In the Toolbox

Protagoras and “Numbers” (Part 2)

2013-05-20T00:10:00.000-07:00

The contribution of the Pythagoreans has become known not only in the field of philosophy, but also in the field of mathematics, especially the Pythagorean Theorem. In one way or another, I think that their group has positively influenced people down the century on the significance of numbers. As they say, everything in this world is number, and is numerical. This means that things around us are indeed composites of numbers, and they are countable through numbers. But how Protagoras understands the concept of number? I will show three things his notion of number in relation to reality.

1. In the abstract level, number has two elements – odd numbers and the even numbers. The odd number is described as the unlimited, and the even number is the limited. How did Protagoras come about that idea? It is not specifically explained.

2. In the concrete level, numbers are assigned to cosmology. He claims that the world and all it contains are described as the limited cosmos being surrounded by the unlimited cosmos, which is the air. Since air is everywhere, the world inhales it. But his limited cosmos is composed of the unlimited cosmos. Thus the limited cosmos is a mixture of both limited (even) and unlimited (odd) numbers.

3. Now, how are we to understand the all things are numbers? Protagoras explains number spatially. That is why his idea of numbers earns the label “geometry.” This is how he expounds it that one is the point, two is the line, three is the surface, and four is the solid. When taken together (the point, line, surface and solid), it constitutes the idea of number. In short, all things are composed of points, lines, and surfaces. Every material body is an expression of the number four or solid. Thus things are both numbers and numerable.

4. Regarding the shapes of things, he expresses that it is either oblong numbers or square numbers. When we start with one object and add odd number of objects, we get the square shape. And when we start with two objects and add even number of objects, then we get the oblong shape. This explains the shapes of things. (The “Tetraktys” is treated highly as a sacred and perfect figure. It composed of ten dots, and it is the sum of one, two, three and four integers.)

The implication of Numbers

Protagoras discovers that everything is numerical, and that is, it can be counted. Nothing escapes the reality of numbers. And he observes that even in music, its interval is also expressed in numerical. (For those who know the fundamental of note reading could relate this matter.)

In the classical music, one can easily observe the presence of harmony. The rhythm of the music is well-arranged and coordinated. This is attributed to existence of numbers because each note in the bar measure is equally divided according to its assigned time signature. We can intuit that the employment of numbers creates harmony or chaos.

This idea of harmony applies to the material things as well. If one observes how our human bodies function, they are well-regulated and well-designed, and all other things too. We can say that the harmony of the universe is numerical too. The intervention of man to our body and our world puts them in disorder.

Hermeneutic of Continuity and Rupture

2012-10-13T21:38:00.000-07:00

Where is the church going? Many Catholics are unconsciously puzzled by the many activities of the Church and individual religious men and women whose mentality are also distorted. Unconscious because the Church somehow jibes with the modern thinking of doing things like going to concert for fund raising, which they see religious perform and dance the modern way, and distorted because they think and do the way people in modern and secular world do, like doing business and becoming materialistic. People know to group them where they belong, either the traditional thinking or modern thinking. But understanding deeply what Pope Benedict XVI is saying about hermeneutic of Continuity and hermeneutic of rupture, one would rather be able to appreciate the right direction of the Church as a whole, which many of the religious do know but not keeping it, or just hanging around in their comfort zone and be ignorant with advantage.

The term Hermeneutic

The word ‘hermeneutic’ derives from a messenger, whose name is ‘Hermes.’ He is a messenger in Greek mythology. And the Church, in her theology, adopted that word in its critical understanding and interpretation of the Biblical text. It is very important to do that in order to bring out the essence of God’s word or message and put things in its proper place together with the teaching documents done by the teaching authority of the Church called the Magisterium. The magisterium serves well the Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition according to the document Dei Verbum.

Hermeneutic of Rupture

The term rupture implies a decisive break and an entity, totally new, emerges. And this kind of mentality is found with satisfaction because it is totally different from what has been accustomed to. This is an attempt of what is going on to disrupt the Church mission to teach faithfully all what the Lord has commanded to his first disciples. It is an attempt to introduce a new perspective, as influenced by modernization and secularization. It is modernization because it is something new, and secularization because it is something peculiar to the Church – it is not-church related. An example to this is the introduction of same-sex marriage – totally new from what has been practiced for many centuries, that is, not same-sex marriage or a boy-girl union.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

The term continuity implies evolution, a forming out of something better. This is the kind of path being followed by the Church. It is something different to many or some of us, but definitely it is a combination of the old and the new. It is old because the Church remains faithful to what has been handed down to them by the Lord, and it is something new because what has been handed down is being implemented according to the situation of the time. When the Church speaks about each Catholic as a missionary in his own right, she speaks the truth about the nature of the sacrament of baptism – the three-fold mission of Christ given to the newly baptized.

The Church and the Hermeneutic of Continuity

The position of the Church is very clear that she follows the hermeneutic of continuity. By this the Church do not just come up with something new policy or let us say, rules and regulations that is not in accordance with her doctrines and with the Code of Canon Law. The right term here is corroborates and enhances what has been implemented. And what has been implemented before is being subjected to the signs of the times. And behind this hermeneutic of continuity is the principle of infallibility by the pope that guides the whole activities of the Church to the right path, and frees her from all errors that contradicts her teachings. When the Church is talking about the immorality of corruption in the government, it is not a sign of being rebellious against the politicians. It is indeed a sign of her mission as part of matters in faith and morals.

Source: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=296

Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans (Part 1)

2012-07-14T01:08:00.000-07:00

Who is Pythagoras?

Pythagoras, one of the known pre-Socratic philosophers, is hard to be figured out as the main actor of the Pythagoreans. There is unclear and hesitation on the part of many scholars that he is the main actor and author of the group’s philosophic ideas. Even Aristotle, one of the great triumvirates, says that when he mentions the name of Pythagoras in any of his writings, he does not mean that he is – Pythagoras – the one; he is referring to them as a group called the Pythagoreans.

Who are the Pythagoreans?

Pythagoreans are members of a society, a society that is religious by nature. Its founder is Pythagoras, and its foundation has taken place in South Italy, Kroton, during the half of the 6^th century. Some of the noted members are Philolaus and Eurytus.

As a religious group, they devote themselves to idea of purity and purification rituals, believing in the transmigration of souls, i.e. transferring of souls from one entity to another, love of silence, and the influence of music and studying math as aids in tending their souls. According to scholars, their care for the soul is something special compare to the teaching of Homer wherein the latter treats it as a mere shadow-image of the body.

Is it a Religious or Political Group?

Scholars sometimes link the group of Pythagoras to a certain religion called Orphicism. It is because the teachings of Pythagoreans are similar to the religious doctrines of Orphicism. An example to this is the doctrine of transmigration of souls. An attempt to digging on this issue would probably make them unworthy to be part of the history of philosophy. They are more qualified to be part of the history of religion. Another claim is that Pythagoreans as a political group because there was a part of Italy wherein most of the people were identified as part of the group. But the counter-claim to this is the fact that there was no governing exercise happened and was handled by the Pythagoreans. But the influence of their teaching was so pervasive, an attraction to everyone during their times. Thus it is a purely religious and political activity.

The Ionian or Milesian Philosophers

2012-06-16T00:54:00.000-07:00

The three known Ionian or Milesian philosophers – Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes – are the earliest thinkers in this Greek period. They all belong to Milesian School in Miletus, and they were the first to take stride in providing unfamiliar answers to the primary question about the basic stuff of the world. It is unfamiliar answers considering that the influence of religion at that time prevails.

In reading some books on these three philosophers pre-Socratic philosophers, one may discover that the authors quote different historians of the field to put forward a wholesome presentation as towhat makes them worthy to be called ‘philosophers’ including how their thoughts were shaped and other attributes about their achievements. That’s the first thing I will do before presentingthose simple ideas whichare indisputably theirs.

A. Thales

He is known in the ancient period as the first Greek philosopher who tries to formulate an answer to his basic question about the basic stuff of the world (urstoff). Herodotus claims that Thales had predicted a solar eclipse, while Laertius Diogenes also claims that Thales once fell into a well because of star gazing. And lastly Aristotle, one of the great thinkers of the west, attributes to Thales two things, which are his main ideas.

First, Thales answers water as the basic stuff of all things. And second, he conceived that there lies a soul in the magnet, for the reason that magnet has the capacity to move iron.

B. Anaximander

Our source on Anaximander is Theoprastus. Here are the accounts of Theoprastus regarding Anaximander.

First, Anaximander constructed a map for the sailors. Second, his answer on the basic stuff of the world is the indeterminate. What does it mean by it? This indeterminate is to be describing as a never ending movement which consists of different elements, including water of Thales, consuming each other in forming the world. It is a substance without limits, or in Greek it is called ‘to apeiron,’ and this is the material cause.

In such a movement, the interpretation of the concept of justice and injustice is found here. When one element encroach another element, this is an instance called injustice. And the only means for that element to pay its debt is by letting itself be encroached by other elements.

C. Anaximenes

A little fraction is left from Anaximenes’ work where we could draw his ideas.

According to that fraction, he abandons the idea of ‘to apeiron’ or substance without limits, and assigns a determinate element as the basic stuff of the world. It is somehow a backward movement rather than advancing as what Anaximander did.

And what is his answer to the ‘urstoff?’ It is air. Air is the principle of life, and without it we will die. It is air that holds all things together like our soul and the world.

How did he explain further about his air, which is considered as invisible? It is only through the notion of condensation and rarefaction. Air becomes fire through rarefaction and solid like stone by condensation.

Other things attributed to him were his idea of the earth as flat that floats on air like a leaf, and the existence of rainbow as due to the sun’s ray falling on the thick cloud. Since the ray could not penetrate the thick cloud, it produces rainbow on the other side of the cloud.

A little note on Theoprastus

Theoprastus was mentioned under the subjects Anaximander and Anaximenes. He knows the age gap of these three philosophers as he says that Anaximenes is younger than Anaximander, and Anaximander is younger than Thales because of the word ‘associate.’ Anaximenes is an associate of Anaximander, and Anaximander is an associate too of Thales. Thus Thales is the eldest of them all, and Anaximenes is the youngest.

The ‘How’ and ‘Why’ to study History of Philosophy

2012-05-13T18:31:00.000-07:00

Philosophy is a very difficult subject to many of the college students. Other branches under the topic are being marginalized in the priority and interest of the learner. And the burden of bringing the discipline to them lies on the teachers. It is the task of the teacher, with patience and endurance, to make philosophy meaningful in the learning endeavor of the students.

But Frederick Copleston, S.J., author of many history books on philosophy offers some ways on how and why to study philosophy. They are effective means to come to the holistic knowledge of philosophy, and somehow plants the seed of interest and appreciation of philosophy.

The ‘HOW’ to study philosophy

First, the reader must consider the historical setting. One must study how idea of the philosopher developed through the influence of the environment. His idea must be understood in connection to his own milieu. It is precisely that the thinker and his own thinking are not isolated from the reality of time and place.

Second, the reader must possess a bit of sympathy, a sort of psychological approach to the thinker and his thinking. One must be able to enter the system of the thinker and be absorbed somehow. Simple to say, one must be able to go down to his level for better understanding what is on his mind.

Third, if one desires to be a specialist in one philosophical method, he must get deeper into the system of the thinker. One has to make a necessary pause at a certain period of the history of philosophy to possess a well-rounded understanding of the whole system of a particular thinker. He must venture in studying the philosopher’s language, his expertise, etc.

The ‘WHY’ to study philosophy

First, we study to learn from their mistakes and right. History is undeniably rich in knowledge. It teaches us to look into the past knowledge and use them what is still applicable to our present situation as solution to the current problem. Otherwise the only option left is to develop a new solution by utilizing the present resources at hand.

And secondly is to see the development of philosophy where some new ideas are accepted and added, some being rejected and replaced anew, and some ideas become the point of departure and some as point of continuation.

Useful or Just a Waste Opportunity

2012-04-10T02:22:00.003-07:00

Many people aspire for change. But to execute change is not that simple. Everybody knows that change results to something that is novelty. This novelty is either in itself serves for the betterment or for the worst. And since the world seems so cruel, disordered, unpleasant, dreaming of making the scenario exactly the opposite is not far-fetched. Change is an ideal prize that each one wants. There are two types of change, among the many types, I would like to highlight here. The simple kind of change is the change of one’s self. And this change is considered elementary – it brings change only in a narrowed and limited sense. The other type of change is complex by nature – a change that is broad and boundless. And everybody benefits from it. It results to make other people better, and so with the environment.

This type of change is intertwined with power. This power is not rested on the lowest part of the social strata, but on the highest plain. One has to climb up the ladder in order to reach the top. And once you are on the top, change that you are aspiring for is now in your hands. What does it mean? Change is realistic when one has the means – power. Its implication is power means positions. And this position is pragmatically the best venue to bring about novelty. A position is not all is there the case. It is also tangled with another means in order for the occupant to enjoy the luxury of executing change. And this is money. Money is the means for transacting change with other means of change. Thus power is accompanied with money in the execution of necessary change in one’s place.

The locus of change could be in any of the existing institutions today. Institutions exist to serve the needs of the people, like the government and the church for instance. These two institutions are known to be in the Philippines as the savior of the masses. Any institutions are being administered by authorities. These authorities are being elected by their subjects who are being seen as qualified to be in the position. And those positions are being assisted with power as executor’s power, sustained with money as machinery. It is an illusion when authorities occupy those noble positions without power and money. And that is why, many are tempted by these means, in spite of one’s noble and ideal intention of ‘to serve’ or be ‘of service.’ Service has become the password and the bridge to have power and money.

But being in authority is a rare opportunity and privilege. It is rare because not everyone can climb the ladder to that position. It is also a privilege for those who are chosen to be there. Election is not only the sole privilege. Selection is also a privilege because only few people are involved in that process. In the religious world, to be in the position is also a privilege coming from above. Armed with power and money, the mission entrusted by their Master is now within its reach. That mission is the heart of evangelization – for the BUILDING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD here on earth. The sign of failure in not realizing that mission is because the hearts and minds in authority are worldly. It simply means that their focus is now on the means at the expense on ends. To be in authority in fulfilling that mission is a very rare golden opportunity. But to be in authority for power and money is just a WASTE OPPORTUNITY.

Carnap on Linguistic Framework (Part 3)

2012-03-18T00:59:00.005-07:00

V. Limitation of the Framework

The linguistic framework, which has been set up by Rudolf Carnap, is an excellent type of strategy he employed as a way of verifying the meaningfulness of the statement. But the nature of the framework is somehow defined, limited, and narrow. It is defined because he categorizes questions into two – internal and external. It is limited because it entertains questions to what particular language to be picked up and verified. It is also narrow because only those meaningful statements can be analyzed analytically and synthetically or empirically. Other statements that talk about non-empirically could not be verified by the framework, and they are treated as pseudo-questions and pseudo-debates.

A. Ayer and his Emotive Theory

Ayer, in his Language, Truth, and Logic, admits that not only meaningful statements through empirical observation could be verified. Ayer considers other language like ethical language or moral language as significant. This kind of language could not pass the verification principle of Carnap, for they are not objects of empirical matters. Ethical language is not literally significant within the linguistic framework of Carnap. For Carnap ethical language is considered pseudo-questions. Ayer instead proposed his emotive theory to justify ethical language as somehow significant. In what manner did Ayer justify his position?

An example of ethical statement is “Stealing is wrong.” If this statement is going to be based on the internal questions of Carnap, it cannot find the answer, for the statement is neither analytic nor synthetic. It does not purport empirical fact. But Ayer has said that such ethical statement like “Stealing is wrong” functioned to express feelings or emotions. Only that such statement is not literally significant. The justification for such statement to be meaningful is this that ethical statement is emotive significance. Emotive significance is not the same as metaphysical significance. What is the peculiarity of emotive significance in order to become meaningful?

The criterion is this: when an ethical statement evinces feelings on the part of the speaker and on the hearer. This possesses genuine emotive significance, only when some observable behavior occurs on the speaker and on the hearer.

B. Quine and his Two Dogmas of Empiricism

Quine has made his attack on the understanding of analyticity first on Kant and Frege’s thoughts before Carnap’s. His attempt on sharp distinction between analytic and synthetic has separated himself from Carnap, his greatest teacher. There is no enough space here to expose how Quine’s argument has come about against Kant, Frege and Carnap. But it is very clear that, in general, Quine is not satisfied the way these philosophers explore on the meaning of analyticity.

In his Two Dogmas of Empiricism, there are two things he did emphasize in relation to analyticity. He has commented that these philosophers did not achieve in creating boundary between analytic and synthetic. For him, it is a must neatly divided between those statements which are analytic and those statements which are synthetic or empirical. This is because for him, in doing so would be treated as unempirical dogma of empiricist. It would also become a metaphysic article of faith. But for Carnap, the combination of analytic-synthetic is very important in disposing any metaphysical questions and debates.

The second part of his Quine’s writing is the idea of reductionism. The definition of the term holds that a meaningful statement could be translated to another statement on immediate experience. This means that reductionism does not parting ways from the original goal of the movement – Vienna Circle – that any knowledge should be based on sense-experience.

VI. Conclusion

The thought of Rudolf Carnap is indeed a product of his brilliance as analytic philosopher. Any empiricist could be, at his own disposal and intelligence, immediately accept or reject statements which expresses cognitive significance. But he has come up with a language called linguistic framework which entertain questions that are internal and external, with logic or method and syntactical rules. And the highlight of having framework is the treatment of any metaphysical language as pseudo-problems.

The repercussion to this initiative in rejecting metaphysical problem is also the rejection of ethical and moral language. The ethical language is anchored on metaphysics, and so with religious and aesthetic language. But thanks to Julius Ayer, with his emotive theory, he has rescued the reality of the world through the indispensable role of human behavior.

But the position of Ayer, like Rudolf Carnap, is somehow did not escape from being identified as solipsism. They posit that “If knowledge is based on sense-experience, then whose experience?” Prior to this, Ayer’s argument has to be proven whether the behavior being produced by certain action is a truly and literally cognitive in accordance to ethical language. And when affirmative answer is given to the question of solipsism, and then another repercussion may also occur, i.e. the answer becomes extreme subjectivism if without taking any precautionary measures.

But going back to the basic, why do Carnap put more premiums on sense-experience? Of course, the movement is assisting in the improvement of scientific procedures. In other words, Vienna Circle is at the service of science and not on metaphysical speculation.

Bibliography

Books

Hylton, Peter, Quine. New York and London: Routledge, 2007.

Martinich, A. P. and David Sosa ed. A Companion to Analytic Philosophy. USA and UK: Balckwell Publishers Inc., 2001.

Miller, Alexander. Philosophy of Language, 2^nd ed. New York and London: Routledge, 2007.

Stumpf, Samuel Enoch and James Fieser. A History of Philosophy: Socrates to Sartre and Beyond. 7^th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.

Article

Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology of Rudolf Carnap

Electronic Source

Encarta Dictionaries 2007

Carnap on Linguistic Framework (Part 2)

2012-03-11T04:12:00.000-07:00

III. Questions

In order to explicate more on the kind of language, first is the need to understand the two questions being said to draw out the interest with verified answers. After this junction, we will return to the context of what is language all about in the mind of Carnap.

Carnap speaks of two kinds of questions – either internal or external. This is crucial in getting into deeper clarification of linguistic framework. To make the distinction of the two simple, let me use the above example about the game like playing cards and the four friends. If one of them feels like not playing card, instead of basketball, then he could not be judged whether he is wise and skilled in playing cards. If he does, then judgment can be carried out. The first instance is a clear indication that the three are in the same boat, sharing the same language, while the second is not.

A. Internal Questions

Internal questions are matters that involved the verification whether it is right or wrong, as when the three of them shared the same interest of playing the game. In the internal question, to carry out the judgment if he is good in playing cards or not, if he is qualified to go the game or not, set of rules has to be employed as standard of the game. Thus we see in the demonstration that language and logic go together.

B. External Questions

External questions are matters that involved no verification of right and wrong. The situation is very lucid that not all of them share the same interest. No single language has been figured out. But if the person who is not one with the group’s interest, and begin to judge that playing card is not a good game to play instead of basketball, then certainly, the question of the rules and its language is out of the picture.

What is the criterion in choosing language? Carnap is very practical in his answer to the question. One has to make a choice. The choice of language has to be based on pragmatic consideration. Since Carnap is anti-metaphysical and empirical, no other language could be allowed than this.

IV. Linguistic Framework

What does it mean by language for Carnap? Remember that in every language, logic will always be its partner. Once language is being chosen, then that language has to be understood within a framework with set of rules called logic. If language is being compared by another language, it is considered as external question with the absence of being judged as right or wrong. But our concerned framework here could be welcomed and treated with only internal questions.

A. Types of Framework

Framework can be defined more or less that contains vocabulary with set of rules and conventions in governing the use of such vocabulary (Alexander Miller). What are these vocabulary and set of rules and conventions for? There are two frameworks given by Miller in his book Philosophy of Language to explain what does Carnap mean by it, and they are logical framework and factual framework.

Logical Framework

The logical framework contains vocabulary such as numerals, variables, general terms and various conventions. The given example of internal question to this particular framework is, “Is 5 a prime number?” The given question could be judged according to the rules of language with its vocabulary. 5 is indeed a numeral, but this 5 could be replaced with a variable like X. The general term refers to the predicate part of the question – ‘is a prime number,’ but this general term could be judged with the various conventions like “5 is a prime number” is true if X can be replaced by 5.

Factual Framework

The factual framework has the same content as that of logical like mass terms, general terms, and linguistic conventions. The given question here is, “Is lead soluble?” The term lead is the mass terms, and soluble is the general term. Now, the linguistic convention in this question is really to test whether lead is indeed soluble by dissolving that element with some liquid solution. Then, after the experiment, the question could be judged if it is true or false.

B. Logical and Factual differences

As there are two types of frameworks that judges either the question is true or false verification, there are also two kinds of answers that yields.

The first framework is called logical because the nature of the answer is formulated a priori. The 5 in ‘5 is a prime number’ is coming from the subject of the sentence such that between 4 and 6, there is a prime number called 5. The answer to the internal question is called analytic. The second framework is called factual because there is, aside the available application of relevant convention, an appeal to be made to empirical evidence and observation. Like the question “Is lead soluble?” it has to undergo a process, an experiment in the laboratory, to prove whether lead is soluble or not. In short, the answer to the internal question depends on a posteriori matter.

A short scheme can be made out of the above. A linguistic framework that is logical admits an analytic answers, while factual framework admits of non-analytic answers or a posteriori answers. Logical framework is literally significant because the result emanates from the given subject in the proposition, while the factual framework is not literally significant because its result has to be verified empirically, like dissolving the lead with special solution to prove if it is indeed soluble or not.

C. Analytic and Synthetic Categories

The above kinds of framework have shown from where it emanates its respective result – logical framework is a priori and factual framework is a posteriori. These frameworks have been understood by other philosophers as another extension to the internal and external questions. What is it? Logical framework, since it answers to the question analytically, belongs to the province of internal questions; while factual framework, since it answers to the question synthetically, belongs to the province of external questions. Miller’s explanation is that this kind of understanding of Carnap’s thought is misleading. These two categories could not be separated from different frameworks, but these two has to be taken as one within the province of one particular framework chosen.

These two categories are the results coming from logical and factual frameworks. These truths are defined as: analytic truths are coming from the framework’s convention alone, while synthetic truths are those from the framework’s convention in the presence of empirical evidence. This is the character of the framework of Carnap’s being empiricist.

A question can be posed here. Since the logical framework is plausible because it yields answers analytically, how about the factual framework on the possibility of knowledge that does not depend on sense-experience? Is it possible?

Carnap on Linguistic Framework (Part 1)

2012-03-04T22:06:00.002-08:00

I. Introduction

The Vienna Circle, headed by Moritz Schlick, promulgated a set of doctrines called logical empiricism or logical positivism. This doctrine becomes the point of departure for most subsequent developments in the philosophy of science. Aside from this, the Vienna Circle rejects traditional metaphysics on the grounds that the data being discussed is not, by nature, empirical or sense-experience. Instead the movement accepts logicism, i.e. a theory that mathematics is logical, and focus on the sharp distinction between analytic and synthetic truths.

Rudolf Carnap, a prominent member of the movement, is known to be anti-metaphysical and empiricist. He appears to be eliminating philosophical problems and debates especially on metaphysical problems and debates like the Platonists and the Nominalists did. He treats the subject matter as pseudo-problems and pseudo-debates. But he instead is trying to formulate philosophical doctrines through the use of linguistic conventionalism where there is a sharp distinction between internal questions and external questions instead of analytic and synthetic truths. This is the content of his seminal work Empiricism, Ontology and Semantics.

The aim of this paper is first the exposition of Carnap’s thought on the necessity of language and logic in the formulation of authentic knowledge. Both of them are inseparable. In language’s existence, the role of logic is indispensable. The next part of the paper is the exposition on the internal questions and external questions. These two questions will help us determine which question is right and appropriate as the perspective in dealing with particular language. Carnap has put premium on the internal questions to yield a verifiable result according to the doctrine of the movement. The third part is the exposition of the two kinds of linguistic framework – logical and factual. Here is where the explication of logic is dealt with as the method and syntactical rules of each framework. The last part of the paper will be the evaluation why the idea of Carnap, in one way or another, has failed, with special mention of Ayer, Kant, Frege and Quine.

II. Language and Logic

The importance of language and logic has come about in his Principle of Tolerance. Language and logic play a constitutive role in knowledge. Thus any kind of knowledge is dependent on the choice of language and methods to be employed.

Language

Since Carnap is a member of the Vienna Circle, their fundamental doctrine is really anti-metaphysical and empiricist, holding that knowledge is based on sense-experience. Thus the kind of language they speak is no other than what is empirical. With this concern, Carnap has used the analogy of a game where four people are involved. If the three plans to play the same game while the other is not, then the four of them do not understand each other on what particular games they are interested. Thus there is no one single language that exists but of different kinds.

Logic

Logic, as explicated in his Logical Syntax of Language, refers to the rules. In every language chosen lays some rules to be followed whether it is right or wrong. When matters of choosing which language to use, Carnap says that one cannot determine with what is right and what is wrong. For him, the rules in every language serve as neutral court of appeal where everyone is treated fairly and equally.

Thus language and logic must go together. If a certain language has no logic, then there is no knowledge too. The kind of language and logic Carnap is referring here will be discussed on the third part of this paper.

Art: Moral or A-moral

2012-02-15T22:57:00.001-08:00

The clearest picture of art, as many understand it, is those paintings hanging on the walls in the houses, halls, auditoriums, etc. They are placed in those areas where people’s attention is caught. But only few appreciate art, or maybe they never know what art is. What does art consist is the right approach that ordinary folks can better grasp the idea.

Objective and Subjective Judgments

No single individual has the same taste when ask to give judgment on a piece of art work in front of them. But two most common sources from which their individual judgments derive. First is the objective judgment, and this means the appearance of the art work is somehow almost perfect – how the artist set in place the materials that create his masterpiece like the exact mixing of different combination of ink colors and the neatness of drawing. Second is the subjective judgment where the observer finds the meaning of the art work being conveyed, its relevance to the development of the person and the society as a whole. In other words, art itself speaks to any individual who happens to discover its meanings.

Truth of Art

The objective approach tells us what that piece of art means. And there are two kinds – the concrete and the abstract. The concrete piece of art, without much human effort, reveals its meaning and value by using our five senses. But the abstract piece of art requires effort from our intelligence. It needs our focus and concentration in arranging art-like puzzle. The subjective approach becomes the venue of understanding what does the artist wants to say deeply, for art is one of the means of expressing one’s self and world view. It is the best way of doing critical analysis of the artist’s world, his life-experience and aspirations for us. These two approaches complement each other to bring out its truth.

Truth-value of Art

If there is one thing in common on why do art exist is this: artists want to spread the message and light the world its truth-value. What does it mean by truth-value? I am sure that the truth-value is something what artists believe as essentials to our existence. Theodor Adorno speaks well about the critical role of art, and showcases that art has truth-content. This truth-content of art is not there to be displayed and be enjoyed by the viewer saying ‘This is art!’ But this truth-content is dynamic. It has the capacity to transform our thinking, our relationship, our existence, and our world for the better. Of course, the opposite is also true that art can transform everything for the worse.

Art and Morality

The truth-content of art has the power of transformation either for the better or for the worse. This is the basis of consideration when to include or not the piece of art for public display and for public viewing. In the case of Cruz’s art, both views – objective and subjective – speak of the transformation for the worse. His art is a combination of religious objects, treated as sacred by its adherents, and sex objects like contraceptives, considered as evil taught by the Church. What is in store is that there is no gap between art and morality.

Thinking of art as manifestation of beautiful is superficial. Art does not exist for beauty’s sake, for beauty has its boundaries and not limitless as many think that way. The essence of beauty effects harmony, a transformation for the better. And if every artist has the sense of this essence, the road to building a better society is not far from possibility. Art is not beyond morality but always abound within it.

Who is a philosopher?

2012-01-09T22:50:00.000-08:00

If one wants to become a nurse, he must enrol himself in nursing course. If one wants to be a teacher, he must take up the course of education. This procedure is the same with other courses one desires. And in becoming a philosopher, taking up that discipline or not may not be necessary.

Philosophy course is a professional course. But when one has the chance to look into the history of philosophy, numerous philosophers were not graduates in such course, and their followers have made their names great. What makes them as such?

Philosophers of old did not aspire to make their names great. It was their disciples and students adhere to their ideas. They have discovered that their ideas provide satisfactions to their personal and social queries. We have such examples like Plato who make his teacher Socrates known by making him one of the characters in his writings or Immanuel Kant’s admiration to seek more metaphysical principle by the thoughts of David Hume.

Two things, as I see it, common from these thinkers. First, it is their quest for answers to the very fundamental questions that every ordinary human being encounters. These questions have kept on appearing in their minds. And each has their own styles in approaching those questions. Thus no two thinkers have the same answers. And the second thing is their sense of awe and wonder on why things around them seem to be acting in particular and strange ways. In short, they try to explain the phenomena by using their thinking skills.

Each person is gifted with rationality. And from this inherent gift, he can impregnate unique ideas. There are as many ideas as there are many thinkers trying to answer those questions. But sad to say, no amount of brilliant ideas or simple as it may, has ever met with satisfaction. We are tantamount to say that the fundamental and philosophical questions are enveloped with the sense of mystery. And satisfaction comes only when thinkers are able to unveil that sense of mystery that surrounds them, and point to thoughts beyond appearance and sense impression. And, I believe, this is the secret on becoming a philosopher.

The Urstoff

2011-12-03T18:34:00.000-08:00

What makes later generation of thinkers in the ancient Greeks, after Homer and Hesiod, philosophers? These men revolutionize the conventional mentality of the culture at that time, establishing solid arguments from their rational reflections of the world in broadest term. And the quest for answers to the question of urstoff has taken its toll.

The question about urstoff starts from man’s day-to-day observation of reality. The basic form of this is the fact of change, from existence to decay, young to old, life and death. If reality happens that way, there must be a point of origin of all things as they speculate. And this point of origin is somehow permanent, where the emanation of all things coming forth.

The point of origin is at the same time the point of unity. This is the idea of One and the Many made popular by Norris Clarke as the title of his existential metaphysics book. The philosophical questions that led to the discovery of urstoff is this: What is the basic stuff of everything? Does it imply the materiality of all things?

To question about the essence of the urstoff is not the preoccupation of the early thinkers. There was no dichotomy yet in their mind between what is of spirit and of matter. And when Thales answers that it is water, Anaximenes air, and Heraclitus fire as the ultimate element, they posited a material unity.

Their basic stuffs are very elementary, but it has to be thought of as extraordinary, at least during their times, when their civilization was characterized as living under the domination of the divine, where the answers to all human queries were coming from the supernatural beings – of gods and goddesses. It is extraordinary because they provide human answers as a product of their sense of awe and wonder.

Source: Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1 Greece and Rome

On Arête and Hubris

2011-11-05T16:50:00.000-07:00

The Greeks in the ancient period have many characteristics, and one of them is their “Will to Power.” This will to power once interpreted as ‘might is right theory’ that results to domination over the weak, and their subjection to the powerful. Later, Friedrich Nietzche adopted the ‘will to power’ idea in his understanding of man, as a means or capacity to withstand amidst the reality of ugliness and sufferings of life.

The concept of the ‘will to power’ is not free of criticisms from the philosophers at that time. Plato, for instance, speaks against it when people think about domination that leads to destruction. This may be taken from the vantage view of politics. But what about putting the concept in psychological viewpoint? In their culture and character, it shows the two sides of the ‘will to power.’

The first is the exercise of moderation, and it is sometimes called arête, which means the ability to achieve success. The second is the side of excess. It is sometimes called hubris, which means that one is possessed the unbridled lust for self-assertion.

What is laudable between the two for some of the Greeks is the arête, because there is the exercise of temperance and self-discipline as human virtues. It appears in many of the ancient art works the picture of Apollo symbolizing arête, as opposed to Dionysius the Elder and the Younger, the symbols of hubris, with their limitless and lust for self-assertion. They were both tyrants of Syracuse of Italy around 4^th to 3^rd century BC.

The Greeks later created the Olympian dream-world as police, watching over the people to observe arête than hubris. This means that when one is being caught of transgressing his limit or going beyond moderation, the gods would get wrath over him.

Sources: Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1 Greece and Rome, and Microsoft Student 2008

On Homer and Hesiod

2011-10-29T16:45:00.000-07:00

Little is known by many about the two great writers in ancient Greece, namely, Homer and Hesiod. Except one is majoring in Literature or English under the Liberal Arts course, and one has the opportunity to read the importance of their writings that shaped western civilization.

Historians and scholars assigned their existence around 8^th century BC. Speaking of ancient Greece, it is divided according to their political and historical periods, and these two Greek writers fall into different place.

Homer was believed to belong to the Ionian period of old civilization, long before the Aechean aristocracy took its reign. Homer was known for his great epic Iliad, which tells about the Trojan War between the Greeks and the people living the city of Troy, and Odyssey, which tells about the return of Odysseus from the Trojan War.

Hesiod, on the other hand, was the epic writer of the mainland Greece. Hesiod was known for his poem Theogony, which speaks about the genealogy of the gods and the creation of the world.

The contributions of Homer and Hesiod to the ancient Greece help others understand on harmonious living with other men and women in the society, on the origin of the world, and on laws governing the universe. Furthermore, their conception of ideas serves as the springboard of rational reflection by men who wonders things around them. It is the beginning of endless philosophical journey.

Sources: Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1 Greece and Rome, and Microsoft Student 2008

The Sign of the Cross (Part 2)

2011-10-22T16:39:00.000-07:00

The Sign of the Cross is made thus: First choose your style:

· Option A. With your right hand, touch the thumb and ring finger together, and hold your index finger and middle finger together to signify the two natures of Christ. This is the most typical Western Catholic practice.

· Option B. Hold your thumb and index finger of your right hand together to signify the two natures of Christ

· Option C. Hold your thumb, index finger, middle finger of your right hand together (signifying the Trinity) while tucking the ring finger and pinky finger (signifying the two natures of Christ) toward your palm. This is the typically Eastern Catholic practice.

· Option D: Hold your right hand open with all 5 fingers -- representing the 5 Wounds of Christ -- together and very slightly curved, and thumb slightly tucked into palm

Then:

· touch the forehead as you say (or pray mentally) "In nomine Patris" ("In the name of the Father")

· touch the breastbone or top of the belly as you say "et Filii" ("and of the Son")

· touch the left shoulder, then right shoulder, as you say "et Spiritus Sancti" ("and of the Holy Ghost"). Note that some people end the Sign by crossing the thumb over the index finger to make a cross, and then kissing the thumb as a way of "kissing the Cross."

Conclusion

This sacred sign being practiced by Catholics is no mere empty sign as thought by many who did not understand it. The forehead is the locus where each individual recognized as the entry point and storage of knowledge. By this holy gesture, it helps us remember that God is the only Supreme Being whom we render our worship, reminds us of our identity as followers of the cross where we attain salvation, shows our dependence to Him and our nothingness, and makes Jesus as the center of our being and living in the truth of the Trinity – Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Sign of the Cross (Part 1)

2011-10-15T08:00:00.000-07:00

Among the Christian groups, only members of the Roman Catholic Church are doing the sign of the cross. Yet many of these members do not know the meaning and reason why they are doing it and how to do it properly. This simple note can help us understand the topic in four points. 1. The foreheads in the writings of the Old Testament and the Church Fathers. 2. Why do we make the sign of the cross? 3. When do we make the sign? 4. How do we make the sign of the cross?

1. The forehead in the writings of the Old Testament and the Church Fathers are of utmost importance. The Church Fathers inherits its significance from the Old Testament that became the tradition of the whole Catholic Church where the sign of the cross should begin with. There are two OT writings that tell about the foreheads – Book of Deuteronomy and the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel – and two writings from the Church Fathers – St. Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 315 – 386.

a. In Deuteronomy 6: 4-8, the first part of the passage contains the Shema that informs every Jew about their religious duty of love God alone. Every Israelite should place the shema inside the small box and place them in their foreheads as a sign of being a faithful follower of Yahweh. They call it phylacteries. In Ezekiel 9:4, Yahweh tells prophet Ezekiel about the destruction to come in Jerusalem because of the abomination people were doing, and do the mark on the foreheads of men who were righteous.

b. St Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of the forehead from which the sign of the cross be made by our fingers. For him every Christian should reveal the sign of the cross proudly. One should not be ashamed of it nor hid it from the public. For the great price won by Christ is no other but through the cross.

2. The words of St. Cyril have become the basis and standard for the Catholic Church in doing the sign of the cross, beginning with their forehead. The church has also adopted new meanings to it. First, instead of placing the words of the scripture in the foreheads like the Jews themselves were doing, the act of signing one’ self with the cross has been made as the procedure of expressing one’s faith and love for Jesus. Secondly, the cross itself has become the new seal of being Christians, because through the cross Christ has won the victory over sin for us – eternal life. Thirdly, whenever we do the sign of the cross, we profess that our God is indeed three persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And lastly, St. Cyril says that by doing the sign of the cross, we are shield from Satan and his temptation because they are afraid of Him, and for St. Ephrem, it is a protecting wall round all your conduct.

3. St. Ephrem of Syria (died A.D. 373), along with St. Cyril of Jerusalem, has taught the Christians in their own respective communities when they would do the sign of the cross. Let me quote their exact words.

St. Ephrem said: “…over the bread we eat, and the cups we drink; in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we awake; when we are in the way and when we are still.”

St. Cyril said: “Do not go out from the door of your house till you have signed yourself with the Cross. Do not neglect that sign whether in eating or drinking or going to sleep, or in the home or going on a journey. There is no habit to be compared with it.”

The Importance of Baptism

2011-10-08T23:35:00.000-07:00

The Holy Father, Benedict XVI, sends his message for Lent 2011 to the Christendom last 04 November 2010. There are three parts in his message, to wit: the importance of the sacrament of baptism, the Word of God, and the traditional acts of fasting, almsgiving and prayer. The flow of his message describes the journey of every Christian, from being born again with water and spirit, nourished with the scripture, and the praxis of the gift of faith.

To my judgment, the focus on baptism is something of valuable importance to expound the topic in order to avoid misconceptions believes by many of our brethren Christians (not Catholics). It is because baptism is considered as the gateway to other sacraments. It means that one cannot proceed and receive other sacraments without being baptized. And the first part of the message for lent by His Holiness can help us enlighten the matter.

The sacrament of baptism indeed gives each recipient new life. By this life, our state from living a natural life is now elevated to the next level. And that is to supernatural life where we become somebody, as special than the rest of natural lives on earth like animals and plants and nonliving things. And why do we receive it after few days or weeks or month right after our birth?

First, baptism shows us that this new life is a gift from God. It is only God that can give us this supernatural and elevated life. Second, in baptism, the recipient becomes sharer in the death and resurrection of Jesus. When we receive it, we let go of our state of sinfulness by dying and by rising to a new state of life with Him. Third, in baptism we meet the Lord. It is a personal and a holy encounter with Him. What a privilege! And lastly, baptism imparts divine life. In sharing our own life with God through sanctifying grace and genuine prayer, we do not journey on earth on our own. We are not alone in struggling our own sinfulness and limitation. He will help us bear our problems and struggles.

Becoming part of the Lord’s community by being baptized is a great act of love on our part to God. The community is the venue where we develop our identity as Christians and where we receive Jesus concretely in the breaking of the bread. Our parents’ choice of having us baptized is the best choice they have made for our salvation. So, why we deprive of ourselves of this gift of baptism until when we get adult?

Confucius on Education

2011-09-22T18:47:00.001-07:00

When one speaks of civilization of China, the name Confucius is one of the most outstanding figures in their national history. His influence is wide disseminated in the minds of every Chinese people. The utmost significance to him before one engaging in those related discipline is learning or education. What makes education important as a requisite towards becoming a better person in the society?

Psychological Dimension of Education

Education, for Confucius, is vital in the development of the human person. Why did he say that? It is because human nature itself is neutral. What does it mean by ‘neutral?’ It is neutral in the sense that human nature from its birth is harmonious. Confucius says that men, by nature, are close to one another, and that only when men are engaging in practice, they drift far apart. The harmony of men is destroyed when one engages in the activity of the world. And since practice separate them from each other, only the help of environment and of education can straighten up their human development.

Instructional contents of Education

The instructional content of education for Confucius is liberal art. There is an instance when a certain fellow approaches Master Confucius asking for a sort of demonstration on planting vegetables, and the latter has made his reply the he is not good in that matter. Education for intellectual purpose is an indication that the learner has a higher aspiration in life. And he urges students to learn instead rituals, poetry and music. His education is neither for practical nor for scientific purposes. (The last part of his article has little comment on this: China would not be a developed country when they stick to Confucius’ aim of education solely for intellectual purpose.)

Education for Moral Development

For Confucius, education is not only the development of one’s self alone. The goal of education is not for self-aggrandizement. A person by his nature in its birth is neutral – in harmony with other persons. This is the theory on why he put up a private school for every one – elite or commoner. In order to achieve this, education is also for one’s moral growth. He instructs the importance of moral conduct, wholehearted sincerity, and truthfulness. This means that the education espoused by Confucius has two directions – not only for individual development but also for relational development too. The learner has to equip himself with moral values in order to establish the primal origin of human nature - close relationship with one another.

Goal

We learn simple thoughts from Confucius that education is very important for human beings living in the society. Indeed the society is bombarded with different ideas that may hamper closeness among us. But having acquired and chose the right idea by going to school does not mean that each learner has already achieved what is natural, and eventually closeness may just happen. Aptitude does not guarantee this. The role of moral values is the final topping of intellectual education to make the society a better place to live – free from isolationism and individualism.

Remarks on the Natal Day of Mary

2011-09-14T01:07:00.001-07:00

This is my closing remarks last 08 of September, on the occasion of the birthday of Mary, our Spiritual Mother.

"Do what he tells you." These are the words of the mother of our Lord to the wedding attendants at Cana. The consequence of their action was the first miracle done by Jesus - turning the ordinary water into the best wine.

The point of this closing remarks is not on the miracle per se, nor on the consequence of obeying our Lord that yields endless miracles. The real point here is discipleship of every followers of Christ.

The reason why we believe in her is because of two things: our belief that Mary is the most powerful advocate or intercessor in heaven, and secondly is our belief that when we pray to her, she will not abandon us but she will help us to accomplish our mission in fulfilling her son's commands for us.

Mary, intercede for us now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Theology for Personal Purposes

2011-08-10T23:07:00.000-07:00

If in studying philosophy one cannot make money out of it, it is not in the case of theology. Many religious leaders in the Christian world have become rich because of theology.

Theology is the study about God, coupled with the divine revelation. It is an in-depth inquiry and research on the nature of God and His will for mankind. This discipline is very rich on how God has reached us out first in order to establish relationship with us – his universal salvific will. Since God is the Supreme Being, He knows all human queries. And that is the reason we ascribe to Him with the adjective word ‘omniscient.’

Objectively speaking, the discipline of theology is full of divine truth. It is not mixed with human understanding called syncretism, for God’s thoughts are beyond human understanding, according to one of the wisdom books of the Old Testament. But what makes the claim that ‘one can make money out of theology’ is of human doings.

The topic on tithing is out of the question here, for all members of any religious institutions are obliged to give one-tenth of his earnings for the support of all the expenses and the missionary activities of the Church, and of thanksgiving to God for the blessing we receive every day. But some religious leaders, who are knowledgeable in theologizing, manipulate and use it other than what is essential for religious purposes.

What is this all about? Theology should be in the service of the God and of the Church. But what we see from our religious leaders? They are using theology in the service of their personal gains by accumulating wealth. I remember the words of the executive director of one of the religious institutions in the city that ‘they are making the Church as milking cow!’ He himself, as a Jesuit priest, testifies to this common observation.

I think this is one of the reasons why people nowadays, who are immersed in the very secular world, do not take into hearts the preaching of their pastors. And if they do not give their listening ears to them, it is because they do not see the truth of theology. It just that people want to hear the real theology that brings salvation and not theology that fishes out money from their pocket.

Theology and the Limitless Queries of Human Reason

2011-07-02T02:50:00.001-07:00

I met my former classmate a month ago. We had a short and update about personal life. And I was glad to know that he had just finished recently his doctorate in theology. He went to share about the struggles and hardships in doing the defence on his dissertation. But what stocked to my mind after our chat was when he made mentioned this thought ‘I wonder why I studied theology?’

I, too, asked the same question to my own self why I studied and obtained my masters in theology and in philosophy. In short, what are these degrees had to do with my life? My professor in college commented that studying philosophy would not make you financially rich. It is the truth that one cannot make money out of philosophy. (But I do not believe in the case of theology.)

My personal answer to the question in studying philosophy was I love wisdom. I love reading the thoughts of other philosophers. And in the process of understanding their writings, I would be able to reply to my own personal queries about life and the world where I live. But I always put in mind the limitation of human answers to all human queries. And here the role of theology comes in.

I do believe that theology would show me the way to the ultimate answer to our limitless questions. This can only happen when one would not deny the existence of God and his revelation. To the question on why I studied and obtained master in theology, my answer is very simple. Theology is not to put a stop to all limitless queries of human reason, but theology would lead us to limitless answers to human hunger for truth.

The Simple Notes

2011-06-11T00:05:00.001-07:00

This article will show a short explanation on the raison de etre of the blog, its content and methodology.

The intention of the blog is for purely personal consumption. All the articles posted here are products of the author’s personal readings in philosophy and theology. They are his SIMPLE NOTES. The author is not an expert but rather licensed to teach on these two fields. He finished his undergraduate and master in philosophy, and another master in theology.

The author wishes not to waste his time and energy in doing his personal readings on those fields. Since this site is free, he preserves his understanding by keeping all readings in one single file, instead of keeping them in his personal computer. Wherever the author goes, he may have access over them anytime and post other new articles too.

How do these published articles appear? They are written in condensed form, and structured how the author understood the flow of their ideas either in inductive or deductive way. The author himself is not an expert on those disciplines. Instead the author is trying his best to summarize the thoughts of the philosophers and theologians in fragments. It is not scholarly done but the essential thoughts are there.

At the end of each article is the acknowledgement of the source where it is taken, to give justice to the original writers of those topics. No footnotes and bibliography are used, because they are too short. A maximum of one page – letter-standard size – is the size of the content. To reiterate, this blog is for the consumption of the author when he needs them in the future. But the author is willing to share it to any reader who happens to surf this site if he finds them helpful.

What’s on your mind?

2011-05-02T15:35:00.001-07:00

The title above is taken from FACEBOOK, a common social networking site today. It has been loved and patronage by many people around the globe. That title is displayed on the homepage of site where one has all the chances to shout at the top of their lungs what they want to say to the world. It is a new phenomenon.

Some may say, and I am not exempted from being one, people who are fond of writing on the space of What’s on your mind are being unnoticed (ta pidi attencion). But that is not all the case. In reading Emmanuel Levinas’ ethics, the face of others tells something about our human existence. Two things I would like to point here. First, a person is a reflection of our own self. He may have come from a distinct family upbringing but how we understand him is not far from what we are. Second, the person whom we have spent a lot of time, though it is not limited to friendship and lovers, is calling the significant other of being heard. This reminds us of our duty in Kantian sense to fulfill for the sake of the good and well-being of the significant other – our ones a fellow member of the community – in this case, the Pastor Bonus Seminary.

In line of this thought, this site will serve as freedom wall where each one can express one’s opinions, ideas and perspectives in life, for we are all graduates of philosophy, which is the unending search of meanings in life. Each contribution will manifest what’s in our mind, and it will be treated with utmost respect, understanding, and most of all, acceptance where each one is remembered in history as brothers. From this I do believe unsolicited but authentic assistance and wisdom will pour down the way.

The One-Sided Speaker

2011-04-18T07:15:00.001-07:00

In the previous article that I have written, the whole point of it is to shed light on the role of lay-teachers in the life and mission of the Church. This will bring us to consciousness of many religious people who are being one-sided. An instance of this is the way the speaker neglects the fundamental importance of why these lay-teachers applied in their educational institution during the seminar on the WBLS and RCC.

If I am correct, the speaker began the talk with an introduction on two premises. First is that every Catholic school is founded on the mission of Christ – the reason of its being. And secondly, teachers applied in their institutions because of the need for money. But what happened eventually is that the flow of the exposition is now focused on the mission and not money. The speaker has intentionally separated mission from money.

Of course many are indignant in what they were listening. We could not believe that what the speaker was trying to say, and to support the claim, writings from the documents also been cited. But from the very beginning, the audiences were already following to where the flow of the talk would lead to. And many were expecting that there will be fusion between the two premises. But the speaker has gone beyond the boarder that if the lay-teacher still living with the idea of expecting more and living on compensation, that teacher, according to the narrow-minded speaker, has not imbibed the true intention of the Church – mission.

The speaker has missed two importance matters. To enumerate again, those two things are: the lay-teachers are not compensated through the generosity of the Church’s leaders, and the lay-teachers are front liners and great benefactors of the Church. It is not the other way around because they are not self-reliant. They have not read in one of the encyclical letters that salvation is not only an aspect of spirituality but on the totality of the person (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis). Thus these lay-teachers are not to be fed with purely spiritual matters. Even the speaker herself has already forgotten the second premise that they hire these people because they need money for survival. I just hope that every religious speaker should always bear in mind that no mission has ever survived without the involvement of money, lest there would be no tuition fees to be collected from the students and no payment for the reception of the sacraments in the parish.

Lay-Teachers: Partners in Church’s mission

2011-03-29T02:14:00.001-07:00

This article will focus on the lay-teachers who are working in the Catholic educational institutions. This thought has been circulating in my mind after attending various seminars given to the teachers. We, the delegates of representing schools, cannot help but express to our dismay that most of the speakers, usually appointed religious people, are one-sided. The content of their talk is substantial for our professional growth, but somehow detrimental both to the lay people in general, and to the Church, whom we dearly loved most, in particular. What I want to explain here are of two things: the lifestyle of the lay people is different from the religious men and women, and the crucial role of the lay in the mission of the Church. Hopefully, in the end, this will help us enlighten that lay people and religious are unique partners in being the hands of Jesus in spreading the Gospel values.

Objectively speaking, the lifestyles of the lay people and the religious are different. What makes the two peoples different is not their status of life like being single or married. It is because some lay people are also internally professed celibate for Christ like the religious. However, lay people have so many responsibilities than the religious. Lay people, either single or married, have to support their family members and loved ones. Of course the religious people are not exempted from this duty. But the lay people have to divide their meagre salary for his self, and for others. Who is this ‘his self?’ A teacher whose work is far from his hometown, has to divide the monthly salary for the boarding house, for food, and other basic needs like cellular phone load, cosmetics, etc. If the teacher is married, his self is his own partner in life, his children, housing loan, and other basic necessities. On the other hand, the religious people, although they do not receive single peso as his salary, he is provided with everything, from shelter, food, clothing, and other basic necessities too. And somehow they are free from manual work, because they have hired people to do those things. Thus we cannot, and will not ever be, put these two peoples on the same footing.

The role of the lay-teachers in the Church is so crucial for two things. First is that lay-teachers are part of the definition of the word ‘laity’ as members of the Church whose mission is to sanctify all temporal realities. This people are indeed part of the world, immersed in the world, struggling in the world, and spreading the Word of God in their respective places and real-life situation. An example of the crucial role of the lay-teachers, and the lay in general, in the Philippine setting is during the conduct of local and national elections of choosing leaders-to-be of our country. The religious people, who are part of the Church hierarchy, are in neutral status or non-partisan. As part of the mission of the Church, these religious people are giving political education to the lay, because change in the society can be done with them as front liners of the Church. And secondly, the Catholic Church needs the help of the lay people particularly their financial assistance to support her projects and activities. The Church, objectively speaking, cannot survive solely on spiritual assistance alone. An example to this is the dissemination of Mission Sunday envelopes, because financial assistance could not be provided by the Church’s hierarchy alone. Thus there is the existence of benefactors and generous donors.

The invited speakers, who belong to any religious groups, have to understand better their vocation within the Church and the position of the lay-teachers in their educational institutions. Being one-sided is tantamount to say as being insensitive to the realities of life. Religious people have to care more these lay-teachers who are front liners and supporters of the Church, lest they become too narrow-minded, selfish and day-dreamers of the impossibilities.