Of The Different Species Of Philosophy

            “All polite letters are nothing but pictures of human life in various attitudes and situations, and inspire us with different sentiments of praise or blame, admiration or ridicule, according to the qualities of the object which they set before us.” – “of the different species of Philosophy.”

            Sa akda, sinasabi rin ni David Hume na mas madali ang “easy ad obvious” philosophy kaysa “accurate and abstruse” philosophy. Isang halimbawa ng “easy and obvious” philosophers ay kaming mga estudyante. Hindi naming matatawag na kaalaman o karunungan ang aming nalalaman dahil nakukuha lamang namin ito sa mga librong aming binabasa.

            Isang halimbawa naman ng “accurate and abstruse” philosopher ay ang mga imbentor. Nagkakaroon sila ng sariling o bagong kaalaman dahil sa kanilang sariling pagtuklas at hindi nanggagaling sa ibang tao.

            “But  a philosopher who purposes only to represent the common sense of mankind in more beautiful and more engaging colors, if accident he falls into error, goes no farther.” Sumasang-ayon ako sa linyang ito dahil ang mga philosophers na binabase sa kailang isinusulat ay kapag nagkamali, mas madali nilang maitatama ang kanilang pagkakamali dahil nga nakabase sa araw-araw na pamumuhay ang kanilang pilosopiya.

            Hindi natin maaalis ang pilosopiya sa ating buhay.

            by: Joyce Ann Camille A. Rodriguez

                        BSBA MM I-I

The Ethics of Emergency by Ayrn Rand

“The moral purpose of a man’s life is the achievement of his own happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no values to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But this does not mean that he dies not subordinate his life to the welfare of others that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives is an act of generosity, not of moral duty, that it is marginal and incidental – as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existence – and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concern and the motive power of his life.” The Ethics of Emergency, Ayrn Rand

Altruism is the unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness and egoism as the excessive preoccupation with one's own well-being and interests, usually accompanied by an inflated sense of self-importance. This was the definition of aswers.com. Ang “The Ethics of Emergency” ay umiikot sa altruism at egoism.

Ayon kay Aryn Rand, “if a man accepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance): lack of self esteem, lack of respect for others, a nightmare of existence, and in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics”. Ibig sabihin, kahit nagbigay ka ng tulong sa iba, ay may kahihinatnan pa rin.

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a non – value. Thus, altruism, gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces, or betrays his values. The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.”

Ibig sabihin nito na ang sakripisyo ay ang pagpili ng mas importanteng tao o bagay kaysa sa hindi importanteng bagay.

“The virtue involved in helping those one loves is not “selflessness” or “sacrifice”, but integrity. Integrity is loyalty to one’s convictions and value; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating then into practical reality. If a man professes to love a woman, yet his actions are indifferent, inimical or damaging to her, it is his lack of integrity that him immoral.”

Isang halimbawa nito ay kung ang iyong kaibigan ay nagugutom,hindi sakripisyo ngunit integridad na bigyan mo siya ng pera para ipambili ng pagkain kaysa bumili ng kung anu anong bagay na hindi mahalaga.

“It is on the ground of that generalized good will and respect for the value of human life that one helps strangers in an emergency – and only in an emergency. It is important to differentiate between the rules of conduct in an emergency situation and the rules of conduct in the normal conditions of human existence. An emergency is an un – chosen, unexpected event, limited in time, that creates conditions under which human survival is impossible – such as floods, an earthquake, a fire a shipwreck. Here, men’s goal is to combat out the disaster, escape the danger and restore normal conditions. By “normal” conditions I mean metaphysically normal, normal in the nature of things and appropriate to human existence. Men can live on land, but not in water or in a raging fire. Since men are not impotent, it is metaphysically possible for unforeseeable disasters to strike them, in which case their only task is to return to those conditions under which their lives can continue. By its nature, an emergency situation is temporary: if it were to last, men would perish. It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers, if it is in one’s power.”

Ayon kay Ayrn Rand, isang imoral ang pagtulong ng isang tao sa kapwa lalo na kung ito ay isang normal na sitwasyon lamang. Halimbawa nito ay ang pagbibigay ng limos sa mga pulubi. Sabi niya, hindi talaga tayo tumutulong o hindi talaga natin sila tinutulungan, kundi kinukunsinti lamang natin sila sa kanilang ginagawa. Hindi daw ito isang kagipitan kundi isang normal na sitwasyon lamang. Kaya lamang tayo nagbibigay ay dahil may nararamdaman tayong awa sa kanila o ung “emotional attouchment” sa kanila. Upang mawala ang nararamdaman natin na ito, magbibigay tayo ng pera o ng kahit na anong bagay. Ngunit ito ay isang immoral na gawain para kay Ayrn Rand. Ang mga sitwasyon na nasa kagipitan ay tulad ng paglubog ng barko. Kung ikaw ay marunong lumangoy, tutulungan mo ang ibang taong hindi marunong lumangoy kahit hindi mo sila kilala. Tutulungan mo sila hanggang kayo ay makapunta sa baybayin o sa isang isla. Ngunit hanggang doon na lamang ang kanyang maitutulong. Bahala na ang taong sinagip sa kanyang pagkain o inumin. Hindi na obligasyon ng taong sumagip na alalahanin pa niya ang pagkain ng kasama.

“Philosophy is a matter of SURVIVAL”

                                                ---- Ayrn Rand

RIZZA M. DISU

BSBA MM I -1

MR. JAYSON DALWATAN

The Republic (book VII) Allegory of the Cave by Plato

The Republic or (book VII)  is the most famous story in Plato's book. Socrates is talking to a young follower of his name Glaucon, and is telling him this fable to illustrate what its like to be a philosopher. In this story there is a cave where in theres a prisoner's inside the cave and they are chained in their neck and those prisoners's are the philosophers. Theory of knowledge means how we can find or know the thruth. To those people inside the cave the only thing that make them know the reality is when what they see in the shadow inside the cave. For Plato knowledge is just a matter of memory and reminisce,and also knowledge is just a matter of remembering for Plato. From the beginning Plato explained his position in his allegory stating to “take…education and ignorance as a picture of the condition of human nature”. The entire article is in a dialogue, which makes the lessons taught throughout the text more like a story. The picture of human beings being imprisoned in a cave, oblivious to the “above” world, and living the real life was an interesting metaphor to me. I believe, reality based on what is visually interpreted or what is “normally” believed is not always the truth. When one of the prisoners escaped from the darkness of the cave, “he saw more rightly, being a bit nearer reality”. After adjusting he saw the better light and loved the new way of life, but after a while he simply must go back to enlighten the others in the cave. This is certainly a reasonable perspective on knowledge, but I wonder what is the point in knowing the truth when he must return back to the unjust way of life? Would a person want to be tortured in knowing they could live a better life in order to know the truth? Some say ignorance is bliss, but I am contemplative whether I rather know reality, or simply stay content with what I have to live with.  People may never know if they are living in lies, or they might always be questioning the truth, even if truth is right in front of them. I believe the object in life is not always seeking the truth. One would go crazy, questioning what is closer to the light of reality or what are just shadows in a dark cave of oblivion. However, we both agree education shapes our fate, our society, and gives people a meaning to their existence by “putting sight into blind eyes”. Plato bring up an excellent and very important claim in the character of leaders when you mention that they should poses wisdom and value education and the power of knowledge. Someone like the escaped cave prisoner, who has seen glimpses of “realities behind just and beautiful and good things” who has experience and the capability to see past the “darkness” and not be confined by the walls of incapacity, would only be the only succesful leader.
I firmly agree with the idea of Plato, that we should never rely to our senses, instead in our rationality, because rationality is the tools for us to survive... that's all.....

Sarah Jane Q. Natividad

BSBA MM I-I

“Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good, and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.”

Who is the real wants of sorts for their sake? All the things that we want for us are goodness. We aim always well for ourselves. All human activities aim some good. They always do things for their own good. Doing good things make us happy and others too. Every individual has their own happiness. Even though how many times you have finished a work or a masterpiece that everyone loves, you are not still happy because you don’t like the things that you are doing. You always find you’re happiness and the things that make you feel complete.  We always expect for good result for all the things that we have done but all ends do not lead to happiness. Sometimes expectation hurts us. If we always expect for good at the end of the day, we might just hurt our own feelings. But how can we blame ourselves if we do everything just to accomplish our goals. Happiness can be found in the end of an action.  The outcome of an action is what makes happiness different for each individual.

Aristotle believed that the good was happiness but how can a person attain his happiness? We do everything just to attain our own happiness. Others said that if we are contented to the things and people that we have, that are the happiness, but what if people do not know how to be contented. They always ask for more.  They never been contented on the things that they have. Happiness is the pursuit of our wants or desires. But still I believed that at some point of their life they will realize the true happiness of life. Maybe not now but sooner or later we can have that.                  

                                                                                                                       Danica Anna Pullon

Kant on Morality

“Finally, there is an imperative which commands a certain conduct immediately...This imperative is Categorical...This imperative may be called that of Morality.”

-Immanuel Kant

(Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics of Ethics)

To really understand morality, there some questions that should be answered. How can duty and autonomy go together? What’s the great nobility in answering to duty? It seems that the idea of duty and the idea of autonomy are opposing. How can these two matters be related with each other?

You only act autonomously when you’re pursuing in the name of duty and not of your own condition. You are doing good and moral only because of duty and not because of your own personal benefit. This is acting out of freedom because you choose to accept the moral laws on yourself and not brought out from outside and onto you. Because doing something out of duty is following a moral law that you impose on yourself. For this reason, I may say duty may be connected with autonomy or freedom.

So Kant’s answer would be - it is not that I am subject to the law that I have dignity. But rather, in so far as with regard to that same law that I’m the author. And I am under that law on that grounds that I took upon myself. So acting because of duty and acting autonomously would be the same.

But the question is how many moral laws are there? And if dignity is based in being governed by the law that I give myself, how can I be sure that my conscience or way of thinking will be the same as yours?

Because moral law does not depend upon subjective conditions, it may go beyond our personal differences. Thus, a universal law will form. So there will only be one moral law that will be the same for everyone. So this means that if we choose freely out of our own conscience the moral law will come up with only one and same law. This may be because of pure reason which is not subject to any external conditions that may be implied to us. Because when I choose, it is not Bea who chooses. And when you choose, it is you who is choosing but pure reason. So the “pure reason” that does the commanding when I command the moral law is the same pure reason that commands when you choose the moral law for yourself. And that’s why it is possible for everyone to act freely in choosing for ourselves as autonomous beings and to come up willing one same moral law (categorical imperative).

Now, how is categorical imperative possible? How is morality possible?

Kant mentioned that we need to set the distinctions between two standpoints.

1.      Sensible world – where actions are determined by the laws of nature and by the regulations of cause and effects

2.      Intelligible world – where by being independent by the laws of nature, I am capable of autonomy, capable of acting according to a law I give to myself

Kant says, “...only from this 2^nd standpoint can I regard myself as free. For to be independent in determination by conscience in a sensible world is to be free.”

If I were a holy and independent being, only subject to the deliverances of my senses – love, pain, happiness, thirst, appetite. If that’s all to humanity we wouldn’t be capable of freedom. Kant reasons because in that case, every exercise of will would be condition by the desire for some object.

“When we think of ourselves as free, we transfer ourselves into the intelligible world as members and recognize the autonomy of the will.” 

So how are categorical imperatives possible? Kant admits we aren’t only rational beings, we don’t only inhabit intelligible world around our freedom because if we do, then all of our actions would customarily be in accordance with the autonomy of the will. But because we inhabit both standpoints, there is always a gap between what we do and what we ought to do. At this point, Kant clarifies that morality is not empirical. Whatever there is to discover cannot decide on morality which is why science can’t provide a moral truth.

Bea Obcena :)

Of the Different Species of Philosophy --- Rizza M. Disu

"Moral Philosophy or the study of human nature may be treated after two different manners, each of which has its peculiar merit and may contribute to the entertainment, instruction, and reformation of mankind." - Of the Different Species of Philosophy, David Hume

 "The one considers man chiefly as born for action and as influenced in his measures by taste and sentiment, pursuing one object and avoiding another according to the value which these seem to posses and according to the light in which they present themselves. The other species of philosophers consider man in the light of a reasonable rather than an active being and endeavor to form his understanding more than cultivate his manner."

Ipinaliwanag ni Dvid Hume sa “Of the Different Species of Philosophy" ang dalawang uri ng pilosopiya. Ayon sa kanya, ang isa sa mga uri ng pilosopiya ay ang "Easy and Obvious Philosophy" na ngangahulugan na ang mga tao ay maaaring matuto sa kanilang mga naranasan. Ang mga pilosopong mga tao na “Easy and Obvious Philosopy” ay yung mga taong tinignan ang mga bagay sa medaling paraan na maaring maging hindi sang- ayunan ng nakararami ngunit maarig maging kapakipakinabang para sa iba. Ang ikalawang uri ay ang “Abstruse and Abstract Philosophy”. Ito ay nagpapahayag na ang mga pilosopong taong nasa ganitong polosopiya ay yung mga an utak ay kakaiba. Kakaiba dahil ang kanilang mga pananaw ay “beyond our five senses”. Ito ay maaaring magbago kung kaya’t hindi ito magagamit sa buhay. Hindi sila katulad ng easy and obvious philosophers, dahil sila, hindi sila yung kukuha ng mga kaalaman sa libro o sa karanasan ng iba, bagkus sa sarili nilang paraan sila natututo o sa sarili nilang mga karanasan.

“They think it a reproach to all literature that philosophy should not yet have fixed, beyond controversy, the foundation of morals, reasoning, and criticism and should forever talk of truth and falsehood, vise and virtue, beauty and deformity, without being able to determine the source of those distinctions”. Ayon sa philosophical passage na ito, ang philosophy ay pundasyon ng moral at positibong pamumuna na dapat pag usapan ang katotohanan at ang kasinungalingan, bisyo at magagandang gawi, kagandahan at kapangitan, na hindi alam kung saan nagmula ang mga pakakaiba na may katapat na hindi kagandahan o kabaliktaran.

 “Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument. The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek “philosophia” which literally means “love of wisdom”, and was originally a word referring to the special way of life of early Greek philosophers”. Ayon naman sa Wikipedia, ang Pilosopiya ay ang pag aaral ng pangkalahatang at mga pangunahing problema, tulad ng pagkakaron, kaalaman, mga halaga, dahilan, isip, at wika. Ang salitang “philosophy” ay nagmula sa Griyego na “philosophia” na nangangahulugan na “pag ibig sa karunungan” at noon ay orihinal na ng isang salita ng pagsangguni sa mga espesyal na paraan ng buhay ng maagang mga pilosopong Griyego.

Masasabi kong halos lahat sa atin ay nasa Easy and Obvious Philosophy sapagkat alam naman natin na natututo tayo sa pamamagitan ng mga nababasa sa mga libro at sa mga nararanasan natin sa buhay. Maari rin naman ang iba sa atin ay nasa Abstruse and Abstract Philosophy na beyond our five sense ang kanilang talino at kakayahan.

Humahanga akosa mga taong nasa Abstruse and Abstract Philosophy dahil kaya nilang gumawa ng mga kakaibang bagay ngunit may mga punto na parang yung mga utak nila ay para lamang sa mga katulad nila dahil malamang ay sila lang ang nagkakaintindihan. Ngunit may isang tanong ang tumatak sa aking isipan,bakit kailangan nilang gawing mahirap ang mga baga- bagay sa mundo kung pwede naman gawing madali ang lahat?

do what makes you happy

ARTIST AT WORK

“Just as you say, sir”

            This sentence caught my attention as Jonas continuously says this to everyone who talks to him. As if they are always dictating what Jonas needs to do and that he follows everything like he is not deciding for himself.

            He has his star. He believes in it. At first, I really don’t get what that star means. Is it believing in his talent or is it his God. At the end of the discussion, it has been cleared that that star is fate. He believes that everything he does is planned, really bound to happen. That all of it is just reenactment. Jonas is good at painting but he knew that it is not him who is good but his fate.

            He is not a typical man. He lives in silence. He’ll be fine with his brush on his hands and canvas in front of him. When he starts, he can’t see anybody. After all, he was able to build his own family. He has his wife, Louise. She is very supportive. She doesn’t mind even though Jonas has no time for her and their children. I pity her, but that’s love.

            Having all his talents, Jonas found himself unsatisfied. He locked himself on his room and didn’t allow anybody to talk to him. He didn’t eat for weeks. His family and friends thought that he just wanted to be alone and paint. But they don’t know that Jonas is being unhappy and miserable.

            The writer of this philosophical reading is an existentialist. But why is it on his writings, the character believes in fate and God? It just simply shows that believing to God will not always be good and helpful. Like what happened to Jonas, he believed and followed his star but seemed to be miserable.

            It is telling us that we have to be independent. Do what you feel like doing. Don’t let anybody dictate you. Its is not always going with the flow but sometimes you must do what makes you happy and take the risk.

Bernabeth Joyce L. Basco

BSBA MM I-1

Virtue and Rationality

 Virtue

In this philosophical reading, Aristotle believed that the chief good is happiness and happiness can be achieved through virtues. In here, the happiness that he talks about is not the happiness we would think of today. He spoke of achieving Eudamonia (true happiness). For him, Eudaimonia is not an emotional state but rather it is more about being all that you can, fulfilling your potential. In short terms, it means displaying the best version you can be. Aristotle also thought that the practice of virtues would equate to happiness, in the sense of being all you could be. By virtues, Aristotle meant the act of achieving balance and moderation. Aristotle stressed that this moderation of pain and pleasure is an extremely important aspect of virtue. The mean between excess vices and deficient vices must always be pursued. Vices cause us to not act virtuous in dealing with pleasure and pain. An illustration of this could be that if a person endures pain with courage, he or she is balancing pain and pleasure. This balance becomes an index of the person's virtue.
It was Aristotle's belief that by achieving these virtues, happiness would result. So, for him, contemplation was the highest activity humans could do. Contemplation is that activity that refines and discovers virtues. Carried out continuously it allows you to reach your potential.


-Hanna Mari P. Ando
BSBA MM 1-1

Leo Tolstoy: A Confession

NO WAYS OUT

Sa readings na pinamagatang “ A Confession “ ni Leo Tolstoy inisa-isa niya rito ang iba’t ibang dahilan kung bakit masasabi na ang buhay ay walang kahulugan  at kwenta , at ang kamatayan ang mas mabisang paraan para makatakas dito.  Makikita rito yung pag-amin niya sa mga kalupitan at kahirapang naranasan niya sa kanyang buhay. Makikita rin dito yung mga katanungan niya sa buhay na hindi niya naman mahanapan ng kasagutan. Pati na rin sa pagkukumbinsi niya sa kanyang sarili, kahit naranasan niya na ang kalupitan ng buhay ,na ang buhay ay may kahulugan. Sa pamamagitan ng kanyang pananalig na mayroong Diyos na nagiging dahilan kaya tayo ay nagpapatuloy pang mabuhay.

Pagkatapos kong basahin ang readings ni Tolstoy na “ A Confession “ pumukaw sa aking atensyon ang katagang inilahad niya rito na, “ . . . . . there were four ways out of the terrible position which we are all placed. “  Nang mabasa ko ito napag-isi-isip ko na talaga bang mayroon pa ng paraan para makatakas tayo sa kapahamakang kinalalagyan natin, bukod doon sa pagpili ng kamatayan, lalo na at ang kapahamakang iyon ay nasa harap na natin at alam na alam na natin na na wala ng ibang paraan para makatakas mula rito. Hindi ka naman puwedeng magmaang-maangan sa maaaring mangyari sa iyo kapag nakikita at naiintindihan mo na ang katotohanan sa sitwasyong iyong kinalalagyan. Siguro ang huli mo na lang magagawa ay ang ipikit ang iyong mga mata at hintayin na lang ang susunod na mangyayari sa iyo. Katulad na lang dun sa kuwentong sinabi ni Tolstoy na kung saan nalagay siya sa isang sitwasyon na masasabi nating “no way out” na siya sapagkat wala na siyang takas mula sa mabangis na “beast” na humahabol sa kanya at sa “dragon” na naghihintay sa kanya sa ilalim ng balon na mapabitiw at mahulog siya sa kinakapitan niyang sanga na kung saan ang sangang ito ay nginangatngat ng dalawang daga. Sa halimbawang ito makikita rito na kahit anong pagpupumilit ang gawin ng tao na mabuhay kung ang kamatayan ay nasa harapan na ng iyong mga mata,  wala  ng iba pang paraan para makatas mula rito kung hindi harapin na lang ito at tanggapin. Kaya hindi ako sumasang-ayon na mayroon pang ibang paraan para makatakas tayo ng buhay sa kapahamakang ating kinalalagyan lalo na at ang tanging pagpipilian  natin ay kamatayan at kamatayan lamang at wala ng iba pa. Tulad kanina dun sa nasabing halimbawa.

Pumukaw din sa aking atensyon ang katagang sinabi niya na. “ Live seeking God, and then you will not live without God. “ Sang-ayon ako sa linyang ito sapagkat kapag tayo ay nabuhay na naghahanap sa presensiya ng Diyos ang buhay natin ay nagkakaroon ng kulay at kahulugan. Nagkakaroon ng kulay at kahulugan ang ating buhay sapagkat sa pamamagitan Niya nagiging positibo tayo sa pagharap sa buhay, laging buong-buo ang ating pag-asa at pananalig. Sa pamamagitan ng paghahanap sa kanya tayo ay nagkakaroon ng dahilan para magpatuloy pa ring mabuhay kahit na anong hirap, lupit at pait pa ang ating maranasan. Nagiging matibay tayo sa bawat pagsubok ng buhay ngunit kung hindi tayo nabubuhay ng naghahanap sa Diyos marahil kaunting pagsubok lang na dumating sa ating buhay ay sumusuko na agad tayo at kamatayan ang tanging iisipin para hindi na muli maranasan ang ganitong pagsubok. Kaya nga ang mga taong naghahanap sa Diyos ay kailanman man hindi nabuhay ng walang Diyos.

Mary Joy Capentes

BSBA MM 1-1

The Republic (Book VII) by Plato

        In the Book VII of The Republic, Socrates presents the most famous metaphor in Western Philosophy: the Allegory of the Cave which meant to exemplify the importance of Education in a human being and the four stages of thinking: the stage of imagination, belief, thought and understanding.

        Socrates describes these stages in a dark cave where a group of people were bound together and they were not able to look to either side or behind them except to the wall in front of them. A prisoner was able to reach the highest stage of thinking which is the stage of understanding after he was freed from the bond and capable to see the world beyond the cave.

        The idea of the allegory of the cave that Plato wants to depict is that we should start in the lowest stage in order to reach the highest stage. Everyone should begin at the stage of imagination or in the cave with the hands and legs bound, and education is the only thing that will help us to make it all the way out because the education has the goal to drag every man as far out of the cave as possible. Because not everyone could make it to the top, Socrates reminds us that our goal is not to make any group happy but to make the city as a whole happy, which only means that we should help everyone of us to get out of the cave and to reach the stage of understanding. The city also has the goal to educate every human with right natures so that they will not remain contemplating the Form of the Good forever.

        I firmly agree with the idea of Plato, everybody starts at the lower level before they attain the uppermost stage that they could reach. To be able to reach the Form of the Good, education will play a very important role for us achieve our goal because education do not simply intend of putting knowledge in a human being but also taking him at the right desires. When the time comes that were educated enough, we should lend a hand to those who are still in the cave at the stage of imagination.

        

by: Angelique May C. Garcia

        BSBA MM 1-1

       

Ethics of Emergencies

As I read Ayn Rand's Ethics of Emergencies,  some ideas came into my mind.
It was first stated in the article that Altruism is the devotion to the interest of others. It is a philosophy or idea wherein a person thinks of others' welfare. It is the opposite of egoism, which is thinking sbout something for yourself first before helping others.
As I first read the article, I thought that Rand is an Altruism supporter. But as I do some researches, she is definitely NOT. Because she is an Egoism supporter. She just sited some Altruistic ideas.

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue.
Rand define the word sacrifice in terms of the words "greater value and lesser value". There, she sited one common example. It is about a husband who spent lots of her money just to cure his wife's illness. In that situation, the lesser value is the money while the greater value is the wife's life because it is his own happiness. The action is not a sacrifice because he chose the thing that has a greater value but IF he spent his fortune with other women, that is a sacrifice because he gives up his own happiness.


The main idea or thought of the article lies on the last two pages.
Emergency was then defined in that part as any situation like floods or any disaster. Rand stated that one should help a person in an emergency situation not because it is his duty bur because he like to help. But right after that particular situation, the person who helped will not be responsible for the things needed of the person he helped to survive. Rand then stated that helping  is an immoral act because it is an act of tolerating one's parasitic attitude.




To end this reflection, I agree with what our Philosophy instructor stated about this article that "A is A". "Reality is REALITY" and noone can change nor destroy it. And helping for me, is an act of lending a hand for someone. It must be controlled, in order for us to destroy the 'parasitic attitde' of a person.



Roselyn Ann Grace M. Ibanez
BSBA MM I-1

Existence precedes Essence

In this idea by Jean Paul-Sartre, he stated that existence precedes essence mainly because the human being , through his consciousness, defines himself because in the first place, humans do not have any values or identity they possess. It is through humans themselves that these are created and are not predetermined by any means.

I strongly agree with this idea of Paul-Sartre since it is a very rational idea. No one knows exactly if, when we are born, we already have values since infants do not possess the capability of showing one. But, as they grow older, and through the influence of their surroundings, they create their own identity and values that makes them human.

Being human is not having eyes or nose or opposable thumbs. It is about what makes a person "human". What characteristics would make one "human". Being human is being what humans naturally do. Think. Humans think because they want to know what makes them what they are. They think for the very same reason as to what purpose will they serve while living.

In the idea that essence precedes existence, it is only true when there is an identity that precedes all humans as to saying that, "You will have this traits and characteristics since you are a man from etc. etc." But this is not true since it has yet to be proven and it does not follow the thought that man is a rational being.

On the other hand, if existence precedes essence, it will be less confusing as to what we are we, what we are to do and what would it lead us since ultimately, man decides for himself and he makes what he does. He knows what he is doing since he himself decided that he would do it. Not predetermined by anyone.

Therefore, being a rational man, I believe that the idea that existence precedes essence is true in the sense that it is a very rational and realistic idea that, although not proven, still much more believable than the idea of essence precedes existence.

Francis Jayvincent P. Fabi
BSBA MM 1-1

The Artist at work by Albert Camus

a short reaction

      As the reporter for this topic, i wasn't able to get the whole idea and concept of the story. It's a little bit confusing because when you read it for the first time, all you get is a simple story of how a painter booms his way to success without even much effort and his martyr lover who supported him all the way, with the success has finally reached its peak, Jonas is soon declining, and at the end of the story, he'll realize what he's been missing. It's the same story you hear over and over, but what aggravates me is how can this be a philosophy? what's in the mind of Albert Camus for creating this story? what is he trying to point out? Because of its simplicity, Camus used words that are frank, simple and really! nothing special and deep. It tells you right away the story line. BUT!!!! then reading it again, something came bugging.....

     what's with the STAR???


    and what's with his canvas only written with the word 'SOLIDARY' or 'SOLITARY'? "but without any certainty as to whether it should be read solidary or solitary" that's what it was written in the last part....

then, i just realized, what the hell is this STAR??? at first, i thought is was Jonas' faith, his faith i his own abilities or maybe his own self.....that's at first....

then when i searched for the meaning of the STAR, there's none, all they are trying to explain is how he doesn't believe much in his star and was being compared to Jonah, a biblical character......

     Jonah believed in his GOD, Jonas believed in his STAR......there's the hint!!!!! still i got the same results of my own, Jonas' own faith...... 

     After much headache and a very frustrating me, because i really can't seem to understand what's this STAR really.....all they say about the story...you will miss it but you won't miss it

yeah, i kind of understand that....i didn't miss anything, i've read it thoroughly but still, what am i missing?

then our Philosophy professor explained it to us after our report...this STAR is equivalent to...






LUCK!!!!




   what's up with that??? that's when i finally understood that, what others meant by Jonah believes in his own GOD and Jonas believes in his own STAR..Jonas believes in his own luck.......what was meant in here that, Jonas didn't believe it was his own effort, all the things that's happening to him was all because he thinks he is only lucky....

how could i miss it?? i understand now why they keep saying you will miss it but you won't miss it...everytime something good happens to Jonas, he always have this statement of reply "it's just luck"

so here is what Albert Camus wants us to know.....that everything that is happening, all the things, its because of our OW EFFORT, not by luck or anything, not because we get help from God, some people or some LUCK....yeah, Albert Camus is an existentialist and an Atheist...sorry but i still believe in my God, but i also believe in my own effort...


so that explains the STAR, but what about the SOLIDARY and SOLITARY???

first before that, in the story, Jonas locked himself up in a dark room working all day and night, without eating anything....and then finally his body gave in and collapse, nothing bad happened to him, he just overworked himself, but what's funny is that, all the weeks his been locking himself up, everyone thought he was working with some very big masterpiece...but all this time, its only a black canvas with a word inscribes that can't be read as SOLIDARY or SOLITARY.....

for my own opinion, i think that time, he was thinking deeply, maybe realizing things what he's been missing about.....yeah, he is missing alot.......


now for the meaning of those two...after much research of the meaning, SOLIDARY means interdependent, and SOLITARY means independent...


INTERDEPENDENT- relating to two or more people or things dependent on each other
INDEPENDENT-  not dependent on anything else

Jonas rise and fall.....

its rather a sad story because Jonas was miserable.
it was said that the story is a bit of how Camus life was,

     the summary of the story:
          The Artist at Work, is a corrosively witty account of the rise and fall of a minor talent. Gilbert Jonas is a modest Parisian painter who trusts his "star." A dealer discovers him and he is beset by fame. New friends while away his afternoons "begging Jonas to go on working . . . for they weren't Philistines and knew the value of an artist's time." Disciples appear, but not to learn anything ("one became a disciple for the disinterested pleasure of teaching one's master"). At the height of his fame, poor Jonas poses for a portrait of the artist at work, but he himself no longer has the time or spirit to paint. Cognac consoles him with the illusion of creativity, and girls with the illusion of vitality. After that, Jonas' decline is swift, sure and touching. Dying, he scribbles one word on a blank canvas, but no one can be sure "whether it should be read solitary or solidary"


well, he didn't actually die, but well, the story i think is dark and sad, but can really give you a moral lesson:

     its not about the help of something that's gonna bring you success, its with your own effort....you can achieve anything by your OWN.......








by Theresa Claire Q. Lopena