Tuesday, November 30, 2010
It is a typical Filipino romcom whose ending was ruined because someone thought they didn’t want the ending to be cliché. Anyway, I’m not going to rant about the film because even with the crappy ending, I still liked it.
It’s really not the film that I wanted to talk about. But there was something about the story that made me ponder.
Is there anything or anyone that happened or came to my life that I wanted to forget?
Unlike Irene (Toni Gonzaga), I haven’t been left standing alone on the altar by my groom. But there are certain things in my life that I know I’d have done without.
I’m not young anymore. I’ve made a lot of bad choices, and there are times I’d wish I could forget all of them. The saying that those things make you better persons in the end sometimes you’d think its crap. You know you’d still be a better person even if your paths haven’t crossed.
There are a couple of things I wanted to forget. Stupid people and wrong choices. But I guess I have to live with it.
How about you, is there anything/anyone you want to forget?
Saturday, November 27, 2010
The metaphysics of the ‘IS’: The Esse of Aquinas
This is my attempt to help people better understand Aquinas’ Metaphysics.
We have to begin with the core teaching of his Metaphysics, which is esse. To Aquinas, esse is the ‘IS’ or the existence. It is the most essential facet of a ‘being’ (note that throughout this essay we’ll use the word as a noun). In recognizing the importance of esse, we have to first understand the concept of ‘being’.
Let’s have one example to explain Aquinas’ esse, which is this sentence: The runner is running.
We say that the runner is a being. He is a being because he is a ‘someone’ (but a being can actually be anything in the realm of space and time). To Aquinas, a being constitutes two things: essence and esse.
Let’s first discuss essence because it’s easier to understand.
The essence characterizes the being: (1) as it is; and (2) as opposed to other beings.
Thus, we say that what distinguishes a runner from a singer or a dancer is his action, which is running. In this sense, a runner runs otherwise he would be someone else. Therefore, running is the essence of being a runner.
Now let’s discuss esse, the harder concept.
In the sentence, the runner is running, esse is the ‘IS’ insofar as esse is existence. The esse gives rise to the being as ‘it is’ (essence). But, as Aquinas would say, the intellect cannot understand the ‘IS’ without a reference to a being because it is the latter that justifies the former. Thus, we come to know that there ‘IS a runner’. (Note that by knowing the runner we are grasping its essence and not really the esse. This is the reason why some philosophers regard esse as within essence, which is wrong according to Aquinas)
At this point, we make it clear that we are talking about existence in general, whether in thought (Santa Clause ‘IS’ fat) or in reality (the Eiffel Tower ‘IS’ huge).
Now, what distinguishes Aquinas’ esse from other philosophers’ esse is his understanding of its nature. To him, esse is perfect in itself. The being only possesses esse and acts through it to reveal its essence. Thus, Aquinas asserts the superiority of esse over essence. (This is also the key ingredient to his position on the supremacy of God’s esse, which he deems as the First Cause of all things)
In summary, we say that through esse a being exists. Existence is pertained as an act because ‘to be’ is to exist already. And precisely because the being ‘IS’ (the act of existence) we are able to know ‘what it is’ (essence). Thus, Aquinas would say “Aguire Sequitur Esse” or “Action follows being”. But, we are not saying that the process is sequential but rather simultaneous.
I hope this helped in understanding Aquinas’ esse.
I decided to share this blog with the 'kid' as he does not w ant to open his own blog. This is how I'm becoming a little more worldly. Learning philosophy.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
I have been a third wheel for a very long time, joining couple friends on their dates. It’s awkward. You have to look away when the couples are being cheesy. You try not to puke when they kiss in front of you. It is hard work. Sitting at the back of the car and listening to them tell you some of their dates, knowing full well that you’re not in the dating scene.
I have endured that hundreds of times with my friends.
It’s only now that I realize it’s also difficult being one of the couples and having someone join you as a third wheel.
Last weekend, me and the Kid went out on a date and were joined by a friend who wanted to meet my beau. The date went great; we had a lot of fun. It was me and the Kid’s first time to go to Star City. The fact that the whole thing was his treat, made it awesome.
Anyway, as fun as it was, I found it kind of difficult because there’s someone else apart from the two of us on that date. I had to balance my attention from the Kid and the third wheel. It’s not hard, really. But still, there are things you’d rather do alone than when in front of someone else.
- You constantly have to ask the third wheel if she’s okay.
- Although they’re polite, sometimes you can’t just choose a movie to watch just because you and the beau want to see a particular film.
- You can’t be really sweet with your partner when in front of the third wheel.
- It’s more expensive treating two people than just one.
- Sometimes it’s going to be an issue, especially if the partner does not like the third wheel.
- There are also times you’ll get annoyed because your partner talks to the third wheel more than he/she talks to you.
But then again…
- It is nice when you hear your partner proclaims how much he loves you to the third wheel.
- It’s great when you know that he wants to get to know the people that you love.
- It’s cute when you try to steal kisses or hold hands when the other person’s (the third wheel, not the beau) not around.
- And it’s great when at the end of the day, your friend will tell you that he/she approves of the person you love.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Gone were the days when sex was the main hook of writers. Heck, even Soltero’s starting to become sentimental.
But the new ones these days, I’m just wowed by how talented some of the new writers have become. I get nosebleed every time I open the blog of one of the new people I follow. The last time I’ve read so many awesome online journals was when this blog was still new.
Sex still sells though. There’s this one blog I keep on following, not because of his posts but because he’s just hot. He doesn’t do sex posts, which is great, and he’s low profile. I like low profile bloggers.
Speaking of low profile bloggers or bloggers in general, I wonder if all of them open up blogs to become famous.
A lot may disagree, but I think people nowadays do this to get noticed, to become popular. There are even bloggers who put up a blog so they’d be able to meet other bloggers too.
I’m not going to lie but there was a time when I wanted to become a celebrity through my blog. That’s a long shot, still is, but there are days when I hope to achieve that. I’m pretty sure a lot of people share the same sentiment. I mean if that’s not an intention, you could always keep the blog private. Or better yet, just stay writing on journals or notebooks.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to become a celebrity or famous using blogs as a medium. It is a growing trend which shows no signs of declining soon.
I shouldn’t really be worrying or thinking about this too much. Everyone’s got a reason for writing, and it’s their home. I shouldn’t be concerned too much.
I shouldn't be concerned at all.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Maybe I've grown up. Or maybe I've become immature. Who knows.
This is why maintaining two blogs is hard.
Anyway, back to the light post thing. This may seem familiar to some of you because I just posted this on my other home.
Last Friday, the Kid and I stayed out late. The Kid's really talkative and sometimes he's just like a child having sugar rush or something. So we were like trying to go to bed already, but he's still wide awake, while I was trying to rest already.
I guess, this is me when I get really sleepy.
Kid: Hon, sino nga yung kontrabida dun sa Betty La Fea?
Me: Si Marcella.
K: Sino nga si Marcella?
M: Si Stella Yulo (HR Manager from where I'm working).
K: Sino si Stella Yulo?
M: Yung kasabayan ni Hopia.
K: Huh, sino si Hopia?
M: Yung sa Going Bulilit.
K: Hon, parang di naman ata magka-age si Hopia tsaka si Stella Yulo.
M: (I woke up)
K: Hon, bakit hindi pa kinakasal sina Morris and Maybe (a couple of my best friends)
M: Kasi magpapalit pa sila ng pangalan.
K: Bakit nila kailangan magpalit ng pangalan?
M: Syempre kasi natatakot sila.
K: Saan naman sila natatakot?
M: Ano ba, e di sa mga terorista.
K: blah blah blah (I really don't remember what we were talking about)
M: Teka lang hon, three minutes, magsusulat lang ako ng short story (snore)
K: (he gave up and went to sleep too)
I remember there was one time also, we were on the phone, and in the middle of him talking, I butt in with...
M: Hon, teka lang ha mag-iigib lang ako ng tubig.
Man, I'm getting old.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Rationalizing Homosexual Love
This is an attempt to justify the morality of homosexual love by arguing its naturalness.
I. The Main Argument against Homosexual Love
“Homosexual love is immoral because it is unnatural.”
To properly understand the context of this main argument, we have to divide the discussion into two parts: (1) the morality of the ‘natural’; and (2) the essence of ‘heterosexual love’.
Sub-argument one: What is natural is moral.
The natural is that which is truthful and rightful since it is grounded on the ‘end’ proper to any being. This ‘end’ is defined as perfection. Thus, to follow the natural is to follow perfection.
Example: It is natural for a chick to become a chicken since by becoming a chicken the chick reaches its individual perfection.
Sub-argument two: Heterosexual love is moral because it is natural.
Heterosexual love permits the conjugal union of man and woman for the generation and education of human species (Natural Law). The naturalness of heterosexual love is based on its ordination towards pro-creation. Thus, to follow pro-creation is to follow the perfection of inter-personal love.
Implication of two sub-arguments: Homosexual love is immoral because it is unnatural. It is unnatural because it cannot pro-create.
II. The Error in the Main Argument
Now, let’s try to address the logical flaw by stating that the morality of inter-personal love can be understood by looking at either of the two facets:
1. The ‘sexual fit’ between the persons involved, that is, that the man is for the woman and the woman for the man; and
2. The love that binding the persons involved, that is, the objective aspect of inter-personal love.
III. Justifying Homosexual Love
Ando so, let’s justify the morality of homosexual love by establishing this main argument:
“Homosexual love is moral inasmuch as the love binding the persons involved follows the objective aspect of inter-personal love.”
Sub-argument: Homosexual love is moral if it perfects both the lover and the beloved.
If love is the movement of the self towards the good to attain perfection, then the objective aspect of inter-personal love (whether heterosexual or homosexual) consists in the perfection of both the lover and the beloved. Perfection entails the cultivation of character, which can only transpire in reciprocal love.
To make this part clearer, we have to consider the development of authentic inter-personal love in four phases:
1. Inter-personal love as attraction.
The lover is attracted to the beloved through his/her physical attributes. Beauty is the essential ‘mover’ of attraction since human beings are naturally attracted to that which pleases the senses.
2. Inter-personal love as desire.
The lover now wants the beloved. Desire is marked by self-centredness insofar as the lover sees the beloved as being good for himself/herself. With desire, the lover’s assessment of the beloved shifts from physical attributes to non-physical attributes like character and intelligence.
3. Inter-personal love as recognition.
The lover now sees the entire self of the beloved—what he/she truly is. This phase combines both the physical and the non-physical attributes of the beloved to form a clearer picture of his/her personhood. If desire is highlighted by choice, recognition is highlighted by acceptance.
4. Inter-personal love as reciprocity: the authentic love.
The lover and the beloved now engage in mutual relationship. Reciprocity follows self-transcendence insofar as the ‘good for the lover’ mindset is transformed into the ‘good for the beloved’ mindset.
In this light, it is only through an ‘other-centred’ perspective that reciprocity can transpire. Reciprocity provides authentic meaning to inter-personal love since it paves the way for the convergence of two persons. This convergence is both exclusive and intimate.
Through reciprocity, both the lover and the beloved become selfless since they aim for the good of each one. Through selflessness, they are able to cultivate their character and become better persons. This is the objective aspect of inter-personal love, that which makes it natural.
Conclusion: Homosexual love is natural if it follows this path to authentic love. By being able to do so, it then becomes moral.
You may be surprised how different this is from the way I write. Well, it's because it's not me who wrote this. The Kid wrote this for me. A few days ago, I asked him to write something for me. This is the one he came up with. It's supposed to be about our relationship.
It made my nose bleed a little, but he's been patient with me, explaining this whole thing.
But he did end up writing something shallow for me. But I'll post it in my other home. :)