Philosophy and Human Rights (part 2)

In the first part of this article, I’ve shown how Enlightenment thinkers emancipated human beings from the shackles of the Church’s power and authority.  This emancipation was in terms of reaffirmation of the ideas of man’s individuality, his rational nature, and his freedom.  These philosophical ideals are liberating, which help pave the way to the reclamation of human rights.  Kant, however, did not specifically deal with the idea of human rights as emphasized in the first part.

Locke on Human Rights

John Locke (1632-1704) considers human rights as natural endowments such as the right to life and the right to live.  But, it’s not clear to me if Locke grounds the idea of human rights in man’s reason similar to what I’ve traced in Kant’s philosophy.  What is clear to me is that these rights are inviolable.  For example, if a person loses in a battle and becomes a captive, we obviously conclude that he loses also his independence.  His freedom is taken away from him.  Yet, his rights as a person cannot be stripped off from him.  The capturer may take everything from him like his henchmen, armor, family, properties, and even his freedom.  But his human rights cannot be taken away from him.  This is also true of a case of a blind person or any person with special needs.  Although he is deprived of one or two parts of his body which are necessary to live a normal life, he/she has still all these rights.  These rights will only be gone once the person dies.  It seems to me that when we say, “human rights are natural,” the word “natural” could refer to one’s existence.  In other words, human rights are inseparably one with one’s existence.  This is, I think, a very important development in the conceptualization of human rights.  The concept of human rights is first and foremost rooted in man’s very existence.  Thus, it’s over and above any conventional matter of human rights, like found in social contract, constitution, laws and any other legal proceedings.

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) is also an important figure in the conceptualization of human rights since he introduces the word, “social contract.”  He views that “persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.”[1]  Human society is best formed under a certain social contract in which all of its members agree and enter into.  This idea defies the belief in Medieval times that society is created and ordained by God.  For Rousseau, the formation of society is conventional.  It’s a matter of agreement, which each and every member of the society enters into.  This gives us the idea that society must be democratic, not authoritative and monarchical.  It’s a kind of society wherein each and every member shall take active participation in its social and political affairs.  On this basis, we conclude that human rights can best be exercised and only be respected under democratic principles.  The advocacy of human rights does not strive in authoritative governments. 

Finally, let me try to single out some threads of philosophical ideas, which we can connect to the idea of human rights.  First, the following ideas, namely: reason, individuality, freedom are the foundation of human rights.  Second, the exercise of human rights can only strive under democratic principles.  Third, respect of human rights happens only in democratic governments.

---

[1] Internet source:  http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

Philosophy and Human Rights (part 1)

In this write-up, I’m not going to answer the question, “What is the philosophy of human rights?”  As much as possible I will try to avoid this question lest I will search in vain such thing as “philosophy of human rights.”  Perhaps, the right question to answer is “What are the philosophical ideals underpinning human rights movement and advocacy?”  Thus, my choice of title is not “philosophy of human rights” but “philosophy and human rights.”  Philosophy is an oldest discipline, which can be traced back from Thales in the 600 BC.  The concept of human rights is credited to the works of some Enlightenment Philosophers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Locke and Immanuel Kant in 17^th and 18^th centuries.  It found its way to be embodied in laws in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, in Scottish Claim of Rights in the same year, United States Declaration of Independence in 1776[1], and so on and on.

Enlightenment philosophers are called to be such not because they were the “enlightened ones” like Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, but because they were born in the Enlightenment period –a period shortly right after the Dark Ages in Western History.  There are significant themes why they are considered as Enlightenment thinkers.  First, unlike Buddha who claimed that he was awakened by the four noble truths in life, enlightenment thinkers made a radical claim that every human person is an individual endowed with rational faculty.  During Dark ages in Europe, the Catholic Church had the influence and power.  This privilege of having influence and power was embedded in the belief that Christ instituted the Church to be the vessel of the salvation of man.  As an agency of man’s salvation, the Church claimed to have sole authority in matters of personal, social, religious, and political life of the people.  Since she is infallible in all these matters, the faithful have to conform to laws, doctrines, and tenets of the Church.  To defy her power is like disobeying God’s will and commands.  Second, because of the idea of conformity of the faithful to Church’s power and influence, every faithful was denied of individual initiatives and creativity –thus, that period of history is considered Dark.  Though it’s not literally dark, but the idea is that no event was worth writing in history books.  When concept of individuality was given emphasis, there were four significant consequences: (1) the idea of conformity was challenged, (2) there was affirmation of man’s capacity to gain individual salvation as propounded by Lutheran movement, (3) there was reaffirmation of man’s ability to gain self-realization without the agency of the Church, and (4) the reaffirmation of man’s rational faculty. 

I’d like to focus my analysis on the last theme, “reaffirmation of man’s rational faculty.”  It was only a reaffirmation by the Enlightenment thinkers in that in the classical Greece, Plato and Aristotle were clear of their affirmation of it.  Both philosophers claimed “man is essentially rational.”  This theme, however, faded and was clouded over when the pendulum of authority and power swung to the side of the Church during the Dark Ages.  In the later part of Dark Ages, there was a gradual revival of the classics –referring to the remnants of ancient Greek civilization.  Then, Enlightenment period came.

Kant on Human Rights

I’d like to discuss the idea of human rights in the Kantian and Lockean perspectives.  Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, is not specifically talking about human rights.  But his discussion on the question, “What is Enlightenment?” gives us a clearer picture of a thread underpinning philosophical ideals and human rights.  Kant reaffirms that man is rational.  His claim, however, is entirely different from those of Plato and Aristotle because Kant adds some Cartesian[2] elements of his claim.  Cartesian philosophy is characterized as anthropocentric –a philosophical belief emphasizing the fact that man is the center in the scheme of things.  Ancient philosophy like those of Plato and Aristotle, on the other hand, is characterized as cosmocentric in that nature/cosmos is at the center of the scheme of things.  The motto of the Enlightenment is “Have courage to use your own reason.”[3]  Based on this, we can infer that the project of enlightenment is for humanity to see once more the glitters of hope in man’s thinking power, which was once subdued by the influence of the Church.  I’m not going to dwell more on this topic.  I rather take Kant’s idea of man’s rationality, which hopefully I’m able to connect it with the idea of human rights.  

In his two major works, Critiques of Pure Reason and Practical Reason, Kant laid out the foundation of science and morality in man’s faculty of reason.  Man’s reason is the source of any scientific and moral knowledge.  It’s like a fountain of “a priori” ideas –existing prior to experience, which will readily arise once infringed upon by experience.  Yet, for Kant, these a priori ideas are not coming from experience; they arise with experience instead. 

Let me zero in my analysis on Kant’s morality.  Kant notes that since our moral knowledge is a priori, we always intend to do what is good in any given situation.  We “ought” to do good because we are all persons of good will.  “Good will is the most equally distributed in the world and it’s the only thing which is good without qualification,” he added.  On this basis, I find the logical connection between Kant’s claim of man’s rationality and his claim of self-legislating subject.  As rational beings, we legislate our own laws.  We formulate laws of what is true and of what is good for us.  If we’re self-legislating subjects, then we’re all free individuals.  As free individuals, we’re all beings afforded with all forms of human rights.  Human rights are an embodiment of our freedom, which is somehow an embodiment of our reason. 

I oblige myself to write a second part of this article, which will be devoted to Lockean perspective on human rights.

---

[1] Internet source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

[2] Cartesian refers to the philosophy of Rene Descartes, who is considered as the Father of Modern Philosophy.  His philosophy is characterized as anthropocentric. 

[3] Immanuel Kant, 1784, What is Enlightenment?

Illegal Drug as Anaesthetic to Poverty

Despite calls from ICC, EU, US and International Human Rights advocates to heed human rights violations, Duterte Administration stands firm on its campaign on illegal drugs to the grim of the law.  Duterte's campaign against drug menace causes divisions between human rights advocates and Duterte's supporters, not only in the country but also among countries worldwide.  At the brim, arguments are stoned against each other to soften the edifice of each camp’s position.  At the outset, there are points raised either from each camp that cause us to reflect of their explicit and implicit meanings, like this line uttered from one supporter of Duterte, "illegal drug is anaesthetic to poverty."  Aside from its explicit meaning, this line does contain some implicit meaning, which somehow gives no clearer picture of drug menace in the country, but gives us a negative impression towards the poor instead.

It is in this context that I’d like to make some analysis of that statement to highlight what is hidden in it.  In philosophy, there is a science of interpretation known as hermeneutics.  This movement has been much talked about in the later part of the 19^th and early 20^th century.  However, its grip in the academe comes loose because of the influence of post-modernism such as deconstructionism fathered by Jacques Derrida, a French philosopher.  Hermeneutics is a discipline that makes the hidden meaning in a word, a phrase, a statement explicit.  Meanings are entangled by the written symbols.  Thus, one has to clean up any entanglement found in reading a text to free any meaning hidden behind those entanglements.  To know the real meaning of the text read is very important to avoid misunderstanding.  Moreover, meaning is contextual.  It is also necessary to put it in its historical and socio-cultural contexts.  Thus, there’s a need for interpretation and re-interpretation, if necessary.

What is obviously meant in the statement, “illegal drug is anaesthetic to poverty,” is the fact that Philippines is plagued with poverty.  We witness it sprawling in shams in major cities all over the islands.  Poor communities in cities are sores to the eyes.  They are known havens of drug addicts, pushers, and drug lords.  Poor people are most vulnerable to any form of abuses like this drug menace.  Powerlessness may be the main reason of their vulnerability.  Our hunch, however, would tell us that because of lack of money or resources, the poor are tempted to resort to use, abuse, push illegal drugs.  This is, I think, the context where we can understand the meaning of the statement, “illegal drug is anaesthetic to poverty.” 

There is, moreover, another sense I’d like to interpret on the statement.  By this time, the word, “anaesthetic” will be the focus of my analysis.  In medical sense, anaesthesia is a medical substance that if applied to a part of the body, a person may experience a loss of sensation on that part of the body like pain, but not necessarily losing his/her consciousness.  Figuratively, illegal drugs like cocaine or marijuana, if taken by the poor people, they will temporarily lose their feeling of being poor.  Karl Marx noted it in the lives of Christians who were suffering from social injustices from bourgeois system in saying, “religion is the opium of the poor.”  Our logical sense would tell us that using illegal drugs will help poor people escape “in abeyance” from the shackles of poverty.  I agree, poverty makes the poor people suffer –not so much from emotional pain but from forced hunger and thirst.  But I disagree with the point that the poor resort to drugs as a way to escape “temporarily” from poverty.  This sort of argument is “sweeping generality,” which is fallacious.  It’s not true that only poor people are doomed to illegal drugs.  There are also rich people suffered from drug addiction, involved in illegal drug, and mostly they’re the ones benefitting from drug trade.

A drug addict coming from affluent family confessed that he’s addicted to drugs because he felt something void in the family.  Although financially he has enough, but his family lacks emotional support for him, which is necessary for grown-ups.  So, his addiction is like also an escape from the void plaguing modern families.  Maybe, this guy has an absent father or mother since his parent or parents are working abroad.  Or, maybe his parents are both busy in work.  Parents’ absence creates this void in the family.  Parents’ role is not only to support financially but also to give guidance to grown-ups.  Gabriel Marcel remarked if the sense of belongingness is lost in the family, one member is tempted to long for it from outside.  The easiest way for these young grown-ups to find this sense of belongingness is in their peer-group.  Peer-group influences one to take drugs, which in a way helps him escape from family reality.

In deeper analysis, the above-mentioned remarked contains a certain bias, which I call “social class bias.”  It turns out that the poor become the “easiest scapegoats” of one who tries to diagnose these social ills.  When something bad is happening, the poor Juan becomes the easy target for blame.  Of course, it’s an obvious fact.  The poor are the powerless, the defenseless.  It’s a kind of cultural bias against the poor.

In conclusion, as emotions get intense brought by the controversy on Duterte’s campaign on drugs, one has to avoid giving comments that may “poison” the real matter of the issue.

Testimonies or Stories?

There is an interesting development at the House probe on the illegal drug trade in the New Bilibid Prison.  This development has something to do with the philosophical problem of arriving at truth which I am going to discuss a bit later.

 

Some personalities involved in this drug trade were summoned to testify[1] on the alleged illegal activities happening inside NBP.  Drug lords, police officers, NBP officers, and security aides of former DOJ secretary including Ronnie Dayan, who claimed he was a driver-security, a lover as well of then DOJ secretary Leila de Lima appeared in the Committee hearing and read prepared testimonies with an assistance of a legal counsel.  This Committee hearing in the Lower House appeared like a real scenario in the proper court, only that in the hearing there was no accused presented, no eyewitnesses shown (members of the Committee called them “resource persons” instead), and no judges.  That was not, however, judicial in nature but intended to aid Representatives in their legislation.

What transpired in the series of hearings is that all testimonies of “resource persons” summoned by the Committee to testify implicated Sen. Leila de Lima allegedly asking from drug lords some payolas for her senatorial campaign in exchange of protection in their drug trade.  However, during the last hearing, a certain member of the Committee noted and remarked addressing to Dayan, “paiba-iba ang kwento ninyo” (you’re making different versions of the story.)   He might not be referring only to the testimony of Dayan but other testimonies of some resource persons as well.  This remark tickles my imagination and leads me to write this article since this is not only a problem in hearing cases but a very philosophical one. 

The nature of reading sworn affidavits like one read by Dayan is to find out what is really the truth.  I like how it is said in Tagalog, “kung ano talaga ang katutuhanan.”  Truth has been a subject matter of lively debate by different philosophers in the history of philosophy.  Many philosophers claim that truth doesn’t change; it’s immutable.  In the words of Aristotle, “a proposition is true if, of what is the case, it says that it is the case, or if, of what it is not the case, it says that it is not the case.”  In a testimony, a witness should meet the following truth-conditions: (1) what he is going to testify is what is really the case or is happening, (2) nothing is left unsaid or unspoken, (3) nothing is intentionally omitted, and (4) nothing is a lie.  If all testimonies given by all persons involved in the issue meet all of these truth-conditions, then it would follow that each of them is telling the truth and their testimonies shall cohere (magkatugma ang sinabi nila).  In the hearing, convicted drug lords and some NBP personnel involved pointed their fingers to Dayan as the bagman of then Secretary de Lima.  Dayan, however, denied their allegations and denied having acquaintance with them. 

That’s where the problem lies.  One of them must be telling a lie.  Thus, one or more sworn affidavits by those resource persons are “stories,” not testimonies.  “Stories” are pre-fabricated, intentionally made to meet the end of the author/s.  If they’re not testimonies but stories, then this House probe fools the public into believing that De Lima is the culprit.  If that’s what the Committee is up to, then it defeats the purpose of having that hearing, which is to know the issue of illegal drug trade in NBP.

The current DOJ Secretary Aguirre knows that all of these testimonies presented at the House probe don’t hold water in the proper court to implicate De Lima as the mastermind of all these illegal activities.  Testimonial evidence is insufficient; it gives “probable cause” to implicate De Lima though.  But, by principle, a judge can’t convict a suspect on the basis of insufficient evidence.  A judge convicts a suspect unless pieces of evidence give “no room for doubt.”  Until now, there is no case filed against De Lima by the DOJ.  Senator De Lima knows it very well.  Despite all issues hurled against her, she remains in composure.  She can’t be convicted based on all those testimonies.  Well, in the first place, DOJ can’t find a case against her.  "Sextortion," illegal possession of husband, guess what?

---

[1] I think “testify” is not the correct term because in the first place they were not considered eyewitnesses but “resource persons.”

Philosophy as "Trash"

One may detest philosophy because it talks of nothing in particular.  Although great philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, among others have built grandiose systems of thought but these systems of thought create more disagreements than having agreements among those of great minds.  Although there are different subjects in philosophy specifically dealing with a particular topic such as being, society, knowledge, etc. yet these subjects don’t refer to something particular.  For example, in Metaphysics philosophers are dealing with the concept of “being.”  By its comprehension and extension, “being” refers to anything that exists but nothing in particular.  Thus, a metaphysician has all things –literally all things seen and unseen, to investigate but he holds nothing in particular in his hand to investigate with.  In other words, philosophers have “all” to talk about but they offer us nothing in particular.  Some philosophers who detest this sort of philosophical enterprise charge other philosophers of mumbling words which are empty of meanings, or words which contain no reference to anything and anyhow in the external world. 

In this regard, I’d like to share my readings on this matter, particularly on the idea that great philosophers are talking “non-sense.”  Jacques Derrida, a French philosopher, is one of those who claim that “there is nothing outside the text.”  If one is going to read all Platonic dialogues where a great philosopher, Plato, laid out his system of philosophy commonly known as Platonism, and if he follows Derrida, he will have a second thought if Plato is telling the truth or not.  If he has this doubt in mind, he will come to believe that Platonism is just a piece of literary work and a product of imagination of a morbid Plato.  If it’s a piece of literary work and a product of a wild imagination, then those who are studying them in the name of scholarly underpinning cannot exactly be called “experts or scholars” of Plato but “avid fans” of Plato.  It’s all non-sense.  Reading Plato’s dialogues, commenting on them, or studying on them is all “non-sense,” since in the first place, Platonism is non-sense.  In other words, what Plato wrote in all of his dialogues, which some historians of philosophy considered as great philosophical thought, is a “trash” since it doesn’t have anything outside of it (the text) to refer to.  Maybe, philosophers after Derrida may come think of “recycling” Platonic trash or any trash of philosophical system built by scavenger (philosopher) driven by philosophical urge.  It’s better for them to have a conviction that there is money in trash –so, Platonic trash is now convertible to cash, and it’s good for the environment of philosophers who deemed “clean” or who disliked to see philosophical “trashes” in their book shelves. 

I have nothing against Derrida’s critic on the tradition of the Western philosophy.  In fact, I appreciate his ways of showing the disparity between language and reality.  This method is known as deconstructionism.  I don’t want also to appear like one of those who want to keep the philosophical tradition in the West unblemished by stains from the dirty hands of playful philosophers like Derrida or Rorty.  Derrida’s brand of philosophical enterprise is not something new.  It echoes the noise created by nominalist philosophers during the Medieval ages and is repeated by Richard Rorty (an American pragmatist) in contemporary times. 

Nominalism holds that any word bears nothing but names.  In ancient times, Greek philosophers like Aristotle showed that a word corresponds to something external or that exists in reality.  For example, if you say “table,” this word “table” exists in reality or corresponds to something external other than the word itself.  It’s not actually a problem if a word only refers “ostensively” to an external thing.  It becomes a problem if a philosopher like Plato talks of something which doesn’t have any corresponding reality.  When, for example, Plato theorized the “formal ideas” found in the World of Ideas, which are considered real or true, this creates a very big problem because we have nothing in external world what Plato called “formal ideas.”  “Formal idea” doesn’t have any ostensive meaning, a meaning that can be unlocked by simply pointing it by your finger.  For example, when you say “table,” by ostensive definition, you do it by pointing your finger to a thing we generally call table.  But when you say “formal idea,” you cannot use your finger to point it out since there is none of its kind in the external word.

Nominalists are not having fun of that kind of idea, especially that idea of looking for an ostensive definition of a philosophical term.  There is none of it in reality.  You find it hopeless to scavenge of it in the world of experience.  A word bears only the sound.  It doesn’t bear any external reality.  For nominalists, it’s better to remain contented of hearing the mere sound of a word rather than believing that a word has anything outside of it.  This is basically the claim of Derrida.  However, the problem is when deconstructionists believe that every word bears nothing external except its mere sound.  They haven’t tried to distinguish object-language and meta-language.  The word “table” is an object-language.  You can define it ostensively.  The “formal idea” of Plato is a meta-language.  You can never have an ostensive definition of it.  The problem of deconstructionism and nominalism lies in the fact that it surreptitiously applies to every single word the belief that words create only sound rather than meaning.

In conclusion, philosophy is trivializing language.  Philosophers want to clear up trivialities in philosophy and its language.  But in so doing, they trivialize it more.  Anyway, that’s the business of philosophers.

Human Being and His Environment (part 2)

In my previous article, I tried to trace the historical account on how people viewed man’s nature in relation to environment.  Ancient Greeks viewed man as a “spectator” of the flux of nature.  Medieval men viewed man as a “steward” of nature, the creation of God.  With these ideas of “spectatorship” and “stewardship,” ancient Greeks and Medieval people never viewed man as a “master” of nature/ environment.  By “master” of nature, I mean he does not have to subject nature/environment to his dominion or control.

This paradigm on nature of man develops an attitude among ancient Greeks and Medieval people to take responsibility of the environment.  They never have the attitude to abuse nature/environment to advance human self-interests or the attitude to actively intervene the natural process of nature forcing it to secrete its laws. 

However this paradigm changed during the Scientific Revolution roughly about 1550-1700.  Scientific Revolution is marked by shifts in perspective specifically in how people view the world.  For example, Copernicus introduced the idea that the sun is the center of the universe[1], which contradicted the long-held belief of the medieval scientists and church authorities that the earth is the center of the universe.  This paradigm shift is now known as the Copernican revolution –a 360-degrees shift in perspective.  To have it was really a challenge on the part of Copernicus, owing to the fact that it is a long-held belief and the church, which propounded that idea, was considered infallible in her teachings and doctrines during those times.  In doing so, Copernicus was not only introducing a new idea (or a revolutionary idea) but also construing that the infallible authority of the church as a magistrate can be questioned or can be put into doubt.

It is in this scenario that we can understand the philosophy of Rene Descartes who lived in the middle part of the period known as the Scientific Revolution.  Descartes, a French philosopher, toyed the idea that everything can be doubted –even those ideas held by the church as teachings, dogmas or doctrines.  Yet, there is only one thing that he cannot put into doubt –and that is, he is doubting.  For Descartes, everything is dubitable, except his own doubting.  If he doubts, he thinks.  If he thinks, he exists.  Thus, Descartes is famous of his dictum “I think therefore I am.”  (In Latin phrase, cogito ergo sum.)  What essentially is his philosophy is capsulized in saying that “man, by nature, is a thinking being.”  As a thinking being, he has capabilities to constitute other beings’ existence and its knowledge of them.  In the words of Francis Bacon, “with reason, we can put nature on a rack.” 

This philosophical claim that man is a “thinking being” is not something new, or not a revolutionary idea.  Descartes’ predecessors have similar affirmation, for example Plato, Aristotle, St Thomas to name just a few.  What is revolutionary in this claim is that “as thinking being, man can become the master of nature.”  In the words of Descartes, man can constitute his knowledge of the world, which is entirely different from the way Greeks think of the world.  For the Greeks, the world is naturally “constituted.”  But, since the world can be doubted, it loses its foundation to be the source of knowledge.  Thus, man has to constitute his knowledge of it.  Or, in the words of Bacon, “with reason, we can put nature on a rack,” which is again a contradiction of what ancient philosophers think of nature/environment.  For the medieval people, for example, the world is something “entrusted” to them by God, so they are stewards of it, not masters of it. 

This modern philosophy[2] revolutionizes our view of nature/environment.  In the framework of modern philosophers, experimentation is the key to know the secrets of nature.  If we “put nature on the rack” to study it, which is done in scientific experiments, we force nature to secrete its laws.  If we know nature’s laws, we can control or manipulate it.  Thus, we say, “knowledge is power.”  He who is knowledgeable is powerful –in the sense that he is able to control or manipulate nature.  For example, we know how egg cells and sperm cells work during ejaculation in sexual intercourse of two partners.  Conception starts when egg and sperm cells combine in the uterus.  If there is no meeting of the two cells, there is no conception that will happen.  With this knowledge, we are able to manipulate the behavior of egg and sperm cells, like the use of contraceptives during sexual intercourse hinders the meeting of the cells.  From active experiments, we are able to intervene and even manipulate the process or workings of nature, which we consider as natural or say, “the nature’s way.”  Thus, the difference between natural and man-made or artificial is clearly drawn.  Man’s intervention to processes of environment is considered man-made or artificial.  At the outset, we come to believe that what is man-made is easier and faster, and what is natural is slow-paced.  Today’s motto is “the faster, the better.”

In conclusion, with this modern paradigm, nature/environment is at the mercy man’s thinking power, which most of the time becomes capricious.  With our experiences of calamities brought about by global warming, we’ve now come to realize how much abuses we’ve done to Mother Earth.  And, there is an urgent need to attend to the call to care once more of our environment.  To realize this we need to have another paradigm shift.

---

[1] Of course, we have to remember that their idea of universe is not the same idea that we have today.  Maybe, medieval people had only some planets, a moon, and a sun in mind when they talked of universe, and these heavenly bodies are revolving around the earth.  Today, universe is as immense as we can imagine and we think it as boundless.

[2] The philosophy of Rene Descartes is generally regarded as “modern philosophy.”  In fact, Descartes is considered as the Father of Modern Philosophy.

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.