‘She’d given me everything that I’ve ever lost’

 

It had been a long day for Andrei.  Clumsily he walked dragging his shoes in mud. His hands were loosely tucked into his pockets. His sleeves were untidily folded almost up to his pointed elbows. His shirt was scruffily gathered into his trousers that hung around his thin waist. Cool summer breeze sifted through his unruly hair. Fatigue of the day’s work reflected on this young man’s demeanour. As he walked he never lifted his downcast eyes. Perhaps he was reluctant to face the glimmer of the setting sun. He had not even realised how bright the day had been. He reached his room; lifted his eyes to take a brief glimpse of the disorganized state his room was in. Taking no notice of the toppled pile of military books, three carelessly placed army medals and the blown away pages written in his hand, he reached out to the easy-chair at the window. Suddenly he sprawled over the chair as if he longed to do this.  

He began to gaze through the window. The sun hung low. Birds were returning. The skies were orange. Twilight diffused through his window. For Andrei, it was just like that day which has been so deeply etched in his memory. It was dusk even then. Both of them had stood staring at each other. It was time to part. She knew it. He knew it. But they just couldn’t drift apart. So difficult it was for Andrei to tear his eyes off her face. Oh her face! How innocent it was. Those eloquent eyes- how deep they were. How soulful! Andrei remembers that moment. He will never forget it. He can’t forget it. Each and every fraction of that moment files pass his mind. In that one perpetual moment she had given him everything that he had ever lost.

The dusk always reminds him of that day. It has been three years since the war broke out in Austerlitz. Andrei was a young soldier in one of Russian battalions. He fought valiantly but he was wounded. Two bullets pierced his flesh- one in the arm and the other beneath the chest. The injury was not fatal but the poison had begun to spread. He was left untreated on the battleground for a day. Only after the battle was over, somebody took him on the crude military stretcher and dumped him into the makeshift medical camp adjacent to the battlefield. The military doctor pierced his knife into his flesh and took out the bullet. With his rough strokes he then sewed his wounds. Andrei cried out of excruciating pain. Doctor left him in pain on his blood stained, crude stretcher next to the window. He just dosed off. Septicemia was setting in.

He woke up after a day. A beam of sunlight through his window welcomed him. It was a bright morning. Springtime in Austerlitz is always beautiful. Fields stretched endlessly. Long green grass fluttered in the breeze like the soft manes of a galloping horse. Buds were blooming into flowers all over as if colourful petals were strewn till the horizon. Gently and carefully picking those flowers was a young girl wearing a bright red apron.

The girl in the red apron immediately arrested wounded Andrei’s attention. He gazed and gazed through the crude wooden frame of his window. ‘There- at the horizon’, he thought; ‘the rising sun’s brilliant light touches her reddening cheeks. The fleecy clouds are gently caressed by the cool summer breeze that sifts through her curly locks. Melodies of the chirruping birds blend with the sweet aroma of the April Rose carelessly held in her delicate fingers. How sweet is the fragrance of the green grass that oozes its juice underneath her dainty little feet. How beautiful are those rejoicing daffodils on the ground that are graced by her downcast eyes. How surreal it is to feel her breath mingling in the melodies of silence around her.’

Andrei found himself in acquaintance with strange and overwhelming emotions. But what emotions? Did he feel lured? Was he in love? Or was he just admiring the beauty- a non corporeal, surreal sense of beauty? Or was it just a sense of comfort after a gory battle? He was confused. None of his answers convinced him. It was just a feeling- a bare feeling. An emotion that was unique in itself. There was no word that could describe that emotion. It was neither attraction, nor love, nor comfort, nor was an admiration of non-corporeal beauty. It was all of them and much more. No word, no sentence, no idea could he conceive through which could ever fathom what that feeling was. It was just unique in its own way.

Andrei remained obsessed with those emotions all day. Image of the girl in red apron picking flowers did not leave his vision. Painful cries of soldiers around him were drowned in the silent tune that the girl might have been humming to herself. The stretcher that reeked with his blood appeared sweetened by the aroma of the roses that the girl in red apron had picked. His own pain was lost in the bliss with which the girl was prancing her way through the meadow while collecting flowers. He dreamt, slept and woke- all indistinguishably.

Without any break in his dreams, he found that it was morning again. The girl in the red apron was again there, collecting flowers in her basket. Andrei silently watched her through the window. Soon her basket was full. She disappeared. And she appeared again, now through the door of the medical camp. Andrei watched her as she entered and gradually advanced towards him. Distributing roses and smiles to the wounded soldiers all her way, she glided gently through the plethora of ruin and pain all around her.

Finally she reached the window where Andrei was lying. He saw her. She was standing just before him. He kept gazing at her. She gazed at him. He couldn’t say anything. What could he have said? There was no name to his feelings. There was no accent that could provide him an expression. There were only eyes- eyes blurring with tears. What were those tears for? He could hardly understand. Both gazed at each other- speechless, wordless and voiceless. They couldn’t have been more eloquent. Impulsively she placed a rose on his pillow. She uttered a few words which Andrei could hardly grasp. He was too deeply sunk into those wordless emotions for words to make sense to him.

The day passed in her thoughts. The rose was kept besides him. Its fragrance carried him to her. Its crimson colour was reminiscent of her presence. He brought the rose close to his chest and hugged it hard. Tears rolled down from the sides of his eyes. The flower was so dear to him. He couldn’t part with it. It was his sole companion, his mate, his love. He adhered to it for it was only the flower that was eloquent enough to reciprocate his voiceless sentiments. He dreamt, woke and slept- all as if in a trance.

Without a hiatus of any sort, he found it was the next day. Sun was setting. It was dusk. She was there. Both of them stood staring at each other. It was time to part. She knew it. He knew it. But they just couldn’t drift apart. So difficult it was for Andrei to tear his eyes off her face. Oh her face! How innocent it was. Those soulful eyes- how deep they were. How eloquent! Andrei exerted to bring out some words. He wanted to make a promise of his return and expected an assurance of her presence. But all that he managed to say was too vague to make sense to the two souls communicating in accents far beyond words. He climbed into the military van and the gap between them stretched. He raised his hand to make the final gesture. It was partly an attempt to make a wafture and partly an attempt to seize the infinitude of that moment in the little palm of his hand.

Three years have passed since then. Andrei has since been grappling with enigmas that that moment had given him. The flower has been treasured the way the memories of the girl in red apron have been cherished. In these three years he has been to Austerlitz several times searching for the girl in the red apron. He spent days looking for her but all in vain. His wounds have healed but the one who provided him the balm is gone. He sits by his window with the image of the girl in red apron before his eyes. Just like this day, every dusk would carry him back to her.

Grown habitual of searching for her, he sets out for Austerlitz once again. He reaches the battle field. He sees those meadows. He sees those flowers. He sees that medical camp now ruined with time. All is so familiar to him.  But the difference this time was that he found his young lady, dressed in a red apron, filling her basket with flowers.  From inside the dilapidated structure that was once the medical camp, he gazed at her. She was just the same- delicate, gentle with blushing cheeks and curly hair. Andrei lost his speech. His eyes were blurred with tears. He had found what he had been looking for all these years.

He attempted to reach out to her but couldn’t. He was reluctant even to inch closer. He realized that his object was elusive. Was the girl in the red apron his destination? He found it difficult to convince himself of that. What was that he was looking for all these years?

Perhaps his object is lost. Perhaps there has been no object. His search has been aimless- for something abstract. He may never know. But as he stands before the girl who changed his life, he is now sure of one thing. It is not her who he was searching for. She was there, right before him. The flowers, the grass, the medical camp- all were there as before. But his destination still eluded him. What were missing? Perhaps those abstract feelings. Those abstract emotions had conjured up during that particular moment when they parted. Those emotions were intertwined with the moment that passed. The moment just slipped and what he was left with was the reminiscence of those feelings. It was the overwhelming nostalgia not of the girl in the red apron but of those feelings that impelled his search. Andrei soon realised this. He kept gazing at the girl in the red apron as she kept collecting flowers. Soon her basket got filled. It was dusk by then. The sun was again setting, just like that day. The girl began to leave. He did not make any effort to stop her. He couldn’t. Nothing impelled him to do so. The entire bliss was in those emotions. What he had longed to attain all through those three years were those abstract emotions that the brief association with the girl had aroused in him. The moment that sifted from between his fingers of his hands that he had raised to make the parting gesture, had made all the difference. In that perpetual moment she had given him everything that he has ever lost. Life is none but one such moment.

Suyash Saxena

St. Stephen’s College

Introduction: Today Science appears to independently advance and single-handedly solve the mysteries of Universe.  And the Queen of all Sciences- Philosophy, “just like another Lear, has been turned outdoors” by her children- the Sciences, who feast on her inheritance. In the write-up, I’ve endaevoured to bring out the interrelation between Science and Philosophy since the pre-Socrates times with an aim to show that the interdependence between the two is not only mandatory but also inevitable. The conclusion that I intend to draw is that: without Science, Philosophy becomes more and more dishonest, a bit deficient in mathematical certainty and empirical concreteness and is tempted to ‘fall into futility of scholasticism’. But without Philosophy, Science is not merely as helpless as chaotic sensations that come to a disordered mind but also destructive and devastating.

(Certain ideas in the last two paragraphs have been borrowed from Will Durant’s essay- ‘The Lure of Philosophy’, his introductory note in the ‘Story of Philosophy’ and from Prof. Stumph’s ‘History of Philosophy’. Discussions with Prof. Barua also inspired some of the ideas)

Had Philosophy divorced Science…

In the whole of New Testaments, the deepest and the profoundest question ever to be asked was asked by a solitary figure- Pilate, a Roman Viceroy. Nietzsche, in his usual offensive way, said that the Roman Viceroy is worthy of honour greater than even Christ for he had enriched the scripture ‘with the only saying of any worth’- ‘What is Truth?’ Philosophy is the quest for Truth. In its divinely love for the modestly elusive Truth, Philosophy fearlessly ventures in the unknown through observations, introspections, deduction and induction (Logic); purifies the processes of knowledge and perception itself when our feet lag in weary paths of logic and eyes are rendered useless in the dark mysteries (Epistemology); engages in the study of ideal form and beauty (Aesthetics); devotes itself to the pursuit of ideal social life and to the questions of liberty, democracy, monarchy, socialism and feminism (Politics); concerns itself with the study of ideal conduct, of the highest knowledge as Socrates said- the knowledge of good and evil, of wisdom of life (Ethics); and then its insatiable thirst for Truth ushers Philosophy into the realm of the ‘ultimate reality’ of all things, where it engages itself in attempts to coordinate the ‘real’ in the light of the ‘ideal’ and interrelates mind and matter (Metaphysics). So intense is its lure for Truth and such diverse is mansion of Philosophy. In the sanctum of its mansion lives its dearest child- Science. Science studies the physical world and gives ‘information’ just like Philosophy gives the majestic ‘wisdom’. Science is the study of ‘experience’ just as Philosophy is a study of the “experience as a whole or in relation to the whole”. ‘Physics’ is the subject matter of Science and ‘reasoning’ its specialty. For Philosophy, complete world is the subject matter and entire Universe is its specialty.

Science began as a window through which Philosophy saw the world. It peered down the complexities of the physical world through the eye or a telescope, through a microscope or a spectroscope; and reported what it saw. Philosophy sculptured that mosaic of empirical perceptions carefully collected by Science into a meaningful design that could benefit the society as a whole. Without Philosophy scientific knowledge is simply chaotic plethora of sense perceptions like helpless sensations bereft of the guidance of an ordered mind. Science had realised its inevitable dependence on Philosophy in its very inception. Pre-Socrates mathematicians, scientist and thinkers daring to think beyond the overwhelming theology, clamoured for some space until Socrates lifted the veil of unfounded religious beliefs and dogmas had drawn over the Greek society. Science blossomed in the sanctuary of Philosophy. Contemporary mathematicians and scientists of the likes of Zeno, Democritus, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Aristotle (as a biologist), and Plato (as a mathematician) marched on the path cleared by philosophy through the jungle of superstition, dogmas and mythology. But while Science was feasting, Philosophy was still worried. Of course, Democritus had showed that ‘life’ is not a gift from a Roman God and that it springs out of a particle- ‘atamos’- but he could not visualise that if that Roman God does not exist what will the society- which has been so much dependent on the supernatural for its judgment of good and bad, right or wrong- look up to for guidance. The society that has turned into a cosmic orphan shall break all sanctions of morality, all social taboos and everything and anything that impedes its instincts on the pretext that- ‘If God does not exist everything is permitted’. The job of Science was over for it had used the microscope and figured out the atom. But job of Philosophy was half done. Socrates concerned himself with one of the greatest problems of Philosophy- how to develop natural and secular ethics to take the place of supernatural ethics that Philosophy had destroyed. Ethical code was necessary for Plato envisioned that no ‘Polis’ (State) could survive without a concept of morality since “it was easier for a city to survive without territory than for a State without a moral code.” Plutarch could not allow Science to march unharnessed devoid of Philosophy for “reasoning individuals make bad citizens” and States and societies shall decompose in anarchy. Philosophy did not rein in Science for Science was its dearest creation. Philosophy simply channelised its course. Plato envisaged the concept of an ideal State. He called it Utopia. In the Utopia each individual was trained in sports, music and above all in mathematics (the Science of the time). To guide those rational individual, Plato conceptualised a person with special knowledge not only of mathematics (and hence Science) but also of ‘Ideas’. He had a special attribute- wisdom- that implied an elevated vision in which knowledge is lifted up to a ‘panoramic view of the whole’. He was called the ‘Philosopher king’. The underlying aim was to encourage Science to prosper to the fullest- not as an anarchist but as a reformist under the auspices of the most generalised knowledge- Philosophy.

After the Greeks sinned the second time against Philosophy and just like Socrates they condemned Aristotle to death, Philosophy lost its way. It went down the abyss of the Middle Ages where the skies hung low suggesting a close bond between the theological heavens and the mundane earth below. Theology overwhelmed the human psyche. Philosophy had now detoured into theological territories and had nothing at its disposal except to provide theological dogmas rational a legitimacy. Derailment of Philosophy meant an inevitable death of Science. So it did. Science had died; for Europeans, like the Asians, had grown habitual of ‘forgetting their wits in their shoes outside the temple’.

But Science was resurrected, now in England, as Philosophy again found its path. Hobbes and Bacon pointed it out that it was not the supernatural force that moved things but it was ‘mechanics’. Enthused successors of the Greek mathematicians, began probe the mysteries afresh through their telescopes and microscopes. Galileo, Copernicus and Newton imported the scientific spirit to England that had been buried in the graves of Aristotle and Democritus the time since Greece had melted form the horizon. Science now knew no fetters. It marched ahead explaining almost everything through its sacrosanct faith in senses and reason. Philosophy left no stone unturned to exhort Science. Descartes, Spinoza and Leibnitz reverenced methodic doubt and attempted to address the philosophical problems with the precision and certainty of mathematics and Science. Science grew to a size it had never dreamt of in the past until its progenitor- Philosophy- grew suspicious of its methods. A creed of philosophers was born in England who questioned the basic method of Science itself. They called themselves Empiricists and believed that all knowledge, including mathematics, is uncertain until senses stamp them with approval. Definitely Science begins with empirically verified knowledge or at least should begin with facts approved by senses, but soon ventured into territories which had no empirical sanction. Newtonian mechanics, which had stirred the debate, was founded on a mathematical syllogism of which almost each stage may be verified by sense perception but the ‘connection’ between those stages had no empirical legitimacy. Causality, apriorism and space-time were such ‘connection’ which, according to Hume, had no empirical evidence. If these elements were ‘uncertain’ (going by the principle of Berkley- ‘essi est percipi’- Nothing exists beyond perception), Science was almost all false. But Science had to be rescued by Philosophy for Science was its window. Answer came from Germany when Kant legitimised causality, space-time and synthetic apriorism as ‘forms of intuition’. He proclaimed that our minds are so structured that they superimpose certain intuitive elements like causality and space-time to harmonise different sense perception. Though none of our senses tell us about the space-time but space-time has to exist in our minds so as to distinguish and harmonise different sense perceptions. Though Kant had attempted to save Science but as Bertrand Russell pointed out, Hume’s intense scepticism was irreconcilable. Science was still in jeopardy.

But Science is the dearest child of Philosophy.  Philosophy rescued its child not by negating British Scepticism but by dropping the subject matter itself. New age of philosophers rejected epistemology as philosophical harlotry and epistemologists, who once were the vestibule to the mansion of Philosophy, were delinked from the philosophical studies. Debates over causality and apriorism were definitely intellectually stimulating but hardly affected the human life. Anything that is not productive to the society at large should be curtailed and everything that concerns itself with the largest interest of man should be encouraged. Science had already proved its credentials as the most productive subject matter. Hence the likes of Bentham and Mill, supported by Nietzsche rescued the dearest child of Philosophy once again.

And just like all children, Science was an anarchist. A biologist set out to tour the world in a ship, examined fossils, observed different species and on his return to England proclaimed that a law exists in nature which all species obey and that was the law of natural selection- ‘the survival of the fittest’. Definitely, Darwin’s theory of evolution was a great feat for Science but Philosophy, in its quest to view things (especially great scientific theories) in its holistic perspective achieved much more from the theory of evolution of species than what Darwin must have ever thought. The long philosophical pursuit of ‘secular moral code’ that began with Socrates gained new energy after the appearance of Darwinism on the philosophical scene. If evolution is a struggle for existence and survival of the fittest, then survival is the test of fitness of everything- not excepting morals. So the only good man is the man who succeeds, proclaimed Nietzsche. The conservative moralists were terrified. If natural selection is the natural morality, said Tennyson, then nature is “red in tooth and claw”. Huxley attempted to negate Nietzsche, saying that morality is meant to defend the weak. “The ethical progress of a society depended not on imitating the cosmic process but combating it.” But how could a moral code, without the force of fables and revelations, be secured against the natural law? So if morality opposes nature, morality is doomed. The philosophical debate continues till date. Philosophy, which undoubtedly is the most generalised knowledge, had explored the widest possible ramification of ‘natural selection’, which Science alone could have never done.

The age biology ushered man into an age of determinism and laws of Science taken from the world of matter began to be artificially applied to mind. Science had begun to dominate the every sphere of human life. It procreated another anarchist- ‘technology’ which enslaved man and metamorphosed him into a machine. The noxious smokes of factories intoxicated all those instincts that made humans human and differentiated them from machines. Industrial moral code broke down the families which were the last evolutionary vestiges man’s social association. Liberty, freedom, leisure and aesthetics were lost as the mechanised life could ill-afford these luxuries of the previous age. Morals were based on nothing but material productivity. Wars were being fought during the 20^th century and millions of lives were lost thoughtless clashes. Human life had lost its dignity and meant no more than a machine. New discoveries kept dehumanising the human. An issueless American couple filed a case in the federal court against a woman who refused to honour the deal she had earlier signed to bear the child of the couple conceived into her womb through artificial insemination in lieu fifty million dollars. The surrogate mother refused to part with her child as she had developed an attachment natural to a mother that did not exist at the time of her signing the deal. It is a simply a product of this age of machines that just like the trade of commodities, natural human emotions and instincts have been assigned dollar values. Outsourcing pregnancy is one of various glaring examples of the amount of dehumanisation we have undergone since we allowed Science devoid of Philosophy to govern and subdue us as a totalitarian.

Like a good mother, Philosophy returned to chasten her belligerent child. If science eclipses everything else on the pretext of determinism, it shall go astray from its path of probing the physical world for philosophy. Science cannot rule; for Kingship is the prerogative only of the Queen of all Sciences- philosophy. Like all fashions, a philosophical fad emerged from Paris. No one had imagined that this philosophical fad, whose practitioners professed not in Universities but in French cafes, would invade every form of human thought- poetry, art, theatre, theology and science; end the age of determinism; humanise the human; deliver that humanly human from determinism into the age of subjectivism and ‘Existentialism’. Existentialism deified the human being and Existentialists were humans who specialised in humanism. Any philosophy, any religion and above all, any science, that did not contribute positively to the instincts, traits and qualities that make human a human, was futile. Science has a meaning only in the context of human life and determinism was doomed because it fails to distinguish a human from a stone that obeys laws of mechanics. ‘Human nature’ cannot be ‘determined’, because there is no universal human nature. There is subjectivity in human nature and each ‘individual’ is what he makes himself. This element of subjectivity in human nature provides him dignity that the stone or a machine does not possess and hence rescues the human from the subservience to science and technology. Human nature is independent of the realm of science and the purpose of science lies only in servitude to the human being.

Existentialism had emerged as an afterthought following the world wars which had blatantly showed how unhumanly humans had become under the tyranny of determinism. Indeed science tells us how to heal and how to kill; it reduces the death rate in retail and then kills us wholesale in wars. It is only the ‘wisdom’ of philosophy that tells us ‘when’ to heal and ‘when’ to kill. Science observes the empirical ‘fact’ but philosophy is never content to describe the fact. It wishes to ascertain the relation of the fact to the experience in general and thereby to get at its meaning and worth. Philosophy combines things in an interpretive synthesis which the inquisitively analytical science had torn apart. Often “Science seems to advance always while philosophy seems to lose ground. Yet this is because philosophy devotes itself to the hard and hazardous task of dealing with problems not yet open to the methods of science- problems of good and evil; of beauty and aesthetics; of freedom, life and death. Science is simply the captured territory of the vast unknown universe that the philosophy attempts to explore. Philosophy seems to stand still, perplexed; but only because she leaves the fruits of its victory to her daughters- the sciences, and herself passes on, divinely discontent, to the uncertain and unexplored.” Philosophy is natural to human mind for it concerns itself with the study of the ‘whole’ in whose light we clarify the ultimate choices in our lives.

Without science philosophy is impotent for how can wisdom grow without the knowledge fairly acquired. Without science philosophy becomes more and more dishonest, a bit deficient in mathematical certainty and empirical concreteness and falls into futility of scholasticism. But without philosophy, Science is not merely helpless but also destructive and devastating. Philosophy is the Queen of all science and like a wise queen she “assigns various provinces of her kingdom to skilled governors- greatest of them being the sciences”. But howsoever skilled the governors may be, they cannot survive if ‘they divide the inheritance of the benevolent Queen and turn her outdoors, like another Lear, with ingratitude unkinder than the winter’s wind.’

                                                                                                                                                                                Suyash Saxena

St. Stephen's College

Fine on Ranbaxy

Recently, American authorities established charges of fraudulent practices against Ranbaxy, the pharmaceutical MNC. Those 'fraudulent practices' of the company has costed several lives. Having pleaded guilty to the "felony charges" the US authorities slapped a fine of 500 million Dollars on Ranbaxy. This raises two fundamental questions:

1. Is it justified to 'compensate' the loss of human lives with monetary 'fines'? Or, to what extent can a monetary value be assigned to human lives?

2. Have the markets of our present libertarian world order permeated so deeply that market ethics (leading to 'commodification') have become the defining yardstick of our moral sensibilities and the idea of 'justice'? Or, what are the ethical limits of economics and the expanding markets?

The two questions pose difficult philosophical problems- the first questions Utilitarian ethics and the second puts the Libertarian ethics and economics' claim to be a 'behavioral science' (as Mankiw and others may argue) under scepticism.

Philosophy and Economics of a Gift

This Christmas my sister received a gift from her uncle as she did every year. His gifts were always special and she waited for this day all through the year. Last year she got an ipod. It was wonderful. This year too she expected an equally exciting gift. As she opened the gift wrap, she found a beautiful dress. As she tried, she found that the dress was not her size. Also the front design was not of her choice. This wasn’t what she had expected. Though she did not express it, she felt disappointed. But what could her uncle have done? How could he so precisely estimate the size of the dress? How could he pre-empt what design would my sister like?

We often come across such situations in our lives. Gifts of our choice do not match with other person’s choice? What should we do? Standard economic theory of ‘maximization of total utility’ offers a solution.  Instead of choosing a gift for the other person, allow him to choose for himself. Gift the cash directly and permit him to buy the gift of his choice. This would help to maximize the choice of the recipient and hence maximize the total utility, marginal utility and the ‘welfare’.

So if the economic theory is to be relied upon, then gifting cash will be a better idea. Is it so?

Mankiw examines this problem. He cites an example in his celebrated economics textbook- ‘Basic Principles of Economics.’ One of his students at Harvard once decided to gift his fiancée cash in order to maximize the total utility. The next day he ended breaking up. His fiancée felt offended for being offered cash instead of a gift. Cash didn’t work. Did the standard economic theory fail?

Mankiw suggested that the economics can explain even this event in a way similar to its explanation of consumer behavior.

Mankiw admits that gifts do hold a special significance which theory of maximum utility cannot explain. But he argues that there are other theories in economics which should be used. He calls in the theory of ‘economic signals.’ An economic signal can be understood by considering the following example. Suppose a firm is sinking and is on a verge of liquidation. Investors have lost their confidence in the firm. Such a firm may buy a lot of expensive shares in the market or buy a lot of expensive advertisements to send a ‘signal’ to its investors that its economic position is sound and it’s not sinking. This will help to restore investors’ confidence.

Mankiw applies the theory of signals to gift-giving. He explains that gifts are important because they send a ‘signal’ to its recipient that the cash can’t. Selecting a good gift requires time and effort which giving cash doesn’t require. So gifts ‘signal’ love, affection and care which cash cannot.

Is Mankiw’s explanation satisfactory? Does the theory of ‘economic signal’ completely explain the phenomenon of gift-giving? Let us examine it in the light of the following real life example.

When I was in ninth standard, a very peculiar guy used to study with me. He was nicknamed ‘Mental’ for reasons that will be shortly evident. He asked his father for Rs 1000 to buy his mother a gift on her birthday. He goes to the market and spends considerable amount of time and effort to select a gift. Because the gift required time and effort and was also expensive, it was a good ‘signal’ according to Mankiw’s theory. So it should work.

‘Mental’ went back home very excited. He placed before his mother a box with a beautiful wrapping. Mother was very happy. As she opened the gift box, to her utter amazement, she found a shaving kit! Obviously, the gift was doomed even though it was a good ‘signal’. Why? Economics’ theories would argue that this happened because the shaving kit was of no use to the mother and thus it failed to increase the overall utility as. But does that mean that you can gift your bald boss an expensive wig on his birthday to camouflage his baldness better? A wig would be very useful to him and also it will be a good enough signal because the wig was rare and it required money, time and effort to purchase a wig. Still you can’t think of gifting your boss a wig on his birthday. Why do both economic theories appear to fail?

Both the explanations do not stand every test because they fail to consider the abstract virtues associated with gifts. Philosopher Michael Sandel argues that gifts are not ‘signals’ but expressions of love, affection and care. Signaling love is not the same as expressing it. Love is not a piece of information that cannot be explicitly evinced without ‘signaling’ it like the economic position of a firm. Gifts are means to connect one individual to the other as one shares and exudes his feelings with the other through the gift. So thoughtfulness is also important while selecting gifts. Without a thoughtful effort to choose a gift that vital connectivity cannot be established and the required message cannot be conveyed. My friend’s gift to his mother didn’t work because it lacked thoughtfulness required to establish that connectivity and convey a message. Though a good ‘signal’ it was an inadequate expression of affection. Similarly, gifting your bald boss a wig doesn’t work because such a gift reflects thoughtlessness. Giving your fiancée cash instead of a prudently chosen gift reflects a similar thoughtlessness and an inability to connect with her. Your love doesn’t find the fullest expression in wads of currency notes even though they may be a good ‘signal’. There are things that money can’t buy. We can’t buy a friend even if both the sides consent to such a deal because we know that a hired friend is always different from a real friend. Similarly gifts cannot be valued solely in economic terms as they have certain abstract virtues attached to them which economic theories cannot explain. Gifts are tokens of friendship, expressions of love and affections and thus cannot be gauged solely in monetary terms and economic theories find it difficult to explain them completely.

To Love Life is to Love God

Millions of people live by religion and the idea of God. Millions of lives are sustained simply in the hope of justice meted out by some supernatural hand. Millions of thoughts, philosophies, religions and ideologies are pieced together in the name of that other-worldly contentment. Element of Chance is vital in life. In fact Tolstoy, in his War and Peace, goes to the extent to say, “If we admit that human life can be ruled by reason, the possibility of life is destroyed.” Because there is uncertainty in life and no amount of rational knowledge can pre-empt the twists and turns life is going to take in the future, we inevitably have to resort to the idea of Chance. Had life been completely defined by rationality and reason, we would not have needed ideas of Chance and God. But then the “possibility of life would have been destroyed.” Life is possible only because the next moment is decided by Chance.

Chance and God then become the central idea around which life revolves. But perhaps that is a rash conclusion drawn from an incomplete story. While it is true that life is determined only by existence of Chance, it is equally true that idea of Chance and God is determined only in the context of life. It is only because human life is possible that God and Chance have a meaning. Had there been no life, God and Chance would have been superfluous concepts. It is the human life that is central and around it revolves the ideas of God & religion. It is thus the human being who has created the idea of God to harmonise the contradictions of life and it may not be the other way round.

Will Durant, while arguing for the relevance of religion and the need for the idea of God, tells about his old uncle. His ninety year old uncle used live in a lonely and secluded house in the mountains. His limbs had grown too weak to allow him any physical work. He would sit by the fire and read the gospels. Only on the Sundays he would come out of his quilts and walk to the nearby church. It was his faith in god and his belief in the gospels that provided him solace and comfort that the rest of the world couldn’t. The metaphysical promises of the ‘bliss to come’ were the only reasons for him to sustain his otherwise doomed life. Durant argues that “I shall not think of casting doubts upon such hopes. Why shouldn’t he be consoled by the promises of the gospel?”

Durant’s argument is quite appealing. A faith in God, a belief in miracle, a hope rested in element of chance is the life blood of so many people like Durant’s nonagenarian uncle. If we consider Durant’s argument closely we see that it is built upon the basic premise that human life and existence is the yardstick to judge religion, faith and belief. It is the deification of human life that the argument reflects. The idea of god and the promises of the supernatural bliss would be meaningless had it not been in the context of Durant’s uncle. It was only in the context of the old man’s life that gospels, faith in god, hope in element of chance, bliss of the supernatural justice have a meaning.

A similar opinion is expressed in Tolstoy's words- “Life is everything. Life is God. Everything changes and moves- and that movement is God. While there is life there is joy in the consciousness of Divine. To love life is to love God.” To be noted here is that cognition of God arises entirely out of 'changes and movement of life'. And the 'joy in that cognition of the Divine' rests only in the context of life. So true was the great existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre when he says- “Human existence is the pivot around which all customs, conventions, traditions and above all God and religion revolve”

 Suyash Saxena,

B.Sc. (H) Physics
St. Stephen’s College.

                                                                                                                     

Autumn Leaves

Trees shed

Their Autumn Leaves.

Autumn Leaves-

That fall,

That twirl

And then embrace the ground.

Autumn Leaves-

That flood

The pathways I tread

And the horizon I see.

Amidst them, I halt

Amongst them, I sit,

Stare and admire

Them as they shower from trees.

I listen to them,

As they rustle,

And cuddle

In the soothing autumn breeze.

Wondrous it is to listen

To the tales they tell,

Tales spelled out in their toungueless accents

Tales that are the soul of each of those

Falling, twirling, rustling

Autumn Leaves.

Suyash Saxena

St. Stephen’s College

The Philosophy in Economics

Introduction: It has been my constant endeavour to figure out and elucidate an inevitable role of philosophy in all walks of life. In my previous attempt, I’d tried to elucidate an inescapable interdependence between science and philosophy. In my present attempt, I’ve tried to bring out the necessary entanglement of economics with philosophy. Economics, in the present age, has been assuming the role of a behavioural science and markets have expanded into almost every sphere of human life. Expansion of economics into morally charged area of human life mandates the involvement of philosophy to prudently consider and guide our moral intuitions through the moral dilemmas that economic invasions pose before us. In the essay, several arguments have been considered and examples cited to elucidate the inevitable interdependence between economics and philosophy.

Principal of our college, Dr. Valson Thampu, was greatly worried about the growing number of disposable coffee glasses littered in the college campus. He had warned to disallow the purchase of coffee from the college café “if students fail to show sensitivity towards the college campus.” One of the economics students debated that it would be better if the Principal imposes a fine of Rs100 on the offenders instead of banning coffee altogether. His argument was grounded on two basic principles of economics: (1) This will provide the students a greater choice to exercise- whether to throw the disposable glasses in their proper places or to pay a fine of Rs 100 and thereby ensuring a greater the overall ‘utility’ or ‘welfare.’ (2) Because people think rationally and aim to maximize their own utility and welfare they will mostly choose to dispose of the glasses securely instead of paying the fine. Gregory Mankiw cites these two assumptions viz. people think rationally and they act to maximize their utility, as two of the ten basic principles of economics.

Suppose the Principal buys the argument and agrees to impose a fine instead of banning coffee altogether. The fine would work to a great extent to reduce the overall garbage being littered in the college. But suppose a wealthy friend of mine doesn’t like to exert himself to go the dustbin to throw his coffee glasses and is rather willing to pay the fine each time he shows ‘insensitivity to the college campus.’ He has not violated the rule. Also his actions are consistent with the standard economic theory of ‘maximizing one’s utility.’ But still we feel that such an action is unjustified and there is something wrong in it. But what exactly is wrong with it? To accentuate the ‘wrong’ involved, consider the question- is it right to use Taj Mahal as an expensive garbage disposal site by paying the government whatever fine it imposes for disposing of one’s domestic garbage in the Taj Mahal?

Let us consider another example. The college library imposes a fine of Rs10 each day the return of the book is delayed. One of my friends decided to retain the book as long as he wanted and pay the fine howsoever large it may be. Though he did not violate the library rules, we still feel that retaining the book beyond the due date is wrong. What is actually wrong in it? The answer to that lies in the appreciation of the difference between a ‘fine’ and a ‘fees’. When my friend decides to retain the book, he takes the fine on it as if it were a fee that he has to pay to retain the book unduly. In the previous example as well, the friend considers the fine of Rs100 as a fee that he has to pay to dispose his coffee glass in whatever way he wanted. What actually is the difference between a fee and a fine? If we think only in monetary terms, there is no difference. In order to appreciate the difference we have to examine the issue in the light of the moral philosophy. A fine is different from a fee because in a fine there is an inherent and implicit moral stigma associated which is not there in case of a fee. If we fail to take cognizance of the morality involved, as standard economic theories do, the difference between a fine and a fee blurs. So it is morally wrong to throw garbage at Taj Mahal. It is wrong to consider the fine imposed as a fee that we need to pay to dispose our garbage at the Taj Mahal because in that case we fail to respect the abstract ethics involved therein. Economics theories fail to appreciate the ethics involved in such acts, so they find it hard to distinguish between a fine and a fee. The distinction becomes vaguer for economics when the monetary values of fine and fees are at par. If the amount of fine imposed if you throw your garbage in Taj Mahal is same as the tax (fee) levied on its disposal at a government waste disposal site, then the economics theories would suggest that both the case scenarios are same for both of them change the utility by same amount. These examples demonstrate an inevitable entanglement of economics with moral philosophy. The inevitable involvement of philosophy is not just restricted to day to day spheres as in these examples. It gets manifested in our societies and nations at large and even transcends the national boundaries. Economics sans philosophy finds it difficult to answer such questions in every sphere including even the transnational sphere as the following example demonstrates.

At the Kyoto Protocol of 1990s, US asserted that if a nation wants to exceed its emission limits it should be allowed to do so provided that some other country or countries consent to reduce their emission by a commensurate amount. So if US decides to exceed its CO₂ emission by some units then it has to persuade some other nations, presumably the third world nations, to impose further restriction on their industries to reduce emission. To generate the consent, US will be obliged to pay a certain sum of money as ‘incentive’ to the third world nation. Is it justified? Economist would say that such a deal is an ultimate appreciation of the market virtue where even the right to pollute is up for free market competition. But in supplying such an explanation the economist would again miss the subtle ethical aspects involved. This case of trade of ‘pollution permits’ demonstrates the same idea of a difference between a fine and a fee. Instead of fining the American industries for polluting the environment, the US government is paying the third world nations a fee to allow Americans to pollute the environment. Economists would again argue that if it is easier to discourage a few kerosene lamps in India than to impose restrictions on American industries then why not grab this opportunity and maximize the overall utility. What is actually wrong in the marketisation of pollution permits?

Marketisation of pollution rights is wrong because it weakens the moral stigma associated with the act of polluting the environment. By paying to shrug away our moral obligations towards the environment we would undermine the sense of shared sacrifice to protect our environment. Assigning a dollar value to our moral duties corrupts them and infuses a belief that protection of our rivers, streams, biodiversity and environment is not a moral duty but a burden to be eschewed.

In order to bring out this argument of ‘corruption of morals’, let us consider another example. In our second year, we had developed a habit of coming late to class. One of the professors, Dr. Sanjay Kumar (popularly known as Dr. SK) took umbrage as the late turn ups did not subside. He scolded us. His argument was that the government of India was spending Rs50 on each student to attend each class. So to arrange for one lecture to be held, for a class of 50 students, government exchequer is impoverished by Rs2500. Was that a complete and justifiable explanation to attend classes? Students could not buy that argument. They felt there was something ‘wrong’ about the argument. But what was exactly wrong about Dr. SK’s explanation? Suppose a student decides to miss out on the next ten lectures. The eleventh day when questioned by Dr. SK, he may reply that he’d attended 10 extra classes the previous semester for which the government had not paid and since he did not want the government to run into a public debt and fiscal deficit, he sacrificed 10 lectures. He has thereby helped the government! His argument would have been consistent with Dr. SK’s explanation but there was something that Dr. SK had missed out while economizing the value of each lecture. What is actually wrong with Dr. SK’s explanation?

If we attempt to assign a monetary value to the act of imparting knowledge and assess the loss of a lecture in terms of its monetary value we shall miss the ethical crux of the situation and corrupt the morals involved therein. Commoditization of the process of learning by assigning it a price tag is wrong because it will corrupt the attitude of students towards learning. They will never develop a genuine interest in the process of education but will see it is as a market for barter of a service to study in lieu of government expenditure. It is just like paying to use Taj Mahal as an expensive garbage disposal site. We fail to appreciate the abstract value of Taj Mahal when we assigning a dollar value to the moral stigma associated with polluting the Taj Mahal and demean (‘corrupt’) the implicit moral obligation to respect the monument and value it for what it is. Dr. SK’s explanation failed to respect the process of learning as ‘an end in itself’ and appreciated its significance only in monetary terms.  Certain schools in America suffer from the same malice when they offer monetary incentives to second grade students to study.

Apart from the corruption argument there is another thing intriguing about such examples and that is about the consent. Put aside the corruption argument, the deal to pay the poor nations in order to shrug away the environment responsibilities is not a fair deal because it is not concluded under the conditions of ‘free will’ and ‘autonomy’ of the bargaining partners. The poor nations agreed to such a deal because their economic deprivation impelled them to do so. They did not do it out of an absolute free will or autonomy. This deal is arguably rejected on the grounds of lack of consent. The market invasion can thus be criticized on two grounds- corruption of morals and values and fairness of the deal. In order to examine these two arguments, let us take another example.

Practice of ‘buying’ people’s votes has often been noted in various pseudo democratic nations. The market in votes is wrong mainly on grounds of two arguments- corruption argument and the ‘fairness of the deal’ argument. Buying votes is wrong because it corrupts our democratic values and the aim of free and fair polls. It is also rejected on the grounds that a deal in votes is not a fair deal as the person who sells his right to franchise mainly does so out of his need for money. In a country like India, poor voters get influenced by the money power of the politicians only because they are in desperate need of money and their needs outweigh their morals. Buying the poor man’s vote does not tantamount to getting his adequate consent rather it is coercive because the deal is made possible only because of financial constraints of one party. So even if the corruption argument is set aside, a deal in votes is wrong because it is made without adequate consent. Such unfair deals without adequate of consent are seen in arguments against markets of kidneys, blood donation camps, surrogacy, in renting out the space on your forehead for commercial advertisements in lieu of financial incentives.

There is another aspect in the Kyoto Protocol example that we didn’t examine- the role of incentives. The third world nations were given incentive to reduce their emission so as to accommodate the American emission. The American students were incentivized to read and attain good marks. The idea of incentives has become central to economics. Mankiw mentions that one of the ten basic principles of economics is that ‘people respond to incentives.’ Incentive is relatively a new term in economics. Adam Smith and other classical economists had used the idea of incentives in their theories. The word was first used in an economic context during the World War II in Reader’s Digest. However, since the previous decade it has been in vogue. Let us examine the role of incentives in the light of political and moral philosophy. Consider the following real life example.

The Switzerland government was looking for a safe nuclear waste disposal site since a long time. They found a safe site near a mountain village. The government called for a local referendum in the village to ascertain the ‘consent’ of the local people. People approved the policy by a thin majority of 51%. Afraid of the loss of 49% of votes in the village, the government offered financial incentive to the people in a hope that the margin should increase. Instead the margin decreased to 25%. The margin kept decreasing as the incentives kept increasing. The economic principle of incentives stood failed. Why? An explanation can be ascribed by considering moral philosophy involved therein. In the case when no incentives were given, the people accepted the proposal out of a sense of solidarity, sacrifice for a greater good and patriotism. However, those values of solidarity, sacrifice and common good got dissociated as soon as the monetary parameters were ascribed to the policy. Incentives demeaned the moral good involved in the act. Incentive was seen as a bribe given to them which was ‘corrupting’ their civic duty. Hence the incentive failed.

This example also rebuts the classical dichotomy theory of economics (propagated by David Hume) which suggests that the nature and real value of goods and services don’t change with the change of monetary (nominal) value ascribed to them. Here the very nature of the service provided by the citizens changed as soon as price tag was attached to their morals. When the American Association of Retired Persons asked American lawyers to offer 30% discount to the needy retired people, they refused. When it asked them to do it for free, they agreed. Why? Their spirit for charity and solidarity were sensitized in only in the latter case. Thus the nature of services offered by the lawyers changed with the monetary value ascribed to it. The law of monetary neutrality and classical dichotomy did not hold good.

Economist on their end devised an explanation to these phenomena that appeared as exceptions to economic theories. They did not believe that incentivizing people to accept the nuclear waste disposal policy actually ‘corrupted’ their values of solidarity and civic duty. Rather they argued that depending on people’s values of solidarity and civic duty was not advisable. Arrow was one of the great American economists of his times. He argued that values of solidarity, charity, altruism and sacrifice for common good were rare and should be treated as ‘scarce resources’ just like non-renewable resources. These scarce resources diminish with extensive use just like our petroleum reserves. If government relies too heavily on people’s civic obligations and keep on opening new nuclear waste disposal sites everywhere, people’s sense of duty will tend to die down. We need to conserve the ethical behavior of people as a scarce resource for dire situations, said Arrow. If blood donation becomes the order of the day, the values of generosity and altruism associated with it will soon be over. Similar argument was put forth by the British economist and a student of Keyens- Sir Robertson. In his lecture at Cambridge titled ‘What do economists economize?’ he argued that virtues like love and altruism are scarce resources and need to be economized. He gave the example of a typical couple whose mutual affection and love goes on decreasing over years following their marriage. Thus love is a scarce resource needed to be at least conserved if not hoarded for future needs.

What would philosophers say to such intrusions of economics in morally charged areas of human life? Economic explanations are cold and flawed. Philosophers like Aristotle and Rousseau will rebut these ideas on the grounds that virtues and ethics are qualities that are developed and cultured in an individual and society. They are not scarce resources but are like “muscles- the more in demand, the stronger they get.” Patriotism in India, reached its peak only during the freedom struggle because the society demanded it and it did not get exhausted when ‘used’ extensively during that time. Patriotism during the Nazis in Germany heightened as the state demanded it and used it recklessly and got diminished only after the fall of Nazis when the state did not require it. So virtues like patriotism are developed in a society when they are demanded and carefully cultured and do not obey the laws of diminishing marginal utility as the economist claim.

These examples show that Economics and markets today have been expanding into almost every sphere of our lives. Unlike the classical economists like Adam Smith, Marshal and Robins, the modern economists like Mankiw have begun defining economics as a ‘behavioural science.’ Mankiw writes “Economy is a group of people interacting with each other as they go about their lives.” Adam Smith never talked about public interactions in their daily lives in his ‘invisible hand’ definition of economics nor did Robins talk of people’s behavior in his ‘scarce resources’ definition of economics. In those attempts to define human behavior within the parameters of economic theories and to provide economics legitimacy as a behavioral science, Economics finds itself inevitably entangled with moral and ethical question. Is it right to use trade in pollution permits? Is it justified to assign a price tag to virtues of learning? Is it alright to dispose of your garbage in Taj Mahal and pay the fine as a fee to do so?  How far do incentives work? Is it just to take moral virtues to be scarce resources and hence subject to laws of demand and supply? Do even moral virtues obey the law of diminishing marginal utility? Do Classical dichotomy and monetary neutrality work in human behavior as well? What are the ethics involved in economic policies like land acquisition, ‘social clause’ in the GATT, blue and green subsidies debate at the WTO, direct cash transfers? These are the questions that philosophy has to answer for economics. Even if economic theories attempt to provide answer, are we satisfied with those explanations which refuse to take into account an inevitable and abstract involvement of subtle and prudent philosophical analysis of moral dilemmas? It the job of philosophy to structure our moral intuitions and strengthen our ethical sensibilities so as to guide us through these moral dilemmas that economic situations pose before us. If we allow economics and markets to expand unbridled without the supervisory role of philosophy, we’ll end up in a society that would be increasingly dehumanized with moral intuitions restricted to just one principle- ‘maximization of utility.’ Why is maximization of utility the basic goal? How far should this principle of ‘utility maximization’ be stretched? What are the things that money shouldn’t buy? What are the moral limits of market? How far can economics traffic in morals? To answer these questions ‘Economics has to rely on philosophy.’

Note

In the essay several philosophical theories have been alluded to and applied in various examples. However no direct mention of the theory involved and the philosopher cited has been made. Through this note I intend to acknowledge the philosophers to whom the essay alludes.

1.      John Rawls- idea of veil of ignorance as referred to while discussing ‘consent’ argument.

2.      Immanuel Kant- idea of autonomy and heteronomy, idea of free will, idea of categorical moral judgments, idea of ‘end in itself’

3.      Jean Paul Sartre- free will, individualism as against determinism (derived through the idea of ‘existence precedes essence’)

4.      Tolstoy- arguments against determinism in the movement of individuals, societies and nations (War and Peace)

5.      Michael Sandel- Critique of utilitarianism and so many other examples and ideas.

6.      Plato- defining morality as “To know the good is to do the good”
7.      Aristotle- Ideas of morality and distributive justice, a belief in teleology.