Tag Archives: Humanity

Ang Makataong Kalooban: Tungo sa Isang Pilosopiya ng Relihiyon

Laging may hinahangad ang tao, laging meron siyang ninanasa sa kanyang buhay, aminin man ito o hindi. Nananatili ang mga angaring ito sa kanyang sarili, ngunit maaari ring mulat siya sa iilan sa mga ito. Sa mga namumulatan niyang hangarin, niloob niyang tupdin ang mga ito sa kanyang buhay. Maaaring isang pinakamahalagang ambisyon o bokasyon, o hindi naman kaya’y isang mababaw na pagpapahinga man lamang pagkatapos ng isang mahabang panahong pagpapagal. May mga naisasakatuparan, mayroon ring kabiguan, ngunit nananatili ang kaloobang laging may hinahangad at nais isakatuparan sa buhay.

May hinahangad sa kalooban ng tao, laging may isang “hindi mapalagay na pusong” naghahanap lagi. Ito ang isang katotohanan na hindi kailan man matatanggihan: kalooban ng tao. May nasa loob ng tao na laging nais isakatuparan sa buhay, minsan nagpupumiglas, minsan namamayapa. Ngunit hindi kailanman namamayapa nang lubusan itong kalooban ng tao — sapagkat laging merong hinahanap na para bagang hindi malaman at hindi matapus-tapos na pagsasagawa sa buong buhay.

Ito ang pinagsikapang tingnan ni Maurice Blondel sa kanyang tesis doktoral na L’Action (1893).2 Sinimulan niyang tahakin ang landas ng kalooban, ng paghahangad ng tao, ang landas ng niloloob ng tao. Sa liwanag ng kalooban ng tao, may isang mas tuwirang tanong na nasa likod ng paghahangad at saloobin: May kahulugan ba ang buhay irg tao? May patutunguhan ba ang tao? (LA, 3). Kung ang tao ay katipunan lamang ng kanyang mga saloobin, ano ang saysay at kahulugan ng buhay makatao? Kung ang tao ay pinamamahalaan ng kanyang mga saloobing lampas sa kanya, ano na lang ang kalayaan ng tao na magpasya para sa kanyang sarili? Hindi ba ang mismong kaloobang nangingibabaw sa kalayaan ng tao ay isang malungkot na pangitain at kapalaran ng tao?

Aaminin kong ang obra maestra ni Blondel ay mahirap basahin, bukod sa halos lahat ng mapagkukunan ng rnga teksto ay mga salin mula sa wikang Pranses. Ngunit sa kabila nito, may tunay na pangkaraniwang

hinahanap at nais ipakita si Blondel, pangkaraniwan lalo na sa mga namimilosopiya at nananampalataya, upang pagmunihan ang halaga ng kanilang relasyon sa kalooban ng Diyos. Isa ring paanyaya sa mga di-nananampalataya ang kanyang nais ilahad, mula sa isang akademikong larangan, upang pagmunihan ang halaga rig kanilang relasyon sa isang Absoluto o Ganap na pinapalagay lamang sa ideya. Isa ring paanyaya sa mga hindi naniniwala, sa mga hindi Kristiyano, na tingnan ang kalooban ng tao at hanapin ang mga mumunting tinig ng pagtawag na naroroon. Napakahaba ng imbentaryo ng kanyang pananaliksik sapagkat nais niyang tingnan ang lahat ng palagay ng may paggalang sabay pagtitirnbang kung ito na ba ang kabuuang niloloob ng tao sa kanyang buhay.

Tatalakayin ng pagmumuni-muning ito ang kalooban ng tao na tumutungo sa isang Pilosopiya ng Relihiyon. Sa pagsisikap na ilahad ni Blondel ang iba’t ibang adhika na niloloob ng tao sa kanyang buhay, paano ba pumapasok ang Pilosopiya ng Relihiyon sa isang makataong pagsasaloob, sa isang makataong pagsisikap na gampanan at isakatuparan ang saloobin? Kung ang tao ay isang nilalang na tumutungo sa kanyang kaganapan, saan at kanino makikita ang kanyang kaganapan sa mismong pagtalakay sa kalooban ng tao? Saan ba nananahan ang pamamayapa ng kaloobang dinamiko? Ito ang mga tanong na ginagalawan ng papel na ito. Sa huling bahagi, magbibigay ako ng kaunting pagmumuni-muni sa tulong ni Gabriel Marcel ukol rin sa kalooban ng tao.

L’Action

Ang panahon ng L’Action ay tigib sa pagsisikap na ihiwalay ang pilosopiya mula sa pagiging Teolohiya. Naghahari sa buhay Pranses noong panahon ni Blondel ang mga adhikaing makatao at sekular na mayroong matinding impluwensiya nina Comte, Taine, at Renouvier.3 Kaya maraming puna mula sa iba’t ibang pilosopo ang L’Action sapagkat tinatalakay nito ang tungkol sa pananampalataya sa pamamagitan ng disiplina ng Pilosopiya. Nakikita nilang isang pakikialarn na narnan ito ng pag-iisip sa pananampalataya o isang pag-iisip pilosopikong nais lamang ipagtanggol ang teolohiya. Nais pangatawanan ni Blonde! ang isang gawaing pilosopiko na humahantong sa isang pagrnurnulat sa Diyos, hindi sa isang pilit na pamimilosopiyang ipinapalagay kaagad ang pananampalataya bago pa ang pagmumuni-muni, kundi hinahayaan niya ang galaw ng pagmumuni, ang galaw ng pagmamalay, sa isang mabagsik na galaw ng pagtatanong at pagsusuri, na humantong kung saan man ito hahantong, na walang pagpapalagay ontolohikal.

Samakatuwid, ang buong galaw rig pagtalakay ay isang kusang pagpasok sa tunay na pagmumuning malaya at nakabukas sa lahat ng posibilidad, lahat ng paninindigan. Tinitingnan ang kakayahan ng bawat paninindigan — kung angkop at sapat ba ito o nagkukulang na dapat lampasan, iwanan at iwaksi sa kahuli-hulihan (LA, 12). Ayon pa kay Blondel, sa simula ng L’Action:

Sa ugat ng walang kapita-pitagang pagtanggi o sa pinakabaliw na layaw ng kalooban, kailangang matutunan natin kung wala bang sinaunang galaw na nanatili na ating laging iniibig at niloloob, kahit na hindi natin aaminin o abusuhin man ito…. Dapat lamang na ilagay natin ang ating sarili sa pinakasukdulan ng magkakasalungat na rayos upang makuha, sa pinakasentro nito, ang mahalagang katotohanan sa bawat pagmamalay at ang galaw na pangkaraniwan sa lahat ng kalooban.

Samakatuwid, tinatanong ang lahat ayon sa kanilang kakayahan na ginagamit ang sarili nilang batayan. Tinitingnan ang lahat, sinusubukan kung “naroroon ba sa kanilang sarili ang kanilang sapat na pagpapaliwanag o ang pagwawaksi” (LA, 12). Itong imbentaryo rig mga layunin na niloloob ng kaloobang makatao ay pagpapakita rig mga posibleng dadaanan ng kalooban habang naghahanap ng katuparan sa paglalakbay sa buhay. Ngunit hindi rin kailangan na daanan ito lahat, o ayon sa pagkasunud-sunod na inilahad ni Blondel sapagkat “hindi posible, ngunit hindi rin kailangan na ubusin ang buong sanlibutan upang maramdaman na hindi ito ang magpapawi ng ating pagka-uhaw” (LA, 305). Ang mahalaga dito ay merong kaloobang naghahanap ng katuparan, at ang pagsasakatuparan nito ay nangangailangan ng isang pagkilos.5 May isang tunay na pagka-uhaw na hindi napapawi sa lahat ng uri at pamamaraan ng pag-iinom. Tsang pagkauhaw ito na naghahanap ng katugma, na kasing tindi rin ng panloob na dinamismo nito.

Vinculum Substantiale

Nagsimula itong pagtataka ni Blondel sa katangian ng pagkilos o pagsasagawa mula sa mga klasikal na sipi ni Aristoteles. Mula sa kanyang personal na mga nota na may panahong Nobyembre 1882, may binabanggit siya ukol sa pagkilos o pagsasagawa bilang accidens ng substantia. Tunay ngang hindi ito ang substantia ngunit napakahalaga sapagkat sa pamamagitan nito lamang nailalantad at naipapakita ng substantia ang pagka-substantia nito. Hindi meron sa tunay na kahulugan nito ngunit meron, sa maluwag tanggihan ang katotohanang ito, na siya namang nagbigay ng  loob kay Blondel na pagmuihan at sundan ang galaw ng pagmumuni-muni ukol sa katunayan ng pagkilos.

Ang kanyang pambungad na teksto ukol sa pagkilos o pagsasagawa ay may pamagat na Vinculum Substantiale. Kung wala siyang nakitang tugon at pagliwanag kay aristoteles, dito niya tinitingnan ang katangian ng pagkilos bilang isang galaw na nagmumula sa mismong  substantia, isang panloob na enerhiyang kusang “lumalabas, umaapaw” na hindi lamang basta isang accidens. Ayon pa sa kanyang nota “ang mabuti ay kung ginagawa ito” (NOTA, 1). Kaya  ang pagsasagawa o pagkilos ay kabutihan mismo ng substantia. Nangyayari ang kabutihan sa pagsasagawa. Ang hindi pagsasagawa ay nagbubunga ng kabaligtaran, isang pagsalungat sa meron. Samakatuwid, ang mismong pagsasagawa o pagkilos ay napakahalaga sapagkat dito lamang naisasakatuparan ang meron, isang prosesong  nakalutang, o isang konseptong  nasa isip lamang, ngunit totoong naroroon at binubuo, hinuhubog ang substantia. Isang vinculum substantiale ang pagsasagawa , isang kuwan na bumubuo, hindi mula sa labas, kundi isang panloob na bumubuo at nag-uugnay sa lahat ng nasa substantia. Ito ang sementong mag-uugnay upang maging buo ang meron. Sa mismong vinculum substantiale ni Blondel nagkaroon ng bagong mukha ang pagsasagawa, ang pakilos na hindi masyadong pinag-abalahan ng mga nakaraang pilosopo. Mula sa pambungad ng vinculum substantiale, sinimulan ni Blondel ang pagtahak sa buhay ng tao bilang pagsisikap na isakatuparan ang makataong kalooban. Hinahanap niya ang ugat ng makataong pagsasagawa. at kung ano ang layunin at hantungan nito.

Makataong Kalooban

Sa isang personal na nota ni Blondel, isinabuod niya ang tungkol sa katangian ng kalooban. Wika nya:
24 Nobyembre 1883 – Niloob ko. Nawa ang buong buhay ko tumugon at magbigay kahulugan: niloob ko. Niloloob ko na nilolob ng Diyos sa akin; hindi ko alam kung ano iyon , ngunit kasama siya magagawa ko ang lahat na kung ako lamang ay hindi magagawa …. Niloloob ko, niloloob ko ngayon, upang masabi rin bukas: niloloob natin; upang masabi rin natin sa pinto ng kamatayan: niloloob Niya (NOTA, 1).

Laging may niloloob ang tao. At ang mga saloobing ito ay kanyang pinagsisikapang isinasagawa sa kanyang buhay. Ngunit ang hindi pagsasagawa ay isa ring pagsagsagawa ay isang katotohanang hindi matatakasan ng tao sa kanyang buhay sapagkat ang pagtanggi ay isang pagkilala. Ang pagsasagawa at pagkilos ay isang hindi maiiwasang akto (LA, 4). Ngunit ang niloob madalas ay hindi naisasagawa, nabibigo rin. May pagkakataon ring nagagawa ang hindi naman sinasadyang niloloob, ngunit sa kahuli-hulihan ay tinanggap na rin bilang niloloob.

Sa pagsasaloob ng tao, ito ang mismong galaw ng kalooban na makiugnay sa mundong nakapaligid sa kanya. Ang mismong paghahangad ng kalooban. na “tumingin” at “lumalabas” ay tanda ng paghahanap ang tao sa kanyang buhay – at ito ang iniisa-isa ni Blondel sa kanyang buong pagtalakay sa L’Action. Pinapalawak ng kalooban ang kanyang sarili. Naglalakbay ang kalooban upang hanapin ang hinahanap nito, mulat man ang tao o hindi. Mistulang kamay na nagsisikap abutin ang nais abuting hindi maabut-abot.

Tunay ngang mulat minsan ang tao sa kanyang kalooban, ngunit may pagkakataong hindi rin niya namamalayang may ibang tagong kaloobang naroroon sa kanyangn sarili. May kaloobang kusang umaapaw sa tao, na minsan hindi niya pinasyang loobin niya, niloloob pa rin niya. Ito ang dahilan kung minsan, hinahangad ng tao ang isang bgay at biglaan na lamang sasabihin, “parang may kulang” sa kanyang hinahangad . May pinasyang niloob ang tao, ngunit nararanasan niyang “parang hindi ito ang niloob ko,” ngunit sadya ngang niloob ng sarili. laging may natitirang hindi pa sapat ang natutuklasan. Mistulang kamay na umaabot, ngunit pag may mas mahalaga pang kailangang hanapin. Hindi sapagkat walang halaga o hindi mainam ang natuklasan, kundi may panloob na tawag upang magpatuloy at umusad. Hindi napapahinto ng panlabas na adhika ang panloob na kalooban. May lumalampas na hindi basta-basta lamang, hindi isang guni-guni, kundi tunay na kaloobang dinamiko.

Sa isang taong nagpasyang mahalin ang isang kapuwa tao, mula sa kanyang kalayaan na “magmahal,” pinagsisikapan niyang tupdin ito sa kongkretong paraan. Ngunit habang pinapangatawanan ito, may mga pagkakataong naiisip rin tao, nadarama rin ng sarili ang isang pagdududa sa kanyang niloloob. Totoong buo ang pagmamahal tungo sa kapwang iyon, totoong tunay at tapat ang pagpapasya at pagtataya, ngunit nararanasan ang isang hindi-maipaliwanag na kaloobang bumabaling lampas pa sa minamahal na kapwa tao. Hindi pagtataksil ng kalooban, kundi isang “kaloobang hindi mapalagay,” isang kaloobang wala pa sa sariling tahanan. May ibang kaloobang sinanauna pa sa pinasya’t mulat na pagsasaloob ng tao na minsan nakikialam sa mismong pasyang isakatuparan, o dili kaya’y naroroon sa lahat ng pagpapasaya, paghahangad at pagsasaloob ng tao na tumutulak sa kanyang magpatuloy, umusad, kumilos pa sa paglalakbay.

Itong pagka-hindi-sapat na karanasan ay ugat ng walang sawang paghahangad at   paghahanap ng tao na nanggagaling sa kaloobang kusang nakaukit sa tao. Tinatawag ito ni Blondel na la volanté voulante (BC, 7). Kaya sa isang taong nagpapasyang mahalin ang kanyang kapwa tao, sa mismong pagsasakatuparan sa kanyang niloob, mula sa kanyang kalooban, nanatili ang pagka-hindi-sapat. Hindi ibig sabihing kulang ang pagmamahal, kundi habang pinapangatawanan ng tunay ang pagmamahal, ng may pagsisigasig, may iba namang hinagangad ang kalooban. Bumabaling sa iba, tumingin muli sa iba, hindi bilang pagtataksil kundi isang kusang galaw ng malayang kalooban. May panloob na dinamismong lumalampas sa mga niloloob ng tao.

“Ngayon, kailangan nating umusad ” (LA, 4), sabi ni Blondel. Upang hanapin itong hinahangad ni Blondel, kailangang sundan ang galaw ng kalooban at pagmamalay habang naglalakbay, ipagpatuloy ang pagmumuni-muni, ngunit itong pag-usad ay wala munang ipinapalagay.

Ninanais ni Blondel na tahakin ang landas ng kalooban sa isang maka-penomenolohikal na paraan (BC, 9) . Hayaang loobin ng kalooban ng tao ang kahity na anong niloloob nito, at hanapin kung saan namamayapa ang kalooban, na wala muna ang bigat ng ontolohikal na pagkilala. Ang pagsunod sa galaw ng dinamikong kalooban sa buhay ay isang pakikisabay sa sinaunang kilos ng kalooban.

Samakatuwid, ang pagmumulat sa dinamismo ng kalooban ng tao ay isang pagkilala na merong saloobing mulat ang tao (la volanté voulue) at may kusang galaw ng kaloobang nasa kaloob-looban ng tao (la vonlanté voulante) (BC, 7). Ang kusang gumagalaw na kalooban ang nagpapaapoy sa tao sa kanyang buhay, ang tumutulak sa tao na magpatuloy, maglakbay, umusad sa buhay, ang tumutulak sa tao na magpatuloy, maglakbay, umusad sa buhay. Isang bukal ng enerhiya ng tao na nagbibgay buhay sa kanyang kahulugan bilang tao, nagbibigay oryentasyon sa kanyang paglalakbay.

Ang Hindi Maiiwasang Pag-akyat (Imbentaryo)

Ang kusang galaw ng kalooban ng nasa tao ang nagbibigay ng oryentasyon sa mismong hakbangin ng pagpapatuloy. Hindi ito isang pilit o pinipilit na pagpapatuloy, kundi isang pagkukusa – sapagkat ang paghinto ay isang pag-amin na merong tinanggihan (LA, 33). Isang pangangailangan ang pag-usad, hindi lamang sa tulak ng pagmumula sa kalagayan ng pagka-hindi-pa-sapat. Isa rin itong pasyang kailangan ang pakikisabwat ng pagmamalay, ang payagan na magpatuloy ang pag-usad upang sundin ang galaw. Ang katindihan nitong galaw ng kalooban ay makikita sa buong imbentaryo ng pagsisikap ng tao sa buong buhay, at sa bawat hakbang nito ay masusulyapan lagi ang “pagka-hindi-sapat” (BC. 7). Habang hinahanap ng tao ang kaganapan at katuparan, hinahangad niyang magkaroon ng pagkakatugma ag kanyang niloloob at ang kusang galaw ng kanyang kalooban, na palagi namang di nagkakatugma sa bawat pagsisikap na patugmain. Itong pagpukaw ng pagkabalisa mula sa pagka-hindi-pagtutugma ng kalooban ay pagpapakita ng nakatagong balangkas ng kalooban ng tao . Isang hindi mawasak at hindi maaring matanggihang galaw ng kalooban ay laging umiiral sa bawat pagsasaloob ng tao. Unang hakbang na tintalakay ni Blondel ang delitantismo na tumatangging may problema sa pagsasagawa. Ito ang paninindigan ng taong ang lahat ay walang  pinagkakaiba, tunay ang lahat na nagkakasalungat, at walang hangaring tingnan kung may pagkakatugma ba (TC,56). Isa itong pagsisikap ipagtanggol ang sarili sa lahat upang mapanatili ang pagkahawak sa sarili – ang pagkabuo. Ngunit itong pagkabuo na hangkag sapagkat walang katapatan, walang paninindingan (LA, 30). Itong makasariling pagsamba sa hungkag na sarili. Mistulang laro lamang na hindi matapus-tapos ang lahat na ito, walang seryosong pagbibigay ng sarili. Kaya ang mismong pagtangging diletantismo ay isang pagkilala na meron ngang problema, nasa isang paninindigang may intrinsikong nagkakasalungatan ang posisyon ng diletante.

Hindi rin maaaaring negatibo ang tugon. Ang loobin ang wala ay nagpapakita ng isang pagsasalungat rin (BC, 7). Ang pagsasabing “walang tunay na hantungan ang tao kundi kamatayan, nihilismo” ay isang tunay na hantungan ang tao kundi kamatayan, nihilismo” ay isang matigas na paninidigan ng mga istowiko. Itong paninindigang nagmumula sa wala ay hahantong sa wala ang lahat ay kailangang iwanan sapagkat ang pagmamatigas ng loob ay isang pagkilala ng layunin ng kalooban. Ngunit sa kusang galaw ng kalooban, merong kusang niloloob ang kalooban, ” may layunin ang pagsasagawa” (LOA, 84). Hindi wala, may kuwan na hinahangad (LA, 54). Itong pag-amin ay bumubukal mismo sa kalooban na hindi matatanggihan, isang kailangang aminin sabay tanggapin. Nagkakaroon ng hugis, ito ang mga adhika ng ating pandama na nasa paligid (LA, 56). Ngunit itong mga adhikaing nasa ating paligid ay walang kahulugan kung walang nag-iipon. Ito’y nagmimistulang agos ng mga pandama na walang kahulugan, walang saysay at patutunguhan. Ito ang pagsilang ng agham na siyang nag-iipon ng mga layon ng pandama upang gawing isang maayos na kabuuan (BC, 7). Sa pagkakaisa ng dalawang uri ng agham, ang matematika at ang agham-natural, naisasagawa ang mismong pagbubuo ng mga karanasang nasa antas ng pandama (LA, 60). Ngunit itong pagkabuo ay hindi lamang katipunan ng mga karanasang pandama, kundi isang lampas pa dito,  isang kabuuan mula sa pagsasagawa ng pag-iipon ng agham.

Habang naiaayos ng agham ang mga karanasang pandama, sinusukat ayon sa nagpapakita, hindi sapat lamang ang pag-iipon na nangyayari. Kahit nagtatagumpay ang agham hindi ito dahil sa kanyang  sarili lamang at sa pagsisikap ng agham, kundi may isang lampas pa na gumagawa mismo ng pag-aagham at nagbibigay layunin sa lahat ng pananaliksik. Kailangan ng agham na may gumagawa mismo ng pag-agham at nagbibigay layunin sa lahat ng pananaliksik. Kailangan ng agham na may gumagawa ng pag-aagham. Hindi mangyayari ang pagkakaisa ng matematika at agham natural kung walang pagmamalay na gumagawa ng pagsasanib ng sukat at napagmasdan. “Isang suheto na gumagawa ” ang kailangan upang pangatawanan ang pag-aagham. Ito ang suhetong epiphenomenon na hindi maaaring iuwi bilang adhikain ng pag-aaral ng agham, kundi isang pagmamalay na bumubuo at nagsasagawa ng mga gawaing makaagham (LA, 91). Lumalampas sa kapatagan ng pagmamasid at pagsusukat ang pagmamalay. Iyo ang suhetong nagbibigay ng kabuuan at oryentasyon sa buong kilos ng agham.

Sa pagmamalay ng tao, naiipon rin ang kanyang sarili. Mula sa kanyang mga nakaraang pag-iiral bilang tao – mga katotohanang kanyang tinanggap, nakasanayan, natutunan, lahat ng ito ay bumubuo sa kanyang sarili bilang pagmamalay. Ngunit itong pagmamalay ay mulat rin sa mga posibibilidad na hinaharap nito sa kinabukasan – mga posibleng motibasyon (mobiles) na hinihimok ang pagmamalay na tumugon (LA, 113). Kaya nasa antas ang pagmamalay ng pag-angat tungo sa kalayaan na nagmula sa pagkatapos ng nakaraan. Kailangang aminin ang  pagkagapos, ngunit sabay may galaw ng kalooban na hindi ito ang lahat. May posibilidad na nakahain sa pagmamalay: kalayaang maaring galawan ng pagsasabuo ng sarili, muling pagbabago at paglilikha ng sarili. Ang pagsasagawa ng pagmamalay, sa liwanag ng kalayaang ito, ay isang pagpapasyang malaya mula sa iba’t ibang motibasyon (mobiles) na umuudyok sa pagmamalay. Kaya, may isang pagkakailangang tanggapin ang pagkatapos, at sa mismong pagtanggap, naroroon ang pagpapalaya (BS, 91). Ang pagpapasyang mula sa kalayaan ng pagmamalay ay lumilikha ng bagong karanasan, na hindi rin ibang-iba at bagung-bago, may ugnayan pa rin sa nakaraang pagmamalay. Ngunit sa pagpapasya, mula sa liwanag ng kalayaan, pumapasok  ang sarili sa isang mataas na larangan at antas ng pagmamalay, sapagkat may isang malayang pagsisikap na nangyayari (LOA, 85).

Habang umuusad ang galaw ng kalooban, umaangat ang kalayaan tungo sa pagsasagawa nito. Hindi maaring manatiling nakalutang ang kalayaan ng pagmamalay, kundi kailangan  itong isagawa, isakatuparan. Upang pangatawanan ang kalayaan, bumabangga ito sa mismong pagsasagawa. Upang pangatawanan ang kalayaan, kailangan ang katawan, ang pagkilos ng katawan. Ang pagsasalaman ng kalayaan sa katawan ay isang pagsasakondisyon, samakatuwid, ng kalayaan sapagkat  hindi matutupad. Samakatuwid, isang kondisyon ng walang-hanggang kalayaan ang maging may hangganan, sumasakatawan (LA, 150). Ito ang tanda ng pagiging bukod-tangi, pagiging indibidwal ng bawat isa. Nagkakaroon ng tunay na mukha ang pagmamalay, mula sa malayang pasya nito, sa pagsasakatuparan ng pasyang malaya.

Ang pagiging indibidwal ay hindi maisasakatuparan kung hindi nakikipagkapwa. ” Hindi nakagapos ang pagsasagawa sa loob lamang ng buhay indibidwal” (LA, 195). Sa pag-amin ng pagkabukod-tangi, naroroon ang pagkakailangang magbahagi ng pagkabukod-tangi sa iba ring sariling bukod-tangi (BS, 7). Sa pagtutulungang ito upang lumikha ng isang malalim ba katapatan, nakakabuo ang pagka-indibidwal ng isang mas lampas pa sa katipunan ng indibidwal – ang lipunan. Sa ganito ring paraan, ang kalooban ay nagbubunga hindi lamang ng lipunn, kundi ng sangkatauhan (LA, 259). Ngunit hindi lamang nagtatapos dito naglalakbay pa ang kalooban tungo sa buong sangkalawakan (TC, 147), hanggang sa larangan ng etika at metapisika hanggang sa aisang paghantong sa superstisyon: isang pagsisikap hanapin ang katuparan ng kalooban sa mismong buong imbentaryo na dinaanan sa pamamagitan ng pagtanggap na sapat na ito sa kanyang sarili.

Isa itong superstisyon sapagkat inilagay ng kalooban ang isang adhikaing nasa imbentaryo bilang katuparan ng lahat ng pagsasaloob ng tao — isang pagtatalaga ng relihiyosong halaga sa isang limitadong nilalang na naranasan ng kalooban. Sa pag-usad ng hinahangad ng kaloobangmakatao, naroroon sa bawat hakbangin ang h in d i-pagka-sapat na kalagayan, isang tanda na kahit mayroong sinadyang niloloob ang kalooban, hindi pa rin sapat lagi ang nahahantungan (BC, 8). Kaya ang superstisyon ay isang pagbaling sa mga adhikaing nadaanan at bigyang halaga ito lampas sa kanilang napapakitang halaga, sarnakaruwid gawing sapat ang totoong hindi naman sapat (TC, 193). Hindi ba ito isang panlilinlang lamang sa kalooban? Tunay ngang isang pagsubok na palitan ng may hangganan ang walang hangganan, isang paghalili rig may hangganan sa absoluto, upang mabuhay sa isang di-tunay na kaganapan at anino lamang ng tunay na pagkakatugma rig kalooban.

Nilakbay ng kalooban ang imbentaryo ng lahat na posibleng penomena ng kalooban, ngunit hindi pa tin napapawi ang katutubong galaw rig kalooban, hindi pa rin namamatay ang elan (LA, 300). Kaya Icallangang loobin ng kalooban ang sarili nito mismo. At sa pagsasaloob mismo ng sarili nito, nararanasan ng tao ang isang matinding pagkauhaw Pa rin (LA, 301). Nagkukulang pa rin ang sariling kaloo ban, lumalampas pa rin sa sariling kalooban ang elan, hindi pa rin namamatay ang katutubong galaw ng dinamikong kalooban ng tao. Is ang paglalampas na kailangan, ngunit imposible.

Mula sa pagsasalungatang ito sumisibol ang ideya rig Nag-iisang Karapat-dapat, ang ideya ng Diyos. Ngunit nananatiling ideya lamang hangga’t hindi naisasakatuparan. Ang pagsasagawa at pagsasakatuparan ng katutubong galaw ng kalooban ang “sementong bumubuo at humuhubog sa tao” (LA, 178). Ngunit hindi ganap na mabubuo at mahuhubog ang tao kung maiwan lamang sa kanyang sarili, sa kanyang pagsisikap na isakatuparan at tupdin ang kaganapan rig kanyang sarili, sa parnamagitan rig kanyang sarili. Nangangailangang isagawa ang ideya ng Absoluto, ngunit papaano? Imposible, pero kailangan. Ngunit hindi kailanman hahantong sa katiyakan at katuparan ang ideya kung hindi aaminin at isasagawa ng kalooban ang pagtanggap sa Diyos, sa kalooban ng Diyos. Naiiwan ang kalooban sa isang sangangdaan: pasyahin mula sa kalayaan na tanggapin ang Diyos o hindi:

Oo o hindi, loloobin ba niyang mabuhay, kahit hanggang sa huling hininga, na maghari sa kanya ang Diyos? 0 di kaya, magkunwaring sapat na siya sa kanyang sarili na walang Diyos…. (LA, 327).

Nakahain sa tao ang isang napakahalagang pagpapasya. Ang arninin na lahat ng kanyang dinaanang pagsasaloob ay nabigo. Ito ang kabiguang kailangang tanggapin — na hindi matatamo ang hinahangad ng tao sa mundong ito. Sa bawat paghahangad nangyayari ang kabiguan, sa bawat kalooban, may natitirang hindi pa ring napapawing pagka-uhaw.

Ito bang pagkauhaw ay isang uri rig parusa na pinanatili sa tao? Isang hindi matapus-tapos na pagdurusa mula sa pagmumulat na hindi kailanman matutupad rig pagmamalay ang mga hangarin nito? Tunay ngang pagdurusa at impiyerno sa isang nagpasyang bumaling sa adhikaing nadaanan, na nasa labas ng Diyos, sapagkat pinili ng kalooban ang walang hanggang “pagka-hindi-sapat.” Ang walang hanggang pag-kauhaw ay tunay ngang pagdurusa, na pinili rig kalooban mula sa kanyang kalayaan, kung papasyahin nitong bumaling at piliin ang sarili.

Banal na Kalooban: Pag-aantabay sa Biyaya

Sa katutubong galaw ng dinamismo rig kalooban natutuklasan, pagkatapos na madaanan ang lahat na ito, ang tunay na hinahanap ng kalooban: ang Diyos. Nagkakaisa ang kalooban ng tao at ang kalooban ng Diyos sa katutubong galaw ng kalooban — “isang lihim na kasal ang nangyayari sa pagitan ng kaloobang makatao at kaloobang banal” (LA, 342). ‘sang pagtaksil sa sumpaang ito ang pasyang bumaling sa sarili laban sa Diyos, humahantong na rin sa pagdurusa at kapahamakan rig kalooban. Ang pagtanggi na piliin ang kalooban sa Diyos ay isang pangangalunya sa sumpaan rig ating kalooban sa kalooban ng Diyos, na siyang bukal ng makataong kalooban.

Ang tumugon sa tawag rig buhay at pagsasagawa rig kaloobang makatao ay isang pakikibahagi mismo sa kalooban ng Diyos. Naroroon mismo ang kalooban rig Diyos sa katutubong galaw ng kalooban rig tao, bago ang lahat. Ngunit dumadaan ang kalooban sa paglalakbay mula sa isang hindi-pagkakatugma tungo sa isa pang antas hanggang humantong sa pagpapasyang napakahalaga tungo sa pakikiisa sa kalooban ng Diyos. “Isang pakikiisa na bumubuo sa atin, isang ugnayang ating niloloob sa ating sarili para sa Kanya habang niloob Niya iyon mula sa Kanya para sa atin” (LA, 342).

Kaya ang pagpapasyang ito ay isang pagbibigay ng kalooban ng tao sa kalooban ng Diyos. Ang mismong hindi pagbibigay ng kanyang kalooban sa Diyos ay magbubunga ng hindi pagtamo rig tunay na pagsasakatuparan ng hangarin. Ang mismong kaloobang tinatago sa sarili, para sa sarili, ang maghahadlang sa kaganapan ng sarili (LA, 345). Wala nang ibang landas kung ito lamang. Hindi hahantong sa kaganapan ang pagsasagawa kung hindi ibibigay ng Diyos ang kanyang sarili sa tao (LA, 346). Isang malayang pagbitiw ng sarili, ng kaloobang makatao at isang paghihintay sa biyayang ipagkakaloob.

Ang pagbibitiw na ito ay ‘casing “sakit ng panganganak” (LA, 348). Binibitiwan hindi lamang ang isang mahalagang bahagi, kundi ang kabuuan ng kaloobang makatao upang tanggapin ang kabuuan ng Kanyang pagbibigay. Sa kalaunan, ang pagbibitiw na ito ay isang pagbibigay daan sa pagtatanggap, na hindi hurnihingi, ngunit nag-aantabay sapagkat ang Kanyang kalooban ang maghahari sa atin, na siya na ring katuparan ng katutubong kalooban. Ang pagkakaloob Niya ng kanyang sarili sa tao ay isang handog na inaantabayanan. Kaya ang pagsunod sa kalooban ng Diyos ay isang patuloy na gawain (LA, 378). Ang pananampalataya ay isang patuloy na gawain at pagtut-upad sa kalooban ng Diyos. Isa itong hindi matapus-tapos na pagbibitiw ng makataong kalooban, bilang kaganapan ng sariling kalooban, sa buhay ng tao.

Pilosopiya ng Relihiyon

Sa isang penomenolohikal na pagtalakay sa iba’t ibang elernentong niloloob ng kalooban, humantong ang lahat ng pagrnurnuni sa isang pagmumulat sa ideya ng Diyos. Itong pagmumulat at pag-arnin ay hindi isang pilit na sumulpot, kundi kusang dumarating, isang pagkukusang kailangan, sapagkat hindi matatanggihan ang katutubong galaw ng kalooban na laging nakakaranas ng “pagka-hindi-sapat.” Ang pagmumulat ay naghahain sa kalooban ng isang pasyang kailangan pangatawanan — at ito ang pasyang nagbibigay saysay sa buong adhika ng kalooban. Ang Pilosopiya ay humahantong sa ideya ng Diyos, ngunit kailangang lumundag at magpasyang pangatawanan ang pananampalataya, na nakahain bilang pasya sa Pilosopiya. Nagkakaroon lamang ng tunay na kahulugan ang mga adhikaing niloob kung ito ay tinanggap ngunit hindi sapat ng kalooban na tao, para sa kanyang sarili — na ngayon ay magpapasya sa pagtanggap na ang lahat sa mundong ito ay isang bigong tagumpay. Pagkabigo sapagkat wala sa mundo, wala sa sarili ang katuparan ngunit isa ring tagumpay dahil nakahain ang isang paanyayang kailangang magbukas ng kalooban, bitawan ang kalooban upang tanggapin ang banal na kalooban, na siya mismong bukal na magpapawi ng pagkauhaw.

Isang pilosopiya ng relihiyon, samakatuwid, ang L’Action sapagkat mula sa disiplina ng isang pag-iisip na mayroong mabagsik na sinusundang daloy,  mula sa isang makisig na pagmumuni-muni ng pagmamalay, ng penomenolohiya, humahantong sa isang pagkilala sa Diyos na naghahari ngunit sabay nagpapalaya. Sa isang banda, isang paanyaya samakatuwid, itong buong pagsisikap ni Blonde’ sa mga “hindi nananampalatayang isip” (BC, 199). Nais niyang ipakita na tunay ngang ang hinahanap rig kalooban rig tao ay ang Diyos. Ngunit ang kanyang paglalahad ay hindi isang pagtatanggol rig teolohiya o isang pagsisikap na talunin ang mga argumentong laban sa pananampalataya. Nanatili si Blonde’ sa isang mahinahon ngunit tiyak na landas ng pagmumulat sa Diyos sa kusang pag-usad ng pagmamalay upang sundan ang galaw ng kalooban.

Dito rin nailalahad ang katotohanan ng kalayaan ng tao at ang biyaya ng Diyos. Ang kalayaan na gumagalaw sa kalooban ng tao ay isang kalayaang biyaya rin rig Diyos sa tao. Upang pangatawanan ng tao ang kalayaang ito, kailangan niyang isabuhay. Ngunit sa kahuli-hulihan, kailangan niya ring bitawan ang kalayaan, mula sa kanyang kalayaan, magpasyang bitawan ito upang tanggapin, na may kalayaan, ang kalooban rig Diyos: isang pagwawaksi rig kalayaan upang maging ganap na malaya. Hindi ba ito ang hinahanap ng kalooban? Ang pagkakatugma ng kalooban ng Diyos sa kalooban ng tao ay nasa pagbibitiw upang hayaang tanggapin ang pagdating rig kalooban ng Diyos, ng pagbabahagi ng sarili ng Diyos.

Kaya ang kalagayang makatao ay “isang paghahanda rig daan” upang hintayin ang pagdating ng inaasahan, isang adbiyento. Ang papel ng kalooban ng tao ay up ang magbigay ng puwang sa kalooban ng Diyos, kaya kailangan nitong bitawan ang kanyang sarili upang tanggapin ang bukal ng kanyang sarili. Kailangan nitong tanggihan ang kanyang kalooban upang bigyan ng puwang ang bukal ng kanyang kalooban. “Kailangan makakatanggap lamang ang kalooban ng tao mula sa isang mas lampas pa sa k-amay ng tao” (LA, 445), na siyang kahulugan ng buhay at hantungan ng kalooban. Doon lamang mamamayapa ang kalooban, sa pamamaalam sa sarili, upang tanggapin ang kandungan ng Diyos.

Kaya nga ang kataga ng paghihiwalay pisikal
Na nagsisimula sa pagyayakap ng magkakaibigan
Na maghihiwalay,
Ang yakap na laging malayo
Sa pinakamahigpit na yakap nito ay
Ang salitang “paalam” (LA, 405).
Ngunit kailangan ibigay ang lahat para sa lahat;
May banal na kapalit ang buhay,
Kahit sa kabila ng kanyang mayabang o senswal na pagkukulang,
May sapat na pagbubukas-palad ang sangkatauhan na mas malting bahagi
Sa sinumang hihingi ng lampas dito (LA, 445).

Education for Humanness

We educate people for many purposes. We educate them to be nurses, accountants, lawyers, doctors and priests. We educate them to be good citizens, to possess certain moral values, to be committed to a certain religion.

Have we overlooked something? Is there a type of education that is missing from this list? I suggest that there is another possible purpose of education. This would be an education that would result in a fully human person, an education of a human being precisely as human.

A few years ago I spoke to a group of new teachers at the Ateneo de Zamboanga and I proposed this idea of an education for full humanness. These teachers reacted initially with puzzled frown and strong resistance. For them such a type of education, first of all, was simply not found at the Ateneo de Zamboanga. They felt that the education which they had received at the Ateneo was focused on two things: the learning of practical skills (such as nursing, accounting, etc. and good Catholics and Moslem’s, socially involved, men and women for others). They were not aware that any education for humanness was found at the school.

Their second reaction to this idea of an education for humanness was a question: how could you possibly do this sort of thing? How could you organize a school and set up a curriculum which could train people to be human? These young teachers could not imagine what such a school would be like.

As I begin this talk I presume that this idea seems just as strange and wild for you as it seemed for those young teachers in Zamboanga. Without a doubt it is a strange idea: an education in humanness, strange because it is an approach that is so radically different from what we usually experience in modern education.

I feel challenged to clarify this idea. There seem to be three major areas which need to be confronted and discussed:

1) What is this humanness that such an education would seek to develop? What does it mean to be human?

2) There is need to speak about the approaches to education which are opposed to such an education for humanness. Any attempt to establish such a form of education would face stiff opposition. What militates against an education for humanness?

3) We need to explain the structure of this school for humanness. How do you train someone to be a human being?

What Does It Mean To Be Human?

It is one of the strange paradoxes of human life that we can be human beings without being human. The character of human existence is quite different from the existence of any other living species. Every other living organism grows quickly and surely to a state of full development. An acacia tree necessarily is an acacia tree. A dog necessarily is canine.

Very rarely do we encounter a plant or an animal that is such a “monster” that it does not truly represent its species. But this does not hold true of human beings. We differ from plants and animals in that we can fail to be what nature destines us to be: human. We describe such failure as a person who is inhuman. or as a person who is an animal or a robot or a barbarian.

Humanness is a quality which is not given to us automatically at the beginning of life. It is an achievement that is only attained after a long period of development and struggle. Even when it has been achieved it is not possessed as a permanent endowment. We human beings can choose to live in such a way that we lose certain dimensions of our humanness.

With that as a preface I return to our question: What does it mean to be human? I find that such a question is almost impossible to answer. I am aware that there are so many dimensions to human existence that any list of basic human qualities would go on almost endlessly. I am also aware that in the history of human cultures there have been many different ways of viewing humanness, many different humanisms. Each one of these humanisms would tend to emphasize different human traits. Because of this, any presentation of basic human qualities will necessarily be controversial as well as incomplete. Nevertheless, let me proceed with my description of what it means to be human.

1) Fully human persons have a sense of personal identity, they know who they are. This sense of identity includes, first of all, a realization of their own special uniqueness. They have a sense of their own special gifts and the unique contribution that they can make to the world. Out of this awareness of themselves and their gifts arises a sense of pride in themselves. They move forward in life with a certain confidence in what they can do.

They also know what they want to do with their lives, they have a sense of their own personal vocations. They have stepped outside the robot-like crowd where everyone is the same and they live authentic lives. They have developed their own special interests and have their own ideas about things.

2) Fully human persons have communication skills which are highly developed. They are able to present their feelings, ideas and dreams with clarity, force and humor. Such people are able to tell you in a clear way what they are thinking. They can persuade you by the power of what they say. They are interesting people who don’t bore you when they talk to you. With these communication skills they are able to function in an active and influential way in their families and communities.

3) Fully human persons understand the human heart. They appreciate the great dreams that inspire human life: the great ambitions, the longings for love, the vision of creating something new, the hopes for success and achievement. They are aware of the deep vices that twist human life: frightening insecurity, quiet joy, gentle humor. They are sensitive to the many forms of suffering that arise in human life: loneliness, frustration, the sense of being a failure.

When a truly human person meets someone, he is sensitive to the hidden feelings that are swirling around in that other person’s life: the anger, the guilt, the heartache, the disappointments, the silent hope, the unhappiness. A fully human person has an understanding, compassionate heart.

4) Fully human persons have active and inquiring minds. They are fascinated by the mysteries of life: the wonderful organization found in nature, the varying moods of their own heart, the hidden stories that other people have to tell, the strange happenings of human history, the profound affirmations made by religions, the hidden presence of God, the changes that take places in each of us as we move forward in life.

Fully human persons are full of many questions, especially the question “Why?”. They are aware of their own ignorance. They realize that they have much to learn about life itself, about other people, about themselves, about God. They are disciplined enough to confront these mysteries of life, and actively to seek a fuller understanding of them.

In such active minds there is an attitude of critical thinking. Fully human people analyze and evaluate what they hear and read. They think for themselves. They do not accept blindly what is presented in the media, what is communicated to them from others, what has been passed down by cultural traditions. Out of this continuing process of personal analysis and evaluation rise personal judgments about truth and value.

5) Fully human persons appreciate beauty in its many forms. They take delight in well written language, in fine poetry, in well expressed speeches. They appreciate fine music and dance. Their lives have been enriched by the great human achievements in art and architecture. They draw life and strength from the wonderful beauty of nature.

Truly human persons not only appreciate beauty but they also strive to create it in various ways. They strive to speak and to write well. They take effort to make their homes and communities beautiful. They use their artistic gifts to create beauty in music and the arts.

6) A fully human person has a’ vibrant understanding of the history and major achievements both of his own culture and of the whole human race. He has actively absorbed this history and these achievements into his own life. He lives as one imbued with the wisdom and the values of this culture. He glories in the great achievements of the human race: the great works of literature and art, the heroism of great warriors and patriots, the profound insights found in the great religions, the social accomplishments of great civilizations.

All this means that a fully human person lives as someone rich in tradition, a past. He possesses the wisdom, energy and creativity of humanity’s past. He is not an alienated, isolated individual whose life is limited to the small details of his own private experience.

A fully human person is creative in some form. This creativity may be found in his social existence, in the way that he relates to people, creating friendship and community. It may be found in his exercise of a technical skill. As a carpenter, a cook or a dressmaker he fashions something new. It may be found in his fresh and original use of language. It may be found in his ability to create new forms of music or art. Or his creativity may be found in his discovery of himself, in the way that he fashions his own individual identity. He lives as the image of God, the creator who constantly fashions something new.

A fully human person will never be a mere follower, someone who marches to the step of the crowd, who merely fits into a pattern of life designed by others. Some amount of conformity may be necessary in his life but a human person is careful to preserve a significant part of his life for spontaneous and original expression.

8) A fully human person has a character, possessing maturity and a sense of responsibility. He has taken control of the direction of his life and of the involvements that are found in that life and he, stands behind them. This character shows itself in a personal moral code, a set of values and principles which he has chosen for himself and which he adheres to in his life. There is a consistency in such a human person’s life; you know where he stands. His character also shows itself in certain distinctive virtues such as bravery, industriousness, reliability, loyalty, self-discipline.

Such a person has risen above a life of mere crowd morality, a life governed blindly by social pressure. He has set aside fear and shame and responds to the authentic obligations of his life.

9) A fully human person has a developed religious life. He lives in terms of a religious vision of his life, of that life’s beginning in the creative love of God, of graced events in his life where he has been blessed by God, of that life’s future return to the embrace of God. He has found things in his life which possess absolute value and with religious seriousness he holds them to be sacred and cares deeply about them. He has developed as active personal relationship with God, a dialogue which fills the center of his existence.

In all this we see that a fully human person rises above what is superficial in life. His life responds to the deeper meanings of life and he cares profoundly about what is truly important.

10) A fully human person is someone who is caught beyond both childish fear of people as well as adolescent individualism. He has dared to commit himself to others and has become a part of society. His life is filled with involvements where he works together with other people and creates common achievements with them.

Opposing Philosophies of Education

But, of course, you recognize as well a I do that this concept of an education for humanness is very much of a Utopian dream. In the educational world of today students do not want this type of education, while administrators and teachers do not believe in it as a value. The reason for this opposition to an education for humanness is that there are other prevailing philosophies of education which militate against an education for humanness. Ideas have consequences and the dominant ideas in the world of education today block the possibility of this dream ever becoming a reality. Let us consider three of these opposing philosophies.

The first philosophy is one that we might characterize as a “trade school” mentality. This mentality views college as a place where people are trained for a very particular type of work. The focus of attention in such education is the future job and the precise skills that are needed for that job. Following this approach students are trained for their future work of being nurses, lawyers, doctors, accountants and farmers.

Such a trade school approach to college education has the advantage of practicality. Students learn practical skills which might be useful in a future job. In a world where human beings are forced to struggle in order to satisfy their many needs it is very helpful to have a skill which is marketable.

This usefulness of job-oriented skills provides clear motivation for students. They have a reason for working hard to master their courses for they realize that there are jobs and pay checks at the end of their efforts.

Despite these advantages, this trade school mentality produces a terribly inhuman atmosphere for education. This inhumanness is found first of all in the narrow way that students are looked at. A trade school mentality understands students merely in terms of their potentiality as workers, ignoring all the other dimensions of their lives. It overlooks their dignity and preciousness, the special roles that they will play in their families and communities, their capacity for understanding life, for appreciating beauty, for discovering a unique identity, for relating eternally with God.

It is interesting that the narrowness of this trade school approach appears in the way that it limits the social life of students. From the very beginning of their college experience students are grouped in classes according to their future trade. The result is that the only people they have a chance to socialize with are those that share the same trade orientation. If, for instance, they are nursing students they are put into classes where they only meet other nursing students. They make friends only with nursing students, they form clubs only with nursing students, they play games only with nursing students. They will have’ to wait until after college before they can meet people who are different from them.

A second philosophy of education that militates against education for humanness is that educational approach which we might call ideological. This would be a type of education which seeks to form students in such a way that a further goal will be achieved. This further goal might be social such as the preservation of certain traditional patterns of living. We seek, for example, to inculcate into our students certain Filipino values. This further goal can be religious such as the forming of students to be adherents of a particular religious institution or way of life. It can be nationalistic, leading students to be dedicated to a particular nation with its goals. It can be revolutionary such as the training of students to change some aspect of a society or culture.

Such an ideological approach to education emphasizes control. The administration and the teachers seek to control both the thinking and the lives of the students. They justify such a treatment of students by affirming that it is the will of the parents that their children be “formed” in a particular way.

What judgment can we make of such a style of education? Positively, we can see a real value in this approach to education in the goals that it seeks to achieve. The preservation of a culture or a religion, the development of a sense of nationalism, the reform of society are all admirable goals. It is only reasonable that we seek to pass on to our children those values which have enriched our own lives.

But there is a danger in such an approach for it leads to a dehumanizing of the atmosphere of the school and a dehumanizing of the students. The atmosphere of an ideological school is dehumanizing, first of all, because its emphasis on goals results in a devaluing of the various courses and activities of the school. All of these courses and activities are seen merely as means to those goals and not as things which have value in themselves. History, literature, philosophy and science are seen merely as tools which will build those future achievements and not as courses which possess intrinsic value in themselves. Similarly, all the activities of the school (such as dramas, religious worship,

student clubs and even sports) are promoted because they will serve to bring about these ideological goals and not because they are worthwhile in themselves. The result of all of this is that the humanizing power of these courses and activities is largely lost.

A further problem with an ideological education is that it tends to produce students who have a limited sense of personal identity. These students have been trained to think and live as their mentors have guided them. They have not been allowed to go through that whole painful process of personal reflection and personal decision making which results in their having a sense that they have principles of their own. Without such a process students end up not knowing who they, are. They can only repeat the slogans that have been drilled into them.

A further result of such ideological education would be a basic lack of self-confidence. Students would not believe in themselves, in their own intelligence, in their own goodness, in their own capacity to deal with the mysteries and difficulties of life. They would lack this confidence in themselves because they have gone to a school which did not have confidence in them. Instead of trusting them this saw the need to guide and control them.

A final negative aspect of such ideological education is the blocking of reflection and critical thinking. Such education promotes one “party line” and discourages any attempt to question that party line or propose another way of thinking. The dialogue has the answer and does not feel the need for any questioning or thinking. His life is centered on getting others to agree with him. The atmosphere of such a school would lack the intellectual atmosphere which is necessary for the development of fully human persons.

A third enemy of an education for humanness is an educational approach which might be described as an education for “qualification.” From the standpoint of a student, education is a matter of passing tests, fulfilling requirements and receiving diplomas. From the standpoint of the teacher, education is a matter of giving tests, computing grades and submitting those grades on time. From the standpoint of the administrator, education is a matter of fulfilling governmental requirements, attaining PAASCU accreditation and having students do well on bar exams and CPA exams.

Such an approach to education (emphasizing qualification) has the positive value of possessing a great deal of motivation. There is always a clear task to be performed and a clear reason to complete the task. The result is that students work hard to pass tests, teachers do a tremendous amount of work correcting papers and computing grades, administration spends much time and effort gaining accreditation.

Although such a “qualification” approach has much to commend it and is firmly entrenched in our schools it is, nevertheless, a rather inhuman system of education. First of all, it manages to miss the whole point of a college education. College is supposed to be a time when students learn and when students grow. What happens is that they become so focused on requirements and tests that they don’t have any time for real learning. School becomes a constant process of cramming one’s mind full of necessary information, putting that information down on one’s exam paper and then promptly forgetting. It seems that the only thing that students learn in this approach is how to pass tests. An extreme example of this is that period of a semester which is called exam week. It is a time when students become super-busy in preparing for examinations. In doing so they stop thinking, they stop being aware of one another, they stop being sensitive to life and to beauty. It is the climax of the semester, an inhuman climax, when students become like robots.

The basic error of this approach is its viewing education basically as a task, a job, It views learning as something that you work at, something you force. It forgets the basic truth that for education to be human it must be leisure. The Greeks had a clear understanding of this truth. The English word school comes from the Greek word skole which means leisure. In his Republic, Plato will say “Forced learning will not stay in the mind.” If you don’t have an atmosphere of leisure, if you make education forced labor then you will not have true learning.

It must be noted here that when we use the term leisure we do not mean mere play. There are in human life many forms of activity in which we escape from the world of work by distracting ourselves in some form of play. (We watch TV, we play cards.) While admitting that such enjoyable play may be very necessary in human life we must realize-that it does not constitute true leisure. Leisure is a high point of human life, a deep experience which is only present when human beings live in the fullest possible way. It is found in activities such as the creation of beauty, the worship of God and profound conversation. Such activities go beyond mere enjoyable play and embody a fullness of living. It is such fullness of living that is desirable in a school.

What is the reason for this? Why must school be leisure rather than work? One reason is that it is only in leisure that you have an openness of mind to see the mysteries of life, to appreciate the preciousness of human life, to understand the wisdom that is there in poetry, to become excited about the questions of science, to wonder about the questions of psychology and theology, to appreciate the beauty of mathematics, to be sensitive to life. It is only in leisure that you are open to these mysteries, that you let yourselves be moved by all that is there. When you are caught up in a “task,” in worrying about passing a test or getting a diploma, your life is narrowed to that limited task. There is. a wall between you and those life-giving mysteries.

A second reason why school must be leisure is that it is only in leisure that we have time to listen to ourselves and to respond to what we find there within us. We need time to dream, to sort out all the confusing elements of our experience, to experiment with our lives. Life constantly challenges us in new ways and we need the presence of leisure to understand those challenges and to respond to them. If as students we are super-busy with 25 units of course work we do not have a situation where we have time for ourselves to grow as human beings. If, as teachers, we are overburdened with a heavy teaching load, many papers to correct and a multitude of meetings to attend we will inevitably miss the opportunities for growth that life is giving us.

Leisure is necessary for human existence because it is at times of leisure that human life is creative. Freed from the tasks and routines of life, we are able to re-discover and re-make our lives. It is time of “re-creation” in the truest sense. In leisure we remake our relationships to other people, in leisure we set up in a new way the values and goals of our lives, in leisure we become partners once again with this wonderful earth that is our home, in leisure we re-discover God and our relationship to him. In leisure life becomes fresh

I have presented here three approaches to education which militate against an education for humanness ( a trade school mentality, an ideological concern, a concentration on qualification). It is obvious that these approaches are very much present in our schools and that they tend to dominate our lives. Does this mean that education for humanness is a Utopian dream that can never possibly be realized? The young teachers that I spoke to in Zamboanga could not imagine a school where there was education for humanness. Can we?

How Do You Teach People to be Human?

I thoroughly believe that an education for humanness is possible. It is possible to step back from those three philosophies of education which militate against humanness. It is possible to set up a school situation where students, teachers and administrators are led into a fuller living of their humanness. If we really want that type of education we can achieve it.

Let us dare for a few moments to be Utopian, to leave the practical, organized educational world to which we are accustomed and to dream of a type of school where humanness would be developed. What would such a school be like? Let me present six elements of a school for humanness. I will leave it to you to suggest other elements.

First of all, this school for humanness must be place where the faculty and administrators are rather human themselves. You teach students to be human by bringing them into contact with people who are themselves human. For instance, students will learn to be well-rounded persons by interacting with teachers who are themselves well-rounded.

You don’t staff a school for humanness with one-idea specialists, even though they may be brilliant and professionally competent. In a school for humanness teachers are really alive, they are moving into new fields, they have wide academic interests. I once visited a school in the States where each faculty member was expected to teach every course in the college curriculum. Imagine that. As a teacher in that school you would have to be able to teach science, literature, mathematics, language courses, social science, philosophy. You could not just teach the same basic courses semester after semester. Here was a school which required its faculty to be well-rounded, to be open to the full spectrum of human knowledge, to be constantly learning. Such a school would demand constant reading and growth on the part of its faculty.

In this school we would strive to bring our students into contact not only with the humanness of their teachers and fellow students but also with the’ humanness found in fine poetry, great literature, drama and fine arts. In the history of the human race there have been certain individuals and groups who have succeeded in attaining a high level of human living. It is possible in school to enter into the spirit and achievements of these people and to learn to live as they lived. If this is achieved, education is an experience of a renaissance where humanness of the past takes root and is born again in the lives of students and teachers.

Secondly, this school for humanness would require a great deal of personal interaction among students; faculty and administration. Ideally they would live together in the same buildings, eat at the same tables, play together and pray together. (I believe that something like this was attempted at the traditional English universities.) It is thru such close interaction that we enter into the lives of other people and grow in humanness. You can never hope for a humanizing situation if the only contact students have with teachers is from the back of a lecture hall. Similarly you don’t have a humanizing situation when students come to school, attend classes and then rush home again without ever having time for interaction with others.

In this school for humanness there is a need for students to interact with many different types of people, with students from many countries, with people who have a wide variety of occupations, with old people and with children. The wider the interaction, the richer will be the educational experience. The inhumanness of many of our present school situations is largely due to the limited socialization that is found there.

A third element to be emphasized in this school for humanism is self-expression. Students would be placed in situations where they would be constantly expected to express themselves. This expression would go beyond a parroting back of what has been given them by teachers or textbooks. It would be a matter of expressing in their own way their understanding of what they have read, their personal evaluation of the situations that they encounter in their lives. They would be expected to talk and to write, to put forth their ideas clearly, forcefully and cleverly.

A fourth way to guiding students to be human is to immerse them in a milieu of questioning. To achieve this, their teachers must be questioners, people who are actively wondering about the exciting mysteries of life and who are searching for an understanding of them. The students would be expected to enter into this questioning, to go beyond textbook formulas and to enter into the controversies found in the history of human thought.

They would be exposed to the major questions which are alive in science, politics, economics, education and religion. They would be confronted with the live issues that agitate these fields and they would be challenged to understand them and to take a personal stand.

A fifth way of leading students to become more human is to surround them with an atmosphere of beauty. The experience of education should be an experience of drinking in beauty. The physical environment of the school should be a beautiful one: beautiful buildings, beautiful classrooms, beautiful campus. Students should be led to appreciate fine music and fine art. The school should promote the presentation of beauty in various forms: music, drama, art, poetry. Each individual student should be led to create beauty in some form.

Sixthly, this school for humanness would help students to discover themselves, to develop a sense of their own identity. How could this be done? Somehow, somewhere students would be treated as individuals. They would be listened to. Each of them has special gifts, particular interests, a unique destiny. They would be given programs of activities and studies which would fit those special gifts, those particular interests, those unique destinies. In this school for humanness students would be growing as individuals simply because they would be living as individuals. They would not be following a plan of education suited for everyone in general and no one in particular.

Conclusion

These ten basic qualities represent a provisional sketch of a picture of a fully human being. Of course, many more qualities could be added to this list.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could educate student: to possess these qualities? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if our graduates were people who were fully human and fully alive’ Their entire lives would be blessed as every waking hour o theirs would be richer and fuller. How grateful these student, would be toward the school which opened up their lives an( led them to live lives that were deeply human.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful for our families and our communities and our churches if some of their members wen people who were truly human? The presence of such People with highly developed human qualities would invaluable contribution to the lives of everyone in those communities. make at  invaluable contribution to the lives of everyone in those communities.

A final question.. Do you want to be in a school where there is education for humanness? If you do, what would that school be like?