tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post1375339911350724977..comments2023-08-27T12:35:12.308+02:00Comments on sanscrite cogitare, sanscrite loqui: God and the way the world iselisa freschihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-56025538118802207802012-08-19T08:54:10.835+02:002012-08-19T08:54:10.835+02:00Dear Eisel,
As for me, I got in love with German...Dear Eisel,<br /><br /> As for me, I got in love with German much before I started studying Sanskrit and spent my first intellectual years reading Hegel, Kant and Fichte. I have a degree in Western philosophy, apart from my degree in Sanskrit. But you are right, I have not read all authors before and after Kant. Long story short, I do find comparisons with Western philosophy useful (I dedicated several posts to discuss the pros and cons of this approach). What is the flaw you found in the *content* of my reference to Kant?elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-16193207306839395362012-08-19T01:36:42.847+02:002012-08-19T01:36:42.847+02:00Any time that I feel I've wasted more than 10 ...Any time that I feel I've wasted more than 10 years of my life working on Buddhist philosophy, I can look at this blog and be reminded of how lucky I am in contrast to what you Sanskritists are stuck with.<br /><br />You want to debate Immanuel Kant's theology in 2012? Somebody wake up Ludwig Feuerbach, and direct his ghost over to the department of Sanskrit.<br /><br />I'm sure that you frequently are frustrated with European authors who make similarly slapdash use of Indian philosophical sources. Why do the same with Europeans? What's the point?<br /><br />Have you read Kant? Have you read any of the philosophers who refuted him in the following generation? (The list is long!) Do you enjoy reading 18th & 19th century German philosophy in your spare time?<br /><br />You can't be an expert in everything: why pretend?<br /><br />As awkward and absurd as it is to see 19th century German philosophers trying to quote ancient Indian philosophy, <i><b>it is just as absurd</b></i> to see Sanskritists trying to invoke 19th century German sources without really studying them.Eisel Mazardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06898869744926590471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-39517714738353902022012-08-16T10:02:11.803+02:002012-08-16T10:02:11.803+02:00Dear Andrew,
which kind of Christians are you talk...Dear Andrew,<br />which kind of Christians are you talking about? I mean: "naive" Christians, fundamentalists or people who want to show that Christianity is well-rooted in Natural Sciences (the former group would have Christianity ranking over Natural Sciences, whereas the latter group would have Christianity justified by means of Natural Sciences)?<br /><br />Thanks for the congratulations. I am also very excited!elisa freschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068583874519657894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6641738716446631837.post-42707824936284167552012-08-15T17:01:47.561+02:002012-08-15T17:01:47.561+02:00very quickly: in my experience, a lot of christian...very quickly: in my experience, a lot of christians don't distinguish at all between natural and moral laws, i.e., any universal law (whether it relates to mathematics, physics, or morality) is a law precisely because it reflects the will of the supreme lawgiver. this leads into the "free will versus determinism" debate which theologians have been wrestling with for millennia, but clearly there's a difficulty distinguishing "the way the world is" (the laws that characterize nature) and "the way the world should be" (the laws that characterize morality) on this view. and in any case, many christians would be suspicious of any explanation that has a basis in evolutionary biology.<br /><br />congratulations on the book, by the way!andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17791239532349650572noreply@blogger.com