by Polo Guillermo
There have been various calamities that have struck different places in the world. From intense earthquakes to heavy rainfalls due to typhoons, these types of natural disasters have unfortunately been a part of our daily lives. One that hits close to home was the recent super-typhoon Yolanda. A month has already passed yet victims of affected areas are still experiencing the aftermath of the storm. More than 10,000 people have been confirmed dead and thousands more are still missing. Infrastructures, livelihood and residences were wiped out completely destroyed.
At times of disasters, people tend to question why such things happen. People have been vocal about their complaints against government agencies for not having predicted the intensity of the super-typhoon and the efficiency of the precautionary measures that were instigated and planned by local government units. Some even berated the terms (storm surge) issued by PAGASA and media for allegedly it has caused confusion and apathy since people are not aware of this natural phenomenon is. People assumed that it was just like any other storm that would bring scattered rains. They never expected that such a catastrophe would actually take place.
There are also people who blame God for everything that has happened. They assume that these disasters happen because God is punishing us for all of our sins. Why would a merciful and loving God let his people suffer and consequently destroy His creations? Isn’t he an all-knowing supreme being capable of manipulating what is bound to happen in the world? It is during these times of discomfort, pain and suffering when people try to look for people to relate to or simply blame in order to lessen the grief of what they are experiencing and try to have some explanation to whatever they have dealt with. But is God really to be blamed for everything that has happened or does these disasters say something to humankind that is commonly ignored and taken for granted?
I believe in God but I cannot say that I have been the perfect Catholic. However, I have always believed that everything happens for a reason and that each event of our lives is a part of God’s greater plan for us. Some things may happen that might shake or hurt our faith but I think it’s just God’s way of testing our faith and commitment to Him. God let bad things happen for a reason but this does not necessarily mean that he enjoys seeing us suffer. Most of the time our judgment gets clouded by our initial and intense feelings at times of problems that causes us to not immediately realize or comprehend what is happening or the bigger picture. We forget to trust Him and believe in his greater plan. These realities only affirm Marcel’s view on ontological humility of human beings. There are things in our lives that are beyond our capacity to grasp and understand since we are finite beings. Each person in the society shares this finitude which becomes a certain sense of commonality that should bind and unite people all together.
Experts from the field of science have interpreted these events quite differently. Global warming has been an alarming environmental concern that continues to exacerbate as time goes by. Anthropological activities have been the most significant contributors to why it even started and continues to persist in the environment. Since we were capable of starting such a problem, logic would only imply that we also have the capacity and means to mitigate and eventually resolve it. This realization has been alive in environmentalists and concerned citizens from different parts of the world with their efforts of preserving the environment. This green movement and involvement of people in saving Mother Nature only underscore our nature as relation beings. The phenomenon of global warming proves that one’s action inevitably affects others and the entire society. Therefore, we must be more conscious with what we do and think of its consequences not only to ourselves, our neighbors but the environment as well.
At times of disasters, blaming people or even God will not help or change what has happened. Even if it is difficult or even impossible for some, we must try and learn how to trust God and His greater plan for us. Holding onto our faith can be a source of hope and strength at times of suffering. Events like these also call us to act as one unified and loving community in facing reality. At the end of the day, we are relational beings and we are our neighbor’s brother/sister.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Friday, July 19, 2013
The Difference Between Science and Life
by Kate Bonamy
The difference between science and philosophy lies mainly on the fact that more often than not, science deals with finite things while philosophy deals with the infinite.
In mathematics, they have accepted the fact that there is no rational way of writing the square root of three. There is no way of writing it as a fraction with coprime numerators and denominators. That is why they chose to call it irrational. However, in philosophy, the fact that some things cannot be explained or given a particular and logical explanation must be pondered upon. That is why there is no end to thoughts.
Also, in counting irrational numbers, there will always be an irrational number between two irrational numbers. Mathematicians readily accepted the fact that it is uncountably infinite (unlike rationals which has a systematic way of listing). In life, only when the surface is scratched will one realize that there is more. The next layer shows that there is still more, and more, and more, and indefinitely more. That is why thinking does not end. That is why it cannot be universalized.
It is not that science and mathematics has given up on the infinite, but they chose to give it a name- irratinals for this case.
The reason why scientists can replicate an experiment is because an oxygen atom will always be of atomic number 16 (except for isotopes). However, if the 16 ranged values from 1 to 118, there would be no way of arranging these elements in the periodic table. In life, each relationship varies with different types of people who have different perpectives in life. Each one is existing in a unique manner, despite the unity of being a being. Since it is personal, and there are infinitely many cases here, it cannot be universalized.
The main point here is that writing down a formula for philosophy or life is as futile as trying to systematically list down all irrational numbers.
The difference between science and philosophy lies mainly on the fact that more often than not, science deals with finite things while philosophy deals with the infinite.
In mathematics, they have accepted the fact that there is no rational way of writing the square root of three. There is no way of writing it as a fraction with coprime numerators and denominators. That is why they chose to call it irrational. However, in philosophy, the fact that some things cannot be explained or given a particular and logical explanation must be pondered upon. That is why there is no end to thoughts.
Also, in counting irrational numbers, there will always be an irrational number between two irrational numbers. Mathematicians readily accepted the fact that it is uncountably infinite (unlike rationals which has a systematic way of listing). In life, only when the surface is scratched will one realize that there is more. The next layer shows that there is still more, and more, and more, and indefinitely more. That is why thinking does not end. That is why it cannot be universalized.
It is not that science and mathematics has given up on the infinite, but they chose to give it a name- irratinals for this case.
The reason why scientists can replicate an experiment is because an oxygen atom will always be of atomic number 16 (except for isotopes). However, if the 16 ranged values from 1 to 118, there would be no way of arranging these elements in the periodic table. In life, each relationship varies with different types of people who have different perpectives in life. Each one is existing in a unique manner, despite the unity of being a being. Since it is personal, and there are infinitely many cases here, it cannot be universalized.
The main point here is that writing down a formula for philosophy or life is as futile as trying to systematically list down all irrational numbers.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Philosophy, Science, and Technology
by Hubert Cua
Humans are particular in universal. This is the line that puts me into question as I review my notes. Before talking about that line, I would like to first talk about the background when Dr. Garcia said that line. For Plato, teaching is making the students recall what the students forgot. That means students know the knowledge all along. For Socrates, it is through encountering with others that teach students new things. That means students do not know all the knowledge. At this point, Dr. Garcia then said that humans are particular in universal.
While the line is putting me into question, I suddenly think of how science and technology has changed philosophy. Whether true or not, some of my professors say that the general trend of people is to decline the importance of history. One professor even said that people seems to have “national amnesia” on history. Now, let me relate this phenomenon to the line, “Humans are particular in universal.” That line connotes that humans do not know all the knowledge. Humans have limited learning and knowledge capacity. While science becomes broader and broader and technology becomes more and more advance, people then need to devote more and more time on science and technology to cope up with the changing times. This may have shaped some people to have the popular philosophy that history is of no use and past is past. Is this phenomenon inevitable then?
Levinas’ way of looking at time also puts me into question as I review my notes. For Levinas, time is an instant. The past is renewed at every instant. Every instant is new. Future is a surprise, because future is beyond our grasp. Future is also redemption and is full of hope. The best is yet to come. Based on Levinas’ way looking at time, it seems that there is also a sense of declining the importance of history. Has popular philosophy (that history is of no use and past is past) infiltrated formal philosophy?
On the other hand, philosophy is also changing science and technology. For instance, formal philosophy teaches us that we have to make quality and honest products and sell it at reasonable price, because this is responsibility for the others. In the end, that means there is an unbreakable cycle of action and reaction between philosophy and science and technology.
Humans are particular in universal. This is the line that puts me into question as I review my notes. Before talking about that line, I would like to first talk about the background when Dr. Garcia said that line. For Plato, teaching is making the students recall what the students forgot. That means students know the knowledge all along. For Socrates, it is through encountering with others that teach students new things. That means students do not know all the knowledge. At this point, Dr. Garcia then said that humans are particular in universal.
While the line is putting me into question, I suddenly think of how science and technology has changed philosophy. Whether true or not, some of my professors say that the general trend of people is to decline the importance of history. One professor even said that people seems to have “national amnesia” on history. Now, let me relate this phenomenon to the line, “Humans are particular in universal.” That line connotes that humans do not know all the knowledge. Humans have limited learning and knowledge capacity. While science becomes broader and broader and technology becomes more and more advance, people then need to devote more and more time on science and technology to cope up with the changing times. This may have shaped some people to have the popular philosophy that history is of no use and past is past. Is this phenomenon inevitable then?
Levinas’ way of looking at time also puts me into question as I review my notes. For Levinas, time is an instant. The past is renewed at every instant. Every instant is new. Future is a surprise, because future is beyond our grasp. Future is also redemption and is full of hope. The best is yet to come. Based on Levinas’ way looking at time, it seems that there is also a sense of declining the importance of history. Has popular philosophy (that history is of no use and past is past) infiltrated formal philosophy?
On the other hand, philosophy is also changing science and technology. For instance, formal philosophy teaches us that we have to make quality and honest products and sell it at reasonable price, because this is responsibility for the others. In the end, that means there is an unbreakable cycle of action and reaction between philosophy and science and technology.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Return To Reflection
17 July 2012
Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, Introduction to The Mystery of Being
A subject is primarily known as such if it has the capacity to be conscious, to be aware of itself and its surroundings, and perhaps the subject that is most intimate to us is ourselves, as having the capacity not only of being conscious of our surroundings but more importantly of ourselves being conscious. The subject stands together with the object, that which is thrown in front of us (from the Latin word ab jacere), as something that can be "given." Having that understanding of a subject and an object, then one can say that a person is both a subject and an object. It is true that human beings are conscious of their being conscious, and have the capacity to think and talk about their own existence; however, they can also be treated as objects, in such a way that we can actually have the capability to ignore the status of the person as a subject and treat him as "one among other things," from the simple act of talking about someone if he or she was not here, or even ignoring someone even if he or she is there.
As subjects, we are capable of reflection. To reflect is basically to be aware that we are aware, and then to somehow step back and see our lives as part of that which we stepped back from. It is a response to the invitation to look, which eventually enables us to raise the important questions of life itself. Philosophical reflection, then, is a certain detachment that leads us to our awareness of being a part of the whole to which we belong.
The French thinker Gabriel Marcel discusses philosophical reflection by distinguishing philosophy from technical and scientific knowledge in his introductory lecture published in his work, The Mystery of Being. He emphasizes that philosophy attempts to go deeper in an understanding of life, and not an abstract systematization of it, or a dogma that prevents us from seeing the superabundance of meaning in our lives. In his lecture, he aims to explain and elaborate with a certain authority what it means to philosophize. For him it is neither a form of dogmatism or a quest to come up with a philosophy that tramples down all philosophies, primarily because such forms of thinking would hinder us from philosophizing, confining philosophy into closed glass jars, altogether separating itself from reality which should be its primary concern. Philosophical investigation and questioning, for him, is not a matter of strict demonstration but merely an aid to discovery, and hence he does not want to provide a strict, closed system. Philosophizing is basically responding to a call or an appeal to make sense of a life full of meaning, and any closed system could perhaps hinder one from heeding such call.
Hence, he proposes a new understanding of philosophy, through the metaphor of the road.
Regarding these, two objections can be raised. First, the metaphor of the road implies space, but isn't it the case that space and time should be abstracted in order to properly philosophize, which means to come up with truths that are universal and in fact apply in all cases? And second, the metaphor also implies that there is a given destination, an end goal that is not merely a hypothesis but something that is, for the philosopher, stands as a given end in sight. Having that, does the philosopher somehow contradict himself and preempt that there is indeed an end in view even though the road has not been trudged?
Marcel responds to the first objection by saying that if space would be neglected, then one can also neglect and dismiss the rest of the philosophical tradition, which not only started from the the human being's "situatedness" in space and time, but also accepts a kind of inner spatiality. What this objection fails to take account is that there is an inner space in every human being, that which houses our experience, our thoughts, and our insights (of course in a non-empirical manner). We Filipinos already have this grasp of inner space, when we talk about our loob, which points to our inner selves, that which is most intimate to us (hence the terms utang na loob, masama ang loob, saloobin, etc., which indicates that kind of space wherein we talk about our thoughts, feelings, and anything that is not empirical and immediately known by the senses. And to the second objection, he says that philosophy is not primarily about the destination, whether it is given or not; instead, philosophy is more concerned with the process of getting to that destination, taking into mind not only the result but also the method used to get there. Unlike the sciences and technical knowledge that emphasizes the finished theory or product, philosophy takes into mind the very path of getting to an insight or thought, and once we lose this sense of becoming aware of both the method and the result, we lose our touch, our fundamental encounter with reality which provides us the avenue to reflect and think.
He then continues to distinguish philosophical investigation from the scientific and technical kind. He says that these kinds of investigation abstracts the subject, in such a way that in coming up with a theory or a product, it does not matter who thought about it and made it, as long as the theory holds universally or the product can be used and sold at the market. But in philosophy, the subject and its encounter with reality does matter, and the subject's own experience and way of life matters a lot in philosophical reflection. The object of philosophical reflection, then, is the subject's encounter with the objects of his experience, and not merely the end result or principle that comes out of that encounter.
Finally, Marcel asserts that a philosophical investigation is basically our response to the metaphysical unease (a translation of the French malaise) which we experience, a feeling that there is something that we are really uncomfortable with, not in the sense of being sick or having an allergic reaction or irritation, but a quite uneasy feeling that there must be something more to know, more to experience, and more to think about. Only if we accept and heed the call of this unease will enable us to trudge the road towards finding the cure, and perhaps, it is in our trudging the path that this unease is taken care of.
Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, Introduction to The Mystery of Being
A subject is primarily known as such if it has the capacity to be conscious, to be aware of itself and its surroundings, and perhaps the subject that is most intimate to us is ourselves, as having the capacity not only of being conscious of our surroundings but more importantly of ourselves being conscious. The subject stands together with the object, that which is thrown in front of us (from the Latin word ab jacere), as something that can be "given." Having that understanding of a subject and an object, then one can say that a person is both a subject and an object. It is true that human beings are conscious of their being conscious, and have the capacity to think and talk about their own existence; however, they can also be treated as objects, in such a way that we can actually have the capability to ignore the status of the person as a subject and treat him as "one among other things," from the simple act of talking about someone if he or she was not here, or even ignoring someone even if he or she is there.
As subjects, we are capable of reflection. To reflect is basically to be aware that we are aware, and then to somehow step back and see our lives as part of that which we stepped back from. It is a response to the invitation to look, which eventually enables us to raise the important questions of life itself. Philosophical reflection, then, is a certain detachment that leads us to our awareness of being a part of the whole to which we belong.
The French thinker Gabriel Marcel discusses philosophical reflection by distinguishing philosophy from technical and scientific knowledge in his introductory lecture published in his work, The Mystery of Being. He emphasizes that philosophy attempts to go deeper in an understanding of life, and not an abstract systematization of it, or a dogma that prevents us from seeing the superabundance of meaning in our lives. In his lecture, he aims to explain and elaborate with a certain authority what it means to philosophize. For him it is neither a form of dogmatism or a quest to come up with a philosophy that tramples down all philosophies, primarily because such forms of thinking would hinder us from philosophizing, confining philosophy into closed glass jars, altogether separating itself from reality which should be its primary concern. Philosophical investigation and questioning, for him, is not a matter of strict demonstration but merely an aid to discovery, and hence he does not want to provide a strict, closed system. Philosophizing is basically responding to a call or an appeal to make sense of a life full of meaning, and any closed system could perhaps hinder one from heeding such call.
Hence, he proposes a new understanding of philosophy, through the metaphor of the road.
Regarding these, two objections can be raised. First, the metaphor of the road implies space, but isn't it the case that space and time should be abstracted in order to properly philosophize, which means to come up with truths that are universal and in fact apply in all cases? And second, the metaphor also implies that there is a given destination, an end goal that is not merely a hypothesis but something that is, for the philosopher, stands as a given end in sight. Having that, does the philosopher somehow contradict himself and preempt that there is indeed an end in view even though the road has not been trudged?
Marcel responds to the first objection by saying that if space would be neglected, then one can also neglect and dismiss the rest of the philosophical tradition, which not only started from the the human being's "situatedness" in space and time, but also accepts a kind of inner spatiality. What this objection fails to take account is that there is an inner space in every human being, that which houses our experience, our thoughts, and our insights (of course in a non-empirical manner). We Filipinos already have this grasp of inner space, when we talk about our loob, which points to our inner selves, that which is most intimate to us (hence the terms utang na loob, masama ang loob, saloobin, etc., which indicates that kind of space wherein we talk about our thoughts, feelings, and anything that is not empirical and immediately known by the senses. And to the second objection, he says that philosophy is not primarily about the destination, whether it is given or not; instead, philosophy is more concerned with the process of getting to that destination, taking into mind not only the result but also the method used to get there. Unlike the sciences and technical knowledge that emphasizes the finished theory or product, philosophy takes into mind the very path of getting to an insight or thought, and once we lose this sense of becoming aware of both the method and the result, we lose our touch, our fundamental encounter with reality which provides us the avenue to reflect and think.
He then continues to distinguish philosophical investigation from the scientific and technical kind. He says that these kinds of investigation abstracts the subject, in such a way that in coming up with a theory or a product, it does not matter who thought about it and made it, as long as the theory holds universally or the product can be used and sold at the market. But in philosophy, the subject and its encounter with reality does matter, and the subject's own experience and way of life matters a lot in philosophical reflection. The object of philosophical reflection, then, is the subject's encounter with the objects of his experience, and not merely the end result or principle that comes out of that encounter.
Finally, Marcel asserts that a philosophical investigation is basically our response to the metaphysical unease (a translation of the French malaise) which we experience, a feeling that there is something that we are really uncomfortable with, not in the sense of being sick or having an allergic reaction or irritation, but a quite uneasy feeling that there must be something more to know, more to experience, and more to think about. Only if we accept and heed the call of this unease will enable us to trudge the road towards finding the cure, and perhaps, it is in our trudging the path that this unease is taken care of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)