Future Use

by Christian Go


The first thing which crossed my mind when the last discussion was going on was how my own mom did not want to use expensive plates and would always keep them for "future use". This so called "future use" would never occur. The purpose of a plate is to be used for eating and not merely for show or for safe keeping and so I did not quite see the point in it. Then it came to me that we have become so materialistic in life that we tend to forget that everything we purchase and everything we obtain are only the means to an end. We want to be happy, we want what's best for our very own families but in the end, we tend to forget that it is the goal we want to achieve. Soon, it will become all about finding the right job and making money and we forget that money is only a means to an end and its not the end itself. I think that is why despite knowing that something will disappear and vanish through time, we tend to grasp so hard on to something. We forget that it is only a means and that there are other means towards that happiness we seek in life. We attach our means of happiness to that one thing, that we forget we can achieve it elsewhere. I think this goes back to how Marcel described the broken world we live in today.
   
Beyond this, the truth is that life is such a fleeting thing. The reality is that people die everyday without us knowing and who knows we could be next. But the point of it is that we should not be holding on to dear life and decide not to experience the outside, not to experience the world for that matter. If life is to end, then why not make the most of it. And when life is to end, we can always say at least I lived a good one.    

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?

How To Be Present

by Mary Gutierrez


Last September 18 Doc G left the class with the question:

What makes you present to the world and yourself?

Out of all the questions Doc G left so far, this is the one question that got me thinking and unable to resist writing about if not to least to get the question of my head. Then again to understand the implications as to why it affected me so much maybe a little introduction of sorts is required.

Hello! I’m one of your classmates and chances are you don’t know me. Not that you would considering I’ve never recited in class or talked to anyone who doesn’t talk to me first. I’m the invisible girl that is never late, never absent, never misses a requirement but still manages to blend in and disappear. I’d be graduating with most of you come 2014 and you know what, you’d probably never see me again or know that I even existed. So how do you know I was there at that moment? That I was present in class or I was your seatmate? Not to be emo or anything but I’m not the only quiet introvert in the class or in a bigger scale, the school. So how many people were you classmates with whom you’d never know or worse remember?

You see, this is where the misconceptions start. That you have to be outspoken and confident to be present and noticed. Although it is understandable because confident people are easier to spot and easier to be around with because you wouldn’t have to be as careful around them as you would have to be with a silent person. But if there is one thing I realized it is that while it may be easier to spot the leaders and confident people in parties, class discussions, and group works it doesn’t mean they are all that are the only people present. The introverts may have the tendency to blend with the shadows but once everyone is quiet, the tables turn and it would be easier to notice those who are usually quiet. Try it. It’s like they are suddenly just there quiet and composed in silence.

I’m sure everyone has already taken the MBTI personality at least once (or twice because of Gen Psych) but the thing is, it seems like a greater part of the population are actually introverts. People who might want to keep to themselves and may sometimes disappear. If I remember correctly in my block less than 10 are extroverts (then again my memory could be wrong) and considering we’re psych majors who are supposed to be studying the behaviour of others, the assumption might be that we are people persons. Still, there could be the possibility that maybe instead of studying others, psych majors are in that course to study themselves. Better yet, isn’t it the reason why every one of us is a student of this school because we haven’t realized our potentials yet? That despite the fact that we are in different courses and different specialties all of us are simply young adults whom the society deemed as legally mature (if you are at least 18) but know in ourselves that we are yet to be ready? That we don’t know enough. That we aren’t skilled enough. That we aren’t mature enough...shall I go on?

Everyone might have their own personal views on why they are not yet ready, why they’re not yet sure of what to do in life and why they are afraid to go out of school and be a part of the productive working members of the society. We have been in school for so long (almost 17 years?) that despite the claims to hate the school workload, leaving the safety of the occupation of being a student is a daunting concept. One of my psych teachers (whom I unfortunately cannot credit because I can’t remember who) wisely said: Psychology is about discovering your own weirdness and making it your strength. Still, if there is one thing I disagree about in this statement, it is the fact that the statement is not just for Psychology but for all courses. All of us feel imperfect and weird at some point (I refuse to believe Hollywood propaganda that some people are perfect) and its part of what makes us afraid. How do we go and survive outside the walls of Ateneo after with these imperfections? You make those imperfections your strengths. This is what would make you present. Both to yourself and others.

Just because I’m quiet doesn’t mean I’m not present. Just because I’m quiet doesn’t mean I have nothing to say. Just because you see me as someone quiet doesn’t mean I’m not noisy when I’m with people I’m comfortable with. The common misconception is that being quiet and shy is only adorable in kids, high school would be pushing it, and if a person is already in college and still painfully quiet and shy you’d be thought of as antisocial. But my Gen Psych teacher told me it could be a kind of strength (although I still haven’t figured out how to control and use it).

So to end, maybe just as much as we have and want to be present we also need to be aware of the presence of others. According to Marcel the “I” cannot exist without the others and I agree. I mean what would be the use of being present if no one would see that you are present and an individual? But then there is another rule that I believe encompasses Marcel (no offence to Marcel) and that is the golden-and-overly-cliché: do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you. So if you want to be present it would take more than turning your weirdness into strengths but also noticing those present around you. And since being present is pretty hard (Identity vs Identity Confusion, teenagers) then do not expect that being the one looking for the presence of all the people around you would be easy.  

All Things Are Passing...

by Earl Valdez, teaching assistant

In the Thursday (27 September 2012) class, I left you guys a question that I think is very important and worth reflecting on: In the face of radical contingency, where all things immediate to us, including ourselves, are passing, how do we live our lives?

Let me share two things which I think illustrates very well the fact that there are things that pass in life, which perhaps will aid us in seeking our own answer to these questions.

The first one is from the book of Job, a story which I think, on one hand, reminds us of how things can pass away quickly, and yet such reality goes hand in hand with the Absolute whom we are called to hang on to.

(this passage is quoted from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible)

"9 Then Satan answered the LORD, "Does Job fear God for nothing? 10 Have you not put a fence around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But stretch out your hand now, and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face." 12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, all that he has is in your power; only do not stretch out your hand against him!" So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD. 13 One day when his sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in the eldest brother's house, 14 a messenger came to Job and said, "The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were feeding beside them, 15 and the Sabeans fell on them and carried them off, and killed the servants with the edge of the sword; I alone have escaped to tell you." 16 While he was still speaking, another came and said, "The fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants, and consumed them; I alone have escaped to tell you." 17 While he was still speaking, another came and said, "The Chaldeans formed three columns, made a raid on the camels and carried them off, and killed the servants with the edge of the sword; I alone have escaped to tell you." 18 While he was still speaking, another came and said, "Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house, 19 and suddenly a great wind came across the desert, struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people, and they are dead; I alone have escaped to tell you." 20 Then Job arose, tore his robe, shaved his head, and fell on the ground and worshiped. 21 He said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there; the LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." 22 In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing."

Perhaps the big question is: Can we still manage to hang on with life after facing such radical contingency?

The second one is something that I encourage you to watch (by yourself or with friends). This movie is about confronting death and finding one's meaning through the experience of others' deaths. (side note: this is one of the most meaningful movies introduced to me by Mr. Calasanz, and I believe this is worth sharing to you, guys).

Departures (Okuribito), won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film in the Oscars last 2009.

What do you think?

The Importance of Doubting

by Russell Virata

20 September 2012

Discussed text: Rene Descartes, Mediations on the First Philosophy

The common perception of people when it comes to the word “doubt” is something negative. To doubt means to question, to be unsure, or simply to distrust. When someone, say a close friend, doubts you, you will definitely get hurt or be offended (unless of course you know yourself that what you said to him or her was a lie). Reversing the situation, when you doubt someone, there is the possibility of losing your trust and bond with that person. However, as we have discussed in class, doubting can be positive and is an important step in doing philosophy.

Galileo, through the act of doubting that the sun is the one revolving around the earth, was able to discover that the opposite is true. Descartes also doubted the philosophical foundations during his time and was able to come up with his own method known as the “Universal Methodic Doubt”. He first doubted his senses, thinking that these can be a form of deception like when you are dreaming or when you are in reality a butterfly thinking that you are a man. (I personally had a similar experience in the past when I thought, what if I, together with other people, are just characters being controlled by someone who is playing “The Sims”? But then this sounds improbable given the fact that a Sims character should not have a thinking of his own and I, having this thought, am sure that I am thinking.) Descartes then also doubted the foundations of mathematics, thinking that there could be an evil genie who is tricking him to believe that a triangle is a three-sided polygon or that two plus three equals five. Finally, after doubting everything, Descartes came up with the conclusion that there is only one thing he cannot doubt, and that is he exists as a thinking thing which doubts. Through doubting, Galileo and Descartes were able to have their own thoughts.

Indeed, doubting the norm and the status quo, just like what these two did, is very important in philosophy. As Simon Critchley says, “The philosopher neither sees nor hears the so-called unwritten laws of the city, that is, the mores and conventions that govern public life.” Bear in mind that this does not mean doubting and philosophy is about contradicting socially accepted truths or proving new discoveries. This just means that in doing philosophy, one should not easily accept things and take them for granted even if they are universally accepted, but rather to be always open to inquiries, questions and possibilities. It is from these questions that insights, reflections and realizations come in. For example, I have my own experience, which I believe some of us have also encountered, where my parents instilled in my mind when I was still a child that I should be a doctor when I grow up because no one in our extended family has become a doctor yet and of course doctors have very high salary. As I grew up, I doubted that being a doctor was for me because I did not like science much and so I took up a course which was more interesting for me. If I accepted my parents’ advice for me and closed my mind from the other possible paths, then I am pretty sure I would not be enjoying college now.

Take the RH Bill debate as another example. We should not choose a side simply because many people are pro-RH Bill or because the Catholic Church is anti-RH Bill. Rather, we should carefully assess and inquire about the different advantages and disadvantages of it before thinking critically whether the bill is actually worth passing or not. And even after having your own stand, I think you can still doubt some more and increase your thoughts about both sides. This is just one of many situations where doubting can be relevant.

As we can see, doubting is not only relevant in the times of Galileo and Descartes, but also in the present. It is a very essential ingredient in philosophy, which is not meant to break the laws, but rather to enable one to think and reflect on his own. Let me end with a quote by George Iles, “Doubt is the beginning, not the end, of wisdom.”

Philosophy is Dead

by Joy Reyes

Archaic. Elitist. Impractical. Circular.
Boring. Wordy. Indiscernible.
Presently irrelevant.
Dead.

Before I even continue, let me tell you this: I’ve always thought that Philosophy was a lot like Latin. That is, I’ve always thought it was this overly hyped subject not fit for the present time. It required a lot of work, a lot of understanding, and, if I were to be perfectly honest - yet terribly ignorant - a lot of time I could use for something else.

However, I’m not the only person who thinks this. In fact, a quick Google search yielded me these results:

Now, a few weeks into the end of my first ever Philosophy course, I’ve realized how painfully closed minded I have been.

Maybe it can be attributed to the fact that it has always been instilled in our immature minds that things have to have material return for it to be valuable.  Sure, people are important, so you have to treat them well – but can they deliver? I think we’ve been taught – for the most part – to calculate people. To treat people like objects who we can use when we need, and mindlessly fling away when they’re no longer – or not yet – necessary. And no, I’m not saying that all of us do those; I’m just saying it’s how we sometimes view things external from us. And because of it, we’ve always regarded Philosophy as something that shouldn’t be given too much importance.

It’s a pessimistic view, yes. But it also has its truths.

This is why, over the semester, I came to one conclusion – that I truly know nothing yet, no matter how much I’d like to believe so. If I did, I would know this - Philosophy is about living in the world every single day. And making it count. And, whether or not we’re willing to accept it, Philosophy has value. And it’s here to stay.

Why? Simple. Because Philosophy isn’t just about ancient truths and dead people. It’s not just about Greek words. It’s about understanding understanding. It’s about knowing what there is to know. It’s about today.

And while that may sound like the most ideal definition of Philosophy ever, it’s what I understand from everyone whom we’ve tackled over the course of the semester. David Foster Wallace and Marcel said that it’s about realizing that we’re not alone in this world, that we are a culmination of people we’ve come across with. Fr. Ferriols focused on the importance of insight, as did Ricouer – and they talked about how Philosophy is relevant in all aspects of our lives. It’s about reflection. It’s about a perpetual search. It’s about transcending.

Philosophy taught me purpose – or at least the value of having one. It taught me to create something that will last far more than I will. It taught me that life is ephemeral, and if I don’t make my mark, if I don’t arrive at my truth, if I don’t create something that will live on before I leave, then I couldn’t say that I lived my life enough.

Before I end, I’d like to include a code we were tasked to memorize when I was still a cadet officer in training in the Ateneo ROTC. It’s something I hold dearly, and – in retrospect – it’s a conglomeration of everything I’ve learned this sem. It’s all the readings, all the insights, and all the metaphysical unease I’ve felt in but a few lines.

Desiderata

by Max Ehrmann

Go placidly amidst the noise and haste

And remember what peace there may be in silence.

As far as possible, without surrender,

Be in good terms with all persons.

Speak your truth quietly and clearly;

And listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant.

They too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive people, 

They are vexations to the spirit.

If you compare yourself to others

You will become vain and bitter.

For always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.

Keep interested in your career, however humble;

It is a real possession in the changing fortune of times.

Exercise caution in your business affairs

For the world is full of trickery.

But let this not blind you to what virtues there is.

Many persons strive for high ideals,

And everywhere the world is full of heroism.

Be yourself, especially do not feign affection.

Neither be cynical about love,

For in the face of all aridity and disenchantment,

It is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of years,

Gracefully surrendering to the things of youth.

Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortunes.

But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.

Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline,

Be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe,

No less than the trees or the stars. 

And whether or not it is clear to you,

No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore, be at peace with God,

Whatever you conceive him to be.

And whatever your labor and aspirations, 

In the noisy confusion of life,

Keep peace with your soul.

With all its shame, drudgery, and broken dreams,

It is still a beautiful world.

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

I have no mandate to save the world.

But I have the mandate to save myself.

And since I am part of the world… then that should be enough.

Philosophy’s worth it after all.

Doubt

by Luigi Cho

13 September 2012

Discussed Text: Rene Descartes, Meditations on the First Philosophy


Doubt, the very word speaks with negativity. It means not to accept, not to compromise, not to agree. It brews up images of conflict, and mistrust. Doubt, to most people is something that leads to worse things. It can be likened to temptation which can be seen as the cause of evil things, like how doubt leads us to do things in retaliation to things that aren’t even true. However, like temptation, it isn’t wrong or evil to doubt. We must only learn to use it to our advantages.

Rene Descartes discovered how to make one of the biggest weaknesses of humanity into a great ally. His doubt of what truly exists, led him to pioneer the use of reason in the natural sciences. The method of doubt he used was methodological skepticism, which is to doubt everything, unless proven otherwise. One of the few absolutes that he can conclude is his own existence.  He sums this up in a simple sentence, “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think, therefore I am”.  If he can doubt something, that means something is making him doubt, or at least causing him to doubt.  So by this logic, there exists something to make him doubt. His doubt, or more accurately, his use of doubt led him to go on a philosophical journey to discover himself.

To utilize doubt as a way to better ourselves, we need to know how Descartes did it. He expressed humility in his actions. He knew that knowledge found in a book would always pale in comparison to experience. No matter how well learned he was, he still managed to open himself up and say that there are still some things that he needed to learn.

This has got to be one of the biggest lessons that we can grab from Descartes. He doubted because he was open to the idea that he wasn’t perfect. He wasn’t content with what he knew, with what he could learn.
I guess that’s how we should be. We shouldn’t just be satisfied with what’s in a book, it’s in a book, that knowledge is one internet search or library search away. What should really matter to us is what we do in the real world. Doubt is a fork in the road. We just have to decide which road to take.

Marcel’s “broken world” and its relevance to Ateneans

by Rico La Vina

I am sure that many of us have asked this question before: Why is Ateneo making me, a management/communications/economics/etc. major, take 12 units of philosophy? This is a legitimate question. You have other classes to study for- classes that will actually affect your future. Philosophy, on the other hand, is interesting but “impractical”. Using Gabriel Marcel’s concept of the broken world, I will argue that studying philosophy is essential to making the world a better place. I will show that as Ateneans, future leaders of the country, we learn philosophy so that we will not perpetuate a form of thinking that dehumanizes and exploits the Other. By writing this essay, I have two goals. Firstly, I aim to highlight the relevance of Gabriel Marcel and philosophy. Secondly, I will show you why you should not only study philosophy, but love it.

To begin with, let us analyze Gabriel Marcel’s concept of the broken world. Marcel argues that the value of reflection has been discarded in favor of a purely technical kind of knowledge. This means that our actions and beliefs are judged on the basis of practicality. Reflection and creativity is something that is seen to be irrelevant and even counterproductive. This mentality pervades all aspects of society: from our education, to our family life, to our hobbies, and even to our personal relationships. Unfortunately for us, we cannot escape this brokenness.

The idea that our world is “broken” is hard to grasp so let me illustrate this concept with an example. Upon graduating college, many of us will become entrepreneurs, journalists, psychologists, doctors, lawyers, and economists. We will become this because it has been deemed practical by society. I say this not as a form of condemnation, but as a statement of fact. The problem is that many of us would rather do something else. Some would want to become musicians, artists, or do charity work. Unfortunately, those occupations are far too “impractical.” We will not be able to make money or earn. Rather than follow our dreams, we feel compelled to follow the norm which is to be practical and materially successful. The problem then is that we feel constrained by the rationality of practicality which dominates society. We can therefore see that Ateneans or not, we are victims of the broken world.

Even our personal relationships have been distorted by this emphasis on practicality and efficiency. We interact with many people on the basis of usefulness; people are treated as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Such a way of thinking leads to the exploitation of the poor and the dehumanization of others which enables exploitation and apathy. Let me give an example. We live in a capitalist society in which money is the medium for many of our relationships. While I have friends and family that I value for their own sake, the vast majority of the people I interact with, I interact with only because of an exchange in goods. For example, I interact with salespersons because we exchange goods; I talk with security guards because they’re paid. Almost all of my relationships are based on something tangible and exchangeable. The problem with this is that if someone is of no use to me, it becomes easy to say that I have no relationship with him/her. There is no need for me to take care of them, to love them. It is this attitude which enables poverty. As a grocery store clerk, I will not give that poor person food because she is not a customer; as a doctor, I will not treat that person because he’s not a client, and I will not give that person proper housing because they have no money. In other words, by putting practicality and efficiency on a pedestal, we legitimize apathy towards the marginalized, the “useless.” Worse than that, we legitimize the mentality that it is perfectly fine to exploit someone because they are “useless.” This mentality, therefore, blinds us from something very obvious but often ignored: the idea that we are all beings who participate in the infinite richness of Being. We are broken because we have become apathetic towards our fellow human beings.

So what is the relation of this brokenness to our life? Most of us- including me- will one day work in this broken world. By graduating from Ateneo, we will learn the techniques to succeed in our occupation. We will learn how to control knowledge. For example, as a marketer, I will learn how to convince people to buy things that they don’t want. If I become a lawyer, I will be taught to see people from a purely legal point of view. The problem then is that these things we learn, our practical knowledge, could be used to make the world even more broken than it already is. By not reflecting, we could be trapped into thinking on a purely practical but inhumane way of thinking.

The purpose of studying philosophy then is to introduce a human element into our way of thinking. We study philosophy not for its “practical” purpose- although, I could argue that philosophy is a very useful subject- but for its ability to free us from thinking on a purely practical basis. Without philosophy and reflection, we become blind. Rather than see people as people, we see them as consumers, criminals, politicians, and numbers. We need philosophy to remind us of an essential but often ignored reality: that we are all human who exist together in this world, and that we have an obligation to take care of one another. Why do we have a responsibility to one another? Acknowledging this is the solution to Marcel’s broken world.

Do not get me wrong; I am not at all arguing against ways of thinking that involve technique. Marcel is merely saying that we should imbue this practical knowledge with human compassion and kindness that can only come from having a reflective spirit. Marcel’s challenge then is that the next time we are about to do something practical, we ask ourselves a very simple question: is what I am doing bad for other people? In other words, he challengers us to not only do what is practical, but do what is ethical. This is something that we must do to save humanity. When we refuse to reflect on the basis of impracticality, we only make the world even more broken. As Ateneans, as people who exist in the world with others, we must not reinforce a way of thinking that dehumanizes the Other, which conflates an infinitely complex person into a mere GDP or a sales number.

Philosophy is necessary because it allows us to see other people for what they truly are, as beings in their own right. For too long we have become blind to something so obvious. We need philosophy to allow the spirit of the truth to illuminate the world around us. If we do not reflect, then the world will continue to be broken.

Mushy, Lengthy, Inspirational Speeches

by Nats Barretto

18 September 2012

Discussed Texts: Rene Descartes, Meditations on the First Philosophy

                            Gabriel Marcel, "Primary and Secondary Reflection," The Mystery of Being

Reflection comes in the weirdest parts of the day. One minute you're hurrying on your way to school, one minute you're reflecting about existence. This happened to me once while I was crossing a street and a motorcycle slowed down to give way to me. I remembered philosophy class: the mere fact that the motorcycle driver slowed down for me was proof that I do exist.

 

I also find it hard to control when to reflect sometimes, since it only comes when I'm "in the mood". One time I was reviewing for a long exam when a line from a song suddenly popped into my head. The line was, "wish that you could see what I see when it's gone". I really couldn't remember what the song is, but I knew that it was a song I always listen to. Because of this "disquiet", I stopped reading what I was reading and searched my iTunes. I kept on browsing and browsing, listening to songs I felt was a good candidate for the line. I did this for more than an hour until I finally found the song I was looking for. It was a song I kept on ignoring for the past hour.

 

The thing is, I thought I knew the song too well that I wouldn't mistake it for as the origin of the line. But maybe that was the problem: I knew the song too well. When we're too familiar with something, we tend to have a hard time recognizing it sometimes.

 

This concept can also be applied to our relations with people. Knowing a person too well can make it hard for us to describe them sometimes. Many lectures ago, I remember Dr. Garcia summarizing this idea with, "the more we know, the more we don't know".

 

Those two reflections involved the totality of "me". It didn't just involve my body: it also involved my soul. It's center, or "fulcrum", was the totality of my being. Realizing my existence doesn't only involve the existence of my body, but also the existence something beyond my body, something which controls and gives life to my body: my soul. Realizing the meaning behind "knowing less as we know more" also just didn't involve my body. It involved the experiences of my body: listening to a song and being familiar with it, having a friend and knowing him for a long time.

 

Okay, I already have these insights. Now what do I do with it? I wrote about it, but maybe there's something more I can do with these insights. Maybe these insights can help me "convert" for the better. Knowing of my existence and being conscious of it can help me make better decisions in the future. For example, seeing a girl carrying a huge heavy block of wood, I know that I can help and I do help being aware that I can help. It's a menial example, but it can lead to something greater. Being aware that I exist, I know that I can help more people other than the girl carrying the huge heavy block. (Dr. Garcia suggested in class the corporal works of mercy.)

 

Reflection is the main source of wisdom. It is the source of the mushy, lengthy and inspirational speeches we usually hear at the end of a movie or a TV show. These reflections teach us about life. They are the ones that make our day "less bad", or in a more positive way, "more happy". Though maybe not all reflections have obvious "life applications", I think these reflections still contribute to how we think as a whole. The insight I've gained from my second account probably sounds too "theoretical" in a way that it's hard to put it into use. But then, maybe it doesn't have a direct use. Maybe it's just suppose to make you feel close to someone when you realize you find it hard to describe them. Maybe, maybe not, no one can really know. As Fr. Ferriols said, the totality of some insights are really hard to grasp. Maybe this is one of those insights.

An Atheist's God

by Rucha Lim

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

― Haruki Murakami, Sputnik Sweetheart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doubt and Existence

by Barbie Barlocher

13 September 2012

Discussed text: Rene Descartes, Meditations on the First Philosophy

Rene Descartes’ methological doubt has paved the way for the sciences. He also started the movement towards modern philosophy. Heck, he actually helped create a lot of things such as the Cartesian plane. But quite frankly, I am totally utterly confused by Descartes and his philosophy.

Rene Descartes was quite an ambitious fellow, really. He thought that he can separate what was real from what is not by observing a method which we call methological doubt. This means everything that is not certain is subjected to doubt and is therefore set aside. In a way, it’s like starting your very own framework of knowledge with absolutely nothing on it. So, in order to achieve absolute certainty, we must first doubt everything we know. What can we not doubt then? If everything we perceive is subjected to our interpretation and our own perception of it, is the thing which we perceive just a construct of our own imagination (considering our perception of things is prone to error)? With that way of thinking, Rene Descartes proves that thing that can only be absolutely certainly real and that is the self. Since he is able to think and ask of all of these things, there must be something capable of posing these questions and therefore ‘he’ exists. The ‘he’ in this situation should not be confused with the human body as Descartes separates that which is the body from the mind, which is known as the dualistic view of the human person.

Most if not all of us has faced a situation which caused us to doubt its reality. As for me, I usually end up questioning reality every time I wake up from a nightmare or a particularly good dream. It’s because I feel as if my mind is separated from my physical body whenever I dream. While I dream, everything I experience in it feels real and it is only when I wake up that I notice something peculiar in them. Inception is a science fiction movie that deals with these same ideas.



The main quest of Leonardo DiCaprio in Inception is to go into someone’s dream to extract information from them or to create an idea in their mind as they are dreaming. In the end of it all, we are made to question if whatever is shown indeed reality or if they are still stuck within a dream.

All that aside, I think that it is in doubting that we are able to understand. It is in questioning that we are able to ask ourselves important questions. And, it is in thinking that we are able to prove something to ourselves. By quoting Descartes, I can say that because I thought about all of these I exist.

Who Am I?

by Bambi San Pedro

Reflection on the first Ph 101 Plenary

By now, each one of us must already be able to define what Philosophy really is. In my own understanding, Philosophy helps someone in dealing with the questions that he encounter as he tries to discover who he really is as a person. However, another important question to pour our thoughts into is “What are we trying to do when we do Philosophy?”

In every single day of our lives, day-in day-out, we follow a specific pattern. But in this certain rhythm, we don’t bother to reflect that much, until something happens. This “something” is called a “Break Situation”, or when the normal run of things come to a halt. It is during these times when we question ourselves about the what’s and why’s of this life. What should be my next move? Why this instead of that one? Why me and not her? And sometimes, these break situations might catch us off-guard when they happen in extremes – bankruptcy, failure, death. These are the moments when what we’re holding onto slips from our lives. As for students like us, it might be getting kicked out from the Ateneo with only just 0.5 lacking in the retention QPI. It is this kind of instances that our self-esteem gets affected. The ground of our notion of something gets broken, and we, in turn, break down.

An Extreme Break Situation may be classified as either a Painful Wonder or a Joyful Wonder. In either situation, we look at life as a whole. Right now, we already know that the world is charged with the wonder of God. But, knowing is different from experiencing. When we experience, we are gifted with that “Aaahhh!!” moment, usually the breath-taking ones.

As a science, Philosophy is not one of those that study the human person. Biology deals with the study of the living organism. Sociology deals with the study of the development, structure and functioning of the human society. Psychology deals with the study of the human minds and its function. As for Philosophy, it particularly studies the human phenomenon in the whole of reality. It doesn’t deal with what it means to be human, but what it means to be.

In discovering one’s self, a lot of questions have to be cleared up before he figures out what kind of person he really is. What does it mean to be a human being? What does it mean to be? What does it mean to be me? And finally, Who am I? Then, ask yourself this question, “What does it mean to be myself in the face of others?”

During the talk, Mr. Calasanz retold two different stories about two famous names. He mentioned an instance in St. Augustine’s life when his bestfriend died. The worse part is that their friendship ended in a quarrel, meaning they were not in good terms even before. So when it dawned to him that he has really lost his bestfriend, he goes out in search for his soul and later realized that without his bestfriend, life has no meaning. Here, St. Augustine was dealing with the death of the one he loved, when he came into the question, Who am I? The second story he shared was about Descartes life. He was a man who had a lot of questions about certainty, since a lot of scientific facts are criticized by enumerable brilliant minds. The questions that he usually had to deal with were, How can I be sure? Can I be sure of anything? Can I hold my ground somewhere? And these are also our questions and problems in this time. One common experience among teenagers like ourselves is when we doubt our dad’s words, like when he tells us that he’s going to a conference for a couple days (but the idea of him meeting up with his mistress, crosses our minds).
Reflection might seem easy because the thought flows freely. However, the difficulty comes in when things are so simple that there’s nothing there to breakdown. Thus, Dualism comes in.

Dualism means that this “thinking” is simply thinking. It has no body; it simply thinks. All these things can be doubted. BUT on the other hand, the “act of thinking” is that one thing you can be sure of. One cannot doubt that he’s doubtingbecause it is an act of doubting in itself. Also, one cannotdoubt that he is thinking, because it is an act of thinking in itself. That’s why there is a saying, “I think therefore I am.” And this cliché leads back to the question, Who is this “I”?

In order to fully understand the answer, one must experience HIS body – his own proper body. It’s his. The experience of the “I”, or the self, can only be done by him. No one else can be in his place. This is the only radical solitude that every human being has. One cannot be distinguished from his own body. This self is not a disembodied self rather this self is a body. It cannot go unnoticed. He IS his body. Where his body is, there he is. Just as when his body gets hurt, he also gets hurt. And in the same way, one cannot be identified with the body. There is a separation and ambiguity. He HAS his body. Therefore, he cannot be reduced into his body.

And for Mr. Calasanz’s last point, he explained the thread of facticity and transcendence. Because he IS his body, he is facticity. Facticity came from the word “facturate”, meaning something that is given, or “yari na”. Therefore, it is not something you can decide upon or choose, sort of like one’s genetic makeup. It is not the person’s fault if he is stingy, bipolar or unattractive. All these constitute the spark of who he really is. As for transcendence, it refers to crossing over or going beyond. It provides the answer to the question, What do I do with the given’s, once I realize it? In other words, it shows that what one does with the given’s, is not a given. This leaves a space for choice, a space for creating meaning, a space for reorienting facticities. This facticity is the original source of pain, burden, limitation and woundedness. Transcendence gives that person the act of ownership. This means that he has the capacity to turn this Painful Wonder into a Joyful Wonder. On that account, Philosophy then is trying to see things in the perspective of the totality as a whole.

Discovering who “I” am is seeing that this body is an embodied self and not an abstract one.

The Secret

by Kat Balonan

13 September 2012

Discussed Text: Rene Descartes, Meditations on the First Philosophy

“People are like stained- glass windows. They sparkle and shine when the sun is out, but when the darkness sets in, their true beauty is revealed only if there is a light from within”

- Elizabeth Kübler- Ross

Over the years I have heard a lot of tragic stories and tabloids of celebrities who started out showing exceptional skills and talents in line with their careers but gradually slipping down the path where they begin to depend on some of the vices as their only means of attaining happiness. In the discussion of the article by Descartes, one of the few lines that stood out the most, for me, is when he said: “It is not enough to have a good mind, rather the main thing is to apply it well. The greatest souls are capable of the greatest vices as well as of the greatest virtue:.  In a lot of ways this can be connected especially in our society today.

In the fast- paced society today, a lot of people tend to forget the importance of simplicity and compassion especially towards others. Many of us are so busy in trying to concentrate in attaining our needs or our goals in life that we actually forget to LIVE our life. The saying: “Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever” by Mahatma Gandhi seems to gradually fade in the midst of our work, our school work and other “seemingly important priorities” Perhaps a lot of us still continues to search for the meaning of life and how to attain happiness in this chaotic world that we try to search these things in the various aspects of our lives. There are times where we search in the wrong places that we actually end up living only in temporary happiness through these vices. Others who search in the right places began to develop a sense of awareness not only in him but towards the people that surrounds him.

So then, where can we find the answer to the idea of life? I believe the secret is found in the “classics”, such as poetry, mathematics, writing, etc., that Descartes had described in his article. It is through these things that we begin to slowly understand and appreciate the beauty of the thought that is rooted deep in our society. It is by indulging in these things that we learn not only about ourselves but also our society. This is not to say that what we read or what we learn in these classic is the only way to live our life but it is more on the idea or the essence that we gain from these things. It’s kind of like traveling. It will be boring if we are given an instruction manual on where to travel first or what to do. It defeats its primary purpose. Traveling is more on self- discovery just like when reading these classics. It is more effective if we apply what we learn or what we experience in the way we lived. Try to recall a favorite book that you have read recently or a long time ago. Usually, you would remember this book because you were able to identify with the character or maybe the situation is somehow familiar. Most of all, it made an impact in your life no matter how small or big it is. It somehow made us think more about life and changes us in the inside. For me, the book that I can say influences me the most is perhaps Paolo Coelho's The Alchemist because it was the very first book that made me think about the meaning of life. It somehow changes my perspective that life is all about being what society wants you to be.

To end my entry I would like to share one of the poems that I learned in my Lit class that really help me think about the importance of finding ourselves and our happiness.

Richard Cory

Edwin Arlington Robinson

Whenever Richard Cory went down town,

We people on the pavement looked at him:

He was a gentleman from sole to crown,

Clean favored, and imperially slim.

And he was always quietly arrayed,

And he was always human when he talked; 

But still he fluttered pulses when he said,

'Good-morning,' and he glittered when he walked.

And he was rich - yes, richer than a king -

And admirably schooled in every grace:

In fine, we thought that he was everything

To make us wish that we were in his place.

So on we worked, and waited for the light,

And went without the meat, and cursed the bread; 

And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,

Went home and put a bullet through his head

How Far Can Charity Go?

by Thomas Manalac

The trailer blurb says:

"In a time when America's economy and sense of community were crumbling, one guy left everything behind--to see if he could survive solely on the support of the 21st century's new town square: Craigslist. It was in this climate that 29-year-old Joseph Garner cut himself off from everyone he knew and everything he owned, to embark on a bold adventure. Armed with only a laptop, cell phone, toothbrush, and the clothes on his back--alongside the hope that community was not gone but just had shifted--Joseph began his journey. For 31 December days and nights, everything in his life would come from the Craigslist website. From transportation to food, from shelter to companionship, Joe would depend on the generosity of people who had never seen him and whose sole connection to him was a giant virtual swap meet. Would America help Joe? Could he survive with nothing, apart from the goodwill of others?"

The class might find it interesting and relevant as it tackles the disappearing sense of community in society due to isolation caused by technology and media.

Three-Minute Philosophy: Rene Descartes

Here's a simplistic yet amusing video about Descartes, made by the Three Minute Philosophy group of filmmakers:

And here's another related video that might be familiar to you:

In this world, what is certain? What is real? Precisely (if you get what I mean).

The Paradox of Our Age

by Bella Nepomuceno

Pico Ayer's article reminded me very much of the poem by the Dalai Lama, "The Paradox of Our Age." I think it really encapsulates how much we've taken for granted and how things have become "backward" in a sense.

We have taller buildings, but shorter tempers

Wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints

We spend more, but we have less

We have bigger houses, but smaller families

More conveniences, but less time

We have more degrees, but less sense

More knowledge, but less judgment

More experts, but more problems

More medicines, but less wellness

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values

We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often

We have learnt how to make a living, but not a life

We have added years to life, but not life to years

We’ve been all the way to the moon and back

But have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbour

We have conquered outer space, but not inner space

We’ve cleaned up the air, but polluted our soul

We’ve split the atom, but not our prejudice

We’ve higher incomes, but lower morals

We’ve become long on quantity but short on quality

These are the times of tall men, and short character

Steep profits, and shallow relationships

These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare

More leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition

These are the days of two incomes, but more divorces

Of fancier houses, but broken homes

It is a time when there is much in the show window

And nothing in the stockroom

A time when technology can bring this letter to you

And a time when you can choose

Either to make a difference.... or just hit, delete.

Mirrors and Mulan

by Patricia Avila

30 August 2012

Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, "Primary and Secondary Reflection," The Mystery of Being


Today, I thought about mirrors.

Actually, I really didn’t, but this was the best analogy I could come up with in my head.

As in, “who is that girl I see / staring straight back at me / why is my reflection / someone I don’t know” and all that jazz about Mulan being the perfect daughter and bride of the famous Disney Chinese family which gave birth to one of the best feminist figures in human history, both in the folklore and in the 1998 Disney movie.

Basically, in the song, Mulan goes on about how she doesn’t see herself in her reflection, and I thought that it fit the quiz perfectly for me, about how others see me and how I see myself. It’s pretty interesting—the lists I came up with are polar opposites of each other; how others see me is almost always the opposite of how I see myself.

So it leads to questions about who I am, really. And when am I really myself. Can I even be myself? I think I can.

And maybe, I’ll be like Mulan, who sings about looking reflections and knowing that what she sees is or isn’t her.

The "Garaponated" Self

by Richard Dy

30 August 2012

Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, "Primary and Secondary Reflection," The Mystery of Being


During the August 30th lecture, we tackled the final chapter in the Gabriel Marcel series of our handouts. I think it is the pinnacle of what we are trying to struggle with for all these weeks. As the midterms draws near, many of us have no choice but to wilfully reflect on what we have learned so far. The last lecture struggled with what defines the self? Who am I, really? When am I? and How am I? Frankly, the topic raised more question than it answered but I'm grateful that it did.

About myself

The sub-header above is the bane of all the social networking website. Don't you love it when you sign up for a social networking site and it asked you to describe yourself? But how can I really describe myself in 600 characters of less? This is where the "garaponation" happens. Of course a normal person would not turn philosophical in a snap and really think "deep". Most likely, people will answer what they think they are. I, on the other hand, sometimes find it hard to munster up words to put in the little box on the website for everyone to see. I really had to second guess myself if those adjectives really fits who I really am and how it'll be "agreeable" for others who view my profile.

The problem with personally describing yourself is that you don't really know yourself that much. I remember during my INTACT class, we were asked to write adjectives describing ourselves and then made required to pass around the paper and ask others to describe the person on the paper. Most of us were shocked that some adjectives are very far off from what we think of ourselves and how we present ourselves to others. It is really weird and wonderful at the same time that we are blocked off from our subconscious and that the opacity is enough to make us rethink entirely of ourselves.

With this in mind, are we ourselves if not because of others?

The Society

I believe that one of the important factor for our being is that we have others. We are a social being, we simply cannot be without others. May it be your mother who raised and loved you to a special someone who makes you feel whole inside. It is a crucial part of who we are. I remember my Sociology and Anthropology professor  talking about how we are just a reflection of the society and how our upbringing is totally a product of consequences over the years. It is indeed a superficial statement but its not less true if you really think about it. On the other hand, blessed with philosophical insight, aren't we unique anyway because of how we've become?

We may be different on how we are when we're alone and how we convey ourselves when with other people but aren't we practically, still us? We experience two aspects of our lives that WE choose to live. When still in doubt about our true selves, we appeal to another part of our existential being, something greater.

Something Greater

We have already tackled with a greater force that operates the universe around us but now we're finding ourselves asking if are we are part of this greater force's inner workings. Are we just here because we are here or our purpose is ingrained in the fundamental workings of the society. Heck, even I think that I am writing this blog post because I was chosen by this greater force (not Sir Earl btw!) We find it interesting how we're not the center of the world but merely a part of it. Sometimes we feel that merely experiencing a great loss should compel everything in the world to just stop. The Sun shouldn't shine, the birds shouldn't chirp and people should stop what they're doing. But we quickly realize it is never the case.

Our being is based on experience. We transcend because of experience and we oftentimes let go and participate in this source greater than ourselves.

Moving Forward

I particularly find myself in an existential crossroad in this point in the class lecture. Many thoughts have crossed my mind, we exist because we are. Are we then nonexistent when we cease to be, or do we live through others we have influenced in our life? It is quite an interesting thing to reflect upon being's eccentricities at least now, we can move forward always being aware that we are aware of ourselves.

With that, I leave a quote which I can't get out of my head for the past few days. It really contrasts the question "What experience then does the true self emerge?" may it be personal or societal.

"It's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you."

- Rachel Dawes, Batman Begins

The Crossroads

by Trunks Atienza

30 August 2012

Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, "Primary and Secondary Reflection," The Mystery of Being

One of the “first world problems” of today is starting a paper in a profoundly strong way. You never know what to talk about or what topic to attack first because of the vast variety of topics that our minds present to us. More often than not, man is vulnerable to the downfall of trying to cope up with all these beliefs, concerns, prejudices, and whatnots in our lives that we lose sight of the things that are truly significant. And this, my fellow Garcians, is where reflection comes in.

I presume most of you reading this blog entry are at the crossroads in life called college. Here, our “leashes” are loosened. We are given a broader sense of freedom: late nights with the barkada, wearing absolutely anything we want to school (even if we look ridiculous), sitting-in on your crush’s class, cramming for a long test on philosophy etc. A lot of us may see college as a venue for adventure, buffoonery, and enjoyment. I am quite sure most, if not all, of us characterize college this way. As Mike Ross and Harvey Specter would put it, we would all be committing an act of perjury if we denied this fact. But what college is, more importantly, is that it is a turning point in our lives where our broadened freedom will have to co-exist with a mature discernment for self-realization. Here, we are given the opportunity to bank on what we desire to become for the duration of our lives. There are no limits to the possibility of decisions we can make throughout our college lives. We may decide to cut class, resent professors, or forego studying for an exam. But we must reflect on how these decisions could affect us in the long run. We may have cut class now but what if we miss a bonus quiz by doing so? We may resent a professor or two but what if they could have turned out to be quite a likeable person? We may pass on a chance to study for an exam but what if we fail the course and eventually get dismissed from Ateneo just because of that exam?

Reflection calls for us to pay attention to significant moments in our lives, to internalize these moments and self-examine our feelings and thoughts, and embrace these moments and convert toward how these moments affect our lives. The decisions we make in our lives lead us down certain paths which comprise of the fruits that our decisions bear. For us, the young, wild, and free generation, reflection is a way for us to ask the question: “What do my decisions lead me to become as a person?”