symposium: debate

There are certain things that struck me in the paper of Fr. Doming. 

First, quoting Husserl, Fr. Doming writes, "critique of knowledge would assist us in the ultimate completion of scientific knowledge."  Critique of knowledge is an essential part of a complete scientific knowledge.  Without this essential part no knowledge can be complete.  If it can withstand foundational critique then it can be called a science.
The problem however, Fr. Doming also noted in his work is the difficulty we have as Filipinos to critique each other's work for fear that the other may take it personally and will thus be seen as disrespectful and even insulting.

One of the things I enjoy when I have nothing to do is the debate in the British Parliament.  Every Wednesday the Prime Minister of Great Britain has to present himself to parliament for what they call the question time.  The members of parliament are expected to scrutinize the programs of government which the prime minister heads and the prime minister must be ready to answer their questions, to defend his programs and actions before parliament.  The opposition will be on one side and the government will be on another side.  The referee is the speaker of the house – he is the only speaker of parliament who is not allowed to speak at all, for he can only call the next speaker as the debate goes on and on. 

This is how they govern – they debate, they critique the programs, they critique the line of reasoning of the government, they discuss things in the open, and any member of parliament can speak for as long as his name is called upon by the speaker.  And so it is a really thorough critique.  It may be right all the time but what can be assured is there is a thorough discussion on things.

So imagine if our government, our congressmen can do the same – debate, exchange of thoughts and not just read speeches but debate.  Matyag ko may matapungolay gid kada semana.  Why because Filipinos take things personally, siling ni Fr. Doming.  So kon law-ay imo kanta we would take it as ay law-ay gali ako.  Indi ah, don't take it personally –ang hambal is law-ay imo kanta, period.  Kon law-ay imo programa wala na nagakahulugan nga law-ay ka.  And vice versa is also true – kon law-ay ka wala nagakahulugan nga law-ay imo programa.

We have to learn to critique so as to come up with a better program, a better decision and a complete scientific knowledge.

And so it is always important to clarify everything and even to doubt as also stated in the paper.  He said do not presume – clarification must be the standard habit of the intellect.  He even went so far as to say that it is healthy to doubt. 

If you have read Umberto Eco's the name of the rose he said, Books are not made to be believed, but to be subjected to inquiry. When we consider a book, we mustn't ask ourselves what it says but what it means.  And in another he said, "the Devil is truth that is never seized by doubt." Not all who doubt are insecure, and not all who doubt end up in confusion or get lost.  Doubt is the beginning of certainty.

In the Council as int he past I have always insisted on a healthy debate on things before we can reah a decision.  During the time of Fr. Marvin and Fr. Nonong and their contemporaries council meeting are either exciting or difficult meetings depending on what end of the spectrum you are.  If youa re presenting a program be prepared to be grilled and questioned.  If someone else is presenting then its your exciting chance to grill.  However many times daw kadamo na sang mga matinalak-on nga miembro sang council.  Wala nagahambal.  Contento lang may huo huo, kag indi na mag assert sang iya paminsaron.

I think it might be good to consider this.  Seminarians from St. Vincent Ferrer are always accused at the regional seminary as most vocal, pala-bais, pala-critique.  Ambot kon amo pa ina subong.  When you are there don't take that as a negative comment.