Faith and Reason

Richard Rorty’s incessant attack on Platonism would lead one to believe that philosophy is a useless enterprise.  He described the whole history of philosophy in the West as Platonism.  Though he claimed that he never disparaged the person of Plato, but of course, I’m sure he recognized Plato as one who fathered this school of thought. 

Platonism, Rorty claimed, is the philosophical belief responsible of separating two different kinds of worlds: the world of material things and the world of ideal forms.  In epistemological sense, a distinction is drawn between the phenomenal world and noumenal world, as Immanuel Kant termed centuries later after Plato.  Plato’s concern was to look for grounds of what is real.  The phenomenal or material world (the world of senses) is in constant flux, which is a common human experience.  In a day-to-day life, we commonly experience that things keep on changing.  Nothing is permanent.  Everything will pass away even how individual persons keep and value them.  Everything is fleeting like clouds in the skies.  Human beings too are temporary.  This experience of temporariness of life and of things leaves them a feeling of anxiety, which aspires them to look for something eternal –something which does not change, immutable.  Plato found it in the world of ideas, which is accessible only with the mind.  We don’t have any direct/immediate access of it, though.  Yet, its existence is a rational necessity –that is, reason necessarily sees it as real.  At the outset, a distinction between the world of senses and the world of reason is drawn.  The two faculties of man, namely the senses and reason, intend separately to these two different worlds.  Senses seek specifically the objects in the material world.  Reason, on the other, seeks objects properly dwelling in the world of ideal forms.

Plato’s analysis of these two worlds creates great division among philosophers.  There are some philosophers who are faithful to Platonic notion of the world of forms –though they put some modifications of it.  They are usually considered as rationalists or under the camp of rationalism.  Other philosophers reject the ideal/formal world and affirm the sensible world.  These philosophers are commonly known as empiricists.  Rationalists believe that the real is grounded in the ideal world.  Thus, their conviction is that the real world is the ideal world (the world of ideas), and all other realities like of the self, society, knowledge are to be found in the real ideal world.  Empiricists, on the other hand, believe that the real is grounded in the sensible world; there’s no other world besides the material world.  Since this world is fleeting, these philosophers are convinced that other realities like the self, society, knowledge are fleeting.  Perceptual experience is fleeting; so as one’s knowledge which is sourced from it.

This restless history of philosophy –characterized by a tug-o-war between empiricists and rationalists, is what Richard Rorty calls Platonism.  All these philosophers –whether rationalists or empiricists, are fooled by Plato into believing that there is an apparent distinction between appearance and reality.  This appearance-reality distinction undermines the fact that there is such a thing as reality out there, which serves as the foundation of talking what is real.  Rorty is somehow accusing Plato that if that distinction was never conceived, the “myth of the given” may not have fooled Plato’s predecessors in talking about it or writing voluminous books about it for the sake of academic pursuit.  Appearance or reality is a myth.  Like the deconstructionists, Rorty claims that appearance and/or reality doesn’t exist outside the consciousness of man.  So, what he is doing is “de-mythologized” this myth, that has mystified a number of philosophers in the history of philosophy.  He is helping philosophers get out from this "mythical" entanglement.  

Rorty's critic is exasperating!  Yet, in deeper analysis, Rorty seems like feeling discontented of what human reason is capable of.  Plato and his predecessors have been confident that reason can establish what is real --whether through purely rational or empirical demonstration.  They have been confident that reason can "mirror" the exact external reality, as Rorty termed it.  The problem, however, is that it isn't possible.  It isn't possible that human mind "mirrors" exactly what is in the outside world.  It isn't possible for the external, material object to become one of a mental (spiritual) entity as captured by the human mind.  Every philosopher is aware of this problem.  Rorty is very aware of this problem.  And, every philosopher --except Rorty and his cohorts, knows that it's part of the limits of human reason.  Human reason has limits since its operation is subject to its own framework, specifically the conceptual-linguistic framework.  Meaning, one thinks according to his frame of understanding and his frame of language.  He does not think beyond his capability to think.  He does not think of anything else outside his linguistic reference.  It seems to me that Rorty has missed the point of Platonism.  I agree with him that reason will eventually fail to look for such a thing as reality.  But, there is no point to agree with him that there is no such thing as external reality.  What, I think, we miss to recognize, which Rorty fails to recognize, is that human reason has limits.

If we accept the fact that reason has limits, that's where faith comes in.  Faith leaves us some space to wonder that not everything we want to know can be known exactly like seeing the image reflected in the "mirror" (or the human mind).  Faith gives us hints to ponder that we are not "omniscient" knowers. 

In conclusion, Rorty's critic on Platonism is, once and for all, an affirmation that human beings are not purely beings of reason but also beings of faith.

Democracy in Crisis

What has been happening in the Philippines when Pres. Duterte sits in power is a phenomenon that calls each citizen to reflect on the idea of democracy as a system of government and a way of life.  War on drugs is the center stage of controversies in Pres. Duterte’s campaign.  To date, more than 2000 drug-related deaths of personalities allegedly connected to illegal drug trade. 

For Pres. Duterte, it’s a matter of principle to sustain his campaign against drugs.  Illegal drug is a menace to Philippine society, especially to the young who are addicted to it.  It will make the young generation unproductive and dangerous to public safety. Likewise, it will cost the government for their rehabilitation and prepare them again to be part to the society’s mainstream.  It’s a matter of principle because, by hook or by crook, Duterte’s administration is resolved to crack down the drug trade and the syndicate behind it to its bitter end.  Pres. Duterte is unstymied even biting oppositions are stoned against him by different groups advocating human rights.   

This controversy raises concern over human rights abuses and violations.  Likewise, this concern poses some kind of crisis the way Duterte’s administration observes democratic ideals embodied in the constitutional mandate of his office.  This crisis lurks between the political power legitimized in the office of the President and human rights embodied in the New Constitution. 

As the Chief Executive of the land, Duterte is mandated to execute the laws of the land such as “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972” and “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.”  If he fails to fulfil this mandate, then he is negligent of his duties as the Chief Executive.  To fulfil his mandate, Duterte shall mobilize all elements of the PNP and AFP.  He even “encouraged” armed forces of the NPA (mentioned in one of his TV appearances) and local elected officials to apprehend any activities related to drug use and trade.  On the other hand, in the process of enforcing the laws, questions regarding violations of constitutional rights of suspects are popping out since some lapses in police operation are observed, as critics would claim, like absence of any of these rights: due process, right to be heard, or right to have a counsel.

President Duterte has the political will to crackdown illegal drugs.  But the question is, “Is his political will too much so as to intrude the safeguards of human rights embodied in the constitution?”  Or, shall we ask, “Does the idea of human rights become the “constitutional shield” of those personalities behind the drug trade?”  Because of this “constitutional shield,” these drug personalities have immunity in the persecutions. 

All these questions test the reliability of the democratic form of government in the Philippines.  Does democracy legitimize the power of the government?  Or, Does democracy legitimize the safeguards of human rights?

What is Real Knowledge?

This article is still in connection with my last article posted online dated January 27, 2017.  My conclusion in that article is that no one can monopolize knowledge.  This conclusion implies an epistemological question, "What is, then, a real knowledge?"  This is what I like to explore in this article, if nobody can take all what it takes in inquiry, then who'll declare that one has everything to take.  To put it simply, if nobody has the authority to say whether one is correct or not, then what is the criterion of knowledge?  To further our question, we ask, is real knowledge tenable?

It's perhaps liberating to know that nobody can monopolize knowledge.  No one will tell another researcher that he's wrong, or criticize his methodology in research, or criticize his findings, and more.  One is free to do what he wants in research.  He's free of worries regarding his topic to research.  He's free of worries regarding what technicalities to follow in research.  He's free of worries of his writing skills.  He's free of worries whether he's correct or not of his findings.  It's just like saying, "no one commits mistake; so everybody's right."  Yet, we can't go on with things like this.  It's as good as relativism.  Knowledge is relative to each and every inquirer/ researcher.  Knowledge is as good as anyone else, which at the same time, is as worse as anything else.  In consequence, it's not knowledge but merely a capricious belief, which is not worth having nor defending for.

This dilemma creates a paradoxical kind of reality.  It's liberating yet disturbing -liberating, in the sense that a researcher doesn't care of the right research methods and the right language, and disturbing, in the sense that a researcher writes nothing but merely a piece of literary work and nothing outside of it.

This set of questions is not actually novel.  This has been asked and answered by different philosophers in the past like Plato, Descartes, Kant, Husserl, among others.  Yet, we find no common answers among them.  In fact, their answers are conflicting and opposing.

In conclusion, the theory of falsifiability poses some troublesome issues regarding what we know with certainty.  Its main concern is that knowledge is untenable even if it is scientific.

Research-based Knowledge is Falsifiable

In the last article dated January 25, 2017, I’ve shown that any scientific knowledge is falsifiable.  For some, this is a disheartening fact.  For decades, science is considered infallible in its claim of knowledge.  It cannot be mistaken in finding knowledge since it is founded on experience.  Experiential knowledge is verifiable.  With right discipline and attitude, a scientist can process the whole field of experience and extract knowledge from it.  Thus, real knowledge can only be gained through experience, not through rational demonstration.  This belief has been defended by a number of scientists and philosophers, like empiricists, positivists, Kantians, among others.

Research, as understood today, claims to be scientific.  Researchers have high level of confidence similar to that of scientists’.  Research-based knowledge is better than any other forms of knowledge, especially one gained through pure reason.  Reliance on research-based knowledge is now “the rule of thumb” in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) wishing to utilize research-based instructions.  Research is considered one of the pillars of HEIs, besides instruction and community extension.  In some practices, HEI faculty are snubbed or not promoted if they are not able to publish research studies.  If a faculty has not published or able to produce research studies, he/she has to swift to other profession.   

It's undeniably true that research has played a big role in successes in industries, in science, and even in interplanetary missions.  Missions in Mars and in other planets have been successful because of constant tests and experiments of unmanned rovers in varying circumstances expected to be encountered in the missions.  Research has made advances in technology, advances in psychology, in politics, in economics, and in other fields of human interest.  The research discipline itself has advanced to its heights with the utilization of statistics.  Researchers themselves have made advances too in their discipline and attitude in conducting research.  Researchers are now becoming too objective, too specialized, and too productive.

Yet, the challenge is still there.  Research-based knowledge can still be falsifiable.  Even if this knowledge is made justified by hard evidence, gathered by well-known experts, and gathered by best-possible methodology, yet we have to accept the fact that it is still under the principle of falsifiability.  It can still be contested.  Counter evidence may falsify it.  There is only one implication of this fact: no one has the monopoly of knowledge.   

Scientific Knowledge is Falsifiable

Science prided itself of being the sole arbiter of true knowledge.  It started when many existing beliefs held by the Church were challenged by newly scientific truths discovered by scientists during the Scientific Revolution.  For example, Church authorities in Medieval times propounded the idea that earth is the center of the universe.  This was also premised in the ideas that God created the universe; man finds favour in him of all other things; so earth should be at the center in the scheme of things as man’s dwelling place.  All these strings of beliefs were somehow weaved into one system with some elements of religious beliefs through speculation without due regard to their empirical contents.  Thus, when Copernicus was able to establish the fact –with the help of new invented technology like telescope, that the sun is the center of the universe, there was a gradual change in conviction that knowledge becomes more reliable if founded in science through observation.  What is derived from speculation or faith is considered spurious; what is derived from observation is considered reliable and true. 

From then on, the rule of the day is science and its objectivity in arriving truth.  Eventually, science has become proud to be the new arbiter of truth replacing the olden days of the church.  Science has claimed infallible in its newly-found knowledge.  It cannot get wrong or mistaken of its newly-found knowledge.  Its knowledge is grounded on empirical evidence gathered through experimentation.  It has even become proud that scientific knowledge is better than any knowledge gained from speculation or faith.

However, observation alone is not enough to establish a true knowledge.  Scientists are very aware of this.  Thus, as an observer or scientist, he has to develop in him a discipline and an attitude, which are unique among scientists.  His discipline consists of being neutral in his investigation.  His attitude consists of being keen in finding the right problem, in formulating the right hypothesis, in finding sufficient evidence to support his hypothesis, and making objective conclusion.  Without his scientific discipline and attitude, his observation and finding are unreliable.  Thus, science is not only about finding objective truth but also a matter of personal discipline and an art. 

In all of its success, science has never been in its pedestal without various challenges.  One persistent challenge it encountered is its claim of infallibility –that is, science can’t get wrong of its truth-claims.  To date, there are two prominent thinkers who challenged its infallibility, namely: Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.  Kuhn’s treatment is interesting yet I shall dispense myself of not discussing it here.

Popper is famous of the “principle of falsifiability.”  In so far as science speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable.  This principle applies to any field of science such as in medical science, in physical science, in biological science, in astronomical science, and among others.  In medical science, for example, scientists claim that condom can protect users from contacting or transmitting HIV/AIDS virus or STDs but, for Popper, it must be falsifiable.  Medical scientists can get wrong of this claim.  In astronomical science, astronomers claim that there are only 8 planets in the solar system, again it is falsifiable.  Astronomers can get wrong.  All forms of scientific knowledge are practically falsifiable.  The point, however, is not that truth is untenable.  Scientific knowledge can be made certain but its process of arriving it, which is through inductive reasoning, is not that sound to establish a knowledge that can no longer be put to doubt.  Induction gives us only a probable conclusion. 

Nowadays, many experts like researchers will try to convince us that in every undertaking we take, we have to pay attention to any scientific knowledge.  Expressions like “research-based” education, “research-based” instruction, “research-based” curriculum, and so on are manifestations that science unlike any other fields gives us satisfaction to our insatiable desire for truth.

In conclusion, science is dethroned of its crowning glory as the sole arbiter of knowledge.  Scientists are dethroned too of their crowns as masters of “scientific” craft.  Whether one is an expert or not, he/she has the right to claim what he/she believes is true.

Hylemorphism and Education

In this article, I’d like to embark on the Aristotelian principle of hylemorphism to elucidate us on the problems encountered in the practices of Outcomes-based education.  Recent studies show some points of difference between lecture-based and outcomes-based education.  Whereas lecture-based education is centered on the content and the teacher who imparts the content, outcomes-based education is centered on the outcomes and the students who produce the outcomes.  In short, the former is teacher-centered and content-based, whereas the latter is student-centered and outcomes-based.  But, there is a misconception on how these types of methods in education are applied in the classroom settings.  Perhaps, some questions that need a thorough reflection and informed answers are as follows: (1) how much lessons we have to impart to our students; (2) how long do teachers spend in giving lectures; (3) what are outcomes; (4) how to assess students’ outcomes; and (5) how do we know that the outcomes of students cover the lessons that students should learn.  I’ll try to shed light on some of these problems using the theory of hylemorphism of Aristotle.

Grappling with a philosophical problem posed by his master Plato, Aristotle developed a metaphysical theory commonly known today as hylemorphism.  Hylemorphism is a belief which holds that every existing thing or object is a composite of matter and form.  Derived from two Greek words, hylo meaning matter and morphe meaning form, hylemorphism literally means a matter-form principle.  In metaphysical sense, not a thing could exist without this composition.  Neither matter nor form can exist by itself.  Matter is the passive principle; form is the active one.  Matter is eternal, not created.  Aristotle called it, “raw material” of the universe.  Form, on the other hand, exists in the mind of the Demiurge.  This active principle is imposed in the matter causing a thing or object to exist.  Thus, any object we see in this world is a composite of matter and form.

This matter-form principle doesn’t only apply in cosmology (the way we understand the material universe) but also to man’s reasoning.  Reasoning is one form of man’s mental activities.  The outcome of reasoning is what we call “argument.”  Argument is the main concern of Logic –the science of evaluating arguments.  Arguments have a form and content.  To determine the forms of arguments, one has to identify the parts of arguments like the premis/es and conclusion.  The premis/es are parts of the arguments that give rational support to the conclusion.  The conclusion is what is affirmed on the basis of the premis/es. 

There are two kinds of argument, namely: deductive and inductive.  Deductive argument is one whose conclusion is arrived at from its premises with absolute necessity.  By absolute necessity, I mean that the conclusion follows from its premises necessarily and absolutely.  In other words, the rational support given in the premises is enough or sufficient to claim the truth or falsity of the conclusion.  Sufficient reason guarantees the validity of a deductive argument.  It does not mean to gather all available evidences, but simply gather some pieces of evidence to make the argument impervious to doubt.  To put it simply, the argument will no longer be contested by other contradicting evidence, or the argument can no longer be defeated.  Inductive argument, on the other hand, is one whose conclusion is arrived at from its premises only with probability.  This sort of argument gives us only a probable conclusion.  By probability, I mean that the degree of truth or falsity of the conclusion varies according to the available pieces of evidence.  That’s why, an inductive argument can never be a valid one.  Only deductive arguments can be valid or invalid.

For Aristotle, there are forms of deductive arguments which can be valid or invalid.  Yet, it’s clear that the validity or invalidity of arguments does not guarantee the truth or falsity of the argument’s conclusion.  Or, the truth or falsity of the propositions in the arguments does not by itself determine the validity or invalidity of the argument.  It is possible that the argument is valid but all of its propositions are false, or the argument is invalid but all of its propositions are true.  But if the argument is valid and all of its propositions are true, that’s the time that we call this argument as “sound.”  A sound argument is valid in form and substantial in content.  It is similarly true in doing research.  To make the research paper “sound,” form and content should be present.  Valid format of a sound research paper includes the introduction, objectives, theoretical framework, methodology, presentation and analysis of results, and conclusion.  Its substance, on the other hand, refers to the comprehensiveness of the subject matter researched on.  The valid format asks the questions, “How the research is systematically done, what method used, how it is presented?”  The substance asks the question, “How comprehensive is the paper?”  The comprehensiveness of the paper means that the number of variables of the study known and met is sufficient to support the assumption in doing the study. Without these two elements, a research paper serves nothing good.

This is what I like to embark in my analysis of education.  One important component of education is to impart knowledge to students.  For Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher, education is a process of leading out students from ignorance to enlightenment.  In his allegory of the cave, Plato compared learners to prisoners chained in a cave for a long time.  Their hands and heads are chained too so that they only see in one direction –seeing merely the dark wall with silhouette of light coming from a torch hanged over their heads.  Once in a while images are flashed on the wall.  In their lifetime they see only these images or shadows flashed on the wall.  Eventually, they come to believe that shadows are real.  Plato may have exactly imagined the way modern people are watching programs or movies on TVs.  In consequence, these people identify objects shown on TVs and the real objects, not knowing that TV programs or movies are created by the creative mind of producers.  Even news programs are sometimes twisted to suit the taste of the management or the taste of the public.  For Plato, education is a way to make students realize what are essentials in life.  Of course, to look for the essentials in life is to escape from imprisonment.  To escape from imprisonment is like getting rid of those images or shadows constantly impinging our senses.  To get rid of those images or shadows is like piercing through the world of appearances and able to see what is real or the essentials. 

This Platonic project, however, is challenged by Richard Rorty, known Neo-Pragmatist in the US.

In Platonic context, what is essential in education is knowledge and the delivery of it.  In ancient times, when written materials were not yet in practice, knowledge is delivered to students by story-telling.  Jesus –the great teacher, delivered his message (or knowledge of the Kingdom of God) by story-telling.  He became great; the impact of his teaching is still reverberating until these times.  Sound pedagogy, I think, simply consists of a clear message –that is, the knowledge to impart is clear, and a clear method of imparting it.  It goes without saying that either method (lecture-based or outcomes-based) can be valid in form and substantial in content.  Neither is a good method nor a bad one.

In conclusion, it seems to me that our policy-makers are much concerned of what method will be employed in Philippine education.  Yet, they fail to realize that the knowledge to impart to students is also equally important.  Sound education should be valid in form (method) and substantial in content.

Freedom and Responsibility (part 2)

In the first article, I’ve shown how human freedom is possible.  Human freedom comes from man’s act of willing or volition.  This part of the article will elaborate the relationship existing between freedom and responsibility.  No one can talk of freedom without talking of responsibility.  Responsibility is inherently one with human freedom.  If we talk of human freedom outside the sphere of responsibility, we talk of it as non-sense. 

Jean Paul Sartre seems to suggest that the sphere of human freedom is over and beyond the sphere of responsibility.  He argues that man is absolutely free.  Based on his analysis of man as consciousness-for-itself (pour soi), he is able to establish that human freedom is absolute.  Nothing restricts human freedom even his past or his immediate environment.  If his history or environment haunts his freedom, he can deny it by intending his consciousness to negate it.  Pour soi (in layman’s term, thinking) has the power to negate if man intends to do so.  Man as pour soi intends to negate everything on his way.  He is as if no body, no history, and no environment.  He is pure thinking or consciousness, whence comes his absolute freedom.  But it’s hard to convince our sane mind to agree the idea that we can think –if we intend to do so, as if we have no body, no past, and no environment.  In consequence, we are not “somebody.”

It’s undeniably true that the word “freedom” entails a condition where there are no restrictions of one’s overt or covert actions.  This further entails that this sort of freedom is a freedom “without obstacles” –thus, absolute.  Human reality, however, will never brood this sort of freedom.  In reality, man is an embodied subject.  Sartrean freedom is only possible in the context of Cartesian concept of man as composite of res extensa and res cogitans (extended thing and thinking thing).  For Rene Descartes, man has dual nature, namely: body and mind.  There is a clear distinction between body and mind.  Body is distinct and separate from the mind.  And the very essence of man is that he is a thinking being.  Descartes does not suggest that man can exist without the body.  Rather, man’s body is simply an instrument (or extension) of the power of the mind.  Along this line of thought, we are able to arrive at the conclusion like Sartre that man as essentially a “thinking being” can attain freedom in absolute sense.  In other words, man’s thinking power is immense, powerful, unlimited, and so on.  Name all the absolutes; that’s the power of the mind!

However, this Cartesian dualism encounters major setbacks, which his predecessors incessantly attack.  One setback in Cartesian dualism is the emphasis on man as “essentially thinking substance,” which results in giving importance to man’s thinking power more than his very existence.  Gabriel Marcel is one of the philosophers who attacks Cartesianism.  For Marcel, there is no sense to talk of man as composed of body and mind.  Though these two entities are distinct but they are inseparable.  Inseparability of body and mind, however, still does not suffice to describe their relation.  Using secondary reflection, Marcel arrives at the point that, “I/Subject does not merely own the body,” but “I am my body.”  The “I” is closely identified with the body; the body is one with the “I” or the subject.  Their relationship is one of a sort of “incarnation” –thus, embodiment.  The “I” or subject is embodied.  In the end, Marcel makes his point clear in saying that the relationship of mind and body lies between the spheres of “having” and “being.”

On this basis, human freedom is somehow conditioned by one’s embodiment.  Thus, freedom cannot be absolute.  Although the power of the mind is limitless but it works only within the bounds of his embodiment.  In other words, although the power of the mind is structure-less but it will become structured because of man’s body.  At this point, I am going to embark the idea of “structured freedom,” which is closely related to responsibility.

“Great power comes great responsibility,” Spiderman said.  To paraphrase it, “great freedom comes great responsibility.”  This is my contention that freedom is inseparably one with responsibility.  To exercise one’s freedom is to oversee its corresponding responsibility.  Sartrean freedom doesn’t give any room for one to have responsibility.  For Sartre, the exercise of freedom is absolute.  Thus, the one who exercises absolute freedom is never answerable to the consequences of his actions. 

In conclusion, human freedom is not an illusion nor is absolute.  Human freedom is structured because of one’s embodiment.  It is always inseparably one with responsibility.