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.

Examined Life, Fear And The Desire To Know The Truth

If you believe that a life that's worth living is an examined life, then the first thing you have to ask yourself is: do you desire to know the truth? If your desire to know the truth is genuine, then you will need to question your beliefs. You can be certain that some of your beliefs have not been examined.

A long time ago, I knew of a person who enjoyed questioning people's belief in God. He liked to quote atheistic philosophers and to make known that God's existence did not rest on evidence. The irony was that when his first child was born, he said to me that he wanted to believe in a God. I asked him, 'why?'

He replied, "Because God's existence would ensure me that there is life after life." He must be imagining his pain of the possibility of losing a child. If he had not had a child, he would not have wished for God's existence. Apparently, his reason for wanting to believe in a Supreme being is selfish, but understandable. Since then he never talked about God. He buried the issue deep within himself. But, it was all clear to anyone who knew him that he lived with the physical and psychological pain caused by an inner struggle between his irrational wish for there to be a god, and his rational thinking.

Every time we are confronted with situations that call for self examination, we take the course of least resistance. Ironically, this course of least resistance creates more resistance, more inner struggle, and it haunts anyone who forgets how the struggle all began. The more we shy away from self examination, the more we avoid knowing the truth. And, the more we avoid knowing the truth - pretending that if we just forget it, it would just go away - the more we are haunted. The more we are haunted, the more fear builds in us, imprisons us.

To be able to live a life worth living, our desire for the truth about ourselves must be sincere. The desire for truth is the fundamental attitude towards facing our fear. For by facing our fears, we come to know the truth about ourselves. For that moment, the inner struggle ceases to exist. And for that moment, there is liberation. Perhaps, this is what was meant by the phrase "Truth shall set you free".

That Uneasy Feeling About Living

We were talking about Socrates' "An unexamined life is not worth living". He also made it clear that one should know himself (i..e., Know Thyself). He went on to say that he knew nothing that lies beyond or below this world, and that the only thing he was capable of knowing is human experience.

I knew of a person who spent a lot of time understanding a philosopher. He read all the works of his favorite philosopher and was seen as an expert by his peers and students. He was adept in logic and was very good at detecting an invalid argument. He was particularly critical of religious tenets, and could prove the untenability of religious statements. Yet, he was uncritical of his biases and prejudices.

I had also come across some businessmen who were skillful at making money, who could see business opportunities that others could not imagine. They'd spend so much time making money that they have no time for their wives and children. Some are aware of that and have put aside enough time to be with their loved ones. Yet, they have little or no time for themselves. Vacation was a time to rest their bodies so that they could do work the following day.

These people are very intelligent, and are very good at what they do. But, I cannot help thinking that they may secretly be wishing for a better life. You may be contented with living in a certain way. But it does not necessarily mean that you're happy. Many of us are just contented with getting by, surviving another day. Time to rest would mean for some us more time in bed, watching DVDS, playing pc games. A contented life; or, a tolerable way of living that produces the least resistance.

So, if a life worthy of living is a life examined, what of your life should be examined? But, more importantly, how should you examine your life? What attitudes or values should one imbibe. Intelligence and deep knowlege of your profession does not seem to be the key.

Any thoughts?

Beyond Religion And Atheism: Should I know my self first?

I’m not going to criticize religion and atheism anymore, now that I know what’s good and bad about them. Being aware of them is enough and we need to go beyond them. What is the next step? Should we begin with knowing who we are? That seems to be next step. Philosophers always begin with the investigation into the nature of the self. It would seem that by knowing who we are we’d be able to go to the next step of knowing what we need to be. However, in this day and age, there are so many notions of who we are, what the self is. Which notion is true about the self? You could spend a lot of time trying to figure out which one is true. But, then you stumble upon the notion of truth, and begin to wander off trying to find the true notion of the truth. But, what is the true notion of truth, when you and I haven’t yet determined the nature of the truth? Perhaps, we need to agree on a methodology. But how are we to determine the correct method of knowing what the truth is in order to know what the self is? It’s terribly confusing, and I am pretty sure, we are going to get into a lot of mess before we could get off the first base. So, I’m going to say: Let’s put the issue on the nature of the self and methodology aside, and let’s start with some realization – some truths that are plain to see.

A friend of mine once told me that he’s convinced that the right thing for anyone to do is to be ‘nice to people’. He just knows that it is morally right to be ‘nice to people’ regardless of their differences, and to be a good father to his children, and a good husband to his wife. I asked him, “What about God?” to which he replied ‘Well, um, yeah, maybe there is a God. Then, again, I don’t really know. But what I know for sure is ‘be nice to people’.“ It is simply and plainly true, and he didn’t have to mention anything related to the nature of the self, or of the truth. I suspect that when you mix up what is simple and plain the truth with some judgments about which you don’t know, but claim to know, it blurs your vision of what is out there, in plain sight. It affects your judgment about the purpose of life and how one ought to live with people who hold different views. This is why Confucius reprimanded his students for getting enmeshed with questions as to whether there is life after life. Getting involved in something you honestly know nothing about makes you forget that your true and only concern of living is to live well. It also complicates life. And when you worry over the things you claim to know, because, deep inside, you know that you really don’t know, then it’s easy to become a victim to certain kinds of religious and political practices.

You and I know, almost instinctively, what is to be done. But, life has been quite complicated by the media, and an overexposure to religious, political and social propaganda. It’s time, according to Socrates, to realize the worth of living by way of examining one’s life.

Where The Religious And The Atheists Can Meet

Dear Readers,

I am not against religion per se. What I oppose is a misunderstanding of religion - which is why I have no sympathy for those who are religious fanatics or atheists who refuse to acknowledge the benefits of religion.

Why we can’t take religious text in the literal sense

People who lived at least 100 years ago don’t see the world the way we today see it. Time changes things. Our historical situation, psychological make up, natural disposition, individual experiences: these are some factors that influence our understanding of the world and ourselves. Understanding is interpreting. Seeing is interpreting. Reading religious texts is an act of interpretation. A word, a phrase, gets its meaning through its relationships with other words and phrases. ‘Freedom’: what does that word mean to a Muslim, Christian, fundamentalist, atheist, individualist, socialist, capitalist? That meaning of a word derives its historical relevance within a network of other words. That network is the general outlook of the world. The network shifts though time and history. There was never a time that it stood still. Conclusion: It is impossible for everybody  to agree on one definite interpretation of the Koran or the Bible.

Creating God in our image

To say that God is angry and jealous and all merciful and all forgiving and is one who somehow plays favorites with those who submit to him completely and wholeheartedly is a mere projection of the powerful people in society. It is an anthropomorphic description of God. Anything that you project on to something that is not you, is not what it is. It’s what you would want it to be. For many of us, it’s the only way we know how to relate to some being we feel to be beyond us. But, what it is, it surely is not what we want to believe it to be.

Atheism: the good and the bad

To learn something from atheism is a way of being critical of one’s attitude towards God and religion. Atheism puts the mirror in front of you. It is that window pane of the Johari windows that tells you what others see in and about you that you are not aware of yourself. If you believe that there’s something about you that you are not aware of then you shouldn’t think or believe that you have all the right answers. This is not the same thing as self doubt. Self doubt is an inability to believe or to be confident in whatever you have to say. Self criticism, on the other hand, implies that you have the courage to look yourself in the mirror, with the hope that you can better yourself.

Atheism tells you that you created God (or, whatever being you emulate or worship) in your own image. Atheism reveals the contradiction in  your belief in an all good God, who at least allows evil to exist, the amount of evil to be inflicted on innocent women, children and men. Atheism, in other words, tells you that there is something seriously wrong about your notion of God.

Atheism has its faults, too. It does not distinguish your notion of God from God himself. That’s because atheism treats them as being one and the same. There is a difference between a notion of X and X itself. Atheists couldn’t get themselves to admit that these two are to be treated separately, otherwise they would have to acknowledge X, or, in this case, God’s independent existence.

How to approach religious (or, spiritual) texts

I have no problem with people believing in a god. It’s their right, and I respect that. But, I will never approach such a being in an anthropomorphic way. That is why I do not pray for favors. I will not pray for a victory over my enemy at his expense. I find it utterly stupid for both enemies to pray to their gods for the destruction of the other. Those who pray to bend the will of their gods to theirs are guilty of idolatry. That’s what idolatry is essentially about. And, anthopomorphism, you could say, is a form of idolatry.

I also have no problem with people wanting to be atheists. It’s their right. But, I will never be one with them in declaring that there’s nothing good about religion. There is certainly something valuable to learn from reading religious or spiritual texts. It teaches one to acknowledge a presence that transcends our puny egos. So, ultimately, it comes down to this:

Really, what do we humans know? What could we get a handle on?

Socrates once said that one should not try to change the other. It is terribly difficult and next to impossible especially if the other resists change. The best and simplest way is to improve yourself. And, in my opinion, religious texts should be approach with the intention of improving one’s self.

Religious texts teach you how to relate to the other; but in order to relate to the other in an ethical way, you must set out to improve yourself. This requires a lot of understanding, reflecting, being engaged in a dialogue with the other, and critical thinking.

It does not matter whether you believe in a god. But, if you do decide to hang on to your belief in a god, then you ought to do so with the intention and the determination to improve one’s self. Also, if you do decide to not believe in a god, then realize it’s useless to  waste time and energy criticizing religion. If your intention is to show that it’s wrong to kill people in the name of religion, then improve yourself.

If people begin to see that you are a good person, and have no intention of turning them into what you want them to be for yourself, then, maybe, just maybe, they will change.

With that, I will stop writing about religion.

If there is a God, why is there so much evil?

The question assumes certain things about man’s notion of God. Let me list them:

1. God, being the creator of the universe, existed before the universe did. God and the universe, therefore, are distinguishable from each other.
2. God is an all powerful being (omnipotent) and is all good (omnibenevolent). And, he is also all present (omnipresent) and all knowing (omniscient)
3. That God has a plan for the beginning and the end of the universe. He had that plan even before the universe was created.


Now, it is a fact that there is suffering and evil. Many religious believer believe that:

1. Satan is the instigator, the seducer
2. Man is free, and therefore has the choice to do what is good, and to avoid what is evil
3. Man suffers from two kinds of evil: from natural disasters and from other fellow human beings.


Many religious believers also believe that God allowed evil so man can choose the good and learn from the experiences of evil. Many would argue that evil in human history is a step towards the better good. For instance, some race had to suffer from slavery in order for humankind to realize how wrong slavery was. Today, slavery is a crime. There are no slaves. Evil is necessary for humankind to learn from it like a child who learns how to balance upright after he undergoes the pain of tripping, and falling, and of getting hurt as a result. Parents punish their children so that the children may learn the value of self-discipline and moral values.

Perhaps, the problem of evil would not have arisen if the problems encountered by humans were as simple as the examples above. If there were no holocaust, no genocide, no murder, etc – none of those heinous crimes; then it would be irrelevant to ask the why there is evil if God is all powerful, who knows what is going to happen before it happens, and is so good that there is a valid reason for his allowing evil to happen.

But the problem of evil, unfortunately, had to be asked not because there is suffering and evil, but because there are some sufferings that should have been avoided. Like the holocaust. Six millions Jews systematically killed. There were other genocides. But the holocaust was the worst for the fact that it was planned systematically. The evil was just downright too much.

Now, let us imagine a scenario. Suppose you went out for a walk in the park and you saw some children playing soccer. They were around 8 years old. One boy kicked the ball so hard that the ball rolled out into the busy streets. There was a truck. It was going 60kph. A boy runs after the ball. You can see before it happens: the boy is unaware of the truck, neither is the truck driver aware of the boy. Boy steps into the street, in the path of the truck. You can see it happening. You feel in your guts that you have ample time to run after the boy and grab him to safety without having to sacrifice yourself. You know it’s the right thing to do. You chose to act and the boy was saved.

If God had devised a plan for the universe and everything in it before the universe was created, then He would have foreseen this incident of the boy and the truck thousands of years ago. You prevented it from happening because you knew it was the right thing to do. Even if you were to fail, at least you tried. But, if God is infinitely good, and we're not, why didn’t God prevent the holocaust from happening?

Jesus does not sit on his hands

People who claim to know the truth or who believe that they’re on the right, truthful path with Jesus, Allah, or the Buddha, seem, to me, to be complacent. They behave as though there’s nothing more to learn. They read the bible or the Koran, and they see the same message over and over again. They become stagnant in their knowledge and actions. They become mired with biases and prejudices.

But are Jesus, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Socrates, to name a few of these spiritual thinkers, as complacent as their so called followers? Has knowing THE truth made them as dumb as their followers? Has knowing THE truth made them as biased and prejudiced, and stupid?

When you are on the right path, when you feel that this is what you have to do, destined to do – be it in science, art, literature, philosophy, architecture, social work, medicine, etc – you could feel yourself expanding in knowledge. You want to know more although you have, being driven by passion for what you do, feel that you have learned a lot. It is never enough. There is always something, you say to yourself, that waits to be discovered. It’s a never ending process of knowing. That is why you are always searching. You never stop searching, and being ON the right path is what motivates you to move on. You are never complacent; yet you are most happy.

If you want to emulate these people of passion, then you should not idolize them.

Philosopher: The misunderstood being, but a happy one.

Colin McGinn, in his Philosophy By Another Name, does not like to be called a philosopher anymore. He wants to change his title to 'onticist.

It is a valid concern that I, too, had dealt with a long time ago when I taught philosophy. My concern with this issue was more of what do philosophers really do.

I like science. It would not be wise to ignore science and its discoveries of the world in which we live. But, I would be cautious to not use a particular science as a model for philosophizing. Philosophy had once committed the mistake of trying to model after the physical science. And, that to me, was the beginning of Western philosophers' identity crisis in the last 500 years.

I like literature because the novelists write about the universal conditions of human existence. Philosophers would be wisely advised to take up literature.

Where does philosophy come into the picture?

This is not the right place to write an exhaustive treatise on what philosophy is and what it has to do with science and literature. Nonetheless, I will to spell out a general outline as to what I think philosophy is.

Colin McGiinn is right in saying that philosophy is the only discipline that deals with the general nature of being. Recall the great metaphysicians like Plato, Aristotle, Heidegger and, may I add, Derrida and Levinas (I know that some of you who are acquainted with the last two may disagree with me), and in the East, Lao Tzu.

They all deal with the nature of being: that is, they explore the original relationship between consious being and Being.

Let us put it this way: scientists have devised a way to approach and study the world. It is called the scientific method. Novelists feel more and are very self consious of their feelings and the experiences of the others. This is why they write about love, suffering, the meaning of life.

Scientists adapt a certain mode of thinking that formulated the scientific method. What scientists do not consider to be part of their study is their very mode of thinking that hides and is determined by their fundamental assumptions about being.

Novelists, too, have a fundamental attitude towards Being (themselves and their fellow human beings and nature). However, they do not study the nature of that fundamental attitude that determines their approach and their relationships with themselves and their fellow human being.

The study of these fundamental approaches and attitudes, to me, is that concern that properly belongs to philosophy (or, in the words of Colin MGinn, 'ontics'). And, to best understand 'the general nature of being' the philospher (i.,e onticist), must, in the words of Plato, be interested in everything, from science and literature. Philosophers must stay in touch with these discplines. Otherwise they would be studying empty shells of Being.

Question: why do you philosophize?

Faith and Analytical Thinking: A misunderstanding of the meaning of Faith?

UBC social psychologists Will Gervais and Ara Norenzayan conducted an experiment among 650 subjects to determine the relaitonship between analytical thinking and belief. The experiment were conducted in two stages. In the initial stage, they asked the subjects to rate on a scale how important their beliefs were on God or angels. Once done, the subjects proceeded to the next stage and were asked to perform some "mathematical computations, answered questions posed in "hard-to read fonts" and were shown a photo of Rodin's sculpture of a man in a reflective position."

While the researchers had no intention of promoting atheism or degrading religion, their study indicated that analytical thinking weakens the subjects' faith.

***

You wonder if St. Augustine or St. Thomas or any religious thinkers would have their faith weakened by thinking analytically on the tenets of their faith. You wonder whether their faith and the understanding of what faith is similar to that of the subjects. I am not on the side of the believers, but you need to ask yourself, in a critical way, whether they are talking about faith or a belief that is based on hearsay. A belief that is based on hearsay, a probability at best, can easily be weakened. It is quite obvious that that is not faith for St. Thomas Aquinas. Faith, to him, is a rational assent.

Analytical thinking is a tool. Two different persons could have a different purpose for using analytical thinking. The use of analytical thinking lies  would depend on the subjects' pre-understanding of their relationship with the world at large. Logically, if two persons hold 2 different or opposing world perspectives, then they wouldn't not apply analytical thinking in the exact manner.

From one perspective, the study shows that analytical thinking weakens the subjects' faith. However, it could also have revealed the weak or the shallow understanding of the subjects' faith.

What do you think?

Ann Barnhardt and Sam Harris: Cut From The Same Cloth

Watch Ann Barnhardt burn the 'Quran'. She claims that Islam is a religion of evil. She argues that Christians wouldn't feel bad if their Bible was burned, but would feel bad and therefore pray for those whose hearts are filled with evil and hatred. Yes, she would probably pray, but she went on to burn the Quran. So much for Christian forgiveness.

Sam Harris, the author of The End of Faith*, does not burn the Quran or the Bible, for he has a better idea. He does it philosophically. He argues that it is dangerous to uphold any beliefs that have no evidence or is hostile towards any empirical evidence that could prove once and for all the truth or falsity of such beliefs. These beliefs, if they were to be strictly followed, would entice fundamentalists to wage war - physically and mentally - against those who do not open their eyes and bow down to their superior beliefs. For as long as the people of faith insist on holding irrational and unreasonable tenets of faith, there would be no chance for understanding, dialogue, and good will among people.

If Sam Harris intended to change people's minds and hearts, especially those of the people of faith, then he's in for a surprise. It just won't work. It would work only on those who have already decided on their own to not believe in any or all the tenets of faith. Their numbers may or may not be growing. But, certainly, his criticisms of any religion would give the believers another reason for holding their ground.

I am reminded of a story of two different kind of truth sayers who took different approaches to teaching the people. Their story went this way: One of them went to the townspeople and told them outright that their beliefs and knowledge were very wrong. They killed him. The other person went to the townspeople, adapted to their ways, and respected their ways of doing things. Eventually, the people learned to trust, respect and even to love him. It was then that the people agreed to listen carefully and respectfully when he decided that it was time to teach them the right ways of living and doing.

If you intend to change people's lives, you first have to respect them, and follow up with genuine actions of respect and understanding.

But, I have you know that it's a tough act to follow.



*You can read the summary of 'The End of Faith". But I suggest that you read the book (pdf).