A leading democracy activist Min Ko Naing, who is being held in Rangoon¹s notorious Insein Prison. He is suffering from a serious eye infection and may go blind because he is being denied medical treatment. It is reported that his eye condition has deteriorated to the point that he is unable to sleep or eat because of the pain the infection has caused.
Min Ko Naing has been in prison since August last year. He was arrested for
leading protests in Rangoon. The protests triggered the biggest
demonstrations in Burma since the 1988 uprising, but were brutally crushed
by the dictatorship. We will never know how many were killed during the
regime¹s brutal crackdown. Today, the situation in Burma remains as severe
as ever. Arrests continue and torture is routine. Political prisoners are
singled out for brutal treatment, including the denial of medical treatment.
Min Ko Naing is a leading democracy activist and one of the most famous
student leaders from the 1988 uprising. He was arrested in 1989 and spent
more than 16 years in prison. He was severely tortured and held in solitary
confinement for most of his sentence. He was released in 2004 and despite
constant threats and harassment by the regime, he has continued to campaign for freedom and democracy in Burma.
Please take action now. Visit
<http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/mkn_action.html> and send an email to urge the Burmese authorities to allow immediate medical attention to Min Ko Naing and all political prisoners.
Thank you for your support.
Anna Roberts
The Burma Campaign UK
If you are not already a member of the Burma Campaign UK e-mail network, and would like to receive these updates directly, you can subscribe by sending a blank e-mail to:
burmacampaign-subscribe@lists.burmacampaign.org.uk
Published by alaiwah
ALAIWAH'S PHILOSOPHY
About 12 years ago, while studying Arabic in Cairo, I became friends with some Egyptian students. As we got to know each other better we also became concerned about each other’s way of life. They wanted to save my soul from eternally burning in hell by converting me to Islam. I wanted to save them from wasting their real life for an illusory afterlife by converting them to the secular worldview I grew up with.
In one of our discussions they asked me if I was sure that there is no proof for God’s existence.
The question took me by surprise. Where I had been intellectually socialized it was taken for granted that there was none.
I tried to remember Kant’s critique of the ontological proof for God. “Fine,” Muhammad said, “but what about this table, does its existence depend on a cause?” “Of course,” I answered. “And its cause depends on a further cause?” Muhammad was referring to the metaphysical proof for God’s existence, first formulated by the Muslim philosopher
Avicenna.
Avicenna argues, things that depend on a cause for their existence must have something that exists through itself as their first cause. And this necessary existent is God. I had a counter-argument to that to which they in turn had a rejoinder. The discussion ended inconclusively.
I did not convert to Islam, nor did my Egyptian friends become atheists. But I learned an important lesson from our discussions: that I hadn’t properly thought through some of the most basic convictions underlying my way of life and worldview — from God’s existence to the human good.
The challenge of my Egyptian friends forced me to think hard about these issues and defend views that had never been questioned in the milieu where I came from.
These discussions gave me first-hand insight into how deeply divided we are on fundamental moral, religious and philosophical questions. While many find these disagreements disheartening, I will argue that they can be a good thing — if we manage to make them fruitful for a culture debate.
Can we be sure that our beliefs about the world match how the world actually is and that our subjective preferences match what is objectively in our best interest? If the truth is important to us these are pressing questions.
We might value the truth for different reasons: because we want to live a life that is good and doesn’t just appear so; because we take knowing the truth to be an important component of the good life; because we consider living by the truth a moral obligation independent of any consequences; or because we want to come closer to God who is the Truth. Of course we wouldn’t hold our beliefs and values if we weren’t convinced that they are true. But that’s no evidence that they are.
Weren’t my Egyptian friends just as convinced of their views as I was of mine? More generally: don’t we find a bewildering diversity of beliefs and values, all held with great conviction, across different times and cultures? If considerations such as these lead you to concede that your present convictions could be false, then you are a fallibilist.
And if you are a fallibilist you can see why valuing the truth and valuing a culture of debate are related: because you will want to critically examine your beliefs and values, for which a culture of debate offers an excellent setting.
View more posts
NEVER MIND 