The Arguments within

so here comes another bouncer from the IndiaAgainstC orruption..the PM of India, Manmohan Singh , has also done what the culture of India is accused of harbouring, promoting and cultivating all the time..the big C--CORRUPTION. How much has the Vedic Civilization fallen in the pits about its own moral lesson which it other takes pride in, of disseminating to the world..the Bhagwad Geeta's eternal lesson of Dharma . The Dharma was born in India, and killed, too, by the Indians.

Notes from Wikipedia on 'marketplace of ideas' : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas The "marketplace of ideas" is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The "marketplace of ideas" belief holds that the truth or the best policy arises out of the competition of widely various ideas in free, transparent public discourse, an important part of liberal democracy.The concept also has roots in John Milton's argument for freedom of expression. Milton argued that the individual is capable of using reason and distinguishing right from wrong, good from bad. But in order to be able to exercise this reason correctly, the individual must have unlimited access to the ideas of his fellow men in "a free and open encounter." In Milton's writings can be found the idea that when people argue against each other the better argument will prevail.

Recently I heard about a forum which has named itself - "India Against Corruption in Literature". :-P. It made me chuckle as to how there is 'corruption' in every field. Or, we are just generalising the phenomenon of Corruption?  The forum, although, was about protesting against the lobbyst, the 'powerful mafia', in the Janapeeth Awards committee.  In my analysis of why there is a 'powerful Mafia' in every field in India, it is not because of presence of money, as, there is money in every developed nation too, but because we have defective idea of social justice. Rather we do not have a common idea of Justice. We do not make a philosophical and scientific query into what is right and what is wrong, in each of our Decision-making and judging. We judge the right and wrong of an issue by voting. Voting require support from people. To help this "support" problem, we like to be cultured and grown-up in the environment of "Boss is right'

                 Television debates are nowadays often running away into low-intelligence whenever any issue of a generalized public perception is coming up. The debating factions globule into two bigger chunks , one trying to assert why the generalized perception of the issue has to be taken based on that one single incident,; and the other big globule trying to protest the generalization of the observation that all people belonging to the group are not like that.   The philosophical knowledge which I feel has remained elusive with both the factions is about the human need for a Generalistion. Neither of the two factions honour  and identify generalization as a human need, to take up the rules for a valid generalization and then respond to each other as to what perception should be finally held valid by the viewers. In the entire drama, the force of the main topic is lost to be wasted away into the Generalisation validation debate. Generalisation , as I have examined earlier, is t

Generalization of an Observation is a very natural instinct of man. It is an instinctive habit perhaps because it is connected with the survival techniques out in the wilds. The moment they see the birds sitting on loft trees fly away with a pandemonium of fear, the timid animals down below immediately generalize the observation with presence of a danger which has been experienced and trained in them through hunting episodes by a lion. This is instinctive , very closely related with the need for safety by every living organism.  But a philosopher or either a crook, both, might raise an argument on the birds-flying-away event isolating it with the past experience, and ask, "how can you say that the birds flew away because there is a lion. Maybe the birds flew because the flock leader decided to return home." The uncertainity in the co-relation of birds flying off, to the presence of a lion creates a natural climate for the  occurring of politics in the issue, a vote-divisi

The axiom of "Boss is right" is not just personally repulsive, it is also an anti-nation-hood belief in a Democractic society. You see, when the criteria of right-ness shifts away from the ethics of it being right, to the position of the speaker, the justice gets fouled. Thus, what is right and what is wrong is no more objectively decided, but by the influence of who is speaking, how many people support him. Thus if a political party leader takes a stand on an issue , differing from the stand of another political party leader , the eventual idea prevailing and governing the life and destiny of the entire social group, the nation, is no more the justice thing, but the count of fellow-ship of each of the two leaders, whose each fellow-man has been brought up and cultured with the idea of 'Boss is always right'. It is no wonder that we, therefore, have a dynastic political system, whose leaders are born from the progeny, not on the justice-based stand on issues. More is

Why do people hate philosophy http://www.howardism.org/Philosophy/Why_Hate_Philosophy.html

Why people hate Philosophy http://jenessa1889.xanga.com/725012692/why-people-hate-philosophy/