Author Archives: Editors

Saudi Arabia’s Arab Spring

Posted on by
1

Interesting article in NYT shared by Nasik Elahi. Any shake up in Saudi Arabia that breaks up the ossified mentality is a good thing for the Muslims in general. I think prince is better off focusing on domestic reformation rather than getting into foreign policy trap of confronting Iran which is being ginned up by our Administration. Thomas Friedman supported Iraq war and would not mind supporting misadventure in Iran. (fsheikh)

Is it possible to reform the theocratic monarchy that has distorted Islam for a generation.  And what kind of impact will that have on the Muslim ummah. ( Nasik Elahi)

NYT Article

“Scientific Proof Is A Myth” By Ethan Siegel

Posted on by
Reply

(Some of us  have argued on the pages of TFUSA as if evolution is beyond any doubt. The author of this article argues that scientific proofs in support of theory of evolution and other theories are transitory and it is a matter time that these proofs turn out to be just a myth. fsheikh)

You’ve heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You’ve also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

Except that’s a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren’t proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.

Art by Karen Teramura, UH IfA with James O’Donoghue and Luke Moore

Reality is a complicated place. All we have to guide us, from an empirical point of view, are the quantities we can measure and observe. Even at that, those quantities are only as good as the tools and equipment we use to make those observations and measurements. Distances and sizes are only as good as the measuring sticks you have access to; brightness measurements are only as good as your ability to count and quantify photons; even time itself is only known as well as the clock you have to measure its passage. No matter how good our measurements and observations are, there’s a limit to how good they are.

Full article

Art Of Flying

Posted on by
1

Worth Watching wondrous video of starlings flying in a sync in a beautiful dance and murmurations.

https://aeon.co/videos/one-of-the-most-wondrous-markers-of-the-end-of-the-day-is-a-murmuration-of-starlings?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=36b6ed052a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_11_20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-36b6ed052a-69109725

Sex And Morality

Posted on by
Reply

Explicit language used in this article

( Worth reading article by Raja Halwani in understanding current news of sexual harassment by prominent respectable personalities like Charlie Rose. As per Emmanuel Kant, sex and lust by its nature makes us focus on the body , not the person, and reduces the person to mere a thing to satisfy our lust. This equation does not change even when the sex is consensual. f.sheikh)

Kant implicitly acknowledged the unusual power of sexual urges and their capacity to divert us from doing what is right. He claimed that sex was particularly morally condemnable, because lust focuses on the body, not the agency, of those we sexually desire, and so reduces them to mere things. It makes us see the objects of our longing as just that ­– objects. In so doing, we see them as mere tools for our own satisfaction.

Treating people as objects can mean many things. It could include beating them, tearing into them, and violating them. But there are other, less violent ways of objectifying people. We might treat someone as only a means to our sexual pleasure, to satisfy our lust on that person, to use a somewhat archaic expression. The fact that the other person consents does not get rid of the objectification; two people can agree to use one another for purely sexual purposes.

But don’t we use each other all the time? Many of us have jobs – as cleaners, gardeners, teachers, singers. Does the beneficiary of the service objectify the service provider, and does the service provider objectify the recipient by taking their money? These relationships don’t seem to provoke the same moral qualms. Either they do not involve objectification, or the objectification is somehow neutered.

Kant said that these scenarios weren’t really a problem. He draws a distinction between mere use – the basis of objectification – and more-than-mere use. While we might employ people to do jobs, and accept payment for our work, we don’t treat the person on the other side of the transaction as a mere tool; we still recognise that person’s fundamental humanity.

Sex, though, is different. When I hire someone to sing, according to Kant, my desire is for his or her talent – for the voice-in-action. But when I sexually desire someone, I desire his or her body, not the person’s services or talents or intellectual capabilities, although any of these could enhance the desire. So, when we desire the person’s body, we often focus during sex on its individual parts: the buttocks, the penis, the clitoris, the thighs, the lips. What we desire to do with those parts differs, of course. Some like to touch them with the hand, others with the lips, others with the tongue; for others still, the desire is just to look. This does not mean that I would settle for a human corpse: our desire for human bodies is directed at them as living, much like my desire for a cellphone is directed at a functioning one.

Full article