by Patrick Cruz
I really like writing Filipino poems, ranging from topics like science and technology up to various social and economic issues. For me, poetry is a medium for interaction with other people. Though indirectly, it helps me to express myself to other people and to communicate with them. But more than just a medium, poetry has actually occupied a special place in my heart. The way it uses well-selected words to evoke certain emotions or ideas is very appealing to me. The profound meaning that poetry unravels little by little, without totally revealing it to the reader, allows me to consistently strive to understand it more.
The statement “True life is elsewhere, but we are in this world” mentioned in our class is indeed poetic, at least for me. There are three observations that I want to make regarding the statement and these are the following:
(1) There is a restriction made through but though the first part is asserted, the second part gives a particular condition. Nevertheless, the two statements are not actually opposing each other.
(2) is and are, both in present tense, are used. Interestingly, these two might have been used in two completely different sense. While is is used to denote a general truth or fact, are is used to denote the present.
(3) elsewhere refers to another place in a non-isolating sense. However, in this world is immediately followed up to give more concrete boundaries.
With all the following observations, the statement “True life is elsewhere, but we are in this world” can be interpreted as that the first part allows us to explore possibilities, but the second part limits these possibilities that we have. The first part makes us realize that indeed it’s true—that life gives us a lot of opportunities with what we do. It does not only give us the capacity to be, but also the capacity to hope, to dream and to go beyond our being. And that can be understood only completely by looking deeper at the second part. This latter part clarifies that the opportunities must always be grounded with the present- that hope, for example, must be taken in the context of the desperate and the needy, that dream must be for every single person, etc. but nothing of otherworldliness. This statement, therefore, decentralizes every being from himself and includes any other being to himself.
In this sense, true life will only be realized as we extend our own boundaries to embrace more and more people, as we strive to be better not only for ourselves but also for other people and as we let ourselves be reflective more of who we want to be rather than who we are. This point is the same point that Levinas is trying to make when he says “What I must do for the other?” and the Bible repeatedly emphasizes with “Go and do likewise.”
Showing posts with label poetry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label poetry. Show all posts
Monday, November 25, 2013
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
On Rembrandt and Aristotle
by Robert Dominic
To understand the painting of Rembrandt entitled "Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer, I decided to establish instead what I understood about Poetry, Philosophy, and their relationship independent of, and in connection to, each other.
Poetry's main ingredients are words. The essence of it is the idea of trying to express the author's understanding of the things around him, and so in effect Poetry becomes a form of answering. And to answer is to define, and to define puts things within certain parameters. Poetry is a form of encapsulation; using words, we are given the power to name and define things and henceforth establish what they are. And so we go back to water: Water is a liquid, it is the main thing that makes up our body, and depending on one's situation, it can kill you or make you healthy.
But then what is Philosophy? I understand Philosophy as the venture into the uncertain. It decides to even take the definite, and find out what made it uncertain before it was even defined in the first place. Philosophy being a matter of asking questions, may not necessarily provide an avenue for answers, but rather greater scopes of question, inquiry, and thought. Water might be a common substance. But what makes it uniquely water? What makes water, water? Going back to the lecture of Dr. Garcia, we know that we can think. But do we know that we think? And if so, there must certainly be the human capacity to think that we think that we think, right? Is this measure of humanity extendable to any being that is non-human? Is this human aspect extendable to a greater form of thinking, and should we deviate from such, does that degrade or devalue us being human?
This then connect and puts together for me the harmony of Poetry, and Philosophy best depicted in Rembrandt's painting. Poetry, much as it expresses and defines the feeling, the thought, or the thing it seeks to depict, kills the question. Being defined, it becomes a display rather than a matter of query. It is the bust of Homer; Homer the poet, is a question that is killed, for he is depicted and defined by his works, and his thoughts put onto paper are what speak for who and what Homer is.
But then there is the connection to Aristotle, alive and not in stone, his hand resting on the bust of Homer. Aristotle, La Philosophe, is that depiction of the life of Philosophy. He is alive, he seeks to contemplate what is established, and take it to the uncertain. Yes, Homer wrote this, lived that, but do his works really define Homer? What if these were merely extensions of the thoughts and observations of Homer, what were his thoughts and what was his own philosophy? Aristotle not only represents Philosophy in the painting, but stands for the life of questioning and actively contemplating the uncertain as well for looking at what is defined and sincerely thinking of what made it come to be defined in the first place; what initiated or stimulated Homer to write, to expressly declare or creatively depict.
As I reflected upon this, I come to the conclusion that Philosophy and Poetry bear their own missions independent of each other, but when they come together, they challenge the human person with the opportunity to exercise his capability to dare to question what is established, or in turn, establish an answer for the questions unanswered for Man.
To understand the painting of Rembrandt entitled "Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer, I decided to establish instead what I understood about Poetry, Philosophy, and their relationship independent of, and in connection to, each other.
Poetry's main ingredients are words. The essence of it is the idea of trying to express the author's understanding of the things around him, and so in effect Poetry becomes a form of answering. And to answer is to define, and to define puts things within certain parameters. Poetry is a form of encapsulation; using words, we are given the power to name and define things and henceforth establish what they are. And so we go back to water: Water is a liquid, it is the main thing that makes up our body, and depending on one's situation, it can kill you or make you healthy.
But then what is Philosophy? I understand Philosophy as the venture into the uncertain. It decides to even take the definite, and find out what made it uncertain before it was even defined in the first place. Philosophy being a matter of asking questions, may not necessarily provide an avenue for answers, but rather greater scopes of question, inquiry, and thought. Water might be a common substance. But what makes it uniquely water? What makes water, water? Going back to the lecture of Dr. Garcia, we know that we can think. But do we know that we think? And if so, there must certainly be the human capacity to think that we think that we think, right? Is this measure of humanity extendable to any being that is non-human? Is this human aspect extendable to a greater form of thinking, and should we deviate from such, does that degrade or devalue us being human?
This then connect and puts together for me the harmony of Poetry, and Philosophy best depicted in Rembrandt's painting. Poetry, much as it expresses and defines the feeling, the thought, or the thing it seeks to depict, kills the question. Being defined, it becomes a display rather than a matter of query. It is the bust of Homer; Homer the poet, is a question that is killed, for he is depicted and defined by his works, and his thoughts put onto paper are what speak for who and what Homer is.
But then there is the connection to Aristotle, alive and not in stone, his hand resting on the bust of Homer. Aristotle, La Philosophe, is that depiction of the life of Philosophy. He is alive, he seeks to contemplate what is established, and take it to the uncertain. Yes, Homer wrote this, lived that, but do his works really define Homer? What if these were merely extensions of the thoughts and observations of Homer, what were his thoughts and what was his own philosophy? Aristotle not only represents Philosophy in the painting, but stands for the life of questioning and actively contemplating the uncertain as well for looking at what is defined and sincerely thinking of what made it come to be defined in the first place; what initiated or stimulated Homer to write, to expressly declare or creatively depict.
As I reflected upon this, I come to the conclusion that Philosophy and Poetry bear their own missions independent of each other, but when they come together, they challenge the human person with the opportunity to exercise his capability to dare to question what is established, or in turn, establish an answer for the questions unanswered for Man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)