What's Next

by Jaye Ruiz

Here’s a familiar scene from the movie Letters to Juliet.

Women who usually visit Verona, would write letters to Juliet (from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet) to ask for relationship advice, the movie gives us insight to a company of women who do the responses. Claire receives Juliet’s response, made by Sophie, decades later.

Listen to what the letter said.


Rather than asking what we’ve done wrong to be held responsible for the death of the other. I believe, with a little help from a conversation with sir Earl, that the better question is what should you do now? Especially that we’re about to end with Philosophy 102.

The storyline of the movie is quite amazing really, how a person from thousands of miles away got to help someone who was from a different time. What we do affects people we may have never even met.

Levinas and King Lear: On the Infinity of Love

by Alec Abarro

King Lear is one of my favorite Shakespearean tragedies. It opens as the King Lear, wanting to retire, holds a contest between his three daughters so he can decide how to divide his kingdom between them. Yet what kind of contest does the old king hold? King Lear’s idea was to give the largest portion of his kingdom to the daughter who loves him the most. Each daughter must give a speech in front of an audience on how much she loves the king—her father.

Immediately, we see something off here. Can love really be quantified with words? And moreso, knowing that that there is a price depending on how eloquently well you display your love, and having ostentatious display in front and an audience poisons the purity of the emotion and the bond your have with your father. By placing love in a context of competition, love decays. In fact, King Lear’s only good daughter, the one who truly loves him, says to herself:

CORDELIA

(aside) Then poor Cordelia!
And yet not so, since I am sure my love’s
More ponderous than my tongue.

Cordelia pities herself, since she knows this “game of love” is not something she can win, or want to participate it. Yet, Cordelia also acknowledges that she isn’t so pitiable, for she recognizes the infinity of love, and the inability of language to entirely express the richness of the affection, and most especially, the bond she has with her father. So when King Lear calls her, Cordelia can only remark, “Nothing, my Lord.”

“Nothing?” King Lear asks, baffled. Cordelia repeats her answer, “Nothing.” Yet the old king urges her on, How? Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again.” Cordelia replies:

CORDELIA

Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty
According to my bond, no more nor less.

Cordelia beautifully echoes her earlier notion of the richness of the being of love,

“I cannot heave my heart into my mouth.”

In my own words, Cordelia is saying,

I cannot lift my affections for it is too rich and too heavy for the pull of language!

King Lear doesn’t see the truth of Cordelia’s love, even if he knows that Cordelia is the daughter who loves him most, all because King Lear is too interested in display. Unknown to himself, the old king has totalized and reduced the love of the daughter who loved him truly.

His good servant Kent warns him:

KENT

Thy youngest daughter does not love thee least,
Nor are those empty-hearted whose low sound
Reverbs no hollowness.

Kent gives us the image of a container. A full container when tapped, makes little or no sound. While an empty container when tapped, reverbs and echoes. The three daughters, the older two, having an empty heart, yielded a loud display of eloquence. So when King Lear knocked on the hollow hearts of Goneril and Regan, so did their words echoed loudly, telling us that they contained no substance, only barren words; and when King Lear knocked on Cordelia, whose heart is brimming and true, she barely yielded a sound at all.

Let us recall the secret of the fox, “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” Or in King Lear’s case, what is essential is inaudible to the ear. In life, we learn that the most important things are always found beyond the senses.

So what did King Lear do? He disowned and banished the only daughter who loved him. The same fate happened to his good, loyal servant Kent. How did they respond? Kent, knowing full well that Cordelia married the King of France, informs a nearby French camp of King Lear’s plight brought about by the cruelty of his two elder daughters. Kent learns that the French already had dispatched an army, lead on by Cordelia, to take back King Lear’s kingdom and save her father. Kent also takes on a disguise to tend to the disheveled King Lear wandering in a storm, completely afflicted by madness. Despite everything, Cordelia and Kent, driven by love and loyalty, still went out of themselves and took on a responsibility for King Lear.

In the beginning, the reason for King Lear’s retirement was that he wants to enjoy all the benefits of being King but without the responsibility that comes along with it, and this self-interestedness caused a war and the deaths of the people around him. Kent could only look on as King Lear died, who—in a brief moment of sanity—held the dead body of his daughter, Cordelia.

LEAR

And my poor fool is hanged.—No, no, no life?
Why should a dog, a horse, a rat have life,
And thou no breath at all? Oh, thou'lt come no more,
Never, never, never, never, never.—

If King Lear had recognized the infinite and his responsibility for the Other as father, as King, and as a human being, would all have ended on a much happier note?

I'm Never Going To Do Long Distance

It’s so easy to say, “I’m never going to do long distance.” There’s no way it could ever work, right? It isn’t worth staying up late, or having meaningless Skype dates, and of course, dealing with slutty members of the opposite sex. It’s hard, stressful, tiring, and really demanding. Why would you want to do that to yourself? Isn’t it better to leave things while they’re good rather than stretch it out too far and hate each other in the end?

I used to think that way. I used to think so negatively of long distance relationships especially since I am an impatient and somewhat jealous person. I like seeing the people I love, and spending quality time with them. Because of that, I knew that personally I could never be a long-distance girlfriend. I felt like too much effort had to be put into it to make it work, and the rewards didn’t even match up.

But as usual, things never turn out the way we want them to. We don’t plan for most of the things that happen in our lives. However, when things get hard, I guess that love, as cheesy as it sounds, becomes the biggest driving force in our lives. It blocks all logic and reason, and gives us the strength to do the things we never thought we could do.

Because of long distance, I learned that I could be patient and a lot less jealous. Skype dates are fun, but of course girls, from whatever corner of the world, are still really slutty. There’s nothing I can do about that. However, what I was able to control was myself. I gave myself room to grow, and it turned out to be one of the best things that ever happened to me. I became more independent, more trusting, and more appreciative of the little things that make relationships so incredibly beautiful.

Still, some days are harder than others. And I’m still constantly trying to find my way. But I’m learning a whole new angle of how love can be. It’s not seeing each other everyday, or having the same friends, and knowing everything about one another at the exact moment it happened. It’s about sacrifice, maturity, patience, trust, loyalty, and mystery.

It’s so easy to say, “I’m never going to do long distance.” And the truth is that it can actually physically hurt to miss someone. But I have learned that it can also be loving, mature, beautiful, and rewarding. No love is perfect, and distance can be a bitch, but in the end, love is always worth it.

#spoileralert

by Celina Cua

Amour will leave you at a loss. A lot of French films actually do that but the ambiguity in this film is really striking. Not to say that it’s a terrible movie—it’s actually the opposite but it requires an appreciation that does not comes as easy as when one watches a Hollywood film.

The movie ran for two hours and so the last hour of the 6-9 class was allotted for the discussion. A little past 9, Mr. Calasanz started concluding the class with some points for reflection. One of his suggestions was the possibility that maybe the movie just doesn’t make sense, that the most one can do is just make little narratives that tie at most some scenes together. A grand story was not really accessible. So, for a whole hour, everyone was just taking a shot at making sense of the movie and then Mr. Calasanz suggests that maybe it doesn’t have to make sense. Mindboggling talaga.

Nevertheless, one relevant point that was brought up was the possibility of a legitimate limit to being for Others. I can’t exactly remember it accurately but how I understood it was that sometimes there comes a point wherein you’ve given so much that you just can’t. This is of course assuming that you’re constantly living the Law of the Other. In reality, although it is a decision between two lifestyles, the law of the I and the law of the Other is a perpetual challenge that should manifest in most, if not every, action or decision one makes.

The film features an old couple in their 80s, Anne and Georges. Anne has a stroke, which leaves the right half of her body paralyzed. Georges remains to be a good husband, being constantly kind, and taking care of Anne. As time passes by and Anne’s condition becomes worse, taking care of Anne becomes harder and has arguably taken a toll on their relationship. One day, as Anne experiences a fit,  Georges tells her a story from his childhood to calm her down, and then he grabs a pillow and smothers her with it. Earlier in the movie, when Anne was just recently diagnosed, she said that she wanted to die already and not go through all of that. The movie ends with a scene of Georges hearing noise from the kitchen, and when he comes out, he sees Anne, alive and well again, washing the dishes. She instructs him to wear his shoes and they both leave the apartment with her leading the way.

Being in a similar situation as Georges who had to take care of the degenerating Anne, the love of his life, what would you do? How much can you give? Can you give what is required of you? How do you know what is required of you? Would you also go that far? Their story makes you sad since it was emphasized a million times in the film how “in sync” they were and how loving and full of kindness their relationship was.

I am not sure if I am allowed to ask those questions. In class, we discuss how we should respect the Other, how we should not totalize them, and that we must see them as Face. I subscribe to Levinas and his philosophy and I recognize that in living out his ethics, one must constantly make an effort, and it’s going to be harder than it is easier. That’s why it is dis-inter-esse. It’s painful; the separation from the self is also not automatic. Was it right for Georges to do that to Anne? What if that was what Anne wanted? Being “in sync” and after Anne saying earlier that she wants to die already, it can be argued that Georges knew what Anne wanted and he did that for her. Maybe killing her was actually a sacrifice on his part? But we say Anne is absolutely other and Georges did not have any right to do that. But at that extreme level, when Anne couldn’t walk, couldn’t talk, with a body and mind corrupted already, isn’t it better to have done that than watch her reduce even further? Seeing your spouse like that would also corrupt you.

To what extent can you give yourself—not just in the level of ethics but also ontology? And maybe it’s also too idealistic to separate the both during extreme situations. When it’s really too much is it really such a wrong thing to think of yourself? How do you even know what is required of you? Some situations leave you confused. We can’t tell if he killed Anne for her sake, for his sake, or even both.

We recall the solitude of being; being is the most private thing. My existence is intransitive. The other is absolutely other and thus, I am also absolutely other to others. Can we really escape this?

P.S.


I really encourage everyone to sit in that class. They watch interesting films, discuss it for an hour or so, maybe go for drinks after to continue philosophizing about the film, and have the honor of learning from the great Mr. Calasanz.

We Can Be Something More

by Luis Tanjuatco

Last week, we had a topic about the I and the Other, but this time it was in relation to the Parent (Mother or Father) and to their Child (Son or Daughter). It really made me think about my given path in life. Is what I’m doing in my life what I really want? Is this the right choice I’m making? Or is it because my parents forced me to do so?

My dad is a businessman and my mom was a chef, but instead of choosing the same path they took, I believe that my rightful place is to become a doctor. My parents fully support me on this journey and choice that I’ve made and they’ve allowed me to grow in many ways possible. I just can’t imagine what would it be like if they hindered me from choosing this path and becoming something else or even forcing me to follow in their footsteps. I see though that some of my friends don’t have the liberty and freedom to choose what they want to be when they get older. Sometimes, even the parents don’t support them for their decisions. Parents force their kids to take college degrees and job choices that the parents want them to be and not allowing their child to choose. It is somewhat like the parents are imaging and making them a shadow of themselves. This should not be the case.

Parents should learn to let go and to allow their child to choose what they want to do in their lives. Forcing them to choose something that they aren't will just make them depressed and miserable. Parents should let their kids become something great in their lives, maybe even becoming something better or more successful than themselves. The best thing that a mom and/or dad can do is to simply support them on their journey. No matter how hard or rough it may seem, even if they make mistakes, parents should always believe in their children that they could be something more.

Panliligaw

by Dominic Echiverri

Panliligaw translates to courting. But if we break the word down, the root word is "ligaw".

Ligaw = to court, to woo; likewise, ligaw = to confuse, to mislead.

Levinas discusses love and and filiation, and on the matter of identifying with and being for the Other, the general misconception or fault of love is that it seems to be a matter of convenience. "I like this person because she has the features that I want to see, she's the person I want to complement my personality, she has those which keep ME interested". Love, and courting, are misidentified as means of finding someone who reflects the I. "The rule of the I" of Western Philosophy where the central figure is oneself.

And this seems to be the dis-inter-esse, or the disinterest, which in breaking down, shows this movement towards the radically other, the Other who is radically different a selfsame.

Basically, it seems Levinas wants us to stop the panliligaw.

If your panliligaw holds true to the original Filipino breakdown of the verb, you mislead the person to thinking you like her because you find qualities that she uniquely exhibits or presents as her own. You confuse the person by identifying and highlighting notable traits about her as if they were genuinely and uniquely hers, when in fact, these traits are mainly what satisfy or interest YOU and it doesn't really matter how it contributes or exudes HER, the radically other.

Examples:
Crush kita kasi ang ganda ng mata mo (kasi may thing ka para sa mga mata)
Crush kita kasi ang ganda ng boses mo (kasi may thing ka sa mga tila pangmalandi ang boses)
Crush kita kasi ang cute mo tumawa (kasi may thing ka sa mga tumatawa na parang si Joker)

But as you can see, it isn't because it makes her, her. Cut the crap: you like those traits because they satisfy or they interest YOU. And in the process of panliligaw, you make her believe those are her strongest or most completing assets.

This confusion, however, actually also works against oneself. It makes one believe that he is in love with that person, when in fact, he is in love with someone who reflects what HE wants to see. The Her is lost because the I dictated or constituted what makes her "otherness".

The Other is reduced to an extension of the Self.

Examples:
She's beautiful (interpretation: pangtrophy wife ang dating, matching my confidence)
He's soooooo hawt (interpretation: pag eto nakuha ko, ultimate revenge sa chismosa kong blockmate)
She got that smart thang going on (interpretation: convenient reviewmate bago mag-Finals. G)

Levinas' assertion is this dis-inter-esse, which for me is the radical movement of going out (dis) and be in full contact (inter) with the other (esse), which definitely constitutes separating oneself from, or suspending, one's own biases.

Instead of dressing up the Other in a cloud of I's, why not allow the Other to exude that Other-ness to the I? After all (and to quote something cliche): it's not always about you.

I'll Give The World To You

by Nicole Patricia Nuguid

I remember a friend talking to me about his classmate in another school. "Ang yaman nun! (He's rich!)," he said. "Biruin mo, may sarili siyang mundo! (Imagine, he owns his personal world!)" Sarcastic and insulting as it may seem for many, especially for the classmate, I actually find it fascinating.  I find all these fascinating! That there exist "many worlds"; that human beings can actually be as "rich" as owning a personal world; that prince charmings' promise of giving the world to their princesses is possible.  But of course, no princess actually took this LITERALLY!


The existence of "many worlds" does not point to weirdness, selfishness and exclusivity. It does not reduce the world to a plain object that we can possess.  It refers to our differing perceptions and the varying meanings and values we lay unto things.  It relates to Marcel's idea of human beings as both mind and body. We physically exist in one common world, yet, we spiritually dwell in many. I believe this is already clear to everyone.  And since I already mentioned prince charmings and princesses, I also realized that romantic relationships are the perfect illustration of the existence of many worlds.

Men and women are naturally different. They look at the same things differently, prioritize different things, rejoice over different things.  What one deems important, one might see as trivial. What is meaningful for one is meaningless for the other. My Theology professor told us that men's way of thinking is like a bar of chocolate, they are at one box at one point in time; while women think spaghetti, we think about everything all at the same time.  It is amazing how women see ruby, crimson and bloody red, while men simply see red.  Studies say that men generally regard themselves more good looking than they actually are while women behave exactly the opposite.  I remember, in freshman year, I was so excited about Ateneo being uniform-less. I can wear anything I want! I can be as comfortable as I can be in my shirt and shorts in school! How cool is that.  However, my boyfriend disapprove of wearing "unappropriate" clothes to school and any other public place unless I am with my parents.  He is particularly worried about perverts, especially that I commute to school.  It was comfort on my side versus safety on his.  The list goes on and on.  Nonetheless, this is not about who is right and wrong.  Two very different worlds exist and collide in every relationship and yet, I wonder why relationships still do exist.

It was asked many times in class how we are ever going to arrive to settle with an absolute truth if each of us perceives things differently.  I wondered about it too.  But I realized, how come the collusion of two very different worlds is possible in romantic relationships? Why will I ever find meeting a stranger with completely different beliefs difficult if I, myself, is in a relationship with a person also different from me? Indeed, existence is two things:

1.) To exist is to be a particular person with unique characteristics which we share in common with others.  No matter how far a man and a woman go towards both ends of the pole, there will always be something in common between them that will remain.  The truth that they love each other remains that pulls them back to the center.

2.) To exist is to be in dialogue with others. Relationships work their way past differences through communication. It praises, reprimands, heals, moves and overwhelms.  Probably, successful relationships and marriages are the living and greatest testaments of the power of dialogue.

These meanings of existence should apply to general relationships, but my point here is working out differences in the many worlds that exist among human beings should not be that hard as long as romantic relationships and marriages exist.  If two very different human beings can go as far as establishing a lifetime union, establishing peaceful coexistence among all human beings is not impossible.  Relationships and marriages, and even friendships, are the micro of the macro (among nations) we want to achieve.  Going back to my previous example, does not that "giving the world" to your loved one mean giving up your "own world" to give him/her everything he/she desires?  The same is what we need in our general interactions with random people -- giving up our "own worlds" to try to understand others'.  In class, I first found it very unrealistic to simply answer "dialogue" to the problem of differing perceptions.  Now, if it is possible in romantic love, it is possible in anything.

Initiative

by Kris Calalang

Love is as love does not only as love received.

What has been a week of acceptance and rejections has been a meaningful week to me as well. As I have attended Dr. Angeles talk about love, and having recently read the article of Scott Peck about love also, I have come to see it in a new light.

First of all, as Doc G. said, we must be thinking-feeling beings. Especially when it comes to this, we must constantly think and we must constantly feel. It is never enough to just think, because without the feeling, it will be a sort of objectification( I don't think you will be thinking about it at all), while if it is all feeling and no thinking, the things you will do will be reckless, harming not only you but also the Other. The moment we decide to love however, there is this one question we must ask ourselves, and perhaps this is the most basic question, "Are we prepared to accept the Other? No matter what will happen, no matter what changes?". This is one of the most difficult questions to answer since this question is full of uncertainty. We do not know what will happen in the future, but if we are sure in ourselves that we can handle that change then so be it. Now think about the people who are closest to you, your family, your closest friends and maybe a romantic partner, do you not feel that you can accept them however they may change. And when there is reciprocity, we let our guard down and we let these people see our Face. We present our whole selves, knowing the Other will accept us, and we will accept them.

But that is only the first step, answering the question is never enough, what is needed and probably what is the most important thing of all is action. From thinking-feeling Beings to thinking-feeling-willing Beings. It is as Dr. Angeles said, we must not wait to be loved, we must be the one loving. There is this tendency, and I admit that I did so too, that we tend to wait for other people to love us instead of trying to love people as a start. If we want to become friends with someone or to stay friends with someone, we don't wait for that someone to love us, we love them by doing stuff for them, like a simple help in their problems, or maybe giving them a push they need. A simple act can go so far. And even if the someone does not reciprocate do not fear, do not regret that you have loved someone. As in our lesson of the responsibility of the Other, the Other's responsibility of you is their own affair, what is important is for you to be responsible to the Other. Loving is its own reward, and you will be surprised that it is much much more reciprocated than not.
And a last reminder (since Valentine's Day did just pass) for those who have a special someone or plan to ask their special someone out in the near future, do not be afraid to take the leap after thinking about it. As philosophers may not be constrained by time, time still does go on for everyone. Just do it. "Lundagin mo" bago pa mahuli ang lahat. 

Picking Up The Pieces

by Mima Mendoza


All their lives, all the time, just…how do you stop seeing it?

The discussion about substitution last Thursday reminded me of one of the most heartbreaking scenes in Stephen Chbosky’s book and film, The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Charlie, the eponymous wallflower, goes into therapy for sexual abuse at the near-end of the movie. He asks his doctor how to “stop it”, and when his doctor requests that Charlie clarify (“Stop what?”), this is Charlie’s response:

credit goes to kingblaine.tumblr.com

When you love other people, you will always want to see them smiling, laughing, having absolutely no care in the world. You will always want what’s best for them, for them to reach their dreams and have the best life possible. But sadly, the world does not run on Disney scripts, and we can’t all have happy endings. We get hurt over and over again. Watching at the sidelines as this cruel world unleashes sadness and pain onto the people you love is the most difficult thing you could ever experience. You want nothing more than to take that pain away and see your loved ones smile and be happy again, to the point that you look up, raise your arms towards the sky and yell: “Don’t hurt them! Hurt me instead!”

Levinas’ concept of substitution is not merely about replacing the Other with yourself in order to feel what they feel. It’s not about needing to help, but rather about desiring to help. Substitution is, at the core of it all, about standing for the Other. It involves bringing solace to the Other through your own humanity, helping the Other carry his weight, sacrificing your own comforts, your own self. Substitution is not trading your place for the Other, being the Other, but rather drawing the Other near. Ultimately, it is not about being hurt instead of them, but rather helping them through their hurt, knowing full well that you’re being hurt as well.

We must accept that the world is a brutal and unpleasant place to be, and that those we love are sometimes weak and are definitely finite. We are only human, after all, flawed and imperfect and jagged and maybe even broken. As long as we breathe, there will be failure and pain and despair everywhere. But being human is not about being perfect. It’s about taking the hand of the others around you, loving them, hoping with them, and comforting them through this vicious yet equally beautiful world. It’s about bearing each other’s burdens, helping each other through each heartache, one breath at a time. It’s about picking the pieces up of your selves together, making it up as you go along.

Love Responsibly

by Cinta Posadas


Because it is that time of year.

I am generally a very “cheesy” person -- I get kilig quite easily and I am a sucker for romantic-comedies, silly love songs, and sweet nothings. Which is why I couldn’t help but smile when we learned about Levinas’ concept of “Responsibility as Substitution”. This substitution refers to us being responsible for the faults and sufferings of the Other.

Levinas says that there is nothing voluntary about this substitution, meaning it is not our choice to be responsible for the Other, it just happens. Think of it as when someone asks you, “Why do you even like him/her?”, and you simply say, “I just do.” *insert kilig moment here* It is in this liking or being attracted to another that the Other has made a “claim” on us. It is as if we have become “prisoners of love”, in a way -- “the Other has already claimed me”. A romantic notion, don’t you think?

You've already won me over in spite of me /

 And don't be alarmed if I fall head over feet 

And don't be surprised if I love you for all that you are / I couldn't help it / It's all your fault

(“Head Over Feet” by Alanis Morissette)

We have to take charge of the sufferings and faults of the Other, meaning we have to be responsible for things that we did not commit. It is the fault of the Other, and not ours, that the Other is the way the Other is -- someone we think of as “the one” for us, someone we want to spend time with, be with, and grow old with. *insert another kilig moment here* And as Levinas calls us to be responsible for the Other, he also tells us that we actually have to be in action in that words are not enough. It is not enough to think about doing something for the Other, it is not enough to say you will do something for the Other. We have to put our thoughts and words into action.

“Love is not
 merely the uttering of words but in doing.”

Spread the love...the Levinas way. This season of “lovey-dovey-ness” be responsible. Take responsibility and act upon your thoughts about that certain someone you’ve been eyeing all this time. Gather up the courage and ask him out for lunch or dinner. Surprise her by cooking her favorite dish. Join him in playing his favorite video game or sport. Sing her a song or ask her to dance. Take the chance and show the Other how you feel.

The Musts

by Karl Rojas

31 January 2013
Discussed Text: Levinas, "The Face," Ethics and Infinity


While reading through earlier blog posts in order to write up my own reflection paper, I had an epiphany about myself: I am a sap for romance stories. I mean, I dive into my email, ready to write a full blown reflection paper, and the second blog post I see is a short video made by Wongfuproductions, and the next thing I know, I’m watching my all time favorite video about love called “Love Language”

This is a version made by an acquaintance of mine back in my hometown:


This is the original version:


If you haven’t already watched the video, the video is basically about two people, a girl and a boy. The girl is just sitting there on the bench, “listening” to her ipod, while the guy approaches her and asks for a simple pen. They meet up quite a few times after that, and the guy asks, “What song are you listening to?” to which the girl replies, “A special song”, and they engage in an exchange of sticky notes after that. At the end of the video, the girl asks if the guy would like to listen to her special song, and the guy complies. Then the guy writes “I’d like that” and the secret is spilled out. In their exchange of post-it notes, they had never communicated through voice and it turns out that the girl is deaf and mute. Regardless of this, the guy still writes “You’re still beautiful” to the girl.
I have learned two important things after watching this video: 
1) Keep a pack of post-it notes on me, at all times. 2) Improve my handwriting.
Why are they so important? Because, as Dr. Garcia said in our class yesterday, “There are things that you must do” and I’m pretty sure that this classifies as something that I must do.
All things aside, there is a particular reason why I shared this video (aside from spreading the good vibes), and that reason is fear. When we encounter the other, we put ourselves in a  temporary bout of shyness, or a situation where Il y a transfixes ourselves in order to make ourselves look presentable. But what we don’t usually notice is that the Other is also equally afraid and puts on a face, or a countenance in order to display themselves as favorable. But why do we want to display ourselves as favorable? Because each one of us has a vulnerability that we want to fix, and we choose not to show it to the Other so that we seem more favorable to them. The video I introduced to you guys is something along the lines of that. When the guy spoke to the girl, she never said anything, instead she just complied with his requests until they found a medium for communicating. This is an example of putting on a face in order to hide our vulnerabilities.
However, the face cannot be simplified as some sort of mask to hide behind, it is also something that represents our humanity. The simple mistake is that we look for meaning through the Other, but one cannot look for meaning through the Other if one does not understand his/herself first. I mean, we’re all responsible for the other right? How can we be responsible for the other if we’re not responsible for ourselves first? There are many others, but there is only one you. The you must be important enough to look down upon others, but at the same time it must contain enough humility to respect others, there has to be a balance in between, or else you’d probably be viewed as a negative person.
Anyways the A-fair is today, and we’ll be encountering a lot of new faces and others. We need to be responsible for the other, as you are responsible for yourself. Because, aside from us giving meaning to others and Others, Others give meaning to us. Have a fun long weekend guys! And remember: Post-it notes are awesome!

Hate To Love

Redemption begins today.

At least that is what I want to think. I am still experiencing remnants of angst, but overall, I am quite relieved. A weight has been lifted off, and yes, I am exhaling loudly. Though my chest feels lighter, my brain is fried. Eyes were moist yet now they are dried. Even so, I want to write.

I want to share my experience of loving the Other. Yeah, I’m serious. That was what I had been reading about last night ‘til morning. We all know reading is helpful, truly helpful, but it is not enough. Sometimes, verbalizing what you read is inadequate. Actions do speak louder than words, after all.

I am not going to tell you what love is, no, I am so tired of definitions. Let me do phenomenology. I want to describe to you my experience, so that you just might catch a glimpse of love. Here I go: Today, I threw my usual indifference out of the window and lashed out at someone I hate to love.

Before you judge me, never mind, judge me all you want, you do not know who I am anyway. Even if you find out, oh well, it is all right, I guess.

This person is someone I see every single day, I wonder why, oh wait, is it because we live together? How could I forget!I do not know where to begin. Shall I start with the fact that he is so annoying?Ha, I sound like a stupid brat for saying that. Maybe I am.

It is not a he, is it? It is actually a she, isn’t it? Just stick with the idea that I am talking about a real human being, he or she, it does not matter. Forget about the gender.

He tells me when and what and HOW to eat. If you come over to my place, you would probably gush about how affectionate he is, and I would probably give you an abnormally large grin (not nose) and say,“I knowright?”

Eat with him every day and have him tell you that you need to heat the food, that he will eat less so that you will eat more, that if you are not hungry then he is not hungry, that you need to heat the food, really, do you know how to use the microwave? And by the way, this is chicken, that is fish, and here, have some veggies.

I want to tell him, please, let me decide on my own, I know what I want to eat, and do not worry, I know what a chicken looks like. Introducing the dishes is not necessary, because you did not cook them anyway. I thank you for your concern, but please eat even when I am not hungry.

I did tell him once, twice, or maybe thrice? Nah, I lost count. He does not understand. Never mind. This is nothing compared to the many times he ridiculed someone else in the house.And that someone else, though deaf, happens to be very dear to me, and having him point fingers and say vile things almost all the time is something very hard to tolerate.

He complains everyday. I no longer know when he is speaking the truth and when he is not, because of the lies he told me to make people look bad. I caught him in his lies!My anger was growing like a forest fire to the point that whenever I see him, I just run away to my room.

It became a habit, I do not know since when. Months ago?I gave up. My patience ran out, dry, rusty. I did not want to talk to him, listen to him, look at him, no.Why… no one in the house does anyway.However, he noticed, of course he noticed, and from time to time, I heard him ask, “Why don’t you talk to me anymore?”

It is so difficult. Love hurts. Indifference hurts, as well.

Today, he delivered a new complaint. People did not do what he wanted them to do. My mask cracked. I did not want to swear, but my head was so fuming hot when I asked, no, shouted, “Why can’t you, just for once, sing praise and say thank you? All you tell me are mistakes and faults. Can no good thing come out of your mouth?”

He got hurt and pointed fingers everywhere and decided to clam up. From an outsider’s point of view, you will accuse me of violence and feel compassion for the victim who accused me of siding with everyone else, everyone but not him.

And then I began to cool. He was right, you know.To accuse me. It has become my instinct to think that he is the culprit. I am no longer rational when I am around him. I lose my reason, my head to the anger that consumes me. Above all, I render myself…incapable of love.

Indifference is a poison. It is no better than hatred; it is worse.

My indifference caused me to desensitize, to crush my human emotions, and consequently, to lose grasp of my humanity. Let me insert some physics to lighten up the mood. You know about the law of action-reaction, right? When you sit on a hard chair for a long time, you or a specific part of you begin to feel sore, because the chair is pushing you back with the same amount of weight you are imposing on it.

And so when I, a human being, knowingly intentionally consciously hurt another human being, we share the pain, even when I say I do not care I do not care I do not care. That is how intimate the human relation is.The self-defense mechanism is not strong enough. It will not hold. It will break down.

In the end, the best would always becaring for the other person, even when that person hurts you.

Yet love is unexplainably and infinitely better than indifference. I cannot explain why, but is most certainly the reason why I am on the way to recovery. I am feeling like a human again.Throwing caution to the wind, I decided to open my mind and heart. I swallowed it all and said to him, “Let us reconcile. Please talk. And I will listen. Not a word from me.”

Time flew.An hour or two. He explained his side of things. I nodded and tried to maintain eye-contact which was so hard by the way. Little by little, I tried to join the conversation and invite him to look at the other side of things. It did not work, so I just, you know, I just listened to his misconceptions and lies about people (whose names he does not even know). And it was, well, bearable. Not so bad.

I survived. I listened just as I promised to listen, with an open and oddly fearless heart, and I tell you that it made all the difference in the world, because I was able to let go a part if not all of that is bitter and decaying within me.

I am ready. To take off my mask. I am ready. To break the silence.I am ready. To talk to him again. I am ready. To care.

As stupid as it might sound to you, (and to me):

Love has begun to set me free.

Love At First Sight

The question of the possibility of love at first sight was an interesting topic to ponder on and reflect, and to help you, I have taken excerpts from Bro. Patrick Nogoy, SJ's essay Love at First Sight. Brother Pat hopes that he will be able to publish his collection of works, together with a few other essays we can reflect on.


Posing the question:

The eyes are the windows of the soul. The popular cliché bears an intriguing philosophical problematic. There is an underlying double import: the eyes that reveal are the same apparatus that survey, capture, and comprehend an object. The eyes that open portals are the same swords that thrust open the heart of a stranger. The eyes that can unveil are the same cunning spies that trespass, transgress, and pin the target. The eyes are the windows of the soul; the eyes are the keys in unlocking the truth. 

xxx

The banality of eye contact is much pronounced in the Piraeus of everyday living— public transport, university walls, edifices of commerce, and herds of people going to and fro. How is it possible that these silent, (at times) sly, and sleek incidents of eye contact ferry the truth? Why does an instance, a moment that does not even last for minutes, a flash of eyes meeting from two anonymous individuals can become a cherished memory? How is love possible at first sight? 

On The Gaze:

In the spectacles of receiving, it is actually the Beloved that transgresses, transpierces, and trespasses the lover’s consciousness. Objects ordinarily pass by; the veil of anonymity is cast upon in everyday living—crowds walking to and fro, objects on display, nature on its usual rhythm of rising and resting. Yet, there are those moments that forever mark like tattoos, trespass the confines of consciousness, and awaken the lover from the dormancy of its loneliness. In a sudden flash of an instance, an object stands out (either a dress, meal, or gadget), the soft crisp air is noticed, or an anonymous person captivates. The richness or better yet, the soul of the object allows itself to be seen; it imposes itself in weight. The Beloved’s unique and infinite beauty creates a certain dis-stance—seismic quakes that awakens the lover out of its ordinary life. The distance is received in difference and weight. To receive is to open oneself to the beloved’s intimate exposition—a bursting and intruding revelation—her soul. The beauty in every object flames out, shining from shook foil (as Hopkins put it), even to the surprise of the object itself.  

xxx

In the crossing of gazes, the gaze does not call attention to itself and remains invisible since the lover gazes, guided by the aim to see, at the beloved, receiving all her glory. The opened eyes, the infrastructure that makes possible the crossing of each other’s richness leaving an indelible impression), hide in the shadows by simply allowing two souls to cross each other. The richness of the experience renders one mute since there is nothing objective nor even visible about it. All that remains to be told is that “our eyes crossed” and the rest is passed over to silence and happy memory. The crossing of gazes is everything there is for it remains a shared dreamed encounter which binds strangers into lovers. Jean-Luc Marion pens, “However, they see
their encounter, for they experience the weight of each impetus one against the other, a unique and common weight, balanced and shared. They see, with their always invisible gazes, the lived experience of their tensions…The crossed encounter is made to stand as lived experience of the invisible; however the  experienced vision of the lived experience never results in the visibility of an object…Neither the lover nor  the beloved encounter each other in passing, dreamily, each in the other. They experience one another in  the commonality of the lived experience of their unique tension—the weight of one gaze on the other, crushed by experiencing itself seen, crushing by seeing itself experienced.”

On The Wager at Love's Sight

Faith becomes an unceasing act of openness to another. The trace of the beloved that impresses upon the lover’s consciousness invites him to find ways to continuously engage the beloved that gazes back: get the name and phone number, invite her for dinner, scout her friends, dream of the first date, and the like. The relation is strengthened and incarnated through constant engagement, to a string of daily Yeses to that strange beloved that has become his Promise Land. Faith as constant openness binds the two parties and places them firmly into furnished identities of lover and beloved. The trace moves the lover to take another gaze—to see more clearly, in order to love more dearly, and follow the Beloved more nearly. Faith is a decision to come closer, to be taken in by the Beloved through one’s decision of openness.  

On The Presence and The Overcoming of Idolatry:

When the lover does not choose to gaze, his eyes are neutralized by the brilliance of the visible. He prowls instead of waits, ready to capture and consume whatever he sees. He chooses what to be seen, instead of letting himself be a vulnerable prey of the beloved’s beauty. In the same manner, the beloved can neutralize a lover’s gaze by avaoidance. She uses any available flesh in trying to hide her invisible soul, making her invulnerable against the lover. Idolatry strikes in its sensuous and sleek approach, releasing the dazzling beauty of objects’ flesh. The glitter of an idol captures one’s sight and imprisons it in the horizon of visibility. The idol provides a ready content for one to analyze, control, and consume. Whatever is visibly seen is  available for possession. Possessions provide an aim that can easily be manipulated and assimilated by consciousness in its objectification. Objectification leaves out the authentic infinite richness to be content with what is captured in the surface. Transcendence does not occur since possession deceives one to be content with flesh. 

 xxx

When the lover chooses to see, he becomes a conduit in reflecting the richness of his and the beloved’s own beauty. The lover’s beauty is exchanged with the beauty of the beloved that he receives. In crossing of the gazes, the beloved who chooses to return the gaze receives the transformed self of the lover. Thus, the compounded excess from the crossing of gazes is more than enough ground for a rational choice through an affirmative answer of further engagement. The infinite striving, as Kierkegaard proclaims, is realized in the decision to continuously engage, sustaining the first moment of the crossing of gazes. The crossing of gazes exposes the two parties to each other in their magnificent vulnerability, beginning from their very selves. Jean-Luc Marion writes, “Two gazes, definitely invisible, cross, and in this crossing, renounce their invisibility... To love would thus be defined as seeing the definitively invisible aim of my gaze nonetheless exposed by the aim of another invisible gaze…Loving no longer consists trivially in seeing or in being seen, nor in desiring or inciting desire, but in experiencing the crossing of the gazes within, first, the crossing of aims.”

 xxx

Engagement is the word utilized to refer to a couple waiting to be married. It is a reality that is the terra firma of the promise of marriage. Engagement pertains to the lover’s willingness to remain faithful in struggling with a chosen beloved. Engagement is the first instance of fidelity. It is the Beloved that rules and the Lover remains authentically as a subject—a sub-ject of the other. Ironically, it is only in being sub-ject to the Beloved (both the aim and the act) that the lover gains his true self. The lover becomes not only Beloved but also (and all the more), the act that he repeatedly does. That act is Love none other. Out of constant act, habit is weaved. Out of habit, character is forged. Out of character, destiny is realized. Fate finds its fulfillment in faith. Faith begins in the opening of one’s eyes. 

To read the whole essay, I guess we have to wait for the book to be released. We wish Brother Pat well, that he might find the time and resources to publish his work.

 

Femininity

by Alex Fong

11 December 2012
Discussed Text: Levinas, "Love and Filiation," Ethics and Infinity


I will begin by saying I see nothing wrong in the philosophers use of “femininity” for his definition of the other. I mean, at face it might seem sexist, especially delving in to the whole: “passive,” and “weak,” characteristics  he assigned to the other but understandably, as a man, it is only instinctive for him to think of an other, a female, because only naturally, will every man want to believe there is another out there for him.

 In the beginning of our talks of the philosophy of the human being, we gave a great deal of importance to realizing the other. Part of being is also being for others, being among others, and being conscious of the presence of others. This made me have this assumption that individually, we are selfish in nature, selfish and unconscious, and therefore inconsiderate. This new idea of the other as feminine, or as a female, changes my thinking a little bit though.

A realization that man is in fact always going to be conscious of perhaps not the other, but at the very least, an other, is in order. Every man will seek out his “loved one,” or not wish to carry on his life without companionship, so I do believe from the perception of a male philosopher, that using “feminine” as an icon of otherness, could be spot on. The whole idea of knowing that there is an other and we are all together, could root from this beginning. Although we only started talking about the other in this way, I think, this could catch on to something. This could lead to further discussion, and allow young philosophers to draw further insights. And when it does, ..leave them below in the comments section.

Loving Design: A Reflection on Transcendence and Creativity

by Jechrist Ramos

This is a reflection after I’ve seen this video. I write about my personal experience as a struggling artist and a design student.

When I was filling out the forms to enter the Ateneo during my 4th year in high school, I was debating with myself what course to write down as my first choice; something in Management or something in Fine Arts. I’ve prepared for the entrance exams, but it seems like I did not prepare for the more important matter that would determine my life.

In the end, I was admitted to the school as a student of Information Design from the School of Humanities. It sounded so fancy, but for the first 2 years in the course, we didn’t do anything but take core subjects and theory classes. I was starting to doubt whether I made a right choice.

This line of thought led me to a time before college when people around my age thought that art courses were more or less useless. “Anyone can do that !@#$”, they would say. Even their description was harsh. Even my family kept asking and asking and asking me to rethink and rethink and rethink about my choice of taking BFA ID because it was not a practical choice. Were they right? 

Now that I’m a Junior, we’re already having studio classes where we have a “taste” of what designers really do. In addition, I’ve also started freelancing. After approximately 4 months of these, I can say to those people before, that “Anyone can do this !@#$... But with training and extreme mental effort”.

A designer’s task is to look at the obvious which, according to our philosophy class, is the invisible. Have you ever walked into a bookstore and wonder why a magazine suddenly snatches your attention? Have you ever wondered why it feels so engaging to just scroll down and read people’s posts in Facebook? Why is an apple used for the logo of Mac products? Are you merely looking but not really seeing? If you’ve thought of these questions and think designing is still easy, think again. There is no formula in designing. They give you principles, guides and Adobe Photoshop; but these are merely tools.

With the tools, we are free to create. The creative process is full of rough roads. I’m sure you’ve all experienced making a paper then suddenly stop. You forget what you want to say or you don’t know what ideas to add. In the arts, this is called a creative block. It is specific for the arts because blocks in (for example) the intellectual world work differently. In the sciences, when you’re stuck in an experiment, look up a book, or research more on the topic and you’ll somehow find a solution. You somehow have at least a vague idea where to go. In the arts, when you’re stuck after a well thought-of idea, you get so lost. The insight you have was yours through personal reflection. No one has thought of your idea but you because of your own personal reflection. So, the solution can only be found again in reflection.

A big part of the creative process focuses on reflection. You have to think and think and think before you can sketch or touch a computer. What is gained from this is insight (some people may call this inspiration) – the key to designing. It is a designer’s task to create a connection between an idea and a concept. The end result is that the audience can see a connection between a green, seductive siren and an aromatic, addictive coffee.

Now where does that spark come from? In the video, one of the poets that Elizabeth Gilbert interviewed described it as a hurling wind chasing her until she had grabbed and recorded it into a piece of paper. Elizabeth Gilbert calls it “genius” as it was named in Rome. It can also be God or Allah. Creativity is also something that we cannot fully grasp and understand. It just approaches you like that hurling wind which you do not know where it came from. All we can say is that it is some higher entity much bigger than ourselves. It makes us more humble.

Going back to my dilemma before college, okay, so I’ve already proven to myself that designing isn’t easy as most people think it is by experiencing it firsthand. But is it practical? According to the video, artists are normally the most mentally vulnerable. Society thinks that designing is a piece of cake and most are even clueless about the creative process. They tend to dismiss or sometimes even ignorant of the efforts and opinions of designers.

I’ve experienced taking lots of time researching, reflecting, making drafts and repeating these steps over and over again but still failed. It is depressing but I understand that it’s a part of the journey. But when I succeeded, I gained a new metaphysical unease. I started to fear like Elizabeth Gilbert. Is this going to be my best work ever? Will this be the end of my designing journey? It was one of those “I’m so happy that I start to fear losing it”.

The responsibility of designers for their works, that Elizabeth Gilbert describes, is too heavy for a human being’s psyche and ego. When I fail, what right does the world have to judge me for a failure when I’ve only done what the hurling wind or genius forced me to do? On the other hand, what right do I have to be so big-headed, when this higher entity helped me in doing my job? These experiences and thoughts have also plagued Van Gogh. The pressure caused extreme tension which made him cut off his own ear. Will all these hardships, including the probability of cutting off my own ear, be worth it? This is what I usually ask.
Maybe that question is wrongly asked. It is wrong because I can never know if it will be worth it or not. I cannot predict the future; nor can anyone else. I admit it isn’t the most practical profession because it will not produce that much money. I now rephrase the question. I knew BFA ID wouldn’t pay as much as BS ME in the long run. I knew it would also put a strain on my mentality. So why did I even consider it to be my first choice while I was looking at the admission forms of the Ateneo?

I guess my answer is love and passion for designing. This was the insight I’ve gained after watching the video of Elizabeth Gilbert. At the beginning, she mentioned writing being her love and passion.  At the end, she expounded it into writing as the job she does, whether it would be an international sensation or not, because it is her love and passion. Yes, her intention in writing is not to be there for other people, but her love and passion resulted in this wonderful piece that eventually reached people.

I end this with a flashback when I was creating a logo for a company. The client was awful. She gave a vague description of what she wants and doesn’t answer my questions. I had multiple creative blocks. It took a lot of time of researching, sketching and reflecting. But when I finally gained that spark, that inspiration, that insight, it felt very strange and different. I forgot the horrible client, the frustrations, and the creative blocks. I think what I felt was similar to the Spanish dancer, described by Elizabeth Gilbert, who became transcendent and looked nothing near human; almost something divine. I felt that entity which was bigger than me. After finishing that logo, it took a long time again before I’ve felt that uplifting. I persevered because I wanted to taste that moment of transcendence again while doing what I love.

Behind the "I"

by Sophie Villasfer

14 August 2012

Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, The Mystery of Being

Right after children learn writing isolated letters, they learn to write their names. From there, sentence structures usually revolve around the self as encouraged by the teachers. "I am (insert full name here). I live in (insert full address here). I am (age) years old. I (insert hobby)..." And so on and so forth. From there, we are taught more challenging topics -- those that go more and more beyond ourselves. We start writing about our families, friends, events, and even the imaginary. However, most of the time, this progress is just limited to scholastic write-ups. Many become adults but are still stuck with the basic sentences that begin with "I", strung one after another. These are not literal essays of course, but more like scripted identities carried around (almost like resumes at hand, prepared for those who might be interested).

During the lecture last Tuesday, I agree that "it is a dangerous attitude to think of yourself as a totally self-made person." Society is littered with accolades and articles for the "successful", and descriptions as to how they became the way they are. Some of these have the rags-to-riches theme that credit success to some formula. Some have the more Disney-like themes wherein people are born to these certain families and instantly it is seen how their lives will surely end happily ever after. One does not need to look far, just grab a magazine or look at the featured stories in the Yahoo homepage. Disclaimer: I am not against these people, okay? However, I am against how writers oversimplify their subjects.

In the book of Malcolm Gladwell entitled "Outliers", he describes how successful people like Bill Gates or the Beatles were not successful overnight; they did only after practicing their trade for 10,000 hours. While this principle of hard work makes sense, Gladwell also describes how other than hard work, these people were born of a certain time that favors their interests. These people were born to a time of opportunity. Or it could be something more subtle, like how entering school or Little League (American Baseball) at a certain age can give someone an edge. On the other hand, someone can have all the talent and the genes, but no opportunity.

In other words, the "I" that was born into the world can have many different fates, but why that particular historical era, family, or environment? Thinking about this, I realized that such questions does not end during birth. Fortunes and misfortunes add up, but most of the time when life is observed in retrospect, there is this arc of grace. It can be as small as studying only partially for a test, but the test was either cancelled or for some reason, only the things you studied appeared. Or better, it can be as beautiful as falling in love with a particular person who also falls in love with you. When we are honest with ourselves, our lives are more than what we made it to be. Most of the time what we do is so small compared to how life is unfolding in front of us. It is difficult to comprehend, difficult to articulate, difficult to see. But it is still a concrete reality; if we had enough motivation, maybe we can even do the math and prove how reality is greater than the sum of its parts.

Behind the "I" are people along the way who shaped him mostly by helping him either materially (or financially) and even spiritually. These can be sincere friends who are also good influences, or that aunt who lent (or gave) you money even when you did not ask. Behind the "I" are many circumstances, that seem to be connected that sometimes one suspects, is there Somebody orchestrating all of this? Behind the "I" that is present, is a wealth of opportunity and resources. Behind the "I" is a long list of answered prayers, and surprising blessings. And also, behind the "I" is someone is vulnerable enough to be hurt by others or by events. But behind that same "I" is at least one other person who understands.

Pardon me if this essay is not as fluid as it should be. The main point I really want to make is that there should be a certain wariness to oversimplifying how we look at other people, but more than that, there should be a certain wariness as to how we look at ourselves. Maybe it helps to start looking at the self in the proper context, in order to hopefully avoid the delusion that "the world revolves around me". Because the world does not revolve around you, or me, or him, or her. The world revolves as it does, and we are all together in it.