Thursday 21 March 2013

MODERN CONDITION


There was an advertisement about an Automatic sex shop that ran like this 
– non importa se un angelo o diavolo: totalmente anonimo – 
[it does not matter whether you are an angel or devil:  totally anonymous]. 
This advertisement captures the present condition of the modern man.

Freedom today is understood to be one without constraints.[1] This is the world that has created an ambience in which one can do what one likes to do when one is being watched by the other. It is a kind of total freedom that one enjoys or wants to enjoy. This culture of freedom is expressed by many activities done by men facilitated by modern science. The automatic shops are one of the symptomatic expressions of this phenomenon. But this can also be seen to augment the condition of the modern man in which one can do what one likes freely, even without an iota of inhibition of what the other would think of it. Anybody in the liberal world can choose to buy what he or she likes to without external constraints, invisibly. I am only reminded of the mythical ring of Gyges.[2]

Further, the advertisement also captures the condition which insists on the detachability of a person’s being from his acts.[3] Modern world concentrates on what one has to do rather than what one is: it does not matter whether you are an angel or devil but you have the freedom to choose and act anonymously. This can also strengthen the view of those who are angels – to be angels and act as angels even when no one sees. In this way, this autonomy can also lead to what we call to be authentic self-realization.

Additionally, the advertisement also indicates that there are people who still feel ashamed of certain acts being done in public. This is to say that the human person has an inherent notion of the other’s credibility. Even nobody in the auto-bus knows me; I do not behave wrongly due to the fact that it can endanger my identity. My identity is also shaped by others that transcends beyond my freedom of doing. But it is not merely because the law forbids. For example no law forbids poking one’s nose with his finger, yet one does not do it in public because it does relate to his character and with his identity.


In spite of the fact that after the construal of the human person as the individual by the contractarians and liberals who appeal to the rationality of the individuals, the advertisements only appeal to the consumers emotionally. Emotions can be triggered more easily than rationality. While the business world today encourages and appeals to emotionality for its profit, it is ridiculous to say that religion appeals to emotions and therefore leads to fundamentalism. If the statement about religion is true, then it is doubly true that the capitalistic business world is more fundamentalist than religion.




[1] Freedom today is understood in the sense of ‘negative freedom’ that is defined by Isaiah Berlin who distinguished it from ‘positive freedom.’
[2] Cf. Plato, Republic, Book II, 359d – 360c. Glaucon makes a strong case that people act justly precisely because of the law or what others think of them. Therefore when one becomes invisible with the magical ring, the claim is that even a just would act unjustly. In this advertisement, even an angel would behave in devilish ways!
[3] This can take us to further reflections. Charles Taylor is right when he says that the moral domain has given more importance what to do rather than what to be. He says we are more worried about determining our actions in terms of rules rather than the good to be.

Saturday 16 March 2013

God and Evidence - Love and Evidence


I watched an interview – Richard Dawkins was interviewed by Mehdi Hasan for al-Jazeera television which was telecast in December last year. In watching this fifty minutes video, one is pulled in both directions – that of Dawkins and that of Hasan.

Dawkin's main argument is that science is the best method available to us to know the truth: If ‘science’ cannot answer some questions, no other way then is it possible to know the truth. Dawkins made it very clear that we lack evidence with regard to God. Evidence… and … evidence … 

Years back in southern India where the atheistic movements grew strong, they held public meetings to conscientise people of their rights and powers. In between, the speaker would speak about the non-existence of God. Their atheism can be said to be founded on the emancipation of man. They were practical atheists who worked to liberate the common man from the oppressing caste Hinduism. The main arguments were based on the inconsistencies found in the scriptures, oppressive elements and the structures of the religion. At times they would also challenge God – the speaker in a meeting would say: ‘If there is God, let there be no light (Electricity) in ten minutes.’ He would give five or ten minutes to God and seeing that there was light still would conclude – ‘see now, there is no God.’[1]
That is not a very serious argument at all. However, in making this claim was he making himself a God, as an absolute and all powerful Master who could predict the future? May be. One could interpret that way. But I do not think so. If electricity goes off in 10 minutes he would still claim that how can a ‘good’ and benevolent God become a ‘cheap’ god who responds to an ordinary man, one in billions of humans. How could that God be great at all? Or he will claim that this is not because of God but x or y were the cause or some mechanical failure etc. Basically what they were aiming to show is that there is no ‘evidence’ to show that God exists.
In one way or the other what connects an illiterate in south Indian land who embraces atheism for emancipation of humanism and scientists, theoretical atheists Like Dawkins, is Evidence. Apart from the fact whether I disbelieve or not, I will place humanist atheists in a higher rank than scientific atheism.


Well. One of the questions by Hasan to Dawkins was about the possibility of placing evidence in every aspect of human life: Dawkins rephrased the question and answered - How do you know that your wife loves you? He replied – ‘evidence’. I can see love in her eyes, in the voice… – although this is not a scientifically testable.
One could love his wife if she shows that love in her eyes, in her voice, etc. There are also cases where because evidence suggests otherwise, husbands hate wives – divorce them – in some places like in India kill them. Charles Taylor in his A Secular Age speaks of Desdemona analogy when he talks about the validity of the claim ‘science defeated religion’. He says that Othello had a chance to speak to her without being deceived by evidences fabricated by Iago. If Othello had opened his heart to Desdemona he would have known the truth.[2]
Once I am deceived by the evidences, I will not be ready to be open to the alternative view at all. The alternative view is totally hidden from me. The only way is that I have the evidence. The truth value is always something external to me. The alternative view of knowledge is cut off from me.

I only pray that there are no persons who act that they love the other to produce false evidences – and I wish that the there are no persons who like Othello be deceived by the ‘brute’ evidences. I wish that people give 'love' its place and not keeping it within the frame of evidence.
...............................................


The video can be watched online in the following link:




[1] [To wit: Today no body in Tamil Nadu will take up this challenge or they may reverse the challenge – If there is God let there be light in 10 minutes].
[2] C. Taylor, A Secular Age, pp. 567 – 568.




Thursday 14 March 2013

POPE FRANCIS



The Catholic Church has a new Pope – Pope Francis. I was having fever and I could not go out of my room for three days. These days I was telling myself that I should be there in St. Peter’s Square when the new Pope makes his appearance. The privilege to be there in the basilica is not given to everyone. Many who want to be there cannot be there. I was motivating myself that everything will be allright. The white smoke appeared on 13.3.13 around 7.05pm. 
It was raining and I had cold and fever therefore I was in a dilemma. Would not it be better to watch the whole event clearly in T.V. rather than being in the piazza without getting able to go any way near the pope - I asked myself. I was hesitant to go out but I should say that I was almost drawn towards the Basilica. The motivation came from a priest. We reached the Basilica around 7.35pm. We found a place at the center of the Piazza.
The drizzling slowed down as though helping the people to gather in peace. The piazza and the street were full…around 8.10 the senior cardinal announced the good news that we have the Pope – Cardinal George Bergoglio who will take the name of Francesco. I was amazed – I am sure others too. His name did not make an appearance in the newspapers and television. I was thinking that he is from Italy, the name suggested it. Somewhere from the crowd someone said – Argentina.
The Pope appeared – the crowd shouted – the Pope stood still – unmoved, at least I thought he was. When he started speaking I was moved literally. He said: “My cardinal brothers have found one from the other end of the earth to be the bishop of Rome” – He laughed and we too. He then called everyone to pray for the Pope Emeritus. The most important and moving part was this: he said: before I give my blessing, please pray for me that lord bless me. I was astonished to see him bowing his head – No wonder he chose the name Francis.




I am sure that the Church has a very humble, simple pope who will be a living witness to many. He seems to be the ‘first’ in many ways – I hope it continues.
Prayers for You Always – Viva il Papa.

Wednesday 6 March 2013

Language and Identity - A Joke!



An e-mail is being circulated which also came to me yesterday about the possiblity of English as the official language of the European Union. This may not be true, because the following has been taken from  www.ahajokes.com which is not found anymore. one can find this in http://www.nairaland.com/1053641/european-commission-adopt-english-official 

It seems to be interesting how certain changes in english would look like:
Enjoy the joke.

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather than German which was the other possibility.

As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five year phase-in plan that would be known as 
"Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of the "k". This should klear up konfusion and 
keyboards kan have 1 less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20% shorter.

In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be ekspekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e"s in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away.

By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru! And zen world!


Language certainly has an important role to play in human culture and identity. It would be hard for many to give up and think that language is only a tool for communication. The contemporary world should learn to live  with multilingusitic communities and diversity. The liberals often speak of rights and understanding humanism plainly based on human dignity. The strict secular regimes often claim that multiculturalism is no good to maintain human dignity but only narrows down our vision. The choice of one language as official can only result in misrecognition...... 

But why do also people in the liberal state become so fundamentalist about language? Nine months ago, the European was accused that it faours English by the French Press.[http://www.euractiv.com/culture/commission-denies-english-langua-news-513705] The problem may still continue... who knows?