Limits of Knowledge: A Comparative Study of David Hume and Jain Anekāntavāda
| Vol-8 | Issue-03 | March 2021 | Published Online: 24 March 2021 PDF | ||
| DOI: https://doi.org/10.53573/rhimrj.2021.v08i03.007 | ||
| Author(s) | ||
| Rakesh Das 1 | ||
|
1Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Cooch Behar College |
||
| Abstract | ||
| This paper explores the boundaries of our knowledge through a comparative analysis of David Hume’s scepticism and Jain Anekāntavāda. Our knowledge of relations of ideas is certain; however, matters of fact such as causation, induction, and the self are not certain. Rather, they are based on the habit of the mind, not on reason. This leads to a form of philosophical scepticism regarding the extent and certainty of knowledge. In contrast, Jain philosophy recognises the multifaceted nature of reality, and holds that knowledge of reality is conditional and relative. According to Anekāntavāda and Syādvāda, reality possesses multiple aspects and can only be understood from different standpoints. The findings of this paper are that both traditions critically examine the idea of absolute certainty, but their solutions are different. The limitation of knowledge is the main contention in David Hume’s philosophy, whereas Jain philosophy offers a method to explain the complex nature of reality. The conclusion of this paper is that scepticism is not the inevitable outcome of epistemic limits, and that alternative approaches such as Anekāntavāda provide a more flexible understanding of truth and knowledge. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Scepticism, Anekāntavāda, Syādvāda, David Hume, Jaina Philosophy | ||
|
Statistics
Article View: 3
|
||
