The Cosmology of Shantaram and Gregory David Roberts

I really wonder if your views should not be seen in the same light as Gregoy David Roberts'.
//the true statement that god does not (indeed, cannot) exist.//
I am not sure if anyone has ever said this but my belief is that there is nothing as Right or wrong. Its all the perception of a person's mind. What you think is truth might be blatant lie for me. When you say that this statement is true, you are denying to agree with anyone elses view point. In this way you sound same as him ... just voicing opposite views.

I would agree that he is a sophist, but so are most authors.

Amitscorpio,

You said you don't believe there's anything Right or Wrong. That position is philosophically known as relativism and is a variant of skepticism--the view the true knowledge of factual rights and wrongs are not possible to any human being.

Most philosophers have rejected these positions because they reveal a self-defeating circularity. If you say that there's nothing right or wrong, then you are already making a statement that you believe is *universally* right and applicable to all, i.e., that there is no right or wrong that anyone can objectively make a claim to.

In other words, to make the claim that no true knowledge of right or wrong is possible, you have to first make the claim to the certainty of knowing for a *fact* that no right or wrong can be known, which is itself a claim to factual knowledge of something true and right.

In any case, respectable philosophers have long discarded relativism and all its variants. What they are now more engaged in is grappling with how to ground an *objective* theory of right and wrong. John Rawls propounded his theory of justice. John Searle comes up with biological naturalism. This is where the philosophy of Objectivism has made the greatest and most revolutionary contribution.

P.S., I wantet add: all my articles function from the framework of objectivity, i.e., that there are metaphysical rights and wrongs and that it is possible for humans to grasp its truth by a consistent application of reason.

Karl Popper, in his famous debate with Wittgenstein, gave just one famous example of a universally moral wrong.

In sum, my true statement that god cannot and does not exist is based on a large hierarchy of objectively reasoned facts. I did not think that this article on Shantaram was a good venue for me to present my arguments on atheism, hence I did not get into it more than how much was necessary. I only wanted to point out that Shantaram's use of Godel's theorem to refute atheism was illegitimate and his argument that you need to have omniscient knowledge to dismiss god's existence is false.

Aaman,

I am surprised by your declaration that "most authors" are sophists. Can you provide any rational basis for such a bold comment? Because if your statement cannot be substantiated, then I find it very reckless, at the least.

To write requires a certain level of egotism, the kind that comes from either self-awareness or wisdom. Even those that seem racked with self-doubt are at heart, feeling a sense of satisfaction at having their words read by others. The truly aware adopt trick methods to mask their true meaning, and only the initiate is able to discern the message. Sounds like sophistry to me, then again, perhaps I'm the sophist here, and you should try some truthiness:)

I have to agree on some levels with Roberts, not when he says that atheism is illogical, but when he says that being within the universe one cannot understand it fully.

Similar to the contention that using the brain, you cannot fully understand the brain itself, i believe that one cannot discard or confirm most theories about God (unless, of course, the theory included a God that existed within our universe, or even better, on/in our planet).

That doesn't mean that he's right, he would've nullified his own statement by making an absolute declaration right after saying one couldn't understand the universe (of course, my own statement depends on his definition of God transcending our universe)

And btw, Relativism dead? What about (relative) personal objectivism, but a universal (in outlook) relativism (that is not forced on others?)

And forgive my ignorance, I've been trying to find out what Popper's universally moral wrong is, via the interwebs, no luck. Could you enlighten us?

Aaman, your response is quite speculative--and unconvincing--about the motives of *most* authors. If ever there was anything most subjectivist, this would qualify. I'll agree with you that *many* modern/contemporary authors are nothing more writers from vanity, e.g., Paris Hilton and the breed of celebrity-turned-writers. But that does not mean *most* authors are; particularly, the authors from the early part of the twentieth century and even those before.
Further, "sophist" is a very specific term that has a definite connotation of dishonesty. Therefore, even given your speculative theory, it does not mean that *most* authors are dishonest, though they may be egoistic (not egotistic).

Rohan,

The contention that you cannot understand the brain fully using the brain is one of the many false impressions that stemmed out of the skeptic and Kantian noumenal movement. Just remember this, ignorance is never the justification for any theory. The brain is our tool of knowing about reality (including the brain itself), just like the ear is our tool of hearing and the eyes is our tool of seeing. To say because you have a brain you can never fully learn about reality (including the brain) is akin to saying that because you have ears, you cannot hear; because you have eyes, you cannot see. The contention is that human sense and cognitive organs are inequipped to grasp reality precisely because they are our sense organs that "filter" reality.

The least I can say is, the theory is easily refuted. Our sense and cognitive organs are *as much* a part of reality as "reality" is; further, these organs *developed* from the same "stuff" of reality as the rest of reality. Next, the particular "form" of our perception and cognition is certainly dictated by the organ we use, but the percieved form is nevertheless that of independent, objective reality itself. How else would the mind have any content or form?

Well, let's drop that at that. This is not the thread of the discussion. If you are interested in more, I've written much about this issue on my own blog.

I tried writing out Karl Popper's famous line, but the Desicritic's automated comment monitor seems to think that there's a word in it that warrants banning. So it doesn't let me publish it. I'll try to re-word the line without using the "offending" term:

[Tried re-wording, but the comment ban does not let me publish the famous line. Google keywords "Karl Popper" "Wittgenstein" "Moral Science Club debate"

"Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers."

Testing the apocryphal line - a good background to Wittgenstein's Poker is here which somewhat debunks Popper's account of the meeting.

Incidentally, poker was a banned word - lots of spam dealing with poker - thanks for the alert - it's been removed now. Another word that was banned was 'cialis' which might have prevented all good socialists from making their mark.

P.S. The original title of this article, as I had written it, was "The Cosmology of Shantaram," wherein "Shantaram" referred to the name that Gregory Roberts assumed. Desicritic editors chose to re-title this essay as "The Cosmology of Shantaram and Gregory David Roberts," as if indicating that there is a cosmology of Shantaram the book and Shantaram the man, and as if my essay also touches upon whatever cosmology is advocated in the book.

I have not read his book--and do not intend to. So, this article should not be taken as a commentary on his book, because I don't know anything about it in order to competently speak of it. Just FYI.

If an author is expected to stand by what he wrote, even if it catalogued as fiction, yet based on his own life, there must be little difference between his own cosmology and his character's. I don't think books have their own cosmology, but what do I know, I'm just a cosmic joke.

Aaman, you're right: one would assume that there might be some overlap in the respective "cosmologies." Nonetheless, I needed to make it explicit lest someone is led to believe that I read his book and am referring to ideas covered in the book.

"I'm just a cosmic joke."

As an aside, even in jest, why do you like being self-deprecating? Not that it matters to me; I'm just being curious.

Aaman: Have you ever had gum stuck in your hair?

If I took myself a little too seriously, I might come across as a know-it-all, and you know, overlook the gum stuck in my hair.

Well, whatever rocks your boat.