Chowk Special
Chowk P Room January 13, 1999
#97 Posted by SaimaShah on January 24, 1999 2:17:21 pm
Re: Wasiq
Justice and Morality
It may be that we are speaking at cross-purposes and I apologize for miss-reading your statement To my mind Justice derives from a Morality and not Morality from Justice. The reverse seems unlikely, simply because the concept of Justice is based on the idea of fair, equal, for which a standard or a desired value is necessary. A = B, only if B = A. Say in a society, for instance, chastity is a value for which virginity is moral for a bride. In case the bride is not found to be a virgin, it would be considered Just for her to be rejected. Whether this is rational, compassionate etc., are moot points for someone who does not deem chastity as much a value as ethics/love. In other words, his Morality is subtly different, therefore his sense of Justice.
Coming back to Islam, Morality dictates Justice. Pakistanis value the sanctity of religion, for us the moral value of its beliefs is such that we have the blasphemy law (for example). Whether this value is in conflict with other values of ours such as democracy, compassion and tolerance is a debatable issue. Whether it achieves certain other goals of a society is questionable.
Plato and Freedom of Thought.
Plato defines philosophers as seekers of truth at any cost, visionaries who are ``spectators`` of all time and existence. Socrates was dismissive of the poets of the age, because poets appealed to the senses, to emotions and wrote peans in the praise of gods, rulers etc. Sycophancy was Not one of Socrates greater skills; he was a very bad P/R man. According to him Poets were not thinkers/rationalists, i.e, seekers of Truth, but self-aggrandizing and misguided.
In the ``Republic``, S makes a strong case against the rulers of the time and keeps espousing the role of Philosophers as the true guardians of public property.
In the Apology, Crito, Socrates is ultimately tried and condemned for crimes against the state and blasphemy against the ancestral gods and the corruption of the youth. His specific crime? The desire to seek truth., because ``an unexamined life is not worth living``. I think with the evidence, Socrates was definitely all for the Freedom of Thought and chose to die rather than apologize for his ``crimes``.
Once again, I don`t think that the Caliphate was about a reign of philosophers in the above sense. By definition, a Caliph has to up-hold the Morality designated by religion and not the humble search for Truth. The search for Truth would have led the Caliphs away from the Morality defined by religion, towards ideas just as `blasphemous` as Socrates`. I may be wrong about the Calipahte here?
To sum up, Socrates` Morality, Belief and Value was the search for Truth, and this was in conflict with the Morals of those in power. I interpret this search for Truth to mean Freedom of Thought, though tolerance of all and sundry was not one of Socrates` virtues. You are welcome to point out any flaws in Plato`s Utopia.
I hope the above makes sense. I think your comments have provided tremendous input in all this and thanks for all the information and analysis of Islam through the ages.
All the best.
Justice and Morality
It may be that we are speaking at cross-purposes and I apologize for miss-reading your statement To my mind Justice derives from a Morality and not Morality from Justice. The reverse seems unlikely, simply because the concept of Justice is based on the idea of fair, equal, for which a standard or a desired value is necessary. A = B, only if B = A. Say in a society, for instance, chastity is a value for which virginity is moral for a bride. In case the bride is not found to be a virgin, it would be considered Just for her to be rejected. Whether this is rational, compassionate etc., are moot points for someone who does not deem chastity as much a value as ethics/love. In other words, his Morality is subtly different, therefore his sense of Justice.
Coming back to Islam, Morality dictates Justice. Pakistanis value the sanctity of religion, for us the moral value of its beliefs is such that we have the blasphemy law (for example). Whether this value is in conflict with other values of ours such as democracy, compassion and tolerance is a debatable issue. Whether it achieves certain other goals of a society is questionable.
Plato and Freedom of Thought.
Plato defines philosophers as seekers of truth at any cost, visionaries who are ``spectators`` of all time and existence. Socrates was dismissive of the poets of the age, because poets appealed to the senses, to emotions and wrote peans in the praise of gods, rulers etc. Sycophancy was Not one of Socrates greater skills; he was a very bad P/R man. According to him Poets were not thinkers/rationalists, i.e, seekers of Truth, but self-aggrandizing and misguided.
In the ``Republic``, S makes a strong case against the rulers of the time and keeps espousing the role of Philosophers as the true guardians of public property.
In the Apology, Crito, Socrates is ultimately tried and condemned for crimes against the state and blasphemy against the ancestral gods and the corruption of the youth. His specific crime? The desire to seek truth., because ``an unexamined life is not worth living``. I think with the evidence, Socrates was definitely all for the Freedom of Thought and chose to die rather than apologize for his ``crimes``.
Once again, I don`t think that the Caliphate was about a reign of philosophers in the above sense. By definition, a Caliph has to up-hold the Morality designated by religion and not the humble search for Truth. The search for Truth would have led the Caliphs away from the Morality defined by religion, towards ideas just as `blasphemous` as Socrates`. I may be wrong about the Calipahte here?
To sum up, Socrates` Morality, Belief and Value was the search for Truth, and this was in conflict with the Morals of those in power. I interpret this search for Truth to mean Freedom of Thought, though tolerance of all and sundry was not one of Socrates` virtues. You are welcome to point out any flaws in Plato`s Utopia.
I hope the above makes sense. I think your comments have provided tremendous input in all this and thanks for all the information and analysis of Islam through the ages.
All the best.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#98 Posted by temporal on January 24, 1999 5:57:18 pm
Sohail:
Exactly my thoughts, expressed better than I could have! One minor addendum. You say this has been such a civilised and mature discussion on ``this`` forum. I would have said ``any public`` forum.
Again, a sincere thanks to all Chowkies!
regards,
Exactly my thoughts, expressed better than I could have! One minor addendum. You say this has been such a civilised and mature discussion on ``this`` forum. I would have said ``any public`` forum.
Again, a sincere thanks to all Chowkies!
regards,
#99 Posted by wasiq on January 24, 1999 6:10:49 pm
I want to thank all the participants of this discussion for the sophistication and honesty of their arguments. It has been a mind expanding experience. Special thanks to my dear friend Kamal, known to us as Matha, for his bitter-sweet pill of sincere incisiveness wrapped in Matha-esque humor, there simply is no substitute! And to Anita, for starting all of this, and carrying it through with her usual finesse. Goga, Saima, Noor, Kafir and Godot shone like gems, my thanks to you for your words and more importantly your skepticism.
I also want to apologize to anyone whom I might have offended, advertantly or inadvertantly. These topics border on some of the most personal beliefs of people. By watching my own reactions to things I take for granted, I can not only recognize how silently one can be deceived, but also how differences in opinion on what cannot be firmly established, harden into walls that cannot be scaled. My views on all of this are thankfully in a process of evolution, and I hope that stays.
Finally I must thank SR for providing perspective, at least to me. Yes, I must confess, that I am still silently driven by what I imbibed as a child, and that in cases like this, the mind has a tendency to crystallize insufficient knowledge into ``firm`` conclusions.
So let me go one step further, and bare my soul to you:
My fundamental questions are:
(1) Is there the presence of a spiritual dimension in human history, or are all religions merely a-posteriori concoctions of power-hungry (but imaginative) priests and rulers?
(2) If (1) is true, is there is a genuine spirituality in Islam?
The way I see it is that, regardless of whether people have been thoroughly abused and manipulated by clergy (or related parasites), the willingness of people to be abused points to the presence of a spiritual need. Second, the lives of and work produced by spiritually motivated people speaks for itself about spirituality as a fuel for human ingenuity and imagination. Thus, spirituality, even as merely a functional definition of something much more mundane, appears to me to be a fact.
The next related question that arises is whether one can find an evidence for spirituality in the human history? Do we find instances in history, where the turn of events point us clearly to a new historical phenomenon and processes unlike what we associate with ordinary people like ourselves and their aspirations.
This question, to me, logically links in with the issue of the presence of genuine spirituality in Islam. I went back to history books because I wanted to find the evidence for that break with history. I believe that it is possible to do so, contrary to what my friend Kamal would argue. To me that possibility is also, at a certain level, an imperative. I personally would not qualify as either a Shia or a Sunni, I am sure both sects would find more than enough deficiencies in me, however, as far as I have been able to trace so far, I am inclined to lean one way versus another on certain matters.
That preference does not make the other side perfect, however, within the context of the discussion pursued so far, that is unfortunately how people will construe my standing, and given my limited abilities that is how I have presented it. In this present discussion, I have been hard pressed to stay within a particular context of the discussion, defined by my wish to identify a spiritual history of Islam. If I were to outrightly deny the existence of any spirituality (as impled by Matha and SR in my opinion), then obviously, the whole context changes.
Sticking to the above mentioned context, within Islam what I see is that one side dominated the other and successfully marginalized it. I construe this as a great example of the dialectical process of history, where we see the negation of a negation. Muhammed negated the Makkan elite, which in turn negated Muhammed right after his death.
If one were to not ask about ``good versus evil`` (whatever that means), but merely ask the question of what happened to the movement of Muhammed, then the answer would be that it was negated. That conclusion by itself is startling enough for most people. In my opinion the detailed discussions of who comes out cleaner at the other end are just details. Of course, if there was no spirituality to start with, then Islam today is nothing more than a magnification of a tribal quabble fourteen centuries ago. All the bells and whistles that we see in it are later inventions.
If on the other hand Islam is more than ``full of sound and fury, signifying nothing``, to me this particular historical turning of the tables signifies a very critical event, not only for Islamic history, but also human history.
Even as a die-hard scientist, I must keep my mind open, after all one can only talk probabilities.
regards,
Wasiq
I also want to apologize to anyone whom I might have offended, advertantly or inadvertantly. These topics border on some of the most personal beliefs of people. By watching my own reactions to things I take for granted, I can not only recognize how silently one can be deceived, but also how differences in opinion on what cannot be firmly established, harden into walls that cannot be scaled. My views on all of this are thankfully in a process of evolution, and I hope that stays.
Finally I must thank SR for providing perspective, at least to me. Yes, I must confess, that I am still silently driven by what I imbibed as a child, and that in cases like this, the mind has a tendency to crystallize insufficient knowledge into ``firm`` conclusions.
So let me go one step further, and bare my soul to you:
My fundamental questions are:
(1) Is there the presence of a spiritual dimension in human history, or are all religions merely a-posteriori concoctions of power-hungry (but imaginative) priests and rulers?
(2) If (1) is true, is there is a genuine spirituality in Islam?
The way I see it is that, regardless of whether people have been thoroughly abused and manipulated by clergy (or related parasites), the willingness of people to be abused points to the presence of a spiritual need. Second, the lives of and work produced by spiritually motivated people speaks for itself about spirituality as a fuel for human ingenuity and imagination. Thus, spirituality, even as merely a functional definition of something much more mundane, appears to me to be a fact.
The next related question that arises is whether one can find an evidence for spirituality in the human history? Do we find instances in history, where the turn of events point us clearly to a new historical phenomenon and processes unlike what we associate with ordinary people like ourselves and their aspirations.
This question, to me, logically links in with the issue of the presence of genuine spirituality in Islam. I went back to history books because I wanted to find the evidence for that break with history. I believe that it is possible to do so, contrary to what my friend Kamal would argue. To me that possibility is also, at a certain level, an imperative. I personally would not qualify as either a Shia or a Sunni, I am sure both sects would find more than enough deficiencies in me, however, as far as I have been able to trace so far, I am inclined to lean one way versus another on certain matters.
That preference does not make the other side perfect, however, within the context of the discussion pursued so far, that is unfortunately how people will construe my standing, and given my limited abilities that is how I have presented it. In this present discussion, I have been hard pressed to stay within a particular context of the discussion, defined by my wish to identify a spiritual history of Islam. If I were to outrightly deny the existence of any spirituality (as impled by Matha and SR in my opinion), then obviously, the whole context changes.
Sticking to the above mentioned context, within Islam what I see is that one side dominated the other and successfully marginalized it. I construe this as a great example of the dialectical process of history, where we see the negation of a negation. Muhammed negated the Makkan elite, which in turn negated Muhammed right after his death.
If one were to not ask about ``good versus evil`` (whatever that means), but merely ask the question of what happened to the movement of Muhammed, then the answer would be that it was negated. That conclusion by itself is startling enough for most people. In my opinion the detailed discussions of who comes out cleaner at the other end are just details. Of course, if there was no spirituality to start with, then Islam today is nothing more than a magnification of a tribal quabble fourteen centuries ago. All the bells and whistles that we see in it are later inventions.
If on the other hand Islam is more than ``full of sound and fury, signifying nothing``, to me this particular historical turning of the tables signifies a very critical event, not only for Islamic history, but also human history.
Even as a die-hard scientist, I must keep my mind open, after all one can only talk probabilities.
regards,
Wasiq
#100 Posted by wasiq on January 24, 1999 6:40:59 pm
Re: Kafir (93)
``My problem arises when human beings, as social and political creatures, try to appropriate meaning to this mystery ...``
That makes two of us! Probably a sad consequence of our mind`s tendency to interpret ...
Actually I would love to talk about the discordance between Quantum theory and General Relativity. Here`s a simple explanation:
In General Relativity, the force of gravity does not exist, instead matter and energy distort space-time much like a heavy object sitting on a stretched piece of fabric. A marble rolling on this fabric will no longer move in a straight line in the vicinity of this heavy object. This is not because of a force, but because of the distortion of the geometry of the underlying sheet it is rolling on. The amount of distortion can be parameterized by the ``curvature`` of the sheet, and in GR the curvature of space-time is directly proportional to the energy density. Since mass is proportional to energy, a more massive object produces a larger curvature and hence a larger deflection of the paths of other objects, hence the appearance of a stronger gravitational field.
Now let us come to Quantum Mechanics. In QM, there is an uncertainty relation due to Heisenberg which states that for a small enough time, the quantum vaccum can produce a state with arbitrarily large energy. In other words, the QM vaccum is not empty but full of activity where particles and their anti-particles emerge spontaneously and then annihilate each other. If the particle antiparticle pair is not very massive, it lives for a longer time compared to the a more massive pair. i.e if the energy of the pair is E, then it lives for a time proportional to 1/E. So in QM, we can produce a state of arbitrarily large energy but only for a short enough time.
Herein lies the heart of the discrepancy. When one tries to formulate a Quantum Mechanical version of GR, one finds that one is faced with an infinite number of states with very large energies or curvature. This is due to those high energy states that are continually produced in QM for very short times. A state of very large curvature is called a black hole, and therefore the theory of Quantum gravity is full of black holes, and it is not possible to do any meaningful calculations. (c.f Infinite in All Directions on Chowk for an introduction).
regards
``My problem arises when human beings, as social and political creatures, try to appropriate meaning to this mystery ...``
That makes two of us! Probably a sad consequence of our mind`s tendency to interpret ...
Actually I would love to talk about the discordance between Quantum theory and General Relativity. Here`s a simple explanation:
In General Relativity, the force of gravity does not exist, instead matter and energy distort space-time much like a heavy object sitting on a stretched piece of fabric. A marble rolling on this fabric will no longer move in a straight line in the vicinity of this heavy object. This is not because of a force, but because of the distortion of the geometry of the underlying sheet it is rolling on. The amount of distortion can be parameterized by the ``curvature`` of the sheet, and in GR the curvature of space-time is directly proportional to the energy density. Since mass is proportional to energy, a more massive object produces a larger curvature and hence a larger deflection of the paths of other objects, hence the appearance of a stronger gravitational field.
Now let us come to Quantum Mechanics. In QM, there is an uncertainty relation due to Heisenberg which states that for a small enough time, the quantum vaccum can produce a state with arbitrarily large energy. In other words, the QM vaccum is not empty but full of activity where particles and their anti-particles emerge spontaneously and then annihilate each other. If the particle antiparticle pair is not very massive, it lives for a longer time compared to the a more massive pair. i.e if the energy of the pair is E, then it lives for a time proportional to 1/E. So in QM, we can produce a state of arbitrarily large energy but only for a short enough time.
Herein lies the heart of the discrepancy. When one tries to formulate a Quantum Mechanical version of GR, one finds that one is faced with an infinite number of states with very large energies or curvature. This is due to those high energy states that are continually produced in QM for very short times. A state of very large curvature is called a black hole, and therefore the theory of Quantum gravity is full of black holes, and it is not possible to do any meaningful calculations. (c.f Infinite in All Directions on Chowk for an introduction).
regards
#101 Posted by Anita Zaidi on January 24, 1999 11:05:55 pm
To all Chowkwallahs and beyond:
In a soul-baring minority insecurity-sharing moment from me, please realize that all Shias, from the moment of birth are inculcated with a sense of persecution complex that is very hard to shake as one grows up with an ideology that is shaped by the weight of centuries of defeat and being `wronged` by history. It is a struggle to retain objectivity when ones defenses are constantly being called to the fore.
Thank you everyone for a truly stimulating discussion. Until we dance this dance again ...
Anita
In a soul-baring minority insecurity-sharing moment from me, please realize that all Shias, from the moment of birth are inculcated with a sense of persecution complex that is very hard to shake as one grows up with an ideology that is shaped by the weight of centuries of defeat and being `wronged` by history. It is a struggle to retain objectivity when ones defenses are constantly being called to the fore.
Thank you everyone for a truly stimulating discussion. Until we dance this dance again ...
Anita
#102 Posted by Kafir on January 25, 1999 2:43:15 am
I`d like to add my voice in thanking all the participants for this stimulating and rigorous discussion. This InterAct session sets a very high and admirable standard. I hope it can be maintained in other discussions.
SR: You have a great knack for synthesis, bringing the various threads of discussion together and cutting to the heart of the matter. Keep it up! :)
Wasiq: Thanks for the lucid explanation of QM and GR. Truly fascinating, and it motivated me to dust off my college physics textbook buried in my closet and read up some more. I`ll check out your other article, too.
Finally, thank you for your unrelenting honesty throughout this discussion. It is inspiring, and humbling (to me). You da man! :)
SR: You have a great knack for synthesis, bringing the various threads of discussion together and cutting to the heart of the matter. Keep it up! :)
Wasiq: Thanks for the lucid explanation of QM and GR. Truly fascinating, and it motivated me to dust off my college physics textbook buried in my closet and read up some more. I`ll check out your other article, too.
Finally, thank you for your unrelenting honesty throughout this discussion. It is inspiring, and humbling (to me). You da man! :)
#103 Posted by maTha on January 25, 1999 9:12:24 am
RE: SR
/ *
I`ll leave poor old Allah out of it, since he`s been falsely accused of everything that has happened since the Big Bang any way.
*/
Well said, Mr. Rabbani!
RE: Wasiq
Dear Bokiman, keep up the struggle. You may find answers that will be therapeutic for all of us!
And thanks for the accolade! It`s more than appreciated coming from a dear friend.
Best,
maTha
/ *
I`ll leave poor old Allah out of it, since he`s been falsely accused of everything that has happened since the Big Bang any way.
*/
Well said, Mr. Rabbani!
RE: Wasiq
Dear Bokiman, keep up the struggle. You may find answers that will be therapeutic for all of us!
And thanks for the accolade! It`s more than appreciated coming from a dear friend.
Best,
maTha
#104 Posted by rishi on January 25, 1999 1:26:11 pm
Re: SR
Vintage stuff...Reminded me atleast partly of another with the same initials.
Rishi
Vintage stuff...Reminded me atleast partly of another with the same initials.
Rishi
#105 Posted by wasiq on January 29, 1999 9:57:28 am
Re: Rishi
Regarding your earlier comment about my mention of Brahman:
I personally found the description in the Gita to be supremely beautiful, and interestingly there is a very strong commonality between the description of the supreme Divinity in the Gita and the narratives of Ali bin Abi Talib in his sermons (collected in Nahjul Balagha). If you`re interested, you might check it out.
I don`t know whether you are interested in this, but I find that there are very interesting ethical parallels between the battle of Mahabharta and Karbala. The details are not quite the same, but you might enjoy reading about Karbala.
regards,
Wasiq
Regarding your earlier comment about my mention of Brahman:
I personally found the description in the Gita to be supremely beautiful, and interestingly there is a very strong commonality between the description of the supreme Divinity in the Gita and the narratives of Ali bin Abi Talib in his sermons (collected in Nahjul Balagha). If you`re interested, you might check it out.
I don`t know whether you are interested in this, but I find that there are very interesting ethical parallels between the battle of Mahabharta and Karbala. The details are not quite the same, but you might enjoy reading about Karbala.
regards,
Wasiq
#106 Posted by sarwar on July 25, 2003 10:37:43 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- MantoLives: PS you might want... Politics of PPP and
- MantoLives: PS you might want... Politics of PPP and
- hamidm2: Re: # 143 tahmed mian, ....... The Correct Turn
- KaalChakra: NB, at the end... The Correct Turn
- MantoLives: Afat, Marxist historian Hamza... Politics of PPP and
- tahmed32: kaalchakra sahib #140 the... The Correct Turn
- nb: Kaalchakra, she is no... The Correct Turn
- tahmed32: #139 nb: it is... The Correct Turn
