Monday, July 19, 2010

Apology of Plato

“Not much time will be gained, O Athenians,
in return for the evil name which you will get
from the detractors of the city, who will say
that you killed Socrates, a wise man….”
----- Socrates, Apology

Digression: Socrates’ Mission to Athens
The accusers of Socrates could not testify that he took pay or asked for money. The poverty he has was a witness to the truth of what he said. To defend the simple truth, one needs to oppose to the unjust and illegal things occurring in the city. He who intends to fight for what is right must live privately rather than publicly. This is to avoid accusations among the members of the community living in a public society. Deeds speak louder than words. The fear of death will not be the source of giving way to any man contrary to what is right, even if Socrates will be destroyed for it. To do something in order to stop the wrong accusations, it must be shown, not by words but by deeds. Socrates acted in public life following the manner of good man worthy man to be respected. He has shown his whole self in the public through discussion. He never asked for payment, he entertained everybody whether rich or poor, he even offered himself as questionnaire. Socrates firmly assured that those who listen to him tell the truth for it is he who does it first. Those who helped Socrates have been corrupted. The reason of support was that they know Meletus was lying and not telling the truth.

Peroration
Socrates does not want to be like those accused men who do nothing but beg and plead for their lives. The judge must not grant justice as a favor but to render judgment according to the law. Socrates committed the care to God and to the accusers to judge him in whatever way will be best for him and also for others.
“Gentlemen of Athens, it does not seem to me just to beg a judge, or to be acquitted by begging; it is rather just to teach and to persuade. The judge does not sit to grant justice as a favor, but to render judgment.”

The Counter penalty
To give up means giving part of my soul.

Socrates proposed an alternative means in order to redeem himself from the accusation. He was not like other Athenians who offered something in order to be acquitted in their case. In the last part of his appeal, he asked if a mina of silver can be used as counter penalty since he could not give the exact amount that the judges required him to pay.
The juries were to open to all available men who will convict the accused, and surely Meletus and his friends’ cohorts in order to see clearly the conviction they long for. Socrates was astonished by the vote of 280-220 for conviction. So far, this was the huge vote anyone would have expected. In order for Socrates to be forgiven he must go out of his way stick it to Meletus, Anytus and Lycon. If he does it, surely the forgiveness he longed for will be granted. In this phase, the convicted is given the opportunity to argue his own side. Knowing himself to be innocent of the charges, he insolently suggests strong sentences to demonstrate the truth and his contempt at the entire proceeding. His words create irreverence to the jurors own understanding and somehow leads Socrates to feel how angry he could make them.
Exile is another option Socrates brings up he patiently explains to the jurors that he is cast out, he will keep on asking questions and he will not going to keep quiet, for keeping quite means he admitted it freely. The core of everything Socrates would like to express runs in the statement, an unexamined life is not worth living. To examine him is his passion and obsession. This, perhaps, more than any divine influence, is the main motivation for his questioning.



Epilogue
Socrates did not regret for having conducted by the defense. He would rather die with the defense than to live with other people. Neither in court of law or any man continue to escape death by any means possible. Often in a battle it becomes clear that man escape death by surrendering, but for Socrates it was difficult to escape wickedness, for wickedness runs faster than death. Socrates advised them not to lament, for he does not fear the prospect of death. It is either going to be an endless sleep of journey to another place.

“Very likely what has fallen to me is good, and those among us who think that death is an evil are wrong. There had been convincing indication of this. For the accustomed sign would surely have opposed me, if I were not in some way acting for good.”

For Socrates death was good. Death was one of two things. Either to be dead is not to exist, to have no awareness at all, or it is, as the stories tell, a kind of alteration, a change of abode for the soul from this place to another. Socrates believed that to die and be released was better. In the same reason he was not angry with the accusers, or to his condemners; they have done no harm, although neither of them does him any good; and for this he may gently blame them. In the end, Socrates takes his words seriously to the heart and does not label anyone evil. All of them play an important role. They act according to their characters. To die is something not to be feared of.

“Dual Identity”

According to Frege, sense and reference are two different aspects of the meaning of at least some kinds of terms. A term reference (Bedeutung) is the object it refers to and its sense (Sinn) is the way in which it refers to that object. In my life as a seminarian, I always have my associations of the things around me. Sometimes this may not refer only on the things that are directly observed but it encompasses also the way I shaped my paradigm looking through the reality I perceived about. Prior to my existence in the seminary, I always believe in the principle; what I perceive I believe and what I believe I live. Oftentimes I have the tendency of owning the concreteness of the things according to my biases and personal understanding. There were even times wherein I did not mind others point of views, as long as I believe that everything that has passed my standards are true and firm. My paradigm is always precise. External factors are just there but they do not have their purpose. I failed to broaden the way I comprehend things and situations. I limit only myself in the particular sphere of my mind set without going outside my being and trying to go beyond with what is supposed to be. But when I entered the seminary and was able to grasp about the things around me, everything has changed. Paradigm entails the person’s pattern of thinking and the way it embraces the identity that was given to him. This identity is used in order to have a preference of the way things are lived according to its very purpose and meaning.
When I was still in the second year high school I have this paradigm of owning a “dual identity”. Usually, when I arrived late for school my teacher would command me to throw the trash cans in the compost pit near the school vicinity which is called “bubog”, a word derived from the tree which blossoms with the flowers that are so bad in smell. It was 3 weeks already that I repeatedly threw the trash can with the same reason. When my classmates noticed it they asked me, “Are you the king of bubog”? I replied, why? We often see you at the bubog tree. With this conception my name started to change. They called me “buga”. During that time I was very angry when they approached me using that identity. But later on, I realized it doesn’t make any sense if I continue to be high tempered, so, I decided to recognize what they labeled me and I used it as my school identification name. Anyway I am having fun with it. “Buga” has been a well- known name to my classmates but our teachers doesn’t know it. During that time, I was campaigning for student council. Of course, I am using my real name since the voters will come from the lower years. They knew me better if I used this name. With my real name placed on the sets of officers, I was known by them (lower years) with respect and valor. But, when I am inside the classroom I’m using the name “buga” and when going outside together with the lower years and some of my batch mates I preferred to use Reynard. One time, my youngest brother visited me at my classroom. He inquired inside if I am still around because he will join me in going home. My brother said, ara si manong Reynard? My classmate replied, yes dali lang tawgon ko anay si“buga”. My brother was a bit confused about it. He doesn’t know that “buga” and “Reynard” are one and the same person. He just discovered it later on. What he comprehends was that the name “buga” in the classroom and the “Reynard” he knew is true. When he first heard the word “buga” he became hesitant but when I went out and presented myself to him, he was consciously informed. With this reality, proper names are not just labels, Frege attempted to resolve the problem by distinguishing between sense and reference of a proper name. According to this distinction, proper names may have the same reference, or refer to the same person, yet present this person in different ways of presenting the object. Thus, the difference between “Reynard is buga and Reynard is Reynard results from the fact that in the imagined situation Reynard and buga have the same reference but different senses; these proper names refer to the same person, yet present this person in different ways (as the “Reynard” for the student council and “buga” for throwing the trash), and so have different senses. According to Frege this difference in sense accounts for the difference in informative content between two sentences. Frege in this particular notion seems to hold a form of the so called description theory of proper names- the theory that proper names, like definite description, refer to objects through their descriptive or informative content. Even until now, my identity remains as what it is just like before. My paradigm becomes a model of my identity. My dual identity causes a memorable manifestation to me. Even in the seminary I was given also with the “bansag”. Instead of getting mad at it, I just enjoy, anyway everything goes. It shapes the way I think and has developed my paradigm to become flexible in looking life’s perspective with extended horizons. I thought everything I knew were true. Even my identity changes me the way I handle things in the long run.


By:Reynard Tubid

Who is God for Humans?

The mystery of God’s existence is so deep and unexplainable. Even man in the search of truth could not fathom the reason why God does the thing in a particular circumstance. Only God knows what should be and what should not be. When man gives argument through reason, still he could not contain God in his limited and finite knowledge. The movie dogma has something to bring to the avid viewers. It is not only about religion; it has something to do also with the understanding of man about the existence and the nature of God. In order to make it clear, I would like to explain three substantial points to support the things to be taken seriously in the movie. First, it has to focus on the battle between the entity of God as omniscience and the free will of man. If God is all-knowing and he knows what my decision is going to be, where is my free will? God has a vision that is broadly open and can see everything in entirety. He can see all things. I could not hide the stupid things I did for He knows the reason of my actions. He sees me in my decision making. By the mere fact that God knows everything about me, eventually everything comes into existence by that very fact. God’s wisdom precedes the existence of a thing or even an entity. When final judgment comes and when my decisions are becoming final, God will judge me according to what I did when I’m still alive. Man has free will since God does not intervene in their decisions. Since God is omniscience and his knowledge is supreme, man could not change His decisions. Therefore, man’s free will is limited because God intrudes in the identity and decisions of man. If a man has limited free will, it is not anymore free will but its essence stands only on the will that is controlled and monitored by the Supreme Being.
Second, God is perceived in diverse view. When Bethany called up her mother regarding the problem she has; the only reply she received was “God has a plan.” Bethany felt angry and disappointed for the advice of her mother. With this statement, Bethany questions that if God has a plan what about her plans? In other words, the mother of Bethany describes the cause in the way that she describes the effect. Since God knows everything, he was often placed in the idea that he plans for the good. But Bethany complains the other way around. Therefore, He was not a perfect God. God has his own plan because He is the cause of the destiny for man. But it is not only the case that causes literally resembles their effects. When her mother vividly uttered the plan of God for Bethany. How sure she was in saying this? Is the plan of God the same with that of Bethany? Of course not! As for that, the positive view about God can be grounded in the fact if God plans; he has presumably caused the decision to be right. When we form positive statements about God, we must somehow mean what we say. We must mean that God is what we assert him to be. But do we really mean what we are saying or we just based it according to our own understanding? The word plan can be applied to two things without meaning the same thing at all. God has a plan. There is an enormous difference between God and Bethany, the same term as plan cannot be applied to God and to creatures univocally. God has a plan! Her mother said. This word for God is not confined to the meaning of the word but goes beyond it. Hence, it is clear that the word plan is not used in the same sense of God and human beings, and the same is true of all other words, so they cannot be used univocally of God and human. The mother of Bethany may not know God’s plan, but she still insisted about God’s nature through His plan. She was saying it without being clear as to what exactly she was saying. In order to speak meaningfully about God, it is not necessary that one should understand exactly the significance of one’s statement about Him. God is incomprehensible. But it does not impede us to use words significantly and ask for more questions.
Lastly, the movie depicted the faith of the people, especially with that of Bethany. There were times that she wanted to abandon God because of His reverse plan. This reality brings regrets and frustrations about the nature of God. Sometimes, we could say, does God care for us? If he does, how? If he does not why? Our faith is so confusing because God confuses us. We could no longer determine if He is real or not in our experience. Faith becomes a true faith if God is present in the life of the person. But faith can become false belief also even if God is in our midst. How can we determine if God resides in the faith we believe? How does He manifest Himself? Faith is sometimes defined through reason and at times reason becomes confusing. Who knows, what we believe is not a true doxa but a belief out of human wishful thinking. Only god knows everything, man has only limited knowledge and understanding about God. Dogma calls us to examine our own lives and the things we believe. God wants us to follow Him, not because the pope or the bishop has told us to. The church does not define who we are in our relationship to God.



By: Reynard Tubid