“Domine ut Videam” (Lord, that I may see) "Faith without reason is blind; reason without Faith is lame," thus goes a maxim introduced to me by Ka Abe Tuibeo. In an article entitled Science, Philosophy, Religion (In Romualdo Abulad and Alfredo Co (eds.), Two Filipino Thomasian Philosophers on Postmodernism (Manila: UST Press, 2004), pp. 150-178) Br. Romualdo Abulad journeys unto the realms of these three vast spheres, not just of knowledge, but so too, of human experience. Oftentimes, and this is what we call “normal,” humanity is divided between these three seemingly contradictory views on human existence. Science, being the only valid source of truth about life; philosophy, as the past time of the elite who has nothing to do and so is worthless too; and religion, which is the source of all corruption of the Truth and is full of myths – this is what we conceive of these three “normally.” Br. Abulad, on the other hand, does not agree. The thesis of the article is that: “Science presupposes a scientific consciousness. This scientific consciousness… is what is common in all sciences. Where they differ is in their object.” That is, there is a meeting point in philosophy, religion and science, they only differ in their ends. This “scientific consciousness” is not just compounded on the province of cold empiricism and data that our modern conception of a scientist gives us. Rather, as Husserl puts it, Bewusstsein von Etwas, consciousness is always a consciousness of something. This consciousness is not just a consciousness of something observable. Scientific knowledge, thus, is the consciousness of the whole Truth – physical and metaphysical – in Hegel’s words: Wahre ist das Ganze (The truth is the whole), i.e. to be scientific is not to be scientistic (compounded only on empirical science as if it is the only fountain of truth) but to embrace the whole – to recognize the achievement both of science (e.g. the natural sciences) and that of religion. Society must accept that science is not the only glass wherein man can look over the world – there are other glasses out there! Martin Heidegger, the great German Philosopher, said that Truth is aletheia that is, "uncovering". In the Truth, you uncover something, you let it stand naked amidst the cold observation of everyone in the room. Both science and religion aims for this aletheia. Both disciplines would like to strip things of their clothes and reveal what really is hidden inside. In this, both science and religion agree. What, then, is philosophy’s role? Philosophy has always been a “handmaid,” Br. Abulad would say in the article, and again she is called to be – a handmaid for the interconnection of religion and science through her criticality of both. Sure, this is a hard task for the philosopher, he might even meet his death with it, but again Veritas liberabit vos! (The Truth will set you free!). The philosopher must always be the "devil's advocate" - always critical to what science and religion says. When either disciplines begins to impose dogmas (of course, religion has to teach dogmas) philosophy must be able to question these in order not to destabilize religion or science but to strengthen their position. Without philosophy's razor, the hairs of either science or religion might become too long that they will become Rapunzels trapped in their own ivory towers. In our age characterized as "Post-Truth", that is, the Truth no longer matters only emotions - Facts were no longer heeded only opinions of the highest paid trolls and reason is no longer the sign of sophistication but brutal remarks and ad hominem arguments of popular politicians and their trolls - what then is faith, science and philosophy's role? I argue that these three must once again see their commonality, that is the "Scientific consciousness", and use this awareness to safeguard the Truth and remain a witness to it in a world so allergic to it. After all, in this aletheia, science sees the Truth as its goal, philosophy as its sole reason of being, and religion as its Christ (didn't Christ said that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life?). It's been a while since my last blog so in a way this is a resurrection.
February... a month full of reds (not communist though, sorry Marx) and chocolates (happy feast day to Ferrero and Kisses!). If ever the number of newborns on November will increase you'll know why... Well, traditionally, for better or worse, February has been known for two things: (1) it is the only month composed of 29 days and it only happens every leap year and (2) it's the month of hearts i.e. Valentine's day. So let me shatter your sweet clingy-wingy day with a philosophical reflection or rather a book review. A newly ordained Jesuit, Fr Patrick Vance S. Nogoy, SJ, has just published his book, Touching Love: Thoughts and Stories (Pasay: Paulines, 2016). Last Friday, February 10, 2014, I attended his public lecture in Xavier University Cagayan de Oro. So basically this essay is just a re-echo of what has been discussed (though not that comprehensive since I haven't finished the book yet). Fr Pat reflects on what is the place of love in this world characterized as a Post-truth society. But before anything else, what's Post-truth? "Post-truth" is Oxford Dictionary's 2016 word of the year; it simply means that facts and evidences no longer possess much influence over public opinion than emotions and feelings have. Well, we can easily see this. The "Brexit", Donald Trump's anti-immigrant stance, Marine Le Pen's nationalism, Mocha Uson's wisdom, Alvarez's Death penalty and so on. So, in a sense, Fr Pat's question is: where is love in this whirlwind of emotions? Fr Pat equates love not with sex or just mere feelings but with the Truth. Love is aletheia i.e. love is uncovering (yes, Heidegger's fans will like the book, as well as Jean-Luc Marion's and Emmanuel Levinas'). Love is opposed to totalization precisely because it is aletheia. Love is collaboration: "Collaboration is opposed to totalization - an aggressive and violent promotion of one's own plan" (p 17). In love, the lover lets the beloved strip herself and reveal who she really is (aletheia) yet in this stripping I still cannot own and dictate her she is forever an infinity enclosed in a finite being (of course the metaphor of stripping is mine not Fr Pat's, hehe). For Fr Pat the essential question is not "Why is there something rather than nothing?" but "Should I love or not?" "Yet despite its demands, it is almost impossible to not love" (p 70). Love creates possibilities and for Fr Pat possibilities are always more important than actualities (unlike Sartre's there is really no potentiality bu only actuality) because in love's promise possibilities become real. This is the reason why it hurts when promises are broken, when the beloved goes away or finds another. It hurts not because of the unfulfilled promises but because "of abandonment - I am left alone. It is the experience of being forsaken - the denial and rejection, especially by the one I love" (p 73) The choice to continue loving is left to me. Thus it no longer matters if love will go back what matters is that I love you... in this act of loving the I finds himself truly as he is: "Self-becoming is achieved ironically because of an Other, unique and mysterious, an Other that exerts an opposite or counter-force" (pp 46-47). In our society who loves emotions and feelings, love stands as wisdom's beacon. To love is to let the Other unfold - let her be - though this will take until forever since I will always be surprised of new things that I will discover about her. This is truly aletheia! Love then is not just an emotion or feeling such that define the Post-truth society, Love is a decision. Now the question is: will you love? Happy Valentines! (for those who want a copy of the book, it is available at all ST PAULS Libreria and Pauline Media Centers nationwide or just visit stpauls.ph) I once read in a book that there has been an accident where the agnostic Bertrand Russell, while walking and smoking in the Trinity Lane of Cambridge, suddenly shouted, “It is valid! It is sound!” He is pertaining here on the Ontological Argument of Saint Anselm.* And indeed Anselm’s Greatest Conceivable Being inducted countless believers and faced a legion of Fools, to use Anselm’s language game.
So it follows that how could we call it “greatest” if in fact it does not exist in reality. If that is so then there will be something greater, but what is greater than the greatest? The “greaterest”? Thus, Saint Anselm believe that the atheist is a fool in stating God is not for he knows in his mind that God is. The very fact that the idea of God is in my mind means that there must be a God in the here and now of reality for the otherwise will contradict God’s very nature of being the Greatest Conceivable Being. As for me, I think his thesis stands erect because of the validity of his assumptions. Yet other thinkers such as Gaunilon will raise their eyebrows. How can the good old monk argue that what is in the mind must automatically be in reality? Gaunilon utilized Anselm’s argument by stating the “Greatest Conceivable Island” arguing that even though I have in my mind the “GCI” still an island in reality can still be better than what is in my mind. Here Gaunilon is deserving of the title of being the Fool. Yes he believes in God but he misses the point. Anselm’s argument lies on the assumption that God is the beyond, the meta-physical and so any other comparison to physical objects using the same method falls short of the strength the argument has. In a sense, Anselm’s Reductio ad Absurdum in favor of the GCB only applies with God. Another case is the master thinker Immanuel Kant. Kant reacted that Anselm’s argument falls short of proving what God is, Anselm merely stated that God is. And indeed he did. Anselm’s argument for the GCB gave the final blow in providing the rational basis of God’s existence. Just like Descartes’ Infinite, the GCB cannot not exist in reality for the very fact that it is already in the mind. Let me first digress and talk about Descartes. He says that the idea of the Infinite, that is, God, cannot be conceived by us, finite beings, therefore the Infinite itself is the one who put it there. But back to reality, Kant’s voice still rings like a voice in the wilderness. But what is God? What are the adjectives for Him? We can say, Almir is good looking, Rico is kind hearted, and the like but what should we say of God? Kant hit the stone here. Indeed, Anselm’s argument only proves that God exists, he does not provide the predicate in the sentence. And I believe it is rightly so for it is the original intention of the good old monk’s heart. Kant here deserves to be called wise not the Fool as other scholars would say. Kant did not deny God’s existence as Anselm proved it but he still seeks the predicates. Some theorists would suggest that this means that Kant denies God’s perfection and the like. But what are those but products of our limited language? Indeed, Kant’s rant gives us the light that God is but not just what we think Him to be. God eludes our categorization, our Totalization, as Emmanuel Levinas beautifully calls it. Kant’s argument does not deny all the good qualities we attribute to God, it only makes us see that there is more to it. But like Anselm, Kant merely stopped by questioning. I think the story will be complete when the Wise stops and accept that his language falls short and it is only God who can define Himself. And this, in turn, will truly prove God’s glory (although that still falls short). Would the Fool accept this? I believe so but only if he has an open mind to see Anselm’s point as Russell did. Would I be the Wise by accepting Anselm’s arguments? Non sequitur. It does not follow. Merely accepting is still “merely”, that is, it has a lesser degree than proving it yourself. Thus the true Wise is the one who has an open mind and a curious heart that without prejudice, always in the state of epoche of the Phenomenologists, seeks the Divine. Am I then the Wise or the Fool? I think I am the “or”, I’m there right at the middle. * This passage appeared in his autobiography. However, Russell later contradicted himself when he said that Anselm's Ontological argument is not plausible. Thanks to Prof. Ben Carlo Atim for pointing this out to me when this article first appeared. This is originally a paper passed as an assignment to Philo of Religion Class under Mr Rodolfo V. Bagay Jr at Saint Paul Seminary (2015)
At long last, here it is! After almost a year of planning and revising, Saint Paul Seminary and Sapientia Etudiants Recherche proudly presents to you the maiden issue of Aletheia: A Journal of Philosophy, Communication and Culture. Crossing the threshold of these three distinct yet interrelated studies, Altheia whose name derives from the Greek word for "Truth" or "Unconcealment" tries to see the meeting point - i.e. Aletheia - The search for the Truth. And indeed, nothing is of the Truth if not anchored on the One who said that He is the "Way, the Truth and the Life". Edited by Sem. Jerome Precia Ypulong, current Chairman of Sapientia with the guidance of yours truly and the Saint Paul Fathers and Saint Paul Seminary Faculty, Aletheia now enters the field of thw written world of Truth-seeking Wisdom-loving adventurers. The maiden issue includes academic articles by Fr. Norman Melchor Pena Jr, SSP (Saint Paul Seminary), Br. Romualdo Abulad, SVD (UST), Amable "Ka Abe" Tuibeo (PUP-Manila), Fr. Ross Heruela, SVD (Divine Word School of Theology), Ian Gabriel Ceblano (SPS), Jhon Fred Caranzo (SPS), Jerome Ypulong (SPS) and academic essays by Fr. Luis David, SJ (ADMU) and Cl. Buen Andrew Cruz, SSP (SPS/DWST). And so I invite you to subscribe now or if you want you may pass your papers too. Just follow the Turabian format of Research or other similar formats (8,000-12,000 words only) saved as MS Word file and send it to [email protected] or fill up the contact form below. |
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" |