by Nini Neri
Last Thursday’s lecture was about the ‘capable self’ and creativity. As mechanical as those two words (‘capable self’) put together may sound, there is actually an abstract depth to them.
The self is capable because it can ‘do’. Not only is this self able to ‘do’, it is also able to choose what it does. It has the freedom of defining and executing what it is ‘to be’ according to what it intends; it has the freedom to cause an effect.
Although there are, in fact, no limits to these actions (let us not delve into the details of moral and ethical acts but leave them instead as they are)—there is still an essence which they measure and upon which they are made. This essence is creativity. And the medium of creativity is imagination.
The ‘capable self’ has creativity somewhere in its core (the capability of language, human action, etc.), that creativity develops in the person’s imagination then is manifested in his/her actions. The actions may not always be processed this way, but it still happens somehow—even when the person is unaware of it!
Creativity is a small revelation of the ‘abstract depth’ upon which the ‘capable self’ may be easily related to. This creativity—in essence—takes no definite form (that is, until it is manifested in action), thus fulfilling the ‘abstract’ aspect, yet it delves deep into the ‘abyss’ which is the human person. It is an ‘abyss’ because of the depth and mystery of that which is the self.
One can never truly define the self and one is always learning something new about the self which makes it seem like as life goes on, one is plunging deeper into the mystery of himself (that gives it an ‘abyss-like’ characteristic). The mystery of the self is never-ending.
The ‘capable self’ has an abstract depth; that of which is the mystery of the self. This mystery of the self can be only partially revealed by creativity that is manifested in human action, narrative, and language. Each time we do something, we manifest our creativity, which reveals a small part of who we are. Through this, we may continue to learn about ourselves even more.
Creativity helps us with uncovering (though in the most minimal of ways) the mystery of who we are. I mean, just as I was writing this blog post, I’ve come to think of a lot of things. As I proofread (to the best of my abilities at 4am), I got to reflect on what I wrote and see myself in a sort-of-new light. I’m not saying that this reflection is creative or anything, but since it came from somewhere inside me, it reveals a glimpse of what sort of ‘creativity’ I hold. It also reveals a part of who I am.
We will all come across these moments of hazy revelation at some points in our lives. But we will always have to keep delving, for it is a never-ending plunge as we fall deeper into the mystery of ourselves.
Showing posts with label capability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capability. Show all posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
On Reflection and Life
10 July 2012
Discussed Texts: "Paul Ricoeur of Happy Memory," "The Promotion of Responsibility and Hope"
Paul Ricoeur (1915-2005) is known as the "philosopher of all dialogues," as he actively engaged with theology, the social sciences, literary theory, and critics, in order to gain new insights and answers on the question of being human. His interest in various disciplines led him to a struggle to know the self, particularly through expressions: actions, symbols, myths, metaphors, and texts that a people has, which reveals basically a particular way of life and an understanding of being human.
He engaged in a form of philosophical hermeneutics (from the Greek God Hermes, who brought the message of gods to people), an investigation on the interpretation of historical and fictional narratives. His works stress on how these came to be through the creativity of the human being who, able to remember what transpires in life through time, puts everything together in order to make sense of it, in such a way that in those materials which he has done shows but at the same time conceals something from us and about us.
Ricoeur emphasized the capacities and capabilities of being human in the midst of his finitude, a capability to speak, bring out a reasoned discourse, act, tell a story of himself/herself, and ultimately, to feel responsible for one's actions, which includes keeping promises, forgiving others, and expressing hope. It seems that Ricoeur here, on his emphasis on the capable human being, asserts that because we can, we will! We are called to action, towards the exercise of what we can do and an encounter with the possibilities that we are faced with, towards being creative with our lives.
The masters of suspicion (Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche) tells us that there is some form of meaninglessness, that he/she is no part of a grand design, no reason to exist and no metaphysical or divine destiny to lean on. However, Ricoeur says that faced with the meaninglessness and absurdity of life, we have the capability to exercise our freedom, to act, to be creative, and to find a superabundance of meaning, a sense of hope that in one way or another, our lives are worth living. There is a sort of negation of life in the acceptance of the finite, but there is the joy of the yes in its midst, and Ricoeur invites us, in our own ways, to affirm our lives through our capabilities.
But we cannot reach this point of affirmation without reflecting on the things that we have done, and after doing so, act once again knowing that one has seen something different in one's life. This is Ricoeur's own response to the dichotomy between theoria and praxis that Marx has set, and one that points out to the fact that philosophy is lived experience becoming aware of itself.
But what does philosophical reflection consist of? What is it for? Ricoeur answers these questions by showing the task of reflection on three levels of our lives: everyday life, scientific life, and the meditative life.
On the level of everyday life, it is the role of reflection to bring into reason (and rational discourse) one's own existence, wagering that even in the face of finitude, life does make sense, that there one is actually going somewhere, that there is a direction in life that leads to happiness. But in order to determine it, there is a need to distance ourselves from our lives momentarily, especially with our obsession over techniques, planning and calculation management (we use reflection in the common sense, as with our own act of looking in a mirror, an image that seems so distant from us). Reflection puts a certain perspective in a prospective society, to determine the goal and purpose of these things that not only seem to have no purpose or goal but also seem to make us lose our own sense of purpose or goal. Reflection continually bridges the gap between who we are and what we desire, reminding us that both ends should meet and interact with each other. Ultimately, the purpose of reflection is for us to find that which will make us blessed and happy (beatitudo), the point in life where we truly become what we truly desire to be. This calls us consequently to find our passion in order for us to not only spend our time with it but also determine what we really desire to do with our lives.
On the level of scientific life, Ricoeur says that reflection helps us enter into a dialogue between philosophy and non-philosophy, especially the sciences which focus on what is quantifiable and empirical, setting on a path of specialization that yearns to know more and more but in the end knowing actually less and less. Philosophy, according to Ricoeur, should not compete with science but instead show its limitations and foundations, to return to lived experience. The task of reflection is to point out where science comes from as well as its limits in order to avoid a reduction of reality into a scientific one. Water is not merely H20, and a tree is not merely an organism with a scientific name, but more than that, they contain stories, memories, and other meanings for human beings that ought to be known with much wonder and enthusiasm.
Lastly, on the meditative life, which is concerned with the most fundamental questions of existence, particularly the question of Being, philosophical reflection helps us to understand ourselves in two distinct ways. The first which Ricoeur calls "atheistic humanism," is one's affirmation of one's own human capabilities, and the second, called "theistic humanism," a recognition that there is something that lies beyond. Ricoeur says that these are two aspects of our being human and actually do not contradict each other, a believer and unbeliever within us that affirms our capacity but at the same time accepts transcendence.
Such is the task of reflection, which we are invited to undergo in these various levels in order to set out into a journey that would help us answer, "What is the meaning of being human?"
Discussed Texts: "Paul Ricoeur of Happy Memory," "The Promotion of Responsibility and Hope"
Paul Ricoeur (1915-2005) is known as the "philosopher of all dialogues," as he actively engaged with theology, the social sciences, literary theory, and critics, in order to gain new insights and answers on the question of being human. His interest in various disciplines led him to a struggle to know the self, particularly through expressions: actions, symbols, myths, metaphors, and texts that a people has, which reveals basically a particular way of life and an understanding of being human.
He engaged in a form of philosophical hermeneutics (from the Greek God Hermes, who brought the message of gods to people), an investigation on the interpretation of historical and fictional narratives. His works stress on how these came to be through the creativity of the human being who, able to remember what transpires in life through time, puts everything together in order to make sense of it, in such a way that in those materials which he has done shows but at the same time conceals something from us and about us.
Ricoeur emphasized the capacities and capabilities of being human in the midst of his finitude, a capability to speak, bring out a reasoned discourse, act, tell a story of himself/herself, and ultimately, to feel responsible for one's actions, which includes keeping promises, forgiving others, and expressing hope. It seems that Ricoeur here, on his emphasis on the capable human being, asserts that because we can, we will! We are called to action, towards the exercise of what we can do and an encounter with the possibilities that we are faced with, towards being creative with our lives.
The masters of suspicion (Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche) tells us that there is some form of meaninglessness, that he/she is no part of a grand design, no reason to exist and no metaphysical or divine destiny to lean on. However, Ricoeur says that faced with the meaninglessness and absurdity of life, we have the capability to exercise our freedom, to act, to be creative, and to find a superabundance of meaning, a sense of hope that in one way or another, our lives are worth living. There is a sort of negation of life in the acceptance of the finite, but there is the joy of the yes in its midst, and Ricoeur invites us, in our own ways, to affirm our lives through our capabilities.
But we cannot reach this point of affirmation without reflecting on the things that we have done, and after doing so, act once again knowing that one has seen something different in one's life. This is Ricoeur's own response to the dichotomy between theoria and praxis that Marx has set, and one that points out to the fact that philosophy is lived experience becoming aware of itself.
But what does philosophical reflection consist of? What is it for? Ricoeur answers these questions by showing the task of reflection on three levels of our lives: everyday life, scientific life, and the meditative life.
On the level of everyday life, it is the role of reflection to bring into reason (and rational discourse) one's own existence, wagering that even in the face of finitude, life does make sense, that there one is actually going somewhere, that there is a direction in life that leads to happiness. But in order to determine it, there is a need to distance ourselves from our lives momentarily, especially with our obsession over techniques, planning and calculation management (we use reflection in the common sense, as with our own act of looking in a mirror, an image that seems so distant from us). Reflection puts a certain perspective in a prospective society, to determine the goal and purpose of these things that not only seem to have no purpose or goal but also seem to make us lose our own sense of purpose or goal. Reflection continually bridges the gap between who we are and what we desire, reminding us that both ends should meet and interact with each other. Ultimately, the purpose of reflection is for us to find that which will make us blessed and happy (beatitudo), the point in life where we truly become what we truly desire to be. This calls us consequently to find our passion in order for us to not only spend our time with it but also determine what we really desire to do with our lives.
On the level of scientific life, Ricoeur says that reflection helps us enter into a dialogue between philosophy and non-philosophy, especially the sciences which focus on what is quantifiable and empirical, setting on a path of specialization that yearns to know more and more but in the end knowing actually less and less. Philosophy, according to Ricoeur, should not compete with science but instead show its limitations and foundations, to return to lived experience. The task of reflection is to point out where science comes from as well as its limits in order to avoid a reduction of reality into a scientific one. Water is not merely H20, and a tree is not merely an organism with a scientific name, but more than that, they contain stories, memories, and other meanings for human beings that ought to be known with much wonder and enthusiasm.
Lastly, on the meditative life, which is concerned with the most fundamental questions of existence, particularly the question of Being, philosophical reflection helps us to understand ourselves in two distinct ways. The first which Ricoeur calls "atheistic humanism," is one's affirmation of one's own human capabilities, and the second, called "theistic humanism," a recognition that there is something that lies beyond. Ricoeur says that these are two aspects of our being human and actually do not contradict each other, a believer and unbeliever within us that affirms our capacity but at the same time accepts transcendence.
Such is the task of reflection, which we are invited to undergo in these various levels in order to set out into a journey that would help us answer, "What is the meaning of being human?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)