Husserl’s Phenomenological Methods

In this article, I'd like to clarify some issues regarding phenomenological methods misunderstood or misinterpreted by practitioners of qualitative research studies.  When one uses phenomenological methods, it is understood that he’s designing his research in qualitative way of gathering data to support his purported conclusions.  

For Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), a German philosopher, credited as the Father of Phenomenology, phenomenology is not a school of thought such as idealism, realism, scepticism, relativism, Platonism, etc.  It is rather a movement against naturalistic psychology during his times.  What Husserl disliked in psychologism is that in conducting studies there are certain basic assumptions which it hasn’t put into question and has compromised the validity of its methods in doing research.  For example, psychologism believes (assumes) that human behavior is conditioned by external factors like its environment and history rather than caused by the free will of the agent.  This assumption is somehow influenced by naturalism, which claims that true factual knowledge is lurking or hidden in nature; one has to have the right discipline and methods to acquire it.  For a behaviorist, human behavior is just like any event in the physical world.  If a man gets angry, his behavior is like an event of an apple falling from its branch.  This event of a falling apple is caused by a force external to it (the gravitational force), so as man’s anger –caused by factors external of him rather than his inner states.  Thus, man’s behavior is predictable or controllable depending however on the systems of rewards and punishments given or imposed to the actor.  

Husserl’s intention in reacting against this scientific attitude in doing research studies is for a researcher to “stop, look and listen.”  There is a need for a researcher to recollect or reflect his ways or methods of doing research.  This is the reason why phenomenology is primarily a science of consciousness rather than of facts or physical world.  For one to see the world or phenomenon “with new eyes,” he has to bracket his natural attitude –all presuppositions he carries in conducting studies.  This step is what Husserl terms as “epoche.”  In using epoche, Husserl wants to make philosophy a “presupposition-less science,” –a philosophy with less number of presuppositions.

At first, it seems that Husserl’s attack against psychologism is merely concerned with its methods in doing studies.  Something is wrong in the way a behaviorist conducts his studies.  As mentioned above, psychologism assumes that human behavior is conditioned.  Every behavior of a single person is not caused by his own free will, which leads us to conclude that man has no freedom at all.  Hence, it is difficult to assert that a person has subjectivity, which is the source and fountain of meaning and initiatives of his being and becoming.  On this basis, it follows that to study the nature of man, a researcher should design his study in quantitative way.  Man’s behavior is caused by external factors, directly or indirectly affecting his behavior.  Since these factors are external, observable and quantifiable, a researcher has to rely on data quantitatively designed to support his purported conclusions.  In-depth interview or field note does nothing to gain knowledge of man's nature since, in the first place, man has no subjectivity –no inner fountain of meaning and initiatives.  How could the inner self of man be a source of knowledge if he doesn’t have such freedom and subjectivity?  But for psychologism, man’s freedom and subjectivity (taken as one) does not define his being, but the external factors influencing his behaviors do.

For Husserl, the method of psychologism is erroneous and unreliable.  At the outset, it compromises the validity of the results of its study.  Because of this, Husserl sees the importance of a researcher to “bracket” his presuppositions, biases, or what he calls the “natural attitude.”  This is not to get rid of all of these presuppositions since all scientists work within a certain framework tainted with biases and presuppositions.  The point of Husserl, however, is to hold in abeyance (temporarily) all these presuppositions so that a researcher can see the field of his investigation with “new eyes.”  To do this needs much discipline and a shift of paradigm.  Thus, phenomenology begins by examining all those presuppositions in conducting research studies.  “Back to the things in themselves,” Husserl claims.  A researcher shall make the phenomenon of his experiences pure, or shall I say “appear as it appears” untainted by his biases or presuppositions.  He can only let the “phenomenon” be, unless he brackets his biases or presuppositions. 

If a researcher can clear up all his biases or presuppositions in conducting studies, then he is now able to get the “eidos” (essence) of his experience.  Husserl believes that in one’s whole field of experience, there is something invariant, which serves as the essential of his experience.  Amidst the fleeting nature of experiences, eidos (essence) lurks behind.  This eidos is something important that one cannot neglect or it’s worth having for.  For example, in one’s whole field of experiences being a parent, he/she can figure out something invariant, which is also the essential.  This essence somehow depends on one’s experience –thus, more or less, subjective.  After finding the “eidos” of experience, one can reduce it to the very activity of himself.  He/she can own it and translate it into his very action or behavior.  In other words, the whole of phenomenology is not simply “reflecting one’s conduct of research,” or simply finding the essence of the whole of experience but also making one’s life meaningful with the essence he finds in his study. 

In conclusion, one thing misunderstood in the practice of phenomenology is that it is simply a method appropriate for qualitative research design.  However, Husserl's main intention to start the movement of phenomenology is to set aside presuppositions or biases in conducting studies, which among practitioners of phenomenology nowadays are no longer aware of.

“Intellectual Dryness”

For the past few months, I have experienced a sort of “intellectual dryness” –metaphorically “dry” because within this period I haven’t produced any article for my blog site.  It’s like an arid land –once fertile yet now futile since it has not experienced being showered by rain for a longer period of time.  It becomes unproductive.  Though I’d tried to manage to find time to write but there’s nothing.  In the end, all I realize is that a month ends and another month begins but not even a single article is written and posted in my account.  I feel it’s a wasted time.

I don’t know if what I have experienced is the same experience our great saints in the Catholic Church confessed about the “dryness of the soul.”  They spent much time praying; prayer became the center of their life for years.  Yet, there were some moments in their prayer life when they felt bored, or maybe when they didn’t feel any longer God’s presence in their prayer.  They felt the “dryness” of their soul.  They felt the absence of God.  Eventually, they quit praying.  Some scholars would interpret this experience of the “dryness of the soul” of the great saints as the peak moments of their prayer life.  This “peak moment” is somehow understood as getting on top of the mountain after a long and winding journey but there’s nothing on the top.  Just like in prayer, great saints like John of the Cross earnestly prayed to God but when they almost got near to God in their prayers, God is nowhere to be found.

In those experiences, disappointment is given.  It's really disappointing when one dedicates his life in a certain work like in writing articles or in prayer yet after all it's not rewarding.  But, those saints who experienced the "dryness of the soul" are still able to find consolations in their moments of desperation since it is in this moment of "dryness" that God will finally satisfy the earnest longing of their hearts -that is, to go back to the bosom of the Father.  My experience of "intellectual dryness," however, is different since my disappointments are clearly coming from the fact that posting philosophical articles in my blogsite is not rewarding -of course, financially.  It's a waste of time.  I spend time in writing yet there is no monetary remuneration.  My only consolation is in the thought that in a way I am enhancing my writing skills in the process, and in the long run I may be able to publish a book about philosophy in the days to come.

One time in my philosophy class, a student asked me, "Sir, is a philosopher paid -better paid?"  This question struck me and disturbed my thought for a while.  It's undeniably true that writing about philosophy is not extravagantly paid.  In fact, a trained philosopher doesn't have any place on earth to get employed except in colleges or universities.  Any commercial or industrial company has no place for philosophers in its place of work.  Philosophers' skills in philosophizing or in playing with ideas do not have any practical purpose to run the business, to manage people in the workplace, or maximize profits of the company.  Philosophers may even run counter with company's main goal in doing business, which is to earn and maximize profits because they are fun of toying ideas like justice, equality and fairness.  A philosopher may instead talk of justice, equality and fairness rather than talk of how to earn and maximize profits for the company.

With such question, I came to rethink of my intention in writing philosophical articles.  Likewise, I polish once more my understanding of the role of philosophers played in living a more meaningful life.  After all, life is not all about making money.  We aim for some higher aspirations in life like philosophical ventures than just earn a living.

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.