Positivism and Phenomenology

It seems to me that in social sciences, the two contrasting methods of research, namely: positivistic and phenomenological, are inseparably one or cannot be divorced from each other, but each works in different ways.  What I have in mind is that if one is using phenomenological methods and come up with essences of the original experience, he could validate the formulated essences using positivistic methods.  It is a cyclic process, since one could not only end up with meaning to a particular experience, but also validate that meaning using positivistic method.  In a sense, validation of meaning is simply proving that the formulated meaning is universalizable.  (I have encountered this term when reading a book of a certain author; in the book he cited (Gadamer or Habermas) who coined this term.)

In doing so, it is a fulfillment of Husserl’s phenomenological method, since in my opinion, Husserl’s phenomenological method is a vicious cycle of finding the essence of the whole field of experience. One is going to arrive at the essence of the experience by using the steps of Husserl’s phenomenological methods, as follows:

a.      Epoche – bracketing of natural attitude, and see the original experience with “new eyes;”

b.      Eidetic Reduction – reducing the original experience into its essence

But, a researcher has to be careful in arriving at the essence, since essence as Husserl perceived it, is the invariant of the experience.  In my mind, the invariant is something unchanging within the whole field of one’s experience or the whole field of common experience.

                                  

In my opinion, to arrive at something universalizable is to utilize the positivistic method.  What I have in mind when talking of positivistic method is the quantitative research method.  In so doing, we try to quantify the meaning we formulate from the original experience.  In quantifying it, we may use self-made questionnaire or a standardized questionnaire.  This is to prove that there is something universalizable from the essence.

In this regard, the idea of essence is neither in Aristotelian sense nor Husserlian sense.  Essence is no longer seen as invariant or the unchanging in the experience but simply as a structure common in the experience.  Essence is not inherent in the phenomenon of one’s experience.  Essence is something structural or simply appears as a common structure of one’s experience. 

This structural form is not also understood in Kantian sense, which is something inherent in one’s mind.  This structural form is rather dependent on conditions existing in the perceiving subject and conditions existing in the phenomenon itself.  (In this sense, I am borrowing the idea of Lonergan’s idea of insight, but I need an exhaustive study of Lonergan’s book, entitled Insight.)

The idea of universalizability coincides with Lonergan’s epistemological stance. 

Human Person and His/Her Environment

In line with SPUD's advocacy for the environment, I'd like to share some insights on environment and man's relation to it.  My reflection will be more philosophical and will be centered on the nature of human person and his/her relation to environment.  In writing this article, my approach is somehow historical --in the sense that I am going to treat the different views of the nature of man in the history of philosophy to further my analysis of man's relation with the environment.  It is undeniably true that "the way we look at ourselves affects the way we relate with others, like our environment."

HISTORICAL ACCOUNT

Let me start with ancient Greeks and their view on human person.  The ancient Greeks viewed man as part of the whole order of the cosmos.  Cosmos is governed by principles.  As part of the cosmos, man is also governed by a principle, which is reason.  For the Greeks, cosmos has an existing order, or it is already arranged.  Thus, man needs not to disrupt the order of the cosmos.  Rather, as rational being, it is his duty and task to understand the principles governing cosmos.  Technically, he doesn't "actively understand" what is written as principles in the book of nature, but simply "passively understand" those principles.  In other words, man as a knower is merely a passive recipient of what he extracts as principles written in nature.  What is ideal of him is contemplation -contemplating what is written as principles in the book of nature.

In this state of affairs between man and nature, we can infer that, for the Greeks, man is not going to "engage with nature."  By "engaging with nature," I mean, man doesn't have to alter what is written in the book of nature but simply "conforms" what nature demands of him to understand.  Thus, man is a "spectator" of the ongoing of nature -watching the influx of nature.  While watching the influx of nature, he extracts its constant pattern or its law.  (I hesitate to use the term, "constant pattern" since for the Greeks, it's a law [logos, in Greek term] that governs nature.)  Hence, it is man's duty to nature to "intellectually deal" with it, since in the first place he is rational or has the intellectual capacity to deal with it.

This Greek’s attitude towards the environment is still apparent to people living in the Medieval ages.  Though their fundamental perspective on life and environment has changed yet their attitude towards the environment is still the same, which is of stewardship to environment, not of domination over it.  Stewardship to the environment is entirely a new idea among Medieval people, which is not exactly the same with Greek’s idea of “spectatorship.”  Stewardship connotes the idea of lord-tenant relationship, which was the social structure existing during the medieval Europe.  A feudal lord owned a huge area of land and tenants tilled the land and paid tributes to the lord.  This social system was veiled with animosity yet the rule of the day was clear: “the lord claims ownership of the land, and tenants should be stewards of it.”  On the other hand, the idea of “spectatorship” of the Greeks connotes an independent activity –a mental activity, which is only appropriate for those we consider as philosophers.  The place of the philosophers in the Greek society was a privilege one.  It was one of those people detached from the world of ordinariness, or say, it was a place of those who do not do manual work.

This social system is somehow the outcome of the dominant religious belief in those times –that of Christianity.  In Christian beliefs as propounded by Christian thinkers and theologians, the cosmos –once viewed by the ancient Greeks as simply natural or part of the natural phenomenon, is now viewed as something created by God –eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing God.  As part of creation, human beings are entrusted by God to rule and govern all things –both living and non-living, He created since the beginning of time.  Because of this, human beings become the pinnacle of God’s creation. 

This God-man relationship is really like that of the lord-tenant relationship.  God, the creator, entrusts his creation to his people, and the people, the tenants, work and take care of the creation entrusted to them by God.  As tenants, they pay tributes to God through prayers and corporal works of mercy to the less fortunate.  This social set-up engenders in God’s people the attitude of stewardship –taking care of what is entrusted of them.  The idea of stewardship, then, cannot be divorced from the idea of lordship and trusted workers of the Lord of all.

This perspective of human beings as stewards does not allow Medieval people to become lords and masters of nature (or cosmos or environment).  They don’t have the sense of dominion or controlling environment.  Instead, they should take care of the environment and enjoy its produce. 

   

Experience and Reflection

Humanistic philosophy like existentialism makes emphasis of one's experience as the source of meaning in life.  In fact, English philosophers, Hobbes and Locke claimed, "experience is the measure of all things."  Making emphasis of "experience" unveils some facts: (1) before existentialism, knowledge is based on theoretical frameworks like the metaphysical or theological one, but not experiential or "empirical,"  and (2) any knowledge which is based on experience is considered "humanistic."  Existentialism is a philosophical belief which considers the following: one's individual existence and his unique experience.  Thus, existentialism is a very humanistic philosophy.  Yet, any humanistic philosophy may avoid conversations about God or any metaphysical theories since any of these ideas eludes one's concrete experience, or say, it is never experiential.  

Existentialism is known to be attributed to Soren Kierkegaard (1813—1855), generally considered as the Father of Existentialism.  Kierkegaard is one of the philosophers who detest modernism -a kind of perspective which heavily relies on man's thinking power (true to all modern philosophers).  "Knowledge is power," is somehow part and parcel of this modern perspective.  With this perspective, man is believed to have all the ingredients in knowing the laws of nature.  In knowing the laws of nature, man can control or manipulate nature.  Nature, then, is subjected to the controlling power of man's thinking capabilities. With "thinking power," man becomes superior to all other beings.  

Kierkegaard, together with some other philosophers, reacted this kind of philosophical belief.  This philosophical belief presupposes that man is "essentially" thinking being (as Descartes claimed).  The defining nature of human beings is thinking.  Yet, Kierkegaard believes that man doesn't possess such thing as "essential nature," like thinking. Fundamentally man "exists" first before he thinks.  For Kierkegaard, there should be an emphasis first of existence before anything else.  With man's existence, man defines his/her essence.  His essence does not necessarily become "thinking."

The emphasis of existence leads philosophers, especially existentialist philosophers to explore some related ideas like "individuality," "subjectivity," "experience," and a lot more.  In this article, I'd like to take into consideration of the beautiful word, "experience."  This word sounds great and favorable to young generation, but if taken to the extreme, it causes some problems in one's life.  I don't totally agree in the saying, "experience is the best teacher."  For me, the idea of experience is somehow helpful for any individual to become what he wants to become, or for him to become human.  Yet, the idea of experience should be imbibed with some qualifications.

First, experience should be coupled with reflection.  I agree that experience is the best source of meaning in life.  But experience alone is blind; it does not speak by itself of its meaning.  One should reflect on his experience.  For Gabriel Marcel, reflection is a way of transcending or moving from one level in life to the next or to the higher level in life.  For example, at this moment, you have experienced failure.  Your experience of failure does not by itself speak of its meaning.  In fact, that experience may ruin your life because of some negative feelings associated with it.  But if you start asking question of your experience such as, "why did you fail?", "which part have you failed?", "what are the causes of my failures" and so on and on, you are "reflecting" on your experience.  In reflection you find answers, which nobody has ever found (Yes, your answers can be found in books!)  But, your answers are unique in that they are experiential.  Your answers will enlighten your life.  With this enlightenment, you are now ready to move or transcend to the next chapter of your life.  Take note: we should always put in mind the advice of Husserl in doing reflection: "Set aside all emotions in doing reflection!"  

Second, experience is always associated with experimentation.  This is one thing we need to avoid if we want to imbibe the idea of "experience."  Experience connotes "experimentation."  If we equate experience with experimentation, we might come to think of living our life in  doing "experiments."  For example, I haven't any knowledge of sex that my teachers are explaining or my classmates are talking about, so I need to experience sex.  Again, from existentialist point of view, experience is the best teacher.  So, you think you need to experience it (say, pre-marital sex).  If you do it, you are making "experiments" in your life. Experience and "wanting to experience" are two different things, but somehow the difference of both gives us some confusion.  Take note: there is always time for everything. The value of waiting is still important.  Patience is still a virtue.  We don't need to rush everything.  

In conclusion, our road to become human is rough and winding.  Experience is the best way we can answer our quest to become human.  Yet experience should be coupled with reflection and we should not equate experience with "experimentation." 

Is God Really Dead? (part 3)

This is the last of the series of articles written about the theme, "Is God Really Dead?"  Of the three articles, it is only the first which is true to its title since it really talks about Nietzsche's pronouncement, "God is Dead!"  The second and third articles merely give credits to the implication of Nietzsche's claim, which is in general atheism grounded on his abject nihilism.  In the second article, Heideggerian phenomenology and its atheistic overtones are specifically discussed.  In this third article, I'd like to spend few spaces to discuss another type of atheism as explicitly claimed by deconstructionism and neo-pragmatism.

Deconstructionism and neo-pragmatism are off-shoots of what is generally considered as post-modernism.  Post-modernism is not a school of thought like deconstructionism and neo-pragmatism, but a sort of "perspective or a way of presenting the situation of people or philosophers at the contemporary times."  Nietzsche is usually attributed as the "prophet of post-modernism."  As commonly agreed by scholars, post-modernism is associated by its philosophical claim, "there is no such thing as reality."  As systems of thought, deconstructionism and neo-pragmatism are built in the edifice of the unintelligibility (un-knowability) of reality.

What is Reality?

The problem of reality started to be seriously discussed in ancient Greece when the sophists (ambulant teachers) began claiming that "might is right."  The criterion of what is considered "right or true" is not reality but "might."  Power makes everything right or true.  Because of this, the sophists taught students the crafts of becoming powerful leaders by enhancing their skills in oratorical speeches and debate.  Logic and rhetoric were taught, instead of subjects which assume the task of "seeking for truth."  It was in this period of history when Plato was educated by his master Socrates (469/470-399 BCE), who was one of the sophists.  Socrates was a master of dialogue who believed that knowledge is worth nothing for no one can have it or desperately seek it for nought.  In consequence, he claimed that "he knows only of one thing -that is, he doesn't know."  He cannot be certain of anything; he cannot arrive of what is true or real.  Reality, then, is not only put to doubt but eventually buried in its graveyard of uncertainty.  But he claimed of being certain of one thing -his ignorance.

Plato might have been disturbed by his master's philosophical claim.  If certainty is untenable, then every truth-claim is opinion.  But opinion keeps on changing, or depends on one's perception.  Thus, it is unreliable and not true.  Plato was very aware of the arbitrariness of opinion.  So, he thought of some ideal forms, which are immutable or unchanging in various contexts and time.  These ideal forms are only found in the World of ideas.  The postulation of the World of Ideas ensues in the polarity of two sources of man's knowledge: that of opinion and that of true knowledge.  What is received from perception is opinion, and what is received from pure reason is the true knowledge.

This is the spell of Platonism that plagued the history of philosophy, according to Richard Rorty (1931-2007).  Wilfrid Sellars (1912-1989) calls this spell-bound philosophy as the "myth of the given" distorting the philosophical search from Plato onwards.  Aristotle, Plato's student, seeks reality (in Plato's definition: that which remains unchanged) in a concrete particular object in that it is a composite of matter and form, and it has substance in it.  Medieval thinkers seek it in the "divine mind of God."  Rene Descartes grounds it in the "cogito" (in man's thinking power).  Following Descartes, Immanuel Kant is able to ground it in man's pure reason yet pure reason has to be impinged by experience.  This spell has continued even in the works of Edmund Husserl, until finally Martin Heidegger breaks this spell when charging all philosophers in the West of being "oblivious or forgetful of Being."  Rorty is claiming that he has broken free of Platonism and he is now a staunch critic of it (Platonism) but not the person of Plato.

Deconstructionism and Neo-pragmatism

It's hard to isolate neo-pragmatism from deconstructionism.  Although they are entirely different schools of thought and founded by two philosophers with different philosophical backgrounds (the former by an American, Rorty and latter by a French, Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), yet as implied by Rorty, neo-pragmatism continues what deconstructionism has failed to do.

Jacques Derrida is famous in his claim that "there is nothing outside the text."  For example, when I say, "Simon is a male student," Derrida would tell us that "there is no reality in it."  There is no such thing/person as "male student" like Simon since what seems to be a reality of "male student" is simply a matter of convention.  "Male student" has no correspondence in reality.  The word "male" or "student" is simply created by language, thus simply a matter of convention.  To find out that there is really no reality, all you have to do is deconstruct language.  In deconstructing language, you can show the disparity between word and reality, and you will eventually find out that reality is simply created by language.

What Derrida is wary about is the Western binaries: male-female, presence-absence. central-marginal. Without these binaries, everything is possible.  One is free to play with language -without rules to follow, without any foundation of knowledge to engage in.  If one talks about God, that's the trouble in it.  At first, only few have direct experience of God.  Secondly, God is a very remote idea.  With deconstructionism, the idea of God is shun off as senseless and baseless conversation.

Neo-pragmatism also agrees that reality is non-existence and any knowledge of it is untenable.  It, however, does not make emphasis of deconstructing language but how language works for social progress.  For Rorty, it is enough to believe that language does not correspond to anything outside of it.  What matters most in the use of language is how it works in certain situation without any worries of whether it's true, or it coheres or in line with that of the authority.  The only criterion of Rorty's talk of what works for social progress is what he calls as "social hope."  Although he doesn't assume of any reality but his talk of pragmatism is still grounded (or basically assumed) on the idea of "social hope."

In conclusion, Rorty believes that language (ex. the language of God) is baseless since any foundation of it is nowhere to be found.  Likewise, his talk of "social hope" is also baseless since any foundation of it is nowhere to be found.  If "social hope" is baseless, neo-pragmatism also becomes a "useless" enterprise like theodicy (as he claims it is).

Is God Really Dead? (part 2)

I was surprised with a number of comments posted online regarding the last article entitled, "Is God Really Dead?"  More than half of my students in Philosophy of Human Person classes commented on this article.  Because of this, I am compelled and inspired to write another article on the same title but I'd like to discuss it in the context of phenomenology, particularly Heideggerian phenomenology.

Nietzsche is not the only philosopher who rejects or denies God's existence.  There are several philosophers considered as atheists (those who don't believe in God) but Nietzsche is somehow a unique kind of atheist --unique in the sense that, he pronounced the death of God amidst millions of faithful still believing in God and at the height of the Roman Catholic religion tested by time and circumstances as a true religion established by Christ.  Unlike before the spread of Christianity, we understand that those self-claimed atheists would deny God and his existence because God hasn't revealed himself yet, or that they denied God's existence because God has no place in their hearts and minds.  Nietzsche is like a devoted Christian dissatisfied of God's promises of salvation to his people.  

In this article, I'd like to consider some other forms of atheism --particularly, Heideggerian phenomenology.  Strictly speaking though, Heidegger's claim on the problem of God is not atheism but a sort of agnosticism.  Agnosticism is a philosophical belief which claims the impossibility to know about God.  I will elaborate this point after discussing phenomenology.

PHENOMENOLOGY

Phenomenology is not a philosophical school of thought.  It is rather a movement founded by Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) against the behaviorist psychology during his times. Husserl is considered as the Father of Phenomenology; the teacher of Heidegger (1889-1976).  Husserl was somehow dissatisfied with how behaviorist psychologists were conducting their research studies on human behavior.  Based on their studies of dogs and rats, they come to a conclusion that human beings (as members of Kingdom Animalia) can also be conditioned -thus, we have no freedom.  Husserl was not battling on the conclusion that humans have no freedom.  What he was battling about is on how they have come to that conclusion.  It is on the method of study that Husserl was questioning about, not so much of their idea on human beings.

For Husserl, there is something wrong in the way behaviorists conducted their studies.  They carried many assumptions, prejudgments or what Husserl calls "natural attitude," in conducting their studies.  To find new meaning in our experiences, or to see it "with eyes," we need to bracket our "natural attitude."  Once our "natural attitude" is held in abeyance, we can reduce our experience into its essence or what is "invariant" in it.  The "glassy essence" found in our experience must be viewed objectively without being tainted by subjective presuppositions.  Thus, phenomenology makes philosophy a "presupposition-less science."  Moreover, Husserl asserts that the essence of the experience must still be reduced into the very activity of the person who has found it in his experience.  Otherwise, this essence will not become meaningful since it is only us, human beings, can make it meaningful.  In other words, human beings shall translate this "essence" found in our experience since we are the ones who can it meaningful, or can make our life meaningful out of it.  

On its foundation, phenomenology assumes that what one can only know is the phenomenon, not the thing-in-itself or reality (or the noumenon).  It is impossible to know what does not appear to our perception.  The thing-in-itself (or the noumenon) can only be thought of, but cannot be known objectively.  In other words, what is outside human experiences cannot exactly be known.  God is outside any human experiences, or say, outside the experiences of philosophers.  Thus, God cannot be known objectively. Consequently, phenomenologists tend to deny God's existence.  However, there are some existentialist phenomenologists like Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) claiming the opposite.  For Marcel, God is within one's experience.  One experiences God when he/she is at the brink of death.  At the moment of his death, he/she has to entrust his/her  life to someone Absolute whom Christians calls God.  This experience of entrusting one's life at the moment of death is a phenomenon that one can't deny the existence of God. 

Heidegger, Husserl's student, suggests that man is a being thrown into this world.  As being thrown, Heidegger has thought of man's reality as nothing but a chance.  This is, I think, a form of atheism that has roots in the theory of evolutionism proposed by Charles Darwin. Many theist philosophers have already proved that this theory "doesn't hold water."   There are no solid evidences to support that human beings evolve from primates.  It is, however, tempting to believe that since man knows how to cope with the hostile environment, he is able to evolve from primate's way to man's way or "adapt" his new environment through the process of "natural selection."  Man's adaptation process is, I think, entirely different from saying that "he evolves from primates."  It does not follow that if man adapts his environment, he evolves from previous state of being to a new kind of being.  For me, Darwin mistakenly defines evolution with adaptation.

Let me go back to Heidegger's claim.  His emphasis on man's thrown-ness is, I think, his way of escaping the fact that human beings cannot live without God and imbibing the extreme position of existentialism that man can become what he wants to become if God doesn't exist.  The extreme position of existentialism is that man is absolutely free.  To make sense of it, one has to deny God's existence because God determines man's life and his purpose in life.

In conclusion, the denial of God's existence among atheist thinkers, whether existentialists or phenomenologists, is the outcome of the over-emphasis of man's freedom.  Since if man is completely free, then he shall be the one who has to determine his future.  Without God, man turns himself into a god.  For these atheist philosophers, to claim that God exists is an illusion, but for me, it is more of an illusion if man claims that he is God. 

Is God Really Dead?

"God is dead!" claimed Nietzsche, a German philosopher, philologist, and a cultural critic. His pronouncement, though, is not literal –in the sense that a God is literally lying dead in a coffin.  He rather implies a cultural fact –that is, at modern times, people are living their lives as if God is dead.  There is another implication of Nietzsche’s pronouncement, as commonly agreed by scholars, which is a sort of nihilism.  Nihilism is a philosophical belief which claims that there is no foundation or whatsoever to one’s belief, knowledge, morals, and so on.

Let me elaborate each implication in this article.  Firstly, the death of God is a cultural fact. During his times, Nietzsche observed that people's obsession or their fundamental concern in life has dramatically changed.  This paradigmatic shift was spawned mainly by industrialization.  In its primitive form, industrialization replaced the traditional means of producing goods such as garments, shoes, textiles and so on by means of machines.  The invention of machines somehow shaped the dawn of industrialization, which generates the philosophy of materialism.  In highly-industrialized cities, the cathedrals which were once the centers of the lives of the people are dwarfed by shopping malls, high-rise industrial buildings, and many other business-oriented institutions.  In fact, in some European countries, there are only few people going to church to worship God.  Many are going to church as tourists who are more interested of the socio-cultural, historic and aesthetic value of churches. 

In feudalistic (agricultural) society in Medieval Europe, what was at the center in the life of the people was the church.  It was in the church where people prayed before going to their farms and after working in the farms.  It was in the church where some people spent their lives in prayer and devoted their whole life serving God in prayer and doing corporal works of mercy. Even how the village was arranged, the church was located at the center of the village.  The municipal hall and residences surrounded the church. 

In modern times, people are busy in doing business or busy spending their waking hours earning income.  The obsession of people today is money and how to get more money.  God is placed at the side-line.  To put it succinctly, the idea of God is fading, or waning like the moonlight in a dark night, in the minds of people caught up in the web of industrialization and of the materialistic philosophy.

Secondly, the death of God also implies nihilism.  Nihilism is derived from the Latin word nihil, which means “nothing.”  If “God is dead,” there is nothing which serves as the foundation of man’s existence, man’s moral sense, man’s knowledge, and so on.  Among Christian thinkers, God is regarded as the cause and foundation of man’s existence and the existence of all things.  Without God, we are nothing.  Moreover, God sets all foundations of other realities.  God implants the fundamental principle of morality in all of us so that each of us, by nature, knows what is good from bad.  God is also the source of true knowledge, and the one who truly knows the truth is enlightened by God.  “God is dead,” everything is lost as well.

How to Overcome the Death of God?

Nietzsche does not preach the glory of God in his mournful death.  Instead, he eventually buries God in his graveyard.  I mean, Nietzsche settles with the idea that God is really dead, and he is completely gone.  With God’s absence, man is left flying in the vacuum.  Man is left to exist without God to look upon for his salvation and ultimate purpose in life.  For Nietzsche, man has to overcome God’s absence by becoming an “ubermensch” (superman).  He has to fly without wings.  Otherwise, he lives without any purpose in life.  As a superman, he has to exert his “will to power.”  With “will to power,” man shall create and impose his own values in life, his own standards of right and wrong, of what is true.  He has to become what he wants to become without determinations of someone powerful than him (like God).  He has to turn himself into a god.

Is God Really Dead?

Let me attempt to answer this question.  Yes, the idea of God is dead!  But, the historical God who became man (Emmanuel) in the person of Christ is not dead.  He is really alive and has impacted the lives of saints and martyrs for centuries, and the lives people who are still within the signal of God’s presence.

It’s true that people, in modern times, are drifting away from God.  But it doesn’t follow that He’s dead.  He is still there inside the church waiting for his prodigal sons and daughters to come back and pay him homage.  

Pragmatism and Philippine Education

I envision pragmatism as a permanent solution to the decaying Philippine educational system.  Our current practices in education are still highly influenced by rationalism and empiricism in many respects.  For example, in the curriculum design, the focus is still on the three R’s: reading, writing, and arithmetic; on the mastery of the English language (both written and oral); mastery of mathematical operations, and so on. 

Let me discuss specifically on two topics.  First, English as a medium of instruction has been a big problem among Filipino learners because it’s the second language and Filipino educators and policy-makers still believe that what is written in English is reliable and true.  Filipino learners and educators still have the idea, “maayo na mo-eninglish, utokan na!.”  (You're fluent in English, you must be bright or intelligent).  The measurement or indicator of a learned Filipino is fluency in English language (both oral and written).  With this assumption, the influence of rationalism is apparent.  English is a medium of communication and instruction to acquire knowledge and cultivate the intellect of students.  Anyway, knowledge is “constant across time and context,” regardless of race.  So, in the Philippine context, curriculum design should include the mastery of English language.

Mother-tongue based instruction is deemed as the solution to the problem but if you come to think of it mother-tongue based instruction causes more confusion among Filipino learners.  First of all, there is no clear definition of mother-tongue based instruction.  Another is that private schools are not employing mother-tongue, thus ensuing to the disparity of private and public education.  Pupils in private schools speak English, whereas those in public schools speak the mother-tongue.  I think, in pragmatic perspective, the right question to ask is, “What language that really works among Filipino learners?”  In my opinion, if Philippine education system aims for “education for all,” mother-tongue based instruction is the “better” option –better, in the sense that it works in this particular situation.  For a pragmatist, what is important is “students’ interest, as is integration of thinking, feeling and doing.”  Yet, if Filipino learners are struggling in the use and mastery of English language, they have a problem of integration of thinking, feeling and doing.  The fact is: there are thoughts or feelings that Filipino experienced, which cannot be appropriately expressed in English language.  This is because of cultural difference.  What is the pragmatic solution?  Use mother-tongue as a medium of communication and instruction in schools, and make English or any foreign language as elective.

Second, teaching mathematics causes also a lot of problems among Filipino learners.  Math subjects can be classified into elementary and advance.  In college level, many of the advance math subjects are taught among college students.  The rationale behind it is to enhance the thinking skills (rational capability) of students despite the fact that all these advanced mathematical operations cannot be applied in real world of work.  For example, a tourism graduate who took algebra in college is not actually going to apply algebraic operation when he is tour-guiding, or even when he works as front desk in hotels.  In pragmatic perspective, that algebra subject is useless.  It does not “work” in the situation of students.  I believe that there is a need to get rid of subjects in our curriculum, whether required by DEPED or CHED, as long as they are useless or do not serve the purpose of training or “educating” our graduates.

In relation, K-12 program is laudable but still not pragmatic.  Laudable in the sense that the program intends to produce skilled workers needed in industry but not pragmatic in the sense that there are still liberal subjects offered such as Sociology in Grade 11 and Philosophy of Man in Grade 12.  Inclusion of these liberal subjects in K-12 curriculum is still trapped with the problem of rationalism and empiricism.  In pragmatic perspective, we ask the question, “Why is there a need to include those subjects?  Inclusion of liberal subjects doesn’t sound pragmatic.

As an educator (with progressivist and constructivist perspectives), what is important for me is for graduates to develop positive values and life-skills needed for them to survive in the real world.  As Karl Marx said, “philosophers try to understand the world but not change it.”  If we intend to enhance students’ intellectual capability, we train them to become philosophers/ thinkers, who simply understand the world we live in.  This is a very rationalist or an empiricist perspective, or if you like, “perennialist or essentialist”.  To make it sound pragmatic, let’s train our students for them to effect changes in the world in the coming future.   

For me, in essence man is not rational or a “thinking being”, as what rationalist and empiricist suppose.  But, man is a species who tries to survive against the vicissitudes of life.  He is one who struggles in the “survival of the fittest.”  In the process of survival, he develops his rational skills as his coping mechanism to survive in the hostile environment.  Thus, it’s wrong to say that man’s rational capacity is built-in, natural in him but a “product” of his ways and means to survive in the hostile world. 

Based on this reality, we can further unpack two other implications: (1) human reality is not “fixed”; (2) man is guided by “survival instincts.”  In education, the reality of learners is not something fixed and universal.  It’s hard to believe that American learners and Filipino learners are the same –only that Filipinos are second-language learners.  I believe that no two learners are the same.  What is considered true of one is not always true of the other.  In this regard, I advocate the theories of multiple intelligences and differentiated instructions.  On the other end, students are driven by “survival instincts.”  Teachers should teach them how to “survive.”  They need to instil in them the values and necessary life-skills for them to survive in the real world of work.  In this regard, I advocate K-12 law but in a more pragmatic version.

Driven by “survival instincts,” man is selfish in nature.  To survive, he has to advance his self-interest.  In history, battles are fought because a king is protecting his personal interest to remain in power, and many other similar cases where a person or a group of persons waged war to protect their self-interests.  But, there is nothing fixed in man’s nature.  Maybe, at the first stage of man’s development and growth, he is that “brutish and selfish.” Yet, in the higher level of development and growth, man is able to develop moral and intellectual capacities, which eventually leads to develop in him the feeling of sympathy and care for others and his environments. 

In education, students come to school for one main reason: “to survive.”  A student does not come to school to learn how count the food they have in the table or learn to count the money in his pocket (since in the first place there is none –no food, no money), but he is in school looking for food to fill his hungry stomach or looking for money to put in his empty pocket.  With this kind of students in our classroom, it is useless to fill in their minds with “boring lessons.”  As a pragmatic teacher, I teach these students with “positive values and life-skills” to survive in a constantly changing world.

In conclusion, Philippine education system fails because of one reason: we don’t have a clearly defined philosophy of education.  Philosophy defines the system of education but without defining it clearly, philosophy fails so as the system.