Merhaba,
I have moved my blog to http://anatolianshep.wordpress.com/
Cheers to all of you...
Blogumun yeni adresi http://anatolianshep.wordpress.com/
Hepinize selam...
‘Yaz’ olmalı idi ilk söylenen, ‘oku’ değil. Biz tanrısı değil miyiz bilincimizin? Bizim beynimiz değil mi her suçu unutan? Biz değil miyiz ki her düşünceyi çarpıtan? Yazmalıyız ki sözümüz kök salsın, yazmalıyız ki değişen anlamların geri dönebileceği, yeniden başlayabileceği bir evi olsun. Yazmalıyız ki, suçlarımız ve suçluluklarımız ve hatalarımız yüzümüze çarpılabilsin. Bu değil midir hayatımızın anlamı?
Apr 1, 2009
Feb 14, 2009
KISA BIR ARA - A SHORT BREAK
Merhaba herkese,
Son iki ayda farkettim ki, bırakın blog yazmayı, başımı kaşıyacak vaktim kalmamış. Umuyorum ki, önümüzdeki günlerde laboratuarda harcadığım zamanlar, oldukça ilginç sorulara yanıt verecek verilere dönüşecek. Ancak bu arada blog yazmaya bir ara vermem gerekiyor sanıyorum. Yakın zamanda görüşmek üzere, şimdilik perde!
Hi all,
I realied that I have not written any substantial entries to Anatolian Shepherd. I hope that the time that I spent in the lab, which prevents me from writing any entries, will lead to interesting results and ideas in the near future. Meanwhile, I will take a short break from my blog writing. I hope to see you soon. Since then, stay warm!
Son iki ayda farkettim ki, bırakın blog yazmayı, başımı kaşıyacak vaktim kalmamış. Umuyorum ki, önümüzdeki günlerde laboratuarda harcadığım zamanlar, oldukça ilginç sorulara yanıt verecek verilere dönüşecek. Ancak bu arada blog yazmaya bir ara vermem gerekiyor sanıyorum. Yakın zamanda görüşmek üzere, şimdilik perde!
Hi all,
I realied that I have not written any substantial entries to Anatolian Shepherd. I hope that the time that I spent in the lab, which prevents me from writing any entries, will lead to interesting results and ideas in the near future. Meanwhile, I will take a short break from my blog writing. I hope to see you soon. Since then, stay warm!
Jan 20, 2009
"After the Dance"
"--AND you say that a man cannot, of himself, understand what is good and evil; that it is all environment, that the environment swamps the man. But I believe it is all chance. Take my own case . . ." started Tolstoy his short story, "After the Dance." That was pretty much what I was thinking after I watched the, sometimes superficial and sometimes deep, but throughout graceful and colorful dance of the Collage company.
The dance was to a moving series of eclectic and mesmerizing songs, the origins of which came from very very old lands and from cities the ruins of which do not even exist anymore. The dancers, half of whom are dear friends, moved uncompromisingly and with an obvious eagerness to please.
And this was their choice to create their environment, actively, with sweat and compromise, not by chance. They not only committed to a painful process of training, but they stripped their personalities and ideas, submitted to an idea and were part of an echo from the past into a back-alley Cambridge theater. They created their environment, and I am glad to touch it, albeit briefly.
The dance was to a moving series of eclectic and mesmerizing songs, the origins of which came from very very old lands and from cities the ruins of which do not even exist anymore. The dancers, half of whom are dear friends, moved uncompromisingly and with an obvious eagerness to please.
And this was their choice to create their environment, actively, with sweat and compromise, not by chance. They not only committed to a painful process of training, but they stripped their personalities and ideas, submitted to an idea and were part of an echo from the past into a back-alley Cambridge theater. They created their environment, and I am glad to touch it, albeit briefly.
Dec 27, 2008
The science of hope
I was with dear friends in a Cambridge restaurant, eating Shabu Shabu (a.k.a. awesome awesome Asian hot-pot). Our conversation was turned into the validity of organized religions in the modern world. One strong argument for religion was that logic and science cannot give hope. With science, it will be always the cold, brutal facts and nothing else. Hence, people, one way or the other, need faith, simply to have hope.
I thought about it for a while and I come to the conclusion that I disagree. There is one, amazing development emerging within science that makes me really hopeful about the future: the findings about the evolution of cooperation.
A little unrelated, but very recent article in BMJ highlights my line of thought. The authors, who happen to be across the street from my lab, argued in their paper "Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study" that "[p]eople who are surrounded by many happy people and those who are central in the network are more likely to become happy in the future."
This would suggest that happiness is not an individual emotion, but a shared one. It also fosters the idea that we really should make other people happy, simply because of the selfish desire to be happy.
It is a long shot, but I am hopeful that the day of scientifically based morality will emerge from the pitiful clashes between science and non-science.
I thought about it for a while and I come to the conclusion that I disagree. There is one, amazing development emerging within science that makes me really hopeful about the future: the findings about the evolution of cooperation.
A little unrelated, but very recent article in BMJ highlights my line of thought. The authors, who happen to be across the street from my lab, argued in their paper "Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study" that "[p]eople who are surrounded by many happy people and those who are central in the network are more likely to become happy in the future."
This would suggest that happiness is not an individual emotion, but a shared one. It also fosters the idea that we really should make other people happy, simply because of the selfish desire to be happy.
It is a long shot, but I am hopeful that the day of scientifically based morality will emerge from the pitiful clashes between science and non-science.
Dec 24, 2008
Türker Alkan'ın "Seni Ermeni seni..." yazısı üzerine
Sayın Alkan,
Size yazmamin sebebi “Seni Ermeni seni…” isimli yazınızda ele aldığınız “etnisite” ve “ırk” kavramlarını işleyiş tarzınızı eleştirmek. Yazınızın temel fikrine kesinlikle katılıyorum. Genetik olarak birbirimizin arasında o kadar az fark var ki, sizin de dediğiniz gibi bütün bu etnik/ırksal kategoriler anlamını yitiriyor. Ancak, yazınızda ki iki paragraf bilimsel bulguları tamamen yanlış gösteriyor. Aynı zamanda, kimlik oluşumu son derece bireysel bir tercih olması gerekirken, ne yazık ki Türkiye’de, kimlik konusu milliyetçi elitler ile liberal/sol elitler arasındaki rekabetin savaş alanı olmuş durumda. Bütün bu tartışmalar arasında, kendi küçük gruplarında yaşayan milyonlarca Anadolu’nunun senelerdir oluşturdukları kimlikler hiçe sayılıyor.Eleştirimi netleştirmek amacı ile:
1.“Eskişehir’in bir köyünde araştırma yapan ecnebi bilim adamları 8 bin yıl önce yaşamış insanların cesetleriyle karşılaştılar. Bu önemli bir buluştu. Fakat daha da çarpıcı olan şey, 8 bin yıl önceden kalma cesetlerin DNA testi ile hâlâ orada yaşayan köylülerin DNA testlerinin örtüşmesiydi. Köylüler, 8 bin yıl ötedeki akrabalarının cesetlerine kavuşmuştu. Ama dehşet içinde kaldılar: “Ne yani, bizim atalarımız Orta Asya’dan gelmedi mi? Biz Türk değil miyiz şimdi?””
Benim böyle bir çalışmadan haberim yok. Eğer Sagalassos’taki benzer çalışmadan bahsediyorsanız, o çalışmada kullanılan iskeletlerin tarihleri daha değişik. Aynı zamanda son derece kısıtlı bir çalışmanın, medya tarafından büyütülmesinden başka bir durum yok ortada. Şu anda, her ne kadar genetik bilimi son derece enteresan bulgulara erişse de, 8,000 senelik akrabalık bağlarını net bir şekilde ortaya koymaktan daha uzak. Üstelik, bence asıl üzerine düşünülmesi gereken soru, o insanların Türklüğü veya Ermenililiği değil, bilim adamları, politikacılar veya gazeteciler olarak bizim başkalarının kimliğine karışma hakkımızın olup olmadığı.
2.“Ya da Anadolu’da yaşayan Rumlar, Ermeniler, Araplar, Orta Asya’dan gelenlerle kaynaşarak ve hem kültürel açıdan, hem de biyolojik özellikleri bakımından yeni bir Anadolu insanının ortaya çıkmasına neden oldular. Şu anda bu ülkede yaşayan herkesin ataları arasında Ermeni de vardır, Rum da. Anadolu’da, sarışın, mavi gözlü, sivri kafalı insanları da bulursunuz, yassı burunlu, çekik gözlü, yuvarlak kafalı olanları da.”
Bu paragraftan anlaşılıyor ki, sanki gerçekten Ermeni’leri, Türk’leri, Rum’ları ayıran genetik (biyolojik) farklılıklar var da, Anadolu’da kaynaşma olduğundan bu farklılıklar azalmış veya yokolmuş. Ermeni’lik, Türk’lük vb. etnik kategorilerin biyolojik temelleri zaten yoktur. Coğrafyalarda görülen biyolojik farklılıklar, toplumlar içinde varolan biyolojik farklılıklardan çok çok daha küçüktür. Sizin yazınızdan (ve size benzer düşünen bir çok yazarın yazılarından), sanki etnik gruplar aynı zamanda biyolojik gruplardır ama biz bu gruplaşmadan uzak kalalım gibi bir sonuç çıkıyor. O zaman mesela, bir şekilde yuvarlak kafalı ve yassı burunlu üyeleri olan bir köy, biz asıl Türkleriz, diğerleri hep Ermeni aslında diye ortaya çıkarsa, nasıl cevap vereceğiz. Sizde biliyorsunuz, ister Ermeni olsun, ister Türk, etnik gruplar tamamen sosyal yapılardır. Bu konuda, Radikal’in bir ekinde yazılmış bir makalemi, bu linkten okuyabilirsiniz.
Yazınıza yönelttiğim konularla ilgili zaten aynı şekilde düşündüğümüzü zannediyorum. Asıl eleştirim, benzer şekilde düşündüğümüz politik bir söylemi savunurken, bilimsel sonuçları doğru ve bağlamsal olarak ele almak yerine, çok yüzeysel ve kimi zaman eksik (dolayısı ile yanlış) olarak kullanmanız. Sizin yazdığınız tipte yazılar, benim gibi meselesi bilimsel söylemin Türkiye’deki konumunu sağlamlaştırmak olan bir çok insanın önüne yeni engeller koyuyor. O yüzden yazılarınızda bilimsel konulara değinirken, mümkün olduğunca asıl kaynakları kullanmanız fikrimce, politik olarak çok önem arz eden yazılarınızın, hem çok daha anlamlı ve hem kuvvetli olmasını sağlayacaktır.
Saygılarımla,
Size yazmamin sebebi “Seni Ermeni seni…” isimli yazınızda ele aldığınız “etnisite” ve “ırk” kavramlarını işleyiş tarzınızı eleştirmek. Yazınızın temel fikrine kesinlikle katılıyorum. Genetik olarak birbirimizin arasında o kadar az fark var ki, sizin de dediğiniz gibi bütün bu etnik/ırksal kategoriler anlamını yitiriyor. Ancak, yazınızda ki iki paragraf bilimsel bulguları tamamen yanlış gösteriyor. Aynı zamanda, kimlik oluşumu son derece bireysel bir tercih olması gerekirken, ne yazık ki Türkiye’de, kimlik konusu milliyetçi elitler ile liberal/sol elitler arasındaki rekabetin savaş alanı olmuş durumda. Bütün bu tartışmalar arasında, kendi küçük gruplarında yaşayan milyonlarca Anadolu’nunun senelerdir oluşturdukları kimlikler hiçe sayılıyor.Eleştirimi netleştirmek amacı ile:
1.“Eskişehir’in bir köyünde araştırma yapan ecnebi bilim adamları 8 bin yıl önce yaşamış insanların cesetleriyle karşılaştılar. Bu önemli bir buluştu. Fakat daha da çarpıcı olan şey, 8 bin yıl önceden kalma cesetlerin DNA testi ile hâlâ orada yaşayan köylülerin DNA testlerinin örtüşmesiydi. Köylüler, 8 bin yıl ötedeki akrabalarının cesetlerine kavuşmuştu. Ama dehşet içinde kaldılar: “Ne yani, bizim atalarımız Orta Asya’dan gelmedi mi? Biz Türk değil miyiz şimdi?””
Benim böyle bir çalışmadan haberim yok. Eğer Sagalassos’taki benzer çalışmadan bahsediyorsanız, o çalışmada kullanılan iskeletlerin tarihleri daha değişik. Aynı zamanda son derece kısıtlı bir çalışmanın, medya tarafından büyütülmesinden başka bir durum yok ortada. Şu anda, her ne kadar genetik bilimi son derece enteresan bulgulara erişse de, 8,000 senelik akrabalık bağlarını net bir şekilde ortaya koymaktan daha uzak. Üstelik, bence asıl üzerine düşünülmesi gereken soru, o insanların Türklüğü veya Ermenililiği değil, bilim adamları, politikacılar veya gazeteciler olarak bizim başkalarının kimliğine karışma hakkımızın olup olmadığı.
2.“Ya da Anadolu’da yaşayan Rumlar, Ermeniler, Araplar, Orta Asya’dan gelenlerle kaynaşarak ve hem kültürel açıdan, hem de biyolojik özellikleri bakımından yeni bir Anadolu insanının ortaya çıkmasına neden oldular. Şu anda bu ülkede yaşayan herkesin ataları arasında Ermeni de vardır, Rum da. Anadolu’da, sarışın, mavi gözlü, sivri kafalı insanları da bulursunuz, yassı burunlu, çekik gözlü, yuvarlak kafalı olanları da.”
Bu paragraftan anlaşılıyor ki, sanki gerçekten Ermeni’leri, Türk’leri, Rum’ları ayıran genetik (biyolojik) farklılıklar var da, Anadolu’da kaynaşma olduğundan bu farklılıklar azalmış veya yokolmuş. Ermeni’lik, Türk’lük vb. etnik kategorilerin biyolojik temelleri zaten yoktur. Coğrafyalarda görülen biyolojik farklılıklar, toplumlar içinde varolan biyolojik farklılıklardan çok çok daha küçüktür. Sizin yazınızdan (ve size benzer düşünen bir çok yazarın yazılarından), sanki etnik gruplar aynı zamanda biyolojik gruplardır ama biz bu gruplaşmadan uzak kalalım gibi bir sonuç çıkıyor. O zaman mesela, bir şekilde yuvarlak kafalı ve yassı burunlu üyeleri olan bir köy, biz asıl Türkleriz, diğerleri hep Ermeni aslında diye ortaya çıkarsa, nasıl cevap vereceğiz. Sizde biliyorsunuz, ister Ermeni olsun, ister Türk, etnik gruplar tamamen sosyal yapılardır. Bu konuda, Radikal’in bir ekinde yazılmış bir makalemi, bu linkten okuyabilirsiniz.
Yazınıza yönelttiğim konularla ilgili zaten aynı şekilde düşündüğümüzü zannediyorum. Asıl eleştirim, benzer şekilde düşündüğümüz politik bir söylemi savunurken, bilimsel sonuçları doğru ve bağlamsal olarak ele almak yerine, çok yüzeysel ve kimi zaman eksik (dolayısı ile yanlış) olarak kullanmanız. Sizin yazdığınız tipte yazılar, benim gibi meselesi bilimsel söylemin Türkiye’deki konumunu sağlamlaştırmak olan bir çok insanın önüne yeni engeller koyuyor. O yüzden yazılarınızda bilimsel konulara değinirken, mümkün olduğunca asıl kaynakları kullanmanız fikrimce, politik olarak çok önem arz eden yazılarınızın, hem çok daha anlamlı ve hem kuvvetli olmasını sağlayacaktır.
Saygılarımla,
Nov 21, 2008
Glenn Gould - Again
I am just mesmerized by Glenn Gould. I do not know if deep inside, I want to be like him, or just admire him for his childish arrogance. He is just a wonderful character.
Nov 19, 2008
Jacqueline Mary du Pré
She was just amazing!!!
I came across Elgar's Cello Concerto in E Min, performed by Jacqueline du Pré. Her performance was, even to unpolished ears like mine, just breathtaking.
Yo-Yo Ma's interpretation of the piece, which I would have taken as the definitive version (as his performance on Bach's Cello Suites), remained by far the weaker one. Remarkable, considering that Yo-Yo Ma is a brilliant artist and both artists play with the same Cello, the fabled Davidov Stradivarius.
Later, it dawned on me that the film Hilary and Jackie, which I saw with E. ages ago, was actually her life story. And a sad sad story it was. A great talent shadowed by immense fears and insecurities, and above all, a horrible disease. The lives of some people are just remarkable. And these lives remind me of a section from Nietzsche's Gay Science:quote:
It is true that there are men who, on the approach of severe pain, hear the very opposite call of command, and never appear more proud, more martial, or more happy than when the storm is brewing; indeed, pain itself provides them with their supreme moments! These are the heroic men, the great pain-bringers of mankind: those few and rare ones who need just the same apology as pain generally — and verily, it should not be denied them. They are forces of the greatest importance for preserving and advancing the species, be it only because they are opposed to smug ease, and do not conceal their disgust at this kind of happiness.
I came across Elgar's Cello Concerto in E Min, performed by Jacqueline du Pré. Her performance was, even to unpolished ears like mine, just breathtaking.
Yo-Yo Ma's interpretation of the piece, which I would have taken as the definitive version (as his performance on Bach's Cello Suites), remained by far the weaker one. Remarkable, considering that Yo-Yo Ma is a brilliant artist and both artists play with the same Cello, the fabled Davidov Stradivarius.
Later, it dawned on me that the film Hilary and Jackie, which I saw with E. ages ago, was actually her life story. And a sad sad story it was. A great talent shadowed by immense fears and insecurities, and above all, a horrible disease. The lives of some people are just remarkable. And these lives remind me of a section from Nietzsche's Gay Science:quote:
It is true that there are men who, on the approach of severe pain, hear the very opposite call of command, and never appear more proud, more martial, or more happy than when the storm is brewing; indeed, pain itself provides them with their supreme moments! These are the heroic men, the great pain-bringers of mankind: those few and rare ones who need just the same apology as pain generally — and verily, it should not be denied them. They are forces of the greatest importance for preserving and advancing the species, be it only because they are opposed to smug ease, and do not conceal their disgust at this kind of happiness.
Nov 17, 2008
Response to religious freedoms
A BRILLIANT RESPONSE BY Radu Ioviţă TO MY PREVIOUS POST ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS
This is an interesting topic, but I'm going to disagree with you. I've been reading a book by Sir Peter Ustinov, which he incidentally wrote in German, called "Achtung: Vorurteile!" ("Attention: Prejudice!"), where one of the things which remained engraved in my memory is the observation that not so long ago, in Victorian England, a judge who perhaps had children of his own, with whom he'd sit around the fire in the library and read them stories, would calmly go to Court the next day and sentence a 12-year old girl to HANGING for having stolen a piece of bread. Ustinov remarks, correctly in my view, that the judge would not have been able to contain his surprise if someone had pointed out his behavior as inconsistent at best, schizophrenic and perverse at the worst. This is because the concept of 'social causes' and origins of crime and unrest were not cemented as they are now. One only has to look at Dickens's stories to see how wide-spread and pervasive the problem of inhumane treatment of criminals was in 19th century Europe, especially for children, and especially for the poor. But Victorian England can hardly be described as a religious fundamentalist country – on the contrary, it is the society that produced Darwin, Prestwich, and Huxley. So, given the striking similarity of the two events, what is the common ground between the two? It is the radical acceptance of the letter of the law, of the rigid application of a code in the name of 'order and discipline'. It is fundamentalism, I give you that, but not religious fundamentalism. It submits individual and even collective judgement to an unchangeable code of rules, which in itself has no agency. Imagine that the qadi judging this case had been taught to exercise his judgement in context, and to consult with others and with old Islamic law books. I doubt he'd have come to the same sentence. That's why I will side with your dad on this. And by the way, the article I sent you does mention that convicting a girl of 13 is illegal according to the Shari'a. I don't think I have to remind you of what kinds of
crimes were commited in the name of secular law in places like the Soviet Union, Cambodia, or China...
This is why I'm suspicious of any political faction which promises "order and discipline": they always deliver. Islam seems to be in a peculiar situation. I don't think that any of the countries whose main law today is the Shari'a had it as their main law uninterruptedly since the Middle Ages (I may be wrong about this). But if the Shari'a was reintroduced recently, it is as a reaction against something else – I am supposing that it is Western colonialism and the introduced body of laws that went with it (or Ottoman colonialism – from what I know, Ottoman law was a mix of Shari'a and the various kanuns allowing the ulama's to interpret each case). In any case, it's the return to 'purism' that worries me, not the basis on which it is (rather shabbily) argumented.
I suspect that as our societies become increasingly complex, they tend to become increasingly controlled by ever-growing bodies of law. I remember that a few years ago, a women's advocacy group wanted to petition for the legiferation of their male colleagues' behavior during the period of pre-menstruation!! Needless to say, this is an unworkable situation, but the trend in legiferation in other complex interactional situations such as sexual harassment in the workplace has definitely intensified. In today's world, the easiest thing to become is a criminal! But there is hope: Recently, in Germany, several pilot projects to de-legislate automobile driving have had a huge success – they were simply trying to discourage drivers to blindly follow the rules of traffic, and to exercise their judgement rather than assume that everyone will follow the law flawlessly. To do this, they've simply removed most of the signs from the roads, therefore forcing the drivers to question their priority rights, to slow down, and to look around them.
This is an interesting topic, but I'm going to disagree with you. I've been reading a book by Sir Peter Ustinov, which he incidentally wrote in German, called "Achtung: Vorurteile!" ("Attention: Prejudice!"), where one of the things which remained engraved in my memory is the observation that not so long ago, in Victorian England, a judge who perhaps had children of his own, with whom he'd sit around the fire in the library and read them stories, would calmly go to Court the next day and sentence a 12-year old girl to HANGING for having stolen a piece of bread. Ustinov remarks, correctly in my view, that the judge would not have been able to contain his surprise if someone had pointed out his behavior as inconsistent at best, schizophrenic and perverse at the worst. This is because the concept of 'social causes' and origins of crime and unrest were not cemented as they are now. One only has to look at Dickens's stories to see how wide-spread and pervasive the problem of inhumane treatment of criminals was in 19th century Europe, especially for children, and especially for the poor. But Victorian England can hardly be described as a religious fundamentalist country – on the contrary, it is the society that produced Darwin, Prestwich, and Huxley. So, given the striking similarity of the two events, what is the common ground between the two? It is the radical acceptance of the letter of the law, of the rigid application of a code in the name of 'order and discipline'. It is fundamentalism, I give you that, but not religious fundamentalism. It submits individual and even collective judgement to an unchangeable code of rules, which in itself has no agency. Imagine that the qadi judging this case had been taught to exercise his judgement in context, and to consult with others and with old Islamic law books. I doubt he'd have come to the same sentence. That's why I will side with your dad on this. And by the way, the article I sent you does mention that convicting a girl of 13 is illegal according to the Shari'a. I don't think I have to remind you of what kinds of
crimes were commited in the name of secular law in places like the Soviet Union, Cambodia, or China...
This is why I'm suspicious of any political faction which promises "order and discipline": they always deliver. Islam seems to be in a peculiar situation. I don't think that any of the countries whose main law today is the Shari'a had it as their main law uninterruptedly since the Middle Ages (I may be wrong about this). But if the Shari'a was reintroduced recently, it is as a reaction against something else – I am supposing that it is Western colonialism and the introduced body of laws that went with it (or Ottoman colonialism – from what I know, Ottoman law was a mix of Shari'a and the various kanuns allowing the ulama's to interpret each case). In any case, it's the return to 'purism' that worries me, not the basis on which it is (rather shabbily) argumented.
I suspect that as our societies become increasingly complex, they tend to become increasingly controlled by ever-growing bodies of law. I remember that a few years ago, a women's advocacy group wanted to petition for the legiferation of their male colleagues' behavior during the period of pre-menstruation!! Needless to say, this is an unworkable situation, but the trend in legiferation in other complex interactional situations such as sexual harassment in the workplace has definitely intensified. In today's world, the easiest thing to become is a criminal! But there is hope: Recently, in Germany, several pilot projects to de-legislate automobile driving have had a huge success – they were simply trying to discourage drivers to blindly follow the rules of traffic, and to exercise their judgement rather than assume that everyone will follow the law flawlessly. To do this, they've simply removed most of the signs from the roads, therefore forcing the drivers to question their priority rights, to slow down, and to look around them.
Nov 15, 2008
Religious Freedoms
I am very confused about the boundaries of religious freedom.
A recent news story in BBC, "Stoning Victim 'begged for mercy'" highlights everything that is wrong with religious fundamentalism. It was the story of a 13 year-old rape-victim, who apparently yelled "don't kill me, don't kill me" before she was stoned to death by more than 50 men. Allegedly more than a thousand people watched the stoning. The stoning was, according to the Somalian court authorities, a necessity of Sharia law.
This is just not right! And, I do not know any person, Muslim or non-Muslim alike, who would defend the position of the Somalian court authorities. My father, who becomes a pretty devout Muslim, like millions of other Muslims around the world, would be disgusted with the stoning and condemn it with all his heart. I am sure, he would claim that real Islam is a religion of tolerance and love. I believe in my father's sincerity, but this does not change the fact that many Somalians (and their government) believe in a particular interpretation of Islam that preach violence and inequality of women.
I, as an intellectual, cannot find a reasonable line of thought to define "acceptable religion" and the "unacceptable religion," especially given that religions are not supposed to change or vary. Obviously, categorizing all the world's religions through one extreme incident is completely illogical. However, it brings to mind that there are countless interpretations of Islam (similar to other religions). So, there are questions that I want to raise: when it comes to religious tolerance, who shall we tolerate and who we shall not? How shall we separate willful submission to a greater power and outright corrupt oppression of the disempowered? Most importantly, where shall we draw the line between faith and reason?
PLEASE TUNE IN FOR A BRILLIANT RESPONSE FROM RADU.
A recent news story in BBC, "Stoning Victim 'begged for mercy'" highlights everything that is wrong with religious fundamentalism. It was the story of a 13 year-old rape-victim, who apparently yelled "don't kill me, don't kill me" before she was stoned to death by more than 50 men. Allegedly more than a thousand people watched the stoning. The stoning was, according to the Somalian court authorities, a necessity of Sharia law.
This is just not right! And, I do not know any person, Muslim or non-Muslim alike, who would defend the position of the Somalian court authorities. My father, who becomes a pretty devout Muslim, like millions of other Muslims around the world, would be disgusted with the stoning and condemn it with all his heart. I am sure, he would claim that real Islam is a religion of tolerance and love. I believe in my father's sincerity, but this does not change the fact that many Somalians (and their government) believe in a particular interpretation of Islam that preach violence and inequality of women.
I, as an intellectual, cannot find a reasonable line of thought to define "acceptable religion" and the "unacceptable religion," especially given that religions are not supposed to change or vary. Obviously, categorizing all the world's religions through one extreme incident is completely illogical. However, it brings to mind that there are countless interpretations of Islam (similar to other religions). So, there are questions that I want to raise: when it comes to religious tolerance, who shall we tolerate and who we shall not? How shall we separate willful submission to a greater power and outright corrupt oppression of the disempowered? Most importantly, where shall we draw the line between faith and reason?
PLEASE TUNE IN FOR A BRILLIANT RESPONSE FROM RADU.
Nov 13, 2008
The narrow and non-intersecting paths of knowledge
There are many distinctive shifts happening in the intellectual world. Driven by the immense speed of transmission, the interpretation and transformation of ideas is mind boggling. However, this speed carries with it the risk of creating complex, yet superficial paradigms that unable to comprehend deeper and more subtle connections.
A recent opinion piece, Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship , by James A. Evans, tackled a very related issue.
Evans rightfully complained that "as more journal issues came online, the articles referenced tended to be more recent, fewer journals and articles were cited, and more of those citations were to fewer journals and articles. The forced browsing of print archives may have stretched scientists and scholars to anchor findings deeply into past and present scholarship. Searching online is more efficient and following hyperlinks quickly puts researchers in touch with prevailing opinion, but this may accelerate consensus and narrow the range of findings and ideas built upon."
I think, this is an important problem in the era of ultra-focused researh, completely detached academic fields, and poor intellectual public out-reach.
A recent opinion piece, Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship , by James A. Evans, tackled a very related issue.
Evans rightfully complained that "as more journal issues came online, the articles referenced tended to be more recent, fewer journals and articles were cited, and more of those citations were to fewer journals and articles. The forced browsing of print archives may have stretched scientists and scholars to anchor findings deeply into past and present scholarship. Searching online is more efficient and following hyperlinks quickly puts researchers in touch with prevailing opinion, but this may accelerate consensus and narrow the range of findings and ideas built upon."
I think, this is an important problem in the era of ultra-focused researh, completely detached academic fields, and poor intellectual public out-reach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
