"Critics do nothing but criticize," does sayeth his fellow critic. "They should all stop criticizing and start doing something, for their irritating complaints are no help at all," does sayeth the critic of critics. The critic being criticized then said to himself, "when would the one criticizing what I do realize that he had also became one of us (critics) the moment he criticized us? And so ended the story.
It is typical for anyone being criticized to kill the message by killing the messenger, while the object of criticism that motivated the messenger to articulate his critique is not addressed at all. Indeed, one of the great mysteries of human interaction is for the inability of some to distinguish the difference between the person who took action and the action of the person. What do I mean by that? For example, if I say "you are stupid, and you won't succeed in life," and "since you have not pursued your education, the chances of you succeeding in life is lesser," can we tell the difference?
"You are stupid," clearly is an ad hominem argument and "you won't succeed in life," for lack of evidence to validate it, is an unfounded statement and thus, not credible. "Since you have not pursued your education," represents a cause in which the effect is "the chances of you succeeding in life is lesser." The former makes a personal judgment and a declaration without a specified reason while the latter explicitly explains why one will not succeed. The latter example also points out that the action of the person is the object of criticism, i.e., having not pursued your education; the former lacks having action as the object of criticism but instead directly ascribed the person as the one being criticized. I hope that enlightens some of you regarding the difference between criticizing the person and the action of the person.
Going back to the critic of critics, one of the most common is that critics do not critique enough. Perhaps beholden to relationships that complicates their ability to criticize, due to a culture that acknowledge submission to any action of elders (regardless of whether those actions are wrong or not) as right, and customs that find inaction and silence as virtuous, critics are forced to make concessions to prudence, while prudence becomes tainted as an ally of wrong.
Another limitation of critics is the unavailability of absolute truth/s. Subjective facts and supposed objective perceptions of individuals are restricting factors, which seriously dampens the credibility of even the most credible criticism. We do not know anything more than what is exposed to us and whatever is exposed to us does not necessarily mean all are truthful. There is a certain degree of lie and a measure of truth to all that is said, whether it is because it was intended or by mere accident.
Last mentioned but not the last of such flaws, critics are humans too. They make mistakes, create unwanted divisions, challenge established institutions, and stir what need not be stirred. The last is debatable when it comes what ought and ought not to be stirred; but when it comes to the decision of the many to decide what is to be criticized, critics may or may not care. They are motivated by their belief that they are doing what is right, not because they have the approval of the many. As such, a true critic does not care whether he or she receives recognition for his or her actions as much as they do not care when the whole world is against their criticism.
For their strength lies in their knowing that what they do is for the common good. Courage comes from the ability to face reality and discuss issues as it is. Hearing only things that is pleasant to the ears is not a trait of critics. Thus, a critic ought to listen when he or she is being criticized, hoping that he or she would learn something from his or her critics.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Philippine Political Lingo as I Know It (haven't read Corruptionary YET)
Warning: Read at your own peril my perceptions on the "definition" of Philippine political terms
(1) Makisama (No English Equivalent) - (ibig sabihin) pakitigil ang pagpuna po, please.
- (English translation) please stop your criticism.
(2) Makibahagi (No English Equivalent) - sumama po kayo sa aming bulok na pamamaraan.
- please join us in our corrupt ways.
(3) Katunggali (Opponent) - kadugo na kalaban sa pulitika
- relatives as political rivals
(4) Kamag-anak (Relative) - pinaka-maaasahang kabalikat sa pulitika
- most ardent political supporters
(5) Halalan (Election) - pinaka-madugong panahon sa politika
- bloodiest period in politics
(6) Balimbing (Turncoat) - pinaka-matagumpay na uri ng politiko
- (English translation) most successful politicians
(7) Sumabak sa Politika (Join Politics) - umaasam ng malaking kapalit
- its payback time!
(8) Volunteerism - trabahong may kaunting kapalit
- job with little compensation
(9) Utang na Loob sa Politika (Debt of Gratitude in Politics) - utang na dulot ng politika na binabayaran ng mga nahalal na kandidato.
- Political loans paid by elected officials
Legend:
No English Equivalent - Only in the Philippines!; Proudly Philippine Made
English Translation - English translation
More to come.
(1) Makisama (No English Equivalent) - (ibig sabihin) pakitigil ang pagpuna po, please.
- (English translation) please stop your criticism.
(2) Makibahagi (No English Equivalent) - sumama po kayo sa aming bulok na pamamaraan.
- please join us in our corrupt ways.
(3) Katunggali (Opponent) - kadugo na kalaban sa pulitika
- relatives as political rivals
(4) Kamag-anak (Relative) - pinaka-maaasahang kabalikat sa pulitika
- most ardent political supporters
(5) Halalan (Election) - pinaka-madugong panahon sa politika
- bloodiest period in politics
(6) Balimbing (Turncoat) - pinaka-matagumpay na uri ng politiko
- (English translation) most successful politicians
(7) Sumabak sa Politika (Join Politics) - umaasam ng malaking kapalit
- its payback time!
(8) Volunteerism - trabahong may kaunting kapalit
- job with little compensation
(9) Utang na Loob sa Politika (Debt of Gratitude in Politics) - utang na dulot ng politika na binabayaran ng mga nahalal na kandidato.
- Political loans paid by elected officials
Legend:
No English Equivalent - Only in the Philippines!; Proudly Philippine Made
English Translation - English translation
More to come.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Political Virtue - Cincinnatus
Today, we celebrate the 232nd celebration of American independence.
To commemorate such event, I shall cite the legacy of Lucius Quinctus Cincinnatus, a Roman stateman who, by surrendering the power he lawfully assumed as appointed Dictator of Rome merely sixteen days after his assumption of the supreme political office, became a symbol of political virtue in the ancient Roman Republic.
On the other hand, one of the main intentions of the founding fathers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution was the limiting of governmental powers among the equal branches of government found in the concept of Separation of Powers and System of Checks and Balances.
Indeed, political virtue to the American founders was not embodied in a single individual, serving and giving his best to the interest of the nation; on the contrary, it is in the effort of any individual serving the nation to commit to self-restraint when it comes to exercising, and extending derived power.
In short, STICK WITH TERM LIMITS. DO NOT THINK YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE QUALIFIED. AND EVEN IF YOU ARE THE BEST, THE CONSTITUTION AND SOME LAWS MAY PROHIBIT SEEKING RE-ELECTION.
If you think you are the only one qualified, then you are full of yourself.
Democracy is not the rule of the best (that is aristocracy), it is the rule of the people.
And try imitating the one being described below.
Then perhaps you may know what truly being a stateman is.
To commemorate such event, I shall cite the legacy of Lucius Quinctus Cincinnatus, a Roman stateman who, by surrendering the power he lawfully assumed as appointed Dictator of Rome merely sixteen days after his assumption of the supreme political office, became a symbol of political virtue in the ancient Roman Republic.
On the other hand, one of the main intentions of the founding fathers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution was the limiting of governmental powers among the equal branches of government found in the concept of Separation of Powers and System of Checks and Balances.
Indeed, political virtue to the American founders was not embodied in a single individual, serving and giving his best to the interest of the nation; on the contrary, it is in the effort of any individual serving the nation to commit to self-restraint when it comes to exercising, and extending derived power.
In short, STICK WITH TERM LIMITS. DO NOT THINK YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE QUALIFIED. AND EVEN IF YOU ARE THE BEST, THE CONSTITUTION AND SOME LAWS MAY PROHIBIT SEEKING RE-ELECTION.
If you think you are the only one qualified, then you are full of yourself.
Democracy is not the rule of the best (that is aristocracy), it is the rule of the people.
And try imitating the one being described below.
Then perhaps you may know what truly being a stateman is.
In Forma Pauperis
"Equal Justice under the Law," thus sayeth the words on the front face of the marble roof of the U.S. Supreme Court Building.
But justice remains elusive when citizens "more" equal among their peers have greater access to the judicial system by virtue of their considerable means.
Although, at least in theory and in terms of political rights, we are all equal, to say that political equality necessarily entails economic parity has been the subject of philosophical debates since the beginning of recorded history, and the object of great disagreement among the ancient, medieval, and modern thinkers of all disciplines. Indeed, Plato's notion of a republic ruled by state-raised guardians certainly influenced Karl Marx's conception of "the worker's paradise" and the justification for an enlightened few which would lead a society of laborers towards a communist utopia.
More so, both were an attempt to solve human inequality in terms of sustaining human needs by bringing together and blurring what Hannah Arendt describes as the difference among labor, work, and action. By dissolving the boundaries of political and economic action, a society of equals was expected to be born. However, it was also an attempt which Arendt describes as a shrouded and tyrannical response to ease the "burden of rule" of citizens.
In the Roman Republic, citizens were divided between the patricians and plebians, the rich and the poor. The aristocrats, although they were few, held political power through hereditary succession in the Roman Senate, and through right by birth in the offices of the state such as the praetor and the sought-after consulship. Nonetheless, as Aristotle observed, since most of the times the poor are the many, and the many thus composes the majority, the poor, as the majority, can exert political influence and could become a force to be reckoned with.
One does not need to mention how the ancient Athenian democracy was founded to make my point. But by the end of the Roman Republic, the plebians established among themselves the office of the tribunes - officers of the state which came from the plebians and held tremendous power over the affairs of the plebians. The aristocrats, fearing the power of numbers, made considerable concessions to plebians, rights and powers not held by them under the republic since its conception; to appease the many who were threatening a rebellion, the few yielded to the many and thus, the republic found stability.
But what is the lesson of the story? Treat them fairly, or they may rise up in rebellion. Give them enough breathing space, and they will co-exist with you. The protection of individual rights cannot be realized when extreme social inequality exists in society; in extreme cases, it could threaten the stability of the republic, if nothing is done to mitigate the plight of the unfortunate.
If subsidizing justice means providing the poor with counsel or lowering the threshold of those eligible to free counsel, then so be it. The Philippines is still an industrializing country, not an industrialized one. When the time comes that they are able to afford access in the justice system, then that is the time to charge fees in order for them to access the courts of law. After all, the poor does not typically involve themselves in civil cases; what they do not have is money and property. They are more exposed to criminal cases, and criminal cases, in modern liberal states with common law traditions, recognize the right to free counsel of the accused.
All in all, we must reevalute current laws that pertains to the accessibility of the courts of law and see what can be done to give more access to those who cannot afford access to it.
For justice equates to equality. One ought not to say that the degree of justice one can attain depends on the means one can expend. As to the question of whether political rights necessarily entails economic rights, I leave the inquiry for philosophers to think about.
But justice remains elusive when citizens "more" equal among their peers have greater access to the judicial system by virtue of their considerable means.
Although, at least in theory and in terms of political rights, we are all equal, to say that political equality necessarily entails economic parity has been the subject of philosophical debates since the beginning of recorded history, and the object of great disagreement among the ancient, medieval, and modern thinkers of all disciplines. Indeed, Plato's notion of a republic ruled by state-raised guardians certainly influenced Karl Marx's conception of "the worker's paradise" and the justification for an enlightened few which would lead a society of laborers towards a communist utopia.
More so, both were an attempt to solve human inequality in terms of sustaining human needs by bringing together and blurring what Hannah Arendt describes as the difference among labor, work, and action. By dissolving the boundaries of political and economic action, a society of equals was expected to be born. However, it was also an attempt which Arendt describes as a shrouded and tyrannical response to ease the "burden of rule" of citizens.
In the Roman Republic, citizens were divided between the patricians and plebians, the rich and the poor. The aristocrats, although they were few, held political power through hereditary succession in the Roman Senate, and through right by birth in the offices of the state such as the praetor and the sought-after consulship. Nonetheless, as Aristotle observed, since most of the times the poor are the many, and the many thus composes the majority, the poor, as the majority, can exert political influence and could become a force to be reckoned with.
One does not need to mention how the ancient Athenian democracy was founded to make my point. But by the end of the Roman Republic, the plebians established among themselves the office of the tribunes - officers of the state which came from the plebians and held tremendous power over the affairs of the plebians. The aristocrats, fearing the power of numbers, made considerable concessions to plebians, rights and powers not held by them under the republic since its conception; to appease the many who were threatening a rebellion, the few yielded to the many and thus, the republic found stability.
But what is the lesson of the story? Treat them fairly, or they may rise up in rebellion. Give them enough breathing space, and they will co-exist with you. The protection of individual rights cannot be realized when extreme social inequality exists in society; in extreme cases, it could threaten the stability of the republic, if nothing is done to mitigate the plight of the unfortunate.
If subsidizing justice means providing the poor with counsel or lowering the threshold of those eligible to free counsel, then so be it. The Philippines is still an industrializing country, not an industrialized one. When the time comes that they are able to afford access in the justice system, then that is the time to charge fees in order for them to access the courts of law. After all, the poor does not typically involve themselves in civil cases; what they do not have is money and property. They are more exposed to criminal cases, and criminal cases, in modern liberal states with common law traditions, recognize the right to free counsel of the accused.
All in all, we must reevalute current laws that pertains to the accessibility of the courts of law and see what can be done to give more access to those who cannot afford access to it.
For justice equates to equality. One ought not to say that the degree of justice one can attain depends on the means one can expend. As to the question of whether political rights necessarily entails economic rights, I leave the inquiry for philosophers to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)