to see that while so many people as pupils at my tutorials have found me most entertaining, interesting and invigorating company for so many years, so few people feel the urge to read my blog and post comments there - it's supposedly either because they don't have fast Net connections handy, or because they are too busy, or because everything that I write is either too long, or too boring, or too unimportant ... though I write short and long posts on such a very wide diversity of issues, from religion to careers, from Harry Potter to Tagore, from comments on pornography to my own fiction and favourite poetry! Is it something that I am doing wrong, or just that most people habitually shy away from anything that taxes their brains by forcing them to think, to get out of their cramped mental ruts? It is also a fact that millions visit the blogs of celebrities - whether they are writing utter crap, or saying things that I keep saying myself (like Tom Cruise telling a fan not to write sms text)! This in spite of the fact that all our scriptures and wise men have urged us to remember that what is being said is far more important than who is saying it!
6 comments:
Sir,
That's sad, but no matter how hard some people like you and me try, others in general are reluctant to change their habits and way of thinking. To them, a site on, say, Aishwarya Rai, is far more interesting than a blog where 'boring' and 'too serious' topics are discussed.
But I don't think that should force you to quit orkut and blogspot, for you still have some admirers who regularly go through your posts and comment when necessary. Besides, for people like me, getting in touch to you through the net is far easier and convenient. Add to that the fact that we won't get to read so many of your articles, if you choose to leave.
So, inspite of the disappointment and the bitter truth, I think it would be nice if you stayed put both at orkut and blogspot.
Dear Sir,
I read your recent posting and I have the only thing to say that what you have said in you posting is entirely true. It is sad that many people do not value true,real and relatively much serious topics to discuss rather than to look at the crap of celebrities.But no matter how hard you try people are much reluctant to change their habits and way of thinking.
But this should not make you quit orkut and blogspot. I look up to you as my guide in my life and you still have some admirers who know your comments and posts are of great value.
So sir, please do not quit despite of the dissapointment.It would be very nice if you stay there.
Sir, People generally use the internet nowadays to forward generic useless emails, and log on to social networking sites to prattle with members of the opposite sex, and find your blog " too serious".
But do we realize that it the " serious" people who have the most fun in this world, and are actually the ones who live life to hilt?
Sir,
I have been a reader of your blogs for quite some time now. And they have made me start thinking.... something which we normally tend to forget, as we grow older and supposedly wiser.
There is a particular question worrying me for quite some time now, and I would love to have your opinion on that. Sir, what should be more important: the ultimate objective or the means used to achieve it? I believed that if the ultimate purpose is sincere and honest, the means whether honest or not didn't matter. In the recent past I tried the same principles and things didn't work out well. As a matter of fact it led to a lot of problems. Since then I have been thinking, but couldn't come up with a proper solution.
I would love it if you could share your views on that.
regards,
amitobikram
Dear Amitobikram,
There are two extreme philosophical positions on this very ancient question, and both are wrong, as all extremes usually are. One says 'the end justifies the means', the other says nothing achieved through questionable/devious means can ever be good and worth achieving.
The first one applies to reasonable situations, like when I hurt my baby daughter with an injection to inoculate her against deadly diseases, or when a lazy/disobedient/feckless pupil is given not-too-brutal punishment so that a degree of fear will motivate him to pay attention, follow rules and work harder - for his own ultimate benefit. But it cannot be applies to cases like Hitler wishing to exterminate all Jews and Blacks and homosexuals and gypsies because he believed that it would 'cleanse' and improve the human race: not only because his theory that these people were inferior was wrong, but it is bad morals for any one group of human beings to dictate that some others do not deserve to live. So the end (improvementof mankind) here did not justify the means.
The second one is better morals, but it too cannot be applied rigidly in all situations. Sometimes we DO have to indulge in a bit of cheating/trickery in order to serve good ends: spying is bad, but all governments need to spy on terrorists and other dangerous subversives; we need to teach children a lot of things through stories (though all fiction is lying!) which they will not learn from dry lectures.
In sum, no single rule-of-thumb can work in all situations: we are obliged to exercise our conscience and informed judgment in every separate case.
I hope I have adequately answered your question. You are welcome to ask more. You may also email me directly if you wish to keep something private.
Post a Comment