(02-Nov-2010, 05:15 PM)shrihara Wrote: I came across this website,
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/athiesm.asp
Can anyone give explanation for their arguement?
Quote:The Charvaka school of thinking had many draw backs:
1. Its chief weakness was its excessive reliance upon subjective experience and upon sensory perceptions, as the basis of truth. These two are not perfect and reliable instruments of truth and they would not always guarantee complete wisdom.
2. The Charvakas ignore the fundamental fact that our perceptions can be very misleading and that they are colored by our own prejudices, fears, anxieties, expectations, desires, thoughts and most important of all by our own ignorance.
3. They also fail to explain the role of Nature, the rationale for good social conduct or the need for social harmony.
4. The Charvakas provide very simplistic solutions to the complex problems of pain and suffering, and fall short of providing lasting solutions to the real problems of human life and society.
5. In short they fail to explain such human needs and aspirations that are not purely physical or mental but spiritual, and the importance of such morals and social values in human life that distinguishes us from the world of the animals.
Carvakas believed only in the existence of material world, not things that has never been perceived like soul or heaven.
1. Its chief weakness was its excessive reliance upon subjective experience and upon sensory perceptions, as the basis of truth. These two are not perfect and reliable instruments of truth and they would not always guarantee complete wisdom.
Carvakas felt that perception is the most reliable source of valid information, while scriptures and sages are not. As for 'subjective experience' stick, the critics are twisting words. A carvaka can see the sun and show the sun to others --- if someone wants to redefine it as 'subjective' they are welcome. The critics will of course insist that the gods they hallucinate are objective.
2. The Charvakas ignore the fundamental fact that our perceptions can be very misleading and that they are colored by our own prejudices, fears, anxieties, expectations, desires, thoughts and most important of all by our own ignorance.
Worse than pot calling the kettle black.
3. They also fail to explain the role of Nature, the rationale for good social conduct or the need for social harmony.
Role of Nature is that everything happens because of its svabhava, not because some god is directing it. Life and consciousness arose from inanimate matter.
Good social conduct is needed in order to prosper. Comfort and prosperity can be gained through agriculture, trade and cattle rearing and good adminstration.
4. The Charvakas provide very simplistic solutions to the complex problems of pain and suffering, and fall short of providing lasting solutions to the real problems of human life and society.
According to them there is pain in this world but there is also pleasure. So enjoy yourself and don't pay any attention to what the Brahmins say or the Buddhist and Jaina monks.
5. In short they fail to explain such human needs and aspirations that are not purely physical or mental but spiritual, and the importance of such morals and social values in human life that distinguishes us from the world of the animals
Maybe they did explore such questions but their books were destroyed? After all we get the names of books and writers but not the actual texts.
And really, the cheek of people worshipping something that can never be proved as the solution to all evils accusing others of simplemindedness. when it comes to logic, they are not going to be able to outargue the Carvakas, either ancient or modern.