Puja Raj

The logic curriculum in philosophy, despite its assertions of impartiality and universality, frequently serves as a gatekeeping device – filtering out students not by lack of ability, but through pedagogical practices and epistemic norms that subtly define what is “rational” and reinforce elite, masculinist, and exclusionary standards. Drawing from feminist theory and classroom experience, this paper will examine how teaching logic marginalises students from under-represented origins and disciplines and how feminist logic provides a strong critical and constructive lens for examining and rethinking logic instruction. Drawing from critical pedagogy and feminist epistemology, the paper examines how logic pedagogy is dominated by abstraction, speed, and competitive problem-solving, favouring some reasoning styles while alienating others, particularly those based on context, embodiment, and collaboration. In my own educational setting, I have seen how logic serves as both a fundamental course and an implicit filter for perceived ‘rigour,’ which serves to uphold established hierarchies and discourage many gifted kids. As a critique and a methodology, feminist logic demands that logic education be reoriented towards epistemic justice that doesn’t entrench hierarchical dualisms through its structures of negation. This paper conceptualises the Frictional Framework as a feminist alternative that resists exclusionary binaries while reimagining rigour as responsive, plural, and justice oriented. Instead of weakening rigour, a feminist-informed curriculum broadens the definition of logical fluency by emphasising power and positionality in the argument’s structural structure, modelling situated thinking, and favouring cooperative discussion over competitive problem-solving. This paper will provide specific examples of how pluralistic reasoning frameworks, multimodal exercises, and inclusive examples can be used to teach logic. By doing this, it argues for teaching logic as a deeply political activity that has the power to upend or reinforce epistemic systems, rather than just as a technical instrument. A feminist logic curriculum is crucial, not an add-on, to reconsidering the purpose and audience of logic.

Among 108 Upaniṣads, the central theme of the true knowledge of Self is consistent. The wholesome philosophy of Upaniṣad is focused towards the enlightenment or proliferation of mind through the knowledge of Self as the source which is both Constitutive as well as Regulative source. According to Upaniṣadic view, only when we understand and realize the true nature of self, we can understand the concept of reality. In this article, I would concentrate on the idea of Self and Reality from the perspective of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, which portrays that the manifestation of the universe is done out of self, which is identical with the ultimate reality Brahman, through consciousness. Moreover, with the reference to Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, I would make an attempt to highlight the nature of Self, methodologies to understand the Self, the ground of this empirical reality with diversity, and the ungendered Self.

The article explores the paradox of toxicity within the digital self-care movement, where attempts at promoting well-being and mental health can foster anxiety, self-comparison, and alienation. The virtual landscape, driven by aesthetic standards and consumerist pressures, transforms self-care into an arena of self-surveillance, digital narcissism, and exclusion, which paradoxically undermines the genuine, introspective, and restorative goals of self-care itself. Using a framework that combines aesthetics and ethics, this article will examine the ‘toxic self-care paradox’ in the context of late-stage capitalism. First, it investigates the ‘aesthetic toxicity’ of the self-care industry complex, showing how carefully constructed standards of beauty and health lead to cycles of consumer discontent, aesthetic anxiety, and exclusionary norms. Second, it examines the ‘toxicity of self-optimization,’ which turns caring into a moral duty linked to output, self-control, and public performance. Lastly, the article challenges prevailing neoliberal wellness paradigms and opens up more inclusive, collective possibilities for well-being by putting out an alternative vision of self-care based on structural awareness, emotional resilience, and ethical refusal.