[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Prof. Guptara can't be serious



     Dear Professor Roy
     
     Quoting my comment:
     >>     "ALL points of view consider all other points of view to be >   
       wrong (or at least less correct than themselves)"
     
     you said: >"Comparative religion is a serious subject.   I do think a 
     remark like the above is in danger of making light of it. "
     
     Let us examine this suggestion.
     
     You and I are economic liberals (though we may differ on the precise 
     details of point "a" or "b").  Economic liberalism is a position which 
     you and I have both chosen on the basis of at least some thinking.  
     During the course of our thinking, presumably we thought at least a 
     little about the alternatives.  So why did we choose liberalism in 
     economics?  Presumably because we considered the alternatives to be 
     either wrong, or less right than liberalism.
     
     I would be interested to learn in what sense I am in danger of "making 
     light" of comparative thinking and the choices one makes?
     
     As far as I can see the process by which one arrives at conclusions 
     regarding history, politics, philosophy, religion, ethics or anything 
     is precisely the same (though in some areas we may have done less or 
     more thinking).
     
     If I am a Tantrist (which I am not), I must perforce consider other 
     alternatives either wrong or at least less right (or more exciting, or 
     more likely to yield results that I consider worthwhile) than Tantra - 
     or I would not be a Tantrist.  
     
     This is plain ordinary common sense as far as I can see, on the same 
     level as choosing a profession or indeed a brand of toothpaste.
     
     Some derogatory remarks have been made about my comparison of choosing 
     the brand of toothpaste one might prefer to choosing between things of 
     greater significance.
     
     As far as I can see the process of thinking one goes through 
     (whether in choosing one's brand of toothpaste, or one's opinions 
     regarding historical questions or political questions or ethical 
     questions or policies for IP) 
     is EXACTLY the same; one looks at alternatives and chooses the best  - 
     which implies that the other options are less good or perhaps 
     downright bad.  
     
     Of course the degree of detail in which one goes into a subject does 
     vary because the amount of time and energy one is prepared to devote 
     to considering a particular choice depends on how important a person 
     considers the question to be.  But that does not in any way, as far as 
     I can see, change the basic steps by which the process of choosing 
     operates.


Professor Prabhu Guptara
Director, Organisational and Executive Development
Wolfsberg Executive Development Centre
(a subsidiary of UBS AG)
CH-8272 Ermatingen
Switzerland
Tel: + 41.71.663.5605
Fax: +41.71.663.5590
e-mail: prabhu.guptara@ubs.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Prof. Guptara can't be serious
Author:  sroy (sroy@vgsom.iitkgp.ernet.in) at nyuxuu
Date:    16.10.98 19:21


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------