There are grave reasons to worry about Bangladesh today. It seems that we have turned into a blind and heedless people – heedless of the consequences of what we are doing.
Bangladesh was never short of problems, daunting problems. It is an ocean of misery. We have an enormous population of around 150 million, living in an area of a mere fifty-five thousand square miles, a large part of which is rivers and marshes. It is perhaps the most densely populated place in the world. Stark poverty, illiteracy and sickness prevail all around. Its natural environment is frighteningly degraded, and it is frequently devastated by natural calamities. Water, once the most abundant and the most precious of its resources, is almost gone.
However, three things seem the most disturbing at the moment. First, it looks as if the society is disintegrating at a terrible speed. Secondly, an atmosphere of great confusion, uncertainty and crisis of confidence in its most vital institutions has engulfed the country. The third is the crisis of leadership. We have a government that has declared war on peace and harmony within the country, and is bent on systematically emaciating and wiping out all forms of opposition and any manner of criticism. At the same time there is a glaring absence of alternative leadership that can set the country on the right track.
Just pick up any newspaper on any given day, and you will get a fair picture of what has been going on in our society. All kinds of senseless brutality and aggression are taking place in the country. Violence has become endemic; every difference or dispute has to be settled through violence and cruelty. Out of enmity or just envy, people’s crops are damaged, trees are cut down, fish ponds are poisoned. Breaking the law has become a habit and something to boast of. Cheating and shortchanging others have become a part of our daily life. Food adulteration leaves hardly anything we eat untouched. Women have very little or no safety, especially young girls who have to go out to study or work in low-paid jobs. Thugs and musclemen prowl openly and unchecked; there is no defense for the weak and the helpless. It looks as if there is no level to which we cannot sink. Throwing acid on people, maiming and killing have all become a part of our daily life. Even children are killing parents, and brothers killing brothers, Honesty, truthfulness and concern for others have become rare commodities. It is not as if a small number of people are behaving in an insane manner. No, it is true of most people today all over the country. Peaceful and neighborly living has become a Utopian dream. Town or village, it makes no difference. In today’s Bangladesh man has become man’s worst enemy.
Even physicians whose duty it is to provide relief to people in distress, and who are thought to have the most considerate and compassionate souls, behave like hardened criminals. One can easily find evidence of this in what our government doctors in medical colleges, hospitals and health centers have been daily doing. They have aligned themselves with political parties and have imbibed all the vices of the political hoodlums. The Hippocratic oath they took has become just a few empty words. There are daily reports of their despicable behavior to their opponents in the medical profession and to their patients. Who would now have the heart to seek relief in distress from such mentally and morally unsound people? It seems that our society has lost its capacity to produce any better human beings than these.
Any newspaper could easily fill all their pages with daily reports of man’s inhumanity to man in our society. The disease in our hearts is deep and widespread. In this land of frequent natural calamities man suffers far more from his own kind than from nature.
Like its poverty and misery one finds a masjid wherever one looks and hears the adhan five times a day, but there is very little reflection of the spirit of the masjid and the adhan in our daily life. It appears as if we are bent on tearing the society apart and destroying ourselves.
A deep rot has set in the hearts of the Muslim population of this miserable country. I say the ‘Muslim population’ because they form the overwhelming majority and the real backbone of the country. And it was their desire that gave the country its territorial shape in 1947.
To cap it all, our educational institutions have become the worst places in the country. Never mind the academic standard, just think of the environment prevailing there. Think of the daily uncertainty over whether normal business is suddenly going to be violently disrupted. There is hardly a day when some calamity does not strike these institutions, or some unexpected disruption take place. There is student violence and organized terror on the flimsiest of grounds, and sometimes without any ground at all. Pretexts are created to indulge in violence and anarchy. Everything goes; nothing is too mean or too low. Educational institutions have become sanctified places for everything except education and decent behavior. We have turned into such a wretched lot that we cannot even ensure our educational institutions’ remaining open. Can there be any worse disgrace than our inability and indifference to the chaos, indecency, lawlessness and violence that plague our educational institutions?
Am I exaggerating? Do I need to cite examples? I cannot hope to convince those who might be asking for examples. Perhaps I have some qualification to talk about our educational institutions. I spent forty-three years teaching in colleges and universities in Bangladesh.
The saddest thing about our educational institutions is that teachers have entirely lost their moral authority over their students. One crucial reason for this is that a very, very large number of our teachers have become appendages to different political parties, shamelessly and openly, and these people dominate the affairs of the institutions. Their professional integrity has been thrown to the wind. They have lost their souls. They have lost all respect of the students; even their own groups of students do not respect them. At times, they are led by their own group of students; the roles of teacher and student being reversed. Those few who resist the temptation of affiliating themselves with any group are lost in the wilderness. A significant portion of them are so gutless and spineless that they cannot imagine themselves taking any stand for what they think is right and beneficial to education.
The Government is doing its best to accelerate the process of the degeneration of the educational institutions by giving its student wing unlimited license to indulge in whatever it likes, and they are setting new records every day. It is hard to imagine today where all this will end and what it will lead us to.
Then, if one turns one’s attention to the basis on which the state functions, the country’s Constitution, one would feel puzzled. What is the Constitution now? What does Bangladesh as an organized polity stand on? What is the legal framework within which the government is functioning? Can anyone say for sure? After the High Court ruling that the Fifth Amendment is illegal and its subsequent affirmation by the Supreme Court, there is a dangerous vacuum in this most vital area. This is a huge crisis with the terrifying prospect of tearing the country apart.
The crisis has been further aggravated by the wildly conflicting interpretations of the court rulings and its implications, and the ruling party’s childish tinkering with the constitution. Although no one seems to be seriously worried about the frightening threat inherent in the situation, the threat remains. We have generated a whirlwind that may blow so wildly that we will be scattered beyond recognition. The situation is grave and we had better get worried.
When the verdict in the court first came down, some preferred to take it as nothing of any consequence, while others received it as an unexpected boon and gloated at the prospect of a limitless political opportunity. None of them, the foolish ones or the clever ones, chose to see that a vast floodgate was opened and the coming deluge could sweep them away along with everyone in the country. Now the state stands perilously close to capsizing.
Next let us consider the Judiciary. The system is tottering. Can one confidently go to the law courts today to seek justice and redress? All kinds of games are being played by the government to align the judicial system of the country with the political aims of the party in power. The result has been a huge erosion in people’s trust and confidence in our law courts. If trust and confidence vanish, what remains of the judicial system? This does not bode well for the country and its people.
How about the police? If you are not somebody in the ruling party or do not have some powerful connection or are not wealthy and cannot escape from the country, you had better keep as far away from the police as possible. Never mind their incompetence, corruption and incivility. They are now another overly active wing of the ruling party, supported by the people’s money, to punish anyone the party does not like and wants to teach a lesson or eliminate. The police have evolved into an ugly and brutal arm of the government. People are being harassed and put behind bars on the flimsiest of pretexts and trumped up charges, or even without any charges. Putting people on remand and torturing them to extract a confession is now a common practice. In the service of the ruling party the police can do anything with impunity. With the police and other special agencies for torture the government has monopolized terror to itself.
The civil service fares no better. Granted, this country never did have an honest, competent, caring and decent administrative apparatus. Never in our short history could an ordinary citizen hope to get his due in the government offices without either bribing or suffering harassment and indignity. Still, though, there was some semblance of a working structural organization. But no longer.
The civil service has been dealt a crippling blow by turning it into another party organ. A condition has been created in which only sycophants can flourish. The state’s administrators are busy competing in servility to the ruling masters and spying on their fellows. Competence has lost all meaning and impartiality is an unforgivable sin. There is no time or need for them to administer the business of the state or take care of the interests of the people efficiently and wisely. Good government is no longer relevant.
Meanwhile the field level governance of the country has been taken over by the Student League and the Jubo League, a set of wild young men and women whose hallmark is indecency, lawlessness and brutality. One can have a glimpse of their character by observing what they do to their own peers in disagreement. If they can be so nasty and cruel to their own people, how will they behave with others, especially their political opponents.
Another vital institution of the state is the Election Commission. The commission has done everything to discredit itself and has lost the average citizen’s confidence in its good sense, neutrality and fairness.
The two defining characteristics of the present government leaders is their capacity to do irreparable damage through their indecent and irresponsible utterances, and to distort and dislocate all rules and systems to serve their selfish designs. They are imperious, haughty, arrogant, reckless and at times ludicrous. They daily sow division and hatred in the country and vitiate the atmosphere in our society. Awami League shows its genius best in the politics of agitation: even in power they act as if they are still the opposition. Naturally, this fosters an atmosphere in which all unruly and chaotic elements in society are inspired and encouraged.
From government ministers down to small-time local leaders, this party talks as if they own the country and its people, and as if law and justice are subject to their whim. It is as if other people in this country are allowed to live on Awami League property, with its generous permission. Any day now we might need to ask their permission to breathe the air. Fascism finds a natural home in such minds as theirs.
As they think that the country belongs to them, they feel it is only natural for them to wish to perpetuate their rule. And to that end they will say or do anything. There is nothing they would not say to malign their political opponents, or those they do not like. They would go to any length to punish any voice of criticism. One glaring example of their fury can be found in their vendetta against Amar Desh and Mahmudur Rahman. Another is the case of those who opposed the Government’s bid to evict a huge number of people to build a new airport. The latest in the long list is the case of Dr. Yunus of Grameen Bank. There are many more examples, but the list would be too long.
In today’s Bangladesh, law does not follow its own course; it follows the course of those behind the law. One can be arrested without a warrant and put behind bars indefinitely without any charges being brought; one can be put in jail on trumped up charges and if freed after trial, re-arrested right at the gates of the jail with fresh charges or none at all. The compliant police are only too ready to manufacture the most ridiculous and most flimsy of charges. There is also a whole army of Awami League workers all over the country whose function is to file cases against those the Party wants to punish or harass. They want to break the spirit of any dissenting voice and teach everyone else through these examples. Kidnapping, torturing and killing by the various security and law enforcing organs have become routine.
Because of such political leaders, Bangladesh, an already strife-torn country, is facing far more strife, and any prospect of stability, peace and order in the country is receding further and further. They are using democracy only to subvert it. Their conduct is vitiating even the social atmosphere to an extent that neighborly living is becoming difficult and in many cases impossible, thus accelerating the process of social disintegration. What good for the country can be expected from such brazenly and blatantly partisan and reckless politicians?
Finally, in the hands of the government Bangladesh is turning into a happy hunting ground for some powerful foreign powers. In the name of cooperation, development and fighting terrorism, the government is allowing India and the US unlimited access to the country which they will be able to use any time against the country or any section of its people. In fact, Bangladesh is compromising on its independence and giving precedence to the interests of others rather than its own. Bangladesh is on its way to losing its freedom. A most ominous prospect!
Warnings against this are being voiced, but the government is bent on pursuing its policy of handing over the country to their powerful foreign backers in the hope that these powers will ensure Awami League’s continued stay in power and help eliminate its political opponents.
The question now is how long can Awami League go on behaving this way? If the turbulent and painful history of Bangladesh is any guide, the answer is not very long. The disturbing prospect for the country is that their exit is not likely to be smooth, to say the least, and the result will be that Bangladesh will pass from one crisis to another, perhaps an even deeper one. It is also not at all unlikely that Awami League will be devoured by the monsters it is breeding. But the fear remains very real that as it goes down it will take the country with it.
The exit of the present rulers cannot ensure happier days for Bangladesh. Awami League alone cannot take the full blame for all that is wrong in our nation; other parties have also been tried and found sadly deficient. Within the existing fund of political and religious leaders there does not seem to be any individual or group with the vision or competence to bring about the regeneration of society and politics needed to survive and move ahead in confidence, peace and harmony.
I mention religious leaders because Bangladesh’s problems are not merely political, they are very largely spiritual. Otherwise why is there so much senseless violence, cruelty and oppression totally disconnected with politics in the daily lives of its men and women? Why is there so much inflicting of harm and pain on each other? It must be remembered that governments can behave badly only in an atmosphere of general degeneration of the people. Thus, more than political regeneration, the people need spiritual regeneration.
The politicians only aggravate our pre-existing disease. The pervasive atmosphere of grinding poverty and misery makes it easy for them to do so. They wield enormous power and influence through their capacity to distribute favors and funds, and to intimidate and inflict suffering. And for most politicians the easiest way to rule is by corrupting human nature.
We have an abundant crop of hugely vocal patriots. But their patriotism apparently does not require them to have any concern for their fellow human beings. On the contrary, their definition of patriotism seems to be an obligation to inflict needless pain and humiliation on others. Watching them, it would not be unfair to remember the 18th-century English writer Dr. Johnson’s observation that patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrels.
Nice and kind people who want social peace, harmony and justice are a tiny, disorganized and inarticulate minority. They hardly have any impact on those among whom they live. They put one in mind of a fast disappearing breed, or a few emaciated lambs surrounded by far too many foxes, foxes of extraordinary cunning and vitality.
Bangladesh has turned into a land where there is no moral outrage. Anything goes, because everything can be tolerated. We have forgotten to expect anything better from anyone, including our own selves.
Perhaps I can give just a few examples from personal experience. There is a street in Dhaka where every building on both sides has encroached on public land. This was found out recently when the city corporation did a survey prior to making repairs to the street. Among the hundreds of house owners not a single exception was found. These are not poor and illiterate slum dwellers, mind you, but wealthy and educated citizens. What does it say about us? I cannot find any appropriate word to describe us.
I can hardly forget what someone once told me, someone who is a university professor as well as the imam of a masjid in his locality. He comes from a family that owns much agricultural property and grows sugarcane, from which they produce a large amount of akher gur. Sitting in the masjid after the prayer one day I asked him if they also use any chemical to make the gur look white and thus more attractive to the ignorant buyer. He answered yes. Then when I mentioned to him that it is harmful to the health, this is exactly what he said: “We don’t do it to the gur we ourselves eat.”
A few weeks ago I was listening to a lecture of a university educated man in a very responsible position. I liked what he said and decided to talk to him. At one point I wanted to know where he lived. Incidentally, I also had some need to know about the people in that locality and about the law and order situation there. The answer I received from him was that the people there are not ‘intelligent enough’ to indulge in crime. My heart sank.
Let me end these examples with one question. How many men and women are there in Bangladesh who have not falsified their birth date on their documents, their school and madrasah certificates, their identity cards? After what we do, see and hear every day, it is very hard to keep alive any hope for Bangladesh.
Of all the problems, the gravest at this moment is the prospect of the total collapse of our society. We hardly realize how vital society is for human beings. For human beings to live together in some kind of order and human fellowship, the first and most important condition is a functioning society with norms and values. State and government are only secondary. Yet hardly anyone pays any attention to this alarming disintegration of our society.
A society can consider itself lucky if it has in it a set of wise people whose allegiance is to truth and what is right, not to any party or group. They will not hesitate to point out the most unpleasant or painful truths and warn others where and how things are going wrong. They do so out of pain and care, not out of anger or contempt. The number of such people will always be small but they are essential for the well being of any society. They might look odd in the midst of others but these are ‘the saving remnant’ of any society. The society that can allow space for them and is willing to listen to them is fortunate. Is there such a saving remnant in our country?
The only way Bangladesh can get out of its present suicidal course is through a profound spiritual and moral regeneration of its people, especially the Muslims. Nothing else is going to work. The means of our salvation is there. Will we recognize and grasp it?
The besetting sin of our time is the tendency to see all human problems in political and economic terms. The most easily forgotten truth today is that at the heart of even political and economic problems lies a spiritual problem. Unless and until these problems are seriously addressed with understanding and care, human problems will continue to spread and intensify. Mere political and economic solutions will only cause them to re-surface elsewhere in a different shape or color.
(Writer’s note: I would have preferred to write this in Bangla but I have neither the keyboard nor skill to type it in Bangla.)
Our mother of all problem is, we have divorce our God from our every day life affairs but kept in the mosque only. Meaning, when we are in the mosque we are faithful but when we are out side the mosque, we could be a lier, criminal, murderer, hypocrite, and can curse even God. Because of our superficial belief, neither we are able to serve God properly nor we are able to enjoy this worldly life. I think first of all we have to think deeply is there any relation between life and after life. If there is none then our job will be very easy. If there is any relationship then we have to find out how to build that relationship.We all agree that life is temporary and life after is permanent. Also we know to get the mercy from God in the life after all of our actions in this life has to be based on His command. But if we deeply observe our actions what we see?? All of the actions we take in this life are very contradictory with God. Some times we knowingly takes anti God actions thinking after hajj it will be removed. Again we are deceiving ourselves. Our hypocritical behavior is the prove that God is in our control. But we suppose to be under God control.
A Muslim can not be a part time believer and part time non believer. In any society there has to be serious accountability to eliminate corruption. First people need to culture about the accountability of life after and secondly we have to establish serious accountability in this life. At the end our way of thinking and the view regarding life after needs to be change.When we say permanent life that conviction can not be based on superficial thinking has to be based on enlighten thinking.
50194
২
দুরদ্বীপ থেকে দুরদ্বীপবাসি লিখেছেন,
০৮ মার্চ ২০১১; সকাল ১১:২১
প্রবন্ধটি পড়লাম।মোটামুটি ভালো লাগলো।
লেখক যে সমস্যার কথা বলেছেন তা ঠিক আছে। তবে সমাধান হিসেবে যে কথাগুলো বলেছেন, বিশেষকরে শেষের আগের প্যারাতে তার সাথে একমত হতে পারছি না। উনি বলেছেনঃThe only way Bangladesh can get out of its present suicidal course is through a profound spiritual and moral regeneration of its people, especially the Muslims. Nothing else is going to work. The means of our salvation is there. Will we recognize and grasp it?
গভীর আধ্যাত্মিক আর নৈতিক পুনর্জন্ম যদি একমাত্র উপায় হয়, তবে সেটা সম্ভব নয় কারন প্রথমটি পরকালীন, দ্বিতীয়টি আপেক্ষিক।আর দুইটির মাঝে সম্পর্ক শক্ত নয়। আধ্যাত্মিক না হয়েও নৈতিক হওয়া যায়।
আর, শুধু মুসলিমের কথা কেন বলা হলো বুঝতে পারছি না।অন্যান্য ধর্মালম্বীর কি লেখকের কথা মতো আধ্যাত্মিক আর নৈতিক হবার দরকার নেই।
বাস্তবতা বিবর্জিত সমাধানে মুক্তি নেই। একবিংশ শতাব্দীতে এসে যে পুঁজিবাদের ধাবমান উত্থান এবং যার লেলিহান শিখায় পুড়ছে পুরো পৃথিবী, যার শিকার আমাদের বাংলাদেশ- তার মাঝে বাস করে শতভাগ আধ্যাত্মিক হওয়া সম্ভব কি না সে প্রশ্ন দাঁড়িয়ে আছে সামনে।
শেষে বলি- আমাদের সমাজের যে পর্বতপ্রমাণ সমস্যা তা শুধু আধ্যাত্মিকতা আর নৈতিকতার গরহাজিরের কারনে নয়। এর সাথে আঁঠার মত জড়িয়ে আছে শ্রেণী বৈষম্য,
অর্থব্যবস্থা, প্রাণসংহারি রাজনীতি। এই ইন্সটিটিউশনগুলোকে সংস্কার না করে শুধু আধ্যাত্মিক আর নৈতিক হলে সব সমস্যার সমাধান হবে না।
লেখককে ধন্যবাদ।
50438
৩
USA থেকে Afzal Khan লিখেছেন,
০৮ মার্চ ২০১১; রাত ১১:১৬
Dear দুরদ্বীপ থেকে দুরদ্বীপবাসি,
First of all using English, does not mean i am disrespecting Bangla rather it is my inability. At the same time my English is also not that standard. Please do not get me wrong, just focus on the idea only.
With due respect, please allow me to raise few question's related to your comment. "আধ্যাত্মিক না হয়েও নৈতিক হওয়া যায়"-----Generally speaking, you are absolutely right. Now question will arise, are we on the same page regarding the definition of আধ্যাত্মিক and নৈতিক??? If not, then possibility of disagreement regarding আধ্যাত্মিক and নৈতিক must arise in our discussion. I think it will be very hard to judge an individual , how far he or she is আধ্যাত্মিক and নৈতিক ?? Human being born with instinct (natural behavior) including intellect not as a আধ্যাত্মিক and নৈতিক. It is, his or her enlightened thinking, looking around the nature based on deep conviction ( with out any shade of doubt) embrace specific Religion. Question could be ask, when a person embrace any Religion what is the comprehensive meaning of that embrace?? Is this just a oath or commitment ( just lip service) or responsibility with accountability in this life and life here after or surrendering my wishes totally to the will of unseen power or obeying His command as an individual and societal level. I think it is a combination of all. So আধ্যাত্মিক and নৈতিক cannot be separated from natural point of view. A আধ্যাত্মিক person will go to his or her creator to build his নৈতিক. At the same time a Godless person also in some extent surrender to nature and obey nature completely. In fact Godless person is referring to nature tactfully avoiding the word Creator. একবিংশ শতাব্দীতে এসে যে পুঁজিবাদের ধাবমান উত্থান এবং যার লেলিহান শিখায় পুড়ছে পুরো পৃথিবী, যার শিকার আমাদের বাংলাদেশ- তার মাঝে বাস করে শতভাগ আধ্যাত্মিক হওয়া সম্ভব কি না সে প্রশ্ন দাঁড়িয়ে আছে সামনে। EXCELLENT observation. You are 100% right. I think this should be our common discussion. Writer just presented his solution. We also try our best to present solution based on our understanding. Any presentation with out solution will not going to educate us. Criticism regarding any solution is always healthy if there is alternative. May be i am not qualified to offer any solution but nothing wrong to try. Difference of opinion does not mean invalid. অর্থব্যবস্থা, প্রাণসংহারি রাজনীতি, শ্রেণী বৈষম্য, পুঁজিবাদের ধাবমান উত্থান. All you mentioned are the symptom of the main problem. Only Afghanistan produces 600 billions of drugs. Yes they should be blamed. But who are the buyers?? How these drugs go to the world market?? People are fighting around the globe, and we are blaming a specific religious people for that but we never blame those who are producing these arms and ammunitions.Now superpower decides what is good and bad. Now all their good is coming from their নৈতিক.I think there is no half truth or half false. Same way solution for the man kind can not be half from God and half from human. Either God or human completely.Time has come to decide which one we should adopt.
আর, শুধু মুসলিমের কথা কেন বলা হলো বুঝতে পারছি না।অন্যান্য ধর্মালম্বীর কি লেখকের কথা মতো আধ্যাত্মিক আর নৈতিক হবার দরকার নেই। I think he is convinced about his product. Nothing wrong if he wants to promote his product only, as long as he is not stopping other product to promote.
50479
৪
দুরদ্বিপ থেকে দুরদ্বীপবাসি লিখেছেন,
০৯ মার্চ ২০১১; রাত ০১:২৬
আফজাল সাহেব, ধন্যবাদ। সুন্দর আলোচনার জন্য।
একটা নির্দিষ্ট সময় থেকে ব্লগে আর ফেসবুকে বাংলায় লেখার পন করেছি।তবে যারা বাংলা বোঝে না, তাদের জন্য ইংরেজি বলার বা লেখার চেষ্টা করি। সারাক্ষণ চারপাশে ইংরেজির চাপে যখন মন টা বিষিয়ে উঠে, তখন আমার দুঃখিনী বর্ণমালার কাছে ফিরে আসি। শান্তি পাই। বাংলার প্রতি আপনার সম্মান আমার ভালো লেগেছে।
প্রায় ই আপনার প্রতিক্রিয়া পড়ি এই ব্লগে।
প্রসঙ্গে আসি---
আপনার সাথে আমার চিন্তার খুব বেশি ফারাক নেই। একটা জায়গায় এসে একটু গোলমাল হলো বটে;তবে তা শুভ লক্ষন।গোলে-মালে পিরিত হতেও পারে!
ওই জায়গাটা হলো-আধ্যাত্মিকতা আর নৈতিকতা নিয়ে।আমার মন্তব্যে আমি এ বিষয়ে বলেছিঃ প্রথমটি পরকালীন, দ্বিতীয়টি আপেক্ষিক।আর দুইটির মাঝে সম্পর্ক শক্ত নয়। আধ্যাত্মিক না হয়েও নৈতিক হওয়া যায়। আর আপনি বল্লেনঃ
A আধ্যাত্মিক person will go to his or her creator to build his নৈতিক. At the same time a Godless person also in some extent surrender to nature and obey nature completely. In fact Godless person is referring to nature tactfully avoiding the word Creator.
এখানে একটা সামান্য পার্থক্য আছে-সেটা হলো-একজন মানুষ জখন আধ্যাত্মিক হয়, সে বিশ্বাস করে তখন একটা ধর্মে, একজন স্রষ্টায় , এবং যদি 'রিভিল্ড স্ক্রিপচার' থাকে তবে পরকালে বিশ্বাস করে। ইসলাম, ক্রীস্টান, ইহুদি ধর্মের কথা স্মর্তব্য। আর এদের নৈতিকতা সূত্র ধর্মগ্রন্থজাত। যেমন আমাদের পবিত্র কোরান।এই গ্রন্থে ইহকালের চেয়ে পরকাল কে বেশী গুরুত্ব দেয়া হয়েছে। যারা এই যে একটা প্রসেসের মধ্য দিয়ে নৈতিক হয় তাদের আসল উদ্দেশ্য পরকালীন শান্তি, মোদ্দাকথায় জান্নাতের বাসনা, আর জাহান্নাম থেকে মুক্তি।
আর দ্বিতীয় যে ধারাটির কথা বলেন, প্রকৃতির শোভা দেখে যারা একটা প্রাকৃতিক ধর্মে বিশ্বাস করে, যাকে আমরা বলতে পারি -প্যান্তিজম-(ওয়ার্ডসওয়ার্থের -ইম্মরটালিটি ওড-কবিতায় সুন্দর ভাবে দেয়া আছে), তারা কিন্তু পরকালে বিশ্বাস করে না।তাই উনাদের নৈতিকতার সাথে পরকালীন জান্নাত -জাহান্নামের সম্পর্ক নেই, যার কারনে আধ্যাত্মিকতার ধর্মের সাথে একজন নৈতিক এর প্রাকৃতিক ধর্মের মাঝে কোনো সম্পর্ক নেই। তাহলে প্রশ্ন, সে নৈতিক কেন? তার লাভ কী? তার লাভ, মানবপ্রেমে, আত্মার প্রশান্তিতে আর নির্মল মানবিক আনন্দে।
তাই আমি বলেছি, আধ্যাত্মিক না হয়েও নৈতিক হওয়া যায়।
আর আপনি বলেছেনঃHuman being born with instinct (natural behavior) including intellect not as a আধ্যাত্মিক and নৈতিক.
কথাটার খুবই চমতকার কিন্তু তার একটা দার্শনিক ব্যাখ্যা আছে। তবে এক বাক্যে বলতে গেলে- ব্রিটিশ ইম্পিরিসিস্ট জন লক আপনার কথা মানতে রাজি না। উনি বলেছেন- মানুষ যখন জন্ম নেয়, তখন তার মন টা থাকে খালি, শাদা কাগজের মতো। পৃথিবীতে এসে তার পারিপার্শ্বিক অভিজ্ঞতার( সেন্স পারসেপশান) উপর নির্ভর করে তার জ্ঞান।অর্থাৎ উনি আপনার কথানুযায়ী 'ডিভাইন এনডাউমেন্ট' কে অস্বীকার করছেন।
যাই হোক, অন্য একদিন বিস্তারিত হবে ইনশাল্লাহ। ভালো থাকুন।
50485
৫
USA থেকে Afzal Khan লিখেছেন,
১০ মার্চ ২০১১; সকাল ০৯:০৮
Dear দুরদ্বিপ থেকে দুরদ্বীপবাসি,
With due respect.
এখানে একটা সামান্য পার্থক্য আছে-সেটা হলো-একজন মানুষ জখন আধ্যাত্মিক হয়, সে বিশ্বাস করে তখন একটা ধর্মে, একজন স্রষ্টায় , এবং যদি 'রিভিল্ড স্ক্রিপচার' থাকে তবে পরকালে বিশ্বাস করে। ইসলাম, ক্রীস্টান, ইহুদি ধর্মের কথা স্মর্তব্য। আর এদের নৈতিকতা সূত্র ধর্মগ্রন্থজাত। যেমন আমাদের পবিত্র কোরান।এই গ্রন্থে ইহকালের চেয়ে পরকাল কে বেশী গুরুত্ব দেয়া হয়েছে। যারা এই যে একটা প্রসেসের মধ্য দিয়ে নৈতিক হয় তাদের আসল উদ্দেশ্য পরকালীন শান্তি, মোদ্দাকথায় জান্নাতের বাসনা, আর জাহান্নাম থেকে মুক্তি।
Thank you very much for your enlightened response. Really you are a gentleman and a man of knowledge. Also your expression in Bangla is very rich and i do appreciate. ..From your above explanation, now it is very clear to me and I thank you again.--------As i mention in my previous comment related to your point-----"আধ্যাত্মিক না হয়েও নৈতিক হওয়া যায়"-----My response was also--------Generally( I meant from non Islamic point of view ) speaking, you are absolutely right. Now question will arise, are we on the same page regarding the definition of আধ্যাত্মিক and নৈতিক??? If not, then possibility of disagreement regarding আধ্যাত্মিক and নৈতিক must arise in our discussion.--------I think it was clear to you. যার কারনে আধ্যাত্মিকতার ধর্মের সাথে একজন নৈতিক এর প্রাকৃতিক ধর্মের মাঝে কোনো সম্পর্ক নেই।You are absolutely correct with out any doubt. তাহলে প্রশ্ন, সে নৈতিক কেন? তার লাভ কী? তার লাভ, মানবপ্রেমে, আত্মার প্রশান্তিতে আর নির্মল মানবিক আনন্দে। To my understanding, these are all instinctual behavior and instinct is pushing that individual to behave that way. So there is no difference between a believer and non believer in the matter of instinct. As i understand and convinced, instinct has given by the creator to every human being and human being has no control over instinct. So, satisfying some bodies instinctual behavior is pleasing God. Now if some body does not want believe in Creator that is completely that person's personal business and i have no problem to respect that view. তাই আমি বলেছি, আধ্যাত্মিক না হয়েও নৈতিক হওয়া যায় --- If i understood you correctly, let me repeat again. Are you saying instinctual behavior has nothing to do with believing in Creator?? From non believing point of view ,I think it is correct. But, question believing in Mother Nature, is not surrendering to unseen power?? To me there is no difference between believing in Creator or Mother Nature. It is just different words. তবে এক বাক্যে বলতে গেলে- ব্রিটিশ ইম্পিরিসিস্ট জন লক আপনার কথা মানতে রাজি না। উনি বলেছেন- মানুষ যখন জন্ম নেয়, তখন তার মন টা থাকে খালি, শাদা কাগজের মতো।Very true. Islam says, when baby is born , like Masum ( No accountability and responsibility up to some label) পৃথিবীতে এসে তার পারিপার্শ্বিক অভিজ্ঞতার( সেন্স পারসেপশান) উপর নির্ভর করে তার জ্ঞান।অর্থাৎ উনি আপনার কথানুযায়ী 'ডিভাইন এনডাউমেন্ট' কে অস্বীকার করছেন। I think i did not mention about 'ডিভাইন এনডাউমেন্ট 'Let me clear myself-- .Human being born with instinct (natural behavior) including intellect not as a আধ্যাত্মিক and নৈতিক. It is, his or her enlightened thinking, looking around the nature based on deep conviction ( with out any shade of doubt) embrace specific Religion. -------------To endow means to provide with a special power or attribute. Divine endowment means that God has provided human being or made provision for us some special power or attribute. Islam view human as the best creature with instinct, intellect and Quraan as guide. All the prophets are the messenger of God with special power.
According to John Locke The British philosopher( 1632—1704) “ We all can have knowledge of God’s existence by attending to the quality of the evidence available to us, primarily the evidence from miracles . Our moral obligations, says Locke, are divine commands. We can learn about those obligations both by God’s revealing them to us and by our natural capacities to discover natural laws. Thus, knowledge of mathematics and ethics may be firmly establish, particularly as these subjects involve relations between ideas, and thus make no claims about matters of real existence. When it comes to knowledge of real existence, though, ultimately there are only two certainties’ Concerning God’s existence, his proof is a cosmological-type argument. From the certainty of our own existence that of the existence of God immediately follows. A person knows intuitively that he is “something that actually exists.” Next a person knows with intuitive certainty, that “bare nothing can no more produce any real being, than it can be equal to two right angles.” it is, therefore, “an evident demonstration, that from eternity there has been something. And since all the powers of all beings must be traced to this eternal Being, it follows that it is the most powerful, as well as the most knowing, that is, God. Eternal and alone can produce “thinking, perceiving beings, such as we find ourselves to be” . Locke here assumes, without question, the validity of the causal principle even beyond the range of possible experience’s: the existence of ourselves (by intuition) and that of God (by demonstration).
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)an enlightened thinker born in England become an American patriot. In his famous worksare common sense and The Rights of Man summarizes his religious views---- I believe in one God, and no more, and I hope happiness beyond this life..
Thank you and forgive me if there is any unintentional any mistake.Yes you are right we are very close in our thoughts.
50589
৬
দুরদ্বীপ থেকে দুরদ্বীপবাসি লিখেছেন,
১০ মার্চ ২০১১; দুপুর ১২:২৪
আফজাল ভাই,ধন্যবাদ।
আপনার সুন্দর জবাবের জন্য।
আপনার লিখা পড়ে ভালো লাগলো কারন, আমার মনে হয়েছে আপনি স্টাডি করেন। এটা ভালো আমাদের সভার জন্য।জ্ঞান কোনো নির্দিষ্ট মতবাদের দূর্গ নয়।
যেহেতু, ব্যক্তিগত পড়ালেখার চাপে ন্যুজ হয়ে আছি তাই আমার কথাগুলো অতি সংক্ষেপে বলার চেষ্টা করছি।
জন লক নিয়ে আপনার আলোচনাটা ভালো। তবে, অনেক সময় আমরা ইন্টারনেট থেকে পুরোটা পাই না। আমরা যেটা পাই সেটা হয়তো অসঠিক, অথবা, খণ্ডিত সত্য।ব্যাতিক্রম আছে, মানি।
আমার কথাঃ
১।জন লক একজন ইমপিরিসিস্ট।এই ঘরানার দার্শনিকরা ইন্দ্রিয়ানুভুতির বাইরে কোনো কিছুকে জ্ঞান মনে করে না। এরিস্টটলও এই ঘরানার।তবে এদের কি স্রস্টা নেই? উত্তর-আছে। তবে সেটা ক্রিষ্টানদের গড না, আমরা যেভাবে আল্লাহ কে বিশ্বাস করি সেটাও না। এই গড টা ওয়রশিপ বা ইবাদতের জন্য নয়। এটা তাদের বিশ্ব সৃষ্টি
সম্পর্কে দার্শনিক ব্যাখ্যা প্রদানের জন্য 'ফার্স্ট কজ' হিসেবে রেখেছে।তাই এটার সাথে
ধর্মীয় নৈতিকতার সম্পর্ক নেই।আমি জন লকের কথা বলেছি উনার 'ট্যাবুলা রাসা' সূত্রের ইঙ্গিত করে।
২। আপনি লিখেছেনঃTo my understanding, these are all instinctual behavior and instinct is pushing that individual to behave that way. So there is no difference between a believer and non believer in the matter of instinct. As i understand and convinced, instinct has given by the creator to every human being and human being has no control over instinct. So, satisfying some bodies instinctual behavior is pleasing God. Now if some body does not want believe in Creator that is completely that person's personal business and i have no problem to respect that view.-- এটা পড়ে যতটুকু বুঝতে পেরেছি(কিছু বাক্য বুঝি নি,আমার বুঝার সীমাবদ্ধতা অথবা আপনার অসতর্ক বাক্যগঠনপ্রমাদ)
তাতে বলি- এই অনুভূতিগুলো জন্মপূর্ব বা প্রি নেটাল ইন্সটিক্ট এর ফল নয়। এগুলো মানুষ আইডিয়া আর ইম্প্রেসন এর মধ্যদিয়ে অভিজ্ঞতার ফল। একটা ছোট উদাহরণ-
একটা বাচ্চা সহজেই আগুনে হাত দিতে পারে, মানুষকে ছুরি দিয়ে আঘাত করতে পারে, সাপ দেখলে ভয় পায় না, কারন তার অভিজ্ঞতা ওই সময় পর্যন্ত ম্যাচিউর হয় নি। যার শুরু জন্মোত্তর,জন্মপূর্ব নয়।
৩।আমাদের আলোচনা- আধ্যাত্মিকতাবিহীন নৈতিকতা সম্ভব কি না। আমি বলছি সম্ভব। আসলেই সম্ভব। ধর্মের সাথে নৈতিকতার সম্পর্ক আছে কি? কতটুকু? ধর্ম কি নৈতিক বানায়, না ধার্মিক/আধ্যাত্মিক বানায়? তা বুঝতে হলে ধর্ম কী আর নৈতিকতা কী সেটা আমাদের জানতে হবে। এটা একটা বিস্তর পাঠ দাবি করে।সেটা এখানে অসম্ভব হেতু সেদিকে যাব না। আফজাল ভাই, আমার এই জবাবটা একেবারেই নির্মোহ,অব্জেক্টিব। একজন মুসলিমের নৈতিকতার মূল উতস আল কোরান। কোরান যে টা মানা করেছে আমরা তা করিনা ,যেটা করতে বলেছে তা করি।কেন? কারন, কোরান শরীফে যার আদেশ আছে, তা ভালো, যা নিষেধ তা খারাপ। একজন মুসলিম তাই মনে করে।স্বাভাবিক।
একটা উদাহরণ-
আমি মুসলিম। আমি ক্ষুধার্থকে খাবার দেই। কেন দেই? কারণ এটা ভালো কাজ।
এখন প্রশ্নঃ ভালো কেন? আল্লাহ বলেছেন বলে ভালো? না কি আমাদের কাছে ভালো মনে হয় বলেই আল্লাহ বলেছেন।
আফজাল ভাই, আমি কিন্তু দর্শনের ছাত্র নই, ইংরেজি সাহিত্যের ছাত্র।তবে দর্শন আর ইতিহাস আমাকে তাড়িয়ে বেড়ায়,সাপুড়ে যেভাবে একটি সাপকে । তাই আমার বোঝার ভুল হতে পারে, শুদ্ধ করে দিলে বাধিত হবো।প্লেটু'র রিপাবলিকে উল্লিখিত ব্যাপারে সক্রেটিস হাজার বছর আগে এই প্রশ্নটি উঠিয়েছেন। সে যাই হোক---
এবার যদি উত্তরে বলি, আল্লাহ বলেছেন বলে ক্ষুধার্তকে খাওয়ানোটা ভালো।কিন্তু, আল্লাহ যদি বলতেন--ক্ষুধার্তকে আহার দিবে না।সে না খেয়ে মরোক- তবে কি আল্লাহ বলেছেন অজুহাতে ওটাকেও ভালো বলতাম???? যদি বলি হ্যা, তবে সে তো হবে 'আরটবিট্রারি গড' (নাউজুবিল্লাহ)। সে টা আমরা মানবো না।
এখন যদি বলি, আল্লাহ বলেছেন ক্ষুধার্তকে খাওয়াতে , কারণ সেটা ভালো।যদি তাই হয়, তবে কোনটা ভালো কোনটা খারাপ সে টার সাথে ঐশি বানীর সম্পর্ক নেই।ভালো খারাপ নির্ধারণ করি আমরা। কীভাবে করি সেটা ভিন্ন ডিস্কোর্স।
যেহেতু নৈতিকতার সাধারন অর্থ- ভালো-খারাপ নির্ণয়ের মা্নদণ্ড, তাই বলি, ধর্মে বিশ্বাস না করেও নৈতিক হওয়া যায়।
যদি কিছু মনে না করেন, আমি আপনাকে একটি বই রেকমেন্ড করব। আমি কিছুদিন আগে ব্যাক টু ব্যাক শেষ করেছি। খুবই হুকিং এন্ড গ্রিপিং। বইটা হলো-
The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels and Stuart Rachels (2010)যেহেতু আপনি আমেরিকাতে আছেন, তাই কালেক্ট করতে সমস্যা হবে না। আমাজন এ পাবেন। যদি তাও না পান- আমাকে মেইল আই ডি দিলে স্কান করে পাঠিয়ে দেবো।
আবার বলি, আপনার প্রতিক্রিয়া আমার ভালো লেগেছে। বলেছিলাম-গোলেমালে পিরিত হতেও পারে...
ভালো থাকুন।
50600
৭
USA থেকে Afzal Khan লিখেছেন,
১১ মার্চ ২০১১; রাত ০১:২২
Dear দুরদ্বিপ থেকে দুরদ্বীপবাসি,
With due respect,
Please ignore this part----------------“instinct is pushing that individual to behave that way.” I am very sorry and thank you for correcting me. Please read--------
There is no difference between a believer and non believer in the matter of instinct. As i understood and convinced, instinct has given by the creator to every human being and human being has no control over instinct. CORRECTION So, satisfying some bodies instinctual behavior according to the command of God is pleasing God.
Please allow me to reconstruct my though-------What I meant, when a human is born ( as a baby ) born with instincts( worship, preserving human race and survival) and biological needs(hunger, thrust, sleeping, rest). The instinct of worship manifests itself in the human’s drive to worship something, whether it be the creator, glorify idols or false deities, or creation itself. The instinct of preserving the human race appears in the sexual inclination and parenting ( if we observe , we will notice this instinct also found in the homosexuality concepts ). The survival instinct is realized in ownership, selfishness/ selflessness, the desire to dominate, fear, and curiosity, etc. No doubt these instinct and biological needs must be satisfied and these needs are satisfied by the behavior or actions of a person. This fulfillment can be carried out in either, my way or by the way of the Creator.
একটা বাচ্চা সহজেই আগুনে হাত দিতে পারে, মানুষকে ছুরি দিয়ে আঘাত করতে পারে, সাপ দেখলে ভয় পায় না, কারন তার অভিজ্ঞতা ওই সময় পর্যন্ত ম্যাচিউর হয় নি।
Yes , you are very correct. Initial stage of a human. But we have to agree that all the senses is there when human born. Meaning all the ingredients of a human is there. What I call instinct is there. Only differences is in the capacities. . So far no disagreement.
আমাদের আলোচনা- আধ্যাত্মিকতাবিহীন নৈতিকতা সম্ভব কি না। আমি বলছি সম্ভব। আসলেই সম্ভব.
Absulutely right.
ধর্মের সাথে নৈতিকতার সম্পর্ক আছে কি? কতটুকু? ধর্ম কি নৈতিক বানায়, না ধার্মিক/আধ্যাত্মিক বানায়? তা বুঝতে হলে ধর্ম কী আর নৈতিকতা কী সেটা আমাদের জানতে হবে। Yes---
Again my dear, from Islamic point of view , to build Islamic নৈতিক I have to go to islam. From other point of view I do not need to go to any religion to build নৈতিক. Thank you for your suggestion “The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels and Stuart Rachels (2010)”I will try to get one and let you know after studying it.
Let me tell you, you are educating me a lot. Some times it is very hard to explain the idea in a short period of time. Also it is very hard to transfer from one language to another one. Believe me or not, philosophy is not absolute. It is also build on reality. Reality of the previous philosopher related to knowledge is different from current philosopher. So I respect all kind of knowledge but to build my conviction I do research. When ever any idea contradict with my faith rather I would like to stick to my faith based conclusion. Let us finish here. As you said we are not far.
জন লক একজন ইমপিরিসিস্ট
Empiricist, one who relies on observation and experiment. It is fine with me. But I am not going to agree in all respect.
এই ঘরানার দার্শনিকরা ইন্দ্রিয়ানুভুতির বাইরে কোনো কিছুকে জ্ঞান মনে করে না।
I think, to understand his concept we have to define what knowledge is. Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject; (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information; or (iii) be absolutely certain or sure about something. Philosophical debates in general start with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief." There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories. Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate. Question, can we take his concept as absolute?? But there are so many things we can learn from him.
এরিস্টটলও এই ঘরানার! তবে এদের কি স্রস্টা নেই? উত্তর-আছে! তবে সেটা ক্রিষ্টানদের গড না, আমরা যেভাবে আল্লাহ কে বিশ্বাস করি সেটাও না। এই গড টা ওয়রশিপ বা ইবাদতের জন্য নয়!
I am not convinced in your understanding regarding Locke’s belief. But I do not want to go further. I am pasting for your attention remarks from , Dr. Cody, winner of a Fulbright Scholarship to Japan, has since taught at the University of California, the University of Oklahoma, and Hartwick College, where is now Professor of English
Locke remained a Christian, maintaining that since our minds are not capable of comprehending reality, we must supplement our knowledge with faith:---(To me is a big contradiction)----- he was also a strong advocate of religious liberty, writing four letters on the principle of religious toleration.
He believed, with Hobbes, that man had once existed in a state of nature, but that, as a creature created in God's image, man was possessed of reason, and therefore capable of rational behavior, which permitted him to cooperate with other men to form societies and to discern the laws of nature, the most important of which guaranteed him life, liberty, and property. Man acquired knowledge not by means of divine revelation or because he possessed innate ideas, but because his senses permitted him to learn from the external world, and put him in touch with reality. (Locke, like Newton, would be one of Blake's bête noires ). Though all men were born equal, Locke maintained, some, by dint of greater industry, could legitimately accumulate more property than others: the primary responsibilities of legitimate governments, therefore, were to protect life and liberty and to to safeguard property. Locke was no democrat: he believed that laborers had neither the time, the education, nor the inclination to make rational political judgments, and should not, therefore, be permitted to have a voice in government, and he denied a role in politics or government to individuals who were not possessed of property.
এটা তাদের বিশ্ব সৃষ্টি সম্পর্কে দার্শনিক ব্যাখ্যা প্রদানের জন্য 'ফার্স্ট কজ' হিসেবে রেখেছে।তাই এটার সাথে ধর্মীয় নৈতিকতার সম্পর্ক নেই।আমি জন লকের কথা বলেছি উনার 'ট্যাবুলা রাসা' সূত্রের ইঙ্গিত করে
May be. So far I understood from tabula rasa is, Locke has tried his best to create a clear picture regarding human ability and mental capacity. He never contradicts with Creator and he wanted to give Creator some role based on the concept of “Divine endowment”. He was also promoter of Separation between State and Church. The concept separation between State and Church was born from the capitalist concept.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tabula rasa is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Generally proponents of the tabula rasa thesis favor the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behavior, and intelligence. The term in Latin equates to the English "blank slate" (or more accurately, "erased state") (which refers to writing on a slate sheet in chalk) but comes from the Romantabula or wax tablet, used for notes, which was blanked by heating the wax and then smoothing it to give atabula rasa. In Western philosophy, traces of the idea that came to be called the tabula rasa appear as early as the writings of Aristotle. Aristotle writes of the unscribed tablet in what is probably the first textbook ofpsychology in the Western canon, his treatise "Περί Ψυχῆς" (De Anima or On the Soul, Book III, chapter 4). However, besides some arguments by the Stoics and Peripatetics, the notion of the mind as a blank slate went largely unnoticed for more than 1,000 years.
In the 11th century,(before Locke born) the theory of tabula rasa was developed more clearly by the Islamic philosopher, Ibn Sina(known as "Avicenna" in the Western world). He argued that the "human intellect at birth is rather like a tabula rasa, a pure potentiality that is actualized through education and comes to know" and that knowledge is attained through "empirical familiarity with objects in this world from which one abstracts universal concepts" which is developed through a "syllogistic method of reasoning; observations lead to prepositional statements, which when compounded lead to further abstract concepts." He further argued that the intellect itself "possesses levels of development from the material intellect (al-‘aql al-hayulani), that potentiality that can acquire knowledge to the active intellect (al-‘aql al-fa‘il), the state of the human intellect at conjunction with the perfect source of knowledge."[1]
In the 12th century, the Andalusian-Islamic philosopher and novelist Ibn Tufail (known as "Abubacer" or "Ebn Tophail" in the West) demonstrated the theory of tabula rasa as a thought experiment through his Arabic philosophical novel, Hayy ibn Yaqzan, in which he depicted the development of the mind of a feral child "from a tabula rasa to that of an adult, in complete isolation from society" on a desert island, through experience alone. The Latin translation of his philosophical novel, entitled Philosophus Autodidactus, published by Edward Pococke the Younger in 1671, had an influence on John Locke's formulation of tabula rasa in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.[2]
In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas brought the Aristotelian and Avicennian notions to the forefront of Christian thought. These notions sharply contrasted with the previously held Platonic notions of the human mind as an entity that pre-existed somewhere in the heavens, before being sent down to join a body here on Earth (see Plato's Phaedo and Apology, as well as others). St. Bonaventure (also 13th century) was one of Aquinas' fiercest intellectual opponents, offering some of the strongest arguments towards the Platonic idea of the mind.
The writings of Avicenna, Ibn Tufail and Aquinas on the tabula rasa theory stood unprogressed for several centuries. In fact, our modern idea of the theory is mostly attributed to John Locke's expression of the idea in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding in the 17th century. In Locke's philosophy, tabula rasa was the theory that the (human) mind is at birth a "blank slate" without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one's sensory experiences. The notion is central to Lockean empiricism. As understood by Locke, tabula rasa meant that the mind of the individual was born "blank", and it also emphasized the individual's freedom to author his or her own soul. Each individual was free to define the content of his or her character - but his or her basic identity as a member of the human species cannot be so altered. It is from this presumption of a free, self-authored mind combined with an immutable human nature that the Lockean doctrine of "natural" rights derives. Locke's idea of tabula rasa is frequently compared with Thomas Hobbes's viewpoint of human nature, in which humans are endowed with inherent mental content – particular with selfishness[citation needed] .
Tabula Rasa is also featured in Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis. Freud depicted personality traits as being formed by family dynamics (seeOedipus complex, etc.). Freud's theories imply that humans lack free will, but also that genetic influences on human personality are minimal. In psychoanalysis, one is largely determined by one's upbringing.[citation needed]
The tabula rasa concept became popular in social sciences in the 20th century. Eugenics (mainstream in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) came to be seen not as a sound policy but as a crime.[importance?] The idea that genes (or simply "blood") determined character took on racist overtones. By the 1970s, some scientists had come to see gender identity as socially constructed rather than rooted in genetics (see John Money), a concept still current (see Anne Fausto-Sterling), although strongly contested. This swing of the pendulum accompanied suspicion of innate differences in general (see racism) and a propensity to "manage" society, where the real power must be if people are born blank.[original research?]
Western philosophy is the philosophical thought and work of the Western or Occidental world, as distinct from Eastern or Oriental philosophies and the varieties of indigenous philosophies.
Historically, the term was recently invented to refer to the philosophical thinking of Western civilization, beginning with Greek philosophy in ancient Greece, and eventually covering a large area of the globe, including North America and Australia. There is some debate of whether to include areas such as Northern Africa, some parts of the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and so on. The word philosophy itself originated in ancient Greece: philosophia (φιλοσοφία), literally, "the love of wisdom" (φιλεῖν - philein "to love" and σοφία - sophia "wisdom", in the sense of knowledge).
EMPIRICIST, one who relies on observation and experiment .Philosophy . the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience.
Next time we will stick to the subject matter.
50660
বাংলা (ইউনিকোডে) অথবা ইংরেজীতে আপনার মন্তব্য লিখুন:
দুরদ্বীপ থেকে দুরদ্বীপবাসি লিখেছেন,
A Muslim can not be a part time believer and part time non believer. In any society there has to be serious accountability to eliminate corruption. First people need to culture about the accountability of life after and secondly we have to establish serious accountability in this life. At the end our way of thinking and the view regarding life after needs to be change.When we say permanent life that conviction can not be based on superficial thinking has to be based on enlighten thinking.