Aquino, John Roger S.

Project – PSP 323

David Hume

Hume argues that human experience is as close are we are ever going to get to the truth,
and that experience and observation must be the foundations of any logical argument. I stand
with his view that human experience is closest to the truth and that experience and observation
must be the foundations of any logical argument. How does one know if it is true if he does not
have any idea or experience that this certain thing happened or existed? We can say that Hume is
somehow a phenomenologist because he is getting the experiences of the people. It is true that
expression and observation must be the foundations of a logical argument. One must need to
observe first or have an experience before arguing in order for that person to have a sound
argument. One must not jump into any discourse without any idea, and only by observing or
having experience about a certain topic for them to have a valid argument. People nowadays
usually engage themselves in a discourse, especially when it comes to political arguments. They
sometimes forgot that they sound foolish because of their arguments. On his second belief, I
respect his idea that is impossible to deduce the existence of God from the existence of the world
because causes cannot be determined from effects. We all have our own set of beliefs. He maybe
believed that we must not have confidence in the existence of God just because of the existence
of the world, for there are various theories that might be the real answer on why the world
existed. I, for one, believe that the world as we know today exists because a supreme being, like
a god, did all the work. But I am also open for other theories that will prove how the world today
has come to be. We must be always open for ideas, for these ideas might be the cure for our
ignorance. I’ll be happy to know the truth, for the truth will really answer all my questions.

Charles-Louis de Secondat Montesquieu

Montesquieu became famous for his idea about separation of power that it became an
inspiration to the constitution in a number of countries. I agree with his belief that the powers of
the government must not be focused only in one branch to avoid tyranny and abuse of powers.
By doing this, no one power would be able to overcome the other two, either singly or in
combination. Montesquieu's philosophy that "government should be set up so that no man need
be afraid of another" prompted the creators of various Constitution to divide the government into
three separate branches. If the power is only seated to one branch, or to a one person, it usually
ends to abuse of power. They have the power to do what they want regardless if it is right or
wrong. It is only rightful that we have a separation of powers, for without it, there will be a
tyranny of the ruler/s.

Immanuel Kant

Categorical Imperative by Immanuel Kant states that one should act only in such a way
that you would want your actions to become a universal law, applicable to everyone in a similar
situation. For example, if you helped someone who is in dire need, help him because you really
wanted to and it is really your duty to help, not because of merits or something in return. In
another example: if you are going to kill someone, make sure that you wanted to kill as if it to
become a universal law, applicable to everyone in a similar situation, also applicable to you. If
only people apply this Categorical Imperative to themselves, our society today might be a little
less violent, and more people will be happy to serve and help without hoping for something in
return. If these people only think first before they act, our society might be a little more peace-
oriented. Living in a society where altruism is the norm would be a good, and it will always start
with the people.

Revolution and Counterrevolution

While it is a true that a tyrant government must be abolished, we should not forget its
roots. For these roots were the reason why this government existed. We should only just remove
the tyrant leader, and preserve its customs and traditions. Burke and Paine thought us that we
should not be afraid of going against the flow, if this flow abuses our rights, or it violates our
common principle. We should fight a government that disregards our needs and rights, but we
should do it in a peaceful way, and as I’ve said, just by ousting the tyrant leader. Because the
tyrant government is always the fault of a tyrant leader with self-interest, usually disregarding
the rights of its constituents. No matter who is the incumbent, regardless how powerful they are,
we should always make way for a revolution in order for us to free ourselves from the shackles
of the tyrant.
Romanticism and Idealism

Hegel is perhaps the most influential of the German Idealist philosophers with his idea
that each person's individual consciousness or mind is really part of the Absolute Mind. Humans
tend to act because of this absolute mind, and without it, we would act without thinking. This
absolute mind helps us do certain actions, for this absolute mind is the manifestation of our soul.
I also agree with his concept of advanced dialectic, where he developed the thesis (the current
situation), the antitheses (contradiction of the current situation), and the synthesis (the result or
outcome of this contradiction). He believed that laws evolved because of this triad of
development. Unlike Aristotle’s dialectic where the synthesis is the final form, Hegel argues that
this new synthesis will transform to thesis, and it will then undergo antithesis, and then synthesis
again, a never-ending process which shapes our laws and society. One example of this would be
during Martial Law period. The term of the presidency was 4 years with re-election based on the
1935 Constitution; this was the thesis. Upon declaring Martial Law, Marcos then abolished the
1935 Constitution and it prolonged his term; this was the antithesis. Upon the ousting of Marcos,
a new Constitution was made, and the duration of the terms of the president was changed. It was
changed from 4 years with re-election to 6 years without re-election; it became the synthesis.
Because of the experiences we’ve had, and because of this triad of development, our laws
evolved to what we know it as of today.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, is a belief that one must act so as to promote the greatest number of
pleasure or happiness to the greatest number of people. I’m not in favor of this belief because the
rights of the minority will be disregarded if we strictly follow this. Although it is good because it
promotes the general welfare of the people, this utilitarian principle usually results to the tyranny
of the majority. For example, a serial killer is at large and the people in the society are starting to
be worried about their well-being. The police, in order to make the people in the society feel
safer, arrested a guy just for the purpose of him being a fall guy. While it is true that the people
will feel safer knowing that the authorities have arrested the serial killer, how about the rights if
this person being a fall guy? Promoting the greatest number of pleasure or happiness to the
greatest number of people might mean that the rights of the minority will be disregarded to
achieve these.
Early Socialism/Industrialism

This early socialism or industrialism belief can be connected to the ideals of Karl Marx. I
am not in line with the view of Proudhon where there is no central government, like a state in
anarchy, and there will be just contracts or a mode of reciprocities made by the union or
federation of manufacturers and industrialist. The police force will be replaced with collective
class. In this state, there will be a lawlessness and conflicts of interest. No one will control this
unions or federations, and this collective class and groups usually have their own motives upon
making the contracts. I am more inclined to support the idea of St. Simon, where the society will
be ruled by the technocrats, or those who really have knowledge or expertise in certain aspects,
like Aristotle’s view in his Kallipolis. One should just focus on his or her field of expertise in
order to prosper, and this will be good since they are knowledgeable.

Marxism

Upon reading some excerpts from the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx, my view
about the society, the capitalist society somehow changed. It is true that there is always a class
struggle which dated back years ago. There is always an exploitation on the working class, or the
proletariat, by the capitalist, or the bourgeoisie. These capitalists will continue to exploit or abuse
the rights of the working class if they can so that they can gain more than what they are paying
the working class. The working class is a slave to the bourgeois and its machineries. But, upon
the abolishment of class struggle, the state will wither away and it will lose its purpose. It is
important for me that this working class will work without being exploited and their basic needs
will be addressed by the capitalists because without them, there will be no working force in the
society, and thanks to them, our works have been reduced. They are the one serving us, so it is
only right that we give them what is rightfully theirs, and what they deserve.
Liberalism and Aristocratic Conservatism

I agree with Mill with is view that an individual him/herself will have the power to
preside over his own body and mind. Self-protection is the sole end which justifies interfering
with the liberty of other people. One should have the freedom of thought and expression.
Everyone should enjoy their freedom provided that there is some limitations to it. Man is free to
do anything unless he harms others, and individuals are rational enough to make decisions about
what is good and also to choose any religion they want. Free discourse, with the freedom of
speech, is important for social progress. Without it, there would be no class of ideas on how one
should rule the society, provided that this freedom has a limitation. I believe that they are free as
long as they will not cause harm to others. But on the other hand, I do not agree to his idea that
the government should not have a participation on the conduct of its society. Without this
participation, there would be chaos, people will do anything they want. By the participation of
the government in our society, it helps in maintaining the stability and order.

Nationalism

From what I have learned in our class discussion, too much love for country will make
you a dictator. Like what happened to Hitler. He became a dictator and wanted to exterminate all
the Jews for he believe that the Aryan race is the superior race and he did not consider the Jews
as a people. He blamed the Jews for the loss of Germany in World War I. Well, it is good to have
a deep love for your country but by having a strong sense or too much nationalism in oneself can
have a negative effect on how you treat others. It does not teach tolerance to the belief, norms,
and cultures of other society, for you are only inclined to you nation’s belief, norms, and culture.
Another one is that it allows uniformity, rather than diversity. We came from different cultures
and races, and each of us has our own set of beliefs and norms. We cannot compel them to
follow ours if it is against their belief. It will spark chaos if we forcibly indoctrinate them with
our belief. We will become a dictator that will tell people what to do and what to believe.
History and Neo-Idealism

It is true that our laws evolved from status to contract. Before there were no written laws,
only customs or set of customs for people to follow. With the emergence of modern era, written
laws were created and the customary laws were the basis of it. In the customary laws, if you are
an offspring of a slave, you too will also be treated as a slave if you are more likely to become a
slave. Today in the modern laws, you need to enter into a contract to become a domestic helper
stating that she accepted being a domestic helper. Also, I think that the state should base its
action from the will of the people not on force like how Green sees it. They should keep in mind
the general will and welfare of the people. Also, the state should have the sovereignty so that
they can protect the rights of its people and to avoid invasion of these rights by or from within or
outside the state. Their function is to protect the rights of the people, not to create is so that the
people can freely extend their exercise of rights.

Irrationalism and Psychology

I stand with the view of Friedrich Nietzsche that a man needs to have the power or the
will not to follow what was dictated to him especially by religious sectors. For some values of
religious institutions are not acceptable at all times. Like Mill’s view on Liberty, a man should
have a freedom to do whatever he likes as long as he does not harm other people in doing so.
Also, Nietzsche’s view can be connected to ethical relativism. A man, is not always superior. His
actions or judgments might be acceptable in one society, while on the other hand, it is not
acceptable to the other. It is also true that man is a value giver. Without value, a thing is just a
hollow shell of its own. We should also know how to obey ourselves, for those who cannot obey
themselves will be commanded. My stand stays the same with the view of Wallas that a political
decision can be affected in two ways. The irrationality of the decision-maker and the impulse.
Usually it is the impulse that can affect the decision-maker since our feelings usually get the best
of us when deciding on certain things. We tend to make actions out of anger which usually
impair our ability to become rational.
The Elitist

These three elitist were correct when they stated that the elite was concerned with power
while the mass was interested only in better material conditions. They pointed out the advantage
of being an elite, and the ruling of the elite is inevitable because they are the few minority with
organized mind compared to the majority with unorganized mind. One can always identify an
elite in a group because of the way one talks or how one presents his/herself. The society is
composed of different antagonistic groups, mainly because of interests, sex, or age and these
differences resulted to social stratification. I do not agree with them that those with high intellect
deserve high position. It is a case-to-case basis because some intellectual people are arrogant and
proud, disregarding the sentiments of those inferior to him.

Anarchism, Democratic Socialism, and Marxism

Lenin was right when he said that we should give more political participation to the
working class, to the farmer, and to the peasants. We should not imprison them to the
economic activities so that their political awareness will be improved. They should respond
to all cases of tyranny, oppression, violence and abuse, no matter what class is affected. It is
also true that state is the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilability of the class
antagonisms. The state arises when, where, and to the extent that the class antagonisms
cannot be objectively reconciled. It is, the state, a special organization of force, an
organization of violence to oppress some class. The powerful also has the power to set the
cultural norms, thus establish a cultural hegemony by influencing the norms and cultures of
other people.