I could still remember the very first day of our Philosophy class where our professor asked each one of us to give a short introduction of what we, as individuals, think of Philosophy. Truth be told, I never had much enough idea about Philosophy back then. During that time, all I know about Philosophy was that it’s something that deals with how a certain person sees the things around him, knowing what his beliefs and perspectives are, and learning to defend them through enough logic and reasoning. Back then, I thought of Philosophy as something simple because I expected it to tackle simple questions about the nature of society which I think is a general knowledge to all, like why people eat animals, or what perfection really means, and such. But then I was wrong.
As time passed by, Philosophy helped me realize how complicated simple questions could be. Sometimes, a person sees only the things that are obvious, not realizing that beyond those things lie the other sides, the more complicated and deeper sides. This class taught me the importance of thinking outside the box where a simple question like, “Why do we ask a question?” could be something really challenging to answer. I could simply answer the question by stating that we ask a question because a question was made to be asked, but would that really make any sense? Embarrassing as it may seem, but there were times in class where philosophical questions actually took away my common sense. Sometimes, a deeper understanding is required to answer such simple-looking questions, and this, for me, was the challenging part. A single simple question could actually evolve to so many complicated questions, giving us ideas that are sometimes contradicting to what others think. Here comes the complication of the subject where good logic and reasoning are needed for a certain person to defend his own beliefs and perspectives.
I remember the very first discussion we had as a class where the most controversial question was the question of whether or not it’s right for us to eat animals. Why do we eat animals? I do believe that we eat animals because it has already been a part of our culture. But is our culture really right? These questions puzzled me the most ‘cause even the question of what’s right is a bit unclear to me. I admit that before I had this class, I thought I already knew the answers to these questions, but I guess I was wrong. Up to now, I’m still disturbed by that first discussion we had. Do animals have rights? I’m not really sure. After that discussion about Lisa’s thinking of whether or not she’ll eat her favorite roast beef, I just found myself pitying the animals I’m eating. I don’t really know if it’s just fair and right for humans like me to eat them just because it has already been a part of the said culture and tradition. But if we stop eating animals, wouldn’t that also affect us negatively? Maybe it’s true that all of us have our own purposes in life, and unfair as it may seem for them, but maybe the animals’ purpose of existence is for them to fulfill our basic needs and be eaten.
I always hear my father telling me that it’s never right to fight back. But why did Tony fight Sandy? Must he really fight Sandy? Before I had this class, I had always been sure that the answer’s no. But I guess Philosophy did change my perspectives. The discussions we had as a class helped me realize how engaging to such philosophical questions could actually change a person’s idea of the said topic. After the discussion, I thought to myself, “Maybe there are times when it’s right to fight back, and times when it’s not.” Uncertain as I may be, but I still believe that such small decisions could actually affect my life and result to a big difference and change in it. Sometimes, risks are part of the decisions we make just for us to decide with what we think is good and bad, true and false, right and wrong, fair and unfair.
Even the question of whether or not it’s always right to tell the truth puzzles me up to now. I admit that there were times before when I did lie about a certain thing, but I had always thought that it’s right to tell what’s true, and wrong to tell what’s false. But then again, Philosophy changed that idea of mine. It taught me the quote, “In every rule, there’s always an exception.” But I wonder, is telling the truth even a rule for what’s right? Isn’t it just a criterion for us to judge whether a person has done good or bad? Is right and wrong the same as good and bad? What rules or criteria serve as a basis for such judgments? Based on the class’ previous discussions, rules are created based on a majority’s criteria about a certain thing. Puzzling as it may seem, but such simple questions could really evolve to so many challenging questions and ideas, especially when the terms being used, like rules, criteria and standards, are ambiguous.
Our Philosophy class had talked about criteria as something subjective that depend only on a certain person’s standards, and rules as something objective that are enacted by a certain group of people in authority. But up to now, I still wonder if there really is such word as objective since according to the class’ discussion, rules are created from a collaboration of criteria. Since criteria are subjective, is it okay to say that a collaboration of criteria called rules are also subjective to what a certain group’s standards are? I guess majority doesn’t speak for everyone’s standards, and surely, one person or more would actually think of such rules as something unfair and unjust like, for example, laws. An example could be the topic of cybercrime law. One may think of it as something that’s not fair and right for everyone, but the other one may also think of it the other way around. This may also be like the concept of perfection where one may use his own standards to describe something that’s perfect, and the other may use something that a certain popular group of people has defined as perfect.
After our philosophical discussions, several questions just clash in my mind, and one of which is the question of the real existence of perfection in this world. Can we truly describe something as perfect? Several criteria could be used to judge whether or not a thing or action is perfect. In our class’ discussion of “perfect” face, for example, one may think of Florence Colgate as someone with a perfect face, and that could be acceptable if the criteria to be used is how mathematically perfect her face is. But one may also claim that his crush, for example, has the most perfect face in the world, for his basis has been the feeling and admiration he felt the moment he saw that person’s face. Still, I’m puzzled by these questions that I often find myself looking for more answers. Sometimes, I even wonder if there really is perfection in this world, or maybe man has just invented that word to over-define idealism with perfection.
Talking about feelings and admiration, is it even possible for, say, a twenty year old female to be attracted to a fifty-five year old guy, not to mention the guy’s even her grandfather? Up to now, the question of whether or not Millie has already been attracted to her grandfather remains a disturbing mystery to me. Did she wear that lovely nightgown because she wanted to seduce her grandfather? I’m not really sure, but assuming it’s true, is that even natural? During the class’ discussion, majority said that men are more attracted to women younger than them, and women are more attracted to men older than them. This, according to the discussion, is what’s natural. It has been said that an age gap of about one to five years is acceptable, but how about that of about fifteen to thirty years gap? This question, up to now, is disturbing to me. Many may find this situation impossible and rejected, but Philosophy taught me how unfamiliar situations could really be possible in life.
Taking Philosophy class is neither easy, nor difficult. For me, it’s something in between. For me, it’s something challenging. I had always been the type of person who was not keen to asking questions; especially the questions that I thought were already obvious. But Philosophy changed that. I don’t know, but I just felt the urge to enter this class every meeting that I even had no absences, nor I think, tardiness. In terms of attendance, I think I’m okay. But like what I’ve said, I had always been the type of person who would rather find answers by herself than to ask others questions, the type of person who would rather share her ideas and experiences through writing than to orally tell them in class, the type of person who would rather just listen to what others say than to speak for what she has in mind. And this had been the challenging part for me. This class taught me that it’s always important to question things, even the most simple and obvious ones. This class taught me to speak what’s in my mind, and share my ideas and experiences in class. This class taught me the importance of defending my beliefs and perspectives, and be logical in most situations. I know I have flaws, for I am not perfect. But still, I’m happy that somehow, I had significantly contributed my ideas and experiences in class during my three days of facilitation.
It had been really challenging to facilitate, for there were some factors that prevented me from facilitating well; the fearful ideas I had in mind, the intimidation I felt, the people in front of me, and most especially, myself. I’m really not used to talking, especially in front of a lot of people, intelligent and smart people. I don’t know if their higher level of thinking understood my simple thoughts. I don’t know if they fully got what I was trying to say that time, or their minds just didn’t care about what I was saying. I don’t know if they really agreed with the said consensus, or they just nodded about the idea because they wanted to leave. Funny, but these really were the things I had in mind during that time. It was really my fear to facilitate, but I guess Philosophy helped me overcome that fear. I’m happy that though the facilitation I had wasn’t that perfect, I still experienced the feeling of facilitating a class, not to mention it’s a Philosophy class. I felt satisfied with the positive comments of my classmates, and even the constructive criticisms they left me. I know I have more to improve, and more to prove, and I’m glad Philosophy helped me do that one step towards improvement.
All in all, I can’t really say that I deserve the ideal grade I have in mind. From the class participation to this final paper, I guess I have exerted an effort not enough for the final grade I want. But still, it’s okay because what matters most is not the grade I’ll receive, but the learning experience I had in this class.
I remember that during the first few days of our philosophical discussions, questions in my mind would often pop out like, “Why do we even have to analyze each small details in the episode? Isn’t that self-explanatory? Is that even worth my time? I still have something more important to do than this. Why does this subject make simple things so complicated? Can’t we just live with how things are, and stop analyzing and questioning everything?”
Truth be told, I didn’t really appreciate Philosophy back then. I believed, and still believe that Philosophy does make simple things complicated. But this time, I learned to appreciate it. I learned to appreciate the importance of asking questions that actually have uncertain answers. Science and Math may be subjects where questions have definite answers, but Philosophy is something different. There were times in class when I just found myself frustrated to answer philosophical questions, for I know that the answers to such questions are indefinite. I sometimes hesitate to speak because I’m not sure if what I’m going to say is right or wrong, good or bad, true or false. But this class taught me that it’s never a question of whether my answer is right or wrong, good or bad, true or false, for there are no really definite answers to such questions, and the questions, as well as the answers in this subject, are always limitless.
I remember that day in my high school life where a guy substituted our Christian Living class and claimed that he has been a student of Philosophy. He started questioning the small and simple things about the Bible, and even the fixed ideas we already had in mind. Almost everyone in the class was left frustrated with the questions he left us, but in the end, just found it senseless to answer. This, I think, is what Bertrand Russell’s The Value of Philosophy is telling us. Some people may not easily realize how important Philosophy is, for they think only of what is obvious, and cease to think outside the box. This subject may be something unimportant to those who think only of what is practical in this world, failing to appreciate the help Philosophy could give them in terms of expanding one’s knowledge and wisdom about a certain topic in the society.
I admit that I was one of those people before who failed to appreciate Philosophy. I never wanted to frustrate myself by making simple things so complicated. I always thought that the answers to such questions were mostly indefinite and subjective, so what’s the point of having a consensus about it? Why must students be puzzled about such simple topics? But I guess this class helped me change those perspectives I thought were already fixed in me.
I remember the question, “Why do we ask a question?” Thinking only of the obvious, my mind then answered that we ask questions because questions were made to be asked. But thinking philosophically now, I can say that we ask questions to solve our problems because through enough collaboration of shared ideas, we could actually provide answers and solutions to our problems, and even that of the society’s.
Sometimes, the simplest questions in life could actually answer something that most of us thought was unanswerable, and this is Philosophy. This, for me, is the true value of Philosophy.
hapeanut :) 