Monday, 21 November 2011

The Most Important Problem of World

I am sorry to be rather realistic, but I feel it is necessary. The most important problem? Any problem annoying anyone. When you suffer from severe toothache, I bet you can't even imagine to ponder on war, selfishness, world-hunger, education, etc. So does this really increase the importance of your problem to that extreme?
In fact, my friends, man is ignorant and stupid. He is not designed to be objective. He thinks and acts under the influence of what he is, and has been. So many guesses at the most important problem of the world are nothing more or less than guesses. Even if the whole world agrees that war is the most terrible problem with the world, it cannot end. At least, man cannot end it. Because at a very critical moment, he may go mad, he may get sick, he may become emotional, death may come to him. Not to be pessimistic, even if he remains extra conscious of the situation, that may be a problem by itself. To err is human!
Then, there is another point to be noted. Ideally, to solve a problem, you must have a thorough and absolute knowledge about it. How can man, whose knowledge has not yet allowed him to agree on "the most important", and who does not even know the potential consequences of his last meal, solve the most important problem of the world ? We do not know what results from what, so we cannot cure it. May be what we are thinking of as a problem, is protecting us against a greater potential danger.
But the problems get solved. Even the most important problems get solved. We are often happy, appreciating the beauty and sublimity of the world in various ways, indicating that there are no problems we should be concerned about at the moment.
So, my friends, man is ignorant. Man is stupid. We are talking about problems. There are many out there who are praising God for making such a beautiful, perfect world. Perhaps they'll complain soon, and perhaps we'll get rid of (thinking about?) the most important problems even sooner.
Problems are neither created nor solved. They are only perceived by humans. The most important problem with the world, among a hell lot of many others not less important, is that it appears problematic!

Sunday, 20 February 2011

Truth and Reality

Truth and reality are two different things. Truth is nothing more or less than an expression of reality as you perceive it, while reality being something totally independent of, and indifferent to how you express, or even, perceive it. People differ only in their reference to reality; and this difference is not without its own implications. Certain interpretations have more value in certain situations, and vice versa. Any number of opposite propositions may be true simultaneously, but their truth value will ultimately decide their worth. From which angle to look at reality at a certain time, is a wisdom philosophy is not designed to endow. It can only help you refine your perception. In order to choose and change your mode of perception, you perhaps need Will.

Wednesday, 2 February 2011

The Newest and the Oldest Proof of God

We generally believe in evolution. We generally believe in improvability of our beliefs. Man evolved. Man evolved in the world, in the universe. The world, the universe we know, is void of principle if we look at them through the eye of an animal. A mouse is just a mouse to a cat. An entity. Another mouse is another mouse to it; another entity. Particularity! Every mouse is a particular one. No generalisation! No idea! No name! The cat is just following the dictates of instinct!
Particularity! It is a particular world we are supposed to have evolved in; no generalisation, no principle, no idea, no concept, no name present in the sense a mouse, or a cat, or the world is present. No materialisation of ideas! No embodiment of concepts!
How did Man come to generalise? How did he generalise the generalisation? How did he find the principle of the principle? How the hell did he transcend the tangible to catch at the intangible? Did somebody from the forth dimension teach him?
Does the below excerpt from Qur'an answer the question satisfactorily?
Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."

And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: "Tell me the names of these if ye are right."

They said: "Glory to Thee, of knowledge we have none, save what Thou Hast taught us: In truth it is Thou Who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom."

He said: "O Adam! Tell them their names." When he had told them their names, God said: "Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heaven and earth, and I know what ye reveal and what ye conceal?"

(Verses 30-33)

Sunday, 23 January 2011

9/11 in Qur'an

In chapter 9 of Qur'an, in verse 110, which happens to be in the 11th division, Allah says:

"The foundation of those who so build is never free from suspicion and shakiness in their hearts, until their hearts are cut to pieces. And God is All-Knowing, Wise."

Some say that number of words in this chapter is exactly 2001.  The importance of number 110 is evident as everyone knows that World Trade Center had 110 storeys.
To get a fuller sense of what Koran wants to say, I think it necessary to view this verse in context. So, here it is...

009.106 There are (yet) others, held in suspense for the command of God, whether He will punish them, or turn in mercy to them: and God is All-Knowing, Wise.

009.107 And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against God and His Apostle aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But God doth declare that they are certainly liars.

009.108 Never stand thou forth therein. There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety; it is more worthy of the standing forth (for prayer) therein. In it are men who love to be purified; and God loveth those who make themselves pure.

009.109 Which then is best? - he that layeth his foundation on piety to God and His good pleasure? - or he that layeth his foundation on an undermined sand-cliff ready to crumble to pieces? and it doth crumble to pieces with him, into the fire of Hell. And God guideth not people that do wrong.

009.110 The foundation of those who so build is never free from suspicion and shakiness in their hearts, until their hearts are cut to pieces. And God is All-Knowing, Wise.

009.111 God hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than God? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

009.112 Those that turn (to God) in repentance; that serve Him, and praise Him; that wander in devotion to the cause of God,: that bow down and prostrate themselves in prayer; that enjoin good and forbid evil; and observe the limit set by God;- (These do rejoice). So proclaim the glad tidings to the Believers.

Friday, 21 January 2011

Definition of Art

Art is any function of life that is performed as it should be performed.

The subjectivity inherent in "should be" might irritate some, but they must remember that art is no more art when it is deprived of subjectivity. Everyone might have his own ethics, and that governs the functions his life which is, from an aesthetic point of view, his art. Now, even smoking, if performed properly, might be somebody's art. But what about universality? I think art's universality lies in the vastness of your subjectivity. The closer your experiences are to life, the more acceptable they are to those who live... Because definitely life is common to all of us!

Thursday, 20 January 2011

Criticism on Aristotle's Theory of Imitation

I don't find the definition of art as "an imitation of life" correct. Imitation necessitates that the imitator and the imitated be two mutually independent entities, or the imitation will be no more an imitation. Lets take an example. A deaf guy cannot imitate a deaf guy. When you eat, you cannot imitate eating, though you may imitate the eating manners of somebody else who is not you. This shows that imitation is of something which is not imitator..... Now, if we're alive, can we imitate life? Particular imitation of life is definitely possible and not only we see it in our daily life but art too abounds in it. But if imitation is only particular in nature, what about the universality art claims?