Monday, June 7, 2010
True Friendship!
Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Just walk beside me and be my friend - Albert Camus
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Dream Figure!
Q-What does it mean to be loved?
Answer- To be a dream figure in somebody else's dream.
Answer- To be a dream figure in somebody else's dream.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Reflections on Love.
X : What is love to you?
Q : I don't know. Love again is one of those ambiguous terms. Everything one says on it comes out as a cliche. So, where of one cannot speak thereof one must be silent : )
X : Don't give me that non-sense and bullshit. I know you feel for her and still love her.
Q : Haha! Why do you have to bring her every time?
Listen, There will always be in love a desire more than the desired. Even if I do feel for her, so what. Such vestigial feelings don't matter at all. They don't serve any purpose and only cause pain.
X : There you go . You just talked about love. Enlighten me a bit more please. What is love?
Q : You know the art of eating my brain, Don't you? : )
Well, I think love is a precious word that has been drifted away from its meaning. My view on love keeps on changing. There was a time when I used to believe in mystical conception of love. No one illustrated it better than Plato in his Symposium. The speech by Aristophanes , the dramatic spokesman in Plato's Symposium, was quite illuminating for me. It summed up the whole tradition of western and eastern romanticism.
X : Can you tell me what was Aristophanes' view about love?
Q : Aristophanes offers us an apologue of a single soul , split in two by the God. Each half desperately seeking and finding its perfect fit or other half. Love is the ultimate union of such a single soul.
X : Wow! thats quite illuminating and poetic . Why don't you believe in it anymore?
Q : Because theres nothing left to believe in it for me. The whole idea is a myth that obscures the truth.
X : Mr: Philosopher can you please explain your reasons for such hostile critique?
Q : Only if you stop using your sarcastic and sardonic comments : )
X : Okay, I won't but give me your view of love now.
Q: Love in relationships is an everlasting struggle for recognition and authenticity. Its a mechanism employed by the mortal souls just to define themselves. Each one struggling against the other. That is the reason that we only love those people who conform to our own conception of who we actually are. In other words, they just tell us what we actually want to hear. What we love in others is our hopes and expectations,nothing else. Therefore, all the talk of selfless, altruistic and noble impulse is a myth that draws a a rosy picture of reality. In fact Love is the most selfish of all human desires. Love is not a union of one single soul but rather a strategy employed by the ego to win over the other person. Love is filled with jealousy, insecurity,uncertainty and fear. Romance only fosters itself in uncertainty, as soon as the union of souls take place (marriage) love ceases to be. So, when it comes to love. I am standing contra Aristophanes.
X : OMG! you ruined my day. That is such a diabolical conception of love. You are a beast, in fact worse. : )
Q : Haha! Tell me something I don't know. Besides, you are the one who asked for it.
X : Don't tell me that you loved her for all that selfish reasons ? : s
Q: Forget me. I am an exception, a 'Nietzschean Ubermensch'. These herd pleasures are not for me :P
Waise be yaar, to quote from Eternal Sunshine, I fell in love with every woman who shows me least bit of attention.
(Both laugh exaggeratedly and leave the room)
Monday, May 24, 2010
Here we Go again - Ray Charles
Here we go again
She's back in town again
I'll take her back again
One more time
Here we go again
The phone will ring again
I'll be her fool again
One more time
I've been there before
And I'll try it again
But any fool knows
That there's no way to win
Here we go again
She'll break my heart again
I'll play the part again
One more time
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Natural Law Tradition: Jurisprudence Revisited (1)
Natural law is term with varient meanings. Natural law tradition has been associated with a theory of ethics as well as a theory of law. In order to analyse natural law tradition it is imperative to maintain the distinction between the ethical and legal theory.
Natural law as an ethical theory revolves around the question of how a man 'ought' to live. It aims to seek answer to this question not by observing the 'laws of nature' which comes under the realm of science but rather by looking for some kind of objectivity in moral proposition. Natural law holds that moral proposition are not meaningless and one can objectively decide whether a moral proposition is true or not. The idea goes something like this, there is a core of our morality which does not depend upon our culture,convention or mere opinion but is common to all becuase of our 'shared nature'. Therefore, natural law ethics holds that a moral proposition is true if it conforms with our shared nature.
Natural law as legal theory is closely associated with the ethical one but has far reaching consequences. As the society evolved, the question of how a man ought to live met another question. The issue was now how a man ought to govern? There was now a central authority and a ruler who governed society by a socialogical tool called 'law'. The demand to bring the ruler under law was insitent and natural law legal theory provided the answer. It holds that 'law' derives its authority from 'morality'. In other words, there is a necessary connection between moral norms and legal norms. Therefore, law is nothing but applied morality. The basic tenents of the legal theory are as follows.
1) Law is universal and immutable. It does not depend upon mere custom,habit or opinion.
2) This universal law is discoverable by the faculty of human reasoning.
3) There is a necessare connection between law and morality.
4) Any positive law (man made law) is not binding upon the conscience if it is in a conflict with the natural law.
No one put it better than the Roman Philosopher Cicero. He wrote, "And there will be no different law at Rome and Athens, or different laws now or in future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times".
Classical Natural Law:
The roots of natural law tradition can be traced back to the ancient Greek and Roman Philosophies. The thought that began with Socrates reached its culmination in the writings of Aristotle and he formulated a systimatic account of Natural law tradition.
For Aritotle 'essence precedes existence', so it was essential to understand man's telos (purpose or goal) in order to understand his true nature. The teleolgical approach demands that the law should be made in the light of the human telos or purpose. Aristole believed that man was social, political and sought knowledge. A good life will be one where these aspects of human nature can flourish and prosper.
The Stoics believed in the primacy of human reason and cosmic determinism. Through their writings, they argued that by exercising human reason man can understand the real immutable law that transcends particular culture or religion. Taking natural law to its extremes, some of the thinkers believed that 'an unjust law is not law'. It is important to not here that they don't argue that an unjust law is 'bad law' but rather that it does not qualify as law at all becuase it loses its authority by ignoring the precepts of morality and justice.
God was not a central figure in the natural law theories of Aristotle, Plato or Stoics. However, in medival times religion was an essential feature of society and it took the genius of Saint Thomas Aquinas to come up with the synthesis of religion and natural law tradition. Building upon the works of Aristotle (whom he always reffered to as The Philosopher), Aquinas argued that the telos of man demands the establishment of a christian society and knowledge of God. In other words, he presented a christianised account of the Aristotlian conception of natural law. In doing so, he formulated a comprehensive natural theory of his own. Aquinas divided law into four categories i.e. Eternal law, Natural law, Divine law and Positive law. A brief eleboration of these terms is required to understand the structure of Aquinas' theory.
Eternal law refers to those laws according to which the whole universe is governed e.g laws of physics. In other words the eternal order imposed by the creator.
Natural law means that humans have a share in the divine wisdom. They posses rationality and free will and by exercising these faculties they develop a special relationship with the creator. In essence, the natural law refers to the participation of man in the divine rational order of things.
Divine law is essential for the salvation of man in the hereafter and primarily refers to the revealed scriptures and other Holy Texts.
Positive law or Human Law refers to those particular norms that man deduces from the general precepts of natural law. For instance, every religion prohibits bodily harm and theft. However, the scope of exact punishment is left at the discretion of state or human control. So, man by exercising his reason can come up with an appropriate punishment based on the precepts of natural law and justice. However, a Human law, for Aquinas is law as long as it deduces its authority from the natural law and promotes the 'common good'. Any positive legal norm that neither derives its authority from natural law nor promotes 'common good' is not law and therefore not binding upon conscience.
Natural law to Natural Rights:
Natural law played a pivotal role in the story and development of human rights. Natural law viewed certain rights to exist as a result of higher law. These inalienable rights were called natural rights by most of the liberal political writers.
John Locke considered these rightes to be existing on the basis of Social Contract. Thomes Hobbes had argued before Locke that these rightes were surrendered undered the social contract and the only right that survived it was the right of self-perservation. For Hobbes the gruesome state of nature demanded a strong central authority that can put order on chaos. However, Locke argued that these rights cannot be surrendered within the social contract and if a ruler does not grant these rights the citizens have a right to repudiate such a contract.
(continued)
Natural law as an ethical theory revolves around the question of how a man 'ought' to live. It aims to seek answer to this question not by observing the 'laws of nature' which comes under the realm of science but rather by looking for some kind of objectivity in moral proposition. Natural law holds that moral proposition are not meaningless and one can objectively decide whether a moral proposition is true or not. The idea goes something like this, there is a core of our morality which does not depend upon our culture,convention or mere opinion but is common to all becuase of our 'shared nature'. Therefore, natural law ethics holds that a moral proposition is true if it conforms with our shared nature.
Natural law as legal theory is closely associated with the ethical one but has far reaching consequences. As the society evolved, the question of how a man ought to live met another question. The issue was now how a man ought to govern? There was now a central authority and a ruler who governed society by a socialogical tool called 'law'. The demand to bring the ruler under law was insitent and natural law legal theory provided the answer. It holds that 'law' derives its authority from 'morality'. In other words, there is a necessary connection between moral norms and legal norms. Therefore, law is nothing but applied morality. The basic tenents of the legal theory are as follows.
1) Law is universal and immutable. It does not depend upon mere custom,habit or opinion.
2) This universal law is discoverable by the faculty of human reasoning.
3) There is a necessare connection between law and morality.
4) Any positive law (man made law) is not binding upon the conscience if it is in a conflict with the natural law.
No one put it better than the Roman Philosopher Cicero. He wrote, "And there will be no different law at Rome and Athens, or different laws now or in future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times".
Classical Natural Law:
The roots of natural law tradition can be traced back to the ancient Greek and Roman Philosophies. The thought that began with Socrates reached its culmination in the writings of Aristotle and he formulated a systimatic account of Natural law tradition.
For Aritotle 'essence precedes existence', so it was essential to understand man's telos (purpose or goal) in order to understand his true nature. The teleolgical approach demands that the law should be made in the light of the human telos or purpose. Aristole believed that man was social, political and sought knowledge. A good life will be one where these aspects of human nature can flourish and prosper.
The Stoics believed in the primacy of human reason and cosmic determinism. Through their writings, they argued that by exercising human reason man can understand the real immutable law that transcends particular culture or religion. Taking natural law to its extremes, some of the thinkers believed that 'an unjust law is not law'. It is important to not here that they don't argue that an unjust law is 'bad law' but rather that it does not qualify as law at all becuase it loses its authority by ignoring the precepts of morality and justice.
God was not a central figure in the natural law theories of Aristotle, Plato or Stoics. However, in medival times religion was an essential feature of society and it took the genius of Saint Thomas Aquinas to come up with the synthesis of religion and natural law tradition. Building upon the works of Aristotle (whom he always reffered to as The Philosopher), Aquinas argued that the telos of man demands the establishment of a christian society and knowledge of God. In other words, he presented a christianised account of the Aristotlian conception of natural law. In doing so, he formulated a comprehensive natural theory of his own. Aquinas divided law into four categories i.e. Eternal law, Natural law, Divine law and Positive law. A brief eleboration of these terms is required to understand the structure of Aquinas' theory.
Eternal law refers to those laws according to which the whole universe is governed e.g laws of physics. In other words the eternal order imposed by the creator.
Natural law means that humans have a share in the divine wisdom. They posses rationality and free will and by exercising these faculties they develop a special relationship with the creator. In essence, the natural law refers to the participation of man in the divine rational order of things.
Divine law is essential for the salvation of man in the hereafter and primarily refers to the revealed scriptures and other Holy Texts.
Positive law or Human Law refers to those particular norms that man deduces from the general precepts of natural law. For instance, every religion prohibits bodily harm and theft. However, the scope of exact punishment is left at the discretion of state or human control. So, man by exercising his reason can come up with an appropriate punishment based on the precepts of natural law and justice. However, a Human law, for Aquinas is law as long as it deduces its authority from the natural law and promotes the 'common good'. Any positive legal norm that neither derives its authority from natural law nor promotes 'common good' is not law and therefore not binding upon conscience.
Natural law to Natural Rights:
Natural law played a pivotal role in the story and development of human rights. Natural law viewed certain rights to exist as a result of higher law. These inalienable rights were called natural rights by most of the liberal political writers.
John Locke considered these rightes to be existing on the basis of Social Contract. Thomes Hobbes had argued before Locke that these rightes were surrendered undered the social contract and the only right that survived it was the right of self-perservation. For Hobbes the gruesome state of nature demanded a strong central authority that can put order on chaos. However, Locke argued that these rights cannot be surrendered within the social contract and if a ruler does not grant these rights the citizens have a right to repudiate such a contract.
(continued)
Friday, May 21, 2010
Free Will and Knowledge.
In recent years I have somehow developed a tendency towards determinism. In fact, staunch belief in 'free will' appears to me as a sign of naivety and blind optimism. My friend often ask me about my reasons for such hostility towards the notion of free will. I tell them that I don't understand the whole idea. They look at me kind of strange. However, when i question them about it ; it appears that they don't understand it either.
The usual conversation is always something like this.
X: We are free because we are responsible for our own actions. We do certain things because we wanna do these things.
Q: What makes you think that an intrinsically motivated will is the cause of all your actions?
X: What do you mean by cause here?
Q: You believe that everything has a cause, right?
X: Yes, I do.
Q: Then believing in free will means that free will is the cause of all our actions , right?
X: That is true.
Q: I don't understand it. You concede that everything has a cause but free will is the 'uncaused cause' of all our actions.How is it possible mate ? The idea does not make much sense to me. The idea of causality is antecedent to the notion of free will (since free will is the cause of all our actions) yet belief in free will demands negation of causality because its the uncaused cause of all our actions.
X: Ah, what?
After years of such futile discussions, it occurred to me that the whole debate is not worth it. The problem lies somewhere else.We tend to believe that we are free because of many reasons.
Firstly, we tend to think that we humans are masters of this universe and can govern it as we like. We don't realize that in this infinite realm of time and space we suddenly one day find ourselves existing after years and years of non-existence, without a choice of our own. Our place of birth,time and family are determined and don't involve our own free will. How can one even think of exercising free will in such a cosmic order?
Secondly, as Spinoza and Nietzsche have argued, we think we are free because (to some extent) we are always aware of what we do. Just because we are aware of what we do gives us a false hope that we do exercise free will. However, we don't realize that the question is not what exactly we do but why we do what we do?
Thirdly, we don't have the complete knowledge about ourselves and others. That always leaves room for indeterminacy as to how one will act under certain circumstances. Therefore, this lack of knowledge leads one to believe in free will. I have no doubt in my mind that a complete knowledge about our own nature leaves the belief in free will redundant. In other words, being omniscient makes the notion of free will meaningless in my opinion. One can conclude from my discussion that free will is intimately connected with knowledge. The more we know the more we learn the ability to 'accept and endure'.
Ignorance is bliss! : )
Monday, May 17, 2010
Onwards!
"And so onwards along the path of wisdom, with a hearty tread, a hearty confidence! However you may be, be your own source of experience! Throw off your discontent about your own nature; forgive yourself your own self, for you have in it a lader with hundered rungs, on which you can climb to knowledge" - Nietzsche
Friday, April 9, 2010
Dream!
A dream is being born; a dream to change the mud to gold.A dream to rise above oneself and face life head on.A dream to forgive oneself for being oneself.A dream to live happily even when theres nothing left in heavens above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)