skip to main |
skip to sidebar
[1:51 AM
|
]
Nature versus nurture is centuries old debate. Scientists are trying hard to figure out whether it is the environment or genetics that determine the characteristics of human beings. We readily accept that genes determine our biological factors such as our eye color, height, blood type etc. But does it also determine our social behavior? I would say no. Genetics can explain our anatomy but it can’t explain why some people are homosexual, why some people are more intelligent or why some people are more violent than others. It is the environment, society, parental and neighborhood behavior, education etc that make us what we are. In other words, man is the product of nurture and not nature.
Through out the history of human intellectual thought, a question that demands answer and thus made philosophers, intellectuals and scientists ponder is about Human Nature. What is the true nature of human beings? Are we simply an end product of a long process driven by genes where the same genes determine our sex, skin color and height? But human beings are more than that. Human beings love, hate, fear, feel and all these are not shaped by genes. Environmental factors ranging from parental care to societal influence are responsible for it. The Ancient Greek Sophist came with the slogan that man is the architect of its own fate.6 We are not subjected to the commands of nature but we are what our environment shapes us. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s class struggle is also traced back to the same thinking. Al Gazali in his spiritual autobiography “Deliverance from error” questions the same.1 Why a child born in a Muslim family is always a Muslim? Why a Christian child always grows up to be a Christian? Is it in the nature of the child? No, it is not the nature but the environment he nourishes in, which determines his or her beliefs. Social Scientists today emphasize that for a better understanding of any individual in the history, one must first know the cultural, social and political realities of that particular era that shaped the mind of individual.
[1:40 AM
|
]
T
he article Nuclear Winter is written by Carl Sagan, a famed professor of Astronomy and Space sciences at Cornell University. He introduced the concept of nuclear winter in a 1983 scientific journal article. This article is based on the writer’s extensive research about the unanticipated and destructive physical and chemical effects of a nuclear war on earth’s biosphere and life on earth. The purpose of the article is to let the people know about the dreadful effects of a nuclear war. The writer says that humankind developed ingenious weapons in the first place, always concentrating on the near future and ignored the long term consequences of their actions. In this article he says that in the effect of a nuclear war the entire planet would be plunged into a very intense cold and complete darkness caused by the blockage of sunlight that would last for months or even years. The writer has put forward his points in a very horrific tone to tell the scenario of the aftermath of a nuclear war.
[1:29 AM
|
]
Cultural relativism and universalism are both philosophical doctrines. Cultural relativism is an idea that all criteria of judgment should be relative to the individuals and situations involved. The theology of Universalism bases itself on the fundamental principle that the universe is a deliberate creation of God Almighty.1
Cultural Relativism posits that each culture should be understood and judged through the lenses of its own particular terms and should be viewed with value neutrality that supersedes one’s own inherent culture bias. Henceforth, a comparative study of matters relating to “Culture” is inadequate on grounds of ontological feasibility. No culture when weighed is superior or inferior to any other culture in terms of morality, social life, beliefs, customs, ethics etc. In other words, right and wrong have purely normative connotations, and at best remain only subjective precepts. What may be considered immoral in one society might be for a second society perceptually moral in its stead. For there exists no universal standard of morality.
[12:29 AM
|
]
Africa-a land of beautiful and fascinating sceneries, a land of rich culture, a land where wild and untamed animals reside, a land blessed with natural resources but when someone talks about Africa the first thing comes in mind is a battlefield, killing of innocent people, poverty, lack of food, dictatorship and above all the civil wars. Then the question arises why Africa had so many civil wars? There could be many reasons to explain this: political instability, economic decline, interference of other countries to gain access to natural resources, clash of ethnicities, colonization effect etc. Many African nations became the victims of civil wars since 1960. The last few decades saw the killing of 50,000 people in Sierra Leone, the genocide of thousands of people in Rwanda and Burundi, the race murder of hundreds of people in The Democratic Republic of Congo and many more. We will put light on the different causes that made Africa vulnerable to civil wars.
Africa is an ethnically diverse continent. People are related with different tribes and each tribe has its own culture, customs, traditions, way of living and some tribes have a different language. When we observe the nations devastated by civil wars we come across the fact that these nations are ethnically diverse nations. For example Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and our own country Pakistan constitute ethnically diverse nations. Ethnic riots fueled by Bengali nationalism resulted in fall of Bangladesh in 1971. But how do these ethnicities grew so strong among the people of Africa? What made them so ethnic and so different that they don’t accept one another? We will start with the rise of ethnic conflicts followed by civil war in Africa. An attempt will be made to reveal the actual facts behind the rise of Ethnic nationalism.
Posts
