Friday, September 23, 2005

Over rated?????

Again i knew Ekantha would get the wrong idea of ME being the most selfish person in the world......I want men to be Philanthropist rather than being phileartheists. Any way, i aint gonna talk much on this as two people talking in two different ways doesnt get us any where.....

But , when my pal mentioned about the Ten biggest ideas of the world....The ten biggest things of the philosophical world would surely include NON-VIOLENCE. Now, this is one concpet which boils me. Does any one know the idea behind being non-violent? It is to stop and avoid BLOOD,GORE, and of course VIOLENCE all together.But, who was the creator of NON-VIOLENCE??? The most violent, arrogant, frustrating Gandhi. He surely wasnt using non-violence to curb violence.He was using it as a weapon to get india free. And killed so many so many people who believed him like god and showed their head to the british cannons without protesting. (Including Gotse's family).

Now, the bottom line: i know people with raised eye-brows telling me " But the britishers werent right".... All right! If gandhi was a man who believed in PEACE he must have tried convincing the britishers by talking to them.Not BY frustrating and irritating a tiger(Th british) and make them Kill more and make them blood thristy. Okey! If only gandhi had solved all the issues with non-violence VERY GUD! India becmae INDIA AND PAKISTAN. Family man Gotse became familyless Murderer Gotse........

I am not criticisng Gandhi here...I am just telling u Non-Violence ( as a weapon) is not a solution for EARTH 2050....Non-violence must be preached TO EVERY ONE(EVERY ONE in this earth)...and not used by one community to frustrate another community.....

AMEN

12 comments:

Truly Yours said...

I totally agree with you. But it is a double edged sword. If it not have been for that godse would have died (assuming he is patriotic), fighting for the country, rather than being seperated. Snatched freedom idea worked for america in (1776) but palestine people are still getting wacked. Anyhow all this apart...Who is ekantha ???

Ghost Particle said...

I don’t agree with you Grey Vampire. In a struggle for freedom, some people die, some survive. Throwing your hatred to one person doesn’t justify the causes and sacrifice he made to the general wellbeing. If millions of people did not die liberating India, then it would never have been free now. Britain was trying to milk free the South Asian countries of its wealth. But didn't we bounce back?

I hope you reconsider posting articles which directly criticize legends like Gandhi. There are much more to know then simply follow our emotions. If you take time to understand and analyze then you would know what’s wrong and what’s not.

Non-violence works well in writings. But it’s the norm of the planet for people to die in sacrifice. We must make sure they’re not forgotten, for a good reason. Not to highlight their bad deeds. If yes Godse's family was killed, that doesn’t give Godse the license to kill Ghandi. Killing Ghandi alone was not a solution. It would have aggravated the situation further. What makes you so sure that Ghandi was alone in the decisions he took. If there was no Ghandi then who would have been in his place?

When life is a circle, and were just completing turns in it, then spaces will be filled. If there was no Ghandi, there would be someone there. I don’t know if you believe i destiny, but I’m a scientific believer in it. What’s a scientific believer? I believe in logic and probability. 'Destiny struggles to reassert the patterns that were meant to be'. I read this in a Dean Koontz novel about a decade ago. Its makes perfect sense.

I apologize for any anger that this article might cause. But the author holds sole responsibility of his writings. Do what you think is right.

Ghost Particle said...

What would be the top 10 ideas in the philosophical world? Can anyone list it? MAybe we can gather ideas and make one list.

Grey Vampire said...

If there was no Ghandi then who would have been in his place?

Of ocurse, we would have been...Because there was nothing left in india for the britishers to scratch....They had eaten all of the mango and left just the seed.

Guys! I am not criticising gandhi here. I am just telling u that NON-VIOLENCE IS NOT A WAY TO PROVOKE OR FRUSTRATE UR OPPONENTS(BRITISH).

Dont get the wrong idea. I believe in non-violence.Not non-violence as a weapon(which gandhi did ).

Grey Vampire said...

My first thing in the top 10 of the philosophical world would be 'Relativity'...Dont get me...i will provide u solid reasons....

Tamizhan said...

i agree with GV. sometimes a freedom struggle needs blood. when it does, leaders have a choice. they can give their own blood or talk other people into giving their blood.

Who did what is very clear in hindsight.

ekantha said...

If I was to sit here and deliberately try to get you riled, (something which I have already done with very little effort, so far) it would be very straightforward. I could be here as a critic, analysing everything you say, misconstruing everything you say, denouncing everything you say as a ploy for attention.
But what I say, I say because nobody in the world should go without being criticized. Everybody needs to be questioned by someone else. I apologise for any offence that I may have caused but criticising but I expect to be dealt criticism back. Because nobody's ideas should go unchecked. It's when you leave my ideas unchecked that I become a fanatic and make no movement towards thinking progressively. What is most definitely an indicator of progress is when someone is willing to stand corrected. On this post, what you have done, I believe, is blamed the creator and believer of an idea (non-violence) for the consequence and eventual response illicited by others. I could draw a parallel in people being jailed or killed for illiciting a seditious reponse from a crowd they don't really control.
On India being freed through dialogue, I'm sorry but I think that approach is what was tried time and time again with every invader, the Moghuls, the English and anybody else that you can think of and I don't think it really stopped India from being trampled all over in those times but maybe dialogue is something that would work now.

ekantha said...

If I was to sit here and deliberately try to get you riled, (something which I have already done with very little effort, so far) it would be very straightforward. I could be here as a critic, analysing everything you say, misconstruing everything you say, denouncing everything you say as a ploy for attention.
But what I say, I say because nobody in the world should go without being criticized. Everybody needs to be questioned by someone else. I apologise for any offence that I may have caused but criticising but I expect to be dealt criticism back. Because nobody's ideas should go unchecked. It's when you leave my ideas unchecked that I become a fanatic and make no movement towards thinking progressively. What is most definitely an indicator of progress is when someone is willing to stand corrected. On this post, what you have done, I believe, is blamed the creator and believer of an idea (non-violence) for the consequence and eventual response illicited by others. I could draw a parallel in people being jailed or killed for illiciting a seditious reponse from a crowd they don't really control.
On India being freed through dialogue, I'm sorry but I think that approach is what was tried time and time again with every invader, the Moghuls, the English and anybody else that you can think of and I don't think it really stopped India from being trampled all over in those times but maybe dialogue is something that would work now.

ekantha said...

If I was to sit here and deliberately try to get you riled, (something which I have already done with very little effort, so far) it would be very straightforward. I could be here as a critic, analysing everything you say, misconstruing everything you say, denouncing everything you say as a ploy for attention.
But what I say, I say because nobody in the world should go without being criticized. Everybody needs to be questioned by someone else. I apologise for any offence that I may have caused but criticising but I expect to be dealt criticism back. Because nobody's ideas should go unchecked. It's when you leave my ideas unchecked that I become a fanatic and make no movement towards thinking progressively. What is most definitely an indicator of progress is when someone is willing to stand corrected. On this post, what you have done, I believe, is blamed the creator and believer of an idea (non-violence) for the consequence and eventual response illicited by others. I could draw a parallel in people being jailed or killed for illiciting a seditious reponse from a crowd they don't really control.
On India being freed through dialogue, I'm sorry but I think that approach is what was tried time and time again with every invader, the Moghuls, the English and anybody else that you can think of and I don't think it really stopped India from being trampled all over in those times but maybe dialogue is something that would work now.

ekantha said...

I don't think anyone can be held responsible for the entire set of consequences that began with their actions.

cosmicblob said...

Grey Vampire,
While this is a forum for expressing viewpoints, and discussing them through critiques or otherwise, I feel that articles posted here should be carefully thought out, well researched, and well substantiated. This is because unlike an individual's blog, this blog has a wider and more diverse audience, which may not necessarily have complete understanding of the background of an author's expression. JMHO.

With due respect to your literary freedom, your post in my opinion, lacks this. And I think Ghost Particle has already pointed this out.

~CB~ :?)

Live the Future said...

There is more than one form of non-violence. The type I subscribe to, and is also advocated by the Libertarian party (which I'm a member of), is called the non-aggression principle, or NAP. You can read the Wikipedia definion of the NAP here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_axiom
But in a nutshell, it is a prohibition against the initiation of force, coersion, or violence. It does not prohibit their use for purposes of defense, so long as their use is limited only to the actual aggressor. In theory, if everyone followed the NAP, there would be no violence, as there would be no initiators of violence.

The NAP has an advantage over vanilla pacifism in that some aggressors will continue to do violence against pacifists in the belief that pacifists will not or can not defend themselves or retaliate. As the NAP does not prevent defense or retaliation, a potential aggressor can be assured of violent resistance if he initiates force. Just the same, in a NAP-following society, a non-aggressor can be assured that no fellow NAP-follower will attack or rob him. The NAP thus combines the best aspects of both pacifism and use of force.