Neolouphis on Philosophy (original) (raw)

12 December 2007 @ 08:25 pm

10 August 2007 @ 10:19 am

Upon reading Simon Wiesenthal’s The Sunflower, I realized that I have not yet fully understood what it means to forgive. The main question that Wiesenthal’s book is trying to ask is, if ever we are confronted with a sincerely repentant dying Nazi soldier who asks for our forgiveness, what is our response? The author’s own response was a lack of one. His silence haunted him until he had a chance to meet the dead Nazi’s mother a couple of years after the genocide that the Nazis inflicted upon the Jews. The mother, believing that she raised a well-natured child still imagines her late son as such but Wiesenthal kept silent for the second time for fear of destroying an aged mother’s memories about her lost son. These two silences; are they different or are they the same?

It is true that time dulls the pain the past has imprinted on us but that doesn’t mean that we will eventually forget. To forgive is not to forget, nor is to forget to forgive. Supposing that I was in the author’s shoes but without the same mindset as his, I’d have the same response. The silence, though, doesn’t mean that I would mulled thoughts regarding the death of my family members, but whether or not I can forgive in behalf of those have died unjustly. Let’s take it to an extreme: if Adolf Hitler asked for forgiveness, would we grant him that? Would we grant him the cleansing of his spirit, knowing that he has massacred more than 6 million Jews? More so, that he sent children, I repeat, little children to the gas chambers? If Hitler asked for forgiveness, what does it mean? If we grant him forgiveness, do we let his deeds go unpunished? How does one forgive properly then (if ever there was a proper way to forgive)?

Crossposted from bluezoe4.

Current Mood: groggy

i'm not really sure if this is philosophical in anyway. i think not but i just thought a lot of the women in this community would appreciate this.

A man, speaking to a woman, was out to pursue the question, "What kind of man are you looking for?"

She sat quietly before looking him in the eye and asked, "Do you really want to know?"
Reluctantly, he said, "Yes" as she began to expound...
"As a woman in this day and age, I am in a position to ask a man what he can do for me that I can't do for myself. I pay my own bills. I take care of my household without the help of any man- or woman for that matter. I am in the position to ask, 'What can you bring to the table?'"

The man looked at her. Clearly he thought that she was referring to money.

She quickly corrected his thought and stated, "I am not referring to money... I need something more. I need a man who is striving for perfection in every aspect of life."

He sat back in his chair, folded his arms, and asked her to explain.

She said, "I am looking for someone who is striving for perfection Mentally. I need conversation and mental stimulation. I don't need a simple-minded man. I am looking for someone who is striving for perfection Spiritually because I don't need to be unequally yoked... Believers mixed with unbelievers is a recipe for disaster. I need a man who is striving for perfection Financially because I don't need a financial... burden. I am looking for someone who is Sensitive enough to understand what I go through as a woman, but Strong enough to keep me grounded. I am looking for someone who I can Respect. In order to be submissive, I must respect him. I cannot be submissive to a man who isn't taking care of his business. I have no problem being submissive... He just has to be worthy."

"God made woman to be a helpmate for man. At this point, I can't help a man if he can't help himself."

When she finished her spill, she looked at him. He sat there with a puzzled look on his face, and exclaimed, "You're asking for a whole lot!"

To which she gracefully replied...

"Only if you think I'm not WORTH a lot.."

Because I know that time is always time
and a place is always a place
and what is actual for only a time
and only for one place
I rejoice that things are as they are and and
I renounce the blessed face
and renounce the voice
because I cannot hope to turn again
consequently I rejoice, having to construct something
upon which to rejoice
--- t.s.eliot

Current Mood: content

"Lights will guide you home and ignite your bones and i will try to fix you."-coldplay (fix you)

It really makes me wonder if Chris Martin felt extremely broken when he wrote the song FIX YOU but if he was, then it's safe to say, i get him. i don't know if what's been bugging me for a long time now can be explained by philosophy or is it something i just have to figure out by myself? i find it really great that for the past weeks, just by merely reading other people's entries on love and other things, a lot of my questions have been answered. I wonder if there may also be an explanation or just something i can grind my teeth into when one person feels EMPTY. Is there a philosophical explanation on why EMPTINESS is constantly felt by other people? Others have said that it's just a matter of knowing who you are and what you want in life but is it also possible to know these things and yet feel so empty? I've been struggling to rationalize on why i experience these moments when i feel that everything i've been through and all of the people i have in my life do not actually make me feel complete. Other people usually say that we are constantly trying to find our purpose and meaning in this life. I've read Rick Warren's bestselling book entitled A Purpose Driven Life. A lot of those who read this book have said that their lives were changed. I've read it-- TWICE actually but i find it really weird that it hasn't affected me in anyway. Does this make me stone-hearted? If this life is a constant search for our purpose, does it mean that we live our lives totally purposeless until we do find our purpose? Socrates said that we should know ourselves. He's right but what if you're someone like me who believes she knows herself but it really doesn't make any difference. At the end of the day, even though i feel quite incomplete, i still value all of the things i have in my life but I also really want to understand why in the world i feel so empty when i am luckier than most people are and when i have more than a lot of people actually do? Does this make me self-centered and shallow or is it normal that i feel this way?

Let us imagine a box: a box that carries nothing but itself. With it, we see the relevance of what it can contain as well as what it can limit to contain. This box allows us to estimate, if not approximate, what can be contained in it. We can compare this with what consciousness can contain. Inasmuch as our consciousness is capable of grasping what is (or not), there are limits that it has to respect: that which can-not be thought. Consciousness allows us to see, from this point to that point, in a certain way, a certain horizon, where definitions can be and are sought. This limit is our freedom to see what is there; “there” being the place where the interface of our consciousness with that which is other than itself occurs.

This post is about dreams, I would like to know how the members of this community feel about it..

Current Mood: okay

The gain in time slot, however, has entailed the sacrifice of a vital audience—the mass viewers who rely on free television.

air time has since become more precious, with more advertisers chasing after a limited stretch of primetime.

They are modern society’s main sources of information, but they are also the principal purveyors of entertainment, and often the latter interferes with the former.

It is when we are faced with information that is not consistent with our own personal experiences that we are provoked to think, to question our own beliefs about the world.

_Television has the power to trigger such reflections. Even if it is merely to irritate us or to make us uncomfortable, every thought like this forms a weak link in the reproduction of complacency._The above italicized are taken from Randy David's article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (Feb 25, 2007).

I'm not really a big fan of the polls regarding Philippine education but one thing is for sure: that the education that our schools are offering us is headed for the ruins. This observation is not exclusive of the private schools, mind you. Being a teacher in one private school, I am saddened by the lack of educational excellence that the school is offering its students, which include the subjects offered, the quality of facilities and the teachers that are hired. I am no hero and there's the rub. Plagued by these facts, teachers should think twice in entering this so-called vocation. It is one thing to pursue a noble idea, another thing to be trapped and not be able to do anything about it because of the lack of incentives for teachers.

It's a vicious cycle. The problems that are currently facing the nation stems from the very idea everyone has of education. But since education is seen as a standard by which we could measure our morals, we begin to be complacent because getting a good education is a luxury and not a need. Michael Tan also pointed this out when he talked about diploma mills. Then, after a hard day's work at school, children go to their respective homes to see their mothers or yayas watching telenovelas which corrupt the mind, not that it sows bad ideas, but it never lets anyone generate new ideas. There is no information by which the information gathered in school can be utilized. TV is not bad for anyone's health. Watching inane programs spoonfed by the profit-greedy media is what makes us good people do nothing, hence we end up being complacent and indifferent to the world around us.

And we Filipinos wonder where we're headed? Haha.

He took the words out of my mouth.

I’m not surprised by this observation from Michael Tan. Quoting him, he says “the corrupt, the venal, the greedy -- they know the Filipino. The drug industry knows it can get away with charging us some of the highest prices in the world. There are others -- the tobacco industry, the junk food manufacturers, the firms that pollute our rivers and our air—who know they can get away as well because even if we do occasionally complain and cry ‘Foul!’ and pass new laws, we’ll eventually quiet down and simmer with our ‘at least’.“

Why?, we ask. This is because ours is a culture of resignation. I have had the belief that Filipinos are complacent. I’ve also called my people lazy. It has been an eye opener for me to know that a lot has been at stake and a lot has also been lost because of this attitude. Perhaps I missed out on a bigger part of the argument because I wanted to say that the Filipinos are indolent because we as a culture allow ourselves to succumb to injustices with our bahala na attitude.

“Let me add my thoughts here,” says Tan. “The ‘at least’ syndrome goes with ‘bahala na,’ often erroneously translated as fatalism. ‘Bahala na’ is not at all passive; it’s an expression we use after we’ve done all we can, and that can be a lot. After all’s said and done, we then wait for the results, and when they come, we say ‘at least...’ sometimes barely able to conceal our disappointment.

“The roots of our ‘at least/buti na lang’ syndrome go back to a feudal era, when we were taught to be content with whatever crumbs the ‘datu’ [tribal chief], the ‘hacendero [landlord], and later, the politician, throw to us. We accept the leftovers with gratitude, even seeing it as heaven-sent.”

Is “bahala na” supposed to show how meditative, even faithful, we are as a people? The consequences have been felt for far too long already in our history. In fact, our history has been nothing else but a history of oppressive forces. This will not speak to or of the people in the middle and upper classes for they are far from being affected with social inequities. How then do we respond as a people wanting to have a common consciousness to what has already been ingrained in our psyches from long ago? What is the proper response to our indolence? How are we to respond to our very insecurities, our weaknesses as a people wanting to live in a globalized world?

Oh please: let’s not be content with a “that’s all folks!” attitude when what is at stake is the future or our children.

Cross-posted from bluezoe4to neolouphis.

An ethics of love is hard to achieve because we do not understand what love means. A lot of us think that love is about compromises, deals or contracts. If we come to think of it, an ethics of love is when our grandparents tell us (the grandchildren) stories about our own parents. One example of this is when most of our parents failed the expectation of their parents, like maybe our parents might have been a junkie, an abortionist, a crook, a teenage mom, or a playboy. All these things are already forgiven once our grandparents tell us they love our parents, no matter what. The statement “_Anak ko siya at patuloy ko siyang mamahalin_” encapsulates this love.

However, if ethics is supposed to work, it must be prescriptive, and that’s where the problem lies. The more we forgive others of their wrongs, one of either reaction will come to the fore: either the children will think they are not cared for enough because they think their parents are so apathetic or extreme relativism will ensue. We also know that we cannot force our love to the one we love and this is where the ethics of love becomes a bit too cheesy and even impractical. The lover, when he says I love you means that he has forgiven all the wrongs from the past and is willing to forgive anything that will come their way in their loving relationship. This means every infidelity, every chance of failure, every chance of hurt will be forgiven by the lover.

With the mismatch of current psychology to this premise, we are doomed to mere practical ethics; either we will fall to that an ethics of pleasure or of utility. One factor is missed out though, and it is the reception of this love. For, if one expects love to grow, then it must be reciprocated. This gives both the lover and the beloved a chance to prove their love to one another. This is where the idea that “love is that of freedom and not of bondage” would come in. If we truly believe that we love one another, either consequently or simultaneously, then we will know how to respond to the call of love. If I am the beloved, then I will not risk my lover’s feelings to get hurt because I know that she’d do the same thing as I would in any given chance that might put our relationship at risk.

This, however, misses out on another thing: that, ultimately, it’s not the lover who chooses to have a relationship. It’s always the beloved. Which is why being God is lonely. Lovers can only wait for the response of the beloved. We can never force our love to whom we love. It is always the lover’s freedom that is most vulnerable for after the reckoning comes the good or bad news. However, this is not to say that being the beloved is free from pain. Acceptance is one thing, maintenance is another, and this is where most couples fail. They constantly blame the other for changing, as if changing weren’t a human quality. What they need is to change their perspective of the other every single day. The goal of love is the challenge of love: to see the other in a different light—every single day. This comes from the basic understanding that we humans get bored all too often and we are, more often than not, more cut out for novelty rather than consistency. Thus, if we want to remain loyal to the other, we must constantly look for what sets them apart from everybody else. “She is my rose, all the other roses pale in the presence of my rose,” said the Little Prince. So where do start if not from ourselves? Clichéd as it sounds; it’s actually what we’re entirely missing out from.

Cross-posted from bluezoe4 to neolouphis.