Philosophy is Dead

by Joy Reyes

Archaic. Elitist. Impractical. Circular.
Boring. Wordy. Indiscernible.
Presently irrelevant.
Dead.

Before I even continue, let me tell you this: I’ve always thought that Philosophy was a lot like Latin. That is, I’ve always thought it was this overly hyped subject not fit for the present time. It required a lot of work, a lot of understanding, and, if I were to be perfectly honest - yet terribly ignorant - a lot of time I could use for something else.

However, I’m not the only person who thinks this. In fact, a quick Google search yielded me these results:

Now, a few weeks into the end of my first ever Philosophy course, I’ve realized how painfully closed minded I have been.

Maybe it can be attributed to the fact that it has always been instilled in our immature minds that things have to have material return for it to be valuable.  Sure, people are important, so you have to treat them well – but can they deliver? I think we’ve been taught – for the most part – to calculate people. To treat people like objects who we can use when we need, and mindlessly fling away when they’re no longer – or not yet – necessary. And no, I’m not saying that all of us do those; I’m just saying it’s how we sometimes view things external from us. And because of it, we’ve always regarded Philosophy as something that shouldn’t be given too much importance.

It’s a pessimistic view, yes. But it also has its truths.

This is why, over the semester, I came to one conclusion – that I truly know nothing yet, no matter how much I’d like to believe so. If I did, I would know this - Philosophy is about living in the world every single day. And making it count. And, whether or not we’re willing to accept it, Philosophy has value. And it’s here to stay.

Why? Simple. Because Philosophy isn’t just about ancient truths and dead people. It’s not just about Greek words. It’s about understanding understanding. It’s about knowing what there is to know. It’s about today.

And while that may sound like the most ideal definition of Philosophy ever, it’s what I understand from everyone whom we’ve tackled over the course of the semester. David Foster Wallace and Marcel said that it’s about realizing that we’re not alone in this world, that we are a culmination of people we’ve come across with. Fr. Ferriols focused on the importance of insight, as did Ricouer – and they talked about how Philosophy is relevant in all aspects of our lives. It’s about reflection. It’s about a perpetual search. It’s about transcending.

Philosophy taught me purpose – or at least the value of having one. It taught me to create something that will last far more than I will. It taught me that life is ephemeral, and if I don’t make my mark, if I don’t arrive at my truth, if I don’t create something that will live on before I leave, then I couldn’t say that I lived my life enough.

Before I end, I’d like to include a code we were tasked to memorize when I was still a cadet officer in training in the Ateneo ROTC. It’s something I hold dearly, and – in retrospect – it’s a conglomeration of everything I’ve learned this sem. It’s all the readings, all the insights, and all the metaphysical unease I’ve felt in but a few lines.

Desiderata

by Max Ehrmann

Go placidly amidst the noise and haste

And remember what peace there may be in silence.

As far as possible, without surrender,

Be in good terms with all persons.

Speak your truth quietly and clearly;

And listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant.

They too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive people, 

They are vexations to the spirit.

If you compare yourself to others

You will become vain and bitter.

For always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.

Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.

Keep interested in your career, however humble;

It is a real possession in the changing fortune of times.

Exercise caution in your business affairs

For the world is full of trickery.

But let this not blind you to what virtues there is.

Many persons strive for high ideals,

And everywhere the world is full of heroism.

Be yourself, especially do not feign affection.

Neither be cynical about love,

For in the face of all aridity and disenchantment,

It is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of years,

Gracefully surrendering to the things of youth.

Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortunes.

But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.

Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.

Beyond a wholesome discipline,

Be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe,

No less than the trees or the stars. 

And whether or not it is clear to you,

No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore, be at peace with God,

Whatever you conceive him to be.

And whatever your labor and aspirations, 

In the noisy confusion of life,

Keep peace with your soul.

With all its shame, drudgery, and broken dreams,

It is still a beautiful world.

Be cheerful.

Strive to be happy.

I have no mandate to save the world.

But I have the mandate to save myself.

And since I am part of the world… then that should be enough.

Philosophy’s worth it after all.

Doubt

by Luigi Cho

13 September 2012

Discussed Text: Rene Descartes, Meditations on the First Philosophy


Doubt, the very word speaks with negativity. It means not to accept, not to compromise, not to agree. It brews up images of conflict, and mistrust. Doubt, to most people is something that leads to worse things. It can be likened to temptation which can be seen as the cause of evil things, like how doubt leads us to do things in retaliation to things that aren’t even true. However, like temptation, it isn’t wrong or evil to doubt. We must only learn to use it to our advantages.

Rene Descartes discovered how to make one of the biggest weaknesses of humanity into a great ally. His doubt of what truly exists, led him to pioneer the use of reason in the natural sciences. The method of doubt he used was methodological skepticism, which is to doubt everything, unless proven otherwise. One of the few absolutes that he can conclude is his own existence.  He sums this up in a simple sentence, “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think, therefore I am”.  If he can doubt something, that means something is making him doubt, or at least causing him to doubt.  So by this logic, there exists something to make him doubt. His doubt, or more accurately, his use of doubt led him to go on a philosophical journey to discover himself.

To utilize doubt as a way to better ourselves, we need to know how Descartes did it. He expressed humility in his actions. He knew that knowledge found in a book would always pale in comparison to experience. No matter how well learned he was, he still managed to open himself up and say that there are still some things that he needed to learn.

This has got to be one of the biggest lessons that we can grab from Descartes. He doubted because he was open to the idea that he wasn’t perfect. He wasn’t content with what he knew, with what he could learn.
I guess that’s how we should be. We shouldn’t just be satisfied with what’s in a book, it’s in a book, that knowledge is one internet search or library search away. What should really matter to us is what we do in the real world. Doubt is a fork in the road. We just have to decide which road to take.

Marcel’s “broken world” and its relevance to Ateneans

by Rico La Vina

I am sure that many of us have asked this question before: Why is Ateneo making me, a management/communications/economics/etc. major, take 12 units of philosophy? This is a legitimate question. You have other classes to study for- classes that will actually affect your future. Philosophy, on the other hand, is interesting but “impractical”. Using Gabriel Marcel’s concept of the broken world, I will argue that studying philosophy is essential to making the world a better place. I will show that as Ateneans, future leaders of the country, we learn philosophy so that we will not perpetuate a form of thinking that dehumanizes and exploits the Other. By writing this essay, I have two goals. Firstly, I aim to highlight the relevance of Gabriel Marcel and philosophy. Secondly, I will show you why you should not only study philosophy, but love it.

To begin with, let us analyze Gabriel Marcel’s concept of the broken world. Marcel argues that the value of reflection has been discarded in favor of a purely technical kind of knowledge. This means that our actions and beliefs are judged on the basis of practicality. Reflection and creativity is something that is seen to be irrelevant and even counterproductive. This mentality pervades all aspects of society: from our education, to our family life, to our hobbies, and even to our personal relationships. Unfortunately for us, we cannot escape this brokenness.

The idea that our world is “broken” is hard to grasp so let me illustrate this concept with an example. Upon graduating college, many of us will become entrepreneurs, journalists, psychologists, doctors, lawyers, and economists. We will become this because it has been deemed practical by society. I say this not as a form of condemnation, but as a statement of fact. The problem is that many of us would rather do something else. Some would want to become musicians, artists, or do charity work. Unfortunately, those occupations are far too “impractical.” We will not be able to make money or earn. Rather than follow our dreams, we feel compelled to follow the norm which is to be practical and materially successful. The problem then is that we feel constrained by the rationality of practicality which dominates society. We can therefore see that Ateneans or not, we are victims of the broken world.

Even our personal relationships have been distorted by this emphasis on practicality and efficiency. We interact with many people on the basis of usefulness; people are treated as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Such a way of thinking leads to the exploitation of the poor and the dehumanization of others which enables exploitation and apathy. Let me give an example. We live in a capitalist society in which money is the medium for many of our relationships. While I have friends and family that I value for their own sake, the vast majority of the people I interact with, I interact with only because of an exchange in goods. For example, I interact with salespersons because we exchange goods; I talk with security guards because they’re paid. Almost all of my relationships are based on something tangible and exchangeable. The problem with this is that if someone is of no use to me, it becomes easy to say that I have no relationship with him/her. There is no need for me to take care of them, to love them. It is this attitude which enables poverty. As a grocery store clerk, I will not give that poor person food because she is not a customer; as a doctor, I will not treat that person because he’s not a client, and I will not give that person proper housing because they have no money. In other words, by putting practicality and efficiency on a pedestal, we legitimize apathy towards the marginalized, the “useless.” Worse than that, we legitimize the mentality that it is perfectly fine to exploit someone because they are “useless.” This mentality, therefore, blinds us from something very obvious but often ignored: the idea that we are all beings who participate in the infinite richness of Being. We are broken because we have become apathetic towards our fellow human beings.

So what is the relation of this brokenness to our life? Most of us- including me- will one day work in this broken world. By graduating from Ateneo, we will learn the techniques to succeed in our occupation. We will learn how to control knowledge. For example, as a marketer, I will learn how to convince people to buy things that they don’t want. If I become a lawyer, I will be taught to see people from a purely legal point of view. The problem then is that these things we learn, our practical knowledge, could be used to make the world even more broken than it already is. By not reflecting, we could be trapped into thinking on a purely practical but inhumane way of thinking.

The purpose of studying philosophy then is to introduce a human element into our way of thinking. We study philosophy not for its “practical” purpose- although, I could argue that philosophy is a very useful subject- but for its ability to free us from thinking on a purely practical basis. Without philosophy and reflection, we become blind. Rather than see people as people, we see them as consumers, criminals, politicians, and numbers. We need philosophy to remind us of an essential but often ignored reality: that we are all human who exist together in this world, and that we have an obligation to take care of one another. Why do we have a responsibility to one another? Acknowledging this is the solution to Marcel’s broken world.

Do not get me wrong; I am not at all arguing against ways of thinking that involve technique. Marcel is merely saying that we should imbue this practical knowledge with human compassion and kindness that can only come from having a reflective spirit. Marcel’s challenge then is that the next time we are about to do something practical, we ask ourselves a very simple question: is what I am doing bad for other people? In other words, he challengers us to not only do what is practical, but do what is ethical. This is something that we must do to save humanity. When we refuse to reflect on the basis of impracticality, we only make the world even more broken. As Ateneans, as people who exist in the world with others, we must not reinforce a way of thinking that dehumanizes the Other, which conflates an infinitely complex person into a mere GDP or a sales number.

Philosophy is necessary because it allows us to see other people for what they truly are, as beings in their own right. For too long we have become blind to something so obvious. We need philosophy to allow the spirit of the truth to illuminate the world around us. If we do not reflect, then the world will continue to be broken.

Mushy, Lengthy, Inspirational Speeches

by Nats Barretto

18 September 2012

Discussed Texts: Rene Descartes, Meditations on the First Philosophy

                            Gabriel Marcel, "Primary and Secondary Reflection," The Mystery of Being

Reflection comes in the weirdest parts of the day. One minute you're hurrying on your way to school, one minute you're reflecting about existence. This happened to me once while I was crossing a street and a motorcycle slowed down to give way to me. I remembered philosophy class: the mere fact that the motorcycle driver slowed down for me was proof that I do exist.

 

I also find it hard to control when to reflect sometimes, since it only comes when I'm "in the mood". One time I was reviewing for a long exam when a line from a song suddenly popped into my head. The line was, "wish that you could see what I see when it's gone". I really couldn't remember what the song is, but I knew that it was a song I always listen to. Because of this "disquiet", I stopped reading what I was reading and searched my iTunes. I kept on browsing and browsing, listening to songs I felt was a good candidate for the line. I did this for more than an hour until I finally found the song I was looking for. It was a song I kept on ignoring for the past hour.

 

The thing is, I thought I knew the song too well that I wouldn't mistake it for as the origin of the line. But maybe that was the problem: I knew the song too well. When we're too familiar with something, we tend to have a hard time recognizing it sometimes.

 

This concept can also be applied to our relations with people. Knowing a person too well can make it hard for us to describe them sometimes. Many lectures ago, I remember Dr. Garcia summarizing this idea with, "the more we know, the more we don't know".

 

Those two reflections involved the totality of "me". It didn't just involve my body: it also involved my soul. It's center, or "fulcrum", was the totality of my being. Realizing my existence doesn't only involve the existence of my body, but also the existence something beyond my body, something which controls and gives life to my body: my soul. Realizing the meaning behind "knowing less as we know more" also just didn't involve my body. It involved the experiences of my body: listening to a song and being familiar with it, having a friend and knowing him for a long time.

 

Okay, I already have these insights. Now what do I do with it? I wrote about it, but maybe there's something more I can do with these insights. Maybe these insights can help me "convert" for the better. Knowing of my existence and being conscious of it can help me make better decisions in the future. For example, seeing a girl carrying a huge heavy block of wood, I know that I can help and I do help being aware that I can help. It's a menial example, but it can lead to something greater. Being aware that I exist, I know that I can help more people other than the girl carrying the huge heavy block. (Dr. Garcia suggested in class the corporal works of mercy.)

 

Reflection is the main source of wisdom. It is the source of the mushy, lengthy and inspirational speeches we usually hear at the end of a movie or a TV show. These reflections teach us about life. They are the ones that make our day "less bad", or in a more positive way, "more happy". Though maybe not all reflections have obvious "life applications", I think these reflections still contribute to how we think as a whole. The insight I've gained from my second account probably sounds too "theoretical" in a way that it's hard to put it into use. But then, maybe it doesn't have a direct use. Maybe it's just suppose to make you feel close to someone when you realize you find it hard to describe them. Maybe, maybe not, no one can really know. As Fr. Ferriols said, the totality of some insights are really hard to grasp. Maybe this is one of those insights.

An Atheist's God

by Rucha Lim

"Why do people have to be this lonely? What's the point of it all? Millions of people in this world, all of them yearning, looking to others to satisfy them, yet isolating themselves. Why? Was the earth put here just to nourish human loneliness?”

― Haruki Murakami, Sputnik Sweetheart

I’d like to begin with a quick clarification because I know that “atheist” is a loaded word. It carries the connotation that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. Because of this, I identify myself as an “atheistic agnostic” to avoid any form of confusion brought about by connotations.

Just to be sure, I define that phrase by examining its etymology. The word “atheistic” is composed of the suffix “a-“ which is used to mean “absence of”, “theist” which comes from “theos” which was the old Greek for “god” (probably the origin of the Latin, “deus” as in “deus ex machina”), “-ic” which is a suffix used to mean “to have characteristics of”. The word “agnostic” uses “a-“ in the same way, and “gnosia” which means, “knowledge” (hence we have the Gnostic gospels) and the “-ic” suffix which means “to pertain to”. Therefore I am “absence-of-god-characteristics-of-absence-of-knowledge-pertains-to”. Rearranging that
to be more sensible to the English language paradigm, I am one who claims no knowledge
on gods and act as though were was none.

With that aside, I’d like to begin sharing my unsolicited reflection.

After listening to Gangnam Style for the nth time, I asked a friend what the hell the song was really about. He explained that it was a guy who is describing his ideal girl. Hearing the word made me go into a musing on its meaning and implications while rudely spacing out from my friend’s conversation. I was fortunate that he did not notice and I just nodded and said “Yeah.” When I was finally alone, I decided to put my thoughts into order and here’s the result.

What does ideal mean? I’ve been asked countless times to describe my ideal girl (and on certain strange occasions, guy). Each time, I’ve given almost the same set of answers. Of course, the qualities I give are distinct and would not be the same for everyone else. We all have our individual notions of an ideal partner. For that matter, we all have our individual notions on what an ideal world is. Some would say it’s a world with no taxes, a world with no wars, a world where everybody shares their resources, a world where nobody is ever friend-zoned, etc. But an important thing to note is how these notions came from individuals, people with perceptions. I tried crafting my own ideal world in my head but at some point I randomly thought on what a caveman’s notion of an ideal world would be, or that of someone from an ancient civilization or of the medieval era. The notion of a perfect world changes as ways of living change. My notion of a perfect world would probably be crude to a person who lives centuries from now. Who am I to construct a set of ideals for an ideal world that would encompass all things discovered and undiscovered, and that has
happened and has yet to happen?

Despite all of my disagreements on Descartes premises, I have to admit that perhaps this was what he was trying to say when all ideas are mere simulacra to their source. Our ideas are affected by our perceptions, which are affected by various things like values and the zeitgeists we belong to and cannot account for things unknown in the span of our existences. And Descartes himself was subject to this. So now I arrive at my notion of a God. I abandoned my Catholicism for several reasons but the primary one being that as human beings with limited perception, I believe we can never absolutely know anything, especially the existence of a supernatural being that is omniscient and omnipotent. One of Richard Dawkins’ famous quotes is “We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” A friend of mine disagreed with the statement, saying Zeus and Thor were not Gods. However he
confuses gods with Gods (and that is with the big letter “G”) in that they were not omnipotent and omniscient.

So here we see how the notion gods of the ancient Greeks evolved into the God of Judeo-Christians. A characteristic that remained however is the intervention in human affairs. I’d love to divulge into the reasons for my disagreement for this by expressing my opinion of the mimetic nature of religions but that’s a discussion (not debate) for another place and time. Suffice it to say that I do not agree with it. I am, however in agreement with Carl Sagan when he said, “The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.” But to me, it extends beyond these physical laws (which I am sure Sagan did not limit to those known only in his time), my God includes each and everyone person, (That’s right, you’re my God, part of it at least) myself included. My God is this amorphous, (every)thing, not in any way singularly sentient. You could say that for me, the universe is God and not the other way around.

This is what I believe is what David Foster Wallace called “the mystical oneness of all things deep down.” and if I’m not mistaken, what Heidegger was referring to as the “sophon” and that as I continue my studies in philosophy (because I lack the confidence to say that I’m truly philosophizing), I find a way to connect to this oneness. Maybe it’s the buzz from the coffee while listening to Georges Cziffra play Franz Liszt’s “Liebestraume” but I want to connect to all those people I see outside my window, know their stories, their hopes and dreams, and serendipitously make friends, fall in love, and make this world a world a better
place, even a bit. So now I’ve given my Miss Universe statement, where do I go from here? And where do you go from here? Well, go ahead and pick up whatever you can from this and do whatever you want with it. Throw it away, throw it in my face, or keep it and make it grow. The choice is yours. As for me, I still have several questions left unanswered and I don’t think there’s anything substantially final on this little blog post. I guess it’s time to continue my loving struggle. If you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go lazily look up pantheism on Wikipedia.

Doubt and Existence

by Barbie Barlocher

13 September 2012

Discussed text: Rene Descartes, Meditations on the First Philosophy

Rene Descartes’ methological doubt has paved the way for the sciences. He also started the movement towards modern philosophy. Heck, he actually helped create a lot of things such as the Cartesian plane. But quite frankly, I am totally utterly confused by Descartes and his philosophy.

Rene Descartes was quite an ambitious fellow, really. He thought that he can separate what was real from what is not by observing a method which we call methological doubt. This means everything that is not certain is subjected to doubt and is therefore set aside. In a way, it’s like starting your very own framework of knowledge with absolutely nothing on it. So, in order to achieve absolute certainty, we must first doubt everything we know. What can we not doubt then? If everything we perceive is subjected to our interpretation and our own perception of it, is the thing which we perceive just a construct of our own imagination (considering our perception of things is prone to error)? With that way of thinking, Rene Descartes proves that thing that can only be absolutely certainly real and that is the self. Since he is able to think and ask of all of these things, there must be something capable of posing these questions and therefore ‘he’ exists. The ‘he’ in this situation should not be confused with the human body as Descartes separates that which is the body from the mind, which is known as the dualistic view of the human person.

Most if not all of us has faced a situation which caused us to doubt its reality. As for me, I usually end up questioning reality every time I wake up from a nightmare or a particularly good dream. It’s because I feel as if my mind is separated from my physical body whenever I dream. While I dream, everything I experience in it feels real and it is only when I wake up that I notice something peculiar in them. Inception is a science fiction movie that deals with these same ideas.



The main quest of Leonardo DiCaprio in Inception is to go into someone’s dream to extract information from them or to create an idea in their mind as they are dreaming. In the end of it all, we are made to question if whatever is shown indeed reality or if they are still stuck within a dream.

All that aside, I think that it is in doubting that we are able to understand. It is in questioning that we are able to ask ourselves important questions. And, it is in thinking that we are able to prove something to ourselves. By quoting Descartes, I can say that because I thought about all of these I exist.

Who Am I?

by Bambi San Pedro

Reflection on the first Ph 101 Plenary

By now, each one of us must already be able to define what Philosophy really is. In my own understanding, Philosophy helps someone in dealing with the questions that he encounter as he tries to discover who he really is as a person. However, another important question to pour our thoughts into is “What are we trying to do when we do Philosophy?”

In every single day of our lives, day-in day-out, we follow a specific pattern. But in this certain rhythm, we don’t bother to reflect that much, until something happens. This “something” is called a “Break Situation”, or when the normal run of things come to a halt. It is during these times when we question ourselves about the what’s and why’s of this life. What should be my next move? Why this instead of that one? Why me and not her? And sometimes, these break situations might catch us off-guard when they happen in extremes – bankruptcy, failure, death. These are the moments when what we’re holding onto slips from our lives. As for students like us, it might be getting kicked out from the Ateneo with only just 0.5 lacking in the retention QPI. It is this kind of instances that our self-esteem gets affected. The ground of our notion of something gets broken, and we, in turn, break down.

An Extreme Break Situation may be classified as either a Painful Wonder or a Joyful Wonder. In either situation, we look at life as a whole. Right now, we already know that the world is charged with the wonder of God. But, knowing is different from experiencing. When we experience, we are gifted with that “Aaahhh!!” moment, usually the breath-taking ones.

As a science, Philosophy is not one of those that study the human person. Biology deals with the study of the living organism. Sociology deals with the study of the development, structure and functioning of the human society. Psychology deals with the study of the human minds and its function. As for Philosophy, it particularly studies the human phenomenon in the whole of reality. It doesn’t deal with what it means to be human, but what it means to be.

In discovering one’s self, a lot of questions have to be cleared up before he figures out what kind of person he really is. What does it mean to be a human being? What does it mean to be? What does it mean to be me? And finally, Who am I? Then, ask yourself this question, “What does it mean to be myself in the face of others?”

During the talk, Mr. Calasanz retold two different stories about two famous names. He mentioned an instance in St. Augustine’s life when his bestfriend died. The worse part is that their friendship ended in a quarrel, meaning they were not in good terms even before. So when it dawned to him that he has really lost his bestfriend, he goes out in search for his soul and later realized that without his bestfriend, life has no meaning. Here, St. Augustine was dealing with the death of the one he loved, when he came into the question, Who am I? The second story he shared was about Descartes life. He was a man who had a lot of questions about certainty, since a lot of scientific facts are criticized by enumerable brilliant minds. The questions that he usually had to deal with were, How can I be sure? Can I be sure of anything? Can I hold my ground somewhere? And these are also our questions and problems in this time. One common experience among teenagers like ourselves is when we doubt our dad’s words, like when he tells us that he’s going to a conference for a couple days (but the idea of him meeting up with his mistress, crosses our minds).
Reflection might seem easy because the thought flows freely. However, the difficulty comes in when things are so simple that there’s nothing there to breakdown. Thus, Dualism comes in.

Dualism means that this “thinking” is simply thinking. It has no body; it simply thinks. All these things can be doubted. BUT on the other hand, the “act of thinking” is that one thing you can be sure of. One cannot doubt that he’s doubtingbecause it is an act of doubting in itself. Also, one cannotdoubt that he is thinking, because it is an act of thinking in itself. That’s why there is a saying, “I think therefore I am.” And this cliché leads back to the question, Who is this “I”?

In order to fully understand the answer, one must experience HIS body – his own proper body. It’s his. The experience of the “I”, or the self, can only be done by him. No one else can be in his place. This is the only radical solitude that every human being has. One cannot be distinguished from his own body. This self is not a disembodied self rather this self is a body. It cannot go unnoticed. He IS his body. Where his body is, there he is. Just as when his body gets hurt, he also gets hurt. And in the same way, one cannot be identified with the body. There is a separation and ambiguity. He HAS his body. Therefore, he cannot be reduced into his body.

And for Mr. Calasanz’s last point, he explained the thread of facticity and transcendence. Because he IS his body, he is facticity. Facticity came from the word “facturate”, meaning something that is given, or “yari na”. Therefore, it is not something you can decide upon or choose, sort of like one’s genetic makeup. It is not the person’s fault if he is stingy, bipolar or unattractive. All these constitute the spark of who he really is. As for transcendence, it refers to crossing over or going beyond. It provides the answer to the question, What do I do with the given’s, once I realize it? In other words, it shows that what one does with the given’s, is not a given. This leaves a space for choice, a space for creating meaning, a space for reorienting facticities. This facticity is the original source of pain, burden, limitation and woundedness. Transcendence gives that person the act of ownership. This means that he has the capacity to turn this Painful Wonder into a Joyful Wonder. On that account, Philosophy then is trying to see things in the perspective of the totality as a whole.

Discovering who “I” am is seeing that this body is an embodied self and not an abstract one.