A Talk with a Nearby Foreigner

by Charles Uy

A few days ago, I was at the dorm lobby with my girlfriend when we were suddenly approached by a Chinese foreign exchange student. This student was undergoing his graduate studies in journalism and it was second visit to the Philippines and Ateneo. He began by asking us some mundane questions about the dorm and when it was built and what was it for. Eventually the topics turned to the Philippines in general. Language, culture and how it all related to the Chinese. I tried my best to give him a history of the Chinese in the Philippines from what I learned from my History classes and in turn, he gave me some history and perspective on the Chinese and how they viewed the Philippines.

It was strange hearing how their values were so different from ours, that somehow the prevailing Chinese stereotype in the Philippines holds true. The way the exchange student talked about how intensely pragmatic the Chinese are, and how highly they value the idea of high income equals secure future. Stranger still was how, talking about the Philippines with him made me realize that our country isn’t very simple at all. Sure, a person can be aware of the thousands of islands that exist, the multitude of languages that are present, the different cultures that exist but it never really hit me that all this was in the Philippines. In a way, I took it for granted that the Philippines was this insane melting pot of culture that historically has been really mixed and confusing and remains so to this day.

What did I take away from the long talk with the foreign exchange student? That we often take things for granted. In this case, country and history. Many times in our discussion, travel was mentioned and how that it would be an eye opener and a mind widener, but when I think of that kind of travel, I think out of the country. Places in Europe and Africa and the rest of Asia were the destinations in mind, not the places in the Philippines.  I believe that there exists a lot of untapped knowledge and perspective around the Philippines. Differing cultures mean differing values and each culture would give a different perspective on our own, similar to how religions giver perspective to other religions.

In a way, this made me realize that there exists a lot if wisdom from sources local to us, but maybe we just haven’t been looking at it, or taking it seriously. The Philippines has a rich history within it and I believe we are taking it for granted too often. Many people in the Philippines’ past still have much to teach us.


How does this relate to philosophy? I guess I could say it all comes back to awareness and the broken world, maybe on a more literal broken world level. We still have a large disconnection with other cultures, even though with today’s technology that shouldn’t be much of an issue. We continue to be absorbed by our own problems locally that maybe we fail to see the wisdom that other countries can provide to help with our situation.

In Response to "A Mystery behind the Text"

by Charles Uy

This is in response to Patrick Cruz’s blog post, “A Mystery behind the Text.” This is a paper I wrote last school year when we read Josef Pieper’s “The Philosophical Act”. Patrick’s blog post reminded me of the things I discussed in this paper such as the mystery and richness of being; and I thought that perhaps this may help in understanding some of the things we discussed in class.

. . . . .

Christianity is a religion of mystery, full of contradiction that confounds the human mind. An enduring question, by way of example, and still widely debated in sects of Christianity is the nature of Jesus: is he man or God? For a certain sect of Christianity, Jesus is a reincarnated God who adopted human form. Another sect would disagree and argue that Jesus is merely a man who God chose to deliver the saving message. Yet another would say Jesus is both fully God and fully human. Perhaps the most fundamental mystery of Christianity is the nature of God himself. Most Christians agree that God exists in three forms as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Many who would assume that these entities are separate would question if a hierarchy exists between them. If so, whom do we worship? Church doctrine declares that these entities are one and the same. Many, like myself, cannot grasp the concept that there are three of the same being. Defining them by themselves is daunting task. Going back to the question of the nature of God, I myself know what or who God is according to what my church teaches me. But I cannot grasp God in his entirety even though I understand the holy trinity concept. How can God be a Father, a Son and a Spirit at the same time? There are just different facets of God, my pastor tells me. I don’t understand it, neither does he. Now, my very devout friend tells me that this is because God, using her words, is too staggering, magnificent and powerful for us to comprehend. Humans, according to her, cannot bear the omniscient mind of God, and so He remains a mystery all of us know of, ironically. We can only hope that our notions of God is right.

Like Christianity, philosophy also deals with a mystery—an unknown. One of the many ultimate mysteries of philosophy is being which can be likened to the mystery of God. I’m not saying that both are similar in concept, but they are alike in the manner we approach them. Both Christianity and Philosophy deal with mystery as an eternal article which serves the purpose of inspiring man to have deeper engagement. Both do not treat mystery as something formulaic which deals with definite answers and solutions. People dedicate themselves to these mysteries for the sake of the contemplation of the mystery itself and its questions. Yet why is God and being a mystery in the first place? One, both God and being are infinite. Two, we humans are finite. With our limited nature, it is impossible to grasp something infinite it its wholeness, yet we still try to engage in the mystery. Our finitude can never swallow the entirety of God and being, we only have the knowledge of its wholeness. We are aware of the boundlessness and all-encompassing nature of mystery. We can possess it but not see its wholeness because there is always more to God and being. It is not due to our lack knowledge that we fail to grasp its wholeness. It is only that there is always, always more to God and being because of their richness. There is always a different way of experiencing. By way of example, when I first read The Little Prince back in third grade, I was thrilled with the thought of adventure, of travelling across different worlds via taking advantage of the migration of birds—that was my experience of The Little Prince at that time. When I read it again two years later, I experienced the theme of friendship and intimacy and in doing so, I enriched my understanding of the book. Notice that when I read it two years later, it is still the same book. Heck, it is even the same Katherine Woods translation yet I gained a broader sense of it. Is it because I lacked knowledge the first time I read it? No, it’s just that there are a lot of ways of seeing and enlightening oneself with being.

So what changed? What caused me to see another facet of the same book? This brings me to the third point as to why being is a mystery: being is always at play with the circumstances when one opens himself to it. Being always eventing. It is up to our openness on how we will receive the eventing of the being. We need to assume a certain kind of attitude and openness to see the eventing. Every day, every single moment, we are in a play of circumstances affected by human history, our present, our character and all the factors that make one’s life what it is. Because being is at play, we may experience the same thing but in a different circumstance, thus, the eventing of being is always a different experience. Being is still the same and consistent but the play of circumstance is in a state of flux. Because of this, we gain a diversity of experience of the same being and thus, enriching—not changing—our understanding of it. The circumstances when I first read The Little Prince were different from when I read it again two years later. In third grade, I was this playful little kid whose curiosity always got the upper hand but exploration of the outside world had a lot of restrictions—that play of circumstance brought me to a certain eventing of The Little Prince. It was the spirit of adventure and exploration that presented itself to me at first. Then, two years later, I became a bit of a recluse and lonely and so longed for someone of my age to connect with. These circumstances brought me to another eventing of the same book. This time, the themes of friendship presented itself to me and deepened my perception. I acquired this new experience not because I was lacking something some piece of information or knowledge two years prior. I magnified my intimacy with The Little Prince because I recognized the richness of its being in a different point in my life—the same book, different circumstances and a new eventing which synthesizes and enriches the way I experience the book.

On a different note, philosophy always draws from concrete experience. It first considers the things we readily see, the reality of the world we live in, and the traditional views we already hold. According to Pieper, this comes from divine revelation which is basically what Theology interprets. Pieper quotes Plato and Aristotle when he argues that our traditional interpretation of nature is handed down to us by a divine being and before Philosophy began, this tradition is what enlightens us. This reasoning therefore implies that Theology is always prior to philosophy since philosophy first considers the things of the world and its the critical interpretations which is what Theology provides. Our sense of wonder is always enriched and drawn from experience. The nature of philosophizing takes a theological position since it is first, a “human relationship to reality” and second, philosophizing “necessarily involves the adaptation of a definite position with respect to ultimate things” (Pieper 23). In my favourite book, The Little Prince, before the fox tells the little prince his secret, “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye” (Saint-Exupéry 64) the fox first lets him experience friendship. Without the concrete reality of friendship, the little prince would have never learned the wisdom of the fox. Nor would he have enriched this wisdom if he had not created a tangible relationship his rose. Our reflections only illuminate us if we put it side-by-side with experience and experience can only be enriched if we reflect upon it. In a nutshell, that is the relationship of Philosophy with Theology, according to Pieper. Reality compels us to search for meaning, to wonder about the traditions handed down to us or observed in nature.

The approach to mystery and the necessity of visible experience is why Pieper believes that Christian philosophy “fully grasps and expresses a truly philosophical sense of “wonder”” and “more than any other philosophy, it is inspired by the sense of mystery” and so he concludes that the Christian character of philosophy and the philosophical character of Christianity is “genuine and powerful” (23). Pieper asserts that this is the true attitude of a philosopher.  Christian philosophy paves way for a genuine philosophical act by allowing one to “break down methodological barriers” and engage in a true “loving search for wisdom” (Pieper 24). Though I do believe Pieper when he says the philosophical act starts upon a consideration of concrete experience, his usage of terms such as ‘Theology’ and ‘Christian’ is loose and ambiguous. Pieper generally describes Theology “as the interpretation of that which is revealed” (21) and what is revealed is a traditional interpretation of the world handed down by a divine entity to the ancient peoples whom passed it on through generations. This description pertains more to culture not Theology. Culture is the lens by which we perceive and understand the world, human experience and events. Theology refers more to the critical examination of our faith—our relationship with God. I agree with his description of the nature of philosophizing but his terminology has a tendency to be misleading. The word Christian itself connotes religious themes that only appeal to particular groups. In a pluralistic world, Pieper ought to be more sensitive with his phrasing. He could still retain his meaning of ‘Christian’ philosophy without using the word Christian itself. Let’s say an extremist non-Christian devotee happens to read Pieper and sees Biblical terms applied to Philosophy. The probability of that person to miss Pieper’s point is alarmingly high. In substance, he describes the philosophical act as an opening to an infinite universe even with the restrictions of human finitude; and that we engage in philosophizing not because it will bring us to a certain end but because our ardent search for meaning enriches our very selves; and also that we draw upon worldly, tangible experience to contemplate the infinity of being. It seemed to me that Pieper over-stretched the terms ‘Christian’ and ‘Theology’ to fit to a description of the nature of philosophy. I will not deny that Pieper elaborated and reason well-enough that a ‘Christian’ philosophy is the genuine approach in doing philosophy but there is an issue with his terminology. One day in a talk show on television, an atheist was being interviewed in front of a Christian audience. He was asked to clarify atheistic views which were just an advocacy of reason and humanism. On one occasion, they were spreading this advocacy of reason on the streets, holding a placard that said something like, “One man’s religion is another man’s blasphemy.” Pieper may not have intended it but highly probable that other religious sectors will inevitably see a bias underlying his philosophical view. It does not help that the word ‘Christian’ has negative connotations for people of a different culture and even to some Christians as well. There will always be a tendency for human beings to place prejudice above everything else. If that would happen when someone reads Pieper, every meaning Pieper had intended would be twisted according to the biases of the one who read it, then his extensive meaning of philosophizing would be lost.

Works Cited

Pieper, Josef. Leisure, The Basis Of Culture / Translated From The German By Alexander
Dru; With An Introd. By T.S. Eliot. n.p.: New York : Pantheon Books, 1963.

Saint-Exupery, Antoine de, and Katherine Woods. The Little Prince / Written And Drawn By
Antoine De Saint-Exupery; Translated From The French By Katherine Woods. n.p.:
London : Egmont, 2002.

When Can We be Truly Happy?

by Laura Hein

We cannot sustain true happiness. As my theology teacher quoted from a famous person, “a person was in crisis, is in crisis or is going to be in crisis.” Problems will constantly arise within our families, from academics, or organization work and they will undoubtedly ruin the good day we were having. But the good news is true happiness is possible. But just in a brief moment.

Personally, we are truly happy when all our needs and wants are fulfilled. By the sound of it, this may seem to lean towards the idea of materialism, but I hope you try to eliminate that particular view as you read this. Here, I refer to our need of our grandmothers to get well soon, or the parents’ want for their children to graduate with honors to secure a good job and a good life. These needs and wants at discussion encompass all kinds of needs and wants of a person. Wants are just as important as needs. There may be a married woman out there with the most wonderful husband and children. She has a simple life with all the necessities to survive. Yet, the mom can’t afford her children the thirty-thousand pesos cell phone that the children always tell her about their friends holding at school. She knows that it is not her need to buy for them but she wants to spoil her kids sometimes too.

At a time in our lives, we will have one need or want that is the most important among all other needs and wants. When this need or want is fulfilled, we are truly happy. During the week the ACET results were announced to be released, the whole time I was inching for the verdict. I’m sure at that time, our biggest need was to get into the Ateneo. Possibly, at the same time we might have wanted to buy a new bag or clothes for the start of college life. We might have needed to finish off the last year of high school with a high QPI. Or we might have wanted to have our high school friends to attend the same universities with us. There were obviously other worries but the main focus was on passing the ACET. When I found that I had passed, there was a moment of elation that was so great and overwhelming that all others needs and wants vanished. I was no longer worried about the amount of difficult academic work approaching, meeting new and very different people or just basically entering a big community.

In my opinion, at moments like this, we are truly happy. We, humans, are as already described many times by us, greedy and selfish. It is impossible for us to have each and every of our needs and wants. It is impossible. The only way we can be truly happy is to forget about these needs and wants for a moment. Once we let them collapse, we find true happiness.

Questioning Descartes

by Laura Hein

Descartes claimed that he could prove the existence of God. In human minds, God is infinite. But as human beings cannot come to the idea of infinity by inference, and the idea is not intrinsic to us, God must have put the concept into our minds.

I have trouble accepting this reasoning, however. The idea of infinity could have come to the human race in other ways. Our ancient ancestors used to look up at the sun, or even look down at the earth, and believed that both are infinite. And why not? When they woke up and a new day dawned, the sun was going to come out without failing. The ground that they slept on today would still be there when they woke up the next morning. They could count on the sun and the earth being there forever, unfailingly sustaining their existence. They could take those things for granted. The sun, the earth, the oceans would still be there even if they departed from the world. Time would simply go on and on.

Of course, the idea that the sun and the earth will always be here has been dispelled. We know now that even the universe cannot be infinite. All things must come to an end. Our ancestors did not know this, however, and the concept of infinity must have been easy to accept. The idea was then passed onto to us. This does not mean that I don’t believe in God. One day, the existence of God and the ideas of science may be reconciled, but Descartes’ explanation does not persuade me much.

A Fusion of Perspectives

by Stephen Vera Cruz

Last meeting, the bulk of the lecture was devoted to discussing the creativity of human action in narrative identity. The three steps are called Mimesis 1, Mimesis 2 and Mimesis 3. Mimesis 1 is the prefiguration step of the whole process. This part describes the lived human experiences of each and every one of us. Mimesis 2 is the configuration part of the process. It is our own world of make believe. What we have done in Mimesis 1 is linked to how we interpret Mimesis 2. For me, Mimesis 2 is basically the action of dwelling and struggling with the experience. Mimesis 2 in other words is our unique human experience. Mimesis 3 is the prefiguration part of the whole process. It describes what we do with what we have learned from Mimesis 1 and 2. It is our own opinion of our actions. It is a sort of metanoia or change in the base action of Mimesis 1. It is our own reaction to the threefold process we have all gone through.

After this lecture, I couldn't help but notice some similarities between the three fold Mimesis and Marcel's way of thinking. Marcel said that in order to strive for exigence and to try to answer the numerous questions we have when we encounter metaphysical unease, we have to try to use and intermediary way of thinking. The intermediary way of thinking is done by using both the Particularity method and the Universal method. The universal method is composed of all our common human experiences. It does not recognize the differences between human beings and is only concerned with what we all see. I think this method is very similar to Mimesis 1 since both talk about the same lived human experience. However, since this method does not recognize the differences within each human being, we have to also use the particularity method.

The particularity method talks our own insights and what we as individuals can do on our own. It describes how we uniquely interpret our common human experiences. This is the same as Mimesis 2. The particularity method is our own world of make believe. It shows us our own unique set of thoughts that no other individual can think of. Lastly we go to Mimesis 3. Again, Mimesis 3 talks about our actions after our whole thought process. It is how we react to the first and second Mimesis. Now I think that this is very similar to Marcel's mystery of being. We all interpret and react to things in our own unique way. Mimesis 3 talks about all these unique reactions to both our common and uncommon human experiences. I think that this is very similar to Marcel's mystery of being because these unique reactions are examples of the mystery Marcel is talking about. We all "be" differently. Our "inging" is not common with the person beside us. There is a mystery in the way we choose to react to our lives due to our many differences.

To conclude, I think the similarities between these two philosophical approaches show that there is a similar road we are all in as we live out life's journey. What happens during this journey is entirely up to us.  How we travel in life depends on the choices we alone make, and this is what philosophy helps us do, make wise choices in our common journey.

The Book That Changed My View

by Trixia Tan

The importance of words to existing is changing our individual points of view in life, transforming us and opening ourselves to the reality of the different perspectives in the world.

One book that changed my point of view in life and that inevitably changed me was The Five People You Meet in Heaven by Mitch Albom. For those of you that have never read it, I truly recommend this book. It is a story retelling the life of a maintenance man in a fashion wherein his heroic death was the first narration, following that of the five people whose lives he inevitably crossed with or changed.

In this novel, we can truly see that life is not just as we see it.  It is not just like how we think that we are alone, and that our lives aren’t intertwined with each other. The author explicitly illustrated how Eddie’s life was intertwined with the child he saved, but then, with the Blue Man, the first person Eddie met, we can see that through small actions in our lives, we affect people and we affect our environment, no matter what. We are part of the community and in a way; we have a responsibility to be aware of this.

The second person Eddie met was his former captain in the army. His captain saved him in the war, but it also changed him because his Captain shot him in the leg to prevent him from reaching through the shadow he saw in the fire that he set, giving him his lifelong injury and ending his dream of living outside the confines of Ruby Pier where he worked as a maintenance man almost all his life, making him a somewhat bitter and lonely old man. This lead me to think of the reality of a single choice existing as more than just a choice, but something that truly influences us and the people around us to action.

Next was the owner of the carnival, the namesake of the carnival, he worked at for so long. He wasn’t able to exist at the same time with Ruby; however, his life is inevitably changed through her life. Making the historical distinction or interconnection of out lives more prominent. Ascertaining the reality that we are all interconnected in this world, no matter how long the past has passed or how far the future will go. We presently exist and our existence creates many differences in others’ existence. In illustration, life is just like a pool, wherein when one jumps in, waves are made throughout the whole pool. Ripples of these waves reach the end of the pool, its intensity dwindles into something that might seem nothing, but is really something present.

The fourth person that Eddie met was his wife who taught him that love is not loss after death. This is a great affirmation that the things we value in life, the things that we portray can never be loss with just the loss of our body on earth. We are still part of the on-going world, this might not be through physical existence, but through the values that we leave, through the influences that we bring, or even through small choices we have. We can affirm that we have existed.

Lastly, Eddie met Tala, the girl that he wasn’t able to save in the fire. He was filled with guilt for so long, but then Tala made him see that there is a purpose for his life, that his life is not meaningless. Giving me a glimpse of the importance and the more-ness of our individual actions.

The world might seem vast, but it is through this vastness that we can also say that it is small. Have you ever seen a person and realized that you’ve met that person’s brother/sister or any other relative? This just gives you an insight of how small the world really is. How interconnected we really are.

Yes or No?

by Kyla Relucio

In recent classes we’ve had in Philosophy, we’ve been talking about a Philosophy of Yes, “saying no to saying no”. Life will always be full of surprises. Sometimes these surprises make me realize how lucky and blessed I am. Yet other times, these surprises leave me feeling stuck, feeling the difficulty of being. When this happens, this whole idea of “saying no to saying no” becomes more than just a concept we are enlightened with in class. It becomes the challenge. It becomes my goal.

I am a Taekwondo jin and last Wednesday was the last day of UAAP Season 76 for Taekwondo. Let me begin by saying it did not end the way I wanted it to. Although the women’s team was able to rise from 7th place to 5th place, I expected more from myself.  My matches were all close fights, just a point or two away from winning but for some reason I faced defeat. For some reason, that ideal game I had in mind did not transpire. There it was, the gap between what I would like to do and what I have done. I hate it. It hurts. I’ve asked myself again and again why this has to exist? And even until now, there are no answers.
I believe that it is in this point of our lives, when we are feeling stuck that we are most challenged to “say no to saying no”. It is when we feel this gap the most that we must try our hardest not to give up. For some this challenge exists everyday but for some it may come only occasionally. If you ask me, this challenge continually and consistently arises in our lives but we are unaware of this. Everyday, we must decide, will it be a “yes” or will it be a “no”. However, it is only when it is most difficult to decide do we become conscious of that freedom we have to choose.

Hence, I would like to propose that despite not knowing why this gap exists, we must always try our best to understand how we could confront this prevailing gap in our lives.

First. We need to be aware that we have ALWAYS had the choice. We need stop taking this freedom to choose for granted. We need to be conscious of the fact that ever day we are bombarded with opportunities to say yes or to say no. If we are more aware of this fact, it would be easier to understand the consequences and the ripple effects of our choices, making it easier for us to see what we can gain or lose from our yes or no, making it easier to see that it is absolutely up to us to close the void between what we want to be and who we currently are.

Second. Do not make saying no a habit. Believe it or not our decision today will most likely be similar to our decisions tomorrow. The exception however is if we make the extra effort to change the way we decide and the way we choose. If we wake up in the morning and say “yes, I will make sure that today will be better,” chances are today will really be better and this will most likely be the same if you wake up the same way every single day. On the other hand, if you say no once, what makes you think you wont say no again? When we are faced with various opportunities every day, and we immediately say no to these chances we are given, it wont be so difficult to say no again. Once this becomes a habit, we miss out on an opportunity to learn, to grow, to become better.

Lastly, We need to try our best to finish what we started. Sometimes we are on track with our lives. We are on the way to being able to be what we want to be. This track however isn’t always easy. Sometimes we need to face difficulties but these difficulties must not stop us and make us turn back. These difficulties must push us harder and motivate us to just keep going. We need to be strong, brave and tough. We need to consistently say yes to the yes we committed to in the very start because only by doing this will we be able to slowly fill the void between what we want to be and who we are.

As human beings, our being finite is not an indication that we cannot do everything. It is not an indication of our weakness and possible shortcomings. In my opinion, our finitude signifies our capacity to overcome life Being human is about being able to stand up no matter how badly we’ve fallen down. Being human is about waking up every morning with the urge to say yes despite how painful it can be, in the hopes that even just for a while our fumbling human ways have helped fill that void in our lives, that gap between who we want to be and who we already are.


As I face the last few days of this semester, I dedicate and offer myself to the commitment of “saying no to saying no”.

For A Reason

by Caroline Carmona

It’s almost the end of another semester again. I can’t help, but think about how fast time flies. It’s almost scary— another semester gone, and only a few more to go before senior year. It seems like it was only yesterday when I first sat down on my usual seat in Doc Garcia’s class, my mind still unaware of the circumstances that will happen, my brain still empty from the knowledge I will gain, my heart still unscathed.Whenever I try to reflect on my memories of this semester, I remember some good times with my friends, classmates, and teachers. I also remember the stressful moments, cramming sessions, blurred deadlines, and frantic marathons during hell weeks and hells months. Sometimes, I wish that I could just stop time for even just a second to take a deep breath, recollect myself, and relive all those happy moments when I didn’t feel so stressed. Life is too short. Don’t be so stressed all the time.You only live once, as the young ones would say.

So many things have happened to me in a span of one semester— so many life-changing things that I never would have imagined— things my past self would never have imagined. I don’t want this blog post to sound all sappy and touchy-feely, but permit me to recount some of my experiences. I really can’t shake these feelings of anxiety, fear, and perhaps, nostalgia. This semester, I officially started my life as a double major, had my heart broken for the first time, lost some friends and gained a few, and met so many interesting people in events I’ve always dreamed of going to. I could say that the highest and lowest points of my life (so far) were contained in this semester. There were some days when I thought I was unbreakable— infinite even. But of course, there were some moments when I thought I was broken, unwanted, unfixable. During those moments of seeping loneliness, numbing heartache, and quiet confusion, how I wished I could turn back time and just warn myself from the future that lies ahead. Now wouldn’t that be a safer way to live?  But as I reflected deeper, I realized that if those low points in my life never happened, I wouldn’t be where I am right now. I wouldn’t be the exact same person. I wouldn’t have the same realizations, maturity level, experiences, personality, thoughts, feelings, wisdom (perhaps), and (maybe even) attitude. Sure, I might be better off not experiencing those sad events, but I feel, I know, and I acknowledge that I wouldn’t have grown if it weren’t for those circumstances. After all, diamonds only form under extreme pressure.


Forgive me if I’m quite slow on the uptake, but I admit that I just now realized what this means: “the more one changes, the more one stays the same.”This quote makes me think of a book— how our lives mimic the format of a novel, how the circumstances we experience are recorded in the chapters of this book, and how a chapter only begins when the one before it ends. I realized that the more we live our lives, the more our stories unfold. Our actions, memories, daily interactions, and encounters with other people provide the words for these chapters— they lead us to the formation of our being. Things that happen to us affect us in a certain way and influence the formation of our identity. We are the synthesis of our experiences. It’s true that the quote seems to be contradicting itself, but I think that the changes we experience constantly help us affirm our being— our sense of self, that even if we’ve grown, we’re still us and this is still our life. It is true that when we get older, we might understand. Indeed, everything happens for a reason.