It's On Me

by Jordan Palmares

13 December 2012
Disccused Text: Levinas, "Love and Filiation," Ethics and Infinity


“There is continuity in discontinuity”. As I was listening to Dr. Garcia’s lecture last Thursday, it was these words that struck me the most. I remember as a kid growing up, my parents were subtly suggesting possible careers for me to take. There was always that pressure to conform since some parents want you to also follow their career paths. My father was always telling me when I was younger: “Why don’t you take business? I took that course in college, and you can make lots of money in business.” Although it’s very possible to earn a lot through that career, I wasn’t quite sure if I would enjoy business as much as he did.
When I was in 4th year high school, it took me several months and sleepless nights to decide what I wanted to take up here in the Ateneo. I finally realized that taking up AB Communications was the right choice because of the way it fits my personality and interests. It was clear, business just wasn’t for me. I don’t like numbers, graphs, or statistics, however; I do love money. I have nothing against business, but I believe it’s just not for me.

When I told my dad that I was going to take this course in college, I was expecting him to feel a little disappointed, but to my surprise he didn’t. He told me that “You’re old enough to decide on your life and that I will respect any decision you make”. In class, Doc G stated that “To be a father you must be able to recede at the background; you can’t always stay at the center”. My dad already acknowledged the fact that I am an adult now, and that he cannot tell me what to do with my life. He was also happy to know that I am unique and do excel in different aspects compared to him. I might not have become a businessman like him, but I will always be his son, and that aspect will never change.

I also learned that Levinas was just not talking about the biological relationships when he was discussing paternity or fraternity. It’s kind of like how people significantly fulfill these supposed roles of a father, mother, brother, sister, etc. This can be applied not only to our friends but to everyone we meet. An example would be whenever we go out on these outreach programs to the less fortunate, we listen to them, talk to them, interact with them, share our blessings, but most importantly share a special bond with them. We make them feel like family, we make them feel loved, and also part of the community. Doc G also stressed that: “We need to be able to reach out to the other who comes along our path”. Proximity is not merely about the blood relation between two people but rather, what we can do for the “other”.

I Have Good Intention of Promoting Mutual Understanding

by Hubert Cua

This blog post is written in response to clarify some of the things raised in the class and to prevent problems and clashes caused by misunderstanding. Communication opens doors.I have good intention of promoting mutual understanding.Everything in this blog post does not connote anything bad or offensive. This blog post is not directly related to philosophy, but is indirectly related to philosophy.

There are many terms, like Filipino Chinese or Tsinoy that refers to people with Chinese blood in the Philippines. However, these terms are broad and have meanings that differ across various people.In understanding Filipino Chinese or Tsinoy, we need to bring out some specific terms for clarity. As a result, I will personally translate and define simply some of our exact terms in Mandarin. (The formal definitions are far more complex.)The terms Oversea Chinese and Oversea Chinese Nationals are in some ways related to the terms Oversea Filipino and Oversea Filipino Worker. If the Oversea Chinese came out before 1979, they are referred as Early Oversea Chinese Nationals. If the Oversea Chinese came out after 1979, they are referred as Late Oversea Chinese Nationals. (The Open Door Policy of China was made in 1978 and implemented in 1979. Year 1979 is usually, but not always, used as basis for clarity.) Oversea Chinese Nationals, whose nationality in the paper was changed due to naturalization law, is called Oversea Chinese. The descendants of Oversea Chinese Nationals are referred either as Oversea Chinese or as Pure (Blooded) Chinese Descent.  The term Pure Chinese Descent is used to contrast Filipino with Chinese Descent, which refer to mixed bloods.


People usually refer to Oversea Chinese as businessman. This is actuallyvery generalized stereotype. Let me explain how this started. Since Xia Dynasty (about 4000 years ago) to the first half of Qing Dynasty (before year 1839), China was generally, but not specifically, one of the most prosperous or even the most prosperous country or group of states in the world. First Opium War then started in 1839. Within 110 years (1839 – 1949), China was attacked, colonized and imperialized by numerous countries and was forced to sign more than 300 unequal treaties. (People usually, but not always, accept that there are 10 major invaders and some minor invaders.) China also experienced Civil War until People’s Republic of China was founded on October 1, 1949. As a result, China became very poor. Some Chinese also came out to earn money back home during and after these 110 years.These Early Oversea Chinese Nationals, especially in the Spanish era, worked very hard under very low wages and very poor conditions. Eventually, they turned from lowly workers to businessman. During Spanish era, their stereotype was blood suckers, stingy and the like, because they generally spend very little and bring home the rest. During and sometime after the Chinese Civil War, the stereotype of Oversea Chinese Nationals was either Communist or Nationalist. (By the way, now, the form of government of China is not communism. It is translated as China’s Specialty Socialism or Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.) Now, the stereotypes of Oversea Chinese are rich, businessman and etc. Since we are talking about openness or acceptance of differences in philosophy, I would like to stress that some of these stereotypes are true in some cases and to some extent, while other stereotypes are false in some cases and to some extent.First, the stereotype of Chinese as businessman is not true in China and is true only in some countries and in some cases oversea. Second, I admit that there are still some older generations who oblige the younger generations to go to business. Whether we agree or not, we need to understand both the side of the older generations and the side of the younger generations. On one side, the younger generations want to pursue their own field of interest. On the other side, the older generations want the sons or daughters to continue what they worked very hard for. It’s not easy to rise from lowly workers to businessman.

Some Filipinos think that both the older and the younger generations of Oversea Chinese generally do not marry non-Chinese, because of discrimination. I admit discrimination exists in both sides, but in reality, not marrying non-Chinese is not a sort of discrimination. Let me explain how this started. Quite a number of Early Oversea Chinese Nationals, especially during the Spanish era, marry Filipina, because almost all of the Chinese Nationals who came out were male. Now that the ratio between male and female Oversea Chinese is almost 1:1, Pure Chinese Descent generally do not marry Filipino or Filipina, because of various reasons. The reasons can be any combinations of the some reasons I wrote below. One, this is to preserve the Chinese lineage. Two, this is to preserve the Chinese surnames. Three, this is to have blood purity. Four, this is to have cultural purity.Five, this is to prevent cultural conflict.Chinese culture is indeed different from other cultures. What is correct for Chinese may be wrong for non-Chinese. This also goes for its vice-versa. Six, this is to show great importance and great trust to other Chinese. Seventh, this is to show national and ethnic solidarity. Eighth, this is because of looking at marriage, not only as something personal, but also as something representative of our country. During dynastic era, marriage symbolizes peace and friendship between two states. An example would be the marriage between a palace servant Wang Zhaojun of Han Dynasty and Huhanye of Xiongnu. Another example would be the marriage between Princess Wencheng of Tang Dynasty and Songzanganbu of Xizhang. (Tibet) Ninth, this is because oflooking up to fellow Chinese. Again, this is not discrimination, because looking up on fellow Chinese does not mean looking down on non-Chinese. Now, I hope some would understand why not marrying non-Chinese is not a sort of discrimination. In fact, it is not only the Chinese who practice this. Many countries and ethnics, including some Filipinos, also practice this. I guess some Filipinos practice this with lesser intensity. I think that this is only highlighted because Oversea Chinese, not including Filipinos with Chinese Descent, is a minority in the population living in the Philippines.

Femininity

by Alex Fong

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


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

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

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

In Defense of Darwinism

by Rucha Lim


I feel that I’m a bit late in writing this but I’ll still write it because I feel the need to clarify some misconceptions that may have arisen when I brought up the biological perspective on being good.

After my comment regarding the possibility of humans being biologically primed to do good, Doctor Garcia mentioned the concept of “The Selfish Gene” to reinforce the idea that our biological imperatives drive us to be selfish. I feel that this needs to be clarified however to avoid misconceptions. What better way to clarify the concept than in the words of Richard Dawkins himself? He writes

“The logic of Darwinism concludes that the unit in the hierarchy of life which survives and passes through the filter of natural selection will tend to be selfish. The units that survive are at the expense of their rivals at their own level in the hierarchy. That, precisely, is what selfish means in this context. The question is, what is the level of the action? The whole idea of the selfish gene, with the stress properly applied to the last word, is that the unit of natural selection (i.e. the unit of self interest) is not the selfish organism, nor the selfish group or selfish species or selfish ecosystem, but the selfish gene.It is the gene that, in the form of information, either survives for many generations or does not. Unlike the gene (and arguably the meme), the organism, the group and the species are not the right kind of entity to serve as a unit in this sense, because they do not make such self-replicating entities. That is precisely what genes do, and that is – essentially logical – justification for singling the gene out as the unit of ‘selfishness’ in the special Darwinian sense of selfish.”

So what Dawkins was describing as ‘selfish’ was really our biological imperative to outlast the other organisms in our ecosystems. That is why we developed tools and techniques. It is in order to better fend off potential predators and perhaps even outhunt them in order to thrive. Dawkins further writes that primates, being social creatures are capable of the concept of reputations. This means that elements in a social group that are selfish prove to be detrimental and are often punished. We’ve seen it in how gorillas and baboons have leaders that punish members that were liabilities to the group’s survival.

Cooperation is what helped primates thrive in groups and this particularly seen in the developments of the human race. It is here that the concept of Darwinism comes into play again. Darwinism is not just about the short-term survival of the singular organism but rather, the long-term survival of its race.It is not just about the evolution of sharper claws or stronger muscles for hunting because that is just one aspect of survival. What Darwinism retains and develops are the qualities in organisms that let their kind flourish. Lions evolved into good hunters, gazelle evolved into fast runners that can flee from predators, and humans evolved into social creatures that band together against the other forces of nature. We learned to communicate and trust each other and the ways in which we are able to develop this trust through altruistic behavior and generosity. Ever since the prehistoric era, humans have banded together to hunt creatures much larger and more powerful.

This is why in my previous writings (and perhaps the ones to come) I always stress how I believe in the human narrative. We must view ourselves as the whole human race and remember the foundations in what has allowed our race to thrive, through the social and the values associated with it, compassion, altruism, and empathy.

Darwinism is applied to elements like compassion because they assist in survival. The most immediate of altruistic relationships occur between those of blood relatives and thus the genes of one progenitor are able to survive and evolve. This gave rise to the social unit known as the family. This is why things such as family values develop in order to preserve the elements of the units.Humanity however has expanded the social into the tribes and then into the kingdom,then the religion and then the nation (though not necessarily in that order). Now, in our globalized world, we’ve become increasingly conscious of our wholeness as the human race especially in the face of the dangers we have created for ourselves. As bullets and bombs do not discriminate nationality or sex or race, so we must also learn to surpass these differences and be conscious of our oneness. Remember Heidegger’s statement of philosophy as “philos sophon” or one who yearns for the whole. Darwinism does not reduce us into our base desires but has actually revealed the inner social capacities of the human for the purpose of the survival of our race.

     Many of the things I’m trying to say here, besides being influenced by Dawkins is influenced by a video of a talk by Jeremy Rifkin for the British Royal Society of Arts. The video can be found below and I’d recommend everyone watch because it’s just so full of information and insight and I may have overlooked some things in my writing.

A Series of Insights

by Nats Barretto


Last Thursday's philosophy class was probably the best philosophy class for me so far.

"Time is not a line, it's an instant. Every instant is created anew with every instant."

This is an instant. And so is this. And so is this. Get it?

Fuck.

"The future is a promise. Whatever I have done in the past, I can still change meaning by what I do in the future."

Writing that word "fuck" up there was a mistake from the past. But I was able to change its meaning by using it as an example for a concept.

"Whenever I'm still alive, there's still hope."

True.

I think that line was the point of last Thursday's discussion. I'm still alive, there's still hope. We do not know what the future holds.

We can choose to believe that the future holds sadness and despair.

But why believe that? We can believe that the future holds beauty and joy.

There are many beautiful and joyful things in life, which the future can hold. And the first step in attaining those beautiful and joyful things is believing that you can attain those beautiful and joyful things.

So that you'd have the motivation in working for those beautiful and joyful things.

"Appreciation of time as very precious. It's poignant: it's beautiful, but it won't last forever."

Isn't it sad?

Nothing lasts forever, but that's just how life works. Beautiful and joyful things in the past must give way to other beautiful and joyful things that will come in the future.

"The best is yet to come."

Last Thursday's philosophy class was probably the best philosophy class for me so far. But I believe that the best is yet to come.

"Power Philosophy"

by Hubert Cua (2 of 2)

The article is just an opinion, and I may not be correct.

When I attended the talk on Edukasyon sa Pagpapakatao, one of the speakers said something like this. Many people, like students, do not dislike philosophy and theology before they take philosophy and theology. Many people disliked philosophy and theology only during or after they take philosophy and theology. At this point, I want to coin two terms. (Again, these terms do not connote any superiority and inferiority.) The first term is formal philosophy, which refers to the philosophy of “elitist” or that is taught in schools and universities. The second term is popular philosophy, which refers to philosophy of “commoners” or that is widespread. Now, I would like to start analyzing from the title, which is Power Philosophy. What I noticed is that people start to philosophize formally mostly in times of prosperity or in times of chaos. This means that a certain level of power, prosperity or chaos, must be achieved in order to trigger formal philosophy. This seems true in Chinese, European, French, Greek, Indian, Roman, Russian Philosophy and more. In normal times, people often stick to popular philosophy. Since Philippines is generally developing, which is neither developed, nor undeveloped, most parts of the Philippines does not seem to have the condition of making formal philosophy flourish. Rather, popular philosophy is prevalent in most parts of the Philippines. This way, students would possibly prefer popular philosophy more than formal philosophy. This seems to make them dislike formal philosophy. However, I noticed that some philosophers, like Confucius, Levinas and etc, were able to make parts of their formal philosophies into popular philosophies at the same time. I also noticed that philosophy seems to be based on power. Western Philosophy (I know I am somewhat contradicting my previous blog post.) is generally taught in universities, like Ateneo, since western countries has a strong power and influence on Ateneo.

No Categories

by Den Banaag

6 December 2012
Discussed Text: Levinas, "The Solitude of Being," Ethics and Infinity


In previous lectures, Sir has talked about Levinas and how he holds a view that we should respond to the call of the other; to have a responsibility for others. More recently, he talked about one’s relation with the other. Human beings are unique, but we are reminded that there can still be relations among them.

This calls us to view other people simply as human beings, that is, to look at people with no categories being imposed on them. This is, of course, much harder to do than it sounds. In a few seconds, as we look at other people, our mind takes in everything from the shape of one’s nose to how the person is dressed and we form judgments about him or her. I know that this can happen even though I try to control it.

However, I remembered during times like Ondoy or the arrival of the nameless monsoon that it was entirely possible for all of us to, even for a while, forget about all these labels and these categories - to realize that yes, we all have our differences, but that, as Levinas said, we are all equal through them. How, even through Twitter, I saw people who I knew were never close ask if the other was safe.

I remembered how, when I was watching a Pacquiao fight in a movie theatre, I felt as if I were friends with everyone in attendance – how we all shouted, clapped and laughed with the one beside us. The moment when Pacquiao’s foe was knocked down, we all stood up and cheered, smiles on our faces. For a couple of seconds, my father briefly conversed about his thoughts and feelings on the match with the usher standing near us. It was not a conversation between a customer and an employee – just from one human being to another. As a former athlete, the thought just reinforced my love for sports and how events like these bring about that sense of relation with others.

How could it be so easy to forget categorizing people in these circumstances? It made me quite sad to think these brief moments of getting out of one’s comfort zone would only happen under certain situations or circumstances. To be honest, carrying that same attitude past a sporting event or a national disaster is difficult to maintain on a day-to-day basis. To put yourself in a relationship with a stranger wherein you are ready to respond to the other’s call, or have a certain responsibility for the other sounds like a burden. However, I am reminded of these moments wherein I am able to forget myself – what Levinas describes as the “I” escaping from being – and that light, happy-inducing environment that can be created if others are willing to do the same.

Sir Garcia often mentioned in the past about how things were different back then with the long hair and flared pants. I am sure everyone knows how influential The Beatles were and how their songs were able to bring people together despite their differences. This video, though quite old, still manages to make me hopeful. Though it is an advertisement, I believe its message is quite clear. Despite differences in race, age and social class, they were with one another as equals, even for one song. No categories – just simply singing along with your fellow human being.

Ilyaing, being and Being in Dreaming

by Hubert Cua (Part 1 of 2)

I slept. I woke up. I asked myself, “Did I sleep or did I dream?”

I believe that some of us have experienced this in the past even for just a time. This is the experience when we are not sure in what following case we belong. For the first case, we just lie on the bed without sleeping. For the second case, we lie on the bed, fall asleep without dreaming of something. For the third case, we lie on the bed, fall asleep and dream of something. Some scientific studies say that we usually experience this when we are tired when we go to sleep. Because we are tired, our consciousness is still at work to some extent, while we are sleeping. This makes us falsely believe that we are awake, so when we experience something like this, we actually belong to second case or third case.

Between the second case and third case, let us first talk about second case, which is we lie on the bed, fall asleep without dreaming of something. In the second case, we can see the continuity of our consciousness before sleeping and after sleeping. However, this consciousness is not active consciousness or total consciousness. Rather, this consciousness is passive consciousness or partial consciousness. This is because, we seem to be conscious, but we are not really conscious. At this point, we are neither the conscious nor the unconscious. In other words, we are experiencing il y a.

Now, let us talk about third case, which is we lie on the bed, fall asleep and dream of something. In the third case, we also experience il y a, like in the second case. However, since we are dreaming, we are being or Being in our own dreams. Isn’t this a strange phenomenon? We exist in this real world and in the imaginary world in dreams at the same time. More strangely, we are also ilyaing, being and Being at the same time.

In the class, we often say that ilyaing, being and Being are linear, in the sense that we need to go from ilyaing to Being through being. Here, it seems that we are assuming that we can’t be ilyaing, being and Being at the same time. To provide an example when we are ilyaing, being and Being at the same time, I brought out this strange phenomenon.

"There is no Eastern and Western Philosophy"

by Hubert Cua (Part 5 of 5)

I used to think that Eastern Philosophy, particularly Chinese Philosophy, and Western Philosophy strongly differ from each other. Even if they have some similarities, their similarities are quite insignificant to talk about. It is only until recently that I started to think that this seems wrong.

Several meetings ago, Dr. Garcia said something like this. For the westerners, art is to hide art. Poetry brings us to the unsaid and leaves it unsaid. Isn’t that eastern art? My impression of Western Philosophy on art is that they are materialistic, distinct, clear, direct, demonstrative and showy. On the other hand, my impression of Eastern Philosophy on art is that they are spiritualistic, indistinct, vague, indirect, undemonstrative and hiding. (All the adjectives I use do not connote inferiority and superiority.)  However, it seems that Eastern and Western Philosophy on art has converging point.

Few meetings ago, we talked about how some western philosophers think that humans is essentially good, while other western philosophers think that humans is essentially bad. Isn’t that one of the debates in Chinese Philosophy several thousands of years ago? When we took Chinese Philosophy in high school, our Chinese teacher said that some Chinese Philosophers, like Mencius, think that humans is essentially good, while other Chinese Philosophers, like Xunzi, think that humans is essentially bad. How is that?

Well, I think before, since civilizations generally do not interact with one another, each civilization formed its own unique characteristics. This makes each civilization clearly contrasts with all other civilizations. As time passes by, philosophy slowly becomes universal. Eventually, there will be a possibility that there will be no Eastern and Western Philosophy in the future. Is this good?

Taking The One Less Traveled By

by Katya Vargas

4 December 2012
Discussed text: Levinas, "The Solitude of Being," Ethics and Infinity


Today’s lesson on jouissance reminded me of a poem I took up as a senior in high school. It’s entitled “The Road Not Taken” and it’s written by Robert Frost.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

Though as for that the passing there

Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay

In leaves no step had trodden black.

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh

Somewhere ages and ages hence:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

We learned that the meaning of the term jouissance is to enjoy something that makes life worth living. It is finding pleasure in doing anything that enhances our zest for life. I remembered this poem because it’s about choosing the road less travelled with a little hesitance in the beginning but without any regrets in the end. It’s about enjoying the journey, taking time to love and live every step of the way. In the poem, as the persona is choosing which road to take, s/he only knows that one road is more travelled than the other but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the better road. S/he has to go through it to know, to find out. Sometimes the less popular choice is the better one because not everyone has to have the same wants and needs in life. Sometimes, the harder thing to do is the best thing to do because it pushes us to find what we really love to do and who we really are. Everyone just needs to learn how to live, how to be, needs to find his/her own happiness. Life is what you make it. Whatever choice you make in anything and everything you do, you have to stick by it and let yourself enjoy the experience.

The class was left with the question “Why do you think Levinas places jouissance after il y a?” for reflection. I found the answer to this question in the poem as the persona is choosing which road to take; s/he is in a state of “in between-ness” and confusion. S/he doesn’t know which road to take, which choice to make. THERE IS (Il y a) a choice to be made, but the persona is still unsure and stuck. It is when s/he takes action and goes down a road does s/he realize the beauty of his/her decision, once s/he has reaped what s/he has sown does the “Jouissance” come into play. “Jouissance” is a reaction to “Il y a” and I think Levinas placed the terms in such order because the former is the answer to the latter.

Levinas Specialty Socialism

by Hubert Cua (part 4 of 5)

Seems Familiar?


Some of the things that Levinas says, particularly “There is I and other and all other in a society.” struck me. Considering that he lived in industrial age, Levinas seems to be criticizing industrialization with his socialist viewpoint without explicitly expressing it. In industrialization, many interest conflicts are at work. Let us take factory setting as an example. During industrial revolution, the factory owners make the factory workers work under low wages to maximize profit. Here, we can see that self interest or even selfish interest, which is the profit of the factory owner in this case, is put above collective interest, which is the wages of the factory workers in this case. Hence, ethics and morality is primarily based on self or selfish interest. For the factory owner, it is right to make the factory workers work under low wages, because it maximizes profit. To criticize this, Levinas brought out that ethics and morality must not be interest oriented, but must be collective oriented. In the era of hunting, gathering and agriculture, ethics and morality is primarily based on survival, which is a collective interest. People hunt animals and do not kill each other for survival.

From the analysis in the previous paragraph, we can see that what Levinas says is not something new, even if it seems to be new. Some philosophers do not really bring out something new. Rather, they bring out something old or something lost. Although I am not sure about this, Levinas seems to be thinking backwards or thinking regressively at times. (The way I use the words backwards and regressive does not connote inferiority.)  Aside from the analysis in the previous paragraph, we can also see this when Levinas brings “Being” to “being” to “il y a”.

Descendants, Where Are You?

by Hubert Cua (part 3 of 5)

I wrote this article with the intention of criticizing, but not falsifying Martin Heidegger.


For Martin Heidegger, Being is Time. Human beings exist temporally in the stretch between birth and death. Being is time and time is finite, because it comes to an end with our death. The only authentic death is one’s own. To die for another person would simply be to sacrifice one-self.

From what Martin Heidegger says, here are some things that we can analyze. Married to Elfride Heidegger, Martin Heidegger said this during World War 1. Some soldiers usually reason out that they fight and sacrifice for their descendants. Considering that he has children already, he seems to be selfish when he said this.
However, considering that he said this during the time when theocentrism is still prevalent, can we say that he is selfish? He just overshot when breaking through theocentrism. He wanted to direct himself from God to self.

Also, don’t we be in our descendants, like surnames, memories, ancestral possessions, last notes and genes? Even without all of these, except the genes, the fact that our descendants exist itself already connotes that we exist.

On Giving

by Eo Villegas

29 November 2012
Discussed Text: Levinas, "There Is," Ethics and Infinity


The discussion in class last Thursday made me remember Mang Roland, for those who don’t know his story here it is: http://everythinginbudget.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-better-samaritan-joes-encounter-with.html

He was a man who satisfied first his needs, in which the 5 pesos worth of rice was sufficient, and then gave everything else to others in need. His story is very touching also because no matter how much shit life threw at him he still strives to be a person for others. Who would’ve thought that after his family all died from various sicknesses, after he had to sell his house to try to treat his wife who died anyway, he still had the heart to help others. He helps in what little ways he can. This just goes to show you don’t have to be the rich Atenean who can help the kids in Africa, rather we all can help in our own little ways.

Lastly I would also like to use the poor widow’s gospel as an example. She gave the smallest donation to the Church, but at the same time it was the biggest donation.  It does not matter how much you give or help, because it is all relative to the capacities of the people who are helping.

Being is not Time and not Being is Time

by Hubert Cua (part 2 of 5)

[I wrote this article without any intention of trying to criticize and/or falsify Martin Heidegger’s Being is Time. Also, the way I use Being, being and time in this article is quite different from the way Martin Heidegger use Being, being and time.]


When we are happy (Let us take occasions, like parties, celebrations, festivals, graduations as an example), we usually forget about the time. Usually, it is only when this happy moment passed that we realized that time passed so fast. When we are worried (Let us take occasions, like call of nature, traffic, fear of being late, emergencies as an example), we usually constantly look at the clock and feel that time goes so slow. Here, we can see the contrasting nature of time and being between the two. When we are happy, we experience time without knowing it. When we are worried, we experience time while knowing it. When we are happy, we are Being, because we are enjoying life to the fullest. When we are worried, we are simply being, because we are just living life.

Should time be experienced while knowing it or should time be experienced while not knowing it? For me, time should be experienced while knowing it. Why? One of the differences between a subject and an object is that a subject is capable of knowing that he/she experiences time, while an object is not capable of knowing that it experiences time. If we experience time, while not knowing it, then what is our difference with objects?

Based from the previous paragraph, it seems that I am side more on getting worried. Is it? Should we be or Be? For me, we should Be. Why? One of the differences between a subject and an object is that a subject Be, while an object simply be. If we be, then what is our difference with objects?

Why is Being time and why is being Time (From this point on, Time with a capital T means experiencing time while knowing it)? Can’t Being and Time be put together?

“Wording Word” word “word”

[From the title we can see that word is caught between “Wording Word” and “word”.]

by Hubert Cua (1 of 5)


Many problems come from misunderstanding. Speakers may use a certain word to mean a certain meaning, but listeners misunderstand that certain word with another meaning. Relating this to what Heidegger says, which is “Being” as verb is different from “being” as noun, we can see how inaccurate some words are, especially the words with many meanings.

Let us take the word studying as an example. Dr. Garcia mentioned something like this in class. A student is not a student unless that student is studying. So when somebody asked us, “Are you studying?”, we can then asked ourselves, “What does he/she mean? Does he/she ask whether we are studying exactly at this second or not? Does he/she ask whether we are studying every day and/or every night or not? Does he/she ask whether we are studying at minimum effort or not? Does he/she ask whether we are studying at moderate effort or not? Does he/she ask whether we are studying at maximum effort or/not? Can studying effort be simply divided into minimum, moderate and maximum only? … …”

From these questions, we can see that words, like studying, are ambiguous and have subjective acceptance. The speaker may mean moderate effort, but the listener may mean maximum effort. We can also see the incommunicability of words. First, listeners usually do not further ask what the speakers mean, because of various reasons. Second, even if listeners further ask what the speakers mean and even if the speaker further explained, there is still a difference, even slightly, between what the speakers mean and what the listeners mean. We can also see how many things, not just words, are simplified. This is true from former techies to recent techies, from nationality in true sense to nationality in paper, from fine arts to abstract arts, from time in true sense to time in clock, from academic spellings to text spellings and many more. We can also see the openness to possibilities that results from simplification of words and/or complexities of words. Some words are too complex to the extent that we need to simplify them. We can also see that awareness of the nature of words is both a problem and a solution. It is a problem, because we need to exert more effort to understand words. It is also a solution, because we can use our awareness of the nature of words to prevent problems, like misunderstanding.