by Nini Neri
Last Thursday’s lecture was about the ‘capable self’ and creativity. As mechanical as those two words (‘capable self’) put together may sound, there is actually an abstract depth to them.
The self is capable because it can ‘do’. Not only is this self able to ‘do’, it is also able to choose what it does. It has the freedom of defining and executing what it is ‘to be’ according to what it intends; it has the freedom to cause an effect.
Although there are, in fact, no limits to these actions (let us not delve into the details of moral and ethical acts but leave them instead as they are)—there is still an essence which they measure and upon which they are made. This essence is creativity. And the medium of creativity is imagination.
The ‘capable self’ has creativity somewhere in its core (the capability of language, human action, etc.), that creativity develops in the person’s imagination then is manifested in his/her actions. The actions may not always be processed this way, but it still happens somehow—even when the person is unaware of it!
Creativity is a small revelation of the ‘abstract depth’ upon which the ‘capable self’ may be easily related to. This creativity—in essence—takes no definite form (that is, until it is manifested in action), thus fulfilling the ‘abstract’ aspect, yet it delves deep into the ‘abyss’ which is the human person. It is an ‘abyss’ because of the depth and mystery of that which is the self.
One can never truly define the self and one is always learning something new about the self which makes it seem like as life goes on, one is plunging deeper into the mystery of himself (that gives it an ‘abyss-like’ characteristic). The mystery of the self is never-ending.
The ‘capable self’ has an abstract depth; that of which is the mystery of the self. This mystery of the self can be only partially revealed by creativity that is manifested in human action, narrative, and language. Each time we do something, we manifest our creativity, which reveals a small part of who we are. Through this, we may continue to learn about ourselves even more.
Creativity helps us with uncovering (though in the most minimal of ways) the mystery of who we are. I mean, just as I was writing this blog post, I’ve come to think of a lot of things. As I proofread (to the best of my abilities at 4am), I got to reflect on what I wrote and see myself in a sort-of-new light. I’m not saying that this reflection is creative or anything, but since it came from somewhere inside me, it reveals a glimpse of what sort of ‘creativity’ I hold. It also reveals a part of who I am.
We will all come across these moments of hazy revelation at some points in our lives. But we will always have to keep delving, for it is a never-ending plunge as we fall deeper into the mystery of ourselves.
Showing posts with label being. Show all posts
Showing posts with label being. Show all posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
"Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?"
by Patrick Cruz
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
In order to attempt to answer the question, we must first examine the question more closely. We note that the questions asks for why, meaning, a reason of existence of something rather than nothing. That is completely different if we ask the question “Is there something rather than nothing?”. Whereas the latter questions if that something really exists, the former asks for a reason of its existence given the presumption that it really exists. Answering the latter question “Is there something rather than nothing?” will be totally pointless because indeed, things are and we are! Hence, any further explanation will result into answering why.
Moreover, the word is plays an important role in understanding the question too. Is basically denotes a particular instant of time: present. It brings us to the full consciousness of the right here, right now presence—to the presence of this text, the medium one is using in reading this text and you who are reading this text. Nevertheless, the question does not limit itself to the present time, as it also acknowledges the past and the future, both in conjunction to define the present. As an example, a pencil may be seen on the table at present, but that is only because someone has put it there in the past and possibly, someone will still find it there and use it in the future. In a deeper sense, is may point out to a concept, idea, physical object, movement, position, etc. depending on the context. But all paths will lead us back to the idea of existence, where is deeply grounds.
Furthermore, we must clearly identify too the difference between something and nothing, and their intimate relationship. Something is characterized by its existence, having unique properties that contribute to the totality of its being. Something is present and it can never be doubted or invalidated. Something affirms itself simply by its own presence. In contrast, nothing is the absence of something. We say absence, not opposite. Because if it were to be treated as the opposite, then, it will create two distinct poles where an intermediary point can be determined. But that is simply contradictory since either an object exists or it does not, and nothing can be defined in between. With nothing as absence of something, nothing becomes a part of Something, where it is intimately connected, where it participates for the richness of its greater whole.
The last statement shows that there is no point of arguing the existence of something rather than nothing, because in the first place, nothing belongs to Something. Thus, something always is and it can’t cannot be. This enables us to cut the question into “Why is there something?”, which will be a completely different question that requires another endeavor. As a glimpse into this new journey of questioning, one must be careful of realizing a reasonable starting point: in a strict sense, not ourselves. Nevertheless, this will still remain a question.
Even if we have pursued the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, the answer to this question will still remain as a mystery, as a personal lovingly struggle of finding one’s own purpose of existence in this world, or even beyond.
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
In order to attempt to answer the question, we must first examine the question more closely. We note that the questions asks for why, meaning, a reason of existence of something rather than nothing. That is completely different if we ask the question “Is there something rather than nothing?”. Whereas the latter questions if that something really exists, the former asks for a reason of its existence given the presumption that it really exists. Answering the latter question “Is there something rather than nothing?” will be totally pointless because indeed, things are and we are! Hence, any further explanation will result into answering why.
Moreover, the word is plays an important role in understanding the question too. Is basically denotes a particular instant of time: present. It brings us to the full consciousness of the right here, right now presence—to the presence of this text, the medium one is using in reading this text and you who are reading this text. Nevertheless, the question does not limit itself to the present time, as it also acknowledges the past and the future, both in conjunction to define the present. As an example, a pencil may be seen on the table at present, but that is only because someone has put it there in the past and possibly, someone will still find it there and use it in the future. In a deeper sense, is may point out to a concept, idea, physical object, movement, position, etc. depending on the context. But all paths will lead us back to the idea of existence, where is deeply grounds.
Furthermore, we must clearly identify too the difference between something and nothing, and their intimate relationship. Something is characterized by its existence, having unique properties that contribute to the totality of its being. Something is present and it can never be doubted or invalidated. Something affirms itself simply by its own presence. In contrast, nothing is the absence of something. We say absence, not opposite. Because if it were to be treated as the opposite, then, it will create two distinct poles where an intermediary point can be determined. But that is simply contradictory since either an object exists or it does not, and nothing can be defined in between. With nothing as absence of something, nothing becomes a part of Something, where it is intimately connected, where it participates for the richness of its greater whole.
The last statement shows that there is no point of arguing the existence of something rather than nothing, because in the first place, nothing belongs to Something. Thus, something always is and it can’t cannot be. This enables us to cut the question into “Why is there something?”, which will be a completely different question that requires another endeavor. As a glimpse into this new journey of questioning, one must be careful of realizing a reasonable starting point: in a strict sense, not ourselves. Nevertheless, this will still remain a question.
Even if we have pursued the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, the answer to this question will still remain as a mystery, as a personal lovingly struggle of finding one’s own purpose of existence in this world, or even beyond.
Friday, July 12, 2013
On Being
by Inah Robles
12 July 2013
Discussed text: Heidegger, "What is Philosophy?"
I have two insights about Heidegger's work - (1) the immensity of Being and (2) its forgetting.
Honestly, I've been having difficulty in understanding the reading because it uses being in many different senses and ways. One thing that makes it difficult to understand is the sheer immensity of Being. It must have been very challenging for Heidegger to write about the topic of Being, knowing that many aspects of Being cannot be encapsulated in human language or even comprehended by human rationality.
My struggle as a reader to understand Heidegger's point could also be a reflection of the struggle of the great Heidegger himself in facing Being. From his very insights, he is able to illustrate how perplexing the phenomenon is, being-in-the-world and being-toward-death.
This leads me to my next insight, about the forgetting of Being. While Heidegger's thoughts are astounding in themselves, it is also striking that I did not reflect about my being-in-the-world until I went through the reading. On one hand, there is a level of simplicity in the concept of the thrown-ness. I cannot deny that there were many things I did not choose - appearance, gender, genetic attributes, economic standing, family, nationality, freedom, and even existence itself. On the other hand, this simple concept has also eluded me. Our merit-based society has come to conceal the thrown-ness or the given-ness of the human person, and sought to explain a great deal of where I am and who I am based on what I have done, instead of what I have been given or how I have been thrown into the world. This is how the forgetting of Being has happened.
With these two things in mind, the immensity and forgetting of Being, I feel that I have developed a deeper and more sophisticated understanding of the human person and the human condition.
12 July 2013
Discussed text: Heidegger, "What is Philosophy?"
I have two insights about Heidegger's work - (1) the immensity of Being and (2) its forgetting.
Honestly, I've been having difficulty in understanding the reading because it uses being in many different senses and ways. One thing that makes it difficult to understand is the sheer immensity of Being. It must have been very challenging for Heidegger to write about the topic of Being, knowing that many aspects of Being cannot be encapsulated in human language or even comprehended by human rationality.
My struggle as a reader to understand Heidegger's point could also be a reflection of the struggle of the great Heidegger himself in facing Being. From his very insights, he is able to illustrate how perplexing the phenomenon is, being-in-the-world and being-toward-death.
This leads me to my next insight, about the forgetting of Being. While Heidegger's thoughts are astounding in themselves, it is also striking that I did not reflect about my being-in-the-world until I went through the reading. On one hand, there is a level of simplicity in the concept of the thrown-ness. I cannot deny that there were many things I did not choose - appearance, gender, genetic attributes, economic standing, family, nationality, freedom, and even existence itself. On the other hand, this simple concept has also eluded me. Our merit-based society has come to conceal the thrown-ness or the given-ness of the human person, and sought to explain a great deal of where I am and who I am based on what I have done, instead of what I have been given or how I have been thrown into the world. This is how the forgetting of Being has happened.
With these two things in mind, the immensity and forgetting of Being, I feel that I have developed a deeper and more sophisticated understanding of the human person and the human condition.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Just Being
by Bits Penaranda
There are often times when I find myself spacing out because my mind decides on its own to go on auto-pilot and wander off by itself. It gets lost between the dimensions of what to do vs. what do I want to be in life. What I want to do concerns itself with my daily activities and decisions, or what I would be doing for the next couple of months. On the other hand, what I want to be is on a bigger scale that actually determines what will become of me in the future. What becomes of me will be the stories I share with my kids and it will dictate whether or not I find myself feeling fulfilled and content or regretting most parts of my life.
Most of our minds become preoccupied with the future that we act carefully as early as now to make sure we play it safe and achieve that desired goal in the end. I'm not saying that it is wrong to think this way, but aside from stopping to reflect on what we should do for our future, why not stop to appreciate our mere existence? Just like the first lessons we had in class about the silly philosopher who fell in the well because he was so busy with exploring the beyond that he failed to see what was right in front of him. It's like how we deal with life. It would be nice to think that we have plenty more years to live, but there is no certifying that. We need to appreciate the fact that we are here now. We are breathing, we are thinking, but most especially, we can experience. Also just like the lesson we learned this past week about being beings. We all exist together as beings and what we become of ourselves is what truly sets us apart and is what highlights our special differences.
We should celebrate this collective existence. Not just be selfishly grateful for our own existence, but as well as for the existence of other beings. It is beautiful that we are alive and each day should be a celebration for living.
I would also like to share this excerpt I found in my planner that inspired me to write this in the first place. It is entitled the "Just Because Philosophy".
We often forget that thinking is a tool used to make us better, and not to burden us with justification for every little thing. We are here for a reason, but we do not understand completely and we accept that. Sometimes, our inner spirit knows that being is just as important and as complete as all the other more active pursuits in the world. Right here and now, we should celebrate our perfection, even though it may not be apparent even to ourselves. We just know it to be true, in our hearts, we are here, and that is great - it is enough.
There are often times when I find myself spacing out because my mind decides on its own to go on auto-pilot and wander off by itself. It gets lost between the dimensions of what to do vs. what do I want to be in life. What I want to do concerns itself with my daily activities and decisions, or what I would be doing for the next couple of months. On the other hand, what I want to be is on a bigger scale that actually determines what will become of me in the future. What becomes of me will be the stories I share with my kids and it will dictate whether or not I find myself feeling fulfilled and content or regretting most parts of my life.
Most of our minds become preoccupied with the future that we act carefully as early as now to make sure we play it safe and achieve that desired goal in the end. I'm not saying that it is wrong to think this way, but aside from stopping to reflect on what we should do for our future, why not stop to appreciate our mere existence? Just like the first lessons we had in class about the silly philosopher who fell in the well because he was so busy with exploring the beyond that he failed to see what was right in front of him. It's like how we deal with life. It would be nice to think that we have plenty more years to live, but there is no certifying that. We need to appreciate the fact that we are here now. We are breathing, we are thinking, but most especially, we can experience. Also just like the lesson we learned this past week about being beings. We all exist together as beings and what we become of ourselves is what truly sets us apart and is what highlights our special differences.
We should celebrate this collective existence. Not just be selfishly grateful for our own existence, but as well as for the existence of other beings. It is beautiful that we are alive and each day should be a celebration for living.
I would also like to share this excerpt I found in my planner that inspired me to write this in the first place. It is entitled the "Just Because Philosophy".
We often forget that thinking is a tool used to make us better, and not to burden us with justification for every little thing. We are here for a reason, but we do not understand completely and we accept that. Sometimes, our inner spirit knows that being is just as important and as complete as all the other more active pursuits in the world. Right here and now, we should celebrate our perfection, even though it may not be apparent even to ourselves. We just know it to be true, in our hearts, we are here, and that is great - it is enough.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Ilyaing, being and Being in Dreaming
by Hubert Cua (Part 1 of 2)
I slept. I woke up. I asked myself, “Did I sleep or did I dream?”
I believe that some of us have experienced this in the past even for just a time. This is the experience when we are not sure in what following case we belong. For the first case, we just lie on the bed without sleeping. For the second case, we lie on the bed, fall asleep without dreaming of something. For the third case, we lie on the bed, fall asleep and dream of something. Some scientific studies say that we usually experience this when we are tired when we go to sleep. Because we are tired, our consciousness is still at work to some extent, while we are sleeping. This makes us falsely believe that we are awake, so when we experience something like this, we actually belong to second case or third case.
Between the second case and third case, let us first talk about second case, which is we lie on the bed, fall asleep without dreaming of something. In the second case, we can see the continuity of our consciousness before sleeping and after sleeping. However, this consciousness is not active consciousness or total consciousness. Rather, this consciousness is passive consciousness or partial consciousness. This is because, we seem to be conscious, but we are not really conscious. At this point, we are neither the conscious nor the unconscious. In other words, we are experiencing il y a.
Now, let us talk about third case, which is we lie on the bed, fall asleep and dream of something. In the third case, we also experience il y a, like in the second case. However, since we are dreaming, we are being or Being in our own dreams. Isn’t this a strange phenomenon? We exist in this real world and in the imaginary world in dreams at the same time. More strangely, we are also ilyaing, being and Being at the same time.
In the class, we often say that ilyaing, being and Being are linear, in the sense that we need to go from ilyaing to Being through being. Here, it seems that we are assuming that we can’t be ilyaing, being and Being at the same time. To provide an example when we are ilyaing, being and Being at the same time, I brought out this strange phenomenon.
I believe that some of us have experienced this in the past even for just a time. This is the experience when we are not sure in what following case we belong. For the first case, we just lie on the bed without sleeping. For the second case, we lie on the bed, fall asleep without dreaming of something. For the third case, we lie on the bed, fall asleep and dream of something. Some scientific studies say that we usually experience this when we are tired when we go to sleep. Because we are tired, our consciousness is still at work to some extent, while we are sleeping. This makes us falsely believe that we are awake, so when we experience something like this, we actually belong to second case or third case.
Between the second case and third case, let us first talk about second case, which is we lie on the bed, fall asleep without dreaming of something. In the second case, we can see the continuity of our consciousness before sleeping and after sleeping. However, this consciousness is not active consciousness or total consciousness. Rather, this consciousness is passive consciousness or partial consciousness. This is because, we seem to be conscious, but we are not really conscious. At this point, we are neither the conscious nor the unconscious. In other words, we are experiencing il y a.
Now, let us talk about third case, which is we lie on the bed, fall asleep and dream of something. In the third case, we also experience il y a, like in the second case. However, since we are dreaming, we are being or Being in our own dreams. Isn’t this a strange phenomenon? We exist in this real world and in the imaginary world in dreams at the same time. More strangely, we are also ilyaing, being and Being at the same time.
In the class, we often say that ilyaing, being and Being are linear, in the sense that we need to go from ilyaing to Being through being. Here, it seems that we are assuming that we can’t be ilyaing, being and Being at the same time. To provide an example when we are ilyaing, being and Being at the same time, I brought out this strange phenomenon.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Being is not Time and not Being is Time
by Hubert Cua (part 2 of 5)
[I wrote this article without any intention of trying to criticize and/or falsify Martin Heidegger’s Being is Time. Also, the way I use Being, being and time in this article is quite different from the way Martin Heidegger use Being, being and time.]
When we are happy (Let us take occasions, like parties, celebrations, festivals, graduations as an example), we usually forget about the time. Usually, it is only when this happy moment passed that we realized that time passed so fast. When we are worried (Let us take occasions, like call of nature, traffic, fear of being late, emergencies as an example), we usually constantly look at the clock and feel that time goes so slow. Here, we can see the contrasting nature of time and being between the two. When we are happy, we experience time without knowing it. When we are worried, we experience time while knowing it. When we are happy, we are Being, because we are enjoying life to the fullest. When we are worried, we are simply being, because we are just living life.
Should time be experienced while knowing it or should time be experienced while not knowing it? For me, time should be experienced while knowing it. Why? One of the differences between a subject and an object is that a subject is capable of knowing that he/she experiences time, while an object is not capable of knowing that it experiences time. If we experience time, while not knowing it, then what is our difference with objects?
Based from the previous paragraph, it seems that I am side more on getting worried. Is it? Should we be or Be? For me, we should Be. Why? One of the differences between a subject and an object is that a subject Be, while an object simply be. If we be, then what is our difference with objects?
Why is Being time and why is being Time (From this point on, Time with a capital T means experiencing time while knowing it)? Can’t Being and Time be put together?
[I wrote this article without any intention of trying to criticize and/or falsify Martin Heidegger’s Being is Time. Also, the way I use Being, being and time in this article is quite different from the way Martin Heidegger use Being, being and time.]
When we are happy (Let us take occasions, like parties, celebrations, festivals, graduations as an example), we usually forget about the time. Usually, it is only when this happy moment passed that we realized that time passed so fast. When we are worried (Let us take occasions, like call of nature, traffic, fear of being late, emergencies as an example), we usually constantly look at the clock and feel that time goes so slow. Here, we can see the contrasting nature of time and being between the two. When we are happy, we experience time without knowing it. When we are worried, we experience time while knowing it. When we are happy, we are Being, because we are enjoying life to the fullest. When we are worried, we are simply being, because we are just living life.
Should time be experienced while knowing it or should time be experienced while not knowing it? For me, time should be experienced while knowing it. Why? One of the differences between a subject and an object is that a subject is capable of knowing that he/she experiences time, while an object is not capable of knowing that it experiences time. If we experience time, while not knowing it, then what is our difference with objects?
Based from the previous paragraph, it seems that I am side more on getting worried. Is it? Should we be or Be? For me, we should Be. Why? One of the differences between a subject and an object is that a subject Be, while an object simply be. If we be, then what is our difference with objects?
Why is Being time and why is being Time (From this point on, Time with a capital T means experiencing time while knowing it)? Can’t Being and Time be put together?
Sunday, December 2, 2012
“Wording Word” word “word”
[From the title we can see that word is caught between “Wording Word” and “word”.]
by Hubert Cua (1 of 5)
Many problems come from misunderstanding. Speakers may use a certain word to mean a certain meaning, but listeners misunderstand that certain word with another meaning. Relating this to what Heidegger says, which is “Being” as verb is different from “being” as noun, we can see how inaccurate some words are, especially the words with many meanings.
Let us take the word studying as an example. Dr. Garcia mentioned something like this in class. A student is not a student unless that student is studying. So when somebody asked us, “Are you studying?”, we can then asked ourselves, “What does he/she mean? Does he/she ask whether we are studying exactly at this second or not? Does he/she ask whether we are studying every day and/or every night or not? Does he/she ask whether we are studying at minimum effort or not? Does he/she ask whether we are studying at moderate effort or not? Does he/she ask whether we are studying at maximum effort or/not? Can studying effort be simply divided into minimum, moderate and maximum only? … …”
From these questions, we can see that words, like studying, are ambiguous and have subjective acceptance. The speaker may mean moderate effort, but the listener may mean maximum effort. We can also see the incommunicability of words. First, listeners usually do not further ask what the speakers mean, because of various reasons. Second, even if listeners further ask what the speakers mean and even if the speaker further explained, there is still a difference, even slightly, between what the speakers mean and what the listeners mean. We can also see how many things, not just words, are simplified. This is true from former techies to recent techies, from nationality in true sense to nationality in paper, from fine arts to abstract arts, from time in true sense to time in clock, from academic spellings to text spellings and many more. We can also see the openness to possibilities that results from simplification of words and/or complexities of words. Some words are too complex to the extent that we need to simplify them. We can also see that awareness of the nature of words is both a problem and a solution. It is a problem, because we need to exert more effort to understand words. It is also a solution, because we can use our awareness of the nature of words to prevent problems, like misunderstanding.
by Hubert Cua (1 of 5)
Many problems come from misunderstanding. Speakers may use a certain word to mean a certain meaning, but listeners misunderstand that certain word with another meaning. Relating this to what Heidegger says, which is “Being” as verb is different from “being” as noun, we can see how inaccurate some words are, especially the words with many meanings.
Let us take the word studying as an example. Dr. Garcia mentioned something like this in class. A student is not a student unless that student is studying. So when somebody asked us, “Are you studying?”, we can then asked ourselves, “What does he/she mean? Does he/she ask whether we are studying exactly at this second or not? Does he/she ask whether we are studying every day and/or every night or not? Does he/she ask whether we are studying at minimum effort or not? Does he/she ask whether we are studying at moderate effort or not? Does he/she ask whether we are studying at maximum effort or/not? Can studying effort be simply divided into minimum, moderate and maximum only? … …”
From these questions, we can see that words, like studying, are ambiguous and have subjective acceptance. The speaker may mean moderate effort, but the listener may mean maximum effort. We can also see the incommunicability of words. First, listeners usually do not further ask what the speakers mean, because of various reasons. Second, even if listeners further ask what the speakers mean and even if the speaker further explained, there is still a difference, even slightly, between what the speakers mean and what the listeners mean. We can also see how many things, not just words, are simplified. This is true from former techies to recent techies, from nationality in true sense to nationality in paper, from fine arts to abstract arts, from time in true sense to time in clock, from academic spellings to text spellings and many more. We can also see the openness to possibilities that results from simplification of words and/or complexities of words. Some words are too complex to the extent that we need to simplify them. We can also see that awareness of the nature of words is both a problem and a solution. It is a problem, because we need to exert more effort to understand words. It is also a solution, because we can use our awareness of the nature of words to prevent problems, like misunderstanding.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Being Amidst Infinite Possibilities
by Tara Alberto
20 November 2012
Discussed Text: Levinas, "Heidegger," Ethics and Infinity
One of the things Dr. Garcia discussed in class earlier that especially caught my attention was how Heidegger claimed that we are ‘thrown’ into the world, that our Being-in-the-world is a ‘thrownness’. According to Heidegger, human beings were thrown into this world deprived of any other option or any prior knowledge. In a simple and at the same time fascinatingly intricate way, we are here in this world. We exist.
We are thrown into this world in the midst of our possibilities. Heidegger stresses that these possibilities are not merely in front of us, unlike things that we can decide on; they are not things that we have. It is not a question of having, but instead a question of actually being these very real possibilities.
Heidegger saw the human being as a project – a work-in-progress. We are thrown into the world and in Being-in-the-world, there is an experience of transcending – of going beyond. If we were to go beyond to embrace the capabilities within us and explore the multitude of our possibilities, we may be able to make a difference. That said, isn’t that among the few things truly important in life, making a positive difference?
In desiring to make a difference, we must be firm in our pursuit of the fundamental possibilities. Nowadays, people tend to forget the question of being and thus get involved with or fixated in other things like money, sex, or power, forcing them to be stuck on just the secondary possibilities, failing to be authentic. In failing to be authentic, these beings then become inauthentic, and that is where ‘fallenness’ comes in. ‘Fallenness’ is slipping away and the forgetfulness of being in the present society, in one’s fundamental situation. In order to move from inauthenticity back to authenticity, one needs to climb back up to being, feeling the urgency towards authenticity – to really live according to being as being instead of simply being entrenched in inauthenticity.
The ideas of ‘thrownness’ and the many possibilities of our being in this world reminded me of a particular move that I was required to watch for one of my classes during my sophomore year. The movie is aptly entitled “Life in a Day”. Basically, people from all over the world submitted snippets of a day in their life, hence the title.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Being Your Way Into Being
by Dondee Alampay
13 November 2012
Discussed Text: Levinas, "Bible and Philosophy, Ethics and Infinity
Three lecture classes have gone by and so far, Emmanuel Levinas' take on the topics of experience, modalities of living, and Heidegger's Sein und Zeit has been molding in class a sense of practicality in realizing one's orientation towards consciousness, whether it be in the form of an ego check, self help/motivation, or something as normal as “ah!, that's nice to know”. College comes with many instances where an ambitious student could lose his or herself in a cascade of self-inflicted expectations and peer obligations, but the manner in which the lecture topics fall into place seem appropriate to prepare the student for exactly that, especially when dealing with the infamous third year burden.
Take for instance, last Thursday's lecture which tackled the dynamism of consciousness, and Being contrasted with being. Many a semester (well, back when I was still an engineering student) have I heard friends and peers relate their then current predicament with what they assumed their current position to be. For instance, the struggles of dealing with circuit analysis coupled with calculus every week, with no respite or safe haven with which to take a breather, and the sighs of disappointment and discouragement that ensued every time a long test would be returned imprinted on some (and to a certain extent myself) a very distorted transmutation of what they first considered a pursuit of knowledge, into a struggle to adhere to a certain standard, at a certain pace. It is at these times that the question “is this really for me?” is asked, and back then, I would be inclined to say that it made sense going along that particular direction of thought. Looking back however, and with last week's lecture topic in mind, the more appropriate questions would have been “what am I doing”, “what do I want” and “how am I to get there”. It is this delicate balance of self identification tied to one's actions and decisions that is most often confused with identification tied to one's accomplishments, although sadly this is what history seems to favor.
To realize who you are in this world is to realize that the hurdles and obstacles that bear down on you is to acknowledge that your existence is what gives those challenges the significance that they have. What you make yourself out to be entails that you have to “be” to be. Let each and every succeeding instant, opportunity, moment, and waking hour, remind of you of who you are. The famous question posed in Hamlet to be or not to be is only half the decision. Most of it is getting there once you decide to.
13 November 2012
Discussed Text: Levinas, "Bible and Philosophy, Ethics and Infinity
Three lecture classes have gone by and so far, Emmanuel Levinas' take on the topics of experience, modalities of living, and Heidegger's Sein und Zeit has been molding in class a sense of practicality in realizing one's orientation towards consciousness, whether it be in the form of an ego check, self help/motivation, or something as normal as “ah!, that's nice to know”. College comes with many instances where an ambitious student could lose his or herself in a cascade of self-inflicted expectations and peer obligations, but the manner in which the lecture topics fall into place seem appropriate to prepare the student for exactly that, especially when dealing with the infamous third year burden.
Take for instance, last Thursday's lecture which tackled the dynamism of consciousness, and Being contrasted with being. Many a semester (well, back when I was still an engineering student) have I heard friends and peers relate their then current predicament with what they assumed their current position to be. For instance, the struggles of dealing with circuit analysis coupled with calculus every week, with no respite or safe haven with which to take a breather, and the sighs of disappointment and discouragement that ensued every time a long test would be returned imprinted on some (and to a certain extent myself) a very distorted transmutation of what they first considered a pursuit of knowledge, into a struggle to adhere to a certain standard, at a certain pace. It is at these times that the question “is this really for me?” is asked, and back then, I would be inclined to say that it made sense going along that particular direction of thought. Looking back however, and with last week's lecture topic in mind, the more appropriate questions would have been “what am I doing”, “what do I want” and “how am I to get there”. It is this delicate balance of self identification tied to one's actions and decisions that is most often confused with identification tied to one's accomplishments, although sadly this is what history seems to favor.
To realize who you are in this world is to realize that the hurdles and obstacles that bear down on you is to acknowledge that your existence is what gives those challenges the significance that they have. What you make yourself out to be entails that you have to “be” to be. Let each and every succeeding instant, opportunity, moment, and waking hour, remind of you of who you are. The famous question posed in Hamlet to be or not to be is only half the decision. Most of it is getting there once you decide to.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Possessing
by Paolo Avecilla
25 September 2012
Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, The Mystery of Being
Browsing through the recent discussions in class, I was able to draw some essential realizations about the contrast between being and having. Of course, we're all aware of how possession in the context of being is much deeper than the context of merely having, in the sense that the possessing something in the context of being means to have something that is naturally ingrained in your identity as a real human person. Possessing something in the context of having thus gives a separation between the owner and the thing which he supposedly owns. Whatever this thing is, we've understood it to be something physical and tangible which we can see and feel. At least that's according to the examples sir has given over the past few discussions. However, what about the intangible/abstract things which we currently hold such as our knowledge, values and beliefs? Unlike our body and identity, which we own (and is more importantly part of our BEING), our knowledge, values and beliefs were not ingrained in us naturally from the moment we started to exist. These were things which we acquired/earned, the same way as we acquired/earned all the material possessions we have with us to this very moment. However, these intangibles, upon receiving them, naturally became part of who we are or what makes US the beings that we are. And unlike the material things, these things cannot be taken away from us or separated from us. Unlike a book that can be easily put aside from our sight, our values and beliefs cannot be put aside that way. So should these intangibles then be considered as possessions of being or having?
25 September 2012
Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, The Mystery of Being
Browsing through the recent discussions in class, I was able to draw some essential realizations about the contrast between being and having. Of course, we're all aware of how possession in the context of being is much deeper than the context of merely having, in the sense that the possessing something in the context of being means to have something that is naturally ingrained in your identity as a real human person. Possessing something in the context of having thus gives a separation between the owner and the thing which he supposedly owns. Whatever this thing is, we've understood it to be something physical and tangible which we can see and feel. At least that's according to the examples sir has given over the past few discussions. However, what about the intangible/abstract things which we currently hold such as our knowledge, values and beliefs? Unlike our body and identity, which we own (and is more importantly part of our BEING), our knowledge, values and beliefs were not ingrained in us naturally from the moment we started to exist. These were things which we acquired/earned, the same way as we acquired/earned all the material possessions we have with us to this very moment. However, these intangibles, upon receiving them, naturally became part of who we are or what makes US the beings that we are. And unlike the material things, these things cannot be taken away from us or separated from us. Unlike a book that can be easily put aside from our sight, our values and beliefs cannot be put aside that way. So should these intangibles then be considered as possessions of being or having?
Monday, August 27, 2012
New Perspectives
by Jason Dacuyan
A few days ago, my gastritis had struck again and since the pain was unbearable, I really had to go out and buy medicine from the drugstore. Mercury Drug Katipunan wasn’t far since I live in the Ateneo university dormitory but it was still a challenge for me with my stomach all fiery and painful. So I mustered up my courage and took a “trike” (short for tricycle) going to Mercury Drug. And did I mention how much I dislike trikes? They drive so recklessly fast leaving me kind of nauseated every time I go down. To add to that, the brakes on their motorcycles sound like those annoying sounds one makes when scratching the chalk board. Okay, so I buy my medicine but before I’m able to leave the drugstore, heavy rain fell and just my luck, I forgot to bring an umbrella. After faring the heavy rains for a few minutes, I finally found a trike going home. And it was on this trike ride that David Foster Wallace’s speech entered my mind.
At that moment in time, I was really tired and frustrated not to mention the gas pains that were currently happening in my stomach. “This is Water”, I told myself. As I paid attention to the heavy rains, the cars on the road beside my trike, the people on the sidewalks in umbrellas, and even the trike driver himself —I finally began to understand. I am not the center of the universe. I thought how the cars around me could have more urgent problems than me wanting to go home or how the trike driver might not have had lunch yet or he might also be sick but he’s risking his health to earn money for his family. I thought of the people who have to walk home under the heavy rain—only then that I felt lucky to be riding on a trike. I can control how and what I think, that’s what I realized. And once I was aware that I was aware, everything seemed okay.
The rain didn’t frustrate me anymore. I began to see it merely as rain, not some external factor giving me discomfort. The screeching brakes of the trike didn’t seem to matter anymore. The trike driver must have spent a lot just to have those brakes work properly and maybe he couldn’t do anything about the screeching sound anymore without spending more money. This experience has surprised me in a lot of ways. It has allowed me to see the bigger picture—that I am part of a greater whole. This must be what Simon Critchley meant when he said that philosophers seem to be elsewhere. And I was elsewhere. I was at that moment the same Jason but my mind was on the things around me. The experience was a big surprise and I was amazed at the realization. Although I already knew about these things after reading the articles, it really is different if you experience the realization firsthand.
Because of this experience, I also remembered Heidegger’s article about being in Being. I never really quite understood what it meant but now I think I have gained some understanding. By looking at the bigger picture and being aware of the things around me, I was moved. I was moved by Being. This must be what Heidegger meant about Philein which he described as a kind of harmony that reveals to us what it means to love and be sensitive to the vibration of the other. I think for a moment there, I experienced Philein with the people around me. I thought to myself, “If I’m already bothered and frustrated with all this rain, how much more the trike driver. He’s soaked from the rain.” Also, during my ride home, one car even splashed some water on the trike I was riding as it sped past a rain puddle. Normally, I would’ve been pissed. But because of my awareness, I was able to let it go and remind myself that I am part of a greater whole. I usually don’t bother thinking about these kinds of things at all. But I did think of these things. And because of that, I finally realized what Heidegger said about “being gathered together in Being” meant. Me, the trike driver, the cars, the road, the passersby, the tees—we’re all connected. We’re all expressing our Being, the dynamic act of existence, in a singular way. It means that we are part of something greater. I am part of something greater, something beyond and outside myself.
Everything seemed to connect —from Critchley, to Wallace, to Heidegger, and finally to Ferriols’ insight—seeing what something actually means as it exists. Who knew a mere tricycle ride could help me philosophize, gain some insight about the world and change my perspective. I choose what I think about. I get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn’t. I am part of a greater whole.
A few days ago, my gastritis had struck again and since the pain was unbearable, I really had to go out and buy medicine from the drugstore. Mercury Drug Katipunan wasn’t far since I live in the Ateneo university dormitory but it was still a challenge for me with my stomach all fiery and painful. So I mustered up my courage and took a “trike” (short for tricycle) going to Mercury Drug. And did I mention how much I dislike trikes? They drive so recklessly fast leaving me kind of nauseated every time I go down. To add to that, the brakes on their motorcycles sound like those annoying sounds one makes when scratching the chalk board. Okay, so I buy my medicine but before I’m able to leave the drugstore, heavy rain fell and just my luck, I forgot to bring an umbrella. After faring the heavy rains for a few minutes, I finally found a trike going home. And it was on this trike ride that David Foster Wallace’s speech entered my mind.
At that moment in time, I was really tired and frustrated not to mention the gas pains that were currently happening in my stomach. “This is Water”, I told myself. As I paid attention to the heavy rains, the cars on the road beside my trike, the people on the sidewalks in umbrellas, and even the trike driver himself —I finally began to understand. I am not the center of the universe. I thought how the cars around me could have more urgent problems than me wanting to go home or how the trike driver might not have had lunch yet or he might also be sick but he’s risking his health to earn money for his family. I thought of the people who have to walk home under the heavy rain—only then that I felt lucky to be riding on a trike. I can control how and what I think, that’s what I realized. And once I was aware that I was aware, everything seemed okay.
The rain didn’t frustrate me anymore. I began to see it merely as rain, not some external factor giving me discomfort. The screeching brakes of the trike didn’t seem to matter anymore. The trike driver must have spent a lot just to have those brakes work properly and maybe he couldn’t do anything about the screeching sound anymore without spending more money. This experience has surprised me in a lot of ways. It has allowed me to see the bigger picture—that I am part of a greater whole. This must be what Simon Critchley meant when he said that philosophers seem to be elsewhere. And I was elsewhere. I was at that moment the same Jason but my mind was on the things around me. The experience was a big surprise and I was amazed at the realization. Although I already knew about these things after reading the articles, it really is different if you experience the realization firsthand.
Because of this experience, I also remembered Heidegger’s article about being in Being. I never really quite understood what it meant but now I think I have gained some understanding. By looking at the bigger picture and being aware of the things around me, I was moved. I was moved by Being. This must be what Heidegger meant about Philein which he described as a kind of harmony that reveals to us what it means to love and be sensitive to the vibration of the other. I think for a moment there, I experienced Philein with the people around me. I thought to myself, “If I’m already bothered and frustrated with all this rain, how much more the trike driver. He’s soaked from the rain.” Also, during my ride home, one car even splashed some water on the trike I was riding as it sped past a rain puddle. Normally, I would’ve been pissed. But because of my awareness, I was able to let it go and remind myself that I am part of a greater whole. I usually don’t bother thinking about these kinds of things at all. But I did think of these things. And because of that, I finally realized what Heidegger said about “being gathered together in Being” meant. Me, the trike driver, the cars, the road, the passersby, the tees—we’re all connected. We’re all expressing our Being, the dynamic act of existence, in a singular way. It means that we are part of something greater. I am part of something greater, something beyond and outside myself.
Everything seemed to connect —from Critchley, to Wallace, to Heidegger, and finally to Ferriols’ insight—seeing what something actually means as it exists. Who knew a mere tricycle ride could help me philosophize, gain some insight about the world and change my perspective. I choose what I think about. I get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn’t. I am part of a greater whole.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Why Are We Here?
19 June 2012
Discussed Text: Simon Critchley, "What Is A Philosopher?"
Why are we here? Perhaps this is one of the questions that you have asked yourselves as you entered our Philosophy 101 class. What is this thing called philosophy? Why is it necessary for me to take it? Questions like these are the concern of philosophy, and in doing philosophy, we are going to ask many questions, and it is in questions that we are interested in and not with the answers (like Theology or any other science).
Simon Critchley, on the other hand, thinks that it might be better to ask "What is a philosopher?" in order to have an idea of what philosophy is. Critchley started with Alfred North Whitehead's claim that all philosophy is merely a footnote of Plato, the man whom we have known as the one who really founded a philosophical tradition way back in Ancient Greece.
This brings us back to one occurrence in Plato's Theaetetus, where, in a conversation between Socrates and Theodorus, they talked about Thales of Miletus, who, with his Thracian maid, strolled around. Because he was so amazed with the stars, he kept looking at the sky and accidentally fell on a well, and his maid laughed at that unfortunate event.
The maid's laughter in fact reflects the perception and reaction of people towards philosophers, for the common folk have this knowledge of philosophers to be silly and stupid buffoons who seem to be elsewhere and out of this world. This sets the philosopher contrasting with lawyers or pettifoggers, people who are preoccupied with the "unimportant" things as if these things really matter in living one's life.While lawyers and pettifoggers, on one hand, is pressed for time to do something very important for them, and had to present their argument before the waters in the clepsydra (where we can find the word kleptes, "thief," therefore suggesting that it robs us of our time) run out. The philosopher, however, takes his time, and he has the time, the leisure (which is skole in Greek, from which the Latin world schola, "school") to freely think about important things, without being compelled to do something else compared to the lawyer, the doctor, or the slave.
From this, a gap has been created between the philosophers and the non-philosophers, the pettifoggers. From this, there also rose the gap between being a person who takes their time to meditate about things and being a busy person. It also exists between beings who are elsewhere and beings of the world, the servile arts and the liberal arts, doing and thinking, and many more that we can use to refer to the contrast between philosophers and pettifoggers.
However, this distinction should not be taken for granted and should therefore be asked once again, for it is not a matter of contrasting between action (doing) and speculation (thinking). Plato, in the Republic, asserts that a person should be thoughtful and at the same time capable of doing thins based on what he thought about, leading to his conclusion that the one worthy of ruling the city would be the philosopher-king.
The distinctions that exist between the philosopher and non-philosopher, the otherworldly and the this-worldly, speculation and action, should therefore be removed, and through Critchley, we can see that everyone can be a good philosopher, that everyone can live in this world with recognition of what lies beneath, that everyone can think and act out of one's thoughts which provoke one to take action once again.
Critchley identifies the philosopher as someone who seems to be mysterious and uncanny, primarily because he has to think things through. He does not accept common sense, or popular opinions, or those that we take as basta. The philosopher is in a sense critical (from the Greek word krisis, "sieve"), letting things pass through one's mind with the sieve of intelligence before speaking and acting, and he/she has the humility to say "I'm sorry" once he/she does not know. And in relation to this critical attitude, Critchley also pointed out the double irony that stands between the philosopher and pettifogger. The philosopher who has the time to think about things is one who has the opportunity to ask and find answers to the fundamental questions, while the pettifogger, who is good in writing and speaking in arguing his case, stutters once he encounters these fundamental questions.
But why ask questions?
We have questions primarily because we do not know something, and there is in here a recognition, a knowing that we do not know, and therefore it is necessary to ask a good question. It has been said that the ignorant lives in bliss, although it is a most terrible bliss. They are those who do not know that they are stupid, and are content in being such.
The nature of questions also reveal something about philosophy, as a discipline that is concerned not just with questions, but more on the fundamental ones. This tells us that the start of philosophical thinking, the investigation into the fundamental questions, starts when these questions arise. And when do these questions arise? From wonder (which the Greeks speak of as thaumazein), a moment which urges us to ask: Bakit ganyan? What is it that is before us? Why is it such? And eventually, "What IS?," which points us to being.
The most wonderful insight that we get out of wonder, out of our questioning things, is that they are. They exist before us, and it is a moment of awakening to their existence which draws us to ask more questions about them in order to discover why they exist and why they exist as such. This is the very moment of awakening that inspired Fr. Roque Ferriols to talk about meron which is a loose (in fact, not quite!) a translation of being, a powerful word in Filipino which allows us to point out that it is, that things are!
Philosophy not only arises in wonder and amazement, but also in disappointment that something stops to be anymore, that they are precisely no more. Think of relationships that are once there but no more because of disagreements, disappointments, separations, and break ups. In moments like those, we are forced to ask: what is friendship? What is motherhood? What is fatherhood? What is maleness? What is femaleness? Unfortunate as they may be in our lives, they bring us to these essential questions and, by dealing with them, we become better persons, not just wiser but more thoughtful and more aware as well of what is within and outside us.
In wonder and disappointment, we ask: bakit merong ganito? These are moments of thinking and examining, our step-by-step response to Socrates' challenge when he said that "the unexamined life is not worth living." In our questioning, life rises to a higher level. We become what we are as humans who differ from animals and plants and rock: we become conscious of our consciousness in the moments that affirm our existence.
The questions that philosophy poses are big and would require us to encounter others who are also in pursuit of encountering these questions. This is why philosophy needs to dialogue. In doing philosophy, one is never alone. We reflect in order to act in order for us to reflect once again, and this is a circle, a dialectic that we have to go through as individuals and groups in order to truly live life. Once again, Plato, in his Allegory of the Cave, challenges us to step into the light and not be contented with the shadows. It is insight which allows you to do that, and it is in facing the truth through questioning that we can be set free.
And of course, what we have thought about must be expressed. Thinking bears fruit once it is articulated and expressed (and hence what Ateneo wants to impart to us: sapientia et eloquentia, becoming wise and knowing the right way of expressing our ideas and views). This class may be an artificial session for us to do philosophy (for philosophy should occur in the mundane, everyday moments of our life), but it goes back to thinking about and articulating what has been thought of. It is in the very exchange of insights that we come together as thinking human beings and tackle the fundamental questions that surprise and disturb us.
In the end, philosophy is about being free. David F. Wallace, in talking about the benefits of a liberal arts education, spoke of the freedom of what to think and how to think. We are not against the world, and clearly no man is an island. Rather, as social beings, we exist for the world, and everything we say or do is not only within the context of the world that we live in, but also for the benefit of the other who remains attentive to us (and perhaps say something about it). We are for others, and because we are, I am!
Therefore, philosophy is facing and eventually going towards the other, identifying similarities and differences that make us possible to dialogue with each other. To engage in philosophy is to be enthusiastic about what is different and to be a little less arrogant. It is to set aside what is established and think of new ideas.
But ultimately, philosophy allows us to go out of ourselves and let the other affects us. It is our noblesse oblige. Hopefully, philosophy would allow us to realize this freedom not just to be attentive and aware of, but also and most importantly, to really care about the other.
Discussed Text: Simon Critchley, "What Is A Philosopher?"
Why are we here? Perhaps this is one of the questions that you have asked yourselves as you entered our Philosophy 101 class. What is this thing called philosophy? Why is it necessary for me to take it? Questions like these are the concern of philosophy, and in doing philosophy, we are going to ask many questions, and it is in questions that we are interested in and not with the answers (like Theology or any other science).
Simon Critchley, on the other hand, thinks that it might be better to ask "What is a philosopher?" in order to have an idea of what philosophy is. Critchley started with Alfred North Whitehead's claim that all philosophy is merely a footnote of Plato, the man whom we have known as the one who really founded a philosophical tradition way back in Ancient Greece.
This brings us back to one occurrence in Plato's Theaetetus, where, in a conversation between Socrates and Theodorus, they talked about Thales of Miletus, who, with his Thracian maid, strolled around. Because he was so amazed with the stars, he kept looking at the sky and accidentally fell on a well, and his maid laughed at that unfortunate event.
The maid's laughter in fact reflects the perception and reaction of people towards philosophers, for the common folk have this knowledge of philosophers to be silly and stupid buffoons who seem to be elsewhere and out of this world. This sets the philosopher contrasting with lawyers or pettifoggers, people who are preoccupied with the "unimportant" things as if these things really matter in living one's life.While lawyers and pettifoggers, on one hand, is pressed for time to do something very important for them, and had to present their argument before the waters in the clepsydra (where we can find the word kleptes, "thief," therefore suggesting that it robs us of our time) run out. The philosopher, however, takes his time, and he has the time, the leisure (which is skole in Greek, from which the Latin world schola, "school") to freely think about important things, without being compelled to do something else compared to the lawyer, the doctor, or the slave.
From this, a gap has been created between the philosophers and the non-philosophers, the pettifoggers. From this, there also rose the gap between being a person who takes their time to meditate about things and being a busy person. It also exists between beings who are elsewhere and beings of the world, the servile arts and the liberal arts, doing and thinking, and many more that we can use to refer to the contrast between philosophers and pettifoggers.
However, this distinction should not be taken for granted and should therefore be asked once again, for it is not a matter of contrasting between action (doing) and speculation (thinking). Plato, in the Republic, asserts that a person should be thoughtful and at the same time capable of doing thins based on what he thought about, leading to his conclusion that the one worthy of ruling the city would be the philosopher-king.
The distinctions that exist between the philosopher and non-philosopher, the otherworldly and the this-worldly, speculation and action, should therefore be removed, and through Critchley, we can see that everyone can be a good philosopher, that everyone can live in this world with recognition of what lies beneath, that everyone can think and act out of one's thoughts which provoke one to take action once again.
Critchley identifies the philosopher as someone who seems to be mysterious and uncanny, primarily because he has to think things through. He does not accept common sense, or popular opinions, or those that we take as basta. The philosopher is in a sense critical (from the Greek word krisis, "sieve"), letting things pass through one's mind with the sieve of intelligence before speaking and acting, and he/she has the humility to say "I'm sorry" once he/she does not know. And in relation to this critical attitude, Critchley also pointed out the double irony that stands between the philosopher and pettifogger. The philosopher who has the time to think about things is one who has the opportunity to ask and find answers to the fundamental questions, while the pettifogger, who is good in writing and speaking in arguing his case, stutters once he encounters these fundamental questions.
But why ask questions?
We have questions primarily because we do not know something, and there is in here a recognition, a knowing that we do not know, and therefore it is necessary to ask a good question. It has been said that the ignorant lives in bliss, although it is a most terrible bliss. They are those who do not know that they are stupid, and are content in being such.
The nature of questions also reveal something about philosophy, as a discipline that is concerned not just with questions, but more on the fundamental ones. This tells us that the start of philosophical thinking, the investigation into the fundamental questions, starts when these questions arise. And when do these questions arise? From wonder (which the Greeks speak of as thaumazein), a moment which urges us to ask: Bakit ganyan? What is it that is before us? Why is it such? And eventually, "What IS?," which points us to being.
The most wonderful insight that we get out of wonder, out of our questioning things, is that they are. They exist before us, and it is a moment of awakening to their existence which draws us to ask more questions about them in order to discover why they exist and why they exist as such. This is the very moment of awakening that inspired Fr. Roque Ferriols to talk about meron which is a loose (in fact, not quite!) a translation of being, a powerful word in Filipino which allows us to point out that it is, that things are!
Philosophy not only arises in wonder and amazement, but also in disappointment that something stops to be anymore, that they are precisely no more. Think of relationships that are once there but no more because of disagreements, disappointments, separations, and break ups. In moments like those, we are forced to ask: what is friendship? What is motherhood? What is fatherhood? What is maleness? What is femaleness? Unfortunate as they may be in our lives, they bring us to these essential questions and, by dealing with them, we become better persons, not just wiser but more thoughtful and more aware as well of what is within and outside us.
In wonder and disappointment, we ask: bakit merong ganito? These are moments of thinking and examining, our step-by-step response to Socrates' challenge when he said that "the unexamined life is not worth living." In our questioning, life rises to a higher level. We become what we are as humans who differ from animals and plants and rock: we become conscious of our consciousness in the moments that affirm our existence.
The questions that philosophy poses are big and would require us to encounter others who are also in pursuit of encountering these questions. This is why philosophy needs to dialogue. In doing philosophy, one is never alone. We reflect in order to act in order for us to reflect once again, and this is a circle, a dialectic that we have to go through as individuals and groups in order to truly live life. Once again, Plato, in his Allegory of the Cave, challenges us to step into the light and not be contented with the shadows. It is insight which allows you to do that, and it is in facing the truth through questioning that we can be set free.
And of course, what we have thought about must be expressed. Thinking bears fruit once it is articulated and expressed (and hence what Ateneo wants to impart to us: sapientia et eloquentia, becoming wise and knowing the right way of expressing our ideas and views). This class may be an artificial session for us to do philosophy (for philosophy should occur in the mundane, everyday moments of our life), but it goes back to thinking about and articulating what has been thought of. It is in the very exchange of insights that we come together as thinking human beings and tackle the fundamental questions that surprise and disturb us.
In the end, philosophy is about being free. David F. Wallace, in talking about the benefits of a liberal arts education, spoke of the freedom of what to think and how to think. We are not against the world, and clearly no man is an island. Rather, as social beings, we exist for the world, and everything we say or do is not only within the context of the world that we live in, but also for the benefit of the other who remains attentive to us (and perhaps say something about it). We are for others, and because we are, I am!
Therefore, philosophy is facing and eventually going towards the other, identifying similarities and differences that make us possible to dialogue with each other. To engage in philosophy is to be enthusiastic about what is different and to be a little less arrogant. It is to set aside what is established and think of new ideas.
But ultimately, philosophy allows us to go out of ourselves and let the other affects us. It is our noblesse oblige. Hopefully, philosophy would allow us to realize this freedom not just to be attentive and aware of, but also and most importantly, to really care about the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)