Responses to "Prof. Reddy is a visionary who dreams of the
unification of India and Pakistan "
koustav mukherjee January
22, 2013 at 9:04 am unification of Indian subcontinent has to be done. it is required to
make India
a superpower. Almost 90 percent of our present problems will be shorted out by
the unification of India .
Unification of India
should be done on a urgent basis.
Md. Zahidur khan February
12, 2013 at 3:15 am Unification is a reality and once it will be done must. Fact is that when.
Because partition was done based on some illogical matters and political
failures and for some greedy persons. The result is not good enough for India , Pakistan
and Bangladesh .
So coming generation must reunified for their existence or hoping to be great
power or from realization that unification lead them nothing than chaos.
Some thoughts on Darwin Day : Centre Right India by
Aravindan Neelakandan
Every fundamentalist evangelist, a Wahabhi or an evangelical Christian
or an ISKCON devotee, attacks evolution because it is a strong rebuttal to a
literal interpretation of the scripture. If one part of the scripture –
particularly one as central as the creation of the universe and life – becomes
poetic and symbolic, then so does every other part of the scripture. Every part
becomes subject to interpretation as per the inner spiritual needs of the
individual. That is the last thing that a Wahabbist – or, for that matter, any
religious fundamentalist – needs. If the Garden of Eden is only a poetic
metaphor then what does that make of a hell fire and if I am to spread my
religion by means of the fear of eternal damnation, what does that make of my
evangelical career?
Hence the fervent attempts to reject evolution… Then there are also
fundamentalist of the Indic variety who oppose evolution, on both theological
grounds like ISKCON and because it is a ‘western’ import… Later Jesuit and
anthropologist Teilhard de Chardin speculatively and geologist Vernadsky more
emphatically ponder over the subject of how human evolution is qualitatively
different and give us the concept of ‘noosphere’. And in Sri Aurobindo’s
‘Savitri’, evolution becomes an epic song of spiritual odyssey. In the poetry
of Tamil poet Bharathi are lines which are artistic premonition of Gaia. All
these show what theory of evolution can do to a culture, when embraced as a
worldview and science – it at once broadens the canvas of human understanding
and internalizes the spirituality. Let us just imagine: If every seminary,
every madrassa, every Veda-padasala, were to teach its students evolution, how
would their worldview change?
ABA
Journal - Feb 1962 - Page 155 Vol.
48, No. 2 - Magazine - Full
view In his stimulating book, The Uses of the Past, Herbert Muller
emphasizes the importance of values in these words: Our business as rational beings is
not to argue for what is going to be but to strive for what ought to be . . .
It is this pursuit of truth ...
The Nonstyle of Misknown Nonnaming: A Response to Anthony Paul
Smith’s The Misknown Desire of the Philosophers: On Evaluation and Hermeticism
from An und für sich by joshua ramey
The tense relation between philosophy and hermeticism (increasingly,
in my work, “hermeticism” is a generic term for the “spiritual sciences”) is a
kind of double-cross. There is a kind of conflicting and twice-over short
circuit between necessity and contingency that binds and blocks these two
levels or modes of apprehension. On the one hand, philosophical concepts are
grounded or founded upon a putatively universal appeal, an appeal to what would
be or might be necessary for anyone with reason to assent to. On the other
hand, there is the contingency of the perspective from which any such an appeal
is made. I have argued in the book that philosophers themselves do a lot of
work (and have a lot of work done to themselves) at the level of their
perspective, having it shaped by a distinctive but often suppressed or
unexpressed spirituality, a set of disciplines or practices that inform and
potentially transform their explicit or stated concepts. (This is,
incidentally, what the entire opening of Deleuze’s book Nietzsche and
Philosophy is cryptically about).
I have expressed my criticism of Polanyi’s denial’s that markets were
important features of classical societies, long before they became dominantly
familiar in the modern period… Polanyi wrote during the 2nd world
war and had a pessimistic outlook. Those developing countries
that have and are now breaking through to and beyond the $1 a day income levels
or the bulk of their populations – elites in all human societies known to
mankind have always done better than majority of their populations in all
economic systems – have or are now experiencing the positive effect of markets
on their desperate situations.
These are the consequence of the only Great Transformation that
matters: the raising the living standards of the desperately poor by growing
their market economies. The angst felt by intellectuals in their comfortable
circumstances at what is happening is vulnerable to the question of what do
they suggest that is practical as a workable alternative, given the experience
of actual collapse of 20th-century socialist non-market experiments?
No comments:
Post a Comment