Name: Vaghasiya
Alisha S.
Roll No: 1
M.A.
Sem- 1
Paper: -4)
Indian Writing in English
Assignment
Topic:
Explain
what is Perspectivism? Or
How and
why do you think T.P.Kailasam’s perspective differs from the myth of
Mahabharata with reference to the Purpose.
Submitted
to: Department of English, M.K. Bhavnagar University,(Gujarat, India)
ANSWER:- Nietzsche’s Perspectivism
Perspectivism
( German: perspektivismus) is the term coined by Friedrich Nietzsche in
developing the philosophical view (touched upon as far back as Plato’s
rendition of Protagoras) that all ideations take place from particular
perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or
perspectives in which judgment of truth or values can be made. This is often
taken to imply that no way of seeing the world be taken as definitively ‘true’
but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally
valid.
Perspectivism rejects objective
metaphysics as impossible, claiming that no evaluation of objectivity can
transcend cultural formation or subjective designation. Therefore, there are no
objective facts nor any knowledge of a thing-in-itself. Truth is separated
from any particular vantage point, and so there are no ethical or
epistemological absolutes. Rules are constantly reassessed according to the
circumstances of individual perspectives. ‘truth’ is thus created by
integrating different vantage points together.People always adopt perspective
by default whether they are aware of it or not. And the concept of one’s
existence are defined by the circumstances surrounding that individual Truth is
made by and for individuals and peoples. This view differs from many types of
relativism which consider the truth of a particular proposition of something
that altogether cannot be evaluated with respect to an ‘absolute truth’
without taking into consideration culture and context.
In the opening section of the
book, Nietzsche, repeatedly refers to ‘perspectives’. In preface he says that
perceptivity is the fundamental condition of all life. He refers to the
belief in the opposition of the values and the value of truth as foreground
evaluations, temporary perspectives.The term perspective comes from the
language of vision. we literally see things from and with particular
perspectives. Our eyes are located at a particular space, from which something
are visible and others are not, e.g. –the top of the table, but not its
underneath. A scene looks different from different perspectives- from high up,
we can see further and things looks smaller, from below things ‘loom’
over us and we cannot see very far.
The idea of a perspective has a rich metaphorical life. Important of our
projects, when someone seems to overreact emotionally, we tell them to ‘ get
thing in perspective’- what has happened is nit important as they seems to
think, they need to see the bigger picture or take the lower view. In emotional
overreaction, the immediate experience ( which is near) dominates the person.
This relates Nietzsche’s talk of foreground evaluations. We talk what is
near to us( in the foreground) as the standard by which we interpret the world.
Nietzsche talks about
‘perspective’ when he is relating beliefs to our values. He uses the word
interpretation to mean a belief about something as if it is like this or that.
An interpretation is an understanding of a world from a particular perspective,
and so interpretations, like perspectives, relate back to our values.(
different perspectives are defined by different values, differences in belief
are not themselves enough. Two people with different religious belief, for
instance, may occupy the same perspective I their belief reflects the same
underlying set of
values.
So Nietzsche is saying that philosophical belief about truth and
goodness are part of a particular perspective on the world, a short
sighted, distorting perspective. One of its most important distortions is that
it denies that it is a perspective, that its truths are unconditional, that it
represents the world as it truly is. But philosophers are wrong to think
that it is possible to represent or hold belief about the world that are value
free, objective, disinterested.This applies even to sense perception, which we
might expect to be most responsive to how the world is. First we find world
easier, argues Nietzsche, to reproduce an image we are familiar with than to
remember what is new and different in our sense impression. We are averse to
new things, and so already, our experience of the world is dominated by an
emotion. Familiar emotions- what we fear or love will affect what we see.
Nietzsche’s concept of Truth:-
truth. So he says:
“there are no truths”. Nietzsche points that an individual tries to ‘çreat’
truth . so truth exist in an individuals perspective only. An individual’s
perspective depends upon his or her personal subjective experience. So when a
writer writes he or she creates a truth from his or her own individual
perspective. That’s why there are possibilities that the ‘created truth
is biased’. Because of contradictory perspective one can not rely on the truth/
reality which is shown. It can be deceptive.
How can one who
believes that one’s conception of truth depends on the perspective from which
one writes also posit anything resembling a universal truth?
Given this idea that there is no truth outside of a perspective, a transcendent
truth, how can a philosopher make any claim that all which are valid outside
his personal perspective?
In beyond good and evil, Nietzsche begins with a chapter entitled “On the
Prejudices of Philosophers”. Almost immediately he begins to tear into the lack
of integrity on the part of traditional philosophers who present their ideas as
the product of pure reason. Nietzsche declaims, “they pose as having discovered
and attained their real opinions through the self evaluation of a cold, pure,
divinely unperturbed dialectic. While what happens at bottom is a prejudice, a
notion, an inspiration, generally a desire of the heart sifted and made
abstract, is defended by them with reasons sought after the event.
Truth
is not attainable. True reality is always hidden.
If we are doomed to always view the world from our own point of view, then one
can never know an absolute truth. Nietzsche states that in light of
perspectivism the very idea of an absolute truth is unintelligible. So there
can be no absolute truth to be known.
Nietzsche perceives that a person cannot act while examining his action with an
uncertain eye. A person must believe his or her actions to be the true.
And just ways to act even if this belief is a lie in the will to power, he
writes his idea as ‘truth’ is the kind of error without which a certain being
could nit live. To see that this certain kind of being to which he is referring
is definitely humanity. One need only look to beyond good and evil, where he
says that for the purpose of preserving beings such as ourselves, such
judgment must believed to be true. Although they might be of course still be
false judgment. Therefore, we human need to act as if we are certain of what we
are doing even though we cannot be certain.
‘The Purpose’
-T.P. Kailasam
T.P. Kailasam (1884-1946),
dramatist, poet, and short story writer In Kannada and English, specialized In
geology and went to London for further studies. He returned to Mysore state
where he served the Geological Department for a brief while. He sought to
educate the sympathies and challenge in prejudices of his audience. His five
English plays are based on The Ramayana and The Mahabharata.
the Purpose, written
over a period of six years, is a tragedy in two acts, the main characters are
Eklavya, Arjuna and Drona. the central idea is that the aim of learner
finally determines his proficiency. Behind the mighty characters of the play
looms an unseen power, with its own purposes hidden even from the great
Bheeshma.
Kailasam has brought his theme from the Indian Epics and he says that
“ these scenes and words you’ll see and hear
I’ve seen and
heard before;
as King or priest,
poltroon or peer,
somewhere…….some
when of yore”
Kailasam’s play have a uniform technical excellence for this, C.R. Reddy
has said,
“ greater than any writer i have known is Kailasam in dramatic technique”.
Kailasam tried to high light something which in original myth was neglected.
The playwright has made change in original myth and gave it a totally new form.
His English plays are his small but significant effort to perceive and convey
an original pattern of reinterpretation of traditional myth. For this purpose
he looked afresh into some of the fringe characters from the Mahabharata. He
attempted to bring into limelight marginalized of fringe character such as
Eklavya.
Kailasam’s uniqueness lies not merely in evoking our sympathies for Eklavya but
also in elevating them to the level of tragic heroes who were masculine,
skilful and capable of achievement. In addition, Kailasam attempted to reveal
in these heroes the features that the colonizers believe they possess and which
accounted for their superiority over Indians.
The Purpose highlights Eklavya’s ambition to become the greatest archer
in the world in order to protect his fawns from the wolves, just as it
highlights the questionable motivation of other heroic characters in
their shabby treatment of the low born hero. There ‘purposes’ of Kailasam can
be linked to the broader purpose of the nationalistic movement of India to
rewrite India’s past as a foundation of the nationalistic feeling, movement and
sense of self.
He investigates his characters beyond the roles assigned to them by the
authorized versions of the great epics, and he transforms them from passive
victims to active participants, thus fitting them into western definitions of
‘masculinity’.
‘THE PURPOSE’ by T. P. Kailasam is a
drama in two acts, the story is based on Adiparva from the Mahabharata.
The story moves around Eklavya and
Arjuna and their purpose behind learning archery. Both h want to learn archery
from the great Dronacharya.
Now if we try to evaluate the story
of the play The Purpose by comparing it with the story of Mahabharata, then we
will find a vast different in both the things.
In ‘Mahabharata’, Arjuna is drawn as
a heroic character possessing super human quality. He is drawn as noble, kind,
warrior, committed to his duty kind of person. We cannot imagine him doing any
bad things. About Arjuna we have very good image in our mind. He is the
greatest archer in the world. This is the myth we heard from our childhood, so
we cannot imagine this ideal character committing any wrong things.
But Kailasam challenges this myth and makes an attempt to present this myth in
a totally different way, with his own perspective. In the play ‘The Purpose’
Kailasam has drawn Eklavya a marginalized character in Mahabharata as a
hero of the play, whereas Arjuna is drawn as not good character . in the
play Arjuna’s intention behind learning archery was not noble. He wanted to
learn only because he wanted to became greatest archer in the world. This was
the only his limited ambition. We cannot imagine a character like him thinking
so selfishly but in this play it is not so. In contrast to this Eklavya, is a
nishadha boy wanted to learn archery not for his personal ambition but he
wanted to protect/ save animals. His intention was noble. He has no personal
aspirations. He behaves like a real hero. And at some extent, playwright has
shown him greater than Guru Dronacharya also. Eklavya is drawn here as a fast
learner, noble and greater kind of character in comparison to Arjuna.
This all are the things when
Kailasam’s perspective differs from the myth of Mahabharata.
Arjuna and Eklavya both wanted to learn archery. Dronacharya teaches archery to
Arjuna but cannot accept Eklavya’s proposal because of his promise to
Arjuna. Both of them have difference purpose behind to learn archery. Arjuna
wanted to became the greatest archer in the world, and Eklavya explains that he
wants to learn archery to save lives of innocent animals. Arjuna’s purpose
behind learning archery is self- centered while Eklavya’s purpose is noble.
This is the point where the perspective of writer differs.
Rejected by Guru Drona, Eklavya leaves the Ashrama but with the firm decision
to learn archery. Eklavya put guru Drona’s idol and because of his hard work
and gurubhakti, becomes the great archer.
In the 2nd act Eklavya is
far ahead than Arjuna in archery. In anger Arjuna says that he will tell
everyone that guru Drona has not kept his vow. To save his Guruji, from social
criticism Eklavya gives willingly his thumb to Drona as GURUDAKSHINA.
This is the change made by Kailasam. Here the perspective differs.
The behavior of Arjuna is unexpected
in this play. It is my personal ambition to become greatest archer in the
world- Arjuna. But how can a prince have personal ambition??? He must be
patriotic, think about other. And more than that Arjuna says “ I have trouble”
, at that time Drona says you usually have problem in learning, and your aim is
wrong. This has double meaning. Now this Arjuna is different from Mahabharata.
In the play he is a self obsessed child. His understanding is very limited.
Whereas Eklavya learns after even watching behind the tree. Eklavya says that
this boy Partha will never improve, he still making mistakes.
All this things shows the upliftment
of the character of Eklavya. Thus the Kailasam has highlighted the character of
Eklavya. Arjuna is portrayed as anti hero. Eklavya is nobler than Arjuna.
So the story told by MAHARSHI VED VYAS
, in the Mahabharata is conflicting
with the story told by T. P. Kailasam in the Purpose.
In the Purpose T.P. Kailasam’s
Eklavya is greater than Arjuna. Though Eklavya is a Nishadha boy, his purpose
in learning archery is for the betterment of others. In actuality it is
the duty of the prince, but the prince the Arjuna is selfish.
The reader are looking at the story
from different perspectives and that are of the writers. Both the writers have
created truths in their individual perspectives. Their individual perspective
are contradictory.
The Mahabharata is a story of a princes and in the purpose Kailasam has given
voice to marginalizes.
Ø CONCLUSION
Ø According to Nietzsche there is not
any universal definition of truth. So the readers can’t rely on the
contradictory perspectives for to attain truth because what the writer have
written in their subjective experiences and the reality presented by them is complex.
We cannot prove Ved Vyasa right and Kailasam wrong or vice versa. So the
reality presented by the writer is just their individual perspective not the
truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment