Ramos, Earl Lucky P. Thought Pieces Nos.

1-3
3PHL1

Filipino Philosophy: The Battle Towards Intellectual Collectiveness

As philosophy's history has progressed, its core ideas have been continually tested for

new interpretations, underscoring the importance of the question, "What is philosophy?" This

question prompts intellectuals to add value to previously regarded ideas in the Philippine

intellectual scene. I also want to understand what drives such a movement with such tenacity:

what significance has philosophy been given? The adjective's utilization reflects Filipino

identity. The identity of the Filipino is assumed while accepting or rejecting the reality of

Filipino philosophy, as opposed to the Philippine's occurrence. The word choice—literal

language—reflects the relationship of the speaker to the philosophical idea, and the amount of

engagement—metaphorical language—reflects the style of speech. What I find problematic in

the identification of Filipino philosophy is the (lack of the) affirmation of philosophical

practice, particularly in language; the need for dialogue is not so straightforward: There is an

internal fight for recognition among cultural terrorism.

Converting the aforementioned notion into a more understandable idea, the terminology

“Filipino” is contextually defined as a singular account. Comparable to Filipino philosophy

which focuses on the self rather than the collective, the ideologies present in this field of study

are inward conceptualities that emphasize an individualist perspective on philosophy. To some,

the academic choice to use the term “Filipino” rather than “Philippine” is just a linguistic-based

decision but from a philosophical standpoint, it denotes a deeper interpretation.

Filipino philosophy is often overlooked by many intellectuals, with Western philosophy

being the primary choice of study. Perhaps, it is due to the individualistic nature of it. When I
say, individualistic, I am pertaining to Filipino philosophy not being collectively appreciated.

An undervalued treasure as one might say. As philosophy majors, it is our duty to bring Filipino

philosophy into the limelight of recognition and understanding; not only it is a primary key in

the discernment of our true nature, but it is also a denomination to accept the current condition

of our people’s intellectual richness.

The Flaws of Nozick’s Minimal State

Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Nozick 1974), written by Rawls' Harvard colleague Robert

Nozick is arguably the most acclaimed and frequently debated work in political philosophy to

have been published in recent decades. Nozick's findings are libertarian, in contrast to Rawls'

justification of the social welfare state. The title of the piece expresses his principal goals. He

tries to show how a state may exist without infringing anyone's rights in order to disprove the

anarchist claim that a legitimate state is impossible.

Instead of what it does, the minimum state's uniqueness is shown by what it is not

allowed to undertake because all contemporary states carry out the functions that the minimal

state does. Where the contemporary state goes beyond this, Nozick's libertarianism claims that

it acts without cause. The central bank, the department of public works, the department of

education, the instruments of welfare policy, and so on do not exist under the minimum state.

If these roles—which are frequently seen to be the legitimate purview of the government—are

to exist at all in a Nozickian society, they will be carried out by private persons or businesses,

either for financial gain or out of a sense of civic duty.

Moreover, the most troubling and obvious distinction between the contemporary liberal

governments we are so accustomed to and Nozick's minimum libertarian state is that Nozick

makes no attempt to institutionalize poverty assistance. The argument is not that people may
only seek assistance if they satisfy some form of strict deservingness requirement—a policy

that more and more modern nations are reverting to—but rather that people cannot seek

assistance from the state regardless of how deserving they are. Nozickian libertarianism holds

that there are no justifiable means for transferring legally owned money from one person to

another.

Nozick's system is, in theory, not only consistent with a very broad variety of social

and economic circumstances, but it is also compatible with the idea that several competing

kinds of circumstances may exist at once, eventually under the auspices of the minimum state.

Nevertheless, we must draw the conclusion that any diversity that does exist is not likely to last

for very long and will most likely dissipate into an unchecked free market where the poor will

typically be forced to rely on the arbitrary charity of the wealthy rather than any entitlements

to assistance. Consequently, Nozick's libertarianism will result in a particular kind of free

market, even though Anarchy, State, and Utopia is not a clear argument for one.

E-Learning: A Networked Solution for Societal Regression

Within Critical Theory, the term "Nature" encapsulates a profound predicament.

Throughout a considerable span of history, the exploitation and subjugation endured by

marginalized individuals such as the underprivileged, women, workers, and minorities, along

with the ensuing strife and extensive human suffering, were perceived as inherent and

inevitable occurrences. Scholars in the field of political economics, including notable figures

like Hobbes and Malthus, ascribed these phenomena to "natural laws," thus offering a

seemingly comprehensive explanation.

Nevertheless, Critical Theory highlights a specific aspect for critical examination. It

interrogates the entrenched belief in the infallibility and universality of this knowledge,
divorced from human intentions or aspirations. The fundamental goal of Critical Theory is to

challenge and unsettle this knowledge by fostering alternative forms of understanding that are

rooted in principles of democracy and social equity. By pursuing this objective, it seeks to

catalyze a profound shift in our discernment of social and power dynamics.

Employing the aforementioned methods for ideology critique to the field of e-learning

(or to a similar topic) is not difficult, especially when it comes to statements and publications

that are used to support or legitimize specific goals and viewpoints in the field. It is frequently

said that our culture, era, and economy are synonymous with "knowledge," "information," or,

more abstractly, "the networked" or "the postindustrial." These broad, frequently uncontested

beliefs have important social and political ramifications, much like other ideological claims. In

the case of e-learning, they have serious consequences for all levels and types of education,

from preparing kids to be "knowledge builders" to supporting various forms of "lifelong

learning" via the restructuring of higher educational institutions.

This overwhelming optimistic, "hard" deterministic tendency is debunked by several

potent counter-examples that come from the recent history of e-learning itself. The introduction

and entrenchment of "learning management systems" like WebCT or Moodle in conventional

educational institutions from the late 1990s serves as one example. In this instance, the

Internet's quick rise to popularity as a medium did not mean that it simply swept old

institutional and economic structures off the educational landscape (as Drucker and others

predicted). Instead, this technology was reshaped, adopted, and seized through the creation of

Web-based software through a complex series of developments, exchanges, and "negotiations."

Despite significant research on modernism, it is evident that many implicit perspectives

recognize technology as an unwavering catalyst for societal change. When examining the link

between technology and shifting institutions, understanding technology as a scene of struggle

rather than as a destiny or fait accompli may also serve to direct the investigation of metaphors

other than "impact" or "dissemination."

Earl Lucky P. Ramos PHL3208

3PHL1 Quiz No. 1

How do we ascent to the truth?

Plato employs the allegory of the cave to illustrate how objects in the actual world may have
deceiving appearances. Through it, he invites individuals to devote their attention to the world of
abstract concepts. Plato thought that knowledge is conceivable and that there are truths awaiting to
be discovered. He maintained that the notion of veracity is not relative as the Sophists claimed.
Instead, it is objective. Throughout his lifetime, he established a strong opposition to scepticism—the
idea that humans are fundamentally ignorant.

Plato's metaphor has a haunting tone by definition. The realization that everything in one's
life up to this point has been a deception is significant. In ascending to truth, one must have the ability
to separate true ideas from deceitful ones. For Plato, ignorance can only be conquered by objectivity
and knowledge. It's common to describe the assumption that there is something out there that is
beyond our comprehension as horrifying. But knowledge isn't necessarily a sinister proposition. This
excursion outside of Plato's cave is what brings us closer to the truth, a step forward towards a genuine
reality.

What is the goal of the sceptic?

Given the significance of this idea in the Pyrrhonian tradition, Sextus' fixation on tranquillity is
hardly remarkable. The basic notion that the Sceptics have a purpose, and that Scepticism can be
described as a goal-directed philosophy is less certain. First of all, there are a number of issues with
how Sextus presents this concept. One would anticipate that Sextus would deliver an alternate
description of the objective that would fit with the Sceptics’ overall perspective given their assertion
that they suspend judgment regarding the existence of anything that is by nature.

Sextus refutes all propositions, including the forms and tactics of scepticism. However, if we
adopt a different viewpoint and judge Sextus according to his own standards, our conclusion may be
altered. The goal of a philosophical sceptic is not to affirm anything but rather to disprove others'
claims. A multitude of philosophers has argued against the issue of scepticism. I contend that none of
them are able to effectively challenge the paradigm established by Sextus.

How does the sceptic achieve Ataraxia?

Scepticism’s presence in philosophical history is tantamount to a scandal. Scepticism,

according to Sextus Empiricus, is one of the three "most essential categories of philosophy" insofar as
it is concerned with the truth. Sextus refers to it as a "movement" instead of a "school" or "sect.”

A Sceptic may be recognized by his/her manner of thinking, not by the opinion he/she holds.
Scepticism still has a distinct identity that distinguishes it from other competing Hellenistic
schools, but this identity is established by the particularity of a methodology. Equipollence, epoch, and
ataraxia are the junctures in the three-stage process that constitutes Scepticism. This exhortation to
think in a specific way shouldn't be discreetly turned into a dogmatic assertion. In the reign of Sextus,
scepticism meant giving belief a good dosage of doubt.

For the Sceptics, acquiring knowledge was a continuous process that resulted from a spirit of
inquiry and curiosity and brought about a condition of calmness of the mind and the heart. Ataraxia,
the Greek term for this serene state of being, is heralded by the serenity and clear-headed poise of
people who exhibit it.

What is the relationship between the singular and the universal?

According to Ockham, only universal concepts, and expressions derived from them, in both
spoken and written language, make sense to discuss. These "universal" notions are singular structures
like all others. From a metaphysical standpoint, their "universality" solely refers to the fact that they
are "predictable of many." Those who assume that a universal is a specific mental property that may
be predicated on many things—not for itself, of course, but for the many entities on which it is
predicated—must concede that every universal is particular in this sense. Similar to how a word is
specific even when usage makes it common, the aim of the soul is to indicate many are numerically
one thing and not many, even though it signifies multiple things.

In a distinct use of the term, "particular" refers to anything unique, not a representative of
many. No universal, when interpreted in this way, can be said to be specific since each universal has
the capacity to represent and be predicated upon several other universals. Therefore, if we interpret
"universal" to imply anything that is not singular, then I wish to assert that nothing qualifies. Of fact,
one may misuse the phrase and claim that a population is a single universal even while it is actually
numerous.

What accounts for the existence of things in the absence of a perceiver?

Berkeley contends Locke's assertion that the characteristics of material entities are inherent
in an "unknown substratum" is an absurd presumption. According to him, it would be ridiculous to
assume that sensitive objects' actuality rests in any way on an undetectable core because it is in their
very nature to be observed. This leads to a thoroughly all-encompassing defense of the impossibility
of material substance.

Berkeley stated that the entire discussion can be permitted to rest on the following simple
question: Is it feasible to imagine a sensible thing existing without the aid of any perceiver? At first
glance, the issue looks manageable. All I have to do is see something so remote—perhaps a tree in the
midst of a forest—that no other person is conscious of it presently. However, if I imagine this object,
it will be there in my mind as I envision it, thus it isn't really independent of any perception.

Berkeley (and subsequent idealists like Fichte and Bradley) said that this argument implies
beyond any reasonable doubt; the idea of material substance as a sensible object existing
independently of any experience is absurd. It makes sense that the representationalist theory breeds
scepticism since it presents a notion that is utterly incomprehensible as a crucial component of our
understanding of the natural world.
Ramos, Earl Lucky P. 3PHL

In 100 to 150 words, kindly share your thoughts on the practice of religion in the Philippines.

Important philosophical problems regarding the nature of belief and culture are raised by the
debate over whether religion is a necessary component of cultural identity or can exist independently
of it. Some contend that religion cannot be divorced from cultural identity because it is a vital
component of faith. For instance, through centuries of Spanish colonization and cultural interchange,
Catholicism has become profoundly interwoven in the culture of the Philippines, where many Filipinos
see their Catholic faith as a crucial component of their identity.

In the case of the Philippines, Catholicism has been a dominant force for centuries and has
had a profound impact on the country's culture and way of life. It has subsequently evolved into a key
component of the nation's cultural identity, influencing its literature, music, and visual arts as well as
its social and political institutions. Many Filipinos perceive their Catholic faith as more than just a
personal choice; it is also a way of life that is intricately linked to their national identity. In light of this,
any attempt to divorce religion from culture may encounter opposition or even be seen as a danger
to their sense of cultural identity.

Montesquieu on Minimalism

"We are more pleased with a regular garden than with a confused and crowded heap of trees."

The profundity of Montesquieu's assertion reverberates within us, evoking contemplation on

the nature of aesthetic preferences. It posits that our hearts find greater solace amidst the
symmetrical splendor of a meticulously arranged garden, as opposed to the disarray and profusion of
trees in chaotic disarray.

Within this statement lies an intimation of the fundamental human yearning for harmony,
balance, and lucidity. It speaks to our innate proclivity towards order and coherence, seeking refuge
in the poised arrangement of nature's elements. The regular garden, with its deliberate placement
and mindful design, bestows upon us a serene respite and an aesthetic pleasure that transcends the
mere visual.

However, this sentiment ought to be contemplated against the backdrop of the wider human
experience. Though Montesquieu extols the virtues of regularity, it is imperative to acknowledge the
vast array of individual predilections. Some souls may find allure and fascination amidst the wilderness
of a densely populated garden, embracing the untamed and the capricious. Taste, in its exquisite
subjectivity, becomes an emblem of the rich tapestry of human perception, bestowing upon us a
kaleidoscope of divergent aesthetic visions.

Inside the realm of aesthetics, a notable manifestation of the predilection for order and
simplicity can be observed in minimalism. This philosophical movement embraces the purity of clean
lines, uncluttered spaces, and an unwavering focus on essential elements. The ascent of Scandinavian
design underscores humanity's innate yearning for regularity and harmony. Scandinavian interiors,
renowned for their serene allure, place a premium on light-infused, expansive spaces, employing
neutral color palettes and natural materials. This aesthetic tradition strives for functional elegance,
seeking equilibrium and minimizing visual noise. The result is an inviting environment that fosters a
heightened sense of well-being and inner calm.
 Moreover, in the realm of the digital landscape, this inclination towards simplicity and order
is echoed in the principles of user interface (UI) and user experience (UX) design. By prioritizing clean,
intuitive layouts and maintaining consistency in visual elements, designers enhance usability and
alleviate cognitive burdens. Tech giants such as Google and Microsoft have embraced minimalist
design approaches in their software interfaces, opting for unambiguous clarity and effortless user
engagement over gratuitous embellishments.

Yet, it is important to recognize that the appreciation of minimalism is not an objective matter,
but rather a subjective experience. The perception of minimalism's essentiality varies from person to
person, shaped by individual sensibilities, cultural influences, and personal histories. What one may
find captivatingly simple, another may perceive as stark or lacking in substance. This subjectivity adds
a layer of complexity to the understanding and interpretation of minimalistic aesthetics.

The advent of minimalism has challenged traditional notions of beauty, transcending

elaborate embellishments and intricate details. It has urged us to reevaluate our relationship with
material possessions, to strip away excess, and to appreciate the elegance and power of simplicity. In
doing so, it has not only reshaped our aesthetic preferences but has also influenced our broader
perception of what is valuable and meaningful.

This interplay between subjective perception and the transformative power of aesthetics
invites us to reflect on the intricate nature of human existence. It raises profound philosophical
questions about the nature of beauty, the role of simplicity in our lives, and the ever-evolving tapestry
of our perception of the world. Through the lens of minimalism, we confront the complexity of our
desires, the tension between our longing for order and our appreciation for diversity, and the ongoing
dialogue between the internal and external dimensions of our existence.