This goes out to someone. If you get to read this, you'd know who you are.
Numb
by Linkin Park
I'm tired of being what you want me to be
Feeling so faithless lost under the surface
Don't know what you're expecting of me
Put under the pressure of walking in your shoes
(Caught in the undertow just caught in the undertow)
Every step that I take is another mistake to you
(Caught in the undertow just caught in the undertow)
Chorus:
I've become so numb I can't feel you there
I've become so tired so much more aware
I'm becoming this all I want to do
Is be more like me and be less like you
Can't you see that you're smothering me
Holding too tightly afraid to lose control
Cause everything that you thought I would be
Has fallen apart right in front of you
(Caught in the undertow just caught in the undertow)
Every step that I take is another mistake to you
(Caught in the undertow just caught in the undertow)
And every second I waste is more than I can take
(Repeat Chorus)
And I know
I may end up failing too
But I know
You were just like me with someone disappointed in you
(Repeat Chorus)
I've become so numb I can't feel you there
I'm tired of being what you want me to be
I've become so numb I can't feel you there
I'm tired of being what you want me to be
Someone sort of bonded with me last Saturday over my plans of bringing Philosophy to the non-Philosophers. I guess I wanted to do it because the Philosophy department for the most part seemed legendary yet far too clique-ish, which makes people sometimes still scoff at it. I know I was, as I told Sacha, being sacrilege (Sacha: The word is “sacrilegious”, Marcelle. An adjective, remember?), I mean, I was being a sacrilege (Sacha: Isn't sacrilege a verb?), I mean, I was being irreverent in my assertion of this, but I think I'm spot on at this point.
In any case, this someone was talking to me about the possibilities for what I wanted to do, giving me diagrams, facts and figures that I should consider in trying to help out this someone and all. Noble, truth be told. I wouldn't hesitate helping them when the opportunity for it arises. The intent is on enculturing the Filipino at the grassroots level, and this is where my hope of bringing Philosophy to the fore, outside of huddled circles is precisely what could intermesh quite excellently with his objectives. I'm actually thankful that for once, this someone decided to give me such an opportunity.
However, the arrogance is still there. The kind of sure-footedness this person seems to have about the so-called “Truth” when this person is far from encapsulating its entirety no matter how wise he thinks he may be is clearly showing me that he's a wee bit too self-delusional. He was knocking the Da Vinci Code for being “fictional”, and while it was fictional, has he even read it? How can he evaluate something? By hearsay? If in case he has read it, why should it matter that it's not a true story? I mean, I watch wrestling, I know it's scripted, but so what?
Besides, if he is so sure about the “Truth” that he claims to know, then why does he seem to miss the fact that Jesus Christ, a Jew, would not be speaking in Greek during those times when He could simply speak in Aramaic, His native tongue? If his basis for debunking, say Peter's papacy in the Bible is by referring to Greek text, has he ever tried checking for the Aramaic equivalent of it? Recall this biblical quote:
Simon Peter (Greek, Simon Petros) answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona…I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Greek, Petros) and upon this rock (Greek, petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:15-19)
Petra in Greek means “rock”. However, it is a feminine spelling, and Peter was called as Petros, which means “stone”. If we were to follow this line of thinking, in the Greek language, he had to be called Petros not because he wasn't the “rock” (At least, not necessarily.), but because it was the masculine rendition of the name. In Aramaic, however, the sole word for “rock” is Cephas. Guess what? Peter is being referred to as “Cephas” in some of the Bible texts itself (Don't believe me? Check 1 Corinthians 15:3-4)! I guess that means that this debate isn't as closed as he believes it to be, then.
Bottomline is not that I'm trying to diss this person or tell him that he doesn't know anything. What I'm trying to say is, blind arrogance in one's own knowledge, no matter if you attribute it to be from God, would clearly bring with it a lot of repudiations from someone who knows a little more than most of the people you try to sway to your opinion... people who know just a little more, such as myself. People who think they know everything are quite annoying to those of us who do. For I know that one knows nothing, and as such, I feel justified in scoffing at one who thinks he knows it all. This “Truth” you speak of, is it truly timeless? Or is it just some anthropocentric reality that does not hold for everyone else, and as such goes against your notions of it being universal?
Thanks for the opportunity. I'll make sure to keep that notion independent from how I view your self-assuredness as rather... naive.
No comments:
Post a Comment