Festschrift in honor of S.P. Dubey, Indian philosopher; contributed articles.

This work is the first to demonstrate the differences and similarities between Plato's myths and the traditional kind of which he was critical. It also actively demonstrates the extent to which his own myths support or undermine the philosophical ideas of the dialogues in which they are set. It offers new arguments and criticism on point of detail concerning modern interpretations.

Hunting is typically valued for its instrumentality for food procurement, wildlife management, conservation, heurism, and atavism. More importantly, some hunting is valued intrinsically. A particular form of hunting is a game and game playing, categorically, is often valued intrinsically. This view can be further supported with an application of a concept of caring and an accompanying argument that hunting generally, and fair-chase hunting in particular, is cared about deeply by millions of its practitioners. There are normative grounds for a shift (...) in the way that hunting is valued. While hunting as game playing is valued and cared about deeply by millions of fair-chase practitioners, which is far more important than any of its various instrumentalities, the position that such hunting is morally villainous can be sustained. (shrink)

The study of Plato has become involved in so many entanglements of higher criticism that it is difficult even to approach the interpretation of any particular dialogue without bias or preconceptions. A swarm of problems starts up for settlement as a preliminary consideration to the correct understanding of Plato’s aims in writing the dialogue, and there is a danger lest its precise issue and philosophical value may be obscured by discussions about its place in the chronological order of the dialogues, (...) as to whether it expresses the views of Socrates or of Plato, or represents a particular stage in the development of Plato's own thought, and so on. That this danger is real is forcibly suggested by a remark of Professor Taylor: “To understand a great thinker is, of course, impossible, unless we know something of the relative order of his works and of the actual period of his life to which they belong....We cannot, then, even make a beginning with the study of Plato until we have found some trustworthy indication of the order in which his works, or at least the most significant of them, were written.”. (shrink)

Comparative study on Śaṅkarācārya and F.H. (Francis Herbert) Bradley, 1846-1924.

The problem of ethics may arise in any circumstances, at all times and in all places. For it is an ever-present problem which confronts every individual at all stages of his career after the dawn of consciousness. It is not limited to any particular aspect or department of life; it concerns the whole life of every human being from the cradle to the grave. Its existence may not be consciously recognized, and generally the choice of right and wrong action is (...) unaccompanied by reflection; but the problem begins to operate as soon as the development of character begins, and people are always deciding between good and evil, whether they look inside their minds or not. For the formation of character depends on the manner in which the problems of conduct or morals are solved by each individual for himself. If he solves them correctly, he becomes good; If he solves them badly, he sows in himself the seeds of evil. The general problem, moreover, is essentially the same for all, though in each particular case its specific nature may vary according to particular circumstances. (shrink)