philosophers, KINDLY READ!

I am reposting a repost of a repost.
This is from the 26 May 2008 issue of the Manila Standard Today.

- i have a couple of comments on the side, and most of them are affirmative. it would require another blog post.

- credits to Ilaw my apo and Jun Arvie my stage-brother for sharing. =)

THE ECLIPSE OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY CURRICULUM

By Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino

In a few weeks, that which many students dread will happen—the opening of the new school year. Despite spiraling costs of tertiary education, many will flock to our universities and colleges with differing degrees of enthusiasm and aptitude and, so the common thinking goes, after four years or so, they will be qualified for employment. Courses used to be simple and the choices few. They are now as many and as diverse as the imaginativeness of curriculum planners.

Recently, I had for a guest Dr. Julius Mendoza of UP Baguio, a friend from seminary days, and his lovely wife, also a UP professor. Julius and I have philosophy in common, besides of course Maryhurst Seminary. Besides, we had both been to Louvain University. He attended Louvain for his doctorate; I was there as a research fellow. We talked about how hard times had fallen on philosophy and how it was gradually being eased out of the curriculum. In the standard college course, logic is no longer required, and ethics takes the form of professional ethics subjects—that dreary subject consisting of a pseudo-academic treatment of the customs and traditions of a profession or disappears altogether. Philosophy as a separate program will now be found mostly in seminaries only, and in those institutions where it remains, it is often diluted to the point of insipidity: Philosophy and human resource development, philosophy and social analysis—perhaps even philosophy and culinary arts!

In many cases, Julius and I agreed that it was the philosophy instructors themselves who had given philosophy a bad name and hastened its demise. When a philosophy class becomes a pointless introduction to a procession of strange names and strange theories, then there is hardly any point to it. When you ask a student what knowledge is, and all he can give you for four years work of philosophy is that Descartes said and Hume said and Locke said and Kant said and the phenomenologists said and Rorty said, there is hardly any sense in that. One has earned a degree as a purveyor of oddities! In many cases, philosophy instructors passed on to the students what they themselves failed to grasp properly, leaving in their wake students confused, befuddled and utterly turned off with this introduction to philosophy. And so it is that the glorious heritage that has enriched humankind from Mohenjo Daro, Harappa and Greece to Nietzsche, Heidegger, Ricoeur, Habermas and Rorty of our days has gone the way of obsolescence in large measure because of its supposed votaries.

These days, it is frequently said, people are practical. But of course they are, and people have always been practical. But we are human precisely because the practical is the fruit as well as the catalyst of reflection, and philosophy is, in its fundamentals, reflection on human experience. It is what lends depth and breadth, coherence and sublimity to being human. And ever so often, we are taught the precious lesson that in matters of greatest importance, what proves to be most practical is a good theory, and good theories cannot come from those who have never indulged in the habit of theorizing! What preoccupies the cow is the patch of grass before him, offering a next bite, a next meal! What preoccupies the human person is what all this means, including eating, loving, studying and dying. Are these not the questions that humanize us, the questions that make human history what it is? If you do not want to call it philosophy (either because you were traumatized by your philosophy instructor or have difficulty spelling the word) call it by some other name, but it will still be philosophy. Lonergan once so insightfully wrote: When a dog has nothing to do, it falls asleep; when a person has nothing to do, he asks questions. And certainly, among the questions he asks are questions of philosophy. He can of course dismiss these questions as impertinent—and that in effect is what a university curriculum does when it evicts philosophy from its premises—but they will persist and they will stubbornly rear their heads because they are the questions by which we mark ourselves as human. We can develop the habit of smothering all philosophical inclination, but that will not make us any more successful at technology and science. If anything at all, it can only enervate the soul and impoverish the human spirit.

The philosopher provokes questions. The survey of philosophers and their philosophies is not the main thing; it is at most only ancillary. It is hoped that by attending to what thinkers wrote and said, each might be able to fashion some coherent answer to these perennial questions. And so it should be a most interesting study. Is it not worth everyone’s while to know what we live for, or should we dismiss that as an idle concern and just go on with the business of living? Leaving it unanswered condemns us to a daily grind without sense of purpose or worth. Ever so often, we invoke grand concepts—justice, democracy, freedom, human dignity. But these are all philosophically laden. So, why dismiss the serious and systematic inquiry into the very concepts in which we seek refuge? When a rally is broken up by law enforcers, we cry “freedom.” If we disdain philosophy, we should refrain from crying “freedom” because we have no right to use that which we cannot be clear about.

The fact is that we do philosophy—in varying degrees of satisfactoriness. Is it not common to shrug of moral precepts today with the ubiquitous refrain: “Times have changed.” That of course is a philosophical posture, and one of doubtful validity. When we convince ourselves that we can be anything, we choose to be provided, we work hard at getting to it, are we not in fact taking a very bold, if not unwarranted, philosophical position? Philosophy is taught poorly because there are not enough properly trained philosophy professors—and that is a matter of institutional and societal attitude. But whether we acknowledge it or not, we philosophize! And now for the pesky—but quotidian concern about “life after graduation.” In the first place, taking an “employable” course is no guarantee of employment. I know engineers who have become nurses! But the philosophy graduate is an eminently “trainable” person precisely because philosophy has prepared him for an understanding of himself, of others and of his world that gives him the aptitude for whatever it might be that he has to do.

philosophers, KINDLY READ!

I am reposting a repost of a repost.
This is from the 26 May 2008 issue of the Manila Standard Today.

- i have a couple of comments on the side, and most of them are affirmative. it would require another blog post.

- credits to Ilaw my apo and Jun Arvie my stage-brother for sharing. =)

THE ECLIPSE OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE UNIVERSITY CURRICULUM

By Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino

In a few weeks, that which many students dread will happen—the opening of the new school year. Despite spiraling costs of tertiary education, many will flock to our universities and colleges with differing degrees of enthusiasm and aptitude and, so the common thinking goes, after four years or so, they will be qualified for employment. Courses used to be simple and the choices few. They are now as many and as diverse as the imaginativeness of curriculum planners.

Recently, I had for a guest Dr. Julius Mendoza of UP Baguio, a friend from seminary days, and his lovely wife, also a UP professor. Julius and I have philosophy in common, besides of course Maryhurst Seminary. Besides, we had both been to Louvain University. He attended Louvain for his doctorate; I was there as a research fellow. We talked about how hard times had fallen on philosophy and how it was gradually being eased out of the curriculum. In the standard college course, logic is no longer required, and ethics takes the form of professional ethics subjects—that dreary subject consisting of a pseudo-academic treatment of the customs and traditions of a profession or disappears altogether. Philosophy as a separate program will now be found mostly in seminaries only, and in those institutions where it remains, it is often diluted to the point of insipidity: Philosophy and human resource development, philosophy and social analysis—perhaps even philosophy and culinary arts!

In many cases, Julius and I agreed that it was the philosophy instructors themselves who had given philosophy a bad name and hastened its demise. When a philosophy class becomes a pointless introduction to a procession of strange names and strange theories, then there is hardly any point to it. When you ask a student what knowledge is, and all he can give you for four years work of philosophy is that Descartes said and Hume said and Locke said and Kant said and the phenomenologists said and Rorty said, there is hardly any sense in that. One has earned a degree as a purveyor of oddities! In many cases, philosophy instructors passed on to the students what they themselves failed to grasp properly, leaving in their wake students confused, befuddled and utterly turned off with this introduction to philosophy. And so it is that the glorious heritage that has enriched humankind from Mohenjo Daro, Harappa and Greece to Nietzsche, Heidegger, Ricoeur, Habermas and Rorty of our days has gone the way of obsolescence in large measure because of its supposed votaries.

These days, it is frequently said, people are practical. But of course they are, and people have always been practical. But we are human precisely because the practical is the fruit as well as the catalyst of reflection, and philosophy is, in its fundamentals, reflection on human experience. It is what lends depth and breadth, coherence and sublimity to being human. And ever so often, we are taught the precious lesson that in matters of greatest importance, what proves to be most practical is a good theory, and good theories cannot come from those who have never indulged in the habit of theorizing! What preoccupies the cow is the patch of grass before him, offering a next bite, a next meal! What preoccupies the human person is what all this means, including eating, loving, studying and dying. Are these not the questions that humanize us, the questions that make human history what it is? If you do not want to call it philosophy (either because you were traumatized by your philosophy instructor or have difficulty spelling the word) call it by some other name, but it will still be philosophy. Lonergan once so insightfully wrote: When a dog has nothing to do, it falls asleep; when a person has nothing to do, he asks questions. And certainly, among the questions he asks are questions of philosophy. He can of course dismiss these questions as impertinent—and that in effect is what a university curriculum does when it evicts philosophy from its premises—but they will persist and they will stubbornly rear their heads because they are the questions by which we mark ourselves as human. We can develop the habit of smothering all philosophical inclination, but that will not make us any more successful at technology and science. If anything at all, it can only enervate the soul and impoverish the human spirit.

The philosopher provokes questions. The survey of philosophers and their philosophies is not the main thing; it is at most only ancillary. It is hoped that by attending to what thinkers wrote and said, each might be able to fashion some coherent answer to these perennial questions. And so it should be a most interesting study. Is it not worth everyone’s while to know what we live for, or should we dismiss that as an idle concern and just go on with the business of living? Leaving it unanswered condemns us to a daily grind without sense of purpose or worth. Ever so often, we invoke grand concepts—justice, democracy, freedom, human dignity. But these are all philosophically laden. So, why dismiss the serious and systematic inquiry into the very concepts in which we seek refuge? When a rally is broken up by law enforcers, we cry “freedom.” If we disdain philosophy, we should refrain from crying “freedom” because we have no right to use that which we cannot be clear about.

The fact is that we do philosophy—in varying degrees of satisfactoriness. Is it not common to shrug of moral precepts today with the ubiquitous refrain: “Times have changed.” That of course is a philosophical posture, and one of doubtful validity. When we convince ourselves that we can be anything, we choose to be provided, we work hard at getting to it, are we not in fact taking a very bold, if not unwarranted, philosophical position? Philosophy is taught poorly because there are not enough properly trained philosophy professors—and that is a matter of institutional and societal attitude. But whether we acknowledge it or not, we philosophize! And now for the pesky—but quotidian concern about “life after graduation.” In the first place, taking an “employable” course is no guarantee of employment. I know engineers who have become nurses! But the philosophy graduate is an eminently “trainable” person precisely because philosophy has prepared him for an understanding of himself, of others and of his world that gives him the aptitude for whatever it might be that he has to do.

for an answered prayer

i shall sing like Daniel and his friends.




Daniel 3:52,53,54,55,56

R. (52b) Glory and praise for ever!
Blessed are you, O Lord, the God of our fathers,
praiseworthy and exalted above all forever;
And blessed is your holy and glorious name,
praiseworthy and exalted above all for all ages.
R. Glory and praise for ever!
Blessed are you in the temple of your holy glory,
praiseworthy and glorious above all forever.
R. Glory and praise for ever!
Blessed are you on the throne of your kingdom,
praiseworthy and exalted above all forever.
R. Glory and praise for ever!
Blessed are you who look into the depths
from your throne upon the cherubim,
praiseworthy and exalted above all forever.
R. Glory and praise for ever!

two nights before take-off

All my bags are still unpacked, and I’m not yet ready to go.

Going home by plane is not something to be excited about but that idea leads me to think of being “uprooted”. I am enthralled by the idea of being liberated from the bondage of the soil, from being stuck to a place.

I have always wondered why jumping gives a natural high, and why high altitude is oftentimes associated to happiness; and why some even dream of being able to fly . During the recent PAP conference, I jumped on a trampoline with some friends (pare, di yun tarpaulin ha. hehe) and it somehow allayed a very heavy feeling. (Given that, is it then more fun to be a bird??? Haha!) Perhaps, this is because of a natural longing to go against what binds us to the ground. Hah! Gravity! That principle has a way of making the soil claim the truth, enslaving us all.

By that it’s just nice to think that I shall glide to a place by being free from a place. And though it’ll end and it’s bound to bring me elsewhere; it is a chance to be free – not in the sense of being unrestricted but by being relieved from the worries of purposes and ends. For that hour, I’ll claim my jouissance – I’ll prove that gravity cannot have a greedy and exclusive claim of telos.

That for some time, one could just be happy, even without being able to explain why. Sometimes, seeking for an explanation is a burden (especially if it is not that necessary).

For that hour, there’ll be supremacy of space over soil. For that hour, truth will be happily nomadic.

And on a more intimate note; perhaps, at that little moment, I’ll be miles closer to God. Perhaps – just perhaps, my prayers shall be heard more. Or perhaps, it’ll be a chance for me to hear Him better.

thus whined fleurdeliz (labor day edition)

And so this is summer.

Thus whined Fleurdeliz. Labor day naman eh! =)

I spent my April organizing a major event, redo-ing French (M2), and beating deadlineS for "the" university 2011 philosophy project. Although it is also in this month when I was able to submit my revised proposal, I regret “stealing” the time that I should have spent for reading and writing. On the second thought, focusing just on my phd research would also be stifling. But I guess, it’s the most liberating thing that I could do as of now. I’d like to do my work at home (in solitude); or perhaps away from home, prolly in a coffeeshop or patio where I’m free from the usual hustles and bustles in the household, and my mom reminding me of my posture when I am reading or in front of the computer. (It’s just sad to realize how I’ve been a slave to my work, adults and my “planner” -- I love them all, really. It's just that I am seeking for a little liberation. Hehe.)

In between breaks, I daydream of being in a cold place where I can do my “existential walks” – think of good stuff, create a mindmap at least for a chapter, and pray while not whining to God about bad stuff and being reminded that my heart is broken.

I long to see God’s grandeur while not convincing myself to find it amidst the piles of papers, while running to and fro libraries, offices and banks and trying my darned-best to please anybody else. I’m going home to Bacolod for a week on the second week of May but I’m dead sure that visiting relatives and tagging along to places since you have to comply to some people’s plans for you would make it just another busy week.

For the first time in my life, I want to stay away from home. For the first time in my philo-life, I want to get rid of coffee. I need a detox, I want to sleep. I want to stay in a hermitage – kahit isa-dalawang linggo lang.

While everybody’s enjoying the sun, in the middle of summer. Here I am in a nook of my home, doing some archival work and beating a press deadline (on a Labor Day)… and whining. Pa-sweldo naman jan, Lord!

Just like any other rant, this too shall pass.