#Veṅkaṭanātha discussing the nature of #jīva in TMK II.17: There are four groups of people who think that the the ātman is not permanent: 1. the ātman is of the nature of cognition and therefore destroyed at each new cognition (Buddhist Epistemological school?) 1/ 2. the ātman is destroyed w the body, 3. the ātman is destroyed at pralaya (these are the Paurāṇikas), 4. the ātman is destroyed at mokṣa (Advaita Vedāntins?). 2/

Starting soon (at @uoftphilosophy, c/o @glob_philosophy) on #VrindaDalmiya's #CaringToKnow. Some random notes on the first two chapters:
1. Project:
—From #CareEthics to Care #Epistemology, with feminist philosophy as the necessary output when care becomes a political project. 1/ Cross-cultural inspiration.

—How to counter bias? (through relational humility)

2. Possible objections:
—Isn't care repeating a patriarchal structure?

—Is contextualism really overwriting the need for abstract rules? Are not rules needed within each specific context?
2/

#HudHudson's chapter on #omnipresence is really well done and offers a balanced approach, quoting from Thomas Aquinas and Anselm, as well as from Hartshorne, Swinburne, Wierenga and Taliaferro. It also discusses theories of omnipresence that do not think of God as occupying a 1/ space as well as "occupation theories". In discussing the latter, HH refers to Josh Parsons' discussion of relations and location.
He also identifies and discusses six puzzles connected with occupation theories: 2/

The #Pali Text Society (PTS ) <palitextsociety.org> is seeking to appoint a part-time (25 hs/week) office administrator to take over the management of the PTS office from 1 July 2023.
1/ The main responsibilities of the position will be the day-to-day management of the PTS office, including the processing of book sales and management of PTS membership. The PTS currently has a small office in Bristol where the officer administrator would be able to work, but 2/

A Q concerning eligibility to study a certain philosophy: Let us exclude from the discussion ppl who are doing it for selfish purposes (e.g., ppl engaging w feminist philosophy just to gain "diversity points" on their cv). 1/4 Should only ppl from a certain nation/class (broadly conceived) be eligible to study the texts of said n/c? A practical argument in favour of that would be that this would encourage hires of ppl of such n/c bc a university who wants to offer courses in philosophy X would have 2/4

I am grateful to Simona Vucu for having recommended to me "The Case of the Animals versus Man Before the King of the Jinn" (10th c.). A few excerpts:

Animals: ``Your vaunted powers of perception & fine discrimination are not unique, for there are animlas with finer senses 1/10 and more precise discrimination. The camel, for example, despite his long legs and neck and the elevation of his head in the air, finds his footing along the most arduous and treacherous pathways in the dark of night, which you could not make out and not one of you could 2/10

Short thread on "Introduction to Philosophy".
My ideal curriculum is the one implemented by Jay Garfield and others and taught by @sutrasandstuff and others, namely a completely non-Eurocentric introductory class.
But, what to do until we get there? 1/ Intro classes are (in the universities I know of) meant both for outsiders who only take 1 class of philosophy & students who will chose philosophy as their major. Thus, the Intro class has at least also the purpose to put students in the position to follow their next classes 2/

Some of my favourite comments from this year's #StudentEvaluations:
—I don't lecture enough: "students talk more than the professor because participation is required"
—I am a good substitute for coffeine: "The professor was always enthusiastic in presenting the material 1/ regardless of the 9am lecture. It helps the student wake up"
—I make them tolerate religion: "As someone who knew nothing abt religion she was able to not only make me understand but to enable me to be able to make good Q on the philosophical aspects of it. The prof was one 2/

Ongoing thread on #HansVermeer's 1984 (Skopos Theory explained), on #Translation. Let me start with some of my favourite quotes:
"Language is a system" (p. 19)—>Hence, discussing about how to translate a single word is a misunderstanding of the way language works. 1/ In HV's words: "Simple signs can be combined to form complex signs, e.g. words form sentences, and sentences form texts. A sequence of simple signs is not just a collection of signs but a new sign of higher rank […] The formation of super-signs is language-specific. 2/

1. In order to write a PhD thesis on #SanskritPhilosophy, you need to know #Sanskrit
2. Sanskrit is hard: You need a strong motivation to learn it, the kind of motivation undergrads rarely have!
How do we lose this catch-22 problem, assuming that grad school is ≤6 ys? 1/5 A. Only admit to PhD programs in #SanskritPhilosophy students who know Sanskrit already (e.g., young Indian students who learnt it at school or very motivated undergrads) 2/5

Typical situation outside India: One completes a Sanskrit class (in 2--4 terms) and does not know how to bridge the gap between one's knowledge and what is needed to read philosophical texts autonomously. What can one do? Typically a combination of the following ones: 1/3 1. One reads a lot on one's own (e.g., one picks up a text like the Nyāyabhāṣya and reads it side-by-side with a translation like Matthew Dasti's translation of the Nyāyasūtra and Bhāṣya)
2. One sits in as many classes as possible with teachers reading texts 2/3

Friendly invitation to a truth-oriented debate (#vāda), for which we will be allowed to use only rational arguments and not our personal dislikes or likes unless we can give reasons for them:
Suppose that some members of religion X (say, Zen Buddhism) misbehave,
1/ e.g., because of sexual assaults to people who trusted them in a religious way. We would surely condemn them. And we would be right. But we would be wrong if we did not condemn the same behaviour in our religion (say, Greek Christian orthodoxy), correct? #TheologicalDebates
2/

Today's #LiveTweeting is abt #Veṅkaṭanātha's #Nyāyapariśuddhi, chapter on language as a source of knowledge (#śabdapramāṇa) (p. 360, 1867 edition).
First interesting element: Veṅkaṭanātha finds a solution to the #Mīmāṃsā vs #Nyāya conflict on how to define śabdapramāṇa 1/ The chapter opens with it: "A cognition produced by a statement by someone who is not unreliable is a source of knowledge" (anāptānuktavākyajanitaṃ tadarthavijñānaṃ tat pramāṇam) 2/ #ViśiṣṭādvaitaVedānta