Angeli Jean Koreen B.

Corpuz SocSci II 2014-03160

Social Science II is a course that enables us students to think critically about the political

situation that we have in this world. We study about the theories and philosophies of great

thinkers of the past and analyze them in terms of the present. The phrase “history repeats itself”

is very important in this subject matter as we believe that whatever worked before may work in

today’s times, with just a few alterations and modifications.

In class, we discussed different theorists and thinkers and we learned about their great

contributions to political thought. We learned about how societies were first built and how order

is kept within these societies. According to Plato, no individual is self-sufficing and man needs

to seek others’ assistance to survive. Coming together and forming a community results to the

formation of state in which everyone has a designated job to do. For Plato, the rightful ruler of

the state would be the Philosopher King so that justice will prevail in the society. However, his

concept of ruler is a rather idealized one because it is difficult to find one to rule the state due to

the proper education, training, and upbringing needed. This was deemed useless to the public due

to the inability of the ruler to relate to the ones he’s governing but to me, I think that it would be

a great asset in the government to have someone that has the qualities of the Philosopher King.

Someone with no love for money, has the passion for gaining wisdom, and do good for the

community would be great for the current state of the Filipinos. However, as elitism is prominent

in our country, someone having no private properties may be an obstacle in obtaining this

position. Furthermore, if someone has pure intentions such as the ones mentioned above and

refuses to be tainted by corruption, he/she will make a lot of enemies in politics and will be the

subject of contempt.
 Along with Plato, one of the most well-known traditional thinkers is Aristotle. Aristotle

believed that man is a political animal and that there needs to be the existence of a constitutions

to organize the state. He classified the different kinds of constitution according to right and

perverted constitution and who rules the state. Right constitutions are those that serve the

common interest of the people while perverted constitutions are those that serve the interest of

the ruler alone. What I found interesting about Aristotle is that he classified democracy under the

perverted constitutions in which the interest of many prevails. This is because to him, democracy

is the rule of the anarchic mob and at the other end, the minority is being denied of their

interests. What he considers the right constitution with the rule of many is Polity in which the

rich and the poor work together and respect each other’s rights.

One of the most remarkable topics to me is the Social Contract theory with Thomas

Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the most well-known proponents. It never

occurred to me before that living a life with no rules that bind and govern us wouldn’t be so

liberating but Thomas Hobbes beg to differ. He has a pessimistic view on the state of nature of

man and described that kind of life as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. It had me

thinking that he’s probably right because if everyone can do anything that they want to do, there

will come a time that two people will want the same thing or that they will have conflicting

interests. State of war could emerge from a simple conflict because there are no laws that are

governing our behavior and there won’t be any security for each and every one. According to

Hobbes, this is why social contract is important. For people to stop living in constant fear, they

must give up their freedom in exchange of security from the government. This way, people can

nurture their skills and talents to contribute to the society because they wouldn’t have to

constantly worry about their safety.

 John Locke has a rather optimistic view regarding man’s state of nature. He believed that

the state of nature of man is a state of liberty wherein man tries to live his life as he seems best

fit. It doesn’t mean that because there are no laws is that there isn’t morality either. But to Locke,

if this state of liberty persists, there is an inevitable chance that man will enter a state of war so

they must all agree to a social contract. This means that man has natural rights to life, liberty, and

property but they must give up a little of their sovereignty to the government in exchange for

protection. Locke also proposed the idea of “a right to resistance” saying that if the government

violates man’s natural rights, the people who set it up should overthrow it. I believe that this is a

really important concept in political thought because as much power as we give the government,

they still do not have the right to step on our own rights and when they do, they are bound to

receive resistance from the people.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau also believed that the state of nature of man is peaceful and quiet

and because of the small population and abundant resources, people lived a solitary,

uncomplicated lives. However, eventually, this leads to formation of temporary groups and these

groups move together and make sense of concepts such as property and competition. Divisions

of labor is introduced and claiming properties became rampant. It is inevitable that a state of war

will arise in this situation especially if two communities come in conflict with one another.

Rousseau believed that social contract is laid out to have a set of rules that people will live by

and to supply the needs of man brought by the modern society.

The distribution of wealth was also discussed in our class and I learned that there is a

great inequality between countries when it comes to who gets the natural resources in the world.

Only a few countries are considered first world and these are the ones that exploit the human and

natural resources of the less developed countries. They do this so that they will spend little on
capital and earn more profit, which just continues to make them wealthier and wealthier. This is

only on a macroeconomic scale. If we look closer, the rule of 1% is very evident in a lot of

countries, especially in the Philippines. The millionaires and billionaires in the Philippines are

only one percent of the total population. These are the elites and mostly, the capitalists. The

remaining 99% are those who are not well-off and this includes the working class, the farmers,

and fishermen who struggle everyday just to put food on their plates. It is heart wrenching that

the gap of wealth inequality in our country is so great that while some are living in luxury, many

are starving to death. What’s worse is that the one percent are also the ones who exploit the 99%

so that they can have more profit, just like what the first world countries do to the less developed

countries. This leads me to think that humans are truly greedy beings. The only way to topple the

triangle of the wealth inequality is through collective action of the 99% just like what happened

in September 17, 2011 – the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

Occupy Wall Street is a protest of New York citizens regarding the redistribution of

wealth in their country while the rise of income inequality was rampant. It was a call for more

and better jobs, reduction of influence of corporations in politics, and a more balanced

distribution of income. The protest lasted for nearly two months before the activists were forced

out. However, the Occupy movement did not stop there as the protesters turned their focus to

occupying banks, corporate headquarters, beard meetings, and university campuses. There hasn’t

been a clear change in the wealth distribution in America nor the 99% did rule over the 1% but

the protest was not for naught. This movement became part of the history of the New York City

citizens and embedded in their minds that something must be and can be done so that they can

live better lives. Occupy Wall Street raised awareness about the situation of the wealth

distribution and the people is only expected to crave for change after their eyes have been
opened. Not anymore that they will accept crumbs that the higher ups give them and will resist

and fight the system that continues to exploit them. Collective action, in the long run, will make

a fruitful change. The movement would just need more defined goals and demands that will help

policy making officials in making the right laws and bills that are for the people.

These are only a few of the many things that I learned in our class but the most important

lesson that I learned is to be more connected to the social issues that we have in our country.

Social Science II is a course that taught me to be more aware of the happenings in the society I

live in. It taught me to be more compassionate and be more thoughtful of those who are at the

marginalized sectors of our population. Most of all, it taught me the importance of collective

action and being one with the masses. Being an Iskolar ng Bayan also means being an Iskolar

para sa Bayan. Serving the country should be embedded in each and every single one of us and

this course just made the fire burning inside of me ignite more – to be one with the masses in

their resistance, in the pursuit of better tomorrow.