Philosophia

[Joseph]

Welcome!

This is the online forum for the Philosophy 101, JTA-B (M, F
7:30-9:30am), class of Ms. Precious de Joya. As such, it can be said
that this forum is no less than an extension of the class --a medium
where students may belabor on intellectual discourse or basically do
Philosophy beyond the confines of the classroom.

Any member of the egroup is at liberty to post ideas, questions,
random thoughts, epiphanies, mystic visions or anything that he/she
deems to be pertinent/helpful in our class' attempts to
"Philosophize". In short, there is no hard and fast rule as to the
contents of the posts.

Common decorum is to be observed, one that is expected of any self-
respecting human being let alone an Atenean. Let us be mindful that
everything in this forum is done in the spirit of intellectual
discourse and Philosophy.

All the best,

[Chen]

Hi, I am curious about these question and I believe discussing it may
help us understand the subject better.

Why do you think we should study Philosophy if we are capable enough
to Philosophize on our own? Why should we study the works of
Philosophers who are long dead and lived in a different time period
and society as compared to ours? Or perhaps the greater question may
be, why should we Philosophize?

I think our answer to this question is very important for ourselves,
since it defines our very purpose of studying this course.

[Joseph]

Thank you very much for your reply, Chen. I will attempt to answer
your "greater question":

Why should we Philosophize?

I think we all ask this question at a certain point in time,
especially in Philosophy class when our discussions seem to be too
absurd and of little pertinence, if at all, in our everyday existence.
Very different from what we learn in Finance, Marketing or in your
case, MIS 21. When we get lost in the Greek words that we don't even
understand I cannot help but judge Philosophy as nothing more than
intellectual masturbation --and Philosophers as inactive fools who sit
in a corner and lust for sophon whilst businessmen make money, doctors
heal the sick and soldiers die for their country.

So why Philosophize?

In this modern world of ours, it is very easy for a man to get lost
and forget his very own nature --his humanity. The modern man has too
many preoccupations that he tends to forget that above all things he
is human. Never underestimate this fact, when man loses his humanity,
he loses his ability for empathy to his fellow man. The loss of
empathy makes the most horrible things acceptable.

Let me illustrate by examples. On the large scale, the Aztecs, Incans
and Mayans of America were eradicated from the face of the planet by
their fellow men --these supposedly cultured people from Europe, the
conquistadores who in their pursuit of natural resources and
prosperity, conquered and massacred the natives. Why do you think the
Negroes of Africa were transported to the Americas? In pursuit of
progress, these human beings were objectified and seen as slaves, were
traded across the Americas and worked to death. How can a decent human
being do such horrible things? He cannot --unless he is blinded of his
humanity by his earthly desires.

In our Filipino language we have a word "Magpakatao" it literally
translates to "humanize, be human". A popular adage is "Madaling
maging tao, mahirap magpakatao" --it is easy to be a man but tough to
be humane (i am not very confident about my translation). I believe
that Philosophy makes us see the underlying primoridial values of our
existence and therefore "humanizes" us. Philosophy makes us human. It
makes us question our acts, our selves, our thoughts and values.
Philosophy makes you think --so that you can change the world. In our
language, "magpakatao ka" is simply "magpakabuti ka". Philosophy has
the end game of making the world a better place where man lives in
harmony with the cosmos.

Right now I can only think of one concrete example of a Philosopher
who called for humanity in a time when people were inhumane. Karl
Marx. Before you make judgments about this supposedly "father of
communism" hear me out. Karl Marx lived in a time of relative
prosperity in Europe at the peak of the Industrial Revolution. In this
time, the Capitalists were progressing so much that laborers became
dispensable to business. The proletariat which used to be the backbone
of any business became merely costs to the owners. Being management
students we know that costs = bad business, something to get rid of.

He called for communism as a way of saving the majority, the
proletariat who now is left with little bargaining power. How is the
proletariat supposed to live on a meager wage? How is a working man
supposed to support a family? How are they supposed to make a living?
Capitalists can only be rich because the proletariat are so poor.
Excess can only exist when lack is at the other end of the spectrum.

Whether or not the communism of today is the same one in Marx' mind is
a totally different matter. What is more important now is that we know
that Philosophy keeps humanity alive in a world that is against it.

I hope to answer your other questions too but Finance and Marketing
are knocking on my door, I must answer them for now. Hope I helped.

Joseph D G Castro

[will...@gmail.com]

Here's my own set of answers pardon me if it sounds offensive/
inflammatory/sarcastic/mocking etc.:

---

First of all, to be a real nitpick, I don't think we can actually
"study" philosophy; rather, the correct term would probably be
"philosophize philosophy" (well, judging from our previous readings).
I don't want to get to the details because that's not important as of
now. In anycase, for simplicity's sake, we'll leave it as that. But
then, your question become circular so in which case we'll have to
substantiate a bit on what we mean by "study" i.e. "why do we have
this kind lady in front of us making us read these texts and giving us
quizzes and trying to invoke our thinking/philosophizing prowess
during lectures?" or something along that line.

In which case, you might as well be trying to say "Why do we have
Philosophy injected to our curriculum even if we are philosophizing
ourselves?". Which in that case, you can probably find better answers
if you study the roots/rationale/principles of Jesuit Education.
---
Though the follow-up questions looks like the same with your first
question, I think it's better for me to handle them separately (that
is, I find them mutually exclusive in a sense).
---
As for "studying the works of dead people"
Studying the works of dead people or past society has, as I see it,
two aspects.

One aspect is basically to learn. Like how we study books written by
authors that may or may not be dead (for the CS/MIS people, we're a
new branch of science so most authors of our books are Still Alive)
and still find importance and significant knowledge in it.

The other aspect is basically History.
The reason why we study works of Heidegger (to be honest, I abhor his
style of writing), Descartes, Aristotle, etc. (i.e. philosophize
philosophy) has almost the exact reason why we study history and its
related branches such as anthropology and, to some extent. The slight
difference is which aspect of humanity the "study of the past" is
focused. While the latter focuses on the dynamics of human behavior
and interaction, the former focuses on, to be philosophical, the Logos
that has shown itself in that period/person.
So what IS the reason? To gain insight. Like in history, if we don't
have any single idea about Philippine history, we're doomed to see our
current situation as it is i.e. "Our government is corrupt because of
GMA". But when we have the knowledge of history, we could analyze the
current situation that stretches far back in time. Like how our bad
economy could be traced by the Bell Trade Act set up by America or
even traced it as far back as inefficient and untimely introduction of
money and poor taxation/"tribute" by the Spaniards to the Philippines.
Or how our "corrupt society" can be traced to the disunity of the
population which has plagued the nation even before its inaguration.
This also applies to philosophy like how the concept of attracting
forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, atomic, etc) can be traced
back to the concept of a "unifying force" by Greek philosophers/
thinkers. Or how our concept of God be traced back to medieval
philosophy. Or how "self-sameness" can be expressed in a simple
mathematical equation as "a = a". One thing nice about philosophy it
that it's the root of most, if not all, studies.

Pre-empitive side-comment: That also applies to Literature.

I'll stop for the moment since I still have a bunch of technical
documentations to read...... and Heidegger OTL.

[wimbiesy]

*I do hope that I will make sense...

I will try to answer each question separately.

First, why should we study Philosophy if we are capable of
philosophizing on our own?

True, that we have that capacity. But we have to remember that we
don't even know what philosophy/philosophizing meant when we entered
class. So, from this it could be suffice to say that if we were left
on our own accord to "philosophize", then in most cases we would end
up like the sophists who are stuck with merely ONE "profound" answer
to whatever we're seeking.

So in my opinion, I think "studying", much like reading, is an act of
laying [legein] everything that has been laid before, gathered
altogether, about this love for sophon [philein to sophon =>
philosophy]. Both on our part and for the object of our inquiry. On
our part, we dispatch ourselves onto a path toward the object; never
imposing our will because our objective is to learn (much like what
Wil said). On the other hand, philosophy or philosophizing - is
already an inherent capability in humans. The behavior is present in
us - we just don't acknowledge and actualize it.

In addition, sophon has already laid itself (revealing and concealing
simultaneously) in different places and time periods for various
people i.e. our dead philosophers.

With this in mind, why do we study the works of dead Philosophers who
lived in a different time period and society?

This is because we did mention that sophon reveals and conceals
simultaneously. What was seen in sophon 3000 years ago may not have
been seen in the 19th century. So we study philosophers and their
works to find out what did each of them see about sophon at each
instance? With these variations, we can "compile" them into our view
about sophon in hopes of getting closer to seeing Being in its
entirety.

Ms. de Joya gave some examples about friends. But my example would be
when we ask our parents, "What was I like when I was ___ years old?"
They would say, "You were a ______ child. But when you got older, you
became ______. And I remember one time when you _____ which showed
that you were also _____. blah blah" With this regard, our parents may
have the most complete view of who we ARE because they've seen us grow
up and change.

Studying philosophers is much like this because through the insights
of philosophers we get to see how sophon "changed" what it conceals
and reveals over time and in different places. Through this, we are
able to "tarry into" philosophy - love for sophon.

Last question, why should we philosophize[period]?

As Joseph said and from the lectures, it reminds us of our humanity
and finiteness. Our choices are not governed by stock-knowledge and
factoids but by insights about greater things.

[Did I make sense at all?] :p

On May 21, 10:00 pm, Chen <Hsu050...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Chen]

Joseph thank you for your reply, but I am just a bit troubled by what
you meant by humanity. You said that in the modern world people lose
their nature. But what is the nature of people? I think different
Philosophers have different answers to that question. For example,
Confucius has his work about the superior man, but what he thinks what
a man should be or what he thinks human nature is, may be different
from other Philosophers. So can you clarify further what is the human
nature that you're referring or rather whose definition of humanity
are you using.

[wimbiesy]

I'm replying to my own post because I found a typo.

So we study philosophers and their works...at each instance? [It's not
a question. The question mark was supposed to be a period.] whoops.

[gian]

I don't know you guys, but I've heard of Chen. Hello Chen.

I can't argue in the same context as you guys, so I'll just share my
reasons for enjoying my study of Philosophy.

We're not studying nobodies. We're studying Descartes, Heidegger,
Heraclitus and eventually Marx, Kant or perhaps Machiavelli. I bet
both my arms that if you Google® their names, you'll find millions of
entries and probably tens of cult sites that worship these people. The
fact of the matter is, these guys are Philosophy's legends. It's not
uncommon to see entire nations being run by a philosophy -- a good
example would be communism, oh and you know what, you can accuse me of
stupidity but I believe democracy can be considered a philosophy too.
I can actually go as far as to claim that behind every governing power/
figure, there is a philosophy.

We study these dead guys because they matter. If one wants to 'change
the world', one has to know the inner workings of the minds of great
rulers and megalomaniacs alike. How can we campaign for China's action
on Darfur if we don't know how their capitalist socialism works? How
can we change George W. Bush's warmongering if we don't know how to
appeal to simple minds (on that note, I believe sending GWB a copy of
Red Alert II would contain his bloodlust)?

And it just so happens that plenty of people today are influenced by
the great philosophers we're studying. Regardless of whether or not we
philosophize on our own, we'll only know our side of the story. Look
at studying philosophy as learning a different language. Let's say you
had a chance to talk to Chairman Mao -- you can't just go up to him
and say "Hey, this Democracy thing is better than your Communism, evil
bastard," because it'd be more effective to say "Hey, this Democracy
can push forward the Communism because... *blah blah Marxism blah
blah*." In that sense, philosophizing on our own is like writing a
script for a debate, it's fruitless and unconvincing.

So yeah, that's what I think, at least.

[TrishLalisan]

What's unique about Philosophy is that it can be taken as both an art,
and as a form of mathematical reasoning.

So why study it? The same reasons why we are required to take art and
music classes, as well as math classes, for much of our lives.

Art and music classes. Some kids grumble about them, while others take
to them naturally. Yet both kinds of kids have the potential to
develop skills involved with both subjects: creativity and intuitive
knowledge of harmony--whether it's the kind that is found on
arrangements on a canvas, or in reverberations in the air. Same goes
with Philosophy.

Philosophy is an art, because philosophers are painting (ngek!) their
own impressions of the world around them. It deals with the
investigation into the essence of things and the expression of the
discoveries found. Heidegger, for example. Creativity made him
interpret Heraclitus in another way. Besides that, he was generally
unsatisfied with the way the world was inching towards its own self-
destruction. Humanity's current lack of correspondence with the Logos
was seen as a disharmony to him. The world itself was becoming
dissonant, and he wanted to express this. So, he, as a philosopher,
wrote about it.

Even though we may not agree with him (just like how we sometimes like
or dislike a sculpture or a music piece), that doesn't stop it from
being a worldview that should be taken into consideration.

Furthermore, when we bother to take a second look at a work of art/
piece of music/philosophical idea, we are developing a critical eye.
When we study philosophy, just like when we study Photoshop (heehee.
comtech!), we gain the skills to tell whether a work was poorly done
or well thought out. This makes us more aware (and wary!) of what
kind of views are being fed to us.

Math classes. Another subject that many grumble about, but others
adore to bits. Why do we take math? Is calculus going to help me when
I go out into the "real world?" Maybe for some, but for the most
part, no. Yet we take it because we must learn how to reason. Same
goes with Philosophy.

Philosophical ideas are like added up numbers which equal something.
But to express this relationship, variables are added and subtracted
according to what worldview the particular philosopher wants to
express. Why didn't Heidegger talk about freedom, for example? He
subtracted that variable because it was not essential to what he
wanted his expressed worldview to equal. Once again, lets use
Heidegger as an example. In our class, it was written that: Sophon is
not equal to to-Sophon. Fateful is not equal to Fate. That's just one
aspect of Heidegger's extremely wordy essay, but already he's
revealing to us the patterns and relationships between different
ideas.

This kind of thinking all lies in the realm of logic. Our math has
formulas. Relationships. Harmony. If your accounts don't balance
(d'oh!), it's disharmony. Once we are able to get rid of these
disharmonious elements in our thinking (in both math and in philo),
then only can we draw closer to a fulfilled life.

We study math, art, music, and Philosophy because our schools think
that we need them. We study the key people in these fields because we
want to build on their ideas, or reject them entirely. It's up to
one's personal opinions and reasoning ability. These opinions can only
be made if we have been trained to think or analyze things in a
certain way (e.g. mythology vs. science. if you had been trained since
birth to think that Zeus threw down lighting bolts at your TV antenna,
would you believe it? if you have been trained in meteorology, how
different would your opinion on Zeus and your TV antenna be?)

Once again, WHY? So we can be (more) critical, creative, and
analytical beings.