PASASALAMAT KINA:

Ate Mamay at sa lahat ng tao na nagbigay tulong pinan-

syal sa pagpapalimbag ng isyung ito;

at

kay Mark Toby Rodriguez sa kanyang mga malikhaing

larawan na ginamit sa mga pahinang nagdaan.

All rights reserved © 2015

TEACH ME HOW TO LOVE AGAIN

Juancho

I’m lying on my couch, motionless as I stared blankly at the ceiling. The room is

dark and cool and the light is coming from the other room. Everything sounds so quiet;

something I haven’t experienced for quite some time. The passing vehicles outside, the

fan by my side, and the rising and falling sound of my breath are the only things you’ll

hear. It’s very rare for moments like this to happen to me especially now that my academ-

ic load is piling up and so are my other responsibilities so I really try to savor every pass-

ing second. These are moments when I feel like I’m infinite; soaring and gliding into the

dark night sky. I feel weightless and light.

For quite sometime, I’ve been really confused with every thing that’s happening

to me. So confused that I don’t know what to do or what to feel. It’s only been a couple of

days since I’ve met him. He’s really not my usual type; tall, stocky, chinito. He’s not from

UP either nor is he the manliest of guys put there. He’s very sweet, patient, and thought-

ful though. Too sweet that sometimes I end up pushing him around. He’s also great with

my friends, and most of all, he listens to everything I have to say. People are telling that

I’ve finally found that ‘perfect’ guy for me; the guy who’ll take care of me and treat me

like the most important person in the world. He fetches me around with his car and we

go to different places, we go on movie dates, we eat out, have study nights together;

things that I’m used to doing alone. And that’s the thing: I don’t know what to do or to

feel with all these feelings and attention being thrown at me. For the past two years, I’ve

been hung on my ex, trying to make him love me again by rekindling our flame but in the

end, I failed. For the past two years, I’m used to hooking up with different guys; sex bud-

dies at night, total strangers in the morning. No commitments, no drama. After I get

what I came for, I’d just stand up, pick up my clothes, and go. I’ve fallen for some though

and I ended up making a total fool of myself by boosting their egos and turning them

into assholes.

But then, this guy comes along and drowns me with his effort and affection that

I most of the time I get moody and frustrated because I don’t know what to feel. He tells

me I’m hot, that I’m gwapo, that he feels happy and secured whenever I’m around. Like:

“Dude, I want to say those things to you too but somehow, I can’t. I don’t know if I feel

the same way but I don’t want to hurt you either”. I dreamt about my ex and still, I felt

more emotion after than when I’m with you. I don’t know. All I know is I just want to be

left alone right now and savor this endless night.

19

Hugutin Mo Mukha Mo, ‘Nak Konting unsolicited advice galing sa nanay mo ni Nanay Mo

Nabasa ko na naman ang Facebook status mo.

Oo. FB friends tayo. ‘Wag ka na namang OA. Sa dinami-dami ng ina-add mo na mukha ng Koreano ang nakalagay, ‘wag ka nang magtaka kung may at least isa ‘dun na poser lang. At oo, may fake akong Facebook account na ginawa ko para i-track ang internet footprint mo. Sue me. Seryoso.

Buti nga sa Facebook na lang kita tina-track. Dati sinubukan ko pa ‘yang Twitter na ‘yan. Two words: information overload. Pakiramdam mo ba lahat ng kilos mo importante sa mundo? Ano ngayon kung trapik sa Katipunan? Ano ka, morning show? Malamang naman ‘yung mga kaklase at kaibigan mo and’yan rin sa trapik o ‘di kaya e nasa klasrum na. Why even bother broadcasting it? Kahit akong Nanay

mo, ‘nak, walang pakialam. At lahat pinapakialaman ko a.

Mabalik tayo sa Facebook status mo. Single ka na naman. Kakarinig ko lang ng hagulgol mo sa kwarto kanina for the nth time nang break-in mo na naman ang syota mo for the nth time. Magpapalit ka ba ng status mo everytime na hindi siya magrereply for two hours? Ano, may nakaantabay ba na mga

manliligaw na bigla na lang susulpot after mo i-announce? Is this a service to them?

Kasunod pa ng quote na: if you can’t have me at my worst, you don’t deserve me at my best. Seryoso, ‘nak, anong pinaglalaban mo? Kailan ba ‘yang “best” na ‘yan at feeling ko deserve ko naman na makita ‘yan since hindi pa rin kita tinatakwil hanggang ngayon. Joke lang. Half-meant.

Actually, anak, hindi ko gets kung bakit ang obsessed niyong mga kabataan sa matters of the heart. A lot is happening around you at that particular phase of your life. It feels as if you’re selling yourself short if you just spend them thinking about romantic relationships and heartbreak.

Hindi naman sa pagkukumpara pero most of our national heroes peaked in their twenties. Ewan ko kung totoo na mas socially-aware ang tao in this period of adulthood. Lalo na sa henerasyon niyo. It

seems na not that much is expected from people of your generation. Which is ironic because you have the world to work with.

Imagine what you and your contemporaries may be capable of once you start looking outwardly: when you point the phones you use for taking selfies the other way and start looking at the world around

you; when you start speaking with people from other cultures and not just talking about them; when you stop defining yourselves through the people you like, the things you consume and the shows you follow.

Maybe I’m being a little overdramatic sa pag-judge ko sa generation niyo through the banal things you

do. Maybe I’m not around when your pushing society and humanity’s envelope. That’s on me. All I’m saying is that technology and society has developed in such a way that your generation would have so much time on your hands, and so much freedom to spend it as you like. And it’s what you do with your spare time – when you have nothing else to do – that would define what your generation’s contribution to society would be.

Hindi ako war veteran o batikang activist or public intellectual. And you know I will support you no matter what path you choose. I’m your Mom. I love you. But I am not just your Mom. I am Society. I am the People. I am the Bayan whose hope still lies in you. And I believe you are worth more than your “feels,” the things you buy and the people you choose to identify yourself with. I know. I watched you

grow. So please don’t stop growing. Because you have so much to offer us.

Don’t fail me now.

3 18

UP Philosophical Society Holds

First Part of Lecture Series

CJ GALUNAN

O n Tuesday, March 24, the UP Philosophical Society held a lecture entitled Para Kanino Ka Bumabangon at Palma Hall 400, featuring three speakers: Asst. Prof. Bernardo Caslib, MA, Assoc. Prof. Maria Liza Ruth Ocampo, PhD, and Prof. Ciriaco Sayson, PhD.

The lecture began with Prof. Caslib’s endeavor to answer the question by going as far back as ancient philosophy through Socrates and Plato, citing sections from The Republic and Apolo-gy to help facilitate his discussion.

Prof. Ocampo’s treatise on Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas brought the contri-butions of medieval philosophy, particularly the introduction of faith in a Christian God as a possible source of meaning in life, to the fore.

Lastly, Prof. Sayson presented an introduction to views from phenomenology and existen-tialism through Emmanuel Levinas, whose ideas have greatly influenced modern ethical views on the purpose of life.

Ending the forum is a panel discussion in which various questions ranging from inquiries on essence to Eastern philosophy were raised by members of the audience, and determinedly answered one-by-one by all of the speakers.

The event is the first of the organization's upcoming lecture series, entitled A Matter of Life and Death: A Lecture Series. Upcoming topics include Dying na Bangus: A Lecture on Self-Preservation and Sacrifice, and Laban o Bawi: A Lecture on Whether Death is a Choice.

MARCH PD: WHAT SHOULD PHILOSOPHY BE DOING? KELLY DE LA CRUZ

L ast March 17, 2015, the UP Philosophical Society held its bi-monthly Philosophical Discussion, facilitated by JC Navera, on the question: “What should Philosophy Be Doing?” at Palma Hall room 319 from 5:30 to 7:00 in the evening.

Mr. Navera began with asking those present about what philosophy does for them. One answer was that reading philosophy was a source of comfort during times of hardship, full of questions that many others have also wondered.

Gladness grew on Socrates’s face as he had seen gods, and yet did not tremble, nor die in their glory. “I have heard about you in the myths of the oracles and old wives,” said he. “But I have always wondered what sets the gods apart from men. The poets and the elderly have told us that you too suffer pain and happiness and at times, even fall ill and die. You too are ruled by fate and chance. What then, does separate men from gods?”

The gods were again taken aback: not only did Socrates have prior knowledge about them, he also was delighted to be in their presence! Yet the gods knew that there must be a misunder-standing about their nature (though it was excusable, as these are mere humans after all): for they were not ruled by fate or chance. They know themselves to be all-powerful and all-knowing, meaning they have the full capacity to define their own existence. This they related to Socrates, who, upon hearing, enlarged his innocent smile.

“What elegant pieces of wisdom I am hearing! This is all too foreign to me!” exclaimed the phi-losopher. Humbled by such knowledge, Socrates felt the irresistible urge to ask another question: “What then, do the all-knowing and all-powerful gods need my counsel for?”

The gods were growing fond of this young, though scrawny-looking, human, as they had sensed in him not only curiosity but humility. Perhaps this was what humans were for, they thought: to remind the gods of their might and superiority. “Dear human,” one of them said. “We have sought your counsel to settle a dispute on whether or not humans existed.”

The smile on Socrates’s face shrank as his mind grew uneasy. He asked in response: “By hu-mans, what do you mean?”

“Humans,” said one of the gods. “Are lesser beings are rational, but not all-knowing; and while having will, are not all-powerful.”

At this point, Socrates found himself in deep thought. The gods, looking down on him, were curious of what could have been the cause of such change in his disposition.

“In that case,” Socrates slowly said. “If you were all-knowing and all-powerful, would you not have the dispute at the first place right? You would have not found yourselves in differing po-sitions, nor would either of you have required the counsel of another in resolving such a prob-lem, if indeed you were all-knowing. For all Truth is one.”

“Furthermore, you have defined human beings as ‘rational, but not all-knowing; and while having will, are not all-powerful’,” added the human. “From our conversation, I could properly assume that you are rational; for if you weren’t, you would not find it necessary to ask questions when met by ignorance.”

The gods were silent.

“I could also infer that you have will for here you are, looking for answers in the hope of find-ing them,” Socrates continued. “If you are indeed rational and yet, from my experience of you, are not all-knowing; if you possess will and yet are all-powerful, could it possibly be that you are human?”

It was at this point that the gods felt a surge of anger from the insolence of the human, while it looked as if it were really asking out of curiosity and not arrogance. They were humiliated by a lesser being, and yet their reason cries out: how can this be so, if they were indeed gods?

Bearing this unshakable thought, the gods fled from Socrates. Vowing to never speak of the inci-dent again nor ask the question that led to their humiliation, the two nameless gods went their separate ways and never seek the another’s counsel ever again. They proceeded to rule over their own personal universes with utter indifference towards the universes of other gods, the worlds and proceedings that inhabit them, and most especially, towards humans.

For the gods have learned through humiliation that it would be better to never ask questions and never doubt their being as all-powerful and almighty gods, than to entertain the notion that they might indeed be nothing more than human.

And Socrates? Well, he went to court.

17 4

From this, Mr. Navera continued by saying that philosophy was not centered on providing answers but of asking questions, some of which are unanswerable by nature but are of no less consequence to us in order to understand our existence.

The discussion zoomed into the contemporary use of theory that now refers to explana-tions that do not work in practice; from its etymology, it was drawn that theoretical activ-ity is always lived out, thus contradicting the notion of philosophy as separate and even ignorant of the world that existed below it.

There was also mention of the work of Antiphilosophy from other Philosophers including Badiou, Lacan, Nietzsche, Pascal, and more. Their work was set upon disabusing others of the notion of the ivory tower or philosophy of antiquity created by the earlier philoso-phers including Plato, Descartes, Hegel, and the like.

The original question was then repeated: What should philosophy be doing? The word should was examined, as it implied that philosophy was supposed to perform a certain task other than what it had already done. It was decided that this question was born of the need of practicality, that is, where benefit and output took center stage regardless of how it is achieved. This was said to go against the very nature of philosophy, as a field of endless curiosity and wonder inherent in human nature that will never cease to ask ques-tions.

Given monthly, the philosophical discussions are opportunities for the organization’s members to gather and discuss varied proposed topics grounded in philosophy. The dis-cussions are held in adherence to the academic nature of the society.

ANG HULING SAYAW Paolo Soto

Bakit nga ba hindi kita nakita

Noong mga panahon na sinundan

Ng 'yong mga mata ang aking labi

Bakit kinailangan kitang gaguhin

Noong ako lang ang ipinipinta

Ng bawat galaw mo sa entablado

Kung alam mo lang gaano ang sakit

Ng puso kong uhaw sa iyong halik

Sa bawat minuto na lumilipas

Ikaw ang tangi kong naaalala

Ang mahaplos ang iyong maamong mukha

at masilayan ang iyong masasayang ngiti

Ngunit ngayon ay mayroon ka nang iba

Wari ko'y ikaw ay kanyang pinasaya

Ano nga bang laban ko sa kanya

Siya na bumihag ng 'yong puso

Ngayon ay huli na ang lahat

Kailangan ko na tanggapin na

Hindi na ako ang musika;

Ang dahilan ng iyong pagsayaw

A Dialogue With Fallible Gods Vin Buenaagua

O nce, there were two nameless gods who found themselves in an argument. This was an odd event, as these gods were not quite like the gods of the Greeks or the Romans, who had business with one another and always found reason to gather. These gods preferred solitude, mostly from one another. In their times apart from each other, they contemplate and reflect on their own nature and characteristics.

In their solitary meditation, these two nameless gods have both respectively found themselves to be all-powerful and all-knowing. They almost never found themselves to be needful of each other’s thoughts, except of course for this one occasion, as they found themselves in disagree-ment.

The two gods were trying to resolve whether or not humans existed. For one of them heard that far away, there lived beings who like them who had reason and power as well, but in a lesser degree than them. Upon hearing this, the other god was perplexed. He could not possibly believe that such a being could exist. “What possible good could a lesser being bring?” asked the disbelieving god. “If there was it could bring me any good – if I ever needed such a thing – I would have made it myself. But it seems to me that you are only bringing this hypothetical being up so that you may boast of something I know not of.”

The god to whom he spoke to was offended by the accusation, and yet such a thought did cross his mind. Why else would he bother speaking to the other god, if it were not to assert that that he has greater knowledge and power over the other? “Nonsense!” he replied. “I do not need to conjure up some lie to assert my superiority over you. Why even prove the obvious? My guess is that it is you who made this being, needing someone less to compare yourself with, that your ego may be affirmed.”

“But why should I need to invent another lesser being, when I have you to remind me of my supremacy?” the other god retorted. “But since you are insistent that such an impossible being exists, let us instead take this chance to speculate upon the existence of such an entity: where it must have come from; how it may have supposedly acquired its nature, if it does exist; how it goes about its affairs; and what implications it might signify, supposing the being to be truly existing.”

The gods proceeded to talk about the human being in great length. In their discussion, they conjured up with different theories about the human being and whether or not it could exist. Concerning the latter, they had come up with no final conclusion, and this troubled both of them deeply as they both wanted to prove the other one wrong. Finally, one of them (neither of them would admit to the idea afterwards) came to the conclusion that since they could not arrive at the truth through reason and argument, they should just look for the damned being. Fortunately, after searching for it among the vast number of universes that are, they found one. Its name was Socrates.

The gods agreed that they would not reveal their omnipotent and omniscient nature to the poor being, for they deemed that Socrates’s limited reason and intellect may not be enough to grasp the idea. Socrates, who was convinced that he was dreaming, was delighted to meet the gods, even with him not knowing what they truly were, or at least what they claimed to be. They began asking him a lot of questions concerning humanity, its nature and characteristics which Socrates gladly answers one by one. Each of them would look at the other with a condescend-ing grin whenever Socrates would agree to one of their own theories, proving the other wrong, although they both were pleased by the tiny man and his ramblings.

After they have exhausted the last of their questions, Socrates found that it was his turn to ask the questions. “Lords, you now know what I am,” said the human. “But if I may ask: what are you?”

The gods looked at each other, seemingly unwilling to answer the question for Socrates’s own sake. Reluctantly, one of them answered: “We are gods.”

16 5

Summer Living Had Me A Blast Marielle H. Zosa

Summer break of 2015 is just right around the corner. For us students, summertime is usually that short period every year which breaks the ten-month progression of coming to class flustered by either the per-ceived difficulty of our study materials and the overwhelming stress these induced upon us or the disap-pointment that we did not even begin to go through them due to that particularly bizarre night out with

friends. This is the time of year when we get to do away with the stress-eating, the darkening eye bags, and the elevated levels of caffeine intake from the examinations and papers our professors would give us sup-

posedly to enhance our well-being and not torment our very existence.

With all the requirements we must accomplish within the university, we look forward to the summer break as an opportunity to recharge our overused and battered minds and bodies. We are able to rehabilitate ourselves through rest and recreation because we are aware at the back of our minds that the routines and regularities during class days drain us. We wake up, take a shower, eat breakfast, go to class, study, eat lunch, go home,

study, eat dinner, and fall asleep. Then we wake up the next day, take another shower, go to class, take an exam, get out of class, make a paper, eat lunch, and so on. A retreat is what we need in order to dig deeper for the

profundity we seem to be missing in our daily lives fraught with predictability. The irony here is that the uni-formity and habitualness, which this kind of education offers to students such as ourselves, render monotonous

and unexciting. Order and stability here supposedly should give us meaning, and not lack thereof. However, here we are – still mulling over whether these rote practices truly make for a life filled with purpose and prom-

ise.

During one late afternoon on the 24th of March, 2015, the University of the Philippines Philosophical Society hosted the first instalment of its three-part lecture series on life and death entitled “Para Kanino ka Bumaban-gon? A Lecture on What Makes Life Worth Living”. I managed to stay throughout the whole lecture listening to three phenomenal speakers which the organization invited from the university’s Philosophy Department. It was difficult to shy away from the lecture with the fresh aroma of free coffee and biscuits served and the jam-packed room filled with anxious students wanting to learn more about what makes a fulfilling and fruitful life. The full

house and incredible audience participation were made possible by UP POLSCi, the APO Fraternity, and the ΣAN Sorority with special mention to media sponsor When In Manila. As the afternoon faded into night time, I

knew those three hours contemplating on the nitty-gritties of life were well-spent.

Discussing Plato and Socrates, Mr. Caslib said that a meaningful life is achieved when one knows him/herself. In the process of knowing the self, the meaningful life must then be a contemplative life. Mr. Caslib further

added that for Plato especially, what matter in life are not the tangible and material entities that we sensibly experience around us but the intangible and immaterial “forms” that hover over us unsuspectingly. On Saint

Augustine and Saint Aquinas, Dr. Ocampo mentioned that a meaningful life is a life of friendship with the self and with other people. Given the eschatological nature of this part of the lecture, it was added that this life of

friendship with one’s own self and others was all part and parcel to please the Ultimate Source of meaning and kindness in the universe. Moreover, Saint Augustine, I must not fail to mention, talked about how love – finding out about love and discovering what one loves – is one viscerally strong manifestation of a meaningful life. Fi-nally, on the topic of Emmanuel Levinas and Existentialism, Dr. Sayson unravelled the obscurities of Levinas’

thought to present the meaningful life as the life that constantly relates with the Other. We ought to live life with an “infinite responsibility” for other people. There is meaning not because we see ourselves in other people but

because we see other people as who they are, and we are to be responsible for them.

During the unbearably scorching afternoons of the upcoming summer vacation, I would imagine the

reader to ask him/herself the question concerning what makes life worth living and to what we owe a meaning-

ful life, especially after long months of routinely fulfilling our obligations as students. The question I have in

mind is a bit more specific and similar to what I had synthesized during my closing remarks of that first lecture,

and I invite the reader to indulge me and ask this to him/herself: is a meaningful life attained for the self as

Plato and Socrates suggests, for others as Levinas suggests, or for both as Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas

suggest?

Ultimately, of course, answering the question is but the first step in living our long lives ahead of us.

However one answers it, I believe, is something that may or may not be categorical, direct to the point, or clear-

cut. I leave this dilemma to the ingenuity of the reader to solve. What is of utmost significance in this eternal

pursuit of a meaningful life, I strongly believe, is to simply act. Once you have found that meaning, use it. Act on

that meaning. Do not be imprisoned by your own thoughts no matter how alluring it is to be enveloped by them.

Do not let them consume you. Do not let them immobilize you. Translate them into concrete demonstrations in

your life. Let this summer, one with the task of revitalizing our minds and bodies, not only be one of contempla-

tion but also of action.

One must always remember to not only think about the kind of life you

should be living but also to live it. Live. 6 15

Hindi maaaring palitan ng pilosopiya ang gampanin ng wika. Hindi rin nito ito maaaring bigyan ng pundasyon ang wika kaya’t mabuting iwan ito bilang ito. Habang pinipilit nating gumawa ng mga artipisyal na panuntunan sa isang natural na laro gaya ng wika, napapako tayo sa sarili nating mga tuntuning itinatakda. Sa dulo, hindi natin layunin na pinuhin ang sistema ng panuntunan o kumpletuhin ang sistema para sa isang di-pangkaraniwang paggamit ng wika.

Sa pagkikritika ni Wittgenstein sa kahigpitan ng anyo at kawawaan ay isang malaking bagay na nagsilang sa tradisyon ng analitikong pilosopiya. Ang debate tungkol sa preperensiya sa paggamit ng ordinaryong wika versus ng mga tradisyonal na metodong pilosopikal ay hindi binibigyan ng pinal na kalutasan ni Wittgenstein. Ito ay dahil bagamat nagpapanukala siya ng mga bagong lapit ng analisis na hindi nasakop ng tradisyon, hindi siya klarong nagbibigay ng posisyong taliwas sa tradisyon.

Hindi man eksakto ang wika at walang objektiv na kraytirya para sa kahulugan, hindi ito nangangahulugang ang wika ay di-maaaring gamitin. Ang kagandahan ng pluralidad ng language games ay matatagpuan sa kaposiblehan pa rin na mamarkahan ang pagkakaiba ng mga aktibidad kung saan nakikisangkot ang mga mananalita ng wika. Sa huli, ang kawalan ng isa-sa-isang korespondensiya ng wika sa realidad ay nangangahulugan lamang na ang mga konsepto ay hindi nangangailangang tukuyin nang matalas para maging makabuluhan.#

Mga Batis

Lyotard, Jean-François (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Stemmer, Brigitte (July 1999). “An On-Line Interview with Noam Chomsky: On the nature of pragmatics and related issues”. Brain and Language. 68(3). pp. 393-401.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig (2009). Philosophical Investigations (4th edition). G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte, translators. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

PILOSOPO Ang Opisyal na Pahayagan ng UP Philosophical Society Haraya-Misyon Nilalayon naming patnugutan ng Pilosopo na makapagbigay ng pagkakataon sa mga kasapi ng UP Philosophical Society na makapagsulat tungkol sa pilosopiya at makapagbalita sa madla ng mga aktibidad nito. Alinsunod sa mga layon ng Lipunan, ninanais naming ilabas ang pilosopiya mula sa pagkakakulong nito sa apat na sulok ng akademya tungo sa mas malawak na lipunang Pilipino. PILOSOPO KA RIN BATULAD NAMIN? Isumite ang iyong mga akda sa pilosopo@gmail.com para mapabilang sa susunod na isyu!

Logic: More than the Modus-Modus ni Jairus D. Espiritu

Students generally dread doing logic, or, at least in our case in UP, doing symbol-

ic logic. I can say that its rigor is not really appealing for the creative mind. But only at

first. Looking at it closely, we can see how significant it is in the study of philosophy in

general for it helps foster critical thinking and logical argumentation. But considering

Wittgenstein and his earlier philosophy, a more important role of logic comes into light: it

is the ordinary man’s path to the mystical. This paper will show how through Wittgen-

stein’s earlier philosophy, logic can be seen as the path to the mystical or to what is be-

yond.

There is a certain sense of dualism in Wittgenstein’s two major works, the Tracta-tus Logico-Philosophicus and the Philosophical Investigations. Both works refer to a sensi-

ble realm and, consequently yet not too explicitly in his later work, to the nonsensical

which is the beyond. In the Investigations, it can be seen how Wittgenstein draw the

boundaries of sense by expounding on what a language-game is. Outside the language-

game, there is no meaning.1 But this two-world view is made more explicit in the Tractatus where Wittgenstein explicitly says that the purpose of his book is to determine the bounds

of sense in order for us to be able to think beyond what is sensical, or in his terms, be-

yond the limit.2 It can actually be argued that what is beyond the bounds of sense is actu-

ally more important for Wittgenstein since in the closing of his book, he literally dismissed

everything he said as “senseless”3 as if it were a ladder only to be thrown away once it was

already climbed on.4 The Tractatus, therefore, in explicating the workings of our language,

is only a means to a higher end, which is what lies beyond. And it is this beyond in the

Tractatus that this paper will be concerned about.

At this point, we ask: what is this beyond? Different exegetes of Wittgenstein will

give us different answers. Elizabeth Anscombe for instance, would be hesitant to call this beyond as the mystical since “in popular language it suggests extraordinary and unusual

experiences, thoughts and visions peculiar to an extraordinary type of individual…”5 She,

however, concedes to the fact that the Tractatus indeed differentiates those which can be

said and those which can only be shewn. Brian McGuinness, on the other hand, is much

more explicit in branding this beyond which can only be shown as mystical.6 And I would

like to call Wittgenstein’s beyond as “mystical” as well, the reasons of which shall be be-

yond the scope of this paper.

Wittgenstein’s mysticism, for McGuinness, “does not mean merely the attitude of

mind in which a man asks these questions, but rather that attitude of mind in which he

finds a certain answer to them.”7 These questions are those of the meaning of life, and so

forth. The answers to these questions, as we all know, cannot be spoken of since these lie outside the world, outside the sensible realm and as Wittgenstein famously told us,

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

1Johannessen Kjell & Nordenstam, Tore (1980). Wittgenstein-Aesthetics and Transcendental Phi-

losophy. Vienna: Verlag-Holder-Pichler-Tempsky. 2Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Trans. C.K. Ogden London: Kegan

Paul, trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd. 3Ibid., 90. 4Ibid. 5Anscombe, G.E.M. (1996). An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Bristol: Thoemmes Press,

169. 6McGuinness, B.F. (1966). The Mysticism of the Tractatus. The Philosophical Review, Vol. 75, No.

3, pp. 305-328. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.com/stable/2183144. 7Ibid., 13.r 8Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1922) McGuinness, B.F. (1966). The Mysticism of the Tractatus. The Philo-sophical Review, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 305-328. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.com/

14

Ang mga hindi eksaktong salaysay na nasa ordinaryong paggamit ng wika ang maaaring magdulot upang itanong kung ang language game ay tunay ngang game o sistema ng laro, dahilan sa pagiging malabo ng mga panuntunan. Isa pa ay kung ano nga ba ang mga eksaktong panuntunan para matukoy at maaydentifay ang isang game. Sa parehong pagkakataon, baka ang pagkakaroon ng bukas at fleksibol na panuntunan sa loob ng wika ang patunay na wala talagang panuntunan, gaya ng isinusulong ng mga postmodernista gaya ni Lyotard. Ngunit ang pagpilit na hindi perpekto ang konsepto ng language game kaya’t dapat itong itanggi ay isang patunay na masyado tayong nalulunod sa pag-aasam na ang mas mataas na antas ng pagkaeksakto ang tunay na makakakapagpalitaw ng kalinawan ng mensahe. Mas mainam na tandaang nagkakaunawaan ang ating kolektiba dahil hindi namamatay ang totoo. Ito ay organismo.

Ang tinatawag nating wika ay pamilya ng mga istrukturang magkakawing.

Ang sentral na diwa ng language games ni Wittgenstein ay sumusuporta sa katotohanang walang overarching, nag-iisa, at pundamental na ontolohiya, bagkus ay isang pagtatagpi ng magkakasanib o nag-ooverlap na ontolohiya. Higit pa sa pagpapaliwanag gamit ang rason ay ang pagsasalarawan, kung saan ang pagsasalarawan ay nagiging malinaw kapag naresolba ang panloob na pag-andar ng ating wika. Ang pagsasalarawan (higit sa lohikal na repleksiyon) ay bumubukas sa mga bagay na matagal nang nakalantad sa ating harapan, at tanggap ang fleksibiliti ng fenomenon. Ito ay laging nagpapaalala sa atin ng lahat ng matagal na nating alam.

Sa antas ng pilosopikal na pagdalumat, may hamon ang dikotomiyang eksakto at di-eksakto sa wika sa pagpapakita kung paanong ang mga metapisikal na tanong ukol sa pag-iral ay hindi akma gamit ang mga salitang aktuwal na sinasambit. Ang metodo ng mga pilosopo (partikular ang mga metapisiko) na ayusin ang istruktura ng pagwiwikang pilosopikal kadalasan ay hindi nagreresulta ng higit na kaliwanagan kundi isang demonstrasyon na kaunti lang ang nakakamit ng ganitong pag-iimbestiga. Kung gayon, nararapat lamang na paalalahanan tayo ng gawain ng pamimilosopiya na ang ordinaryong paggamit natin ng wika kapag inaalam natin ang ating mga ekspiryensya at realidad ay paraan sa pagwawaksi sa tila palaisipang hamon ng metapisika.

Totoong sinusubukan ng mga pilosopo na iangat ang antas ng wika sa

estadong ideyal subalit hindi nila ginagamit ang wika sa ganitong paraan (§116). At kung tutuusin, ginagamit kahit ng mga sinaunang pilosopo ang konsepto ng language games para pag-usapan ang “pagiging” at ang mundo na pumapalibot dito. Halimbawa, dinemonstra ni Platon ang kaniyang pilosopiya gamit ang kaniyang “analohiya ng kuweba”, gayundin naman ang ibang pilosopo na gumagamit ng mga thought experiment. Ang paggamit ng analohiya ay bumabangga sa hangganan ng wika at isa itong pagtatangkang kumawala sa kabalintunaang mahirap alamin ang mga bagay na hindi natin alam. Kung gayon, ang mga pagtatangka nating sabihin ang mahirap sabihin ay hindi bigo kahit na wala itong kabuluhan sa perspektiba ng unang pilosopiya ni Wittgenstein sa Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Ang pagtatangka mismo ay nagbibigay-buhay sa isang organismo ng karanasan sa ating kaibuturan. Napagtatanto ng pilosopo na hindi ang tumpak na kahulugan ang mismong sagot sa ating tanong sa esensiya pero ang bagong buhay na iniluluwal ng mismong pagtatanong ng tanong.

7

Now, as McGuinness tells us, what is striking for the mystic is not

how the world is but actually that the world is. The mystic “is filled with

wonder at the thought of it…” 9 while the ordinary man is not. But can

there be a link between the ordinary man and the mystic? McGuinness

believes that there is:

Logic is there spoken of as if it were a science, having for its realm

or province super-facts, which could not be otherwise: logic deals

with every possibility and all possibilities are its facts (2.0121).

What logic studies is spoken of as if it were the true reality: ob-

jects are what is unalterable and subsistent, their configuration is

what is changing and unstable (2.0271). Constantly he talks

about totalities…this seems to me like the “view of the world as a

limited whole” which we are told that the mystic has: the reflective

logician reaches it by concentration on the essential features of

reality.10

What McGuinness refers to as the “view of the world as a limited

whole” is proposition 6.45 of the Tractatus in which Wittgenstein says that

the “contemplation of the world sub specie aeterni is it contemplation as a

limited whole,” and this, he says, is the mystical feeling.11 But this con-

nection seems at first to be a little bit far-fetched. Or is it?

For Wittgenstein, language and the world is one. He says that “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.”12 To understand this

notion, we should first turn our attention to the truth of solipsism. Solip-

sism, as Anscombe says, is one of the things which can only be shown but

not said in the Tractatus.13 Indeed, what I understand, only I could under-

stand. The dawning of a realization is only a dawning to me and not to

anyone else. But pursuing this line of thought would lead us to an unsolv-

able problem: dismissing everyone as just a figment of my own imagina-

tion. And since I and only I understand, my mode of signification ormy

language, would mean my world. Therefore the limits of my language

would mean the limits of my world.

9McGuinness, B.F. (1966), 11. 10Ibid., 12. 11Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1922), 89. 12Ibid., 74. 13Anscombe, G.E.M. (1996)

Pero ano’t anuman, lumalabas ang katotohanan na nangungusap ang repleksiyong lohikal bilang aktibidad sa pawang posibilidad lamang ng fenomenon, hindi sa fenomenon mismo. Meron tayong ilusyon na ang paglilimi at pag-uusap ay umaayon sa kaayusan ng mga bahagi ng mga bagay na sinasabi at iniisip. Dahil importante sa paggamit ng mga salita ang pagtugon sa relasyon ng bawat salita sa loob ng wika, pinipilit nating sawatahin ang kaguluhang pumapalibot sa mga analohiyang dinudulot ng iba’t ibang anyo ng pagpapahayag. Magkagayunman, walang absolutong kaeksaktuhan na makakamit sa ganitong tangka, gaano man ito kaingat at kadahan-dahan. Ang kawalan ng kaeksaktuhan ay isang pahimakas sa pagiging masining ng mga gumagamit ng wika na sumailalim sa pagkakasundo nang hindi kailangang maging mekanistiko.

Kung tutuusin, sa larang ng lingguwistika, kahit si Noam Chomsky ay

nagpahayag na hindi lamang dapat gawing isa sa mga nibel ng pag-aaral lingguwistiko ang pragmatika, ngunit isang sentral at krusyal na bahagi ng imbestigasyon ng wika. Ang sub-larang ng pragmatika ay tungkol sa kung paanong naililipat ang kahulugan sa mga myembro ng komunidad hindi lamang sa pamamagitan ng istruktural at lingguwistikong kaalaman ng kumakausap at kinakausap, kundi maging sa konteksto ng pagsambit ng salita, pre-eksisting na kaalaman sa mga sumasangkot sa komunikatibong proseso, at mga hinuhang hangarin at balak ng kumakausap. Maliwanag na bagamat ang mga panuntunan ng wika ay naukit bago ka pa man isilang, hindi nagbibigay ng kasiguruhan ang mga panuntunang ito sa ganang (a) maaari tayong mag-establisa ng alternatibong panuntunan, (b) bulnerable rin tayo sa anumang misinterpretasyon, at (c) hindi nawawala ang ating mga pagdududa sa mga panuntunan.

Higit pa sa kapermanentehan ng kahulugan ang language games. Interesanteng

malaman na ang pagiging henyo ni Wittgenstein ay tungkol sa kritikal na gampanin ng mga fleksibol na panuntunan ng wika na sabay na nagaganap sa ang tila kapermanentehan ng kahulugan. Sa mahabang panahon na ginagamit ang wika bilang kasangkapan sa paghuhukay ng mga (1) katotohanang nangyari na bago pa man tayo umiral at ng mga (2) realidad na nasa ating harapan, maraming mga pilosopo bago si Wittgenstein (i.e. Gottlob Frege at Bertrand Russell ng tradisyong lojikal-positivistik) ang nagtangkang lumikha ng ideyal na wikang gagamitin sa pilosopikal na pagdalumat, sa paniniwalang ang kalabuan ng ordinaryong wika ng tao ang dahilan ng pagiging imbalido ng aktibidad ng pamimilosopiya. Ngunit habang tumutungo tayo, kasabay ni Wittgenstein, sa isang realisasyon ng kaimposiblehan ng ideyal na daigdig ng esensiya at mahigpit na pagkiling sa anyo, napagtatantong hindi natin kailangang lumayo sa pantaong karanasan para masabing umangat na tayo sa intelektuwal na nibel. Tingnan natin ang sarili na lumalakad sa isang perpektong makinis na rabaw o surfeys. Bagamat klaro ang direksiyong ating nais tahakin, kailangan natin ng puyos na nagkikiskis sa ating mga paa upang hindi madapa. Kailangan natin ng bagay na kumikiskis sa ating balat para makadama dahil hindi natin matatakasan ang karukhaan at bulnerabilidad bilang tao.

Puwedeng sabihin na ang wika ay isang organismong buhay. Nung ginamit ni

Wittgenstein ang konsepto ng hangganan o bawndari upang ipaliwanag ang esensiya ng mga panuntunan ng laro, lumalabas na ang katumbasan ng salita at kahulugan ay tema ng kaniyang kritisismo. Ang konsepto ng isang laro ay hindi nililimitahan ng isang matalas na hangganan, gawa ng ang bawat laro ay may pagkakahawig lamang na taliwas sa pagkakaroon ng komon at tiyak na katangiang pinagsasaluhan ng bawat isa. Sa madaling

13 8

Let us now turn to logic. Wittgenstein views logic as a reflection of

this world. For him, “Logic is not a theory but a reflexion of the world. Logic is

transcendental.”14 In this sense, logic fulfills the very same role of Tractatus:

to limit what can be said and what can be said at all in order for us to be able

to start thinking about the unthinkable, that which is mystical. But logic as

the bridge to the mystical can be seen in another light, as McGuinness points

out.

For Wittgenstein, the world is the totality of facts. And these facts

compose states of affairs which are pictured by propositions whose totality is

language.15 In logic, we deal with these propositions and how they go togeth-

er.16 And since we are ultimately examining language, following Wittgenstein,

we are as if examining the very backbone of reality in doing logic. The limits

of language are the limits of the world and as we study language and its lim-

its, we study the world and its limits as well.

McGuinness points out that what logic studies is not alterable, refer-

ring to 2.0271: “The object is the fixed, the existent; the configuration is the

changing the variable.”17 If we refer to objects, we are referring to what is

fixed, and therefore what is unchanging. Since the object as composing facts

which compose states of affairs mirrored by propositions is the subject matter

of logic, logic then studies language sub specie aeternitatis, under the aspect

of eternity. And here we remember a familiar proposition in the Tractatus:

“The contemplation of the world sub specie aeterni is its contemplation as a

limited whole. The feeling of the world as a limited whole is the mystical feel-

ing.”18 [emphasis mine]

In doing logic, therefore, we should not only keep in mind program-

ming or mathematics for it is not just a path to critical thinking, but more

importantly, a path to eternity. Examining the world through the workings of

our language in logic is not a useless or shallow endeavor. On the contrary, it

takes us into the world of the eternal and with the right amount of contem-

plation, we can finally experience what Wittgenstein calls the “mystical feel-

ing.”19

14Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1922), 82. 15Ibid. 16Copi, Irving (1979). Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.,

Inc. 17McGuinness, B.F. (1966), 12.

18Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1922), 89. 19Ibid.

Gampanin ng Lohika at Pamimilosopiya sa Gitnang

Bahagi ng Philosophical Investigations ni Wittgenstein

Francis Bautista, MA Araling Pilipino (meyjor sa Wika at Pilosopiya)

UP Diliman

Ang pilosopiya ng wikang nakapaloob sa mga proposisyon ni Ludwig Wittgenstein

sa §88-133 ng sulating Philosophical Investigations ay ukol sa diskurso ng konsepto,

teritoryalidad, at hangganan. Gaano ba kaimportante ang pagdidiskursong tumatalakay sa

heograpiya ng konseptong tinatawag nating “konsepto” para tayo ay maliwanagan sa mga

totoong problemang nagtataglay ng totoong hangganan? Sa palagay ko, sentral na tema at

paunang hakbang ang pag-alam sa konseptuwal na hangganan para simulan ang

imbestigasyon o pagdukal sa lahat ng problema. Ito ay sapagkat ang mga problema ng

fenomenon ay umookupa ng espasyong may haba, luwang, at lalim. Ang mga konsiderasyong

ito ay matagal nang bahagi ng kahit anong erya ng inkwiri ng siyensya—ng lahat ng

empirikal, kaya’t hindi na dapat pagtalunan ang silbi at fangsyon na ginagampanan ng sistema

ng lohika bilang salalayan na magbubukas sa pag-unawa ng koneksiyon ng mga bagay-bagay.

Pero sa mahabang panahong pagsasaalang-alang ng ating kultura sa silbi ng lohika, tayo ay

nabubuhay sa isang ilusyon na ang kaeksaktuhan tila ay ang katangiang nakakubli sa pag-iral.

Tila ba ang mga ito lamang ang nagbibigay ng kabuluhan sa lahat.

Sinipi ni Wittgenstein si Augustine sa §88 para pahapyaw na madiskas ang

kaguluhang idinudulot ng lohikang iniaangat natin sa pedestal ng mga disiplina. May internal

tayong pag-unawa ng kalikasan ng isang bagay gamit ang lohikal na repleksiyon. (Sa

konsepto ng oras halimbawa, bagamat naiisip nating may mga oras na dumadaan nang mabilis

at mabagal, ay nasusumpungan nating walang saysay ang ganitong obserbasyon dahilan ng

pagiging konstant ng segundo, oras, at minuto ayon sa lohikal na repleksiyon.) Pero sa tuwing

nakikita natin ang sarili na nakikipag-usap sa kapuwa para madelibereyt ang isang isyu, dito

napagtatantong walang organisadong pagsasaayos ang ating nalalaman. Pinapatunayan ng

ganitong pag-uugali—ng pagkiling sa repleksiyon bago ang obserbasyon—ang matayog

nating pag-aangat sa lohika bilang mataas kesa sa kahit anong porma ng obserbasyon—dahil

sa paniniwalang tumatagos ito sa kahit anong fenomenal.

9 12

Loveliest Lies of All Juan Paolo Soto

“Hindi ko siya kailangan. Magiging okay rin ako balang araw. Ni kailanman ay hindi ko naman talaga siya masasabing akin. Ngunit kung mahal ko siya, pakakawalan ko siya. Ang importante

ay masaya siya. Kung masaya siya, masaya na rin ako.”

Ito ang mga linyang ating pinauulit ulit sa ating isipan na parang isang sirang plaka sa tuwing mayroon tayong isang bagay na pilit na kinakalimutan. Ito ay mga kasinungalingan na ating ipinapaniwala ang

ating sarili upang maikubli ang pait at hapdi ng ating sinapit. Mga masasakit na imahe ng mga mukhang walang pangalan at mga alaalang naliligaw ng landas na siyang lumalamon sa bawat sulok at tipak ng

iyong buong pagkatao.

Sino nga bang nagsabi na madali magmove-on? Kailan ba naging madali ang pamamaalam? Masakit ang paglisan. Parang itong isang linta na hinugot mo mula sa iyong katawan. Kung tutuusin ay mas masakit pa nga. Ang sakit ay hindi lang nagmumula sa pagsipsip ng linta sa iyong dugo maging yung mismong

paghatak mo ng linta sa iyong katawan. Ang sakit ay nanatili... nagpepeklat. Ang pag-ibig ay isang paglaya at isang sumpa. Isang araw ay puno ka ng tuwa at galak, sunod ay namimilipit ka naman sa sakit.

Hindi ka makahinga. Hindi ka makakain ni makatulog. Iyak ka lamang ng iyak. Lagi kang tuliro sapagkat siya lamang ang laman ng isip mo. Punung puno ng hinagpis at pagsisisi. Walang humpay na

pangungutya sa iyong sariling katangahan... na sana ganito... na sana ganyan. Nangangarap na balang araw na ikaw ay kanyang babalikan. Ayaw mo na at ginawa mo na ang lahat ngunit sa huli ay hindi mo

makayang talikuran ang matamis ngunit masakit na mga alaala. Umaabot pa sa punto na pati ang mga tao sa paligid mo ay sawang sawa na sa mga salitang ibinibigkas ng iyong bibig. Kulang na nga lang siguro ay

sila na ang magkuwento buong talambuhay mo.

Sa paglisan ay may lumisan at nilisan. At habang lumalayo kayo sa isa’t isa ay unti unti kang malulunod sa dami at bigat ng mga katanungan. Mag-uumpisa kang tanungin ang iyong sarili: Saan ba ako nagkulang?

Dahil ba sa pangit ako? Kung mas gwapo ba ako; kung mas maganda ba ako, mas magugustuhan niya ako? Kung mas malaki ba ang katawan ko; kung mas sexy ba ako, hindi ka na maghahanap ng iba? Kung mas matalino ba ako, kung mas lalaki o mas babae ba ako, mas nanaisin niya ako? Kung may kotse o mansion

ba ako mas papansinin niya ako? Kung perpekto ba ako, mas mamahalin niya na ba ako? Sobrang daming katanungan na gusto mo na lang tapusin ang lahat ng paghihirap.

Ngunit kailangan ba na ganito na lang lagi ang maging pagtatapos? Ang kwestyunin ang iyong sarili at

buong pagkatao? Kailangan bang laging maging malungkot ang paghihiwalay? Hindi ba maaring mahan-ap ang sarap at ginhawa sa paalam? Hindi naman kailangan maging masakit ang pagtanggal ng linta sa iyong katawan. Pag mas lalo mong ipipilit, mas lalo itong sasakit. Simple lang naman ang dapat gawin. Hayaan mo lang ito dahil ay kakawala rin ito. Huwag mong hahayaan na paandarin ka lang ng iyong

emosyon. Lagi mong isipin ang iyong sarili. Mayroon rason kung bakit ang utak sa nasa ulo at ang puso ay nasa dibdib. Huwag mong isipin na hindi ka sapat dahil ikaw ay isang tao. Ikaw ay isang end sa iyong sarili at kailanman ay hindi ka nabubuhay para maging means ng iba. Pakielam mo sa sinasabi ng iba?

Kung tutuusin, lahat naman tayo ay mga sinungaling. Lahat tayo ay mga bobo at tanga. Bawat isa sa atin ay may kanya kanyang mga kasinungalingang pinaniniwalaan. Kaya huwag mong sabihin na hindi ka

sapat kaya hindi ka niya minahal. Huwag mong sabihin na hindi mo na alam ang gagawin mo ngayon at wala na siya.

ELEKSIYON NA NAMAN Ni Jairus D. Espiritu

Kakaiba ang eleksiyon ngayon. Una, dahil summer ito gaganapin, habang bising-bisi ang lahat ng Pilipino sa pagtatampisaw sa mga beach, bising-bisi naman ang mga taga-UP sa pagbabangayan at paninira ng kapuwa nila lider-estudyante. Ikalawa, marahil dahil bumalik ako kung paano ako nagsimula: non-affiliated. Second year lang ako opisyal na naging bahagi ng kahit anong partido-politikal sa UP sa pagtakbo ko bilang department representative ng Philosophy. Ngayon, matapos ang isang matagumpay na panalo noong nakaraang taon sa konseho, nagbitiw ako at lumabas sa partido (oo, puwede ‘yun). Kamakailan lang ay lumabas na ang mga opisyal na listahan ng mga kandidato para sa susunod na halalan ng ating minamahal na student councils. Bilang isang graduating student na isang once-a-week na MA class na lang ang pinapasukan, wala talaga akong muwang sa kung kailan ba lalabas ang listahan, kung kailan ba ang eleksiyon, atbp. Bilang isang nagbitiw na konsehal ng CSSP Student Council at nagbitiw na kasapi ng Buklod CSSP, tila sinasadya ko na ring mawalan ng muwang. Noong lumabas kamakailan ang mga pangalan ng mga kandidato, tinanong ko kung saan ko ito makikita. Naroon daw sa pinto ng OSA, nakapaskil. At isang latin maxim ang biglang pumasok sa isip ko: “Nomina stultorum in parietibus invenies.” The names of the fools are found on the walls. At kailangan kong aminin. I was a fool. Dati kong ipinagmamalaki kung gaano kalalim ang diskurso sa UP at kung gaano ito kalubog sa mga isyung panlipunan. Mula sa mga pambansang isyu hanggang sa mga lokal na isyu, lahat ay maririnig mo pagdating sa mga debate ng mga kandidato. Pero ikinalulungkot kong sabihing marami sa mga narinig nating “kalaliman” noong nakaraang eleksiyon ay, wika nga ni Pde. Ferriols, pangongonsepto lamang. Walang hugot. Salita lamang. Dahil ang malaking tanong na kailangang sagutin ng lahat sa atin ay: gano’n nga ba tayo kalalim? Tinutuligsa natin ang nasa gobyerno sa pag-asa ng mga nasa puwesto sa name recall at hindi sa plataporma. Pero gaano ba tayo kaiba sa kanila? May mga partidong paulit-ulit kung banggitin ang pangalan. Ang iba naman, sa pagpapanggap na hindi personality politics ang pinaiiral, naglalakihang pangalan naman ang ibanabalandra sa nameplates at bulletin boards. At sa electorate, tingin mo, ilan sa kanila ang bumoboto batay sa plataporma at hindi sa name recall o sa affiliation? Tinutuligsa rin natin ang mga kapuwa natin lider-estudyante pero para saan? Ito ang isa sa mga napagtanto ko sa pakikipag-usap sa isang kaibigang tumatakbo na ngayon sa USC: na lalo lang nahahati ang student body dahil sa bangayan. Lalo lamang nagiging pino ang mga hangganan ng bawat partido. Ngunit alam man natin kung ano ang asul, ano ang pula, ano ang dilaw, ano’ng nagagawa ng kaalamang ito sa kalagayan ng ating lipunan? Wala. Lalo lamang nagkakawatak-watak ang napakalakas sanang sigaw ng nagkakaisang student body. Wala akong hinanakit sa mga taong tumatakbo ngayon o sa mga taong nanalo na noon. Marami pa nga sa kanila ay malalapit kong kaibigan. Ngunit nais ko lang ipaalala sa ating lahat na huwag tayong mabuhay sa ilusyon na malalim ang ating diskurso. Huwag tayong magpaloko sa ating mga kandidatong nagsasabing may ginagawa sila para sa bayan. Huwag tayong magpanggap. Huwag tayong maging mangmang. Let us not fool ourselves. Dahil sa katotohanan, ang mundong ginagalawan ng ating mga kandidato ay isang arena ng political survival, hindi isang mundo ng serbisyo-publiko. Pagkatapos manalo at pagpasok naman sa konseho, aminin man natin o hindi, iisa ang inaatupag natin: ang manalo ulit sa susunod na eleksiyon. Dahil sa ilalim ng listahan ng mga proyektong ibinalandra kapag eleksiyon, may nakasulat sa invisible ink na kailangan nilang gawin: politicking at electioneering. Gagawin ang lahat para “magsilbi” sa estudyante at “makatulong” sa nangangailangan, na iisa lang naman ang motibo: mapabango ang pangalan ng kandidato at ng partido. Eleksiyon na naman. Bangayan na naman. At sa umiiral na sistema, isa lamang ang nalulugi: ang bayang sinasabi nating ating pinagsisilbihan.

11 10