KABUUHAN

Ang Pagdudugtung-dugtong ng Konsepto ng Loob 

Gamit ang mga panglapit nina Lacaba, Mercado, Salazar, Ileto, De Mesa at Ferriols

Introduksyon

Ano nga ba ang loob? Maraming bagay ang masasabing loob. Ito ay maaaring loob ng bahay, loob ng puso, loob ng tao, loob ng laman, loob ng utak, loob ng isip, at marami pang mga bagay ang maaaring ihalintulad o iangkop sa konsepto ng loob.

Tulad ng isang bahay, marami ang nakapaloob dito. Nasa loob nito ang comfort room, kusina, sala, silid-kainan at silid-tulugan. Sa loob naman ng comfort room, nandito naman ang kubeta, paliguan, lababo, salamin, mga sabon, mga shampoo, at mga tuwalya. Sa loob naman ng kusina ay matatagpuan ang mga kasangkapan na ginagamit sa pagluluto tulad ng kawali, mga sandok, kutsara, tinidor, mga plato, mga platito, mga baso, mga tasa, lababo, ang lutuan at ang refrigerator.  Sa loob naman ng sala, dito matatagpuan ang sofa, telebisyon, mga magazine, ang altar, ang ibang mga libro at picture album. Sa loob naman ng silid-kainan, makikita rito ang mga upuan, ang hapag-kainan, at ang mga prutas. Sa loob naman ng silid-tulugan, makikita rito ang kama, kompyuter, mga upuan, ang kabinet, mga libro, ang mga damit, at ang mga personal na mga gamit.

Tulad ng isang paaralan, marami rin ang nakapaloob dito. Nasa loob nito ang mga silid-aralan, ang kantin, ang kwarto ng mga guro, ang silid-aklatan, basketball court, at ang palaruan. Ang silid-aralan naman ay naglalaman ng mga upuan, pisara, mga chalk, mga mesa, at mga libro. Sa kantin naman nakapaloob ang mga pagkain, mga upuan, mga mesa, ang pera, mga plato, mga platito, mga kutsara, mga tinidor, mga sandok, kawali, lutuan, at inuman ng tubig. Sa kwarto naman ng mga guro, nakapaloob dito ang iba’t ibang mga gamit ng mga guro sa pagtuturo, mga kompyuter, mga mesa, mga chalk, at mga libro. Sa silid-aklatan naman matatagpuan ang pagkarami-raming librong pagmamay-ari ng paaralan, mga upuan, mga libro, at mga kompyuter. At sa palaruan naman nakapaloob ang lahat ng mga bagay na maaaring magamit ng mga bata upang makapaglaro.

Tulad ng isang sanaysay, ito ay naglalaman din ng mga salita, mga konsepto at ang papel. Ang sanaysay ay nakapalaman sa papel, at ito ay naglalaman din ng iba’t ibang bagay na may kinalaman sa tema ng sanaysay. Nakapaloob dito ang mga salita dahil kung wala ang mga salita, wala rin ang sanaysay, at ang konsepto upang magkaroon ng saysay ang pagkakadugtung-dugtong nga mga salita sa loob ng isang sanaysay.

Mga Katanungan

Alam natin na ang lahat ng mga bagay ay may nilalaman pa na iba’t ibang bagay, at alam din natin na ang bawat bagay na nakapalaman sa isang bagay ay mayroong pagbabagay sa isa’t isa o kung sa madaling salita, may layunin o purpose. Ang mga tanong ngayon ay:

(1) Ano ang layunin ng bawat bagay na nakapalaman sa isang bagay?

(2) Ano ang layunin ng pagkabuo ng isang bagay na may nakapaloob na iba’t ibang mga bagay? at

(3) Paano malalaman ang layunin ng bawat isa at ng kabuuhan?

Ang mga Pilosopo at kanilang Sariling Aspeto ng Loob

Upang masagot ang mga tanong, gagamiting nating ngayon ang iba’t ibang panglapit na ginamit ng iba’t ibang pilosopong Pilipino sa paghahanap ng mga loob. Si Emmanuel Lacaba ay gumamit ng historikal na pananalinghaga, si Leonardo N. Mercado, SVD ay gumamit ng metalingguistikang analisis, si Zeus Salazar ay gumamit ng sikolinggustikang analisis, si Reynaldo C. Ileto ay gumamit ng historikal na hermeneutika, si Dr. Jose M. de Mesa  ay gumamit ng Teleolohikal na Hermeneutika, at si Ferriols ay gumamit ng metapisikal na pagmumuni-muni.

Ayon kay Emmanuel Lacaba, ang loob ay isang yungib kung saan ang loob ay nakatago. Nakatago dahil sa kagagawan ng mga sumakop sa ating bansa: ang mga Kastila, mga Amerikano at mga Hapon. Sinabi niya na ang tunay na pagkaPilipino ay itinago sa labirinto o sa pagkalalimlaliman kaya hindi na ito makuha ngayon, na tinakpan ng mga mananakop kung ano talaga ang Pilipino. At ang isa pa ay ang kanyang ginamit na diyalektikong proseso kung saan ang Aufhebung ay magagamit upang ang hindi totoong sarili ay humantong sa totoong sarili.

Ayon naman kay Fr. Leonardo N. Mercado, SVD, ang loob ay isang holistikong sarili ng Pilipino. Ang kahulugan lang nito ay ang pagkaka-ugnay ng isip, salita at mga kilos ng isang tao ay ang bumubuo ng holistikong pananaw. Kaya niya rin nabanggit sa kanyang gawa ang relasyon ng loob at katawan kung saan ang ispiritwal na aspeto ay may relasyon din sa pisikal na aspeto ng tao. Dahil sa pagkakaroon ng mga relasyon na ito, hinati ni Mercado sa limang dimensyon ang loob: (1) sa Intelektwal, (2) sa emosyunal, (3) sa bolisyunal, (4) sa etikal, at (5) sa sari-sari. At sa kahuli-hulihan, binanggit ni  Mercado na ang mga ito ay  tumutukoy sa malawak na katotohanan ng tao sa umiiral niyang pakikipag-ugnayan sa sarili at sa iba.

Ayon naman kay Zeus Salazar, ang loob ay isang lagay ng damdamin at katangiang ubod. Una, nagkaroon siya ng dualismo sa konsepto ng loob at labas kung saan ang dalawang ito ay pinaghiwalay niya ng landas. Kanyang inuri ang Labas bilang kaugnay sa sosyal na dimensyon ng tao, na may kinalaman sa pagkilos, na ito ay aktibo at sinsadya, at ito ay purong obheto. Sa kabilang dako, ang Loob naman ay inuri niya bilang isang lagay ng damdamin, may kinalaman sa katangiang buod, na ito ay pasibo at hindi sinasadya, at ito ay purong suheto.

Ayon naman kay Renaldo C. Ileto, ang loob ay isang tunay na sarili ng tao. Binanggit ni Ileto na ang loob ay ang siyang panloob na sarili ng tao kung saan ang tunay na halaga ng tao ay matatagpuan, kaya masasabi natin na ang loob ay may mga katangiang (1) may malalim na batayan, (2) pantay-pantay, (3) dumadaan sa ritwal ng pagpapakadalisay, at (4) nag-uurong-sulong. Una, sinasabing mayroong malalim na batayan ang loob na tao dahil ito ay imposibleng mahanap sa panlabas na kaanyuan ng tao. Hindi maaaring sabihin basta-basta na ang isang tao ay may maganda kalooban kung ibabase natin ang kagandahan ng loob sa panlabas na anyo. Halimbawa, mayroong mayaman na lalaki, may magarang sasakyan at mahal na kagamitan, ngunit hindi siya nagpapakita ng kagandahang-asal. Ito ay isang halimbawa kung saan ang mga tao ay hindi maaaring husgahan sa panlabas na anyo. Sa Ingles, mayroong kataga na nagsasabing “Don’t judge a book by its cover” at dapat natin itong isipin lagi. Hindi sapat na rason na alipustahin ang isang tao dahil lang sa kahinaan ng kanyang panlabas na anyo. Kailangang pagtuunan natin ng pansin ang kanyang kalooban o kanyang ugali bago tayo manghusga sa iba. Ikalawa, kailangan nating pagtuunan din ng pansin ang pagkakapantay-pantay ng mga tao. Kung loob ang pag-uusapan, walang pango, walang maitim, walang maputi, walang mataba, walang bakla at walang tanga dahil hindi binabase ang loob sa panlabas na anyo kundi sa mismong kalooban ng tao. Ikatlo, ang loob ay dapat sumailalim sa proseso ng ritwal ng pagpapakadalisay. Ang layunin nito ay upang maiahon ang loob sa kadiliman patungo sa pagbabago ng loob. Ang naunang tatlo ay lahat positibo, ngunit ang susunod ay lumabas bilang negatibong anyo ng loob ng isang tao. Ang ikaapat ay ang pag-uurong-sulong ng loob. Madalas itong makikita sa panahon ng pagsubok kung saan ang karamihan ay nabibigong lutasin ang mga balakid dahil sa kahinaan ang loob. Kaya, upang lumakas ang loob, kailangang gawin itong Kristiyano upang maging handa at maging malakas ito sa panahon ng kagipitan upang ang lahat ng balakid ay pasabugin ng dalisay na loob.

Ayon naman kay Dr. Jose M. de Mesa, ang loob ay ang pinakaubod ng pagkatao at ang daigdig ng pagkanilikha. Sinasabi na tayo ay may isang substatum o loob na ginawang salalayan ng damdamin, isip at pagkilos, at ito ay nakapaloob sa isang relasyon sa kapwa na kung saan mayroong pagkakapantay-pantay, at sa Maykapal kung kanino nanggaling ang tao. Kalinya rin ng mga ito ang pagkakaroon ng utang na loob at kagandahang loob. Sinasabing mayroong utang na loob, ngunit nagkakaroon ito ng negatibong pagtingin dahil sa pag-aabuso ng tao, subalit sa halip na mang-abuso, kailangang isipin na lang natin na sila ay ating kapwa-tao at pakitaan natin sila ng kagandahang-loob.

Ayon naman kay P. Ferriols, SJ, ang loob ay ang tao sa kanyang kalaliman. Ang diskusyong ito ay patungo sa larangan ng totoo, tunay at tapat na pagpapakatao, sa pagtanggap sa sarili, at sa pagiging bukas sa mga bagay-bagay na maaaring mangyari. 

Tungo sa Pagpapakatao

Gamit ang iba’t ibang panglapit na ibinahagi ng iba’t ibang mga pilosopong Pilipino, ating alamin kung saan patungo ang kanilang mga ideya tungkol sa loob. Isa lang ang kasagutan dito: ang pagpapakatao. Magandang bagay ang pagiging tao, ang pagiging tunay na tao. Ang mga layuni ng  mga nakapaloob sa  pagpapakatao ay ang pagiging yungib, pagiging holistiko, pagiging damdamin, pagiging tunay na sarili, pagiging ubod ng pagkatao at ang kalaliman ng tao. Gamit ang mga ito, matutulungan tayo sa pag-alam kung sino ba talaga tayo, kung ano ang pwede nating magawa para sa sarili natin, para sa iba, para sa ating bansa at para sa buong mundo.

Ating alamin, paano nga ba talaga ang maging tao? Kung gagamitin ang pagkayungib at pagkalalim ng tao, maaaring magkaroon tayo ng isang ideya upang alamin kung paano mapapaahon ang isang bagay o ang ang ating tunay na loob mula sa kailaliman ng labirinto. Kung gagamitin natin ang pagkaholistiko ng ating sarili at ang pagkaubod ng ating pagkatao, maaari rin nating mapag-aralan ang ating sarili dahil ang ating pag-iisip, pananalita at paggalaw ay mga bagay na nagpapakita sa atin ng ating pagiging isang tao. Kung gagamitin naman natin ang ating damdamin at tunay na sarili, maaari nating malaman ang tunay na kalooban ng ating sarili at ng iba sa malalim at masusing pagninilay.

Pakatapos malaman ang lahat ng mahahalagang bagay, maaari ng masagutan ang unang katanungan. Ano nga ba talaga ang layunin ng bawat bagay na nakapaloob sa isang bagay? Ito ang pagbubuo ng isang kabuuhan. Kung wala ang mga nakapaloob sa isang bagay, wala rin ang bagay. Halimbawa, ipasok natin ang sitwasyon sa ating sarili. Magkukulang ako kung wala akong mga magulang dahil hindi ako magiging tao kung wala ang aking mga magulang. Magkukulang ako kung wala akong katawan dahil hindi ako ito kung ibang katawan ang naririto kung saan man ako naroroon.  Magkukulang ako kung wala akong kamay, wala akong mga mata, kung wala akong utak dahil hindi ako maaaring tawaging tao kung hindi ko tinataglay ang mga katangiang nakapaloob sa isang tao.

Kung sa moralidad, ang mga nasabing panglapit at mga loob na ayon sa mga pilosopong Pilipino ang magsisilbing sangkap upang maging ganap na tunay na tao ang isang tao. Dahil sa kanyang pagkakaroon ng pagpapakatao, magigi siyang isang huwaran at mabuting mamamayan.

Tungo sa Kabuuhan ng Bansa

Alam natin na ang isang bansa ay naglalaman ng gobyerno, tao, teritoryo at kapangyarihan, at hindi magiging buo ang isang bansa kung wala ang mga nasabing sangkap. Isipin natin na kung ang mga magiging sangkap nito ay magiging isang ganap na tunay na tao na naglalaman ng tunay na pagpapakatao, ang bansang kanilang kinatitirikan ay magiging mabuti, masaya at maunlad na bansa. Ang pagiging buo o ang kabuuhan ng isang bansa ang siyang tanging layunin ng isang buong bagay. Kung mawawala ang kabuuhan ng mga bagay na bumubuo sa pagkabuo ng isang buong bagay, masasayang lang ang kagandahan, ang kaunlaran, at ang kabutihang hinaharap ng isang bansang tunay na buo.

Kaya, upang magkaroon ng isang masaganang bansa, isang maganda, payapa, mabuti at maunlad na bansa, nararapat lang na tayo ay magkaisa. Upang magkaisa, kinakailangan din ng kooperasyon ng bawat isang bumubuo sa kabuuhan ng isang bansang nagmimithi ng kaunlaran. Ngunit paano magkakaroon ng kooperasyon? Magkakaroon ng kooperasyon kapag ang bawat isa mayroong nais ayusin sa kanyang sarili, sa kanyang loob. Nararapat lang na ang bawat miyembro ng isang bansa ay magsimula muna sa kanilang sarili upang maging ganap ang pagkabuo. Paano magiging ganap na sarili? Kailangan natin ng masusing pagninilay upang maabot natin ang ating pangarap na maging isang mabuting mamamayan. Ayon nga kay Socrates, “An unexamined life is not worth living”. Kaya tayo mismo, magkusang-loob tayong alamin ang bawat bagay na bumubuo sa atin upang tayo mismo ay makabuo ng isang buong bansa na maganda, mabuti, payapa at maunlad. Isipin natin na ang pagninilay na ito ay hindi lang hanggang sa pagninilay o pag-iisip lamang. Ang bawat napagnilayan at ang bawat napag-isipan ay nararapat lang ilagay sa tamang aksyon.

Paglalagom

Kaya, ang bawat panglapit na inihanda ng bawat pilosopong Pilipino ay nagkakadugtung-dugtong sa layuning makapaglikha ng hindi lang isa kungdi maraming tao na mayroon at magkakaroon pa ng tunay na kahulugan ng pagpapakatao tungo sa isang buong kabuuhan ng bansa.

Sino Ako?

Ang Loob bilang Yungib ng Kaisipang Pilipino:

Historikal na Pananalinghaga ni Emmanuel Lacaba

Sino ako? Sino nga ba ako? Kilala ko nga ba ang sarili ko? Marami ang nagtatanong kung sino ako. Paano ko sila masasagot kung kahit ako ay hindi masagot ang mga tanong na ito? Asan nga ba ang sarili ko, ang isip ko at ang loob ko? Nasa labas ba ang loob ko o nasa loob ang loob ko? Ang mga tanong na ito ay kadalasang nababanggit ng bawat isa kapag sinusubukan nating kilalanin ang ating sarili. Ngunit mayroong problema; kaya natin kilalanin ang ating sarili at mayroon sa atin na isang bagay na nagpapalakas sa atin upang makilala natin ang ating sarili, subalit paano?

Ang layunin ng papel na ito ay (1) ipakilala sa atin kung sino si Emmanuel Lacaba, (2) alamin kung ano ang loob para kay Lacaba, at (3) alamin kung paano matatagpuan ang loob gamit ang panglapit na ginamit ni Lacaba. Gamit ang mga layuning ito, hihimay-himayin natin ang historikal na pananalinhaga ni Emmanuel Lacaba.

Bago tayo magsimula, alamin muna natin kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng mga mahahalagang salita na matatagpuan sa titulong “Ang loob bilang yungib ng kaisipang Pilipino: Historikal na Pananalinhaga ni Emmanuel Lacaba”. Ang salitang “loob” ay nangangahulugan ng isang bagay na mahirap hanapin sa panlabas na aspeto dahil sa taglay nitong pagtatago. Ito ay maaaring nakatago nang pagkalalim o pagkababaw. Ang salitang “Yungib” ay nangangahulugan din ng lagusan. Isang lagusan kung saan ang isang bagay ay makakapasok sa loob o makakalabas patungo sa liwanag. Ang mga salitang “Kaisipang Pilipino” ay nagpapahayag ng isang malalim na katangian ng mga Pilipino, at  maaari ring maging simula ng mga wika, kilos at ugali ng mga Pilipino. Ang “Historikal na Pananalinhaga” naman ay ginamit upang ipaliwanag ang “Ang Loob bilang Yungib ng Kaisipang Pilipino” sa konteksto ng nakaraan kung saan sinusubukan nating alamin mula sa nakaraan ang mga bagay o mga dahilan kung bakit ganito tayo ngayon; kung bakit ganito magsalita, gumalaw at mag-asta ang mga Pilipino sa paraang matalinhaga. Ang paksang ito ay binigyang diin at halaga ni Emmanuel Lacaba. Si Emmanuel Lacaba ay nagtapos sa Unibersidad ng Ateneo de Manila. Siya ay pinanganak sa ikasampo ng Disyembre sa taong 1948 at namatay sa ikalabinwalo ng Marso sa taong 1976. Siya ay namatay sa edad na dalawampu’t pito sa Tucaan Balaag, Asuncion, Davao del Norte. Isa siyang kompositor ng kanta, manunulat ng mga haka-haka, manunulat ng mga scipt, manunulat ng mga tula, at manunulat ng mga sanaysay at isa rin siyang aktibista. Marami ang nagsasabi na siya ay isang poet warrior at pinarangalan ng CCP.

Pakatapos malaman ang mahahalagang bagay, lumalim na tayo sa mas mahahalagang bagay. Ayon kay Lacaba, mayroong dalawang kalikasan ng konseptong loob. Una, ang pangkasaysayang realidad ng pagkakasakop sa Pilipinas, at ikalawa ay ang loob bilang diyalektikong proseso o lohikang diyalektiko ng pagpapakatao.

Ang Pangkasaysayang Realidad ng Pagkakasakop sa Pilipinas. 

Kung maaalala natin, ang Pilipinas ay sinakop ng mga Kastila sa loob ng tatlong daan tatlumpo’t talong taon, ng mga Amerikano sa loob ng apatnapung limang taon, at mga Hapon sa loob ng tatlong taon. Sa pagkakasakop na ito, halos nawala ang tunay na pagkaPilipino ng mga Pilipino. Bakit? Dahil sa halip na naka-usli ang pagka-Pilipino, bumaba ito nang bumaba at lumalim nang lumalim hanggang sa hindi na ito makita. Ito ang epekto ng pagkakasakop ng iba’t ibang bansa sa Pilipinas. Ipinilit nilang ipatong sa ating pagka-Pilipino ang kanilang pagka-Kastila, pagka-Amerikano, at pagka-Hapon. Sa pagkarami-rami ng mga ipinatong na mga kahoy ng kultura ng mga bansang sumakop ay napakahirap nang iahon.

Idinaan ito sa analohiya gamit ang tulang Florante at Laura, at ang napakamalakas na taong si Bernardo Carpio. Si Florante ay isang prinsipeng nakagapos sa puno sa simula ng tula. Natural sa nakagapos ang gumawa ng paraan upang makatakas sa pagkakagapos na ito. Si Bernardo Carpio naman ay pinangalanang Bernardo Carpio dahil sa pakiusap ng isang paring Kastila na nakita kay Bernardo ang mga katangian ng isang Kastilang bayani na si Bernardo del Carpio. Ang kanyang kwento ay isang mito kung saan siya ay ipinahayag na malahigante ang dating na halos kasing-lakas ni Herkules. Sa kwento ay sinabing dinukot ng mga Shaman at iginapos sa pagitan ng dalawang bundok sa may Marikina kaya kapag siya ay nagpaplanong tumakas ay hindi niya magawa dahil yayanig ang buong lupa at guguho ang mga bundok na maaaring ikapahamak ng mga taong naninirihan malapit dito. Gamit sa mga kwentong ito, ipinakita na walang kalayaan ang nakagapos tulad ng ginawa sa atin nga mga mananakop. Kaya dahil sa pagkakasakop sa atin, sa pagkakaagaw sa atin ng sarili nating lupa, nawala rin sa ating ang ating loob. Kaya kung tatanungin natin ang ating sarili “sino nga ba talaga ako?”, wala tayong maisasagot dahil sa pagkarami-rami ng mga sumakop natin, hindi na nating alam kung ano tayo, kung tayo pa ba ay mga Pilipino, o kung tayo ba ay sangtatlong Kastila, sangtatlong Amerikano at sangtatlong Hapon. 

May dalawang posibilidad dito, maaaring hindi na natin malalaman kung ano talaga tayo o maaaring malaman pa rin natin kung sino tayo. Posibleng mangyari ang ikalawa ngunit kakailanganin ng pagkahaba-habang proseso at pagkahirap-hirap na metodo upang makamit ang minimithing malaman ang tunay na sarili.

Kaya, nasabing ang loob ay isang yungib dahil ang yungib ay ang pasukan o labasan sa isang kweba, ang pagkaloob-looban. Sa pamamagitan ng yungib, maaaring makapasok tayo sa ating kweba at lalabas tayo mula sa ating kweba, bitbit ang laman nito patungo sa liwanag ng ating pagkaPilipino at pagkatao.

Ang loob bilang diyalektikong proseso o lohikang diyalektiko ng pagpapakatao. 

Ang prosesong ito ay nagmula kay Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, at naglalaman ito nga tatlong bahagi: ang thesis at antithesis, at ang nagdudugtong sa dalawang ito ay ang synthesis. Sa diyalektikong proseso, kinakailangan ng isang bagay at idudugtong ito sa oposisyon nito, at ang pagdudugtong na ito ay ang maghahatid mula sa bagay na iyon patungo sa oposisyon nito. Halimbawa, may isang buhay na kandila, ito ay ang tinatawag na thesis. Ang oposisyon nito o antithesis ay ang patay na kandila o kandilang walang sindi. Ang synthesis nito ay ang pagdadaloy ng buhay na kandila patungo sa patay na kandila.

Sa konteksto ni Lacaba, ginamitan niya ng diyalektikong proseso ang loob upang maghantong ito sa pagpapakatao. Nagsimula ito sa hindi sarili kung saan ang sarili ay nakakulong, nakagapos at hindi malaya; ito ay ang antithesis. Ang minimithing sarili ay ang totoong sarili, kung saan ang sarili ay malayang malaya na mula sa pagkakagapos at pagkakakulong; ito naman ang tinatawag na thesis. At ang synthesis sa dalawang ito ay ang Aufhebung, isang wikang Aleman na ang ibig sabihin ay alisin at itaas. Sa madaling sabi, kinakailangan ng Aufhebung upang maaalis ang hindi sarili at upang lumutang na sa wakas ang totoong sarili.

Paano maging totoo? 

Naghanda ako ng mga proseso upang mapalutang ang totoong sarili. Ang mga ito ay (1) kilalanin ang sarili, (2) tanggapin ang sarili, (3) baguhin at ayusin ang sarili para sa ikabubuti, at (4) mamuhay nang maganda at payapa.

Una, kailangan natin kilalanin ang ating sarili. Ito ang unang-unang dapat gawin upang masimulan ang proseso ng pagpapakatotoo. Kung wala ito, mahihirapan tayo sa mga susunod na proseso. Kailangan ngayon ng mga tao ang mag-isip; hindi tungkol sa pag-aaral nila o trabaho, kundi tungkol sa sarili. Kailangang alamin natin kung sino ba talaga tayo.

Ilang maaaring maging katanungan sa ating paghahanap ng ating sarili ay ang mga sumusunod:

1. Anu-ano ang mga gusto ko?

2. Anu-ano ang mga ayaw ko?

3. Anu-ano ang mga maaaring makasakit sa akin?

4. Anu-ano ang mga maaaring makapagpasaya sa akin?

Sa pamamagitan ng mga nasabing tanong, maaaring makarating tayo sa iba-iba pang mga tanong na makakadala sa atin sa totoong tayo.

Ikalawa, pakatapos natin makilala ang ating sarili, napapanahon nang tanggapin ang ating mga sarili. Kung maayos na ang sarili, huwag lang ito gawing ito, kailangang palawakin at palakasin pa natin ito. Kung hindi pa natin tanggap ang lahat-lahat sa atin, baguhin natin ang ating sarili. Ito na ang ikatlo sa proseso, ang pagbabago. May dalawang uri ng pagbabago: pagbabago tungo sa masama at pagbabago para sa ikabubuti. Kung tayo ang papipiliin, alam kong lahat ay pipiliin ang ikabubuti. Ito ang nararapat, magbago na tayo para sa ikabubuti. Kapag nagawa na natin ang unang tatlo, makakamit na natin ang huli, ang pamumuhay nang payapa at maganda.

Kaya, para sa ating mga Pilipino at sa lahat ng tao sa mundo, napapanahon na upang tayo ay magpakatotoo upang lumabas na ang tunay na Pilipino at nang umunlad na ang ating bayan.

Ang Kahalagahan ng Edukasyon at Birtud sa Buhay ng Tao Patungo sa Katotohanan ng Pera

Isang papel sa Pilosopiyang Filipino

Sa araw-araw na ginawa ng Poong Maykapal, lahat tayo ay gumagamit ng pera. Pera na pambayad na pamasahe sa mga dyip, pera na pambayad na pamasahe sa mga traysikel, pera na pambayad sa mga pinagkainan, pera na pambayad sa taxi, pera na pambayad sa paggamit ng kompyuter o pag-internet, pera na pambigay sa mga nangungutang, pera na ginagamit sa panunuhol upang huwag hulihin, at pera na ginagamit pantubos sa mga ari-ariang nakasanla. Palagi na lang pera. Pera dito, pera roon. Wala na tayong ibang inisip kungdi ang pera. Wala na tayong ibang prinoblema kungdi ang pera. Bakit halos nakagapos na tayo o nakakulong na tayo sa mundo ng pera? Hindi na ba natin kayang mabuhay na wala ang pera? Hindi ba natin kayang mabuhay nang hindi nakikita, naaamoy o nahahawakan ang pera? Siguro’y pera na lamang ang sadyang bumubuhay sa atin. Siguro’y hindi na natin maaalis ang pera sa ating lipunan dahil simula pa noon, umiiral na ang pera. Hindi man maiwasan o maalis ang pera, maaari naman nating malaman kung ano ang epekto nito at maaari nating masolusyonan ito.

Aking ginawa ang papel na ito upang ipamulat sa lahat kung ano talaga ang tunay na gamit ng pera sa buhay ng tao. Hindi ko man maisasama ang lahat ng bagay na may kaugnayan sa pera dahil ang papel na ito ay may hangganan din. Ito ay nakapokus lamang sa positibo at negatibong gamit, at epekto ng pera sa buhay ng tao. Isa sa mga nagpalakas ng aking isinulat na papel ay ang paggamit sa libro ni Florentino Timbreza na “Sariling Wika at Pilosopiyang Filipino”. Hindi kasama sa papel na ito ang kabuuhan ng nasabing libro, datapwat pinili lamang mula sa nasabing libro ang mga pag-uugali ng mga Pilipino.

Ano nga ba ng pera? Ang pera, ayon sa Wikipedia, ay isang bagay na tanggap ng mga tao sa isang lipunan bilang pambayad sa mga pangangailangan ng bawat isa. Ayon naman sa Grolier Encyclopedia of Knowledge Volume 13, ang pera ay may iba’t ibang gamit. Ang mga ito ay (1) isang paraan o tagapagitna upang makapagpalitan ang taong bumibili at ang taong nagtitinda, at (2) standard of value. Sa unang gamit, mapapansin na natin na may ugnayan ang pera sa mga tao at bagay. Hindi magkakaroon ang tao ng isang bagay kung wala siyang pera. Sa madaling sabi, kinakailangan niya muna ng pera upang magkaroon siya ng mga bagay-bagay sa mundo. Sa ikalawang gamit naman, mapupuna nating mayroong halaga ang pera. Ang halagang ito ay makikita natin sa kung gaano kamahal o kamura ang isang bagay na ipinagbibili. Kung mataas ang halaga nito, malaking pera ang kinakailangang pambili nito. Kung mababa naman ang halaga, maaaring mabili ito sa maliit na halaga ng pera lamang.

Ang Halaga ng Pera

Lahat ng tao ay nais mabuhay nang matagal kaya sila ay nagsusumikap araw-araw dahil ang kanilang pagod at pawis ay may katumbas ding halaga ng pera. Dito na natin makikita ang sahod. Ang sahod ng isang trabahador ay ang nagsisilbing daan upang siya ay makabili ng mga bagay na kakailanganin niya upang mabuhay. Kasama na rin dito ang mga pagkain, damit, bayad sa tubig, bayad sa upa sa bahay, bayad sa kuryente at iba pang pangangailangan ng tao. Kapag maliit ang sahod, konti lamang ang mabibili ng isang trabahador. Subalit makakabili naman siya ng pagkarami-raming bagay kung siya naman ay kumikita nang malaking halaga. Dito natin makikita na ang pera at ang tao ay may ugnayan sa bawat isa na para bang ang pera ay ang nagsisilbing buhay ng tao. Hindi mabubuhay ang tao kung walang pera dahil wala siyang mabibili kung wala siyang pera. Subalit sa ugnayang ito ng pera at tao, lumalabas ang mga positibong pag-uugali at ang mga negatibong ugali ng tao.

Ang Masamang Epekto ng Pera

Ayon kay Timbreza, maraming masasamang pag-uugali ang Pilipino. Ang mga ito ay ang mga sumusunod: mapanlamang, madaya, pagtitimbang, panghihiram, mabongga, at mansusuhol. Isa-isahin natin ang mga ito upang mapalabas natin ang kasamaang dulot ng pera sa tao.

Mapanlamang. Nagiging mapanlamang ang isang tao dahil sa ayaw nito magpatalo. Hindi hahayaan ng isang tao na may mas nakatataas ng estado ng buhay sa kanya. Nais nito na siya ang pinakamayaman sa lahat dahil gusto niya, siya lang ang may karapatang makabili ng lahat ng bagay dito sa mundo.

Madaya at pagtitimbang. Sa sobrang hirap ng buhay ngayon, nakukuha nang mandaya ng mga tao. Tulad sa palengke, marami ang nandaraya sa kanilang pagtitinda. Ang mga tindera ng mga isda ay dinadaya ang ilaw upang magmukhang sariwa ang mga mata ng isda o kung hindi naman ay pinupuno ang isda ng tubig upang makita itong malaki tulad ng pating, kaya kapag niluto ay mistulang dilis na lamang. Tulad sa mga nagmamaneho ng taksi, kahit ang kanilang metro ay nagagawa ng dayain. Isang lubak lang o isang pitik lang, patak na nang patak ang metro. At tulad din sa mga nagtitinda ng baboy, minamanipula ang timbangan upang marami silang mabenta at konti ang makuha ng mamimili. Ang lahat ng ito ay nagagawa para lamang kumita ng malaking halaga ng pera. 

Panghihiram. Uso ngayon ang pangungutang. Dahil sa hirap ng buhay, nagagawa nang mangutang ng mga tao. Uutang ito sa kaniyang kaibigan, kamag-anak o kung hindi ay sa five six. Mabuti kung mabait ang nagpahiram na hahayaang bigyan ng panahon ang taong nangutang upang makapagbayad ito. Ang problema lang naman dito ay kadalasan, sinasadya ng taong nangutang na hindi na bayaran ang kanyang pagkakautang, o sa kabilang dako, kung bibigyan ng taong nagpautang ang taong nangutang ng napakalaking interes. Tiyak mas lalong mababaon sa utang ang taon nangutang kaya napipilitan na lang ito na magtago upang huwag nang masingil.

Mabongga. Sa hirap ng buhay ngayon, nakukuha pa ng Pilipino na bumili ng pagkamahal-mahal na mga pagkain o mga damit. Kung minsan naman ay gagawin ang lahat para lang makapaghanda ng pagkabongga sa araw ng pista, kaarawan o kaya naman ay mahahalagang pangyayari.

At manunuhol. Gamitin natin ang paglalabag sa batas trapiko. Maraming tao ang hindi talaga marunong magmaneho o marunong nga pero hindi naman maingat. Kaya ang kinalabasan ay nakakalabag ito ng batas trapiko. Dahil sa ayaw matiketan o makunan ng lisensya, lalagyan na lang ng paipit o panuhol na istilo upang hindi ito mahuli at nang mapawalang-sala na lang ng lubusan. Dahil din sa hirap ng buhay, may mga tao na tumatanggap ng suhol para lang magkaron ng pera kahit ang kapalit nito ay ang kapakanan ng ibang tao. Sa halip na matuto ang taong nagkasala, hindi ito maisasakatuparan dahil lang sa sobrang pangangailangan ng pera.

Nakakalungkot mang isipin, pero ito ang katotohanan. Maraming tao sa panahon ngayon na ipinagpapalit ang kapakanan ng lahat para lang sa pansariling kapakanan. Kahit makalabag ng batas, basta para sa pera ay magagawa ito. Kaya nagkakaroon ngayon ng napakaraming krimen tulad ng kidnap, hold-up, pagnanakaw at panghohostage. Ang mga krimeng ito ay may nakapakalaking kaugnayan sa pera. May mga taong kumikidnap at nanghohostage para ipatubos ito sa pamilya nito kapalit ang napakalaking halaga ng pera. May mga taong nanghohold-up at nagnanakaw upang makuha ang mga pera o mga gamit ng taong pinagnakawan. May mga tao ring pinapagamit ang sariling laman para lang kumita ng pera.

Ang masaklap dito ay lumalabas na katumbas na lamang ng isang bagay ang isang tao. Dahil dito, bumababa ang dignidad ng tao. Bumababa ang tingin natin sa ating sarili at dahil sa pagbaba natin sa ating sarili, nakukuha nating manisi pa ng iba dahil sa sobrang pagkalito. Nakukuha nating isisi sa mga taong nakaupo sa itaas na bahagi ng tatsulok ang ating pagkababa. Pero bakit hindi natin kayang sisihin ang ating mga sarili sa ating kinalalagyan ngayon?

Sino ba talaga ang lubos na may kasalanan, ang mga taong nasa itaas o ang mga taong nasa ibaba? Pareho lang may pagkakamali. Ito ang katotohanan. Ito ang hindi katanggap-tanggap na katotohanan. Maaaring ito’y hindi matanggap ng mga nasa itaas at ng mga nasa ibaba. Ano nga ba ng pagkakamali? Ang mga taong nasa itaas ay nagkaroon ng pagkukulang dahil sa pagpatong ng napakalaking halaga sa mga nasa ibaba kaya ang mga ito ay nahihirapang umakyat dahil sa bigat na kanilang pinapasan. Sa sobrang bigat ay hindi na makayanan ng mga tao ang makabayad para sa iba’t ibang mga pangangailangan kaya nakukuha na lang nito na gumawa ng krimen o maging makasarili na lamang. Hindi ko sinasabing ang may pagkukulang ay ang mga nasa taas ngayon, kungdi ang mga taong nasa taas din noon. Maaaring kung noon pa ay nagawan na agad ng paraan ang problemang ito, maaaring kaunti na lang ay makakaangat na hindi lang ang mga nasa taas o mga nasa ibaba, kungdi ang buong Pilipinas. 

Aking nabanggit din na ang mga taong nasa ibaba ay mayroong pagkukulang. Ito ay isa ring katotohan na napakahirap tanggapin. Madalas nating sinisisi ang mga nasa itaas pero hindi natin nakikita ang katotohanang wala tayong ginagawa. Ang mga lider natin ay ang mga tagapangasiwa lamang. Sila ang maglalagay sa order ng mga bagay-bagay. Hindi naman pwedeng sila lang ang gumalaw. Nararapat din na tayo rin ay gumalaw. Ang problema sa atin ay sa halip na nakikipag-ugnayan tayo sa mga lider na tayo mismo ang naglagak sa itaas, puno pa tayo ng reklamo. Paano natin masosolusyonan ang mga problema kung ang makakaharap agad ng mga ito ay problema? Kapag magsama ang parehong negatibo, mas lalakas ang puwersa nito. Kaya hindi tayo makausad dahil sa unang hakbang pa lamang, lumagapak na tayo sa lupa. Ang kailangan natin ay makinig na muna at makipagtulungan sa mga nasa taas. Walang silbi ang mga plano kung hindi ito naisasaaksyon. Ang dapat lang ay alamin ang plano, pag-aralan ang plano, unawain ang plano at isakatuparan ang plano nang sa gayon ay magkaroon ng epektibong pamamahala sa ating bansa. Kaya, sino nga baa ng may pagkukulang, ang nasa itaas o ang nasa ibaba? Ang sagot, huwag nang manisi pa ng iba kungdi ay magtulungan na lamang.

Hindi naman masama ang magkaroon ng pera. Marami man o kaunti lang o katamtamang dami lamang. “Hindi naman masama ang pag-unlad” sabi nga ng kanta ng Asin. Subalit huwag nating hayaang gamitin tayo ng pera. Dapat tayo ang gumamit ng pera. Pero saan at kelan nga ba natin gamitin ang pera? Ang lahat ng bagay ay nagagamit sa tamang lugar at tamang panahon. Katulad ng ibang mga bagay, gamitin din natin ang pera sa tamang lugar at tamang panahon. Sa panahon ng pangangailangan at sa lugar kung saan kailangan ang pera. Paano ba gamitin ang pera? Gamitin ito sa tamang paraan. Paano ito magagamit sa tamang paraan?

Ang pera ay nakukuha tuwing nagsasahod ang isang trabahador. Ang trabahador ay nakakatanggap ng maganda sahod kapag siya ay may magandang hangarin sa kanyang paggawa o sa kanyang pagtatrabaho. Makakagawa siya o makakapagtrabaho nang maayos kapag siya ay may tinapos na kurso o kung hindi naman ay siya ay nakapagtapos ng Masteral o Doctorate. Ang isang taong may magandang sahod at trabaho na nakapagtapos ng mataas na kurso ay siguradong nag-aral nang mabuti sa panahon na siya ay isang mag-aaral pa lamang. Hindi naman ito ipinagpipilitan sa lahat ng kabataan ngunit ito ay isang gabay lamang upang tayong lahat ay mamulat sa ganda ng epekto ng edukasyon. Alam natin na mahirap ito pero huwag tayong sumuko. Kahit ang mga pagkahirap-hirap na problema ay may solusyon din. Maging ang kahirapan ng pag-aaral ay may solusyon din. Isapuso natin ang ating pag-aaral dahil ito ang makatutulong sa atin upang makamit natin ang ating pangarap, at ang ating pagtatapos sa pag-aaral at ang ating tagumpay ang magsisilbing regalo at pasasalamat sa ating mga magulang sa kanilang paghihirap sa pagtatrabaho upang tayo ay magkaroon ng magandang kinabukasan.

Ngunit, ang edukasyon ngayon ay kadalasang para sa mayayaman at sa may-kaya lamang. Paano naman ang mga taong pinagkaitan ng yaman? Maaaring doblehin natin ang ating pagsisikap. Huwag sumuko dahil ito ang magiging sagabal upang tayo ay umangat ng estado ng buhay at makamit ang ating mga pangarap.

Hindi naman masama ang magkaroon ng pera. Hindi masama ang magkaroon ng limpak-limpak na salapi. Hindi masama ang magkaroon ng maraming bahay basta ang salaping ito ay galing sa malinis na pamumuhay. Malinis sa paraan na walang ibang tao ang negatibong naapektuhan.

Huwag natin hayaang umikot ang ating mundo sa pera dahil ito ang magiging sanhi ng gulo, ng away, ng gyera o ng masamang pangyayari. Hangga’t sa maaari ay huwag natin hayaang tayo ay maging materyalikstikong mga tao dahil hindi lang dahil sa material na bagay tayo ay nabubuhay. Sa panahong ito, nagsilipana na ang mga taong mahihilig sa karangyaan. Panatilihin nawa natin ang pagiging simple nating mga Pilipino at ang ugaling bayanihan dahil hindi lang tayo ang nabubuhay at hindi lang tayo ang nangangailangan ng pera. Matuto tayong maging disiplinado at maging mapagbigay dahil ang pera ay bagay lamang, importante ito, ngunit mas importante tayo – ikaw, ako at sila.

Mga Sanggunian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

Grolier Encyclopedia of Knowledge Volume 13

WHY and WHAT? HUH?

A Reflection on RH Bill

Many people would say “I’m pro-RH Bill.” But most people go against it. My question is “Why?”. Why do we need to say “no to RH Bill”? Why do we need to say “yes to RH Bill”? Even if we know that it is a something that we cannot decide on. If we say “yes”, how sure are we that the government will implement the RH Bill? And if we say “no”, how sure are we that the government will abolish RH Bill? The problem here is not only “Why do we need to say no or yes to RH Bill?”, but the problem existing here is also questionable by “what must I do?”

When we ask why and what, what comes to our mind? When we ask why, the appropriate answer must be according to its essence which is to know the cause of something, and to know that cause of something, we are looking for reasons. Examples are “Why am I thinking?”, “Why am I writing?”, “Why am I smiling?”, and etc. With all these questions, we can prove to ourselves that why seeks for the reason such as ‘because I am a rational being”, “because I love writing”, and “because I am in love”.

Another is the what, when we ask what, the appropriate answer to this question is the whatness of something. Examples are, “What is it made of?”, “What am I writing?”, “What am I doing?”, and etc. And with all these questions, we can also prove that what seeks for the whatness such as “paper”, “a reflection”, and “writing”.

            We all know that beings correlate with each other, so it is possible for why and what to correlate with each other. What I am saying here is that there are connecting factors or binding factors between these two interrogative pronouns. In everyday life, we can experience such. For example, a child is with his mother. Then suddenly, the child asked his mother, “what are you doing?”, then the mother replied, “I am baking a cake”, and then the son asked again, “why are you baking a cake?” With this short conversation, we can say that why and what coexist and correlate with each other, that they go together as one, for why always follow the question what.

            With RH Bill, I realized that reasons and actions are very important to our lives because these two always help us to think and decide for ourselves for us to achieve our goals. What must I do? Why do I need to do this or these? These are the questions that we need to think about first before we act.

            For us, is RH Bill an answer to our questions in life or it may just abuse the dignity of our personhood? There are also pro-RH Bill and against RH Bill because they have their own reason to go with it or to go against it.

            But as a student and as a Christian Catholic, this RH Bill is not a hindrance for me; rather, I will just take it as a challenge. Why? Because challenges give us strength and lessons that we will cherish all the rest of our lives. With actions, I will be who I am and I will follow the teachings of the Church. Our bodies are sacred. Let us not make it a playground for evil spirits, but make it the Holy Spirit’s temple, and with reasons, I will think first of the consequences before I act on it for me to arrive with a moral reason and not unethical reason. With the coexistence and correlation of actions and reasons, a good person these two will create in me and in all the individuals who desire to be good.

THE ONLY END

ARISTOTLE

Aristotle was born in the small town of Stagira on the northeast coast of Thrace.  His father was the physician in the royal court of Macedonia.   At the age of seventeen, he went to Athens to enroll in the Academy, where he spent the next twenty years as a pupil and member.  After the death of Plato, his nephew, Speusippus succeeded him as head of the Academy.  He directed the focus of the school on mathematics which Aristotle found uncongenial to his interest and so he decided to leave the Academy.

In 348, he accepted the invitation of Hermeias to come to Assos, near Troy, to instruct a small group of thinkers he gathered in his court.  There he stayed for the next three years.  Aside from teaching, he also found time to write and conduct research.  While at Assos, he married Pythias, the niece and adopted daughter of Hermeais.  She bore him a daughter. 

After three years in Asso, Aristotle moved to the neighboring island of Lesbos and he settled in Mitylene, where he taught and continued his investigations in biology, studying especially the many forms of marine life.  Here he also became known as an advocate of a united Greece, urging that such a union would be more successful than independent city-states in resisting the might of Persia.

In 343, Philip of Macedon invited Aristotle to become the tutor of his son Alexander, who was then thirteen years old.  As a tutor to a future ruler, Aristotle included politics in his instruction. 

When Alexander ascended the throne after the death of his father, Aristotle ended his tutoring, and after a brief stay in his home town of Stagira, he returned to Athens. Upon his return to Athens in 335, Aristotle embarked upon the most productive period of his life.  Under the protection of the Macedonian statesman, Antipater, he founded his own school.  His school was known as the Lyceum, named after the groves where Socrates was known to have gone to think and which were the sacred precincts of Apollo Lyceus.  Here Aristotle and his pupils walked in the Peripatos, a tree-covered walk, and discussed philosophy, for which reason his school was also called peripatetic.

Besides these peripatetic discussions, there were also lectures, some technical for small audiences and others of a more popular nature for larger audiences.  Aristotle is also said to have formed the first great library by collecting hundreds of manuscripts, maps, and specimens, which he used as illustrations during his lectures.  Moreover, his school developed certain formal procedures whereby its leadership would alternate among members.  Aristotle formulated the rules for these procedures as he also did for the special common meal and symposium once a month when a member was selected to defend a philosophical position against the critical objections of the other members.

For twelve or thirteen years Aristotle remained as the head of the Lyceum, not only teaching and lecturing, but above all formulating his main ideas about the classification of the sciences, fashioning a bold new science of logic, and writing his advanced ideas in every major area of philosophy and science, exhibiting an extraordinary command of universal knowledge.

When Alexander died in 323, a wave of anti-Macedonian feeling arose in Athens, and this threatened the position of Aristotle because of his close connections with Macedonia.  Like Socrates before him, Aristotle was charged with impiety but, as he is reported to have said - "lest the Athenians should sin twice against philosophy,” he left the Lyceum and fled to Chalcis where he died in 322 of a digestive disease of long standing.   In his will he expressed sensitive human qualities by providing amply for his relatives, preventing his slaves from being sold and providing that some of his slaves should be emancipated.

ETHICS

            Aristotle, as a philosopher, invented a lot of terms, and had a lot of insights while he was alive. His thought dwelled upon the Soul, Logic, Physics, Psychology, Biology, Metaphysics, Ethics, Politics, and Literary Criticism. All of his works contributed to all of the fields nowadays. With all his works, I would like to focus myself on his Ethics, where he discussed the types of ends, the function of human beings, happiness as the end, virtue as the golden mean, and deliberation and choice.

Types of Ends

            Aristotle sets the framework for his ethical theory with a preliminary illustration. Having said that all action aims toward an end, he now wants to distinguish between two major kinds of ends: (1) instrumental ends or that acts that are done as means for other ends, and (2) intrinsic ends or the acts that are done for their own sake. (Stumpf, S. & Fieser, J. (2008). Socrates and Sartre and Beyond. (8^th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. page 82)

            According to Holy Trinity College Seminary Handbook on Contemporary Philosophy, Aristotelian morality centers on the view that man, as everything else in nature, has a distinctive end to achieve or a function to fulfill.  For this reason, his theory is rightly called teleological.  He begins his Nicomachean Ethics by saying that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good.”

The principle of good and right is imbedded within each man; moreover, this principle could be discovered by studying the essential nature of man and could be attained through his actual behavior in daily life.  He warned his reader, however, not to expect more precision in a discussion of ethics than "the subject- matter will admit."  Still, just because this subject is susceptible of "variation and error" does not mean, that ideas of right and wrong "exist conventionally only, and not in the nature of things."  With this in mind, he set out to discover the basis of morality in the structure of human nature.

     

These two types of end are illustrated, for example, in “every action connected with war.”  When we consider step by step what is involved in the total activity of a war, we find, says Aristotle, that there is a series of special kinds of acts, which have their own ends but which, when they are completed, are only means by which still other ends are to be achieved.  There is, for one thing, the art of the bridle maker.  When the bridle is completed, its maker has achieved his end as a bridle maker. But the bridle is a means for the horseman to guide his horse in battle. Also, a carpenter builds a barrack, and when it is completed, he has fulfilled his function as a carpenter. The barracks also fulfil their function when they provide safe shelter for the soldiers. But the ends here achieved by the carpenter and the building are not ends in themselves but are instrumental in housing soldiers until they move on to their next stage of action. Similarly, the builder of ships fulfils his function when the ship is successfully launched, but again this end is in turn a means for transporting the soldiers to the field of battle. The doctor fulfils his function to the extent that he keeps the soldiers in good health. But the end of health in this case becomes a means for effective fighting. The officer aims at victory in battle, but victory is the means to peace. Peace itself, though sometimes taken mistakenly as the final end of war, is the means for creating the conditions under which men, as men, could fulfil their function as men.

When we discover what men aim at, not as carpenters, doctors, or generals, but as men, we will then arrive at action for its own sake, and for which all other activity is only a means, and this "must be the good of man." The understanding of the word good is to be tied to the special function of a thing.  A hammer is good if it does what hammers are expected to do.  A carpenter is good if he fulfils his function as a builder.  This would be true for all the crafts and professions.  But a distinction must be made between a man’s craft or profession and his activity as a man.  To be a good doctor, for example, did not mean the same thing as being a good man.  One could be a good doctor without being a good man, and vice versa. There are two different functions here, the function of doctoring and the function of acting as a man. To discover the good at which a man should aim, we must discover the distinctive function of human nature.  The good man is the man who is fulfilling his function as a man.

The Function of Man

"Are we then to suppose that while carpenter and cobbler have certain works and courses of action, man as man has none, but is left by nature without a work?"  Or, if "the eye, hand, foot and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a function apart from all these?"  Man certainly has a distinctive mode of activity and this is discovered by analyzing his nature in order to discover his unique activity.

First of all, the end of man "is not mere life," because that plainly is shared with him even by vegetables, and "we want what is peculiar to him."  Next there is the life of sensation, "but this again manifestly is common to horses, oxen and every animal." There remains then “an active life of the elements that has a rational principle… if the function of man is an activity of the soul which follows or implies a rational principle… then the human good turns out to be activity of the soul in accordance with virtue…”

The Nature of the Soul

Since the function of man as a man means the proper functioning of his soul it is therefore necessary to describe the nature of the soul.

The soul is the form of the body.  As such, the soul refers to the total person.  The soul has two parts: the irrational and the rational.  The irrational part in turn is composed of two subparts, the vegetative and the desiring or appetitive part.  For the most part, these are "something contrary to the rational principle, resisting and opposing it."  The conflict between the rational and irrational elements in man is what raises the problems and subject matter of morality.

PLANT	NUTRITION GROWTH REPRODUCTION
ANIMAL	nutrition growth reproduction LOCOMOTION SENSATION
MAN	nutrition growth reproduction locomotion sensation INTELLIGENCE CHOICE

Morality involves action, for nothing is called good unless it is functioning.   "As at the Olympic games it is not the finest and strongest men who are crowned, but they who enter the lists, for out of these the prize men are selected; so too in life, of the honorable and good, it is they who act who rightly win the prizes."

The particular kind of action implied here is the rational control and guidance of the irrational parts of the soul.  Moreover, the good man is not the one does a good deed here or there, now and then, but whose whole life is good, "for as it is not one swallow or one fine day that makes a spring, so it is not one day or a short time that makes a man blessed and happy."

The End of Morality

Human action should aim at its proper end.  Everywhere men aim at pleasure, wealth, and honor.  But none of these ends, though they have value, can occupy the place of the chief good for which man should aim.  To be an ultimate end an act must be self-sufficient and final, "that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else," and it must be attainable by man.

All men will agree that happiness alone is the end that alone meets all the requirements for the ultimate end of human action.  Indeed, we choose pleasure, wealth, and honor only because we think that "through their instrumentality we shall be happy."  Happiness, it turns out, is another word or name for good, for like good, happiness is the fulfilment of our distinctive function: "happiness… is a working of the soul in the way of excellence or virtue."

The Way to Happiness

The general rule of morality is "to act in accordance with right reason.  This is how the soul works to attain happiness.  What this means is that the rational part of the soul should control the irrational part.

That the irrational part of the soul requires guidance is obvious when we consider what it consists of and what its mechanism is.  Referring now only to the appetites, or the "appetitive" part of the soul, we discover first that it is affected or influenced by things outside of the self, such as objects and persons.  Also, there are two basic ways in which the appetitive part of the soul reacts to these external factors, these ways being love and hate, or through the concupiscent and irascible passions.  The passion leads one to avoid or destroy them.  It becomes quickly apparent that these passions or capacities for love and hate, attraction or repulsion, creation or destruction, taken by themselves could easily "go wild."  In themselves they do not contain any principle of measure or selection.

"None of the moral virtues arises in us by nature; for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature."  Morality therefore has to do with developing habits, the habits of right thinking, right choice, and right behavior.

The Doctrine of the Mean

Since the passions are capable of a wide range of action, all the way from too little to too much, a person must discover the proper meaning of excess and defect and thereby discover the appropriate mean.  Virtue is concerned with our various feelings and actions, for it is in them that there can be excess and defect.

For example, it is possible to feel the emotion of fear, confidence, lust, anger, compassion, pleasure, and pain, too much or too little, and in either case wrongly.  To feel these when we ought to, on which occasions, toward whom, and as we should is the mean; that is the best state for man to be in, and this is virtue.

Vice, again, is either extreme, excess or defect, and virtue is the mean.  It is through the rational power of the soul that the passions are controlled and action is guided. The virtue of courage, for example, is the mean between two vices: namely, fear (defect) and foolhardiness (excess).   Virtue, then, is a state of being, "a state apt to exercise deliberate choice, being in the relative mean, determined by reason, and as the man of practical wisdom would determine.

The mean is not the same for every person, nor is there a mean for every act.   Each mean is relative to each person inasmuch as the circumstances will vary.  In the case of eating, the mean will obviously be different for an adult athlete and a little girl.   But for each person, there is nevertheless a proportionate or relative mean, temperance, clearly indicating what extremes – namely, gluttony (excess) and starvation (defect) – would constitute vices for them.  Similarly, when one gives money, liberality, as the mean between prodigality ands stinginess, is not an absolute figure but is relative to one's assets.

Moreover, for some acts there is no mean at all; their very nature already implies badness, such as spite, envy, adultery, theft, and murder.  These are bad in themselves and not ion their excesses or deficiencies.  One is always wrong in doing them.

Deliberation and Choice

There are in the rational soul two kinds of reasoning: the first is theoretical, giving us knowledge of fixed principles or philosophical wisdom. The other is practical, giving us a rational guide to our action under the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves, and this is practical wisdom. A man would not be virtuous if he accidentally did what virtuous men do.  A virtuous act must be done knowingly.

What is important about the role of reason is that without this rational element, man would not have any moral capacity.  Although man has a natural capacity for right behavior, he does not act rightly by nature.  A man's life consists of an indeterminate number of possibilities.  Goodness is in man potentially; but unlike the acorn out of which the oak will grow with almost mechanical certitude, man must move from what is potential in him to its actuality by knowing what he must do, deliberating about it, and then choosing in fact to do it.

To know the good is not sufficient to do the good.  There must be deliberate choice in addition to knowledge.  "The origin of moral action - its efficient, not its final cause - is choice, and (the origin) of choice is desire and reasoning with a view to an end."  There cannot be choice without reason.  And again, “intellect itself… moves nothing, but only the intellect which aims at an end and is practical.”

TO BE GOOD IS TO BE EVIL?

            I have a critic on Aristotle regarding his Function of Man. The good man is the man who is fulfilling his function as a man. (Holy Trinity College Seminary Handbook on Contemporary Philosophy, 2009)

            If man must fulfill his function to be a man, it cannot be totally distinguished if the man will be good or evil. If goodness is to follow a certain function, what if the function is evil? Would we say that to be good is to be evil?

            Examples for this are the syndicates and criminals.  We all know that these people have good intentions for themselves but they appear to be evil because of their actions. If they possess the evilness of their actions, then their function is to be evil.

            So, we can never say that to follow the function is to be good. But, we rather say that to follow our function is to be good “to ourselves” because we can never say that what is good to ourselves is also good for others. That’s why, this guided me to my own idea – the only end.

THE ONLY END

            If we can remember, we have two types of ends: instrumental end and intrinsic end. Both of them have their own differences with each other. For me, there is only one end: the mixture of instrumental and intrinsic ends. If instrumental end is the act of a person for the sake of others and the intrinsic end is the act of a person for the sake of the own self, the mixture end is the end by which a person acts for the sake of others and for his own self.

            In life, there are mixtures. It might be mixtures in chemical compositions or mixtures in phases of matter. There may also be mixtures of animals which we call breeding. And there are also mixtures of genders: the gays and lesbians.

            Connecting to the act-towards-something, end can never be for the sake of one only. End can never be the sake of others only or for the self only. End is always for the sake of others and the own self because nowadays, practicality is needed. We cannot act for the sake of others only and for ourselves only. When we say that a person will help his friend, it does not only mean that he cares for his friend, but the person is also thinking not to lose a friend that will cause him a lot of grief that’s why he will help his friend.

            For example, the “five-six” people are those who lend money to the needy, but this lending will cost an increasing interest if the debt is not paid at the right time. From the original amount borrowed, it will increase thoroughly until the time that the person indebted to the “five-six” can never pay the debt anymore with money, but will pay the “five-six” with his own house, his own properties or with his own life.

            Let’s look at the side of the “five-six” first. There is his willingness to share what he has to others and that’s the instrumental end, and at the same time, he is waiting for the payment of the one indebted to him, and this shows the reality that he is also thinking of himself, the intrinsic end.

            Another example is love. A boy loves his girlfriend and a girl loves her boyfriend. We can say that when two persons are in love with each other, the ONLY end is, again, present. If we are going to understand the boy’s feelings for the girl, let us ask this question, “Does he love his boyfriend for the sake of his girlfriend’s happiness or for the sake of his own happiness?” I would say, both of them. When we love a person there are always two “for the sake” that are needed to be given attention to.

            For my girlfriend’s happiness. Let’s ask ourselves, what do we feel if we are in love? Of course, there is an everlasting happiness. But what if the one whom we love also loves us? Of course, it’s 30 times greater than that everlasting happiness. This is the feeling that is felt by our loved ones. He or she will feel great, like floating in the air, if he or she will know that someone loves him or her. We want to let our loved ones feel the happiness, and with this wanting, we are thinking of their sake.

            Since love is a two-way process, it is so great to feel that you are loved by the one you love. By this, we can feel the happiness within us. With this happiness within us, we can say that we need that person for us to be happy, and it will be a great loss to lose that someone. This is thinking for our own safe.

            So everything in this world needs “the only end”: the acts for the sake of others and for the sake of self or what I call mixture end.

Bibliography

Webster’s Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus

Holy Trinity College Seminary Handbook on Contemporary Philosophy, 2009

Ramos, C., PhD. (2010). Introduction to Philosophy. (2^nd Edition).  856 Nicanor Reyes, Sr. St., Sampaloc, Manila: Rex Bookstore, Inc.

Nabor-Nery, M. (2006). Modern and Contemporary Philosophy. Quad Alpha Centrum Bldg., 125 Pioneer Street, Mandaluyong City, Manila: National Book Store.

Stumpf, S. & Fieser, J. (2008). Socrates and Sartre and Beyond. (8^th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

            

Life is a Decision

A Protocol Paper on Contemporary Philosophy

Some people stay while some people go. Some people remain the same while some people change. Why do we need to change? Why do we need go away? Why do we need to die? Death and Change are the two important topics that are going to be discussed in this paper. Before discussing them, let us first define death and change. What is death? According to Webster’s Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus, death is the end of life, the state of being dead and the destruction of something, while change is to be different, to alter, to transform, and to exchange. Is there a relationship between the two? Of course, the two has a relationship with each other. Death will never be fulfilled without change. How? Using the definition of death as “the destruction of something”, we could say that nothing will be destroyed if there is no being to be destroyed at all, and if there is something to be destroyed, it can be destroyed, but this something cannot be destroyed without change. Change or the transformation of things is the cause, but not really the real cause, of the alteration of a being from its living to is dying. There must be changes first before a thing can be destroyed, and these changes happened from the past to the present to the future until the death of a being.

Martin Heidegger

There is a philosopher who focused on the two terms, Death and Change, I said a while ago, and he is Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher born on September 26, 1889, in the Black Forest region of Messkirch. He began gymnasium at Constance in 1903 but later transferred in 1906 to Bertholds gymnasium. In 1909, Heidegger entered th Society of Jesus at Tisis in Austria to study as a Jesuit; however, most likely for health reasons, his candidature was rejected.  He then entered into study for the priesthood at the Albert-Ludwig University in Freiberg while boarding at the archdiocesan seminary of Saint Georg.  At this time, Heidegger first began lecturing and publishing papers, and he was first exposed to Husserl's writings. For reasons that are unknown, Heidegger was directed by his superiors to change his path of study from theology to mathematics and philosophy. Heidegger took their advice, and, before long, had diligently read the works of Husserl and went on to complete his doctorate.  Heidegger married his wife, Elfride Petri, in March, 1917 and shortly thereafter, Heidegger entered into the German army.  He was promoted from private to corporal ten months later, but was soon discharged for health reasons.  After the birth of his son, Jorg, Heidegger, in a letter to a colleague, wrote that he had decided to break with "the dogmatic system of Catholicism." Heidegger began primarily as a Christian Aristotelian. He was born to a rural German family and raised to be a clergyman. He was influenced as teenager by Aristotle mediated through Christian theology.  The concept of Being, in this traditional sense, dating back to Plato, was his first exposure to an idea he would plant at the core of his most famous work Being and Time.  His family was not wealthy enough to send him to university and he required a scholarship, which itself required he study for the religious order. Mathematics was also his early major.  During his time as a student he left theology for philosophy as he was able to find other academic funding.  His doctorate was on John Duns Scotus, a fourteenth century ethical and religious thinker.

He studied at the University of Freiburg under Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology and in 1919, Heidegger became Husserl’s assistant at Freiburg. There, he lectured and first met Karl Jaspers; from thereon, they would form a correspondence relationship for many years.  During this time, Heidegger's second son, Hermann, was born. By 1924, Heidegger moved on to become an associate at the University of Marburg, where he wrote his magnum opus, Being and Time (Sein und Zeit). At Marburg, Heidegger also met Hannah Arendt, who became his lover. Through his brilliant lectures at Marbug, Heidegger influenced many thinkers, including Herbet Marcuse, who became a primary figure in critical theory.   His own students at various times included Hans-Georg Gadamer, Emmanuel Levinas, Arendt, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida.  Regarded as a major, if not indispensable, influence on phenomenology, existentialism, and deconstruction. (Holy Trinity College Seminary Handbook on Contemporary Philosophy, 2009) He was elected rector of the University in 1933, and for a brief period, he was a member of the Nazi party. In less than a year, in 1934, he resigned as a rector and for the next ten years, he taught courses critical of the Nazi interpretation of philosophy. He was drafted into the “People’s Militia”, having been declared in 1944 the “most expendable” member of the Freiburg faculty. The French occupying forces did not permit him to his teaching post until 1951, one year before his retirement. Even after his retirement, he published several essays and interpretations of the history of philosophy, including a two-volume study on Nietzsche (1961) and his last work, The Matter of Thinking (1969). (Stumpf, S. & Fieser, J. (2008). Socrates and Sartre and Beyond. ( 8^th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. Page 426)  Heidegger died in Frieburg on May 26th, 1976.  In the United States, the news of his death went largely unheeded.  Interestingly, the news of Heidegger's death was received with widespread coverage in Japan.  The connection of Heidegger' s thought to the East has not received much attention over the years. But it is clear that he first had his greatest impact in Japan with the writings of Count Kuki Shuzo.  Heidegger also carried on a relationship with D. T. Suzuki, whom he met with on several occasions. He also attempted to translate Lao Tzu into German, but never finished the project. (Holy Trinity College Seminary Handbook on Contemporary Philosophy, 2009)

DaSein

            Heidegger takes a similar approach in Being and Time and attempts to understand Being in general by first understanding human beings. The notion of “human being” can be deceptive. Inspired by Husserl’s phenomenology, Heidegger avoids defining people in terms of properties or attributes that divide them from the world. Heidegger took seriously the meaning of the Greek word phenomenon as “that which reveals itself.” It is our human existence that reveals itself, and this is a quite different conception of “human being” than we find in traditional philosophy. So he coined the German term DaSein, meaning simply “being there.” (Stumpf, S. & Fieser, J. (2008). Socrates and Sartre and Beyond. (8^th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill. Page 426)

            There are Essential Features of DaSein, DaSein as being-in-the-world, Dasein as Care, DaSein as Inauthentic and as Authentic towards Death, and DaSein as Time.

Dasein as Being-in-the-World.  Dasein cannot be separated from the world and the world cannot be separated from Dasein.  Dasein is the world and the world is Dasein. Another relationship that Dasein has with the world is a cognitive relationship: Dasein knows the world.  Dasein as an I or a knowing subject is somehow apart from the world, separated from the world, and standing in a detached intellectual relationship to it.  Viewed in this way, Dasein is not an object in the world at all, but rather the world is an object for Dasein, a subject that lies beyond the world. Dasein is a Being whose essence is determined by what it makes of itself.  What I am is what I have created, what I am creating, and what I will create.  There are, of course, objects that Dasein has not created but much of the world is what Dasein has created.  Insofar as we think of Dasein as human being in a state of civilization, much of the world is an organized set of objects that Dasein has created, “ready-at-hand”.  It follows then that to grasp the world we must grasp Dasein, since Dasein makes there to be a world; conversely, to grasp Dasein we must grasp the world, since human beings cannot be understood apart from what they do, and what they do is create objects in the world. To grasp Dasein as a Being-in-the-world is to understand Dasein as a being with a place in the world, as a being that understands its place in the world, ansd as a being that has dealings with the world.  We are agents that choose some possible world and some possible essence for ourselves on the basis of our situation and through communication.

Dasein’s Being as Care.  The various aspects of life “are not pieces belonging to something composite, one of which might sometimes be missing; but there is woven together in them a primordial context which makes up that totality of the structural whole which we are seeking.”  Dasein is a continuum that retains its strict identity through time.  It cannot be divided into a multiplicity of temporal parts.  To answer the question about the possibility of the unity of a single life, there is a need to take into account what I have been, what I am, and what I will be, that is, the past, present, and future of Dasein.  These three must not be thought as three separate entities that are somehow connected.  The past, present, and future of Dasein are one in a sense in which the past, preset, and future of a piece of chalk are not.

Ordinary objects can be thought of as a succession of temporal parts, some of which are pasts, others of which are future, and one of which is present.  We can understand what a piece of chalk is by viewing any temporal part of it in isolation from any other.  In the case of Dasein, however, you cannot separate the past, present, and future and regard them as three distinct features of Dasein.  For you cannot understand what Dasein is by examining one temporal part.  You cannot understand Dasein’s past apart from Dasein’s present and future, its present apart from its past and future, or its future apart from its present and past.  The past, present, and future of Dasein are one, and each one cannot be understood apart from the other.  It is precisely the inseparability of Dasein’s past, present, and future that constitutite the unity of Care. The future that Dasein projects for itself can be understood only as the future that has grown out of the past and present of a single Dasein.  It is the past and present of Dasein that makes intelligible our future choices. My present is inseparably connected with my past and future.  The unity of Dasein can also be seen by noting that my past cannot be understood apart from my present and future.  I can understand my past only insofar as I can understand how and why my past gave rise to what I am now and what I hope to be in the future.  The interpretation that we give to our past actions must take into account what I am doing and what I will do: my present and my future.  There is a single Dasein that is past, present, and future.I can understand what I am doing only if I connect it with what I have done in thepast.  For what I am doing now makes sense only if it is seen as a logical outgrowth of what I have done before.   To understand what I am now, you must understand what I intend to be, for my present actions make sense only in the light of what I see them as leading to.  To understand me now, you must understand how my present actions are related to what I want to be.  Each element of the human story is logically dependent on the other in such a way that Dasein cannot be understood piecemeal.  We cannot understand Dasein by viewing an isolated temporal aspect.  To understand Dasein we must view Dasein as an indivisible whole, a single being that does not have distinct temporal parts.

Dasein as Authentic and Inauthentic and a Being-towards-Death.  To grasp the Being of Dasein is to grasp that Dasein is not simply a composite totality with many different aspects, but a structural whole, all of whose characteristics are inseparably united.  We should not view then the different levels, or even the different aspects of each level, as isolated phenomena but rather picture each level as superimposed on the other. Heidegger is primarily concerned with the uniqueness of Dasein – how Dasein is totally unlike anything else – and that is why he reaches these two levels of Dasein by a consideration of the pehnomenon of death.  When we view Dasen as something that faces death we get at the inner nature of Dasein, its uniqueness.  This is because death individualizes each of us from all other objects (present-at-hand and ready-at-hand) and it individualizes us from all other human beings. Death individualizes us from all other objects because only Dasein reaches its “wholeness” in death.  At death Dasein comes to an end; there are no longer possibilites in its future, since Dasein is no longer a Being-in-the-world capable of projecting and acting on future possibilities.  In the very ceasing of Dasein there is a coming to be of the essence of Dasein.  Dasein is not “whole” until death, for when it ceases to exist it then acquires a kind of Being that it never had when it was alive and making choices.  When I die I achieve a certain kind of being – an essence – that I never really had when I was alive.  Ordinary objects are such that their essence precedes their existence.  On the basis of this difference we may say that death individualizes Dasein from all objects. Death individualizes or isolates each of us from all other individuals.  In general, and with regard to virtually everything that we do, we are replaceable.  “Indisputably, the fact that one Dasein can be represented by another belongs to its possibilities of Being in Being-with-one-another in the world.”  Since one is what one does, and since what we do can always be done by someone else, we are, as it were, specimens of a kind substitutable without qualification by any other member of the species homo sapiens.  And yet there is a sense in which this is not true, for there is something that is absolutely unique about me, and about which I am irreplaceable, namely, my death. Dying has existential significance.  It is that about which Dasein is absolutely unique and irreplaceable, and it constitutes the wholeness of Dasein.  The phenomenon of death because it is unique to each existing individual can help us to understand the distinction between Dasein as inauthentic and Dasein as authentic, and it can also lead to existential self-awareness. Death constitutes the totality of Dasein and it is the point at which Dasein reaches wholeness.  Death is not just one event among many for Dasein, but that it is a basic and distinctive feature of the Being of Dasein.  “Death reveals itself as that possibility which is one’s ownmost, which is non-relational, and which is not to be outstripped.”  Death as a possibility is not one possibility among many; it is the possibility of there being no more possibilities.  In this respect death corresponds to understanding and Being-ahead-of-itself.  Dasein is thrown into the world of its concern (Being-already-in-the-world), and through its state-of-the-mind has disclosed to itself its Being-towards-the-end.  It is thrown into a possibility which is not to be outstripped, in that death is an inevitable and necessary possible. Our communicating about death (Being-alongside) primarily and for the most part is by way of falling.  Our typical dealings with death involve fleeing in the face of it, attempting to avoid it.  Death is thus essential to Dasein’s Being for we can understand the basic structures of death in terms of the basic structures of Being. In our everydayness we live in the “they”, in that we tend to think of ourselves as “das man’ or a human being in general.  We view ourselves not as individuals, but as members of a kind.  In much the same way the common everyday mode of Being-towards-death is inauthentic.  Our ordinary attitude towards death treats it as something that happens to everyone in the end, but right now it has nothing to do with me.  Someone or other dies or “one dies,” and one’s own death is thought of as “one like many.”  It is a biological fact, an event that happens to all living things, but not one that I must especially concern myself with. This way of viwing death amounts to a flight from the fact of one’s own individual death.  We avoid facing our own death by viewing it as a certain objective event that is encountered in the world.  But to view death as an event among events is to fail to face the fact of the uniqueness of one’s own death and the uniqueness of oneself.  It avoids the realization that death constitutes the end of one’s own Dasein and that therefore one has to continually create what one will be until the possibility of there being no more possibilities is realized. The attempt to avoid facing the fact of one’s own death takes ingenious forms.  We try to convince the dying person that he or she will escape death as a way of consoling the person and keeping his or her ownmost non-relational possibility-of-Being completely concealed. The “they” tries to tranquilize our anxiety in the face of death by transforming it into an approaching event which it is cowardly to face.  The result of branding the anxiety over death, fear, and cowardice, is to alienate the Dasein from its ownmost possibility and this is the mark of falling.

Dasein and Temporality.  Temporality is the fundamental basis of the unity of Dasein, since all the other structures are ultimately unified and understood in terms of past, present, and future.  To understand Dasein as temporality is to understand Dasein as the Being who is the fundamental ground or basis for our ordinary conception of time.  Since our ordinary conception of time is really an abstraction from the temporality of Dasein, we must first understand the temporality of Dasein in order to unders6and our ordinary way of conceiving time. We ordinarily conceive of time as a single thing that is composed of an infinite sequence of moments each of which is now.  Some of these moments are past, others present, and others future.  The past and future have some kind of reality, but not the reality of the present.  This concept is, however, problematic.  For if we think of our experience of time as a sequence of nows, as events flowing by, then we can have the experience of the present, but we cannot have the experience of past and future. Dasein originates time because Dasein itself is a single Being, a unity, that is now (and always) past, present, abnd future.  I am now past because what I am now is in part determined by my past.  At this moment my past has some reality, since my past is part of me.  I am now also in the future, in that what I will be is part of what I take myself to be.  My present conception of myself depends in part on what I intend to be in the future.  So even my future is now, insofar as what I am now is in part determined by what I take myself to be in the future.  Dasein is now (and always) past, present, and future.  In relfecting upon Dasein’s temporality, Dasein can come to think that time is a single entity in which past, present, and future are all real. The ordinary conception of time as an endless sequence of now, although founded upon the temporality of Dasein is not an authentic way of viewing time.  For the ordinary conception of time allows us to conceive of the present solely as a time for us to do something.  The present is when we become very busy meeting people and making appointments.  The inauthentic individual by viewing time solely in terms of the now does not become aware of the potentiality for the future, one’s own freedom.  Nor does one become aware of the influences of one’s past on the present. To become aware of one’s potentiality of the future is to become aware of one’s freedom.  By concentrating or thinking of time as being in the now and what is going on now, one doe not think in terms of the future .  One does not think of the fact that I could make this or that future for myself.  One is fixated on the now and so loses the sense of there being different possible alternative ways of viewing the future. The correct, or rather the authentic, conception of time is one in which the present is viewed as the point at which we must project a future for ourselves while retaining a knowledge of one’s past as having contributed to that present.  One is not captured or consumed by the present, but always views his or her entire life.  One is continuously projecting and acting on possibilities for the future at the same time one is viewing one’s past, not as something over and done with, but as something that must be taken into account in determining the possibilities for the future. (Holy Trinity College Seminary Handbook on Contemporary Philosophy, 2009, page 109-117)

Agree and Disagree

            There are parts of Heidegger’s discussion which I agreed upon and there is a part that I do not agree with. I agree on the discussion of Heidegger regarding the authenticity towards the three tenses in English: the past, the present and the future. When we say past, we know that it already happened either a while ago or a long, long time ago. When we say present, we know that it is happening right now, as in the event that occurs now. And when we say future, we know that it is not yet happening but will happen or is going to happen. I agree on his thought that these three are related to each other and they coexist with each other, just like the DaSein.

            All beings are one and many. (Que, N. SJ. (1995). Central Problems of Metaphysics: Being as One and Many. (1^st Edition). Ateneo de Manila University. Page 37-38) So just like the three tenses, they are one and, at the same time, many. How did this happen? All things are related to each other that’s why they are one, and they are also diverse from each other that’s why they are many. For example, as a family, we are one as a family, but we also have differences and uniqueness. Relating to the three tenses, they are the same and they are coexisting and depending on each other. Past can never be past if there is no present and future, present can never be present if there is no past and future, and future can never be future if there is no past and present. Through this notion, it proves that they are one, but speaking of diversity, it is very obvious that the three occurs in different aspect of time. The oneness of the three, which summarizes the essence of the three tenses, is what we call “NOW.” Now can never occur without any disturbances from the past, present can never occur without the worries about the future, and future can never occur without the existence of both past and present. For example, in my love life, I can never live my life now if I haven’t learnt from my past and at the same time, I can never move on to my future. We must always be authentic for us to live a life happily. But how can we be authentic towards it? Learn from the past, be who you are today or in the present for you to be prepared for a beautiful future waiting for you.

            Regarding authenticity towards death, it is very important for us to live and practice this authenticity. Why? Imagine a life always worrying about your death. You would always say, “When I am going to die?” and “How am I going to die?” Never worry because it will cause too much stress and too much suffering to you. In the church, we would always see most of the mass attendees are of old age. Why is it? Because we know that when we are old, it is near for us to face our death. My questions are, why do we not practice the mass and the good deeds when we are still young? What if it is our time to die even in young age? To other people, they already practice good deeds, but to some, they haven’t done it or they just realized to do it just now. This is the problem why we are not that authentic when we are about to face death, that we are not ready. It is advised, even in the sermons of the priests, to be ready even if it is not yet your time because death is like a thief in the night that would steal our precious life from us. So, all we need is to live our life first, to accept that, in time, our end will come, and to keep in our minds the saying, “for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” (1 Thessalonians 5:2)

            And now, I already expressed the part that I have agreed with Heidegger. Now, it is time for the part where I disagree with him when he said that “Death is the completeness of Dasein.” (Holy Trinity College Seminary Handbook on Contemporary Philosophy, 2009. Page 112). With all respect to Heidegger, I also understand his point. But for me, death is not the completeness of life, death is not the completeness of “being there” for man, while he is alive, can experience the feelings of completeness. For example, a guy found his one and only love, a lady, if he is straight, then he would say to that lady with all emotions, “You complete me.” By this situation, completeness is already seen and expressed by a single being, so, for me, death is not the completeness of life, but the true completeness is the feeling of a person by which all the gaps and all the holes in him are all filled up with joy.

A Decision?

            I believe that there is no fate. Why? Many people would say, I got this because of fate. I got you because of destiny, but for me, there is no fate or destiny because it is only us who give ourselves what we deserve. It is only our decisions in life that give us the possibility to achieve or not to achieve a thing.

            For example, there are two options A and B. If A was chosen, it will lead to choices C and D, but if B was picked, it will lead to E and F. Then, with the options C and D, and E and F, there are choices again that will lead to many more options, and so on. So, when we say that a man was once a poor person (and that time I chose A), and now I am a billionaire (because of choice Z), it does not technically mean that what happened to that man is fate or destiny. It is his will, his choice and his decisions that raised him from the bottom to the top.

            Then, what really is death? Death is not completeness, but a decision. How come? When we say completeness, it means that a person achieved already his goals. He has a happy life, living with his wife and children, with all the luxuries, and with all the success, if that is his criterion for happiness. In short, it is our happiness that gives us the completeness we are searching for.

            Why is death a decision? It is said that there are two choices towards death: authenticity and inauthenticity, and we all know that during the time of death, or even days, months, or years, before it snatch our life, we must be authentic towards it. If we need to be authentic towards death, acceptance is needed. If we need to accept, decision is also needed, because acceptance occurs after a decision is made. We cannot accept a simple thing without deciding whether to accept or reject it. And with this decision, decisions will appear soon – when we do things to make us ready such as confessing our sins, return to God, and be a true Christian. Through these decisions, we can achieve things happily and authentically.

And so, by all means, we must not forget the rationality that we have, we must use not only our mind, but also our heart, and we must use the freedom that we have because life is a decision.

Bibliography

Webster’s Universal Dictionary and Thesaurus

Holy Trinity College Seminary Handbook on Contemporary Philosophy, 2009

Stumpf, S. & Fieser, J. (2008). Socrates and Sartre and Beyond. (8^th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Que, N. SJ. (1995). Central Problems of Metaphysics: Being as One and Many. (1^st Edition). Ateneo de Manila University.

The New American Bible