26-Feb-2012, 09:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 26-Feb-2012, 09:17 AM by karatalaamalaka.)
From my experience, I think there is a major problem in the way the history of thought is taught in India. A physicist told me sometime back, "Everyone should know about the Enlightenment!" This got me thinking about how Enlightenment, and pretty much the entire field of philosophy is given short shrift by the Indian education system. Is this omission some sort of a reaction to Thomas Macaulay's rightfully derided condescension? Or are we asking too much of high school kids by expecting them to read about David Hume and others?
I have found that one underlying problem with dogmatic people, especially in India, is their ignorance of the significance of the contribution of the stalwarts of the Age of Enlightenment.
Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, Francis Bacon, Voltaire, Rosseau, Montesquieu, etc. are all taught about in different courses in different historical contexts. We are only told about their field-specific achievements- Newton and his laws, Smith's 'Wealth of Nations', French philosophers' influence on the US and French revolutions, etc. Hume, Locke, Diderot, Spinoza, and other philosophers were not even spoken of. Further, the revolution in human thought that this collective represented was never made explicit- either in the textbooks or by teachers.
I think this is a pretty serious problem that predisposes kids to religiosity in later life. My reasoning is that when the same kids grapple with philosophical questions- about faith, empiricism, 'boundaries of science', etc. as adults, they should know that the answers they are seeking were answered satisfactorily 300 years ago by the thinkers of the Enlightenment. The failure to see the significance of the Enlightenment may also be the reason for how the 'Western influence' is seen as a largely negative thing in India. While McD, Coke, MTV, malls, and Chevys (I know, that's so 1999) count as Western influence, the right things India needs to imbibe from the West are the contributions of Hume, et al. and their successors.
What are your experiences and views about this?
I have found that one underlying problem with dogmatic people, especially in India, is their ignorance of the significance of the contribution of the stalwarts of the Age of Enlightenment.
Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, Francis Bacon, Voltaire, Rosseau, Montesquieu, etc. are all taught about in different courses in different historical contexts. We are only told about their field-specific achievements- Newton and his laws, Smith's 'Wealth of Nations', French philosophers' influence on the US and French revolutions, etc. Hume, Locke, Diderot, Spinoza, and other philosophers were not even spoken of. Further, the revolution in human thought that this collective represented was never made explicit- either in the textbooks or by teachers.
I think this is a pretty serious problem that predisposes kids to religiosity in later life. My reasoning is that when the same kids grapple with philosophical questions- about faith, empiricism, 'boundaries of science', etc. as adults, they should know that the answers they are seeking were answered satisfactorily 300 years ago by the thinkers of the Enlightenment. The failure to see the significance of the Enlightenment may also be the reason for how the 'Western influence' is seen as a largely negative thing in India. While McD, Coke, MTV, malls, and Chevys (I know, that's so 1999) count as Western influence, the right things India needs to imbibe from the West are the contributions of Hume, et al. and their successors.
What are your experiences and views about this?