As i promised that i will not probably write any article on cricket. So lets talk about philosophy. Yesterday i finished theAyn Rand's Fountain Head. This is really a must read book for any person who believes in living a LIFE. Well as my friends say that no body can predict my behaviour or nature. Today i am saying some thing and tommorrow i can say something quite opposite to that. Well as i believe that any statement or any action a person does is a function of time and the knowledge of that person at that time. As life is dynamic the person goes on gaining knowledge and thus his future decision can be quite opposite to his earlier decisions. Look at any great person and you will find reason behind these statements.Here i am not justifying myself as i dont believe in justifications.
Well in Fountain head i really admired the character of Howard Roark. That is a character of a man who believes that a person's ego read it as his self respect is above all other things in this world. As this is quite opposite of indian philosophy, which beleives in altruism, as written in our vedas and holy scripts,
"Sarve bhawantu sukhinah, sarve santu niramaya"
"Sarve bhadrani pashyantu, ma kaschid dukh bhag bhavet"
(All should remain happy, healthy. They should see the righteous and no body should feel the dejection)
But according to Rand, one must seek his happiness, one must not loose self respect in doing any sort of service. But all the religion in the world preaches the philosophy of altruism. Altruism is right to that extent only till the person does not loose his self respect. Absolute altruism can not be attained and if a person fails in that immediately at that extent he or she looses his or her self respect. He always feels that he is guilty of some sort, as preached by every religion that every person should believe in atruism and a person who does not do that he is a devil of some undefined order.
Why people believe in written rules and why they follow them, these rules are not written by so called GOD. They are written by God Damn man. Then why people afraid of going away from these rules, why they afraid of creating their own. I am not saying that one should start killing other people as all the good books tell us to love every other person. But what i am saying is why we believe blindly. The people who wrote these books themselves were not sure that the coming generations of the man kind would follow them blindly. As these are very controversial statements but i believe in them. Blind following of everything is just inhumane. Take any religion, every philospher/Prophet tried to do the things differently thats why they founded newer and newer religions. But now why people are stagnant in their thoughts. No body has an answer and if any body has do tell me.
7 comments:
There is nothing called Indian philodophy. What's written in Vedas is to be followed for bettering one's future but it does not reflects the philosophy. Philosophy is individualistic and by no way you can define mass philosophy. So no question about Indian philosophy. There is a big difference between philosophy and preaching, which is what written in Vedas.
Now about stagnant thoughts: I believe that spiritual thoughts can be dynamic only when the scriptures are dynamic but they are unchanged. Hope, this answers your question.
@Sarvagya
Well philosophy cab be mass also, like vedanta philosophy. This is propounded by one and followed by others. The theme of so called indian preaching lies in common philosophy of Altruism.
I havem't read fountainhead, daunted my its mere size, but finished Jhumpa Lahiri's the namesake yesterday night. I shd say its a must read. Jhumpa has matured a lot after the Pulitzer interpreter or maladies.
What exactly are you trying to drive at? To me it seems that you are blindly and incoherently trying to sham the religions of the world. Incoherently because your ideas don't seem clear to me, and blindly because it seems that you just read one book and are influenced by the philosophy to such an extent that you think all other philosophies, all other scriptures, religions everything is stupid.
You yourself said that time shapes one's ideas.
Our scriptures say "Sarve bhawantu sukhinu...", or altruism above all, this is just a philosophy that was written out thousands of years ago, and it may have been relevant to the people of that time, and it may be relevant to people today as well, just like every other philosophy including Objectivism. As you said blindly following anything is wrong, blindly following Objectivism is also wrong.
Lastly, I admire Objectivism, but I reserve the right to question it.
P.S. When looking at a rainbow, don't look at the conflict of colours, look at the variety of them.
@Saugata
May be you are right in your comments. But the point is that this book confused me a lot. Well these ideas are quite new to me and it will take some time to resolve issues such as the some what contrasting nature of Indian Philosophy and Rand's philosophy.
May be because of my lack of knowledge as far these are concened you can say that i am blindly following Rand's but its not so. I just want to look at it from different view point.
well said jadaun. Very well, keep writing and keep thinking.
Post a Comment