The thrill of driving for every teenager is an overwhelming feeling. It is one of the first instances in one's life, that a teen can actually feel the responsibility and even the freedom of a free world. And we tend to cherish these early thrills.But it is this very affinity to gaining responsibility that dies out very soon, only to be replaced by more risky and careless decision making. It is very very easy for one to lose their reasoning abilities in the height of the moment, only to be overcome by their emotions and consequently committing acts which, otherwise, they wouldnt even think of doing. Crossing the speed limit and not obeying traffic rules is very common for every teenager but few realize the consequences of their actions. Teenage reflexes are not sharp enough to react whilst in a speeding vehicle. Such behavior may lead to fatal injuries, accidents and even death all at the cost of a few minutes pleasure.
The past week made me realize how driving, in spite of being fun is indeed quite dangerous. This weekend I went for a drive with a few of my friends. None of us were of legal age or even possessed a license. This was not the first time; we go for drives pretty often. Driving past the speed limit was a thrilling experience. But at a turning I banged the car into the divider. Luckily everyone escaped without a scratch but the impact of this minor accident will probably stay on my mind forever. The damage could have been a lot more. A human being may lose their life because of reckless driving. They may be injured to a great extent or scarred for eternity.
This was probably one of the most fatal experiences that I have been through. Yesterday an accident took place on the Bandra – Worli sea link. The driver was experienced and still lost control of the vehicle. This mistake cost two innocent people their lives. Seeing a person’s life taken away because of disobeying traffic rules made me realize how important it is to keep one's cool and not get carried away by situations. I remember the graphic which we once saw in our TOK class, with two caricatures - Emotion and Reason in a car. The graphic stressed the importance of Reason being in the drivers seat instead of emotion to prevent disastrous consequences. This graphic, incidentally applies quite literally to this scenario! On a personal front, driving is fun. The instant of applying the clutch, changing the gear and then shooting on the gas pedal results in the booming of my adrenaline levels. I know its not legal and i know it can lead to serious consequences. But i have, whenever i touch the wheel, always and always tried to make it a priority to respect everyone around me. I know that one moment of madness could result in a lifetime of grief or probably no lifetime at all. And when viewing it in retrospective, I cannot over stress the importance of safe driving -for everyone.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Movie Review
Kung Fu Panda
Directors - Mark Osborne, John Stevenson
Writers - Jonathan Aibel, Glenn Berge
Kung Fu Panda is a beautifully depicted animation movie about a plump panda, Po, and his extremely innocent journey towards becoming the savior of the valley of peace. The movie is based on the Chinese tradition of martial arts or kung fu. Po, a devoted lover to the art of kung fu, is an obese son of a noodle restaurant owner, whose only dream is to see his son take over the family business. Although Po is alienated from his family tradition, he is helpless due to his rather comical dietary habits. What we witness next is a highly enthralling adventure of Po, who is shockingly chosen as the legendary Dragon Warrior by the original inventor of Kung Fu, master Oogway. But it’s the effect on the people and their emotions that really makes this movie.
The characters are portrayed not with the aim of bringing them as close to reality as possible, rather, they are just cartoons, some with 3D effects, some just hand drawn. The very essence of this film lies in its underlying sweetness, possibly targeted towards a young audience, but it’s highly successful in generating an appeal even amongst a broader segment of adults. There’s a general perception among people that animated movies are for children. But the success of this movie clearly breaks this stereotypical notion. The expressions of the characters are awe-inspiring and perfectly compliment the storyline. The subtle comedy in the film is relishing and the viewer inadvertently enjoys the seemingly childlike comical sequences. During the first viewing itself the film captures our emotions, especially the enchanting characters present throughout the film. The sight of a panda with a belly bouncing around the place to learn kung fu epitomizes the innocence and the charm of Kung Fu Panda. The exaggerations of the action sequences add to the comedy of the film. The screenplay of part of the anime, where Po, undergoes extensive training from his master, Shifu, is particularly exciting as Master Shifu discovers the secret of training his flabby Panda in Kung Fu, to defeat his mighty nemesis, Tai Lung. The pace of the movie is fast throughout and the sense of urgency is balanced so as to not dampen the comic nature of Kung Fu Panda. The movie ends with what is perhaps the best scene in the entire film, with Po and his master, Shifu, both lying on their backs, relaxing in the peace they always chased. The portrayal of the Panda especially is done in an extremely adorable manner, and the audience is swept away by the cute, chubby Panda who performs Kung Fu. The dialogues, slightly exaggerated though in a hilarious manner, perfectly compliment Po’s tale of becoming the Dragon Warrior. The movie revolves around the mythical and historical notions of kungfu and dragons in the ancient Chinese civilizations.
I particularly liked the usual exaggeration in the dialogues and the action sequences. This exaggeration is deliberate and is also a crucial part of the screenplay. A vital part of animation films is the voice imparted to the characters. Since the visual and the audio parts are done separately, it is essential to regain the balance and the complimentary nature of both these aspects. Kung Fu Panda is much more than a story of the underdog. It is vibrant and different from the mainstream American animation movies. This difference is brought about right from the first scene, with its oriental settings and characters with curvy moustaches. The animation is outstanding throughout, with the Panda’s fur so tempting; you want to run your fingers through it. The textured stone steps, walls with Chinese backgrounds, trees laden with juicy peaches all add to the stimulating experience. The colorful details add to the evocativeness of this film. The fight sequences are brilliantly edited with the omnipresent touch of kung fu. But this film is far from being a live-action film; it’s the panda with his flippant attitude that is the main attraction of the film. Kung Fu Panda is a movie not just for children. It’s a movie that will fascinate everyone. It is a movie, which is capable of bringing a smile to our faces.
Directors - Mark Osborne, John Stevenson
Writers - Jonathan Aibel, Glenn Berge
Kung Fu Panda is a beautifully depicted animation movie about a plump panda, Po, and his extremely innocent journey towards becoming the savior of the valley of peace. The movie is based on the Chinese tradition of martial arts or kung fu. Po, a devoted lover to the art of kung fu, is an obese son of a noodle restaurant owner, whose only dream is to see his son take over the family business. Although Po is alienated from his family tradition, he is helpless due to his rather comical dietary habits. What we witness next is a highly enthralling adventure of Po, who is shockingly chosen as the legendary Dragon Warrior by the original inventor of Kung Fu, master Oogway. But it’s the effect on the people and their emotions that really makes this movie.
The characters are portrayed not with the aim of bringing them as close to reality as possible, rather, they are just cartoons, some with 3D effects, some just hand drawn. The very essence of this film lies in its underlying sweetness, possibly targeted towards a young audience, but it’s highly successful in generating an appeal even amongst a broader segment of adults. There’s a general perception among people that animated movies are for children. But the success of this movie clearly breaks this stereotypical notion. The expressions of the characters are awe-inspiring and perfectly compliment the storyline. The subtle comedy in the film is relishing and the viewer inadvertently enjoys the seemingly childlike comical sequences. During the first viewing itself the film captures our emotions, especially the enchanting characters present throughout the film. The sight of a panda with a belly bouncing around the place to learn kung fu epitomizes the innocence and the charm of Kung Fu Panda. The exaggerations of the action sequences add to the comedy of the film. The screenplay of part of the anime, where Po, undergoes extensive training from his master, Shifu, is particularly exciting as Master Shifu discovers the secret of training his flabby Panda in Kung Fu, to defeat his mighty nemesis, Tai Lung. The pace of the movie is fast throughout and the sense of urgency is balanced so as to not dampen the comic nature of Kung Fu Panda. The movie ends with what is perhaps the best scene in the entire film, with Po and his master, Shifu, both lying on their backs, relaxing in the peace they always chased. The portrayal of the Panda especially is done in an extremely adorable manner, and the audience is swept away by the cute, chubby Panda who performs Kung Fu. The dialogues, slightly exaggerated though in a hilarious manner, perfectly compliment Po’s tale of becoming the Dragon Warrior. The movie revolves around the mythical and historical notions of kungfu and dragons in the ancient Chinese civilizations.
I particularly liked the usual exaggeration in the dialogues and the action sequences. This exaggeration is deliberate and is also a crucial part of the screenplay. A vital part of animation films is the voice imparted to the characters. Since the visual and the audio parts are done separately, it is essential to regain the balance and the complimentary nature of both these aspects. Kung Fu Panda is much more than a story of the underdog. It is vibrant and different from the mainstream American animation movies. This difference is brought about right from the first scene, with its oriental settings and characters with curvy moustaches. The animation is outstanding throughout, with the Panda’s fur so tempting; you want to run your fingers through it. The textured stone steps, walls with Chinese backgrounds, trees laden with juicy peaches all add to the stimulating experience. The colorful details add to the evocativeness of this film. The fight sequences are brilliantly edited with the omnipresent touch of kung fu. But this film is far from being a live-action film; it’s the panda with his flippant attitude that is the main attraction of the film. Kung Fu Panda is a movie not just for children. It’s a movie that will fascinate everyone. It is a movie, which is capable of bringing a smile to our faces.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Jinnah Article
The author, Tarun Vijay, is highly biased right from the onset of the article against Jinnah. Whether this bias is justified or not is debatable, but a knower, after reading the article cannot dispute the fact that there is a heavy bias against both, Jinnah as an individual and Jinnah as an institution. This can be justified by looking at the introductory passages in the article where the author tries to co-relate two different events in history (Jinnah’s speech and the Calcutta Massacre) simply on basis of their chronological order. But he does not give the knower adequate evidence about the causality of the Calcutta massacre to substantially validate his claims. For instance, Jinnah’s presidential speech at the Muslim League convention on July 19, 1946, may have been in an entirely different context than what appears in the article thus breaking the link between his speech and the subsequent massacres that followed.
The author, by citing another eminent personality, even questions the suitability of Jinnah as a leader of a pan-Islamic state, putting forth the argument that he himself had western tastes and Anglican preferences and was the complete opposite of an ‘ideal’ Islamic leader. However this claim too, it can be argued, arises more from an internal and personal hatred, than actual doubts over the leader’s distinct background. It would be near-sightedness to simply characterize a leader simply and only on the basis of their background and personal lives, as is done in the article.
The author, on a more macrocosmic level, is a very pro-hindu activist. This is evident as he tries to justify and uphold the RSS’s hindutva ideology. There are also cultural references in the article, made by allusions to Gita. The allusions to Gita, in my opinion are present in the article to validate the Hindutva cause and also to appeal to the more religious readers on basis of their emotional attachments to religion.
The direct comparison between Jinnah, the father of Pakistan and Nehru, India’s first president, too, shows shades of bias thus weakening the argument against Jinnah. A major fallacy in the comparison is that while Nehru is looked as a leader whose duty was to protect Indian interests, Jinnah is not looked upon in the same light with respect to Pakistan, instead, he is treated as an Indian leader who betrayed and ‘vivisected’ India, when in reality he was pursuing the birth of his own country.
It is difficult to establish the main purpose or knowledge issue of the article as various arguments are raised throughout the length of the article, initiating from Jinnah’s role in the Calcutta massacre to his personal background and eventually to the RSS’s hindutva ideology. However when put in context with the background timing of the article, one can make immediate sense by understanding the authors frustrations with the Jinnah issue continuously marring his beloved BJP through controversies created first by L.K.Advani and then by Jaswanth Singh. The apparent purpose of the article would only be to reignite the now calming fire against Jinnah as an individual amongst the leaders and workers of the BJP and the general public as a whole.
The author, by citing another eminent personality, even questions the suitability of Jinnah as a leader of a pan-Islamic state, putting forth the argument that he himself had western tastes and Anglican preferences and was the complete opposite of an ‘ideal’ Islamic leader. However this claim too, it can be argued, arises more from an internal and personal hatred, than actual doubts over the leader’s distinct background. It would be near-sightedness to simply characterize a leader simply and only on the basis of their background and personal lives, as is done in the article.
The author, on a more macrocosmic level, is a very pro-hindu activist. This is evident as he tries to justify and uphold the RSS’s hindutva ideology. There are also cultural references in the article, made by allusions to Gita. The allusions to Gita, in my opinion are present in the article to validate the Hindutva cause and also to appeal to the more religious readers on basis of their emotional attachments to religion.
The direct comparison between Jinnah, the father of Pakistan and Nehru, India’s first president, too, shows shades of bias thus weakening the argument against Jinnah. A major fallacy in the comparison is that while Nehru is looked as a leader whose duty was to protect Indian interests, Jinnah is not looked upon in the same light with respect to Pakistan, instead, he is treated as an Indian leader who betrayed and ‘vivisected’ India, when in reality he was pursuing the birth of his own country.
It is difficult to establish the main purpose or knowledge issue of the article as various arguments are raised throughout the length of the article, initiating from Jinnah’s role in the Calcutta massacre to his personal background and eventually to the RSS’s hindutva ideology. However when put in context with the background timing of the article, one can make immediate sense by understanding the authors frustrations with the Jinnah issue continuously marring his beloved BJP through controversies created first by L.K.Advani and then by Jaswanth Singh. The apparent purpose of the article would only be to reignite the now calming fire against Jinnah as an individual amongst the leaders and workers of the BJP and the general public as a whole.
Jinnah Article
The author, Tarun Vijay, is highly biased right from the onset of the article against Jinnah. Whether this bias is justified or not is debatable, but a knower, after reading the article cannot dispute the fact that there is a heavy bias against both, Jinnah as an individual and Jinnah as an institution. This can be justified by looking at the introductory passages in the article where the author tries to co-relate two different events in history (Jinnah’s speech and the Calcutta Massacre) simply on basis of their chronological order. But he does not give the knower adequate evidence about the causality of the Calcutta massacre to substantially validate his claims. For instance, Jinnah’s presidential speech at the Muslim League convention on July 19, 1946, may have been in an entirely different context than what appears in the article thus breaking the link between his speech and the subsequent massacres that followed.
The author, by citing another eminent personality, even questions the suitability of Jinnah as a leader of a pan-Islamic state, putting forth the argument that he himself had western tastes and Anglican preferences and was the complete opposite of an ‘ideal’ Islamic leader. However this claim too, it can be argued, arises more from an internal and personal hatred, than actual doubts over the leader’s distinct background. It would be near-sightedness to simply characterize a leader simply and only on the basis of their background and personal lives, as is done in the article.
The author, on a more macrocosmic level, is a very pro-hindu activist. This is evident as he tries to justify and uphold the RSS’s hindutva ideology. There are also cultural references in the article, made by allusions to Gita. The allusions to Gita, in my opinion are present in the article to validate the Hindutva cause and also to appeal to the more religious readers on basis of their emotional attachments to religion.
The direct comparison between Jinnah, the father of Pakistan and Nehru, India’s first president, too, shows shades of bias thus weakening the argument against Jinnah. A major fallacy in the comparison is that while Nehru is looked as a leader whose duty was to protect Indian interests, Jinnah is not looked upon in the same light with respect to Pakistan, instead, he is treated as an Indian leader who betrayed and ‘vivisected’ India, when in reality he was pursuing the birth of his own country.
It is difficult to establish the main purpose or knowledge issue of the article as various arguments are raised throughout the length of the article, initiating from Jinnah’s role in the Calcutta massacre to his personal background and eventually to the RSS’s hindutva ideology. However when put in context with the background timing of the article, one can make immediate sense by understanding the authors frustrations with the Jinnah issue continuously marring his beloved BJP through controversies created first by L.K.Advani and then by Jaswanth Singh. The apparent purpose of the article would only be to reignite the now calming fire against Jinnah as an individual amongst the leaders and workers of the BJP and the general public as a whole.
The author, by citing another eminent personality, even questions the suitability of Jinnah as a leader of a pan-Islamic state, putting forth the argument that he himself had western tastes and Anglican preferences and was the complete opposite of an ‘ideal’ Islamic leader. However this claim too, it can be argued, arises more from an internal and personal hatred, than actual doubts over the leader’s distinct background. It would be near-sightedness to simply characterize a leader simply and only on the basis of their background and personal lives, as is done in the article.
The author, on a more macrocosmic level, is a very pro-hindu activist. This is evident as he tries to justify and uphold the RSS’s hindutva ideology. There are also cultural references in the article, made by allusions to Gita. The allusions to Gita, in my opinion are present in the article to validate the Hindutva cause and also to appeal to the more religious readers on basis of their emotional attachments to religion.
The direct comparison between Jinnah, the father of Pakistan and Nehru, India’s first president, too, shows shades of bias thus weakening the argument against Jinnah. A major fallacy in the comparison is that while Nehru is looked as a leader whose duty was to protect Indian interests, Jinnah is not looked upon in the same light with respect to Pakistan, instead, he is treated as an Indian leader who betrayed and ‘vivisected’ India, when in reality he was pursuing the birth of his own country.
It is difficult to establish the main purpose or knowledge issue of the article as various arguments are raised throughout the length of the article, initiating from Jinnah’s role in the Calcutta massacre to his personal background and eventually to the RSS’s hindutva ideology. However when put in context with the background timing of the article, one can make immediate sense by understanding the authors frustrations with the Jinnah issue continuously marring his beloved BJP through controversies created first by L.K.Advani and then by Jaswanth Singh. The apparent purpose of the article would only be to reignite the now calming fire against Jinnah as an individual amongst the leaders and workers of the BJP and the general public as a whole.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Iran Nuclear ISsuw
RISHAB MEHTA
The article is based upon the diplomatic scenario surrounding the concerns of the P5 countries (UK, USA, China, Russia, France) about Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme. For a period of nearly two decades, the western nations have been suspicious of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It is important to note that all these P5 countries are declared nuclear countries. Obviously its hypocritical of them to state that Iran does not have a right to nuclear technology since they themselves refuse to discard their nuclear weapons. They perceive Iran to be misusing its nuclear technology to make nuclear weapons while the Iranians object that they are only using nuclear technology for useful civilian purposes. While considering from a neutral point of view, it is hard to reason that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranians are unsafe while weapons anywhere else in the world, including south Asia, are in safe and secure hands. Especially when you look at the proliferation records in history, Pakistan, for instance, has proliferated nuclear technology to both Iran and North Korea, however, there have been no sanctions or embargos or even diplomatic pressure on Pakistan like the ones Iran is facing. This could be due to the bias and support of the United States Of America towards Pakistan for its help in battling terror.
The article narrows down its focus to the resumption of dialogue between Iran and the P5 countries. Iran, while does not hold any objections for the holding of these talks, remain uncommitted about the issue of nuclear weapons enrichment coming up during the discussions. When one does look form the western perspective, it is not hard to align unanimously with that stream of thought. Iran is situated in a perpetually volatile environment in the Middle East, with the threat of a full-blown war against Israel always on the horizon. Thus in such instances, the procurement of a nuclear weapon by Iran or any other Middle Eastern countries for that matter, may totally change the balance of power scenario in the Middle East, leading to unnecessary complications and could even cause a nuclear war. This would not only be disastrous for the Middle East, but the entire planet’s environment would be on the threshold of extinction. It is thus in the interest of every nation to stop Iran from procuring nuclear weapons. Given the above terms, the world countries shouldn’t have a problem with Iran using nuclear technology for civilian purposes (energy). But that very fact is the core issue, as since iran does not allow IAEA inspectors to inspect Iranian nuclear sites for weapons, the suspicions will never cease to exist. Iran must hence allow the talks to be construvtive for world peace.
The article is based upon the diplomatic scenario surrounding the concerns of the P5 countries (UK, USA, China, Russia, France) about Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme. For a period of nearly two decades, the western nations have been suspicious of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It is important to note that all these P5 countries are declared nuclear countries. Obviously its hypocritical of them to state that Iran does not have a right to nuclear technology since they themselves refuse to discard their nuclear weapons. They perceive Iran to be misusing its nuclear technology to make nuclear weapons while the Iranians object that they are only using nuclear technology for useful civilian purposes. While considering from a neutral point of view, it is hard to reason that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iranians are unsafe while weapons anywhere else in the world, including south Asia, are in safe and secure hands. Especially when you look at the proliferation records in history, Pakistan, for instance, has proliferated nuclear technology to both Iran and North Korea, however, there have been no sanctions or embargos or even diplomatic pressure on Pakistan like the ones Iran is facing. This could be due to the bias and support of the United States Of America towards Pakistan for its help in battling terror.
The article narrows down its focus to the resumption of dialogue between Iran and the P5 countries. Iran, while does not hold any objections for the holding of these talks, remain uncommitted about the issue of nuclear weapons enrichment coming up during the discussions. When one does look form the western perspective, it is not hard to align unanimously with that stream of thought. Iran is situated in a perpetually volatile environment in the Middle East, with the threat of a full-blown war against Israel always on the horizon. Thus in such instances, the procurement of a nuclear weapon by Iran or any other Middle Eastern countries for that matter, may totally change the balance of power scenario in the Middle East, leading to unnecessary complications and could even cause a nuclear war. This would not only be disastrous for the Middle East, but the entire planet’s environment would be on the threshold of extinction. It is thus in the interest of every nation to stop Iran from procuring nuclear weapons. Given the above terms, the world countries shouldn’t have a problem with Iran using nuclear technology for civilian purposes (energy). But that very fact is the core issue, as since iran does not allow IAEA inspectors to inspect Iranian nuclear sites for weapons, the suspicions will never cease to exist. Iran must hence allow the talks to be construvtive for world peace.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
“What is history but a fable agreed upon”
Theory Of Knowledge
“What is history but a fable agreed upon”
Did Hitler really kill himself? Was Gandhi really the most important piece in the jigsaw of India’s independence struggle? Are Nostradamus's prophecies really proven to be accurate in our history? Did the USA in reality have no idea about the Pearl Harbor attacks?
The precise answer to all these questions will in all likelihood always remain elusive to mankind. This is because there is no way foolproof method through which we can determine what really happened in our past. Maybe all the incidents that we do study in our textbooks are true. But we cannot be naïve enough to believe everything we study through these so-called “history” textbooks blindly. History is just like the passing of stories through the generations, either orally or in written accounts. But while it was passed from one generation to the next, it is inevitable that parts of these ‘stories’ may have been modified to suit the concerned parties. And since we have no other alternative than to believe these stories about crucial incidents in the past, we accept them as our history. Through out my school years, I always had reservations about the accuracy of all the incidents we studied in history. The authoritative tone adopted by these books only fueled my reservations. I just wondered that how could somebody recollect and retell tales of the past with such authority and command without any mention of evidences that would prove the same. For instance, “history” tells us that Gandhi tried hard to maintain the unity of India, is there any evidence to prove the same. But even he could have the desire to split the country into two (not necessarily a bad desire!) but just dint show the same and rather worked on it through a series of backroom dealings. These thoughts are ofcourse mere speculation with no concrete evidence, but we can see just how easy it is to manipulate what really happened in the past. Anyone with the authority and power can modify history to suit his/her propaganda and personal interests. A classic example of these ‘propaganda wars’ is the treatment of the issues of communism and capitalism in the history textbooks of the east and the west in the mid 1950s. While, the textbooks in Russia spoke of capitalism as the system for the rich, who had caused slavery and the massive differences in the standards of living between the rich and the poor in the west, it never mentioned anything about the evils of communism – Economic stagnation and government oppressions. Thus as a result the students grew up knowing only how Russia evaded the economic depression of 1929 through its communist structure but did not know anything about the large scale corruption and consumer slavery prevalent in Russia. The American textbooks too were biased to a similar extent. But in midst of all this, the world as a whole was deprived of the real truth. This case is true for almost every incident in history as textbook publishers’ main aim is profits and hence would not risk the government’s censure by going against the prevalent norm of the recollection of historical events. I hence agree completely with Bonaparte’s statement that history is merely a fable agreed upon
“What is history but a fable agreed upon”
Did Hitler really kill himself? Was Gandhi really the most important piece in the jigsaw of India’s independence struggle? Are Nostradamus's prophecies really proven to be accurate in our history? Did the USA in reality have no idea about the Pearl Harbor attacks?
The precise answer to all these questions will in all likelihood always remain elusive to mankind. This is because there is no way foolproof method through which we can determine what really happened in our past. Maybe all the incidents that we do study in our textbooks are true. But we cannot be naïve enough to believe everything we study through these so-called “history” textbooks blindly. History is just like the passing of stories through the generations, either orally or in written accounts. But while it was passed from one generation to the next, it is inevitable that parts of these ‘stories’ may have been modified to suit the concerned parties. And since we have no other alternative than to believe these stories about crucial incidents in the past, we accept them as our history. Through out my school years, I always had reservations about the accuracy of all the incidents we studied in history. The authoritative tone adopted by these books only fueled my reservations. I just wondered that how could somebody recollect and retell tales of the past with such authority and command without any mention of evidences that would prove the same. For instance, “history” tells us that Gandhi tried hard to maintain the unity of India, is there any evidence to prove the same. But even he could have the desire to split the country into two (not necessarily a bad desire!) but just dint show the same and rather worked on it through a series of backroom dealings. These thoughts are ofcourse mere speculation with no concrete evidence, but we can see just how easy it is to manipulate what really happened in the past. Anyone with the authority and power can modify history to suit his/her propaganda and personal interests. A classic example of these ‘propaganda wars’ is the treatment of the issues of communism and capitalism in the history textbooks of the east and the west in the mid 1950s. While, the textbooks in Russia spoke of capitalism as the system for the rich, who had caused slavery and the massive differences in the standards of living between the rich and the poor in the west, it never mentioned anything about the evils of communism – Economic stagnation and government oppressions. Thus as a result the students grew up knowing only how Russia evaded the economic depression of 1929 through its communist structure but did not know anything about the large scale corruption and consumer slavery prevalent in Russia. The American textbooks too were biased to a similar extent. But in midst of all this, the world as a whole was deprived of the real truth. This case is true for almost every incident in history as textbook publishers’ main aim is profits and hence would not risk the government’s censure by going against the prevalent norm of the recollection of historical events. I hence agree completely with Bonaparte’s statement that history is merely a fable agreed upon
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
KOW SOURCES: REPORT TO DETAIL ALLEGED ABUSE INSIDE CIA SECRET PRISONS
SOURCES: REPORT TO DETAIL ALLEGED ABUSE INSIDE CIA SECRET PRISONS
The article comments about the unethical interrogation techniques of the CIA officials with respect to Al Qaeda prisoners. After the September 11 attacks, the treatment meted out to terrorist suspects has been made drastically stringent and in some cases inhuman. While there is no mention of the unethical nature of illegal interrogation techniques, a knower can perceive from the tone of the article that the author is reprimanding the CIA for using such severe methods to extract the truth from terrorist suspects. The neutral tone is compromised to convey the content of the article.
The author of the article cites an unnamed source that has access to a classified report of the probe on CIA interrogations. The author seems to share his source’s perception that the CIA officers are indeed guilty of using illegal interrogation techniques on terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. That is the primary knowledge issue of the article. The knower (reader) can perceive that emotions are running high in the mindset of the author as he sympathizes with the prisoners. The article isn’t completely objective or neutral enough to help the reader to come to a knowledgeable and logical conclusion. For instance there is no concrete perspective in the article of the CIA officials with only a inconclusive remark by a spokesperson finding its way in the article. Without the CIA point of view about the interrogations, we cannot comment upon the ethical nature of such events. While the article primarily deals with the report about prosecuting CIA officials guilty of using such illegal interrogation techniques, we must concentrate on the macrocosmic issue of justifying the ethical nature of these interrogation practices. Though the article does not clearly mention the ethics issue, it is very clearly prevalent in the argument due to the language used. Can we really reason out using inhuman means to extract the truth from terrorist suspects? This could after all help in saving thousands of innocent lives by preventing such future incidents. But is inhuman treatment of terrorists the real answer. There are two points to reason before coming to a logical conclusion. Firstly, we must not forget that these prisoners are “suspected terrorists” and are not yet convicted of their crimes. One does not need to go back to far in history to validate the above statement. Mohammad Hafeez, the Indian doctor too was suspected of being a terrorist for a period of 4 months by the entire planet, only to be late proved innocent. They may just be ordinary innocent people. One can just imagine the state of one individual who may be a victim of circumstances and still be forced to undergo such severe interrogation practices. Secondly, even if these prisoners are confirmed terrorists, their jobs are most likely already done and we know enough about the Al Qaeda modus operandi to say that it is highly unlikely that they would play a major part in any future terrorist attacks. So what use would it be to hand out such treatment to them when we know that there is not much to gain?
If the knowledge claim of the article is indeed true, I think it is deeply regrettable that officials would stoop to such lows to interrogate prisoners. One must not forget and neglect the scientific advancements like the nuero polygraphic test among others, which could provide legal and ethical alternatives to using a gun and drill against helpless prisoners. I agree to the counter argument stressing on the importance of the information such prisoners potentially hold, but the officials and the government as such need to form legislations to prevent such future incidents. Officials to must know where to draw the line while interrogating such prisoners.
The article comments about the unethical interrogation techniques of the CIA officials with respect to Al Qaeda prisoners. After the September 11 attacks, the treatment meted out to terrorist suspects has been made drastically stringent and in some cases inhuman. While there is no mention of the unethical nature of illegal interrogation techniques, a knower can perceive from the tone of the article that the author is reprimanding the CIA for using such severe methods to extract the truth from terrorist suspects. The neutral tone is compromised to convey the content of the article.
The author of the article cites an unnamed source that has access to a classified report of the probe on CIA interrogations. The author seems to share his source’s perception that the CIA officers are indeed guilty of using illegal interrogation techniques on terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. That is the primary knowledge issue of the article. The knower (reader) can perceive that emotions are running high in the mindset of the author as he sympathizes with the prisoners. The article isn’t completely objective or neutral enough to help the reader to come to a knowledgeable and logical conclusion. For instance there is no concrete perspective in the article of the CIA officials with only a inconclusive remark by a spokesperson finding its way in the article. Without the CIA point of view about the interrogations, we cannot comment upon the ethical nature of such events. While the article primarily deals with the report about prosecuting CIA officials guilty of using such illegal interrogation techniques, we must concentrate on the macrocosmic issue of justifying the ethical nature of these interrogation practices. Though the article does not clearly mention the ethics issue, it is very clearly prevalent in the argument due to the language used. Can we really reason out using inhuman means to extract the truth from terrorist suspects? This could after all help in saving thousands of innocent lives by preventing such future incidents. But is inhuman treatment of terrorists the real answer. There are two points to reason before coming to a logical conclusion. Firstly, we must not forget that these prisoners are “suspected terrorists” and are not yet convicted of their crimes. One does not need to go back to far in history to validate the above statement. Mohammad Hafeez, the Indian doctor too was suspected of being a terrorist for a period of 4 months by the entire planet, only to be late proved innocent. They may just be ordinary innocent people. One can just imagine the state of one individual who may be a victim of circumstances and still be forced to undergo such severe interrogation practices. Secondly, even if these prisoners are confirmed terrorists, their jobs are most likely already done and we know enough about the Al Qaeda modus operandi to say that it is highly unlikely that they would play a major part in any future terrorist attacks. So what use would it be to hand out such treatment to them when we know that there is not much to gain?
If the knowledge claim of the article is indeed true, I think it is deeply regrettable that officials would stoop to such lows to interrogate prisoners. One must not forget and neglect the scientific advancements like the nuero polygraphic test among others, which could provide legal and ethical alternatives to using a gun and drill against helpless prisoners. I agree to the counter argument stressing on the importance of the information such prisoners potentially hold, but the officials and the government as such need to form legislations to prevent such future incidents. Officials to must know where to draw the line while interrogating such prisoners.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Reflections 29 July
What is the difference between a man and an animal? Well 50 minutes of heated, animated and sometimes funny discussion arguments weren't enough for us to come to a conclusion. Personally the only visible difference I see is that humans have a knack for wearing clothes, while animals, well they are of the perception that natural beauty is all that matters! :P
There were many points that my classmates perceived to be major differences. First was the fact that human beings reason, while animals act only instinctively. I strongly disagree with that statement as firstly its fallacious to generalize such a large group of beings and make one categorical statement about them! But nevertheless it’s wrong to say that animals ALWAYS act instinctively. Birds for instance have their entire migration routes planned to save them from the winter frost of various continents. They even fly in various formations to save energy and for aero-dynamical reasons! How can we then say that animal’s don’t reason? It is also wrong to generalize and say that even humans always act with appropriate reasoning. There are countless instances in one's life where emotion is the only ‘reason’ for committing a particular course of action. One just needs to ask Zinedine Zidane about emotions taking the driver’s seat in his life to know what I am talking about.
The second point of difference was that humans have an effective language to communicate while animals don’t. I personally thought that that was ridiculous. Just because we don’t understand animal languages does not mean that they don’t have one. This just epitomized our own shortcomings towards things we don’t comprehend. Language is an essential part of every organism’s life and activity! Animals may be conversing through their barks or their roars and we humans might just never know! We are denying the fact that a certain knowledge stream exists simply because we do not possess it yet!
There were many points that my classmates perceived to be major differences. First was the fact that human beings reason, while animals act only instinctively. I strongly disagree with that statement as firstly its fallacious to generalize such a large group of beings and make one categorical statement about them! But nevertheless it’s wrong to say that animals ALWAYS act instinctively. Birds for instance have their entire migration routes planned to save them from the winter frost of various continents. They even fly in various formations to save energy and for aero-dynamical reasons! How can we then say that animal’s don’t reason? It is also wrong to generalize and say that even humans always act with appropriate reasoning. There are countless instances in one's life where emotion is the only ‘reason’ for committing a particular course of action. One just needs to ask Zinedine Zidane about emotions taking the driver’s seat in his life to know what I am talking about.
The second point of difference was that humans have an effective language to communicate while animals don’t. I personally thought that that was ridiculous. Just because we don’t understand animal languages does not mean that they don’t have one. This just epitomized our own shortcomings towards things we don’t comprehend. Language is an essential part of every organism’s life and activity! Animals may be conversing through their barks or their roars and we humans might just never know! We are denying the fact that a certain knowledge stream exists simply because we do not possess it yet!
Our teacher argued that humans have a freewill will animals do not. Again I just could not accept that statement. We can provide counter arguments both ways to prove this statement fallacious. Humans don’t always have a free-will ( just think of an under fire employee wanting to leave everything and go for a vacation, but just cannot due to societal and community constraints) and animals also can possess free will ( a whale cruising aimlessly through the high seas).
Since we could not find any answers, I came to a conclusion that the question itself was an impossible question to answer. To answer such a question one would need to generalize on a large scale basis, and this would only lead to grave inaccuracies! We just cannot generalize and say that all animals don’t reason or all humans never react instinctively without reason. There’s always an exception, and in this case, much more than a sole one! There isn’t much of a natural difference between humans and animals, and if science is to be truly counseled, a man is also a part of the animal category.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
THE KITE RUNNER K@W
Theory Of Knowledge
Knowledge @ Work
The Kite Runner
The Movie
The Kite Runner is a motion picture set in the Pre-Taliban Afghanistani pandemonium based on Khaled Hussaini's book of the same name. It is emotionally extremely evocative, and the very essence of the film lies in the way even the harshest of scenes are displayed with the subtle touch of innocence. The story is set upon a backdrop of tempestous events, from the demise of the monarchy in Afghanistan through the soviet invasion , the mass departure of "Afghan refugees"Pakistan and the United States, and the treacherous Taliban regime. It elucidates the tale of Amir, a rich boy from Kabul, who is anguished by the guilt of dispensing his childhood friend Hassan, a hazara boy, who, incidentally is the illegitimate son of his Amir's father.
Through out the movie, one's (the knower) perception of Amir as the protagonist is under constant modifications. As a child, Amir, though best friends with Hassan, abandons him when he needs Amir's help the most. The viewer perceives Amir as a rich kid, who only takes undue advantage of Hassan. The intense physical language demonstrated in the film especially through the rape scene has a stinging effect on the viewer's perception of both Amir and Hassan. But as time progresses, and Amir grows up to become a writer in the United States Of America, his character is regenerated to give way to a mature and reasonable young man. "There is a time to be good again": Amir goes back to afghanistan to rescue Hassan;s life. The viewer, thus in the end, leaves the theater with a positive perception of Amir. But can one's wrong deeds be truly undone by right ones. This is the question which each knower can answer through only his or her own perception and reasons.
The Taliban rule in Afghanistan in the film is also perceived as an inhuman and intolerant regime. They reasoned everything with their own perceptions of the Quran and the Islamic religion. The graphic scenes of punishments by the rulers through public stoning ceremonies evoke feelings of extreme anger and sympathy. Since the film is based on actual historical events, one could always argue that the film has a pro-American and anti-Taliban perception towards the history of Afghanistan. But one cannot neglect the cruel atrocities of the Taliban leaders on the locals. The mere thought of molesting children from an orphanage incenses the emotions of the viewer. One can only argue about the ethical nature of the orphanage manager to sacrifice one child to save another ten. After all, we only need to imagine the plight of the sacrificed child to understand the complexities behind such a decision.
The kite Runner is one of the most emotionally evocative movies. But even in a movie with such dramatic events, the climactic scene of the flying kites adds a whole new dimension to the subtlety of the film. Amir runs the kite for Hassan's child, just like Hassan used to when they were young. Amir's dialogue;"For you, a hundred times over", is one of the most soothing yet evocative instances in the film. Even after witnessing all the atrocities, the hardships, the unfortunate incidents, especially with Hassan, the viewer leaves the theater with a gratified feeling.
Knowledge @ Work
The Kite Runner
The Movie
The Kite Runner is a motion picture set in the Pre-Taliban Afghanistani pandemonium based on Khaled Hussaini's book of the same name. It is emotionally extremely evocative, and the very essence of the film lies in the way even the harshest of scenes are displayed with the subtle touch of innocence. The story is set upon a backdrop of tempestous events, from the demise of the monarchy in Afghanistan through the soviet invasion , the mass departure of "Afghan refugees"Pakistan and the United States, and the treacherous Taliban regime. It elucidates the tale of Amir, a rich boy from Kabul, who is anguished by the guilt of dispensing his childhood friend Hassan, a hazara boy, who, incidentally is the illegitimate son of his Amir's father.
Through out the movie, one's (the knower) perception of Amir as the protagonist is under constant modifications. As a child, Amir, though best friends with Hassan, abandons him when he needs Amir's help the most. The viewer perceives Amir as a rich kid, who only takes undue advantage of Hassan. The intense physical language demonstrated in the film especially through the rape scene has a stinging effect on the viewer's perception of both Amir and Hassan. But as time progresses, and Amir grows up to become a writer in the United States Of America, his character is regenerated to give way to a mature and reasonable young man. "There is a time to be good again": Amir goes back to afghanistan to rescue Hassan;s life. The viewer, thus in the end, leaves the theater with a positive perception of Amir. But can one's wrong deeds be truly undone by right ones. This is the question which each knower can answer through only his or her own perception and reasons.
The Taliban rule in Afghanistan in the film is also perceived as an inhuman and intolerant regime. They reasoned everything with their own perceptions of the Quran and the Islamic religion. The graphic scenes of punishments by the rulers through public stoning ceremonies evoke feelings of extreme anger and sympathy. Since the film is based on actual historical events, one could always argue that the film has a pro-American and anti-Taliban perception towards the history of Afghanistan. But one cannot neglect the cruel atrocities of the Taliban leaders on the locals. The mere thought of molesting children from an orphanage incenses the emotions of the viewer. One can only argue about the ethical nature of the orphanage manager to sacrifice one child to save another ten. After all, we only need to imagine the plight of the sacrificed child to understand the complexities behind such a decision.
The kite Runner is one of the most emotionally evocative movies. But even in a movie with such dramatic events, the climactic scene of the flying kites adds a whole new dimension to the subtlety of the film. Amir runs the kite for Hassan's child, just like Hassan used to when they were young. Amir's dialogue;"For you, a hundred times over", is one of the most soothing yet evocative instances in the film. Even after witnessing all the atrocities, the hardships, the unfortunate incidents, especially with Hassan, the viewer leaves the theater with a gratified feeling.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
tHE LITTLE PRINCE
The Little Prince
Chapter One
This chapter is about the narrator's heartwarming experiences as a child, when he wanted to be a painter. The narrator is nostalgic about his childhood aspiration to be a painter. However he was discouraged from painting by the grown ups, who perceived painting to be a waste of time. They instead asked the narrator to focus on more "important" subjects like math and geography. He was thus asked to concentrate on these subjects and so he did, growing up to become a pilot. The narrator questions the grown up's perception of painting, or rather the lack of it. Grown ups are so robust and mechanic in their lives, that every scope of innovation and creativity is only looked upon by an ignorant eye. The narrator recollects about the day when he tried to draw a boa constrictor. The narrator was fascinated by the fact that boas could swallow entire elephants and then lay dormant for six months. But this fascination was not shared with him by the grown ups, who, understandably and unfortunately, had more essential things in life to worry about. Such is the sense of disconnection and detachment amongst the elders, that they have lost their ability to comprehend and more essentially appreciate, the more common, but magnificent things in life.
Painting is one of the most beauteous forms of expression. Painting is like an escape route for all the emotions which cannot be expressed due to the restraints of spoken language. Paintings, contrary to widespread perception, are simple in nature. One must be free of any preoccupations about life to truly appreciate all forms of paintings. The narrator, as a child had drawn a drawing of a boa constrictor swallowing an elephant. However, no one interpreted the painting as one with a boa, for they all thought that it was just a hat. The shortcomings of perception and language were clearly brought out, as everyone interpreted the same object in different manners. Let down by his early adventures in the profession, the narrator gives up his ambition, but not his dreams, of becoming a painter. Societal pressures forced him to give up his aspirations. It was society;s reasoning that children must pay attention to subjects which would be of "help" in the future and not pursue "useless" hobbies like painting, where one could have no future hopes. It is this overemphasis on academic subjects that is harming children even today. For instance, a simple survey about the age at which children start schooling led to startling observations. In Finland, children are sent to school at the age of seven, while in the rest of the Europe most children start schooling by the age of two! Yet Finland has one of the best student excellence rates in the entire world. This mathematical survey is ample proof that children must be given time, to do what they like, and not be sucked into the realm of world objectives when they are not even 4 years old.
But society for some reason has never been able to get rid of its misconceptions about the worthless nature of extra-curricular activities. For instance, children diagnosed with autism, until recently, were denied admissions to any good schools or colleges. Autism is a learning condition amongst children. But autistic children are found to have better than average creative insights. History tells us that autism or learning disability is no obstacle to success in life. Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin and Vincent Van Gogh, the famous medieval painter, were all known to be autistic. But societal norms pressurize children to kill their innovative and creative instincts and rather focus on the more direct things in life. The narrator craves for someone to share his insights on his drawings, but only meets with failure. There is stark line of mockery in the chapter when the narrator says that he needs to bring himself down to the limited and narrow intellectual level of grown ups to converse with them.Then I would never talk to that person about boa constrictors, or primeval forests, or stars. I would bring myself down to his level. I would talk to him about bridge, and golf, and politics, and neckties. And the grown-up would be greatly pleased to have met such a sensible man."
Human preoccupations have led to a loss of culture and emotions, which are best embodied by creative forms of language such as painting. Grown ups today take everything at face value, just like they took the boas for the hat. But it would be a confirmation bias to blame the grown ups alone, for when one looks at the drawing of the narrator, it does indeed look like a hat!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
REFLECTIONS
1. If something is intuitively obvious, must everyone agree about it (is there anything that every1 agrees about)?
2. Could u be wrong in thinking that something is intuitively obvious. (Might you one-day come to see that what u now think is intuitively obvious is in fact a deeply rooted prejudice)
3. Whose intuition should you trust? Are some people’s intuitions are better than others?
1-
Firstly, I have to accept, that I am not quite sure about the exact reference to the term, ‘ intuitively obvious’. After all, how can an intuition be obvious? In fact I perceive that intuition is one fact on the face of this earth that we yet cannot comprehend completely. None of us know the exact reason or cause behind an intuitive feeling. All we can say is that it just happens, “instinctively”! Most of the times we cant even recognize a particular feeling as an instinctive one or not. We find it difficult to express our intuitive feelings, even with all the boundless limitations of language. Thus if something is intuitively obvious, it would mean that thing would be an event which all of us can predict. The only things the human race can agree about are about things over which they have no control. The sun will rise in the east, and so it did, today morning and I had an intuition about the same. Hence if something is intuitively obvious, it must be something over which we have no control. If we have no control over something, than why bother if everyone agrees with it or not, because its still going to happen, whether one likes it, or not!
2-
as discussed, I believe, that the only things that are instinctively obvious are things related to natural phenomenon. No one can be wrong to think if something’s intuitively obvious. This is because of the very nature of intuition. Intuition, unlike a gut feeling, is something that is undeniably true. Therefore no 1 can be wrong to think something is “intuitively” obvious.
3- This one’s interesting. Intuition is a natural quality. The question in itself is incorrect, as intuitions are always true. But maybe what it tries to refer is to the facts that to whose gut feeling does one have a greater inclination to believe in. I perceive that this is a highly subjective question and varies greatly from one individual to another. The world in general would agree that Nostradamus is one person whose gut feelings would be most trustworthy. But again its really upto one’s personal opinion and perception on who to trust and whom to not. Reason plays a minimal part in this discussion and probably through one’s own personal experience, one can judge for himself about whose intuition to trust.
1. If something is intuitively obvious, must everyone agree about it (is there anything that every1 agrees about)?
2. Could u be wrong in thinking that something is intuitively obvious. (Might you one-day come to see that what u now think is intuitively obvious is in fact a deeply rooted prejudice)
3. Whose intuition should you trust? Are some people’s intuitions are better than others?
1-
Firstly, I have to accept, that I am not quite sure about the exact reference to the term, ‘ intuitively obvious’. After all, how can an intuition be obvious? In fact I perceive that intuition is one fact on the face of this earth that we yet cannot comprehend completely. None of us know the exact reason or cause behind an intuitive feeling. All we can say is that it just happens, “instinctively”! Most of the times we cant even recognize a particular feeling as an instinctive one or not. We find it difficult to express our intuitive feelings, even with all the boundless limitations of language. Thus if something is intuitively obvious, it would mean that thing would be an event which all of us can predict. The only things the human race can agree about are about things over which they have no control. The sun will rise in the east, and so it did, today morning and I had an intuition about the same. Hence if something is intuitively obvious, it must be something over which we have no control. If we have no control over something, than why bother if everyone agrees with it or not, because its still going to happen, whether one likes it, or not!
2-
as discussed, I believe, that the only things that are instinctively obvious are things related to natural phenomenon. No one can be wrong to think if something’s intuitively obvious. This is because of the very nature of intuition. Intuition, unlike a gut feeling, is something that is undeniably true. Therefore no 1 can be wrong to think something is “intuitively” obvious.
3- This one’s interesting. Intuition is a natural quality. The question in itself is incorrect, as intuitions are always true. But maybe what it tries to refer is to the facts that to whose gut feeling does one have a greater inclination to believe in. I perceive that this is a highly subjective question and varies greatly from one individual to another. The world in general would agree that Nostradamus is one person whose gut feelings would be most trustworthy. But again its really upto one’s personal opinion and perception on who to trust and whom to not. Reason plays a minimal part in this discussion and probably through one’s own personal experience, one can judge for himself about whose intuition to trust.
Monday, April 20, 2009
KOW 4- should drugs be legalized.
Rishab Mehta
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
KOW 4
13 April, 2009 11:20
The Economics of Legalizing and Regulating Drugs
13 April, 2009 11:20
George Hatjoullis
The drug reform charity Transform (www.tdpf.org.uk) has produced a cost-benefit analysis comparing the continuation of the present drug prohibition strategy with legalization and regulation of now prohibited drugs. The authors conclude that a great deal of money could be saved through legalization and regulation. The economic logic for legalisation and regulation is quite compelling.
A large amount of drug related crime is eliminated overnight, saving costs in the judicial system. Drugs can now be taxed! Legalisation also regularizes the inconsistent treatment of cigarettes and alcohol. Drug production standards can also be raised and maintained. Research into the effects of drugs, and dissemination of this research, is made much easier. So why have successive governments not taken this very obvious route?
One drawback lies in the consequences of unilateral action in a world of drug prohibition. The UK would become a haven for drug tourists from all over the world. Of course, this would bring in more money and have great benefits for the Balance of Payments! However, it does not take too much imagination to conjure up the social problems it might bring in its wake. Imagine the London equivalent of Sun, Sea and Sangria (Sex, Drugs and Rock?). Amsterdam has experimented with a limited version without disastrous consequences, I believe. However, the Transform report seems to have something more ambitious in mind.
The most serious drawback is that drug use would clearly increase. Once again that is good for tax revenue but is this desirable? My reservation comes from my own recent postgraduate studies in psychology. The predisposition to use drugs does not seem to be simply related to the predisposition to addiction once drug use is initiated. There is a risk that increased drug use will bring in its wake a disproportionate increase in addiction. Once again, good for tax revenue but is this desirable? I suggest economic arguments, however compelling, are given less weight until the relation between use and addiction is better understood.
This article is based upon the recent report suggesting that the sale of drugs be legalized in Britain. This would lead to massive economic benefits, says the report. I, as a knower, will try and critically analyze this article by using the various ways of knowing and the areas of knowledge.
The author of the article perceives that legalizing drug trade would only increase overall drug consumption. He comes to this conclusion after a series of psychological observations. Thus we can say that his perception is product of reason and not merely an emotional bias against the use of drugs. But my perception in this case differs completely. This too, is not because of my emotional bias towards promoting drug consumption! A majority of drug takers today are teens. Recent studies have proved that teens usually consume drugs because of the thrill involved in doing so. There is a sort of peer pressure and teens that consume drugs perceive themselves to be the “stylish” ones. But if the government were to legalize drug consumption, the entire ‘thrill’ factor is eliminated. Thus we can reason logically that increased drug consumption as a consequence of legalizing drug trade isn’t really a foregone conclusion. Legalizing drug trade would enable the government to tax the consumption of drugs. This would amount to billions of dollars of revenue every quarter!! In times of recession, such a stimulus would truly be a major boost to the economy. Also, every year, millions of dollars are spent to curb drug trade on the police and the Special Forces. Legalizing drug trade would solve all these problems for the law and order. More importantly, whilst not banning it, the government can still actively discourage drug consumption by spending money on large-scale public education about the harmful effects of drugs.
History too tells us that in the past, developed countries have successfully implemented this idea. Tobacco is even more addictive than certain type of drugs. These countries legalized tobacco usage, but initiated a large scale public health education program about the harmful effects of tobacco. This process was extremely successful and tobacco consumption in these countries is minimal today. Thus we can reason out that legalizing drug trade isn’t as naïve as it seems.
But many knowers will argue about the ethicality of such an audacious piece of legislation. Legalizing drug trade would enable the government. At first, the conservatives (of whom there is no shortage, especially in our country) will probably never accept such an act, even if it is the most obvious course of action. Also, experts may argue, just like George did in the article, that such a step, although may sound feasible in theory, would lead to utter chaos when implemented in practice. Also, if we were to implement this act in isolation, our country would become a major tourist destination, well, of the wrong kind though. The sight of drug dwellers roaming all around the streets of Bombay, doing what they like the most, is enough to tell us about the ethical, and moral feasibility of such an act. I, am of the perception that legalizing drug trade isn’t as crazy as it seems, our country, and for that matter the world, is not prepared for such a drastic step yet! Thus in this paper, I have tried and analyzed both perspectives and sides of the argument and arrived at reasonable and logical conclusion.
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
KOW 4
13 April, 2009 11:20
The Economics of Legalizing and Regulating Drugs
13 April, 2009 11:20
George Hatjoullis
The drug reform charity Transform (www.tdpf.org.uk) has produced a cost-benefit analysis comparing the continuation of the present drug prohibition strategy with legalization and regulation of now prohibited drugs. The authors conclude that a great deal of money could be saved through legalization and regulation. The economic logic for legalisation and regulation is quite compelling.
A large amount of drug related crime is eliminated overnight, saving costs in the judicial system. Drugs can now be taxed! Legalisation also regularizes the inconsistent treatment of cigarettes and alcohol. Drug production standards can also be raised and maintained. Research into the effects of drugs, and dissemination of this research, is made much easier. So why have successive governments not taken this very obvious route?
One drawback lies in the consequences of unilateral action in a world of drug prohibition. The UK would become a haven for drug tourists from all over the world. Of course, this would bring in more money and have great benefits for the Balance of Payments! However, it does not take too much imagination to conjure up the social problems it might bring in its wake. Imagine the London equivalent of Sun, Sea and Sangria (Sex, Drugs and Rock?). Amsterdam has experimented with a limited version without disastrous consequences, I believe. However, the Transform report seems to have something more ambitious in mind.
The most serious drawback is that drug use would clearly increase. Once again that is good for tax revenue but is this desirable? My reservation comes from my own recent postgraduate studies in psychology. The predisposition to use drugs does not seem to be simply related to the predisposition to addiction once drug use is initiated. There is a risk that increased drug use will bring in its wake a disproportionate increase in addiction. Once again, good for tax revenue but is this desirable? I suggest economic arguments, however compelling, are given less weight until the relation between use and addiction is better understood.
This article is based upon the recent report suggesting that the sale of drugs be legalized in Britain. This would lead to massive economic benefits, says the report. I, as a knower, will try and critically analyze this article by using the various ways of knowing and the areas of knowledge.
The author of the article perceives that legalizing drug trade would only increase overall drug consumption. He comes to this conclusion after a series of psychological observations. Thus we can say that his perception is product of reason and not merely an emotional bias against the use of drugs. But my perception in this case differs completely. This too, is not because of my emotional bias towards promoting drug consumption! A majority of drug takers today are teens. Recent studies have proved that teens usually consume drugs because of the thrill involved in doing so. There is a sort of peer pressure and teens that consume drugs perceive themselves to be the “stylish” ones. But if the government were to legalize drug consumption, the entire ‘thrill’ factor is eliminated. Thus we can reason logically that increased drug consumption as a consequence of legalizing drug trade isn’t really a foregone conclusion. Legalizing drug trade would enable the government to tax the consumption of drugs. This would amount to billions of dollars of revenue every quarter!! In times of recession, such a stimulus would truly be a major boost to the economy. Also, every year, millions of dollars are spent to curb drug trade on the police and the Special Forces. Legalizing drug trade would solve all these problems for the law and order. More importantly, whilst not banning it, the government can still actively discourage drug consumption by spending money on large-scale public education about the harmful effects of drugs.
History too tells us that in the past, developed countries have successfully implemented this idea. Tobacco is even more addictive than certain type of drugs. These countries legalized tobacco usage, but initiated a large scale public health education program about the harmful effects of tobacco. This process was extremely successful and tobacco consumption in these countries is minimal today. Thus we can reason out that legalizing drug trade isn’t as naïve as it seems.
But many knowers will argue about the ethicality of such an audacious piece of legislation. Legalizing drug trade would enable the government. At first, the conservatives (of whom there is no shortage, especially in our country) will probably never accept such an act, even if it is the most obvious course of action. Also, experts may argue, just like George did in the article, that such a step, although may sound feasible in theory, would lead to utter chaos when implemented in practice. Also, if we were to implement this act in isolation, our country would become a major tourist destination, well, of the wrong kind though. The sight of drug dwellers roaming all around the streets of Bombay, doing what they like the most, is enough to tell us about the ethical, and moral feasibility of such an act. I, am of the perception that legalizing drug trade isn’t as crazy as it seems, our country, and for that matter the world, is not prepared for such a drastic step yet! Thus in this paper, I have tried and analyzed both perspectives and sides of the argument and arrived at reasonable and logical conclusion.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Reflections MARCH
Reflections are more than just mirror images. Mirror, the word itself invokes such deep thoughts in a knower's mind. So do we need a mirror for reflections. A knower, (like myself), would say no, as he is aware of the holistic reach of reflections, which are not just limited to mirror images!
Sometime during this month, the issue of the ethical nature of terrorism (or the lack of it) was brought up in our class discussion. Terrorism is one subject ( it sure is one now), which fascinates me. The mere thought of people, ordinary ones, not very different from u and i, turning into brutal killing machines, is a topic which has always mystified me. Coming back to the discussion, our teacher was of the opinion that all terrorists are unable to reason out their actions and that terrorism was highly unethical. Although i agree with the latter, i found the former rather unacceptable. Sure terrorism is unethical, but it would be incorrect if we say that all terrorists cannot reason out their actions. In fact, i think, if we had a debate, a terrorist would win hands down. I can say this simply because we all know for a fact that, if not anything else, terrorists believe in what they are doing. If they did not believe so, it would be impossible for them to "sacrifice" their lives for the sake of "jihad". The motivation they need to crash an air plane or to blow one's own body to a thousand pieces is not ordinary. Also, these terrorists, each one of them, at some stage in their lives, must have argued with their jihad teachers or saints, and only then, however flawed the explanation may have been, started to believe that killing innocent people was actually justified. Terrorists, may have misinterpreted the Quran and all the Western people, but must have come to a conlcusion about the villainous nature of the west, only after taking into account both sides of the arguement. That forces me to think, are terrorists really unable to reason and justify their actions. Terrorists are merciless beings. They are barbaric and murderous. They are heartless. But their intelligence cannot be doubted. therefore how can we argue, that an individual, who is capable of hacking into the most stringent of security systems, is unable to reason out his actions. In the end, its all upto an individuals perception. Everyone's opinion cannot be the same. And this is what theory of knowledge is all about. It teaches us to live with the fact that not everyones thinking process is the same, and one must give enough respect to each and every opinion.
Sometime during this month, the issue of the ethical nature of terrorism (or the lack of it) was brought up in our class discussion. Terrorism is one subject ( it sure is one now), which fascinates me. The mere thought of people, ordinary ones, not very different from u and i, turning into brutal killing machines, is a topic which has always mystified me. Coming back to the discussion, our teacher was of the opinion that all terrorists are unable to reason out their actions and that terrorism was highly unethical. Although i agree with the latter, i found the former rather unacceptable. Sure terrorism is unethical, but it would be incorrect if we say that all terrorists cannot reason out their actions. In fact, i think, if we had a debate, a terrorist would win hands down. I can say this simply because we all know for a fact that, if not anything else, terrorists believe in what they are doing. If they did not believe so, it would be impossible for them to "sacrifice" their lives for the sake of "jihad". The motivation they need to crash an air plane or to blow one's own body to a thousand pieces is not ordinary. Also, these terrorists, each one of them, at some stage in their lives, must have argued with their jihad teachers or saints, and only then, however flawed the explanation may have been, started to believe that killing innocent people was actually justified. Terrorists, may have misinterpreted the Quran and all the Western people, but must have come to a conlcusion about the villainous nature of the west, only after taking into account both sides of the arguement. That forces me to think, are terrorists really unable to reason and justify their actions. Terrorists are merciless beings. They are barbaric and murderous. They are heartless. But their intelligence cannot be doubted. therefore how can we argue, that an individual, who is capable of hacking into the most stringent of security systems, is unable to reason out his actions. In the end, its all upto an individuals perception. Everyone's opinion cannot be the same. And this is what theory of knowledge is all about. It teaches us to live with the fact that not everyones thinking process is the same, and one must give enough respect to each and every opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)