Sri Lanka current situation

Sri Lanka's full name is 

"Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka". 

 This "democratic socialism" of Social Democracy was in front of us today.  Sri Lanka have to know everything that "socialism" and "democracy" is only the name of the original, which in modern capitalism (neo-liberal ISM) has ruined the economy of Sri Lanka bankrupt it.  

There are also signs for those socialists who thought the word "socialist" or "communist" with the name of a country or Parthians it takes to truly socialist or communist, and even for those social democracy or democratic socialism  Islam and also for those who understand that the colonial countries is rather feudal and capitalist economic system is the key to economic and social development of these countries is in the national capital.

Sri Lanka has a literacy rate of 93%, employment rate of 95% and public health facilities.  Sri Lanka has the lowest mortality rate in the South.  Sri Lanka made a lot of money from exports and used it to build a social democratic, welfare state. 

 On the other hand, the average minimum wage in Sri Lanka is 10,000 Sri Lankan rupees per month and the average annual income is 7 577 per family, while one dollar is equivalent to about 350 Sri Lankan rupees.  

Thus, despite providing education, health and employment to the people, the Social Democratic, welfare state of Sri Lanka was doomed as inflation caused by the neoliberal capitalist system wiped out the purchasing power of the people.  

This suggests that the measures proposed by the Social Democratic and Liberal circles to improve the economy, such as reducing imports, increasing exports, creating jobs, education and health services, etc., are not fundamental to solving the problems of the economy.  

Keep  If all these facilities are provided to the people by the state but the productive relations remain capitalist, the pricing of wages and essential commodities, especially foodstuffs, is left at the mercy of the market, ie the capitalists.  Even in a social democratic state, the economic system can be ruined.  Every economic system will be in danger of collapse until the perpetual contradiction between labor and capital is eliminated.

Positive Thinking Be Happy, Change Your Thoughts Change Society

 * Pakistan's education system *

 * About the math paper yesterday, I asked two students how the paper went.

 💠 One said Sir 75 Marks would come, I told him well done inshallah (because he worked hard all year)

  * Another said that 65+ marks will come, I was surprised to hear the words of 65+ because he could hardly get 25 marks, then I asked my son how so many marks will come then he said that the paper started  2 minutes after the incident, the teacher came to the examination room and explained all the objections and kept writing the remaining papers on the pages and sending them to the examination room.

 💠 Since yesterday I have been wondering what is going on in the heart of a hard working student that I had worked all year, the teacher gave the same paper to the one who did not work all year.

 💠 I have only one question for such teachers that tomorrow (on the Day of Judgment) if a hardworking student complains to Allah and asks him for reward for his hard work, what will these teachers give him ????

 💠 All teachers are requested to try to recognize the qualities of the teacher and understand what the teacher says, if you can't do that then choose another field to earn a living.  (Thanks)

Post worth considering and very interesting

It seems that the ideological debate in Pakistan has come to an end even at the academic level. Hardly any forum, group, intellectual front seems to be where the issues facing the world come under discussion. We have all accepted defeat as soon as the new millennium has begun and we have to get rid of the populist society without getting confused at any level. In order to satisfy and justify ourselves, we are forced to assume many things, for example: capitalism is an absolute 'system' which has immense potential to sustain itself; Revolution always loses, democracy is the only solution, but incomplete solution; The era of ideological talk is no more. In the postmodern age we have to abandon the twentieth century ideals. Etc. etc.

Despite all the ideological inconsistencies of the last two or three decades, all the major arguments are centered on capitalism versus right wing Marxism against liberalism. In the former we try to justify our confusing situation, while in the latter we build the dream of a better world by gaining an understanding of the currents of history.

Marxism continued to be active in the practical field, in addition to offering opinions and philosophical solutions to almost every aspect, including nature, peace, the environment, racism, social welfare, feminism, chauvinism and nationalism. This book Why Marx was Right? Is translated. It compares the views of right and left on ten important topics and teaches us a unique way of seeing and understanding the world.

If you were asked to create a new world or a better imaginary world, which ideals would it be closest to? Would you like to imagine a world full of racism, wars, and class strife, or a world in which social justice, equality, democracy, peace, and the provision of basic necessities are managed?

Thanks to this book, we are forced to rethink such questions as: Are the classes in the world gone? Is democracy the ultimate destination of humanity? Do we destroy nature in the process of conquering it? Is there a way to remedy prejudice and injustice? Is the idea of ​​an imaginary world harmful and tantamount to an escape from reality? And most of all, has ideological thinking become a thing of the past?

(This book is also published by Al-Faisal Publishers. I am sorry that the top five books have been hidden which have been stalled for the last two years. The protesting government employees will then say that I hire others.)

I don't usually talk much about other people's translations. But on this occasion, I must say that all the other translations of Terry Eagleton are unreliable, wrong and very wrong.

According to a survey, 75% of university students (BS level) in Pakistan do not read textbooks at all. Now you tell me, isn't it a matter of wondering what a great shortcoming is taking place in this important place of life. Go away

Nadeem Farooq Paracha Sahib had complained in one of his articles that there are very few students in the University of Peshawar who know or read these people but not everyone else knows their names.

Ustad G. Yasir Jawad, Qazi Jawad, Dr. Mubarak Ali Sahib, Arshad Mahmood ... These are just some of the goal setting shareware that you can use.

Very good translations of these people have been published by Mashal Publications but BS level boys in the university hardly know them. All of them read Qasim Ali Shah, Borya Naqbool Jan and Zalil-ur-Rehman Qamar and the result is that when they start arguing, they start with hatred against Jews and against women and end with it.

We have a friend from Punjab in India who loves to travel to different countries. (A tale)

Once she started saying that she wanted to go to Nankana Sahib but she was afraid that someone might kidnap her and kill her. I said no such calamity has come, now countless Sikhs from different countries of the world keep coming to Pakistan all the year round. Despite my reassurance, they are still scared.

The question is, what is the source of this fear? In short, the Indian media itself plays the most important role in creating this fear, while on the other hand, religious students in Pakistan have played an important role in this regard. Hindi films often portray a very ugly and negative face of Pakistan, the thematic imprint is so deep that extremist Hindu ideology pervades art as art, and filmmakers and directors' own prejudices replace art. Take it

Apart from politicians and media, the film is playing a pivotal role in spreading hatred at the ideological level. Now it is clear that the rulers have a major role to play in spreading hatred on the basis of different sects, different countries, different colors, races, nationalities, languages, otherwise the people of Pakistan have a wider heart than the Indians. Religion is the main reason for the spread of hatred in both countries. That is why it is necessary to promote secular values ​​so that religion is excluded not only from politics but also from the curriculum. In the minds of Pakistanis, all hatred is against infidels, and this is the subject of their politics and education. One of the major shortcomings of the PTI government was that it made certain sections of religious texts necessary to destroy the minds of children in schools. Our question is, do these people have any strategy to reduce hatred, and to draw attention to the real problems of the people? Isn't the intellect of these people capable of finding a way out of the cave ideology of hundreds of years ago? Their rational evolution seems to be "complete," and they have no choice but to decentralize man. They are carrying religion on their heads and walking backwards. The great German philosopher Friedrich Hegel said that truth is like bread, which burns on one side, so things must be changed, or else man will be wasted in this theological business of hatred.

Comrade Yusuf Tarigami has passed away in the same year.

He was a leading leader of the National Conference Party (Farooq Abdullah Wali Party) in Jammu and Kashmir, India and a frequently elected MLA. He came to Lahore to participate in the Congress of 2014. He watched the proceedings of the Congress for two days in a row. They will go to Nagar and tell their comrades that if I have come to Lahore, Pakistan to attend a wonderful and peaceful Congress which was arranged by the Communists of Pakistan, then no one will believe me.

This is just an angle of thinking. Hundreds of my friends have come to Pakistan. They travel without fear and danger. Now there is social media. Make new friends, get information and get their services and go on a tour of Pakistan.

Two or three foreigners have expressed their desire to see Pakistan to me in spite of all my consolations that wherever you people intend to go, there are normal conditions just like your own countries. There is no fear, no danger and There is no uncertainty but so far I have failed to allay their fears in spite of millions of Jatts. It is not their fault either. I breathe on my own; because an invisible fear haunts me like a shadow, as soon as I come out of the airport I look at everyone with suspicious eyes but as soon as I get in the car the situation starts to feel normal.

She is Ms. Bharti where there is constant propaganda against Pakistan but I am Pakistani, I live in Pakistani society albeit symbolically but I am Muslim (symbolic explanation is coming up). I do, I intend, and I cancel the intention just so that there is no explosion. I have been planning Friday prayers for the last six months, but this is the thought that I will not be able to attend the funeral of any famous person for fear of this. Explanation: You know of Pakistani society that you have to wear the cloak of Islam, otherwise it would have taken two and a half minutes. Their fears are justified.

Plato's Dialogue Apology and Our Political and Social Scenario

Reading the current political situation in Pakistan and the attitudes of politicians, the comments of artists, poets, journalists and "intellectuals" on them, I am reminded of Plato's dialogue 'Apology' in which Sharifon asks a Delphi deity: "Is there anyone wiser than Socrates?" The goddess of Pythagoras replied, "No, no one is wiser than Socrates." Now Socrates needed to confirm this statement of the goddess. Sharifon was dead, so Socrates thought he would meet people who have great names in wisdom, and see for himself how wise they are. In this regard Socrates first meets a great wise politician, and asks him a few questions, and then see the conclusion that Socrates draws in his own words:

"Neither of us knows anything good or reasonable, but I'm still better than that." Because he doesn't know anything but thinks he knows a lot and I don't know and I don't think I know anything. "So I'm better than that.

After that Socrates meets some more people, like the journalists of our country. See what Socrates concludes after meeting them in Socrates' own words:

"The result of this investigation was that I saw that the people who have the most fame are the most foolish and those who are not respected are actually better and more intelligent than them."

After meeting these two types of people, Socrates came up with the idea of ​​meeting the great poets, including Almiya, Farhiya and all kinds of other poets. Socrates thought that now he would be caught and the word of the gods would be proved wrong, but he was sure that the gods do not speak wrong. So Socrates took the most difficult poems of his poetry and started talking to them with the question, what are the meanings of these poems? However, when Socrates, after hearing their answers, looked at their mental state and said:

Believe me, I am ashamed to say these words, but I am compelled to say that every one of the people who are here can speak better to these poets about poetry, as they themselves have done. ۔ Then I came to know that these poets do not say poetry with wisdom but with a kind of conscience. Their condition is like that of priests who say many good things but do not know their meaning. Besides, I have seen that poets, on the strength of their poetry, call themselves wise even in matters of which they have no knowledge.

After the poets came the industry. After talking to the craftsmen, Socrates concluded that they had no knowledge of what they were saying, based on a particular skill. And the industrialists were also suffering from the same misunderstanding that the poets were victims of. As a result, Socrates concludes that not every person has knowledge of everything, but only of certain things which pertain to his field. But if you look at the politicians in Pakistan, they are not familiar with the principles of politics, the situation of poets is not different from them and journalists who consider themselves experts in political matters are not even aware of the basic principles of journalism. ۔

Some today posts, and The Source of Ethics: Man or Someone Else ?

Today I have made two comments on a post, you also read.

Modernists are still better, otherwise non-modernism is said to be a characteristic of Abu Jahl, and the common Muslim of today has every characteristic that was present in Abu Jahl. Abu Jahl was also very sure of the truth of his religion.

Doubts and atheists have always been and always will be. Abu Jahl was neither a skeptic nor an atheist, but he believed in God, who was nevertheless killed.

Doubt and atheism always present aspects of progressivism and innovation, and both were not present in Abu Jahl, who, like the Muslims, believed in religious traditions as true, and was against the modernists of his time. Basically, you are the trustee of the intellectual tradition of Abu Jahl, not the tradition of Anjanab.

This comment was raised by a brother.

Abu Jahl believed in God?

To which god

Is it the same God whom the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to preach?

What good is a web site if it simply "blends in" with everything else out there? "

My answer was this.

Did Abu Jahl and Anjab believe in two different gods? That is, God is not one but two?

Jews, Christians and others have different ideas about the rest of God. But having different ideas about God doesn't make God two, four or six.

The concept of God that Abu Jahl believed in was inherited by him, just as you or anyone else inherited the concept of God. In it, Abu Jahl was convinced of his concept of God, just as you are convinced of the concept of God borrowed from inheritance. Now Abu Jahl is wrong and how did you become right?

As far as idolatry is concerned, Hindus are now close to one billion. Even God's efforts did not eliminate idolatry. The Islamic God tried very hard, he himself used to throw stones at the polytheists in wars, but what spoiled them, nothing.

A man from St. Augustine asked, "What was God doing before he created the world?"

Augustine said it was hell for those who asked such questions.

I never discuss politics in my private gatherings, but touch on scientific and intellectual topics. This is because most people start with the affirmation of phenomena, while we start with the negation of phenomena. The act of negation is the first rational action. While the affirmation of phenomena is limited to sensory or comprehension only. They begin in affirmation, while our affirmation lasts, when we have reached the essence of phenomena. The whole process of reaching the essence depends on the rational activity.

 

The Source of Ethics: Man or Someone Else?

Pushing the deity out of the human being and then considering this deity as the source of morality and laying the foundation of morality on it, falls under the category of immorality under the concept of modern philosophy and human centrality and rational references. Every morality in which the deity is the central reference, and the morality that has reached man through the deity is immoral. Where there is no centrality of man, there is only alienation, alienation of man from himself, from his human status. There is no rational justification for the deity and its centrality in modern philosophy.

The intellect belongs to man, not to God. That is why the great Aristotle laid the foundations of his book "Ethics" twenty-four hundred years ago on the basis of reason. What could be more immoral than to first deport or decentralize man as a human being, and to replace him with a deity, and then to teach man morality through this deity? If man can acquire and practice false morality through the medium of God, then why can't he practice real morality on the basis of his own centrality? It must be borne in mind that the centrality of the deity can never be the basis of morality; Man's direct relationship with man is moral, and through God or someone else, is immoral.

 

 

The intellectuals here are also spokespersons

A few years ago, French philosopher Alan Bedouin, speaking on the British channel's program "Hard Talk", was sharply criticizing the policies of the French government. The host said that you are criticizing the policies of the best country like France while your socialism is long gone. The historical words that Bedio said there still resonate in my mind. "I'm a philosopher, not a journalist, and as long as I see new and better possibilities, I'll be very critical," Bedouin said. 

From this conversation I came to the conclusion that a true student of philosophy or philosophy should sharply criticize political and social issues, as long as he has in mind the idea of ​​building a better society. In our country which is trapped in the clutches of the worst political parties, where political parties are transferred by will and one person is made party leader for life, journalists and top intellectuals would be justifying their legitimacy. Are In response to one of my criticisms of the concept of hereditary politics, a superficial "intellectual" said that "democracy in Pakistan has not yet matured." I objected that becoming the spokesperson of these political parties would make democracy more abominable. People should be made aware that if there is dictatorship within political parties then such parties would not be democratic. 

Within France, the chances of improvement were slim, as most of the ideals had been achieved, but a philosopher like Bedouin criticizes it for showing more possibilities. Here in Pakistan, journalism is a buying and selling of conscience, everyone is acting on behalf of their party. But what is the problem with these "intellectuals"? Do they not have a better choice at the intellectual level on the basis of which people can be awakened? Criticize government policies, if they are hostile to the people, set the ideal so that people can realize a better alternative. That's how change happens.

What is the process of making a video?

What's wrong with a married man walking around naked in his room or house, running, or having sex to the best of his ability? What if you were going to the bathroom after having sex and your wife made a video from behind? We don't know anything about the lives of married people, what they do at night, but making videos of everything they do is an ugly moral act that must be condemned. In my opinion, making a video in such a situation should be legally acceptable. Suppose a man makes a video of his wife or girlfriend in such a situation? Now the person we don't like, is the will against him all good? Man has his own rules and regulations. So present proof of mental puberty.