| Revision as of 20:59, 3 April 2012 view sourceLestrade (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,147 edits Nietzsche & Monism← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:01, 3 April 2012 view source Lestrade (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,147 edits Delete message from User pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| {{quotation|] have become experts in the art of being outraged after the crystallization of the ] ] in the 1920s. Articulating a deep rooted ], they have tried hard to denounce the disrespectful behaviour of the minorities they feared most – especially the ] – in order to mobilize new followers. Such a process was likely to trigger ]s and to polarise society along ] lines – and eventually to translate into votes. However, a purely ] interpretation of the Hindu nationalist use of outrage would be too simplistic. The use of sacred symbols is not that easy, as evident from the case of the ] movement. It shows that the ] finds it more difficult to mobilize followers when the culprits are not Muslims. It also shows that the exploitation of the outrage is more complicated when its instigators are born Hindus. In any case, the holy character of the outraged symbol is not enough: it has to be historical; and it has to be useful too.}} | {{quotation|] have become experts in the art of being outraged after the crystallization of the ] ] in the 1920s. Articulating a deep rooted ], they have tried hard to denounce the disrespectful behaviour of the minorities they feared most – especially the ] – in order to mobilize new followers. Such a process was likely to trigger ]s and to polarise society along ] lines – and eventually to translate into votes. However, a purely ] interpretation of the Hindu nationalist use of outrage would be too simplistic. The use of sacred symbols is not that easy, as evident from the case of the ] movement. It shows that the ] finds it more difficult to mobilize followers when the culprits are not Muslims. It also shows that the exploitation of the outrage is more complicated when its instigators are born Hindus. In any case, the holy character of the outraged symbol is not enough: it has to be historical; and it has to be useful too.}} | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| ==Monism== | |||
| I noticed that you added Schopenhauer to the "Monism" category. Do you think that Nietzsche should also be added? I am thinking of his words in ''The Will to Power'', § 1067: "And do you know what the world is to me? … ''This world is the will to power – and nothing besides!'' And you yourselves are also this will to power – and nothing besides!"] (]) 20:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Lestrade | |||
Revision as of 21:01, 3 April 2012
The missing bits of Ramakrishna
Suggested reading
- Christophe Jaffrelot, "Hindu Nationalism and the (Not So Easy) Art of Being Outraged: The Ram Setu Controversy" South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal, 2 (2008)
Abstract
Hindu nationalists have become experts in the art of being outraged after the crystallization of the Hindutva ideology in the 1920s. Articulating a deep rooted inferiority complex, they have tried hard to denounce the disrespectful behaviour of the minorities they feared most – especially the Muslims – in order to mobilize new followers. Such a process was likely to trigger riots and to polarise society along communal lines – and eventually to translate into votes. However, a purely instrumentalist interpretation of the Hindu nationalist use of outrage would be too simplistic. The use of sacred symbols is not that easy, as evident from the case of the Ram Setu movement. It shows that the Sangh Parivar finds it more difficult to mobilize followers when the culprits are not Muslims. It also shows that the exploitation of the outrage is more complicated when its instigators are born Hindus. In any case, the holy character of the outraged symbol is not enough: it has to be historical; and it has to be useful too.