The Big Lecture Revisited

Johanna Lyn U. Gatdula                                                                                                             INTFILO

AB ISA

Philosophizing The (Non) Existence of Money

Dr. Villacorta kicked the lecture off with an interesting discussion about the equation and association of money to Stirnir’s theories such as self-ownership, self-actualization and as a self-extension. The way I understood Dr. Villacorta’s lecture about the “Egoist” individual is quite reminiscent of Rene Descartes’ notion of the self being unaffected by the world around it. This egoist character is an atheistic self that prioritizes self-enjoyment through living in the now and going by the notion of carpe diem. He discussed how “self-alienation” was an abomination to one’s self-hood, thus one must practice freedom through “self-ownership”.

He claimed that exercising self-ownership is some form of revenge by repossessing one’s dignity; it embodies control and dominion over one’s surroundings and self. He also talked about the importance of money to “self-actualization”, which is basically the assimilation of oneself to their desired character. He claimed that money gauges character and character gauges money, you can find out what kind of person one is through what they buy and what a person will purchase through the way they look. If a person enters a music store and purchases a limited edition guitar, it is safe to assume that  individual is a musician. Similarly, you can determine what an individual would most likely purchase given who they are, for example, Jennifer Lopez is most likely an individual to buy an expensive vacation to French Polynesia as much as a chef would purchase different kinds of cheese in an Italian market.

Dr. Villacorta also touched upon the ability of money to earn somebody power. He said that people could never be as great as they are without money for money can purchase an individual greatness. The fact that people like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, Eminem, Beyonće and so on are as powerful and as influential as they are is because of the money that they possess, without the amount of money that Miley Cyrus has earned and possesses, she would just be another regular person who sings. Furthermore, the notion of money being a main agent of “self-extension” was also brought up. The truth is money extends one’s capabilities, for example, money can buy person knowledge through allowing him to purchase education, textbooks, travelling, philosophy and many more.

The second speaker was Sir Malbarosa who shared a very insightful discussion of the philosophy of money through the review of root of power, justice, freedom and civilization. He aimed to discuss money through 3 aspects: saysay (value), salaysay (narrative), and kasaysayan (history). He claimed that money itself has no body and that the most radical assertion of money is to say that we actually do not need money. Then again, the people would have to come up with another mode of transaction. He asserted that civilization went through two eras and back again with their perspectives. That is, Modernity, which he believed was the era of skepticism; Post-modernity, which is the “deepening” of skepticism; and lastly, back to Modernity.

Last but definitely not the least, was Dr. Joaquin’s eccentric discussion of the Metaphysics of Money, with respect to the philosophical view of money and social ontology. Dr. Joaquin started his lecture through a game in which the audience would need to identify whether a statement was a fact or not. The Eleatic Principle and the Fundamentality Principle were also inserted as justifications for the identification if something is real or no. The Eleatic Principle implies that something is real only if it causes something else or if it is caused by something else, on the other hand, the Fundamentality Principle implies that only objective and fundamental things can be considered real. In the activity, he went on about how we can only be a hundred percent sure of the reality of something if it is objective e.g. the circumference of the Earth at the equator is 40,075 km, a fact that is proven through science. Moreover, social objects are challenged and challenge the reality.

His discussion made the audience question the importance of money and where its value came from and implies. He concluded that money is only worth and held to the degree that it is in right purely because of social construct. Had people not established the value of money, it wouldn’t matter or it wouldn’t exist. He emphasized his point by saying that if an individual that came from a completely different civilization or planet came to earth and encountered a bill, this individual wouldn’t care nor even acknowledge it because it’s cognizance doesn’t include the value of money. Furthermore, he said that if somehow, everyone in the world suddenly vanishes from the face of the Earth; the value of money would also become nonexistent, similarly, gold and diamonds would not have any value at all. Here comes then the idea of subjectivism with regards to a person’s way of valuing money. If an individual lives his or her life not really minding or caring about the worth of money, this individual wouldn’t really pay too much attention about losing a bill or two. On the other hand, an individual who is incredibly in tuned with the worth of money and its importance in the social configuration of the world, inclusive of the power that they believe it possesses, will go completely ballistic when he or she loses money. We are now left with a question: given the knowledge of social construct and the relational configuration of society, does money actually exist?

Truly, the Big Lecture that occurred last April 1^st was a very informative and dare I say liberating experience. The audience was able to learn froma and enjoy three different takes and perspectives, both supportive and challenging of each other, about the relevance of philosophy to money and vice-versa. I never really thought of the specific connotations brought about by money, its value and existence but having been immersed in the knowledge of its attachment to the world’s history and human existence, I now often question my perspective regarding the topic. I also pay extra attention to my own personal way of valuing money. The amount of information and thought that the discussions provoked truly will now always be attached in my decision-makings and the way I figure the world and other individuals.