SABLAY, Angelo Miguel R.

INTFILO C33

April 6, 2016
Final Exam

1. Why or when is something Good?

Unfortunately, there is no clear-cut definition, one that is agreed upon
by everyone, of what is to be considered as good. There are many ethical
theories that each propose its own definition of what is good, of what is moral,
or of what is ethical. To decipher my own definition of what is good, I first
have to go through the propositions of each ethical theory and then decide as
to which theory I agree the most.
Starting with ethical relativism, this theory argues that the definition of
good is relative to the beliefs and practices of the society where one is in. For
example, dog-eating is to be considered as moral in Yulin, China because the
act is already part of their tradition. I disagree with this theory because it
proposes a constantly changing definition of what is good depending on where
you are. It also fails to account for the tradition itself whether it is good or
bad. In such case, do I suddenly become ethical when I commit fraud because
I am an employee of Enron a company that has a tradition of fraudulent
activities?
Hedonism, on the other hand, proposes that something is good if it
satisfies pleasure and desire. In this theory, studying for an exam is good
because it satisfies the pleasure of desiring to know or wanting to perfect an
exam. I find it hard to agree with hedonism because it is too individualistic
and self-centered. For example, if someone gets pleasure from raping children
(and in which case, there really are pedophiles), then the act of pedophilia
is justified and the pedophile is moral and ethical. Should the victim then be
denied of justice or revenge because the act is justified by the fact that it is
the pleasure of the pedophile, and he was only satisfying his pleasure?
Stoicism is the opposite of hedonism. This theory considers indifference
to pleasure as the moral norm. It is founded on the principles of patience, selfsacrifice, and perseverance. In this theory, to be moral, you must ignore your
desire to watch the NBA Finals and instead study for your exam tomorrow. I
would of have agreed with this theory but then it ultimately hinders human
progress. To be more specific, we must first acknowledge that there is
pleasure from learning, as indicated by my example in the previous paragraph.
If one must ignore pleasure, then an inventor, innovator, or scientist that
derives pleasure from learning or innovating will not thrive to learn more or
let his ideas flourish because it is immoral. What if his idea was the internet?
What if his idea was the cure to a disease? Is it still immoral just because it is
his pleasure to think and innovate?
In the middle of hedonism and stoicism is epicureanism which teaches
that good exists in the balance of pleasure and indifference to pleasure.
Overeating is bad behavior as well as hunger. Since this theory tries to balance

pleasure and pain, it defines three groups of desires in which everything falls
into. Natural and necessary such as food, natural but unnecessary such as
sex, and unnatural and unnecessary such as fame. I disagree with
epicureanism because, similar to hedonism and stoicism, it defines good
through the satisfaction of the end or the desires of man. Because it focuses
too much on the end, it is unable to settle what is moral for the means. For
example, is the act of stealing food moral if the objective is to get satisfy the
natural and necessary desire for food?
Another ethical theory is situationism which proposes Christian love as
the criteria for what is good. Christian love, which is mostly correlated with
agapeic love, is the care and concern for others. What is good is what shows
the most concern for others. This theory fails to convince me as it puts the
individual in the least level of concern. Personally, I think the good should
consider all stakeholders the individual, the persons nearest to the individual
or those directly affected by the action, and the society as a whole. Add to
this its difficulty in deciding what is good in gray area situations. For instance,
should a Hitler be killed if his existence causes the hardships of many others?
The Holocaust was against the beliefs of Christian love, but so is killing a
person, in this case Hitler. Whose welfare should be of greater concern?
Mightism is another theory of ethics. It argues that power and control is
what defines morality. The actions of the ruler are always good, and
supporting the ruler will be the good. This is because the ruler is the one that
has power. Similar to situationism, it fails to conclude decisions in gray areas.
My specific concern with mightism is this: if the good lies in the one that has
power, and the power is with the ruler, what if the people overthrow the ruler?
Who has the power now? Whose actions are moral?
Deontologism, also an ethical theory, focuses on the duty of the
individual as the norm of morality. In deontologism, something is moral if the
person responsible for it does the action with regard to his duty. For example,
a President is moral if he does his job on the basis of his duty as the leader of
the country he will think about the citizens of the country and enrich himself
with taxes. There is a major flaw in deontologism, however, in that it regards
duties as mutually exclusive. Consider the situation of a daughter. A daughter
has the duty to obey her parents. Her parents wanted her to become a doctor.
At last, she became a doctor, but the problem is that she is doing medical
functions not with regard to her duty as a doctor but with regard to her duty
as a child of her parents whom she obeyed as they wanted her to become a
doctor.
There is also humanistic ethics which talks about self-realization or the
fulfillment of the needs as a human as the basis of what is good. In this theory,
self-realization occurs in the satisfaction of the vegetative (physiological),
sentient (emotional), and rational natures of human. Similar to ethical
theories of hedonism, stoicism, and epicureanism, I find it hard to agree with
humanistic ethics because it talks of the fulfilment only of the individual. My

concern with situationism which prioritizes others also applies to humanistic

ethics in the sense that it also prioritizes only one thing. Further, it argues
that morality is reached by being rational which fails to decide in the Robin
Hood situation. Specifically, is it more rational to steal for the homeless or not
steal for the sake of the owners rights?
Another theory is the natural law ethics. Natural law ethics decides what
is good and bad on the basis of nature. What is designed to happen in the
natural order is the good. For instance, contraception is immoral because it
contradicts the design of reproductive organs by nature which is to reproduce.
I disagree with this theory because it is also by nature that we have freewill
and being of nature, exercising freewill is also moral. In the problem of
contraception, therefore, we should have the freewill to choose what to do.
There is also the theory of pragmatism which I find it hard to apply in
deciphering the answer to why and when is something good because it is first
and foremost a theory of knowledge and not of morality. Thus, I have
eliminated pragmatism from the theories of ethics from which I decide on the
definition of good.
This leaves me now with utilitarianism which, I think, best defines why
or when is something good. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory which decides
the rightness or wrongness of an action based on its ability to achieve the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Because of this, unlike
other ethical theories, it is able to decide on gray area situations. For instance,
overthrowing the ruler is good because it achieves the happiness of the
greater population instead of the benefit of only one. Also, unlike other ethical
theories, utilitarianism considers all of the stakeholders as it takes into
account the happiness of the individual, the people affected, and the society
as a whole.
Utilitarianism also banks on the consequences of the action. It is
founded upon the principle of producing the most benefit with the least harm.
Therefore, in utilitarianism, contraception is moral because it produces the
least harm to people who are still unable to support a child. Because of this
principle, again unlike other ethical theories, utilitarianism is able to consider
the means, the end, and the events after the end. The means, the end, or the
consequence should collectively produce the least harm it can. Applying this
to the Robin Hood situation, stealing for the homeless is therefore immoral as
it is does not produce the least harm possible. Charity, or working in exchange
for food is the moral action as these are able to produce the least harm.
In conclusion, after evaluating the ethical theories and their
propositions, I have come to define that something is good when it is beneficial
for the greatest number and at the same time produces the least harm it can.
This is coherent with the utilitarianism theory of ethics.

2. Why or when is something a Work of Art?

I have come to the conclusion that to constitute something as a Work
of Art, it should have the necessary components of art - perception and
creation. Each component has their own criteria as to what is considered as
art. Something is, therefore, a work of art, if it satisfies the criteria of
perception and also of creation.
First, art is something that can be perceived aesthetically. By being
perceived aesthetically, it is capable of touching the viewer on the emotional
level. It can either make us happy and satisfied from the beauty of it or make
us sad and teary from the loneliness we perceive from it.
It is but necessary that a work of art is being experienced aesthetically.
To explain this criteria of perception, take for example a bedframe. A bedframe
may be bought by a father for the room of his child, and in which case it is
not being perceived aesthetically. It does not touch the father on the
emotional level. It is seen merely as an object that has a rational purpose to
contain a bed and nothing more. However, the same bedframe may also be
bought by an art connoisseur or even a bedmaker. Unlike the father, the art
connoisseur or the bedmaker is looking at the design of the bedframe. Are the
carvings beautiful? Are the bedposts proportionate to the whole bedframe? In
such case, the bedframe is a work of art.
The criteria for perception is in line with Alexander Baumgartens view
that art objects are made to be experienced aesthetically and are thus
necessarily experienced aesthetically. However, according to Baumgarten,
not everything that is experienced aesthetically are artworks because only
things designed to be perceived aesthetically art artworks. Applying this
proposition, my example of the bedframe being a work of art because it is
perceived aesthetically by the connoisseur is wrong.
No, it is not wrong. The bedframe example actually still satisfies
Baumgartens proposition. This is because the art connoisseur is looking at
the design or the details of the bedframe not the bedframe itself as a whole.
The design the carvings, the sculptures on the headboard, and other details
was purposely designed to be perceived aesthetically, otherwise the bed
would just be a plain bedframe, with no design at all then such bedframe is
not an artwork.
In the component of perception, it is also not important whether the
perception is positive or negative. To be aesthetic is to touch the emotions,
not necessarily to be beautiful. A painting may be perceived as something
beautiful by a person, and ugly by another. In both cases, the painting is still
a work of art because it is capable of being perceived aesthetically and was
designed to be perceived aesthetically.
This brings us to the second component of being a work of art creation.
My perspective on the creation component of art is a less strict Baudelaire
thinking.

Charles Baudelaire connotes art as something that is created by the use

of imagination. Applying Baudelaires perspective, the photographs that are
taken at of an instant, or from where the photographer is at the current
moment, wherein he does not change any of the aspects of what he is seeing,
is not art. A photographer who takes a picture of a tree at a standstill that he
only saw on his way home without altering any of the aspects of what he was
seeing is not art. There was no imagination involved but only a snapping of
the shutter to take a picture of what he was seeing. This criterion of the
creation component is the same reason as to why the photographs in
newspapers (e.g. a senator on top of a pickup truck waving at her followers,
a field of dead people massacred) are not works of art.
However, if in the same situation, the photographer decides to bend
down on one knee to capture more light in the photograph, to focus on the
rotting leaves of the tree, to highlight the large veins around the bark, then
imagination is used. In this case, the photograph is a work of art. It was
created by the imagination of the photographer to depict something
aesthetically and symbolically.
The creation component is very much in line with the perception
criterion of Baumgarten that works of art should be designed to be perceived
aesthetically. In the same case above, the photograph of the tree with the
photographers imagination involved was designed to be perceived
aesthetically either for viewers to see the beauty of the rotting leaves, or of
them to be touched emotionally as to what it symbolizes - beauty despite
being old and worn out.
I have stated that my perspective on the creation component of art is a
less strict than that of Baudelaire. This is because Baudelaire suggests that
the creations of artists with inferior imagination are not works of art because
they tend to be inspired by other works of art and not of their own imagination.
In this proposition, Baudelaire requires the originality of art.
Using Baudelaires argument, the cover performance of a recentlyformed band who sings Eraserheads With a Smile is not a work of art. I
disagree with this because it talks about the originality only of the end product,
in this case the cover performance. It fails to consider the originality of
imagination the fact that the band may have imagined covering With a
Smile suits the voice of their vocalist, and that the perfect harmony of the
song lyrics being sung with the voice of their vocalist is able to to touch the
listeners emotionally, that the song will be perceived aesthetically pleasant to
the ears. With this said, I completely agree with Baudelaires requirement of
originality if it speaks of originality of imagination, not of the originality of the
artwork itself.
In conclusion, something is a work of art if it is capable of being
perceived aesthetically, and it is created with the imagination of the artist
with the intention of touching the viewers at an emotional level.
Other references aside from the book:
http://www.arthistoryunstuffed.com/baudelaire-art-criticism/; http://writedge.com/philosophy-of-art-what-makes-something-a-work-of-art/

3. Why or when is something Postmodern?

The term postmodern refers to either the events that are incorporated
in or happened during the period of postmodernity or to the things that
symbolize or adhere to the culture of postmodernism.
Something is said to be postmodern when it occurs during the era of
postmodernity the collection of events that happened after the period of
modernity. It started in the second half of the 20th century and is still ongoing
at present.
Among the collection of historical events in the postmodernity era is the
evolution of capitalism into multinational and consumer capitalism. This
resulted into richer capitalists and a larger gap between the rich and the poor.
The rich became richer and the poor became poorer.
The second event in postmodernity is the development of
communication. By development of communication, this involves the
proliferation of mass media, the development of electronic technology, and of
course the creation of the internet. A communication network so rapid is now
in place which makes not only information global, but also culture. This brings
us to the third main historical event in postmodernity.
The third event of postmodernity is multiculturalism which is brought
about by the evolution of transportation and the second main event which is
the development of communication. A global culture is continuously being
establish that influences everyone around the world. For instance, the culture
of emojis the popular smartphone emoticons; these emojis are very much
accepted now by the youth as a form of communication and expression of
feelings.
Another of these historical events in postmodernity is the establishment
of advocacies. There is the establishment of feminism for womens rights,
environmentalism for the protection of nature, and gay rights for better LGBT
treatment, among others. These advocacies are exhibits of the freedom that
is very much present in the postmodernity era. Everyone now has the right to
fight for what they want as there is no longer an absolute ruler, so to speak.
Something is also said to be postmodern when it adheres to the culture
of postmodernism, which is first and foremost a critique of modernism or
modernity.
Modernism or modernity, firstly, is the era before postmodernism which
is founded upon grandeur and classical ideas and characteristics. Modernity,
more specifically, tries to establish a grand scheme of rational ideas for each
aspect of science and the arts. For instance, it was in the modernity era where
folklore broke away from the sciences. In the arts, paintings were preferred
to mimic reality and, thus, the dislike for flattened and simple paintings.
Literature was sought to be sensational, grandeur, or impressive instead of
being direct to the point. Modernism or modernity, most simply put, is all
about class where the ideas of the rulers or the simple few were the ones

that were to be followed. It was very much patriarchal, in a sense that there
were leading figures in each field of the sciences and the arts which were
greatly followed, and no one else.
The culture of postmodernism, on the other hand, refers to the
characteristic of challenging what is rational. If modernism decides to create
a rational system of ideas, postmodernism is open to a lot of ideas which may
be conflicting against each other, but the people get to choose what they
believe in.
As one that challenges what is rational, in terms of the arts, specifically
painting, the culture of postmodernism is exemplified in the colorful and retro
artworks of Andy Warhol very much contradicting to the preferred mimic of
reality style of painting.
In the field of architecture, for instance, the postmodernism culture
allows the mixing of architectural styles which is not what is supposed to
happen. For example, Ancient Roman curvature are allowed to mix with edgy
and zen-type structures that are full of lines. An example of which is the Taipei
101. The grand colossal structures are abandoned for simplified straight-line
structures such as the Wells Fargo Center in Minneapolis, United States.
The culture of postmodernism, in terms of ideas and beliefs, basically
speaks about the freedom of the many instead of the rule of the few. Such is
the cause for the different advocacy movements in the postmodernity era, or
how capitalists are freely allowed to become more capitalists than ever.
Everyone has freedom.
To exemplify the beliefs of the postmodernism culture, it is important to
view the proponents of the such ideas. One of the proponents is Michael
Foucault who critiques the control of the ruling classes and the standardization
of ideas present in modernism. By modifying Francis Bacons statement that
Knowledge is power, Foucault indicates that the seek for knowledge is driven
by the seek for power. Thus, those who know are those who have power. They
dictate what should be known. Knowledge, therefore, is never objective and
reliable. It is biased and in accordance with the desires of the powerful used
as a tool for domination.
Another proponent is Jacques Derrida who speaks about the
postmodernist language. He argues for the dismantling of the structure built
into language that ideas, or signifiers, are connected with other ideas and
signifiers. Thus, there is no secure ground for an idea because it is only part
of a further and larger mass of ideas, wherein singling out an idea is
impossible. An example of Derridas argument is a conversation between a
child and an adult. A child would ask What is a bed? and the adult would
answer It is a piece of furniture for sleep and rest., in which the child would
respond What is sleep? and the conversation will continue forever because
a certain word, in this case, bed, is always signified by another, in this case,
sleep.

Jean-Francois Lyotard, also a proponent of postmodernism, proposed

that in the future, a piecemeal or modular type of education will be
established. In this type of education, people will know what they only want
to know in relation to their specific jobs. This is because Lyotard believes in
the commodity nature of knowledge. He argues that knowledge can know be
stored, sold, and utilized. Also, the postmodern world is more open to
competing knowledges. There is no longer a meta-narrative or grand narrative
which is to be held as the true knowledge, thus, it is just practical to divide
knowledge into modules and let people choose what they want to know or
adhere to. Lyotard further states that this will lead to a more economical
system of education.
Jean Baudrillard, on the other hand, speaks on the darker side of
postmodernism. He states that the postmodernist world is full of consumers
that will only continue to consume, and these postmodern consumers are
extravagant and not frugal at all. Thus, capitalists are urged to become more
capitalists than ever, and mass media and advertising has become more
widespread than ever. Even in supposed to be communication channels such
as the internet, mass media and advertising are present.
Baudrillard notes that the cause of consumers wanting to consumer
more is because they consume not the good but the sign that is coupled in
consuming the good. For example, a postmodern person will never buy an
iPhone for what it does as a smartphone (e.g., be able to talk to a person
through FaceTime, be able to view sports scores while on the road, etc.)
because if he did then he would settle for a cheaper smartphone which is
capable of doing the same things. A postmodern person will buy an iPhone
because it is a sign of prestige and class. Buying an iPhone is coupled with the
sign that the buyer is rich, and that is what people consume.
In conclusion, something is postmodern when it (1) refers to an event
that occurred in the era of postmodernity such as multinational capitalism,
multiculturalism, the internet, or the emojis in smartphones OR (2) adheres
to the postmodernism culture of challenging what is rational, exemplifies
freedom, and extravagant in terms of consumption.
Applying this definition of when is something postmodern to a Rolex,
therefore, gives us the following:
The Rolex itself is not postmodern because the design is classical,
grandeur, and rational none of which are present in the
postmodernity era, and none of which challenges what is rational.
The buying of the Rolex, however, is postmodern, because it
represents the consumption of signs (that the buyer is rich),
challenges what is rational (buying something that is very
expensive that does the same thing as a cheap wristwatch), and
exemplifies freedom (the buyer is able to buy what he wants).

4. Describe the Filipino Mind to a non-Filipino.

To my non-Filipino friend,
A Filipino mind has a framework from which they base their lifestyle, their
decisions in life, and their reactions to certain events things whether they
would like something or not.
This framework is composed of five fragments.
(1) The law on reversion or batas ng panunumbalik in Filipino.
The Filipinos believe that what you do now can be reversed or traced
back to what you did before. In other words, there is a positive cause
and effect relationship between things. What you will get in the future
is positively correlated or depends on what you put into it now. For
example, if I study hard enough then I can expect good grades in the
exam. Likewise, applying reversion, if I get a good grade in the exam
tomorrow then it is because I studied had and put in work last night.
(2) The balance of nature or pagbabalanse ng kalikasan in Filipino.
Filipinos strongly believe that no one is perfect. There is a balance
between everything one may excel so much in sports, but he is not
as good in academics. Likewise, some people may be ugly, but they
are very kind. This balance of nature influences the positivity in
Filipinos knowing that if they lack in a certain aspect, it is just alright
and there are other areas where he or she is good at.
(3) The wheel of fortune or gulong ng palad in Filipino.
Just as Filipinos believe in the balance of nature, they also
characterize life as a big wheel of fortune. Anything can happen
tomorrow, may it be positive or negative. One will not always be at
the peak of the mountain, and one will not always be stricken of
poverty. Similar to the balance of nature, this is a source of positivity
for the Filipinos knowing that there is still hope for a good future.
This also teaches the Filipinos to become humble because they might
one day be stripped of what they have now.
(4) Person-centeredness
For Filipinos, the blame always goes back to the self. One is not
entitled to criticize another when the criticizer himself is guilty of the
same thing or worse. From this thinking, Filipinos believe that
everything will start with the individual. If a Filipino wants his
neighborhood to be clean, then he will start with his own house
throwing his trash with proper segregation, in hopes that others will
follow suit. The Filipinos cannot agree more in the saying that change
starts within ourselves.
(5) Non-violence
Filipinos are very anti-violence, except for a certain few. They believe
that everything can be resolved with peace. In Filipino saying, they
would often say Kapag binato ka ng bato, batuhin mo ng tinapay

which translates to If you are thrown a rock, throw back a piece of

bread. A great actualization of the Filipino virtue of non-violence is
the People Power Revolution which perfectly embodied how violence
can be solved with peace. In the said revolution, religious figures and
numerous Filipinos stood up and walked steadily hand in hand,
grasping on rosaries, towards the tanks and guns of the dictators
soldiers.
From these five fragments composing the framework of the Filipino mind
arises the characteristics of Filipino thinking. These characteristics are very
observable when talking to a Filipino. It is embodied in their language and
their lifestyle.
a. It is metaphorical rather than literal; it is concrete rather than abstract.
To state their point, Filipinos will often use symbols and figures. For
example, life will be compared to a wheel, people will be compared to
trees, and so forth.
b. It is personal rather than impersonal; it is particular rather than
universal.
Similar to the fragment of person-centeredness, Filipino thoughts will be
focused on the self. Very seldom will their sayings and teachings be for
a group of people. The linguistical subject will always incorporate an I
or you ako, siya in Filipino.
c. It is practical rather than theoretical; it is operational rather than logical.
Filipinos very much believe in the practicality of life. They answer the
why by relating to real-life scenarios and experiences. A great example
is utang na loob. In utang na loob, Filipinos will often do a favor for
someone because they were granted a favor by that same person
before. It is only practical to also answer his favor. Likewise, a Filipino
will vote for a certain politician because he is from there province. It is
only practical to also vote for my kababayan or a person from the same
place as I am. Philosopher Florentino Timbreza states that this
characteristic is responsible for the minimal contributions in the field of
science.
d. It is more theological than scientific.
Filipinos will often base their decisions on what their religion says. Most
Filipinos will automatically side with the sayings of the Church and not
with science.
In conclusion, these characteristics and the five-fragment framework
are what makes a Filipino mind Filipino. Through the test of time, these five
fragments and these characteristics will still be evident in the lifestyle and
language of the Filipinos. Despite globalization and the internet wherein most
of the youth are influenced by the philosophy of other cultures, there will still
be a deeply-rooted Filipino mind in the younger generations. It will be very
hard and take a very long time for this framework to be revised.