The mind of a man is far from the nature of a clear and equal glass, wherein the beam of things should reflect according to their true incidence: nay, it is rather like a enchanted glass, full of superstition and imposture. — Francis Beacon

Prof. Andre Beteille — whom I owe a great deal of intellectual debt — wrote once that the aim of intellectual pursuit is to scratch the surface of confusion caused by experience and observation. He wrote this as a social scientist, being fully aware of the fact that curiosity of a social scientist about a society is not the same thing as the curiosity of a mathematician about numbers. Nonetheless, I find this claim to be extremely rich about the general nature of intellectual pursuit.

Is the purpose of a branch of natural science to “scratch the surface of confusion caused by experience and observation,” or perhaps, dare I say, is it the purpose of all sciences? While this may seem like a noble aim, it is important not to push it too far. Making such a claim brings “subjectivity” and “subject” to the forefront, while downplaying the non-subjective aspects of scholarship, namely the methods and routines that each branch of natural science has discovered and refined over time.

It is helpful to distinguish between Science and Scholarship [1]. Science is the pursuit of “reality” and requires mastery and refinement of methods in a workshop before one can strike out on their own. I do not deny the place of intuition in science, but I believe that there should be less room for individual virtuosity in science compared to Jazz or classical music. If a branch of natural science allows personal virtuosity and intuition to overshadow the methods and procedures of the laboratory and workshop, it suggests that the branch of science has not matured enough. In summary, echoing Max Weber, one could argue that while Science is a “slow boring of hard boards,” scholarship is flexible enough to accommodate other intellectual adventures, including those that may be useless or harmless.

If we agree that the purpose of science is to scratch the surface of reality, then I have reservations about the philosophy of science, which appears to have a great deal of variety. Some branches of philosophy have evolved into well-established branches of science. It has been said that what was once known as “Natural philosophy” is now called physics. I would like to comment on the “field view” of philosophy that I observe around me, rather than its “book view,” which is difficult to grasp unless one is initiated into its capacity to generate natural sciences in the long run.

First, the methods, facts, and arguments of science should be universal or at least universal enough. By universal, I mean that they should not yield different results or conclusions when correctly applied, simply because different individuals are working with them or they are applied at different times. Universalism does not seem to be a characteristic of much of philosophy, especially Indian philosophy.

Furthermore, it is not always clear if understanding reality is the ultimate goal of philosophy. I am not suggesting that philosophy, whether Indian or non-Indian, should adopt a different framework or approach, or that metaphysics is not worthy of our attention. However, the existing framework tends to undervalue, if not ignore, the “principle of reality” that science holds sacred.

Second, scientists study, or at least are supposed to study, reality as it exists. A philosopher would not be a philosopher if they did not create alternatives to reality. If philosophy is glorified as a guiding force for humanity, it must be acknowledged that it can easily become an obstacle to understanding reality. Perhaps I am not philosophically inclined, but to me, philosophy is confusing at best and misleading at worst. It is in the nature of the human mind to mislead others, not always unknowingly, and philosophy offers ample opportunities to mislead both others and oneself.

Third, newness in science and scholarship does not arise from a strong desire to create something that will improve the lives of many. Philosophy does not seem to have such constraints. One can freely build and refute theories to their liking. Philosophy can serve as a refuge from the harsh, tiresome, monotonous, and unpredictable world of scientific pursuit. Philosophy offers abundant opportunities for the intellectual art of squaring the circle.

As for me, philosophy seems to offer choices without revealing the costs of each choice. While this is certainly better than having no choice, I would rather turn to sociology, biology, or psychology when I feel confused about my condition.

References

• Mind over matter, Andre Beteille, The Little Magazine, Middle class, http://www.littlemag.com/midclass/. Available only in print.
• “The problem of universals in Indian philosophy”, Dravida Raja Ram, Motilal Banarisidas. This is one of those rare books that deals with a general problem in philosophy rather than giving a general introduction. For a general introduction to Indian philosophy, See “Indian philosophy Vol 1.”, S. Radhakrishnan. On these lines, also see an informal essay by A. K. Ramanujam, “Is there an Indian way of thinking.”