58 SOCIAL SCIENTIST they have made an induction, the next instance falsifies it. This, however, happens only during the first hundred years of their damnation. After that, they learn to expect that an induction will be falsified, and therefore it is not falsified until another century of logical torment has altered their expectation. Throughout the eternity surprise continues, but each time at a higher logical level. ^ , But then, we do see philosophers mutely passing their judgments and acting mostly in favour of the institutions and established orders—in direct violation of their commitments to Truth, Change and Progress ; and in most cases in apparent opposition to their conscience and their professed profession of philosophy. One finds hardly any exception to the rule that eyjery established American philosopher has served in the armed forces. Yet we have to find a single American philosopher of repute who has marched to prison for the Civil Rights of the Blacks or has written a single monograph dealing with the issues of human rights of political freedom of African, Asian and/or South American people. Perhaps there was no logical necessity and philosophers could easily take refuge in the doctrine of the suspended judgement. But one wonders, if Karl Jasper and Sydney Hook can pass the judgments on violation of human rights in the Nazi concentration camps, how could they miss apparent inconsistencies in a democratic set-up of South Africa, Rhodesia, Texas, Georgia, and Arfbama ! Y^The departments and the centres of advanced study of Philosophy in India are still struggling with the age old problems of Samkara's Vedantic maya and the Upanishadic Brahmanandam, Indian philosopher is guilty of revivalism. For sheer Western popularity he is willing to talk of transcendentalism, transcendental meditation, and the great reemer-gence of the traditional wisdom in the insight of Aurobindo. The unquestioning praise and drum-beating which has been carried out for Aurobindo, and other alike sectarian preachers in the name of Indian philosophy is neither Philosophy, nor such efforts are suitable for any progress in Indian thought. \ There apears a blind support for the established religious and sectarian schools €t thought in India which is contrary to the philosophical acumen. The apologetic approach to the traditional caste system, ritualism, the narrow nationalism and parochial practices pursued by a section of the Indian philosophers make them little better than other professionals. They seem to be merely existing as instruments of the oppressive and dehumanising socio-economic-cultural system ; not as a leader guru or a guide to the masses. v There is precious little study made by our philosophers dealing with causes of social injustice, unrest, or against caste system, against intolerant attitude of our high-caste people against the raising aspirations of minority citizens, tribals, and untouchables of India. No Indian philos-pher or the Indian Philosophy Association has openly condemned burning