Online college degree Philosophia: 2003

Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Thinking Process Involved in Web Designing



It is true that computer science has a very limited set of choices and is in a phase where it has to abide by the dictates of market. Not yet it has seen its creative artist who can detect new avenues of expression and take us towards new worlds of experience. Now a computer programmer has to employ his skill towards the achievement of a goal that is quite pragmatic in nature. The basic idea of all computer programming and web designing is that how to make things useful and how to provide information about a certain product or entity to the end user.
We switch from one page to another by doing a simple act and the one who has programmed that for us knew certain realities and facts about our demand. That is why the first age of web designing is the age of pragmatic attitude in which the basic idea is of utility and usefulness. Till now computer language, being limited, knows only how to develop a page on which everything, which a user can demand to satisfy a certain want can be provided. This kind of programming presumes a certain specific kind of user who has a certain purpose in his mind and who has certain definite goals to achieve. The first age of web designing is for those end users who are using internet for a certain purpose say for accessing a certain class of data; yet still the creative artists along with his own creative goals has not entered this field.
However the persistent use of computers and Internet and web surfing have changed the psyche of user and now there is a different class of users emerging out of the previous class. These people have the experience that IT technology has not provided sufficient results and is not yet capable of delivering promised success. That IT is a part of an effort towards practical goals and it is not something independent of the economic demand and supply law; it is not an artistic activity. The experience provided by the Internet is not a full experience and it is still lacking dimension of physical interaction. That the world of Internet is not yet completed and it is still a half world that has its complement in the physical world.
Why we should use the word virtual experience for the experience that we have on Internet? Why we don’t call it a real experience? The reason is we want to communicate with our body and that we cannot do on Internet. We cannot communicate physically on Internet that’s why we call this experience virtual .An experience that is not full and inferior to the real experience. Now the question is whether it is possible to experience something that is as real as the real world on Internet, something that we can call real and not virtual? Yes, the answer to the above question is yes, but it requires a serious effort in a new direction. We should have to decipher the meaning and reality of what we experience on the Internet and we should analyze our experience in this new region.
We can only pursue the goals of market and set traditions. There is no freedom in the world of Internet and it is still in its infancy and hence unable to communicate artistically. No one has yet experienced beyond the limits of market goals. What we are aiming at is a comprehensive experience that might be considered as a full and heightened experience .Is it possible for us to do that? Can we experience something on Internet that can be called a higher realization?
What we experience on the net is devoid of physical presence; we can have relations, in fact, long lasting relations that are not capable of becoming real. Is it not an enough reason for creating pessimism in us that the object we are looking at or the person we are communicating with is not in our reach and that the final goal is to reach at the object physically? And obviously this tells us that Internet cannot fully satisfy us and we have to complement our experience through adding a physical non web based dimension to it.
In order to experience something intense, satisfying and heightened on Internet we should know what does it mean to have an intense experience and who can have such an experience. We have to decide one more thing; whether we have to view this problem from the perspective of a web user or from that of designer? For if we view it from the perspective of user then we will not be able to know its proper meaning, because each and every user has his own peculiar choices and his own way to satisfy himself and to experience his reality.
This problem should be viewed from the perspective of the creator. And let us partially answer this question that only those who have the potential and ability to create can experience the real on Internet. Internet is a medium on which we can create something longer lasting and beautiful, something that is complete and final that does not need a complement in the external world, and we can overcome the dichotomy of virtual and real on internet.
This is not romanticism, but it is a kind of thinking that enables us to have a great addition in our artistic efforts. Let us now consider the problem of creator and let us first consider the way a programmer acts and works in present day situation. A programmer is bound to follow his client and the needs of user who are view the web page created by him to fulfill certain ends. This web designer is not yet free and doesn’t think freely that’s why he cannot be considered as a creative artist.
Moreover the language known to this programmer is the language of utility. The way of thinking that looms under this type of creation is pragmatic and always directed towards certain practical goal. Nowhere the freedom, with which an artist creates, betrays its presence in these web sites.
The way of thinking is of significant importance .A web designer thinks while focusing the experience of user, what a user may have in mind when he opens a site and what he wants to see and look at. This creator is always bound to present his product the way he asked to do by the entrepreneur and the way the end user would like to have it. The creator is completely missing in this process, for he works and creates not according to his own free will but according to the will of his beneficiaries.
This bondage is a hindrance in artistic creation. The one who doesn’t create with freedom cannot be considered as an artist. To be an artist freedom is necessary which is completely missing in this case. This pragmatic attitude has restricted the way an artist communicates through this medium. In fact, it has reduced the possibilities of his thought process.
What is the basic stuff of creation? Creation is an experience and like all other human experiences it has a certain configuration.
Let us consider what Heidegger has said about human experience. According to Heidegger all human experience can be understood in three basic and inseparable from each other categories. All human experience can be finally reduced in to these three generalized categories. These categories are, 
BEFUNLECHKEIT (MOOD), 
VERSTEHEN (UNDERSTANDING), 
REDE (LANGUAGE). 
Whatever we experience we experience in a certain mood with a certain understanding and a thought expressing itself in language. In fact these three components, the mood with which we confront our own situation, the process of thinking that clarifies our future possibilities to us and hence gives us an understanding regarding our future in a given situation and the language utilized to communicate this understanding to us, can never be separated from each other.

Heidegger defines man as Dasein. Whereas Dasein stands for “being there”. Man, according to Heidegger is a being that essentially is a “being- in -the world”. Now Heidegger takes his analysis a step ahead and says that the term being- in- the world can be further analyzed. The basic structure of being in the world comprises the person who is in the world, the world itself and the way or manner in which that person is in the world. Let us consider these three components of being -in-the world, one by one.
THE WORLD
The world as found by the person who is in the world is not constitutive of things and places, rather it’s a world of ones own care and concern. In this world all things and objects can be arranged in a hierarchy of significance, i.e., in an order in which these things are important for the person. These objects and places are nothing neutral but to be conceived as aspects of person. Objects are utensils because the person as directed towards the achievement of some goal always understands these objects as tools at hand, ready to serve a purpose. A hammer does not have an objective meaning but it’s meaning depends on the situation in which a person has confronted it. A tree means some thing different for a botanist and for a person who has reared a tree in his backyard has a different notion of this tree. Hence things do not have absolute meanings. Places can also be described in the similar fashion. The world represented by the globe is nothing but an object in a person’s world of concern and care.
BEING-IN
Heidegger analyses the being-in of a person, that is, the way a person is in this world. Heidegger says that man is a thrown project who does not know any thing about his “where from” and “where to”. The only thing a person knows is the way he “is” in a given situation. The person confronts his own situation and the objects in a given situation and this situation discloses it self to him in certain mood. Heidegger termed this way as Befundlichkeit and characterizes it as the mood with which a person encounters his situation. In a given situation a person realizes about his future possibilities. This future is revealed to him through his understanding. A person, in a certain given situation, realizes that what will become of him in his future. Hence the first dimension of time a person encounters is the future. A person travels in to his future possibilities and then he comes back to his situation. This coming back indicates that the second dimension of time is pasta Peron comes across his past and this past is not the historical past but it should be considered as the existential past of the person. Now this man makes a resolve and acts and his act joins him to his present. This structure of time is termed as temporality by Heidegger.

HISTORY
History too has an existential significance. The common past that a man shares with others is an object of his concern that may have more or less significance for him. Existential history is the history of the person; it is the way he experienced his life. Existential history means the history of a certain project. Heidegger considers world as a project for the person who is in this world and from whose perspective this world we are looking at, has projects to accomplish. In all situation man has intentions and all consciousness is intentional. Heidegger describes person’s relation ship with others. He says that man in certain aspects is a being like others and shares social values and other aspects of social life. But the reality of a person is personal to him and he cannot share that reality with others. In the similar fashion,a person cannot share his past his history with others because this past and this history is some thing special to him and different from any other persons history.
THE REALITY OF PERSON
Heidegger, like Soren Kierkegaard, believes that a person's reality is his subjectivity. Soren Kierkegaard maintained that the truth of individual is subjectivity. Hegel who was the most influential thinker of Kierkegaard's time described truth of an entity as the complete agreement of that thing with its notion. A soldier is a true soldier if his existence is in complete agreement with the notion of a soldier. Hegel considered this notion as a universal idea. Following his definition of truth Hegel proceeds to describe the reality of individual. A person’s reality lies in the complete agreement of his existence with the universal notion of a person. This notion according to Hegel has nothing to do with subjectivity and it is completely objective. Hegel wants an individual to surrender his differences and consequently, his individuality to become a mimic of a universal ideal and this universal ideal is a law abiding, conventional person who lives a life that is in complete accord with the social norms and the dictates of state. Hegel idealized the Prussian state and his notion that history had reached its end was actually an attempt to glorify the Prussian State.
In contradistinction to Hegel Kierkegaard maintains that an individual’s reality lies in his subjectivity, i.e., the extent to which an individual is different from others. He says that an individual is different from others and his salvation and truth both depend on his acceptance of this difference. This difference manifests itself to an individual when he confronts the possibility of his death. Death, according to Heidegger is a phenomenon that tells a man the the utmost potential of his existence. No one can share his death with others.
AUTHENTIC AND INAUTHENTIC EXISTENCE
A person confronts the possibility of his own death as some thing very private. The mood with which this understanding comes to a man is of DREAD. It is dread that discloses persons ut-most potential to him. As dread is some thing hard to bear , therefore people escape from this mood; this escape takes them to the general class of people and they identify themselves as one like many. This identification of a person with one like many devoid him of his individuality and his own reality. Thus, an individual after losing his reality goes to a very lower wretched state where he does not have the true realization of his own possibilities. In this state of fallenness a person becomes inauthentic and he exists in-authentically in the world. The authentic being is the one who never escapes his reality and lives with the realization of his  possibilities.
Heidegger differentiates between the two above-mentioned modes of existence. The difference is made on the basis of the way these two modes encounter their own situation. Since the inauthentic person has escaped his potential, therefore he cannot have a true understanding neither of his project in this world nor of his future. That’s why his understanding becomes ambiguous and his language becomes a mere chatter that has no significant meaning and direction. He always feels anxiety because he has forsaken his own reality, and such a person always tries to escape this anxiety , to enhance his inauthenticity and to lessen his clarity of understanding. The mood that usually regulates this person is of ambiguity.
On the other hand an authentic person has a true realization of his projects and his future possibilities .His understanding reveals truth and his language creates meaning and discovers the meaning of being for him. In this way authentic person's language becomes a means of creation. It discloses Being and creates new meaning. Heidegger has a very significant contribution to human psychology and his analysis of human existence has produced many significant results especially he successfully revealed many human states and moods and categories that were previously not known.
MARXIST PERSPECTIVE
Those who are working in this field are no exceptions and are facing the same contradictions that are entailed by the structure and limitations of a capitalist economy. Here, as anywhere else, the idea of a divided labor is playing its part. A programmer follows the dictates of market and the fallacious attitude lies not in the psyche of creator but in the requirements of the market itself. It is the market that tends to generate products that are demanded by the consumer. However this relationship reverses at times and market forces start shaping the needs of consumer. By divided labor we mean that the people who decide what to produce are different and the people who actually produce are different and those who send this product to the market are different. Now as far as market is concerned this perhaps is a necessity and it can not be stopped. Divided labor is necessary for production at a bulk level and to compete in a modern market, but it is not a supportive fact if we want to have a creative ideal to sustain. For creation requires solitude, as Nietzsche has said and this solitude is not ensured in the market environment. In market place one has to follow the necessities entailed by the competition.
The creative process is hindered by a lack of freedom to choose. However, since the creation never bears the name of creator and a creator knows it, the labor knows that his product will become something alien to him and he is doing the job to satisfy some one else's but not his own mind, therefore, he never thinks freely. That is why he does whatever is required by the person who has hired his capabilities. He works for the satisfaction for a common taste and commonality or banal taste is not authentic.
The categories used by Heidegger and Marx are not so disjoint and can be considered as same and pointing to a similar set of realities. Das mann or common man who is characterized by Heidegger as a class of people, the large number of people who live a life of anxiety,for they have escaped their reality and then can no more live a life of authenticity in which they have a true realization of their goals and projects and their own situation. Heidegger suggests an individualistic solution to these problems and exhorts individual to realize his truth. On the other hand Marx characterizes this kind of situation with the feeling of alienation. A laborer who becomes a part of divided labor is alienated from his essence that is labor. That’s why, proletariat needs revolution and change. This is similar to the anxiety of inauthentic being who feels anxiety because his reality calls for him.
That’s why the laborer who works for a certain organization in which his work is never attributed to him, but to the organization it self, always feels anxiety. Now it is this anxiety that finally alienates him from the main stream and asks him to gain freedom to create some thing of his own. Hence this dialectics finally brings a certain unidentified change in the market about which no knows any thing beforehand. There will be a class of people who will become so individualistic that they will not work for any organization and will live according to their own free will. People who will be capable of doing anything through their skills, for IT is such a field in which even an individual can become stronger than an institution.
IT industry will see its revolution and this revolution will be brought about by those who will decide to act according to an individualistic resolve. That’s why these possibilities should be addressed both at intellectual and practical levels. Now a days hacking phenomenon is growing and it represents the best case scenario for the above mentioned situation. Hackers are those IT people who don’t get enough reward or who are simply outcast or ignored by the market forces. Specially the third world IT experts who don’t get enough rewards for their efforts are more liable to fall victim to this situation. Moreover, the absence of laws and law enforcement is a reason for the rapid growth of this phenomenon.
The alienation caused by the structure of capitalist economy can easily be translated in to a big nasty revolution .And this is a very serious problem. These revolution can be of more significance than the revolutions brought by Soviet Union in the nineteenth century. Hence creativity and creative expression should be given a positive form as soon as possible. For right now market determinism is very strong and market forces are relying on a set pattern and convention which does not allow creative efforts.
Freud, gave the idea that all artistic creation is a result of repression and is a part of sublimation process. Now this sublimation process can acquire any form .The repressed part of human psyche can express it self in any form even in ambiguity .The need is that it should not express itself in terrorism. Terrorism arises when communication breaks and dialogue ends. When an individual or a class of people feels that they can no more communicate with the powerful. That is why the first measure that we can take is this that we should make acceptable many forms of expression that are not acceptable for market forces now. The set trend should be accompanied by unconventional ways. Till now we have only one way of thinking and expression that is acceptable to us.

Logic of Being


Structure of our language depends on the way our mind functions. Our mind functions in a way that is suitable for our existence in this world. This suitable way of thinking, we learnt through our experiences in this world. We don't think it viable to unite contradictory ideals in our thought that is why we believe in the law of non-contradiction. We do not want to remain ignorant of any thing that is why we have created an answer to each and every question. For instance God as an answer to the question regarding the principle cause behind all causes.

Metaphysicians gave this cause the name God and attributed all sorts of positive adjectives to this logical construction. He is the necessary Being, the un-moved mover, Causa Sui, Summum Bonum etc. While attributing all sorts of positive attributes to this concept God, metaphysicians did some thing illogical. Nietzsche says, "Causa sui is the rape of logic. 'They committed a logical fallacy that influenced all the coming generations of metaphysicians. However, in recent times thought pattern changed and man learned to live amidst uncertainty.

This new daring attitude gave man the ability to restrict his knowledge within the limits of his experience’. Man learned how to base his knowledge on his experience alone. Human experience however is a highly diversified thing. It is devoid, and simultaneously, full of logical necessities. It is both rational and irrational; it is both logical and illogical. It can be any thing. It is certain and uncertain simultaneously. It tells us about change and it tells us about permanence.

This varied phenomenon of human experience, since it moulds and fashions our thoughts and our mind, also generates our language. The contradictory nature of human experience is fashioning -forth new languages different from all previous languages and underlying thinking attitudes. It is giving a new form to our language by adding some thing to it on every passing moment. And more than this it is creating a new logic, a new set of categories. It is defining our concepts anew in different terms. It is teaching us logic of uncertainties. In fact our experience has told us that instead of God man himself is that necessary being. For man is a necessity and not a mere chance.

We know things because there is some thing permanent in things that we know. Our new logic does not consider it as a necessary fact. We know things despite the fact that there is nothing permanent in them. A man borne and dies and during the time elapsed between his death and life every thing changes .Each and every aspect of his being undergoes change, yet we remember that person as a particular person who remains self same. Is it not a logical fallacy on our part? But we are bound to commit this mistake because we can not do otherwise. We have to believe that the person who is known to us as a certain Mr. A continues to exist as Mr. A through out his life span. We can't believe otherwise though we know that the unchanging element is missing in the being of Mr A.Mr A changes instantaneously and that’s why does not qualify as a proper object of knowledge according to our age old Platonic definition of being.

Now let us consider two important facts that are involved in the constitution of a person 'A'. First of all his appearance that undergoes changes. Then the kind of experience that we have when we encounter Mr A, or the kind of experience that Mr A undergoes when he encounters his own self in a particular situation. Among these two facts the first one undergoes changes, the second one repeats itself.

Permanence of an object is to be redefined as a repetition of certain set of attributes. In humans it is repetition of a certain kind of experiences. I am what I am because I experience this world in a certain way peculiar to myself .I know myself because of the kind of experience that I always have while operating or acting in this world. My existence is my experience in this world. I encounter things in my own way, a way which never changes, which remains self same .This self same experience is a kind of returning of myself to myself. I return to myself after every experience after every wayfaring, after each adventure. That is why my permanence is my experience.

What is death then? Death is some thing alien to me or to any other person. One experiences death as others' death and as one's own potential. One experiences death as a future possibility and as a phenomenon that marks an end to every thing. Death is a complete end that gives a sense of finitude to our being. My death is a potential state when I will cease to experience myself as myself, when I will not experience things the way I am accustomed to experience.

I learned about this phenomenon called death while experiencing other's death .There is an immediate deduction involved in this knowledge. I deduced death; I inferred it, while looking at others' death. And what in fact I learnt was the reality that a certain person ceased to exist the way he had existed during his life time. That I can no more experience him the way I used to experience him in his life time. Neither that person himself can experience his being as he did in his life time. Death is the end of experience. It is the end of the substance; it is the end of the permanence.

Death educates us about change; death gives us an awareness of time. It is time that separates non -being from being. It is time that separates life from death. Time is the distance yet to be traveled. But is this distance unknown to us? Do we not know what will happen next? We know the end of the time and we know what entity ends at the end of the time. The entity that ends with death is our own being and our being is our experience. And this experience is known to us, it is our identity. That is why we know what is there to come. We know each and every detail of our future. Our future is not unknown to us. It is in time that our experience is going to repeat itself despite all apparent changes.

Time gives us room for experiencing ourselves. It displays this world and tells us about the order of things. It makes cause and effect possible. It tells us that there possibly is a permanent pattern behind things which we know and count this knowing as our knowledge about things .Though this pattern is permanent, it is not necessarily so. It can be otherwise and we know this fact well. For time renders change to every thing and no pattern can continue to maintain a selfsame existence. Every thing is bound to change. There is a great uncertainty in this world .No one knows what will happen next in the world of things. So we experience certainty in ourselves but we face uncertainty in the world of things. I am what I am and I will be like this till I exist, but things are changing and in the realm of things change is a rule.

Thus change pertains to the outer world and it is the ruling principle in external reality. This change is not infinite. Change is finite .Possible states are finite. The possibilities of becoming are not infinite. An object can change to acquire certain forms and the number of these possibilities is finite. A planet can acquire a certain number of forms after going through a change and their number is finite. Possibilities are finite in number, but it is difficult to say which possibility will come first and which one will come last. We can not tell the order in which change can possibly occur; this is the meaning of uncertainty and indeterminism.

We can not say any thing about the order of the things or the order in which things are likely to occur. It does not mean that we know for sure that we are unable to say any thing about the order of things. Perhaps we may be able to do so in a certain way unknown to us. Perhaps there is a certain logic that can tell us about the order of the things or to guess this order to a certain degree of accuracy. But right now we know nothing but our experience. We are habitual of experiencing a self same pattern. But we don't know the logic by which a certain event always precedes a certain event. Why a cause A always comes before an effect B. Why A and B are related to each other. Cause and effect relationship is merely a convention; it indicates that we can not say any thing about the relationship of an event A with its effect B.

Since we don't know the exact relationship between a cause A and its effects B, therefore we finish any further discourse on this issue by saying that A and B are connected to each other as cause and effect. That A precedes B in the order of events. But there is a certain logic behind the phenomenon of event A always preceding even B. There can be logic beyond cause and effect. In fact logic begins when we further elaborate the relationship between cause and effect.

An event A of which an event B is the effect may have been followed by any other event .But it was followed by event B .Is there any role that circumstances and conditions played in this occurrence? May be there is a role that conditions play in all such circumstances but that role again is unknown to us. We don't know the exact constitution of reality. We don't know how things are mathematically configurated. There should be a mathematical order in things. World of things must and should follow a mathematical principle, though not in the form of an exact law .It should be a principle of probabilities. We are capable of knowing the possible combinations of events. In fact the only thing that we can know now at this stage is the set of combinations that reality can manifest itself in. We can assign different weights to this combinations increasing or decreasing the likelihood of their occurrence.


Hence the law that governs this world is the law of probability and our observation can tell us about possible combinations of reality and the weight that we can allocate to these combinations. This structure of reality gives way to chance .Things by and large are dependent on chance .It can be head or tail, and both occurrences have same or different probabilities. It is by chance that out of many combinations of event AB, AC, etc, only AB occurred whenever we repeated a certain experiment in certain approximately selfsame conditions. Amidst this chance, necessity belongs to living things and above all to mankind, for mankind has consciousness. We can exercise our will, we can act intentionally that is why we ought to behave as a necessity, in a necessary way.

This necessity gives birth to our moral life. We evaluate because we ought to do what is necessary. We ought to do what should be done. We are evaluators, we choose the best option. We can redeem ourselves from chance and accident and at times we can exploit chance to our benefit. We can either respond to an external stimulus or we can suppress any response and remain indifferent towards an accident. All depends on our will and volition.

I want to construct this systematic logic and in doing so I will take help from the writings of Nietzsche and Heidegger.
ABSTRACT
A Critique on Legal Moralism and its Impact on Pakistan Society

Aberrant acts can be classified in two basic categories.There are acts that are harmful to the interests of society ,individuals and other groups in the society and there are acts that are called moral evils and considered as harmful to the moral character of the person who has perpetrated those acts.In most of the societies of east to have sexual relationship outside marriage is considered as a moral evil and deemed at as some thing condemnable and abhorrent by the members .In various societies of east ,specially in Islamic societies, including the society of Pakistan, to drink is deemed at as an accursed act.

Social response towards these so called moral evils is of two kinds.In many societies of the east these acts are condemned only as moral evils and the perpetrators of these acts are never penalized.The penal code of these societies does not have any law that asks to give punishment to the perpetrator of a morally bad act like having sexual relation outside marriage and adultery .However, there are a few societies in which ,state has incorporated laws that ask for persecuting individuals who are involved in such acts.Pakistan is a country where sexual relationship outside marriage and adultry are abandoned by the law and people receive capital punishment for these crimes.These punishments are sanctioned by Islam and those who have imposed these laws say that such laws are necessary to create a morally strong and noble citizen who can live a life beneficial both for his own self and for his society.These laws being the offshots of religious doctrine ,enjoy a tremendous value among the people and are true representative of the collective moral consciousness of the society.These laws are constituted to guard the value system and the collective moral consciousnes of people.

The true condition however is very different and it seems as if these laws ,instead of giving moral courage to the members of this society, are devoiding them of it .First of all ,the law that regulates the cases of so called illicit sexual relationship is resulting in increased injustice.According to this law if someone accuses some one for having illicit sex relationship then the one who has brought the accusation is expected to bring four eye witnesses to prove the accusation.In case ,the person who has brought the accusation,fails to do so then he himself is persecuted by the sanction of law.Due to this law of witness any woman who goes to the court and reports a rape case ,receives a verdict against her because she fails to bring four eye wittnesses.And judicial history of Pakistan has plenty of such examples when a victim of rape was persecuted by the verdict of court for having illicit sexual relationship and for bringing false accusation to a so called innocent person.However, this law of wittness is not bad in as much as it prevents the possibility of a false accusation but this law is not correctly utilized and as a result the innocent and effected person fails to get any assistance from the law and law instead of helping the effected party convicts it for the same crime.

Since above mentioned phenomenon bears a direct relation ship to the phenomenon of legal moralism to the extent that it is resulted from an attempt to legitimize and appease the religious and moral consciousness of the society,this situation has raised certain questions regarding the role that legal moralism is playing in the society. First ,I believe that the presence of moral freedom is necessary to do a morally good or bad act.In a situation where to have sex out side marriage is abandoned by the sanction of law ,people don't have a choice other then to shun it.It does not allow them to chose freely out of the given choices.If people in Pakistan do not have a tendency of having sex relation outside marriage or perpetrating adultry then it can not be said that they are morally superior, because they don't chose it as a free choice.The question of morality appears when individuals are given a right to chose .My question is what this absence of freedom results in?In a morally strong character or in a morally frail character?

I think that there should be a wide space between moral law and penal law.Penal law should not interfere with an individuals morality and should not dictate individual's moral life.In a society where a morally bad act is considered as a penal offense , people can not grow morally.In such societies individuals are not expected to have sufficient moral strength , for, this arrangement is a hindrance in the way of achieving a morally sound character.Thats why in the cities of Pakistan people die helplessly after an accident on the street and no one is dare to help them or to take them to hospitals because people fear the response they would receive from the law enforcing authorities.And all this happens because people do not have enough moral courage.

I think that it is the false religious consciousness that is responsible for this miserable plight.For ,it is in the name of religion that such laws are constituted and given the authority to interfere with the personal life of an individual.The conflict between a higher ideal of society and the collctive moral consciousness is extremely clear.In Pakistan moral consciousness at times allows individual to perform honour killing.In the province of Sind a person who has an evidence that a woman among his relations is indulged in alleged illicit relationship with a male, enjoys the privilege to kill both of them and members of society accept this brutality under the canopy of a traditional custom called KaroKari.However in urban society of this same country people dont go to this extent to avenge the harm inflicted upon them by the perpetration of adultry by a woman of their family.Majority silently sanctions honour killing and does not describe it as some thing bad.
State , although it does not allow such a heinous act by the sanction of law,doesnot do much to prevent it either.State is not only responsible for legitimizing the moral consciousnessof the people but is also responsible for stopping the members of a society from bringing harm to themselves and to the other members.However ,ironically ,legal moralism is so much supported that even acts like Karo Kari are not publicly denounced.Due to this reason there is a genuine need to revise our philosophy of law.The aim of this revision is to know how moral law should be differentiated from the penal law and to what extent it should be differentiated ?What are the effects and implications in those societies where this difference is not maintained.

Research should be carried out to study of impacts of legal moralism on the moral development of society and individuals.Legal moralism states that the laws can be formulated to prevent individuals from showing behaviors that conflict with society's collective moral judgments. These acts and behaviors include even those which do not result in physical or psychological harm to others. According to this view, a person's freedom can be restricted by the authority of law simply because it conflicts with society's collective morality. Legal moralism implies that it is permissible for the state to use its coercive power to enforce society's collective morality.

The famous legal moralist Patrick Devlin, has worked on these issues therefore it is necessary to review his work in detail to find out why and on what grounds he has favored legal moralism so strongly.Delvin's notion that a shared morality is essential to the existence of a society and private acts which have not been wittnessed by any one can be persecuted if they are found to be in conflict with a societie's collective moral judgment, should be reviewed. Dr. Mohammad Iqbal ,the famous poet and philosopher of sub-continient has also written much on the issue of moral freedom.Thats why his notion of freedom of will should also be reviewed. legal moralism is a serious problem in Pakistan and due to legislature's overwhelming influence on the morality of the people there is no room left for individual's moral freedom.The number of checks enforced on individual are enough to suffocate his moral character.

CONCEPT OF IMAGINATION IN HUME, NIETZSCHE AND MYSTICISM.


Imagination according to Plato is an inferior faculty which imitates reality. Plato maintains the view that work of imagination in the form of art and literature presents nothing but imitations of truth in the form of sense ideas. That’s why Plato gives no place to artists in his republic. On the other hand he believes that rational knowledge, presented in his dialogues in the form of rational discourse, is the only true form of knowledge.

When Muslims discovered Plato, they were really impressed by his thought and system and majority of the early Muslim thinkers and mystics formed the view that religion and philosophy intend to reveal the same reality. That what religion shows and reveals through faith, philosophy establishes through rational discussion. However this faith in Plato created certain questions of real import and significance pertaining to the compatibility of religion and philosophy on certain issues. First among these issues was the form of expression adopted in Holy Scripture. Quran was not written in the form of a pure rational dialogue, niether it intended to show reality in rational categories. Quranic language suggested that its way of expression was some what imaginative and mimetic. Since Muslims wanted to reconcile the teachings of Islam with the teachings of Plato that’s why they adopted a different interpretation of imagination. Muslim thinkers exalted the role of imagination and asserted that imagination was a way to communicate knowledge acquired through religious experience. In this way imitation was exalted but this exaltation was restricted to literary expression.

In Semitic tradition Adam's fall was considered to be a work of imagination and it was the main cause behind the temptation of Adam which compelled him to commit the original sin. Abhorrence for imagination in mediaeval Christian mystics was in reality an aftermath of platonic interpretation of imagination. Hence the mimetic faculty was said to be an evil faculty and its use was not acknowledged .In classical culture, however, imagination was the most exalted faculty and poetic expression was the highest form of expression. Art flourished to its heights in the pre-Socratic times. In classical mindset imagination was the real creative power behind the formation and creation of various cultural forms.

After renaissance the views about imagination changed and this change was vivid in the ideas of David Hume. Hume maintained that imagination was the force behind the creation of cultural forms, though, like Plato he said that artists and poets were professional liars. However he resolved to accept their lies on a somewhat pragmatic ground for he argued that to live a good and orderly life one should have to live accept illusions.

Nietzsche, as he belonged to post- romantic age, considered the work of imagination as the true creation and considered both truth and lie as necessary conditions of life. Hence he considered imagination as the most effective faculty responsible for carrying out creative activity.
I want to compare these three interpretations of imagination. In my view Nietzsche and Hume adopted a position which is closer to classical interpretation whereas Christian mystics adopted a Platonic stance. On the other hand Muslims tried to synthesize Platonic and classical interpretation. An in-depth study of these trends will manifest many realities and will be of significance.
A Phenomenological Interpretation of Dr. John Dewey's Views on Education

Heidegger in his Being and Time presented a comprehensive analysis of human experience .While concluding this analysis he says that all human experience can be reduced to following three categories:

1-MOOD (befundlichkeit)

2-LANGUAGE (verstehen)

3-UNDERSTANDING (rede)1

According to Heidegger all human experience can be comprehended through these three categories which can not be set apart from each other and which constitute the manner with which we encounter ourselves in a given situation. All human experience can be finally reduced to these three categories. What ever we experience we experience in a certain mood, with a certain understanding of our situation and with a thought expressing itself in a language. In fact these three components that is the mood with which we encounter our own situation, the process of thinking that clarifies and communicates to us the knowledge of our possibilities in a given situation and the language that is being utilized to communicate this understanding to us, are sufficient to clarify the meaning of human experience in general terms.

Dr John Dewey, while describing education, says that education is a kind of experience. He writes, “I take it that the fundamental unity of the newer philosophy is found in the idea that there is an intimate and necessary relation between the process of actual experience and education.” 2 Elaborating this idea further, he says that educative experience has some special qualities that differentiate it from all other experiences. He says,”…that all education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative.”3The quality of experience has two aspects .First, there is an immediate aspect of agreeableness and disagreeableness .Second, and there is its influence upon later experiences.4


He differentiated educative experience from the rest of the gamut of human experiences on the basis that it lives fruitfully and creatively in future experiences and results in a knowledge that occupies instrumental value and is of practical use. Every experience is a moving force and its value can be judged only on the ground of what it moves towards and into.5An educative experience should entail growth and should continue to live in future experiences. That it should result in a growth in a certain direction. An educative experience should change a person in a certain way .Therefore one aspect of educative experience is the impact that a person undergoes while having that experience.



The second aspect is the impact of that experience on objective conditions. Experience does not only affect the person who has it but also the objective conditions in which that experience was had. It depends on the ‘interaction’ of the person with the objective conditions. These objective conditions constitute the ‘situation’. Individual always lives ‘in’ a series of ‘situations’.Here ‘in’ bears a different meaning .It means that an interaction is going on between individual , objects and other persons. 6The immediate consequence of this idea is that an educator should select interactive situations as educative experiences.7


Out of the two poles of an educative experience , that is the person who enters the experience and the situation or objective conditions in which the experience is to have ,only the later are in the control of educator. These conditions include, the words spoken, the tone of speech, books, equipment, and more than every thing the social setup of the situations in which a person is engaged.8This should be done while keeping in view the actual needs of those who are learning. In an educative plan objective conditions are constitutive of some basic areas. He says,”Unless the experience is so conceived that the result is a plan for deciding upon subject matter, upon methods of instruction and discipline, and upon material equipment and social organization of the school, it is wholly in the air.”9


He says it is not the subject matter per se that is educative or that is conducive to growth .Content should be in accordance with the capabilities, needs and requirements of the learner. He says,” The principle of interaction makes it clear that failure of adaptation of material to needs and capacities of children may cause an experience to be non-educative quite as much as failure of an individual to adapt him to the material.”10Further, the principle of continuity in its educational application means, nevertheless, that the future has to be taken into account.11An experience should prepare a person to employ skill that he has learned through that experience in future situation .But this can be done when a person learns those skills in the situation similar to those in which he is supposed to employ those skills in future.12

Dewey raises the question of control and discipline and settles it saying that control should be exercised with out hampering the freedom. Rules should be conceived in the analogy of the rules of a game. Every body that plays games follows rules and asks for justice. No game is possible without rules.13He concludes this debate on social control by saying,” The conclusion is that in what are called the new schools, the primary source of social control resides in the very nature of the work done as a social enterprise in which all individuals have an opportunity to contribute and to which all feel a responsibility.” 14


Although there are exceptions to this general rule. There can be pupil who are docile and passive and can not actively contribute in the process and there are those who are unruly and can not follow regulations teacher should have to deal with every body on individual grounds. That is why exclusions sound as a good working principle. One should exclude exceptional cases from the rule and treat them individually. Since learning or education is a social or community activity therefore teacher assumes the role of an activity leader.15

Educative experience is accompanied by a certain mood and this mood is shaped by the degree of freedom that a child or a learner enjoys while he is learning either in a class room arrangement or in an informal arrangement. He further describes this mood as lying somewhere between absolute freedom and strict discipline, between strictly formal and capriciously informal attitudes. He accepts neither Plato, who advocates the highest degree of formalism in education and restricts all sort of physical movements nor he seems to accept Rousseau who tries to liberate learner from all sorts of formalities and rules.

John Dewey describes the ideas of Rousseau and Plato as extreme representations of reality and comprehends from their views that it is nearly impossible to experience these ideologies practically.16 He says that a relationship between these theories and practice can not be established because of the fact that these theories demand conditions which can never be provided in reality. He also says that both Plato and Rousseau seem to contradict each others views and advocate opposite ideals. Despite this antagonism between the idealism of Plato and the naturalism of Rousseau, the fact is this that these two thinkers are the pioneers of education philosophy and their views ,though if one is considered as a thesis then the other one naturally comes out as its anti thesis, can be synthesized to obtain a practically significant theory. That is why Dewey tries to synthesize the views of Plato and Rousseau to constitute a theory which can be practiced. His theory which is a synthesis of the contradictory to each other views of Plato and Rousseau is a result of careful scientific investigation and experience.

It is possible to synthesize these two models of thought .Dr. John Dewey rightly said that education is a kind of experience. It is a way with which we confront our own self in an educational setup. It means that educative experience can be further elaborated while using the categories of Heidegger. It can be further analyzed and its meaning can be construed anew if it is analyzed in its three essential components including: the mood with which we experience the teaching -learning process; the understanding of our own possibilities, facticity and potentials, and a language that communicates all this stuff to us.

Heidegger described all the qualities and components of human experience in abstraction. However, he did it with success and his work presents to us a set of concepts and a massive vocabulary to manifest the meaning of human existence. It tells us the way in which a person is in this world or the way in which a person exists. It is to be noted that his work also bears a singular importance even in the realm of psychological investigation, because it tells us about a variety of ways to view and understand human experience and it is very rich in its vocabulary through which it explicates both general and specific meanings of human experience. On the other hand Dr John Dewey studied educative experiences in its all possible details and explicated the practical significance of educational theory which was latent in the dialogue between Plato and Rousseau. He not only analyzed the historical dimension but also the existential and pragmatic dimensions of education. Although the methodology of Heidegger who used phenomenological method of investigation differs from the method of scientific inquiry employed by Dr John Dewey, the synthesis of their efforts can be achieved. The aim is to study and organize Dr John Dewey's knowledge in the categories formulated by Heidegger.



In order to establish a connection between the views of Heidegger and John Dewey,it is necessary to highlight the meaning and description of human experience in their thought.In Heidegger’s view man does not know his ‘where to’ and ‘where from’ the only thing a man knows in a given ‘situation’ is the fact that he ‘is’ in a given situation.After realizing that he ‘is’ in a given situation man’s understanding reveals his future possibilities to him.That is why the first dimension of time that is revealed to man is ‘future’.From this future ,after realizing his potential man comes back to his existing situation , this means that understanding goes back to ‘past’. After coming back to the past man decides to take an action in his present ,and in this way man is related to his ‘present’. Man comes back to his situation and decides to act and in doing so he tries to execute a certain project. It is the project of man that makes , things present in his world the instruments to be utilized to achieve certain goals. Thus world in which a man lives is a world in which man is supposed to carry out certain projects. And the things present in this world are his means to achieve his goals. Nothing has absolute meaning and meaning ushers from the nature of project in which man is involved.16


In John dewey’s view learning occurs in a situation and learning is alwys contextual.In order to teach some thing one has to create a situation in which learner can have the experience that educates him.A learner , with reference to his situation in a given experience, does not know his ‘where to’ and ‘where from’ .The only thing that his understanding can reveal to him is his future and various choices that he can have. After learning about possibilities in future this learner comes back to his own situation and decides to act .In doing so a learner makes a choice while undermining all other possibilities.A teacher has to guide a student through this experience, especially at the time when a learner is making his choice. A teacher should analyze all the possible outcomes of a situation and should reveal the various dimensions of the significance of all possible choices to his student.That is why it is necessary to create situations for learning.17



In the second we should explain the first category of experience, i.e., the mood which constitutes human experience along with language and understanding. What should be the mood with which a learner should confront his own situation in a learning environment. We should address the question of discipline here.If we want to have a certain degree of discipline in our learning enivironment , then we should have to restricts our students to certain moods .This we can not do from outside and we have to replace restrictions imposed from outside with a sense of willingness and motivation that ensues from the necessity of experience that we have designed for our learner.This simply means that the experience that we have designed for the learner itself imposes certain constraint that are inherited in the nature of that experience. That is why external discipline and punishment is not necessary. Hence it is kind of experience that will generate a certain kind of mood or feeling in our learner18


We should also study the nature of language in educational experience and should explicate the nature of understanding that education experience gives to a class of people or to an individual .Language should be both scientific and subjective. In fact language should not be treated outside of context .The words and vocabulary that we have to use during an experience should always be meant to refer to certain entities. This means that language has no absolute significance and all meaning is contextual. Since the meaning is always in a certain context, therefore, understanding is also dependent on its context.