This speech was delivered at the United Nations General Assembly at New York. It was against the sanctions the US imposed on Cuba. It was a very strong speech. The fact that the sanctions still exist show us how incompetent a body the UN is and how shrouded the entire world is by the country we call United States of America.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As soon as he starts to speak, Che Guevara makes his purpose very clear-‘ Cuba comes here to state its position on the most important controversial points and will do so with the full sense of responsibility which the use of this rostrum implies, while at the same time responding to the unavoidable duty of speaking out clearly and frankly.’ Such an aggressive tone and style would make sure the diplomats are all tuned into listening his speech. Had he started on a softer note, his speech would probably not have been as effective as it was. It shows his intrepid and passionate approach to this issue.
He is a powerful orator and this is apparent from the line ‘We should like to see this Assembly shake itself out of complacency and move forward’. His views to stop the dilettante at the conference as expressed very clearly through his fluency and accurate word choice. He is brave enough to call the conference a ‘pointless oratorical tournament’ organised by the Imperialism, directly attacking the US. His chary approach is not insulting but nonetheless effective.
The phrase ‘constant points of friction’ gives a vivid overview about his country’s current situation. This phrase is very effective as it shows the turmoil that the Cuban economy is looming through. Had he used a simpler term like- “our country is suffering”, the impact would be lost. His sporadic attacks on the US government are hidden behind his words. ‘Of course, there is now a socialist camp that becomes stronger day by day and has more powerful weapons of struggle. But additonal conditions are required for survival: the maintenance of domestic cohesion, faith in one's own destiny and the unrenounceable decision to fight to the death for the defense of one's country and revolution. These conditions exist in Cuba.’ By the socialist camp, he refers to the US, but he does not phrase is directly so as to offend the US. This is an example of how his emotions amalgamate with his diplomatic language. He uses the phrase ‘weapons of struggle’. This phrase accuses the US of possessing WMDs, but in a subtle and hidden manner. In diplomatic terms he is not allowed to condemn the US. However with this phrase, his message is put across effectively and he does not bend any law. There is no alternative to this phrase- no other phrase would do equal justice to the effect this phrase has on the Assembly.
‘But imperialism, particularly U. S. imperialism, has attempted to have the world believe that peaceful co-existence is the exclusive right of the world's great powers.’ Attacking remarks like these have a great degree impact. The surging hatred seems flagrant from this remark. Such a sharp remark cannot be made in any other way, as it would lose its steam. “We are made to believe that only strong powers like US have right to peace”. Imagine Guevara’s line to be replaced by this line of mediocre standards. The effect would be nullified and his purpose diminished.
‘As Marxists we have maintained that peaceful co-existence among nations does not encompass co-existence between the exploiters and the exploited, the oppressor and the oppressed..’ His blatant remarks show his courage to stand up against the General Assembly, in New York, and insult the US for the right reasons. His view his true- it was not fair for US to infringe upon the sovereignty of another nation in this way. Che Guevara is standing up for the right of each and every Cuban. His emotive language represents his fury, and this cannot be paralleled by alternative language.
His description of the freeing of Albizu Campos is termed ‘another act of hypocrisy’ purposely to show games the US plays to fool the world. His description of Campos’s physical state was- ‘age of 72, after spending a lifetime in jail, now paralytic and almost unable to speak’. It is an apt description of his physical state. Such a description clearly highlights the ‘hypocrisy’, and such an emotive line would arouse clamour among the General Assembly. There is no substitute to such a line. In no other way can such an effect be replicated. “His state now is pathetic, and this shows how hypocritical the US can be.” This line would ruin the effect of the entire speech.
The phrase ‘mirror of hybrid culture’ is a harsh phrase denoting very clearly to what extent the US can go to get their way. His language is very crisp and impactful and yet not demeaning in a direct sense. He could have stated –‘made Puerto Rico the way it is’ however, were such lose language used, the meaning of this speech would be in shambles. His examples of the effect of English on the Spanish language and on its vernacular is evident to his case and presented very powerfully. His analogy of Puerto Rican soldiers to those in Korea gives more meaning to his case, which would otherwise seem very plain.
His stand is made crystal clear in the least complicated of words- ‘we express our support of general and complete disarmament’. This would make sure that the thoughts are not convoluted before the General Assembly. Again we see the hidden confrontation of the US when he says- ‘There are new atomic powers in the world, and the possibilities of a confrontation are grave.’ Such a comment is not read directly as an insult; however as one pays close attention to the words they would get the explicit message fairly easily.
He makes it clear to the entire committee that all he wants is respect of Cuba from superior powers like the US- ‘there must clearly be established the obligation of all states to respect the present frontiers of other states and to refrain from indulging in any aggression, even with conventional weapons.’ Had he suggested this using a different approach, which may have been more aggressive and less diplomatic, his view would not have been accounted for. He has contained the formality of speech even when he is passing powerful assertions like these. He has nothing to shy away from- what he is asking of the United Nations is what an entire nation is pleading for. He knows that the United Nations is shrouded by the influence of the same ‘imperialistic power’, but yet he is not daunted by that fact.
And Cuba reaffirms once again the right to maintain on its territory the weapons it wishes and its refusal to recognize the right of any power on earth - however powerful - to violate our soil, our territorial waters, or our airspace.
He reiterates his main point again and again to make sure Cuba is heard-‘territorial integrity of nations must be respected and the armed hand of imperialism held back.’ He refers to the US as the ‘armed hand of imperialism’, which shows the GA the effect a super power has on the world. They are being projected as being notorious power who boast about their powers. His indirect insults are cleverly framed and are unquestionable. Had this been reflected in another way, his point would not have been brought across as well as it has been. He could have said-“The US is infringing upon our sovereignty and trying to take control of matters that concern us and our government”. This would have been powerful, but it is too direct and would undoubtedly spark flames and make sure that no compromise is reached. His sole purpose being to compromise with the States would be lost.
His last lines are very powerful. It says that Cuba would do as it pleases so long as it supports world peace. They make sure that weapons are used for safety purposes and solely for the use of defence. He expresses that they are not intimidated by any nation that ties to ‘violate our soil, our territorial waters, or our airspace’.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Personally I feel that this is a very powerful speech and shows us how courageous and patriotic Che Guevara was. Few men fight for the rights of people and make the desired impact. He is one of these distinguished few.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Che Guevara's Speech at the United Nations
At the United Nations
In addition to being a military leader, President of the National Bank, and Minister of Industries, Guevara layed an important role in Cuban diplomacy. In 1959 he made a tour of Afro-Asian countries; in 1960 he headed an economic delegation to the Soviet-bloc countries, China, and North Korea; in 1961 he represented Cuba at Punta del Este; in 1962 he headed another economic mission to the Soviet Union; in 1968 he attended a conference on economic planning in Algeria; in March, 1964, he represented Cuba at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Geneva, then went to Algeria again on an official mission, made a third trip to the Soviet Union in November, and represented Cuba in the 19th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York. The following are excerpts from his speech to the UN on December 11, 1964.
* * *
(...) Cuba comes here to state its position on the most important controversial points and will do so with the full sense of responsibility which the use of this rostrum implies, while at the same time responding to the unavoidable duty of speaking out clearly and frankly.
We should like to see this Assembly shake itself out of complacency and move forward. We should like to see the committees begin their work and not stop at the first confrontation. Imperialism wishes to convert this meeting into a pointless oratorical tournament, instead of solving the grave problems of the world. We must prevent their doing so. This Assembly should not be remembered in the future only by the number 19, which identifies it. Our efforts are directed to prevent that.
We feel that we have the right and the obligation to do so, because our country is one of the most constant points of friction. It is one of the places where the principles upholding the rights of small peoples to sovereignty are being tested day by day, minute by minute. And at the same time, our country is one of the entrenchments of freedom in the world, situated a few steps away from United States imperialism, showing by its actions, its daily example, that peoples can liberate themselves, can keep themselves free, in the present conditions of mankind.
Of course, there is now a socialist camp that becomes stronger day by day and has more powerful weapons of struggle. But additonal conditions are required for survival: the maintenance of domestic cohesion, faith in one's own destiny and the unrenounceable decision to fight to the death for the defense of one's country and revolution. These conditions exist in Cuba.
Of all the burning problems to be dealt with by this Assembly, one that is of special significance for us and whose solution we feel must be sought so as to leave no doubt in the minds of any, is that of peaceful co-existence among states with different economic and social systems. Much progress has been made in the world in this field. But imperialism, particularly U. S. imperialism, has attempted to have the world believe that peaceful co-existence is the exclusive right of the world's great powers. We say here what our president said in Cairo, and which later took shape in the Declaration of the Second Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries: There cannot be peaceful co-existence only among the powerful if we are to ensure world peace. Peaceful co-existence must be exercised among all states, independently of size, of the previous historic relations that linked them, and of the problems that may arise among some of them at a given moment (....)
We must also say that it is not only in relations in which sovereign states are involved that the concept of peaceful co-existence must be clearly defined. As Marxists we have maintained that peaceful co-existence among nations does not encompass co-existence between the exploiters and the exploited, the oppressor and the oppressed (....)
We express our solidarity with the people of Puerto Rico and their great leader, Pedro Albizu Campos, who, in another act of hypocrisy, has been set free at the age of 72, after spending a lifetime in jail, now paralytic and almost unable to speak. Albizu Campos is a symbol of the still unredeemed but indomitable America. Years and years of prison, almost unbearable pressures in jail, mental torture, solitude, total isolation from his people and his family, the insolence of the conqueror and lackeys in the land of his birth - nothing broke his will. The delegation of Cuba, on behalf of its people, pays a tribute of admiration and gratitude to a patriot who confers honor upon our America.
The North Americans, for many years, have tried to convert Puerto Rico into a mirror of hybrid culture - the Spanish language with English inflection, the Spanish language with hinges on its backbone, the better to bend before the U. S. soldier. Puerto Rican soldiers have been used as cannon fodder in imperialist wars, as in Korea, and have even been made to fire at their own brothers, as in the massacre perpetrated* by the U. S. army a few months ago against the helpless people of Panama - one of the most recent diabolical acts carried out by Yankee imperialism.
Yet the people of Puerto Rico, despite the terrible attack on their free will and historic destiny, have preserved their culture, their Latin character, their national feelings which, in themselves, give proof of the implacable will for independence that exists among the masses on that Latin American island (....)
One of the essential items before this conference is general and complete disarmament. We express our support of general and complete disarmament. Furthermore, we advocate the complete destruction of thermonuclear devices and the holding of a conference of all the nations of the world toward the fulfillment of this aspiration of all people. In his statement before this Assembly, our Prime Minister said that arms races have always led to war. There are new atomic powers in the world, and the possibilities of a confrontation are grave.
We feel that that conference is necessary to obtain the total destruction of thermonuclear weapons and, as a first step, the total prohibition of tests. At the same time, there must clearly be established the obligation of all states to respect the present frontiers of other states and to refrain from indulging in any aggression, even with conventional weapons.
In adding our voice to that of all the peoples of the world in their clamor for general and complete disarmament, the destruction of all atomic arsenals, the complete cessation of thermonuclear devices and atomic tests of any kind, we feel it necessary to stress, furthermore, that the territorial integrity of nations must be respected and the armed hand of imperialism held back, for it is just as dangerous with conventional weapons. Those who murdered thousands of defenseless citizens in the Congo did not use the atomic weapon. They used conventional weapons, and it was these conventional weapons, used by imperialists, that caused so many deaths (....)
And Cuba reaffirms once again the right to maintain on its territory the weapons it wishes and its refusal to recognize the right of any power on earth - however powerful - to violate our soil, our territorial waters, or our airspace.
If, in any assembly, Cuba assumes obligations of a collective nature, it will fulfill them to the letter. So long as this does not happen, Cuba maintains all its rights, just as any other nation.
In the face of the demands of imperialism, our Prime Minister posed the five necessary points for the existence of a sound peace in the Caribbean. They are as follows:
1) Cessation of the economic blockade and all economic and trade pressures by the U. S. in all parts of the world against our country.
2) Cessation of all subversive activities, launching and landing of weapons and explosives by air and sea, organization of mercenary invasions, infiltration of spies and saboteurs, all of which acts are carried out from the territory of the U. S. and some accomplice countries.
3) Cessation of piratical attacks carried out from existing bases in the U. S. and Puerto Rico.
4) Cessation of all the violations of our airspace and our territorial waters by aircraft and warships of the U. S.
5) Withdrawal from the Guantanamo naval base and restitution of the Cuban territory occupied by the U. S.
In addition to being a military leader, President of the National Bank, and Minister of Industries, Guevara layed an important role in Cuban diplomacy. In 1959 he made a tour of Afro-Asian countries; in 1960 he headed an economic delegation to the Soviet-bloc countries, China, and North Korea; in 1961 he represented Cuba at Punta del Este; in 1962 he headed another economic mission to the Soviet Union; in 1968 he attended a conference on economic planning in Algeria; in March, 1964, he represented Cuba at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Geneva, then went to Algeria again on an official mission, made a third trip to the Soviet Union in November, and represented Cuba in the 19th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York. The following are excerpts from his speech to the UN on December 11, 1964.
* * *
(...) Cuba comes here to state its position on the most important controversial points and will do so with the full sense of responsibility which the use of this rostrum implies, while at the same time responding to the unavoidable duty of speaking out clearly and frankly.
We should like to see this Assembly shake itself out of complacency and move forward. We should like to see the committees begin their work and not stop at the first confrontation. Imperialism wishes to convert this meeting into a pointless oratorical tournament, instead of solving the grave problems of the world. We must prevent their doing so. This Assembly should not be remembered in the future only by the number 19, which identifies it. Our efforts are directed to prevent that.
We feel that we have the right and the obligation to do so, because our country is one of the most constant points of friction. It is one of the places where the principles upholding the rights of small peoples to sovereignty are being tested day by day, minute by minute. And at the same time, our country is one of the entrenchments of freedom in the world, situated a few steps away from United States imperialism, showing by its actions, its daily example, that peoples can liberate themselves, can keep themselves free, in the present conditions of mankind.
Of course, there is now a socialist camp that becomes stronger day by day and has more powerful weapons of struggle. But additonal conditions are required for survival: the maintenance of domestic cohesion, faith in one's own destiny and the unrenounceable decision to fight to the death for the defense of one's country and revolution. These conditions exist in Cuba.
Of all the burning problems to be dealt with by this Assembly, one that is of special significance for us and whose solution we feel must be sought so as to leave no doubt in the minds of any, is that of peaceful co-existence among states with different economic and social systems. Much progress has been made in the world in this field. But imperialism, particularly U. S. imperialism, has attempted to have the world believe that peaceful co-existence is the exclusive right of the world's great powers. We say here what our president said in Cairo, and which later took shape in the Declaration of the Second Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries: There cannot be peaceful co-existence only among the powerful if we are to ensure world peace. Peaceful co-existence must be exercised among all states, independently of size, of the previous historic relations that linked them, and of the problems that may arise among some of them at a given moment (....)
We must also say that it is not only in relations in which sovereign states are involved that the concept of peaceful co-existence must be clearly defined. As Marxists we have maintained that peaceful co-existence among nations does not encompass co-existence between the exploiters and the exploited, the oppressor and the oppressed (....)
We express our solidarity with the people of Puerto Rico and their great leader, Pedro Albizu Campos, who, in another act of hypocrisy, has been set free at the age of 72, after spending a lifetime in jail, now paralytic and almost unable to speak. Albizu Campos is a symbol of the still unredeemed but indomitable America. Years and years of prison, almost unbearable pressures in jail, mental torture, solitude, total isolation from his people and his family, the insolence of the conqueror and lackeys in the land of his birth - nothing broke his will. The delegation of Cuba, on behalf of its people, pays a tribute of admiration and gratitude to a patriot who confers honor upon our America.
The North Americans, for many years, have tried to convert Puerto Rico into a mirror of hybrid culture - the Spanish language with English inflection, the Spanish language with hinges on its backbone, the better to bend before the U. S. soldier. Puerto Rican soldiers have been used as cannon fodder in imperialist wars, as in Korea, and have even been made to fire at their own brothers, as in the massacre perpetrated* by the U. S. army a few months ago against the helpless people of Panama - one of the most recent diabolical acts carried out by Yankee imperialism.
Yet the people of Puerto Rico, despite the terrible attack on their free will and historic destiny, have preserved their culture, their Latin character, their national feelings which, in themselves, give proof of the implacable will for independence that exists among the masses on that Latin American island (....)
One of the essential items before this conference is general and complete disarmament. We express our support of general and complete disarmament. Furthermore, we advocate the complete destruction of thermonuclear devices and the holding of a conference of all the nations of the world toward the fulfillment of this aspiration of all people. In his statement before this Assembly, our Prime Minister said that arms races have always led to war. There are new atomic powers in the world, and the possibilities of a confrontation are grave.
We feel that that conference is necessary to obtain the total destruction of thermonuclear weapons and, as a first step, the total prohibition of tests. At the same time, there must clearly be established the obligation of all states to respect the present frontiers of other states and to refrain from indulging in any aggression, even with conventional weapons.
In adding our voice to that of all the peoples of the world in their clamor for general and complete disarmament, the destruction of all atomic arsenals, the complete cessation of thermonuclear devices and atomic tests of any kind, we feel it necessary to stress, furthermore, that the territorial integrity of nations must be respected and the armed hand of imperialism held back, for it is just as dangerous with conventional weapons. Those who murdered thousands of defenseless citizens in the Congo did not use the atomic weapon. They used conventional weapons, and it was these conventional weapons, used by imperialists, that caused so many deaths (....)
And Cuba reaffirms once again the right to maintain on its territory the weapons it wishes and its refusal to recognize the right of any power on earth - however powerful - to violate our soil, our territorial waters, or our airspace.
If, in any assembly, Cuba assumes obligations of a collective nature, it will fulfill them to the letter. So long as this does not happen, Cuba maintains all its rights, just as any other nation.
In the face of the demands of imperialism, our Prime Minister posed the five necessary points for the existence of a sound peace in the Caribbean. They are as follows:
1) Cessation of the economic blockade and all economic and trade pressures by the U. S. in all parts of the world against our country.
2) Cessation of all subversive activities, launching and landing of weapons and explosives by air and sea, organization of mercenary invasions, infiltration of spies and saboteurs, all of which acts are carried out from the territory of the U. S. and some accomplice countries.
3) Cessation of piratical attacks carried out from existing bases in the U. S. and Puerto Rico.
4) Cessation of all the violations of our airspace and our territorial waters by aircraft and warships of the U. S.
5) Withdrawal from the Guantanamo naval base and restitution of the Cuban territory occupied by the U. S.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Truth Quote
"Begin by believing with all your heart that belief is true so that it will work for you, but then face the possibility that it is really false so that you can accept the consequences of the belief."
- John Reseck
John Reseck has very beautifully laid down that truth like perception can be subjective and your beliefs if strong enough might be what is the truth for you. A belief is something your mind views as the truth. He encourages one to be open-minded and develop beliefs and faiths. It speaks about how knowledge can also be personal.
For example I am in an unknown city and a local behaves in a particularly harsh or abrupt manner my belief will be that the people of that city are rude and unkind. That belief can also be translated into personal knowledge. On the contrary the people there might actually be very pleasant and good-natured on the whole. But my belief has biased my knowledge and hence my personal knowledge for that particular place is that the people there aren't very friendly. For someone else who hasn't visited that city they might not agree with me or believe me cause they haven't shared the same experience and hence their knowledge about this place is different from mine. This shows to a large extent that someones personal experiences and opinions can be translated into their personal knowledge but this knowledge may only hold true for them and them alone as someone else may not share the same opinion or have shared that experience or similar experiences for them have inculcated that belief.
Reseck then also goes on to say that when you believe in a belief so sincerely you should also take into consideration of that belief being false. Firstly a belief is a personal opinion and anything that is personal cannot be questioned so as to whether it is right or wrong, in my opinion. Similarly because the belief is personal you can't impose them on anyone. You can't force someone to adopt your beliefs and agree with your opinions. When I believe in something I have my own justifications for why it is so but someone else might differ with me completely. Hence when you take a belief into consideration there isn't anything as right and wrong and because a belief doesn't appeal to someone it can't automatically be considered wrong.
Language
This is a speech made by Marcus Antonius to the people of Rome where he is trying to provoke them the point where the are driven to mutiny. This speech is an excellent example of how language can be used effectively to convey a message effectively.
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault;
And grievously hath Caesar answer'd it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest, --
For Brutus is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men, --
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honorable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome.
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honorable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honorable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, --not without cause:
What cause withholds you, then, to mourn for him?
O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason! --Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
............
But yesterday the word of Caesar might
Have stood against the world: now lies he there,
And none so poor to do him reverence.
O masters, if I were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I should do Brutus wrong and Cassius wrong,
Who, you all know, are honorable men.
But here's a parchment with the seal of Caesar, --
I found it in his closet, --'tis his will:
Let but the commons hear this testament, --
Which, pardon me, I do not mean to read, --
And they would go and kiss dead Caesar's wounds,
And dip their napkins in his sacred blood;
Yea, beg a hair of him for memory,
And, dying, mention it within their wills,
Bequeathing it as a rich legacy
Unto their issue.
........................
Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it;
It is not meet you know how Caesar loved you.
You are not wood, you are not stones, but men;
And, being men, hearing the will of Caesar,
It will inflame you, --it will make you mad:
'Tis good you know not that you are his heirs;
For, if you should, O, what would come of it!
..........................
Will you be patient? will you stay awhile?
I have o'ershot myself to tell you of it:
I fear I wrong the honorable men
Whose daggers have stabbed Caesar; I do fear it.
...........................
You will compel me, then, to read the will?
Then make a ring about the corpse of Caesar,
And let me show you him that made the will.
Shall I descend? and will you give me leave?
.............................
Nay, press not so upon me; stand far
.............................
If you have tears, prepare to shed them now.
You all do know this mantle: I remember
The first time ever Caesar put it on;
'Twas on a summer's evening, in his tent,
That day he overcame the Nervii:--
Look! in this place ran Cassius' dagger through:
See what a rent the envious Casca made:
Through this the well-beloved Brutus stabbed;
And, as he plucked his cursed steel away,
Mark how the blood of Caesar followed it,
As rushing out of doors, to be resolved.
If Brutus so unkindly knocked or no;
For Brutus, as you know, was Caesar's angel:
Judge, O you gods, how dearly Caesar loved him!
This was the most unkindest cut of all;
For when the noble Caesar saw him stab,
Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms,
Quite vanquished him: then burst his mighty heart;
And, in his mantle muffling up his face,
Even at the base of Pompey's statue,
Which all the while ran blood, great Caesar fell.
O what a fall was there, my countrymen!
Then I, and you, and all of us fell down,
Whilst bloody treason flourished over us.
O, now you weep; and I perceive you feel
The dint of pity: these are gracious drops.
Kind souls, what, weep you when you but behold
Our Caesar's vesture wounded? Look you here,
Here is himself, marred, as you see, with traitors.
........................
Stay, countrymen.
........................
Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up
To such a sudden flood of mutiny.
They that have done this deed are honorable; --
What private griefs they have, alas, I know not,
That made them do it; --they are wise and honorable,
And will, no doubt, with reasons answer you.
I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts:
I am no orator, as Brutus is;
But as you know me all, a plain blunt man,
That love my friend; and that they know full well
That gave me public leave to speak of him:
For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech,
To stir men's blood: I only speak right on;
I tell you that which you yourselves do know;
Show you sweet Caesar's wounds, poor poor dumb mouths,
And bid them speak for me: but were I Brutus,
And Brutus Antony, there were an Antony
Would ruffle up your spirits, and put a tongue
In every wound of Caesar, that should move
The stones of Rome to rise and mutiny.
- Antony
Authored by William Shakespeare.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
'Better the world should perish than that i, or any other human being, should believe a lie...that is the religion of thought in whose soothing flames the dross of the world is being burnt away' - Bertrand Russel.
p.s. "dross" = rubbish, garbage. i dint know it so i thot id make life easier for ppl with as poor a vocabulary as mine.
This is a very emphatic statement as it opens with the words "better the world perish". however, there is something that is clearly amiss in this quote in that Russel does not explain what a lie is. how does one know what is a lie? If one cannot know for sure what the truth is how can one know what to believe and what not to believe. if authority, for example a texbook in science or history states a "fact" a student at our level is going to take it for granted that whatever is written is true, even if it might not be.
however, what i think, Russel means by the "religion of thought" is the power of reasoning that the human mind is capable of. this supports his opening line about not believing a lie. what i thinks Russel is saying is that the human mind can decide for itself what it true and what is not. what Russel is probably saying is that, if a human mind has even the slightest doubt in the truth of the "true" statement, he/ she should not believe it becuase there are chances the statement is false.
But something that intrgues me is the why would anyone believe a lie? one only "believes" a lie is if he/ she is made to believe the truth. so is Russel trying to tell us not to believe anything at all without verification, without sufficient justification? i find this expectation very impractical because if one starts setting out to verify every second statement, it will lead to a considerable waste of time and energy. sometimes believing what one is told is not harmful. But one needs to be sure of the source and its validity.
This quote, on the other hand, also reflects the beliefs and morals of Bertrand Russel as well. When he talks about the "religion of thought (that makes one not believe lies) cleansing the world" it shows how inclined towards truth Russel is. But the problem is that Russel holds a very idealistic view of the world, where he expects a clear diffrentiation between truth and lies. However, in today's world, many people distort the truth for their own gains and it is often not upto the audience to distinguish whether whats being told to them is true or a lie.
here, id like to also bring in the quote by John Reseck, where he considers the possibility of one's belief being falsified. He simply expects one to take responsibility for one's beief in the event that it is falsified. Russel on the other hand completely disregards this possibility and expects one to always be right in their selection of what is true and what is a lie.
p.s. "dross" = rubbish, garbage. i dint know it so i thot id make life easier for ppl with as poor a vocabulary as mine.
This is a very emphatic statement as it opens with the words "better the world perish". however, there is something that is clearly amiss in this quote in that Russel does not explain what a lie is. how does one know what is a lie? If one cannot know for sure what the truth is how can one know what to believe and what not to believe. if authority, for example a texbook in science or history states a "fact" a student at our level is going to take it for granted that whatever is written is true, even if it might not be.
however, what i think, Russel means by the "religion of thought" is the power of reasoning that the human mind is capable of. this supports his opening line about not believing a lie. what i thinks Russel is saying is that the human mind can decide for itself what it true and what is not. what Russel is probably saying is that, if a human mind has even the slightest doubt in the truth of the "true" statement, he/ she should not believe it becuase there are chances the statement is false.
But something that intrgues me is the why would anyone believe a lie? one only "believes" a lie is if he/ she is made to believe the truth. so is Russel trying to tell us not to believe anything at all without verification, without sufficient justification? i find this expectation very impractical because if one starts setting out to verify every second statement, it will lead to a considerable waste of time and energy. sometimes believing what one is told is not harmful. But one needs to be sure of the source and its validity.
This quote, on the other hand, also reflects the beliefs and morals of Bertrand Russel as well. When he talks about the "religion of thought (that makes one not believe lies) cleansing the world" it shows how inclined towards truth Russel is. But the problem is that Russel holds a very idealistic view of the world, where he expects a clear diffrentiation between truth and lies. However, in today's world, many people distort the truth for their own gains and it is often not upto the audience to distinguish whether whats being told to them is true or a lie.
here, id like to also bring in the quote by John Reseck, where he considers the possibility of one's belief being falsified. He simply expects one to take responsibility for one's beief in the event that it is falsified. Russel on the other hand completely disregards this possibility and expects one to always be right in their selection of what is true and what is a lie.
Truth Quote - Jack London
Since a few people had already written about the quote by John Reseck, i decided to talk about the quote by Jack London,
- Jack London
Now, this quote explicitly states that the truth (rather, what you believe to be the truth) is something you are so sure abut that you can bet your life on it, something like "I am sure that a body at the equator of the Earth experiences a gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2". This is a scientific fact that people take to be true.
This quote seems rather feasible, in the sense, it leaves room for the concept of relativism, a concept that states that two people with contrasting views can have different "truths" with neither of them being wrong in their own right. Take for example, the India- Pakistan issue (Yes, again, seems to be quite a useful conflict for beliefs and truths!). For the general Pakistani, a prejudiced one, India is evil. He can lay his life on the line to back this thing which he believes to be his "truth". From his point of view, he is not entirely wrong, in the sense, the Indians might have done something to affect him, or his family; which leaves a lasting impact on him. The same applies for Indians (the other way around, of course). Hence, this quote seems to comply with the idea of relativism to a great extent.
However, this statement is not completely right in the sense, there can be a contradiction. What about the new concept you learned at school today? Take for example, hybridization. The concept of hybridization (Chemistry) may not be completely understood by someone, and it may not make sense to them. To them, it is not "true". However, what about the whole scientific community which believes that it IS true?! What about those researchers who have spent billions of hours trying to prove using the VSEPR theory that hybridization does in fact fit into the chemistry model that exists today? (Apologies for the chemistry example, but it best suites the argument I am trying to make) To them, hybridization is true. There is no room for relativism. There is this kid, who is ready to claim that this concept is false, yet, to the rest of the scientific community, it is true, they can lay their life on it. What about this case?
Hence, in my opinion, this quote is true, to an extent, where it fits in with the concept of relativism, but it falls short in some cases as there might be something that is true which you are not ready to lay your life for, so something you are ready to lay your life for, which is not "true" to the rest of the people.
"Truth is what you trust your life with"
- Jack London
Now, this quote explicitly states that the truth (rather, what you believe to be the truth) is something you are so sure abut that you can bet your life on it, something like "I am sure that a body at the equator of the Earth experiences a gravitational acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2". This is a scientific fact that people take to be true.
This quote seems rather feasible, in the sense, it leaves room for the concept of relativism, a concept that states that two people with contrasting views can have different "truths" with neither of them being wrong in their own right. Take for example, the India- Pakistan issue (Yes, again, seems to be quite a useful conflict for beliefs and truths!). For the general Pakistani, a prejudiced one, India is evil. He can lay his life on the line to back this thing which he believes to be his "truth". From his point of view, he is not entirely wrong, in the sense, the Indians might have done something to affect him, or his family; which leaves a lasting impact on him. The same applies for Indians (the other way around, of course). Hence, this quote seems to comply with the idea of relativism to a great extent.
However, this statement is not completely right in the sense, there can be a contradiction. What about the new concept you learned at school today? Take for example, hybridization. The concept of hybridization (Chemistry) may not be completely understood by someone, and it may not make sense to them. To them, it is not "true". However, what about the whole scientific community which believes that it IS true?! What about those researchers who have spent billions of hours trying to prove using the VSEPR theory that hybridization does in fact fit into the chemistry model that exists today? (Apologies for the chemistry example, but it best suites the argument I am trying to make) To them, hybridization is true. There is no room for relativism. There is this kid, who is ready to claim that this concept is false, yet, to the rest of the scientific community, it is true, they can lay their life on it. What about this case?
Hence, in my opinion, this quote is true, to an extent, where it fits in with the concept of relativism, but it falls short in some cases as there might be something that is true which you are not ready to lay your life for, so something you are ready to lay your life for, which is not "true" to the rest of the people.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Language & Power
François Mauriac was a French poet and novelist who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1952. The following is the speech made by him at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, Sweden on December 10, 1952.
(This is the English translation. The original speech was made in French)
The last subject to be touched upon by the man of letters whom you are honouring, I think, is himself and his work. But how could I turn my thoughts away from that work and that man, from those poor stories and that simple French writer, who by the grace of the Swedish Academy finds himself all of a sudden burdened and almost overwhelmed by such an excess of honour? No, I do not think that it is vanity which makes me review the long road that has led me from an obscure childhood to the place I occupy tonight in your midst.
When I began to describe it, I never imagined that this little world of the past which survives in my books, this comer of provincial France hardly known by the French themselves where I spent my school holidays, could capture the interest of foreign readers. We always believe in our uniqueness; we forget that the books which enchanted us, the novels of George Eliot or Dickens, of Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, or of Selma Lagerlöf, described countries very different from ours, human beings of another race and another religion. But nonetheless we loved them only because we recognized ourselves in them. The whole of mankind is revealed in the peasant of our birthplace, every countryside of the world in the horizon seen through the eyes of our childhood. The novelist's gift consists precisely in his ability to reveal the universality of this narrow world into which we are born, where we have learned to love and to suffer. To many of my readers in France and abroad my world has appeared sombre. Shall I say that this has always surprised me? Mortals, because they are mortal, fear the very name of death; and those who have never loved or been loved, or have been abandoned and betrayed or have vainly pursued a being inaccessible to them without as much as a look for the creature that pursued them and which they did not love - all these are astonished and scandalized when a work of fiction describes the loneliness in the very heart of love. «Tell us pleasant things», said the Jews to the prophet Isaiah. «Deceive us by agreeable falsehoods».
Yes, the reader demands that we deceive him by agreeable falsehoods.
Nonetheless, those works that have survived in the memory of mankind are those that have embraced the human drama in its entirety and have not shied away from the evidence of the incurable solitude in which each of us must face his destiny until death, that final solitude, because finally we must die alone.
This is the world of a novelist without hope. This is the world into which we are led by your great Strindberg. This would have been my world were it not for that immense hope by which I have been possessed pratically since I awoke to conscious life. It pierces with a ray of light the darkness that I have described. My colour is black and I am judged by that black rather than by the light that penetrates it and secretly burns there. Whenever a woman in France tries to poison her husband or to strangle her lover, people tell me: «Here is a subject for you.» They think that I keep some sort of museum of horrors, that I specialize in monsters. And yet, my characters differ in an essential point from almost any others that live in the novels of our time: they feel that they have a soul. In this post-Nietzschean Europe where the echo of Zarathustra's cry «God is dead» is still heard and has not yet exhausted its terrifying consequences, my characters do not perhaps all believe that God is alive, but all of them have a conscience which knows that part of their being recognizes evil and could not commit it. They know evil. They all feel dimly that they are the creatures of their deeds and have echoes in other destinies.
For my heroes, wretched as they may be, life is the experience of infinite motion, of an indefinite transcendence of themselves. A humanity which does not doubt that life has a direction and a goal cannot be a humanity in despair. The despair of modern man is born out of the absurdity of the world; his despair as well as his submission to surrogate myths: the absurd delivers man to the inhuman. When Nietzsche announced the death of God, he also announced the times we have lived through and those we shall still have to live through, in which man, emptied of his soul and hence deprived of a personal destiny, becomes a beast of burden more maltreated than a mere animal by the Nazis and by all those who today use Nazi methods. A horse, a mule, a cow has a market value, but from the human animal, procured without cost thanks to a well-organized and systematic purge, one gains nothing but profit until it perishes. No writer who keeps in the centre of his work the human creature made in the image of the Father, redeemed by the Son, and illuminated by the Spirit, can in my opinion be considered a master of despair, be his picture ever so sombre.
For his picture does remain sombre, since for him the nature of man is wounded, if not corrupted. It goes without saying that human history as told by a Christian novelist cannot be based on the idyll because he must not shy away from the mystery of evil.
But to be obsessed by evil is also to be obsessed by purity and childhood. It makes me sad that the too hasty critics and readers have not realized the place which the child occupies in my stories. A child dreams at the heart of all my books; they contain the loves of children, first kisses and first solitude, all the things that I have cherished in the music of Mozart. The serpents in my books have been noticed, but not the doves that have made their nests in more than one chapter; for in my books childhood is the lost paradise, and it introduces the mystery of evil.
The mystery of evil-there are no two ways of approaching it. We must either deny evil or we must accept it as it appears both within ourselves and without - in our individual lives, that of our passions, as well as in the history written with the blood of men by power-hungry empires. I have always believed that there is a close correspondence between individual and collective crimes, and, journalist that I am, I do nothing but decipher from day to day in the horror of political history the visible consequences of that invisible history which takes place in the obscurity of the heart. We pay dearly for the evidence that evil is evil, we who live under a sky where the smoke of crematories is still drifting. We have seen them devour under our own eyes millions of innocents, even children. And history continues in the same manner. The system of concentration camps has struck deep roots in old countries where Christ has been loved, adored, and served for centuries. We are watching with horror how that part of the world in which man is still enjoying his human rights, where the human mind remains free, is shrinking under our eyes like the «peau de chagrin» of Balzac's novel.
Do not for a moment imagine that as a believer I pretend not to see the objections raised to belief by the presence of evil on earth. For a Christian, evil remains the most anguishing of mysteries. The man who amidst the crimes of history perseveres in his faith will stumble over the permanent scandal: the apparent uselessness of the Redemption. The well-reasoned explanations of the theologians regarding the presence of evil have never convinced me, reasonable as they may be, and precisely because they are reasonable. The answer that eludes us presupposes an order not of reason but of charity. It is an answer that is fully found in the affirmation of St. John: God is Love. Nothing is impossible to the living love, not even drawing everything to itself; and that, too, is written.
Forgive me for raising a problem that for generations has caused many commentaries, disputes, heresies, persecutions, and martyrdoms. But it is after all a novelist who is talking to you, and one whom you have preferred to all others; thus you must attach some value to what has been his inspiration. He bears witness that what he has written about in the light of his faith and hope has not contradicted the experience of those of his readers who share neither his hope nor his faith. To take another example, we see that the agnostic admirers of Graham Greene are not put off by his Christian vision. Chesterton has said that whenever something extraordinary happens in Christianity ultimately something extraordinary corresponds to it in reality. If we ponder this thought, we shall perhaps discover the reason for the mysterious accord between works of Catholic inspiration, like those of my friend Graham Greene, and the vast dechristianized public that devours his books and loves his films.
Yes, a vast dechristianized public! According to André Malraux, «the revolution today plays the role that belonged formerly to the eternal life.» But what if the myth were, precisely, the revolution? And if the eternal life were the only reality?
Whatever the answer, we shall agree on one point: that dechristianized humanity remains a crucified humanity. What worldly power will ever destroy the correlation of the cross with human suffering? Even your Strindberg, who descended into the extreme depths of the abyss from which the psalmist uttered his cry, even Strindberg himself wished that a single word be engraved upon his tomb, the word that by itself would suffice to shake and force the gates of eternity: «o crux ave spes unica». After so much suffering even he is resting in the protection of that hope, in the shadow of that love. And it is in his name that your laureate asks you to forgive these all too personal words which perhaps have struck too grave a note. But could he do better, in exchange for the honours with which you have overwhelmed him, than to open to you not only his heart, but his soul? And because he has told you through his characters the secret of his torment, he should also introduce you tonight to the secret of his peace.
(This is the English translation. The original speech was made in French)
The last subject to be touched upon by the man of letters whom you are honouring, I think, is himself and his work. But how could I turn my thoughts away from that work and that man, from those poor stories and that simple French writer, who by the grace of the Swedish Academy finds himself all of a sudden burdened and almost overwhelmed by such an excess of honour? No, I do not think that it is vanity which makes me review the long road that has led me from an obscure childhood to the place I occupy tonight in your midst.
When I began to describe it, I never imagined that this little world of the past which survives in my books, this comer of provincial France hardly known by the French themselves where I spent my school holidays, could capture the interest of foreign readers. We always believe in our uniqueness; we forget that the books which enchanted us, the novels of George Eliot or Dickens, of Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, or of Selma Lagerlöf, described countries very different from ours, human beings of another race and another religion. But nonetheless we loved them only because we recognized ourselves in them. The whole of mankind is revealed in the peasant of our birthplace, every countryside of the world in the horizon seen through the eyes of our childhood. The novelist's gift consists precisely in his ability to reveal the universality of this narrow world into which we are born, where we have learned to love and to suffer. To many of my readers in France and abroad my world has appeared sombre. Shall I say that this has always surprised me? Mortals, because they are mortal, fear the very name of death; and those who have never loved or been loved, or have been abandoned and betrayed or have vainly pursued a being inaccessible to them without as much as a look for the creature that pursued them and which they did not love - all these are astonished and scandalized when a work of fiction describes the loneliness in the very heart of love. «Tell us pleasant things», said the Jews to the prophet Isaiah. «Deceive us by agreeable falsehoods».
Yes, the reader demands that we deceive him by agreeable falsehoods.
Nonetheless, those works that have survived in the memory of mankind are those that have embraced the human drama in its entirety and have not shied away from the evidence of the incurable solitude in which each of us must face his destiny until death, that final solitude, because finally we must die alone.
This is the world of a novelist without hope. This is the world into which we are led by your great Strindberg. This would have been my world were it not for that immense hope by which I have been possessed pratically since I awoke to conscious life. It pierces with a ray of light the darkness that I have described. My colour is black and I am judged by that black rather than by the light that penetrates it and secretly burns there. Whenever a woman in France tries to poison her husband or to strangle her lover, people tell me: «Here is a subject for you.» They think that I keep some sort of museum of horrors, that I specialize in monsters. And yet, my characters differ in an essential point from almost any others that live in the novels of our time: they feel that they have a soul. In this post-Nietzschean Europe where the echo of Zarathustra's cry «God is dead» is still heard and has not yet exhausted its terrifying consequences, my characters do not perhaps all believe that God is alive, but all of them have a conscience which knows that part of their being recognizes evil and could not commit it. They know evil. They all feel dimly that they are the creatures of their deeds and have echoes in other destinies.
For my heroes, wretched as they may be, life is the experience of infinite motion, of an indefinite transcendence of themselves. A humanity which does not doubt that life has a direction and a goal cannot be a humanity in despair. The despair of modern man is born out of the absurdity of the world; his despair as well as his submission to surrogate myths: the absurd delivers man to the inhuman. When Nietzsche announced the death of God, he also announced the times we have lived through and those we shall still have to live through, in which man, emptied of his soul and hence deprived of a personal destiny, becomes a beast of burden more maltreated than a mere animal by the Nazis and by all those who today use Nazi methods. A horse, a mule, a cow has a market value, but from the human animal, procured without cost thanks to a well-organized and systematic purge, one gains nothing but profit until it perishes. No writer who keeps in the centre of his work the human creature made in the image of the Father, redeemed by the Son, and illuminated by the Spirit, can in my opinion be considered a master of despair, be his picture ever so sombre.
For his picture does remain sombre, since for him the nature of man is wounded, if not corrupted. It goes without saying that human history as told by a Christian novelist cannot be based on the idyll because he must not shy away from the mystery of evil.
But to be obsessed by evil is also to be obsessed by purity and childhood. It makes me sad that the too hasty critics and readers have not realized the place which the child occupies in my stories. A child dreams at the heart of all my books; they contain the loves of children, first kisses and first solitude, all the things that I have cherished in the music of Mozart. The serpents in my books have been noticed, but not the doves that have made their nests in more than one chapter; for in my books childhood is the lost paradise, and it introduces the mystery of evil.
The mystery of evil-there are no two ways of approaching it. We must either deny evil or we must accept it as it appears both within ourselves and without - in our individual lives, that of our passions, as well as in the history written with the blood of men by power-hungry empires. I have always believed that there is a close correspondence between individual and collective crimes, and, journalist that I am, I do nothing but decipher from day to day in the horror of political history the visible consequences of that invisible history which takes place in the obscurity of the heart. We pay dearly for the evidence that evil is evil, we who live under a sky where the smoke of crematories is still drifting. We have seen them devour under our own eyes millions of innocents, even children. And history continues in the same manner. The system of concentration camps has struck deep roots in old countries where Christ has been loved, adored, and served for centuries. We are watching with horror how that part of the world in which man is still enjoying his human rights, where the human mind remains free, is shrinking under our eyes like the «peau de chagrin» of Balzac's novel.
Do not for a moment imagine that as a believer I pretend not to see the objections raised to belief by the presence of evil on earth. For a Christian, evil remains the most anguishing of mysteries. The man who amidst the crimes of history perseveres in his faith will stumble over the permanent scandal: the apparent uselessness of the Redemption. The well-reasoned explanations of the theologians regarding the presence of evil have never convinced me, reasonable as they may be, and precisely because they are reasonable. The answer that eludes us presupposes an order not of reason but of charity. It is an answer that is fully found in the affirmation of St. John: God is Love. Nothing is impossible to the living love, not even drawing everything to itself; and that, too, is written.
Forgive me for raising a problem that for generations has caused many commentaries, disputes, heresies, persecutions, and martyrdoms. But it is after all a novelist who is talking to you, and one whom you have preferred to all others; thus you must attach some value to what has been his inspiration. He bears witness that what he has written about in the light of his faith and hope has not contradicted the experience of those of his readers who share neither his hope nor his faith. To take another example, we see that the agnostic admirers of Graham Greene are not put off by his Christian vision. Chesterton has said that whenever something extraordinary happens in Christianity ultimately something extraordinary corresponds to it in reality. If we ponder this thought, we shall perhaps discover the reason for the mysterious accord between works of Catholic inspiration, like those of my friend Graham Greene, and the vast dechristianized public that devours his books and loves his films.
Yes, a vast dechristianized public! According to André Malraux, «the revolution today plays the role that belonged formerly to the eternal life.» But what if the myth were, precisely, the revolution? And if the eternal life were the only reality?
Whatever the answer, we shall agree on one point: that dechristianized humanity remains a crucified humanity. What worldly power will ever destroy the correlation of the cross with human suffering? Even your Strindberg, who descended into the extreme depths of the abyss from which the psalmist uttered his cry, even Strindberg himself wished that a single word be engraved upon his tomb, the word that by itself would suffice to shake and force the gates of eternity: «o crux ave spes unica». After so much suffering even he is resting in the protection of that hope, in the shadow of that love. And it is in his name that your laureate asks you to forgive these all too personal words which perhaps have struck too grave a note. But could he do better, in exchange for the honours with which you have overwhelmed him, than to open to you not only his heart, but his soul? And because he has told you through his characters the secret of his torment, he should also introduce you tonight to the secret of his peace.
Pandit Nehru's speech on 14th August, 1947
I
Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long supressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of Inida and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.
At the dawn of history India started on her unending quest, and trackless centuries are filled with her striving and the grandeur of her success and her failures. Through good and ill fortune alike she has never lost sight of that quest or forgotten the ideals which gave her strength. We end today a period of ill fortune and India discovers herself again. The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to the greater triumphs and achievements that await us. Are we brave enough and wise enough to grasp this opportunity and accept the challenge of the future?
Freedom and power bring responsibility. The responsibility rests upon this Assembly, a sovereign body representing the sovereign people of India. Before the birth of freedom we have endured all the pains of labour and our hearts are heavy with the memory of this sorrow. Some of those pains continue even now. Nevertheless, the past is over and it is the future that beckons to us now.
That future is not one of ease or resting but of incessant striving so that we may fulfil the pledges we have so often taken and the one we shall take today. The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us, but as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over.
And so we have to labour and to work, and work hard, to give reality to our dreams. Those dreams are for India, but they are also for the world, for all the nations and peoples are too closely knit together today for any one of them to imagine that it can live apart Peace has been said to be indivisible; so is freedom, so is prosperity now, and so also is disaster in this One World that can no longer be split into isolated fragments.
To the people of India, whose representatives we are, we make an appeal to join us with faith and confidence in this great adventure. This is no time for petty and destructive criticism, no time for ill-will or blaming others. We have to build the noble mansion of free India where all her children may dwell.
II
The appointed day has come-the day appointed by destiny-and India stands forth again, after long slumber and struggle, awake, vital, free and independent. The past clings on to us still in some measure and we have to do much before we redeem the pledges we have so often taken. Yet the turning-point is past, and history begins anew for us, the history which we shall live and act and others will write about.
It is a fateful moment for us in India, for all Asia and for the world. A new star rises, the star of freedom in the East, a new hope comes into being, a vision long cherished materializes. May the star never set and that hope never be betrayed!
We rejoice in that freedom, even though clouds surround us, and many of our people are sorrowstricken and difficult problems encompass us. But freedom brings responsibilities and burdens and we have to face them in the spirit of a free and disciplined people.
On this day our first thoughts go to the architect of this freedom, the Father of our Nation [Gandhi], who, embodying the old spirit of India, held aloft the torch of freedom and lighted up the darkness that surrounded us. We have often been unworthy followers of his and have strayed from his message, but not only we but succeeding generations will remember this message and bear the imprint in their hearts of this great son of India, magnificent in his faith and strength and courage and humility. We shall never allow that torch of freedom to be blown out, however high the wind or stormy the tempest.
Our next thoughts must be of the unknown volunteers and soldiers of freedom who, without praise or reward, have served India even unto death.
We think also of our brothers and sisters who have been cut off from us by political boundaries and who unhappily cannot share at present in the freedom
that has come. They are of us and will remain of us whatever may happen, and we shall be sharers in their good [or] ill fortune alike.
The future beckons to us. Whither do we go and what shall be our endeavour? To bring freedom and opportunity to the common man, to the peasants and workers of India; to fight and end poverty and ignorance and disease; to build up a prosperous, democratic and progressive nation, and to create social, economic and political institutions which will ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman.
We have hard work ahead. There is no resting for any one of us till we redeem our pledge in full, till we make all the people of India what destiny intended them to be. We are citizens of a great country on the verge of bold advance, and we have to live up to that high standard. All of us, to whatever religion we may belong, are equally the children of India with equal rights, privileges and obligations. We cannot encourage communalism or narrow-mindedness, for no nation can be great whose people are narrow in thought or in action.
To the nations and peoples of the world we send greetings and pledge ourselves to cooperate with them in furthering peace, freedom and democracy.
And to India, our much-loved motherland, the ancient, the eternal and the ever-new, we pay our reverent homage and we bind ourselves afresh to her service.
JAI HIND.
I
Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long supressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of Inida and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.
At the dawn of history India started on her unending quest, and trackless centuries are filled with her striving and the grandeur of her success and her failures. Through good and ill fortune alike she has never lost sight of that quest or forgotten the ideals which gave her strength. We end today a period of ill fortune and India discovers herself again. The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to the greater triumphs and achievements that await us. Are we brave enough and wise enough to grasp this opportunity and accept the challenge of the future?
Freedom and power bring responsibility. The responsibility rests upon this Assembly, a sovereign body representing the sovereign people of India. Before the birth of freedom we have endured all the pains of labour and our hearts are heavy with the memory of this sorrow. Some of those pains continue even now. Nevertheless, the past is over and it is the future that beckons to us now.
That future is not one of ease or resting but of incessant striving so that we may fulfil the pledges we have so often taken and the one we shall take today. The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us, but as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over.
And so we have to labour and to work, and work hard, to give reality to our dreams. Those dreams are for India, but they are also for the world, for all the nations and peoples are too closely knit together today for any one of them to imagine that it can live apart Peace has been said to be indivisible; so is freedom, so is prosperity now, and so also is disaster in this One World that can no longer be split into isolated fragments.
To the people of India, whose representatives we are, we make an appeal to join us with faith and confidence in this great adventure. This is no time for petty and destructive criticism, no time for ill-will or blaming others. We have to build the noble mansion of free India where all her children may dwell.
II
The appointed day has come-the day appointed by destiny-and India stands forth again, after long slumber and struggle, awake, vital, free and independent. The past clings on to us still in some measure and we have to do much before we redeem the pledges we have so often taken. Yet the turning-point is past, and history begins anew for us, the history which we shall live and act and others will write about.
It is a fateful moment for us in India, for all Asia and for the world. A new star rises, the star of freedom in the East, a new hope comes into being, a vision long cherished materializes. May the star never set and that hope never be betrayed!
We rejoice in that freedom, even though clouds surround us, and many of our people are sorrowstricken and difficult problems encompass us. But freedom brings responsibilities and burdens and we have to face them in the spirit of a free and disciplined people.
On this day our first thoughts go to the architect of this freedom, the Father of our Nation [Gandhi], who, embodying the old spirit of India, held aloft the torch of freedom and lighted up the darkness that surrounded us. We have often been unworthy followers of his and have strayed from his message, but not only we but succeeding generations will remember this message and bear the imprint in their hearts of this great son of India, magnificent in his faith and strength and courage and humility. We shall never allow that torch of freedom to be blown out, however high the wind or stormy the tempest.
Our next thoughts must be of the unknown volunteers and soldiers of freedom who, without praise or reward, have served India even unto death.
We think also of our brothers and sisters who have been cut off from us by political boundaries and who unhappily cannot share at present in the freedom
that has come. They are of us and will remain of us whatever may happen, and we shall be sharers in their good [or] ill fortune alike.
The future beckons to us. Whither do we go and what shall be our endeavour? To bring freedom and opportunity to the common man, to the peasants and workers of India; to fight and end poverty and ignorance and disease; to build up a prosperous, democratic and progressive nation, and to create social, economic and political institutions which will ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman.
We have hard work ahead. There is no resting for any one of us till we redeem our pledge in full, till we make all the people of India what destiny intended them to be. We are citizens of a great country on the verge of bold advance, and we have to live up to that high standard. All of us, to whatever religion we may belong, are equally the children of India with equal rights, privileges and obligations. We cannot encourage communalism or narrow-mindedness, for no nation can be great whose people are narrow in thought or in action.
To the nations and peoples of the world we send greetings and pledge ourselves to cooperate with them in furthering peace, freedom and democracy.
And to India, our much-loved motherland, the ancient, the eternal and the ever-new, we pay our reverent homage and we bind ourselves afresh to her service.
JAI HIND.
Votes for Women Speech by Mark Twain
I thought this speech was quite interesting considering that Mark Twain, a male comedian, was presenting it:
Ladies and Gentlemen - It is a small help that I can afford, but it is just such help that one can give as coming from the heart through the mouth. The report of Mr. Meyer was admirable, and I was as interested in it as you have been. Why, I'm twice as old as he, and I've had so much experience that I would say to him, when he makes his appeal for help: "Don't make it for today or tomorrow, but collect the money on the spot."
We are all creatures of sudden impulse. We must be worked up by steam, as it were. Get them to write their wills now, or it may be too late by-and-by. Fifteen or twenty years ago I had an experience I shall never forget. I got into a church which was crowded by a sweltering and panting multitude. The city missionary of our town - Hartford - made a telling appeal for help. He told of personal experiences among the poor in cellars and top lofts requiring instances of devotion and help. The poor are always good to the poor. When a person with his millions gives a hundred thousand dollars it makes a great noise in the world, but he does not miss it; it's the widow's mite that makes no noise but does the best work.
I remember on that occasion in the Hartford church the collection was being taken up. The appeal had so stirred me that I could hardly wait for the hat or plate to come my way. I had four hundred dollars in my pocket, and I was anxious to drop it in the plate and wanted to borrow more. But the plate was so long in coming my way that the fever-heat of beneficence was going down lower and lower - going down at the rate of a hundred dollars a minute. The plate was passed too late. When it finally came to me, my enthusiasm had gone down so much that I kept my four hundred dollars - and stole a dime from the plate. So, you see, time sometimes leads to crime. Oh, many a time have I thought of that and regretted it, and I adjure you all to give while the fever is on you.
Referring to woman's sphere in life, I'll say that woman is always right. For twenty-five years I've been a woman's rights man. I have always believed, long before my mother died, that, with her gray hairs and admirable intellect, perhaps she knew as much as I did. Perhaps she knew as much about voting as I.
I should like to see the time come when women shall help to make the laws. I should like to see that whiplash, the ballot, in the hands of women. As for this city's government, I don't want to say much, except that it is a shame - a shame; but if I should live twenty-five years longer - and there is no reason why I shouldn't - I think I'll see women handle the ballot. If women had the ballot to-day, the state of things in this town would not exist.
If all the women in this town had a vote today they would elect a mayor at the next election, and they would rise in their might and change the awful state of things now existing here.
John F Kennedy's Inaugural Address to the United States of America
To highlight a speech with has both language and power, I chose John F Kennedy's Inaugural Address to the USA.
It reads as:
Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom - symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning - signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans - born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage - and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge - and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do - for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom - and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required - not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge - to convert our good words into good deeds - in a new alliance for progress - to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbours know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support - to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective - to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak - and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course - both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belabouring those problems which divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms - and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah - to "undo the heavy burdens -. and to let the oppressed go free."
And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavour, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.
All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again - not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are - but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" - a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shank from this responsibility - I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
It reads as:
Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom - symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning - signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans - born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage - and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge - and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do - for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom - and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required - not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge - to convert our good words into good deeds - in a new alliance for progress - to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbours know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support - to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective - to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak - and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course - both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belabouring those problems which divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms - and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah - to "undo the heavy burdens -. and to let the oppressed go free."
And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavour, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.
All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again - not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are - but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" - a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shank from this responsibility - I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Truth Quote - John Reseck
"Begin by believing with all your heart that belief is true so that it will work for you, but then face the possibility that it is really false so that you can accept the consequences of the belief."
The quotation by John Reseck encourages you to be open minded and at the same time have enough faith in your ideals. This quote works on the same concept that my belief could be truth for me but at the same time can not be truth for you. It goes one step further if it can be justified and that would be knowledge. However there comes a debate wherein knowledge can also be personal, in the sense you can justify it when someone else can not. For example, if I were to experience a miracle, for me miracles can occur would be knowledge because my experiencing it would be the justification and result in knowledge. Because someone else may have a contrasting belief and because it is not justified, the fact that miracles happen would not be knowledge to them.
Another aspect Reseck covers is the faith we have in ourself to believe what we say can be true. We should not assert our beliefs or impose them on anyone, however we do need to have opinions and at the same time be open to varying ideologies. Reseck then goes on to say that we must be ready to face the possibilities that the belief is false. I, in fact, do not agree with the fact that a belief can possibly be false as the verity of something varies from individual to individual and there is no universal law that tells us which beliefs are right and wrong. As belief is very subjective, we have to dismiss the possibility it can be wrong and hence this quote does not hold. If I do believe in something, I do have justifications for my belief and universally i may be told it is wrong. But it is wrong on the basis of the parameters set by others and as soon as that happens it seizes to be personal. Of course, We do need to be open to various beliefs and integrate it with our own if possible, but there is no such thing as a false belief. If we take Plato into consideration, there may be such a thing as a true belief which is empirically determined i.e. justified but this true belief holds because it appeals to a mass. Just because a belief doesn’t have a universal appeal, does not allow anyone to label it as false.
- John Reseck
The quotation by John Reseck encourages you to be open minded and at the same time have enough faith in your ideals. This quote works on the same concept that my belief could be truth for me but at the same time can not be truth for you. It goes one step further if it can be justified and that would be knowledge. However there comes a debate wherein knowledge can also be personal, in the sense you can justify it when someone else can not. For example, if I were to experience a miracle, for me miracles can occur would be knowledge because my experiencing it would be the justification and result in knowledge. Because someone else may have a contrasting belief and because it is not justified, the fact that miracles happen would not be knowledge to them.
Another aspect Reseck covers is the faith we have in ourself to believe what we say can be true. We should not assert our beliefs or impose them on anyone, however we do need to have opinions and at the same time be open to varying ideologies. Reseck then goes on to say that we must be ready to face the possibilities that the belief is false. I, in fact, do not agree with the fact that a belief can possibly be false as the verity of something varies from individual to individual and there is no universal law that tells us which beliefs are right and wrong. As belief is very subjective, we have to dismiss the possibility it can be wrong and hence this quote does not hold. If I do believe in something, I do have justifications for my belief and universally i may be told it is wrong. But it is wrong on the basis of the parameters set by others and as soon as that happens it seizes to be personal. Of course, We do need to be open to various beliefs and integrate it with our own if possible, but there is no such thing as a false belief. If we take Plato into consideration, there may be such a thing as a true belief which is empirically determined i.e. justified but this true belief holds because it appeals to a mass. Just because a belief doesn’t have a universal appeal, does not allow anyone to label it as false.
Truth Quotes
“Begin by believing with all your heart that your belief is true so that it will work for you. But then face the possibility that it is really false, so that you can accept the consequences of the belief.”- John Reseck
A belief is what you see as being true. Your entire body collaborates as a system to believe what you feel is true. Your soul, heart and mind look at the truth in such a way that you believe it to be true. At the end of the day, it becomes intuitively obvious to you that it is true.
Let me tell you a story about and aunt of mine who believed with all her heart that her belief is true. She was is my grandmothers sister.
Since she was very young she was told that she was to believe in Lord Krishna. With time, she learned more about him and became his ultimate devotee. She used to tell me tales of him as I grew up. She had his pictures all over her house. Once, while telling about his butter eating habits, she told me that she could feel his spiritual presence around her bedroom. According to her, he had come to bless her and thank her for her devotion. I could feel the hair on my arms rise. She suddenly leaped out of bed and started chanting a mysterious song. She was 84 years old back then and was physically impaired. She could not walk without a walker- and there, right in front of me- she jumped out of bed! I ran and hid in the bathroom, my 7 year old brain telling me that it was safe territory. She called out my name several times but I did not yield. I heard my mother’s reassuring voice and sprang into her arms not looking even once at my aunt.
Only last year I heard another incident.
When she was sleeping at night, she felt his presence again. This time she did not get up from her bed but claimed to see Lord Krishna. According to her, he went to a portrait of his near her bed and imprinted a red ‘Om’ on it. He went to her and touched her forehead and then vanished. She thought it was a dream. But when she woke up, she saw the symbol on the portrait and was stunned. The next day she told her neighbourhood and my grandparents about it.
When I heard, I told them that it was all a hoax to mentally harass an old lady. I was sure her servants had done this to her to play the fool. But she believed in it so strongly that she went everywhere saying that she was blessed. Today she is 94 and still living a healthy life. According to her, she was supposed to die early, but because she prayed to Lord Krishna, he blessed her a long life. She visited many doctors who could not help her situation. She called them ‘rakshas’, who did not believe in god and were jealous of her being blessed.
This is an example of a woman who believed with all her heart that her belief was true. But she could not accept the possibility of it being false. She was titled mentally retarded by even her close relatives. One could tell that it disturbed her greatly. She stopped talking to anyone in my family as we looked at the situation more rationally, obviously our point of view.
But her belief worked for her, and she always felt uplifted. She could not accept the consequences of the belief being false.
A belief is what you see as being true. Your entire body collaborates as a system to believe what you feel is true. Your soul, heart and mind look at the truth in such a way that you believe it to be true. At the end of the day, it becomes intuitively obvious to you that it is true.
Let me tell you a story about and aunt of mine who believed with all her heart that her belief is true. She was is my grandmothers sister.
Since she was very young she was told that she was to believe in Lord Krishna. With time, she learned more about him and became his ultimate devotee. She used to tell me tales of him as I grew up. She had his pictures all over her house. Once, while telling about his butter eating habits, she told me that she could feel his spiritual presence around her bedroom. According to her, he had come to bless her and thank her for her devotion. I could feel the hair on my arms rise. She suddenly leaped out of bed and started chanting a mysterious song. She was 84 years old back then and was physically impaired. She could not walk without a walker- and there, right in front of me- she jumped out of bed! I ran and hid in the bathroom, my 7 year old brain telling me that it was safe territory. She called out my name several times but I did not yield. I heard my mother’s reassuring voice and sprang into her arms not looking even once at my aunt.
Only last year I heard another incident.
When she was sleeping at night, she felt his presence again. This time she did not get up from her bed but claimed to see Lord Krishna. According to her, he went to a portrait of his near her bed and imprinted a red ‘Om’ on it. He went to her and touched her forehead and then vanished. She thought it was a dream. But when she woke up, she saw the symbol on the portrait and was stunned. The next day she told her neighbourhood and my grandparents about it.
When I heard, I told them that it was all a hoax to mentally harass an old lady. I was sure her servants had done this to her to play the fool. But she believed in it so strongly that she went everywhere saying that she was blessed. Today she is 94 and still living a healthy life. According to her, she was supposed to die early, but because she prayed to Lord Krishna, he blessed her a long life. She visited many doctors who could not help her situation. She called them ‘rakshas’, who did not believe in god and were jealous of her being blessed.
This is an example of a woman who believed with all her heart that her belief was true. But she could not accept the possibility of it being false. She was titled mentally retarded by even her close relatives. One could tell that it disturbed her greatly. She stopped talking to anyone in my family as we looked at the situation more rationally, obviously our point of view.
But her belief worked for her, and she always felt uplifted. She could not accept the consequences of the belief being false.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Types of Knowledge
We discussed the difference between two statements in class the other day – ‘I know Paris’ and ‘I know Paris is the capital of France’. How many different types of knowing exist? Is there a difference between the knowing expressed in the two statements given above?
‘I know Paris’ is a rather vague statement – this kind of knowing could refer to almost anything. I could be making this statement as a Parisian – in this case however, it would have some sentimental value attached to it. I know Paris, I am personally attached to the city, and know it as nobody else does – this is a very personal and individualistic type of knowing. I could be making the statement as a tourist, meaning that I know Paris as a tourist destination, and as a beautiful European city – it could also possibly have some emotional value attached (it could be the best holiday of my life etc.). Knowing the city personally would identify as knowledge by acquaintance – this knowledge is personal and almost entirely based on my opinion and experience. Nobody else can have the same knowledge as me in this sense, as everybody will have their own way of experiencing and interpreting things and situations.
Now, one could look at an entirely new dimension of the issue altogether – the statement does not specify which Paris I know, I could very well be referring to a person called Paris, another place called Paris, a word called ‘paris’ which means something else, even Paris Hilton! Again, I could be talking about the fact of their existence, or knowing them personally, or my personal attachment to them. Alternatively, I could merely be saying that I know Paris exists, that I know it is a city in the world. I could be saying that I know where Paris on the map, or where it is located in the world (latitude, longitude). I could make this statement if I knew all about the people, culture, cuisine, language etc. of Paris, even if I have never actually visited Paris. This is not my own knowledge, or not what I have experienced – it is what I have been told or taught in school, or read in newspapers, magazines, books, atlases etc., or I could have heard it on the radio or the television. This would identify as knowledge by description.
‘I know Paris is the capital of France’ is a very definite clear statement – when I make this statement, I am saying that I know Paris is the city where the central government of France is situated. This would identify as knowledge by description – I have heard, read or been told in/by a reliable source that Paris is the capital of France, and I therefore believe it. It was someone’s opinion to begin with, to make Paris the capital of France, and when it was agreed by a group of people in France, the central government of the country was set up in Paris. We view this as definite irrefutable knowledge because it is a ‘universally accepted fact’ and everyone believes that Paris is the capital of France. However, possibly if the rest of the world refused to accept Paris as the capital of France, this statement would not be identified as knowledge at all, because it wouldn’t be a universal fact!
Yes, knowledge by acquaintance most certainly is opinionated – it is based on opinion and experience, it is each person’s own point of view/perspective. It can therefore be said that knowledge by acquaintance is biased knowledge. In my opinion (note, this is an opinion, not knowledge), knowledge by description is rarely biased, unless it is interpreted or understood in a wrong sense. For example, if someone told me that ‘Paris is the capital of France’ and I thought some place (also called Paris) other than the main city of Paris is the capital of France, I would be misinterpreting the information given to me, and this could be called biased knowledge.
- Priyal Chitale.
‘I know Paris’ is a rather vague statement – this kind of knowing could refer to almost anything. I could be making this statement as a Parisian – in this case however, it would have some sentimental value attached to it. I know Paris, I am personally attached to the city, and know it as nobody else does – this is a very personal and individualistic type of knowing. I could be making the statement as a tourist, meaning that I know Paris as a tourist destination, and as a beautiful European city – it could also possibly have some emotional value attached (it could be the best holiday of my life etc.). Knowing the city personally would identify as knowledge by acquaintance – this knowledge is personal and almost entirely based on my opinion and experience. Nobody else can have the same knowledge as me in this sense, as everybody will have their own way of experiencing and interpreting things and situations.
Now, one could look at an entirely new dimension of the issue altogether – the statement does not specify which Paris I know, I could very well be referring to a person called Paris, another place called Paris, a word called ‘paris’ which means something else, even Paris Hilton! Again, I could be talking about the fact of their existence, or knowing them personally, or my personal attachment to them. Alternatively, I could merely be saying that I know Paris exists, that I know it is a city in the world. I could be saying that I know where Paris on the map, or where it is located in the world (latitude, longitude). I could make this statement if I knew all about the people, culture, cuisine, language etc. of Paris, even if I have never actually visited Paris. This is not my own knowledge, or not what I have experienced – it is what I have been told or taught in school, or read in newspapers, magazines, books, atlases etc., or I could have heard it on the radio or the television. This would identify as knowledge by description.
‘I know Paris is the capital of France’ is a very definite clear statement – when I make this statement, I am saying that I know Paris is the city where the central government of France is situated. This would identify as knowledge by description – I have heard, read or been told in/by a reliable source that Paris is the capital of France, and I therefore believe it. It was someone’s opinion to begin with, to make Paris the capital of France, and when it was agreed by a group of people in France, the central government of the country was set up in Paris. We view this as definite irrefutable knowledge because it is a ‘universally accepted fact’ and everyone believes that Paris is the capital of France. However, possibly if the rest of the world refused to accept Paris as the capital of France, this statement would not be identified as knowledge at all, because it wouldn’t be a universal fact!
Yes, knowledge by acquaintance most certainly is opinionated – it is based on opinion and experience, it is each person’s own point of view/perspective. It can therefore be said that knowledge by acquaintance is biased knowledge. In my opinion (note, this is an opinion, not knowledge), knowledge by description is rarely biased, unless it is interpreted or understood in a wrong sense. For example, if someone told me that ‘Paris is the capital of France’ and I thought some place (also called Paris) other than the main city of Paris is the capital of France, I would be misinterpreting the information given to me, and this could be called biased knowledge.
- Priyal Chitale.
Knowledge Claims
• I know how to speak French
French is the language that originated in France and is spoken in France and many other Francophone countries. Having studied French as a second language for a duration of three years for my IGCSE exam, I can communicate with people to a certain extent in French – I can speak in a language which is considered to be French by the world, I have successfully passed an IGCSE French oral examination, I can communicate with French-speaking people in their language, I can therefore say that I know how to speak French.
• I know stealing is wrong
This is purely a matter of belief and opinion – it is a moralistic belief, so to speak. Stealing is defined as ‘taking something that belongs to another person without permission or legal right, and usually secretly’ in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. I have been brought up to believe that stealing is against my moral principles, and against what society perceives as right – I therefore ‘know’ that stealing is wrong. However, there is a section of society (here again, it would be inaccurate to address them as a section of society, because this belief of theirs itself makes them social outcasts) that sees nothing morally wrong in stealing – in fact, many of them cannot afford to see it as morally wrong, as it is their livelihood. Some even regard stealing as an art to be mastered! Everyone is brought up with a set of beliefs, but sometimes, experience forces one to change one’s opinion and to alter one’s set of beliefs. It would be inaccurate to say that ‘I know that stealing is wrong’, because this cannot be classified as knowledge – it should be replaced by the statement ‘I believe that stealing is wrong’.
• I know God exists
This can be definitely identified as the most controversial statement on this list – this is an extremely personal belief. As I have mentioned in my previous post, each person’s definition and perception of God is likely to be different – the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines God as ‘a being or spirit that is believed to have power over nature and control over human affairs; the Supreme Being, Creator and ruler of the universe’. My definition of God is completely different from these two definitions listed in the dictionary - as one of my co-students, Avichal said in class, I believe God is a driving force within us, that God exists within all of us. I don’t think of himself as an external being or some sort of formidable spirit. God and religion have always been inevitably connected – I am not a religious person, and do not believe in any one religion. People often tend to label me as an atheist for this reason, which is absolutely untrue – I just don’t agree with their perception of God, and their way of honouring God. For the people who think God exists, they ‘know’ that God as they define it exists, they might have some personal proof or experience whereby they ‘know’ this. Atheists opine that there is nothing like God (that nobody has managed to come up with concrete evidence to prove that God exists, they probably take as proof that God doesn’t exist) – they believe firmly in it and for that section of society, it is knowledge for them. Therefore, this is again something that cannot be classified as knowledge, and it would be more accurate to say ‘I believe that God exists’.
• I know it is raining
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines rain as ‘water that falls from the clouds in separate drops’ – as I mentioned in my previous post, the origins of all knowledge lie in opinion. It was someone’s opinion that rain is water that falls from the clouds in separate drops, and when this opinion was accepted by the world as fact, it was established as knowledge. If I am walking on the road, and feel water falling on me, and look up and see water droplets falling on me, I presume that the water is falling from the clouds, and that it is rain. There is no way I can prove, while looking at the water droplets falling and feeling their wetness on my skin, that they have fallen from the clouds above. In fact, that rain is water that falls from the clouds above is an opinion that has been ‘proven’ to be fact and is accepted as knowledge now – a few centuries down the line, someone might prove that rain is actually some other type of substance that arises out of nothing.
• I know my mother is older than I am
My mother, as a human being in this lifetime, has lived for a longer period of time on this planet than I have – she did give birth to me after all. She is therefore older than I am. Now I address the question; what is age? In human society on planet earth, if person A existed for longer than person B in his body, person A is considered older than person B. Maybe on some other planet, life goes backwards – one is born old and one dies a baby, therefore, my mother having lived for longer than me, would still be considered younger than me! I also believe in the concept of cycle of lives and rebirth – I can vouch for my mother having lived longer than I on this planet only in this lifetime. Perhaps, in my last birth, I was older than she was, or maybe we were of the same age. I don’t even know whether we were human beings in our last life, or if we lived on the Earth at all! Therefore, I would therefore like to alter this statement a bit – ‘I know my mother is older than I am in this lifetime, according to human society on planet earth’.
• I know my tooth hurts
• I know she doesn’t like me
• I know 2 + 2 = 4
• I know I will pass the test
- Priyal Chitale.
-post under construction-
French is the language that originated in France and is spoken in France and many other Francophone countries. Having studied French as a second language for a duration of three years for my IGCSE exam, I can communicate with people to a certain extent in French – I can speak in a language which is considered to be French by the world, I have successfully passed an IGCSE French oral examination, I can communicate with French-speaking people in their language, I can therefore say that I know how to speak French.
• I know stealing is wrong
This is purely a matter of belief and opinion – it is a moralistic belief, so to speak. Stealing is defined as ‘taking something that belongs to another person without permission or legal right, and usually secretly’ in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. I have been brought up to believe that stealing is against my moral principles, and against what society perceives as right – I therefore ‘know’ that stealing is wrong. However, there is a section of society (here again, it would be inaccurate to address them as a section of society, because this belief of theirs itself makes them social outcasts) that sees nothing morally wrong in stealing – in fact, many of them cannot afford to see it as morally wrong, as it is their livelihood. Some even regard stealing as an art to be mastered! Everyone is brought up with a set of beliefs, but sometimes, experience forces one to change one’s opinion and to alter one’s set of beliefs. It would be inaccurate to say that ‘I know that stealing is wrong’, because this cannot be classified as knowledge – it should be replaced by the statement ‘I believe that stealing is wrong’.
• I know God exists
This can be definitely identified as the most controversial statement on this list – this is an extremely personal belief. As I have mentioned in my previous post, each person’s definition and perception of God is likely to be different – the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines God as ‘a being or spirit that is believed to have power over nature and control over human affairs; the Supreme Being, Creator and ruler of the universe’. My definition of God is completely different from these two definitions listed in the dictionary - as one of my co-students, Avichal said in class, I believe God is a driving force within us, that God exists within all of us. I don’t think of himself as an external being or some sort of formidable spirit. God and religion have always been inevitably connected – I am not a religious person, and do not believe in any one religion. People often tend to label me as an atheist for this reason, which is absolutely untrue – I just don’t agree with their perception of God, and their way of honouring God. For the people who think God exists, they ‘know’ that God as they define it exists, they might have some personal proof or experience whereby they ‘know’ this. Atheists opine that there is nothing like God (that nobody has managed to come up with concrete evidence to prove that God exists, they probably take as proof that God doesn’t exist) – they believe firmly in it and for that section of society, it is knowledge for them. Therefore, this is again something that cannot be classified as knowledge, and it would be more accurate to say ‘I believe that God exists’.
• I know it is raining
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines rain as ‘water that falls from the clouds in separate drops’ – as I mentioned in my previous post, the origins of all knowledge lie in opinion. It was someone’s opinion that rain is water that falls from the clouds in separate drops, and when this opinion was accepted by the world as fact, it was established as knowledge. If I am walking on the road, and feel water falling on me, and look up and see water droplets falling on me, I presume that the water is falling from the clouds, and that it is rain. There is no way I can prove, while looking at the water droplets falling and feeling their wetness on my skin, that they have fallen from the clouds above. In fact, that rain is water that falls from the clouds above is an opinion that has been ‘proven’ to be fact and is accepted as knowledge now – a few centuries down the line, someone might prove that rain is actually some other type of substance that arises out of nothing.
• I know my mother is older than I am
My mother, as a human being in this lifetime, has lived for a longer period of time on this planet than I have – she did give birth to me after all. She is therefore older than I am. Now I address the question; what is age? In human society on planet earth, if person A existed for longer than person B in his body, person A is considered older than person B. Maybe on some other planet, life goes backwards – one is born old and one dies a baby, therefore, my mother having lived for longer than me, would still be considered younger than me! I also believe in the concept of cycle of lives and rebirth – I can vouch for my mother having lived longer than I on this planet only in this lifetime. Perhaps, in my last birth, I was older than she was, or maybe we were of the same age. I don’t even know whether we were human beings in our last life, or if we lived on the Earth at all! Therefore, I would therefore like to alter this statement a bit – ‘I know my mother is older than I am in this lifetime, according to human society on planet earth’.
• I know my tooth hurts
• I know she doesn’t like me
• I know 2 + 2 = 4
• I know I will pass the test
- Priyal Chitale.
-post under construction-
Is opinion knowledge?
I would like to begin by defining these two main terms; opinion and knowledge. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines opinion as ‘a belief or judgement about somebody or something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge’ and knowledge as ‘the facts, information, understanding and skills that a person has acquired through experience or education; an organised body of information shared by people in a particular field; the awareness of a fact or situation’. Take for example, a simple statement like ‘Everybody has an opinion on everything’ – now I might say that I KNOW everybody has an opinion on everything. However, that wouldn’t really be my knowledge, as I can never know for sure whether everyone in the world has an opinion on everything or not – it can be called my belief, or my opinion.
One word that resonated throughout the description of knowledge is ‘information’ – knowledge is based on ‘information’ and our understanding and interpretation of this ‘information’. However, all knowledge starts off as an opinion or theory of some kind – Galileo was of the opinion that the earth was spherical, however, four centuries ago, a majority of the population was of the opinion that the earth was flat, and this was regarded as knowledge (and gospel truth), thus Galileo’s opinion was initially shunned, till it was ‘proved’ to be right. Then, Galileo’s theory became knowledge! Who knows, a few centuries down the line, someone else might me able to prove that the earth is indeed flat in shape!
Take a debatable issue like that of God for example – many people might have an opinion that God does exist. However, each person’s definition and perception of God is most likely to be different – for the people who think God exists, they ‘know’ that God exists, they might have some personal proof or experience whereby they ‘know’ this. Atheists opine that there is nothing like God (that nobody has managed to come up with concrete evidence to prove that God exists, they probably take as proof that God doesn’t exist) – they believe firmly in it and for that section of society, it is knowledge about them. The existence (or lack of it) of God cannot be ‘proven’ at this point of time, and it will probably always remain a mystery to human beings.
Opinion and knowledge are intricately intertwined and interconnected with each other – knowledge is opinion that has been ‘proven’ and accepted by society at a certain point of time, thus, knowledge itself is constantly changing and evolving. Opinion is the perspective or point of view on a particular issue, person or thing of a person or group of people – opinion is not always knowledge, many times the person(s) voicing their opinion has absolutely no ‘knowledge’ about the issue. However, it is because people have opinions that theories evolve, and we have knowledge.
To conclude, knowledge is opinion that has been ‘proven’ to be ‘fact’ or ‘information’ at a certain point of time – however, as I have already mentioned, knowledge is constantly changing and evolving. Since there are so many opinions in the world, both conflicting and allied, it would be highly inaccurate to say that opinion is knowledge – however, it would be more precise to say that some opinion is knowledge, and that opinion is the base for all knowledge. If there was no opinion, then there would be no knowledge.
- Priyal Chitale.
One word that resonated throughout the description of knowledge is ‘information’ – knowledge is based on ‘information’ and our understanding and interpretation of this ‘information’. However, all knowledge starts off as an opinion or theory of some kind – Galileo was of the opinion that the earth was spherical, however, four centuries ago, a majority of the population was of the opinion that the earth was flat, and this was regarded as knowledge (and gospel truth), thus Galileo’s opinion was initially shunned, till it was ‘proved’ to be right. Then, Galileo’s theory became knowledge! Who knows, a few centuries down the line, someone else might me able to prove that the earth is indeed flat in shape!
Take a debatable issue like that of God for example – many people might have an opinion that God does exist. However, each person’s definition and perception of God is most likely to be different – for the people who think God exists, they ‘know’ that God exists, they might have some personal proof or experience whereby they ‘know’ this. Atheists opine that there is nothing like God (that nobody has managed to come up with concrete evidence to prove that God exists, they probably take as proof that God doesn’t exist) – they believe firmly in it and for that section of society, it is knowledge about them. The existence (or lack of it) of God cannot be ‘proven’ at this point of time, and it will probably always remain a mystery to human beings.
Opinion and knowledge are intricately intertwined and interconnected with each other – knowledge is opinion that has been ‘proven’ and accepted by society at a certain point of time, thus, knowledge itself is constantly changing and evolving. Opinion is the perspective or point of view on a particular issue, person or thing of a person or group of people – opinion is not always knowledge, many times the person(s) voicing their opinion has absolutely no ‘knowledge’ about the issue. However, it is because people have opinions that theories evolve, and we have knowledge.
To conclude, knowledge is opinion that has been ‘proven’ to be ‘fact’ or ‘information’ at a certain point of time – however, as I have already mentioned, knowledge is constantly changing and evolving. Since there are so many opinions in the world, both conflicting and allied, it would be highly inaccurate to say that opinion is knowledge – however, it would be more precise to say that some opinion is knowledge, and that opinion is the base for all knowledge. If there was no opinion, then there would be no knowledge.
- Priyal Chitale.
Monday, September 17, 2007
What is knowledge? Is knowledge what everyone tells you to be true?
If everyone says that 'this building is white', whereas you see it as blue are they lying or can you not diffrentiate between white and blue? Everyone is taught that 11 + 2 is 13, so then how come when one refers to the time 11 + 2 is considered as 1??
According to Plato, and what is widely accepted as one of the best definitions for knowledge, knowledge is defined as "justified true belief". But knowledge can be acquired in more than one way. The mode of acquisition of knowledge often affects one's 'belief'...hence altering what one 'knows'.
9 knowledge claims are listed below.
· I know it is raining
· I know 2 + 2 is 4
· I know my mother is older than I am
· I know to speak French
· I know I will pass the test
· I know stealing is wrong
· I know my tooth hurts
· I know she doesn't like me
· I know God exists
These are 9 claims most would have never thought to be arguable or questionable (other than the last claim, of course).
However, when one thinks about it, how can one say that one knows it is raining or that one knows his tooth hurts? These two claims are based on personal feeling and perception. One knows its raining because one has been told that when water falls from the sky it is called 'rain'. What about when one is standing under a building and water falls on the person…before he/she verifies that it is water from the building and not from the sky does he/she not “know” for that second that it is rain. In the same way, if someone comes up with substantial evidence to refute one’s claim that it is raining, would the person claim that he knows it is raining be considered wrong?? Similarly when one says that his tooth is hurting, how can he be sure of it? If he/ she has just been through an incident after which the tooth is ‘supposed’ to hurt, it is likely that he/ she can imagine the tooth hurting. This is something that one feels – it is based on the processes in one’s brain – and hence can very rarely be disproved, nor can it be proved very easily for that matter.
2 + 2 is 4. This is one form of knowledge by description. How can one know that 2 + 2 is 4. What is ‘2’…what is ‘4’? This however is something that has been defined and is used in math, world over. It can never really be justified, but it is something that has been defined and to refute it, one would be completely changing the laws of math which would disrupt the normal working of life. Hence, ‘knowledge’ such as these have to be taken to be true because they have been defined by man to be able to have something common at the basis of a concept and in order to go further in the subject on the basis of it – 4 + 2 = 6.
There are some claims that I feel are fairly irrefutable. By irrefutable, I don’t mean that there is no counterargument, I mean that there is no reasonably strong argument that can contradict the truth of the statement enough to convince me into believing that the statement cannot be classified as a knowledge claim. One of the claim in the list - I know my mother is older than me - is one of this. It is a scientific fact that a woman cannot give birth to a child before reaching maturity. So far from there being any argument on the mother being older than the child, the mother cannot be less than 13-14 years older than her child.
The only case in which there is any scope of argument is when you consider this statement to refer to the mother that you ‘call’ mother. You might say that “how do u know that your ‘mother’ is you biological mother?” In practicality this seems stupid too because it is absolutely unheard of for someone to be a ‘mother’ to someone older than she is, but in theory it is still arguable. But when some says “I know my mother is older than I am” and if he/ she refers to his/ her biological mother, then I see no argument against this knowledge claim.
Saying “I know stealing is wrong” is probably one of the most relative statements in the list of the 10 given. Any opinion on this is a moral one and is subjective to the upbringing of the person concerned. In most well-to-do families, like mine and everyone’s in the class, a child is always brought up with a very distinct belief that stealing is wrong. After all it is illegal in every country with a stable government, which automatically makes it something ‘wrong’. How often are unlawful actions considered ‘right’? On the other hand, for someone whose brought up in extreme poverty and has no other way of earning 2 square meals a day…stealing might be the only option he/ she has and it might not seem all that wrong to them even though they may be looked down upon by society. Therefore, “I know stealing is wrong” can be called knowledge statement because it is a JTB (Plato’s definition of knowledge) for some people even though it may not apply to everyone.
"I know she likes me" - as teenageers i'm sure we all have had or are having this dilemma in our lives. how do u kno the answer to this vital question. the answer which can affect everything you do about the issue. as we've just studied...every piece of knowledge we have gained is becuase of all four ways of knowing (language, reason, perception and emotion) working together. and in such a case - this interconnection is very obvious. language - wat she tells you and the way you'll communicate. maybe you can even talk about this with a friend of her's and based on what you'll communicate your thoughts can be altered. reason - based on your communication, the way she behaves and a number of different observations you make you reason it out within your head. perception and emotion in this case are absolutely interwoven. your perceptions is greatly affected by your emotion and vice versa. if you really like a girl and really want her to like you too you perceive her actions to be such that she does indeed like you (if you're optimistic, i.e.), and depending on what you perceive (and reason out) your emotions might get more, or less, intense. but even if everything points to the idea that she does like you, you can NEVER be sure that this is absolutely true. in fact, even if she tells you that she likes you, you can still NEVER know for sure if this is true bcos she might be a an excellent liar.
--to be completed--
Knowledge Claims
Knowledge Claims-
· I know its raining-
This is can be termed knowledge by description. When I see outside the window and see raindrops falling onto the ground, I can conclude that its raining. I have seen it rain before so I can link it to what I remember of the rain. It is a fact, that when water droplets fall from the sky, it is called rain which is a form of precipitation.
· I know 2+2=4
I have learnt this although my childhood in each and every math class. I have experimented to prove this to myself. I took two boxes on one side, and two on the other. I pushed them to the centre and counted. One, two, three and four! This is how I knew that 2+2 was 4. Unless some radical change proves that four is not four- I would be sure that 2+2=4.
· My mother is older than I am
I know this because I was born after she was. She gave birth to me. She lived a number of years before I was born. The accepted meaning of older is- existing for longer, in relation to another. Hence since she lived for longer, she existed for longer. Thus she is older than I am.
· I know how to speak French
If I have spoken French and have conversed in French with someone else- know how to speak in French. This is knowledge by acquaintance as it is personal. Unless I was unaware than what I was speaking was Gujarati and not French, I would know how to speak French.
· I know I will pass the test
This is knowledge by acquaintance and also involves a degree of confidence. If I know the topic well I can make this claim. But if the test is a surprise and is a very subjective test with mainly application based questions, I would be a fool to make this claim as my ‘doing well’ would depend on the teacher.
· I know stealing is wrong
This is also knowledge by acquaintance as it is personal. Through my upbringing I have been told this. However someone else may believe that stealing is not wrong. It depends on ethics and upbringing.
· I know my tooth hurts
This is knowledge by acquaintance. I can feel this as my pain receptors in my gum tell my brain that it is hurting. My brain processes this and I can conclude that my tooth is hurting. It is internal and depends on my receptors. If the receptors in my gum are suppressed, maybe due to some analgesics or narcotics, I will not know that my tooth hurts.
· I know she doesn’t like me
This is personal and depends on the signs that she hints to me. However I would never know for sure. She may like me and unless she tells me she doesn’t I would never know that she doesn’t like me. And even if she does tell me she might be lying. So I can never know the truth.
· I know god exists
This also depends on knowledge by acquaintance and is very personal. I may believe that god may exist but this is different from the belief of an atheist. Some people do believe in a power but hate to distinguish it to a particular god. I have never seen god so I have no proof that he exists. However I have felt the power of this supernatural existence called god, thus I believe god exists.
(I submitted a hard copy of this on Monday the 17th of September)
· I know its raining-
This is can be termed knowledge by description. When I see outside the window and see raindrops falling onto the ground, I can conclude that its raining. I have seen it rain before so I can link it to what I remember of the rain. It is a fact, that when water droplets fall from the sky, it is called rain which is a form of precipitation.
· I know 2+2=4
I have learnt this although my childhood in each and every math class. I have experimented to prove this to myself. I took two boxes on one side, and two on the other. I pushed them to the centre and counted. One, two, three and four! This is how I knew that 2+2 was 4. Unless some radical change proves that four is not four- I would be sure that 2+2=4.
· My mother is older than I am
I know this because I was born after she was. She gave birth to me. She lived a number of years before I was born. The accepted meaning of older is- existing for longer, in relation to another. Hence since she lived for longer, she existed for longer. Thus she is older than I am.
· I know how to speak French
If I have spoken French and have conversed in French with someone else- know how to speak in French. This is knowledge by acquaintance as it is personal. Unless I was unaware than what I was speaking was Gujarati and not French, I would know how to speak French.
· I know I will pass the test
This is knowledge by acquaintance and also involves a degree of confidence. If I know the topic well I can make this claim. But if the test is a surprise and is a very subjective test with mainly application based questions, I would be a fool to make this claim as my ‘doing well’ would depend on the teacher.
· I know stealing is wrong
This is also knowledge by acquaintance as it is personal. Through my upbringing I have been told this. However someone else may believe that stealing is not wrong. It depends on ethics and upbringing.
· I know my tooth hurts
This is knowledge by acquaintance. I can feel this as my pain receptors in my gum tell my brain that it is hurting. My brain processes this and I can conclude that my tooth is hurting. It is internal and depends on my receptors. If the receptors in my gum are suppressed, maybe due to some analgesics or narcotics, I will not know that my tooth hurts.
· I know she doesn’t like me
This is personal and depends on the signs that she hints to me. However I would never know for sure. She may like me and unless she tells me she doesn’t I would never know that she doesn’t like me. And even if she does tell me she might be lying. So I can never know the truth.
· I know god exists
This also depends on knowledge by acquaintance and is very personal. I may believe that god may exist but this is different from the belief of an atheist. Some people do believe in a power but hate to distinguish it to a particular god. I have never seen god so I have no proof that he exists. However I have felt the power of this supernatural existence called god, thus I believe god exists.
(I submitted a hard copy of this on Monday the 17th of September)
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Do we know...?
I know it is raining (?)
According to Wikipedia, “Rain is a form of precipitation, other forms of which include snow, sleet, hail, and dew. Rain forms when separate drops of water fall to the Earth's surface from clouds.” What we can infer from this definition is that rain is only one form of precipitation, it occurs in separate drops, and it comprises of only water. First of all, how do we notice rain? It appeals to our senses – sight, touch, hearing, smell and even taste for those who have tasted rain. We first are probably aroused by the aroma (or stench depending on opinion) of the wet mud, after which we see a foggy horizon or the small droplets on the glass window, then to make sure, we feel the wet droplets on our skin and hear the drops falling to the ground. Knowing its raining is not the knowledge of our brain, it is the knowledge of our senses. Of course to know that droplets form the sky are rain, descriptive knowledge is required but only with your senses are you able to further confirm. The descriptions mentioned of rain are definitely restricted to my experience with rain or my knowledge by acquaintance with rain and hence they are individualistic and depend on my environment. For example, a person in the Sahara desert would not associate rain with my descriptions, and when he describes rain to me I would probably not want to call his description rain because my rain is something I have grown up with. However, I am not stating that if rain droplets were to fall in Mumbai, a person in the Sahara wouldn’t call it rain. Rain can be academic but otherwise each person has a certain attachment to the meaning of rain. It is similar to the previous argument on “I know Paris.” I may know it but I don’t know it like you do.
According to the definition of rain, water falls to the ground. Technically speaking, the droplets falling to the ground are not water. They are water, with acids according to what science tells us. Therefore I could even state that it never rains because there is always acid in water from the sky. This would mean that the whole definition of rain has to change as it is too specific for anything. This would mean that if it started raining, according to the academic knowledge it wouldn’t rain but according to my knowledge with acquaintance, the feel and the smell would remind me of rain. There have been numerous examples of such cases where phenomenons do not stick to their definition. One example of can be related to the definition of a plant and the reason why the kingdom fungi was classified under it initially. Fungus sticks to all the descriptions of a plant except for the fact that it is a hetrotroph. Earlier this was just looked upon as an exception but because of the universal approval that a new kingdom should be created, fungi were no longer the exception. Because our world is so used to a certain connotation, changing a definition would be difficult and there are times we have to make few technical exceptions.
I know stealing is wrong (?)
Stealing by definition is “larceny: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully.” This definition has been coined by society which has based this definition on the justice and ethics that are involved with possession. Decisions on whether something is right or wrong are always accompanied with motives behind the act. For example, often when we watch a movie, we empathize so much with the hungry poor protagonist that his theft is pardoned and we may look upon it as an act of bravery. Did he do wrong when he stole? For himself he did “right” because the whole movie is centered around this hero. However, if we shift our perspective and saw a movie where the hero was the person the hungry poor boy stole from, we would definitely insist that stealing is wrong. Here the definition is relative. Another example of the relativity of stealing comes into play when we realize that there is still a fraction of society that has not been taught stealing is wrong. For them it is a business, and here they consider their benefit not the other’s loss. For us it is knowledge as it is our society’s opinion and we have concluded that opinion can become knowledge but that knowledge is not a fact as s is not universally accepted.
I know my tooth hurts (?)
This knowledge is in fact knowledge by acquaintance. You know your tooth hurts, but I don’t because I am not experiencing that same pain. Pain is “a somatic sensation of acute discomfort.” But is pain knowledge? There comes a universal question, is pain a reality? I perceive the pain to be there and so it is an opinion, as each of our thresholds of pain is different. However because we concluded perception/opinion is knowledge; we could state that the experience of your tooth hurting is knowledge.
I know I will pass the test (?)
This is an assumption but one with confidence. Nevertheless it is still an assumption. I cannot call this knowledge by acquaintance or knowledge by description so is knowledge restricted to these 2 categories? If it is then this statement is not knowledge. However, opinionated statements are usually those that are ready for contradiction. I cannot say you will not pass the test because I don’t have the knowledge to contradict you. If the definition of an opinion involves the capability of a contradiction then this statement would not be an opinion. It is not a fact because I cannot justify why I believe I will pass the test. So perhaps it is not knowledge if knowledge is either opinion or fact. If we can broaden the definition of knowledge to assumption, this statement could be termed as knowledge.
I know to speak French (?)
Knowing how to speak a language depends largely on what qualifies you to know a language. When I say I know to speak French, I am associating it with my academic background with French. Because it is a second language for me, my vocabulary and grammar is limited and on many occasions I would not know how to express myself. If I went to France, my speaking would be relatively poor to the locals, while here where there are not many fluent French speaking people, my speaking would be of a higher quality and fluency. When one refers to speaking French, one refers to speaking like the French. This would involve various intonations, pronunciations, idioms, and slang phrases. Our French is rather restricted in that sense. The statement I know to speak French is knowledge. However it is either knowledge by description or acquaintance. My knowledge of French is more of description even though I do have some attachments to the language, but only once I experience the language or am a local would I be able to gain the knowledge by acquaintance.
I know 2+2= 4 (?)
From all the facts I have learnt, I do know 2+2 =4. How do I know it? I was told so based on the most basic mathematical concept which has been created by our ancestors. This concept has been based o the concept of addition which was created to suit all our purposes. Based on this foundation we have come up with more complex mathematics. For all we know 2+2 = 4 may not be a true answer but according to our foundation it is, and it’s the most suitable answer that does not contradict anything else we have created and can be built up upon. If I were to change my foundation, chances are 2+2 would not be 4. Therefore this statement is definitely knowledge but we cannot say that it cannot be contradicted because all of what we know has been created and created some more on a foundation the first humans devised.
I know God exists (?)
First of all, I personally don’t know if God exists, and I don’t think anyone does. But they definitely have faith in the existence of God. I don’t believe it is knowledge because it is not a justified true belief. No one has been able to justify whether or not God exists and this can only be done until and unless we know everything about this universe. Only when we can KNOW everything will we be able to KNOW of the existence of God. However I do believe that certain people can consider God’s existence as knowledge. For example, a person who has experienced a miracle would use the miracle as a justification for his/her belief, so for him/her it is knowledge (by acquaintance) but for people who don’t have any proof cannot pass this statement as knowledge. Another view to this would involve the definition of God. Is God the answer to the unexplainable? Is God Science? Is God a force? Those people that have a varying interpretation of God and can justify it would call this statement knowledge but it depends on your interpretation and justification.
*Post not complete*
According to Wikipedia, “Rain is a form of precipitation, other forms of which include snow, sleet, hail, and dew. Rain forms when separate drops of water fall to the Earth's surface from clouds.” What we can infer from this definition is that rain is only one form of precipitation, it occurs in separate drops, and it comprises of only water. First of all, how do we notice rain? It appeals to our senses – sight, touch, hearing, smell and even taste for those who have tasted rain. We first are probably aroused by the aroma (or stench depending on opinion) of the wet mud, after which we see a foggy horizon or the small droplets on the glass window, then to make sure, we feel the wet droplets on our skin and hear the drops falling to the ground. Knowing its raining is not the knowledge of our brain, it is the knowledge of our senses. Of course to know that droplets form the sky are rain, descriptive knowledge is required but only with your senses are you able to further confirm. The descriptions mentioned of rain are definitely restricted to my experience with rain or my knowledge by acquaintance with rain and hence they are individualistic and depend on my environment. For example, a person in the Sahara desert would not associate rain with my descriptions, and when he describes rain to me I would probably not want to call his description rain because my rain is something I have grown up with. However, I am not stating that if rain droplets were to fall in Mumbai, a person in the Sahara wouldn’t call it rain. Rain can be academic but otherwise each person has a certain attachment to the meaning of rain. It is similar to the previous argument on “I know Paris.” I may know it but I don’t know it like you do.
According to the definition of rain, water falls to the ground. Technically speaking, the droplets falling to the ground are not water. They are water, with acids according to what science tells us. Therefore I could even state that it never rains because there is always acid in water from the sky. This would mean that the whole definition of rain has to change as it is too specific for anything. This would mean that if it started raining, according to the academic knowledge it wouldn’t rain but according to my knowledge with acquaintance, the feel and the smell would remind me of rain. There have been numerous examples of such cases where phenomenons do not stick to their definition. One example of can be related to the definition of a plant and the reason why the kingdom fungi was classified under it initially. Fungus sticks to all the descriptions of a plant except for the fact that it is a hetrotroph. Earlier this was just looked upon as an exception but because of the universal approval that a new kingdom should be created, fungi were no longer the exception. Because our world is so used to a certain connotation, changing a definition would be difficult and there are times we have to make few technical exceptions.
I know stealing is wrong (?)
Stealing by definition is “larceny: the act of taking something from someone unlawfully.” This definition has been coined by society which has based this definition on the justice and ethics that are involved with possession. Decisions on whether something is right or wrong are always accompanied with motives behind the act. For example, often when we watch a movie, we empathize so much with the hungry poor protagonist that his theft is pardoned and we may look upon it as an act of bravery. Did he do wrong when he stole? For himself he did “right” because the whole movie is centered around this hero. However, if we shift our perspective and saw a movie where the hero was the person the hungry poor boy stole from, we would definitely insist that stealing is wrong. Here the definition is relative. Another example of the relativity of stealing comes into play when we realize that there is still a fraction of society that has not been taught stealing is wrong. For them it is a business, and here they consider their benefit not the other’s loss. For us it is knowledge as it is our society’s opinion and we have concluded that opinion can become knowledge but that knowledge is not a fact as s is not universally accepted.
I know my tooth hurts (?)
This knowledge is in fact knowledge by acquaintance. You know your tooth hurts, but I don’t because I am not experiencing that same pain. Pain is “a somatic sensation of acute discomfort.” But is pain knowledge? There comes a universal question, is pain a reality? I perceive the pain to be there and so it is an opinion, as each of our thresholds of pain is different. However because we concluded perception/opinion is knowledge; we could state that the experience of your tooth hurting is knowledge.
I know I will pass the test (?)
This is an assumption but one with confidence. Nevertheless it is still an assumption. I cannot call this knowledge by acquaintance or knowledge by description so is knowledge restricted to these 2 categories? If it is then this statement is not knowledge. However, opinionated statements are usually those that are ready for contradiction. I cannot say you will not pass the test because I don’t have the knowledge to contradict you. If the definition of an opinion involves the capability of a contradiction then this statement would not be an opinion. It is not a fact because I cannot justify why I believe I will pass the test. So perhaps it is not knowledge if knowledge is either opinion or fact. If we can broaden the definition of knowledge to assumption, this statement could be termed as knowledge.
I know to speak French (?)
Knowing how to speak a language depends largely on what qualifies you to know a language. When I say I know to speak French, I am associating it with my academic background with French. Because it is a second language for me, my vocabulary and grammar is limited and on many occasions I would not know how to express myself. If I went to France, my speaking would be relatively poor to the locals, while here where there are not many fluent French speaking people, my speaking would be of a higher quality and fluency. When one refers to speaking French, one refers to speaking like the French. This would involve various intonations, pronunciations, idioms, and slang phrases. Our French is rather restricted in that sense. The statement I know to speak French is knowledge. However it is either knowledge by description or acquaintance. My knowledge of French is more of description even though I do have some attachments to the language, but only once I experience the language or am a local would I be able to gain the knowledge by acquaintance.
I know 2+2= 4 (?)
From all the facts I have learnt, I do know 2+2 =4. How do I know it? I was told so based on the most basic mathematical concept which has been created by our ancestors. This concept has been based o the concept of addition which was created to suit all our purposes. Based on this foundation we have come up with more complex mathematics. For all we know 2+2 = 4 may not be a true answer but according to our foundation it is, and it’s the most suitable answer that does not contradict anything else we have created and can be built up upon. If I were to change my foundation, chances are 2+2 would not be 4. Therefore this statement is definitely knowledge but we cannot say that it cannot be contradicted because all of what we know has been created and created some more on a foundation the first humans devised.
I know God exists (?)
First of all, I personally don’t know if God exists, and I don’t think anyone does. But they definitely have faith in the existence of God. I don’t believe it is knowledge because it is not a justified true belief. No one has been able to justify whether or not God exists and this can only be done until and unless we know everything about this universe. Only when we can KNOW everything will we be able to KNOW of the existence of God. However I do believe that certain people can consider God’s existence as knowledge. For example, a person who has experienced a miracle would use the miracle as a justification for his/her belief, so for him/her it is knowledge (by acquaintance) but for people who don’t have any proof cannot pass this statement as knowledge. Another view to this would involve the definition of God. Is God the answer to the unexplainable? Is God Science? Is God a force? Those people that have a varying interpretation of God and can justify it would call this statement knowledge but it depends on your interpretation and justification.
*Post not complete*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)