PREFERRING DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY?

“mas kailangan ang bansa natin ang desiplina,kaysa demokrasya, kaya kailangan pa 1,2,o tatlong marcos para tumino ang pilipinas.”

“Si marcos parang sa china ang batas niya, mas nanaisin ko pa na walang kalayaan kesa ngayon na malaya k nga puro paghihirap nmn, tignan mo ang china at singapore ang pamamahala ni.marcos the same, nakamit ang kalayaan kaya nga malaya pumatay,malaya magnakaw,kalayaan para lamunin ang kaban ng bayan yun ba sasabihin.mo na kalayaan, lintek na kalayaan.”

We have already restored democracy, no matter how limited it is. Do you mean to say that dictatorship or one man rule where we will have a President/King for life just like in the middle ages is far better. Ok, this democracy is not what we want. It merely restored the elitist democracy prior to martial law. But that only means that the struggle for a genuine democracy of the people remains and must continue to be fought for.

Lord Acton said that power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. And that is what the Marcos dictatorship was, where all governmental powers were in the hands of one man. Is that what we want. Under the Marcos dictatorship, there was no press freedom. This freedom in the internet would not even be possible. Is that what we want? I agree with you and condemn the subsequent administrations which continued to serve the interest of the elite. But most certainly, I do not agree that the Marcos dictatorship is better than a government where there is a separation of powers, where each branch of government can check the abuse of the other.

People were arrested for opposing the dictatorship and have stayed in detention for years without being charged at all. Is this what we want? We remain slaves of an unjust and exploitative system after Marcos. That does not mean that we have to restore a rotten system which we have already toppled.

We have courts before which do not have independence as the tenure of judges was dependent on the whims and caprices of Marcos, who can be removed by Marcos anytime. These are courts then which cannot have the objectivity to rule on what is right and just. Is that what we want to restore?

People dream of economic prosperity. But we are not dogs who would be happy to be well fed but without freedom.

You are like the Israelites who experiencing the hardships in the desert on the way to the promise land, want to go back to their life of slavery in Egypt which they have already freed themselves from. The hardships in the desert on the way to the promise land, does not justify us going back to the slavery of Egypt that we have already freed ourselves from.

Meaning and Value of Philosophy

What is philosophy? Is it important to our life? Some view philosophy as useless speculation on matters unrelated to life? Is that true? If we trace the origin of the questions of philosophy, we will realize that they arise out of our own personal experiences. What urges us to reflect are matters of great value to us.

Perhaps, at some point of our life, we have ourselves encountered the problems of philosophy: 1) Ethics: What is the right kind of life? When is an act right? Wrong? When am I responsible for my actions?; 2) Social Philosophy: What is the good society? How may this be achieved?; 3) Philosophy of man: What is man? Is man a mere body or does he have a soul which survives after death? Is man free?; 4) Theodicy: Does God exist? If there is a good and just God, why then does he allow man to suffer?; 5) Cosmology: What is the nature of the material universe? Where did it come from?; 6) Ontology: What is the nature of reality? Is it purely physical or is it spiritual?; 7) Epistemology: What may we know? How may we know and thus avoid error?; 8) Logic: When is our reasoning correct?.

Which of these questions of philosophy have you encountered in your life? What experience led you to ask those questions? What thing of value urged you to reflect? What happens as a result of these experiences? We find our self, our world or society mysterious: something is hidden from us; there is something we cannot fully understand. At this point may begin to doubt some of what we believed or held as true. This is the starting point of philosophy: our encounter with the mysteries of life.

What is our response in the face of mystery? We begin to ask questions. We seek to know the truth. We seek understanding. This is what philosophy is: inquiry in the face of the mysteries of life; man’s quest to understand himself, his world and society, what their nature is, their origin and destiny. This is the spirit that animates philosophy: the spirit of inquiry and questioning in search of understanding. Unfortunately, many today no longer ask questions or reflect? They simply blindly accept or believe without question. The spirit of philosophy then is the exact opposite of the culture of blind acceptance and unquestioned belief prevailing in society.

What urges us to reflect on the questions of philosophy? Is this just a matter of curiosity? Of asking questions unrelated to our life? There are matters that we are merely curious about? Are there aliens, living beings from other planets? Eventually, we may forget this question whether we answered it or not, as there are other more important matters that we have to attend to. What do we feel in these experiences? We are disturbed. There is some inner disquiet in us. Thus, we are forced to stop for a while and turn our attention to these questions which bother us. Why are we disturbed? Why are we affected? Because something of value is at stake: the meaning and purpose of our life. We need to eat; sleep; work. But there is a deeper need in us: the need for life’s meaning, purpose, direction.

What is philosophy then? Inquiry into the mysteries of life urged by man’s search for meaning and understanding. So when someone asks you, what is your philosophy of life or what is the philosophy behind something, i.e. education, what does he mean? He asks what is your understanding of life; what it is and its purpose. Philosophy is a search; a quest. It comes from two (2) Greek words: filos which means love and sofia which means wisdom. Philosophy then means the love of wisdom. The Philosopher then is a lover of wisdom. We see here the humility of the philosopher. He does not claim to be wise but only to be one who is in search for wisdom.

What is wisdom which the philosopher is seeking for? Is it wisdom for instance to live only in order to eat? No, for we do not live in order to eat only. Why? There is a deeper reason in living than merely eating. So we will ask further, “but why do we eat?” Our mind will not be satisfied until we discover the deepest or ultimate reason why we are living. This is what wisdom is: the knowledge of the deepest or ultimate reason or cause of things. Unfortunately, we oftentimes mistake a shallow reason as the deepest reason. This is foolishness. It is foolishness to live simply in order to eat. Some consider money as the purpose of their life. Is that wisdom of foolishness? Money however is but a means. Thus it is foolishness to mistake it as the very purpose of human existence and to make it as the lord and master of our life. What about almsgiving as a means of helping the poor, is that wisdom? No, for it is a mere palliative and not the cure to their poverty. No matter, how much alms we give, the poor will remain poor, until we are able to address the root cause of poverty. Is it wisdom to value a person because of his being beautiful or handsome? Beauty as some say, is only skin deep. That is foolishness for one mistakes mere appearance which pass away as what makes a person, his nature or essence as a human being.

But what use is this knowledge, if we do not live by what we know; if what we know does not effect any change in our life or society. In the ultimate analysis, knowledge that is not lived is also foolishness. Wisdom then is not only knowing the truth but living the truth. The true philosopher is not one who simply knows what goodness or justice is; but a good and just man. The true philosopher is not only one who understands things but whose understanding effects a change in himself, his world and society and thus who acts to transform himself, his world and society. The true philosopher is a living example of truth, goodness and justice; one who fights for justice and freedom. Ironically, in living the truth, some philosophers have dies for the truth. That is not easy. But there lies the challenge of philosophy.

Like Philosophy, science is also an effort by man to understand himself and his world. How does science do that? Through observation and experimentation, science seeks to know discover the workings of nature, how it moves or behaves, in order to discover the laws that govern it and how the forces of nature may be used to respond to the day-to-day needs of man like food, health, communication transportation, etc. (this is called technology). Despite the benefits brought about by science, experience shows that it can also be used for evil. For instance nuclear power may be used for medical purposes, yet it may also be utilized to create weapons of war and destruction. While in view of the discoveries of science, man now has a greater mastery of nature, he has so far failed to master himself. He remains enslaved by his weaknesses like greed for instance. While he has advanced in his knowledge of the laws which govern nature and their uses, he remains to have a vague understanding of what man is, where did he come from and what ought to be the purpose of his existence. This need is answered by philosophy. This thus is the difference of philosophy from science: science is man’s efforts to discover the laws that govern nature, so that they may be used to respond to his immediate needs, philosophy on the otherhand is man’s efforts to understand himself and his world, so that he will know the direction his life ought to take.

Like philosophy, religion also seeks to give direction to human existence. It also gives answers to some of the questions of philosophy. They however differ in the means of seeking the truth. Philosophy proceeds in its inquiry by means of man’s reason alone, religion on the otherhand proceeds with the aid of what it views as divine revelation. The basis of assent in religion is faith (believing though we do not fully understand). In view of this, some philosophers view religion as blind adherence to an illusion. Others, recognizing that man’s reason has its limits are open to the possibility that there may truths which are beyond the rech of natural reason. While this may be true, the philosopher will not readily accept things by faith. He will push his reason to its limits in his search for answers. Even articles of faith, he will try to comprehend as far as possible. His faith, if ever he has one, is not a blind one, but a faith seeking understanding. Thus in philosophy, there is no room for blind uncritical acceptance. He would not be easily swayed by the voice of custom, of the crowd or the majority. This but means that in philosophy, the basis of assent is reason and evidence; that each man has the obligation to think for himself and form his own judgment as regards what is true or good. That is the challenge of philosophy. That is the challenge of life.