Why recent events have got me troubled.

Deathnote is probably one of the most well known manga/anime out there that deals with questions of morality. For those of you who have not read/watched the said comic/show, the story deals with a genius protagonist who is given a book of the shinigami (god of death) by which he can kill people by writing their name on it. Light Yagami, the said protagonist proceeds to cleanse the world, beginning with criminals.

Eventually, the world takes notice that someone is killing criminals and though in public they say he is a criminal (since the Governments have declared him one), on the internet under anonymity many hail him as a god, and call him Kira (Killer). Kira catches the interest of famous investigator L, and what follows is one of the best wars of intellect in modern storytelling.

What is interesting throughout the story, is the many questions of morality and justice that the story raises. Crime rate drastically reduces as a result of Kira and eventually even Governments develop a neutral attitude towards Kira. But L, and later on Mello and Near continue to fight him, and the audience is left to wonder who is truly justice in the story. The whole philosophy is well captured by Light Yagami, "If we catch Kira, he is evil. If he wins and rules the world, then he is justice." And L himself states, "it's not a sense of justice. Figuring out difficult cases is my hobby."

It is good to ponder on these questions raised by Deathnote. We are so used to the existing ethical and moral values surrounding us that we may not be aware that our society may not always have held the same values. For example, the Western world derives a lot of its thought from the Greek tradition. And ancient Greek thought did not always value pity. E A Judge observes of the ancient time, “Pity was a defect of character unworthy of the wise and excusable only in those who have not yet grown up. It was an impulsive response based on ignorance. Plato had removed the problem of beggars from his ideal state by dumping them over its borders” [“The Quest for Mercy in Late Antiquity,” 107]. However, we today celebrate celebrities who give for charities and consider empathy to be a very important trait to have to be even considered human.

But if our ethical and moral values are not so constant and universal and must be seen as arising from within a spatial and temporal space, then that puts us in a tricky spot when violations of our values take place. Recently, a community that I have been associated with for a while was shocked at the behaviour of one its most prominent faces. The said prominent face violated one of the most sacred values on which the community was built - that of being against violence against women - by himself having engaged in predatory behaviour against women. The community itself was enraged, and quite rightly so. But without a fixed point of view for our viewing of moral values, we are going to be in a problem like that of Deathnote. On what basis can I blame a person for the transgression of a moral value, which I cannot defend objectively? On what basis do I say, "till here and no more?" On what basis can I draw my lines?

I myself am deeply troubled by the incident, and that is because the worldview I hold on to considers human life to be very valuable and of high worth. My worldview moreover considers love as the highest virtue, and this value has been perverted by the incident. And my worldview has an objective stand because it proceeds from an objective ultimate reality - that of God.

P.S. I don't want people thinking I've actually read EA Judge (though I'd like to be that well read someday). I got the quote from another blog post. And I've borrowed some ideas from him as well. And here's the link:
https://varughesejohnblog.wordpress.com/2017/10/05/a-haunting-ethic-that-refuses-to-go-away/

Is my faith even real if I'm not moved to action?

Hello, all you readers!

I know that I haven't been very active here and I apologize for that. (Please don't read the post-script of my previous post on this blog).

Anyway, on 29th I attended an event commemorating the birthday of Gauri Lankesh, a journalist who was murdered on September 5, 2017. I must admit here that I wasn't aware of her before her death. Eventually I came to know that she was an outspoken critic of right-wing ideology in the country. And in commemoration of her life, young emerging leaders of this country vowed to fight fascist forces in the country.

Here's the deal. I am a Christian, and one of the things that comes with being a Christian is the conviction that the Bible is God's Word and is authoritative for all matters of life and conduct. There are quite a few people in this country who would claim to be the same. But days like today make me skeptical of whether there are as many true followers as they say there are.

The Bible has nearly a third of its contents talking about social justice. The God of the Christians according to the Bible is clearly concerned with social concerns. 

I hate, I despise your religious festivals;

    your assemblies are a stench to me.

22 

Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,

    I will not accept them.

Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,

    I will have no regard for them.

23 

Away with the noise of your songs!

    I will not listen to the music of your harps.

24 

But let justice roll on like a river,

    righteousness like a never-failing stream!

The above lines are from Amos 5, where God is angry at the people of Israel. And why is he angry? The following lines are from the same chapter a little before the previous lines:

you levy a straw tax on the poor

and impose a straw tax on their grain

....

there are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes

and deprive the poor of justice in the courts.

Today our society may not be very different from the Israel of Amos' day. The poor are largely ignored; farmers are committing suicide due to rising debt while rich industrialists are getting foreign holidays while defaulting on loans; large segments of the population live in fear every day for what they believe and what they eat; people who stand for the truth are killed, beaten up, or are slapped with sedition charges; history is being rewritten according to the whims and fancies of those in power; and even the people in the judiciary are not clearly impartial.

And if God is angry at these things at Israel, wouldn't he be equally angry at the same things here? And if God is angry, clearly those who claim to worship him must be equally outraged at the injustice? But why are my Christian brothers and sisters largely silent on these issues? Is it the same God that we worship? Is it the same Jesus we claim as our master? Or are there no Christians at all in the Universities of our land?

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian preacher who was outraged at social inequality and injustice. He fought for civil rights for all. He said "we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like a river, and righteousness like a mighty stream." His study of the Bible moved him to fight for social justice. I wish Christian students in the universities of our country would study the Scriptures, and truly be the salt and the light to this society that seems to be decaying and falling into darkness!

I am sad that I was not aware of Gauri Lankesh before her death. And what saddens me more is that there are many of my Christian brothers and sisters especially in our Universities who may not still be aware of her. Further more, many of us Christians in comfortable places may not even be aware of the recent Bhima Koregaon violence, the murder of Junaid Khan under suspicion of carrying beef, and similar such tragedies that have rocked the country in the past two years. In the event I attended on 29th, Kavita Lankesh, sister of the deceased Gauri Lankesh said, "ignorance is bliss, but today we cannot afford to be ignorant." And that is the line I want to leave my Christian brothers and sisters with.

Take notes: It's 2017!

Hello everybody!

I think civility demands me to first and foremost wish everyone a happy new year! I must though tell you of a certain friend of mine who laughed when I said, happy new year. She found the wish ironic since it is highly probable that the year is not going to be a happy one. Don't we all love cynics? No? Just me? Oh, well...

So I've been thinking that the best way to start the year would be by taking up a good five minutes of your time with a rant on something that has been annoying me for a while now. And that is the Indian education system. Now, I don't want to sound like one of those annoying urban teenagers (though I am said to be annoying, live in a city, and am a teenager) who keeps complaining about India and keeps praising the West. I love India, and am truly truly grateful for many things here. And just like I dislike things about my own self, I think I can be allowed to dislike certain things in this country of mine. (Audible gasps and whispers of the word 'anti-national' are heard.)

What motivated me to type out this rant has been this one class, and particularly the teacher, who dictates notes to us, and insists on us taking it down. What makes this worse is that, the class is English Literature. Now, I happen to love the subject naturally, but when archaic practices such as dictating of notes happens in the class, I lose all interest. However, the practice in itself cannot be blamed. There is a cycle where existing values held in the country prompt such practices to exist, and such practices in turn, fuel the values. This value system has prompted us to place our values on all the wrong things. The root of this problem is an unhealthy emphasis on productivity, which may or may not reflect our love for money.

A few examples of this can be seen in our day to day lives. I'm sure most of us have heard such lines as, "At the end of the day you need marks to show. Otherwise, no one will employ you." "Is there any scope in that field?" And so on and so forth. Educational institutes have become centres that feed the industry with employable youth, and not centres of learning. This explains the increasing number of institutes where authoritarian modes of management prevail. Students are discouraged from engaging in dialogue with the management, because such people who do engage in such dialogues may cause harm to the industry by questioning practices and policies there. Uniformity is praised, and eccentricity and radicalism is shunned. Formal attire is enforced because the industry will demand the same, and many such rules are enforced. The companies that recruit these graduates benefit because they get the kind of people they want, and the institution benefits because with more placements, more students want to join their institution.

Another indicator of this value system can be seen in recent events. Educational institutes, where ideas need to be encouraged, and solutions for the ills of the society should be thought of, are being highly restricted in the expression of their ideas. Many people are calling for the closing down of Central Universities where students are spending public money to talk about the problems of society and possible solutions, rather than getting trained to become machines that will work for the industry and become 'productive.'

I would not really have an issue with the emphasis on productivity. It does raise the standard of living and whatnot. But the problem with just being productive is that the emphasis is on survival. Get good marks, and get a decent job. Make a decent living, and produce offspring that will continue the cycle. We have lost the drive to live; the drive to further the growth of culture and civilization, and we are reaching stagnation. I don't want to just survive. I want to live and grow. And I wish many more of us wished that.

So, to that teacher who insists on me taking notes, "I'm sorry, I think we can do so much more."

And with that, adios!

P.S. Sorry, this rant was rather long, and not as light hearted as my other posts, but I guess I was just venting out. And if you did read this super boring piece till the end, thank you! And here's to hoping I'll be a bit more regular in my posts in 2017.

1...0...1...0...1...1...1...0...0...0...1...0

Good morning all you awesome people (you're awesome because you're reading my blog)

I know that I haven't posted for five months, and I sincerely apologize. But I'm back. Exams provide you with a lot of free time for doing all sorts of things, like writing blog posts

One of the topics that I might be questioned on in the exam is the concept of the binary. So this blog post is my attempt at understanding that.

Many people first come across the term during middle school or high school, or maybe primary school (doesn't really matter, they come across it during school) in a Computer class. And all that the sad student is taught is that the binary system was the first language used with the computer. It consists of 1 and 0. In other words, you talk to the computer using 1s and 0s. Simple enough? An important thing to note in this system is that 1 and 0 are different. I'm sure many of you are going:

But that is an important thing to note. 1 is not 0 and 0 is not 1. Now let us proceed.

The idea of binary was extensively used by a bunch of literature nerds called 'postcolonial theorists'. It's not a big thing really. At the end of this post, you can go around pretending you are one. Anyway, these postcolonial theorists would study countries that were ruled by another country. And while studying that, they would sometimes use the word 'binary.'

When these folks use the term, what they usually mean is a system of oppositions. Let me explain that. Imagine you are 1. We are already said that 1 is not 0 and 0 is not 1. That means what you are not will be 0. Get it? Since you are 1, your 'opposite' will be 0. For example, if you are a girl, and you are 1, then a boy will be 0.

Now the Europeans were the ones who usually went around ruling other countries. And what they did was they put all that they themselves were, into 1 category (say, 1). And they put the opposite of all that in another category (say, 0). So, anyone who was white, European, educated, civilized, and Christian, were all 1. And all those who were 'not white' (black, brown, yellow, blue....), non-European, uneducated, uncivilized, and 'barbarian' were all 0. And as already said, 1 can never be 0 and 0 can never be 1. This means that a European can never be 'barbarian, or a non European can never be 'civilized.

So, the binary system means that there are only two categories in the world. And you are either one or the other. When these Europeans went to Africa or Asia, they would see people who were not European and were not white. And they would immediately say that these people were barbarian, uncivilized, and dangerous. Another way of saying this that is quite popular among these postcolonial theorists is saying 'self' versus 'other'. Self is all that you are, and other is all that you are not. Some of these theorists who talk of these things have also been called dualists. I know that that is a lot of big words for one post. But I hope it was tolerable.

That is all for this post. If you are interested, more posts are on the way. Stay tuned.

Adios!

Civil War

So the buzz right now seems to be about Captain America: Civil War. And though I am (very) late, I feel I should at least talk about it a little bit, because I’d be a fool not to. I watched the movie. So yeah, that’s it. That’s all I had to say on the movie.

Wait, don’t go! I mean, that’s all on the movie, but there is something else I’ve been thinking about recently – conflicts in the mind. We all experience them; and they are some sort of civil war. In this boring rant of mine, I shall be exploring why we go through such conflicts, and why they are important.

Homo sapiens (by which I’m referring to the sad species to which you belong) have wants. We all have specific things we want. And these wants make us do what we do. For example, you want to procreate. This want drives you to make a sad attempt at flirting with people, which in turn results in your being called a creep. And wants don’t stop there. We have various different wants that make us do different things. Take for instance a classroom. The teacher drops something, and a particular student (let’s call him Ramesh) is quick to run and get the thing for the teacher. The natural explanation would be that Ramesh is helpful by nature. But once the teacher leaves, and a neighbouring student, say, Suresh, drops something. Now if Ramesh doesn’t help him, how would you explain his behaviour? One possible explanation is that Ramesh wants to win the teacher’s favour, possibly to get marks. But when Suresh drops the pen, Ramesh doesn't want to put in the effort when he gets nothing from it.

A normal human being has a number of different wants. As we've already seen, wanting to get marks is a want. Similarly, wanting to relax can also be a want. So, what happens when these wants, or shall we say motives, are in conflict? When there is such a conflict, the said person is faced with a choice. And choices are what define a character.

This is a very important concept especially in creating works of art, like books, movies, or TV series. Character formation. Take for instance, the famous character of Harry Potter. In the first book, 'The Philosopher's Stone,' you see the character (Harry) making a choice. He chooses to sympathise with the snake at the zoo. This defines his character as kind. Let's look at a much later book when he is older, 'The Deathly Hallows.' Here, though he doesn't like Draco Malfoy all that much, he still chooses to save Malfoy's life in the Room of Requirement when there is a fire. The conflict faced by Harry here was between being kind and saving his own life.

It is the sum total of choices made while faced with a conflict of motives that define the character of a person. So, if you are a writer or a filmmaker, pay attention to these things. Observe humans around you, and look for these conflicts. They are quite interesting. And if you are not a writer or a filmmaker, you can still look for these things to understand people, and yourself better. Finally, I quote Dumbledore (because it's cool to quote), "it is our choices, Harry, that show who we truly are, far more than our abilities."

And with that, adios!

Being Pretentious: For Dummies

Good evening, dear Netizens!

I believe, (and quite rightly I must say for I'm seldom wrong) that everybody likes to pretend. Anybody who has the cruel misfortune of being acquainted with me outside of the virtual world would know that I, for one, am a person who loves to be pretentious. If any of you doubt the fact, you are free to read my article entitled "How do monkeys balance themselves on trees?" (yes, I know, that was a subtle advertisement.)

Though everybody likes to pretend to be something they are not, nobody likes it when someone else is pretentious. So, how do we deal with this? Simple. Be pretentious without allowing others to find out that you are being pretentious. If you are worried that this is a mammoth task, you have good cause to worry. However, if you read this post till the end, you might be slightly better prepared to a life of prolonged subtle pretentiousness. And that is because I shall give you some three simple pieces of advice on how to be pretentious.

1. Have an opinion: the first thing to do is to have an opinion on everything under the sun. And over it, above it, beyond it, within it, etc. Do not, for a moment think that you are not fit to have an opinion. Never forget that you are a self proclaimed expert; it doesn't matter in what. You are an expert, and that is the end of it. And as such, it is not only your right, but your duty to have an expert opinion on things.

2. Use a patronizing tone: this is something that is quite often overlooked by most novices. To take your pretentiousness to the next level, don't forget to work on your tone. Do not press upon a point. When someone disagrees with you or criticizes you, put on a sympathetic face, and say something like, "you'll grow out of it soon. I used to be the same as you, so I totally understand."

3. Employ an ornamental idiolect: using fancy and big words give off the impression that you actually know a lot. It is not mandatory to actually know the meaning of the words you use. Draw confidence from the fact that even the people you talk to are being pretentious. They will pretend to know the word. If some rare bird still asks, use step 2.

These three points were just to get you started. There are countless other subtleties that you will need to learn as you begin this journey of pretentiousness. But, if all this seems rather difficult and you would rather not go through all this trouble, just be honest. Honestly, it is far more liberating and easier to just be yourself. You save a lot of work. And it's not like any of us is particularly fond of hard work, is it?

I want to buy sunglasses!

Yaay! Finally, after nearly a year comes the next post. Yes, I'm still alive. And recently, I've been thinking that sunglasses are really cool. I came to this conclusion a few months back, when I wore my friend's sunglasses while I was with him on his car. It was a sunny day, and it made seeing things much easier. In other words, it presented a 'world' that was slightly different from the world without the sunglasses - a world that was easier on the eyes.

After doing some research on sunglasses, I found that different shades of colour on different sunglasses serve different purposes. Some sunglasses make colour viewing easier while some increase contrasts. Let me explain this in very simple words. If you wear sunglasses with a red shade, everything you view will be slightly red in colour. Do you follow? That's not exactly what happens with professional lenses but the main idea is that each lens presents a slightly different 'world'. Some of these 'worlds' are more brighter than others, some are colourful, and so on and so forth.

Now, in a figurative sense, we all are wearing sunglasses of some sort all the time. Let me give an example. If a person, say for example, Ramesh, has an experience of being betrayed in the past by someone he trusted a lot, he will view everyone henceforth suspiciously. Whereas, another person, say Suresh, who has not had such an experience will find it easier to trust people. In such a scenario, our examples, Ramesh and Suresh, are wearing different sunglasses. This is what social scientists would call 'worldview'.

If you remember my last post (if not, quickly go read it), I talked about how writers and filmmakers present miniature worlds (known as microcosms) in their works of fiction. And though these microcosms may or may not be accurate depictions of the world we live in, they show us the 'world' that the writer or filmmaker sees. In other words, the microcosm shows us the sunglasses the creator of the microcosm wears. A good example would be Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien. Tolkien presents hobbits (who are little and don't have special abilities) as the actual saviors of the world. The sunglasses worn by Tolkien make him see the common man, who is not much celebrated, as the true hero. Another example can be 'The Lego Movie' itself. The creators of the movie wear sunglasses that make them think that artistry and business are in opposition to each other, and that they shouldn't be. Both these statements can be contested. However, their 'worldview' informs them that these statements are true.

Every artist, writer, or filmmaker wears 'sunglasses.' It is interesting to start looking for these sunglasses. When you start doing that in works of art, like books and movies, you will naturally be able to do that in real life as well. And knowing what sunglasses your friend wears will help you understand why he likes Batman more than Superman (though we all know that Superman is cooler)! And as a result, we can all live happily ever after (well, not exactly, of course)!

The End...