Wisdom of a Devil

"Why most of the popular philosophers are shallow?"

"Because shallow philosophers are most popular".

"Then, why shallow philosophers are most popular?"

"Because the populace understands only shallow philosophers".

A Dilemma of the Strong

I am finding a lot of people in "bad mood". They will behave rudely or without any manners and will later say that they were in bad moods. I wonder if all human beings have this problem. I never had it. I had been gloomy, angry or in some kind of bad moods. But it never made me behave in a "bad" way. I can't look at anyone whom I know well without a smile whatever mood I may be in at the moment. Even if I am angry with that person, I will behave like a human.

So, What kind of phenomenon is this "in bad moods"?

Is this an escape from ones self? You act without any control, and then blame your bad mood - this will make you to take no responsibility for your action. So, you are comfortable. And, other "good" people "will understand" you. So no more conflicts.

By this, I infer that this is the habit of the weak-willed people. They have no control over themselves, no determination and are contemptible. Or at least, they feel that they are contemptible. I must feel pity towards them, in fact.

However, it is very difficult to live among these weak people. Only my strength of will helps me to do so....

On Speech

Some talk, some chat,
But, most make noise!

A Long Wait for You... (A Poem)

"Books... books... books... windows to the world,
Dreams... dreams... dreams... windows to the mind,
Friends... friends... friends... windows to heaven.

Many things life taught me...
How many things more!
It's already saturating, and boring...

I am waiting for you to come...
In this silent solitude...
To share my knowledge, my joy!
Thus to unburden my wisdom...

I am waiting for you to come...
In this dark corner of the world...
To help me to fill up my space with light!
And to feel the completeness of living..."

Sandeep Palakkal

An Impression

Life is so vivid an experience which I can't express with words. It paints a lot of impressions in my mind. After a good sleep, today morning something was revealed to my mind. I have no words to express it. I better express it in someone else's words...

"He walks among men like man walks among animals."

--Thus Spoke Zaratustra, Friedrich Nietzsche.

Man With a Big Mouth And a Tiny Brain

Today I saw a man with a big mouth and a tiny brain.
He talked a lot.
I listened since I had a lot of time to waste!
And, all he talked was devoid of insights.

The First Step

"A journey of a thousand miles
must begin with a single step"

--Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching

When will I make the first step?...

Moral Conflicts

Desire and Love are always in conflict with Morality. The result is Violence. Many a time one is suspicious of how distinct desire and love are. Should true love lack desire? Or, is it motivated by desire? Whatever it be, they form a force, the vital force which moves ones life. It motivates one to act. But this is not smooth. One is constrained by numerous moral rules and obligations. The causes stress, repression, deception, and may be, frustration. This is the point where the common man needs philosophy. They call it by this name without knowing what philosophy is. What they really want is a set of socially accepted rules using which they can justify their pursuit of desire without being called immoral. Of course, the first choice is religion which gives one widely accepted moral notions. There are different religions in the world is a matter of concern because it may cause conflicts between communities (we know that this is the case!). However, religion, since it is accepted by a wide majority, gives one a set of rules to follow without much conflict. But none actually follow them, or does not want to follow them. The main aim is to satisfy ones desires. And, as time goes by man feels that the religious rules, or the widely accepted moral notions are too restrictive and try protest in many ways. They try to invent new rules.

One thing to add is that once a set of rules are accepted, then there arises institutions or authorities who assumes it is their right to protect and impose these rules. Since they are also human beings, and their real motive is not the rules, such institutions degrade. It becomes more restrictive, authoritative and tries to dictate men so that invention of new values and rules are suppressed. Then man starts to rebel. This causes conflict. This conflict is for a good cause: to invent new values!

A Recurring Dream...

I wish I were a silent character in Eco's The Name of the Rose..., to live silently and purposelessly somewhere in the abbey witnessing the whole events...,to smell the medieval air, to go inside the library and read the strangest of strange books..., to discover the secret of God's laughing..., and then... to die without doing anything... unknown... unidentified... but knowing everything and identifying everyone....

Russell's Paradox

Probably, I heard the word paradox for the first time when I read about the twin paradox of Einstein. I read this atleast ten years ago. Then I was not matured enough to understand what the word paradox really mean. It was recently, when I was reading Terrence Tao's book on "Analysis", I was once again confronted with another paradox. This was Russell's paradox. I see what a paradox really means.

Russell's paradox: Let's make a statement.

Let x be any object and p(x) be any property of x (i.e., either p(x) is true or is false). Then there exists a set {x : p(x) is true for x}. -----(1)

This seems to be an innocent statement. But actually, it is a very dangerous and fallacious statement. Consider x be a set and p(x) be the statement :-

x does not contain itself ----(2).

Then according to the statement (1), there exists a set S which contains all sets for which property (2) holds (i.e., they do not contain themselves). Does S contain itself?
1) If S does not contain itself, then by its very definition, it must include itself.
2) If S contains itself, then it should not contain itself.
This is called Russell's paradox. And, it disproves the statement given in (1). In fact, until Betrand Russell discovered this paradox, (1) was considered as an axiom of set theory. Now, a set theory which considers (1) as an axiom is called naive set theory.

Even if one does not understand this, one can have a look at this webpage http://www.paradoxes.co.uk/index.htm, at whose end a few exciting, or rather mysterious pictures illustrating paradoxes are given. To know more about Russell's paradox look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox.