Hometown Hero

[photo source]||||||||||||[photo source]|||||||||||||[photo source]

[photo source]

I frequently attend seminars given by prominent political and business figures with my dad. He believes it is a good way for me to be exposed to the activities in the community. But none of these talks were as striking as those by Dr. Cecilio Pedro.

I've seen Dr. Pedro deliver a speech twice. One was during Tony Blair's visit in Manila and the other was during the PBSP (Philippine Business for Social Progress) seminar. He is an interesting and admirable orator not only because he is clever and humorous, but also because of the values he conveys. I never saw anyone who is so optimistic, patriotic and religious.

Most businessmen would fold up at the face of crisis but Dr. Pedro himself said that he loves such a situation. In fact, his company was born out of one. I admire his ability to see opportunities in crises and even if there are none, he still believes that threats could be turned to advantages. He keeps on saying that if you want to be an entrepreneur, you should have started yesterday. Such optimistic attitude is what every aspiring entrepreneur should have for them to keep on chasing their dreams despite overwhelming odds.

It is difficult to see what is good about the Philippines given the present condition of the nation. Poverty is on the rise, there are political disputes and taxes are incredibly high. At a glance, a business person would say that the Philippines is not a good place to invest. But attitude can sometimes make all the difference against statistical facts. Dr. Pedro has so much faith in the skills and talent of the Filipino people and what they can achieve. He believes that the Philippines is still the best place to invest because of its unique natural resources. And despite all of the political and economic crises that ravaged the nation, he still didn't think twice of moving his business elsewhere.

Above all, Dr. Pedro's devotion to God is what I admire the most. He puts his faith into practice and applies his duties as a Catholic into his business. Just look at his company's motto. He developed corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs not for the sake of gaining popularity but because he wants to answer God's call to be a Steward of His creation. His company plants trees inside their compound. They also employ deaf-mute staff because Dr. Pedro believes that any disability should not prevent people from having a livelihood.

The message he conveyed during those seminars made me reflect about my current attitude towards life and the direction I'm taking. I realized that I have lost my faith in my country and my countrymen. I have admired other countries so much for their achievements that I've forgotten our own. I've put too much blame on the government that I've forgotten my own shortcomings. I've forgotten how to surrender my self to God and obey without any doubt. But I don't want to simply wallow in shame for my behavior. I want to change. I want to be a better Filipino, a more responsible citizen and a more faithful Catholic.

Dr. Cecilio Pedro may not be the wealthiest man in the country like Henry Sy. He may not own a conglomerate like John Gokongwei. What he has is something greater. It is the power to change lives, motivate people to love their country and redirect them back to God. Dr. Cecilio Pedro can be an excellent role model for many.

Philosophical Journey: Kant

The thing I like about Philosophy is that you can predict the style of writing by the nationality or cultural background of their respective authors. Americans are known to be organized and always conclude their works by repeating and summarizing what they've said. The French are notorious for being messy and seemingly having no direction at all (as in the case of Levinas). German philosophers write in a very systematic and straightforward manner. Sometimes, the work becomes too systematic that one can get overwhelmed by the degree of organization the author has invested in it (but I'll take the German philosophers over the French any day). This is exactly what I encountered when I studied Kant.

I'll tell you right away that reading Immanuel Kant was no walk in the park. That's because he kept mentioning terms like universalizability, Kingdom of Ends and categorical, which were all alien to me (I then realized that "categorical" meant "unconditional" and not used as a function of enumeration). It was only then later when I encountered his philosophy multiple times in other subjects that I was able to grasp his message, which turned out to be very simple. Immanuel Kant essentially advocates the rule of law, or more specifically, following your maxims. The core message of his philosophy can be summarized by the "Golden Rule": do to others what you would like to be done to you. And it is this maxim or rule that should be followed out of moral duty.

Despite the criticisms on Kant's philosophy for being very vague, his ideas on moral duty is what appealed to me the most. It is still my dominant guiding principle up to this day. It really makes a lot of sense because our duties give direction and meaning to our lives. It is what gives us reason to exist on this planet in the first place. More importantly, it is that sense of duty that drives us to get things done. It is the initiator and catalyst for a person's accomplishments. We do certain things in the name of fulfilling our duties.

Kant's ideas are very noble and chivalrous like that of medieval knights but they once again hit a snag. We now know that fulfilling our duties is a must but our duties are linked to our roles. And it is these roles or careers that we must find for ourselves first before we can determine our moral obligations. What are we called to do? Where do we fit in society? Are we called to be doctors, politicians, lawyers? These are the questions that I continuously struggle with and what helped me answer them came two semesters later when I studied Eastern Philosophy.

Philosophical Journey: Levinas

Emmanuel Levinas was probably the first and most difficult ethics philosopher I encountered. I remember taking up his philosophy right after studying Heidegger. My instructor, Ms Jacinto, said that Levinas' works were born out of his experience during the second world war as a P.O.W. They were also responses to Heidegger's philosophy. Unfortunately, it took me a while before I could appreciate his works since he's French and the French are notorious for being messy and chaotic with their compositions. I'm not joking on this one. The directions of his sentences were all over the place that I could not get the message of his articles.

In a nutshell, Levinas talks about responsibility and the other as an enigma. His concept of the human being as an enigma, or as a puzzle shatters the fatalistic image of Dasein in Heidegger's works. We are not simply beings going towards death. Humans are like puzzles or mysteries whom one cannot fully determine or reduce as an object. In other words human beings, or the others, are full of surprises. And this enigmatic characteristic of the other is the basis of his advocacy of responsibility. Being responsible for the other is a sign of respect. It is how an individual recognizes the other's subjecivity and the limitlessness of their possibilities. This sense of inexhaustible potential does not only lift the limits of what the other can do but also what the other can become. It gives a sense of chance, hope and belief in the growth of an individual. It recognizes the possibility that a criminal can change for the better or that a corrupt leader can be convinced to work for the prosperity of a nation. We have no right to objectify and box-in an individual because we simply cannot have a hundred percent certainty on what they are capable of. Unfortunately, Levinas is silent on how long before these changes could take place. It is not question of when but how.

The philosophy of Levinas is truly an attempt to criticize the works of Heidegger. Despite our common destiny of dying, it is not an excuse for us to disregard our relationship with the others and their personhood. Well, that finally restored my confidence in humanity but Levinas wasn't enough to repair the damage Heidegger did. It was just a shame that he said nothing about religion... at least, not in our lectures.

Philosophical Journey: Heidegger

Among the first philosophers I met was Martin Heidegger. I can immediately say that my encounter with his philosophy was very unpleasant. Sure, I learned a lot of life's truths from him. Like how we are alone, how we are thrown into this world, how dependent we are on time and how we are given life only to lose it in the end. I became more aware about these inescapable facts. Unfortunately, these truths were so depressing that it awakened the emo in me.

Heidegger's discussions on death made me realize how limited my time is on this planet. What's worse is that all the things I do here would amount to nothing since I'm going to die in the end with a hundred percent certainty. If that is the case, then what is the point of living? What is there to hope for? It is so tempting to sit in a corner and wallow in depression since death is going to waste us all anyway.

Death is the ultimate mystery and I can't deny that Heidegger came up with many good points about it. First is about how one's death really shows the individuality of a being. He argued that each person's end is really their own experience because they cannot share it with someone in anyway. This pointed out to the fact that we really are alone.

Second is about how people try to make the most out of what they can in life. They pursue happiness whether it may be earning material wealth, gaining knowledge or deepening their faiths in an almighty Being. He said that people engage in these activities only because they want to distract themselves from the anxiety brought about by the fact of death. This was the point that got me thinking about my faith. What if Heidegger is right all along? What if people are simply engaging in religious activities because they want salvation? Doesn't that self-serving drive degrade the value of faith? And that's not all. What if religion was merely another creation of mankind (Dasein) to distract themselves from death. After all most, if not all, religious teachings preach about an eternal afterlife. There is no empirical proof about an afterlife. All we hold on to is our faith.

It's no wonder I got depressed after every PH 101 class. Heidegger created a big dent in my faith and almost made me throw it away. His discussion of individuality and death made me feel very alone. It made me lose all purpose in life and extinguished all hope I had. Life became a curse because all people are forced to face the great unknown of death.

Damn you Heidegger.

Philosophical Journey: The Introduction

Philosophy was a subject that used to be so alien to me. I never understood its purpose and objectives. I used to think that it's another academic hurdle that I need to overcome since unfortunately, my school was one of the few, if not the only university in the country, that made the subject compulsory. Whenever I entered Ms. Jacinto's class, I had this feeling of isolation from everything else as if I'm encased inside a shell. It felt like the lessons are disagreeing with me and that my brain is refusing to process the lectures. I felt no progress and spent most of the class time staring blankly into space since I could not keep up with the pace. I kept trying my best to review the lessons on my own but to no avail. Everything seemed absolute gibberish.

Every session, I kept wondering if there was something wrong with me. I just found it so difficult to understand why those philosophers could not construct formal paragraphs and sentences to express what they want to say. Why do they invent their own words and add "ness" to those nouns and adjectives? Why do they keep on asking questions and leaving them unanswered? What made things worse was the feeling that I'm alone in this struggle. The rest of my peers seemed to have no trouble absorbing the lectures. I still remember my classmates who kept looking down at their notebooks and writing feverishly as if they are taking down every single word the teacher was saying. Nobody had any questions and if they did, it would be so advanced and insightful that I could not grasp it.

I hated philosophy at that time. Like all of my other minor subjects, I never saw its importance in my life after graduation. I really felt that this subject was going to be my downfall. Philosophy felt like a ticking time bomb since the semester was half way done and I still could not understand anything. Fortunately, Ms. Jacinto was lenient enough with my performance and my grades. I can say that I was just really lucky for surpassing that ordeal but it will take two whole semesters before I really learned to appreciate the discipline.

Aphrodisiac Anonymous: Is Love Selfish?

Probably the most difficult question to answer is, "Why do you like her?" or "Why are you so attracted to him?" And at least once in our lifetime we encounter that question with no immediate and clear answer.

If you notice a lot, if not all, of our answers have to do with something that benefits us. We often say, "I like him because he's popular", "I like her because she's drop dead gorgeous." No matter how emotional or non-materialistic our answers might be, it always seem to point back to ourselves and our preferences. "I want to be with her because she makes me feel complete", "I don't want to see him getting hurt."

We can't deny that a lot of us have ideals and "templates" of the perfect person we want to be with. Humans often fail to realize that we fall into the trap of being fixated on that ideal. When a person does not fit our template, that unfortunate individual is immediately scrapped like garbage. People fail to see the true identity or "spirit" of a person. What I'm saying is summed up, in a shallow way, in the maxim, "Do not judge a book by its cover" Some like popular people thinking that the fame will rub off on them. Some like people with good looks simply because they don't want their eyes to burn. These examples of shallow, inauthentic love is easy to understand. But what about the not-so-shallow ones?

There are those relationships that were born out of authentic emotions and serious deliberations. But can we say that the reasons behind those commitments are ultimately selfish even if the two people are not aware of it? "I committed myself to her because my heart yearns for her." "I want to be with him because he makes me feel complete." Aren't these typical answers simply tell us that people only love to satisfy the emotional emptiness that they feel? Again, there is this element of going back to the self. Even the heroic phrase, "I will die for you because you are special to me," is nothing more than an acknowledgement of a personal preference, right?

If love means offering yourself to another, is there a way to do it that does not involve you benefiting from it (or at least going back to you)? Is it possible to love with no selfish reason? Is it possible to love with no reason at all?

Probably it's time to recognize the true spirit of another. The only love that I can think of with no selfish reason is to simply love an individual for who he/she really is.

Soul of a City

Last Sunday, I went to Manila with my family to buy some textiles in Divisoria. It's not everyday I get the chance to visit that city. Even if you say I live in Metro Manila, I still don't get to go to the actual city often. In fact, Quezon City is pretty far from the capital. The travel time from Diliman to Divisoria can take from an hour and a half to two hours. And that is if you travel on a Sunday when traffic is relatively light. On any other ordinary day, you would be better off walking on the hot dusty streets than riding a vehicle. The streets are so narrow and congested that the traffic is worse than a New York gridlock.





























When we left Quezon City, we traveled on a four-lane highway known as Quezon Avenue. When the streets were reduced to three lanes and then two, I knew I was in Manila already. I always wondered what makes this city different from the rest of the big metropolis all over the world. What is it that Tokyo, London and New York have that Manila doesn't? Is it a subway system? Wider avenues? Sidewalks? All of these are valid guesses but probably the most immediate answer is that Manila has too many neglected buildings.

You may notice that as the economic superpowers across the globe changed the architectural standards of buildings to glass and steel, many of the structures in Manila are still made of concrete. They looked like forgotten ruins of the war after the Americans bombed it in an attempt to reclaim the city. It was as if everyone just forgot to clean up afterwards. Those structures are continuously being consumed by the corrosive air pollution. They are not a hundred percent habitable anymore and most of them are probably even classified as "Fire Hazard Structures". Buildings with shattered windows and stained concrete experience a slow and painful death as their usefulness slowly dwindle away.

Buildings, towers and skyscrapers are one of the defining elements of a great city. Not only do they make the skyline look great but their very function of sheltering residents and organizing businesses is a significant force that pushes the community to progress. Without good structures, organizations would easily collapse like... well.. the poorly engineered building they stayed in the first place. I'm tempted to say that these three dimensional products architecture and engineering born out of a two dimensional blueprint make up the very soul of a metropolis. If the buildings on this side of the city are not cleaned up soon, Manila will eventually die along with them.

Aphrodisiacs Anonymous: Introduction

It's the topic not everyone is willing to talk about openly. It's difficult to put it into words since it's the heart that rules the body and not the mind. Many have fallen in but few were able to get out. Yes, it's the ambivalent "L" word that is creating lives as well as destroying them.

Many, if not all, would rather talk about love vaguely and metapohorically rather than literally and up close. The reason being is that love is considered as something transcendental. It is even beyond emotions that simple words, rules and logic cannot fully comprehend this unique, yet strange, human characteristic. This is why love is expressed through poems and songs. If one tries to discover the true essence of love, he would probably not find any concrete conclusion or would go insane trying. After all, it's all about emotions, so why get the brain involved? Others would see love as a very personal affair. They would refuse to engage with the lives of others for the fear of being labeled as a meddler. This is why many would rather sit back and let it be - let love take over the mind and see what would happen next.

However, I refuse to be complacent to love because it is more than a feeling of emotional intoxication. I admit that love is transcendental but the problems that go along with it are not. There are more things that happen beyond that first kiss and beyond that engagement ring. Love doesn't always translate to a happy ending. If you believe that, you might as well live in a fairytale. Some hapless souls only see its addictive part making them vulnerable and unprepared to face its harsh reality. I want to ask questions about the various problems of love and relationships. I want to ask what brings two people together and what separates them. I am not trying to prove a point nor am I trying to reach a compromise. I'm not even assuming I'm correct with the tings I say here. I've had my share of bad relationships but I could still be wrong. But as I enumerate and criticize them, I hope to draw out some useful insights that may help people make the proper choices in dealing with these relationship problems. Relying solely on emotions can lead to your own demise. You need to ask and think once in a while.

*I don't intend Aphrodisiacs Anonymous to be a static post, so constructive replies from readers that will make the topic more meaningful are greatly appreciated*