by Eo Villegas
I went to Ministop shell for my Junior Engagement Program. I’m not going to sugarcoat it, I expected the worst. Dirty kitchens, irritable employees, rude customers, and a lot of dirty work. I expected to walk in and out without socializing with anyone, not even my fellow Atenean who would also be doing the Junior Engagement Program. I enter Ministop and see my fellow Atenean, Mark. He tells me to go to the back room to look for Sir Adam. He then calls Mark and I and begins to brief us about Ministop and what we’ll be doing for the next few days. My expectations then changed seeing a nice man in Sir Adam. But of course, I returned to totality as soon as I left Ministop on my first session. Eventually as time passed and we got to know Sir Adam and Sir Jek more, we realized they were also regular people, with regular lives. All my preconceived notions vanished. We started talking about UFC, various video games that we commonly played and our families. As we began to see their face in all its nudity, we learn about their lives and wish we could do something about it. Sir Adam was telling me about how he goes overtime without pay. He was telling me during the habagat last August, he had to stay in Ministop for 3 days straight. He had to sleep in the back room office, endured all that for very little, if any, overtime pay. They called it TY lang, meaning “thank you lang.” Rude customers come in and out and treat them like lesser-people. It pulled me out of my totality and made me realize that sometimes, I am that rude customer who treats them as people lower than my stature, I am the person who expects the Ministop crew to carry the ice I buy to my car, to get the chillz that I purchase and the like. After that Ministop experience, I am now disturbed and will continue to be. It’s disturbing to see how hard working people like Sir Adam are and how they don’t get paid right. How respectful and nice they are and they don’t get treated right by customers.
I’m glad to see how life is on the other side. It has opened my eyes more to the real world and how I can be of service to them in the future.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Philosophy, Science, and Technology
by Hubert Cua
Humans are particular in universal. This is the line that puts me into question as I review my notes. Before talking about that line, I would like to first talk about the background when Dr. Garcia said that line. For Plato, teaching is making the students recall what the students forgot. That means students know the knowledge all along. For Socrates, it is through encountering with others that teach students new things. That means students do not know all the knowledge. At this point, Dr. Garcia then said that humans are particular in universal.
While the line is putting me into question, I suddenly think of how science and technology has changed philosophy. Whether true or not, some of my professors say that the general trend of people is to decline the importance of history. One professor even said that people seems to have “national amnesia” on history. Now, let me relate this phenomenon to the line, “Humans are particular in universal.” That line connotes that humans do not know all the knowledge. Humans have limited learning and knowledge capacity. While science becomes broader and broader and technology becomes more and more advance, people then need to devote more and more time on science and technology to cope up with the changing times. This may have shaped some people to have the popular philosophy that history is of no use and past is past. Is this phenomenon inevitable then?
Levinas’ way of looking at time also puts me into question as I review my notes. For Levinas, time is an instant. The past is renewed at every instant. Every instant is new. Future is a surprise, because future is beyond our grasp. Future is also redemption and is full of hope. The best is yet to come. Based on Levinas’ way looking at time, it seems that there is also a sense of declining the importance of history. Has popular philosophy (that history is of no use and past is past) infiltrated formal philosophy?
On the other hand, philosophy is also changing science and technology. For instance, formal philosophy teaches us that we have to make quality and honest products and sell it at reasonable price, because this is responsibility for the others. In the end, that means there is an unbreakable cycle of action and reaction between philosophy and science and technology.
Humans are particular in universal. This is the line that puts me into question as I review my notes. Before talking about that line, I would like to first talk about the background when Dr. Garcia said that line. For Plato, teaching is making the students recall what the students forgot. That means students know the knowledge all along. For Socrates, it is through encountering with others that teach students new things. That means students do not know all the knowledge. At this point, Dr. Garcia then said that humans are particular in universal.
While the line is putting me into question, I suddenly think of how science and technology has changed philosophy. Whether true or not, some of my professors say that the general trend of people is to decline the importance of history. One professor even said that people seems to have “national amnesia” on history. Now, let me relate this phenomenon to the line, “Humans are particular in universal.” That line connotes that humans do not know all the knowledge. Humans have limited learning and knowledge capacity. While science becomes broader and broader and technology becomes more and more advance, people then need to devote more and more time on science and technology to cope up with the changing times. This may have shaped some people to have the popular philosophy that history is of no use and past is past. Is this phenomenon inevitable then?
Levinas’ way of looking at time also puts me into question as I review my notes. For Levinas, time is an instant. The past is renewed at every instant. Every instant is new. Future is a surprise, because future is beyond our grasp. Future is also redemption and is full of hope. The best is yet to come. Based on Levinas’ way looking at time, it seems that there is also a sense of declining the importance of history. Has popular philosophy (that history is of no use and past is past) infiltrated formal philosophy?
On the other hand, philosophy is also changing science and technology. For instance, formal philosophy teaches us that we have to make quality and honest products and sell it at reasonable price, because this is responsibility for the others. In the end, that means there is an unbreakable cycle of action and reaction between philosophy and science and technology.
Friday, March 8, 2013
One's Death Is Other's Death
by Hubert Cua
One’s death is other’s death. This is the line that my mother told me about five years ago, as we watched the news on the earthquake that happened in Sichuan Province, China on May 12, 2008. It all started when the news reporter reports the news on how many people passed away or was heavily injured. My mother then told me that those numbers are not accurate. I asked why. My mother replied something like this. For example, one person passed way. Let’s say, he is a father and business owner. Since he is a father, when he dies, his wife and his sons and daughters will suffer. His relatives and close friends will also suffer. Since he is a business owner, when he dies, his workers will suffer. The families, relatives and close friends of his workers will also suffer. Since his business will collapse, other businesses will also suffer. Since other businesses suffer, the economy of the whole country will also suffer. The suffering goes on and on.
In fact, the line “One’s death is other’s Death.” does not only apply to that earthquake. It also applies to all other calamities that happened anytime and anywhere. In a broader sense, it can also include the all the problems of other people. Despite the line being true, there seems to be some potential problems in interpreting this line. First way of interpreting the explanation of my mother goes like this. He, as a father, is responsible in various ways for his family, his relatives and his close friends. What makes his family, his relatives and his close friends suffer due to his death is not primarily because losing the economic support and the like. Instead, it is primarily because of losing his presence and his spiritual support. In other words, it is primarily because of losing what Levinas calls his Face. Second way of interpreting the explanation, particularly the last part, of my mother goes like this. He, as a business owner, owns a business that can indirectly affect us through infinitely long lines of action and reaction. In other words, anything that happens to him can affect me, no matter how slight, through the infinitely long lines of action and reaction. We, as a part of the greater whole or as a human in this world, are then affected through economy. The economy here in this second way of interpreting refers to personal interest and not the trans-act-ability of money. If the economy here refers to the trans-act-ability of money, then the second way of interpreting will be more or less the same as the first way of interpreting.
Before trying to dig deeper to Levinas’ new alternative way of looking, I would first like to express my deep admiration to it. What makes others suffer with one’s death is the losing of one’s Face. If we put the death in the context of very big problems, heavy injuries and passing away, this is totally true and acceptable. However, if we apply the death even to the very small problems, is this still true and acceptable? For example, if someone on the other side of the world is having very small problem finding a pen dropped on the floor, is this still applicable? When interpreting the line “One’s death is other’s death.”, should we put a limit to its scope for it to become more acceptable? If we are not putting a limit to its scope, aren’t we too assuming or too intervening of others in the bad sense? When Levinas is saying the line “One’s death is other’s death.”, is he saying that out of pure purity or with the bad sense of too assuming and too intervening, like applying it even to the very small problems? Sometimes, some have the tendency to glorify or even God-ify the way some act. Can this tendency be seen in that line? Compared to the first way of interpreting the explanation of my mother, is the second way of interpreting more realistic by not trying to cover up the unsaid, whatever the unsaid is?
One’s death is other’s death. This is the line that my mother told me about five years ago, as we watched the news on the earthquake that happened in Sichuan Province, China on May 12, 2008. It all started when the news reporter reports the news on how many people passed away or was heavily injured. My mother then told me that those numbers are not accurate. I asked why. My mother replied something like this. For example, one person passed way. Let’s say, he is a father and business owner. Since he is a father, when he dies, his wife and his sons and daughters will suffer. His relatives and close friends will also suffer. Since he is a business owner, when he dies, his workers will suffer. The families, relatives and close friends of his workers will also suffer. Since his business will collapse, other businesses will also suffer. Since other businesses suffer, the economy of the whole country will also suffer. The suffering goes on and on.
In fact, the line “One’s death is other’s Death.” does not only apply to that earthquake. It also applies to all other calamities that happened anytime and anywhere. In a broader sense, it can also include the all the problems of other people. Despite the line being true, there seems to be some potential problems in interpreting this line. First way of interpreting the explanation of my mother goes like this. He, as a father, is responsible in various ways for his family, his relatives and his close friends. What makes his family, his relatives and his close friends suffer due to his death is not primarily because losing the economic support and the like. Instead, it is primarily because of losing his presence and his spiritual support. In other words, it is primarily because of losing what Levinas calls his Face. Second way of interpreting the explanation, particularly the last part, of my mother goes like this. He, as a business owner, owns a business that can indirectly affect us through infinitely long lines of action and reaction. In other words, anything that happens to him can affect me, no matter how slight, through the infinitely long lines of action and reaction. We, as a part of the greater whole or as a human in this world, are then affected through economy. The economy here in this second way of interpreting refers to personal interest and not the trans-act-ability of money. If the economy here refers to the trans-act-ability of money, then the second way of interpreting will be more or less the same as the first way of interpreting.
Before trying to dig deeper to Levinas’ new alternative way of looking, I would first like to express my deep admiration to it. What makes others suffer with one’s death is the losing of one’s Face. If we put the death in the context of very big problems, heavy injuries and passing away, this is totally true and acceptable. However, if we apply the death even to the very small problems, is this still true and acceptable? For example, if someone on the other side of the world is having very small problem finding a pen dropped on the floor, is this still applicable? When interpreting the line “One’s death is other’s death.”, should we put a limit to its scope for it to become more acceptable? If we are not putting a limit to its scope, aren’t we too assuming or too intervening of others in the bad sense? When Levinas is saying the line “One’s death is other’s death.”, is he saying that out of pure purity or with the bad sense of too assuming and too intervening, like applying it even to the very small problems? Sometimes, some have the tendency to glorify or even God-ify the way some act. Can this tendency be seen in that line? Compared to the first way of interpreting the explanation of my mother, is the second way of interpreting more realistic by not trying to cover up the unsaid, whatever the unsaid is?
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Untitled
by Choco Cabrera
I would like to start out by saying writing is not one of my fortes, so please bear with me. I wonder what you all thought of Philosophy when we had our first class, because I was scared. At the pace we went about learning what philosophy meant and what defined a philosopher, and Doc G expecting us to “get it” as fast as he did, was nerve wracking…..well, that’s what I thought at first.
Once I let myself divulge to the experience of learning philosophy, I guess I somehow “got it.” Got it in a sense that I understood, because I wanted to understand. This is coming from times that I have let people affect what I think and know. I have let them decide for me what was right or wrong before I even got the chance to know myself.
All I’m saying is that I’m very grateful to have Philosophy as a part of the core curriculum because it has opened me up to all these things I was afraid of: trying new things. I was always a calculated, predictable person. Not saying I’m not that now. However, I’ve changed because of the fact that I allow myself to experience what I never would have thought of experiencing due to what people say.
Most of you don’t probably know this, but I love spending time alone. Not because I avoid going out with people, it’s just that I like having my own time. This year was different though. I started hanging out more with friends and really enjoying, having a good time. I have learned how to give my time to them.
I really believe that we are a product of the people we meet in life and that in a way; anything we do will affect an Other. Now that my senior friends are officially going to graduate and becoming all sentimental, they can’t stop saying how much they’ve enjoyed their stay in Ateneo and all the people they met. I probably would find myself in that similar situation when my time comes.
You might be wondering why I titled this blog entry of mine “Untitled.” I don’t think that it’s hard to explain when you’re thinking of totality and infinity. I wanted my title to be something that can have infinite possibilities. You might have your own interpretation of my entry and another person might have their own interpretation, so I leave my “untitled” blog entry at your own interpretation pleasure.
Every time I run out of words to say, I say it in song. For this occasion, I feel that the best song to encapsulate (not that I’m trying to totalitize anything) is Unwritten by Natasha Bedingfield, because “the rest is still unwritten.”
I would like to start out by saying writing is not one of my fortes, so please bear with me. I wonder what you all thought of Philosophy when we had our first class, because I was scared. At the pace we went about learning what philosophy meant and what defined a philosopher, and Doc G expecting us to “get it” as fast as he did, was nerve wracking…..well, that’s what I thought at first.
Once I let myself divulge to the experience of learning philosophy, I guess I somehow “got it.” Got it in a sense that I understood, because I wanted to understand. This is coming from times that I have let people affect what I think and know. I have let them decide for me what was right or wrong before I even got the chance to know myself.
All I’m saying is that I’m very grateful to have Philosophy as a part of the core curriculum because it has opened me up to all these things I was afraid of: trying new things. I was always a calculated, predictable person. Not saying I’m not that now. However, I’ve changed because of the fact that I allow myself to experience what I never would have thought of experiencing due to what people say.
Most of you don’t probably know this, but I love spending time alone. Not because I avoid going out with people, it’s just that I like having my own time. This year was different though. I started hanging out more with friends and really enjoying, having a good time. I have learned how to give my time to them.
I really believe that we are a product of the people we meet in life and that in a way; anything we do will affect an Other. Now that my senior friends are officially going to graduate and becoming all sentimental, they can’t stop saying how much they’ve enjoyed their stay in Ateneo and all the people they met. I probably would find myself in that similar situation when my time comes.
You might be wondering why I titled this blog entry of mine “Untitled.” I don’t think that it’s hard to explain when you’re thinking of totality and infinity. I wanted my title to be something that can have infinite possibilities. You might have your own interpretation of my entry and another person might have their own interpretation, so I leave my “untitled” blog entry at your own interpretation pleasure.
Every time I run out of words to say, I say it in song. For this occasion, I feel that the best song to encapsulate (not that I’m trying to totalitize anything) is Unwritten by Natasha Bedingfield, because “the rest is still unwritten.”
Lose Face and No Face
by Hubert Cua
[The word Face with capitalized F refers to what Levinas calls the Face, while the word face with small f refers to dignity.]
From grade one to third year, I was never late for class. One day in fourth year, I was late for class for a few minutes for the first time. At that time, I thought of not going to class anymore. I even thought of killing myself. At that time, being late is extremely hard to accept for me. The whole world seems to be crashing for me. After a few minutes of intense internal turmoil, I decided to go to class, because I do not want to lose more.
Last time, I was late for our philosophy class. Upon reaching the door of our philosophy class, the uprightness of the enormous solid door literally stopped me. I then tried to think of ways on how to enter our philosophy class without everyone noticing me. Since the door squeaks, I really have no way not to let everyone notice my lateness. After I doubted for a few seconds, I entered our philosophy class with my body bent. Compared to the intense feeling of shame that I felt on my first late experience, I have only a slight feeling of shame when I was late for our philosophy class. I suddenly thought of how funny I was on my first late experience. Since our lesson at those times was about the Face, I suddenly saw connections between being late and the Face.
We can see people as the Face by not reducing people into just their characteristics, thoughts and actions. In other words, people are people, because they are people and not because of certain characteristics, thoughts and actions. Relating the Face to being late, people must not be reduced to non-Face, just because of being late. Applying this to general situations, people must not be reduced to non-Face, just because of certain mistakes. Sometimes, we deny ourselves what Levinas calls Responsibility for the Other, because of our certain mistakes.
For instance, in my first late experience, I preferred not to go to class, because being late is losing face, while being absent is having face by having no face. (The phrase no face means being absent.) Come to think of it, that is not true. When I am absent, I am having no face. Think about the effort exerted by my teachers in teachings the lessons. Think about bothering my classmates in asking about home works. Think about explaining my absence to the people concerned. Besides, when I am absent, I am also having no Face. I deny myself to be treated as Face, because I accept others to treat me based on my characteristics and mistakes. I also deny myself what Levinas calls Responsibility for the Other, because of my absence. Connecting this to our succeeding lessons, it is because of responsibility that makes us to choose to respond to others even if we are not perfect. Sometimes, even simple presence is already having responsibility for the others.
[The word Face with capitalized F refers to what Levinas calls the Face, while the word face with small f refers to dignity.]
From grade one to third year, I was never late for class. One day in fourth year, I was late for class for a few minutes for the first time. At that time, I thought of not going to class anymore. I even thought of killing myself. At that time, being late is extremely hard to accept for me. The whole world seems to be crashing for me. After a few minutes of intense internal turmoil, I decided to go to class, because I do not want to lose more.
Last time, I was late for our philosophy class. Upon reaching the door of our philosophy class, the uprightness of the enormous solid door literally stopped me. I then tried to think of ways on how to enter our philosophy class without everyone noticing me. Since the door squeaks, I really have no way not to let everyone notice my lateness. After I doubted for a few seconds, I entered our philosophy class with my body bent. Compared to the intense feeling of shame that I felt on my first late experience, I have only a slight feeling of shame when I was late for our philosophy class. I suddenly thought of how funny I was on my first late experience. Since our lesson at those times was about the Face, I suddenly saw connections between being late and the Face.
We can see people as the Face by not reducing people into just their characteristics, thoughts and actions. In other words, people are people, because they are people and not because of certain characteristics, thoughts and actions. Relating the Face to being late, people must not be reduced to non-Face, just because of being late. Applying this to general situations, people must not be reduced to non-Face, just because of certain mistakes. Sometimes, we deny ourselves what Levinas calls Responsibility for the Other, because of our certain mistakes.
For instance, in my first late experience, I preferred not to go to class, because being late is losing face, while being absent is having face by having no face. (The phrase no face means being absent.) Come to think of it, that is not true. When I am absent, I am having no face. Think about the effort exerted by my teachers in teachings the lessons. Think about bothering my classmates in asking about home works. Think about explaining my absence to the people concerned. Besides, when I am absent, I am also having no Face. I deny myself to be treated as Face, because I accept others to treat me based on my characteristics and mistakes. I also deny myself what Levinas calls Responsibility for the Other, because of my absence. Connecting this to our succeeding lessons, it is because of responsibility that makes us to choose to respond to others even if we are not perfect. Sometimes, even simple presence is already having responsibility for the others.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Three Levels of Understanding Confucius' Golden Rule
by Hubert Cua
We learned that we must be responsible and help others. Hopefully, this help will come back. This hope of the help coming back must remain hope. In other words, the coming back of the help must not be the motivation of helping others, because motivation connotes precondition. When coming back of the help becomes a motivation, it means that one will help only if others will help that one in return. By being responsible and helping others without making the coming back of the help as motivation, we can see the purity or the innocence, in a good sense, in this ethical reasoning.
Since childhood, we knew Confucius’ Golden Rule, which is “Do not do unto others what you do not want others do unto you.”, but do you know that there is at least three levels of understanding Confucius’ Golden Rule? (I will only be giving three levels of understanding Confucius’ Golden Rule, because I only know three as of now. After reading this blog post, you might even come up with more levels of understanding.) However, sadly, many understand Confucius’ Golden Rule in lower level. This lower level can be shown in a situation like this. One must not punch others, because one does not want others to punch one. This is problematic. This means that one must not punch others, because one does not want the bad consequence of punching others. In other words, it is the bad consequences of punching others that prevent one from punching others. Where are the good morals and right conduct then?
If we say, “One must not punch others, because it is against good morals and right conduct.”, where then does the second part of Confucius’ Golden Rule go? Thus, Confucius’ Golden Rule must be applied on beliefs, such as religion and politics. This is what I refer to as understanding Confucius’ Golden Rule in intermediate level. This intermediate level can be shown in a situation like this. One must not spread beliefs, especially those one does not agree with, in pressuring ways, just like how one does not want others to spread beliefs, especially those others does not agree with, in pressuring ways to us. Here, we are able to prevent understanding Confucius’ Golden Rule in terms of actions and consequences.
Is that all? Applying the purity and innocence in the ethical reasoning seen in the first paragraph of this blog post, we can then understand Confucius’ Golden Rule in higher level. This higher level can be shown in a situation like this. One must not do things, which are against good morals and right conduct, because it is against good morals and right conduct. To know things what one must not do, think of the things what one does not want others to do to one. Here, we are using the second part of Confucius’ Golden Rule as comparison only and not as consequence.
We learned that we must be responsible and help others. Hopefully, this help will come back. This hope of the help coming back must remain hope. In other words, the coming back of the help must not be the motivation of helping others, because motivation connotes precondition. When coming back of the help becomes a motivation, it means that one will help only if others will help that one in return. By being responsible and helping others without making the coming back of the help as motivation, we can see the purity or the innocence, in a good sense, in this ethical reasoning.
Since childhood, we knew Confucius’ Golden Rule, which is “Do not do unto others what you do not want others do unto you.”, but do you know that there is at least three levels of understanding Confucius’ Golden Rule? (I will only be giving three levels of understanding Confucius’ Golden Rule, because I only know three as of now. After reading this blog post, you might even come up with more levels of understanding.) However, sadly, many understand Confucius’ Golden Rule in lower level. This lower level can be shown in a situation like this. One must not punch others, because one does not want others to punch one. This is problematic. This means that one must not punch others, because one does not want the bad consequence of punching others. In other words, it is the bad consequences of punching others that prevent one from punching others. Where are the good morals and right conduct then?
If we say, “One must not punch others, because it is against good morals and right conduct.”, where then does the second part of Confucius’ Golden Rule go? Thus, Confucius’ Golden Rule must be applied on beliefs, such as religion and politics. This is what I refer to as understanding Confucius’ Golden Rule in intermediate level. This intermediate level can be shown in a situation like this. One must not spread beliefs, especially those one does not agree with, in pressuring ways, just like how one does not want others to spread beliefs, especially those others does not agree with, in pressuring ways to us. Here, we are able to prevent understanding Confucius’ Golden Rule in terms of actions and consequences.
Is that all? Applying the purity and innocence in the ethical reasoning seen in the first paragraph of this blog post, we can then understand Confucius’ Golden Rule in higher level. This higher level can be shown in a situation like this. One must not do things, which are against good morals and right conduct, because it is against good morals and right conduct. To know things what one must not do, think of the things what one does not want others to do to one. Here, we are using the second part of Confucius’ Golden Rule as comparison only and not as consequence.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Thank You for Returning My Wallet
by Hubert Cua
I wrote this blog post to thank my classmate Beverly Hao from the bottom of my heart for returning my wallet that I lost in our philosophy classroom through the lost and found of Ateneoand to philosophize about this incident.
We have learned in our class that responsibility is the inherent primary foundation of subjectivity. This responsibility is to be understood as accountability and answerability. This accountability is accountability not just for the self, but also for others. The self and others are not only to be understood in terms of the words and deeds of the self and others, but also to be understood simply, without any attachments, as self and others. This answerability is to give FEEDBACK to others.(The word feedback is capitalized for easy reference further in this blog post.) Going back to the first sentence of this paragraph, this inherence means that responsibility is already in-the-here or in the presence of being subject. One cannot be a subject before one is responsible. Rather, to be a subject is to be responsible. This is ethics.
If I am not mistaken, Dr.Garcia, also mentioned about being speechless and ethical force on the same day of the lecture on this topic. He mentioned that there are times that we lose our brains, because we do not know what to say. He also mentioned that ethical force is very powerful. Upon this incident, I was able to understand deeper he means by speechless and ethical force.
On the day I lost my wallet, since I went to Handyman Riverbanks for JEEP, I really thought that I lost my wallet in Handyman Riverbanks. In other words, I never thought that I lost my wallet in Ateneo or even in our philosophy classroom. Two days after, when Beverly Hao asked me whether I got back my wallet from lost and found or not, I was completely shocked. I was completely shocked not only because of not expecting to lose my wallet in Ateneo, but also, because of the power of this ethical force itself.I also turned speechless for a few seconds, at the same time I was completely shocked. I knew I have responsibility, which is to say something. However, because I was overwhelmed by this ethical force, I lost my response-ability or my ability to response.
Here, we can see how powerful ethical force is. Ethical force is so powerful to the extent that it deters temporarily my response-ability. After having back my response-ability, I promised Beverly Hao to write a blog post about this, but she said there is totally no need to do so. That’s so ethical.
The next meeting of philosophy class after this, Beverly Hao automatically asked me once again whether I got back my wallet from lost and found or not. By ethics, I must be the one who was supposed to give FEEDBACK, which is to say something back,that I got back my wallet, before she even asked.However, I didn’t know this at that time, because I understood feedback as feeding-back a blog post and not feeding-back a response that I got back my wallet.(Pardon me if the term feeding-back does not sound nice.)Just like how being good is never enough, feeding-back is never enough. More importantly, responsibility is never enough.
I wrote this blog post to thank my classmate Beverly Hao from the bottom of my heart for returning my wallet that I lost in our philosophy classroom through the lost and found of Ateneoand to philosophize about this incident.
We have learned in our class that responsibility is the inherent primary foundation of subjectivity. This responsibility is to be understood as accountability and answerability. This accountability is accountability not just for the self, but also for others. The self and others are not only to be understood in terms of the words and deeds of the self and others, but also to be understood simply, without any attachments, as self and others. This answerability is to give FEEDBACK to others.(The word feedback is capitalized for easy reference further in this blog post.) Going back to the first sentence of this paragraph, this inherence means that responsibility is already in-the-here or in the presence of being subject. One cannot be a subject before one is responsible. Rather, to be a subject is to be responsible. This is ethics.
If I am not mistaken, Dr.Garcia, also mentioned about being speechless and ethical force on the same day of the lecture on this topic. He mentioned that there are times that we lose our brains, because we do not know what to say. He also mentioned that ethical force is very powerful. Upon this incident, I was able to understand deeper he means by speechless and ethical force.
On the day I lost my wallet, since I went to Handyman Riverbanks for JEEP, I really thought that I lost my wallet in Handyman Riverbanks. In other words, I never thought that I lost my wallet in Ateneo or even in our philosophy classroom. Two days after, when Beverly Hao asked me whether I got back my wallet from lost and found or not, I was completely shocked. I was completely shocked not only because of not expecting to lose my wallet in Ateneo, but also, because of the power of this ethical force itself.I also turned speechless for a few seconds, at the same time I was completely shocked. I knew I have responsibility, which is to say something. However, because I was overwhelmed by this ethical force, I lost my response-ability or my ability to response.
Here, we can see how powerful ethical force is. Ethical force is so powerful to the extent that it deters temporarily my response-ability. After having back my response-ability, I promised Beverly Hao to write a blog post about this, but she said there is totally no need to do so. That’s so ethical.
The next meeting of philosophy class after this, Beverly Hao automatically asked me once again whether I got back my wallet from lost and found or not. By ethics, I must be the one who was supposed to give FEEDBACK, which is to say something back,that I got back my wallet, before she even asked.However, I didn’t know this at that time, because I understood feedback as feeding-back a blog post and not feeding-back a response that I got back my wallet.(Pardon me if the term feeding-back does not sound nice.)Just like how being good is never enough, feeding-back is never enough. More importantly, responsibility is never enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)