Perhaps it was all a misunderstanding from the beginning. For he thought she understood his silence, when she never even understood his words.
(Re-evaluating an older post of mine)
(Re-evaluating an older post of mine)
Monday, December 26, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Freedom and Hope!
Freedom comes to those who dare to dream. Who are not afraid of hoping; even hoping against hope when finding themselves in dire straits. A free man is a dreamer who hopes that the world is or will eventually turn out to be as beautiful as his dreams. Someone who at every stage of his journey realizes the immense uncertainty that lies a head. No philosophy or theory can encapsulate the essence of freedom better than hope.
Only those who find it impossible to dream or hope are incapable of true freedom.
Only those who find it impossible to dream or hope are incapable of true freedom.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Metaphysics of Self Justification!
X: Why do you think we justify ourselves all the time? Any psychological or philosophical reasons for it Qasim? Me: Well, the mere fact that there is something instead of nothing; makes all the life an attempt at self-justification. :p
Monday, December 19, 2011
'When You Are Old' by William Butler Yeats
When you are old and grey and full of sleep,
And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;
How many loved your moments of glad grace,
And loved your beauty with love false or true,
But one man loved the pilgrim Soul in you,
And loved the sorrows of your changing face;
And bending down beside the glowing bars,
Murmur, a little sadly, how Love fled
And paced upon the mountains overhead
And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.
And nodding by the fire, take down this book,
And slowly read, and dream of the soft look
Your eyes had once, and of their shadows deep;
How many loved your moments of glad grace,
And loved your beauty with love false or true,
But one man loved the pilgrim Soul in you,
And loved the sorrows of your changing face;
And bending down beside the glowing bars,
Murmur, a little sadly, how Love fled
And paced upon the mountains overhead
And hid his face amid a crowd of stars.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Meaning of life!
The meaning of life is neither happiness nor suffering. It is making sense out of it even when it doesn't.
Truth and God!
IF God is truth then pursuance of truth becomes submission to God. So, a man can be a believer even without knowledge of his submission.
Friday, December 2, 2011
The issue of Personal Identiy: Wittgenstenian Perspective!
Who am 'I'? How do I know that 'I' am the same person I was 10 years ago. Is Qasim the blogger the same guy as Qasim the 2 year old toddler? This is perhaps the classic example of 'personal Identity'. Philosophers often roam around areas where normal people fear to tread. In fact the issue of personal identity won't even disturb a common man. As most of us look at the whole issue intuitively. However, philosophers don't have much respect for common sense. In the immortal words of Russell, what is common sense but the 'metaphysics of savages'?
Imagine yourself teaching a bunch of philosophy students. Give them the example of a guy whose mind (Person A) has been transferred to another body (Person B). What if my own mind is transferred to another body? Will I be the same person? Or Will it be something new? 8 out of 10 people will likely argue that the A and B are the same person. If you think on the similar lines than count yourself as a Lockean follower. The issue of continuity with regards to personal identity was solved by John Locke with reference to psychology. He argued that personal identity comes from the conviction that we have certain memories of our old self. Similarly, even when we grow up. We grow up with a sense of self-identity because of this very psychological continuity. So far so good. What seems to be wrong with this view some may ask. Well, a couple of things.
Firstly, we don't necessarily have all the memories of our past. Does that mean those forgotten parts are not part of my identity now? Similarly, Psychological theory of self-identity seems to suggest that a person post amnesia is a completely different person. But more importantly, psychological theory seems to thrive on a presumption that 'mind' is something that is independent of our body. However, we know that to talk about 'mind' in the absence of body really doesn't make sense. So, what alternatives do we have?
The alternative school of thought believes in physical continuity rather than psychological one. To put it simply, personal identity doesn't come from any psychological unity but rather physical one. I am the same Qasim because i possess the same body. Surely, nothing can be wrong with this explanation. Well, it doesn't survive the test of skepticism either. Imagine a person 'A' who goes under a sex change operation. Transforms his physical body. Does that mean he is not the same person anymore? The Physical continuity argument seems to suggest the after physical change he is person B and no more person A.
Something seems to be odd here. Even a minor exposition of the existing common sense based theories (Psychological as well as Physical) of personal identity struggle to survive the test of reason. They rather lead to antimony. So, what does Wittgenstein has us to offer on this?
Wittgenstein and Personal Identity:
The issue of personal Identity is the problem of 'first person' for Wittgenstein. His personal remarks on the issue are contained in Blue and Brown Books. The remarks are scattered and his take on the issue is highly radical and unique. I will be using these primary sources for my discussion.
Wittgenstein rejected the Cartesian model of mind altogether. For him the problem was with this whole tradition. There is no such thing as 'inner self' for Wittgenstein. One may ask that if there is no such thing as inner self then how do we identity or re-identify people around us? How does Wittgenstein answers this issue of personal identity. Well, his remarks in Blue Book shed some light on his stance. He believes that it is mistake to think that some metaphysical bedrock provides us with a sense of personal identity. He rejects both psychological theory as well as physical one for providing us with such deep metaphysical grounds. There doesn't seem to be a singular criterion by which we identity ourselves and others. For instance, the personal identity comes from different sources such as bodily appearance, habits, sound of voice etc. The person-hood depends on such contingent and composite factors. There is no singular test but rather an over lapping criterion for personal Identity. The word 'I' doesn't stand for some spiritual unity. In fact think of it as a tool that facilitates us. This is what he denies. There is no such thing as 'inner self'. No such thing as 'physical continuity' too. In simple words, there is no necessary truth or condition that explains the problem of self-identity. In fact for Wittgenstein there is no such problem to begin with. The common language or words are like tools; they facilitate us in everyday everydayness. Therefore, we don't encounter the problem of personal identity in normal life. It is only when we apply these words to uncommon examples or thought experiments when the problem seems to step in. The reason is quite simple. The words were never meant to serve this purpose. As a tool they don't help us in such scenarios. The word 'I' then becomes a mystery. There is no determinate answer to the problem of self-identity for Wittgenstein. We may revise our view of the 'self' as it depends on certain contingent factors rather than some indubitable metaphysical truth. It is interesting to see the resemblance between Heidegger and Wittgenstein here. Both of them rejected the Cartesian tradition. Both argued that the world does not reside in the Self but rather Self is something that resides in the world.
Imagine yourself teaching a bunch of philosophy students. Give them the example of a guy whose mind (Person A) has been transferred to another body (Person B). What if my own mind is transferred to another body? Will I be the same person? Or Will it be something new? 8 out of 10 people will likely argue that the A and B are the same person. If you think on the similar lines than count yourself as a Lockean follower. The issue of continuity with regards to personal identity was solved by John Locke with reference to psychology. He argued that personal identity comes from the conviction that we have certain memories of our old self. Similarly, even when we grow up. We grow up with a sense of self-identity because of this very psychological continuity. So far so good. What seems to be wrong with this view some may ask. Well, a couple of things.
Firstly, we don't necessarily have all the memories of our past. Does that mean those forgotten parts are not part of my identity now? Similarly, Psychological theory of self-identity seems to suggest that a person post amnesia is a completely different person. But more importantly, psychological theory seems to thrive on a presumption that 'mind' is something that is independent of our body. However, we know that to talk about 'mind' in the absence of body really doesn't make sense. So, what alternatives do we have?
The alternative school of thought believes in physical continuity rather than psychological one. To put it simply, personal identity doesn't come from any psychological unity but rather physical one. I am the same Qasim because i possess the same body. Surely, nothing can be wrong with this explanation. Well, it doesn't survive the test of skepticism either. Imagine a person 'A' who goes under a sex change operation. Transforms his physical body. Does that mean he is not the same person anymore? The Physical continuity argument seems to suggest the after physical change he is person B and no more person A.
Something seems to be odd here. Even a minor exposition of the existing common sense based theories (Psychological as well as Physical) of personal identity struggle to survive the test of reason. They rather lead to antimony. So, what does Wittgenstein has us to offer on this?
Wittgenstein and Personal Identity:
The issue of personal Identity is the problem of 'first person' for Wittgenstein. His personal remarks on the issue are contained in Blue and Brown Books. The remarks are scattered and his take on the issue is highly radical and unique. I will be using these primary sources for my discussion.
Wittgenstein rejected the Cartesian model of mind altogether. For him the problem was with this whole tradition. There is no such thing as 'inner self' for Wittgenstein. One may ask that if there is no such thing as inner self then how do we identity or re-identify people around us? How does Wittgenstein answers this issue of personal identity. Well, his remarks in Blue Book shed some light on his stance. He believes that it is mistake to think that some metaphysical bedrock provides us with a sense of personal identity. He rejects both psychological theory as well as physical one for providing us with such deep metaphysical grounds. There doesn't seem to be a singular criterion by which we identity ourselves and others. For instance, the personal identity comes from different sources such as bodily appearance, habits, sound of voice etc. The person-hood depends on such contingent and composite factors. There is no singular test but rather an over lapping criterion for personal Identity. The word 'I' doesn't stand for some spiritual unity. In fact think of it as a tool that facilitates us. This is what he denies. There is no such thing as 'inner self'. No such thing as 'physical continuity' too. In simple words, there is no necessary truth or condition that explains the problem of self-identity. In fact for Wittgenstein there is no such problem to begin with. The common language or words are like tools; they facilitate us in everyday everydayness. Therefore, we don't encounter the problem of personal identity in normal life. It is only when we apply these words to uncommon examples or thought experiments when the problem seems to step in. The reason is quite simple. The words were never meant to serve this purpose. As a tool they don't help us in such scenarios. The word 'I' then becomes a mystery. There is no determinate answer to the problem of self-identity for Wittgenstein. We may revise our view of the 'self' as it depends on certain contingent factors rather than some indubitable metaphysical truth. It is interesting to see the resemblance between Heidegger and Wittgenstein here. Both of them rejected the Cartesian tradition. Both argued that the world does not reside in the Self but rather Self is something that resides in the world.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
The inner Prophet!
He was a Prophet unto himself. Always guiding himself in darkest hours of his life. No Gabriell came to his help. No message came from the seventh heaven. Still, he was a Prophet unto himself. So, one day he crucified himself for the sins of the inner Prophet.
Right Words!
Such is the irony of life. Thoughts that are most worthy of being expressed are the ones that find it impossible to come up with right words.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Love story!
He was blind and she always saw things from other people's eyes. Therefore, their love story ended even before it began.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Windmills of your mind!
 |
| Lovers walk along the shore and leave their footprints on the sand! |
| Windmills of your mind - Noel Harrison | ||
 | ||
 | Found at bee mp3 search engine |  |
Keys that jingle in your pocket
Words that jangle your head
Why did summer go so quickly
Was it something that I said
Lovers walking allong the shore,
Leave their footprints in the sand
Was the sound of distant drumming
Just the fingers of your hand
Pictures hanging in a hallway
And a fragment of this song
Half remembered names and faces
But to whom do they belong
When you knew that it was over
Were you suddenly aware
That the autumn leaves were turning
To the color of her hair
Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning,
On an ever spinning wheel
As the images unwind
Like the circle that you find
In the windmills of your mind
The worst Phobia!
Every time I am happy; I get worried. Among all phobias, the phobia of happiness is the worst.
'You think quantum physics has the answer?
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Nature's desire!
"Desire is the Opposite of Death" - Tennessee Williams
True. Perhaps death is nature's desire to end all desires.
True. Perhaps death is nature's desire to end all desires.
Love and solitude!
Lying on his bed trying to sleep, a random thought came across him. His mind whispered to itself a secret question. 'When was I in love the most?', he asked himself. 'Probably, whenever I was alone', was the instant reply. Love for him had always been a child of loneliness, cultivated and fostered by one's own solitude. Yet it was the sheer fear of this loneliness and the immense burden of his own solitude that made him go hunting for love. Soon he got his love. The union payed farewell to all the personal loneliness and solitude. However, that was the time he was in love the least. Whats worse? He knew it.
After that even the loneliness was never the same.
After that even the loneliness was never the same.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Subtle Kind of Murder!
'The most loving parents and relatives commit murder with smiles on their faces. They force us to destroy the person we really are: a subtle kind of murder. '
Jim Morrison
Jim Morrison
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Time!
Sometimes I wonder what is the truth. Is time consuming me or am I consuming time. Who knows. Perhaps what difference does it make?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
I think therefore..
I think, therefore I am an outcast. (Qasim Aziz)
And alien tears will fill for him,
Pity's long-
For his mourners will be outcast men,
And outcasts always mourn- Oscar Wilde
And alien tears will fill for him,
Pity's long-
For his mourners will be outcast men,
And outcasts always mourn- Oscar Wilde
Monday, November 14, 2011
Contra Hard determinism!
To my previous post named 'On Human Choice'. I got this feedback from a dear friend of mine, Awais Aftab. He had certain reservations regarding my take on the subject. Since his objections are quite relevant, I have decided to write a blog entry. Below are his remarks regarding my position.
___________________________________________________________________________________
A thought provoking and insightful post. Loved the thought process.
I'd like to mention two reservations though:
1) You wrote "A hard determinist will argue that since the young guy cannot alter this fact; his whole future will be determined by this very act." I believe this is erroneous as such, because a hard determinist will argue that his whole future will be determined by his collective past events as a whole, in which a particular individual past event may or may not play a role.
2) You wrote "I will be the one who will give it a meaning. I have the choice to give it a meaning." A hard determinist will say that even the process of ascribing meaning to a past event will be determined by the past and by factors external to you. Whatever meaning you decide to give to the past event would also be determined.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Here is my reply to him.
Awais!
You are absolutely right about the hard determinist's position. To be honest it is very difficult to argue with a hard determinist as they will always take a step back and hide behind some sort of causality (whether materialistic or psychological) and deny the possibility of human choice.
However, my issue is this. Even when our actions are controlled by external factors; we may interpret them in a specific way. That is where the internal part comes in. By that I mean our response towards it. I know a hard determinist will come up with the argument that even our response is also determined by past events and external forces. I refuse to accept this claim.
Hard determinism fails to explain the difference in people's behavior coming from the same economic and social background. For example, Two brothers sharing same life style may differ in their response to certain events including failed love affairs, spiritual crisis, loss of a loved one etc.
Secondly, if hard determinism is true then personal motive should flow with a kind of lubricant. However, the very existence of struggle and resilience proves the futility of external factors. The fact that we have to work hard to achieve something negates the claim of at least hard determinism.
Thirdly and most importantly, hard determinism can never conceptually negate the possibility of freedom or choice. This may sound counter intuitive but I will elaborate my point. Imagine if everything is determined by our past experience and external forces (as hard determinists argue) then this leaves us with a potential position where the 'freedom' of a person is determined by his past events and external forces. Meaning that a person A was determined by the very external forces to live a free life ( To say it in another way, he had no choice but freedom). In principle, a hard determinist cannot negate the possibility of such scenario. They will have to accept it because of their primary position.
Now, here comes my main argument. If hard determinism leaves 'potential' or 'rare' room for freedom or choice then it means anyone can fall to this category as a matter of luck. Since we can't exactly know whether we belong to such category or not we can never know whether we are completely determined or completely free. To borrow Dennet's terminology, that is where we seem to suffer from an 'epistemic horizon'.
Finally, I may resort to a psychological assertion. Hard determinism seems to generate a feeling that 'Nothing's gonna change my world'. However, the moment one accepts that one is not free. One is a changed person. I know this is more of a psychological feeling than a logical argument. Truth has a strange liberating effect on us even in captivity. As the Bible says, ''Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
I know that none of my arguments are conclusive. But the very existence of debate and doubt for me leaves room for choice on this subject.
___________________________________________________________________________________
A thought provoking and insightful post. Loved the thought process.
I'd like to mention two reservations though:
1) You wrote "A hard determinist will argue that since the young guy cannot alter this fact; his whole future will be determined by this very act." I believe this is erroneous as such, because a hard determinist will argue that his whole future will be determined by his collective past events as a whole, in which a particular individual past event may or may not play a role.
2) You wrote "I will be the one who will give it a meaning. I have the choice to give it a meaning." A hard determinist will say that even the process of ascribing meaning to a past event will be determined by the past and by factors external to you. Whatever meaning you decide to give to the past event would also be determined.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Here is my reply to him.
Awais!
You are absolutely right about the hard determinist's position. To be honest it is very difficult to argue with a hard determinist as they will always take a step back and hide behind some sort of causality (whether materialistic or psychological) and deny the possibility of human choice.
However, my issue is this. Even when our actions are controlled by external factors; we may interpret them in a specific way. That is where the internal part comes in. By that I mean our response towards it. I know a hard determinist will come up with the argument that even our response is also determined by past events and external forces. I refuse to accept this claim.
Hard determinism fails to explain the difference in people's behavior coming from the same economic and social background. For example, Two brothers sharing same life style may differ in their response to certain events including failed love affairs, spiritual crisis, loss of a loved one etc.
Secondly, if hard determinism is true then personal motive should flow with a kind of lubricant. However, the very existence of struggle and resilience proves the futility of external factors. The fact that we have to work hard to achieve something negates the claim of at least hard determinism.
Thirdly and most importantly, hard determinism can never conceptually negate the possibility of freedom or choice. This may sound counter intuitive but I will elaborate my point. Imagine if everything is determined by our past experience and external forces (as hard determinists argue) then this leaves us with a potential position where the 'freedom' of a person is determined by his past events and external forces. Meaning that a person A was determined by the very external forces to live a free life ( To say it in another way, he had no choice but freedom). In principle, a hard determinist cannot negate the possibility of such scenario. They will have to accept it because of their primary position.
Now, here comes my main argument. If hard determinism leaves 'potential' or 'rare' room for freedom or choice then it means anyone can fall to this category as a matter of luck. Since we can't exactly know whether we belong to such category or not we can never know whether we are completely determined or completely free. To borrow Dennet's terminology, that is where we seem to suffer from an 'epistemic horizon'.
Finally, I may resort to a psychological assertion. Hard determinism seems to generate a feeling that 'Nothing's gonna change my world'. However, the moment one accepts that one is not free. One is a changed person. I know this is more of a psychological feeling than a logical argument. Truth has a strange liberating effect on us even in captivity. As the Bible says, ''Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
I know that none of my arguments are conclusive. But the very existence of debate and doubt for me leaves room for choice on this subject.
On Human Choice!
Whats done cannot be undone!
A simple but profoundly true dictum. The essence of time is movement. As Iqbal put it aptly;
Jo tha woh nehi hei, jo hei na hu ga
Yehi hei ik harf-e-mafermana
(Translation: What ever that was, is not. What ever that is, will not be. This is the mysterious word.)
Our past is a matter of fact. Certain events take place in our life and become an inseparable part of our character. This has made certain people argue that our past somehow determines our future therefore free will or human choice is an impossibility. Since we cannot alter out past, we cannot alter our future too. I take exception to this assertion. Despite being someone who is not a free will enthusiast; I believe there is room for human choice. I will elaborate my argument below.
Imagine someone who had committed murder at the age of 17 or 18. This incident of the past becomes a fact for that individual. A hard determinist will argue that since the young guy cannot alter this fact; his whole future will be determined by this very act. He wont be able to escape it. It will haunt him.
Similarly imagine someone who gets into an illicit secret relationship. Someone who explores all the carnal instinctive desires.Or someone who has been cheated or jilted by their partners. For a determinist such a person won't be able to escape this fact in future even when the relationship will be over. As they say, whatever is done cannot be undone.
The determinist argument seems to make sense intuitively. Only a fool or a liar can deny his past. Facticity is part of human condition. However, there is another aspect to the whole debate. We humans have been endowed with an ability to give meaning to our actions. This is the aspect that determinists ignore. For instance who will decide that the murder I committed at the age of 18 was a crime or was it a life changing event making me a complete pacifist by the age of 25? Me. I will be the one who will give it a meaning. I have the choice to give it a meaning. Who will decide whether the carnal illicit experience I had as a young lad was something ugly or was it the basis of later spiritual conversion at the age of 40? Me. Only I will be in a position to give it a meaning. True, I cannot change my past actions. But I can surely change the meaning I attach to them in future. That is where lies the true potential for human choice.
A simple but profoundly true dictum. The essence of time is movement. As Iqbal put it aptly;
Jo tha woh nehi hei, jo hei na hu ga
Yehi hei ik harf-e-mafermana
(Translation: What ever that was, is not. What ever that is, will not be. This is the mysterious word.)
Our past is a matter of fact. Certain events take place in our life and become an inseparable part of our character. This has made certain people argue that our past somehow determines our future therefore free will or human choice is an impossibility. Since we cannot alter out past, we cannot alter our future too. I take exception to this assertion. Despite being someone who is not a free will enthusiast; I believe there is room for human choice. I will elaborate my argument below.
Imagine someone who had committed murder at the age of 17 or 18. This incident of the past becomes a fact for that individual. A hard determinist will argue that since the young guy cannot alter this fact; his whole future will be determined by this very act. He wont be able to escape it. It will haunt him.
Similarly imagine someone who gets into an illicit secret relationship. Someone who explores all the carnal instinctive desires.Or someone who has been cheated or jilted by their partners. For a determinist such a person won't be able to escape this fact in future even when the relationship will be over. As they say, whatever is done cannot be undone.
The determinist argument seems to make sense intuitively. Only a fool or a liar can deny his past. Facticity is part of human condition. However, there is another aspect to the whole debate. We humans have been endowed with an ability to give meaning to our actions. This is the aspect that determinists ignore. For instance who will decide that the murder I committed at the age of 18 was a crime or was it a life changing event making me a complete pacifist by the age of 25? Me. I will be the one who will give it a meaning. I have the choice to give it a meaning. Who will decide whether the carnal illicit experience I had as a young lad was something ugly or was it the basis of later spiritual conversion at the age of 40? Me. Only I will be in a position to give it a meaning. True, I cannot change my past actions. But I can surely change the meaning I attach to them in future. That is where lies the true potential for human choice.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Hallaj's throne!
Hallaj looked for god everywhere, even reached the seventh heaven in his love for the lord. Finding his throne empty he sat in his place.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Truth and the Clash!
Objectivity demands that we must jump outside ourselves and see things from a perspective independent of our mind. Nature has given us a peculiar gift. We have the ability to see things from a detached point of view. Some have called it the 'view from nowhere'. However, at the same time we belong to a particular time period in history. We have our own prejudices and beliefs. We have the ability to see the world in our own image. The clash between this 'personal world view' and the 'view from nowhere' seems to generate all the philosophical problems. To stress the importance of one world view over the other seems to move away from truth. The whole truth neither lies in 'view from nowhere' nor in 'personal world view'. Truth is the clash.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Hubert Dreyfus and his Heideggerian atttack on Artificial Intelligence!
 |
| Turing Test! |
Years after watching the movie I ask myself a deceptively simple question, Can machines think or behave like humans? This is not a new question. Alan Turing propagated it in his seminal work Computer Machinery and Intelligence. He came up with the Idea of 'Turing Test', a kind of thought experiment which elucidates his view on the subject. For those who have not heard of Turing test I will explain it briefly.
Imagine a scenario involving three players namely A,B, and C. Player C as interrogator is given the task to find out which of the two players from A and B is a machine and which one is human. The correspondence between them is limited to writing. If the interrogator finds it impossible to distinguish the machine from human beings then the machine is said to have passed the Turing Test. It was this simple idea that revolutionized the World of A.I. People and enthusiasts started making prophesies about the domination of A.I over human intelligence and intellect.
To be honest I was never comfortable with the idea of A.I as indistinguishable from human intelligence. Despite being interested in science fiction, I find the whole idea disconcerting. Time after time I discussed this problem with my friends working in field of I.T and asked for their insights on the subject. However, it was my own ambition that lead me to read some stuff on this issue. It was here that I first discovered Professor Hubert Dreyfus. This man has added a new dimension to the whole debate of Artificial intelligence through his penetrating critique of the whole Idea of A.I.
It is important to mention here that Professor Dreyfus in my view is the greatest living authority on the work of Martin Heidegger. It was through his relentless work that the ideas of this great continental thinker gained acceptance and accessibility in the Anglo-American world which had initially dismissed him as an obscurantist and a Nazi sympathizer. It is also a well known fact that Martin Heidegger despised technological advancement and scientific progress and saw in it the seeds of futuristic nihilism. Therefore, I won't shy away from calling him a Luddite. People from the field of computer sciences have also accused Dreyfus for being a Neo-Luddite. This is the reason that initially his work was not taken. seriously. However, with the passage of time his critique seems to have served a very strong dent to the whole argument of A.I.
Critique of A.I:
Here I will summarize the main attack of Professor Hubert Dreyfus on A.I. According to Professor Dreyfus, the whole argument of artificial intelligence thrives on certain misguided or partially true assumptions. Firstly, Dreyfus argues, A.I seems to draw an analogy between a Humans and a machines (or computers). The assumption is to treat brain as a hardware and mind as a kind of software or programme. Secondly, Artificial Intelligence seems to suggest that human mind functions by performing discrete computations on discrete representation via rule-following. Thirdly, this psychological assumption rests on two other presumptions.
Firstly, it assumes that all intelligent human activity is rules governed or law governed. Therefore, intelligence can be treated in a mathematical fashion. Secondly, for A.I reality consists of independent atomic facts. Intelligence therefore means nothing but the internal representation of these facts via rule-following. In conclusion, the argument for A.I revolves around one question. Does intelligence follows rules?
Dreyfus contends that to argue that intelligence is a rule governed activity presupposes the objective knowledge of human psychology. If intelligence is rule-governed then contextuality is immaterial. However, the subject of 'objective psychology' is self-contradictory for Dreyfus. Taking a cue from Heidegger and Wittgenstein, he vehemently argues that Intelligence does not depend on following rules. Most of our intelligent human activity is not dependent on conscious choice making but rather on unconscious/sub-conscious 'everyday everydayness'. The cognitive aspect of A.I seems to suggest that cognition is nothing but the manipulation of symbols and representation in mind via rules. Therefore, we can study the phenomena of mind exactly the way we can study the workings of the universe. For instance, a physicists can talk about the universal physical laws. Similarly, an objective psychology of human mind is also possible. It is this thesis that Dreyfus aggressively dismisses. For, Dreyfus it is impossible to come up with an 'objective psychology' or 'scientific psychology'. Heidegger saw human beings as historical beings always bound in some sort of 'context' or situation. He famously called us 'coping beings'. Always finding ourselves in a situation or a context. It is on the basis of these insights that Dreyfus denies the existence of context free scientific psychology. However, remaining a true Heideggerian he suggests that we can obviously chose to see the intelligence as a rule-governed activity. But the fact that we can chose to see intelligence as a rule-governed activity gives us no rational ground to justify that all intelligent activity is necessarily rule governed.
Personally, I see it as a very strong critique of the idea of A.I but the technological advancement may prove me wrong in my belief. However, I strongly share Dreyfus' thesis that objective psychology is impossible. If we cannot objectively talk about the basis of our human intelligence; it is utterly useless to talk about A.I. Finally, I must confess I am a Neo-Luddite too ;-)
P.S
For those interested in the critique of A.I, I would recommend reading Professor John Searle and his Chinese room argument.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Tractatus Logica-Pakistan!
For all the Wittgenstein fans.
Tractatus Logica-Pakistan: 'Whereof one cannot speak; thereof one must yell and shout'.
Tractatus Logica-Pakistan: 'Whereof one cannot speak; thereof one must yell and shout'.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Two flew over the Cuckoo's Den!
Today was a special day. I managed to visit one of the best known cafes of Lahore named Cuckoo's Den. The cafe is owned by Mr. Iqbal Hussain, an artist by profession, born to a prostitute mother in the vicinity of infamous Red Light area of Lahore.(The good thing about this fact is that Mr Hussain faces this issue head on and doesn't shy away from it. A quality that I really used to admire before my visit). For years I have heard many things about the glorious and sublime ambiance of the cafe which is surrounded by Badshahi Mosque on one side and Lahore Fort on the other. To be honest, I had been trying to visit that place for ages in the past but never got a chance to go there. Finally, I along with a dear friend of mine managed to visit it. What followed was a series of misfortune events.
It was Eid Night and much like the Old Nawabi kids of Mughal era both of us were expecting some sort of cultural activity (Ghazal night or something of that sort) there. However, when I parked my car outside the cafe, the very first thing that struck me was the 17th century building of the cafe signifying the spirit of inner Lahore. Apart from the architect nothing really attracted my attention. Not even the next door brothel. We were welcomed by a middle aged uncle who showed us the way to the top of the cafe. The five story building is nothing short of a museum. We had to walk up stairs all the way. On the very first floor I encountered Shri Ganesh's statue giving the appearance of a medieval Hindu temple. Artistic! very atristic! I thought to myself while appreciating the cultural taste of Mr Hussain. On my way up, I was welcomed by Mother Mary, Jesus and finally Buddha on each floor respectively. For a moment I thought that the customers were made to believe that they were on a Dante Style heavenly journey rather than a visit to an ordinary cafe.
Finally we were on the roof top. Before us stood the Badshahi Mosque with all its glory. The mesmerizing and awe inspiring ambiance of the cafe made me and my friend convinced about the artistic genuineness of Mr. Hussain. The first few moments on the top were just amazing. But as Frost said 'Nothing gold can stay'. Our enthusiasm and fascination proved to be short lived. My friend was about to tell me the dynamics of the inner walled city when the waiter standing next made us realize that we were supposed to order something. So, very gently the menu was presented to us. . What followed is the real purpose for which I am writing this long blog entry.
We ordered one plate of regular Biryani, one Qeemay wala naan along with Raita and two regular cold drinks. The price of the items gave me and my friend goosebumps. They were charging 100 rupees for regular coke. Rupees 450 for Biryani and Rupees 200 only for Raita. Not to forget 150 Rupees for Naan. Good heavens! I thought to myself. Artists are famous for austerity but I never knew that their austerity doesn't extend to their customers. My table was surrounded by the statues of Buddha and Jesus. Ironically, two saintly figures signifying monkish life style. I felt them laughing at us; as if they were saying that we admirers of culture and art deserve this fate. Remaining sanguine, I reassured my disillusioned friend that may be the food will compensate the value for money. However, when the food eventually arrived I was made to pay heavily (not only financially) for my reckless optimism. The Biryani tasted as if it were picked up from the next door Langar. The food and price made us forget everything. Me and my friend were in a conundrum. We couldn't made up our mind as to what was more difficult a task. Paying our bill or eating our meal. Unfortunately, we had to eat and we had to pay. We were left with no other option. My disillusioned friend asked me why Mr. Hussain was doing this injustice to his admirers and customers. I replied sarcastically that the idea is to take revenge from the very society that has inflicted injustices on Mr. Hussan as a kid. My friend came up with an even nastier theory. He speculated that the area has its history of mugging people for money , perhaps the means are changed now but intent is the same.
Perhaps the truth is something else. Here was a man known for promoting a cultural and liberal identity as a true pakistani artist. Like many Pakistani artists before; he proved himself to be another phony. The road to culture and art is paved with greedy intentions. With that we paid our bill and two of us flew over the Cuckoo's Den. Never to return again to this so called cultural citadel.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Saturday, November 5, 2011
First Cut is the deepest!
Sappy song but I kinda like it :-)
| Sheryl Crow - First Cut Is the Deepest .mp3 | ||
| | ||
| Found at bee mp3 search engine | |
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Anal Haq!
With the sword of his own blood he slayed all divine reverence . Anal-Haq, Anal-Haq (I am the Truth, I am the Truth), he proclaimed in ecstasy. Like the older truth from Nazareth; he too was crucified. Tragically, he was put back again on the very divine pedestrian he had destroyed in the moment of ecstasy. Nothing remained of the original truth but its echo.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Perfect Lovers!
If the purpose of love is to know each other. Then they were perfect lovers; sharing a peculiar kind of permanent silence that comes with the realization when one already knows what the other person is going to say.
Monday, October 31, 2011
"Emptiness," by Jalaluddin Rumi
Consider the difference
in our actions and God's actions.
We often ask, "Why did you do that?"
or "Why did I act like that?"
We do act, and yet everything we do
is God's creative action.
We look back and analyse the events
of our lives, but there is another way
of seeing, a backward-and-forward-at-once
vision, that is not rationally understandable.
Only God can understand it.
Satan made the excuse, "You caused me to fall,
whereas Adam said to God, "We did this
to ourselves." After this repentance,
God asked Adam, "Since all is within
my foreknowledge, why didn't you
defend yourself with that reason?"
Adam answered, "I was afraid,
and I wanted to be reverent."
Whoever acts with respect will get respect.
Whoever brings sweetness will be served almond cake.
Good women are drawn to be with good men.
Honour your friend.
Or treat him rudely,
and see what happens!
Love, tell an incident now
that will clarify this mystery
of how we act freely, and are yet
compelled. One hand shakes with palsy.
Another shakes because because you slapped it away.
Both tremblings come from God,
but you feel guilty for the one,
and what about the other?
These are intellectual questions.
The spirit approaches the matter
differently. Omar once had a friend, a scientist,
Bu'l-Hakam, who was flawless at solving
empirical problems, but he could not follow Omar
into the area of illumination and wonder.
Now I return to the text, "And He is with you,
wherever you are," but when have I ever left it!
Ignorance is God's prison
Knowing is God's palace.
We sleep in God's unconsciousness.
We wake in God's open hand.
We weep God's rain.
We laugh God's lightning.
Fighting and peacefulness
both take place within God.
Who are we then
in this complicated world-tangle,
that is really just the single, straight
line down at the beginning of ALLAH?
Nothing.
We are
emptiness.
in our actions and God's actions.
We often ask, "Why did you do that?"
or "Why did I act like that?"
We do act, and yet everything we do
is God's creative action.
We look back and analyse the events
of our lives, but there is another way
of seeing, a backward-and-forward-at-once
vision, that is not rationally understandable.
Only God can understand it.
Satan made the excuse, "You caused me to fall,
whereas Adam said to God, "We did this
to ourselves." After this repentance,
God asked Adam, "Since all is within
my foreknowledge, why didn't you
defend yourself with that reason?"
Adam answered, "I was afraid,
and I wanted to be reverent."
Whoever acts with respect will get respect.
Whoever brings sweetness will be served almond cake.
Good women are drawn to be with good men.
Honour your friend.
Or treat him rudely,
and see what happens!
Love, tell an incident now
that will clarify this mystery
of how we act freely, and are yet
compelled. One hand shakes with palsy.
Another shakes because because you slapped it away.
Both tremblings come from God,
but you feel guilty for the one,
and what about the other?
These are intellectual questions.
The spirit approaches the matter
differently. Omar once had a friend, a scientist,
Bu'l-Hakam, who was flawless at solving
empirical problems, but he could not follow Omar
into the area of illumination and wonder.
Now I return to the text, "And He is with you,
wherever you are," but when have I ever left it!
Ignorance is God's prison
Knowing is God's palace.
We sleep in God's unconsciousness.
We wake in God's open hand.
We weep God's rain.
We laugh God's lightning.
Fighting and peacefulness
both take place within God.
Who are we then
in this complicated world-tangle,
that is really just the single, straight
line down at the beginning of ALLAH?
Nothing.
We are
emptiness.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
First Impression!
Every Impression is the first and last impression for me. For every time I see something again; I discover something new in it.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The Unveiling!
Reality as a woman wears peculiar clothes made up of space and time. Down the ages, men lusty for truth try to strip it off these clothes; just to get a glimpse of the naked body.
On Nehru Report!
This blog entry is a reply to Mr Yasser Latif Hamdani's insightful piece on Nehru Report named ''Jinnah, M C Chagla and Nehru Report''.
You can access the article at:
http://pakteahouse.net/2011/10/25/jinnah-m-c-chagla-and-the-nehru-report/
First of all I would like to say that it is always a pleasure reading Mr Hamdani's articles focusing particularly on the surrounding events leading to partition. Even when I disagree with his conclusions, I still admire his zeal for the subject of history which is often ignored in our part of the world. The point of writing this reply is not to dispute his analysis on Nehru Report but rather to complement his insightful take on it. I share his conclusion that it was actually Nehru Report that led to parting of ways between Jinnah and Congress leadership rather than later events. However, I have something to add to this debate. Therefore, the point is to add a further dimension to this debate.
By no means I adhere to a reductionist account of history presented mostly by Indian historians that focuses too much on divide and rule policy of the Britishers but still there is one particular incident that needed to be mentioned in the context of this historical episode. In February 1928, Lord Birkenhead wrote a letter to Viceroy Lord Irwin:
''I should advise Simon to see at all stages important people who are not boycotting the Commission, particularly Muslims and depressed classes. I should widely advertise all his interviews with representative Muslims. The whole policy is now obvious. It is to testify the immense Hindu population by the apprehension that the Commission having been got hold of the Muslims, may present report altogether destructive of Hindu position, thereby securing a solid Muslim support and leaving Jinnah high and dry.''
[Source: Frederick Edwin Earl of Birkenhead: The Last Phase , by The Second Earl of Birkenhead, published by Thornton Butterworth page 258]
How can we explain this letter? Here was an opportunity for Congress to negotiate and come to terms with Muslim League and Jinnah but by exploiting the fears of Hindu Mahasabha, Congress was somehow forced to lose this golden opportunity. It was Birkenhead who wanted Jinnah to feel alienated.
Secondly, I believe at the time of Nehru Report the views of Khalafatists Muslims were in consonance to that of Jinnah. As far as my reading is concerned, despite the Khilafat fiasco, at the time of Simon Commission Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali represented no different views than Jinnah. Speaking rhetorically Shuakat Ali remarked about Nehru Report:
''As a young man I was a keen observer of greyhounds, but I have never seen greyhounds deal with a hare as the Hindus proposed to deal with the Muslimms''.
As for Muhammad Ali Johar, he has this to say about it in 1930. Speaking in an aggressive tone he denounced Gandhi and Congress in these words:
''Gandhi is working under the influence of communalist Hindu Mahasaba. He is working for the supremacy of Hinduism and submergence of Muslims''.
Having said that, there were some Khilafatists leaders such as Maulana Azad who endorsed Nehru Report.
I was glad to see a Co-Pakistani admiring Motilal Nehru. The truth of the matter is that Motilal Nehru was cornered by a belligerent propaganda run by Lala-Malaviya Gang who were bitterly opposed to his non-communal politics. In my view, CR Das and Motilal Nehru were probably the two most liberal and non communal Congressmen during 1920s.
Finally, I would like Mr. Hammdani to shed more light on the roles of two muslim delegates of Nehru Report Committe named Ali Imam and Shoaib Qureshi. I think it is unjustified to put all the blame on young Chagla. All these circumstances must be taken into account.
Once again I would thank Mr. Hamdani for persistent work on Jinnah and subcontinental history which seriously needs objective consideration on our part. So, keep on writing Mr Yasser. :-)
You can access the article at:
http://pakteahouse.net/2011/10/25/jinnah-m-c-chagla-and-the-nehru-report/
First of all I would like to say that it is always a pleasure reading Mr Hamdani's articles focusing particularly on the surrounding events leading to partition. Even when I disagree with his conclusions, I still admire his zeal for the subject of history which is often ignored in our part of the world. The point of writing this reply is not to dispute his analysis on Nehru Report but rather to complement his insightful take on it. I share his conclusion that it was actually Nehru Report that led to parting of ways between Jinnah and Congress leadership rather than later events. However, I have something to add to this debate. Therefore, the point is to add a further dimension to this debate.
By no means I adhere to a reductionist account of history presented mostly by Indian historians that focuses too much on divide and rule policy of the Britishers but still there is one particular incident that needed to be mentioned in the context of this historical episode. In February 1928, Lord Birkenhead wrote a letter to Viceroy Lord Irwin:
''I should advise Simon to see at all stages important people who are not boycotting the Commission, particularly Muslims and depressed classes. I should widely advertise all his interviews with representative Muslims. The whole policy is now obvious. It is to testify the immense Hindu population by the apprehension that the Commission having been got hold of the Muslims, may present report altogether destructive of Hindu position, thereby securing a solid Muslim support and leaving Jinnah high and dry.''
[Source: Frederick Edwin Earl of Birkenhead: The Last Phase , by The Second Earl of Birkenhead, published by Thornton Butterworth page 258]
How can we explain this letter? Here was an opportunity for Congress to negotiate and come to terms with Muslim League and Jinnah but by exploiting the fears of Hindu Mahasabha, Congress was somehow forced to lose this golden opportunity. It was Birkenhead who wanted Jinnah to feel alienated.
Secondly, I believe at the time of Nehru Report the views of Khalafatists Muslims were in consonance to that of Jinnah. As far as my reading is concerned, despite the Khilafat fiasco, at the time of Simon Commission Muhammad Ali Jauhar and Shaukat Ali represented no different views than Jinnah. Speaking rhetorically Shuakat Ali remarked about Nehru Report:
''As a young man I was a keen observer of greyhounds, but I have never seen greyhounds deal with a hare as the Hindus proposed to deal with the Muslimms''.
As for Muhammad Ali Johar, he has this to say about it in 1930. Speaking in an aggressive tone he denounced Gandhi and Congress in these words:
''Gandhi is working under the influence of communalist Hindu Mahasaba. He is working for the supremacy of Hinduism and submergence of Muslims''.
Having said that, there were some Khilafatists leaders such as Maulana Azad who endorsed Nehru Report.
I was glad to see a Co-Pakistani admiring Motilal Nehru. The truth of the matter is that Motilal Nehru was cornered by a belligerent propaganda run by Lala-Malaviya Gang who were bitterly opposed to his non-communal politics. In my view, CR Das and Motilal Nehru were probably the two most liberal and non communal Congressmen during 1920s.
Finally, I would like Mr. Hammdani to shed more light on the roles of two muslim delegates of Nehru Report Committe named Ali Imam and Shoaib Qureshi. I think it is unjustified to put all the blame on young Chagla. All these circumstances must be taken into account.
Once again I would thank Mr. Hamdani for persistent work on Jinnah and subcontinental history which seriously needs objective consideration on our part. So, keep on writing Mr Yasser. :-)
Monday, October 24, 2011
Scent of Faith!
A man in love, no matter what he says
The smell of love wafts love-ward from his mouth
He speaks of jurisprudence, what emerges?
From mystic poverty a sweet effulgence
He blasphemes, the scent of faith arises
He offers doubts, no doubt we grow more sure
Rumi from Masnavi 1: 2880-82
The smell of love wafts love-ward from his mouth
He speaks of jurisprudence, what emerges?
From mystic poverty a sweet effulgence
He blasphemes, the scent of faith arises
He offers doubts, no doubt we grow more sure
Rumi from Masnavi 1: 2880-82
On twitter and Facebook!
Social Network sites are places where everyone has something to say, everyone wants to be heard. Perhaps no one wants to be understood.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
History, Memory and Lies!
''History isn’t the lies of the victors as I once glibly assured Old Joe Hunt; I know that now. It’s more the memories of the survivors, most of whom are neither victorious nor defeated…or…. What had Old Joe Hunt answered when I knowingly claimed that history was the lies of the victors? As long as you remember that it is also the self-delusions of the defeated’ Do we remember that enough when it comes to our private lives?''
(The Sense of an Ending by Julian Barnes)
Friday, October 21, 2011
Each man kills the thing he loves!
Failed lover shoots college girl, himself to death!
'LAHORE – A desperate young man killed his 18-year-old girlfriend, a student of Kinnaird College for Woman, and moments later also took his own life at the foot bridge built in front of the college on the Jail Road, eyewitnesses said. The death dance was danced on Monday afternoon.' (Courtesy The Nation)
How can you kill someone you love? The boy didn't love the girl and definitely confused his ignoble vanity with such a noble thing as love. Such a deplorable act can only stem from a patriarchal society where males don't cease to impose their will on the other weaker sex. The guy must have been a psycho or abnormal person. These are the stereotypical reactions that I have witnessed in the aftermath of this tragic incident.
The purpose of my blog entry is not to exploit the current situation but rather to explore the complexity of the situation that is generally dismissed summarily by our society. I am using this example as a means to an end. For years I have been thinking about the issue of dark side of love. Nothing can be worse than the recent episode. So, the question arises then what is love? Was the guy really in love with the girl? I think the answer is not a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
Despite being a romantic myself, I have always held the belief that love is perhaps the most selfish of all human desires. As an ideal, love is deceptive. It deceives us into thinking that in love we negate our self for the beloved. This is probably the most commonly held view. In popular culture, Love seems to be equated with selflessness or self abnegation. I object to this understanding. Love genealogically stems from selfishness. Love is not begging; its appropriation. What is love of knowledge then? Its nothing other than possessing knowledge. Same applies to romantic love. Its emanates from human selfishness. The problem arises when the ego devises a strategy to 'win over' the other by giving the pretense of altruistic garb. In fact, the ego makes the lover believe this pretense. Blinds him.
In my view, nothing demonstrates the truth of my diabolical take on love than this current tragedy. The boy may genuinely have been in love with the girl. He might genuinely have thought that his life revolves around that girl. The question then arises as to how could the guy had done such a deplorable act? The answer may not have depended solely on one factor but the dominant factor seems to be the selfish love impulse. The impulse to possess. Reckless lovers make their beloved the center of their universe. Their only idol. So, when failure in love encounters them; they prefer being an iconoclast to being pagans. They destroy the same idol they had themselves created.
In conclusion, every beautiful thing of value emanates from something immoral or bad. The root of flower is always ugly. Love is no different either. Such a holy thing stems from something so unholy i.e Vanity.
'LAHORE – A desperate young man killed his 18-year-old girlfriend, a student of Kinnaird College for Woman, and moments later also took his own life at the foot bridge built in front of the college on the Jail Road, eyewitnesses said. The death dance was danced on Monday afternoon.' (Courtesy The Nation)
How can you kill someone you love? The boy didn't love the girl and definitely confused his ignoble vanity with such a noble thing as love. Such a deplorable act can only stem from a patriarchal society where males don't cease to impose their will on the other weaker sex. The guy must have been a psycho or abnormal person. These are the stereotypical reactions that I have witnessed in the aftermath of this tragic incident.
The purpose of my blog entry is not to exploit the current situation but rather to explore the complexity of the situation that is generally dismissed summarily by our society. I am using this example as a means to an end. For years I have been thinking about the issue of dark side of love. Nothing can be worse than the recent episode. So, the question arises then what is love? Was the guy really in love with the girl? I think the answer is not a simple 'yes' or 'no'.
Despite being a romantic myself, I have always held the belief that love is perhaps the most selfish of all human desires. As an ideal, love is deceptive. It deceives us into thinking that in love we negate our self for the beloved. This is probably the most commonly held view. In popular culture, Love seems to be equated with selflessness or self abnegation. I object to this understanding. Love genealogically stems from selfishness. Love is not begging; its appropriation. What is love of knowledge then? Its nothing other than possessing knowledge. Same applies to romantic love. Its emanates from human selfishness. The problem arises when the ego devises a strategy to 'win over' the other by giving the pretense of altruistic garb. In fact, the ego makes the lover believe this pretense. Blinds him.
In my view, nothing demonstrates the truth of my diabolical take on love than this current tragedy. The boy may genuinely have been in love with the girl. He might genuinely have thought that his life revolves around that girl. The question then arises as to how could the guy had done such a deplorable act? The answer may not have depended solely on one factor but the dominant factor seems to be the selfish love impulse. The impulse to possess. Reckless lovers make their beloved the center of their universe. Their only idol. So, when failure in love encounters them; they prefer being an iconoclast to being pagans. They destroy the same idol they had themselves created.
In conclusion, every beautiful thing of value emanates from something immoral or bad. The root of flower is always ugly. Love is no different either. Such a holy thing stems from something so unholy i.e Vanity.
Yet each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard.
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word.
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!
(Oscar Wilde- Ballad of the Gaol)
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Cure for Nihilism: Bergsonian Answer.
'Nihilism is a disease. The symptoms are hyper-consciousness. In other words, nihilism is the problem of an overly self-indulgent reflective man. Therefore, the cure for it lies in action not in thought.'
My recent rekindled interest in Nihilism made me realize that as a disease nihilism is the result of the failure of human 'intellect' in grasping the meaning of life. When the intellect tries to see beyond its own limits; it ultimately encounters nihilism. Reason becomes cognizant of its own disability in grasping the ultimate answers and the question 'why' finds no answer. So, is there any cure for this fatal disease?
I think there is a way out. Nihilism is the problem of a self-indulgent reflective being. In order to cure oneself, the first thing is reliance on 'intuition' rather than intellect. I think Bergson is quite right when he says that human intellect can only study phenomena partially; it is only intuition that can grasp the whole of being. As long as human intellect cannot grasp the whole of being; it will ultimately end up in nihilism. This might be the reason that the common man doesn't find his life utterly meaningless no matter how mundane it is. Is it because he is too stupid? I think not. The common man escapes nihilism by avoiding too much reliance on reflective attitude. Whereas, the self indulgent intellectual man is truly Faustian in spirit who ultimately concludes a pact with Mephistopheles in the form of nihilism.
One may not conclude from my analysis that escaping nihilism demands acting like non-reflective zombies. That is not what i believe. This misconception may arise if one totally distinguishes human intellect from intuition. Like Bergson, i think Intuition is essentially an evolved form of human intellect. The difference between intuition and intellect is only of degree and not of kind. Therefore, the cure for nihilism lies in intuition and action rather than reflection and free speculative contemplation driven solely by human intellect.
My recent rekindled interest in Nihilism made me realize that as a disease nihilism is the result of the failure of human 'intellect' in grasping the meaning of life. When the intellect tries to see beyond its own limits; it ultimately encounters nihilism. Reason becomes cognizant of its own disability in grasping the ultimate answers and the question 'why' finds no answer. So, is there any cure for this fatal disease?
I think there is a way out. Nihilism is the problem of a self-indulgent reflective being. In order to cure oneself, the first thing is reliance on 'intuition' rather than intellect. I think Bergson is quite right when he says that human intellect can only study phenomena partially; it is only intuition that can grasp the whole of being. As long as human intellect cannot grasp the whole of being; it will ultimately end up in nihilism. This might be the reason that the common man doesn't find his life utterly meaningless no matter how mundane it is. Is it because he is too stupid? I think not. The common man escapes nihilism by avoiding too much reliance on reflective attitude. Whereas, the self indulgent intellectual man is truly Faustian in spirit who ultimately concludes a pact with Mephistopheles in the form of nihilism.
One may not conclude from my analysis that escaping nihilism demands acting like non-reflective zombies. That is not what i believe. This misconception may arise if one totally distinguishes human intellect from intuition. Like Bergson, i think Intuition is essentially an evolved form of human intellect. The difference between intuition and intellect is only of degree and not of kind. Therefore, the cure for nihilism lies in intuition and action rather than reflection and free speculative contemplation driven solely by human intellect.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Perpetual Suffering!
“"I have done that," says my memory. "I cannot have done that" -- says my ego, and remains adamant. At last -- memory yields.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Imagine the perpetual suffering of a man for whose consolation neither his memory nor ego yields.
Imagine the perpetual suffering of a man for whose consolation neither his memory nor ego yields.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Ghazali v Kant!
The comparison between Ghazali and Kant is often drawn by some academics working on the development of Islamic philosophy. I still remember Iqbal comparing the ideas of Ghazali and Kant in Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. He even goes on to say that Kant is to Germany what Ghazali is to Islam. At that time I wondered how much of this assertion was actually true until I came across a passage from Nietzsche's Gay Science which made me realize the truth. It is known as Kant's joke. Nietzsche writes:
''“Kant’s joke. — Kant wanted to prove, in a way that would dumbfound the common man, that the common man was right: that was the secret joke of this soul. He wrote against the scholars in favor of popular prejudice, but for scholars and not for the people” (from The Gay Science, section 193).
One needs to take a break and ponder how much it actually applies to Imam Ghazali. He wrote against the philosophers and in favor of popular Islam, but for the philosophers and not for the people.
''“Kant’s joke. — Kant wanted to prove, in a way that would dumbfound the common man, that the common man was right: that was the secret joke of this soul. He wrote against the scholars in favor of popular prejudice, but for scholars and not for the people” (from The Gay Science, section 193).
One needs to take a break and ponder how much it actually applies to Imam Ghazali. He wrote against the philosophers and in favor of popular Islam, but for the philosophers and not for the people.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Language of silence!
The meaning of life is hidden in the eerie silence of space and time...Whoever understands the language of silence is closest to God.
Friday, October 7, 2011
'Falling' in Love.
X: Qasim, why do a lot of people FALL in love?
Y: Simple, people FALL in love so that someone will eventually PICK THEM UP. No wonder it hurts when nobody does :p
Y: Simple, people FALL in love so that someone will eventually PICK THEM UP. No wonder it hurts when nobody does :p
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Can Nihilism be reconciled with Determinism?
Q. Can Nihilism be reconciled with Determinism?
Recently one of my friends asked my view on this issue. This simple question represents the moral crisis which we are facing today as human beings and will continue to face as time goes by. Today, nihilism may not attract much people apart from those familiar with the tradition of continental philosophy but soon this specter will haunt the ordinary individual too. It already does but we refuse to think about it. The burden is great. Denial is the way too be. However, the only way to tackle the problem of nihilism is to confront it head-on once and for all. Escapism is not the cure for nihilism, in fact it allows nihilism to seep into our unconscious mind and then subsequently affects our general outlook on life.
Now coming back to the question, can an individual cognizant of his own finitude, perplexed by the existential questions of life, argue in favor of 'Deterministic nihilism'?
Nihilism is a much abused term. Therefore to have any kind of meaningful debate on it we need to elucidate the term a bit more. Nihilism is a peculiar or should I say radical kind of skepticism that denies all objective claims about 'T'ruth, morality, metaphysics, politics etc. Determinism on the other hand is a metaphysical position which believes that all universe and everything within it is governed by certain immutable laws (be it physical or psychological). Now to say that one is a moral or metaphysical nihilist makes sense. But to say that one is a deterministic nihilist does not.It is sheer perversity of reason to claim that that deterministic nihilism is the most honest philosophy; as the claim itself is incoherent. How can we uphold a metaphysical position and then claim to be a nihilist?
To put it differently if physical or psychological laws determine everything then they must also determine the answers to our existential and moral questions too. And if they do determine our morality as well as meaning of life then nihilism becomes an impossibility. A so called determinist nihilist may counter this by saying that a determinist nihilist was destined by those very laws to be a nihilist and nothing else. This again is a hopeless argument. Assuming that he was destined or determined to be a nihilist by those very laws; still he will not be able to believe in his own nihilism because nihilism by its very nature will deprive him of all the luxuries of objectivity. Nihilism deprives him the order that determinism imposes on him.
The point is one can either be a determinist or a nihilist. Determinism means order, nihilism means chaos. Determinism believes in answers, nihilism in questions. To say that the meaninglessness of the world is determined by certain laws is incoherent because those very laws will hold some kind of meaning for the universe. Similarly, nihilism's denial of values cannot hide behind a crude sort of hard determinism because in denying the objectivity of all values a nihilist will have to deny their origin (deterministic laws) too.
In a nut-shell, Nihilism is not only eating individuals; it is eating itself too. Its the most self defeating philosophy ever.
Recently one of my friends asked my view on this issue. This simple question represents the moral crisis which we are facing today as human beings and will continue to face as time goes by. Today, nihilism may not attract much people apart from those familiar with the tradition of continental philosophy but soon this specter will haunt the ordinary individual too. It already does but we refuse to think about it. The burden is great. Denial is the way too be. However, the only way to tackle the problem of nihilism is to confront it head-on once and for all. Escapism is not the cure for nihilism, in fact it allows nihilism to seep into our unconscious mind and then subsequently affects our general outlook on life.
Now coming back to the question, can an individual cognizant of his own finitude, perplexed by the existential questions of life, argue in favor of 'Deterministic nihilism'?
Nihilism is a much abused term. Therefore to have any kind of meaningful debate on it we need to elucidate the term a bit more. Nihilism is a peculiar or should I say radical kind of skepticism that denies all objective claims about 'T'ruth, morality, metaphysics, politics etc. Determinism on the other hand is a metaphysical position which believes that all universe and everything within it is governed by certain immutable laws (be it physical or psychological). Now to say that one is a moral or metaphysical nihilist makes sense. But to say that one is a deterministic nihilist does not.It is sheer perversity of reason to claim that that deterministic nihilism is the most honest philosophy; as the claim itself is incoherent. How can we uphold a metaphysical position and then claim to be a nihilist?
To put it differently if physical or psychological laws determine everything then they must also determine the answers to our existential and moral questions too. And if they do determine our morality as well as meaning of life then nihilism becomes an impossibility. A so called determinist nihilist may counter this by saying that a determinist nihilist was destined by those very laws to be a nihilist and nothing else. This again is a hopeless argument. Assuming that he was destined or determined to be a nihilist by those very laws; still he will not be able to believe in his own nihilism because nihilism by its very nature will deprive him of all the luxuries of objectivity. Nihilism deprives him the order that determinism imposes on him.
The point is one can either be a determinist or a nihilist. Determinism means order, nihilism means chaos. Determinism believes in answers, nihilism in questions. To say that the meaninglessness of the world is determined by certain laws is incoherent because those very laws will hold some kind of meaning for the universe. Similarly, nihilism's denial of values cannot hide behind a crude sort of hard determinism because in denying the objectivity of all values a nihilist will have to deny their origin (deterministic laws) too.
In a nut-shell, Nihilism is not only eating individuals; it is eating itself too. Its the most self defeating philosophy ever.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Teacher!
You know you are a teacher when you speak all the time and nobody listens to you - Qasim Aziz :-)
Monday, September 26, 2011
Pain and Pleasure.
Nature has put man under two sovereign masters i.e. pain and pleasure, wrote Jeremy Bentham. Therefore, one must always look to contribute towards 'greatest happiness of the greatest number'. With this simple dictum, Bentham revolutionized the world of ethics, politics, and to some extent law. Be it the act of the individual or any policy of the state; it must be judged according to this maxim of utility.Simple!
But imagine if pain and pleasure are bonded together. Inextricably attached to one another in such a way that you can not increase one with out increasing the other. What becomes of utilitarianism then? The maximum happiness seems to generate maximum pain as well. The Stoics were cognizant about this fact when they warned the individual against hedonism. Seeking greatest happiness also meant confronting greatest pain and suffering. Popper's negative utilitarianism seems to have been influenced by Stoic thought. Where are we heading towards then? Should we accept a tentative life style based on moderation? Is there no room for one's ambitions or desires?
There is still room for passion and ambitions. One must have to change the way one thinks about life. In order to live authentically, one must pursue one's happiness or goal but with the belief that every goal will bring with it some sort of suffering in the form of hardship. The greatest the goal, the greatest the pain. So, the real authentic man doesn't shy away from pain but rather desires it. Endures it or even at times loves it.
But imagine if pain and pleasure are bonded together. Inextricably attached to one another in such a way that you can not increase one with out increasing the other. What becomes of utilitarianism then? The maximum happiness seems to generate maximum pain as well. The Stoics were cognizant about this fact when they warned the individual against hedonism. Seeking greatest happiness also meant confronting greatest pain and suffering. Popper's negative utilitarianism seems to have been influenced by Stoic thought. Where are we heading towards then? Should we accept a tentative life style based on moderation? Is there no room for one's ambitions or desires?
There is still room for passion and ambitions. One must have to change the way one thinks about life. In order to live authentically, one must pursue one's happiness or goal but with the belief that every goal will bring with it some sort of suffering in the form of hardship. The greatest the goal, the greatest the pain. So, the real authentic man doesn't shy away from pain but rather desires it. Endures it or even at times loves it.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Truth is a woman.
"Supposing truth is a woman -- what then?'' wrote Nietzsche.
My answer to him: Then it must be a woman that gets raped and abused every second.
My answer to him: Then it must be a woman that gets raped and abused every second.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Jealous Lord!
A: "For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God"
Q: Just for the purpose of coherent theology. 'Surely he created us in his own image then' :)
Q: Just for the purpose of coherent theology. 'Surely he created us in his own image then' :)
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Ultimate faith in Miracles.
X: You have given me nothing but love and I am ashamed of myself that I couldn't reciprocate it. Though there were times when I loved you, when I held you in my arms and forgot about everything else. The holy moments we shared may have been brief but why should we care? Time is not linear 'Beasty'. It doesn't need to be long to be forever. The time has come to part our ways. The dream is over. I hope you will forgive me. Don't think I will ever forget you. Thank you for loving me. At this time I have nothing to share with you but my ultimate faith in miracles. Don't you ever lose hope and faith Beasty. Someday you will believe in miracles too.
Y: Miracles! I believe in miracles, though without hope and faith. Does it sound strange to you? Do I sound despondent my love? Let me make myself clear. What can be more miraculous than the fact that despite everything you did to me I still love you.
Y: Miracles! I believe in miracles, though without hope and faith. Does it sound strange to you? Do I sound despondent my love? Let me make myself clear. What can be more miraculous than the fact that despite everything you did to me I still love you.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Moral evaluations!
While indulging in moral evaluations regarding other people's conduct; public opinion often confuses mere difference in degree with difference in kind.
Metaphysical Assumptions of Science!
Recently a dear cyber friend of mine, Zain Raza, forwarded me the link to his personal blog. Having promised him to provide feedback on his blog,I came across one of his posts addressing the issue of assumptions of science. This is what he had to say on this issue.
''Herein follows a list of assumptions made in accepting scientific assertions as the truth. It must be said that as far as assumptions go, these are good ones – but it is also important to document them, lest they be forgotten.
1: The assumptions of rationality
The very first assumption is in accepting that human rationality is capable of formulating true ideas on reality. This is fairly simple to see, there is no way to escape human rationality to prove its use correct or not and this would include logical language as well as mathematical formulations. Following from this:
2. The assumption of truth
If it really is possible to see reality correctly, one must assume that there is a truth to be found, in the first place.
3: The assumptions of naturalism and efficient causes
This is the assumption that cause begets effect and the further assumption that every cause is physical. David Hume quite conclusively put to rest all theories of causation as true and for the paradoxes involved in assuming the term ‘physical’ see this earlier post.
4: The assumption of verificationism
Verificationism is the idea that for any real discussion to exist around a question, the terms must be verifiable (usually, following the empiricists, the terms must be observable). Asking for a verification of the idea of verificationism proves this an assumption.''
While all of these alone are enough to make a case, together they are conclusive.
Below is my feedback on this post of Zain's.
Though by no standards I am a formal science student but I think I have earned a right to state my opinion by my reasonable self-study. Apart from the assumptions you mentioned, there are numerous others.Here are a few more
1)Assumption of progress
Strictly speaking this has nothing to do with the scientific method but none the less its the metaphysical basis of all scientific study Almost all scientist believe in progress. There is nothing wrong or absurd about this idea but by no means we can verify or falsify this metaphysical belief which lies at the heart of scientific inquiry or scientific world view.
2)Subject/Object dichotomy:
Science presupposes the existence of external world. Regards us as 'subjects' and the external reality as 'object'. Therefore the scientific 'episteme' presupposes the distinction between subject and object. Again an adherence to metaphysical position.
3)Partial study of the whole of Reality:
Science works on the basis of induction and experimentation. Therefore, it always studies a part of the whole by 'selecting' material for the experiments. Therefore, It can never give us a holistic picture of reality. However, the assumption is that we can proceed from specific to general.
On a personal note, I would have preferred the term falsification over verification but I believe Zain's critique was directed against Positivism which is quite justified as far as its merits are concerned.
''Herein follows a list of assumptions made in accepting scientific assertions as the truth. It must be said that as far as assumptions go, these are good ones – but it is also important to document them, lest they be forgotten.
1: The assumptions of rationality
The very first assumption is in accepting that human rationality is capable of formulating true ideas on reality. This is fairly simple to see, there is no way to escape human rationality to prove its use correct or not and this would include logical language as well as mathematical formulations. Following from this:
2. The assumption of truth
If it really is possible to see reality correctly, one must assume that there is a truth to be found, in the first place.
3: The assumptions of naturalism and efficient causes
This is the assumption that cause begets effect and the further assumption that every cause is physical. David Hume quite conclusively put to rest all theories of causation as true and for the paradoxes involved in assuming the term ‘physical’ see this earlier post.
4: The assumption of verificationism
Verificationism is the idea that for any real discussion to exist around a question, the terms must be verifiable (usually, following the empiricists, the terms must be observable). Asking for a verification of the idea of verificationism proves this an assumption.''
While all of these alone are enough to make a case, together they are conclusive.
Below is my feedback on this post of Zain's.
Though by no standards I am a formal science student but I think I have earned a right to state my opinion by my reasonable self-study. Apart from the assumptions you mentioned, there are numerous others.Here are a few more
1)Assumption of progress
Strictly speaking this has nothing to do with the scientific method but none the less its the metaphysical basis of all scientific study Almost all scientist believe in progress. There is nothing wrong or absurd about this idea but by no means we can verify or falsify this metaphysical belief which lies at the heart of scientific inquiry or scientific world view.
2)Subject/Object dichotomy:
Science presupposes the existence of external world. Regards us as 'subjects' and the external reality as 'object'. Therefore the scientific 'episteme' presupposes the distinction between subject and object. Again an adherence to metaphysical position.
3)Partial study of the whole of Reality:
Science works on the basis of induction and experimentation. Therefore, it always studies a part of the whole by 'selecting' material for the experiments. Therefore, It can never give us a holistic picture of reality. However, the assumption is that we can proceed from specific to general.
On a personal note, I would have preferred the term falsification over verification but I believe Zain's critique was directed against Positivism which is quite justified as far as its merits are concerned.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
A Mermaid
'A mermaid found a swimming lad,
Picked him for her own,
Pressed her body to his body,
Laughed; and plunging down
Forgot in cruel happiness
That even lovers drown. ' -
The Mermaid by W.B. Yeats.
Picked him for her own,
Pressed her body to his body,
Laughed; and plunging down
Forgot in cruel happiness
That even lovers drown. ' -
The Mermaid by W.B. Yeats.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
A new world!
Perish everything around you.
Your hopes, and dreams;
And half fulfilled dreams.
Perish the old deities;
Along with the ones that reside within you.
Perish everything around you.
Build your world anew if you are alive.
Your hopes, and dreams;
And half fulfilled dreams.
Perish the old deities;
Along with the ones that reside within you.
Perish everything around you.
Build your world anew if you are alive.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Excerps from Schopenhauer's On Women
Here are some excerpts from the infamous 'misogynistic' essay by Arthur Schopenhauer.
''Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate... between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.''
And my favorite part
''Although all this entails many disadvantages, yet it has this advantage—that a woman lives more in the present than a man, and that she enjoys it more keenly if it is at all bearable. This is the origin of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to woman and makes her fit to divert man, and in case of need, to console him when he is weighed down by cares. To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination.''
Ans some interesting insights
''This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.''
''Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate... between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.''
And my favorite part
''Although all this entails many disadvantages, yet it has this advantage—that a woman lives more in the present than a man, and that she enjoys it more keenly if it is at all bearable. This is the origin of that cheerfulness which is peculiar to woman and makes her fit to divert man, and in case of need, to console him when he is weighed down by cares. To consult women in matters of difficulty, as the Germans used to do in old times, is by no means a matter to be overlooked; for their way of grasping a thing is quite different from ours, chiefly because they like the shortest way to the point, and usually keep their attention fixed upon what lies nearest; while we, as a rule, see beyond it, for the simple reason that it lies under our nose; it then becomes necessary for us to be brought back to the thing in order to obtain a near and simple view. This is why women are more sober in their judgment than we, and why they see nothing more in things than is really there; while we, if our passions are roused, slightly exaggerate or add to our imagination.''
Ans some interesting insights
''This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence. Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.''
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Morality and the divided Self!
Let me be frank here without being much evasive in presenting my argument. Morality has nothing to do with selflessness and altruism. Most of the moralists would argue that when a women surrenders herself to her lover, a man dies for his nation, a mother sacrifices her sleep for her infant kid, an honest civil servant refuses bribe they all make sacrifices and all these examples cannot be understood as mere personifications of personal self-interest and motives without perversity of reason. The argument may seem quite convincing to some people. However, a deeper analysis leads us to another conclusion. A martyr sacrifices himself not out of sheer altruism but rather his own personal ambition. Apparently selfless looking acts are not devoid of human vanity. Here is the analysis..
When we perform such seemingly altruistic acts. We idealize a part of us (the idea of being a martyr, a loyal lover, good mother etc) more than the other part. And in doing so we sacrifice our other part in lieu of the idealized part. Therefore, morality divides the Self. I am very well aware of the fact that not to many people would like to think this way. Perhaps for them, its so immoral to be moral this way.
When we perform such seemingly altruistic acts. We idealize a part of us (the idea of being a martyr, a loyal lover, good mother etc) more than the other part. And in doing so we sacrifice our other part in lieu of the idealized part. Therefore, morality divides the Self. I am very well aware of the fact that not to many people would like to think this way. Perhaps for them, its so immoral to be moral this way.
Dillemma!
Whenever finding myself torn between love and loyalty; I have always preferred loyalty. My loyalty towards love.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Unfortunate!
''As a young boy he was not fortunate enough to be close to religion but was really unfortunate to be close to religious people. He never recovered after wards, what a pity!''
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)