In the ground-breaking 2018 judgment of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ushered in a new era by decriminalizing homosexuality, marking a pivotal moment in the country's legal history. However, this progressive stride was accompanied by persistent questions concerning homosexual rights that remained unexplored within both cultural and legal frameworks. Despite the legal acknowledgment, members of the homosexual community are often professed merely as 'individuals' and not fully integrated into mainstream society. This perception (...) is aggravated by the absence of a societal 'stamp of marriage,' reinforcing their marginalization. In the realm of Hindu law, the sanctity of marriage is deeply rooted in the scriptures, which explicitly define it as the union of 'two souls.' Remarkably, these very scriptures also assert that a soul is inherently without gender, elucidating that gender is a characteristic exclusive to the human body. It is crucial to recognize that Hindu law, including the relevant Acts, draws extensively from these scriptures, making them a fundamental source of legal principles. The legislation, such as the Hindu Marriage Act, essentially serves to codify and organize the pre-existing Hindu law without seeking to undermine the intrinsic values enshrined within the Holy Scriptures. This article aims to delve into the unaddressed aspects of homosexual rights within the contemporary legal framework, shedding light on the denied rights that persist. While global attitudes are progressing towards recognizing and safeguarding homosexual rights, the Indian government and cultural factors appear hesitant to renounce orthodox and conservative stances. This article seeks to analyse and critique these aspects, exploring the challenges hindering the full acceptance and integration of homosexual individuals into the broader societal fabric despite the transformative legal landscape initiated by the Navtej Singh Johar case. (shrink)

A close observation on the rapid change in the mind of young cohort has been made. Our Surveillance is before and after pandemic periods compels us to re-write some pre-occupied conceptions in the core of Philosophy and Psychology. We have worked on mind-body & mind-soul relationship from three angles that are Medical Science, Psychology and Philosophy. It is seen that the level of confidence is gradually diminishing among the youth due to different impetus and as a result many powerful strengths (...) are going out. Proclamation of human values in a new way must be declared so that we can save a thankful number of creative lives. Discussions have been made on thoughts, distress, medical causes of suicide or suicidal attempts, personality disorders, neuropsychology to open up a new world before the present generation. Each and every characteristics of life has positive impact and here we have tried to establish this fact. Physical and metaphysical aspects are reciprocating our lives and this should be injected in the mind of present generation and an approach can be taken to incorporate the matter in the curriculum right now. We have the intention to explain metaphysical love and its high, intelligent values proclaimed strength of mind of youth to infuse our dear world with great moral values. It may also save the earth from natural decay with their surprising discoveries. (shrink)

This examination of C. I. Lewis’s theory of meaning and theory of value argues that while Lewis’s own statement of the connection between them is inadequate, a way can be shown which allows for a connection between the two. The amount of space devoted to this endeavor is even briefer than the length of the book indicates, for the last nineteen pages consist of an appendix on Quine’s theory of meaning, and there are numbered but blank pages between chapters. The (...) remaining pages are devoted to lengthy expositions of Lewis’s key concepts, interspersed with discussions of the issues and problems involved. Washington neither shows that Lewis’s connection between meaning and value is inadequate nor establishes an adequate connection of his own. This shortcoming, however, is secondary to a much more fundamental problem with the book: his understanding of Lewis’s key concepts. For example, Washington holds that terminating judgments are those made in ordinary discourse in which knowledge is partial because always contingent upon further corroboration. That this is not a philosophical slip of the tongue is evinced in his numerous examples, all expressed in the objective language of nonterminating judgments, such as the following: "If I send Sue a bouquet of roses she will marry me." When he examines nonterminating judgments, he contrasts them with empirical propositions and describes them as tantamount to the type of assertions made by scientists and historians—claims about events not directly associated with one’s immediate experience or one’s way of acting, morally or otherwise. (shrink)

This book presents an historical and interpretive study of the metaphysics of Charles Peirce, developing an objective idealism through an examination of Peirce's thought as found in his continuous development of his theory of categories. The objective idealism developed is not one which lies in opposition to other parts of Peirce's philosophy but rather is the encompassing framework within which all other aspects of his thought find their place and through which they are understood.

Smith examines, in six chapters, the doctrines of Peirce, James, and Dewey as they relate to each of six general topics: basic conceptions of meaning, belief and action; basic conceptions of a theory of truth; the new conception of experience; inquiry, science, and control; metaphysics; and religion. The fourth chapter presents a minor exception, for the topic of "inquiry, science, and control" is discussed virtually exclusively in relation to Peirce and Dewey. Generally, the positions of the three pragmatists are examined (...) separately in relation to various issues, but there are usually interesting and illuminating comparisons among them. (shrink)

Rescher examines Peirce’s view of science in terms of four major topics, each of which forms one of the four chapters of the book: the self-correctiveness of science, scientific progress and completability, the efficiency of scientific inquiry, and the economy of research. In the first chapter, Rescher defends Peirce’s position against the attack that though Peirce considers self-correctiveness a crucial aspect of scientific methodology in general, and recognizes that the inductive methodology of science includes not only quantitative but also qualitative (...) induction, yet he establishes the self-correctiveness of quantitative induction only. In his defense of Peirce, Rescher shows the way in which self-correctiveness in the sense of "performance-monitoring" proceeds by quantitative induction which, as a part of induction as a whole, functions as self-corrective for induction as a whole, while theory improvement, which, unlike quantitative induction, is neither mechanical nor automatic, is a function of scientific method in general. The chapter presents an illuminating discussion which clearly captures Peirce’s anti-reductivisitic understanding of scientific methodology as a dynamic, complex, and interlaced whole. (shrink)

Kuklick traces the history of philosophic thought in the United States "as typified and dominated by Harvard" from 1860 to 1930. He provides an analysis both of the thought of this period and of the development of Harvard University and its philosophy department. These two types of analyses are interwoven throughout the book, for Kuklick finds that the second type provides an important key to the interpretation that unfolds within the first type. Among the philosophers included are Francis Bowen, Chauncey (...) Wright, John Fiske, F. E. Abbot, C. S. Peirce, William James, Josiah Royce, Hugo Munsterberg, George Palmer, George Santayana, Ralph B. Perry, E. B. Holt, Ernest Hocking, Alfred N. Whitehead, and C. I. Lewis. Royce and James receive the most lengthy examination, and while there is a surprisingly unappreciative discussion of Whitehead’s position, it is followed by an unusually enthusiastic analysis of the philosophy of C. I. Lewis, whom Kuklick considers to be, "with the exception of Peirce... the most capable philosopher in the school we have studied." Though such a counterbalance to the more common tendency to slight the enduring achievements of Lewis’s philosophical insights is refreshing, even his most avid supporters might well hesitate to affirm such a view. Kuklick’s attitude toward Lewis, as well as his focus of attention on James and Royce, may be guided by a dominant theme of the book in general. One of the major philosophic threads which Kuklick uses to weave a unifying bond among many of the philosophers of this period is idealism, while the realistic strains of the philosophers involved are at best slighted, at worst distorted. James as well, of course, as Royce, is interpreted within the framework of idealism. Lewis, as heir to the debate between neo-realism and idealism as carried on by Perry and Royce, is seen by Kuklick as unsuccessfully attempting to repudiate the idealism bequeathed to him by Royce, thus representing the ultimate triumph of idealism over realism. (shrink)