Humans of every age have their own set of myths, system of metaphysical beliefs and regard for scientific theories. In the totality of human belief systems, the elements are not homogeneous or equally rational or irrational in character. At regular intervals the belief systems of the humans are obliged to detotalize the totality of their entertained beliefs. This suggests the heterogeneous character of cognitive claim of different co-existent beliefs. The purpose of the book is to emphasize the fact that human nature is neither completely rational' nor 'completely irrational'. The fallibilistic character of human knowledge is largely due to this systematic ambiguity of human nature which is an anthropological truth.

Minakshi Roy Choudhuri, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata, has done works in the field of metaphysics and philosophy of natural and social science. She has published papers in JICPR and other journals and also in the volumes of the Project of History of Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture (PHISPC) and in many other anthologies.

Originally I thought of writing a different and largely a new book. But my own limits and professional constraints forced me to write a less ambitious book mainly drawing upon my past writings.

The essays collected in this volume have grown out of my earlier research works done in the late 1960s and 1970s. Naturally, over the years my philosophical ideas have undergone significant change. But I think that the perceptive readers of the book will find that a common thread of argument is running through all the papers, holding them together, and lending them a reasonably coherent character.

In order to transform essays into a book one has to put up with some relatively understandable repetition in her/his views expressed at different times. While I was preparing the manuscript of the book I did not try to remove the distinctness of different papers written on different occasions or addressed to different audiences.

The central concept which, in my view, connects all the essays of the book together is a particular anthropological view and that view is: humans are not only finite but also fallible. Essential or spiritual infinity and epistemic infallibility never appealed to my philosophical taste and temper. The claim of cognitive certainly seems to me essentially implausible. Human being cannot be more certain about her/his knowledge than she/he can be about her/his own nature or self.

When Professor Minakshi Roy Choudhuri requested me to write a Foreword to her book I readily agreed, because the items dealt with in the book are interesting and somewhat unconventional. Besides, I have also had the pleasure of knowing her and her works for more than three decades.

The Indian writers on philosophy are, generally speaking, influenced by the works of Euro-American philosophers, Most of the latter think that myth is almost exclusively an area of anthropology and it has little or nothing to do with scientific or analytic philosophy. Even the traditional ideas of metaphysics are heavily discounted, if not totally rejected, by them. Most of the contemporary philosophers of the English- speaking world are deeply fascinated by the analytic methods and the findings of science. Among the notable exceptions are Ernst Cassirer and Karl Popper. Both of them, influenced by Kant, are intimately familiar with science and have the imagination to capture the hidden relationship of science with myth and metaphysics.

In the classical tradition of philosophy- both East and West- knowledge used to be understood as an integrated totality within which the individuality of different disciplines was duly recognized.

In continuation of what I have already briefly stated in the Preface, I now propose to indicate the basic contents and arguments of different Chapters of the book. This will give a foretaste to the reader of what I would like to spell out in support of my views on metaphysics and science. Incidentally, I have also referred to the role of myths in scientific theory construction. In this connection I have selectively referred to the literature on anthropology.

I have been always intrigued by the failure of most of the analytic philosophers to realize the importance of myths and metaphysics in the context of science. Somehow they missed the plain commonsense view that all humans of every age have their own set of myths, system of metaphysical beliefs and regard for scientific theories. In the totality of human belief systems, all elements are not homogeneous or equally rational or irrational in character. The fact that both the common man and the scientist are obliged at regular intervals to detotalize the totality of their entertained belief systems, strongly suggest the uneven or heterogeneous character of the congnitive elaim of different co-existent beliefs. This interesting situation has engaged careful attention of many philosophers and anthropologists from Hegel and Marx to Sartre and Levi-Strauss.