Essays: On Libraries

Yes, marriage is a social institution. It is a pattern of behaviour that society recognises, regulates and passes from one generation to the next. It has shared norms and expectations about roles, fidelity, support and permanence, it is backed by law, religion and community, and it carries public status. These features make it more than a private relationship between two people.

The digital library does not interest the author because it lacks the human touch and the living, shared experience of a real library.

In Oliver Sacks's essay "On Libraries," he recalls the physical library of his childhood as a warm, communal place where books, shelves, and fellow readers created a living atmosphere. A digital library, by contrast, is cold and impersonal — it offers only text on a screen, with no smell of books, no browsing among shelves, and no sense of a shared space where one can meet other minds. For the author, reading is bound up with this bodily and social experience, so the digital library feels empty and fails to attract him.

The author was biased towards science because of his upbringing and early surroundings. He grew up in an environment where scientific knowledge, curiosity and enquiry were valued, so he naturally looked at the world through science and gave it more importance than other fields, such as literature.

In his discussion of marriage as a social institution, Steven Nock explains that marriage in America is governed by a set of shared social expectations, which can be seen in six dimensions.

1. Moral dimension: Marriage is seen as the right and honourable way to live together and raise a family. It is expected to be permanent, and breaking it is judged morally.
2. Legal dimension: Marriage is recognised and regulated by law. It gives husband and wife rights and duties concerning property, inheritance, children and support.
3. Role (gender) dimension: There are expected roles for husband and wife. Traditionally the husband was the provider and head of the family, while the wife managed the home and children.
4. Identity dimension: Marriage changes how people see themselves and how others see them. A person becomes a husband or wife, and a woman often takes her husband's name.
5. Obligation and fidelity dimension: Spouses are expected to be faithful, to support each other, and to share resources, in sickness and in health.
6. Social recognition dimension: Marriage is publicly celebrated and acknowledged by family, friends, community and religion, so the couple is treated as a unit with a recognised place in society.

Together these dimensions show that marriage is far more than a private relationship; it is an institution with norms that guide and bind the couple.

According to Harari, the universal human abilities are morality, art, spirituality and creativity. They are shared by all human beings and are rooted in our common DNA, so no single nation, religion or tribe can claim to have invented them or to own them.

Yes, I agree. In the present world, nations, religions and ethnic groups often use history to prove that they are older, greater or more civilised than others, and these claims feed disputes and even conflict. Debates about who first built civilisation, who invaded whom and whose heroes are real are therefore intense. History is treated less as a search for truth than as a tool for pride and politics, which makes it a major debatable issue.

Yes, wisdom can be taught to some extent, though not by facts alone. Russell suggests that education should widen a student's outlook and lessen narrow self-interest. It can be done by teaching students to look at things in a broad way and to judge them with a sense of proportion. For example, studying history shows how past leaders made wise or foolish choices, and learning about other cultures and people helps students avoid prejudice. Literature, discussion and good teachers who model fairness and balance also help to build wisdom.

Yes, marriage is different from other networks of relation. A friendship or a workplace tie is voluntary and can be ended easily, whereas marriage is publicly recognised, protected by law and surrounded by strong social norms. It carries clear identities (husband and wife), mutual obligations and the expectation of permanence, and it is accepted by family and community. These institutional features set it apart from other relationships.

The Hindu nativists reject the Chinese nationalists' claim that civilisation began in China. They argue instead that India is the true cradle of human culture, that ancient Indians (the Vedic people) were native to the land and had already created science, philosophy and civilisation, and that whatever others have was learned from India. Each side thus uses history to claim superiority for its own tribe.

The essayist wants readers to puncture the "hot-air balloons" because every tribe, nation or religion inflates an exaggerated sense of its own greatness, as if it alone had created civilisation. These puffed-up claims are empty like balloons and they lead to arrogance, hatred and conflict. By puncturing them, people learn humility, see that achievements belong to all humanity, and can live together in peace.

The Chinese nationalists assert that human civilisation began in China. They hold that the Chinese people have their own ancient origin, tracing it to early humans on Chinese soil, and that the great ideas of civilisation grew from Chinese culture, so that China is the source and teacher of the world.

Queen Elizabeth I used wisdom truly and wisely by looking at problems in a broad and balanced way instead of acting from passion or narrow interest. She steered England between bitter religious quarrels, chose capable advisers and put the good of the nation before her personal feelings. Her calm judgement and sense of proportion helped her keep the country stable in a dangerous age.

The author reaches this conclusion because these abilities are found in all human societies at all times. Every culture, however remote or different, has moral codes, art, religion or spirituality, and creative ways of living. Since they appear everywhere in the same human species, they cannot belong to one tribe's culture alone; they must come from our shared biology. In my opinion this is a convincing argument, as no group has ever been found without them.

Yes, I agree that wisdom is more important than knowledge. Knowledge means information and skills, but it can be used for good or for harm, as nuclear weapons show. Wisdom is the ability to judge rightly, to see things in proportion and to use knowledge for the good of all. A person with much knowledge but no wisdom may do harm, whereas a wise person uses even limited knowledge well.

A sense of proportion means judging how important each thing is and not giving too much weight to one's own interests or to small matters. It contributes to wisdom because a wise person can see the whole picture, give each issue its proper value, and avoid being carried away by anger, pride or narrow concerns. This allows calm and balanced decisions.

Comprehensiveness is important for a wise man because wisdom depends on looking at a matter from every side. A person with a narrow view sees only part of the problem and may decide unfairly. By taking in many facts, effects and viewpoints, including those of other people and of the long term, the wise man reaches balanced and sound judgements.

In "On Libraries", Oliver Sacks writes about two kinds of libraries: the traditional physical library of books, and the modern digital library. The physical library impresses me much more.

First, it is a living place. The smell of old books, the rows of shelves and the quiet atmosphere make reading a rich experience for the senses. Second, browsing among the shelves often leads to unexpected discoveries; one picks up a book by chance and finds something new, which is harder in a search-driven digital catalogue. Third, a real library is shared. Readers, librarians and writers meet in it, and this gives a feeling of belonging to a community of minds. Finally, reading a printed book is free from the distractions of a screen, so it allows deeper concentration.

A digital library has its own benefits, such as speed and easy access from anywhere, but it lacks this human warmth and the pleasure of the physical space. For these reasons, I prefer the physical library.

Steven Nock, the essayist, differentiates between a married couple and a cohabiting couple on the basis of institutional features.

• Social norms and expectations: Marriage comes with well-defined roles, duties and standards of behaviour that everyone understands. Cohabitation has no such clear script, so partners must decide their roles for themselves.
• Legal recognition: Married couples are bound by law in matters of property, inheritance and support, while cohabiting couples have few or no such rights and duties.
• Public recognition: Marriage is publicly declared and accepted by family, friends and community, giving the couple a recognised identity as husband and wife. Cohabitation is often private and ambiguous in status.
• Commitment and permanence: Marriage is expected to last, and ending it is a serious matter. Cohabiting relationships are seen as more temporary and are easier to leave.

Hence, the essayist argues that marriage is an institution, whereas cohabitation is merely a private arrangement between two people.

When he was late for lunch, the author was in the library, so absorbed in the books he was reading that he lost track of time.

Nock sees marriage as a social institution, not merely a private relationship. According to him, marriage is regulated by shared norms, laws and expectations that tell husbands and wives how to behave, and that give them clear identities and duties. It has several dimensions (moral, legal, role-based, identity-related, obligatory and social), and it is publicly recognised by family, friends and the community. He also holds that marriage differs from cohabitation because it is bound by these norms and expected to be permanent. He further believes that marriage shapes people, especially men, by making them responsible and committed.

I agree with Nock. Marriage in most societies, including Nepal, is a public event involving families, rituals and law, and it brings expectations of fidelity, mutual support and care for children. These social norms make married life more stable and give couples recognition and security that informal relationships often lack. However, I would add that marriages today are changing, as roles become more equal and many couples choose their own pattern; but the institutional character of marriage remains.