by Jaz Reyes
24 July 2012
Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, "Introduction," The Mystery of Being
Is philosophy simply a description of an individual's experience from discord to peace? Or to put it philosophically, is there value to other people with what we have realized? That is the question Marcel posed in his introductory lecture on doing philosophy.
Throughout the lecture we have come to realize that no, philosophical thinking that results from some kind of metaphysical unease is not only for our own sake, for the type of philosophical investigation we should deal with is one that is neither too subjective nor too universalized. Rather, it is an intermediary way of thinking. Marcel helps us define that intermediary way of thinking through fine analogies aesthetically, religiously and politically.
Among all the examples, I find Marcel’s analogy through art the most engaging because he was able to relate the feeling of revelation to an intermediary thinking that left me going: “ONGA NO. ONGAAAA NO” in my head. He tried to speak of “revelation” in a subjective sense when he spoke about being able to let a piece of art speak to him, and I believe I have felt this sense of revelation when I go to galleries, museums and on Pinterest. In that moment, it is just that piece of art and me conversing emotionally and mentally rather than verbally (because that would just make me look like I’m high). But such insight is not merely subjective. There must be a balance for thinking to be intermediary, and in order to do that, we think of the opposite; the universal aspect. Revelation is universal in a sense that one considers the possibility that the other can see what is revealed, and we do not punish, mock, or bring others down when they did not see it at first.
This insight does not only open us up to a new way of seeing through wider lens, but it also calls us to a certain way of acting. And I believe this is what I was looking for when we were asked if there could ever be value to another person for our own personal philosophical insights.
I was skeptical of how my personal thoughts can directly influence another person’s well being right off the bat. But Marcel helped me realize that being an intermediary thinker already helps me to do so. Because I could think that there is only one way of interpreting this piece of artwork because it spoke to me in this way and shun all others who cannot see it as fools. This example shows the imbalance of the subjective and universal way of thinking, whereas universal is absent; or I could keep it balanced and try to understand that maybe the painting is speaking about something else to that person and that I should try to befriend that person and invite him for a couple of drinks as we discuss the night away. As far as I can see it, realizing that one must keep a balanced way of thinking helped me not only gain a friend but also gain and share new insight that can be of value for either one of us.
But this is only one way of seeing how one’s philosophical thoughts can affect others. I’m sure that a lot more of our own concrete experiences has a universal relevance or effect to other people and it would be nice for you to take some time off and reflect on the moments where you actually had done this.
The part that disturbs me most on this whole ordeal is the fact that I personally think that it does take quite an effort for me to be enabled to think as such. I honestly don’t automatically think this way, to get that balance in my philosophical investigation of my day-to-day life. It feels as if I have to have a "double take" on my wired, programmed actions; the natural actions, to be constantly “suspicious” as Marcel has stated.
How I do feel about the metaphysical and reflective thought is as what Marcel said, that it feels like a blood clot, preventing blood to naturally flow; preventing our natural thoughts to naturally flow. There is just so much effort, and blockage in order to really have an easy time to think philosophically. But then again, maybe this is where the sense of freedom of thought and seeking of what is desired rather than needed is fulfilled, because in order to be able to reach that accomplishment, we have to bask in the absence of it.
At the end of the day, I guess I have to agree with Marcel on philosophical investigation when he mentioned that “in seeking to determine for what set of people this work of ours can be intended; we have arrived at a distinction between those who feel a certain inner intellectual need, not unrelated to the more widespread inner moral need, felt by men of goodwill, to seek peace and ensue it, and those who do not.”
"But then again, maybe this is where the sense of freedom of thought and seeking of what is desired rather than needed is fulfilled, because in order to be able to reach that accomplishment, we have to bask in the absence of it."
ReplyDeleteThis statement reminds me of the path towards (which is also within) philosophy. We begin our long and testing journey at an experience of metaphysical unease. From a state of confusion as to who we are or why we are here, we are moved by the desire to find answers. And yet, we must bask in the absence of answers, in the questioning, to be able to acquire them. As articulated by Marcel, the journey and the destination are inextricably linked.
And sometimes the destination is the journey itself. There are times when the questions cannot be answered and it is the search and quest for these answers that give satisfaction enough because you have a better understanding of the mystery of the question. As Doc Garcia said, questions are more important than answers in philosophy.
DeleteAt first, a philosophical investigation did seem a little too subjective at first because it started and seemingly ended within the philosopher who first asked the question. But Marcel makes it clear that the journey does not end there. Finding the answer is, in a way, simply the starting point of a new chapter of the ultimately unending journey of seeking for answers. By finding the answers, one must find a way to share it before true philosophy begins to take shape.
ReplyDelete- Lica Lee PH101 C
"How I do feel about the metaphysical and reflective thought is as what Marcel said, that it feels like a blood clot, preventing blood to naturally flow; preventing our natural thoughts to naturally flow. There is just so much effort, and blockage in order to really have an easy time to think philosophically. But then again, maybe this is where the sense of freedom of thought and seeking of what is desired rather than needed is fulfilled, because in order to be able to reach that accomplishment, we have to bask in the absence of it."
ReplyDeleteOn this part, just my opinion, but i think you can also see the other aspect of the blood clot. it not only prevents natural flow of blood but it also helps blood from spilling/pumping out of your body like in the case of wounds. so i think some restriction and limit? to the quests/search is not too bad at all. So some control and having a prediction in your quest, what we call a hypothesis in a scientific investigation, is not wrong at all in my opinion.
Individualist thinking, although a blood clot in restricting the ability of free flowing thought to perceive aspects of other realms, simultaneously, is what maintains order in a persons thought patterns. While ones background may cause them to think a certain way, to philosophize from a single standpoint, that background is also what gives them the ability to philosophize.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that we have blood clots is a side effect of having blood. The reason we think rather close mindedly (in the context of philosophy of mankind) is a result of our ability to think.Because we were raised to think in a certain process.
I think attaining unbiased philosophizing is unachievable.
On the topic of universality and subjective thinking, I realized that we often try to empathize by saying, "I know how you feel, because I've been through the same thing." We should, however, be aware that thing, here, is an event, not the experience itself. For all we know, the event could be the death of a father (which was the first example that came to my mind). Hypothetically speaking, one says, "Don't presume to know what I am going through!" While the other replies, "I do know! My father died, as well!" Yes, their experiences and reactions to their fathers' death might be very similar, but never to the exact point of sameness. The impact of father's death on one will never be the same as that on the other. Just as we cannot ignore the similarities of experience, we cannot deny the differences.
ReplyDeleteAbi Go Ph101 A
I was also able to relate with the art analogy the most. In my experience in the art gallery, the Dambana painting was able to speak to me. The image shown in the painting is quite similar to what can be seen on the walls of a Catholic church (if I'm not mistaken). When I first saw the painting in close range, I thought that it was just a plain painting. However, when I reached the other side of the room and saw it again from afar, I started saying "Wow, that painting is actually beautiful!" I remembered what I have learned in our class that oftentimes in life, our short-sighted self-centered view is not enough; looking things from a different perspective can help make us appreciate them better and/or give us a revelation. Art is truly subjective and universal in the sense that every subject has his/her own insight about it and at the same time, every other subjects have their own and different understanding.
ReplyDeleteRussell Virata Ph101 C
What I think about universality and subjectivity is that there exists a universal truth, however it depends on us on how we look or interpret such truth. In Marcel's article, he presents this idea through art, as an intermediary way of thinking, which connects the concept of universality to subjectivity. A painting which is subject to the artist's personal thoughts, ideas, or feelings can be interpreted in various ways by us, the speculators. Initially, this work of art has a specific meaning to the artists and we all have our own opinions on it. This shows the level of subjectivity in art. On the other hand, universality is seen in a way that this art can push us into a revelation, or if not, a realization in particular things in life. Art has a universal effect on us.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to correlate this idea in the context of sociology. This study defines universality as a set of values applicable to every society. DIfferent countries or societies may have their own specific set of rules but wherever we go, we experience the similarity of it all. Despite the disparity of cultures, we have the same notion that killing is a bad thing or doing harm to other people is unacceptable to whatever society you are in.
This concept also applies to Theology. Different religions have different set of beliefs but all of it comes down to same belief that there is one ultimate Being, and however this Being is referred to - be it God, Allah or Buddha - this truth is still believed by people with diverse religions.
If we look at it in a surface-level perspective, we may see that subjectivity is clearly distinct form universality, however, once taken time to understand, we will notice that both ideas are actually connected.
~ Cara Garcia, Ph101 - A