Joshua Jose Ocon

The re-evaluation of education has been one of the vital concerns of the previous century, owing to the events therein that defined subsequent history. Various educational systems are said to have influenced the prevalence of colonial mindset alongside structures that hinder the autonomy of students vis-à-vis their freedom in learning. It is in this context that Paulo Freire develops his acclaimed pedagogy which promotes a humanising education that affirms persons as human beings. Over the manifold forms of oppression that threaten personal freedom, Freire’s pedagogy forwards dialogic education through which students consciously take part in personal and societal transformation. Although Freirean thought is associated with Marxism, the Thomistic tradition affirms its core which seeks ‘the vocation of becoming more fully human.’ Jacques Maritain clarifies that education’s primary aim is to ‘form a man,’ integrating into a person the cultural, social, and intellectual aspects of human life. Parallel to the Freirean emphasis on the complementarity of reflection and action in dialogic education is the Thomistic valuation for contemplation brought to completion by human action.

This paper explores the ethical dimensions of divorce in the Philippines, where its prohibition is deeply rooted in Catholic doctrine and enshrined in legal frameworks. Drawing from three ethical theories—natural law, Kantian ethics, and Habermasian discourse ethics—the paper investigates divorce as not merely a legal issue but an ethical one. Natural law theory, with its emphasis on moral obligations derived from human nature, often opposes divorce due to its potential harm to the family unit. However, exceptions are considered in cases of abuse or harm. Kantian ethics views marriage as a contractual relationship, allowing for divorce when personal dignity and autonomy are compromised. Habermasian discourse ethics, grounded in rational deliberation and consensus-building, offers a framework for inclusive discussions on divorce, promoting fairness and representation for marginalized voices. The paper argues that the interplay of these ethical frameworks highlights the complexity of divorce in the Philippine context, advocating for more inclusive and critical dialogue to address its legal and moral implications.

The tendency to be more excluding on account of views and beliefs held has intensified all the more. The proliferation of discussions and forums through social media reflects both the potential and challenges of the Internet as a public sphere. While these platforms foster widespread and immediate engagement, the rise of echo chambers, characterized by selective information sharing and trust disparities, undermines inclusivity and genuine public discourse. This paper examines the tension between echo chambers and the Internet's potential as a public sphere, where individuals can engage in meaningful and rational discussions, specifically those involving relevant socio-political deliberations. Grounded in Jürgen Habermas’s framework, the paper explores the Internet as a communal space that fosters open dialogue, contrasting it with the exclusionary dynamics of echo chambers. By analyzing the essential features of echo chambers within the context of the 2022 Philippine National Elections, the paper situates this phenomenon in the broader socio-epistemological landscape. It demonstrates how the Internet embodies the characteristics of a public sphere while addressing its challenges. Ultimately, this paper argues that echo chambers are antithetical to the democratic nature of the Internet, emphasizing the need for digital spaces that promote inclusive and critical engagement.

AI-generated Abstract This paper analyzes Pope Francis' encyclical Laudato Si' through the lens of urban existentialism to explore the relationship between human existence and the urban environment. By employing concepts such as weak anthropocentrism and collaborative authenticity, alongside Heidegger’s ideas of dwelling and the fourfold, it posits that genuine dwelling goes beyond mere survival; it involves recognizing our interdependence with both human and nonhuman cohabitants of our common home. The discussion emphasizes the need for stewardship and collective responsibility in creating a harmonious urban existence.

Despite the characteristically secular and ‘disenchanted’ spirit of our time, many maintain a kind of tolerance apropos to religiosity, provided only that it remains to be an individual and private affair. This nevertheless prepared and eventually led to the rise of a movement committed to the denigration of religion’s frontiers, especially on the grounds of its rationality and moral authority – the new atheism. Compared to its older forms, the neo-atheistic crusade is more aggressive in approaching religious beliefs, proclaiming how their ‘irrationality’ is to be shunned on account of an encompassing scientific understanding and explanation of the world and its phenomena. Its influence owes greatly to the intellectual assurance and vitriolic style of its Four Horsemen whose respective fields account for an elaborate attack on the religious enterprise. Given the neo-atheistic contentions – that religious beliefs are ‘irrational’ and are responsible for an irrational picture of reality, thus, making religion ‘dangerous’ – this study provides an epistemological critique of the aforementioned through the compatible frameworks of Alvin Plantinga and Jacques Maritain. It concludes that with all its merits, the new atheism from the standpoint of the synthesis of Plantinga and Maritain fails to eject religion and religious beliefs from the realm of human knowledge and morality.

This paper analyzes how Jacques Maritain anticipated much of the questions that can be raised concerning the Church’s active participation today in matters that many have supposed to pertain only to politics: To what extent is the Church’s involvement in political life permissible in light of its perceived duty to translate its apostolic and spiritual values into social actions? What boundaries does the Church recognize regarding a proper delineation between the spiritual and temporal spheres towards the linking of which Catholic Action is said to be directed? To what limits can the Church exercise its auctoritas within a personalist democracy that emphasizes the common good as its chief aim for the human community? Insights in response to these will show that far from ‘meddling’ with or ‘disrupting’ the political order, the Church’s approaches are sensible and just within a democracy that Philippine politics embraces.

Since the resurgence of infinitism in contemporary epistemology, Peter Klein has been consistent in providing arguments against the three other possible solutions (i.e., foundationalism, coherentism, skepticism) to the Regress Problem, which in turn is a key aspect of the justification condition for the traditional account of knowledge as justified true belief. Klein’s successful effort in reviving the often-dismissed solution and further advancing it as the sole solution to the Regress Problem cannot be ignored as he finds it necessary to not only raise problems for the viability of the three contenders but, more so, definitively invalidate them as equally possible solutions. This paper responds to Klein’s objection to foundationalism, the crucial reasons for which he offers in several of his works concerning infinitism and the Regress Problem: i) that foundationalism inevitably leads either to arbitrariness or to the continuation of the regress of reasons; ii) that a proposition continuously enhanced by reasons has more epistemic warrant than a proposition supported by a chain of reasons which ends at basic beliefs, and; iii) that basic beliefs are not tantamount to fully justified beliefs. For each, certain problems can be raised by employing foundationalist arguments in order to arrive at the conclusion that in spite of his astute reasoning, Klein’s objection is insufficient to rule out foundationalism as a possible solution to the Regress Problem.

The humanism of modernity, in its exclusive reliance on rationality and the scientific method, has been viewed as a pejorative understanding of ‘man’ that deliberately isolates it from the divine. This paper attempts to regain humanism from its position that seems to jeopardize the human tendency for the Transcendent through a synthesis of Chinese philosophy and the major tenets of Christianity. A close analysis of the predominant Chinese thought in Lao Tzu and Confucius shows that its entire history is characterized by humanism, defined, not as that which denies the divine but as one that "proposes the unity of man and Heaven." This consilience between man and Heaven is realized in the sage. Similarly, Christianity, albeit the antagonism of humanism, is in fact "the greatest humanism that has ever appeared [and] that could ever appear," manifested by its adherence to theosis – God becoming man, so that man might become God. From this standpoint, humanism still proves to be relevant for those with religious inclinations in the light of its fuller understanding through its dialectic with Chinese and Christian philosophy.

Even before he assumed the Petrine office as head of the Catholic Church, Joseph Ratzinger already carries the reputation of being one of the most important figures, not only of the Catholic intellectual tradition, but more so of the theological enterprise of the twentieth century. A closer appreciation of his thought which delves into the relevant discussions of the time, such as those that tackle pluralism and relativism, further reveals that more than a theologian, Ratzinger is a ‘thinker’ capable of dialoguing with intellectuals of any background. This noncompromising openness to the ideas that challenge his own gives credence to the range and depth of the beliefs that he holds and proclaims to the world. This paper presents Ratzinger’s insights that elicit a philosophical analysis based on the themes that concern the relevance of belief – the Christian faith – to the theoretical and practical movements of the contemporary period.

It is said that science, since the Enlightenment, had advanced with an ever-increasing intensity to reinvent and develop the way we see ourselves and our relationship with the world. The nascent scientific worldview then brought about a profound change in the conception of man’s place in the universe, and among the findings of the major scientific revolutions, it was that of Charles Darwin which proved to be most impactful. What sets him apart from his predecessors who attempted to explain the evolution of life is his discovery of natural selection, the theoretical mechanism that supposedly underlies the evolutionary process. Even beyond the scientific field, Darwin’s achievement remains prominent up to this day as it has come to be utilized by twenty-first-century intellectuals who champion nonchalant diatribes against the enterprise of faith and religious belief, considered to be in conflict and wholly irreconcilable with the truths that science has unearthed. This led to the emergence of a movement that professes close allegiance to science and downright disdain for religion – New Atheism. This paper aims to analyze the ‘conflict’ between Christianity and evolution as narrated by neo-atheists, having evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins as their foremost representative. Such evaluation employs Alvin Plantinga’s epistemological critique of naturalism, complemented by Teilhard de Chardin’s conception of evolution as ‘hominization’ and ‘complexification.’ Although De Chardin’s thought historically precedes Plantinga’s, the compatibility of their analyses suggests the scientific, philosophic, and even theological concord of Christianity and evolution.