In order for any work of art—for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song—to have merit, it must be understandable to most people.

Popularity and comprehension by masses cannot be yardsticks to ascertain the value of a work of art and this is most commonly evidenced by the posthumous success of artists from motley fields. In the words of Oscar Wilde, definition of art should follow the work; the work should not adapt itself to the definition. Creating boundaries and frameworks for art especially based on popular perception would rob art of its essential purpose i.e. to stimulate the senses, and art would merely be relegated to a career that people are propelled towards because of mercenary gain.

Art is an abstract concept, one with no conception of ideal. The value of a piece of art cannot be cloistered in the walls of popular psyche or perception. Artists from Van Gogh to Picasso, literary progenies like Franz Kafka and Jane Austen, music maestros like Bach and Ray Charles had extremely varied styles and were only celebrated for their genius posthumously. Critics and laity alike failed to recognize the merit of their works during their lifetime. However, that did not propel these prodigies to alter their work based on temporal considerations of popular perceptions of their time. Art to truly have merit must be timeless and eternal and be full of vitality connecting with and motivating people.

Art is as much boundary-less as eternal. Artistic masterpieces connect with people across the barriers of language, culture, expertise and even physical handicaps. Music of wizards like Mozart and Bach is often used in therapies of alternate healing for mentally handicapped people. These people might not be able to understand the technical nuances that make this music nothing short of brilliant, but the combined effect of tempo, rhythm, sound is what connects with them and has an ameliorative effect. Fusion of different types of music is testimony that language barriers do not immure true art either. Sufi music is extremely popular across the world and is enjoyed equally by people from myriad ethnicities who in all likelihood cannot understand or even relate to the lyrics.

While art for art’s sake is a prevailing liberal modernism outlook, a new view of the relevance of art is as an instrument to effect social change. This outlook necessitates that art be understood by a majority. The work of art would only be as powerful as the number of people it can inspire and motivate, obscurest and incomprehensible art would be little more than megalomaniacal indulgence by the artist. With art having the capability to transcend boundaries, cultures and religionsit can be a powerful tool to actuate people towards humanitarian ends, bringing people together in an enriching exchange of ideas and thoughts. This would only be possible when art is accessible – physically and cognitively to a majority.

In conclusion, the definition of what makes a piece of work truly art changes over time and neither expert nor popular acclaim can be the litmus test to adjudicate the merit. Art for its own sake serves to stimulate senses of the people and the creative urges of the artist and does not necessitate popular acceptance, but art as a catalyst for change requiresthat must be comprehendible by the populace.

Many important discoveries or creations are accidental: it is usually while seeking the answer to one question that we come across the answer to another.

It was during research for the treatment of gastric ulcers that the scientist accidentally forgot to wash his hands and later discovered a sweet tasting powder that was to be the saccharine. Adventitious instances abound in the scientific and creative process and often the environments are made conducive for such aberrations to present themselves. Indeed some discoveries today might have been very different had these fortuitous events not presented themselves. At the same time it would not be correct to say that chances of happenstance discoveries increases only when answers to another question are being sought.

The importance of the scientific process and design of the research experiment cannot be undermined and must be carefully controlled. There are however incidents which cannot be controlled and in fact have lead to improvised results beyond that derived through a meticulous process. It was thanks largely in part of mercury spilling accidentally and without the knowledge of the inventor, that the photographic process was enriched. Other examples of discoveries that were not predicted in any manner by the researcher include penicillin, the microwave and cornflakes.

While several important innovations have been purely coincidental, as Louis Pasteur said, “chance favors the prepared mind”, accidental happenings also require a qualified person to recognize their importance. In absence of this, many favorable events would merely be rejected as vagaries that need to be ignored or avoided. With increased mechanization and automation, we run the risk of overlooking these incidents and experimenting for improved outcomes. Newton’s coming across the falling apple and his curiosity about the principle, lead to an understanding of gravity. Many people would have seen things drop before him but it was his scientific bent of mind that lead him to question the occurrence.

The field of arts is an area where the importance of accidents is even more pivotal. Artists do not usually start with a defined outcome in mind and often depend on external and internal vicissitudes to evolve their work. By not having a goal in mind and by remaining open to experimentation, they view the process as a means to learn and improve their art. Some literary masterpieces like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas were never intended to be books in the first place, but chance lead to its becoming one of the defining writings of its time. Shakespeare never published any of his plays during his lifetime for fear of losing out audience, he was merely seeking a living when he wrote out plays that were to outlive him for centuries to come.

In conclusion, the process of accidental discoveries and creations is an important one, the impact of which cannot be fully predicted but the merit of which cannot be denounced.

Learning is primarily a matter of personal discipline; students cannot be motivated by school or college alone.

“I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn” These lines by Albert Einstein succinctly capture my views on the process of learning and the role of pedagogues in education. Albert Einstein himself went to school only briefly and thereafter was home schooled and is renowned the world over as a genius par excellence. Another exemplary leader who never went to school was Abraham Lincoln who is widely believed to be the greatest American president in history. Both these men are testimonies to the fact that learning is inherently an innate quality that blossoms with the right stimulus.

Education is not an end in itself; the purpose of education is to prepare students for the life long process of learning so that they can contribute to the development of self, societies and nations. However, the prevailing view of learning in educational institutes worldwide is that students are disinclined to learn which necessitates the fact that they need to be coerced into learning. Alternate views of education are represented in schools like Sudbury schools where students are free to determine their own methodologies of how to learn and the environment is made conducive to aid them in this process – interaction with teachers, students both younger and older and their communities, make their education more holistic and sparks in them a desire to accumulate knowledge. As research shows, students from these schools are more inclined to further their education and enroll in higher institutes of learning as compared to their peers from traditional teacher oriented schools.

It is imperative to be conversant with the fact that teachers do not reserve the exclusive right as the “possessors” of knowledge. Learning arises from interaction with various elements – from the students’ experience and beliefs, from their interaction with fellow students, from extra curricular activities they undertake and from their associations with their community. It is in fact a continuum and for this process to be systemized it is crucial that students are able to amalgamate these experiences and the school acts as a social entity. This enriching and diverse process cannot be encapsulated within any curriculum nor can it be restricted as the prerogative or responsibility of a few. Students themselves need to see the value of learning and their potential as learners, it must impel them form within.

Institutions of learning have the same responsibility and role to play as Anne Sullivan played in the development of Helen Keller. Instructors must act as facilitators and explorers in the process, both imparting knowledge and be willing to learn themselves. The must foster the art of questioning and inquiry and actuate their pupils to seek answers independently. All too often questioning by students is browbeaten and restricted within the confines of the curriculum. This attitude impedes and discourages the students to seek solutions and assay problems from different perspectives. However the purpose of schooling is not to create uniform molds out of students, the pedagogues have the responsibility to bring out an enhance the ability of each student, to encourage those who already have an inquisitive mind and to support those who are getting immured in any manner.

To sum up, teaching is not the exclusive domain of the teacher or learning the sole responsibility of the student. Learning and teaching is a continuous journey that the teacher and the student embark upon together and where each experience is viewed as a means to enrich themselves and the other.

Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.

The author contends that scientists should focus their research and energies only on aspects that have high relevance. The reasoning of the author is likely based on two points 1) research that does not benefit a large number of people would be wasteful as the effort expended could have been utilized to solve a bigger problem, and 2) the scientist himself stands the greatest chance of fame if his inventions have made a significant impact. While both the aspects on which the author basis his opinion are well intentioned, problems that besiege a smaller section of the population cannot be deemed to be less critical. Two other aspects the argument overlooks are that of problems remaining stagnant and that impact of fortuitous discoveries.

An ideal example to assess the merit of the author’s proposal would be the field of medical research. While there are problems that plague a large number of people such as anxiety and stress related ailments, a majority of health concerns are limited to a small section of the population. These range from mental health imbalances like schizophrenia to Down’s Syndrome and stress related ailments; a majority of health concerns are limited to a small section of the population. These concerns though suffered by a few have a largely debilitating effect on the individual affecting their cognitive, sensory and motor functions. Limiting research, then, on the premise that they are not mass concerns would be akin to marginalizing those suffering from these ailments. Both the patient and their families would have nothing to turn to, and would be left at the mercy of their fate, waiting for death to relieve them of their suffering.

Another aspect to consider is that health concerns are manifestations of our lifestyle. The problems deluging us today were not the same problems suffered by our ancestors and the concerns that the future generations are likely to phase cannot also be enlisted today. A large number of predilections we suffer today have their genesis in increasing pollution brought about by industrialization and pursuit of capitalism. Respiratory problems, lung infections, hearing impediments are all outcomes of increasing air and noise pollution. It is a proven fact that the incidence of these diseases is higher today than it was a few decades back. Small pox, on the other hand, was an anathema a large number of our predecessors were immured with but which today has been eliminated. Containing research on any concern because it is not widespread today would be adopting a very myopic and short term view.

The third aspect that the author fails to take into consideration is that the outcome and benefit derived from a breakthrough in a field cannot always be pre ascertained. The radio for instance, was initially meant to be restricted for the exclusive use of the US Navy. Today however, the radio is the most popular media for the entertainment and information of denizens residing in remote villages and third world countries. Another example is that of the commercial dye; the impact of which was fully realized only when the fashion industry started using the dye. It threw open doors for a large number of people to pursue the field of chemistry as a commercially viable career option. Fortuitous discoveries, which were never intended to be, also fall out of the scope of the authors view. Penicillin for instance would likely not have been discovered had Sir Alexander Fleming concerned himself only with solving the larger problems.

In closing it has been highlighted that there are several implications that need to be considered before the debate of the scope of research is settled. In most cases any restriction would be deleterious and the final decision must be based on evaluation of the different perspectives mentioned above.

Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals

The debate raised is essentially one of harmony vs. pursuit of the ideal and I would contend that the debate is far too complex for a single answer to hold true in all situations. Assaying the scenario and debating what represents the larger good would best settle the dichotomy. The government in all cases must work FOR people, not necessarily AS PER the people. 

In the democratic form of government, government officials are voted by the electorate and represent the will of the people. This format has its genesis in inherent trust by the denizens that their elected representatives would carry out their will and work in their interests. To that extent, it is an authorization and approval given to the government officials to exercise their judgment on the behalf of the people. There are atleast two scenarios where it would be necessitated that the elected representatives pursue the ideal – 1) when the decision pits one sections of the population against another and 2) when the decision has long term implications.

What is good for one section of the population might not necessarily be beneficial for the other. What constitutes the will of the people is an extremely divergent and colossal array of needs and requirements. In such cases it is usually the will of the majority or the more powerful section that is taken into consideration. However, in such cases it would be up to a strong leader to determine what is in the larger interest of the nation and base their decision solely on that. Abraham Lincoln, considered one of the greatest US Presidents, had no compulsion to oppose slavery. He faced stiff resistence from his white compatriots and general population. Nevertheless he continued the fight on humanitarian grounds and helped ameliorate the conditions of millions of colored people who were suffering extreme humiliation and debasement.

In many cases, common citizens don’t have a full view of the present situations and they are not aware of / or don’t take into account many other relevant aspects and thus they express a will that is only based on their immediate interests. For instance the population might be inclined that the government divest in developing industry which would propel employment, but it is in the long term interest of the nation that the money instead be allocated to environmental causes. Seeking consensus would be beneficial in the short run, but work to the detriment on the nation in the long run.

However in certain situations, it is often necessary to make compromises in order for the momentum to continue. A my-way-or-the-highway approach works little and signifies a closure of all communication, which is essential to resolve problems. The Great Compromise made on the debate of representation from various states in the US congress highlights one such instance. The flexibility shown was essential to keep all the states happy and ensure that the debate was settled quickly instead of drawing into a long debate.

In summary, there are merits to both sides of the argument. The final decision should be taken after careful analysis of the implications and which route presents the greatest benefit. This is the true test of an effective leader. 

Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.

The debate raised is essentially one of harmony vs. pursuit of the ideal and I would contend that the debate is far too complex for a single answer to hold true in all situations. Assaying the scenario and debating what represents the larger good would best settle the dichotomy. The government in all cases must work FOR people, not necessarily AS PER the people.

In the democratic form of government, government officials are voted by the electorate and represent the will of the people. This format has its genesis in inherent trust by the denizens that their elected representatives would carry out their will and work in their interests. To that extent, it is an authorization and approval given to the government officials to exercise their judgment on the behalf of the people. There are atleast two scenarios where it would be necessitated that the elected representatives pursue the ideal – 1) when the decision pits one sections of the population against another and 2) when the decision has long term implications.

What is good for one section of the population might not necessarily be beneficial for the other. What constitutes the will of the people is an extremely divergent and colossal array of needs and requirements. In such cases it is usually the will of the majority or the more powerful section that is taken into consideration. However, in such cases it would be up to a strong leader to determine what is in the larger interest of the nation and base their decision solely on that. Abraham Lincoln, considered one of the greatest US Presidents, had no compulsion to oppose slavery. He faced stiff resistence from his white compatriots and general population. Nevertheless he continued the fight on humanitarian grounds and helped ameliorate the conditions of millions of colored people who were suffering extreme humiliation and debasement.

In many cases, common citizens don’t have a full view of the present situations and they are not aware of / or don’t take into account many other relevant aspects and thus they express a will that is only based on their immediate interests. For instance the population might be inclined that the government divest in developing industry which would propel employment, but it is in the long term interest of the nation that the money instead be allocated to environmental causes. Seeking consensus would be beneficial in the short run, but work to the detriment on the nation in the long run.

However in certain situations, it is often necessary to make compromises in order for the momentum to continue. A my-way-or-the-highway approach works little and signifies a closure of all communication, which is essential to resolve problems. The Great Compromise made on the debate of representation from various states in the US congress highlights one such instance. The flexibility shown was essential to keep all the states happy and ensure that the debate was settled quickly instead of drawing into a long debate.

In summary, there are merits to both sides of the argument. The final decision should be taken after careful analysis of the implications and which route presents the greatest benefit. This is the true test of an effective leader.

People should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences.

Despite being aware of the harmful consequences of blithe actions, we undertake several risky behaviors. Hedonistic pleasures like smoking, binge drinking, driving with a seatbelt have consequences few would be unaware of. This knowledge though does not contain us as we feel these are relatively small risks and the temporal pleasures we derive from them far outweigh the chances of anything potentially harmful happening to us. Research shows that there is a biological reason for such egregious behavior and dopamine in our brains induces us to be involved in actions for little or sometimes no reward at all.

In other cases, the import of our actions are not completely portent. Should we then stop ourselves from experimenting? Columbus embarked on the journey thinking he was headed towards Asia but he used the peregrination as an exploration and wound up reaching America. Volkswagen’s Beatle revolutionized the creative industry and managed to move advertising from a factual form of communication to sensory advertising harbringing a new creative revolution. The marketers at VW could not have predicted this outcome and in all likelihood would have been advised against their judgment.

As kids we undertook several endeavors such as touching hot objects or approaching a total stranger, which were potentially harmful. Not knowing the consequences actuated us to a large degree in indulging in these acts. As we grew older our appetitive for risk got substantially contained because we can now potentially consider the implications of our actions. However this knowledge has not always merited us. The consequences of this are most apparent in our career decisions and several students prefer to take the path of least resistance, as it is the safest choice to make. Few mavericks are willing to follow their heart to careers that would fully utilize their potential and make them happy. Cognizance of the outcome and the risk involved in such cases is actually detrimental for us.

In closing, the financial turmoil that the world is facing today has led risk to be synonymous with imprudence. Risk however is imperative and beneficial, and the dynamism of the environment does not always make it possible for us to be aware of consequences of all our actions. The challenge then is to continuously balance opportunity and peril and thereafter ascertain the best course of action.

Leaders are created by the demands that are placed on them.

Stories of people such Napoleon and Steve Jobs, one an insignificant corporal who went on the become an emperor and the greatest military  commanders of all times and the other an orphan who dropped out of school but subsequently established the most creative company, incline us to believe that leadership is an inherent quality determined by our genes and not something that can be created or nurtured. I am disinclined to agree with this view and believe that situations and circumstances are catalysts that burgeon leaders, however not everyone takes up this opportunity.

Napoleon himself believed and I paraphrase, “as the nation was perishing I was born”. It was circumstance that impelled people like Napoleon or Martin Luther King Jr. or even Mahatma Gandhi to take responsibility of their surroundings that eventually lead to their apotheosis. Martin Luther King Jr. was in fact reluctant to be involved with the boycott movement following Rosa Parks’s arrest and thereafter the expectations and demands placed on him lead him to become the pioneering figure in the American Civil Rights movement. The discrimination and humiliations that Mahatma Gandhi faced as an Indian in South Africa were instrumental in shaping his views as a social activist, before which he was pursuing a career as an advocate. All three people then were not actively looking to become emissaries of the people, but were relegated to leadership positions.

Experts believe that everyone possesses the same inherent qualities and the capacity for leadership. While some possess personality traits that increase their proclivity to be leaders, these traits are not always nurtured and developed. And whereas most of us have experiences or witnessed crisis like King or Gandhi, not all us choose to learn from those experiences. These dichotomies highlight that leadership potential is often squandered and it is essentially an amalgamation of the circumstance and the inclination of the individual, which distinguish the leaders from the followers.

It is also important to note that the definition of a leader is also circumstantial. Different times call for different kinds of leadership qualities, negating the view that leaders are born. Terrorist attacks during the regime of George Bush Jr. necessitated a leader who could stand up and defend his turf, who could be viewed as a savior from external threats. The financial turmoil of the present, on the other hand requires a leader who can take strategic, cogitated decisions and balance short-term boost with long-term development. In the business arena as well, this definition has evolved from the earlier times where it was believed that leaders’ role was to provide thought leadership, whereas managers were needed for operationalizing and implementing these ideas. Today however, it is imperative that leaders also display qualities of being effective managers.

The arguments extended above conclusively prove that leaders are created by demands of the situations and have to evolve as these situations develop. While each individual has innate capabilities, the choice to exploit these always resides with the individual.

Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.

I concur with both the views put forth by the author and believe that it is not just the luxury, but the responsibility of each individual to comply with just laws and oppose unjust laws. Only a combination of the two can ensure the highest good and well-being of the people. However it is often asserted that it is not always possible to decide the merit of a law and that what is just for one might be unjust for another. In subsequent passages I would be exploring all these various aspects in brief.

Laws provide structural guidelines that delineate behavior and guarantee people their freedom while ensuring that the rights and freedoms of others are not impinged. In absence of legislature, we would be ruled by a state of anarchy and chaos with each individual plundering and pulverizing at will and the law of the jungle where the mighty thrive and the weaker perish, would be true for the human race as well. If for instance, the law guaranteeing right to security of each individual was disobeyed, every individual would be free to kill anyone else they might have the slightest grudge against.

It would be necessitated to define what an unjust law is. Laws when proposed and implemented are done to protect the interests of the society or atleast a section of it. In the case of the latter it can easily be argued that what is good for just for one section my not be good for another. In judging the merit of a law, however, we must weigh it on our moral compass and further consider whether the law protects the interest of the minority and the marginalized. Given this outline, laws that protect the interests of women cannot be said to be unjust. On the other hand, laws in US that legalized slavery or the segregationist laws that existed prior to the civil rights movement, are examples of unjust laws.

Egregious laws such as the two highlighted above resulted in severe subjugation of individuals and legalized various atrocities committed against them. As responsible citizens it is our right to opposed such laws so that the interests of the majority and the weaker sections of the society are protected. Abraham Lincoln, being a white, had no compulsion to oppose slavery. However he did so on humanitarian grounds and helped ameliorate the conditions of millions of colored people who were suffering extreme humiliation and debasement. If Martin Luther King Jr. had not advocated the rights of black Americans, it would be impossible to match the growth and progress the country has made.

Even when laws are consistent for the entire populace but immure their rights as individuals, the laws would be classified as unjust. Such laws are prevalent in autocratic and dictatorship governments. These laws are only promulgated to the protect the interest of the ruler and the cost of the well-being of the citizens. The state has wide-sweeping powers to undertake any action that it believes is against the interest of the state and several human rights violations have taken place under the garb of state protectionism. As evidenced by Arab Spring, such injustices perpetrated against the denizens cannot continue unabated forever and sooner or later there would be an uprising to overthrow the tyrannical leader. The economic costs of such rules and uprisings are leviathan and arrest the growth of the nation.

Through examples along a diaspora of situations it has been established that questioning egregious laws has a direct impact on the well being of the populace and the growth and prosperity on the nation. Questioning authority then, in instances of gross misconduct by the authorities, becomes our responsibility. At the same time, disobeying laws that are just would lead to disarray and chaos and curb the freedom that law are supposed to grant us.

Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed.

Freedom of information to the population is a right that is enshrined in international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is believed to be the cornerstone of every democracy. Freedom of citizens to seek and access information has wide merits and except for cases where withholding information from the public is in the larger interest of the nation, any curtailment of this freedom would result in a demagogic state of affairs.

At the outset, exceptions to this fundamental right must be enlisted. International charter of human rights defines these unequivocally as instances where there is a threat to national security, law and order, rights and reputations of others and public health and morals. In the event of war, classified information, which would endanger national security if access were available to egregious elements, must be curtailed from reaching the laity. This is necessitated, as it is impossible to delineate anti national elements from amongst the populace. Secrecy in matters is also prudent when unsubstantiated information is likely to cause panic and pellmell in the nation.

Barring the above instances, free flow of information is essential for the citizens to participate actively in the governance of the society. It is impossible for the government or legislation to guarantee the security of each and every individual and in instances of possible terrorist attacks, the denizens cannot be vigilant unless they are disclosed information about possible terror attacks that the intelligence agencies have intercepted. A complete disclosure of facts, endangered locations and modus operendi of the terrorists is crucial if such events are to be thwarted.

Effective governance is a misnomer in absence of accountability of public officials who work on behalf of the citizens. Corruption and red tapism is rampant in countries where the populace does not have the right to demand information about how the money they pay as taxes is being utilized. Stastics prove that countries where the right to information act has been enacted, have been successful inr educing corruption and mismanagement. Stastics also reveal that 9 out of 10 countries that rated high on government transparency, had an effective legislation whereby people had the freedom to peruse government documents. In India, the right to information act has been instrumental in implicating many high ranking public officials who had plundered the tax payers money.

Transparency in government working is also essential for citizens to make a more informed decision about their elected representatives. In absence of such information, the decision would be based purely on rhetoric and in certain cases vote buying. In less developed countries politicians often rig up data and false facts during election time to convince the electorates about the impact they have made. An uninformed citizenry would have no way of adjudging the veracity of these claims and would be hoodwinked into voting for those who have the political and mercenary muscle to influence opinion. Even the government officials are impelled to work for the good of the people under the watchful eye of an informed citizenry.

In closing, when the larger interest of the nation is taken into consideration there is no justification of information being suppressed from the public. Free access to government policies and decisions is imperative for effective governance, enhanced transparency and informed decision making which are pillars that strengthen a nation. With the preclusion of matters where disclosure of information is likely to impede the functioning of the nation, there is no cogent argument for such censorship.