Factual Knowledge and Conceptual Clarity

Iman, you said that in this case we have enough factual knowledge and conceptually it is clarified. I think that it’s far from it. Here I mention some of them.

Factual knowledge:

Do we have one person among others that is (terminally) sick and is going to die no matter if we feed him or not?
Do we have someone among us that is a criminal and is a menace for society?
Do we have someone who is a volunteer to stop eating?
Is there one person among us who doesn’t have a spouse or children or father and mother waiting for him/her, so his death will have the least effect on others?
Is there someone who is viscously hurting others or plans to kill them?
What is the relation of the environment with this system (=these 5 people)?
How much other people need them? E.g. Suppose that these people are doctors on a mission to help lots of sick people who desperately need them, so in fact what we have here is not the life of one person against lives of 4 others, but life of one person against lives of thousands of people and many and many other factors.

Conceptual clarity:

Is it life in all forms of it that is important or a happy healthy life?
E.g. Socrates before drinking the hemlock that ended his days said “... not life, but a good life is to be chiefly valued…”
Can life be treated as an additive quantity? E.g. by adding the hours of it, or adding the lives of different persons, to make us able to compare two situations from this view.
Is an act moral when the initial purpose has been a moral one or that morality of the act depends on the consequences of that act?
Does numbers matter in a moral decision(the way Bentham believed it does) , or that numbers don’t matter ( as Kant believed)?
And most importantly:
Is morality adherence to a particular code, whatever that may be, or it’s the code that matters?
And if it’s the code that matters, what is that that code or base?
Is it a religion? If yes which one?
If no, is it reason? if yes, which one of the following are reasonable:
Self-interest? If yes, is it the self-interest of one person( as Hobbes believed) or all people( as Smith believed in )?
I also mentioned some other conceptual problems in my comments, which I don’t repeat here.

And these are only a handful of many more that should be decided on before reaching to a conclusion.

(posted by Farid)

Posted:Sunday, August 31, 2003 | 

A Science Question

I think all of you have read about how refrigerators work. So maybe this is a very simple question that I am going to ask. We know that there are two halves in the system. In the compressor the gas is compressed and it releases heat. Now this is my question: why compressing the gas makes it release heat? The gas had an initial temperature , but after getting compressed , it gets much hotter;why?

(Posted by Farid)

Posted:Sunday, August 31, 2003 | 

Pluralism(23)

A-I was trying to read between the lines of your email to get a coherent understanding of your point, but I think I need your help to avoid confusing myself. you said "this is where he has to decide if he will go on his own inner guidance or he will follow the guidance of someone external to him." you are saying that he must decide between two things. What is hard for me to understand is what these two things you are refering to:
1- to follow his own heart and stop considering Moses's guidances as divine.
2- to follow his own heart while he still considers Moses's laws divine,(ie despite the fact that he still knows them divine)
In my hypothetical story, that person still accepts Moses and his laws divine, but just doesn't like them or he prefers the old laws more.
In case you even agree with the second choice(not following them despite of knowing them divine)as logical and acceptable , you have to help me understand it, since the meaning I get from "divine" , is "the best", "the most correct", "the most advised" because of being Godsent. If you agree with the meaning I have given from "divine", then how can he know those laws divine and be correct and logical in deciding not to follow them? Of course he can choose to do whatever he wants to do, and obviously whatever he does at last, will be what he has decided on, this is obvious, the question is if this decision is logical and correct or not. I'll wait for your help before going further.

(posted by Farid)
Posted:Friday, August 29, 2003 | 

Weekend in Toronto

I am going to be in Toronto this weekend. I am happy that I can meet with my friend Hadi. We have not seen each other since April!! i am sure that we will talk hours :)
Also I hope that I can attend Perdeam’s lecture about Iranians and political life of Canada also to see what Iranians do in Toronto.

(posted by Iman)

Posted:Friday, August 29, 2003 | 

Morality and daily life


Hooman has raised a moral question in his weblog. He gives us two extreme cases
He says

1- Imagine your are castaway and on a food ration with 4 other people. You know there is enough food for only 4 people to survive. Would you and your group draw straws to exclude one person from the food to save the rest of the group? The morality's answer is a resounding no.
and then ask
Would you approve of killing a tiny percentage of people with the aim of bringing about prosperity for the overwhelming majority? Would you say Yes with the same stress if you knew your families were among the little minority?

Challenging questions. Do we have to deal with such a problem in our daily life? You know life it is not always as straightforward as this. We usually talk about benefits and hazards. We only can estimate the risk for the population and still in most of cases we have no estimation for each person. Let me give you a medical example: every medication has some benefits and also side effects. Even this drug maybe kills patients. But what we should do in this case?

For every operation there is a risk. So what should a surgeon do in this case? She/ he thinks that is going to operate one of her/ his family? So how surgeons can operate high-risk patients?

Imagine a policymaker wants to establish a health system somewhere. Let’s suppose he will suggest women to do routine mammography in a certain age and tells them that based on the epidemiologic studies breast self-exam is not recommended. (It means that based on a national or international study it has been shown that breast self-exam does not change the survival of breast cancer). Based on this population-study, the policymaker concludes that breast self-exam is not necessary. For sure some cancers will be missed. It is said that its benefits outweigh its disadvantages for general population.
I think such a problem have been solved already otherwise we would have to sit and think what will happen if a member of my family had such a problem.

Let me ask you another question: what was better? if Saddam still was in Iraq and oppressed people or now American conquered Iraq? You know there was no chance for any changes for a long time in Iraq at least 2 decades!!

(posted by Iman)

Posted:Monday, August 25, 2003 | 

Meditation

I am not familiar with a scientific definition of meditation. My own definition is “the power to stop consciousness, both directed and flowing ones”. I also don’t know if anything done to achieve this goal by ones mental attempt is called meditation or there may be other approaches too. There are lots of times that we are haunted by a thought or feeling that we would be much better off without them. Having the ability to meditate seems to be a priceless power to stop some pernicious thoughts or feelings. I want to ask anybody reading these lines to share with us any hands-on experience with meditation and your particular approach or your special problems you have encountered in doing it. Thank you.

(Posted by Farid)
Posted:Saturday, August 23, 2003 | 

Sperm Donors

Children conceived by the sperms of sperm donors often are not aware of the truth. The truth cannot be anything less than a shock for them , but its not the worst possible case . What if a half-brother and half-sister get married before finding out the truth? Its quite possible that a donor has many biological children which because of similiarities of character would like each other or even fall in love with each other soon after some intimacy. What will be there life after such a discovery? Has any measure been taken to prevent such an accident?

(Posted by Farid)
Posted:Wednesday, August 20, 2003 | 

Medical systems: debates!

I think medical system is a real debate in Canada. It is more than an academic debate based on scientific documents or statistics. I have realized that many Canadians believe that socialized medicine is part of their constitution. They mostly talk from the emotional point of view. They say that your position in this regard shows your respect to Justice, ethics and …. . My dear friend tells me that it is not as easy as I think and people have been discussing for a long time. He says one of the reasons caused this current breakdown in Canadian Medicare is that politicians decided to decrease the budget; after 10 years we see the result of this mismanagement. He believes that if this system is supported like what it was in the past, many problems will be solved. He reminded me that I have been here only four months and it is to soon to judge about it!
When I was in Iran, I thought that Canadian medical system is one of the best, but after four months, I have not seen anybody to say a good thing about this system, though it cannot be good reason for saying that a this doctrine is completely wrong. Another reason is that Iranian medical education is based on the American books and probably it has had invisible effect on my mind. Another reason that Hooman emphasizes is that I look at this issue as a health professional and I only consider doctors’ rights.
But what I know is: neither patients nor doctors are happy with this system; many patients go to states for better care. Many Canadian doctors immigrate to states for better job. Canadian researchers do not have money for their researches. If you are rich, you cannot buy health services. You live in a free country but you cannot choose how you pay your money….

Probably I have to wait and follow this old medical rule: watchful waiting

I add David’s comment on my last post about medical system to see what an American thinks about this issue

Why should health care be unlike other services? Take food, there are programs to feed the hungry, but the middle class and wealthy eat better. No one is going to want to pay taxes so that the disadvantaged can have steaks and lobster for their dinner. Taxes to provide a minimal safety net of health care is one thing, the Mayo clinic is another.

(posted by Iman)

Posted:Wednesday, August 20, 2003 | 

pluralism(22)

A-as you see, I am so confused with pluralism. and since you look to this issue with your heart and not by mere reason, it makes me more confused, since I believe that reasons can easily go wrong, but our heart is a much better measure. I cannot understand, how it is possible to believe in prophethood of a person, and still do without it.

B-yes, i am capable of convincing myself of anything that I want to convince myself of. Is that a reason then to abdicate responsibility and assume that whatever Moses tells me is god's will? for some the answer is yes. for me the answer is not so certain. I will seriously and prayerfully consider what the prophet has to say and give him the benefit of the doubt in 99/100 situations, but I also need to follow my own inner guidance. God also speaks to me. While these intellectual debates may serve a purpose, in the end they are simply intellectual debates or discussions. They are not actions that directly help others; they are not feeding the poor, comforting the afflicted etc. a concern of mine, since i am drawn to such discussions, is that i will forget that real religion is serving others. Jesus was scathing in his attacks on the 'religious leaders' because they were so interested in the letter of the law. He had no trouble bending the laws when he saw a greater need. I believe Mohamed did also I have to be more careful because I would tend to bend the law to benefit myself. So that is my issue. I like things to be black and white but most of them are gray. I do not know what to do with this homosexual bishop. I think it is wrong to say that it is the same as being married. Could I be wrong? Yes. But I like things black and white and Paul was pretty straight on the issue of homosexuality. But I know that most homosexuals do not want to be that way but they were born that way. So what should they do? Should they be celibate as I am because I am unmarried? I think so. What’s wrong with two people who are interested in having a sexual relationship having it if no one is harmed by it? I think that is why we have the scriptures. We are so prone to find 'reasons' to justify our desires that we need something we trust to tell us what god would have us do even though it does not always tell us why god
Wants us to do it. And that is frustrating. I come back to my basic premise: god looks on the heart. If you intent is to do good, to serve god, then that is what matters. If this homosexual bishop's heart is determined to serve god, even though I think it is wrong for him to have that position, then I think god will look favorably on him if not on his actions.

(posted by Farid)
Posted:Tuesday, August 19, 2003 | 

Coup de tat 1953

1953, 19 July. A day that Iranians cannot forget. The story of their most popular politician Dr Mohammad Mossadegh, one of the cheapest Iranian kings and Dr Hussein Fatemi, the foreign minister of Mossadegh’s cabinet who was executed after coup de tat.
(posted by Iman)
Posted:Tuesday, August 19, 2003 | 

pluralism(21)

lets continue this story(read from number 16 of such posts) ... closer to God.

B-again, this is tough. Do we go by feelings or do we go by actions, by fruit, or do we go by blind faith? I think that is up to each to decide. Feelings are fickle so I do not trust them. However, if I can see that following the old teachings has blessed others and that following the new teachings does not and I have a knot in my stomach, then I would go back to the old teaching which bore fruit.
A-what do you think now? so what about all the new possible experiences he can have?
is it wise for him to think that there is nothing new that the prophet of god can show me?

B-no, serving god is like peeling an onion. there is always more to learn.

(posted by Farid)
Posted:Monday, August 18, 2003 | 

Socialized Medicine

This is interesting article by Pierre Lemieux about Canadian medical system. Though it was written in 1989(and probably percentages and statistics are old), you can find good points regarding Canadian socialized medical system. I quote some challenging paragraphs.

The first thing to realize is that free public medicine isn't really free. What the consumer doesn't pay, the taxpayer does, and with a vengeance. Public health expenditures in Quebec amount to 29 per cent of the provincial government budget. One-fifth of the revenues come from a wage tax of 3.22 per cent charged to employers and the rest comes from general taxes at the provincial and federal levels. It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the public health system. This means that the average two-child family pays close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan.

Aside from the problems inherent in all monopolies, the fact that health services are free leads to familiar economic consequences. Basic economics tells us that if a commodity is offered at zero price, demand will increase, supply will drop, and a shortage will develop.When prices are zero, demand exceeds supply, and queues form. For many Canadians, hospital emergency rooms have become their primary doctor -- as is the case with Medicaid patients in the United States. Patients lie in temporary beds in emergency rooms, sometimes for days. At Sainte-Justine Hospital, a major Montreal pediatric hospital, children often wait many hours before they can see a doctor. Surgery candidates face long waiting lists -- it can take six months to have a cataract removed. Heart surgeons report patients dying on their waiting lists. But then, it's free!

Or is it? The busy executive, housewife, or laborer has more productive things to do besides waiting in a hospital queue. For these people, waiting time carries a much higher cost than it does to the unemployed single person. So, if public health insurance reduces the costs of health services for some of the poor, it increases the costs for many other people. It discriminates against the productive.

The most visible consequence of socialized medicine in Canada is in the poor quality of services. Health care has become more and more impersonal. Patients often feel they are on an assembly line. Doctors and hospitals already have more patients than they can handle and no financial incentive to provide good service. Their customers are not the ones who write the checks anyway.

.

Their conception of justice is based on the idea that certain goods like health (and education? and food? where do you stop?) should be made available to all through coercive redistribution by the state. If, on the contrary, we define justice in terms of liberty, then justice forbids coercing some (taxpayers, doctors, and nurses) into providing health services to others. Providing voluntarily for your neighbor in need may be morally good. Forcing your neighbor to help you is morally wrong

In Quebec, you can be relatively sure not to wait six hours with your sick child in an emergency room if you know how to talk to the hospital director, or if one of your old classmates is a doctor, or if your children attend the same exclusive private school as your pediatrician's children. You may get good services if you deal with a medical clinic in the business district. And, of course, you will get excellent services if you fly to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota or to some private hospital in Europe. The point is that these ways to jump the queue are pretty expensive for the typical lower middle class housewife, not to talk of the poor.

(posted by Iman)





Posted:Monday, August 18, 2003 | 

pluralism(20)

A--shouldn’t we conform to godly standards, whatever they are, having faith that they are the right rules, instead of choosing what we think is good for us?

B-again, it is difficult to answer. yes, we need to follow godly standards but we also need to follow our inner guidance. When they conflict we need to go to god as ask for his guidance. I refuse to give absolute power over my life to anyone but god. I will listen to the teachings of great prophets, masters, gurus, but, ultimately, I have to make a decision. Will I blindly follow the prophet or will I go within and follow my inner guidance. I suspect the times that they will conflict will be pretty rare. Paul was told not to go to Rome but felt that he had to go to Rome. So he followed his inner guidance. Was that the best thing to do? i don't know. As long as his motive was to follow god as best he could, it doesn't matter to me which choice he made.

(posted by Farid)
Posted:Thursday, August 14, 2003 | 

Of Death…

by Ahmad Shamlou


Never have I feared death,
Although its hands were more devastating
Than banality.

My fear, however, is of dying in a land
Where the reward of gravediggers
Is greater
Than the freedom of humankind.

To seek
To discover
Then,
To choose with free will
And
To fashion a fortress
Of oneself…

Worthier than this
If death could be
Indeed ever, never in fear
Have I been of death.



(posted by Iman)
Posted:Thursday, August 14, 2003 | 

Pluralism(19)

A-1-do you think he is right to do that? if yes:
-shouldn’t he have faith in that whatever ordained by the prophet of God is the best for him? so where is the role of faith here?

B-to me you are saying that faith in the prophet is faith in god. I do not think that is necessarily the same. The prophet is a human instrument and subject to human error. I do not equate prophets with god but see them as messengers of god. But sometimes their own stuff gets in the way. when elisha slew the prophets of bael I do not think that that was god inspired. It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that it was ego inspired.

A--how can he be sure that what his heart wants, no matter how pure he think it is, is calling him to the best?

B-I don't think it really makes a difference here. god looks on the heart'and if his heart is to serve god to the best of his ability than either choice would do that.

(posted by Farid)
Posted:Wednesday, August 13, 2003 | 

Idealism and reality in medial systems

Hooman and me have been discussing about socialized medical system and private medicine. He says that he prefer the Canadian Medicare system. But I think the private based medicine is more effective. He has some reasons. He says many Americans do not have health insurance (more than 40 millions or 17 % of society). Private insurances are expensive and only rich people can afford it. He says that this is injustice. He prefers to live in a country like Canada even it does not have an excellent health care.

I also believe in justice. But sometimes we mix between reality and our ideals. I think this kind of approach is more emotional than rational. The most important point, which is ignored, is the quality of services. Proponents of social systems say that all Canadians enjoy Medicare. But they do not talk about its quality and efficacy.
In my belief, medical system is kind of business. I think that socialized systems are managed by beaurocrats but private systems are run by business people. The first one is wasting time and money and the second one is effective and productive (of course we can discuss the roles of insurance and pharmaceutical companies; But can we find a perfect system?). Private system can adjust to new situations, but social system has an extremely complicated structure to change itself. The last but not least is this very fact that all medical systems in the world have a parasitic relationship with US medical system (in terms of research and science) and they will die without US help!

So I think “ Good services for Some people is better than Poor services for Many people. “People who catch common cold may not understand what I am say, but you have to ask people who have serious disease like cancer and they have to wait for couple of months. This is the reason that many Canadian patients go to US for better care!

(posted by Iman)

Posted:Wednesday, August 13, 2003 | 

Pluralism(18)
A : me

A-supposing a fervent follower of a prophet, say Moses, leaves him for a trip. at that point he’s got used to all the rules brought by Moses and likes them all.

B-rather than 'likes' I would say 'accepts'

A-so although he believes in divinity of the new rules, he just tells Moses that I prefer to obey your previous orders, because in my heart I feel that they would bring me closer to god.

B-this is where he has to decide if he will go on his own inner guidance or he will follow the guidance of someone external to him. that is always the battle. It is in some ways easier to rely on an external because one does not have to think for himself. And it is also easier to fool oneself into thinking that you have the truth. so it is a two-edged sword.

A-in some of the new rules, Moses has forbidden people of committing some certain acts and in others he has ordered them to do some certain acts, but he says to Moses that I feel by doing your new laws, I would lose my relationship with God. What I like to emphasize here is that he believes that Moses is the prophet of God, and as a result he knows his laws are divine laws.

B-this is a big dilemna. The question is who shall the disciple trust? i would suggest that the disciple go on a retreat and ask god to lead him.

(posted by Farid)
Posted:Tuesday, August 12, 2003 | 

Pluralism(17)

B-As I recall I said something to the effect that I did not think everything a prophet said or was reported to have said had to be 100% true. And, even if it were 100% true, people are interpreting it differently. For example, there is the Torah and then there are the commentaries that go on and and and on and are still going on today. The Rabbis differ in their interpretations. I see where the Episcopal church is making an openly gay priest into a bishop. That astounds me. It might be OK. I don't know how God views it but when I read the scriptures that's not what I see. I see homosexuality condemned. Yet 2% of the population are born that way. True, it may be a choice for some, but for others it is not. They do not want to be different. They do not want to be in that 2% for many different reasons, but they are. So if God made them this way, is it wrong for them to practice? This becomes a big debate among theologians. Likewise, the Prophet Mohammed said . . . and now Mullah A says that means .. . and Mullah B says that means . . . and Mullah C says that means . . . So who really knows what the Prophet meant by it? Which Mullah would I follow? The one who seemed to have the most God-centered life. Or, I would go into prayer and meditation and ask God to lead me to the correct understanding of what the prophet said .Of course, one of the reasons that people want to 'interpret' scripture is that if you take it literally you will have to turn your life upside down. And that's too difficult. So we look for other means. It is complex. Is it OK to kill another human being who is attacking you? Suppose he is attacking you because he feels you are stealing HIS water and you feel that it is YOUR water that he is stealing. Is this what God wants? I think not. I take the definition that 'God is love'. If that is true, then God wants us to be loving. YOu and everyone else in this world are my brothers and sisters. If that is so, if we are all children of God, then how does God want us to treat each other? Suppose your idea on that is in contradiction to something a prophet said. Could it be that your interpretation is in error?When Jesus said to hate your parents, it is clear to me that he did not mean that in the literal sense of the word hate. But that is what he said and I could use that as a justification for hating them. That is why I don't bother much with religion but focus my efforts on spirituality, on relationship with God. When Jesus came he fought and condemned the religious leaders, the priests and Mullahs of his day. I think He would do the same today.

(posted by Farid)
Posted:Tuesday, August 12, 2003 | 

Hashim Aghajari: Nobel Peace Prize Nominee

Hashem Aghajari was history professor at Tarbiat Modarres University.He is one of the possible nominee for Peace prize.PRIO Director, Stein T?nnesson said

Aghajari is one of the bravest people in Iran. Iranians should be proud of him not only because he is Iranian but also he is a real freedom fighter. I hope he wins this honorable prize.

(posted by Iman)
Posted:Monday, August 11, 2003 | 

We usually do not write about politicians. Farid and I believe that writing about them are wasting time. But I could not ignore this topic. Let me know what you think.

Hussein Khomeini and Reza Pahlavi


Recently Hussein Khomeini has moved to Iraq and started to criticize Iranian Islamic regime and suggested military intervention by the United States as a possible path to liberation. I see a similarity between him and Reza Pahlavi.
Let’s see Reza Pahlavi profile:
He is a son of Iranian shah (king of kings!) who is looking for power in Tehran. It is not important for him how since he believes that he must do this mission and liberate his people though I have not seen any invitation letter for Iranian people!

Seven years ago, in one of his interview with BBC, he said that military intervention is the only way and he had reached to the point that there is no peaceful way. After presidential election in Iran and Mohammad Khatami election, he realized that other ways exist and he published his doctrine regarding the democratic state. After changes in geopolitical situation in Iran’s neighbors, he realized that it is the best time to start his mission to take power in Iran. Still I do not know this mission is from God or Iranian people.

Hussein Khomeini
I have never heard any thing about his political activities in Iran. After the US attacked on Iraq, he found the best time to join the race to take power. Nobody knows where he has been in these years. When Ayatolah Montazeri, Mohsen Kadivar, Hasan Yusefi Eshkevari were placed under house arrest or jail, I do not know why he did not express his liberal idea!.

Similarities
I think there are many similarities between them.
Both of them are seeking a future political role.
Nobody knows about their popularity in Iranians
None of them criticize the political systems that Shah and Ayatollah Khomeini established in Iran.
Both of them have liberal idea about the political systems but they have not shown that they believe it or are ready to pay its price. Of course it is understandable since Iranians are going to liberate themselves sunder their leadership!
Both of them agree with the US military intervention to liberate Iranians

The interesting point is that both of them say that they believe a secular state is the best system for Iran. This point is interesting issue for western media. I think western media try to show westerners that western politician support secular movement in Iran.

But we should not forget that Iran is not like Afghanistan or Iraq and nobody says that they support Islamic regime, neither opposition groups inside Iran nor Iranians.

Anyway, I do not know what I have to call these people. They are in the safe place and encourage military interventions. What do you call politicians who merely think about their benefits? Maybe it is too soon to call them Opportunist. Let’s keep an eye on them.

(posted by Iman)
Posted:Monday, August 11, 2003 | 

Immanuel Kant's notion of "True Liberty" in a Secular State (7,last)

This new institution educates and trains people from early childhood to internalize the requirements of this structure. In this system, the habitús of the people is defined and shaped, and in due course the outer becomes the inner and the citizens internalize the state authority. The promise of "true liberty" becomes lost within the new structure in which individual has a constant encounter with the police state. In this system, therefore, the possibility of self-renovation as the consummation of Bourdieu's "practical conversion" through altering that "structured set of structuring dispositions" becomes limited and almost impossible.
Habermass argues that during the Enlightenment, "private individuals assembled into a public body began…to discuss openly and critically the exercise of political power by the state." These citizens, as he argues, had free access to information and expressed their opinion in a rational and domination-free manner. Therefore, they were provided with a freedom, which would eventually lead them towards transformation and salvation. This pervasive belief about public sphere is rooted in the Kantian notions of essentiality of "reason" as an independent faculty functioning in a pure realm of originality. However, as I discussed, this becomes only a ground for a shift in the way that power has been exercised, from a direct involvement of church to a structure in which people are trained to internalize the power.
Bourdieu argues that, "system of preferences" which underlies our decision making depends on not only all the previous choices of the decider but also on the conditions in which his "choices" have been made." Along these same lines, in this paper I demonstrated that religious values of those who historically constructed the public sphere and the Foucauldian notion of "structural effect," in which "the modern state works internally through disciplinary power," are true obstacles blocking secularism's promise of "true liberty." Anthropologists for a long time have taken the secular, as a realm devoid of religious values, for granted. It is necessary also to examine the oppressive bodily habitús needed to become secular.

(written by Navid)
(posted by Farid)

Posted:Sunday, August 10, 2003 | 

Day of journalists!!



by Nikahang Kowsar

(posted by Iman)

Posted:Friday, August 08, 2003 | 

Pluralism(16)

A:Here I use an imaginary situation to help me get closer to the main point. In the next email, and after seeing your way of looking to the issue, I will continue this talk.

Supposing a fervent follower of a prophet, say Moses, leaves him for a trip. At that point he’s got used to all the rules brought by Moses and likes them all. Then after passing of a period of twenty years he comes back to Moses, not having heard of him at all during this time. He has been following these rules during this period of absence, getting used to them more and more. When he comes back, he finds out that there are some new rules added to previous ones, and some of those previous rules are changed or modified. So although he believes in divinity of the new rules, he just tells Moses that I prefer to obey your previous orders, because in my heart I feel that they would bring me closer to God. In some of the new rules, Moses has forbidden people of committing some certain acts and in others he has ordered them to do some certain acts, but he says to Moses that I feel by doing your new laws, I would lose my relationship with God. What I like to emphasize here is that he believes that Moses is the prophet of God, and as a result he knows his laws are divine laws.
1-Do you think he is right to do that?
If yes:
-Shouldn’t he have faith in that whatever ordained by the prophet of God is the best for him? So where is the role of faith here?
-How can he be sure that what his heart wants, no matter how pure he think it is, is calling him to the best?
-Shouldn’t we conform to Godly standards, whatever they are, having faith that they are the right rules, instead of choosing what we think is good for us?

If no, why?

Lets continue this story. This man has lots of memories from the time he has spent with Moses; he has been following him everywhere trying to find more and more answers to his questions, seeing how Moses deals with different issues of life, filling his mind with all the sweet memories of being with him . Coming back from that trip, having lived with the memory of Moses of twenty years ago, he has a hard time to enjoy the new physics of the prophet with his approaches seeming also different to him. So he tells Moses, that I prefer to stop being with you and want to enjoy the memories I have from you before my trip. Since by those memories, my heart feels much warmer and I feel closer to God.

2-What do you think now?
-So what about all the new possible experiences he can have?
- Is it wise for him to think that there is nothing new that the prophet of God can show him?

As you see, I am so confused with pluralism. And since you look to this issue with your heart and not by mere reason, it makes me more confused, since I believe that reasons can easily go wrong, but our heart is a much better measure. I cannot understand, how it is possible to believe in prophethood of a person, and still do without it.

(Posted by Farid)

Posted:Friday, August 08, 2003 | 

Providing some services for more people vs. providing more services for some people

This is a fundamental question regarding the social or private health care. We can look at this issue from to angels: individual feeling that usually is mixed with our personal experiences and holistic vision, which is based on more scientific evidences. Living in an idealistic world is interesting fantasy, but it is not necessarily true. We may be against Capitalism, but in reality we enjoy its results. We may hate the pharmaceutical companies, but we use their products, when we are seeking for better treatment. We may be against the private medical system, but medicine cannot survive without money. I am not saying that I agree or disagree with those doctrines. What I am trying to say is that we have to solve this paradox: how can we use America products and in the same time criticize what they do. Mind you I do not mean Mc Donald or Barbie!. I mean scientific and industrial matters. If you are against the US, you should not fly by plane, you should not drive a car with American engine, you should not take any American pills, you should not read any American journal. You should not…

Anyway, when I was in Iran I thought that a socialized medical system is the best option though I was familiar with Norwegian medical system which is almost socialized. It is extremely bureaucratic and ineffective. Here in Canada, say Quebec, I have been involved in the medical system and I am close enough to see what is going on. Recently I have read an American articleabout their medical system and I found it very interesting. Here I quote some parts of it and in the next post I will try to write about what I think about this issue.

It is unavoidable that there will be tough policy choices between providing some services for more people and providing more services for some people. In either case, policy makers will seek better quality for the money being spent. This question of where to invest in quality raises fundamental philosophical (and political) questions about whether to seek allocative efficiency (spreading the available money around to cover a larger number of people to achieve fairness) or technical efficiency (spending money so that the greatest amount of positive health outcomes are achieved regardless of who receives them). Will policy makers seek distributive justice or utilitarian cost-effectiveness?

Experts estimate that more than 42 million Americans—roughly 1 in 6—are without health insurance.6 From Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the State Children's Health Insurance Program of the 1990s, the United States has attacked the problem of insurance access. Yet during the past 2 decades, the problem of uninsurance has actually grown. Between 1977 and 1998, the proportion of nonelderly Americans without health insurance increased from 12.3% to 15.8%. The Medical Expenditures Panel Survey shows that more than 20% of African Americans and nearly 32% of Hispanics lack health insurance, compared with 12% of whites.6 Of all uninsured, 23% are Hispanic and 16% are African American, while only 10% of the total population is Hispanic and 11% is African American.8 Men are less likely to be insured than women, and young adults are at a higher risk of lacking insurance than other age groups. Nearly 32% of adults aged 19 to 24 years are uninsured, compared with 12.9% aged 55 to 64 years.

(posted by Iman)

Posted:Thursday, August 07, 2003 | 

Modernity, Globalization and Iran

Iran has one of the youngest societies in the world. Even though modernity, globalization are western concept, it is necessary that people in the east especially in the middle east know more about them. I think that modern life comes after modern thought. Unfortunately, this important issue still is not a common topic and it is mostly discussed in the academic level. It seems there is not any public awareness in Iran. For me as an Iranian who has recently come to the west, it is quite interesting and I have realized that I know almost nothing about Globalization. Last week, I met with Dr Ata Hoodashtian in Nikahang Kowsar exhibition. He graduated from Sorbonne in Philosophy and has PhD in political science. I believe it is a great opportunity for Iranian community in Montreal to learn more about political philosophy. He kindly gave me permission to put one of his speeches in the weblog. This speech is about Modernity, Globalization and Iran. Please click here. It is in Persian!
(posted by Iman)

Posted:Monday, August 04, 2003 | 

Immanuel Kant's notion of "True Liberty" in a Secular State (6)


This secularization thesis, the ideological foundation of secular government, as Talal Asad also argues, empowers the contemporary rulers of England to ignore the fact that Christianity "is a crucial element in the history that shaped Britain." This ideology does not solely remain in the realm of scholastic or philosophical debates, but rather establishes a very consequential foundation upon which the contemporary political discourse is formulated. In this discourse, the so-called "public" and "private" spheres are defined and distinguished and accordingly the very rights of citizens of the modern states are shaped and practiced.
The failure of the British government to extend the blasphemy law, which prohibits insults to Christianity, to the British Muslims in the case of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses is probably the most conspicuous example of such a consequence. The home minister for race relations, John Patten, in his document in this regard talks about "a common national culture." He claims that this commonality is to be found in "our democracy and our laws, the English language, and the history that has shaped modern Britain." Apparently, his concept of history differs from what I have mentioned here.
Due to the new reorganization of power, therefore, the traditional top-down or vertical hierarchical image of the power structure is inadequate to discuss the power of the state in its modern sense. Kant's internalization of the power of the invisible state, then, is the key to understanding these transformations.
In my opinion, the Enlightenment can be viewed in terms of a liminal stage of a process in which the boundaries of the previous order were broken down and the new one not yet established. In this process a very peculiar solution, in the discourse of true liberty, is being put forward, which introduces a shift in the structure of government. In the Weberian terminology, this movement and its doctrines, however, become routinized and institutionalized.

(posted by Farid)
Posted:Saturday, August 02, 2003 | 

The World Tomorrow

I saw “The Mission” yesterday by Robert De Niro and Jeremy irons. Apart for the always saddening story of horrible things done to Indians, it includes another important theme. Rodrigo , a hunter of Indians , becomes a priest after a long and hard period of suffering from his guilty conscience.Later he decides to fight the invaders and so renounces his priesthood, while Father strongly believes that this is not the way a priest should help others. He says to Rodrigo: if might is right , then love has no place in the world ; it may be so, it may be so, but I don’t have the strength to live in a world like that.

Learning to love others like many other things is an educational process that should be taken very seriously as a necessity for the world we like to be in.


Hole in the World

There’s a hole in the world tonight.
There’s a cloud of fear and sorrow.
There’s a hole in the world tonight.
Don’t let there be a hole in the world tomorrow.

They say that anger is just love disappointed.
They say that love is just a state of mind.
But all this fighting over who is anointed,
Oh, how can people be so blind?

There’s a hole in the world tonight.
There’s a cloud of fear and sorrow.
There’s a hole in the world tonight.
Don’t let there be a hole in the world tomorrow.

Oh, they tell me there’s a place over yonder
Cool water running through the burning sand.
Until we learn to love one another,
We will never reach the Promised Land.

There’s a hole in the world tonight.
There’s a cloud of fear and sorrow.
There’s a hole in the world tonight.
Don’t let there be a hole in the world tomorrow.

(by The Eagles)
(posted by Farid)

Posted:Saturday, August 02, 2003 |