systematic and satisfying way? At the same those who belong to this view say that there is no such thing as mind but only behaviorism.
This view has been critiqued on two grounds. First, in the case of the phenomenon of introspection, people seem to be aware of their mental activities and operations which cannot be reduced to external observable behavior. Second, mind cannot be seen by behaviorists as a cause of behavior. On the other the materialist notion of mind is probably too limited for a general philosophical discourse. A purely materialistic understanding of mind seems to evade topics that involve metaphysical, ontological and phenomenological accounts of mind.
Pure materialist scholars, scientists and philosophers contend that as the brain is material and thus contains our mind and therefore functions too. When it disappears the entity that used it equally disappears. The view seems to be quite logical and convincing. For them, the mind is nothing but of physical origin and also a created part of brain functions of intellect, memory, imagination and intuition. This is what the materialists see and works with the transitory brain functions. When the body is disposed of life, the brain automatically dies.
To the pure materialist or a potential agonist or an atheistic mind this is how they see everything which includes mind too. If we look at the varied perceptions and understanding of mind that runs through many centuries shows the brevity and lucidity of different minds trying to grapple with mind. Let me make a brief survey of some of them. The starting point with which they depart is that the philosophy of mind is that branch of philosophy that deals with mind and consciousness. It falls outside the four classical branches: 1. metaphysics, 2. epistemology, 3. ethics and 4. Aesthetics, but primarily relates to the first two.
Plato and Aristotle began with reason and then in the 17th century with Descartes and Hobbes. Then in the 18th century Hegel and Darwin pushed the whole discourse to entirely new breaking grounds taking it to cybernetics and neurosciences. Plato revolved around the history of epistemology and thus divided the human minds into three parts: the rational, the will and the appetites. But Augustine gave a new twist by putting forth human mind could only recognize truths such as mathematical truth because it is illustrated by the light of eternal reason. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) understanding of mind is more a mechanistic picture combining chemistry and biology thereby reducing it to mechanics.
For him, if chemical and biological processes work in a drill-down fashion, there would be mechanics as a result and therefore the principle characteristic of human mind is motion. Whereas for Spinoza (1650) human being is a finite person of God and so human mind is a miniature of the universal mind. Mind has a metaphysical reality beyond the so-called self-determined. On the contrary, David Hume (1750) states that all the content of mind is solely built from sense experiences.
