by Christian Go
The first thing which crossed my mind when the last discussion was going on was how my own mom did not want to use expensive plates and would always keep them for "future use". This so called "future use" would never occur. The purpose of a plate is to be used for eating and not merely for show or for safe keeping and so I did not quite see the point in it. Then it came to me that we have become so materialistic in life that we tend to forget that everything we purchase and everything we obtain are only the means to an end. We want to be happy, we want what's best for our very own families but in the end, we tend to forget that it is the goal we want to achieve. Soon, it will become all about finding the right job and making money and we forget that money is only a means to an end and its not the end itself. I think that is why despite knowing that something will disappear and vanish through time, we tend to grasp so hard on to something. We forget that it is only a means and that there are other means towards that happiness we seek in life. We attach our means of happiness to that one thing, that we forget we can achieve it elsewhere. I think this goes back to how Marcel described the broken world we live in today.
Beyond this, the truth is that life is such a fleeting thing. The reality is that people die everyday without us knowing and who knows we could be next. But the point of it is that we should not be holding on to dear life and decide not to experience the outside, not to experience the world for that matter. If life is to end, then why not make the most of it. And when life is to end, we can always say at least I lived a good one.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Possessing
by Paolo Avecilla
25 September 2012
Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, The Mystery of Being
Browsing through the recent discussions in class, I was able to draw some essential realizations about the contrast between being and having. Of course, we're all aware of how possession in the context of being is much deeper than the context of merely having, in the sense that the possessing something in the context of being means to have something that is naturally ingrained in your identity as a real human person. Possessing something in the context of having thus gives a separation between the owner and the thing which he supposedly owns. Whatever this thing is, we've understood it to be something physical and tangible which we can see and feel. At least that's according to the examples sir has given over the past few discussions. However, what about the intangible/abstract things which we currently hold such as our knowledge, values and beliefs? Unlike our body and identity, which we own (and is more importantly part of our BEING), our knowledge, values and beliefs were not ingrained in us naturally from the moment we started to exist. These were things which we acquired/earned, the same way as we acquired/earned all the material possessions we have with us to this very moment. However, these intangibles, upon receiving them, naturally became part of who we are or what makes US the beings that we are. And unlike the material things, these things cannot be taken away from us or separated from us. Unlike a book that can be easily put aside from our sight, our values and beliefs cannot be put aside that way. So should these intangibles then be considered as possessions of being or having?
25 September 2012
Discussed Text: Gabriel Marcel, The Mystery of Being
Browsing through the recent discussions in class, I was able to draw some essential realizations about the contrast between being and having. Of course, we're all aware of how possession in the context of being is much deeper than the context of merely having, in the sense that the possessing something in the context of being means to have something that is naturally ingrained in your identity as a real human person. Possessing something in the context of having thus gives a separation between the owner and the thing which he supposedly owns. Whatever this thing is, we've understood it to be something physical and tangible which we can see and feel. At least that's according to the examples sir has given over the past few discussions. However, what about the intangible/abstract things which we currently hold such as our knowledge, values and beliefs? Unlike our body and identity, which we own (and is more importantly part of our BEING), our knowledge, values and beliefs were not ingrained in us naturally from the moment we started to exist. These were things which we acquired/earned, the same way as we acquired/earned all the material possessions we have with us to this very moment. However, these intangibles, upon receiving them, naturally became part of who we are or what makes US the beings that we are. And unlike the material things, these things cannot be taken away from us or separated from us. Unlike a book that can be easily put aside from our sight, our values and beliefs cannot be put aside that way. So should these intangibles then be considered as possessions of being or having?
Thursday, September 27, 2012
How To Be Present
by Mary Gutierrez
Last September 18 Doc G left the class with the question:
What makes you present to the world and yourself?
Out of all the questions Doc G left so far, this is the one question that got me thinking and unable to resist writing about if not to least to get the question of my head. Then again to understand the implications as to why it affected me so much maybe a little introduction of sorts is required.
Hello! I’m one of your classmates and chances are you don’t know me. Not that you would considering I’ve never recited in class or talked to anyone who doesn’t talk to me first. I’m the invisible girl that is never late, never absent, never misses a requirement but still manages to blend in and disappear. I’d be graduating with most of you come 2014 and you know what, you’d probably never see me again or know that I even existed. So how do you know I was there at that moment? That I was present in class or I was your seatmate? Not to be emo or anything but I’m not the only quiet introvert in the class or in a bigger scale, the school. So how many people were you classmates with whom you’d never know or worse remember?
You see, this is where the misconceptions start. That you have to be outspoken and confident to be present and noticed. Although it is understandable because confident people are easier to spot and easier to be around with because you wouldn’t have to be as careful around them as you would have to be with a silent person. But if there is one thing I realized it is that while it may be easier to spot the leaders and confident people in parties, class discussions, and group works it doesn’t mean they are all that are the only people present. The introverts may have the tendency to blend with the shadows but once everyone is quiet, the tables turn and it would be easier to notice those who are usually quiet. Try it. It’s like they are suddenly just there quiet and composed in silence.
I’m sure everyone has already taken the MBTI personality at least once (or twice because of Gen Psych) but the thing is, it seems like a greater part of the population are actually introverts. People who might want to keep to themselves and may sometimes disappear. If I remember correctly in my block less than 10 are extroverts (then again my memory could be wrong) and considering we’re psych majors who are supposed to be studying the behaviour of others, the assumption might be that we are people persons. Still, there could be the possibility that maybe instead of studying others, psych majors are in that course to study themselves. Better yet, isn’t it the reason why every one of us is a student of this school because we haven’t realized our potentials yet? That despite the fact that we are in different courses and different specialties all of us are simply young adults whom the society deemed as legally mature (if you are at least 18) but know in ourselves that we are yet to be ready? That we don’t know enough. That we aren’t skilled enough. That we aren’t mature enough...shall I go on?
Everyone might have their own personal views on why they are not yet ready, why they’re not yet sure of what to do in life and why they are afraid to go out of school and be a part of the productive working members of the society. We have been in school for so long (almost 17 years?) that despite the claims to hate the school workload, leaving the safety of the occupation of being a student is a daunting concept. One of my psych teachers (whom I unfortunately cannot credit because I can’t remember who) wisely said: Psychology is about discovering your own weirdness and making it your strength. Still, if there is one thing I disagree about in this statement, it is the fact that the statement is not just for Psychology but for all courses. All of us feel imperfect and weird at some point (I refuse to believe Hollywood propaganda that some people are perfect) and its part of what makes us afraid. How do we go and survive outside the walls of Ateneo after with these imperfections? You make those imperfections your strengths. This is what would make you present. Both to yourself and others.
Just because I’m quiet doesn’t mean I’m not present. Just because I’m quiet doesn’t mean I have nothing to say. Just because you see me as someone quiet doesn’t mean I’m not noisy when I’m with people I’m comfortable with. The common misconception is that being quiet and shy is only adorable in kids, high school would be pushing it, and if a person is already in college and still painfully quiet and shy you’d be thought of as antisocial. But my Gen Psych teacher told me it could be a kind of strength (although I still haven’t figured out how to control and use it).
So to end, maybe just as much as we have and want to be present we also need to be aware of the presence of others. According to Marcel the “I” cannot exist without the others and I agree. I mean what would be the use of being present if no one would see that you are present and an individual? But then there is another rule that I believe encompasses Marcel (no offence to Marcel) and that is the golden-and-overly-cliché: do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you. So if you want to be present it would take more than turning your weirdness into strengths but also noticing those present around you. And since being present is pretty hard (Identity vs Identity Confusion, teenagers) then do not expect that being the one looking for the presence of all the people around you would be easy.
Last September 18 Doc G left the class with the question:
What makes you present to the world and yourself?
Out of all the questions Doc G left so far, this is the one question that got me thinking and unable to resist writing about if not to least to get the question of my head. Then again to understand the implications as to why it affected me so much maybe a little introduction of sorts is required.
Hello! I’m one of your classmates and chances are you don’t know me. Not that you would considering I’ve never recited in class or talked to anyone who doesn’t talk to me first. I’m the invisible girl that is never late, never absent, never misses a requirement but still manages to blend in and disappear. I’d be graduating with most of you come 2014 and you know what, you’d probably never see me again or know that I even existed. So how do you know I was there at that moment? That I was present in class or I was your seatmate? Not to be emo or anything but I’m not the only quiet introvert in the class or in a bigger scale, the school. So how many people were you classmates with whom you’d never know or worse remember?
You see, this is where the misconceptions start. That you have to be outspoken and confident to be present and noticed. Although it is understandable because confident people are easier to spot and easier to be around with because you wouldn’t have to be as careful around them as you would have to be with a silent person. But if there is one thing I realized it is that while it may be easier to spot the leaders and confident people in parties, class discussions, and group works it doesn’t mean they are all that are the only people present. The introverts may have the tendency to blend with the shadows but once everyone is quiet, the tables turn and it would be easier to notice those who are usually quiet. Try it. It’s like they are suddenly just there quiet and composed in silence.
I’m sure everyone has already taken the MBTI personality at least once (or twice because of Gen Psych) but the thing is, it seems like a greater part of the population are actually introverts. People who might want to keep to themselves and may sometimes disappear. If I remember correctly in my block less than 10 are extroverts (then again my memory could be wrong) and considering we’re psych majors who are supposed to be studying the behaviour of others, the assumption might be that we are people persons. Still, there could be the possibility that maybe instead of studying others, psych majors are in that course to study themselves. Better yet, isn’t it the reason why every one of us is a student of this school because we haven’t realized our potentials yet? That despite the fact that we are in different courses and different specialties all of us are simply young adults whom the society deemed as legally mature (if you are at least 18) but know in ourselves that we are yet to be ready? That we don’t know enough. That we aren’t skilled enough. That we aren’t mature enough...shall I go on?
Everyone might have their own personal views on why they are not yet ready, why they’re not yet sure of what to do in life and why they are afraid to go out of school and be a part of the productive working members of the society. We have been in school for so long (almost 17 years?) that despite the claims to hate the school workload, leaving the safety of the occupation of being a student is a daunting concept. One of my psych teachers (whom I unfortunately cannot credit because I can’t remember who) wisely said: Psychology is about discovering your own weirdness and making it your strength. Still, if there is one thing I disagree about in this statement, it is the fact that the statement is not just for Psychology but for all courses. All of us feel imperfect and weird at some point (I refuse to believe Hollywood propaganda that some people are perfect) and its part of what makes us afraid. How do we go and survive outside the walls of Ateneo after with these imperfections? You make those imperfections your strengths. This is what would make you present. Both to yourself and others.
Just because I’m quiet doesn’t mean I’m not present. Just because I’m quiet doesn’t mean I have nothing to say. Just because you see me as someone quiet doesn’t mean I’m not noisy when I’m with people I’m comfortable with. The common misconception is that being quiet and shy is only adorable in kids, high school would be pushing it, and if a person is already in college and still painfully quiet and shy you’d be thought of as antisocial. But my Gen Psych teacher told me it could be a kind of strength (although I still haven’t figured out how to control and use it).
So to end, maybe just as much as we have and want to be present we also need to be aware of the presence of others. According to Marcel the “I” cannot exist without the others and I agree. I mean what would be the use of being present if no one would see that you are present and an individual? But then there is another rule that I believe encompasses Marcel (no offence to Marcel) and that is the golden-and-overly-cliché: do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you. So if you want to be present it would take more than turning your weirdness into strengths but also noticing those present around you. And since being present is pretty hard (Identity vs Identity Confusion, teenagers) then do not expect that being the one looking for the presence of all the people around you would be easy.
All Things Are Passing...
by Earl Valdez, teaching assistant
In the Thursday (27 September 2012) class, I left you guys a question that I think is very important and worth reflecting on: In the face of radical contingency, where all things immediate to us, including ourselves, are passing, how do we live our lives?
Let me share two things which I think illustrates very well the fact that there are things that pass in life, which perhaps will aid us in seeking our own answer to these questions.
The first one is from the book of Job, a story which I think, on one hand, reminds us of how things can pass away quickly, and yet such reality goes hand in hand with the Absolute whom we are called to hang on to.
(this passage is quoted from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible)
Perhaps the big question is: Can we still manage to hang on with life after facing such radical contingency?
The second one is something that I encourage you to watch (by yourself or with friends). This movie is about confronting death and finding one's meaning through the experience of others' deaths. (side note: this is one of the most meaningful movies introduced to me by Mr. Calasanz, and I believe this is worth sharing to you, guys).
Departures (Okuribito), won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film in the Oscars last 2009.
In the Thursday (27 September 2012) class, I left you guys a question that I think is very important and worth reflecting on: In the face of radical contingency, where all things immediate to us, including ourselves, are passing, how do we live our lives?
Let me share two things which I think illustrates very well the fact that there are things that pass in life, which perhaps will aid us in seeking our own answer to these questions.
The first one is from the book of Job, a story which I think, on one hand, reminds us of how things can pass away quickly, and yet such reality goes hand in hand with the Absolute whom we are called to hang on to.
(this passage is quoted from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible)
"9 Then Satan answered the LORD, "Does Job fear God for nothing? 10 Have you not put a fence around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But stretch out your hand now, and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face." 12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, all that he has is in your power; only do not stretch out your hand against him!" So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD. 13 One day when his sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in the eldest brother's house, 14 a messenger came to Job and said, "The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were feeding beside them, 15 and the Sabeans fell on them and carried them off, and killed the servants with the edge of the sword; I alone have escaped to tell you." 16 While he was still speaking, another came and said, "The fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the servants, and consumed them; I alone have escaped to tell you." 17 While he was still speaking, another came and said, "The Chaldeans formed three columns, made a raid on the camels and carried them off, and killed the servants with the edge of the sword; I alone have escaped to tell you." 18 While he was still speaking, another came and said, "Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house, 19 and suddenly a great wind came across the desert, struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people, and they are dead; I alone have escaped to tell you." 20 Then Job arose, tore his robe, shaved his head, and fell on the ground and worshiped. 21 He said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there; the LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." 22 In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing."
Perhaps the big question is: Can we still manage to hang on with life after facing such radical contingency?
The second one is something that I encourage you to watch (by yourself or with friends). This movie is about confronting death and finding one's meaning through the experience of others' deaths. (side note: this is one of the most meaningful movies introduced to me by Mr. Calasanz, and I believe this is worth sharing to you, guys).
Departures (Okuribito), won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film in the Oscars last 2009.
What do you think?
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The Importance of Doubting
by Russell Virata
20 September 2012
Discussed text: Rene Descartes, Mediations on the First Philosophy
The common perception of people when it comes to the word “doubt” is something negative. To doubt means to question, to be unsure, or simply to distrust. When someone, say a close friend, doubts you, you will definitely get hurt or be offended (unless of course you know yourself that what you said to him or her was a lie). Reversing the situation, when you doubt someone, there is the possibility of losing your trust and bond with that person. However, as we have discussed in class, doubting can be positive and is an important step in doing philosophy.
Galileo, through the act of doubting that the sun is the one revolving around the earth, was able to discover that the opposite is true. Descartes also doubted the philosophical foundations during his time and was able to come up with his own method known as the “Universal Methodic Doubt”. He first doubted his senses, thinking that these can be a form of deception like when you are dreaming or when you are in reality a butterfly thinking that you are a man. (I personally had a similar experience in the past when I thought, what if I, together with other people, are just characters being controlled by someone who is playing “The Sims”? But then this sounds improbable given the fact that a Sims character should not have a thinking of his own and I, having this thought, am sure that I am thinking.) Descartes then also doubted the foundations of mathematics, thinking that there could be an evil genie who is tricking him to believe that a triangle is a three-sided polygon or that two plus three equals five. Finally, after doubting everything, Descartes came up with the conclusion that there is only one thing he cannot doubt, and that is he exists as a thinking thing which doubts. Through doubting, Galileo and Descartes were able to have their own thoughts.
Indeed, doubting the norm and the status quo, just like what these two did, is very important in philosophy. As Simon Critchley says, “The philosopher neither sees nor hears the so-called unwritten laws of the city, that is, the mores and conventions that govern public life.” Bear in mind that this does not mean doubting and philosophy is about contradicting socially accepted truths or proving new discoveries. This just means that in doing philosophy, one should not easily accept things and take them for granted even if they are universally accepted, but rather to be always open to inquiries, questions and possibilities. It is from these questions that insights, reflections and realizations come in. For example, I have my own experience, which I believe some of us have also encountered, where my parents instilled in my mind when I was still a child that I should be a doctor when I grow up because no one in our extended family has become a doctor yet and of course doctors have very high salary. As I grew up, I doubted that being a doctor was for me because I did not like science much and so I took up a course which was more interesting for me. If I accepted my parents’ advice for me and closed my mind from the other possible paths, then I am pretty sure I would not be enjoying college now.
Take the RH Bill debate as another example. We should not choose a side simply because many people are pro-RH Bill or because the Catholic Church is anti-RH Bill. Rather, we should carefully assess and inquire about the different advantages and disadvantages of it before thinking critically whether the bill is actually worth passing or not. And even after having your own stand, I think you can still doubt some more and increase your thoughts about both sides. This is just one of many situations where doubting can be relevant.
As we can see, doubting is not only relevant in the times of Galileo and Descartes, but also in the present. It is a very essential ingredient in philosophy, which is not meant to break the laws, but rather to enable one to think and reflect on his own. Let me end with a quote by George Iles, “Doubt is the beginning, not the end, of wisdom.”
Sunday, September 23, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, September 21, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)