Reconsidering What Nietzsche Meant By The Same In The Doctrine Of The Eternal Recurrence

Hermeneutical considerations involving the nuances of words in translation have a bearing in interpreting philosophical concepts. Stambaugh highlighted the eternal in Nietzsche as well as the meaning of the Same in the doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. As translation of the German word das Gleiche, she provided important considerations regarding the nuances of das Gleiche and the sense of how the English word “the same” could capture as well as leave out some meanings in the original. This paper builds on Stambaugh’s observations by providing a linguistic analysis of das Gleiche to open up to how it does mean immediacy and likeness as Stambaugh already observed, but the said analysis propels the discussion further by also pointing to the fact that das Gleiche also refers to what is imminent and forthcoming. This reconsidered meaning of das Gleiche as imminent and open to futurity will provide a fresh understanding of Nietzsche’s doctrine. The paper ends by featuring Higgins’s reading of eternal recurrence as present-oriented akin to the temporal experience of music to show that this insight in Higgins could also be developed further by showing the futurity and imminence of music as hermeneutical key to Nietzsche’s doctrine

Pitong Sulyap sa Pilosopiya ng Wika ni Padre Ferriols

The Jesuit priest, Roque J. Ferriols is well known in Ateneo de Manila University as the first philosophy professor to teach philosophy in Filipino. Since 1969 until he retired in 2014, he taught all of his philosophy classes, both in the undergraduate and graduate levels, in Filipino. His example was followed by many Ateneo philosophy faculty. Since around the 1990s the number of philosophy classes taught in English and in Filipino had a 50/50 percentage ratio. This ratio continued on to the present time. As the tradition of teaching philosophy in Filipino nears its 50th anniversary in 2019, Ferriols continues to be appreciated as the trailblazer of the tradition. Even if Ferriols never taught philosophy of language, his teaching pedagogy and his writings reflect important insights relevant to the philosophy of language. This paper seeks to draw these insights from three different texts written years apart from each other but all within Ferriols’s teaching career. The texts are A Memoir of Six Years, an essay written for Philippine Studies in April 1975; Sinauna Bilang Potensyal, the final chapter of his Pambungad sa Metapisika published in 1991; and a few sections of his memoirs, Sulyap sa Aking Pinanggalingan published in 2016. In so doing, this paper seeks to spearhead critical discussions of Ferriols’s philosophy of language stressing on how these insights come from the context of pedagogy and as such how these insights reflect the context, experience, lifeworld and historicity of the learner towards a deeper understanding of the human being qua linguistic being and human being qua human being. Thus, the paper seeks to show that the conscious and deliberate awareness of language and culture often seen in the celebration of Buwan ng Wika distracts us from the reality and nature of language and culture, and obscures the role of language and culture in human life. The main emphasis of this paper is the insight that the reality, nature, and role of language and culture could be found in the actual lived experience of the world as linguistic reality. In other words, we do not experience the world “through the medium” of language and culture. What really happens is that our experience of the world is language and culture. This paper does not pretend to be exhaustive in that it cannot fully follow the logical and phenomenological implications of the insights it brings to the reader’s attention. Its task is to make thematic these insights and note that these insights are conscious to Ferriols as a philosophy teacher so that these themes and insights could be further mulled over and reflected upon by other writers and scholars seeking to elucidate on the subject matter

Ang Konsepto ng Planetisasyon ni Teilhard de Chardin: Isang Pagsusumubok Bigkasin ang Meron

In his book Pambungad sa Metapisika, Roque J. Ferriols, SJ, stresses that metaphysics is a practicum. Metaphysics makes one aware of reality, and this awareness drives the person to affirm, respect, and work and move in accord to and within it. This response to reality is what Ferriols calls “pagbigkas sa meron.” Ferriols also devotes a chapter of his book to the thought of the French paleontologist, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ. The paper explores how this understanding of Teilhard’s thought leads to the practicum identified above as “pagbigkas sa meron.” The paper begins with an exposition of the key concepts found in Ferriols’s book relevant to Teilhard’s “planetisation,” or the furling back upon itself of a “bundle” of potential species around the surface of the earth, a movement that could lead to the destruction of humankind itself but which could also occasion unity or what he called the “brotherhood of persons.” Then it argues that Teilhard’s concept of planetisation implies an act of “pagbigkas sa meron.

Ang Dunamismo Ng Meron Sa Tula Ni Parmenides

etapisiko ang pagkiling ng tula ni Parmenides. Isa itong pagmumuni sa malalim na karanasan ng may-akda sa meron. Kilala ang paninindigan ni Parmenides na isa at hindi nagbabago ang meron. Dito nagmumumula ang mga pananaw ng ilang mga komentarista na statiko ang meron ayon kay Parmenides. Lalabas mula sa ating pagtalakay na ang pagtanaw sa meron bilang statiko 1 ay lumilihis sa nakagisnan ni Par-menides. Marapat lamang na dito tayo magsimula: sa tanong hinggil sa duna¬mismo ng meron. Dunamiko nga ba ang meron ayon kay Parmenides? Maaari nga bang tanungin ang tanong na ito sa isang tekstong hayagang nagmumuni-muni sa meron bilang isa, di-nagbabago at dimasalang? Samakatwid, kailangan nating magsimula sa isang pag-mumuni tungkol sa kahulugan ng dunamismo. Griyegong kataga ang ύ (dunamis): pagkakaroon ng kapangyarihan. Ang abot-tanaw na ginagalawan dito ng kapangyarihan ay ang kakayahang magpasimuno at magsagawa ng pagbabago sa anumang apektado nito. Ang kapangyarihang ito ba ay namamayani sa sarili o ito ba’y tumutungo sa iba? Ano nga ba ang katayuan ng anumang may kapangyarihan sa ibabaw ng iba? Hindi nga ba ito nagbabago dahil nangingibabaw ito sa kanyang mga bunga? Samakatwid, nakaharap tayo ngayon dito sa isang napakagriyegong tanong: Ano nga ba ang kahulugan natin ng pagbabago at ano ang kaugnayan nito sa kaganapan at kapangyarihan at hangganan? Naririnig natin ngayon ang alingawngaw ng sinaunang problema ng isa at ng marami sa ibabaw at ilalim ng ating kasalukuyang pagtatanong. Ano nga ba ang katayuan ng meron bilang isa sa harap ng pagkasamu’t-sari at kawalan ng kaganapan ng sanlibutan? Sa ating pagbabalik sa abot-tanaw ng katagang dunamis sa Griyego, agad nating nakikita kung paano ito naiiba sa ating kasalukuyang pag-iisip na dala na rin ng pa-ghango ng wikang Ingles sa katagang ito. Sa abot-tanaw ng katagang Ingles, ang dynamic bilang pang-uri ay may kinalaman sa patuloy na pagbabago, paglilipat, pag-aareglo at pag-unlad. Kung sa bagay, nakikita pa rin natin ang kaug¬nayan sa sinaunang abot-tanaw ngunit kailangan pa ring maging matalas sa pagkakaiba. Pareho sabay iba kung kaya’t mahalaga ang masusing pagkilatis. Kung ihaharap natin sa teksto ni Parmenides ang tanong tungkol sa dunamismo ng meron, kailangan ngayon nating maging mulat sa konteksto ng kanyang pagmumuni habang nananatiling bukas sa kalaliman at kalawakan ng ating tinutukoy kung binabanggit natin ang dunamis. Hindi tayo maaaring maipit sa isang manipis na depinisyon ng dunamis habang tinitingnan ang teksto ni Parmenides. Wala itong kahahantungan kundi ang karumal-dumal na pagpupumilit pagkasyahin ang kalaliman ng pagmumuni ni Parmenides sa isang kahon na tayo rin lamang ang lumikha para sa ating mga sarili. Hindi ganito. Sa halip, ibibinbin natin ang tanong. Susuriin muna natin ang abot-tanaw ni Parmenides. Susuriin natin ang kanyang teksto mismo at sa huli maghahain tayo ng ilang mga puna ng iba pang palaisip. Maingat nating gagawin ito habang isinasaalang-alang ang nakita na nating tunog ng katagang dunamis ngayong namulat na tayo sa antigong anyo nito sa sinaunang Griyego. Marami pa tayong masasabi hinggil sa mga tanong sa itaas habang tumutubo ang ating paksa. Sa ngayon, magsimula tayo sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay ng ilang pambungad hinggil kay Parmenides mismo at ang ginalawan ng kanyang paghahagilap. Palaging nakatutulong kung isasakonteksto natin ang isang palaisip sa loob ng kanyang lugar sa kasaysayan ng pilosopiya bago tayo magsimulang magbasa at magmuni sa kanyang sulatin. Samakatwid isasaalang-alang natin ang ilang mga impluwensya na nag-aruga sa pagtubo ng kanyang pagmumuni-muni. Ngunit, magsisilbi lamang itong tulong bilang pambungad sa atin. Nawa’y hindi maging sagabal sa atin ito at makatungo tayo sa tunay na pag-uunaw