Welcome students in Ph 103.
Please leave a message if you have any concerns or questions.
I know the page is virtually empty. Imagine this as square one. Where we'll go will depend on your comments and questions.
You may also refer to this page for important announcements and reminders.
PJ Strebel
noted, sir. Thank you :D
ReplyDeleteCould anyone explain the last part of the essay of Marcel? From the last paragraph of p144 onwards? I get some parts that questioning what am I cannot be really answered the way we answer what is 2+2 as the former question goes beyond what it takes to answer it and since we cant use the primary reflection method, it becomes an appeal.
ReplyDeleteThen it goes on to saying that if there is a someone or a something that will be able to answer this appeal can't really fully address the appeal. Why is that?
Then the last paragraph all the way to the end is a blur. REALLY need help.
Re: "Into an appeal for whom?" part
ReplyDeleteI think Marcel's point is that we cannot be absolutely certain if there is a "One" who hears and responds to our appeal, if "certainty" to us means being able to prove something through the bounds of human experience and rationality (recall the notion of a claim).
Marcel's "speech":
To deny the reality of the One we make our appeal to, however, is to deny ourselves of the possibility of ever answering our question ("What/Who am I?")). If that is the case, then there is no point in living. We end up to the conclusion, yet again, that death is problematic.
At first, it might seem outrageous to think that there is a "One" whom we can appeal to yet cannot be defined in our own terms. It borders on mysticism. Marcel states, "but whether there is ultimately a precise boundary between metaphysics and mysticism is just what we are concerned to determine."
Here we can see a parallelism from what we already discussed regarding the inevitable death and the ways we respond to it. Marcel applies this reflection to the act of transcendence in terms of adoration.
Transcendence involves accepting that we are at the mercy of something greater -- mysticism -- that we cannot comprehend and we shouldn't try to fight it (parallelism: revolting against death). Mere acceptance (parallelism: resignation to death) isn't enough. We must also make the decision of participating in it -- adoration (parallelism: love, or freedom as adhesion).
I'm not sure if I'm right or if what I said even made any sense. That's how I interpreted it, though.
Bravo! That's far out, solid, and right on!
ReplyDeleteThere is the point right there. Congratulations.
Next stop: understanding faith via a phenomenology of opinion.