Einstein, Tagore and the Antiquity: A View of the Universe

Tagore on Swaraj: Tagore has the following to say about self-governance or independence, which is otherwise termed as Swaraj: “What is Swaraj! It is Maya, It is like a mist that will vanish leaving no stain on the radiance of the eternal. However we may delude ourselves with the phrases learnt from the west, Swaraj is not our objective. Our fight is a spiritual fight, it is for man. We are to emancipate man from the meshes that he himself has woven round him – these organizations of national egoism”.

Tagore the Spiritual Humanist: Tagore was at heart a spiritual humanist and the turmoil of World War 1 and the violence of the independence movement in India, especially the inhuman torture by the English on hapless Indians of the freedom struggle, troubled his consciousness. He has the following to say: “The butterfly will have to be persuaded that the freedom of the sky is of higher value than the shelter of the cocoon. If we can defy the strong, the armed, the wealthy, revealing to the world power of the immortal spirit, the whole castle of the giant flesh will vanish in the void. And then man will find his Swaraj. We, the famished, ragged ragamuffins of the east, are to win freedom for all humanity”.

Tagore on Indian Tradition: Tagore was also a great thinker and a traveler. He travelled the western developed world quite extensively and – in many of his writings – had compared the two different cultures and the differences in their philosophy. The following quote gives us a summary of his perspective on the differences in the philosophies of east and west: “We have no word for nation in our language. When we borrow this word from other people, it never fits us. For we are to make our league with Narayan (God), and our victory will not give us anything but victory itself; victory for God’s world. I have seen the west; I covet not the unholy feast, in which she revels every moment, growing more and more bloated and red and dangerously delirious. Not for us, is this mad orgy of midnight, with lighted torches, but awakenment in the serene light of morning”.    

Terminology of Metaphysics: Before we go further, let us have an understanding of some terminologies which will be helpful for us to understand the discussions further. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy which tries to understand and find meaning of existence and the nature of existence as well as the relationships between things that exist. Aristotle calls metaphysics as the first philosophy or the first principles. He also calls it by various other names like ‘wisdom’ etc. He does this because according to him metaphysics deals with “first causes and principles of things”. The study is about existence and nature of things that exist – things like – being, knowing, identity, time, space, etc. As the human civilization progresses, different perspectives come in to play. One of them is Realism which believes that reality exists independently of one’s mind and yet can be known. Idealism is just the exact opposite and believes that no mind independent reality exists or can be known. There are three categories of metaphysics – ontology, natural theology, and universal science. Ontology is a ‘set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them’. Ontology has four categories; namely – entity, relation, role, and resource. As of now, these should suffice.

Now, before we go in to the discussions between Einstein and Tagore, we further need to understand a few more concepts in detail. They are: Truth, Beauty, and Consciousness. Let us look at Truth first.    

Let us first have a look in to some of the famous comments that very famous people has made so far. This topic/subject has attracted the attention of some of the best minds in the world. Let see the quotes:

1)      Truth was the only daughter of time – Leonardo Da Vinci

2)      The ideals which have always shown before me and filled me with joy are goodness, Beauty, and truth – Albert Einstein

3)      Anyone who does not take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either – Albert Einstein

4)      Sometimes people do not want to hear the truth because they do not want their illusions destroyed – Friedrich Nietzsche

5)      The truth is rarely pure and never simple – Oscar Wilde

6)      The truth is still the truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.

Truth in Antiquity: The dictionary meaning of truth is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. In antiquity, Aletheia (pre-Socrates) believed in the ontological concept of truth which meant the disclosure of being. Permenides gave a slightly different interpretation of truth. He said that for the same thing there is both – to be thought of and to be. That effectively means that Truth and Reality is the one and same thing and they both mean the same. So, according to him, thought and being are the same. Socrates however believed in Absolute Truth. It will be pertinent here to recall that this line of thought was totally against what pre-Socrates thinking, especially that of Homer, was all about. Socrates did not believe in the mythology of various Gods and God as human configurations as propounded by Homer. Socrates was much more inclined towards anthropology – the science of evolution of human beings, the scientific approach to and branch of philosophy. Protagoras was the first philosopher to talk of truth and the relativity of truth and subjectivism. He said: “Man is the measure of all things that are that they are, and of things that are not that they are not”. Then came Sophocles and Euripides who believed that truth is nothing but the correctness of perception. Plato, who was the predecessor of the modern Correspondence Theory of Truth, took the theory of Sophocles and Euripides a bit further. Plato said that truth is the reality of being and correctness of apprehension and assertion. Finally, Aristotle defined truth in the following manner: “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is False, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is True”. (Metaphysics 1011B25).

Truth as defined in Religion: In Hinduism, truth stands for something which is unchangeable. Truth has no distortions and is beyond distinctions of time, space, and person. So, truth pervades the Universe in all its constancy. In order to express the concept well enough, Hinduism uses two phrases which are borrowed from ancient Hindu scriptures. The two phrases are: Satyameva Jayate – which means truth alone wins, and the other is Satyam Muktaye – which means that truth liberates. Satya stands for truth itself. Satya precisely means the benevolent use of words and the mind for the welfare of others. So, responsibilities is truth also. The other significant and important religion that has its roots in India is Buddhism. It has the ‘two truths doctrine’ – one is the relative/conventional truth and the other is the ultimate truth. The relative or conventional truth means a common understanding – and, is accepted as a practical basis for communication of higher truths. Ultimate truth transcends logic in the sphere of ordinary experience, according to Buddhism.

In Islamic Philosophy, truth is conceptualized as “What corresponds in the mind to what is outside it, the truth of a thing is the property of the being of each thing which has been established in it; Truth is also said of the veridical belief in the existence of something”. (Avicenna, Ibn Sena, Book of Healing, Book 1, Kitab Al-Shifa). In Christianity, Jesus says the following in Bible – “I am the way, the Truth and the Life: No man cometh unto the Father, but by me”.

Changing interpretations of Truth: Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) disputed some of the questions pertaining to Truth. According to him the truth of the human intellect (logical truth) is based on the truth in things (ontological truth). This comes very close to the re-statement of Aristotle which says that truth is the conformity of the intellect and things. Again, during the middle ages, Richard Firth Green introduced a totally different interpretation of truth in his treatise – The crisis of Truth. He shifted the focus from ethical truth which resides in persons to political truth where truth resides in documents.

Truth in the Modern Age: Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in his book Critique of Pure Reason discards the earlier nominal definition of truth, which was that truth is the agreement between cognition and the object. H was of the opinion that the earlier thought process cannot be employed to establish which judgements are true. According to him, the real definition of truth should describe the essence of the objects and then determine whether it falls within the definition. This is impossible without qualification and for each and every person separately. Hegel used the concept of dialectical triplicate of thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis in order to explain the concept of truth. According to him, there are three different types of truth and they are – Perfect truth, Final truth, and Absolute truth. Then Schopenhauer came up with his principle of sufficient reason (ground). This is a very powerful and controversial philosophical principle. Schopenhauer held the opinion of judgements as material, formal/logical, and transcendental (space, time, etc.). Kierkegaard spoke of two types of truth – one is the subjective truth, which is the person’s inner relationship to existence, and another is the objective truth which is more about science, mathematics, history etc. Subjective truth is static and final whereas objective truth is dynamic and continuing. Nietzsche (1844-1900) perceives truth as beyond good or evil. He proposes the concept of Will to Truth wherein he believes that there are a set of commitments which are beyond the fact that truth exists. Truth is to be identified through careful discovery and honest interpretation of evidence. Similar is the concept of Will to Power of philosophers. Nietzsche also believed that falseness is not necessarily an objection to the judgement if it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, and species-breeding. Western intellectual tradition is a metaphysical faith on which faith in science rests – God is Truth, Truth is Divine.                  

Diverse Interpretations: Heidegger (1889-1976) seemed to be agreeing with Aletheia (pre-Socrates) era concept of truth as un-concealment. The Latin derivation of the concept is ‘correctness’. The philosopher Whitehead was of the opinion that there are no whole truths. All truths are half-truths and so truth can lie. This is because half-truths are deceptive and may lead to false conclusion. Peirce believed in human enquiry. The meaning of truth, according to him, is the opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate. Fromm postulated that there is no absolute truth – there is only optimal truth. Absolute means perfect and relative means imperfect – this has been superseded in all scientific thought. So, truth should stand for only objectively valid laws and principles (Man from Himself: An Enquiry in to the Psychology of Ethics).

Final Observations of Modern Age: In that respect, Fromm (1900-1980) says that “A scientifically or rationally valid statement means that the power of reason is applied to all the available data of observation without any of them being suppressed or falsified for the sake of a desired result”. The history of science is “a history of inadequate and incomplete statements, and every new insight makes possible the recognition of the inadequacies of previous propositions and offers a springboard for creating a more adequate formulation”. As a result “the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period”. He furthermore notes that “different cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth” and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth. Foucault further adds that truth becomes problematic when we attempt to see truth as an objective quality. There are actually, in reality, regimes of truth in a given structure. Hence, truth keeps on shifting throughout history.  

Neo-Classical Theories of Truth: There are three broad classifications – The Correspondence Theory, The Coherence Theory, and Pragmatist Theories.

Correspondence Theory has considerable similarities with the theories of Aristotle and Aquinas. The basic idea is that what we believe or say is true if it corresponds with the way things actually are, i.e. to the facts. This flows from Analytic Philosophy (beginning of 20^th century) and the main proponents were G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russel. They rejected Idealism. Then there was the Identity Theory of Truth where truth is unanalyzable. It is a property of Propositions where Propositions are what are believed and gives the contents of beliefs. So, facts lead to propositions which is then accepted as truth. Thus there is no difference between truth and the reality to which it is supposed to correspond. This theory was rejected as there was no such thing as a false proposition – belief took its place. A belief is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact. So, we come back to metaphysics (ontology) again which says that a belief is true if there exists an appropriate entity – a fact – to which it corresponds. If there is no such entity, the belief is false. It naturally follows that existence of facts is the “First Truism”. Facts, like ontology, are composed of particulars, properties and relations. Thus, modern correspondence theory goes back to propositions – structured propositions. Propositions then are composed of contents of beliefs and the structure corresponds to the structure of sentences.

Coherence Theory finds its origin in British Analytic Philosophy (Harold Henry Joachim, 1868-1938). The theory says that truth in its essential nature is that systematic coherence which is the character of a significant whole. A belief is true if and only if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs. Coherence theory is typically associated with idealism. So, truth is a matter of how beliefs are related to each other and not a matter of whether the world provides a suitable object to mirror a proposition.  

Pragmatist Theories was founded by Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), an American philosopher. He believed that truth is the end of enquiry. He further said that true beliefs will remain settled at the end of prolonged enquiry. William James (1842-1910), another American philosopher, said truth is satisfactory to belief. That means true values are guaranteed not to conflict with subsequent experience. However, What Haack said in 1976 has similarities with correspondence theory. He said scientific method of enquiry is answerable to some independent world. Sometimes pragmatist theories have similarities with coherence theories. In these cases, they say that it is expected that the end of enquiry will be a coherent set of beliefs. Then came the Verificationist idea that truth is verifiable.    

 

Beauty is defined as a perceptual experience of pleasure or satisfaction. The experience of beauty often involves an interpretation of some entity as being in balance or harmony with nature, which may lead to feelings of attraction and emotional well-being. The experiencing of beauty is partly subjective and also has differing levels of objectivity. Pythagoras (pre-Socratic) established a strong connection between mathematics and beauty. He developed the concept of Golden Ratio based on symmetry and proportion in architecture. For Plato, beauty is an idea, a form. Aristotle developed the concept of a relationship between virtue and beautiful where virtue aims at the beautiful. In order to understand the exchanges between Einstein and Tagore, we also need to know about the Apollo of the Belvedere. It is a celebrated marble structure from classical antiquity. It is an ideal of aesthetic perfection for the western world. Apollo is the Roan re-creation of Greek God of healing, medicine, archery, music, poetry, truth, prophecy, sun, and light. It is one of the twelve Olympian Deities, now in Vatican.  

According to Thomas Aquinas, beauty is one of the transcendental attributes of being. The three conditions of beauty are wholeness, harmony, and radiance of form. In Gothic architecture, light was considered the most beautiful revelation of God. For example, use of stained glass in Cathedrals like in Notre-Dame De Paris etc. John Keats in his ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’ writes “Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty, - That is All Ye Know in Earth, and All Ye Need to Know”. Nietzsche was also of the opinion that Will to Power is Will to Beauty. There are two distinct aspects of beauty in the context of human beauty. Inner beauty is manifested through psychological factors like intelligence, personality, grace, politeness, charisma, integrity, congruence, and elegance. Outer beauty stands for physical attractiveness, i.e. physical attributes which are valued on an aesthetic basis.

 

Consciousness is defined as the state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings, a person’s awareness or perception of something. It is, at once, the most familiar and the most mysterious aspects of our lives. Consciousness, at some times, is the mind itself – and at other times, only an aspect of the mind. A wealth of knowledge on consciousness is available in – Scientific American (318, 6, 60-64, June 2018) and Nature. One of the articles is “Central puzzle of our existence: How a three-pound organ with the consistency of Tofu exudes the feeling of Life. What is consciousness” by Christof Koch. They discuss about neuronal correlates of consciousness (NCC), which is the minimal neuronal mechanisms jointly sufficient for any specific conscious experience.

Physical Structure of the Brain: The spinal cord has one billion nerve cells. The Cerebellum, which is known as the little brain, has what is called Purkinje cells. These Purkinje cells contain 69 billion neurons which is four times more than in the rest of the brain combined. They work on the basis of feed-forward circuit and has no complex feedback loops. Cerebellum is composed of more than a hundred independent computational modules. These modules are parallel, distinct, and non-overlapping. They control movements of different motor or cognitive systems. They scarcely interact and at the same time, they are indispensable for consciousness. An additional factor in all these is the grey matter of the celebrated cerebral cortex which is the outer surface of the brain. The Neocortical tissue is responsible for generating feelings while the Posterior Cortex is the most important area for consciousness.

Two Most Popular Theories of Consciousness: The first theory is known as Global Neuronal Workspace (GNW) and was proposed by the psychologist Bernard J. Baars and neuroscientists Stanislas Dehaene and Jean-Pierre Changeux. The theory says that if you are conscious of something, different parts of the brain have access to the information. When you are unconscious, information is localized to the sensory motor system. Consciousness arises from a particular type of information processing when incoming sensory information is broadcast globally to multiple cognitive systems (similar to AI, artificial intelligence). Only then information becomes conscious and the subject becomes aware. This level of cognitive sophistication is not possible with current machines. The second theory known as Integrated Information Theory or IIT, was proposed by Giulio Tononi, Koch etc. The theory starts from experience. According to them, each experience has some essential properties. It is intrinsic, i.e. existing for the subject – the ‘owner’. Experience, as described and defined by them, is also structured, specific – i.e. distinct, unified, and definite. Experience cannot be separated in to parts without the experience ceasing to be what it is. The proponents of this theory further said that these experiences are complex and interconnected and that the structure encodes a set of cause-and-effect relationships. It will have these properties at some level of consciousness. If the mechanism lacks integration and complexity, it will not be aware of anything. So, consciousness is intrinsic causal power associated with complex mechanisms such as the human brain. So, according to the proponents of the theory, consciousness cannot be computed and it must be built in to the structure of the system. Programming for consciousness will never be able to create a conscious computer.

              

Challenges of Understanding Consciousness: There are more questions than answers on consciousness. Primary questions surrounding consciousness are the What, How, and Why questions. There are the descriptive questions like what is consciousness, what are its principal features etc. Then there are the explanatory questions like how does consciousness of the relevant sort come to exist, or is it a primitive aspect of reality etc. The functional questions are like why does consciousness of the relevant sort exist, or does it have a function and if so, what is it etc.  

The Descriptive Question – What? There are many types of consciousness where specific features of importance vary. There are seven general aspects of consciousness.

1)      Qualitative character: It is the raw feel or qualia, defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. So, it is the experiential state or what is it like – for example – thoughts and desires.

2)      Phenomenal structure: There are various kinds of order and structure within the domain of experience – as the world appears to us. Phenomenologists like Kant (1787) said that it is much more than just raw feel. It includes complex representations of time, space, cause, body, self, world, and the organized structure of lived reality.

3)      Subjectivity: In its epistemic form, there are apparent limits of know-ability and understandability of conscious experience.

4)      Self-Perspectival organization: It stands for self-perceptuality. Descartes (1644) says that conscious experiences do not exist as isolated mental atoms, but as modes or states of a conscious self or subject. Kant adds in 1787 that “I Think” must accompany the experiences.

5)      Unity: There are diverse forms of consciousness – some are causal unities, while some are more representational. So intentional integration of diverse items of content at many scales and levels of binding takes place.

6)      Intentionality and Transparency: Conscious visual experience correctly represents the world. However, nonconscious states can also exhibit intentionality. Transparency means ‘Looking Through’ the sensory experience – for example- experiencing green fields in an urban situation. Searle in 1992 introduced the concept of ‘intrinsic intentionality’ of consciousness. It is ‘intentional’ and is present inside the character.

7)      Dynamic Flow: William James, in 1890, talked of stream of consciousness. According to him, it is a coherent order of ever changing process of flow and self-transformation. These temporal sequences of experience can be generated by internal as well as external factors or causes. Each moment to moment sequence of experience grows coherently out of those that preceded it. So, consciousness is an autopoietic system – i.e. a self-creating and self-organizing system (Varela & Maturana, 1980).    

Keeping all these in mind, let us now go in to the details of conversations between Einstein and Tagore.

 

Let us start by taking a poem from the book ‘Gitanjali’. The poem is called “Stream of Life”.

“The same stream of life that runs through my veins night and day runs through the world and dances in rhythmic measures

It is the same life that shoots in joy through the dust of the earth in numberless blades of grass and breaks in to tumultuous waves of leaves and flowers

It is the same life that is rocked in the ocean-cradle of birth and death, in ebb and in flow

I feel my limbs are made glorious by the touch of this world of life and my pride is from the life-throb of ages dancing in my blood this moment”.

Humanity and Truth: Tagore gives the example of matter where matter is composed of protons and electrons with gaps between them, and yet matter may seem to be solid. Similarly, humanity is composed of individuals, yet they have their interconnection of human relationship, which gives living unity to man’s world. Einstein then replies that he cannot prove that truth must be conceived as a truth that is valid, independent of humanity. However, he firmly believes it. He also gives an example of the Pythagorean Theorem in Geometry. He says that the theorem states something that is approximately true, independent of the existence of man.

This meeting took place in Caputh, Berlin and was reported in Modern Review in January 1931. Dmitri Marianoff observed that Tagore was a poet with the head of a thinker whereas Einstein was a thinker with the head of a poet. Tagore says that Einstein was busy hunting down with Mathematics the two ancient entities of time and space, while he himself has been lecturing in Germany on the eternal world of man, the universe of reality. To this, Einstein questioned Tagore whether Tagore believed in divinity isolated from the world. Tagore replied that he believed that the infinite personality of man comprehends the universe, but not in the isolated form. According to him everything can be subsumed by human personality and this goes on to prove that the truth of the universe is human truth. Einstein replied that he believed there are two different conceptions about the nature of the universe. One is the world as a unity dependent on humanity and the other is the world as reality independent of the human factor.

The Universe – Perspectives: According to Tagore, it is only when our universe is in harmony with man, the eternal that we know it as truth and we call it as beauty. Einstein observed that this is purely a human conception of the universe. Tagore then explains his philosophy. According to him, the world is a human world and the scientific view leads to a scientific man. So, the world does not exist without us. The relative world is dependent on our consciousness. There is some standard of reason and enjoyment which gives it truth. That is the standard of the eternal man whose experiences are made possible through our experiences. So, Einstein again observes that this a realization of the human entity.

Tagore agrees to Einstein’s observations. He explains that he believes that there is only one eternal entity which is realized through our emotions and activities. The supreme man has no limitations and we realize him only through our limitations. Science deals with the impersonal human world of truths and is not concerned with that which is confined to individuals. Tagore then goes on to define religion. In his opinion religion realizes these truths and then connects them with our deeper needs. It is only then the individual consciousness of truth gains universal significance. Religion applies values to truth, and then we know truth as good through our own harmony with it. Einstein then extrapolates this thought process and enquires whether then truth or beauty is not independent of man, to which Tagore replies that no, he is not saying that.  

Now, Einstein brought out the topic of Apollo Belvedere. He asked whether Tagore would say that the Apollo Belvedere would no longer be beautiful if there were no human beings. Tagore said that the figurine would still be beautiful and Einstein agreed with this conception of beauty. He however did not agree with Tagore in regard to truth. Tagore then asked Einstein why he did not agree with him on truth, as truth is realized with human beings only.

Universal Truth: Tagore took up the thread and went on to explain his position further. He said that beauty is in the ideal of perfect harmony, which is in the universal being. Truth is the perfect comprehension of the universal mind. Individuals approach it through their own mistakes and blunders, through their accumulated experience, through their illumined consciousness. According to Tagore, there is no other way of knowing truth. Einstein replied that he cannot prove, but he firmly believes in the Pythagorean argument that the truth is independent of human beings. It is the problem of the logic of the continuity.

Tagore then goes on to explain the Indian philosophical tradition. He reiterates that truth, which is one with the universal being, must be essentially human. Otherwise, according to him, whatever individuals realize as true, can never be called truth. The truth which is scientific can only be reached through the process of logic – meaning, by an organ of thought which is human. Tagore further added that according to the Indian philosophy, there is Brahman which is the Absolute Truth and this cannot be conceived by the isolation of the individual mind or even be described by words. It can be realized by only merging the individual in its infinity. However, such truth cannot belong to science. The truth that they were discussing was an appearance – i.e. what appears to be true to the human mind and is therefore human. In Indian philosophy, this is referred to as MAYA or illusion. Einstein says that it is no illusion of the individual, but of the entire species.

Idealism vs Realism: Tagore counters that since the species also belongs to a unity, to humanity – therefore, the entire human mind realizes truth. So, the Indian and the European mind meet in a common realization. Einstein clarifies that the word species is used in German not only for all human beings, but even the apes and the frogs. He says that the problem is whether truth is independent of our consciousness. According to Tagore, what we call truth lies in the rational harmony between the subjective and objective aspects of reality, both of which belong to the super-personal man. Then Einstein says that we do things with our mind for which we are not responsible. This happens in our everyday life also. The mind acknowledges realities outside of it, independent of it. Then he gives the famous example of the table. He says that even though nobody may be in the house, but that table remains where it is.  

Tagore agrees that the table remains outside the individual mind – but, not the universal mind. The table, according to him, is perceptible by some kind of consciousness that we possess. Einstein, however was of the opinion that if nobody was there in the house the table would exist all the same. But, from Tagore’s point of view, this is already illegitimate. This is because we cannot explain what it means – that the table is there independently of us. Einstein further adds that their natural point of view in regard to the existence of truth apart from humanity cannot be explained or proved. He asserts that it is a belief that nobody can deny, not even primitive beings. Einstein further adds that we attribute a superhuman objectivity to truth. The reality which is independent of our existence and our experience and our mind is indispensable to us even though we cannot say what it means.

Universal and Individual – Tagore: Science has proved that the table as a solid object is an appearance and therefore that which the human mind perceives as a table would not exist if the mind were not there. He, however, admits that the fact – that the ultimate physical reality is nothing but a multitude of separate revolving centers of electric force – also belongs to the human mind. Tagore also says that in the apprehension of truth there is an eternal conflict between the universal human mind and the same mind confined in the individual. The perpetual process of reconciliation is being carried on in our science, philosophy, and in our ethics. He finally concludes by saying that if there is any truth which is absolutely unrelated to humanity, then for us it is absolutely non-existing.  

The Religion of Man: Tagore says that it is not difficult to imagine a mind to which the sequence of things happens not in space but only in time. This is something like the sequence of notes in music. For that kind of a man, such conception of reality is akin to the musical reality in which Pythagorean Geometry can have no meaning. Then he gives the example of the reality of paper. Now reality of paper is infinitely different from the reality of literature. For the moth, with its kind of mind, that eats the paper – literature is non-existent. However, to the man’s mind, literature has a greater value than the paper itself. Similarly, if there is some truth which has no sensuous or rational relation to the human mind, then it will forever remain as nothing – as long as we remain human beings. Einstein observed that in that case he is more religious than Tagore. Tagore explained that his religion is in the reconciliation of the super-personal man, the Universal spirit, in his own individual being. This was the subject of Hibbert Lectures by Tagore which he called “The Religion of Man”.  

Duality – Causality and Order: Tagore, in his discussions with Dr. Mendel, learnt that the new mathematical discoveries prove that even in the realm of infinitesimal atoms, chance has its play. So, the drama of existence is not absolutely predestined in character. However, Einstein countered that the facts that make science tend towards this view do not say good-bye to causality. Tagore however observes that to him it seems that the idea of causality is not in the elements, but that some other force builds up with them an organized universe. Einstein then says that he tries to understand how the order is in the higher plane. He acknowledges that the order is there where the big elements combine and guide existence. However, this order is not perceptible in the minute elements. Tagore also agrees and says that this duality is in the depths of existence. The contradiction of free impulse and the directive will which works upon it evolves an orderly scheme of things.

Statistical Order – Human Character: Einstein explained that modern physics would not say that they are contradictory. Clouds look as one from a distance, but show themselves as disorderly drops of water from nearby. Tagore then draws a parallel with human psychology. He says that our passions and desires are unruly, but our character subdues these elements in to a harmonious whole. Tagore then goes on to ask a few questions to Einstein. He enquires whether similar things happen in the physical world as well. He also wanted to know whether the elements are rebellious and dynamic with individual impulse. If so, whether there is a principle in the physical world which dominates them and puts them in to an orderly organization. Einstein replies that even the elements are not without statistical order. Elements of Radium will always maintain their specific order forever – as they have done all along. So, then there is a statistical order in the elements.

Music – Creation: Tagore observes that the drama of existence would have been too desultory if the constant harmony of chance and determination was not there. It is this phenomenon which makes life and existence eternally new and living. To that, Einstein says that he believes that whatever we do or live for has its causality. However, it is good that we cannot see through it. Tagore observed that there is an element of elasticity in human affairs as well. There is some freedom within a small range which is for the expression of our personality. Tagore then gave an account of the astonishing and unique aspects of the musical system in India. He says that the music system in India is not so rigidly fixed like the Western music system is. He went on to explain that the Indian composers give a certain definite outline, a system of melody and rhythmic arrangement. So, the player can improvise on it within a certain limit. The player must obey the law of that particular melody and at the same time, can give spontaneous expression to his musical feeling – within the prescribed regulation. In this kind of an arrangement, the composer is praised for his genius in creating a foundation along with a superstructure of melodies. Simultaneously, the player is expected to display his own skill in the creation of variations of melodic flourish and ornamentation. Tagore then explained his philosophical viewpoint that in creation we follow the central law of existence. We can have sufficient freedom within the limits of our personality for the fullest self-expression, if we do not cut ourselves adrift from it.

Einstein and Tagore then discussed on the comparison between Western and Indian music. Einstein continued from the earlier discussion and commented that the description of the musical tradition of India is possible only when there is a strong artistic tradition in music to guide the people’s mind. In Europe, however, he observed, that music has come too far away from popular art and popular feeling and has become something like a secret art with conventions and traditions of its own. Tagore agrees that one has to be absolutely obedient to this too complicated music. He mentioned that in India the measure of a singer’s freedom is in his own creative personality. If the singer has the creative power to assert himself in his interpretation of the general law of the melody which has been given to him to interpret, he can sing the composer’s song as his own. To this, Einstein observed that it requires a very high standard of art to realize fully the great idea in the original music in order to be able to make variations upon it. In Europe, the variations are often prescribed.

Duality of Freedom and Prescribed Order: Tagore said that if we can follow the law of goodness in our conduct, we can have real liberty of self-expression. He added that the principle of conduct is there, but the character which makes it true and individual is our own creation. Similarly, in our music also there is duality of freedom and prescribed order. Now, it was time for Einstein to ask questions. He asked whether the words of a song are also free – meaning, is the singer at liberty to add his own words to the song he is singing. Tagore then gave the example of a type of song called ‘Kirtan’ in Bengal. This form of songs gives freedom to the singer to introduce parenthetical comments, i.e. phrases not in the original song. This creates great enthusiasm among the audience as they are constantly thrilled by some beautiful, spontaneous sentiment added by the singer. Einstein then asked whether the metrical form is quite severe (metrical form means the music, the rhythmic arrangement of syllables in verse).

Comparison of Musical Tradition: From the earlier discussion, Tagore agreed with Einstein that the metrical form is quite severe. Tagore further added that the singer cannot exceed the limits of versification. The variations done by the singer must keep the rhythm and the time, which is fixed. In European music, however, there is comparative liberty with time, but not with melody. Einstein was curious to know whether Indian music can be sung without words and can one understand a song without words. Tagore clarified that India has songs with unmeaning words – sounds which just help to act as carriers of the notes. He further explained that in North India, music is an independent art whereas in Bengal, it is more of interpretation of words and thoughts. The music is very intricate and subtle and is a complete world of melody by itself. Einstein then asked whether it is not polyphonic (polyphonic means multiple parts, voices or melodies, notes).  

Tagore explains that instruments are used, not for harmony, but for keeping time and adding to the volume and depth. He then enquired whether melody suffered in Western music by the imposition of harmony. Einstein replied that sometimes it does suffer very much. Sometimes the harmony swallows up the melody altogether. Tagore then compares music with painting. He says that melody and harmony are like lines and colors in pictures. A simple linear picture may be completely beautiful; the introduction of color may make it vague and insignificant. Yet color may, by combination with lines, create great pictures, so long as it does not smother and destroy their value. Einstein then appreciates Tagore’s example. He says that it is a beautiful comparison; line is also much older than color. He further conjectures that melody in Indian music is probably much richer in structure than European music. He added that to him Japanese music also seems to be so.

Reconciliation: Tagore observed that it is difficult to analyze the effect of eastern and western music on our minds. Tagore also said that he was deeply moved by western music. He felt that western music is great – it is vast in its structure and grand in its composition. Tagore also added that Indian music touched him more deeply by its fundamental lyrical appeal. According to him European music is epic in character – it has a broad background and is Gothic in its structure. Einstein replied that Europeans are so used to their own music that they would not be able to answer this question properly. He wanted to know whether European music is a conventional or a fundamental human feeling, whether to feel consonance and dissonance is natural, or a convention which they simply accept. Tagore observes that the violin pleases him much more than the piano, which confounds him. Einstein then said that it would be interesting to study the effects of European music on an Indian who had never heard it when he was young. The difficulty is that the really good music, whether of the east or the west, cannot be analyzed. Tagore concurred and added that what affects the hearer is beyond himself. Einstein expanded the scope of this argument and observed that the same uncertainty will always be there about everything fundamental in our experience, in our reaction to art, whether in Europe or in Asia. Even the red flower I see before me on your table may not be the same to you and me. Tagore agrees and concludes that in spite of all these differences, there is always going on the process of reconciliation between them, the individual taste conforming to the universal standard.

Conclusion: The conversation between Einstein and Tagore took place in Berlin in 1931. However, the thought processes, the topics covered in the discussion, and the relevance of the topics even today is astounding in its depth as well as range. The perspectives hold good for every man in this world – may be in a more understandable way. In order to understand completely, one needs to have an understanding of the basics of some philosophical areas and topics which were discussed. The learning from this is that we need to have the broader picture of life in our mindscape in order to succeed in life. Another learning is that a lot of things has been written and discussed on the differences between the east and the western thoughts. However, somewhere there is a commonality between the two thought processes and the reconciliation of the two philosophies lead us to belief that there is a common thread running between them which ties up the whole universe in to one single unity. Every person in this world has a philosophy of life and the more he reconciles with the unity, the more at peace he will be. Some things will always remain unanalyzable and probably, that is what is beneficial to humanity.

 

 

 

Truth; Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy; Aug 16, 2018.

Young, James O., “A defense of the coherence theory of truth”, Journal of Philosophical Research, 26: 89–101, 2001

James, William, “Pragmatism’s conception of truth”, in Pragmatism, New York: Longmans, 197–236, 1907

Joachim, H. H., The Nature of Truth, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906

Gupta, Anil, “A critique of deflationism”, Philosophical Topics, 21: 57–81, 1993.

Haack, Susan, “The pragmatist theory of truth”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 27: 231–249, 1976.

Dowden, b; Swartz, n; Truth; internet encyclopedia of philosophy.

Davidson, Donald. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford University Press, 1984.

Beauty; Wikipedia.

Koch, Christof; “what is consciousness?” Scientific American, 318, 6, 60-64, June 2018.

Consciousness; Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy; Jan 14, 2014.

Armstrong, D. 1981. “What is consciousness?” In The Nature of Mind. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.