Wine, Math, and Language

by Hubert Cua


26 July 2012


Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, "Introduction," The Mystery of Being

Wine

Dr. Garcia mentioned something like this in the class: It may be good to drink small amounts of wine before philosophy class. Although this may sound strange, this may be good for us. (Of course, drinking wine in any amount is prohibited in school). This may be good for us, because small amounts of wine unmask our face from fake things we show to others. It brings out what is in us that we cover up. By drinking small amounts of wine, we become truer to ourselves and to others. At this point, it is noteworthy to mention that some poets, particularly Li Bai of Tang Dynasty of China, usually drank small amounts of wine before writing poems to better reflect their true feelings and emotions in their poems. Ironically, he also died because of drinking wine.

Mathematics

“Some” mentioned in the class that mathematics is universal, constant, objective and “dead”. I was a bit hurt with the last word in this statement, which is “dead”. When I was in high school, some of my classmates asked me to teach mathematics, before class, during recess or after class. There was a time that some of my classmates asked me why mathematics is “hard” and why I was “good” in mathematics. This was what I answered to them before. Mathematics is like a tree. Initially, it may look lifeless, because it is not moving. Eventually, by solving more and more exercises and problems, you will find out that it has something in it. This something is a feeling that I could not to explain in words, but this something is like the life of a growing tree. After a few philosophy classes, I had a deeper understanding of what I was trying to say in what I answered before. Last time in the class, I was trying to explain this, but it seemed that I was not able to explain this well, so let me explain it again.

A^2 + B^2 = C^2 --> B^2 = C^2 – A^2 --> B^2 = (C - A) (C + A). 

What do you think of feel about these equations? You probably see or feel that there is some sort of “bending” or “flexing” (Imagine Taichi Master bending hands or Avatar bending air) within the Pythagorean Theorem, right? You also probably see or feel that there is some sort of “deep knowledge” or “metaphysical ease” within mathematics, right? These are the life of mathematics. This is “philosophy” within mathematics. (I am not claiming that I can define the “philosophy” within mathematics.)

Language

It seems that even things which seem to be “not philosophical”, like mathematics, is “philosophical”. Even the language that we speak is philosophical. Although this is quite out of topic, it does not bother if I share this anyway. (From this point on, everything that I am typing are personal and are not necessarily true. Everybody is welcomed to give comments, but please do not attack me in any form.)

When we meet somebody, we say "Hi" or "Hello" in English, Magandang Araw or Magandang Gabi in Filipino and Nihao in Chinese. It is true that we show respect when we say Hi or Hello, but Hi or Hello is still a short word Hi or Hello. From this, we can see that the life of Americans is stressful to the extent that they cannot even say a long word when they meet somebody. “The sun is beautiful.” is the very literal translation of Magandang Araw, while “The night is beautiful.” is the very literal translation of Magandang Gabi. From this very literal translation, we can see that Filipinos show high admiration for nature. Considering that the Philippines is full of natural resources, the language of Filipinos are very much connected or related to nature. According to Dr. Garcia, for Filipinos, beauty is very much connected to good, so we can also say that Filipinos show high admiration for goodness. “You are good.” Is the very literal translation of Nihao. At this point, it is remarkable to mention that the Chinese have a saying that translates into “use the human being as basis, center or foundation.” From this, we can see that Chinese values the human self and the human collectivity. This is related to the ancient survival instincts of Chinese limited by the geography of China. Although China has a land area of more than 9,600,000 km2 and a population of more than 1,300,000,000 people, China has only less than 8% of the world’s arable land and less than 6% of the world’s fresh water. In order to feed more than 30% of world’s population (25% own food, 5% export food), Chinese must use the lands extremely effectively and extremely efficiently. To do that, “Use human as basis, center or foundation.”.

When we go to a place, the place owner says "Step In" (This is exactly what Americans say.) in English, Tuloy Po Kayo in Filipino and Huanying Qingjin in Chinese. The phrase "Step In" does not seem to express hospitality or express welcoming feelings. From this, we can see that western, particularly American culture, is individualistic. On the other hand, Tuloy Po Kayo expresses hospitality or welcoming feelings, "Meet You Happily, Please Enter" is the very literal translation of Huanying Qingjin. These phrases not only expresses hospitality and welcoming feelings, but also emphasizes pleasant and happy feelings.

When we leave a place, we say "Bye" in English, Paalam in Filipino and Zaijian in Chinese. Just like what I have previously mentioned, Bye is just Bye. “To let you know” is the very literal translation of Paalam. From this, we can see that Filipinos show respect to others when leaving by saying that they are leaving. “See you again” is the very literal translation of Zaijian. From this, we can see that the Chinese greeting expresses a form of looking forward or anticipating another meeting with others when leaving, although it seems warmer than Paalam. Both words show collectivistic cultures of the east, in contrast to individualistic cultures of the west.

When we greet somebody who celebrates his/her birthday, we say Happy Birthday in English, Maligayang Bati in Filipino and Shengrikuaile in Chinese. The phrase Happy Birthday is quite different from the past English phrases, because of the word Happy. What is more interesting here is not the unusualness of the phrase Happy Birthday, but is the value people give to birthdays. Before, at least for some, people get to have what they want, like gifts, foods and etc., only during their birthday. Now, people get to have what they want not only during their birthday, because life now is generally more comfortable than the life before. Still, people maintain their value for someone's birthday. “Greet you happily” is the very literal translation of Maligayang Bati, while “Get happy quickly on your birthday” is the very literal translation of Shengrikuaile. Both phrases further support the high value people give to birthdays. Overall, language is seems to be directly proportional to the years of civilization. This means that the longer the years of civilization, the more develop the language is.

On the Magnificence of the Aesthetic

by Noel Almendras

25 July 2012

Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, "Introduction," The Mystery of Being


July 25's lecture was unlike most of the others because, in addition to the very entertaining introduction by Dr. Garcia, it was a very personal one. I think that day had one of, if not the most, number of recitations, as people were all sharing personal stories and experiences about the assignment from last Tuesday where they had to go look for a kind of revelation in the Ateneo art gallery. The lecture was also very minimal since it was mostly a review of what was discussed last meeting. So instead of me repeating a lot of the same things said by the previously assigned writers, I would like to start my entry with a story of my own.

I was very fortunate to be able to travel to Europe with my family after I graduated from high school. During our short stay in Paris, we were able to visit the Basilique du Sacré Coeur in Montmartre. It is a huge white beautiful basilica located on the top of a hill. It was really an amazing sight to behold but not as amazing as the elevator on the side when I saw the number of steps I would have needed to climb. Once you get to the top, there is small square to the left of the church. The only way for me to describe it is simply by saying it is the single most "french-y" looking place I have ever seen. Here are some pictures to help. Credit goes to the blogs where I got them from.

The air was filled with the scent of crepe. The square was lined with small cafes where people were drinking their coffee and eating croissants. My mom insisted that one of us had to get our portrait painted as a souvenir. My sister ended up posing for a sketch that cost us an arm and a leg. I was also pretty sure lady who was sketching her was pretty drunk on whatever was in her glass at one in the afternoon. Halfway through the sketch, my mom asked me in Tagalog if the drawing looked like my sister. "Hindi naman niya kamukha eh!" My Mom was already thinking of asking the artist to change certain features of her sketch but I advised against it because the artist might get offended. I said that if she wanted an exact copy then she should have just taken a picture of my sister instead, besides, medyo kahawig pa rin naman. The whole point of having your portrait painted was for it to look like you, but at the same time be different.

Okay, natapos din yung story. So what is its point? It reminded me of the first question in class that day. The topic of how something could be universal and personal at the same time. In my opinion, art is always about expression. The artist's expression is put into a certain form for the rest of us to experience. The artist's impression of my sister resulted into the final portrait because of a lot of things. What these things are, I am not completely sure of, maybe it was because of all the wine she had been drinking. This is the personal aspect. However, the universal part of it would be due to my sister. Maybe it was because of her darker skin tone. Maybe because of the clothes she was wearing. Maybe it was because of her messy hair due to the strong winds.

A Little Understanding

by Agassi Adre


24 July 2012


Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, "Introduction," The Mystery of Being

Marcel’s introductory lecture has us started on a long journey that hopefully, in my own personal opinion, ends with us being slightly confounded with the new insights, realizations, revelations, and whatnot, but with a certain clarity of how we, as individuals being a part of something bigger, should act, think, and be.

When Marcel talked about metaphysical unease, he introduces a starting point in which we can begin in our own personal struggle with philosophical thinking. This ‘metaphysical unease’ had us discussing its origin within our own personal experience. No doubt, we have had many experiences with this kind of unease before, but never realized what it actually is, or its actual term. For me, metaphysical unease is the point when my established paradigms become arguable, and that usually ends with a paradigm shift that exasperates me, for I get confused and become more uncomfortable.

In the lecture, we then deal with how to engage ourselves in the philosophical investigations that results from a metaphysical unease. Though we earlier discussed de-centralization of the self, and by extension the universality of our own thought and inquiry, in David Foster Wallace’s commencement speech, we then realize that, in Marcel’s lecture that we cannot engage in a philosophical investigation that is too subjective. On the other extreme, we also cannot engage in the same investigation in a very subjective manner. The dilemma here, Marcel says, where we have to choose between these two ways of philosophical investigation, should be taken as a false one. And as such, there is a need to have an intermediary way of thinking.

He then presents us with the first analogy: understanding works of art. Clearly, in this day and age, art is not really as appreciated as before. Though there are people who still appreciate the effort and the beauty, these people are a minority. And it is sad (well, in my opinion) that for the rest, it becomes harder to be in awe while in front of a piece of art as they cannot fathom the entirety of the piece itself. I myself feel a strong connection with art, thanks to a wonderful art teacher in high school, who for 2 years taught me, in quite a strict manner, the effort and aesthetics that go behind a piece of art. And thanks to that, I am forever awed by art works, even how simple they may be. But I envy those who still appreciate and/or are awed by art without having someone drill into them the entirety of an art piece, for they are capable of a natural insight for aesthetics.

And this insight – be it developed or natural – is quite important really, for it would lead to a revelation. The way I see it, the process, especially in this context of understanding art, is a circular process, where you have insight, then have a revelation, and with that revelation, you get further insight, ad infinitum. However, for those who are unable to get the same revelation, it would seem that a dichotomy is formed between these two groups; they are indeed separate and they it is hard for them to mix.

And this is where the topic of universal versus subjective thinking comes into play. For example, I clearly am awed by art, and thus there are times when I cannot help but think that those who cannot appreciate a van Gogh or even an Andy Warhol piece as rather lacking in civility. But now I know that this cannot be the case, and must not be the case. Bridging the gap between a universal way of thinking and a subjective way thus become an effort to understand how the other person is affected, because obviously, even if they do not appreciate or are not in awe by a piece of art, they too are affected at some level. And it now becomes our job to understand each other. The insights and reflections that we both would inevitably share would lead to a deeper understanding of us as individuals and of us as part of a bigger system. This in turn, in my opinion, would enrich our personal philosophical investigations.

In essence, one way to understand metaphysical unease and philosophical investigation is to try to understand how something affects another person and how that person reflects on it. Not only it enriches our thoughts and reflections, it gives us the opportunity to get a better glimpse of the environment around us. Indeed it would be quite difficult to do this, but if we allot a few moments into doing this, inevitably, everyone would be better off in terms of understanding ourselves and our place in this world.

More Than Pinteresting

by Jaz Reyes


24 July 2012


Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, "Introduction," The Mystery of Being

Is philosophy simply a description of an individual's experience from discord to peace? Or to put it philosophically, is there value to other people with what we have realized? That is the question Marcel posed in his introductory lecture on doing philosophy.

Throughout the lecture we have come to realize that no, philosophical thinking that results from some kind of metaphysical unease is not only for our own sake, for the type of philosophical investigation we should deal with is one that is neither too subjective nor too universalized. Rather, it is an intermediary way of thinking. Marcel helps us define that intermediary way of thinking through fine analogies aesthetically, religiously and politically.

Among all the examples, I find Marcel’s analogy through art the most engaging because he was able to relate the feeling of revelation to an intermediary thinking that left me going: “ONGA NO. ONGAAAA NO” in my head. He tried to speak of “revelation” in a subjective sense when he spoke about being able to let a piece of art speak to him, and I believe I have felt this sense of revelation when I go to galleries, museums and on Pinterest.  In that moment, it is just that piece of art and me conversing emotionally and mentally rather than verbally (because that would just make me look like I’m high).  But such insight is not merely subjective. There must be a balance for thinking to be intermediary, and in order to do that, we think of the opposite; the universal aspect. Revelation is universal in a sense that one considers the possibility that the other can see what is revealed, and we do not punish, mock, or bring others down when they did not see it at first.

This insight does not only open us up to a new way of seeing through wider lens, but it also calls us to a certain way of acting. And I believe this is what I was looking for when we were asked if there could ever be value to another person for our own personal philosophical insights.

I was skeptical of how my personal thoughts can directly influence another person’s well being right off the bat. But Marcel helped me realize that being an intermediary thinker already helps me to do so. Because I could think that there is only one way of interpreting this piece of artwork because it spoke to me in this way and shun all others who cannot see it as fools. This example shows the imbalance of the subjective and universal way of thinking, whereas universal is absent; or I could keep it balanced and try to understand that maybe the painting is speaking about something else to that person and that I should try to befriend that person and invite him for a couple of drinks as we discuss the night away. As far as I can see it, realizing that one must keep a balanced way of thinking helped me not only gain a friend but also gain and share new insight that can be of value for either one of us.

But this is only one way of seeing how one’s philosophical thoughts can affect others. I’m sure that a lot more of our own concrete experiences has a universal relevance or effect to other people and it would be nice for you to take some time off and reflect on the moments where you actually had done this.

The part that disturbs me most on this whole ordeal is the fact that I personally think that it does take quite an effort for me to be enabled to think as such. I honestly don’t automatically think this way, to get that balance in my philosophical investigation of my day-to-day life. It feels as if I have to have a "double take" on my wired, programmed actions; the natural actions, to be constantly “suspicious” as Marcel has stated.

How I do feel about the metaphysical and reflective thought is as what Marcel said, that it feels like a blood clot, preventing blood to naturally flow; preventing our natural thoughts to naturally flow. There is just so much effort, and blockage in order to really have an easy time to think philosophically. But then again, maybe this is where the sense of freedom of thought and seeking of what is desired rather than needed is fulfilled, because in order to be able to reach that accomplishment, we have to bask in the absence of it.

At the end of the day, I guess I have to agree with Marcel on philosophical investigation when he mentioned that “in seeking to determine for what set of people this work of ours can be intended; we have arrived at a distinction between those who feel a certain inner intellectual need, not unrelated to the more widespread inner moral need, felt by men of goodwill, to seek peace and ensue it, and those who do not.”

Return To Reflection

17 July 2012


Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, Introduction to The Mystery of Being

A subject is primarily known as such if it has the capacity to be conscious, to be aware of itself and its surroundings, and perhaps the subject that is most intimate to us is ourselves, as having the capacity not only of being conscious of our surroundings but more importantly of ourselves being conscious. The subject stands together with the object, that which is thrown in front of us (from the Latin word ab jacere), as something that can be "given." Having that understanding of a subject and an object, then one can say that a person is both a subject and an object. It is true that human beings are conscious of their being conscious, and have the capacity to think and talk about their own existence; however, they can also be treated as objects, in such a way that we can actually have the capability to ignore the status of the person as a subject and treat him as "one among other things," from the simple act of talking about someone if he or she was not here, or even ignoring someone even if he or she is there.

As subjects, we are capable of reflection. To reflect is basically to be aware that we are aware, and then to somehow step back and see our lives as part of that which we stepped back from. It is a response to the invitation to look, which eventually enables us to raise the important questions of life itself. Philosophical reflection, then, is a certain detachment that leads us to our awareness of being a part of the whole to which we belong.

The French thinker Gabriel Marcel discusses philosophical reflection by distinguishing philosophy from technical and scientific knowledge in his introductory lecture published in his work, The Mystery of Being. He emphasizes that philosophy attempts to go deeper in an understanding of life, and not an abstract systematization of it, or a dogma that prevents us from seeing the superabundance of meaning in our lives. In his lecture, he aims to explain and elaborate with a certain authority what it means to philosophize. For him it is neither a form of dogmatism or a quest to come up with a philosophy that tramples down all philosophies, primarily because such forms of thinking would hinder us from philosophizing, confining philosophy into closed glass jars, altogether separating itself from reality which should be its primary concern.  Philosophical investigation and questioning, for him, is not a matter of strict demonstration but merely an aid to discovery, and hence he does not want to provide a strict, closed system. Philosophizing is basically responding to a call or an appeal to make sense of a life full of meaning, and any closed system could perhaps hinder one from heeding such call. 


Hence, he proposes a new understanding of philosophy, through the metaphor of the road.

Regarding these, two objections can be raised. First, the metaphor of the road implies space, but isn't it the case that space and time should be abstracted in order to properly philosophize, which means to come up with truths that are universal and in fact apply in all cases? And second, the metaphor also implies that there is a given destination, an end goal that is not merely a hypothesis but something that is, for the philosopher, stands as a given end in sight. Having that, does the philosopher somehow contradict himself and preempt that there is indeed an end in view even though the road has not been trudged?

Marcel responds to the first objection by saying that if space would be neglected, then one can also neglect and dismiss the rest of the philosophical tradition, which not only started from the the human being's "situatedness" in space and time, but also accepts a kind of inner spatiality. What this objection fails to take account is that there is an inner space in every human being, that which houses our experience, our thoughts, and our insights (of course in a non-empirical manner). We Filipinos already have this grasp of inner space, when we talk about our loob, which points to our inner selves, that which is most intimate to us (hence the terms utang na loob, masama ang loob, saloobin, etc., which indicates that kind of space wherein we talk about our thoughts, feelings, and anything that is not empirical and immediately known by the senses. And to the second objection, he says that philosophy is not primarily about the destination, whether it is given or not; instead, philosophy is more concerned with the process of getting to that destination, taking into mind not only the result but also the method used to get there. Unlike the sciences and technical knowledge that emphasizes the finished theory or product, philosophy takes into mind the very path of getting to an insight or thought, and once we lose this sense of becoming aware of both the method and the result, we lose our touch, our fundamental encounter with reality which provides us the avenue to reflect and think.

He then continues to distinguish philosophical investigation from the scientific and technical kind. He says that these kinds of investigation abstracts the subject, in such a way that in coming up with a theory or a product, it does not matter who thought about it and made it, as long as the theory holds universally or the product can be used and sold at the market. But in philosophy, the subject and its encounter with reality does matter, and the subject's own experience and way of life matters a lot in philosophical reflection. The object of philosophical reflection, then, is the subject's encounter with the objects of his experience, and not merely the end result or principle that comes out of that encounter.

Finally, Marcel asserts that a philosophical investigation is basically our response to the metaphysical unease (a translation of the French malaise) which we experience, a feeling that there is something that we are really uncomfortable with, not in the sense of being sick or having an allergic reaction or irritation, but a quite uneasy feeling that there must be something more to know, more to experience, and more to think about. Only if we accept and heed the call of this unease will enable us to trudge the road towards finding the cure, and perhaps, it is in our trudging the path that this unease is taken care of.

Beyond These Usual Things

12 July 2012


Discussed Text: "The Promotion of Responsibility and Hope"

It would be important to once again discuss the task of philosophical reflection in three important levels, according to Paul Ricoeur, in order for us to see why philosophical reflection is necessary in being human.

On the level of everyday life, philosophical reflection gives a perspective to a prospective society. To prospect is to manage, to control something, and the way of life of a prospective society is precisely characterized by control for the sake of quantitative growth and efficiency. It is to make an enterprise out of one's life, making sure that the most clever moves are done in order to maximize time and resources from the start of the day to its end.

A prospective way of life may seem attractive; however, it is characterized by a rationality of means but has no real end, no real goal in sight. In being prospective, most of the time we forget the ultimate end of our endeavors, and we lose our recognition and appreciation of other important things in life that we ought to take care of, like confronting the fundamental questions in our lives, maintaining our relationships with others, and even exercising responsibility towards the world that we live in. Our being too caught up with our prospective concerns leads us toward forgetting these things that essentially make us human, preventing us from actually living as human beings.

This is where philosophical reflection enters, as that which provides us a perspective, giving us the opportunity to see our life as a whole. Through reflection, we see that our lives are not all about growth, habit, efficiency, and productivity. It is good even to take control and manage the affairs of our lives, but we should not miss the question: in view of what? It is at this point, that philosophical reflection becomes essential.

On the level of scientific life, the task of philosophical reflection is precisely to remind us that there is a superabundance of meaning which cannot be reduced to what is empirical and mathematical. The sciences indeed have great advancements, and it has changed our lives as new technological innovations and scientific discoveries are brought up before the world. However,we should remember the very nature and consequently the limits of the sciences, as a discipline based on abstraction which describes the world "objectively" as if the subject is not present.

The objectivity that science presents stands differently from the "objectivity" of philosophy, which includes the subject in touch with the object, as well as an acceptance that every discourse and explanation comes from a particular limited viewpoint that can be enriched by other claims which come from other viewpoints. And because of this, layers of meaning are being created from critical experience and investigation. As an abstracted investigation, science temporarily ignores these various layers of meanings and focuses on one only, and fortunately it has yielded results that have helped us in the course of time.

However, the problem with that is that it may lead to a "flattening" of meaning when left unquestioned. The pure objectivity of science leaves out the way the world becomes significant and meaningful to human beings in different ways. Such flattening, which we can consider as scientism, disregards the importance of human experience as that through which the meaning of things are produced. In this regard, accepting scientific meaning as the totality of meaning seems to be very limited, and the task of philosophy is precisely to point out what lies beyond the limited layer, that things mean differently when seen and understood from a different perspective. Ultimately, philosophy "redeems" objectivity and subjectivity, in such a way that objective knowledge is formed through subjects observing, criticizing, and investigating reality. In other words, the objective world is intersubjectively conceived and thought of.

On the level of meditative life, which tackles the fundamental question of philosophy: that of Being as a dynamic act, that which is accessible only through a sense of wonder that "it is." Ricoeur simply says that we should confront two aspects of being human that should not be viewed as two opposing and struggling stands  from which we must choose from. On one hand, there is atheistic humanism, in which we affirm our humanity and our capabilities that can be explained and realized without the need of God or any supernatural being that stands above us. On the other hand, there is theistic humanism, in which we recognize that there might be something that goes beyond us, which escapes our understanding and remains unknown despite revealing itself to us in various moments of our lives.

Ricoeur tells us that these are two aspects within us that should engage each other through self-reflection, in the same way that philosophy is concerned not only of our existence as human beings but also of reality as a whole, the way we experience it. Thus, it means confronting our very own selves and subjecting our convictions to questions, to confront the believer with the unbeliever within.

Such is the task of philosophical reflection, that which is necessary in order for us to know what it means to be human and ultimately make sense of our lives as individuals and as members of a larger society and community.

On Reflection and Life

10 July 2012


Discussed Texts: "Paul Ricoeur of Happy Memory," "The Promotion of Responsibility and Hope"

Paul Ricoeur (1915-2005) is known as the "philosopher of all dialogues," as he actively engaged with theology, the social sciences, literary theory, and critics, in order to gain new insights and answers on the question of being human. His interest in various disciplines led him to a struggle to know the self, particularly through expressions: actions, symbols, myths, metaphors, and texts that a people has, which reveals basically a particular way of life and an understanding of being human.

He engaged in a form of philosophical hermeneutics (from the Greek God Hermes, who brought the message of gods to people), an investigation on the interpretation of historical and fictional narratives. His works stress on how these came to be through the creativity of the human being who, able to remember what transpires in life through time, puts everything together in order to make sense of it, in such a way that in those materials which he has done shows but at the same time conceals something from us and about us.

Ricoeur emphasized the capacities and capabilities of being human in the midst of his finitude, a capability to speak, bring out a reasoned discourse, act, tell a story of himself/herself, and ultimately, to feel responsible for one's actions, which includes keeping promises, forgiving others, and expressing hope. It seems that Ricoeur here, on his emphasis on the capable human being, asserts that because we can, we will! We are called to action, towards the exercise of what we can do and an encounter with the possibilities that we are faced with, towards being creative with our lives.

The masters of suspicion (Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche) tells us that there is some form of meaninglessness, that he/she is no part of a grand design, no reason to exist and no metaphysical or divine destiny to lean on. However, Ricoeur says that faced with the meaninglessness and absurdity of life, we have the capability to exercise our freedom, to act, to be creative, and to find a superabundance of meaning, a sense of hope that in one way or another, our lives are worth living. There is a sort of negation of life in the acceptance of the finite, but there is the joy of the yes in its midst, and Ricoeur invites us, in our own ways, to affirm our lives through our capabilities.

But we cannot reach this point of affirmation without reflecting on the things that we have done, and after doing so, act once again knowing that one has seen something different in one's life. This is Ricoeur's own response to the dichotomy between theoria and praxis that Marx has set, and one that points out to the fact that philosophy is lived experience becoming aware of itself. 


But what does philosophical reflection consist of? What is it for? Ricoeur answers these questions by showing the task of reflection on three levels of our lives: everyday life, scientific life, and the meditative life.

On the level of everyday life, it is the role of reflection to bring into reason (and rational discourse) one's own existence, wagering that even in the face of finitude, life does make sense, that there one is actually going somewhere, that there is a direction in life that leads to happiness. But in order to determine it, there is a need to distance ourselves from our lives momentarily, especially with our obsession over techniques, planning and calculation management (we use reflection in the common sense, as with our own act of looking in a mirror, an image that seems so distant from us). Reflection puts a certain perspective in a prospective society, to determine the goal and purpose of these things that not only seem to have no purpose or goal but also seem to make us lose our own sense of purpose or goal. Reflection continually bridges the gap between who we are and what we desire, reminding us that both ends should meet and interact with each other. Ultimately, the purpose of reflection is for us to find that which will make us blessed and happy (beatitudo), the point in life where we truly become what we truly desire to be. This calls us consequently to find our passion in order for us to not only spend our time with it but also determine what we really desire to do with our lives.

On the level of scientific life, Ricoeur says that reflection helps us enter into a dialogue between philosophy and non-philosophy, especially the sciences which focus on what is quantifiable and empirical, setting on a path of specialization that yearns to know more and more but in the end knowing actually less and less. Philosophy, according to Ricoeur, should not compete with science but instead show its limitations and foundations, to return to lived experience. The task of reflection is to point out where science comes from as well as its limits in order to avoid a reduction of reality into a scientific one. Water is not merely H20, and a tree is not merely an organism with a scientific name, but more than that, they contain stories, memories, and other meanings for human beings that ought to be known with much wonder and enthusiasm.

Lastly, on the meditative life, which is concerned with the most fundamental questions of existence, particularly the question of Being, philosophical reflection helps us to understand ourselves in two distinct ways. The first which Ricoeur calls "atheistic humanism," is one's affirmation of one's own human capabilities, and the second, called "theistic humanism," a recognition that there is something that lies beyond. Ricoeur says that these are two aspects of our being human and actually do not contradict each other, a believer and unbeliever within us that affirms our capacity but at the same time accepts transcendence.

Such is the task of reflection, which we are invited to undergo in these various levels in order to set out into a journey that would help us answer, "What is the meaning of being human?"

Seeing

3 July 2012


Discussed Text: Fr. Roque Ferriols, S.J., "Insight"

Fr. Roque Ferriols, famous for his reflections on being human in Filipino, now introduces us to the foundation of philosophical thinking, namely insight. Gaining an insight would share the same meaning with experiencing something, which is linked to tasting and seeing.  He reminds us in the introduction of his essay that we do not seek to define philosophy in order to understand what it is and how it is important in our lives. Instead, it is understood by actually doing it, as he would say when he talks about doing philosophy as very much alike to swimming: Lundagin mo beybe! One learns how to swim not by reading a thousand books about swimming, but by actually jumping into the pool and trying how to swim. Likewise, we cannot know philosophy by talking about it but actually doing it.


What does philosophy have to do with insight, then? Fr. Ferriols tells us basically that doing philosophy allows us to see what cannot be seen at first glance by way of insight. Through insight, we see what something actually means and therefore, gives us access to what something is as it exists. He expounds on this by showing three examples of seeing with the mind.


The first is by getting the point of a joke, laughing about it, and realizing through analysis how it becomes a joke. This moment of "getting it" (i.e. understanding why that particular joke is a funny joke), one not only laughs but also understands well why it is funny, not merely laughing along with others or not laughing at all because you do not see its point.


The second example is Juan's insight about life after the death of his grandfather, who was once, like him, young and full of hope. He realizes that it is the way life goes: at one moment you are energetic and dashing and popular with the ladies, but as time passes by, this energy fades and you are reduced to just another man walking into this earth. I (Doc G) had this significant memory of Fr. Ferriols as a youthful and fiery Jesuit priest. During my graduation, he really wanted my parents to come over to Manila, but one can only ride in Manila-bound buses on a first come, first served basis, and you have to wait for hours before you can ride in another trip (buses then have wooden windows and are not air conditioned yet). To "reserve" seats for my parents who are waiting in line, Fr. Ferriols ran to the bus, rolled up his soutane and hopped up the bus through the window, just to reserve the seats for my parents. Those were the days for this great Jesuit thinker, who is now on a wheelchair, happy in his old age despite his Parkinson's disease, and still teaching Philosophy 101 to 9 or so students.


Fr. Ferriols noticed that this insight had once been said by Homer in a poetic fashion, in a metaphorical manner (he included two translations of The Iliad in his essay, because his little student named Leovino Garcia gave him a different translation). He wishes to show here the power of the metaphor, as, faithful to its Greek meaning, one that "carries us beyond" what we ordinarily experience, as that which allows us to convey something that we cannot fully describe. To have a metaphorized eye is to have the ability to see something and convey it through the similarity between 2 dissimilar objects. The leg of the chair, the foot of the mountain, the opera singer floating like a galleon. We see there a kind of linking, of copulating two dissimilar objects in order to convey something that our "ordinary language" cannot reach.

The third example that Fr. Ferriols mentioned is about the number four (4). We gain insight on the meaning of four, not only as "four" but also the sum of 1+1+1+1 or 2+2, through the very act of counting. We can count four cars, four people, four buildings, and so on and so forth. What is common here is that we do not mind what kind of car, building, or person we are counting. Rather, we are merely concerned that each one of them counts as one.

This is called an abstraction, where we concentrate on one aspect of a thing while temporarily not minding other aspects of existing things. It is an important tool in the analysis of insights and findings, as we momentarily distance ourselves from reality in order to focus on something. However, it has the chance of desiccating an insight, freezing it and prohibiting it from becoming open for other insights to spring forth. That is why it is important that one should return to the "concrete fullness of the original insight," that which is still rooted in what is seen and experienced. Abstraction is both a reward and a danger, and it takes much wisdom to know how and when to use it or remain in it.

We see from these examples that insight is indeed a kind of seeing with the mind, through the powers of our thinking. More often, these insights are so reach that we cannot exhaust its meaning, and therefore we are called to look further, to think outside the box, and to think otherwise. In doing something with an insight, we also come up with other insights that perhaps be more profound that what we have first seen. Likewise, it is necessary for us to see, through an insight, whether our conceptual analysis deepens a particular insight or merely classifies it.

Perhaps the most important thing that Fr. Ferriols has said about insight is that no one insight cannot be completely understood, primarily because these insights bring us into the heart of reality, which is rich and inexhaustible in itself. That is why we need to keep our minds constantly open for whatever that is to come. Such openness is that which characterizes a philosopher and separates him from the rest.

Or, in Fr. Ferriols' own words: Sa lahat ng ito, meron pa! To do philosophy is a grasping at reality, but, it also comes with the humble and yet hopeful claim that there is still more to be seen.