by Maya Teope
Relationships seem to break so easily. In fact, goodbye's are said so quickly that sometimes it seems as though the time people had spend together had no meaning at all.
In different social relationships I think that people strive hard to look for particular things in the people they interact with. When these particularities aren't met, the bond breaks easily. But the fact that there is a set standard is what makes the bonds weak in the first place. So I think that the thing that's missing in most relationships is the acknowledgement of The Face.
For me, The Face is something that's beyond what we see in a person. There's more to a person than what we see. After all, there's a lot about them we don't know about. And that's why they are mysterious beings that keeps us wondering everyday. But sometimes our wondering doesn't go into depths and stop at what we simply see and thus fail to see The Face.
I've met so many different people from various social groups and I've always encountered complaints of each member about another. Some people would call their friend horrible behind their back and I think that those type of people stopped trying to know their friend because they already established the notion that the person is "horrible". I think that bonds are shallow if The Face of the other is not acknowledged because in fact, The Face merely shows the other's reality in a sense. Everyone has their own flaws. Only when we appreciate the other fully despite these flaws do we see The Face. And I think that once we start seeing The Face, it becomes harder to judge, hate and discriminate. By looking at The Face we welcome the real joy of being with the other.
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
I'll Give The World To You
by Nicole Patricia Nuguid
I remember a friend talking to me about his classmate in another school. "Ang yaman nun! (He's rich!)," he said. "Biruin mo, may sarili siyang mundo! (Imagine, he owns his personal world!)" Sarcastic and insulting as it may seem for many, especially for the classmate, I actually find it fascinating. I find all these fascinating! That there exist "many worlds"; that human beings can actually be as "rich" as owning a personal world; that prince charmings' promise of giving the world to their princesses is possible. But of course, no princess actually took this LITERALLY!
The existence of "many worlds" does not point to weirdness, selfishness and exclusivity. It does not reduce the world to a plain object that we can possess. It refers to our differing perceptions and the varying meanings and values we lay unto things. It relates to Marcel's idea of human beings as both mind and body. We physically exist in one common world, yet, we spiritually dwell in many. I believe this is already clear to everyone. And since I already mentioned prince charmings and princesses, I also realized that romantic relationships are the perfect illustration of the existence of many worlds.
I remember a friend talking to me about his classmate in another school. "Ang yaman nun! (He's rich!)," he said. "Biruin mo, may sarili siyang mundo! (Imagine, he owns his personal world!)" Sarcastic and insulting as it may seem for many, especially for the classmate, I actually find it fascinating. I find all these fascinating! That there exist "many worlds"; that human beings can actually be as "rich" as owning a personal world; that prince charmings' promise of giving the world to their princesses is possible. But of course, no princess actually took this LITERALLY!
The existence of "many worlds" does not point to weirdness, selfishness and exclusivity. It does not reduce the world to a plain object that we can possess. It refers to our differing perceptions and the varying meanings and values we lay unto things. It relates to Marcel's idea of human beings as both mind and body. We physically exist in one common world, yet, we spiritually dwell in many. I believe this is already clear to everyone. And since I already mentioned prince charmings and princesses, I also realized that romantic relationships are the perfect illustration of the existence of many worlds.
Men and women are naturally different. They look at the same things differently, prioritize different things, rejoice over different things. What one deems important, one might see as trivial. What is meaningful for one is meaningless for the other. My Theology professor told us that men's way of thinking is like a bar of chocolate, they are at one box at one point in time; while women think spaghetti, we think about everything all at the same time. It is amazing how women see ruby, crimson and bloody red, while men simply see red. Studies say that men generally regard themselves more good looking than they actually are while women behave exactly the opposite. I remember, in freshman year, I was so excited about Ateneo being uniform-less. I can wear anything I want! I can be as comfortable as I can be in my shirt and shorts in school! How cool is that. However, my boyfriend disapprove of wearing "unappropriate" clothes to school and any other public place unless I am with my parents. He is particularly worried about perverts, especially that I commute to school. It was comfort on my side versus safety on his. The list goes on and on. Nonetheless, this is not about who is right and wrong. Two very different worlds exist and collide in every relationship and yet, I wonder why relationships still do exist.
It was asked many times in class how we are ever going to arrive to settle with an absolute truth if each of us perceives things differently. I wondered about it too. But I realized, how come the collusion of two very different worlds is possible in romantic relationships? Why will I ever find meeting a stranger with completely different beliefs difficult if I, myself, is in a relationship with a person also different from me? Indeed, existence is two things:
1.) To exist is to be a particular person with unique characteristics which we share in common with others. No matter how far a man and a woman go towards both ends of the pole, there will always be something in common between them that will remain. The truth that they love each other remains that pulls them back to the center.
2.) To exist is to be in dialogue with others. Relationships work their way past differences through communication. It praises, reprimands, heals, moves and overwhelms. Probably, successful relationships and marriages are the living and greatest testaments of the power of dialogue.
These meanings of existence should apply to general relationships, but my point here is working out differences in the many worlds that exist among human beings should not be that hard as long as romantic relationships and marriages exist. If two very different human beings can go as far as establishing a lifetime union, establishing peaceful coexistence among all human beings is not impossible. Relationships and marriages, and even friendships, are the micro of the macro (among nations) we want to achieve. Going back to my previous example, does not that "giving the world" to your loved one mean giving up your "own world" to give him/her everything he/she desires? The same is what we need in our general interactions with random people -- giving up our "own worlds" to try to understand others'. In class, I first found it very unrealistic to simply answer "dialogue" to the problem of differing perceptions. Now, if it is possible in romantic love, it is possible in anything.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Reacting To The Broken World
by Arik Sison
25 July 2013
Discussed Text: Marcel, The Mystery of Being
The Broken World is the text that I am able to relate to the most, so far. I found myself agreeing with many of the points which were mentioned in the article. Specific events came to mind while these points were being mentioned.
Point 1 (technocracy):
Our world today is a technocracy. In a technocracy, technical experts, like scientists and engineers, are looked up to and they greatly affect making decisions. These people are seen as more important than people in the arts and in the humanities. A person’s level of scientific expertise would be the basis of his rank in society.
I think that this was a very valid point. Personally, I chose my course because of its technical nature and because I also believe that becoming technocrat would be my way of being somebody important in society. Our society always looks up scientists and engineers. Aside from this, they are very important due to the fact that our lives in this technological age wouldn’t be the same without them. The negative effect of this fact is that people start to look down on the arts. Nobody encourages their children to become writers, painters, or musicians. Everyone wants to have an engineer or a doctor in the family. In turn, this causes conflict between the people who dream about the arts and the demands of society. It is a known fact that the science people are perceived as more financially stable because they normally earn a lot more money than the arts people. Also, greed becomes a great factor in career choice. Who doesn’t want to be rich?
This fact isn’t so bad for me because I am a student of science, but how should the students of the arts feel about their worth being downplayed?
Point 2 (lost sense of community):
People are not used to people anymore. Gone are the days when people had to get their hands dirty. In the present, getting out of anything has been reduced to a text. Confrontation has been reduced to something like this as well. Real relationships turned superficial.
I noticed that people do not keep their promises as much as they used to. When people plan to meet at a certain time, someone would usually cancel through text a few minutes before the meeting is supposed to takes place. This annoys me because the person could have at least called, which I think is a lot more personal than texting, instead of just sending a message, leaving me powerless to react to whatever valid or pathetic excuse he has for the change of plans.
I also noticed that people are living more online than in real life. Discussions are now possible without the discussers being present in one place. The interaction of these people is lessened because they only communicate through chat boxes. There is now harder to get to know people personally. The problem with this that the things some people say and do online greatly contrast what they see do in real life. Who are these people, really?
In the end, technology’s advancement may greatly limit human interaction and may further hinder any sense of community.
Point 3 (the world refuses to imagine):
Familiarity breeds contempt. People have this mindset wherein they tend to take for granted the people who are closest to them. In their minds, these people have always been there and they always will be there. They become less of a priority due to their constant presence. They stop caring about their relationships with the people closest to them. In the end, a lot of relationships are destroyed. I know a lot of families which are broken because the members no longer nurture their relationships. Besides the family, a lot of the people who we meet every day are taken for granted. It is only when they are absent that we realize their worth. People only appreciate the packers in the groceries when they aren’t there to pack their items for them. What if we were those people? How would we feel and how would we see ourselves and our job?
The problem is that people are not used to putting themselves in the shoes of others. When we do, we may find some realities that we don’t like and life-changing realizations during these contemplations are never easy to handle. After all, it is easier to be ignorant than to care. It is easy not to care about others.
Finale
While thinking about possible solutions to the broken world, I remembered what Dr. Garcia mentioned in class to summarize this topic. He said that we should ask ourselves what we can take of this broken world and what are we called to do about it. We ought to know when to consume and when to create. There is always a way to fix the broken.
25 July 2013
Discussed Text: Marcel, The Mystery of Being
The Broken World is the text that I am able to relate to the most, so far. I found myself agreeing with many of the points which were mentioned in the article. Specific events came to mind while these points were being mentioned.
Point 1 (technocracy):
Our world today is a technocracy. In a technocracy, technical experts, like scientists and engineers, are looked up to and they greatly affect making decisions. These people are seen as more important than people in the arts and in the humanities. A person’s level of scientific expertise would be the basis of his rank in society.
I think that this was a very valid point. Personally, I chose my course because of its technical nature and because I also believe that becoming technocrat would be my way of being somebody important in society. Our society always looks up scientists and engineers. Aside from this, they are very important due to the fact that our lives in this technological age wouldn’t be the same without them. The negative effect of this fact is that people start to look down on the arts. Nobody encourages their children to become writers, painters, or musicians. Everyone wants to have an engineer or a doctor in the family. In turn, this causes conflict between the people who dream about the arts and the demands of society. It is a known fact that the science people are perceived as more financially stable because they normally earn a lot more money than the arts people. Also, greed becomes a great factor in career choice. Who doesn’t want to be rich?
This fact isn’t so bad for me because I am a student of science, but how should the students of the arts feel about their worth being downplayed?
Point 2 (lost sense of community):
People are not used to people anymore. Gone are the days when people had to get their hands dirty. In the present, getting out of anything has been reduced to a text. Confrontation has been reduced to something like this as well. Real relationships turned superficial.
I noticed that people do not keep their promises as much as they used to. When people plan to meet at a certain time, someone would usually cancel through text a few minutes before the meeting is supposed to takes place. This annoys me because the person could have at least called, which I think is a lot more personal than texting, instead of just sending a message, leaving me powerless to react to whatever valid or pathetic excuse he has for the change of plans.
I also noticed that people are living more online than in real life. Discussions are now possible without the discussers being present in one place. The interaction of these people is lessened because they only communicate through chat boxes. There is now harder to get to know people personally. The problem with this that the things some people say and do online greatly contrast what they see do in real life. Who are these people, really?
In the end, technology’s advancement may greatly limit human interaction and may further hinder any sense of community.
Point 3 (the world refuses to imagine):
Familiarity breeds contempt. People have this mindset wherein they tend to take for granted the people who are closest to them. In their minds, these people have always been there and they always will be there. They become less of a priority due to their constant presence. They stop caring about their relationships with the people closest to them. In the end, a lot of relationships are destroyed. I know a lot of families which are broken because the members no longer nurture their relationships. Besides the family, a lot of the people who we meet every day are taken for granted. It is only when they are absent that we realize their worth. People only appreciate the packers in the groceries when they aren’t there to pack their items for them. What if we were those people? How would we feel and how would we see ourselves and our job?
The problem is that people are not used to putting themselves in the shoes of others. When we do, we may find some realities that we don’t like and life-changing realizations during these contemplations are never easy to handle. After all, it is easier to be ignorant than to care. It is easy not to care about others.
Finale
While thinking about possible solutions to the broken world, I remembered what Dr. Garcia mentioned in class to summarize this topic. He said that we should ask ourselves what we can take of this broken world and what are we called to do about it. We ought to know when to consume and when to create. There is always a way to fix the broken.
Monday, September 10, 2012
The "Garaponated" Self
by Richard Dy
30 August 2012
Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, "Primary and Secondary Reflection," The Mystery of Being
During the August 30th lecture, we tackled the final chapter in the Gabriel Marcel series of our handouts. I think it is the pinnacle of what we are trying to struggle with for all these weeks. As the midterms draws near, many of us have no choice but to wilfully reflect on what we have learned so far. The last lecture struggled with what defines the self? Who am I, really? When am I? and How am I? Frankly, the topic raised more question than it answered but I'm grateful that it did.
About myself
The sub-header above is the bane of all the social networking website. Don't you love it when you sign up for a social networking site and it asked you to describe yourself? But how can I really describe myself in 600 characters of less? This is where the "garaponation" happens. Of course a normal person would not turn philosophical in a snap and really think "deep". Most likely, people will answer what they think they are. I, on the other hand, sometimes find it hard to munster up words to put in the little box on the website for everyone to see. I really had to second guess myself if those adjectives really fits who I really am and how it'll be "agreeable" for others who view my profile.
The problem with personally describing yourself is that you don't really know yourself that much. I remember during my INTACT class, we were asked to write adjectives describing ourselves and then made required to pass around the paper and ask others to describe the person on the paper. Most of us were shocked that some adjectives are very far off from what we think of ourselves and how we present ourselves to others. It is really weird and wonderful at the same time that we are blocked off from our subconscious and that the opacity is enough to make us rethink entirely of ourselves.
With this in mind, are we ourselves if not because of others?
The Society
I believe that one of the important factor for our being is that we have others. We are a social being, we simply cannot be without others. May it be your mother who raised and loved you to a special someone who makes you feel whole inside. It is a crucial part of who we are. I remember my Sociology and Anthropology professor talking about how we are just a reflection of the society and how our upbringing is totally a product of consequences over the years. It is indeed a superficial statement but its not less true if you really think about it. On the other hand, blessed with philosophical insight, aren't we unique anyway because of how we've become?
We may be different on how we are when we're alone and how we convey ourselves when with other people but aren't we practically, still us? We experience two aspects of our lives that WE choose to live. When still in doubt about our true selves, we appeal to another part of our existential being, something greater.
Something Greater
We have already tackled with a greater force that operates the universe around us but now we're finding ourselves asking if are we are part of this greater force's inner workings. Are we just here because we are here or our purpose is ingrained in the fundamental workings of the society. Heck, even I think that I am writing this blog post because I was chosen by this greater force (not Sir Earl btw!) We find it interesting how we're not the center of the world but merely a part of it. Sometimes we feel that merely experiencing a great loss should compel everything in the world to just stop. The Sun shouldn't shine, the birds shouldn't chirp and people should stop what they're doing. But we quickly realize it is never the case.
Our being is based on experience. We transcend because of experience and we oftentimes let go and participate in this source greater than ourselves.
Moving Forward
I particularly find myself in an existential crossroad in this point in the class lecture. Many thoughts have crossed my mind, we exist because we are. Are we then nonexistent when we cease to be, or do we live through others we have influenced in our life? It is quite an interesting thing to reflect upon being's eccentricities at least now, we can move forward always being aware that we are aware of ourselves.
With that, I leave a quote which I can't get out of my head for the past few days. It really contrasts the question "What experience then does the true self emerge?" may it be personal or societal.
30 August 2012
Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, "Primary and Secondary Reflection," The Mystery of Being
During the August 30th lecture, we tackled the final chapter in the Gabriel Marcel series of our handouts. I think it is the pinnacle of what we are trying to struggle with for all these weeks. As the midterms draws near, many of us have no choice but to wilfully reflect on what we have learned so far. The last lecture struggled with what defines the self? Who am I, really? When am I? and How am I? Frankly, the topic raised more question than it answered but I'm grateful that it did.
About myself
The sub-header above is the bane of all the social networking website. Don't you love it when you sign up for a social networking site and it asked you to describe yourself? But how can I really describe myself in 600 characters of less? This is where the "garaponation" happens. Of course a normal person would not turn philosophical in a snap and really think "deep". Most likely, people will answer what they think they are. I, on the other hand, sometimes find it hard to munster up words to put in the little box on the website for everyone to see. I really had to second guess myself if those adjectives really fits who I really am and how it'll be "agreeable" for others who view my profile.
The problem with personally describing yourself is that you don't really know yourself that much. I remember during my INTACT class, we were asked to write adjectives describing ourselves and then made required to pass around the paper and ask others to describe the person on the paper. Most of us were shocked that some adjectives are very far off from what we think of ourselves and how we present ourselves to others. It is really weird and wonderful at the same time that we are blocked off from our subconscious and that the opacity is enough to make us rethink entirely of ourselves.
With this in mind, are we ourselves if not because of others?
The Society
I believe that one of the important factor for our being is that we have others. We are a social being, we simply cannot be without others. May it be your mother who raised and loved you to a special someone who makes you feel whole inside. It is a crucial part of who we are. I remember my Sociology and Anthropology professor talking about how we are just a reflection of the society and how our upbringing is totally a product of consequences over the years. It is indeed a superficial statement but its not less true if you really think about it. On the other hand, blessed with philosophical insight, aren't we unique anyway because of how we've become?
We may be different on how we are when we're alone and how we convey ourselves when with other people but aren't we practically, still us? We experience two aspects of our lives that WE choose to live. When still in doubt about our true selves, we appeal to another part of our existential being, something greater.
Something Greater
We have already tackled with a greater force that operates the universe around us but now we're finding ourselves asking if are we are part of this greater force's inner workings. Are we just here because we are here or our purpose is ingrained in the fundamental workings of the society. Heck, even I think that I am writing this blog post because I was chosen by this greater force (not Sir Earl btw!) We find it interesting how we're not the center of the world but merely a part of it. Sometimes we feel that merely experiencing a great loss should compel everything in the world to just stop. The Sun shouldn't shine, the birds shouldn't chirp and people should stop what they're doing. But we quickly realize it is never the case.
Our being is based on experience. We transcend because of experience and we oftentimes let go and participate in this source greater than ourselves.
Moving Forward
I particularly find myself in an existential crossroad in this point in the class lecture. Many thoughts have crossed my mind, we exist because we are. Are we then nonexistent when we cease to be, or do we live through others we have influenced in our life? It is quite an interesting thing to reflect upon being's eccentricities at least now, we can move forward always being aware that we are aware of ourselves.
With that, I leave a quote which I can't get out of my head for the past few days. It really contrasts the question "What experience then does the true self emerge?" may it be personal or societal.
"It's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you."
- Rachel Dawes, Batman Begins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)