Philosophy, according to Martin Heidegger in his Introduction to Metaphysics, was never meant to be popular. In fact, if such were the case, then that means people are being fooled into believing a bogus philosophy.

Philosophy is essentially untimely because it is one of those few things that can never find an immediate echo in the present. When such an echo seems to occur, when a philosophy becomes fashionable, either it is no real philosophy or it has been misinterpreted and misused for ephemeral and extraneous purposes.[1]

The fact is, philosophy is something that cannot be acquired through a mere 4-year course, nor can it be directly learned like manual and technical skills. It is why there are a lot of people who wonder how come in a world facing economic and social crises there would still be those who would take up what they perceive as a very impractical subject. The reason for this confusion being that philosophy cannot be directly applied, nor is it pragmatic.

Now instead of jumping immediately to the defence of philosophy and doing so by saying that “it may not be useful in a manner which is directly manifest, but through philosophy one gets to learn how to become a critical thinker” with such being the common justification of the average philosophy undergraduate student; in my case I won’t, precisely for the reason that I agree with Heidegger when he says that the aforementioned kind of argument intended to accentuate the role of philosophy is in fact, a relegation of the true role of philosophy.

Indeed the philosophers from the Frankfurt school, those under the intellectual trend called “critical theory” did make a convincing point when they said that a philosophy becomes one if it is receptive to social and political realities; but looking at it from another angle would cause one to ask himself: “what for is sociology or anthropology or even political science, if philosophy, being a subject of such broad scope would take under its wing concerns such as socio-political realities?”, and further contemplation on this would eventually lead one to ask another question: “is this attempt to highlight the nature of philosophy in a pragmatic light a form of defense mechanism against the accusations made by detractors who see philosophy as ‘useless’?”

This being the case, Martin Heidegger brings us this news flash: “Yes, philosophy IS useless.” But this proclamation is not as negative as would strike one at first, for Heidegger explains that philosophy is not so much useless as totally devoid of any significance to anyone engaged with it, but more so anachronistic, meaning that the questions made by philosophy have always been either way ahead of its time, or a metaphysical investigation of the origins of being.

In the words of Heidegger, philosophy is always projected far in advance of its time, and it connects the present with its antecedent, with what initially was.

Aside from this, it is more often than not the case wherein one would find students of philosophy upon asked the question as to why they chose the aforementioned course, to answer the inquiry by stating that ‘philosophy is my gateway to the wonders of critical thinking and analyses, for the benefits which I would acquire from learning of its rigorous logic would certainly become very useful as I face the predicaments of my daily existence’.

This isn’t very reassuring. Nor does it say much about the ‘intellectual fecundity’ which is supposed to characterize lovers of wisdom; in the first place, logic may indeed be a lovely subject matter but they seem to forget the fact that logic is just one of the many branches of philosophy and to boast of wisdom under this context is to mistake a part for its whole, which is in itself a logical fallacy. And secondly, another shortcoming brought forth by the above-mentioned assumed benefit of philosophy is that it doesn’t really give much room for intellectual growth as far as discoursing goes for it retards philosophy, and restrains it within the confines of a little box in which it is to do the things expected of it, in this case being that philosophy is supposed to be an aid to critical thinking.

The importance of critical thinking is already given; whereas philosophy cannot possibly stand alone on this, which to some would necessarily attribute to it the qualities of one such receptive to the realities of our times, issues of the here and now- this here leading to some of us thinking that perhaps it is meant for philosophy after all to accommodate and make its say concerning the issues affecting society. I agree with this as well; however, conceived in my reflection is a juxtaposition of the thought of my favorite philosopher Martin Heidegger with my interest in understanding the realities going on in my milieu.

And in order to have this happen, the answer again lies in Heidegger. He may have said that philosophy is “useless” in so far as it is either concerned with things ahead of the current time or engaged in things past- with what initially was; he also made mention that this peculiar task of philosophy may just be that which would turn out to be most essential as it is geared towards the understanding of being; and to a mind inclined to the principles of continental philosophy, all that is happening around us is to be taken within the context of being. Thus, if the question of being is resolved, what follows from this may be a solution finally to various socio-political concerns. This is the role I would want for philosophy.

[1] Heidegger, Martin. Introduction To Metaphysics. Trans. by Ralph Manheim, 1959: Yale University Press, U.S.A. p.7

When Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov, in his magnum opus[1] Crime and Punishment, related to the readers his “Superman theory”[2] with the conviction that he (Raskolnikov) was amongst the few called to power; in the end it turned out to be an unattainable dream as the novel’s antihero fell headlong first back to earth, reality dawning upon him that he was just another criminal. With this, he (Dostoevsky) was not at all discouraging us nor is he mocking those who do attempt to actualize their ‘superman’ potentialities.

Rather, he intended to inculcate to his readers that the factor of environment is still a force to be reckoned with. If Nietzsche took it upon the ubermensch the responsibility of being able to transgress moral law without any form of hesitation as the rationale goes that this in the long run would benefit humanity, he unfortunately did not give any latitude of variation for inevitable circumstances such as one’s milieu being a possible hindrance to the aforementioned ideology.

This in effect left us with a highfalutin, hermit-like (Zarathustra, anyone?) philosophy which, floating within the confines of its principles, rendered to the awed the mentality of leaving it as it is. However, regardless of the attractiveness of the ever-present mystique in the Nietzschean thought, it is not enough to erode the truth of our ‘everydayness’.

Like what Dostoevsky has been implicitly indicating in his great novels, Martin Heidegger asserts that man’s character needs to be understood a-priori as being ‘grounded’ in the state of Being that he called “Being-in-the-world’. Such is in accord with the notion that the human being, or what Heidegger termed as ‘Dasein’, may exist in either one or two modes: an authentic or inauthentic existence. Now Dasein, being ‘grounded’ as “Being-in-the-world” has to face the reality that not everything is possible for him; his options are limited in one way or another, therefore inviting the element of ‘concern’ wherein Dasein is free to decide his own priorities.

M. Warnock briefly explained what Heidegger meant by this in his 1970 work entitled Existentialism:

Choices are made in the world in which humans exist surrounded by other humans. Human beings are characterised by uniqueness, one from another, and this uniqueness gives rise to a set of possibilities for each individual. All human beings are continually oriented towards their own potential, among which are the possibilities of authentic and inauthentic existence. If, whilst moving forward, the standards and beliefs and prejudices of society are embraced, individuals may fail to differentiate themselves from the masses. This, Heidegger regarded as living ‘inauthentic’ existence. Further, for Heidegger, ‘authentic’ existence can only come into being when individuals arrive at the realization of who they are and grasp the fact that each human being is a distinctive entity. Once human beings realize that they have their own destiny to fulfil, then their concern with the world will no longer be the concern to do as the masses do, but can become an ‘authentic’ concern to fulfil their real potentiality in the world.[3]

I need not elaborate on Heidegger’s description of the self of everyday Dasein, or that which he called the ‘they-self’, but for the benefit of this discourse I shall add that Heidegger never meant for the ‘inauthentic’ state of Dasein to have a negative connotation; instead, this state of alienation from the real self is seen as a prerequisite for Dasein, that upon coming to terms with the fact of this condition of ‘verfallenheit’ he will eventually strive for authenticity.

At the outset this may seem comparable with the Nietzschean distinction between “master-morality” and “slave-morality”; nevertheless the Dasein is not subject to creating values for itself and rather thrives on what it has without the least bit intention of changing the values of the world, it has come to accept the world as it is, realizing that Dasein need not have a review of values but more so re-evaluate what is within, implying that change is something personal and not that which should be proclaimed and forced on everyone even so far as ridiculing or name-calling those who do not take it upon themselves the same values which is supposedly characteristic of the “master-morality.”

In a world where the philosophy of Nietzsche has been ubiquitously cited, ranging from powerful political leaders to the basement-thriving nihilist, it is more often than not that he is misunderstood as is manifest from the arrogance and pompousness usually associated with the concept of the ubermensch. What he took for granted however is the fact that our ideologies may not always match those concretely happening in our surroundings- or in other words, the possibility of an imperfect world in which man has no choice but to exist in.

[1] Opinions vary on this, but regardless, Dostoevsky’s last six novels are often venerated as his finest.

[2] This is fairly similar to Nietzsche’s Ubermensch, given the circumstances that it is this novel which inspired that particular ideology.

[3] Warnock, M. 1970, Existentialism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

The Case

I used to be a wide-eyed dreamer, and perhaps I still am nowadays. I used to dream of flashing lights, cheering crowds, and explosive concert endings. I wanted to be a Rockstar. I used to think that music encompassed the entirety of my existence, and therefore my destiny. I wanted to be a musical artist. I used to delude myself into thinking thoughts of Rock n’ roll grandeur and it costed me money and time. Precious, precious time. I used to say to myself that music is the way to go, that all else fades in comparison, that again, music is my destiny calling.

The Trial

But then life kicked in. I thought I could hold on to these fantasies but realized I couldn’t. I thought money wasn’t spent uselessly, I thought I wasn’t wasting anybody’s time, especially mine, but lo and behold, I totally was.

The Verdict

The simple fact of the matter is that I’ve moved on. Childish dreams are no more, fantasies are gone, and false hopes long extinct. I do not claim to know more about life than the average young adult does, but I surely know now how it starts. It starts with a bit of cuts and bruises, but we all have the choice to not end in tragedy.

The inevitable lessons brought forth by education and time has given me a new perspective. I’m truly grateful for that. I now no longer see the world in rose-tinted glasses wherein I was a Rockstar and everybody else is my audience. I now see a world that is glamorously covering up all the horrible wounds it has acquired through the ages, caused not only by natural events, but by ill-willed people short of being called Spawns of Satan. I now long for the glorious past, that glorious past that has slipped through our fingers because of wars fought out of greed and envy. I ache not for change, because truly, what has happened before will happen once again, and what will happen, already happened before.

I ache. I ache for the time I wasted, but there is nothing I could do about that now, is there? I ache with satisfaction knowing that I had to waste time in order to appreciate time. It is Providence’s way of teaching us to use time wisely. And I ache to learn just how wisely I could use my time.

Hope

The rhythm of life…I now know I co-manage with God Almighty. The task at hand is not to search my destiny with delusions of grandeur, but to appreciate that fact that I, like everybody else, is but a tiny speck in this universe, although we are not marginalized to such an extent that our dreams should be become unreachable.

I still dream. But I dream with my mind alert to reality, and my eyes open to possibilities. I dream not for the entire world, but for myself. I dream to be a child of God, I dream to fill the world with Poetry, and I dream to learn to be good. Starry-eyed? No. Dreaming and hoping is essential to living just as much as breathing fresh air.

I learn to hope, I live to learn, and I live. Simple.

Today I have nothing to write, but I will write on anyway. Finding the right words is like diving headlong into an unknown ocean and surrendering to the whim of the waves. I have danced in the ocean. Flailing my arms and looking upwards at the blinding light of the sun, I am unsure if I am in need of a saviour or not. The desperation that comes with the knowledge of being abandoned, forgotten in the open waters has left my soul intoxicated and wanting more.

Man lives to suffer, short of being a masochist— perhaps because it is only through suffering that he is able to validate the depth of his existence. It would not be too far-fetched to say that should suffering be annihilated from the daily order of things, Man would end up committing felo-de-se if only for the sheer boredom that would result from it.

All men and women are the same even the most unconventional ones; we are swimming in the same ocean of existence and we’d rather drown than get back safely on the shore where no adventure awaits us.

We do not need a destination to embark on a journey— all is a constant flux and it is in man’s teleological bearing to move. Choosing to stay rooted in one spot would result in an atrophy of the soul and a loss of authenticity as a human being.

Though each of us may have been born tabula rasa, in the long run we will acquire the necessary knowledge we need on how to go about life. The choices we make are what makes us unique. We have not a destiny except for the one we ourselves prepared for us.

The ocean is blue, or is it merely the reflection of the skies? Unsure as we may be, we journey on towards the place we can call our destiny; unafraid of the dangers for we have seen the bigger picture— and loud and clear it tells us that risks are a huge part of a life worth living.

The ocean is vast but the will is iron. Sea monsters may lurk beneath us but that is exactly where they place— beneath us— I believe that man is still different from animals not only in his power to reason but also because man has in him the capacity for resilience.

However there are quite a few things to consider in this journey. The mighty waves are themselves a mystery: either they goad us to reach our goals or serve as a force which pulls us away from our path. The winds too are nebulous with their real intention.

What do you do now, oh traveler?

Do you let the waves dictate your course, helpless against the currents and long given up on the prospect of a destination? Or do you, against the odds, battle with the waters? After all when some say we have no power over nature, it is wise to remind them that man himself is part of nature, which means the balance is not tipped to one side only: we have a chance to conquer nature only if we focus on the untapped strength we have within us.

The waters are too deep and it’s down to the strength of the will. How far can one go? Death is a breathing, living entity and it feeds on our souls. The possibility of facing death is not the place where the weak test the waters, it is where the strong brave the storm. To encounter death face to face, to look it straight in the eye, is probably the most important human purpose. It is the reason why we strive to live at all.

Every single day we face the possibility of death. The clock is ticking and we may not know when we’ll heave our last sigh. Furthermore, it is not at all absurd to say that death breathes down our necks each second of the day. Everybody has got a sword of Damocles on his back and we are all subconsciously aware of it regardless of our efforts to deny such thing.

A man builds a house for his family, is he not aware of his impending death? Surely he is or he shall not be as determined to make his wife’s and children’s lives better knowing fully well that the possibility of death lurks. It is suffice to conclude that he is doing all he can so that should the time come, his family will be left secured with cash or property.

Although in the midst of it all he suffers; let not the carefree laugh deceive anyone, for underneath that is a being nervously anticipating his demise. The suffering, albeit, is bittersweet. The challenge of the waters is welcome to man no matter how unprepared he is.

The shore lures us back with promises of comfort but the brave dare not look back— he is complacent with his nature as a moving entity and if death be the one which await him at the end of his journey, he shall remain calm, rather pleased that he had the courage to set sail or swim in the first place.

Death, to put it simply, defines us.

Death is the impetus which makes us to strive towards our dreams, for if we do not attempt at all to pursue our dreams, the possibility of having an unfulfilled life to take to the grave is all too terrifying.

If death is not a possibility, life itself would be empty and tiresome. Was it not said by wise men that in order to appreciate light, we must know darkness? It is the same with life and death, we would not hold life so dearly if we are not aware that it is something fleeting and may be taken away at the snap of a finger. Man as a teleological being that moves by nature is moved by death: the knowledge that someday all will be over gives us the strength to do what we must in order for us not to end up not having lived at all.