Contemporary Philosophy, in the history of western philosophy, is the time wherein the focus of philosophy is the existence of others and the use of language. It is presently the trending philosophy. We are now living in the contemporary world. It is the “Turn-to-Others” and the “Turn-to-Language.” The focus is the “Other” to show that man is not solipsistic and man longs to extend himself to other subjects like him. With the help of others, the objectivity of the world is possible. The objectivity of the world cannot be achieved only by the ego. It needs other subjects like him for the objectivity to be possible. Aside from the objectivity of the world, relationship is also highlighted. Relationship cannot happen with the ego alone. It can happen if there are more egos present. The very basic relationship is the “I-Thou” relationship (Buber). It can extend more to the relationship with the community (Scheler). The examples of philosophies during these time are Husserl’s “Intersubjectivity”, Heidegger’s “Mitsein”, Scheler’s “Person” and “Community”, Levinas’ “Face”, Buber’s “I-Thou”, etc. All focused on the relationship with the “Other/s.”
Aside from (the) “Other/s”, language is also the focus of contemporary philosophy. The use of language is highlighted because it bridges the ego to other subjects. Communication is possible with language. Later, relationship is established through it. With the medium of language, thoughts and ideas can be passed, shared and expressed. Of course, we cannot deny the fact that language has its limitations. There will always be limitations in language. Let us consider that language cannot really capture the pure eidos. It even distorts them. The interpretation of the “Other” also matters. That is why during the contemporary era, philosophies like Linguistic Analysis and Hermeneutics existed to achieve the correct interpretations. But what will we do without language and communication? Relationship will also be hard to achieve. Before we can have mutual relationship with others (w/out using so much language) we need first to relate with them through the use of language in communication. The examples of other contemporary philosophies which focuses on language are Heidegger’s “Destruction”, Frege’s “Sense and Reference”, Russell’s “Denotation”, Derrida’s “Deconstruction”, etc.
II.) German Philosophers and their Philosophies
A.) Scheler’s Values, Person and Community
Max Scheler is one of the big names among the Contemporary Philosophers. He first tackled “Values.” “Values” is the phenomena of acts. Man’s actions are based from what he/she values. Values can either be good or bad. A person who does good actions values doing good acts while a person who does bad actions values doing bad acts. The root of values is the “liking” and “attraction.” The first time one sees it to an exemplar, he/she likes it without knowing the reason. The “Values” for Scheler is empirical but a priori which is innate.
Personhood is the goal of humanity. One’s person can be known through his/her actions. One’s actions reveal one’s values and one’s values reveal the person. Person is a good act done unto others. A single act of good act does not make one a person. It is more than a habit. It’s a continuous practice and journey. For Scheler, as humans, it is the project we need to reach while we are living. In life, there are four levels of values. These are survival values, spiritual values, moral values and the values of the holy. The survival values are the lowest level of values man can achieve. The focus of it is survival and life. It is usually the values of the children. The spiritual values are the values of appreciation to arts, knowledge, language and sciences. As of now, the highest level of values man can achieve is the moral values. There, personhood is achieved through doing good acts to other beings. It is achieved by persons. The highest level of values which usually cannot be achieved is the values of the holy. It is where the “fading-of-the-I” happens where one does not think of one’s self anymore. It is the values of the saints. Through the “fading-of-the-I”, communion happens.
B.) Heidegger’s “Being-in-the-World” and “Mitsein”
Martin Heidegger is one of the brightest students of Husserl. He is known in his philosophy “Being-in-the-World.” The Being is always in the World. It is never possible that the being will separate himself from the world. That is why, he later separated from Husserl because of some contradictions in their views (especially in his “Being-in-the-World” and Husserl’s Transcendental Reduction). Heidegger is not in favour with Husserl’s Reductions. He is not in favour with reductions because he is not agree with the ego’s will separation from the world for the Being is always in the world. The ego who is inside the body is always in the world. Another thing is that, what for is the clarity, which one can achieve with transcendental reductions, if one becomes solipsistic? It is in contrast to man’s nature as relational being. Another is, ordinary people are not philosophers and ordinary people cannot understand the language of Philosophy, so why go with reduction? For Heidegger, it’s (Husserl’s Reduction) too much ideal is useless.
Another philosophy of Heidegger is “Mitsein.” “Mitsein” means “being with.” To “be with” needs an Other. In “being with” the Other, relationship starts. With “Mitsein”, Heidegger focused on the importance of presence especially in building relationships. The more the “being-with”, the stronger the relationship becomes. We cannot achieve “Mitsein” without the presence of the Other. Because we humans have body, it is better that we “be-with” others personally as opposed to “virtually” (which is trendy in the present) because the “Personal Mitsein” is the one that deepens the relationship.
C.) Gadamer’s Interpretation and “Play”
Hans-Georg Gadamer is one of the famous philosophers in the field of Hermeneutics. The main point and subject of his philosophy is Interpretation. In interpretation, there are four things to be considered. These are the “Geist”, “Bildung”, “SensusCommunis” and “Taste.” “Geist” refers to the “flow” of history, its “spirit”, “where history is going”, and the “consciousness” of events. “Bildung” refers to the “imageness”, the context and culture. “SensusCommunis” refers to the usual understanding of the word, the “feel” of the word (including its nuances), and the standard understanding. “Taste” refers to the uniqueness in style and manner. This four must be considered because interpretation is not alone a “subjective interpretation” but also to “get the sense” the author wanted to pass/send to the reader.With these four humanistic concepts considered, the “Fusion of Horizon” happens.
D.) Habermas’ Dialectics of Word and “Consensus”
JurgenHabermas is a neo-marxist philosopher. He is Marxist in critique but not in philosophy. His philosophy is all about “Dialectics in Word.” In his philosophy, dialogue is being emphasized. The ending point of his philosophy is his emphasis on the necessity of reaching “Consensus.” Through consensus, no one is being “left-out.” All stakeholders should participate in the consensus. Those who are defective are given the chance to become capable in knowing the better side, the better decision. It is formative in the part of the one who explain things, who explain the reasons to the defective ones. If they give in, they become active participators of consensus. In order to reach the consensus, there are three things to be recognized/observed. These are openness, humility, and the unforced force of the better idea. First, both side must be open to the truths of the other side. One must recognize the truth from the other’s idea. One must also be open to see the “not-so-good-idea” in one’s idea. Being open to it is an act of humility. One must be humble enough to accept the “not-so-good-idea” in one’s idea. If that happens, one must change his side. With that, better idea wins. It finds its way to surface. In agreeing and accepting, “communal owning” happens. In communal owning, winning happens to all because all became active participators of the consensus.
III.) French Philosophers and their Philosophies (Levinas, Ricoeur, Sartre, Foucault, Derrida)
A.) Levinas’ “Face” and “Infinite Responsibility”
EmmanualLevinas is known in his philosophy, the “Infinite Responsibility” to the other. Levinas did not agree with Husserl’s “Immanent Transcendence.” For Husserl, the Other is part of the Ego, but the Other is other and not the Ego. Levinas would not agree with him. For Levinas, the Other is totally “Transcendent”, totally alien. The Other is a foreigner, and never be part of the ego. Even though the Other is not part of the ego, the ego has responsibility to the Other. The measure of responsibility is infinite. There is surplus of responsibility in every ego. This surplus can explode the ego because it’s too much for the ego to contain. This is what Levinas called the “Infinite Reponsibility” to the Other. The essence of the Other is “Face.” For Levinas, there is a great calling in us to “face the Face”, to face our responsibility to the Other.
The “face” is a structure of relationship which happens at the time of “facing.” This “face” of the Other tells us “be for me.” Our “face” tells the Other too “be for me.” Our choices are to be for him or not for him. If we are for him, we become social and relational. If we are not for him, we deny our very self as relational beings for it is human’s nature to be in relation with others. And so, we can say that being relational means we are for the Other and for the Other to be relational, the Other must be for us. If we accept that we are for the Other, responsibility comes next. Being responsible of the Other means being accountable of him/her. We are accountable of the Other whatever happens to him/her. Because we cannot “define” Other’s eidos as what Husserl’s reduction would suggest, we cannot “define” the limits of our responsibility. With this, we can say that we are infinitely responsible of the Other. That is why if we see the Other in need, we must help him/her. He/she is begging “be for me.” And so, we must help the face we are facing because we are “for the Face.”
B.) Ricoeur’s Historical Critique and Human Relationships
Paul Ricoeur’s philosophy is about “Historical Critique.” In Historical Critique, there are four worlds to be considered. These are “World of the Author”, “World of the text of the Author”, “World of the Reader”, and “World of the text of the Reader.” What usually happens is that, the “World of the Reader” is the only world considered in interpreting history. It should not be. The reader should be aware and conscious to consider that the author also has a world. The reader should consider the context of the author, his situation, his background, the events and his environment. Aside from the “World of the Author” and the “World of the Reader”, the “World of the text of the Author” and the “World of the text of the Reader” must also be considered. It is because language has its own world. Every language is a world. It is a world of meaning to be interpreted and used by man. The “World of the text of the Author” is different from the “World of the text of the Reader” because it is very possible that the meanings and the nuances of words in the past is different from the meanings and the nuances of the words in the present. These four worlds should be considered in order that the reader could meet the sense of the message of the author. Here happens the bringing of the past to present.
Another philosophy of Paul Ricoeur is the Human Relationships. For him, there are only two kinds of relationship in the history. These are the “Socius” and the “Neighbor.” The “Socius” kind of relationship is like a “Master-Slave” relationship. In this kind of relationship, the focus is one’s functions and obligations with the other. This is the ideal relationship in work. The person who is in power teaches and disciplines his members no matter how close they are as friends outside their work. On the other hand, the “Neighbor” kind of relationship is like a “Friend-Friend” relationship. In this kind of relationship, one treats the other as a close friend and a brother. There is a lesser boundary compared to the “Socius” relationship where in the focus is in one’s functions. In the “Neighbor” kind of relationship, one’s relationship with the other is valued. The relationship is being nurtured. Ricoeuris in favored in the “Neighbor” kind of relationship. In reality, both of them are important. These relationships should be practiced and applied in propriety (in the right situation and call of time) and balanced. Too much “Socius” as well as “Neighbor” are not good.
C.) Sartre’s “Nothingness” and Freedom
Jean Paul Sartre’s philosophy is about “Nothingness” and “Freedom.” He started with “Be-ing and Nothingness” as a critique to Heidegger’s “Be-ing and Time” (be-ing as “to be”). For Heidegger, the ground of man’s “be-ing” is time. In other words, man’s actions are grounded in time (as in time of the “Time-of-the-World”). Time is given because of the world. Because the time flows, “be-ing” is possible. Everything is grounded in time. On the other hand, Sartre considered “Nothing” as the ground of “be-ing.” Sartre’s “nothingness” is like an empty space or void. Because there is “nothing”, man can do a lot of things. Man can fill up “nothing” with something. Filling up “nothing” with something comes freedom.
Man uses his freedom in filling “nothing” with something. For Sartre, man is not born and later to be free. Man is “freedom” itself. Man does/acts because he has freedom and he is freedom. Man as freedom and man’s freedom is not limited. It is total and infinite. For Sartre, “Nothing” is a context where freedom is total. Man has a total freedom. Man has a total freedom but it does not mean that he will just do anything what he feels to do (pagusto). Man can do anything he want all as long that he is responsible for his actions for Freedom comes with responsibility. With “nothing” as the ground of freedom, the burden of responsibility is too much. That is why, we humans should be responsible for everything we do. We should be responsible for our actions because they have consequences. If man’s freedom is total, the consequences of man’s actions are also total and infinite. These consequences of his actions will haunt him and they are inescapable. Aside from the consequences, man’s conscience will also haunt him. That is why, we humans must use our total freedom responsibly and we must listen to our conscience first before we act. As we face the consequences of our actions, we can blame no one but our self alone.
D.) Foucault’s “History of Power”
Michel Foucault’s philosophy centers on History and Power. His philosophy is about history as “History of Power.” For Foucault, power moves history. All of us, humans, have power. We share our power from our leaders. We ordinary people have our own power to see ourselves as a change we want to see in the world. Our leaders are more powerful than us in terms of the position. We just share our power from them. The problem with power is that, it is most of the time abused. Our leaders, who are more powerful than us abused their power while we ordinary citizens, who have lesser power use our power well.
If we speak of History, we refer to the history of a particular place or a bigger group of place (e.g History of the Philippines, History of Asia and History of the World). Talking about places, every place has their own set of leaders. Leadership comes with greater power. Our leaders are more powerful than us. Power comes with great responsibility. Because our leaders are more powerful than us, they have more responsibilities than us. Their being powerful demands so much responsibility from them. They are not only responsible for their self alone but also responsible for the people they are leading. Because the leaders shepherd the people they are leading, they are the ones who dictate where their history will go. They can dictate the “geist” of history (where history is going). Good and responsible leaders make good history while bad and corrupt leaders make bad history. What is lacking with our leaders is discipline. If they have self-discipline, they will not abuse their power and they will not put the lives of the people they are leading at stake/ in danger.
IV.) Differences of German and French Philosophers
A.) German Philosophers
1.) Idealists
German Philosophers (e.g. Husserl, Scheler, Heidegger, Gadamer and Habermas) are “Idealist” philosophers. They are Idealist in the sense that their philosophy is too “ideal.” Even though German philosophies are too ideal, they are still achievable by man. Husserl’s Transcendental Reduction, Scheler’s Values, Person and Community, Heidegger’s Authenticity, Gadamer’sInterpratation(with the considerations on the four Humanistic Concepts) and Habermas’ Consensus are too high for man to achieve (but can be achieved). German Philosophers have ideal philosophies because they believe that man can push himself to his very limit. In reaching his very limit, he can be the best that he can be. German Philosophers wanted man to reach his highest possible self. Even though they are criticized with their idealism, for them, there is nothing wrong with being ideal.
2.) Structural-Ontologists
German Philosophers are known for their being “Structural-Ontologists.”They provide philosophical structures which the French seldom does. They make structures in their philosophies to express their philosophical views and to guide the people reading their philosophy. Sometimes, the structures they make are in the form of procedure. For example: Husserl’s procedure in reaching the Transcendental Attitude is Epoche, Eidetic Reduction and Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction. Structures made by the German Philosophers serve as guide to achieve the ideals in their philosophies. The structures they make are strong and well supported. More examples of the structures they made areHusserl’s “Leib and Korper”, “Epoche”, Concordant Behavior, Transcendental Reduction, “Lebenswelt”, Heidegger’s “Dasein”, “Mitsein”, “Being-Towards-Death”, Being and Time and more. They make structures that carry their frame of thinking.
3.) Ontological-Phenomenological
The German Philosophers are Ontological Philosophers with Phenomenology as their method. Their method in philosophizing is Phenomenology. Phenomenology started with the Germans given that Husserl, who is the founder of Phenomenology is a German. Husserl, Heidegger and Scheler are German Phenomenologists.
B.) French Philosophers
1.) Centrality of “Choice”
If the German Philosophers are known for their too much idealism, the French Philosophers are known for their centrality on “choice.” In German philosophers’ philosophy, their philosophy is “imposing” due to their being ideal (Example: Habermas “Consensus”, Husserl’s “Transcendental Ego”, Gadamer’s “Fusion of Horizon”). On the other hand, French Philosophers emphasize “Choice” in their philosophy. Man is given the freedom to choose what to do. Their philosophies are just giving man suggestions and advices on what to do and then let man choose what to do. Example: “Be for the other or not?” “Use freedom well or not?” It is up to us to choose what we think is best for us.
2.) Critique
If the German Philosophers are known for their being “Structural-Ontologists”, the French Philosophers are known for making Philosophical Critiques. The French Philosophers are the ones who would critique the German philosophies. That is why, their philosophy is based on their solutions to the “downside” and the weak points of the German Philosopher’s philosophies. They would supply whatever is lacking and wrong with the German philosophies. Examples: Emmanuel Levinas critiqued Husserl’s “Immanent-Transcendence” and Heidegger’s “Dasein.” Jean Paul Sartre critiqued Heidegger’s “Being and Time. Jean Jacques Derrida critiqued Husserl’s “Back-to-Experience” and expounded Heidegger’s “Destruction.” These are just some of the more examples of the falsifications done by the French Philosophers to the German philosophies.
3.) Existential-Ethical
French Philosophers ground their philosophy in Ethics. They tackle matters concerning morals. They would solve moral issues in their philosophy. Examples: Levinas “face the Face”, “Infinite Responsibility”, Sartre’s “Total Freedom”, Ricouer’s Respect on Man’s “Fragility” and Foucault’s Discipline and “Pastoral Power.”
V.) French Philosophies: The More Practical One
Personally, I am in favor with the French Philosopher’s philosophy compared to the German Philosopher’s philosophy because the French Philosophies are more applicable in the present world compared to that of German’s. German Philosophies are too ideal and hard to be understood by the ordinary people. Habermas’ “Consensus” is a good and ideal philosophy but it is hard to be achieved in this contemporary world given the reality that each of us have different views and we would like to insists whatever our views are. Husserl’s Phenomenology is also a“high-calibre” philosophy but it is too deep, too ideal and too “boring” for an ordinary man to read. Scheler’s “Values, Person and Community” is too ideal for man to achieve because it encourages one’s “fading-of-the-I.” The “fading-of-the-I” means lesser concern to self, is not good anymore. On the other hand, French Philosophies are too realistic and graspable by the ordinary people reading it. These are Levinas’ “facing the Face” and “Infinite Responsibility”, Sartre’s “Total Freedom”, Ricoeur’s Respect to man’s “fragility” and Foucault’s Discipline and Pastoral Power. This is what contemporary people needs.
French Philosophy explained to a Contemporary Man
We need to face our responsibility to others. If we see that the other is in need, then “be for him.” Others cannot do things always on their own and we cannot do things always on our own. And so, we need to help each other. We humans are also called to use our freedom wisely. We have to use it wisely because we are also the ones to face the consequences of our actions. Weare to be responsible of our actions because it will later bounce back to us. Before we do things, we refer first to our conscience. We should consult our self if what we will do is for the good or for evil. If for the good, is it for the good of self alone (which is selfish) or for the good of all. We humans are also called to impose self-discipline in our self. Our self is our very tough enemy especially if we want to do something that is not ought to do. If we have self-discipline and we know that what we are to do is not good, we will not do it for the good. We are also called to respect our self and others. If we have self-respect, we will not do things that can degrade and put our dignity and humanity down. If we will have respect for others, then there will be external and internal peace in us.