Saturday, 26 June 2010

A Dance on the Beach

My joyful dance on white sand
Music racing a chaotic sound
Of endless waves on dewy land
The violent wind waving my shirt
And a light breeze lifting her skirt

We owned the universe for a whole night
The stars our audience, the moon our spotlight
Every sound our music, every moment a new chance
To live in a world that existed so we can dance

Friday, 14 May 2010

Beautiful Dreams

for the fading moonlight and the dances of the butterfly that does not know of any limits, for a rose that was garmented by a dew drop and a soap bubble that reflects all the joyful colors. Oh that music filling the horizon, howcome you fools aren't dancing?

I see spongy air filling the lungs of a child with her little eyes sparkling, and a star and a leaf falling while smiling at me, I see a man leaving this world holding a hand he loves, and a dead bird's body on the ground, howcome you fools aren't crying?

Too soon, however, I have to wake up and leave the beautiful world of my dreams.

Monday, 1 June 2009

In dealing with ethics, some philosophers and thinkers aim at making the world a better place, they focus on society and how each person can function as a member of that society. Others, however, focus on the individual, his own spiritual well being and how each person can function for his own happiness. Although both approaches are useful, I find the second approach far more rewarding, and I side with the individualists.

The individualist focuses the spiritual needs of the person, and they take them to be more important, as society for them is good when each person satisfies his spiritual needs. The collectivist on the other hand believes that society functions well when each person has his material needs, when each person is well educated, well fed, in short everything but the spiritual realm.

While individualism promotes spiritual growth so it takes ethics to mean the relationship between the individual and himself and therefore is related to psychology, the collectivist promotes the whole of society's health, and thus they take ethics to mean the relation between each individual and the rest of society and is strongly related to sociology.The major difference is that the individualist approach to ethics would most likely

to judge an action with reference to its root, perhaps the unconscious events that led to it. It is not what happened because of what you did that matters, but what happened that led to what you did. For the individualist it doesn't matter whether your action went this way or that, but it matters if you did it out of fear or with power, it's all about the origin of the action but if you take society as your main concern, why would it matter if the citizin is good out of fear or out of love?

I believe there's no such a thing as "mass production" of happiness, each and every idnividual must acheive his/her own psychological well being and can only do so on his/her own, perhaps with guidance but it is the individual who has to walk the way.

Thursday, 14 May 2009

An Introduction to Nietzsche's Ethics

More famously than anyone else, Friedrich Nietzsche has criticized the prevailing views on ethics and morality. Through reading Nietzsche and especially 'Beyond Good and Evil' one is terrified at first because Nietzsche destroys the firm ethical ground on which we rest so comfortably, our 'Good and Evil' which guides us through life. People in general and philosophers in particular held the belief that there's a morality independent of our desires, fears and instincts...a morality based on reason or on a divine view of life (that is, religion as a way of living). That was Nietzsche's first task, to destroy our firm ground of morals and to wake up the world from the dream of the absolute 'Good and evil'.
Nietzsche holds that we cannot get hold of the truth except from our own perspective, and what we "see" changes as we change our perspective. This was well known long before Nietzsche, and Kant (a philosopher who came long before him and whose philosophy Nietzsche criticizes ) knew that we can only see reality from our perspective, and Kant calls reality itself which we represent with our concepts and see through our perspective 'the thing in itself'' or 'Das Ding in sich' in German as he originally put it. One of the most important keys to understand Nietzsche's ethics and metaphysics is to understand the fact that the thing in itself is a mere assumption and there might very well not be such a thing.
The thing in itself or the truth (as opposed to an interpretation of truth) may not exist, and since we can never know anything about it except through the appearance, the interpretation, then we can confidently say that only the appearance exist. There's no truth, only interpretation of truth, and to use this metaphysical assertion in ethics, there's no good and evil which we should aspire to know, but we create our own good and evil based on our desires and instincts, and philosophers as well as other people hide these wishes under the authority of reason, God or any higher authority.
Without a higher authority, without God or a privileged access to truth rather than mere different interpretations it could be said that there's no good and evil, there's no truth and that's where nihilism come in. Nihilism is the belief that nothing is good or bad, being lost with no guide, and it is not only a philosophical view but it is also a psychological state of which many people -especially young people- suffer. Although Nietzsche respects this view for its courage and honesty, he tries to avoid it. To avoid nihilism without self deception could be said to be Nietzsche's main goal from all his philosophy.
The problem Nietzsche had to face is that any code of ethics would be imposed on us and thus would restrict and contain us rather than free us and help us achieve our maximum potentials as he believes that the human potential is not exhausted by merely being a good person in the eye of society, he aspires for more greatness that is not limited by any ethics, in the same time there has to be preference among actions and moralities. The question he tried to answer was how this was possible, and his ingenious answer is what amazes most of his keen followers about him.
The problem of freedom and greatness is this, how can we be free is we follow an ethical law that is dedicated on us by reason or God? On the other hand with Nietzsche proving that such moralities are mere illusions then how can we be free? Is a liar free? certainly not, a free man would be one who does not need to lie or fear punishment. Nietzsche accuses all philosophers of trying to defend their morality rather than discover it, and then they claim to have discovered it through reason, to quote him from 'Beyond Good and Evil':
"It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy has hitherto been: a confession on part of its author...moreover, that the moral or immoral intentions in every philosophy have constituted the real germ of life of which the entire plan has grown"
Thus he says that reason is only a justification of the morality one has, and we often do this, for instance if you ask a Muslim how can wife beating be allowed in religion he would try to give an argument and give reasons, even though no reasoning would ever get you there. So Nietzsche does not try to justify his morality and say that it is a dedicated morality from either reason or God or any such source, rather Nietzsche looks at the human instincts and the greatness and freedom making moralities. from this perspective he could observe that people are either masters or slaves, in the sense that slaves obey and masters lead. slaves do not always obey masters, but rather their own reason or their own God, masters however do not obey any fixed laws, however they have to act out of power rather than fear. Lying is wrong for Nietzsche not because it's harmful, it is not always harmful and he disagrees that an action should be measured with its consequences anyway, lying is rather wrong because its a sign of fear, of slavery and need of power.
Both masters and slaves might do something that is considered by the society, or the 'herd' as Nietzsche calls them, wrong, the difference however is that the slave might lie and deny he did it, or he might apologize and promise never to do it again, the master on the other hand might confidently say 'I am my own ethical rules, and as such I gave myself the authority to do that, only I judge my own actions'.
The example was to clarify that the masters want freedom, they want mastery over their actions and they act out of great power, they wouldn't hurt the weak or even pity and defend the weak because that's powerful to do so, and it is cowardly and weak to hurt the weak. The herd or the slaves, they want comfort, and safety. To live as the great warrior who fears nothing, who has a powerful will is the right for Nietzsche, and to live like a coward or someone who desires to live comfortably even at the cost of his own power and self respect is the wrong. This is not a dedication of reason, but rather it's Nietzsche's own opinion and analyzing of human instincts, it is an instinct dedicated morality, but then again, all moralities are.

Sunday, 15 March 2009

The Divine Farce

Why are you not laughing, don't you like the comedy?
Don’t you find it amusing that God has written a perfect farce?
Why are you not dancing, do you not like the melody?
Why aren’t you dancing with the sound of the stars?

Why can we float in the air when the earth is pulling us down?
Because we are heavy, isn’t that funny?
Why can we smile when it’s the time to frown?
Because it rains when it is most sunny

Why did the most merciful god create hell?
Because it is fun for him to see us in pain
Why is the truth always so hard to tell?
Because lies are beauty when beauty is wane

Why are the stars being so loud?
They make it so noisy at night
Quiet is the most beautiful sound
And darkness is the most beautiful sight
Loneliness is the best crowd
And wrong is to do what is right
Why are squares always round?
Why is it brave to run and coward to fight?

Why is it painful to laugh and joyous to cry?
It hurts to live and feels good to die
It is sure malicious to help a friend in need
And the worst thing to do is to water a seed

Why is beauty so fake and ugliness so real?
Misery is ours but good times we steal
The happier we pretend to be the more bitter we feel
The prouder we are the better we kneel

Despair is comfort when hope tortures
And death is life because to live is to anguish
It is he who saves a life who murders
And he who kills makes true every wish

Tuesday, 3 March 2009

Scientific Miracles: The illusion of science in the Koran

There exists usually many different claims to each individual question, and to seek knowledge is to try to see which one of the answers-if any- is the right one. This is what is called the skeptical approach, to know that you don't know and try to find out, to seek knowledge and not believe you posses it. Some people however take another approach towards answering these questions, they have faith. Faith-as referred to here and as opposed to skepticism-is the unjustified belief in a certain answer to the question beyond doubt, and rejecting all counter evidence.

Of the two approaches faith is the personal one, faith is only a decision one takes and has nothing to do with anyone or anything else, it is someone's decision to deceive oneself. On the other hand believing that is based on evidence is always vulnerable to counter-evidence, it is never certain and can always be doubted. It sure is, for most people, a virtue to be a skeptic (that is; to use the second approach to questions) as it is the only approach conductive to an answer that has any truth in it.

Whether having faith is ethical or not is another question that does not concern me here, but the problem I am concerned with is when people want to impose their faith on reality and on others as well. They want everyone to hold their belief system and acknowledge it, perhaps they feel this obsessive need to gain followers so they can feel sure they are right and to help strengthen their faith, or may be it is simply because they believe that their belief system should be spread and it's their duty to help everyone see their so called truth. Either way, these people have tried to convince themselves before others that there's reason behind their faith, needless to say the invented reasons came out to be as silly as one could have imagined, they are reasons created after their cause, and instead of seeking knowledge these people seek the fact that they know already, they try to find out what they know over and over again. It is not seeking knowledge but the illusion of possessing knowledge that they are after, to satisfy a skeptic world with their beliefs.

Of these tries, the most famous throughout the Arab and Islamic world is the so called "scientific miracles". Which are supposed to be recently discovered scientific facts and theories that are found in the Koran which was written long before they were discovered. They are supposed to prove that the Koran is in harmony with the solid scientific facts and most accurate theories, but this illusory harmony is nothing but a re-interpretation of the Koran and a twisting of science so they can meet somewhere in the middle, and people who do this call themselves "scientists", they believe not only that they are scientists which they are sure not, but also that they are superior scientists who combine the knowledge of the physical and metaphysical and they criticize the ordinary scientists for being limited to the physical realm and ignoring their spiritual needs.

What fakeness, illusion, self deception and lying to the world as well, is this? You "great scientists" claim that age old dogmatic beliefs are in harmony with the most scientific and skeptical of all beliefs, and make both say different things than what they originally do in order to bring them together and claim you posses the truth that no one has known before and that was revealed to you by God?. These lies and deceptions are certainly symptoms of psychological and epistemological illness. Perhaps there's more to the story? The fact that the Islamic and Arabic contributions to the scientific and philosophical realms are now near nothing and a nation with pride and great history does not want to acknowledge weakness and defeat. Perhaps they do their best to cling to their illusions and even claim them superior validity? Some go as far as saying that Islam is a scientific religion and the Koran is a scientific book among its other descriptions.

Sunday, 1 March 2009

Breaking The Walls

In a prison I can no longer take
The walls are so hard to break
I can see through the walls
But through them I cannot walk
Outside my desires await me
I can almost hear them calling
But inside my prisoners convince me
That I don’t need them
As my prison is called my room
I have to live but in a tomb

If only I can break free
If only I can break the walls
If I can just live or die
But not only lay in the middle
If I can just fall or fly
But not only walk in the middle

Why am I leashed and imprisoned?
Why must I be contained within the walls?
My screams of pain keep echoing within the room

My leashes are getting tighter
Or is it me who's getting bigger?
All the same, for I am still limited

How can I dance with my hands so tied?
How can I dream when even my dreams died?
When fears are truthful and hopes have lied?

Outside life waits, but not for so long
Calling me to break walls
I can only hear and watch life
But to live is that not my right?
For which I'm supposed to fight
How can I fight with my leashes so tight?

Amidst of my prison I am free
For my prison is nothing but me
I am not leashed but simply, I have no wings
Why did I have to dream of flying?
Why can't I even stop trying?
Why do my dreams have to stay alive
So they can keep on dying?