|
As far as Rizal�s theory is concerned, the
two-fold nature of man is of great importance. As San Juan (1968) outlined,
Rizal views human being as a natural being and historically contingent.
Essentially, this account substantiates the claim that Rizal was able to
synthesize the ideals of the enlightenment philosophy into material terms. Celebrating man�s natural being, Rizal put
emphasis on man�s inherent ability to reason and innate ability to cultivate
intellect. But along with this is the importance of moral reasoning that would
necessitate the operation of conscience (San Juan, 1968; 1997). This claim is
reminiscent to the ideals of the enlightenment philosophy � the idea that
human beings are bound to discover their thelos through the use of reason
as espoused by Hegelian dialectics. But as far as the arguments
of the material are concerned, the ideas of the enlightenment philosophy tend to
regard human nature as universal and unchanging � their only goal is to
discover their ends � where everything seems to operate smoothly in terms of
ideas. This kind of thinking is divorced from the existence of material
conditions. This tendency to regard human beings as unchanging, by being not a
product of specific historical period is the core of Marx�s critical foil (Craib,
1997). Rizal is able to work both ends of the dualism (of
materialist/idealist terms) in his inclusion of the second fold of man�s
nature � as historically contingent, being affected by social and historical
circumstances. Rizal recognizes the exercise of reason as a function of the
social structure where human beings are located; and how human reason operates
in light of the material conditions in the form of societal constrictions that
suppress, impede and limit the growth of moral reasoning (San Juan, 1968). Let
us illustrate an example. Rizal's account of religion is best to illustrate
the point. Rizal�s critical foil in "Estado
de Religiosidad de los Pueblos en Filipinas" is geared to expose the
prevailing discourse of what Rizal calls the inauthentic religion. Instead of
teaching the virtues of Christianity, the inauthentic religion justifies its
existence by introducing symbols that ensure conformity to the people and
provide a misleading (ideological) framework in which individuals try to
understand their existence, i.e. a punishing but forgiving God.
�Immoralities� such as doing injustice and oppression are validated for the
punishing God and saints forgive them in exchange of material offerings (or
bribes) in varied forms, one of which is the offering of indulgencias.
For Rizal, adhering (uncritically) to such kind of religion disintegrates the
morality and conscience inherent in every individual. In this case, the
inability to distinguish the authentic from the inauthentic religion is
reflective of an impaired moral reasoning � a spiritually tortured conscience
(San Juan, 1968). (See�Tunay/Bulaan:
Ang Diyalektika ni Rizal sa Usapin ng Pagkamakarelihiyon�) Redemption from an impaired moral reasoning entails man�s capacity to
resist (San Juan, 1968) and the ability to deal with the social and historical
circumstances � for these circumstances provide
preconditions about what are to be reasoned out (San Juan, 2004). To be critical
of religious adherence � the courage to question the institutionally
constituted belief system � is an example. Further, in his �Letter
to the Women of Malolos�, Rizal urged the women to articulate their social
position, i.e. their roles of educating their children and by virtue of moral
reasoning they are able to make moral choices regarding the shaping of their
children�s characters (San Juan, 2004). Exercising moral choices would seem to
conjoin the freedom to think and reason out with critical thinking in the sense
that before something is to be considered moral, it presupposes scrutinizing the
dualities before making judgment, which is in its very nature, a dialectical
thinking. As explicitly set out, the second fold of Rizal�s
human nature is akin to Marx�s conception � that human beings are
historically contingent. Marx and Rizal also share
the same idea that human beings have the capacity to transform their
environment. For Marx, human beings are able to change themselves as their
potentialities are developed through labor; and as they change themselves, they
are able to transform their environment (Craib, 1997). Transformation in
Rizal�s term can be conceived through resolving real contradictions � of
ideas, desires, and convictions � given by the environment (San Juan, 2004).
Of course, this is possible through the employment of reason. Rizal�s contention of human beings possessing the
freedom of reasoning is akin to Nietzsche�s Dionysian conception of the self
(San Juan, 1968). For Nietzsche, there are two sides of the
self � the Apollonian and the Dionysian. The Apollonian side of the self is
suppressed by the competing discourses (i.e. rules of social arrangements), a
part that is rule following without being critical (Cuff et. al., 1998). In
Rizal�s theory, a picture of human beings that are captivated by the
discourses of the inauthentic religion is an example. In contrast, the Dionysian
is the side of the self that contains the ability to use the power of reason;
inherent in it is the will to power (Cuff, et. al.,
1998). It should be apparent that Rizal�s priority over human beings�
capacity to reason can explain this point. Alienation, i.e. the failure of human beings to
develop their human potentials as a consequence of the intense division of labor
is the very problem of human nature for Marx (Craib, 1997). Rizal�s
formulation of the problem is of different light. He put emphasis on
indifference and egoism. For Rizal, the problem of indifference lies on one�s
inability to convert his mere existence into existence with a cause. If this is
the case, the existence inevitably falls into futility (San Juan, 1968). This
futility of existence celebrates one�s uncertainty to provide solutions to
pertinent problems of the society. Along with this is the problem of egoism, the
inability to desire for the welfare of the people and the preoccupation to
prioritizing personal interests of acquisition and accumulation of property (San
Juan, 1997). |
|
Copyright 2005.
|
