religion

What is religion according to you?
Religion is a set of beliefs and traditions followed by a group of people, generally related to their beliefs about God or a supernatural entity.

What makes people believe in religion?
People may often believe in religion because they feel emotionally secure by following it. It provides people with answers to questions that cannot be answered by science and rationalism.
It is a source of hope for people in despair and may help people handle difficulties and problems. However, people may also believe in religion for an identity, or economic reasons.

How easy is it to convert to a religion either from a previous non-religious or religious stance?
It will be very difficult to generalise as to how easy it is to convert to a religion either from another religion or a non-religious stance. This would depend on the situation and views of the person involved.
It will be relatively easy for a person, who is extremely poor and on the verge of starvation, to convert to another religion if he is lured by food, money or other material objects,
for example, Christian Missionaries have converted millions in Asia and Africa to Christianity using this method. At the same time, if the person is happy and content with his current religion, it will be dificult to get him to convert.
It will also depend on the nature of the religion, if a religion is rigid and and does not allow any views that contradict their religion, it will be difficult to convert from that religion to another religion, because of the alienation and possibly violence that the person will have to go through in that society.
To convert from a non-religious stance to a religion will depend on the rigidity or openness of the person involved. A rigid atheist is never likely to convert to a religion, but a non-believer who begins to perceive some aspects of a religion may convert to it more easily.

What needs do religion fulfil?
Religion often fulfils the emotional needs of human beings. They are a source of hope to people in despair. They often provide people with an identity, and the culture that comes along with religion.

What kind of biases are invlolved in religion?
Confirmation biases - as people only perceive that evidence that supports their pre-formed religious beliefs. Other biases may include national bias or cultural bias.

k@w - jinnah. he had a pistol

The article predominantly deals with the issue of the Partition of India, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s role in it. The title of the article, along with the first line quoting Jinnah as saying “I am not prepared to discuss ethics” creates a negative image of Jinnah in the reader’s mind. This article reminds the reader of the “unimaginable massacre” of Hindus in Calcutta in 1946, which invokes the emotions of anger, sympathy for the victims, but may also invoke religious hatred. The writer mentions that 6000 people were killed, but his bias is evident, he does not mention that of those both Hindus and Muslims were killed, as even some Hindus responded violently to the “direct action” and use of “the pistol” of the Muslim League.

The issue of who was responsible for the killings in Calcutta is an example of problems of finding truth in History, especially when the topic is nationally and religiously sensitive; with the Congress and Hindu groups blaming the leaders of the Muslim League for genocide of Hindus, and the Muslim League blaming Congress and other Hindu organisations for beginning violence due to the demand for Pakistan. Quoting the Online Encyclopaedia of Mass Violence, “..there may have been very rational calculations at work on the side of the instigators and perpetrators of the killings. It was actually a fight over who was to be master of Calcutta. By organizing huge demonstrations, occupying the Maidan and using whatever State power it had at its disposal, the Bengal Provincial Muslim League was trying to stake its claim to Calcutta as the capital of a Muslim Bengal, which would be part of Pakistan, whose shape was still hazy at the time. A massacre was probably not the League’s goal (although one pamphlet circulating amongst Muslims warned of a “general massacre” of Kafirs, infidels, i.e. Hindus), but the League’s supporters did not shrink from using violence on a significant scale to advance their objectives. Although the use of violence by a minority against the majority could appear irrational to us, in the mindset of many Muslims at the time it was not so, because they considered the Hindus cowardly and effeminate, and thought they were no match for Muslims in an open fight. As for the “Hindu” political parties, both Congress and the Mahasabha were bent on making a counter-demonstration of their superior muscle power. Therefore, they were not adverse to large-scale killings to decisively defeat the Muslim League’s attempts to impose its dominance. The massacre was the result of the clash of two wills, between which no compromise was possible.”

Besides, the article goes on to mention various negative aspects of Jinnah, including how he was unfit to be a leader of Muslims. It mentions how he could barely speak Urdu, had British tastes, and changed his birthday to Christmas day when he was young. This makes the knower suspect that his demand for a separate Muslim nation, and his unwillingness to accept a secular, united India, was due to his ambition and desire for power.

The author, apart from discussing the evils of Jinnah, very skilfully attempts to glorify his own viewpoints and force his own opinions on the knower. He glorifies Syama Prasad Mookerjee, leader of the Hindu Mahasabha. Incidentally, this leader is a source of inspiration for the BJP. Thus, the author is trying to portray BJP in a positive light by glorifying the leaders that it is inspired by. Besides the author mentions that “the Gita and RSS teaches us..” – he has equated his organization, RSS to the Gita, which is one of holiest books for Hindus. Thus, he is trying to promote his organization, RSS. Due to this, the knower begins to respect RSS, as he is not aware that the organization has promoted enmity and often indulged in violence. While the parts that describe Jinnah may be partially true, the parts that glorify the RSS and BJP, can be considered biased.

Inglourious Basterds

The main theme of the film is revenge. The film is set in an alternate history of the Second World War in which the entire top leadership of Nazi Germany, including Hitler, attend a film premiere in Paris celebrating the exploits of a German sniper who had managed to kill 300 American soldiers in Italy. The very idea of celebration of killings may seem gruesome and invoke negative emotions in the knower.

The film tracks the separate attempts to kill Hitler by two disparate forces, one being the "Basterds", a motley crew of Jewish American soldiers out for revenge against the Nazis. The Basterds have a modus operandi whereby each man must cut off the scalp of a dead Nazi soldier, with orders to get 100 scalps each. The Basterds allow one German soldier to survive each incident so as to spread the news of the terror of their attacks. However, the Basterds carve a swastika into the forehead of that German.

The other force concerns Shosanna, the only survivor of a Jewish family killed by the Jew Hunter, who plots her own revenge on the Nazis. The reason for this plan is the extreme emotional turmoil experienced by her when her family was ruthlessly massacred by the “Jew Hunter” and she, as a teen, was forced to flee from the site.

The film opens in 1941 with Colonel Landa, proudly known as the "Jew Hunter", interrogating a French dairy farmer, over rumours that he had been hiding a Jewish family. The subtle comparison of Jews with rats, who are killed even though they do not do any harm is offensive and racist, and exposes the Nazi’s perspectives and way of thinking.

Four years later, by 1944, Shosanna has assumed the identity of "Emmanuelle Mimieux" the proprietress of a cinema, which is chosen to premiere the Nazi propaganda film, Stolz der Nation (English translation: A Nation's Pride). Shosanna realizes that the presence of so many high ranking Nazi officials and officers provides an excellent opportunity for revenge. She resolves to burn down her cinema using the massive quantities of flammable nitrate film in her storage rooms during the premiere and makes a fourth reel in which she tells the Nazis present of her Jewish identity and revenge.

In the meantime, the British, to fulfil their own political objectives, have also learned of the Nazi leadership's plan to attend the premiere and dispatch a British officer to Paris to lead an attack on the cinema with the aid of the "Basterds" led by Brad Pitt, and a German double agent (an actress).

Different languages and accents play an important role in the movie. When one of the German soldiers present strikes up a conversation with a British double agent and notices that his accent is "odd" gives the wrong three fingered order for whiskies (without using his thumb, a traditional German gesture), the SS officer realizes their deception. A firefight breaks out in which the British officer and two of the "Basterds" are killed as are the German soldiers in the tavern.

Brad Pitt’s character, commanding officer of the Basterds, interrogates Hammersmark, the actress who is acting as a double agent for the British, and decides to continue the operation against the cinema under the guise of Italians as suicide bombers. The “Jew Hunter” is able to retrieve one of Hammersmark's shoes from the scene of the firefight. He approaches Hammersmark and Brad Pitt in the cinema lobby and is able to easily see through their disguises, as none, even Brad Pitt, can speak any Italian or German. He questions Hammersmark alone and makes her try on the shoe he had retrieved from the tavern. It is a perfect fit. He violently strangles her to death as a traitor, and orders the arrest of Brad Pitt.

Later on, Landa (The Jew Hunter) reveals himself to be a turncoat. While speaking with Brad Pitt and Utivich, he tells them that four major Nazi leaders must all be killed to end the war immediately. They are all attending Nation's Pride, and he is prepared to let the assassination continue-- for a price. Landa (The Jew Hunter) has his radio operator help Brad Pitt reach his general, where Landa states the terms of his deal-- he wants full military pension and benefits under his current rank, a medal of honor for everyone involved in the operation, American citizenship and a home on an island. He also reveals that he had planted Brad Pitt's stick of dynamite in Hitler's box at the cinema, meaning that there are now three attempts against Hitler's life. Brad Pitt is placed on the radio and his general tells him that Landa and his radio operator will drive him in a truck to American lines, then surrender to them, whereupon Brad Pitt will drive the truck to base and bring Landa and the operator to him for debriefing.

Meanwhile, we see Hitler greatly enjoying the battle scene in the movie, where the Nazi soldier is taking out numerous American soldiers by himself. But his feeling of joy comes to a quick end when the fourth reel is played in which Shosanna tells the audience that they're all going to die, and she is a Jew ready to take revenge. On her cue, her assistant flicks his cigarette into the pile of nitrate film, igniting it. The fire bursts through the screen, causing a pandemonium in the auditorium. As the cinema is engulfed in flames, the dynamite that Landa had planted in Hitler's box, as well as the dynamite strapped to the Basterds' legs, now goes off. The cinema is destroyed in the subsequent inferno, killing all inside.

In spite of the movie being based on a serious, topic, invoking emotions such as fear and hatred and themes such as revenge, war and propaganda; the humour helps balance this and make it a pleasant watch for the viewer.

"What is history, but a fable agreed upon?"

-Napolean Bonaparte.

History is an area of knowledge that explores various aspects of the significant events, which may be political, social, cultural, religious or economic, that have taken place in the past in a particular region/ country or the world or that has affected in some way a society or societies.

This quote, in one line, claims that the nature of History is different from the common perception of history - it is not something that is established beyond reasonable doubt, but it is a selection of facts or claims that lead to an interpretation of the past that is decided by consensus .

The use of the word fable for history immediately makes it seem as if it is different from reality and truth. In my opinion, this quote accurately describes the nature of history as is perceived from various sources - textbooks (this is the only source of historical knowledge for a majority of people), books and accounts by historians. Historical sources catering to one civilization or nation or region are influenced not only by the emotions of the people towards prominent figures of history, but also the propaganda of politicians who wish to project their leaders and ideology in a positive manner. For example, most textbooks in the state of Maharashtra will project Shivaji in a positive light, probably exaggerating his good qualities/actions and ignoring his weaknesses, due to emotions of the masses as well as political pressure.

A recent incident which justifies the claim that history is like a fable decided by consensus is the expulsion of Jaswant Singh by the BJP for writing a book praising Jinnah. This is because most people agree to the version that paints Indian history in black and white - putting all the blame of India's partition on Jinnah, and placing leaders like Nehru and Patel on a moral high ground. Even if Jinnah was actually responsible for partition, there is nothing wrong in exploring the counterarguments to that claim, and then proving it wrong rather than simply suppressing views that disagree with what "the fable" says.

Thus, history is an area where it is extremely difficult to ascertain what actually happened. People in power and victors of wars can decide who would be called the villains, and who would be the heroes. Thus, we cannot say for sure whether Hitler was as bad as is made to be perceived and communism was as cruel as is now perceived, these views could largely be because the victors agreed to paint them in such a manner.

Knowledge at work(1) – Alleged abuse of prisoners

This article predominantly deals with allegations that terror suspects were abused by the Central Intelligence Agency. These allegations are based on a long-concealed inspector general’s report which is due to be made public. They claim that Abd Al-Rahim al-Nashri, accused of plotting the 2000 attack which killed 17 US sailors, was interrogated using a gun and electric drill on separate occasions to threaten him in order to obtain information. Mock executions were also alleged to have been carried out to frighten the prisoners into disclosing information.

While this abuse was alleged to have taken place between 2000 and 2006, it is only now that they are being perceived by the public, which is the result of pressure from the Obama administration and a petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The article gives greater importance to the perception that the use of such means to extract information from terror suspects is unethical, while ignoring the reasons to support the view that such means are ethical for terror suspects. This forces the knower to question this stand, and reason out whether it can be considered ethical and/or should be used, and in what circumstances.

The descriptions of mock executions and gunshots to scare prisoners ought to stimulate negative emotions in the knower, such as contempt for the people who are doing this (interrogators) and may be even fear if they belong to a religion or community in whose name terrorist acts are carried out. It will also cause fear in the minds of people living in a country or region occupied by American or other foreign troops, such as Iraq. People could be reminded of oppressive regimes that historically existed in their countries, for example Germans would remember atrocities of Hitler and Indians oppression under the British.

Although the ACLU side perceives such acts as downright unethical, it is important to take note of the harm done by terrorist attacks which are unarguably of a greater magnitude. Apart from killing thousands of innocent civilians, causing emotional turmoil to hundreds of thousands and destroying property and other materialistic things worth billions of dollars, it also leads to the negative perception of religions in whose name it is carried out. The theory of Utilitarianism, which aims at the greatest happiness of the greatest number, may actually be able to justify the abuse of members of Al Qaeda who are suspected terrorists. However, this is assuming that such methods actually succeed in preventing future terror attacks, and not backfire by causing more hatred and more terror attacks.

Kant’s approach to ethics, however, would never allow this breaking of general rules especially for Al Qaeda suspects. It would reason out like this – if agencies all over the world began torturing/ abusing prisoners to extract information or force them to confess, there would be no legal system remaining, and innocent people would often be held for crimes which they have not committed, and agencies would not be bothered to find the actual culprit, as the people perceive the innocent person to be the terrorist. Thus, the author has reason to hold a bias against such abuses of prisoners by the CIA.

reflection humans and animals

The class discussion on 29th july began with the question 'what is the difference between humans and animals'? At first, someone suggested that the only difference was that humans wore clothes and animals didn't but then we got into tok aspects... after a while our teacher controversially stated that humans have free will but not animals, after which loud arguments followed, as many disagreed with this. i too would not completely agree with the statement that humans have free will and animals do not .. it would be a generaliation. there are many situations i which humans do not have free will and are forced to do things due to external factors, and animals may use free will sometimes.....

Summer Knowledge at Work - GM food - 8th july

Media source 1: Poison on the platter (30 min video by Mahesh Bhatt)

Media source 2: Monsanto newspaper advertisement

These two media sources are based on the issue of genetically modified food, with specific focus on India. The movie begins with the line "whatever appears in this film is supported by incontroversial scientific evidence", which is an attempt to assure the knower of the validity of what he is about to perceive. The movie is based on the serious health and environmental hazards posed by genetically modified food. On the other hand, the Monsanto (a multinational corporation which owns 70-100% of the global market share of different GM crops) advertisement in a prominent newspaper titled "How can we squeeze more food from a raindrop?" claims that genetically modified crops are beneficial to the environment as they use less water than regular crops. This is a perfect example of two knowledge sources that express completely contrasting and contradictory claims.

Genetic Engineering of plants is a science involving the transfer of genes from one species of any organism (including animals eg frog) to a completely different species of plant. The reason for this is two introduce a desirable trait of the organism in the crop. The initial perception to this technology varies from people who are experts in different areas of knowledge. A religious person will oppose it as it interferes with the work of God. Ethical considerations about this are bound to arise. A scientific expert (who has not yet tested a particular variety) will definitely initially experience a bout of fascination and interest, that such technology has been made possible.

However, only when he does experiment and observe the results of a GM crop and collect evidence will he be able to say whether that crop is beneficial or harmful, and how.
The movie begins by reminding the knower of various events of History, such as world wars, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters which have claimed thousands/millions of lives worldwide and left many more crippled. This, along with the the title, “Poison on the platter” create a negative perception of GM crops. They also seek to influence the knower emotionally against GM crops. The presence of various independent scientists, who are heads of various organizations for biosafety and responsible technology, highlighting the dangers posed by GM food begins to convince even the most skeptical viewer, even one who has thought throughout his life that GM food is a marvel of science, can improve nutrition and benefits the environment begins to rethink his stand.

At this point of time, the knower begins to see through the propaganda in Monsanto’s advertisement. When he comes to know that the profit-oriented acts of such organizations like prohibiting the farmers from saving their seeds, forcing them to buy seeds every year from them( which are often 5 times the price of ordinary seeds) and buying pesticides and fertilizers only from them; he realizes that these crops are produced using unethical means. Due to the fact that global environmental organizations like greenpeace and wwf are strongly opposing it due to the negative impact on the ecosystem and food chain, he realizes that Monsanto has used the selectivity of perception to misinform the people and create a positive brand image – it has probably selected one variety that uses less water, causing the viewer to overlook the fact that others may be using more water (for example Bt. Cotton needs greater irrigation than regular cotton), and that even that selected crop may be harmful to the environment in other ways – by releasing toxins into the environment or cross-breeding with weeds to produce superweeds, etc.

In the movie, the speakers mock the Indian government for claiming the GM food is banned in the Indian market. It presents the fact that tests conducted on various food items imported from US, where GM foods are sold freely without labeling, revealed that GM corn and sugar were present. Doritos contained two varieties of GM corn which are banned throughout Europe due to adverse health effects. Kellogs was found to contain sugar from GM sugarcane. This reduces the trust in the scientific observations of government agencies, as the knower begins to feel that they have been bribed by Monsanto and other GM corporations. The fact that all independent studies on Bt. Brinjal, which is being tried on an experimental basis, and Bt. Cotton in India claim that the results are much worse than claimed by government studies, and the dangers are understated by them, only adds to this mistrust.

Thus, the movie leaves us with a desire to get back our right to safe food and right to choose, which have been guaranteed to consumers. The unethical practices of multinational corporations result in anger against them. The claims in their advertisement are considered untrue by the knower.

News article: Screening a must to check GM food entry

The Little Prince

Chapter 4

read text

In this chapter of The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint Exupéry, the protagonist, who had had an accident while flying his airplane of the Sahara Desert, speculates about the planet from where The Little Prince (who he had met in the desert) had come. He also draws clear distinctions between the perception of a child and the perception of grown-ups. I chose this chapter because not only does it depict a child’s views on adults and their stereotypes, but also the child’s sterotypes about adults.

In the first line of the chapter, the protagonist says he has learnt a “fact of great importance” – that the planet from which the little prince had arrived was the size of a house. This statement throws light on the fact that humans in general and children in particular perceive other people/things in terms of themselves and their belongings. Unlike grown-ups, who would have put a figure on the size of the planet, the protagonist has measured the planet in terms of a house.

He then goes on to write that he has “serious reason” to believe that the planet from which the prince has arrived is an asteroid known as B-612. However, absolutely no evidence or justification is provided to support his conclusion that the little prince was from B-612 (at least at this point of the book), causing me to question whether the protagonist has used valid reasoning to support his claim, or mere speculation.

The protagonist uses History to convince the reader about the existence of the named asteroid, though he is not making any effort to prove that the little prince came from there. He goes back into the year 1909, when a Turkish astronomer had seen the asteroid only once, and had presented his findings to the International Astronomical Congress. But he was dressed in Turkish costume, and therefore nobody believed what he said. This claim has highlighted the prejudices in the minds of the European and American people (who the IAC consisted of) against people of other cultures.

In spite of them being experts in the field of Astronomy, they were not immune to such racist prejudices and stereotypes. It may have been based on the fact that they had perceived some Turkish people in traditional costumes, who were not at all well-versed in The Sciences, and therefore generalized and formed a stereotype that all Turkish people in their traditional clothes are not scientific, and are not worth believing. The fact that the same person’s claim about the asteroid was accepted when he presented it in Western clothes confirms the fact that the members of the IAC had a prejudice rooted in them.

This prejudice could also be formed partly due to emotion. The members may have had slight contempt for the Turkish man in his costume, and also pride in their own Western culture, which would have played a role in the formation of the prejudice and stereotype.

The protagonist then goes on to write about the difference in perceived priorities in knowing in children and grown-ups. While children are inquisitive about qualitative aspects of a person or thing, adults are only interested in quantitative aspects. Giving the example of knowing a friend, the protagonist points out that normally people should be interested in aspects like his hobbies, his voice, whether he collects butterflies or not, but adults are more inquisitive about his age, his weight, and how much money that his father earned. He subtly hints at the fact that adults are only interested in wealth and monetary worth when forming an opinion about a person, house or other thing.

At this point, the protagonist is making a generalization and forming a stereotype of adults. While he may have perceived many adults who are only interested in numbers, even when knowing a person, it is incorrect to brand every adult like that. If this stereotype does exist in his mind, he will only notice those adults who have the mentioned qualities – confirmation bias will influence his perception, and he will not perceive the adults who contradict his stereotype.

In the latter part of the chapter, the protagonist shares his grief with the reader or knower. He has been writing about the past all this while, and he now throws light on his present. He has lost his friend (“I have suffered too much grief in setting down these memories”), the little prince, and experiences extreme sadness. This sorrow expressed by the protagonist translates into sympathy for him in the knower’s mind.

Throughout this chapter, the language used is simple, easily comprehendible, and, at times, child-like. This is done to strike an emotional chord with children, who read this book. The fact that he refers to adults as ‘they’ brings the reader, irrespective of his age, to the child’s side. Thus, the reader perceives the issues dealt with from the point of view of a child.

Emotion vs Reason

Reflection for 15th April, 09


Emotion and Reason both play important roles in the process of knowing. They have varying roles in different Areas of knowledge. For example, reason plays a greater role in Physics than emotion does, and Emotion probably plays a greater role in the Arts than reason does. However, there is often a conflict between emotion and reason. At this point of time, if the knower follows reason his belief will be different from what his belief would have been if he had used emotion as a way of knowing.

In class today, we saw a video titled "The War between Emotion and Reason" which addresses this issue. (click here to view) This video depicts many instances when a person is facing a conflict between emotion and reason. Reason is generally in the driver's seat, with emotion seated behind. However, emotion itermittently feels the urge to take over by defeating reason. This causes the person to do things that may not be reasonable and the consequences of which may be harmful. For example, the baby that decides to roll down the stairs due to emotional excitement eventually hurts himself. Then the doctor shown is reason personified.

I think a bias has been created against emotion and for reason. The purpose of this is to influence the knower and to make him take their (the creators of this video) stand on the core issue of this video - which is world war 2. Whenthe viewer already has a bias against emotion, the video shows how Hitler, through his emotive words, signs and body language is inciting the emotions of a person. This makes emotion grow stronger in him, due to pride for his country, sympathy for the suffering of his countrymen, contempt against Jews; and also Britain and her allies for their exploitation of Germany. Thus, Emotion outgrows and defeats Reason, and the person becomes Hitler's follower.

However, reason, which is shown to the viewer as being the saviour, is now shown as driving an aircraft of the Allied Forces, along with emotion by his side, leading the fight against hitler. This definitely is a propaganda video, depicting the Allied forces as rational, reasonable and Hitler as controlled by emotion. However, I do not think that their reasons were more ethical than the emotions of pride used by Hitler. Their reasons were mainly the power and wealth of their countries, which was also based on the emotion of national pride.

Thus, in ethical terms, the Allied Powers are not any better than Hitler. History is always written by the victors of a war, as they control knowledge sources, and they have always written it in their favour, as they want to be perceived in good light.