From Phenomenology of Suffering Towards a Philosophy and Praxis of Liberation

S. Lourdunathan 1. The proper field of philosophical analysis is the realm of the non-philosophical. By addressing this non-philosophical, Philosophy remains to be authentically and socially relevant. The non-philosophical here refers to the Geo-political, social and cultural space, responsible for the emergence of a particular type of system of thought (ism), which in turn paved way for consolidation and justification of the existence of the non-being. When philosophy addresses itself, then there is the problem of sophistry, or mere idealization; Knowledge for its own sake lacks human social interest. Philosophical texts are pondered as pedagogical tools to the interpretation of the non-philosophical. Philosophical texts are pondered not necessarily for promoting textual authenticity (Textual authenticity itself is a philosophical issue) but for contextual authenticity based on an ethic of social living. 2. Because Philosophy involves REFLECTION, it sets itself free to reflect on its own reality by way of distancing itself from what already is, from its own world, from its own system from its own space. Habermas points out that philosophy remains true to its classical tradition by renouncing it. This is exactly is the strength of philosophy. If it does not set itself free from its own system, it is endangered to the level of a dogma, a system that limits any reflection. It falls back to itself. It is self-enclosure with in its own world. It is a refusal to think critically. It is a refusal to mediation, relation, and proximity of the-other. The problem is Self-enclosure constraining of reflex-action. It is promotes an habitual adherence to the centrality and totality of Memory; it is a militant refusal to think anew. On the other hand, those philosophies that emerged from social reality, reflecting\responding to social issues, from the periphery have always done to promote Reflection - Understanding and relation. They have done this not by distancing \ isolation themselves but as a response to a need to place themselves with regard to the center- in total exteriority. Pre-Socratic thought appeared from a political, economic and geopolitical periphery and not exclusively from Greece. In the modern times, existentialism emerged as a response to the dehumanizing warcenter. Marxian thought emerged as a response to economic social reality. In the Indian side, Materialism (though often degraded as hedonistic) emerged from the periphery as the thought pattern for the affirmation of the real. The philosophies that have emerged as a reaction to and as a response to social problems purported to the affirmation of the existence of the Non-Being, which is otherwise treated as the exterior other in self-enclosing systems. Nevertheless, we should also take note that the philosophies, which emerged from the periphery, unconscious of its

Reader & Head, Department of Philosophy, Arul Anandar College (autonomous), Karumathur Madurai - 625 514, Tamilnadu.

need of reflection, have also fallen back to the center-stage. Philosophy as critical thinking that originates from periphery is unfortunately ends by directing itself to the center. Truth here is assumed to be singular, ONE and that too the truth of the center. Truth as the truth center reduced to a monolithic all pervasive dimensions, is its death as critical philosophy. Ontology and ideology is an end to critical thinking. In grounding in and ending upon as an ontology (a self-closed thought) philosophy losses its social and critical significance. The history of philosophy is filled with the facets of such ontological reductionism to the center-stage. Critical thinking when it shelters to the center, (however safe it may be) it turns out to be memory, a sheer matter of repetition of the tradition. Where critical thinking ends, ontology begins. Ontology ends up by thinking itself as the only reality. It defines itself as Being. By defining itself as a privileged being, thought (ontology) separates \ distances itself from the presence of the being of the other. By distancing, it defines itself as the Being as against the idea of Being-in-the-world in relation with the other. 3. Either Materialism or idealism for example by affirming each ones primacy or its center-stage, commits the error of perceiving everything from its own world. This is the philosophical problem of One against Many; for what is defined as Being or One or foundational is conceived in such a way it supercedes over the many. The very definition of Oneness and its alleged centerlines counts against the presence of the Many-ness, the totalities with in totalities. 4. For the Greeks, Being is and Non Being is not (Parmenides). Being is that which is Greek, the lumen, or the light of Greek culture. And this Being extends as the frontiers of Hellenism. Over the other borders of Grecian Hellenism, there exist non-being. It is this idea of Being (according to the Greeks) provided the very foundation (that which encompassed) or the totality or the social and political space for defining existence;. Being is like the light that illumines an area but not itself seen. Being is not given to see-ability or sense perception. And what it illuminates or takes hold of, or enslaves is the things, the objects, and the slaves, the non-Greeks, the non-being. The non-being therefore is an is not entity. A typical maya reality. This sense of ontology is found in entire history of western philosophical tradition from the Greek to the modern. 5. The tension between Being and Non Being, Permanence and Transitory, Eternal and the temporary; Spirit or Matter; One and Many; Dual and Non-Dual; Soul\Mind or Body\matter; Divine or human; the male Vs the female, human or animal; nature or culture; Science or Pseudo Science, civilized Vs the uncivilized, the ruler Vs the ruled, the powerful Vs the powerless, the capitalists Vs the poor etc. provide rich ground for philosophical analysis on the question of Being. Each camp tries to affirm (provides epistemic or ontological justifications) its own claims of meaningfulness from its own stand point or school of thought. These are the philosophies that turned themselves towards the center-space, ignoring or by passing the-other.
2

6. By employing the method of deduction and the method of doubting the-other) Descartes cleverly establishes such center of the rational being whose nature (derived logically) is sui-generis, that which exists in itself. There by Descartes establishes the supremacy of the thinking ego, and the subordination of the Other beings (the spatial) as secondary. (Parallels in Indian Philosophy?) It is not far from truth that before we claim ego cogito there was already the phenomena, the appearance and political practice of ego conquiro. ego conquiro; is the practical foundation of ego cogito. Ontology emerges from the practical context of the tension between the conqueror and the conquered in human history. The ontologism is the thinking of the center; it refers to the Being of the political center-space. It is the thinking manifests and expresses as Being. It is an encompassing totality. The history of European colonialism projected a story of philosophy that explained and justified political and cultural domination of the Other Beings with in the life world. The technocratic European male represents the ego-conquiro and the ego cogito. The ability to be a perceiver and the vulnerability to be treated as an object of perception (perceived ones) again (subjective idealism) veils the above-mentioned sense of ontologism of the being of the center. History of philosophy as well, is largely a story of the supremacy of the ontology of the center. 7. It is the manifestation of the Being of the center over/against the non-being or lesser beings in the world. Such a manifestation is purposive, interest bound. The Heideggarian question of Being is to be situated in this context of the tension between Being and Being-in-the-world. It is radical question in the sense that it purports to unveil the ontology and the orthodoxy of the center or the technocracy of being of the center and alternatively it is a vocation for Being-in-the-world. (a call to fundamental ontology). The form of manifestation (according to Heidegger) is either comprehension or appropriation or both. This is also known as mediation. Treating the-Other as the enemy, the Being of the center distances itself or else, treating the-Other as vulnerable; the Being of the center appropriates the-Other in continuos subordination. The cumulative effect of such mediation (comprehension or appropriation) is the phenomena suffering. The phenomenology as its name implies, concerns itself with What is given, as the consequence of conceiving reality as One and only one. By the term phenomenology of Suffering we may refer to the issue of Discrimination, domination, and power relations, those underlie the claim that epistemic objective or sole subjective alone as true. 8. The issue of suffering is both historical as well philosophical. In defense of such ontologism, Neitzhe argues in favour of the supremacy of the superman racism. If one attempts to draw a war-map in the face of the earth one could easily see how power is monopolized in the hands of the Being of the center. Should not one proclaim the death of the center and is such proclamation not ethical?. The attempt to erode the autonomy of the center is an attempt to restore the space of the periphery.
3

9. Heideggers criticism on all stages of western history (Greek-Roman, Medieval, Renaissance Enlightenment, Romanticism, existentialism, Humanism, Positivism, and Scientism) is but an attempt to question the being of the Center stage. The ontology of the center according to Heidegger, is peculiar dictatorship of the public realm namely the realm of the non-center, that which is considered as nonbeing. Heidegger says, Every determination of the essence of man that already presupposes an interpretation of being without asking about the truth of Being, whether knowingly or not, is metaphysical (ontological) Jaques Derrida criticism of modern frame of thought as logo centric, whose central concepts are eidos, arche, telos, needs to be viewed from this angle. The danger of such ontological center whether it is that it projects itself as the only correct model of explanation of reality. Such a projection in the social life tend to monopolize, envelop, neo-colonize the realities of the world in its own and only way. Its morality is instrumental, and profit designed. Thus, there is the inhuman side of ontologism. 10. The being of the center-self is exterior to being of the-other; and therefore vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination. Its relation is not Praxis but a practice of domestication for domination. It culminates into a technological productive culture that sets itself against Nature (non-people). It is denial of the rights of the Other as the Other. It negates the intrinsic worth of the Other. Existence here is referred as the existence of the human alone and the Other is unfortunately is treated as hell. Hitler, borrowing heavily from Nietzsche, practiced that the one who is Powerful has the right to exist and the powerless is doomed to death. 11. The morality of ontologism believes that the stronger has the right to exist and the weaker has its right in so far as it is subjucative to the stronger (social Darwinism) and if not the weaker is systematically excluded or isolated as powerless. As a philosophy of domination, ontologism conceals violence. The net result of such a philosophy of domination is the construction of a phenomenology of suffering. 12. Phenomenology of Suffering: Before we enter an analysis of the phenomenology of suffering, we need to situate ourselves empathetically into the context of suffering, namely the non-philosophical. The question of Being or existence must be viewed from the point of view of suffering or the sufferer because, meaning is jointed in its existence. A proper understanding of meaning (according to the phenomenological tradition of Heidegger) is in its given-ness. Understanding here, is not an achievement or an intellectual comprehension, but the analysis of Being in its own limit-situations. The paradigm that man as the rational animal, according to Heidegger, miserably fails to take into account the relationship of mans essence to Being. It means that the ontological definition that man as rational is inadequate, adds havoc to the very idea of being.
4

13. The context of racial superiority (racism), the context of caste superiority, the context of Male superiority (Patriarchy), the context of the claim that one religion as fundamental, etc is direct consequence of such monopolizing ontology, which in turn perpetuates domination, discrimination and subjugation or distancing of the-Other strategically and a systematically. The burden of Casteism is laid very heavily on those who are deemed as out caste because there exist the paradigm that non-dalits are hierarchically primary over or against the Dalits. The existential reality of Dalits is but a phenomenal suffering as the result of social exclusion of Casteism. 14. To understand the phenomenology suffering one needs to exercise a paradigm shift. It calls for a newer way of understanding the understanding. It involves a shift from the perspective of the dominant or the classical or the modern, towards the perspective of oppressed or the suffering. Primarily it is a shift from ones mind set, an openness towards the understanding the Other; it is to allow oneself to participate in the struggle for freedom of the socially deprived. Understanding according to Heidegger, is the way towards the clarification for mediation; it is mode of Being-in-the-world. It is not an intellectual compre-hension, not an achievement; it is the letting be seen a new sense of logos; it is an interpretation of the Being of Dasein the analysis of the existentiality of existence as a whole. It is an analysis of the possibilities of Being without reducing into Oneness. 15. Understanding for Heidegger (later) is the capacity of Dasein to disclose itself, its Being with in the world of entities. In the Greek definition of Being as is, and the Non-being as is not, is trespassed as to pave way for the disclosure of what is deemed non-being. Such a disclosure, for Heidegger, is historically situated. It presupposes, a (i) fore-understanding (namely the phenomenology of suffering within the ontology of center) and a (ii)as-structure as something; (as an entity with in entities with dignity); Together (i) and (ii) constitutes the hermeneutical situation that projects any authenticity of meaning. This is to say, that the history of the phenomenology of suffering needs to be comprehended as to pave way for a sense of recovery, a sense of awareness and ethically speaking a sense of justice. 16. The phenomenology of suffering includes (i) metaphysical sense of suffering (ii) epistemological sense of suffering and (iii) ethical senses of suffering. (i) The metaphysical sense of suffering refers to the loss or a denial of meaning to the non-being. This may be termed as metaphysical sense of thrown-away-ness. This is one of the most comprehensive forms of thrown-away-ness. It serves as the ontological foreground and background of all other forms of Thrown-away-ness (discriminations) .In the face of metaphysical Thrown-away-ness, one feels theoretically homeless, alone, inferior, stranded in the boundless expanse of multifaceted disjointment, and desertification. Negatively, in the metaphysical sense of Thrown-away-ness, there is a sentience of non-natural precariousness and fragility, susceptibility for exploitation, broken-ness, a deep down a sense of out
5

caste ness and a perpetual contingency. Positively, It is an initiative and emotional longing for and continuos search for a frame of meaning that would actualize ones being human amongst humans. Metaphysical Thrown-away-ness here, in a specific sense is a limitation with in the limit situations. The polarization between Idea Vs Matter, the primary vs secondary, ideal vs real, sacred and secular, universal vs particular, rational vs empirical, transcendence vs immanence, totality vs fragmentation, unity vs diversity evolution vs revolution, purusa vs prakriti subjectivity vs objectivity etc., constructs a sense of suffering i.e that is metaphysical. (ii) What is epistemological sense of Thrown-away-ness? Negatively it refers to sense of denial (secondary treatment) for an epistemic validity. It is the sense denial of consciousness or a sense of submissiveness to the dominant epistemic claims of truth. Consciousness of the broken-particular here remains to be treated as an enslaved consciousness. It is a sense of correspondence or coherence to or with the already established norms truth claims (Text proofs). It is prism through which one is forced or bound to perceive and evaluate reality often with an excuse that alternatives are absent. Positively it is the master motivator to look for or engage into alternate criterion of meaningfulness in favour of the brokenparticular. Sartre speaks of a metaphysical sense of thrownness, whose nature is isolation and contingency. Epistemologically it is a sense of nothingness. Human consciousness here is a hole in Being. However, like nature, human consciousness abhors any vacuum and seeks for a plentitude of Being, for filling up the lack. In its attempt to fill in emptiness and nothingness, human consciousness sets itself as a Being in-it self, as the fullness of Being, a unity with in itself. Nevertheless, human being is nothing else than throwness itself; it is forever in frustration at its task towards self-fulfillment via otherness. But the sense of limitation or suffering or Thrown-away-ness that we speak here is an arbitrarily, historically, conventionally and conceptually constructed (non-natural) one in order that there exist two classes of people, the dominant (Being) and the dominated (non-Being). It is a limitation within fragility. It is a Thrown-away-ness with in the (established philosophical) sense of throwness. (iii) Ethical Thrown-away-ness refers to the sense of attributing value dualism and value separatism as practiced in the dominant worldviews and their social systems. This is the most terrifying sense of Thrown-away-ness. It is a denial of an intrinsic worth of Being by structuring the-Other, as secondary, inferior, determinant and subordinated. Such a sense of suffering is prevalent in any slave owning systems. In short, It is a denial of freedom and justice. Towards a philosophy and a praxis of liberation 17. The inadequacy of the ontology of center (self-closure) calls for an alternative; The face of the suffering-other, the broken-particular, namely the non-being calls for an alternative. The condition for an alternative is those limit-situations or the
6

failed-ontology that projected an unjust social reality. It is a transcendence of mere inter-subjectivity, of subject-object dichotomy. According to Heidegger, it is that which ethicicizes our human ex-sistence, the entire phenomenon of the selfactualizton of our Being-together-with-others-in-the-world. It is an attempt to restore to the fullness of Being. From the point of view of Heidegger, it is both self-consciousness and Other-consciousness of Dasein. It is an attempt to trespass the dichotomy of subject-object, knower-known, perceiver-perceived dualism. The dominant man (whether it European or Asian) as the measure of all things needs to be suspended. 18. A philosophy and a praxis of liberation is but an exposition of the practice and the logic of domination that is concealed in the dominant or oppressive frame (thought or structure) It attempts to unmask any type of ontologism and functionalism (whether structuralist, logo-centric or scientific, or technological). It is a negation of any form of centrism, whether Eurocentrism or Asiancentrism or any other. it is the negation of hegemonic practice of the degradation. It is a negation of any form of construed essentialism or fundamentalism, as the only form of interpretation of reality. It is a praxis of double negation. Liberation, is a process of unmasking the ontology of the center. It is a denial of the denials in the system. It is to leave the prism-prison. It is a perspective not of the center but of the periphery based on an ethics of justice. It tries to formulate an alternate metaphysics reflecting on the reality of suffering and the need for negating such suffering, by way of affirming the dignity or freedom of the-other as the other. it is to place oneself in commiseration with the-Other because the ego (being) is necessarily plural in relationality. Praxis of liberation is the act of restoring the whole with in whole. The praxis of liberation deprives Being of its alleged eternal, divine or monolithic foundations; it is a negation of fetishism. It exposes the ontology of the Center, as oppressive, dominating, and therefore unethical. It celebrates the end of oppression as resurrection.. The wounded totality of the Other with in the dominant paradigm of existence is radically questioned by exposing its self-enclosure. It points towards the recognition of the Other, of alterity, in the multi-diversity of cultural and intellectual discourses. It accepts the Otherness of an-Other with out assimilation or conquest or colonization. It is committed to the discovery of the ways of making relatedness or connection with out losing sight of the differences. It exposes (western) metaphysics as the white mythology and its claim of universalization of truth. It as well exposes the eastern metaphysics if and when any particular metaphysics claims superiority over any other. It is an affirmation of the metaphysical and the actual identity-in-difference of the social-many. It attempts to promote a multilogue as against any form of mono or dialogue. An authentic revelation of such praxis of liberation is fully revealed only by the broken-particular (the women violated by masculine ideology, the poor exploited by economism, the dalits subjugated by casteism) through its struggle for affirmation. Such a revelation is not just an appearance, or a phenomenon for philosophical scrutiny but a transcendence of the conditioning

vertical system. It is a process of struggle towards non-centric and Otherorientedness. 19. Ethically it is a concern for others, not out of cultivated charity or good conscience, but out of recognition of the fact that as humans we are not individuals but inter-humanly plural. It is grounded in the Particular in so far as the Particular is spaced in relatedness. Rooted yet related is its touchstone of truth claim. It is the recognition that Being is no more an unified or substantiated entity but it refers to necessity of plurality of Beings. It is the affirmation of the broken-Particular its totality among totalities. Praxis of liberation recognizes that as humans we are inter-human and in our inter-humanness there is mutuality, compatibility, communicability reciprocity, proximity, a living inter-course. Such a type of relatedness or We ness plural I can not be theoretically reduced to some kind of purposive and instrumental justification. To be social is not a requirement here but an intrinsic ethically imperative, inescapable necessity to be humans amongst humans. Through a logic of a denial of the system that denies any affirmation of the-Other, it remains to be critical and liberative. Thus, praxis of liberation is but an ongoing, creative, innovative dynamic process of commiseration.

Reference: 1. Dussell, Enrique, Philosophy of Liberation, Orbis Books, New York, 1990 2. Richard Kearney., Modern Movements in European Philosophy, Manchester University press, New York, 1994. 3. Paul Vadakeoram, Heidegger Vision of Human Existence in the Expression and the Appropriation of Being, (dissertation submitted to Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, Rome 1995. 4. Johnson J. Pouthenpurackal, Heidegger Through Authentic Totality to Total Authenticity, Leuven University Press, 1987. 5. Martin Heidegger, On Time and Being, Harper & Row publishers, New York, 1972.

----------------

From Phenomenology of Suffering Towards a Philosophy and Praxis of Liberation

S. Lourdunathan
Summary 1. From Heraclitus to post modern thinkers, one of the essential themes of Philosophy and many other social sciences is the issue of Change and Power. It is said, war is the origin of everything if by everything one understands the order or system. We are at war a cold war for those who wage it, a hot war for those who suffer it; Space remains to be a battlefield, as geography, studied and destroy the other as a territory with rigid and fixed frontiers; this space of the world remains to the center of many contradictions. Such contradictions in space remain to be political, social, economical, religious, cultural, psychological, and philosophical. Fortunately or unfortunately, Philosophy is born in this cultural, political space. Social Space as a battlefield, as geography, as territory with fixed walls of separation is different from an abstract idealization of space. The space within which philosophies arose, people live remain to be in the real sense an economical space or social space or religo-cultural space or a political space. It is not an empty space of Newtonian physics. 2. Philosophy cannot be claimed to be born in an empty space of mere idealization for idealization sake. Philosophy is born in this political space. Philosophy therefore all along remains to be spatio-temporal or context conditioned. It is born either in the social space of those who enjoy power domination or it is lamented in the world in which Suffering is historically and socially permutated and existent. 3. Underneath this dimensions of contradiction there exists the question of reduction of Being into singular dimension whose social expression is power-domination of the few and Suffering of the many; This in turn calls for a Philosophy of liberation. The Philosophy of those who are socially and politically dominant remain to be the Philosophy of power domination and the Philosophy of those who suffer domination (not completely articulated) remain an yet to-be. The philosophy of those who enjoyed power domination continues to colonize and oppress those who are susceptible to colonization. 4. For the Greeks, Being is and Non Being is not (Parmenides). Being is that which is Greek, the lumen, or the light of Greek culture. And this Being extends as the frontiers of Hellenism. Over the other borders of Grecian Hellenism, there exist non-being. It is this idea of Being (according to the Greeks) provided the very foundation (that which encompassed) or the totality or the social and political space for defining existence;. Being is like the light

Reader & Head, Department of Philosophy, Arul Anandar College (autonomous), Karumathur Madurai - 625 514, Tamilnadu.

that illumines an area but not itself seen. Being is not given to see-ability or sense perception. And what it illuminates or takes hold of, or enslaves is the things, the objects, and the slaves, the non-Greeks. This sense of ontology is found in the philosophies of Plato or Aristotle who justified slavery because theirs (to much extent) is a philosophy of domination. For them, the question of Being refers to the Greeks and the non-being refers to those who can not share their worldview; slaves according to them can not be considered Humans. That is why Aristotle said: a slave is a slave by nature. According to this tradition, Human nature is being rational and animal it only referred to those Greeks. The non-Greeks, namely the Europeans, Asians etc, were considered barbarians. For Thomas Aquinas, the nature of Being is that which is beyond any limitations; Existence is primarily the unlimited unfettered, unconditioned etc. He seeks to provide a value-graded system of hierarchy of existence. 5. With in the political space of the Modern European Philosophy, Europe is treated as the Center that provided meaning for the question of Being or existence. The historical backdrop of European Philosophy consists of the fall of Constantinople, the political invasions of the European nationsEngland, France as colonial powers Nazi Germany and later UN with its CIA, the emergence and the sway of Cartesians philosophy and so on. European Philosophy centered its philosophical interpretation from the archetypal foundational, I. Before they could perceive, I think therefore I am, in practical world, the Europeans practiced, I conquered therefore I am. From this spirit of Conquering or colonizing or enslaving there arise the issue of cogito ergo sum. 6. The broader sense in which the idea of Being is extended or identified is Logos, the center, the rational, the divine, the non -natural, the politically powerful, the eternal, the one and the same thing. Thus what is socially and politically powerful remain to be the Center and what is socially and politically weaker was treated to be the periphery. 7. Can we say that Nietzsche is but an apology for the power domination of human conqueror. Phenomenology and existentialism can not claim an exception to this tradition of searching in to one own self or the I; The common philosophical thread that runs through the European tradition of Philosophy is but the affirmation of the totality of the I (ones own self). 8. With in this tradition of dominant philosophies, the question of Existence is bound to be one sided. Covered in the layers of philosophical language, the practical intend of such philosophy is to affirm the I, the European Individual, as the center of power and Knowledge, vis a vis the non-European as the Non-Being or as the Other.

10

9. Thus to many extent both the Classical and the Modern Philosophy of the west is found reflecting the perception of the dominant culture. With some exception, we could term their Philosophy as a Philosophy of domination. Classic Philosophies is the theoretical consummation of the practical oppression of the peripheries. The Philosophy of domination at the center of the ideological hegemony of the dominant classes plays an essential role in European worldview and history. 10. Ontology, understood as the thinking that expresses Being- given to the Classical and modern tradition, remain to be the ideology of ideologies, provided foundation to the colonial ideologies, and play the role of theoretical justification of the binary between Being Vs Non Being. 11. Philosophy is therefore political. It is born in a world of contradictions. Today we are living in a world that is separated and characterized as Developed, developing and under developed countries. The question is, who defines development and to whose benefit development is designed?. Can humans be Developed, developing or under developing? Is it not right that the socalled non-being, the irrational, the colonized, the oppressed, the sufferer, be given an opportunity to express their right to existence even before discussing the primacy of essence over existence or existence over essence? Is it not an ethical question to listen to the voice of those who were historically treated as the Other, the lumpen. Should they not assert or define themselves as humans. The ontology of the dominant philosophies did not come from nowhere. It arose from a previous experience of dominant existence over the subjugated existences. It arose either as a justification or as explanation of the cultural oppression of the Center over the non-center, the periphery. 12. What is at stake is the need for articulation of a Phenomenology of suffering of the periphery orienting it towards a Philosophy of liberation. Such a task calls for consideration of Philosophy from the standpoint of the Sufferer or the dominated. It is as well a critique of those Philosophies that justified any domination, economic or social and political. It is a creative exercise in the sense that it opts for the freedom of the Other from the clutches of the dominant or pro-dominant worldviews. It is in a specific sense a practice of negation of negation; it is not a return to the Center; it is the affirmation of the totalities of the periphery. It is an upsurge of the Periphery in order to affirm their Existence with in a world of denial of existence. It is an attempt unmask any fetishism or any form centralism. It is an ethical action that calls for the affirmation of the broken-particular, to restore the whole with in whole.

--------------------

11

PHENOMENOLOGY OF SUFFERING AND A PRAXIS OF LIBERATION (Lecture-notes delivered from 28 February 2 March 2002ICPR REFRESHER COURSE IN PHENOMENOLOGY AND ITS RELATED DISCIPLINES Org. by Sri Aurobindo School of Eastern & Western Thought, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry, 21 February 13th March 2002) Dr. S. Lourdunathan Geopolitical Space of Philosophy 1. Philosophy to be socially relevant, it should necessarily address human problems and the philosophical questions that these issues rise for us. Hence, the proper fields of philosophical analysis is the realm of the non-philosophical namely the reality. The nonphilosophical here refers to the Global Social Reality whose dimensions are political, economical, cultural, and so on. By responding to global social reality from an ethical standpoint, philosophy may be claimed to be socially relevant. In so doing, philosophy saves itself from the common criticism armchair philosophy or philosophy merely interpreted the world. 2. It is not a disputed fact that the spirit of philosophy is critical thinking and the nature of philosophical questions is entertaining questionable questions. However, the problem here is that why one needs to entertain critical thinking. Is the engagement of critical thinking is for its own sake or does it have a social purpose. Relating

I thank Dr. V. C. Thomas, Prof & Head, and Sri Aurobindo School of Eastern and Western Thought, Pondicherry University, for encouraging me to work on this theme consistently. Reader & Head, Department of Philosophy, Arul Anandar College (autonomous), Karumathur 625 514 Madurai Dt

12

ourselves to the history of philosophical developments one could learn the lesson that philosophical exercise of engaging the art of questioning is broadly social purposive. The teleology of philosophy is ethics an ethics that restores the human mind from both mental and social prejudices and slavery. It is an ethic that resurrects from a phenomenology of suffering and restores relationship. 3. When philosophy addresses itself, then there is the problem of sophistry, or mere idealization; Knowledge for its own sake needs no human intervention. 4. The role of Philosophical Texts: When we engage ourselves in the philosophy the role of philosophical texts (Verbal testimony) is vital but to the extent that the philosophical text does not constrain ones freedom to critical thinking. Philosophical texts are important (secondary) in the sense that they serve as tools, as pedagogical of the non-philosophical. References to Philosophical texts serve as a method of interpretation to the understanding \ reflections the nonphilosophical, the social reality. Authenticity of philosophizing involves the critical reflection of the non-philosophical -- the phenomenon, the reality textured in our social living. Philosophical texts are pondered not necessarily for promoting textual authenticity (Textual authenticity itself is a philosophical issue) for it would lead to the problem of vicious circularity or proof-text model of Philosophy. 5. Because Philosophy involves REFLECTION, it sets itself free to reflect on its own reality by way of distancing itself from what already is, from its own world, from its own system from its own space. This is exactly is the strength of philosophy. If it does not set itself free from its own system, philosophy is reduced to the level of a kind of a dogma, a system that limits reflection. It falls back to itself. It is selfenclosure with in its own world. It is a refusal of critical thinking. Self-enclosure is a refusal to openness to mediation and to relation. It is a desire to maintain its centered-ness by confining and defining distancing itself away from the Other, namely the periphery. 6. Adherence to the totality of Memory is the way that we retain ourselves to the system that conceals us. (i) Self-enclosure is conceals the desire and the practice of playing superior or the dominator, the Elite. (ii) Self-enclosure contains\ conceals oneself from others. Thus, it constrains Reflection leading to relation. 7. On the other hand, those philosophies that emerged from social reality, reflecting\responding to social issues, from the periphery have always done to promote Reflection - Understanding and relation. They have done this not by distancing \ isolation themselves but as a
13

response to a need to place themselves with regard to the center- in total exteriority. 8. Pre Socratic thought appeared from a political, economic and geopolitical periphery and not exclusively from Greece. (They were colonies). In the modern times, existentialism emerged as a response to the dehumanizing war-center. Marxian thought emerged as a response to economic social reality. In the Indian side, Materialism (though often degraded as hedonistic) emerged from the periphery as the thought of this world. (Instantiate...) 9. The philosophies that have emerged as a response to social problems purported to the affirmation of the existence of the Non-Being, which is otherwise treated as the exterior other in self-enclosing systems. 10. Nevertheless, the philosophies that have emerged from the periphery unconscious of its need of reflection have also fallen back to the center stage. Critical thinking that begins from periphery is unfortunately ends by directing itself to the center. Truth here is assumed to be ONE and that too the truth of the center. Truth as center or ONE is death as critical philosophy. Ontology and ideology is an end to critical thinking. In ending upon as ontology Philosophy losses its criticality. That is why we find that in the history of Philosophy is filled with series of ontologism(s). Critical thinking when it takes shelter in the hands of the center, (however safe it may be) thought turns out to be memory, a sheer matter of tradition. Where critical thinking ends, ontology begins. Ontology ends up by thinking itself as the only reality. It defines itself as Being. By defining itself as a privileged being, thought (ontology) separates \ distances itself from the everyday social reality. 11. Materialism for example by affirming its own prime existence commits the difficulty perceiving everything from its own world. Again this will lead to the same old problem of One against Many; for what is defined as Being or One or foundational existence is conceived in such a way it supercedes over the many. The very definition of Oneness counts against the presence of the Many-ness in totalities of all totalities. 12. What is Phenomenology and what is meant by phenomenology of suffering: we shall try to clarify these here: Phenomenology as its name implies, concerns itself with What is Given, or what \how it appears from the reality of the world; It refers to the social reality as it appears or given to us in a specific social system; The issue of Being here refers to What is given as a system (ideological\philosophical or structural); it refers to acceptance of the system (Being) as given). 13. By the term phenomenology of Suffering we may refer to the issue of Discrimination, domination, and power relations, those underlie the phenomenon, the Being or the System. With in the Classical and European Philosophy, the issues of the phenomenon would be: Being
14

and Non Being; Permanence Vs Transitory; Eternal Vs the temporary; Spirit or Matter; One Vs Many; Dual Vs Non-Dual; Soul\Mind or Body\matter; Divine or human; the male Vs the female, human or animal; nature or culture; Science or Pseudo Science, civilized Vs the uncivilized, the ruler Vs the ruled, the powerful Vs the powerless, the capitalists Vs the poor etc. Such a polarization of categories may be extended further both in the actual as well in the dominant philosophical worlds. 14. Each camp tries to affirm philosophically (provides epistemic or moral justifications) its own claim of meaningfulness from its own stand point or school of thought. Those philosophies that emerged from the Center, its own construct for the affirmation of its own Self, as One, as Being or as Existence. 15. We shall clarify further: For the purpose of clarification, the approaches to the question of Being \ existence in the history of Philosophy may be classified as falling into three major dimensions or approaches. They are (i) the ontological approach (ii) the Functional approach and (iii) the critical-liberative approach. Clarification of these approaches would in turn pave to the understanding of the phenomenology of suffering and liberation from a philosophical perspective. 16. What is the ontological approach? This is an attempt to provide a constitutive (theoretically reduced) definition of Existence, man, society etc from an onto-logical point of view. It is an attempt to provide pure definitions divorced from the non-philosophical reality. It is purely a rational attempt that provides an idealized definition of Being or Existence. Often the type of philosophizing results from the Dominant Center in Philosophy. it simply reflects the worldview of the dominant culture or society. It often looks for the most fundamental definition of what Is. This Is defined in contrast to what is not. 17. The theoretical formulation of these diverse issues may be singled out as falling into category of what is X in its ultimate constituent sense? The X, as a variable here would easily be instantiated as Reality, Man, God etc. For example, for Plato, the ultimate nature of existence is pure idea, pertaining to the world of forms. This pure idea stands in opposition to the imagery or the shadowy world. For Sankara, the ultimate sense of reality is Non-Dual and what is nondual is in opposition to the world of duality. Here arises the philosophical dualism of Appearance Vs Reality. For Aristotle, the ultimate reality is the ontological reconciliation of Form and Matter. God, as the ultimate reality, for St. Anselm is purely ontological. For St. Thomas, X is trans-cosmological. 18. By employing the method of deduction and the method of doubt (doubting the other) Descartes of the Modern Philosophy derives that Existence or Being is purely rational. Such a Being for Descartes and many other rationalists exists in itself. That which is defined to exist
15

in dependent to Spirit is considered as irrational therefore secondary. Parallel to Descartes, the philosophy of Samkhya established the dualism between Pursa as prime category and Prakriti as the jada or matter (inactive). The point here is that category of existence that is defined as occupying the central or essential is conceived to be the Primary as against the category of that which is defined as the Secondary. In the practical language, the male or the human of the European is placed higher than the non-European. This is the politics of the philosophy of Modernism. 19. The dialectical manifestation of the One in to many and the surrender of Many in to One establish Hegelian Idealism. Is Aurobindos philosophy comparable to that of Hegelianism?. The Subjective idealism of Berkeley is from the point of view of a Philosophy of liberation, may be said to conceive a sense of subjugation of the object that is perceived by the subject who perceives. That is why the claim is To be is to be Perceive and to be perceived. 20. Whether monistic or dualistic, idealistic or realistic the ideological frame of such above-mentioned philosophies conceives a sense of domination of the One, the Primary as against the Secondary or Many. This is what I mean by the phenomenon of separation or discrimination that enforce a sense of oppression of the Dominant over the Other. The cumulative effect of such philosophies at the social reality is Suffering. Take for example How Plato, in tune with his philosophy of idealism conceives an Hierarchically spaced or construed society, which in turn is justified in Plato as Justice and (made) Natural. 21. Thus the characteristic feature of the ontological sense of philosophizing remains to be axiomatic, Value-Hierarchical (vertical), formal, structural, pure-existential. Such a philosophy is other wise termed as the Philosophy of domination. In the sense of promoting a theoretical position and epistemic justification of the undue affirmation of the Primacy of the Ontological, such a philosophy contributed to political promotion of an unequal social order. The dualistic trends by placing the Spirit category as superior over matter, served to distance the Powerful and the Powerless by means of systematic domination and discrimination. What is Holy is defined in terms of what is not Holy and what is touchable is defined against what is untouchable and so the case with any other value-dualism. 22. Jaques Derrida would criticize such Philosophy as logo centric, whose central concepts are eidos, arche, telos, etc. They remain to be ones mind-constructs in order that the Class of people who conceive such logo centrism remains to be the Philosopher King.

16

23. What is Functionalist sense of approaching to the question of Being or Existence? remains to be our next inquiry. To put it briefly, The term functionalism is extendable to Scientism, Positivism, Behaviorism, linguistic analysis of meaning, and Pragmatism. In the modern world, this may be termed as economism of the trans-national capitalism. Functionalist are those who seek an explandum model for the existing system (Being). They make a slight divergence from the question of what is X to What X does or How X is displayed/performs with in the given system. For example, the phenomenon of Capitalism is understood by what or how it successfully performs itself. 24. Functionalist are those who do not question ethical dimension of a system, rather they rely on the pragmatic morality of a system or reality. Meaning is a matter of utility, positivistic, verifiability, testability, repeatability, orderly etc. The danger of functionalism or modernism is that it projects itself as the only correct model of explanation of reality. Such a projection in the social life tend to monopolize, envelop, neo-colonize the realities of the world in its own and only way. Its morality is instrumental, and profit designed. 25. We shall explain this by analyzing the phenomenon of Globalization in the notes entitled as Globalization as totalization of Power. Before we take into such an analysis, it is better that we take look of the dualistic or contradictory economic reality of the global market today. (add here facts and figures regarding the reality of economic disparity ) 26. Take a look at these following facts and figures: Global Trends 2015 a study report by the United States Intelligence Community lists out problem s of the world for the next 15 years. And for India: Aids will be a major problem; arable lands will be more degraded; deforestation will be more and more intensifying pollution; Coral reefs will be disturbed; ... India and China will rise in power and can cause adjustment problems; internal conflicts such as communal disputes will be bitter, vicious, long-lasting and difficult to terminate; they may become interstate conflicts; some of the northern states will have more population with about 50 per cent points and the four southern states may have 16 per cent; and the India Pakistan gap will be widened. (The Hindu, Sunday, January 7, 2000). Poverty is on the rise, in 1989 34.3% of the population of India was under the poverty line, with the Globalization and New Economic policy there was a steep increase in poverty line. In 1992 it was 40% and in 1997 it was almost 50%; (Unfortunately the political claim is that globalization would erase the poverty line). According to the World Bank Report, in East Asia excluding China, 76.4 million people are living below poverty line.

17

In the worlds population, those who are in poverty make up to 1.1 billion of the 5 billion people of the Planet. The economists tell us that, a 20% of the world population. the socalled upper class continue to enjoy 85% of the total world resources and the remaining 80% of the population are forced to distributed amongst themselves the rest 15% of the world resources. Unfortunately, these 80% of the worlds population, a vast majority of them live in the developing or yet-to be developed countries. The disparity of distribution of resources would in turn pave way to the disparity and discrimination in social status. If we could shrink the earths population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all existing human ratio remaining the same, it would look like this: There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from western hemisphere (North and South) and 8 Africans. Of the total population 51 would be female and 49 are male; 70 would be nonChristians 30 Christians; 50% of entire worlds wealth would be in the hands of the only 6 people and all 6 would be citizens of the United States; Nearly 80 persons would be living in substandard housing; 70 persons would be unable to read; 50 would suffer from mal nutrition and one would be near death and one would be near birth. Only one would have college education ( Jivan, May 1997) The position of India concerning education is very low among the countries of the world. Only 40.90% of the people are literate. What adds to the problem is that there is strong gender discrimination in the field of education. Out of the total literates 64.13% are male while only 35.87% are female; the status of female literacy in 1971 was 18.44% and it has increased to 35.87% in 1991. While the male literacy in 1971 was 39.5% and in 1991, it was 64.13%. Literacy rate of male is higher than the female. Humanity is currently in crisis in many dimensions, perhaps the most distressing is the problem of large scale refugee displacement seeking a home in homeless land. The result of political wars, persecution, discrimination, and intolerance is the emergence of refugees. Today there are 19 million refugees around the world and another 24 million men, women and children are displaced in their own lands. One in every 130 people on earth has been forced to face the problem of displacement (FAR Issue 3 December 1999) In the political life, there is a growing tendency to move from democracy to authoritarianism. The emergence of the modern elite with its control of State mechanisms has developed varying forms of domination and oppression When the country has entered into contract with the multinationals, the peasantry which constitute 70% of India are forced to commit suicide due to the problems of land alienation, product alienation, crop failure and indebtedness. More than 325 small and marginal

18

farmers mostly cotton growers have committed suicides in Andhra pradesh in 1999. Suicides have been reported from Karnataka, Maharstra, and even from the state of Green Revolution i.e., Punjab. The epidemic suicide all over the country is a clear evidence of the price (here human death) that the nation has to pay with its subjugation to the transnational capitalism and its market economy. 27. Globalization is a phenomenology of suffering to those who are secondary, developing or under developed nations and very especially to those who are already poor, who do not have the capacity to market economy. Philosophically termed Globalization is economism a form of monopolization of truth, that bifurcates the powerful Vs the powerless. In its actualization process, it allows suicidal of the poor or the oppressed. It is the manifestation of the Power-relations. Properly conceived, Globalization as practice of modernism, is Economism as its philosophy. This has a long standing colonial history and its corresponding philosophy of domination. As a philosophical construct, economism is founded on the assumption that Man or the Male (of the developed nations) is distinct from the humans of the dependent nations. Man is distinct from Nature (the term Nature is extendable to female, and the people of the periphery nations). Man here is treated as the perceiver, the subject and the Nature here is treated as something subservient to primary and therefore inferior to what is constructed as the Primary. Economism in short is founded on the dubious ontology monism, dualism, anthoropocentrism, androcentrism and centrism. The spirit of economism is traceable to the monopoly of the One against the many; Whichever Philosophy in the west shares such a view is in a specific sense is responsible for practice of globalization. The basis of anthropo-domination (the male of the first world) is his possession of the power of capital and instrumental knowledge of furthering such capital. 28. Economism as a Philosophy of domination underlies a specific system of economic and political power relations. The Being of the Self is exterior to being of the other; and therefore vulnerable to exploitation and discrimination. Its relation is not Praxis but a practice for utility and cash value. Economism culminates into a technological productive culture that sets itself against Nature. Development in this paradigm is seriously lopsided for it conceives development as economical alone in favour of the already economically rich center. It is denial of the rights of the Other as the Other. It negates the intrinsic worth of the Other. 29. In economism of the center, gradation and domination and subjugation is extended to powerless, the women, the children and the poor. This is a form of social darwinism. Existence here is referred as the existence of the human alone and the Other is unfortunately is treated as hell. Hitler, borrowing heavily from Nietzsche, practiced

19

that the one who is Powerfulhas the right to exist and the powerless is doomed to death. 30. The morality of economism believes that the stronger has the right to exist and define the existence of the less stronger and negate the powerless. As a philosophy of domination, it conceals violence. The net result of such a Philosophy is a phenomenology of domination, consequently suffering. 31. From the point of view of power relations, Economism is a form of totalization of power. It believes that in all societies there (is bound to) exist(s) two classes of people a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class by its very staus quo, performs all political functions and monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings whereas the latter is directed and controlled by the first. It believes in the Elite perspective of Power (Plato, Machiavally etc). It holds that concentration of social power in a small set of controlling elites, who by virtue of they being elites (substance by itself) are in possession and justification and interpretation of reality of power relations. The net result of such economism is power domination and consequently the suffering of the powerless. The elitist theory of power is in contrast to the socialist or pluralist theory of power. (Refer Rds) 32. Phenomenology of Suffering: Before we enter an analysis of the phenomenology of suffering, we need to situate ourselves empathetically into the context of suffering, namely the nonphilosophical. The question of Being or existence must be viewed from the point of view of suffering or the sufferer because, meaning is jointed in its existence. A proper understanding of meaning (according to the phenomenological tradition of Heidegger) is in its given-ness. Understanding here, is not an achievement or an intellectual comprehension, but the analysis of Being in its own limit situations. 33. It is from the Suffering experience, the meaning of suffering need to be looked into. It cannot perceived from the point of view of the dominator, but should necessarily be viewed from the point of view of suffering or suffer itself. What is required is an empathetic participation or an entry into the world of suffering; from this an analysis of the phenomenology of suffering needs to be made. The interpretations of the dominant worldview tend to justify or aestheticize suffering. But for the one who is oppressed by domination suffering can not be the way his suffering is conditioned to be perceived from the point of the Philosophy that dominates himself. 34. We shall take some illustrations: Globalization as economic and political power domination is Economism. The context of racial superiority against any other races is identifiable as practice of racial power relations or racism. The context of caste superiority over low caste inferiority is identified as a form of social practice of power relations. The concept and context of
20

Male superiority against the female is identifiable as Patriarchy. The context of the claim of one religion against or over the others is identified as fundamentalism. 35. The phenomenon of suffering is concretely analyzable with in the Indian social context of Casteism. The Philosophy of social domination in India is Casteism. Caste is but form of social segregation that perpetuates domination, discrimination and subjugation or distancing of the Other; it is a strategical and a systematic oppression of the lower ones. It is found justified, interpreted and explained as a form of social living in Indian culture. 36. Whether one accepts or rejects caste, the practice of caste discrimination is a bitter social reality. Such a practice contradicts the popular thesis that India is spiritual and One in plurality. The sort of oneness or non-duality with the caste frame is but oneness with in ones own caste culture. Caste and ethics can not go together. Caste and power domination coincides easily. The burden of Casteism is laid very heavily on those who are deemed as out caste the *Dalits. The existential reality of Dalits is but a phenomenal suffering that is expressed as untouchable, unseeable, and unapproachable; there exist explicit and implicit form caste oppressions. 37. some fact and figures, tip of an ice berg) Jan 1, 1999: Hands of 7 Dalit Children burnt in UP Jan 2, : A Dalit christian was murdered in UP Jan 8, : a Dalits women was raped in police custody in Up. From the year beginning to year end atrocities against this so called untouchables does not decrease. 38. The historical and philosophical situatedness of the Dalits as out castes falls heavily on them. Within the caste frame, the phenomenon of suffering can not be alleviated for it is this very frame that projects discrimination and domination of the non-caste or out-caste Other. 39. Philosophical explanations of Casteism may be found in Purusarthas and in those philosophies that negate the many; The affirmation of One against many may serve as the the philosophical justification of the supremacy of One caste in an hegemonic manner against the Other. Self-enclosure and social Exclusion are the two sides of the same coin called Casteism. 40. Within the caste frame, there exist a subject object duality, an I and It relationship, spatial distancing, social and mental exclusion of the lower caste other, a mind set that interiorizes itself (interiorized subjectivism), a negation of inter-subjectivity and emphasis of ego, fragmentation and exploitation, domestication and subordination, absence of conscience and community life, commodification or reification and colonization of the life-world of the lower-Other, a morality that is not sufficiently ethical. What is the distinction between morality and ethics from the point of view of a Philosophy of

21

liberation? (explain) These are some of characteristics of the phenomenon of suffering with in the caste frame. 41. To appreciate the phenomenology one needs to exercise a paradigm shift. It involves a shift from the perspective of the dominant or the classical or the modern, to the perspective of oppressed or the suffering. Primarily it is a shift from ones mind set, an openness towards the understanding the Other; it is to allow oneself to participate in the struggle for freedom of the socially deprived. (is it possible?) 42. A perspective or a conceptual frame is the way one tends to perceive himself or herself. It is the way one relates, communicates conditioned by the school of thought he or she belongs; it is a set of basic beliefs or assumptions values, attitudes which shape and reflect ones way of looking into oneself and the world around. It is socially and culturally conditioned or construed lens through which one perceives. It is affected by factors such as race, class, gender, caste age, nationality, religion, and so on. 43. The perspective of the phenomenology of suffering need to be looked into from its own cultural lens in order that a perspective and a praxis of liberation is processed towards; the deprived other or sufferer due to domination (in the phenomenology of suffering) refer to three important people: (i) the discriminated on the basis of Class, race, and caste; (ii)the discriminated on the basis of gender (iii) The discriminated on the basis that it is of non-human, nature, namely the ecosystem. Thus, the subjects of suffering refer to a triad (thank you Dr. Thomas) or a Trinitarian, whose suffering (a culture of silence) (untold ways of cross) is multi-layered and net worked. The one who is poor is vulnerable for exploitation, and the one who is female is vulnerable exploitation; such vulnerability is basis that provides the space of domination and subjugation. 44. The phenomenology of suffering if and when it is placed into the philosophical categories of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, it may be interpreted as follows: philosophically speaking, suffering refers to a sense of loss or denial of meaning of Being of the sufferer; it refers to the consideration of the sufferer, the oppressed, the deprived, the discriminated, as vulnerable for interpretation and there by exploitation. 45. The multi-layered sense of suffering may classified as (a) metaphysical, (b) epistemological (c) ethical senses of loss of meaning 46. (a) The metaphysical sense of suffering refers to the loss or a denial of meaning to the sufferer; it also refers to the construed or restricted sense of meaning (naming) given to the Being of the sufferer as
22

Secondary, or as is not. The denial of meaning at the socio-cultural level, viewed from the metaphysical standpoint it, this may be termed as metaphysical thrown-away-ness. This is one of the most comprehensive forms of thrown-away-ness. It serves as the ontological foreground and background of all other forms of Thrownaway-ness (discriminations).In the face of metaphysical Thrown-awayness, one feels theoretically homeless, alone, inferior, stranded in the boundless expanse of multi-faceted disjointment, and desertification. Negatively, in the metaphysical sense of Thrown-away-ness, there is a sentience of non-natural precariousness and fragility, susceptibility for exploitation, broken-ness, a deep down a sense of out caste ness and a perpetual contingency. Positively, It is a theoretical platform and a master mood which is all pervasive and all inclusive and a free floating apprehensiveness of a sense of ones separatedness (discrimination. It is an experience of a refusal of meaning to ones own Being in the world. It is denial of a sense of being related to the other in the world. It is an initiative and emotional longing for and continuos search for a frame of meaning that would actualize ones being human amongst humans. Could we situate the locus of metaphysical sense of Thrown-away-ness or subjugation in the centric philosophies? If properly instantiated, one could situate that the history of any dominant philosophies (European) is deep down a history of hegemonic bipolarization, and implicit justification of the same. Metaphysical Thrown-away-ness here, in a specific sense is a limitation with in the limit situations. Look at the following polarization and try to situate them with reference to its school of thought: Idea Vs Matter, the primary vs secondary, ideal vs real, sacred and secular, universal vs particular, rational vs empirical, transcendence vs immanence, totality vs fragmentation, unity vs diversity evolution vs revolution, purusa vs prakriti subjectivity vs objectivity etc. In economism and casteism or in any other forms of social discriminations is but the practical institutionalization of the theoretical foundation of bi-polarity. b) What is epistemological sense of Thrown-away-ness? Negatively it refers to sense of denial (secondary treatment) for an epistemic validity. It is the sense denial of consciousness or a sense of submissiveness to the dominant epistemic claims of truth. Consciousness of the broken-particular here remains to be treated as an enslaved consciousness. It is a sense of correspondence or coherence to or with the already established norms truth claims (Text proofs). It is prism through which one is forced or bound to perceive and evaluate reality with an excuse of lack of alternatives.

23

Positively it is the master motivator to look for or engage into alternate criterion of meaningfulness in favour of the broken particular. Sartre speaks of a metaphysical sense of thrownness, whose nature is isolation and contingency. Epistemologically it is a sense of nothingness. Human consciousness here is a hole in Being. However, like nature, human consciousness abhors any vacuum and seeks for a plentitude of Being, for filling up the lack. In its attempt to fill in emptiness and nothingness, human consciousness sets itself as a Being in-it self, as the fullness of Being, a unity with in itself. Nevertheless, human being is nothing else than throwness itself; it is forever in frustration at its task towards self-fulfillment via otherness. But the sense of limitation or suffering or Thrown-away-ness that we speak here is an arbitrarily, historically and conceptually constructed (non-natural) one in order that there exist two classes of people, the dominant and the dominated. It is a limitation within fragility. It is a Thrown-away-ness with in the (established philosophical) sense of throwness. That is why it is suffering as against metaphysical evil. (Take up the examples of women in patriarchy, the Dalit in the casteframe, the black at rascim, Ecocide at the undue human invention into the natural world) (d) Ethical Thrown-away-ness refers to the sense of attributing value dualism and value separatism as practiced in the dominant worldviews and their social systems. This is the most terrifying sense of Thrown-away-ness. It is a denial of an intrinsic worth of Being by structuring the-Other, as secondary, inferior, determinant and subordinated. Such a sense of suffering is prevalent in any slave owning systems. In short, It is a denial of freedom and justice. (Morality vs. Ethics) Towards a philosophy of liberation

47.

(a) In the following notes, what I propose to do is to provide a very brief account of the dynamics of praxis of liberation; Basing ourselves in our previous discussion on the issue of the phenomenology of suffering, illustrated with economism and casteism we need to ask ourselves the question: what is meant a philosophy of liberation from the point of view of the phenomenology of Suffering? (b) A philosophy and a praxis of liberation is an exposition of the practice and the logic of domination that is concealed in the dominant or oppressive frame (thought or structure) (c) It is a perspective not of the center but of the periphery based on an ethics of justice

24

(d) It tries to formulate an alternate metaphysics reflecting on the reality of suffering and the need for negating such suffering, by way of affirming the dignity or freedom of the-other as the other. (e) It deprives Being of its alleged eternal, divine or monolithic foundations; it is a negation of fetishism. It exposes the ontology of the Center, as oppressive and dominating and therefore unethical. (f) It attempts to unmask any type of ontologism and functionalism (whether structuralist, logo-centric or scientific, or technological) (g) It is a negation of any form of centrism, whether Eurocentrism or Asiancentrism or any other. it is the negation of hegemonic practice of the degradation. It is a negation of any form of construed essentialism or foundationlism, as the only form of interpretation of reality. It is a praxis of double negation. (h) It celebrates the end of oppression as epiphany. The wounded totality of the Other with in the dominant paradigm of existence is radically questioned by exposing its self-enclosure. It points towards the recognition of the Other, of alterity, in the multi-diversity of cultural and intellectual discourses. It accepts the Otherness of an Other with out assimilation or conquest or colonization. (i) It is committed to the discovery of the ways of making relatedness or connection with out losing sight of the differences. (j) It exposes (western) metaphysics as the white mythology and its claim of universalization of truth. It as well exposes the eastern metaphysics if and when any particular metaphysics claims superiority over any other. (k) It is an affirmation of the metaphysical and the actual identity-indifference of the social-many. It attempts to promote a multilogue as against any form of mono or dialogue. (l) An authentic revelation of such praxis of liberation is fully revealed only by the broken-particular (the women violated by masculine ideology, the poor exploited by economism, the dalits subjucated by casteism) through its struggle for affirmation. Such a revelation is not just an appearance, or a phenomenon for philosophical scrutiny but a transcendence of the conditioning vertical system. (m) It is a process of struggle towards non-centric and Otherorientedness. Ethically it is a concern for others, not out of cultivated charity or good conscience, but out of recognition of the fact that as humans we are not individuals but inter-humanly plural. It is grounded in the Particular in so far as the Particular is spaced in relatedness. Rooted yet related is its touchstone of truth claim. (n) It is the recognition that Being is no more an unified or substantiated entity but it refers to necessity of plurality of Beings. It is the affirmation of the broken-Particular its totality among totalities. (o) Praxis of liberation recognizes that as humans we are inter-human and in our inter-humanness there is mutuality, compatibility, communicability reciprocity, proximity, a living inter-course.
25

(p) Such a type of relatedness or We ness plural I can not be theoretically reduced to some kind of purposive and instrumental justification. To be social is not a requirement here but an intrinsic ethically imperative, inescapable necessity to be humans amongst humans. (q) Through a logic of a denial of the system that denies any affirmation of the-Other, it remains to be critical and liberative. Thus, praxis of liberation is but an ongoing, creative, innovative dynamic process of commiseration. Summary 1. From Heraclitus to post modern thinkers, one of the essential themes of Philosophy and many other social sciences is the issue of Change and Power. It is said, war is the origin of everything if by everything one understands the order or system. We are at war a cold war for those who wage it, a hot war for those who suffer it; Space remains to be a battlefield, as geography, studied and destroy the other as a territory with rigid and fixed frontiers; this space of the world remains to the center of many contradictions. Such contradictions in space remain to be political, social, economical, religious, cultural, psychological, and philosophical. Fortunately or unfortunately, Philosophy is born in this cultural, political space. 2. Underneath this dimensions of contradiction there exists the question Suffering and power-domination, which in turn calls for a Philosophy of liberation. Social Space as a battlefield, as geography, as territory with fixed walls of separation is different from an abstract idealization of space. The space within which philosophies arose, people live remain to be in the real sense an economical space or social space or religo-cultural space or a political space. It is not an empty space of Newtonian physics. 3. Philosophy cannot be claimed to be born in an empty space of mere idealization for idealization sake. Philosophy is born in this political space. Philosophy therefore all along remains to be spatio-temporal or context conditioned. It is born either in the social space of those who enjoy power domination or it is lamented in the world in which Suffering is historically and socially permutated and existent. 4. The Philosophy of those who are socially and politically dominant remain to be the Philosophy of power domination and the Philosophy of those who suffer domination (not completely articulated) remain an yet to-be. The philosophy of those who enjoyed power domination continues to colonize and oppress those who are susceptible to colonization. 5. For the Greeks, Being is and Non Being is not (Parmenides). Being is that which is Greek, the lumen, or the light of Greek culture. And this Being extends as the frontiers of Hellenism. Over the other borders of Grecian Hellenism, there exist non-being. It is this idea of Being (according to the Greeks) provided the very foundation (that which
26

6.

7.

8.

9.

encompassed) or the totality or the social and political space for defining existence;. Being is like the light that illumines an area but not itself seen. Being is not given to see-ability or sense perception. And what it illuminates or takes hold of, or enslaves is the things, the objects, and the slaves, the non-Greeks. This sense of ontology is found in the philosophies of Plato or Aristotle who justified slavery because theirs (to much extent) is a philosophy of domination. For them, the question of Being refers to the Greeks and the non-being refers to those who can not share their worldview; slaves according to them can not be considered Humans. That is why Aristotle said: a slave is a slave by nature. According to this tradition, Human nature is being rational and animal it only referred to those Greeks. The nonGreeks, namely the Europeans, Asians etc, were considered barbarians. For Thomas Aquinas, the nature of Being is that which is beyond any limitations; Existence is primarily the unlimited unfettered, unconditioned etc. He seeks to provide a value-graded system of hierarchy of existence. With in the political space of the Modern European Philosophy, Europe is treated as the Center that provided meaning for the question of Being or existence. The historical backdrop of European Philosophy consists of the fall of Constantinople, the political invasions of the European nations- England, France as colonial powers Nazi Germany and later UN with its CIA, the emergence and the sway of Cartesians philosophy and so on. European Philosophy centered its philosophical interpretation from the archetypal foundational, I. Before they could perceive, I think therefore I am, in practical world, the Europeans practiced, I conquered therefore I am. From this spirit of Conquering or colonizing or enslaving there arise the issue of cogito ergo sum. The broader sense in which the idea of Being is extended or identified is Logos, the center, the rational, the divine, the non-natural, the politically powerful, the eternal, the one and the same thing. Thus what is socially and politically powerful remain to be the Center and what is socially and politically weaker was treated to be the periphery. Can we say that Nietzsche is but an apology for the power domination of human conqueror. Phenomenology and existentialism can not claim an exception to this tradition of searching in to one own self or the I; The common philosophical thread that runs through the European tradition of Philosophy is but the affirmation of the totality of the I (ones own self). With in this tradition of dominant philosophies, the question of Existence is bound to be one sided. Covered in the layers of philosophical language, the practical intend of such philosophy is to affirm the I, the European Individual, as the center of power and Knowledge, vis a vis the non-European as the Non-Being or as the Other.
27

10. Thus to many extent both the Classical and the Modern Philosophy of the west is found reflecting the perception of the dominant culture. With some exception, we could term their Philosophy as a Philosophy of domination. Classic Philosophies is the theoretical consummation of the practical oppression of the peripheries. The Philosophy of domination at the center of the ideological hegemony of the dominant classes plays an essential role in European worldview and history. Ontology, understood as the thinking that expresses Being- given to the Classical and modern tradition, remain to be the ideology of ideologies, provided foundation to the colonial ideologies, and play the role of theoretical justification of the binary between Being Vs Non Being. 11. Philosophy is therefore political. It is born in a world of contradictions. Today we are living in a world that is separated and characterized as Developed, developing and under developed countries. The question is, who defines development and to whose benefit development is designed?. Can humans be Developed, developing or under developing? Is it not right that the so-called nonbeing, the irrational, the colonized, the oppressed, the sufferer, be given an opportunity to express his existence? Is it not an ethical question to listen to the Philosophy of those who were historically treated as the Other, the lumpen. Should they not assert or define themselves as humans. The ontology of the dominant philosophies did not come from nowhere. It arose from a previous experience of dominant existence over the subjugated existences. It arose either as a justification or as explanation of the cultural oppression of the Center over the non-center, the periphery. 12. What is at stake is the need for articulation of a Phenomenology of suffering of the periphery orienting it towards a Philosophy of liberation. Such a task calls for consideration of Philosophy from the standpoint of the Sufferer or the dominated. It is as well a critique of those Philosophies that justified any domination, economic or social and political. It is a creative exercise in the sense that it opts for the freedom of the Other from the clutches of the dominant or prodominant worldviews. It is in a specific sense a practice of negation; it is not a return to the Center; it is the affirmation of the totalities of the periphery. It is an upsurge of the Periphery in order to affirm their Existence with in a world of denial of existence. It is an attempt unmask any fetishism or any form centralism. 13. Let me remind of a story: An aged father, at his deathbed, called his two sons, the eldest, and the youngest one. He said, I have only one Cow, as the family property and you two should share this property among you. After the death of the father the eldest son called the younger one and said: Since you are the younger one, you caretake the front portion of the cow and enjoy the benefits of the front portion and I being eldest I will take the back portion. Innocently, the
28

younger one agreed and grazed the cow because of his due, but the eldest one started enjoying the milk from the back portion. As days passed, the younger one became hungrier because he could not have anything from the front portion of the cow, whereas the eldest one became fatter and fatter day by day. He appealed to his brother but in vain. Therefore, he approached a Wise man for help to solve his problem of hunger and dissatisfaction. The Wise man advised him not to feed the cow for some days and let the elder brother milk the cow. The younger one followed the advice of the wise, and let the cow go hungry for few days. On a fine morning, when the elder one sat at the foot of the cow to have his regular milk supply, the cow with resistance and angry gave a death-kick to the elder and the elder when he was falling down to earth, he realized his mistake and realized that he must have taken care of the younger one. Thank you Dr. S. Lourdunathan Head, Department of Philosophy Arul Anandar College (Autonomous) Karuamathur, Madurai Dt, Tamilnadu.

29