Oscar Wilde must know that Same can be different

Oscar Wilde must know that Same can be different

By Dr. Sohail Ansari

Conceived and worded by DR Sohail Ansari (originality of concepts and originality of words).

He believes that there can never be a zero scope for improvement and appreciates criticism if it is not for the sake of criticism.

·      A child is rightly diagnosed by a doctor but parents trying to prevent a child from being stigmatized with the diagnosis continue to visit doctors till they hear the answer different from the one they know to be the right answer.

Oscar Wilde must know that Same can be different

·        Law is the means to an end but becomes the blunt instrument when means become the end. For theft Islam prescribes amputation of hand as the punishment. Amputation is the means to an end that is to restrain people form theft). Law is blind (and it must be) in a sense that it applies to everyone regardless of his status; gender and age; but law is not blind (and it must not be) in a sense that it does not apply to a group it is not intended for. Second rightly guided Caliph (respected Omar) suspended the law of theft during the extreme famine in his reign. Punishing people stealing food because of hunger not because of the habit or because of the sinister urge to steal was the great injustice; therefore there was no amputation of hand as long as famine lasted. Crime (stealing) was same but it was different as intentions were different. Action does not define itself; this is the intention that gives meaning to it; therefore crime must not determine punishment. Determining punishment by crime is a crime as it obliterates the difference between intentional and unintentional.

We can see the importance of intention in other areas as well. What one thinks is less important than why one thinks; for example, two individuals think to help poor; one thinks out of genuine sympathy; while other expects his help to be translated into votes. Here again we have a paradox: same but different; thinking is same but it is different in a sense that it makes one altruist and other opportunist (if it is a right word to define him).

Similar act can be different act. A fallacy: people think more of food than they do of religion; therefore food is more important than God. This is ridiculous as one thinks of food because of his biological needs; one does not plan to be thirsty, one becomes thirsty; but one has to persuade himself to think of religion as he has no biological urge to do so. Thinking is similar but it is not of similar things (God and Food); therefore same but different.

Oscar Wilde said ‘there is only one class in the community that thinks more about money than the rich, and that is the poor’. Poor people are affected by money. Money heats their stoves, stitch their wounds and clothe their children. Every time a poor man goes hungry, every time a poor man needs clothes, every time he feels the need of a shelter, he is reminded of the importance of money. Poor people do not plan to think of money they think of money because they are forced to do so. Money does not remind rich of its importance every time as he has already enough to meet all his biological needs. Act is similar (thinking) and of same thing (money); but it is same but different because rich and poor perceive money very differently; for poor it is the means for survival and for rich is the means to multiply: Money begets money. Reasons for thinking of money are different: poor think unintentionally and rich intentionally.