the title of this post itself has 3 ways of knowing - emotion, which is explicity stated; perception and reasoning which together make up judgement. ones judgement can vary depending on how he or she perceieves a situation and what he can reason from it. perception can vary with emotional changes in humans. hence it is a very obvious connection between ones judgement and the emotion they are experiencing. one can find a number of examples of when emotion clouded ones judgement whether it be history (hitler's unstable, oppressive and violent childhood leading to the way he behaved with the Jews and other innocent people), the current affairs (indians' reactions to the india-australia cricket match at sydney) or within oneself (i will present a case on how emotion clouded my judgement and led me to do what was wrong).
about 10 years ago my immediate family, the family of my aunt and i went to corbet national park to spot some tigers and other animals in action. therefore my parents and aunt decided, that in order to be close to "the action", we were going to stay in teh houses in the middle of the national park. being a jungle, there were a terrifying number and species of reptiles, both of which i had never seen in my life in mumbai. i woke up in the middle of the night around 2 am and saw 3-4 lizards right above me on teh ceiling. it was one of the most terrifying moments of my life...(irrational (?) fear of reptiles). i tried to keep calm for a few minutes watching them constantly (all the while doing exactly as sigmund freud had said abt humans' attraction to the ugly bein as intense as our attraction towards teh beatiful). and then one of them moved. that was the last straw. i created a huge ruckus, woke everyone up and got everyone to transfer us to a comfortable, expensive, lizar-less hotel. i slept the night peacefully.
however, on teh safari early next morning we were told how we had missd tiger activity that had taken place barely a few hundred metres frm where we were initially staying!!! what a waste of labour, money and time!!
although i regret reacting the way i did, my fear and disgust still remains and it is soo strong that if i were put in the same situation, knowing the outcome, i might do the same thing again. this is the power of emotion.
Monday, January 21, 2008
How do Emotions cloud ones Judgment?
Emotions are any strong feelings that not only people but most living things experience. Emotions are the positive or negative reactions to internal or external stimuli. They are evolutionary adaptations that help an organism survive and reproduce. Emotions such as anger, fear, sadness, happiness, disgust and surprise all are associated with and have relatively distinct patterns of subjective experience.
Emotions play a major part in persuasion, social influence and attitude change. They work hand in hand with the way we think about an issue or situation. Predicting emotions is an important part of decision making. How we feel about an outcome may overrule purely cognitive rationality. Emotions are therefore considered to be irrational occurrences that cloud judgment and distort reasoning. For example in school, presentations are due and a peer in your class whom you have been hoping to beat for the last year in your presentation score have not yet been successful, you therefore experience envy or jealousy. His or her presentation as outstanding as it may have been this time as well you may still be convinced that you have done a better job as experiencing what you are u criticize the presentation more than you would have if it was another student presenting it. You may have criticized the presentation in areas where they maybe non existent. This may be a matter of your perception however in the end what is causing you to perceive the presentation in a more negative than positive manner is your emotion of jealousy. Discrete emotions of jealousy anger and hate overpower our initial rationale cognitive.
When we are experiencing a strong emotion whatever we think or do at that time is what appeals to our overall emotional state at that period of time. For example when we are happy or excited we do things on impulse only to regret them later which is the case most of the times. Such as spending all the money your parents gave you (for maybe a job well done in your exams) treating your friends only to realize later you have no money left to spend on what you might have wanted to purchase with the money.)
Emotions such as sadness and depression are also extremely influential and cloud the reasoning of many people. Cases of suicide are examples of clouded irrational thinking evoked by feelings of extreme sadness or depression. People who have fallen in depression due to changes in their external stimuli (subjective from person to person). Suicide is never a planned event, people who have had their cognitive rationale overruled by their stronger dominating emotions are the ones who go forward and harm their lives. In the heat of the sadness which is overwhelming they jump out a balcony or slit their wrists causing damage to their own being. However if they were spoken to or calmed by a pleasant turn in their lives they would realize how unintelligent their decision of ending their life was. They would be thanking their starts that they hadn’t made the wrong decision even though at the time when their overall emotional state saw it best to end their life.
In conclusion emotions are a strong component of our being and are a major influencing factor in most of the decisions we make. These decisions maybe extremely beneficial as emotions are a perfect example of evolutionary adaptation however sometimes they may be a cause for unreasonable thinking and judgment of situations. Certain emotions can make clear paths for us however they some discrete ones may cloud our thoughts and confuse us all together about what is right from wrong therefore altering our cognitive and eventually are judgment..
Emotions play a major part in persuasion, social influence and attitude change. They work hand in hand with the way we think about an issue or situation. Predicting emotions is an important part of decision making. How we feel about an outcome may overrule purely cognitive rationality. Emotions are therefore considered to be irrational occurrences that cloud judgment and distort reasoning. For example in school, presentations are due and a peer in your class whom you have been hoping to beat for the last year in your presentation score have not yet been successful, you therefore experience envy or jealousy. His or her presentation as outstanding as it may have been this time as well you may still be convinced that you have done a better job as experiencing what you are u criticize the presentation more than you would have if it was another student presenting it. You may have criticized the presentation in areas where they maybe non existent. This may be a matter of your perception however in the end what is causing you to perceive the presentation in a more negative than positive manner is your emotion of jealousy. Discrete emotions of jealousy anger and hate overpower our initial rationale cognitive.
When we are experiencing a strong emotion whatever we think or do at that time is what appeals to our overall emotional state at that period of time. For example when we are happy or excited we do things on impulse only to regret them later which is the case most of the times. Such as spending all the money your parents gave you (for maybe a job well done in your exams) treating your friends only to realize later you have no money left to spend on what you might have wanted to purchase with the money.)
Emotions such as sadness and depression are also extremely influential and cloud the reasoning of many people. Cases of suicide are examples of clouded irrational thinking evoked by feelings of extreme sadness or depression. People who have fallen in depression due to changes in their external stimuli (subjective from person to person). Suicide is never a planned event, people who have had their cognitive rationale overruled by their stronger dominating emotions are the ones who go forward and harm their lives. In the heat of the sadness which is overwhelming they jump out a balcony or slit their wrists causing damage to their own being. However if they were spoken to or calmed by a pleasant turn in their lives they would realize how unintelligent their decision of ending their life was. They would be thanking their starts that they hadn’t made the wrong decision even though at the time when their overall emotional state saw it best to end their life.
In conclusion emotions are a strong component of our being and are a major influencing factor in most of the decisions we make. These decisions maybe extremely beneficial as emotions are a perfect example of evolutionary adaptation however sometimes they may be a cause for unreasonable thinking and judgment of situations. Certain emotions can make clear paths for us however they some discrete ones may cloud our thoughts and confuse us all together about what is right from wrong therefore altering our cognitive and eventually are judgment..
emotion and reason
Emotion and reason
The fact that emotion has had a great deal of influence in humans can be dated back to Archimedes (or even before). On inventing what is now known as Archimedes' principle, Archimedes ran out of his house naked and ran around the town saying, "Eureka, Eureka I got it."
This shows how emotion can influence reasoning. Due to the extreme emotions of happiness and surprise, Archimedes did not care about his actions.
I feel that emotion is an integral part of every human, it affects whatever we do, maybe not always to such a great extent that it over powers reasoning. For example, the very act of talking or eating is affected by emotion, psychologists have proven that we tend to be more social, pay more attention in class or eat more if we are happy or satisfied compared to when we are angry or worried. Like how emotion affects such basic acts, it affects all the interactions we have. If the emotion is positive, then it sort of complements our reasoning, given the fact that it is not so strong that it completely over powers it. Negative emotions have an opposite affect on reasoning.
However when an emotion, whether positive or negative, becomes extremely strong, it "clouds" our reasoning. When this happens, whatever we think or do, first passes through a filter of this emotion and we do only what appeals to us in that present state, whether we are elated or depressed, hence explaining suicide. I feel that when a person makes up his mind to commit suicide because of depression, that decision is made only in the heat of the moment, it is rarely planned. This is because in that moment, everything seems lost, as everything is viewed through a filter of negativity.
When I really want to do something, say go for a rock concert the night before my exams start or something like that, the anticipation of happiness, clouds my reasoning, and my ability to listen to someone else's reasoning. If my mother tells me that it is not something advisable to do, and gives a list of reasons, I will try to refute them anyhow. I simply won't want to listen to anything against what I want to do. Okay I am not that stubborn, just giving a hypothetical example. Anyways, so this may make me angry to and ill stop thinking rationally. This is what happens when people get angry; they often say stuff they do not mean.
So as long as the emotion is not extreme, I feel emotion is essential in reasoning, and is omnipresent in everyone's rationale.
The fact that emotion has had a great deal of influence in humans can be dated back to Archimedes (or even before). On inventing what is now known as Archimedes' principle, Archimedes ran out of his house naked and ran around the town saying, "Eureka, Eureka I got it."
This shows how emotion can influence reasoning. Due to the extreme emotions of happiness and surprise, Archimedes did not care about his actions.
I feel that emotion is an integral part of every human, it affects whatever we do, maybe not always to such a great extent that it over powers reasoning. For example, the very act of talking or eating is affected by emotion, psychologists have proven that we tend to be more social, pay more attention in class or eat more if we are happy or satisfied compared to when we are angry or worried. Like how emotion affects such basic acts, it affects all the interactions we have. If the emotion is positive, then it sort of complements our reasoning, given the fact that it is not so strong that it completely over powers it. Negative emotions have an opposite affect on reasoning.
However when an emotion, whether positive or negative, becomes extremely strong, it "clouds" our reasoning. When this happens, whatever we think or do, first passes through a filter of this emotion and we do only what appeals to us in that present state, whether we are elated or depressed, hence explaining suicide. I feel that when a person makes up his mind to commit suicide because of depression, that decision is made only in the heat of the moment, it is rarely planned. This is because in that moment, everything seems lost, as everything is viewed through a filter of negativity.
When I really want to do something, say go for a rock concert the night before my exams start or something like that, the anticipation of happiness, clouds my reasoning, and my ability to listen to someone else's reasoning. If my mother tells me that it is not something advisable to do, and gives a list of reasons, I will try to refute them anyhow. I simply won't want to listen to anything against what I want to do. Okay I am not that stubborn, just giving a hypothetical example. Anyways, so this may make me angry to and ill stop thinking rationally. This is what happens when people get angry; they often say stuff they do not mean.
So as long as the emotion is not extreme, I feel emotion is essential in reasoning, and is omnipresent in everyone's rationale.
Emotion Clouds Reason
Emotion is what a feeling evokes in you. Emotions can be positive or negative. Like happiness, surprise and excitement are positive emotions while anger, sadness, jealousy, and fear are negative emotions.
When you feel a certain emotion you react to it and act in a particular way.
Keeping myself in mind I am an extremely emotional person but like to conceal my emotions and hide the way I feel but I also react in a certain way to the emotion I am feeling.
Like when I am sad or upset I talk very little, snap a lot, and generally stay away from people but when I am happy I am nicer to people, smile a lot and am very talkative and more tolerant towards others.
However when I am angry I tend to get impulsive and irrational. Now emotion is an extremely strong and negative emotion. It governs one's being and actions to a large extent.
Once I had had an arguement with my mother because she had fixed up a certain appointment of mine without checking with me or giving me prior notice. This resulted in me having to leave a friend's house the moment I reached and missing out on all the fun. I told my mother to cancel the appointment and let me stay on but instead of giving into my demand which now seems absurd she yelled at me and called me home immedietely.
When I reached home I was furious and was extremely displeased with my mother. I dealed with this by going into my room, shutting the door, breaking a shampoo bottle, throwing several miniature statues out of the window and a birthday gift given by a dear friend. This was a perfect example of being irrational.
If I was in a normal state of mine or not so angry or emotionally charged I would have never broken so many things or reacted so voilently. Besides when I was feeling calmer I felt bad about doing all of that but at that moment it seemed like the only thing to do. At that moment "emotion" clouded my "reson". Because I was under the spell of such a strong emotion such as anger and fury I completely lost my reason and got carried away with my emotion.
When you feel a certain emotion you react to it and act in a particular way.
Keeping myself in mind I am an extremely emotional person but like to conceal my emotions and hide the way I feel but I also react in a certain way to the emotion I am feeling.
Like when I am sad or upset I talk very little, snap a lot, and generally stay away from people but when I am happy I am nicer to people, smile a lot and am very talkative and more tolerant towards others.
However when I am angry I tend to get impulsive and irrational. Now emotion is an extremely strong and negative emotion. It governs one's being and actions to a large extent.
Once I had had an arguement with my mother because she had fixed up a certain appointment of mine without checking with me or giving me prior notice. This resulted in me having to leave a friend's house the moment I reached and missing out on all the fun. I told my mother to cancel the appointment and let me stay on but instead of giving into my demand which now seems absurd she yelled at me and called me home immedietely.
When I reached home I was furious and was extremely displeased with my mother. I dealed with this by going into my room, shutting the door, breaking a shampoo bottle, throwing several miniature statues out of the window and a birthday gift given by a dear friend. This was a perfect example of being irrational.
If I was in a normal state of mine or not so angry or emotionally charged I would have never broken so many things or reacted so voilently. Besides when I was feeling calmer I felt bad about doing all of that but at that moment it seemed like the only thing to do. At that moment "emotion" clouded my "reson". Because I was under the spell of such a strong emotion such as anger and fury I completely lost my reason and got carried away with my emotion.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
How Emotion Can Cloud Judgment
‘Emotion’ is defined by the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary as ‘a strong feeling such as love, fear or anger; the part of a person’s character that consists of feeling’. We, as people, experience a range of emotions and find ourselves in several emotional states, almost all of which can be distinctly categorized as ‘negative’ emotions including anger, fear, depression, jealousy, etc. and ‘positive’ emotions like love, happiness, contentment, excitement, etc.
That emotion can and does cloud judgment is an irrefutable fact – almost everyone has made judgments or taken decisions, whether right or wrong, in ‘the heat of their passion’. However, the way we RESPOND to the emotional state we are going through, and how and to what extent we let it affect our sense of judgment differs from person to person, and there are several factors that affect this as well, such as upbringing, the environment in which the person lives, the mental and emotional strength of the person itself etc.
For example, let us take person A and person B as two people, both suffering from depression – while person A might decide to end his life, because his depression has led him to believe that life isn’t worth living anymore, person B might fight against the depression and emerge as a much stronger person.
Let’s take another example, the famous quote ‘love is blind’ – love is all about accepting a person with his or her faults, however, sometimes love leads people into IGNORING the faults of the person they love, and creating their own illusion of the person they live - this can, at times, prove to be extremely dangerous.
Lastly, I would like to take the example of Pakistani former president, Benazir Bhutto, who was recently assassinated – it was a fatal gunshot to the head that killed her, as she leant out of her car, through the sunroof, waving out to her supporters during a Rawalpindi rally. Now, everyone opines that it was very stupid of her to have leant out of the car and waved out to her supporters – however, if she had not been assassinated then, everyone would have admired and lauded her for her bravery. The decision that Bhutto made to lean out of the car, was, in my opinion, an emotional decision that she made – in THAT moment, Bhutto was enjoying the attention so much, and was so determined about reaching out to the masses and winning the forthcoming elections, that she threw caution to the winds, and leant out of the car, a decision that cost her her life.
That emotion can and does cloud judgment is an irrefutable fact – almost everyone has made judgments or taken decisions, whether right or wrong, in ‘the heat of their passion’. However, the way we RESPOND to the emotional state we are going through, and how and to what extent we let it affect our sense of judgment differs from person to person, and there are several factors that affect this as well, such as upbringing, the environment in which the person lives, the mental and emotional strength of the person itself etc.
For example, let us take person A and person B as two people, both suffering from depression – while person A might decide to end his life, because his depression has led him to believe that life isn’t worth living anymore, person B might fight against the depression and emerge as a much stronger person.
Let’s take another example, the famous quote ‘love is blind’ – love is all about accepting a person with his or her faults, however, sometimes love leads people into IGNORING the faults of the person they love, and creating their own illusion of the person they live - this can, at times, prove to be extremely dangerous.
Lastly, I would like to take the example of Pakistani former president, Benazir Bhutto, who was recently assassinated – it was a fatal gunshot to the head that killed her, as she leant out of her car, through the sunroof, waving out to her supporters during a Rawalpindi rally. Now, everyone opines that it was very stupid of her to have leant out of the car and waved out to her supporters – however, if she had not been assassinated then, everyone would have admired and lauded her for her bravery. The decision that Bhutto made to lean out of the car, was, in my opinion, an emotional decision that she made – in THAT moment, Bhutto was enjoying the attention so much, and was so determined about reaching out to the masses and winning the forthcoming elections, that she threw caution to the winds, and leant out of the car, a decision that cost her her life.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Sunday, 20th January 2008 - 11:30 am
Due Date - 15th January 2008. Extended to - 16th January 2008. Submitted - 20th January 2008. Why?
Well, the reason is --> Because emotion clouds judgment.
I sat down on Wednesday evening (the 16th) to write my blog entry, but couldn't think of a satisfactory and still publicly-describable incident from my life to write about. I thought that if I give it more time, I might come up with a better topic. I had hope. I had the 'emotion' of hope. This clouded my judgment of "What if Mrs. Balan gets angry?" "What if she refuses to correct my assignment saying I was late?", however, it did cloud my judgment. It wasn't that I had a pile of work waiting for me, it was just the mere hope that I could write something better that kept me from writing it on Wednesday. That is an example of how emotion clouds my judgment.
I could've said that I had been thinking about this assignment day-in and day-out, every passing moment for the past 5 days, but that would be a lie. I could've easily stated that, but the emotion of guilt, and that of lying, kept me from doing so.
Now for the counter-example. I realised this morning that I had a TOK assignment due, and decided to finish it off once and for all. Again, the lack of a suitable topic. Then this problem itself became my topic. I thought to myself, I could lie "I had written my assignment on Thursday, but my computer crashed" "I had written it on a piece of paper and TDQ stole it" etc. etc. This resulted from the feeling of fear, fear that Mrs. Balan would get angry, and would be annoyed that the assignment due 5 days back was being written today. However, emotion does not always cloud your judgment. The emotion of guilt (which could also be seen as a moralistic explanation of honesty) led me into saying that I was in fact writing my entry on a Sunday morning, at 11:30.
Well, the reason is --> Because emotion clouds judgment.
I sat down on Wednesday evening (the 16th) to write my blog entry, but couldn't think of a satisfactory and still publicly-describable incident from my life to write about. I thought that if I give it more time, I might come up with a better topic. I had hope. I had the 'emotion' of hope. This clouded my judgment of "What if Mrs. Balan gets angry?" "What if she refuses to correct my assignment saying I was late?", however, it did cloud my judgment. It wasn't that I had a pile of work waiting for me, it was just the mere hope that I could write something better that kept me from writing it on Wednesday. That is an example of how emotion clouds my judgment.
I could've said that I had been thinking about this assignment day-in and day-out, every passing moment for the past 5 days, but that would be a lie. I could've easily stated that, but the emotion of guilt, and that of lying, kept me from doing so.
Now for the counter-example. I realised this morning that I had a TOK assignment due, and decided to finish it off once and for all. Again, the lack of a suitable topic. Then this problem itself became my topic. I thought to myself, I could lie "I had written my assignment on Thursday, but my computer crashed" "I had written it on a piece of paper and TDQ stole it" etc. etc. This resulted from the feeling of fear, fear that Mrs. Balan would get angry, and would be annoyed that the assignment due 5 days back was being written today. However, emotion does not always cloud your judgment. The emotion of guilt (which could also be seen as a moralistic explanation of honesty) led me into saying that I was in fact writing my entry on a Sunday morning, at 11:30.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Emotions Clouding Judgement
How Emotion Clouds judgement
At different points in time we humans feel different things. Usually when we feel happy, everything around us seems happy. When we feel stressed we get irritated by every small insignificant. When we feel sad the environment becomes gloomy. Such situations are faced by all humans in some points of their life. These are not actual situations. These are merely examples of how emotion clouds judgement.
Our judgement depends on our reasoning and our perception. However, different circumstances and our emotions in these circumstances affect our reasoning. The emotions we feel may force us to do something that we do not want to.
An incident can elucidate this better than words.
Rohit Mehra was an IIT Kanpur student. His father did not earn much but managed to get his son first class education through several loans. No doubt Rohit was an exceptionally hard working student. The 4 years at IIT were the toughest academic years of his life. He graduated from the institute with a perfect score. Rohit was hired by Siemens and was to get transferred to the USA. That night Rohit was elated. He and his friends went to party at the school terrace. Rohit was ecstatic and could not control his excitement. He was running and jumping- rejoicing after 4 years of hard work. His friends could not do anything when they saw him jump off the terrace edge...
All his fathers’ loans, all his hard work, all the rewards – wasted. Only because of the excitement that blinded his judgement of things.
Reasoning is only strong when emotion has no part to play in it.
A strong emotion can take the reason out of reasoning.
At different points in time we humans feel different things. Usually when we feel happy, everything around us seems happy. When we feel stressed we get irritated by every small insignificant. When we feel sad the environment becomes gloomy. Such situations are faced by all humans in some points of their life. These are not actual situations. These are merely examples of how emotion clouds judgement.
Our judgement depends on our reasoning and our perception. However, different circumstances and our emotions in these circumstances affect our reasoning. The emotions we feel may force us to do something that we do not want to.
An incident can elucidate this better than words.
Rohit Mehra was an IIT Kanpur student. His father did not earn much but managed to get his son first class education through several loans. No doubt Rohit was an exceptionally hard working student. The 4 years at IIT were the toughest academic years of his life. He graduated from the institute with a perfect score. Rohit was hired by Siemens and was to get transferred to the USA. That night Rohit was elated. He and his friends went to party at the school terrace. Rohit was ecstatic and could not control his excitement. He was running and jumping- rejoicing after 4 years of hard work. His friends could not do anything when they saw him jump off the terrace edge...
All his fathers’ loans, all his hard work, all the rewards – wasted. Only because of the excitement that blinded his judgement of things.
Reasoning is only strong when emotion has no part to play in it.
A strong emotion can take the reason out of reasoning.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Analysis Of Che Guevara's Speech at the UN GA
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.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)