by Agassi Adre
24 July 2012
Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, "Introduction," The Mystery of Being
Marcel’s introductory lecture has us started on a long journey that hopefully, in my own personal opinion, ends with us being slightly confounded with the new insights, realizations, revelations, and whatnot, but with a certain clarity of how we, as individuals being a part of something bigger, should act, think, and be.
When Marcel talked about metaphysical unease, he introduces a starting point in which we can begin in our own personal struggle with philosophical thinking. This ‘metaphysical unease’ had us discussing its origin within our own personal experience. No doubt, we have had many experiences with this kind of unease before, but never realized what it actually is, or its actual term. For me, metaphysical unease is the point when my established paradigms become arguable, and that usually ends with a paradigm shift that exasperates me, for I get confused and become more uncomfortable.
In the lecture, we then deal with how to engage ourselves in the philosophical investigations that results from a metaphysical unease. Though we earlier discussed de-centralization of the self, and by extension the universality of our own thought and inquiry, in David Foster Wallace’s commencement speech, we then realize that, in Marcel’s lecture that we cannot engage in a philosophical investigation that is too subjective. On the other extreme, we also cannot engage in the same investigation in a very subjective manner. The dilemma here, Marcel says, where we have to choose between these two ways of philosophical investigation, should be taken as a false one. And as such, there is a need to have an intermediary way of thinking.
He then presents us with the first analogy: understanding works of art. Clearly, in this day and age, art is not really as appreciated as before. Though there are people who still appreciate the effort and the beauty, these people are a minority. And it is sad (well, in my opinion) that for the rest, it becomes harder to be in awe while in front of a piece of art as they cannot fathom the entirety of the piece itself. I myself feel a strong connection with art, thanks to a wonderful art teacher in high school, who for 2 years taught me, in quite a strict manner, the effort and aesthetics that go behind a piece of art. And thanks to that, I am forever awed by art works, even how simple they may be. But I envy those who still appreciate and/or are awed by art without having someone drill into them the entirety of an art piece, for they are capable of a natural insight for aesthetics.
And this insight – be it developed or natural – is quite important really, for it would lead to a revelation. The way I see it, the process, especially in this context of understanding art, is a circular process, where you have insight, then have a revelation, and with that revelation, you get further insight, ad infinitum. However, for those who are unable to get the same revelation, it would seem that a dichotomy is formed between these two groups; they are indeed separate and they it is hard for them to mix.
And this is where the topic of universal versus subjective thinking comes into play. For example, I clearly am awed by art, and thus there are times when I cannot help but think that those who cannot appreciate a van Gogh or even an Andy Warhol piece as rather lacking in civility. But now I know that this cannot be the case, and must not be the case. Bridging the gap between a universal way of thinking and a subjective way thus become an effort to understand how the other person is affected, because obviously, even if they do not appreciate or are not in awe by a piece of art, they too are affected at some level. And it now becomes our job to understand each other. The insights and reflections that we both would inevitably share would lead to a deeper understanding of us as individuals and of us as part of a bigger system. This in turn, in my opinion, would enrich our personal philosophical investigations.
In essence, one way to understand metaphysical unease and philosophical investigation is to try to understand how something affects another person and how that person reflects on it. Not only it enriches our thoughts and reflections, it gives us the opportunity to get a better glimpse of the environment around us. Indeed it would be quite difficult to do this, but if we allot a few moments into doing this, inevitably, everyone would be better off in terms of understanding ourselves and our place in this world.
"Bridging the gap between a universal way of thinking and a subjective way thus become an effort to understand how the other person is affected, because obviously, even if they do not appreciate or are not in awe by a piece of art, they too are affected at some level. And it now becomes our job to understand each other. The insights and reflections that we both would inevitably share would lead to a deeper understanding of us as individuals and of us as part of a bigger system. This in turn, in my opinion, would enrich our personal philosophical investigations."
ReplyDeleteThis (and actually the entire paragraph) really got me thinking, and it's actually my favorite part of your reflection. :)
I must admit that I've never really thought of it that way - that those who don't really "get" or see even the slightest beauty in something aren't exactly unaffected by it.
There's no denying that I completely agree with David Foster Wallace's advice on decentralizing oneself and being conscious of other people and their opinions (no matter how different they could be from ours), but I think I still need more time to reflect on it. I've realized that I'm still finding it hard NOT to see things only in black and white. Sure, I'm starting to consider all possibilities of both sides/opposites, but I've yet to see the middle-ground where these extremes somehow connect - I still see them as two completely different things, kind of like a "yes" and "no" side, and nothing in between.
Reading your reflection has got me thinking about it more, and I'm really thankful for that. :)
(Alexandra Malto, PH101-A)
"And this insight – be it developed or natural – is quite important really, for it would lead to a revelation. The way I see it, the process, especially in this context of understanding art, is a circular process, where you have insight, then have a revelation, and with that revelation, you get further insight, ad infinitum. However, for those who are unable to get the same revelation, it would seem that a dichotomy is formed between these two groups; they are indeed separate and they it is hard for them to mix."
ReplyDeleteThe question I'd like to ask is this: Why can I understand only a few pieces of art? Why can I understand one piece of art yet be unaffected by another?
Doc. Garcia did say that we can only understand a piece of art when it speaks to us. After thinking for awhile, I have to agree with this.
When does a piece of art speak to us? It is when we see ourselves in that piece of art. We understand a painting when it represents feelings that are far too raw for us to articulate verbally. We are affected by a song when it's able to narrate our most intimate experiences in only a couple of stanzas. We're only able to appreciate that painting when we see something true, something real in it.
To understand what I mean, let's analyze a movie, (500) Days of Summer, and how people will react differently to it. Most would agree that it is a great movie; the director, the screenplay, and the actors are all top-notch. They're all very competent.
Not everyone will have the same reaction to that movie. For a lot of people, the movie is just something amusing. After the movie is done, they'll walk away unaffected and unchanged. There will be some people who will be really affected though.
My question is this: why does this one movie elicit different reactions? Why can some people "see" something in this movie while others don't?
My answer would be that people who know what it's like to be a Tom- or a Summer Finn- would see something in the movie that speaks to them. The people who are unaffected are maybe just lacking those experiences to really appreciate the movie.
I can say that there have been movies that have had no effect on me the first time I watched them, when I was still younger and less inexperienced. Upon re-watching these movies years later though, I was able to see something that I didn't see before.
-Rico La Vina, Section A
Unfortunately, I am one of those people who aren't exactly enthralled by the majesty of art. Visiting museums and exhibits to behold wonderful works of art like paintings, sculptures and architecture was never ingrained in me, and I'm quite sure a lot of us are guilty of this as well. It's just that I really never understood the saying "Art makes us more human..." There were times when I attempted to "humanize" myself even more by forcing myself to stand in front of a painting or Church or sculpture, but to no avail. And I think the part of the blog which the previous comment expounded on embodies this problem of mine and ours.
ReplyDeleteMany times, we force ourselves to think. We try so hard in getting something, maybe a revelation or a lightbulb idea, from supposedly empowering and grandiose manifestations of the human spirit, such as those classic masterpieces by renowned
artists. And I think that is a pitfall of philosophy. We force our way to the revelation, thus we end up not getting affected at all.
There were times when I entertained the idea that some people are just inherently adverse to art and other things that are supposed to make us more of a person. But, I think the problem lies not in our make-up as a person, but instead with the way we approach philosophy. We cannot forcibly squeeze a revelation from our daily life because that manner of thinking already preempts a non-detached way of looking at things. Revelations and philosophizing will and should come naturally if we free ourselves of preconceived notions. The blog talked about those who understand or encounter revelations needing to understand the other. But it is also vital that those who experience the opposite, maybe ignorance even of such, understand and relate to those who bask in a plethora of revelations. Although revelations will certainly differ, what matters the most, as mentioned in the blog, is that people help out one another in realizing and acknowledging the vastness of the human spirit, with all its ideas trying to fit in a few billion people.
(Thomas Manalac -Ph101 - A)
"In essence, one way to understand metaphysical unease and philosophical investigation is to try to understand how something affects another person and how that person reflects on it. Not only it enriches our thoughts and reflections, it gives us the opportunity to get a better glimpse of the environment around us. Indeed it would be quite difficult to do this, but if we allot a few moments into doing this, inevitably, everyone would be better off in terms of understanding ourselves and our place in this world."
ReplyDeleteThis might be a little to early to discuss, but then the paragraph above reminds me of our other batchmates who are going to start their JEEP experiences this semester. Although some of them think that JEEP is a waste of time (much like NSTP), the experience of seeing the world in another person's shoes is an opportunity to enrich our philosophical investigations. Those moments of being a bagger in SM Masinag or a corn vendor in Katipunan will hopefully break our notions and misconceptions about the people around us. We just have to be open and let the experience move us or in the case of a work of art, let it speak to us. Once we've reflected on our personal insights, we can then act according to these realizations. Instead of simply ignoring the salesmen in the department store when he greets you with a smile, perhaps you can say "Hi!" or simply smile back in return because you felt you were worthless when you were in that salesman's place. In other words, this JEEP experience will open our eyes and lead us to become men and women for and WITH others.
(JB Capinpin, PH101 - A)
Just some thoughts:
ReplyDeleteArtworks don't have to necessarily make you feel awe
Or maybe they do.
A painting can make you feel all sorts of things. A painting can make you uneasy in ways you can't explain. Sometimes an artwork makes you feel disgusted and uninspired that it makes you want to yell "awful". But isn't it weird that the meaning of the word "awful" is usually not associated with "full of awe"? But instead, opposite of that? Or could it be that there is so much dislike in a piece of work that it inevitably connects that person with the artwork itself, in a sense that it creates an unease (a kind of "fear" --which apparently is a word related to awe.) in us that it makes us want to be involved with the work itself? Are we not involving ourselves with the artwork when we dislike? Aren't we, in fact, "awful"? :))
Either way, I think experiencing is still present if one dislikes something. He/She is still involved in it.
"Clearly, in this day and age, art is not really as appreciated as before."
I disagree with this point. I'd like to believe it depends on what you consider as art. Some people consider surrealism as a bunch of juxtaposition-ing of things, but I like it. I like Salvador Dali and his crazy mustache. Some people don't get abstract art. Some people don't like post-modern stuff. What I'm sure of is Mr. Agassi likes Andy Warhol and probably had an experience showing someone who didn't appreciate it as much as he did.
In this day and age, I'd like to believe there is even more appreciation of art. Take music for example. Everyone has a song that they like. Most may consider it as art. Just like a technical search, most do not need to know what goes into making music. Most can take it as a "product" and just listen to the song and enjoy it. Nothing wrong with that. But I think there could be a fuller appreciation, if that is the appreciation Agassi is talking about, on the process of making something.
But going back, I'm sure there are songs you've listened to that digs right into your being as if you're the one being talked about. Or you've experienced that moment when a song gave you chills and goosebumps. Maybe it's not about people not appreciating art as much, but it could be that there is so much around us that some have chosen to appreciate a certain thing/genre/style because it resonates in them. But sometimes, even unexpectedly, they become open to something new that can re-harmonize with what they appreciate.
-Avery Wong (Ph101 A)
"I myself feel a strong connection with art, thanks to a wonderful art teacher in high school, who for 2 years taught me, in quite a strict manner, the effort and aesthetics that go behind a piece of art. And thanks to that, I am forever awed by art works, even how simple they may be. But I envy those who still appreciate and/or are awed by art without having someone drill into them the entirety of an art piece, for they are capable of a natural insight for aesthetics."
ReplyDeleteAs a fine arts major, Ive learned many things about art like how to appreciate even the tiniest details put into an artwork. I didn't use to be like this, like the author of this post, I was taught and drilled to appreciate art as much as I do now. I take special notice to what kind of font is used in a poster, for example. I feel happy when it suits the message, the theme, and the overall look of the poster but I frown in disgust when it does otherwise. I agree with Agassi that someone who is capable of natural insights for aesthetics should be someone to be envious of. This implies that this person is quite open to anything and everything. He gains insight from the smallest of things which in turn reveals so much about himself to himself and to everyone around him. This is probably what I would like to develop into as a person.
-Wok Alpajaro, PH101 - A
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“…in Marcel’s lecture that we cannot engage in a philosophical investigation that is too subjective. On the other extreme, we also cannot engage in the same investigation in a very subjective manner. The dilemma here, Marcel says, where we have to choose between these two ways of philosophical investigation, should be taken as a false one. And as such, there is a need to have an intermediary way of thinking.”
ReplyDeleteI think more than an intermediary way of thinking, it can also be termed as something implicate. The word “intermediary” somehow suggests that there is still an existing dichotomy between the objective and the subjective, only that the two are in a way compromised. I believe that such is not the case in a philosophical quest because there is no conflict between the two. The objective is part of the subjective just as much as the latter is part of the former, thus a halfway is unnecessary. As conscious subjects, we see the world from our perspectives but our perspectives are also shaped by the world.
Unlike other processes where a particular person can discover a new method of doing things and have other people carry it out in a standardized manner, processes in a philosophical quest cannot be detached in the same way. Our subjective experiences are personal and at the same time universal because we are often dealing with fundamental truths, values, or even uncertainties in our philosophical search. As one of our previous lectures has taught us, “All beings are in Being.” :)
Tanya Rosales, PH 101 - A
Unlike others, who marvel at the messages of art, I used to think that abstract was an artist's way of making something out of nothing, a pettifogger, who made people think that they were so majestic and awesome even though there was no point in the art to begin with. I believed that abstract art was a manifestation of "The Emperor's New Clothes" in real life, where even though the emperor was clearly naked, spectators who wanted to seem smarter than everyone else pretended to see the "garment visible only to those who are not fools". I mean, why make such a big deal out of squiggles and colors?
ReplyDeleteHowever, upon looking at the pieces of abstract art outside the HR Department of Ateneo (Sadly, I did not visit the art gallery itself), I saw something I never did before. Maybe it was because of the new experiences I had in college, but for some reason I found myself looking at an abstract painting as more than just a bunch of splats and lines. Maybe it was the metaphysical unease I felt in becoming a new person over the course of three years. Maybe it was because of my experience in a psychology course. Or maybe it was just me trying to seem smart. But upon seeing the painting, I started thinking, "If this is how I see this piece of art, how must others see it?" Then I realized that the piece had entirely different meanings for others, others who came from another background.
Lastly, though this might be a stretch, I would just like to say that not only paintings have the capacity to cause metaphysical unease in a person. I believe music also has that ability, though I am not talking solely of classical pieces of music. Some songs have these sort of jumbled up lyrics, ones that don't make sense, ones that seem out of place. Sure, the tune is nice, and the lyrics are catchy, but taken at face value, they mean nothing. However, these lyrics aren't always to be taken so literally; often, they have a meaning that is portrayed, and only those who have had experiences related to that meaning would be able to see it in the song.
-Joaquin Zotomayor, PH 101 A
I am sorry to say that I haven't had a deep appreciation for it. In the past, I would always just glance at the art and think, "Okay. It's nice." or when i don't understand it, "Why does it look like that? Oh well. Nevermind." I always just glance at the picture then move on to the next one. I've also never given much thought to the intricacies of art and the details of why they were painted and such. Now I understand it takes time for things to unravel. You can't just expect them to be revealed in an instant, as you have to scrutinize them for them to be revealed to you. It's just like life - you have to wait for the future to happen and be surprised by what it offers you. You can't prophesies the future and because of this you scrutinize what you really want in life.
ReplyDeleteJust a few thoughts:
Talking about metaphysical unease, I come to wonder, how do philosophers find out about these things? Is it the same as theology, where we need to have a certain faith for it to be deemed real and true? For example, in theology, the existence of God is manifested in Jesus but there is also a part that we need to believe in the mystery of God. Is this the same for philosophy?
-M. Cua, PH 101 A
Marcel's approach on the aesthetic analogy of intermediary thinking focuses on artworks and the like. However, in my case, I'd like to redirect the focus on the art of literature and the performing arts since I'm very fond of reading novels as well as watching plays and musicals. These kinds of art also make us come up with realizations, not just after we have read or watched its entirety, but during the course of reading and watching it. They both have stories to tell - some direct to the point and others leave us guessing - but that doesn't mean what they want to convey is limited to a certain point of view. We all analyze every story differently, and extract various ideas from them and yet, novels/performances tell only one story. This shows Marcel's point on the idea of intermediary way of thinking, for there is subjectivity in a universal matter.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I felt the same when you said, "And it is sad (well, in my opinion) that for the rest, it becomes harder to be in awe while in front of a piece of art as they cannot fathom the entirety of the piece itself." It truly is sad that there are some people who can't, even in the slightest way, appreciate literature because for me, there is beauty in words. The simple construction of sentences and putting words together, make us feel. They evoke emotions inside us and move us in ways we might think absurd. It's a wonder that there are novels that move us to tears, make us fall in love, or bring about the feeling of anger, excitement or happiness. It's the same thing with performing arts and I can't understand how some people can't be moved with all the emotions they portray. I just like to share how appalled I was when I knew that my dad yawned while watching Wicked and that my aunt fell asleep watching Lion King in Broadway.
We overcome the feeling of metaphysical unease through understanding these works of art, for they are, in a way, an intermediary form of thinking. It connects the things that matter to us with what's out there in the world that we are part of.
~ Cara Garcia, PH101-A