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.

That great epitome of Dark Romanticism Edgar Allan Poe once said the following words: “whether people grow fat by joking, or whether there is something in fat itself which predisposes to a joke, I have never been quite able to determine…”. Excellent quote and yes, I must say that he has every right to be confused. One would have to live under a rock if they haven’t heard all those ‘yo mama is so fat’ jokes floating around these days despite the setting being a world that is supposedly ‘sensitive’ and ‘careful’ not to offend.

Be it on the silver screen, television, radio, comic strips, the internet, any form of media, overweight people are ubiquitously present for the sole purpose of being ridiculed. First of all I would like to make it clear that this post is not intended to come across as a ‘fat acceptance’ propaganda, but as one could surmise from the title, it is about being fat and not offended at these jokes. Again, the media seems very adamant to attach to overweight people a niche which these same people never asked for in the first place: namely, where the laughs are, the fatty is somewhere near.

It is no secret at all that the world favors the skinny to the extent that anorexia is often times glorified as some sort of ‘gorgeous people’s disease’ when in reality a keen comedian if willing, could crack a joke or two regarding the frankly ridiculous notion anorexics have that the more skeletal they look, the sexier they would turn out to be. But no comedian would even dare.
Remember, in order to be ‘funny’, one exclusively has to make fun of fat people.

And it’s not just whether being fat predisposes someone to being the butt of jokes which Edgar Allan Poe has to be confused about, but the scorn and in some cases, hate that the overweight experience at the hands of not only comedians but really, from everyone. Excuse the comparison (I’m not being bitter here at all), but anorexic people aside from being glamorized are showered upon with sympathy and support, whereas the fatty is simply looked down as being ‘a hopeless case’. Sure enough, the suffering of anorexics is not something trivial, but given their shaky relationship (or lack thereof) with food, it is but reasonable to conclude that being overweight or obese and being anorexic are two ends of the same spectrum.

But then again the media begs to differ. In comedy, one merely has to have weight issues in order to be considered ‘funny’; in soap operas, the evil stepmother or importunate in-laws often sport thick physiques; in action films, the head criminal is most likely to have a gargantuan belly with double chins; and in romantic comedies, the fat one is almost always the loser with no girlfriend.

Albeit the stated examples are not always the case, it paints a picture of how the media and therefore the people they are able to influence, view overweight people.

It is needless to point out that it would be wishful thinking for this world to portray overweight females as damsels in distress nor to have fat males as dashing debonaire for the simple reason that it is not natural in the same way that it is not natural for magazines to put anorexic ladies on a pedestal wherein they are viewed as the ideal of what ‘beautiful’ looks like. The natural way of course is to admire healthy bodies and sound minds.

Going back to my point, to be offended at all with the jokes directed at fat people is a form of submission to the status quo. What’s wrong with that mindset ultimately has to do with the fact that the status quo is very much skewed to the advantage of a particular people with a definite ideology that unlike what they say embraces each other’s differences and therefore unites all, in fact aims to divide everyone to produce class warfare.

This is not something one could change overnight given that we are used to it, used to have people make fun of and belittle (note the irony) fat people, but we, including myself, as fat people, could start with not being offended. But we should not do does in a haughty manner as that would defy the purpose; it should be done in a polite way that exudes grace and humility. However, that is not to say that an overweight person should dismiss comments about his or her weight as simply a product of prejudice- no, in fact, it could very well be a wake up call to better health. Furthermore, the most important thing is to do something about the problem of being overweight. Try to maintain a well-balanced diet, exercise at least twenty minutes per day, learn how to be disciplined when it comes to food intake, and do our best not to live a sedentary lifestyle. So the next time someone makes fun of us for our weight, we need not get offended especially if we know within ourselves that we are doing something about it.

I read somewhere that success is the best form of revenge and if shedding a couple of pounds won’t shut the detractors up then I don’t know what will.

What lurks beneath the deep blue?
perhaps sinister and tenebrous
perhaps the Mystery's a slew
for away from it the angels flew
and towards it the afreet cadaverous

The mangled face behind the calm
the gelignite in the pacific
the shore is awash with qualm
as if in Gilead to search for balm
the wanderers are sophomoric

It is where hope is obsolescent
and faith in a state of torpor
where love is not incandescent
where wisdom is an adolescent
where all my dreams are in stupor

The phantasmagoria is inchoate
a glimpse inside the deep blue hell
the misery I inculcate
a law I dare not desecrate
the unspoken only time will tell

We've been to a lot of doctors
(and none of them have a clue)
                                         as
                                    to
                              why
                       the
                heck
did
       I
              suddenly
                           woke
                                     up
one day with a gait problem?

At first they said it was my Lumbar spine
then they claimed it was a Stroke
thereafter it became Multiple Sclerosis
and now it's called Conversion Disorder

1   E   l   e   c   t   r   o   E   n   c   e   p   h   a   l   o   g   r   a   m
1   E   v   o   k   e   d   P   o   t    e   n   t   i   a   l   s
and   4   f   u   c   k   i   n   g   M   R   I   '   s

from   10   D   i   f   f   e   r   e   n   t   D   o   c   t   o   r   s
with   10   D   i   f   f   e   r   e   n   t   I   n   t   e   r   p   r   e   t   a   t   i   o   n   s
and   10   D   i   f   f   e   r   e   n   t   D   o   c   t   o   r   '   s   F   e   e   s

Still nothing
My case is still not resolved
I would love to trample your lovely flowers
just to assure myself that I can still walk normally
To run against the wind on a cool December afternoon
Walking without dragging my foot or lifting it as if in a Goose-step
(which I haven't been able to do for four years now)

So to you Mister and missus Doctor,
tell me again about the time you graduated from U.P. or U.S.T. because,
I forgot to tell you,
M    A    Y    I    U    S    E    Y    O    U    R    D    I    P    L    O    M    A  
T    O    W    I    P    E    M    Y    A    S    S    W    I    T    H    ?

I found these kawaii LTS gifs over at Tumblr. I love Little Twin Stars. They're part of my pastel pink aesthetic.