Wednesday, December 9, 2009
What is learned this week
While trying to figure out what i learned this week, i was suddenly hit by the realization that the one thing i learned was that i went through a week of school without learning anything at all. the entire point of school is to widen our horizons, and make us learn something new in all different aspects of life. going beyond a text book, we are supposed to learn about current affairs, the past, life outside and beyond school. still, this week has been full of assignments, and yet its all been time spent doing nothing constructive. we go to school 5 days a week, expecting to gain knowledge but weeks go by and we do do not do anything that is worth writing about. its a shame actually that the most important thing of this week that can be considered to teach me something that matters is the fact that sometimes we dont learn anything. the irony is undeniable. through science, maths, history, french, i can say that i learned nothing worth while. it makes me wonder how many weeks i would be in the same place if i had to write an essay on the same topic.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Religion
According to me, religion is a medium just like art, or language. A medium to communicate, an outlet to emotion, an excuse, at the same time, religion is a way of restoring faith. Religion can be divided into two parts. The part that was about “God”, and then the fanatic part, which involves Political groups that use “God” together as religious pockets to carry out their own personal vendettas against their enemies, and innocent victims.
People believe in religion for many reasons. Some turn to a practice when all reason, when science, family, friends, health and other places of hope have turned away from them. Some believe in religion because their parents tell them to. But the truest believers, are those who don’t turn to religion in desperation, or through habit, but those who are graced or at least believe they are by God, and then turn to a religion life, after an experience that taught them that its only “God’s” grace that they need to get by. In this manner, it is very simple to change from a believer to a non-believer. When it comes to converting from one religion to another, matters are harder. While Religions claim to be about serving god, each religion has extremely specific and unique manners of belief, and switching would not only mean new teachings, and learning, but acceptance by new religious members is what really becomes the hardest part.
Religion is accompanied by a many biases. There are those who have a bias against all religion because of personal feelings against the fanaticism it involves. Some are not believers in God or religion. There are stereotypes that bring in biases in religion. Though politically and ethically incorrect people have biases against religions such as Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism. There are media biases involved with religions, and political biases. There are people who will not get into businesses, vote for politicians, and even not visit places due to these prejudices. In this manner religion has become perverse, and is in need for reform, and even more acceptance.
People believe in religion for many reasons. Some turn to a practice when all reason, when science, family, friends, health and other places of hope have turned away from them. Some believe in religion because their parents tell them to. But the truest believers, are those who don’t turn to religion in desperation, or through habit, but those who are graced or at least believe they are by God, and then turn to a religion life, after an experience that taught them that its only “God’s” grace that they need to get by. In this manner, it is very simple to change from a believer to a non-believer. When it comes to converting from one religion to another, matters are harder. While Religions claim to be about serving god, each religion has extremely specific and unique manners of belief, and switching would not only mean new teachings, and learning, but acceptance by new religious members is what really becomes the hardest part.
Religion is accompanied by a many biases. There are those who have a bias against all religion because of personal feelings against the fanaticism it involves. Some are not believers in God or religion. There are stereotypes that bring in biases in religion. Though politically and ethically incorrect people have biases against religions such as Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism. There are media biases involved with religions, and political biases. There are people who will not get into businesses, vote for politicians, and even not visit places due to these prejudices. In this manner religion has become perverse, and is in need for reform, and even more acceptance.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Jinnah. He had a pistol. He used it.
It is anticipated that any article written by any person will always have a bias in it. This article is a summary of arguments, manipulated by Tarun Vijay to show a point of view. The entire narrative is written in his perspective, using language as a tool, making use of only those lines in those speeches by famous men to prove a point, that those famous men might not have even been talking about. Tarun Vijay manages to get his point across to the readers, show his anti Jinnah anti Pakistani views, and at the same time talk about the works of Jinnah and other people’s speeches.
Vijay uses historical examples to show Jinnah’s ruthlessness. Starting with talk about an “unimaginable massacre of Hindus in Kolkata”, Vijay manages to use his words to stir the feelings within the Indians reading this article. He goes on talking about different events which are once again chosen with a bias, to prove Hindu innocence. Though it would be politically incorrect to state his opinion of supremacy of the PSS, his words, quotations, and historical examples bring that put for him. Vijay uses a quote from the Gita to talk about the RSS. This shows how he uses language, to stir emotions of the readers, at the same time, give the impression that following the RSS is following god, as Gita is the path of worshipping god. Bringing in religion in politics, just like Gandhi did to involve the Muslims in the Non cooperation movement, Vijay reaches out to even those religious people who never really supported the RSS’s extremist views. Seeing this, Vijay’s skill with language, and persuasion can easily be seen.
Bringing in Ethics, and quoting Jinnah when he said h did not want to talk about ethics, Vijay manipulates the mind into thinking that Jinnah was unethical as he killed while Hindus, the BJP and the RSS are all ethical, and politicall correct. Hence bringing in political science, when he brings in the politics of the time, and events that differentiate the BJP from the RSS and politics at the time of the partition and politics today. Though he doesn’t directly insult Jinnah, he uses quotes that insult, and ruin him. The use of ethics, human sciences, and history enhances the effect that Vijay makes on his reader.
Talking about Gandhi raises the flag of patriotism in the reader’s eyes. Gandhi a person of great awe in India, is written about with respect by Vijay, while Jinnah is insulted hence attacking emotions and using this psychological method, Vijay appeals to reader and manages to do just what his initial aim was. The title “He had a pistol. He used it”, itself implies violence, an unethical way of getting what you want and do not deserve. This way, Vijay manages to share his opinion on Jinnah, and brainwashing us readers.
Vijay uses historical examples to show Jinnah’s ruthlessness. Starting with talk about an “unimaginable massacre of Hindus in Kolkata”, Vijay manages to use his words to stir the feelings within the Indians reading this article. He goes on talking about different events which are once again chosen with a bias, to prove Hindu innocence. Though it would be politically incorrect to state his opinion of supremacy of the PSS, his words, quotations, and historical examples bring that put for him. Vijay uses a quote from the Gita to talk about the RSS. This shows how he uses language, to stir emotions of the readers, at the same time, give the impression that following the RSS is following god, as Gita is the path of worshipping god. Bringing in religion in politics, just like Gandhi did to involve the Muslims in the Non cooperation movement, Vijay reaches out to even those religious people who never really supported the RSS’s extremist views. Seeing this, Vijay’s skill with language, and persuasion can easily be seen.
Bringing in Ethics, and quoting Jinnah when he said h did not want to talk about ethics, Vijay manipulates the mind into thinking that Jinnah was unethical as he killed while Hindus, the BJP and the RSS are all ethical, and politicall correct. Hence bringing in political science, when he brings in the politics of the time, and events that differentiate the BJP from the RSS and politics at the time of the partition and politics today. Though he doesn’t directly insult Jinnah, he uses quotes that insult, and ruin him. The use of ethics, human sciences, and history enhances the effect that Vijay makes on his reader.
Talking about Gandhi raises the flag of patriotism in the reader’s eyes. Gandhi a person of great awe in India, is written about with respect by Vijay, while Jinnah is insulted hence attacking emotions and using this psychological method, Vijay appeals to reader and manages to do just what his initial aim was. The title “He had a pistol. He used it”, itself implies violence, an unethical way of getting what you want and do not deserve. This way, Vijay manages to share his opinion on Jinnah, and brainwashing us readers.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
History Oscar Wilde
It is not about how it is documented, it is about what is documented. I do not agree with Wilde one bit. History has to be made to be written. Though there is importance to those who write it down, there would be nothing to write if it wasn’t for people like Napoleon, and Hitler. Authors can not pick up guns and fight wars, while soldiers might not be able to right as well as the “Wildes” of this world, there is always a normal way of recording historical events.
Wilde claims that his job is more important, but Historians write with a sense of bias, that could easily manipulate history into something is never was. For centuries history was passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth, so how are the writers more important? Stories then were twisted and turned to suit the speaker, and in this case, stories are manipulated by the author. While an Indian text book talks mainly about the good of Pakistan, a Pakistani one talks about India stealing all Muslim glory. Any author writing about an event will write with a sense of bias, but this was, the historic figures’ true nature, motives, and actions are often not revealed.
There is another way to learn history, but there is only one Hitler, one Gandhi, one Woodrow Wilson, and one Nelson Mandela. We talk about the historians, Steepan Lee, Andrew Ebert, Oscar Wilde, and so many more. If one is out of stock at a book shop, there is always another author we can pick up. When Hitler died, was there another man who was written about? Yes, these authors make it easy for us to learn about history, but if they dint, a movie would, or an auto-biography, in the case of Che Guevara music. There are different ways of passing history on, but there is a man in history, and while these authors distort that man’s views, they can not replace that man, and not even by a long shot can they are taking history’s importance and place. They write, because men sacrificed their lives, invariably giving them something to write on. No event, no book, as simple as that. It is not the interest on him a historian writes the past, but the event in past that we the knowers are interested in, and indeed the Wildes help us in that too.
Wilde claims that his job is more important, but Historians write with a sense of bias, that could easily manipulate history into something is never was. For centuries history was passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth, so how are the writers more important? Stories then were twisted and turned to suit the speaker, and in this case, stories are manipulated by the author. While an Indian text book talks mainly about the good of Pakistan, a Pakistani one talks about India stealing all Muslim glory. Any author writing about an event will write with a sense of bias, but this was, the historic figures’ true nature, motives, and actions are often not revealed.
There is another way to learn history, but there is only one Hitler, one Gandhi, one Woodrow Wilson, and one Nelson Mandela. We talk about the historians, Steepan Lee, Andrew Ebert, Oscar Wilde, and so many more. If one is out of stock at a book shop, there is always another author we can pick up. When Hitler died, was there another man who was written about? Yes, these authors make it easy for us to learn about history, but if they dint, a movie would, or an auto-biography, in the case of Che Guevara music. There are different ways of passing history on, but there is a man in history, and while these authors distort that man’s views, they can not replace that man, and not even by a long shot can they are taking history’s importance and place. They write, because men sacrificed their lives, invariably giving them something to write on. No event, no book, as simple as that. It is not the interest on him a historian writes the past, but the event in past that we the knowers are interested in, and indeed the Wildes help us in that too.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
CIA report
There is always an ethical issue that rises with interrogations. "Is is ethical to use force on a suspected terrorist?" If the methods used to break a terrorist inflict terror themselves then what is the difference between the good guys and the bad ones? The again a terrorist has no conscience so will guilt and words ever work? Do terrorists deserve to have their rights, or should they be hurt int he same manner that them hurt others. This issue can never really be resolved for the arguments are strong for both sides, and the most compelling arts to the stories of these tortures are that they are always accompanied with a great deal of emotion. This emotion influences the listener making them unable to reason out without bias.
For an American affected by 9/11 and an Indian affected in 26/11 any amount of pain inflicted on a terrorist could be acceptable, but for a mother whose son used terrorism as means to earn money and support her illness, even a pin prick would be too much. There are two sides to all stories, and as seen in Khuda ke liye, often those accused are not the ones guilty of any hostility. There are people who wont break with any amount of talk. An American can promise a better prison facility, and can show pictures of the people who died through a tragedy that he caused, still no compliance can be a result for there are some terrorists who are faithful to their cause. In that case is it right to keep uselessly talking to a man withholding such importing information, or is it right to use force to get a was. Who draws the line which says no threatening can be done for a terrorists needs their rights?
Through this media source the author is trying to convey that we are so often kept in the dark on out own policies. men who interrogate by breaking the law can just leave when they are done to avoid facing charges and most of the times charges are dismissed. Yet one can help but wonder, the people who sit to question terrorists or suspected terrorists are doing so because they made an oath to preserve and protect the country and are just trying to prevent people from getting hurt. But what the author hasn't taken into consideration, talking about the wrong done to people in prison is that they have also taken the oath to prserve and protect the constitution and law of their countries. though people want to take action against these torturers, i cant help but wonder, what if that man has taken 200 people hostage? should he be protected by the same law he has no respect for? As Jack Bauer says in 24, "If you don't tell me what I want to know, then it'll just be a question of how much you want it to hurt." Here is a man who who fought only to protect his coutry. is it right to act the say he did?
There is a fine line between terrorism and heroism, but where one line ends and the other begins, is a mystery even this author is unable to answer.
For an American affected by 9/11 and an Indian affected in 26/11 any amount of pain inflicted on a terrorist could be acceptable, but for a mother whose son used terrorism as means to earn money and support her illness, even a pin prick would be too much. There are two sides to all stories, and as seen in Khuda ke liye, often those accused are not the ones guilty of any hostility. There are people who wont break with any amount of talk. An American can promise a better prison facility, and can show pictures of the people who died through a tragedy that he caused, still no compliance can be a result for there are some terrorists who are faithful to their cause. In that case is it right to keep uselessly talking to a man withholding such importing information, or is it right to use force to get a was. Who draws the line which says no threatening can be done for a terrorists needs their rights?
Through this media source the author is trying to convey that we are so often kept in the dark on out own policies. men who interrogate by breaking the law can just leave when they are done to avoid facing charges and most of the times charges are dismissed. Yet one can help but wonder, the people who sit to question terrorists or suspected terrorists are doing so because they made an oath to preserve and protect the country and are just trying to prevent people from getting hurt. But what the author hasn't taken into consideration, talking about the wrong done to people in prison is that they have also taken the oath to prserve and protect the constitution and law of their countries. though people want to take action against these torturers, i cant help but wonder, what if that man has taken 200 people hostage? should he be protected by the same law he has no respect for? As Jack Bauer says in 24, "If you don't tell me what I want to know, then it'll just be a question of how much you want it to hurt." Here is a man who who fought only to protect his coutry. is it right to act the say he did?
There is a fine line between terrorism and heroism, but where one line ends and the other begins, is a mystery even this author is unable to answer.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Sigmund Freud- 29th july.
The Electra complex is the psychoanalytic theory that a female's psychosexual development involves a sexual attachment to her father, and is analogous to a boy's attachment to his mother that forms the basis of the Oedipus complex. It was a theory coined by Sigmund Freud a well known pschoanalysis scholar. This complex comes with an attachment for the parent of the opposite sex, and a bias towards them. I do not believe this theory to be true. i believe that the love one feels for their parent is true love. it is the only love free from lust, and greed. I may not be a great psychologist, but i do believe that a child loves his parents in propartion to what they mean to them. i will not be naive and say it is exual, for love for one parent could easily exceed love for the other, but it is not love of a sexual nature, and hence, a girl will not love her father more becasuse she is attracted to him. Psychology is a systematic study field of mental functions and behavior. Though we act in many ways that dont always seem to be righteous, i feel that this theory is putting a perverse label on the love a child has for the people who brought her or him into this world. It would be wrong to even think that way, because it makes the idea of love become a perpetual physical attraction. If an innocent 5 year old loves his parents, it can not be blamed on sexual desire. Even at the age of 15, this loves nature dos not change. Infact it is in these years that teenagers grow apart from their parents because they become closer to their friends. Though i do have in interest in psychology and am in awe of Freud for many of his theories like his dream interpretation, and his research in neaurobehavior, i feel that this one thoery is baseless.
Animal vs Human- 24th july
Animals apparently, so we are told, are not as sophisticated as humans. they do not possess the advancement of a human brain and lack the ability to reason out things. i do not believe this in the slightest of ways. Animals are out in a wild where there prime motive is survival. If humans were set in the wild the way animals are, then they too would act on instinct as once the red-indians and cave men did. Man now says Cave men werent advanced and hence acted with no reason. i do not believe this to be true. when you are out in the wild, money doesnt mean power, so one must act in the present. The truth is that the simple fact that animals act according to their instinct and stay alert is their ability to reason out that it is requried. anials are conditioned the way humans are. For a dog who has been beaten why all men who have come close to her, it is Deductive reasoning to be afraid of all men. It isnt instinct in that case. A bear could see a human and believe he is there to harm and torture his child, and so acts ina ccordance and saves his child fromt he torture by killing it. It might not be the same way a human reasons out his actions, but it is reasoning out nevertheless. Animals too have language and a way to communicate with eachother; dogs bark, cows moo, frogs "ribbet". Humans have separated themselves from animals when they have evolved from apes themselves. what makes us more civilized; the fact that our jungles are made of concrete unlike the animals'? What makes us more civilived; when we kill over money and love and anger? what is it that makes us so special? why have we places ourselves on a pedistal closest to god? How can we say we are the closest to him when we were banished from paradise by him? when i sit to think about it, what separates us from "animals" is nothing else but our ego!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
