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!
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Science 22nd July
The body is complex and can not ever be completely studied. Even if scientists rip it apart and study every inch of our organs and tissues, they will not know everything there is to know about the body. They will not know how everything works. through it all even today the genetic make up of a human can not be determined. The human genome has thousands f genes yet there is scope for more. Humans use only a small percentage of their brain. DOctors do not know why. Life goes out of us in an instant. what is it that makes us alive. And most importantly going beyond biology, understanding human emotions, understanding human behavior. Humans can be studied but they can never be completely understood. They can be experimented on but no situation can ever be the same, and hence no generalization can be specific enough and all humans can not be studied fully. Human emotions are hormonal changes stimulated by our pituitary glands and they are open to change and alot depends from person to person. while a death can cause one perosn to weep it can put another i shock and disbelief leaving them blank. Movies have the powers to stir some emotions, yet leave many unaffected. Why is it that people have different reactions to the same situations? The questions on emotional functioning can not be answered clearly, showing the limit of the study of humans. there is biology, psychology, anthropology, chemisty, physics, and anatomology, yet all put together still can not define the human as sophisticated as this species is.
Being humans ourselves, we as a race have faild to understand ourselves. We have failed to undetstand what makes us tick and what calms us down. Yes we know that our nervous system does, but howdoes a stimulus affect us all differently? We take life so lightly, without even understanding it. We claim we are the most advanced of all specimens, but we still dont understand ourselves; so what gives us this right?
Being humans ourselves, we as a race have faild to understand ourselves. We have failed to undetstand what makes us tick and what calms us down. Yes we know that our nervous system does, but howdoes a stimulus affect us all differently? We take life so lightly, without even understanding it. We claim we are the most advanced of all specimens, but we still dont understand ourselves; so what gives us this right?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
pablo neruda- If u forget me.
the lines "Well, now,
if little by little you stop loving me
I shall stop loving you little by little.
If suddenly
you forget me
do not look for me,
for I shall already have forgotten you."
What is it in the human psyche that allows him to hold a place so high for ego? Why is it that human emotions allow room for such a vile feeling? love so pure can be diminished with such ease. Neruda claims that if he is loved less, he too will love less. Is this natural or is it being selfish. Is it hormonal to love less when one receives less attention. if one feels that things arent the same will they fight or surrender? if they will surrender then the world wont know true love. love is supposed to be the hardest fight of all, if it could be so shallow that it needs constant pushing,then is it truly love? Our judgment is so clouded by emotion that we have lost our ability to love unconditionally. Our ego has gotten so large that love is no longer that free string-less feeling it once was. Emotion not only clouds reason, but also our actions when it comes to love. Neruda's poem not only teaches me about love but it also teaches about ego. What touches me about this poem is the fact that with such simple words Neruda is able to make me think and feel so guilty for being a human because fact is that we all have ego, and it probably will come in our way before love. My friend once told me that no matter how much you care for a person ego wont let you forgive and forget a betrayal. no matter what the person has done for you, at the end of the day especially for a person with confidence like me will not be able to love the same. If a person leaves me and moves on, i wont wait for them. Truth is very few might, and even if they do, nothing will stay the same. We Percieve things as different and no matter what we do, we wont love the same again. Neruda uses language with such simplicity. He manages to sway the emotions of the readers and make us realize that our emotions are so open to swaying and how our actions can so easily be altered by emotional distress. Humans hold a position too high for ego, and that is why most will not even agree to the fact that this is the truth.
if little by little you stop loving me
I shall stop loving you little by little.
If suddenly
you forget me
do not look for me,
for I shall already have forgotten you."
What is it in the human psyche that allows him to hold a place so high for ego? Why is it that human emotions allow room for such a vile feeling? love so pure can be diminished with such ease. Neruda claims that if he is loved less, he too will love less. Is this natural or is it being selfish. Is it hormonal to love less when one receives less attention. if one feels that things arent the same will they fight or surrender? if they will surrender then the world wont know true love. love is supposed to be the hardest fight of all, if it could be so shallow that it needs constant pushing,then is it truly love? Our judgment is so clouded by emotion that we have lost our ability to love unconditionally. Our ego has gotten so large that love is no longer that free string-less feeling it once was. Emotion not only clouds reason, but also our actions when it comes to love. Neruda's poem not only teaches me about love but it also teaches about ego. What touches me about this poem is the fact that with such simple words Neruda is able to make me think and feel so guilty for being a human because fact is that we all have ego, and it probably will come in our way before love. My friend once told me that no matter how much you care for a person ego wont let you forgive and forget a betrayal. no matter what the person has done for you, at the end of the day especially for a person with confidence like me will not be able to love the same. If a person leaves me and moves on, i wont wait for them. Truth is very few might, and even if they do, nothing will stay the same. We Percieve things as different and no matter what we do, we wont love the same again. Neruda uses language with such simplicity. He manages to sway the emotions of the readers and make us realize that our emotions are so open to swaying and how our actions can so easily be altered by emotional distress. Humans hold a position too high for ego, and that is why most will not even agree to the fact that this is the truth.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
always do what you know to be best even if it is the most difficult thing to do.”
Source: A quote by the mother, “always do what you know to be best even if it is the most difficult thing to do.”
It is not easy to always do the right thing. It comes with tension, pressure and fear. This set of emotions can make it hard for a person to listen to reason, and act in for the right. Trusting our reason and not our fear will always take us in the right direction. When we perceive an act that seems ethically wrong, it is our civic duty to put an end to it.
Doing the right thing and doing the easy thing are not always the same. Turning a blind eye to bribery could be as bad as accepting it yourself. Though it might be easier to let go of it, it is wrong. At the airport I once observed a man pay the policeman at customs a bunch of thousand rupee notes and walking out without a check. Being 17 I couldn’t do much then, but after witnessing 26/11 I cant help but wonder how wrong I was. Those could have been bags with artillery. The police turned a blind eye to the fisher-people who came to inform them about the boatloads of mysterious men to colaba. Fighting off reason, laziness caused 26/11 a disaster that could have been avoided or at least kept under control.
Sometimes the right thing might be giving up something that means most to you but one must look at the reason behind every action and not the emotional pleasure. Some believe that the reason is that actions bring emotional pleasure but those acts do not bring abut positive results in the long run. After the Indians saw what British rule in India was doing to its economy, there was a need to revolt. The easier way out would have been to ignore the fact that matters were going from bad to worse and that the generations to come would probably be slaves, and to enjoy the freedoms the people had at that time. If that had been done, then India nor the world would be the way it was today. Revolutionaries like Mangal Pandey saw the need to fix this mess, and gave up the most precious thing to any person, their lives. They did the right thing to make our lives simpler. It mustn’t have been easy, but it is because of the sacrifice of people like that, that today an Indian can be the boss of a British man in a company.
What the mother is propagating through this quote is something that everyone should follow. Only if we strive to do the right thing, will the world be a better place. Good things never come easy and that is why they come with a sense of pride. Even the small things do matter. We must always remain unaffected by the fear that comes with fighting evil and wrong. As the mother also said, “it is only when we are not disturbed that we can always do the right thing at the right time in the right way.”
It is not easy to always do the right thing. It comes with tension, pressure and fear. This set of emotions can make it hard for a person to listen to reason, and act in for the right. Trusting our reason and not our fear will always take us in the right direction. When we perceive an act that seems ethically wrong, it is our civic duty to put an end to it.
Doing the right thing and doing the easy thing are not always the same. Turning a blind eye to bribery could be as bad as accepting it yourself. Though it might be easier to let go of it, it is wrong. At the airport I once observed a man pay the policeman at customs a bunch of thousand rupee notes and walking out without a check. Being 17 I couldn’t do much then, but after witnessing 26/11 I cant help but wonder how wrong I was. Those could have been bags with artillery. The police turned a blind eye to the fisher-people who came to inform them about the boatloads of mysterious men to colaba. Fighting off reason, laziness caused 26/11 a disaster that could have been avoided or at least kept under control.
Sometimes the right thing might be giving up something that means most to you but one must look at the reason behind every action and not the emotional pleasure. Some believe that the reason is that actions bring emotional pleasure but those acts do not bring abut positive results in the long run. After the Indians saw what British rule in India was doing to its economy, there was a need to revolt. The easier way out would have been to ignore the fact that matters were going from bad to worse and that the generations to come would probably be slaves, and to enjoy the freedoms the people had at that time. If that had been done, then India nor the world would be the way it was today. Revolutionaries like Mangal Pandey saw the need to fix this mess, and gave up the most precious thing to any person, their lives. They did the right thing to make our lives simpler. It mustn’t have been easy, but it is because of the sacrifice of people like that, that today an Indian can be the boss of a British man in a company.
What the mother is propagating through this quote is something that everyone should follow. Only if we strive to do the right thing, will the world be a better place. Good things never come easy and that is why they come with a sense of pride. Even the small things do matter. We must always remain unaffected by the fear that comes with fighting evil and wrong. As the mother also said, “it is only when we are not disturbed that we can always do the right thing at the right time in the right way.”
Monday, July 20, 2009
forever young.
“Hoping for the best but expecting the worst.” –youth group in the song forever young.
The line that appealed most to me was, “hoping for the best but expecting the worst.” It has been like my motto ever since I first heard this song. Whenever in anticipation of something to come, I always keep this in mind. It is like a consolation and warning to prevent the flow of too much emotion. It is a logical way of maintaining a mind set that will prepare a person to face the bad times, without making them too much of pessimists. Believing in what this line is trying to teach us makes us realists. There is a need for reason to keep a check on emotion and by ‘hoping for the best but expecting the worst, we make ourselves do just that.
I perceive life to be a mixture of good and bad things. I believe that every event has at least two possible outcomes, one good and one bad. A person must always live hoping and keeping faith that the best outcome will prevail. Yet the person must not sit back waiting for good things to come to them. They must prepare for the worst, make an effort to get the best and only then it will come to them. Though I am a firm believer that one must strive to get what one wants, there are things out of our control and in those cases this line should be one’s only rule.
26/11 is considered to be one of the most tragic events of contemporary Indian history. Information of unlicensed boats docking at Cuffe parade was given to the police. Threats had been made in past as well. The police should have heightened security and stayed prepared hoping that guns wouldn’t need to be fired. Instead, sitting back expecting the best, few terrorists were able to take hotels, a building and a hospital hostage for 3 days. If man prepared for the worst then history would be written differently. Scientifically, weather can be foretold tornadoes and storms can not be prevented, but instead of just giving warnings, preparations must be made to prevent extensive damage. This way the casualties and the destruction could be kept to a minimum.
Expecting the worst isn’t being negative but being realistic. One might argue that it pulls the emotions down, but taking the few cases when the preparations came to no use and the best outcome prevailed would be confirmation bias. Its always better to be safe than sorry as people say.
The line that appealed most to me was, “hoping for the best but expecting the worst.” It has been like my motto ever since I first heard this song. Whenever in anticipation of something to come, I always keep this in mind. It is like a consolation and warning to prevent the flow of too much emotion. It is a logical way of maintaining a mind set that will prepare a person to face the bad times, without making them too much of pessimists. Believing in what this line is trying to teach us makes us realists. There is a need for reason to keep a check on emotion and by ‘hoping for the best but expecting the worst, we make ourselves do just that.
I perceive life to be a mixture of good and bad things. I believe that every event has at least two possible outcomes, one good and one bad. A person must always live hoping and keeping faith that the best outcome will prevail. Yet the person must not sit back waiting for good things to come to them. They must prepare for the worst, make an effort to get the best and only then it will come to them. Though I am a firm believer that one must strive to get what one wants, there are things out of our control and in those cases this line should be one’s only rule.
26/11 is considered to be one of the most tragic events of contemporary Indian history. Information of unlicensed boats docking at Cuffe parade was given to the police. Threats had been made in past as well. The police should have heightened security and stayed prepared hoping that guns wouldn’t need to be fired. Instead, sitting back expecting the best, few terrorists were able to take hotels, a building and a hospital hostage for 3 days. If man prepared for the worst then history would be written differently. Scientifically, weather can be foretold tornadoes and storms can not be prevented, but instead of just giving warnings, preparations must be made to prevent extensive damage. This way the casualties and the destruction could be kept to a minimum.
Expecting the worst isn’t being negative but being realistic. One might argue that it pulls the emotions down, but taking the few cases when the preparations came to no use and the best outcome prevailed would be confirmation bias. Its always better to be safe than sorry as people say.
Michael Jackson.
Source: amul butter ad on Michael Jackson.
The ad reads black or white, all are fans, followed by Amul butter, you just can’t beat it. Black or white is one of Michael’s songs, which is anti racism. Beat it is another song by him where he sings about overcoming any obstacle that comes in your way. The motive being to always “beat it”. The ad on the Amul billboard is a response to the death of this great legend, but what the ad means is different from what the songs originally were meant to mean. The black and white reference was to show that all races love the butter and the beat it reference was to show that Amul is the best nothing can “beat it”. Yet there is a second meaning, which is that Blacks and whites were all fans of Jackson, but no one can beat or cheat death.
This billboard shows how everything is open to our perception’s interpretation. While I asked my mother her view on the board she said that it was a tribute to him and they used random lyrics to promote the selling of Amul, yet I believe the additional reason was praising Jackson and paying respects to him. Some might even say the you cant beat it was mocking his lyrics because he preached beat it, but he himself couldn’t beat death. The idea behind this board is to entertain the masses and to promote Amul so that more people purchase it. All ads are designed to attract the eye of the observer and tempt him into buying the certain product. Most ads are false. The shampoos that promise no hair fall, and the creams that promise the disappearance of all acne. Ads are all meant to please the eye and gain revenue for the company responsible for the ad.
Companies attempt to hit the emotion of the viewers. They use many techniques by making their ads sentimental and touching, some use celebrities to promote their product, some use comedy, and some use cartoons. The motive is to win emotion in such a manner that logic and reason play a backseat in the choosing of what products to buy. People spend thousands of rupees on belts that promise to build abs, but none of that ever truly happens. It is just the way to sell a product.
The language used in the ads is very important. They must be to the point. The body language, the acting, the punch line all must be designed to captivate the audience. It shouldn’t be too long, yet never too short. The Amul ad hits the emotions of all his fans, and manages to make them smile and miss him, yet reminding them that maul is entertaining and probably a good butter. Amul ads have always been funny and they actually have managed to make me enjoy reading them and eating the butter that cant be “beat”.
The ad reads black or white, all are fans, followed by Amul butter, you just can’t beat it. Black or white is one of Michael’s songs, which is anti racism. Beat it is another song by him where he sings about overcoming any obstacle that comes in your way. The motive being to always “beat it”. The ad on the Amul billboard is a response to the death of this great legend, but what the ad means is different from what the songs originally were meant to mean. The black and white reference was to show that all races love the butter and the beat it reference was to show that Amul is the best nothing can “beat it”. Yet there is a second meaning, which is that Blacks and whites were all fans of Jackson, but no one can beat or cheat death.
This billboard shows how everything is open to our perception’s interpretation. While I asked my mother her view on the board she said that it was a tribute to him and they used random lyrics to promote the selling of Amul, yet I believe the additional reason was praising Jackson and paying respects to him. Some might even say the you cant beat it was mocking his lyrics because he preached beat it, but he himself couldn’t beat death. The idea behind this board is to entertain the masses and to promote Amul so that more people purchase it. All ads are designed to attract the eye of the observer and tempt him into buying the certain product. Most ads are false. The shampoos that promise no hair fall, and the creams that promise the disappearance of all acne. Ads are all meant to please the eye and gain revenue for the company responsible for the ad.
Companies attempt to hit the emotion of the viewers. They use many techniques by making their ads sentimental and touching, some use celebrities to promote their product, some use comedy, and some use cartoons. The motive is to win emotion in such a manner that logic and reason play a backseat in the choosing of what products to buy. People spend thousands of rupees on belts that promise to build abs, but none of that ever truly happens. It is just the way to sell a product.
The language used in the ads is very important. They must be to the point. The body language, the acting, the punch line all must be designed to captivate the audience. It shouldn’t be too long, yet never too short. The Amul ad hits the emotions of all his fans, and manages to make them smile and miss him, yet reminding them that maul is entertaining and probably a good butter. Amul ads have always been funny and they actually have managed to make me enjoy reading them and eating the butter that cant be “beat”.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Chapter 4 of the little prince
Chapter number 4 reflection.
Of all the chapters in the book this one appealed most to me. It is laden with truth, so innocently pure, that one cant help but see the meaning of this. A book that might seem funny to a child is actually meaningful to me. From all the chapters this I perceived to be the best.
The narrator of the book talks about the planet the little prince comes from. It is a small asteroid; seen only once by a Turkish astronomer through a telescope. When the man introduced his discovery to the IAC, they rejected his knowledge. But when he did the same presentation in European clothes, his ideas were accepted and he became world-renowned. The narrator points out that grown-ups are like that. This part of the chapter is what really interested me. While a child would read this as something funny that the author randomly put in, I see it as a mockery of human mentality. A subtle still obvious criticism of racism; and the worst part is that we see this everywhere we go. Doctors are taken more seriously is they are not from the Arab origin. The most common place we do see this is at the airport. A man with a Muslim surname will be taken in for questioning. A person with a long beard will be looked at with fear, while a Muslim man in a suit will not, or will probably get one look. If an Arab man in Arab clothes stands next to an Arab man in a reputed suit, all eyes will be on the man in Arab clothes. This is our mentality. It is what we have let ourselves become. Emotion has taken over our ability to reason out, and we perceive all Arab men to be inferior and give them no attention. We speak condescendingly to them, and make them rise in anger. We feel the emotional loss when they act; but do we question why they act? Yes some Arab people act with violence, but so do some Hindus and some Jews and Christians.
The world’s population seems to be turning so narrow minded. It I so common that an Author actually writes about it in a children’s book. This is how inhumane we have become that the few smart people will talk straight to the children who can still be trusted with some hope. The so-called leading youth and the often-called old and wise generations of our times seem to think they are always right. The way they go about things, the generalizations they have made. According to me, forget the same mental level, it doesn’t even seem likely that were all living on the same planet anymore. The ways people think are so twisted that I actually loathe the little prince who has the luck to go back to a planet so far away from this one. A planet that could only be seen by this wretched Earth once.
The narrator goes on to talk about grown-up responses to a child making a new friend. It is usually about his age and his financial backing. Parents ask their kinds things about a child’s parents’ professions. They often even ask which caste the boy belongs to. It is never really about the personality of the boy, it is about his credentials. It is like an interview parents take to approve of their children’s friends.
When in comes to houses, a house is no longer judged by what is in it. It is priced. It is labeled to be top of the line, or as good as a slum. Everything theses days has a label. A label rich, a label Muslim, a label unworthy, a label terrorist! Enough! How long can we be so oblivious to the harm we are inflicting upon none other than ourselves. The narrator says that it mustn’t be held against them, but it should. People must be held accountable for the sins they commit. What man has been doing, this categorizing, it is nothing but a sin. Children see no colour, they see no thickness of wallets and brands of clothes. They see heart, they see the truth.
Most adults wouldn’t even understand the purpose of the narrator’s book. they would see it as just an entertaining story for children; but its more, its way more than that. It is to remind him, everyday of the lesson and the symbol of the little prince. The little prince was freedom. Freedom from the pain and suffering, freedom from the oblivion and mob mentality. The narrator writes his story to remind himself of what he never wants to become like. He writes it to remind him of what the grown-ups did to him when he wanted to paint. He writes to share his story with us, hoping that some will see what he is trying so hard to say.
Man has reached the day where he sees everything in black or white. It is about the money, it is about the safety. There is no middle line; a line of compromise with humanity. We have denatured into rocks and stones, with hard hearts. We call ourselves humans, but it seems that with everyday, we lose every last ounce of humanity left within us. man says evolution is still occurring, but according to me, we seem t be going backward. We need to find the grey. The middle between the black and white. We need to find our humanity and hind a way to go soft again.
The little prince is one woman’s cry to the hardening of mankind. It is her own lesson and a lesson for others. Living on Earth the narrator could not see the sheep through the holes, because with the sickness of the Earth, the spread to even the purist sanest minds is inevitable. This needs to stop before its too late, and this is what the author is trying to do, and this is what I learnt form this one chapter. What have we become; are we really proud to call our selves the most evolved superior living species?
Of all the chapters in the book this one appealed most to me. It is laden with truth, so innocently pure, that one cant help but see the meaning of this. A book that might seem funny to a child is actually meaningful to me. From all the chapters this I perceived to be the best.
The narrator of the book talks about the planet the little prince comes from. It is a small asteroid; seen only once by a Turkish astronomer through a telescope. When the man introduced his discovery to the IAC, they rejected his knowledge. But when he did the same presentation in European clothes, his ideas were accepted and he became world-renowned. The narrator points out that grown-ups are like that. This part of the chapter is what really interested me. While a child would read this as something funny that the author randomly put in, I see it as a mockery of human mentality. A subtle still obvious criticism of racism; and the worst part is that we see this everywhere we go. Doctors are taken more seriously is they are not from the Arab origin. The most common place we do see this is at the airport. A man with a Muslim surname will be taken in for questioning. A person with a long beard will be looked at with fear, while a Muslim man in a suit will not, or will probably get one look. If an Arab man in Arab clothes stands next to an Arab man in a reputed suit, all eyes will be on the man in Arab clothes. This is our mentality. It is what we have let ourselves become. Emotion has taken over our ability to reason out, and we perceive all Arab men to be inferior and give them no attention. We speak condescendingly to them, and make them rise in anger. We feel the emotional loss when they act; but do we question why they act? Yes some Arab people act with violence, but so do some Hindus and some Jews and Christians.
The world’s population seems to be turning so narrow minded. It I so common that an Author actually writes about it in a children’s book. This is how inhumane we have become that the few smart people will talk straight to the children who can still be trusted with some hope. The so-called leading youth and the often-called old and wise generations of our times seem to think they are always right. The way they go about things, the generalizations they have made. According to me, forget the same mental level, it doesn’t even seem likely that were all living on the same planet anymore. The ways people think are so twisted that I actually loathe the little prince who has the luck to go back to a planet so far away from this one. A planet that could only be seen by this wretched Earth once.
The narrator goes on to talk about grown-up responses to a child making a new friend. It is usually about his age and his financial backing. Parents ask their kinds things about a child’s parents’ professions. They often even ask which caste the boy belongs to. It is never really about the personality of the boy, it is about his credentials. It is like an interview parents take to approve of their children’s friends.
When in comes to houses, a house is no longer judged by what is in it. It is priced. It is labeled to be top of the line, or as good as a slum. Everything theses days has a label. A label rich, a label Muslim, a label unworthy, a label terrorist! Enough! How long can we be so oblivious to the harm we are inflicting upon none other than ourselves. The narrator says that it mustn’t be held against them, but it should. People must be held accountable for the sins they commit. What man has been doing, this categorizing, it is nothing but a sin. Children see no colour, they see no thickness of wallets and brands of clothes. They see heart, they see the truth.
Most adults wouldn’t even understand the purpose of the narrator’s book. they would see it as just an entertaining story for children; but its more, its way more than that. It is to remind him, everyday of the lesson and the symbol of the little prince. The little prince was freedom. Freedom from the pain and suffering, freedom from the oblivion and mob mentality. The narrator writes his story to remind himself of what he never wants to become like. He writes it to remind him of what the grown-ups did to him when he wanted to paint. He writes to share his story with us, hoping that some will see what he is trying so hard to say.
Man has reached the day where he sees everything in black or white. It is about the money, it is about the safety. There is no middle line; a line of compromise with humanity. We have denatured into rocks and stones, with hard hearts. We call ourselves humans, but it seems that with everyday, we lose every last ounce of humanity left within us. man says evolution is still occurring, but according to me, we seem t be going backward. We need to find the grey. The middle between the black and white. We need to find our humanity and hind a way to go soft again.
The little prince is one woman’s cry to the hardening of mankind. It is her own lesson and a lesson for others. Living on Earth the narrator could not see the sheep through the holes, because with the sickness of the Earth, the spread to even the purist sanest minds is inevitable. This needs to stop before its too late, and this is what the author is trying to do, and this is what I learnt form this one chapter. What have we become; are we really proud to call our selves the most evolved superior living species?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Appy Fizz add 22nd april.
Today for the first time i saw the new Appy Fizz add. In this add the new drink Grappo fizz cracks a joke, and when Appy fizz feeling left out and bad tries cracking one of his own, no body laughs and all his original friends leave the room along with Grappo Fizz. This add made me really sad. I felt bad for Appy Fizz. Even though Appy is just an inanimate object, i could see the jealousy and the neglect that Apy felt. It is only natural.
Appy's portayed feelings managed to create a feeling of apathy in me. We see this happen so often. If we aren't the victims, we are party to the mockery, or we are the reason for the sadness of the other. This emotional truame is bad for everyone because it creates feelings of hate. It maes a person hate the thing that made them lose the attention or stay away from people to prevent themselves from gettign hurt. this fallicious reasoning leads to an actions that could harm others, and emotional language and very often it strngthens the feelings. If somethign further pushes down the ego of a person, they become even more emotional.
People are sensitive and we all must make an effort to perevnt this happening. I'm a true believer of the thought that 'what goes around comes around' and when it does indeed inevitably come around, it will come with regret and an accelerated amount of pain. Such a silly add managed to arrouse my emotions and got me thinking. The power of language is very well seen by this fact. I perceived this from a simple add and I got thinking in such depth making my belief even stronger. is there really a reason as to why we let another person feel low? it it really needed to push one person down to make another person feel special?
Appy's portayed feelings managed to create a feeling of apathy in me. We see this happen so often. If we aren't the victims, we are party to the mockery, or we are the reason for the sadness of the other. This emotional truame is bad for everyone because it creates feelings of hate. It maes a person hate the thing that made them lose the attention or stay away from people to prevent themselves from gettign hurt. this fallicious reasoning leads to an actions that could harm others, and emotional language and very often it strngthens the feelings. If somethign further pushes down the ego of a person, they become even more emotional.
People are sensitive and we all must make an effort to perevnt this happening. I'm a true believer of the thought that 'what goes around comes around' and when it does indeed inevitably come around, it will come with regret and an accelerated amount of pain. Such a silly add managed to arrouse my emotions and got me thinking. The power of language is very well seen by this fact. I perceived this from a simple add and I got thinking in such depth making my belief even stronger. is there really a reason as to why we let another person feel low? it it really needed to push one person down to make another person feel special?
Intuition 20th april.
whose intuitions should you trust? are some people's intuitions better than other?
Well according to me, an intuition is something personal. It comes from within and has no true reason behind it. though people may share the same intuition, when it comes to trust, i am the only person whose intuitions i can trust. while i might believe in the Intuition of others, it is not the same feeling i get from within. though it is true to say that when a person who knows me has an intuitive feeling against a person who might hurt me in the future i will listen and stay wary of them, i know that on hearing another's gut feeling i will reason out a possible explaination of why that feeling might be true before pulling myself away from that person. When it comes to trusting an intuition it depends on who it comes from. it is a person you Intuitively feel is a perceptive person, then trusting them would be smarter that to trust a person who doesnt seem very perceotive. Therefore i feel primary trust can only come from my intuitive feelings.
If something is intuitively obvious must everybody agree about it?
There was a time where it was intuitively obvious that the white man was superior to the Black man. For years Africans were treated as objects that were sold and bought. they were slaves and treated no worthier than posessions. Though this was the case to white men, the black man did not agree. To him he was not destined to live this tyranny-bound life. Though societies have intuitions that they might believe, everybody need not agree with it. Muslims believe they are superior to all man, and that was the same with the Aryan race. While a Muslim or an Aryan can believe this, another person need not.
Is the anythign that everybody agees about?
acoording to me, this is to broad a question. While there a million things people disagree about, there are things that everyone agrees about. these are the factual things of existence. Things like the Earth is round, and the Sun is hot, things that the Earth revolves around the Sun and Matter exists are all things that all people believe in. But there are things that will never be agreed upon. Things like the exsitence of God, the creation of the world, the bad in killing a human, and even the Taliban being bad are htings that every peron will never agree upon.
Could you be wrong to think that something is Intuitively obvious?
While many gut feelings and hoped intuitions did not come out right, it is not wrogn to think that soemhtign is intutively obvious for it might just be. Intuitions are natural. We have them everyday. we wake up thinking if the day will go of well or not. But many a time intuitions can go wrong. trusting a person because it seems obvious that they will never hurt you can often be a mistake for something can happen that makes that person change, and then you might get hurt.
Might you one day come to see that something you tought was intuitively obvious is in fact a deep rooted prejudice?
i had a fixed belief, a feeling that love could never exist free from lust and passion. since me early teens i always believed this, but after hearing a story about my great grand parents and their love, i saw that love can exist. just with one story my preconvceived notion vanished and some sort of hope in the system of love took over me. maybe love truly can exist. If not for all, then atleast for some.
Well according to me, an intuition is something personal. It comes from within and has no true reason behind it. though people may share the same intuition, when it comes to trust, i am the only person whose intuitions i can trust. while i might believe in the Intuition of others, it is not the same feeling i get from within. though it is true to say that when a person who knows me has an intuitive feeling against a person who might hurt me in the future i will listen and stay wary of them, i know that on hearing another's gut feeling i will reason out a possible explaination of why that feeling might be true before pulling myself away from that person. When it comes to trusting an intuition it depends on who it comes from. it is a person you Intuitively feel is a perceptive person, then trusting them would be smarter that to trust a person who doesnt seem very perceotive. Therefore i feel primary trust can only come from my intuitive feelings.
If something is intuitively obvious must everybody agree about it?
There was a time where it was intuitively obvious that the white man was superior to the Black man. For years Africans were treated as objects that were sold and bought. they were slaves and treated no worthier than posessions. Though this was the case to white men, the black man did not agree. To him he was not destined to live this tyranny-bound life. Though societies have intuitions that they might believe, everybody need not agree with it. Muslims believe they are superior to all man, and that was the same with the Aryan race. While a Muslim or an Aryan can believe this, another person need not.
Is the anythign that everybody agees about?
acoording to me, this is to broad a question. While there a million things people disagree about, there are things that everyone agrees about. these are the factual things of existence. Things like the Earth is round, and the Sun is hot, things that the Earth revolves around the Sun and Matter exists are all things that all people believe in. But there are things that will never be agreed upon. Things like the exsitence of God, the creation of the world, the bad in killing a human, and even the Taliban being bad are htings that every peron will never agree upon.
Could you be wrong to think that something is Intuitively obvious?
While many gut feelings and hoped intuitions did not come out right, it is not wrogn to think that soemhtign is intutively obvious for it might just be. Intuitions are natural. We have them everyday. we wake up thinking if the day will go of well or not. But many a time intuitions can go wrong. trusting a person because it seems obvious that they will never hurt you can often be a mistake for something can happen that makes that person change, and then you might get hurt.
Might you one day come to see that something you tought was intuitively obvious is in fact a deep rooted prejudice?
i had a fixed belief, a feeling that love could never exist free from lust and passion. since me early teens i always believed this, but after hearing a story about my great grand parents and their love, i saw that love can exist. just with one story my preconvceived notion vanished and some sort of hope in the system of love took over me. maybe love truly can exist. If not for all, then atleast for some.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Knowledge at work- i dream to dream.
youtube.com britains got talent- Susan Boyle sings i dream to dream.
Probably one of the most judgment shattering videos ever seen, the 47 year old unemployed woman tried her luck at the show Britain's got Talent. On walking in, she was the cause for a sequential laughter amongst the audience. Not a very appealing face, and quite awkward in mannerisms, everyone perceived her to be one of those talentless fools, coming to try their luck to gain humorous attention. Everyone in the audience and the judges themselves didn't take her seriously. Claiming she wanted to be like Elane Page, everybody had a sort of gut feeling that she wouldn't be able to sing a straight note. Even the much cynical Simon spoke to her with an undertone of mockery.
But then, she began to sing "I dream to dream" and with less than 5 seconds, the laughing crowd converted to an audience full of fans, giving her a standing ovation. She managed to prove every single person wrong. She went back home with all three yeses, her head held high, and praises from one as rude and egoistical as Simon Cowell.
The video was a shock to me. her voice a shock all around the globe. Most people have the habit of judging another instantaneously. A label is stuck to their foreheads, and they are branded. people have their "gut feelings" about a person which in reality comes out of physical appearances. they perceive a person without reason, or justifications, and most of the time, the labeled person has no real way out of it no matter what they try doing. We see this so often in our everyday lives. A girl is labeled as a loose person. Even if the stories people have heard are simple rumors, or she is dressed to party for an occasion unknown to the onlooker, she gets this label, and people start talking. By the end of a couple of days, her name is associated with being loose, and she is branded for good. Even if the girl tries to change to improve her reputation, no body really gives her a chance. History shows us times where women weren't taken seriously. Where they were inferior, and no matter what they said, they were taken lightly. It is hard to prove a large group of people wrong when you stand alone, because no body likes being proved wrong.
Susan manages this in less that a minute over a hundred people who laughed at her, were now standing up and cheering her on. the so called "gut feelings" were all proved to be wrong, and she stood there, singing as though it was her last laugh. How often do we label people based on appearances? i myself thought it she was crazy wen i first saw the starting, but after being proved wrong i see how so often i might have been proved wrong, but never gave the labeled party that chance. How would i feel if the tables turned, and it was me against the world? its not right to assume before proving, and as a knower, i now know how terribly wrong it is. We all do it, we do it to our peers, to randoms on the road, to our teachers, and to mere acquaintances; and it is wrong. Susan Boyle managed, but often others don't, and so we must think twice, think a million times before sticking a label on a person who might not deserve it. Can we really reason out before letting ourselves make such risky assumptions?? what happens when the assumptions made, and out "gut-feelings" are on matters of more importance? can we always leave it to chance, and wait to see if by that tiny possibility, we are proved wrong? Susan Boyle is a reminder to all of us around the world, that a book must never be judged by its cover!
Probably one of the most judgment shattering videos ever seen, the 47 year old unemployed woman tried her luck at the show Britain's got Talent. On walking in, she was the cause for a sequential laughter amongst the audience. Not a very appealing face, and quite awkward in mannerisms, everyone perceived her to be one of those talentless fools, coming to try their luck to gain humorous attention. Everyone in the audience and the judges themselves didn't take her seriously. Claiming she wanted to be like Elane Page, everybody had a sort of gut feeling that she wouldn't be able to sing a straight note. Even the much cynical Simon spoke to her with an undertone of mockery.
But then, she began to sing "I dream to dream" and with less than 5 seconds, the laughing crowd converted to an audience full of fans, giving her a standing ovation. She managed to prove every single person wrong. She went back home with all three yeses, her head held high, and praises from one as rude and egoistical as Simon Cowell.
The video was a shock to me. her voice a shock all around the globe. Most people have the habit of judging another instantaneously. A label is stuck to their foreheads, and they are branded. people have their "gut feelings" about a person which in reality comes out of physical appearances. they perceive a person without reason, or justifications, and most of the time, the labeled person has no real way out of it no matter what they try doing. We see this so often in our everyday lives. A girl is labeled as a loose person. Even if the stories people have heard are simple rumors, or she is dressed to party for an occasion unknown to the onlooker, she gets this label, and people start talking. By the end of a couple of days, her name is associated with being loose, and she is branded for good. Even if the girl tries to change to improve her reputation, no body really gives her a chance. History shows us times where women weren't taken seriously. Where they were inferior, and no matter what they said, they were taken lightly. It is hard to prove a large group of people wrong when you stand alone, because no body likes being proved wrong.
Susan manages this in less that a minute over a hundred people who laughed at her, were now standing up and cheering her on. the so called "gut feelings" were all proved to be wrong, and she stood there, singing as though it was her last laugh. How often do we label people based on appearances? i myself thought it she was crazy wen i first saw the starting, but after being proved wrong i see how so often i might have been proved wrong, but never gave the labeled party that chance. How would i feel if the tables turned, and it was me against the world? its not right to assume before proving, and as a knower, i now know how terribly wrong it is. We all do it, we do it to our peers, to randoms on the road, to our teachers, and to mere acquaintances; and it is wrong. Susan Boyle managed, but often others don't, and so we must think twice, think a million times before sticking a label on a person who might not deserve it. Can we really reason out before letting ourselves make such risky assumptions?? what happens when the assumptions made, and out "gut-feelings" are on matters of more importance? can we always leave it to chance, and wait to see if by that tiny possibility, we are proved wrong? Susan Boyle is a reminder to all of us around the world, that a book must never be judged by its cover!
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Equilibrium April 18th.
The third world war came to an end, and with it, came the mark of a new era. The era of Libria, where the survivors head bent on preventing any further aggression, decide to eradicate the disease that plagued all existence, and caused such destruction. With symptoms such as hate, anger rage, and finally the thirst for war, the apocalyptic terror, EMOTION. An era where no form of emotion could be expressed, no marriages, no sex, no art, no pictures, no ornaments were permitted. There were people who were meant to enforce these laws, clerics and council members with an arms all instructed to shoot any person who was guilty of “sense offending”. If needed to be question, they were locked into a room until the questions were complete, and then they were incinerated.
The worst part of the holocaust was that everyday, man was drugged at specific times with an emotion-numbing drug, which ceased man’s ability to feel or sense. This the time during which the movie “equilibrium” is shot. It is a story based on a cleric John Preston missed one of the drug doses he is meant to take, and instead of going to the place “equilibrium” to get a refill of that dose, he just skips it. Due to this, he starts t feel. After 4 years, he feels the loss of his wife, and pain in shooting a dog for existing. Finally he feels bad for killing his own partner for feeling. A partner who told him that dying was something he would gladly do instead of losing out on emotion. The girl he falls in love with it burnt in front of his eyes, and he can not stop it. She tells him that he lives in a world where the strife for the future means giving the future the position to strive for the generations to come.
One of the most controversial lines in the movie is by the vice council of the “father”( the man in charge), who says, “ without restraint, without control, emotion is chaos.” How true is that statement? Is man really incompetent and unable to control his emotions, or can emotion be controlled?
After watching the movie, one cant help but think about the first and second world wars. Were they really a direct result of emotion, and the truth is, they were. Starting from the German ego, to British imperialism, then going on to the second world war which began with the French anger lay out in the Treaty of Versailles, to Hitler’s rage against the Jews, it all indeed was triggered by emotion. Recently there was a rape in north Bombay where a Group of college boys, took advantage of a drunken friend, out of lust and frustration. Emotions out of control leads to destruction of so many lives, so is it really needed? Is it really a disease?
But then again, a life with no emotion, where today and tomorrow are no different. where life is all about preventing future problems, ignoring the lack of joy in life. Yea there is a down side to emotion, but should man realy sacrifice his happiness for the sake of the ruin caused by sadness? Even it that were true is there really any way to subdue emotion?
Today we all need reason to live. It is the thirst to find joy, to find love, to be content. Even when tings are hard, people have motivation to live, even after a woman is raped, she still wants to survive, because the feeling of happiness is so precious and so worth every minute of the pain. Today people take drugs to mimic that ease, but its still not good enough. That pristine state of happiness is so pure, that one moment of clarity is worth all the moments of sadness. We see stories of people surviving long distance relationships, running away from home to be one with the people who bring them happiness, we see the poor still fight to survive when they know that at the end of the day they must return to a slum. Why what motivates them? Well its simple, the hope that someday they will be happy. In equilibrium, the motive was so futuristic, that the people of the present lived a life only serving future generations, whom they knew would be bound to the same terrible fate.
Where is the line drawn between reason and emotion? Is there a possibility to balance them out? Can it ever be found? I don’t know yet, but I do know one thing for certain, life will cease to exist without emotion!
The worst part of the holocaust was that everyday, man was drugged at specific times with an emotion-numbing drug, which ceased man’s ability to feel or sense. This the time during which the movie “equilibrium” is shot. It is a story based on a cleric John Preston missed one of the drug doses he is meant to take, and instead of going to the place “equilibrium” to get a refill of that dose, he just skips it. Due to this, he starts t feel. After 4 years, he feels the loss of his wife, and pain in shooting a dog for existing. Finally he feels bad for killing his own partner for feeling. A partner who told him that dying was something he would gladly do instead of losing out on emotion. The girl he falls in love with it burnt in front of his eyes, and he can not stop it. She tells him that he lives in a world where the strife for the future means giving the future the position to strive for the generations to come.
One of the most controversial lines in the movie is by the vice council of the “father”( the man in charge), who says, “ without restraint, without control, emotion is chaos.” How true is that statement? Is man really incompetent and unable to control his emotions, or can emotion be controlled?
After watching the movie, one cant help but think about the first and second world wars. Were they really a direct result of emotion, and the truth is, they were. Starting from the German ego, to British imperialism, then going on to the second world war which began with the French anger lay out in the Treaty of Versailles, to Hitler’s rage against the Jews, it all indeed was triggered by emotion. Recently there was a rape in north Bombay where a Group of college boys, took advantage of a drunken friend, out of lust and frustration. Emotions out of control leads to destruction of so many lives, so is it really needed? Is it really a disease?
But then again, a life with no emotion, where today and tomorrow are no different. where life is all about preventing future problems, ignoring the lack of joy in life. Yea there is a down side to emotion, but should man realy sacrifice his happiness for the sake of the ruin caused by sadness? Even it that were true is there really any way to subdue emotion?
Today we all need reason to live. It is the thirst to find joy, to find love, to be content. Even when tings are hard, people have motivation to live, even after a woman is raped, she still wants to survive, because the feeling of happiness is so precious and so worth every minute of the pain. Today people take drugs to mimic that ease, but its still not good enough. That pristine state of happiness is so pure, that one moment of clarity is worth all the moments of sadness. We see stories of people surviving long distance relationships, running away from home to be one with the people who bring them happiness, we see the poor still fight to survive when they know that at the end of the day they must return to a slum. Why what motivates them? Well its simple, the hope that someday they will be happy. In equilibrium, the motive was so futuristic, that the people of the present lived a life only serving future generations, whom they knew would be bound to the same terrible fate.
Where is the line drawn between reason and emotion? Is there a possibility to balance them out? Can it ever be found? I don’t know yet, but I do know one thing for certain, life will cease to exist without emotion!
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
15th April (wednesday)
Our emotions lead to a vicious cycle if they are not brought under control. Emotions, not kept under control can often lead to rash decisions, that one might regret on a later date. what starts off as strong emotion, causes the mind to make generalizations which are extremely biased. This further impairs judgment, and one's reasoning abilities might now by fallacious. This makes one's language emotional. often Language becomes hostile, and can touch the emotions of others too, creating a whole new set of emotions. Hence one is finally back to where they started, harbouring Strong and powerful emotions. these emotions have other sources as well.
Taking History to prove this cycle, we go back to the end of the first world war, in the ruins where the victors, France, UK and USA meet with the biggest losing party, Germany int he Hall of Mirrors, Versailles, France. France having most enmity against Germany was all ready to come to some sort of harsh consensus. Clemenceau, the Prime minister of France, was overwhelmed by the strongest of emotions against Germany. He was angry and this anger made him hate all Germans. He blamed all of them for the war, and came down to the generalization that all Germans are guilty of aggression, and hence, decided that all Germans deserved to be punished. If the Germans could create such destruction, it was time now for them to beput into teir place. And so ignoring the prospect of rational thinking, his mood for revenge was consoled by the writing of the treaty of versailles. this was the emotional Language Of Clemenceau through which he punished Germany, and attempted to pull the very soul out of the country. This fallacy of his, created a whole new set of issues, and not only was it not enough to make the Frenchman feel better about the war and the loss of life in his country, but it also angered the Germans to such a great extent, that it paved the way for the rise of Hitler, sowing the seeds for the second world war. Thus, the cycle continues even till today, and we see the scars in the protected trenches, and memorials of all the sodliers.
Man needs emotions guaranteed, but they must be under some restraint, for emotional outrage can lead to events as serious as a world war. The vicious cycle is taking over our ability to reason, and so we must learn to control it, and end this cycle, of error after error.
13th April (monday)
James Lang theory says that emotion arises from a physical change. he claims that if a person physically forces himself to smile, the feeling of joy will actually spark in him. i disagree with this theory. we can not emote out of force. Today we see masked people all around us. Not many people are truly honest about their feelings, and even if they are, the truth comes out only in front of those people one trusts. we mask our emotions, and many a time, even I pretend to be happy when truly i am sad. But putting on that smile, it doesn't make the pain go away. True sadness isn't so weak that it can change with a forced expression. The theory should be the other way around. It is our emotion that portrays our expressions, but even then, sometimes people don't show how they truly feel. When it comes to primary emotions, there always isn't a need for an external factor to shape one's emotions, but even for an emotion like happiness, one can not become happy by plastering a smile across their face. Happiness comes from within, it can not be reasoned out, for sitting to reason out happiness would probably give us so many reasons to frown, that the smile goes away. happiness is something that takes long to feel, and a simple physical action is not the key. Sure smiling may make others feel that you are happy and they perceive truth int hat smile, and they too might smile, but for the person who is smiling, are they truly happy, or is it plastered? Can the key to happiness, something that people take years to find really be that simple?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
emotion and reason April 8th
media source: video on emotion and reason (one showed to us in class.)
Is it our emotion, or reason that drives us? According to the video i saw in TOK class, one should not be the driven by emotion as it leads to unfortunate circumstances. the video used Hitler as an example of being guided by emotion. those who let Hitler touch their emotions, joined the Nazi party, and created havoc and were guilty of genocide. on the other hand, listening to our ability to reason, made the person act rationally and one did not make a fool of one's self. the conclusion was that one shouldn't be driven by emotions, but one should still look after ones emotional needs.
I disagree with this completely. one mustn't get carried away by their emotions, but keeping them on the back seat is incorrect. Life is too short to live in fear. Life is too short to live by the rules. our emotional hunger must be fulfilled for if we don't live a satisfying life, we will die full of regret. before my grandfather went in for surgery, my Grandmother said that if only he hadn't lived a life on the edge, drinking, smoking, eating all sorts of food, gambling and getting so stressed out because of the activities he got himself into, then he wouldn't be there int he first place. in retaliation what my grandfather said really changed how i felt. he said that she was right, he probably wouldn't, but then again she wouldn't be by his side, for she loved him for who he was, and living on the edge was his "thing". he said he wouldn't change his life even on his deathbed, because it was satisfying and at least he was leaving knowing that he had no regrets and did everything he ever wanted to do. That is the kind of life i want to lead. A life where there is no risk, is a life too boring. letting our emotion take a backseat is not being true to ourselves, and is sacrificing our own happiness.
I'm not saying that we mustn't give reason importance, for without reason, fun can go out of control, and then we might regret giving emotion all the power, before we must give reason a fair say. act within the rational limits reason gives us. reason must cooperate with emotion and draw a line that mustn't under any circumstances be crossed, for example doing drugs would cross the line for a teenager. Using Hitler as an example in a way was hitting our emotion. The directors tried making us anti emotion power by telling us that Hitler used that method to brainwash the Germans. But we should not tel ourselves be affected by that for our emotional satisfaction is what we all live for. giving it a back seat is like punishing ourselves for living and dreaming.
The claim i feel is wrong and misguided. it is not rational and people shouldn't follow it. for if the claim were right, then most people would be living a life that they shouldn't lead, and all lives would come to a stand still. we should worry about the possibility for it being true, because do we really want to live a life in chains? should we surrender to emotion and remain bound for life?
Is it our emotion, or reason that drives us? According to the video i saw in TOK class, one should not be the driven by emotion as it leads to unfortunate circumstances. the video used Hitler as an example of being guided by emotion. those who let Hitler touch their emotions, joined the Nazi party, and created havoc and were guilty of genocide. on the other hand, listening to our ability to reason, made the person act rationally and one did not make a fool of one's self. the conclusion was that one shouldn't be driven by emotions, but one should still look after ones emotional needs.
I disagree with this completely. one mustn't get carried away by their emotions, but keeping them on the back seat is incorrect. Life is too short to live in fear. Life is too short to live by the rules. our emotional hunger must be fulfilled for if we don't live a satisfying life, we will die full of regret. before my grandfather went in for surgery, my Grandmother said that if only he hadn't lived a life on the edge, drinking, smoking, eating all sorts of food, gambling and getting so stressed out because of the activities he got himself into, then he wouldn't be there int he first place. in retaliation what my grandfather said really changed how i felt. he said that she was right, he probably wouldn't, but then again she wouldn't be by his side, for she loved him for who he was, and living on the edge was his "thing". he said he wouldn't change his life even on his deathbed, because it was satisfying and at least he was leaving knowing that he had no regrets and did everything he ever wanted to do. That is the kind of life i want to lead. A life where there is no risk, is a life too boring. letting our emotion take a backseat is not being true to ourselves, and is sacrificing our own happiness.
I'm not saying that we mustn't give reason importance, for without reason, fun can go out of control, and then we might regret giving emotion all the power, before we must give reason a fair say. act within the rational limits reason gives us. reason must cooperate with emotion and draw a line that mustn't under any circumstances be crossed, for example doing drugs would cross the line for a teenager. Using Hitler as an example in a way was hitting our emotion. The directors tried making us anti emotion power by telling us that Hitler used that method to brainwash the Germans. But we should not tel ourselves be affected by that for our emotional satisfaction is what we all live for. giving it a back seat is like punishing ourselves for living and dreaming.
The claim i feel is wrong and misguided. it is not rational and people shouldn't follow it. for if the claim were right, then most people would be living a life that they shouldn't lead, and all lives would come to a stand still. we should worry about the possibility for it being true, because do we really want to live a life in chains? should we surrender to emotion and remain bound for life?
6th april(monday)
Are we misguided by our emotions? Do they control our actions and make us fail? is this always the case? Are we but the slaves of our emotions? Our ability to reason, a gift given to prevent us from self destruction caused by our own emotions, is there to help us survive. But what i wonder is, if we listen to reason, and ignore emotions, then will we not be satisfied by life? taking risks, looking beyond, trying things that don't seem reasonable are things that make our lives exciting. Living on he edge is what makes me different from most others. if we only listen to reason, then most of the things we do based on spontaneity will stop, and our lives will get boring. we might lose that thrill we get every morning when we wake up for a new day comes with new possibilities and ways of having fun. i think that listening to reason can make life monotonous. is there a balance to the two? can we satisfy our emotional hunger and live a safe life reasoning out our actions? is it really that simple to satisfy the hunger of our emotions? and what happens when our emotions want what our reason says in impossible? do we just let what we passionately feel for go in order to live on the safe side, or should we agree to bare with the pain for the joy and the happiness it gives us through the pain is still better than not having anything at all. i fear that the struggle for power will never stop, but acording to me, emotions shouldn't take a back seat for we have one life, and if we dont take chances now, we will die with regret.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
25th March (wednesday)
What is it that makes a person's words matter? after our last TOK class i couldn't help but keep thinking about it. Is it the grammar they use, is it the use of formal language, is it the vocabulary, or is it simply tone?
Is the way they speak as important as what they say? According to me, the way is even more important to what is said. IF a person does not sound confidence when they speak, then no body is going to listen to them, and what thy say wont even matter. The heart gets touched by emotion faster than logic. Although it may not be the best thing, it is the truth. our reason takes a backseat to emotion, as people tend to be driven by emotion most of the time. Emotions shape most of our reactions. Man says that the mind is the center of thinking, yet the way we think is mostly determined by our emotions. when a person talks, they should sound confident, as though they believe what they are saying. If the speaker isn't convinced then what incentive does the listener have to believe either? Why bother listening when the person whose idea it is seems to not believe in the idea itself.
I'm not saying that what the person is saying isnt important, because it is, for once a person is persuaded into listening, and has the little belief, they need to find good cause to stay with the belief. This is done by word play. By hitting the emtions, making the listener believe they are doing the right thing. Once the speaker has the others listening, that is when the true test of talent begins. Language is a complicated thing to understand. it takes skill, and understanding to tackle.
The speech Antony gives in Julius Caesar, was simple. It did not use the complicated intellectual superiourity that Brutus' speech did, but was a simple emotional speech. he used confidence to the right extent, and made the listener feel a personal connection to what he was saying. it wasn,t flowery language, it was just emotional. when it comes to public speaking the key behind it is confidence. confidence to stirke the right emotion. IF that is achieved, then the listeners are pupets in the hands of the speaker.
Obama has mastered the key to Speaking. but i feel better than him, one would say that Bush once had. He convinced an entire country that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, just by a play of wrods. he made each american feel like they had done the right thing by electing a man who was going to do such a nobel thing. and for so long, his words, that were not appealing to reason and logic, but were appealing to emotion, were what the americans believed.
yes with time logic and reason proved them wrong, but if he hadnt used confidence, then people would have never elected him or taken him seriously. one must master emotion to master the other ways of knowing.
Is the way they speak as important as what they say? According to me, the way is even more important to what is said. IF a person does not sound confidence when they speak, then no body is going to listen to them, and what thy say wont even matter. The heart gets touched by emotion faster than logic. Although it may not be the best thing, it is the truth. our reason takes a backseat to emotion, as people tend to be driven by emotion most of the time. Emotions shape most of our reactions. Man says that the mind is the center of thinking, yet the way we think is mostly determined by our emotions. when a person talks, they should sound confident, as though they believe what they are saying. If the speaker isn't convinced then what incentive does the listener have to believe either? Why bother listening when the person whose idea it is seems to not believe in the idea itself.
I'm not saying that what the person is saying isnt important, because it is, for once a person is persuaded into listening, and has the little belief, they need to find good cause to stay with the belief. This is done by word play. By hitting the emtions, making the listener believe they are doing the right thing. Once the speaker has the others listening, that is when the true test of talent begins. Language is a complicated thing to understand. it takes skill, and understanding to tackle.
The speech Antony gives in Julius Caesar, was simple. It did not use the complicated intellectual superiourity that Brutus' speech did, but was a simple emotional speech. he used confidence to the right extent, and made the listener feel a personal connection to what he was saying. it wasn,t flowery language, it was just emotional. when it comes to public speaking the key behind it is confidence. confidence to stirke the right emotion. IF that is achieved, then the listeners are pupets in the hands of the speaker.
Obama has mastered the key to Speaking. but i feel better than him, one would say that Bush once had. He convinced an entire country that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, just by a play of wrods. he made each american feel like they had done the right thing by electing a man who was going to do such a nobel thing. and for so long, his words, that were not appealing to reason and logic, but were appealing to emotion, were what the americans believed.
yes with time logic and reason proved them wrong, but if he hadnt used confidence, then people would have never elected him or taken him seriously. one must master emotion to master the other ways of knowing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
