This article is very biased. The language and choice of facts have been manipulated by writer Tarun Vijay to make Jinnah look like the villain who is solely responsible for the riots that took place in India before independence. He makes Jinnah look like a distant, aristocratic person who was incapable of being an Islamic leader. To substantiate his stand Tarun Vijay chooses to appeal to the reader’s emotions rather than reason. Instead of concentrating on facts, and political decisions made by Jinnah the writer substantiates his arguments with emotive, rhetorical and effusive language used by other leaders. Instead of dissecting Jinnah’s political actions the writer attacks Jinnah personally.
The name of the article itself is very extremist- “Jinnah. He had a pistol. He used it.” well there were many who had a pistol and used it. Whether it was Bhagat Singh, Subash Chandra Bose or other Hindu radical nationalists, they all promoted violence as a means of attaining Independence. Subash Chandra Bose popularised his motto “Give me blood and I will give you freedom”. How is this different from Jinnah’s speech made in 1946 as mentioned in the article. The author evidently has a biased perception against Jinnah. He has highlighted all the vices Jinnah possessed and emphasised on parts of few speeches to develop fallacious reasoning. This fallacious reasoning has led him to develop distrust not only for Jinnah, but the entire Muslim League. He has blamed the League as a body and Jinnah in particular for the riots. He has used effusive language to express his resentment. This entire process of a biased perception leading to undue generalisations and powerful language comes under the vicious circle of rationalisation.
The author unintentionally weakens his arguments when he cites similar traits of Jinnah in the Hindu Leader Jawaharlal Nehru. A major fallacy in the comparison is that while Nehru is looked as a leader whose duty was to protect Indian interests, Jinnah is not looked upon in the same light with respect to Pakistan; instead, he is treated as a foreigner who has intruded in the countries affairs and has not contributed at all to the freedom struggle. The states that Nehru went to jail for the country, but he conveniently ignores the fact that even Jinnah went to jail during the freedom struggle. Infact it was only later that he came up with the idea of Pakistan, and this idea was not originally his. A group of students who were members of the League suggested this long before Jinnah came to power. Jinnah only furthered the idea. Thus here we see the circular reasoning used by the author, who selects information to suit his preconceived notions and manipulates reported information in a manner that substantiates his stand.
Also the author has a strong religious bias that is a major knowledge issue prevalent in this article. He uses Holy Hindu books like the Gita to prove his point. Evidently his article is only catering to a Hindu audience. He cites nationalists as members of the “Hindu nationalist parivar”. He also talks in the power of the unity of the Hindus. Here he is doing the same thing as Jinnah did; he is dividing the society on religious lines.. What he is advocating is the supremacy of Hindus in a secular state.
Thus, His argument has double standards, with strong religious biases and long rooted prejudices. He uses emotions to appeal to his audience and manipulates historical facts to suit his needs. He is writing a derogatory article on Jinnah years after his death, thus I do not get the point of this article. Is his aim to glorify Hindu nationalists or slight Jinnah and his League? There are other ways of respecting nationalists. However I do not get the point of insulting a late leader.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Film Review- A mighty heart
Film Review – A mighty heart
“A mighty heart” is Mariane Pearl’s account of the five weeks leading up to her husband, Daniel Pearl’s death. It’s based on the memoir she wrote of the experience in hopes that her son, Adam, could get a feel for the great man his father was and how much people cared about him. This movie explores various prejudices, human emotions and cross cultural conflicts. In the process it raises many issues, some subtly and some openly.
The issue of terrorism, combating terrorism, racial barriers, and prejudices, cross cultural conflicts, global solidarity, and corruption are raised very obviously. However there are other issues that are not explored but just mentioned. Like when Mariane gives a television after her husband’s death the reporter asks her what message does she have for the Pakistani’s and instead of showing hatred or vengeance she says that the same week as her husband was murdered ten Pakistanis were also murdered. Thus they are sailing in the same boat. Here we see a different approach, were Mariane wisely distinguishes between Pakistanis and terrorists.
I was a regular with the news when Daniel Pearl was actually abducted. I knew what the end of the film was going to be. However the movie was made so well that and you just may find yourself hoping for a different ending than the one you know is coming. Here the question of communicating history comes into play. Today after seeing this movie all that I heard five years ago becomes passé. I only remember the story told to me in this movie. Some of it may not be true, but modified truth to make the movie more dramatic. However today this is what people believe. Thus history out here becomes a story a mother wants to tell her son about her father. Maybe if the same movie wasn’t made this well it would get not acclaim. A lot of the acclaim was because of Angelina’s impeccable performance. Thus do we only notice things that are attractive, did this movie gain acclaim because of the social message or because of good direction, acting and the high profile star cast?
One very sad thing that I felt while seeing the movie was that the kind of investigation that took place for Daniel Pearl’s death was only because of his popularity and contribution to journalism. Is this fair? Does a famous man’s life only hold importance? And the people who were vehemently searching for Daniel weren’t doing it out of social responsibility; they were doing it for their personal relations with him. When they are asked to identify a body which was brutally murdered and realise it is not Daniel they pay no heed. They ignore it by saying, “It maybe some Iranian student.” Well that man was also a journalist; however he was not as famous as Daniel Pearl. Similar thing happened in Mumbai. When the 2006 train attacks took place there was investigation for a few days and then the matter slowly died out. People forgot about it and started leading their lives. This is because the blasts affected only the economically weaker sections of the society. However in 2008 when the terrorists attack took place in Taj a Five star hotel the entire country was shaken up. This is because it was for the first tome that the elite had been targeted. Ever since then security has improved in public places and everyone has become more alert.
Racial prejudices reign supreme in this movie. Conflicts between Indians and Pakistanis, between Americas and terrorists and between Jews and Muslims are predominant. Mariane’s Indian journalist friend is in a relationship with a Muslim man living in Karachi. She calls her boyfriend’s friends over for dinner one night. This is when Daniel is missing. They ask for Daniel and address him as a CIA agent. One friend goes on to say that “All American journalists are CIA agents.” Here we see how simply some ignorant person makes generalisations and does not even think twice about its implications. Even later the Pakistani news reporters label Daniel as a CIA agent. They do not think before labelling people and making generalisations. This is because of prejudices they hold against Americans in general and the CIA in particular.
Also when Mariane and Daniel go to interview a mullah about the terrorists attacks he blatantly blames the entire event on the Jews. He claims that on the day of the attack 4000 Jews working in the World Trade Centre did not turn up for work because they knew about it. He asks Daniel his cast and Daniel says he is a Jew them there is an awkward pause and the interview ends there. Later after Daniel is abducted the first question Mariane’s parents ask is that “Does anyone know he is a Jew” and Mariane lies to them. Are we defined by our cast, and is fair to generalise that if few Jews were terrorists all Jews are. In the same way if few Pakistanis did wrong to Daniel it is not that all of them are evil. There are few people like Captain, Pakistani intelligence (CID) chief and Daniel Pear who prove such generalisations wrong.
Thus this movie touches upon critical social issues. There are many deplorable facts of society portrayed but at the same time we see that solidarity is till maintained when people from all over the world- Pakistani, Cuban, Indian and American come together to save the life of an honourable man. It urges the audience to stop making generalisations and use their reason.
While no recreation could ever truly capture what they had or the tragic direction their lives lead, A Mighty Heart makes a surprisingly effective attempt. After all, not many movies can break your heart, keep your adrenaline racing and remind you of life’s value all at once. Director Michael Winterbottom has done a commendable job to chose such and issue and spread awareness. He as used the scope of the media and his art to create social awareness. This movie is very moving and compels audiences to re-evaluate some preconceived ideas.
“A mighty heart” is Mariane Pearl’s account of the five weeks leading up to her husband, Daniel Pearl’s death. It’s based on the memoir she wrote of the experience in hopes that her son, Adam, could get a feel for the great man his father was and how much people cared about him. This movie explores various prejudices, human emotions and cross cultural conflicts. In the process it raises many issues, some subtly and some openly.
The issue of terrorism, combating terrorism, racial barriers, and prejudices, cross cultural conflicts, global solidarity, and corruption are raised very obviously. However there are other issues that are not explored but just mentioned. Like when Mariane gives a television after her husband’s death the reporter asks her what message does she have for the Pakistani’s and instead of showing hatred or vengeance she says that the same week as her husband was murdered ten Pakistanis were also murdered. Thus they are sailing in the same boat. Here we see a different approach, were Mariane wisely distinguishes between Pakistanis and terrorists.
I was a regular with the news when Daniel Pearl was actually abducted. I knew what the end of the film was going to be. However the movie was made so well that and you just may find yourself hoping for a different ending than the one you know is coming. Here the question of communicating history comes into play. Today after seeing this movie all that I heard five years ago becomes passé. I only remember the story told to me in this movie. Some of it may not be true, but modified truth to make the movie more dramatic. However today this is what people believe. Thus history out here becomes a story a mother wants to tell her son about her father. Maybe if the same movie wasn’t made this well it would get not acclaim. A lot of the acclaim was because of Angelina’s impeccable performance. Thus do we only notice things that are attractive, did this movie gain acclaim because of the social message or because of good direction, acting and the high profile star cast?
One very sad thing that I felt while seeing the movie was that the kind of investigation that took place for Daniel Pearl’s death was only because of his popularity and contribution to journalism. Is this fair? Does a famous man’s life only hold importance? And the people who were vehemently searching for Daniel weren’t doing it out of social responsibility; they were doing it for their personal relations with him. When they are asked to identify a body which was brutally murdered and realise it is not Daniel they pay no heed. They ignore it by saying, “It maybe some Iranian student.” Well that man was also a journalist; however he was not as famous as Daniel Pearl. Similar thing happened in Mumbai. When the 2006 train attacks took place there was investigation for a few days and then the matter slowly died out. People forgot about it and started leading their lives. This is because the blasts affected only the economically weaker sections of the society. However in 2008 when the terrorists attack took place in Taj a Five star hotel the entire country was shaken up. This is because it was for the first tome that the elite had been targeted. Ever since then security has improved in public places and everyone has become more alert.
Racial prejudices reign supreme in this movie. Conflicts between Indians and Pakistanis, between Americas and terrorists and between Jews and Muslims are predominant. Mariane’s Indian journalist friend is in a relationship with a Muslim man living in Karachi. She calls her boyfriend’s friends over for dinner one night. This is when Daniel is missing. They ask for Daniel and address him as a CIA agent. One friend goes on to say that “All American journalists are CIA agents.” Here we see how simply some ignorant person makes generalisations and does not even think twice about its implications. Even later the Pakistani news reporters label Daniel as a CIA agent. They do not think before labelling people and making generalisations. This is because of prejudices they hold against Americans in general and the CIA in particular.
Also when Mariane and Daniel go to interview a mullah about the terrorists attacks he blatantly blames the entire event on the Jews. He claims that on the day of the attack 4000 Jews working in the World Trade Centre did not turn up for work because they knew about it. He asks Daniel his cast and Daniel says he is a Jew them there is an awkward pause and the interview ends there. Later after Daniel is abducted the first question Mariane’s parents ask is that “Does anyone know he is a Jew” and Mariane lies to them. Are we defined by our cast, and is fair to generalise that if few Jews were terrorists all Jews are. In the same way if few Pakistanis did wrong to Daniel it is not that all of them are evil. There are few people like Captain, Pakistani intelligence (CID) chief and Daniel Pear who prove such generalisations wrong.
Thus this movie touches upon critical social issues. There are many deplorable facts of society portrayed but at the same time we see that solidarity is till maintained when people from all over the world- Pakistani, Cuban, Indian and American come together to save the life of an honourable man. It urges the audience to stop making generalisations and use their reason.
While no recreation could ever truly capture what they had or the tragic direction their lives lead, A Mighty Heart makes a surprisingly effective attempt. After all, not many movies can break your heart, keep your adrenaline racing and remind you of life’s value all at once. Director Michael Winterbottom has done a commendable job to chose such and issue and spread awareness. He as used the scope of the media and his art to create social awareness. This movie is very moving and compels audiences to re-evaluate some preconceived ideas.
Religion
In today's age of science and modern marvels there are many people who ask, "Why do we still need religion?". Science has shown a clear path towards answering all kinds of questions that once were the domain of magic and religion. Does that not prove that religion is merely the domain of ignorance and fools who wish to believe in fairy tales purely based on what they refer to as "Faith"? This has long been one of the chief arguments made by atheists against religion. However their bewilderment towards why educated people still believe in religions has rather non-mysterious answers.
Religion fulfils psychological and sociological needs. It provides what is essentially a security blanket and a sense of certainty in an uncertain world. When an individual has absolute faith in something, for that person it is, for all practical purposes, true. Human beings in just about every culture studied have a tendency to latch on to an ideology or religion as Truth. The difficulty in dislodging a person's "faith" has to do with how often a person's religion is tied deeply into their culture, family, and heritage. Religion is an important means through which many people form an identity within their society. However of greater importance to understanding why religion is important to people is understanding that religion provides a powerful mechanism for anxiety relief.
However even though religion, race swaddles us like comfortable blankets from the moment of birth and attempts to define who we are it is high time this is the age old way in which society sets us up for scrutinization. Religion, in particular, places us into a box with windows that obstruct views of all the other boxes into which everyone around is also placed. The outcome is prejudice, misunderstanding and hatred thanks to those obstructed views. Few bother to crawl out of or even question their assigned boxes to gain any real perspective on awareness and true spirituality. When viewed from an outer orbit, religion divides, and misleads.
People often treat religious teachings as a conformation bias. They ignore ideas that go against their religious beliefs and extenuate facts that conform to their beliefs. For example The Bible tells about something called prophecies. That is when God speaks through a person to tell something that is going to happen, as a warning or a tip. In this way one could say that new knowledge is created. However, prophecies must correspond to the Bible. How do the religions justify their beliefs? Christianity is to the greatest part justified on trust, but also on prophecies actually happening. 700 BC a prophet named Ezekiel proclaimed that Jerusalem were going to burn if the people didn't better. 586 BC, it burnt down to the ground. This belief has often been exploited by popes in the 16th and 17th centuries. Thus today manis perverting the meaning of religion.
True religion is not about the dogmas of the religion but is about the teachings and how they tell you to live your life. For example, just about every religion in the world, including many you have never heard of, have some form of the Golden Rule as central to their teachings. Like in Hinduism “karma” is the central theory which states that a man’s destiny in his present and afterlife is shaped by his actions.
Having religion as an important part of our lives does not mean that we will necessarily live positive lives. Throughout history, religions have been the cause of incredible suffering in the world. With all of the positive influence of religion that we can cite, we cannot honestly ignore the terrible damage it has inflicted or the terrible damage it is inflicting today. Religion leads to National and regional biases.
Thus religion has a different meaning for everyone. For some it is a path to God, for some a safeguard and for some a resource to be exploited. The true essence of religion is to encourage a way of life that is righteous. Religion creates divisions but also builds communities; it depends on your perspective. Following one’s religion should be out of free will and not enforcement to keep its true essence alive.
Religion fulfils psychological and sociological needs. It provides what is essentially a security blanket and a sense of certainty in an uncertain world. When an individual has absolute faith in something, for that person it is, for all practical purposes, true. Human beings in just about every culture studied have a tendency to latch on to an ideology or religion as Truth. The difficulty in dislodging a person's "faith" has to do with how often a person's religion is tied deeply into their culture, family, and heritage. Religion is an important means through which many people form an identity within their society. However of greater importance to understanding why religion is important to people is understanding that religion provides a powerful mechanism for anxiety relief.
However even though religion, race swaddles us like comfortable blankets from the moment of birth and attempts to define who we are it is high time this is the age old way in which society sets us up for scrutinization. Religion, in particular, places us into a box with windows that obstruct views of all the other boxes into which everyone around is also placed. The outcome is prejudice, misunderstanding and hatred thanks to those obstructed views. Few bother to crawl out of or even question their assigned boxes to gain any real perspective on awareness and true spirituality. When viewed from an outer orbit, religion divides, and misleads.
People often treat religious teachings as a conformation bias. They ignore ideas that go against their religious beliefs and extenuate facts that conform to their beliefs. For example The Bible tells about something called prophecies. That is when God speaks through a person to tell something that is going to happen, as a warning or a tip. In this way one could say that new knowledge is created. However, prophecies must correspond to the Bible. How do the religions justify their beliefs? Christianity is to the greatest part justified on trust, but also on prophecies actually happening. 700 BC a prophet named Ezekiel proclaimed that Jerusalem were going to burn if the people didn't better. 586 BC, it burnt down to the ground. This belief has often been exploited by popes in the 16th and 17th centuries. Thus today manis perverting the meaning of religion.
True religion is not about the dogmas of the religion but is about the teachings and how they tell you to live your life. For example, just about every religion in the world, including many you have never heard of, have some form of the Golden Rule as central to their teachings. Like in Hinduism “karma” is the central theory which states that a man’s destiny in his present and afterlife is shaped by his actions.
Having religion as an important part of our lives does not mean that we will necessarily live positive lives. Throughout history, religions have been the cause of incredible suffering in the world. With all of the positive influence of religion that we can cite, we cannot honestly ignore the terrible damage it has inflicted or the terrible damage it is inflicting today. Religion leads to National and regional biases.
Thus religion has a different meaning for everyone. For some it is a path to God, for some a safeguard and for some a resource to be exploited. The true essence of religion is to encourage a way of life that is righteous. Religion creates divisions but also builds communities; it depends on your perspective. Following one’s religion should be out of free will and not enforcement to keep its true essence alive.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Reflection - When will I know the truth?
As I go further into my studies I can see contradictions to my previous learning. This has led me to question the truth behind the information I call knowledge. What I learnt yesterday is contradicted by today so what I learn tomorrow in university show me a new picture again. And which picture should I trust- the simplistic one I saw as a child or the new one? these questions have put me in a dilemma and my reason seems to be failing me.
Where does knowledge come from? How is knowledge attained? Do we tend to oversimplify the Ways of Knowing? Do we believe in science, and how much do we believe it? There are many sources of knowledge throughout the world that communicate to people about what events that have happened and what is happening at this very moment. However may lie or are misleading, have bias, and come from different perspectives. Being misleading, having bias, and having different perspectives with in a source make the sources harder to be considered trustworthy. . Not all these sources can be trusted. Which one should we trust? As a TOK learner I am trying to find answers but the more I try the more I obfuscated I get.
I always believed that history was written based on biased perceptions and manipulated by those in power. But I always believed that science and mathematics to be absolute and true. But lately my beliefs are changing. In the ICSE I was told that Watson and Crick discovered the DNA double helix model and received a Nobel Award for it. This was written in Biology textbook. After coming to the IB I learnt that it was actually their assistant Roselyn Franklin who made the discovery but died soon after and the two scientists took credit for her discovery. Also in ICSE we learnt three Laws of Genetic Inheritance by Mendel’s that governed the inheritance. However in the IB I learnt polygenetic inheritance that gives a completely new picture of how the Human body actually functions. Everytime I learn something new I have to revise previous knowledge claims; this means I never knew the truth. The revised version I know today I think is the truth but is that so? In math I was told that the root of negative numbers does not exist, in the IB I learnt that the root of a negative number is an imaginary and denoted by the letter ‘i’. Today I do not know the value of ‘i’, but will I know tomorrow, does it have a value or no, if no then why am I using it.
Thus there have been many questions lately that have perturbed me. All I can say is that we never really know the whole truth, but we must acquire as much information as possible and then only make a knowledge claim. One book or any one source for that matter is not full proof. Counter arguments need to be considered and related areas have to be analysed.
Where does knowledge come from? How is knowledge attained? Do we tend to oversimplify the Ways of Knowing? Do we believe in science, and how much do we believe it? There are many sources of knowledge throughout the world that communicate to people about what events that have happened and what is happening at this very moment. However may lie or are misleading, have bias, and come from different perspectives. Being misleading, having bias, and having different perspectives with in a source make the sources harder to be considered trustworthy. . Not all these sources can be trusted. Which one should we trust? As a TOK learner I am trying to find answers but the more I try the more I obfuscated I get.
I always believed that history was written based on biased perceptions and manipulated by those in power. But I always believed that science and mathematics to be absolute and true. But lately my beliefs are changing. In the ICSE I was told that Watson and Crick discovered the DNA double helix model and received a Nobel Award for it. This was written in Biology textbook. After coming to the IB I learnt that it was actually their assistant Roselyn Franklin who made the discovery but died soon after and the two scientists took credit for her discovery. Also in ICSE we learnt three Laws of Genetic Inheritance by Mendel’s that governed the inheritance. However in the IB I learnt polygenetic inheritance that gives a completely new picture of how the Human body actually functions. Everytime I learn something new I have to revise previous knowledge claims; this means I never knew the truth. The revised version I know today I think is the truth but is that so? In math I was told that the root of negative numbers does not exist, in the IB I learnt that the root of a negative number is an imaginary and denoted by the letter ‘i’. Today I do not know the value of ‘i’, but will I know tomorrow, does it have a value or no, if no then why am I using it.
Thus there have been many questions lately that have perturbed me. All I can say is that we never really know the whole truth, but we must acquire as much information as possible and then only make a knowledge claim. One book or any one source for that matter is not full proof. Counter arguments need to be considered and related areas have to be analysed.
knowledge at work- Nuclear Issue with Iran
In this article we see how two countries are perturbed by different issues. Iran has social and political issues that it wishes to discuss with while US wants to discuss the Nuclear deal. Both countries are unwilling to understand the other’s concerns. Both countries do evidently not understand each others perspective and want to further their own motives.
Iran has been procrastinating and using ambiguous language. Tehran promises to ‘embark upon comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations” but conveniently ignored the nuclear issue. USA seems to be agitated by this evasion and wants a “head on” answer. Here Iran is using language s a medium of deception, and USA has realised it and is losing faith in Iran’s words. That is why it is taking drastic measures like making Iran meet the P5. However is settling the matter in a meeting of the P5 a fair solution. The P5 counties are all developed, industrialised nations occupying the first room whereas Iran is in the third room. This is like the League of nations where only a selected countries were given the power to make decisions on world peace. Russia which was a major power was not allowed to be a member because the ones in power did not want a Communist country in. The League of Nations failed and the Second World War took place. These countries had a common perception and since they did not include Germany, Russia and many other countries they did not know their point of view. Even in this case the P5 have common ideologies that will be imposed on Iran. A fairer decision would be to include a balance of countries like some Islamic countries that will be able to explain Iran’s needs. Also in this case Iran is repeatedly telling America to discuss a “number of issues” but all America wants to do is discuss the Nuclear Issue because it is affected by it. Even the Treaty of Versailles ignored Germany’s social and political conditions and created unrest and dissatisfaction. Likewise America’s complete disregard to issues faced by Iran will create resentment among Iran’s populous.
Nuclear Armaments and the Arm’s race have been critical issues since decades. It is ironical that the US was the one who first started producing nuclear weapons and is now trying to curtail them but I guess it is now too late. Even Alfred Nobel who invented the dynamite to be used for construction purposes did not realise that it would be used for such destructive purposes. He tried deleting his formulas and preventing them from spreading but by then it was too late and dynamite became one of the first explosive to be used.
Ultimately is the accumulation of nuclear armaments ethical? This article does not elicit this major issue which should be considered while talking about nuclear armaments. Rtionally if I think about it in terms of world peace I would say it is unethical. But Iran thinks this it is ethical as helps in national defence and some Arab countries would agree. America thinks it is not because it threatens world peace. However is it ethical for America to allow P5 and countries like India to continue producing nuclear arms but prevent Iran and Iraq from doing so just because it feels that they are irresponsible? US believed that Iraq was accumulating nuclear armaments and therefore attacked Iraq. However the true reason was that president George W Bush wanted to weaken Iraq’s oil monopoly. This evidence raises a question on America’s intentions and creates suspicion in readers like me. Maybe America could have some concealed motives that we are unaware of. With incomplete information and we cannot make a judgement on whether Iran’s actions are ethical or not.
This issue is very sensitive and both sides need to deal with it with a more open mind leaving behind their biases. Ultimately nuclear armaments are a threat to world peace. Concealed motives need to be revealed to develop mutual trust, understanding and free communication.
Iran has been procrastinating and using ambiguous language. Tehran promises to ‘embark upon comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations” but conveniently ignored the nuclear issue. USA seems to be agitated by this evasion and wants a “head on” answer. Here Iran is using language s a medium of deception, and USA has realised it and is losing faith in Iran’s words. That is why it is taking drastic measures like making Iran meet the P5. However is settling the matter in a meeting of the P5 a fair solution. The P5 counties are all developed, industrialised nations occupying the first room whereas Iran is in the third room. This is like the League of nations where only a selected countries were given the power to make decisions on world peace. Russia which was a major power was not allowed to be a member because the ones in power did not want a Communist country in. The League of Nations failed and the Second World War took place. These countries had a common perception and since they did not include Germany, Russia and many other countries they did not know their point of view. Even in this case the P5 have common ideologies that will be imposed on Iran. A fairer decision would be to include a balance of countries like some Islamic countries that will be able to explain Iran’s needs. Also in this case Iran is repeatedly telling America to discuss a “number of issues” but all America wants to do is discuss the Nuclear Issue because it is affected by it. Even the Treaty of Versailles ignored Germany’s social and political conditions and created unrest and dissatisfaction. Likewise America’s complete disregard to issues faced by Iran will create resentment among Iran’s populous.
Nuclear Armaments and the Arm’s race have been critical issues since decades. It is ironical that the US was the one who first started producing nuclear weapons and is now trying to curtail them but I guess it is now too late. Even Alfred Nobel who invented the dynamite to be used for construction purposes did not realise that it would be used for such destructive purposes. He tried deleting his formulas and preventing them from spreading but by then it was too late and dynamite became one of the first explosive to be used.
Ultimately is the accumulation of nuclear armaments ethical? This article does not elicit this major issue which should be considered while talking about nuclear armaments. Rtionally if I think about it in terms of world peace I would say it is unethical. But Iran thinks this it is ethical as helps in national defence and some Arab countries would agree. America thinks it is not because it threatens world peace. However is it ethical for America to allow P5 and countries like India to continue producing nuclear arms but prevent Iran and Iraq from doing so just because it feels that they are irresponsible? US believed that Iraq was accumulating nuclear armaments and therefore attacked Iraq. However the true reason was that president George W Bush wanted to weaken Iraq’s oil monopoly. This evidence raises a question on America’s intentions and creates suspicion in readers like me. Maybe America could have some concealed motives that we are unaware of. With incomplete information and we cannot make a judgement on whether Iran’s actions are ethical or not.
This issue is very sensitive and both sides need to deal with it with a more open mind leaving behind their biases. Ultimately nuclear armaments are a threat to world peace. Concealed motives need to be revealed to develop mutual trust, understanding and free communication.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
To understand this knowledge issue that raises a question o the credibility of history we must first clearly understand what is false and what the truth is. “Truth”, defined in a layman fashion, is the conforming of a proposition to reality, and is the most straightforward definition of this term. However it does have its flaws, the most apparent being the fact that if we are comparing a proposition to the reality of it in this world, do we not already possess an incorruptible example of the truth itself?
“Truth” is relative and personal to each and every one of us. As a result, the “truth” expressed in such situations might not be true, simply because it is based on question’s level of utility in your life, and might produce absurd situations. For example, to a colour blind person, a banana being yellow is false because it does not help him in any way at all- all colours look the same to him. It is agreed that a banana is yellow because there are more normal vision people than colour blind. However if colour blind people formed the majority of the world population than probably the banana would not be considered yellow, rather it would be the shade seen by the colour blind person. Thus truth is blinded by perspective the viewers sees it in and this is true for most areas of knowledge including history. Like in the case of colours, history becomes the idea that has been agreed upon.
History does not exist in a vacuum, but it is ‘owned’ and moulded by- Governments with political agendas and citizens who want to define their place within both their own society and the wider world. The history of war in particular serves as a basis for the evolution of national identities. Today when a child who has only studied a history text book prescribed in an Indian school will think about the second world and have categories in which he/she shall place countries. Britain, United States and France will be regarded as the peace makers who formed the League of Nations and Treaty of Versailles. Germany, Italy and Japan as the ambitious countries that posed danger to world peace. But there is much more to this. Britain was driven by self greed throughout. It was manipulative, it is said the ship of Lusitania was actually drowned deliberately by the British to blame it Germany and have a reason to attack it. The United States remained aloof for most part of the war, infact it benefited from the war and experienced an industrial revolution. The only country that threatened it was Japan and U.S completely demolished Japan by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. Germany on the other hand was not rationally justified, however the resentment was natural human reaction. The treaty of Versailles was ruthless, and evidently the triumphant countries were pursuing self interests. Germany felt cheated, Hitler appealed to the emotions of his country men, who were in a devastated state. Thus reacting in the way they did was not rational I agree but somewhere down the line it can be justified if we look at the emotional trauma of the people at that time.
Political elites usually act as custodians of the national essence and thus it is important for them to control the past with its connotative and emotional meanings. Insofar as history is always a dialogue between the present and the past, there is no way that it can be immune from the politics and preocupations of the present. Thus new questions are constantly being posed and new histories being written to highlight new ways in which the past and present are connected. This is not in itself undesirable provided the purpose remains the writing and understanding of real histories—of correcting older weaknesses and biases, of exploring hitherto unexplored terrains, of making better use of older or newer source materials, etc. There is always an instrumentalist dimension to history writing and teaching connected to the politics of the present. But a history-telling that is effectively reduced to such instrumentalism as its primary is no longer meaningful history though it can certainly be meaningful politics. Teaching of Indian history in ICSE schools is a classic example. When the Congress come to power they increase the portions of text books that glorify Gandhi and Nehru who were ex Congressmen. When the BJP (an opposing political party) comes to power then they increase portions that exalt Shivaji and other radical leaders who are idols for their party.
Thus, propaganda and manipulation of reality continues to be used in large quantities in the modern world. Governments continue to tell their constituencies what they think they need to know. Advertisers use the whole gamut of propagandist techniques. And although some people can see the reality, most people do not question facts and see nothing of how they are manipulated. This is not only tre for political parties but also other bodies that are in power. In the CIA there is a branch within its Directorate of Operations which deals entirely in media operations, mostly abroad (they're strictly illegal in the US--though it is known that doesn't always stop them), designed to influence public opinion. It is said that the CIA's budget for covert propaganda and generalized media operations alone, fifteen years ago, ranged between $75 and $200 million. However this information is from unknown sources and as the public we will never know the true story. These manipulated facts will actually form history tomorrow.
Security, stability and a sense of identity are basic human needs. Questioning history makes us question our identity, our surroundings and beliefs. Very few people are enterprising enough to do so. Most people agree to the parable formulated by those in power and remain in blissful oblivion. This parable is a mere representation of perspective and aspirations of the people in power. History is an amalgamation of facts, whims and biases and so is a fable. The truth is hard to find among all the micro histories, all we know are limited perspectives that most passively accept.
To understand this knowledge issue that raises a question o the credibility of history we must first clearly understand what is false and what the truth is. “Truth”, defined in a layman fashion, is the conforming of a proposition to reality, and is the most straightforward definition of this term. However it does have its flaws, the most apparent being the fact that if we are comparing a proposition to the reality of it in this world, do we not already possess an incorruptible example of the truth itself?
“Truth” is relative and personal to each and every one of us. As a result, the “truth” expressed in such situations might not be true, simply because it is based on question’s level of utility in your life, and might produce absurd situations. For example, to a colour blind person, a banana being yellow is false because it does not help him in any way at all- all colours look the same to him. It is agreed that a banana is yellow because there are more normal vision people than colour blind. However if colour blind people formed the majority of the world population than probably the banana would not be considered yellow, rather it would be the shade seen by the colour blind person. Thus truth is blinded by perspective the viewers sees it in and this is true for most areas of knowledge including history. Like in the case of colours, history becomes the idea that has been agreed upon.
History does not exist in a vacuum, but it is ‘owned’ and moulded by- Governments with political agendas and citizens who want to define their place within both their own society and the wider world. The history of war in particular serves as a basis for the evolution of national identities. Today when a child who has only studied a history text book prescribed in an Indian school will think about the second world and have categories in which he/she shall place countries. Britain, United States and France will be regarded as the peace makers who formed the League of Nations and Treaty of Versailles. Germany, Italy and Japan as the ambitious countries that posed danger to world peace. But there is much more to this. Britain was driven by self greed throughout. It was manipulative, it is said the ship of Lusitania was actually drowned deliberately by the British to blame it Germany and have a reason to attack it. The United States remained aloof for most part of the war, infact it benefited from the war and experienced an industrial revolution. The only country that threatened it was Japan and U.S completely demolished Japan by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks. Germany on the other hand was not rationally justified, however the resentment was natural human reaction. The treaty of Versailles was ruthless, and evidently the triumphant countries were pursuing self interests. Germany felt cheated, Hitler appealed to the emotions of his country men, who were in a devastated state. Thus reacting in the way they did was not rational I agree but somewhere down the line it can be justified if we look at the emotional trauma of the people at that time.
Political elites usually act as custodians of the national essence and thus it is important for them to control the past with its connotative and emotional meanings. Insofar as history is always a dialogue between the present and the past, there is no way that it can be immune from the politics and preocupations of the present. Thus new questions are constantly being posed and new histories being written to highlight new ways in which the past and present are connected. This is not in itself undesirable provided the purpose remains the writing and understanding of real histories—of correcting older weaknesses and biases, of exploring hitherto unexplored terrains, of making better use of older or newer source materials, etc. There is always an instrumentalist dimension to history writing and teaching connected to the politics of the present. But a history-telling that is effectively reduced to such instrumentalism as its primary is no longer meaningful history though it can certainly be meaningful politics. Teaching of Indian history in ICSE schools is a classic example. When the Congress come to power they increase the portions of text books that glorify Gandhi and Nehru who were ex Congressmen. When the BJP (an opposing political party) comes to power then they increase portions that exalt Shivaji and other radical leaders who are idols for their party.
Thus, propaganda and manipulation of reality continues to be used in large quantities in the modern world. Governments continue to tell their constituencies what they think they need to know. Advertisers use the whole gamut of propagandist techniques. And although some people can see the reality, most people do not question facts and see nothing of how they are manipulated. This is not only tre for political parties but also other bodies that are in power. In the CIA there is a branch within its Directorate of Operations which deals entirely in media operations, mostly abroad (they're strictly illegal in the US--though it is known that doesn't always stop them), designed to influence public opinion. It is said that the CIA's budget for covert propaganda and generalized media operations alone, fifteen years ago, ranged between $75 and $200 million. However this information is from unknown sources and as the public we will never know the true story. These manipulated facts will actually form history tomorrow.
Security, stability and a sense of identity are basic human needs. Questioning history makes us question our identity, our surroundings and beliefs. Very few people are enterprising enough to do so. Most people agree to the parable formulated by those in power and remain in blissful oblivion. This parable is a mere representation of perspective and aspirations of the people in power. History is an amalgamation of facts, whims and biases and so is a fable. The truth is hard to find among all the micro histories, all we know are limited perspectives that most passively accept.
Friday, August 28, 2009
knowledge at work - august
Secret abuse in CIA Prisons
America, the leader of the developed world believes in rationality, fair play and equal rights for all. It was one of the cofounders of the Human Right Commission. However this articles jolts all those high ideals one holds for America. It shows the dark grim face hidden behind all those smiles of affability. This article even though maintains a narrative tone elicits an array of human emotions depending on the cultural background of the reader. To an Asian reader like me this article elicits scorn, anger and disbelief towards the CIA and pity towards the detainees. I cannot understand the rationale behind such inhuman treatment.
One recurrent feature of the news in the article was the fact a lot of the news said was by anonymous sources. We see that the CIA has kept everything under cover. All facts are concealed from the public domain. Thus as a reader we don’t know whom and what to believe. This is an issue of serious concerns. The writer also makes a claim to know the insights into the depth of the incident. However the writer himself does not know any specifics to this report. The foundation of the facts is a weak a it is based on unrevealed reports. This appropriation of facts is rampant among many governments. The Iranian authorities are using prolonged harsh interrogations, beatings, sleep deprivation, and threats of torture to extract false confessions from detainees arrested since the disputed June 12 presidential election. The confessions appear designed to support unsubstantiated allegations by senior government officials that Iran's post-election protests, in which at least 20 people were killed, were supported by foreign powers and aimed at overthrowing the government. Human Rights Watch has collected accounts from detainees after their release illustrating how the authorities are mistreating and threatening prisoners in a deliberate effort to obtain false confessions. A 17-year-old boy who was arrested on June 27 and released on July 1 told Human Rights Watch how his prison interrogator forced him and others to sign a blank statement of confession. The authorities have conveniently concluded that detainees have confessed to their involvement in a foreign-backed plot to overthrow the government with a "velvet" revolution. Thus here we see how helpless we are. Truth is being revealed but political pressures are suppressing our voice. Detention is unethical, that I strongly believe that. However this practice rampant numerous countries and is validated by law.
Even if there is a lack of sources regarding the incident that had taken place, the knowledge issue does serve to remind us about how even in a democratic, socialist, secular country like America, one cannot be guaranteed basic human rights. Emotions have taken over reason in case of the American CIA. They have used fallacious reasoning and got stuck in the vicious circle of rationalisation. The fear of having another attack like 9-11 has made the interrogators ruthless and inhumane. Their emotions have taken oven their reason. They have developed a biased perception against Asians. Fallacious reasoning, that just because a few set of brown skinned people turned out to be terrorists all of them are has lead them to make hasty generalisation. All emotions have built up and are removed on detainees.
This article raises questions like are we really free? Is our entire life going to be governed by fear. The movie New York directed by Kabir Khan deals with a similar knowledge issue. However it is much more effusive and open about facts. In that movie we see the social implications detention. 10000 people were detained after the World Trade centre attack and all were found innocent. In this movie we see the psychological impact it has on one such detainee. Rather than solving the problem detention triggers societal evils. After the inhuman treatment people are unable to lead a normal life. In this movie a detainee goes o to become a terrorist. I am not justifying his acts but I genuinely believe that what he did was a normal human reaction. Once a successful and jovial boy he was transformed to a ruthless murderer. And looking at this makes me feel unsafe. This could happen to anyone. Are we all at the mercies of the judgement of some official who may just find the way we look suspicious. And the biggest highlight is that he won’t have to feel guilty or be punished. He will only be “reprimanded” for playing with the lives of innocent people. What kind of justice is this?
Detention is an unethical practice which if left unchecked can encroach into anybody’s life and devour it without even a warning. The proponents of detention may counter argue that detention preventive measure to ascertain security. However can arbitrary judgments made by a few officials, based value judgements and not facts decide the fate of thousands of people?
America, the leader of the developed world believes in rationality, fair play and equal rights for all. It was one of the cofounders of the Human Right Commission. However this articles jolts all those high ideals one holds for America. It shows the dark grim face hidden behind all those smiles of affability. This article even though maintains a narrative tone elicits an array of human emotions depending on the cultural background of the reader. To an Asian reader like me this article elicits scorn, anger and disbelief towards the CIA and pity towards the detainees. I cannot understand the rationale behind such inhuman treatment.
One recurrent feature of the news in the article was the fact a lot of the news said was by anonymous sources. We see that the CIA has kept everything under cover. All facts are concealed from the public domain. Thus as a reader we don’t know whom and what to believe. This is an issue of serious concerns. The writer also makes a claim to know the insights into the depth of the incident. However the writer himself does not know any specifics to this report. The foundation of the facts is a weak a it is based on unrevealed reports. This appropriation of facts is rampant among many governments. The Iranian authorities are using prolonged harsh interrogations, beatings, sleep deprivation, and threats of torture to extract false confessions from detainees arrested since the disputed June 12 presidential election. The confessions appear designed to support unsubstantiated allegations by senior government officials that Iran's post-election protests, in which at least 20 people were killed, were supported by foreign powers and aimed at overthrowing the government. Human Rights Watch has collected accounts from detainees after their release illustrating how the authorities are mistreating and threatening prisoners in a deliberate effort to obtain false confessions. A 17-year-old boy who was arrested on June 27 and released on July 1 told Human Rights Watch how his prison interrogator forced him and others to sign a blank statement of confession. The authorities have conveniently concluded that detainees have confessed to their involvement in a foreign-backed plot to overthrow the government with a "velvet" revolution. Thus here we see how helpless we are. Truth is being revealed but political pressures are suppressing our voice. Detention is unethical, that I strongly believe that. However this practice rampant numerous countries and is validated by law.
Even if there is a lack of sources regarding the incident that had taken place, the knowledge issue does serve to remind us about how even in a democratic, socialist, secular country like America, one cannot be guaranteed basic human rights. Emotions have taken over reason in case of the American CIA. They have used fallacious reasoning and got stuck in the vicious circle of rationalisation. The fear of having another attack like 9-11 has made the interrogators ruthless and inhumane. Their emotions have taken oven their reason. They have developed a biased perception against Asians. Fallacious reasoning, that just because a few set of brown skinned people turned out to be terrorists all of them are has lead them to make hasty generalisation. All emotions have built up and are removed on detainees.
This article raises questions like are we really free? Is our entire life going to be governed by fear. The movie New York directed by Kabir Khan deals with a similar knowledge issue. However it is much more effusive and open about facts. In that movie we see the social implications detention. 10000 people were detained after the World Trade centre attack and all were found innocent. In this movie we see the psychological impact it has on one such detainee. Rather than solving the problem detention triggers societal evils. After the inhuman treatment people are unable to lead a normal life. In this movie a detainee goes o to become a terrorist. I am not justifying his acts but I genuinely believe that what he did was a normal human reaction. Once a successful and jovial boy he was transformed to a ruthless murderer. And looking at this makes me feel unsafe. This could happen to anyone. Are we all at the mercies of the judgement of some official who may just find the way we look suspicious. And the biggest highlight is that he won’t have to feel guilty or be punished. He will only be “reprimanded” for playing with the lives of innocent people. What kind of justice is this?
Detention is an unethical practice which if left unchecked can encroach into anybody’s life and devour it without even a warning. The proponents of detention may counter argue that detention preventive measure to ascertain security. However can arbitrary judgments made by a few officials, based value judgements and not facts decide the fate of thousands of people?
Monday, July 27, 2009
knowledge at work - 27th july
This article has been driven by strong emotions. However the author has tried to substantiate and rationalise her stand using references from politics and history. But it is clear that her perception has been blinded by her feminist believes. She is right to a certain extent about the burqa but we must understand the anti-religious fanaticism is equally dangerous as religious fanaticism. This is where the false dilemma arises. Here the author is only considering two options, either wear the burqa or ban it. She doesn’t realise that there might be some women out there who actually feel more comfortable wearing it. What a moderate argument would be to leave it on personal choice rather imposing either of the two.
The author has only states what she thinks is right. The article begins like this: “I am a Muslim, I am a feminist and I detest the full-body veil, known as a niqab or burqa” Very evidently through her language we see that this is her perceptio. No where does she use words like we Muslim Women or us, she is solely speaking for herself. She has adopted Inductive reasoning here. She feels like this, she has had bad experiences in the past, she has felt oppressed and has seen a few other women in that situation and thus generalises that this is what is correct. The tendency to make generalisations is further exacerbated by a phenomenon known as conformation bias. This suggests that people only tend to remember evidences that that support their believes. For Example in the article clearly states that eventhough she usually disagrees with Sarkozy on most issues she agrees with his views on the burqa. Here she is appropriating to her benefit. This is something that has been done from generations together. It is through the means of appropriation that colonisers justified their stand in colonial countries. Be it in India, Africa, South East Asia and Latin America. And this is not limited to politics it is also very widespread in science. Watson and Crick were to Biologists two biologist who won the Nobel Prize to develop the double helix DNA model. They very blatantly took all the credit and mentioned their procedure. However they chose not to mention about their assistant Roselyn Franklin and her achievements that were actually very pivotal to develop the model. They just presented the parts that suited them.
As I said earlier both religious fanaticism and anti religious fanaticism are dangerous. An example of anti religious fanaticism is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He is undoubltly a revolutionary leader that brought about incredible amount of change in Turkey but he became an anti religious fanatic. Beginning in the fall of 1925, Mustafa Kemal encouraged the Turks to wear modern European attire. He was determined to force the abandonment of the sartorial traditions of the Middle East and finalize a series of dress reforms. The Hat Law introduced the use of Western style hats instead of the fez. Mustafa Kemal first made the hat compulsory to civil servants and then to the general public. The last part of reform on dress emphasized the need to wear modern suits instead of antiquated religion-based clothing such as the veil and turban. It is said that once one of his civil servants wore the fez and was beaten unto death. Is this ethical? Is such fanaticism sustainable? Isn’t this against human rights which give the right to all individuals to practice any religion of their choice peacefully? If yes then how can we circum ourselves to such injustice? The opposite of this is religious fanaticism what the Taliban preached. It believed in extreme religious fanaticism. While the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, it became notorious internationally for their treatment of women. Their stated aim was to create "secure environments where the chasteness and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct," reportedly based on beliefs about living in a burqa. Women were forced to wear it in public, because, according to a Taliban spokesman, "the face of a woman is a source of corruption" for men not related to them. They were not allowed to work. They were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Quran. The Taliban allowed and in some cases encouraged marriage for girls under the age of 16. Thus here we see two extreme cases. Both against basic Human rights. What we need today is modertion. What distinguishes us from animals is our free will that we should be empowered to practice. Wearing the burqa should be a personal choice, if a woman feels comfortable she wears it, if she feels it masks her identity then she should have the choice to abandon it.
The author has taken up a very extremist stand and is very zealous about this issue however she must not impose her perception on others. She must think this over rationally as this is a very sentimental topic. The burqa has been a Muslim traditions since years, to talk so disrespectfully could lead to numerous controversies.
THE ARTICLE
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/opinion/03iht-edeltahawy.html
Op-Ed Contributor
Ban the Burqa
By MONA ELTAHAWY
Published: July 2, 2009
NEW YORK — I am a Muslim, I am a feminist and I detest the full-body veil, known as a niqab or burqa. It erases women from society and has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with the hatred for women at the heart of the extremist ideology that preaches it.
We must not sacrifice women at the altar of political correctness or in the name of fighting a growingly powerful right wing that Muslims face in countries where they live as a minority.
As disagreeable as I often find French President Nicolas Sarkozy, he was right when he said recently, “The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.” It should not be welcome anywhere, I would add.
Yet his words have inspired attempts to defend the indefensible — the erasure of women.
Some have argued that Sarkozy’s right-leaning, anti-Muslim bias was behind his opposition to the burqa. But I would remind them of comments in 2006 by the then-British House of Commons leader Jack Straw, who said the burqa prevents communication. He was right, and he was hardly a right-winger — and yet he too was attacked for daring to speak out against the burqa.
Soad Saleh, a professor of Islamic law and former dean of the women’s faculty of Islamic studies at Al-Azhar University — hardly a liberal, said the burqa had nothing to do with Islam. It was but an old Bedouin tradition.
It is sad to see a strange ambivalence toward the burqa from many of my fellow Muslims and others who claim to support us. They will take on everything — the right wing, Islamophobia, Mr. Straw, Mr. Sarkozy — rather than come out and plainly state that the burqa is an affront to Muslim women.
I blame such reluctance on the success of the ultra-conservative Salafi ideology — practiced most famously in Saudi Arabia — in leaving its imprimatur on Islam globally by persuading too many Muslims that it is the purest and highest form of our faith.
It’s one thing to argue about the burqa in a country like Saudi Arabia — where I lived for six years and where women are treated like children — but it is utterly dispiriting to have those same arguments in a country where women’s rights have long been enshrined. When I first saw a woman in a burqa in Copenhagen I was horrified.
I wore a headscarf for nine years. An argument I had on the Cairo subway with a woman who wore a burqa helped seal for good my refusal to defend it. Dressed in black from head to toe, the woman asked me why I did not wear the burqa. I pointed to my headscarf and asked her “Is this not enough?”
“If you wanted a piece of candy, would you choose an unwrapped piece or one that came in a wrapper?” she asked.
“I am not candy,” I answered. “Women are not candy.”
I have since heard arguments made for the burqa in which the woman is portrayed as a diamond ring or a precious stone that needs to be hidden to prove her “worth.” Unless we challenge it, the burqa — and by extension the erasure of women — becomes the pinnacle of piety.
It is not about comparing burqas to bikinis, as some claim. I used to compare my headscarf to a miniskirt, the two being essentially two sides to the same coin of a woman’s body. The burqa is something else altogether: A woman who wears it is erased.
A bizarre political correctness has tied the tongues of those who would normally rally to women’s rights. One blogger, a woman, lamented that “Sarkozy’s anti-burqa stance deprives women of identity.” It’s precisely the opposite: It’s the burqa that deprives a woman of identity.
Why do women in Muslim-minority communities wear the burqa? Sarkozy touched on one reason when he admitted his country’s integration model wasn’t working any more because it doesn’t give immigrants and their French-born children a fair chance.
But the Muslim community must ask itself the same question: Why the silence as some of our women fade into black either as a form of identity politics, a protest against the state or out of acquiescence to Salafism?
As a Muslim woman and a feminist I would ban the burqa.
Mona Eltahawy is an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues.
The author has only states what she thinks is right. The article begins like this: “I am a Muslim, I am a feminist and I detest the full-body veil, known as a niqab or burqa” Very evidently through her language we see that this is her perceptio. No where does she use words like we Muslim Women or us, she is solely speaking for herself. She has adopted Inductive reasoning here. She feels like this, she has had bad experiences in the past, she has felt oppressed and has seen a few other women in that situation and thus generalises that this is what is correct. The tendency to make generalisations is further exacerbated by a phenomenon known as conformation bias. This suggests that people only tend to remember evidences that that support their believes. For Example in the article clearly states that eventhough she usually disagrees with Sarkozy on most issues she agrees with his views on the burqa. Here she is appropriating to her benefit. This is something that has been done from generations together. It is through the means of appropriation that colonisers justified their stand in colonial countries. Be it in India, Africa, South East Asia and Latin America. And this is not limited to politics it is also very widespread in science. Watson and Crick were to Biologists two biologist who won the Nobel Prize to develop the double helix DNA model. They very blatantly took all the credit and mentioned their procedure. However they chose not to mention about their assistant Roselyn Franklin and her achievements that were actually very pivotal to develop the model. They just presented the parts that suited them.
As I said earlier both religious fanaticism and anti religious fanaticism are dangerous. An example of anti religious fanaticism is Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He is undoubltly a revolutionary leader that brought about incredible amount of change in Turkey but he became an anti religious fanatic. Beginning in the fall of 1925, Mustafa Kemal encouraged the Turks to wear modern European attire. He was determined to force the abandonment of the sartorial traditions of the Middle East and finalize a series of dress reforms. The Hat Law introduced the use of Western style hats instead of the fez. Mustafa Kemal first made the hat compulsory to civil servants and then to the general public. The last part of reform on dress emphasized the need to wear modern suits instead of antiquated religion-based clothing such as the veil and turban. It is said that once one of his civil servants wore the fez and was beaten unto death. Is this ethical? Is such fanaticism sustainable? Isn’t this against human rights which give the right to all individuals to practice any religion of their choice peacefully? If yes then how can we circum ourselves to such injustice? The opposite of this is religious fanaticism what the Taliban preached. It believed in extreme religious fanaticism. While the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, it became notorious internationally for their treatment of women. Their stated aim was to create "secure environments where the chasteness and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct," reportedly based on beliefs about living in a burqa. Women were forced to wear it in public, because, according to a Taliban spokesman, "the face of a woman is a source of corruption" for men not related to them. They were not allowed to work. They were not allowed to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Quran. The Taliban allowed and in some cases encouraged marriage for girls under the age of 16. Thus here we see two extreme cases. Both against basic Human rights. What we need today is modertion. What distinguishes us from animals is our free will that we should be empowered to practice. Wearing the burqa should be a personal choice, if a woman feels comfortable she wears it, if she feels it masks her identity then she should have the choice to abandon it.
The author has taken up a very extremist stand and is very zealous about this issue however she must not impose her perception on others. She must think this over rationally as this is a very sentimental topic. The burqa has been a Muslim traditions since years, to talk so disrespectfully could lead to numerous controversies.
THE ARTICLE
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/opinion/03iht-edeltahawy.html
Op-Ed Contributor
Ban the Burqa
By MONA ELTAHAWY
Published: July 2, 2009
NEW YORK — I am a Muslim, I am a feminist and I detest the full-body veil, known as a niqab or burqa. It erases women from society and has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with the hatred for women at the heart of the extremist ideology that preaches it.
We must not sacrifice women at the altar of political correctness or in the name of fighting a growingly powerful right wing that Muslims face in countries where they live as a minority.
As disagreeable as I often find French President Nicolas Sarkozy, he was right when he said recently, “The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.” It should not be welcome anywhere, I would add.
Yet his words have inspired attempts to defend the indefensible — the erasure of women.
Some have argued that Sarkozy’s right-leaning, anti-Muslim bias was behind his opposition to the burqa. But I would remind them of comments in 2006 by the then-British House of Commons leader Jack Straw, who said the burqa prevents communication. He was right, and he was hardly a right-winger — and yet he too was attacked for daring to speak out against the burqa.
Soad Saleh, a professor of Islamic law and former dean of the women’s faculty of Islamic studies at Al-Azhar University — hardly a liberal, said the burqa had nothing to do with Islam. It was but an old Bedouin tradition.
It is sad to see a strange ambivalence toward the burqa from many of my fellow Muslims and others who claim to support us. They will take on everything — the right wing, Islamophobia, Mr. Straw, Mr. Sarkozy — rather than come out and plainly state that the burqa is an affront to Muslim women.
I blame such reluctance on the success of the ultra-conservative Salafi ideology — practiced most famously in Saudi Arabia — in leaving its imprimatur on Islam globally by persuading too many Muslims that it is the purest and highest form of our faith.
It’s one thing to argue about the burqa in a country like Saudi Arabia — where I lived for six years and where women are treated like children — but it is utterly dispiriting to have those same arguments in a country where women’s rights have long been enshrined. When I first saw a woman in a burqa in Copenhagen I was horrified.
I wore a headscarf for nine years. An argument I had on the Cairo subway with a woman who wore a burqa helped seal for good my refusal to defend it. Dressed in black from head to toe, the woman asked me why I did not wear the burqa. I pointed to my headscarf and asked her “Is this not enough?”
“If you wanted a piece of candy, would you choose an unwrapped piece or one that came in a wrapper?” she asked.
“I am not candy,” I answered. “Women are not candy.”
I have since heard arguments made for the burqa in which the woman is portrayed as a diamond ring or a precious stone that needs to be hidden to prove her “worth.” Unless we challenge it, the burqa — and by extension the erasure of women — becomes the pinnacle of piety.
It is not about comparing burqas to bikinis, as some claim. I used to compare my headscarf to a miniskirt, the two being essentially two sides to the same coin of a woman’s body. The burqa is something else altogether: A woman who wears it is erased.
A bizarre political correctness has tied the tongues of those who would normally rally to women’s rights. One blogger, a woman, lamented that “Sarkozy’s anti-burqa stance deprives women of identity.” It’s precisely the opposite: It’s the burqa that deprives a woman of identity.
Why do women in Muslim-minority communities wear the burqa? Sarkozy touched on one reason when he admitted his country’s integration model wasn’t working any more because it doesn’t give immigrants and their French-born children a fair chance.
But the Muslim community must ask itself the same question: Why the silence as some of our women fade into black either as a form of identity politics, a protest against the state or out of acquiescence to Salafism?
As a Muslim woman and a feminist I would ban the burqa.
Mona Eltahawy is an Egyptian-born commentator on Arab and Muslim issues.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
summer knowledge and work-2
Article: Mumbai Mirror Friday, June 12, 2009 ; page 26
Advertisement on Pretti Slim clinic
Description: faces shown before and after laser hair treatment., Also information about treatments offered by Pretti Slim like slimming and face lifting.
Everytime I see an article like this contempt and disgust is all that I perceive. However this is primarily not directed at the people who take such treatments, but at the advertisers. To a vulnerable person, facing these disorders this may seem as the most appropriate break through. However often lured by these advertisements they loose their reason. They plunge in for the treatments without looking at its side effects and long term consequences. This impulsiveness has been imbedded in human nature since ancient times. Beauty has always lured men to their demise.
The forbidden fruit is always the sweetest. Man always wants what is not meant for him. This fact dates back to the origin of mankind as stated in the sacred bible. Adam and Eve were dwellers in heaven. They were aware of the forbidden apple and its curse. However Adam’s naïve and insatiate soul of a youth could not conform to the rules. Even though he knew he would face horrible consequences he still went on to eat the forbidden apple. Thus Adam and Eve were banished from heaven and exiled to earth to lead the life of mortals. The reddest apple is the deadliest. Youth, beauty and the desire to look good is like that red apple that is hypnotising the youth and adult population alike.
The first advertisement was about face lifting. The woman to me didn’t look much happier after the treatment, so then what was the point. I could also do the same thing on Photoshop, what is the guarantee of the authenticity of this picture which I genuinely feel is not too attractive. However some old woman may be admiring this picture. Here arises the disparity of perception. Perceptions differ and emotions play a major role in it. Hope, fear, desire and anxiety all influence perception. I would look at the situation in a more objective and rational way. I would question the procedure and doubt the results. On the other hand a vulnerable person may give in. the vulnerable person would want to believe that what he or she sees is true. I would to negate it. Some people say seeing is believing but I think ‘believing is seeing’ since our beliefs and expectations affect the way we see things. In the nineteenth century some scientists speculated that an undiscovered planet- which they called Vulcan- existed between Mercury and the sun. With this belief in mind some astronomers claimed to have seen Vulcan. However the fact was that Vulcan never existed. Thus the question arises does this picture actually depict the truth?
Also why are we so bent upon on changing nature? Aging is a natural process; it is a part of human evolution why are we changing it. It is this interference with nature that forces nature to revert. Man interfered with the forces of nature. He manipulated his environment and hampered natural cycles. This gave rise to global warming, acid rain and the green house effect. These effects were not considered when man presented the rosy pictures of urbanisation with comfortable lifestyles of the developed world. Even in this advertisement the final rosy picture is presented and the initial state but the process which is the traumatising part is not presented. The pain, discomfort, swelling, blistering and pigmentation has boldly been ignored in the laser treatment advert. In a worst case laser can also lead to skin cancers. However never will a person inform you about these side effects other wise their product will not sell.
King Canute the great Viking ruler once was strolling by the sea shore with his courtiers. In his early years as a ruler looted much and plundered much more. He was very proud of his achievements. He enjoyed flattery and preferred to be surrounded by sycophants. However as he wizened over the years he understood the true essence of survival and futility of baseless desires. That is why he gave up looting and plundering and devoted his life to the well being of mankind. This advertisement is promoting something that will last for few months or maybe years but its long term consequences are deathly. Aging is a natural process, hormonal changes is an internal disorder. These superficial treatments are not going to change the way the body is destined to function.
Some may provide counter arguments saying that everyone has the right to look good. That is true, this is a personal choice. However I would just urge people to look at the treatment in a rational way, weigh the pros and corns and make informed decisions.
Advertisement on Pretti Slim clinic
Description: faces shown before and after laser hair treatment., Also information about treatments offered by Pretti Slim like slimming and face lifting.
Everytime I see an article like this contempt and disgust is all that I perceive. However this is primarily not directed at the people who take such treatments, but at the advertisers. To a vulnerable person, facing these disorders this may seem as the most appropriate break through. However often lured by these advertisements they loose their reason. They plunge in for the treatments without looking at its side effects and long term consequences. This impulsiveness has been imbedded in human nature since ancient times. Beauty has always lured men to their demise.
The forbidden fruit is always the sweetest. Man always wants what is not meant for him. This fact dates back to the origin of mankind as stated in the sacred bible. Adam and Eve were dwellers in heaven. They were aware of the forbidden apple and its curse. However Adam’s naïve and insatiate soul of a youth could not conform to the rules. Even though he knew he would face horrible consequences he still went on to eat the forbidden apple. Thus Adam and Eve were banished from heaven and exiled to earth to lead the life of mortals. The reddest apple is the deadliest. Youth, beauty and the desire to look good is like that red apple that is hypnotising the youth and adult population alike.
The first advertisement was about face lifting. The woman to me didn’t look much happier after the treatment, so then what was the point. I could also do the same thing on Photoshop, what is the guarantee of the authenticity of this picture which I genuinely feel is not too attractive. However some old woman may be admiring this picture. Here arises the disparity of perception. Perceptions differ and emotions play a major role in it. Hope, fear, desire and anxiety all influence perception. I would look at the situation in a more objective and rational way. I would question the procedure and doubt the results. On the other hand a vulnerable person may give in. the vulnerable person would want to believe that what he or she sees is true. I would to negate it. Some people say seeing is believing but I think ‘believing is seeing’ since our beliefs and expectations affect the way we see things. In the nineteenth century some scientists speculated that an undiscovered planet- which they called Vulcan- existed between Mercury and the sun. With this belief in mind some astronomers claimed to have seen Vulcan. However the fact was that Vulcan never existed. Thus the question arises does this picture actually depict the truth?
Also why are we so bent upon on changing nature? Aging is a natural process; it is a part of human evolution why are we changing it. It is this interference with nature that forces nature to revert. Man interfered with the forces of nature. He manipulated his environment and hampered natural cycles. This gave rise to global warming, acid rain and the green house effect. These effects were not considered when man presented the rosy pictures of urbanisation with comfortable lifestyles of the developed world. Even in this advertisement the final rosy picture is presented and the initial state but the process which is the traumatising part is not presented. The pain, discomfort, swelling, blistering and pigmentation has boldly been ignored in the laser treatment advert. In a worst case laser can also lead to skin cancers. However never will a person inform you about these side effects other wise their product will not sell.
King Canute the great Viking ruler once was strolling by the sea shore with his courtiers. In his early years as a ruler looted much and plundered much more. He was very proud of his achievements. He enjoyed flattery and preferred to be surrounded by sycophants. However as he wizened over the years he understood the true essence of survival and futility of baseless desires. That is why he gave up looting and plundering and devoted his life to the well being of mankind. This advertisement is promoting something that will last for few months or maybe years but its long term consequences are deathly. Aging is a natural process, hormonal changes is an internal disorder. These superficial treatments are not going to change the way the body is destined to function.
Some may provide counter arguments saying that everyone has the right to look good. That is true, this is a personal choice. However I would just urge people to look at the treatment in a rational way, weigh the pros and corns and make informed decisions.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
summer holidays- knowledge @ work 1
Marley and me
This movie goes beyond the story of a dog. It beautifully displays an array of emotions ranging from happiness, love, hope, anxiety, anguish and pain. However what is truly amazing about this movie is that it goes beyond just human emotions. We as viewers can relate to and perceive the emotions the dog ‘Marley’ is going through. Its little gestures like wagging its tail or running round his master convey so much. Here we see that words are no the only form of expression. Infact at many instances in the movie words betray humans and fail to show there true emotions but the gestures seem to be most loyal and intrinsic.
The protagonist decides to buy Marley as a gift for his wife because he wants someone that will call him master. This is a human need. Everyone wants to be in control. It gives satisfaction to feel in authoritative. This may seem irrational but it is a need. This is a very small scale representation but on a large scale it is this thirst of power and desire to be in control that gives birth to leaders and dictators. In the book ‘One Hundred Years of Solitude’ by Garcia Marquez after raging several wars the liberal leader Colonel Arcadio Buendia finally comes to the conclusion that he is only fighting for power.
Dogs are said to be man’s best friend. In this movie this cliché is very obvious. Marley shares an intense bond with his masters whether it is the children or the adults. Even the family depends upon Marley. An early Indian revolutionary in the Indian freedom struggle Rani of Jhansi was very dependent on her horse. He was loyal to her and she rode on him for every battle. He was trained and understood the tactics of his master. They had developed a mutual understanding and could feel and relate to each others ideas. The Rani carried her child on her back when she fought her last battles. Thus her horse kept good care of the child too. Once in the battle field her horse was gravely injured. Well this was the last battle of her life. Her new horse could not coordinate actions and act with the same vigilance. Thus the Rani lost her life on the battle field. In this movie all the protagonists are emotionally dependent on Marley, specially the husband. Every time he feels low he finds recluse in Marley’s company. At such instances the very violent dog becomes docile as he reconciles with his masters agony and comforts him.
Intuition plays an important role in the movie. They chose to purchase Marley out of all the dogs as an instant bond was forged. They know that this is the best fit dog for them. Even when Marley falls ill they know he will be fine the first time but not the second time. And all this is comes true.
Thus this movie really moves the viewers. In the last few scenes you cannot help but shed a tear. Even though you know this is just a movie, a fantasy and there is no reality in it your emotion takes over your reason and you relate to the agony and end up being completely being swayed.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
little prince- chapter 1
In this chapter the author beautifully explores the psychology of a young boy. I chose this chapter because I could empathise with the boy. We see the clash between the perception of the child and adults. Hidden behind the playfulness of the tone is a deep message. We see how talent is shunned down. Our society has certain stereotypes which one is expected to conform to. Innovation is regarded as ‘madness’ and ignorance as ‘bliss’.
The picture of the boa has great significance. The boa gulps down his prey without chewing it and then hibernates to digest it. This arouses great curiosity in the mind of the child. On a symbolic level the boa could represent the process of colonisation. Let’s take the process of Indian colonisation by the British. The British entered India as traders in the form of the East India Company. Through their trade practices they engulfed many regions of the country. However they put up a deceitful front. The prey, the Indians were completely oblivious of this until they were engulfed. Also the entire process was gradual and hushed. Slowly the company devoured the lower stratus of the society. The higher classes were still ignorant. It was only after they took over the entire country did they begin devouring it. Thus the process was slow and secretive but it did finely devour it to every last morsel.
The child is naïve and innocent but in this chapter he is displayed as the true seeker of knowledge. The adults have biases as to what is right and what is wrong. They do not want to look out of the box. The child tries to look beyond but he is shunned down. We don’t realise that these adults have a huge impact on the child’s life. They are the source of secondary knowledge for the child. The child is expected to learn from them. If they institutions limit a child’s scope rather then encouraging it then the child will be deprived for life. as in this book the child says that he decided to give up drawing after receiving no appreciation. We al require appreciation and encouragement. It gives us joy and pride in our work. However discouragement can really lower spirits.
Our society is like a closed system, anyone who is looks beyond it is pilled down. This has been the case for times immemorial. Pythagoras and Aristotle were considered as ‘over reachers’ and ‘dreamers’ when they proposed that the earth was round. Only a few inrellectual lot believed them and the others shunned them down. It has actually been known that the Earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks. It was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth! However these reasons were given a deaf ear by the society. I guess it is our preconceived notions that hinder our progress. If we had revered and acknowledged the work of these men at the right time human civilisation would be even more developed.
Parents or guardians shunning down children can be the most demoralising thing ever. Eklavya’s story from Indian mythology. He was not blue blooded. He had a deep desire to learn archery from the royal teacher. He was rebuked and looked down upon by the saint. The saint rejected him and told him that he would never learn archery as it is the game of the royalty. Even though Eklavya was very rejected he still revered the teacher and learnt archery al by himself. He mastered the art single handedly without any guidance. However the saint could not reconcile with the fact that he was better then his favoured disciple Arjun (a descendent of the royal family). In order to maintain the supremacy of his disciple he asked Eklavya to give up this thumb. Thus we see that how the saint misjudged Eklavya’s potential. The stereotype that only the royal blood can learn the art of archery prevented him to appreciate talent. At the end of it all the world lost a brilliant archer.
Thus we need to look beyond our pre conceived notions. We need to appreciate and encourage. Two words of appreciation can go a long way. I hope that readers recognise the underlying pleas of the author. Under all the smiles and affability, humour and innocence lie the grey areas of human existence that we conveniently chose to ignore.
The picture of the boa has great significance. The boa gulps down his prey without chewing it and then hibernates to digest it. This arouses great curiosity in the mind of the child. On a symbolic level the boa could represent the process of colonisation. Let’s take the process of Indian colonisation by the British. The British entered India as traders in the form of the East India Company. Through their trade practices they engulfed many regions of the country. However they put up a deceitful front. The prey, the Indians were completely oblivious of this until they were engulfed. Also the entire process was gradual and hushed. Slowly the company devoured the lower stratus of the society. The higher classes were still ignorant. It was only after they took over the entire country did they begin devouring it. Thus the process was slow and secretive but it did finely devour it to every last morsel.
The child is naïve and innocent but in this chapter he is displayed as the true seeker of knowledge. The adults have biases as to what is right and what is wrong. They do not want to look out of the box. The child tries to look beyond but he is shunned down. We don’t realise that these adults have a huge impact on the child’s life. They are the source of secondary knowledge for the child. The child is expected to learn from them. If they institutions limit a child’s scope rather then encouraging it then the child will be deprived for life. as in this book the child says that he decided to give up drawing after receiving no appreciation. We al require appreciation and encouragement. It gives us joy and pride in our work. However discouragement can really lower spirits.
Our society is like a closed system, anyone who is looks beyond it is pilled down. This has been the case for times immemorial. Pythagoras and Aristotle were considered as ‘over reachers’ and ‘dreamers’ when they proposed that the earth was round. Only a few inrellectual lot believed them and the others shunned them down. It has actually been known that the Earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks. It was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth! However these reasons were given a deaf ear by the society. I guess it is our preconceived notions that hinder our progress. If we had revered and acknowledged the work of these men at the right time human civilisation would be even more developed.
Parents or guardians shunning down children can be the most demoralising thing ever. Eklavya’s story from Indian mythology. He was not blue blooded. He had a deep desire to learn archery from the royal teacher. He was rebuked and looked down upon by the saint. The saint rejected him and told him that he would never learn archery as it is the game of the royalty. Even though Eklavya was very rejected he still revered the teacher and learnt archery al by himself. He mastered the art single handedly without any guidance. However the saint could not reconcile with the fact that he was better then his favoured disciple Arjun (a descendent of the royal family). In order to maintain the supremacy of his disciple he asked Eklavya to give up this thumb. Thus we see that how the saint misjudged Eklavya’s potential. The stereotype that only the royal blood can learn the art of archery prevented him to appreciate talent. At the end of it all the world lost a brilliant archer.
Thus we need to look beyond our pre conceived notions. We need to appreciate and encourage. Two words of appreciation can go a long way. I hope that readers recognise the underlying pleas of the author. Under all the smiles and affability, humour and innocence lie the grey areas of human existence that we conveniently chose to ignore.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
reflection - Answers to questions about inuition
Intuition is a strong gut feeling of the happening of an event that is proven right. It is subjective and is a strong assertion in the mind of an individual in the happening of an event.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me. We all have different perceptions and parameters of judgement. Let’s take the example of the Brutus and Cassius in the play Julius Caesar. Cassius had a strong gut feeling that the army should stay in their positions and wait for the enemies to attack. He justified his intuition by trying to analyse the psychology of his opponents. His intuition seemed to be proving right and very obvious however Brutus failed to understand it. He advocated the army to descend to Philippines and launch the attack. They both belonged to the same army; Cassius’s predictions were seemingly true. His predictions of the warring of the were already proven right thus his intuition was already half justified beyond doubt, yet Brutus’s impaired judgement came in the way of the right decision.
‘Intuitively obvious’, this phrase startles me. Are we measuring the degree to which we believe in the happening of an event? It is difficult to quantify it, however when the intuition persists for long and maybe they have been proven right in the past then it may be safe to consider it. However we cannot form our beliefs because something is ‘intuitively obvious’. Intuitions are more than often governed by emotions and perceptions. However an intuition should be proven right to qualify it as a belief. For example the Indian prime minister in the 1990’s Mr Vajpayee had a strong gut feeling that he assumed to be’ intuitively obvious’ that the Pakistanis will not attack India. Despite the recurring threats and intelligence information he did not adequately prepare the defence of the country. However he was proven wrong, Pakistan attacked India and the Kargil war took place. Thus we see that his gut feeling was proven wrong. Thus intuitions are often proven wrong and one must not become laid back and base his/her actions on the basis of something that is intuitively obvious.
To make a generalisation that more knowledgeable or successful people would have better intuitions is a bias but I guess that is how human mentality functions. Stock trading is often based on intuitions. The data, stocks availability, future predictions are often based on intuitions. Some broker may just say that “I think the market will fall next summer’ without any justification. Thus if I have to buy shares I will go to amore successful broker rather than an unsuccessful one. Even if the unsuccessful lawyer gives me concrete reasons as to how and why the share price would change and the successful lawyer just says that he feels that this is what will happen I will trust him. This is so because he has become so successful after taking these calculated risks. I assume that he knows how to distinguish when something is intuitively obvious and when it is just a gut feeling.
Thus intuitions are subjective. They are crucial in the development of man. Every scientific discovery first starts with an intuition. However an intuition has to be proven right. Thus we must learn know how to distinguish between gut feelings and intuitions and not reach conclusions without formal proof.
What is obvious to you may not be obvious to me. We all have different perceptions and parameters of judgement. Let’s take the example of the Brutus and Cassius in the play Julius Caesar. Cassius had a strong gut feeling that the army should stay in their positions and wait for the enemies to attack. He justified his intuition by trying to analyse the psychology of his opponents. His intuition seemed to be proving right and very obvious however Brutus failed to understand it. He advocated the army to descend to Philippines and launch the attack. They both belonged to the same army; Cassius’s predictions were seemingly true. His predictions of the warring of the were already proven right thus his intuition was already half justified beyond doubt, yet Brutus’s impaired judgement came in the way of the right decision.
‘Intuitively obvious’, this phrase startles me. Are we measuring the degree to which we believe in the happening of an event? It is difficult to quantify it, however when the intuition persists for long and maybe they have been proven right in the past then it may be safe to consider it. However we cannot form our beliefs because something is ‘intuitively obvious’. Intuitions are more than often governed by emotions and perceptions. However an intuition should be proven right to qualify it as a belief. For example the Indian prime minister in the 1990’s Mr Vajpayee had a strong gut feeling that he assumed to be’ intuitively obvious’ that the Pakistanis will not attack India. Despite the recurring threats and intelligence information he did not adequately prepare the defence of the country. However he was proven wrong, Pakistan attacked India and the Kargil war took place. Thus we see that his gut feeling was proven wrong. Thus intuitions are often proven wrong and one must not become laid back and base his/her actions on the basis of something that is intuitively obvious.
To make a generalisation that more knowledgeable or successful people would have better intuitions is a bias but I guess that is how human mentality functions. Stock trading is often based on intuitions. The data, stocks availability, future predictions are often based on intuitions. Some broker may just say that “I think the market will fall next summer’ without any justification. Thus if I have to buy shares I will go to amore successful broker rather than an unsuccessful one. Even if the unsuccessful lawyer gives me concrete reasons as to how and why the share price would change and the successful lawyer just says that he feels that this is what will happen I will trust him. This is so because he has become so successful after taking these calculated risks. I assume that he knows how to distinguish when something is intuitively obvious and when it is just a gut feeling.
Thus intuitions are subjective. They are crucial in the development of man. Every scientific discovery first starts with an intuition. However an intuition has to be proven right. Thus we must learn know how to distinguish between gut feelings and intuitions and not reach conclusions without formal proof.
knowledge @ work- 5
Fear! This is a strong emotion that compels men to react in different ways. However fear is something very subjective. What is fearful to you may seem a thrill to me. The fear of the unknown has always driven men.
The forbidden fruit is always the sweetest. This fact dates back to the origin of mankind as stated in the sacred bible. Adam and Eve were dwellers in heaven. They were aware of the forbidden apple and its curse. However Adam’s naïve and insatiate soul of a youth could not conform to the rules. Even though he knew he would face horrible consequences he still went on to eat the forbidden apple. Thus Adam and Eve were banished from heaven and exiled to earth to lead the life of mortals. This is the case of the world’s youth. Smoking, drinking and drugs, everyone knows it is bad. No one is oblivious of its harmful impacts on health. However the thrill generated to break the law is what drives them. I would like to link this news article to another breaking news that took place in the year 2008. Another juvenile from Bombay Scottish School in Mumbai, India was surfing the net. Out of all the sources of entertainment his friends decided to play a game which taught you ways to kill yourself. This was an online game which gave detailed descriptions as to how one can kill himself. there were clear warnings as to how dangerous the game would be but the boy was lured. He wanted to ‘try it himself’ to overcome the ‘unknown’. These are the key factors that drive people. He played the game and ended up losing his life. Thus we see how we consciously prepare our own undoing.
Concluding I would not call avoiding smoking fear. Choosing not to smoke or drink is a rational decision taken when a youth develops the ability to over power his insecure, insatiate emotions and do the best for himself. And also I am not advocating baning smoking or drinking. What I want to say is that one must learn how to rationally distinguish between right and wrong and learn one’s limits. However this is a task few can accomplish. Attractions are always there. People may say that as knowers we should try things ourselves to know if it is right or wrong. Alcohol is not bad for responsible drinker but excessive consumptions is harmful and this is a belief beyond reasonable doubt. There are abundant scientific facts to prove this but they are often overlooked. Sometimes it takes more courage and self control to avenge this luring and make a rational choice .
The forbidden fruit is always the sweetest. This fact dates back to the origin of mankind as stated in the sacred bible. Adam and Eve were dwellers in heaven. They were aware of the forbidden apple and its curse. However Adam’s naïve and insatiate soul of a youth could not conform to the rules. Even though he knew he would face horrible consequences he still went on to eat the forbidden apple. Thus Adam and Eve were banished from heaven and exiled to earth to lead the life of mortals. This is the case of the world’s youth. Smoking, drinking and drugs, everyone knows it is bad. No one is oblivious of its harmful impacts on health. However the thrill generated to break the law is what drives them. I would like to link this news article to another breaking news that took place in the year 2008. Another juvenile from Bombay Scottish School in Mumbai, India was surfing the net. Out of all the sources of entertainment his friends decided to play a game which taught you ways to kill yourself. This was an online game which gave detailed descriptions as to how one can kill himself. there were clear warnings as to how dangerous the game would be but the boy was lured. He wanted to ‘try it himself’ to overcome the ‘unknown’. These are the key factors that drive people. He played the game and ended up losing his life. Thus we see how we consciously prepare our own undoing.
Concluding I would not call avoiding smoking fear. Choosing not to smoke or drink is a rational decision taken when a youth develops the ability to over power his insecure, insatiate emotions and do the best for himself. And also I am not advocating baning smoking or drinking. What I want to say is that one must learn how to rationally distinguish between right and wrong and learn one’s limits. However this is a task few can accomplish. Attractions are always there. People may say that as knowers we should try things ourselves to know if it is right or wrong. Alcohol is not bad for responsible drinker but excessive consumptions is harmful and this is a belief beyond reasonable doubt. There are abundant scientific facts to prove this but they are often overlooked. Sometimes it takes more courage and self control to avenge this luring and make a rational choice .
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
reflection- the 'emotional trap' or the 'trapped emotions' ????
We call ourselves the superior race. Our rationale is what distinguishes us from the brute. But are we really the ‘knowers’ the ‘thinkers’. Time and again our actions betray the logical and rational perspective. We have evolved and have acquired the power to reason, however the primitive, irrational, emotional and impulsive character is still deep imbedded in our system. If not in deliberative thinking, it is deep rooted in our stream of consciousness. This stream often deviates us from the archetypal ‘intellectual’ and we behave like ‘emotional fools’. When a man steps on a snake it stings him. The snake does not bother to verify that whether the action was intentional or a mere mistake. It is an external stimulus that is perceived as a threat. It creates fear and induces the snake to react. Same is the case with men. If we see a dark bearded Muslim man, in a grim alley, walking with a packet hidden under his crouch in most cases he would appear suspicious. People would abandon the place he strides on. No one would think that may be the packet under his crouch has medicines that he is protecting from the rain, or he’s wearing the rugged black rag because he can afford no better.
We all have biases driven solely by emotions. Lets take the example of Dr Lynd in the book ‘A Grain of Wheat’ by Ngugi Wa Thiongo. She was assaulted by her houseboy, Koina; during the Mau- Mau movement. The houseboy had betrayed her trust. He even killed the her dog, whom he had shared a strong bond with. The ferocious expression on Koina’s face was imprinted in Lynd’s mind. It generated fear, distrust and hatred in her. She began to believe that all Africans are murderous, blood thirsty traitors. Many years later when she sees Karanja, a labourer, holding a stoine at her dog she fires him. She does not bother to investigate as to what had actually happened. She did not believe a word that Karanja said. The truth was that the her dog had chased Karanja. As means of self preservation he held a stone at him. However doctor Lynd was blinded from the truth. She did not believe him because he was an African. Her fallacious reasoning was that since all the Africans are rutheless, murderous people not worthy of trust and since Karanja was an African he is a traitor to. She completely disregarded the fact that Karanja had devoted his life in the service of the British. She rebuked him publically and expressed her views vehemently with great agony and rancour to Thompson a fellow colleague.
Thus this is a classic example were powerful emotions override our rational. They superimpose on all other ways of knowing and close doors to any alternative argument. We form bias perceptions which lead to fallacious reasoning. These feelings get imbedded in our nature. They are like inflammable hydrogen that can create fire with no sparks. Thus it when we learn how tame these emotions can we call ourselves ‘the superior race’.
We all have biases driven solely by emotions. Lets take the example of Dr Lynd in the book ‘A Grain of Wheat’ by Ngugi Wa Thiongo. She was assaulted by her houseboy, Koina; during the Mau- Mau movement. The houseboy had betrayed her trust. He even killed the her dog, whom he had shared a strong bond with. The ferocious expression on Koina’s face was imprinted in Lynd’s mind. It generated fear, distrust and hatred in her. She began to believe that all Africans are murderous, blood thirsty traitors. Many years later when she sees Karanja, a labourer, holding a stoine at her dog she fires him. She does not bother to investigate as to what had actually happened. She did not believe a word that Karanja said. The truth was that the her dog had chased Karanja. As means of self preservation he held a stone at him. However doctor Lynd was blinded from the truth. She did not believe him because he was an African. Her fallacious reasoning was that since all the Africans are rutheless, murderous people not worthy of trust and since Karanja was an African he is a traitor to. She completely disregarded the fact that Karanja had devoted his life in the service of the British. She rebuked him publically and expressed her views vehemently with great agony and rancour to Thompson a fellow colleague.
Thus this is a classic example were powerful emotions override our rational. They superimpose on all other ways of knowing and close doors to any alternative argument. We form bias perceptions which lead to fallacious reasoning. These feelings get imbedded in our nature. They are like inflammable hydrogen that can create fire with no sparks. Thus it when we learn how tame these emotions can we call ourselves ‘the superior race’.
reflection- the 'emotional trap' or the 'trapped emotions' ????
We call ourselves the superior race. Our rationale is what distinguishes us from the brute. But are we really the ‘knowers’ the ‘thinkers’. Time and again our actions betray the logical and rational perspective. We have evolved and have acquired the power to reason, however the primitive, irrational, emotional and impulsive character is still deep imbedded in our system. If not in deliberative thinking, it is deep rooted in our stream of consciousness. This stream often deviates us from the archetypal ‘intellectual’ and we behave like ‘emotional fools’. When a man steps on a snake it stings him. The snake does not bother to verify that whether the action was intentional or a mere mistake. It is an external stimulus that is perceived as a threat. It creates fear and induces the snake to react. Same is the case with men. If we see a dark bearded Muslim man, in a grim alley, walking with a packet hidden under his crouch in most cases he would appear suspicious. People would abandon the place he strides on. No one would think that may be the packet under his crouch has medicines that he is protecting from the rain, or he’s wearing the rugged black rag because he can afford no better.
We all have biases driven solely by emotions. Lets take the example of Dr Lynd in the book ‘A Grain of Wheat’ by Ngugi Wa Thiongo. She was assaulted by her houseboy, Koina; during the Mau- Mau movement. The houseboy had betrayed her trust. He even killed the her dog, whom he had shared a strong bond with. The ferocious expression on Koina’s face was imprinted in Lynd’s mind. It generated fear, distrust and hatred in her. She began to believe that all Africans are murderous, blood thirsty traitors. Many years later when she sees Karanja, a labourer, holding a stoine at her dog she fires him. She does not bother to investigate as to what had actually happened. She did not believe a word that Karanja said. The truth was that the her dog had chased Karanja. As means of self preservation he held a stone at him. However doctor Lynd was blinded from the truth. She did not believe him because he was an African. Her fallacious reasoning was that since all the Africans are rutheless, murderous people not worthy of trust and since Karanja was an African he is a traitor to. She completely disregarded the fact that Karanja had devoted his life in the service of the British. She rebuked him publically and expressed her views vehemently with great agony and rancour to Thompson a fellow colleague.
Thus this is a classic example were powerful emotions override our rational. They superimpose on all other ways of knowing and close doors to any alternative argument. We form bias perceptions which lead to fallacious reasoning. These feelings get imbedded in our nature. They are like inflammable hydrogen that can create fire with no sparks. Thus it when we learn how tame these emotions can we call ourselves ‘the superior race’.
We all have biases driven solely by emotions. Lets take the example of Dr Lynd in the book ‘A Grain of Wheat’ by Ngugi Wa Thiongo. She was assaulted by her houseboy, Koina; during the Mau- Mau movement. The houseboy had betrayed her trust. He even killed the her dog, whom he had shared a strong bond with. The ferocious expression on Koina’s face was imprinted in Lynd’s mind. It generated fear, distrust and hatred in her. She began to believe that all Africans are murderous, blood thirsty traitors. Many years later when she sees Karanja, a labourer, holding a stoine at her dog she fires him. She does not bother to investigate as to what had actually happened. She did not believe a word that Karanja said. The truth was that the her dog had chased Karanja. As means of self preservation he held a stone at him. However doctor Lynd was blinded from the truth. She did not believe him because he was an African. Her fallacious reasoning was that since all the Africans are rutheless, murderous people not worthy of trust and since Karanja was an African he is a traitor to. She completely disregarded the fact that Karanja had devoted his life in the service of the British. She rebuked him publically and expressed her views vehemently with great agony and rancour to Thompson a fellow colleague.
Thus this is a classic example were powerful emotions override our rational. They superimpose on all other ways of knowing and close doors to any alternative argument. We form bias perceptions which lead to fallacious reasoning. These feelings get imbedded in our nature. They are like inflammable hydrogen that can create fire with no sparks. Thus it when we learn how tame these emotions can we call ourselves ‘the superior race’.
knowledge @ work 4
THE ASMI ADVERTISEMENT
This advertisement has great aesthetic beauty. It has a visual appeal. It talks about the longevity of the life of a diamond. This appeals to our emotions and develops a feeling of security. Diamonds are always associated with beauty, and this advertisement stands up to the standards. However the question is that are we looking for the security we find in that stone or its beauty?
The thing that startles me the most about such advertisements is that we don’t know if the advertisement is looking good because of the product or the model selling it. Why can’t they use a simple, average looking woman? I guess that is the fallacy of man. The company is only catering to this fallacy. We only like truth in its sugar coated gilded form. When we go to a five star, more then often the food is identical to home food or a very ordinary preparation. What makes it attractive is the arrangement, the lavish ambience and the luring atmosphere. Here we tend to loose our rational. We pay ten times the price for the same preparation.
Diamonds have great symbolism to human life. Uncut diamonds are like spare moments. Discard them and their value will never be known. Improve them and they will become the brightest gems in a useful life. Internally diamonds nothing more than chunks of coal. Also according to the bible men are nothing but dust. As John Webster said, “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.” Thus this proves that only perseverance and hardships can produce beautiful form. Even iron, it can only be moulded once it is smelted in hot furnaces. We see the riches but never bother to appreciate the path in which they were achieved. The only time we realise the value of diamonds is when we have to pay for them. Why has everything become so monetary and superficial? People only see the product, if it is good they accept it and if it does not satisfy their demand it is worthless. The toil gone in producing the product is insignificant.
This advertisement talks about the longevity of the life of diamonds. In this uncertain life, we are always searching for certainty. I guess the catch line ‘diamonds are forever’ satisfies this need. These insecure emotions have always been exploited as a means to appeal to the mob. Security is a universal feeling that everyone yearns for. Why did the people of Germany feel under care of Hitler? He gave them belief in the strength of Germany. The country had just come out of a shattering world war. The treaty if Versailles had disillusioned them. In such scenario they had become fragile and insecure. Hitler purged their need and provided them certainties in the future and the people succumbed under his power. But my question is, are diamonds forever? Does anything last forever? The reason that diamonds never die is not a reason enough to say diamonds are forever. It is an argument ad ignorantium, where if you cannot prove the death of diamonds so they live forever. But they could get lost. Few new mines discovered and the prices would fall. It is really not forever. According to the black hole theory nothing lasts forever, everything is sucked into the black hole. So why don’t we devote our resources for other more pious deeds like charity rather than just satisfying our insecurity and aesthetic needs.
Thus we see that the advertisement is a successful promotional tool but we as knower’s need to see beyond the attractive model and understand the value of the diamond. It is not just a piece of stone; it is a symbol of human life.
This advertisement has great aesthetic beauty. It has a visual appeal. It talks about the longevity of the life of a diamond. This appeals to our emotions and develops a feeling of security. Diamonds are always associated with beauty, and this advertisement stands up to the standards. However the question is that are we looking for the security we find in that stone or its beauty?
The thing that startles me the most about such advertisements is that we don’t know if the advertisement is looking good because of the product or the model selling it. Why can’t they use a simple, average looking woman? I guess that is the fallacy of man. The company is only catering to this fallacy. We only like truth in its sugar coated gilded form. When we go to a five star, more then often the food is identical to home food or a very ordinary preparation. What makes it attractive is the arrangement, the lavish ambience and the luring atmosphere. Here we tend to loose our rational. We pay ten times the price for the same preparation.
Diamonds have great symbolism to human life. Uncut diamonds are like spare moments. Discard them and their value will never be known. Improve them and they will become the brightest gems in a useful life. Internally diamonds nothing more than chunks of coal. Also according to the bible men are nothing but dust. As John Webster said, “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.” Thus this proves that only perseverance and hardships can produce beautiful form. Even iron, it can only be moulded once it is smelted in hot furnaces. We see the riches but never bother to appreciate the path in which they were achieved. The only time we realise the value of diamonds is when we have to pay for them. Why has everything become so monetary and superficial? People only see the product, if it is good they accept it and if it does not satisfy their demand it is worthless. The toil gone in producing the product is insignificant.
This advertisement talks about the longevity of the life of diamonds. In this uncertain life, we are always searching for certainty. I guess the catch line ‘diamonds are forever’ satisfies this need. These insecure emotions have always been exploited as a means to appeal to the mob. Security is a universal feeling that everyone yearns for. Why did the people of Germany feel under care of Hitler? He gave them belief in the strength of Germany. The country had just come out of a shattering world war. The treaty if Versailles had disillusioned them. In such scenario they had become fragile and insecure. Hitler purged their need and provided them certainties in the future and the people succumbed under his power. But my question is, are diamonds forever? Does anything last forever? The reason that diamonds never die is not a reason enough to say diamonds are forever. It is an argument ad ignorantium, where if you cannot prove the death of diamonds so they live forever. But they could get lost. Few new mines discovered and the prices would fall. It is really not forever. According to the black hole theory nothing lasts forever, everything is sucked into the black hole. So why don’t we devote our resources for other more pious deeds like charity rather than just satisfying our insecurity and aesthetic needs.
Thus we see that the advertisement is a successful promotional tool but we as knower’s need to see beyond the attractive model and understand the value of the diamond. It is not just a piece of stone; it is a symbol of human life.
Monday, March 30, 2009
is it better to be logical or rational. after learning about the difference between thses two terms in class it obviously seemed that being rational was the more holistic as well as practical way of looking at things. it looked at a broader picture and seemeds more sensible even though uncertain. however isn't being logicl sometimes simpler. every one has diffeent rational capacities. as it is said common sense is very uncommon. even though this is the most cliche line it is true. in such situations is it better to confide in one's rationality or be safe by conforming to the well accepted logics? lets take probabilty, a chapter in math that i'm studying. O!=1 and 1!=1. when i asked the teacherfor reason she said this fits into all sums so it is universally accepted. i use this piece of logic to conquer on many problem in math, it makes my life easier.thus even though logic may be unjustified it does help in simplifying life. however the question is when do we know we can rely on our logic. i gues we need to deduce a rational answer for that!!!!
another loop hole with rationality is that is is subjective. what may be rational to one may be completely irrational to another. there are many topics such as terrorism that have very contidictary views. the terrorisor may uses manipulated history and religion to develop a seemingly rational reason for terrorism. to us the victims of terrorism these reasons seem completely irrational, only driven by extreme emotional upheavals. this disparity always arises and that is how we have opposing views. look at the communist and the capitalist blocks in the cold war. both had very strong arguments for their beliefs. they even had counter arguments for the opposing regime. capitalists called the communists insatiate souls, undercover tyrants, potential dictaors and a threat to world peace. the communist on the other hand critcised the capitalist for uneven distribution of income, exploitation and selfishness. both had rational arguments. it took the world as well as individual countries decades to resolve the problem and come to a consensus.
thus rationality is dyanamic, it is the rational thinking that lends individuality to people. if we were all just logical then life would be too mechanical and monotonous. moreover logic can never prevail in the presence of emotions and reason, two vital elements of human behavior
one thing that startled me is that intuition is only something that has been proven right. so the next time i feel strongly about the happeneing of an event it is not my intuition. years or minutes later when it actually happens then it is intuition.untill then it is a baseless belief.however once it comes true it then people take the efort to reason out its happening. i guees this is the law of life. untill one is proven correct that person is not smart. t.s .eliot was considered as an outcast of the litrary fraternity in his times. it was only later when people could connect with his writing that he was revered. also indian literature and writers like prem chand were only aknowledge years later. nostradamus was regarded as a lunatic untill his predictions were proven. yes, proven facts are more certin but in this search for certainity we end up not valuing the emotions, people and situations we face in the present !!
key to sucess in tok!!!!!!!!!
the key to success in tok is to obfucate the reader. it is not about flowery language and commitment to a stand i have learnt. it is to accept the fact that one may be wrong with humility and provide all the possible views to a given argumnet. thus in this blog i will try a sincere attempt to confuse people !! i will provide views on different issues but not coclusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)