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!

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.

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.