I Still Believe In Santa Claus

I had just come from an office Christmas party. There was a discussion about whether one should tell little children about Santa Claus. Clearly, this co worker, who is a mother to 3 very young children, saw no point of telling her kids about a bearded white man who does not exist. To pretend that he and only he gives out presents to kids is, for her, plain and simple, a lie.

A lie is defined as a false statement with a deliberate intention to deceive. That Santa Claus does not exist is a true statement, and to say otherwise is a false statement. But, were the parents harboring a deliberate intention to deceive?

The young mother to 3 very young children thinks so. And, so do historians and non-Christians, and atheists, and other Christians, like the young mother, who given the chance, would like to put an end to this particular season.

As for me, I know that to make a claim that Santa exists is not a true statement. Yet, I do not not see Santa as existing in the material sense of the word. He does exist in the spiritual sense of the word the way my deceased father does. My father has not existed in the material, factual world for more than 2 decades. But, because his children still think of him, relive the memories they had had with him and, more importantly, practice his moral and spiritual values, his presence is felt as though he were physically alive. It is the same with Santa Claus, whose spiritual presence had taught me, when I was young child, and now as middle aged man, the value of giving more than receiving, and the rekindling of the sense of togetherness, and the remembrance of those who are unfortunate.

But, how can we tell our young children about these spiritual values? To them, these values are intangible and abstract. What they need is to see the embodiment of these spiritual values. So, why not tell them the truth about who does the giving?

I don’t have an answer to that. All I can say that when I was a child, Christmas season and Santa Claus was the most exciting, and an extremely magical event. As a child, I loved the festivity, and I cherish many memorable moments I had with my family and Santa Claus, whom I believe to exist because of the gifts that I always find another the Christmas tree.

As I grew older, I was sad to discover that Santa Claus did not exist and that the gifts were not from him. And, yet, because of my age, I appreciated something more important, more special: it was the act of giving. It was my father who told me how much he loved to see his children become so excited and happy. It was not until I became a father myself that I understood what my father had done for me and my siblings and my mother; and, lastly, for himself. In return, we gave him a gift: a memory of a beautiful family so close knit and so much love in the air.

This is why I still believe in Santa Claus.

Play By The Rules, Please!

The bathroom door is locked. Someone is in. I say, “Peter”. Paul answered: “No, it’s me”. A very simple situation: I asked a question, I assume (hypothesis) that it was Peter using the bathroom. My assumption was wrong. A very simple, verifiable answer shot back. In this case, and others like it, there is no need to speculate.

Water boils at 100 degree celsius. I want to know if it would boil high up in the mountain. To find the answer, I climb to the peak of a mountain, and there, my question is answered. This takes some time and a bit more determination to find the answer. Nevertheless, the answer is definitive. There is no need to speculate.

Einstein’s General theory of relativity was first thought on paper. At the time it was formulated, there was no technology to verify the truth or falsity of his theory. It took several decades to find out. Nevertheless, the answer was definitive.

The situation is slightly different with the theory of evolution. Yes, we do have fossils of animals that lived millions of years ago. Yes, we do have some evidence that the environment can alter DNA. But, you’ll need to live long enough to see species evolve to another but different species. And, we were told that this process takes more than 10,000 years. But when it comes to choosing which theory best explains how species come to be, the theory of evolution wins out - at least for now.

So, if you’re looking for answers to your specific questions, then you only need to point to the facts that everyone can see; or, in the case of theories, judge the one that best explains a wide collection of related facts. Whether it is a theory or an assertion about facts, facts always have to take the center role. Without involving facts, you can’t form a judgment. These are rules of the game that scientists, lawyers, police (to name a few) that they play. And, there are many players who join in, but who are not scientists, lawyers or the police. However, because of the great majority of people joining in, people tend to believe in the kind of truth that came out of this game. So much so that they would also apply the very same notion of truth on other games that don’t share the same rules.

Think of the debate on the existence of God. Many try to prove the existence of Supreme being by referring to facts. Yet, these very facts could also be used to prove otherwise. It’s as though proving God’s existence with the rules that scientists, lawyers, and politicians, would be a valid reason for believing in a God (or, the immortality of the human soul). None has seen God the way we experience storms, floods, killing, deformity, etc. And, yet these things are taken as proofs for God’s existence. And, yet these very same ‘proofs’ are also used to support His non-existence.

If you’re going to play chess, don’t apply the rules of checkers, or basketball, or baseball. It just doesn’t work. No matter what, people just go ahead and do it. The break the rules all the time.

The True Fountain Of Youth

They say about people past their prime that the phrase ‘you can’t teach old dogs new tricks’ seem to apply to them. Every new technology seems to be so difficult for older people to learn and enjoy. They feel that these new technological gadgets like email, the internet, cell phone, etc, make life too complicated, they would rather keep things simple by doing what they are already familiar with. To a certain extent, there is no need to further complicate one’s life when what they are comfortable with things that still serve their practical needs. However, if you want to stay competitive in the workforce, you will need to adapt to the present times. Very few people past their prime succeed in keeping fit - not just physically, but mentally. How so?

First, take a look at the young. They’re naturally curious, adventurous, and they have very few things to worry or to be afraid about. That is why they are reckless. In a sense, they are building a past for they, at that human stage of development, have none. And, because they have no past to reminisce, then their whole attention is towards the present. Today and tomorrow, two time segments have no clear demarcation. Certainly, the young know fear; but their curiosity and adventurism gets the better of them. This is why they learn new things, more confidently. Without their knowing, their motto is ‘Where there is a will, there is a way’. It’s no wonder that Nike’s “Just do it” resonates with the young and the bold. But the young lack wisdom and do silly things. That is not their excuse. It is a fact of being young.

The ones past their prime have a long past. It’s the familiar faces, streets, people, certain ways of behaving, the same objects of fear, and pleasure - that make up their comfort zone.. All are stored in their past, in their memory. And, even if they are still afraid of certain things that occasionally make their entrance in the present, the old are comforted by the fact that they familiar with what they’re afraid of. It’s the unknown, the unfamiliar that they are most afraid of. That is why they stay away from anything new and unfamiliar, different and strange. “You can’t teach old dogs new tricks’ would seem to capture the general attitude of the old.

Yet, it’s those over 40 (or, 45) and older who have a lot to gain. They have a repertoire of knowledge, of wisdom (sometimes), and if they remember how they have learned when they were young, then they would, should know better that there is really, really nothing to be afraid of. From their experiences, they have learned from trials and tribulations. And, what they should have realized was that they survived, and at times, triumph. But because of fear, they stuck to it and forgot that they had actually survived and lived to tell the stories. They should have acknowledge the fact that because of fear, or rather despite of fear, they survived and lived to tell their stories. To spell it out: they remembered much of what they fear that they have overlooked the pleasure of accomplishment. It was their choice, and unfortunately, many, belonging to that age group, have chosen to stick to what is familiar: places, people, ways of behaving, ways of thinking. They could have learned new things about present reality; yet they had chosen to believe that they’re way too old for that. It’s thinking old that prevents one from thinking new.

True, there are more physical limitations as one ages; but that does not mean you’re an old dog. True, there is less brain power; but that should not stop anyone from learning about how he had learned when he was young so as to learn anew. Really, when one is already old (-er), what is there to lose?

Existential Truth and Factual Truth: What They Say About Religious Texts

Once you are in possession of a truth you can either tell the truth or hide it from the others. This is one kind of truth, factual truth, that makes lying possible. When a person lies to the other, he is hiding the facts from him. Factual truth therefore is a social one: there are witnesses, not just one, who can tell the truth or who can hide the truth, and therefore, lie about the situation. And there are people from whom the facts can be hidden.

On the other hand, Existential truth deals with the meaning of events whether or not these events actually occurred. Existential truth can be experienced by anyone for everyone, given a certain level of human experience, understands and have experienced some of the human conditions like compassion, hurt, suffering, love, relationships, wonder, meaning of life etc. That is why we are touched by events in our lives, news of human interest, books, and movies.

Existential truth does not require a group of witnesses other than one’s self. However, like factual truth, existential truth is a social. Existential truth can be shared with people who have undergone certain universal experiences that they can appreciate the meaning behind every human story. Unlike factual truth, Existential truth is deeply subjective. It is a revelation of a deeper meaning of life. It is not a fact like tables and chairs, or newly discovered papers or artifacts of a thousand years ago. Existential truth is the result of one’s special relationship with reality that is invisible (not in the manner by which objects are hidden) to those who are not prepared to ‘see’. It has not changed since the dawn of humankind. Existential truth, to be revealed, requires a certain level of experience. This is why children are not yet capable of  ‘seeing’ for they lack human experiences to grasp the deeper meaning of living.

What of historical truth? Although there is no one today who has lived long to see Abraham Lincoln (or Jesus Christ), there would still be some ‘facts’ that have been preserved. These facts don’t tell the whole story, for it is impossible to gather every fact of a life of a human being or earth. So, it is left to the historians to make sense out of the facts and come up with a reasonable theory or interpretation about the meaning of historical events. Facts like Abraham and the holocaust of WW2 are factual truths that can be told and be lied about. But history in general are really about plausible interpretation that tries to make sense of what little facts we know about the past.

Yet, a history that is worth writing about is a story that carries within its womb a deeper meaning for everyone to learn from about themselves and their stations in life. In that regard, there can be some existential truth to be gotten. Read or, even still, watch a movie on Abraham Lincoln, and you will find situations of making hard choices that everyone can relate to.

So, we go back to religious texts. Do they consist of factual events, hence speak of factual truths? It is hard to say because the events occurred a long time ago, and for hundreds of years many interpretations have been believed to be coming straight from the lips of God. Yet, what is more significant and the reason why religious texts are relevant is because it deals mainly with Existential Truth.

There is no reason to lie; unless literal-minded individuals takeover and treat the main texts as a collection of facts. And, impose their ‘interpretation’ on everyone else.

Love Is A Rational Act

So, if Love is not feeling (certainly it is accompanied by an intense feeling), what is it then? Let’s say that it is a rational decision. I may have an intense feeling for a person, but I may choose not to love him or her. On the other hand, I may choose to love him or her, yet I may not have the kind of feeling that is associated with romance. Dr. Martin Luther King, for example, has much love for Americans, regardless of their race or religion. But, he is not ‘romantically’ linked to anyone in particular except his wife. A husband may have extra-marital affairs, and may choose to love his wife.

I am not endorsing extra marital affairs. I only want to show that it is possible to distinguish love and an intense feeling that has often been confused with love. We still need to explore the distinction, more so, the nature of love.

Love may be accompanied with an intense feeling; but love may be absent when there is only an intense feeling. I may have a fling, a lust, an unexplainable sexual attraction, so intense that I want her only for myself. This intensity of sexual attraction is so strong, I am led to believe that I had no choice in this matter. Now, this intense feeling can be directed to more than one person. It is so easy to persuade yourself that you are in love, when in fact, you merely experience an intense feeling that the other, as an object, can satisfy. (And, what happens when you have satisfied yourself?)

Intense feeling is what it is. If both parties feel the same for each other, they form a relationship that excludes everyone else. As they get to know each other in a more intimate way, it is possible for love to form. There is a commitment, a devotion to one another. Let us call it a romantic love. In a relationship overwhelmed only by an intense feeling, there is no romantic love.

Is there love between a parent and child? Perhaps, not yet with a child, who only learns at a very stage to accept that a parent is the only living object that he has learned to rely on. There is no intense feeling that a child has for a parent. There is only a connection that, through time and being together, deepens and widens as the child witnesses how the parent places much attention and care upon him. This connection is not a cause, however, to loving a parent. It is a condition, and a very important one. For without it, the child would not be able to come to love his parent.

Between friends, it may not be appropriate to say that they are in love with each other. There is nonetheless love - not in the way sexual partners have for each other. Friendship may have begun with similar interests and harmless fondness for each other. Like an intense feeling, the beginnings of a friendship may benefit both self interests. But a true friendship that enters the realm of love transcends self interests.

Love, then, transcends self interest. It is not an intense feeling for it would only wish to satisfy the ego. Love, then, since it transcends self interest, is a decision to care for the other as an other (as a subject), even at the expense of the self (for the self ceases to seek the satisfaction of self interest).

What's Love Got To Do With It?

We know what it feels like when we like something. It could be ice cream, your favorite dish, an IPOD, a new smartphone, an idea. We want it because we don't have it yet. We want it because possessing would satisfy us.

Sometimes, we want more of it. We can't seem to get enough. At other times, we've had too much of it, and we just lose interest until such time we come to miss it, and we go through the same prociess of liking, wanting and possessing; and, dropping it.

We like something because of what it does to us. It is an object. It is a utility. It was given a value that has no value of its own. Or, maybe it has a value of its own; but no one has any interest in it if it is not of value to him or her. The external value takes over the internal value. And, it is liked, not for its sake, but for what it can be use to the individual. Money is liked because we use it to buy something that we sought for. Stop liking it, and the thing loses its value. It not only ceases to be of value, it also ceases to be of use. The value is in its use. This is what liking does to an object, be it a thing or a person.

The negative thing about liking then, is the belief that you can't live without it. This is what markets want you to believe with all your guts. There was a time we didn't have an IPOD. We weren't craving for it. But, market created a need that we could live without. But, with marketing, people were conditioned. As one girl said: I could not live without my blackberry.

The positive thing about liking, however, is that we need objects to possess or consume in order to live. We need food. We need clothing. We need people to learn how things work, how to behave, we need to know what to value.

Without them, we would be nothing. We would not be able to function properly.

Liking then serves one purpose: to satisfy the individual. It is natural and necessary.

But, things can go wrong when we start confusing liking with some other experiences. Especially, when we confuse love with liking by infusing the features of liking into love. When that happens, the situation becomes a moral issue.

It becomes a moral issue when we 'love' someone for that person fills a void, a lack in us. This is what liking does, but when love is confused with it, then we tend to use people. Liking becomes confused with loving because of the intensity that is felt or developed over time. No one likes to call it liking, this intense feeling that we have for the other because then we becomes aware that we are using him or her. We would want to give it another name. We call it love.

But that does not change anything; except giving liking another fancy, romantic name. It does not change anything because the other is treated as has having an external value and therefore of use when we need to satisfy our biological or psychological need.

At time, we gradually transcend liking and enter the realm of love. Many want to believe that it was indeed the case with their mate. Nonetheless, unless we take the time to differentiate loving from liking, we can never be sure. Or, we may have mistakenly believe that what we experience is love, when it was never the case.

So, what is love if it is not a liking? Is it a feeling? Or, is it borne out of a rational decision?

Religious Texts: Not A Collection of Facts, But About Ethics

The good thing about reading fiction is that it reveals the various ways of interpreting a certain human condition such as love or compassion or suffering, or the meaning of life. Everyone can relate to a story one or another, talk about it in a way that the other can comprehend even though he may a different way of looking at it. The variety of interpretation of a certain human condition reveals that life is layered with meanings, all of them valid and existentially true.

Unlike scientific treatises, fiction invites the readers to engage in a world different from theirs. Fiction transcends the limited world view of a single individual and opens him up to other world views, and to deepen his appreciation of life, as well as his.

Story telling has a power just as effective as the written form of fiction; but, unlike the written word, the storyteller and the listener are physically present, making engagement much easier and smoother, and exciting.

The whole point of mentioning fiction and its efficacy is to stress the fact that all religious texts are a work of fiction, which convey existential truths that serve as ways of moral living. Fiction and storytelling keeps the meaning fluid. It uses words, but it does not allow the words to be taken literally. A dialogue: a sharing of various interpretations ensure that life is not to be lived by following a word.

Religious texts then are meant to keep the spirit alive. The spirit lives not in the word. A word kills the spirit. Rather the spirit finds its life and rebirth in the variety of, and every, interpretation that is to be spoken and to be heard.

This is why I am against religious fundamentalism. It kills the variety of meanings. It kills the spirit ‘behind’ the word. When the spirit is imprisoned in a word, the word is taken literally. And, when the word is taken literally, other interpretations are prohibited. The solidified word, now, becomes a political weapon. It wields more power and explosion than any nuclear weapon known to man. Placed in the wrong hands, the solidified word will trigger another holocaust.

That was how the Crusade got its misguided direction. That was why the Islamists will continually be a threat to World Peace. That is why the Christian fundamentalist will make sure that peace will be won on their unconditional terms. You need not go that far to recognize that the beginnings of fundamentalism are borne right in our place of worship, possessing and brainwashing our young.

So, for the sake of humanity, for the sake of your children, for the sake of God, allow religious texts to be what it was meant to be – a work of fiction.

Tolerance Is Not Peaceful, But Morally Desirable

Homosexuality used to be a taboo. Speaking about it in public is offensive to many people, and also to their moral sensibility. It had led many religious people to believe that homosexuality is a sin. That was a hundred years ago, and you could still hear its echo. But, today, we recognize that homosexuality is not a sickness of the mind, and that every homosexual has as much right as any other heterosexual to live the lives they chose to live. Now, why did we finally acknowledge homosexuals? It was because homosexuals were not harming anyone. They were merely asserting themselves to be recognized as human beings. So, we have come to learn to live with them side by side. Killing in the name of God is one that no one should tolerate. Harming a human being is never justifiable, and I think that to link God and killing in his name is a perversion of His Message. It is unfortunate that some people take the written words in the literal sense. As I had said earlier, the Bible and other religious are stories that are fictitious but true - true in the existential sense. You can have your beliefs and customs. But, for as long as your beliefs and customs do not harm anyone, even one as young as a baby, then, I can live with the views that are different from those of mine. So that settles the issue, at least for most part of it. Let us now talk about situations in which beliefs and customs do not lead to physical harm, but nonetheless do feel as though harm has been done. Homosexuality was once an issue that brought some harm to close minded people but it never held any belief that would cause death to others. Let us, in other words, talk about those views that are not only so different from yours, but views that you simply, just simply cannot accept. You see it is so easy to talk about being tolerant of other views if you’re not involved, if you’re not in the center of it all. You may appear to be accepting. But that is not being tolerant; that is being indifferent. Tolerance is not indifference. Neither isindifference tolerance. The two have never been the same but only appear to be so. The two are confused, mistaken to be one for the other because you have not been involved. Your involvement tears them apart. So, you are involved in a discussion with someone whose views you cannot accept. How, then does tolerance come into play? Assuming that you agree with Voltaire who would defend the rights to freedom of speech even though he may vehemently disagree with him, what is tolerance? Remember you cannot get yourself to accept his views. You cannot, in your dreams, see his perspective. But, you ought to try. You can imagine - with a tremendous amount of effort - to see both the negative and positive aspects of a set of differing and opposing views. You may still not be able to give much justice to seeing the positive aspect. But, at least you tried. You may not be able to see things as he does. You try though, but you fail. And, you would think that tolerance failed. But, that’s missing the point of tolerance. Tolerance cannot be found in succeeding to see things as the other does, or accepting his views and beliefs. What then is tolerance? Tolerance is to be achieved in this trying, this effort to soften the hardness of your stance. It is standing vigil to the Opening to the views of the others. Tolerance is the effort of keeping the Open open, no matter how narrow it is. Tolerance therefore is that moral effort. And, it is that effort that you offer to the other that you makes you realize that you could be the one to whom the other, too, is making the effort to keep his Opening open. Because of that effort, the ‘sweating it out’ to stand vigil to this Opening, you will defend the other’s right to live. The Opening to the other is fragile. It can close any time. There is no letting down your guard. There is no peace in the struggle to keep it Open; in word, in being Tolerant.

It Is Fiction, I Know. But It Is True!

How does a child experience love and compassion and belief and trust if not from his own immediate experiences with loving parents, compassionate individuals and trusting friends? They are experiences that were later on given words. They are not words to start with, and therefore they are not abstract, nor are they objects of rationality.

They are living words. They are experiential. And they are existential. And once they are felt, they become as tangible as solid things: they stir the emotions, the imagination, which are then reflected upon. We must not forget that these words are living.

But that’s where the problem starts. We teach our children about love and compassion, trust and belief about some abstract word like God. God, as taught as word, comes to children as abstract.  But, because of their imagination, God is ‘felt’ because the words like Devil, evil, and pain and suffering seem more real and make God seem more real.  Rather than talk about these words first, or as we talk about the words such as love, compassion, trust and belief, the ‘teachers’ must practice them towards the children. Rather than talk about God, children must be shown love, compassion, trust and belief.

A good approach is to tell them stories about real people who practice these values. Children can relate, and believe in them the right way.

That is, I believe, how stories found in religious texts should be taught. More importantly, children must see that the story teller is an embodiment of those values.

If they are to believe in God, or at least recognized a reality beyond their egos, the story teller, the parents, people whom they encounter on a regular basis, must live those values themselves. Stories may involve fictional character; but the morale is real. There must have been a time when upon finishing reading a book of fiction, you, nonetheless remark, “That is true” What is true is not the people. What is true is the experience that these ‘people’ went through. It is true not because they dealt with facts. It is true based on experiences. This truth is existential truth; not factual truth.

So, when we read religious texts that deal with fantastic feats, read them like you would read a high quality book of fiction. Yet, be receptive to the existential truth that they convey.

Approaching religion that way is the best remedy to indoctrination, and fundamentalism. Science would never have had any reason to pick up a fight with religion in the first place. 

Shall I Love You Because You Have First Proven Yourself To Me?

Logical arguments about, or a scientific investigation into, the existence and the nature of God is a waste of time. Yet it was necessary for every reflective and questioning human being to undergo in order to know that it is the case. The Bible is filled with stories, with a moral meaning, an understanding of how to live, and about the values. It would wrong for believers to treat it as though it was a scientific treatise; and it also would be wrong for scientists to treat the Bible as though it were a scientific treatise. In fact, I think it was the believers who got duped into approaching it scientifically. They went beyond their heads. On the other hand, those who are scientists are no different: they also fell into their own trap. It is their belief that scientific knowledge is the only valid kind of knowledge there is out there. With that wrong thinking, called scientism, they impose it on every aspect of human life – and non humans.

Proofs are for those who need convincing. And these people are looking at a specific kind of proofs. Looking for a specific kind of proof or evidence may have some utilitarian purpose, scientific even, but focusing only that limits one’s perception to other aspects of reality, especially the whole human experience of the whole person. To impose such a requirement on something like faith is fail to witness other aspects of being human.

The Bible like any other religious texts is a story about universal human conditions and about the relationship between humans and a reality that is beyond their comprehension, but a reality that has a significant effect on human lives. The bible and everything it stands for cannot be boxed within the confines of a laboratory. As such, the bible is not a scientific treatise. There is no need for proofs. Therefore, logical or scientific investigation for God’s existence is meaningless. However, the experience of asking for such proofs for God’s existence is necessary to realize the meaninglessness of such investigation. Rather than lose hope in a reality that is too large for any scientific venture, the realization should lead to another path. And, it is the path of understanding the existential experiences of faith and love. Existential truth is not scientific truth. It cannot be proven or experimented on. It can only be lived and known through the totality of being human.

So, the proper approach towards Religion, and God, and faith and love, is this: Understand then how you learned to believe and trust the person who bears great significance and influence in your life and theirs. Reflect on your relationship with your parents, your best friend, your brother or sister. The understanding of how we believe leads to a deeper understanding of the nature of trust and love for our significant other. Faith in, and the love for, the other are two experiences that are interwoven. Love begins when there is faith; and faith begins when there is love (as opposed to liking or having a crush on someone). Faith and love engender a respect for both parties. Neither imposes on the other. Faith and love requires no proof or evidence (You don’t say: “First prove to me that you can be trusted and love, then I will love and trust you!”). Rather, faith and love grow like a flower that trusts reality and, as a result, desires to live.

Theocracy: Giving Religion A Bad Name

With the recent events of Islam bashing and Muslim violent reactions, many non-Muslims would focus more on their belligerent behavior and conclude, once and for all, that Islam, the submission to the will of Allah, is, in essence, a violent religion. A friend, originally from Egypt, is a Coptic Christian, who moved to Canada precisely because Egyptian Muslims are overly sensitive and a violent people. As a Christian, he would do no such thing. “No matter how you want to differentiate religion from the people,” my friend would admonish me: “But in reality, Muslims are a violent lot.”

He, like many other non-Muslims, forgets that Christians, in the past, were extremely violent. From the time of Emperor Constantinople to the Modern Age, powerful Christian countries would wage war with non-Christians and kill women and children in the name of their God. They were as violent as any modern terrorists could be.

But, then things began to change. Many Western countries, beginning with the States, institutionalized the separation of Church and State. Subsequently, religion had no place in the matters of the State. True, there are politicians with religious affiliations. But without the people’s support, no Christian or Muslim group of politicians can get their politico-religious plan going. On the other hand, the separation allows religion to focus more on the values compassion and morality. It cuts loose religion’s grip on political matters. Since then, Christianity ceases to be violent on a massive scale. And, thank God for that.

In other words, separation of Church and State destroyed the structure of a theocracy. And, with the extinction of theocracy, and no politics allowed to manipulate religion for its own use, Christians ‘became’ peaceful. Now, it’s only the corporations that have a hand in matters of the State. How unfortunate.

So, is Islam a violent religion? Read the first few chapters of the Koran, and you will realize how much respect is bestowed to women. Read a few more and you will come upon a story about Mohammed, who had been thrown trash at by a woman each day he walks passed her house on his way to the place of worship, stopped by her house, and filled with genuine concern, inquired about her who was conspicuously absent.

With Islam’s long history of theocracy which still exists, it would be very easy for people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who are suffering from myopia, to judge Islam, a religion with more than one billion followers, as being violent in its very core.

That is clearly false.

Only the Muslims can break the ties between the State and their religion. Difficult it may be, it must be done, from the within. An outsider calling for the break would only tighten the grip. It’s the perception of an outsider as an infidel that keeps theocracy alive.

Leisure: Losing Yourself To Find Yourself

I must admit that I haven’t had any idea on what to write on. I usually post one a week, sometimes, 2, when I am alone with myself. Lately, however, I have been busy surviving. I just got hired a week ago after being laid off from my work 2 months earlier. During the first week I was in training. I come home not only physically tired but mentally exhausted. I tried to think of something to write, something that I feel. But, because I have determined myself to produce at least one post a week and time was running out (time did actually run out), I resort to thinking about what to write. I thought and thought and nothing caught fire.

Then late this morning, I decided to stop thinking, and began to feel, to observe myself. And there it was. I observed and felt that while I was focused on work that I took just to pay my bills and put food on the table, and when I tried to write, nothing comes out; at least, nothing worthwhile writing about.

In fact, I felt distanced from myself. I was not in touch with my inner self. My soul, if you like. And, as I spend so much time and effort focusing on a job, doing my best to keep it from slipping away, the more distant I am from myself. As I become used to that distance – and I guess like most of us are - that is, as I become used to being desensitized, the more I neglect to listen to my inner self. I watch T.V as a means of diverting my attention from my self.

Come the weekend. You would think I would now have the time for myself. It should be the case. But the week of work and training had me crave for the weekend, not so that I could be with and by myself. Weekend, to me, was the period in which to rest my weary body that has an uncanny effect on the mind. I felt the emptiness in me, and I’d tried to stay away from it. For recognizing its presence  would force me to come face to face with the emptiness. It may not be frightening, but it certainly was unpleasant.

But, then, I remembered that I had promised myself to produce one blog post a week. Weekend ought to be devoted to reflection and then to transfer my thoughts on ‘paper’ or on the monitor screen. Suddenly, I panicked. My muscles tightened. My palms were soaked in sweat. I was forcing my mind to fish for a philosophical thought worth writing about. In the end, nothing was produced. I would write; but eventually I would just press the ‘Delete’ button. And there I was, falling softly on to my bed as I was more than willing to be overcome by sleep. That happened for days.

Then one day, ‘something’ in me said: “Slow down, and relax and don’t think. Then you will settle down” Muscles began to loosen up a bit. It was pleasant, and the awareness of it made it even more pleasant. And, yes, peaceful. Suddenly, a thought surfaced: “Maybe that’s what leisure was all about.”

Leisure is not about passivity. In fact, it is an activity, but an activity without purpose. You work in order to get there. But leisure does not need you to get to where you are not, for the simple fact that you have arrived. You only had to stop, and to be aware of yourself, listening to your self, to accept the fact that you have arrived. But arrived to where? Yourself. You have eliminated the distance between your working self and the inner self.

Hobby, is one example of leisure. You have a hobby not only because you enjoy it. You enjoy because you are most real, most authentic. There lies your passion. Just observe the children who play for no utilitarian purpose except to play and have fun. They instinctively understood the nature of leisure. It’s only when they grow to adulthood that they have forgotten.

So beware of turning your passion to a money making business. It will only kill your passion, and you will hate what you loved most.

So find leisure to find yourself for no other reason or purpose other than to be yourself. In a busy world such as ours, in which our organized time determines our schedules, and lives, it is all the more important to slow down and relax your muscles.

Living In Hope In Times Of Fear And Hate

When Saleh was young, a sheikh told him that Allah does not accept non-Muslims and, if he were to get in to physical contact with them, he must clean his body before he was allowed to enter the mosque.

He was brought up in a country that was being torn apart by hate and fear. Many of his brethren tried to leave the country. But for those who stayed they either continuously lived in fear or became terrorists who would rather be feared. And for those who took to arms, they never looked back. Saleh lived where there was no hope, where everybody’s days were numbered.

Terrorists did not fight other terrorists. They instead killed women and children of their enemies. Their only hope for peace was to kill all their enemies.

And so it was to be: every day was no different from the past. The manner in which the victims were killed was the same. The only difference was new human beings were maimed, tortured then killed.

Saleh knew poverty and fear all too well. He lived them. He believed himself to be a good Muslim, like any other terrorists. But he, himself being poor and needy, chose to help those in need. It didn’t matter what their religion was. He believed that the only way to serve and love Allah, was to serve anyone and everyone. This was what he believed Allah would have wanted him to do.

Saleh knew that some have used religion to justify their hate and killings. For that, atheists and intellectuals have nothing nice to say about religion, even if they may be aware of a few good people like Saleh.

However unlike the atheists and intellectuals who lived far away from his country, Saleh knew what it was to be poor and to live in constant fear.

He had no time for reflection on the effects of religion.

Neither did he have the time to sit and lie down in the cool shadow of a tree and to think about whether he should act.

But one thing he was very clear about: he didn’t want to live in fear anymore, and he had been given the opportunity to make things a bit better for people like his mother and relatives and friends, many of whom had lost their lives.

So, unlike the atheists and the intellectuals and the people who picked up their rifles, he chose to act with actual kindness. It was what he believed Allah would want him to do.

It was what any real person would have done.

The Other Is Beyond The Law

I think we can all agree that the individual is, by nature, ego-tistical. He lives for his pleasure and happiness. He organizes the world to understand it and then eventually to manipulate it. As he gains mastery over the world, his individuality arises - that is, the 'me', 'myself', and 'I'. Feeding on the world is necessary for the 'anonymous' to become an individual.

The baby, unware of itself as an individual, has no sense of individual. Strictly speaking, it is anonymous, lacking independence. So, it feeds on the world. It gets its nourishment from the milk of its mother. As it grows, it becomes more independent. It requires gravity for it acquire balance. It depends on people to gain knowledge of his surroundings. Independence arises, gradually, from being dependent. This is all a natural development. The individual, by its very nature, is ego-tistical.

To make sense of the world, the individual has to comprehend it. It comprehends by disfiguring the world, to bring a sense of order out of chaos. Its sense of ordering is its way of comprehending, of making sense of the things that are, in themselves, in a state of chaos - as perceived by the individual.

Now, in comprehending, it orders, organizes. Through organization, the world is transfigured; or, rather disfigured. From the stance of things, they have been disfigured. From the perspective of the indivdual, the world has been figured, organized, has been imposed an order. The world arises in the light of the individual. Darkness has been dispersed. This is a necessary act of violence on the otherness of the other in order for individuality to rise up and to be counted.

So, what is it like to 'see' the other as an other? Since the other, when forced to fit into the self's understanding, is comprehensibly satisfying, then outside of the self's domain of comprehension, the other as an other appears to be ncomprehensibly irritating. To the self, the other as an other must be unnerving, annoying, powerful in that it has not been over powered. Or another way of putting it, the power of the other, as an other, lies in his powerlessness.

The self, has no choice, but to respond (his ability to respond, or response-ability) when face by the other in his otherness. I can either acknowledge his presence as an independent existence with all the right to exist as an other; or, I can respond to ignore him, or worse, make sense of him, that is, to force him to fit into my domain of comprhensions. In which case, I have responded negatively by 'murdering him', de-facing him, usurping him, robbing him of his full right to exist as an independent entity like me.

This immediate encounter with the other as an other is the beginning of ethics. In other words, my relationship with him is an ethical one that exists before the laws of the land, before the attempt and process of abstraction. Peter is Peter. But, when I categorized him, I kill him, murder him, silencing him as a result. I, in other words, responded to him irresponsibly, unethically. So, when I put him on categories with the rest, then I treat him like the rest.

Laws may be legal, but they're not necessarily ethical.

(This piece is inspired by the philosophy of Emmauel Levinas)

Why is the presence of the Other important?

Science, by its very nature, is involved in explanation. It is guided by the principle of cause and effect. It studies the effects and attempts to discover the cause. Sometimes the cause can't be verified through experience. So, many experiments are conducted and when there is a pattern that invariably occcurs, they attempt at an explanation that cannot be verified through experience. It takes on a theory status. The theory of evolution would be a perfect example which has a more explanatory power than the creation theory. Although a theory, the theory of evolution almost stands beyond reasonable doubt.

Philosophy, at least the conceptual type, dabbles with highly abstract concepts that cover a much broader scope than any science could conceive of. Philosophy is a level beyond science in that it investigates the undisclosed assumptions of all the sciences. For instance, science deals with being in particular like atoms, molecules, DNA, living organisms that scientists group into categories based on similar features. Philosophy, for its take, deals with metaphysics, the study of ultimate reality. Metaphysics studies Being in general, not any being in particular, but Being itself.

Whatever the case may be, both the conceptual type of philosophy and science focus their attention on concepts - an abstraction of beings.

While this approach towards reality has resulted in great discoveries (more so in science than in philosophy that has no way to verify its findings), this has led many educators and laypeople alike to believe that science, although imperfect, is the best approach in understanding the world in which we live. It would not only be treated as the best way, but also as the only way. This attitude is called scientism.

Scientism is not scientific. Its belief cannot be verified. But because it is a belief, a powerful belief that has taken hold of the minds of those in authority to make pronouncements about the nature of reality, it tends to overlook a very important aspect of reality - a reality of the Other, whose presence is in danger of being silenced.

The act of abstracting reality is older than scientism, but scientism has led people to believe that abstraction, meaning concepts do not just represent reality but are reality themselves.

In other words, we do not see Peter for who he is, but for what he is. The focus on Peter's whatness not only enables us to bundle him up with those with similarities; the focus on Peter's whatness blinds us to the fact that Peter is unique, a person, who, originally, is uncategorizable. An uncategorizable that is forced to fit into a category is silenced. It is murdering the who-ness of Peter. It flattens out the difference that makes Peter a very distinct presence. Categorizing Peter makes Peter invisible. The voice of the marginalized is nowhere to be heard. Since categorizing Peter is an act of abstraction, of thinking, and to view Peter only on that basis, abstraction is an act of violence. It de-faces the Other. It kills the Other. This is injustice.

I am not opposed to abstraction. Abstraction has been proven to be important in advancing our knowledge of reality.

But when we are dealing with persons, we should be ready to let go of concepts about Peter and encounter him for who he is. Abstraction is important in understanding Peter and the other for as long as we take into consider that Peter and the others are unique. When concepts do not serve Peter, then we should let go of those concepts. If law do not preserve Peter's otherness, his uniqueness, then those laws have to be re-evaluated.

There will always exist a dynamic struggle between conceptualization and the presence of the Other. Conceptualization is important, but they are deemed just for as long as it recognizes the Other, who exists beyond the law. Law, then exists to serve the Other. Not the other way around.

The Other Whom You Meet

It isn't easy to persuade people to see the other for what he or she is, and not stereotype. It would seem natural for anyone to label people according to one's likes and dislikes, according to sex, religion, race, and demographic features.

But, what would seem to be natural is not necessarily the moral thing to do.

Morality may not even be a natural thing.

Neither is humankind. True, our bodies and minds do follow some rules of nature. But, it would be a mistake, a case of reducing the human person to just being a natural product. If this were so then Hitler and his cohorts would be right in thinking that some persons are not worthy of rights enjoyed by those whom they deemed fit to enjoy those rights.

These days, people have been clamoring to be heard; people who belong to the 'gay group', the lesbian group, the invisible minorities. In other words, those groups that have been kept silent, now, demand to be heard.

Yet, people who are against them don't see them as persons; rather they see them as belonging to 'groups' that they see as being 'morally' offensive .

The problem with this is that peope still view other people as belonging to 'a group who happen to be homo sapiens'. They can't take away that label out of their hearts that affect their ways of thinking about other people, and even about themselves. Just thinking to change isn't going to change anything.

The only way out is to change their hearts. And, to do that is to actually go and meet and have an immediate encounter with the person who happens to belong to one of the groups.

Everyone knows that looking at a photo of a poor and malnourished child is no substitute for actually witnessing, holding, speaking with, caring for, a poor and malnourished child.

Self Control: The Source Of Happiness

Life’s problems seem insurmountable that some just throw in the towel, and live day by day without meaning. Or, some decide to end it all. It does not matter what the problems are. If you try to deal with them all by yourself, you will be eaten alive. Or, you’d feel as though you were being eaten alive.

Yet, others continue living with the promise of better things to come.

They pray.

Or, they have someone to live for. These things seem to motivate people to stand and move on.

Or, are they being pushed forward by the ancient instinct to survive?

If that were so, then no human would be depressed, despaired, panic, or simply surrender. It’s the human ability to look back at his life and to arrive at certain conclusions as to whether or not life is worth living. Surely, every living thing feels pain. But, to be able to step back and look at his life is, in my opinion, a human act. And this is why only humans are capable of experiencing mental pain. It is called suffering. Humans can suffer without experiencing physical pain. Suffering from a terrible loss of financial security is but one example. They could only suffer from that if they had decided beforehand to value financial security and to live in a society that values money. Another option would be to live far and away from money-centered society.

Many, however, decide to stay put.

Now, debt is a fact (if you decide to stay in that society). Unemployment is a real possibility. And, when that happens, how should one deal with it, especially when cash flow is severely cut off?

Rarely does one kill his family and his self.

But, almost all the time, we worry a lot. We worry sick. Then, our mental and physical health worsens. It’s easy to give up. Luckily, many of us don’t take that path. Yet, we worry ourselves sick.

Will we ever be happy?

Some of us even give up on that, calling it a mirage. Some of us don’t even want to talk about happiness. It would make them more depressed.

It would probably get them through the day with that attitude. But, they still worry themselves sick.

Now, some people take a different route. They pray to their God, wishing for a better life, requesting that they believe more in Him. When things don’t go their way, they pray some more and thank God. They leave everything to God. Does that mean that they wouldn’t lift a finger to make things work?

Not necessarily. But let’s look into the lives of those who see some funny times and smile, and find quality time with their friends and family.

How is this possible?

Some pray and let God carry their burden. Some see life as a cycle of ups and downs. Because nothing is permanent, then they have no reason to worry. What will be will be.

Now, some understand the nature of control.

I’m not referring to ‘control freaks’, the micromanagers, whose limited understanding of power and self control is based on controlling people’s behavior, Nature’s Ways, and the Will of God. They are stressed out, physically and emotional because Reality continually resists their intentions.

And, what about those who see some funny times in miserable situations and smile, and find quality time with their friends and family?

Benedict Spinoza, a philosopher, once defined freedom as the ‘recognition of necessity’. That is, when you recognize the plain and simple fact that certain things are beyond your control, you are relieved from emotional stress.

Emotional stress then is the result from trying to control what is beyond your will.

Worrying, then, is useless, unproductive, negative - a waste of good energy.

Does this mean that you should take things as they are, that is, passively? It is an option, but it would be like giving up. In their case, they summon their wills and strive to be the best they can be, while accepting the fact that certain things are beyond their reach. Staying within their kingdom where they reign supreme, they laugh and appreciate the company of others.

There lies their source of happiness.

An All Merciful God Gets His Revenge ...

I just received this in my mail from someone in the Philippines. Let me give you a brief background. The whole country was locked in a debate as to whether The RH Bill should be passed. In the end, Congress passed the bill. 

After it was passed, the most powerful typhoon and the worst flooding since 2009 hit the Philippines. The result? 100's and 1000's of people were evacuated; 19 believed to be dead: children and women among them. Now, this insensitive and vindictive person who sent me this email is blaming it on the Filipinos for passing the bill. He also believes that God, who is all merciful, takes vengeance on those who opposed Him. With unspeakable perversion, this person reasons that God kills people, innocent people, to make a point.

Below is his email

It may not be politically correct at this time but I can't help thinking: Where are the rains coming from?

The typhoon has supposedly left. It comes right after the RH bill session at Congress. Coincidence? Or not?

Many will find it awkward to pray for divine help  when just yesterday we ignored God. For those who believe, I think we just abandoned him yesterday.

 
Read In the name of the Jealous Gods

Selling By Not Selling

Don’t you detest sales people who shove their products right in your face? They believe you need it. But, they are perplexed as to why you don’t end up buying their product. And the reason why you don’t buy their product? Well, it’s very simple: either you don’t need it or you don’t like their approach. Their product may be the best thing since slice bread; but unless they change their sales pitch or approach, you are not going to buy even if you need the product.

Sales people are not the only ones scratching their heads. Believers, proselytizers, ideologues, and their likes can’t seem to get into their heads as to why people do not accept the truth of their beliefs and ideas. The more they push their ‘products’ in people’s faces, the more people resist. Naturally, they blame the people for being blind to their truth. They never once thought that it was ethically wrong to force and even to persuade people. Their tactics are psychologically abusive. They never stop to reflect that perhaps the whole approach is completely wrong. It’s hilarious that if the tables were to be turned on them, they too would naturally detest having someone else’s products shove right in their faces.

This is what happens when the religious, political and philosophical ‘sales people’ believe that their notion of truth is the one and only truth, the only correct path towards truth. If they had enough compassion and human understanding, they would not try to persuade people of their truth. Adopting a wider notion of truth, and open-mindedness, would naturally direct their attention away from imposing their notion of truth towards educating people to realize their own.

In order to make them realize their own truth, it would be necessary for them to wrestle with their biases. And this is where Socrates’ metaphor of a midwife comes in handy. Socrates was, from the perspective of his adversaries, a gadfly. But, a gadfly is very irritating. I don’t think that if our approach was to ‘annoy’ people, it would do no good for they would just clam up. I prefer the metaphor of a ‘mid wife’ who assists in the delivery of new born baby – in our case – new perspective about one’s self and life in general.

So, how does one, a caring and tender mid wife, bring about a new perspective? How does one show the way for the other to accept his weaknesses and the need to change? In other words, in sales talk, how do you get people to choose you so they may buy your product?

To answer that in detail would require more than a blog space. So, let me tell you of Chinese story about 2 wise men who wanted to teach the people of the village. Said the first wise man to the people:

“You need to change because your ways of life are immoral. Your ideas and beliefs are all wrong, and you need me to educate you.” No one wants to be told that he is wrong, that he’s been living a lie for the most part of his life. Because this ‘wise man’ confronted the people of the village head on (in the same manner as that of the presumptuous sales person), the people of the village resented him, and killed him.

The other wise man took a totally different approach in dealing with the people. He befriended them, ate with them, slept with them, worked with them, attended their social gatherings, told stories with them, cried when stories about their lives were told, dressed like them, obeyed their customs, and respected their values. Gradually, the people of the village learned to trust and love and respect the wise man. Now, as soon as they did, the wise man went to work to educate them, and the people of the village welcomed his teachings with open arms.

But, he did not teach them his truth. Instead, he brought out to light the limitations of their perspective, the goodness in them to want to change. For that, they changed. For the good.

Self Empowerment: The Essence Of All Ethical Teachings

Maybe I am not religious enough, barely meeting the requirement to even understand why, as Catholics, we had to believe in some supreme being who is beyond human comprehension. I was very young when I was told not to question God’s existence or his teachings. And, if I got into a debate with a believer who was so convinced that there is something beyond his comprehension, he’d always tell me to have faith when my reason fails to understand.

Sorry, I just can’t understand that. In fact, I refuse to give in to an argument that demands that I give up my human experience and understanding, and to take a leap of faith. Leap to what? It’s not that I don’t take risks or don’t understand what it means to take risks. When there are no more option; or that other options are just as bad as not doing anything, then risk maybe the only choice. However, in the case of leap of faith, there are options: one of which is I choose not to give my thinking.

I also don’t understand what it means to worship. But, if worshipping demands that I give up my thinking, then I don’t want to have anything to do with worshipping. I refuse to give up my individuality. I could be dead wrong about the true meaning of worship. But, for many years, I see people give up their individuality when they worship some being that escapes comprehension.

But, really, that’s all we know: what we experience, what can be experienced, thinking, feeling – that is, all we know is what humans are capable of; and they can be understood even if ‘mathematical’ or ‘logical’ reasoning alone cannot comprehend. We have that human capacity to understand the universal human conditions.

Yet, I have great respect Jesus, Mohammed, Lao Tzu, Confucius and other great moral teachers, for their teachings on how to live and how to treat other human beings. In fact, I came to understand them more deeply through the lessons I have learned from other human beings like my father, my teachers, sometimes from complete strangers like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and the people in the streets who performed great service to their fellow human beings. From them, I learned:

To think on my own

To be brave

To be responsibility for one’s actions

To respect the others and their opinions.

To believe that others have their own ways of thinking and expressing themselves.

To let go of your loved ones for their sakes even though it pains to do so.

As I spend more time reflecting on the teachings of these religious figures, the more these teachings become familiar. I soon realized that they were once taught to me: my father and other great human beings, through their actions and words, lived by them. They had shown me that these moral teachings found in religious texts were humanly attainable. But, for what purpose? To serve the High Almighty? The God or some supreme being that is unattainable and completely incomprehensible? No, It was the teaching of self empowerment.

Self empowerment is not and cannot be an act of a selfish ego that craves everything for himself. He cares for no one but himself. The selfish has not yet freed itself from the dictates of his basic instincts, from greed. On the contrary, Self empowerment is about empowering the individual so he may free himself from the outer and inner oppression that so weakens him that he would easily surrender his self to an abstraction, an ideology, be it religious or political.

The self empowered individual, through his words and actions, teaches the others self empowerment. The self empowered individual has a heightened his sense of individuality, not individualism. And, with a heightened sense of individuality, he recognizes the importance of a community, not anarchism or authoritarianism that demands blind faith, blind allegiance.

This teaching of self empowerment is, I believe, the true teaching of the great religious figures.

What We Are Has Little Bearing On Who We Can Be

They say that I have a past life - that I used to be a prince who lived a long time ago. Some even say that the stars determine my destiny, my thoughts and feelings and the kind of partner I will, naturally be attracted to. In others, what will be will be. All these things determine my future before I came into existence.

How many people have been humiliated for their wrong doings? How many, as a consequence, believed that because of a few misdoings in the past, they will have been, for the rest of their lives, be indelibly labelled  like the numbers ingrained on the body of every Jew during Hitler’s final solution?

But why would they think of themselves that way? By what manner or hidden philosophical view of theirs about their selves (and the world) made them think and behave as though the past has pre-determined their present and the future?

There is a difference between what you are and who you are. When is confused for the other, we get, as a result, a belief so ingrained in us that we believe that the past predetermines the future.

What are we? We’re made out of the same biological soup as every organic thing, living or non living. As belong to the human race, we have same DNA (just a very miniscule strain that separates us from primates). Scientists say that by studying our genes, they can tell a lot about our physical appearance, our predisposition, our level of aggressiveness, our chances of getting cancer, our height. The list goes on. But, that is what we are, the whatness.

But, who are we? The who is what distinguishes our lives from those of the others. The who-ness is that which is made up of specific actions, our initial reactions to external stimuli. And, if we apply rational judgment, we can opt not to react but rather to respond to external stimuli.

There’s seems to be no doubt that our what-ness makes us initially view and react to certain situations. But, we can change that. We can respond. With proper self reflection, our determination not to have past actions and behavior determine our present and future actions, we can change the course of our personal history. And, it is because our responsive-ness, or, more accurately, our ability to respond rationally and responsibly (response-ability = responsibility), that our future is not and cannot yet be written. Up in the stars; or, down there in our genes.

In other words, it’s up to us if we want to effect change. We may not be able to change what we are; but we can certainly determine who we can be. And, by be-ing, I am not talking about being a doctor, an engineer, an accountant, or a bum. It does not matter what career or job we take on. What’s more important is to strive to live as authentically as we can be.

Critical Thinking As An Ethical Value

Critical Thinking, I contend, is not, in its very core, a skill, but an ethical value. In order to recognize it as an ethical value, let us consider ‘open-mindedness’, a glaring feature of critical thinking. Is it a skill? I don’t believe it is.  Years of applying the skills of logic carry no guarantee that one would be open to ones’ deepest assumptions, biases and prejudices. Especially to one’s fears. When I was young, I had always believed that people who grow old grow in wisdom. That is not the case. They just grow older. What about children? Can they be open-minded?

The minds of children are open to learning new things. They are receptive. They are naturally inquisitive and are engaged in endless questioning. However, they are incapable of distinguishing the true from false ideas. They rely on the authority. In many circumstances, the adults are the authority. Children’s minds are ‘open’ but they are not open-minded. Because they have not yet learned to discriminate certain kinds of knowledge, they have no way of appreciating the value of open-mindedness. Open-mindedness implies that one is closed or once closed to opposing views.

In open-mindedness, there is a struggle within one’s self. This struggle is a battle that rages within one’s self. It is a battle which is decided upon whether to put aside preconceptions and beliefs about one’s self and the world in order to evaluate and, whether to accept new ideas that could replace old and perhaps, fearful or even destructive ones. These old, fearful or, destructive preconceptions are what caused us to ‘close up’ to newer and possibly better ideas. This is why children cannot be said to be open-minded (nor, closed-minded) because they have not been informed of any preconceived ideas about themselves and the world in which they live. They do not yet have a past to rely on, to lean on, to find refuge the way old people do when they have to protect themselves with the foreign, present reality. The good old days may be gone forever, but they still cling on to them.

Only a biased person, then, has the option to be open-minded. He has a door that can be opened or closed shut. So, if he has door, can he open the door? That is, can he initiate the opening? I imagine that a biased person is apprehensive and he would, he might, open the door, but ever so slightly; but he would never be able to open it wide. To do so would be disastrous for him, too dangerous for his biases would be left unprotected. For he has his biases and fears which he has to keep them concealed for fear that ‘they’ may harm him, his very raison d’etre,. It would then be safe to say that, if he ever does open the door, he would do so on his own terms. But that is not being open-minded, in the strictest sense of the word. To say it were so would be to proclaim it in bad faith.

Then, who or what can yank the door wide open? The Other Person. His very existence, his right to exist on his own terms demands that the door be opened wide. This is where being open-minded, the very essence of critical thinking, is an ethical value, a relation between oneself and the Other. To be open-minded is a response to the Other’s demand to be heard. Being open-minded is an invitation to let the Other in, thereby allowing the self to see himself for what he is, in full view of what he could be hiding from himself. True, open-mindedness invites self destruction, but it also enables the creation of the new self. Truth, though painful it may be, is liberating.

Can Critical Thinking Be Taught? Is It A Skill?

Non critical thinkers take their interpretation of facts as though it were correct and absolutely true. They are critical of interpretations that run in conflict with theirs. And while they may be skillful in the science of logic, applying the principles of logic on arguments, they do not apply them on theirs. Non critical thinkers may not be honest or open-minded. They take the easier path towards criticizing other people’s biases and prejudices, but never theirs.

Critical thinking involves oneself in being critical of one’s own perspective. Critical thinking requires certain skills, including the understanding and the application of the principles of logic. Critical thinking skills are: Rationality, self-awareness, honesty, open-mindedness, discipline, and judgement.

But why is it that although people can be ‘trained’ to acquire skills, why is it difficult if not possible to train them to become aware of their own perspective, to be honest, and to be open-minded? Are they then, properly speaking, to categorized as ‘skills’? That may explain why there is a difference between one who is ‘skillful’ and one is ‘experienced’. In other words, one may have mastered the skills, but still lack experience. ‘Experience’ cannot be taught. Experience takes time. However, Time does not ‘cause’ one to become experienced. One may have the skills and years added to his resume; but it does not follow that he has cultivated out of those years of acquired knowledge into wisdom.

And, here is where critical thinking comes in; but not as a ‘skill’. The more I reflect on critical thinking, the more it reveals itself as an ethical value. I do mean to imply that critical thinker is similar to the ‘experienced man’ or the wise man, although these types of men are critical thinkers. I merely want to show that critical thinking as it has commonly been perceived as a set of skills is different from seeing it as an ethical value.

Let us take ‘open-mindedness’ as our first case of treating critical thinking as an ethical value. As an open minded person, you are not closed to other ideas that may oppose to your own. You may be judged as an open minded because despite your advance age, you are capable of learning new things. Now, being open minded towards your own perspective is perhaps the most difficult display of being open minded for the fact it is difficult and painful to be honest about your fears, prejudices and biases. It is difficult because you have long believed in them. It is painful because you have lived by them. And, to judge them – if it comes to that – as untrue, would be tantamount to committing suicide. Hopefully, you persevere and find new, truer set of beliefs to replace the old ones.

Because it is difficult and painful, you are not easily inclined to be open to your perspective. In fact, I don’t think it is possible to be the one to initiate the opening. It’s easy to welcome a friend into your home; but not so a stranger or someone who’s out to hurt you. Being truly open to one’s deepest fears, biases and prejudices would be like welcoming a total stranger into your home. No amount of time and training can make you open the door to a potentially harmful stranger. Critical thinking, in its very core, is not a skill.

The “Meaningful” Meaning Of Life

Who asks the question ‘what is the meaning of life?’ Strangely, it’s not us, not in the way a salesperson would before he meets his prospect for the first time. For every response of the client, there is a prepared question. Leading the client to buy his product, the salesperson is in full control of the relationship. This does not work, however, as one of the most fundamental questions makes you skip a heartbeat. We never really intend to ask ourselves that question. In planning our lives, we ask what we want to be. It would seem, then, that life is putting that question to us. Life grabs you by the shoulders and shoves a mirror in front of you. And, what do we see? Someone who isn’t quite sure as to what he really wants out of life; or, someone who isn’t sure anymore if he’s heading in the right direction. It could happen to anyone of us, including the successful and the comfortable ones.

Material needs met, few debts, a sizeable amount of savings, great provider, well educated and admired by society. Yet he is unhappy.

He works from 9 to 5. Has enough money, not affluent but neither is he poor. No heavy debts, although at times he is on the look out for a better paying job. Nonetheless, he is way better off than the average Joe who lives from pay check to paycheck. Yet, he is unhappy.

He has a wonderful wife, and wonderful children who are above average students. Certainly has debts, but he does not worry too much about his situation. Yet, he is unhappy.

A successful business person who is admired by his peers for his skill and knowledge; yet, he feels that something is missing in his life. Life stops them with a question dropped hard on their heads.

What is missing in their lives? What is the cause of their unhappiness? Have they not accomplished enough, if not much, to live comfortably? Or, is it because they didn’t believe in what they were undertaking to get things done? Whatever it is, this existential sense of discomfort is the result of being questioned. We become a Question.

We become a Question because we have come to the painful realization that we will not live as long as we want to; or that, we would knowingly continue living a life with no meaningful meaning. This is the part where we divert our attention away from that rude awakening. We try our best to enjoy as much long as we can in the state of forgetfulness, of amnesia.

To the point: life is experienced as meaningless if we have lived a life centered on satisfying our selves and on the belief that death ‘happens to someone else but not me.’ To state it in another way: life is rendered meaningless if we live only for our egos.

Hence, it is not just believing in what you do and what you live for: life becomes meaningful when you live for the Other, even at the expense of your ego. So, when you live for the Other, you transcend the limited and limiting boundaries of the ego. The meaningful meaning, therefore, lies in living for the Other, unselfishly.

Moral Values are Absolute. And, It's No One's Opinion

To be sure there are cultural differences. Some eat with a spoon, some don’t. Some practice arranged marriage; some believe that marriage is a personal choice. These are just a few examples; and people conclude the cultural values are relative. That’s fine for as long as you mean that cultural values are relative to the country that practices it. A cultural value is not any worse or better than a value of another culture. It’s just different. Cultural relativism, you might say.

What about morality? If cultural relativism is accepted and acceptable, can we likewise conclude that moral values are relative? What is implied in moral relativism?

An Indian mother living in Canada had been convicted for ‘taking the life’ of her second daughter. She and her husband have no sons. They wanted so much to have a son. But, they didn’t. So, the mother did what she did. In Canada, that’s a crime. In India, it’s a practice to which many Indians in India adhered. It is a cultural value, and also perceived as a moral value. Is this a case of a cultural value being perceived as a moral value? If so, can we then conclude that that moral value is no worse or better than loving a child who happens to be a female? Can we then say that it’s alright to have children killed simply because the parents did not get what they had hoped for?

Is evil relative? Is good relative? Is it a matter of one culture imposing its morality on another culture? I was brought in a Christian environment. Does it follow that my moral values are relative? In other words, is the Christian belief in ‘Do unto others as you want others to do unto you’ is therefore relative?

But, does it matter whether it is a Christian belief or not? Harming and exterminating the life of another person is always perceived as harmful to the person who is inflicted with pain. Would you for no other reason except for the fact that the person does not like you, that you just didn’t fit to his or her plan of what life is or should be?

Moral values are not a matter of subjective opinion. They are not an opinion. They exist for the simple and plain reason that the person is to be held with the highest regard. The person is a value in himself, by himself. He is not to be used for someone else’s utilitarian purpose or pride.

Yes, there are cultural differences. But I judged the Indian mother to be guilty of murder. You can imagine that the 3 year old didn’t die without putting up a fight to save her life.