by Hubert Cua (2 of 2)
The article is just an opinion, and I may not be correct.
When I attended the talk on Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao, one of the speakers said something like this. Many people, like students, do not dislike philosophy and theology before they take philosophy and theology. Many people disliked philosophy and theology only during or after they take philosophy and theology. At this point, I want to coin two terms. (Again, these terms do not connote any superiority and inferiority.) The first term is formal philosophy, which refers to the philosophy of “elitist” or that is taught in schools and universities. The second term is popular philosophy, which refers to philosophy of “commoners” or that is widespread. Now, I would like to start analyzing from the title, which is Power Philosophy. What I noticed is that people start to philosophize formally mostly in times of prosperity or in times of chaos. This means that a certain level of power, prosperity or chaos, must be achieved in order to trigger formal philosophy. This seems true in Chinese, European, French, Greek, Indian, Roman, Russian Philosophy and more. In normal times, people often stick to popular philosophy. Since Philippines is generally developing, which is neither developed, nor undeveloped, most parts of the Philippines does not seem to have the condition of making formal philosophy flourish. Rather, popular philosophy is prevalent in most parts of the Philippines. This way, students would possibly prefer popular philosophy more than formal philosophy. This seems to make them dislike formal philosophy. However, I noticed that some philosophers, like Confucius, Levinas and etc, were able to make parts of their formal philosophies into popular philosophies at the same time. I also noticed that philosophy seems to be based on power. Western Philosophy (I know I am somewhat contradicting my previous blog post.) is generally taught in universities, like Ateneo, since western countries has a strong power and influence on Ateneo.
Hi Hubert, this is a good insight. However, I would like to suggest a minor but crucial refinement to this. Instead of using "power", I suggest you use the word "civilization" instead.
ReplyDeleteThis is because the word "power" has several connotations, one of which is "political power", which might not be appropriate to this insight. After all, formal philosophy does not emerge out of the presence of political power, at least.
Philosophy can come even from the most mundane, however, formal philosophy emerged only in societies which have reached the highest level of social organization, that of a civilization. This is because in these societies, thinkers have indeed found the time and leisure to think about human experience beyond their own particular experiences. This is why they are called "scholars". Scholar comes from the word "scholae" which means literally leisure.
Thus, it isn't that a society has achieved "power" but that its members have achieved a level of socio-cultural advancement that allows them to think in terms that are more universal.
The allure of "popular philosophy" is that it seems to be applicable "universally" in that it is applicable to the "common man" This is why, I believe, students like "popular philosophy" more. It is because of a certain bias for what is immediately applicable to their personal lives--making it seemingly "universal".
Paradoxically, however, it is in fact, formal philosophy that is truly universal. Popular philosophy remains very particular and very personal. I'm not saying that this is bad. But Formal philosophy goes beyond this kind of philosophizing precisely because of the presence of leisure. Scholars have the luxury of thinking beyond simply for themselves and their own unique experiences and think of truly universal experiences.
Thus, formal philosophy is not a function of "power" but a function of "culture." It is for this same reason that formal philosophy is taught in universities. Because in a university, individuals such as yourself and I have the luxury and leisure not available to the "common man" It is not because we have "power" (in the narrow sense) but because we have "privilege"
Indeed, this privilege must be that which guides us to bringing (formal) philosophical insights back to the common man. Indeed, the very essence of scholarship is the concern not only for the particular but for what concerns humanity as a whole--especially the Other.
I hope this is able to fuel more fruitful discussions in your class. :)
Dentzen Villegas
Lecurer, History Dept.
Ph 101-102 under Dr. Garcia- SY 2006-2007
I would just like to comment something that I think is connected to this. In communication theory, I would like to share three models of communication that are relevant to this topic.
DeleteThe first is communication as dialogue. This is Socrates' beloved model of communication as he believed that people are truly able to connect through dialogue because people tailor the way they speak and the words that they say for each other. True communication is exclusive, intimate, faithful, and private. Socrates hated writing as it opened text to misinterpretation. For Socrates, it was wrong to speak to those not suited to them. This brings me to the second model.
The second is communication as dissemination. The figure for this model is Jesus Christ of the Synoptic Gospels. To him, communication was to be spread to all, regardless of particular gain. It is like the parable of the sower of the seeds that the sower spreads his seeds all around and leaves the gift of the harvest to the receiver. It is the communication the leaps through chasms as opposed to Socrates' marriage of true minds. It is extreme wastefulness because the message may not be interpreted correctly and is indifferent to personality as what is being communicated is universal. This brings me to the third model.
The third model is communication as breakdown. Citing John Durnham Peters, communication is both aforementioned models. It is through dissemination, the universal, that we open the opportunity for dialogue, the personal. It is in the ruptures, breaks, and interruptions in communication where we find the Other (Pinchevski, 2005).
My point in sharing this is that "formal philosophy"in the act of being made into formal philosophies, attempt to communicate with all as their messages are at best, universal. The personality and intimacy of "popular philosophy" must unite with the universal "formal philosophy" for progress to be made in both. Formal philosophy must be brought down from its erudition and made accessible to the common person while personal philosophy must be escalated to a grander and more universal scale.
True communication is born out of love for the Other. It is an "ever-fixed mark" that extends and transforms itself to reach others.
*Taken from the course COM 101 1st semester of A.Y. 2012-2013 as taught by Sir Jason Vincent A. Cabañes
I remember what Doc G said about the Filipinos already having a sense of philosophy without even knowing it. Our values of kapwa tao, pakikisama and sorts are examples of philosophical ideas. I do agree with the part that most often than not, people reflect in times of heightened stress or emotions. It's not common to find people who reflect for the sake of reflecting. But by not reflecting, we lose sight of what is really important to us and let life just pass.
ReplyDeleteHokulea Cabrera
PH 102-A