Science and Secularism: A question of the Morality in a Post-Modern Capitalist Society

Disclaimer: The term "Church" here is used to define the institution, and not the religion itself.

So a few hours nights ago, me and Yna were eating dinner in Mc Donald's. I was just looking at the food she was eating, for I felt guilty to eat another rice meal. Both of us were having a very good conversation--sabaw, but very entertaining--until a pair approached us. The mood suddenly turned grim because of the shift in group dynamics. Maybe I was just annoyed that they were ruining our happy moment by butting in. However, the curiousity just have to burst, and I was pushed to listen to them. So, as I looked into them, I nodded so that they can start their mysterious discourse that they are eager to present us.

I cannot recall the exact words of the pair. They were drowned in the rush of thoughts in my mind as I heard the words "secular", "scientific", "government", "society", "RH Bill", "divorce", "prize", "contest", "separation of the Church and State", "Facebook" and "thank you". I cannot tell whether they were passionate about what they are preaching because they barely scratched the surface of the topic. As far as I know, there were a lot of questions lingering in my mind; and it is acting like a Krakken ready to be released by Hades.

First: I doubt their determination in their resolve. Really now? You made this group because you are hoping to show an alternative perspective of the societal issues pressing in on us, like the RH Bill, Divorse Bill, corruption, and the like? Or are you conforming the secularists to win a prize in a contest? If I were Althusser, I would question your actions. It sounds as if you are driven by money to create this movement. Maybe you could have sold your "product" if you have not included in the conversation the words "to win in this contest". In my mind, the words that are floating are "Marx does not approve". It shows that morality can be bought, just like it was proven in a certain Experimenta Economic study.

Second: Since you mentioned "society" in your teachings, you caught my attention. Dwelling on the State and the Church: they are indeed separated. It's just a matter of the people in the State letting the Church inside its premises in the government. I remember my Philosophy of the Human Person professor telling us that the proper ascending order of hierarchy in the society is suppose to be the Populus first, then the State, then the Nation, and then the Church. I guess the Philippine nation, due to the certain distrust in its State, does not have the drive to be united under a common cause--and this leads to the blurring of the separation of the Church and State. For the part of the Church: I guess it is just the method of the CBCP that is skewed in addressing the concerns of Morality to the people. We cannot blame the people about this; Society just assimilated and created an unclear Ordo Amoris because of the screwed historicity of the country. It's somehow sad to see that the solid line that should be clearly seen to distinguish the different positions in the Societal hierarchy become blurred because of the change in the context of the times.

Lastly: Just because the Church made a mistake in the way of instilling its teaching about morality, that does not mean one should go to Secularism for solution. Look: I get the the scientific arguments of the RH Bill, and I get the social arguments of the Divorce bill; but have you considered the morality issues in these things? Have you considered the impact of the of these issues in Humanity? Try to pause and think if sex with contraception is permitted; if separation of a should-be committed couple is permitted; if the ideologies created in the Western world (the ones who introduced Capitalism) dominated our Oriental mindset? What now?

"I might be thinking too much," I say to myself now. As far as I know, I did not asked these things a while ago. Perhaps I shall search for their website and ask these things myself. But now, perhaps asking the people who can read this note be something worthwhile for all of us.

A simple thought about Nature and the Will of God

A simple phenomenon was buzzing in my head awhile ago while I was waiting for my best friend, Yna, to get down from her condo unit to talk to her:

I was looking at cockroaches a while ago in the facade of the condominium (there were 4 of them, at most), and recalled this lesson in my Theo 151 class about the fulfillment of the 'greater scheme of things.' According to Merton, it is said that a creature is fulfilling God's will for it when it does what it is meant to do. The tree fulfills its duty to God by being a tree--and it's the best it can do to become saintly. So, in that premise, we can say that the cockroach is doing its best to be a creature of God by being a cockroach (whatever notion of cockroach-ness you have, it applies). However, for a human person, it is more complicated because of the notion of transcendence. We are the only creatures in this Earth that are capable of such a feat.

When a cockroach approached my foot, I stepped on it--but I did not attempt to kill it. I let it go. Then I went inside to the lobby to talk to my best friend. A thought entered my mind and I asked it to myself and to her in the middle of our conversation: What if we kill the cockroach? Is that an evil deed--to impede the being of the cockroach to complete its cockroach-ness? What did the cockroach ever do to a human person to kill it? It's being innocent, not minding anything else but its being.

The two of us never had the chance to give a conclusion to this pondering. How about you, reader? What are your thoughts about it?

The Bridge Between Philosophy and Theology: Love

Pre-note: This article aims to present to the readers a certain understanding of the connection of Post-Modern idea of Transcendence to the Theology of Catholicism. If there are conflicts against other religions that are presented in this article, please do recall this note. The writer does not wish to contradict the beliefs of other religions.


Another thing about this article is that the idea that I will discuss about Fundamental Option is articulated by Mr. Geoffrey Guevara using philosopher Pierre Fransen's, "Fundamental Option and Freedom of Choice" and psychologists Shostrom and Montgomery's "Being Stuck" as framework. My idea in this article is bridging this Philosophical idea to the Theological explanation of Church's idea of Jesus as the model of transcendence of human life and existence.


In the event that my idea was already thought of by another, please tell me so that I will know if I have to cite them.


Theology, the study of God; Philosophy, the love of knowledge: two ideologies that should, in perfect conditions, must coincide with one another. But the majority of thinkers in this post-modern world seem to draw a line between these two. Maybe this is because of the effects of the history of the Age of Enlightenment and the Reformation movements. The Church does not treat lightly the movements of thinking by philosophers and scientists in this age. But, as I learn about Philosophy and Theology in my school, I seem to see one idea that is used by both to explain the phenomenon of transcendence: the act of going beyond, to live, or the act of living life to the fullest. This, my friends, is the idea of the Fundamental Option.


"What is fundamental option," you may ask. In simple terms, the fundamental option is this certain option in your life that leads you to the true experience of freedom. In Pierre Fransen's idea called "Fundamental Option and Freedom of Choice", he explains that this freedom is essential to the manifestation of man as a subject; for man has a duality of being a subject and object at the same time. We must also, then, define the meaning of freedom in this context.


Freedom is man's ability to say no to the instinct; the so-called natural givenness of man. It is the way of saying "no" to the presented "stimulus-response" relationship of things. To understand in simple terms, let us use a person who feels sleepy at work. Let's give this worker the name: "Abe". Abe's work is from 8 AM to 5 PM, and he suddenly feels sleepy at 1 PM. In the situation, the certain stimulus is the drowsiness, and the response of the body is to sleep. But, there is another constraint in this situation; he is at work. If Abe wants to assert himself, he will not give in to this instinct of sleepiness. If he manages to do that, then, we can say that this person has freedom.


But, saying no to instinct is not enough to achieve transcendence. Saying "no" to it only cuts the stimulus-response relationship. It does not go beyond that. For that to happen, man must also know how to say "yes" to something--and that something is what we call the Fundamental Option of love.


According to Shostrom and Montgomery's "Being Stuck", there are two kinds of Fundamental Option: the option of Fear; and the option of Love. This is the core of four different polarities: love (love which define how we deal with our relationship with others), anger, strength and weakness. The two Fundamental Options always ends up acting a certain polarity, but will they have different intents based on which option the person makes.


From here, let me expound on the two Fundamental Options. First, we take fear into consideration. Fear is the one which stagnates the being of man into just one polarity. It is not the option of transcendence. This may let us say no to the instinct, but it never gives us the right choice for us to be free. As Shostrom and Montgomery said, "because of fear, man becomes stuck".


Fear changes the intents of the polarities. If one acts with strength with fear as its core, one experiences hiding from this act because the person does not want to be seen as a coward. If one acts with weakness because of this option, one shows his/her fear of being unsure of his/her self when it comes to things like decision-making and proving what is right. For a person who chooses to act out of love but has a core of fear, s/he shows this intention of dependency or act of being important to another person. And, lastly, when one acts out of anger with fear as his/her core, the act destroys ties of this person to others because the intent of the anger is not to fix what is wrong between the relationship, but to degrade the person who committed the mistake.


This, again, is not a sign of freedom. But the option of fear is innately present in man because of his/her historicity affected by the nature of evolution.


Because fear is what makes us stuck to ourselves, we move to the Fundamental Option of Love. This option of Love is something that makes us feel free. It gives us the freedom to choose. If it were to be illustrated by dynamics, the person who chooses to love "rises up" from the plane of choices and sees which of the following options would give him/her the best solution to a problem. From that dynamics, one can already conclude an act of transcendence--an act of getting on top of the situation, breaking the "stimulus-response" causality through thorough thinking.


Again, just like Fear, Love gives a different meaning to the polarities of human option. For strength, it will reflect love if it is used to protect others physically or emotionally. For weakness, Love manifests itself through avoiding perilous happenings to save the self through retreating from them. The polarity of love, if manifested with a core of Love, will show an act of self-giving to the fullest. And, when anger comes with Love, it will show a certain angst of fighting for what is just and right.


This is the meaning of transcendence in the context of Philosophy.


In Theology, what was said about the Fundamental Options presented was about doing good or doing an act of sinfulness. And, when these are explained and simplified, it will appear just like the Fundamental Option presented in Philosophy. To do what is good entails self-giving; whereas the act of sinfulness has a core of self-preservation. Self-giving for the sake of you and gives you peace, as explained in Theology, is Love. Self-preservation, on the other hand, is made our of Fear of losing one's self from relating to others; the act of isolating one's self from others. It relates to Philosophy's own interpretation of the fundamental option. If one chooses to sin, then there will be no mark of transcendence. If one chooses to do good, then his/her life is fulfilled.


Let me give you a simple story to illustrate what I mean:


Ian and Sally are best friends. These two friends just met some months ago. they are of two different spectra; Ian is a judgemental person, while Sally is a person who is willing to accept everyone. At first, Ian thought of not befriending Sally because he doesn't want to be near people who have a strong personality. He feels that whenever he is near one, he assumes that they are the type who befriends people and wants to be on top of things and act as a leader of the pack. But then, when Sally approached him, he felt some kind of warmth in his heart. Her approach to Ian was quite different from those clique-ish people who tried to befriend him in the past and acts like they are his boss. And from this act of approaching, Ian chose to accept Sally's friendship invitation, and they are both happy with this friendship, which grew and is still growing to be a very good relationship between them.


In the narration, Ian, at first, manifests an act of fear. If he let this fear take over, then he would not feel the happiness he is experiencing right now. He would not be able to live his life beyond what his original state, which was isolated. He transcended that after reflecting on the "warmth" he experienced as Sally approached him; and he continues to transcend his state by sharing a mutual bond with Sally, the friendship.


And this is the context of what the Church teaches about the acts of Jesus Christ. The overview of the dogma is that Christ teaches us to love through His Paschal Mystery. But, a lot of people seem to misinterpret what Christ had done. He set an example to all of mankind. He did not just sacrifice Himself so that the sins of man would be forgiven. He wanted us to follow Him.


Think of what He had done in His lifetime. In general, He opened Himself to the people who are known to be sinners: the tax collectors, the prostitutes, the lepers, and the like. He engaged them in a union with Him, and He healed them so that they can go forth and do His deed of opening themselves to others. If Christ did not open Himself to these kind of people, then the whole process of isolating and isolation would remain; and thus, man will be prone to sin. His life does not automatically imply that Christ was a God, but his works were God-like. He acted beyond His self, and this showed an example of transcending as the true sign of freedom--a freedom from one's self.


Christ's Paschal Mystery is the simplest symbolism of this transcendence. His Passion symbolises the giving of Himself to others. His Death presents what will happen if one gives him/her self to others: the destruction of the boundaries that hinders one from living. His Resurrection shows what happens after the "Death", which means that a person is renewed and went beyond his/her own capacities that can only be done when one removes his/her self from isolation.


In the end, Theology wants us to know that Christ did not just come here and save us from sin. He wanted man to live like Him so that the sins of man would be forgiven. And how does He want us to live? He wants us to live life to the fullest--to transcend. And, one can achieve this if one chooses the Fundamental Option of Love; because through this, one can do what is good for him/herself and what is good for others.

Criticism on the "Critical Doubt"

Ah, yes! The most renowned Universal Methodic Doubt: the movement that started the Modernist way of thinking. I used to be a big fan of this movement because of the fact that this was one of the logical proofs of God's existence. But, as time went by, people learned one thing: it's basically flawed. If it weren't, then there wouldn't be any Post-Modern Philosophy, or Phenomenology. It did prove the existence of others, but does it really need that kind of logical train of thought to prove the existence of others?

We know that Descartes was wrong; that is a fact. But, many people do not know the mistakes he did. They even take for granted the good things that he did. Perhaps this is an opportunity for people to know why there is a concept known as "Anthropocentrism". I hope this entry will shed some light about Descartes' reflection about the cogito and God, and how Post-Modernism rose from the ashes of Modernism. The ideas that I will present are not mine, but a compilation of opinions from other people.

The Universal Methodic Doubt is a process of doubting the object, and doubting the doubt, until coming up to a conclusion that there is a Bedrock of Certitude--the cogito. Descartes made clear that there is nothing certain but himself, and that others are just manifestations of his consciousness. This is good, as a matter of fact. It led to the understanding of the capabilities of man to understand and to go beyond what the Logos, the nature and boon of truth as known by the ancient Greeks, shows us. Man learned that they can have dominion over the Logos.

Another good thing about this is that it proved the existence of a God--Id quo majus cogitari nequit, which means "that than which nothing greater can be thought". This god is deemed to be perfect because of the Universal Methodic Doubt, which pointed out that man is imperfect. Because man knew that he was imperfect, then he must know that concept of perfect. And from here, Descartes stated and proved the existence of God.

Then comes the hard part. Descartes made a mistake. The effect of the Universal Methodic Doubt gave rise to the wrong concept of subjectivism; for because of this method, man became the enemy of everything (man against nature, man against society, man against man, and man against himself). It led to a virtual destruction of the world because men forgot to take responsibility of the power presented by the cogito. And all of these was due to the statement that "others exists only because God created them, but I can only be sure of their extention and motion". It just shows that man still thinks and believes that he is the center of the universe, and that others bow down before him.

But that problem could have been solved by Descartes himself when thinking of the transition between the proof of a Bedrock of Certitude and the proof of others' existence. This idea came later in Marcel's, Heidegger's, and Fransen's ideas in the Post-Modern era of thinking. Esse est Co-esse. I exists, and therefore, others exists.

Descartes could've been the father of this idea, that others exists. In the Universal Methodic Doubt when he already reached the point of Cogito, ergo sum, he thought of this question, "If others are just manifestations of my consciousness, why then are there others existing even though I want them to be shut down in my conscious being?" And from there, he ventured to prove the existence of others; and in the process, he used his "God", the perfect being, as a link between his existence and the existence of others. If he just admitted the existence of others, then the consequences of Modernism wouldn't be that bad, that it needed to create another movement just to remedy it.

Actually, have something to share about the fruits of Modernism. It's two fruits, Solipsism (the attitude of man that points out that he is the only one existing) and Value Subjectivism (the act of separating the value from the objective traits of others) are the reasons why there is a need for Post-Modernism.

There was a girl in college that always acted like the leader of the pack. She acts as if she knew everyone, and then she bosses them around. It is true that this girl has the charisma of a leader, but she's too self-centered. She thinks that she is the law. When she works as a head, one will admire her because of her skill, but her agendas are centered to favor her personal time. And, because of this, her co-workers started to resent her. They even started to spread rumors about her, which she confirms in the end.

It shows confusion, right? So tell me, was Modernism optimistic? Did it, standing alone, shed some "goodness" in man?

Intoduction to my Philosophy

Hello!


This is Neil Brian Farne, an AB Economics major, and a minor in Philosophy student.  In this blog, I shall try to share my enthusiasm in Philosophy through simple reflections on some Philosopher's works; and, maybe in the long run, I can achieve my own reflection of life--my own philosophy. I know post-modern movements limited the "originality" of thinking, but I think there is still a hope of transcendence from this status quo.


This post will not really start off with a reflection. It is just an introduction of myself. I must establish to the world that I exist; that I am a somebody, a subject, a being. And, through this assertion of my being, I shall also affirm that somebody will read my posts, because I know others exist.


Esse est co-esse.