"Al'ein" was the topic of today's friday prayer preaching. The imam was differentiating between "ein and hassad", saying that ein could even change "kada2 and kadar" and, quoting a saying from prophet Mohamed (PBUH), that it's the secound cause of death after destiny (alkada2 walkadar). He said that the only cure for it, according also to Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) is that one uses the water of the washing (ma2 al 3'osl) used by the one who caused "Al'ein" to wash the one suffering from it.
Great !! I felt so infurated that I thought I must speak with the Imam after the prayer and tell him that this topic, despite its possible authenticity, is not suitable for us as a foreigner islamic community living in Germany. We need to know how to behave so that we as moslems give good examples to the community we are living in. If a German "hasadny" would I ask him to wash and give me this water as a cure, or would I give him this water if I caused this to him? The topic is completely absurd for people like us living in such a community.
His deffence was that this event (hassad) happened between 2 muslims living in our city and lead to lots of troubles between them (!) ... he was insisting that this is what Prophet Mohammed said (PBUH), that "al'ein is 7aq" and is accordingly part of what we moslems should believe in.
I then turned his attention to a previous preaching, where he said that we should not say to non muslims "Assalam alikom", also based on a saying for Prophet Mohmmed (PBUH). I said that, as far as I know, which I cannot prove by concrete stories, that this same greeting was the reason why some converted to islam, because they found it very great. I told him about my Mexican friend who used to greet me with "assalam alikom" and how he liked and appreciated this word, and how this gave a good impression about islma. He asked me, do you think prophet Mohammed (PBUH) didn't know this before he said we shouldn't great them with "assalam alikom"?
He then quotes Ali ibn aby Taleb saying that if islam is to be taken logically, then during "almas7 3ala al7'of" one should wash the sole, as it is in contact with the ground, and not the upper part of the foot. However, we wipe the upper part of the foot as Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) did. He, the Imam, meant one should not use his mind to analyse things, as long as we know prophet Mohammed said or did something.
I asked him (with the intention to point out that some things which prophet Mohammed did cannot be done now anymore), during the prophets time, prisoners of war were considered slaves, as it was the case in all mideavel wars, would we do the same now? He said, the answer of Sheikh Kishk to this particular question was that in case there's a Khalefa and that the war is "fe sabil allah", only in this case, then the prisoners of war can be considered as slaves (!!!!). I asked him and what is your opinion? He said there are no personal opinions in islam, unless one has a certain level of knowledge, until then, there is no personal opinion.
I have to mention that this imam is from Cote d'ivore. He speaks arabic quite fluently. He didn't learn islamic sciences in some college, but probably through personal readings. He is good hearted, always smiling and generally gives a good impression. He's not fanatic, but speaks with (his) logic and tries to convince others.
However, as you see, it's not possible to argue with what he is saying. Although I don't claim to have read about those prophet's sayings, I don't doubt thta his resources are good ones (he is quite honest in searching for good references and usually quotes where to find the saying). However, regrding taking war prisoners as slaves, greeting non moslems with "assalam alikom", or using the "ma2 al3'osl" as a cure I just feel there's something wrong about all of this. Not only that it's a waste of time and effort to defend such ideas, but also to bother about them when we have worse problems to care about.
The problem is that I cannot see a solution to this. The worst thing about belief is that it is not connected to logic. That's true for all types of belief, including athiesm. And since it is not related to logic, one cannot use mind and reason to change a belief. I'm afraid the only way is secularism, a separation between religion and life, otherwise we'll have "ma2 al3'osl" as a cure for diseases, and you cannot deny it, otherwise you are denying what Prophet Mohammed said (!!).
Friday, August 31, 2007
Ein, hassad and other things .... An interesting discussion with an Imam
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Advice to an Egyptian would-be postgrad
Anyway, here i'll write the whole reply here
Regarding a future career as a scientist, I will not tell you do this and do that, because that will not be an honest advice. An honest one would be to tell you how things really are, what to expect when you live and work as a postgrad student, and how the different fields look like. It is the information which I would love to have had before leaving Egypt. I have to admit that God has helped me through the advice of senior colleagues and Dr.s who sincerely assisted me. I’ll also try to do my part.
The first question that you should answer (to yourself) is why are you doing this? Is it for prestige, money, science, humanity, God? This is a very fundamental question that should have a very important influence on your choice. There are also different rules for choosing when you intend to continue your career in Egypt or abroad. For instance, in Egypt, there is no real research, in the sense that you have a problem that needs to be solved, or you are creating something that should be of use one day (N.B. to be honest, you may face the same problem in some universities abroad, but with the difference that you have better equipment and funds, and more importantly a bigger room for your own creativity). Accordingly, the one and only realistic criterion is to finish fast to get promoted rapidly. Other criteria include the ability to have additional income (private lessons, private medical analysis labs, selling course notes (mozakkerat) to students... etc). After finishing the master’s (which is I guess the rate limiting step) you can get a scholarship from the Egyptian government to go for a Ph.D. abroad (not everybody does, it’s rather a matter of luck not performance). Latter on you can work as a lecturer or professor in a private Uni or in the Gulf. So if your objectives are related to prestige and/or money, you can choose the department where you’ll finish fast (to get promoted easily) and also be somehow well off financially, without having to go through the much trouble of leaving your family, relatives and friends. 4 years ago in our faculty, people used to finish their master’s thesis relatively fast in the departments of Pharmacology and Biochemistry, however I know that things now are much different, so I cannot tell you which department would be the fastest! By the way, having the objectives of prestige and/or money are not a really bad or unethical choice, and please do not understand that I’m mentioning them here in a negative sense. I guess it is rather a matter of taste or inclination, some like apples, others like banana!
If, on the other hand, you are interested in science, researching something that humans don’t really understand, adding a small drop of water to our vast oceans of knowledge, doing or producing things that perhaps nobody else has ever done before, then this will probably be abroad. Science is indeed exciting, but it can be very, very frustrating at times, and if you don’t have a strong will and a clear vision of what you want to do and why you are doing it, you may not bear those frustrations and quit. As a career, it is also rather risky, and in most cases, not very well paid. What the prospectus is after finishing a Ph.D. or even a postdoc is not always sure, unless you are working with a prominent professor and have an outstanding output, which you perhaps can do, but is not usually the case for the majority of Ph.D. students.
The rules for choosing a field outside Egypt are quite different. Here the most important thing is what you like most, what you love when you study and you think you can be creative in. But please note that studying does not mean learning something by heart, but you will face problems that you will have to solve scientifically, systematically and more importantly creatively. This is the real essence of postgrad studies, to be a well educated problem solver. It is not just about getting a degree and a promotion. Another important issue is which fields are well funded, because this will increase your chances of getting a Ph.D. For example, nowadays genetics, proteomics, nanotechnology and computational chemistry are very well funded and it’s relatively easy to get a Ph.D. in those fields.
The country to go for is also important. In the States, you can go for a Ph.D. without a master’s degree. It will take 5-7 years on the average. There you will have a much wider choice and better opportunities and it is easier to get funded. They need the TOEFL and GRE exams. The latter is somehow difficult, but with good preparation you can do well in it. In Europe, it takes 3-4 years to get a Ph.D., however you cannot get an acceptance and funding without a master’s degree. As I told you, in principle, you can study for a Ph.D. in Germany without a master’s, but you won’t get funded and will have to pay it yourself. There are no tuition fees in Germany (or a little one in some states, around 1000 €/year), so you’ll only pay for the living expenses. Britain has many good and reputable universities, however overseas’ students do not get funded, so you’ll have to pay quite a lot, especially that they have high tuition fees. In general, I would recommend a master’s degree abroad before a Ph.D. (this applies for Europe not the States. In the States, they’ll teach you everything from the beginning). This allows you to know what is the state of the art in the different scientific fields, (which is necessary for choosing a Ph.D. In doing research, you do not reinvent the wheel, so you need to know what the current status is to start from where others stopped), how to read and evaluate a scientific paper (you’ll read a lot in postgrad studies), to use analytical instruments and glassware, and to have the real sense of working in a lab and preparing a lab protocol (those are all things that we didn’t learn in Egypt).
I’m attaching with this e-mail a very useful book, with lots of advice on how to choose a Ph.D. position, which field … etc. Most of the advice there applies to the States, some to Europe, none to Egypt. But in general it’s a good read.
I know that this may be a lot of information for you and that some of it may not be clear to you, or even shocking. I know also that some may not apply to you (as a girl) since you will probably get married and will have to share decisions with your spouse, but I’m speaking in general explaining the whole picture (as much as I can) and I’ll be glad to answer any specific concerns or questions that you may have.
Corruption - The world's big C
Cases, causes, consequences and cures
By
Ian Senior
Publisher: The institute of economic affairs
Year: 2006
Summary of the book
The book is more like a rather long scientific article. It starts with reviewing definitions for corruption, which the author doesn’t find good enough and thus he tries to work out a definition himself. It goes like this " The definition consists of fi ve conditions that must all be satisfied simultaneously. Corruption occurs when a corruptor (1) covertly gives (2) a favour to a corruptee or to a nominee to infl uence (3) action(s) that (4) benefit the corruptor or a nominee, and for which the corruptee has (5) authority." According to his definition, he differentiates between corruption and theft or fraud in a special subchapter.
He then brings cases of alleged corruption and applies his own definition to them to find out whether they are really corrupt or not.
He studies the causes of corruption are determined using regression analysis (!) Data regarding 14 “independent variables” are correlated to the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) published by Transparency International for a number of countries (at least 27). The independent variables are grouped as 1) Ethical (2, religiosity: attending worshipping places, honesty: returning a lost wallet), 2) Social freedoms (2, freedom of media, personal freedom), 3) Economic freedom (10, including trade policy, monetary policy, capital flows and foreign investment, banking and finance …etc). A counter intuitive correlation was found between corruption and government intervention as well as religiosity, i.e. increases of government intervention and low religiosity was associated with lower corruption. The other factors with significant correlation were press freedom, personal honesty, prevalence of informal markets, respect for property rights, and the amount of regulation.
The consequences of corruption include: 1) Price distortion, 2) Covert and upward distribution of wealth, 3) Subversion of democratic processes, 4) Increased cost and reduction of investment, 5) Decline of society’s morality and ethics. The latter is particularly interesting. The author considers corruption as “infectious and contagious”. He notes that “In terms of initiating corruption, the legislative branch is likely to be the most influential. Presidents and prime ministers have enormous powers of patronage ……. If the legislative branch is corrupt, functionaries see what is occurring and realise that they can act similarly. Thus the executive branch becomes infected ……. When corruption (is) at a low level it is too late, because corruption percolates downwards through society. When corruption has reached the lower strata democracy itself is fatally flawed.” Here is another very important consequence “Those who are honest and uncorrupt have two options in such a system. They can partake in corruption to the extent necessary to carry on with the tasks of everyday life, or they can choose not to participate at all in the system …. The latter course of action leads the uncorrupt person to suffer greatly, while leaving the economic system wholly in the hands of the corrupt. It is no wonder that corruption is contagious.”
In his chapter on the cures for corruption, the author states that, “The principal people who can change a culture of corruption if they wish to do so are politicians …….. A fully functional democracy is the most effective way of enabling voters to get rid of corrupt politicians.” This is because the politicians would then realise that fostering an uncorrupt society would be a vote-winner.
His recipe for cleansing a state goes as follows: “First find a completely uncorrupt politician and make him president or prime minister, whichever is the position of executive authority. Then let him appoint a cabinet of other ministers who also are untainted by corruption. Next pass laws that give freedom to the press, provide heavy penalties for proven corruption, give protection to whistle-blowers, and dismiss on the spot any minister, law-maker or functionary found to be corrupt’. It is as simple at that . . . in theory! In practice, it is otherwise. The very people who are the greatest beneficiaries of corruption have the greatest power and use the corrupt nature of government to maintain that power.”
On the other hand “In wholly corrupt countries there is little scope for individuals to fight corruption,” because “to find an uncorrupt prime minister and ministers from a fully corrupted political system may be an impossible task.” He believes that the international funding agencies can have greater role in combating wholly corrupted societies, by imposing stricter rules for financial aid associated with a decline in corruption levels.
Critique and comments
In general the book is a good read, with many useful and informative parts, although I do not agree with many of the author’s ideas. For example, the definition of corruption that he proposed does not include theft. So if, according to him, Saddam Hussein builds many presidential palaces for himself from public money, he is not corrupt, he is looting public money! Also the condition that overtness precludes corruption cannot be accepted. He later states that “When corruption is endemic the starting point becomes: ‘If I don’t offer a bribe when everyone else is doing so, I won’t obtain the licence/contract/university place.’ Therefore the bribe becomes a form of taxation that must be paid, and the concept of corruption as a crime has been lost.” So it is possible to have overt and widespread corruption, where the society is forced to accept it, but they know it is not right.
Using regression analysis for determining the causes of corruption is silly. One can look for a regression analysis between the number of wild birds moving on one leg during the dawn of a hot August day and corruption, and it is possible, theoretically, to find a correlation. Besides, as the author himself states, the interdependence of the variables is not to be excluded, so there may be a number of indirect relations.
The most interesting part was that for consequences and cures. He clearly states that corruption is infectious, and that it percolates from the top to the bottom, not the other way round. Those who choose to remain uncorrupt have one of 2 choices, “Join them or leave them”. He also states that individuals have no chance of changing a wholly corrupt system, if the politicians are not willing to cleanse the society. His proposal that the international funding agencies can play a better role is flawed, since these are being managed by countries whose interest is to keep the current situation as it is. They are also corrupt, as he himself gave many examples about corrupt politicians in USA, UK, France, Germany and others.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Religion is not about God
Religion is not about God
How spiritual traditions nurture our biological nature and what to expect when they fail
By
Loyal Rue
Publisher:
Year: 2005
The book is divided into 3 parts. The first part called “On human nature” tries to describe the neural evolution of the human mind and behaviours, together with the concepts of emotions, memory, self-esteem ... etc. The last chapter of this part is devoted to describe the nature of religion in general. It describes the basic concepts of a religion, how it is always based on, using the author’s words, “a narrative core” or “a myth”, (I’ll later call it a story), that includes a cosmological and moral explanation for the world and for our existence. She mentions that, just as human beings have adaptive mechanisms to survive, so does religions. She calls these mechanisms “ancillary strategies”, which include intellectual, institutional, ritual, aesthetic and experiential strategies. Intellectual strategies are needed to clarify, interpret and defend the core stories because of their usually obscure nature. Rituals include formal ceremonies as well as various informal and routine activities intended to stress the core narration, in other words “to get back to track”. Aesthetic strategies are the arts associated with the rituals. For example the image of Jesus crucifixion, as well as the Madonna and child arouse sympathy and affection which is used by the religion. Institutional strategies have regulatory activities “extending into the domains of interpretation, ritual practice and aesthetic expression”.
Part 2 describes the 5 most widely spread religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Each religion is discussed according to its core narrative as well as the ancillary strategies.
Lessons and critique
The first 3 chapters, i.e. ¾ of part 1, are completely useless. One can do without them. The rest of the book is really interesting. I’m really happy that I did bear the boredom of the first 3 chapters and did not decide to throw the book away. The author describes the goal of life as a mere reproductive fitness, which I donot completely accept (see below in quotations), however, she identifies 2 immediate pursuits of human beings, namely personal wholeness and social coherence, 2 mutually dependent goals.
The title of the book is somehow misleading. It may give the impression that the author finds the concept of God unnecessary. I think she doesn’t. She is even a proponent of religion, but not for a specific one. To the author, religion, any religion would do. However, I must say that it is still a catchy title that would attract attention.
The dissection of a religion in general that the author did in chapter 4 of the book is extremely useful and enlightening. It shows the purpose of religion, rituals, religious art in a very instructive way.
The last part is also very useful. It analyzes the effect of modern science on religion, but argues that, although science is undermining the core narratives of religion, by giving explanations to many cosmological questions that are different from the theological ones, it cannot replace religion because it doesn’t offer a moral context. The concept of relativizing religious life due to awareness of other religions is really interesting and I understand it due to my own personal experience. Finally, the metaphor describing consumerism as religion, with the “provincial market” as god that would satisfy all our desires and needs is really interesting.
QuotationsReligion " ... is about us. It is about manipulating our brains so that we might think, feel, and act in ways that are good for us, both individually and collectively .... Religions have always been about this business of adaptation, and they will always remain so. This is not to say, however, that any particular religious tradition will remain adaptive. Religions sometimes outlive their adaptive utility and occasionally become positive threats to human survival."
"Adaptation by genetic change is always a game of chance, whereas adaptation by learning and memory eventually leads to a game of choice."
"we can say with confidence that the ultimate goal of human beings accords with that of all other life forms—that is, to maximize reproductive fitness." ... A view of human beings as a mere mechanical and genetic development of chimps is presented. We are merely smart chimps. A human being is just the product of the genes he has inherited. I would disagree with this. Humans are the only creatures that produce warfare that would kill its own species. Even if we want to have a better future for our offspring, we are then killing our species. Here in
"When scientists exhaust their own resources for ruling out their best guesses, they take a deep breath and submit their work to the scrutiny of others."
"Myths are, literally, stories. They always take the narrative form and are often embellished with florid images and provocative symbolism. They also contain elements of mystery and ambiguity. Despite the fact that they are entertaining, easy to remember, and broadly appealing to persons of all ages and levels of sophistication, myths are often obscure and difficult to incorporate into the concrete circumstances of everyday life. Religious myths, therefore, invite—in some sense require—interpretation."
"Despite the fact that myths are often oblique and ambiguous— or perhaps because they are so—they manage to endure the test of time, whereas the explicit interpretations of them tend to come and go. The intellectual custodians of religious traditions therefore station themselves at the front lines of social change, ready to guide individuals and communities through the process of adapting to fresh ideas ... New modes of thought may even excite timely new insights into the timeless meanings of the myth."
"The crucifixion of Christ, for example, is a powerful image exploiting a human predisposition to feel sympathy in the presence of a fellow human enduring suffering or distress. The familiar image of Madonna and Child exploits a predispositon toward affection at the sight of an infant. The massive scale of medieval cathedrals exploits a predisposition to awe and humility when overwhelmed by size."
"Artistic forms are multivalent, full of possibilities for variant meanings. Theology tries to identify one central meaning that all individuals can bring away from their encounter with the myth, whereas works of art try to accommodate the wide range of interests and concerns that individuals bring to the encounter. Whereas theological formulations seek to focalize the myth, artistic creations seek to diffuse it into a spectrum of meanings, some complementary, others conflicting."
"We may suspect a breakdown in religious function whenever we observe systematic losses in the achievement of personal wholeness and social coherence." Note that the breakdown is in the function not the practice. This explains the personal and social deterioration in
"The religious life is a life of constant revitalization. The myth is under continuous critique and reinterpretation, the rituals must be performed regularly, the art must be ubiquitous, the social administration must be vigilant, and the subjective validation must be deepened. The spiritual life must be tended daily, even hourly, for the minions of evil ... are relentless."
"The therapeutic function of religion is to transform the individual from an orientation of self-centeredness to one of reality-centeredness ...... The entire realm of being, ultimate reality itself, is presented to me as an incentive event to which I respond in newly positive ways nurtured by the story. The universal story now becomes my own particular story. My self-understanding is transformed, for now I apprehend my true nature, my ultimate origins, what is genuinely good for me, and how I might be fulfilled ....... The selfish goals I once pursued have been displaced by new commitments and my self-esteem is now linked to projects that advance the common good .......... The story is always available to me, to absorb my uncertainties and to conquer my temptation to default back to narrow self-interests. As the challenges of everyday life erode my personal integrity, I may restore my soul by revitalizing the story ......... Differences between individuals are trivialized by deeper, common interests. When you and I share a myth, we affirm a common origin, a common nature, and a common destiny ........ Ultimately, what is good for me is also good for you."
"If you have one vision of ultimate reality and value, and I have another, then we have nowhere to go when we encounter deep conflicts of interest. If we lack a shared orientation in nature and history, and if we lack a common understanding of who we are and what we should strive for together, then we lack the means to transcend our differences when the social chips are down. We will be left to think that the other just has it wrong. And further, we may be inclined to believe that the other’s way of thinking constitutes a serious threat to the true way of thinking."
Friday, August 10, 2007
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Man's search for meaning
Man’s Search for Meaning
By
Viktor E. Frankl
Publisher:
Year: 1984
Summary of the book and lessons
The book is organized in 2 parts. In the first, the author describes his own experience as a prisoner in the Nazi concentration camps for 3 years. He describes how the prisoners behaved to the atrocities and humiliation they faced. How they received a single meal per day – a piece of bread an a watery soup – worked for 12 h or more, had a single wrath as cloth for summer and winter, how they were continuously humiliated either by the SS or by the Capos - the fellow prisoners appointed for maintaining order - and continuously expecting being killed, for the only thing that could keep them alive was looking fit for work despite all these circumstances. Although the author doesn’t go much into details, probably saving the reader lots of pain, this part is attractive, that one goes on reading, wanting to know more. Maybe because I’ve never read, or known about what really happened in those camps, that’s way I found it interesting, but I’d also say that his style and narrative was simple and attractive.
In the second part, he talks about “logotherapy”, a method of analysis that he formulated based on his experience in those camps.
The main idea is, if a prisoner’s loses everything-”every possession lost, every value destroyed, suffering from hunger, cold and brutality, hourly expecting extermination, how could he find life worth preserving?”. This is the question that the author tries to answer. Although this is an extreme situation that pushes a human being to the limits of sanity, it unravels some facts that lie deep inside us about the meaning of life and that cannot be exposed unless one faces such experience. The author saves us the trouble and shares this experience with us.
Important questions:
Why did the author write this book? What does he want me to do, believe or experience?
He wrote his book with the intention of introducing his logotherapy concept, which considers man as a being whose main concern consists in fulfilling a meaning, rather than in the mere gratification and satisfaction of drives and instincts. To him, the ability to realize meaning can be achieved in three different ways (1) by creating a work or doing a deed; (2) by experiencing something or encountering someone (for example loving someone, be it a wife, husband, children, parents … etc); and (3) by the attitude we take toward unavoidable suffering. The latter is an important concept for the author, for he thinks that suffering is an indispensable part of human life, and that this too, despite its obvious cruelty, must have a meaning. He divides suffering into the “tragic triad” ; 1) pain, 2) guilt and 3) death. He sees the opportunity in attaining meaning from pain is by turning suffering into a human achievement and accomplishment; or deriving from guilt the opportunity to change oneself for the better; and deriving from life's transitoriness an incentive to take responsible action.
Responsibility is another important concept for the author. He states that when man is deprived of everything, as he states in the case of the prisoners of Ausschwitz, they have one thing left, their freedom to choose their responses and attitudes, and they have the responsibility to use it according to human morals and values.
He also stresses that we are not just the products of biological and social circumstances, and that although our freedom is limited, we have the responsibility to choose within this limited space.
To him, when a man finds that it is his destiny to suffer, he had to “accept” it as his task. His unique opportunity lies in his attitude to his burden. If one adds to this the author’s idea of living an active life to “realize values”, then sounds to me like a positive submission in the Islamic sense, i.e. acceptance and a will to transform
“يحارب قدر الله بقدر احب الى الله“ كما قال عمر بن الخطاب
Also, to him happiness, as well as success, are not goals, but are rather consequences. They come as a consequence to our search for meaning, and our correct answers to the questions of life that we face continuously. Happiness must happen.
Did he succeed in his intentions? Am I convinced?
Although he requested more than once not to ask about the meaning of life, his alternative was actually a reply, where he considered life is asking us questions and requesting our correct replies. That is the Islamic vision, where humans are examined and asked to answer correctly.
I also find this request contradicting with his advocating that humans should seek meaning in life. If I should only answer the questions thrown on me by life, and if I have even to suffer, why should I bear all of that? There was then this idea of super-meaning, i.e. religious conviction, which he said he can appeal to treat his patients, but would not try to convince someone with.
What is the take home message?
Look for meaning and value in what you are supposed to do in each and every act.
Suffering is a meaningful part of life and can be used for transformation.
Quotations
„Don’t aim at success - the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side-effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one's surrender to a person other than oneself. Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success: you have to let it happen by not caring about it. I want you to listen to what your conscience commands you to do and go on to carry it out to the best of your knowledge. Then you will live to see that in the long run - in the long run, I say! - success will follow you precisely because you had forgotten to think of it.”
“We really had nothing now except our bare bodies - even minus hair; all we possessed, literally, was our naked existence.”
“we had nothing to lose except our so ridiculously naked lives.”
“One prisoner, the doctor of a block of huts and a man of some sixty years, told me how he had entreated Dr. M---- to let off his son, who was destined for gas. Dr. M---- coldly refused.” ……… I know how this feels !!!
“If you want to stay alive, there is only one way: look fit for work.”
“A man's suffering is similar to the behavior of gas. If a certain quantity of gas is pumped into an empty chamber, it will fill the chamber completely and evenly, no matter how big the chamber. Thus suffering completely fills the human soul and conscious mind, no matter whether the suffering is great or little. Therefore the "size" of human suffering is absolutely relative.”
“Is that theory true which would have us believe that man is no more than a product of many conditional and environmental factors - be they of a biological, psychological or sociological nature? Is man but an accidental product of these? Most important, do the prisoners' reactions to the singular world of the concentration camp prove that man cannot escape the influences of his surroundings? Does man have no choice of action in the face of such circumstances? ………… We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way ……. And there were always choices to make. Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom; which determined whether or not you would become the plaything of circumstance, renouncing freedom and dignity to become molded into the form of the typical inmate.”
“Only the men who allowed their inner hold on their moral and spiritual selves to subside eventually fell victim to the camp's degenerating influences. The question now arises, what could, or should, have constituted this "inner hold"? ……… It is a peculiarity of man that he can only live by looking to the future - ….. And this is his salvation in the most difficult moments of his existence, although he sometimes has to force his mind to the task.……… The prisoner who had lost faith in the future – his future - was doomed. With his loss of belief in the future, he also lost his spiritual hold; he let himself decline and became subject to mental and physical decay.“
“Any attempt to restore a man's inner strength in the camp had first to succeed in showing him some future goal. Nietzsche's words, "He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how,"
“It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life - daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfil the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual. These tasks, and therefore the meaning of life, differ from man to man, and from moment to moment. Thus it is impossible to define the meaning of life in a general way.” …….. He says there’s no point in asking what the meaning of life is, when he, by his suggested alternative, has already presented an answer. We are in a test, and we have to answer the questions correctly.
“When a man finds that it is his destiny to suffer, he will have to accept his suffering as his task; his single and unique task. He will have to acknowledge the fact that even in suffering he is unique and alone in the universe. No one can relieve him of his suffering or suffer in his place. His unique opportunity lies in the way in which he bears his burden.” ……. “Accept suffering as his task.” This sounds like submission, like accepting God’s will, like Islam. As if the aim is to submit to his will, accept what He gives us, and answer correctly to the questions. But it adds something more, “the way he bares his burden”. It should be one of “active life”, trying to make something good and useful out of it. So if one only “accepts”, this would be a good answer, but not the best. The best would be to “accept and transform”. Then you get the full mark!
“Long ago we had passed the stage of asking,” What was the meaning of life”, a naïve query, which understands life as the attaining of some aim through the active creation of something of value. For us, the meaning of life embraced the wider cycles of life and death, of suffering and of dying.” ……. Life is about submission. An active life is about creation and a passive one is about enjoyment. The prisoners had to accept their suffering (submit), and in each moment they had the decision, the opportunity for an active life, by holding to the morals, by giving example, by helping others … they were “realizing values”, where realize stands for making real.
“A man who becomes conscious of the responsibility he bears toward a human being who affectionately waits for him, or to an unfinished work, will never be able to throw away his life. He knows the "why" for his existence, and will be able to bear almost any "how." ……. “Responsibility” reminds me of “khelafat Allah fe alard” and of alamanah which humans have accepted but nothing else in the universe did. Man accepted it and consequently was responsible for his actions.
“Logotherapy focuses rather on the future, that is to say, on the meanings to be fulfilled by the patient in his future.”
“Man's search for meaning is the primary motivation in his life and not a "secondary rationalization" of instinctual drives. This meaning is unique and specific in that it must and can be fulfilled by him alone”
“Logotherapy deviates from psychoanalysis insofar as it considers man a being whose main concern consists in fulfilling a meaning, rather than in the mere gratification and satisfaction of drives and instincts”
“What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for a worthwhile goal, a freely chosen task. What he needs is not the discharge of tension at any cost but the call of a potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him.”
“The existential vacuum manifests itself mainly in a state of boredom …… Such widespread phenomena as depression, aggression and addiction are not understandable unless we recognize the existential vacuum underlying them. This is also true of the crises of pensioners and aging people ……… Sometimes the frustrated will to meaning is vicariously compensated for by a will to power, including the most primitive form of the will to power, the will to money …… the place of frustrated will to meaning is taken by the will to pleasure. That is why existential frustration often eventuates in sexual compensation.”
What is the meaning of life? …… “To put the question in general terms would be comparable to the question posed to a chess champion: "Tell me, Master, what is the best move in the world?" There simply is no such thing as the best or even a good move apart from a particular situation in a game and the particular personality of one's opponent. The same holds for human existence. One should not search for an abstract meaning of life. Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life to carry out a concrete assignment which demands fulfilment. Therein he cannot be replaced, nor can his life be repeated. Thus, everyone's task is as unique as is his specific opportunity to implement it.”
“I wish to stress that the true meaning of life is to be discovered in the world rather than within man or his own psyche, as though it were a closed system. I have termed this constitutive characteristic "the self-transcendence of human existence." It denotes the fact that being human always points, and is directed, to something, or someone, other than oneself - be it a meaning to fulfil or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself - by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love - the more human he is.” ……. Indeed, this is true. But again, why should I feel human? If I were only a monkey that evolved, as some people claim, why should I care to be a human (something that we use as an antonym to an animal which has a –ve sense). Is it something that evolved as our collective consciousness evolved? And how come that ants and bees do it without even having a consciousness? How come that they have it, despite the absurd simplicity of their nervous systems?
“Thus far we have shown that the meaning of life always changes, but that it never ceases to be ….. we can discover this meaning in life in three different ways: (1) by creating a work or doing a deed; (2) by experiencing something or encountering someone; and (3) by the attitude we take toward unavoidable suffering ………. -(2) as in the case of loving someone- Thus love is not understood as a mere side-effect of sex; rather, sex is a way of expressing the experience of that ultimate togetherness which is called love ….. (3) suffering …….. what then matters is to bear witness to the uniquely human potential at its best, which is to transform a personal tragedy into a triumph, to turn one's predicament into a human achievement. When we are no longer able to change a situation - just think of an incurable disease such as inoperable cancer - we are challenged to change ourselves.”
“Man’s main concern is not to gain pleasure or to avoid pain but rather to see a meaning in his life. That is why man is even ready to suffer, on the condition, to be sure, that his suffering has a meaning.”
Edith Weisskopf-Joelson said "our current mental-hygiene philosophy stresses the idea that people ought to be happy, that unhappiness is a symptom of maladjustment. Such a value system might be responsible for the fact that the burden of unavoidable unhappiness is increased by unhappiness about being unhappy”
“The pessimist resembles a man who observes with fear and sadness that his wall calendar, from which he daily tears a sheet, grows thinner with each passing day. On the other hand, the person who attacks the problems of life actively is like a man who removes each successive leaf from his calendar and files it neatly and carefully away with its predecessors, after first having jotted down a few diary notes on the back. He can reflect with pride and joy on all the richness set down in these notes, on all the life he has already lived to the fullest. What will it matter to him if he notices that he is growing old? Has he any reason to envy the young people whom he sees, or wax nostalgic over his own lost youth? What reasons has he to envy a young person? For the possibilities that a young person has, the future which is in store for him? "No, thank you," he will think. "Instead of possibilities, I have realities in my past, not only the reality of work done and of love loved, but of sufferings bravely suffered. These sufferings are even the things of which I am most proud, though these are things which cannot inspire envy."
“Pleasure is, and must remain, a side-effect or by-product, and is destroyed and spoiled to the degree to which it is made a goal in itself.”
“An incurably psychotic individual may lose his usefulness but yet retain the dignity of a human being. This is my psychiatric credo. Without it I should not think it worthwhile to be a psychiatrist. For whose sake? Just for the sake of a damaged brain machine which cannot be repaired? If the patient were not definitely more, euthanasia would be justified.” …. This is also an important thing. We care much about the terminally or incurably ill, we try to treat them, although euthanasia would be better for them and the society in this case, however, this care gives individuals a sense of security, because anyone could fall in the same situation, and thus would feel better if the society would take care of him then.
“We watched and witnessed some of our comrades behave like swine while others behaved like saints. Man has both potentialities within himself; which one is actualized depends on decisions but not on conditions.”
The “tragic triad, 1) pain, 2) guilt and 3) death ……. (1) turning suffering into a human achievement and accomplishment; (2) deriving from guilt the opportunity to change oneself for the better; and (3) deriving from life's transitoriness an incentive to take responsible action.”
“A human being is not one in pursuit of happiness but rather in search of a reason to become happy, last but not least, through actualizing the potential meaning inherent and dormant in a given situation.” … From “stumbling on happiness”, Sigmund Freud notes,”The question of the purpose of human life has never been answered satisfactorily. A less ambitious question would be what does it look like that human beings are living for. The answer is undoubtedly, people are after what they call “happiness”” …. This is not true. Happiness is not the goal, but meaning (al7ekma dallat al mo2men). This Freudian view is being supported because it fits quite well with the new religion called “consumerism”. Buy this to be happy, get that to feel satisfied. That’s after all why you are living on earth.
“People have enough to live by but nothing to live for; they have the means but no meaning.”
“Being jobless was equated with being useless, and being useless was equated with having a meaningless life.”
“Even if things only take such a good turn in one of a thousand cases," my explanation continues, "who can guarantee that in your case it will not happen one day, sooner or later? But in the first place, you have to live to see the day on which it may happen, so you have to survive in order to see that day dawn, and from now on the responsibility for survival does not leave you." ……. We are responsible to live because our life may one day make a change, may one day make life a little bit better for someone else, if if this is only for one day, one hour or one minute. One must take this responsibility, because it is worth it.
“Consider a movie: it consists of thousands upon thousands of individual pictures, and each of them makes sense and carries a meaning, yet the meaning of the whole film cannot be seen before its last sequence is shown. However, we cannot understand the whole film without having first understood each of its components, each of the individual pictures. Isn't it the same with life? Doesn't the final meaning of life, too, reveal itself, if at all, only at its end, on the verge of death? And doesn't this final meaning, too, depend on whether or not the potential meaning of each single situation has been actualized to the best of the respective individual's knowledge and belief?” ….. Does this mean we cannot understand the meaning of human life except at its end?, and does this also imply, that we, actors in the movie, cannot by any means realize what the movie is about, because we are simply part of it? Do we have to get out to understand?
If I send this book to others, I would expect that each and everyone would understand it in a different way. It is like art, where one’s own culture, knowledge, experience and state of mind determine how one would judge, or understand, a piece of art, or the message of a book. It is a very unique experience and certainly differs from one to another. Perhaps it’s as George Orwell says “The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already.”
