beyond phenomenology and a philosophy of liberationn s. lourdunathan

8/12/2019 Beyond Phenomenology and a Philosophy of Liberationn S. Lourdunathan

1/29

1

From Phenomenology of SufferingTowards 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 socialliving.

2. Because Philosophy involves REFLECTION, it sets itself free to reflect on itsown 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 habitualadherence 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 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 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.


2/29

2

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 itscenter-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 whichis 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 veryfoundation (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, Eternaland 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 oranimal; 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.


3/29

3

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, theappearance 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 beingof 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 orlesser 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 toHeidegger) 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 suchontologism, 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.


4/29

4

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 realmnamely the realm of the non-center, that which is considered as non-being. 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 thereforevulnerable 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 andthe 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 phenomenologyof 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 isjointed 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 intellectualcomprehension, 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.


5/29

5

13.The context of racial superiority (racism), the context of caste superiority, thecontext 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 paradigmthat 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 paradigmshift. 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 ismode 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, itsBeing 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. Itpresupposes, 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 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


6/29

6

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 vsimmanence, totality vs fragmentation, unity vs diversity evolution vs revolution,

purusavs prakritisubjectivity 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 excusethat alternatives are absent. 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 sufferingor 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 slaveowning 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


7/29

7

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 self-

actualizton 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 trespassthe 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 thelogic 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 onlyform 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 exposesthe 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-differenceof 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


8/29

8

vertical system. It is a process of struggle towards non-centric and Other-

orientedness.

19.Ethically it is a concern for others, not out of cultivated charity or goodconscience, 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 asthe 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, praxisof liberation is but an ongoing, creative, innovative dynamic process of

commiseration.

Reference:

1. Dussell, Enrique, Philosophy of Liberation, Orbis Books, New York, 19902. Richard Kearney., Modern Movements in European Philosophy, Manchester

University press, New York, 1994.

3. Paul Vadakeoram, Heidegger Vision of Human Existence in the Expression andthe Appropriation of Being, (dissertation submitted to Pontificia UniversitasGregoriana, Rome 1995.

4. Johnson J. Pouthenpurackal, Heidegger Through Authentic Totality to TotalAuthenticity, Leuven University Press, 1987.

5. Martin Heidegger, On Time and Being, Harper & Row publishers, New York,1972.

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


9/29

9

From Phenomenology of SufferingTowards a Philosophy and Praxis of Liberation

S. LourdunathanSummary

1. From Heraclitus to post modern thinkers, one of the essential themes ofPhilosophy and many other social sciences is the issue of Change andPower. It is said, war is the origin of everything if by everything oneunderstands the order or system. We are at wara cold war for those whowage it, a hot war for those who suffer it; Space remains to be a battlefield, asgeography, studied and destroy the other as a territory with rigid and fixedfrontiers; 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 orunfortunately, Philosophy is born in this cultural, political space. Social Space

as a battlefield, as geography, as territory with fixed walls of separation isdifferent from an abstract idealization of space. The space within whichphilosophies arose, people live remain to be in the real sense an economicalspace or social space or religo-cultural space or a political space. It is not anempty space of Newtonian physics.

2. Philosophy cannot be claimed to be born in an empty space of mereidealization for idealization sake. Philosophy is born in this political space.Philosophy therefore all along remains to be spatio-temporal or contextconditioned. It is born either in the social space of those who enjoy powerdomination 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 ofreduction of Being into singular dimension whose social expression ispower-domination of the few and Suffering of the many; This in turn calls for aPhilosophy of liberation. The Philosophy of those who are socially andpolitically dominant remain to be the Philosophy of power domination and thePhilosophy of those who suffer domination (not completely articulated) remainan yet to-be. The philosophy of those who enjoyed power dominationcontinues to colonize and oppress those who are susceptible to colonization.

4. For the Greeks, Being is and Non Being is not (Parmenides). Being is thatwhich is Greek, the lumen, or the light of Greek culture. And this Beingextends as the frontiers of Hellenism. Over the other borders of GrecianHellenism, there exist non-being. It is this idea of Being (according to theGreeks) provided the very foundation (that which encompassed) or the totalityor 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.


10/29

10

that illumines an area but not itself seen. Being is not given to see-ability orsense perception. And what it illuminates or takes hold of, or enslaves is thethings, the objects, and the slaves, the non-Greeks. This sense of ontology isfound in the philosophies of Plato or Aristotle who justified slavery becausetheirs (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 notshare their worldview; slaves according to them can not be consideredHumans. That is why Aristotle said: a slave is a slave by nature. Accordingto this tradition, Human nature is being rational and animal it only referred tothose Greeks. The non-Greeks, namely the Europeans, Asians etc, wereconsidered barbarians. For Thomas Aquinas, the nature of Being is thatwhich is beyond any limitations; Existence is primarily the unlimitedunfettered, unconditioned etc. He seeks to provide a value-graded system ofhierarchy 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 orexistence. The historical backdrop of European Philosophy consists of thefall 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 thearchetypal foundational, I. Before they could perceive, I think therefore Iam, in practical world, the Europeans practiced, I conquered therefore I am.From this spirit of Conquering or colonizing or enslaving there arise the issueof cogito ergo sum.

6. The broader sense in which the idea of Being is extended or identified isLogos, the center, the rational, the divine, the non-natural, the politicallypowerful, the eternal, the one and the same thing. Thus what is socially andpolitically powerful remain to be the Center and what is socially and politicallyweaker was treated to be the periphery.

7. Can we say that Nietzsche is but an apology for the power domination ofhuman conqueror. Phenomenology and existentialism can not claim anexception to this tradition of searching in to one own self or the I; Thecommon philosophical thread that runs through the European tradition ofPhilosophy 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 isbound to be one sided. Covered in the layers of philosophical language, thepractical 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 theNon-Being or as the Other.


11/29

11

9. Thus to many extent both the Classical and the Modern Philosophy of thewest is found reflecting the perception of the dominant culture. With someexception, we could term their Philosophy as a Philosophy of domination.Classic Philosophies is the theoretical consummation of the practicaloppression of the peripheries. The Philosophy of domination at the center of

the ideological hegemony of the dominant classes plays an essential role inEuropean worldview and history.

10. Ontology, understood as the thinking that expresses Being- given to theClassical 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. Todaywe 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 humansbe Developed, developing or under developing? Is it not right that the so-called non-being, the irrational, the colonized, the oppressed, the sufferer, begiven an opportunity to express their right to existence even before discussingthe primacy of essence over existence or existence over essence? Is it not anethical question to listen to the voice of those who were historically treated asthe Other, the lumpen. Should they not assert or define themselves ashumans. The ontology of the dominant philosophies did not come fromnowhere. It arose from a previous experience of dominant existence over thesubjugated existences. It arose either as a justification or as explanation ofthe 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 sufferingof the periphery orienting it towards a Philosophy of liberation. Such a taskcalls for consideration of Philosophy from the standpoint of the Sufferer or thedominated. It is as well a critique of those Philosophies that justified anydomination, economic or social and political. It is a creative exercise in thesense that it opts for the freedom of the Other from the clutches of thedominant or pro-dominant worldviews. It is in a specific sense a practice ofnegation of negation; it is not a return to the Center; it is the affirmation of thetotalities of the periphery. It is an upsurge of the Periphery in order to affirmtheir Existence with in a world of denial of existence. It is an attempt unmaskany fetishism or any form centralism. It is an ethical action that calls for theaffirmation of the broken-particular, to restore the whole with in whole.

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


12/29

12

PHENOMENOLOGY OF SUFFERING AND A PRAXIS OF LIBERATION

(Lecture-notes delivered from 28 February2 March 2002-ICPR REFRESHER COURSE IN

PHENOMENOLOGY AND ITS RELATED DISCIPLINESOrg. by Sri Aurobindo School of Eastern & Western Thought,

Pondicherry University, Pondicherry,

21 February13thMarch 2002)

Dr. S. LourdunathanGeopolitical Space of Philosophy

1. Philosophy to be socially relevant, it should necessarily address

human problems and the philosophical questions that these issuesrise for us. Hence, the proper fields of philosophical analysis is therealm of the non-philosophical namely the reality. The non-

philosophical here refers to the Global Social Reality whosedimensions are political, economical, cultural, and so on. Byresponding 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 armchairphilosophy or philosophy merely interpreted the world.

2. It is not a disputed fact that the spirit of philosophy is criticalthinking and the nature of philosophical questions is entertainingquestionable questions. However, the problem here is that why oneneeds to entertain critical thinking. Is the engagement of criticalthinking 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


13/29

13

ourselves to the history of philosophical developments one could learnthe lesson that philosophical exercise of engaging the art of

questioning is broadly social purposive. The teleology of philosophy isethics 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 ofsophistry, or mere idealization; Knowledge for its own sake needs nohuman intervention.

4.The role of Philosophical Texts: When we engage ourselves in thephilosophy the role of philosophical texts (Verbal testimony) is vitalbut to the extent that the philosophical text does not constrain onesfreedom 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 non-philosophical, the social reality. Authenticity of philosophizinginvolves the critical reflection of the non-philosophical -- thephenomenon, 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 tothe problem of vicious circularity or proof-text modelof 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 fromits own system, philosophy is reduced to the level of a kind of adogma, a system that limits reflection. It falls back to itself. It is self-enclosure with in its own world. It is a refusal of critical thinking.Self-enclosure is a refusal to openness to mediation and to relation. Itis a desire to maintain its centered-ness by confining and definingdistancing 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 concealsthe 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 socialreality, reflecting\responding to social issues, from the periphery havealways done to promote Reflection - Understanding and relation.They have done this not by distancing \ isolation themselves but as a


14/29

14

response to a need to place themselves with regard to the center- intotal exteriority.

8. Pre Socratic thought appeared from a political, economic andgeopolitical 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 aresponse to economic social reality. In the Indian side, Materialism(though often degraded as hedonistic) emerged from the periphery asthe thought of this world. (Instantiate...)

9.The philosophies that have emerged as a response to social problemspurported to the affirmation of the existence of the Non-Being, whichis otherwise treated as the exterior other in self-enclosing systems.

10. Nevertheless, the philosophies that have emerged from theperiphery unconscious of its need of reflection have also fallen back tothe 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 ascenter or ONE is death as critical philosophy. Ontology and ideologyis an end to critical thinking. In ending upon as ontology Philosophylosses its criticality. That is why we find that in the history of

Philosophy is filled with series of ontologism(s). Critical thinking whenit takes shelter in the hands of the center, (however safe it may be)thought turns out to be memory, a sheer matter of tradition. Wherecritical thinking ends, ontology begins. Ontology ends up by thinkingitself as the only reality. It defines itself as Being. By defining itself as

a privileged being, thought (ontology) separates \ distances itself fromthe everyday social reality.

11. Materialism for example by affirming its own prime existencecommits the difficulty perceiving everything from its own world. Againthis will lead to the same old problem of One against Many; for whatis defined as Being or One or foundational existence is conceived insuch a way it supercedes over the many. The very definition ofOneness counts against the presence of the Many-ness in totalities ofall totalities.

12. What is Phenomenology and what is meant by phenomenology of

suffering: we shall try to clarify these here: Phenomenology as itsname 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 itappears or given to us in a specific social system; The issue of Beinghere 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 thephenomenon, the Being or the System. With in the Classical andEuropean Philosophy, the issues of the phenomenon would be: Being


15/29

15

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 oranimal; 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 beextended further both in the actual as well in the dominantphilosophical worlds.

14. Each camp tries to affirm philosophically (provides epistemic ormoral justifications) its own claim of meaningfulness from its ownstand point or school of thought. Those philosophies that emergedfrom 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, theapproaches 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 Functionalapproach and (iii) the critical-liberative approach. Clarification ofthese approaches would in turn pave to the understanding of thephenomenology 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 toprovide pure definitions divorced from the non-philosophical reality. It

is purely a rational attempt that provides an idealized definition ofBeing or Existence. Often the type of philosophizing results from the

Dominant Center in Philosophy. it simply reflects the worldview of thedominant culture or society. It often looks for the most fundamentaldefinition of what Is. This Is defined in contrast to what is not.

17. The theoretical formulation of these diverse issues may be singledout as falling into category of what is X in its ultimate constituentsense? The X, as a variable here would easily be instantiated asReality, Man, God etc. For example, for Plato, the ultimate nature ofexistence is pure idea, pertaining to the world of forms. This pure ideastands in opposition to the imagery or the shadowy world. For

Sankara, the ultimate sense of reality is Non-Dual and what is non-dual is in opposition to the world of duality. Here arises the

philosophical dualism of Appearance Vs Reality. For Aristotle, theultimate 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 thatExistence or Being is purely rational. Such a Being for Descartes andmany other rationalists exists in itself. That which is defined to exist


16/29

16

in dependent to Spirit is considered as irrational thereforesecondary. Parallel to Descartes, the philosophy of Samkhya

established the dualism between Pursa as prime category and Prakritias 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 isdefined as the Secondary. In the practical language, the male or thehuman of the European is placed higher than the non-European. Thisis the politics of the philosophy of Modernism.

19. The dialectical manifestation of the One in to many and thesurrender of Many in to One establish Hegelian Idealism. IsAurobindos philosophy comparable to that of Hegelianism?. TheSubjective idealism of Berkeley is from the point of view of aPhilosophy 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 beperceived.

20. Whether monistic or dualistic, idealistic or realistic the ideologicalframe of such above-mentioned philosophies conceives a sense of

domination of the One, the Primary as against the Secondary orMany. This is what I mean by the phenomenon of separation ordiscrimination that enforce a sense of oppression of the Dominantover the Other. The cumulative effect of such philosophies at thesocial reality is Suffering. Take for example How Plato, in tune with

his philosophy of idealism conceives an Hierarchically spaced orconstrued 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 ofdomination. In the sense of promoting a theoretical position andepistemic justification of the undue affirmation of the Primacy of theOntological, such a philosophy contributed to political promotion ofan unequal social order. The dualistic trends by placing the Spirit

category as superior over matter, served to distance the Powerful andthe Powerless by means of systematic domination and discrimination.

What is Holy is defined in terms of what is not Holy and what istouchable is defined against what is untouchable and so the casewith 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 conceivesuch logo centrism remains to be the Philosopher King.


17/29

17

23. What is Functionalist sense of approaching to the question ofBeing 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 forthe existing system (Being). They make a slight divergence from thequestion of what is X to What X does or How X is displayed/performswith in the given system. For example, the phenomenon of Capitalismis understood by what or how it successfully performs itself.

24. Functionalist are those who do not question ethical dimension of asystem, rather they rely on the pragmatic morality of a system orreality. Meaning is a matter of utility, positivistic, verifiability,testability, repeatability, orderly etc. The danger of functionalism ormodernism 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 ownand 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 ofPower. Before we take into such an analysis, it is better that we takelook of the dualistic or contradictory economic reality of the globalmarket today. (add here facts and figures regarding the reality ofeconomic 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. Andfor India: Aids will be a major problem; arable lands will be moredegraded; deforestation will be more and more intensifying pollution;Coral reefs will be disturbed; ... India and China will rise in power andcan cause adjustment problems; internal conflicts such as communaldisputes will be bitter, vicious, long-lasting and difficult to terminate;they may become interstate conflicts; some of the northern states willhave more population with about 50 per cent points and the foursouthern states may have 16 per cent; and the India Pakistan gap willbe widened. (The Hindu, Sunday, January 7, 2000).

Poverty is on the rise, in 1989 34.3% of the population of India wasunder the poverty line, with the Globalization and New Economicpolicy there was a steep increase in poverty line. In 1992 it was 40%and in 1997 it was almost 50%; (Unfortunately the political claim isthat globalization would erase the poverty line). According to the

World Bank Report, in East Asia excluding China, 76.4 million peopleare living below poverty line.


18/29

18

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 so-

called upper class continue to enjoy 85% of the total world resourcesand 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 ofthem live in the developing or yet-to be developed countries. Thedisparity of distribution of resources would in turn pave way to thedisparity and discrimination in social status.

If we could shrink the earths population to a village of precisely 100people, with all existing human ratio remaining the same, it wouldlook like this: There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from

western hemisphere (North and South) and 8 Africans. Of the totalpopulation 51 would be female and 49 are male; 70 would be non-Christians 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 UnitedStates; Nearly 80 persons would be living in substandard housing; 70

persons would be unable to read; 50 would suffer from mal nutritionand one would be near death and one would be near birth. Only onewould have college education( Jivan, May 1997)

The position of India concerning education is very low among thecountries of the world. Only 40.90% of the people are literate. Whatadds to the problem is that there is strong gender discrimination inthe field of education. Out of the total literates 64.13% are male whileonly 35.87% are female; the status of female literacy in 1971 was18.44% 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 rateof male is higher than the female.

Humanity is currently in crisis in many dimensions, perhaps the mostdistressing is the problem of large scale refugee displacement seekinga home in homeless land. The result of political wars, persecution,discrimination, and intolerance is the emergence of refugees. Todaythere are 19 million refugees around the world and another 24 millionmen, women and children are displaced in their own lands. One inevery 130 people on earth has been forced to face the problem ofdisplacement (FAR Issue 3 December 1999)

In the political life, there is a growing tendency to move fromdemocracy to authoritarianism. The emergence of the modern elitewith its control of State mechanisms has developed varying forms ofdomination and oppression

When the country has entered into contract with the multinationals,the peasantry which constitute 70% of India are forced to commitsuicide due to the problems of land alienation, product alienation,crop failure and indebtedness. More than 325 small and marginal


19/29

19

farmers mostly cotton growers have committed suicides in Andhrapradesh 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 especiallyto those who are already poor, who do not have the capacity to marketeconomy. Philosophically termed Globalization is economism a form ofmonopolization of truth, that bifurcates the powerful Vs thepowerless. In its actualization process, it allows suicidal of the poor orthe oppressed. It is the manifestation of the Power-relations. Properlyconceived, Globalization as practice of modernism, is Economism asits 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 theMale (of the developed nations) is distinct from the humans of thedependent nations. Man is distinct from Nature (the term Nature isextendable to female, and the people of the periphery nations). Man

here is treated as the perceiver, the subject and the Nature here istreated as something subservient to primary and therefore inferior towhat is constructed as the Primary. Economism in short is foundedon 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 inthe west shares such a view is in a specific sense is responsible for

practice of globalization. The basis of anthropo-domination (the maleof the first world) is his possession of the power of capital andinstrumental knowledge of furthering such capital.

28. Economism as a Philosophy of domination underlies a specificsystem of economic and political power relations. The Being of the Selfis exterior to being of the other; and therefore vulnerable toexploitation and discrimination. Its relation is not Praxis but apractice for utility and cash value. Economism culminates into atechnological productive culture that sets itself against Nature.

Development in this paradigm is seriously lopsided for it conceivesdevelopment as economical alone in favour of the already

economically rich center. It is denial of the rights of the Other as theOther. 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 andthe poor. This is a form of social darwinism. Existence here is referredas the existence of the human alone and the Other is unfortunately istreated as hell. Hitler, borrowing heavily from Nietzsche, practiced


20/29

20

that the one who is Powerfulhas the right to exist and the powerless isdoomed to death.

30. The morality of economism believes that the stronger has theright 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 ofdomination, consequently suffering.

31. From the point of view of power relations, Economism is a form oftotalization 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 isruled. The first class by its very staus quo, performs all politicalfunctions and monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages thatpower brings whereas the latter is directed and controlled by the first.It believes in the Elite perspective of Power (Plato, Machiavally etc). Itholds 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 powerrelations. The net result of such economism is power domination andconsequently the suffering of the powerless. The elitist theory of poweris in contrast to the socialist or pluralist theory of power. (Refer Rds)

32. Phenomenology of Suffering: Before we enter an analysis of thephenomenology of suffering, we need to situate ourselvesempathetically 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 isjointed 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 intellectualcomprehension, but the analysis of Being in its own limit situations.

33. It is from the Suffering experience, the meaning of suffering needto be looked into. It cannot perceived from the point of view of thedominator, but should necessarily be viewed from the point of view ofsuffering or suffer itself. What is required is an empatheticparticipation or an entry into the world of suffering; from this ananalysis of the phenomenology of suffering needs to be made. The

interpretations of the dominant worldview tend to justify oraestheticize suffering. But for the one who is oppressed by domination

suffering can not be the way his suffering is conditioned to beperceived from the point of the Philosophy that dominates himself.

34. We shall take some illustrations:

Globalization as economic and political power domination isEconomism. The context of racial superiority against any other racesis identifiable as practice of racial power relations or racism. Thecontext of caste superiority over low caste inferiority is identified as aform of social practice of power relations. The concept and context of


21/29

21

Male superiority against the female is identifiable as Patriarchy. Thecontext 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 thatperpetuates domination, discrimination and subjugation or distancingof the Other; it is a strategical and a systematic oppression of thelower ones. It is found justified, interpreted and explained as a form ofsocial living in Indian culture.

36. Whether one accepts or rejects caste, the practice of castediscrimination is a bitter social reality. Such a practice contradicts thepopular thesis that India is spiritual and One in plurality. The sort ofoneness or non-duality with the caste frame is but oneness with inones 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. Theexistential reality of Dalits is but a phenomenal suffering that isexpressed as untouchable, unseeable, and unapproachable; thereexist 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 socalled 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 phenomenonof suffering can not be alleviated for it is this very frame that projectsdiscrimination and domination of the non-caste or out-caste Other.

39. Philosophical explanations of Casteism may be found inPurusarthas and in those philosophies that negate the many; Theaffirmation of One against many may serve as the the philosophicaljustification of the supremacy of One caste in an hegemonic manneragainst the Other. Self-enclosure and social Exclusion are the twosides of the same coin called Casteism.

40. Within the caste frame, there exist a subject object duality, an Iand It relationship, spatial distancing, social and mental exclusion ofthe 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 orreification and colonization of the life-world of the lower-Other, amorality that is not sufficiently ethical. What is the distinctionbetween morality and ethics from the point of view of a Philosophy of


22/29

22

liberation? (explain) These are some of characteristics of thephenomenon of suffering with in the caste frame.

41. To appreciate the phenomenology one needs to exercise aparadigm 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 allowoneself to participate in the struggle for freedom of the sociallydeprived. (is it possible?)

42. A perspective or a conceptual frame is the way one tends toperceive himself or herself. It is the way one relates, communicatesconditioned by the school of thought he or she belongs; it is a set ofbasic beliefs or assumptions values, attitudes which shape and reflectones way of looking into oneself and the world around. It is sociallyand 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 anda praxis of liberation is processed towards; the deprived other or

sufferer due to domination (in the phenomenology of suffering) refer tothree 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 isvulnerable for exploitation, and the one who is female is vulnerableexploitation; such vulnerability is basis that provides the space ofdomination and subjugation.

44. The phenomenology of suffering if and when it is placed into thephilosophical categories of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, itmay be interpreted as follows: philosophically speaking, sufferingrefers to a sense of loss or denial of meaning of Being of the sufferer; itrefers to the consideration of the sufferer, the oppressed, the deprived,

the discriminated, as vulnerable for interpretation and there byexploitation.

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 denialof meaning to the sufferer; it also refers to the construed or restrictedsense of meaning (naming) given to the Being of the sufferer as


23/29

23

Secondary, or as is not. The denial of meaning at the socio-culturallevel, viewed from the metaphysical standpoint it, this may be termed

as metaphysical thrown-away-ness. This is one of the mostcomprehensive 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 theboundless 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, susceptibilityfor exploitation, broken-ness, a deep down a sense of out caste nessand a perpetual contingency.Positively, It is a theoretical platform and a master mood which is allpervasive and all inclusive and a free floating apprehensiveness of asense of ones separatedness(discrimination. It is an experience of arefusal 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 andemotional longing for and continuos search for a frame of meaningthat would actualize ones being human amongst humans. Could wesituate the locus of metaphysical sense of Thrown-away-ness orsubjugation in the centric philosophies? If properly instantiated, onecould situate that the history of any dominant philosophies(European) is deep down a history of hegemonic bipolarization, andimplicit justification of the same. Metaphysical Thrown-away-nesshere, in a specific sense is a limitation with in the limit situations.

Look at the following polarization and try to situate them withreference 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 vsfragmentation, unity vs diversity evolution vs revolution, purusa vs

prakritisubjectivity vs objectivity etc. In economism and casteism orin 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 itrefers to sense of denial (secondary treatment) for an epistemicvalidity. It is the sense denial of consciousness or a sense ofsubmissiveness to the dominant epistemic claims of truth.

Consciousness of the broken-particular here remains to be treated asan enslaved consciousness. It is a sense of correspondence orcoherence to or with the already established norms truth claims (Textproofs). It is prism through which one is forced or bound to perceiveand evaluate reality with an excuse of lack of alternatives.


24/29

24

Positively it is the master motivator to look for or engage into alternatecriterion of meaningfulness in favour of the broken particular. Sartre

speaks of a metaphysical sense of thrownness, whose nature isisolation 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 fora plentitude of Being, for filling up the lack. In its attempt to fill inemptiness and nothingness, human consciousness sets itself as aBeing in-it self, as the fullness of Being, a unity with in itself.Nevertheless, human being is nothing else than throwness itself; it isforever in frustration at its task towards self-fulfillment via otherness.

But the sense of limitation or suffering or Thrown-away-ness that wespeak 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 ofthrowness. That is why it is suffering as against metaphysical evil.(Take up the examples of women in patriarchy, the Dalit in thecasteframe, the black at rascim, Ecocide at the undue human

invention into the natural world)

(d) Ethical Thrown-away-ness refers to the sense of attributingvalue dualism and value separatism as practiced in thedominant worldviews and their social systems. This is the most

terrifying sense of Thrown-away-ness. It is a denial of anintrinsic worth of Being by structuring the-Other, as secondary,

inferior, determinant and subordinated. Such a sense ofsuffering is prevalent in any slave owning systems. In short, Itis a denial of freedom and justice. (Morality vs. Ethics)

47. Towards a philosophy of liberation

(a)In the following notes, what I propose to do is to provide a very briefaccount of the dynamics of praxis of liberation; Basing ourselves in

our previous discussion on the issue of the phenomenology ofsuffering, illustrated with economism and casteism we need to ask

ourselves the question: what is meant a philosophy of liberation fromthe 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 oroppressive frame (thought or structure)

(c) It is a perspective not of the center but of the periphery based on anethics of justice


25/29

25

(d)It tries to formulate an alternate metaphysics reflecting on the realityof 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 ofthe degradation. It is a negation of any form of construed essentialismor foundationlism, as the only form of interpretation of reality. It is apraxis of double negation.

(h)It celebrates the end of oppression as epiphany. The wounded totalityof 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 culturaland intellectual discourses. It accepts the Otherness of an Other without 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 easternmetaphysics if and when any particular metaphysics claimssuperiority over any other.

(k)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.(l) An authentic revelation of such praxis of liberation is fully revealed

only by the broken-particular (the women violated by masculineideology, the poor exploited by economism, the dalits subjucated bycasteism) through its struggle for affirmation. Such a revelation is notjust an appearance, or a phenomenon for philosophical scrutiny but atranscendence of the conditioning vertical system.

(m) It is a process of struggle towards non-centric and Other-orientedness. Ethically it is a concern for others, not out of cultivated

charity or good conscience, but out of recognition of the fact that ashumans we are not individuals but inter-humanly plural. It is

grounded in the Particular in so far as the Particular is spaced inrelatedness. 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 theaffirmation of the broken-Particular its totality among totalities.

(o)Praxis of liberation recognizes that as humans we are inter-humanand in our inter-humanness there is mutuality, compatibility,communicability reciprocity, proximity, a living inter-course.


26/29

26

(p)Such a type of relatedness or We ness plural I can not betheoretically reduced to some kind of purposive and instrumental

justification. To be social is not a requirement here but an intrinsicethically imperative, inescapable necessity to be humans amongst

humans.

(q)Through a logic of a denial of the system that denies any affirmationof the-Other, it remains to be critical and liberative. Thus, praxis ofliberation is but an ongoing, creative, innovative dynamic process ofcommiseration.

Summary1. From Heraclitus to post modern thinkers, one of the essential themes

of Philosophy and many other social sciences is the issue of Changeand Power. It is said, war is the origin of everything if byeverything one understands the order or system. We are at war acold 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 theworld remains to the center of many contradictions. Suchcontradictions 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 Philosophyof liberation. Social Space as a battlefield, as geography, as territorywith fixed walls of separation is different from an abstract idealization

of space. The space within which philosophies arose, people liveremain 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 ofNewtonian physics.

3. Philosophy cannot be claimed to be born in an empty space of mereidealization for idealization sake. Philosophy is born in this politicalspace. Philosophy therefore all along remains to be spatio-temporal orcontext conditioned. It is born either in the social space of those whoenjoy power domination or it is lamented in the world in whichSuffering 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 Philosophyof those who suffer domination (not completely articulated) remain an

yet to-be. The philosophy of those who enjoyed power dominationcontinues to colonize and oppress those who are susceptible tocolonization.

5. For the Greeks, Being is and Non Being is not (Parmenides). Being isthat which is Greek, the lumen, or the light of Greek culture. And thisBeing extends as the frontiers of Hellenism. Over the other borders ofGrecian Hellenism, there exist non-being. It is this idea of Being(according to the Greeks) provided the very foundation (that which


27/29

27

encompassed) or the totality or the social and political space fordefining 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 slaverybecause theirs (to much extent) is a philosophy of domination. Forthem, the question of Being refers to the Greeks and the non-beingrefers to those who can not share their worldview; slaves according tothem can not be considered Humans. That is why Aristotle said: aslave is a slave by nature. According to this tradition, Human natureis being rational and animal it only referred to those Greeks. The non-Greeks, namely the Europeans, Asians etc, were consideredbarbarians. For Thomas Aquinas, the nature of Being is that which isbeyond any limitations; Existence is primarily the unlimited

unfettered, unconditioned etc. He seeks to provide a value-graded

system of hierarchy of existence.6. With in the political space of the Modern European Philosophy,

Europe is treated as the Center that provided meaning for thequestion of Being or existence. The historical backdrop of European

Philosophy consists of the fall of Constantinople, the politicalinvasions of the European nations- England, France as colonialpowers Nazi Germany and later UN with its CIA, the emergence andthe sway of Cartesians philosophy and so on. European Philosophycentered 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 therearise the issue of cogito ergo sum.

7.The broader sense in which the idea of Being is extended or identifiedis Logos, the center, the rational, the divine, the non-natural, thepolitically powerful, the eternal, the one and the same thing. Thuswhat is socially and politically powerful remain to be the Center andwhat is socially and politically weaker was treated to be the periphery.

8. Can we say that Nietzsche is but an apology for the power dominationof human conqueror. Phenomenology and existentialism can not

claim an exception to this tradition of searching in to one own self orthe I; The common philosophical thread that runs through the

European tradition of Philosophy is but the affirmation of the totalityof the I (ones own self).

9. With in this tradition of dominant philosophies, the question of

Existence is bound to be one sided. Covered in the layers ofphilosophical language, the practical intend of such philosophy is toaffirm the I, the European Individual, as the center of power andKnowledge, vis a vis the non-European as the Non-Being or as theOther.


28/29

28

10. Thus to many extent both the Classical and the Modern Philosophyof the west is found reflecting the perception of the dominant culture.

With some exception, we could term their Philosophy as a Philosophyof 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 dominantclasses plays an essential role in European worldview and history.Ontology, understood as the thinking that expresses Being- given tothe Classical and modern tradition, remain to be the ideology ofideologies, provided foundation to the colonial ideologies, and play therole of theoretical justification of the binary between Being Vs NonBeing.

11. Philosophy is therefore political. It is born in a world ofcontradictions. Today we are living in a world that is separated andcharacterized 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 non-being, the irrational, the colonized, the oppressed, the sufferer, begiven an opportunity to express his existence? Is it not an ethical

question to listen to the Philosophy of those who were historicallytreated as the Other, the lumpen. Should they not assert or definethemselves as humans. The ontology of the dominant philosophies didnot come from nowhere. It arose from a previous experience ofdominant existence over the subjugated existences. It arose either as

a justification or as explanation of the cultural oppression of theCenter over the non-center, the periphery.

12. What is at stake is the need for articulation of a Phenomenology ofsuffering of the periphery orienting it towards a Philosophy ofliberation. Such a task calls for consideration of Philosophy from thestandpoint of the Sufferer or the dominated. It is as well a critique ofthose Philosophies that justified any domination, economic or socialand political. It is a creative exercise in the sense that it opts for thefreedom of the Other from the clutches of the dominant or pro-dominant worldviews. It is in a specific sense a practice of negation; itis 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 theirExistence 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 thisproperty among you. After the death of the father the eldest son called

the younger one and said: Since you are the younger one, you care-take the front portion of the cow and enjoy the benefits of the frontportion and I being eldest I will take the back portion. Innocently, the


29/29

younger one agreed and grazed the cow because of his due, but theeldest one started enjoying the milk from the back portion. As days

passed, the younger one became hungrier because he could not haveanything 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 hisproblem of hunger and dissatisfaction. The Wise man advised him notto 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 gohungry for few days. On a fine morning, when the elder one sat at thefoot of the cow to have his regular milk supply, the cow withresistance and angry gave a death-kick to the elder and the elderwhen he was falling down to earth, he realized his mistake andrealized that he must have taken care of the younger one.

Thank you

Dr. S. LourdunathanHead, Department of Philosophy

Arul Anandar College (Autonomous)Karuamathur, Madurai Dt,

Tamilnadu.

beyond phenomenology and a philosophy of liberationn s. lourdunathan

Documents