“What’s the reason for this”? This is perhaps one of the most repeated and often heard questions in the modern world. However when we make this inquiry we forget that the acceptability of the answer for this question depends on the listener’s maturity, thinking level and his perception about the other person. Some listeners may take the answer as reason some may take that as an excuse or fanciful story.
The moot point is that reason in itself is self limiting as it depends on the cognitive and mental abilities of the listener as well as the belief of the listener in that reason. That belief may be driven by the past record of the other person, what kind of impression that person has on others, how serious and committed is he etc. In fact people who are reasonable and believe in reason a lot, also understand its shortcomings especially in those matters where belief and human emotions are involved.
A whole lot of philosophical thoughts be it Falsafa of Islam or the Plato doctrine are based on reason yet they do not generally eulogize its supremacy as they are aware of its shortcomings. Taking the argument ahead we can always ask the reason brigade that if they believe reason is indeed supreme what is the reason for that? So what’s the reason to believe that reason is supreme?
One could be that we can understand reason, well most of the times! Therefore just because we can grasp what is being reasoned which essentially means something which can get into our head is given supremacy over belief which perhaps does not have any “reason” to be followed. Which also means we are hiding our shortcomings of understanding an argument (reason based or belief based) because our mind lacks that grasping ability. One reason may be acceptable to one listener but may not be to another.
So just because we understand something as it emanates from a reason based argument, does that mean something which is belief based becomes peripheral and less important? May be something which is belief as we see, could be an extreme reason for someone else. I think the people who give too much importance to reason forget that belief can itself be a reason (if it pleases them that way). So when someone says “I think when a cat cuts my way it’s inopportune for me” people would term it as superstition. But why can’t we say that as the person believes that cat cutting his way would bring bad luck for him, this belief of the person is a “reason” in itself? We forget that particularity of the reason is also very important. What we term as superstition in case of the cat we forget that for that individual believing cat cutting his way brings bad luck, is a reason. It may not be universally applicable but that does not dilute its importance for that person concerned.
May be because his “reason” of cat cutting his way bringing bad luck is not applicable universally though a “reason” as we know it, generally has universal application. But here we need to differentiate between scientific reason and a generic reason. Therefore when a ball is thrown up it would come down due to gravitational force that is a scientific reason. However a “reason” about how come twins going to same school, living in same locality, having same friend circle turn out to be poles apart is not universal, yet it could not be termed as superstition. Though the apologists of reason would keep on trying giving false research and fanciful retrospective distortion to force fit some data and come out with some reason based argument even for the twins problem.
We would do all kind of scientific studies to prove that placebos work. Placebos are nothing but fake medicines which just make the patient believe that these medicines would cure him. Now without scientific studies this is as good as a so called “superstition” of cat crossing the way bringing bad luck. However now when studies are done which implies “reasons” are given for this placebo effect linking it with some biological process, ability of mind to conceive placebo bringing positive effect etc, the normal reader would understand placebo’s importance. Placebos work in those circumstances where the body can still develop immunity towards a disease and therefore its universality is doubtful. However as no scientific study can be done when cat crosses our way (as the impact is highly individual specific) it is termed as “superstition”.
Therefore again we are hiding and camouflaging shortcomings or grasping ability of our brain in understanding something which is beyond normal comprehension as superstitious or ridiculous.
If someone says “I do not watch this program on TV as I believe this brings me bad luck”. Isn’t this belief reason enough? Just because we believe there is no “reason” for the person to believe that the TV program indeed brings him bad luck we rebuff him as superstitious or term him a fool who believes in these “unreasonable” thoughts. In these extremely politically correct times we tend to support arguments which are mass based which generally implies so called reason based as masses can understand reason (which is nothing but shortcoming of their mind). So if we are not understanding belief system of someone we should accuse the inability of our mind and should not ridicule the person. This would also bring humbleness to our perspective.
I am not supporting any argument on superstition not because I believe in them, but I believe there is nothing what we can or should term as superstition. Superstition of one is belief of other, belief of one is reason for other and reason for other could be superstition for someone else.
Therefore we should be kind of ashamed that we have invented terms to hide the incompetence of our mind in validating those things which are beyond comprehension. Hence if there is an argument which is outside human thought, that is termed as belief (generally unfounded belief) or superstition. The problem lies with understanding of a person and not necessarily the belief system of someone else.
Many of the people who take pride in their reason based attitude do not see a dichotomy between them believing in the God as well as believing in reason. Taking extreme reason would negate the existence of God, but these people overlook this argument most of the times. Even if they believe in God, they would laugh at so called superstition of other people without seeing the argument that their belief in God could be a superstition or an “unreasonable thought” for an atheist. Even for an atheist what’s the reason for not believing in God, it’s nothing but his belief of God’s non existence. Then he would please himself of his atheism by inventing reasons to justify his disinclination towards the God. So it becomes a circular argument where sometimes reason gives rise to belief (like a very good hospital can be believed to provide best services) or a belief can give rise to reason (I believe in cat crossing my way to be a harbinger of misfortune and hence that is the reason for it as well).
The apologists of new thinking would condemn this line of argument saying it promotes superstition and disbelieve in scientific argument. However the purpose of this line of argument is not to promote superstition (as earlier said that I do not believe there is anything called superstition) or destroy belief on scientific truth, the purpose is to communicate that reason is limiting and there are things beyond human comprehension which are belief driven and if the proponents of reason want to find a reason for this belief, then the belief in itself is a reason.
The moot point is that reason in itself is self limiting as it depends on the cognitive and mental abilities of the listener as well as the belief of the listener in that reason. That belief may be driven by the past record of the other person, what kind of impression that person has on others, how serious and committed is he etc. In fact people who are reasonable and believe in reason a lot, also understand its shortcomings especially in those matters where belief and human emotions are involved.
A whole lot of philosophical thoughts be it Falsafa of Islam or the Plato doctrine are based on reason yet they do not generally eulogize its supremacy as they are aware of its shortcomings. Taking the argument ahead we can always ask the reason brigade that if they believe reason is indeed supreme what is the reason for that? So what’s the reason to believe that reason is supreme?
One could be that we can understand reason, well most of the times! Therefore just because we can grasp what is being reasoned which essentially means something which can get into our head is given supremacy over belief which perhaps does not have any “reason” to be followed. Which also means we are hiding our shortcomings of understanding an argument (reason based or belief based) because our mind lacks that grasping ability. One reason may be acceptable to one listener but may not be to another.
So just because we understand something as it emanates from a reason based argument, does that mean something which is belief based becomes peripheral and less important? May be something which is belief as we see, could be an extreme reason for someone else. I think the people who give too much importance to reason forget that belief can itself be a reason (if it pleases them that way). So when someone says “I think when a cat cuts my way it’s inopportune for me” people would term it as superstition. But why can’t we say that as the person believes that cat cutting his way would bring bad luck for him, this belief of the person is a “reason” in itself? We forget that particularity of the reason is also very important. What we term as superstition in case of the cat we forget that for that individual believing cat cutting his way brings bad luck, is a reason. It may not be universally applicable but that does not dilute its importance for that person concerned.
May be because his “reason” of cat cutting his way bringing bad luck is not applicable universally though a “reason” as we know it, generally has universal application. But here we need to differentiate between scientific reason and a generic reason. Therefore when a ball is thrown up it would come down due to gravitational force that is a scientific reason. However a “reason” about how come twins going to same school, living in same locality, having same friend circle turn out to be poles apart is not universal, yet it could not be termed as superstition. Though the apologists of reason would keep on trying giving false research and fanciful retrospective distortion to force fit some data and come out with some reason based argument even for the twins problem.
We would do all kind of scientific studies to prove that placebos work. Placebos are nothing but fake medicines which just make the patient believe that these medicines would cure him. Now without scientific studies this is as good as a so called “superstition” of cat crossing the way bringing bad luck. However now when studies are done which implies “reasons” are given for this placebo effect linking it with some biological process, ability of mind to conceive placebo bringing positive effect etc, the normal reader would understand placebo’s importance. Placebos work in those circumstances where the body can still develop immunity towards a disease and therefore its universality is doubtful. However as no scientific study can be done when cat crosses our way (as the impact is highly individual specific) it is termed as “superstition”.
Therefore again we are hiding and camouflaging shortcomings or grasping ability of our brain in understanding something which is beyond normal comprehension as superstitious or ridiculous.
If someone says “I do not watch this program on TV as I believe this brings me bad luck”. Isn’t this belief reason enough? Just because we believe there is no “reason” for the person to believe that the TV program indeed brings him bad luck we rebuff him as superstitious or term him a fool who believes in these “unreasonable” thoughts. In these extremely politically correct times we tend to support arguments which are mass based which generally implies so called reason based as masses can understand reason (which is nothing but shortcoming of their mind). So if we are not understanding belief system of someone we should accuse the inability of our mind and should not ridicule the person. This would also bring humbleness to our perspective.
I am not supporting any argument on superstition not because I believe in them, but I believe there is nothing what we can or should term as superstition. Superstition of one is belief of other, belief of one is reason for other and reason for other could be superstition for someone else.
Therefore we should be kind of ashamed that we have invented terms to hide the incompetence of our mind in validating those things which are beyond comprehension. Hence if there is an argument which is outside human thought, that is termed as belief (generally unfounded belief) or superstition. The problem lies with understanding of a person and not necessarily the belief system of someone else.
Many of the people who take pride in their reason based attitude do not see a dichotomy between them believing in the God as well as believing in reason. Taking extreme reason would negate the existence of God, but these people overlook this argument most of the times. Even if they believe in God, they would laugh at so called superstition of other people without seeing the argument that their belief in God could be a superstition or an “unreasonable thought” for an atheist. Even for an atheist what’s the reason for not believing in God, it’s nothing but his belief of God’s non existence. Then he would please himself of his atheism by inventing reasons to justify his disinclination towards the God. So it becomes a circular argument where sometimes reason gives rise to belief (like a very good hospital can be believed to provide best services) or a belief can give rise to reason (I believe in cat crossing my way to be a harbinger of misfortune and hence that is the reason for it as well).
The apologists of new thinking would condemn this line of argument saying it promotes superstition and disbelieve in scientific argument. However the purpose of this line of argument is not to promote superstition (as earlier said that I do not believe there is anything called superstition) or destroy belief on scientific truth, the purpose is to communicate that reason is limiting and there are things beyond human comprehension which are belief driven and if the proponents of reason want to find a reason for this belief, then the belief in itself is a reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment