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

Virtue and Rationality

 Virtue

In this philosophical reading, Aristotle believed that the chief good is happiness and happiness can be achieved through virtues. In here, the happiness that he talks about is not the happiness we would think of today. He spoke of achieving Eudamonia (true happiness). For him, Eudaimonia is not an emotional state but rather it is more about being all that you can, fulfilling your potential. In short terms, it means displaying the best version you can be. Aristotle also thought that the practice of virtues would equate to happiness, in the sense of being all you could be. By virtues, Aristotle meant the act of achieving balance and moderation. Aristotle stressed that this moderation of pain and pleasure is an extremely important aspect of virtue. The mean between excess vices and deficient vices must always be pursued. Vices cause us to not act virtuous in dealing with pleasure and pain. An illustration of this could be that if a person endures pain with courage, he or she is balancing pain and pleasure. This balance becomes an index of the person's virtue.
It was Aristotle's belief that by achieving these virtues, happiness would result. So, for him, contemplation was the highest activity humans could do. Contemplation is that activity that refines and discovers virtues. Carried out continuously it allows you to reach your potential.


-Hanna Mari P. Ando
BSBA MM 1-1

Leo Tolstoy: A Confession

NO WAYS OUT

Sa readings na pinamagatang “ A Confession “ ni Leo Tolstoy inisa-isa niya rito ang iba’t ibang dahilan kung bakit masasabi na ang buhay ay walang kahulugan  at kwenta , at ang kamatayan ang mas mabisang paraan para makatakas dito.  Makikita rito yung pag-amin niya sa mga kalupitan at kahirapang naranasan niya sa kanyang buhay. Makikita rin dito yung mga katanungan niya sa buhay na hindi niya naman mahanapan ng kasagutan. Pati na rin sa pagkukumbinsi niya sa kanyang sarili, kahit naranasan niya na ang kalupitan ng buhay ,na ang buhay ay may kahulugan. Sa pamamagitan ng kanyang pananalig na mayroong Diyos na nagiging dahilan kaya tayo ay nagpapatuloy pang mabuhay.

Pagkatapos kong basahin ang readings ni Tolstoy na “ A Confession “ pumukaw sa aking atensyon ang katagang inilahad niya rito na, “ . . . . . there were four ways out of the terrible position which we are all placed. “  Nang mabasa ko ito napag-isi-isip ko na talaga bang mayroon pa ng paraan para makatakas tayo sa kapahamakang kinalalagyan natin, bukod doon sa pagpili ng kamatayan, lalo na at ang kapahamakang iyon ay nasa harap na natin at alam na alam na natin na na wala ng ibang paraan para makatakas mula rito. Hindi ka naman puwedeng magmaang-maangan sa maaaring mangyari sa iyo kapag nakikita at naiintindihan mo na ang katotohanan sa sitwasyong iyong kinalalagyan. Siguro ang huli mo na lang magagawa ay ang ipikit ang iyong mga mata at hintayin na lang ang susunod na mangyayari sa iyo. Katulad na lang dun sa kuwentong sinabi ni Tolstoy na kung saan nalagay siya sa isang sitwasyon na masasabi nating “no way out” na siya sapagkat wala na siyang takas mula sa mabangis na “beast” na humahabol sa kanya at sa “dragon” na naghihintay sa kanya sa ilalim ng balon na mapabitiw at mahulog siya sa kinakapitan niyang sanga na kung saan ang sangang ito ay nginangatngat ng dalawang daga. Sa halimbawang ito makikita rito na kahit anong pagpupumilit ang gawin ng tao na mabuhay kung ang kamatayan ay nasa harapan na ng iyong mga mata,  wala  ng iba pang paraan para makatas mula rito kung hindi harapin na lang ito at tanggapin. Kaya hindi ako sumasang-ayon na mayroon pang ibang paraan para makatakas tayo ng buhay sa kapahamakang ating kinalalagyan lalo na at ang tanging pagpipilian  natin ay kamatayan at kamatayan lamang at wala ng iba pa. Tulad kanina dun sa nasabing halimbawa.

Pumukaw din sa aking atensyon ang katagang sinabi niya na. “ Live seeking God, and then you will not live without God. “ Sang-ayon ako sa linyang ito sapagkat kapag tayo ay nabuhay na naghahanap sa presensiya ng Diyos ang buhay natin ay nagkakaroon ng kulay at kahulugan. Nagkakaroon ng kulay at kahulugan ang ating buhay sapagkat sa pamamagitan Niya nagiging positibo tayo sa pagharap sa buhay, laging buong-buo ang ating pag-asa at pananalig. Sa pamamagitan ng paghahanap sa kanya tayo ay nagkakaroon ng dahilan para magpatuloy pa ring mabuhay kahit na anong hirap, lupit at pait pa ang ating maranasan. Nagiging matibay tayo sa bawat pagsubok ng buhay ngunit kung hindi tayo nabubuhay ng naghahanap sa Diyos marahil kaunting pagsubok lang na dumating sa ating buhay ay sumusuko na agad tayo at kamatayan ang tanging iisipin para hindi na muli maranasan ang ganitong pagsubok. Kaya nga ang mga taong naghahanap sa Diyos ay kailanman man hindi nabuhay ng walang Diyos.

Mary Joy Capentes

BSBA MM 1-1

The Republic (Book VII) by Plato

        In the Book VII of The Republic, Socrates presents the most famous metaphor in Western Philosophy: the Allegory of the Cave which meant to exemplify the importance of Education in a human being and the four stages of thinking: the stage of imagination, belief, thought and understanding.

        Socrates describes these stages in a dark cave where a group of people were bound together and they were not able to look to either side or behind them except to the wall in front of them. A prisoner was able to reach the highest stage of thinking which is the stage of understanding after he was freed from the bond and capable to see the world beyond the cave.

        The idea of the allegory of the cave that Plato wants to depict is that we should start in the lowest stage in order to reach the highest stage. Everyone should begin at the stage of imagination or in the cave with the hands and legs bound, and education is the only thing that will help us to make it all the way out because the education has the goal to drag every man as far out of the cave as possible. Because not everyone could make it to the top, Socrates reminds us that our goal is not to make any group happy but to make the city as a whole happy, which only means that we should help everyone of us to get out of the cave and to reach the stage of understanding. The city also has the goal to educate every human with right natures so that they will not remain contemplating the Form of the Good forever.

        I firmly agree with the idea of Plato, everybody starts at the lower level before they attain the uppermost stage that they could reach. To be able to reach the Form of the Good, education will play a very important role for us achieve our goal because education do not simply intend of putting knowledge in a human being but also taking him at the right desires. When the time comes that were educated enough, we should lend a hand to those who are still in the cave at the stage of imagination.

        

by: Angelique May C. Garcia

        BSBA MM 1-1

       

Ethics of Emergencies

As I read Ayn Rand's Ethics of Emergencies,  some ideas came into my mind.
It was first stated in the article that Altruism is the devotion to the interest of others. It is a philosophy or idea wherein a person thinks of others' welfare. It is the opposite of egoism, which is thinking sbout something for yourself first before helping others.
As I first read the article, I thought that Rand is an Altruism supporter. But as I do some researches, she is definitely NOT. Because she is an Egoism supporter. She just sited some Altruistic ideas.

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue.
Rand define the word sacrifice in terms of the words "greater value and lesser value". There, she sited one common example. It is about a husband who spent lots of her money just to cure his wife's illness. In that situation, the lesser value is the money while the greater value is the wife's life because it is his own happiness. The action is not a sacrifice because he chose the thing that has a greater value but IF he spent his fortune with other women, that is a sacrifice because he gives up his own happiness.


The main idea or thought of the article lies on the last two pages.
Emergency was then defined in that part as any situation like floods or any disaster. Rand stated that one should help a person in an emergency situation not because it is his duty bur because he like to help. But right after that particular situation, the person who helped will not be responsible for the things needed of the person he helped to survive. Rand then stated that helping  is an immoral act because it is an act of tolerating one's parasitic attitude.




To end this reflection, I agree with what our Philosophy instructor stated about this article that "A is A". "Reality is REALITY" and noone can change nor destroy it. And helping for me, is an act of lending a hand for someone. It must be controlled, in order for us to destroy the 'parasitic attitde' of a person.



Roselyn Ann Grace M. Ibanez
BSBA MM I-1

Existence precedes Essence

In this idea by Jean Paul-Sartre, he stated that existence precedes essence mainly because the human being , through his consciousness, defines himself because in the first place, humans do not have any values or identity they possess. It is through humans themselves that these are created and are not predetermined by any means.

I strongly agree with this idea of Paul-Sartre since it is a very rational idea. No one knows exactly if, when we are born, we already have values since infants do not possess the capability of showing one. But, as they grow older, and through the influence of their surroundings, they create their own identity and values that makes them human.

Being human is not having eyes or nose or opposable thumbs. It is about what makes a person "human". What characteristics would make one "human". Being human is being what humans naturally do. Think. Humans think because they want to know what makes them what they are. They think for the very same reason as to what purpose will they serve while living.

In the idea that essence precedes existence, it is only true when there is an identity that precedes all humans as to saying that, "You will have this traits and characteristics since you are a man from etc. etc." But this is not true since it has yet to be proven and it does not follow the thought that man is a rational being.

On the other hand, if existence precedes essence, it will be less confusing as to what we are we, what we are to do and what would it lead us since ultimately, man decides for himself and he makes what he does. He knows what he is doing since he himself decided that he would do it. Not predetermined by anyone.

Therefore, being a rational man, I believe that the idea that existence precedes essence is true in the sense that it is a very rational and realistic idea that, although not proven, still much more believable than the idea of essence precedes existence.

Francis Jayvincent P. Fabi
BSBA MM 1-1