Skip to main content

New Year Meditation



One of the phone calls that greeted me this New Year’s Day drove me to some serious contemplation.  The friend quoted the example of Galileo who retracted his scientific theory before the religious Inquisitors and later explained his action: “Science doesn’t need martyrs.”

My meditation led me to the notion of freedom provided by the 17th century philosopher, Spinoza.  He argued that we were not totally free.  We are controlled by certain inescapable laws of nature as well as our genetic makeup.  Evil is also an essential part of nature.  “The evil which ensues from evil deeds is not therefore less to be feared because it comes of necessity;” said Spinoza, “whether our actions are free or not, our motives still are hope and fear.”

Hope for a better future; fear about the present situation.  The martyr is not afraid for himself; his fear is about the future of the society. 

Martyrdom need not be a virtue. To be really great is not to be placed above humanity, ruling or controlling others, counsels Spinoza.  Real greatness lies in rising above the partialities and futilities of uninformed desires, and ruling one’s self. 

Desires or passions drive human beings.  Passion for wealth, power, luxury, assets, fame…  “A passion ceases to be a passion,” says Spinoza, “as soon as we form a clear and distinct idea of it...”  When we understand our passion adequately, it becomes a virtue.  All intelligent behaviour – i.e., all reaction which arises from an understanding of the total situation – is virtuous action.  Spinoza even goes to the extent of saying that there is no virtue but intelligence.

“Men who are good by reason – i.e., men who, under the guidance of reason, seek what is useful to them – desire nothing for themselves which they do not also desire for the rest of mankind.”  Spinoza’s words.

Can I invert that wisdom?  We don’t live in 17th century anyway.  If you live in a society of human beings who do not desire for the rest of mankind what they desire for themselves, use your reason and find your escape route.  What good would Galileo have done had he accepted martyrdom for the sake of preserving his integrity?  Visualise him in his given situation, of course; it would be absurd to argue that integrity is immaterial.  Intelligence is virtue.  And Galileo was not acting without integrity; he was acting with the virtue of intelligence. 

I’m convinced Spinoza is right even 337 years after his death.

PS. Spinoza’s fate was not much different from that of Galileo at the hands of his contemporary religious leaders.


Top post on IndiBlogger.in, the community of Indian Bloggers



Comments

  1. Nice one Sir. Loved reading it, as always.

    Regards
    Sammya

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most welcome, Sammya. Life challenges us to become increasingly philosophical these days, it seems.

      Delete
  2. [ Smiles ] Your posts have always given me a lot to think about.

    Do have yourself a wonderful 2014.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm happy to make you and possibly others think, Renard. Thinking people do much less harm than others :)

      Thanks for the good wishes. I'm in need of them.

      Delete
  3. “Men who are good by reason ...”... Spinoza’s words
    Effective words!! Thanks for this article!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for encouraging me to write such articles, Bhargav.
      Spinoza offers much to ponder about. Can anyone be good without "understanding"? Can "understanding" come only from reason? Well, I think, I should let you meditate on that. :)

      Delete
  4. a nice read. effective words. happy new year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wish you too a Happy New Year, Amar. And thanks for the compliment.

      Delete
  5. Interesting. Have wanted to read Spinoza for long. But never got around to it. Same with Dewey and Thomas Moore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your choice is good, friend, though Dewey and Moore didn't enlighten me as much as Spinoza did. However, the rationalism of the latter too is far better than the ambivalence of our contemporary "intellectuals".

      Delete
  6. As always very nicely written.Liked it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Ankita. Glad to see you here with a comment.

      Delete
  7. Very nicely written :-) Happy new year :-)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have new read philosophy but now I am thinking I might be missing out on something good!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Adventures of Toto as a comic strip

  'The Adventures of Toto' is an amusing story by Ruskin Bond. It is prescribed as a lesson in CBSE's English course for class 9. Maggie asked her students to do a project on some of the lessons and Femi George's work is what I would like to present here. Femi converted the story into a beautiful comic strip. Her work will speak for itself and let me present it below.  Femi George Student of Carmel Public School, Vazhakulam, Kerala Similar post: The Little Girl

The Ugly Duckling

Source: Acting Company A. A. Milne’s one-act play, The Ugly Duckling , acquired a classical status because of the hearty humour used to present a profound theme. The King and the Queen are worried because their daughter Camilla is too ugly to get a suitor. In spite of all the devious strategies employed by the King and his Chancellor, the princess remained unmarried. Camilla was blessed with a unique beauty by her two godmothers but no one could see any beauty in her physical appearance. She has an exquisitely beautiful character. What use is character? The King asks. The play is an answer to that question. Character plays the most crucial role in our moral science books and traditional rhetoric, religious scriptures and homilies. When it comes to practical life, we look for other things such as wealth, social rank, physical looks, and so on. As the King says in this play, “If a girl is beautiful, it is easy to assume that she has, tucked away inside her, an equally beauti...

Helpless Gods

Illustration by Gemini Six decades ago, Kerala’s beloved poet Vayalar Ramavarma sang about gods that don’t open their eyes, don’t know joy or sorrow, but are mere clay idols. The movie that carried the song was a hit in Kerala in the late 1960s. I was only seven when the movie was released. The impact of the song, like many others composed by the same poet, sank into me a little later as I grew up. Our gods are quite useless; they are little more than narcissists who demand fresh and fragrant flowers only to fling them when they wither. Six decades after Kerala’s poet questioned the potency of gods, the Chief Justice of India had a shoe flung at him by a lawyer for the same thing: questioning the worth of gods. The lawyer was demanding the replacement of a damaged idol of god Vishnu and the Chief Justice wondered why gods couldn’t take care of themselves since they are omnipotent. The lawyer flung his shoe at the Chief Justice to prove his devotion to a god. From Vayalar of 196...

The Real Enemies of India

People in general are inclined to pass the blame on to others whatever the fault.  For example, we Indians love to blame the British for their alleged ‘divide-and-rule’ policy.  Did the British really divide India into Hindus and Muslims or did the Indians do it themselves?  Was there any unified entity called India in the first place before the British unified it? Having raised those questions, I’m going to commit a further sacrilege of quoting a British journalist-cum-historian.  In his magnum opus, India: a History , John Keay says that the “stock accusations of a wider Machiavellian intent to ‘divide and rule’ and to ‘stir up Hindu-Muslim animosity’” levelled against the British Raj made little sense when the freedom struggle was going on in India because there really was no unified India until the British unified it politically.  Communal divisions existed in India despite the political unification.  In fact, they existed even before the Briti...

Our gods must have died laughing

A friend forwarded a video clip this morning. It is an extract from a speech that celebrated Malayalam movie actor Sreenivasan delivered years ago. In the year 1984, Sreenivasan decided to marry the woman he was in love with. But his career in movies had just started and so he hadn’t made much money. Knowing his financial condition, another actor, Innocent, gave him Rs 400. Innocent wasn’t doing well either in the profession. “Alice’s bangle,” Innocent said. He had pawned or sold his wife’s bangle to get that amount for his friend. Then Sreenivasan went to Mammootty, who eventually became Malayalam’s superstar, to request for help. Mammootty gave him Rs 2000. Citing the goodness of the two men, Sreenivasan said that the wedding necklace ( mangalsutra ) he put ceremoniously around the neck of his Hindu wife was funded by a Christian (Innocent) and a Muslim (Mammootty). “What does religion matter?” Sreenivasan asks in the video. “You either refuse to believe in any or believe in a...