HUMAN FLOURISHING

INTRODUCTION

Eudaimonia, literally "good spirited," is a term coined by renowned Greek philosopher Aristotle

(385-323 BC to describe the pinnacle of happiness that is attainable by humans. This has often
been translated into "human flourishing" in literature, arguably likening humans to flowers
achieving their full bloom. As discussed in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle's human flourishing
arises as a result of different components such as phronesis, friendship, wealth, and power. In
the Ancient Greek society, they believe that acquiring these qualities will surely bring the seekers
happiness, which in effect allows them to partake in the greater notion of what we call the Good.

As times change, elements that comprise human flourishing changed, which are subject to the
dynamic social history as written by humans. People found means to live more comfortably,
explore more places, develop more products, and make more money, and then repeating the
process in full circle. In the beginning, early people relied on simple machines to make hunting
and gathering easier. This development allowed them to make grander and more sophisticated
machines to aid them in their endeavors that eventually led to space explorations, medicine
innovations, and ventures of life after death. Our concept of human flourishing today proves to
be different from what Aristotle originally perceived then-humans of today are expected to
become a "man of the world." He is supposed to situate himself in a global neighborhood,
working side by side among institutions and the government to be able to reach a common goal.
Competition as a means of survival has become passé; coordination is the new trend.

Interestingly, there exists a discrepancy between eastern and western conception regarding
society and human flourishing. It has been observed that western civilization tends to be more
focused on the individual, while those from the east are more community-centric. Human
flourishing as an end then is primarily more of a concern for western civilizations over eastern
ones. This is not to discredit our kinsfolk from the east; perhaps in their view, community takes
the highest regard that the individual should sacrifice himself for the sake of the society. This is
apparent in the Chinese Confucian system or the Japanese Bushido, both of which view the
whole as greater than their components. The Chinese and the Japanese encourage studies of
literature, sciences, and art, not entirely for oneself but in service of a greater cause. The Greek
Aristotelian view, on the other hand, aims for eudaimonia as the ultimate good; there is no
indication whatsoever that Aristotle entailed it instrumental to achieve some other goals.
Perhaps, a person who has achieved such state would want to serve the community, but that is
brought upon through deliberation based on his values rather than his belief that the state is
greater than him, and thus is only appropriate that he should recognize it as a higher entity
worthy of service.

Nevertheless, such stereotypes cannot be said to be true given the current stance of
globalization. Flourishing borders allowed people full access to cultures that as a result, very few
are able to maintain their original philosophies. It is in this regard that we would tackle human
flourishing in a global perspective and as a man of the world.

Science, Technology, and Human Flourishing

In the previous chapters, contributions of science and technology have been laid down
thoroughly. Every discovery, innovation, and success contributes to our pool of human
knowledge. Perhaps, one of the most prevalent themes is human's perpetual need to locate
himself in the world by finding proofs to trace evolution. The business of uncovering the secrets
of the universe answers the question of our existence and provides us something to look forward
to. Having a particular role, which is uniquely ours, elicits our idea of self-importance. It is in this
regard that human flourishing is deeply intertwined with goal setting relevant to science and
technology. In this case, the latter is relevant as a tool in achieving the former or echoing
Heidegger's statement, technology is a human activity that we excel in as a result of achieving
science. Suffice to say that the end goals of both science and technology and human flourishing
are related, in that the good is inherently related to the truth. The following are two concepts
about science which ventures its claim on truth.

Science as Method and Results

For the most part, science's reputation stems from the objectivity brought upon by an arbitrary,
rigid methodology whose very character absolves it from any accusation of prejudice. Such
infamy effectively raised science in a pedestal untouchable by other institutions-its sole claim to
reason and empiricism- garnering supporters who want to defend it and its ways.

In school, the scientific method is introduced in the earlier part of discussions. Even though the
number of steps varies, it presents a general idea of how to do science:

1.Observe and determine if there are unexplained occurrences unfolding.

2. Determine the problem and identify factors involved.

3. Through past knowledge of similar instance, formulate hypothesis that could explain the said
phenomenon. Ideally, the goal is to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative
hypothesis for the study "to count as significant" (can also be separated into additional steps such
as "to generate prediction" or "to infer from past experiments").

4. Conduct experiment by setting up dependent and independent variables, and trying to see
how independent ones affect dependent ones.

5. Gather and analyze results throughout and upon culmination of the experiment. Examine if the
data gathered are significant enough to conclude results.

6. Formulate conclusion and provide recommendation in case.

others would want to broaden the study.

At least in the students' formative years, the above routine is basic methodology when
introducing them to experimentation and empiricism-two distinct features that give science edge
over other schools of thought.

Throughout the course of history, however, there exists heavy objections on the scientific
procedure; the line separating science and the so-called pseudoscience becomes more muddled.

Verification Theory

The earliest criterion that distinguishes philosophy and science is verification theory. The idea
proposes that a discipline is science if it can be confirmed or interpreted in the event of an
alternative hypothesis being accepted. In that regard, said theory gives premium to empiricism
and only takes into account those results which are measurable and experiments which are
repeatable. This was espoused by a movement in the early twentieth century called the Vienna
Circle, a group of scholars who believed that only those which can be observed should be
regarded as meaningful and reject those which cannot be directly accessed as meaningless.
Initially, this proved to be attractive due to general consensus from people, which happened to
see for themselves how the experiment occurred, solidifying its validity and garnering supporters
from esteemed figures. Its shortcomings, however, proved to be a somewhat too risky-several
budding theories that lack empirical results might be shot down prematurely, causing slower
innovation and punishing ingenuity of newer, novel thoughts. Celebrated discoveries in physics,
for instance, are initially theorized without proper acknowledgment of their being. Einstein's
theory on the existence of gravitational waves would, following this thought, be dismissed due to
lack of evidence almost a hundred years ago. Quantum mechanics would not have prospered if
the scientific society during the time of Edwin Schrödinger did not entertain his outrageous
thought that the cat in the box is both dead and alive, which can only be determined once you
look in the box yourself.

Aside from above critique, this theory completely fails to weed out bogus arguments that explain
things coincidentally. A classic example is astrology, whose followers are able to employ the
verification method in ascertaining its reliability. The idea is that since one already has some sort
of expectations on what to find, they will interpret events in line with said expectations.
American philosopher Thomas Kuhn warned us against bridging the gap between evidence and
theory by attempting to interpret the former according to our own biases, that is, whether or not
we subscribe to the theory. Below is a short story illustrating this point:

Suppose, for instance, this girl, Lea has a (not-so-scientific) theory that her classmate Ian likes her.
Good, she thought, I like him too. But how do I know that he likes me?

She began by observing him and his interactions with her. Several gestures she noted include his
always exchanging pleasantries with her whenever they bump into each other, his big smile when
he sees her, and him going out of his way to greet her even when riding a jeepney. Through these
observations, she was then able to conclude that lan does like her because, she thought, why
would anyone do something like that for a person he does not like?

As it turns out, however, lan is just generally happy to meet people he knew. He had known Lea
since they were in first year and regards her as a generally okay person. It is no surprise then that
upon learning that lan basically does this to everyone, Lea was crushed. She vowed to herself
that she would never assume again.

Based from above story, is it justified for Lea to think that Ian does not like her? Not quite. The
next criterion also warns us about the danger of this view.

Falsification Theory

Perhaps the current prevalent methodology in science, falsification theory asserts that as long as
an ideology is not proven to be false and can best explain a phenomenon over alternative
theories, we should accept the said ideology. Due to its hospitable character, the shift to this
theory allowed emergence of theories otherwise rejected by verification theory. It does not
promote ultimate adoption of one theory but instead encourages research in order to determine
which among the theories

can stand the test of falsification. The strongest one is that which is able to remain upheld amidst
various tests, while being able to make particularly risky predictions about the world. Karl Popper
is the known proponent of this view. He was notorious for stating that up-and-coming theories of
the time, such as Marx's Theory of Social History and Sigmund Freud's Psychoanalysis, are not
testable and thus not falsifiable, and subsequently questioning their status as scientific. Albeit
majority of scientists nowadays are more inclined to be Popperian in their beliefs, this theory,
similar to the theory above, presents certain dangers by interpreting an otherwise independent
evidence in light of their pet theory.p

To illustrate, previous story is restated:

Ian is generally everybody's friend. He likes to be around people and generally aspires to become
everybody's friend. However, there is this one girl, Lea, who seemed to not like him when he is
around. Every time he waves at her, she turns away, and when they are in the same room, she
avoids his glances. Through this, he concluded that Lea does not like him and does his best to
show her that he is not a threat. He began greeting her whenever they pass by each other at the
corridor, even going so far as calling her attention when he was in the jeepney and saw her
walking past. When they are able to talk to each other, he found out that Lea is just really shy and
is not accustomed to people greeting her. He then was able to conclude that his initial impression
of her not liking him (as a person is wrong and thus said proposition is rejected.

Although there is no happy ending yet for Lea and Ian, we can thus see how in this case,
falsification method is prone to the same generalizations committed by the verification method.
There is no known rule as to the number of instance that a theory is rejected or falsified in order
for it to be set aside. Similarly, there is no assurance that observable event or "evidences" are
indeed manifestations of a certain concept or

"theories." Thus, even though, theoretically, falsification method is more accepted, scientists are
still not convinced that it should be regarded as what makes a discipline scientific.

Science as a Social Endeavor

Due to inconclusiveness of the methodologies previously cited, a new school of thought on the
proper demarcation criterion of science emerged. Several philosophers such as Paul Thagard,
Imre Lakatos, Helen Longino, David Bloor, and Richard Rorty, among others, presented an
alternative demarcation that explores the social dimension of science and effectively, technology.
Sciences cease to belong solely to gown-wearing, bespectacled scientists at laboratories. The new
view perpetuates a dimension which generally benefits the society. For instance, far-off places in
South America where many of the tribes remain uncontacted, do not regard western science as
their science. Whatever their science is, it can be ascertained that it is in no way inferior to that
of globalized peoples' science. Thus, it presents an alternative notion that goes beyond the
boundaries of cold, hard facts of science and instead projects it in a different light, such as a
manifestation of shared experience forging solidarity over communities.

Science and Results

For the most part, people who do not understand science are won over when the discipline is
able to produce results. Similar to when Jesus performed miracles and garnered followers, people
are sold over the capacity of science to do stuff they cannot fully comprehend. In this particular
argument, however, science is not the only discipline which is able to produce results-religion,
luck, and human randomness are some of its contemporaries in the field. For some communities
without access to science, they can turn to divination and superstition and still get the same
results. Science is not entirely foolproof, such that it is correct 100% of the time. Weather
reports, for one, illustrate fallibility and limitations of their scope, as well as their inability to
predict disasters. The best that can be done during an upcoming disaster is to reinforce materials
to be more calamity proof and restore the area upon impact. It can be then concluded that
science does not monopolize the claim for definite results.

Science as Education

Aforementioned discussion notes that there is no such thing as a singular scientific method,
offering instead a variety of procedures that scientists can experiment with to get results and call
them science.

Discoveries in physics, specifically in quantum mechanics, appeared to have debunked the idea of
objectivity in reality, subscribing instead to alternative idea called intersubjectivity. With
objectivity gone, it has lost its number one credence. Nevertheless, there still exists a repressing
concept that comes about as a result of unjustified irreverence of science-our preference of
science-inclined students over those which are less adept.

There are distinct portions in entrance exams in the secondary and tertiary levels that are
dedicated to science and mathematics. In the Philippines, a large distribution of science high
schools can be found all over the country, forging competition for aspiring students to secure a
slot and undergo rigorous science and mathematics training based on specialized curricula.
Although arguable as these schools also take great consideration in providing holistic education
by assuring that other non-science courses are covered, adeptness in science and mathematics
are the primary condition to be admitted. This preference is also reflected on the amount of
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)-offering schools accommodating Grades
11 and 12. Among all the clusters being offered, STEM trumps the remaining clusters in terms of
popularity and distribution, with Accounting and Business coming in as a close second.

One might infer that there are more demand in this field as students are preconditioned that the
field would latter land them high-paying jobs and a lucrative career after graduation.

How is science perceived by those who graduated from this field? A couple of years ago, a
student entered a class all curious and excited. When he was made to report on Paul
Feyerabend's work How to Defend Society Against Science one day, he looked dissident,
staunchly refusing to consider the author's ideas on science and critiquing him instead. When
asked why, he reasoned out that he had come from a science high school and was trained to
regard science in a distinct accord. As isolated a case as it may seem, it somewhat suggests that
the aforementioned kind of academic environment has made students unwelcoming of
objections against science.
Reminiscent of Paul Feyerabend's sentiment above, he muses how the educational system can
hone and preserve students' capacity to entertain other options and decide for themselves the
best among all presented. It will thus reinforce their imagination and allow some level of
unorthodoxy, bringing forth novel discoveries that otherwise would not be considered had they
stuck to the default methodology. Innovations are brought forth by the visionaries, not the prude
legalists, and several notable figures in science even consider themselves as outsiders.

If one is really in pursuit of human flourishing, it would make sense for them to pursue it
holistically. Simply mastering science and technology would be inadequate if we are to, say,
socialize with people or ruminate on our inner self. Aristotle's eudaimonic person is required to
be knowledgeable about science, among other things of equal importance.

They are supposed to possess intellectual virtues that will enable them to determine truth from
falsehood or good reasoning from poor reasoning. A true eudaimon recognizes that flourishing
requires one to excel in various dimensions, such as linguistic, kinetic, artistic, and socio-civic.
Thus, he understands that he should not focus on one aspect alone.

How Much Is Too Much?

In 2000, world leaders signed the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) that targets eight
concerns, one of which states that they should be able to forge a global partnership for
development. Inasmuch as the institutes imposing them do so in good faith, the primary goal to
achieve growth for all might prove to be fatal in the long run.

Economists believe that growth is the primary indicator of development, as both go hand in
hand, and has put forth their resources in trying to achieve such. Technology has been a primary
instrument in enabling them to pursue said goal, utilizing resources, machineries, and labor.
What is missing in this equation is that growth presents an illusory notion of sustainability -the
world's resources can only provide so much, it cannot be expected to stretch out for everybody's
consumption over a long period of time. Moreover, growth is not infinite there is no preordained
ceiling once the ball starts rolling. If the MDG convention's intent was to get everyone in the
growth ship, that ship will surely sink before leaving the port. The same analogy applies to the
capacity of nature to accommodate us, which Joseph Hickel contemplated on, suggesting that
developed countries should not push forth more growth but instead adopt "de-development"
policies or else, everybody loses. The rapid pace of technological growth allows no room for
nature to recuperate, resulting in exploitation and irreversible damages to nature. Right now, we
are experiencing repercussions of said exploits in the hands of man-made climate change, which
would snowball and affect majority of flora and fauna, driving half of the latter extinct in less than
a hundred year from now. If this continues in its currently alarming rate, we might bring about
our own extinction.