Of The Different Species Of Philosophy

            “All polite letters are nothing but pictures of human life in various attitudes and situations, and inspire us with different sentiments of praise or blame, admiration or ridicule, according to the qualities of the object which they set before us.” – “of the different species of Philosophy.”

            Sa akda, sinasabi rin ni David Hume na mas madali ang “easy ad obvious” philosophy kaysa “accurate and abstruse” philosophy. Isang halimbawa ng “easy and obvious” philosophers ay kaming mga estudyante. Hindi naming matatawag na kaalaman o karunungan ang aming nalalaman dahil nakukuha lamang namin ito sa mga librong aming binabasa.

            Isang halimbawa naman ng “accurate and abstruse” philosopher ay ang mga imbentor. Nagkakaroon sila ng sariling o bagong kaalaman dahil sa kanilang sariling pagtuklas at hindi nanggagaling sa ibang tao.

            “But  a philosopher who purposes only to represent the common sense of mankind in more beautiful and more engaging colors, if accident he falls into error, goes no farther.” Sumasang-ayon ako sa linyang ito dahil ang mga philosophers na binabase sa kailang isinusulat ay kapag nagkamali, mas madali nilang maitatama ang kanilang pagkakamali dahil nga nakabase sa araw-araw na pamumuhay ang kanilang pilosopiya.

            Hindi natin maaalis ang pilosopiya sa ating buhay.

            by: Joyce Ann Camille A. Rodriguez

                        BSBA MM I-I

The Ethics of Emergency by Ayrn Rand

“The moral purpose of a man’s life is the achievement of his own happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no values to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But this does not mean that he dies not subordinate his life to the welfare of others that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives is an act of generosity, not of moral duty, that it is marginal and incidental – as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existence – and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life.” The Ethics of Emergency, Ayrn Rand

Altruism is the unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness and egoism as the excessive preoccupation with one's own well-being and interests, usually accompanied by an inflated sense of self-importance. This was the definition of aswers.com. Ang “The Ethics of Emergency” ay umiikot sa altruism at egoism.

Ayon kay Aryn Rand, “if a man accepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance): lack of self esteem, lack of respect for others, a nightmare of existence, and in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics”. Ibig sabihin, kahit nagbigay ka ng tulong sa iba, ay may kahihinatnan pa rin.

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a non – value. Thus, altruism, gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces, or betrays his values. The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.”

Ibig sabihin nito na ang sakripisyo ay ang pagpili ng mas importanteng tao o bagay kaysa sa hindi importanteng bagay.

“The virtue involved in helping those one loves is not “selflessness” or “sacrifice”, but integrity. Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and value; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating then into practical reality. If a man professes to love a woman, yet his actions are indifferent, inimical or damaging to her, it is his lack of integrity that him immoral.”

Isang halimbawa nito ay kung ang iyong kaibigan ay nagugutom,hindi sakripisyo ngunit integridad na bigyan mo siya ng pera para ipambili ng pagkain kaysa bumili ng kung anu anong bagay na hindi mahalaga.

“It is on the ground of that generalized good will and respect for the value of human life that one helps strangers in an emergency – and only in an emergency. It is important to differentiate between the rules of conduct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence. An emergency is an un – chosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible – such as floods, an earthquake, a fire a shipwreck. Here, men’s goal is to combat out the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions. By “normal” conditions I mean metaphysically normal, normal in the nature of things and appropriate to human existence. Men can live on land, but not in water or in a raging fire. Since men are not impotent, it is metaphysically possible for unforeseeable disasters to strike them, in which case their only task is to return to those conditions under which their lives can continue. By its nature, an emergency situation is temporary: if it were to last, men would perish. It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one’s power.”

Ayon kay Ayrn Rand, isang imoral ang pagtulong ng isang tao sa kapwa lalo na kung ito ay isang normal na sitwasyon lamang. Halimbawa nito ay ang pagbibigay ng limos sa mga pulubi. Sabi niya, hindi talaga tayo tumutulong o hindi talaga natin sila tinutulungan, kundi kinukunsinti lamang natin sila sa kanilang ginagawa. Hindi daw ito isang kagipitan kundi isang normal na sitwasyon lamang. Kaya lamang tayo nagbibigay ay dahil may nararamdaman tayong awa sa kanila o ung “emotional attouchment” sa kanila. Upang mawala ang nararamdaman natin na ito, magbibigay tayo ng pera o ng kahit na anong bagay. Ngunit ito ay isang immoral na gawain para kay Ayrn Rand. Ang mga sitwasyon na nasa kagipitan ay tulad ng paglubog ng barko. Kung ikaw ay marunong lumangoy, tutulungan mo ang ibang taong hindi marunong lumangoy kahit hindi mo sila kilala. Tutulungan mo sila hanggang kayo ay makapunta sa baybayin o sa isang isla. Ngunit hanggang doon na lamang ang kanyang maitutulong. Bahala na ang taong sinagip sa kanyang pagkain o inumin. Hindi na obligasyon ng taong sumagip na alalahanin pa niya ang pagkain ng kasama.

“Philosophy is a matter of SURVIVAL”

                                                ---- Ayrn Rand

RIZZA M. DISU

BSBA MM I -1

MR. JAYSON DALWATAN

The Republic (book VII) Allegory of the Cave by Plato

The Republic or (book VII)  is the most famous story in Plato's book. Socrates is talking to a young follower of his name Glaucon, and is telling him this fable to illustrate what its like to be a philosopher. In this story there is a cave where in theres a prisoner's inside the cave and they are chained in their neck and those prisoners's are the philosophers. Theory of knowledge means how we can find or know the thruth. To those people inside the cave the only thing that make them know the reality is when what they see in the shadow inside the cave. For Plato knowledge is just a matter of memory and reminisce,and also knowledge is just a matter of remembering for Plato. From the beginning Plato explained his position in his allegory stating to “take…education and ignorance as a picture of the condition of human nature”. The entire article is in a dialogue, which makes the lessons taught throughout the text more like a story. The picture of human beings being imprisoned in a cave, oblivious to the “above” world, and living the real life was an interesting metaphor to me. I believe, reality based on what is visually interpreted or what is “normally” believed is not always the truth. When one of the prisoners escaped from the darkness of the cave, “he saw more rightly, being a bit nearer reality”. After adjusting he saw the better light and loved the new way of life, but after a while he simply must go back to enlighten the others in the cave. This is certainly a reasonable perspective on knowledge, but I wonder what is the point in knowing the truth when he must return back to the unjust way of life? Would a person want to be tortured in knowing they could live a better life in order to know the truth? Some say ignorance is bliss, but I am contemplative whether I rather know reality, or simply stay content with what I have to live with.  People may never know if they are living in lies, or they might always be questioning the truth, even if truth is right in front of them. I believe the object in life is not always seeking the truth. One would go crazy, questioning what is closer to the light of reality or what are just shadows in a dark cave of oblivion. However, we both agree education shapes our fate, our society, and gives people a meaning to their existence by “putting sight into blind eyes”. Plato bring up an excellent and very important claim in the character of leaders when you mention that they should poses wisdom and value education and the power of knowledge. Someone like the escaped cave prisoner, who has seen glimpses of “realities behind just and beautiful and good things” who has experience and the capability to see past the “darkness” and not be confined by the walls of incapacity, would only be the only succesful leader.
I firmly agree with the idea of Plato, that we should never rely to our senses, instead in our rationality, because rationality is the tools for us to survive... that's all.....

Sarah Jane Q. Natividad

BSBA MM I-I

“Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good, and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.”

Who is the real wants of sorts for their sake? All the things that we want for us are goodness. We aim always well for ourselves. All human activities aim some good. They always do things for their own good. Doing good things make us happy and others too. Every individual has their own happiness. Even though how many times you have finished a work or a masterpiece that everyone loves, you are not still happy because you don’t like the things that you are doing. You always find you’re happiness and the things that make you feel complete.  We always expect for good result for all the things that we have done but all ends do not lead to happiness. Sometimes expectation hurts us. If we always expect for good at the end of the day, we might just hurt our own feelings. But how can we blame ourselves if we do everything just to accomplish our goals. Happiness can be found in the end of an action.  The outcome of an action is what makes happiness different for each individual.

Aristotle believed that the good was happiness but how can a person attain his happiness? We do everything just to attain our own happiness. Others said that if we are contented to the things and people that we have, that are the happiness, but what if people do not know how to be contented. They always ask for more.  They never been contented on the things that they have. Happiness is the pursuit of our wants or desires. But still I believed that at some point of their life they will realize the true happiness of life. Maybe not now but sooner or later we can have that.                  

                                                                                                                       Danica Anna Pullon

Kant on Morality

“Finally, there is an imperative which commands a certain conduct immediately...This imperative is Categorical...This imperative may be called that of Morality.”

-Immanuel Kant

(Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics of Ethics)

To really understand morality, there some questions that should be answered. How can duty and autonomy go together? What’s the great nobility in answering to duty? It seems that the idea of duty and the idea of autonomy are opposing. How can these two matters be related with each other?

You only act autonomously when you’re pursuing in the name of duty and not of your own condition. You are doing good and moral only because of duty and not because of your own personal benefit. This is acting out of freedom because you choose to accept the moral laws on yourself and not brought out from outside and onto you. Because doing something out of duty is following a moral law that you impose on yourself. For this reason, I may say duty may be connected with autonomy or freedom.

So Kant’s answer would be - it is not that I am subject to the law that I have dignity. But rather, in so far as with regard to that same law that I’m the author. And I am under that law on that grounds that I took upon myself. So acting because of duty and acting autonomously would be the same.

But the question is how many moral laws are there? And if dignity is based in being governed by the law that I give myself, how can I be sure that my conscience or way of thinking will be the same as yours?

Because moral law does not depend upon subjective conditions, it may go beyond our personal differences. Thus, a universal law will form. So there will only be one moral law that will be the same for everyone. So this means that if we choose freely out of our own conscience the moral law will come up with only one and same law. This may be because of pure reason which is not subject to any external conditions that may be implied to us. Because when I choose, it is not Bea who chooses. And when you choose, it is you who is choosing but pure reason. So the “pure reason” that does the commanding when I command the moral law is the same pure reason that commands when you choose the moral law for yourself. And that’s why it is possible for everyone to act freely in choosing for ourselves as autonomous beings and to come up willing one same moral law (categorical imperative).

Now, how is categorical imperative possible? How is morality possible?

Kant mentioned that we need to set the distinctions between two standpoints.

1.      Sensible world – where actions are determined by the laws of nature and by the regulations of cause and effects

2.      Intelligible world – where by being independent by the laws of nature, I am capable of autonomy, capable of acting according to a law I give to myself

Kant says, “...only from this 2^nd standpoint can I regard myself as free. For to be independent in determination by conscience in a sensible world is to be free.”

If I were a holy and independent being, only subject to the deliverances of my senses – love, pain, happiness, thirst, appetite. If that’s all to humanity we wouldn’t be capable of freedom. Kant reasons because in that case, every exercise of will would be condition by the desire for some object.

“When we think of ourselves as free, we transfer ourselves into the intelligible world as members and recognize the autonomy of the will.” 

So how are categorical imperatives possible? Kant admits we aren’t only rational beings, we don’t only inhabit intelligible world around our freedom because if we do, then all of our actions would customarily be in accordance with the autonomy of the will. But because we inhabit both standpoints, there is always a gap between what we do and what we ought to do. At this point, Kant clarifies that morality is not empirical. Whatever there is to discover cannot decide on morality which is why science can’t provide a moral truth.

Bea Obcena :)

Of the Different Species of Philosophy --- Rizza M. Disu

"Moral Philosophy or the study of human nature may be treated after two different manners, each of which has its peculiar merit and may contribute to the entertainment, instruction, and reformation of mankind." - Of the Different Species of Philosophy, David Hume

 "The one considers man chiefly as born for action and as influenced in his measures by taste and sentiment, pursuing one object and avoiding another according to the value which these seem to posses and according to the light in which they present themselves. The other species of philosophers consider man in the light of a reasonable rather than an active being and endeavor to form his understanding more than cultivate his manner."

Ipinaliwanag ni Dvid Hume sa “Of the Different Species of Philosophy" ang dalawang uri ng pilosopiya. Ayon sa kanya, ang isa sa mga uri ng pilosopiya ay ang "Easy and Obvious Philosophy" na ngangahulugan na ang mga tao ay maaaring matuto sa kanilang mga naranasan. Ang mga pilosopong mga tao na “Easy and Obvious Philosopy” ay yung mga taong tinignan ang mga bagay sa medaling paraan na maaring maging hindi sang- ayunan ng nakararami ngunit maarig maging kapakipakinabang para sa iba. Ang ikalawang uri ay ang “Abstruse and Abstract Philosophy”. Ito ay nagpapahayag na ang mga pilosopong taong nasa ganitong polosopiya ay yung mga an utak ay kakaiba. Kakaiba dahil ang kanilang mga pananaw ay “beyond our five senses”. Ito ay maaaring magbago kung kaya’t hindi ito magagamit sa buhay. Hindi sila katulad ng easy and obvious philosophers, dahil sila, hindi sila yung kukuha ng mga kaalaman sa libro o sa karanasan ng iba, bagkus sa sarili nilang paraan sila natututo o sa sarili nilang mga karanasan.

“They think it a reproach to all literature that philosophy should not yet have fixed, beyond controversy, the foundation of morals, reasoning, and criticism and should forever talk of truth and falsehood, vise and virtue, beauty and deformity, without being able to determine the source of those distinctions”. Ayon sa philosophical passage na ito, ang philosophy ay pundasyon ng moral at positibong pamumuna na dapat pag usapan ang katotohanan at ang kasinungalingan, bisyo at magagandang gawi, kagandahan at kapangitan, na hindi alam kung saan nagmula ang mga pakakaiba na may katapat na hindi kagandahan o kabaliktaran.

 “Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek “philosophia” which literally means “love of wisdom”, and was originally a word referring to the special way of life of early Greek philosophers”. Ayon naman sa Wikipedia, ang Pilosopiya ay ang pag aaral ng pangkalahatang at mga pangunahing problema, tulad ng pagkakaron, kaalaman, mga halaga, dahilan, isip, at wika. Ang salitang “philosophy” ay nagmula sa Griyego na “philosophia” na nangangahulugan na “pag ibig sa karunungan” at noon ay orihinal na ng isang salita ng pagsangguni sa mga espesyal na paraan ng buhay ng maagang mga pilosopong Griyego.

Masasabi kong halos lahat sa atin ay nasa Easy and Obvious Philosophy sapagkat alam naman natin na natututo tayo sa pamamagitan ng mga nababasa sa mga libro at sa mga nararanasan natin sa buhay. Maari rin naman ang iba sa atin ay nasa Abstruse and Abstract Philosophy na beyond our five sense ang kanilang talino at kakayahan.

Humahanga akosa mga taong nasa Abstruse and Abstract Philosophy dahil kaya nilang gumawa ng mga kakaibang bagay ngunit may mga punto na parang yung mga utak nila ay para lamang sa mga katulad nila dahil malamang ay sila lang ang nagkakaintindihan. Ngunit may isang tanong ang tumatak sa aking isipan,bakit kailangan nilang gawing mahirap ang mga baga- bagay sa mundo kung pwede naman gawing madali ang lahat?

do what makes you happy

ARTIST AT WORK

“Just as you say, sir”

            This sentence caught my attention as Jonas continuously says this to everyone who talks to him. As if they are always dictating what Jonas needs to do and that he follows everything like he is not deciding for himself.

            He has his star. He believes in it. At first, I really don’t get what that star means. Is it believing in his talent or is it his God. At the end of the discussion, it has been cleared that that star is fate. He believes that everything he does is planned, really bound to happen. That all of it is just reenactment. Jonas is good at painting but he knew that it is not him who is good but his fate.

            He is not a typical man. He lives in silence. He’ll be fine with his brush on his hands and canvas in front of him. When he starts, he can’t see anybody. After all, he was able to build his own family. He has his wife, Louise. She is very supportive. She doesn’t mind even though Jonas has no time for her and their children. I pity her, but that’s love.

            Having all his talents, Jonas found himself unsatisfied. He locked himself on his room and didn’t allow anybody to talk to him. He didn’t eat for weeks. His family and friends thought that he just wanted to be alone and paint. But they don’t know that Jonas is being unhappy and miserable.

            The writer of this philosophical reading is an existentialist. But why is it on his writings, the character believes in fate and God? It just simply shows that believing to God will not always be good and helpful. Like what happened to Jonas, he believed and followed his star but seemed to be miserable.

            It is telling us that we have to be independent. Do what you feel like doing. Don’t let anybody dictate you. Its is not always going with the flow but sometimes you must do what makes you happy and take the risk.

Bernabeth Joyce L. Basco

BSBA MM I-1