by Vikha Vargas
26 June 2013
Discussed Text: Ferriols, "Insight"
Sometimes, I ask myself, what is the point of being human? Or what does it mean to be human? What am I here for? I have been living in this world for almost 20 years now and I still have not figured out one ultimate answer to my existential questions. During the past lectures, I have been encountering mind-boggling facts or perceptions about life and ways of living. I am also led to the realization that at some point in our lives, we tend to take things for granted. Because we think we are too aware of them, when in fact we are most probably not. We think that the simplest things in life are way too simple but sometimes they turn out to be the opposite. Why? Because we only see things on a surface level, which is probably why sometimes we fail to have a deeper understanding and perspective regarding certain matters. Sometimes, we fail to look sideways. We are too concerned about moving forward and finding the ultimate answers to our questions; we do not seem to notice the tiny details that may actually help us find answers. Also, little do we notice, we are already lacking the necessary experiences in life.
But, can we really find answers, at least in this lifetime? I cannot deny the fact that I am also confused. Thus, when the question about philosophy being aimless and useless was raised in class, I was torn between a yes and a no. It is a no because there are probably people who might have given up on their pursuit of finding answers, because in the end there are actually no answers –that everything is simply open-ended (at some point I believed this). Thus, it is pointless to ask questions because it will lead you to nowhere. It is just a waste of work for our brain cells to process things that can never be deciphered. But I changed my mind right away. Philosophy, for whatever it is worth, is definitely not useless nor aimless; and I am quite certain about it. I realized that my aforementioned reasons for saying that philosophy is aimless and useless are shallow. There is more to philosophy. There is more to questions that do not seem to have answers. They are not exactly pointless. When we ask questions and we do not find answers, we must ask again. As humans, I believe we should. We were given the capacity to think; thus we must use it. Our minds were not made to resemble stationary figures or jars that were never used for productivity but for display. The human mind was not made for that, it was meant to be used for the exploration of our imaginations and the processing of previous and recurring ideas. We must have a second-order, third-order, fourth-order (to nth-order, if necessary) questionings that serve as some sort of follow ups, because certainly they will give us closer to the answers; or if not closer to the answers, at least we become meshed into different and wider perspectives. That way, we learn. Philosophizing or asking questions lead us to something, thus indeed philosophy is not useless and aimless. Through the questions we raise, we are also led to new discoveries that would help us define our existence, even just contributing a tiny detail of it. However, we must remember that t is also important that we think and ask questions in the context of everyone else, not just within ourselves. More often than not, it is through others that we find ourselves. Therefore, we must think outside our realms and allow ourselves to be immersed in diversity.
Another thing which can also help us to become more aware of our surroundings (and to eventually find answers) is to experience life. As I have learned, philosophy is also experienced. It is something we also do. Philosophy is not just confined in books and theories, but also in experience –in submergence wherein we figuratively let ourselves swim, drown and die in experience through time. In fact, philosophy begins with life; thus we need to be immersed. In turn, it can change and transform us; and bring us to another place where we can experience new things. Seemingly, philosophy and the search for meaning and answers is not a short-lived task, but a lifelong process of searching and finding, and searching again. We were meant to be filled with questions –to keep us ever searching and learning. But not knowing the answers to these questions does not make us any less of a person. Through the art of questioning and philosophizing, we learn. With that element of learning, I now believe that it is not just the answers that we should be completely concerned of, but the questions raised, experiences gained, lessons learned --the getting-there and philosophizing aspect in life.After all, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said,“life is a journey, not a destination.”
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
The Pests
by Jio Deslate
Critchley talks about philosophers as a sort of anarchic force in society. Those that seek to destroy the status quo by their systematic non-conformance to its norms. We see here disruptive figures who might seem eccentric – as the story of Thales and his silly fall into the well suggests– and even alien compared to the usual personalities we are accustomed to. Their thoughts, words, and actions are unsettling especially for those of us who have spent our whole lives finding comfort in the traditions of society. Most people, including myself, have been conditioned to abide by certain rules that we forget - or we aren't even aware - that everything we have come to know and love is in fact shaped by powerful institutions that have risen – time and time again – from the ashes of history. The victors of it, in fact, as the cliché goes. With this in mind I think it is safe to ponder that what we were taught – what we are being taught – is not absolute. It’s certainly not objective and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt. This notion is frightening to most of us, perhaps because it has been given the label of “Marxist” by friends and foes alike. A term that immediately translates into rugged men in the mountains with dangerous arms and even more dangerous ideas coming to wreak havoc on the peaceful, God-fearing, towns that we happily reside in. How different are these philosophers from them? They preach the same idea of revolution after all – going against the status quo in whatever way can still be seen as a revolutionary. Wouldn’t it be better to just keep these seditious men from preaching their insidious ideas to the innocent citizens of society?
The idea of change will forever be frightening to mankind. We are the same animals who chose to put up huts – and eventually castles and skyscrapers – to settle in while the rest of the so-called beasts hunted from place to place in their fight for survival. But change is a fact of life that we are subject to, no matter how much we resist. It's just that it has become part our nature to seek stability in all things, a sort of constant reassurance that no leopard would to prey on us. A beautiful house, a nice car, a loving family. Things that fall under the American dream – a dream a lot more universal than they think - those are what we aspire for. And while all of that is fine and dandy there is, believe it or not, a danger in this comfort we find in them. We are so deeply caught up in the pursuit of society’s ideal life that we don’t see anything wrong with the society itself. After all playing by its rules will help us achieve these goals so why rebel against them. We are so unaware of the flaws and injustices in our society that we feel so uneasy when someone tries to point them out. When some gadfly pricks us in the ass and tells us there’s something wrong with it we scream “that's unpatriotic! that’s communist! that’s treason!” The things we repeat to ourselves in response to our cognitive dissonance. But the fact of matter is…well that is right. The treason part at least. These philosophers are treacherous to the sacred cows of society. They are the ones who betray the established orders so that we could be enlightened about what’s really happening in the world. So that we can distance ourselves, even for a while, and look at society as an outsider would do, as these philosophers actually do. It is quite difficult to see a picture when our eyes are intensely glued to it.
The idea that philosophy seeks to spread anarchy in society is a misconstrued one. It is not so much about destroying the status quo but pointing out how it is so unyieldingly solid. That, to us, it seems as if it is an immovable giant. A giant that ironically enough we cannot even see . A giant that we must obey. Philosophers are the mosquitoes of the world. The little pests who seek to spread the contagious and fatal disease of critical thinking and questioning. They are the nuisance in society that try to pester the "gentle" giants. The swarm that attacks the elephants so that we may be reminded that it is just another animal. An animal, just like us, who are subject to errors and slaves to change.
Critchley talks about philosophers as a sort of anarchic force in society. Those that seek to destroy the status quo by their systematic non-conformance to its norms. We see here disruptive figures who might seem eccentric – as the story of Thales and his silly fall into the well suggests– and even alien compared to the usual personalities we are accustomed to. Their thoughts, words, and actions are unsettling especially for those of us who have spent our whole lives finding comfort in the traditions of society. Most people, including myself, have been conditioned to abide by certain rules that we forget - or we aren't even aware - that everything we have come to know and love is in fact shaped by powerful institutions that have risen – time and time again – from the ashes of history. The victors of it, in fact, as the cliché goes. With this in mind I think it is safe to ponder that what we were taught – what we are being taught – is not absolute. It’s certainly not objective and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt. This notion is frightening to most of us, perhaps because it has been given the label of “Marxist” by friends and foes alike. A term that immediately translates into rugged men in the mountains with dangerous arms and even more dangerous ideas coming to wreak havoc on the peaceful, God-fearing, towns that we happily reside in. How different are these philosophers from them? They preach the same idea of revolution after all – going against the status quo in whatever way can still be seen as a revolutionary. Wouldn’t it be better to just keep these seditious men from preaching their insidious ideas to the innocent citizens of society?
The idea of change will forever be frightening to mankind. We are the same animals who chose to put up huts – and eventually castles and skyscrapers – to settle in while the rest of the so-called beasts hunted from place to place in their fight for survival. But change is a fact of life that we are subject to, no matter how much we resist. It's just that it has become part our nature to seek stability in all things, a sort of constant reassurance that no leopard would to prey on us. A beautiful house, a nice car, a loving family. Things that fall under the American dream – a dream a lot more universal than they think - those are what we aspire for. And while all of that is fine and dandy there is, believe it or not, a danger in this comfort we find in them. We are so deeply caught up in the pursuit of society’s ideal life that we don’t see anything wrong with the society itself. After all playing by its rules will help us achieve these goals so why rebel against them. We are so unaware of the flaws and injustices in our society that we feel so uneasy when someone tries to point them out. When some gadfly pricks us in the ass and tells us there’s something wrong with it we scream “that's unpatriotic! that’s communist! that’s treason!” The things we repeat to ourselves in response to our cognitive dissonance. But the fact of matter is…well that is right. The treason part at least. These philosophers are treacherous to the sacred cows of society. They are the ones who betray the established orders so that we could be enlightened about what’s really happening in the world. So that we can distance ourselves, even for a while, and look at society as an outsider would do, as these philosophers actually do. It is quite difficult to see a picture when our eyes are intensely glued to it.
The idea that philosophy seeks to spread anarchy in society is a misconstrued one. It is not so much about destroying the status quo but pointing out how it is so unyieldingly solid. That, to us, it seems as if it is an immovable giant. A giant that ironically enough we cannot even see . A giant that we must obey. Philosophers are the mosquitoes of the world. The little pests who seek to spread the contagious and fatal disease of critical thinking and questioning. They are the nuisance in society that try to pester the "gentle" giants. The swarm that attacks the elephants so that we may be reminded that it is just another animal. An animal, just like us, who are subject to errors and slaves to change.
"Yo Dawg I Heard That You Like Insights"
by John Belmonte
25 June 2013
Discussed Text: Critchley, "What Is A Philosopher?"
Fr. Roque Ferriols, S.J., "Insight"
Insight. That was what covered today’s lecture. To gain insight, by convention, is to learn more from something known. It can also mean to gain experience and be able to attain something by reflection. The pettifogger probably has some degree of reflection to the matters that are of concern to him, just not as apparent or of greater magnitude to the philosopher. With that said, insights are possessed by each and every one of us and can come in so many varieties and magnitudes. My coach from high school told me when I was about to compete in a tournament, “There was nothing to lose and everything to gain.” It makes me wonder though, do all insights provide some kind of learning experience? Do all insights provide something better? In fact, what defines an insight to even be of any merit?
After some thinking, I made a little insight about making insights. Every insight that I’m able to form leads to new insights, leading to even more insights. It’s an unending cycle that always has some form of input from me. We will always have new views on life, whether they be completely new, a view that has been changed from a preceding notion, or a view of life reinforced by more information.
I also think the whole idea of “better insights” exists. Everyone has their own personal bias and as objective as we try to be, there is still that slight tinge of favoritism existing. (I actually think that the previous statement itself has some form of bias.) Some insights made will be more beneficial to others possibly because of its appropriate timing. This is similar to limit situations, wherein we seek to learn the reasons behind why these things happen or why we feel this way. We tend to receive advice that helps us cope or make us feel better. Aside from convenience, insights can also be significant from sentimentality. We have some kind of special bond with some very simple things, like children that receive their very first toy. For other people, it’s just a toy, while to the children, it may very well be the happiest moment of their lives. Like the children, we each have our own way of thinking that is unique to ourselves. The uniqueness comes from the cultivation of our thoughts from our lives and in turn provides different insights.
That is probably my most important point about making insights. We are all different, and in that difference, we are able to create a near-infinite amount of ideas. Indeed, we sometimes have coinciding claims with one another but more often than not there is something slightly different with how each of us think. In each of our lectures, just a few of us tend to speak, but those few are able to have an amazing amount of input for everyone to take in. Our personal beliefs, upbringings, and attitudes provide so much to discuss and that’s just from a few of all 65 of us. (I doubt if we could fit everyone’s thoughts in one period though.)
We make insights to make even more insights that create more insights. I just made an insight about insights. This will lead to insights about making insights that lead to making insights about making insights.
25 June 2013
Discussed Text: Critchley, "What Is A Philosopher?"
Fr. Roque Ferriols, S.J., "Insight"
Insight. That was what covered today’s lecture. To gain insight, by convention, is to learn more from something known. It can also mean to gain experience and be able to attain something by reflection. The pettifogger probably has some degree of reflection to the matters that are of concern to him, just not as apparent or of greater magnitude to the philosopher. With that said, insights are possessed by each and every one of us and can come in so many varieties and magnitudes. My coach from high school told me when I was about to compete in a tournament, “There was nothing to lose and everything to gain.” It makes me wonder though, do all insights provide some kind of learning experience? Do all insights provide something better? In fact, what defines an insight to even be of any merit?
After some thinking, I made a little insight about making insights. Every insight that I’m able to form leads to new insights, leading to even more insights. It’s an unending cycle that always has some form of input from me. We will always have new views on life, whether they be completely new, a view that has been changed from a preceding notion, or a view of life reinforced by more information.
I also think the whole idea of “better insights” exists. Everyone has their own personal bias and as objective as we try to be, there is still that slight tinge of favoritism existing. (I actually think that the previous statement itself has some form of bias.) Some insights made will be more beneficial to others possibly because of its appropriate timing. This is similar to limit situations, wherein we seek to learn the reasons behind why these things happen or why we feel this way. We tend to receive advice that helps us cope or make us feel better. Aside from convenience, insights can also be significant from sentimentality. We have some kind of special bond with some very simple things, like children that receive their very first toy. For other people, it’s just a toy, while to the children, it may very well be the happiest moment of their lives. Like the children, we each have our own way of thinking that is unique to ourselves. The uniqueness comes from the cultivation of our thoughts from our lives and in turn provides different insights.
That is probably my most important point about making insights. We are all different, and in that difference, we are able to create a near-infinite amount of ideas. Indeed, we sometimes have coinciding claims with one another but more often than not there is something slightly different with how each of us think. In each of our lectures, just a few of us tend to speak, but those few are able to have an amazing amount of input for everyone to take in. Our personal beliefs, upbringings, and attitudes provide so much to discuss and that’s just from a few of all 65 of us. (I doubt if we could fit everyone’s thoughts in one period though.)
We make insights to make even more insights that create more insights. I just made an insight about insights. This will lead to insights about making insights that lead to making insights about making insights.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
On The Death of Philosophers
by Agassi Agapito
25 June 2013
Discussed Text: Simon Critchley, "What Is A Philosopher?"
After today’s class, my friend told me that he wanted to know how Philosophy kills. The question then began bugging in my mind for an hour. I started looking around imagining how it could possibly kill someone today in this modern age. It was hard finding the answer so I took more time.
I googled the question and I found something interesting, a list of dead Philosophers. I think many Philosophers in the list can help me answer my question. I’m not sure if this has relevance, but most of them ended up either killing themselves or suffering a tragic death, like Aristotle who was forced to kill himself upholding his ideal and Simone Weil who starved herself to death.
Now I am thinking of two possible answers. First is about the story of Theaetetus. Sometimes, reflecting too much makes you unaware of what is in front of you. You forget how to live and act in reality then you become someone that you tried to avoid most, a fool. It can also be that it is not too much Philosophy that kills but rather having a wrong Philosophy if there is such, or a Philosophy which is not in accordance to proper living just like Simone Weil who became too passionate of her beliefs that she starved herself to death believing that self starvation was the best way of self denial.
Second is the Aristotle example which has something to do with society. You become wise as him that your ideals are now too hard to be comprehended and accepted by society. They might think that you have gone crazy or your ideals are too influential that it might endanger their well-being. Or maybe it is a matter of having conflicting Philosophies that makes people kill one another. It comes down to a battle of pride, a clash between points of view or simply disagreements that cost lives.
Or maybe I am wrong with all I have written and wrong for asking immediately the question, “How does Philosophy kill?” and not debated first with the question, “Does Philosophy really kill?”
25 June 2013
Discussed Text: Simon Critchley, "What Is A Philosopher?"
After today’s class, my friend told me that he wanted to know how Philosophy kills. The question then began bugging in my mind for an hour. I started looking around imagining how it could possibly kill someone today in this modern age. It was hard finding the answer so I took more time.
I googled the question and I found something interesting, a list of dead Philosophers. I think many Philosophers in the list can help me answer my question. I’m not sure if this has relevance, but most of them ended up either killing themselves or suffering a tragic death, like Aristotle who was forced to kill himself upholding his ideal and Simone Weil who starved herself to death.
Now I am thinking of two possible answers. First is about the story of Theaetetus. Sometimes, reflecting too much makes you unaware of what is in front of you. You forget how to live and act in reality then you become someone that you tried to avoid most, a fool. It can also be that it is not too much Philosophy that kills but rather having a wrong Philosophy if there is such, or a Philosophy which is not in accordance to proper living just like Simone Weil who became too passionate of her beliefs that she starved herself to death believing that self starvation was the best way of self denial.
Second is the Aristotle example which has something to do with society. You become wise as him that your ideals are now too hard to be comprehended and accepted by society. They might think that you have gone crazy or your ideals are too influential that it might endanger their well-being. Or maybe it is a matter of having conflicting Philosophies that makes people kill one another. It comes down to a battle of pride, a clash between points of view or simply disagreements that cost lives.
Or maybe I am wrong with all I have written and wrong for asking immediately the question, “How does Philosophy kill?” and not debated first with the question, “Does Philosophy really kill?”
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
A Left & Right Hand
by Kate Bonamy
This is in the point of view of a right-handed me.
Most people say that the right hand does all the work. Thus, the left hand is forgotten and left behind. But on the contrary, the left hand does some very important tasks too. And this, I only realized tonight.
As a right-handed person, the right hand is the superstar of my body. I use it to write, brush my hair, lift objects, hold the remote control, punch, and other seemingly more important things in life, while the lowly left hand is, more often than not, always taken for granted.
Tonight, these things I realized:
1. I need my left hand to look normal.
2. When I was younger, I sucked my left thumb to sleep- not my right.
3. I cannot clap with only one hand.
4. I cannot cut or paint my right hand nails without my left hand.
5. I cannot unbutton my pants without my left hand.
6. I cannot play the piano or the violin without my left hand.
And those are just some of the many important things unachievable without my left hand.
Indeed there is a great difference between my left hand and my right hand. However, this difference “awakens us to the value of similarity and diversity.” Here, similarity is in a sense that there are tasks that need both hands to accomplish, like cooking or playing an instrument. In these activities, both hands have of equal importance. On holds in place the chicken to be chopped, while the other gives the force to actually chop the chicken. The right hand plays the melody on the piano, while the left hand gives the bass. Diversity is characterized by actions that require the dominant use of one hand. Perhaps people who aren’t ambidextrous had at one point of another tried writing using their less dominant hand. There is a sense of alienation, and not to mention bad handwriting all over, yet it somehow feels amusing, or fascinating, even.
The left hand here is an example of a little thing that has always been right in front of me (literally!), but somehow was always taken for granted. Many times I worshiped my right hand, while deeming my left useless. However, after tonight, I realized that it just as useful as my right hand because without it, I would not be able to do the things I love most. I would not be me. It is a good thing that it need not be taken away from me (amputated) before I figured out its worth.
This is in the point of view of a right-handed me.
Most people say that the right hand does all the work. Thus, the left hand is forgotten and left behind. But on the contrary, the left hand does some very important tasks too. And this, I only realized tonight.
As a right-handed person, the right hand is the superstar of my body. I use it to write, brush my hair, lift objects, hold the remote control, punch, and other seemingly more important things in life, while the lowly left hand is, more often than not, always taken for granted.
Tonight, these things I realized:
1. I need my left hand to look normal.
2. When I was younger, I sucked my left thumb to sleep- not my right.
3. I cannot clap with only one hand.
4. I cannot cut or paint my right hand nails without my left hand.
5. I cannot unbutton my pants without my left hand.
6. I cannot play the piano or the violin without my left hand.
And those are just some of the many important things unachievable without my left hand.
Indeed there is a great difference between my left hand and my right hand. However, this difference “awakens us to the value of similarity and diversity.” Here, similarity is in a sense that there are tasks that need both hands to accomplish, like cooking or playing an instrument. In these activities, both hands have of equal importance. On holds in place the chicken to be chopped, while the other gives the force to actually chop the chicken. The right hand plays the melody on the piano, while the left hand gives the bass. Diversity is characterized by actions that require the dominant use of one hand. Perhaps people who aren’t ambidextrous had at one point of another tried writing using their less dominant hand. There is a sense of alienation, and not to mention bad handwriting all over, yet it somehow feels amusing, or fascinating, even.
The left hand here is an example of a little thing that has always been right in front of me (literally!), but somehow was always taken for granted. Many times I worshiped my right hand, while deeming my left useless. However, after tonight, I realized that it just as useful as my right hand because without it, I would not be able to do the things I love most. I would not be me. It is a good thing that it need not be taken away from me (amputated) before I figured out its worth.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Thinking
by Isabella Yatco
20 June 2013
Discussed Text: Simon Critchley, "What Is A Philosopher?"
When was the last time you stopped whatever you were doing to think? And I mean actually think – not necessarily about anything deep, but about things that really matter to you?
In a time where everything is so fast-paced, mostly thanks to technology, it seems as if people simply take things as they are and hardly ever put things into question. We’ve become so habituated with the way we live our lives that we neglect certain important details that may have the ability to change the way we perceive life as we know it. Take, for example, the English language. We’re so used to hearing it that we don’t even remember a time when it didn’t make sense to us. What makes a word a word, anyway? Or have you ever wondered what English sounds like to non-English speakers?
In his speech, Simon Critchley quoted the English philosopher Wittgenstein who said that philosophers ought to greet each other with “take your time” instead of the conventional “hello,” or maybe even the occasional nod in passing. Imagine if we started to greet one another in a similar way. To be reminded constantly to “take your time” could even create a new sense of awareness, which is what philosophy calls for. Doc G mentioned in class today that with that sense of awareness, we would be able to determine what is essential and what is not. If we start paying attention and “take time to make things important” as Doc G said, we will begin to see the things far beyond what is before us.
Don’t lose your sense of wonder. Keep asking questions.
20 June 2013
Discussed Text: Simon Critchley, "What Is A Philosopher?"
When was the last time you stopped whatever you were doing to think? And I mean actually think – not necessarily about anything deep, but about things that really matter to you?
In a time where everything is so fast-paced, mostly thanks to technology, it seems as if people simply take things as they are and hardly ever put things into question. We’ve become so habituated with the way we live our lives that we neglect certain important details that may have the ability to change the way we perceive life as we know it. Take, for example, the English language. We’re so used to hearing it that we don’t even remember a time when it didn’t make sense to us. What makes a word a word, anyway? Or have you ever wondered what English sounds like to non-English speakers?
In his speech, Simon Critchley quoted the English philosopher Wittgenstein who said that philosophers ought to greet each other with “take your time” instead of the conventional “hello,” or maybe even the occasional nod in passing. Imagine if we started to greet one another in a similar way. To be reminded constantly to “take your time” could even create a new sense of awareness, which is what philosophy calls for. Doc G mentioned in class today that with that sense of awareness, we would be able to determine what is essential and what is not. If we start paying attention and “take time to make things important” as Doc G said, we will begin to see the things far beyond what is before us.
Don’t lose your sense of wonder. Keep asking questions.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Philosoraptor ang Peg
by Anj Nguyen
16 June 2013
Doctor Garcia mentioned that Philosophers deal with language in an extensive manner, they deal with things in another level, a level that we can reach but we’re just too focused on the “what next?” rather than the “what’s happening now?” This is where “This Is Water” becomes relevant because we’re too preoccupied with what we are shown or choose to see that we don’t see what’s really in front of us. This point has been made clear with last week’s discussion. What got my attention though was when Doctor Garcia lectured on knowing more leads to knowing that you don’t know.
When you know something you are made aware of what you don’t know but that’s not the case now, well for me. When I’m taught something, I think, “Cool, I’ll remember that. Next topic!” I don’t think, “Oh what else am I missing in my life??” but when I do, I already consider myself thinking on another level. That’s the thing, I should be thinking on another level all the time because that’s the way we can make the most out of life. Keep opening doors but always explore every nook and cranny of every room because you’ll never know what you miss. This is being conscious of your actions and surroundings, opening your eyes and mind.
I know we all want to learn something new everyday but know that there is no end because there’s always another question to an answer. Try paying more attention to details. Like you should be aware of how awkward you’re being when you stare at someone walking down secwalk, or make like a philosoraptor and ask silly questions because you'll never know where you just might end up
Am I on the right track? This is how I understand things. Being aware makes you realize how unaware you actually are.
After Doctor Garcia’s lecture, did you too become aware of how unaware you are?
Becoming The Joker
by Mara Cepeda
I want to become silly.
Like how Simon Critchley describes philosophers in the text “What is a Philosopher?” I want to become the one who destroys the status quo. I want to become “a laughing stock, an absent-minded buffoon, the butt of countless jokes.”
I want to become silly because it means that I am aware, that I have, or at least I am trying to, remove myself from my default setting.
You see, one of the main things that struck me from the past three meetings in class is that to philosophize means to constantly pay attention. Paying attention then means realizing that the “familiar” world we know is not so familiar after all. Apparently, we need to get out of ourselves and realize, accept and understand that the world around us still has so much more meaning to offer.
To philosophize therefore is to allow yourself to be constantly surprised by the world.
But isn’t that scary, the thought that you can never be too sure about yourself and the world?
It is. However, in my little contemplation these past few days, I realized that perhaps it is okay to realize one’s unfamiliarity with the world. To become the joker, to become the odd one out, may just be a good thing after all.
I believe it was Socrates who said that “I only know that I know nothing,” and I think this statement is spot on.
Isn’t philosophizing the act of, to borrow Dr. Garcia’s words in the last meeting, “being aware that you are aware,” and consequently, also being aware that you are not aware?
Because when we sought to know, we realize more and more how much we do not know. This uncertainty therefore can propel us to never be too sure of ourselves, to stop thinking that the world revolves around us, and to realize just how small we are compared to the unknown universe.
Perhaps this is why Critchley said philosophers are silly, because who on earth would want to humbly accept that you only know nothing?
The joker will. The silly one will. The philosopher will.
And maybe, just maybe, this is what PH 101 is us challenging to do.
I want to become silly.
Like how Simon Critchley describes philosophers in the text “What is a Philosopher?” I want to become the one who destroys the status quo. I want to become “a laughing stock, an absent-minded buffoon, the butt of countless jokes.”
I want to become silly because it means that I am aware, that I have, or at least I am trying to, remove myself from my default setting.
You see, one of the main things that struck me from the past three meetings in class is that to philosophize means to constantly pay attention. Paying attention then means realizing that the “familiar” world we know is not so familiar after all. Apparently, we need to get out of ourselves and realize, accept and understand that the world around us still has so much more meaning to offer.
To philosophize therefore is to allow yourself to be constantly surprised by the world.
But isn’t that scary, the thought that you can never be too sure about yourself and the world?
It is. However, in my little contemplation these past few days, I realized that perhaps it is okay to realize one’s unfamiliarity with the world. To become the joker, to become the odd one out, may just be a good thing after all.
I believe it was Socrates who said that “I only know that I know nothing,” and I think this statement is spot on.
Isn’t philosophizing the act of, to borrow Dr. Garcia’s words in the last meeting, “being aware that you are aware,” and consequently, also being aware that you are not aware?
Because when we sought to know, we realize more and more how much we do not know. This uncertainty therefore can propel us to never be too sure of ourselves, to stop thinking that the world revolves around us, and to realize just how small we are compared to the unknown universe.
Perhaps this is why Critchley said philosophers are silly, because who on earth would want to humbly accept that you only know nothing?
The joker will. The silly one will. The philosopher will.
And maybe, just maybe, this is what PH 101 is us challenging to do.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
On Rembrandt and Aristotle
by Robert Dominic
To understand the painting of Rembrandt entitled "Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer, I decided to establish instead what I understood about Poetry, Philosophy, and their relationship independent of, and in connection to, each other.
Poetry's main ingredients are words. The essence of it is the idea of trying to express the author's understanding of the things around him, and so in effect Poetry becomes a form of answering. And to answer is to define, and to define puts things within certain parameters. Poetry is a form of encapsulation; using words, we are given the power to name and define things and henceforth establish what they are. And so we go back to water: Water is a liquid, it is the main thing that makes up our body, and depending on one's situation, it can kill you or make you healthy.
But then what is Philosophy? I understand Philosophy as the venture into the uncertain. It decides to even take the definite, and find out what made it uncertain before it was even defined in the first place. Philosophy being a matter of asking questions, may not necessarily provide an avenue for answers, but rather greater scopes of question, inquiry, and thought. Water might be a common substance. But what makes it uniquely water? What makes water, water? Going back to the lecture of Dr. Garcia, we know that we can think. But do we know that we think? And if so, there must certainly be the human capacity to think that we think that we think, right? Is this measure of humanity extendable to any being that is non-human? Is this human aspect extendable to a greater form of thinking, and should we deviate from such, does that degrade or devalue us being human?
This then connect and puts together for me the harmony of Poetry, and Philosophy best depicted in Rembrandt's painting. Poetry, much as it expresses and defines the feeling, the thought, or the thing it seeks to depict, kills the question. Being defined, it becomes a display rather than a matter of query. It is the bust of Homer; Homer the poet, is a question that is killed, for he is depicted and defined by his works, and his thoughts put onto paper are what speak for who and what Homer is.
But then there is the connection to Aristotle, alive and not in stone, his hand resting on the bust of Homer. Aristotle, La Philosophe, is that depiction of the life of Philosophy. He is alive, he seeks to contemplate what is established, and take it to the uncertain. Yes, Homer wrote this, lived that, but do his works really define Homer? What if these were merely extensions of the thoughts and observations of Homer, what were his thoughts and what was his own philosophy? Aristotle not only represents Philosophy in the painting, but stands for the life of questioning and actively contemplating the uncertain as well for looking at what is defined and sincerely thinking of what made it come to be defined in the first place; what initiated or stimulated Homer to write, to expressly declare or creatively depict.
As I reflected upon this, I come to the conclusion that Philosophy and Poetry bear their own missions independent of each other, but when they come together, they challenge the human person with the opportunity to exercise his capability to dare to question what is established, or in turn, establish an answer for the questions unanswered for Man.
To understand the painting of Rembrandt entitled "Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer, I decided to establish instead what I understood about Poetry, Philosophy, and their relationship independent of, and in connection to, each other.
Poetry's main ingredients are words. The essence of it is the idea of trying to express the author's understanding of the things around him, and so in effect Poetry becomes a form of answering. And to answer is to define, and to define puts things within certain parameters. Poetry is a form of encapsulation; using words, we are given the power to name and define things and henceforth establish what they are. And so we go back to water: Water is a liquid, it is the main thing that makes up our body, and depending on one's situation, it can kill you or make you healthy.
But then what is Philosophy? I understand Philosophy as the venture into the uncertain. It decides to even take the definite, and find out what made it uncertain before it was even defined in the first place. Philosophy being a matter of asking questions, may not necessarily provide an avenue for answers, but rather greater scopes of question, inquiry, and thought. Water might be a common substance. But what makes it uniquely water? What makes water, water? Going back to the lecture of Dr. Garcia, we know that we can think. But do we know that we think? And if so, there must certainly be the human capacity to think that we think that we think, right? Is this measure of humanity extendable to any being that is non-human? Is this human aspect extendable to a greater form of thinking, and should we deviate from such, does that degrade or devalue us being human?
This then connect and puts together for me the harmony of Poetry, and Philosophy best depicted in Rembrandt's painting. Poetry, much as it expresses and defines the feeling, the thought, or the thing it seeks to depict, kills the question. Being defined, it becomes a display rather than a matter of query. It is the bust of Homer; Homer the poet, is a question that is killed, for he is depicted and defined by his works, and his thoughts put onto paper are what speak for who and what Homer is.
But then there is the connection to Aristotle, alive and not in stone, his hand resting on the bust of Homer. Aristotle, La Philosophe, is that depiction of the life of Philosophy. He is alive, he seeks to contemplate what is established, and take it to the uncertain. Yes, Homer wrote this, lived that, but do his works really define Homer? What if these were merely extensions of the thoughts and observations of Homer, what were his thoughts and what was his own philosophy? Aristotle not only represents Philosophy in the painting, but stands for the life of questioning and actively contemplating the uncertain as well for looking at what is defined and sincerely thinking of what made it come to be defined in the first place; what initiated or stimulated Homer to write, to expressly declare or creatively depict.
As I reflected upon this, I come to the conclusion that Philosophy and Poetry bear their own missions independent of each other, but when they come together, they challenge the human person with the opportunity to exercise his capability to dare to question what is established, or in turn, establish an answer for the questions unanswered for Man.
Triple Helix
by Carebear Ablan
18 June 2013
Discussed Text: David Foster Wallace, "This Is Water"
Gee, where do I begin? Am I doing it right? Am I philosophizing hard enough?
Today, we finally met Dr. G (as what he offered to be called in class), and had our first real lecture on Philosophy. And to generally sum up what I’ve learned in class today, it was that Philosophy operates with pretty much anything, and everything. Even entities that assumingly have absolutely nothing to do with Philosophy (say Homer’s bust and Aristotle’s clothes).
But from what I understood, it especially starts with life; it literally thrives in life. According to Rembrandt’s painting flashed onto the screen this morning, it is art; or at least what I believed he was trying to get at, was anything that sparked any hint of emotion, or invoked a fair amount of sentiment or memory, practically anything with an impact. The two entities, Philosophy and ‘Art’ or ‘Life’ then intertwine like a double helix, in a whimsical effort to grasp the almost-impossible-to-fully-comprehend-reality we all know so well.
Now here comes a third entity, ever notorious ‘Politics’. At this point in the lecture, I scoffed thinking, how on earth could Politics be added to such a perfect equation? I was thinking to myself, isn’t the point of Philosophy just to have a deep, general understanding of life and everything around you, accept it, and simply move on? My idea of politics is that it is a rather silly entity, considering how awfully silly it is here in this country, I couldn’t possibly consider it. But nope, that’s not the case.
See, we can’t just leave this double helix be to just exist and grow on its own, because it’ll just get tangled in its own mess, leading to a most impossible knot. Politics serves as ‘order’; I rather that word was used instead, but what kind of relevance would that hold in Rembrandt’s masterpiece? But really though, politics simply serves as a guide to let what is growing, what is being cultivated into the lives of millions and millions of people, is to let it grow properly, upright, securely and promising enough for millions and millions of others to come.
This is just one way of viewing things, or at least the way I’m most comfortable in. Maybe right now I suffer the same fate as Thales falling into a well. But oh hey,
This is water.
18 June 2013
Discussed Text: David Foster Wallace, "This Is Water"
Gee, where do I begin? Am I doing it right? Am I philosophizing hard enough?
Today, we finally met Dr. G (as what he offered to be called in class), and had our first real lecture on Philosophy. And to generally sum up what I’ve learned in class today, it was that Philosophy operates with pretty much anything, and everything. Even entities that assumingly have absolutely nothing to do with Philosophy (say Homer’s bust and Aristotle’s clothes).
But from what I understood, it especially starts with life; it literally thrives in life. According to Rembrandt’s painting flashed onto the screen this morning, it is art; or at least what I believed he was trying to get at, was anything that sparked any hint of emotion, or invoked a fair amount of sentiment or memory, practically anything with an impact. The two entities, Philosophy and ‘Art’ or ‘Life’ then intertwine like a double helix, in a whimsical effort to grasp the almost-impossible-to-fully-comprehend-reality we all know so well.
Now here comes a third entity, ever notorious ‘Politics’. At this point in the lecture, I scoffed thinking, how on earth could Politics be added to such a perfect equation? I was thinking to myself, isn’t the point of Philosophy just to have a deep, general understanding of life and everything around you, accept it, and simply move on? My idea of politics is that it is a rather silly entity, considering how awfully silly it is here in this country, I couldn’t possibly consider it. But nope, that’s not the case.
See, we can’t just leave this double helix be to just exist and grow on its own, because it’ll just get tangled in its own mess, leading to a most impossible knot. Politics serves as ‘order’; I rather that word was used instead, but what kind of relevance would that hold in Rembrandt’s masterpiece? But really though, politics simply serves as a guide to let what is growing, what is being cultivated into the lives of millions and millions of people, is to let it grow properly, upright, securely and promising enough for millions and millions of others to come.
This is just one way of viewing things, or at least the way I’m most comfortable in. Maybe right now I suffer the same fate as Thales falling into a well. But oh hey,
This is water.
Reading
by James Patrick Cruz
18 June 2013
Discussed Text: David Foster Wallace, "This Is Water"
“You’re reading.” I’m glad that now you are aware.
Most of the time, it’s so easy to get lost with the personal matters in our lives, may they be trivial or not, that we tend to forget that we are humans. We forget how to feel like human, how to act like human, how to live like human and how to be like human. Just to add, a philosopher once mentioned, “The unexamined life is not worth-living.” This is why in spite of many things that constantly push us to go with the demands of time, it is still essential for us to make time, not just to find time, in inspecting our own being.
In the first discussion we had with Dr. Garcia, I actually find two significant points regarding humans that are really fascinating, or at least, worth-discussing. One is that humans must be aware of their own awareness and this was basically the purpose of the first line. The underlying reason here is that by one’s being aware of his awareness, by one’s being conscious of his own consciousness, it takes that person to a perspective of understanding not of what he deals with, but a greater leap from there, of what he really is. It enables one to see himself in a stranger-like point of view wherein he can evaluate his own thinking, actions and emotions for better judgment, but more importantly, experience himself as a human, as a being united to his own. At a particular encounter, it may be a feeling that one’s soul departs from his own physical body, but once the soul gets back to that body, he will realize that he is, indeed.
Second is that humans are capable both of knowing and not knowing. Obviously, the “known” and “not known” form two different sets and the two together constitutes a bigger set of knowledge, or the universal set. If that universal set exists, then, we can define a particular complement set “not known” to the identified set “known.” This supports the idea of the intricate relationship between knowing and not knowing, one being the complement of the other. This allows a person to differentiate or identify the things he knows from the things he doesn’t know, which frequently, he’s not aware of. By knowing that there are things he does not know, he must not simply remain in that stage. He must keep on striving and yearning to learn more, for that will sustain his life.
Let me end this with an attempt to understand human itself. Being human is not an attribute or a truth implied right at the start of our birth. It’s not even a state that one must reach or at least, attempt to reach. Rather, being human is a process that one constantly experiences. One keeps on doing more, one keeps on being more while experiencing his sense of being and I guess that is what it means to be human. One dreams, one hopes and one lives—up to eternity.
18 June 2013
Discussed Text: David Foster Wallace, "This Is Water"
“You’re reading.” I’m glad that now you are aware.
Most of the time, it’s so easy to get lost with the personal matters in our lives, may they be trivial or not, that we tend to forget that we are humans. We forget how to feel like human, how to act like human, how to live like human and how to be like human. Just to add, a philosopher once mentioned, “The unexamined life is not worth-living.” This is why in spite of many things that constantly push us to go with the demands of time, it is still essential for us to make time, not just to find time, in inspecting our own being.
In the first discussion we had with Dr. Garcia, I actually find two significant points regarding humans that are really fascinating, or at least, worth-discussing. One is that humans must be aware of their own awareness and this was basically the purpose of the first line. The underlying reason here is that by one’s being aware of his awareness, by one’s being conscious of his own consciousness, it takes that person to a perspective of understanding not of what he deals with, but a greater leap from there, of what he really is. It enables one to see himself in a stranger-like point of view wherein he can evaluate his own thinking, actions and emotions for better judgment, but more importantly, experience himself as a human, as a being united to his own. At a particular encounter, it may be a feeling that one’s soul departs from his own physical body, but once the soul gets back to that body, he will realize that he is, indeed.
Second is that humans are capable both of knowing and not knowing. Obviously, the “known” and “not known” form two different sets and the two together constitutes a bigger set of knowledge, or the universal set. If that universal set exists, then, we can define a particular complement set “not known” to the identified set “known.” This supports the idea of the intricate relationship between knowing and not knowing, one being the complement of the other. This allows a person to differentiate or identify the things he knows from the things he doesn’t know, which frequently, he’s not aware of. By knowing that there are things he does not know, he must not simply remain in that stage. He must keep on striving and yearning to learn more, for that will sustain his life.
Let me end this with an attempt to understand human itself. Being human is not an attribute or a truth implied right at the start of our birth. It’s not even a state that one must reach or at least, attempt to reach. Rather, being human is a process that one constantly experiences. One keeps on doing more, one keeps on being more while experiencing his sense of being and I guess that is what it means to be human. One dreams, one hopes and one lives—up to eternity.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Open-mindedness and Causality
by June Patrick Bulaon
13 June 2013
Discussed Text: David Foster Wallace, "This Is Water"
After discussing DFW’s This is Water, our class began a discussion on open-mindedness: mainly, to what extent can we be open and does everything actually happen for a reason? Unfortunately, due to some time constraint we weren’t able to completely address the issue and I think some of us, including me, weren’t able to formulate their own ideas with regards to the topic.
Like what DFW already said, everybody falls prey to their own biases. It’s not necessarily something that we choose, though. It could be something that is inherent and imbued within us by nature or by nurture; that is, it could be some outside element that influences us to think or feel a certain way towards something e.g. culture, religion, experience, etc. This creates in us a sort of “default natural setting”, as DFW put it, that makes us view reality in a certain manner without really considering what is.
I view reality as a single solitary piece of diamond: there is only one reality but there are many facets to it. Sometimes what we think is cannot be seen on the surface by other people because it is the side of reality that we choose to look at; that is, there is only one reality but we choose what we make of it.
And I think that’s where open-mindedness comes in. It’s the ability and decision to not only look at a single facet of this reality but to attempt at observing this diamond in its entirety, to understand that each facet has its own beauty and appeal to people, and to choose which facet or image is most appealing and “most rational” to us.
This choice doesn’t mean that any other view is wrong or inferior compared to our own. It just means that our manner of thinking is different from theirs and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think this difference brings about more opportunities to be more open-minded. As we open up to the thoughts and views of others, we get to see a better view of reality.
Causality, or the attribution of an event to a cause, depends on that choice: the choice to consider and weigh in on the reality that is presented to us. Everything will happen for a reason if we consider that it does.
This, I gather, is the true power of the human mind and what makes us above all animals: our ability to make rational and conscious decisions and thoughts as opposed to always involuntarily going with our gut and instincts.
I found this “meme” on the image sharing site, Imgur, and I think it goes well with the discussion during the last class. What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?
13 June 2013
Discussed Text: David Foster Wallace, "This Is Water"
After discussing DFW’s This is Water, our class began a discussion on open-mindedness: mainly, to what extent can we be open and does everything actually happen for a reason? Unfortunately, due to some time constraint we weren’t able to completely address the issue and I think some of us, including me, weren’t able to formulate their own ideas with regards to the topic.
Like what DFW already said, everybody falls prey to their own biases. It’s not necessarily something that we choose, though. It could be something that is inherent and imbued within us by nature or by nurture; that is, it could be some outside element that influences us to think or feel a certain way towards something e.g. culture, religion, experience, etc. This creates in us a sort of “default natural setting”, as DFW put it, that makes us view reality in a certain manner without really considering what is.
I view reality as a single solitary piece of diamond: there is only one reality but there are many facets to it. Sometimes what we think is cannot be seen on the surface by other people because it is the side of reality that we choose to look at; that is, there is only one reality but we choose what we make of it.
And I think that’s where open-mindedness comes in. It’s the ability and decision to not only look at a single facet of this reality but to attempt at observing this diamond in its entirety, to understand that each facet has its own beauty and appeal to people, and to choose which facet or image is most appealing and “most rational” to us.
This choice doesn’t mean that any other view is wrong or inferior compared to our own. It just means that our manner of thinking is different from theirs and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think this difference brings about more opportunities to be more open-minded. As we open up to the thoughts and views of others, we get to see a better view of reality.
Causality, or the attribution of an event to a cause, depends on that choice: the choice to consider and weigh in on the reality that is presented to us. Everything will happen for a reason if we consider that it does.
This, I gather, is the true power of the human mind and what makes us above all animals: our ability to make rational and conscious decisions and thoughts as opposed to always involuntarily going with our gut and instincts.
I found this “meme” on the image sharing site, Imgur, and I think it goes well with the discussion during the last class. What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Soldiers for a Lifetime
by Kathleen Ching
Through time, one’s senses and thoughts are dulled by the mediocrity of Life. One tends to lose sight of purpose and, at some point, fails to endure.Then, Life just floods the lives of different individuals without even filling them. An individual must be both flooded and filled by Life and life.One must not let the strong floods sweep away oneself; else the result is frustration and mediocrity of living. Consider the purpose of life. Everyone must have a reason why they fight, why they walk this life, wielding swords, fighting and pressing on.
What on earth are you fighting for?
If one will let go of purpose, one will be swept away, lose health and die.
“Make your own storyline
Dream as if you will live forever
And live as if you'll die today”
– Lyrics from C.h.a.o.s.m.y.t.h., ONE OK ROCK
Through time, one’s senses and thoughts are dulled by the mediocrity of Life. One tends to lose sight of purpose and, at some point, fails to endure.Then, Life just floods the lives of different individuals without even filling them. An individual must be both flooded and filled by Life and life.One must not let the strong floods sweep away oneself; else the result is frustration and mediocrity of living. Consider the purpose of life. Everyone must have a reason why they fight, why they walk this life, wielding swords, fighting and pressing on.
What on earth are you fighting for?
If one will let go of purpose, one will be swept away, lose health and die.
Dream as if you will live forever
And live as if you'll die today”
– Lyrics from C.h.a.o.s.m.y.t.h., ONE OK ROCK
Saturday, June 15, 2013
The Transformative Power of Thought
by Alec Abarro
13 June 2013
Discussed text: David Foster Wallace, "This is Water"
The two fishes have been immersed in the water since, well, forever. So when they are asked, “How’s the water?” They are baffled. They haven’t been on land, or at least felt the air. How can they be aware of the water when it is so constant? It has always been there, engulfing them. The older fish must have experienced jumping out of the water, and felt the breeze. Or perhaps, he had been washed ashore once upon a time, and felt the soil. Whatever it is, the older fish had been exposed to something that is not water. Hence, he became aware to that something he has been immersed in since forever.
“This is water.”
When we are so absorbed in a paradigm, we involuntarily overlook other ways of seeing the world. The younger fishes aren’t even aware of the water they are stuck in. But the older fish does. More importantly, the older fish knows that there is something other than water. He has seen the sky and the earth. His world is that much bigger.
What about us? What are paradigm are we immersed in? David Foster Wallace calls this “default thinking” and our default thinking is the Me, Myself, and I paradigm. We view the world in our perspective. We literally don’t see the world through another person’s eyes. To us, everything happens in a first person point of view. This I paradigm is our water. Now, the I paradigm is not necessarily bad. But what is does is that it made us more self-centered, more selfish, self-interested, self-involved, self-seeking, self-serving. Self. Consequently, we have, more often than not, overlooked the paradigm of you, of us, of togetherness, of community, of fellowship.
But we are better off than the fish, because humans are gifted with empathy. We have the ability to see ourselves in the place of others. As we distinguish the I from the non-I, we start gaining our own identity. We start to become aware of what we do and who we are by differentiating ourselves with other people.
This non-I thinking partnered with the differentiating of the I from the non-I help us gain a new perspective, another framework to see the world and in turn, the self acts differently as it redraws horizons that transforms the space which it lives in. As we put ourselves in the place of other people, we try getting inside their thoughts and feelings to see what they see and in turn, we identify ourselves with another way of experiencing the world. The ability to empathize not only gives us the capacity to recognize another way of experiencing reality but also gives us the opportunity to objectively judge ourselves from the outside, and this shapes the narratives of our lives.
This is the value of a liberal arts education, as emphasized by David Foster Wallace. It’s about the choice of what to think about, of how to think. But what he really means is “learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience.” Liberal arts free us in the default way of thinking we are stuck in, opening our mind and seeing the world differently. When we change “default thinking,” we gain awareness of the self. We learn how to think. But the most important thing is thinking in order to live fuller.
As we transform from within, the activity for the body changes too. Its actions manifest the inner simulation of the perspectives we have and gained. Simply put, another way of thinking produces another way of acting. It allows us to reach an understanding about the self that causes us to change it and bring about a self-transformation. In the end, an Us paradigm benefits the I, the way I thinks, and acts in the community. The I has changed, but this single individual impacts not only the self but others around him. This is the power of thought.
13 June 2013
Discussed text: David Foster Wallace, "This is Water"
The two fishes have been immersed in the water since, well, forever. So when they are asked, “How’s the water?” They are baffled. They haven’t been on land, or at least felt the air. How can they be aware of the water when it is so constant? It has always been there, engulfing them. The older fish must have experienced jumping out of the water, and felt the breeze. Or perhaps, he had been washed ashore once upon a time, and felt the soil. Whatever it is, the older fish had been exposed to something that is not water. Hence, he became aware to that something he has been immersed in since forever.
“This is water.”
When we are so absorbed in a paradigm, we involuntarily overlook other ways of seeing the world. The younger fishes aren’t even aware of the water they are stuck in. But the older fish does. More importantly, the older fish knows that there is something other than water. He has seen the sky and the earth. His world is that much bigger.
What about us? What are paradigm are we immersed in? David Foster Wallace calls this “default thinking” and our default thinking is the Me, Myself, and I paradigm. We view the world in our perspective. We literally don’t see the world through another person’s eyes. To us, everything happens in a first person point of view. This I paradigm is our water. Now, the I paradigm is not necessarily bad. But what is does is that it made us more self-centered, more selfish, self-interested, self-involved, self-seeking, self-serving. Self. Consequently, we have, more often than not, overlooked the paradigm of you, of us, of togetherness, of community, of fellowship.
But we are better off than the fish, because humans are gifted with empathy. We have the ability to see ourselves in the place of others. As we distinguish the I from the non-I, we start gaining our own identity. We start to become aware of what we do and who we are by differentiating ourselves with other people.
This non-I thinking partnered with the differentiating of the I from the non-I help us gain a new perspective, another framework to see the world and in turn, the self acts differently as it redraws horizons that transforms the space which it lives in. As we put ourselves in the place of other people, we try getting inside their thoughts and feelings to see what they see and in turn, we identify ourselves with another way of experiencing the world. The ability to empathize not only gives us the capacity to recognize another way of experiencing reality but also gives us the opportunity to objectively judge ourselves from the outside, and this shapes the narratives of our lives.
This is the value of a liberal arts education, as emphasized by David Foster Wallace. It’s about the choice of what to think about, of how to think. But what he really means is “learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience.” Liberal arts free us in the default way of thinking we are stuck in, opening our mind and seeing the world differently. When we change “default thinking,” we gain awareness of the self. We learn how to think. But the most important thing is thinking in order to live fuller.
As we transform from within, the activity for the body changes too. Its actions manifest the inner simulation of the perspectives we have and gained. Simply put, another way of thinking produces another way of acting. It allows us to reach an understanding about the self that causes us to change it and bring about a self-transformation. In the end, an Us paradigm benefits the I, the way I thinks, and acts in the community. The I has changed, but this single individual impacts not only the self but others around him. This is the power of thought.
On Open-Mindedness
by Robert Dominic
13 June 2013
Discussed Text: David Foster Wallace, "This Is Water"
It isn't overthinking if we try and analyze if something happens or occurs for a reason, or simply comes about as pure coincidence. In fact, choosing not to exercise this human capability to seek and define the occurrences around us is a dismissal of this capability, and a submission to our default setting of self-centeredness, that if an ordinary thing that occurs does not strike us immediately as intended for us, we assume it simply happened by pure coincidence.
In the matter of open-mindedness and what is morally right or wrong, the basic truth that is self-evident is that we will all look at one thing with different interpretations. That open-mindedness is not meant to establish what is universally and morally right or wrong, because it is not open-mindedness if the aim or goal is to define, and possibly usurp, what is established in our society and in our world as right and wrong. That does not promote the lessening of arrogance that David Foster Wallace sought to highlight in his commencement speech; if open-mindedness deviates from exploring the truths around us and aims to establish what is right and wrong, then open-mindedness becomes a declaration or a claim, not the intended process of choosing how to think and establishing the control and discipline of what truth and point-of-view to observe.
13 June 2013
Discussed Text: David Foster Wallace, "This Is Water"
It isn't overthinking if we try and analyze if something happens or occurs for a reason, or simply comes about as pure coincidence. In fact, choosing not to exercise this human capability to seek and define the occurrences around us is a dismissal of this capability, and a submission to our default setting of self-centeredness, that if an ordinary thing that occurs does not strike us immediately as intended for us, we assume it simply happened by pure coincidence.
In the matter of open-mindedness and what is morally right or wrong, the basic truth that is self-evident is that we will all look at one thing with different interpretations. That open-mindedness is not meant to establish what is universally and morally right or wrong, because it is not open-mindedness if the aim or goal is to define, and possibly usurp, what is established in our society and in our world as right and wrong. That does not promote the lessening of arrogance that David Foster Wallace sought to highlight in his commencement speech; if open-mindedness deviates from exploring the truths around us and aims to establish what is right and wrong, then open-mindedness becomes a declaration or a claim, not the intended process of choosing how to think and establishing the control and discipline of what truth and point-of-view to observe.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
An Introduction to the Introduction
by Eve Avila
Today, our house was unusually busy because it was my first day in school. Not to bring my kids to their classrooms but to be the student myself.
Why did I enroll in Philo 101? At 61 years old on my last birthday, I’d say that I have almost completed the joyful journey of living, been there, done that. Now, what do I do with the rest of my life?
I recently returned from a two-year volunteer work in Africa and for the whole time that I was there, I was transported back to my childhood years when life was a struggle. Today, I can see that the meaning of my young life then was for NOW. Then what’s next?
I reckon that I can find the answer if I go back farther and start with the question, Who am I? And by knowing, then perhaps I can create another meaningful chapter in my life – the real meaning of life, in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)