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.
Monday, September 26, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)