Uncertainty: Catalyst or Obstacle? A Dialogue Between Science, Existentialism, and the Mahabharata

 

Geetha Upadesam

(Mysore Rosewood inlay Painting)

*Richard Feynman’s observation that “If you know that you are not sure, you have a chance to improve the situation” frames uncertainty as a productive starting point, a form of scientific humility that opens the door to deeper understanding. Within the domain of scientific inquiry, this attitude is invaluable. It signals openness to revision, a willingness to question assumptions, and the intellectual flexibility that drives discovery. In science, acknowledging uncertainty about the world is not weakness but strength, for it creates the conditions for progress.

However, when examined through other philosophical lenses, particularly existentialism and the Mahabharata, uncertainty does not always appear as a virtue. Instead, it can represent a weakening of will and an obstacle to authentic action. Here, the distinction between “not knowing” and “being unsure” becomes crucial. To admit ignorance is an act of intellectual honesty that can ignite deliberate seeking. But to confess that one is “not sure” about oneself or one’s commitments reflects a deeper existential instability, a reluctance to claim responsibility and a failure to stand firmly in freedom.

Existentialist thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre argue that human freedom demands a fierce clarity of self-awareness. Authenticity, in this tradition, depends on the individual’s willingness to confront their condition directly, without hiding behind ambiguity. Sartre warns against bad faith, the tendency to evade responsibility by clinging to vague or uncertain attitudes. From this perspective, being “not sure” is not a virtue, but it is a refusal to fully own one’s freedom. It signals hesitation to embrace either knowledge or ignorance decisively. Ignorance can propel inquiry, but uncertainty about oneself leads only to paralysis. Clarity, even the clarity of one’s ignorance, is essential for courage and meaningful action.

This distinction emerges vividly in the Mahabharata, particularly in Arjuna’s crisis on the battlefield. Arjuna does not falter because he lacks information, but he falters because he becomes unsure of himself. His doubt is not mere ignorance but an emotional and existential confusion that robs him of the will to act. Krishna does not praise Arjuna for acknowledging uncertainty. Instead, he challenges him to rise above this fog of doubt. For Krishna, uncertainty is a **tamasic state, where one that obscures dharma, corrupts resolve, and clouds judgment. True growth comes not from lingering in hesitation but from disciplined inquiry followed by decisive action. It is the transformation of Arjuna’s uncertainty into clarity and not the uncertainty itself, that enables moral and spiritual progress.

Both existentialism and the Mahabharata converge on a critical insight, whereby the real danger lies not in ignorance but in self-doubt. Ignorance can awaken the desire to learn but self-doubt weakens the will to seek. History and modern life offer striking illustrations of this principle.

Marie Curie ventured into the invisible world of radioactivity not because she doubted herself, but because she trusted the steadiness of her purpose. Nelson Mandela faced the vast uncertainty of a nation in transition not from existential wavering, but from an unshakeable sense of identity and mission.

Similarly, Steve Jobs and Elon Musk, often celebrated for their audacity, did not act from existential confusion. Jobs reshaped personal computing from a near-monastic clarity about design and purpose. Musk pursued electric mobility and interplanetary ambition from a resolute conviction that these were the problems he was meant to confront. Their bold ventures were not products of self-doubt but of self-knowledge. The unknown invited them only because they already knew where they stood.

Rajendra Chola’s reign (1014–1044) offers a vivid historical parallel. His audacious naval expeditions, from Southeast Asia to the banks of the Ganges, did not arise from confusion about identity. They flowed from an unwavering sense of duty, lineage, and destiny. His conquests were not acts of a man trying to find himself, but they were expressions of one who already knew. Anchored in clarity, he extended the Chola realm across oceans, demonstrating that great ventures arise not from existential uncertainty but from inner conviction.

In both science and statecraft, the courage to face the unknown does not arise from confusion about the self but from conviction within it. These lives remind us that exploration, whether of matter or of justice, begins with an inward anchoring.

Whilst Feynman’s statement concerns epistemic uncertainty about the world, the critique here points toward existential uncertainty about the self. Scientific inquiry may benefit from the former, but human action and moral responsibility cannot be built upon the latter.

On the other hand, both existentialism and the Mahabharata insist that one must know where one stands before stepping into the unknown. The impetus to discover does not arise from being unsure but from the confidence that one can confront what one does not yet know.

Feynman is right when he says that the mind must remain uncertain about the world, for scientific discovery thrives on questioning, revision, and doubt. Yet the self must not remain uncertain about itself, for meaningful action demands inner clarity.

Science advances through doubt, the self-advances through clarity. Feynman’s uncertainty is a tool, not a worldview, while self-knowledge is the foundation upon which responsibility and courage rest. Both are necessary, and when seen in their proper place, they do not contradict but complete one another, allowing us to face the unknown with both intellectual humility and existential steadiness.

Cheers.

ravivarmmankkanniappan@0946171120253.0567° N, 101.5851° E

*Richard Feynman (1918–1988) was a brilliant, unconventional physicist whose work transformed quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics. A Nobel laureate, charismatic teacher, wartime researcher, and early visionary in nanotechnology and quantum computing, he charmed the world with curiosity, humour, and a knack for making physics come alive. Somehow, almost by accident, he also lived like an existentialist and a Gita-style Karma yogi, facing life’s uncertainties with playfulness and purpose, proving that one can achieve philosophical enlightenment without ever reading a single sacred text.

**tamasic refers to one of the three gunas (qualities of nature) in Hindu philosophy and this guna is associated with qualities such as darkness, ignorance, delusion, inertia, stupidity and indifference

When Perception Becomes Reality, Does Truth Still Matter?

 

CARRACK SHIP

(Spanish/Portuguese-circa 14th - 15th Century)

Just days ago, the BBC’s Director-General and News CEO resigned following public uproar over a Panorama documentary on Donald Trump. The controversy centred on an edited version of Trump’s January 6 speech, in which the phrase “peacefully and patriotically” was removed, leaving only “fight like hell.” Stripped of context, the edit created the impression that Trump had directly incited violence. More revealing, however, was how readily many viewers accepted this distorted version simply because it fit an existing narrative about him. When media selectively frames content, it doesn’t just report the story, it constructs it, subtly guiding public perception toward a preferred conclusion.

This is hardly a new phenomenon. It echoes the central warning of Wag the Dog, a film that remains disturbingly relevant. In the movie, political strategists manufacture an entirely fictional war to bury a presidential scandal, exposing how fragile truth becomes when political power and media manipulation intersect. What appears satirical is, in reality, a clear-eyed critique of a world where image-making supersedes fact. The film illustrates how easily public opinion can be steered when narratives are crafted with precision and delivered through trusted channels. It serves as a mirror to our present moment, reminding us that when entertainment and news converge, truth becomes a negotiable commodity.

A similar dynamic recently emerged in Malaysia, where an academic from an international university claimed, without credible evidence, that an ancient regional civilization had taught the Romans shipbuilding and imparted several other advanced technologies. Despite the lack of empirical support, the claims spread rapidly across public discourse. The reaction split into two camps, one firmly rejecting the assertions, and another embracing them out of cultural pride. The latter went as far as selectively citing historical anecdotes to reinforce a preferred narrative, even though these anecdotes collapsed under scholarly scrutiny. This episode reveals how identity and emotion can override critical inquiry, allowing speculative claims to be elevated to “truth” through sheer sentiment.

These three incidents expose a deeper condition of the modern information landscape. Narratives no longer succeed on the strength of evidence, they thrive when they cater to identity, confirm biases, or provide psychological comfort. In a society increasingly driven by consumerist logic, truth competes not with falsehood, but with convenience. People gravitate toward truths that affirm their conditioning, convenient truths, popular truths, socio-politically advantageous truths. As a result, objective reality becomes negotiable, shaped less by facts and more by the emotional needs of its audience.

This creates fertile ground for manipulation. Media institutions can amplify selective frames, political actors can weaponize narratives, and even academics can advance claims that resonate more with cultural sentiment than with scholarship. When such narratives are repeated widely and confidently, they gain the weight of legitimacy, regardless of their factual foundation. The erosion of objective truth then becomes not an aberration, but an inevitable outcome of an ecosystem where perception is more valuable than accuracy.

The consequences extend far beyond individual controversies. When societies begin to accept narratives not because they are true but because they feel true, the foundations of informed discourse weaken. Democracy depends on a shared baseline of reality, when that dissolves, public debate becomes a contest of illusions rather than ideas. The BBC edit scandal, the manufactured war in Wag the Dog, and the Malaysian historical controversy all illustrate the same unsettling trajectory, control of the story increasingly eclipses the truth itself.

We now live in a world where perception functions as currency, traded and manipulated by those who understand its power.

The pressing question, then, is not merely who shapes our narratives, but who safeguards the truth, and whether we still care enough to demand it.

Cheers.

ravivarmmankkanniappan@1203141120253.0567° N, 101.5851° E