Bharthrhari's Sphotavada

The primary presuppositions of Sphoṭavāda, a central philosophical theory of language proposed by the Sanskrit grammarian Bhartṛhari (5th century CE), are fundamentally metaphysical and epistemological, designed to explain how discrete speech sounds yield a unified, instantaneous meaning. It is known from from any individuals experience, that such is the case. However , so detailed an analysis 1500 years earlier is a matter which amazed me. I present here a brief understanding of the subject linguistic holism and indivisibility of structure.

The most crucial presupposition is Linguistic Holism, the idea that language is fundamentally an indivisible, seamless whole. Bhartṛhari presupposes that the true meaning-bearing unit, the Sphoṭa, is indivisible (akhaṇḍa). It is not composed of parts like words or sounds in a sequence.

The conventional elements of language, the letters (varṇa), the words (pada), and the sentence (vākya), are artificial abstractions created for analysis. The actual meaning lies only in the whole sentence-Sphoṭa (vākyasphoṭa). This denies the common-sense view that meaning is built up sequentially, word by word.

The Transcendent Nature of the Sphoṭa in

Sphoṭavāda is based on the presupposition that the ultimate reality of language is transcendent and eternal. The Sphoṭa exists as an eternal, mental template in the consciousness of the speaker and the hearer. It is the permanent linguistic signifier. The sequence of sounds (dhvani) that we utter is merely the manifestation or revealing medium of the Sphoṭa. The sounds do not create the meaning. They merely express the already-existing, internal Sphoṭa. This is analogous to a light revealing an object that was already there.

The Role of Consciousness (Śabda-Brahman) get introduced at this juncture. Metaphysically, Bhartṛhari presupposes that the entire linguistic reality is rooted in the ultimate reality of Śabda-Brahman (Word-Absolute). Consciousness (citi) and language (śabda) are inseparable all thought is linguistically structured. The Sphoṭa is the final, empirical manifestation of Śabda-Brahman. Thus, the act of understanding a sentence is fundamentally an act of intuitive self-recognition or grasping the universal structure of consciousness. Sphoṭavāda presupposes that meaning is holistic, eternal, and revealed by transient sounds, not sequentially constructed by them.

About 1500 years later we discovered the speech area and later the idea of innate language and learned language. Explanations like langauge has a special highway to memory and emotion was used to explain learned language. However expressiveness in communication, linguistic nuances and conceptual miscommunication remain as bewildering even today. Gestural language and pheromonic signals are not very far from the idea of linguistic communication as evolved in humans. Since no near humanoids are available to demonstrate the transition in evolutionary terms , we shall have to allow the option of an alternative Sphoṭavāda to explain this unique ability among humans. On this note I salute the ingenuity of the conceptualization by our esteemed saints.

Pratyush Chaudhuri 

Theory of self constitution

The theory of self-constitution is a philosophical account of agency, identity, and morality, most prominently developed by the philosopher Christine Korsgaard in her book by the same name. The theory is a modern and sophisticated reinterpretation of Kantian ethics, drawing on influences from Plato and Aristotle.

I hereby shall try to make an effort to discuss the central tenets of Korsgaard's theory of self-constitution.

It begins with the proposition that action is Self-Constitution.  The core idea is that the function of an action is to constitute the agent. To be a human agent is not to be a pre-existing "self" that then performs actions. Rather, an agent is the author of their own actions, and in the very act of choosing and acting, they are simultaneously creating and unifying their self. Every action is a step in the ongoing project of "making yourself into a person." It reminded us of the sense of duty for duties sake emphatically proposed by kant. It follows then that we may need to define a normal and this gives rise tot he discussion- Problem of the Normative.

 Korsgaard's theory is a response to what she calls the "normative question"—the question of why we should feel bound by moral obligations and why should it be a norm.  She argues that the source of normativity is not some external law or command, but the very nature of agency ( or maybe called the self) itself, in a way , emphasizing the deontological perspective.

The reasonable next question then is that such agency shall be based on what rationality and principles? To answered this, Korsgaard distinguishes human action from the mere movements of other animals is our capacity for reflective self-consciousness. We are aware of the potential reasons for our actions, and this awareness forces us to take control of our choices. To act, we must adopt a principle or "maxim" for our action.

The constitution of the agent should be discussed at this stage. The act of choosing a maxim and acting on it is what constitutes us as agents. When we act on a principle, we are essentially legislating for ourselves. We are not just a bundle of conflicting desires and impulses; we are a unified agent who stands behind their actions. An action that is not based on a principle, or on a principle that we cannot endorse, is not a truly unified action and fails to constitute us as a coherent self.

 Korsgaard takes from kant the categorical imperative as a Law of Self-Constitution. For her, the famous Kantian Categorical Imperative ("Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law") is not an arbitrary moral rule but the very law. It's the standard for what counts as a successful act of agency. To act on a maxim that you couldn't will as a universal law would be to act on a principle that undermines the possibility of unified action, thereby failing to constitute yourself as a coherent agent.

Integrity and Moral Goodness: The theory ties moral goodness directly to the success of this project of self-constitution. A "good" action is one that successfully constitutes the agent with integrity. Conversely, a "bad" or "immoral" action is one that undermines the agent's integrity, leading to a kind of psychic fragmentation or self-contradiction. For Korsgaard, an immoral act is a failed act of agency, a failure to be a unified self.

Victim attribution and the just world hypothesis

The concepts of victim attribution, pro-social behavior, and the justice system are deeply intertwined, revealing a complex and often troubling picture of how societies respond to crime. At its core, this nexus explores how our perceptions of a victim's role in their own suffering can influence our willingness to help, our sense of justice, and the very outcomes of legal proceedings.

Victim Attribution and the Just-World Phenomenon

Victim attribution theory is a psychological framework that explains how people assign responsibility for a negative event, such as a crime, to the victim. This phenomenon is heavily influenced by a cognitive bias known as the Just-World Hypothesis, first proposed by social psychologist Melvin Lerner. The just-world hypothesis posits that people have a fundamental need to believe that the world is a fair and just place, where good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. This belief provides a sense of security and control, as it suggests that if we act correctly and morally, we can avoid suffering.

When a person witnesses a victim of a crime, this belief in a just world is threatened. To resolve the resulting cognitive dissonance and restore their sense of security, people often resort to victim blaming. By finding fault in the victim's actions, choices, or characteristics (e.g., "She shouldn't have been walking alone at night," "He was asking for it by carrying so much cash"), they can maintain the comforting illusion that the victim deserved their fate. This allows observers to reassure themselves that such a tragedy would not happen to them because they would not make the same "mistakes."

This process of victim attribution is not simply an intellectual exercise. It is profoundly emotional. It is driven by the need to manage feelings of fear, vulnerability, and a lack of control. By blaming the victim, people can mentally distance themselves from the potential for similar harm, preserving their own psychological well-being at the expense of the victim's emotional and social support.

The Impact on Pro-Social Behavior

The way we attribute responsibility to a victim directly influences our pro-social behavior, which refers to any voluntary action intended to help or benefit another person. According to Weiner's attribution model, our willingness to help someone in need is mediated by our emotional response, which in turn is shaped by our attributions of responsibility.

When a victim's plight is seen as uncontrollable and caused by external factors (e.g., a natural disaster, a random assault), people tend to feel sympathy and pity. These emotions lead to a greater willingness to offer help, support, and resources. The victim is seen as an "innocent" person who needs assistance.

Conversely, when a victim's situation is attributed to controllable and internal factors (e.g., perceived negligence, poor judgment), people tend to feel anger and disgust. These negative emotions lead to a decreased willingness to help and, in many cases, outright blame and condemnation. The victim is seen as responsible for their own suffering and therefore less deserving of help.

This can create a vicious cycle. Victims who are blamed by society are less likely to receive the social support they need to recover. They may experience feelings of shame, isolation, and self-blame, which can lead to secondary victimization—the trauma and distress caused by the response of others after the crime.

Victim Attribution and the Justice System

The biases of victim attribution permeate the justice system at every level, from initial police reports to courtroom verdicts. The legal system, which is supposed to be impartial and objective, is highly susceptible to these psychological phenomena.

The first point of contact for many victims is law enforcement. A police officer's initial perception of a victim's credibility can be heavily influenced by victim attribution. If a victim's behavior or lifestyle is seen as contributing to the crime, their account may be treated with skepticism. This can affect the thoroughness of the investigation, the collection of evidence, and the willingness to pursue charges.

Prosecutors and Lawyers are also affected similarly. In the courtroom, victim attribution becomes a powerful tool for defense attorneys. By questioning a victim's choices or character, they can create doubt in the minds of the jury. This tactic, often referred to as "blaming the victim," can be particularly effective in cases of sexual assault, where a victim's clothing, behavior, or history may be used to imply consent or contributory negligence.

Jurors, being a cross-section of society, bring their own cognitive biases into the deliberation room. Research has shown that jurors are more likely to find a defendant guilty and impose a harsher sentence if they perceive the victim to be "innocent" and blameless. Conversely, if they attribute some responsibility to the victim, they may be more lenient towards the defendant. This bias can lead to unequal and unjust outcomes, where the same crime can result in different verdicts depending on the jury's perception of the victim.

 The effect of victim attribution can even extend to sentencing. Judges and parole boards may be more inclined to support rehabilitative measures for offenders if they perceive the crime as being caused by external, uncontrollable factors. However, if the crime is seen as a result of an "undeserving" victim's poor choices, the focus may shift to more retributive, punitive measures, with less concern for the victim's needs or the offender's potential for reform.

Challenging the Bias

Addressing the harmful effects of victim attribution requires a multi-faceted approach. In the justice system, this means:

Education and Training: Providing mandatory training for police, lawyers, judges, and jurors on cognitive biases and the psychology of victim blaming is essential. This training can help legal professionals become more aware of their own prejudices and consciously work to mitigate their influence.

Procedural Reforms: Implementing legal safeguards that limit the use of a victim's past history or personal characteristics in a way that is irrelevant to the case can help prevent victim blaming in court.

Victim-Centered Approaches: Shifting the focus from a state-centered criminal justice model to a victim-centered one can empower victims and ensure their voices are heard and respected. This includes providing better support services, protecting victims from secondary victimization during legal proceedings, and allowing for victim impact statements during sentencing.

Understanding victim attribution and its relationship to pro-social behavior and the justice system is crucial for creating a more equitable and empathetic society. It requires us to challenge our deeply held assumptions about fairness and responsibility, and to recognize that a just world is not a given—it is a goal we must actively work to achieve.

Pratyush Chaudhuri