लोग गंदगी क्यों फैलाते हैं?

लोग गंदगी फैलाते हैं। गंदगी में रहना उन्हें असहज नहीं करता है।

ऐसा क्यों है?

यह मुद्दा समाजशास्त्रीय इतिहास से जुड़ा है।

यह इतिहास जनित मानसिकता है। दीर्घकालीन अधीनता के दौरान व्यापक और निरंतर उत्पीड़न और दोहन के कारण सामूहिक अस्तित्व के प्रति उपेक्षा का भाव लोगों का मानस बन गया। व्यक्ति अभी भी जीवन की परिस्थितियों पर नियंत्रण करने के स्थान पर उनके समक्ष अपने को निरूपाय पाता है। वह भले ही शारीरिक शुचिता के प्रति सजग हो लेकिन स्थानिक स्वच्छता के प्रति वह उदासीन रहता है।

नीरज कुमार झा

Dignity

People do not recognise the dignity of others. They find it very gratifying to insult others. They venerate some people if they talk fancy things, present themselves exotically, or can reward and harm others discretionarily, but never respect a fellow human being. This behaviour is so common that it is hardly noticed. It also escapes pedagogical attention. Highly educated ones are also very arrogantly scholarly. They eagerly seek opportunities to demean laypeople or people of lesser credentials even if these people may be more sensible as they face life more closely. Pedagogy and academia must pay attention to this gaping hole in their ecosystem. Instead of parroting the word dignity ad nauseam, they should acculturate themselves and the graduates to human dignity.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Artificialization

It is artificialization, which leads to advancement; this fact stands against the general belief. Civilizational evolution is a story of moving away from the natural state. As it is, artificialization may also cause severe debasement. Artificialisation, therefore, is an enterprise requiring both, competence and commitment.

Historically and sociologically, there have been cases of both types: artificialization serving well and putting people in peril.

Yet, there is a third type of cases, where artificialisation is carried out through imitation. These people do not get to the reason behind the structures they erect having seen those working somewhere else or times earlier and even their appropriate way of working. As a result, these structures hardly serve a purpose or even turn dysfunctional.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Let the Concerned Person Decide

Meritless ideas are thrown up too often and are followed by a viral debate. All these debaters fail to point out that such ideas are usually disrespectful to fellow citizens or human beings. For instance, one's private life is not a matter for others, provided it does not harm any other person.

How many hours should a person work? My answer is - let the concerned person decide. One can also decide for one's employees but subject to labour laws, contractual obligations, and the mental and physical tolerance of the working people.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Intellectual Enablement

Civilizational evolution requires a significant number of intellectually enabled people, particularly among professional intellectuals if a large geographical community has some. These people may be intellectually programmed rather than enabled. This enablement makes a civilization and drives its progress.

Niraj Kumar Jha 

The Two Types of the Pieces of Utopianism

I classify utopianism pieces as they operate in two; the first comprises the well-known comprehensive utopias we find in philosophy books. The second type concerns little utopias, the modular types that lesser utopianists seek to fit into the social order. The second type is not seen as I have put them but they are effectively practised without much fuss. The irony is that these modules hardly get the desired result and amidst the persistence of the problems they are repeatedly reworked to resolve the same continuing problem. It is the nature of these utopias that they never allow dreams to die but the dreamlike solutions also never work.

 
As the promise of a heavenly afterlife numbs people to their pain or excites them to put others in pain, so do utopias; the difference between the two types of utopia is only in terms of the intensity of impact.

 
Niraj Kumar Jha

The Two Types of the Pieces of Utopianism

I classify utopianism pieces as they operate in two; the first comprises the well-known comprehensive utopias we find in philosophy books. The second type concerns little utopias, the modular types that lesser utopianists seek to fit into the social order. The second type is not seen as I have put them but they are effectively practised without much fuss. The irony is that these modules hardly get the desired result and amidst the persistence of the problems they are repeatedly reworked to resolve the same continuing problem. It is the nature of these utopias that they never allow dreams to die but the dreamlike solutions also never work.

 
As the promise of a heavenly afterlife numbs people to their pain or excites them to put others in pain, so do utopias; the difference between the two types of utopia is only in terms of the intensity of impact.

 
Niraj Kumar Jha