What is philosophical heritage?
SINCE the very dawn of human civilization certain problems have arisen in the minds of men and attempts have been made to answer them. Broadly speaking, philosophy has been a record of such problems and attempts at answers. But in a restricted sense, philosophy has been record of some specific problems and their proposed solutions. Such questions as — What, am I? , What is my destiny? , Can I know Reality?, Is there a Supreme Power? and the like — belong to philosophy taken in the second sense The problems are not many in number arid at one time or other they have arisen in human minds. Hence, such problems are universal but the proposed solutions have varied from age to age, people to people. No final solutions have been arrived at. Had it been so, philosophy would come to a final stop. Sometimes instead of attempting answers, people have only tried to clarify the problems. These attempts either at clarification or solution have been diverse. There have been numerous standpoints in philosophy. In some cases they are contradictory to one another while in others they are complementary.
Has a nation any definite and particular standpoint? Should we answer the question in the negative, such term as Chinese philosophy or Greek philosophy or Indian philosophy becomes meaningless, What exactly do we mean by the term — Chinese philosophy? The only reasonable meaning is- philosophy formulated by thinkers belonging to the Chinese nation. Generally a thinker pholosophises in the context of a total environment. Total environment admits of two factors: philosophical heritage and geographical-social milieu.
What is philosophical heritage?
Generally speaking, by it we shall mean the influence that predecessors and contemporaries exert on a thinker when he philosophises. Philosophising proceeds through a matrix which is nothing but this heritage. Aristotle’s philosophical heritage can be traced to Plato and Socrates ; Sankara’s to Gaudapada and Buddhists ; Hume’s to Locke and Berkeley, and Hegel’s to Kant. Philosophical heritage is natural to a particular nation. It grows from within the convention nation. It is never an artificial imposed on a nation from outside. Each nation has its own philosophical heritage to offer. This
is why we say that the English are empiricists, the French are deductive, the Indians are other-worldly-minded or for the Moksha and the Chinese are ethicists. If it be admitted that philosophical heritage is national in character, we are confronted with few questions of considerable importance. Are there not alternative answers to a problem in the philosophy of a particular nation?
The Upanishads (treatises on Brahman-knowledge) are like shot Silk that admits of many colors. Idealism, realism, monism, pluralism, subjectivism and objectivism have all entered into the vast storehouse of the the Upanishads. Nobody denies that there are alternative answers or solutions. But if one when we studies them closely, one will be surprised to find that the mam character of Indian philosophical heritage runs through all of them. So, can there be Philosophising the context of a foreign matrix? Such Philosophising even if possible will not be natural to the individual who philosophises. It will form no part of his total being. As such It is bound to be artificial and short-lived. Philosophising that does not start from the inner depths of an individual is a false endeavor. It may shed some temporary brilliance but soon it dues out leaving no trace behind.
If one has to philosophize in the context of his/her heritage, can there be any real progress of thought? Answer could be this query is — yes, It is possible. Progress of thought need not imply moving away from the moorings. A child resembles one or other of his ancestors but also differs from them. Every new generation goes beyond the old one and progress lies in it. But going beyond need not, mean the rejection the old. Progress consists in gathering up the past, in the present, and probing into the future. Rejection of philosophical heritage might lead one not to any progress of thought but to its anarchy or confusion.
Data of sciences are, generally speaking, objective but those of philosophy are both subjective and objective. This is why we speak of Chinese philosophy or Indian philosophy but we never speak of Chinese science or Indian science. Again, we use such terms as Greek art or Chinese art because art is both objective and subjective. Therefore, a world-philosophy can be built up on the common denominators of different philosophies. But the art of selecting common denominators might do gravest injustice to a particular philosophy. Some of its basic assumptions may be left out. To negate these assumptions is almost tantamount to negating the philosophy itself since all its contents develop round them. Common denominators when selected will be only a few innocuous forms. The richness of a particular philosophy lies more in its contents than in its form. Contents of diverse philosophies are likely to cancel one another and in such a case we will bc left only with some empty forms which can hardly justify a philosophy. Again these bare farms will fail to serve the purpose of solutions.
