Ideas We Believe

 There is a statement from Albert Einstein on Gandhi, which always made me think. "generations to come will scarcely believe a man like this walked on earth. " I have always wondered why it would be true. Since Gandhi lived a much more recorded life, I thought it would always be easy to appreciate his efforts for Indian independence. But there is a catch: as we continue to rejoice in peace and independence, we often discount the grief caused by the lack of these.  Gandhi preached a different policy in a world dominated by wars and violence, where armies saw war as the inevitable means to take back or take control. Even in the current world order, deterrence is considered a soft stand, and imagine a century earlier preaching for non-violence. Gandhi saw non-violence as a means of getting attention and could use it to create a voice. He did so for 40 years, giving the Britishers a negotiation, while most other independence movements were based on armed rebellion. While India

It's often perplexing to note how violent human existence has been. Until the end of world wars, it was common for armies to be raised and sent to die. Only when institutions like trading, finance and learning, which do not occur optimally in turmoil, spread worldwide, there was an incentive to keep peace. This leaves us with a question as to why peace wasn't pursued over the early years of human civilisation. The answer to that would be science or, to be more specific, maths. Before maths, most languages were subjective and interpretive rather than definite and logical. With that power of subjectivity, it was easy to evade having to answer. How big is the earth, you ask? While under maths, you will have to put units, and then under physics, estimate and verify it; in any other language, you can just have a word for it. Subjectivity gives an illusion of an answer, preventing one from digging further and, in this case, striving to learn more. That leaves us with a vacuum, which