TOOLS FOR ANALYSIS: A Discussion Guide
Introduction:
In
Ryunosuke Akutagawa's Rashonon, one of the most relevant pieces in Japan
during the epoch of modern literature, the story suggested that truth is
unreliable; in fact, it is subjective. It is through the grasp of personal
maneuvers that made it so subjective and ought to be changed through a leeway
in personal ideals. Putting it relevantly in Filipino culture, we have a
certain cling to orthodoxy— always limited and hindered by cultural beliefs,
myths and tradition. The divisive culture in primitive-communal times was
strengthened and made stagnant by Spaniards through their indoctrination of
Christianity among the locals. The Americans found even greater benefits of the
Spanish religion and was eventually kept it and used it to pacify progressivity
and unity— reason for toppling the remnants of the Katipunan and performing one
of the biggest unrecorded genocides in human history with deaths numbering to
1.5 million.
Up to
this date, Filipinos remain divided by their own personal politics— and what
stronger politics is there than a politics that is reckoned truly relevant to
oneself? Thus comes the point, personal politics is the truth people convince
themselves with, the truth in which they want to believe.
I.
Reality's Binary Divide
In a lot
of aspects, TRUTH exists and is reckoned by two forces. Hegel, Marx and Engels
found agreements in understanding reality, that there is such a thing as two that
exist: actual reality and perceived reality
Suppose
that cavemen were in the brink of life-and-death crises (a macroscopic view on
socio-political and socio-economic crises). No food and no resources, they
struggle to adapt to harsh environments. At first, they were predators, but the
diversity in prey left them with a world of predators with limited prey.
Hunting soon became backwards, hence discovering farming and the realization of
man being omnivorous. Their discovery for farming emerged from hunting's loss
of efficiency. Now is this survival thought a reality imposed by the cavemen,
or that of the environment?
Darwin
defined the commodification of the environment as a factor of molding one's
adaptability (which is supported by Marxism). Man was open to maneuver his
resources thus discovering innovative ways to survive. But when did man learn
to adapt? How did he learn to adapt? From his mere whim, or through the
changing environment?
This is
a battle of the long-aged argument on what should be more dominant; 'Mind over
Matter,' or ' Matter over Mind.'
Marx
believed that reality is viewed in two separate and contradictory lenses:
through Idealism and Dialectical Materialism. Idealism perpetrates a personal
dictate, in which one should believe what his mind believes. If one is
accustomed to myths, then it will result in subjective beliefs in abstract
ideals, treating concrete reality with malice. With no regard for actual
reality, Idealism envelops the mind in stubborn standards that, at times, do
not fit concrete conditions. This leads people to yield to delusions that
separate them from actual reality.
Dialectical
materialism, on the other hand, considered that there is already an existing
reality that existed even before human conscience and perception. It does not
delve on romanticism to simple phenomenon, rather it views it as it is. It is a
direct abider of the Scientific Method for proving natural occurrences. It
recognizes the divide between two realities: both the actual and perceived
reality, and is by far the closest way to attain objectivity. Therefore it
believes that the latter suggestion of the caveman's survival is more relevant
compared to mere whim.
It may
be true that one's opinion proves his relevance to society, but a society that
accepts all opinions to be true and correct (without criticism) is a society
that is bound to be divided and 'liberally-anarchistic.' It does not strive to
achieve unity, but rather bringing divides to its furtherment.
Applying
Marx's view on the societal superstructure (as made relevant by Prof. Jose
Maria Sison), the country's roots of poverty is discussed in great detail. In Economic Politics, Marx explained that
Culture shall always be based on the country's Political aims (influenced by
the Economy). Since the major crisis for the Philippines is its neocolonial
ties with foreign countries, it affects certain aspects of society that led
Sison to connote that the country dwells in a semi-colonial and semi-feudal
society, not following the normative stages of society.
The
semi-colonial shade of the country's politics is greatly defined by the
neocolonial rule of Imperialism (the United States of America for example), and
thus continues its political influence to the Philippines. This leaves us with
a capitalistic orientation of public representation, in which the parliament
that stands for democracy is easily wooed by capital. This type of influence
for accumulative capital roots to the country's foreign-controlled agricultural
system that keeps the country from pursuing a national industry. Through
furthered patronage to globalization, the country has no opportunity for
independence in economy, and is thus forced to rely on the global markets—
markets in which foreign oligarchs oblige the country to patronize.
The
cultural implication for a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society is defined by
the stagnancy in beliefs. The loss of progressivity and an endless sense of
division took the masses to a belief wherein political leaders have full
control over the land, never criticizing their integrity. This is evident to
even the family system, most basic unit of society. Through feudal means,
children are imposed to systematized futures, treated as investments in order
to repay the hard work of the parents once he finishes schooling. In the end,
this system deadens the analytic nature of people in assessing their
environment. They blather about benefits and insurances, while neglecting the
impoverished majority. They deceive the country by teaching that the country
has already reached a prosperous state, but neglects the fact that the country
still has a backward means of agriculture. They deceive the country by
convincing through maneuvered media that the country is rich in resources via
its Gross Domestic Product, but fails to consider the country's 26.3% Poverty
Index (incidence of poverty in families).
But who
taught everyone that poverty is a challenge from the divine?
II.
The Problem with Pluralism and Pluralist Societies
Pluralism
brings the abomination of vanity in opinions to its prime. No longer
recognizing other potential views, pluralism insists that there is a society
that promotes all beliefs. There is a danger to this, especially in the cloths
of international solidarity hiding every means of exploitation. As a case in
point, Britain's Exit (a.k.a. Brexit) is viewed by the global community as
immaturity of the country, but fails to see its negative implications. Due to
the globalized economy, employees and resources were run short in Britain
because the focus for sustenance lied to the European Union's 19 member
countries, not for the UK. Citing Marx, so long as there is a class system,
there will always be a means of exploitation. It cannot give immediate
resolution to such a crisis in politics and economy, so long as globalization
thrives unrivaled.
Globalization
proves one mega feat in the assurance of pluralism's failure. Globalized
economies have reached their times stagnance periods, solely relying on the
Third World for powering their industries.
This
proves the point of Idealism to an even greater suitability. Pluralism is a
delusion that blinds people into stubborn ideals, neglecting actual conditions.
It deadens critical thinking, and insists scientifically-proven raptures to be
functional. For educators, they are ought to mistake pluralism with
Eclecticism— a style of teaching that inculcates numerous theoretical
strategies (although 'Eclectic' literally means 'odd'). By insisting on mere
theories, the analyst will be sinned of dogma.
Plato's
allegory of the cave substantiates man's view on the two truths, and justifies
the irrelevance of opinions. The shadows and echoes represent the opinions
molded by the environment. The slaves are man's current condition. The wall, the
figures and the fire represents the visible world that hinders the advance of
man. The free man symbolizes enlightenment, proving his theories relevant in
practice, thus owning his world. With insights on Dualism that emerged before
Hegelian dialectic, you can divide the image into two parts: the darkened part
influenced by false propaganda and the part of enlightenment and
self-discovery.
Idealism
would view hardships as a form of divine intervention, as if everything and
every phenomenon in the world is but a challenge by a divine savior. But
Dialectical Materialism views these hardships beyond its superficiality, and
aims to root its causes. That alone is already an effort to conquer the
Shakespearean shade: the wall of discovery, recognizing that society is
actually being controlled by conquering elite.
III.
The Continuum of Arguments and Evolving Problems
Absolutism
is a trend to Idealism. One of the famous absolutists is Niccolo Machiavelli
which spoke the phrase, 'the ends justify the means.' He plays with morals and
brings people to an ultimatum – his trolley problems – which limits them to
view circumstances in linear perspectives. But in fact, all circumstances have
numerous factors for occurring in the first place.
This
absolute moral has greatly plagued the logic of discourse, and thus developed a
people that grew accustomed to errors in arguments. Thus, the fallacy was
patronized.
Here are
some of the most common fallacies committed throughout the internet and even in
actual discourse (University of Idaho):
Excluded
Middle Fallacy - paints an issue as one between two extremes with no possible
room for middle ground or nuance or compromise.
Emotional
Appeal - any attempt to sway an argument via emotion, rather than the quality
of the logic or evidence, can be considered a fallacy.
Moral
Equivalency - two moral issues carry the same weight or are essentially
similar.
Red
Herring - refers to changing the subject mid-debate, so that we start arguing
about a tangential topic rather than the real or original issue.
Semantics
or Equivocation – using the inherent ambiguity of language to distract from the
actual ideas or issues, or deliberately rephrasing the opposing argument
incorrectly, and then addressing that rephrasing.
Straw
Man - One side of the argument is presented as so extreme that no one will
agree with it. Often this is done by referring to the exception, rather than
the rule, and inferring that the exception is the rule.
Problems
are expected to be solved, but Idealism plagues the thought of finished
problems to yet another array of problems, thus the Sisyphus Complex or the
view that everything, however it may turn out, is futile. However, Dialectical
Materialism debunks these limits, and suggests that all contradictions evolve
in form.
Marx did
not romanticize his theories on the attainment of communism as the highest
societal stage. Rather he viewed it as the highest stage for now, until
society reaches such a point that will be able to discover even better forms of
society.
IV.
The Attainment of Clarity
Achieving
the truth is but a delusion. It is not possible. What is more logically
possible is to search for accuracy in facts. Objectivity is always the solution
for maddening circumstances, that is why opinions have this special feature of
becoming objective, no matter how self-centered it can be.
To
attain objectivity in opinions, pay attention to the following (UniLearning):
1. Make
your claims relevant to the target audience
2. Always
speak/write in Third-Person Omniscient Point of View
3.
Integrate your argument expertly into the structure of your overall argument
(Sandwich Method)
4.
Assure proper referencing; always use in-text citations
5. Never
be didactic in any conclusive part.
Relevant
Hyperlinks:
Comments
Post a Comment