Well, there was a power cut and all my thoughts got muddled up. Guess I'll finish this up some other time. Sorry for this discontinuity, but guess those who say you never know what is coming the next moment are not so wrong.
What is life? part -1
I have heard that people often look back at their lives and decide how well they have fared depending on the adulation they have received from other mortals. Several people have challenged this approach to measuring one's success through the eyes of others. They ask why it is so important to base your evaluation of your life on what other people have got to say about it. In fact, I am not an rigorous believer of either of the two philosophies. Being more of a moderate, I believe that what we have done with our lives, affects not only us, but also a myriad other people. So it should have atleast some consent on their parts. However, the final power of evaluation should lie within our personal domain. An interesting business practice which emulates this concept is self appraisal, which lets us decide for ourselves how good(or bad) we are. This approach, though it has it's critics and imperfectons, especially since we mostly over emphasise on our successes and miniaturize our failings, more so in a public forum, gives an interesting insight into the human thought process, that of realising how we consider ourselves as people, how judgemental we are about the same failings we would have grossly blasted someone else for doing, when we do the same ourselves. However, on the other end of the spectrum, we see another intriguing example. The objective evaluation, that of examinations, well how objective are they really. We have seen more than once that examinations turn out to be more of blackjack and less asbout knowledge. The objective questions that we see today, as opposed to the older style of subjective, essay like answers of yesteryears, might me much more examiner-independent, but do they really fulfil the purpose of evaluation of knowledge? Would it not be an infinitely better, albeit utopian approach, to have a question like, say in 2000 words what you know about this subject, or for the sake of uniformity, about this subtopic. Two questions of this sort could easily make up a three hour paper. But then people would start saying that the teacher didn't go into the trouble of setting a proper paper. In an utopian world, what they thought wouldn't have mattered, but then, welcome to this El-Dorado. The marking could be done in an interesting manner too, by making all the students check all the papers and averaging out the marks every student got from them.