by Dan Yamsuan
When this school year started, I felt lost, even though I felt I was given another chance to start all over again. With all the uncertainties and bitterness that were brought because of my experiences last semester, it became hard for me to recover from them. That time, I thought people didn’t care about me, as they could easily just abandon me like a disposable tetra juice pack left around the park. I have always been given time to other people that I have forgotten myself in the process. Because of that, I have tried isolating myself from other people and became stiffer with the way I handle things around me. It seemed that there were things I haven’t let go of yet.
When I had Philosophy classes, the lectures reminded me of the ideals I used to hold on before I fell into my misery. Slowly, it made me realize that I haven’t given time to develop myself into a better person and to appreciate what I have that are important to me. So, I started to meet new people, at the same time, be more aware about my capabilities. These required a sense of humility and maturity to be able to understand myself and other people better. In the end, what I have learned in Philosophy entailed me to walk along the path of acceptance. This path helped me mend the broken pieces I had before, until I was able to stand up and believe in myself and other people once again.
As classes are coming to an end, I realized that the path to acceptance was long and difficult to tread on. It required much patience and trust not only of oneself, but also of other people as well. But, I can’t say that I have forgiven myself yet, neither can I say that I have reached the end of the road, as there is still a lot to learn along the way. But, I can say that I am on my way to become a better person by enjoying life, even at its smallest things, and I would eventually become more confident in dealing with other people as well.
For that, I am grateful that learning Philosophy as one that helped me see everything around me in another perspective, where hope is still present.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
What Does It Mean To Be Human?
by Frenchi Baluyot
What does it mean to be human? What really struck me the most in philosophy was this question because it really makes you think, what does it really mean to be human? Is being human living a life of imperfection in the sense that we use our humanity as an excuse to do wrong and to make mistakes? “Tao lang ako” I often hear this phrase from people and sometimes even myself as we see our humanity in the negative light instead of positive. So I guess what it means to be human is to be more than human. To be human is to go beyond our concepts of what humanity truly is. It is to be infinite.
If to be human is to be infinite, alongside with this is our infinite responsibility as human beings. To be human is “to be there” for Others as we have to recognize that we are related beings, interconnected, and social. We cannot simply live life maintaining only ourselves because to do this is to be ignorant of the Other even if this reality is already clearly in front of us. Being social beings, how can we not respond to a reality calling us to act and move? When we recognize the Other as face, we are pushed by something within us, an infinite which calls us to move out of ourselves and experience the world with others.
Ultimately, what it means to be human is to recognize that we are related beings responsible for each other in this world as after all “No man is an island entire of itself, every man is a piece of a continent, part of the main.” This quote points out to us that we are part of a larger scheme and larger order of things and with this “no man is an island” we need to move out of ourselves and experience being part of this whole.
What does it mean to be human? What really struck me the most in philosophy was this question because it really makes you think, what does it really mean to be human? Is being human living a life of imperfection in the sense that we use our humanity as an excuse to do wrong and to make mistakes? “Tao lang ako” I often hear this phrase from people and sometimes even myself as we see our humanity in the negative light instead of positive. So I guess what it means to be human is to be more than human. To be human is to go beyond our concepts of what humanity truly is. It is to be infinite.
If to be human is to be infinite, alongside with this is our infinite responsibility as human beings. To be human is “to be there” for Others as we have to recognize that we are related beings, interconnected, and social. We cannot simply live life maintaining only ourselves because to do this is to be ignorant of the Other even if this reality is already clearly in front of us. Being social beings, how can we not respond to a reality calling us to act and move? When we recognize the Other as face, we are pushed by something within us, an infinite which calls us to move out of ourselves and experience the world with others.
Ultimately, what it means to be human is to recognize that we are related beings responsible for each other in this world as after all “No man is an island entire of itself, every man is a piece of a continent, part of the main.” This quote points out to us that we are part of a larger scheme and larger order of things and with this “no man is an island” we need to move out of ourselves and experience being part of this whole.
The Real Beauty of Service
Rabindranath Tagore once said, “I slept and dreamt that life was joy. I awoke and saw that life was service. I acted and behold, service was joy.”
Nowadays, some of the people tend to distinguish very carefully between the times they’re going to do work or help other people and the times they’re going to use for their own enjoyment. They do work because these give them sources for their latter enjoyment, or they help other people simply because they only feel that it is what the situation demands from them. On the other side of the spectrum, they set aside time for the things that would give them satisfaction. They play video games or they travel to different countries because these give them happiness in their hearts, and indeed, this is not actually bad. In fact, it’s actually helpful for them to keep these times in order to appreciate better the things around them. However, if they let this lifestyle be the finality of their life, then, true enough, they would have missed a very important point.
I strongly believe that this point is one of the several insights Levinas wants to impart to those who have read his works. As one experiences jouissance, one is able to identify clearly himself as a being different from other people. One fully experiences the things he likes the most, wherein the time seems to be merely floating by. However, with this, one sees every possibility only as a form of nourishment alone. The way things are defined is always in reference to the person seeing it. Nevertheless, the full experience of the Face calls for an interruption in our enjoyment. The other person’s face pleads the person looking to escape his own comfort zone and to be responsible for this other person. Even if the Face leaves a free response from the one looking, it allows him to question himself too, ‘what have I done to you and for you?”
Ultimately, one is called to do things for these people around us. A student does not studyfor himself alone, an employee does not work for himself alone and a teacher does not prepare lesson plans for himself alone. By realizing that the things we do are tied with our responsibility for the people around us, then, we can already say that indeed, genuine service gives joy not only to our hearts, but their hearts too.
Nowadays, some of the people tend to distinguish very carefully between the times they’re going to do work or help other people and the times they’re going to use for their own enjoyment. They do work because these give them sources for their latter enjoyment, or they help other people simply because they only feel that it is what the situation demands from them. On the other side of the spectrum, they set aside time for the things that would give them satisfaction. They play video games or they travel to different countries because these give them happiness in their hearts, and indeed, this is not actually bad. In fact, it’s actually helpful for them to keep these times in order to appreciate better the things around them. However, if they let this lifestyle be the finality of their life, then, true enough, they would have missed a very important point.
I strongly believe that this point is one of the several insights Levinas wants to impart to those who have read his works. As one experiences jouissance, one is able to identify clearly himself as a being different from other people. One fully experiences the things he likes the most, wherein the time seems to be merely floating by. However, with this, one sees every possibility only as a form of nourishment alone. The way things are defined is always in reference to the person seeing it. Nevertheless, the full experience of the Face calls for an interruption in our enjoyment. The other person’s face pleads the person looking to escape his own comfort zone and to be responsible for this other person. Even if the Face leaves a free response from the one looking, it allows him to question himself too, ‘what have I done to you and for you?”
Ultimately, one is called to do things for these people around us. A student does not studyfor himself alone, an employee does not work for himself alone and a teacher does not prepare lesson plans for himself alone. By realizing that the things we do are tied with our responsibility for the people around us, then, we can already say that indeed, genuine service gives joy not only to our hearts, but their hearts too.
The Greatest Challenge
by Patrick Cruz
“God writes straight with crooked lines.”The words are still clearly resounding to my ears.
As one zooms in an image of a straight line, one will recognize that there are still even the slightest flaws. There are still discontinuities that are not immediately visible to our eyes. Then, by looking at the line again, already aware of the minor errors it has, one appreciates better the things left unsaid for this line-- probably the stories it passes on, the feelings it contain, etc.
When I heard the statement for the first time, I was really clueless over what it actually meant though it was already clear for me that time that the statement is something much more than the two negatives making a positive. However, as I had reflected on it, things started to become clear to me. The crooked lines, I thought, would refer to the challenges faced by each and every person. The challenges may range from simply passing a difficult examination to losing a job or even more, losing another person you love. As one encounters these problems, he realizes his own finitude as a human being. He realizes that there are things outside himself which he can never be fully in control. Fortunately, even though he gets broken with these challenges, he also faces this opportunity to be renewed the next time. The person is actually shaped by God towards becoming more loving and more understanding for the people around him. The challenges are designed as tests to the person, molding him in every possible way for growth. in Having realized these insights, one discovers that in the end, there still remains hope, even if the tiniest one, for becoming a better person he wants to be. This is how even with the greatest challenges a person faces, in this sense, God can still write a straight line for this person, which can lead this person back to Him.
However, this interpretation might not be the only one possible. There are still a lot of possible explanations which would help enlighten a person in understanding this statement. Nevertheless, for me, what the statement provides is a possibility—an opportunity to relate with God by experiencing more the people around us and creating more meaningful relation with them, through the ultimate challenge for us to become better persons.
“God writes straight with crooked lines.”The words are still clearly resounding to my ears.
As one zooms in an image of a straight line, one will recognize that there are still even the slightest flaws. There are still discontinuities that are not immediately visible to our eyes. Then, by looking at the line again, already aware of the minor errors it has, one appreciates better the things left unsaid for this line-- probably the stories it passes on, the feelings it contain, etc.
When I heard the statement for the first time, I was really clueless over what it actually meant though it was already clear for me that time that the statement is something much more than the two negatives making a positive. However, as I had reflected on it, things started to become clear to me. The crooked lines, I thought, would refer to the challenges faced by each and every person. The challenges may range from simply passing a difficult examination to losing a job or even more, losing another person you love. As one encounters these problems, he realizes his own finitude as a human being. He realizes that there are things outside himself which he can never be fully in control. Fortunately, even though he gets broken with these challenges, he also faces this opportunity to be renewed the next time. The person is actually shaped by God towards becoming more loving and more understanding for the people around him. The challenges are designed as tests to the person, molding him in every possible way for growth. in Having realized these insights, one discovers that in the end, there still remains hope, even if the tiniest one, for becoming a better person he wants to be. This is how even with the greatest challenges a person faces, in this sense, God can still write a straight line for this person, which can lead this person back to Him.
However, this interpretation might not be the only one possible. There are still a lot of possible explanations which would help enlighten a person in understanding this statement. Nevertheless, for me, what the statement provides is a possibility—an opportunity to relate with God by experiencing more the people around us and creating more meaningful relation with them, through the ultimate challenge for us to become better persons.
The Family
by Francine Seno
One of our recent topics in Theo131 is the subject of family, and how very family-centric our culture is. In many ways, the family is always seen to be the center and the number one priority of one’s life. For most of us, family always comes first and others may be willing to do almost anything to secure the family. What Theology teaches is that the family, as a social unit, should not be “closed off” in itself. The love between parents and children should flow outward into the wider community: in social, political and communal duties. The family, having a social mission, a responsibility, is called to reach out and go beyond itself. I can relate this way of looking at the family to the Law of the I and the Other. Sometimes there is too much of a focus on the family, on family ties, that we tend to close ourselves off and create barriers that separate us from the bigger community, the bigger world. There is an overemphasis on the priority to provide, to please, to be-for-our-families that we forget about our social responsibilities outside of the family. Even if the family can be seen as the “other” that we are reaching out towards, we are still stuck in the Law of the I because that reaching out somehow still goes back to us, to the I – the family is seen as an extension of one’s ego. While family ties are important, we should also remember that we should be able to translate the love fostered and shared in our homes to the wider society, and to assume responsibility to the Other outside of the family. “To be human is to be responsible for the Other whom I do not choose.”
One of our recent topics in Theo131 is the subject of family, and how very family-centric our culture is. In many ways, the family is always seen to be the center and the number one priority of one’s life. For most of us, family always comes first and others may be willing to do almost anything to secure the family. What Theology teaches is that the family, as a social unit, should not be “closed off” in itself. The love between parents and children should flow outward into the wider community: in social, political and communal duties. The family, having a social mission, a responsibility, is called to reach out and go beyond itself. I can relate this way of looking at the family to the Law of the I and the Other. Sometimes there is too much of a focus on the family, on family ties, that we tend to close ourselves off and create barriers that separate us from the bigger community, the bigger world. There is an overemphasis on the priority to provide, to please, to be-for-our-families that we forget about our social responsibilities outside of the family. Even if the family can be seen as the “other” that we are reaching out towards, we are still stuck in the Law of the I because that reaching out somehow still goes back to us, to the I – the family is seen as an extension of one’s ego. While family ties are important, we should also remember that we should be able to translate the love fostered and shared in our homes to the wider society, and to assume responsibility to the Other outside of the family. “To be human is to be responsible for the Other whom I do not choose.”
Living "The Life"
Ang misyon ng bawat isa sa atin sa mundong ito ay ang pagkilos para sa kapakanan ng ating kapwa. Ano mang kapos sa adhikaing ito ay tuwirang balewala.
Levinas stresses to us that our life can and only will be able to reach its full potential when we always put the Other as our main priority. That we should not expect anything in return and just reach out to the Other.
What is life when we are to just enjoy things with ourselves? Isn't that just lonely? We are called to live a life of selflessness.
I guess we can all start doing this where we are everyday for the next 2-3 years… in school… There are so many people whom we can still reach out and practicing being "men-for-others." There is nothing better than practicing and applying Levinas' philosophy in our own homes and school which is our second home.
Tourist vs. Traveller
by Jevin Sarmiento
It was mentioned in our lectures that the probably the first step into becoming a being for others is to be opened up. This opening up is caused by traumatisms- traumatisms that stray away from the common misconception of a psychological condition that has lasting harmful effect, but is seen as a way of being opened up to the reality beyond oneself. It is through these traumatisms that one is made aware of others and thus, leads him/her to start his/her path in becoming a being for others.
I could see this being closed and opening up in the act of going abroad. Taking my insights from Kent Nerburn’s book, “Letters to My Son,” when one leaves his/her home, he/she takes either one of two identities: the tourist and the traveller. What makes them is whether one opens up. When one is a tourist, he/she is protected by his/her credit cards, lavish hotels, and just visits a country for the sole reason of being able to say, “I was there.” He/she spends time within the comfort inside his/her hotel room, eating the finest food, which could be found from where he came from. He/she might go out for a while, going to the famous landmarks, taking selfies and posting them on Facebook or Twitter as soon as he/she finds an Internet connection. In short, a tourist is one who stays within him/herself, afraid of leaving the confines of his/her comfort zone and thus deprives him/herself of the chance to engage in another society’s culture, people and traditions- the chance to experience another country or area. The traveller, on the other hand, loses himself in the new culture of the countries he/she visits. He/she does not need the fanciest hotel rooms because of he/she would be too busy learning other people’s culture, way of life, language. He/she does not take selfies because he/she is taking pictures of him/herself with other people. A traveller is one who experiences the other/s and in some way learns more than a tourist can.
I’m not saying that being in nice hotels or having private tours is a bad thing, it’s just that one must remember to engage with the country and experience its people. It is in experiencing the other that a traveller sees another country and its people not as a sight, but as another country with its own people who have their own reality that is beyond his/her own. Don’t be afraid to open up yourself to their ways, so the next time you come back home from a trip abroad or out of town, you could look back and call yourself a true traveller.
It was mentioned in our lectures that the probably the first step into becoming a being for others is to be opened up. This opening up is caused by traumatisms- traumatisms that stray away from the common misconception of a psychological condition that has lasting harmful effect, but is seen as a way of being opened up to the reality beyond oneself. It is through these traumatisms that one is made aware of others and thus, leads him/her to start his/her path in becoming a being for others.
I could see this being closed and opening up in the act of going abroad. Taking my insights from Kent Nerburn’s book, “Letters to My Son,” when one leaves his/her home, he/she takes either one of two identities: the tourist and the traveller. What makes them is whether one opens up. When one is a tourist, he/she is protected by his/her credit cards, lavish hotels, and just visits a country for the sole reason of being able to say, “I was there.” He/she spends time within the comfort inside his/her hotel room, eating the finest food, which could be found from where he came from. He/she might go out for a while, going to the famous landmarks, taking selfies and posting them on Facebook or Twitter as soon as he/she finds an Internet connection. In short, a tourist is one who stays within him/herself, afraid of leaving the confines of his/her comfort zone and thus deprives him/herself of the chance to engage in another society’s culture, people and traditions- the chance to experience another country or area. The traveller, on the other hand, loses himself in the new culture of the countries he/she visits. He/she does not need the fanciest hotel rooms because of he/she would be too busy learning other people’s culture, way of life, language. He/she does not take selfies because he/she is taking pictures of him/herself with other people. A traveller is one who experiences the other/s and in some way learns more than a tourist can.
I’m not saying that being in nice hotels or having private tours is a bad thing, it’s just that one must remember to engage with the country and experience its people. It is in experiencing the other that a traveller sees another country and its people not as a sight, but as another country with its own people who have their own reality that is beyond his/her own. Don’t be afraid to open up yourself to their ways, so the next time you come back home from a trip abroad or out of town, you could look back and call yourself a true traveller.
What's Next
by Jaye Ruiz
Here’s a familiar scene from the movie Letters to Juliet.
Women who usually visit Verona, would write letters to Juliet (from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet) to ask for relationship advice, the movie gives us insight to a company of women who do the responses. Claire receives Juliet’s response, made by Sophie, decades later.
Listen to what the letter said.
Rather than asking what we’ve done wrong to be held responsible for the death of the other. I believe, with a little help from a conversation with sir Earl, that the better question is what should you do now? Especially that we’re about to end with Philosophy 102.
The storyline of the movie is quite amazing really, how a person from thousands of miles away got to help someone who was from a different time. What we do affects people we may have never even met.
Here’s a familiar scene from the movie Letters to Juliet.
Women who usually visit Verona, would write letters to Juliet (from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet) to ask for relationship advice, the movie gives us insight to a company of women who do the responses. Claire receives Juliet’s response, made by Sophie, decades later.
Listen to what the letter said.
Rather than asking what we’ve done wrong to be held responsible for the death of the other. I believe, with a little help from a conversation with sir Earl, that the better question is what should you do now? Especially that we’re about to end with Philosophy 102.
The storyline of the movie is quite amazing really, how a person from thousands of miles away got to help someone who was from a different time. What we do affects people we may have never even met.
Serbis, Levinas, and Calasanz
by Ryan Racca
Levinas talked about the fear of alterity, the fear of otherness and in some way, it is also the fear of the unknown. Calasanz added to this in his discussion of the film Serbis and he said that the challenge is to keep moving on. The question there is this: but where? Alan, portrayed by Coco Martin, answered this in the film’s ending. He ran away from the Family movie house and into the unknown. The viewers of the film were left to think about where he went but the audience was left with this certainty: he ran away into the unknown.
The film maintained the theme of circles. Literally speaking, there were a lot of circular things in the film and figuratively speaking, the characters in the film were stuck in a loop. Levinas calls this the Law of the I and in it, one is stuck in a form of relating that is cyclical. It always goes back to itself and does not extend to the Other. The film’s characters were stuck in a vicious cycle of living a bohemian kind of life. To break the Law of the I, one has to experience a certain trauma and this shock comes from relating with the Other (as truly an Other). Here the Law of the Other comes in and in this way of relating, it is no longer cyclical. The title of the film is ironic in this sense. Serbis translates as an action of doing or helping the other but the film doesn’t portray the spirit of serbis (for the other). It portrays a Serbis to itself. The loop being repeatedly shown in the film may be likened to the i l ya. The loop prevents one from going out and much like in i l ya where the I does not assert it’s being an I. It is only in the appearance of the Other, a traumatic experience, that the I is shocked and brought out of itself into something else (taking up responsibility perhaps).
Sir Calasanz goes into the topic of the future, which possesses a nature of uncertainty. Future may entail disappointments and breakups and they will hurt. And the hurt will be normal. It’s what one does after the hurt. Then when one has decided to go beyond the hurt, one will be able to escape the loop. The film shows this breakaway when Alan decides to run away at the end of the film.
In the end of it all, one is called to escape the vicious loop. Breaking away from it is never easy nor painless. The Other beckons the I to go out and run. The future is full of uncertainty but letting oneself be trapped in the loop of things does no good. One must rise above this loop or this i l ya and into a being in service of Others.
Levinas talked about the fear of alterity, the fear of otherness and in some way, it is also the fear of the unknown. Calasanz added to this in his discussion of the film Serbis and he said that the challenge is to keep moving on. The question there is this: but where? Alan, portrayed by Coco Martin, answered this in the film’s ending. He ran away from the Family movie house and into the unknown. The viewers of the film were left to think about where he went but the audience was left with this certainty: he ran away into the unknown.
The film maintained the theme of circles. Literally speaking, there were a lot of circular things in the film and figuratively speaking, the characters in the film were stuck in a loop. Levinas calls this the Law of the I and in it, one is stuck in a form of relating that is cyclical. It always goes back to itself and does not extend to the Other. The film’s characters were stuck in a vicious cycle of living a bohemian kind of life. To break the Law of the I, one has to experience a certain trauma and this shock comes from relating with the Other (as truly an Other). Here the Law of the Other comes in and in this way of relating, it is no longer cyclical. The title of the film is ironic in this sense. Serbis translates as an action of doing or helping the other but the film doesn’t portray the spirit of serbis (for the other). It portrays a Serbis to itself. The loop being repeatedly shown in the film may be likened to the i l ya. The loop prevents one from going out and much like in i l ya where the I does not assert it’s being an I. It is only in the appearance of the Other, a traumatic experience, that the I is shocked and brought out of itself into something else (taking up responsibility perhaps).
Sir Calasanz goes into the topic of the future, which possesses a nature of uncertainty. Future may entail disappointments and breakups and they will hurt. And the hurt will be normal. It’s what one does after the hurt. Then when one has decided to go beyond the hurt, one will be able to escape the loop. The film shows this breakaway when Alan decides to run away at the end of the film.
In the end of it all, one is called to escape the vicious loop. Breaking away from it is never easy nor painless. The Other beckons the I to go out and run. The future is full of uncertainty but letting oneself be trapped in the loop of things does no good. One must rise above this loop or this i l ya and into a being in service of Others.
See With Your Heart
by Victoria Rosso
I once heard someone say, “We depend on our eyes too much… use your heart to enjoy life.”
This reminds me of a trust exercise I once did at a training program where everyone was paired off and told to take turns being blindfolded while the other partner leads. The partners were not allowed to speak to each other and the leader was told to give the blindfolded a variety of unique experiences as they explored around the city of Shenzhen.
During this exercise I was able to connect with my partner as “face”, as Philosopher Emmanuel Levinas would say. My partner and I could not relate using sight or words, only an utter trust and responsibility to one another. Once the blindfolds went on, physical appearance, nationality, age, gender, first impressions and initial judgments didn’t matter anymore. Context became insignificant and only the pure experience of one another became of value.
When I was blindfolded, my partner was the only thing guiding me. I had no control over anything that happened. Not only was I forced to give my partner complete trust as he led me around the city center, I was also forced to relate to every experience using my senses of touch, smell, and hearing. Without being able to use my eyes to understand what was going on around me, I was forced to reflect deeper in my thoughts and in my heart about what I was experiencing externally. I also had nothing to distract me from reflecting about what I was experiencing within me as well. I remember my fears and anxieties shifting to serenity when I understood that worrying about me did not help my partner lead me.
When it was my turn to lead, it was my responsibility and utmost priority to make sure my partner didn’t walk into anything or stumble and fall while blindfolded. It was also my responsibility to give him a rich experience of life while blindfolded. I didn’t once focus on my own needs, what I wanted to do, or on how others were looking at me and wondering why these crazy people were walking around the city blindfolded. I was in tune to when my partner was feeling anxious and tried to give him a sense of security. My responsibility was entirely for “The Other”.
I am so grateful for my sight, but I wish I could live each day as if I were blindfolded and forced to rely on my heart to experience and understand the world around me. I wish I could relate to everyone I encounter as if they were blindfolded and silently crying out to me for assistance.
Levinas’ philosophy states that we relate to The Other as “face” when we start to accept The Other in their humanity, and extend ourselves to these people not based on pretense. This relation to The Other can be practiced through pure attention and generosity, like how I was able to attend to the needs of my blindfolded partner simply by noticing his discomfort. We have to be in relation to others even when nothing is being explicitly said. The reward of this in the
exercise was a pure, mutual trusting relationship with my partner that lasted until the end of the training program. The Other has the capacity to impact us with a meaning apart from the one we gave them. It was my partners care for me when I was blindfolded that created an impact. My partner was able to invite, inspire, and draw me out of my fears and anxieties about being blindfolded through the experiences he shared with me during the exercise. Reflecting on the relationship we built through this simple exercise has shown me the importance of trust and responsibility in any relationship.
When we look at others only with our eyes we cannot fully experience their emotions, which motivate us to extend ourselves in order to care for their needs and desires. Depending on our heart allows us to perceive experiences and others on a deeper level, while the eyes can only perceive the external. Seeing with the heart penetrates through our initial judgments, and draws us out to be more than we ever thought we could be. We should depend less on our eyes and more on our hearts, and life and relationships will be that much more rich, meaningful and enjoyable in the most profound way.
I once heard someone say, “We depend on our eyes too much… use your heart to enjoy life.”
This reminds me of a trust exercise I once did at a training program where everyone was paired off and told to take turns being blindfolded while the other partner leads. The partners were not allowed to speak to each other and the leader was told to give the blindfolded a variety of unique experiences as they explored around the city of Shenzhen.
During this exercise I was able to connect with my partner as “face”, as Philosopher Emmanuel Levinas would say. My partner and I could not relate using sight or words, only an utter trust and responsibility to one another. Once the blindfolds went on, physical appearance, nationality, age, gender, first impressions and initial judgments didn’t matter anymore. Context became insignificant and only the pure experience of one another became of value.
When I was blindfolded, my partner was the only thing guiding me. I had no control over anything that happened. Not only was I forced to give my partner complete trust as he led me around the city center, I was also forced to relate to every experience using my senses of touch, smell, and hearing. Without being able to use my eyes to understand what was going on around me, I was forced to reflect deeper in my thoughts and in my heart about what I was experiencing externally. I also had nothing to distract me from reflecting about what I was experiencing within me as well. I remember my fears and anxieties shifting to serenity when I understood that worrying about me did not help my partner lead me.
When it was my turn to lead, it was my responsibility and utmost priority to make sure my partner didn’t walk into anything or stumble and fall while blindfolded. It was also my responsibility to give him a rich experience of life while blindfolded. I didn’t once focus on my own needs, what I wanted to do, or on how others were looking at me and wondering why these crazy people were walking around the city blindfolded. I was in tune to when my partner was feeling anxious and tried to give him a sense of security. My responsibility was entirely for “The Other”.
I am so grateful for my sight, but I wish I could live each day as if I were blindfolded and forced to rely on my heart to experience and understand the world around me. I wish I could relate to everyone I encounter as if they were blindfolded and silently crying out to me for assistance.
Levinas’ philosophy states that we relate to The Other as “face” when we start to accept The Other in their humanity, and extend ourselves to these people not based on pretense. This relation to The Other can be practiced through pure attention and generosity, like how I was able to attend to the needs of my blindfolded partner simply by noticing his discomfort. We have to be in relation to others even when nothing is being explicitly said. The reward of this in the
exercise was a pure, mutual trusting relationship with my partner that lasted until the end of the training program. The Other has the capacity to impact us with a meaning apart from the one we gave them. It was my partners care for me when I was blindfolded that created an impact. My partner was able to invite, inspire, and draw me out of my fears and anxieties about being blindfolded through the experiences he shared with me during the exercise. Reflecting on the relationship we built through this simple exercise has shown me the importance of trust and responsibility in any relationship.
When we look at others only with our eyes we cannot fully experience their emotions, which motivate us to extend ourselves in order to care for their needs and desires. Depending on our heart allows us to perceive experiences and others on a deeper level, while the eyes can only perceive the external. Seeing with the heart penetrates through our initial judgments, and draws us out to be more than we ever thought we could be. We should depend less on our eyes and more on our hearts, and life and relationships will be that much more rich, meaningful and enjoyable in the most profound way.
Levinas and King Lear: On the Infinity of Love
by Alec Abarro
King Lear is one of my favorite Shakespearean tragedies. It opens as the King Lear, wanting to retire, holds a contest between his three daughters so he can decide how to divide his kingdom between them. Yet what kind of contest does the old king hold? King Lear’s idea was to give the largest portion of his kingdom to the daughter who loves him the most. Each daughter must give a speech in front of an audience on how much she loves the king—her father.
Immediately, we see something off here. Can love really be quantified with words? And moreso, knowing that that there is a price depending on how eloquently well you display your love, and having ostentatious display in front and an audience poisons the purity of the emotion and the bond your have with your father. By placing love in a context of competition, love decays. In fact, King Lear’s only good daughter, the one who truly loves him, says to herself:
CORDELIA
Cordelia pities herself, since she knows this “game of love” is not something she can win, or want to participate it. Yet, Cordelia also acknowledges that she isn’t so pitiable, for she recognizes the infinity of love, and the inability of language to entirely express the richness of the affection, and most especially, the bond she has with her father. So when King Lear calls her, Cordelia can only remark, “Nothing, my Lord.”
“Nothing?” King Lear asks, baffled. Cordelia repeats her answer, “Nothing.” Yet the old king urges her on, How? Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again.” Cordelia replies:
CORDELIA
“I cannot heave my heart into my mouth.”
In my own words, Cordelia is saying,
I cannot lift my affections for it is too rich and too heavy for the pull of language!
King Lear doesn’t see the truth of Cordelia’s love, even if he knows that Cordelia is the daughter who loves him most, all because King Lear is too interested in display. Unknown to himself, the old king has totalized and reduced the love of the daughter who loved him truly.
His good servant Kent warns him:
KENT
Let us recall the secret of the fox, “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” Or in King Lear’s case, what is essential is inaudible to the ear. In life, we learn that the most important things are always found beyond the senses.
So what did King Lear do? He disowned and banished the only daughter who loved him. The same fate happened to his good, loyal servant Kent. How did they respond? Kent, knowing full well that Cordelia married the King of France, informs a nearby French camp of King Lear’s plight brought about by the cruelty of his two elder daughters. Kent learns that the French already had dispatched an army, lead on by Cordelia, to take back King Lear’s kingdom and save her father. Kent also takes on a disguise to tend to the disheveled King Lear wandering in a storm, completely afflicted by madness. Despite everything, Cordelia and Kent, driven by love and loyalty, still went out of themselves and took on a responsibility for King Lear.
In the beginning, the reason for King Lear’s retirement was that he wants to enjoy all the benefits of being King but without the responsibility that comes along with it, and this self-interestedness caused a war and the deaths of the people around him. Kent could only look on as King Lear died, who—in a brief moment of sanity—held the dead body of his daughter, Cordelia.
LEAR
King Lear is one of my favorite Shakespearean tragedies. It opens as the King Lear, wanting to retire, holds a contest between his three daughters so he can decide how to divide his kingdom between them. Yet what kind of contest does the old king hold? King Lear’s idea was to give the largest portion of his kingdom to the daughter who loves him the most. Each daughter must give a speech in front of an audience on how much she loves the king—her father.
Immediately, we see something off here. Can love really be quantified with words? And moreso, knowing that that there is a price depending on how eloquently well you display your love, and having ostentatious display in front and an audience poisons the purity of the emotion and the bond your have with your father. By placing love in a context of competition, love decays. In fact, King Lear’s only good daughter, the one who truly loves him, says to herself:
CORDELIA
(aside) Then poor Cordelia!
And yet not so, since I am sure my love’s
More ponderous than my tongue.
Cordelia pities herself, since she knows this “game of love” is not something she can win, or want to participate it. Yet, Cordelia also acknowledges that she isn’t so pitiable, for she recognizes the infinity of love, and the inability of language to entirely express the richness of the affection, and most especially, the bond she has with her father. So when King Lear calls her, Cordelia can only remark, “Nothing, my Lord.”
“Nothing?” King Lear asks, baffled. Cordelia repeats her answer, “Nothing.” Yet the old king urges her on, How? Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again.” Cordelia replies:
CORDELIA
Unhappy that I am, I cannot heaveCordelia beautifully echoes her earlier notion of the richness of the being of love,
My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty
According to my bond, no more nor less.
“I cannot heave my heart into my mouth.”
In my own words, Cordelia is saying,
I cannot lift my affections for it is too rich and too heavy for the pull of language!
King Lear doesn’t see the truth of Cordelia’s love, even if he knows that Cordelia is the daughter who loves him most, all because King Lear is too interested in display. Unknown to himself, the old king has totalized and reduced the love of the daughter who loved him truly.
His good servant Kent warns him:
KENT
Thy youngest daughter does not love thee least,Kent gives us the image of a container. A full container when tapped, makes little or no sound. While an empty container when tapped, reverbs and echoes. The three daughters, the older two, having an empty heart, yielded a loud display of eloquence. So when King Lear knocked on the hollow hearts of Goneril and Regan, so did their words echoed loudly, telling us that they contained no substance, only barren words; and when King Lear knocked on Cordelia, whose heart is brimming and true, she barely yielded a sound at all.
Nor are those empty-hearted whose low sound
Reverbs no hollowness.
Let us recall the secret of the fox, “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” Or in King Lear’s case, what is essential is inaudible to the ear. In life, we learn that the most important things are always found beyond the senses.
So what did King Lear do? He disowned and banished the only daughter who loved him. The same fate happened to his good, loyal servant Kent. How did they respond? Kent, knowing full well that Cordelia married the King of France, informs a nearby French camp of King Lear’s plight brought about by the cruelty of his two elder daughters. Kent learns that the French already had dispatched an army, lead on by Cordelia, to take back King Lear’s kingdom and save her father. Kent also takes on a disguise to tend to the disheveled King Lear wandering in a storm, completely afflicted by madness. Despite everything, Cordelia and Kent, driven by love and loyalty, still went out of themselves and took on a responsibility for King Lear.
In the beginning, the reason for King Lear’s retirement was that he wants to enjoy all the benefits of being King but without the responsibility that comes along with it, and this self-interestedness caused a war and the deaths of the people around him. Kent could only look on as King Lear died, who—in a brief moment of sanity—held the dead body of his daughter, Cordelia.
LEAR
And my poor fool is hanged.—No, no, no life?If King Lear had recognized the infinite and his responsibility for the Other as father, as King, and as a human being, would all have ended on a much happier note?
Why should a dog, a horse, a rat have life,
And thou no breath at all? Oh, thou'lt come no more,
Never, never, never, never, never.—
Friday, March 14, 2014
Wasting Time With The People
by Jeanne Peralta
This morning we had a brief run-through of the whole course when we reviewed the thesis statements. As I went through the day, I had experiences that made me reflect, and they eventually led me to realize how people play a significant role in our lives by simply being there for us. It makes sense now why Levinas gave so much importance to the Other, or the people around us; the people we encounter. To me, the point about the importance of the Other in our lives finally hit home.
You see, I’ve always been the type of person who’s very conscious of her time. I was always aware of the requirements I need to pass, the exams I have to study for, and in my mind I would schedule every part of my day and see how I can accomplish my deliverables as a college student. I knew I was the type who needed a lot of preparation time for anything, and I become anxious when I feel like I haven’t prepared enough for a certain test or spent as much time to reflect and write a good paper.
In the second semester of my sophomore year I had half-day classes everyday, and I took this opportunity to spend my afternoons reading the required readings, writing papers and reviewing for exams—almost every day. I skipped having block lunches and bonding with my peers, because I would always think of the extra work I can accomplish if I skip bonding time. I felt that my hard work paid off because I got good grades. I felt responsible and accomplished. But sooner than I expected, I became lonely. One afternoon when I decided to rejoin my block for lunch, I felt a certain distance I didn’t realize I had created. I haven’t spent as much time with them as I used to, and now they have formed a sort of clique I know I can’t be part of. Looking back, I remembered something Sir Garcia mentioned in class, “sometimes, you need to waste time with people.” You can’t always withdraw yourself to do ‘useful’ work; you need people and ‘distractions’ to keep you sane and happy.
Last semester I had a mirror experience of having almost no regular interaction with my block mates. Being in third year, we had fewer classes in common, and often I’d find myself alone during lunch, finishing long history readings by myself. Yes I had a lot of time by myself to finish the things I needed to do, but most of the time, I wasn’t so happy. In class I learned that there’s a philosophical term for being sad when you’re alone, that is, “The Solitude of Being.”
Even though I’m an introvert, I’ve discovered that what gives me energy and that sense of “being alive” is spending time with people. I noticed that during the days when I had a lot of ‘people interactions’, those are the days when I’m most happy. This semester proved to be lot better than the previous ones because I had a regular group of lunch buddies. We belonged to the same classes before and after lunch almost everyday, so we’d spend most of our lunch breaks together. Some of them were my block mates, others my course mates. Besides eating lunch, we crammed papers together; we loved playing UNO cards; we reviewed each other for orals, but most of the time, we just talked about ourselves and life in general. Little by little we got to know more about each other;
what food this person likes or is allergic to; what movies we enjoyed watching in common; what plans we had about family and marriage and even what characteristics we’re looking for in our future spouse. We also talked about the heartbreaks, the sensitive issues, and the things that mattered a lot to us.
Whenever one is absent from the group we’d always ask where he/she is; in short, we became clingy to one another. And a while ago as we were having lunch, I realized that this may just be the last lunch we’ll have together this semester. We’re already finished with most of our classes; all that’s left are final papers and exams. I don’t know what classes we will be in next semester, or if we’ll have common breaks to have lunch dates like these again.
It struck me how time flies so fast, and I became sentimental (though I kept it to myself). I realized how grateful I am for these people I got to spend time with. Their company had kept me sane throughout the hell weeks we’ve survived this semester; their words of encouragement helped me go on when I was at my lowest; their presence gave me the assurance that I’ll always have people to hold on to for support, and I did the same for them.
Conversations with them always take me by surprise, because I get amazed at how talented or how good or how loyal this person is. It’s true what Levinas says, that the other will always reach out to us and surprise us, taking us out of ourselves. We can’t live by ourselves, and we don’t simply live for ourselves. We’re created as social beings for a reason. Though we have our own rich interiorities, there will always be gaps that the Other can fill through our encounters with them. Sometimes when we’re too tired, it takes people to remind us of our worth because we cease to see it ourselves. And sometimes, especially during the difficult moments, their company is all we need.
All of these things reminded me how we should be grateful for every single person in our life, and the time we get to spend with them—because we don’t know what circumstances will be like the next time. We may never get to interact with them the way we do now. As the quote reminds us, “you may only pass this way once.” It’s good to be reminded that there’s more to life than fulfilling requirements; more importantly, life is about relationships. Every encounter with people is unique in itself. Every moment is a gift.
This morning we had a brief run-through of the whole course when we reviewed the thesis statements. As I went through the day, I had experiences that made me reflect, and they eventually led me to realize how people play a significant role in our lives by simply being there for us. It makes sense now why Levinas gave so much importance to the Other, or the people around us; the people we encounter. To me, the point about the importance of the Other in our lives finally hit home.
You see, I’ve always been the type of person who’s very conscious of her time. I was always aware of the requirements I need to pass, the exams I have to study for, and in my mind I would schedule every part of my day and see how I can accomplish my deliverables as a college student. I knew I was the type who needed a lot of preparation time for anything, and I become anxious when I feel like I haven’t prepared enough for a certain test or spent as much time to reflect and write a good paper.
In the second semester of my sophomore year I had half-day classes everyday, and I took this opportunity to spend my afternoons reading the required readings, writing papers and reviewing for exams—almost every day. I skipped having block lunches and bonding with my peers, because I would always think of the extra work I can accomplish if I skip bonding time. I felt that my hard work paid off because I got good grades. I felt responsible and accomplished. But sooner than I expected, I became lonely. One afternoon when I decided to rejoin my block for lunch, I felt a certain distance I didn’t realize I had created. I haven’t spent as much time with them as I used to, and now they have formed a sort of clique I know I can’t be part of. Looking back, I remembered something Sir Garcia mentioned in class, “sometimes, you need to waste time with people.” You can’t always withdraw yourself to do ‘useful’ work; you need people and ‘distractions’ to keep you sane and happy.
Last semester I had a mirror experience of having almost no regular interaction with my block mates. Being in third year, we had fewer classes in common, and often I’d find myself alone during lunch, finishing long history readings by myself. Yes I had a lot of time by myself to finish the things I needed to do, but most of the time, I wasn’t so happy. In class I learned that there’s a philosophical term for being sad when you’re alone, that is, “The Solitude of Being.”
Even though I’m an introvert, I’ve discovered that what gives me energy and that sense of “being alive” is spending time with people. I noticed that during the days when I had a lot of ‘people interactions’, those are the days when I’m most happy. This semester proved to be lot better than the previous ones because I had a regular group of lunch buddies. We belonged to the same classes before and after lunch almost everyday, so we’d spend most of our lunch breaks together. Some of them were my block mates, others my course mates. Besides eating lunch, we crammed papers together; we loved playing UNO cards; we reviewed each other for orals, but most of the time, we just talked about ourselves and life in general. Little by little we got to know more about each other;
what food this person likes or is allergic to; what movies we enjoyed watching in common; what plans we had about family and marriage and even what characteristics we’re looking for in our future spouse. We also talked about the heartbreaks, the sensitive issues, and the things that mattered a lot to us.
Whenever one is absent from the group we’d always ask where he/she is; in short, we became clingy to one another. And a while ago as we were having lunch, I realized that this may just be the last lunch we’ll have together this semester. We’re already finished with most of our classes; all that’s left are final papers and exams. I don’t know what classes we will be in next semester, or if we’ll have common breaks to have lunch dates like these again.
It struck me how time flies so fast, and I became sentimental (though I kept it to myself). I realized how grateful I am for these people I got to spend time with. Their company had kept me sane throughout the hell weeks we’ve survived this semester; their words of encouragement helped me go on when I was at my lowest; their presence gave me the assurance that I’ll always have people to hold on to for support, and I did the same for them.
Conversations with them always take me by surprise, because I get amazed at how talented or how good or how loyal this person is. It’s true what Levinas says, that the other will always reach out to us and surprise us, taking us out of ourselves. We can’t live by ourselves, and we don’t simply live for ourselves. We’re created as social beings for a reason. Though we have our own rich interiorities, there will always be gaps that the Other can fill through our encounters with them. Sometimes when we’re too tired, it takes people to remind us of our worth because we cease to see it ourselves. And sometimes, especially during the difficult moments, their company is all we need.
All of these things reminded me how we should be grateful for every single person in our life, and the time we get to spend with them—because we don’t know what circumstances will be like the next time. We may never get to interact with them the way we do now. As the quote reminds us, “you may only pass this way once.” It’s good to be reminded that there’s more to life than fulfilling requirements; more importantly, life is about relationships. Every encounter with people is unique in itself. Every moment is a gift.
“When you spend time with people, it’s never wasted time.”
Connecting Deeper
by Kokoy Co
In my browsing online, I came across a tumblr blog online called the "Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows", which features original words created by a man. One of these words is called 'apomakrysmenophobia', and the meaning is as follows:
apomakrysmenophobia1
n. fear that your connections with people are ultimately shallow, that although your relationships feel congenial at the time, an audit of your life would produce an emotional safety deposit box of low-interest holdings and uninvested windfall profits, which will indicate you were never really at risk of joy, sacrifice or loss.
This word is very evident from what I've seen and experienced. Throughout our lives we interact with a lot of different people. Some of them are friendships whereas others are work related. From our interactions with these people, we sometimes end up taking them for granted, as if they were part of the background, the scenery. Sometimes we laugh, we cry, we get mad with them. But at times, we aren't really into what we're doing with them. Sometimes, we aren't touched or we don't let ourselves be affected by what touched them, what impacted them. We just nod and take our time with them for granted.
The scary thing is that when we look back at these times and we realize that we weren't really invested in what we went through, it feels so lonely. This is my take on what is called "the solitude of being". We end up just looking at our point of view, what we take from events, and our connections with people all go back to us. Maybe that's why we think that our connections with people are ultimately shallow.
The teachings that Levinas is espousing may provide an insight in order to escape this feeling of "apomakrysmenophobia". When we go outside of ourselves and not just dwell on our perspectives on things, we end up having a bigger perspective of things. We look at other people and invest our time and connect with them on a deeper level; we experience them as Face. This goes beyond the superficial but relates to the person as a fellow human being. We choose to be responsible for the Other and do our best to be there for them. Of course if we do this, we are putting a lot of faith and trust in them, and they may not necessarily reciprocate. However in doing this, we form meaningful relationships with people and we understand who we are more clearly.
___________________________
1Koenig, John. Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows. N.p.. Web. 13 Mar 2014.
.
In my browsing online, I came across a tumblr blog online called the "Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows", which features original words created by a man. One of these words is called 'apomakrysmenophobia', and the meaning is as follows:
apomakrysmenophobia1
n. fear that your connections with people are ultimately shallow, that although your relationships feel congenial at the time, an audit of your life would produce an emotional safety deposit box of low-interest holdings and uninvested windfall profits, which will indicate you were never really at risk of joy, sacrifice or loss.
This word is very evident from what I've seen and experienced. Throughout our lives we interact with a lot of different people. Some of them are friendships whereas others are work related. From our interactions with these people, we sometimes end up taking them for granted, as if they were part of the background, the scenery. Sometimes we laugh, we cry, we get mad with them. But at times, we aren't really into what we're doing with them. Sometimes, we aren't touched or we don't let ourselves be affected by what touched them, what impacted them. We just nod and take our time with them for granted.
The scary thing is that when we look back at these times and we realize that we weren't really invested in what we went through, it feels so lonely. This is my take on what is called "the solitude of being". We end up just looking at our point of view, what we take from events, and our connections with people all go back to us. Maybe that's why we think that our connections with people are ultimately shallow.
The teachings that Levinas is espousing may provide an insight in order to escape this feeling of "apomakrysmenophobia". When we go outside of ourselves and not just dwell on our perspectives on things, we end up having a bigger perspective of things. We look at other people and invest our time and connect with them on a deeper level; we experience them as Face. This goes beyond the superficial but relates to the person as a fellow human being. We choose to be responsible for the Other and do our best to be there for them. Of course if we do this, we are putting a lot of faith and trust in them, and they may not necessarily reciprocate. However in doing this, we form meaningful relationships with people and we understand who we are more clearly.
___________________________
1Koenig, John. Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows. N.p.. Web. 13 Mar 2014.
Amour
by McMurphy Quito
Many European films have surprised me by their approach to narrative. Amour is one of those films that really stuck with me even after the movie.
The whole narrative was about the married life of Anne and Georges. The world they lived in changed when Anne has a stroke. Georges deals with it until she has another stroke that makes it even more difficult for both of them. Anne’s physical and mental deterioration has made Georges miserable and conflicted. But the shocking thing was when Georges decided to euthanize his wife out of the blue. Was it because he loved her and did not want to see her suffer? Or was it because he was tired of taking care of her? Or was it because he knew that’s what she wanted? The answer is vague and we may never know.
In relation to Levinas’s idea about the Other and seeing the Other as a Face, Georges has shown the audience the most extreme circumstance in which you can take care of the Other. Unlike Anne, Georges is physically well and very capable of living independently, yet he chooses to stay with her and take care of her. He showers her, dresser her up, soothes her pain, feeds her, and cater to all her needs. We see not only an act of kindness, but an act of going beyond oneself and reaching out to the Other. His actions extends out and affects Anne’s life. There was a point in the movie in which a nurse forcefully brushes Anne’s hair. Georges immediately fires her. Although the nurse was doing her job, she was only doing what she wanted (the way Anne’s hair to look). Her actions were more directed towards her. As for Georges, he does it for Anne.
The fact that Anne has become incapacitated, it’s amazing how Georges sees her as still his wife. He does not see an old woman, a burden, or someone who is just taking up space. Georges sees the Face in his wife because he is extending himself to her. He talks to her the same way before they were married. He holds and lifts her lovingly. He is being there for her. Despite the tragic ending, he has done all that he can humanly do to make his wife happy. And that represents what we can do for the Others in our lives.
Many European films have surprised me by their approach to narrative. Amour is one of those films that really stuck with me even after the movie.
The whole narrative was about the married life of Anne and Georges. The world they lived in changed when Anne has a stroke. Georges deals with it until she has another stroke that makes it even more difficult for both of them. Anne’s physical and mental deterioration has made Georges miserable and conflicted. But the shocking thing was when Georges decided to euthanize his wife out of the blue. Was it because he loved her and did not want to see her suffer? Or was it because he was tired of taking care of her? Or was it because he knew that’s what she wanted? The answer is vague and we may never know.
In relation to Levinas’s idea about the Other and seeing the Other as a Face, Georges has shown the audience the most extreme circumstance in which you can take care of the Other. Unlike Anne, Georges is physically well and very capable of living independently, yet he chooses to stay with her and take care of her. He showers her, dresser her up, soothes her pain, feeds her, and cater to all her needs. We see not only an act of kindness, but an act of going beyond oneself and reaching out to the Other. His actions extends out and affects Anne’s life. There was a point in the movie in which a nurse forcefully brushes Anne’s hair. Georges immediately fires her. Although the nurse was doing her job, she was only doing what she wanted (the way Anne’s hair to look). Her actions were more directed towards her. As for Georges, he does it for Anne.
The fact that Anne has become incapacitated, it’s amazing how Georges sees her as still his wife. He does not see an old woman, a burden, or someone who is just taking up space. Georges sees the Face in his wife because he is extending himself to her. He talks to her the same way before they were married. He holds and lifts her lovingly. He is being there for her. Despite the tragic ending, he has done all that he can humanly do to make his wife happy. And that represents what we can do for the Others in our lives.
Killing Them Softly
by McMurphy Quito
We are responsible for the death of the Other. This is one of the most significant statements put forth by Levinas. It is not only a blunt and truthful statement, but also reveals to us our very nature as living beings.
As living beings, we need resources to live, but the world does not have equal or infinite resources for us. If we look at the animal kingdom, survival of the fittest takes place. There is a fight for life and consumption of resources. No animal is spared, because even the top sometimes fall. We are not animals, but humans can show such animalistic behavior. Throughout history we have fought over resources, land, ideas, religion, and many more. Now the conflicts has evolved into economic, political, and social means. Unfortunately, his is the world we live in and we have no control of those large scale circumstances.
On a smaller scale, each of us have our own needs to satisfy. Jobs, rent space, cars, parking space, school, and the list goes on. There is a probably a moment where you took that last drink in the soda machine. Or another moment when you happen to beat another driver to the last parking spot. How about that last order of sushi that you got? One way or another, someone is one the losing end. These are very small issues yet people are being affected one way or the other.
The danger of our society today is that we are living in a competitive system in which we must take in order to survive. This mentality can mislead us individually into centering our goals into the “I” and ignoring the Other. I’m not saying that we should go out and give our money away or donate to every single charity. I think what Levinas is trying to do is open our eyes and look at the reality of the world. We need to be aware of those around us and be sensitive of our actions. This leads us to our own individual choice – should I take what’s mine? Or should I be considerate and leave some for the Other?
We are not animals. But to be selfish, to be ignorant, to be greedy, and to do things that is self-serving is the lowest form a human can be.
We are responsible for the death of the Other. This is one of the most significant statements put forth by Levinas. It is not only a blunt and truthful statement, but also reveals to us our very nature as living beings.
As living beings, we need resources to live, but the world does not have equal or infinite resources for us. If we look at the animal kingdom, survival of the fittest takes place. There is a fight for life and consumption of resources. No animal is spared, because even the top sometimes fall. We are not animals, but humans can show such animalistic behavior. Throughout history we have fought over resources, land, ideas, religion, and many more. Now the conflicts has evolved into economic, political, and social means. Unfortunately, his is the world we live in and we have no control of those large scale circumstances.
On a smaller scale, each of us have our own needs to satisfy. Jobs, rent space, cars, parking space, school, and the list goes on. There is a probably a moment where you took that last drink in the soda machine. Or another moment when you happen to beat another driver to the last parking spot. How about that last order of sushi that you got? One way or another, someone is one the losing end. These are very small issues yet people are being affected one way or the other.
The danger of our society today is that we are living in a competitive system in which we must take in order to survive. This mentality can mislead us individually into centering our goals into the “I” and ignoring the Other. I’m not saying that we should go out and give our money away or donate to every single charity. I think what Levinas is trying to do is open our eyes and look at the reality of the world. We need to be aware of those around us and be sensitive of our actions. This leads us to our own individual choice – should I take what’s mine? Or should I be considerate and leave some for the Other?
We are not animals. But to be selfish, to be ignorant, to be greedy, and to do things that is self-serving is the lowest form a human can be.
Lola, Lolo, and Politeness
by Miguel Jimenez
I grew up in a Christian family who always promoted Christian values. This all started when I was still a baby. When I was a baby, I was taught the importance of saying thank you, good-bye, please and thank you, as well as common courtesy such as helping others, or prioritizing others when one crosses the door. I was taught by my Lolo and Lola about politeness and service to other people at a very young age, to become caring and loving to the other, no matter who they might be.
I’d just like to take time and thank them for instilling and teaching me these important virtues and values at a very young age. They taught me that it’s good to be polite and to help others, and ultimately, as Levinas states, “to live my life for the other”.
My Lola told me a story about what I did in the states that relates to my being polite and friendly. A homeless man was sitting on a park bench in Santa Monica, California, and my Lola told me that I went up and sat next to him. Regardless of his race or his social stature, my Lola told me that I conversed with him and talked to him. I introduced myself and asked how he was. Baffled, he talked to me as well, and for a good 5 minutes, the homeless man and myself had a fruitful conversation. Lola also recounts me sharing some of my Animal Crackers with him.
After my encounter with the homeless man, the homeless man went up to my lola and told her that I was the only one that talked to him that day and that he received so much joy from talking to me.
Regardless of what kind of person we encounter in this world, we should always remember to think that we are here for others. Regardless of who we may encounter, we should always remember to say “After you” “thank you” and “a-dieu” and live our lives for the other. As little as these nuances may seem, if done to an other, it can change an other’s day for the better. This is precisely why I’m grateful to my grandparents for instilling such a golden virtue in me at a young age, because these things are easily forgotten. done repetitively, and ever since I was still a baby, politeness became a habit of mine, all thanks to my grandparents.
 |
| lolo, lola, and myself (1994) |
I grew up in a Christian family who always promoted Christian values. This all started when I was still a baby. When I was a baby, I was taught the importance of saying thank you, good-bye, please and thank you, as well as common courtesy such as helping others, or prioritizing others when one crosses the door. I was taught by my Lolo and Lola about politeness and service to other people at a very young age, to become caring and loving to the other, no matter who they might be.
I’d just like to take time and thank them for instilling and teaching me these important virtues and values at a very young age. They taught me that it’s good to be polite and to help others, and ultimately, as Levinas states, “to live my life for the other”.
My Lola told me a story about what I did in the states that relates to my being polite and friendly. A homeless man was sitting on a park bench in Santa Monica, California, and my Lola told me that I went up and sat next to him. Regardless of his race or his social stature, my Lola told me that I conversed with him and talked to him. I introduced myself and asked how he was. Baffled, he talked to me as well, and for a good 5 minutes, the homeless man and myself had a fruitful conversation. Lola also recounts me sharing some of my Animal Crackers with him.
After my encounter with the homeless man, the homeless man went up to my lola and told her that I was the only one that talked to him that day and that he received so much joy from talking to me.
Regardless of what kind of person we encounter in this world, we should always remember to think that we are here for others. Regardless of who we may encounter, we should always remember to say “After you” “thank you” and “a-dieu” and live our lives for the other. As little as these nuances may seem, if done to an other, it can change an other’s day for the better. This is precisely why I’m grateful to my grandparents for instilling such a golden virtue in me at a young age, because these things are easily forgotten. done repetitively, and ever since I was still a baby, politeness became a habit of mine, all thanks to my grandparents.
Mind Bank
by Miguel Jimenez
For Husserl, his philosophy was bringing everything back to lived experiences. Or, more simply put, all our philosophizing should be done using what we’ve learned through lived experiences. Which is why they say that we can’t really do any Philosophizing unless we’ve hit the age of 40. I think this is because that 40 is the age where we can say that one has already lived and gained many experiences in order to philosophize. Adding to this, another reason is because they don’t feel that people that are younger than 40 will have a bank of experiences that are insufficient to be able to philosophize.
(On a side note: is there a bar, or minimum amount of experiences that one needs to get to in order to philosophize?)
We can’t discount the fact that experiences give us reason to reflect, and through reflection comes philosophizing. The way to make these Philosophy sessions more valuable is to create a bigger bank of information in your head. My illustration of this is to think of the mind as a bank, which holds your lived experiences. If in reality, banks held money, think, hypothetically that our minds were a bank for our past experiences. Let’s call this bank MindBank. For us 20 year olds out there, if we’ve experienced enough, our minds would be rich with experiences. If you’ve lived in a cave for 20 years, your bank account wouldn’t be as wealthy. So if a guy like Henry Sy has the biggest bank account in the Philippines (money-wise), those who have experience the most, who have traveled, read a lot and lived, would have a sizable MindBank account. It’s all about taking things in from the world and increasing the size of your Mind Bank account in order to be able to Philosophize more, just as increasing the size of a real monetary bank account would make you able to purchase more things.
Reflection comes from your past experiences, and these past experiences can be garnered through things you take in or experience in this world. This is the reason to why we should read books, listen to stories, and read fiction, the bible and narrative stories in order to gain more experiences and increase the worth of our MindBank accounts. Through text, we tap into the minds and experiences of other people. In a sense, we gain their insights and experiences, increasing the value of our MindBank account as well as pushing us closer to be able to philosophize deeper and more richly.
For Husserl, his philosophy was bringing everything back to lived experiences. Or, more simply put, all our philosophizing should be done using what we’ve learned through lived experiences. Which is why they say that we can’t really do any Philosophizing unless we’ve hit the age of 40. I think this is because that 40 is the age where we can say that one has already lived and gained many experiences in order to philosophize. Adding to this, another reason is because they don’t feel that people that are younger than 40 will have a bank of experiences that are insufficient to be able to philosophize.
(On a side note: is there a bar, or minimum amount of experiences that one needs to get to in order to philosophize?)
We can’t discount the fact that experiences give us reason to reflect, and through reflection comes philosophizing. The way to make these Philosophy sessions more valuable is to create a bigger bank of information in your head. My illustration of this is to think of the mind as a bank, which holds your lived experiences. If in reality, banks held money, think, hypothetically that our minds were a bank for our past experiences. Let’s call this bank MindBank. For us 20 year olds out there, if we’ve experienced enough, our minds would be rich with experiences. If you’ve lived in a cave for 20 years, your bank account wouldn’t be as wealthy. So if a guy like Henry Sy has the biggest bank account in the Philippines (money-wise), those who have experience the most, who have traveled, read a lot and lived, would have a sizable MindBank account. It’s all about taking things in from the world and increasing the size of your Mind Bank account in order to be able to Philosophize more, just as increasing the size of a real monetary bank account would make you able to purchase more things.
Reflection comes from your past experiences, and these past experiences can be garnered through things you take in or experience in this world. This is the reason to why we should read books, listen to stories, and read fiction, the bible and narrative stories in order to gain more experiences and increase the worth of our MindBank accounts. Through text, we tap into the minds and experiences of other people. In a sense, we gain their insights and experiences, increasing the value of our MindBank account as well as pushing us closer to be able to philosophize deeper and more richly.
Procrastination as il y a
by Miguel Jimenez
Levinas’s idea of Il y a is an interesting topic. It’s that state of indeterminacy where there is neither nothing nor something. Levinas tries to illustrate what il y a is through citing different examples of it. I’ll do the same. Using my own, weird example, I think he was trying to describe the fact that when one or an existent is in a state of il y a, the existent is not totally there, or (Being (as Being HIMSELF)), but IS there as being. Think of my illustration as the existent being like a robot on stand-by, but it isn’t totally there because it isn’t being controlled or activated. The robot is able to conquer il y a when one finally turns him on and makes him move. When one isn’t Being, what is he/she?
I’d like to give another example, one that’s closer to home. It’s about il y a being manifested in a student’s procrastination for a project or term paper. Levinas’s idea of Il Y A is present when a student is in the state of procrastinating. A student, let’s call him Miguel, the quintessential crammer, procrastinated on his term paper. Basically, Miguel had 2 weeks to complete a term paper that he was telling himself that he’d start writing day after day after day. He tells himself, “hey, I wrote it already in my head,” but the paper isn’t written, it isn’t manifested in a tangible, paper format. For 13 days, Miguel fights his inner struggles to complete a term paper, for 13 days, Miguel tells himself he’ll do the paper tomorrow, and for 13 days, that paper is still blank.
Procrastination, is that in determinant state where Miguel is in, deciding whether or not to do the paper. Now, the two outcomes for procrastination is one, going back to laziness and playing video games, or watching random videos on YouTube. This can be equated the existent failing to emerge from il y a and not Being, or going “back to the mother’s womb,” back to dependency or the existent’s comfort zone. The second outcome is to actually push down laziness and do the term paper. This is similar to the existent pushing down the il y a and emerging as Being.
As students, I think the reason to why we cram is because we ultimately want time for ourselves and to do absolutely nothing that’s productive. We’re just really lazy. Also, for those hard working ones, we procrastinate because we have other things that we first need to attend to.
Levinas’s idea of Il y a is an interesting topic. It’s that state of indeterminacy where there is neither nothing nor something. Levinas tries to illustrate what il y a is through citing different examples of it. I’ll do the same. Using my own, weird example, I think he was trying to describe the fact that when one or an existent is in a state of il y a, the existent is not totally there, or (Being (as Being HIMSELF)), but IS there as being. Think of my illustration as the existent being like a robot on stand-by, but it isn’t totally there because it isn’t being controlled or activated. The robot is able to conquer il y a when one finally turns him on and makes him move. When one isn’t Being, what is he/she?
I’d like to give another example, one that’s closer to home. It’s about il y a being manifested in a student’s procrastination for a project or term paper. Levinas’s idea of Il Y A is present when a student is in the state of procrastinating. A student, let’s call him Miguel, the quintessential crammer, procrastinated on his term paper. Basically, Miguel had 2 weeks to complete a term paper that he was telling himself that he’d start writing day after day after day. He tells himself, “hey, I wrote it already in my head,” but the paper isn’t written, it isn’t manifested in a tangible, paper format. For 13 days, Miguel fights his inner struggles to complete a term paper, for 13 days, Miguel tells himself he’ll do the paper tomorrow, and for 13 days, that paper is still blank.
Procrastination, is that in determinant state where Miguel is in, deciding whether or not to do the paper. Now, the two outcomes for procrastination is one, going back to laziness and playing video games, or watching random videos on YouTube. This can be equated the existent failing to emerge from il y a and not Being, or going “back to the mother’s womb,” back to dependency or the existent’s comfort zone. The second outcome is to actually push down laziness and do the term paper. This is similar to the existent pushing down the il y a and emerging as Being.
As students, I think the reason to why we cram is because we ultimately want time for ourselves and to do absolutely nothing that’s productive. We’re just really lazy. Also, for those hard working ones, we procrastinate because we have other things that we first need to attend to.
Pokemon
by Kate Bonamy
In class this morning, people started blurting out what they loved doing just cuz, or jouissance, for short. I was too embarrassed to tell them that I loved playing Pokémon up until now.
I am just amazed, because on the onset, it seemed that that video game is the very opposite of our lessons in Philosophy. For example, a Pokémon can be very easily totalized into knowing its stats, its type, and its nature. You literally have a list of what you need to know about the Pokémon. You see every trainer as an obstacle. You battle them so that you can get them out of your way. You take advantage of the experience points you gain from battling them. There is even an item called repel, the very opposite of our task to relate. You can very well know the ins and outs of this game.
I only shared a gameboy with my siblings, and none of my cousins played with us. So for the first time, I battled with another real human being, my classmate. I am really so glad I found a playmate! It was so different from playing with the trainers in the game. There is a sense of knowing the game too well, but unlike normal battles in the game, there is a very significant sense of surprise. I was surprised with the moves he taught his Pokémons and how he would strategize them. I did not even know who he had in his team.
I compared this to knowing a person too well, yet there will always be an element of surprise with that person. This means that no matter how close you are to someone, you will never be able to fully grasp the other. Clearly the surprise in my story is due to the fact that I am now playing with another thinking human being. But if a game is capable of giving us this element of surprise (technically, at least), then a relational human being is more than capable to do so. Just like in this game, I was the one who approached to battle, sometimes in life, we would have to reach out to experience the other. Unlike in the finite programs of Pokémon, we would always be able to see the infiniteness of another human being once we begin to look at more than what "we need to know about them" but actually acknowledge them as a human being entirely different from us.
In class this morning, people started blurting out what they loved doing just cuz, or jouissance, for short. I was too embarrassed to tell them that I loved playing Pokémon up until now.
I am just amazed, because on the onset, it seemed that that video game is the very opposite of our lessons in Philosophy. For example, a Pokémon can be very easily totalized into knowing its stats, its type, and its nature. You literally have a list of what you need to know about the Pokémon. You see every trainer as an obstacle. You battle them so that you can get them out of your way. You take advantage of the experience points you gain from battling them. There is even an item called repel, the very opposite of our task to relate. You can very well know the ins and outs of this game.
I only shared a gameboy with my siblings, and none of my cousins played with us. So for the first time, I battled with another real human being, my classmate. I am really so glad I found a playmate! It was so different from playing with the trainers in the game. There is a sense of knowing the game too well, but unlike normal battles in the game, there is a very significant sense of surprise. I was surprised with the moves he taught his Pokémons and how he would strategize them. I did not even know who he had in his team.
I compared this to knowing a person too well, yet there will always be an element of surprise with that person. This means that no matter how close you are to someone, you will never be able to fully grasp the other. Clearly the surprise in my story is due to the fact that I am now playing with another thinking human being. But if a game is capable of giving us this element of surprise (technically, at least), then a relational human being is more than capable to do so. Just like in this game, I was the one who approached to battle, sometimes in life, we would have to reach out to experience the other. Unlike in the finite programs of Pokémon, we would always be able to see the infiniteness of another human being once we begin to look at more than what "we need to know about them" but actually acknowledge them as a human being entirely different from us.
Killing a Jejemon
by Joel Magturo
We contribute to the death of the other. This line struck me last Tuesday in our Philosophy class. How can we contribute to their death even if we do not know them? Then one experience comes into my mind.
Last week I watched the Men’s Volleyball Finals. After Ateneo lost to NU, I was still in shock so I was still standing to look at my fallen friends. In that moment a person called my attention. She was not from Ateneo but she was wearing an Ateneo T-shirt. I knew this because her group of friends were wearing different UAAP school shirt. She shouted, “Kuya, kuya, hindi ka ba makaover, umupo ka naman wala kami makita.”Inside me I thought, “Ano ba yang mga JEJEMON fans na to oh EPAL.” I ignored her for 5 minutes but she was persistent. “Kuya, kuya nagbayad kami dito, ano ba yan di makaover,” she said. I almost snapped but then I realized that it was inappropriate to curse them since I was wearing an Ateneo shirt. Then, my friend and I just walked away but I was so pissed. I said to my friend, “Ano ba naman yang Jeje fans na yan, makikinood na nga lang eepal pa. Bilin ko sila eh. Mahirap lang naman mga yan eh,” I said to my friend and then we laughed.
Every day we encounter people we do not like. We judge them and make stereotypes. We forget to look at them with their faces and reduce them to what they stereotype and hastily avoid interaction with them. We neglect the fact that they have their own experiences, dimensions and stories behind them. I realize with my experience in the game, I was contributing to the death of the “other”. For simple things like standing in front of them, I kill them for not allowing them to see the court. My selfishness makes them lose their money’s worth that could have been bought for food or other things they need or maybe lose their chance to experience the game. Maybe it was a chance for them to relax and be away from all the stress but I deprived them of that. My thoughts of them as poor people and jejemon are not being responsible for the other. I totalize them belittling them. I realized that this is not being responsible for them and further contributing to their death. I thought of them as someone who I can easily break and step on but that is not the case. They are still human and they have their own dimensions.
In order to be responsible for the “other,” we must be open. We must not make hasty stereotypes even though we hate the person. We should know beyond their outside appearances that they have their own experiences in life. We must remember that as humans we have responsibility for others and not contribute to their deaths.
We contribute to the death of the other. This line struck me last Tuesday in our Philosophy class. How can we contribute to their death even if we do not know them? Then one experience comes into my mind.
Last week I watched the Men’s Volleyball Finals. After Ateneo lost to NU, I was still in shock so I was still standing to look at my fallen friends. In that moment a person called my attention. She was not from Ateneo but she was wearing an Ateneo T-shirt. I knew this because her group of friends were wearing different UAAP school shirt. She shouted, “Kuya, kuya, hindi ka ba makaover, umupo ka naman wala kami makita.”Inside me I thought, “Ano ba yang mga JEJEMON fans na to oh EPAL.” I ignored her for 5 minutes but she was persistent. “Kuya, kuya nagbayad kami dito, ano ba yan di makaover,” she said. I almost snapped but then I realized that it was inappropriate to curse them since I was wearing an Ateneo shirt. Then, my friend and I just walked away but I was so pissed. I said to my friend, “Ano ba naman yang Jeje fans na yan, makikinood na nga lang eepal pa. Bilin ko sila eh. Mahirap lang naman mga yan eh,” I said to my friend and then we laughed.
Every day we encounter people we do not like. We judge them and make stereotypes. We forget to look at them with their faces and reduce them to what they stereotype and hastily avoid interaction with them. We neglect the fact that they have their own experiences, dimensions and stories behind them. I realize with my experience in the game, I was contributing to the death of the “other”. For simple things like standing in front of them, I kill them for not allowing them to see the court. My selfishness makes them lose their money’s worth that could have been bought for food or other things they need or maybe lose their chance to experience the game. Maybe it was a chance for them to relax and be away from all the stress but I deprived them of that. My thoughts of them as poor people and jejemon are not being responsible for the other. I totalize them belittling them. I realized that this is not being responsible for them and further contributing to their death. I thought of them as someone who I can easily break and step on but that is not the case. They are still human and they have their own dimensions.
In order to be responsible for the “other,” we must be open. We must not make hasty stereotypes even though we hate the person. We should know beyond their outside appearances that they have their own experiences in life. We must remember that as humans we have responsibility for others and not contribute to their deaths.
"Palibre Naman"
by Alix Apostolicas
Over Christmas, we discussed that if something is asked for, it is not truly a gift. A gift is something willingly given without the desire of receiving something back. It's funny that we pride ourselves with the most warm Christmas season in the world yet we practice gift giving in a completely peculiar way.
It's always rubbed me the wrong way how we have the saying "palibre naman" or "pa-blowout". I know not everyone is guilty of this but I have noticed it happening around me quite a lot. During people's birthdays, instead of thinking of what to do for them, we bombard them that with those sayings. We turn their special days into something that we can benefit from. Even someone becomes quite fortunate with something, we immediately ask for a treat. '
I've been very fortunate that I had one of the most amazing marketing professor. Our prof would actually treat us to food sometimes during class. It got to a point where people expected it and sadly towards the end of the semester people would actually chime "palibre" during class and I would just cringe.
In my JEEP, even if I had prior intentions of bringing Jollibee already for my co-workers, the fact that the other Ateneo student treated them was brought up changed my viewpoint on my libre. Instead of just a celebratory lunch, it turned into "Oh no. I think they expect me to treat them and they will be disappointed if I don't."
And even classmates pointed out that they've experienced times when they give gifts to their friends and their friends were sad because "now they had to give something back". Even if it's just a cultural thing and we are only half joking most of the time, our whole concept of libre and gift giving is getting more warped. We are sometimes guilty of making things more impersonal. A Christmas gift becomes a burden to return. We no longer see it as a gesture or see it as a sign of love from the giver. A free lunch becomes a request or a cultural obligation and no longer a token of gratitude. Other peoples' birthdays make us wonder what they could do for us and not the other way around. Instead of the experience being great for the people sharing it, we are sometimes guilty of forgetting about the other with the experience. We centralize the experience and it no longer is an ex-perience as it's all internal.
It's our culture but it is just odd to me.
Over Christmas, we discussed that if something is asked for, it is not truly a gift. A gift is something willingly given without the desire of receiving something back. It's funny that we pride ourselves with the most warm Christmas season in the world yet we practice gift giving in a completely peculiar way.
It's always rubbed me the wrong way how we have the saying "palibre naman" or "pa-blowout". I know not everyone is guilty of this but I have noticed it happening around me quite a lot. During people's birthdays, instead of thinking of what to do for them, we bombard them that with those sayings. We turn their special days into something that we can benefit from. Even someone becomes quite fortunate with something, we immediately ask for a treat. '
I've been very fortunate that I had one of the most amazing marketing professor. Our prof would actually treat us to food sometimes during class. It got to a point where people expected it and sadly towards the end of the semester people would actually chime "palibre" during class and I would just cringe.
In my JEEP, even if I had prior intentions of bringing Jollibee already for my co-workers, the fact that the other Ateneo student treated them was brought up changed my viewpoint on my libre. Instead of just a celebratory lunch, it turned into "Oh no. I think they expect me to treat them and they will be disappointed if I don't."
And even classmates pointed out that they've experienced times when they give gifts to their friends and their friends were sad because "now they had to give something back". Even if it's just a cultural thing and we are only half joking most of the time, our whole concept of libre and gift giving is getting more warped. We are sometimes guilty of making things more impersonal. A Christmas gift becomes a burden to return. We no longer see it as a gesture or see it as a sign of love from the giver. A free lunch becomes a request or a cultural obligation and no longer a token of gratitude. Other peoples' birthdays make us wonder what they could do for us and not the other way around. Instead of the experience being great for the people sharing it, we are sometimes guilty of forgetting about the other with the experience. We centralize the experience and it no longer is an ex-perience as it's all internal.
It's our culture but it is just odd to me.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
For Good
by Trixia Tan
The discussion last Tuesday reminded me of a song in the musical Wicked, the title is “For Good”. It started with:
I’m limited
Just look at me
I'm limited
This is one of the main points in our discussion, as Levinas stated, we, as humans and as someone who will just understand self-love,are limited. It also goes to say that being is not enough with just being.
However, as the song continues on
“I've heard it said
That people come into our lives for a reason
Bringing something we must learn
And we are led
To those who help us most to grow
If we let them
And we help them in return
This basically attests to the fact that through relationships and through opening ourselves to genuine love, we reveal more things about ourselves and we grow more. It also foretells how we need to go out of ourselves and have relationships with other people.
The chorus and the last line go like this:
Who can say if I've been
Changed for the better?
I do believe I have been
Changed for the better
And because I knew you...
Because I knew you...
Because I knew you...
I have been changed for good...
This part is important in the song and as a link in our discussion because it translates to how relationships can really change lives and how being for the other can help us become someone better, which is what Levinas mean when he stated that we need to let ourselves go out of self love.
I’m pretty sure most of us can relate to this song. We, as human beings, are limited, but then because of our relationships, we become someone better, we become someone with infinite possibilities. For one, just like how group works are, you can’t do everything alone. You might be able to do something or finish it, but having your group-mates, your friends, would be a lot easier and would result in something better, something “good” as stated by the song. Reciprocity, being calculative, shouldn’t be the thing that pushes us to do something;We need to be for the other just because and in turn our relationships will produce good.
The discussion last Tuesday reminded me of a song in the musical Wicked, the title is “For Good”. It started with:
I’m limited
Just look at me
I'm limited
This is one of the main points in our discussion, as Levinas stated, we, as humans and as someone who will just understand self-love,are limited. It also goes to say that being is not enough with just being.
However, as the song continues on
“I've heard it said
That people come into our lives for a reason
Bringing something we must learn
And we are led
To those who help us most to grow
If we let them
And we help them in return
This basically attests to the fact that through relationships and through opening ourselves to genuine love, we reveal more things about ourselves and we grow more. It also foretells how we need to go out of ourselves and have relationships with other people.
The chorus and the last line go like this:
Who can say if I've been
Changed for the better?
I do believe I have been
Changed for the better
And because I knew you...
Because I knew you...
Because I knew you...
I have been changed for good...
This part is important in the song and as a link in our discussion because it translates to how relationships can really change lives and how being for the other can help us become someone better, which is what Levinas mean when he stated that we need to let ourselves go out of self love.
I’m pretty sure most of us can relate to this song. We, as human beings, are limited, but then because of our relationships, we become someone better, we become someone with infinite possibilities. For one, just like how group works are, you can’t do everything alone. You might be able to do something or finish it, but having your group-mates, your friends, would be a lot easier and would result in something better, something “good” as stated by the song. Reciprocity, being calculative, shouldn’t be the thing that pushes us to do something;We need to be for the other just because and in turn our relationships will produce good.
ASAP
by Denise Tan
Death--- such a powerful, confronting yet commanding word.
“The fear for the death of the other is certainly at the basis of the responsibility for him.”
We recently hit a touchpoint of Levinas’ philosophy regarding one’s responsibility for the Other. And I think this is the anchor of his whole philosophy, realizing the realness of death itself and how this significantly correlates to our calling of being ultimately responsible for the Other.
Death here may not be used in its literal sense, although in some cases, it can be. It generally just depends on how you perceive it. But for me, what stood out the most is the fact that there is a call for us to respond to responsibility—as soon as we can. The discussion last time imparted in me a sense of urgency in answering the call. In my own freedom, in my own thinking, in my own will, I realized that there is really so much that can be done. With that, no time should be wasted and the call to act starts now.
Every second, every minute, and every hour wasted on the self is already a sign of passing, a sign of ignorance, a sign of the Other’s death. It is more of an unjustified reality that everyone is to face, but if we are to apply ethics and utilize it to purposely make the other’s life speak of its worth, then I think we can give as much comfort and kindness to one’s natural passing.
Death for me signifies more of a deprivation. We deprive Others of experiencing their worth, their infinity. But most importantly, we deprive them of ethics. Ethics for me is a continues, influential act. It is an unbroken chain of connection. If one falters to act on his/her responsibility, the continuous act of compassion/kindess will dwindle. The power of influence, inspiration, innate goodness of humanity will be derpived. The expansion of possibly sharing this philosohpy then decreases. There will be a contraction in the sharing of this philosophy.
We ourselves are responsible in influencing the human race to the direction of ethics and responsibility. And if we are to waste time on ourselves and miss the ultimate point of the urgency of the other’s death, then we are not living up to our life’s worth.
Death--- such a powerful, confronting yet commanding word.
“The fear for the death of the other is certainly at the basis of the responsibility for him.”
We recently hit a touchpoint of Levinas’ philosophy regarding one’s responsibility for the Other. And I think this is the anchor of his whole philosophy, realizing the realness of death itself and how this significantly correlates to our calling of being ultimately responsible for the Other.
Death here may not be used in its literal sense, although in some cases, it can be. It generally just depends on how you perceive it. But for me, what stood out the most is the fact that there is a call for us to respond to responsibility—as soon as we can. The discussion last time imparted in me a sense of urgency in answering the call. In my own freedom, in my own thinking, in my own will, I realized that there is really so much that can be done. With that, no time should be wasted and the call to act starts now.
Every second, every minute, and every hour wasted on the self is already a sign of passing, a sign of ignorance, a sign of the Other’s death. It is more of an unjustified reality that everyone is to face, but if we are to apply ethics and utilize it to purposely make the other’s life speak of its worth, then I think we can give as much comfort and kindness to one’s natural passing.
Death for me signifies more of a deprivation. We deprive Others of experiencing their worth, their infinity. But most importantly, we deprive them of ethics. Ethics for me is a continues, influential act. It is an unbroken chain of connection. If one falters to act on his/her responsibility, the continuous act of compassion/kindess will dwindle. The power of influence, inspiration, innate goodness of humanity will be derpived. The expansion of possibly sharing this philosohpy then decreases. There will be a contraction in the sharing of this philosophy.
We ourselves are responsible in influencing the human race to the direction of ethics and responsibility. And if we are to waste time on ourselves and miss the ultimate point of the urgency of the other’s death, then we are not living up to our life’s worth.
Responsibility for the Other
by Stephen Vera Cruz
Marianne Williamson's famous quote really reminded me of our discussion about responsibility for the other. In our busy world today, we always seem to ask ourselves why we should have to be men and women for others. We fail to understand that only being interested in our own selves allows us to only live a limited life. To be interesting means to be interested in other people. The line, "And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same", reminds me that I have to be there for the other in order for both of us to succeed. By allowing others to enter my life and not hesitating to help them, I unconsciously let them shine in my own presence. I unconsciously say that I am indeed here for them and in turn I surrender myself into doing something for the other. The line, " We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone." reminds me not to block myself out from the other because the other comes into my life because of the infinite. The infinite is inside all of us. We are attracted to the other because the overwhelming presence of the infinite. God is within all of us and he calls us to be men and women for others because the other is not an annoying disturbance. When we allow the other to enter our lives, we are forced to go out of our comfort zones to make room for their presence. As we allow them to enter into our lives, we are compelled to let their light shine to us because we cannot grasp them. Since they have the infinite inside of them, the other is the only person capable of revealing their light to us and make their otherwise invisible face visible.
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
- Marianne Williamson
Marianne Williamson's famous quote really reminded me of our discussion about responsibility for the other. In our busy world today, we always seem to ask ourselves why we should have to be men and women for others. We fail to understand that only being interested in our own selves allows us to only live a limited life. To be interesting means to be interested in other people. The line, "And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same", reminds me that I have to be there for the other in order for both of us to succeed. By allowing others to enter my life and not hesitating to help them, I unconsciously let them shine in my own presence. I unconsciously say that I am indeed here for them and in turn I surrender myself into doing something for the other. The line, " We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone." reminds me not to block myself out from the other because the other comes into my life because of the infinite. The infinite is inside all of us. We are attracted to the other because the overwhelming presence of the infinite. God is within all of us and he calls us to be men and women for others because the other is not an annoying disturbance. When we allow the other to enter our lives, we are forced to go out of our comfort zones to make room for their presence. As we allow them to enter into our lives, we are compelled to let their light shine to us because we cannot grasp them. Since they have the infinite inside of them, the other is the only person capable of revealing their light to us and make their otherwise invisible face visible.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Death and Suffering
by Inah Robles
Levinas states that we are responsible for the death of the other. We might not have directly killed someone, we might not have blood on our hands but we do have a fault.
We live in a finite world. A world where opportunities are limited, and each time we take an opportunity, we have essentially taken a chance away from someone. We have taken their chance at a job to support their family, a chance to go to the school they've always dreamed of. This is part of life, but this also means that for every opportunity we get, we must do our best in order to be just to those who were not granted the same privilege.
More than just the finite word, we face structural injustices. Poverty, oppression are common occurrences in the world we live in. However, too few do anything to challenge the status quo for the fear of becoming an outcast or simply many "do not have the time". It is this mentality that has allowed many to die from poverty, from the lack of shelter, and water- all these deaths could have been prevented if enough people had the were responsible for the other.
Unfortunately, we live in a capitalist world where profit and wealth have been the objective of most people. Many are willing to trample on the dignity and basic rights of the other in order to gain more than what they need to survive- hence the tale of the 1%. Where 1% of the population live extremely comfortably, while the 99% have difficulty meeting their daily needs.
We must remember that the world was never filled with enough resources to fulfill everyone's wants and capricious demands, seeing the other's needs and as an equal you are responsible for can help alleviate the 99%'s suffering.
Levinas states that we are responsible for the death of the other. We might not have directly killed someone, we might not have blood on our hands but we do have a fault.
We live in a finite world. A world where opportunities are limited, and each time we take an opportunity, we have essentially taken a chance away from someone. We have taken their chance at a job to support their family, a chance to go to the school they've always dreamed of. This is part of life, but this also means that for every opportunity we get, we must do our best in order to be just to those who were not granted the same privilege.
More than just the finite word, we face structural injustices. Poverty, oppression are common occurrences in the world we live in. However, too few do anything to challenge the status quo for the fear of becoming an outcast or simply many "do not have the time". It is this mentality that has allowed many to die from poverty, from the lack of shelter, and water- all these deaths could have been prevented if enough people had the were responsible for the other.
Unfortunately, we live in a capitalist world where profit and wealth have been the objective of most people. Many are willing to trample on the dignity and basic rights of the other in order to gain more than what they need to survive- hence the tale of the 1%. Where 1% of the population live extremely comfortably, while the 99% have difficulty meeting their daily needs.
We must remember that the world was never filled with enough resources to fulfill everyone's wants and capricious demands, seeing the other's needs and as an equal you are responsible for can help alleviate the 99%'s suffering.
How our Lifestyle Kills the Other: 911 McDo Delivery
by Len Virata
"I am responsible for the death of the other". To me, this was the most powerful phrase I heard this morning in doc g's lecture. Powerful in a way that i have come to gain deeper insight on how the lifestyle of many of us plays a twisted consequence on the other (whether we are aware of it or not). In the world today, witnessing social injustice at work has become a normal sight. Most of us acknowledge that there are well off families and poor families. Some become successful in life, and some fail. That is how the world works. Moreover, earning a living today has become more competitive therefore we have come to live in a society that is pragmatic in a way that we make decisions on what will most benefit us. Looking at Philippine society, the social structure is very stratified. Meaning there is a huge gap between the rich and poor. Most of us were blessed to be in the upper part of the social classes. We are lucky to be living comfortable lives and experiencing an easy lifestyle. Due to this, we have become unaware of the other and how this (to some) lavish or convenient lifestyle for us has affected the other.
One example that came to mind was when manila got flooded almost a year ago. While most of us were lucky to be in a house or a condominium, a lot of people lost their make shift houses and roofs due to the heavy rains and running water. While these people were fighting for their lives, property, health and loved ones, there were people we knew (and maybe even us) who were complaining about having no electricity to watch television, no wi-fi to play games, or no air-con to sleep comfortably through the night. It's a horrible realisation that this is the reality we live in. That there are people complaining about the most unnecessary things while there are others suffering right outside their doors. One complain that struck my attention though came from a tweet i saw from my friend and other users about wanting a Mcdo delivery. So given that there was a flood, everyone was stuck at home. That meant we had to make us of whatever we had at home to either entertain us or use. This also meant, we had to eat whatever we had at home. For some reason, some of my friends weren't satisfied with the food they had home so they had a brilliant idea to decide they wanted a delivery from their favourite fast-food, Mcdonald's. He even had the nerve to tweet after that he hoped the delivery will be fast because he was hungry. When i saw these tweets, i felt so angry because there was so much wrong thing with it. First, how was this person so insensitive and selfish at a time like this? Second, does he not know that he is putting the delivery boys safety in jeopardy just for food? Third, are there people who really are that ignorant?
This instance really makes you think what kind of people you are living with in this world. But is it really his fault? I'd like to believe that there aren't really that ignorant people but it is because of the lifestyle we are living in that has made us forget about the other. We get things so easily and in convenience that we forget the long process that it comes from that has to do with the other. In this case, we can see the other as the delivery boy. Some of us might have forgotten that the process of a delivery has to deal with real people, not just our purchases. It is still a person who will go from one area to your home to deliver these things. We only care about what is delivered and we forget about the other involved. Have we ever even paid attention to him at all? The death of the other can be seen when my friend wanted to have his food delivered knowing that the area was flooded. He completely had no regard for the other. He probably didn't even realise he's putting someone in danger because he was so selfish to just think of himself. Or maybe he did know, but he didn't care because it was just a delivery boy to him. Either way, this kind of attitude results in us negatively affecting the other.
Seeing now how connected our actions & attitudes reflect on the other, it should make us more aware and more sensitive on how we live our lifestyles and deal with things. Just because we can afford to do things or we are capable to do things, does not mean we should. Looking back at the mcdo example,
the company should not have even allowed the delivery boys to be on duty because it is dangerous. But they did, and even so that does not mean we should take advantage of this. We can play our part through not ordering a delivery thus not putting the other in danger. We should take this small example to the bigger context to show that sometimes living simply and paying attention to not just the other but the distant other are ways in which we can change our lifestyle so that we can ease the burden off the other and become more mindful of the others around us.
"I am responsible for the death of the other". To me, this was the most powerful phrase I heard this morning in doc g's lecture. Powerful in a way that i have come to gain deeper insight on how the lifestyle of many of us plays a twisted consequence on the other (whether we are aware of it or not). In the world today, witnessing social injustice at work has become a normal sight. Most of us acknowledge that there are well off families and poor families. Some become successful in life, and some fail. That is how the world works. Moreover, earning a living today has become more competitive therefore we have come to live in a society that is pragmatic in a way that we make decisions on what will most benefit us. Looking at Philippine society, the social structure is very stratified. Meaning there is a huge gap between the rich and poor. Most of us were blessed to be in the upper part of the social classes. We are lucky to be living comfortable lives and experiencing an easy lifestyle. Due to this, we have become unaware of the other and how this (to some) lavish or convenient lifestyle for us has affected the other.
One example that came to mind was when manila got flooded almost a year ago. While most of us were lucky to be in a house or a condominium, a lot of people lost their make shift houses and roofs due to the heavy rains and running water. While these people were fighting for their lives, property, health and loved ones, there were people we knew (and maybe even us) who were complaining about having no electricity to watch television, no wi-fi to play games, or no air-con to sleep comfortably through the night. It's a horrible realisation that this is the reality we live in. That there are people complaining about the most unnecessary things while there are others suffering right outside their doors. One complain that struck my attention though came from a tweet i saw from my friend and other users about wanting a Mcdo delivery. So given that there was a flood, everyone was stuck at home. That meant we had to make us of whatever we had at home to either entertain us or use. This also meant, we had to eat whatever we had at home. For some reason, some of my friends weren't satisfied with the food they had home so they had a brilliant idea to decide they wanted a delivery from their favourite fast-food, Mcdonald's. He even had the nerve to tweet after that he hoped the delivery will be fast because he was hungry. When i saw these tweets, i felt so angry because there was so much wrong thing with it. First, how was this person so insensitive and selfish at a time like this? Second, does he not know that he is putting the delivery boys safety in jeopardy just for food? Third, are there people who really are that ignorant?
This instance really makes you think what kind of people you are living with in this world. But is it really his fault? I'd like to believe that there aren't really that ignorant people but it is because of the lifestyle we are living in that has made us forget about the other. We get things so easily and in convenience that we forget the long process that it comes from that has to do with the other. In this case, we can see the other as the delivery boy. Some of us might have forgotten that the process of a delivery has to deal with real people, not just our purchases. It is still a person who will go from one area to your home to deliver these things. We only care about what is delivered and we forget about the other involved. Have we ever even paid attention to him at all? The death of the other can be seen when my friend wanted to have his food delivered knowing that the area was flooded. He completely had no regard for the other. He probably didn't even realise he's putting someone in danger because he was so selfish to just think of himself. Or maybe he did know, but he didn't care because it was just a delivery boy to him. Either way, this kind of attitude results in us negatively affecting the other.
Seeing now how connected our actions & attitudes reflect on the other, it should make us more aware and more sensitive on how we live our lifestyles and deal with things. Just because we can afford to do things or we are capable to do things, does not mean we should. Looking back at the mcdo example,
the company should not have even allowed the delivery boys to be on duty because it is dangerous. But they did, and even so that does not mean we should take advantage of this. We can play our part through not ordering a delivery thus not putting the other in danger. We should take this small example to the bigger context to show that sometimes living simply and paying attention to not just the other but the distant other are ways in which we can change our lifestyle so that we can ease the burden off the other and become more mindful of the others around us.
What is Fair?
by Kate Bonamy
I remember my theology teacher telling us that it is not fair that Ateneans get offered jobs even before they graduate, while others from the more rural areas do not get jobs even after they graduate. It is, in a way, unfair for them, but this is mainly because Ateneo has built a reputation to be one of the best universities in the Philippines. However, Ateneo has a higher standard too, meaning, people who get in are required to give more effort into specializing in their fields. So in a way, this is what makes it fair.
But how do people get in, in the first place? Some are more blessed intellectually, but do not have the resouces to hone their gifts. Some, on the other hand, are more loaded, and are able to cultivate what they have. In order to get into the Ateneo, you need to have both the intelligence and the luck to have enough resources to cultivate your intelligence. You need enough money to not have to quit school, or even go to school with an empty stomach. These conditions are not a choice, unfortunstely. That is where "unfair" begins.
Life is generally unfair, and no matter how hard we try to even out things, it will never be perfectly fair. But as the more priviledged ones, we can fulfill what it means to be an Atenean, being men and women for others. You do not blame yourself for being able to afford your current lifestyle, but you start to blame yourself when you begin to feel indifferent to the people around you.
There will be an endless number of people in need, but it is up to you to deal with it. You are there for them, not necessarily to give them alms, but to at least give them an opportunity. You may ask for your capital back, for in the long run, they would no longer be in need of that. What they need is the chance to stand on their own feet. They need a livelihood that would stop them from fully depending on you.
This sounds like a pretty big task,but currently as students, maybe we can start by donating to organizations. It does not have to be big, but it has to be meaningful.
Levinas teaches us about leaving the law of the I, shifting to the law of the Other. It is basically being there for the Others without expecting anything in return. It is a fulfillment of our responsibility to the others. I sure hope that even after we stop reading about Levinas and other philisophy 102 stuff, we would always remember what this course has imparted to us.
I still do not know what "fair" is. Dice are fair. Drawing lots is sometimes fair. But life never is fair. And it will always be our responsibility to make it less unfair.
I remember my theology teacher telling us that it is not fair that Ateneans get offered jobs even before they graduate, while others from the more rural areas do not get jobs even after they graduate. It is, in a way, unfair for them, but this is mainly because Ateneo has built a reputation to be one of the best universities in the Philippines. However, Ateneo has a higher standard too, meaning, people who get in are required to give more effort into specializing in their fields. So in a way, this is what makes it fair.
But how do people get in, in the first place? Some are more blessed intellectually, but do not have the resouces to hone their gifts. Some, on the other hand, are more loaded, and are able to cultivate what they have. In order to get into the Ateneo, you need to have both the intelligence and the luck to have enough resources to cultivate your intelligence. You need enough money to not have to quit school, or even go to school with an empty stomach. These conditions are not a choice, unfortunstely. That is where "unfair" begins.
Life is generally unfair, and no matter how hard we try to even out things, it will never be perfectly fair. But as the more priviledged ones, we can fulfill what it means to be an Atenean, being men and women for others. You do not blame yourself for being able to afford your current lifestyle, but you start to blame yourself when you begin to feel indifferent to the people around you.
There will be an endless number of people in need, but it is up to you to deal with it. You are there for them, not necessarily to give them alms, but to at least give them an opportunity. You may ask for your capital back, for in the long run, they would no longer be in need of that. What they need is the chance to stand on their own feet. They need a livelihood that would stop them from fully depending on you.
This sounds like a pretty big task,but currently as students, maybe we can start by donating to organizations. It does not have to be big, but it has to be meaningful.
Levinas teaches us about leaving the law of the I, shifting to the law of the Other. It is basically being there for the Others without expecting anything in return. It is a fulfillment of our responsibility to the others. I sure hope that even after we stop reading about Levinas and other philisophy 102 stuff, we would always remember what this course has imparted to us.
I still do not know what "fair" is. Dice are fair. Drawing lots is sometimes fair. But life never is fair. And it will always be our responsibility to make it less unfair.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
On The Streets
by Miguel Jimenez
It was late last night as I was strolling along the streetside of Katipunan that two small boys by the age of 8 wandered up to me. "Pang-kain lang po, kuya", they said, as they begged for spare change.
Instinctively, I avoided their gaze and tried to walk away; it was halfway into the evening after all and I remembered the stories of the criminals which patrol Katipunan's streets.
Thus it was by some coincidence that in that exact moment I recalled our discussions in class on our responsibility towards the Other. My conscience too troubled me a bit and I knew then that I couldn’t just walk away doing nothing and not feel bad about it.
“Yet what could I do?”, I asked. Giving them some spare change outright won’t drastically aid them in their situation and would only further their dependence on others.
An idea suddenly sprung up in my head and I guess it went as a surprise for them when I said “Bigyan ko kayo ng barya, pero tulungan nyo muna ako maghanap ng trike”. Suddenly, their faces which had been feigning gloom all this time changed so much as to appear inquisitive – that kind of face you make when you’re actively thinking of a solution to something. Eventually, I got a trike and rode back home in safety.
Through it all I realized that applying Levinas’ concept of responsibility does not necessarily have to be in the form of charity or one-sided generosity. More often than not, the best gifts are those of which a part comes from the recipient. Also of note is the traumatism we encounter when we experience the Face. I found it incredibly difficult to look them straight in the eye when I tried avoiding them at first; it was only afterwards when I could converse without feeling tense.
I guess it’s something to keep in mind whenever we go out to the streets.
It was late last night as I was strolling along the streetside of Katipunan that two small boys by the age of 8 wandered up to me. "Pang-kain lang po, kuya", they said, as they begged for spare change.
Instinctively, I avoided their gaze and tried to walk away; it was halfway into the evening after all and I remembered the stories of the criminals which patrol Katipunan's streets.
Thus it was by some coincidence that in that exact moment I recalled our discussions in class on our responsibility towards the Other. My conscience too troubled me a bit and I knew then that I couldn’t just walk away doing nothing and not feel bad about it.
“Yet what could I do?”, I asked. Giving them some spare change outright won’t drastically aid them in their situation and would only further their dependence on others.
An idea suddenly sprung up in my head and I guess it went as a surprise for them when I said “Bigyan ko kayo ng barya, pero tulungan nyo muna ako maghanap ng trike”. Suddenly, their faces which had been feigning gloom all this time changed so much as to appear inquisitive – that kind of face you make when you’re actively thinking of a solution to something. Eventually, I got a trike and rode back home in safety.
Through it all I realized that applying Levinas’ concept of responsibility does not necessarily have to be in the form of charity or one-sided generosity. More often than not, the best gifts are those of which a part comes from the recipient. Also of note is the traumatism we encounter when we experience the Face. I found it incredibly difficult to look them straight in the eye when I tried avoiding them at first; it was only afterwards when I could converse without feeling tense.
I guess it’s something to keep in mind whenever we go out to the streets.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Frozen
by Trixia Tan
I’m sure most of you have already watched the Disney animated film Frozen, It was a story of two princesses who learned the meaning of true love, and I guess, in a sense, it was also a story of two sisters learning “me here for you”.
First off, princess Elsa, who has fear running through her veins that she failed to acknowledge that life is a lot more than herself. She secluded herself into thinking that solitude is the best path, because she feared her power. Then there’s princess Anna who sees people merely in face value.
These princesses had encounters that opened themselves up and helped them delve deeper within themselves. Anna found Kristoff and it made her see that first impressions may not really be the lasting one. Then, there’s Elsa who had Anna to remind her of the fun that they had building Olaf, the snowman, while helping her see the beauty that is her power.
However, Elsa didn’t have an easy path in finding herself. It took her sister’s sacrifice for her to realize that she is infinite, that acknowledging that she is infinite and urging her feelings out would help her control her powers and become a better queen.
It was just like what Levinas teaches us when we have this certain experience with the other that makes us delve deeper into ourselves; disturbing us and making us realize that there is this infinite within us.
I’m sure most of you have already watched the Disney animated film Frozen, It was a story of two princesses who learned the meaning of true love, and I guess, in a sense, it was also a story of two sisters learning “me here for you”.
First off, princess Elsa, who has fear running through her veins that she failed to acknowledge that life is a lot more than herself. She secluded herself into thinking that solitude is the best path, because she feared her power. Then there’s princess Anna who sees people merely in face value.
These princesses had encounters that opened themselves up and helped them delve deeper within themselves. Anna found Kristoff and it made her see that first impressions may not really be the lasting one. Then, there’s Elsa who had Anna to remind her of the fun that they had building Olaf, the snowman, while helping her see the beauty that is her power.
However, Elsa didn’t have an easy path in finding herself. It took her sister’s sacrifice for her to realize that she is infinite, that acknowledging that she is infinite and urging her feelings out would help her control her powers and become a better queen.
It was just like what Levinas teaches us when we have this certain experience with the other that makes us delve deeper into ourselves; disturbing us and making us realize that there is this infinite within us.
Doing Good in this World
by Mao Tan
In an era where our own talents are what define us, it is understandable how humans could have done so many to change the world. Nowadays especially because of technology and numerous skills that people can acquire very easily, the world has already changed a lot since time and humans are most responsible of it.
Sadly however, most of these talents are those not used, or even if they are, humans only use them for themselves. Intelligence can be one talent but most of the time, we see this only being used to gain recognition or to find a way of stealing money of a country that could still be used to feed famished children who possibly are just another hour of empty stomach from death. Depressing but true. Many miseries that are happening on around us are because of people using their talents for personal gain. But looking at misfortunes at a different light, they happen also because of people doing nothing about it, people that just contain their talents to themselves and never share them with others. Doing harm is bad but doing nothing is also bad.
Talents are given to us, not for us but for the other. Maybe we aren’t starting a spark when we do nothing wrong with it but we’re also not putting out the fire. In order to change what’s around us, we must use these talents for the good and the other, not to gain and be recognized. The fact that we exist means that someone has done good to us and we must also share this good by using the talents we receive for others. As beings, we ourselves are gifts for the others as they are to us. We should open ourselves to the exterior and grow ourselves and go back to being human. Yes, it’s hard to do this in a world where it’s all about securing our economic and financial needs first. But the nature of giving has always been in us since the moment we had our first breath and it will still be as long as we exist in this world.
In an era where our own talents are what define us, it is understandable how humans could have done so many to change the world. Nowadays especially because of technology and numerous skills that people can acquire very easily, the world has already changed a lot since time and humans are most responsible of it.
Sadly however, most of these talents are those not used, or even if they are, humans only use them for themselves. Intelligence can be one talent but most of the time, we see this only being used to gain recognition or to find a way of stealing money of a country that could still be used to feed famished children who possibly are just another hour of empty stomach from death. Depressing but true. Many miseries that are happening on around us are because of people using their talents for personal gain. But looking at misfortunes at a different light, they happen also because of people doing nothing about it, people that just contain their talents to themselves and never share them with others. Doing harm is bad but doing nothing is also bad.
Talents are given to us, not for us but for the other. Maybe we aren’t starting a spark when we do nothing wrong with it but we’re also not putting out the fire. In order to change what’s around us, we must use these talents for the good and the other, not to gain and be recognized. The fact that we exist means that someone has done good to us and we must also share this good by using the talents we receive for others. As beings, we ourselves are gifts for the others as they are to us. We should open ourselves to the exterior and grow ourselves and go back to being human. Yes, it’s hard to do this in a world where it’s all about securing our economic and financial needs first. But the nature of giving has always been in us since the moment we had our first breath and it will still be as long as we exist in this world.
Trauma
by Rexelle Piad
I was lucky enough to grow up in a high school that emphasized and encouraged helping other people through service. This is probably the reason why I always loved participating in social action events. So naturally, when I got to college, I made sure that I joined an organization in the sector-based cluster. But even after all those years of outreaches, it was only last year and in that organization that I concretely experienced the trauma that is The Face.
I am the worst when it comes to faces and names. I easily forget who a person is, what they look like or where I’ve met them. More often than not I resort to categorizing people in order to remember them. By course. By org. By interests. By the friends they hang out with.
During one of my org’s events, I had arrived late and the program was already halfway through. Kids and Ateneans alike were all over the place. Ashley was one of those kids. I had played with her just once or twice, months prior to that day. But the moment she saw me, she ran up to me, said my name and hugged me tightly. She had treated me not just as one of the Ates and Kuyas that fought for her attention, she had treated me like a friend. One that she hadn’t seen in so long. It was the most humbling of experiences. In that moment, I couldn’t generalize her anymore. I couldn’t just describe her as one of the kids with cancer. She was her own person. She was the eldest in a family of three. She was a girl who loved to sing. She was someone who smiled whenever I pretended she was an “artista.” She was just Ashley, different from all the rest. And I felt horrible for not thinking of her as that way before.
The word trauma sounds pretty harsh. It connotes much negativity, but I think Levinas got it right. Seeing The Face is traumatic. We experience it as a shock that brings us out into the world. It has the ability to change our entire perspective on things. It can even change how act in the world. The Face is invisible. We hide it behind characteristics and categories— simply because it is easier. We tend to totalize the other because it’s easier to understand them based on the meaning that we ourselves set. But the Face is not a characteristic or a an idea— it is an experience that we have to be continually conscious about.
The phenomenon of The Face is a traumatic but necessary experience, and I am grateful that it exists in the world.
I was lucky enough to grow up in a high school that emphasized and encouraged helping other people through service. This is probably the reason why I always loved participating in social action events. So naturally, when I got to college, I made sure that I joined an organization in the sector-based cluster. But even after all those years of outreaches, it was only last year and in that organization that I concretely experienced the trauma that is The Face.
I am the worst when it comes to faces and names. I easily forget who a person is, what they look like or where I’ve met them. More often than not I resort to categorizing people in order to remember them. By course. By org. By interests. By the friends they hang out with.
During one of my org’s events, I had arrived late and the program was already halfway through. Kids and Ateneans alike were all over the place. Ashley was one of those kids. I had played with her just once or twice, months prior to that day. But the moment she saw me, she ran up to me, said my name and hugged me tightly. She had treated me not just as one of the Ates and Kuyas that fought for her attention, she had treated me like a friend. One that she hadn’t seen in so long. It was the most humbling of experiences. In that moment, I couldn’t generalize her anymore. I couldn’t just describe her as one of the kids with cancer. She was her own person. She was the eldest in a family of three. She was a girl who loved to sing. She was someone who smiled whenever I pretended she was an “artista.” She was just Ashley, different from all the rest. And I felt horrible for not thinking of her as that way before.
The word trauma sounds pretty harsh. It connotes much negativity, but I think Levinas got it right. Seeing The Face is traumatic. We experience it as a shock that brings us out into the world. It has the ability to change our entire perspective on things. It can even change how act in the world. The Face is invisible. We hide it behind characteristics and categories— simply because it is easier. We tend to totalize the other because it’s easier to understand them based on the meaning that we ourselves set. But the Face is not a characteristic or a an idea— it is an experience that we have to be continually conscious about.
The phenomenon of The Face is a traumatic but necessary experience, and I am grateful that it exists in the world.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Totality in the Demand of Reciprocity
by Bits Penaranda
Last Thursday we discussed in class how it was important to simply do good, to be of service to others and to go out to them even if we do not know them. Although this is ethical, things are easier said than done.
The reason why most of us do not simply do the good as much as we want to, is because there is a demand of reciprocity. Whether it is a stranger, a close friend, or a sibling, we still expect something out of the service that we do for them. For example, if we do a friend a favor, we expect that they will do the same when we need them. There is a demand for our service to be reciprocated.
The reason why is not as superficial as it seems to be. The reason is because when we act in service to the other, we give our effort and time. This service becomes an investment in the other. By doing this, we give a part of ourselves in the other, and when we do that, this is where I believe totality steps into place.
Because the other holds a part of us that we have given to them, we indirectly claim them to be ours. Until we get the recognition of our service, they are kept captive by our expectations. We believe that they owe us something that we deserve, and that is the recognition, the part of us (the service) that we have given to them in the first place that we want to be returned. By simply acknowledging our good deed, we already feel that that is enough of a service towards us, thus making us feel satisfied because we feel “complete” once more.
But that should not be the case. The fact that we did agree or decide to do the good in the first place, means we are willing to be of service to the other. There is consent. We have surrendered ourselves, and as we have learned in class today, by doing the good we are also saying “me here for you”. For doing the good with expectations of getting something back in return isn’t purely good. By being available for the other, there should be no conditions, no judgments, and no boundaries. For the other is the infinite, an infinite we cannot grasp, we cannot totalize. Therefore, reciprocity should not be demanded because we do not have the right to do so, and if we do end up feeling miserable after doing good, then the only one we can blame is ourselves.
Last Thursday we discussed in class how it was important to simply do good, to be of service to others and to go out to them even if we do not know them. Although this is ethical, things are easier said than done.
The reason why most of us do not simply do the good as much as we want to, is because there is a demand of reciprocity. Whether it is a stranger, a close friend, or a sibling, we still expect something out of the service that we do for them. For example, if we do a friend a favor, we expect that they will do the same when we need them. There is a demand for our service to be reciprocated.
The reason why is not as superficial as it seems to be. The reason is because when we act in service to the other, we give our effort and time. This service becomes an investment in the other. By doing this, we give a part of ourselves in the other, and when we do that, this is where I believe totality steps into place.
Because the other holds a part of us that we have given to them, we indirectly claim them to be ours. Until we get the recognition of our service, they are kept captive by our expectations. We believe that they owe us something that we deserve, and that is the recognition, the part of us (the service) that we have given to them in the first place that we want to be returned. By simply acknowledging our good deed, we already feel that that is enough of a service towards us, thus making us feel satisfied because we feel “complete” once more.
But that should not be the case. The fact that we did agree or decide to do the good in the first place, means we are willing to be of service to the other. There is consent. We have surrendered ourselves, and as we have learned in class today, by doing the good we are also saying “me here for you”. For doing the good with expectations of getting something back in return isn’t purely good. By being available for the other, there should be no conditions, no judgments, and no boundaries. For the other is the infinite, an infinite we cannot grasp, we cannot totalize. Therefore, reciprocity should not be demanded because we do not have the right to do so, and if we do end up feeling miserable after doing good, then the only one we can blame is ourselves.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Saving Private Ryan
by Andrew Gallardo
Although the very thought of war terrifies me, stories of war remains to be my favourite theme in terms of movies and literature. This is so because the violent character of war reduces the being into a “human”, that is, to its very basic instincts that remains to be my favourite subject. Surprisingly though, the basic instinct of a “human” is not only survival, but also care and compassion for the Others- both in their “Brother in arms” and also to their enemies.
There are a lot of movies and literature portraying such. But perhaps, it is more embodied in the movie “Saving Private Ryan” (1998) which remains to be one of my favourite movies of all time. The movie covers a lot of philosophical issues, one of which is related to the “totalization” made by war to the people. During times of war, a soldier is treated as mere assets of the state, reduced to their very limited skills and knowledge. Hence, thousands of fallen soldiers can still translate into victory for the country if the skills and knowledge of those soldiers had been fully utilized. Soldiers, furthermore, are viewed merely as numbers. They are separated in troops of definite numbers. A death of a single soldier might mean nothing for it is “just a single one”.
It is due to these unethical ideas that the movie “Saving Private Ryan” was made. Private Ryan is the remaining brother of the 3 brothers who died in battle in different war zones. To ease the pain that the mother of the 4 brothers would feel upon receipt of the telegram informing her of the death of her 3 sons, the general commanded 8 soldiers, including one of his boldest and strategic lieutenants, to search for Private Ryan even on areas that is still invaded by the Nazi Germans. During their operations, they end up spending their evenings talking to each other about their personal lives. One private talked about how he longs to see his mother again after his long separation from her due to his military duties. He ended up crying after regretting all those times that he pretended to be sleeping just so he can avoid the nagging that he gets from his mom. They also talk about their loving memories of their brother in arms who passed away. This is contrary to the war-craze train of thought that soldiers are mere machines made to serve the purpose of their country.
But perhaps what intrigues me is the willingness of the state to sacrifice 8 soldiers, including one skilled lieutenant, medic and translator, just to save a private’s life. This is another idea that stands contrary to the numerical value put into a soldier. Furthermore, at first, the 8 soldiers put into this quest complain of the equity principle behind this. Knowing that they might venture into territories even conquered by the enemies, it is almost like a suicidal mission. Yet, at the end of the movie, they end up deciding to protect the life of “Private Ryan” for it is “the only good thing that they may do in the middle of the war”. On this last part, I could not help but remember the concept of “The Law of the Other” wherein the I goes to another not for his benefit or gain, but purely out of compassion or responsibility for the Other.
Although the very thought of war terrifies me, stories of war remains to be my favourite theme in terms of movies and literature. This is so because the violent character of war reduces the being into a “human”, that is, to its very basic instincts that remains to be my favourite subject. Surprisingly though, the basic instinct of a “human” is not only survival, but also care and compassion for the Others- both in their “Brother in arms” and also to their enemies.
There are a lot of movies and literature portraying such. But perhaps, it is more embodied in the movie “Saving Private Ryan” (1998) which remains to be one of my favourite movies of all time. The movie covers a lot of philosophical issues, one of which is related to the “totalization” made by war to the people. During times of war, a soldier is treated as mere assets of the state, reduced to their very limited skills and knowledge. Hence, thousands of fallen soldiers can still translate into victory for the country if the skills and knowledge of those soldiers had been fully utilized. Soldiers, furthermore, are viewed merely as numbers. They are separated in troops of definite numbers. A death of a single soldier might mean nothing for it is “just a single one”.
It is due to these unethical ideas that the movie “Saving Private Ryan” was made. Private Ryan is the remaining brother of the 3 brothers who died in battle in different war zones. To ease the pain that the mother of the 4 brothers would feel upon receipt of the telegram informing her of the death of her 3 sons, the general commanded 8 soldiers, including one of his boldest and strategic lieutenants, to search for Private Ryan even on areas that is still invaded by the Nazi Germans. During their operations, they end up spending their evenings talking to each other about their personal lives. One private talked about how he longs to see his mother again after his long separation from her due to his military duties. He ended up crying after regretting all those times that he pretended to be sleeping just so he can avoid the nagging that he gets from his mom. They also talk about their loving memories of their brother in arms who passed away. This is contrary to the war-craze train of thought that soldiers are mere machines made to serve the purpose of their country.
But perhaps what intrigues me is the willingness of the state to sacrifice 8 soldiers, including one skilled lieutenant, medic and translator, just to save a private’s life. This is another idea that stands contrary to the numerical value put into a soldier. Furthermore, at first, the 8 soldiers put into this quest complain of the equity principle behind this. Knowing that they might venture into territories even conquered by the enemies, it is almost like a suicidal mission. Yet, at the end of the movie, they end up deciding to protect the life of “Private Ryan” for it is “the only good thing that they may do in the middle of the war”. On this last part, I could not help but remember the concept of “The Law of the Other” wherein the I goes to another not for his benefit or gain, but purely out of compassion or responsibility for the Other.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
More than a Face
by Nneka Vicencio
“Have we met before? Your face is rather familiar, but I can’t remember your name. Are you sure we haven’t met?” These are the common phrases we hear from people we have or may meet. With our recent discussions about how Levinas perceives the face, I’ve come to realize that the face really has a great impact towards a person. It made me think that why is it easy to remember the face of the person we have met in the past rather than his/her name? Perhaps the reason as to why the face is a crucial aspect is because it’s the information center in which we witness the individuality or character of the other.
We experience the other by the face and through that experience we get to be taken outside and see things in a different way. To Levinas meeting another person is a “traumatic” experience. A kind of experience, which in a way make us pause, and think of things differently as to what we thought we saw them. This experience makes us realize that there is something more than to what we perceive. Maybe this is why to Levinas the face is significant because to him.
Despite the face letting us experience a whole different meaning not just the sensible, there are still other people that fail. They see the other but they don’t see the other in a new frame of perspective. Even if the face present itself directly, sometimes that meaning remain invisible to some people. In order for us to see realize that we need to experience on the meaning, experience the other.
And when we do we start to realize the meaning of the other as other, seeing the other as a face and having this sense of care as to not to harm his/her even if we have just met the person. Even if we don’t know that person, through encountering the face of the other we start to have this kind of relationship on the level that without knowing the him/her we feel responsible of the other without expecting anything in return. Thus, to Levinas this is the relationship wherein
With this level of thinking we now find meaning of being human and being concerned with the other. We start to become responsible for the other. I guess this is also what it means that to be a subject is to be responsible. I realized that the simple concept of the face does not only makes us aware of the other but also be ethical to the other.
“Have we met before? Your face is rather familiar, but I can’t remember your name. Are you sure we haven’t met?” These are the common phrases we hear from people we have or may meet. With our recent discussions about how Levinas perceives the face, I’ve come to realize that the face really has a great impact towards a person. It made me think that why is it easy to remember the face of the person we have met in the past rather than his/her name? Perhaps the reason as to why the face is a crucial aspect is because it’s the information center in which we witness the individuality or character of the other.
We experience the other by the face and through that experience we get to be taken outside and see things in a different way. To Levinas meeting another person is a “traumatic” experience. A kind of experience, which in a way make us pause, and think of things differently as to what we thought we saw them. This experience makes us realize that there is something more than to what we perceive. Maybe this is why to Levinas the face is significant because to him.
“The face is meaning all by itself...it leads you beyond.”
Despite the face letting us experience a whole different meaning not just the sensible, there are still other people that fail. They see the other but they don’t see the other in a new frame of perspective. Even if the face present itself directly, sometimes that meaning remain invisible to some people. In order for us to see realize that we need to experience on the meaning, experience the other.
And when we do we start to realize the meaning of the other as other, seeing the other as a face and having this sense of care as to not to harm his/her even if we have just met the person. Even if we don’t know that person, through encountering the face of the other we start to have this kind of relationship on the level that without knowing the him/her we feel responsible of the other without expecting anything in return. Thus, to Levinas this is the relationship wherein
“I am subject to the Other without knowing how it will come out.”
With this level of thinking we now find meaning of being human and being concerned with the other. We start to become responsible for the other. I guess this is also what it means that to be a subject is to be responsible. I realized that the simple concept of the face does not only makes us aware of the other but also be ethical to the other.
Monday, February 24, 2014
A Face Without Stain
by Andrew Gallardo
The face of a human person is something truly magical. The mere appearance of it sends to us meanings of endless possibilities. And from such meanings we derive various emotions. Indeed, it is something that we fall in love to, in the same way that we feel jealousy or hatred. But according to the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas, the Face is not merely the physical face of the person. It is the totality of the being of the person which sends to us the commands “Do not kill me” or “Do not do harm to me”. Directly stating, the Face, in itself, pushes us to be responsible.
Perhaps at this point of time this sentiment sounds so dramatic or out of reality. Indeed, our encounter with others can be pleasant. Though there are tough times too when we have to encounter, be it accidental or not, someone whom we hold a grudge to. Moreover, there are times wherein we form negative impressions the first time we meet someone. We might have the initial impression that the person that we just met is arrogant simply because the way he walks is proud, or the tone of his voice sounds condescending. And honestly, it is hard to feel compassionate to those people that we find unpleasant.
Though if we look at the person as such, then we do not look at him “Upright”. This is so because the “Face” is a decent nakedness, that is, it is a clean slate of emptiness that seems to beg for compassion. Though in its destitution, it seems to put on a facade- a kind of a mask to hide its poverty. This facade is the one proliferating in our society these days. We tend to act in a way that would boost our confidence or in a way that would please others even though it contradicts our natural way of acting. I admit that there are situations too wherein I am forced to put on a facade. When I am hanging out with my close guy friends, for example, I act in a proud manner simply because it is the culture in our “barkada”. On the contrary, when I am eating dinner with relatives on a reunion, I act in a way that would please them, that is, with decency and utmost formality. I am fine with being a little proud and a little formal, but taking it into an extreme makes me feel uncomfortable sometimes, but given the circumstances, that is how I am supposed to act.
Although perhaps this decent nakedness that seems to appeal straightforward for mercy and compassion can be seen on the face of a newborn. They are even called “Angels of God” because of their innocent look. Simply looking at them gives us the message of “Please do not do me harm”. Their face, in itself, invites compassion. It is apparent too that they look the same to the point that switching babies can be a case without the parents knowing it, as seen in many movies like the 90’s film “Switch at Birth”. Although biological factor plays a huge role why the faces of people seems to be more unique as one enters adolescence, the presence of a “facade” is another factor to look into. As one becomes independent, one seems to adapt to one’s need and environment, thereby pushing one to form a “facade”.
So what is my point in this whole thing? What I’m just trying to say is that we should not be discouraged to feel compassionate or responsible to those people whose “guts” we do not like because, in the end, they are still humans to whom we owe responsibility to. It is a tough job, but nonetheless, it is still a call of our being.
Friday, February 21, 2014
The Desire for the Infinite Finite
by Nica Go
Opportunities. Possibilities. Dreams. Aspirations. Success. Occupation etc. “Infinites”. We as finite beings, experience infiniteness every single day of our lives. When we think about it, the past has brought us the infinite, which we made finite because we’ve decided on things and we’ve chosen the path, which brought us here today. Our choices out of the infinite constantly make us finite; because then we are put in a set reality we have for ourselves, the reality that only the finite can achieve by making choices, by choosing to see something clearly and investing our time in it. The present is where we constantly choose these infinite things and the future is the tomorrow that promises us another set of infinite choices, beings and possibilities.
And though these other beings, as themselves, are finite, they will always be infinite outside our selves. We will never be able to fully grasp this concept, this idea, and this wholeness of another because we are not the other. We are not another finite infinite outside ourselves and therefore, we can only catch a glimpse of the entirety of something, someone.
So how extraordinary would it be for someone to find you an infinite that they would want to make a part of their reality because they’re interested in knowing how finite you are. How extraordinary would it be for someone to find how human you are? That out of all of the things and ideas and concepts that make you who you are, that make you distinct and that makes you so unreachable to other people, is exactly what’s drawing others in, in order to discover you. It is the curiosity within us that makes us long and desire to know the full-ness of someone, the full-ness of someone real and someone you will never be able to grasp.
Once you experience something, you realize that you haven’t experienced it enough. Once you know something, you realize that you don’t know it enough. I believe this is where the desire for the infinite of the other comes in. When we build relationships, when we know people and when we think that that’s all there is to someone, there’s still so much to know. So much future, that we and they, do not know, ahead of them… like how we have ours ahead of us. These countless tomorrows of endless unknowing is what keeps us infinite and the desire to know the other is the reality that grounds us to our being finite. To know that with our limitless possibilities for our selves comes our limited actuality to other things, to other beings and to other choices. This is why we desire for the infinite finite.
We know that there’s still so much to know about the other. But then there’s still so much to know about ourselves too. Which is why when we long to know the other, it is not just a want or a need, it’s a desire because why would we invest our time and effort to try to reach someone’s infinite through their finite when we’re still trying to discover our selves?
It is because the other’s infinite-ness attracts our finite. Just as how another finite being is attracted to our infinite self. This is how we also discover more of our finite self through different infinites. This is why we desire.
Opportunities. Possibilities. Dreams. Aspirations. Success. Occupation etc. “Infinites”. We as finite beings, experience infiniteness every single day of our lives. When we think about it, the past has brought us the infinite, which we made finite because we’ve decided on things and we’ve chosen the path, which brought us here today. Our choices out of the infinite constantly make us finite; because then we are put in a set reality we have for ourselves, the reality that only the finite can achieve by making choices, by choosing to see something clearly and investing our time in it. The present is where we constantly choose these infinite things and the future is the tomorrow that promises us another set of infinite choices, beings and possibilities.
And though these other beings, as themselves, are finite, they will always be infinite outside our selves. We will never be able to fully grasp this concept, this idea, and this wholeness of another because we are not the other. We are not another finite infinite outside ourselves and therefore, we can only catch a glimpse of the entirety of something, someone.
So how extraordinary would it be for someone to find you an infinite that they would want to make a part of their reality because they’re interested in knowing how finite you are. How extraordinary would it be for someone to find how human you are? That out of all of the things and ideas and concepts that make you who you are, that make you distinct and that makes you so unreachable to other people, is exactly what’s drawing others in, in order to discover you. It is the curiosity within us that makes us long and desire to know the full-ness of someone, the full-ness of someone real and someone you will never be able to grasp.
Once you experience something, you realize that you haven’t experienced it enough. Once you know something, you realize that you don’t know it enough. I believe this is where the desire for the infinite of the other comes in. When we build relationships, when we know people and when we think that that’s all there is to someone, there’s still so much to know. So much future, that we and they, do not know, ahead of them… like how we have ours ahead of us. These countless tomorrows of endless unknowing is what keeps us infinite and the desire to know the other is the reality that grounds us to our being finite. To know that with our limitless possibilities for our selves comes our limited actuality to other things, to other beings and to other choices. This is why we desire for the infinite finite.
We know that there’s still so much to know about the other. But then there’s still so much to know about ourselves too. Which is why when we long to know the other, it is not just a want or a need, it’s a desire because why would we invest our time and effort to try to reach someone’s infinite through their finite when we’re still trying to discover our selves?
It is because the other’s infinite-ness attracts our finite. Just as how another finite being is attracted to our infinite self. This is how we also discover more of our finite self through different infinites. This is why we desire.
We Can Be Because of Philosophy
by George Goking
Doctor Garcia opened a discussion regarding the potentially life changing aspect of Philosophy on the human being. I thought about what he said, but there wasn’t enough time for me to bring up my reflection during class. But what I wanted to mention was that, I think most of, if not all, concepts we discuss in philosophy are things that the human reflect on every day. These ideas that possibly circulate in our thoughts are coded in a language beyond words and gestures.
Do you ever get that feeling when you come in to eye-to-eye contact with a random stranger from a distance, you almost instantly pick up a message, and carry out that calling before even being able to put that message into words in your head? Students that have taken up Scott Peck’s article, Love, might be able to understand what I am trying to explain.
There are several things that we reflect upon but do not have words to discuss them openly. But when there is literature that exists and explains such phenomena in a language that is manageable (i.e. English, Tagalog, etc.) then the person will be drawn out from this uneasiness, knowing that there is a such thing and that it was not just him/her over thinking.
I believe that many people do not act out on what they truly desire because of the absence of a venue to discuss or exercise such ideas and practices. Through our discussion of Philosophy, this creates an environment where fellow students can discuss certain phenomena and not sound crazy or out of this world. Such ideas would most likely be labelled as products of over thinking for those who have not formally encountered Philosophy.
This environment enables students to enrich their understanding and appreciation of Philosophy to levels that exceed just the mind which allows the person to act out in his environment, knowing that he is not alone, and that this is not just some overthought imagination.
Our society has labelled so many characteristics under being weird and other negative categories. I believe that those who are less exposed to Philosophical literature feel that way towards people who reflect on existence and being. I think the Philosophy breaks that barrier and sprinkles confidence on people that share the same amusement towards such things, which allows them to live it up with less hesitation and more motivation.
Doctor Garcia opened a discussion regarding the potentially life changing aspect of Philosophy on the human being. I thought about what he said, but there wasn’t enough time for me to bring up my reflection during class. But what I wanted to mention was that, I think most of, if not all, concepts we discuss in philosophy are things that the human reflect on every day. These ideas that possibly circulate in our thoughts are coded in a language beyond words and gestures.
Do you ever get that feeling when you come in to eye-to-eye contact with a random stranger from a distance, you almost instantly pick up a message, and carry out that calling before even being able to put that message into words in your head? Students that have taken up Scott Peck’s article, Love, might be able to understand what I am trying to explain.
There are several things that we reflect upon but do not have words to discuss them openly. But when there is literature that exists and explains such phenomena in a language that is manageable (i.e. English, Tagalog, etc.) then the person will be drawn out from this uneasiness, knowing that there is a such thing and that it was not just him/her over thinking.
I believe that many people do not act out on what they truly desire because of the absence of a venue to discuss or exercise such ideas and practices. Through our discussion of Philosophy, this creates an environment where fellow students can discuss certain phenomena and not sound crazy or out of this world. Such ideas would most likely be labelled as products of over thinking for those who have not formally encountered Philosophy.
This environment enables students to enrich their understanding and appreciation of Philosophy to levels that exceed just the mind which allows the person to act out in his environment, knowing that he is not alone, and that this is not just some overthought imagination.
Our society has labelled so many characteristics under being weird and other negative categories. I believe that those who are less exposed to Philosophical literature feel that way towards people who reflect on existence and being. I think the Philosophy breaks that barrier and sprinkles confidence on people that share the same amusement towards such things, which allows them to live it up with less hesitation and more motivation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)