Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 6,800 times in 2011. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 6 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

Lokāyata: Journal of Positive Philosophy

Lokāyata: Journal of Positive Philosophy is a bi-annual interdisciplinary journal of the Center for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies (CPPIS). The name Lokāyata can be traced to Kautilya’s Arthashastra, which refers to three ānvīkṣikīs (logical philosophies), Yoga, Samkhya and Lokāyata. Lokāyata here still refers to logical debate (disputatio, “criticism”) in general and not to a materialist doctrine in particular. The objectives of the journal are to encourage new thinking on concepts and theoretical frameworks in the disciplines of humanities and social sciences to disseminate such new ideas and research papers (with strong emphasis on modern implications of philosophy) which have broad relevance in society in general and man’s life in particular. The Centre will publish two issues of the journal every year. Each regular issue of the journal will contain full-length papers, discussions and comments, book reviews, information on new books and other relevant academic information. Each issue will contain about 100 Pages.         

Theme of Present Issue:

Concept of Mind (Manas) and Intelligence (Buddhi) in Indian Philosophy

Instructions to the Contributors

The article should be typewritten preferably in Times New Roman font with 12 sizes (English) in MS-Word 2003 and should be between 3000 to 5000 words. They should be typed on one side of the paper, double spaced with ample margins, and contain author(s)/contributor’s name and his/her institutional affiliation along with the complete mailing address. An abstract of 150-200 words should be included. The authors should submit the hard copy alongwith a CD or as an e-mail attachment to be sent to dr.sirswal@gmail.com.

Only papers which have not been published elsewhere will be considered. Proofs will be sent to the authors if there if sufficient time to do so.

Time Line: 31^st January, 2012

Reference Style:

Notes and references should appear at the end of the articles as Notes. Arrange references in alphabetical order by the last name of the first author and then by his initials. The following style of reference may be strictly followed:

• In case of Journal: Authors last name, initials, year of publication, name of the paper, name of the journal (italic), volume number, issue number and page number.
• In case of a Book: Authors last name, initials, year of publication, title of the book(italic), name of publisher, place of publication and page numbers.
• In case of an edited Book: Authors last name, initials, year of publication, name of the editor, title of the book (italic), name of publisher, place of publication and page numbers.
• In case of institution/Govt. Report: full name of the institution/ministry, year of publication, place of publication.

All contributions to the Journal, other editorial enquiries and books for review are to be sent to:

Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal,

Editor, Lokāyata: Journal of Positive Philosophy,

Centre for Positive Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies (CPPIS),

Milestone Education Society (Regd),  Valmiki Dharmashala, Pehowa,

Distt. Kurukshetra (HARYANA)-136128 (India)

Mobile No.09896848775, 08968544048

E-mail: dr.sirswal@gmail.com, mses.02@gmail.com

Websites: http://lokayatajournal.webs.com

http://drsirswal.webs.com

Reference: CPPIS/11/065   Dated: 22/09/2011

Abstract:

My research work title is “A Philosophical Study of the Concept of Mind (with special reference to Rene Descartes, David Hume and Gilbert Ryle).”  In this study we have discussed three conceptions of mind presented by Rene Descartes, David Hume and Gilbert Ryle. All the three thinkers are related to different philosophical traditions known as Rationalism, Empiricism and Analytical Philosophy respectively.  Each of these various approaches can be seen as at least partly successful, each provides answers to questions regarded as especially pressing, each apparently solved certain problems. Notoriously, however, each leaves unanswered and unsolved a host of distinct problems as well. Descartes’ and Hume’s theories of mind although now seems as vain discussion but they have left an immense influence on their generations. But Ryle has a big capacity to deal and argue with the present scientific era of thought especially in the linguistics and cognitive science. And we will find that he has a good capacity to deal with the philosophical problem in an honest manner. It is the necessity of the present time that all philosophical discussion should have empirical sciences components and they should go side by side with cognitive science theories of mind. Metaphysical conclusions about the nature of mind are to be reached, not by a priori speculation, but by informed reflection on scientific developments in fields such as computer science and neuroscience. We found that there are common characteristics between philosophy of mind and cognitive science, although philosophy of mind does not have a distinct method, but should share with the best theoretical work in other fields a concern with empirical results. Cognitive Science could help us look at way of the age old philosophic problems in a new scientific light. Mind needs to be looked at from several dimensions physical, symbolic, computational, psychological and even spiritual. In a word, we should adopt a Gestalt attitude viz. that the mind as a ‘whole is more that the sum of its part’; much more than the mere brain. Perhaps, a better and more comprehensive understanding could surely emerge.

Reference:

Title of the Research: A Philosophical Study of the Concept of Mind (with special reference to Rene Descartes, David Hume and Gilbert Ryle)

Researcher: Desh Raj Sirswal

Guide: Dr Anamika Girdhar, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Kurukshetra University,Kurukshetra

Year of Award : August 2010.

See you in 2011! If you liked what you saw in this summary and want to know more about how your blog is doing, you can always visit your Site Stats, where our helper-monkeys are working day and night to provide you with pages and pages of detail on how your blog is doing. If you have any feedback on this email, please click here for a very short survey (in English). We would love to hear from you. Thanks for flying with WordPress.com in 2010. We look forward to serving you again in 2011! Happy New Year! Andy, Joen, Martin, Zé, and Automattic WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress Express yourself. Start a blog. “>

The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads This blog is doing awesome!.

Crunchy numbers

A Boeing 747-400 passenger jet can hold 416 passengers. This blog was viewed about 3,000 times in 2010. That’s about 7 full 747s.

In 2010, there were 6 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 15 posts.

The busiest day of the year was December 14th with 59 views. The most popular post that day was The Concept of the Self in David Hume and the Buddha.

Where did they come from?

The top referring sites in 2010 were niyamakpsychology.blogspot.com, moodle1.dls-csb.edu.ph, drsirswal.webs.com, search.conduit.com, and newsphilosophy.wordpress.com.

Some visitors came searching, mostly for nature of philosophy, nature of philosophical inquiry, the nature of philosophical inquiry, the official doctrine, and philosophical mind.

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

The Concept of the Self in David Hume and the Buddha December 2010

Discussing the Nature of Philosophy December 2008
1 comment

Bibliography on Gilbert Ryle’s Philosophy of Mind July 2009
1 comment

BIBLIOGRAPHY ON RENE DESCARTES’ PHILOSOPHY July 2009

Bibliography on David Hume’s Philosophy of Mind July 2009
1 comment

Abstract:

The aim of this paper is to critically examine the Ryle’s conception of “Descartes Myth”. Ryle has two objectives in his book The Concept of Mind: (i) to refute a current philosophical theory about mind. (ii) to substitute at least in blue print, a satisfactory alternative. This paper gives a descriptive analysis of what Ryle calls Descartes-Myth and arguments for it. Conclusion of this paper drawn as he does not succeed in dispelling the myth but only substitutes a peculiar logical monism for Descartes’ Myth.

-Dr Desh Raj Sirswal

Abstract:

The Concept of Mind is the best known and the most important work of Gilbert Ryle. Ryle is thought to have accomplished two major tasks. First, he was seen to have put the final nail in the coffin of Carteisan dualism. Ryle rejects Descartes’ dualistic theory of the relation between mind and body. This doctrine of separation between mind and body is referred by Ryle as “the dogma of the ghost in the machine.” Second, he himself anticipated and suggested dualism’s replacement, the doctrine known as philosophical (sometimes analytical) behaviourism. This is an attempt of this paper is to draw outlines of his criticism of Dualism  his dispositional theory of mind and how it is relevant in today’s philosophy of mind.

Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal

Abstract

It is the intention of this paper is to introduce some contemporary relevance of Descartes’ dualism with special reference to Gilbert Ryle’s criticism. Ryle’s explicit target in The Concept of Mind is what he calls the “official doctrine”, which results, he tells us, at least in part from Descartes’ appreciation that Galilean methods of scientific discovery were fit to provide mechanical explanations for every occupant of space, together with Descartes’ conviction that the mental could not simply be a more complex variety of the mechanical. Whether or not every aspect of the resulting “two-world” view is properly attributed to Descartes. It is familiar view, which has widely become known as Cartesianism in Anglo-American philosophy. It has distinctive ontological and epistemological commitments.

Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal

The concept of the self is a highly contested topic. Traditionally it belonged to speculative metaphysics. Almost every philosopher, whether Western or Indian, has tried to explore the nature of self. Generally, the self is taken as a substance which has permanent existence, which is eternal and non-specio-temporal. In some traditions, like the Hindu tradition, it is believed to take rebirth as the body perishes. Many Western philosophers also think that it is immortal. The nature of the self also has then ethical implications. The views of David Hume and Gautama Buddha on the self, which I have chosen to discuss here, are similar. Though both belong to different traditions, both are skeptical of any permanent existence of self. This is not to say that one has borrowed from the other. For the nature and purpose of denial of the self in both the philosophers is different.  So a comprehensive and comparative study of their views is very interesting. It is the intention of this article to analyze and compare the philosophical positions of Gautama and Hume on the self—a problem which was of central concern to both and which has since exercised a continuing fascination for philosophers, both of the East and the West.

Dr. Desh Raj Sirswal

Abstract 

David Hume discusses that human beings have no identical self in his book A Treatise of Human Nature. He says that self is not the subject of perception ; thought experiences itself and no need for such kind of idea like self. He adopted classical exposition of positivist theory  with reference to  the problem of personal identity.  Hume adopted purely sceptical and empirical explanation and does not give any satisfactory solution for the problem of personal identity. Although, he opens new lines of thought and emphasizes that no system of thought is ultimate, nothing is better than the spirit of enquiry, which gave a great effect on modern era of thinking.

Published : “Humans Beings Have No Identical Self” in Proceedings of the 20^th Conference of All Orissa Philosophy Association, Centre of Advanced Study in Philosophy, Utkal University, Bhubneswar,2008, pp.198-210.

Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra

M.A. Philosophy

Fourth Semester

Option (GROUP-B)                                                                           Max. Marks: 100

Paper-XX: Philosophy of Mind (Western) ─II                                 Time :3 Hours

Note: The paper-setter is requested to set Eight questions in all, selecting two questions from each unit. The examinees shall have to attempt five questions in all, selecting at least one question from each unit. All questions carry equal marks.

Unit-1: Nature of Western Philosophy of Mind; Nature of Consciousness: First person

            account & Third Person Account.

Unit-2: Cartesian Dualism: Meaning, Problems and its Modifications.

Unit-3 :Behaviourism: Meaning; Psychological Behaviourism of B.F.Skinner;

            Philosophical Behaviourism of L. Wittgenstein & G.Ryle;  Identity Theory of

            J.J.C.Smart.

Unit-4 : A general introduction of Functionalism; Representational Theory of Mind;

              Interrepresentational theories of Mind (Donald Davidson & Daniel C.Dennett)

              and Eliminativism  (Paul Churchland).

Suggested Books: