Demand of the question:
Positivists accept only those knowledge and entities which can be known through experience and deductions based on it. So, in the light of Carvaka epistemology and theory of reality, argue under broad headings – Why positivistic? and why not?
Answer Key
Intro: Give a brief definition of positivism and one sentence crux of Carvaka epistemology.
Why positivistic?
- It is a form of empiricism which denies the role of speculation, faith and authority of scriptures in epistemology.
- Deny the possibility of transcendental entities God, Soul, Heaven , Hell , Liberation etc – Yadrechavad, Svabhavavad for explaining world in a mechanical way than in a teleological way.
- Origin of consciousness as a byproduct of matter – bhudachaithanyavad, dehatmavad concise arguments.
- By denying unperceivable medium Akasa (ether) as in modern science they explain origin and propagation of sound through earth, air, water, fire.
Why not positivistic?
- Positivism believes in inductive and deductive methods, Carvaka denies theories based on inductive methods as illicit generalisation and denies deductive methods as it is based on Vyaptijnana which cannot be proved.
- There is no scope for accepting scientific theories and axioms in Carvaka as they are in the nature of universal knowledge. Logical positivists like AJ Ayer believe universal theories can accepted through “Weak Verification”
- While Carvaka outrightly denies the possibility of Cause-Effect relation, there is scope for accepting the same in positivism through the laws of contiguity and succession from an epistemological perspective.
Conclusion:
From a metaphysical perspective Carvaka is positivistic since there is emphasis on this worldliness over otherworldliness; from an epistemological perspective Carvaka’s position is a kind of skepticism as opposed to free thinking in positivism.