It’s been 3 years since I moved to Goa. The descriptions of its beauty were often trite and I never cared enough to imagine what Goa actually might be like. While most of my time since last three years has been spent inside the campus, I had some occasions where I experienced the less talked about beauty of this state. At first, this very beauty I am talking about was a serious pain in the ass. I remember being absolutely baffled when, for the first time, an item was removed from my cart to manage the lack of exact change to pay my bill off. See I was accustomed to the more ‘profitable’ act of adding a couple of chocolates in the cart in such situations, but that would require the Goan on the counter to give a damn. Continue reading Panjim and the rest
An excellent read!
You’ve heard it before, the beloved aphorism from the ever-intriguing Confucius;
“Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.”
I’ve also heard it attributed to Albert Einstein, but the internet tells me that Confucius coined it, so we’ll go with that. Regardless, you’ve probably seen it in the form of a meme, pinned a thousand times on Pinterest, shared on Facebook, tweeted on twitter, etc…
^stuff like this^
I understand why the quote is so popular. There is something inspiring, something hopeful about it. It is just poetic enough to sound reasonable, just vague enough to withstand any serious scrutiny.
The only problem, of course, is that it is almost entirely false.
If the phrase was not so oft-quoted, if I did not think it influenced people’s decisions, I wouldn’t be writing this post. But from where I stand, this…
View original post 1,026 more words
It would be so nice if everyone believed in a single moral code with absolute conviction. But is there a logical way to arrive at one? And till we don’t have such a code, is any other not-so-consensual version serving the purpose? Often the discussions regarding people and cultures come down to the problem of indefinability of morality. And when a discussion starts on this problem of defining morality (like this one), one sometimes arrives at a way of doing it which is as objective as it is abstract. Like in one such session with my brother, we had to check the validity of the following algorithm to decide if an act was moral or immoral.
If, when practiced widely, teleologically with the purpose mentioned ahead and over a period of time, it will lead to our species living longer and fuller, it is moral; shorter and emptier, it is immoral.
This passed a few tests, two very like minded people subject it to.
“Raping-a-cow test” however, did confuse us.
I also read another discussion in Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts, which ended in a similar (slightly more abstract) conclusion: Whatever increases the complexity of the universe is moral and whatever reverses the process of it becoming complex is immoral.
Such conclusions score pretty low on the pragmatical front though (in my opinion).
Anyway, I am writing this to get to know more opinions, or the degree of agreement of readers, with reasons. I am pretty new at blogging and I have adopted a pretty quixotic model to go about it, which restricts me from sharing this on Facebook or other platforms. Since you are already here, you might help me with that as well if you decide to comment with your take on this matter. Please do include your answers to the opening questions:
“..is there a logical way to arrive at one? And until we have one such code, is any other not-so-consensual version serving the purpose?”
Today the two weeks trip to USA ended. A friend asks me how the experience was, and all I could say was, ‘Spiritual’. When I reached NYC, my brother told me that I was going to see how concrete can be beautiful. Well, he was right.
The concrete there is beautiful, but not enough to distract me into a life reevaluating mode; its people and culture are. Continue reading New York, New York