On Parenthood

On parents I would say, ‘Love your blood more than your flesh.’ Better live with all your heart for you were united as one not by flesh but by blood. Better stay alive, not because you have bloods but rather because they need you.

I therefore tell you to be good to your blood. Be good to them to inherit not only your ideals but also your entity. Though he is only your blood, created to continue life, he is the extension of yourself. With him you can defy mortality wherein death is end. With him you will continue to see this earth, to live forever. To continue is him.

Yes, he is but you-yourself. Remember that he is your blood; like blood itself, he is your life. He is life, love, and everything that is good. But, though he is made from your blood, he will surely choose his own ways. His ways might be different from your ways. But, what you must do is not to restrain him from his way. You must let him explore but guide him for he might get lost. Lead him to his way but do not follow him. It is his way, not yours, so you will never be allowed to share the same way.

Like I have said he will choose his own way. Yes, for he is the omen. His ways will determine the future this earth will have. It is you parents, in which by prophesy, would decide the future of this world. By your blood in which you have authority, you can decide. By your blood, you could mold the world into shapes- shapes more stable.

But then, he is just the extension of yourself. You cannot decide for him for the rest of time. You cannot be with him forever. So, enjoy all your times together. Enjoy every moment to spare, for it is only in those times when your paths move along each other. Definitely, it is only in those times when you will have the best time, the best time to see yourself growing. It is only in that time that you will be functional to your bloods. It is only in that time you can be called parent.

Tales of the Country Once Loved

Long ago, we share the same smiles. But, that was before- before the end came.

Yes, I am speaking of our land- this land I love, this place I admire. Here, we live in simple ways. We live with the structure we know, with the smiles we share. Here we toil the soil and see life. We grow not only what is green but also what we inherit. We share not only smiles but also laughter. We utter not only the same words but also speak our language- our own language.

But these were long before the end came. Now, we are scattered. I never expected this day to come; this day where the sky is dark. I know darkness, but, this is rather not darkness. We are here in the gloom of yesterday- the product of what we do not desire. But, yes, we do not desire. We do not even lay our hands to this. We do not even speak a word for this. But, today is different; today, it happened. What happened today is neither our desire nor our will. This is accident. But, this is maybe not. I would rather say misfortune. Yeah, this is much appropriate.

Today, this place trembled. The earth shook the ground. Definitely, nothing remains alive. Yes, we were dead. But, we died long before. We died when the end came, when we were scattered. The earth did not murder us. We killed ourselves. How hopeless are we. I’d rather want to see the earth killing us one by one with his wrath than to see people killing themselves. What a waste! How sinful are we to kill our brothers and sisters- even ourselves.

Yes, we are sinful but we are not murderers. We are still breathing in this land near death. One by one, we suffer from plague. We breathe but we are not living. We exist but we are not existing. How chaotic to see ourselves living in this near death country of ours.

With this I see the future nothing but space. Sorry for I am mistaken; I see something- trash. I can see ourselves as the trashes we never wanted to be. I can see no more heroes. Definitely, there would be no more heroes, for we are all suffering in plague. We are suffering in plague no drug can cure. We are in pain no one could ease. We are hopeless, no chance for living.

The question is, ‘Are we the victim?’ Maybe, we are not. We are also not the suspect though we have killed. What we are is still unknown. We will know what we are if the end came. Yes, the end came. But this end is not the end we want. We will know who we really are if the end we dream of come.

I don’t know who I am. But I know at some point I have killed. But like everyone, I do not want it. I do not want to see myself dying in pain and agonies. I do not want the children to feel the same. I do not want them to inherit a country once loved yet is dying.

What I want is not for myself, but rather for the children including mine. I want the place once loved to be loved forever. I want my country to be loved by the children she loves. Though my country is old, though my country is forgotten, she is still my country I want to live with. She is still the country I want my children to grow up with. For in my country, I am at peace. For only on my country I am alive, for only with her we can live. For only with her we can survive. So, eliminate all your senses. Talk, but speak for others. Work, but work with faith. Live, but live for this place- this place where we could only live.

Is Man Naturally Good or an Animal of Corruption?

Naturally, man as a form of animal is not self-sufficient, thus, he tends to participate with his environment. This participation between man and his environment tends to create other complex relationships among other constituents of the society.

Man is naturally neutral, unbound to the concept of good and evil because man is naturally bounded to his participation with the environment. As participation means acting accordingly depending on the stimulus, man’s action depends on the nature of his surrounding. Therefore, his nature can be justified using the existence of the concept of good and evil within his environment and the society he belongs.

So what is really the nature of man’s environment? We say that man’s environment is naturally good for it was made for its constituent. The environment tends to provide those who belongs to it their needs. From the basics of living to the maintenance of a society, the environment we call nature supplies. So, since nature is naturally good, man tends to be naturally good also.

Moreover, man is naturally good for man aims for preservation and peace. As there exist competitions in the state of nature, he usually creates associations with other to preserve life. But this action of creating alliances and associations does not imply humans being aware of their evil deeds but rather this implies humans acting against this existing competition by avoiding turmoil. This perception reveals the aim of human to avoid evil deeds as he knows that evil is against their existence.

Since man is not self-sufficient, these associations provide ways of improving life based on common interest and common good. The commonality between these social animals indicates the aim of achieving higher form of order and peace. With this, humans are good for they are not contented on temporary peace provided by the state of nature. This opens the opportunity for the achievement of the eternal peace which is the best for preserving life.

Next, man is naturally good for man acts because of reason. No one will act according to appetite alone. This implies that man tends to base his actions not just on animal instincts but rather on the purpose of living. Through reason man is capable of differentiating good and evil. From this, he can judge and base his judgment on goodness and therefore, through his action, he can define justice. As justice was promulgated according to the benefit of the society and as man aims preservation, justice therefore was made to preserve life.

Lastly, man is naturally good for man being part of nature was designed for goodness and not for evil. He may possess evil but still he has goodness as evil would not exist without goodness. But, since there exist goodness without evil, man from the start was designed to possess goodness as part of an association exhibiting goodness.

Man was naturally good; he was good for he was a man of reason and not just an animal of corruption.

Does the People Power Reflect the General Will of All?

Generally we say that societies exist as the product of social contract. As we talk about social contract, we refer it as an agreement for the preservation of either life alone or properties. But, if there would exist internal conflict between the trustee and its people, does a revolution known as the people power reflect the general will? Before discussing it, we should define first reflect. What do we mean by saying that people power reflects the general will? In simple sense, I would like to define reflect as to carry the will and consequently talks about it. So, does people power reflects the general will?

People power whether part of human right or not does not necessarily hold or carry the general will. It is in a strict sense that the will we are referring cannot be carried or passed from one person to another. As Rousseau said, ‘power can be transferred but not the will’. Therefore, no one even if it is a right can hold the general will and pass it; it is the will which holds the people. Societies exist because of the will; the will gives someone the name citizen and unite them as the people. People power, therefore does not necessarily hold nor reflect the general will, for there is no one who is given the authority to hold the will. The general will is within the society separate from the interest of the people except with their interest to remain as one; separate from any external force which may cause annihilation of the state. Unless the government threatens the existence of its state and as long as the people speaks for the social contract and not the will of all nor a particular will, people power reflects the general will of all. It is only in such case where people power is valid, for it is in that case where the obligation of the people to protect the general will is seen to maintain the society.

People power having been decided by the people sovereign or not does not necessarily reflect the general will. Though sovereignty is the exercise of the general will, it is not necessarily the sovereignty of the public body or whatsoever which determines the validity of a revolution. It is not the authority which counts; rather, it is the submission of the government and the sovereign to the social contract. Submission in common term is the obedience to the contract which is abiding the objective of the state which is the preservation of life and equality. If in any case, the trustee has not attained the preservation of life, then a revolution can be administered. Then, we say that in such case people power reflects the general will for it is in the general will that life should be preserved.

But, I would like to emphasize that people power should only be administered by the people as their last resort. They should only decide it if the conditions of the social contract have not been sustained. Unless the existence of the state is at risk there should not have any form of people power as this would eventually lead to dissolution of the state which is far from the purpose of people power which is to stability within the state.

In more concrete sense, we can only say that people power reflects the general will if for any case it is for the general will. The people power should be based on the general will, talks about the general will and eventually uphold the general will. As long as the people power would resolve for stability of the state we account it as beneficial. If the people power was based on influence of a particular body, then, it does not reflect the general will, in such case we can expect greater instability for there would exist private interest that would drastically scarce public resources and therefore killing the state.