24 May 2007
Meaning Vs Happiness
In yesterday's episode of Heroes, the mobster Mr Linderman makes his first appearance. He turns out to be something of a philosopher. He says, "I think there comes a time when a man has to ask himself whether he wants a life of happiness or a life of meaning... two very different paths. You see, to be truly happy a man must live absolutely in the present, with no thought of what's gone before and no thought of what lies ahead. But for a life of meaning, a man is condemned to wallow in the past and obsess about the future."
09 May 2007
TV Serials
Battlestar Galactica has finally started showing in India (on Zee Cafe). The show is in its third season in the US, so we're way behind. It has earned rave reviews from critics, especially for its bold parallels with hot current issues like terrorism and the war in Iraq.
Till now the only serial I was watching was Heroes (on Star World).
Till now the only serial I was watching was Heroes (on Star World).
03 May 2007
Cry, The Beloved Country
Pratap Bhanu Mehta examines in a thought-provoking article how political parties are straying from the path of Dharma. We must not be silent. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. We must speak up for what is right and against what is wrong. If these thuggish tendencies are not nipped in the bud, not even God can save this country. Rule of law is inviolable. The sanctity of institutions must be protected at all costs. Dharmo rakshati rakshitah.
27 April 2007
Oldest Democracy?
Any article about the Indo-US relationship invariably talks about "the world's largest and oldest democracies". We are the world's largest democracy, no doubt. But is the US really the world's oldest democracy? The date considered by people making this case is 1776 (or 1783). But when did American women get the right to vote? In 1920. And when did American blacks get the right to vote? In 1965. So America became a full democracy only in 1965. Whereas we went in for universal adult franchise in 1947 (or 1950) itself. Britain's case is similar to America's. The "mother of democracies" granted her the women the right to vote only in 1928. [The only reason Britain became a full democracy before the US (1928 as against 1965) is that it didn't have a significant racial minority like the latter]
So calling America the "world's oldest democracy" is a stupid joke. The sooner we dump it, the better.
So calling America the "world's oldest democracy" is a stupid joke. The sooner we dump it, the better.
18 April 2007
The Enlightenment
I mentioned that liberalism was a product of the Enlightenment. A few words about this movement are in order.
For a thousand years after the fall of the Roman Empire (in AD 476) Europe lived in the Dark Ages. Science, art and philosophy were lost. Ignorance and superstition were rampant. The Catholic Church ruled the continent with an iron fist. Then the Scientific Revolution happened. Beginning in 1543 with the discoveries of Copernicus and Vesalius, it climaxed in the 17th century with the work of Galileo and Newton.
Intellectuals were in awe of these achievements. It set them thinking: the foundation of mathematics and science is reason, and if reason could reveal universal truths for science, couldn't it do the same for human life? Couldn't it be applied in politics and economics? Couldn't it be used to fight against ignorance, injustice and inequality? Couldn't it be used to build the perfect man and the perfect society?
The movement began in France (Voltaire, Rousseau) before spreading to other European countries like England (John Locke, Adam Smith) and eventually to America (Jefferson, Franklin). This period (1600's and 1700's) in European history is also called the Age of Reason. Today if we take democracy, liberty, equality and fraternity for granted, it is due in no small measure to the Enlightenment.
For a thousand years after the fall of the Roman Empire (in AD 476) Europe lived in the Dark Ages. Science, art and philosophy were lost. Ignorance and superstition were rampant. The Catholic Church ruled the continent with an iron fist. Then the Scientific Revolution happened. Beginning in 1543 with the discoveries of Copernicus and Vesalius, it climaxed in the 17th century with the work of Galileo and Newton.
Intellectuals were in awe of these achievements. It set them thinking: the foundation of mathematics and science is reason, and if reason could reveal universal truths for science, couldn't it do the same for human life? Couldn't it be applied in politics and economics? Couldn't it be used to fight against ignorance, injustice and inequality? Couldn't it be used to build the perfect man and the perfect society?
The movement began in France (Voltaire, Rousseau) before spreading to other European countries like England (John Locke, Adam Smith) and eventually to America (Jefferson, Franklin). This period (1600's and 1700's) in European history is also called the Age of Reason. Today if we take democracy, liberty, equality and fraternity for granted, it is due in no small measure to the Enlightenment.
17 April 2007
Starvation In Jalpaiguri
1100 people have died of starvation in Jalpaiguri (in West Bengal) in the last two years. The tea gardens that employed these people had been closed down as they were unprofitable due to (what else?) rigid labour laws. When will the so-called protectors of workers see the light? 1100 starvation deaths is a crime of monstrous proportions. In any other country, the bloody government would have been toppled. How many more people must die? Reform labour laws NOW!
16 April 2007
Conservatism (contd)
Modern conservatives look up to Michael Oakeshott (1901-90), not Burke, as their guru. Oakeshott defined conservatism as, "To be conservative is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, the tried to the untried, and the actual to the possible". This sounds more like a definition of timidity and cowardice. However, one could argue that while boldness and risk-taking are good for an individual, at a societal level it is better to go in for incremental change.
As an aside, this article points out that Margaret Thatcher - the darling of conservatives - was anything but conservative. She was a radical.
As an aside, this article points out that Margaret Thatcher - the darling of conservatives - was anything but conservative. She was a radical.
13 April 2007
Conservatism Vs Liberalism
I've been reading a bit on this topic. Here's an attempt to set down the nuts and bolts of the subject.
The word 'liberal' comes from the Latin word 'liber' which means 'free'. The word 'conservative' comes from the Latin word 'servare' which means 'to preserve'. Liberals thus consider individual liberty as important, whereas conservatives consider tradition as important.
Liberalism arose out of the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason. John Locke laid the foundation with his Second Treatise of Government (1689) in which he introduced concepts like rule of law, property rights and freedom of speech. The missing brick was individual liberty, which John Stuart Mill provided in his On Liberty (1859). The case for individual liberty is made based on rational and logical arguments.
Conservatism arose as a reaction to liberalism. The ideas of the Enlightenment inspired the French Revolution (1789). A year later, Edmund Burke argued in Reflections on the Revolution in France that tradition is a better source of wisdom than reason. Society is so complex that it is impossible to conjure a perfect society merely by our reason. It is better to rely on tradition, which is accumulated social experience.
Side note: The intellectual divide of tradition vs reason translates into a practical divide of culture vs politics. Daniel Patrick Moynihan summed it up best when he said, "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success or failure of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change culture, and help save a society from itself."
The word 'liberal' comes from the Latin word 'liber' which means 'free'. The word 'conservative' comes from the Latin word 'servare' which means 'to preserve'. Liberals thus consider individual liberty as important, whereas conservatives consider tradition as important.
Liberalism arose out of the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason. John Locke laid the foundation with his Second Treatise of Government (1689) in which he introduced concepts like rule of law, property rights and freedom of speech. The missing brick was individual liberty, which John Stuart Mill provided in his On Liberty (1859). The case for individual liberty is made based on rational and logical arguments.
Conservatism arose as a reaction to liberalism. The ideas of the Enlightenment inspired the French Revolution (1789). A year later, Edmund Burke argued in Reflections on the Revolution in France that tradition is a better source of wisdom than reason. Society is so complex that it is impossible to conjure a perfect society merely by our reason. It is better to rely on tradition, which is accumulated social experience.
Side note: The intellectual divide of tradition vs reason translates into a practical divide of culture vs politics. Daniel Patrick Moynihan summed it up best when he said, "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success or failure of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change culture, and help save a society from itself."
14 March 2007
Apocalypto
Mel Gibson's Apocalypto is an entertaining film, but I have some issues with it. It doesn't paint a very flattering picture of the Mayans. The human sacrifice part is authentic, but Gibson doesn't stop there. He shows them as ugly, cruel and uncivilised. It can almost be read as a justification of the Spanish conquest. There is no mention of the Mayans' achievements in mathematics, astronomy, art and architecture.
Btw, the film begins with a quote from Will Durant: "A great civilisation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." Something to think about...
Btw, the film begins with a quote from Will Durant: "A great civilisation is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." Something to think about...
09 March 2007
Two Passings
Noted journalist and literary critic Sham Lal passed away a couple of weeks ago. He was editor of Times of India from 1967 to 1978 (before our time). But he was best known for his book review column 'Life and Letters'. A collection of his reviews was published as A Hundred Encounters, a book that can be considered an introduction to 20th century Western thought and literature.
Coincidentally, one of the thinkers reviewed in A Hundred Encounters was Jean Baudrillard - who also passed away, this week. Baudrillard is commonly described as a post-modernist, but that term does not convey much useful information. Trained as a sociologist, he is famous for his theory of hyper-reality. Most people were first introduced to Baudrillard in the film Matrix, where his book 'Simulacra and Simulacrum' makes a brief appearance.
Coincidentally, one of the thinkers reviewed in A Hundred Encounters was Jean Baudrillard - who also passed away, this week. Baudrillard is commonly described as a post-modernist, but that term does not convey much useful information. Trained as a sociologist, he is famous for his theory of hyper-reality. Most people were first introduced to Baudrillard in the film Matrix, where his book 'Simulacra and Simulacrum' makes a brief appearance.
Peace Keepers
(My recent posts have been about death and destruction. For a change, here's a feel good story)
The UN peacekeeping mission in south Lebanon has, as usual, a contingent of Indian troops. And these men are teaching Yoga to the local kids, who are taking to it eagerly.
Keep it up guys! You make us proud, both on the battlefield and off it. Uncle Sam can learn a thing or two about winning hearts and minds from you.
The UN peacekeeping mission in south Lebanon has, as usual, a contingent of Indian troops. And these men are teaching Yoga to the local kids, who are taking to it eagerly.
Keep it up guys! You make us proud, both on the battlefield and off it. Uncle Sam can learn a thing or two about winning hearts and minds from you.
23 February 2007
Shia Vs Sunni
There's a lot of literature out there on the Shia-Sunni divide, attempting to explain why people who are supposed to be united - under one God, one prophet and one book - are busy killing each other. This is as good an article as any other.
19 February 2007
The Horror Of Nithari
An IPS officer has written a moving article about the rot in our law and order system, of which the Nithari killings were only a symptom. May we never sleep the peace of ignorance.
14 February 2007
Perspective
An Iraqi football player has lost his leg in a recent bomb blast.
An incident like this is more effective in reminding us of the horror of the situation, rather than a number like 6,55,000. Especially if you are a sports fan.
An incident like this is more effective in reminding us of the horror of the situation, rather than a number like 6,55,000. Especially if you are a sports fan.
06 February 2007
Aphorisms
Books
Living life is more important than reading books.
R L Stevenson: Books are good enough in their own way, but they are a mighty bloodless substitute for life.
Philosophy
When real life hits you, philosophy goes out of the window. The question is no longer "What is the Truth?" The question is now "How should I live?" (Or "What should I do with my life?" or "What kind of life should I live?") Ethics becomes more important than metaphysics.
And we answer this question by living. Our life is our answer to this question. Gandhiji: My life is my message.
Truth (also Meaning/Purpose of Life)
The Truth is Here and Now. Whatever shit is happening to you right here, right now - that is your life. There is no Truth other than this, or beyond this.
The time to be happy is right now. If you are happy now, then you are happy. Otherwise you are not happy. That's it.
Life
Life is a journey, not a destination.
The journey is more important than the destination.
Kierkegaard: Life is not a problem to be solved; it is a mystery to be lived.
Kierkegaard: Life must be lived forwards; but it can only be understood backwards.
Life (contd)
'Shantaram': Live life fully.
The purpose of life is to live. To experience life fully. Good and bad, happiness and sorrow, victory and defeat, pleasure and pain, love and loneliness. If you know only happiness, then your knowledge is only 50%. Be a complete man.
Ethics
Be good. Do what you think is right, always.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
The ends do not justify the means. Evil can sometimes come out of good, but good can never come out of evil.
Gandhiji: Be the change you want to see.
Be humble.
Reader's Digest
1. Choose a job you love. (You must be passionate about your work. You must believe in what you do.)
2. Take risks. (When you look back on your life, you will not regret the things you did; you will regret the things you did not do. To risk nothing is to lose everything.)
2b. Make mistakes, and learn from them. Don't make the same mistake twice. Show me a man who has never made a mistake, and I will show you a man who has never tried anything.
Living life is more important than reading books.
R L Stevenson: Books are good enough in their own way, but they are a mighty bloodless substitute for life.
Philosophy
When real life hits you, philosophy goes out of the window. The question is no longer "What is the Truth?" The question is now "How should I live?" (Or "What should I do with my life?" or "What kind of life should I live?") Ethics becomes more important than metaphysics.
And we answer this question by living. Our life is our answer to this question. Gandhiji: My life is my message.
Truth (also Meaning/Purpose of Life)
The Truth is Here and Now. Whatever shit is happening to you right here, right now - that is your life. There is no Truth other than this, or beyond this.
The time to be happy is right now. If you are happy now, then you are happy. Otherwise you are not happy. That's it.
Life
Life is a journey, not a destination.
The journey is more important than the destination.
Kierkegaard: Life is not a problem to be solved; it is a mystery to be lived.
Kierkegaard: Life must be lived forwards; but it can only be understood backwards.
Life (contd)
'Shantaram': Live life fully.
The purpose of life is to live. To experience life fully. Good and bad, happiness and sorrow, victory and defeat, pleasure and pain, love and loneliness. If you know only happiness, then your knowledge is only 50%. Be a complete man.
Ethics
Be good. Do what you think is right, always.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
The ends do not justify the means. Evil can sometimes come out of good, but good can never come out of evil.
Gandhiji: Be the change you want to see.
Be humble.
Reader's Digest
1. Choose a job you love. (You must be passionate about your work. You must believe in what you do.)
2. Take risks. (When you look back on your life, you will not regret the things you did; you will regret the things you did not do. To risk nothing is to lose everything.)
2b. Make mistakes, and learn from them. Don't make the same mistake twice. Show me a man who has never made a mistake, and I will show you a man who has never tried anything.
22 January 2007
Brothers In Arms
Let's take a break today from my blabbering. Just enjoy the lyrics of this beautiful song.
These mist covered mountains
Are a home now for me
But my home is the lowlands
And always will be
Some day you'll return to
Your valleys and your farms
And you'll no longer burn
To be brothers in arm
Through these fields of destruction
Baptism of fire
I've witnessed your suffering
As the battles raged higher
And though they did hurt me so bad
In the fear and alarm
You did not desert me
My brothers in arms
There's so many different worlds
So many different suns
And we have just one world
But we live in different ones
Now the sun's gone to hell
And the moon's riding high
Let me bid you farewell
Every man has to die
But it's written in the starlight
And every line on your palm
We're fools to make war
On our brothers in arms.
These mist covered mountains
Are a home now for me
But my home is the lowlands
And always will be
Some day you'll return to
Your valleys and your farms
And you'll no longer burn
To be brothers in arm
Through these fields of destruction
Baptism of fire
I've witnessed your suffering
As the battles raged higher
And though they did hurt me so bad
In the fear and alarm
You did not desert me
My brothers in arms
There's so many different worlds
So many different suns
And we have just one world
But we live in different ones
Now the sun's gone to hell
And the moon's riding high
Let me bid you farewell
Every man has to die
But it's written in the starlight
And every line on your palm
We're fools to make war
On our brothers in arms.
17 January 2007
Borat Cohen
Saw the Golden Globes ceremony (repeat telecast) yesterday night. For me, the highlight was Sacha Baron Cohen's outrageous acceptance speech. It was unlike any speech you'll hear at an awards ceremony. Most members of the audience were laughing uncontrollably; only one or two seemed put off by Cohen's toilet humour.
Now we have to see if Borat will be released in India, and if it is, just how much of it will get past the Great Indian Censors.
Now we have to see if Borat will be released in India, and if it is, just how much of it will get past the Great Indian Censors.
Team McLaren
Check out McLaren's drivers for 2007. Alonso looks cool in his new haircut, and Lewis Hamilton is the first black driver in F1.
I think McLaren's car troubles will continue this year. That leaves the field open for Kimi Raikkonen to claim his first Championship.
Alonso dumped a winning team for a struggling one because he was offered $40 million. So that's what he thinks the Driver's Championship is worth.
I think McLaren's car troubles will continue this year. That leaves the field open for Kimi Raikkonen to claim his first Championship.
Alonso dumped a winning team for a struggling one because he was offered $40 million. So that's what he thinks the Driver's Championship is worth.
12 January 2007
RIP, Beckham
We always knew David Beckham was more of a model than a footballer. Now the transformation is complete. You know a footballer doesn't care about the game any longer when he moves to the US. The asinine British media, instead of lamenting the fall of a once-fine player, are going ga-ga over how much money he will make now.
05 January 2007
Spirituality
Recently I had an email discussion with a friend on spirituality. Today's post is a mail I sent to him.
The search for Truth is highly personal and subjective. Every man must follow his own path. For whatever it is worth, I'll put down my own beliefs/opinions here. So that you know where I stand.
First and foremost, I am not a spiritual person. What is spirituality? Indian philosophy teaches us that only the body dies at death. The soul does not die; it takes up another body. Thus we take birth and die repeatedly. Do I agree with this? I don't know. We cannot prove it, and we cannot disprove it either. But I am willing to grant this theory the benefit of doubt. Science has not yet been able to crack the mystery of consciousness.
Indian philosophy further says that this phenomenon of being born and dying repeatedly is a bad thing, because life is full of suffering and/or the world is unreal (maya). Hence the goal of life is to attain freedom (mukti/moksha) from the cycle of births and deaths (samsara). This is the cornerstone of Indian spirituality. (Even the so-called heterodox schools like Buddhism and Jainism hold this belief. The only exception was the Charvaka, which took an extremely materialist view - perhaps to compensate for the extreme spirituality of mainstream Indian philosophy) Anyway, this is where I disagree.
I don't agree that life is full of suffering. Suffering is a part of life, but that should not make us run away from it. Especially when we cannot be certain of a better alternative (more on this later). And I don't believe that the world is unreal. Here I have to state my assumptions, so that you know where I'm coming from.
I have decided to believe only what I can see with my two eyes, what agrees with my reasoning, and (this is most important) what makes sense in the light of my experience. I have decided to limit myself to what I can know for certain, instead of making theories about things I cannot know for sure. This kind of attitude means you'll have a very small set of beliefs, but so be it. Better a hut built on rock, than a palace built on sand.
So what are the consequences of having such an attitude? Let us consider some common questions.
1) Is there a God? I don't know. The existence of God cannot be proved; it cannot be disproved either. I choose to believe in God. Why? Because it makes life easier.
2) Is there a soul? As I said earlier, I am neutral on this.
Back to our discussion. Is this world real? I don't know, but I will live my life assuming it is, unless something happens that convinces me otherwise. Here is what I DO know for sure: we are born, we die, and in between, we are alive for some time. So the question before us is not 'What is the Ultimate Truth?' (which is irrelevant for our everyday life), but 'How should we live?'.
So I don't agree that the goal of life is to attain freedom from the cycle of births and deaths. At least, I am not going to live my life trying to ensure that I am not born again. Even if we are born again and again, what does it matter? For all practical purposes every life is our first life, since we have no memory of our previous lives.
Then what do I think is the purpose of life? Simple: the purpose of life is to live. Life consists of both good and bad, happiness and sorrow, victories and defeats. One should experience life in all its fullness, in all its variety. One should know what it means to be born as a human being and what it means to live as one, before he dies.
Am I losing anything by having such a worldly view of life? Maybe. But I choose to put my eggs in a basket I can see (however imperfect it is), instead of in a basket that I am not sure exists (however perfect it is). Once upon a time I was also spiritual and other-worldly. But when real life hit me, philosophy went out of the window.
The search for Truth is highly personal and subjective. Every man must follow his own path. For whatever it is worth, I'll put down my own beliefs/opinions here. So that you know where I stand.
First and foremost, I am not a spiritual person. What is spirituality? Indian philosophy teaches us that only the body dies at death. The soul does not die; it takes up another body. Thus we take birth and die repeatedly. Do I agree with this? I don't know. We cannot prove it, and we cannot disprove it either. But I am willing to grant this theory the benefit of doubt. Science has not yet been able to crack the mystery of consciousness.
Indian philosophy further says that this phenomenon of being born and dying repeatedly is a bad thing, because life is full of suffering and/or the world is unreal (maya). Hence the goal of life is to attain freedom (mukti/moksha) from the cycle of births and deaths (samsara). This is the cornerstone of Indian spirituality. (Even the so-called heterodox schools like Buddhism and Jainism hold this belief. The only exception was the Charvaka, which took an extremely materialist view - perhaps to compensate for the extreme spirituality of mainstream Indian philosophy) Anyway, this is where I disagree.
I don't agree that life is full of suffering. Suffering is a part of life, but that should not make us run away from it. Especially when we cannot be certain of a better alternative (more on this later). And I don't believe that the world is unreal. Here I have to state my assumptions, so that you know where I'm coming from.
I have decided to believe only what I can see with my two eyes, what agrees with my reasoning, and (this is most important) what makes sense in the light of my experience. I have decided to limit myself to what I can know for certain, instead of making theories about things I cannot know for sure. This kind of attitude means you'll have a very small set of beliefs, but so be it. Better a hut built on rock, than a palace built on sand.
So what are the consequences of having such an attitude? Let us consider some common questions.
1) Is there a God? I don't know. The existence of God cannot be proved; it cannot be disproved either. I choose to believe in God. Why? Because it makes life easier.
2) Is there a soul? As I said earlier, I am neutral on this.
Back to our discussion. Is this world real? I don't know, but I will live my life assuming it is, unless something happens that convinces me otherwise. Here is what I DO know for sure: we are born, we die, and in between, we are alive for some time. So the question before us is not 'What is the Ultimate Truth?' (which is irrelevant for our everyday life), but 'How should we live?'.
So I don't agree that the goal of life is to attain freedom from the cycle of births and deaths. At least, I am not going to live my life trying to ensure that I am not born again. Even if we are born again and again, what does it matter? For all practical purposes every life is our first life, since we have no memory of our previous lives.
Then what do I think is the purpose of life? Simple: the purpose of life is to live. Life consists of both good and bad, happiness and sorrow, victories and defeats. One should experience life in all its fullness, in all its variety. One should know what it means to be born as a human being and what it means to live as one, before he dies.
Am I losing anything by having such a worldly view of life? Maybe. But I choose to put my eggs in a basket I can see (however imperfect it is), instead of in a basket that I am not sure exists (however perfect it is). Once upon a time I was also spiritual and other-worldly. But when real life hit me, philosophy went out of the window.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)