#37

Tanggaan, Nio Joshua C.

Philo 10
WFQ1

(I) The Approach of Christian Theism

P1: God is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being.
P2: God created the universe.
P3: He created man out of His image.
P4: Man lives in the universe created by God.
P5: The universe operates with a uniformity of cause and effect.
P6: God is infinite and personal, transcendent and immanent, sovereign and good.

Conclusion: The universe is charged with the grandeur of God.

Sub-questions:
(a) Krishnamurti would agree to the conclusion of this approach. He does believe (or a
more appropriate word would be agree) in the existence of God, based from the two
books Ive been reading. The Truth that Krishnamurti always talks about and God are
similar in a way. We are all seeking for something out there. Although, Krishnamurti
doesnt follow the rituals, beliefs, and ideals that are followed by most Christians, he
still agrees on the existence of God in this universe. He points out that, in order to
see God, we must clear ourselves of our beliefs, rituals and ideals. If we do such
thing, we will see clearly, we will see timelessness, which may be called God. To
quote from his book Think on These Things (p. 37), Then what is religion? If you
have wiped the window clean - which means that you have actually stopped
performing ceremonies, given up all beliefs, ceased to follow any leader or guru -
then your mind, like the window, is clean, polished, and you can see out of it very
clearly. When the mind is swept clean of image of ritual, of belief, of symbol, of all
words, mantrams and repetitions, and of all fear, then what you see will be the real,
the timeless, the everlasting, which may be called God; but this requires enormous
 insight, understanding, patience, and it is only for those who really inquire into what
is religion and pursue it day after day to the end. Only such people will know what is
true religion. The rest are merely mouthing words, and all their ornaments and bodily
decorations, their pujas and ringing of bells - all that is just superstition without any
significance. It is only when the mind is in revolt against all so-called religion that it
finds the real.
(b) I would agree with Krishnamurti. Well, I am a Christian, a Roman Catholic to be
exact. I agree that God does exist. I still do some rituals and I still believe in the
beliefs and ideals that serve as the foundation of Christian Theism. I guess that what
Krishnamurti can say about me is that I cannot see God with these current things that
I am doing. I am still doing these, nonetheless, because there are things that happened
to me when I believed and had faith in Him. One example would be when I had
appendicitis during my elementary years. The disorder came to the point that my
appendix ruptured and that I needed to have surgery. The moment before the surgery
was performed, I prayed to God. This one experience was just one of the experiences
that made me have a strong faith in Him. Although, there may also be the possibility
that what happened was just coincidence. All of the things that happened to me were
just natural and was not caused by God. He may not exist in this universe, especially
that we still havent seen him in the very flesh.
 (II) The Approach of Deism
P1: God left the universe to work on its own.
P2: A clockwork system is a system that works on its own.
P3: The universe runs as a clockwork system.
P3: Human beings are a part of the clockwork of the universe.

Conclusion: The universe is a clockwork system left by God.

Sub-questions:
(a) Krishnamurti would not agree to the conclusion on this approach. Deism is somehow
the same as Christian Theism. Although in deism, God left the universe to work on its
own. In this approach, God still exists, but then we dont have any vision or idea as to
what he really is because He just left the universe to work on its own. The God that is
present in deism is different from the God in Christian Theism, although they are still
the supreme beings that govern/governed the universe. The people in the universe are
a treated as a part of a clockwork universe. Krishnamurti will disagree with this
because he points out in his books that we have to achieve freedom and truth. People
that are just a part of a clockwork universe are not able to achieve these. Its like the
things that are going to happen are already predetermined, hence a clockwork
universe. Krishnamurti especially gives importance to people, as quoted in his book
Freedom from the Known (p. 6), We human beings are what we have been for
millions of years - -colossally greedy, envious, aggressive, jealous, anxious and
despairing, with occasional flashes of joy and affection. We are a strange mixture of
hate, fear and gentleness; we are both violence and peace. There has been outward
progress from the bullock cart to the jet plane but psychologically the individual has
not changed at all, and the structure of society throughout the world has been created
by individuals. The outward social structure is the result of the inward psychological
structure of our human relationships, for the individual is the result of the total
experience, knowledge and conduct of man. Each one of us is the storehouse of all
 the past. The individual is the human who is all mankind. The whole history of man is
written in ourselves.
(b) I would have to agree with Krishnamurti on this point. He has made a point that
people are not just a part of any clockwork universe. In a clockwork universe, the
people are not capable of reaching freedom and truth, something that is beyond the
system. I believe that we are capable of achieving the thing that we cant see but can
reach. We still do not know what exists out there. We still dont know what happens
after death. Although, when we try to have a realistic point of view, it is possible that
what we are just doing is just predetermined, a part of the clockwork that has been
running for a long time, unchanging. The freedom and truth that Krishnamurti talks
about may not even exist.
 (III) The Approach of Naturalism
P1: God is nonexistent.
P2: There is silence in non-existence.
P3: All things in the universe are explainable.
P4: All things that are explainable are finite.

Conclusion: The universe is a set of finite things and is a silent system.

Sub-questions:
(a) Krishnamurti would not agree to the conclusion of this approach. One main point that
is tackled in naturalism is that things are finite and explainable. Krishnamurti would
disagree on this, because he is certain that there is something out there that exists,
freedom and truth exists. In naturalism, everything that is happening in the world,
every object, is named and explained through theories and postulates. Every motion,
particle, phenomenon, and all other things are being explained by science. This
serves as a limitation or a hindrance to the path of freedom and truth. Everything in
the world doesnt need to be explained or named. It serves as a hindrance because
what we only need in achieving freedom and truth is only ourselves. There is no need
for external things to guide us in achieving it. Krishnamurti stated in his book
Freedom from the Known (p. 2), For centuries we have been spoon-fed by our
teachers, by our authorities, by our books, our saints. We say, `Tell me all about it -
what lies beyond the hills and the mountains and the earth?' and we are satisfied with
their descriptions, which means that we live on words and our life is shallow and
empty. We are second-hand people. We have lived on what we have been told, either
guided by our inclinations, our tendencies, or compelled to accept by circumstances
and environment. We are the result of all kinds of influences and there is nothing new
in us, nothing that we have discovered for ourselves; nothing original, pristine, clear.
(b) I would have to agree with Krishnamurti on this approach. Yes, there really is no
need to explain everything and setting everything on finite. If we do, the meaning or
value of these objects might just degrade or vanish. Yes, explaining phenomena might
give us the feeling of success, satisfaction and contentment, but in the long run, the
value of that certain phenomena might go down, degrade, and might even vanish.
This can be compared to old songs and new songs. There are still many old songs,
like 80s and 90s songs, that are alive because the tune and the lyrics have very great
meaning. Meanwhile, the new songs, although not all of them, that are being
produced in the newer generations are short-lived because the tune and the lyrics are
given less effort and often have a shallow meaning. These new songs are just
injected with rhythm that, at first, it may seem catchy, but then at a later time it gets
meaningless. This is how naturalism might be viewed. But then, when we look at the
world at a rational point-of-view, things like freedom that is out there might be
considered as irrational, especially that many people are seeking for rationality. They
might need to look for evidences that such things exist.
 (IV) The Approach of Nihilism
P1: The possibility of knowledge (in Nihilism, that is) is denied.
P2: When there is existence, there is the possibility of knowledge.
P3: There is existence in everything.

Conclusion: Everything is denied.

Sub-questions:
(a) Krishnamurti would agree to the conclusion of this approach. His philosophy usually
concerns people achieving freedom. And he said that, to achieve freedom, everything
you have, everything you believe in, all your habits and ideals, must be denied.
According to him, these things are a hindrance to achieving freedom. In fact, in
achieving freedom, there is no path that is needed to follow, no beliefs needed to
guide in going there. In short, everything you believe in right now should be denied.
To quote from his book Freedom from the Known (p. 5), You have now started by
denying something absolutely false - the traditional approach - but if you deny it as a
reaction you will have created another pattern in which you will be trapped; if you tell
yourself intellectually that this denial is a very good idea but do nothing about it, you
cannot go any further. If you deny it however, because you understand the stupidity
and immaturity of it, if you reject it with tremendous intelligence, because you are
free and not frightened, you will create a great disturbance in yourself and around you
but you will step out of the trap of respectability. Then you will find that you are no
longer seeking. That is the first thing to learn - not to seek. When you seek you are
really only window-shopping.
(b) I think I dont agree with Krishnamurti, for now, because it still doesnt make sense
to me. I am still young, and therefore I still have few experiences that Ive
experienced to know the world very well. I still have known very little about the
world, and so I need to learn a lot. And to learn a lot, I must not yet negate everything
that I believed in. And I think that I still dont have the capabilities of reaching a
thinking that can go beyond the norm or beyond the self. I might still need time for
that. Krishnamurti also mentions the method of meditation, which is a possible
method of negating everything and therefore moving beyond. There have been
articles claiming that meditation in young people are effective and are beneficial. This
might even develop into what Krishnamurti is saying that you can reach out to what is
out there.
 (V) The Approach of Existentialism
P1: Man is significant.
P2: The universe is insignificant.
P3: There is nothingness in insignificance.
P4: Man exists in the universe.
P5: There is existence in significance.

Conclusion: There is existence beyond nothingness.

Sub-questions:
(a) Krishnamurti would agree to the conclusion of this approach, especially that he puts
emphasis on the self and the existence of something beyond the self, and also the
ways on how to achieve it. He always points out that in order to achieve freedom, we
must devoid ourselves of any external force such as our current beliefs, ideals, and
religion. We must avoid these because they hinder our path towards freedom. They
hinder in such a way that we become dependent on them and we achieve them in a
way that we do not look at ourselves anymore. As quoted by Krishnamurti on
Freedom from the Known (p. 10), Truth has no path, and that is the beauty of truth,
it is living. A dead thing has a path to it because it is static, but when you see that
truth is something living, moving, which has no resting place, which is in no temple,
mosque or church, which no religion, no teacher, no philosopher, nobody can lead
you to - then you will also see that this living thing is what you actually are - your
anger, your brutality, your violence, your despair, the agony and sorrow you live in.
In the understanding of all this is the truth, and you can understand it only if you
know how to look at those things in your life. And you cannot look through an
ideology, through a screen of words, through hopes and fears.
(b) I would not agree with Krishnamurti for now. I always happen to look at the present
time and at what I am facing now. When I look at what is beyond me, I usually see
nothing. This is because I have my own set of beliefs and ideals. Though oftentimes, I
dont plan things ahead of time. I always tend to focus on the things that are
happening to me right now. In college, what I usually think about is my college life.
Its unusual of me to think about where I will work after I graduate, at what age I will
marry, what I will be doing after I retire, etc. Well, I am still too young to experience
a lot of things, so this might change sooner or later. So when I get older and a bit
mature enough to understand this world I am living in, when I will get to experience a
lot of things that the future has to give me, maybe I will get to understand what
Krishnamurti is saying. There is just something different in the minds between young
people and old people.
 (VI) The Approach of Wittgenstein & Heidegger
P1: Philosophical problems have hidden texts.
P2: Hidden texts can be explained through logical and linguistic analyses.
P3: Deconstruction is a form of logical and linguistic analysis.
P4: Deconstruction is the analysis of philosophical problems through linguistic
analysis.

Conclusion: Philosophical problems can be explained through deconstruction.

Sub-questions:
(a) Krishnamurti would not agree to the conclusion of this approach. Based on his
philosophy, words would not solve philosophical problems. He stated from his book
Freedom from the Known (p. 37) that, Verbally we can go only so far: what lies
beyond cannot be put into words because the word is not the thing. Up to now we can
describe, explain, but no words or explanations can open the door. What will open the
door is daily awareness and attention - awareness of how we speak, what we say, how
we walk, what we think. From this very statement, he doesnt agree with putting or
naming words into abstract things such as feelings. This could also apply to
philosophical problems. We dont need words to explain philosophical problems,
such as What is the meaning of life? What we need is just the feeling, no words
used to explain it, because when we enforce words into these things, they become
degraded and they lose meaning. To quote again from Krishnamurti, The question of
whether or not there is a God or truth or reality, or whatever you like to call it, can
never be answered by books, by priests, philosophers or saviours. Nobody and
nothing can answer the question but you yourself and that is why you must know
yourself. Immaturity lies only in total ignorance of self. To understand yourself is the
beginning of wisdom. (Freedom from the Known, pp. 5-6)
(b) I would agree with Krishnamurti. If we really need to achieve freedom, the thing that
is beyond our reach, we dont need to have a name for it. We dont need to do
deconstruction on it or any other forms of analysis. What we need is just, to feel it,
and it will come to you. Its just like when two people are very close to each other
already and then there will come a time wherein you dont need any verbal
communication to exchange ideas. Just a simple look in the eye or an exchange of
glances would mean something for two very close people. But then, sometimes, you
might need words to explain things, because we are living in a society wherein
science and reason are growing. There are already a lot of theories out there
explaining different things, and many people are already spoonfed by these theories,
which are constructed from words. If Krishnamurti thinks that words are not needed
in explaining philosophical problems, many people might not understand him, since
he also tackles on these things. People might not get him because they are already
used to having to listen to words in order to achieve certain things. When these people
want to achieve freedom and truth, they might need words or step-by-step methods.
In this way, I can somehow disagree with Krishnamurti.
 (VII) The Approach of The New Age
P1: Man exists in the universe.
P2: Man has consciousness.
P3: The consciousness has a new and higher level.
P4: There is a separate universe in the new and higher level of consciousness.

Conclusion: There exists a separate universe.

Sub-questions:
(a) Krishnamurti would agree to the conclusion of this approach. Since the focus on this
approach is the higher consciousness or universe, he would certainly agree. Perhaps
the counterpart of the new consciousness on Krishnamurtis point of view would be
the truth of freedom that he is always talking about. To quote from his book Freedom
from the Known (p. 1), So to discover whether there actually is or is not something
beyond this anxious, guilty, fearful, competitive existence, it seems to me that one
must have a completely different approach altogether. The traditional approach is
from the periphery inwards, and through time, practice and renunciation, gradually to
come upon that inner flower, that inner beauty and love - in fact to do everything to
make oneself narrow, petty and shoddy; peel off little by little; take time; tomorrow
will do, next life will do - and when at last one comes to the centre one finds there is
nothing there, because one's mind has been made incapable, dull and insensitive. He
certainly believes that there is something out there, something beyond reach from
humans. There is the existence of a separate universe.
(b) I would not agree with Krishnamurti that there is a separate universe that exists out
there. Well, there is a possibility, especially that we do not know what is really out
there, what is beyond life. Then, there is also the possibility that a separate universe
somewhere out there doesnt exist, and many of us still havent seen it. I dont have
any experiences like these myself, so thats why I will disagree with Krishnamurti for
now. What I believe in right now is the present self. I am still not concerned about
any other forms that are beyond me. But there may come a time that I might have to
think about it. Although, there have been reports that suggested the existence of a
separate universe. In the New Age philosophy, there were already different methods
in approaching the new, higher consciousness. An example would be Carlos
Castaneda, an anthropologist, studying the effect of psychedelic drugs in an Indian
culture. He also apprenticed himself to Don Juan, a Yaqui Indian sorcerer. He
underwent several initiations in a span of many years to become a sorcerer himself.
Throughout his experiences, he was able to witness new and different kinds of
realities and universes. Another example would be Stanislav Grofs experiment with
dying patients. He gave them LSD, a certain kind of drug, to help them achieve
cosmic unity before they die. Things like these somehow make me wonder if there
really is something out there that is still beyond our reach. For now, I will still have to
disagree with Krishnamurti.
 (VIII) The Approach of Postmodernism
P1: The world is an equal mixture of different perspectives.
P2: Perspectives serve as a limitation to the world.
P3: An equal mixture of different perspectives leads to a universe with no dominant
perspective.
P4: All things could vanish when there is no dominance.

Conclusion: The limits that are defining the world could be vanishing.

Sub-questions:
(a) Krishnamurti would agree to the conclusion of this approach. Well, the people in the
present do have different perspectives already. Each of us already has a different set
of beliefs and ideals. And these different perspectives are an equal mixture, which
means that none of them is dominating. Krishnamurti tries to unite everyone by
explaining that we should achieve a united goal. That goal is to achieve freedom and
truth, something which is not yet within our reach. Our different perspectives might
vanish and be united. He quoted in his book Think on These Things (p. 151-152),
But you see, life is not like that at all; life is not permanent. Like the leaves that fall
from a tree, all things are impermanent, nothing endures; there is always change and
death. Have you ever noticed a tree standing naked against the sky, how beautiful it
is? All its branches are outlined, and in its nakedness there is a poem, there is a song.
Every leaf is gone and it is waiting for the spring. When the spring comes it again fills
the tree with the music of many leaves, which in due season fall and are blown away;
and that is the way of life. The fact is that life is like the river: endlessly moving on,
ever seeking, exploring, pushing, overflowing its banks, penetrating every crevice
with its water. But, you see, the mind won't allow that to happen to itself. The mind
sees that it is dangerous, risky to live in a state of impermanency, insecurity, so it
builds a wall around itself: the wall of tradition, of organized religion, of political and
social theories. Family, name, property, the little virtues that we have cultivated -
these are all within the walls, away from life. Life is moving, impermanent, and it
ceaselessly tries to penetrate, to break down these walls, behind which there is
 confusion and misery. The gods within the walls are all false gods, and their writings
and philosophies have no meaning because life is beyond them.
(b) I guess I have to agree with Krishnamurti on this approach. Well, everything does
come to a single path and to a single end. No matter what we do, we are all going
towards one direction, towards something out there that we still dont know. In real
life, there is only one end, and that is death. Nobody in the world is immortal. Death
is something that is certainly bound to happen to us. We all vanish in the end. But
then, there might also be the possibility of things that approach different paths. There
are still certain things that are left uncertain, like the afterlife. There might be
something out there or nothing at all.