Protagoras and “Numbers” (Part 2)

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.

Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans (Part 1)

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

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

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.

Art: Moral or A-moral

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?

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

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

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

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

Confucius on Education

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.

Theology and the Limitless Queries of Human Reason

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.

‘Reason ought to be slave of the Passion’ – David Hume

The month of February is known to many as the month of the hearts. During these times, people who are full of love and who are loveless are meditating on how they are going to celebrate love. Love, as we know it, is not only intended between two lovers. Love is for everyone, between family members, classmates and schoolmates, girl or boy, rich or poor, elder and younger people. The effect of love is to spread and to share it to all. As they say, love comes from the heart. But love is now being manipulated by reasons. It is not that bad at all so long as it does not go against the nature of love.

As expected by many, the fruit of love is good. This good comes from favourable actions done by anyone to anybody. And since everyone is good, this goodness would naturally come out from everyone. When the result is bad, then, that is not the manifestation of love, but rather a manifestation that reason or the manipulator is using love for other purposes, and their intention is artificial – flowing unnaturally. And they would remark proudly that ‘we are doing it in the name of love.’ But the right thing to say is ‘we are doing it with the use of love.’

David Hume, a British empiricist, asserts that reason ought to be slave of the passion. Here one may think of him that he is the promoter of pleasure. The connotation of the term passion is related to it. But following his thought in one of his writings Enquiry on Human Understanding, he has that good intention of saying it. And what is it? He says that No amount of reasoning can persuade evil people (those with evil desires) to any course of action except that which already attracts them. Two points can we get out if this statement. First is that many people are manipulating the objective meaning of love and their true calling to love others. These people have evil desires, for the result of their action is not good. And the second point is that, being intelligent and possessing intelligence is not a guarantee that he is formed to be loving person.

The resolution to this scene is right for Hume. A person with evil intention could not produce good results. It is because that person thwarts the real nature of love. It is only when that person, having the right intention of loving, could produce hundreds of positive relationships. A piece of advice to intelligent people is: follow your passion to love, and not waste your intelligence on your unreasonable reasons of being unloving.

Knowledge of the Experts

This area of concern is what I call Doing Epistemology. It is a field in philosophy wherein the manner of knowing something or of one’s concern is being investigated. There are many ways of getting to know things or realities that attract our interest. However my article focuses on one certain area which is somehow related to our traditional way of life.

In matters of life’s concern, nowadays, seldom do people take a serious step with it. As some would say ‘life is so short’ so live life to the fullest with wise decision and discernment. In life it does not matter only the ‘what is’ but it’s the ‘what there is.’ It is a kind of knowledge that only few wants to possess it, learn from it, and perfect it. There are only few because it seems to be old-fashioned, obsolete or non-modern. But the fact is, it is more than knowledge; it is wisdom. But people in our day would resort for some pieces of advice from their friends, closed buddies and other figures who they regard as ‘knowledgeable’ in any particular field. Yet the questions remain: are they enough, or suffice for what they seek for in life for improvement?

Knowledge derive from them may be considered skin-deep. They may have read some good books, be specialists about the subject matter but this seems to be inadequate. They may have collections of theories, tested with scientific procedures but if it is with plain experience is still consider implausible. Our Filipino tradition tells us that we should learn to take good care of the old people in our society for their physical presence doesn’t indicate that they are weak and inutile, but since they have been here in this world for a long time before we came into existence, they would have possessed, perhaps, some varying degree of wisdom.

The wisdom that they have possessed and experienced could not be exchanged with multi-awarded royalty of publishing books. Theirs are real praxis who dwelt, felt the pain, stayed through thick and thin, and lived with all the hassle on subject about life for such a long time. Thus if we want to know the wisdom of celibacy, go to the religious people; if the subject is about teaching, see a teacher; or about love, consult one’s parents who happen or about to celebrate and renew their love and commitment for each other. Wisdom with long lived experience could not be compared to wisdom acquired through a lot of reading materials. The pragmatic adage experience is the best teacher sums the thought of this insight. Use our judgment when we seek for knowledge from the experts who are but successful in particular field or aspect of life.

Phenomenological Attitude

I would like to throw out some questions to inquire about ourselves that would lead to the topic. How do you see other people – as an object available to be used anytime or as another self like you and me? How do you treat him or her – as an enemy that ready to devour your comfort zone so that respect on you may be out of the way or as a person that lets you to take the risk of invading your being a person?

This topic is relevant in enhancing one’s relational skill. Everybody needs to be connected in a positive way to yield a good relationship – in the family, friendship and other identified groups of people.

Our times is being bombarded with negative thoughts, prevailed to put up barriers so as others may not have the chance to interact with each others as fellow human beings as another image of God. Or maybe a pre-conceived ideas and experiences that hinders us from having an authentic relationship with others, and that is tantamount to commit a wrong attitude of being biased and prejudiced. What would be the alternative to the problem of relationship so as to create a healthy, humane and value-oriented environment?

It’s the perspective of phenomenology. By this it allows other person to be as he is and to grow without being ‘boxed in’ in the first place. Through it there is no place for bias, prejudice or pre-conditioned generalization to protect our comfort zones or personality but a place for fraternal correction for one’s growth without sarcastic remark, professionalism, respect and appreciation for the giftedness of that person. This is especially true for all followers of the Master and Teacher, and even He himself welcomed, entertained and mingled with prostitutes, tax collectors, zealots and criminals to realize the plan of his Father

We our not in total control of all the events in our daily lives, for there is many worlds that exists aside from our own world. As Maurice Mearleau-Ponty, a French existentialist philosopher said that the world is not what I think, but what I live through. Another injunction would suffice his thinking the 'sane' man is not the one who has eliminated all contradictions from himself so much as the one who uses these contradictions and involves them in his work.

My final remark to this is coming from a text message sent by one of my friends. It goes this way: our feelings come from our thoughts. Then what is the conclusion? We can control our feelings by learning to change one thing: the way we think.

The limitation of partiality

Conviction about anything is a by-product of one’s perspective, decision and biased in life. And one of the contentions of conviction is characterized as partiality. Partiality could be applied in our day-today situation either as something positive or negative. Take a look at these instances.

• As of 9AM today, FPJ got 6,000 votes and GMA 5,000 votes. (Partial pronouncement by NAMFREL.)
• A college student received failing grades in some of the subjects, and he thinks he can’t do it to achieve his dream of acquiring the degree starting to make a future plan to stop schooling. (Partial doubt.)
• A catholic believer is not convinced about the whole truth or statements stated in the Apostles’ Creed. (Partial suitability maybe.)
• A man was accused of stealing, and he must be that way forever as claimed by conservatism-mentality. (Partial judgment.)

The implications for fruitful and healthy outlook in life going beyond partiality are:

• Partiality challenges us for totality;
• Partiality makes us extend our virtue of patience;
• Partiality gives us enough space to improve our understanding;
• Partiality suspends inhumane rogue judgment;
• Partiality teaches us to be broadminded;
• and partiality helps us to focus on the good side of everyone

...until we achieve the better picture of wholeness of the state of affairs. The pitfall of partiality-attitude is promoting half-truth and half-lie, thus offending other people and winning no trust and confidence in any future dealings. W. Norris Clarke, a retriever on the thoughts of Aquinas, explained that man by nature is searching for an integrated vision of reality as a whole. Thus partiality is good, only, if and when, in relation to wholeness. In short, partiality has no place of its own but finds its home in the wholeness.