For my Philosophy students who still lack some things for their activity. Kindly answer this Special Qualifying Exam. Your score shall then be divided into how many your lacking activities are and as such will therefore be your grades for those. Please read the instructions first since I will be strict on that. Deadline will be on Friday at 3pm sharp. Late papers shall not be accepted. Marcos Burial and the Death of History: A Philosophy Teacher's View on the Marcos-LNMB Issue8/9/2016 The burial of Mr Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) will supposedly bring unity into our divided nation. But will it be? But first let me be clear. I am just giving my opinion and may philosophical analysis on the issue which means that a good analytical reading of this article is required for one to react logically (which is rare at the moment). I, too, am a millennial, so I have not experienced the Martial Law days myself and am only reviewing it and its effect from a far. The clamor for the burial of the Dictator and the overwhelming support to his son in the latest election (Junior ranked second in the 2016 Vice Presidential Race, a fact that will shame Hitler and the gang) is a reaction to the gleaming ignorance of the previous administrations especially the latest who bears the name of the heroes of the People Power Revolution that saw the downfall of the dictator. Filipinos being Filipinos do not like change happening gradually, we love miracles - miracles that happen overnight. We love quikie. And the post-EDSA administrations did not give this. The orgasmic experience we have always desired have not yet been felt. Adding insult to injury is the experience of the last administration. Yes, I would agree that there are indeed good rulings of the Second Aquino Empire but the stains in his gleaming armor are very noticeable. What with the SAF 44? The DAP and Pork? The scolding of the bishops in front of the pope? The RH Claw, er, Law? And the list goes on and on. These are the reason why millennials, ignorant of the Martial Law experience (sorry for harsh words but I mean it) and fed up by the reigning oligarchs of the country (I share this view), supported Marcos and his son and even have the guts to accuse someone of ignorance and threaten him if ever he trespasses the supposed good name of the Senior. This is actually very blatant in the social media. Institutions, once trusted especially at times of trouble when the government is no longer credible, are now subject to persecution. Well, it is good to note that these institutions too are the ones responsible for the fall of Oldy Voldy: the Church, the Media (the second and the fourth estates), and the academe. Historians and other academicians who were against the Marcos heist were now branded as "yellow puppies". Gone were their degrees and achievements because "they are so blind as to see the light of the Martial Law". So, academicians now are forced to be like the infamous historians that Ferdie Sr commissioned in the 70's to RE-write the history of the Philippines making it look like the "Bagong Lipunan" is actually what the founding fathers really want and the supposed awards of valor of the Lord Voldemort are true. What is happening to our beautiful land? This phenomenon, I argue, will not bring undisputed unity and healing to our divided nation. If Mr Marcos Sr's actions toward the Islands were really just misinterpreted by the ruling oligarchs and their "church-media-academic cronies" then his burial to the LNMB will really bring unity to our lands seeing that an innocent man's name will at last be cleaned. But the case is not. I myself once believed that the Dictatorship is the best thing that happened in the Philippines just like what the Filipino elite though about the American robbery of the Insurrecion and the Republic in 1890's. But vis-a-vis the countless victims of human rights violations during those times one is only committed to silence. It is noteworthy that this silence is similar to what one feels when one is in Auschwitz. What will happen if we will allow the Old Dictator to be buried into the hallowed grounds of our heroes' cemetery? We will lose our historical consciousness as a people. There are people nowadays who dismiss history as a work of paid historians in yellow ties but this view defeats the history not just of the Islands but also of humanity. Everything is now suspect because everything is supposedly biased. And indeed we might agree with them that Husserl's prejudice-free world is really just a Utopia but following Ricouer we must select the best of our biases. The bias of the historian is the bias of experience. They are the ones who experienced it firsthand and the experience is something from below not from above. Culturally speaking, we are a people fond of forgiveness (and that is theologically right) but we are also fond of forgetfulness. Old Dictator's Lady of the Shoes now a congresswoman. Old Plundering President now a mayor of the capital. Old Man of the Senate now in freedom. Yes, the Filipino people are a people of the present and never of history. The effect of this is the identity crisis of our culture because we forget the past. Some said that one should not linger on the past so that one can move forward. Yes might be but I dare to disagree. The past is there in order for us to learn the lessons of the pains and joys of it. If we will just forget it then we will be pilgrims without origin - a people unsure of where to go. Abstract:Pope Francis issued an encyclical entitled Laudato Si': On the Care of our Common Home. In line with this, the Ateneo Alumni Organization hosted a conversation on the said topic. This paper presents the arguments presented, especially that of Dr. Fabian Dayrit, on the Technocratic Paradigm and the environment.
My students and others studying the human person and the environment will find this paper useful especially those writing their thesis. Does man have soul? This question have boggled philosophers' minds through the ages. Since Socrates, this question has been tried to be answered. Socrates believes in reincarnation. For him, and for his student Plato, the soul is immortal unlike the body which logically means for Socrates that the soul can transport to another body when its original body dies (but this is not just Socrates' and Plato's idea, even the Hindus have the concept of the Karma wherein a person's soul can be transported to an animal's body when he dies). In fact, Socrates argues that the soul actually knows everything it just enters a state of "amnesia" or "drunkenness" when embodied. Plato actually got more further. Plato argues that reality can be seen through two ways: the sensible world and the World of Forms. The former is like a mold wherein the latter was molded and formed into being. Thus, the mold is logically greater than the molded. For Plato the sensible world is just a copy of the World of Forms. The World of Forms is eternal and immutable while the other is not. Walang forever. The soul, for Plato, participates in the World of Forms and thus the body is just a "copy" of it and the value between the two is clearly seen. Asserting the existence of the soul, the question remains: what is the relationship of the soul and the body. Following this ancient tradition, our favorite mathematician, Rene Descartes, argued that the soul and the body have no relation at all. In fact, you can actually doubt the existence of your body! The only thing that you cannot doubt is the existence of doubt which means that there is a I who doubts. The ego or the self for Descartes is equivalent to the mind, psyche in Greek, or can also be called the soul. Thus, cogito ergo sum! This view known as dualism. For Descartes the soul/mind works independently from the body (they are just like two synchronized clocks that's why you think they have a connection). In fact, another philosopher by the name of Leibniz adopted this view and even asserted that what only exists are monads (you can call them the mind/soul). This view got the attention of the Englishman, David Hume. Hume, along with other empiricists, would argue that things which do not have empirical evidence should be "committed to the flames!" and so is the idea of the soul. What persists now is the body. But even the body does not persist. The body's components (i.e. cells/tissues) are degenerating and regenerating over time. Your cells when you were born will be completely replaced by newer cells at the age of 20's. Thus the existence of the Self or personhood is put into question. Hume asserts that there is actually no self but Selves in the plural. "There is no you that is the same person from birth to death". Having seen the extreme let us now examine the middle.
The phenomenologists, led by Edmund Husserl, reacted to these extremes. The lowly treatment on the body is an injustice to it and the non-existence of the soul is problematic. Gabriel Marcel an existentialist and phenomenologist argues that the relation of the soul to the body is seen in two ways: "I have my body" and "I am my body". The former connotes property but not a normal possessive element. In everything one owns he do not have only control over it but responsibility as well. This can be clearly seen in material possessions but what more is the body? Of all one's possessions the body is the most personal, thus it connotes a higher responsibility. This brings us to the second view: I am my body. My body is part of who am I. I cannot experience the world (and know who am I) if I do not have the body. The human person is historical, that is, he have a story behind his every move - he experienced, experiences, and will experience the world. But this world can only be experienced through the body. Taking from this cue, Maurice Merleau-Ponty would argue that the body is essential especially in relating to other people. It is through what he calls "phenomenology of perception" that we experience the other. It is through the body that we know another. Just like Jean-Paul Sartre in his article "The Look" (from his great book, Being and Nothingness), Merleau-Ponty argues that the very reason we cannot objectify the other person is because of the experience of seeing him looking at me and this can only happen if we have and are bodies. From this, we should now view the perspective of another type of monism: i.e. the soul and the body composes man. This view has been held by St Augustine of Hippo, St Thomas Aquinas and other Christian Philosophers. For them, a man is a human being if he is composed of both body and soul. Without one of them he is no longer human. Thus the soul alone we can call a "ghost" or "spirit" and the body alone is a "mannequin". This was furthered by Karol Wyjtola (a.k.a. St John Paul II) who do not only followed the Christian /Scholastic Philosophers but also subscribed to the ideas of the Phenomenologists. Wyjtola would say to us that what makes man truly human is the combination of both body and soul. This is the reason why man is an "embodied spirit". Because of this, the body is no longer a disposable vessel for the soul as we have seen Descartes and Leibniz would imply and the soul is still there unlike Hume's assertion. Only one problem remains unspoken. Is there an afterlife? The answer lies in your hands. |
anonymous lenzJust a traveling someone in this reality we have fallen in love with... this we call our world... "What is essential is invisible to the eyes..." Tags
All
"The absolutely other is the Other" Archives
September 2018
"There is only one corner in the universe that you can be certain of improving and that's your own Self" |