Society and Culture

Society is a social phenomenon that leads curious thinkers thrive to understand its nature and origin, its complex structure, its development and so on and on.  What is obvious in every society is that it undergoes changes.  Though society creates structures which become relatively permanent yet these structures change through time.  For example, during the colonial period, Philippine society was framed according to the "reduccion" plan of the Spanish colonizers where natives had to live near the church.  Eventually, the Catholic faith became the center of people's lives.  Yet, this old structure has changed in modern times.  Filipinos have to live in places where employment abounds.  Eventually, what becomes the center of peoples' lives in modern times is no longer the church but industrial complex.  Unlike the period of colonization, business is the common activity of most people, and not so much on activities related to the church.

Culture is the most useful "heuristic device" utilized by social scientists in modern times to understand society.  Though its operational definition differs from one sociologist to another yet one thing clear about its definition is that culture is all-inclusive -that is, it means everything in the society.  It refers to (manifest or non-manifest) people's way of life, beliefs, practices, habits, and so on.  It refers to everything in a society but refers to nothing in particular in it.  

The idea of culture revolutionizes our understanding of society -in each and every of its aspects.  For example, anthropologists studying lost societies like the Ankor Wat in Cambodia direct their attention in the culture of those people living in that lost society, and not so much in the structures of their society.  The idea of culture is like a mirror giving us a clearer picture of what a society is.  Culture remains unchanged while all of its existing structures, organization or shall we say, “social accidents” undergo changes.  Studying culture is like studying what is “essential” in a given society.  Culture also changes through time, though.  Most sociologists agree with this claim.  The point, however, is that even if a certain society dies out, culture remains as ease and still reflects the identity of that society.

That’s a good thing about the idea of culture.  We cannot do away with its use and its importance in understanding human society.  Its pragmatic implication is pervasive.  We can even make use of it in instilling world peace as Pope Francis urged Catholics to spread peace on Fatima centennial.     

I would like to argue that world peace is only possible if the idea of culture is given due regard and consideration.  One study shows, citing the warlike tribes in remote areas of Mexico and the peace-loving tribes in Papua New Guinea, that peace is something cultural or something nurtured. 

This fact runs counter with the long-held belief of some philosophers that man is naturally good.  The goodness of man is innate.  When he grows up, environment corrupts his nature to do good.  It is fallacious to conclude that peace in the society is built on the natural goodness of man.

Is Richard Rorty a Man of Faith?

When I read again my article, entitled "Faith and Reason" dated February 15, 2017, I came to realize that Rorty must be a "man of faith."  Of course, his faith is entirely different from the faith of any religion.  I think, it's clear that the object of his faith is not someone who is Absolute but to something that promises some progress of humanity.  Rortian faith is synonymous with "social hope."  Yet I doubt if he identifies hope with faith -if faith is understood in religious terms.  In religious context, faith is a firm assent to a proposition like "God exists" even if it doesn't have any correspondence in reality (as atheists claim).  Maybe, Rortian hope is little less in degree of assertion to a proposition like "I hope a society would become better when Outcomes-based education will fully be implemented," since hope is anchored on something which may come or not, or may be realized or not.

As we recall, Rorty detests the traditional philosophical discipline in the West, which he identifies as Platonism.  Platonism claims that reality is out there -outside the knower and it can be known.  Human mind “mirrors” this external reality.  If this reality is fully captured by the human mind, then one can claim that he knows with certainty that part of reality.  Thus, if one claims he knows something as true, his claim will never become unfounded.  And if it is disputed, we can immediately resolve it by looking for its reference –the external reality.  For example, if Juan claims that “the board is white,” but Pedro disputes his claim saying, “it’s not white but black,” at the very least we can resolve the dispute by clearing up what both of them is referring to.  Under normal conditions like say, “they are looking at the same board under a broad daylight (normal condition),” and that both of them see that the board is really white, and not black; thus, the dispute is resolved.  In Platonism, reality becomes the foundation of true knowledge. 

The problem, however, is not that simple.  Reality is something like of a myth.  Wilfrid Sellars calls this elusive reality as the "myth of the given."  In the tradition of the West, reality is understood as something hidden in the facade of the ordinariness.  For example, you are looking at your house.  What you see is the facade, if you are standing in front of your house but what you don't see is what's inside the house.  In the knowing process, the facade is what you immediately see but what you don't immediately see is the what we consider as the reality.  In the language of Immanuel Kant, phenomenon (appearance) is what we can know and noumenon (reality) is something behind this phenomenon.  For Kant, this thing hidden behind the veil of the phenomenon cannot be known.  We can think of it, though.  From the very start of its conception, the concept of reality is already problematic.  Some ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle give us a conflicting account of this "reality."  Plato conceived of it (reality) as something "beyond" our material world.  Aristotle, on the other hand, conceived of it as something hidden in every individual thing as "substratum" standing unfazed by its accidents.  There are still a lot of philosophers in modern and contemporary periods talking of the same reality in different senses.  In defense, some philosophers retorted in saying that the very nature of reality is unfathomable by the human mind.  Rorty regards "reality" as a myth.  There is nothing which corresponds reality.  It's just so happened that many thinkers talked about it.  It's talked about and many so believed that it's real -it's out there waiting to be captured fully by human comprehension. 

Based on this analysis, we come to a conclusion that Rorty doesn't have any belief in "reality."  He rather has hope -may be used synonymously with belief, in "better language" formulated for the purpose of making progress of mankind.  Is there any reality of what he hopes mankind will become in the future?  I think, Rorty doubts -if not, denies that there's such.  There is no reality of a better humankind as hoped in our formulation of better language.  It becomes clear that Rorty's hope is a sort of hope of making a better language for progress of mankind.  

Is Rorty a Man of Faith?  I think, he's not -if faith is understood in religious terms.  He is a man of hope -a sort of hope on something that is to come but on something that is made by a better language.

Socrates' Philosophical Mission

One of the most interesting philosophers in the history of classical Greece is Socrates.  Socrates is considered as the wisest man ever lived.  Though this claim is still a matter of debate, but scholars commonly agreed that Socrates together with Plato –his student, and Aristotle are considered as the penultimate in the high-brow culture of the Greeks –that is, philosophy.

Philosophizing is something unique in the Hellenic culture and civilization in ancient times.  The neigboring civilizations like that of the Jews and of the Egyptians were mostly religious.  With philosophizing, the Greeks were able to break their ties from mythical past –the past haunted by beliefs in gods and goddesses intervening human affairs.

Philosophy, then, is understood as an inquiry for the ultimate principle of everything that is in aid of human reason.  In this definition, we can single out two important characteristics of philosophy.  Firstly, philosophy is a search for one ultimate principle of all things that exist.  This sort of inquiry is like putting all diverse things (multi-verse) into one idea/ principle.  This principle will give a clearer picture of all these diverse things.  This picture, then, depicts one meaningful whole of things.  To put it simply, the ultimate principle bears “meaning” of all diverse things –the “uni-verse.”  Of course, Thales is known to be the first philosopher to have thought of one single principle to be the source of life and of all things, and this single principle is water.  This philosophical belief is what drives rover missions to Mars designed and sent by NASA.  For NASA scientists working in these missions, if water element exists in Mars, then it is very possible that life exists in that red planet and it’s highly possible that it will become a human habitation in the near future.  Secondly, philosophizing is a search for an ultimate principle aided only by reasoning.  Before philosophy came into practice, Greeks relied on myths to explain human and natural phenomena.  For example, earthquakes, lightning, typhoons, tidal waves, etc. were attributed to the activities of gods and goddesses.  Without any resort to mythical explanations, philosophers tried to understand the world based purely on reasoning.  Thales, for example, relied on rational demonstration to attribute the origin of everything –even any form of life, to water.  By logical reasoning, he might have thought that the element of water has properties to transform into other material objects.  By empirical observation, we know how water transforms into gas or transforms into solid such as ice.  Yet, Thales went far in concluding that water is the principle that was, is and will be.  It doesn’t change substantially yet change only accidentally.  On the contrary, the Jews established their identity as a group of people in a strong belief in one eternal God.  The Greeks never had this kind of faith.  Their faith is entirely based on human capacity to understand the world and all things therein.

Based on this analysis of philosophy, we can now understand the person of Socrates and the structure of his thought.  Socrates was not a cosmologist like his predecessors such as Thales, Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraklitus among others.  He was rather a sophist.  Not all scholars would agree such though.  He lived in a democratic Athens depicting himself as a gadfly to a fat slow-moving animal –a metaphor Socrates told his audience during his public trial in Athens.  The fat slow-moving animal means the society he belongs.  As a gadfly, he constantly made noise in the animal’s ears for it to move forward.  In the same way, Socrates should exert force to push his society forward to progress since society takes a very slow progress.

Because of this mission in life, Socrates spent much of his life conversing with other people in the polis.  He conversed with students, other sophists, politicians and those who pretended they knew anything.  Like a gadfly, he asked questions to all he conversed until the person he conversed would no longer knew what he talked about.  This method is now known as Socratic dialogue –a sort of dialogue, which created more enemies than friends.  For those he conversed, Socrates’ way of asking questions is irritating since his questioning will lead them to ignorance.  For Socrates, on the other hand, it’s his mission –to be a wisest man is one who knows only one thing –that is, he does not know anything.  That’s why, he asked questions and furthered his questioning.

Socrates died for his mission.  He died a martyr of his philosophy.  He was martyred in a democratic Athens.

Outcomes-based Education and Its Philosophy

I am very fortunate to have met in person Dr. William Spady, the author and father of Outcomes-based education.  It happened in Surigao City days after an earthquake hit the city.  He was the guest-speaker of a two-day seminar on Outcomes-based Education held in an air-conditioned gym at St Paul University Surigao.  My sincerest thanks to the SPC sisters like Sr. Joseline Lasala, SPC and Sr. Dina Alilain, SPC for sending me there to attend such a philosophically-laden seminar.  Dr. Spady is an old man with brilliant ideas and he is very passionate to share his system of ideas –he termed as Spadyism.  Spadyism, as I struggled to grasp it in the whole period of seminar, is not a pure system of education yet underlying it is the philosophy of pragmatism –particularly, neo-pragmatism, which I’ll try to discuss in this article.

In the event, I was trying to find an occasion to ask Dr. Spady some questions regarding his knowledge on neo-pragmatism, if he knows personally Richard Rorty, the father of neo-pragmatism, or how neo-pragmatism influences Spadyism.  Unfortunately, I was not able to ask him those questions.  Rorty was connected with the University of Chicago –the same university where Spady has conceived his Spadyism.  My hunch was telling me that Spady must have known Rorty, and neo-pragmatism must have been a philosophy behind Spadyism.  

In my interpretation, Outcomes-based Education (Spadyism) is a very revolutionary idea –in the sense that if fully implemented, it will create a 360-degree change in the whole structure of education, which will have an eventual effect to other institutions, like the industries, family, government, and even the church.  OBE begins with the question, “What a university wants its graduates to become (outcome/result)?”  This question bears emphasis of the results of education, not so much of its process.  With such intended end-result, say “competent pilot,” the university, then, has to realign all subjects so as to make all its graduates “competent pilots.”  It has to shape its curriculum to meet its intended outcome –for example, to produce “competent pilots.  Besides curriculum, all other elements like the training environment, facilities, personnel, etc. should have suited to realize the end-result of the university. 

This system really revolutionizes our idea of education.  Traditionally, we think that the role of educators is to impart a body of knowledge to learners so that when they graduate they would become “highly intellectual.”  So, teachers are regarded as “knowledgeable” of their fields.  But, with OBE’s perspective, teachers shall act as “facilitators” of the learning process of learners.  They are not only “knowledgeable” but must be “experts” in their fields.  Their role is not so much to impart knowledge but to “facilitate” or guide learners to become competent in their chosen courses.  As facilitators, they know what conditions or when to vary the conditions of learning to learners.  For example, a learner-pilot already knows how to fly and land an airplane under normal conditions.  The teacher’s role, then, is to put to test the capability of the learner-pilot in different conditions.  He has to let this learner-pilot fly and land an airplane under heavy rain or fly an airplane amidst thunderstorms.  The teachers have to vary conditions to test the competence of their graduates.

The formulation of outcomes is also crucial for the school.  An outcome is futuristic.  It is based on “social hope” –the hope of every agent of education that what they have produced in school may contribute for the betterment of the society as a whole.  It is somehow anchored in the vision, mission, core values, and objectives of the school.  This is to emphasize the trademark of the school like its main thrust to educate the students.  The integration of the school’s vision, mission and core values will ensure that outcomes are value-laden.  Value-laden outcomes will help form graduates a “well-rounded” person, who will serve the public in the coming future with the “heart,” not with the “mind.”

So, what is the philosophy behind OBE?  Spady himself did not mention the term, neo-pragmatism.  However, he laid out the philosophy of OBE in the first day of the seminar.  As mentioned above, neo-pragmatism is associated with the person of Richard Rorty, who used to work in the University of Chicago.  Rorty’s brand of pragmatism is somehow a new breed of what is known as the classical pragmatism.  In general, pragmatism is a philosophical belief which holds that “effectivity” is the measure of a true idea.  If an idea like “education” works in a certain situation, then it is true.  This doctrine contradicts the traditional definition of “true idea,” which is propounded in the correspondence and coherence theories.  In correspondence theory, for example, an idea is true if it conforms with the external reality.  Education (as an idea), for correspondence theorist, becomes only true if and only if the process of educating (imparting knowledge) happens in the mind of the learners.  Thus, there are two important elements in education: (1) imparting of knowledge, and (2) the absorption of it.  If one element is lacking, then education fails.  For pragmatists, on the other hand, education will only become true, if its end-results (outcomes) are given priority.  Outcomes should be conceived first, before knowledge will be imparted to learners.  Spady was taking some cautions that OBE is not disregarding knowledge.  Knowledge is still important to achieve the end-result.  Yet, education should not become knowledge-based.  It should, first of all, be an outcome-based.

In conclusion, outcomes really sound pragmatic.  But, the better future of society is not shaped merely from the “hope” we want our graduates to become.  Research-based knowledge is one indispensable condition to shape our better future.

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.