In the past few months I have been having random conversations with people about the role of destiny or fate versus free will. There are different ways to look at both of them but first I want to try and break them down individually. Destiny or Fate is said to govern all beings. In Ancient Greece, fate was personified by the Moirae or the Three Blind Women who spun the yarn, measured it and finally cut it. Even the Gods themselves were governed by their power and could not escape it. The classic story of Oedipus Tyrranus or Rex is a perfect example of destiny at work. Oedipus was abandoned by his parents when he was born because of a curse placed upon his father that Oedipus would kill him and marry his own mother. When Oedipus grew up he also heard the prophecy and ran away from his adopted parents. In a twist of FATE, he happened upon a man on the roadside and after an argument, Oedipus killed the man. The man unknown to Oedipus was his father. After a series of challenges, Oedipus finally married Jocasta, the queen of Thebes and his mother, thereby fulfilling the prophecy unbeknowst to him. Eventually he discovered this after many years and poked out his eyes and Jocasta killed herself, the power of fate.
The defining feature of Fate or Destiny, is one's inability to avoid or escape. Things will happen the way they happen because they cannot occur in any other way. People live and die based not on their own actions but because it was meant to be. Interesting enough most romantics strongly believe in this idea but its tailored to their love interest, ie: john and jane were meant to be. Destiny bring purpose and some level of comfort into the lives. Their lives aren't pointless because they have a purpose, something they were meant to do. Our paths have been paved for us because it is important in the grander scheme of things. Destiny removes a certain amount of responsibility from our mindset. Our actions can't be fully due to our intent because it would have happened regardless.
Free Will is the power of the individual and embraces chaos. Free will necessarily implies chaos because it requires that we can act or will without any real reason or purpose. We as individuals determine our our path and course, there is nothing set for us. It is also another romantic idea but in a different sense. We do things because we want to do them, our failures and successes are dependant on our actions and will. Free will removes from us a sense of higher purpose and order. Free will makes us responsible for our own actions at the expense of our sense of deeper purpose.
When misfortunes unexpectedly occur we tend to blame it on fate, not our own actions. We didn't get the promotion because it wasn't supposed to happen or the relationship didn't work out because it wasn't meant to be. On the otherhand, when good things happen to us we tend to say it was due to hard work or our actions. We got the promotion because we worked hard and made it happen.
It seems from all this that destiny and free will are mutually contradictory but thats not necessarily the case. Destiny is fundamentally a top down perspective. We can only justify it based on something grander and larger than us, many times its God. Free will is a bottom up perspective. It is from the vantage point of the individual who doesn't have all the information or knowledge. Imagine this, you have designed a maze and accordingly placed 3 rats in the maze at various positions. From your perspective you know the only way to get to the end of the maze, the rats clearly don't for them they have a wealth of possibilities to get to the end. Free will is about possibility while Destiny is much much closer to probability. Yes this analogy is not perfect because Destiny would imply 100% probability but given my relative non-omniscience, I can't make such a definite statement. :) Any thoughts?
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Friday, November 18, 2005
Superman Teaser Trailer!!!!
http://supermanreturns.warnerbros.com/trailer.html
That is the site for the superman returns teaser trailer. I just saw this and I'm really excited. Superman has been my idol since I was a little kid. Not like most people, who only view him as something imaginary but for me he was what we human beings can aspire to. Superman stood for justice, righteousness and truth. The man who would never lie and would fight for all that is good and true in this world, no matter the odds or consequences. Christopher Reeve truly made me believe that a man can fly and still to this day i still believe that at some deep level.
He is one of the reasons i actually became a lawyer, by the way i passed the new york bar so i am a lawyer. He represents the ideal, of what we can become if we truly believe in each other and ourselves. In many ways I miss those days of childlike innocence, when I used to believe that someone like superman was possible. This new movie looks great, like it still hangs on to the emotions and principles of those first two movies. Superman isn't a mere American Icon but he represents the ideals that we as humans can aspire to. He is essentially a god that comes to live amongst insects yet he becomes one of the insects in order to relate to us. In otherwords, he represents those people who have the ability in our world to do something above and beyond those of normal people. He represents the idea that people with power must use to to help others who can't, to help pick up those who fall and to stand by what is right and true. just my few thoughts, ya its rambling but whats new from me.
That is the site for the superman returns teaser trailer. I just saw this and I'm really excited. Superman has been my idol since I was a little kid. Not like most people, who only view him as something imaginary but for me he was what we human beings can aspire to. Superman stood for justice, righteousness and truth. The man who would never lie and would fight for all that is good and true in this world, no matter the odds or consequences. Christopher Reeve truly made me believe that a man can fly and still to this day i still believe that at some deep level.
He is one of the reasons i actually became a lawyer, by the way i passed the new york bar so i am a lawyer. He represents the ideal, of what we can become if we truly believe in each other and ourselves. In many ways I miss those days of childlike innocence, when I used to believe that someone like superman was possible. This new movie looks great, like it still hangs on to the emotions and principles of those first two movies. Superman isn't a mere American Icon but he represents the ideals that we as humans can aspire to. He is essentially a god that comes to live amongst insects yet he becomes one of the insects in order to relate to us. In otherwords, he represents those people who have the ability in our world to do something above and beyond those of normal people. He represents the idea that people with power must use to to help others who can't, to help pick up those who fall and to stand by what is right and true. just my few thoughts, ya its rambling but whats new from me.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Back?
Soooooo....I was in India from Sept. 2 till October 11th which explains my absence on this blog. India was a good wholesome family time. I essentially spent the entire time with my grandparents and two young cousins. We went on few trips around South India. See here is how it works in my family. I'm my grandparents first grandchild so essentially I can do no evil in their eyes but with this freedom also comes the shackles, just as they can't say no to me, i can't say no to them. This had negative consequences for me this time. I really wanted to go travelling like to see Hampi, Konark, Puri, Calcutta and Kerala. Well, I got to see Kerala or more specifically a couple of temples in Kerala but not the backwaters or other areas as I wanted. See the thing my grandparents and uncle fail to understand is that I'm interested in seeing the architecture and immersing myself into the culture outside the temples. I want to see the backwaters and experience nature and just get lost in the cities or villages. When I say i want to see a place, my grandparents assume its just the temple to pray. So what happens is that they book tickets and come with me, which is fine and fun but its like a day stay at each location just enough time to see the temple and pray and get out.
Due to this, I've decided that from nowforth whenever I go to india, I will do all my traveling before seeing my family so that I can get to see places i want to see and also spend time with them. That being said, I had a great time with my cousins: Madhava and Seshu; ages 14 and 12 respectively. It was cool getting to know them and having an influence on them. I had an interesting time in Chennai. It sucks because I don't know anyone in that city that is around my age. My daily routine was to go to coffee shop in the morning, read there and meet and talk to random people. Ok, gotta go.
Due to this, I've decided that from nowforth whenever I go to india, I will do all my traveling before seeing my family so that I can get to see places i want to see and also spend time with them. That being said, I had a great time with my cousins: Madhava and Seshu; ages 14 and 12 respectively. It was cool getting to know them and having an influence on them. I had an interesting time in Chennai. It sucks because I don't know anyone in that city that is around my age. My daily routine was to go to coffee shop in the morning, read there and meet and talk to random people. Ok, gotta go.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Ummm...ya
There has been a lot of randomness in my life of late. I'm not really sure how to deal with it, cause it's something that i've avoided before whenever it crept up. I'm trying to get my bearings on a lot of things and don't really know how to express it or make any real sense of it. Sooo...let me remove the spotlight from myself and move it to a more abstract level: Hypocricy and appearence. Adi Sankaracharya makes the claim "jagat mithyam brahma satyam" meaning the world is illusion and Brahman is supreme, Brahman referring to the Supreme Entity.
Lets take that statement and make it more practical or concrete, focus it onto the individual human being. Many, if not most, people assume two or three appearences. Usually, one is for the world at large, second for those they want to impress and finally the "real" them. The appearence they present or assume for the world at large is usually a professional or extremely superfical one. They will display their "respectable" qualities such as leadership, apparent moral fiber (or at least lip service to such), intelligence and drive. This way they can draw in many people and give them the impression that they are successful and "good" people. Granted some people are much better at this than others, the bad actors are the ones you can easily see through and sometimes get the impression of shadiness.
The second persona assumed is the one they want to show to people that they want to impress at a much more personal level. The qualities mentioned before are highlighted even further, they will also play upon the qualities that the other person finds appealing and enthralling. For example, if a person is drawn in by cultured individuals then the person assuming the mask will accentuate those cultural qualities. In this way, the first mask is affirmed by the assumption of the second mask. The really good actors will be able to convince others that they are sincere in their qualities despite indications that would logically dictate otherwise. Its not laudable but it is a practical and much used trait in the world we live in, which is based primarily on appearence and apparent superfical success.
Finally, the persona that rarely anyone sees and in many cases not even the individual themselves is the persona which defies and contradicts the previous two personas. The supposed cultural, moral and nice person is revealed to be a two faced hypocrite. Those qualities that are shown to the world and those they want to impress are merely clothes worn by the individual to further some goal. They want people to assume and infer that those qualities that they present to the world are how they truly are and thereby want to make people think that they are genuine people. This is extremely true in Indian society. Most indians of my generation and situation prove the above theory/opinion. They act one way with all the families and friends then an entirely different way with others, with whom they don't feel that cultural or familial connection with. Meaning, they will pretend to be respectful and upstanding people in front of family and friends but once away from them they will display contradictory qualities. It is hypocricy at its finest and most people can't even see that they are doing it themselves. How do we correct it? We should keep conscious of our actions and the appearences that we send off. The people who give off appearences are cowards because they can't bear to be seen for what they are, so they build up the appearences. Rather pathetic.
Lets take that statement and make it more practical or concrete, focus it onto the individual human being. Many, if not most, people assume two or three appearences. Usually, one is for the world at large, second for those they want to impress and finally the "real" them. The appearence they present or assume for the world at large is usually a professional or extremely superfical one. They will display their "respectable" qualities such as leadership, apparent moral fiber (or at least lip service to such), intelligence and drive. This way they can draw in many people and give them the impression that they are successful and "good" people. Granted some people are much better at this than others, the bad actors are the ones you can easily see through and sometimes get the impression of shadiness.
The second persona assumed is the one they want to show to people that they want to impress at a much more personal level. The qualities mentioned before are highlighted even further, they will also play upon the qualities that the other person finds appealing and enthralling. For example, if a person is drawn in by cultured individuals then the person assuming the mask will accentuate those cultural qualities. In this way, the first mask is affirmed by the assumption of the second mask. The really good actors will be able to convince others that they are sincere in their qualities despite indications that would logically dictate otherwise. Its not laudable but it is a practical and much used trait in the world we live in, which is based primarily on appearence and apparent superfical success.
Finally, the persona that rarely anyone sees and in many cases not even the individual themselves is the persona which defies and contradicts the previous two personas. The supposed cultural, moral and nice person is revealed to be a two faced hypocrite. Those qualities that are shown to the world and those they want to impress are merely clothes worn by the individual to further some goal. They want people to assume and infer that those qualities that they present to the world are how they truly are and thereby want to make people think that they are genuine people. This is extremely true in Indian society. Most indians of my generation and situation prove the above theory/opinion. They act one way with all the families and friends then an entirely different way with others, with whom they don't feel that cultural or familial connection with. Meaning, they will pretend to be respectful and upstanding people in front of family and friends but once away from them they will display contradictory qualities. It is hypocricy at its finest and most people can't even see that they are doing it themselves. How do we correct it? We should keep conscious of our actions and the appearences that we send off. The people who give off appearences are cowards because they can't bear to be seen for what they are, so they build up the appearences. Rather pathetic.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Montreal and Back
This past weekend we were all in Canaida (yes, i know its Canada but Canaida sounds better) specifically Montreal. We essentially determined amongst ourselves that it is 1 american dollar for every 100 canadian dollars or as we call it canaidios. Basically, most of the weekend I am not at liberty to comment on for it involves things that should not be spoken about. On the otherhand, we can confirm that Gates likes the she-males and has a weird obsession with standing by himself in dark closets. Also worth noting is that Montreal has a obscenely disproportionate amount of hot women. It was ridiculous, so many hot women. So we decide to try and act on this benefit by walking the streets drunk and yelling "Ladies....Mukunda" while pointing at me or "Ladies, if your man don't treat you right there is always Mukunda." Again pointing at me. I have this weird feeling that they all thought that Mukunda was a cuss word, go figure.
On a more somber note, this week is gonna be crazy busy. I'm moving all my stuff to Gates' place in jersey tomorrow. Then on tues and wed gonna be in NYC looking for apts. Then thursday coming back to boston to jump into a car and go to upstate New York for Girish's wedding which essentially will be from thurs-sun. Then monday head back to nyc and prolly fly back to cali on tues, need to still book my tix. Jam packed. I've said this before and I will say it again...girls are crazy, I don't get them and have no idea why I even try, just goes to show my idiocy. C'est La Vie.
On a more somber note, this week is gonna be crazy busy. I'm moving all my stuff to Gates' place in jersey tomorrow. Then on tues and wed gonna be in NYC looking for apts. Then thursday coming back to boston to jump into a car and go to upstate New York for Girish's wedding which essentially will be from thurs-sun. Then monday head back to nyc and prolly fly back to cali on tues, need to still book my tix. Jam packed. I've said this before and I will say it again...girls are crazy, I don't get them and have no idea why I even try, just goes to show my idiocy. C'est La Vie.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Day One over
Well, day one of my NY bar exam is over and it wasn't as bad as I figured but don't want to get ahead of myself because there is a good chance that I missed a lot of things but what is done is done. The past couple of weeks have been interesting, I finally put in work and did something that I should have done from the beginning of my academic career, which is simply study and put in effort. I've figured out a lot of things about myself that I didn't know before. No, I will not write about that because its pretty personal and I don't feel like sharing my deeper moments with everyone, yes despite all your conceptions of me, I do possess some depth. I've figured out things with what I want in life in regards to certain parts of my life. This was especially true this past week, right before the bar. Suffices to say, its been a interesting period for me with strong inclinations for something good but who knows how fate works.
Man, I've written some very thought provoking and what I consider interesting blogs in the past few months but rarely do I get any responses or comments, which is kinda weird considering that my hit counter tells me that I have about 15 people visiting my site every day of which half are new readers or at least passerbyers (yes i know not a real word but I make up stuff, its the price of genius.....come on someone lambast me). I'll let you in on something, I have learned that I come off a lot different than I really am, which in this case might have worked to my detriment but I don't think it did, just adds to the mystery that is me....haha i can't believe i just wrote that crap. I'm really not that mysterious i'm sooo transparent its not even funny. I'm just rambling on in this post, cause i don't wanna write anything deep or thought provoking. I'm saving my brain cells and neurons for tomorrow's test, which will be another six hours of exciting legal questions...utterly pointless. My problem with law as with many things is that the philosophy and lofty principles of metaphysics have been removed and separated from it but this is a discussion for another day.
Man, I've written some very thought provoking and what I consider interesting blogs in the past few months but rarely do I get any responses or comments, which is kinda weird considering that my hit counter tells me that I have about 15 people visiting my site every day of which half are new readers or at least passerbyers (yes i know not a real word but I make up stuff, its the price of genius.....come on someone lambast me). I'll let you in on something, I have learned that I come off a lot different than I really am, which in this case might have worked to my detriment but I don't think it did, just adds to the mystery that is me....haha i can't believe i just wrote that crap. I'm really not that mysterious i'm sooo transparent its not even funny. I'm just rambling on in this post, cause i don't wanna write anything deep or thought provoking. I'm saving my brain cells and neurons for tomorrow's test, which will be another six hours of exciting legal questions...utterly pointless. My problem with law as with many things is that the philosophy and lofty principles of metaphysics have been removed and separated from it but this is a discussion for another day.
Day One over
Well, day one of my NY bar exam is over and it wasn't as bad as I figured but don't want to get ahead of myself because there is a good chance that I missed a lot of things but what is done is done. The past couple of weeks have been interesting, I finally put in work and did something that I should have done from the beginning of my academic career, which is simply study and put in effort. I've figured out a lot of things about myself that I didn't know before. No, I will not write about that because its pretty personal and I don't feel like sharing my deeper moments with everyone, yes despite all your conceptions of me, I do possess some depth. I've figured out things with what I want in life in regards to certain parts of my life. This was especially true this past week, right before the bar. Suffices to say, its been a interesting period for me with strong inclinations for something good but who knows how fate works.
Man, I've written some very thought provoking and what I consider interesting blogs in the past few months but rarely do I get any responses or comments, which is kinda weird considering that my hit counter tells me that I have about 15 people visiting my site every day of which half are new readers or at least passerbyers (yes i know not a real word but I make up stuff, its the price of genius.....come on someone lambast me). I'll let you in on something, I have learned that I come off a lot different than I really am, which in this case might have worked to my detriment but I don't think it did, just adds to the mystery that is me....haha i can't believe i just wrote that crap. I'm really not that mysterious i'm sooo transparent its not even funny. I'm just rambling on in this post, cause i don't wanna write anything deep or thought provoking. I'm saving my brain cells and neurons for tomorrow's test, which will be another six hours of exciting legal questions...utterly pointless. My problem with law as with many things is that the philosophy and lofty principles of metaphysics have been removed and separated from it but this is a discussion for another day.
Man, I've written some very thought provoking and what I consider interesting blogs in the past few months but rarely do I get any responses or comments, which is kinda weird considering that my hit counter tells me that I have about 15 people visiting my site every day of which half are new readers or at least passerbyers (yes i know not a real word but I make up stuff, its the price of genius.....come on someone lambast me). I'll let you in on something, I have learned that I come off a lot different than I really am, which in this case might have worked to my detriment but I don't think it did, just adds to the mystery that is me....haha i can't believe i just wrote that crap. I'm really not that mysterious i'm sooo transparent its not even funny. I'm just rambling on in this post, cause i don't wanna write anything deep or thought provoking. I'm saving my brain cells and neurons for tomorrow's test, which will be another six hours of exciting legal questions...utterly pointless. My problem with law as with many things is that the philosophy and lofty principles of metaphysics have been removed and separated from it but this is a discussion for another day.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Law and Order?
Ok, my roommate Girish, Gopi and I were watching Law and Order: SVU today and i started a discussion. Basically what happened in the episode is that the ADA or assistant district attorney essentially broke the law in order to see justice done, to get crucial evidence in order to put an "alleged" child molestor away. So I said its a sad state in our society that we place an higher emphasis on procedural justice over substantive justice. Procedural justice equates to protection of individual liberities, due process of law and so on (it is an overly simplistic view i'm presenting at this point). A police officer must first met certain basic requirements before they are allowed to search someone's place or car, any place where an individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This is necessary to ensure that the government cannot intrude into our lives at its whim and it is a very strong principle in our society, as it should be, especially when the government can be capricious.
Now, what is the purpose of criminal law? It is to maintain order in society and protect one citizen from another citizen's actions as to their property, life or liberty. This is the common answer but a deeper analysis as strongly and convincingly argued by many philosophers including Hegel and Kant is that criminal law is about retribution. Even deeper than that is the idea that law brings about order which brings up happiness and contentment with one's fellow human being. Underlying all that is the idea that we must all get along and if we don't something must be done to ensure we do, when we do something wrong there is a intuitive desire in us to "right" that wrong or make it just, return it to the status quo.
Kant's pure retribution is very interesting but I believe that Hegel offers a more powerful argument for the goal of laws, which is to balance the scale, or right the wrong, in essence bring about justice, which is oddly quite intuitive for almost all people. Hegel argues that a crime is a moral wrong that negates the moral order of a society and punishment is required to redress that negation. Kant's view of justice is necessiated by the idea of punishment to uphold the cosmic and metaphysical order, accordingly his view of justice is an "eye for an eye" retribution. Hegel is much more akin to question that method and offer a more proportional idea of justice, without delineating exactly what justice would demand in a particular situation.
What justice is, changes from time to time and place to place. Hammurabi's code was a mirror image law, eye for an eye. Islamic nations punish thieves by chopping off their hand, to the western world this would seem to go beyond the realm of what justice would be. Essentially there is no overarching generally understood idea of what justice is. What we do understand is that no wrong can go unattended, something must be done or happen. Our society in America, includes procedural justice as equally important if not more important than substantive justice, meaning the ends cannot justify the means. The means must be controlled and formal. If procedures cannot ensure justice than we are to discard the substantive justice in the particular case and move on. The abstract rights of the many triumph over the need for justice in a particular case. Isn't it worse that a rapist or murderer walks away from commiting such an act? The overwhelming focus on our society on privacy and absurd individualism is the heart of the problem. I do think we have a right to privacy but that right can and should be inconvienced in order that justice can be done. Justice simply means that the individual who committed a wrong is found and punished (which can include reforming). The particulars of the punishment are utterly dependant on the crime and manner of wrong. Thats it for now. comments?
Now, what is the purpose of criminal law? It is to maintain order in society and protect one citizen from another citizen's actions as to their property, life or liberty. This is the common answer but a deeper analysis as strongly and convincingly argued by many philosophers including Hegel and Kant is that criminal law is about retribution. Even deeper than that is the idea that law brings about order which brings up happiness and contentment with one's fellow human being. Underlying all that is the idea that we must all get along and if we don't something must be done to ensure we do, when we do something wrong there is a intuitive desire in us to "right" that wrong or make it just, return it to the status quo.
Kant's pure retribution is very interesting but I believe that Hegel offers a more powerful argument for the goal of laws, which is to balance the scale, or right the wrong, in essence bring about justice, which is oddly quite intuitive for almost all people. Hegel argues that a crime is a moral wrong that negates the moral order of a society and punishment is required to redress that negation. Kant's view of justice is necessiated by the idea of punishment to uphold the cosmic and metaphysical order, accordingly his view of justice is an "eye for an eye" retribution. Hegel is much more akin to question that method and offer a more proportional idea of justice, without delineating exactly what justice would demand in a particular situation.
What justice is, changes from time to time and place to place. Hammurabi's code was a mirror image law, eye for an eye. Islamic nations punish thieves by chopping off their hand, to the western world this would seem to go beyond the realm of what justice would be. Essentially there is no overarching generally understood idea of what justice is. What we do understand is that no wrong can go unattended, something must be done or happen. Our society in America, includes procedural justice as equally important if not more important than substantive justice, meaning the ends cannot justify the means. The means must be controlled and formal. If procedures cannot ensure justice than we are to discard the substantive justice in the particular case and move on. The abstract rights of the many triumph over the need for justice in a particular case. Isn't it worse that a rapist or murderer walks away from commiting such an act? The overwhelming focus on our society on privacy and absurd individualism is the heart of the problem. I do think we have a right to privacy but that right can and should be inconvienced in order that justice can be done. Justice simply means that the individual who committed a wrong is found and punished (which can include reforming). The particulars of the punishment are utterly dependant on the crime and manner of wrong. Thats it for now. comments?
Monday, July 11, 2005
15 days and counting......
Well, again I must apolgize for my delay in posting, I've been a bit busy with this little test called the New York Bar Exam, without which i cannot become a lawyer, or liar for all you people out there that still find that funny, lawyer, liar, ya i know, i get it. So you maybe asking, what have been up to? Well until the past week, i've been wasting a lot of time, sitting at my desk trying to convince myself to actually do work but somehow distracted and end up playing a video game or listening to music all day. I must thank and at the same time curse my roommate sir michael edward james gates III, for buying God of War. Damn that game is insanely addicting, i sit down and promise to only play for 1/2 hour and then 4 hours later I stop. But at least i'm close to killing Ares in god mode, yah whatever i like video games don't knock it till you try it, ya camacho i mean ur bitch ass, go put some meat on your bony frame.
I've finally started to get my head on straight and did about 8 hours of studying in the past two days, no not cumulatively but consecutively, yep add it up and its 16 hours total for sat and sun. Damn i'm proud of myself, i think thats about the entire time i spent in law school studying so basically i've met my quota and now i can sleep until the bar....i wish. I've also been watching a lot of movies from blockbuster. The most recent one i saw was last night, The Legend of Bagger Vance.
That was an interesting movie and from what i understand its a modern retelling of the Bhagavad Gita. Will Smith essentially plays Krishna or named Bagger Vance in the movie, similar to the name Bhagavan which refers to God. Matt Damon plays Rannulph Junah or R. Junah....Arjuna, one of the five protagonists in the Mahabharata and the center of the Gita. The game of golf becomes the equivalent of the battlefield and the story is about the journey of self-redemption. It is quite interesting especially considering that in Indian philosophy the entire cosmos and existence is considered a leela or game of God, in which we are all players. One of the teachings of the Gita is that as long as we are connected to and intertwined in this world, we must abide by its rules and live our lives with deeper moral and ethical considerations. The Gita admits and holds the view that morality and ethics are not absolute, they exist to serve a purpose and only exist at the phenomenal level. Meaning, they only exist as long we do not intuitive and experientally understand the true state and nature of reality.
I think this presents a really poignant issue for us in this day and age, when the idea that we should do whatever makes us happy is becoming more and more prevalent. Is it a product of captialism? Partially but I think it is extremely incorrect to blame all the problems and issues of materialism on capitalism as is done by many socialists, communists and marxists. That is a discussion for another time. Should we do what makes us happy? Yes but is that something that must be absolute, No. The idea of duty is what is missing from society in this day and age. I'm not talking about legal duties, like the duty of care to people in our homes or business but i'm talking about a much more social and deeper duty. The idea of legal duties is the bare minimum, it is the threshold we cannot cross otherwise we will be subject to legal censure. For example, we place a higher emphasis on evasion of responsibility than we do to the duty to take up responsibility. We applaud people who argue their way out of responsibility, the lawyer who is able to get a guilty person acquitted, the corporations that are able to avoid liability by declaring bankruptcy, leaders who blame terrorists or democracy or western evil for the acts they commit and the innocents that they kill...so on and so forth. Responsibility and Truth have been pushed to the wayside for "freedom" and good image.
We owe duties to each other simply by the basic fact that we live in a society composed of other individuals. Legal duties generally are not affirmative duties they are prohibitive duties, like do not steal or do not harm your fellow being. I don't agree in having affirmative legal duties imposed, rather i think it should be fostered in use as individuals through our interaction with our families and other individuals and society as whole. An example of an affirmative duty that i have in my mind is the golden rule, treat all others as you would yourself. Would u ever treat yourself as an means to an end? Most probably not, then why should another person be treated in that manner. Consider this, when a guy or girls goes to a club and meets another person and just has a purely sexual relationship with them, is that not treating that other person as an means to an end, to basically achieve your sexual needs. Is this an moral issue? No, not really but it is an issue of how you view that particular other person, as unique individual or just another object of your sexual desire. When a robber steals from another person, that robber essentially views that person as an object to be used then discarded. Ok i'll continue this later, gotta get to bed. drop a few comments and give me some input.
I've finally started to get my head on straight and did about 8 hours of studying in the past two days, no not cumulatively but consecutively, yep add it up and its 16 hours total for sat and sun. Damn i'm proud of myself, i think thats about the entire time i spent in law school studying so basically i've met my quota and now i can sleep until the bar....i wish. I've also been watching a lot of movies from blockbuster. The most recent one i saw was last night, The Legend of Bagger Vance.
That was an interesting movie and from what i understand its a modern retelling of the Bhagavad Gita. Will Smith essentially plays Krishna or named Bagger Vance in the movie, similar to the name Bhagavan which refers to God. Matt Damon plays Rannulph Junah or R. Junah....Arjuna, one of the five protagonists in the Mahabharata and the center of the Gita. The game of golf becomes the equivalent of the battlefield and the story is about the journey of self-redemption. It is quite interesting especially considering that in Indian philosophy the entire cosmos and existence is considered a leela or game of God, in which we are all players. One of the teachings of the Gita is that as long as we are connected to and intertwined in this world, we must abide by its rules and live our lives with deeper moral and ethical considerations. The Gita admits and holds the view that morality and ethics are not absolute, they exist to serve a purpose and only exist at the phenomenal level. Meaning, they only exist as long we do not intuitive and experientally understand the true state and nature of reality.
I think this presents a really poignant issue for us in this day and age, when the idea that we should do whatever makes us happy is becoming more and more prevalent. Is it a product of captialism? Partially but I think it is extremely incorrect to blame all the problems and issues of materialism on capitalism as is done by many socialists, communists and marxists. That is a discussion for another time. Should we do what makes us happy? Yes but is that something that must be absolute, No. The idea of duty is what is missing from society in this day and age. I'm not talking about legal duties, like the duty of care to people in our homes or business but i'm talking about a much more social and deeper duty. The idea of legal duties is the bare minimum, it is the threshold we cannot cross otherwise we will be subject to legal censure. For example, we place a higher emphasis on evasion of responsibility than we do to the duty to take up responsibility. We applaud people who argue their way out of responsibility, the lawyer who is able to get a guilty person acquitted, the corporations that are able to avoid liability by declaring bankruptcy, leaders who blame terrorists or democracy or western evil for the acts they commit and the innocents that they kill...so on and so forth. Responsibility and Truth have been pushed to the wayside for "freedom" and good image.
We owe duties to each other simply by the basic fact that we live in a society composed of other individuals. Legal duties generally are not affirmative duties they are prohibitive duties, like do not steal or do not harm your fellow being. I don't agree in having affirmative legal duties imposed, rather i think it should be fostered in use as individuals through our interaction with our families and other individuals and society as whole. An example of an affirmative duty that i have in my mind is the golden rule, treat all others as you would yourself. Would u ever treat yourself as an means to an end? Most probably not, then why should another person be treated in that manner. Consider this, when a guy or girls goes to a club and meets another person and just has a purely sexual relationship with them, is that not treating that other person as an means to an end, to basically achieve your sexual needs. Is this an moral issue? No, not really but it is an issue of how you view that particular other person, as unique individual or just another object of your sexual desire. When a robber steals from another person, that robber essentially views that person as an object to be used then discarded. Ok i'll continue this later, gotta get to bed. drop a few comments and give me some input.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
