Aiko’s Blog!

Friday, March 20, 2020 | March 20, 2020 |

Idols Of The Theater

If Education were born as a human, its first words would be “come one, come all.” Precisely in all nations which practice Social Democracy, everyone in the hierarchy be they peasant, middle class, or filthy rich are entitled to have an education. Seldom would we find any man who would refuse to be educated on the grounds that it earns him no benefit, for the fact is that any semblance of education reaps rewards for those who undergo it. Needless to say, education is the most effective weapon to possess when faced with the nitty-gritty of life.

From the time of the ancient Greeks we read of students being educated under the shades of trees in open-aired spaces and in public places such as the market (agora); these students were exposed to the elements and whatnot, but however in spite of that and despite the absence of a cohesive system of education during that period, ancient Greece was able to produce some of the most important thinkers in history such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

Throughout the course of the years we have been witness to the many changes in the dynamics of education until we arrive in the here and now, the modern times, wherein with the persuasion of liberal ideas and perhaps technology, education has been made more accessible, oftentimes not needing to go beyond the four walls of the classroom in order for students to learn.

Now having this in mind, one can’t help but realize that however drastic the changes are to the system of education, what certainly remains the same is the presence of a learner and a teacher. Of course this is not to say that the crucial relationship between teacher and student has not been subjected to tinkering here and there, for it has, and suffice to say that whereas the world of yesterday saw students look to their teachers for guidance, in post-modern times where practically all systems march under the behest of liberal dogma, the teacher or professor sees the student as just another sucker to be indoctrinated to lofty ideals that are plainly wrong upon close inspection— a useful idiot, as Lenin would say. And this is not just plain speculation: casually observe any rally or protest against the establishment or for the propagation of an ideology and it will be hard to miss students among the protesters clamouring for “change” or any such tomfoolery that their university professors have wittingly instilled in their eager minds.

Unfortunately, this is one major reason why society is deadlocked over the questions of harmony and prosperity: the young, idealistic minds are enamoured with chaos which they falsely believe to be the baptism of fire for that change they so desire, a belief which unsurprisingly comes from their professors at university.

It may not be apparent to all of us but there should be a longing for the bygone days of Socrates whose famous method brought about an almost divine blessing to his students in the form of the ability to think for one’s self and to question the ways of the world instead of trying to force change on it under the banner of classroom-made ideology, a characteristic inherent in today’s universities. What rational-thinking student would not give up something just to experience first-hand the manner with which Socrates taught for they know that along with it comes the acquisition of true wisdom which is the acceptance that one can never truly know anything: indeed a far cry from the smug assumption of the college student of today that he or she already knows everything that there is to know from their professors.

The Socratic method is nowadays limited to philosophy and law courses not least because of its insistence on critical thinking. This begs the question: how is it that despite the forward-movement of the clock, most of the university professors of our time insists on backward, dogmatic teaching methods for their students? It is almost an anomaly to encounter anything within all fields of study that is not tainted with Leftist-ideology. Ironically enough, what started out as anti-establishment has now emerged as the establishment itself despite their denial of this fact.

The cliché of the four walls of the classroom, instead of denoting the path to knowledge, has now turned into another term for ideological prison because it is in these classrooms where university and college professors spoon-feed into gullible minds their own perverted views, making no room for critical thinking or any semblance of encouragement for the students to think, and think for themselves.

It would not be far-fetched at all to infer from these developments that the good-natured Socrates himself would be outraged. And not only him but various other philosophers as well even if they themselves were Left-leaning thinkers precisely because love of wisdom transcends all ideology.

One such philosopher would have been Francis Bacon. Bacon, also renowned as a scientist, classified four nuisances which should be eliminated if one is serious in the pursuit of scientific knowledge; he calls these four as “false idols” for the reason that we revere them without being aware that they stealthily steal us away from the possibility of gaining true knowledge.

First of these four dangerous “idols” are what Francis Bacon calls “Idols of the Tribe” and they are best explained as our tendency to not second-guess the evidence laid out to us by our senses; next are “Idols of the Cave” which from the name itself is a reference to Plato’s Myth of the Cave, and according to this, we are all reared up in our own “caves” wherein we shelter our own interpretation of what is apparent based on how we are wont to and brought up to interpret things. Then there are “Idols of the Market place” which are conflicts caused by the misuse of and confusions arising from language; finally, there are what he calls “Idols of the Theater” which refer to the blind allegiance to academic dogma or ideologies that pretend to portray reality. Under this false idol one fails to question the authority offering what seems to be reliable knowledge.

It is this fourth idol, the “Idols of the Theater” to which the focus should be on if the prior line of thinking regarding the misuse of the classroom as a learning ground is to be followed. Reiterating the fact that Francis Bacon held the view that the “false idols” ought to be gotten rid of, he would be absolutely appalled at the condition of the classroom dynamics particularly in the universities and colleges of today. The main point he wanted to drive with this fourth idol is that critical thinking is essential to achieving true knowledge.

Without asking questions about the world, nor investigating facts about a particular ideology, one becomes stuck in a bubble of unreality that he or she may never escape from. Moreover, he or she shall be deprived of the chance to make use of the mental faculties Providence equipped him or her with. Surmising from the fact that it is there, our brains are meant to be used, not to serve as a stockpile of Leftist-ideologies for future nugatory revolutions.

Education should be for all, no one deserves to be ignorant unless they prove themselves irreconcilable with the truth that knowledge should be used for the proper progress of an individual or the collective, and not to oppress others. Education should be truthful, as false learning is dangerous and can never lead to one’s well-being. It is upon the shoulders of the educators where the responsibility of honing students to become well-rounded individuals fully armed with knowledge and not fantasies or lies. Education should be open to critical thinking; and while some may argue this to be self-evident, most of the time the opposite is true. The stories of professors brainwashing over-eager students to support a certain view is not uncommon.

The educators, instead of imposing their ideologies on the students, should cultivate critical thinking as it leads to the awakening of one’s interest to search for true knowledge and wisdom. If an educator is able to comprehend that the student is an entity deserving of his own unique thought instead of ideological hand-me-downs, then willingly encourages the student to go the path of wisdom, only then will he have succeeded in being an educator in the truest sense of the word.

Labels: 2020, aiko-lactaotao, article, asia, education, essay, philippines, politics

Thursday, October 4, 2018 | October 04, 2018 |

Everybody Wants It "Instant"

To anyone who observes Philippine television close enough, it is fairly easy to summarize the usual plot which the writers feed the audience. While romance is always a must, there is another storyline which always appears at these shows, namely, that the lead character is of course poor but will eventually discover that he or she is the lost son or daughter of someone very rich and powerful.

We have seen this type of storyline play out on our tv screens ever since television has become popular in the country— I am pretty sure of that, but as for me being conscious about it, I recall the same plot in the drama series “Mara Clara” from when I was a younger kid.

If television does indeed reflect real life and that television writers are simply feeding the audience with stories that are familiar to the latter, then we are actually witnessing a culture that is fond of escapism. Yes, everyone all over the world is guilty of fantasizing an escape from the barrenness of everyday life but I don’t think it’s as worst as the kind we have here in the Pearl of the Orient.

The basics usually goes this way: the protagonist of the story is usually a heroine who grew up poor with either a kindly mother-like figure who raised her or an evil aunt who made her life a living hell; then this heroine struggles with her everyday life trying to get by as best as she could until she bumps into the leading man of the story who is, if not the rich Prince Charming, then an equally poor bestfriend who grew up alongside her. As the heroine continues with her adventures, the antagonists of the story appears in the form of the aforementioned evil aunt, or the cruel rich girl who has nothing better to do than make the poor protagonist suffer, also worth mentioning too is that other poor girl who’s jealous of the beauty and kindness of our heroine. These antagonists are wont to be physically taller than the protagonist with a more sophisticated look than the latter— something that’s specifically done by the writers so as to convey to the audience their pseudo-Communist preaching that there is class warfare in the society we live in.

The lead character, comparable to fan made fiction the likes of which permeate the parts of the internet inhabited by unreasonable fan girls, is almost always a so-called “Mary Sue”.

A “Mary Sue”, if memory serves me right is a fictional character that is perfect in her imperfections. She is of course good-looking, smart, gentle, kind, and all the men in the story go crazy for her. Add to these the fact that she can never do any wrong exactly because she was designed to be just that: perfect.

This same “Mary Sue” may have physical flaws but as I’ve said she is supposed to be perfect in her imperfections, so despite these flaws she is able to have other girls jealous of her because she gets to have the affections of almost all the male characters in the story.

In the internet, the “Mary Sue” phenomena became one because the writers of this kind of fiction feel the need to have an alter ego as an escape from harsh reality. These “writers” need to assert themselves in a way that their nondescript selves are redeemed by their fantasies of being better than they actually are in real life. I am by no means a psychologist but I don’t have to be one to be able to discern that these Mary Sues are the product of insecurity and a need to amplify the good things about oneself, all the while minimizing the bad characteristics until these are molded into the flaws which make the alter ego “Mary Sue” even more perfect. Such is the mindset of the writers behind this phenomenon and they are scattered across the internet thereby manifesting that the internet itself is a form of escape. A kind of reality, a virtual reality that they are able to control with their bare hands instead letting themselves suffer from the kind of reality which they exercise no control over.

In real life, it is exactly the opposite in that we are imperfect even in our slight perfections.

In real life, we are subject to failures and no one can be truly the “best” if they sit around doing nothing. There is competition in this kind of reality and if “Mary Sues” were real they’d be swallowed up whole by this cruel world. Bottom-line is, we are but specks in this universe and it is irrational that we convince ourselves that we are otherwise. We cannot defy reality just because we want escape.

Television seems to pick up on this and offers the audience a form of escape.

In television dramas we are bombarded with “Mary Sue” characters, and even if this type of character is getting old to the intelligent observer, its effect is the opposite on the dreamy-eyed female population who dreams of a medium wherein they can live out all their fantasies.

The protagonist in true “Mary Sue” fashion would later find out that even her life would turn out to be perfect because of what I mentioned earlier that she would discover that she turns out to be the long lost child of a business tycoon or whichever character it is as long as they are rich and powerful.

This is a culture of escapism at its most obvious.

It paves the way for us to witness that we live in a society yearning for quick solutions to problems which can be solved in the long run— that is, if one is patient enough and is not afflicted with the vice of being lazy.

Through these television soap operas, in particular those plots that involve becoming “instantly rich” by way of suddenly waking up one day and finding out that one is in reality the missing son or daughter of someone in the higher levels of society, the poor population can live out their ultimate fantasy of becoming rich— to suddenly and instantly find a way out from their dissatisfying reality.

And this culture of escapism is not just limited to television dramas; it could also be found in lotteries and sweepstakes which promise of an “instant” escape from poverty.

Television is a medium of information that is not exempted from being perverted by ill-willed individuals who wish to attain power over the population. Through shows which have the kind of plots discussed in this post, they are merely covering up the problems of society without solving it. If the poor population are fed with their fantasies through “Mary Sue” characters, then they are no different from pigs that are fattened to be eventually butchered for the feast— I say this in light of this question: how can they be able to face up to their challenges in real life if the people which are morally obliged to help them are making them suffer further by burying them in fantasies which no matter the rhetoric, stay as nothing more than empty fantasies?

While it is by no means harmful to dream for a better life or an “instant” escape from everydayness, the same should be done in small doses. Too much of it will leave us a drooling, invalid who’s unable to accept the kind of reality that we all should overcome. A reality called life.

In real life, success is never instant and it demands of us that we work hard for it. It doesn’t offer us an immediate escape, but if we toil hard and are able to emerge persevering from the challenges of life (regardless of ending up with a few bruises), then victory will be all the more sweeter.

Labels: 2018, aiko lactaotao, aiko-lactaotao, musings, philippine media, philippines, politics, television

Friday, December 9, 2016 | December 09, 2016 |

The Non-Native Filipino Speaker's Guide To P*tang Ina

Rodrigo Duterte, the 16th president of the republic of the Philippines, talks tough. In the recent brouhaha over the his cancelled meeting with USA president Barrack Obama, Duterte supposedly referred to the latter by using an expletive. Obama’s response was to describe Duterte as a “colorful guy.” However, the media, true to its sensationalist nature, made a mountain out of a molehill by capturing sound bytes of Duterte saying “putang ina, murahin kita dyan sa forum” (son of a whore, I will curse you at the forum) and taking his words out of context. Local and international news outlets reported this as Duterte cursing at Obama, purporting it to be a low blow especially coming from a high official, but watching the video, I believe it to be nothing more than a misunderstanding.

“Putang ina” is a Filipino curse word taken from the Spanish word “puta” (whore) and the Ilocano word “ina” (mother), which when put together literally means “whore mother.” Another variant of the term is “putang ina mo,” which directly translates as “your mother is a whore.” It is the worst possible insult in the Filipino language, that is, when spoken with the word “mo” (your), but without the word “mo,” it simply counts as an expression of frustration. To cite an example, someone may ask something like “kumusta sabong?” (How’s the cockfight) and if the reply is “putang ina, talo!” (Whore mother, I lost!), the speaker is not cussing at the one who posed the question. Instead, he merely expresses his exasperation over losing at the cockfight.

Although Duterte did say “putang ina” in the video, he did not include the word “mo” (your). Now if the above mentioned explanation is to be considered, he (Duterte) did not call Obama a “son of a whore,” rather he was venting out a hair shirt over what he sees as America attempting to boss him around. In the speech, Duterte emphasized that the Philippines is no longer a colony of the States and as president he is to be held accountable for his actions only by the Filipino people. What Duterte refers to here is his administration’s ongoing war on drugs. There have been various complaints about extra-judicial killings, and being widely reported internationally, it prompted some comments from officials of other countries.

Duterte, called by Time Magazine as “The Punisher,” is firm in his campaign to rid the Philippines of illegal drugs. “It will be bloody,” he says in one of his speeches, and “we will not stop until the last drug pusher gets killed,” according to another speech. Drugs indeed are a serious problem in the country with millions of lives being affected in way or another. To be fair to the president, he never shied away from making his intentions known even during the election period, what with cuss-laden speeches pervading his campaign and his stubborn promises of purging the country of illegal drugs in the first six months should he be elected as president.

Far from the Filipino people deeming Duterte as someone who merely spews vitriol founded on empty campaign promises, they were able to identify with his frustrations and saw in him a breath of fresh air— an iconoclast that is not your typical politician hiding behind the veil of rhetoric. This unorthodox style won Duterte a landslide victory in the 2016 national elections. His win was a slap on the face to the establishment— the oligarchs riddling the political landscape like cancer cells spreading throughout a body by metastasis. He woke up the sleeping giant in the hearts of the Filipinos, namely, their longing for real change. And while he may be brash, there is an authenticity to his uncontrived ways that speaks to the average Filipino. Speaking as a citizen of this country myself, we’ve had enough of the oldfangled trapos with their corrupt ways, and Duterte, as one commentator says, is the Philippines’ “last best chance” to get things right.

It is yet to be seen whether Duterte can fulfill his campaign promises in a span of six months but the most important thing is that his administration is clearly taking steps to do so. “It will be bloody.” Again, there is no sugarcoating it— it is after all, a war. If the CHR (commission on human rights) doth protest, by all means let them so, but let them answer too to our question: where were you when these drug addicts killed and raped countless victims? Do the rights of a criminal surpass that of an innocent victim? It is clear with this that there are people out there blinded by idealistic notions of justice and equality. These ideals, while lofty, are oftentimes not applicable to real world situations. Evil is evil, and if the measures needed to put a stop to it involve killings, so be it.

“Putang ina.” In previous administrations, this is all the Filipino can say with the poor quality of life afforded him by the corruption and cowardice of officials he voted into office. Unreasonably high electric bills, “putang ina“; no wage hike, “putang ina”; another life ruined by illegal drugs, “putang ina”— with Duterte, a foul-mouthed maverick who frequently uses this swearword, the Filipino people finally found a voice. And while no one is claiming that he will immediately solve all the deep-seated problems of this country, at the very least his supporters can see that this man has a big pair.

To conclude, president Duterte didn’t curse at Obama. He used the term “putang ina” as an expression of frustration. No one can blame him as the problem of drugs has reached boiling point, and motions that mean to thwart the ongoing war against it are a hassle indeed. His articulation may not be the most eloquent, and as an elder statesman he lacks the sangfroid usually associated with those types, but all in all he has proven from the get-go that along with talking the talk, he can also walk the walk.

Labels: 2016, aiko-lactaotao, duterte, philippines, politics