Why does libertarianism feel so 20th century?

Swordsmyth said:
Abortion is MURDER and should be prosecuted as such.
There are other issues but they are more complex.
Click to expand...

r3volution 3.0 said:
Libertarians are split on abortion, but most are against it in my experience.

Anyway, apart from the pure ethical issue, what consequences does the legality of abortion have?

Do you think legalized abortion undermines liberty in some way?

I mean, is it really a crucial part of the "castle"? (I don't think so)



I've all day.
Click to expand...

That's been my experience, as well.

Swordsmyth said:
That is why I said "PURE" libertarians.
Click to expand...

How do you define "PURE" libertarians?:confused: Are you referring to the AnCaps?
 
r3volution 3.0 said:
Untrue

A large number of libertarians are atheists (even militant atheists), probably more per capita than among leftists.

Moreover, among libertarians, the anarcho-capitalists (i.e. most virulently anti-state people) tend to be most atheistic.
Click to expand...
But libertarians are a minority, Atheism leads to statism because the average mans reaction to being told there is no GOD is to ignore his neighbors GOD given rights and seek to impose his will on everybody.
 
Swordsmyth said:
But libertarians are a minority, Atheism leads to statism because the average mans reaction to being told there is no GOD is to ignore his neighbors GOD given rights and seek to impose his will on everybody.
Click to expand...

That's the average man's behavior regardless.
 
Swordsmyth said:
"PURE" libertarians are just a different kind of barbarian that got inside the gates by offering to defend one of the walls, then they started tearing down other walls while our backs were turned.
The "Alt-Right" will do the same.
Click to expand...

Curious. What makes a barbarian a barbarian?

I suppose the easy definition is "anyone not us." But this clearly untrue. Plenty "not us" peoples have built extraordinary civilizations. Egyptians, the Mali under Musa, the Golden Age of Islam, the entirety of Chinese history, the entirety of Japanese history, the Cahokians, the Aztecs, the Maya, the Inca, the list continues. But these are enough to demonstrate that civilization, even great civilizations, have little to do with whiteness or Europeanness.

Likewise with liberty. We find the ideas of liberty in all these civilizations too. The earliest articulation of the right to revolution I can think of is Confucius's Mandate of Heaven- the Chinese idea that a ruler should be just and when he is not he could and should be overthrown. Heck, the earliest articulation of libertarianism can be found in the Tao te Ching over 2,000 years before the birth of John Locke:

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.
Click to expand...

Indeed, many of the modern so-called "defenders of civilization" are some of the most illiberal politicians you can think of, rejecting the entire concept of inalienable human rights for authoritarian political control over every aspect of the nation. They reject the Natural Law for the rule by force and the means of compelling others to live, act, and think the way those in power think everyone should live, act, and think. Here I of course mean the Progressives- both of the Left Socialist and Alt. "Right" Fascist types.

So, what makes a barbarian? It can only be one thing: their embrace of brutishness and their savage behavior. The barbarian does not rely on peace and justice as means of interacting with others. The barbarian resorts to violence, attacking others unlike time, like animals assaulting someone from outside the pack who has violated the pack's territory. Instead of using reason and respecting the humanity of others by respecting their human rights, barbarians assault the other, take their property, and drive them away or kill them. This is what it means to be a barbarian.

When this is clearly understood, the modern day barbarians reveal themselves. They are the those who seek to use the violence of the state to pillage the property and lives of others, attacking those who resist and killing those who do not submit. The modern day barbarians come in two flavors in the USA: the Socialist s under the banner of the Democratic Party and the Fascists under the banner of the Republican/Conservative Alt. "Right." Both of these embrace violence as the means by which they address anything they see as a problem in society, to rob the property of others through government taxation and seizure of property (through both eminent domain and property forfeiture when deportation happens). Their means and ends are the same, to force their narrow brutal views on the lives of others through violent means, irregardless of the humanity and human rights of the victims of their violence.

Theirs is a "culture" of barbaric domination, pillaging, and death. And it is the opposite of civilization. Indeed, theirs is the abandonment of civilization for animalistic fury.
 
William Tell said:
The OP has some decent points. But to use the 20th century analogy the libertarians could and should find where they can work with social/paleo-cons. The Alt Right, is not paleo-conservative, in fact the Alt Right does not stand for anything concrete. They are most comparable to a little pagan religion with their pantheon of minor gods , they sacrifice to Trump, Pepe, Milo, Kek, and so on. One day they might decry social liberal SJW's, the next they will whoop and holler about how the Alt Right is the real pro homosexuality movement because they love Milo, and the SJW's want to impose Sharia law. The main tenants of the alt right cult is immaturity, one can't have an alliance with them because they are brainless turds who know even less about how to succeed in politics than libertarians do.

Mature individuals from the old paleo-conservative Right like Pat Buchanan have something to offer. The Alt Right is nothing but reverse feminists and reverse antifa. Perhaps some of them will move towards liberty but right now they are hopeless.
Click to expand...

The hallmark of Fascism has always been its grounding in populism and not principle. Fascists have no problem taking whatever position is necessary at the moment in order to win power because issues of peace, justice, liberty, etc. are not what they ultimately care about. Fascists only care for power. They'll happily say and do whatever you want them to say or do in order to get it and maintain it.
 
PierzStyx said:
The hallmark of Fascism has always been its grounding in populism and not principle. Fascists have no problem taking whatever position is necessary at the moment in order to win power because issues of peace, justice, liberty, etc. are not what they ultimately care about. Fascists only care for power. They'll happily say and do whatever you want them to say or do in order to get it and maintain it.
Click to expand...

literally hitler
 
PierzStyx said:
Likewise with liberty. We find the ideas of liberty in all these civilizations too. The earliest articulation of the right to revolution I can think of is Confucius's Mandate of Heaven- the Chinese idea that a ruler should be just and when he is not he could and should be overthrown. Heck, the earliest articulation of libertarianism can be found in the Tao te Ching over 2,000 years before the birth of John Locke:
Click to expand...


That's also true.

[h=1]Charvaka[/h]From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[TABLE="class: vertical-navbox nowraplinks plainlist, width: 22"]
[TR]
[TD]Part of a series on[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Hindu philosophy[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Orthodox[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="class: vertical-navbox nowraplinks, width: 240"]
[TR]
[TD="class: hlist"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: hlist"]Vedanta

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Heterodox[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][TABLE="class: vertical-navbox nowraplinks, width: 240"]
[TR]
[TD="class: hlist"]
  • Charvaka
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Other schools[show]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Teachers (Acharyas)[show]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Major texts[show]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
  • v
  • t
  • e

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: vertical-navbox nowraplinks plainlist, width: 22"]
[TR]
[TD]Part of a series on[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Atheism[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

  • Concepts
  • History

[show]​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Types[show]​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Arguments for atheism[show]​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
People[show]​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Related stances[show]​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: hlist"]
  • 16px-Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg.png
    Category
  • 16px-Portal-puzzle.svg.png
    Portal
  • 16px-People_icon.svg.png
    WikiProject
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
  • v
  • t
  • e

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Charvaka (IAST: Cārvāka), originally known as Lokāyata and Bṛhaspatya, is the ancient school of Indian materialism. Charvaka holds direct perception, empiricism, and conditional inference as proper sources of knowledge, embraces philosophical skepticism and rejects Vedas, Vedic ritualism, and supernaturalism.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]
Ajita Kesakambali is credited as the forerunner of the Charvakas,[SUP][3][/SUP] while Brihaspati is usually referred to as the founder of Charvaka or Lokāyata philosophy.[SUP][4][/SUP] Much of the primary literature of Charvaka, the Barhaspatya sutras (ca. 600 BCE), are missing or lost.[SUP][5][/SUP] Its teachings have been compiled from historic secondary literature such as those found in the shastras, sutras, and the Indian epic poetryas well as in the dialogues of Gautama Buddha and from Jain literature.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP]
One of the widely studied principles of Charvaka philosophy was its rejection of inference as a means to establish valid, universal knowledge, and metaphysical truths.[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] In other words, the Charvaka epistemology states that whenever one infers a truth from a set of observations or truths, one must acknowledge doubt; inferred knowledge is conditional.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Charvaka is categorized as a heterodox school of Indian philosophy.[SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP] It is considered an example of atheistic schools in the Hindu tradition.[SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][14][/SUP]
[h=2]Contents[/h]​
 



[h=2]Etymology and meaning[edit][/h]The etymology of Charvaka (Sanskrit: चार्वाक) is uncertain. Some believe it to mean "agreeable speech" or pejoratively, "sweet-tongued" (from Sanskrit's cāru "agreeable" and vāk"speech"). Others contend that it derives from the root charv meaning to eat possibly alluding to the philosophy's hedonistic precepts of "eat, drink, and be merry".[SUP][15][/SUP] Yet another theory believes it to be eponymous in origin, with the founder of the school being Charvaka, a disciple of Brihaspati.[SUP][16][/SUP]
Bhattacharya notes that the word Charvaka is of irregular construction, as cara as an adjective means "agreeable, pleasant", but as a noun is another name of Brihaspati, and both derivations are plausible.[SUP][17][/SUP]
[h=3]As Lokayata[edit][/h]According to Chattopadhyaya, the traditional name of Charvaka is Lokayata. It was called Lokayata because it was prevalent (ayatah) among the people (lokesu), and meant the world-outlook of the people.[SUP][18][/SUP] The dictionary meaning of Lokāyata (लोकायत) signifies "directed towards, aiming at the world, worldly".[SUP][15][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP]
In early to mid 20th century literature, the etymology of Lokayata has been given different interpretations, in part because the primary sources are unavailable, and the meaning has been deduced from divergent secondary literature.[SUP][20][/SUP] The name Lokāyata, for example, is found in Chanakya's Arthashastra, which refers to three ānvīkṣikīs (अन्वीक्षिकी, literally, examining by reason,[SUP][21][/SUP] logical philosophies) – Yoga, Samkhya and Lokāyata. However, Lokāyata in the Arthashastra is not anti-Vedic, but implies Lokāyata to be a part of Vedic lore.[SUP][22][/SUP] Lokāyata here refers to logic or science of debate (disputatio, "criticism").[SUP][23][/SUP] Rudolf Franke translated Lokayata in German as "logisch beweisende Naturerklärung", that is "logically proving explanation of nature".[SUP][24][/SUP]
In 8th century CE Jaina literature, Saddarsanasamuccaya by Haribhadra,[SUP][25][/SUP] Lokayata is stated to be the Hindu school where there is "no God, no samsara (rebirth), no karma, no duty, no fruits of merit, no sin."[SUP][26][/SUP]
The Buddhist Sanskrit work Divyavadana (ca. 200–350 CE) mentions Lokayata, where it is listed among subjects of study, and with the sense of "technical logical science".[SUP][27][/SUP]Shantarakshita and Adi Shankara use the word lokayata to mean materialism,[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][28][/SUP] with the latter using the term Lokāyata, not Charvaka.[SUP][29][/SUP] The terms Lokayata and Brhaspatya have been used interchangeably for the Charvaka philosophy of materialism.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
[h=2]Origin[edit][/h]The tenets of the Charvaka atheistic doctrines can be traced to the relatively later composed layers of the Rigveda, while substantial discussions on the Charvaka is found in post-Vedic literature.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] The primary literature of Charvaka, such as the Brhaspati Sutra is missing or lost.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][32][/SUP] Its theories and development has been compiled from historic secondary literature such as those found in the shastras (such as the Arthashastra), sutras and the epics (the Mahabharata and Ramayana) of Hinduism as well as from the dialogues of Gautama Buddha and Jain literature.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP]
Substantial discussions about the Charvaka doctrines are only found in texts after 600 BCE.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][34][/SUP] Bhattacharya posits that Charvaka may have been one of several atheistic, materialist schools that existed in ancient India.[SUP][35][/SUP] Though there is evidence of its development in Vedic era,[SUP][36][/SUP] Charvaka emerged as an alternative to the Āstika schools as well as a philosophical predecessor to subsequent or contemporaneous philosophies such as Ājīvika, Jainism and Buddhism in the classical period of Indian philosophy.[SUP][37][/SUP]
The earliest documented Charvaka scholar in India is Ajita Kesakambali. Although materialist schools existed before Charvaka, it was the only school which systematised materialist philosophy by setting them down in the form of aphorisms in the 6th century BC. There was a base text, a collection sūtras or aphorisms and several commentaries were written to explicate the aphorisms.[SUP][38][/SUP]
E. W. Hopkins, in his The Ethics of India (1924) claims that Charvaka philosophy was contemporaneous to Jainism and Buddhism, mentioning "the old Cārvāka or materialist of the 6th century BC". Rhys Davids assumes that lokāyata in ca. 500 BC came to mean "skepticism" in general without yet being organised as a philosophical school. Its methodology of skepticism is included in the Ramayana, Ayodhya kanda, chapter 108, where Jabāli tries to persuade Rāma to accept the kingdom by using nāstika arguments (Rāma refutes him in chapter 109):[SUP][39][/SUP]
O, the highly wise! Arrive at a conclusion, therefore, that there is nothing beyond this Universe. Give precedence to that which meets the eye and turn your back on what is beyond our knowledge. (2.108.17)
​
There are alternate theories behind the origins of Charvaka. Bṛhaspati is sometimes referred to as the founder of Charvaka or Lokāyata philosophy. Billington states that a philosopher named Charvaka lived in or about the 6th century BC, who developed the premises of this Indian philosophy in the form of Brhaspati Sutra.[SUP][40][/SUP] These sutras predate 150 BC, because they are mentioned in the Mahābhāṣya (7.3.45).[SUP][39][/SUP]
A.L. Basham, citing the Buddhist Samaññaphala Sutta, suggests six schools of heterodox, pre-Buddhist and pre-Jain, atheistic Indian traditions in 6th century BCE, that included Charvakas and Ajivikas.[SUP][41][/SUP] Charvaka was a living philosophy up to the 12th century in India's historical timeline, after which this system seems to have disappeared without leaving any trace.[SUP][42][/SUP]
[h=2]Philosophy[edit][/h]The Charvaka school of philosophy had a variety of atheistic and materialistic beliefs. They held perception to be the valid and reliable source of knowledge.[SUP][43][/SUP]
[h=3]Epistemology[edit][/h]The Charvaka epistemology holds perception as the primary and proper source of knowledge, while inference is held as prone to being either right or wrong and therefore conditional or invalid.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][44][/SUP] Perceptions are of two types, for Charvaka, external and internal. External perception is described as that arising from the interaction of five senses and worldly objects, while internal perception is described by this school as that of inner sense, the mind.[SUP][9][/SUP] Inference is described as deriving a new conclusion and truth from one or more observations and previous truths. To Charvakas, inference is useful but prone to error, as inferred truths can never be without doubt.[SUP][45][/SUP] Inference is good and helpful, it is the validity of inference that is suspect – sometimes in certain cases and often in others. To the Charvakas there were no reliable means by which the efficacy of inference as a means of knowledge could be established.[SUP][7][/SUP]
Charvaka's epistemological argument can be explained with the example of fire and smoke. Kamal states, that when there is smoke (middle term), one's tendency may be to leap to the conclusion that it must be caused by fire (major term in logic).[SUP][9][/SUP] While this is often true, it need not be universally true, everywhere or all the times, stated the Charvaka scholars. Smoke can have other causes. In Charvaka epistemology, as long as the relation between two phenomena, or observation and truth, has not been proven as unconditional, it is an uncertain truth. Such methods of reasoning, that is jumping to conclusions or inference, is prone to flaw in this Indian philosophy.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][45][/SUP] Charvakas further state that full knowledge is reached when we know all observations, all premises and all conditions. But the absence of conditions, state Charvakas, can not be established beyond doubt by perception, as some conditions may be hidden or escape our ability to observe.[SUP][9][/SUP] They acknowledge that every person relies on inference in daily life, but to them if we act uncritically, we err. While our inference sometimes are true and lead to successful action, it is also a fact that sometimes inference is wrong and leads to error.[SUP][46][/SUP] Truth then, state Charvaka, is not an unfailing character of inference, truth is merely an accident of inference, and one that is separable. We must be skeptics, question what we know by inference, question our epistemology.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][32][/SUP]
This epistemological proposition of Charvakas was influential among various schools of in Indian philosophies, by demonstrating a new way of thinking and re-evaluation of past doctrines. Hindu, Buddhist and Jain scholars extensively deployed Charvaka insights on inference in rational re-examination of their own theories.[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][47][/SUP]
Comparison with other schools of HinduismCharvaka epistemology represents minimalist pramāṇas (epistemological methods) in Hindu philosophy. The other schools of Hinduism developed and accepted multiple valid forms of epistemology.[SUP][48][/SUP] To Charvakas, Pratyakṣa (perception) was the one valid way to knowledge and other means of knowledge were either always conditional or invalid. Advaita Vedanta scholars considered six means of valid knowledge and to truths: Pratyakṣa (perception), Anumāṇa (inference), Upamāṇa (comparison and analogy), Arthāpatti (postulation), Anupalabdhi (non-perception, cognitive proof) and Śabda (word, testimony of past or present reliable experts).[SUP][48][/SUP][SUP][49][/SUP] While Charvaka school accepted just one, the valid means of epistemology in other schools of Hinduism ranged between 2 and 6.[SUP][48][/SUP]
[h=3]Metaphysics[edit][/h]Since none of the means of knowing were found to be worthy to establish the invariable connection between middle term and predicate, Charvakas concluded that the inference could not be used to ascertain metaphysical truths. Thus, to Charvakas, the step which the mind takes from the knowledge of something to infer the knowledge of something else could be accounted for by its being based on a former perception or by its being in error. Cases where inference was justified by the result were seen only to be mere coincidences.[SUP][50][/SUP]
Therefore, Charvakas denied metaphysical concepts like reincarnation, an extracorporeal soul, the efficacy of religious rites, other worlds (heaven and hell), fate and accumulation of merit or demerit through the performance of certain actions.[SUP][38][/SUP] Charvakas also rejected the use of supernatural causes to describe natural phenomena. To them all natural phenomena was produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things.[SUP][51][/SUP]
The fire is hot, the water cold, refreshing cool the breeze of morn;
By whom came this variety ? from their own nature was it born.[SUP][51][/SUP]
​
[h=3]Consciousness and afterlife[edit][/h][TABLE="class: plainlinks metadata ambox mbox-small-left ambox-content, width: 1"]
[TR]
[TD="class: mbox-image, align: center"][/TD]
[TD="class: mbox-text"]This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (July 2015)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Charvaka school of Hinduism did not believe in karma, rebirth or an afterlife. To them, all attributes that represented a person, such as thinness, fatness etc., resided in the body. The Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha states the Charvaka position as follows,[SUP][52][/SUP]
There is no other world other than this;
There is no heaven and no hell;
The realm of Shiva and like regions,
are invented by stupid imposters.
— Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verse 8[SUP][52][/SUP]
​
[h=3]Pleasure[edit][/h][TABLE="class: vertical-navbox nowraplinks, width: 18"]
[TR]
[TD]Part of a series on[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Hedonism[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Thinkers[show]​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Schools of hedonism[show]​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Key concepts[show]​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Related articles[show]​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
  • v
  • t
  • e

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Charvaka believed that there was nothing wrong with sensual pleasure. Since it is impossible to have pleasure without pain, Charvaka thought that wisdom lay in enjoying pleasure and avoiding pain as far as possible. Unlike many of the Indian philosophies of the time, Charvaka did not believe in austerities or rejecting pleasure out of fear of pain and held such reasoning to be foolish.[SUP][43][/SUP]
The Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha states the Charvaka position on pleasure and hedonism as follows,[SUP][53][/SUP]
The enjoyment of heaven lies in eating delicious food, keeping company of young women, using fine clothes, perfumes, garlands, sandal paste... while moksha is death which is cessation of life-breath... the wise therefore ought not to take pains on account of moksha.
A fool wears himself out by penances and fasts. Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings.
— Sarvasiddhanta Samgraha, Verses 9-12[SUP][53][/SUP]
​
[h=3]Religion[edit][/h]Charvakas rejected many of the standard religious conceptions of Hindus, Buddhists and Jains, such as afterlife, reincarnation, samsara, karma and religious rites. They were critical of the Vedas, as well as Buddhist scriptures.[SUP][54][/SUP]
The Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha with commentaries by Madhavacharya describes the Charvakas as critical of Vedas, materialists without morals and ethics. To Charvakas, the text states, the Vedas suffered from several faults – errors in transmission across generations, untruth, self-contradiction and tautology. The Charvakas pointed out the disagreements, debates and mutual rejection by karmakanda Vedic priests and jñānakanda Vedic priests, as proof that either one of them is wrong or both are wrong, as both cannot be right.[SUP][54][/SUP][SUP][55][/SUP]
Charvakas, according to Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha verses 10 and 11, declared the Vedas to be incoherent rhapsodies whose only usefulness was to provide livelihood to priests. They also held the belief that Vedas were invented by man, and had no divine authority.[SUP][55][/SUP]
Charvakas rejected the need for ethics or morals, and suggested that "while life remains, let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt".[SUP][56][/SUP]
The Jain scholar Haribhadra, in the last section of his text Saddarsanasamuccaya, includes Charvaka in six darśanas of Indian traditions, along with Buddhism, Nyaya-Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Jainism and Jaiminiya.[SUP][57][/SUP] Haribhadra notes that Charvakas assert that there is nothing beyond the senses, consciousness is an emergent property, and that it is foolish to seek what cannot be seen.[SUP][57][/SUP]
The accuracy of these views, attributed to Charvakas, has been contested by scholars.[SUP][58][/SUP][SUP][59][/SUP]
[h=2]Works[edit][/h]No independent works on Charvaka philosophy can be found except for a few sūtras composed by Brihaspati. The 8th century Tattvopaplavasimha of Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa with Madhyamaka influence is a significant source of Charvaka philosophy. Shatdarshan Samuchay and Sarvadarśanasaṅ̇graha of Vidyaranya are a few other works which elucidate Charvaka thought.[SUP][60][/SUP]
In the epic Mahabharata, Book 12 Chapter 39, a villain who dresses up like a scholar, self appoints himself as spokesperson for all scholars, and who then advises Yudhishthira to act unethically, is named Charvaka.[SUP][61][/SUP]
One of the widely studied references to the Charvaka philosophy is the Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha (etymologically all-philosophy-collection), a famous work of 14th century Advaita Vedanta philosopher Mādhava Vidyāraṇya from South India, which starts with a chapter on the Charvaka system. After invoking, in the Prologue of the book, the Hindu gods Shivaand Vishnu ("by whom the earth and rest were produced"), Vidyāraṇya asks, in the first chapter:[SUP][62][/SUP]
[TABLE="class: cquote"]
[TR]
[TD]“[/TD]
[TD]...but how can we attribute to the Divine Being the giving of supreme felicity, when such a notion has been utterly abolished by Charvaka, the crest-gem of the atheistic school, the follower of the doctrine of Brihaspati? The efforts of Charvaka are indeed hard to be eradicated, for the majority of living beings hold by the current refrain:While life is yours, live joyously;
None can escape Death's searching eye:
When once this frame of ours they burn,
How shall it e'er again return?[SUP][62][/SUP][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]”[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Ain-i-Akbari, a record of the Mughal Emperor Akbar's court, mentions a symposium of philosophers of all faiths held in 1578 at Akbar's insistence.[SUP][63][/SUP] In the text, the Mughal historian Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak summarizes Charvaka philosophy as "unenlightened" and characterizes their works of literature as "lasting memorials to their ignorance". He notes that Charvakas considered paradise as "the state in which man lives as he chooses, without control of another", while hell as "the state in which he lives subject to another's rule". On state craft, Charvakas believe, states Mubarak, that it is best when "knowledge of just administration and benevolent government" is practiced.[SUP][64][/SUP]
Sanskrit poems and plays like the Naiṣadha-carita, Prabodha-candrodaya, Āgama-dambara, Vidvanmoda-taraṅgiṇī and Kādambarī contain representations of the Charvaka thought. However, the authors of these works were thoroughly opposed to materialism and tried to portray the Charvaka in unfavourable light. Therefore, their works should only be accepted critically.[SUP][38][/SUP]
[h=3]Loss of original works[edit][/h]Main article: Barhaspatya sutras
There was no continuity in the Charvaka tradition after the 12th century. Whatever is written on Charvaka post this is based on second-hand knowledge, learned from preceptors to disciples and no independent works on Charvaka philosophy can be found.[SUP][38][/SUP] Chatterjee and Datta explain that our understanding of Charvaka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of its ideas by other schools, and that it is not a living tradition:
"Though materialism in some form or other has always been present in India, and occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as well as in the later philosophical works we do not find any systematic work on materialism, nor any organised school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for refutation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these."[SUP][65][/SUP]
​
[h=3]Controversy on reliability of sources[edit][/h]Bhattacharya[SUP][58][/SUP] states that the claims against Charvaka of hedonism, lack of any morality and ethics and disregard for spirituality is from texts of competing religious philosophies (Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism). Its primary sources, along with commentaries by Charvaka scholars is missing or lost. This reliance on indirect sources raises the question of reliability and whether there was a bias and exaggeration in representing the views of Charvakas. Bhattacharya points out that multiple manuscripts are inconsistent, with key passages alleging hedonism and immorality missing in many manuscripts of the same text.[SUP][58][/SUP]
The Skhalitapramathana Yuktihetusiddhi by Āryadevapāda, in a manuscript found in Tibet, discusses the Charvaka philosophy, but attributes a theistic claim to Charvakas - that happiness in this life, and the only life, can be attained by worshiping gods and defeating demons. Toso posits that as Charvaka philosophy's views spread and were widely discussed, non-Charvakas such as Āryadevapāda added certain points of view that may not be of the Charvakas'.[SUP][66][/SUP]
Buddhists, Jains, Advaita Vedantins and Nyāya philosophers considered the Charvakas as one of their opponents and tried to refute their views. These refutations are indirect sources of Charvaka philosophy. The arguments and reasoning approach Charvakas deployed were significant that they continued to be referred to, even after all the authentic Charvaka/Lokāyata texts had been lost. However, the representation of the Charvaka thought in these works is not always firmly grounded in first-hand knowledge of Charvaka texts and should be viewed critically.[SUP][38][/SUP]


 

Likewise, states Bhattacharya, the charge of hedonism against Charvaka might have been exaggerated.[SUP][58][/SUP] Countering the argument that the Charvakas opposed all that was good in the Vedic tradition, Dale Riepe states, "It may be said from the available material that Cārvākas hold truth, integrity, consistency, and freedom of thought in the highest esteem."[SUP][67][/SUP]
Click to expand...
 
Madison320 said:
This is slightly off topic but I think until we get a dollar crash, libertarianism (smaller government in general) is not going to be very popular. Why would anyone want smaller government while we're getting so much stuff for free?
Click to expand...

We are past the point . Six in ten americans work , about half of those pay more tax than the benefits they recieve . That leaves 20 to 30 percent of the population to vote for who they think will steal the least from them and all the others to support more stealing .
 
oyarde said:
We are past the point . Six in ten americans work , about half of those pay more tax than the benefits they recieve . That leaves 20 to 30 percent of the population to vote for who they think will steal the least from them and all the others to support more stealing .
Click to expand...

True, but when the dollar collapses there won't be nearly as much to steal. We won't be able to borrow and print. The only revenue available will be tax revenue. I'm going to take a wild guess and say government spending will have to be cut at least in half.
 
Swordsmyth said:
But libertarians are a minority, Atheism leads to statism because the average mans reaction to being told there is no GOD is to ignore his neighbors GOD given rights and seek to impose his will on everybody.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. There's a quite long history of the use of religion to impose the will of men upon other men.
 
The problem is the libertarians themselves. Ron Paul was the last chance to have a reasoned, logical leader. Most libertarians would not agree on even a few issues to put a platform forward. The ship has sailed. Ther won't be smaller government and we will all be forced into dependency. Thanks a whole lot.
 
euphemia said:
The problem is the libertarians themselves. Ron Paul was the last chance to have a reasoned, logical leader. Most libertarians would not agree on even a few issues to put a platform forward. The ship has sailed. Ther won't be smaller government and we will all be forced into dependency. Thanks a whole lot.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Ron's candidacy brought disparate libertarian factions together and unified them in a united front like never before.

Ron himself was a, mostly, flawless messenger: sane, rational, accomplished, and personally upright. His only possible flaw as a candidate was a lack of powerful speaking skills.

"We" didn't do anything wrong.

Ron, and what he represented, was, and still is, rejected by the vast majority of people in this country.
 
euphemia said:
No they aren't. The party powerful keep putting up big government death candidates. We've had that conversation before.
Click to expand...

I was referring to (l)ibertarians not (L)ibertarians. Most (l)ibertarians aren't (L)ibertarians.

The most influential (l)ibertarian in modern history, Ron Paul, is pro-life.
 
Anti Federalist said:
Nonsense.

Ron's candidacy brought disparate libertarian factions together and unified them in a united front like never before.

Ron himself was a, mostly, flawless messenger: sane, rational, accomplished, and personally upright. His only possible flaw as a candidate was a lack of powerful speaking skills.

"We" didn't do anything wrong.

Ron, and what he represented, was, and still is, rejected by the vast majority of people in this country.
Click to expand...

^^THIS^^
 
euphemia said:
The problem is the libertarians themselves. Ron Paul was the last chance to have a reasoned, logical leader. Most libertarians would not agree on even a few issues to put a platform forward. The ship has sailed. Ther won't be smaller government and we will all be forced into dependency. Thanks a whole lot.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you're complaining about.

I seem to recall you personally going apeshit over "a few issues" where Johnson was unlibertarian, even though he was only a protest vote.

Did you support Rand during the primaries?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Hayek for the 21st Century—Our New 100,000 Book Giveaway
Replies
0
Views
307
PAF
PAF
PAF
Debate: Jacob Hornberger vs. Walter Block re: libertarianism and Israel
Replies
7
Views
1K
PAF
PAF
PAF
Rubio Says Diplomatic Solution for Gaza May Not Be Possible
Replies
1
Views
114
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Mises Institutes Beyond the United States
Replies
0
Views
281
PAF
PAF
PAF
Libertarianism and Metaethics
Replies
0
Views
355
PAF
PAF
Back
Top