One of the central tenets of Indian philosophy is that there are “no absolutes”. This is actually quite unique to India.
A good example that illustrates this is the position taken by Indian religions on right and wrong. Indian culture has taught right and wrongs to generations of Indians only through stories and epics, and most of these have shades of grey with no real black and white answers. Even gods had shades of grey. Ram and Krishna had their own failings. India probably never had an equivalent of the “ten commandments”. In fact, the Buddha in fact advocated good judgement but seemed to reluctantly prescribe some rules for simplicity. Even in Hinduism, my understanding is that most of the things which were perceived to be “transient” or changing with the times (like mores) were kept in the secondary texts and not part of the main spiritual texts.
To elaborate further and exemplify: One could say that to state a lie is wrong. That would be an “absolute”. But what if the lie will save a life (say for example, a lie that could save a jew from a nazi during world war two) ? Would/ should you lie? Perhaps you would.
These simple ideas have large implications for young people: 1) Read stories, epics, fables etc; read those with shades of grey; value the stories that your mom and grand mom told you; 2) be comfortable in shades of grey; do not seek absolutes; 3) learn to be tolerant of people with other very different ways of thinking; do not seek homogeneity; 4) do not mortify yourself and your conscience with notions of right and wrong, learn to exercise good judgement with ample consideration.
“Fire in the belly” — that is my latest fancy! I have been looking around to meet young people with “fire in the belly”.
Recently, I had a chance to listen to a talk by Dr Devi Shetty, the famed and visionary heart surgeon and social entrepreneur from Bangalore. In his talk he mentioned about his new initiative to catch young people from deprived backgrounds in West Bengal and train them to be medical doctors. His thesis — these young people will have the fire in the belly to work long hours as medical doctors in the service of the people (which he implicitly suggested that young people from well off backgrounds lack).
While I do not know if there is a rigorous correlation between “fire in the belly” and deprived backgrounds, I see his point and share his thinking. People who pursue goals with great vigour and obsession often need to be highly motivated and have a “hunger” for achievements. They cannot be seeking comfort and luxury. They cannot also have a philosophical view of “nothing really matters”. (Classic case being the case of ancient India which after years of global leadership, turned complacent in end of the first millennium to only be ravaged by “barbarians” who did not hesitate burning our places of learning and centres of philosophy.) They need to be driven.
While one cannot say it is true for everybody, on average it does seem to hold that societies go from deprived and driven to complacent and content, and as this happens they go from growth to decline. One can also see that refugees/ immigrants seem to be excelling in most countries (while future generations of migrants do not seem to be very different from the natives). Even within India, one can see complacency setting in on well off states with the labour force not willing to take up certain jobs and the same jobs being taken up by migrants. One can see young people within one’s own families placing a greater premium on comfort, luxury and entertainment as India grows and becomes affluent.
It is in this context, that I would like to recommend to young people to be wary of complacency setting in. Seek the “fire in the belly”. The only way to create the “fire in the belly” is to set the most challenging goals for your self and seek role models who have “fire in their bellies” —- basically identify the Mount Everest you wish to climb and be “hungry” to climb that and seek the Edmund Hillary to inspire you.
This blog posting is an opinion piece for young friends who find themselves versatile and good at many things but often find that the world seems to favour those who are specialised narrowly. Say, you are good at studies, sports, music and organising teams but everybody seems to only talk about the geeky topper in your class or the dumb sports star in your class.
One of my strengths is versatility — and I have always enjoyed it. I like learning/ doing many different things and combining them creatively in my work. For example, I can combine understanding of science, technology, business, finance, law, and philosophy in my work and use it creatively in the practice of technology management and entrepreneurship. But I can tell you that it is hard to build on your versatility (except in roles where you are in the driving seat and building/shaping the organisation’s agenda).
Most large organisations and societies like specialists. They like people who conform to the ideal of that organisation/ society. For example, I work for a research organisation and the ideal is of a conventional scientist pursuing his/her narrow area of specialty over a career of 30 years with a solitary focus on peer recognition. In such large organisations, versatile people are mavericks. And often such organisations are puzzled on how to deal with these mavericks.
Leaders of such organisations often worry how to recognise and reward versatile people and pen up opportunities for them. I was once advised by one of my mentors that I run the risk of “falling between stools”. What he meant was that my organisation had a “scientist” career track and an “administrator/manager” career track and it would be suicidal for me to try to do both. He had a point! But then should I have chosen one “stool” to stand on or follow my heart?
Based on my experience, I have the following recommendation for versatile people — if you wish to follow your heart and continue enjoying/leveraging your versatility, then build your own organisations (or work in small organisations)! You have to be leaders who set the agenda so as to thrive as versatile people. Or else chances are that you will have to sell your soul to the specialists and conformists, and end up as a mediocre specialist!
(My objective in this article is not to go into the philosophy of science but take a simplistic view for a lay audience)
What is science?
- a method of systematic thinking, and creating new and improved understanding, a method of pursuing knowledge?
- a body of systematically accumulated knowledge?
- a community of people ?
- all of the above?
Characteristics of scientific pursuits and scientists:
- Curiosity to explore, understand and explain
- Desire to add to the body of scientific knowledge
- Accurate, truthful and unbiased descriptions, statement of facts; measured words
- Continuously improving and changing theories and models. All theories need to be testable.
- No authority. Nothing is sacred
- Enjoyment of the process of science, and not merely focusing on the end point
- Desire to strengthen and enrich the community of scientists (teaching, research training, conferences etc)
- “Immortality” via far reaching contributions to human understanding
For a moment, let us leave aside what formal education contributes to a child. Here is what my wife and I had set as simple goals for our son:
- Habit of reading
- Writing as a means to think, clarify thoughts and communicate
- Comfort with numbers/ maths and logical thinking
- General awareness and information pool to draw from
- Play team sports; aspire to excel; work as a team
- Learn consistent practice, discipline and persistent pursuit in a few interest areas
- Simple and direct experiences (not merely electronically or secondary)