Open links in new window
PURETICS...

PURETICS...


Interesting Findings And World Unfolding Through My Eyes.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Explaining Terroism Via Dostoevsky

Liss Gehlen/Jens Heisterkamp: Why do you return to the work of Dostoevsky to explain the terrorism of the 20th and 21st centuries?

André Glucksmann: In Dostoïevski à Manhattan I pose a philosophical question: what is the ‘idea’, the characteristic form of modern terrorism? And my answer is: nihilism.

Socrates asked: what do a beautiful woman, a beautiful vase and a beautiful bed have in common? His answer: the idea of beauty. My question is: what do extremist ideologies like the communism or Nazism of yesteryear and the Islamism of today have in common? After all, they support ostensibly very different ideals – the superior race, mankind united in socialism, the community of Muslim believers (the Umma). Tomorrow, it could be altogether different ideals: some theological, some scientific, others racist. But the common characteristic is nihilism.

The root element is the attitude that anything goes, particularly when with regard to ordinary people: I can do whatever I want, without scruples. Goehring put it like this: my consciousness is Adolf Hitler. Bolsheviks said: man is made of iron. And the Islamists whom I visited in Algeria said that you have the right to kill little Muslim children, in order to save them.

Liss Gehlen/Jens Heisterkamp: And this took you back to Dostoevsky?

André Glucksmann: It is the highest achievement of Russian literature in particular that it has revealed this kernel of human experience in which ‘everything is allowed’. In Dostoevsky’s The Possessed there are atheists and believers (a figure like Shatov for example) who have very different outlooks on the future. But they share one thing in common: the right to kill, to burn, to overturn, in order to achieve tabula rasa.

Liss Gehlen/Jens Heisterkamp: When Dostoevsky talks about the devils, or the possessed, he still seems to be guided by the idea that evil is something which captures man from outside. The main protagonist Stavrogin, for example, even talks about the devil’s appearances.

André Glucksmann: Actually, the beautiful thing about Stavrogin is that you don’t really know him. You don’t know if he believes in God or not. In the end, what surprised me was to find that he is a little like bin Laden; he might be very cynical, or fanatical, nobody really knows.

The inner nature of this nihilistic terrorism is that everything is permissible, whether because God exists and I am his representative, or because God does not exist and I take his place. That is what I find so impressive about Dostoevsky: he is a secret, a riddle.

Liss Gehlen/Jens Heisterkamp: The group of conspirators at the centre of The Possessed seems, from the outside, to have both a coherent programme and a great deal of charisma. From the inside, on the other hand, all that remains is a fascination with destruction. And this fascination develops its own dynamic, pulling everyone under its spell. Destruction takes over as the group’s raison d’etre, while some of those involved still believe it is about the content and messages it offers.

André Glucksmann: Yes, there are several different layers of nihilists. There are the ‘outer’ nihilists who follow and believe, and then there are the nihilists at the centre of the action, the activists who pursue the logic of destruction. Dostoevsky has shown this very well indeed, as has Turgenev, in the persona of Bazarov. Or take Fritz Lang’s Dr Mabuse figure. These destructive personalities have coherence precisely because they are not idealists. Their coherence derives from the logic of destruction. In a linguistic sense it is performative, and therefore self-endorsing.
Read more:http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-iraqwarphiloshophy/article_1111.jsp

Posted by Ajay :: 5:53 PM :: 0 comments

Post a Comment

---------------oOo---------------
Whats New?

Maria was looking cloths for her birthday.
Richard:Maria's father was also thinking what new gift he would give to his daughter.
On Birth Date..
Maria: came wearing cloths which looks as old as it wore by her grandmother.
Richard:Hey maria ! what you are wearing,do you know its 20 years old cloths.
Maria:But its new for me.As I have seen it just few seconds back.

Posted by Ajay :: 5:18 PM :: 0 comments

Post a Comment

---------------oOo---------------
Farmers's Fruits

Two farmers Ramu and Dinu who lived on the bank of river.Both do farming for their bread and butter as both have land.But Ramu always get more fruits from his land than Dinu.
Dinu:I don't know Ramu how did you get more fruits than me every year while I work as long as you do.I think of it every day of the year and work hard in that hope that this year I will get more fruits than you.I prayer to god everymorning that this year he give me more fruits than you Ramu.
Ramu:Oh!.
Dinu:What oh! What you do tell me this time otherwise I will kill you.
Ramu:I work as hard as you do and I also pray to god everymorning as you do but I don't ask or demand anything from god every day of year.Instead I just pray "God just keep my happiness alive others things will follow,keep my intention right and give what I'm capable off".Hope you understand Dinu!
Dinu:Uuuu!

Posted by Ajay :: 9:21 AM :: 0 comments

Post a Comment

---------------oOo---------------
Can Married Women Live With Her Lover?

Court says yes"HT report:Can a married woman lawfully live with her lover against the will of her husband? The Rajasthan High Court says yes.

In a judgment on Wednesday, the court allowed a married woman, Manju, to live with her lover, Suresh. “It is improper to pass an order to hand over any unwilling married woman to her husband with whom she does not want to stay,” said justices GS Mishra and KC Sharma. The court also said that nobody should consider an adult woman as a consumer product.

While dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by Manju’s husband, the court came down hard on the misuse of habeas corpus petitions by people who want to thrust their will upon adult women without their consent. The court said the husband was free to approach the family court for divorce.

Commenting on the judgment, senior Supreme Court advocate and noted women’s rights activist Indira Jaising said, “Though it sounds strange, I am in complete agreement with the high court.”

"At the end of the day an adult woman has a right to decide whom she wants to live with. She can’t be forced to go with her husband against her will," Jaising said.
Read More:http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=9e0b7ae6-86f2-4cb8-812e-a71677b4d729&

Posted by Ajay :: 9:19 AM :: 0 comments

Post a Comment

---------------oOo---------------

 

http:// googlea0b0123eb86e02a9.html