In Philosophy, the term good comes in the context of ethics thus, in order to define this term and ask

the questions why and when, let us define what ethics is. It is said to be a practical and normative science, based on reason, which studies human acts and provides norms for their goodness and badness. It is also known as moral philosophy wherein it deals with morality, moral rectitude, or the rightness and wrongness of human acts. It establishes norms or standards for the regulation and direction of human actions. One may think that there can be no morality without God but according to Ethicians, one can determine the goodness or badness of his or her behavior even if he or she does not believe in God. The different kinds of ethical theories assume different kinds of definition on when or why something is good. According to Ethical Relativism, which claims that there are no universal or absolute moral principles, the standards of what is right or wrong are usually relative to a particular culture or society. The moral opinion of an individual is as good as any other, as there is no objective basis for saying that a particular action is right or wrong. On the other hand, we have Hedonism, which is an ethical doctrine, which claims that pleasure is the norm of morality, pleasure is the one and only good therefore, it should be the basis for moral judgment. Hence, whatever action is deemed to be pleasant is known to be good and an unpleasant act or a painful one is bad and should be avoided as much as possible. In order to appreciate this pleasure principle, one should understand that a hedonists philosophy in life is happiness, which in fact, is the highest good and the ultimate goal in life. To realize and attain this highest good, we should be able to satisfy our desires and pleasures in order to live and survive. Another ethical theory is Epicureanism wherein it professes moderate pleasure as the moral norm. This is one that is consonant with reason wherein which is neither too much nor too little. Anything that is taken in excess is bad, thus when extremes are avoided and life is lived in a moderate manner, it is deemed to be good. For the ethical theory of Utilitarianism, this doctrine states that rightness or wrongness of actions is determined by the goodness and badness of their consequences. There is a principle of utility wherein actions are good insofar as they tend to promote happiness, bad as they tend to promote unhappiness. Hence, we should consider the effects of each action or moral decision and choose the action, which yields the most benefits at the least cost of pain or unhappiness. In Situationism, it states that the moral norm depends on the given situation, but whatever the situation is, one must always act in the name of Christian love. Hence, a situation refers to a human condition or state of moral affairs and issues that demand judgment or action. Thus, if one decides on situations such as abortion or drugs in the name of Christian love, where he or she was to judge the situation in this

name, it is something that is good. For the however, an evil means does not always nullify a good end as the end does not justify the means. Another theory is Mightism, which simply claims that might such as fore, strength, and the capacity to rule, is right. Hence, whenever an act enhances ones strength or capacity to rule or control others, it is good or morally legitimate and if it causes ones ineffectiveness, weakness and feebleness, it is wrong or bad. Deontologism, known as duty ethics stresses that duty is the norm of moral actions. It is interested in questions such as what makes an act moral as distinguished from a non-moral one? Immanuel Kant, the advocate of this theory says that one acts morally if and only is one does whatever one is obliged to do and this obligation is one the that is performed from a sense of duty/ Hence, when an moral act is done out of duty, it is said to be good as a person who does such an act is a person of good will. For Humanistic Ethics, on the other hand, it claims that self realization is the true ultimate standard of morality. Self- realization is understood as a self-fulfillment of life, and full development of all functions of an individual. Hence, the greatest good is the full realization of an individual. Any act that promotes self-realization is good and all acts that hinder it are evil. In the Natural Law of Ethics, it teaches that there exists a natural moral law, which is manifested by the natural light of human reason, which in fact, demands the preservation of the natural order. Hence, the source of moral law is reason itself, which directs us towards the good as the goal of our action and this good can be discovered within our nature. This is because reason recognizes the basic principle do good and not evil. Lastly, we have pragmatism, which is more of a theory of knowledge rather than of morality. It holds that the true and valid form of knowledge is one, which is practical, workable, beneficial and useful. Hence, when we are practical wherein we can practice and produce results, workable when we can put to work, can be worked out and works, beneficial wherein it generally benefits people and useful which can be used to attain good results, it is something that is good. Seeing all these ethical theories give rise to several definitions on when or why something is good. However, on a personal note, I believe that what makes something good is if it is something that doer does in order to create something that is beneficial but at the same time, does not impede on the rights of others. Hence, what is good is something that can benefit oneself but at the same time, not violating someone elses rights. For example, one steals food from another because he knows that it can satisfy his stomach, however, this food is a property of someone else and taking what is someone elses is definitely a violation of some right. Thus, what is good relies on the fact that it mitigates peace and order in society but at the same time satisfies an individual. Hence, what is good is what is right. And why it

is good is because our conscience tells us rationally, what is the right thing to do not just for us but for others as well. 1. Why or when is something a work of art? Or why or when is something beautiful? In venturing upon the world of art, we must first take a look at the field of aesthetics- the youngest area or branch of philosophy, which concerns over questions on art and beauty. Before moving on to what makes something a work of art, or looking through the definition of the word, beauty, Immanuel Kant proclaims that we rely on a special human facility, which is our aesthetic judgment. In asking questions on the nature of reality, of knowledge, and of morality, we are reliant upon this cognitive mode of judgment in order to make arguments, which can logically be proven. However, with regards to aesthetics, we rely on intuitive or feelings in order to identify whether something has taste or something looks good. Hence, in this type of judgment, it is evident that we use our five senses- our sight, touch, taste, smell and hearing. History wise, the definition of art was viewed differently throughout the different periods in time. In the ancient to medieval eras from 600 BC up until the 1600s wherein the key thinkers were Plato and Aristotle, the Greeks viewed art as a skilled craft. For example, with vases and urns, the images on these depicted mythological and human figures since art primarily served an imitative purpose on reality. In the modern area from 1700s to mid1900s, science and arts were separated in the Age of Enlightenment. Artistic objects, as per the Romantic notion of art for its sake, was seen as having a primarily aesthetic opposing the utilitarian or logical value making Aesthetics a separate discipline in philosophy. A pool of key thinkers such as Immanuel Kant and Alexander Baumgarteen, subscribed to an idea of artistic genius such as Beethoven and Mozart. Lastly, in the Contemporary period, which started from the mid 1900s up until the present, rejected modern theories such as there exists aesthetic universals, that there is an ingrained or natural genius and that the aesthetic attitude is the only way to appreciate art. Now, in order to determine what makes art, art, we must look at art in different perspectives that makes use of the five senses. First, let us look at art as an imitation. Many people believe that a work of art should be viewed like a picture or it should present a reproduction of something to us. As an example, a film presents characters who are acting with realistic motives, a novel can depict real life situations or a landscape painting can show the viewers a certain scenery. Hence, art is a representation of reality, such as a group of characters, a set of happenings, or a certain view. For Aristotle, art

is natural since imitation comes naturally to us and it is also pleasurable since we take pleasure in seeing something imitated. A work of art is also said to give pleasure since it is beautiful. The beauty of a work of art lies in its unity, as Aristotle says, A beautiful thing, either a living creature or any structure made of part should have an orderly arrangement of those parts. As an example, a soap opera starts with a beginning, which rises in a climax or a problem and is solved in the end thus, it all naturally flows together. Art can also be expressed as an emotion. For example, thinking of a break- up song can just lead to emotions of sorrow and heartache, which can eventually lead to tears. According to Leo Tolstoy, Art is a human activity wherein man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others the feelings that he is living through and that these people are affected by these feelings and in effect, experience them as well. For him, art expresses feelings in two ways. First, the artist expresses his or her feelings in the work of art and second, the work of art arouses or expresses the same feelings in the audience. Unlike art in music expressed in imitation, this can be difficult to tell but it is easier to understand when we use it in the context of feelings. Furthermore, art is expressed as a form. For example, people go to Paris in order to see the famous Eiffel Tower However, as we learned, it does not express any emotion nor does it represent anything. But, because it is made in such a delicate and awe-strikingly manner, it is seen as something beautiful, thus, seen as a work of art. Clive Bell, a critic, says that a work of art is an artifact, which possesses a significant form. He says that art should not just be defined in terms of its relationship to something outside of the work of art like reality or emotion. But given this, there still should be a common aspect of all works of art, and according to him, all works of art have some common quality and this quality is having a significant form. Wherein in each line, shape and color that is put together in a certain way, combined to ultimately become different forms, this agitates our aesthetic emotions. Bell has also related art with beauty. He suggests that something is beautiful when it arouses a special feeling in us. When something is beautiful, you want to contemplate, listen or see it and not posses it. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, a thing has beauty when its form has integrity or perfection, due proportion or harmony and lastly, brightness or clarity explaining why things that are beautiful have a clear color. Lastly, art is manifested as what the art world says it is. Certain philosophers believe that art should be defined as whatever people in the art world say is art. The art world, ultimately, consists of all those people who are engaged in making art and deciding whether or not the art is good or bad. Examples of an art world are those that consist of painters who create

paintings, galleries and museums who decide whether which painting to put up in the exhibit. It is the critics who write articles that these paintings or sculptures are good enough to spend money to see or buy them. There are also art worlds of music such as rock music wherein these musicians create rock songs and record in companies who choose which songs to put on the CDs and Albums. It is the critic who writes a Rolling Stones article saying which songs are good and bad and audiences who decide if the CD is good enough to be bought. Hence, almost anything can be counted as art. According to George Dickie, one of the major proponents of this new approach to art, an artist is someone who participates with understanding in the making of a work of art, a work of art is an artifact created to be presented to an art world public, the public is a set of people prepared to understand the work of art presented, the art world is the totality of all art world systems and an art world system is a framework for the presentation of a work of art by an artist to an art world in public. Thus, in conclusion, I have presented to you four different kinds of ways on how to view what is a work of art. However, art really is something that is subjective and can be seen differently when it comes to different kinds of people, as what is beautiful for them. On a personal level, art, for me is a craft manifested through ones imagination and creativity using different kinds of medium in order to portray a feeling, or a situation. Art is something that I grew up with and a hobby that I will always venture on and I find that all kinds of art are beautiful, regardless of who made it and what has been made since it speaks the artists mind. 2. Why or when is something postmodern? In order to tell whether something is postmodern, we must first differentiate the term modern from the term postmodern. But before looking at the etymology of the two, in order to fully determine the differences between both, we look at three different aspects that both have shed different lights on- event, culture and philosophy. Hence, starting off with The Modern, according to Demeterio (2013), modern comes from the root word from the Latin word, modo, meaning just now. Hence, the period, modernity, is a historical period after the medieval era spanning through more than 7 centuries. It started in the 13th century up until the present times. A number of events gave rise to this period, including these first four significant happenings- the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Reformation and secularization, which, all in all, gave modernity a secular outlook, a faith in human reason, and a tendency to demystify or objectify the world. The Scientific Revolution came afterwards which contributed a technological outlook, the belief that the future will

always be better than the present, the belief in constant scientific and technological progress and the compulsion for power and control to modernity. The was also the rise of capitalism and the industrial revolution which gave modernity faith in constant material progress, the belief that the future will also be better than the present but economically, also the compulsion for power and control and lastly, a frugal way of life. To round the set of events, the last two- being the French revolution and a rational systematization of bureaucracy and judiciary provided modernity with a belief and faith in bureaucracy and the judiciary, a fervent nationalism and the belief and faith in the nation-state. Aside from the events that gave modernity a distinctive outlook and way of life, the abstract world of philosophy also gave modernity its distinctive cast. One of which was Rene Descartes who had the idea of the self as fully self- conscious, fallible but capable of obtaining the truth through methodic reasons which ultimately become the paradigm of the modern self. Another is the work of Johann Gottlieb Fichte who contributed faith and belief in the nation-state, as well as fervent nationalism. Georg Willhelm Friedrich Hegel, on the other hand, gave modernity his work on the grand evolution of culture and consciousness, which led to faith in constant progress. And lastly, there was Karl Marx, who worked on class struggle, which aimed towards a more humane society. Lastly, some theorists have exclaimed that the 20th century can be divided into two distinct period- one is characterized by the modernism movement while the other by the postmodernism movement. Modernism is a self- conscious cultural movement occurring in the 19th century. It was visible in the arts, particularly in painting, literature and architecture. In the likes of painting, the classicism and neo-classicism of the Renaissance attempted to mimic reality. It brought about the leading painters such as Auguste Renoir, Vincent van Gogh, Edvard Munch and Pablo Picasso. In terms of literature, it reacted against dominant aesthetics of realism. Realist Narrative were abandoned in favor of impressionism, subjectivism and sensationalism and the well structured plot were transformed into a branching complex. This gave rise to prominent writes such as Virginia Wolf, James Joyce, and T.S. Eliot to name a few. Lastly, in the likes of architecture, it portrayed a reaction against elaborate and ornate neoclassical aesthetics. Colonnades, arches, and domes were banished and what emerged are austere right- angular, box type structure of concrete, steel and glass. Now that we have ventured on the text of modern, modernity and modernism, let us now look at how postmodern, postmodernity and postmodernism differs from this. Etymology wise, postmodern,

deconstructed from the words post and modern is after now. This generic term can be used to refer either to postmodernism or postmodernity. Postmodernity, on the other hand refers to the historical period after modernity spanning less than a century. It started from the second half of the 20th century up to the present. Similar to modernity, a number of events also gave this period a particular outlook. One of it was the transformation of the original capitalism into multinational and consumer capitalism which provided postmodernity with an even more wealth and material welfare, a tremendous energy source to sustain an extravagant way of life and lastly, it contrast with the frugality and restraint of the way of life of modernity. Next is the proliferation of mass media, the development of electronic technology and the establishment of global network of the World Wide Web which in effect, resulted in a rapid interchange of information, knowledge and culture that created postmodernitys global village phenomenon wherein the globe has been contracted into a village by electric technology and the instantaneous movement of information. Another event, the transcontinental air transit or multiculturalism then, yielded the collapse of cultural and national multiculturalism that aided a reinforcement of the global village phenomenon, which contrasted with modernitys belief in the nation state. Lastly, the emergence and proliferation of advocacy movements such as feminism, environmentalism, gay rights and anti-war activism had been significant occurrences which in effect, marked the reaction of postmodernity against hegemonies of patriarchy, science and technology, and other forms of totalitarianism. Postmodernism refers to a self-conscious cultural movement that reacted against the principles and ideals of the modernist movements in literature, art, architecture, film and philosophy which began to take shape a quarter of a century after postmodernity. However, not like modernism, it was not confined to just arts but also in advertising, anthropology, business, communication and technology, and marketing to name a few. In terms of painting, the sobriety and restraint of modernist art were challenged by playfulness and everydayness of postmodernism painting. Example of postmodern painters were Marcel Duchamp, who expounded on the collage of found items in his Dada movement, and Andy Warhol, who was famous in visual or pop art through the use of screaming colors. In the likes of literature, impressionism, subjectivity and sensationalism of modernism were explored further. It celebrated over provisionality and incoherence as well as fragmentation of existence. Vladimir Nabokov, Italo Calvino and Gabriel Garcia Marquez were among the leading figures. Lastly, in architecture, where in modern was an austere and restrained structure, in postmodern, it was replaced by wit ornamentation and references, neoeclectism and the use of non-orthogonal angles and unusual surface. Robert

Venturi, Michael Graves, Helmut Jahn and Frank Gehry were among those who contributed to postmodern architecture. And last, we take a look at postmodern philosophy wherein it thoroughly critiqued the likes of modernity, modernism, postmodernity and even postmodernism. It also theorized and articulated both postmodernity and post modernism, which in effect, gave a push on other cultural fields and to pursue the postmodern way of life. Michel Foucault was famous for his critique of modernitys compulsion for control, normalizatio n and standardization of the human subject. This has stemmed from observation of how ruling classes values and cultures have restrained ways of life of the marginalized people. He also pointed out the technologies of surveillance wherein authorities observe and evaluate subjects whether or not they meet the standard and the norms. He also exposed the frail foundations of modernitys systems of knowledge saying that since knowledge and power are never separate, it is never objective, reliable and neutral but generated to the desires of the powerful. Jacques Derrida was famous for his theory of language saying that a word or a sign does not connect us to the secure and solid ground of the thing being referred to as he proclaims that a word or a sign is made up of a signifier linked to more chains of signifiers. He was also famous for his critical methodology of deconstruction saying that any text built on twisting signs ends up as an unsteady structure. Jean- Francois Lyotard investigated on the status of knowledge in postmodern society saying that knowledge is not anymore a human value but a pursuit of other ends such as power, the postmodern world has become tolerant to the proliferation of competing knowledges and the postmodern world has become suspicious of knowledges claiming the status of a meta-narrative. Lastly, Jean Baudrillard introduced postmodernitys darker side saying that there is an obsession for consumption, as the postmodern person has become an insatiable consumer hence, consumption has become the main organizing principle of society. Also, this is sustained and intensified by advertising and mass media such as photoshop wherein it sparks a hyperreality as a postmodern person has considered an image to be more real than the real. Hence, concluding why or when is something postmodern, basically the culture and philosophy that has been reused and recycled from the past and brought to the present in order to create a more improved and progressive result. We see that technology has become the movement of a postmodern culture wherein every thing in this century is filled with new gadgets and gizmos. This ultimately, has defined our society as we aim to wait for what is new and an improvement from the past. As an example, we wait and wait for the newest iphone to be manufactured and released, as we know that it is better than what we have. Thus, this brings us to an endless wants

for consumption due to the technological movement introduced by the postmodern culture. Ultimately, postmodern is present due to the major changes underlying the ways people think, especially their views on reality and the truth. These are now shaped by newly formed creations that we think can make life better and easier. 3. Are laws made or found? Laws are something that is inevitable as it can be found in every aspect of our lives- being morally, politically, socially and even spiritually. At least one of these laws are said to be encountered from the moment we wake up from the moment we end our day. It could be ranging from kids who are not allowed to use their Iphones before they do schoolwork, to college students following the DLSU dress code, or a strict 8 am start of work. Hence, to fully digest the idea of having laws- what they are and more importantly, if they are made or found, we must first look into the philosophy of law. The philosophy of law is defined as the inquiry into the fundamental questions, problems, and concerns about law, legal systems and legal institutions. The Philosophy of Law can be taken to encompass all philosophical speculation on matters of law or related to law. It is concerned with the relation of law to concepts such as justice, fairness, and equality. The study of philosophy of law can either be by topic or by going into the different schools or perspectives of law. Now that we have defined the philosophy of law, in our context, there are two sides to things- if laws are found or if they are made. So why can laws be found rather than made? This is answered by schools of thought. First is the Natural Law Perspective, Charles Rice gives a definition of Natural Law, which is a set of manufacturers directions written into our nature so that we can discover through reason how we ought to act. Meaning natural law is something built in our system and something that is innate. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, all human positive law must conform to natural law, hence, any law that is not in accordance with the natural law is not a true law but a derogation of the law. For example, human positive laws allowing abortion shouldnt be obeyed as it goes against the natural law principle of preserving human life. Hence, for them, laws are found and not made. In the Historical School, on the other hand, a German jurisprudent, Friedrich Karl von Savigny, which also answers our question, which is that laws are not made but they are found. He says that a true law should be based on the OBLUTIACS of the people or their opinion, beliefs, longings, usages, tradition, idiosyncrasies, arts, culture and superstition. Positive law should also be a reflection of the common consciousness and spirit of the people. It believes that law will be more stable and can stand societys pressures since

they come from the people. He established the Volkgiest theory, which is a Darwinian concept of law, saying that the reality of law has its existence in common consciousness of the people. His formula for the foundation of law is the spontaneous evolution plus natural spirit plus social pressure. For him, law has to support the ever- changing practical needs of the people. Another evidence to this statement is that customs is a source of law. Customs being established patterns of behavior that can be objectively verified within a setting, says that the ground of authority for the common law is its status as longstanding and accepted custom. Hence, customs corresponds to modern social notion of the evolution of law. Lastly, precedents and legislation is the source of law. In Blackstones declaratory theory, he says that the judge is not delegated to pronounce a new law but to maintain the old one. Judges shouldnt decide according to their own private judgment but according to the known laws and customs of the land. On the other argument, laws are made and not found wherein the Positivist School advocates this. This school states that the law is the command of the superiors to guide the actions of the inferiors or those below them and those who act contrary to these rules are to be punished. Unlike Natural Law Perspective or the Historical School, it believes that laws are made and not found and that law is a conscious formulation of the political superior. John Austin, a main proponent, proclaims that there is a complete separation between law and morality as there is a distinction between law and what is moral. For him, the law is the command of the sovereign, which should be obeyed regardless if it is immoral or moral, right or wrong. Sovereign and supreme legislature is the author of all laws and the courts of law constitute a source of law as far as their decisions have binding character. This however, was deemed to be too authoritarian. Hence, in a personal note, I agree with the statement that laws are found and not made. According to these historical schools of law, the sources of law meant the material from which law derives its content. The principles of law are in fact, absolute, eternal and of universal validity hence, law is found. The people have a theory that law is simply a conscious produce of the human will, which tends to produce satisfactory solutions. To the people, law is law since the States, reflecting their desires, has willed this. The people themselves, I believe, are the authors of all constitutions and limitations and they are the final judges of their meaning and effect. And the duties of the legislators and jurists are just to embody their popular will. Laws are only established because it is for the people and the people are the ones to determine generally what violation of rights are there and which actions are punishable by law.