An excerpt from Sri Pamulaparthi Sadasiva Rao's Gyana Siddhantham
This is a humble attempt to transliterate an excerpt from the Gyana Siddhantam, a treatise on The Theory of Knowledge, my grandfather Sri Pamulaparthi Sadasiva Rao had written (published by Visalandhra Publications). The Gyana Siddhantam was in turn a translation of Francis M. Cornford's "Plato's Theory of Knowledge: The Theaetetus and The Sophist". I must admit that the following translation is not to compare the literary and philosophical scholarship of either Mr. Cornford or my grandfather but a devout dedication to my beloved grandfather.
The principle (theory) of knowledge (Epistemology) should describe the transformation of human thought (intellect). It becomes obvious to scrutinize the human thought process through ages, the fundamental basis of these thoughts and the process of relating (reflecting) these thoughts onto the actual facts. Tatva Philosophy is the specialized branch of epistemology that deals with the thoughts, contemplations and the definition or determination of these phenomenon. However, often it is observed in philosophic discussions a question "Whether this thought (theory) is greater than the other thought (theory)?" and the subsequent arguments. This is inevitable, because the individuals (who author the certain thoughts/theories) are almost always associated as "thinking-machines" (think-tanks) similar to the context of defining the objects in the physical world. Evidently, merely considering "thoughts" as objects and the above mentioned point of view does not solve the problem of discerning the evolution of thought process.
Moreover, for the same reason, artificial and baseless inquiries like "Is the pen mightier or the sword?" or "Does the seed come first or the tree?" have come into existence. The practical use or applicability of these kind of inquiries is an absolute nought. Despite this fact, innocent inquiries like these fill up most of the papers and publications today. With no involvement of the actual material objects like the pen or the sword, to compare them whimsically or without any implication of the materially existing seeds and trees, to investigate which came first, is not the way to approach the problems. On the contrary it is nothing different from "day-dreaming."
In the similar fashion, in philosophy, several doctrines and arguments revolve around the God and the Soul. Owing to this nature of discussions in wide circulation, the common class of people have formed an opinion that philosophy is for those who have nothing better to do, and hence do not heed to this branch of science.
(A) To avoid the above mentioned confusion, it is extremely important to be cautious and employ tools like "materialism". The materialistic principles define a systematic examination of factual nature of thoughts and the subsequent actions associated with these thoughts.
(B) However, the materialistic approach alone cannot determine the evolution of thought process. To determine it, instead of just the peripheral material nature of the thought, a wholistic approach, examining the roots of the thought, various stages and directions it had traversed through, in a factual manner is needed. To do so, a "historical perspective" is required.
(C) A historical perspective encompasses the study of the evolution of the socio-economic establishments and the level of sophistication of knowledge in these establishments associated with the thought.
The "theory of knowledge" combines these two approaches (namely "materialism" and "historical perspective") in determination of the evolution of thought. Following these approaches, this science has detailed out the evolution of the state of mind/existence (the thought), beginning from the "reflex actions" (of instinct) to a totally liberated, conscious collective thought of the entire human race.
Note: There could be mistakes due to my limited knowledge in understanding the actual Telugu version. Kindly bear with them. Also, this is not a doctrine and the readers are not tempted to hold this to conviction.
The principle (theory) of knowledge (Epistemology) should describe the transformation of human thought (intellect). It becomes obvious to scrutinize the human thought process through ages, the fundamental basis of these thoughts and the process of relating (reflecting) these thoughts onto the actual facts. Tatva Philosophy is the specialized branch of epistemology that deals with the thoughts, contemplations and the definition or determination of these phenomenon. However, often it is observed in philosophic discussions a question "Whether this thought (theory) is greater than the other thought (theory)?" and the subsequent arguments. This is inevitable, because the individuals (who author the certain thoughts/theories) are almost always associated as "thinking-machines" (think-tanks) similar to the context of defining the objects in the physical world. Evidently, merely considering "thoughts" as objects and the above mentioned point of view does not solve the problem of discerning the evolution of thought process.
Moreover, for the same reason, artificial and baseless inquiries like "Is the pen mightier or the sword?" or "Does the seed come first or the tree?" have come into existence. The practical use or applicability of these kind of inquiries is an absolute nought. Despite this fact, innocent inquiries like these fill up most of the papers and publications today. With no involvement of the actual material objects like the pen or the sword, to compare them whimsically or without any implication of the materially existing seeds and trees, to investigate which came first, is not the way to approach the problems. On the contrary it is nothing different from "day-dreaming."
In the similar fashion, in philosophy, several doctrines and arguments revolve around the God and the Soul. Owing to this nature of discussions in wide circulation, the common class of people have formed an opinion that philosophy is for those who have nothing better to do, and hence do not heed to this branch of science.
(A) To avoid the above mentioned confusion, it is extremely important to be cautious and employ tools like "materialism". The materialistic principles define a systematic examination of factual nature of thoughts and the subsequent actions associated with these thoughts.
(B) However, the materialistic approach alone cannot determine the evolution of thought process. To determine it, instead of just the peripheral material nature of the thought, a wholistic approach, examining the roots of the thought, various stages and directions it had traversed through, in a factual manner is needed. To do so, a "historical perspective" is required.
(C) A historical perspective encompasses the study of the evolution of the socio-economic establishments and the level of sophistication of knowledge in these establishments associated with the thought.
The "theory of knowledge" combines these two approaches (namely "materialism" and "historical perspective") in determination of the evolution of thought. Following these approaches, this science has detailed out the evolution of the state of mind/existence (the thought), beginning from the "reflex actions" (of instinct) to a totally liberated, conscious collective thought of the entire human race.
Note: There could be mistakes due to my limited knowledge in understanding the actual Telugu version. Kindly bear with them. Also, this is not a doctrine and the readers are not tempted to hold this to conviction.
- Siddartha Pamulaparty
Nov 4, 2007/
Comments
the translation is very good. Tata's book is getting printed and shortly available in market. i shall send a copy as soon as it is ready.
NANNA.