Going Beyond The Unknown

by Chessy Luna


2 August 2012


Discussed text: Gabriel Marcel, "Introduction," The Mystery of Being


“To gain insight, we must be there to know more and face the experience or what is unknown.”

An important aspect of gaining insight through experience is thinking. In philosophy, thinking is important in order to understand, rationalize, and appreciate situations we experience daily. In the discussions of Dr. Garcia, two types of thinking were analyzed. The first type talks about subjectivity or personal thinking. This type of thinking varies and depends on a person’s values, beliefs, attitudes, feelings, and the like. It is private and can be experienced by any subject. On the other hand, the second type of thinking discusses objectivity or abstract thinking. Unlike the first one, this way of thinking is universal. It is universal in a scientific way, tackling arguments on history, biology, chemistry, and the like. This approach is more general and seeks to describe mind-independent realities.

Philosophy cannot be generalized into just a single way of thinking but rather, is a combination of both ideologies. There exists an intermediary way of thinking between the two types. It is subjective and at the same time universal. Three levels make up this way of thinking: Art, Religion, and Politics, respectively. In understanding the connection of subjectivity and objectivity better, the first level of intermediary thinking will be discussed.

Art is a form of experience that does not only occur in an individual sense but also universally. Human beings can have varying perceptions on different artworks, yet still maintain the universal insight the artist intended for it to encompass. The experiences we go through when appreciating and viewing art are usually not quantifiable and verifiable but are very real.

A recent experience I had in relation to the ideologies discussed occurred when Dr. Garcia asked us to visit The Ateneo Art Gallery. I visited the gallery before but it was the first time I really took the time to analyze and reflect on the paintings and structures displayed. A particular painting that caught my attention was a creation by Marciano Galang. From a far, it looked like a chaotic and cluttered piece of art. But as I approached the piece, I saw the intricate and realistic details plastered on the canvas. I was a bit disturbed because I did not expect to see the things before me. What seemed like burnt objects, such as shoes, a wallet, a can, and the like, were strategically displayed on the canvas. I read the description beside the artwork and saw that the painting was entitled “Cavite.” Different theories started formulating in my mind on what might have occurred in the production of the artwork. The personal insights and observations I had could be classified as subjectivism, a personal way of thinking. On the other hand, the objectivism or abstract thinking in this situation was the fact that the artist had his own perception or background on why and how he created this piece. A universal truth is preserved by accepting the fact that the artist has his own voice as well as inspiration for creating such an intricate piece of artwork.

Experiences we go through can be categorized into two kinds: grasping and being grasped/gripped. Grasping is a metaphor used in techniques. Techniques talk about a group of procedures that are capable of being taught and reproduced to achieve a concrete goal by manipulating physical and mental factors. We view knowledge as way of grasping – a manipulative approach which has a series of steps or instructions. On the other hand, being grasped is an experience of something gripping us from outside which we cannot put into numbers but is real. It is an experience of metaphysical unease, a discomfort at a more spiritual level. It asks fundamental questions that go beyond us: “Is there something before me?” or “What is life?”

In experiencing something, one must not only settle on grasping alone but also on being grasped. It is not enough that we just focus on the technical or practical aspects of life. We must also take the time to allow ourselves to be grasped or gripped. After all, it is through being grasped that we grow as human beings and go beyond ourselves. Not all of human reality is quantifiable. There exists an inner intellectual need that we must undergo in order to experience a greater reality that awaits us.

Return To Reflection

17 July 2012


Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, Introduction to The Mystery of Being

A subject is primarily known as such if it has the capacity to be conscious, to be aware of itself and its surroundings, and perhaps the subject that is most intimate to us is ourselves, as having the capacity not only of being conscious of our surroundings but more importantly of ourselves being conscious. The subject stands together with the object, that which is thrown in front of us (from the Latin word ab jacere), as something that can be "given." Having that understanding of a subject and an object, then one can say that a person is both a subject and an object. It is true that human beings are conscious of their being conscious, and have the capacity to think and talk about their own existence; however, they can also be treated as objects, in such a way that we can actually have the capability to ignore the status of the person as a subject and treat him as "one among other things," from the simple act of talking about someone if he or she was not here, or even ignoring someone even if he or she is there.

As subjects, we are capable of reflection. To reflect is basically to be aware that we are aware, and then to somehow step back and see our lives as part of that which we stepped back from. It is a response to the invitation to look, which eventually enables us to raise the important questions of life itself. Philosophical reflection, then, is a certain detachment that leads us to our awareness of being a part of the whole to which we belong.

The French thinker Gabriel Marcel discusses philosophical reflection by distinguishing philosophy from technical and scientific knowledge in his introductory lecture published in his work, The Mystery of Being. He emphasizes that philosophy attempts to go deeper in an understanding of life, and not an abstract systematization of it, or a dogma that prevents us from seeing the superabundance of meaning in our lives. In his lecture, he aims to explain and elaborate with a certain authority what it means to philosophize. For him it is neither a form of dogmatism or a quest to come up with a philosophy that tramples down all philosophies, primarily because such forms of thinking would hinder us from philosophizing, confining philosophy into closed glass jars, altogether separating itself from reality which should be its primary concern.  Philosophical investigation and questioning, for him, is not a matter of strict demonstration but merely an aid to discovery, and hence he does not want to provide a strict, closed system. Philosophizing is basically responding to a call or an appeal to make sense of a life full of meaning, and any closed system could perhaps hinder one from heeding such call. 


Hence, he proposes a new understanding of philosophy, through the metaphor of the road.

Regarding these, two objections can be raised. First, the metaphor of the road implies space, but isn't it the case that space and time should be abstracted in order to properly philosophize, which means to come up with truths that are universal and in fact apply in all cases? And second, the metaphor also implies that there is a given destination, an end goal that is not merely a hypothesis but something that is, for the philosopher, stands as a given end in sight. Having that, does the philosopher somehow contradict himself and preempt that there is indeed an end in view even though the road has not been trudged?

Marcel responds to the first objection by saying that if space would be neglected, then one can also neglect and dismiss the rest of the philosophical tradition, which not only started from the the human being's "situatedness" in space and time, but also accepts a kind of inner spatiality. What this objection fails to take account is that there is an inner space in every human being, that which houses our experience, our thoughts, and our insights (of course in a non-empirical manner). We Filipinos already have this grasp of inner space, when we talk about our loob, which points to our inner selves, that which is most intimate to us (hence the terms utang na loob, masama ang loob, saloobin, etc., which indicates that kind of space wherein we talk about our thoughts, feelings, and anything that is not empirical and immediately known by the senses. And to the second objection, he says that philosophy is not primarily about the destination, whether it is given or not; instead, philosophy is more concerned with the process of getting to that destination, taking into mind not only the result but also the method used to get there. Unlike the sciences and technical knowledge that emphasizes the finished theory or product, philosophy takes into mind the very path of getting to an insight or thought, and once we lose this sense of becoming aware of both the method and the result, we lose our touch, our fundamental encounter with reality which provides us the avenue to reflect and think.

He then continues to distinguish philosophical investigation from the scientific and technical kind. He says that these kinds of investigation abstracts the subject, in such a way that in coming up with a theory or a product, it does not matter who thought about it and made it, as long as the theory holds universally or the product can be used and sold at the market. But in philosophy, the subject and its encounter with reality does matter, and the subject's own experience and way of life matters a lot in philosophical reflection. The object of philosophical reflection, then, is the subject's encounter with the objects of his experience, and not merely the end result or principle that comes out of that encounter.

Finally, Marcel asserts that a philosophical investigation is basically our response to the metaphysical unease (a translation of the French malaise) which we experience, a feeling that there is something that we are really uncomfortable with, not in the sense of being sick or having an allergic reaction or irritation, but a quite uneasy feeling that there must be something more to know, more to experience, and more to think about. Only if we accept and heed the call of this unease will enable us to trudge the road towards finding the cure, and perhaps, it is in our trudging the path that this unease is taken care of.