I read this book. I liked the writer's inventiveness in plot and characterization. I believe that, literary devices, inventiveness of plot, and use of language, rather than the writer's philosophical worldview, make a book readable and enjoyable. As I won't be discussing the literary features of the book but its philosophical world-view, I am calling this article an analysis.
I object to three specific points regarding the writer's world-view. They are:
Eclecticism:
The writer tries to highlight the eclecticism of Pi. The problem is that Hinduism, as understood today, is actually Smartavad. There are many other separate religions like Shaivavad, Shaktavad, and Vaisnava Dharma subsumed under the label Hinduism. The doctrine of Smartavad says that all paths to God are equally valid. Hence, eclecticism is the same as Hinduism (Smartavad). My objections to author's eclecticism are:
1- The writer refers to Vishnu but never refers to Shiva. Is the writer soft pedaling Vishnu Dharma in the name of Hinduism?
2- If a Shaiva and Vaishnava can be called as members of the same faith, why can't a Muslim and a Shaiva be members of the same faith? Is the inability of "Hinduism" to subsume Islam and Christianity related to the perceived foreign origin of these religions? In that case, is the existence of India as a political entity, the only barrier to eclecticism for Indians? The foreignness of Islam and Christianity exists only if India, the political entity, exists.
This supposition is dangerous.
3- Does the author imply that "Hinduism" was created as a response to the threat from Islam/Christianity? The various religions currently subsumed under Hinduism had more in common with each other than they had with Islam/Christianity and hence they coalesced. In that case, isn't the writer saying that Hinduism will always be at loggerheads with Islam and Christianity as the supposed conflict with is central to their existence?
Aesthetic considerations:
The writer uses an inventive way to try and prove the existence of God. He tells two stories and asks the people about their opinion on the stories. As both stories do not meet the needs of the listeners, he asks them to consider the more interesting story as true. And he proceeds to make the same demand with respect to God.
The problem with this approach is two-fold:
1- Some people may consider the story without animals to be more interesting. Aesthetic tastes are not universal.
2- There is no reason to believe that the story of a Universe with God will be more aesthetically pleasing to more people than a Universe without God. I do believe in God but I sincerely believe that all attempts to convince people of God's existence are useless. Those who believe will believe and those who have doubts will have doubts.
Agnosticism:
The writer seems to have a problem with agnosticism and doubt. He seems to believe that having doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to having immobility as a mode of transportation. However, renowned thinkers like Edward De Bono, believe that it was the embracing of doubt and hypotheses that enabled Western Civilization to move ahead of the Chinese, who wanted to move from certainty to certainty. It seems that it is not doubt but its absence that makes society immobile.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
IPL- A detailed analysis
In the beginning, I want to make it clear that criticism of IPL is not criticism of T20 cricket. There was T20 before IPL and there are many non-IPL T20 cricket tournaments. Having said that, I find many of the criticism against IPL baffling.
Writers, mostly of English origin, accuse IPL of undermining Test cricket. Surprisingly, the accusation was not levelled at T20 cricket before IPL came into vogue. T20 was started to reverse the trend of dwindling crowds. I personally like tests and I do not see how can IPL or T20 kill tests as long as players and board are committed to it. And if IPL is the culprit, why are the Twenty20 cup in England, the KFC Big Bash, or the World T20 cup not considered as co-culprits in undermining Test cricket?
IPL is accused of undermining international cricket. IPL franchisee are not the only domestic cricket side to feature foreign players. English counties have been doing it for more than a century. How come they were never accused of undermining international cricket but instead lionized as the bedrock and bastion of cricket. English county cricket did deprive most domestic teams, outside England, of their most valuable players as those players went to play the more lucrative county cricket.Is it IPL's problem that it pays players more money than county cricket?
This does not mean that the IPL is a blessing. The IPL is the property of BCCI, the apex governing body of cricket in India. BCCI's team represents India in all ICC sanctioned matches in all the three formats - Test, one-day, and T20. BCCI is an conglomerate of cricket associations, most of which represent Indian states. To develop the Indian team, the BCCI organizes domestic cricket tournaments in India. Except for IPL and Corporate Trophy, the participating teams in the other tournaments, represent BCCI's member associations.
The IPL, as a tournament, is more popular than the Coporate Trophy. The non-IPL T20 domestic tournament was instituted after IPL and is almost invisible in IPL's shadow. On the other hand, all First Class tournaments (which help BCCI in selecting Test players) and most List A tournaments (which help BCCI in selecting one day players) are played between BCCI's member associations. So T20 is the only format in which there is considerable BCCI-sanctioned involvement of non-BCCI affiliated organizations.
Hence, the success or failure of IPL, in pure cricketing terms, can be best measured by comparing the success rates of India in T20, ODI (one day international)and Tests. In the last two years, since the first season of IPL, BCCI's team has the best win-loss ratio in Test, the third best win-loss ratio in ODIs and the eighth best win-loss ratio in T20 among the tem full members of ICC. The Test and ODI win-loss ratio are above the pre-IPL win-loss ratio but the T20 win-loss ratio is worse than the pre-IPL win-loss ratio.
It may be claimed that IPL improved the general standard of T20. This claim is debatable as Pakistan, the most successful T20 side is the one with the least involvement in IPL. India on the other hand has the maximum involvement in IPL and its relative position has declined.
Worse than that, the IPL thing shows the Inian capitalists in avery poor light. In the first IPL season, they splurged huge sums on the members of Indian World Cup team and spent relatively less on the so-called greats of cricket. 2 years down the line, most of those young Indian players have proved failures in T20 while the so-called great players have usually reoterated their greatness by their failure. The herd-like, irrational behavior which jacked up the rates of young Indian players bodes ill for India.
The IPL owners hiring plans and spend seem to have no link with reality. The concept of pay for performance is noticeableby its absence. Ishant Sharma, a two T20 veteran, with an average of above 50.00 and an economy rate of near 8 was bought for $9,50,000. On the other Umar Gul, the best bowler in World T20 cup, was bought for only $1,50,000 in the plyer auction despite his average of 22.00 and economy rate of below 6.
As the IPL players are selected via auction the high prices for these Indian players (in comparison to their base price) reflect the idiocy of almost all team owners as almost all of them joined in the bidding war for these players. The team owners, or at least some team owners, also seem to lack a respect in their profession. Modi, the administrator of IPL, considered Hyderabad unsafe for IPL. Deccan Chronicle, the owner of the Hyderabad-based team, and a Hyderabad-based giant media company contested Modi's view. However, despite its much better credentials, it did not contest Modi's view further after it was allowed two games in Cuttack as home games. The acceptance of Modi's decision portrays Deccan Chronicle as a newspaper that either does not know the happenings in its own neighborhood or does not have the confidence to present its differing and expert opinion to authorities.
Hence, in my view, the decision to start IPL has done more good than bad to cricket.
Writers, mostly of English origin, accuse IPL of undermining Test cricket. Surprisingly, the accusation was not levelled at T20 cricket before IPL came into vogue. T20 was started to reverse the trend of dwindling crowds. I personally like tests and I do not see how can IPL or T20 kill tests as long as players and board are committed to it. And if IPL is the culprit, why are the Twenty20 cup in England, the KFC Big Bash, or the World T20 cup not considered as co-culprits in undermining Test cricket?
IPL is accused of undermining international cricket. IPL franchisee are not the only domestic cricket side to feature foreign players. English counties have been doing it for more than a century. How come they were never accused of undermining international cricket but instead lionized as the bedrock and bastion of cricket. English county cricket did deprive most domestic teams, outside England, of their most valuable players as those players went to play the more lucrative county cricket.Is it IPL's problem that it pays players more money than county cricket?
This does not mean that the IPL is a blessing. The IPL is the property of BCCI, the apex governing body of cricket in India. BCCI's team represents India in all ICC sanctioned matches in all the three formats - Test, one-day, and T20. BCCI is an conglomerate of cricket associations, most of which represent Indian states. To develop the Indian team, the BCCI organizes domestic cricket tournaments in India. Except for IPL and Corporate Trophy, the participating teams in the other tournaments, represent BCCI's member associations.
The IPL, as a tournament, is more popular than the Coporate Trophy. The non-IPL T20 domestic tournament was instituted after IPL and is almost invisible in IPL's shadow. On the other hand, all First Class tournaments (which help BCCI in selecting Test players) and most List A tournaments (which help BCCI in selecting one day players) are played between BCCI's member associations. So T20 is the only format in which there is considerable BCCI-sanctioned involvement of non-BCCI affiliated organizations.
Hence, the success or failure of IPL, in pure cricketing terms, can be best measured by comparing the success rates of India in T20, ODI (one day international)and Tests. In the last two years, since the first season of IPL, BCCI's team has the best win-loss ratio in Test, the third best win-loss ratio in ODIs and the eighth best win-loss ratio in T20 among the tem full members of ICC. The Test and ODI win-loss ratio are above the pre-IPL win-loss ratio but the T20 win-loss ratio is worse than the pre-IPL win-loss ratio.
It may be claimed that IPL improved the general standard of T20. This claim is debatable as Pakistan, the most successful T20 side is the one with the least involvement in IPL. India on the other hand has the maximum involvement in IPL and its relative position has declined.
Worse than that, the IPL thing shows the Inian capitalists in avery poor light. In the first IPL season, they splurged huge sums on the members of Indian World Cup team and spent relatively less on the so-called greats of cricket. 2 years down the line, most of those young Indian players have proved failures in T20 while the so-called great players have usually reoterated their greatness by their failure. The herd-like, irrational behavior which jacked up the rates of young Indian players bodes ill for India.
The IPL owners hiring plans and spend seem to have no link with reality. The concept of pay for performance is noticeableby its absence. Ishant Sharma, a two T20 veteran, with an average of above 50.00 and an economy rate of near 8 was bought for $9,50,000. On the other Umar Gul, the best bowler in World T20 cup, was bought for only $1,50,000 in the plyer auction despite his average of 22.00 and economy rate of below 6.
As the IPL players are selected via auction the high prices for these Indian players (in comparison to their base price) reflect the idiocy of almost all team owners as almost all of them joined in the bidding war for these players. The team owners, or at least some team owners, also seem to lack a respect in their profession. Modi, the administrator of IPL, considered Hyderabad unsafe for IPL. Deccan Chronicle, the owner of the Hyderabad-based team, and a Hyderabad-based giant media company contested Modi's view. However, despite its much better credentials, it did not contest Modi's view further after it was allowed two games in Cuttack as home games. The acceptance of Modi's decision portrays Deccan Chronicle as a newspaper that either does not know the happenings in its own neighborhood or does not have the confidence to present its differing and expert opinion to authorities.
Hence, in my view, the decision to start IPL has done more good than bad to cricket.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Some Philosophical Ramblings
Ontological Identity
Physicalism is the theory that mental states are nothing but states of the brain. Hence, anger is nothing but a state of the brain. Before discussing the theory its better to have a look at identity.
Identity is either necessary or contingent. If the identity between states of the brain and the physical states is necessary than it is not possible to artificially create intelligence in machines whose bodies are not human-like. More importantly, organisms whose brain states do not have overlapping brain states with ours, cannot have similar mental states. I don' think that a single of my brain state overlaps with a dog's brain state. But I think dogs can get angry.
Hence, the identity, if any, is likely to be contingent. And this means that anger has an epistological existence outside the body. Maybe anger is a functional concept.
Happiness and Effort
Will a supremely happy person make any effort? I don't think so. My reasons are:
1- An effort is directed towards a goal. Achieving the goal increases happiness while not achieving it brings disappointment. A supremely happy person cannot be made any happier and hence effort will only tend to destabilize his happiness.
2- Every thing in the universe wants to attain its objective with minimum effort. Happiness is the objective of rational, self-centered beings. Hence, if effort does not add to happiness it is irrational and hence won't be undertaken.
Physicalism is the theory that mental states are nothing but states of the brain. Hence, anger is nothing but a state of the brain. Before discussing the theory its better to have a look at identity.
Identity is either necessary or contingent. If the identity between states of the brain and the physical states is necessary than it is not possible to artificially create intelligence in machines whose bodies are not human-like. More importantly, organisms whose brain states do not have overlapping brain states with ours, cannot have similar mental states. I don' think that a single of my brain state overlaps with a dog's brain state. But I think dogs can get angry.
Hence, the identity, if any, is likely to be contingent. And this means that anger has an epistological existence outside the body. Maybe anger is a functional concept.
Happiness and Effort
Will a supremely happy person make any effort? I don't think so. My reasons are:
1- An effort is directed towards a goal. Achieving the goal increases happiness while not achieving it brings disappointment. A supremely happy person cannot be made any happier and hence effort will only tend to destabilize his happiness.
2- Every thing in the universe wants to attain its objective with minimum effort. Happiness is the objective of rational, self-centered beings. Hence, if effort does not add to happiness it is irrational and hence won't be undertaken.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Moderate Islam?
What does the moderate in "moderate Islam" refer to.
According to Merrriam-Webster, the different meanings of moderate, used as an adjective, are:
1 a : avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits b : calm, temperate
2 a : tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension b : having average or less than average quality : mediocre
3 : professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme
4 : limited in scope or effect
5 : not expensive : reasonable or low in price
6 of a color : of medium lightness and medium chroma
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderate
I think the reference is to meanings labeled 1a and 3 respectively. The view assumes that Western civilization is the standard civilization, the status quo, and Islam must conform to it. Despite being a Westerner in thought, I find this assumption disgusting. In sheer number of adherents, Islam may have more adherents than Western civilization, which I have used to refer to a secular, techno-scientific society. Many Americans won't be adherents of the above-mentioned "Western civilization", especially the Evangelist creationists. Use of technology, without accepting science, cannot be a differentiating factor for "moderate Islam" as most "radical Islamicists" are avid users of technology.
According to Merrriam-Webster, the different meanings of moderate, used as an adjective, are:
1 a : avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits b : calm, temperate
2 a : tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension b : having average or less than average quality : mediocre
3 : professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme
4 : limited in scope or effect
5 : not expensive : reasonable or low in price
6 of a color : of medium lightness and medium chroma
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moderate
I think the reference is to meanings labeled 1a and 3 respectively. The view assumes that Western civilization is the standard civilization, the status quo, and Islam must conform to it. Despite being a Westerner in thought, I find this assumption disgusting. In sheer number of adherents, Islam may have more adherents than Western civilization, which I have used to refer to a secular, techno-scientific society. Many Americans won't be adherents of the above-mentioned "Western civilization", especially the Evangelist creationists. Use of technology, without accepting science, cannot be a differentiating factor for "moderate Islam" as most "radical Islamicists" are avid users of technology.
Anarcho-capitalism: Succint Description of my Opposition
1- Anarcho-capitalism (AC) says that abortion is fine as the mother is fully within her rights to expel a predator.
Does one have the right to expel a guest for no reason. No, one doesn't. And the child is a guest whom the mother willingly invited. And the fetus has to be assumed to be conscious from the date of inception otherwise those who oppose the statement have to show how the fetus became conscious.
2- AC says that only rights are property rights
I murder a child in an area which no one claims to be his/her property. If the child is not his/her parents property then no property right is infringed (assuming child is not working). So murdering a child is ok.
3- AC claims that parents rights over their children are limited
I capture an animal. Don't I have the right to kill it, torture it, or recapture it if it runs away. When I can have such rights over a creature which can exist independently of me, why can't parents have such rights over their children who, unlike most things available in market, are created from their bodies and only their bodies.
Does one have the right to expel a guest for no reason. No, one doesn't. And the child is a guest whom the mother willingly invited. And the fetus has to be assumed to be conscious from the date of inception otherwise those who oppose the statement have to show how the fetus became conscious.
2- AC says that only rights are property rights
I murder a child in an area which no one claims to be his/her property. If the child is not his/her parents property then no property right is infringed (assuming child is not working). So murdering a child is ok.
3- AC claims that parents rights over their children are limited
I capture an animal. Don't I have the right to kill it, torture it, or recapture it if it runs away. When I can have such rights over a creature which can exist independently of me, why can't parents have such rights over their children who, unlike most things available in market, are created from their bodies and only their bodies.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Book Review: Ethics of Liberty -selected portions
"Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain."
The author states that the consent is not a contract. If the consent is a contract than the argument is invalid.
"there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity.And thirdly as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. "
Who is the author to decide whether the ovum is a "voluntarily and consciously contracting entity"?. Are all ovum his slave? If I make a contract to build a table for a person in 3 months than how is that not a voluntary slave contract but the contract to bear a child is? Both involve the body. Does the author mean to say all contracts are void? It can be said that there is no proof that the child wants to live. But I use the assumption that every child wants to live unless he/she states otherwise. If this assumption is not valid than a person can murder another provided he/she is ready to pay the liabilities due from that person. The author says that a promise is a contract only if some property rights are violated by the non-performance of contract. Who is he to define a contract and what is property? Right to life exists and if that breach is caused, it is the breaking of contract.
"But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children."
What is bizarre or grotesque in this? Parents create the child without external help and hence have complete rights over it. The child is not even created outside the body. Thus as the child is created in the body and by using only the body. I don't think it is any more bizarre or grotesque than subjecting animals to human control or torturing them. Similarly, if people can capture runaway animals, why the same right is not permitted with regard to children? People don't create animals but they create babies.In the words of the author, whose property rights are violated if the parents kill the child.
"We must therefore state that, even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. "
My car does not exist inside me. Does it mean my right over it is limited? It is off course a separate entity? And who is an adult?
Hence, in my view, this chapter only shows the internal contradictions in anarcho-capitalism. It shows that most so-called anarcho-capitalists talk about freedom but in reality they support tyranny of the worst sort.
The author states that the consent is not a contract. If the consent is a contract than the argument is invalid.
"there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity.And thirdly as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. "
Who is the author to decide whether the ovum is a "voluntarily and consciously contracting entity"?. Are all ovum his slave? If I make a contract to build a table for a person in 3 months than how is that not a voluntary slave contract but the contract to bear a child is? Both involve the body. Does the author mean to say all contracts are void? It can be said that there is no proof that the child wants to live. But I use the assumption that every child wants to live unless he/she states otherwise. If this assumption is not valid than a person can murder another provided he/she is ready to pay the liabilities due from that person. The author says that a promise is a contract only if some property rights are violated by the non-performance of contract. Who is he to define a contract and what is property? Right to life exists and if that breach is caused, it is the breaking of contract.
"But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children."
What is bizarre or grotesque in this? Parents create the child without external help and hence have complete rights over it. The child is not even created outside the body. Thus as the child is created in the body and by using only the body. I don't think it is any more bizarre or grotesque than subjecting animals to human control or torturing them. Similarly, if people can capture runaway animals, why the same right is not permitted with regard to children? People don't create animals but they create babies.In the words of the author, whose property rights are violated if the parents kill the child.
"We must therefore state that, even from birth, the parental ownership is not absolute but of a “trustee” or guardianship kind. In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother’s body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. "
My car does not exist inside me. Does it mean my right over it is limited? It is off course a separate entity? And who is an adult?
Hence, in my view, this chapter only shows the internal contradictions in anarcho-capitalism. It shows that most so-called anarcho-capitalists talk about freedom but in reality they support tyranny of the worst sort.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The language community of mathematics
Conscious users
Mathematics is used by mathematicians , who form a global community. It is also used by students of mathematics. As mathematics is a part of primary education in almost all countries, almost all educated people have some exposure to pure mathematics. It is interesting to note that there are very few cultural dependencies or barriers in modern mathematics.
Unconscious or subconscious users
Almost every person has used mathematics for practical purposes like calculating his produce or his wage. Non-rigorous use of mathematics is used in estimating how much to eat, whether to cross a road or not etc and such activity is done not only by humans but also by other animals. The whole universe is governed by mathematical rules.
Mathematics is used by mathematicians , who form a global community. It is also used by students of mathematics. As mathematics is a part of primary education in almost all countries, almost all educated people have some exposure to pure mathematics. It is interesting to note that there are very few cultural dependencies or barriers in modern mathematics.
Unconscious or subconscious users
Almost every person has used mathematics for practical purposes like calculating his produce or his wage. Non-rigorous use of mathematics is used in estimating how much to eat, whether to cross a road or not etc and such activity is done not only by humans but also by other animals. The whole universe is governed by mathematical rules.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)