One of the gifts of European Enlightenment was the visualization of a rational world, which may be discovered by proper way of seeing and listening. Can there be a science without listening the whisper of nature? Can there be any possibility of knowledge in a cahoot, secluded from other views, echoing the voices from narrow window, from where the world is projected as an objective reality? Answer may be probably in negative. In Madhyamika school of Buddhist philosophical tradition, it is generally believed that the differences in opinion are absolutized as an objective truth. In that sense, one as an expert of narrow domain remains in alienated reality, devoid of any understanding of the state of affairs at the macroscopic level. Who is listening, anyway? Listening is an art, a therapy, the best possible method to perceive what is true and real. Only through listening one can heal the narcissistic attitude, which has brooding presence in the age of information and technology. I remember the zeal of classical literalists like John Stuart Mill or John Rawls who had all the emphasis on "public reasoning". Many critics from post modern culture, like Nietzsche, had profound disbelief in public reasoning. Platonic philosophical attitude, right from the height of Greek civilization, was aristocratic in attitude. So a dichotomy is visible in the history of ideas; which is again and again reflected in the works of political commentators. Ishaih Berlin, one of the greatest historians of ideas, rightly demarcated a thin like difference between negative and positive liberty. And contemplated on latter as a byproduct of aristocratic attitude, whereas public reasoning is suspected for their inability to excersise freedom of choice. And here comes an expert culture; someone as detached onlooker has all the opinions about someone who is living his life. In this attitude, people don't find their own agency to fail and learn; a professional is hired for taking care. Notably such care is without any love and compassion, often services are provided in exchange of monetary value. Where is "moral sentiment", to use a nomenclature of Adam Smith, in the expert culture? Can there be any sense of society without moral sentiment?
Aristotle once wrote in his Nicomachean Ethics that there are four significant virtues for human beings, namely Prudence, Temperance, Justice, and Courage. There are a few judges who have courage and sense of justice, both. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Nariman has been truly an exemplar judge and erudite historian, theologian and philologist, a great scholar of music as well as a courageous and meticulous jurist of our country. He did his Master of Laws from Harvard Law School in 1980-81 and taught by one of the finest jurists of the last century, Roberto Unger. He became Senior Advocate in 1993 in the age of 37 and also served as Solicitor General of India in 2011 before he was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court of India in 2014. He delivered many landmark judgments, including Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. There are a few people with whom time moves too fast, but to count that experience takes ages. Justice Rohinton Nariman is one of those great jurists with whom a meet
Comments
Post a Comment