Life is a learning experience and something I have learnt off late is very personal. Through a series of experiences I have learnt that at the end of the day, no matter what the situation, if there is a mistake it is my fault. This learning experience has made me not only sceptic of human nature but also bitter. Although emotional in my outlook I can also reason out this learning through looking at history.
Responsibility is a strong, subjective word. History shows that no one has been ready to accept responsibility. When one examines the causes leading up to the Second World War, the responsibility has been forced upon Hitler; a dead man who cannot speak for himself. Yet the victor countries have not explored their fault in the matter. Who were the ones to punish Germany to an extent that Hitler was pushed to power? Who were the ones to placate Hitler in the beginnings of an obvious crisis? Although Hitler was at fault, the major fault lies with the victor nations who allowed Hitler to continue with his aggressive acts. Yet these countries till date have not accepted their responsibility on the matter. This world history example can be linked to day to day life where people refuse to accept their responsibility on a fault.
Mistakes occur not just due to one cause. There are many causes involved yet the “blame game” does not allow for these various causes to be explored. Even it is a mere mistake of breaking a vase or a grave mistake like a teacher making an error with something that affects the lives of the student, taking responsibility is only taken by the bravest. Instead one aims to blame another. Personally I have been blamed for things that were not entirely my fault. The numbers of times I have been blamed has allowed me to thus learn to accept every mistake to be mine even is not. That helps in lesser fights and those people happy even if it does sacrifice one’s own peace of mind.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS
MOVIE- KNOWLEDGE AT WORK
‘The Pursuit of Happyness’ is a 2006 American biographical drama film, directed by Gabriele Muccino and based on the true story of Chris Gardner. In ‘The Pursuit of Happyness’, Chris Gardner is a smart man who invests in a devise that is now finding trouble to find its place due to emergence of other technologies. Despite his valiant attempts to help keep the family afloat, the mother of his five-year-old son Christopher buckles under the financial pressure and leaves. Chris, now a single father, continues doggedly to pursue a better-paying job using every sales skill he knows. He lands an internship at a prestigious stock brokerage firm with no salary but only with hopes of a promising future. Due to the lack of money, Chris and his son are soon evicted from their apartment and forced to sleep in shelters, bus stations, bathrooms, or wherever they can find refuge for the night. Despite his troubles, Chris continues to be a loving and caring father, using the affection and trust his son has for him as a pushing force. Various knowledge issues can be seen in the film.
The knowledge issue dealt with here is the war between emotion and reason. Various emotions are involved when you are dealing with life. Chris goes through fear due to his financial troubles, jealousy of people with wonderful lives, sadness, love and then finally happiness. The movie in many forms is didactic. It teaches that that all hard work shall seek its rewards but in a theory of knowledge context, of how in the battle of reason and emotion, for happiness, reason should be a driving force. The root cause of all his troubles, the device known as the bone density scanner, was a judgement based on emotion. It was what everyone told him was the ‘in’ thing. Letting his emotions get the best of him, Chris did not reason out the evolution of life. Everything changes with time. Emotion led him to financial distress, reason leads him to happiness.
The way to reach knowledge is also one of the knowledge issues of the film. Experiences play a major role in informing Chris. Initially when emotion over rules him, all the knowledge Chris has is second hand through hearing what other people say. However as reason takes over him, he observes and talks to a stockbroker on the street and thus receives firsthand knowledge. First hand experiences of Chris develop him to be what he is even in his personal life.
‘I met my father for the first time when I was 28 years old. I made up my mind that when I had children, my children were going to know who their father was’.
His experiences with his father taught him to be there for his son. His son too became his source of determination through which Chris gained the strength to continue with the difficult task of living and surviving. The relationship that they share is built on understanding. Chris’ own experiences allow him to pass invaluable knowledge on to his son.
‘Christopher Gardner: Hey... Don't ever let somebody tell you... You can't do something. Not even me. All right?
Christopher: All right.
Christopher Gardner: You got a dream... You gotta protect it. People can't do somethin' themselves, they wanna tell you you can't do it. If you want somethin', go get it. Period.’
Thus one can conclude that the major knowledge at work issue is the struggle to succeed economically and personally. Reason and emotion is a contrast on which the success depends on. However in the movie we can see that money being is shown as the only way to achieve happiness. This is a bias. We see Chris with his son all the time smiling and laughing. Although he is with his son he is saying he is not happy is not ethical as family and love is what leads to happiness. The movie does take for granted the importance of money, cars and a lifestyle for happiness. It does not explore simple living as a happy living. This granted fact leads to the movie have a very fairy tale appearance which at the end of the day is not reality. In the sense, an unhappy man due to his hard work, succeeds and becomes very happy. This is not the truth. Even though there is a clear bias of only money leading to happiness, in the movie we so see the importance of both being shown
The struggle to achieve success economically and personally is the desire of any human alive. However the role of reason and emotion is very important. The movie serves to remind people to think with reason rather than emotions. Something that is very much needed to be understood in our society.
‘The Pursuit of Happyness’ is a 2006 American biographical drama film, directed by Gabriele Muccino and based on the true story of Chris Gardner. In ‘The Pursuit of Happyness’, Chris Gardner is a smart man who invests in a devise that is now finding trouble to find its place due to emergence of other technologies. Despite his valiant attempts to help keep the family afloat, the mother of his five-year-old son Christopher buckles under the financial pressure and leaves. Chris, now a single father, continues doggedly to pursue a better-paying job using every sales skill he knows. He lands an internship at a prestigious stock brokerage firm with no salary but only with hopes of a promising future. Due to the lack of money, Chris and his son are soon evicted from their apartment and forced to sleep in shelters, bus stations, bathrooms, or wherever they can find refuge for the night. Despite his troubles, Chris continues to be a loving and caring father, using the affection and trust his son has for him as a pushing force. Various knowledge issues can be seen in the film.
The knowledge issue dealt with here is the war between emotion and reason. Various emotions are involved when you are dealing with life. Chris goes through fear due to his financial troubles, jealousy of people with wonderful lives, sadness, love and then finally happiness. The movie in many forms is didactic. It teaches that that all hard work shall seek its rewards but in a theory of knowledge context, of how in the battle of reason and emotion, for happiness, reason should be a driving force. The root cause of all his troubles, the device known as the bone density scanner, was a judgement based on emotion. It was what everyone told him was the ‘in’ thing. Letting his emotions get the best of him, Chris did not reason out the evolution of life. Everything changes with time. Emotion led him to financial distress, reason leads him to happiness.
The way to reach knowledge is also one of the knowledge issues of the film. Experiences play a major role in informing Chris. Initially when emotion over rules him, all the knowledge Chris has is second hand through hearing what other people say. However as reason takes over him, he observes and talks to a stockbroker on the street and thus receives firsthand knowledge. First hand experiences of Chris develop him to be what he is even in his personal life.
‘I met my father for the first time when I was 28 years old. I made up my mind that when I had children, my children were going to know who their father was’.
His experiences with his father taught him to be there for his son. His son too became his source of determination through which Chris gained the strength to continue with the difficult task of living and surviving. The relationship that they share is built on understanding. Chris’ own experiences allow him to pass invaluable knowledge on to his son.
‘Christopher Gardner: Hey... Don't ever let somebody tell you... You can't do something. Not even me. All right?
Christopher: All right.
Christopher Gardner: You got a dream... You gotta protect it. People can't do somethin' themselves, they wanna tell you you can't do it. If you want somethin', go get it. Period.’
Thus one can conclude that the major knowledge at work issue is the struggle to succeed economically and personally. Reason and emotion is a contrast on which the success depends on. However in the movie we can see that money being is shown as the only way to achieve happiness. This is a bias. We see Chris with his son all the time smiling and laughing. Although he is with his son he is saying he is not happy is not ethical as family and love is what leads to happiness. The movie does take for granted the importance of money, cars and a lifestyle for happiness. It does not explore simple living as a happy living. This granted fact leads to the movie have a very fairy tale appearance which at the end of the day is not reality. In the sense, an unhappy man due to his hard work, succeeds and becomes very happy. This is not the truth. Even though there is a clear bias of only money leading to happiness, in the movie we so see the importance of both being shown
The struggle to achieve success economically and personally is the desire of any human alive. However the role of reason and emotion is very important. The movie serves to remind people to think with reason rather than emotions. Something that is very much needed to be understood in our society.
ARTICLE
KNOWLEDGE AT WORK
This article is a propaganda article that supports the Hindus. With the use of emotionally laden and manipulating language, the writer tries to push people into supporting an extremist Hindu political party RSS. The knowledge issue of the article is to be didactic of how being unswerving and strong is better. The reason for this didactic issue is to push into the minds of common people of how the other parties are bad because they do not stand firm unlike the RSS.
The article claims that that Dr. Syama Prasaad Mookerjee, who stood steadfast in joining a united Hindu movement and who managed to convert 90% of descendant Indian Muslims into Hindus, was an ideological firm icon. He never wavered from his decisions and wanted action rather than the appeasement that Mahatma Gandhi followed to mollify the Muslims. Blaming Jinnah as the root of many troubles, the article brings into light how Jinnah was following a direct action policy against the Hindus and hence the many massacres of, rapes of and attacks on them. They claim that Jinnah was not even a proper Muslim. He was very Anglican and did not even know how to speak Urdu. This was the man that was leading the Muslims to ‘their’ home. He was never steadfast in what he wanted, neither is BJP or Congress. They are never firm which shows their inefficiency.
The article claims may be justified to a level however after a while one understands that RSS approach is comparable to common zealots. One can understand their cause however the question to be asked is whether a hatred of the Muslims is valid after nearly 60 years of the partition. A new generation has come to India that looks beyond religious boundaries thus how valid is this article. The article is very biased against the Muslims and is obviously pro-Hindus even if it comes down to using violence. The person writing the article has taken for granted that all Muslims are in ways bad and only Hindus can live in India, the sacred holy land. This is not true. The bias shows in everything the writer is writing and thus many of the reasons have not been given any solid justification. The question to why are they patronizing a man Dr. Mookerjee who was in many ways leading a crusade and doing the same thing that they despised the Muslims for, was answered by the reason that he stood firm. That is no reason but a frail attempt to mould the minds of people. With the use of emotionally laden language, a fallacy of reasoning, common people are told about the valour of Dr. Mookerjee and the evils of Muslims in order to propagandise to people the betterment of following a particular party.
These bias run to deep to be eliminated yet one can find some reason in their argument. If Muslims have taken to deep measures to kill Hindus; why should the Hindus not retaliate? Thus in case the knowledge issue is true, one needs to see History and compare the brutality of both the sides during the partition and then perhaps decide. For me however the knowledge issue can in places be reasoned but can never be true. It is true overly fanatic for that.
This article is a propaganda article that supports the Hindus. With the use of emotionally laden and manipulating language, the writer tries to push people into supporting an extremist Hindu political party RSS. The knowledge issue of the article is to be didactic of how being unswerving and strong is better. The reason for this didactic issue is to push into the minds of common people of how the other parties are bad because they do not stand firm unlike the RSS.
The article claims that that Dr. Syama Prasaad Mookerjee, who stood steadfast in joining a united Hindu movement and who managed to convert 90% of descendant Indian Muslims into Hindus, was an ideological firm icon. He never wavered from his decisions and wanted action rather than the appeasement that Mahatma Gandhi followed to mollify the Muslims. Blaming Jinnah as the root of many troubles, the article brings into light how Jinnah was following a direct action policy against the Hindus and hence the many massacres of, rapes of and attacks on them. They claim that Jinnah was not even a proper Muslim. He was very Anglican and did not even know how to speak Urdu. This was the man that was leading the Muslims to ‘their’ home. He was never steadfast in what he wanted, neither is BJP or Congress. They are never firm which shows their inefficiency.
The article claims may be justified to a level however after a while one understands that RSS approach is comparable to common zealots. One can understand their cause however the question to be asked is whether a hatred of the Muslims is valid after nearly 60 years of the partition. A new generation has come to India that looks beyond religious boundaries thus how valid is this article. The article is very biased against the Muslims and is obviously pro-Hindus even if it comes down to using violence. The person writing the article has taken for granted that all Muslims are in ways bad and only Hindus can live in India, the sacred holy land. This is not true. The bias shows in everything the writer is writing and thus many of the reasons have not been given any solid justification. The question to why are they patronizing a man Dr. Mookerjee who was in many ways leading a crusade and doing the same thing that they despised the Muslims for, was answered by the reason that he stood firm. That is no reason but a frail attempt to mould the minds of people. With the use of emotionally laden language, a fallacy of reasoning, common people are told about the valour of Dr. Mookerjee and the evils of Muslims in order to propagandise to people the betterment of following a particular party.
These bias run to deep to be eliminated yet one can find some reason in their argument. If Muslims have taken to deep measures to kill Hindus; why should the Hindus not retaliate? Thus in case the knowledge issue is true, one needs to see History and compare the brutality of both the sides during the partition and then perhaps decide. For me however the knowledge issue can in places be reasoned but can never be true. It is true overly fanatic for that.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Three things I never knew before coming BD Somani
REFLECTION
As a child I never really understood the reality of the things and people that I awed the most. For me science is something that is fascinating however now I realise how limited science really is. In the sense the discovery of science has ultimately led to reality being lost. I was told ever since 6th grade when I started learning momentum that all a object only has momentum if it has a mass and speed. This is however negated now. Photons are small particle like substances that have zero mass yet still have momentum. This is covered by relativity. However this relativity opposes everything that we learn from the 1st to 10th grade. Even Newton’s three laws of motion are proved wrong via relativity.
Another pre misconception I had was that the leader of the Weimer Republic Gustav Stresemann, from the 1923-1929 period, was a very loyal and morally forthright figure. This is because all the history textbooks portray him as to be so. The truth behind him however is that while he portraying to the Western nations that Germany was this weak disarmed nation, in USSR German soldiers were being trained with the most modern equipment available.
Another notion of mine that was broken was the image of how benevolent the Banana Fruit Company of the USA really was. I had watched a documentary on the Banana Massacre and being from the USA point of view, it seemed much more of the fault of the South Americans. This view was broken after reading One Hundred Years of Solitude through which the magnitude of the massacre was shown to me without any propaganda or gain behind it.
As a child I never really understood the reality of the things and people that I awed the most. For me science is something that is fascinating however now I realise how limited science really is. In the sense the discovery of science has ultimately led to reality being lost. I was told ever since 6th grade when I started learning momentum that all a object only has momentum if it has a mass and speed. This is however negated now. Photons are small particle like substances that have zero mass yet still have momentum. This is covered by relativity. However this relativity opposes everything that we learn from the 1st to 10th grade. Even Newton’s three laws of motion are proved wrong via relativity.
Another pre misconception I had was that the leader of the Weimer Republic Gustav Stresemann, from the 1923-1929 period, was a very loyal and morally forthright figure. This is because all the history textbooks portray him as to be so. The truth behind him however is that while he portraying to the Western nations that Germany was this weak disarmed nation, in USSR German soldiers were being trained with the most modern equipment available.
Another notion of mine that was broken was the image of how benevolent the Banana Fruit Company of the USA really was. I had watched a documentary on the Banana Massacre and being from the USA point of view, it seemed much more of the fault of the South Americans. This view was broken after reading One Hundred Years of Solitude through which the magnitude of the massacre was shown to me without any propaganda or gain behind it.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
‘What is history but a fable agreed upon’ - Napoleon
REFLECTION
History is classified as a group of chronological factual events that affected humans. But is it really this? My initial classification is a little ambiguous. Breaking it down, two more questions arise. Is History based on facts? Do these events affect everyone?
Throughout ages history is moulded to suit the people’s need. Not just the common people but also needs of the people in power. A perfect example of how history is moulded is given by a history textbook. If we focus first on just Germany 70 years ago at the time of Hitler we would see a propaganda textbook by Hitler based on glorifying him and negating the Weimer Republic. The history textbooks would undermine all religions and especially Christianity. It would make it seem that the Führer (Hitler) was the God and one should only just worship him. The problems faced by Germany were mostly blamed on the Jews and Christianity. These “factually incorrect” information as a form of propaganda was instilled into every child during the Nazi period. This thus helped in the creation of a militarized society which would both purge the national spirit and promote views to accept the war as a path of struggle so as to achieve freedom from the injustice of the treaty of Versailles and crimes inflicted by Christianity and the November criminals.
1.
‘At the back of Hitler's anti-Semitism there is revealed an actual war of God.
This is so, of course, only for Hitler himself. His party comrades had no notion of
the fantastic perspectives in which their master saw their concrete struggle.’ 1
This history was on the perspective of Nazi. If we would compare it to a textbook in France of Britain we would see a completely opposite appearance of Hitler. This was apparent in a Disney movie we watched in TOK about Reason vs. Emotion. This too was a cartoon filled with propaganda. It showed Hitler as a vile character who uses emotions to get his work done and had no reason in him. On the other hand it showed Britain as the reasoning country and proclaimed how both reason and emotions were in the “driving seat” of their mind. This cartoon had moulded some historical facts to appear as if Britain was completely justified in fighting Germany. Even now after 70 years while Germans desire to forget Hitler and only mention him in their textbooks as a disgusting human being who no one supported. In France and UK, case studies are done on him and what he had done. This is proof of how history is different for a different group of people. What a history book may claim may be a fact but the context it is used in or the way it may be written in, may not be true. That history also may not affect that group of people directly.
Napoleon’s quote ‘What is history but a fable agreed upon’ summarizes what I have to say. Histories are fables. They are stories based facts that have been slightly manipulated to suit their cause. Going back to Hitler’s cause, who is to say that he was not right. Yes he was wrong in his mass murder of the Jews but the Treaty of Versailles was also a really unjust treaty that was based on just completing the aims of the victorious nations and that was mostly to gain as much money possible by crippling Germany. For example the reparations clause stated that Germany was to pay £6600 million however the damage of the war that Germany caused was estimated to just £200 million. How could anyone expect a country that was battered by a war to pay so much? Also how come this fact was not explored in that cartoon? This only proves to show that history is made up of micro-histories. History that suit or agree with one person’s or a small group’s beliefs. Thus what is History? Coming back to my first classification, History is classified as a few chronological factual events that affected a group of people. These various histories are what can be explored to give an ultimate unbiased history. Yet that is an ideal that people in power do not help to achieve.
1http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=KxPTJx01f1JmyykGsJwzmGlJTpZG044qr1LZzNLcVPKJWCQLDRWH!-174482761!1579770234?docId=77520568
History is classified as a group of chronological factual events that affected humans. But is it really this? My initial classification is a little ambiguous. Breaking it down, two more questions arise. Is History based on facts? Do these events affect everyone?
Throughout ages history is moulded to suit the people’s need. Not just the common people but also needs of the people in power. A perfect example of how history is moulded is given by a history textbook. If we focus first on just Germany 70 years ago at the time of Hitler we would see a propaganda textbook by Hitler based on glorifying him and negating the Weimer Republic. The history textbooks would undermine all religions and especially Christianity. It would make it seem that the Führer (Hitler) was the God and one should only just worship him. The problems faced by Germany were mostly blamed on the Jews and Christianity. These “factually incorrect” information as a form of propaganda was instilled into every child during the Nazi period. This thus helped in the creation of a militarized society which would both purge the national spirit and promote views to accept the war as a path of struggle so as to achieve freedom from the injustice of the treaty of Versailles and crimes inflicted by Christianity and the November criminals.
1.
‘At the back of Hitler's anti-Semitism there is revealed an actual war of God.
This is so, of course, only for Hitler himself. His party comrades had no notion of
the fantastic perspectives in which their master saw their concrete struggle.’ 1
This history was on the perspective of Nazi. If we would compare it to a textbook in France of Britain we would see a completely opposite appearance of Hitler. This was apparent in a Disney movie we watched in TOK about Reason vs. Emotion. This too was a cartoon filled with propaganda. It showed Hitler as a vile character who uses emotions to get his work done and had no reason in him. On the other hand it showed Britain as the reasoning country and proclaimed how both reason and emotions were in the “driving seat” of their mind. This cartoon had moulded some historical facts to appear as if Britain was completely justified in fighting Germany. Even now after 70 years while Germans desire to forget Hitler and only mention him in their textbooks as a disgusting human being who no one supported. In France and UK, case studies are done on him and what he had done. This is proof of how history is different for a different group of people. What a history book may claim may be a fact but the context it is used in or the way it may be written in, may not be true. That history also may not affect that group of people directly.
Napoleon’s quote ‘What is history but a fable agreed upon’ summarizes what I have to say. Histories are fables. They are stories based facts that have been slightly manipulated to suit their cause. Going back to Hitler’s cause, who is to say that he was not right. Yes he was wrong in his mass murder of the Jews but the Treaty of Versailles was also a really unjust treaty that was based on just completing the aims of the victorious nations and that was mostly to gain as much money possible by crippling Germany. For example the reparations clause stated that Germany was to pay £6600 million however the damage of the war that Germany caused was estimated to just £200 million. How could anyone expect a country that was battered by a war to pay so much? Also how come this fact was not explored in that cartoon? This only proves to show that history is made up of micro-histories. History that suit or agree with one person’s or a small group’s beliefs. Thus what is History? Coming back to my first classification, History is classified as a few chronological factual events that affected a group of people. These various histories are what can be explored to give an ultimate unbiased history. Yet that is an ideal that people in power do not help to achieve.
1http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=KxPTJx01f1JmyykGsJwzmGlJTpZG044qr1LZzNLcVPKJWCQLDRWH!-174482761!1579770234?docId=77520568
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Religion
Qustions- Reflection
Religion is the way to channel one’s belief. To focus his or her personal faith in a direction one finds most suited. This according to me is the meaning of religion yet to a third party religion can mean something drastically different depending on their biases. Religion to a religious cult fanatic could mean that only his is the “true” religion and to someone more atheists, religion can mean nothing at all. Thus the term religion itself is very subjective but the agreeable norm for me is that religion is the path to address the divine entity that many feel exists.
What makes people believe in religion varies. It mostly depends on the cultures people follow, their parental beliefs and other experiences. Many just follow a religion blindly without questioning it because it has been followed for centuries and deeply rooted in the culture of the community. An example of this would be the religious wars within the boundaries of a religious sector- Christianity. When protestant Christianity flooded Europe, the Catholic Christians started to question their own path to God. They may have paid for elaborate churches but the point was that most priests were only stealing from the peasants. As rationality set in them, they began converting yet this took centuries. The reason for this long time period was simple, it was due to the culture that the entire community had followed for years and did not want to question it. Also due to parental belief, the child is mostly limited just to one view point and thus never gets to explore the ambiguity of some things. Another factor to make one believe in religion are experiences. Experiences can in many ways be life changing. There are many stories where after near death experiences, people resort to God, and to communicate with him chose religion as the path. A much more direct example would be the story of Ned Doughtry whose near-death experience combined with him being shown the future of the world including the 9-11 attacks.1 Other than these even there are smaller reasons like ethics, to explain ambiguous matters and societal pressure however the most important reason out of all mentioned is the need of faith. To believe in religion one needs to believe in what the religion says. It may be explaining hazy matter but only if it manages to appease one’s faith will one be able to believe in religion.
Conversion from some religion to another, in a world that is being gripped by rationalism, is pretty common yet not easy for the person converting. While the people of the new faith will be supported, the people of the old faith may not and that perhaps could include family and friends. Depending on the liberalism present in the particular society the person originates from, conversions can become easy or difficult. Sometimes conversion can even take place by force.2 Such conversions are traumatic in many forms thus are not easy. However a conversion from non-religious stance to a religious one is also pretty abstruse to just pinpoint its difficulty level in converting. Many find it easy after an experience of sorts which prove the existence of the God. Thus conversions again is subjective as it depends on the society and the person’s own faith.
Religion as a medium fulfils many needs. In many humans a common feeling is that of emptiness and the doubts of our origins and current existence. Religion quenches this feeling and the various doubts that crop up. Religion also represents a community of sorts. Many people find themselves brought together by festivals and same religious beliefs. It thus also provides a feeling of unity.
Although these needs are satisfied, religion has various limitations. There are many biases that enter within sects of religions these include zealot type love for the religion one follows and an inane hatred for others. People tend to term their religion as better than the others and do not even try to respect nor understand other religious viewpoints regardless of whether they are preaching about the same thing. Within religion itself there is a lot of discrimination sets in which leads to casts that are divided based on ‘purity’ of blood or religious beliefs. These biases squander away the true meaning of the religion. The most evident bias in TOK terms that exists within religion is the emphasis on emotions rather than reason. Reason is sidestepped with statements like ‘Only people who worship God every day go to heaven as that is God’s will’ that focuses on playing with the knower’s emotions and thus change his perception. Equivocation is followed by references to religious books and then playing with the ambiguity of the language within it. Many leaders also follow the fallacy of confirmation bias where they only look for proof that proves their point without looking at the counter evidence. These fallacies were dealt with in the film Khudha Kai Liye that depicts fanaticism in Muslim society that is leading to Jihad. Here a Muslim priest manipulates what the Quran says to only prove his point without second views. Such fallacies deepen the prejudices based in religion.
1 http://www.spiritdaily.org/Prophecy-seers/ned_dougherty1.htm
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion
Religion is the way to channel one’s belief. To focus his or her personal faith in a direction one finds most suited. This according to me is the meaning of religion yet to a third party religion can mean something drastically different depending on their biases. Religion to a religious cult fanatic could mean that only his is the “true” religion and to someone more atheists, religion can mean nothing at all. Thus the term religion itself is very subjective but the agreeable norm for me is that religion is the path to address the divine entity that many feel exists.
What makes people believe in religion varies. It mostly depends on the cultures people follow, their parental beliefs and other experiences. Many just follow a religion blindly without questioning it because it has been followed for centuries and deeply rooted in the culture of the community. An example of this would be the religious wars within the boundaries of a religious sector- Christianity. When protestant Christianity flooded Europe, the Catholic Christians started to question their own path to God. They may have paid for elaborate churches but the point was that most priests were only stealing from the peasants. As rationality set in them, they began converting yet this took centuries. The reason for this long time period was simple, it was due to the culture that the entire community had followed for years and did not want to question it. Also due to parental belief, the child is mostly limited just to one view point and thus never gets to explore the ambiguity of some things. Another factor to make one believe in religion are experiences. Experiences can in many ways be life changing. There are many stories where after near death experiences, people resort to God, and to communicate with him chose religion as the path. A much more direct example would be the story of Ned Doughtry whose near-death experience combined with him being shown the future of the world including the 9-11 attacks.1 Other than these even there are smaller reasons like ethics, to explain ambiguous matters and societal pressure however the most important reason out of all mentioned is the need of faith. To believe in religion one needs to believe in what the religion says. It may be explaining hazy matter but only if it manages to appease one’s faith will one be able to believe in religion.
Conversion from some religion to another, in a world that is being gripped by rationalism, is pretty common yet not easy for the person converting. While the people of the new faith will be supported, the people of the old faith may not and that perhaps could include family and friends. Depending on the liberalism present in the particular society the person originates from, conversions can become easy or difficult. Sometimes conversion can even take place by force.2 Such conversions are traumatic in many forms thus are not easy. However a conversion from non-religious stance to a religious one is also pretty abstruse to just pinpoint its difficulty level in converting. Many find it easy after an experience of sorts which prove the existence of the God. Thus conversions again is subjective as it depends on the society and the person’s own faith.
Religion as a medium fulfils many needs. In many humans a common feeling is that of emptiness and the doubts of our origins and current existence. Religion quenches this feeling and the various doubts that crop up. Religion also represents a community of sorts. Many people find themselves brought together by festivals and same religious beliefs. It thus also provides a feeling of unity.
Although these needs are satisfied, religion has various limitations. There are many biases that enter within sects of religions these include zealot type love for the religion one follows and an inane hatred for others. People tend to term their religion as better than the others and do not even try to respect nor understand other religious viewpoints regardless of whether they are preaching about the same thing. Within religion itself there is a lot of discrimination sets in which leads to casts that are divided based on ‘purity’ of blood or religious beliefs. These biases squander away the true meaning of the religion. The most evident bias in TOK terms that exists within religion is the emphasis on emotions rather than reason. Reason is sidestepped with statements like ‘Only people who worship God every day go to heaven as that is God’s will’ that focuses on playing with the knower’s emotions and thus change his perception. Equivocation is followed by references to religious books and then playing with the ambiguity of the language within it. Many leaders also follow the fallacy of confirmation bias where they only look for proof that proves their point without looking at the counter evidence. These fallacies were dealt with in the film Khudha Kai Liye that depicts fanaticism in Muslim society that is leading to Jihad. Here a Muslim priest manipulates what the Quran says to only prove his point without second views. Such fallacies deepen the prejudices based in religion.
1 http://www.spiritdaily.org/Prophecy-seers/ned_dougherty1.htm
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Report to detail alleged abuse inside CIA secret prisons
Knowledge at Work
America is one of the most economically advanced countries. It is as said the democratic ideal that all countries strive to achieve; freedom to live and let live being her foundation. However this article is based on another side of the USA that gets hidden by the talks of personal liberty of speech and action, privacy and individuality.
The article is a news report based on the horrific behavior of CIA agents against caught terrorists. This is in complete hypocrisy to what the US law propagates of equality under the eyes of the law. The article expands on further on the incident it begins with where a CIA agent uses an electric drill and a gun to force information out of him. It then goes ahead to highlight different reactions in the Federal bureau upon hearing about this ruthlessness the police system. Various knowledge issues combine in the creation of this article. Although detached in its tone, several allusions betray a sense of disappointment yet at the same time the need to conceal the worst of the USA government. The most important of the knowledge issue I think the writer of the article highlight the fear that had been left after the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade centre. The ruthlessness of CIA was started by the name of an interrogation program that was begun by the Bush administration. The fear of another plausible attack on the USA has made the interrogators to not only be cruel but also inhumane. Another important knowledge issue is the way in which this brutality has been tried to be kept under the mat. The way in which the writer talks about reports yet specifies the fact that they have not been released proves to show how under the full knowing of “just law” such cruelty is exists.
The writer also makes a claim to know the insights into the depth of the incident. However the writer himself does not know any specifics to this report. All it knows is the existence of a report thus how can this claim justified with proof? It is however not a bias claim as it is factual and it does criticize those CIA interrogators on such “endorsed behaviour. The foundation of the facts is a little shaky as it is based on unrevealed reports. The report also lacks in any emotion. It is true that since it is an article one’s own perception should be left behind but as a reader I want to know why these interrogators are not punished for such behaviour. For all its worth, being an Indian I am always being looked at as a terrorist because of the colour of my skin, I could easily be trapped in a situation and be abused without charge. This phenomenon is seen in the movie Khuddha Kai Liye where consistent torture broke the protagonist in such a way that he wanted to become a terrorist. So the writer should have extrapolated on the injustice of this. As the media they have the right to question and via doing so put pressure on their government to take action. The writer is also taking for granted the fact that the US government is doing something about the issue. The fact that the issue is so hushed up shows that there is much more to the incident than what has been leaked out. Other than this the writer has, with whatever information available, managed to convey partially managed to convey the truth behind the CIA headquarters.
Even if there is a lack of sources regarding the incident that had taken place, the knowledge issue does serve to remind us about how even in a democratic country like America, one cannot be safe. Innocent until proven guilty is a famous proverb that applies in every context. Here however innocence does not matter. The fear of having another attack like 9-11 has made the interrogators ruthless. Their emotions have taken oven their reason. Such illogical behaviour can affect the lives of anyone of us. We see us Indians getting checked at USA airports exhaustively on the terms of a “random search”. If it is random then why are there only black and brown skinned people in the special security check line. Also it affects us in the sense the hatred that has spread in the minds of some Americans has become so dominant that their allegations of being a terrorist are baseless. Innocent people can be tortured so badly that admit into being a terrorist. This misfortune can be destiny of my family, friends or even me!
America is one of the most economically advanced countries. It is as said the democratic ideal that all countries strive to achieve; freedom to live and let live being her foundation. However this article is based on another side of the USA that gets hidden by the talks of personal liberty of speech and action, privacy and individuality.
The article is a news report based on the horrific behavior of CIA agents against caught terrorists. This is in complete hypocrisy to what the US law propagates of equality under the eyes of the law. The article expands on further on the incident it begins with where a CIA agent uses an electric drill and a gun to force information out of him. It then goes ahead to highlight different reactions in the Federal bureau upon hearing about this ruthlessness the police system. Various knowledge issues combine in the creation of this article. Although detached in its tone, several allusions betray a sense of disappointment yet at the same time the need to conceal the worst of the USA government. The most important of the knowledge issue I think the writer of the article highlight the fear that had been left after the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade centre. The ruthlessness of CIA was started by the name of an interrogation program that was begun by the Bush administration. The fear of another plausible attack on the USA has made the interrogators to not only be cruel but also inhumane. Another important knowledge issue is the way in which this brutality has been tried to be kept under the mat. The way in which the writer talks about reports yet specifies the fact that they have not been released proves to show how under the full knowing of “just law” such cruelty is exists.
The writer also makes a claim to know the insights into the depth of the incident. However the writer himself does not know any specifics to this report. All it knows is the existence of a report thus how can this claim justified with proof? It is however not a bias claim as it is factual and it does criticize those CIA interrogators on such “endorsed behaviour. The foundation of the facts is a little shaky as it is based on unrevealed reports. The report also lacks in any emotion. It is true that since it is an article one’s own perception should be left behind but as a reader I want to know why these interrogators are not punished for such behaviour. For all its worth, being an Indian I am always being looked at as a terrorist because of the colour of my skin, I could easily be trapped in a situation and be abused without charge. This phenomenon is seen in the movie Khuddha Kai Liye where consistent torture broke the protagonist in such a way that he wanted to become a terrorist. So the writer should have extrapolated on the injustice of this. As the media they have the right to question and via doing so put pressure on their government to take action. The writer is also taking for granted the fact that the US government is doing something about the issue. The fact that the issue is so hushed up shows that there is much more to the incident than what has been leaked out. Other than this the writer has, with whatever information available, managed to convey partially managed to convey the truth behind the CIA headquarters.
Even if there is a lack of sources regarding the incident that had taken place, the knowledge issue does serve to remind us about how even in a democratic country like America, one cannot be safe. Innocent until proven guilty is a famous proverb that applies in every context. Here however innocence does not matter. The fear of having another attack like 9-11 has made the interrogators ruthless. Their emotions have taken oven their reason. Such illogical behaviour can affect the lives of anyone of us. We see us Indians getting checked at USA airports exhaustively on the terms of a “random search”. If it is random then why are there only black and brown skinned people in the special security check line. Also it affects us in the sense the hatred that has spread in the minds of some Americans has become so dominant that their allegations of being a terrorist are baseless. Innocent people can be tortured so badly that admit into being a terrorist. This misfortune can be destiny of my family, friends or even me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
