Some one said, ‘a worker never grumbles and a grumbler
never works,’ how true. We also find people who go about bashing up other
people without realizing that they could die at any moment. There are some
people who are very strict with others and very lenient with themselves. There
are some who are very pious and religious in the society and in the public but
at the personal level... The word ‘paradox’ really fascinates me; not because
it is word used rarely in our circles or a rare experience that happens once in
a blue moon, but because it is one of the most common experiences in life. These are some paradoxical experiences of life
and they are not mere paradoxes of life rather they are events in the mystery
of life. I believe what Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) a French philosopher makes
sense here, for him life is a mystery that needs to be understood and not a
problem that can be solved.
Subscribe To Nobin Narzary
Posts
All Comments
Friday, November 30, 2012
“Wrong Number”
Before I write anything about the “wrong number
phenomenon” let me explain what I mean by “wrong number.” There is a very
interesting phenomenon that I heard of or is rather came across recently. It is
popular in some parts of the world and in some parts of our country even. It is
an interesting phenomenon that has emerged in the world or telecommunication
with the coming of cellphones. “Wrong number phenomenon” refers to the
phenomenon of talking to the persons unknown to the individual. This phenomenon
has caught very fast among the youth. Here, when a youth gets a call from an
unknown number instead of admitting that it is a “wrong number” and telling the
person concerned, the truth; the person begins to “befriend” and talk to the
other party. This happens faster among the youth of complementary sex. This
regular/chronic talking to each other over the time develops further into an
infatuation and may lead to meeting each other and even to the point of
deciding to settle in marriage. However, in most cases the relationship does
not flower or at least is seen not to flower into marriage; because most of
these individuals discover that the “partner” is “defective” or not unto the
expectation.
This is a phenomenon seems to be a very simple, funny
and insignificant phenomenon. However, it tells us a lot of things about our
societies or the tendencies in our societies. One of the very vivid
implications of this perverted behaviour is the “objectification of the other”
and the tendency to hide from the facts/truths of life. The question that such
people need to answer to is, why are you afraid of life? If you are shy of
doing something in public does it not indicate that what you are doing is not ok?
If it is not ok why do it?
The Problem with “Communication” Today
Many people speak of communication today. In fact,
“communication” has become a cliché today. We have numerous branches of study
that can be termed as communication. We live in an era of communication. Be it
T.V, internet, mobile phones. However, today many parents, authorities and
moralists discuss on the demerits of communication rather than on its merits.
Thus, we have youth on the one hand who long for gadgets for communication; and
having one makes them fell good. However, I would like to express my concern
with the parents and elders of today; because communication or the means of
communication has indeed brought about lot of evils.
What has gone wrong in this whole process? Where is
the problem? I believe the issue of concern is what is communicated. The problem in the world of media today is,
truth is not communicated. What is communicated most are “projected truths,”
not “truths.” There could be various reasons why truth is not communicated one
of the main reasons is probably because it is challenging. But the sad part is
this hiding oneself from the truth will never improve our situation it will
only worsen our situation.
Reality
One of the questions that many philosophers have been
questioning about since ages (though some philosophers don’t do it now) is,
“what is Real?” I feel this question is valid even today; precisely because
it’s an extremely important question. The problem is we often don’t think of
such simple yet profound questions of life. The issue of reality is, ‘who has
the right to claim what is real?’ The point to be noted here is: what I think,
believe and “know” to be real many not be Real because there will be another
person who will have completely opposite view on the same issue and he too
might believe it and “know” it to be real. So then, what exactly is Reality?
One thing needs to be noted here, my “knowing” of the reality to be Real or
other person’s “knowing” of real to be Real does not in any way affect the
Reality; Reality remains Real, irrespective of my affirming it. One of the
reasons of the possibility of these three possibilities of knowing the Real is
precisely the consequence of our historicity. By the way we cannot get out of
our historicity. Thus, to have the inkling of the Real we need humility; a
realization that I may not be able to “know” or grasp the Real. This also means
that unless the Real reveals “Itself” to me I may not have the inkling of Real.
The Real requires of me a humility without which I live in unreality or
blindness; which is not a state of perfection; not a state to which I am called
to be.
I am vulnerable are You/not?
Today people do not want to speak of vulnerability,
mercy, forgiveness and defeat rather about power, self-confidence, victory
etc., to day we live in a world that does not want to admit the truth or live
in “genuinity.” However, not speaking about these do not improve the situation
in any way. The facts of life remain the same. I don’t know if you believe yourself
to be vulnerable, but in my case, when I sit back and reflect over my life I
arrive at a conviction that ‘I am vulnerable.’ This realization does not lead
me to despair rather, it is how I find myself; it is the fact of life.
Therefore, it is part of ‘me,’ being human. This realization helps me to be
more human, to be more humble, to be more understanding and kind; which are but
human (or also divine) qualities. It just helps me really to be ‘me.’ The
spiritual qualities we find in humans are all founded on vulnerability. Let us
consider love, and hope. In the experience of love and hope we are not sure
whether the other will respond to us. In hoping for something (obviously
something good) we are not sure if our hope will be fulfilled. Even in the
commitment of marriage (a commitment of love) the bond is built on
vulnerability. The longevity and the quality of fidelity cannot be guaranteed.
Thus, for me I won’t mind to claim that to be is to be vulnerable. Remember,
Jesus knowingly, willingly and out of gratuitous love for humankind made
himself vulnerable to redeem vulnerable humanity through being vulnerable.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Philosophy of Religion and Phenomenology of Religion
Philosophy
of Religion
Religion
is as old as humanity itself, philosophy was a later development and philosophy
of religion appeared later still. Philosophy critics all major human practices
including the practice of religion. Thus philosophy of religion is basically a
critic of religion. It is comparatively a recent field of study, it developed
only last two to three hundred years back.[1] Philosophy
of Religion is a normative enterprise, it reflects on the truths of religious beliefs.
Thus, proof of the existence of God is offered in the attempt to establish the
truth of various theistic claims while existence of evil is offered as evidence
against such claims.[2] “Philosophy
of Religion is an attempt to discover by rational interpretation of religion
and its relations to other types of experience, the truth of religious beliefs
and the value of religious attitudes and practices.”[3] It
is a branch of metaphysics which interprets the relation of man’s experience of
religious values to the rest of his experiences; thus, it seeks both to
contribute concrete religious values to the interpretation of experience as a
whole and to criticize those values in the light of rational view.[4]
The
philosophers of Religion have been concerned with seeking explanations and
justifications for the kind of thing that a religious believer believes. For
some, the aim of Philosophy of Religion is to provide rational basis for
religious belief for others it is to show that such a basis is not possible.[5] Philosophy
of Religion is nothing but philosophical thinking about religion. It is not an
organ of religious teaching. Indeed, it need not be undertaken from a religious
stand point at all. The atheist, the agnostic and the person of faith all can
and do philosophize about religion. It is not a branch of theology but of
philosophy.[6]
While
various attempts have been made to define and elucidate what Philosophy of Religion
is, it is a difficult discipline to define. Perhaps, then, this is one of the
reasons why this subject is often embarked upon without being defined by its
practitioners. One of the reasons why it is difficult to define Philosophy of
Religion is because this term is traditionally used and the traditional usage
differs according to place. However, the topics in Philosophy of Religion centre
on the following: the different ways in
which the existence of God can apparently be proved, the attributes of God, the
question of divine action, miracles, evil, life after death etc., [7]
Phenomenology
of Religion
The
phenomenological approach to the study of religion was conceptualized and
developed by Pierre Daniël Chantepie de la Saussaye, William Brede Kristensen
and Gerardus van der Leeuw. It deals with the experiential aspect of Religion.
It views religion as composed of different elements and analyses them across
different religious traditions so that a comprehensive understanding of it may
be reached.[8] The phenomenology of Religion has emerged as
both a major field of study and an extremely influential approach to religion
during the 20th century. The term has become popular and has been
utilized by numerous scholars who seem to share little if anything in common.
There are four major groups of scholars who use the term phenomenology of
religion: The first group consists of scholars who use Phenomenology of Religion
in the vaguest, broadest and most uncritical of ways. Often the term seems to
mean nothing more than an investigation of the phenomena of religion. The
second group speaks of Phenomenology of Religion as the comparative study and
the classification of different types of religious phenomena. The third group
of scholars have identified the Phenomenology of Religion as a specific discipline
or method within religionswissenschaft.[9]
This is where the most significant contribution of the phenomenology of
religion to the study of religion have been made. The fourth group of scholars
consists of those whose Phenomenology of Religion has been influenced by
philosophical phenomenology.[10] The
modern scholarly study of religion probably had its beginning in the late 18th
century largely as a product of the rational and scientific attitude of the
enlightenment. The first major figure in this discipline was F. Max Müller
(1823-1900).[11]
The Phenomenology of Religion is a descriptive approach
to the Philosophy of Religion. Instead of debating whether certain religious
beliefs are true it asks the question ‘what is religion?’ it seeks to deepen
our understanding of the religious life by asking what (if anything) the
phenomena we normally take to be religious have in common that distinguishes
them from art, ethics, magic or science. It also studies the differences
between the different religious groups. Sometimes the Phenomenology of Religion
is motivated by a desire for quasi scientific objectivity at other times it has
a more existential orientation. Phenomenology of Religion considers the fact
that religion is an observable phenomenon of human life, and its task is to
help us better understand what religion is by giving descriptive analysis of
that aspect of human experience.[12]
[1] Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski, Philosophy of Religion An Historical
Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007), 1.
[2] Merold Westphal, “Phenomenology
of Religion,” Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,
gen. ed. Edward Craig (London: Routledge, 1998) 7: 353.
[3] Edgar Sheffield Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion (New York:
Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1969), 22.
[4] Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion, 22.
[5] Clack and Clack,
The Philosophy of Religion A Critical
Introduction, 7.
[6] John H. Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 4th edn.
(New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, 2003), 1.
[7] Beverley Clack and Brian R.
Clack, The Philosophy of Religion A
Critical Introduction (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998), 6. See also: Anne
Jordan Neil Lockyer and Edwin Tate, Philosophy
of Religion for A Level (Cheltenham:
Stanley Thornes Ltd. 1999), vii.
[9] For Max Müller, religionswissenschaft is a descriptive,
objective science that was free from the normative nature of theological and
philosophical studies of religion. Cf Douglas Allen, “Phenomenology of Religion,” The Encyclopaedia of Religion, ed. in chief
Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company) 11: 276.
[10] Allen, “Phenomenology of
Religion,” The Encyclopaedia of Religion,
273.
[11] Allen, “Phenomenology of
Religion,” The Encyclopaedia of Religion,
276.
[12] Merold Westphal, “Phenomenology
of Religion,” Routledge Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy gen ed. Edward Craig (London: Routledge, 1998) 7: 352.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)