INSIGHT
I don’t really know where to start. Is it by solely defining what happened into our class that which tells you that what I’m writing is interesting? Or is it in understanding what I’ve done into our class which keeps you intrigue in reading this? All the way, it is in the mere journey itself what makes this piece interesting.
Our second official Philosophy class was really mind-boggling. How can I say it? Well, perhaps because it is in this class that I understood what I am in the process of my being few years ago. My questions were opened up in this class and as we go along the focus which is the “INSIGHT” by J. Ferriols imparted to us by our teacher, Sherjan, I found the answers or rather I understood the underlying “assumptions” which befit my queries.
Of course, it was required for us to read the article, do a little reflecting within our grasp and perhaps anticipate the concept which Ferriols is merely trying to convey to us depending on how we understood it on our own and not basing it to others. This is the point where our discussion lead through.
Ferriols started with the concept of not defining philosophy. That the goal of a philosophy class is not embedded on teaching what philosophy is rather it is by giving the students a chance to philosophize. Our teacher then went on for more details.
It was unbolted to us in the sense of doing vs defining assumptions. In this viewpoint, what counts is how you understood philosophy by not beginning to define what philosophy is but by actually experiencing how philosophy is in the process of your learning. Thereby, it is best for one to define philosophy in his own understanding after he experience philosophy in his class. That afterwards, it is up into him if he chooses to define it or not depending on how he understood it on process. Thus, “philosophy is easier to do rather than to define it” as inscribed by R. J. Ferriols.
Our teacher elaborated further on the subject matter by citing a concrete example, love was then chosen. There exist love in many definitions to others and he’d rather not define it because it is in the act of loving so that he’d define it and not in the mere definition itself would love be understood by him. Love is then found in loving the other is what love is. In redundant terms, it is in the way you experience it, the way you would define your understanding. And only in understanding it that you’d tell not to define it.
The lesson was complex indeed. He mentioned another instance to make it more apparent, a marker was presented in its cause. This is the part where I understand myself getting the lesson completely.
What is a marker? The point was it was never really about the marker, but it was towards understanding ourselves what a marker is do we really define what a marker is base on our experience. In relation to insight, the marker is just a tool in understanding oneself and it is along the way, we can further understand ourselves.
In this lesson, I learned that philosophy more than all the logic is directly concerned with the individual itself, how he’d understood himself in circumstances he journeys in.
Moving on, if I remember it rightly, he somewhat linked it to our status as students. That defining what a student is, is never the essence of it, but it is in experiencing how to be a student do we justify what a student is. In the way of tagging that students are to make assignments, to attend classes, to pass projects, etc. is never in the sense students are really define by that. Perhaps it is, however, it is in merely being in the process of being a student do you wish to define what a student is and by simply understanding it you chose not to define it. I saw the point that same logic was applied here congruent to the first.
He continued on how each of us views the world. In the world where there is an urgency to philosophize. The way we view the world is to philosophizing it as we understood it into our capacity. In the end, it is on how we really understand things which really matter. Correct, what counts at the end of the day is how we understood ourselves in the process which makes us understand the lesson fully. Now I almost get it.
I bet he eluded another illustration in our society. Criminality, I guess was inserted. Criminality is on the eyes of who see it only and never for those who didn’t see it. It is by understanding what criminality is by only witnessing or seeing it do people really define it within their own grasp. In short terms, criminality in defining it is totally different when one witnesses it. And it is only in the account of those who saw it do they define what criminality is.
He also cited farming as an example. Perhaps everybody could define farming in a general sense, that it is the planting of the seed and blah blah blah, however, it is not in that definition of what farming is, farming is really is all about in reality, farming is different in the sense of how one experience it. Perhaps to classroom learners, they could define farming as simply planting, however, to farmers, who really do the farming, farming would have a whole different meaning for them. Of which, in the extent of non-farmers they would never really grasp it until such time they too would undergo in it.
Whatever is the mere coverage of this lesson of us in Philosophy, I am surely to comprehend more once it gets more to the bones.
0 comments:
Post a Comment