2023-04-27

Last updated Aug 15, 2023

#IDS147

• In this novel, we meet a young man, Meursault. He lives day-to-day, doing the tasks which he feels are expected of him but does not seem to feel any true emotion. He is not sure why he does what he does and does not realize his actions can have destructive consequences.
• Trigger warning: This novel has violence and destruction of others and self. Unlike Brave New World, which is set in a world very different from our own, Meursault’s world is highly relatable. Its systems are literally our systems and the lives of the characters are very similar to our lives. Because of this, Meursault may feel eerily like us. But his choices should not be our choices. As you read, bear in mind that the destruction of others and the self is NOT an option.
• Here are some questions to help anchor your reading:
  • Why does Meursault live the way he does? How would you describe his “style” of living?
  • Is he making choices or are circumstances acting upon him?
  • Is he a nice person? Why is he likeable enough?
  • When he commits his act of violence, is it out of a personal choice? Or was he being acted upon by circumstances?
  • Is he conscious of making choices and decisions?
  • Are you sympathetic?
• Before you proceed, watch this short video on Camus’s philosophy of the absurd.
  • “If the world were clear, art would not exist.” - Albert Camus, “The Myth of Sisyphus: Absurd Creation” Art would not exist in a clear world
  • Coming from a background of violence, Camus pondered: “If the world was meaningless, could our individual lives still hold value?”
  • Existentialism
    • Existentialists believed people were born as blank slates, each responsible for creating their life’s meaning amidst a chaotic world
    • All people were born with a shared human nature that bonded them towards common goals
    • One such meaning was to seek out meaning despite the world’s arbitrary cruelty
    • Camus viewed humanity’s desire for meaning and the universe’s silent indifference as two incompatible puzzle pieces, and considered trying to fit them together to be fundamentally absurd. This tension became the heart of Camus’ Philosophy of the Absurd (Cards/Absurdity), which argued that life is inherently futile.
    • Exploring how to live life without meaning became the guiding question behind Camus’ early work, which he called the “cycle of the absurd”
    • If life is truly meaningless, is committing suicide the only rational response? Camus’ answer was an emphatic no. There may not be any explanation for our unjust world, but ==choosing to live regardless is the deepest expression of our genuine freedom.== Choosing to live is an expression of freedom
    • All of humanity is in the same position as Sisyphus. ==Only when we accept the meaninglessness of our lives can we face the absurd with our heads held high.== As camus says, when the king chooses to begin his relentless task once more, One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
    • Camus’ contemporaries weren’t so accepting of futility. Many Existentialists advocated for violent revolution to upend systems they believed were depriving people of agency and purpose. Camus responded with his second set of work: “the cycle of revolt”
      • In The Rebel, he explored rebellion as a creative act rather than a destructive one Rebellion is a creative act
    • Camus believed that inverting power dynamics only ledto an endless cycle of violence. Instead the way to avoid needless bloodshed is to ==establish a public understanding of our shared human nature==
      • “The cycle of love”
• The video explains to us that to Camus, life is essentially meaningless. Hence, it’s absurd. But, the destruction of self is not an option. ==As life is meaningless, then even more so, we exercise our freedom to actually FIND meaning or CHOOSE to live a life of meaning.==
• Question: Given Camus’s philosophy of finding meaning in absurdity, did Meursault die happy? Why or why not?

• 7 Life Lessons from Albert Camus
  • Introduction
    • Absurdism: Human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe
    • Camus wanted to distance himself from Existentialism
    • Camus believed that absolute freedom must be balanced with absolute justice
      • Too much freedom: the strong suppresses the weak
      • Too much justice: kills freedom
      • Freedom as a constant given; humans are condemned to be free
      • It’s possible to achieve freedom and justice at the same time without compromise
    • Life has no meaning; the universe simply exists and is indifferent to people’s lives
  • Create your own meaning for life
    • “You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life”
    • Man’s existence is absurd as there is no justification for it
    • Human values do not have a solid external component
    • Everything is man-made
    • 3 ways to deal with the absurdity of life: suicide, faith, acceptance
      • Suicide and faith are irrational escapes from addressing the contradiction between the human desire for meaning and the indifference of the universe
        • Suicide: person removes physical form that was on charge of finding life’s meaning. Without the human mind, the absurd cannot exist
        • Faith: the human being embraces irrationality and arrives at a certain concept regarding life’s meaning, which defies rationality. Camus also considered faith a philosophical suicide, because faith defies rationality, irrationality being the opposite of a philosophical argument.
      • What remains is acceptance. Acceptance leads to individual freedom, you can create new meanings and you can even create yourself.
        • Acceptance is in essence Camus’ core belief in how someone should live their life. The sooner you accept meaninglessness, the sooner you can become free
    • There is no absolute meaning of life; the meaning of your life is different to the meaning of someone else’s.
    • How to apply: stop thinking that your life must be a certain way. Live like no one is watching you; you are absolutely free to choose how your life will be.
      • Meaning acquired from life circumstances -> meaning chosen on your own
  • Don’t make happiness a distant goal
    • “The struggle itself towards the height is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”
    • Most of us crave “security”, the feeling of being safe. And we pin our hopes on security on shifting variety of goals (a.k.a. Cards/Tangibles). We think we’ll be able to achieve peace once we acquire these
    • The more we chase for the things we believe we want, often the more unhappy we become.The secret is to learn to enjoy the process and to not mind so much about the goals. The more we can enjoy the process of achieving our goals, the happier we become and the finalgoals can even start becoming irrelevant.
    • Instead of seeking happiness in the goal, find joy in the process ( See Happiness v.s. Joy in Cards/Discernment)
  • Don’t be ignorant
    • “The evil that is in the world almost always comes from ignorance and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.”
    • The world is in need of a new and simpler morality, based on fairness and team spirit
    • The man with the right information and knowledge would always choose to do noharm to others.We live in an interconnected world and we are social beings, therefore no man with enoughintelligence would choose to harm others, as the harm would come back to him eventually.The morality of absurdism is very much rooted in empathy and the practical aspects of life,having a lot to do with fraternity between people and the application of fairness principles.
    • How to act: be informed; don’t take things personally
    • The only way we can break the vicious cycle of hate is refusing to continue to hate.
  • Be a rebel
    • “I rebel, therefore I exist.”
    • A rebel is someone who learns to say no.
    • We need to get rid of the desire to please others, because we would waste our life otherwise. We have only one life to live and we need to live it more authentically.
    • Your freedom to be who you are and express yourself is too precious to be traded formoney or for a higher status in society. It would make you feel unhappy and would add stress to your life, affecting you mentallyand even physically.
    • To be alive is to rebel
  • Spend time with yourself
    • “Solitude, a luxury of the rich”
    • The surest way to live in solitude is to have enough money to afford to livealone, to travel alone, to work alone, and to spend your holidays on private beachesinstead of crowded shores. Money can buy you solitude, although it doesn’t buy you an absurd life.However, solitude makes it possible for you to have enough time with yourself to meditate on the absurdity of life, to find out that life has no meaning but the one you give it.
    • How to take action: find a window of time where you can be by yourself
  • Be flexible
    • “Blessed are thehearts that can bend; they shall never be broken.
    • The one who can survive in extreme situations is the one who can adapt the best, accordingto the theory of evolution itself.
    • Also, some scientists even consider that flexibility is at the heart of human intelligence.
    • Aron Barbey, Professor of Psychology at The University of Illinois proposed that the brain’s dynamic properties drive human intelligence. Making smart decisions, adapted to the circumstances, can prevent our heart from being totally brokenand, in time, we can heal.
    • What’s good for one situation may not be for another. The world is always changing, and we need to adapt to new circumstances
  • Choose Love
    • “Nothing in life is worth turning your back on, if you love it.”
    • Love is an act of rebellion and it is the force of life, giving us a shield of protection against being broken by the absurd.
    • To apply this lesson in our life, we need to live more in the present, to learn to express our love for other people more often, without pondering too much about what the future will bring to those relationships.

• So far, in this course, we have explored the modernist concepts of alienation, fragmentation, absurdity, as well as issues of finding the self and finding meaning. We have also explored how our economic and political systems have had very challenging effects on the individual and our sense of ourselves. In our novel for module 4, which is the very suspenseful yet very moving Patron saints of nothing by Filipino-American Randy Ribay, we get to explore these same concepts as they are expressed in contemporary times.
• Before we begin, though, it is important to make a distinction between what “modern” means and what “contemporary” means. 
  • Modern, as I’ve defined in this class, is more ==a way of seeing or a way of perceiving, just as it is a way of be-ing.== In which case, “modern” is not attached to any real time frame (although the sensibility has been more marked after the industrial revolution).
  • “Contemporary”, though, means “this same time”. In other words, “contemporary” is not a sensibility or way of perceiving or being. Rather, it refers to ==a specific time, analogous to our lives today.== Patron saints of nothing, then, is a contemporary novel as it was published in 2019, pretty much during this time, this generation, that we are in.
• As we read and discuss this novel, pay close attention to how the modern concepts we have discussed play out in the lives of the characters of the novel.

• The novel begins with the dedication, “for the hyphenated”. It’s an interesting audience to dedicate a book too as what is a hyphenated person anyway? Let’s explore this a bit.
• When we hyphenate a word, we connect two words to make them one. Or, we connect two concepts to make them one. But, when a hyphenated word is written down, we see the two distinct words and the hyphen that somehow connected them. The connection is necessary because there may not be a word for the concept that is expressed by two words hyphenated together. So, a hyphenated concept would be one that is composed of two distinct concepts, made into one, but the two concepts do not blur into the other. Rather, ==they remain distinct but unified. Or unified in their distinct-ness.==
• Considering this brief analysis of what a “hyphenated” concept could be, who do you think the book, Patron saints of nothing, is dedicated to? What could be an hyphenated person? Feel free to also explore other ideas on what ‘hyphenated’ means!

In my eyes, I believe that Filipino culture is inherently hypenated. Due to our centuries-long history with colonization (e.g. Spanish, Japanese, Americans), our culture is a mixing pot of international influences, and it’s impossible to imagine Filipino culture without them. And this struggle with being hypenated is expressed most in our colonial mentality: the internalized belief that we are inferior to our colonizers.

I’ve experienced this in how I learned languages. Growing up, I was taught English first instead of Filipino. While this allowed me to speak English with complete mastery, my Filipino suffered. It doesn’t help that I went to a high school that mainly taught in English, and that English is considered a native language in the Philippines. Because of this, I always felt insecure about my identity; how can I claim I’m Filipino when I’m not good at speaking the language?

# Fragmentation

• The related concepts of fragmentation and alienation are visible in the novel. Between the two, fragmentation is more clearly connected with the idea of a hyphenated person as ==this kind of identity would have different, distinct fragments, that make the whole.== So, some questions to think about:
  • How are the characters in the novel made up of distinct parts that may ‘battle’ with each other? And how are these parts, no matter how distinct or in conflict, making up a whole? 
  • What are the causes for fragmentation that you see with the characters? There may be different causes for each one. 
  • Would you say that fragmentation is an essential element of who each character is?
• But when we think of fragmentation, we also need to consider that ==societies can be fragmented as well.== We can ask similar questions about societies/cultures:
  • How are the societies/cultures of the novel composed of fragments? What seems to be ‘wholes’ of these societies/cultures? And what are the fragments? What causes the fragments?
  • How are these fragments an important characteristic of these societies/cultures?
• And then, we can also think of fragmentation as ==visible in our lives== today:
  • How are you fragmented? How do these fragments seem to struggle against each other? What enabled these fragments? How is your own identity the total of ‘warring’ parts?
  • How are our lives and societies fragmented today?
  • How do fragments shine through?

Fragmentation is also expressed in my identity as a polymath. I have multiple passions – design, dance, education – and I want to pursue them all! These fragments shine by making me more unique; in an increasingly competitive world, being a T-shaped person (someone who has one speciality, but also has a range of related skills) will get you far in life. Unfortunately, having multiple interests as a polymath can also be a struggle, because there is only so much you can do with your limited time and energy. I often burn myself out because I always want to do everything; learning how to discern and focus was a hard but necessary skill for me.

# Alienation

• Aside from fragmentation, the characters of the novel experience various expressions of alienation. We can start examining alienation through our main character whose diasporic (Philippine-American) heritage makes him both fragmented and alienated. But apart from his heritage, there are other forms of alienation that he experiences, which involve his family, friends, the society he lives in. So some questions to as:
  • how is Jake both fragmented and alienated?
  • how do the conditions of fragmentation and alienation contribute to his overall personhood?
  • what factors lead to the alienation he experiences?
• But aside from Jake, we get the sense that other characters are alienated too! How do other characters experience alienation? Are they alienated from themselves and others? From family? What factors lead to the alienation?

I definitely believe that Tito Maning experiences alienation. He is strongly commited to his beliefs; he is not only loud and imposing when it comes to these beliefs, but he also looks down on others who don’t align with him. Thus, he ended up becoming alienated from the rest of his family. He is estranged/distant from his siblings because of their “wrong” lifestyle choices (e.g. same-sex marriage, migrating abroad); meanwhile, even if his daughters remain physically close to him, he is alienated from them as well because they are harboring secrets from him (e.g. owning technology, having relationships).

• Are there any indications in the novel on the meaninglessness of life? Any incidents that seem so absurd to you?
• But, at the same time, does the novel have anything to say about how meaning and happiness can be found?
• Let’s talk about Jake. How does he seem to be carving a sense of meaning for himself? How does a longing for meaning shape the decisions he makes? What about the other characters? Are they finding meaning? How? Or are they just coasting along? 
• What factors make it difficult for all the characters to find meaning?
• What makes it difficult for YOU to find meaning?

In Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, self-actualization is at the top. One cannot attend to this need without first fulfilling lower needs, such as esteem, love and belonging, safety, and physiology. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to find meaning when you are in survival mode, a.k.a. living day by day just focused on getting by. Unfortunately, this applies to majority of Filipinos. Most of their time and effort has to be spent on addressing their lower needs – especially nowadays, costs for goods are mostly higher while acquiring jobs is getting harder

• Jung reminds us about how hard it is to look deep inside ourselves to find ourselves. How is the journey toward self-knowledge critical in the conflicts that you see in the novel, particularly those that have to do with Jun and Jake? From these two characters, what do we understand about the terrifying but wonderful journey toward self-knowledge?
• What factors also get in the way of self-knowledge?
• What about the other characters? Have they found themselves?
• What about you? How is your journey to self-knowledge?

It’s one thing to acquire self-knowledge, but it’s another to actually act on it. Being self-aware is only helpful when it can lead to personal development. But in a world of lengthy personality tests, informative Instagram carousels, and too real Tiktoks, one temptation people often fall to (myself included) is acquiring tons of self-knowledge, but not doing anything about it. For instance, I am very aware of how I use work as a coping mechanism for dealing with deeper problems. Unfortunately, I often tend to be a workaholic and burn myself out, even though I know that it’s a harmful inclination for me.

Why is the concept of the Patron Saint of Nothing, which Jay wrestles with at the end of the novel, so modernist in itself? Just a thought to play with!

Given that they are always assigned to certain people/places/things, patron saints represent specialization. I believe “patron saint of nothing” is a fit term to describe both Jay and Jun because of their identities as hypenated people. They struggled with fragmentation, as seen in Jay with his Filipino-American identity and Jun with his values and addiction; they also had to deal with alienation, as seen in both boys’ alienation from their families. Overall, we can see in the novel how both of them were struggling against external and internal forces, which is characteristic of modernism. I believe that unlike the saints, patron saints of nothing do not know how to fully define themselves, amidst all these forces – and perhaps may even refuse too. Jun and Jay have definitely exemplified this concept.

In this module, we briefly examine what it means to be a responsible individual, in an age where self-knowledge is very important. How do we become responsible while living in conditions of fragmentation, alienation, absurdity, and all other factors that wreak havoc on who we are?

Here is a video of a lecture written by Albert Camus. Camus himself read it when he won the Nobel Prize for Literature in the 40s. In this version, the actor, Viggo Mortensen, reads it. It’s called “The Crisis of Man”. I know the title is inappropriately gendered but let’s give it to Camus who was writing from a different time. But, do pay attention to how Camus’s ideas still remain important today. Personally, I think they’re more important today!

Is the crisis that Camus wrote about in the 40s still visible today? How is that crisis manifested?

I definitely believe that this human crisis is visible today – an elevated indifference to great human suffering. It’s the reason why people believe history always repeats itself. Whenever we overcome evil, it seeps back into our lives when we forget about it, and in turn become desensitized to it. The most relevant example of this to me is the revival of the Marcos legacy. Despite all the human rights violations that occurred his time, the atrocities of Marcos Sr.’s regime were glossed over by his surface achievements (e.g. infrastructure development, raised economy). And majority of the Filipino population (31 million voters to be exact) allowed this happen because of their indifference to past suffering.

Modernism tends to be quite inward-looking. Would that be selfish, do you think? How is the idea of responsibility for others reconciled with an inward-looking perspective? Or there is no conflict between responsibility for self-knowledge and responsibility for others?

During one of his lectures, my DLQ prof was talking about the circular nature of love; self-love is fulfilled by loving others, and in turn, loving others is fulfilled by self-love. Thus, in a society that leans towards workaholism, he said that choosing to rest is a form of service; this is because it sustains the quality of your work for others. After all, can you really serve well if you haven’t even taken care of yourself? Thus, despite how contradictory it sounds, I believe that responsibility for others can be united with a modernist perspective.

And now we come to the end! I hope you enjoyed the course as much as I enjoyed teaching it. What I would like you to remember as we end this course is all this fragmentation, alienation, absurdity, the pain of the journey to self are inevitable. They are part of living in this mortal coil of ours. But, even as much as all these are an inevitable part of truly finding ourselves, there is a part of them that arises from the unjust material conditions we find ourselves with. So, as you face the rest of your lives, consider how you can help everyone on their journeys to self and how you can make conditions less harsh and more enabling.

#EDUC101i #education #history #philosophy

1. What is your own Philosophy of Education? Which of the philosophical perspectives discussed in this course align to your Philosophy the most? Explain this by providing concrete examples. 
2. What do you think has influenced this philosophical perspective?
3. How does your proposed school’s philosophy align to/ is not aligned to your own philosophy of education?
4. What is the value of articulating a Philosophy of Education? (as a future educator/ and/or in your own prospective careers if you deem it relevant)

• My philosophy
  • Cards/Constructionism
  • Cards/Popular education
  • Cards/Critical pedagogy
  • Ivan Illich: Deschooling, convivality, and life-long learning
• Existentialism
  • Reality is constructed by the individual
  • The knowledge that one needs to pursue is the knowledge about the human condition and the personal choices one makes
  • Education = individual growth and decision making
    • schools should recognise that every student is a free, unique, and sentient being with personal fears, hopes and aspirations
    • Existentialists are critical of schools that overlook and suppress this individuality in students and view students as a collective and passive whole to serve the needs of society. Rather than dehumanising them, schools should provide a broad education with many options for students to explore, reflect on and articulate their convictions.
• Philosophy v.s. Theory
  • One good exercise for the educator is to reflect on and write down his or her educational philosophy based on one or a combination of educational philosophies presented in this chapter. This will help clarify the educator’s conviction, values and direction in the teaching profession, thereby sustaining his or her passion to teach and lead.
  • Educational philosophies refer to complete bodies of thought that present a worldview of which education is a part, while educational theories focus on education itself and on schools

1. Philosophy of Education:
   1. Characteristics
      1. Metaphysics
      2. Epistemology
      3. Axiology
   2. What this aligns with the most: Existentialism
2. Influences
   1. My background in the arts: as a creative, studying in a liberal arts school under the school of humanities..i am definitely biased
3. How this aligns with my school
   1. My philosophy is Existentialism: critical theory
   2. My school’s philosophy is Pragmatism: progressivism; reconstructionism
   3. Similarities
      1. Both tackle societal systems?
      2. Both aim for students’ growth
   4. Differences
      1. Individual experience v.s. external reality
         1. Existentialism focuses on individual experiences (students’ own experiences, history, identities and struggles)
         2. Pragmatism takes a societal approach, always considering the external world
      2. Critical v.s. conformist
         1. They are also skeptical of the hidden curriculum which refers to the values, behaviour and attitudes conveyed to and imposed on students through the milieu and practices of the school in a capitalist consumer-oriented society.
4. Value
   1. One’s philosophy affects how they design learning experiences
      1. One good exercise for the educator is to reflect on and write down his or her educational philosophy based on one or a combination of educational philosophies presented in this chapter. This will help clarify the educator’s conviction, values and direction in the teaching profession, thereby sustaining his or her passion to teach and lead.
   2. Knowledge of the various educational philosophies and theories can also help educators analyse and solve current educational issues, challenges and problems

Thinking of my own philosophy, I identify the most with critical pedagogy: “a philosophy of education that encourages the students to be critical towards their reality – its power structures, contradictions and flaws” (The Necessary Teacher Training College, 2022). Teachers seek to awaken their learners by posing problems, creating spaces for growing critical consciousness, creating plans for collective action, and developing a sense of agency (Constanza-Chock, 2020). This philosophy aligns the most with Existentialism, which believes in the following: (1) reality is constructed by the individual, since it’s inherently meaningless; (2) since our perspectives are subjective, what needs to be known is the human condition and one’s personal choices; (3) what is valued is freedom, responsibility, and authenticity, since values are found within people. In line with all of this, Existentialists education aims to awaken awareness in the learner by cultivating individual growth and decision making. Instead of dehumanizing learners by treating them like objects (which is what most schools do with mass education), schools must treat them like the subjects they are, and allow them to explore, reflect on, and articulate their convictions — which is exactly what critical pedagogy strives to do.

I believe that the experiences of the minority have played a big part in shaping philosophical perspective. Only those who struggled to thrive in school, and in turn society, would’ve thoguht of the unforgiving nature of these spaces. As a neurodivergent woman of color, I can definitely relate to this. In a world where everything seems to be designed, I often feel like I can’t find a place for myself. Getting exposed to critical theory was life-changing for me; after growing up thinking I was the problem, I realized that the systems we’re all embedded in are broken. Thus, I believe that education should be working to disrupt the status quo, instead of simply maintaining it.

While my own philosophy of education is based on Existentialism, my proposed school’s philosophy is based on Pragmatism, which believes in the following: a dynamic universe, thought done for action, and the relativity of truth. Both of these philosophies focus on the individual experience. Rejecting the universal and absolute ideas upheld by formal schooling, they believed that taught knowledge must be relevant and personal to the learner. They also share the same aim for education — growth. However, they varied differently in terms of approach. Pragmatists saw education as preparation for a changing world, so learning was treated as a sensory experience, wherein learners explored the world around them. Meanwhile, given that they saw education as an instrument of awakening, the Existentialists’ treated learning as an intuitive experience, wherein learners went deeply inside themselves. Because of this, the rebellious Existentialists would see the Pragmatists as conformists, who see the practical as what is good for society. Lieberman (1985) summarizes this conflict well: “The crisis of…education is one of finding ways in which the demands of social conformity may be reconciled with the intrinsic natural diversity in human beings”.

In my eyes, a Philosophy of Education is like a compass; by spotlighting your North Star, it guides you on your teaching journey. As an aspiring designer, technologist, and educator, my own North Star is convivality: “individual freedom realized in personal interdependence” (Illich, 1973). Illich believed that advancement in production not only disabled people from freely using their natural abilities, but also prevented them from connecting with themselves and others. I believe this still applies to the Philippines; as a top destination for outsourcing labor and a testing grounds for social media platforms, exploitation is a fate destined for many here.