I’ll be uploading a full preview of grades later this week, for now I’d like to recognize the top achievers in what has been a challenging and demanding quarter for everyone. Congratulations to all!
Also being recognized now are three people who received the first A++s of the school year. An A++ is computed as 125% and is given to those who have turned in really original and cutting edge work. They got this from the synthesis papers.
Here are some updates for FIELD TRIP this Saturday.
1. I strongly encourage everyone to pack light. The hiking trail can be slippery and tight (single file) in some parts so the less on you, the better. You will be allowed to leave things on the bus, but keep your valuables with you at all times.
2. I will allow you to wear shorts, specifically your PE shorts or cargo/hiking shorts (cuts below the knee). Just be reminded that jogging pants are recommended to protect you from gashes and cuts, and insect bites. If you choose to wear shorts, I take it that you understand the risks.
3. In relation to #2, bring insect repellant.
4. We are expecting rain in the afternoon. We will get wet. Bring rain jackets with a hood.
5. We are expecting heavy traffic on the way home due to the opening of SM City Calamba. We hope to beat the traffic in the morning by getting to UP Los Banos early (there is a large chance that we’ll miss the visit to Jose Rizal’s house), but expect some delays. We will be providing DVDs for your entertainment.
6. We encourage everyone to bring their own drinks if you want something other than water (which we will provide).
7. In case you forgot, lunch will be provided.
8. For the dormers – there will be no breakfast at the caf on Saturday morning. I suggest you bring/pack something from the previous night. We will provide a little something for everyone in the bus for a light morning snack.
9. THERE WILL BE NO BREAKFAST STOP OVER ON THE WAY TO UP-LB. There will be a 15-minute stop over for CR only.
10. Here are the only drop-off points on the way home:
Baker parking lot at UP Los Banos
Caltex SLEX near Filinvest-Alabang
Shell C5 Northbound (near the flyover to Market, Market)
11. If you want to arrange for a pick-up, your parents/guardian must personally contact me and arrange this. My mobile number is in the letter.
12. Assembly time at the FRONT LOBBY AREA is 5am. Please do not be late so we can minimize delays.
Thanks very much. Will update you again by Friday in case something else comes up.
For LT2 (also known as the 2nd Quarter Major Essay or THE Essay Part of the Perio) tomorrow (or Friday for Champa and Ilang), bring 2 sheets of yellow pad and all your notes and texts. The essay tomorrow will be OPEN EVERYTHING.
The question will be similar in style to Quiz #4 where I asked about the superpower status of China. The essay tomorrow will connect themes from the 1st and 2nd quarters. If you feel you need to make up for the exam today, this will be your final and biggest chance.
Good luck!
No need to review. Free your mind and impress me once more tomorrow.
I’ll be available the entire afternoon and early evening of Tuesday and morning of Wednesday for your questions and discussions. Come in groups of no more than ten (can be from any section). Here are the available slots. Reserve through here, FB, text, or in person. First come, first serve! During your time slot, see me at the Faculty Center.
BRING YOUR QUESTIONS OR ELSE WE’LL HAVE NOTHING TO DISCUSS!
This post is inspired by Sam Harris’ TED talk. However, I may not necessarily believe everything I’m about to write. I’ll explain that at the end.
It is traditionally held that science — both the thinking and the method — has nothing to say about morality. Its genius is in telling us how the world is the way it is, but it can never really tell us why. It can teach us about the planet, but it can never provide a good enough rationale for why we should take care of it.
For these whys and so whats, we traditionally turn to religion, or at the least, to culture. There is nothing intrinsic in knowing the amazing complexity of the human anatomy that tells us why we should take care of it (actually, this complexity compels a class of people to slice it up and take it apart), but in grasping the notion that we were created in the loving image of a benign creator, we begin to take heed. That class of people who slice it up and take it apart then do so with caution — and usually only on the lifeless — and do so with the purpose of learning about it and then using this knowledge to better the lives of their fellow human beings. It is this very value that makes them surgeons, not butchers.
And that value cannot be derived from scientific fact, but from religious doctrine. Hence, the division of labor: science tells us how, religion tells us why. But is that really true? What if we treat a value as a statement of fact? Because, in a large way, it is.
The surgeon, knowing that he and his fellow men are created in the image of God, will never — even with all his expertise — walk up to a pedestrian, pounce on him, and conduct open heart surgery on the sidewalk. That religious belief instills in him a respect for human beings, thus setting boundaries on what he can and cannot do to fellow human beings. The way this religious belief operates in this surgeon is not as an opinion (“I think it’s not okay to hurt another person in public”) but as fact (“I know it isn’t okay to hurt another person in public”). Hence, value is a statement of fact.
But we don’t even have to go to religion.
In Philippine society, we cannot go to work naked (and I think this is true for most societies). We eat food three times a day (and we reach out to those who can’t). We do our best to finish school. We work hard to earn a living. We respect the wisdom of our elders. We hold the family in high esteem. I can go on and on. All these are values. And to those who hold them, they are statements of fact. To be particular, it is a fact we know about our well-being. It’s something we know we have or do in order to live a better life.
However, what happens when values come into conflict?
I’m not referring to simple differences in taste (I like white chocolate over milk chocolate) or aesthetic preferences (I live the combination of blue and orange). I’m referring to a real difference of opinion over how best to live our lives.
In the heat of the RH Bill this past week, I began reading up on Mechai Viravaidya. He is affectionately known in Thailand as “The Condom King”. Since 1974, Mr. Mechai has initiated community-based family planning services as the center of a poverty reduction program. Essentially, he gave out condoms for free to anyone who would — or even would not — take it. In a TED video that has to be seen to be believed, a Buddhist monk blessed him on his journey. And at the height of the AIDs epidemic in Thailand, his program helped reduced HIV cases by 90% percent — ninety percent! He’s a hero in Thailand, and an advocate of reproductive health all over the world.
And yet, not too far away, a neighbor with a majority-Catholic population is at a 14-year logjam over a Reproductive Health Bill. At the heart of the fight is the country’s Catholic Church, holding its line against a bill that will provide free condoms (among other contraceptives) and reproductive health education and services all using taxpayer money. With the majority of the taxpayers being Catholic, and having been taught that the purpose of the sexual act is to create a child, the moral dilemma of this public policy is clear as day. There can be no promotion of artificial methods of contraception therefore, in a country where majority is taught to use only natural means. This belief then informs other arguments: that overpopulation isn’t the real problem, that the economy should be grown instead, that the politicians — corrupt as they are — are trying to control the population instead of changing their own ways.
Therefore, who is right? With values coming into conflict, who holds the better argument: The Condom King or the Catholic Church?
Note that these two aren’t even engaged in a debate. We are looking at two different values in two different cultures. Ah, there’s the problem then! These are two different cultures! There are different contexts here. Different dynamics!
And yet when we see images of Afghan women wearing a burka under the scorching heat of the sun. Or when we hear of the latest drunken mishap of the likes of Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears. Or when we learn of girls in Africa being stoned to death by her own father after finding out she was raped. Or when a golf superstar commits adultery. Or when we see the images of the Twin Towers crumbling to the ground after terrorists drove a plane into them with the belief that heavenly rewards await them. When we encounter these we don’t choke it up to cultural differences. All these scenarios represent values of a sort, and we know it in our gut that there is something wrong.
Often we think — who are we to say if the Condom King or the Catholic Church were right? Indeed. But who are we not to?
For when we take values as statements of facts, then they can be subjected to experience, to research, to tests. Thus the implication being that it is possible for a person, or an entire society even, to believe in the wrong things.
The Catholic Church once considered Hindu-Arabic numerals as the work of Satan. They cast out whoever believed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, but merely one planet revolving around a sun. And there used to be a time when it was forbidden to say Mass in any language other than Latin. All of these are in the past.
In the midst of the RH bill row, I confronted a Catholic seminarian with this question: What if you’re wrong? And he began to enumerate the examples above. The Church, he says, is always in a process of discernment. The will of the Holy Spirit is a mystery that continues to be revealed.
I respect that. However the implication of discernment is that one must be ready to be wrong. And in the seeming uncompromising stance of the Church on the RH bill, they don’t come across as being in discernment. But to be fair, I suppose it is indeed difficult for an institution that premises itself on being the Truth, the Way, and the Life to be wrong. The only difference now, is that they are living in a world where that isn’t necessarily true.
END
[Now for the caveat]
I mentioned in the caveat that I may not necessarily believe in what I wrote. These ideas are not mine, but an application of the ideas currently being set forth by Sam Harris in his upcoming book, “The Moral Landscape”. For a preview, you can listen to his amazing TED talk.
So why don’t I buy all of it?
Just this: Because if Harris’ views reflect his values, then it is possible — empirically — that he is also wrong. It is a self-defeating proposition.
In philosophical terms, Harris is more of a moral realist. It is a certain view that presupposes that there is a standard for right behavior that can be discerned through empirical observation. This is opposite of the moral anti-realist or even the moral relativist, which is more humanistic in the sense that they take into account context, history, and levels of meaning. Perhaps a prime example of this is Karen Armstrong (a person I can describe more a ‘moral pluralist’) in her view that all religions are true in their own contexts and they really just speak about achieving One Thing (Nirvana, Moksha, God, Way — all One Thing).
Harris’ view is useful in public policy, I think, but it doesn’t necessarily make for good politics. Armstrong is the opposite. I think there is great wisdom in listening to both, but where does that lead me? Moral realist or moral pluralist?
In the spirit of World Teachers’ Day, a quick introspective.
I was digging up my blog for an old piece I wrote back in ’03. I found it. At the ripe young age of 20, I had my heart set on teaching. It wasn’t the most ambitious thing in the world, but you can’t tell from this paragraph –
But, why teach? Simply put, I wish to convey a message of hope. Especially in a country such as ours that is fraught with despair and disillusionment, what I wish to create in my future students are new possibilities for themselves and for their country. During these times, we need “all hands on deck”; not a citizenry who will just “abandon ship.” Like my teachers of the past, I will criticize ruthlessly, but inspire creatively. I will push my students to their limits, but be fully aware of their individual talents and capabilities. I will be a mentor, maybe even a friend; bottom line is that they discover for themselves what they can do and that they do it the best they can. They can be leaders or writers or whatever they desire. I choose to teach as homage to the influences that have made an indelible mark on my life. To make my own mark in the betterment of others’ lives is an ambition that I am sure will fulfill me the greatest.
Convoluted, heady, and wordy but hey, I was twenty. I’m turning 28 in a few months.
I’m genuinely pleased though. It’s been quite a while but I still believe in the same things. I’m a little surprised though that back then, I already spoke about conveying a message of hope. All this while I thought it was something that slowly emerged as I mastered my ability to communicate and reach out. To this day I still believe that we need all hands on deck. We become the change we seek.
I am amused at the part about criticizing ruthlessly but inspiring creatively. I’d like to think that I’ve become kinder when it comes to dishing out criticism. I’ve always believed in the best in each person, and the years haven’t made me more cynical when it comes to this. Realistic in the sense of being practical, yes, but not cynical. And inspiring creatively? I’ll just make my work speak for itself.
Then there’s that part about being a mentor and maybe even a friend. Since then I’ve never really seen myself as one of those teachers who would form genuine give-or-take friendships with students. Pouring my heart out always felt uneasy, and I only do so when my personal story inspires them to better themselves. But regardless of the type of relationship, what’s clear to me is the objective: to help them discover for themselves what they can do and to help them do it the best they can. That’s why I enjoy working with AKSIS, the Batch, and the PTA. With them I get to be a coach, facilitator, and organizer as well. And together we all achieve great things — things I never imagined myself doing when I was a idealistic kid of twenty.
Of course, the past six years have had their ups and downs. I’ve had my fair share of failures and disappointments, but all they did was enrich me and make me stronger. I am now at that phase in teaching where I’m working on the foundation I’ve built through the years. I no longer undertake crazy experiments (as my earlier students will attest), but I’ve learned to take smarter, more calculated risks. The knowledge I have now at times feels very massive (I know more stuff than I have an idea what to do with), and yet I am still learning, developing, and taking chances. I’m still reading books and challenging my own paradigms and views. The problem, as has always been, is that I’m never really contented.
And why is that?
Because I’ve always believed that I am most fulfilled when I help others fulfill themselves. What I didn’t foresee then was that fulfilling myself wasn’t an end, but a means. By expanding the horizons of others, I’ve made mine infinite; anything can happen now. And what teaching has made me into is not that different from what I was back in twenty — convoluted, heady, and wordy.
The only difference now is that I’m still hopeful. I still believe. In a world given to cynicism and doubt, my students have done a mighty fine job of helping me keep the faith. This day may be for the likes of me, but we do it for them.
