Atanu Dey On India's Development

Must Watch Video of Daniel Everette’s Deconversion

| 23 Comments

I had read the story of Daniel Everette’s experience among the Piraha tribe years ago in an article by him. This morning, Hemley Gonzalez‘s tweet about Everette, brought that back to mind. I watched the short BBC 4 video that Hemley linked to (embedded below.) I urge you to take the 10 minutes to watch it. It is deeply moving. (On a personal note, I am off to Washington DC for a few days. Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.)

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Atanu Dey on India's Development » Blog Archive » Must Watch Video of Daniel Everette’s Deconversion -- Topsy.com

  • larissa

    Well I am not so “impressed” by his deconversion. Thats how it is for Westerners–its always a choice between atheism or faith, as their theology is so limiting. They make everything so simplistic, even their religious choices. For us however, there are transcendentant principles without believing in the supernatural–this is the difference. These tribals might have an animal like contentedness, but I find their lives also deficient, as it seems to produce nothing higher than living in the moment, and there is no higher life of contemplation. It is not a choice between atheism but a choice of way, in the wafaring, which are the key symbols of Buddhism (the way and the wayfaring, just as the lamb and the cross is in Christianity). Buddhism (a facet of Hindu culture, renders what is essential in a to the point kind of way, and so is easier for most people to understand than Hinduism for which you have to understand an entire culture) is about “willing” the better, so that one wayfares correctly and this correct wayfaring in life is a decrease in ills and the goal of an (not life itself is Dukkha as is generally taught to be what buddhism teaches). So there is no need really to believe in an external god, but rather one “wills” the better in oneself, one “chooses” to be guided by that which is “higher” in man. The four noble truths and the eighfold path which recieves more importance is just an appendage to this central idea (but which was later made into a formulaic teaching by monks, hiding the central idea of Buddhism of which the four noble truths are but an expansion, which is the way and the wayfarer.) It is important not to lose sight of the difference between this and the atheism that Christians end up with when they lose their faith, that one one still believe in transcendent principles without believing in a personal god the way Christians do. Easterners are never atheists in this way–they believe in “dharma” (the ought to be of a doing), which is not dependent on an external being in the sense of Christianity.
    To me this video seems incredibly simplistic, but perhaps that man’s faith had resulted in an extremely simplistic view of the world…

  • larissa

    Above I meant to say
    “it is not a choice between atheism and faith” but the choosing of one’s “way”, in the wafaring, which are the key symbols of Buddhism (the way and the wayfaring, just as the lamb and the cross is in Christianity).

    and correction
    Buddhism (a facet of Hindu culture, renders what is essential in a brief direct fashion, and so is easier for most people to understand than Hinduism for which you have to understand an entire culture, and need sophsitication to be able understand the intricacies of that culture) is about “willing” the better, so that one “wayfares” correctly along the “way” this “correct wayfaring” in life is a decrease in ills and the goal of man (not life itself is Dukkha as is generally taught to be what Buddhism teaches in a meaningless foumulaic way).

  • larissa

    What I meant to say in my small degression on Buddhism is that atheism is also limiting (atheism in the way Westerners understand it, as the opposite of faith). I believe that Western atheism grounded on materialism can also be dangerous, if it does not recognize transcendent principles, for the recognition of these principles is the foundation of our culture and spirituality. The desacralization you see in modern times is a result of the withering of those principles for the guidance of life (hence the prevalence of utilitarian thinking, atheistic materialism, nihilism and unrestrained hedonism).
    I suppose the man above regognized that “saving” people’s souls is a ridiculous idea, as a man can only save himself in this manner. The best a man can do is guide others, provided he is worthy of being a guide. Rather, a true religion teaches man to aspire to that which is “higher” in him. Buddhism emphasizes individual “willing” to the “better” in man and does not rely on grace (although I am not Buddhist, I find it encapsulates our spiritual ideals in a simple way for everyone to understand, Hinduism is profound and encompasses Buddhism, but needs a lot of philosophical understandig as it is an entire culture and civilizational outlook).
    As much as I dislike the monotheisms of the Middle East, I also dislike atheistic materialism. There has to be a defense of transcendent principles.

  • Kaffir

    larissa wrote:
    “These tribals might have an animal like contentedness, but I find their lives also deficient, as it seems to produce nothing higher than living in the moment, and there is no higher life of contemplation. It is not a choice between atheism but a choice of way,”
    =

    Whether the tribals’ lives are deficient or not, is not the issue. The issue is who experiences a khujli in gaand at seeing other people who go about their daily lives, being content and not harming anyone and believing in whatever they want to believe or not believein, and needs to scratch that itch by translating the Bible in the tribal language and trying to “convert” them.

  • larissa

    I know–that was the obvious point of the article. Take, on the other hand, Sanskritization of tribals–it was a process that was gradually absorbed peacefully. But it is obvious that the life of these tribals is deficient–unless you think an animal kind of happiness is fulfilling…
    Anyway such a tribal culture is bound to change during interaction with another high culture or civilization. This has nothing to do with whether people should be left alone or not. It is a law of nature.

  • http://www.indianliberals.org Ashish Deodhar

    Wonder if his change of religious opinion had more to do with the “exotic tribe” than with rationality itself. Because if he really had to see the point, there were way too many rationalists within America asking the same questions the Pirahas asked of him and his faith.

    @ Iarissa

    I think your claim that atheism is limiting is misguided. Atheism is nothing but rejection of a supernatural being. And as far as I know, there’s no such thing as atheistic materialism. Atheism and materialism are two different things and an atheist need not necessarily be a materialist and vice versa.

    My problem with many people is that they consider the three monotheisms as the only form of superstition and blind faith. That’s wrong in my opinion. (btw, I think Buddhism is very much atheistic. That it has turned into another religion is an aberration!)

  • larissa

    “Atheism is nothing but rejection of a supernatural being”

    No it is not. Atheism is different as us understood in the East(as one of the philosophical schools of Hinduism) and in the West (in a narrow fashion the reaction to Abrahamism). I am speaking of atheism as understood in the West. In Eastern religious outlook the kind of atheism you find in the West does not arise philosophically speaking. In the West, atheism goes in hand with scientific materialism, and a dislike of religion altotether, even those that are not built upon faith in a personal God. It is this kind of atheism that I ind disturbing, as in the West it goes in hand with materialism, rationalism and reductionism, and a denial of transcendent principles, and is often an excuse to lead whatever lifestyle one pleases. I am not talking of atheism as is understood in the East. Hence the most famous atheists such as Marx have been against religion altogether, having a very limited view of religion (the Abrahamic type, which are not built upon universal principles) in the first place. The most recent is Stephen Hawkings who had a need to say God does not exist. This is just speaking in a Western sense of “God”, as understood on the revealed religions built on miracles and faith.
    To say Buddha was an atheist is again a non-statement because the kind of atheism you refer to does not arise in Eastern religions. But then as Ananda Coomaraswamy put it, Buddhism is most famous today for what it originally was not.

  • larissa

    I meant to say as understood “in the revealed religions”….

  • Amit S

    @Larissa

    I agree with you that there is a difference between Eastern atheism and Western atheism. This emanates from the way Westerners and Easterners reason. While Westerners try to isolate the problem, Easterners try to deal with the whole. One is more efficient, the other is more holistic. Look at our systems of medicine, logic, philosophy, religion, and science. East could not have come up with Christianity or Communism, and West could not have come up with Hinduism or Buddhism.

    Since it is more difficult to wrap one’s head around the whole, Eastern philosophy leaves a lot more open to interpretation, and many times Eastern discourse degenerates to poetic flowery metaphors. A classical example of someone raised in Eastern culture is you. You use words like “transcendent” and “universal” without defining these terms. You assume that most Indians (most of the readers of these blogs) will understand you. However, I am willing to bet that if asked to define what these terms mean, with all due respect, you will struggle.

    However, not all atheists in the West are devoid of spirituality, unlike what you have implied. For example, Sam Harris has tried to answer moral questions using science (be sure to watch his TED video.). There are others too who are ready to wonder about the complexity and beauty of the universe. There are others who talk about “Human Rights” and other such made up concepts without reasoning where these rights come from. Moral concepts such as Human Rights, or other concepts that allow one to appreciate beauty and complexity are not necessarily materialistic or rational. And this is not new in the West.

    But, I do think that the Eastern atheists and Western atheists are converging due to increased exposure to each other. Eastern religion and Western religion are a different story.

  • larissa

    No I will not struggle but such things cannot be explained on a blog in a few paragraphs. Transcendent principles have to do with the way societies were traditionally ordered with metaphysical principles at the top. All higher classical civilizations were ordered in this fashion–there is heirarchy, spiritual authority and transcendance is the goal. Now this ordering is inverted in modern times and you have materialism, unrestrained individualism, desacralization and nihilism as the ordering principles. Many scholars have noted that it was the French Revolution that first released these subversive forces at least in the Western world which run against rootedness in a culture, loyalty to motherland or fatherland, honor, and heroism. This is too long to get into, but in short I am not advocating a return to the “past” but merely pointing out that that modern society has inverted these principles which all traditional societies considered “normal” and how to reorder society again back again to recover these principles is the subject of many books on this topic.

    “Eastern philosophy leaves a lot more open to interpretation, and many times Eastern discourse degenerates to poetic flowery metaphors. A classical example of someone raised in Eastern culture is you. You use words like “transcendent” and “universal” without defining these terms.”

    Eastern philsophy is quite precise and logical if you care to read it–especially philosophies like Buddhism. They appear “imprecise” because people who debate them do not understand what they are saying and are writing on topics they should not be writing on, these days anyone can write books on anything, which results in confusion as to quality. Also the people who debate these systems of thought are a far cry from the traditional monks who used to be the smartest men of their times, and were interested in all forms of knowledge that was available at the time, not just in “trandcendental meditation.” That is why those systems were alive and flourishing back then because the monks commanded intellectual and spiritual authority, today they offer sustenance to the individual who seeks to learn and read. Also Indians are mostly uneducated when it comes to liberal arts, their own history as a peoples, their religion, and philosophy as the focus is on a technical degree to get ahead in the world. This is why India produces technicians and there is hardly any intellectual life in India. They do not understand how rich their own culture is and mostly ape what they do not understand. This is the trend. So the fault is not so much with “Eastern” systems, as the people who study and derive sustenance from them.

    “Sam Harris has tried to answer moral questions using science (be sure to watch his TED video.). There are others too who are ready to wonder about the complexity and beauty of the universe.”
    Sorry I do not think Sam Harris ranks as an intellectual. Maybe to some Indians who have not read much he sounds impressive. I see very little that is original and interesting in what he says, seems like a more sophisticated version of Opera Winfrey.

    “For example, Sam Harris has tried to answer moral questions using science (be sure to watch his TED video.). ”
    Again Sam Harris is not intellectual to me; the problem could be we are impressed by people at different levels.

    “East could not have come up with Christianity or Communism..”
    Communism, totalitarianism, Marxism all have roots in the Abrahamic way of thinking. They are quite akin to Christianity and many scholars have said that they might even be its extentions or natural consequence.

    “There are others too who are ready to wonder about the complexity and beauty of the universe. ”

    Oh how interesting, I did not realize that people “wonder about the complexity of the universe”, as you put it.

    “Since it is more difficult to wrap one’s head around the whole, Eastern philosophy leaves a lot more open to interpretation, and many times Eastern discourse degenerates to poetic flowery metaphors. A classical example of someone raised in Eastern culture is you. You use words like “transcendent” and “universal” without defining these terms. You assume that most Indians (most of the readers of these blogs) will understand you. ”
    These concepts require an extensive study of religion, philosophy and history in order to understand them. There can only be communication between people who have similar backgrounds with respect to a study of these things; you cannot explain them on a blog in a paragraph, nor do I have interest in doing so. I was merely making the point that the man’s deconversion as shown in the video was not interesting to me, as even his choice of alternative to Christianity seemed limiting, as would be expected from a man whose theological outlook as been molded by that religion, that theology seems to also mold the alternatives that people form in opposition to it or as a reaction to it–so the best he can come up with is “atheism”.

  • Amit S

    @Larissa

    You wrote:

    1. No I will not struggle

    2. but such things cannot be explained on a blog in a few paragraphs.

    Either you are hiding your struggle behind point #2, or you have a bad case of condescending “universally transcendent” attitude towards mere mortals (asuras) like me (go figure what asura means and why I am using it here.) You could have simply pointed to some sources if you really knew your stuff. Or better yet, you could have expressed your ideas in a short post. That is the real test of understanding, when you can explain it to others easily.

    Granted, Sam Harris’ ideas are not original. But his synthesis and delivery definitely is. Unlike someone who claims to have read everything but cannot put forth a coherent argument. Also, my point was not that he is an intellectual. My point was that he is asking questions that beyond “materialism, nihilism and unrestrained hedonism.” (in your words what Western atheism is). These questions are not the same as what Eastern atheist have asked, but Western atheism is not about unbridled materialism.

    Okay, let me make it simple for your transcendental oh-so-well-read mind:

    Q1. In terms of ideas, do you really believe that Western atheism is same as utilitarianism, materialism, hedonism, nihilism, and reductionism?

    Q2. In terms of people, do you really believe that Western atheists are largely incapable of thinking and behaving contrary to utilitarianism, materialism, hedonism, nihilism, and reductionism?

    I will decide whether we can have an intelligent debate after judging how you answer these questions. Otherwise, feel free to transcend from this debate and the need to prove a point that is not there.

    Hey, can you transcend hunger, thirst and need for physical safety? For how long?

  • http://www.indianliberals.org Ashish Deodhar

    @Irissa, Amit

    As a matter of fact, I don’t think there is any difference between eastern and western atheism. If you consider the Carvaka school of thought, you would find that a) it rejects a supernatural existence and b) is absolutely materialistic and rationalistic in its outlook. The modern day atheism finds much in common with this oldest school of atheism.

    As far as rejection of religion goes, Carvaka claimed that religion is man-made. He had even gone to the extent of calling the authors of vedas buffoons! The dislike of religions has only grown since Carvaka because of the mess religions have created in this world and continue to do so.

  • larissa

    “when you can explain it to others easily.”

    Do you explain a mathematical theorem to someone who has not the requisite study of mathematics? I doubt a blog is the place to do so. That is why people write books when they want to share ideas. I simply made a comment that this man’s deconversion was as uninteresting as his missionary activities.

    “Granted, Sam Harris’ ideas are not original. But his synthesis and delivery definitely is. Unlike someone who claims to have read everything but cannot put forth a coherent argument.”

    It is a show of your ignorance when you “claim” I said I “know” everytihng and then go on to argue against your own “claims” as to what I said.

    “Granted, Sam Harris’ ideas are not original. But his synthesis and delivery definitely is. ”
    Again there is a saying the cockroach also thinks his child the most beautiful. Sam Harris to me is not interesting, illiminating, original in the very least. He does not teach me anything I do not already know from reading the history of ideas and philosophy. It is just a rehashing of ideas of greater philosophers. But people who have just a technical education and have never studied philosophy and the history of ideas in a systematic fashion can be impressed. It is silly arguing with you that he is not impressive when you belive he is. Fine I hope you learn something, because I learn nothing from him.

    “My point was that he is asking questions that beyond “materialism, nihilism and unrestrained hedonism.” (in your words what Western atheism is). These questions are not the same as what Eastern atheist have asked, but Western atheism is not about unbridled materialism.”

    Again you make the arguments and answer yourself. Every new ager this day clains to ask such questions. So? Why should I listen to this man when he has nothing to teach me?

    “In terms of ideas, do you really believe that Western atheism is same as utilitarianism, materialism, hedonism, nihilism, and reductionism?”

    Again I have never said the same as, but simply said it is limiting as it is a reaction to Abrahamism. So the context in which the entire debate itself is undertaken with respect to such ideas is limiting.

    “Hey, can you transcend hunger, thirst and need for physical safety? For how long?”
    Who, what, where, when? When did I say such a thing? But then you have a penchant for claiming I said something and then you answer yourself. By transcendental principles I mean a certain ordering of society on the basis of metaphysical principles. The non Abrahamic higher traditional classical civilizations such as that of classical India, Greece, Persia and China had an ordering of society in this fashion and shared this commonality. In modern times, there is dissolution of this ordering.

  • larissa

    As a matter of fact, I don’t think there is any difference between eastern and western atheism. If you consider the Carvaka school of thought, you would find that a) it rejects a supernatural existence and b) is absolutely materialistic and rationalistic in its outlook. The modern day atheism finds much in common with this oldest school of atheism.

    No I am referring to the fact that you say the Buddha was an “atheist”. He was no so in the sense you mean. The context of debate in which atheism is placed is usually logical positivism, which is limiting.

    As for Carvaka, there is some common ground, but when you say “absolutely materialistic and rationalistic” you have already shown the limited field of vision that the context of debate is placed. The limited discourse of Marx and Freud also stem from an atheistic outlook. I think it no superior to what it claims to be against and generally is the opposite side of the coin of dogmatism. Most of Eastern philsophy is a response to how this world view is limiting. Just as Aristotle wrote the Ethics to show how pleasure in the narrow “hedonisitc” sense is not the goal of what can be called a “man” and which is why the Buddhist initiates were asked before joining the order the question “Are you a man?”, by which they meant someone who has latent yet astir in thim the highest, the divine, the most.

  • http://www.indianliberals.org Ashish Deodhar

    @Larissa

    I think you misunderstood me about Buddhism. I said Buddhism is a form of atheism in that it doesn’t invoke a supernatural entity from outside the universe. That’s different from saying that “Buddha was an atheist.” I didn’t say that because I couldn’t possibly know whether he was or not.

    And about Carvaka, the heart of that philosophy is in materialism. It’s not me saying it; it’s what it is. The crux of this argument is that there is no life after death; that there is nothing wrong in sensual pleasure, in fact it is the only enjoyment to be pursued; and that religion was man made and there is no supreme being.

    Now this is what I have read about the Carvaka philosophy (and I have read quite a lot about it!) and I am willing to concede that I may have got it wrong if you could show us that it was any different.

    And lastly, atheism, or even materialism for that matter, is not dogmatic simply because it isn’t an authoritative doctrine that cannot be questioned or challenged. And as an atheist myself, I am very much open to any form of evidence that suggests an existence of a divinity. That’s fair, not dogmatic, isn’t it?

  • Kaffir

    Ashish wrote:

    If you consider the Carvaka school of thought, you would find that a) it rejects a supernatural existence and b) is absolutely materialistic and rationalistic in its outlook.

    Now this is what I have read about the Carvaka philosophy (and I have read quite a lot about it!) [..]“

    ==

    There are very few, if any, original works from the Carvaka school of thought that survive today, and whatever we have today accounts to very limited knowledge about this school and its thinking. Almost all of the information about Carvaka philosophy is gleaned from other sources and other philosophies (Hindu, Buddhist) which butted heads with it. So, I’m not sure that “reading ABOUT the Carvaka philosophy” would lead someone to the definitive conclusion that “(Carvaka) is absolutely materialistic and rationalistic in its outlook.” If your views about what Carvaka philosophy is and what it isn’t were presented as SPECULATIONS, then these views would likely be more credible.

    Seems to me that the Carvaka philosophy is akin to a Rorscach inkblot on which modern-day “atheists” can project their thoughts and views on, and make it the most sublime/perfect/rational philosophy, even if – or precisely because – there’s very little known about it. Or maybe because the Carvakas rejected Vedic teachings, some people think highly of it because they have a similar anti-Hindu outlook today. Then again, even a non-working clock is correct twice a day.

  • larissa

    “And lastly, atheism, or even materialism for that matter, is not dogmatic simply because it isn’t an authoritative doctrine that cannot be questioned or challenged. And as an atheist myself, I am very much open to any form of evidence that suggests an existence of a divinity. That’s fair, not dogmatic, isn’t it?”

    Again the problem as I sais is in the framework of atheism which you limit yourself to: it is not the question of the existence of “divinity”; it is a question of a metaphysical world view. Now you fame the debate in terms of what is understood to be atheism as materialism guided by the pleasure principle as supreme. The Carkava school of thought is materialistic, however there are other schools of thought which could be called atheistic but which do not entail materialism, that is, questions of divinity as in Abrahamism are entirely irrelevent. As for Carvaka, Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics has a good refuation of materialism and utilitarianism. Also the other schools of Eastern philosophy in general are a refutation of materialism. You should take a look. It is not a long book.
    In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle posits good habits as a starting point. Just as you cannot argue with pirates and robbers as to why what they do is wrong when they think you can do as you please as long as you get away with it, certain good habits are assumed in the disciple even before they are considered teachable.

  • Kaffir

    Ashish, here’s an excerpt from Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha by Madhava Acharya:

    While life remains, let a man live happily,
    let him feed on butter though he runs in debt;
    When once the body becomes ashes,
    how can it ever return again?

    I doubt that “let him feed on butter though he runs in debt” would pass for rational as well as a responsible way of living one’s life.

  • http://www.indianliberals.org Ashish Deodhar

    Hi Larisaa

    Yes I agree with you that you could have different metaphysical world views even within an atheistic school of thought. And that’s why I said in my earlier comment that atheism is not necessarily materialism and vice versa.

    I am more inclined towards materialism but I regard the Buddhist philosophy very highly. And I think both of these philosophies could co-exist.

    Thanks for recommending the book. I would definitely like to read it soon.

    @Kaffir

    Yeah you are right that very little of Carvaka work is left now and in all honesty, I can’t claim to have read all of it either. But I have still read a fair amount and that’s what I gathered from what I read. That’s why I said that I am quite happy to be exposed to some other Carvaka material that could refute the claim that it’s materialistic in nature.

  • larissa

    @ Ashish Deodhar

    It can be a little boring reading Aristotle, but if you get a book with a good translation and commentary, it can be rewarding. The Nichomachean Ethics defends the life of contemplation as the highest activity of man, but also says that while such a man would like to lead a contemplative life, he keeps up his interest in the politics of the “polis” (city state in ancient Greece) because the political art concerns itself with what is possible, it concerns itself with organizing life in the polis. If life in the city becomes intolerable, then the conditions in which one can lead a contemplative life also become impossible. In the Ethics you can see a refutation of the notion that pleasure as the end of life, and a refutation of utilitarianism. Aristotle begins with asking the question “What is happiness”, and proceeds to define it. If you are patient, this book is amazingly rewarding, and will teach you things you can apply to life!
    Also rewarding is Plato’s Republic which is a defense of the philosophic life and also deals with correct governance in a polis and the question of “What is justice?”. The most famous is the sixth book in which Plato speaks of the theory of ideas. These items are not easy to digest the first time, but if one is patient, it can be rewarding.
    Also for early Buddhism I recommend the following:
    Rhys Davids (Shakya–tries to grasp the teachings of early Buddhism before it diverged into various schools and its teachings become different)
    Buddhism: its history and literature (there are more books by husband and wife Rhys Davids and Caroline Davids who were Pali scholars and have written valuable books on Buddhism)
    Ananda Coomaraswamy: Hinduism and Buddhism
    The living thoughts of Gotama the Buddha
    The origin of the Buddha image and Buddhist iconography
    Buddha and The Gospel of Buddhism. Amazing author who has written amazing books on Indian Art, religion and philosophy. One of the best.
    George Grimm (founder of the Buddhist society in Germany)The Doctrine of the Buddha. A very good book on early Buddhism in which he cuts straight through to what is essential.
    Buddhist wisdom: the mystery of the self. (George Grimm). These are first rate Pali scholars who cut through the many myths and get to the heart of early Buddhism, and what is more try to connect to what it can mean for the modern man. What you will see from these authors is that the more one understands Buddhism, it is not really all that different from Hindism
    Rene Guenon: Man and his becoming according to the Vedanta Founder of the perennial school of philosophy and traditionalism. Amazing writer who deals with the modern West’s spiritual crisis.
    Julius Evola (a controversial author, but he has a very good book on buddhism called The Doctrine of Awakening. If you keep his militarism and supremacism aside, the books is amazing in explaining the teachings of early Buddhism to the lay person).

    I highly recommend Plato and Aristotle for anyone intersted in philosophy. As Whitehead said, most of Western Philosophy is a footnote to Plato. While Aristotle can be dry and boring to read, Plato wrote dialogues which are highly inetertaining to read, and a work or art in themselves. One can start with the “Apology” defense of Socrates, then the Phaedrus, Rebublic, Meno and ultimately the entire corups. It is a good idea to get a good translation with a good commentary. Allen Bloom’s translation of the Republic is used for most Freshmen courses in the U.S. It has good notes and explanation in the back.
    I believe all of these books are downloadable on the internet or someone has downloaded them on scribd.com which you can become a member of for not too much $$. A good resource to find books and read them on the internet, if they are unavailable where you live. It used to be free but now they have a small fee.

  • http://www.indianliberals.org Ashish Deodhar

    @Larissa

    Wow. Great amount of knowledge in there. Thanks for all the information. I must admit I haven’t read much of Aristotle or Plato in my life.

    Will surely look for them on the internet but from what I read, it may also be a good idea to have some of them in paperback.

    Thanks again :)

  • Pingback: Things I Like – The Self-referential Edition | Atanu Dey On India's Development