Is Pen vs Sword a real issue?

I think, when compared with sword, pen would symbolize ‘argument’. And sword would stand for every kind of physical or authoritative power. Even the so-called power of ‘knowledge’ also would rightly be classified under the category of ’sword’.

So I think it wrong to compare pen with sword. When pen is used for the sake of negative or aggressive propaganda, again it is not representing knowledge. Here it is representing power. Pen should represent only harmless arguments, whose aim should be to logically prove or disprove the outstanding issue. And only justice minded people accept the truth of such logical arguments. In case, a powerful person is justice minded also and in this way he accepts the truth of argumentative proof and decides to act in accordance with truth; here pen has not defeated the sword. Pen didn’t fight any war with sword. Pen only conveyed the truth to a justice minded person and has influenced him in this way.

Once Wasif Ali Wasif told an example of Hazrat Isa (AS) to a person who had asked some question from him. Example was that once a person saw that Hazrat Isa (AS) was running away from a person. That person amazingly asked Hazrat Isa (AS) why he was so running. Hazrat Isa (AS) replied that he was running away from an idiot person. That person was idiot because he had no ability to understand truth or he was ready to reply pen with sword. The meaning of this symbolic example is that to counter the threat of sword is not the function of pen and it is quite useless or wrong to put logical arguments before those who either don’t possess the ability of understanding the truth or who do not believe in justice.

To counter the threat of some kind of sword, we actually need the same or some other kind of sword. If others are armed or equipped with the sword of authoritative power, we can counter this threat with the sword of physical power or even with the sword of knowledge. When knowledge assumes the form of sword, then it is however not representing pen. Actually pen cannot win any war against sword. To fight with sword, we will have to leave the pen and hold one or the other type of sword. Or we should run away from that sword because it is the right solution.

As pen is quite ineffective before sword, so I am not against holding up of sword. But we should hold sword (may be even sword of knowledge), with the view to safeguard pen. Our sword should not be against the point of view of pen.

Furthermore, arguments or even propaganda etc. are the representatives of pen only if their aim is to logically prove or disprove the related issue.

Practically, power is also an argument. Suppose I am powerful and my opponent is on the right. Now I “argue” by asking my opponent that I am on the right, so you accept my point of view, otherwise be ready to face such and such consequences. What could be the “logical” reply to such an argument? I think “logically” it has been proved that I am on the right until and unless my opponent also comes up with force with the view to decide the matter in battlefield. Here power is a valid argument. But this valid argument is not representing pen. As I mentioned earlier that in order to be the representative of pen, argument should be harmless. Likewise some other things, which apparently seem to be the representatives of pen, are actually the representatives of sword. USA’s huge scientific nature military devices are the product of knowledge, but are not the representatives of pen. Those are actually swords of knowledge. This sword of knowledge may not always defend the point of view of pen. This sword of knowledge can be raised against the pint of view of pen as well.

I am not against holding the sword of knowledge in hand. I am only saying that whatever sword we possess, we must use it only with the view to defend the point of view of pen. Even if the sword of knowledge is defending the point of view of pen, still this sword is the representative of power. This sword of knowledge is fighting with another sword, which has been raised against the point of view of pen. Pen itself never fights any war against sword.

Quran first time allowed Muslims to fight wars in following words:

(002.190)
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

So when opponents come up with power, its only solution is to reply them with power. According to an Hadith, Prophet (PBUH) advised Muslims to keep in possession at least those military weapons as are in possession of enemies.

So the real issue is not of pen vs sword. The issues are two. First issue is that which sword is better and superior? Is it the sword of propagenda, or sword of knowledge, or sword of ignorant mob, or some other kind of sword? And the second issue is that should sword always be raised just to defend the point of view of pen, or it can be raised against pen?

Should we use the sword of knowledge? My reply would be that real purpose of knowledge is not to get power. Knowledge should be acquired with the view to live a better knowledgeful life. But since we face the threat of swords of enemies. So we also should hold every kind of sword, including the sword of knowledge as well. But we should use this sword with the only purpose to save the pen from the opposing swords. And point of view of pen can only be equity and justice.

Knowledge of Objects and Properties:

It seems that all our knowledge is confined to the knowledge of ‘objects’ and the ‘properties’ of those objects.

‘Objects’ are of two types i.e. (i) Material Objects and; (ii) Abstract Objects.

We get the knowledge of ‘Material Objects’ via our faculties of sense perception. Knowledge of ‘Abstract Objects’ mainly comes from ‘thinking and imagination’ activities. I also believe that we cannot ‘think’ or ‘imagine’ anything until and unless all the components or objects of our ‘thinking’ or ‘imagination’ are completely traceable to our ‘perceptional’ or ‘sense-experience’ based knowledge. What we do while ‘thinking’ or ‘imagining’ is just to manipulate, reshape, or re-organize our existing ‘knowledge’ or ‘information’. As our ‘existing knowledge’ contains knowledge of both ‘objects’ and ‘properties’ (or characteristics) of objects, so while reshaping this ‘existing knowledge’, we may assign the already known properties to any un-known or anonymous ‘object’ with the view to explain or account for any complicated or complex observable phenomenon. This is in my opinion, the way in which we get knowledge of ‘abstract objects’ using our faculties of ‘thinking and imagination’.

And the knowledge of ‘properties’ or ‘characteristics’ comes from two sources, which are (i) Sense Experience and; (ii) Thinking and Imagination.

Here I also differentiate between ‘sense perception’ and ‘sense experience’. We can think of ‘sense perception’ as ‘direct awareness’ of ‘material objects’ using our senses. This ‘direct awareness’ has to be restricted to only the present moment. For example as in the present moment, I am watching monitor screen, so this direct awareness of monitor screen is ‘sense perception’ in this case. ‘Sense Experience’ would have slightly different meanings in this context. ‘Sense Experience’ is not just ‘direct awareness’ of any object via senses. It is actually our knowledge of the ‘observed’ outcome of the ‘observed’ event. The observed event and its corresponding outcome may not relate to exact present moment. So basically ‘sense experience’ is the knowledge of a ‘causal connection’ between some event and its corresponding outcome.

The purpose of explaining the difference between ‘sense perception’ and ‘sense experience’ is to mention that we do not get knowledge of ‘properties’ or ‘characteristics’ of ‘objects’ via ‘sense perception’. We get knowledge of ‘properties’ or ‘characteristics’ either through ‘sense experience’ or ‘thinking and imagination’. Let, for example, I see two similar bags. The direct awareness via senses, of the presence of those bags is the ‘sense perception’. Now I do an experiment. I lift one of the bags and come to know that it is quite heavy. The knowledge of ‘heaviness’ i.e. a ‘property’ has come from an experiment, which is ‘sense experience’.

As I stated that in addition to ‘sense experience’, the other source of getting knowledge of ‘properties’ is ‘thinking and imagination’. It is important to remember that through the experiment of lifting one of the bags, I had got knowledge of the ‘heaviness property’ of only one of the bags. But since I possess the faculty of ‘thinking and imagination’ also, so I can make assessment about the corresponding ‘property’ of other bag without repeating the same experiment. Since both the bags are apparently similar, so I can derive an analogical conclusion about the corresponding ‘property’ of other bag in a way that I just ‘assign’ the already known ‘heaviness property’ of a similar bag to the other bag whose ‘heaviness property’ is experimentally unknown. In this way I have got ‘knowledge’ of ‘property’ of an object through the process of ‘thinking and imagination’.

‘Happiness’ & ‘Enjoyment’:

There is difference between ‘happiness’ and just ‘enjoyment’. ‘Enjoyment’ is a temporary feeling whereas ‘happiness’ is characterized by durability, inner self satisfaction etc.etc. Enjoyment always come with momentery smiles and laughing whereas real happiness can bring tears of happiness. Enjoyment can be found in carelessness and irresponsible attitudes, whereas happiness comes mainly from caring behaviour and sense of responsibility.

But at the same time, ‘enjoyment’ and ‘happiness’ are not any opposite entities. Enjoyment also can lead to the ultimate destination of happiness.