Tuesday, February 7, 2017

World religion

The most amazing discovery when one approaches the commonly known world religion, like Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, and the three Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - is definitely the fact that all these, as different as they might seem at first sight, have one common goal: The betterment of the individual and the society. It is all the more disheartening that in our daily life and encounters, we tend to largely focus on the differences instead of the similarities. Most of us claim to believe in something, and all of us believe that their way of thinking and the values they committed themselves to would be the best for the rest of society or the world.  In doing so, we largely forget that our own level of spirituality, in whatever faith we might have settled in, largely depends on our own spiritual maturity. Listening to others oftentimes offers us a valuable chance in picking up knowledge, even if it originates from another belief system, that can as a result foster the development of our own spiritual growth. When you study the messages of the world religions, you soon discover that there is plenty to learn about each of them. Each religion in itself is a rich source of inspiration – or, how would it have survived the challenges of time? It is amazing to dive into this knowledge and to look at things from a different perspective. Not seldom, this is also an opportunity to explore one’s own religion in comparison; Sometimes it initiates the search of certain subjects in our own religion in the curious request of how it was phrased here and there and what makes it different and what makes it alike.
Another insight gained from this class was the fact that certain religions do not seem to see the need for the recognition of a higher being in their belief system. Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism all seem to relate to an idea of a very vague picture of heaven or path, which left me wondering about the part that worship takes in my own life. I was asking myself how they achieve the self discipline to follow their undoubtedly noble ideals and manners without the ‘controlling’ instance of a superior being and how much the individual is able to commit to an ideal out of his or her own motivation.
I also realized that in order to have a fruitful and productive interfaith dialogue, it is extremely important that you are familiar and well educated in your own belief. It is difficult to share your knowledge with others, if you do not know, or you cannot explain where it is coming from. It simply helps to prevent confusions and makes the communication easier and more informative for everybody.
Personally, I came to believe that the best way to explore the possibilities and opportunities of other religions is to be firmly grounded in your own belief, in a way that allows you to be tolerant and curious towards other views and perspectives. Learning about other religions has also shown me that these realms of openness are a characteristic that can be found in all religions, but are sometimes hard to see for someone firmly stuck in the formalities and rites of his or her beliefs only. It is even more impossible to reach this degree of mutual acceptance and openness, when political and personal aspects enter our views and positions of others, who are different in their religious beliefs. Very easily, people fall in the trap of prejudice when it comes to isolated events that are used by some group to title or portrait the 'offender' as the prototype for a religion and its followers. These are unfortunately very common strategies in politics and media,  and consequently these patterns promote ignorance and prejudice because they cater to an ongoing cycle of artificially created demand to maintain the once -equally artificially- formed opinions in society. Therefore, to achieve the necessary open-mindedness and the ability and readiness to learn from other faiths, requires us to do an enormous preliminary effort that concerns our own souls and hearts. If we do not cultivate ourselves through reflection about our own motives and pattern of thinking and speech, we will limit ourselves continuously to a certain level of mental ability in taking in and processing different perspectives  and views that could ultimately enrich us and teach us to be better individuals and better parts of the human society.

Cultural Experiences

Coming from a different culture, my learning moments were of almost daily occurrence. I had several classes, which showed me the difference between society and civilization, its history and roots, as well as philosophical and ideological differences. Through classes about history of Christianity and the interpretation of its scriptures, i developed a closer understanding for the perspectives of a religious (Christian) based ideologies as well as it those of its supporters and opponents. It offered me a very interesting insight in the American culture of diversity concerning these different points of views, mental models and ideas. Within this diversity, i was also confronted with people of other religious beliefs and ideas, who chose or were born into religions like Buddhism or Judaism for example. It was very enriching to learn in and outside the classroom about their theories and lifestyles. Through a certain selection of classes, I had a chance to have a close-up look at Buddhist practices and world views, which was something rather new for me.
I discovered through philosophy classes (and a science class I took), that the Western philosophical concepts are taking their origin with Aristotle, Plato and Socrates until today, and I also discovered how much this is impacting today's views of the Western culture and ideologies. Compared to my own culture, which has its roots in Egypt, this is a rather short termed historical approach. During my time in the educational system in Cairo, I was taught that our history and philosophical thoughts are reaching far back beyond the Greek philosophers and they are interestingly rather considered a by-product of our own philosophical and ethical studies and approaches.

2. How did it contribute to your desire to make change in the world (whether on an interpersonal, local, national or global level)?
When I first took up my studies at Belmont, I had already a rather clear idea about what I was aiming for and why. My interest in political science is something that accompanied me all my life, even though I am originally a science-guy. I knew that I was taking up these studies to support a position of mutual understanding and joint gains of different nations and cultures in the future. My desire is to make a difference on any level that is possible for me. Right now, my time and activity is only leaving me time so far for my activist channels and videos, but I hope that in the future, I will find time and opportunity to extend and deepen my activities, and hopefully i will attain my goals in teaching and writing about political science and its realities one day in the near future.

3. How was this experience shaped by what you have learned both inside and outside of the classroom?
As I mentioned above, being in the situation of a foreigner, I was largely benefiting from the classroom experiences and close talks I had with some of my professors and teachers to gain a deeper understanding of the different cultural viewpoints in this country. Outside the classroom, my daily reality consists of working and meeting all kinds of different people in my business, and I often take advantage of these encounters to learn from and about people on a personal level. My customers are from all over the United States sometimes and they are also sometimes from all over the world; therefore I have the opportunity to get exposed to a maximum of different thoughts and concepts. I have many friends form different countries and different religious backgrounds that came to the United States with certain ideas in mind about their new home country or simply as visitors. I listen to them and I try to analyze their opinions and point of views based on their circumstances and situation and it is keeping me busy and interested in social and political correlations.

Cloning

Blade Runner Assignment
This subject is something that I always thought about, especially when the first case of cloning was made known to public. I am convinced that somewhere in this world scientists are currently trying to clone human beings. It is theoretically possible to create a human body by completing the chromosome number of a cell of an egg. In Islam, it says that a human has a soul, and that is what ultimately brings life to the body. The Quran details in several verses, how the growth of a fetus occurs going through the pre-embryonic state and the embryonic state. Modern embryology confirmed the stages described in the Quran which says: “[We=God] then formed the drop into a clot and formed the clot into a lump and formed the lump into bones and clothed the bones in flesh; and then brought him into being as another creature. Blessed be God, the Best of Creators! (Qur'an, 23:14).

    From the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), who transmitted this Quran to mankind, we also learn that a human embryo receives a soul on the 120st day of its growth. God’s Messenger (peace be upon him ) said: “(As regards to your creation), every one of you is collected in the womb of his mother for the first 40 days, and then he becomes a clot for another 40 days, and then a piece of flesh for another 40 days. Then God (s.w.t) sends an angel to write 4 words: He writes his deeds, time of his death, means of his livelihood, and whether he will be wretched or blessed (in the Hereafter). Then the soul is breathed into his body…. (Bukhari, Vol 4, Hadith # 549 to the phenomenon of the Angel placing the soul in the fetus)
Therefore, as a Muslim, I have to consider someone a human being, once they passed through this stage, regardless how their being there came about.
What makes the human mind unique is the fact that we have a free will.  Animals follow instincts, artificial intelligence follows orders and commands, but a human being is free in his or her choices, only limited by his/her capacities of understanding at the time of the decision. The line is exactly there, once you receive a soul, you receive a free will, and therefore you are counted as a human being. Artificial intelligence cannot exist without a human intelligence as a mastermind.




Obesity in America

Obesity in America has become a major contributing factor to death, disability and societal costs; it has increasingly contributed to the loss of quality of life, to the skyrocketing of health-care expenditures, and the loss of overall productivity of the nation. The begin of the obesity epidemic started in the 1980's and can so far be called unique in the history of mankind. Today about 1/3 of the American people are considered obese, another third overweight, and only a small minority meets the activity guidelines of the American health organizations.
Obesity has biological and psychological aspects that are an ongoing challenge to control: As humans are not genetically programmed to turn away from available foods, the ubiquity of low-priced and high-processed food items, as well as increasing serving sizes lead to creeping weight gains everywhere. For example, a children's meal at a restaurant contains about twice as much the calories than a meal cooked at home, because of the low cost, high calorie ingredients used to produce it. These developments have been accompanied by massive commercial and marketing campaigns, tempting and directing people towards unhealthy, high calorie items. Along with this comes a life-style that is increasingly less active as physical activity has been engineered out of people's lives through the usage of cars, appliances, screen time and sedentary occupations. This goes fundamentally against the human biological disposition that is designed for an environment with low availability of food and an accompanying high calorie activity to obtain the food necessary for survival.
Obesity is more widespread in low income areas. This is usually due to the fact that these areas do not have adequate access to fresh produce or cannot afford the relatively higher prices of fresh food. They also lack safe places for people to work out, children to play and run, or just do not offer a secure walk able neighborhood.
If one's income is limited, one tends to spend money on high calorie, low cost items in an effort to get the most lasting calorie intake from the money now available under the insecurity of when the next meal will be available.  But even families with more income tend to eat the wrong kind of meal choices, as processed foods are always conveniently available in stores and drive-troughs, making it easy to eat everywhere at every moment without going through the effort of ingredient selections and meal preparations. Therefore, most people, at least at times, end up eating items they know very little about in terms of what they are made out of, what kind of fat they contain, or how much sugar is hiding in their food. Commercial food is mainly sold under the premise that it has to be low-cost for the food producers and prepares, while tasty through the generous additions of fats and sweeteners.

The fact that the industrialization of nations brought a profound change of life style almost everywhere, that is causing weight problems is undoubted, however the question remains on how the American people came to eat in a way that accelerated the extreme raise of obesity beyond every other nation. The documentary delivers a clear answer to this. With the industrialization of all means of manufacturing, farming was one of the sectors that were transformed into an economical branch that instead of producing food -with all its delectable and different properties- was turned into a field that produces commodities, just like any other mass producing sector. The government has been subsidizing the industrialization of foods massively to attain over-productions for export and for animal feeds. The increased use of grains as animal feeds led to a higher consumption in meat products, which in return increased the average intake of saturated fats through the diet. Through substantial subsidiaries, the government encouraged the mono culture of corn and soy; today 50% of America's farmland are used for the cultivation of these grains that are the basis for corn syrups, soy fats (often hydrogenated), and starches highly used in processed foods. Dairy, a product derived from the increased farming of animals is another high and saturated fat pillar of the average American diet. The national subsidizing policy keeps motivating farmers to overproduce the very products we are already overeating. At the same time, it facilitates the conglomeration of the farming industry in big business corporations, while slowly killing the small farmers that tend to provide varieties of fresh foods locally.  With the disappearance of small farmers the farming of fruits and vegetables, that is less profitable to cultivate or industrialize, keeps disappearing. Their numbers have been reduced to such an extent that today not enough fruit and vegetables are produced nationwide to meet the American dietary recommendations. These following numbers are very telling: While the cost for soft drinks and sweeteners have been increasing by 20 and 45% over the time form 1985-2000 -leaving he soft drink rate even under the rate of inflation-, the costs of fruits and vegetables have been increasing by 117%, putting these items out of reach for many economically disadvantaged individuals and families.
The accumulation of business in the farming sector causes a decline in decision making about crop and methods at the farm, as the efficiency and profitability for the shareholders are replacing the former decision making power of the farmers. Decisions are not made under the perspective of farming, but are replaced by a mentality whose sole motivator is a monetary one. Local farmers still exist, but they are -left in the ditch without financial encouragement from governmental source- struggling to make a living. Some try to survive in coops, finding ways with local retailers to market their products. However, they are in for a hard and endless struggle against imports of other countries that specialized, because of their climate conditions in certain crops of vegetables and fruits competing with the local farmers.

What is intrinsically short sighted from the government perspective is that the subsidization is turning their nation into a giant health-care wasteland, and that the costs of health services, related to the epidemic of obesity, are draining the couture's resources from the other end. The profits made by the agar sector are, however, not subsidizing for this damage, but end up in the pockets of selected individuals, whose powerful lobby keeps the flow of more subsidiaries coming. The only way to change these developments in my opinion is to boycott as informed consumers the products that make us sick and that live off this cycle of greed and profit. This takes, however, well informed and educated customers who are able to pull -through their buying decisions and their voices at their local grocery stores- the healthy foods back into the market. It takes people who are ready to abstain from TV-dinners, snack foods and fast-foods as well as restaurant chains, which are mostly supplied with ready to feed meals by centralized suppliers under contract with their head quarters, which basically prepare TV-dinners restaurant style, still high in unhealthy fats, sweeteners and starches, for the sake of the taste. It takes consumers, who are willing to involve in the process of reconditioning of their taste towards natural flavors, abstaining from the all present artificial and natural flavors in foods. As long as we train our bodies to like artificial tastes, we might not find the natural tastes of fresh food appealing; this is especially true for children, who sometimes grow up not even knowing about the wide variety of fruits and vegetables available to them.
As a business owner of a restaurant in East Nashville, I was glad to witness the efforts to turn this area into a walk able neighborhood with an increasing number of bike lanes that I personally enjoy using for my work outs.  It is encouraging to see people organizing community activity programs and mobile markets that make fresh local produce available to the residents here. I can also bear witness to the positive changes of awareness over the last ten years, when it comes to healthy dietary choices and interest in what actually goes into the food people consume; many of my customers cannot eat certain foods, because they got sick from what they used to eat. There are so many things in our foods today, that we do not know about, that are even banned in other parts of the world, and we are unaware of their effects on our health; these substances are added to our foods for the same purpose that starches, fats and sugars found their way in there, they are cheaper than the natural alternative and they are used to enhance the flavor of foods making them more palatable, while at the same time condition us to prefer their artificial taste over the natural one. This is an important factor often neglected when speaking about commercialized foods and this aspect has only found little attention in the public.
I agree however with that in the fight against obesity, efforts need to be undertaken on several levels - political, communal and individual - to correct this situation, and that it is important to involve all of them for an optimized result: to prevent a nation from falling further into states where their quality of life is severely affected by their body weight and the consumption of foods at their disposition.

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) – Freedom fighters or terrorists?

      The Irish Republican Army (IRA) – Freedom fighters or terrorists?
Throughout its history, the Irish population had to struggle for their Emerald Island, as many seafaring nations, like the Vikings or Danes, were trying to invade it over time. However, while former groups of intruders eventually assimilated with the existing population, one conflict took place that would throw its shadow for over 400 years over the nation and take until the 21st century to be resolved at last. The occupations of Ireland by the English, and their systematical attempts to incorporate Ireland in its state, continued to strain societies on both sides. All the while, the Irish kept trying to defend their land throughout the centuries, and continued to demand the establishment of the union of their island under self-governance. When negotiations did not succeed, some of them resorted to armed struggle and guerrilla warfare against the English and Northern Irish governments – which at times turned to be one and the same government. The group that kept claiming the Irish independence and union over more than seventy years and  continued armed conflicts with Northern Ireland and England over these claims was the Irish Republican Army (IRA), in Irish “Óglaigh na hÉireann”.

    The IRA was the biggest one of the Irish Republican military organizations. It originated from the Irish Volunteers. The 1913 established organization that staged the Easter Rising in April 1916, demanding the establishment of an independent Irish Republic (“The Irish Volunteer Force/Irish Republican Army”). In 1919, in agreement with the English, the Irish Republic was formally established by an elected assembly and the Irish Volunteers became its legitimate army. However, the newborn Republic did not include the six counties in the Northern part of Ireland that remained under English rule and therefore many Irish disagreed with the conditional ceasefire and founded the IRA - the force that continued to wage a guerilla campaign against British rule in Ireland until 1998.
In 1921 the two parties, Britain and Ireland, agreed to sign the Anglo-Irish Treaty. The treaty determined that Ireland should become an independent entity from Britain, but stay within the domination of the British Empire. The signing of this agreement meant a split in the IRA, as some

    IRA leaders supported and joined their principal leader Michael Collins, who became the chairman of the first provisional Irish government. Those IRA members who agreed to the treaty became the nucleus of the new Irish national army of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) or Irish Republic. Yet, many IRA members disagreed with the conditions of the Anglo-Irish Treaty and involved in a civil war against their former comrades, which lasted from 1922-1924. Their intention was the creation of a fully independent all-Ireland republic, including its Northern parts with Dublin and Belfast. They considered the treaty as a betrayal to the Irish Republic (The Irish Republic had been officially proclaimed during the Easter Rising for all of Ireland). In a sad irony, the Civil War might have claimed more lives than the War of Independence; a fact which kept the Irish population divided and embittered. Two of the most important political parties in today’s Republic of Ireland, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are direct descendants of the opposing sides of the Civil War (Kissane p.2).  After a 2 year battle, the anti-treaty faction of the IRA had to admit defeat, but the group remained in existence holding on to their objective to overthrow the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland and to re-establishing the Republic.

    The post Civil War IRA -referring to the anti-treaty wing- was badly reduced in numbers and clout, but it took its members only two years to resurface. Many republicans viewed the Free State, with its censorship of newspapers and extensive coercive legislation, as a sham democracy, in the service of British imperialism. Therefore, they continued their armed fight during 1926-36.  Between1932-34, the IRA's membership grew from a low of 1,800 to over 10,000. This was partially caused by the friendly stance that the governing party, Fianna Fail, took towards the IRA in the beginning of their term by legalizing the organization and releasing its members from prison. However, in 1935, the IRA accused Fianna Fail to outsell Ireland by failing to proclaim the Republic and by tolerating the continued partition of Ireland. They reinforced their stance by a series of violent attacks on several officials and a land agent. By 1939, the IRA Army Council declared war against Britain, and what is known as the Sabotage Campaign began shortly after. The Sabotage Campaign was a campaign of bombing and sabotage against civil, economic, and military infrastructure in the United Kingdom itself and British custom houses in Ireland. It lasted from 1939 to 1940.
After the theft of almost the entire reserve ammunition store of the Irish army by the IRA, the Irish government took harsh measures against IRA members. They hastily introduced a bill that reinstated internment, military trials and execution for IRA members. As a result, in 1941the IRA counted only about 1,000 members, most of them in prison.
During WWII, the IRA tried vainly to gain advantage in its war with Britain by capitalizing on their ties with Germany. Anyhow, all operation planned and intended to serve the goals of the IRA to attack targets in Britain and North Ireland were prematurely discovered and foiled by the British forces (Higley).

    From 1948 on, the IRA started rebuilding its organization and initiated another campaign against Britain and North Ireland called: Operation Harvest, or Border Campaign, as it became generally known. In principal, the IRA policy had been to overthrow not only the governments of Dublin and Northern Ireland, which to them represented illegitimate entities imposed by the British occupier. Nonetheless, in 1948, the IRA adopted a General Army Convention Order to forbid recruits any armed force in and against the Republic of Ireland. From this moment on, the armed forces’ actions were focused on Northern Ireland only, and as later clarified by an IRA spokesperson the Border Campaign was targeting British forces in Northern Ireland. The IRA declared itself “apolitical” in their struggle, but dedicated to force Britain out of Northern Ireland; however their members renewed their ties with the political party of Sinn Fein, which had been the closest political wing to them since the end of the Irish Civil War. Between 1951 and 1954, the IRA succeeded to re-arm itself through several arm raids on military facilities in Northern Ireland and England. When they started their campaign in 1956 and 1957 the Irish government re-introduced the internment without trial for IRA members and in 1961, established military courts to try IRA members; these military courts handed down long prison sentences to the convicted. However, in the Irish general election in 1957, Sinn Fein, the political representation of the IRA, gained 4 seats which was considered a sign for the rising popularity of the alliance of Sinn Fein with the IRA. Facing internment on both sides of the border made it soon impossible for the IRA to conduct their operations, and in 1960, the Campaign was considered a failure by many IRA recruits. No longer considered an eminent danger by the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, both entities started releasing the interned IRA members. From the 400 released fighters, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in the future. The IRA had significantly lacked the support of the Irish population and especially the Northern Ireland population during this campaign. In an attempt to redefine itself the IRA split once more. The resulting politically engaged wing, the Official IRA, held on to armed fights until 1972 in order to protect Catholic communities that came under attack from loyalists in Belfast.

    The Provisional IRA, however, continued the armed resistance and fought officially until 1997 – a struggle which was to claim up to 1,800 lives. These 30 years are generally referred to as “The Troubles”. The times of The Troubles started out with a series of riots in August 1969 against the Catholic population in Northern Ireland and led to several battles involving the IRA forces that were trying to protect the Catholic communities in Belfast. Disappointed by the outcome of their attempts to defend the Catholic population of these areas the IRA split again: This time the Provisional IRA left to dedicate their efforts to the protection of the above mentioned communities from future attacks, while the Official IRA continued to focus its campaigns against Northern Ireland and pursuing the goal of a united Ireland for the years to come. During the seventieth, the Official IRA continued their campaigns against England and Northern Ireland and succeeded to largely destabilize Northern Ireland through bombings of commercial targets and gun battles with soldiers. All the while, the Northern loyalist groups retaliated in a guerilla civil war, killing and torturing IRA members, while the English government was trying in vain to stabilize the situation by sending troops that in the course of events became biased against IRA fighters though officially they had been commanded to stay neutral ("Flashpoints: Guide to World Conflicts" ).

    During the eighties, the IRA became able to import weaponry to support its fights. This support mainly came from the Libyan leader at the time, Muammar Gaddafi, who was at odds with the British government (BBC NEWS). These arm deliveries significantly increased the IRA’s firepower and enabled its fighters to intensify its campaigns and guerilla attacks. However, it seems that the IRA had been interested in terminating the violence since the late 1980’s, when its political wing SinnFein started secret talks with government officials. The year 1994 that led up to a first ceasefire was an extremely tense one, marked by atrocities between the loyalist guerrilla groups of Northern Ireland and the IRA. As the English government seemed to unnecessarily procrastinate the negotiations, the IRA revoked the ceasefire, attacking the Canary Wharf and parts of Manchester. However, when negotiations began in 1997, the IRA reinstated the ceasefire and the talks led to the Belfast agreement in 1998. The Belfast agreement returned self-governance to Northern Ireland and aimed to establish security normalization by involving a certain quota of Catholics into the police force and by disarming both sides –IRA and Northern Ireland- as well as closing military structures. It took the IRA until 2005 to disarm to a point that satisfied most of the parties involved. Since this time, the acts of violence related to guerilla groups have mostly ceased and the remaining incidents are often between different groups or within a certain group. As a matter of fact, the Irish society is still recovering from centuries of relentless fighting and the collective trauma is rooted deep within the social tissue of today’s Ireland.

During its over 70 year long struggle, the IRA clarified its objectives several times, renewing them, but never changing them. Its fighters wanted to achieve the complete departure of English soldiers and government from the Island of Ireland and they insisted on an independent, united, and self-governed Ireland. Their opponents were England and Northern Ireland, the extended arm of the English power. Since the 1600s, the English had begun in multiple campaigns to expropriate the Irish population and to forcibly convert the Catholic communities to Protestantism. Landownership, survival and social respect was only attainable through the adoption of the English faith and lifestyle – anything else was declared subprime and unworthy. This approach had system, as it allowed the English to install their citizens as the new landowners and rulers of Ireland and to push aside the genuine population, permitting them to take over Ireland and to integrate it into the English kingdom and the British Commonwealth. When the IRA started their activities at the beginning of the 1900’s, their enemies were the armed forces of Britain, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. The latter, because they considered them traitors to the cause by agreeing to the independence of the Irish Republic while accepting to leave the Northern part around Belfast under English control. For the IRA, the civilians of North Ireland were partly considered allies to the English; partly, as they were Catholic Irish, similar to the rest of the Irish Republic, they were considered part of the genuine Irish community: The Protestant population of Ireland were either those Irish who chose over time to convert in order to facilitate their lives or to survive the English occupation, or they were part of the population that came through the English to take advantage of the “new territories” that now belonged to the English state. Under the new English rule, they were able to become land owners on the account of the genuine Irish population. Generally, the IRA fighters had to be suspicious against the Protestant population, because they were more likely to be loyal to the English forces. Both sides though, Protestant and Catholic Irish produced their amount of traitors to the IRA cause – as it happens in most conflicts.

    During the War of Independence, the IRA fighters targeted armed forces of the English; in fact the war started with an attack on a Royal Irish Constabulary (an English police station in Ireland) in county Tipperary. Later into the war, the event known as the Bloody Sunday took place, where IRA members killed 14 people, 9 of them English agents in Dublin. It is also known, that in County cork for example, the IRA is responsible for the death of about 200 Protestants, possibly –or not -  loyalists to the Crown. These killings occurred exclusively in counties in which the Protestant population outnumbered the Catholic population. It might have therefore been an attempt to loosen the grip of the English by attacking those who predominantly had taken over the Irish land at the time in certain areas. To the defense of the Irish fighters it needs to be pointed out that the English side did not respond in a much less bloodier and undiscerning way: In reprisal of the Bloody Sunday event, the English forces opened fire on a football crowed at Croke Park, killing 13 civilians ("Enyclopaedia Britannica"). In return, the IRA involved in destroying many stately Protestant owned homes in Munster, attacking police stations and fortified police barracks in several towns and undertook a significant number of successful actions against British troops. At some point about a hundred IRA fighters were fighting a sizable engagement with a British column of 1,200. And while the English resorted to terrorizing, burning and burglarizing Catholic homes and killing the Catholic population, the IRA undertook an arson campaign against factories and commercial premises in Belfast and attacked and burnt the Custom House in Dublin. The guerilla warfare of 1919-1921 had made Ireland ungovernable for the English, except by military means. As the military and financial costs rose and the strategy of terrorizing the population did not stop the campaigns of the IRA, Britain had to enter negotiations with the Irish fighters. As the historian Dr Michael Hopkinson admitted in his book Irish War of Independence, the guerrilla warfare "was often courageous and effective”); “courageous” because the IRA fighters were largely outnumbered by the British troops, “effective” because their decentralized approach and their hit and run style campaigns made it difficult for the English to target them and break up their organizations. In conclusion, the IRA fighters were carefully selecting their targets: mainly armed forces, loyalists to the English Crown, which they considered invaders and profiteers, as well as English state constitutions and commercial entities. The British were pushed into a situation, were their only defense was the indiscriminate persecution of the Catholic population – how could they discern a fighter from a civilian? Consequently they did to the Irish, what they had done or were doing in many of their colonies: a small sample of those victimized nations and ethnicities that could tell us about this are Aboriginal Australians, New Zealand Maoris, Indians, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankans, Burmese, Canadian and American Indians as well as big parts of Africa. As a matter of fact, at the beginning of the twentieth century Britain's empire spanned the globe, her economy was strong and the political system seemed to be immune from the ills that afflicted so many other countries. Britain kept a strict and often cruel rule in its territories and colonies and suppressed revolts or demands of the population by internment, torture and assassination of the revolt leaders. The British were known to utilize measures like terrorizing the civilian population or ordering shot-to-kill commands to its armed forces, as well as other now so popularly known atrocities. While in the beginning of the century, Britain was still celebrating her fame as one of the most powerful nation on earth, the empire was doomed to fail in the upcoming years and the revolt in Ireland was to become a significant part of the downfall.
With the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the Civil War began. During this time the declared targets of the Anti-Treaty Wing IRA (in the following referred to as IRA) continued to attack state installations and armed forces. With the limited independence that England had granted to the Irish Republic, she had also rid herself largely from the involvement in the armed struggles within the borders of the Republic. From now on the armed forces of the Irish Republican had to deal with the problem IRA on her own. Britain was providing the necessary arms, ammunition, armored cars, artillery and airplanes, but the fighting itself had to be done by the Irish Republican soldiers. The IRA continued their guerilla tactics by attacking the Four Courts in Dublin, assailing the members of the parliament that had voted for the Treaty and burning their properties together with many more stately homes of the old Protestant Anglo-Irish land class. In areas like Kenmare, where heavy fighting was going on between the IRA and the Irish troops, the IRA was relatively popular due to the brutality of the occupying Irish Republican troops. The Irish Republican Government officially executed 77 anti-Treaty prisoners and carried out a number of atrocities against prisoners; on at least three occasions in March 1923, IRA prisoners were massacred by landmines in reprisal for killing Free State soldiers. The focus of the IRA had widened, now including the armed forces of the Irish Republican state, as well as its political representatives. However, it can be argued, especially under the consideration that Britain equipped the Irish Republic with everything necessary to fight and win this war that the Irish State represented the extended arm of the British in Ireland. It should also be taken into consideration that Ireland was divided into an Irish state bereft of two economical key cities and considerable parts of land, assets that the ill-ridden Irish economy would have been in dire need of. Per contra, and in today’s historical context, the Free State signified the first step away from direct English occupation.  
    As the defeated IRA members were sustainably dissatisfied with the political situation, they reorganized and took up their fight again in 1935. The Sabotage Campaign was directed against British civil, economic and military infrastructure in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The main events included the seizure of police barracks and the killing several officers. In two further incidents IRA members assassinated the Irish minister Kevin O’Higgins, who they believed had played a crucial role in the executions of IRA fighters during the Civil War and killed a landlord’s agent over a land dispute. The Irish Republic responded with mass internment and military trials for IRA members and their executions.
Later, during the Border Campaign the IRA changed their strategy and adopted a General Army Convention Order to forbid acts of violence within the borders of the Republic of Ireland. Their main targets became British forces in Northern Ireland. The objective was to force Britain out of Ireland. The campaign was launched by simultaneous attacks on targets at the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Damage occurred to a BBC relay transmitter, a courthouse and several army barracks in Northern Ireland. In a statement of the 12 December 1956, the IRA announced that they had “carried the fight to the enemy…”, that their aim was “an independent, united, democratic Irish Republic”, and that they would fight “until the invader is driven from our soil”.  As a response to the bombings of several Royal Ulster Constabulary posts (Northern Irish police stations), the Northern Irish government and the Irish Republic both responded with internments without trial and long prison sentences for the convicted. In the following hundreds of IRA fighters were arrested. This and the need of the Catholic communities for protection during the campaign made it difficult for the IRA to establish units in the Northern parts of Ireland. Only a few causalities during the Border Campaign have been counted.

    The time of The Troubles began in the 1960s with attacks on Catholic Civil Rights marches in Northern Ireland, as Catholics were demanding to be treated as equal citizens. The troops sent by the British government to reinforce the Northern Irish police force and troops were officially neutral, and supposed to uphold law and order and the right of Northern Ireland to self-determination. For the IRA these forces were forces of occupation and combatants. As an investigation conducted by the police force in Ombudsman proved later on, the British troops colluded with loyalist paramilitaries on several occasions, were involved in murder and obstructed the course of justice and investigations in favor of the loyalist parties involved ("Investigations into the circumstances surrounding the death of Raymond McCord Jr and related matters ") . The main characteristic of this three decades lasting struggle was the formation of Northern Ireland paramilitary groups that organized bloody campaigns against the Catholic population and took up the armed fights with IRA members. The Ulster Volunteer Force possibly the most famous of these paramilitary groups attacked and killed several store owners in 1966. They would also play a key role when the peaceful acts of civil disobedience and protests would turn into a battlefield. During several civil rights marches, protesters were attacked with clubs by Protestant loyalist; while police did little to protect the protesters. These ongoing street fights, led to vicious sectarian battles in Belfast and elsewhere and in 1969 homes were burnt and many people died in an escalation of the violence: 8 Catholics were killed, 750 injured and 1,505 had been forced out of their homes – five times the number of Protestants. In 1969, and on the request of the Northern Irish government, English troops arrived to restore order and prevent sectarian attacks against the Catholic communities. Those initially welcomed them, but the relation soured soon because of the heavy-handedness of the British army. Between 1970 and 1972 the situation deteriorated further and 500 people among them just over half civilians lost their lives. These incidents were partly related to armed fights between the IRA and Northern Ireland troops, IRA campaigns to protect Catholic communities, battles over internment and torture as well as to the internment itself, and the killing of 14 unarmed nationalist civil rights demonstrators by the British army on what we know as “Bloody Sunday”. The IRA conducted 1,300 bombings that cost the lives of about one hundred soldiers and wounded 500 more, but also unfortunately cost the lives of many civilians. The loyalist paramilitary groups were another factor in increasing the death toll:  they went on a campaign of sectarian assassination of nationalists, simply defined as Catholics. In 1975, sectarian killings spiked again along with internal feuding between paramilitary groups. After the attack on Lord Mountbatten of Burma, in 1979, who was killed while vacationing on his boat in Northern Ireland by the IRA, the courts decided to try members of the IRA no longer as political prisoners but treat them like ordinary criminals. This led to prison protest and hunger strikes among the IRA inmates and the death of several prisoners who simply starved themselves to death. Their cases entailed a wave of support and sympathy from the civilian population and guaranteed the IRA broad support. In addition, the weapon donations received from Libya in the 1980s enabled the IRA to step up their campaigns and attack higher profile targets. The Brighton hotel bombing on 12 October 1984 is an example of this empowerment. The campaign was aimed at figures of high prominence, like Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who was staying for the Conservative Party conference. The attack killed five people including a conservative MP, and injured thirty-four others, like the Trade and Industry Secretary. The year leading up to the ceasefire in 1994was a particularly tense one with death tolls of Catholic citizens spiking due to the killing sprees of paramilitary loyalist groups; this lead to a ‘tit-for-tat situation with the IRA which claimed even more lives. Not always successful in their plans, the IRA tried to restrict their attacks at this point to the hostile paramilitary groups and enter at the same time negotiations leading to a ceasefire. After the ceasefire went into effect, the IRA felt that their English counterpart did not follow up on the negotiations and attacked the Canary Wharf in London and large parts of the city Manchester causing a substantial damage of almost five hundred million pound sterling to the British; the attack also injured about 200 civilians and left two employees of the wharf dead. After this campaign, they returned again to the negotiation table and ever since the ceasefire has been widely respected.

    Leaving aside the last attack that occurred on British soil, it becomes evident, that most of the times the IRA aimed to cause damage and causalities to the military and governmental institutions and representatives. Their actions clearly stand in strong contrast with those of the paramilitary groups of the loyalists, whose only ‘raison d’être’ was the terrorizing, expulsion and often gruesome murdering of civilian Catholics. It is important to note the fact that criminal investigations like the one executed by police forces in Ombudsman proved that the British military and the Northern Irish armed forces often indirectly supported these paramilitary groups during The Troubles and facilitated their criminal conduct by turning a notoriously blind eye ("Investigations into the circumstances surrounding the deathof Raymond McCord Jr and related matters "). One has also to examine the political agenda and intentions of the British and the fact that Northern Ireland stayed, even though declared independent from the English government, an entity that was allied with Britain. In this context it should also be taken into consideration that the Northern part of Ireland has always been the most industrialized part of Ireland and therefore the part that generated the most revenues, which made it an interesting and profitable bait for Britain that they would not want to easily let go of.
It has been characteristic in history, that in the face of a revolt of the people, the occupying force has practically no other choice than to break down on the population itself and therefore on civilians, as it proves impossible for them to identify fighters within the people’s lines. It also needs to be pointed out that this strategy of intimidation uses civilians as a pawn to force the fighting part of the citizens to cease its activities and riots. It is also a policy of “hitting the masses” and hoping that among some of those arrested or killed might be part of the original target.

    The English and later on the government of Northern Ireland did exactly this, until the situation escalated and the IRA was able to attain more fire power through weapon deliveries. Once it became clear that the IRA would have access to advanced and more weapons, this strategy could not work any longer. Also world media began to turn its attention towards the hunger strikes and protests of the IRA members and the Catholic repression and persecution that was escalating during The Troubles. People all over the world began to relate to the Irish cause, some of them from just freshly emerged nations born out of former colonies. There was a growing public support and empathy for the Irish cause. In a post-colonial and post-imperialistic world there was little justification for not granting the right of self-determination and full independence to the people of a nation. Therefore the agreement of 1998, with the right for the Irish –North and South- to determinate to which entities they would want to belong, was long overdue.
During their armed struggle, IRA was classified by the British as a proscribed terrorist organization. Later on, they based their judgment on the following definition stated in the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1989 : “terrorism…is the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear…”(Lord of Berryiew QC).  While terrorism seems to be as old as mankind, yet interestingly the term was created in the context of the state terrorism that the French government practiced during the Reign of Terror, a time of severe government initiated coercion. The word “terrorism” is emotionally and politically highly charged and that greatly complicates the attempts of finding a precise definition of the term. The term is often used to delegitimize political opponents and at the same time to legitimize the state’s own use of force against the so-called terrorists. Terrorism has been practiced by many political organizations to help them to pursue their goals: right- and left-wing parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries as well as ruling governments. So what makes the terrorist a real one? One defining characteristic might be the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants or civilians for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, its cause or an individual - but this has not been agreed upon widely.

    These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to agree on a single convention to define terrorism. Therefore, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that defines and criminalizes different types of terrorist activities. These sectoral conventions follow an operational approach by sector, like for example conventions for the suppression of unlawful seizures of aircrafts, terrorist bombings, or financing of terrorism or on the physical protection of nuclear materials ("Treaty Collection"). This approach does not take into account the motivation of the perpetrators and automatically assumes that the states are active allies of the international community in the fight of terror, as the definition of terrorist applies only to non-state entities. The state is also the actor that would apply the criminal law scenario on the terrorist group and apprehend and persecute those who have committed the acts. The development of these sectorial conventions took the UN over 20 years, with the result that the issue of terrorism is basically sent back to the level of the nation in which these acts occur. It also excludes the possibility of state terrorism against its population, while history has shown contrary evidence.

    According to British attempts of definition as well as the approaches developed by the UN, the IRA would clearly classify to be a terrorist organization. The United States, whose definition is the updated version of the British one of 1989, also clearly identified the IRA as a terrorist organization ("National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism") .
Nonetheless, we have to consider that many of these definitions were tailored to the circumstances and by a nation with certain interest or concern that was itself involved in a struggle. Even the UN does not consist of all world members with equal rights. Its decision making nucleus is restricted to the permanent member countries. The Big 5 include China, France, Russia, UK and the United States and their status allows them to veto the adoption of any substantive draft.
However, as a world community, we have to ask ourselves, if we want the interest of the majority of our world’s population in the hands of a few. Do we really want to live in a world where the definitions derived of a certain conflict and tailored to meet the needs of the powerful at that time become our universal standards; the very standards to determine the fate of minorities and people who are trying to keep what is legally theirs: their country and their homes? What about the rights and interest of those nations and countries that did not make it into the Big 5? And furthermore, is a fighter who defends his country a terrorist, because it is convenient for the aggressor and invader to label and discredit him as such? Does it seem just to say that the IRA should have ceded to the British and never should have sought independence in the first place not to be labeled as “terrorists”?
Just imagine you show a map of the world to an elementary student who knows nothing about the political implications of the subject. And while showing him you ask to which people the island on the upper left of Britain should belong in his opinion; this island has no land connection to Britain and it has always had an indigenous population. What looks like an easy exercise of common sense, becomes a sophisticated and almost dangerous subject in today’s geopolitical world. Maybe this is why so many nations of oppressed people had to resort to the religious approach. The big world religions defend people’s right to self defense and to living without coercion and oppression, especially when it comes to violent governments or occupiers. The Old Testament is full of examples of people who went to claim their land by armed struggle. In the Hindu religion, military and secret (terrorist?) warfare are clearly defined and have to be fought as just and righteous wars with the approval of the society – not just the rulers. Similar to Islam, war is defined to happen between combatants and the term combatant is clearly defined. In Islam the civilian population has to be protected on both sides of the conflict and their means of livelihood cannot be taken or destroyed. And the Jesus of the Bible was more than just a mild mannered rabbi, he also brought revolutionary ideas of justice and freedom from oppression.
So where are we as a world community today and how can we judge and pinpoint, if organizations like the IRA are terrorist organization or freedom fighters? The truth is we cannot; at least not under reference of all the definitions that are out there. Our conscience and our common sense paired with the most possible knowledge and understanding of the situation and the historical and political circumstances has to guide us to make the right decisions and judgments. And our own judgment risks being as subjective as the definition produced by the governmental institution that have attempted this so far (Weir). But one last thing deserves consideration on the specific subject of the IRA. In 1998 the Department of Education for Northern Ireland cofounded a project called CAIN (Conflict Archive on the Internet) with the objective to document all causalities that occurred due to the Conflict in Northern Ireland from 1968 until today. The results tell us that, while the majority of the victims were civilians, the highest ratio of civilian killings was not the one resulting from IRA violence. The IRA ratio of civilian death was –though sadly enough- about 35%. Yet the civilian death toll out of all casualties caused by British security forces was 51% and their secret allies and protégées, the loyalist paramilitaries, brought it to a terrifying 85% ("Sutton Index of Death"). The IRA was clearly not the party whose major objective it was to kill and terrorize civilians So again it will be up to our sane discernment and sense of justice to draw the right conclusions in this historical conflict. And as the late President John F. Kennedy remarked: Those who make a peaceful change impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

Aristotle Mill and Nietzsche !!

For Aristotle a virtue is what makes a thing perform its function well, therefore it is what helps man in his pursuit of happiness by getting him accustomed to something from which he becomes good over time.  For him ethical values are acquired by habituation. To be called a virtuous act, a person must know and intend to do what he/she is doing; his/her intention must be to do it for its own sake and he/she must act with certainty and firmness. Virtues are the mean that lies between two extremes. In the case of temperance, it represents the reasonable mean between pain and pleasure. Aristotle explains to us that temperance is the mean of the bodily pleasures that we share with the animals. Animals’ desires are regulated by instincts, which is not the case for humans. Humans have to voluntarily decide to adhere to the principle of acting in a reasonable way. They are not supposed to follow blindly their desires for pleasures or completely deny themselves these pleasures. He lets us know that most natural desires don’t err, but the mistake occurs when a person is too much pained by the fact that the desire cannot be fulfilled. He recommends that the individual should accustom him/herself to attain a balance between reason and the desiring part of the soul. If the desire is to take over a human being than there cannot be virtue with the intention to be virtuous. The desire is like a child that needs to be controlled. A life example would be the pleasure to eat: If a junk-food loving person follows his/her preferences in the relevant food choices without consideration for his/her health than he/she might end up overweight and ultimately fall sick from this condition. As reasonable person will examine the foods for dangers and make healthier –even if it seems to mean less tasty- choices for the sake of a healthy body and a life with a certain quality.


     whether ethics is a practical science ?
Ethics is a practical science because it busies itself not just with knowing the status quo of a society or an individual, but actually offers ways to help the individual or the society to improve itself and to achieve a higher state of living. This becomes very clear when reading Aristotle. He not only explains where the greatest good of humankind lies and how it is defined but designs an exact path showing how to achieve this “ultimate happiness” he is talking about. He emphasizes the importance of a life aimed to commit as many virtuous acts as possible. He explains that through habituation and by following his lists of virtuous he identified for us, a contemplative and reasonable individual can reach a higher state of his/her being. In short, he is offering the practical know how in how to get there.  Another example is Mill. However, he differs from Aristotle in so far, that he is more concerned with the happiness of the community or society than with the one of the individual. He explains to us the necessary principles and the resulting mechanisms that should lead our society to an overall happier state by following the needs of the majority. Over time, so he states, individual happiness will result from this path and the society as a result will be even more content. His philosophical direction “utilitarianism” delivers the help to individuals on how to make their decisions and how to act on them and can also be called very practical in its approach. As much as I believe that ethics is a practical science, I also think that it is a very unpractical one. Unfortunately, all these different concept of thinkers only cover fragments of the practical approach needed to really function in a complete and changing life and environment. Many questions stay unanswered and this is proof for me, that none of these systems found a conclusive answer to life’s most important questions.

    A brief dialogue/exchange between Mill and Nietzsche on whether human nature is too weak.
Mill: A human being would rather be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Man aspires to rise over his low nature to a higher state.
Nietzsche: I don’t agree. The majority of human beings are weak and they know they are. They even find justifications for their state of weakness from which they know they cannot escape. Next, they create their own morality to fit their circumstances and make them feel better about them.
Mill: As long as they don’t hurt anyone they should be free to do what they desire.
Nietzsche: The weak (like unhealthy, ugly, suffering, fearful, poor, impure, conquered)) are the majority and they are out there to overthrow the few human beings that are strong (like nobles, happy, powerful, beautiful, favored by God, conquerors, warriors) because they consider them their oppressors. However, those are the ones that deserve complete freedom because of their strength no limits whatsoever should apply to them.
Mill: It is important to follow the will of the majority, as this is the only way to a satisfied society. Once we begin to follow this path, individual happiness in such a society will follow automatically.
Nietzsche: That is the worst idea. The weak are the majority and they will always desire to overthrow the strong ones. They turn good into evil and evil into good, because of their state of weakness. They develop a slave morality and apply it on the strong ones so they can submit them to guilt and shame about being superior.
Mill: I believe that when a society grows in a healthy way and social bonds become more important, people will automatically choose their actions with consideration to the welfare of their fellow citizens.
Nietzsche: I don’t believe that, as people are born weak or strong and there is no subject behind their acts, it’s their nature to act according to their level of strength/weakness.

    An action that is right that I also wish to do; I am explaining why this is neither a good test case for ethical duty nor even the best action, according to Kant; and conclude by personally evaluating the Kantian explanation.
I want to donate money for a local foundation that takes care of stray animals in our neighborhood. They take them in and feed them and leave them for adoption. My intention is to help the poor animals I feel sorry for, as well as to making our neighborhood cleaner and safer.
In today’s world, this is an example of a good deed, but not so for Kant.  First of all, a right action according to him is only right if done out of the sense of duty (categorical imperative) and not to gain some pleasure or satisfaction out of it. In my example, the pleasure of my motivation would be that I make myself feel better, because I contribute to the end of the suffering of these creatures. The fact that I am doing this fills me with a sense of satisfaction for myself. I love animals and therefore I am happy to help them. But according to Kant, this should not be my motivation and therefore this deed cannot approve to my righteousness as a person. It is most certainly not my best action. The best actions are the actions that are done because they are necessary, despite the dislike for them. So paradoxically, my action would qualify as a “best action” if in reality I was someone who hated animals, but still decided to help them and clean up the neighborhood in a way that is not cruel or demeaning to them. Personally, I wouldn’t agree with Kant here. My motivation of helping an animal would be that I learned that it is the right thing to do and I therefore follow up on it. However, I will not reflect on my righteousness as a person over this or even proclaim it, as I consider that this would diminish my reward.

     While the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes is allowed in 18 states plus Washington, D.C., this month,( 2013 ) voters in Washington and Colorado approved measures legalizing its recreational use. Under federal law, cultivation, sale and possession of marijuana for any purpose are illegal. Formulate your ethical judgment on the legalization of pot for recreational use using textual detail from any thinker studied this semester.
Mill believes that the individual should have the right to freely chose to as he/she wishes and should not be held accountable for his/her actions as long as these choices only affect them and do not hurt anyone else. He also states that people should have the right to have a say in their government decisions. For him the best is what the majority agrees on and votes for as this is the way to a higher form of society where the good of the majority is the measurement. “The great pleasures are good for others not just for us” and “the greatest benefit for the greatest number”. If the marijuana would be legalized under these assumptions, than the individual has the liberty to assert him/herself and show his disapproval through persuasion or avoidance, if one feels that this action is wrong, he. With marijuana as a recreational drug, people would be free to make the personal choice to use it or not according to their convictions. Also, Mill believes in the ability of individuals to distinguish between higher and lower forms of happiness and he therefore puts the trust into them to make the right decisions on an individual basis. He believes that any human is rather a dissatisfied human than a satisfied pig or fool. Therefore the individual will ponder upon his or her decisions and strive for a better and higher form of live and happiness where pleasure is not the ultimate goal.


Buddha !!

     After reading the Early Buddhist Discourses the following topics resonated with me strongly. For once, the struggle and permanent fight against the self which is drawing us down with desires like greed, jealousy, hate and anger, but also the things that we would judge uplifting in our lives, like successes, material gain, fame etc. Even the positive aspects of life arise from our desires and are in the way of a proper detachment from our own selves that are permanently trying to rule and drive us. Not cheering when we are winning is surely not an easy thing to remember, but it is true, that our 'ups' can easily turn out to be 'downs' and that every gain comes with responsibility to use its fruit in the right way. So as a consequence nothing is purely good or bad in life. Therefore our suffering stems from the way we look at things and the things we desire to happen.
Another interesting part of the Discourses was the "Discourse to Potthapada, who seems to busy himself with all the wrong questions. He continues to ask about soul/perception and body and their relation, the state of this world and other while neglecting the most important message to abandon the material self, the mind made self and the immaterial self. In the discourse Gautama uses different       ways to explain the same thing to him. He also uses the rhetorical mean of repetition in order to make sure that his pupil understands. Potthapada is taught by the Gautama that the things he inquires about do not matter, but what matters is to find the way to end the suffering and attain enlightenment through detachment from all the selves he is carrying - logically that can only be one, but I suggest that he means different levels of desires or bodily and mental restrictions here, while speaking of more than one.
After these explanations Potthapada is convinced of the legitimacy of the Gautama and he decides to stay and to become a student of the Gautama and later receives his ordinations from him after reaching his goal.

    Why do you assume a ‘person’?
Mara, you have adopted a wrong speculative view.
This is only a heap of processes
There is no person to be found here.

Just as the word ‘chariot’
Refers to an assemblage of parts,
So, ‘person’ is a convention
Used when the aggregates are present.

Only suffering arises
And suffering remains and disappears
Nothing other than suffering arises
Nothing other than suffering ceases.”
In these verses of Sister Vajira from Early Buddhist Discourses, Vajira is explaining to her ego - addressed as “Mara” in the poem - in return to its questions about her origin as a ‘person’ that its assumption about her being a person in the sense of an unchangeable eternal being is incorrect. She continues that her being is determined by ‘a heap of processes’. Processes are something flowing, therefore when we visualize processes we are forced to do this in flow-charts and it cannot be done in a definition; processes are something that is always moving and in action and cannot be determined or defined by one specific state, they rather keep evolving from one state into the other. In addition to that, she states that a person is nothing but a, commonly agreed on, definition to name an ensemble of ‘flowing properties’ of ‘characteristic occupations’ of the whole.  To clarify this to herself (or her ego), she uses the example of the chariot, that is made out of an assemblage of parts that forms, as an end result, something new, namely the vehicle. For a human these parts are called aggregates and refer to the Five Aggregates that Buddha determined as: 1.form or matter, 2.sensation or feeling, 3.perception, 4.mental formation (mental habits, thoughts, opinions etc.) and 5.consciousness. All five terms describe processes that are in permanent motion within a ‘non-person’; the ‘non‘ has to protrude the ‘person’, because at no time can there be a definable permanent state. Therefore there is no-self, as the self is through the aggregates in a state of permanent change and motion. 
She then moves on to the consequences of being an assemblage of these five aggregates mentioned above. As Buddha refers to the aggregates in his ‘Discourse on the Parable of the Watersnake” (page 110-116), as subject to permanent change, there is no possibility to hold on to one of its moments, to define a particular person, because it will never reflect the person entirely, but only a moment of the person’s life. Buddha explicitly explains to his bhikkus (students) that this momentary thought, form, sensation etc. does not belong to them as a person and that it will flow away. Therefore, to avoid dhukka, a person must realize this and let go of what they think is theirs, in order to attain a state when their aggregates cannot cause them suffering any more.  Vajira is referring to this when she is speaking about the arising of suffering and the cessation of it. Once the non-person realizes that they are not a certain idea,feeling or thought and that this is not something that they can eventually lose, as it has never been theirs that is when the possibility of the disappearance of suffering begins.

     Why doesn’t the Buddha put forward a determinate position in Afterlife?
On page 99 of the Early Buddhist Discourses, Buddha explains his position towards the determination/non-determination of the afterlife. He repeatedly explains that he does not confirm nor does he negate the ten speculative views, and he carries on:
“For what reason are these undeclared by me? Because these are not useful in attaining the goal; they are not fundamental to the religious life and do not lead to aversion, dispassion, cessation, peace, higher knowledge, enlightenment, and nibbana – for these reasons, these are not declared by me.
And what is declared by me? ‘This is suffering’ is declared by me. ‘This si the origin of suffering’ is declared by me. ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ that is declared by me. ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering’ is declared by me.
He makes it very clear in this discourse that he is not here to promise an afterlife or give details about the eternity, soul or the afterlife of the enlightened ones. His mission is to end the suffering as it exists here and now. He does not encourage the individual to look for the life after death, because his teachings concern this world, and have to be accomplished and worked on in this world to contribute on an individual basis to end all the suffering in this world; like the parts of a puzzle that fit together as a whole, all suffering can only be defeated by all beings following the path of enlightenment to universally contribute to the complete cessation of dhukka. If suffering in this world can be ended by his path, then there might not be a necessity of a defined afterlife, and he leaves it to the follower to determine if the ‘afterlife’ will be the complete cessation of dhukka.  Therefore, the Buddha’s teaching is directed on this life and does not include answers concerning an afterlife in the traditional sense, as changing from one world to another.

    The Mindfulness and why is it central to Buddhism?
“The mind, hard to control,
Flighty-alighting where it wishes-
One does well to tame.
The disciplined mind brings happiness.” (The Dhammapada, 3. The Mind, p.9)
For Buddha the mind follows our desires, caters to our desires. The mind is the force that can keep us imprisoned in our perceptions, opinions, experiences and thoughts. Because it determines these activities, it ultimately decides how to act or react to the people and events in our life. Mindfulness is the art to control our mind in ways that enable it to follow us instead of us follow the temper and mood of our minds. As self centered individuals we tend to use the mind in ways that we believe are useful and beneficial for us; but this often happens on the expenses of others. Only when we understand about the interconnectedness of dhukka in this world, are we able to shift our mind away from an ego-centered thinking toward an attitude of all encompassing compassion. 
The result of a lack of Mindfulness is demonstrated by these verses who state that who does not control his mind and actions will not get closer to the enlightenment and wisdom, he is looking for:
 “For those who are unsteady of mind.
Who do not know true Dharma,
And whose serenity wavers, 
Wisdom does not mature”  (The Dhammapada, 3. The Mind, p.10)
However the one who has learned to control his mind and use it in the most beneficial way and who is not blinded by success or defeated by failure has reached the degree of detachment necessary to be a mindful person in the Buddhist sense. He is now able to contribute to the cessation of dhukka:
For one who is awake, 
Whose mind isn’t overflowing, 
Whose heart isn’t afflicted, 
And who has abandoned both merit and demerit,
 Fear does not exist. (The Dhammapada, 3. The Mind, p.10)

     A significant obstacle to meditation and explaination of Suzuki’s advice/insight for overcoming it.
“It is when your practice is rather greedy that you become discouraged with it.” (Zen Mind, Beginner’s mind, p.57)
One of the most obvious signs of greediness is the following of an ideal that the student is trying to reach as a goal. Suzuki explains that this is a very poor and shabby kind of practice and largely misses the point, for when the student continuously thinks of how he wishes to be in the future, he loses the perspective of the here and now, and misses all the benefit that come with the living in the present and learning from the present.  Also, Suzuki emphasizes that it is impossible to reach the set ideal and that the expectations of the student will keep growing while he is trying to approach his ideal. The attachment to his expectations will cause disappointment and encouragement. Suzuki advices the student to never form ideals or even worse some form of competitive situation in his mind. He insists that the mind can only benefit in a detached condition and a free state from mediation.  He explains, that when practicing zazen, there is no joy, or disappointment, or any other feeling involved. Zazen is done anyway, he insists, “…we just do it” (quote Suzuki, p.57), regardless what is the feeling or emotion of the time. It also goes back to Suzukis original requirement of the ‘beginner’s mind’ as the best quality to benefit from zazen. Logically, if one’s mind is filled with expectations or ideals, about how practice and achievements should look like, the mind is no longer a blank page readily absorbing the merits of the practice.

    My thoughts on something specific gained from watching Buddhist films that has added to the experience of reading Buddhist texts.
In the movie Samsara, the conflict between a monk’s secluded life and the influences of the outer life becomes very obvious. While the film is intelligibly demonstrating the struggle with the desires of this world, it also brought up some questions of the practicality of Buddhism, and gave impetus to further investigation. We are faced with the choice of the main protagonist to return to his monastery on the account and the resulting suffering of his wife and child, and the question arises: When does a person who is searching for enlightenment have to take this path over the interest of others and his duties towards them? And further, does he theoretically and ethically have the right to do so? He is at this very moment thinking about what is best for him on his path of betterment, but by taking this decision he contributes to the dhukka of his family and consequently of this world.  So is he actually making a step forward or backward in this case? We cannot tell, as the movie stops at this point, but we can reflect about future scenarios and the consequences of him, abandoning his child, which might have grave or positive impact on the child for example. How will the role of the mother develop and will the monk himself succeed this time. As all events in this life are potentially connected and dhukka can be spread by selfish acts and can be defeated by following the right path of Mindfulness and Compassion, all kind of scenarios are potentially there. The outcome of a deed is often determined in the far future. Generally, it was very interesting to reflect on the practical cases, we were confronted with during the video sessions, and I believe that this is actually the most beneficial part: seeing Buddhism confronting ‘real life’ situations and the possible consequences on the lives of those who are trying to live according to it.