One thing that I like a lot about my family is that we are all fanatical about books. In an age where being labelled 'bookish' effectively results in expulsion from society, it's heavenly to retreat into my family home and lose myself in print paradise. As a result of this mania, my family home in Bangalore is filled to bursting with books by various people from various places across the world. And often, whenever I come back from Bombay, I go on a rather quaint expedition to find some interesting piece of work that has disappeared from everyone's memory.
My grandfather used to work in India's public sector during its heyday and had travelled through Eastern Europe around the same time. As a result of which, I have discovered a lot of interesting stuff related to the Indian industries in the 1960's and many books that had been purchased from places like the erstwhile Czechoslovakia which was then under the Soviets.
Strangely, these Soviet-era novels and storybooks are not dull, grey and rhetorical as many people would like us to believe. On the contrary, they are colourful, imaginative and really stimulating. The propoganda is there all right but it's presented to the reader in such a way that the reader would hardly notice it unless she looked carefully. For instance, there is this children's novella called The Three Fat Men which is a story about an obese trio who dictatorially ruled a country until they were defeated in a rebellion. A typical cruel-king-who-gets-punished story except for some subtle twists to make the reader admire the cause of the reds.
To be perfectly fair, if someone who has no knowledge of modern history or politics read this book, it will seem like a perfect story with a happy ending where the people end up living in a land of equals. In fact, they will probably conclude that rationally there can no other happy ending. Rationally speaking, the common people were completely justified in overthrowing their oppressive capitalist oligarchs, the The Three Fat Men. Therefore, in a broader sense, capitalism is not as good as communism where class distinctions are done away with.
Which of course, is not really true for communism has as many flaws as capitalism. In fact, every socioeconomic system has its own set of flaws that cause problems. But the book made me think...what do we really mean when we say 'Rational'? Because as I have just pointed out, rationally speaking you can justify something that others can't accept. What is rationality? Mathematically, it's easy to define rationality. But socially, what exactly is 'thinking in a rational way'?
Everyday, I read articles in the papers or the net where the writers beseech some targeted party to be rational. And then those targeted parties claim that they are being rational. For instance, there was this interview which I saw on youtube with an Islamic cleric where the cleric was asked why he supported the building of mosques in western countries while not supporting churches or temples to be built in Islamic republics. Here's what he had to say.
Now, I don't know and at the risk of hurting someone's sentiments, I don't give a f*** what other people thought about that video but as far as I'm concerned, that's the most ridiculous piece of crap logic I've ever heard , even if I ignore the title and the comment at the beginning of the video. But it's quite easy to see how many people can actually consider his statements 'logical'. If you look at his reasoning carefully, he's actually appears quite 'rational' and according to many, he is extremely rational. He'll take eternity to convince me of his statements but the same may not apply to other people.
Which brings me back to my main point. What does rationality mean? Is it subjective or universal? Is there a concrete way to being rational and do people like this dude just twist that path to suit their own needs? If so, then how exactly do you prove that it's your path that's logical and not the other guy's? You may know it's right but what about others?
Thinking about this stuff right now. If you have any ideas, do comment.
My grandfather used to work in India's public sector during its heyday and had travelled through Eastern Europe around the same time. As a result of which, I have discovered a lot of interesting stuff related to the Indian industries in the 1960's and many books that had been purchased from places like the erstwhile Czechoslovakia which was then under the Soviets.
Strangely, these Soviet-era novels and storybooks are not dull, grey and rhetorical as many people would like us to believe. On the contrary, they are colourful, imaginative and really stimulating. The propoganda is there all right but it's presented to the reader in such a way that the reader would hardly notice it unless she looked carefully. For instance, there is this children's novella called The Three Fat Men which is a story about an obese trio who dictatorially ruled a country until they were defeated in a rebellion. A typical cruel-king-who-gets-punished story except for some subtle twists to make the reader admire the cause of the reds.
To be perfectly fair, if someone who has no knowledge of modern history or politics read this book, it will seem like a perfect story with a happy ending where the people end up living in a land of equals. In fact, they will probably conclude that rationally there can no other happy ending. Rationally speaking, the common people were completely justified in overthrowing their oppressive capitalist oligarchs, the The Three Fat Men. Therefore, in a broader sense, capitalism is not as good as communism where class distinctions are done away with.
Which of course, is not really true for communism has as many flaws as capitalism. In fact, every socioeconomic system has its own set of flaws that cause problems. But the book made me think...what do we really mean when we say 'Rational'? Because as I have just pointed out, rationally speaking you can justify something that others can't accept. What is rationality? Mathematically, it's easy to define rationality. But socially, what exactly is 'thinking in a rational way'?
Everyday, I read articles in the papers or the net where the writers beseech some targeted party to be rational. And then those targeted parties claim that they are being rational. For instance, there was this interview which I saw on youtube with an Islamic cleric where the cleric was asked why he supported the building of mosques in western countries while not supporting churches or temples to be built in Islamic republics. Here's what he had to say.
Now, I don't know and at the risk of hurting someone's sentiments, I don't give a f*** what other people thought about that video but as far as I'm concerned, that's the most ridiculous piece of crap logic I've ever heard , even if I ignore the title and the comment at the beginning of the video. But it's quite easy to see how many people can actually consider his statements 'logical'. If you look at his reasoning carefully, he's actually appears quite 'rational' and according to many, he is extremely rational. He'll take eternity to convince me of his statements but the same may not apply to other people.
Which brings me back to my main point. What does rationality mean? Is it subjective or universal? Is there a concrete way to being rational and do people like this dude just twist that path to suit their own needs? If so, then how exactly do you prove that it's your path that's logical and not the other guy's? You may know it's right but what about others?
Thinking about this stuff right now. If you have any ideas, do comment.