Rethinking that time when I had made the choice of joining the relief efforts for the areas struck by Typhoon Yolanda, I question myself: is it really for them, or just for me?
In many cases, not just in that particular situation, that I constantly raise that question to myself. More often, I end up still remaining clueless because the issue at hand seems to be putting me in a circular track. But as Dr. Garcia discussed Levinas’ Law of the I and Law of the Other, certain things got clarified. Before going to this, the laws, Law of the I and Law of the Other, must first be understood carefully. Law of the I basically defines one who has already gone out for the other, but still chooses to return to himself purposively. All the things that this person does is always in reference to himself, where he is the center of the universe and he has already become the law. He sees things merely interconnected for his own benefit and his personal growth. He never creates ultimately meaningful relationships as he is afraid to fully set off from himself and risk for the people around him. For example, when this person lends a hand to his friend, he already thinks that his friend would start to have utang na loob to him. This person knows that someday, he should also ask a favor to him. The same case can be said when a person simply gives a help he’s most comfortable with. Every interaction with other is always seen as an opportunity for nourishment of one’s self alone, without having any concern on the other.
Totally opposite to this idea is the Law of the Other. This law defines a person who has gone out for the other and remains journeying through the mystery of the other. Here, Levinas speaks about dis-inter-ested-ness, how a person removes himself as the center of his own universe and includes other people to share his own. The person remains in the loving struggle of seeking the otherness of the other in building more meaningful relationships.
As I said earlier, certain things became clear as these ideas occupied my mind. One is that certainly, a person does things not only for himself. I might have felt the joy after I have helped, but that only comes after the choice that I made, where the affected people are much included. Another is that a person cannot fully relate with the other people by simply sharing tangential worlds with them. He must fully open himself in order to construct a bigger universe where more and more people can come in, even if he does not realize yet his growth along the way. There, I have sought for them, and not to find a place for myself. Truly, though I have not known yet to whom the efforts I exerted went to, I will always seek them and they will always remain to me.
I liked what you said about not finding a place for one's self but letting other people come in. There is really an unexplainable kind of fulfillment when you extend yourself to others unconditionally than giving and waiting for something in return. -Nicole Nuguid, Ph 102 C
ReplyDeleteFor the people taking up Th131, it can be noted here that our call is to love without expecting anything in return- agape. I think that theology and philosophy should go hand in hand, especially if the students are believers. This kind of self-giving love is the kind of treatment we are called to give others. Love to the point of decentering yourself and placing others and the Lord in focus. The law of the Other is agape love.
ReplyDeleteKate Bonamy
Ph102A
It is really in our human nature to think only of ourselves, this Law of the I. But this does not mean that we are not capable for more. This is why we have to open ourselves up, to let ourselves be disturbed by the other. We should strive to be inhuman, that is, do things that seem so different, like doing good for other people for their own sake, not ours. As we continue to do this, how we think gradually changes from the Law of the I to the Law of the Other.
ReplyDeleteMarika King
PH102 - A