THE h SCRIPT

Jean Paul Sartre: Human, all too Human

2009-10-08T03:08:00.000-07:00

So to start, Sartre never believed that existentialism is gloomy as to those who accuse it was, rather, he put it in such a perspective where it scares them since it leaves man to a possibility of choice. Where existence precedes essence: subjectivity is the initial point, thus man is nothing else but what he chooses and makes of himself – the underlying principle of absolute freedom for Sartre. But why absolute freedom?

Man is freedom, indeed; is responsible for whatever he does because he had only himself to blame for the interpretations he made. Then, I come to perceive, is man’s destiny then within himself only? Thus, if reality alone is what counts, it is not outside of me but really within me through the possibility of choices. Hence, through this choice, since I am responsible for myself, and in choosing man, I choose humanity; therefore, I am responsible for everyone else, how is absolute freedom manifested in such?

In one sense, choice is possible, yet Sartre also connoted, but what is not possible is not to choose. Why? Because we can always choose, yet we ought to know that if we do not choose, we are still choosing. A realization I sensed, one can never abstain oneself from choosing one choice, undeniably. One always has a choice, no matter how small and Sartre was firmly convinced of that.

After discerning the life Sartre had, where he doesn’t claim family, friends, had been into prison, especially war and politics, discarded fame, owned nothing, witnessed the liberation of the press, rejected his Nobel prize for literature, wrote acts, published books and some publications including novels, etc, I was truly amazed how he assured himself to be free. I remembered the line relating the involvement of man in the film, “You are already involved even if you don’t think you are. You have a role to play in society, so the point is to be aware of the significance of your situation.” And such was mentioned in his book also because action is what enables man to live. More than that, I distinguished the importance of action and where our freedom fits in line to what we experience in our society.

So, freedom is not limited then? Why do we want freedom? In wanting freedom, Sartre says, we discover that it depends entirely on the freedom of others and that the freedom of others depends on ours. In this fashion, I can seize freedom as my goal only if I grasp that of others as a goal as well. That man being in whom existence precedes essence, that he is a free being who can want only his freedom is at the same time can want the freedom of others also – the implication of man being responsible for others.

So, how can our absolute freedom then fit in with our existence? I grasped that we were thrown in this world, says Sartre, which life has no meaning yet, but it is we who shall give it meaning. The fact that life is meaningless, gives us the opportunity to give it meaning because it doesn’t have meaning in advance. Thus, we are vindicated to give it meaning and to exercise our free will. It’s our own self-project, and it is on engagement which we are that they appear. For this reason, whatever happens to me is the image of my free choice and everything which assails me is mine, for I have chosen it and that in the sagacity of it, it characterizes me and epitomizes who I am.

Sartre’s emphasis on absolute freedom, the for-itself, being congested that he is the one by whom happens to be in this world, indeed, represent human destiny. In simplest terms, I am responsible for everything, and I am the foundation of my being. In a way I understood it, it’s like in everything we do, we must never forsake the idea of freedom nor repudiate it. Thus, is freedom then the basis of all values, as I reckon it according to the film? Yes, and I presume Sartre was rigid on that.

The way I saw Marley and Me

2009-09-01T04:15:00.000-07:00

Perhaps there’s more to life. A learning which could only be grasp through life-long experiences. And that is where value comes in. You outweigh and then sacrifice things. Which meant that life is inevitably made to be outweighed for certain things, things that makes you happy, things that you aren’t even aware you’re happy with them.

Life just happens spontaneously. Though we make decisions, the best occasions, we could rather say, are those which aren’t planned in the end. We see causality yet cannot really predict the exact forecast of things. These are what I’ve realized in the Marley and Me movie.

And I thought it was just about a man and woman having a miserable dog. As the story goes by, I appreciated family life with it. That a dog could be of value in the end. That more than all the daily passages of life, happiness could never be interchangeable with money or good fortune you have in your family. Perhaps it could not be found solely with the dog but somehow it is implied.

Another thing was that imperfection was incredibly entailed here. That there are people who are lucky so much in having what they do not desire yet get privileged price afterwards, is so much rewarding thought. It reminds of me of the scene where John (Owen Wilson) was firstly applying for the job as a reporter in a Metropolitan newspaper in south Florida, he replied when he was ask how did he think he was better than the six journalism graduates who had applied that morning, he started with “I don’t know” and continued “What I know is that I have a tendency to surprise myself”. From that very line, I deciphered he was so honest and down-to-earth and nothing substitutes for the beauty of simplicity. He sustained “Ten years ago I was doing bong hits and playing Donkey Kong. I never dreamed of going to college but I did and graduated with honors. And never thought I’d get a job at a real newspaper, but I did. And certainly, I never thought I’d get a girl like Jenny Havens to marry me, but I did.”

See? Where his lines go. It all boils down to reality, the reality of unexpected things which exalts your way. It does prompt my memory how surprising myself could be fun, and never expecting too much of alleviating my situation. I superb like it. I do. In more general terms, things have their timeline. Though he stated that he’d never given to the idea of getting to the college, there he goes, went to school and actually have gotten honors in the end. As brief as the line went, I decoded the particulars which are inclusive of it. To get honors, comes hardwork. Time management also, yet beyond all these, the persistent belief that though you didn’t deem you can do it, at least you have tried. That’s the essence which I saw. Anyway, it’s worth more than not having tried at all.

Conceivably, the life of a writer could be as complicated as his writings are. It can be straightforward and focus much on fact like news; a commentary, like having yourself submersed to it; a feature, trying to make it more colorful; or reporting as what have been mentioned in the movie, the way I have down pat it. However, behind all these specializations you write about life. Life floats on the concept of the “real” sphere, the thing you reckon to be vital and interesting, the thing you know how to paint through vivid words, of course, only instituted in reality.

The movie might have revolved around the dog, Marley, yet interrelating all aspects, it flourishes my heart how writing could be fun and stunning once you write about something of value for you in everyday life. Not that this is something brilliantly valuable per se, but you see the worth on it. That you see its significance worth writing for. Though can’t really be “saleable” per se in your mind, at least, in just a glimpse of it, it will always hark you back to those days you think the world is so lost and you are so lost, and there goes that article brandished with life.

It’s not that you should put you on your writing. It’s your writing afterall, and it signifies you. That someday when things fail, you’ll see the greater worth of it. Only time can tell. And that is the essence of writing.

I always believe there’s more to my reaction in this movie. So I’d rather not end it. Realizations will just float up and they are everywhere. Again, I am just glad I have understood something today, far beyond its perplexities and completion. But we all know, it doesn’t stop there.

Contemplating fiction and reality: Merlin

2009-08-25T22:16:00.000-07:00

I do not wish to disparage fiction and reality, yet, on the very core of my imagination, what lies pleasurable is the fantasy part. Perhaps, one may contend, it’s because I do not get what I want in reality, however, let me ask you, have you ever felt something so strong that you actually believe in the fact that it is real and yet to happen? And though you’re really pushing through the limits not to be swallowed by it, still, you can’t evade the current. This is my world of phenomena versus my imagination.

I know what is real and what is not, just to start. I am Hannah Louise, and I love watching fictitious drama so much, and I consider it beneficial on how I imagine things.

Just recently, I have finished watching the season one of Merlin, played by Colin Morgan. Perhaps, it was not in the contention that since the antagonist is handsome or cute, that I got eventually hooked in. Though I admit, that’s one point. But then again, on a larger scale basis, I was delving more into the story. And magic is the word. I am so enthralled with it and it pleases me most. Added the feature of Colin Morgan’s acting skills. He impresses me so. I recalled, garnering back my thoughts in high school, when I’d love to read the story of King Arthur, and as such I have perceived that there was more to Merlin, and I like him the way he is. Colin Morgan just strengthened the grounds of my findings. How I breathless I am for him.

Another plus factor in this British series is on its cinematography, I loved the overall outcome of their work, though there maybe some flaws apparent, nonetheless, it was more than satisfactory. Surely, one who’d watch this would want more at the end.

So, there goes me anticipating every segment of the show. And the more I continue, the more I felt I was part of the film. Though psychological experiments would utter that it is natural for you relate eventually on the film and put your perspective on their setting, what people merely do here is just satisfying themselves in their professed gratifications. And I was part of those people. I was granting what I thought I need, yet it turns out to be a “want”.

Reality can be so harsh, so hard to absorb and fully welcome in. That what we get at the end of the end day is just mere pleasure. Us, who wants that fantasy to be our reality is denied of truth, and is therefore lead to deception, merely, deceiving ourselves that we could a part of that certain vivid reality the motion picture has been portraying to us.

And then, I pondered, was I to continue this? Now that I perceived it’s loosed essence. The truth I assume to be there, yet it ought not to be found. And that is the problem within the frame of imagination, of knowledge, since we know how to reason, we also come to discern how to understand. Even if it is something misleading, still we persist to gratify our immediate gratification. A short-run leisure.

Thus, it is in killing this simple happiness of mine found in watching Merlin, that I come to discern the quintessence of the transparency between mind and reality. How we fill the gaps we desire through our mind since reality ought not to bring us there. And how we got clogged to the notion that that gap we just recently filled is the reality itself assailing over us.

What is dangerous here, I fathomed, is if we have been already clogged within the frame of mind that reality is what we have fantasized. That the fantasy, we are considering of, is our factual reality. It’s hard to deviate from that individual truth we think of. That instead it would help us grow as a person, it obstructs our cause, since it pulls us down.

Hence, what are the necessary steps must I do? Should I stop watching such kind? Should I lessen my imagination? Or should I not treat such exaggeration as something beneficial in what my reality is. I contemplate too much, my mother regarded me so. I should be neutral, I deem.

Perhaps, this is a part of being human, where you get to be confused once in a while, since you crave for something, you want to attain it. Accordingly, there is a need for me to remind myself that though humans have a tendency to be fictional, I must be neutral when reality clash in. Although we cannot disregard personal feelings as such with our own thinking, however, controlling it would be a good cause. Though, reality hurts upon acceptance, still, we have to move on.

Thus, we should only lineate the edge where the film is created for us to be entertained, not to be succumbed as something authentic. Double depiction of falsity may arise seldom, yet, reality prevails over us. Fantasy is just one part of it. We don’t have to dwell just on one side but we must examine both sides as equal. To be neutral and be perceptible to “what is going on” and not “what is not going to happen” should we gobble.

I seized that I am just scared, that that certain fantasy I am dreaming of may not come true. Still, I must admit to myself that I exaggerated this too much to the point that I get disrupted easily and eagerly cannot wait for the season two of it. However, life goes on, whether I like it or not, Merlin will have its own time for me to amuse later on.

Bottomline: I was stupid and this hurts me, but there’s more to life indeed, not just delving in that part but encompassing all things which fiction has empowered me so far. The fusion of reality and fantasy ought to be found in watching that, as far as that point could go, I am glad I have watched something like that. And I am happy that I have learned from it.

Wisdom as the Sense of the Overall Goal of Human Life

2009-08-25T22:06:00.000-07:00

If human life has a clear essential direction that it is meant to be lived in a precise way, how do we “really” know it? Yet, before we view such cause, it is significant for us to perceive what objective we really have in life. Though life is full of successive readjustments from a perceptual field affected by our whole social context, is being wise then rooted from grasping that we have such kind of awareness of our aims or purposes? There is a gist of wisdom which looks at wisdom as something basic or profound understanding of human life.

They say challenges await everyone. And underlying these challenges are our much anticipated goals, which is why we effort harder than usual, since we want to attain such endeavor. Still, the main idea remains unanswered. How do we really know it? Is it innate in our part? Well, perception varies in everyone. Nonetheless, a wise man is he who understands human life, the life he is living, the sphere he is moving in, and the veracity which he holds on. It is in the one who grasp human life in a bottomless way. That is when he already got the awareness of this basic purpose of human life.

Such awareness could be missed by a lot of people. Not in the sense that they are idiotic but the trials which bombarded them seem to mislead their idyllic purpose. They loose their senses midway without having accomplished such rarity. How? Since the world is deemed modern nowadays, many people enjoy their lives carelessly. We come across with the existing pop culture, technology, within-the-reach vices, and materiality which are so rampant all over. One or another, they’re tending themselves to be lagged. Perhaps they had a wrong address to the problems, yet, it takes a special insight to glimpse afar all these perplexing philosophies which come to assail us.

Not only does it presume discipline in our part but our wholeness in such goal. Insight and character which is vital for everyday living. If the first facet is the insight into the nature of this main goal of life, what follows it, is the discipline, which the self has to outweigh such plans. And it is inclusive of courage to face the ordeals ahead.

That should I say, if King Arthur ought to have such insight and discipline that is why he knows very well the overall goal of human life is to protect humanity and serve the kingdom, it is his orientation to life which made him wise. Because he is capable of distinguishing values which are superficial and those which are profound and he wisely directs the foremost drives of his life toward the basic understanding of those values which are most significant.

I definitely adhere to the view that the wise man not only knows how life is meant to be lived but he actually lives it that way. That within one’s existence, he plays the part in accordance to what he understands and believes in. The very essence that it is imperative to know oneself that he begins there.

That if at the end of the day, a person fails to comply with such goal and misses to understand what is there, since, such wisdom is not always present, his sensitivity is offhand. Thereby, deluding oneself into being a waste. Because understanding human life requires the mere perception of what it is being human and to outlive the various experiences and hardships which ought to pass our ways with the help of such insight and character.

The emphasis then is not on the “how to live life” but by only grasping the foundation what it is to live, the very substance of our purpose, a basic understanding about human life in a profound way we deal with it.

Wisdom as the sense of the overall goal of human life not only counters foolishness which is possible in human life, nonetheless, it appears to convey to us that gaining such basic understanding of life would lead us to be aware of what human life is ‘all about’. Insight and character through one’s discipline to be courageous permeates the essence of one’s goal in life. Indeed, the wise man is he who understands human life in a profound way, a basic understanding that is found in an awareness of the key purpose of human life.

Compartmentalizing agenda

2009-08-14T23:02:00.000-07:00

As the country turned 111 years older last June 12, so did it lag our undying sense of optimism. Does optimism reside on the Filipino itself, or is largely rooted from our consensus? We have notice a great deal of convergence and divergence since the Marcos regime, we don’t need total change. What we need is to fill the gaps of our “Filipino sense” to higher moral grounds.

The Philippines’ successive scenarios are plaguing; too much of rallies, too little sentiment from Malacanang; too wrong address to the problems and too right democracy of the people. Our scenario has been bombarded with many acts of graft and corruption impending nowhere, coups cluttering for better prospect of agendas, issues which compartmentalize our deemed agendas as something irresolute and minds which has been long muddled vis-à-vis “spoiled nationalism”. Where did charter change ever fit in these concerns?

Or rather when did charted change ever become rightful as such to alleviate the status quo? If the government opt to specifically respond to the concrete social problems generated by this evolving world, charter change ought not to be an option or last resort. It is thus through education which people should be molded reasonably. That in assessment, youth empowerment is just one result, social integration and economic ascendancy follows. In relevant terms, democracy would ground impressionistic assessments that Philippine realities need. Never it is on the side of repelling against what the people want.

Economic development through jobs, should then be the next priority, more than national autonomy; popular democracy and accountability; personal freedom and dignity; and global peace and human survival. to further ease poverty. Because an increase upon economic development signifies we have used our means to justify the end. That we would know where our whole existing systems – access to justice, access to housing, access to land, access to education, access to leisure, access to health, access to every conceivable service or good on which so much public money is normally being spent really goes.

That too many lives have been sacrificed for senseless killings of the intertwining fate of this archipelago. Again, there is a must to re-imagine who we really are and what we need to do inorder to have what we want to achieve.

That Filipino morals is never on “sale” when it comes to taste about the government since lives are pledged here and agendas are never on a bargain for the common good. It must fit no matter how varied our culture is to the underlying postulation of happiness at the end of the day. Because what make people happy is not the type of government at the end day but the freedom from restraints of the conjectures of devils who thinks they are wise.

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES 1ST EXAM

2009-08-14T22:47:00.001-07:00

Identify 5 characteristics of a good sociological theory and construct your own personal definition of sociological theory.

Much of sociological theories as said in the book are derived or have sprouted in the bough of social realities and social relationships evident in the perspective of theorist per se. However, clarifying what’s a “good” sociological theory may be mind-boggling. Of course, we have to go back to how it developed, how it was accepted and if it really stood in a great span of time. Needless to say, the core of a good sociological theory must always delve into the significant social issues in our society not being too idealistic rather realistic at hand.

There are apparently countless characteristics of a good sociological theory and I have identified five of them. First, a good sociological theory is established empirically, meaning it is data validated gathered by social theorists on the social realities that pay relevance to them. In addition, those cases assembled can be studied systematically. Second, social theories are more comprehensive, it tackles very broad issues rather than specific ones. These are big ideas about issues and topics of concern to everyone in the social world. Third, an effective sociological theory must be explanatory and has predictive power, of which can help us see the relationships among seemingly isolated phenomena as well as to understand how one type of change in an environment leads to others. Fourth in hand, it is evident that it must also be balanced, pertaining that it would outweigh the personal interest of the theorist himself like Karl Marx in his capitalism theory. Naturally, the social structure with which the theorist dwells in affects his/her view upon categorizing his theories. And the last, a worthy sociological theory pedestals from reality the theorist inhabits.

In a more formal description, a sociological theory is a set of interrelated ideas that allow for the systematization of knowledge of the social world, the explanation of that world, and predictions about the future of the social world.

In the same way as what I have stated above, I reckon sociological theory as a blend of beliefs captured in an idealized manner, immensely concerned with the critical social image of the world or of each reality within us dignified upon interaction and has an extensive breadth of applicability which can be deemed useful in understanding life.

So, why a blend of beliefs captured in an idealized manner? Personally speaking, I mull over these points as plainly common sensical added with a flavor of reason to surface more formal and regal in a reputable way. In the latter part, I also deem it to be concerned with the critical social image of the world, given that people formulate social theories to impose a caricature of their social reality. I also added the point “of each reality” since the truth which floats upon the theorists themselves have a great personal impression of how they thought reality as it was in their perspective. In my own, I constantly view reality in my perspective - of my own interpretation influenced by the books I’ve read, the ideas I ponder, and of peers alongside me, etc. Moreover, “dignified upon interaction” since it’s merely overt, each one seems to be talking about it, or have been affected by it. And “has an extensive breadth of applicability” relating that its scope is not solely limited on one factor but a whole lot of factors. As my final line suggests “which can be deemed useful in understanding life” in an approach that we make theories because we think it’s something significant and can be a contributing purpose in our dynamic vitality.

Among the different enlightenment philosophers, who do you think made the most significant contribution in stimulating early sociological thinking?

So, what seems to be plaguing the Enlightenment period that great thinkers suddenly divulge? Before that, it is significant to grasp first what happened in the Enlightenment era.

For all its continuity, the Enlightenment stage was a serious split with tradition in that it secularized and individualized the theory of natural law, and demanded that Christian values be realized in this world. What’s more, the philosophers did not hesitate to announce that liberty, equality, fraternity, and happiness were the rational assets that nature had intended for humankind’s eventual enjoyment. It thereby helped to institute the self-conscious search for empirical knowledge a gateway for reason and experience, indeed.

Subsequently, dilemmas soon rose up; Cassirer traced the problem of trying to base knowledge in psychology and epistemology, Montesquieu whose main line of thought lay in natural justice, Grotius, the advocate of abstract rationalism and Locke, empirical rationalism. Rousseau, I personally deem, made a rather great impact from a sociological standpoint – for he questioned all types of social existence, including one based on science, individualism, and progress.

Rousseau’s rejection of both the past and the present and his simultaneous claim that a genuine community is the destiny of humanity pitted him against the main propulsion of the French enlightenment that time. Though, what made him separated from the philosophes was his suspicion that reason and science were no more related to humanity’s true identity than were religion, warfare, or feudalism. For him, the emergence of reason as critical intelligence is a nuisance rather than it establishes society.

My second contention is that Jean Jacques Rousseau made a significant impact through his work – Social Contract. This served as a foundation for legitimate political order in the sense of clearing the distinction between the government and the sovereign. According to Rousseau, by combining into civil society through the social contract and discarding their claims of natural right, individuals can both preserve themselves and remain free. In simple terms, human beings have a moral nature that has been corrupted by all known institutions. The only way to realize the community intended for humanity is to allow this original force to manifest itself.

Lastly, his influence was wide-ranging that it influenced Kant on his “general will” assertion. His statement that the moral sentiments of ordinary people are sound, his idealization of the communal will expressed that humanity must indeed make its own destiny found demonstration in conservative, liberal and socialist movements, theories, and nationalism.

Thus, his accounts like general will, amour proper, moral simplicity of humanity, popular sovereignty, and positive liberty were deemed substantial the field of sociological thinking amongst others.

3. Using Comte’s Law of Three Stages, explain the reasons why sociology was born during the 19^th century and not in other period in European history.

Sociology became only notorious upon the broadcast of Comte. Primarily because he was the one who first labeled it so. He gave a more precise framework which lies in his ability to coordinate and systematize the material of others. He piloted the intellectual trend and subjected it to a thorough process of theoretical bond. Of course, prior to his existence, none of those philosophers like Saint-Simon and Condorcedet ever termed or paid utmost significance that society could be studied distinctly from other fields, in the perspective of society and association itself.

Moreover, there exist deficiencies in the Enlightenment’s empirical approaches so to allege that sociology was born earlier than the 19^th century. Since, basically, sociology is already in lined with science and could not subsist without the systematic milieu. Also given that the progress of human beings that time was leaping up with the evolution of the mind toward a unified scientific conception of the structure of universe, a progress which he expressed marked by critical (or destructive) and organic (constructive).

More importantly, upon his unveiling of the 3 stages, he asserted that knowledge develops differently depending on subject matter – the more general and simple sciences precede the more individual and complex sciences. The one remaining area to be retrieved from the dominance of theological and metaphysical explanations was the most complex of all, the field of social phenomena. In simple terms, it was impossible that sociology would be born before the birth of sciences since the structure or the frame of mind of the Western people that time was predominantly influenced by the kind of authority they have in the regime. Disruptions would only surface if a new better ideology has been proposed and have been supported by the majority upon propelling against it through revolutions, indeed.

Thus, the culminating science is sociology, which itself gains theoretical and empirical unity and validity from the great law of progress. Meaning, it was only in the 19^th century when the people began to internalize progress and advancement in the deeper sense of wanting to improve their life. That in actuality, the law of progress commands that social phenomena at any given time contain both structure and process

It was missing in the theological stage, as its social forms military conquest and slavery. The metaphysical stage went on a critical or destructive period and an organic or constructive period. Wherein, it too was characterized by military values but these have become defensive which merely marked the Positive phase, a period of gestation, indeed. It was after the 1800’s people grasp that there’s a division between spiritual and temporal authority. And that the peak of sociologists understanding resides in the positive spirit where social application is apt valid.

4. Critiques say that early French sociology was conservative based on the works of Saint-Simon. Comte, and Durkheim, identify five overarching characteristics of a conservative sociological theory and briefly explain each.

Apparently, the conservative based works floated to dispose the current status quo. What is evident in French sociology from the works of Saint-Simon, Comte and Durkheim was the fact that each of them developed their theories for the organization of society. The three of them had a semblance of social reformism

Of course, it was Claude Henri Saint-Simon who started it all. It was undoubtedly known that his conservative sociological theory was in fact traditionalist for he wanted to preserve society as it was. He too believed in scientific techniques for the study of social phenomena as Durkheim and Comte do also. Emile Durkheim was the one who inherited the conservative tradition as it was palpable in his works greatly influenced by August Comte yet intensified it more.

Given that retaining the current status quo is the first archway of conservatism patent in French sociology, the three of them thought that though it is not possible to return to the Middle Ages where there’s no allusion of social disorder, still, the reconstruction of society must be done through social reforms. As added by Comte, reforms were essential solely to assist the process a bit and that natural evolution of society would alleviate things.

Secondly, a conservative sociological theory seeks to reaffirm the conditions with which social disorder obliterated. To reiterate, the sociological theories of these French sociologists came up in reaction to the Industrial Revolution period, meaning conservatists hated social disorder and distortion of the status quo.

Third in line, the three of them stressed in congruence that there is a neutral ground to subdue the forces of nature and to make it possible to happen. As Saint-Simon enunciated, “Evils would disappear when all people, working in statuses enjoined by their natural capacities, were linked together in the common enterprise of subduing the forces of nature.” With a similarity by Comte, “Specialization is dangerous, but fortunately society sets up a counterbalancing force that neutralizes the tendency toward dispersion.” As Durkheim further strengthened it “It is clear that the general characteristics of human nature participate in the work of elaboration from which social life results. But they are not the cause of it, nor do they give its special forms; they only make it possible.” Garnering back my thoughts, the three of them absorbed that participation is something innate upon the individual to naturally act or response back to what the society needed to counterbalance the effect which is so a conservative quality.

Fourth trait of conservatism, in my standpoint this too is significant, that science and industry are bearers of new morality. As Comte believe it that all producers would be united by utility and friendship because of their common stake in economic values. Saint-Simon also expressed his appreciation of science and his equation of morality and personal worth fundamental to humanity. Durkheim later apprehended the same gist by stating that a science had the power to unify phenomena and to establish moral order. Thus, not only did they include that decline of religion towards the progressive development of solidarity but science as functional also.

Like Saint-Simon’s, Comte’s liberalism too have violated the core principle of liberal thought – the spiritual autonomy and the individual. Which leads to my last point, they could not tend to see individuals as basic social units; however, they believed strongly that there were natural individuals with natural talents and that the positive society would reveal who they were. As evident in the opus of Durkheim, society was always the formative agent, producing a different type of social agent to correspond to its new needs. That society is a regulative system prior to the individual and that regulation should take place. A very traditionalistic view, I reckon.

Hence, to maintain the society as it was, in reaction to social disorder and chaos, participation as something regulative, science as new morality and liberalism in the societal standpoint – are the five overarching characteristics of conservatism which I consider.

5. Explain Durkheim’s work in terms of the following: (a) Subject matter and task of sociology (b) views toward social change

Emile Durkheim, a man who pioneered sociology. He wanted to understand and theorize the impact of the large scale structures of society and society itself on the thoughts and actions of individuals. What made him distinct is that he emphasized ‘social facts’ to describe the social structures and cultural norms that are external to and coercive of actors. He distinguished and elaborated the field of sociology from other social sciences. Also, put weight on empirical data to lend support to theoretical speculations. He focused on the division of labor and its consequences for social life and clarified collective conscience or the need for a common core of values and moral rules.

According to Durkheim, social facts are the subject matter of sociology. Social facts are “sui generis” (meaning of its own kind; unique) and must be studied distinct from biological and psychological phenomenon. Such examples are sentiments, laws, morals, beliefs, symbols, customs, fashions and interaction. What’s more through socialization and education these rules become internalized in the consciousness of the individual. These constraints and guides become moral obligations to obey social rules. Besides, the aim of sociology for him is to determine the causes and functions of a social fact.

In addition, he cultivated human dualism to portray individuals as extension of the society. Which in anyway lead to his found phrase “anomie”, a sense of not knowing what one is expected to do. In collective conscience, he said, the desires and self-interests of human beings can only be held in check by forces that originate outside of the individual. Durkheim characterizes this external force as a collective conscience, a common social bond that is expressed by the ideas, values, norms, beliefs, and ideologies of a culture.

Durkheim’s view of social change revolves around an analysis of the causes and consequences of increases in the division of labor. How dynamic density does grounds the division of labor? Dynamic density boosts competition among individuals who, if they are to endure the “struggle,” must assume specialized roles and then sets up exchange relations with each other. The division of labor is so the mechanism by which competition is mitigated. In simple terms he saw migration, population growth, and ecological concentration as causing increased “material density,” which in turn caused increased moral or dynamic density--that is, escalated social contact and interaction. Such interaction could be further heightened by varied means of communication and transportation. He further stressed that anomie is inevitable when the transformation of societies from mechanical to an organic basis of social solidarity is rapid and causes the “generalization,” or “enfeeblement,” of values. With generalization, individuals’ attachment to, and regulation by, values is lessened.

Although Durkheim saw social pathologies as rooted in the division of labor, social change was most promising in the context of collective morality. He felt that a modern, weakened version of mechanical solidarity was emerging through the ‘cult of the individual. Here, individualism was becoming the moral system of modern society. Solutions lay in reinforcing the strength of collective.

I guess more than all the fruitful outcomes of Durkheim’s work, he was most ridiculed for integration. In light of large scale social change in the organization of labor, how does a society maintain order and stability? Yet, he emphasized social processes that regulate asocial behavior and bind individuals to the collective, something is still missing. While criticized heavily over the years, Durkheim made it clear a upon provoking questions of how the endless diversity in action, affect, and is continually bound and rebound into the routine structures of society.

PHILOSOPHICAL ENTERPRISE: a reaction

2009-07-15T02:43:00.000-07:00

What if a man does not act with his understanding? Does that mean that he does not value himself? Of course, for him to act morally, he must have in any way. However, that doesn’t answer that he had fully understood himself in the realm of this socially constructed world. Men continue learning. And with learning comes questions, which by the very fact did not start with an answer.

Pragmatic or principled subject matters could be divided; one asks himself what learning he could get in these questions. Yet the very fact that he initiated to question means he wants to know and have thus experienced what it means to say it. Now, does he ask to merely understand himself? Needless to say, one must learn what is being what which is found in the very core of questioning that he already understood something in regards to himself. In juxtaposition, it’s about oneself trying to understand before the meaning. That one must discipline oneself to ask inorder to know and understand his identity.

If we should ask ourselves then what’s the significance of questioning following that it would lead us to the realm of behavior and action profoundly, why must it be experientially authenticated? Simply, it is in ones validation of experience that one realizes his potentialities as a person. That he begins there. That whatever is his questioning maybe is the drive for him to know the truth. That philosophy is concerned with the truth in relation to the questioning self.

We come across now to the idea of the existence of philosophy. All thanks to the most personal of human endeavors. What are these anyway? Simply rephrasing the thought, what merely shapes philosophy depends on the human undertakings anyway, our accomplishments, our day-to-day deeds and action. That along with the movement of men, the innovations of men, philosophy is sustained through questioning and the philosopher’s quest for the truth per se. With the world existing, we need to learn indeed what is there and it is with the one who knows how to question only.

So, what can we do if the world before us has been constructed even before we know it? Precisely nothing but to abide with it. Rather than staying with that concept we learn to coincide with our minds that liberation is more essential than what is that pre-conceive notion in our society. Perhaps it is right to reiterate that “The very fact that a question arises, I am liberated from the chains of unquestioning acceptance of whatever is at hand”. Obviously, the very moment that we start to ask a question from whatever it is which aroused our curiosity is already an act which appeals to be liberating, for we do not hinder ourselves from questioning what might have been previously long accepted.

If it is not the self then who decides who he is, it’s always the majority; can the non-existence of those majorities unshackle his arrested self then? True enough, by detaching himself from the environment, his historicity and etc, the questioner may find a personal insurgency, which in effect he unbolts himself to a horizon of possibilities which he may engaged into. Just to not really divert his way of thinking rather to free himself from those hooks. It is in the more I cannot find myself with others, the more I find that I am.

The emphasis then is on the process, it was never how the society was structured in that way, and rather it resides on the essential recognition of its radically personal meaning found only in the identity of the questioner himself only which he understands.

In addition, to grasp that one’s life is one’s own unique task which is entrenched in the interpretation, communication and understanding of experience, is to admit that one should never stop building it in a way he comprehended it. That beyond his questioning and dynamism, his personhood is the precursor. To know and to actually do something about himself signifies his search for meaning rooted in self-questioning.

I definitely adhere to the view that the intensity of human venture and creativity is based upon the intensity of the quest for one’s identity and purpose. That within my existence I imply reasons, so question must I to further demand answers along the way. That my cunning to understand reflects upon how I convey my personhood. That the greatest impact of all these is to grasp what knowing implies about myself, that I’ll learn to discern more about myself as a focal point of these actions.

The enterprise of philosophy hence, is to understand oneself upon recognizing that his endeavor is to understand, interpret and communicate his experience embedded in self-questioning only. That one must never stop to question so he could learn, that his drive is for pursuing the truth more than all, to liberate what is imprisoning his being so to unlock his potentialities therefore. That though knowledge is explicit, we must seize what is within. All of these start not to attempt in answering but to take a posture with respect to one’s self and one’s condition – only found in philosophizing.

The Koreanization of Davao’s Imitation Market Businesses

2009-07-08T03:26:00.000-07:00

The rapid globalization of the world stunned Davao with the delight the Koreans have brought so far. Yet, never have they imagined its impact on our culture. With the boom of the imitation industry of Davao City, another race is dominating it with more than just provoking new ersatz fashion trends with the clothing, the style, and the impact. Should one expect that people of Davao to collapse economically, or indulge in optimism at its survival to this date? There appears to be reason for everything.

In the recent years a large number South Korean citizens came in and out of the country. Soon enough, they have well established many chains in the country. In Davao, they’re well embracing the China Town. As much as we know about the Uyanguren road is its prominence for Chinese products that is low-priced. With the emergence of new malls selling ersatz products, I highly doubt that China Town is still Chinese; I pinpoint it simply with a mix of “Koreanization”. Koreans, who are implementing businesses along with their influence with the products they brought.

DCLA PLAZA’s rise

In the Filipino world, money is basically significant. So, when it comes to fashion, the majority always sticks to the cheapest with approved quality and style. Hence, when DCLA has been established in Davao, it began to be a craze for the Filipinos to buy more stuffs and certainly to the Koreans to progress their productivity of selling products. Thus began the imminent disintegration of Filipino clothing, style and perspective.

Though it is of common knowledge that Davao adheres its manifestation to globalization and neo-colonization, Koreans still transpire to replace Filipino fashion ordinariness of t-shirt, pants and flats to halter dresses, coats, skirts, tights, and heels that is so inapplicable to our atmosphere and environment. Should one expect that a mere individual to be wearing that in school or in work, highly, but people who purchase much of their needs there belong to the lower classes and middle classes only. This quandary of acculturation leads to the dying impact of their sense of Filipinoness; that inorder to go with the flow of the world, they succumb themselves to foreign invasion just to imply that they could equate in.
Have you seen seen a Filipino in DCLA who governs the cashier area? No, because simply, Koreans are Filipino’s bosses now rather trying to be the alternate. They again manifested their inferiority complex. Koreans being more superior, even though this isn’t their land.

168 Shopping Mall’s entity

Another component has been manufactured to develop the fashion interest of the inhabitants of Davao. Positioned at China Town also, should it be confirmed that this shopping precinct is only Chinese? Of course, it does make a difference as to who sells the product and the ones who’s not. It’s unveiled that though there exist more Chinese people in the stalls, it’s apparent too that 40% of it is Korean retail stores.

Air conditioned better than DCLA, it gives one same comfort as SM and any other malls. Accordingly, who toils more in this workplace? Is it the Koreans sitting back on the cashier area receiving money from Filipino buyers? Or the Filipino personnel who thrive to persuade consumers obtain their merchandise? Though racial discrimination isn’t evident these days, it is deceptive to people’s eyes as to who gains more. Filipinos follow their sense of style along with the influence that Koreans’ culture is better than ours. It may not be so obvious, still, it’s existing.

Upsurge of many Korean retail industries

Small businesses, too, have been instituted to provide Filipino consumers an option to satisfaction. These Korean retail industries, maybe minor and scattered, in spite of everything, they’re expanding more than Filipino industries. With their fake creation of Luis Vuitton, first class Crocs, D&G, Havaianas, and etc. Filipno’s are endowed to abide by their fashion philosophy.

See the magnanimous effect, though some Korean retails are owned by Filipinos, yet, Koreans are the ones supplying it and Filipinos making it operational. Easy money for the Koreans. Also, with its upsurge soon enough, the whole Davao economy have to render it for gross. Easy gross comes with same high quality looking product at a low price. The uyanguren road of China Town is adopting the Koreanization phase little by little, unconsciously.

The Korean’s Concept

One very improbable concept, Korean’s might defend to their part, is their purpose of launching businesses here. One of it is that they are in good faith conducting enterprises here for the better benefit our country and them. Also, that they are not claiming much superiority in terms of fashion style, with the aim of that this is just mere business just like what every other negotiators do. Nevertheless, it can’t be highly accepted once culture and fashion is involved in the business. At the end of the day, who gets to enjoy the elite Philippine living is them, splurging up money on our golf clubs and living on best villages. While it maybe true that provoking new fashion don’t threatened our national interest, it is beyond the façade of an imaginary eye to notice the drudgery and optimism of the Filipino people in the contemporary way.

Nevertheless, though Koreanization will never collapse the Davao economy, the impact is far more reached over home, at school, in an office, and everywhere. Regardless of its profit and the dire need of the Filipinos to supply their businesses, indeed, Koreans are overshadowing our imitation market industry more than just a common trend in the modern days. Their domination in the imitation commerce extends beyond the limit of fashion, clothing, and impression on our society, but most, it’s upshot to individuals of productivity, the Filipinos.

INNOCENCE

2009-07-07T20:02:00.000-07:00

Perhaps all of us wants to go back in time when we children enjoying life as it was without further knowing what's ahead. These faces express simplicity. Without makeup they are more closer to heaven indeed.

PAGKAMULAT

2009-07-07T20:00:00.001-07:00

A hands raising moment. These children usher to give their full energy while we facilitate a game for them to play. Notable expressions can be fully noticed indeed how one desires to participate in the game can be reflected upon his/her agitation in the face.

PANAN-AW

2009-07-07T19:59:00.001-07:00

Pananaw, paningin – these would be the perfect words to describe the perspective of this little girl. Paningin because it seems alluring that her eyes tell something about her point-of-view which differs how one realizes it.

NUMERO-NUMERO

2009-07-07T19:58:00.001-07:00

“Lasto” is a common bisyo of pinoys whether they are in a city or province. I spotted this little girl looking; seem to be counting as she mumbles numbers while looking at a numerical paper.

ISIP-TINGIN

2009-07-07T19:57:00.001-07:00

Making my way down the little hill of the Barangay Langob neighborhood, I spotted this boy, aimlessly walking, nibbling his sando. What’s more to decipher? What could he be thinking this time? I wonder.

INIDORO NI ANDOY

2009-07-07T19:56:00.000-07:00

Mga inidoro ni andoy. This maybe the first time this child to hold such a toilet bowl. In the journey of our NSTP, “the ambassadors” group perceive his community needs such amenities after water became available in the community.

Guot

2009-07-07T19:50:00.000-07:00

In the midst of fun, these children don’t mind whoever they’ll bump to. Playing the boat is sinking, grappling each one is the game. Children find happiness in little things indeed.

MaMa

2009-07-04T05:41:00.001-07:00

While we were shooting on our assigned task for the Population and Development last February in Manila, Ate Tin brought us in the squatters’ area in front of NEA (National Electrification Administration). Disembarking the taxi, we’ve seen this child crying as she shouts “Mama!” repeatedly. The people there didn’t seem to mind as we caught her on video crying with such a lamenting posture.

06/30/09 - fourth Philosophy class

2009-07-03T23:46:00.000-07:00

June 30, 2009 – 10:56pm – Tuesday

There are many ways to turn this writing towards. As much as I’d love to reiterate what my teacher has said, yet that is quite impossible. Our philosophy class today turned out to be much exciting than expected, of course, in accordance to how I felt it was but never is the same with the experience of others.

I always ask myself since the first week why he always repeats what he taught us in the past meetings. Now I get his point. There is this sense of amazement which enthralled me, that to fully understand philosophy, one must experience it. And in experiencing it after one chooses not to define it. He was letting us recognize how “experiencing philosophy” differs upon reading it only on books. That, whenever, he is relating the subject matter he always goes back to what an insight is. I perceive, upon his teaching the insight, what he was wants us to remember that “we must always go back to the original insight”, this is exactly what he is doing.

Perhaps I should add to my learning on how an insight seems inexhaustible beyond human capacity. “There are no such things as a last insight” I marked his word. That insight resists all its efforts to be known at all simply because it is in its nature that it is unfathomable. It is purposive. Its intention is to be thinkable. However we tried to distinguish that truth we know is something to close once we have a bite on what it was, analyzing it deeply, one will sooner or later realize that the truth is something far rather than close, that he through that is something graspable isn’t at all. Thereby, he’ll conclude it’s just like not knowing anything about the truth at all. The deeper you identify the truth, as an instance, is like not having a familiarity at all to the truth which is so indecipherable in nature.

It’s like when we know something that something is far more than we thought it would be and is distant to reach. And it is in knowing that something we choose not to define it. The word “I don’t know” expresses that you know something yet you choose not to define it. For example, when we have a best friend, of course, we actually know him in a part or so, however, as we deeply get attached to him, we’ll soon find out that there is far more than what the person we think he is, presumably speaking. Therefore, it’s like we do not know him at all.

In life, we know there exist death after. So, why keep living? Haha. A rotten quote indeed. Nevertheless, in the human capacity, there is urgency for us to move. We are used in going there. Looking inwards is rather hard, we are used in looking outwards. That is the irony of life. We know that there is death, so, there’s a more reason for us to keep living.

Also, the idea of separating knowledge and ignorance is introduced. As much my memory could relate it, this has something to do with going back to the original insight. You see, the dividing line between knowledge and ignorance is very thin. It is in grasping knowledge that one becomes more ignorant, and in becoming ignorant, one gains knowledge. In relating this t o the going back to the original insight, I guess, he used the Van Gogh painting. I don’t exactly remember how he relayed it but I’ll keep it locked on my own na lang.

In going back to the original insight, I seized that of the joke example. A joke is intended for humor. The one who sees the point laughs at it. However, analyzing the joke itself can kill its whole essence so we must go back to its original insight in order to deliver it to others indifferently.

So, can there really be a right or wrong insight. No, there can’t be a right or wrong insight. What may seem to be wrong is the thinking but not insight itself which is crucial to thinking. When we see with our minds, it is insight. The next to insight is the thinking. However, we tried to turn it around, an insight can never be wrong; it is on how we think it that it goes wrong. Therefore, it is the thinking not the insight itself.

I’ll end this blog by saying “it is never them, it is always us, ourselves which is significant in thinking”.

06/23/09 second Philosophy class

2009-07-03T23:42:00.000-07:00

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.

Who says a pen is a pen?

2009-07-03T23:41:00.000-07:00

WHO SAYS A PEN IS A PEN?

In our first official Philosophy class, I was surprised to know how deep and rigid philosophy is. My mind was perfectly calm then. I’ve set my mood beforehand that I should really anticipate this class. Not only was I excited because I like the teacher but also it was the subject course I was foreseeing through, all over my college life. My expectations were set; of course, I laid down that our Philosophy class should be then active, one which is engrossed in pragmatic discussions, but how pragmatic should it be, I couldn’t convey.
So, all my attention was on the subject matter, how the teacher would impart to us the certain understanding, non-philosophy majors should grasp. A world with a different tone, I expected.
As the teacher commenced the class, all of us with our petite grip of what philosophy is, has been ask indeed how we would define philosophy in our most common understanding. We all comprehended the literal meaning of it, philosophia in Greek, meaning “the love of wisdom”. However, within that connotation one cannot just reside in it fully, needless to say, it must extend to something, right? Which is exactly what Sherjan, our teacher and at the same time, author of our book elaborated to us by introducing a subject of thought which we could relate on what we ought to know what philosophy is. A pen was highly presented in its cause.
A pen, a purely solid material in the make up was held and has been opinionated in its origin. He established by asking “What knowledge could you tell that the pen I’m holding is a pen?” I answered “common sense” but however, contributed no impact at all to the discussion. A classmate responded “because of its use that we know it is a pen”. Another rejoined that it is by experience. One answered back “it’s because it’s what society laid down to us” and the other for the reason of its existence.
So, anyway, how could we refute such knowledge that we know it was that knowledge which aided us that we know that it is a pen? I was thinking, its usage was a primary cause and is therefore too basic and therefore is not the right answer at all. Doubting myself, I even questioned my senses, if there is indeed a precise answer as to what we are discussing. He continued that if then a pen is out of ink and hence cannot write, would it cease its continuation being a pen? It was apparent that it cannot be. So, therefore it wasn’t usage.
Another claim would be that since we experienced it. It is in by the way of writing we know it is a pen. Nevertheless, construed to be false. A good instance would be, he retold that we are all sitting in chairs, which in fact true, and that he is sitting in a table. But never would he daresay, he is sitting in a chair while he’s on a table. So, what are we talking again? I reviewed my mind. At this point, I couldn’t derive any apparent answer why. Gaining back my sanity I sort of realized, indeed, a table is not a chair which you could call on, so how could one gain that kind of understanding anyway? The discussion continues.
With the contention that it is a pen given that society laid it so resulted groundless. Why? Is it so that if our society labels that it is a pen would other society labeled it as a pen also? What about the other people who does not belong into our circle, then significantly, it isn’t a pen to them because we haven’t passed down the clue that it is undeniably a pen.
Lastly, the “what we see, we believe” notion, is it because we see it that it is identified in its being? Sherjan baffled us with a rationale example of a candle. He let us visualize a room with four corners with a door in it. The people in that setting were lighting a candle in the middle of a room, and afterwards went out. Upon conveyance so, do we derived that the candle is still lighting? Ahead of this astonishing case, my paradigm continued to twist 360 degrees all over. By what means and wisdom do we acquire the idea that the candle is still lighting? I was really hooked up. Now, that was something new I encountered. Though, very basic actually into our postulation that such guess appeared to be true. What he stated to us is that we were just conferring assumptions. Thus, does knowledge emerges to be plain assumptions? But that ain’t knowledge at all. The problem with humans is that we are too assuming, it is that very confidence we know it is a pen, because it has been an assumption throughout and it follows that it’s not knowledge.
Perplexing indeed. At that aspect, I found myself clueless, a mere idiot, and a moron trying to learn things. He then began to launch that at least we know for the truth that we don’t know these things, because in not knowing these things, we obtain the energy to discover more. At least it is in that knowledge that we know we don’t know that which reminds what we know, he added.
Indeed, perhaps we don’t know our true selves. But those who knew who they are are the ones who established what’s their extent and therefore has a more reason for living. I associated myself with this undertone. In the past years of my life, I have been in an identity-crisis because of not knowing who I am. Only discerning my potentials, I hold on to what I believe to be me. And is it that I only recognize who I am because I have something to hold on to? No books could plainly elaborate it to me. But in his lesson, I grasped what is essential to know – the very knowledge which tells us how to convey things.
Though, there might not be a precise answer as to what I’m writing and therefore the puzzle prolongs. There is one thing I assume in here certainly. That a pen is a pen by not knowing it is a pen at all, the very knowledge of “I don’t know”. I know that I don’t know how this writing will influence others, but it is in questioning that philosophy becomes functional in the very being of the self.

Sensei wa erai (Teachers are awesome)

2009-07-03T23:40:00.000-07:00

Sensei wa erai

(Teachers are awesome)

Like any other good movie, I was excited first viewing this Japanese film because of the handsome teenage boys imposed. Mostly, I look at shows base on how their actors perform their role. Anyhow, the story was the next. But having really fine-looking actors would catch up my taste.

The story was predictable at the end like any other movie I ought to watch, I must foresee what’s the stream to be, right? So, there it goes with me anticipating the future of it – the lead characters liabilities, the odds and ends, the achievements, nevertheless I by no means take into account the journeying purpose of them. I was too close-minded, trying to be smart but in the end I caught in a glimpse of me – being stupid. It’s the realization that matters.

Now, this is the point where I shall put up the necessary grounds of not how to underestimate a movie. At first point, it’s you who first ushered to watch it. Without taking the interest to view it, I doubt if you’ll enjoy watching it. Thereby, whatever thought you enforced previously, must not be limited but rather unfastened. I was amazed with the fact what this simple clip brought to me, not to the detail of praising it, on the contrary it taught me things I have taken for granted, things I just let loose, things that I let blocked my studies, things I never have given a second thought to be this essential. Yes, I appreciate it now.

I bet you know what individuality means but only until defining it, reasoning it is a different cause, it involves moral discernment. Change may not be perhaps an unusual word for you, you hear it everyday, but did you really comprehend the actuality it denotes to you and around the society? How about a positive outlook in life? I’ve told myself a long time ago ‘bout the law of attraction. I took in consideration that I knew it all along, that it was innate to us, but it wasn’t ‘till I realize this day the sagacity of it.

Never give up learning, so that was it. It was part of my daily vocabulary but for me to swallow the whole bunch of how I can’t change people but I can change me takes a long time for me to convey it. In the level of individuality, no matter how you push people, you can’t force them to do it since the final decision lies on them too, to accompany the action bared. Hence, for you to denote how a teacher could be rated lies on your predicament of how you think of yourself can do it and how will that teacher can uplift you in your sense.

Learning can help you grow, but so does reflecting in everything you carry out. Sorting trials out into different perspectives will be able to make it easier for you to seize others’ idea of it not only in the individual level as well as the societal and international level.

All of these are well correlated. People don’t get much vision of it, thus taking it for granted. But for those people, who change for their goals, gets it all. Who says you’ll run for a marathon in order to win? You’ll just have to run until the end of the line – that’s the idea of it. Just like in learning, who tells you to study this if you study for them? You just have to study in the extent that you wanted to see and bare it in accordance to your aim.

The next time you’re going in your class, rethink first what initial impression you want to put in your mind about your teacher. If you think they’re great, believe me, your innate strength will gush forth and make you alive to study. But if a bad thought expresses it all, it’s hard to understand what will happen in the upcoming days.

Just remember – it will only appear to those who want to learn. You!

Give it a thought – teachers are awesome!

P.S.

We change unconsciously.

In the end, learning from a teacher depends on the one who wants to learn.

In short, whether a teacher is good or bad depends on you.

Say this to yourself:

And it will all be solved dramatically because of me!

It’s something important in the world I’m living in.

This is a very big thing.