by Jun Hyeok Park
To answer the question if we, as human, can reach the absolute truth, we have the consider what exactly the question is talking about by looking at the word "the Absolute Truth" and "the Absolute Meaning". The word Truth and Meaning may make sense and are self-explanatory by the words itself but the additional word "Absolute" in front of them makes itquite vague.
If the word "Absolute" here refers to the unimaginative and the undefinite viewpoint of God, then we can consider that the question itself is falsely stated. In this sense, the question can never be answered by any human being because it is asking the viewpoint of God which the human beings will never know. Since we cannot imagine what it is to see in the view of God, the question is not anymore valid for us.
Then what if it refers to something 'final' and 'finite'? Then we can pose the answer, "maybe". First of all, truth that we are talking about is not universal. People have different sets of minds and ways of thinking; thus, it is not simple enough to generalize if the truth and meaning can be found to every single person in this world. Unfortunately, there is not a mathematical formula to solve the x in this case which means that any scientific attempts to answer the question may be difficult. Second, we have to recall that the process of finding the truth and meaning is endless. It is an endless journey to find the meaning and truth; therefore, there is no such thing as 'final' or 'finite' answer to it. Lastly, we as human beings may be limited but we are not just a finite being stuck in our own body. The endless journey to find the truth may 'free' us from the limits and make us to see the world different which only can be derived from own will and experience, not by others.
Now, considering the points I posted above, the answer to the question can be either yes or no. Rather than fighting each other with yes or no, it is better to settle down with the answer "negatively maybe".
Sunday, September 29, 2013
One is To Many
by Fuze Andrey
It was mentioned in class that one of the basic capacities of the capable self is to remember polysemy of words which means that a word has many meanings. When I heard this, I remembered our lesson from Filipino 12 about the same topic. Our professor in Filipino 12 told us that every meaning of a word represents a different kind of situation that a person has experienced with that word. He stated the word ice as an example. He said that the people in cold places like Antarctica have about thirty or more definitions of ice. This is because each person, who contributed to the meaning of the word ice, has physically experienced a different situation with the ice. To explain this further, I would like to site a scenario wherein two different people have experienced a different situation with ice. The first person might define dry ice as a very cold object because that person has felt it physically. On the other hand, the second person might define it as an opaque substance by just merely looking at it. By now, it is clear that a definition of a word depends entirely or mostly on the experience of the person with that word.
Also, it was stated in class that when you combine words to make a sentence, you will produce a new meaning. In my understanding, we can change the meaning of a sentence by just changing a word in the sentence. So in reality, meanings or definitions in our world are infinite. Everything that we can see, feel, touch, taste and smell in this world of ours has meaning.
Lastly, Sir Garcia also mentioned that all of Shakespeare’s words can be found in the dictionary, but no one else can put those words together in a way that he can, nobody can do it but him. In my opinion, this means that every single one of us have a different way of constructing our own sentences or language even if we do speak the same language. We all have our unique way of expressing ourselves not only in action, but also in our words. By having our own unique way of constructing sentences or language, we are able to add ourselves to the infinite meaning that our world possesses.
It was mentioned in class that one of the basic capacities of the capable self is to remember polysemy of words which means that a word has many meanings. When I heard this, I remembered our lesson from Filipino 12 about the same topic. Our professor in Filipino 12 told us that every meaning of a word represents a different kind of situation that a person has experienced with that word. He stated the word ice as an example. He said that the people in cold places like Antarctica have about thirty or more definitions of ice. This is because each person, who contributed to the meaning of the word ice, has physically experienced a different situation with the ice. To explain this further, I would like to site a scenario wherein two different people have experienced a different situation with ice. The first person might define dry ice as a very cold object because that person has felt it physically. On the other hand, the second person might define it as an opaque substance by just merely looking at it. By now, it is clear that a definition of a word depends entirely or mostly on the experience of the person with that word.
Also, it was stated in class that when you combine words to make a sentence, you will produce a new meaning. In my understanding, we can change the meaning of a sentence by just changing a word in the sentence. So in reality, meanings or definitions in our world are infinite. Everything that we can see, feel, touch, taste and smell in this world of ours has meaning.
Lastly, Sir Garcia also mentioned that all of Shakespeare’s words can be found in the dictionary, but no one else can put those words together in a way that he can, nobody can do it but him. In my opinion, this means that every single one of us have a different way of constructing our own sentences or language even if we do speak the same language. We all have our unique way of expressing ourselves not only in action, but also in our words. By having our own unique way of constructing sentences or language, we are able to add ourselves to the infinite meaning that our world possesses.
A Raving Metaphor
by Nini Neri
Last Thursday’s lecture was about the ‘capable self’ and creativity. As mechanical as those two words (‘capable self’) put together may sound, there is actually an abstract depth to them.
The self is capable because it can ‘do’. Not only is this self able to ‘do’, it is also able to choose what it does. It has the freedom of defining and executing what it is ‘to be’ according to what it intends; it has the freedom to cause an effect.
Although there are, in fact, no limits to these actions (let us not delve into the details of moral and ethical acts but leave them instead as they are)—there is still an essence which they measure and upon which they are made. This essence is creativity. And the medium of creativity is imagination.
The ‘capable self’ has creativity somewhere in its core (the capability of language, human action, etc.), that creativity develops in the person’s imagination then is manifested in his/her actions. The actions may not always be processed this way, but it still happens somehow—even when the person is unaware of it!
Creativity is a small revelation of the ‘abstract depth’ upon which the ‘capable self’ may be easily related to. This creativity—in essence—takes no definite form (that is, until it is manifested in action), thus fulfilling the ‘abstract’ aspect, yet it delves deep into the ‘abyss’ which is the human person. It is an ‘abyss’ because of the depth and mystery of that which is the self.
One can never truly define the self and one is always learning something new about the self which makes it seem like as life goes on, one is plunging deeper into the mystery of himself (that gives it an ‘abyss-like’ characteristic). The mystery of the self is never-ending.
The ‘capable self’ has an abstract depth; that of which is the mystery of the self. This mystery of the self can be only partially revealed by creativity that is manifested in human action, narrative, and language. Each time we do something, we manifest our creativity, which reveals a small part of who we are. Through this, we may continue to learn about ourselves even more.
Creativity helps us with uncovering (though in the most minimal of ways) the mystery of who we are. I mean, just as I was writing this blog post, I’ve come to think of a lot of things. As I proofread (to the best of my abilities at 4am), I got to reflect on what I wrote and see myself in a sort-of-new light. I’m not saying that this reflection is creative or anything, but since it came from somewhere inside me, it reveals a glimpse of what sort of ‘creativity’ I hold. It also reveals a part of who I am.
We will all come across these moments of hazy revelation at some points in our lives. But we will always have to keep delving, for it is a never-ending plunge as we fall deeper into the mystery of ourselves.
Last Thursday’s lecture was about the ‘capable self’ and creativity. As mechanical as those two words (‘capable self’) put together may sound, there is actually an abstract depth to them.
The self is capable because it can ‘do’. Not only is this self able to ‘do’, it is also able to choose what it does. It has the freedom of defining and executing what it is ‘to be’ according to what it intends; it has the freedom to cause an effect.
Although there are, in fact, no limits to these actions (let us not delve into the details of moral and ethical acts but leave them instead as they are)—there is still an essence which they measure and upon which they are made. This essence is creativity. And the medium of creativity is imagination.
The ‘capable self’ has creativity somewhere in its core (the capability of language, human action, etc.), that creativity develops in the person’s imagination then is manifested in his/her actions. The actions may not always be processed this way, but it still happens somehow—even when the person is unaware of it!
Creativity is a small revelation of the ‘abstract depth’ upon which the ‘capable self’ may be easily related to. This creativity—in essence—takes no definite form (that is, until it is manifested in action), thus fulfilling the ‘abstract’ aspect, yet it delves deep into the ‘abyss’ which is the human person. It is an ‘abyss’ because of the depth and mystery of that which is the self.
One can never truly define the self and one is always learning something new about the self which makes it seem like as life goes on, one is plunging deeper into the mystery of himself (that gives it an ‘abyss-like’ characteristic). The mystery of the self is never-ending.
The ‘capable self’ has an abstract depth; that of which is the mystery of the self. This mystery of the self can be only partially revealed by creativity that is manifested in human action, narrative, and language. Each time we do something, we manifest our creativity, which reveals a small part of who we are. Through this, we may continue to learn about ourselves even more.
Creativity helps us with uncovering (though in the most minimal of ways) the mystery of who we are. I mean, just as I was writing this blog post, I’ve come to think of a lot of things. As I proofread (to the best of my abilities at 4am), I got to reflect on what I wrote and see myself in a sort-of-new light. I’m not saying that this reflection is creative or anything, but since it came from somewhere inside me, it reveals a glimpse of what sort of ‘creativity’ I hold. It also reveals a part of who I am.
We will all come across these moments of hazy revelation at some points in our lives. But we will always have to keep delving, for it is a never-ending plunge as we fall deeper into the mystery of ourselves.
A Mystery behind the Text
by Patrick Cruz
In reading texts, it is more often that we tend to visualize the setting, the physical features of the characters based on what is described there, etc. We see how the characters move, act and feel as well as how the conflict arises and how it is resolved. Then, after one point, some people go back to what they call “reality.” They have seen texts apart from their lives, as source of diversion, escape or entertainment for the various things that we face in life. We have forgotten that texts are given birth, written by people like us in some definite time and place.
Texts are literally just pieces of papers filled with meaningful ideas or events arranged on a particular plot or direction, but there’s something more to them than just this. This more-ness is the one that more often people tend to disregard as they read the texts. . What I am referring to in this more-ness is that in every direction and every sense, when dealing with texts, there seems to be an intimate connection between the writer and the reader. Consciously or unconsciously, the writer’s and the reader’s strings of thoughts get connected and it is in this very simplistic sense that one has touched the other’s lives. For example, an author may have seen a young high school student reading his novel; the author will suddenly get interested and join the student in his reading. Then, after talking about the text, suddenly, they will start to share something about their own experiences. In this specific case, the text builds a new connection, extends the boundaries of the two people and allows them to share their lives with one another at that short span of time. It enlarges both the world of the student and the author to include another person in their lives
A point to add, an argument may be raised here by considering a case like this: if the reader gets a different interpretation from what the author intends to mean, which one will be technically correct? This question cannot be directly answered, but one thing is certain— by the fact that the two gather different meanings in the same text only strengthens the idea that texts are indeed rooted to the richness of reality. As they are rooted from a rich source, the texts themselves become rich in nature and there are plenty of insights that can be gathered. We must note too that though a text roots deeply in the richness of reality, it lets us not just only see reality, but also act on reality based from what we have seen so far. Thus, it calls for a particular transformation based on what we have seen, an action for striving and making our lives more meaningful and a movement toward a better self at infinite possibilities.
In reading texts, it is more often that we tend to visualize the setting, the physical features of the characters based on what is described there, etc. We see how the characters move, act and feel as well as how the conflict arises and how it is resolved. Then, after one point, some people go back to what they call “reality.” They have seen texts apart from their lives, as source of diversion, escape or entertainment for the various things that we face in life. We have forgotten that texts are given birth, written by people like us in some definite time and place.
Texts are literally just pieces of papers filled with meaningful ideas or events arranged on a particular plot or direction, but there’s something more to them than just this. This more-ness is the one that more often people tend to disregard as they read the texts. . What I am referring to in this more-ness is that in every direction and every sense, when dealing with texts, there seems to be an intimate connection between the writer and the reader. Consciously or unconsciously, the writer’s and the reader’s strings of thoughts get connected and it is in this very simplistic sense that one has touched the other’s lives. For example, an author may have seen a young high school student reading his novel; the author will suddenly get interested and join the student in his reading. Then, after talking about the text, suddenly, they will start to share something about their own experiences. In this specific case, the text builds a new connection, extends the boundaries of the two people and allows them to share their lives with one another at that short span of time. It enlarges both the world of the student and the author to include another person in their lives
A point to add, an argument may be raised here by considering a case like this: if the reader gets a different interpretation from what the author intends to mean, which one will be technically correct? This question cannot be directly answered, but one thing is certain— by the fact that the two gather different meanings in the same text only strengthens the idea that texts are indeed rooted to the richness of reality. As they are rooted from a rich source, the texts themselves become rich in nature and there are plenty of insights that can be gathered. We must note too that though a text roots deeply in the richness of reality, it lets us not just only see reality, but also act on reality based from what we have seen so far. Thus, it calls for a particular transformation based on what we have seen, an action for striving and making our lives more meaningful and a movement toward a better self at infinite possibilities.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
I'll Give The World To You
by Nicole Patricia Nuguid
I remember a friend talking to me about his classmate in another school. "Ang yaman nun! (He's rich!)," he said. "Biruin mo, may sarili siyang mundo! (Imagine, he owns his personal world!)" Sarcastic and insulting as it may seem for many, especially for the classmate, I actually find it fascinating. I find all these fascinating! That there exist "many worlds"; that human beings can actually be as "rich" as owning a personal world; that prince charmings' promise of giving the world to their princesses is possible. But of course, no princess actually took this LITERALLY!
The existence of "many worlds" does not point to weirdness, selfishness and exclusivity. It does not reduce the world to a plain object that we can possess. It refers to our differing perceptions and the varying meanings and values we lay unto things. It relates to Marcel's idea of human beings as both mind and body. We physically exist in one common world, yet, we spiritually dwell in many. I believe this is already clear to everyone. And since I already mentioned prince charmings and princesses, I also realized that romantic relationships are the perfect illustration of the existence of many worlds.
I remember a friend talking to me about his classmate in another school. "Ang yaman nun! (He's rich!)," he said. "Biruin mo, may sarili siyang mundo! (Imagine, he owns his personal world!)" Sarcastic and insulting as it may seem for many, especially for the classmate, I actually find it fascinating. I find all these fascinating! That there exist "many worlds"; that human beings can actually be as "rich" as owning a personal world; that prince charmings' promise of giving the world to their princesses is possible. But of course, no princess actually took this LITERALLY!
The existence of "many worlds" does not point to weirdness, selfishness and exclusivity. It does not reduce the world to a plain object that we can possess. It refers to our differing perceptions and the varying meanings and values we lay unto things. It relates to Marcel's idea of human beings as both mind and body. We physically exist in one common world, yet, we spiritually dwell in many. I believe this is already clear to everyone. And since I already mentioned prince charmings and princesses, I also realized that romantic relationships are the perfect illustration of the existence of many worlds.
Men and women are naturally different. They look at the same things differently, prioritize different things, rejoice over different things. What one deems important, one might see as trivial. What is meaningful for one is meaningless for the other. My Theology professor told us that men's way of thinking is like a bar of chocolate, they are at one box at one point in time; while women think spaghetti, we think about everything all at the same time. It is amazing how women see ruby, crimson and bloody red, while men simply see red. Studies say that men generally regard themselves more good looking than they actually are while women behave exactly the opposite. I remember, in freshman year, I was so excited about Ateneo being uniform-less. I can wear anything I want! I can be as comfortable as I can be in my shirt and shorts in school! How cool is that. However, my boyfriend disapprove of wearing "unappropriate" clothes to school and any other public place unless I am with my parents. He is particularly worried about perverts, especially that I commute to school. It was comfort on my side versus safety on his. The list goes on and on. Nonetheless, this is not about who is right and wrong. Two very different worlds exist and collide in every relationship and yet, I wonder why relationships still do exist.
It was asked many times in class how we are ever going to arrive to settle with an absolute truth if each of us perceives things differently. I wondered about it too. But I realized, how come the collusion of two very different worlds is possible in romantic relationships? Why will I ever find meeting a stranger with completely different beliefs difficult if I, myself, is in a relationship with a person also different from me? Indeed, existence is two things:
1.) To exist is to be a particular person with unique characteristics which we share in common with others. No matter how far a man and a woman go towards both ends of the pole, there will always be something in common between them that will remain. The truth that they love each other remains that pulls them back to the center.
2.) To exist is to be in dialogue with others. Relationships work their way past differences through communication. It praises, reprimands, heals, moves and overwhelms. Probably, successful relationships and marriages are the living and greatest testaments of the power of dialogue.
These meanings of existence should apply to general relationships, but my point here is working out differences in the many worlds that exist among human beings should not be that hard as long as romantic relationships and marriages exist. If two very different human beings can go as far as establishing a lifetime union, establishing peaceful coexistence among all human beings is not impossible. Relationships and marriages, and even friendships, are the micro of the macro (among nations) we want to achieve. Going back to my previous example, does not that "giving the world" to your loved one mean giving up your "own world" to give him/her everything he/she desires? The same is what we need in our general interactions with random people -- giving up our "own worlds" to try to understand others'. In class, I first found it very unrealistic to simply answer "dialogue" to the problem of differing perceptions. Now, if it is possible in romantic love, it is possible in anything.
3:1
by J.O. Pangilinan
In today’s lecture on Philosophy as a critique of conviction, Sir Garcia raised a point, the superabundance of meaning over the abundance of meaninglessness as explained by Paul Ricoeur. And what came to me was that advice of Ms. Jen Orlina, for every negativity you could think of that would affect your work in your organization, think of 3 positive reasons to counter the negativity. After this class, the advice finally made more sense, rather than simply digesting it literally.
The negativity, which normally seems to be meaningless to me, is over-ruled by the numerous positive reasons, as reasons full of meaning, to counter this negativity that would make me want to quit and give up. But then, this feeling of giving up, if in any case I do give in, prohibits me from encountering and participating in this world-with-others. How then am I to find myself if I do indeed deprive myself of such experiences? And eventually, if the mentality of simply giving up continues further, becoming some sort of natural behavior, wouldn’t I “cease” to exist? Wouldn’t life be pointless if so, and from a rational being becoming some form of object?
Yet despite this temptation of giving up, I must negate the negation and continue to exist – to participate, encounter and engage in this world-with-others. I, therefore, must experience the beauty this world manifests, and take part of the inter-subjective truth.
I then come into a realization, failures or any form of negativity, come our way to make us see that there are more opportunities out there, where we will find our worth. We must go on experience the beauty of life, as cliché it may get, rather than dwell on our short-comings, preventing us from experiencing life in search for our inner selves; then how are we supposed to get closer to that lighted place Marcel speaks of?
In today’s lecture on Philosophy as a critique of conviction, Sir Garcia raised a point, the superabundance of meaning over the abundance of meaninglessness as explained by Paul Ricoeur. And what came to me was that advice of Ms. Jen Orlina, for every negativity you could think of that would affect your work in your organization, think of 3 positive reasons to counter the negativity. After this class, the advice finally made more sense, rather than simply digesting it literally.
The negativity, which normally seems to be meaningless to me, is over-ruled by the numerous positive reasons, as reasons full of meaning, to counter this negativity that would make me want to quit and give up. But then, this feeling of giving up, if in any case I do give in, prohibits me from encountering and participating in this world-with-others. How then am I to find myself if I do indeed deprive myself of such experiences? And eventually, if the mentality of simply giving up continues further, becoming some sort of natural behavior, wouldn’t I “cease” to exist? Wouldn’t life be pointless if so, and from a rational being becoming some form of object?
Yet despite this temptation of giving up, I must negate the negation and continue to exist – to participate, encounter and engage in this world-with-others. I, therefore, must experience the beauty this world manifests, and take part of the inter-subjective truth.
I then come into a realization, failures or any form of negativity, come our way to make us see that there are more opportunities out there, where we will find our worth. We must go on experience the beauty of life, as cliché it may get, rather than dwell on our short-comings, preventing us from experiencing life in search for our inner selves; then how are we supposed to get closer to that lighted place Marcel speaks of?
Monday, September 23, 2013
A Time When Imperfection Trumps Perfection
by Kate Bonamy
I've been having a bad week. I spent the first three days of my week studying for our statistics long test, and God knows how much I dislike that subject. I have a hard time understanding the different distributions, etc. Finally, test day came. I was a little bit confident, because the teacher said that the test would be easy. Indeed, it was. However, it was so frustrating that I made a careless crucial mistake at the beginning of the last number, which makes my solution the entire number completely wrong and worthless. For a moment, I thought that my time and efforts were wasted. I let go of that right away, because I have another LT coming up. That night, I visited my dentist. I was expecting her to inject anesthesia on me, because I knew it would be painful. She didn't. I hate pain- everyone does. Thursday came. I was late for my appointment with my tutee. I went to my car and found myself trapped in my parking space. I just learned how to drive recently, so I'm still kinda bad at it. Then I accidentally hit the car next to me. The guard came to get my name, etc. When I got to my tutee's house, I thought we would finish up soon, because I still had to study my exam and quiz the next day. Instead, I got home 8pm, tired, hungry, and depressed- totally not in the mood to study. Still, I studied a little. Friday came and I did not know what was going on with me. I felt like my mouth had a different brain from the rest of my body, as I had offended two of my three teachers that day. And those two offenses led my classmates to possibly hate or dislike me (more, if they already do). I apologized to my teachers, but I was already disheartened. It was so hard to study that day because of everything crappy that has been going on. i felt like it is never ending, and it just keeps coming. This is to the extent that I thought, "Is the bad luck even possible to happen in real life, or this is but a dream?"
Then I remembered what we had learned in Philosophy. It is emotions -joy, sadness, pain, etc. that make us confirm our existence. It confirms that this is not a dream, and this is my life. It is a bad week, but I would just have to be more optimistic about it. Then I thought that it wasn't all that bad for a number of reasons. Through everything, I had friends who never left my side. They continually try to understand and forgive me for my shortcomings. It may not be the most materialistically rewarding week. But I learned a lot. Also, I am glad that I existed. Just like our example in class, a hundred in your hand is better than a thousand in your mind. I can stay forever dreaming of a stress-free, perfect, and imaginary life, which I know will never come to happen, or I can live with what I already have and try to make the most out of it. Basically, a dream life does not exist. It is but a common dream- utopia. However, come to think of it, the life that is already in your hands is greater than the life in your head because that life actually exists. Moreover, that is the life that shaped you to be who you are. It may be inevitable to sometimes dream, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, more often, we have to live in the present and be contented with what we have. I guess what I really learned this reflection is that an imperfect but existent life is better than a perfect but imaginary one.
I've been having a bad week. I spent the first three days of my week studying for our statistics long test, and God knows how much I dislike that subject. I have a hard time understanding the different distributions, etc. Finally, test day came. I was a little bit confident, because the teacher said that the test would be easy. Indeed, it was. However, it was so frustrating that I made a careless crucial mistake at the beginning of the last number, which makes my solution the entire number completely wrong and worthless. For a moment, I thought that my time and efforts were wasted. I let go of that right away, because I have another LT coming up. That night, I visited my dentist. I was expecting her to inject anesthesia on me, because I knew it would be painful. She didn't. I hate pain- everyone does. Thursday came. I was late for my appointment with my tutee. I went to my car and found myself trapped in my parking space. I just learned how to drive recently, so I'm still kinda bad at it. Then I accidentally hit the car next to me. The guard came to get my name, etc. When I got to my tutee's house, I thought we would finish up soon, because I still had to study my exam and quiz the next day. Instead, I got home 8pm, tired, hungry, and depressed- totally not in the mood to study. Still, I studied a little. Friday came and I did not know what was going on with me. I felt like my mouth had a different brain from the rest of my body, as I had offended two of my three teachers that day. And those two offenses led my classmates to possibly hate or dislike me (more, if they already do). I apologized to my teachers, but I was already disheartened. It was so hard to study that day because of everything crappy that has been going on. i felt like it is never ending, and it just keeps coming. This is to the extent that I thought, "Is the bad luck even possible to happen in real life, or this is but a dream?"
Then I remembered what we had learned in Philosophy. It is emotions -joy, sadness, pain, etc. that make us confirm our existence. It confirms that this is not a dream, and this is my life. It is a bad week, but I would just have to be more optimistic about it. Then I thought that it wasn't all that bad for a number of reasons. Through everything, I had friends who never left my side. They continually try to understand and forgive me for my shortcomings. It may not be the most materialistically rewarding week. But I learned a lot. Also, I am glad that I existed. Just like our example in class, a hundred in your hand is better than a thousand in your mind. I can stay forever dreaming of a stress-free, perfect, and imaginary life, which I know will never come to happen, or I can live with what I already have and try to make the most out of it. Basically, a dream life does not exist. It is but a common dream- utopia. However, come to think of it, the life that is already in your hands is greater than the life in your head because that life actually exists. Moreover, that is the life that shaped you to be who you are. It may be inevitable to sometimes dream, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, more often, we have to live in the present and be contented with what we have. I guess what I really learned this reflection is that an imperfect but existent life is better than a perfect but imaginary one.
"Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?"
by Patrick Cruz
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
In order to attempt to answer the question, we must first examine the question more closely. We note that the questions asks for why, meaning, a reason of existence of something rather than nothing. That is completely different if we ask the question “Is there something rather than nothing?”. Whereas the latter questions if that something really exists, the former asks for a reason of its existence given the presumption that it really exists. Answering the latter question “Is there something rather than nothing?” will be totally pointless because indeed, things are and we are! Hence, any further explanation will result into answering why.
Moreover, the word is plays an important role in understanding the question too. Is basically denotes a particular instant of time: present. It brings us to the full consciousness of the right here, right now presence—to the presence of this text, the medium one is using in reading this text and you who are reading this text. Nevertheless, the question does not limit itself to the present time, as it also acknowledges the past and the future, both in conjunction to define the present. As an example, a pencil may be seen on the table at present, but that is only because someone has put it there in the past and possibly, someone will still find it there and use it in the future. In a deeper sense, is may point out to a concept, idea, physical object, movement, position, etc. depending on the context. But all paths will lead us back to the idea of existence, where is deeply grounds.
Furthermore, we must clearly identify too the difference between something and nothing, and their intimate relationship. Something is characterized by its existence, having unique properties that contribute to the totality of its being. Something is present and it can never be doubted or invalidated. Something affirms itself simply by its own presence. In contrast, nothing is the absence of something. We say absence, not opposite. Because if it were to be treated as the opposite, then, it will create two distinct poles where an intermediary point can be determined. But that is simply contradictory since either an object exists or it does not, and nothing can be defined in between. With nothing as absence of something, nothing becomes a part of Something, where it is intimately connected, where it participates for the richness of its greater whole.
The last statement shows that there is no point of arguing the existence of something rather than nothing, because in the first place, nothing belongs to Something. Thus, something always is and it can’t cannot be. This enables us to cut the question into “Why is there something?”, which will be a completely different question that requires another endeavor. As a glimpse into this new journey of questioning, one must be careful of realizing a reasonable starting point: in a strict sense, not ourselves. Nevertheless, this will still remain a question.
Even if we have pursued the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, the answer to this question will still remain as a mystery, as a personal lovingly struggle of finding one’s own purpose of existence in this world, or even beyond.
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
In order to attempt to answer the question, we must first examine the question more closely. We note that the questions asks for why, meaning, a reason of existence of something rather than nothing. That is completely different if we ask the question “Is there something rather than nothing?”. Whereas the latter questions if that something really exists, the former asks for a reason of its existence given the presumption that it really exists. Answering the latter question “Is there something rather than nothing?” will be totally pointless because indeed, things are and we are! Hence, any further explanation will result into answering why.
Moreover, the word is plays an important role in understanding the question too. Is basically denotes a particular instant of time: present. It brings us to the full consciousness of the right here, right now presence—to the presence of this text, the medium one is using in reading this text and you who are reading this text. Nevertheless, the question does not limit itself to the present time, as it also acknowledges the past and the future, both in conjunction to define the present. As an example, a pencil may be seen on the table at present, but that is only because someone has put it there in the past and possibly, someone will still find it there and use it in the future. In a deeper sense, is may point out to a concept, idea, physical object, movement, position, etc. depending on the context. But all paths will lead us back to the idea of existence, where is deeply grounds.
Furthermore, we must clearly identify too the difference between something and nothing, and their intimate relationship. Something is characterized by its existence, having unique properties that contribute to the totality of its being. Something is present and it can never be doubted or invalidated. Something affirms itself simply by its own presence. In contrast, nothing is the absence of something. We say absence, not opposite. Because if it were to be treated as the opposite, then, it will create two distinct poles where an intermediary point can be determined. But that is simply contradictory since either an object exists or it does not, and nothing can be defined in between. With nothing as absence of something, nothing becomes a part of Something, where it is intimately connected, where it participates for the richness of its greater whole.
The last statement shows that there is no point of arguing the existence of something rather than nothing, because in the first place, nothing belongs to Something. Thus, something always is and it can’t cannot be. This enables us to cut the question into “Why is there something?”, which will be a completely different question that requires another endeavor. As a glimpse into this new journey of questioning, one must be careful of realizing a reasonable starting point: in a strict sense, not ourselves. Nevertheless, this will still remain a question.
Even if we have pursued the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, the answer to this question will still remain as a mystery, as a personal lovingly struggle of finding one’s own purpose of existence in this world, or even beyond.
Existing and Ceasing To Exist
by Rexelle Piad
Existence is an essential part of being human. I think to some degree, all of us have known or felt that we exist. The thought had crossed our minds at our happiest moments or during the times when we've felt the most alive. We even affirm our existence when we feel extreme pain or sadness. When we jokingly say, "i'm dying from stress" or "Ayaw ko na mabuhay" during our hell weeks/months/sems, we understand that we are existing. The thought of our existence may not cross our minds everyday. I hardly think anyone wakes up in the morning and says to himself, "I exist. Hooray!" However, I feel certain that everyone has an understanding (or maybe at least a partial understanding) of their existence.
Many things in our world exist. I believe, though, that existence as human beings is slightly different. If we see and touch a rock or a tree, we know and say that it exists. However, If we see a person who has lost the ability to think, move, speak and is only capable of breathing-- we have a harder time in saying that that person actively exists in the world. In my opinion, that's one of the mysteries of being human. We do not just limit our existence to our physical presence. We don't limit ourselves to just breathing in and breathing out. There is something more to our existence.
So this leads me to believe that---maybe--- it isn't really about whether we exist or not. I think the real question is, what does it mean for us to exist.
According to Lujipen, we need to take certain steps to be able to understand properly the meaning of our existence. For example, we have to understand that the world exists to everyone in a different way and that the world cannot exist without a human being.
From our lesson, what really struck me the most was that to be/to exist is to be spoken of, thought about or acted on. This posed so much questions for me. If no one speaks of us, thinks about us or interacts with us, does that mean that we cease to exist? Of course, the very fact that we are thinking, according to Descartes (Cogito Ergo Sum), leads us to believe that we do, in fact, exist. However, does this still mean that we exist for other people?
Take for example, the poor and the oppressed. Although there are a lot of efforts to help those in need, a lot of people still turn a blind eye towards them. People who are apathetic towards the marginalized do not speak of them, they do not think of them and they do nothing to help them. It would be as if they did not exist for them. So now I wonder---since existence is a crucial part of being human, does this mean that the poor and the oppressed are treated as "less-than-human" to these apathetic people? It pains me to think that something like that continually occurs in our society.
If we treat people as if they didn't exist, would we be partially stripping them of their humanity? Maybe. I guess, it is somewhat of a our responsibility to speak of, think of and act on the people who surround us. We cannot be apathetic to the world around us and the people who live in it as well. I guess, that it isn't enough to know that we are existing-- we have really do have to understand that we are in existence with other people. We are never alone.
Existence is an essential part of being human. I think to some degree, all of us have known or felt that we exist. The thought had crossed our minds at our happiest moments or during the times when we've felt the most alive. We even affirm our existence when we feel extreme pain or sadness. When we jokingly say, "i'm dying from stress" or "Ayaw ko na mabuhay" during our hell weeks/months/sems, we understand that we are existing. The thought of our existence may not cross our minds everyday. I hardly think anyone wakes up in the morning and says to himself, "I exist. Hooray!" However, I feel certain that everyone has an understanding (or maybe at least a partial understanding) of their existence.
Many things in our world exist. I believe, though, that existence as human beings is slightly different. If we see and touch a rock or a tree, we know and say that it exists. However, If we see a person who has lost the ability to think, move, speak and is only capable of breathing-- we have a harder time in saying that that person actively exists in the world. In my opinion, that's one of the mysteries of being human. We do not just limit our existence to our physical presence. We don't limit ourselves to just breathing in and breathing out. There is something more to our existence.
So this leads me to believe that---maybe--- it isn't really about whether we exist or not. I think the real question is, what does it mean for us to exist.
According to Lujipen, we need to take certain steps to be able to understand properly the meaning of our existence. For example, we have to understand that the world exists to everyone in a different way and that the world cannot exist without a human being.
From our lesson, what really struck me the most was that to be/to exist is to be spoken of, thought about or acted on. This posed so much questions for me. If no one speaks of us, thinks about us or interacts with us, does that mean that we cease to exist? Of course, the very fact that we are thinking, according to Descartes (Cogito Ergo Sum), leads us to believe that we do, in fact, exist. However, does this still mean that we exist for other people?
Take for example, the poor and the oppressed. Although there are a lot of efforts to help those in need, a lot of people still turn a blind eye towards them. People who are apathetic towards the marginalized do not speak of them, they do not think of them and they do nothing to help them. It would be as if they did not exist for them. So now I wonder---since existence is a crucial part of being human, does this mean that the poor and the oppressed are treated as "less-than-human" to these apathetic people? It pains me to think that something like that continually occurs in our society.
If we treat people as if they didn't exist, would we be partially stripping them of their humanity? Maybe. I guess, it is somewhat of a our responsibility to speak of, think of and act on the people who surround us. We cannot be apathetic to the world around us and the people who live in it as well. I guess, that it isn't enough to know that we are existing-- we have really do have to understand that we are in existence with other people. We are never alone.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Body and Spirit, you are!
by Patrick Cruz
With a lot of things occupying our heads, most of the time we forget the most basic things that we should do. In our desire to accomplish as many things as possible in a given day so that we can relax later on, it seems that we have already forgotten to reach the hands of our parents whenever we come back from school, to kiss our grandparents, to have short conversations with our professors, to help children cross the street and so much more. On the other hand, even if some people still do these things, they may have done these out of routine, without any further clarification of what these actions mean to them.
So, I say, body is necessary, but not a sufficient condition for existence. Yes, necessary, but not sufficient. We have to have body in order for us to exist, but body is not simply and not only the condition. We still have our particular inwardness or depth in us that is expressed in every way through our body and we must make it realized. We act uniquely based on our spirit and it is from here that the meaning of our actions must be derived. This meaning to actions then immortalizes the actions themselves as it raises the physical expression into deeper spiritual one, with the I that lies within us-- who gets hurt but still remains grateful, who falls but still hopes and who gets weary but still chooses to be happy. However, as mentioned earlier, the body is still deeply significant because it serves not only as medium of expression, but as a part of that expression. Our body contributes to the unique expression of our being in this world.
Thus, body and spirit are mutually dependent with each other, making them an indissoluble unity. Body and spirit we must be. With these two totally unified, they create a much fuller expression of our being in this world. They allow us to desire more to be better persons—more loving, more forgiving, etc. They deepen more our participation in the greater whole and for the greater whole. Body and spirit, we must say Yes to Life and continually work at it.
With a lot of things occupying our heads, most of the time we forget the most basic things that we should do. In our desire to accomplish as many things as possible in a given day so that we can relax later on, it seems that we have already forgotten to reach the hands of our parents whenever we come back from school, to kiss our grandparents, to have short conversations with our professors, to help children cross the street and so much more. On the other hand, even if some people still do these things, they may have done these out of routine, without any further clarification of what these actions mean to them.
So, I say, body is necessary, but not a sufficient condition for existence. Yes, necessary, but not sufficient. We have to have body in order for us to exist, but body is not simply and not only the condition. We still have our particular inwardness or depth in us that is expressed in every way through our body and we must make it realized. We act uniquely based on our spirit and it is from here that the meaning of our actions must be derived. This meaning to actions then immortalizes the actions themselves as it raises the physical expression into deeper spiritual one, with the I that lies within us-- who gets hurt but still remains grateful, who falls but still hopes and who gets weary but still chooses to be happy. However, as mentioned earlier, the body is still deeply significant because it serves not only as medium of expression, but as a part of that expression. Our body contributes to the unique expression of our being in this world.
Thus, body and spirit are mutually dependent with each other, making them an indissoluble unity. Body and spirit we must be. With these two totally unified, they create a much fuller expression of our being in this world. They allow us to desire more to be better persons—more loving, more forgiving, etc. They deepen more our participation in the greater whole and for the greater whole. Body and spirit, we must say Yes to Life and continually work at it.
Existing
by Trixia Tan
Last Thursday, the thing that really boggled my mind was the question of Existence. I mean, how to really know that we exist? How to know that we aren’t just in a dream or a figment of some imagination or hallucination? Or that we aren’t invisible?
This question seems to be answered easily with just saying “because I exist” but the things is, how do I know that I really exist? How do I know that this is the real world and not a dream reality that I just conjured up? Like in the 2010 movie Inception, wherein the protagonist (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his wife forgot about the real world because they lived in their conjured up “dream” reality, only knowing the real from the imaginary when Leonardo found his totem spinning endlessly. However their going back to the real world caused the wife’s hallucination of the dream world as the reality to surface, which raises the question for me, how do we know that we exist in the reality? To help me answer these questions, I compiled a list.
The ways to know that you exist
1.When there are documents that give proof of your existence. You have birth certificates, diplomas, records, and other documents that can attest to the fact that you are existing in this world.
2.When you check the mirror, and you can see your reflection. A ghost or someone who doesn’t exist wouldn’t know to look in the mirror, and there wouldn’t be any matter to look at!
3.When a person looks at you and doesn’t look through you. This means that you are not a ghost. It tells you that you exist in the eyes of that person and that you are physically in existence.
4.When something you move would move and fall like any normal object. An object wouldn’t move in the first place without any existing force from an existing person and as was in the movie, Inception, the protagonists’ totem doesn’t stop spinning when they are in the dream world, so when the object we move falls, this can also mean that we are in reality.
5.When you do something and you get recognized. Like when you won something and an award was given or even in more simplistic moments when you are thanked at.
6.When you touch someone. Like physically touch someone, it means that you are physically present for that someone to feel your presence.
7.When you think of this question. This means that you are aware enough to ask this question and that can certainly assure you that you exist.
Based on this list, one can say that to know that we exist, there should be an interaction with the world. We can know that we exist when we are part of the community. As was discussed, we can know that we exist when we participate in the world and when we know that we are aware of the things around us. When in a sense, we are in being.
Last Thursday, the thing that really boggled my mind was the question of Existence. I mean, how to really know that we exist? How to know that we aren’t just in a dream or a figment of some imagination or hallucination? Or that we aren’t invisible?
This question seems to be answered easily with just saying “because I exist” but the things is, how do I know that I really exist? How do I know that this is the real world and not a dream reality that I just conjured up? Like in the 2010 movie Inception, wherein the protagonist (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his wife forgot about the real world because they lived in their conjured up “dream” reality, only knowing the real from the imaginary when Leonardo found his totem spinning endlessly. However their going back to the real world caused the wife’s hallucination of the dream world as the reality to surface, which raises the question for me, how do we know that we exist in the reality? To help me answer these questions, I compiled a list.
The ways to know that you exist
1.When there are documents that give proof of your existence. You have birth certificates, diplomas, records, and other documents that can attest to the fact that you are existing in this world.
2.When you check the mirror, and you can see your reflection. A ghost or someone who doesn’t exist wouldn’t know to look in the mirror, and there wouldn’t be any matter to look at!
3.When a person looks at you and doesn’t look through you. This means that you are not a ghost. It tells you that you exist in the eyes of that person and that you are physically in existence.
4.When something you move would move and fall like any normal object. An object wouldn’t move in the first place without any existing force from an existing person and as was in the movie, Inception, the protagonists’ totem doesn’t stop spinning when they are in the dream world, so when the object we move falls, this can also mean that we are in reality.
5.When you do something and you get recognized. Like when you won something and an award was given or even in more simplistic moments when you are thanked at.
6.When you touch someone. Like physically touch someone, it means that you are physically present for that someone to feel your presence.
7.When you think of this question. This means that you are aware enough to ask this question and that can certainly assure you that you exist.
Based on this list, one can say that to know that we exist, there should be an interaction with the world. We can know that we exist when we are part of the community. As was discussed, we can know that we exist when we participate in the world and when we know that we are aware of the things around us. When in a sense, we are in being.
Beez In Da Trap – The Story Telling Trap
by Kris Umali
First of all, I would like to establish that I hate Nicki Minaj. And the LSS on this song is really annoying. So I might as well share this repulsive title (and tune) with all of you to lighten up the mood (assuming that there will be people who will continue to read this after seeing the title)
This was the line in this morning’s lecture that struck me the most. I kind of agree, because I like telling stories to my friends, and I like “sharing my experiences” with them. And at some point, we have all told stories and we try our best when we do so because we want them to experience the same things we went through. We want to show them what happened, who were involved, how we reacted, and what we reacted to. We may get a few laughs here, there and everywhere, even some mixed reactions and opinions, but the fact of the matter is, we can never really capture the essence of that experience in its entirety. And that, I think is the most frustrating thing a person telling a story will ever and always go through. The unexplainable reality of that experience, for the story teller, is a trap.
It is like a trap, a story telling trap. Da beez are the story tellerz, beez in da trap.
When you tell your stories, you want to make it as lively as possible, as if it were happening here and now, as if you were reliving that specific moment. But when you tell the story and the person you are telling it to has no reactions, or worse -- bad reactions, you have failed as a story teller. Not only did you fail in making the experience become imaginable to that person, but you actually ruined it for him/her.
Back to the point -- no matter how good of a story teller you are, no matter how good you deliver a punch line that someone else told as a joke, or no matter how much you exaggerate one teeny tiny detail just to make the experience as live and as fresh as possible, what you say can never really express the actual reality of what you went through and what you felt during that moment. Those events, those experiences, are somehow beyond words. To sum it all up, what you can say when someone asks you about a certain event or moment and you do not know how to tell that story (or if you are just so awful at it that you actually ruin those experiences for them), then you can simply go and answer “you just had to be there.”
On this note, I somehow find it interesting that we, as human beings try to make the things we experience understandable to others. That as much as possible, we want to explain and narrate to them the specifics of certain events, because in truth, we want to (or at least, wanted to) share those experiences with them. Share, not only in the sense of storytelling, but to actually go through those same kinds of experiences; to experience the joy, the despair, the laughter, the excitement (or whatever) with them. We want to share with the people that we tell these stories to, the same feelings and reactions, and in a sense, literally share those same kinds of experiences just so we won’t have to go through the always inadequate “sharing” of these experiences through mere stories.
Because once we’ve experienced these new things with the people we want to, we talk about it with them; we enter into dialogue, we give our own perspectives of what happened, what we felt, what caught our attention; and in return, they give theirs. And it is through these conversations that that experience, somehow becomes more alive in our stories. When we tell these stories to other people, we tell it alongside the ones we experienced them with, and we tell them a little bit closer, this time, to the actual reality of that moment, rather than it being told by one babbling story teller in an awful (but amusing) attempt to share experiences with others through nothing but simple words.
First of all, I would like to establish that I hate Nicki Minaj. And the LSS on this song is really annoying. So I might as well share this repulsive title (and tune) with all of you to lighten up the mood (assuming that there will be people who will continue to read this after seeing the title)
“Philosophy is an attempt to render intelligible our experience of reality that
cannot be equated with words”
This was the line in this morning’s lecture that struck me the most. I kind of agree, because I like telling stories to my friends, and I like “sharing my experiences” with them. And at some point, we have all told stories and we try our best when we do so because we want them to experience the same things we went through. We want to show them what happened, who were involved, how we reacted, and what we reacted to. We may get a few laughs here, there and everywhere, even some mixed reactions and opinions, but the fact of the matter is, we can never really capture the essence of that experience in its entirety. And that, I think is the most frustrating thing a person telling a story will ever and always go through. The unexplainable reality of that experience, for the story teller, is a trap.
It is like a trap, a story telling trap. Da beez are the story tellerz, beez in da trap.
When you tell your stories, you want to make it as lively as possible, as if it were happening here and now, as if you were reliving that specific moment. But when you tell the story and the person you are telling it to has no reactions, or worse -- bad reactions, you have failed as a story teller. Not only did you fail in making the experience become imaginable to that person, but you actually ruined it for him/her.
Back to the point -- no matter how good of a story teller you are, no matter how good you deliver a punch line that someone else told as a joke, or no matter how much you exaggerate one teeny tiny detail just to make the experience as live and as fresh as possible, what you say can never really express the actual reality of what you went through and what you felt during that moment. Those events, those experiences, are somehow beyond words. To sum it all up, what you can say when someone asks you about a certain event or moment and you do not know how to tell that story (or if you are just so awful at it that you actually ruin those experiences for them), then you can simply go and answer “you just had to be there.”
On this note, I somehow find it interesting that we, as human beings try to make the things we experience understandable to others. That as much as possible, we want to explain and narrate to them the specifics of certain events, because in truth, we want to (or at least, wanted to) share those experiences with them. Share, not only in the sense of storytelling, but to actually go through those same kinds of experiences; to experience the joy, the despair, the laughter, the excitement (or whatever) with them. We want to share with the people that we tell these stories to, the same feelings and reactions, and in a sense, literally share those same kinds of experiences just so we won’t have to go through the always inadequate “sharing” of these experiences through mere stories.
Because once we’ve experienced these new things with the people we want to, we talk about it with them; we enter into dialogue, we give our own perspectives of what happened, what we felt, what caught our attention; and in return, they give theirs. And it is through these conversations that that experience, somehow becomes more alive in our stories. When we tell these stories to other people, we tell it alongside the ones we experienced them with, and we tell them a little bit closer, this time, to the actual reality of that moment, rather than it being told by one babbling story teller in an awful (but amusing) attempt to share experiences with others through nothing but simple words.
Reflection Can Lead To Conversion
by Eve Avila
As a mom to early twenty-somethings, I am always the boss, because I know everything. But since I enrolled in Philo 101, I seem to be in the experience of ontological humility (a humbler way of existing).
Now I know that I do not know a lot and I can even learn not just from the “lilies of the fields” and the “birds of the air”, but from my children themselves.
I was with my son last Sunday at our usual study joint in Starbucks Libis. On our way out, he was looking for his umbrella in the stand, and it wasn’t there. He called his group mate who borrowed it earlier to confirm if he had put it back in the stand and he said he did. After searching again and waiting (in the hope that someone just took it momentarily), we gave up and left without it.
As the boss, I told my son to immediately call his friend and tell him that the umbrella wasn’t there. I had hot spasms when my son said, “No Mom, I don’t have to call him now about it. He might feel guilty, but it is not his fault. And besides, it is already late and he may not be able to sleep worrying and he is just as stressed as me preparing for our final exams”.
I relate this anecdote to what I learned today from the lecture of TA Earl. As I gather my lived experience, I do not profess to remember the philosophical vocabulary such as existential fulcrum, metaphysical unease, intermediary thinking, existential phenomenology, but surely I will remember to be patient, truthful, kind and to help others live a human life.
As a mom to early twenty-somethings, I am always the boss, because I know everything. But since I enrolled in Philo 101, I seem to be in the experience of ontological humility (a humbler way of existing).
Now I know that I do not know a lot and I can even learn not just from the “lilies of the fields” and the “birds of the air”, but from my children themselves.
I was with my son last Sunday at our usual study joint in Starbucks Libis. On our way out, he was looking for his umbrella in the stand, and it wasn’t there. He called his group mate who borrowed it earlier to confirm if he had put it back in the stand and he said he did. After searching again and waiting (in the hope that someone just took it momentarily), we gave up and left without it.
As the boss, I told my son to immediately call his friend and tell him that the umbrella wasn’t there. I had hot spasms when my son said, “No Mom, I don’t have to call him now about it. He might feel guilty, but it is not his fault. And besides, it is already late and he may not be able to sleep worrying and he is just as stressed as me preparing for our final exams”.
I relate this anecdote to what I learned today from the lecture of TA Earl. As I gather my lived experience, I do not profess to remember the philosophical vocabulary such as existential fulcrum, metaphysical unease, intermediary thinking, existential phenomenology, but surely I will remember to be patient, truthful, kind and to help others live a human life.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Inconsistency of the Self
by Andrew Gallardo
The past week has not been an easy one for me. A lot of things happened. And once again, I let the time flew past me without cherishing some of the moments in it. Though right now I am not supposed to write how I long for a carefree life, or how I wish to live a day without worrying about any duties or obligations, for in reality, I have long accepted the truth that I have chosen this busy life, and consequently, the stressful lifestyle that comes along with it. Rather, I wish to share the actualization of the learning that I had from my philosophy class. The concept called the “Duality of Self” by Rene Descartes.
The “Duality of Self” concept ascertains that men are formed of two entities- that of the body called Res Extensa and the soul called Res Cogitans. It is the soul that is the indubitable “I”, and the body is the extension of this certain “I”. Now I would not reiterate and discuss all the points of Rene Descartes here, for with all certainty, I know a lot of people knows more than I do in terms of his Philosophy. But I am just perplexed at the mystery of this “dual” self- of how he tries to separate the concept of body and soul. Does that mean that a body and soul is distinct and separate? Can they live apart from each other? Is it possible to “live” even of just one of them is possessed?
And unexpectedly, amidst a normal day for a person with a lifestyle made out of routines, there was a sudden realization that made me understood this concept of “Dual self”. While doing my marketing paper past midnight last Thursday, when everyone at home were already sleeping (or at least I though they were for they were already in their rooms), there occurred in me an urge to sleep. My eyes were starting to close even though I do not will it to be. My body was already starting to relax on my soft bed even though my laptop was still on my lap. And I was starting to give in to the seduction of my body. Until I remembered my marketing paper. And I remembered how much effort our group exerted just to have even a little data for our paper. I could not let them down, I thought. They counted on me and for sure, they were doing their part too. But most of all, I could not let my parents down by giving them a failing or a barely passing grade despite all the efforts they exerted just to send me to a good school.
At that particular moment, I was lost within myself. I was caught in between of two wills of myself. A part of me wanted to sleep and relax even just for a night because I have been sleeping only for 5 to 6 hours for the past couple of days, but a part of me whispered that it is not the right thing to do at the moment. And perhaps this is the concretization of Descartes “Dual Self”. My body longs for a sleep, yet my soul reminds me of my obligation in this world.
Being limited as we are, perhaps we just have to live with this two wills inside of us. In this world, it is so easy to fall to bodily desires- sex, wealth, power and a lot of excessive vices. It is part of our imperfect being. Yet, we must, at least, seek and learn to balance these with the calling of our soul. I dare not to be adventurous and try to remove myself from this body so that I would no longer have bodily passions, wills or desires, for God knows how I love to live a life inside my comfort zone. And I honestly believe that these malicious desires do not all come from the body- there is an unexplainable calling too to fall out of these desires as much as there is a calling to do good. Perhaps the best that I can do is to just make these two being within me reconcile and unite in doing well. It is all about practice, maybe. And it would take time.
The past week has not been an easy one for me. A lot of things happened. And once again, I let the time flew past me without cherishing some of the moments in it. Though right now I am not supposed to write how I long for a carefree life, or how I wish to live a day without worrying about any duties or obligations, for in reality, I have long accepted the truth that I have chosen this busy life, and consequently, the stressful lifestyle that comes along with it. Rather, I wish to share the actualization of the learning that I had from my philosophy class. The concept called the “Duality of Self” by Rene Descartes.
The “Duality of Self” concept ascertains that men are formed of two entities- that of the body called Res Extensa and the soul called Res Cogitans. It is the soul that is the indubitable “I”, and the body is the extension of this certain “I”. Now I would not reiterate and discuss all the points of Rene Descartes here, for with all certainty, I know a lot of people knows more than I do in terms of his Philosophy. But I am just perplexed at the mystery of this “dual” self- of how he tries to separate the concept of body and soul. Does that mean that a body and soul is distinct and separate? Can they live apart from each other? Is it possible to “live” even of just one of them is possessed?
And unexpectedly, amidst a normal day for a person with a lifestyle made out of routines, there was a sudden realization that made me understood this concept of “Dual self”. While doing my marketing paper past midnight last Thursday, when everyone at home were already sleeping (or at least I though they were for they were already in their rooms), there occurred in me an urge to sleep. My eyes were starting to close even though I do not will it to be. My body was already starting to relax on my soft bed even though my laptop was still on my lap. And I was starting to give in to the seduction of my body. Until I remembered my marketing paper. And I remembered how much effort our group exerted just to have even a little data for our paper. I could not let them down, I thought. They counted on me and for sure, they were doing their part too. But most of all, I could not let my parents down by giving them a failing or a barely passing grade despite all the efforts they exerted just to send me to a good school.
At that particular moment, I was lost within myself. I was caught in between of two wills of myself. A part of me wanted to sleep and relax even just for a night because I have been sleeping only for 5 to 6 hours for the past couple of days, but a part of me whispered that it is not the right thing to do at the moment. And perhaps this is the concretization of Descartes “Dual Self”. My body longs for a sleep, yet my soul reminds me of my obligation in this world.
Being limited as we are, perhaps we just have to live with this two wills inside of us. In this world, it is so easy to fall to bodily desires- sex, wealth, power and a lot of excessive vices. It is part of our imperfect being. Yet, we must, at least, seek and learn to balance these with the calling of our soul. I dare not to be adventurous and try to remove myself from this body so that I would no longer have bodily passions, wills or desires, for God knows how I love to live a life inside my comfort zone. And I honestly believe that these malicious desires do not all come from the body- there is an unexplainable calling too to fall out of these desires as much as there is a calling to do good. Perhaps the best that I can do is to just make these two being within me reconcile and unite in doing well. It is all about practice, maybe. And it would take time.
The Butterfly Effect
by Corrine Cheng
I was watching this film about a man who talked about different people who came by a coffee shop. There was an old man, a homeless man, a perverted man and the pink man (you can research about him in google) If you would notice, these people are totally different in the way they have lived their lives and it made me think of something about class last Thursday.
The main discussion was about existence and how one can prove he/she existed with his/ her lived experiences. How does this related to the video above? These people mentioned have lived differently which resulted to how they are at that particular moment. In a way, it shows how much experience can affect one’s existence. According to the narrator, “…I can sort of understood them in a weird kind of way.” He mentioned possible scenarios about how he could be that kind of person had he lived differently. In here, the mentioned experiences kind of reminded me about the different people around me. We each are currently living different experiences. There are people who are happy now but there are also people who are sad. There are people who are angry but there are also people who are guilty. In a way, I can relate to these people. I have experienced happiness, loneliness, anger and guilt. But this relation made me realize something. I’m sure even great people like Mahatma Gandhi have experience these feelings. Does it mean that my mere existence can actually mean something?
It now brings me to the questions that I usually ask myself, “Why am I here? Why do I have to exist in this world? What is my purpose in life? Do I even have a purpose in life?” Basically, it questions my own existence. But it also brings about new questions like “Do people still want me here? Am I actually affecting some other life or none at all?” These questions now connect to other people. In a way, it makes me think about the people around me and whether my existence is important enough. Other people say that we exist to affect another person’s life whether big or small. It actually reminds me of the Butterfly Theory. In this theory, it explains that even a small butterfly can affect the world by its choice of flying to the left or the right. If only the existence and choices of a mere butterfly affect the world, does it mean that even my existence and choices can affect the world? I hope so.
I was watching this film about a man who talked about different people who came by a coffee shop. There was an old man, a homeless man, a perverted man and the pink man (you can research about him in google) If you would notice, these people are totally different in the way they have lived their lives and it made me think of something about class last Thursday.
The main discussion was about existence and how one can prove he/she existed with his/ her lived experiences. How does this related to the video above? These people mentioned have lived differently which resulted to how they are at that particular moment. In a way, it shows how much experience can affect one’s existence. According to the narrator, “…I can sort of understood them in a weird kind of way.” He mentioned possible scenarios about how he could be that kind of person had he lived differently. In here, the mentioned experiences kind of reminded me about the different people around me. We each are currently living different experiences. There are people who are happy now but there are also people who are sad. There are people who are angry but there are also people who are guilty. In a way, I can relate to these people. I have experienced happiness, loneliness, anger and guilt. But this relation made me realize something. I’m sure even great people like Mahatma Gandhi have experience these feelings. Does it mean that my mere existence can actually mean something?
It now brings me to the questions that I usually ask myself, “Why am I here? Why do I have to exist in this world? What is my purpose in life? Do I even have a purpose in life?” Basically, it questions my own existence. But it also brings about new questions like “Do people still want me here? Am I actually affecting some other life or none at all?” These questions now connect to other people. In a way, it makes me think about the people around me and whether my existence is important enough. Other people say that we exist to affect another person’s life whether big or small. It actually reminds me of the Butterfly Theory. In this theory, it explains that even a small butterfly can affect the world by its choice of flying to the left or the right. If only the existence and choices of a mere butterfly affect the world, does it mean that even my existence and choices can affect the world? I hope so.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
What You Do In Life Echoes In Eternity
by Reiley Udasco
From the two meetings last week, what struck me the most was the methodic doubt that sir mentioned. How we are supposed to doubt everything until we arrive to the truth, which we are not to doubt. To be able to arrive to this, we are first to doubt our senses by doubting if we are aware of our surroundings like a mirage. We begin to bracket everything when start to doubt everything, probably also God. After continuous doubting, we arrive at a point where we become aware that we really doubting everything, but there is a limit where even when we doubt, we can’t doubt that we are doubting and thinking beings. We are a thinking thing in which we can be assure of.
As we began the discussion on of the “Third Meditation,” sir emphasized how important the “I” is, how it is embodied and that it is supposed to be affirmed by us. By affirming this, we know that we are thinking. Thinking in a sense where we doubt, affirm, know, love, etc. Also to have a better sense of this, Descartes encourages us to pause for a moment. We are to take the time to listen and reflect to ourselves. Focus the world that is embodied in us… “Kalooban.”
Also In class sir contrasted Descartes and Marcel’s Philosophy. Where in Descartes, we are closed off from other people. Also Decart doubted so much that he is only sure of himself and uses God as a guarantee. Also he mentioned that reality is greater than something that we can measure, goes beyond the objectifiable or mathematical(?). But with Marcel in the other hand, he affirms that our existence co-exists with other people. Also, that we are participating in a world with other people. We are to be social to be ale to enter society.
I believe that at times we are all Descartes’ where we tend to forget about what’s happening outside or that there are external factors (like people) out there and concentrate too much on ourselves.
“TAO,TAO,TAO…” was the main lesson my third year high school history teacher taught me. We cannot live alone, we need others in our lives to be able to find ourselves more. Life is a give and take relationship.
Last thing, never forget God. initivm sapiente timor domini- The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord.
From the two meetings last week, what struck me the most was the methodic doubt that sir mentioned. How we are supposed to doubt everything until we arrive to the truth, which we are not to doubt. To be able to arrive to this, we are first to doubt our senses by doubting if we are aware of our surroundings like a mirage. We begin to bracket everything when start to doubt everything, probably also God. After continuous doubting, we arrive at a point where we become aware that we really doubting everything, but there is a limit where even when we doubt, we can’t doubt that we are doubting and thinking beings. We are a thinking thing in which we can be assure of.
As we began the discussion on of the “Third Meditation,” sir emphasized how important the “I” is, how it is embodied and that it is supposed to be affirmed by us. By affirming this, we know that we are thinking. Thinking in a sense where we doubt, affirm, know, love, etc. Also to have a better sense of this, Descartes encourages us to pause for a moment. We are to take the time to listen and reflect to ourselves. Focus the world that is embodied in us… “Kalooban.”
Also In class sir contrasted Descartes and Marcel’s Philosophy. Where in Descartes, we are closed off from other people. Also Decart doubted so much that he is only sure of himself and uses God as a guarantee. Also he mentioned that reality is greater than something that we can measure, goes beyond the objectifiable or mathematical(?). But with Marcel in the other hand, he affirms that our existence co-exists with other people. Also, that we are participating in a world with other people. We are to be social to be ale to enter society.
I believe that at times we are all Descartes’ where we tend to forget about what’s happening outside or that there are external factors (like people) out there and concentrate too much on ourselves.
“TAO,TAO,TAO…” was the main lesson my third year high school history teacher taught me. We cannot live alone, we need others in our lives to be able to find ourselves more. Life is a give and take relationship.
Last thing, never forget God. initivm sapiente timor domini- The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Scars
by Mary Ann Docuyanan
I am very fond of Jessica Hagy’s blog posts on Indexed and the articles she had written for Forbes. It’s really interesting (at least for me) and in a way, creative to use such a medium to relate life experiences through Venn diagrams and graphs which are commonly used for mathematics. As we discussed the concept of existence and pondered on the question, “When are the moments that you feel you exist?”, I remembered one of her posts entitled Marks of authenticity:
Life’s experiences are always described in opposites: good or bad, happy or sad, positive or negative. In Jessica Hagy’s interpretation, one “mark of authenticity” is that the more “scars” a person has had, there is a greater “proof” that he/she has been alive and I think it’s true and a good interpretation of one’s existence because we will inevitably go through this. I wouldn’t be able to say that I felt happiness unless I had experienced sadness or say I am thankful for finally achieving something I hoped for if I don’t know what failures and disappointments are. Some scars may appear skin-deep only because of shallow reasons such as failing a short quiz and literally-speaking, getting a paper cut – momentary negative events. It shouldn’t be forgotten that others have scars that go deeper and offer a profound and life-changing experiences such as death of a family member, separation of parents, being diagnosed with cancer or being let go from a job in a very difficult time.
But life is a gift and it is beautiful. All these undesirables will not be able to diminish life’s beauty and a person’s mystery. It makes it more real and precious. It tells us a person’s story because the good and the bad things shaped us to who we are now. It marks a person’s strength to survive in this broken world that we live in. As the saying goes, “These times are hard but it will pass.” What we have is a lifetime of existence dealing with all kinds of experiences and I think, to make the most out of life, we should explore what life has to offer and do things that will make us fully alive – to exist in the philosophical sense that we are being.
If you want to find out more about Jessica Hagy’s work, visit her pages: Jessica Hagy (http://jessicahagy.info/), Indexed (http://thisisindexed.com/) and her Forbes contributions on leadership and motivation (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessicahagy/).
I am very fond of Jessica Hagy’s blog posts on Indexed and the articles she had written for Forbes. It’s really interesting (at least for me) and in a way, creative to use such a medium to relate life experiences through Venn diagrams and graphs which are commonly used for mathematics. As we discussed the concept of existence and pondered on the question, “When are the moments that you feel you exist?”, I remembered one of her posts entitled Marks of authenticity:
Life’s experiences are always described in opposites: good or bad, happy or sad, positive or negative. In Jessica Hagy’s interpretation, one “mark of authenticity” is that the more “scars” a person has had, there is a greater “proof” that he/she has been alive and I think it’s true and a good interpretation of one’s existence because we will inevitably go through this. I wouldn’t be able to say that I felt happiness unless I had experienced sadness or say I am thankful for finally achieving something I hoped for if I don’t know what failures and disappointments are. Some scars may appear skin-deep only because of shallow reasons such as failing a short quiz and literally-speaking, getting a paper cut – momentary negative events. It shouldn’t be forgotten that others have scars that go deeper and offer a profound and life-changing experiences such as death of a family member, separation of parents, being diagnosed with cancer or being let go from a job in a very difficult time.
But life is a gift and it is beautiful. All these undesirables will not be able to diminish life’s beauty and a person’s mystery. It makes it more real and precious. It tells us a person’s story because the good and the bad things shaped us to who we are now. It marks a person’s strength to survive in this broken world that we live in. As the saying goes, “These times are hard but it will pass.” What we have is a lifetime of existence dealing with all kinds of experiences and I think, to make the most out of life, we should explore what life has to offer and do things that will make us fully alive – to exist in the philosophical sense that we are being.
If you want to find out more about Jessica Hagy’s work, visit her pages: Jessica Hagy (http://jessicahagy.info/), Indexed (http://thisisindexed.com/) and her Forbes contributions on leadership and motivation (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessicahagy/).
Bird's Eye View
by Jeni Toreja
The thing about perspective is that the slightest shift can lead to the most drastic change.
A pregnant wildebeest unable to run as fast as usual may fear for both her life and her child’s, but the hungry lion’s only concern would be his empty stomach. A woman with high hopes and fantasies of marriage may be completely ecstatic about romance, but the man working as a lawyer with divorce cases would shake his head and disagree with slight pity. An overjoyed student mayhappilyshare about his recently aced test, but the one next to him who did not get a wink of sleep the night before to cram for a paper would probably find him irritating. A singer who practiced many months before a performance and was extremely nervous may miss a note or two from stage fright, but the audience watching from television screens across the globe would comment on her lack of talent. A weak, starving and homeless child may knock on the windows of cars to beg for money or food, but the driver’s thoughts would comprise only the fact that he was late for work, and ignore him.
And Icarus, fell right from the sky with his melted wings of wax may drown in both the water and his thirst for freedom, but the rest of the world would simply carry on as usual. Perspective steers thinking and I wonder about the heights one can reach the moment he attempts to consciously shift his perspective away from its center—himself.As humans, our thoughts are based on how we see things, how we hear, smell, taste, feel; and it is when we push out this centered thinking that we are able to achieve a higher level of consciousness.
Back when we knew little about the world we lived in, people shifted their perspective and struggled to see everything from a higher point of view. This later turned into an art, as maps continuously evolved and people continuously explored the lands in an attempt to draw it all out on paper. It makes me wonder how vast the world must have looked when there was no science to explain it, to be able to ignite a thirst for knowledge that pushed people to see more, to learn more, to create maps that could only vaguely portray their struggle to shape lands that seemed endless.
However, it is in this journey of a shifting perspective that we learn there is a limit to just how far and how high we can see things. Marcel’s take on truth struck me because no matter how hard we search and attempt to climb up for a bird’s eye view, there is one perspective that we cannot attain, and that is God’s. We can never truly know all there is to know, to see as God sees and perhaps this veiled mystery is what keeps people thirsty.
It is through the shifting perspective, just as an artist would look at his model in many different angles before painting or sculpting its replica, that we bring our center out, learn and struggle to learn more by climbing the ladder to a bird’s eye view—a ladder with a top we can never reach but with an ascending journey that inevitably makes us see the world differently.
The thing about perspective is that the slightest shift can lead to the most drastic change.
A pregnant wildebeest unable to run as fast as usual may fear for both her life and her child’s, but the hungry lion’s only concern would be his empty stomach. A woman with high hopes and fantasies of marriage may be completely ecstatic about romance, but the man working as a lawyer with divorce cases would shake his head and disagree with slight pity. An overjoyed student mayhappilyshare about his recently aced test, but the one next to him who did not get a wink of sleep the night before to cram for a paper would probably find him irritating. A singer who practiced many months before a performance and was extremely nervous may miss a note or two from stage fright, but the audience watching from television screens across the globe would comment on her lack of talent. A weak, starving and homeless child may knock on the windows of cars to beg for money or food, but the driver’s thoughts would comprise only the fact that he was late for work, and ignore him.
And Icarus, fell right from the sky with his melted wings of wax may drown in both the water and his thirst for freedom, but the rest of the world would simply carry on as usual. Perspective steers thinking and I wonder about the heights one can reach the moment he attempts to consciously shift his perspective away from its center—himself.As humans, our thoughts are based on how we see things, how we hear, smell, taste, feel; and it is when we push out this centered thinking that we are able to achieve a higher level of consciousness.
Back when we knew little about the world we lived in, people shifted their perspective and struggled to see everything from a higher point of view. This later turned into an art, as maps continuously evolved and people continuously explored the lands in an attempt to draw it all out on paper. It makes me wonder how vast the world must have looked when there was no science to explain it, to be able to ignite a thirst for knowledge that pushed people to see more, to learn more, to create maps that could only vaguely portray their struggle to shape lands that seemed endless.
However, it is in this journey of a shifting perspective that we learn there is a limit to just how far and how high we can see things. Marcel’s take on truth struck me because no matter how hard we search and attempt to climb up for a bird’s eye view, there is one perspective that we cannot attain, and that is God’s. We can never truly know all there is to know, to see as God sees and perhaps this veiled mystery is what keeps people thirsty.
It is through the shifting perspective, just as an artist would look at his model in many different angles before painting or sculpting its replica, that we bring our center out, learn and struggle to learn more by climbing the ladder to a bird’s eye view—a ladder with a top we can never reach but with an ascending journey that inevitably makes us see the world differently.
The Rifleman's Creed
by Justin Descallar
Last night, I was watching one of Hollywood’s greatest movies, The Fullmetal Jacket. It was a satirical movie about the Vietnam War and US military culture at that time. At one point in the film the marines under Sergeant Major Hartmann was preparing to sleep, they climbed up their bunks and braised their rifles as if they were hugging them. After that, they began to recite the Rifleman’s Creed.
“This is my rifle. There are many like it, and this one is mine”
This line made me remember about our lesson of the on the body and of the mind, a topic which is I am racking all my wits against to fully conceptualize. This might be an erroneous description of the topic but perhaps the experience of it is similar. Using the similarity of the experience of having rifle maybe I can approach the feeling of what it is to be fully aware of the subjectivity of my body. Similar to the rifle of the marines in the film, I have a body. There are many other human bodies like this, but this one is mine. Ever since I was born, I am with my body. At first, I did not know who he was. But as I traversed through life with it I began to realize his characteristics. I realized that he did not like to exercise and he was physically weak. Even if “I” know that I can do more, he just wouldn’t run. I, the ever enthusiastic consciousness had to wait for my body to pick himself up. The next lines struck me more.
“My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless.”
Without my body, I am useless. I cannot proclaim my existence and be self-aware of the things around me. I cannot run, function and do the things that I love without him. Hence, I have to work out a working agreement with him so we can function well in life. I promised him to sleep a good eight hours a day in exchange of all the abuse that he would have to endure when I am in class, at the playground, and everywhere else my lackadaisical self would want. We would eat a healthy meal three times a day so he could have the sustenance to carry on. However, these feeling of care is not one sided. I know that my body also looks out for me and realized my importance. Without me, he wouldn’t be able to humanly exist similar to that I cannot without him. He tells me when I am in pain and see the world both literally and figuratively.He takes care of me allowing himself to be directed and used so that together we might truly live.
“My rifle and I know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...”
Without my body, I cannot truly philosophise and truly love the sophon. I cannot find my place in the natural order in the universe. Without each other, he and I cannot reach our full potential. Hence, we have to stick together.
“My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life.”
This line made me remember the relationship between my body and my mind. Without my body, I cannot truly be human because there is no divide between my body and mind. “I” is not only my consciousness but of the oneness of my body and of my mind. Now I am at a crossroads. In this train of thought, I have been trying to treat my body as a subject as the marines have treated their rifles. I have tried to create a bond with my body similar to that of my bond with other humans. However, there is a mistake in my reasoning. By construing my body as a person, I am separating it from myself but there should be no gap. My body is not my bestfriend. He is I. Now I am back to square one.
In all honesty, I’m really having a hard time construing my mind and my body as having no gap or being “one”. When I revisited this poem from Full Metal Jacket, I had an insight on maybe what Marcel was trying to talk about. Perhaps this is not the most accurate description of the subjectivity of the human person as being both in mind and body but I am getting closer. Am I?
Thursday, September 12, 2013
I Am Here Existing
by Sam Dionisio
The lecture about maps left me thinking that maybe people just want to be remembered. They want their existence to be known and acknowledged. I think it is in us humans to not want to leave this world unnoticed and unremembered. So we have maps. We use maps to establish where we are and where we want to be. We get to know that we exist and we get to tell others that we exist through maps because we know we are there/ where we are right now and that we want to go somewhere. Existence for me starts first with you yourself acknowledging your presence and continues on to you wanting to go somewhere or you having the desire to go outside the self-acknowledgment of your own presence and existence and to go to extra miles of letting others see that too. Maybe subconsciously we have maps to tell others that we are there and that we exist and for those not part of this world anymore, it is a way for them to say that they were once there too. Also, maybe we have maps because we try to find sense or meaning as to why we are here. Because if no one's gonna remember, you get to think what's all of this for after all. Why are we all here if in the end no one will notice our inexistence and no one will remember our very existence. So we try to shout at the world that we are here. We try to leave a mark or do something quite remarkable so that before we leave we can somehow be remembered.
The lecture about maps left me thinking that maybe people just want to be remembered. They want their existence to be known and acknowledged. I think it is in us humans to not want to leave this world unnoticed and unremembered. So we have maps. We use maps to establish where we are and where we want to be. We get to know that we exist and we get to tell others that we exist through maps because we know we are there/ where we are right now and that we want to go somewhere. Existence for me starts first with you yourself acknowledging your presence and continues on to you wanting to go somewhere or you having the desire to go outside the self-acknowledgment of your own presence and existence and to go to extra miles of letting others see that too. Maybe subconsciously we have maps to tell others that we are there and that we exist and for those not part of this world anymore, it is a way for them to say that they were once there too. Also, maybe we have maps because we try to find sense or meaning as to why we are here. Because if no one's gonna remember, you get to think what's all of this for after all. Why are we all here if in the end no one will notice our inexistence and no one will remember our very existence. So we try to shout at the world that we are here. We try to leave a mark or do something quite remarkable so that before we leave we can somehow be remembered.
I Can’t Think of a Title…(Pun Intended)
by Victor Uy
Existence presupposes thinking. This is primarily the reason why we, as human beings, are affirmed of our existence in this world – we are thinking beings. Because we can think, we are certain that we are alive.And by being alive, we are able to act on our own free will. But how do we think? What do we think about? Are we certain that whatever is in our minds is true? – These are just some of the questions that require, again, some form of thinking.
Thinking, as we are all capable of, is an affirmation of life. We undergo this process every single day, and we don’t even notice that we are thinking because it all comes naturally. Thinking is good. It provokes more ideas to flourish – it adds fuel to the fire that is doubt. Doubting has a bad connotation but isn’t necessarily detrimental; in fact, doubt could lead to the discovery of things and insights that we’ve never thought of before. An example would be the classic notion that the Earth is flat. Had there been no one to doubt it, we would still think that the Earth is, indeed, flat – had we just stopped there and accepted everything that was presented to us, we wouldn’t find out that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, that there are, in fact, other planetary bodies out there waiting to be discovered…so on and so forth.
Thinking is not just “thinking” anymore because we live in a vast world of subjectivity.The way I see it, people who doubt more are the ones who think more. Doubt canbe a vessel to be able to arrive at certitude. Sometimes we need to clear our minds first of anything and everything to be able to arrive at a certain insight.Accepting an idea or anything for that matter requires less thinking, as opposed to questioning the process, disagreeing with the norm, fighting for what you believe in, or what have you. Doubters often have this defensive stance with regards to different matters mainly because they want more physical proof. However, proof is not that easy to come up with. A classic example of this will be the existence of a God or a “higher being”.
We, including anything and everything in this world, are creatures. A creature, for it to be a creature, then presupposes that there is, indeed, a creator.This might sound all philosophical and abstract to some, if not to most people.Oftentimes, skeptics ask for proof. Unluckily, the world didn’t come in Blu-Ray format wherein you could just press rewind and watch everything from the very beginning to see if there really is a “higher being”.
Some people say, “to see is to believe” – and these kinds of peopleare the ones who are more skeptical because they want physical or scientific proof. The popular phrase is an overused argument when it comes to the existence of a God. A pilosopoway of catching these people off-guard is by responding to their argument with another question: “do you have a brain?” of course, the person would affirm that he or she has one. The next question is “have you ever seen your brain?” expect a moment of silence and prepare to tell him or her “that’s right...you don’t have a brain”. If the person you’re arguing with is tougher than most, he would respond, “How can I think if you don’t have a brain?” Then you can go hit him or her back with another argument, “How can you be a creature if there is no creator?” Following the to-see-is-to-believe logic, we could formulate a lot of fallacious statements.
There will always be a heated debate on topics regarding religion and we will find ourselves, most of the time, agreeing to disagree. Some people would be convinced by the fact that it is written in some document called “The Bible” or “Koran”, but the other side of the spectrum – the one composed of skeptic thinkers – will always yearn for that “proof”. However, up to the present, there is no way to prove God’s existence by means of intellectualization, for belief in God requires a “leap of faith”.
So as to close my blog entry, I have one question for you…Do you have a brain?
Existence presupposes thinking. This is primarily the reason why we, as human beings, are affirmed of our existence in this world – we are thinking beings. Because we can think, we are certain that we are alive.And by being alive, we are able to act on our own free will. But how do we think? What do we think about? Are we certain that whatever is in our minds is true? – These are just some of the questions that require, again, some form of thinking.
Thinking, as we are all capable of, is an affirmation of life. We undergo this process every single day, and we don’t even notice that we are thinking because it all comes naturally. Thinking is good. It provokes more ideas to flourish – it adds fuel to the fire that is doubt. Doubting has a bad connotation but isn’t necessarily detrimental; in fact, doubt could lead to the discovery of things and insights that we’ve never thought of before. An example would be the classic notion that the Earth is flat. Had there been no one to doubt it, we would still think that the Earth is, indeed, flat – had we just stopped there and accepted everything that was presented to us, we wouldn’t find out that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, that there are, in fact, other planetary bodies out there waiting to be discovered…so on and so forth.
Thinking is not just “thinking” anymore because we live in a vast world of subjectivity.The way I see it, people who doubt more are the ones who think more. Doubt canbe a vessel to be able to arrive at certitude. Sometimes we need to clear our minds first of anything and everything to be able to arrive at a certain insight.Accepting an idea or anything for that matter requires less thinking, as opposed to questioning the process, disagreeing with the norm, fighting for what you believe in, or what have you. Doubters often have this defensive stance with regards to different matters mainly because they want more physical proof. However, proof is not that easy to come up with. A classic example of this will be the existence of a God or a “higher being”.
We, including anything and everything in this world, are creatures. A creature, for it to be a creature, then presupposes that there is, indeed, a creator.This might sound all philosophical and abstract to some, if not to most people.Oftentimes, skeptics ask for proof. Unluckily, the world didn’t come in Blu-Ray format wherein you could just press rewind and watch everything from the very beginning to see if there really is a “higher being”.
Some people say, “to see is to believe” – and these kinds of peopleare the ones who are more skeptical because they want physical or scientific proof. The popular phrase is an overused argument when it comes to the existence of a God. A pilosopoway of catching these people off-guard is by responding to their argument with another question: “do you have a brain?” of course, the person would affirm that he or she has one. The next question is “have you ever seen your brain?” expect a moment of silence and prepare to tell him or her “that’s right...you don’t have a brain”. If the person you’re arguing with is tougher than most, he would respond, “How can I think if you don’t have a brain?” Then you can go hit him or her back with another argument, “How can you be a creature if there is no creator?” Following the to-see-is-to-believe logic, we could formulate a lot of fallacious statements.
There will always be a heated debate on topics regarding religion and we will find ourselves, most of the time, agreeing to disagree. Some people would be convinced by the fact that it is written in some document called “The Bible” or “Koran”, but the other side of the spectrum – the one composed of skeptic thinkers – will always yearn for that “proof”. However, up to the present, there is no way to prove God’s existence by means of intellectualization, for belief in God requires a “leap of faith”.
So as to close my blog entry, I have one question for you…Do you have a brain?
Infinities
by Miguel Co
A long time ago, I was at a retreat. I had it during a time when I was still young, trying out new things, and exploring the world. It wasn't really that eventful, at least until the last night of the retreat. During that time, I was sitting on the grass, with my back behind the tree. Then for some reason, something strange happened. I felt like I heard a voice, and I was talking to it. I honestly didn't know what to make of it, but it was relaxing and soothing. At the end of the entire retreat, I was seized by a fulfillment that I really can't quite put into words.
Looking back at the experience, I think it was an experience with the infinite. It's something that's indescribable and yet completely real. This infinite was experienced by my finite self, but it's not something that I can comprehend or fully understand. Trying to cram this idea of infinite into me is like trying to fit a house into a small hole: it just won't fit. Therefore idea of this infinite must have come from someone who is also infinite: God. That's what it means when it's said that the experience of God is such that he's in me without me understanding him. I can't comprehend what happened, but I know it's real, that it exists, and that it's a beautiful feeling.
From this experience of the infinite, of a God, I think that it's something that I can't objectify. If I tried to objectify it, then I'd just be dissecting the experience until it's nothing more than an aftertaste. And I'd be missing out on some things: feelings, worries, joys, and inhibitions. There are just some things that are too precious to be objectified because when we objectify, we lose something precious. This idea would best be expressed in this quote:
"Numbers and figures should not speak as loudly as our hearts."
Last year for one of my projects I went with a group of people to a cooperative, an institution made to help uplift the lives of people in its vicinity. They were an institution that did make some money, but they didn't care about the money as much as the welfare of their members and the community where they resided in. Of course, they need money to help these people. They need material to help the spirit grow. It's not all about the money and the profits, but in the end it's about the people and those around us. This is what we risk losing when we completely objectify everything, and why instead of taking everything apart and pursuing everything with an objective approach, there is merit in approaching things and God as a mystery, and as a gift.
A long time ago, I was at a retreat. I had it during a time when I was still young, trying out new things, and exploring the world. It wasn't really that eventful, at least until the last night of the retreat. During that time, I was sitting on the grass, with my back behind the tree. Then for some reason, something strange happened. I felt like I heard a voice, and I was talking to it. I honestly didn't know what to make of it, but it was relaxing and soothing. At the end of the entire retreat, I was seized by a fulfillment that I really can't quite put into words.
Looking back at the experience, I think it was an experience with the infinite. It's something that's indescribable and yet completely real. This infinite was experienced by my finite self, but it's not something that I can comprehend or fully understand. Trying to cram this idea of infinite into me is like trying to fit a house into a small hole: it just won't fit. Therefore idea of this infinite must have come from someone who is also infinite: God. That's what it means when it's said that the experience of God is such that he's in me without me understanding him. I can't comprehend what happened, but I know it's real, that it exists, and that it's a beautiful feeling.
From this experience of the infinite, of a God, I think that it's something that I can't objectify. If I tried to objectify it, then I'd just be dissecting the experience until it's nothing more than an aftertaste. And I'd be missing out on some things: feelings, worries, joys, and inhibitions. There are just some things that are too precious to be objectified because when we objectify, we lose something precious. This idea would best be expressed in this quote:
"Numbers and figures should not speak as loudly as our hearts."
Last year for one of my projects I went with a group of people to a cooperative, an institution made to help uplift the lives of people in its vicinity. They were an institution that did make some money, but they didn't care about the money as much as the welfare of their members and the community where they resided in. Of course, they need money to help these people. They need material to help the spirit grow. It's not all about the money and the profits, but in the end it's about the people and those around us. This is what we risk losing when we completely objectify everything, and why instead of taking everything apart and pursuing everything with an objective approach, there is merit in approaching things and God as a mystery, and as a gift.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
All Guns Blazing
by Jio Deslate
I didn’t march in Luneta last Monday. I support the cause of the pocket picnic and those who participated in it and I’ve expressed my agreement with it by sharing posts on social networks for the issue to garner more attention, but to be honest I’ve become skeptical – if not cynical – about the whole notion of activism – in a traditional sense of taking to the streets at least. I’ve been accused of lacking the idealism that’s expected of the youth. That passion to go out into the world, all guns blazing, and change it. In light of that I’d like to take this time to clarify my stand.
As inspiring as going out “all guns blazing” sounds, the same metaphor leaves us to ponder the idea that the pursuit of change takes on a sort of belligerent form – that of a war that we must fearlessly engage in. This image we call to mind is now worth scrutinizing then. The idea of an explosive, adrenaline–overload shoot out is no doubt based on Hollywood’s portrayal of any battle in war. This fails to capture the myriad dull yet necessary efforts of waiting patiently for the enemy , tediously mapping out the battlefield, or trying to carefully gather ammunition because the fact of the matter is war is a process – a slow, meticulous one at that at least if you want to win. And going out all guns blazing runs the risk of gassing out soldiers in the long stretch of a tiring conflict. Taking to the streets is, no doubt, effective especially in a country that has often utilized People Power but how long can it actually be kept up? Forcing action against alleged criminals is one thing, institutionalizing reforms is another. Much like war, change is a process. A gradual procedure that requires constant and steady discipline to guarantee long after the rest of the people have gone back to their daily lives.
Given the above-mentioned concept of change we must go back to the concrete example of the massive march in Luneta during the recent Hero’s Day celebration and ask how this all relates to philosophy. In Marcel’s notion of reflection as attention, reflection is prompted by an obstruction in our daily routine – like the loss of a precious object such as the pocket watch in Marcel’s example...or 10 billion pesos . When the country found out that the tax payers’ money had been greedily pocketed by a few people it caught our attention and led each one to reflect on the issue. And though reflection is a personal endeavour, here we also see the intersubjective nature of truth wherein people shared their individual reflections on the issue whether it be how appalling it is that Janet Lim-Napoles and her co-conspirators – that include some of our very own congressmen - funneled billions of pesos to ghost NGOs for their own benefit, or how we have let the abuse and misuse of the pork barrel go unchecked, or even the issue of widespread corruption itself - all of which are examples of reflection as introspection. Different paths to the truth that a great atrocity was committed against us.
Onto the 3rd and final phase of reflection, upon realizing that people have been wronged, the consensus was that there should be something done about it. That we have to change our attitude towards the issue into a more active one - this is where reflection as conversion comes in. And so the people marched. And, as participants of the said event will be quick to point out, Napoles surrendered herself to the president just a few nights ago, 3 days after the march and less than an hour after the announcement of 10 million peso bounty on her.
Does that not affirm then the effectiveness of activism? Well it’s a start. We must remember that the clamor in Luneta was for the abolition of pork barrel and for the alleged abusers of this government allocated fund to be held accountable. Only part of the call was heeded with Napoles’s surrender, a fraction of the march’s aims that, in fact, still has to undergo another process. Another fight, this time in the courtroom trenches in a long legal battle of attrition that goes on for years and years.
This is where the real challenge to those who seek change starts. In the slow judicial process of the country, criminal lawyers have discovered and exploited a deadly secret; Filipinos have a very short memory. The modus operandi is quite simple. Lawyers and their accused clients just wait it out. In due time the public will lose interest in the issue and as media here, unfortunately, just cater to the whims of their viewers, the case dies down and in the quietness of it all these lawyers make their shady deals with their shadier contacts and their clients just silently slip out. A few stay in prison, of course, enjoying special privileges like being able to go out for a dentist appointment – remember the Tony Leviste incident? And with the insidious cunning of these pettifoggers how can we reflect when they very well make sure that the issue never again captures our attention? Does anyone remember the Comfort Women? The Marcos regime victims of human rights abuse? The NBN-ZTE scandal? The Maguindanao Massacre? A few, yes. But is their clamor for justice, for reform, enough to garner a buzz in social media? To make at least the front page of the paper? Will people still be marching in Luneta 6 months from now, or a year from now, or decades from now if it takes that long to prosecute these criminals? Will the screams of makibaka, ‘wag mag-baboy! echo through to the end of the long and dark tunnel of the judicial process?
Reflection starts with attention. A constant attention to the things that have long been forgotten. An awareness enough to galvanize us into action.
Just in Katipunan there are kids begging in the streets, the cliché image of poverty, has probably now taken on a new meaning in contrast to the grand lifestyles of the people involved in that billion-peso scam. There is no shortage in the opportunities to see social injustice, just the challenge of finding it important enough to actually grab our attention despite our desensitized attitude.
The greater march is the day to day walk along the poverty-stricken streets. The greater rally is the constant reflection on the constant injustices that we must address. Let’s not forget that.
I didn’t march in Luneta last Monday. I support the cause of the pocket picnic and those who participated in it and I’ve expressed my agreement with it by sharing posts on social networks for the issue to garner more attention, but to be honest I’ve become skeptical – if not cynical – about the whole notion of activism – in a traditional sense of taking to the streets at least. I’ve been accused of lacking the idealism that’s expected of the youth. That passion to go out into the world, all guns blazing, and change it. In light of that I’d like to take this time to clarify my stand.
As inspiring as going out “all guns blazing” sounds, the same metaphor leaves us to ponder the idea that the pursuit of change takes on a sort of belligerent form – that of a war that we must fearlessly engage in. This image we call to mind is now worth scrutinizing then. The idea of an explosive, adrenaline–overload shoot out is no doubt based on Hollywood’s portrayal of any battle in war. This fails to capture the myriad dull yet necessary efforts of waiting patiently for the enemy , tediously mapping out the battlefield, or trying to carefully gather ammunition because the fact of the matter is war is a process – a slow, meticulous one at that at least if you want to win. And going out all guns blazing runs the risk of gassing out soldiers in the long stretch of a tiring conflict. Taking to the streets is, no doubt, effective especially in a country that has often utilized People Power but how long can it actually be kept up? Forcing action against alleged criminals is one thing, institutionalizing reforms is another. Much like war, change is a process. A gradual procedure that requires constant and steady discipline to guarantee long after the rest of the people have gone back to their daily lives.
Given the above-mentioned concept of change we must go back to the concrete example of the massive march in Luneta during the recent Hero’s Day celebration and ask how this all relates to philosophy. In Marcel’s notion of reflection as attention, reflection is prompted by an obstruction in our daily routine – like the loss of a precious object such as the pocket watch in Marcel’s example...or 10 billion pesos . When the country found out that the tax payers’ money had been greedily pocketed by a few people it caught our attention and led each one to reflect on the issue. And though reflection is a personal endeavour, here we also see the intersubjective nature of truth wherein people shared their individual reflections on the issue whether it be how appalling it is that Janet Lim-Napoles and her co-conspirators – that include some of our very own congressmen - funneled billions of pesos to ghost NGOs for their own benefit, or how we have let the abuse and misuse of the pork barrel go unchecked, or even the issue of widespread corruption itself - all of which are examples of reflection as introspection. Different paths to the truth that a great atrocity was committed against us.
Onto the 3rd and final phase of reflection, upon realizing that people have been wronged, the consensus was that there should be something done about it. That we have to change our attitude towards the issue into a more active one - this is where reflection as conversion comes in. And so the people marched. And, as participants of the said event will be quick to point out, Napoles surrendered herself to the president just a few nights ago, 3 days after the march and less than an hour after the announcement of 10 million peso bounty on her.
Does that not affirm then the effectiveness of activism? Well it’s a start. We must remember that the clamor in Luneta was for the abolition of pork barrel and for the alleged abusers of this government allocated fund to be held accountable. Only part of the call was heeded with Napoles’s surrender, a fraction of the march’s aims that, in fact, still has to undergo another process. Another fight, this time in the courtroom trenches in a long legal battle of attrition that goes on for years and years.
This is where the real challenge to those who seek change starts. In the slow judicial process of the country, criminal lawyers have discovered and exploited a deadly secret; Filipinos have a very short memory. The modus operandi is quite simple. Lawyers and their accused clients just wait it out. In due time the public will lose interest in the issue and as media here, unfortunately, just cater to the whims of their viewers, the case dies down and in the quietness of it all these lawyers make their shady deals with their shadier contacts and their clients just silently slip out. A few stay in prison, of course, enjoying special privileges like being able to go out for a dentist appointment – remember the Tony Leviste incident? And with the insidious cunning of these pettifoggers how can we reflect when they very well make sure that the issue never again captures our attention? Does anyone remember the Comfort Women? The Marcos regime victims of human rights abuse? The NBN-ZTE scandal? The Maguindanao Massacre? A few, yes. But is their clamor for justice, for reform, enough to garner a buzz in social media? To make at least the front page of the paper? Will people still be marching in Luneta 6 months from now, or a year from now, or decades from now if it takes that long to prosecute these criminals? Will the screams of makibaka, ‘wag mag-baboy! echo through to the end of the long and dark tunnel of the judicial process?
Reflection starts with attention. A constant attention to the things that have long been forgotten. An awareness enough to galvanize us into action.
Just in Katipunan there are kids begging in the streets, the cliché image of poverty, has probably now taken on a new meaning in contrast to the grand lifestyles of the people involved in that billion-peso scam. There is no shortage in the opportunities to see social injustice, just the challenge of finding it important enough to actually grab our attention despite our desensitized attitude.
The greater march is the day to day walk along the poverty-stricken streets. The greater rally is the constant reflection on the constant injustices that we must address. Let’s not forget that.
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Salaminate
by Dominic Echiverri
No it's no secret that all of us are angry in one way or another. But they fall in different degrees.
To bring the best out of this note, I find it's best that I say it in Filipino. As Father Ferriols said about philosophizing in Filipino, "It's more effective."
Alam mo yung ikaw yung "masayahin" o "palatrip" na tao sa mga kaibigan mo? Siguro natural kang ganyan. At magandang isipin na sadyang napunta sa'yo ang pagpansin ng tao na para bang wala kang problema sa mundo. At siguro nga wala kang problema, pero sadyang galit ka lang na tao.
"Angsty" sa Ingles.
Siguro ito ay dahil nanggagaling ito sa taong galit lang talaga. Parang pampigil lang siya talaga ng galit. Halimbawa, alam mong may mga karanasan kang nalampasan o dinadaraanan at alam mong galit ka, pero dahil sa tuwa mo lang at kasama mo mga kaibigan mo o ibang tao eh nagpapadala ka na lang sa tuwa. Kaya siguro kung ayaw mong magpakamatay at gusto mong masaya ang dating sa buhay, bababad ka sa samahan ng mga kaibigan o kapamilya o sa isang masayahing lugar o kaganapan. Hindi naman ito agad-agaran na masasabing perpektong katotohanan kung ibabase lamang sa mga istatistiko, pero mas maraming nagpapakamatay sa Europa kesa sa Pilipinas. Bukod siguro sa klima, e kapag namatay ka, maglalaro lang ng baraha at mag-iinuman ang mga katropa mo sa lamay mo. Katuwaan pa rin; wala man lang pakinabang ang pagiging melodramatiko mo sa pagiging emo mo.
Kaya lumalabas ang isang problematiko, isang ideya, isang kabalintunaan: tayo ba ay masaya dahil ayaw nating magalit? Mas nagiging galit ba tayo sa loob habang sa panlabas o sa kamalayan natin eh masaya tayo? Ika nga nila: ang mga masiyahing tao ay may kinikimkim na sakit o pagdusa. Hindi ko naman sinasabing otomatiko at tiyak itong totoo, dahil wala naman akong kinikimkim na sakit o pagdusa. Pero may mga kinaiinisan ako. Tulad mo, Janet Napoles, mamatay ka nang baboy ka pagkatapos kang mahanap ng taumbayan. At ang mga kasing-dumi rin ni Janet na mga tamad dyan na hindi naman nakikibaka sa pagbabago o sa pagsalita sa mga isyu ng bansa pero kung magsalita, akala mo mga political analyst. Manood na lang kayo ng Chicser concert sa SM na malapit sa inyo.
Siguro dapat kausapin minsan ang sarili, o magbalik-tanaw, o pag-isipan ang sarili. O di kaya'y magsalamin. Oo, magsalamin. Yung ginagawa mo sa kuwarto o sa banyo para tignan ang itsura mo. Ngayon lalimin natin. Magsalamin, tignan ang itsura't magtanong: ano na ba ako, sino na ba ako, at ako ba ay ako?
Sabi ni Socrates "An unreflected life is not worth living". "Walang kwenta ang buhay na hindi napagsalaminan" ang aking pagsalin rito, gamit ang salitang "pananalamin". O sa Ingles na gagamitin ko, "Life must be salaminated".
Dahil may iPhone at may mga ibang kagamitang elektroniko, para bang lalong napabilis ang buhay nating lahat. Ngunit, sa ibang pagkakataon, tulad ngayon at may sakit ako at bukod sa pag-aaral at pagtulog nararamdaman ko ang BAGAL ng buhay. Napapaisip ako sa mga bagay-bagay tulad ng narating ko pagkatapos ng tatlong taon sa kolehiyo: pwede pa ba kaya akong magkaroon ng Karangalang Latino sa pagtatapos? Hindi ko pa nasasabi kay **** magmula nang sophomore year na crush ko siya, at kung alam lang niya, may isang taong tunay na nais na alagaan at mahalin siya. At sa pagtapos ng lahat sa kolehiyo, ano nga ba ang gagawin ko? Maglo-Law School nga ako, pero pagkatapos nun, makakapagturo ba ako sa Ateneo tulad ng ninanais ko? O tutuloy na ba ako sa Masters of Law? O sa wakas maaamin ko na ba kay **** na ever since college crush ko siya, at kung alam lang niya, may isang taong tunay na nais na alagaan at mahalin siya?
Siguro hindi ko maiisip na magsulat tungkol sa pananalamin kung hindi ako napanalamin, dahil sa sobrang bilis ng buhay ko sa araw-araw, hindi ako napapahinto ng halos kahit na ano puwera lang tulog, pagkain, o pagtulog muli.
Manalamin. In English, Salaminate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)