Author Archives: Editors

Victorian-era people more intelligent than modern-day counterparts!

Posted on by
Reply

By Bob Yirka.

Researchers suggest Victorian-era people more intelligent modern-day counterpartswikpidia photo

The Victorian era has been highly touted by historians as one of the most productive in human history—inventions, observations and highly acclaimed art and music from that time still resonate today. The era was defined by Queen Victoria’s reign in England which ran from 1837 until her death in 1901. Comparing the average IQ of people from that time with that of modern-day people is, of course, impossible—at least using traditional methods. The researchers suggest that reaction times to stimuli can be used as an alternative way to compare relative IQ levels.

In a new study, a European research team suggests that the average intelligence level of Victorian-era people was higher than that of modern-day people. They base their controversial assertion on reaction times (RT) to visual stimuli given as tests to people from the late 1800s to modern times—the faster the reaction time, they say, the smarter the person.

IQ tests themselves have come under scrutiny of late because they quite often reflect bias, such as education levels, societal norms, and other not-easily defined factors. Other research has shown that overall health, nutrition levels and degree of fatigue can impact IQ scores as well. For this reason, the team has turned to RT as a means of evaluating what they call general intelligence, which they claim to be a measure of elementary cognition. Click link for full article;

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-victorian-era-people-intelligent-modern-day-counterparts.html#ajTabs

Posted By F. Sheikh

Islam and Modernity

Posted on by
1

Submitted by Mirza Iqbal Ashraf

(1) WHAT IS ISLAM?— (2) WHAT IS MODERNITY?— (3) WHO ARE MUSLIMS?

First of all: WHAT IS RELIGION? Oliver Leaman in his work the Islamic Philosophy, (page 126) explains what religion is: “Etymologists tell us that the word “religion” may come from the Latin root religare, meaning to adhere or bind. It’s a wonderful derivation. In both its secular and religious manifestations, faith is alluring and seductive precisely because it’s driven by propositions that bind or adhere the believer to a compelling set of ideas that satisfy rationally or spiritually, but always obligate. History is a crucial concept for religion, since the rationale for a particular religion may well be historical. For example, it is often argued by a religion that the truth of its doctrines lies in the facts of the past, and, were it not for those historical facts, that the religion would be unworthy of acceptance.” According to an American philosopher C. S. Lewis: “As a biological phenomenon, religion is the product of cognitive processes that have deep roots in our evolutionary past.” What is ironical with the Darwinian theorists, that regarding religion they argue that it is a myth of the past, but regarding human being they link him to the very past man the animal. If man can evolve from an animal to a present day human being, it is quite natural that his mythical convictions evolved as a religion in his present cognition. We cannot ignore that the quest of myths, religions, philosophy, and science is same; the quest for knowledge to reach the “ultimate truth” of creation of man and the cosmos.

Secondly ORIGIN OF RELIGION: Origin and source of religion can never be known with certainty. Different researches are based on speculations. The anthropologists hold that religion originated from people’s interaction with nature; the psychologists view frustration, fear, stress, and emotional need; the sociologists believe religion as the first social system; and the rational philosophers agree not to agree on the subject of religion. For those who believe in God, Divine revelation is still an agreeable and acceptable origin of the religion.

Thirdly WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE IN RELIGION: “Mankind is continually and universally threatened with failure, frustration, and injustice. Religion becomes the attempt of people in groups to “relativize” such threats to their wholeness by placing them within a context of a larger system or plan and by “explaining” much that happens in terms of supernatural intervention into and control over and control over earthly events. At the same time, threats similar to those experienced by individuals also affect social relationships–and, in fact, society itself. Religion arises as an attempt by society to cushion such threats (both itself and to its members) by bringing people into a ritual fellowship of common belief. Religion is thus a response to both individual and group needs.” (Ronald L. Johnston: Religion in Society, page 35).

1. WHAT IS ISLAM? As a matter of fact, religion is not a fixed collection of beliefs, myths or rituals. Properly understood, Religion–when both science and philosophy fails to give a definite answer to man–is a living technology for experiencing the Creator or to be more explicit, God. Religion, somewhat began in fear, whereas philosophy began in wonder about various issues related to fear and wonder of natural phenomena that human beings found mysterious and surprising. In Islam, we have both, fear and wonder combined together. Many great Islamic thinkers and philosophers from al-Kindi to Allama Iqbal agreeably created a meta-theory–a theory about theory–called “theory of double truth” meaning that the truths of religion and philosophy are so distinct that there is no way that they can contradict each other. In Islam reason and religion do not come into conflict, they are rather about the same truth, only expressed in different ways, (for detail read Ibn Rushd, al-Ghazali, and Iqbal).  Allama Iqbal’s whole philosophy is based on characteristics of Hz. Khizer, Sikander, and Rumi. Unfortunately no one understands Iqbal today. Please see Iqbal’s great Persian verses, (translated by me and posted on TF web) and understand Sikander the non-believer challenging the Qur’anic figure Hz. Khizer (It is viewed that that Hz. Idris is Hz. Khizer). Islam, according to many great Islamic philosophers, is a social phenomenon and, as such, is in a continual reciprocal, interactive relationship with other social phenomena–Divine and earthly.

2. WHAT IS MODERNITY? Modernity has many interpretations. Generally the idea of modernity common to sociology, economics, and historiography, both in their professional and popular or fold form, is an attempt to grasp the peculiarity of the present by contrasting it with the preceding age. Philosophically, modernity means various moments of abundant epistemological optimism. Since no other religion after Islam has successfully appeared or has been accepted as religion, Islam is accredited as the latest or a modern religion. Within this context, Islam as a religion does not need to be changed or even modified since it has the capability to be compatible with every age and to assimilate all modern thoughts and traditions in its discipline, except those which are un-natural. Islamic jurisprudence based on Shari’ah, socially or politically, has never been a static set of rules throughout the 13 centuries of Islamic dominance in the world. Although I can quote hundreds of references from European and American historians and thinkers, here I am quoting few lines by the agnostic, humanist thinker, and a protagonist of mathematical-philosophy, Bertrand Russell. He writes in his great book, A History of Western Philosophy, in the chapter Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy, page 419-28: “The religion of the Prophet (Mohammed) was a simple monotheism, uncomplicated by the elaborate theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation. . . . Arab Empire was an absolute monarchy, under the caliph, who was the successor of the Prophet, and inherited much of his holiness. The caliphate was nominally elective, but soon became hereditary. The first dynasty, that of Ummayyads, which lasted till 750, was founded by men whose acceptance of Mahomet was purely political, and it remained always opposed to the more fanatical among the faithful. . . The Abbasids were, politically, more in favor of the fanatics than the Ummayyads had been.” He further writes, “Mohammedan civilization in its great days was admirable in the arts and in many technical ways, but it showed no capacity for independent speculation in theoretical matters.” Here, I would dare to disagree with Russell [since he had not read Qur’an] as the Qur’an clearly mentions, “Call [the mankind] unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason [argue] with them in the better way,” (Q. 16:125). According to the Prophet of Islam, “God has not created anything more beautiful, better, or more perfect than reason–so much so that to ponder for an hour, is better than Divine service for a year,” (Sahih Bukhari).

3. WHO ARE MUSLIMS? This is a big question? Whereas all other civilizations in the world have gradually evolved, Islam is a civilization founded by its Prophet. Muslims are citizens of a great ummah, a civilization under the banner of universal Islam, where they believe in One God, the five pillars of Islam. Islam presents an all-embracing system of life comprising a distinct and self-contained culture. Their diversity in different factions and different approaches is the result of Islam’s capacity to assimilate other cultures into this system, including Central Asian, Persian, Egyptian, European, Indian, Mongolian, and Far Eastern peoples, a culture which is originally Arabian, is based on Islam’s appeal to humanitarian theism. Today what is feared and is being challenged–and is being treacherously presented under the garb of pristine Islam–is in fact the essence of Islam’s doctrine of immanent universality [a universality that has the capability to assimilate all other cultures and traditions which do not confront natural tenets of mankind and are not repugnant to Qur’anic injunctions], against which the non-Islamic world is poised. This natural religion of Islam, a driving force in Muslim civilization, has been and is still politically misunderstood, misinterpreted, and exploited both within and beyond Islam.

Mirza Iqbal Ashraf: May 18, 2013

Rajat Gupta’s Lust for Zeros

Posted on by
Reply

By Anita Raghavan in NYT

Rajat Gupta

It is worth reading saga of Gupta and Rajaratnam , two highly achieved and high-profile Wall Street Gurus of Indian descent,  who were seduced by high society and greed and were recently convicted of insider trading.

“Gupta embodied the generation of Indians that the academic Vijay Prashad has called the “twice blessed” — those who benefited from both India’s independence in 1947 and the 1965 overturning of a United States law that had restricted Indian immigration to 100 people each year. Gupta was a boy in the 1950s, when the Indian Institutes of Technology were established to produce a new generation of engineers. After earning degrees from I.I.T. Delhi and Harvard Business School, he received a job offer at McKinsey during the rise of the corporate consulting industry. In 1994, when Gupta was only 45, he became the first Indian C.E.O. of a major American company. He “pioneered a new way of leveraging the firm’s intellectual capital,” recalls Jeffrey Skilling, his colleague from 1979 to 1990, who later went on to become the chief executive of Enron. “I think Rajat was a shoo-in for election to managing director, and frankly I don’t think anyone had a chance against him. He was that good,” wrote Skilling in an e-mail from federal prison in Littleton, Colo., where he is serving a 24-year sentence for his role in Enron’s collapse.”

In the paragraph below an interesting insight and caution by Gupta on love and seduction of money;

“Speaking at Columbia University around this time, Gupta reflected on his new ambition. “When I look at myself, yeah, I am driven by money,” he said. “And when I live in this society, you know, you do get fairly materialistic, so I look at that. I am disappointed. I am probably more materialistic today than I was before, and I think money is very seductive.” He continued: “You have to watch out for it, because the more you have it, you get used to comforts, and you get used to, you know, big houses and vacation homes and going and doing whatever you want, and so it is very seductive. However much you say that you will not fall into the trap of it, you do fall into the trap of it.”

“While Gupta departed McKinsey with a fortune, he was now mingling with a crowd that included Bill Gates, Henry Kravis and Henry M. Paulson Jr., then Goldman’s chief executive, with whom he traveled to Indonesia to see the Komodo dragons. For many of these men, $100 million was not rich; it was simply the price to play. If Gupta wanted to compete on the same level as Stephen A. Schwarzman, who would go on to give $100 million to the New York Public Library, or Sandy Weill, whom he knew from the Weill Cornell Medical College board, he had to be a billionaire.”

“Rajaratnam was also an expert at preying on his sources’ weaknesses. His first major target was an Intel marketing executive named Roomy Khan. He caught her attention by mentioning that his wife, Asha, was a Punjabi Indian, like her. Then he reeled her in by promising a well-paying job at Galleon in return for early readings of revenue indicators at Intel and, later, tips about acquisitions, like the Blackstone Group’s bid to buy Hilton Hotels. (She found out about the latter from a South Asian Moody’s analyst, a roommate of her cousin’s.) Rajaratnam also persuaded his old Wharton School classmate Rajiv Goel, a perennially frustrated executive at Intel’s treasury department, to feed him information in exchange for introductions to his high-powered friends. Rajaratnam’s most prized recruit, however, was Anil Kumar, a former classmate from Wharton and a graduate of the I.I.T. system who worked as a technology consultant at McKinsey.” Click Link for full article;

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/magazine/rajat-guptas-lust-for-zeros.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Posted By F. Sheikh

‘The First New Atheist-200th Birthday of Kierkegaard’ By Morgan Meis

Posted on by
Reply

Kierkegaard said “The self-assured believer is a greater sinner in the eyes of God than the troubled disbeliever.”

Søren Kierkegaard was born in Denmark on May 5, 1813. He was a difficult and troublesome boy. He quarreled with his father and lived a flippant and self-indulgent life as a young man. Then he had a conversion experience. He broke with his fiancé and became an urban hermit of sorts. He studied philosophy and started to write. He believed that he had a truth to tell the people of his time. The people didn’t want to be told — do they ever? This caused him to fight with his fellow Danes and anyone else who got in his way. He became an object of ridicule around Copenhagen. The local papers made fun of him for his hunched back and clubbed foot. He wrote many books under various false names, most of which were ignored. He died in relative obscurity at the age of 42.

Thus, the short and painful life of Søren Kierkegaard. Over the last 200 years, however, Kierkegaard’s writings have resurfaced in influential places. A mad German named Friedrich Nietzsche was impressed with Kierkegaard’s writings. He helped to keep Kierkegaard from falling into complete oblivion. Another rascally German rediscovered Kierkegaard in the early 20th century. This was Martin Heidegger who, unintentionally, turned Kierkegaard into an intellectual predecessor of Existentialist philosophy. More recently the Post-Modernists rediscovered Kierkegaard, fascinated by his use of fragmentary writing and multiple narrative voices. Kierkegaard is the philosopher who will not go away.

Today, at the 200th anniversary of his birth, Kierkegaard seems as relevant as ever. That’s because there is a public discussion about faith in America today. Kierkegaard’s central concern was faith and the problems of faith. Today, the evolutionary biologist and sometimes children’s author Richard Dawkins is at the forefront of the faith debate. The philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett is a frequent contributor, as well as the neuroscientist Sam Harris. The late, great Christopher Hitchens was the angriest and funniest participant. We’ll call these figures The New Atheists. Click Link for full article;

http://thesmartset.com/article/article05081301.aspx

Posted By F. Sheikh