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.
Showing posts with label Avichal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Avichal. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
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 14, 2007
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.
Monday, September 17, 2007
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)
Monday, September 10, 2007
Is Opinion Knowledge
Is Opinion Knowledge?
After witnessing a heated discussion on this question, led by a determined co- student, I have come to a personal conclusion.
Yes.
Opinion is knowledge. Knowledge is opinionated. An opinion is knowledgeable (most of the time- like mine is)
I must start off with defining the two terms before I get threatening remarks and extortion threats from anyone who reads this. An opinion is defined as ‘belief’, ‘view held probable’ (Taken from the Little Oxford Dictionary).
Knowledge is defined as ‘information’, ‘facts’ (Taken from the Little Oxford Dictionary).
What The Oxford Dictionary means by ‘facts’ is- ‘known/believed to be true universally’.
Let’s go back to the 1st century when elements were broadly defined as- earth, fire, water...
During this time, common knowledge told you that there was nothing as atoms. Everything was either earth, or water or fire. This common knowledge was an opinion.
After six centuries, The Hindu philosophers at that time enforced ideologies amongst many- saying that an atom was the ‘will of God’. They were small pieces of earth, water and fire that were invisible to the eye and functioned under Bramha’s will.
This little story survived only for a century before the Greeks set out to change it. They gave the world an apparently comprehensive view of what they called ‘matter’, as being particles of substances. A liquid had these so called ‘atoms’ and these would slide over each other and would be smooth, unlike ‘atoms’ in a solid that would not display any kind of movement.
During the Islamic Golden Age, a young scientist al-Ghazali set out by saying that there was something smaller than an atom. Inside it were secrets which only Allah knew.
Different cultures kept what they thought was ‘knowledge’ and omitted anything else. The Hindus thought that Bramha was the controlled of the world and thus the atom, so the Islamic view was made redundant.
After centuries of haziness and confusion about the smallest existing unit we call an atom, John Dalton stepped up to propose his idea of an atom. He defined it as an infinitely small, indestructible part of a substance. How Dalton came up with this theory is not recorded in the ‘Handbook of Scientific Achievements’, however it is known that his theory was accepted as it proved useful to solve many Chemistry puzzles at that point of time. Scientists regarded this as knowledge and hailed the genius in Dalton. Taking his word to be true- great scientist like Avogadro, Lavoisier, Proust expanded on his work. The world was finally aware of what the smallest unit in nature was!
This opinion was thought to be knowledge for a very long time indeed. Then, in the late 1800’s the world saw a brave (or mad) scientist who had the audacity to challenge their knowledge. All the scientists were appalled by John Thomson and his discovery of this strange particle known as an electron?!However, his logical solution was enough to make the orthodox views redundant. He proposed a ‘plum pudding’ model of an atom, where positive charges and electrons(!) were clustered together.
Dalton’s idea was disregarded suddenly when Ernst Rutherford, his very own student conducted an experiment with a gold coil and alpha particles. Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden shot alpha particles at a gold foil in vacuum and observed that most particles passed right through, however some got deflected and a fraction bounced back. The professor was taken aback, and his student presented an atom with a rigid centre of positive charge and negative charges circling it in vacuum.
On further investigation Rutherford found out that the rigid centre had particles called ‘protons’. He proposed that the basic constituents of an atom were a rigid mass of protons in the centre encircles by electrons surrounding it.
After thirty years of silence, James Chadwick discovered neutrons as uncharged particles in the centre of an atom- known to be called as a nucleus.
With the new image of Quantum Physics striding beside him, Neils Bohr showed the world another view of an atom- the Bohr Model. He described the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus in ‘quantum leaps’ and categorized these as electron shells. Further studies led to the conclusion that each shell barring the first one was not allowed to have more than 8 electrons. Scientists like Erwin Schrodinger and Louis de Broglie perfected this model and gave us- (after a lot of editing)- AN ATOM.
Now we know what an atom is!
Wait- ‘quarks?’...’up-quarks?’...’leptons?’...no- stop- please!
Today, young scientists at laboratories like CERN are drawing themselves into the miniscule nuclei to find an answer. Now they say that even a nucleus is mainly vacuum with a combination of up and down quarks and smaller undecipherable sub atomic particles.
If a solid is 99.9% vacuum- why is it a SOLID!?
No one knows...
Thus the moral of this painful and time taxing research summary is- knowledge is opinion!
One can see how the opinion of few was taken to be knowledge- it was universally accepted to be true. Over the years, opinion was the crust of knowledge. These kept changing so the knowledge kept changing. The transition is palpable. From earth, water and fire this much debated atom has become a ‘ball of vacuum’. What next?
After witnessing a heated discussion on this question, led by a determined co- student, I have come to a personal conclusion.
Yes.
Opinion is knowledge. Knowledge is opinionated. An opinion is knowledgeable (most of the time- like mine is)
I must start off with defining the two terms before I get threatening remarks and extortion threats from anyone who reads this. An opinion is defined as ‘belief’, ‘view held probable’ (Taken from the Little Oxford Dictionary).
Knowledge is defined as ‘information’, ‘facts’ (Taken from the Little Oxford Dictionary).
What The Oxford Dictionary means by ‘facts’ is- ‘known/believed to be true universally’.
Let’s go back to the 1st century when elements were broadly defined as- earth, fire, water...
During this time, common knowledge told you that there was nothing as atoms. Everything was either earth, or water or fire. This common knowledge was an opinion.
After six centuries, The Hindu philosophers at that time enforced ideologies amongst many- saying that an atom was the ‘will of God’. They were small pieces of earth, water and fire that were invisible to the eye and functioned under Bramha’s will.
This little story survived only for a century before the Greeks set out to change it. They gave the world an apparently comprehensive view of what they called ‘matter’, as being particles of substances. A liquid had these so called ‘atoms’ and these would slide over each other and would be smooth, unlike ‘atoms’ in a solid that would not display any kind of movement.
During the Islamic Golden Age, a young scientist al-Ghazali set out by saying that there was something smaller than an atom. Inside it were secrets which only Allah knew.
Different cultures kept what they thought was ‘knowledge’ and omitted anything else. The Hindus thought that Bramha was the controlled of the world and thus the atom, so the Islamic view was made redundant.
After centuries of haziness and confusion about the smallest existing unit we call an atom, John Dalton stepped up to propose his idea of an atom. He defined it as an infinitely small, indestructible part of a substance. How Dalton came up with this theory is not recorded in the ‘Handbook of Scientific Achievements’, however it is known that his theory was accepted as it proved useful to solve many Chemistry puzzles at that point of time. Scientists regarded this as knowledge and hailed the genius in Dalton. Taking his word to be true- great scientist like Avogadro, Lavoisier, Proust expanded on his work. The world was finally aware of what the smallest unit in nature was!
This opinion was thought to be knowledge for a very long time indeed. Then, in the late 1800’s the world saw a brave (or mad) scientist who had the audacity to challenge their knowledge. All the scientists were appalled by John Thomson and his discovery of this strange particle known as an electron?!However, his logical solution was enough to make the orthodox views redundant. He proposed a ‘plum pudding’ model of an atom, where positive charges and electrons(!) were clustered together.
Dalton’s idea was disregarded suddenly when Ernst Rutherford, his very own student conducted an experiment with a gold coil and alpha particles. Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden shot alpha particles at a gold foil in vacuum and observed that most particles passed right through, however some got deflected and a fraction bounced back. The professor was taken aback, and his student presented an atom with a rigid centre of positive charge and negative charges circling it in vacuum.
On further investigation Rutherford found out that the rigid centre had particles called ‘protons’. He proposed that the basic constituents of an atom were a rigid mass of protons in the centre encircles by electrons surrounding it.
After thirty years of silence, James Chadwick discovered neutrons as uncharged particles in the centre of an atom- known to be called as a nucleus.
With the new image of Quantum Physics striding beside him, Neils Bohr showed the world another view of an atom- the Bohr Model. He described the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus in ‘quantum leaps’ and categorized these as electron shells. Further studies led to the conclusion that each shell barring the first one was not allowed to have more than 8 electrons. Scientists like Erwin Schrodinger and Louis de Broglie perfected this model and gave us- (after a lot of editing)- AN ATOM.
Now we know what an atom is!
Wait- ‘quarks?’...’up-quarks?’...’leptons?’...no- stop- please!
Today, young scientists at laboratories like CERN are drawing themselves into the miniscule nuclei to find an answer. Now they say that even a nucleus is mainly vacuum with a combination of up and down quarks and smaller undecipherable sub atomic particles.
If a solid is 99.9% vacuum- why is it a SOLID!?
No one knows...
Thus the moral of this painful and time taxing research summary is- knowledge is opinion!
One can see how the opinion of few was taken to be knowledge- it was universally accepted to be true. Over the years, opinion was the crust of knowledge. These kept changing so the knowledge kept changing. The transition is palpable. From earth, water and fire this much debated atom has become a ‘ball of vacuum’. What next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)