A quick post on Valentine’s Day

Because I have to.

Facebook has found a trend in timeline posts to relationships.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/02/when-you-fall-in-love-this-is-what-facebook-sees/283865/

Sorry for being late, but there were more important things to post yesterday – like ignorance.

Perspectives on the Concept of Love in Islam

http://www.al-islam.org/perspectives-concept-love-islam-mahnaz-heydarpoor

“What! Did you then think that We had created you in vain?” – – al Qur’an (23:115)

The Wedding Poem

This day
Let no one claim
That love is false. Let no one
Tell a tale of love’s dilution,
Cross his lips with doubt,
Or discuss the up and down and up
Of love chained to a balance beam –
Laundry and who takes out the trash.

Instead, let us make a pact:
To stop for this short time
The radio in our heads, the voices
Of discontent that drive us mad –
The committee of shoulds and oughts
And might have beens. The old harangue
Of  never  never   never.
To forsake, for these next minutes
(Not for this couple but for ourselves),
All the symptoms of our days.

Then, together, let us swear,
That this sun, this sky, these vows,
This bubble balanced on the point
of a knife is all there is –
For we have pushed aside the walls
That close us in
To come to this shared space.  And see –
We have filled the space with flowers,
Where love, like some bright bird
Too swift to hold,
May light for us a while and sing.

by Alice Friman
from Proposing on the Brooklyn Bridge
Poetworks / Grayson Books, 2003 –

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2013/11/wednesday-poem.html

 

“We have just a…

“We have just as much religion to hate one another but not enough to love another.” — Jonathan Swift

Jonathan Swift was an Anglo-Irish satirist and author.

Altruism…is it real?

Concerning altruism, there are many perspectives on whether or not we can be purely altruistic. There are many stances we could take, and many lenses we could look through. Let’s see what they are, what they signify, and why they are misleading.

An evolutionary lens, for example, would suggest that our genes encourage altruism so that we get things in return, so that we reproduce. In other words, organisms can be, while the roots of it, in our genes, are selfish. That is the view of Dr. Richard Dawkins, hence the book title The Selfish Gene. Dawkin’s argument is fairly satisfying in the scientific community.

We could also take a more philosophical lens, in that to treat others selflessly we’d have to be happy doing it, right? Should someone want to save another person’s life, and attempts to do so, they satisfied their desire, thus being selfish in the end.  This at first may seem to be irrefutable, it did to me at least for a number of years. But there are counter arguments: someone may not think about the fact that they want to be altruistic. After all, impulsiveness is a given in the human condition. However, if we are altruistic impulsively, would that still be considered altruism? That is another question that is debated.

What we know from egoism is that we are only altruistic to get altruism back. This is similar to the evolutionary view, except on the scope of organisms along with individual genes. This, perhaps, is too pessimistic. Certainly, could holding the door open for a stranger be an act of kindness done solely in the hopes that one day the stranger will see you, and will open the door for you? It simply doesn’t make sense. Additionally, such a thinking process wouldn’t be all that logical, considering someone who thought this way would probably have to be. Statistically, not everyone could possibly have a net “gain” in altruism, there would always be winners and losers, if you will. And certainly, the nice people don’t always win.

Perhaps a more psychological approach, one less dealing with evolution. Studies, such as one I found in The Atlantic Monthly, show that newborns begin life with some sense of selflessness. It is interesting to support arguments like these with evidence from the psychology of newborns, I’ll write soon on the lack of self awareness in babies and it’s significance in the study of artificial intelligence. The fact that newborns are surprised by the lack of sharing in a movie, and that most do willingly share is astonishing, and it does support half of the evolutionary perspective.

I think that much of the debate comes from the lack of a proper definition of altruism. Philosophers, psychologists, and economists alike (yes, economists play a role) only spend time on studying how altruism works, without actually defining the word. Perhaps we can see it’s dictionary definition, and then dissect it:

Merriam Webster defines altruism as “unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others.”

Unselfish is defined as: “having or showing more concern for other people than for yourself.”

Concern, in the context, means: “a feeling of being interested in and caring about a person or thing.”

In other words, altruism is being more interested and devoted to the welfare of others than to yourself. But that still isn’t very clear, and that’s where philosophers, psychologists, and economists need to step up. Should we take the philosophical view that altruism is only impulsive, we must decide if it can still be altruistic. After all, “it’s possible that babies are more likely to be altruistic than older people, because they think less about it” (from The Atlantic Monthly article). However, this could be like saying I did a good deed even though I didn’t know it was a good deed.

Should we take the egoist perspective, as economists unfortunately do, we must assume that humans act “altruistically” out of self interest. Although the traditional arguments of egoism don’t stand, one might say that people act for the welfare of others solely to satisfy some sort of “sense duty” they have,  according to this literary magazine. Alternatively, one might also argue people act benevolently to satisfy some sort of deity or obey inherent natural laws (heaven or hell, karma, etc). That is another possibility. But once again, could one still be altruistic while maintaining a shed of selfishness, as long as that selfishness is the very thing leading to the altruism?  And if we all act out of this inherent self-interest, maybe there is no such thing as self-interest at all.

These are serious issues with debating altruism, and we can’t move forward in this debate until we agree on the questions I posed. Otherwise, we’re simply beating around the bush and arguing over different things without realizing it.

“No nation can …

“No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you.” –Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Founder of Pakistan.

His chilling prediction, perhaps, is right.

“My name is Kha…

“My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist.” –Sharukh Khan

From the movie, My Name is Khan. Review of that movie is here.

 

Sharukh Khan is a famous Muslim Bollywood actor.

My Name is Khan

This is a Bollywood film made in 2010 about an autistic Indian Muslim who moved to America and sets off on a mission to speak to a US President and say “Mr. President, my name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist!”

There a number of themes in this movie, one of which being racism, but another of the fact that well, he’s autistic. He falls for a women, a “normal” women, who soon begins to accept him and a romance occurs. The movie challenges our assumptions of what is “normal” and who is “normal”: the relationship works out, and they get married. Khan does not talk “normally”, and neither does he think “normally”, but his faculties are just as good as anyone and he understands the very basic human emotions we all face: love, anger, joy, regret, etc. He also understands the racism and xenophobia Muslims often face in the West, and sets out on a mission to fix it.

As any Bollywood drama (actually, all Bollywood is drama), there is a dramatic catastrophe that happens in Wilhemina, Georgia. Somehow, this hurricane destroyed almost all of the infrastructure in the little town and lightning strikes the church that everyone is taking shelter in. The church is also flooding several feet high, somehow. Hurricanes can be bad, but let me tell you, the movie exaggerates them quite a bit, especially considering the location. Nevertheless, Khan rushes to the town (he met random people from there once) to help out, and is thanked extensively for his help. The entire event was an emotional story of autistic man that was really more of a man than anyone else.

Now, a SPOILER ALERT. Khan married the girl he fell in love with, and she had a ten year old son already. The son and new father get along beautifully, with both of them learning from each other. The son has a friend whose father is in the military. His father is killed, and the friend blames it on Khan’s son because they are all “terrorists”. Months later, the son meets up with his friend who happens to be hanging out with some older teenagers. The teenagers decide to have some fun, and they team up to bully the son. The friend sits there and watches. The teenagers manage to kill the kid in a heart-wrenching scene, and then Khan’s wife blames it on him because he “is a terrorist” (the wife was Hindu). Khan finds himself in emotional turmoil, but finds solace in helping other people (“normal” people, might I add), instead of resorting to bad deeds. And the saga goes on.

Earlier in the movie, Khan goes to a Presidential rally for U.S. President George W Bush, where exclaims, “My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist!”. He exclaims this a number of times before anyone hears it; the crowd is wild and the protagonist cannot talk “normally”. Eventually, people hear him, the first people being the Secret Service. He is arrested on terrorist suspicion, causing the media to go haywire for the Justice Department’s stupidity. After intense pressure from American citizens, the government lets him go, as he proceeds to live his life as I explained above.

Later, he gets to another rally, this time, years later, with President Obama. Earlier in the movie, he tipped the FBI for a suspected terrorist at some random mosque he attended in California, but the FBI didn’t respond to it. An informer that caught Khan give the tip later stabbed him, and he was rushed to the hospital, where his wife (who abandoned him) returns. Khan comes back to health, and with the media’s attention still on the autistic “terrorist”, President Obama invites him to a rally. Khan comes to the stage to speak the words he has so long wanted to say, but he cannot get himself to say it. Barrack Obama helps him: “I know. Your name is Khan and you are not a terrorist.”

Khan gets back with his wife, and they live happily ever after.

 

I Won an Award!

A week ago I got an award from this awesome blogger called White Pearl. I recommend you check her blog out, it’s pretty cool.

To be honest, I have no idea why I got this award. I certainly don’t deserve it, and I met White Pearl and her blogging pals just a few days earlier. I even double checked the definition of “versatile” to make sure it meant something positive. Turns out, the word is neutral 😛

To accept the award, I have to answer some rather personal questions. I’d much rather write about government conspiracies, but I would like to show off what I received. These were the questions:

“

The most Embarrassing moment of your life :

The person you Love the most :

What quality makes you unique from the others :

The moment that proves you are naughty:

What is your favorite food :

                                                “

The most Embarrassing moment of your life: Well, for starters, I have no idea why Embarrassing is capitalized! That would be pretty Embarrassing if I did that 😛 To be honest, I have no idea. I once took our trashcan and carried it into the house instead of taking it to the sidewalk. I was pretty tired that day.

The person you Love the most : This depends on what you’re looking for. The smart ass answer? God. The sentimental answer? My family. The intellectual answer? Hamza Yusuf Hanson. The suck up answer? White Pearl. The sarcastic answer? Arkenaten. He makes me think, thank God!

What quality makes you unique from the others : Hmm. I once took a personality test called “Meyers-Briggs”. You can find it online everywhere. Of the 16 types, I got the rarest one. One percent of the population. INFJ. I can read people’s minds. Whatever that means.

The moment that proves you are naughty: I made someone cry while they were speaking on a public stage once. I won’t elaborate, but those were the days!

What is your favorite food : I am not particular. I can remember my grandmother’s chicken biryani (a South Asian rice dish) to be quite memorable. White Pearl can relate to this, I’ll bet. What I liked about it was that it wasn’t overloaded with spices and didn’t have an excess of flavors. Plain and simple, just like me I suppose.

Well, enough with the sentiment. Tomorrow I’ll rage on the media. That is easier to do. I’d like to thank White Pearl again for her completely unnecessary award.

Here’s to blogging!

Lux Ferous

Like Crazy

This movie was one of the first independent films I have ever seen – and it is much better than Hollywood. It’s basically a love story between an American and a British student in some university in LA. The British chick, after school, violated her visa and after returning to England she couldn’t come back. The romance in this film was surprisingly realistic, and had none of the stupid Hollywood banter (you hang up….no you hang up!). Their relationship was ever changing, and sometimes even boring, because since when were people interesting 24/7? They are in Hollywood apparently. Somehow Jennifer Lawrence found herself playing a minor role in a low budget film like this, but the film for whatever reason hardly ever had the camera on her in the light (she was always filmed in a dark room or outside at night or in a club with little light), something I couldn’t help but notice. The reasoning behind that baffles me. Another thing that I couldn’t help but notice was the lack of religion in the movie. We find utter secularism in about 99% of films these days, but this one seemed appropriate to bring religion into it. The British chick’s parents were quite “sophisticated” (except, for once, in a good portrayal), and I would think a bit of religion would come hand in hand with that. The amount of pin and suffering by the lovers, I would think, would also demand some sort of anger or seeking out of faith, but there was none of that.  Anyway, the film was incredible for being an atypical love story by the movie industry’s standards, and I wish we had more of that.