Top 10 similar words or synonyms for intellectual

NotFoundError    0.789

Top 30 analogous words or synonyms for intellectual

Article Example
અનેકાંતવાદ Ācārya Haribhadra (8th century CE) was one of the leading proponents of "anekāntavāda". He was the first classical author to write a doxography, a compendium of a variety of intellectual views. This attempted to contextualise Jain thoughts within the broad framework, rather than espouse narrow partisan views. It interacted with the many possible intellectual orientations available to Indian thinkers around the 8th century.
ગણિત Mathematics is not a closed intellectual system, in which everything has already been worked out. There is no shortage of open problems.
રાષ્ટ્રીય જ્ઞાન આયોગ The Commission was to recommend reform of the education sector, research labs, and intellectual property legislation; as well as consider whether the Government could itself upgrade its use of the latest techniques to make its workings more transparent.
અનેકાંતવાદ The concepts of "anekāntavāda" and "syādvāda" allow Jains to accept the truth in other philosophies from their own perspective and thus inculcate tolerance for other viewpoints. "Anekāntavāda" is non-absolutist and stands firmly against all dogmatisms, including any assertion that Jainism is the only correct religious path. It is thus an intellectual , or of the mind. Burch writes, "Jain logic is intellectual . Just as a right-acting person respects the life of all beings, so a right-thinking person acknowledges the validity of all judgments. This means recognizing all aspects of reality, not merely one or some aspects, as is done in non-Jain philosophies."
એરિસ્ટોટલ એરિસ્ટોટલ believed that intellectual purposes, i.e., formal causes, guided all natural processes. Such a teleological view gave એરિસ્ટોટલ cause to justify his observed data as an expression of formal design. Noting that "no animal has, at the same time, both tusks and horns," and "a single-hooved animal with two horns I have never seen," એરિસ્ટોટલ suggested that Nature, giving no animal both horns and tusks, was staving off vanity, and giving creatures faculties only to such a degree as they are necessary. Noting that ruminants had a multiple stomachs and weak teeth, he supposed the first was to compensate for the latter, with Nature trying to preserve a type of balance.
અનેકાંતવાદ In "anekāntavāda", there is no "battle of ideas", because this is considered to be a form of intellectual "himsa" or violence, leading quite logically to physical violence and war. In today's world, the limitations of the adversarial, "either with us or against us" form of argument are increasingly apparent by the fact that the argument leads to political, religious and social conflicts. "Sūtrakrtānga", the second oldest canon of Jainism, provides a solution by stating: "Those who praise their own doctrines and ideology and disparage the doctrine of others distort the truth and will be confined to the cycle of birth and death."
એરિસ્ટોટલ In એરિસ્ટોટલ's terminology, "natural philosophy" is a branch of philosophy examining the phenomena of the natural world, and included fields that would be regarded today as ભૌતિક વિજ્ઞાન, biology and other natural sciences. In modern times, the scope of "philosophy" has become limited to more generic or abstract inquiries, such as ethics and તત્ત્વમીમાંસા, in which logic plays a major role. Today's philosophy tends to exclude empirical study of the natural world by means of the scientific method. In contrast, એરિસ્ટોટલ's philosophical endeavors encompassed virtually all facets of intellectual inquiry.
અનેકાંતવાદ Some Indologists like Professor John Cort have cautioned against giving undue importance to "intellectual " as the basis of "anekāntavāda". He points out that Jain monks have also used "anekāntavāda" and "syādvāda" as debating weapons to silence their critics and prove the validity of the Jain doctrine over others. According to Dundas, in Jain hands, this method of analysis became a fearsome weapon of philosophical polemic with which the doctrines of Hinduism and Buddhism could be pared down to their ideological bases of simple permanence and impermanence, respectively, and thus could be shown to be one-pointed and inadequate as the overall interpretations of reality they purported to be. On the other hand, the many-sided approach was claimed by the Jains to be immune from criticism since it did not present itself as a philosophical or dogmatic view.
એરિસ્ટોટલ Twenty-three hundred years after his death, એરિસ્ટોટલremains one of the most influential people who ever lived. He was the founder of formal logic, pioneered the study of પ્રાણીશાસ્ત્ર, and left every future scientist and philosopher in his debt through his contributions to the scientific method. Despite these accolades, many of એરિસ્ટોટલ's errors held back વિજ્ઞાન considerably. Bertrand Russell notes that "almost every serious intellectual advance has had to begin with an attack on some Aristotelian doctrine". Russell also refers to એરિસ્ટોટલ's ethics as "repulsive", and calls his logic "as definitely antiquated as Ptolemaic astronomy". Russell notes that these errors make it difficult to do historical justice to એરિસ્ટોટલ, until one remembers how large of an advance he made upon all of his predecessors.
અનેકાંતવાદ The age of Māhavīra and Buddha was an age of intense intellectual debates, especially on the nature of reality and self. Upanishadic thought postulated the absolute unchanging reality of "Brahman" and "atman" and claimed that change was mere illusion. The theory advanced by Buddhists denied the reality of permanence of conditioned phenomena, asserting only interdependence and impermanence. According to the "Vedānta" (Upanishadic) conceptual scheme, the Buddhists were wrong in denying permanence and absolutism, and within the Buddhist conceptual scheme, the vedāntins were wrong in denying the reality of impermanence. The two positions were contradictory and mutually exclusive from each others' point of view. The Jains managed a synthesis of the two uncompromising positions with "anekāntavāda". From the perspective of a higher, inclusive level made possible by the ontology and epistemology of "anekāntavāda" and "syādvāda", Jains do not see such claims as contradictory or mutually exclusive; instead, they are seen as "ekantika" or only partially true. The Jain breadth of vision embraces the perspectives of both Vedānta which, according to Jainism, "recognizes substances but not process", and Buddhism, which "recognizes process but not substance". Jainism, on the other hand, pays equal attention to both substance "(dravya)" and process "(paryaya)".