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?

Philosophical Cause Of Suffering and Injustice

When you adopt a certain way of making sense of reality, you stick to it as long as you can.  There may be several notions of truth about the self and life in general. But, you have chosen to believe in a certain notion of truth. Why? Because it is your need to believe that there is only one way of making sense of yourself and the world. It is comfortable. It protects you from certain beliefs that you can't get yourself to accept. They cause great discomfort when the world won't agree with your understanding of how the world should be.

This is your understanding of what reality is, what your place is in this world, how the other should relate to you, how you relate to your joys and fears. Seriously questioning your understanding is almost as good as giving up on life. For some, they decide to end their lives.

I think that the most destructive way of thinking about yourself and the world is to place yourself as the center of Reality. In this scenario, you are the arbiter of what is true and what is false, what is good and what is wrong. I am not just talking about being selfish. I am referring to a kind of thinking that runs so deep that it is very hard to notice that you have actually promoted yourself to being the center of reality.

Take for instance the philosophy of Rene Descartes. Descartes was looking for the truth. In fact he was yearning for something that was beyond absolute doubt. During his investigation, he doubted the senses and anything that the senses tell him about the world. He doubted God’s existence and morality (eventually, he was able to restore God in his philosophy). He doubted science. There was, however, one thing that he couldn’t doubt. And that was his existence. The fact that he is thinking, he exists. The fact that he exists, he is thinking. His existence and as a thinking thing were so intertwined, like inseparable Siamese twins, that neither of them could exist without the other. What sort of thinking did he believe defined his existence? It was reason. Or the way he understood reason: whatever rational arguments or conclusions he formed, they must first and foremost satisfy and comfort his self. They must keep him protected from further confusion, doubt, discomfort. That is, whatever he undertakes to understand, ‘it’ must make sense to him. If ‘it’ cannot acquiesce to his way of understanding things, then ‘it’ will be discarded. ‘It’ will be treated as though it is irrational, worse, false.

Let us step back from this scenario, and ask these important questions:

• Is it fair to force reality to make sense to you? 
• Just because something does not make sense to you, is it fair to say that it is false or morally wrong? 
• If you always want to see your partner not as he or she is, but as what he or she is for you, is that fair? 
• Just because it is logical for you, but not logical for the other, is it fair to judge him or her as being wrong and hard headed?

Free Will or Freedom?

Does free will exist? Is it an uncaused cause?

It sure feels like I have a free will. I don’t feel coerced to doing something that I don’t want to do. If I were coerced then I would rationalize that my free will has been curtailed by an external force. Curtailed, yes, but not taken away, for free will, it is assumed, is innate.

However, psychologists and philosophers have become quite wary about our ‘feeling that we are free’.  In “Is Free Will an Illusion?” Shaun Nichols writes:

Yet psychologists widely agree that unconscious processes exert a powerful influence over our choices. In one study, for example, participants solved word puzzles in which the words were either associated with rudeness or politeness. Those exposed to rudeness words were much more likely to interrupt the experimenter in a subsequent part of the task. When debriefed, none of the subjects showed any awareness that the word puzzles had affected their behavior. That scenario is just one of many in which our decisions are directed by forces lurking beneath our awareness.

This argument is not new. In the 20^th century, Behaviorism revealed that those ‘forces lurking under our awareness’ were determined by operant conditioning. If one was to be exposed to certain stimuli again and again, one would react in a certain way again and again. One's behavior would become a ‘habit’ and it would feel as though there were no external forces curtailing one’s sense of freedom.

We could spend the whole time arguing for and against the existence of free will. But, hasn’t anyone yet realized that whatever the outcome, it does not really matter?  Whether this argument or that argument could show you – its validity, it is still an argument that has no proof or hard evidence. 

Here’s what I know: I value freedom because I value human dignity. Humans fought against slavery because they are subjects, beings of intrinsic values. They are values in themselves. I don’t just believe in these ideas; I see actual people standing up for themselves, fighting and defending their rights, their human dignity.  And, when they retain and regain their human dignity, they are free.


So rather than saying that you have a free will (innate), why not describe freedom as an act? Wouldn't you feel that you have accomplished something valuable when you succeeded in overcoming an obstacle, be it physical or psychological, or spiritual? Let us think about it. For as long as you view freedom as an act of overcoming a resistance, then you will stand up and do something about your situation rather than enjoy complaining about 'how hopeless your situation is'.

The Living Truth

Truth is very difficult to define. So let us take up some examples of truth, or of how we use the word, 'truth.'

Mathematical truth. "Two plus two" is equal to "four." We say this is true. The opposite is false when we say "two plus two" is equal to "three."

Empirical truth. If I say "I have an elephant in my shirt pocket', then it is false because it is an empirical fact that there is no elephant in my shirt pocket. It is a fact and true when I say that there is a pen in my shirt pocket. This is an empirical truth because anyone, not just me, can see that there is a pen in my shirt pocket.

Biblical truth. If I say that "Christ is merely a man, not a son of God," then it is false because Christians believe that Christ is the Son of God, born without sin. While mathematical truth is based on logic, and empirical truth is based on the senses, biblical truth is based on one's faith. We can say that different truths have different bases.

There is another meaning of truth that is not necessarily based on the aforementioned. This truth is derived from, and created by, one's life. It is a truth that enables one to realize more of his or her nature and destiny. However, this truth is extremely difficult - and, at times, dangerous -to discover because it requires that one has to first accept one's ignorance, that is, that one does not know everything. Not everyone is willing to accept one's weaknesses. Everyone likes to know his or her strengths. Everyone wants to show off his or her strengths. Unfortunately, many cringe at the sight of their weaknesses. Knowing their weaknesses are actually a big step to knowing their selves. It takes moral courage to face them.

Many of us are afraid to know the 'dark side' of one's personality because we have something to hide from the others especially from ourselves. Through the years, we have built up an image of ourselves that we show to other people and to ourselves. This is a false image, a pretension. And it takes so much time and energy to keep up that façade that we actually become weary and stressed out. Furthermore, we become defensive when we sense that people can see through the façade (mask). The more masks we wear, the more we don't know ourselves; and the more we become ignorant and arrogant.

Why do we wear masks? Why do we lie to ourselves and to the others? We lie because we depend on the approval of the others. We want people to like us. There is nothing wrong with that. But, people might like us for the wrong reasons. And worst of all, we might love ourselves for the wrong reasons.

How do we free ourselves from all of these wrong reasons? How can we allow others to accept us for who we are? The answer is to first accept who we are. So, when we have humbly accepted our strengths and embraced our weaknesses, people will (eventually) accept and respect us for who we are. As a result, the truth about who we are sets us free to be who we are and can be.

Philosophy, God, and Honesty

Fear, Vengeance, and Conformity

Some of us had the misfortune of questioning the existence of God. I say misfortune because questioning the existence of God can cause stress and anxiety, but more importantly, a loss of innocence. One wished one had not been too aware of the contradiction between what people believe in and what they do. They believe in a God that is all good, and that teaches to do good even to our enemies. Yet, those same believers do the very opposite as soon as they step out of the church. One wished one had not been aware of the discrepancy. For that leads to other questions that could threaten their peace of mind.

For instance, one asks: "Why do I have to go to mass? It does not make sense to me. We follow those rituals and people kneel and mutter words 'Our Father who art in heaven...' without truly understanding the meaning."

One observes that people go to mass because it is Sunday, and we, Filipinos, are predominantly Catholic; and not going to mass will cause bad karma.

One observes people praying for their safety, and the assurance that their future would be exactly what they had prayed for: protection from murderers, untimely accidents; and financial stability. If they are into lottery, they pray hard to win $20,000,000 at least that could secure their financial for the rest of their lives.

One observes that the priests and religious laymen claim to have a special access to God's mind: they know, with great certainty, what God has in His mind. And, given that, they privileged themselves with the power to command loyalty from their own fellowmen. They are also sure that other religions are inferior to the Catholic faith that they lambast the non-Chrisitian for not accepting Jesus Christ as their one and only savior.

You turn on the t.v. to a channel you did not intend. But, you stay on for awhile because the t.v. evangelist was talking about how God can provide you the money you could have ever dreamed for, if only you pray for it. Seek and shall be yours. Ask for money from God, you'll get it.

You notice, too, that many of those who take religion seriously are those who are 'young at heart'. They feel their body aching every day. Gone were the days when they could jump and feel no pain. Pain reminds them of their frailty, of their mortality. "Life is short', they say, 'but I do not want to believe that this earthly life is all there is. There must be something else, something beyond the grave"

In other words, you notice that people believe in angels and devils and in a supreme god out of fear, vengeance, and conformity. And, you wished that you had not been too aware of this. Innocence is sweet, and peaceful. Yes, you feel physical pain when you accidentally trip and fall to the ground; but you don't lose sleep over it because 'it's a small thing'. You can recover from it. However, the loss of innocence targets your heart and mind. The pain you feel is not physical, but emotional and mental. It does not go away that easily. Sometimes, it does not go away. For some, it never does. That's because you, too, once believed out of fear, vengeance, and conformity. You should have been like 'everybody else.'

Philosophical explanations

 Why does 'everybody else' believe in a god the way he or she does? Let's begin understanding why 'everybody else' believes in a god out of fear, vengeance, and conformity.

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970) was a mathematician, logician, political theorist, educationist, ethicist, and a social critic. He is an atheist, who once was a Christian believer. In his book, Free Man's Worship, he writes:

Bertrand Russell

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes....A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.

People cannot bear not knowing what the future would be. It is true that people are aware of the fact that they cannot know the future. Their mortality and human frailty reminds them time and again the size of their brain. And, it is this reminder that they experience their greatest fear of the Unknown. "What lies in the future? No, what really lies in the future? I know that I don't know, but I want to know." Religion provides the consolation they desire, not the truth.

Sigmund Freud

Another thinker, with a scientific background, explains this phenomenon. The founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud (1856 -1939), delves deeper into the recesses of the human mind, and discovers the Unconsciousness. Freud argues that much of what we consciously do is determined by the workings of the unconsciousness. Freud claims that our so called good intentions are greatly influenced by our most basic instincts, namely, sex and aggression. In his book, Totem and Taboo, Freud theorizes the origins of religion. The father of a tribe, whose sons envy the father's access to the tribe's women, plans out to overwhelm and kill him. Despite their success, the sons fail to fulfill their desire to emulate their father, due to competition amongst themselves. Thus, religion arises out of frustration - to emulate their father - and guilt - for killing the father. The process is the same for all societies, be they Western or Eastern. Eventually, in the face of helplessness and guilt, mankind creates a god. In Freud's view, the 'created' God is a projection of the unconscious mind. This explanation is based on Freud's observation of children who feel helpless and guilty, and who needed a figure (figure of authority) to protect them from harsh reality. Religion, in other words, is a childish delusion.

To put Freud's theory in another way: all of us, as children, experienced fear in something that we do not know. We also experience things and people who can harm us. Our only means of survival is throw ourselves to our father, who appears to us children as the most powerful, most admirable being in the world. As we grow up, although we still admire and love and respect our fathers, we have outgrown the father. But we have never outgrown our fear of the Unknown. We feel the awesome power of the storm, the earthquake, death. We seek a more powerful figure of authority, a father figure, the creator of these natural events. Isn't it a surprise why god is considered a male?

Is there a way out?

Despite these philosophical attempts at explaining our 'weekly' observations of people who cling to god; who go to mass every Sunday; who don't practice what they preach, is there a way for you, the reader, to free yourself from fear, and to believe in a god? That is, is it possible for one not to fear the unknown and be able to believe in a god? Is god real, not a creation of one's mind? Is there a god apart from me?

But, why believe in a god? Many, like Bertrand Russell, reason that one should not believe in a god for religion oppresses his individuality, his freedom to be what he can be. Should one decide not to believe in a god, just because he does not want to be oppressed? Should we bet on God's existence?

Blaise Pascal (1623 – 1662) a Christian apologist argues that, if reason fails you to make up your mind on whether or not to believe in God, then let us wager. He writes:

Blaise Pascal

But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all...

What have you got to lose if you decide to believe in God? If you decide not to believe in God, and should God exists, you lose everything, including immortality of life. If you decide not to believe in God, and should there be no God, then you lose nothing. Believe in God, and there is a god, then you win everything, including immortality of life, and a chance to live in heaven.

Being Honest

As for me, I'm not entirely sure that this is the way out. This would not give the peace of mind that I am looking for. So, let me propose what I think is a way out. Here is the situation.

Say that I believe in a God because I am afraid for myself, I seek God's punishment for those who wronged, and because many people believe in God. Say that I also believe in a God on the basis of a wager. I die. I become a soul. I see myself rising out of the body, rising higher and higher, and I see Peter at the gate. I greet him, but he greets me with book of my life. All that I have done Peter knows, is written in that book. Peter smiles. He looks up and says, " You have bet on God's existence. You believed that you believe in Him, because you are afraid for yourself. And, you follow the rules just as anyone would knowing that he's being watched. In other words, you are not honest in your belief." Am I then barred from entering through the gates of heaven because I have been dishonest? I'll leave that for you to decide.

In another situation, much as I tried, I could not get myself to believe in God, for that would be dishonest. I die. There is heaven. There is God. There is Peter waiting for me at the gates of heaven. He greets me, then he reads the records of my life. Peter knows that I don't believe in God. But, Peter also knows that I have been fiercely honest with myself. If peter admires honest people, he should allow me to go through the gates of heaven. But, does he? I'll leave that for you to decide.

Philosophy and the issue of God

It would have been a nice ending to our spiritual journey if there indeed is a God, and I have been honest about believing in a supreme being. But that would be wishful thinking on our part. We are serious. We took up this issue because it matters a lot to us. Unlike the others who question God out of anger or resentment, we decided to take up the issue because we desire to know. We may not come to know THE Truth, but at least we are sincere, because we are driven by our desire for truth.

No one, not even philosophers can decide for you. However, the philosophical spirit can show you how to decide. Philosophy, the love of wisdom, is also the desire of and for truth. It's all we got to stay honest and dignified. It builds character and wisdom. It overcomes fear and inauthenticity. Your only reward (and consolation) in taking up the philosophical attitude is that you have done your best in being honest with, and true to, yourself. This is just the beginning.