The Greatest Challenge

by Patrick Cruz

“God writes straight with crooked lines.”The words are still clearly resounding to my ears.

As one zooms in an image of a straight line, one will recognize that there are still even the slightest flaws. There are still discontinuities that are not immediately visible to our eyes. Then, by looking at the line again, already aware of the minor errors it has, one appreciates better the things left unsaid for this line-- probably the stories it passes on, the feelings it contain, etc.
 
When I heard the statement for the first time, I was really clueless over what it actually meant though it was already clear for me that time that the statement is something much more than the two negatives making a positive. However, as I had reflected on it, things started to become clear to me. The crooked lines, I thought, would refer to the challenges faced by each and every person. The challenges may range from simply passing a difficult examination to losing a job or even more, losing another person you love. As one encounters these problems, he realizes his own finitude as a human being. He realizes that there are things outside himself which he can never be fully in control. Fortunately, even though he gets broken with these challenges, he also faces this opportunity to be renewed the next time. The person is actually shaped by God towards becoming more loving and more understanding for the people around him. The challenges are designed as tests to the person, molding him in every possible way for growth. in Having realized these insights, one discovers that in the end, there still remains hope, even if the tiniest one, for becoming a better person he wants to be. This is how even with the greatest challenges a person faces, in this sense, God can still write a straight line for this person, which can lead this person back to Him.


However, this interpretation might not be the only one possible. There are still a lot of possible explanations which would help enlighten a person in understanding this statement. Nevertheless, for me, what the statement provides is a possibility—an opportunity to relate with God by experiencing more the people around us and creating more meaningful relation with them, through the ultimate challenge for us to become better persons.  

Questioning Him

by Polo Guillermo

There have been various calamities that have struck different places in the world. From intense earthquakes to heavy rainfalls due to typhoons, these types of natural disasters have unfortunately been a part of our daily lives. One that hits close to home was the recent super-typhoon Yolanda. A month has already passed yet victims of affected areas are still experiencing the aftermath of the storm. More than 10,000 people have been confirmed dead and thousands more are still missing. Infrastructures, livelihood and residences were wiped out completely destroyed.

At times of disasters, people tend to question why such things happen. People have been vocal about their complaints against government agencies for not having predicted the intensity of the super-typhoon and the efficiency of the precautionary measures that were instigated and planned by local government units. Some even berated the terms (storm surge) issued by PAGASA and media for allegedly it has caused confusion and apathy since people are not aware of this natural phenomenon is. People assumed that it was just like any other storm that would bring scattered rains. They never expected that such a catastrophe would actually take place.

There are also people who blame God for everything that has happened. They assume that these disasters happen because God is punishing us for all of our sins. Why would a merciful and loving God let his people suffer and consequently destroy His creations? Isn’t he an all-knowing supreme being capable of manipulating what is bound to happen in the world? It is during these times of discomfort, pain and suffering when people try to look for people to relate to or simply blame in order to lessen the grief of what they are experiencing and try to have some explanation to whatever they have dealt with. But is God really to be blamed for everything that has happened or does these disasters say something to humankind that is commonly ignored and taken for granted?

I believe in God but I cannot say that I have been the perfect Catholic. However, I have always believed that everything happens for a reason and that each event of our lives is a part of God’s greater plan for us. Some things may happen that might shake or hurt our faith but I think it’s just God’s way of testing our faith and commitment to Him. God let bad things happen for a reason but this does not necessarily mean that he enjoys seeing us suffer. Most of the time our judgment gets clouded by our initial and intense feelings at times of problems that causes us to not immediately realize or comprehend what is happening or the bigger picture. We forget to trust Him and believe in his greater plan. These realities only affirm Marcel’s view on ontological humility of human beings. There are things in our lives that are beyond our capacity to grasp and understand since we are finite beings. Each person in the society shares this finitude which becomes a certain sense of commonality that should bind and unite people all together.

Experts from the field of science have interpreted these events quite differently. Global warming has been an alarming environmental concern that continues to exacerbate as time goes by. Anthropological activities have been the most significant contributors to why it even started and continues to persist in the environment. Since we were capable of starting such a problem, logic would only imply that we also have the capacity and means to mitigate and eventually resolve it. This realization has been alive in environmentalists and concerned citizens from different parts of the world with their efforts of preserving the environment. This green movement and involvement of people in saving Mother Nature only underscore our nature as relation beings. The phenomenon of global warming proves that one’s action inevitably affects others and the entire society. Therefore, we must be more conscious with what we do and think of its consequences not only to ourselves, our neighbors but the environment as well.

At times of disasters, blaming people or even God will not help or change what has happened. Even if it is difficult or even impossible for some, we must try and learn how to trust God and His greater plan for us. Holding onto our faith can be a source of hope and strength at times of suffering. Events like these also call us to act as one unified and loving community in facing reality. At the end of the day, we are relational beings and we are our neighbor’s brother/sister.

Can We Reach the Absolute Truth and Find the Absolute Meaning?

by Jun Hyeok Park

To answer the question if we, as human, can reach the absolute truth, we have the consider what exactly the question is talking about by looking at the word "the Absolute Truth" and "the Absolute Meaning". The word Truth and Meaning may make sense and are self-explanatory by the words itself but the additional word "Absolute" in front of them makes itquite vague.

If the word "Absolute" here refers to the unimaginative and the undefinite viewpoint of God, then we can consider that the question itself is falsely stated. In this sense, the question can never be answered by any human being because it is asking the viewpoint of God which the human beings will never know. Since we cannot imagine what it is to see in the view of God, the question is not anymore valid for us.

Then what if it refers to something 'final' and 'finite'? Then we can pose the answer, "maybe". First of all, truth that we are talking about is not universal. People have different sets of minds and ways of thinking; thus, it is not simple enough to generalize if the truth and meaning can be found to every single person in this world. Unfortunately, there is not a mathematical formula to solve the x in this case which means that any scientific attempts to answer the question may be difficult. Second, we have to recall that the process of finding the truth and meaning is endless. It is an endless journey to find the meaning and truth; therefore, there is no such thing as 'final' or 'finite' answer to it. Lastly, we as human beings may be limited but we are not just a finite being stuck in our own body. The endless journey to find the truth may 'free' us from the limits and make us to see the world different which only can be derived from own will and experience, not by others.

Now, considering the points I posted above, the answer to the question can be either yes or no. Rather than fighting each other with yes or no, it is better to settle down with the answer "negatively maybe".

What You Do In Life Echoes In Eternity

by Reiley Udasco

From the two meetings last week, what struck me the most was the methodic doubt that sir mentioned. How we are supposed to doubt everything until we arrive to the truth, which we are not to doubt. To be able to arrive to this, we are first to doubt our senses by doubting if we are aware of our surroundings like a mirage. We begin to bracket everything when start to doubt everything, probably also God. After continuous doubting, we arrive at a point where we become aware that we really doubting everything, but there is a limit where even when we doubt, we can’t doubt that we are doubting and thinking beings. We are a thinking thing in which we can be assure of.

As we began the discussion on of the “Third Meditation,” sir emphasized how important the “I” is, how it is embodied and that it is supposed to be affirmed by us. By affirming this, we know that we are thinking. Thinking in a sense where we doubt, affirm, know, love, etc. Also to have a better sense of this, Descartes encourages us to pause for a moment. We are to take the time to listen and reflect to ourselves. Focus the world that is embodied in us… “Kalooban.”

Also In class sir contrasted Descartes and Marcel’s Philosophy. Where in Descartes, we are closed off from other people. Also Decart doubted so much that he is only sure of himself and uses God as a guarantee. Also he mentioned that reality is greater than something that we can measure, goes beyond the objectifiable or mathematical(?). But with Marcel in the other hand, he affirms that our existence co-exists with other people. Also, that we are participating in a world with other people. We are to be social to be ale to enter society.

I believe that at times we are all Descartes’ where we tend to forget about what’s happening outside or that there are external factors (like people) out there and concentrate too much on ourselves.

“TAO,TAO,TAO…” was the main lesson my third year high school history teacher taught me. We cannot live alone, we need others in our lives to be able to find ourselves more. Life is a give and take relationship.

Last thing, never forget God. initivm sapiente timor domini- The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord.

Bird's Eye View

by Jeni Toreja

The thing about perspective is that the slightest shift can lead to the most drastic change.

A pregnant wildebeest unable to run as fast as usual may fear for both her life and her child’s, but the hungry lion’s only concern would be his empty stomach. A woman with high hopes and fantasies of marriage may be completely ecstatic about romance, but the man working as a lawyer with divorce cases would shake his head and disagree with slight pity. An overjoyed student mayhappilyshare about his recently aced test, but the one next to him who did not get a wink of sleep the night before to cram for a paper would probably find him irritating. A singer who practiced many months before a performance and was extremely nervous may miss a note or two from stage fright, but the audience watching from television screens across the globe would comment on her lack of talent.  A weak, starving and homeless child may knock on the windows of cars to beg for money or food, but the driver’s thoughts would comprise only the fact that he was late for work, and ignore him.

And Icarus, fell right from the sky with his melted wings of wax may drown in both the water and his thirst for freedom, but the rest of the world would simply carry on as usual. Perspective steers thinking and I wonder about the heights one can reach the moment he attempts to consciously shift his perspective away from its center—himself.As humans, our thoughts are based on how we see things, how we hear, smell, taste, feel; and it is when we push out this centered thinking that we are able to achieve a higher level of consciousness.

Back when we knew little about the world we lived in, people shifted their perspective and struggled to see everything from a higher point of view. This later turned into an art, as maps continuously evolved and people continuously explored the lands in an attempt to draw it all out on paper. It makes me wonder how vast the world must have looked when there was no science to explain it, to be able to ignite a thirst for knowledge that pushed people to see more, to learn more, to create maps that could only vaguely portray their struggle to shape lands that seemed endless.

However, it is in this journey of a shifting perspective that we learn there is a limit to just how far and how high we can see things. Marcel’s take on truth struck me because no matter how hard we search and attempt to climb up for a bird’s eye view, there is one perspective that we cannot attain, and that is God’s. We can never truly know all there is to know, to see as God sees and perhaps this veiled mystery is what keeps people thirsty.


It is through the shifting perspective, just as an artist would look at his model in many different angles before painting or sculpting its replica, that we bring our center out, learn and struggle to learn more by climbing the ladder to a bird’s eye view—a ladder with a top we can never reach but with an ascending journey that inevitably makes us see the world differently.

Infinities

by Miguel Co

A long time ago, I was at a retreat. I had it during a time when I was still young, trying out new things, and exploring the world. It wasn't really that eventful, at least until the last night of the retreat. During that time, I was sitting on the grass, with my back behind the tree. Then for some reason, something strange happened. I felt like I heard a voice, and I was talking to it. I honestly didn't know what to make of it, but it was relaxing and soothing. At the end of the entire retreat, I was seized by a fulfillment that I really can't quite put into words.

Looking back at the experience, I think it was an experience with the infinite. It's something that's indescribable and yet completely real. This infinite was experienced by my finite self, but it's not something that I can comprehend or fully understand. Trying to cram this idea of infinite into me is like trying to fit a house into a small hole: it just won't fit. Therefore idea of this infinite must have come from someone who is also infinite: God. That's what it means when it's said that the experience of God is such that he's in me without me understanding him. I can't comprehend what happened, but I know it's real, that it exists, and that it's a beautiful feeling.

From this experience of the infinite, of a God, I think that it's something that I can't objectify. If I tried to objectify it, then I'd just be dissecting the experience until it's nothing more than an aftertaste. And I'd be missing out on some things: feelings, worries, joys, and inhibitions. There are just some things that are too precious to be objectified because when we objectify, we lose something precious. This idea would best be expressed in this quote:

"Numbers and figures should not speak as loudly as our hearts."

Last year for one of my projects I went with a group of people to a cooperative, an institution made to help uplift the lives of people in its vicinity. They were an institution that did make some money, but they didn't care about the money as much as the welfare of their members and the community where they resided in. Of course, they need money to help these people. They need material to help the spirit grow. It's not all about the money and the profits, but in the end it's about the people and those around us. This is what we risk losing when we completely objectify everything, and why instead of taking everything apart and pursuing everything with an objective approach, there is merit in approaching things and God as a mystery, and as a gift.

Le Visage de Dieu (The Face of God)

by Niko Pena


What is a face? Is it merely the front part of a person's head from the forehead to the chin? Is it the surface of a thing, esp. one that is presented to the viewer or has a particular function? Well, yes and no. Yes, because indeed these are correct definitions of the word “face”, but these are not the kinds of faces we are referring to when we mention the Face according to the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. In fact, in studying Levinas, we are faced with a synecdoche when he refers to the Face. A synecdoche is a figure of speech where a part may represent the whole or vise versa. Levinas uses the former version of a synecdoche, using the “face” to represent the whole of the reality that is the Other.

Why use the face, then? Why use something so small and seemingly insignificant to represent something so much more complex? I believe Levinas has used the word “face”, because it is something that is so relatable to us. It is something that is so universal and human that by using this as a visual cue, Levinas could then lead us to a more pressing point: the Face, that is, the reality of the Other.

But why is it that the face is vital and how does it relate to Levinas’ point? Through much reflection and by reviewing my notes from class, I was able to come up with two points that may guide us in making a better connection between the physical face and Levinas’ the Face.

The first point: the face easily identifies us and distinguishes us from each other. It is the same reason why people would wear masks or use make-up to hide and/or alter their faces, because without which, these people would be identified as who they really are.

The second point: the face has a power over us in such a way that it binds us to the Other. One might ask questions like “why is it that I cannot look someone in the eye when I’ve done something to harm or offend them?” or “why do I feel so self-conscious when I see strangers looking at me?” or even “why is it that it is so easy for me to do what I want when no one is looking?” There is just something in the face that makes us so self-aware and alert, something beyond the physical, something that belongs to the ethical and social realm that would always make us think twice of our actions.

So what do these two points have to do with Levinas’ the Face? The first point reminds us that the Other is external from us, something beyond us, ungraspable, uncontainable. The Other is someone whom we cannot integrate with because they are not us, being completely unique and different from us. Also, one person is quite different from another. The same principle would apply: we also cannot integrate one person with another because of their inherent uniqueness from each other.

The second point also notes that we are not alone in this world and, more importantly, that we are not only living for ourselves. Conversely, we are actually being called to live for the Other. And here we encounter a myriad of paradoxes that all stem from the very presence of the Other. For in encountering the Other, we receive demands that are not actually demands, have debts without actually incurring a debt and more strikingly, receiving resistance where there is no actual resistance. There is something in the Other that seems to say, “please don’t take advantage of me” or “please show me your mercy”. We feel these words bite into our hearts and embed themselves in our heads without the Other lifting a single finger. By being more keen to these “calls” and “demands”, we are taking steps to being more ethical and compassionate. We are taking steps to what it truly means to be human and cultured.

It is often said that we are all created in God’s image. But what does it really mean to be made as such? In the few years that I have been on this earth, I have learned that to be in God’s image is to be loving, merciful and compassionate. I have learned that to be God-like or Christ-like is really to live in such a way that caters to the Other.

I’ve recently watched a commentary by Fr. Robert Barron on YouTube. Fr. Robert Barron is a priest from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. He is also an author, scholar and Catholic evangelist. In his commentary entitled, “The God Who Doesn't Need Us”, he explains that the Christian God is very distinct from other gods, simply because, as the commentary’s title states, He doesn’t need us. He explains that other gods, particularly those from pagan cults, thrive on the sacrifices and praises they receive from humans. He further states that these gods would have the tendency to abuse us and manipulate us for their purposes because of their eternal need of our services. The Christian God is not like that. He doesn’t need any of us, our sacrifices or our praises. He didn’t need to create the world or the rest of the universe. He created everything for us.


This reminds me of a verse from Hosea regarding the sacrifices of the Israelites to the altar of God. The verse states: I want you to show love, not offer sacrifices. I want you to know me more than I want burnt offerings (Hosea 6:6).  Another verse says something similar: The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me’ (Matthew 25:40). These verses and pretty much anything regarding compassion and ethics, brings us back to what the Other demands from us. How must we truly relate to the Other exactly? Shall we take advantage of them and manipulate and abuse them for our selfish purposes? Of course not! We must relate to the Other with compassion, understanding, acceptance and mercy. We must regard them with love. Obviously not the romantic kind of love, but the kind of love where we would want the good of the Other to be realized. The kind of love where the focus is the Other and not the self. The kind of love where one enters a “give-and-give” relationship rather than a “give-and-take” relationship. The kind of love that drives one to solely live for the Other. This I believe is the bottom line of Levinas’ philosophy. Everything is for the Other. Everything is for the sake of the Face.

The Beauty of the Other

by Rimina Patolot

15 January 2013
Discussed Text: Levinas, "Secrecy and Freedom," Ethics and Infinity


In our last lecture, Levinas tried to show, through Descartes’ philosophy, the Face of the Other. There are certain insights in Descartes’ third meditation, Totality and Infinity, which can also do justice to the Other that Levinas has presented. This topic was very hard to digest for me as Levinas tried to show a structure of the idea of the Infinite – which involved thinking beyond thinking. And in this idea of the Infinite, we are be able to experience the Other as Face.

As Levinas goes back to Descartes’ philosophy, we recall the point where Descartes doubts everything, and is then left with just ideas in his mind. He then classifies the ideas left in his mind and comes with the idea of himself, on other persons, animals, and God – the Infinite. But then, where did these ideas come from? Either they came from him, or these ideas were put into him. Descartes then says that the idea of God is an infinite substance, eternal, immutable, independent, omniscient, omnipotent – an idea which is also found in traditional philosophy or metaphysics. However, he is interested in the structure, not in proving the existence of God. He goes on to point out that there are certain ideas in us which cannot be contained within ourselves. Thus, this idea which overflows may have been put into us, and not from us. Because, as Dr. Garcia has said, “How can a finite substance be the origin of an infinite substance? How can I contain something which I cannot contain? If the cause is finite, the effect cannot be infinite. The effect cannot be greater than the cause.”

From what we have learned last semester, Descartes says that an idea is true if it is clear and distinct. And this idea of the Infinite is very clear and distinct. He realizes this reality goes beyond our understanding – exactly why it is difficult for us to comprehend. And as God goes beyond our comprehension, we think more than what we can think when we think of Him. We can think about Him, but we don’t really know Him. Because a God that can be comprehended, cannot be a God. Descartes then ends his third meditation, in admiration and gratitude of this all perfect God.

I admit that I was perplexed by how Descartes illustrated the idea of the Infinite at first. I cannot even fully grasp it until now, so I'm trying to be careful in conveying my ideas about what I have understood from the lecture. But then, I realized that that was the point. To think beyond your thinking. To know that you don’t know. To understand that you can’t understand. This process of us trying to figure it out is part of the experience, because this reality can neither stand on mere reasons nor understanding. And in the end, this kind of thinking will make us admire this reality, and even be grateful for it.

So why did Levinas try to show this particular structure in Descartes' philosophy? Instead of saying that the idea of the Infinite is found in God, he said that it is in the Other - the Human Other, as philosophy has human experience as its basis. Thinking about the Other escapes the grasp of the "I." And from this, I realized that we do experience the Face of the Other as Infinite in our everyday lives. When we communicate with each other, we discover things that are beyond what we think. That's why it feels great to get to know someone you just met, and listening to other people's interests and experiences - we realize that there's something so much more than just the things in your mind. And from this, we become more thankful for such experiences because we are able to go beyond our thinking through the experience of the Other.

In line with the experience of the Other as Face, I'd like to share this "Youtube movie" with you, because I have personally experienced the Other in a very beautiful way through this 90-minute video. I have already watched this before, but watching it after our lecture, I came to appreciate it in a whole new way. Assembled by Kevin McDonald, "Life in a Day" is a compilation of videos uploaded by different users from all over the world, showing what it was like in a single day of their lives on a normal day, July 24, 2010. I was very emotionally involved with some of the stories, and I had many realizations upon watching it. I opted not to give an overview of the video, nor what my realizations were, as I want you to experience it first-hand. I hope that you find the beauty of the Face of the Other through this video - the beauty of the Other that escapes our grasps. And that even in this brief experience of the Other, we experience the Infinite.

Need Beyond Need

by Jaime Dayrit

15 January 2013


Yesterday's class was pretty interesting, despite the fact that we were 'just' revisiting Descartes. This man is known as the 'whipping boy' of Western philosophy; and in spite of this, it was nice to see/hear some appreciation of his ideas, for a change. Levinas said that there was structure in Descartes' 3rd meditation; that is, his idea about the infinite. He said our minds are chock full of ideas; of people, of things, of places, and even of God. However, he further states that because we are finite beings, it is unfathomable for us to be capable to conjure up something that is infinite; for the logic stands that the cause cannot be any less than the effect it creates. Therefore, there must be another reality (not necessarily God) that is, in fact, infinite, and that reality or entity has created us and placed its imprint on us, thus our seeming ability to comprehend that which is beyond us. This idea was particularly refreshing for me; because seeing some sort of roots of not just Christianity, but of religion as a whole; the belief that there is a 'higher power',  stem from another view - that of logic, amused me greatly.

Levinas goes on to evoke that 'there are experiences not found in our heads', that 'not everything comes from ourselves.' This again brings to mind the morals of our past lessons; that indeed, the world or the universe does not revolve around us. Meaning to say, since there is indeed another reality separate from us, we should come to understand that we, as individuals, are not the sole actors/actresses in the vast play called life. Thus, it is further implied that what should really come to light is the importance of relationships. Moreover, relationships that are not based solely on need. Whether we know it or not, relationships already exist between people; we just have to look for it and build upon it. And if need isn't the driving force of these relationships, then what should? The answer lies in desire, or in other words, need that is beyond need. Desire is what drives us, like passion, to be with the people we want, not simply because we rely on them for our existence, but rather because we are for them, instead of just ourselves. Relationships should be us coming out of ourselves, and going for the other. Doc G gave me an analogy that I think is quite apt. Take your relationship with God, for instance. Some people only go to Him because they need or want Him to help them in some way; perhaps to pass a test, to get this, to have that, etc. But that is wrong. People should be going to Him because of their own desire, because they WANT to be with Him. It is this way that they have transcended themselves beyond their needs, and they have become for the other. Similarly, this is what every one of us should strive for in our own lives.

An Atheist's God

by Rucha Lim

"Why do people have to be this lonely? What's the point of it all? Millions of people in this world, all of them yearning, looking to others to satisfy them, yet isolating themselves. Why? Was the earth put here just to nourish human loneliness?”

― Haruki Murakami, Sputnik Sweetheart

I’d like to begin with a quick clarification because I know that “atheist” is a loaded word. It carries the connotation that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. Because of this, I identify myself as an “atheistic agnostic” to avoid any form of confusion brought about by connotations.

Just to be sure, I define that phrase by examining its etymology. The word “atheistic” is composed of the suffix “a-“ which is used to mean “absence of”, “theist” which comes from “theos” which was the old Greek for “god” (probably the origin of the Latin, “deus” as in “deus ex machina”), “-ic” which is a suffix used to mean “to have characteristics of”. The word “agnostic” uses “a-“ in the same way, and “gnosia” which means, “knowledge” (hence we have the Gnostic gospels) and the “-ic” suffix which means “to pertain to”. Therefore I am “absence-of-god-characteristics-of-absence-of-knowledge-pertains-to”. Rearranging that
to be more sensible to the English language paradigm, I am one who claims no knowledge
on gods and act as though were was none.

With that aside, I’d like to begin sharing my unsolicited reflection.

After listening to Gangnam Style for the nth time, I asked a friend what the hell the song was really about. He explained that it was a guy who is describing his ideal girl. Hearing the word made me go into a musing on its meaning and implications while rudely spacing out from my friend’s conversation. I was fortunate that he did not notice and I just nodded and said “Yeah.” When I was finally alone, I decided to put my thoughts into order and here’s the result.

What does ideal mean? I’ve been asked countless times to describe my ideal girl (and on certain strange occasions, guy). Each time, I’ve given almost the same set of answers. Of course, the qualities I give are distinct and would not be the same for everyone else. We all have our individual notions of an ideal partner. For that matter, we all have our individual notions on what an ideal world is. Some would say it’s a world with no taxes, a world with no wars, a world where everybody shares their resources, a world where nobody is ever friend-zoned, etc. But an important thing to note is how these notions came from individuals, people with perceptions. I tried crafting my own ideal world in my head but at some point I randomly thought on what a caveman’s notion of an ideal world would be, or that of someone from an ancient civilization or of the medieval era. The notion of a perfect world changes as ways of living change. My notion of a perfect world would probably be crude to a person who lives centuries from now. Who am I to construct a set of ideals for an ideal world that would encompass all things discovered and undiscovered, and that has
happened and has yet to happen?

Despite all of my disagreements on Descartes premises, I have to admit that perhaps this was what he was trying to say when all ideas are mere simulacra to their source. Our ideas are affected by our perceptions, which are affected by various things like values and the zeitgeists we belong to and cannot account for things unknown in the span of our existences. And Descartes himself was subject to this. So now I arrive at my notion of a God. I abandoned my Catholicism for several reasons but the primary one being that as human beings with limited perception, I believe we can never absolutely know anything, especially the existence of a supernatural being that is omniscient and omnipotent. One of Richard Dawkins’ famous quotes is “We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” A friend of mine disagreed with the statement, saying Zeus and Thor were not Gods. However he
confuses gods with Gods (and that is with the big letter “G”) in that they were not omnipotent and omniscient.

So here we see how the notion gods of the ancient Greeks evolved into the God of Judeo-Christians. A characteristic that remained however is the intervention in human affairs. I’d love to divulge into the reasons for my disagreement for this by expressing my opinion of the mimetic nature of religions but that’s a discussion (not debate) for another place and time. Suffice it to say that I do not agree with it. I am, however in agreement with Carl Sagan when he said, “The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.” But to me, it extends beyond these physical laws (which I am sure Sagan did not limit to those known only in his time), my God includes each and everyone person, (That’s right, you’re my God, part of it at least) myself included. My God is this amorphous, (every)thing, not in any way singularly sentient. You could say that for me, the universe is God and not the other way around.

This is what I believe is what David Foster Wallace called “the mystical oneness of all things deep down.” and if I’m not mistaken, what Heidegger was referring to as the “sophon” and that as I continue my studies in philosophy (because I lack the confidence to say that I’m truly philosophizing), I find a way to connect to this oneness. Maybe it’s the buzz from the coffee while listening to Georges Cziffra play Franz Liszt’s “Liebestraume” but I want to connect to all those people I see outside my window, know their stories, their hopes and dreams, and serendipitously make friends, fall in love, and make this world a world a better
place, even a bit. So now I’ve given my Miss Universe statement, where do I go from here? And where do you go from here? Well, go ahead and pick up whatever you can from this and do whatever you want with it. Throw it away, throw it in my face, or keep it and make it grow. The choice is yours. As for me, I still have several questions left unanswered and I don’t think there’s anything substantially final on this little blog post. I guess it’s time to continue my loving struggle. If you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go lazily look up pantheism on Wikipedia.