FIRST THINK PIECE

For question 1:

There is one man who has it all and died at old age with luxuries all around him that was

Empoy. The other man was a student, intelligent and virtuous, but suffered and died at early age

that was Tado. These both men are very different. They have different lifestyle. Did these men

experience a happy life?

For Empoy, some may say that he had a happy life. How can he not be happy? He lived

in a luxury with friends and lovers around him. If we can call this a happy life, can we say that

he had a complete life? According to the Sophists, goodness or virtue is not that important. In

achieving happiness one must include riches, freedom, wealth and honor. If we based the life of

Empoy according to these categories, we can say that Empoy was one happy man because he

fulfilled all his desires and died without suffering. Though he accumulated large amount of

money, he remains just if we based this to the belief of Thrasymachus. He said that being just

and right is doing what is the interest of the stronger party. So since the ruler and the stronger

party was Empoy, who was the governor, we can say that his deeds were right. But is it really

right? If this is true, everyone on earth will think that it is fine to step on each other to achieve

happiness. They will think that what they are doing is good. As a result the strong people will

benefit while the weak will remain poor. In a way people can be happy through wealth but this

will lead to war and greed. And if these are the results of happiness, these can also lead to

unhappiness, isn’t it? So where is the happiness there? Can we really justify this kind of

happiness?
 Plato said that there are three components of human nature. These are the rational

wisdom, courage and desires or passion. If he will categorize the men, Empoy will be under

those people who use only their desires or passion. Base on his life, Empoy only obeyed his

appetites. He lived in luxuries and surrounded himself with friends and lovers. He did not use his

rational thinking and did only the things that benefit him. Plato will think that he is not suitable

for a government position. Even if he served for three terms, he was not appropriate because he

is ruled by his desires. Empoy can be categorized only as a worker. He was not fit to rule

because a ruler must have no properties, no family and must live in poverty. For Aristotle, I think

he will call Empoy a tyrant. According to Aristotle, a tyrant is a leader in who is only interested

in serving himself. Just like Empoy, he ruled the people to gain personal benefits. Though

Aristotle believes that private properties are not bad but a ruler must have a principle of

moderation. For the Epicureans, Empoy did not have a good and happy life. Empoy enjoyed

pleasures, luxuries and women. Epicureans believed in enjoyment of simple pleasures, the

pleasure of the mind, not the material pleasure. How can they say that the life of Empoy was an

unhappy one? This is because they believed that excessive pleasure will lead to suffering and

modest pleasure will lead to a good life.

Now, we discussed the life of Tado. At first glance in his life, one can say that it was a

very tragic one, a very unhappy one. Who can find happiness in suffering? Who can find joy in

the tortures he received before he died? Can a tragic life be turned into a happy life? For other

philosophers it can. According to Plato, a happy and a good life can be achieved through rational

thinking, calmness and courage. In these, Tado passed as a very happy man. He exhibited

rational thinking because of his superior intelligence. Then when he was arrested he showed

signs of courage. What can be more courageous than a man who stands firm in his virtues while
suffering? Though he suffers, his morality remained and that is more important in achieving

happiness. But are these enough to be happy? Can we find happiness on suffering?

According to the component of human nature by Plato, Tado falls under the people who

have rational wisdom. Tado was intelligent and virtuous and for Plato those are the

characteristics of a philosopher king. Unlike Empoy, Tado can rule because is one of the people

who born with superior mind and morals. Those who have these characteristics have the

privilege to rule. For Aristotle, he can say that Tado exemplified a preeminent virtue. Though he

was tortured, he did not back out on what he believes in. He was a victim of the rule of the law,

which is imperfect, manmade and unjust. In the law all who rebels must be punished but Tado

suffered unjustly even though he did not do anything wrong. This is how can the rule of the law

be imperfect because it just follows the law without identifying who is innocent or not. Tado can

also be one example of a stoic. Stoics believe in the triumph of mind and will. Tado

demonstrated this while he is being tortured. He overcame pain and stood firm on his beliefs

because of his superior mind. Though he can control his mind, I think that he also accepted with

dignified resignation the things that were happening to him. That is why he remained virtuous

until the end. These are the characteristics of being a stoic.

In comparing both men, I think that Tado is happier than Empoy. Wealth and riches can

cause war and greed. And yes, these results can lead to unhappiness. One may think having all

materials can lead to happiness but this is where they are mistaken. Material possession can

never satisfy a person. Once he possessed a treasure, he moves on to find another. He can never

be content in his acquisitions because he will always want to top his possessions. Dissatisfaction

will lead to unhappiness because there can be no contentment and peace of mind. Also, Empoy

constantly lived in fear - fear of losing all his wealth, fear of losing those so-called friends, fear
of losing those girlfriends and lovers, and most of all fear for himself because of the

consequences he can receive from stealing money. What is the fun in that? Just like the

Epicureans said, fear will lead to unhappiness while no fear will lead to happiness. On the

otherhand, Tado is contented. He knows that he did not do anything wrong. He is intelligent and

virtuous. Though he is tortured, he was not afraid because he has nothing to lose. His intelligence

and virtues were his happiness and even in suffering no one can take that away so we can say

that he was happy when he died. Deep inside him he did not have any regrets because he stood

firm.

If I were to choose, I would choose the life of Tado. I do not want temporary happiness

that material possessions can bring. In a snap, these can be easily taken away from you, and then,

you will become unhappy. Like the epicureans I believe that temperate pleasures, knowledge,

friendship and virtues are more important. I think the happiness from intelligence and virtues is

much firmer because they cannot be taken away. These will help you in living a good life.

For question 2:

Philippines today is experiencing poverty. There is also gap in the society between the

rich and the poor. Due to these problems, people are wondering where is justice. Is the law still

operating for all? Or others, especially those with money, are above the law?

In this day and age, the wealthy and powerful can get away from the law easily.

Sometimes, justice is nowhere to be found. Law is manipulated by those who have authorities. If

the philosophers see this situation in our country, they will just shake their heads and tell us that

we really stubborn because we did not learn from all their teachings.
 Plato would tell us that we should stop serving our own desires. Filipinos are

experiencing injustice because instead of serving for the common good, they serve only

themselves. According to Plato, there is justice if there is the unity among the three classes.

These classes are the rulers or guardians, who are has rational thinking, the auxiliaries, who has

courage, and lastly the workers, who are ruled by desires. He would say that the Filipinos are in

need of true justice because when the justice in the Philippines is compared to what his beliefs in

justice, we greatly failed. We are lacking of the unity of the classes. For Plato, rulers, auxiliaries

and workers must do their specific job assigned to them. If you are a worker, you must do your

job as worker and do not do the jobs of the rulers or auxiliaries. The problem of the Filipinos is

that we have no philosopher king to rule over us. And those people who are ruled by their desires

and appetites are the ones ruling us. This is why there is no justice and law because the rulers are

self-serving. He would say that our justice and law are imperfect because the ones who are

implementing it are workers (those ruled by desires) and not rulers (those who uses rational

thinking). For him, one way to have justice and equality in the Philippines is to arrange our

society according to guardians, auxiliaries and workers.

Aristotle would say that we are in need of a government-made law. The problem with the

justice and law here in the Philippines is that it is imperfect. There are times that people can get

away from the law because of its loopholes. Oftentimes, law here in the Philippines can be

compared to the rule of the law discussed by Aristotle. It is imperfect and man-made. It was

made to suit the desires of the lawmakers. It would only make the injustice in the country worse.

According to Aristotle, in a state, the government-made law is much preferred. To promote

justice in the country, the government-made law must be implemented. It is imperfect but better

than rule of law. The government-made law must not be subjective or arbitrary. It gives general
instruction and the ruled must also be willing to obey. There must not be anyone above the law.

In this way justice can be served.

St. Augustine would say that the present situation of justice here in the Philippines is a

sin. There is no true justice here because it based only in the ambition and desires of the ruler for

their own benefit. He would tell the Filipinos that the true justice is being righteous. A just

person is the one who obeys the Word of God and those who turned back from selfish desires.

Justice here on earth is temporary. This is only done to achieve social peace. But as God’s people

one must obey the laws created by the state for social peace because this will eventually lead to

eternal peace. The essence of justice is the relation of man with God. That is how justice is done

according to St. Augustine.

According to St. Thomas, there are four laws. One is eternal law which is the God’s

reason. Second is the natural law which is the participation of the creations to eternal law. Third

is the divine law which is the expression of God’s revelation. And lastly is the human law. For

me, the obedience in these laws will lead to the equality in implementation of the law. In order

not to be above the law, one must obey all these laws. Also, to achieve justice in the society, St.

Thomas said that the laws must not be arbitrary or subjective. It must undergo critical test. It

must be according to rule of reason, just and in harmony with common good, legitimate and

mandatory, and ally promulgated.

Through the philosophy of these great men we can see the critical condition of justice and

law in the Philippines. Our law and justice can still be change for the better if the philosophies

stated by these great men are taken into account.

For question 3:
 In our society where corruption is everywhere, how can we find solutions to this? The

Filipinos have the responsibility to solve this problem. In this election year, again we are going

to exercise our freedom in choosing the next leader of our country. What are the characteristics

of a leader? How must a ruler lead?

According to Plato, a ruler must have a rational thinking. The problem with our country

today, we just put a leader into a position without consideration. To Plato, there are three

components of human nature, the wisdom, courage and appetite. Appetite is the lowest while the

wisdom is the highest. Our rulers now have a great portion of appetite in their human nature.

That is why there is a corruption. Rulers today only want to gain personal benefits and to fulfill

their own desires. What we need, according to Plato’s philosophy, is a philosopher king, who

will use his head. Plato believed in education. It must be systematic and infinite process. This

ruler must not only have a rational thinking but he must also undergo extensive training to

properly run the state. This is needed because a good government requires a careful and rational

analysis. A ruler who does not undergo an extensive training cannot do those requirements. This

is important so that he can rule successfully. Plato said that a ruler must have no property, no

family and must live in poverty because all these things can be the reason to lose his focus in

attaining the goal of the state.

Unlike Plato, Aristotle believes that rulers must have a private property. Though he can

have possessions he must bear in mind the principle of moderation. Private properties (incentive,

experience of ages, pleasure and liberality) are not threat to moral perfection. Actually they give

the ruler a good feeling for himself that will lead to self-confidence to lead the state properly.

There are many types of constitutions. There are good and bad. The greatest constitution

according to Aristotle is the monarchy. This type of constitution is good because it is lead by one
person who has a preeminent virtue. This is the greatest because by having one ruler with

preeminent virtue there will be peace and unity. There will be no disagreements on the ideas.

Tyranny is the perverted version of this constitution. The ruler uses his power to gain personal

benefits. This type of constitution often happens in our country. So it is important choose a

leader with preeminent virtue. The problem is that it is hard to find a person like that. So for

Aristotle the most possible and probable constitution in real life is polity or constitutional

government. This is composed of many rulers with preeminent virtues. This is good because

many heads are better than one. But be careful do not just put any person on the position. The

citizens must choose properly. According to Aristotle the citizens who will chose the rulers must

be have these characteristics: men; educated; propertied; experienced and; has the luxury of time.

These characteristic are needed so that they will not put a ruler into a position on a whim but

they must be based it on careful deliberation.

St. Augustine compared the king and the pirate and how they have taken away justice.

Pirates stole things using a ship while the king stole things by commanding his great fleet. We

can also compare that example to the happenings in our country and other institution. They are

politicians but can be compared to a thief because of the money they steal. St. Augustine advised

the leaders, in his book The City of God, to rule justly. A just leader according to him is those

who fear, love and worship God. If a man has a relationship with God, he is guided by His Spirit,

which is the wisest of all. Therefore a man can become a good leader.

If St. Thomas would give an advice, he will recommend monarchy as the best type of

government. He was so sure of this unlike Aristotle. He said that a government that is ruled by

one is most likely to maintain peace. This is because there will be no clashing of ideas from

different party. Though he wanted monarchy, the way to choose a leader is through elective
kingship not hereditary. This is to prevent from the person who is unsuitable to lead even if he is

next in line for the throne. This is also done so that citizens will also have a participation in the

government. But humans are not perfect. Leaders are also human so they are also not perfect. St.

Thomas knew that. That is why is categorize tyranny – minor tyranny and excessive tyranny. He

warned us that before revolutionizing against the tyrant consider first the consequences because

the leader that will be replacing the tyrant can be even worse. We can apply it in our government.

We are seeing many officials that are corrupt. Always think before doing any rush action that

will lead to bad consequences like replacing the corrupt official with more corrupt one.

These are the advices of the great men in classical and medieval period. Many lessons

can be learned from their philosophies. Our nation can be a good and progressive one if we heed

their teachings.

HANNAH LEDDA B. FERRER

SOSC 2 A