Freedom and Responsibility (part 1)

Freedom is one necessary condition for any of us to become human.  Without freedom, it’s pretty hard for one to attain some sense of self-realization or to actualize one’s potentialities.

Becoming human, here, has a different meaning.  It has two connotations.  First, it connotes a down-to-earth reality of human beings.  This human reality is no longer the ideal self of Plato, which belongs to the World of Ideas, nor the moral self of St Thomas, which belongs to the heavenly Paradise, but the self with human experiences.  It is the kind of self which is very in touch with the world and all of its worldly concerns.  The tendency of Plato’s view of the ideal self is to give up human experiences and be obsessed with the ideal things in life.  For Plato, what is important in man is his soul.  So, the body is somehow left “unattended,” specifically the desires and emotions.  It’s not only that desires and emotions not given much importance but they’re also considered as hindrances for one to achieve the ideals in life.  This is also of the moral self of St Thomas.  St Thomas believed that a human being has to follow his/her natural tendency to do good as it is implanted in his/her soul by the supreme good Creator/ God.  If possible, at all times, he/she has to follow the dictates of his/her conscience.  Otherwise, salvation will not come to his/her way.  These two tendencies are other-worldly and considered no humanly. 

Becoming human is understood, in this context, as necessarily human without any color of otherworldly dimensions.  The ideal of this self-project is ultimately self-realization as understood by Erick Erickson.  Erickson’s hierarchy of needs shows different levels of needs of human beings, which ultimately ends up with self-realization.  Self-realization is only attained once the lower levels are fulfilled like the physiological needs, safety needs, and the need to belong.  This way up on the hierarchy is very rooted in one’s experiences, which implies that all other aspects such as desires and emotions are recognized as part of human growth and development. 

Becoming human, therefore, is inconceivable if one has no freedom.  In physiological level, for example, Erickson believes that if basic needs like food, clothing, shelter are met, one is free to move upward or say, he’s free to attend to other of his/her needs.  If he/she fails to meet these basic needs, then it’s hard for him/her to fulfil some of the higher needs.  In real life situations, if one has nothing to eat, or keeps on looking for food every meal, it’s hard for him/her to meet some of his/her higher needs like safety needs or need to belong.  Freedom in this sense is understood as free from restrictions coming from external factors.  It’s undeniably true that one’s exercise of freedom must have been done in an environment –physical or social, where there are less infractions of liberty.  Physical environment may include the immediate place we live like dwelling in Alaska means we’re not at liberty to wear light clothes, or may include the available resources in the place where we live.  Social environment refers to practices, customs, laws, etc. of the group where we live and belong.  These social conventions have a “force of a habit” influencing us to conform with the group.

HUMAN FREEDOM

Is man free?  What is the source of freedom?  Philosophers in the past claimed that human being has two faculties: will and understanding.  Will intends for what is good whereas understanding for what is true.  Whereas will serves practical purposes, understanding for theoretical purposes.  Human will is the source of freedom.  Although there are several definitions of human will like Medieval philosophers identified will as the will to do good, Kant uses the term “good will,” Nietzsche uses “will to power,” but we can highlight two important implications from these definitions: (1) will is a free act/ volition, and (2) will is the will to do what is good.  Based on the first point, with this faculty of willing, man is a free agent.  By exercising one’s volition/ will, he/she makes a choice from multiple alternatives.  By having a choice, one exercises his/her freedom. 

BF Skinner, however, argues that one’s exercise of making a choice (or his/her willing) is actually influenced by his/her environment.  “Man can be conditioned,” Skinner claims.  Willing (in a sense, freedom) is an illusion since in every possible way, man’s environment curtails his/her making of choice.  Willing does not go beyond the possible alternatives already available in his/her immediate environment.  In a certain sense, environment –physical or social, influences one’s decision. But if we look at it from the perspective of the one who makes that decision, we can still conclude that the decision he makes is still his and his alone.  No one has done it for him; some external influences are present though.  I think, the problem of Skinner is a simple neglect of the difference between the “act of willing,” and the “circumstance of willing.”  Skinner makes emphasis of the circumstances in the process of willing.  But if the emphasis is given in the “act of willing” itself, we surely arrive at the conclusion that man is freely making a choice.  Conditions –whether external or internal, are always present in making decisions but it doesn’t defy the fact that “the act of making choices” is volitional, not conditional.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty supports that idea that “decision making is done in a certain situation” but it doesn’t necessarily mean that “decision” is not conditional –depending on the conditions.  Though decision is situational –depends on a given situation but it is always volitional.  For example, there are many conditions why a teenager will engage in premarital sex.  First, we can cite some external factors like peer-pressure and it’s a common story she heard from teenagers like her.  Perhaps, it will come to her senses that “everybody is doing it.”  So, she decides to do it herself.  Second, we can also cite some internal factors like it’s a good feeling to be in love and a nice feeling too to engage in sex.  Taking all these factors, we conclude that her decision to engage in it is primarily conditioned –thus, she has no freedom, no choice but to do it.  In a certain sense, it’s true!  But, if she opts not to engage in it, then her option is still conditioned.  Thus, in either way –whether to engage in premarital sex or not, her decision is conditioned –thus, not free. 

Let’s try to look the same situation in this way.  Take all the conditions (external and internal) as the given situation of a teenager who’s in a dilemma of indulging in sex or not.  In fact, this is the situation of teenagers in modern times because of the influence of Western culture through mass and social media.  This teenager is already in this situation.  This given situation offers her some options to choose from; and her decision is always within the bounds of the given situation.  She cannot make any decision regarding the matter outside the given situation.   In other words, her decision cannot be done in a vacuum.  So, decision-making is always situational.  As mentioned above, though decision-making is always situational but never conditional.  It is at all times volitional. 

In conclusion, human freedom is not illusory.  What is illusory is when we claim that man has no freedom.

Democracy and Human Rights

As mentioned in the previous article dated December 2, 2016, the concept of human rights fits only in democracy.  Democracy is the best locus where human rights are recognized, exercised and respected by the authority.  Authoritarian governments will most likely neglect most of human rights of every member of the society.  To its extreme, these governments may even take the most fundamental rights of man like the right to life and the right to live.

Many philosophers theorize the nature and some aspects of democracy.  Etymologically, democracy means the “rule of the people,” which is derived from two Greek words: demos meaning people and kratos meaning rule.  Aristotle, ancient Greek philosopher, classified three forms of governments, namely: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.  By definition, monarchy means a government ruled by one person, the monarch; aristocracy means a government ruled by few, like the aristocrats; and democracy means a government ruled by many or the people.  Yet these governments can become perverted, for example monarchy will turn into totalitarian, aristocracy to oligarchy, or a democracy to a “mob rule.”  With each government’s twists and turns, we can infer that there is no such thing as perfect government. 

In this 21^st century, democracy becomes prevalent in many countries of the world.  This is somehow the outcome of World War II fought between democratic and totalitarian fronts or countries.  This continued during the Cold War between two ideologies and economic powers: communism (adapted in Russia) versus democracy (adapted in the US).  After all these wars, democracy prevails and communism suffers from its gradual downfall.  In history, we’ve seen a clearer picture how human rights are observed under the two different ideologies.  In totalitarian governments like communist countries, human rights are denied.  One concrete manifestation of it is the exclusion of the Bill of Rights in the constitution of the country.  But mostly communist countries don’t have a constitution.  In democratic countries like the US, inclusion of the Bill of Rights in its constitution is a clear manifestation that US government recognized the importance of human rights.  My account here of the world history is "roughly said" but it's undeniably true that democracy promotes the respect of human rights.

In democracy, one’s freedom is given importance.  Democracy provides a space –be it physical or social, for personal growth and development in different areas of life like professional, social, religious and even political.  By physical space, I mean the immediate environment where we live in.  By social space, I mean the social environment we belong.  In democracy, this space is freer to practice our profession and for us to grow in our profession.  With this space, social mobility is prevalent.  This space is very much freer for us to choose and practice our religious belief.  With this space, anyone can engage in political life without any prejudice of social class we belong.  It is only in democratic space where we have opportunities for self-growth in all aspects of life. 

In this context, we understand how the concept of human rights is defined to its fullest sense.  Human rights include all our rights, namely: natural such as the right to life and the right to live and conventional, which includes constitutional, statutory, economic, political, etc.  

What is, then, a human right?  Right is not a privilege of every citizen.  It is rather an exercise of one’s freedom without unnecessary restrictions from outside environment like the family, government or any other institutions.  Human freedom is very necessary condition for each one of us to attain a personal self-realization.  The embodiment of this freedom is one’s human right.  Thus, as discussed above, the idea of human rights can only be exercised under the auspices of democratic principles.

Government shall protect all forms of human rights.  The inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the constitution of any state is the best expression of respect and advocacy of human rights.  Bill of Rights safeguards the rights of every individual from any form of abuses inflicted by other individual, government, or other institution.  It is also necessary for any government to define and redefine human rights in the formulations of statutes or laws because each right is vulnerable to any form of abuses.

In conclusion, every individual deserves due respect from other individual –not because he/she is a friend, a brother, a sister, a father, a mother, a neighbour, or a known personality but because he/she is a human person.  As human as we are, we give due respect to every human being.  However, because of our personal interests, we seem to violate others’ rights.  There are times that our will to do good (goodwill) is weaker than what good we want to do.

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.