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.
Friday, September 18, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
