Monthly Archives: June 2007

Poetic Argument

Had a poetic argument with psyphycom on his poem titled One and Many, the excerpt of which is pasted here:

When thoughts are so many that it drowns,
When what you want to say and do gets scattered,
When many refuses to hit one synchronous note,
When you love the many and yet want that one pioneered.

Many times it is doubts and sometimes it’s not knowing,
In times there are therapies that will plant the meaning,
I find to be absolving the idea of not calling it my own,
What’s the fun otherwise in living this boring and short revolution.

Understand the meaning, and yet it comes only through repetition,
The irony of repetition becoming the path towards erudition,
Calculated merriment becoming another lackadaisical definition,
Controlled release of profoundness through years of dedication.

I have only few years,
When choices are many,
The long boring opportunity of singularity,
Amidst the short merriment of many.


The peppiness that life adorns,
Is often lost, among the chores,
Bring it back and fill thy life,
With joys and wonders, only the mind can find.


When reality of chores define life,
The search makes life irreconcile,
The abjected life presents itself,
Only to make a question mark of thy self.


How true are thy words!
I cannot but agree!
Yet listen to your heart,
Which yearns to sing with glee

A short life we lead,
Why wallow in misery?
Live life and let live,
Be merry and be free!


Had I a choice I wouldn’t have,
Had I just one answer I wouldn’t have,
It’s not an option that I have,
It’s the only choice that’s live.

I would love to swing my hands,
I would love to shed few tears,
And wipe them later with a smile,
But I am saying this without guile,

If only I had an option to smile.


Smile and laughter are yours to pursue,
Who dares stop thee, from using them true,
Laugh out loud and cheer your mind,
Standby and see, misery fall behind!

Lighten your mind, brighten your eyes,
Seek all discord, with will which suffice,
For there is but one, way to deal,
With misery, which is; to give her a kick!

Choices and options,
Art yours in truth,
To create and use,
As you would 🙂


Your words do speak to my thoughts,
They want to be corrected from depths of their roots,
The affection with gloom may be reproved,
But I fear it another chance for it only to be proved.

In choices there is a reason,
In reason there is a cause,
In cause ther are connections,
But what when the connection is world itself.

May be I am too lazy to break it into parts,
May be I am overburdened with too many tasks,
But this is what I have to seek with,
So I am not to be questioned of my writhe.


All this I will say,
Be sad and be sad always,
The choice is yours and yours only,
To live life, with joy and glee.

What point is there to delve in deep,
After things, which we cannot keep?
For the often said words do seep,
Into the mind, with one fell sweep

We come to world, with nothing in hand,
And when we leave, nothing we will have,
So drop your race for things you cannot keep
And live your life, as others would envy.


In sadness I don’t fear,
In happiness I don’t hear,
It’s only perception in there,
Both are just states of mind.

It’s not a race that I am running,
It’s a chase for all that’s to me not clear,
I would like to think that there’s out there,
Something that’s possible for me mere.

I am not saying there in one truth,
Though it’s beautiful to have one truth,
I would think of it as a rethink,
And please don’t construe it as a double think.


Then turn this chase into something,
Which gives you joy and lifts your steed!
Do what you want but in full cheer,
Conquor it! And see what you hear.

Streghten your mind, hearden your resolve,
Not to be dispirited, seeing a thin wall,
For beyond that wall, is all yours to enjoy!
Sit thee down! Fight for your joy.

Analysis of Descartes and Spinoza

Descartes invented the graph (Cartesian co-ordinates is an adjective of his name), analytical or co-ordinate geometry and numerous other mathematical principles.

Likewise, in philosophy, Descartes is considered the father of modern philosophy. He believed in this vision: there is nothing that cannot be obtained by logical and rational conclusion.

Descartes came to this conclusion by observing a few very important concepts in Mathematics. He observed that everything in mathematics can be broken down to basic elementary logical steps which have a simple, straight-forward, logical conclusion. For example, the shortest distance between two points is straight line. He then used this conclusion as the premise for subsequent arguments which had an equally rational and logical conclusion. Following our preceding example, the time taken to travel between two points in a straight line must be the minimum.

Descartes loved this form of argument which is prevalent in all mathematics. And he rationalized thus-: if this form of argument can be applied to mathematics and science, why cannot it be applied to other fields including philosophy? And that is exactly what he attempted to do.

He contemplated three different forms of thinking. Firstly, the power of observation by sight. However, he found out that observation by sight is not entirely reliable. The building that looks red in the morning looks black in the evening. If so, then what is the actual colour of the building? Is observation by site to be relied upon for such scientific observations? He decided no and went on to experiment with other methods.

The second method he decided to delve into is his consciousness. Can I be absolutely certain that what I am doing is actually what I am doing and not what I am dreaming of doing? No! I could not be absolutely certain of that fact. At times, it appears to me that I am doing something just to find out that I was actually dreaming of accomplishing it. In other words, it was nothing more than a vivid dream.

However, I must admit that the occasions on which I have actually managed to remember my dreams upon waking up are so infrequent and far between that I can count them with one hand.

To continue on Descartes arguments, unable to come up with any other arguments an in utter despair, Descartes modified the second argument: What if the errors and illusions I have are not my fault but are due to some higher order which controls them? What if the higher order is the ultimate authority and that I have no say over what eh decides? What will happen then?

If that is the case, then the best solutions would be to assume that what your consciousness says is true. I may have had some experiences and m not sure if the experiences occurred in reality or in a dream. However the one thing I am sure of is that I had an experience. This is a certainty which cannot be refuted and thus must be proven true, like an axiom. It this follows that the consciousness is a fact and so is the notion that I exists since consciousness cannot exist without the existence of being and consequently, the existence of oneself and of consciousness are interlinked and interdependent on each other. Descartes came up with beautiful and elegant phrase for it ‘cogito ergo sum’ or ‘I think therefore I am’.

Following this conclusion towards its ending, we know that we are not perfect in anyway but on the contrary, are filled with flaws. But we also know what an ideal human being should be, namely, perfect and ideal in every sense and inextricably linked with his consciousness as a human being. We usually denote this idea human being as God. Thus we presume that god exists [Descartes extrapolated this to knowing that god exists, how do you come to that conclusion?]. Provided we do our job, god will take care of the outcome, which he will do by presenting me with an outcome which my consciousness clearly recognizes as true.

This is very similar to the Hindu philosophy; do your karma and whatever the result is the one you have worked for. In other words, reap as you sow. this raises an important question, did Descartes come into contact with Indian philosophy? If so, then how? Wherefrom? However, this is besides the scope of this article as answering this question will lead us to the history of civilizations.
Spinoza:

Spinoza was a highly religious man and extremely debted to Descartes as his teacher. He was a biblical scholar and was the first person to analyse the biblical scriptures on a historical context. Spinoza pointed out the limited intellect and the problematic authorship of the bible.

Spinoza agreed with Descartes that the best way to find solutions is to get the most elementary premise which has a logical answer and to work towards the top. However, he disagreed with Descartes on a crucial point. If everything on earth can be logically and rationally deduced from a previous or a previous conclusion, then where does god fit it? If everything in the universe can be explained by rules and mathematical equations, then where is the need for god? Being a deeply religious man, Spinoza could not accept a theory wherein god does not fit in some way.

Newton, who lived at the same time as Spinoza, gave persuasive solutions to his problem, He argued that it was god who created the universe with al its rules and regulations and left it to work according to the rules laid down. These rules are what we call as scientific laws.

However, Spinoza could not accept this and needed god to be ever-present and pervasive in all things and aspects of life.

Spinoza solved this problem to his satisfaction as thus; we know that god is an infinite and perfect human being. This Descartes proved. Now, being an infinite and perfect, god cannot have any boundaries and fallacies which humans have. Thus, it follows that god must co-exists with everything.

This solves another Cartesian problem; Descartes had defined substance as one that needs nothing outside itself to exist. However, Spinoza pointed out that the only thing which needs nothing outside itself is totality. Everything within totality is interlinked and interdependent on another’s existence. This is follows that only a true self-subsistence being can exists on itself; god.