Critics applied in Life
The following is a requirement in our philosophy subject Critics and Epistemology. Our professor asked us to select seven (7) ideas from the subject matter and apply in life. Here are my seven points and life-application.
Learning is not about amassing bytes of concepts and knowledge in the brain. It is how we integrate knowledge in life. Kudos to our professor.
Evidence is the “obvious” validation of Truth (Evidence)
When I was in college, I saw my friend alone in the classroom slumped on her desk. I entered the room to check out on her. I looked at her face and saw her eyes red and bulging, and with tears streaming down on her face. I asked her, “Are you crying?” In a split second I received a slap on my face and wailed at me, “Obvious ba?” Just then I realized I should not have asked that question.
Her statement, “Obvious ba?” are two words we practically and sometimes even instinctively remark whenever we refer to something evident. Evidence is the supreme criterion that is necessary and sufficient enough to validate truth. In uttering the words “obvious ba?” we further highlight the evidence in showing the “splendor of truth.” “Obvious ba? Can you not see? What else is needed? The truth is just before your eyes.” Evidence.
When Judgment Errs, Man Errs (Error)
To meet a person who is utterly stubborn in believing and not accepting he is wrong is either infuriating or amusing, or perhaps both. Before I entered the seminary a group of my friends went to the Botanical Gardens in Baguio City. One particular purplish-violet orchid caught our attention. One of our companions remarked, “Wow! First time ‘kong makakita ng blue orchids.” I corrected him, “Violet yan, pre!” “Hinde, itong blue orchids yung sinasabi ko,” he answered back, pointing the same purplish-violet orchid. “Violet nga yan!” “Blue!” he insisted. I called on my other companions to convince him that the color of the flower is indeed violet. All of my companions agreed with me. In one chorus we shouted at him, “Violet yan!” Our stubborn companion -- we still don’t know if he was pulling our legs then -- still insisted, “Blue yan! Mga color blind kayong lahat!” Just with that statement, it really was pointless arguing with him. But with the intention of really putting him down, we called on the lady gardener near us to ask her. She told our stubborn companion that the orchid is indeed purplish-violet including some additional information we don’t need to know. Our companion was silent while the woman was discussing about the characteristics and background of the plant. We thought we have convinced him as indicated by his silence. When the woman left, to our surprise, our companion said, “Blue talaga yan! Color blind din siya.” With that, we surrendered.
“He who says that it is not and it is not what it is, errs.” Error lies in the false judgment. No matter how one may assent firmly and stubbornly his proposition as true, when that proposition in reality is false, that person errs. Even if the whole world may agree with one person, for as long as there is deformity in reality, that person and the whole world err. I cannot do anything about the assent of my companion. It is his judgment. Perhaps if the reality shifts in his favor, then our judgments may be wrong. He may then be correct in saying that we are color-blind.
When I was in the prenovitiate, I remember our assistant told us, “Sa edad ‘kong ito, ang dami ko ng napagdaanan. Hindi na’ko maaari pang magkamali.” I heard my companion grumbling in whisper, “Ano ka? Diyos?” True, True. We can not exempt ourselves from the possibility of committing errors. It is not by our age or experience that can free us from error, but it is by our right judgment conforming the reality.
Stereotyping Could Lead to Chaos (Theoretical Prejudice)
I found traces of prejudices from my mother when I was considering my college application to universities when I was in fourth year high school. When I was considering applying for UP, my mother was so worried that I might get involved with fraternities. When I was considering DLSU, my mother blurted a roaring “No!” According to her it was a school of the elite but with fusty brains. When I was considering Ateneo, she’s afraid I might end up boastful and self-conceited like my cousins who study there. (I guess she missed out that I don’t need to study at Ateneo in order to be boastful.) I’m a pure blooded Kapampangan who is naturally vain and braggart as many people stereotypically claim. I remember a joke about campuses regarding these biases:
“What are the reasons why students study hard?” The Atenean replied, “to become a good lawyer.” The La Sallite replied, “to become a good businessman.” The UP student replied, “to become a good politician.” The Thomasian replied, “to become a good doctor.” The AMA student replied, “para manalo sa Pera o Bayong. Esep! Esep!.”
Prejudice "pre-judging" something. It implies coming to a judgment on a subject before learning where the preponderance of evidence actually lies, or forming a judgment without direct experience. Prejudice as I learned does not only cause error. Prejudices could even lead to aggression. Violence in our society mostly resulted from prejudices. The least prejudice could do is to bring “internal violence” in the individual. All these chaotic effects, because of the error of the pre-judgment caused by these prejudices. Without careful reflection, although in my sincerity to bring about peace and harmony, my words and deeds could lead to the reverse especially when my judgment falls into these what Francis Bacon call as “Idols” or “false appearances.”
Ask, not to know, but to know You are Right (Negative Fictitious Doubt)
I joined JM while reviewing for the finals of Critics. I asked him questions to test the extent of his knowledge from his review. Whenever I ask question, he would look at his handouts before answering me. I told him not to look at his handout. I asked him, “What’s the point of asking you question when you just simply look at your handouts when answering? Will you do that during the oral exams?” It ended up that I get to answer the questions I am asking. With these JM asked, “What’s the point of asking me questions when you know the answers?” I simply told him, “Negative Fictitious Doubt.”
We ask questions for two reasons: (1) to know the answer because we really do not know; and (2) to assess or to validate whether the answers we know are correct. The second reason is what we call as the “Negative Fictitious Doubt” inasmuch as we fabricate the “doubt” to our certain knowledge, we doubt in order to confirm this knowledge. We often use Negative Fictitious doubt in our conversations in our daily life, we are not just simply aware of it, like when we ask “Di ba?” or “Tama ba?” or “Ang payat ko, ano?”
Denying the Existence of Others is No Solution (Immanentistic Idealism)
At one point in my life, I had been an Immanentistic Idealist, at least to certain degree. But it was just recently I realized that I was. While in the novitiate, I had a conflict and misunderstanding with a companion. The grudge and the irritation was so intense that I resolve into totally ignoring him. I didn’t talk to him or even didn’t look at him. When we crossed each other’s path, I passed as if nobody else was there at all. I remember a time when he asked me a question and ignored him. Indeed, this sounds so cruel. But it happened. And I think it is also happening in other religious communities or in other groups. In the immaturity of people, we become Immanentistic Idealists who simply ignore others, who don’t care if they exist, who think they are nothing but projections of the mind that could easily be dispensed with . This experience I just have shared may not be a full-blown or exact example or description which characterize Immanentistic Idealism, but essentially it is about the denial of the existence of things or persons outside our mind. Obviously, this is false.
Going back to my experience, no matter how much I ignore that person and deny his existence in my life, the more I realize his presence and existence. In my mind I want him to disappear or to dissolve before me, but if just can’t happen. I convinced myself that he doesn’t exist in my reality, yet why am I bothered when he is there? Why do I avoid him? When I knew he would be passing a particular route, why do I take another direction? If he doesn’t exist I my reality, why then do I get irritated whenever he talks or laughs so loud? Why do I get affected? Situations like this can never be resolved by ignoring or denying the existence of someone, because that someone is very real that there is no way he could not affect you, no matter how much effort of denial you make.
There are “More” in Name Calling (Universals)
Why do people get angry when they are called, “You are a monkey,” or perhaps called, “a German Shepherd,” or “donkey,” or “baboy?” These are not merely names. They signify the real monkeys, the real dogs, the real donkeys, or the real pigs we perceive. So when someone is called “baboy,” he gets angry and infuriated, because that word “baboy” cannot be predicated to him, as in comparison to the predication to all other pigs in the piggery. A “universal” is something that is predicated to individuals having the same nature. Thus, when one is called “baboy,” it is not very surprising when that person gets offended, in protest to the idea of being predicated to pigs. The idea of “name calling” is a sarcastic application of “universals.” When we ridicule people we have strong motives of predicating something to someone as in the case of telling a person, “Baboy ka!” That is why it is not simply a word or a name. That is why we are not supposed to get surprised when after calling someone “kabayo,” or “orangutan,” or “lechon,” we receive a stern look, a thunderous scream, or a flying fist directed to our face. These are jokes, but the words we predicate to people are univocal and distributive, enough to explain why people gets angry. The moral is this: (1) let us avoid name calling; (2) you can name call as you want for as long as the person has fully accepted the predication you want to call him.
Life without Reflection is Empty (Critical Reflection)
I totally agree with Socrates. Life without reflection is meaningless. It spells out the difference between mere existing and meaningful living. I couldn’t pass a day without going back to these rich experiences. Reflection opens the portal to myself in order to see how I have been growing in my daily life-experiences. That is why I value the times when I am in solitude and in silence. These are times of introspection. For this reason I value journal writing and blogging. I have grown to appreciate our nightly examen of consciousness. In these moments, I realized the vastness of myself interplaying with the world’s vastness.
Critics did not only help me judge the validity of knowledge. Critical reflection as a tool in philosophy is as much as relevant and important tool in life. Quoting Socrates, ”An unexamined life is not worth living.”
Learning is not about amassing bytes of concepts and knowledge in the brain. It is how we integrate knowledge in life. Kudos to our professor.
Evidence is the “obvious” validation of Truth (Evidence)
When I was in college, I saw my friend alone in the classroom slumped on her desk. I entered the room to check out on her. I looked at her face and saw her eyes red and bulging, and with tears streaming down on her face. I asked her, “Are you crying?” In a split second I received a slap on my face and wailed at me, “Obvious ba?” Just then I realized I should not have asked that question.
Her statement, “Obvious ba?” are two words we practically and sometimes even instinctively remark whenever we refer to something evident. Evidence is the supreme criterion that is necessary and sufficient enough to validate truth. In uttering the words “obvious ba?” we further highlight the evidence in showing the “splendor of truth.” “Obvious ba? Can you not see? What else is needed? The truth is just before your eyes.” Evidence.
When Judgment Errs, Man Errs (Error)
To meet a person who is utterly stubborn in believing and not accepting he is wrong is either infuriating or amusing, or perhaps both. Before I entered the seminary a group of my friends went to the Botanical Gardens in Baguio City. One particular purplish-violet orchid caught our attention. One of our companions remarked, “Wow! First time ‘kong makakita ng blue orchids.” I corrected him, “Violet yan, pre!” “Hinde, itong blue orchids yung sinasabi ko,” he answered back, pointing the same purplish-violet orchid. “Violet nga yan!” “Blue!” he insisted. I called on my other companions to convince him that the color of the flower is indeed violet. All of my companions agreed with me. In one chorus we shouted at him, “Violet yan!” Our stubborn companion -- we still don’t know if he was pulling our legs then -- still insisted, “Blue yan! Mga color blind kayong lahat!” Just with that statement, it really was pointless arguing with him. But with the intention of really putting him down, we called on the lady gardener near us to ask her. She told our stubborn companion that the orchid is indeed purplish-violet including some additional information we don’t need to know. Our companion was silent while the woman was discussing about the characteristics and background of the plant. We thought we have convinced him as indicated by his silence. When the woman left, to our surprise, our companion said, “Blue talaga yan! Color blind din siya.” With that, we surrendered.
“He who says that it is not and it is not what it is, errs.” Error lies in the false judgment. No matter how one may assent firmly and stubbornly his proposition as true, when that proposition in reality is false, that person errs. Even if the whole world may agree with one person, for as long as there is deformity in reality, that person and the whole world err. I cannot do anything about the assent of my companion. It is his judgment. Perhaps if the reality shifts in his favor, then our judgments may be wrong. He may then be correct in saying that we are color-blind.
When I was in the prenovitiate, I remember our assistant told us, “Sa edad ‘kong ito, ang dami ko ng napagdaanan. Hindi na’ko maaari pang magkamali.” I heard my companion grumbling in whisper, “Ano ka? Diyos?” True, True. We can not exempt ourselves from the possibility of committing errors. It is not by our age or experience that can free us from error, but it is by our right judgment conforming the reality.
Stereotyping Could Lead to Chaos (Theoretical Prejudice)
I found traces of prejudices from my mother when I was considering my college application to universities when I was in fourth year high school. When I was considering applying for UP, my mother was so worried that I might get involved with fraternities. When I was considering DLSU, my mother blurted a roaring “No!” According to her it was a school of the elite but with fusty brains. When I was considering Ateneo, she’s afraid I might end up boastful and self-conceited like my cousins who study there. (I guess she missed out that I don’t need to study at Ateneo in order to be boastful.) I’m a pure blooded Kapampangan who is naturally vain and braggart as many people stereotypically claim. I remember a joke about campuses regarding these biases:
“What are the reasons why students study hard?” The Atenean replied, “to become a good lawyer.” The La Sallite replied, “to become a good businessman.” The UP student replied, “to become a good politician.” The Thomasian replied, “to become a good doctor.” The AMA student replied, “para manalo sa Pera o Bayong. Esep! Esep!.”
Prejudice "pre-judging" something. It implies coming to a judgment on a subject before learning where the preponderance of evidence actually lies, or forming a judgment without direct experience. Prejudice as I learned does not only cause error. Prejudices could even lead to aggression. Violence in our society mostly resulted from prejudices. The least prejudice could do is to bring “internal violence” in the individual. All these chaotic effects, because of the error of the pre-judgment caused by these prejudices. Without careful reflection, although in my sincerity to bring about peace and harmony, my words and deeds could lead to the reverse especially when my judgment falls into these what Francis Bacon call as “Idols” or “false appearances.”
Ask, not to know, but to know You are Right (Negative Fictitious Doubt)
I joined JM while reviewing for the finals of Critics. I asked him questions to test the extent of his knowledge from his review. Whenever I ask question, he would look at his handouts before answering me. I told him not to look at his handout. I asked him, “What’s the point of asking you question when you just simply look at your handouts when answering? Will you do that during the oral exams?” It ended up that I get to answer the questions I am asking. With these JM asked, “What’s the point of asking me questions when you know the answers?” I simply told him, “Negative Fictitious Doubt.”
We ask questions for two reasons: (1) to know the answer because we really do not know; and (2) to assess or to validate whether the answers we know are correct. The second reason is what we call as the “Negative Fictitious Doubt” inasmuch as we fabricate the “doubt” to our certain knowledge, we doubt in order to confirm this knowledge. We often use Negative Fictitious doubt in our conversations in our daily life, we are not just simply aware of it, like when we ask “Di ba?” or “Tama ba?” or “Ang payat ko, ano?”
Denying the Existence of Others is No Solution (Immanentistic Idealism)
At one point in my life, I had been an Immanentistic Idealist, at least to certain degree. But it was just recently I realized that I was. While in the novitiate, I had a conflict and misunderstanding with a companion. The grudge and the irritation was so intense that I resolve into totally ignoring him. I didn’t talk to him or even didn’t look at him. When we crossed each other’s path, I passed as if nobody else was there at all. I remember a time when he asked me a question and ignored him. Indeed, this sounds so cruel. But it happened. And I think it is also happening in other religious communities or in other groups. In the immaturity of people, we become Immanentistic Idealists who simply ignore others, who don’t care if they exist, who think they are nothing but projections of the mind that could easily be dispensed with . This experience I just have shared may not be a full-blown or exact example or description which characterize Immanentistic Idealism, but essentially it is about the denial of the existence of things or persons outside our mind. Obviously, this is false.
Going back to my experience, no matter how much I ignore that person and deny his existence in my life, the more I realize his presence and existence. In my mind I want him to disappear or to dissolve before me, but if just can’t happen. I convinced myself that he doesn’t exist in my reality, yet why am I bothered when he is there? Why do I avoid him? When I knew he would be passing a particular route, why do I take another direction? If he doesn’t exist I my reality, why then do I get irritated whenever he talks or laughs so loud? Why do I get affected? Situations like this can never be resolved by ignoring or denying the existence of someone, because that someone is very real that there is no way he could not affect you, no matter how much effort of denial you make.
There are “More” in Name Calling (Universals)
Why do people get angry when they are called, “You are a monkey,” or perhaps called, “a German Shepherd,” or “donkey,” or “baboy?” These are not merely names. They signify the real monkeys, the real dogs, the real donkeys, or the real pigs we perceive. So when someone is called “baboy,” he gets angry and infuriated, because that word “baboy” cannot be predicated to him, as in comparison to the predication to all other pigs in the piggery. A “universal” is something that is predicated to individuals having the same nature. Thus, when one is called “baboy,” it is not very surprising when that person gets offended, in protest to the idea of being predicated to pigs. The idea of “name calling” is a sarcastic application of “universals.” When we ridicule people we have strong motives of predicating something to someone as in the case of telling a person, “Baboy ka!” That is why it is not simply a word or a name. That is why we are not supposed to get surprised when after calling someone “kabayo,” or “orangutan,” or “lechon,” we receive a stern look, a thunderous scream, or a flying fist directed to our face. These are jokes, but the words we predicate to people are univocal and distributive, enough to explain why people gets angry. The moral is this: (1) let us avoid name calling; (2) you can name call as you want for as long as the person has fully accepted the predication you want to call him.
Life without Reflection is Empty (Critical Reflection)
I totally agree with Socrates. Life without reflection is meaningless. It spells out the difference between mere existing and meaningful living. I couldn’t pass a day without going back to these rich experiences. Reflection opens the portal to myself in order to see how I have been growing in my daily life-experiences. That is why I value the times when I am in solitude and in silence. These are times of introspection. For this reason I value journal writing and blogging. I have grown to appreciate our nightly examen of consciousness. In these moments, I realized the vastness of myself interplaying with the world’s vastness.
Critics did not only help me judge the validity of knowledge. Critical reflection as a tool in philosophy is as much as relevant and important tool in life. Quoting Socrates, ”An unexamined life is not worth living.”
hehehe. i find it amusing to learn about ateneo thingee...being conceited and boastful. God bless.
Posted by
Photography |
Friday, October 06, 2006 8:36:00 PM
yup, that's why... prejudices could to aggression. prejudices blind us from the truth. thanks for droppin by. God bless!
Posted by
brodiz |
Friday, October 06, 2006 10:16:00 PM
Whoa, I learned a lot today. Thank you.
Is "prejudices" another form of human insecurities that eventually lead to descrimination or racism?
Posted by
Anonymous |
Monday, October 09, 2006 3:14:00 PM
yeah, i think that "prejudices" could manifest insecurity especially when it is very much rooted in ignorance and the laziness or perhaps the complacency in the quest for truth. When we remain in that superficial level knowledge and come to claim it as true, i think this could lead to as far as discrimination and racism... from prejudice to division to chaos. Thanks, mye, for bringing this up.
Posted by
brodiz |
Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:36:00 PM