Tomas de Aquino and His Philosophy

Tomas de Aquino is very well-known in the academe as St Thomas Aquinas.  Aquinas is not actually his surname.  During his times, the use of surname or family name was not yet in practice.  It is rather part of the tradition of these times that if one is born to a noble family, the name of his birthplace is added to his name.  Tomas was born in Aquino, Italy –thus, his name is Tomas de Aquino.  He is Tomas of Aquino.

At a young age, he wants to enter in a monastery.  Of course, during these times, entering in a monastery at a young age is anyone else’s desire.  It’s part of the “collective perspective” of the people of these times to offer their life to God.  A young child is happy to serve the Lord in prayer inside the monastery or in doing corporal works of mercy.  Unlike today, entering in a monastic life or a seminary life is like a burden to teenagers.  They may find monastic or seminary life boring.  For our young today, life becomes colourful only in listening to music, watching videos, going out to parties, going out with friends, and many more.  Life of prayer seems out-dated because of the comfort afforded to us by modern technologies.

Historians of philosophy commonly agree that St Thomas is very much influenced by Aristotle.  St. Augustine, on the other hand, is much Platonic.  Two great saints sprout from two great schools of thought.  St Thomas is typically Aristotelian.  In fact, he often mentioned “The Philosopher” in his writings referring to Aristotle.

St Thomas answers practically all questions in philosophy.  That’s why, he produced voluminous literary works.  In this article, I’d like to focus on his idea of man.

Like Aristotle –“The Philosopher,” St Thomas believes that man is a composite of body and soul.  But unlike St Augustine, he doesn’t make emphasis of either body or soul.  Man is the whole of his body and soul.  No part of man is more important than the other, which is contrary to what St Augustine claims that soul is more important part of man.  In this line of thought, we see a fibre of thought connecting Aristotle and St Thomas. 

If we also recall, Aristotle claims that, as a composite of body and soul, man is meant for a purpose.  His purpose is embedded in his being composite as designed in the mind of his creator, the Demiurge.  With elements of Christian thought, St Thomas puts some colours of the pagan philosophy of Aristotle with pigments of Christian thought.  God created man.  As a creature of God, he is beautifully designed in the divine mind of God making him ranked next to angels.  He is meant for a purpose since God must have thought intentionally of creating him.  Otherwise, God must have created of something else other than man.  Because of this, man is a clear reflection of his creator, God the Father.  His Creator is good, so as man.  This line of argument leads us to a conclusion that man is naturally good. 

This theme –man as naturally good, is not uncommon, or say, peculiar in the thought of the medieval thinkers.  In ancient China, Mencius also claims the same theme.  He likens the natural goodness of man to a virgin forest –pure and untouched by human civilization.  But when civilization touches and denudes its virginity, it will gradually lose its purity.  By nature, man is pure of heart.  But because of outside influences (good or bad), man will gradually lose his purity or goodness of heart.  Eventually he will possess some tendency to do evil.

As a Christian thinker, St Thomas elaborates this theme in the context of Christian thought and beliefs.  At the moment of conception, the principle of morality, which states, “Do good and avoid evil,” is implanted in the heart of man.  As commonly claimed by medieval thinkers, St Thomas makes use of the idea of “synderesis” to mean the natural capacity or disposition of the practical reason (will) of man to apprehend intuitively the universal principle of morality.  Having this natural disposition to do good, man through his practical will has always the inclination to do what is good.  For years of looking for the right Cebuano term for practical will, I have found the word, pagbuot.  This Cebuano word, pagbuot is appropriately synonymous with the word will or practical reason.  In Cebuano, ang atong pagbuot –kanunay gyud pagbuot sa pagbuhat og maayo.  Practical will of man is always the will to do good.  That’s because of the synderesis –man’s natural disposition to apprehend intuitively the principle of morality.  

On this basis, conscience in its literal meaning (Latin: con, with + scientia, knowledge = with knowledge) does make sense.  Conscience has the connotation that if one’s will (pagbuot) to do good is exercised in a concrete situation, one’s action is done with the knowledge of the fundamental principle of morality.  In its literal sense, conscience is primarily about action done out of the knowledge of the good.  If the dictates of conscience is not followed, then one has the feeling of remorse –a guilty feeling of not listening to the dictates of conscience. 

There are major challenges in listening to one’s conscience. The first challenge is when one is carried by his emotions or passions.  One’s emotions may be so strong that somehow makes the voice of conscience fade.  For example, when lovers engage in pre-marital sex because they are carried by their passions, they haven’t listened to the voice of their conscience.  But, in the first place, each of them knows what not to do in that particular situation.  The second challenge is when one acts not in the context of face-to-face interaction.  Modern societies facilitate various interactions which are considered as “faceless.”  For example, years back to withdraw money in the bank is done in the counter where a cashier facilitates the release of money.  But today, many withdrawals of cash are done in Automated Teller Machines (ATM).  If you withdraw PH1500 in the ATM and the machine dispenses PH2000, then you have the moral dilemma whether you are going to return the excess or not.  Most of the time, that transaction will discourage you to return the excess since you are transacting a machine –a faceless entity.  The point is that conscience becomes dull when dealing with non-persons.  The third challenge is that the will to do good must be constantly practiced.  The voice of conscience becomes weaker if it is not habitually exercised.  Again, like Aristotle –the Philosopher, St Thomas emphasizes that the exercise of conscience must be in a form of a habit.  As a consequence, the man who habitually listens to the voice of his conscience is a happy one since he actualizes what he is intended to be by God.

Finally, St Thomas thinks of man’s ultimate purpose, which is to go back to the heavenly paradise.  And, the only way to go back to it is by being a man of conscience.

"My Heart is Restless until It Rests in Thee, O God."

Historical Background

St Augustine of Hippo is an epitome of Christian world and culture.  Most scholars believed that he is much influenced by Platonism and Neo-Platonism, which were then part of the Hellenic culture and philosophy.  The Hellenic (or the Greek) culture died out when Rome conquered Greece and some neighboring states in the Mediterranean region including Nazareth (then part of Judea) –the natal place of Christ.   

The dominant Roman culture was characterized by legalism in that laws, not philosophy, governed the life of the Romans.  At the height of the Roman power and culture, Christianity emerged as a religious community regarded by some Roman leaders as deterrent to the unity of the vast empire.  During these times, all apostles of Christ, except John (the youngest apostle) were martyred; many other devout followers of Christ were martyred as well.  But when Christianity became the official religion in the Roman empire, great scholars and philosophers sprouted within Christian religion.  One of them was St Augustine of Hippo, who is considered as one of the Fathers of the Church.  He is known as the Father of the Church because he ardently defended the Catholic faith from the attacks of the Greeks’ pagan culture and philosophy.

One major problem St Augustine addressed during his times is the pagan philosophy of the Greeks.  Christians believed that Christ is the God incarnate.  Christ is the God in human form.  He is 100 percent human and 100 percent God.  In the mind of the Greeks, who are trained to reason out without resort to faith, the idea that God became man is absurd.  How could a God who is transcendent, eternal, all-powerful become a man –a mortal being, subject to decay and destruction?  Yet Christians accept this fact or idea by faith, without rationalizing it or without subjecting it to rational demonstration.  Christ himself encouraged his apostles to believe in him, without a slightest doubt.  “Faith can move mountains,” Christ exhorts his followers.  But faith doesn’t fit in the Greek’s culture and life.  Greeks were trained thinkers, who subject everything to rational demonstration. 

As a defender of Catholic faith, St Augustine struggles to reconcile faith and reason, which is I think the very heart of the problem.  What one can’t explain using rational demonstration like the idea, “God became man,” has to take a leap of faith.  And, what one has already accepted by faith can be hinged in the balance of doubt by his reasoning capability.  In the process, St Augustine has to make use of Greek philosophy to help explain the Christian faith –thus, making philosophy a handmaid to theology.  He finds Plato’s philosophy a right blend to Christian faith.  As some scholars claimed, St Augustine “christianizes” Plato’s philosophy.  As mentioned, he is influenced by Platonism and Neo-Platonism.  Hence, we can find some elements of Plato’s thought in our Christian faith. 

My Heart is Restless until It Rests in Thee

Though St Augustine is greatly influenced by Platonism but we can find some unique and peculiar elements of his philosophy.  One of his important thoughts is his prayer, “my heart is restless until it rests in Thee (You), O God,” which is found in his Confession (his greatest work).  This beautiful prayer is somehow a conclusion of a restless –literally “restless,” Augustine, who was born to a pagan family.  In his teenage, he studied different schools of thought such as Neo-Platonism, Manichaeism, etc.  Yet, none of these has satisfied his desire or longing of his heart to know what truth is.  As a young man, he engaged in exclusive relationships with two women.  Yet, none of them has satisfied what his heart longs for.  His heart desires or longs for something he knows important like a deer longs for a stream to quench its thirst.  St Augustine finds it nowhere but in God.  He will find his final rest when he has gone back in the bosom of the Father.  His “restlessness” expires until he rests in God.

A prayer –coming from the very depth of the heart of a pagan converted to Christianity is such a meaningful prayer.  A heart which once is a “dry place” quenches its desire in the glory of God.  Yes, his conversion is not his own labor all alone.  His mother, St. Monica, prayed ardently for his conversion.  St. Ambrose, a priest, also touched his heart for such metanoia.

His philosophy is typically a Christian one –grounded in a strong faith in God.   Some scholars criticize that his thought is not properly philosophical.  It is appropriately theological since it talks about God and his faith in God –the one who can give him full rest of heart.  However, we cannot discredit the fact that St Augustine was addressing the problem on how to reconcile faith and reason.  In consequence, we can expect that his philosophy is leading that way –combining reason with faith. 

In conclusion, St. Augustine is a man who willingly submits himself to God –the final fulfillment of our earthly life.

Aristotle's Philosophical View of Man

Aristotle studied in the Academy, the first higher education institution in the West established by his master, Plato.  It is somehow safe to say that he was greatly influenced by his master in many ways.  But, he parted his way from Platonism with a radical view making him one of the original thinkers in the classical Greece. 

His philosophical view of man shared some fundamental concepts with his master, such as man’s essential nature is grounded on something metaphysical and man, by his nature, tends to achieve his purposive end.  As an original thinker, he ventured to build a philosophical system which is entirely different from his master and all other thinkers in the West.  In this article, I’d like to discuss Aristotle’s philosophy, specifically his theory of man.

MAN as COMPOSITE OF BODY AND SOUL

To fully grasp Aristotle’s theory of man, one has to be well-versed of his metaphysical view.  Aristotle believes that every existing thing/object is composed of matter and form.  This is known as the hylemorphism (Greek terms: hyle meaning matter, and morphe meaning form) –the matter and form principle.  These two metaphysical principles[i] are primordial since they are what the material world made of.  There is non-existent in the material universe which is not a composite of matter and form.  Matter doesn’t exist by itself nor does form exist by itself.  Form is the active principle coming from the mind of the demiurge –the God who is considered as the prime mover; matter is the passive principle.  Once the form is imposed to the matter, an object or thing exists such as a chair, a table or a man.  In man, the form is his soul and the matter is his body.  But unlike his master Plato who believes that man is his soul, Aristotle deems that man is the whole of his body and soul.  For Aristotle, there is no sense to dichotomize man in two realms: the earthly realm (that of the body) and the other-worldly realm (that of the soul).  He doesn’t have any inkling of the other-worldly realm of ideal form like his master Plato.

As a composite of matter (body) and form (soul), man must have a substantial form.  This substantial form defines the nature of man.  As mentioned above, the form comes from the mind of the demiurge (the prime mover).  So to say, this demiurge must be an intelligent one since he is the designer of the material world and a creative one since there are no existents, which are exactly the same.  Thus, the substantial form is conceived in the mind of the demiurge, is imposed to the matter, and becomes the defining nature of all existents, both seen and unseen creatures.  Every existent is what its creator intended it to be.  Or, to simply put it in the context of man, every man is what his creator intended him to be.  Man’s essential nature is already defined even before he comes to exist in this world.  The essence of man precedes his existence.  This theory is what existentialist philosophers disagree.  For existentialists, man exists first before he defines his essence.  The existence of man precedes his essence.

Furthermore, this nature (the essential form) of man also defines his purpose[ii] in life.  For Aristotle, man is essentially rational.  This idea of being rational is most likely similar with that of Plato.  Man has the capacity to understand himself and the world.  This capacity to know is somehow independently of any psycho-somatic (say, emotional, psychological, or physiological) activities of man.  But unlike his master who believes that idea must come from pure reason alone, Aristotle claims that idea must come from experience.  For Aristotle, man’s mind with its power of abstraction is fed up by his experiences in order to abstract what is essential in other objects.   This power of abstraction of man’s mind is what makes him different from other animals.  Dogs, cats or any other animals don’t have this power to abstract what is essential in other things/objects.  Man is the only privilege being to have this power to abstract and understand the nature of other beings.

MAN and HIS PURPOSE

For Aristotle, the purpose of man lies in his very nature.  As mentioned above, the nature of man is being rational.  Thus, being rational is his very END or purpose in life.  As a rational being, he should not be driven by emotions or desires but by his reason.  If he is driven by emotions, which is not proper of him, then he is not a man.  If he is driven by his desires to get the luxuries in life, which is not proper of him, then he is not a man.  Man is his reason.  He should act according to the dictates of his reason, and not to the dictates of his emotions and desires.

This is something unique in the thought of Aristotle.  For him, man serves no other purpose in life, except to become a man of reason.  Christian thinkers believe that a heavenly paradise awaits to those who follow their nature –the nature to do good and avoid evil.  In that paradise, man achieves his ultimate happiness in life.  For Aristotle, there is no such thing as heaven that awaits man who exercises his nature as being rational.  His exercise of his nature as rational is his very end.  His ultimate happiness is achieved when he fully realizes his potential –his being rational.  Unlike his master, Aristotle doesn’t believe of other-worldly realm that gratifies him when he faithfully follows his nature.

In conclusion, Aristotle makes a complete departure from his master’s obsession of the other-worldly realm.  His philosophy is the mark of a pagan thought and culture.

---

[i] Metaphysical because they cannot be perceived by the human senses

[ii] In Greek, telos means purpose or meaning.

Human Life as an "Imago Dei"

God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Gen 1:27)

There are numerous views regarding human life such as philosophical, sociological, psychological, biblical, to mention a few but, in my opinion, the biblical view is the most fruitful one, especially for people living in the modern societies.  The book of Genesis (Gen 1:27) depicts human life as an “imago Dei” or image of God.  This view contributes a much positive outlook on human life in a very challenging, fast-changing world.

Before the spread of Christianity in Mediterranean region, the Greeks developed a secular, philosophical outlook on human life.  Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, argued that human life is unique among other forms because it is the only form of life which is rational.  Human beings, so to say, differ from plants, animals and other forms of life because we are rational.  Being rational is also our very end.  Ethically, we act according to the dictates of reason, yet not according to our desires, emotions, or impulses. 

The merit of this classical view lies in the affirmation of our greatest power –our reasoning power.  This truth has been affirmed by a number of prominent thinkers in the West.  Sigmund Freud is famous among them.  The tendency of those thinkers advocating this view is that they limit their understanding of human beings only in terms of our inherent power and purposive end.  For them, there is no other end for humanity aside from being rational.  Our happiness is attained when we realize our nature.  For Freud, the main goal of man is “to become conscious of what is unconscious.”

However, to view human life as essentially rational is inadequate in substance.  We know that we are multi-dimensional and maybe the most special (if not essential) aspect of being human is that we are spiritual.  Our spiritual aspect is something higher in our human nature.  Our happiness cannot only be attained in full realization of being rational but also when we have gone back to our real place –the heavenly paradise or in the bosom of the heavenly Father.  Using a parable, Jesus positively affirmed this very aspect of us, saying: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit. Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will preserve it for eternal life.” (John 12: 23-25). 

The metaphor of a grain of wheat tells us two important things about life: first, life is not simply physical or as it appears to us, and second, life has “hidden potentialities to die, to grow, and to live in the eternal glory of God,” the heavenly Father.  This is all true because God created us in his image and likeness.

WHY FRUITFUL?

To revisit this paradigm of life as Imago Dei is a fruitful one especially for us striving amidst consumerism and materialism.  With consumerism and materialism, the world is telling us that to become real person in modern times is to consume a lot.  The world has a lot to offer.  If we go, for example, to the downtown area, almost everything we need is already there, and alluring us to buy and buy things even unnecessary.  Little did we know that if we consume a lot, we also produce a lot of wastes, and these wastes cause us a big problem on how to dispose or recycle them.  I suppose, our problem on wastes is not only due to unscrupulous consumption of goods, which is a moral one, but mainly due to a misguided living.  We no longer live according to the Gospel values.

Christ once admonishes us saying, “man cannot live by bread alone, but by the words of God.” 

In conclusion, our modern world forms, in-forms and even transforms us to be materialistic, and this materialistic belief deadens our spiritual sense.  Lastly, we need to be heedful of some views that neglect the important aspect of our humanity –that is, the spiritual one.

(published in the PRO-LIFE ADVOCACY newsletter, St Paul University Dumaguete)

Plato's Rational Psychology

This essay is not a scholarly one.  There are no citations from primary sources.  In writing this, I only have in mind the students in my Philosophy of Human Person classes –Senior High and college students. 

Philosophy, specifically Philosophy of Man, does not only cover philosophies of ancient Greek thinkers, like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.  In my previous postings and classes, I often mentioned some ancient Greek philosophers.  I may be construed that in Philosophy of Man we will be studying “dead people with dead philosophical thoughts.”  Yet, I can’t do away with the ancient philosophies since they served as the foundation of modern philosophies, which are varied and even confusing.  Hence, this article gives account to three ancient philosophers, namely Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.  Hopefully, I can also devote some articles for modern and contemporary philosophers.

Let me start with the rational psychology (Philosophy of Man) of Plato.  Plato, is one of the colossal figures in ancient Greek philosophy; a student of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle.  Socrates, Plato’s master, is also significant in the history of ancient Greek philosophy yet has not built a philosophical system as grand as his student.  His contribution lies in the fact that he is the first philosopher to make the transition from his predecessors’ concern of the material cosmos to the concern of human reality.  His predecessors like Thales, Anaxagoras, Heraklitus, Parmenides, et al were obsessed of the question, What is the world made of?  Socrates gave up this question in favor of the new relevant one, What is man in relation with others?

Socrates did not write anything.  Thus, not much is known of his philosophy.  He is only attributed to some of these sayings: “Know thyself” and “Unexamined life is not worth living.”  Because of this, I will not dwell so much on Socrates' philosophy, as I will do on Plato's.

Man is a composite of body and soul.  But for Plato, what is more important is man’s soul.  Man is his soul.  Soul constitutes the essence of his humanity.  The human body is nothing else than a dark world where the soul is imprisoned.  The body is the realm of darkness and ignorance.  Plato theorized that the soul belongs to the World of Ideas, which is considered as the real world –the world of the immutable truths.  The soul once dwelling in the World of Ideas fell down from that ideal world and became trapped in the body.  Thus, man is the “embodiment of the fallen soul.” 

Plato is a sort of philosopher who combines myth[i] and pure speculation to understand the nature of man.  For me, Plato is the first philosopher to have articulated the other dimension of man –the spiritual one.  Man’s spiritual dimension is what most philosophers attempt to reject as nonsense or what they don’t want to think about since it’s a matter of faith, not of reason.  Only Christian thinkers have the same horizon of thought with Plato –in their understanding of man as having that spiritual dimension.

Let me deepen my analysis of man as an “embodiment of the fallen soul.”  The term “embodiment” implies that man is not simply a body nor a soul.  If it is only a body, then it is not a man but a cadaver.  If it is only a soul, then it is not a man but a ghost.  He must be a composite of body and soul.  Yet in the mind of Plato, there is something more of the nature of the soul.  Soul is the principle of life.  A plant grows (if it grows it means that it has life) because it has soul, particularly nutritive soul.  If an animal grows and is capable of bearing emotions, then it must have also a soul, particularly nutritive-sensitive soul.  Man grows, is capable of bearing emotions, and most of all capable of reason.  Thus, man has nutritive-sensitive-rational soul.  Among the three species, man is the only one who is capable of reason –thus, a privileged one from other species.  The rational part of the soul of man is what makes him different from other creatures.  It is the highest part since it has the power of abstractions and can work independently of his body.  Take note: we are only talking of only one soul in one man but this soul has three different parts.  I will not give the details of these parts of soul in this paper.  What I want to convey here is that the highest part of the soul (rational part) strives hard to escape from the imprisonment of the body and go back to the World of Ideas, its true home. 

For Plato, the true man is the ideal man –the man who is illumined by the true things in life which can be found in the other-worldly realm of ideal forms.

---

[i] The elements of myth in Plato’s theory are as follows: (1) the World of Ideas –though, Plato suggests that to think of that ideal world is an exigency of reason –meaning, as rational beings, we cannot but think of that world since our reason demands it; and (2) the story of the fall –the soul dwells in the World of Ideas, why it fell down from it and become imprisoned in the body

Is There Any Filipino Philosophy?

     Fr. Leonardo Mercado is one of the Filipino scholars who pioneered in tackling the question, “Is there any Filipino philosophy?”  In asking the question, two important implications are in mind: (1) that philosophy does not originate in Philippine culture, and (2) that philosophy refers to any system of thought established by rational demonstration.

      Etymologically, philosophy is derived from two Greek words, philo and sophia, meaning love of wisdom.  Clearly, philosophy is something foreign to Filipinos.  Yet, the love of wisdom is universally true –that is, one is capable to “lovingly search” for wisdom, whether he/she is a Greek, or a Japanese, or a Filipino.  No one is deprived of doing philosophy (as love of wisdom) regardless of race or the color of one’s skin.  Thus, it seems that Filipino culture is not devoid of any philosophical venture or aspiration.  Every Filipino is a philosopher in his own right.

     However, in the history of the Philippines, it’s difficult to point out who among the Filipino thinkers are philosophers –philosophers in Western standard.  Of course, we cannot discredit Rizal’s genius and his two major novels.  Yet, to claim that Rizal is a philosopher is still a matter of long debate.

 

     What is really distinct among Western philosophers is that many of them are able to build elaborate systems of thought.  Plato, for example, is able to build a tower of philosophical ideas by single-handedly laying its foundation in his theory of ideal form.  With his theory of ideal form, Plato is able to differentiate knowledge from opinion.  He is able to distinguish the real world and the fake one.  He is able to identify the source of true knowledge and the fountain of what is considered good.  He is able to understand the nature of man, his origin and purpose.  He is able to define the ideal society and its ideal leader.  All in all, it’s a Platonic system of thought.  It’s one of a kind. 

     Is there any Filipino philosophy?  Yes, there is.  Yet, there are no Filipino philosophers –philosophers in Western standard.

What is philosophy?

Existentialist philosophers claim that philosophy defies any definition since it doesn’t refer to any system of thought but the process of thought itself.  It is a mental activity and one of its distinctive aspects is reflection.  Yet, there is a common agreement among philosophers that philosophy, or this so-called “reflective mental activity,” is characterized by the following: critical dialogue, vision of the whole of reality, and rationality.  In this article, let me elaborate these three characteristics of philosophy.

        Critical Dialogue

         

        Philosophers are critical.  They ask questions because some answers do not satisfy their queries.  In the classical philosophical tradition, a student can freely ask questions to his/her master.  The master, on the other hand, does not impose his/her authority to stiff the wild imagination of his/her student.  There is no room for censorship.  The master-student relationship inculcates the value of open dialogue –yet a sort of dialogue which is critical. 

        Vision of the whole

        Philosophical questioning is also characterized by having the vision of the whole reality –that is, in the end of questioning, one is able to see a wider and deeper perspective in life and of things pertinent to life.  On the one hand, scientific discipline tends to compartmentalize knowledge.  Philosophical discipline, on the other, tends to gain a synthetic view of things one is at present investigating with.  Philosophy is a discipline that teaches to see not the individual trees in the forest but the whole of the forest.  This is something positive in philosophizing.  Yet it has a tendency to be highly speculative.  In most cases, a philosophy espoused by one thinker ends up very metaphysical, in the sense that it talks of something beyond our human senses can see, like the theory of “ideal forms” of Plato that can only be found in the World of Ideas.

            Rationality

               Lastly, philosophizing is marked with rationality.  As mentioned above, it’s a mental activity, specifically reflection.  Basically, its root and ground is in man’s claim that he is rational.  Philosophical explanation, then, is devoid of myths and religious beliefs, or is not based on a generally accepted knowledge nor based on authority.  Richard Rorty, an American philosopher, rejects the idea of truth as “mirroring” of what is believed as external objective reality.  With this idea of truth as “mirroring,” the act of philosophizing is deadened since one has to follow the generally accepted definition of truth.