The Charvaka system of thought believed neither in God nor in the after life of man. Their doctrines are traced to an ancient scripture called the Charvaka Dharma probably written by an author of the name of Charvaka. Reference to the Charvakas or the Lokayatas was found in some ancient Hindu and Buddhist Scriptures such as the Prabhodha Chandrodaya, an allegorical play in which a character sums up the beliefs of this school, and also the epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.
One of the chief protagonists of this school existed during the time of the Buddha and his name was Ajita Kesakamabali. He recognized only four elements and declared that a combination of these four elements produced certain vitality called life, which is very much in tune with the modern theories of creation of life on earth. At the time of death these four elements would return to their respective sources, earth to earth, air to air and so on. There was no mystery of life beyond this. " When the body dies both fool and wise alike are cut off and perish. They do not survive after death."
ABE: delightfully simple.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-10-2006 07:32 PM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-10-2006 07:33 PM
Sure you could say that we all believe in something, since nothing is ever proven. But you know if I used that statement in the wrong thread, people would jump all over it.
What on earth are you talking about? Logic is based on some axiomatic assumptions (such as the law of non-contradiction) that one just has to accept. I believe that one can rationally intuit these assumptions. But I can't prove the validity of rational intuition.
This shows I'm not a thorough-going nihilist, but other than that I think I'm very nihilistic.
The idea is to keep the assumptions to a minimum.
Of course I have feelings, such as moral feelings--or at least I think that's what they are. What are they based on logically? Nothing at all. Nonetheless they sometimes determine my behavior.
Ever hear of the categorical imperative? The logical basis for doing what is right, and if I understand Kant correctly, moral. Also, if you follow the golden rule, it too is on a logical basis. You treat others well so that they treat you nice. Treating them badly would be quite illogical, especially if they were a gang of murderers, for example.
Of course I've heard of the categorical imperative. None of these moral ideas have a logical ground.