Life begins with questions and wonders of the mysteries of the world; a struggle of truth and wisdom to know the most important part of reality. And at the edge of the puzzling existence, there is a wider vision of life. At this point, Philosophy being revolutionary confuses my common sense. The disturbance for the search of meaning can lead to reject my beliefs. But as the major task is to analyze and construct arguments, there is hope coming closer to the truth. What then life is all about? A quest of truth of who, what we are, where we came from and where we are going. I am being imprisoned by my own beliefs of reality. Maybe it is because of my feeling of strangeness. I doubt, let it go! Every claim I win for that includes evidence that underlies investigation itself to its truth.
Ancient civilizations in India, China and Greece were the forerunners of Philosophy. The Indians would ask the theocentrical question “Who am I”. Who created all the things? Who am I to others? Brahman. Who is Brahman in relation to me? We are the one. Atman is Brahman and Brahman is Atman.
That which the finest essence – this whole world has that as its soul. That is reality that Atmas (soul). That art thou.[1]
From the time that there was a shift from mythos (in which work of Hesiod and Iliad were known) to logos, Ionian Greeks began to rationalize their answers to their questions. “Where am I?”, a cosmocentric question asked by the Ionian Greeks accounting to the origin of the universe. The water of Thales is the origin of all things.
They say nothing else comes to be or ceases to be; for there must be entity either one or more than one from which all other things come to be… Thales, the founder of this philosophy says the principle is water.[2]
Apeiron is the origin of all things for Anaximander – the indefinite, boundless, infinite, and indeterminate.
Inexhaustible in quantity and wholly devoid of specific qualities an unlimited mass characterless having unlimited potential for assuming different specific forms.[3]
For Anaximenes it is air:
… companion of Anaximander, affirms together with the latter that the substrate of everything is one and infinite. This substrate, however, is not indeterminate like that of Anaximander’s, but it is a definite nature: it is what we call air.[4]
The three Ionian Greeks have one thing in common: there is unifying principle assuming different forms in matter – water of Thales, the apeiron of Anaximander, and the air of Anaximenes. The Urstuff is what they have in common.
The civilization flourished in Yangtze and Huang Ho rivers is Chinese. They would rather ask the question “What Am I” which touches the nature of man. In short, it is anthropocentric. The focus is on the ideals and interest of humans. It begins in itself reaching to the existence of others. A very oriental perspective.
I always ask myself what I am in this world. What I ought to do in accordance to goodness? What is the way of life I want? Ultimately, these questions will lead into asking “What is the essence of my existence in the world?”
Humans Becoming Humane
“It is the man that can make the way great; not the way that can make man great.”[5]
Humans are the agents of actions in the fulfillment of the way or the path. Of course, who can perform the act other than man? It is the spiritual being? Expect not. The act itself will materialize through an agent that will perform in this present world. (Co, p.123) But all humans will do the act itself which will be performed in this present world.
Kong Zi said: The gentlemen occupies himself with the way and not with hius livelihood… what the gentleman is anxious about is the way and not poverty… the way of gentleman is threefold. I myself have not been able to attain any one of them. Being humane, he has no anxieties; being wise, he has no pwerplexities; being brave, he has no fear. Tzu Kung said: But master that is your own way.[6]
Lin Fang asked about the fundamental principle of Li. Kong Zi replied, “You are asking an apt question, Li at large, it is always better to be simple rather than too arrogant. It is more important to have the real sentiment of sorrow than minute to observance.[7]
I find the philosophy of human simple and comprehensive. It is a way of life of the individuals. Though the existence is obvious, how could I still say that I’m searching what is life? The only solution I can suggest is to bring out the best of the involved humans in the fulfillment of the act. What am I transcended in time? This philosophy is easy because it can be perceived.
Co is asserting that all universal can withstand the test of time. The nature of man is universal. Thus, the nature of man can withstand the test of time.
My point of conclusion then is that the nature of man can transcend time. However, real and universal are nature of man. Thus, what is real and universal can transcend time.
[1] Robert Ernest Hume. The Thirteen Principal Upanishads. 2nd Ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 248.
[2] Ignatius Yarza. History of Ancient Philosophy.
[3] James Jordan. Western Philosophy: From Antiquity to Middle Ages. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.), p. 8.
[4] Yarza, op. cit., p. 19.
[5] Alfredo P. Co. Philosophy of Ancient China: The Blooming of Hundred Flowers. (Espana, Manila: UST Printing House, 1992, p. 121.
[6] Co, op. cit., p. 123.
[7] Ibid., p. 122.
Showing posts with label humanism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label humanism. Show all posts
Existentialism is a Humanism
Sartre tries to defend existentialism from its critiques such as it leads one to inaction, or it allows/fosters anarchy by removing “god” or some other institution that defines and judges mans’ actions. He also mentions anguish, forlornness and despair as emotions attached directly to “existenze”.
The point of the essay is simply that we are free, without god there would be no “looming” standard by which everything must conform, and which everything is subject to it terms of valuation. Integrity, action, and responsibility lies solely on man and not on any particular nature ascribed to him by otherworldly or institutionalized structures.
In relation to freedom, Existentialists generally deny that there is any fixed “human nature” which limits us in what we do and who we are. Whatever happens to us, it is a consequence of our choices and we must take responsibility for that – there is no way we can transfer that responsibility to any other agency, human or otherwise. This constitutes the feeling of anguish wherein man is alone and takes sole responsibility for his/her actions Sartre said that the man can only genuinely assert meaning through his actions, indeed his very existence lies in the extent that man fulfills himself; he is nothing more than the ensemble of his acts. Man has a choice, but in existential terms, when he so chooses, he chooses not only for himself but also for the whole of mankind (“In choosing myself, I choose the world”). It is this feeling, and knowledge that as everyone might see the world in this light, they would act accordingly to chose what is best for him and for all “others”, the critique that existentialism leads people into inaction is thus answered.
Another assertion of existentialism is that god does not exist (applies only to atheistic existentialists), and this implies that there is nothing higher than man that could set the standard as to what man ultimately is. “There is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Man is what he conceives himself to be”. (Froyd 2005) In this respect, forlornness arises for then there would be no standard by which everyone is judged, and in relation to the previous paragraph, man is condemned to be free. The essence of man can no longer be found and defined by pre-existing norms, it has to be created (existence precedes essence). The process of this creation, is only through (as I have mentioned earlier) action and choice. Anarchy cannot ensue if everyone thinks this way, because even if god didn’t exist, no one in their right mind (who also believes that “others” are well capable of the things he/she can do) would resort to brutish acts, rather he/she would do the opposite and act according to a universal maxim applicable to all (to borrow Kant’s terminology). This particular emotion is also related to Sartre’s notion of “authenticity” and “bad faith” on which the choices of man and his/her appraisal of the situation constitutes his “real” existence.
The third emotion despair arises because, though man is free, he is free in a prison. His freedom is limited by the freedom of the “others” – “My freedom ends where your freedom begins”. Despair arises because each moment we choose we are confronted by possibilities. For though we are ultimately free, the probability of enacting the choice is restricted by facts-of-life and of the freedom of others. In this light Marx may be said to be right that “men make their own history, but do not make it as they please, but they do it under circumstances already determined for them by history and their social conditions” (Marx 1845) In this sense, men make their own chooses but they act according to circumstances determined by history and social conditions.
Now, many would contend that Sartre’s defense is self-defeating in that existentialism is precisely against putting reason and rationality at the center, yet clearly in his essay he is using reason and rational arguments to stake his claim and defend the “ideals” of existentialism. My take on this issue would be that, perhaps it is not as self-defeating as one may think, precisely because existence is something that everyone shares so too must it be possible to be articulated. In this sense, reason has become a vehicle towards further understanding of “existenze”; it is not in any way putting it in the center. The things that cannot be adequately articulated (call it the sublimity of life/existence, or whatever term you may think suits this phenomenon) is not entirely defined here (a part may have been articulated such as the three emotions), the purpose of the essay was to answer false accusations (falseness here is not meant as to refer to a predefined notion of truth but rather how we understand a given discourse, in this sense the falsity is defined in terms of how existentialism comes to being in light of definitions or what one might rightly call language interplay in which the meaning of the discourse is seen or evaluated through other overlapping discourses – a need for a certain level of objectivity, so to speak) to this endeavor in that they seek to portray/promote a critical valuation of life but is hindered because other institutions have misconstrued what they sought to convey.
The point of the essay is simply that we are free, without god there would be no “looming” standard by which everything must conform, and which everything is subject to it terms of valuation. Integrity, action, and responsibility lies solely on man and not on any particular nature ascribed to him by otherworldly or institutionalized structures.
In relation to freedom, Existentialists generally deny that there is any fixed “human nature” which limits us in what we do and who we are. Whatever happens to us, it is a consequence of our choices and we must take responsibility for that – there is no way we can transfer that responsibility to any other agency, human or otherwise. This constitutes the feeling of anguish wherein man is alone and takes sole responsibility for his/her actions Sartre said that the man can only genuinely assert meaning through his actions, indeed his very existence lies in the extent that man fulfills himself; he is nothing more than the ensemble of his acts. Man has a choice, but in existential terms, when he so chooses, he chooses not only for himself but also for the whole of mankind (“In choosing myself, I choose the world”). It is this feeling, and knowledge that as everyone might see the world in this light, they would act accordingly to chose what is best for him and for all “others”, the critique that existentialism leads people into inaction is thus answered.
Another assertion of existentialism is that god does not exist (applies only to atheistic existentialists), and this implies that there is nothing higher than man that could set the standard as to what man ultimately is. “There is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Man is what he conceives himself to be”. (Froyd 2005) In this respect, forlornness arises for then there would be no standard by which everyone is judged, and in relation to the previous paragraph, man is condemned to be free. The essence of man can no longer be found and defined by pre-existing norms, it has to be created (existence precedes essence). The process of this creation, is only through (as I have mentioned earlier) action and choice. Anarchy cannot ensue if everyone thinks this way, because even if god didn’t exist, no one in their right mind (who also believes that “others” are well capable of the things he/she can do) would resort to brutish acts, rather he/she would do the opposite and act according to a universal maxim applicable to all (to borrow Kant’s terminology). This particular emotion is also related to Sartre’s notion of “authenticity” and “bad faith” on which the choices of man and his/her appraisal of the situation constitutes his “real” existence.
The third emotion despair arises because, though man is free, he is free in a prison. His freedom is limited by the freedom of the “others” – “My freedom ends where your freedom begins”. Despair arises because each moment we choose we are confronted by possibilities. For though we are ultimately free, the probability of enacting the choice is restricted by facts-of-life and of the freedom of others. In this light Marx may be said to be right that “men make their own history, but do not make it as they please, but they do it under circumstances already determined for them by history and their social conditions” (Marx 1845) In this sense, men make their own chooses but they act according to circumstances determined by history and social conditions.
Now, many would contend that Sartre’s defense is self-defeating in that existentialism is precisely against putting reason and rationality at the center, yet clearly in his essay he is using reason and rational arguments to stake his claim and defend the “ideals” of existentialism. My take on this issue would be that, perhaps it is not as self-defeating as one may think, precisely because existence is something that everyone shares so too must it be possible to be articulated. In this sense, reason has become a vehicle towards further understanding of “existenze”; it is not in any way putting it in the center. The things that cannot be adequately articulated (call it the sublimity of life/existence, or whatever term you may think suits this phenomenon) is not entirely defined here (a part may have been articulated such as the three emotions), the purpose of the essay was to answer false accusations (falseness here is not meant as to refer to a predefined notion of truth but rather how we understand a given discourse, in this sense the falsity is defined in terms of how existentialism comes to being in light of definitions or what one might rightly call language interplay in which the meaning of the discourse is seen or evaluated through other overlapping discourses – a need for a certain level of objectivity, so to speak) to this endeavor in that they seek to portray/promote a critical valuation of life but is hindered because other institutions have misconstrued what they sought to convey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)