Alas a book that gives a thorough examination and analysis of the Filipino Identity. The book is simply superb. Dr. Zialcita's book is a response to the growing despodency of my generation's attitude towards a truly Filipino Identity. The analysis of the Filipino Identity was done with an Anthropological, Historical, and Philosophical Perspective by citing Pre-colonial and Tribal studies(Anthropological), elaborating the importance of Spanish Culture in the Philippines , and contextualizing Marx and the method of Phenomenology in the study.

Read it. I kn0w i did. Both for academic and entertainment purposes.:-)

I find this a terribly difficult book for me to read. It is that, or it is just the way how French contemporary philosophers write, fragmented and quite elusive.And believe me when i say, one must first get acquainted with Karl Marx, the Structuralists, Ferdinand Saussure, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, and Postmodernists from Mcluhan to Derrida for without any surface reading of the following thinkers one wouldnt be able to capture the idea of Baudrillard's thought This is most especially true in the first chapter entitled: The End of Production, where he gave a magnificent though quite "shaky" analyses on the Political ecnomy and how Capital has mutated from merely being a part of a certain sphere which is political economy to something that has pervaded every nook of Man's enterprises. He also elaborated on the three orders of simulation contextualized in History, from the counterfeit, to what we have now, Hypperreality, where the fake is more real than the real or in Umberto Eco's terms, the "authentic" fake.

Some say that this book is the most readable of all Baudrillard's work. This is also considered to be his Magnum Opus.

This is the movie adaptation from Elizabeth Wurtzel's novel of the same name.

Melancholia. Depression. Aesthetics.
How does one live with depression?
Is it merely a mental health issue? I think not.


==========================================================
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/reviews/prozac_nation/2

"Christina Ricci has grown up. No longer the pie-eyed girl of The Addams Family or Mermaids, the talented young actress has taken some risky career decisions in the last few years. Most have paid off: witness the cult successes of Buffalo 66 and The Opposite of Sex, successes which owed much to performances by Ricci which have given a new meaning to the word feisty. Now she has taken another left-of-centre role, in this adaptation of Elizabeth Wurtzel's zeitgeist 90s novel of clinical depression. Unfortunately, while Ricci turns in another utterly convincing performance, she delivers it in a film which is steeped in its own self-importance and which is for the most part over-indulgent and simply unpleasant.

Ricci plays the eternally depressed central character, Elizabeth. The film opens with her leaving her mother (Jessica Lange) to go off to Harvard to pursue her dream of becoming a writer. Initially she is fairly happy: her work is appreciated, she gets to meet Lou Reed (Wurtzel has a major thing for 70s rockers: Reed and Springsteen in particular), and Rolling Stone magazine hires her as a freelance reviewer. Not bad for an 18-year-old. She even makes friends with her roommate, finds a boyfriend and throws a party to celebrate losing her virginity.
But when depression comes knocking, it takes an inexorable hold on her and turns her into an uberbitch. She sleeps with her best friend's boyfriend, chastises her mother and grandparents, ignores her psychiatrist's attempts to help and blames everything on the fact that her father walked out on the family. For about an hour of the film she wallows in self-pity, refuses any assistance and binges on her only salvation: writing.

While clinical depression is certainly a very serious illness, it hardly makes compelling or entertaining cinema. It's extremely difficult to watch a character who is so unfortunately self-hating, with no redeeming qualities. The longer it goes on, the more difficult it is to empathise with someone who cannot operate without destroying those around her. Even prozac seems to have little beneficial effect on her melancholy."

from: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/entertainment/film/reviews/prozac_nation/2

Seen this film when i was still in High school. Love the Catechist, love the plot, love the ending. :-) My seminarian friends should really watch this.Well to what i know, the movie is not that far-fetched is it? Honestly, I dont think so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewed by Lee Shoquist

Gael Garcia Bernal is without question the most magnetic actor in movies today. After three turns in three wildly popular Mexican imports in two years, his combination of sensitive machismo (Amores Perros), combined with cocky accessibility and wonder-inducing introspection (Y Tu Mama Tambien) have evolved into a mature and warm depth of contemplation on full display in his new film.

The Crime of Father Amaro, a huge box-office success and controversial in Mexico, tells the story of an idealistic young priest, Father Amaro, sent to begin work in a small, rural Mexican town. He's assigned to help the beleaguered Father Benito (Sancho Gracia) build a new temple. Once he arrives, he meets the deeply religious and beautiful Amelia (Ana Claudia Talancon), who is young, sensual and so in love with God that she transfers her feelings to Father Amaro, who slowly reciprocates her affections before beginning a full-blooded affair.

Father Amaro quickly learns that the local parish is a hothouse for priests who use religion to further their own agendas, which include guerilla warfare, adultery and drug connections. These secrets are spilled in a newspaper article authored by Ruben (Andres Montiel), Amelia's ex-boyfriend and fallen Catholic, who questions his own commitment to religion and belief in God. The article causes a revolution of sort to occur, and as Father Amaro is torn between his human desire and desire for celibacy, he re-examines his faith and the actions of the other priests.

The Crime of Father Amaro has caused an outrage in Mexico, where some feel that its uneasy mix of church, cynicism, power abuse and unsavory personal agendas are sacrilegious and have unfairly demonized priests. It has, incidentally, become the biggest box office hit of all time there.

But in the United States today, the film also seems relevant and absorbing, if not a bit sensational in its categorical dissection of flawed religious figures; some intentionally corrupt and others operating outside of a religion that won't accommodate their human desires.

Beyond these ideas, I'm not sure there's much that's profound in the film. And it may be difficult for some to relate to the cultural divides between the conservative, religion-dominated society of this small Mexican town and American society today. But then again, the scandals in the church do connect us, and are universal and global in nature to a degree that The Crime of Father Amaro has timeliness and merit.

Director Carlos Carrera (Under a Spell, Return to Sender) is not exactly subtle in his handling of the material, and employs a direct-line, simple-minded approach to its drama, which is delivered as melodrama (often the case in films emerging from the Mexican culture). When Father Amaro's compromised ideals bring about a tragedy near the end of the film, the result is fairly predictable. That the film ends on the right note of bitter cynicism is redeeming.

Bernal is the reason to see the film. His performance is filled with subtle nuances and small character choices, to create an introspective portrait of a man who doesn't so much turn away from his faith, in breaking his celibacy, but struggles to accommodate natural love and sex into his vows. He has the most magnetic eyes that are on the screen today, the kind that seem to deepen the meaning of a scene just by a long close-up. He's an actor and a star, and he carries the sledgehammer politics and melodrama of The Crime of Father Amaro on his back. Though Carrera's decision to go for melodrama is evident, Bernal removes himself from that agenda and instead delivers a subtle sense of drama and personal revolution.

In the end, corrupt priests and crises of faith are nothing new, but this film has the "luck" of appearing during an intense political climate for the Catholic Church, and as a rather lurid record of the extremes of church power abuse, it's interesting. What's more illuminating is watching the subtle shifts Father Amaro experiences during his "fall," and seeing the process happen, from idealism to despair; the story of so many priests today, is eye-opening.

120 Minutes
Not Rated
Sexuality, Nudity, Violence, Profanity

from: http://www.reelmoviecritic.com/holiday2002/id1645.htm

For one who is not familiar with Jean-Paul Sartre’s Existentialism, which he differentiated from the existentialism of Karl Jaspers and Gabriel Marcel, it would be easy for him to criticize Sartre’s philosophy out of ignorance. This judgment made out of haste and ignorance robs justice to a complicated subject because such method of criticism is perhaps an unconscious attempt to reductionism. A complex idea reduced to mere simplistic terms for the comfort of the uninitiated is a crime of murder against the said philosophy, Existentialism, the brainchild of a great philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre. In his short article, “Existentialism is humanism”, he gave his reply to the imperative repondez s’il vous plait that was left as a mark by his critics in the pervading intellectual and popular culture of the time; existentialism out of all its technicality and academic seriousness became a fad. It was this transformation, among many others, that prompted Sartre to give his reply.

The short article, in its very title, contends that the existentialism he so hold is humanism, the humanism that shouldn’t be confused with another form of humanism which is loosely defined as a theory that takes man as a supreme value and as an end to his own self that passes a universal judgment of man according to the greatest contribution individuals made to the whole of humanity and Sartre even go so far to say that it is Fascism. But the existentialism of Sartre is the very opposite to this kind of humanism, because it asserts that man is yet to be determined. Such is why he clarified and differentiated the term humanism which he meant as putting man as the center of his own universe, who creates himself with his own choice, out of freedom that was condemned to him. This is the humanism that Sartre meant when he made it synonymous with his existentialism and not the kind of humanism that passes judgment on man as an end to his own self. This humanism which is existentialism is what Sartre called Existential Humanism.



One may think that Sartre’s short essay is an expositional work taken as a prelude to his existential philosophy or perhaps a critique of some ‘grand narrative’ the Moderns may have left, but it is not. It is both, subsumed into one that became what looks like a primer on existential apologetics. The work incorporates an exposition to some of the main themes of his philosophy and it also serves as a counter-critique to those who wishes ill, through severe criticism, to his newly born brainchild who is vulnerable and weak to the cruel world of ideas dominated by that time, by the Theist Moralists and the Communists, the specters that haunted not only Europe but also the world. Having mentioned earlier that this work is a primer on existential apologetics, this is clearly seen in very first line that started Sartre’s essay:

“My purpose here is to offer a defence of existentialism against several reproaches that have been laid against it.”



In his short essay, in what I surmised, pointed out five reproaches against his existentialism. The first one asserts that his philosophy is an “invitation to dwell in the quietism of despair” or a philosophy of inactivity; and out from this, the communists, considered an inactivity philosophy as a “contemplative philosophy” where contemplation is a luxury and to which only the bourgeois could enjoy, this is the second reproach to his existentialism, that it is a “bourgeois philosophy.” The third reproach is that existentialist novel that shares the existential essence of Sartre’s philosophy, and even perhaps his novel Nausee, portrays man in such a slattern mode of existence that which is devoid of life’s beauty and so it is reproached as a philosophy which is pessimistic. The fourth reproach, that because Sartre’s Existentialism is grounded with the apparent indubitable standpoint of the Cartesian Cogito, is that it is a philosophy which his purely subjective. And finally the fifth reproach, a reproach perhaps made by the theist moralists, questions the moral norms of existentialism because it has taken God and any a priori as something non-existent. Among the many criticisms of Sartre’s Existentialism it is these five reproaches that Sartre wished to address in his short essay, “Existentialism is Humanism.”

It is reproved that Sartre’s existentialism is a philosophy of inactivity or that it is a “quietism of despair” but Sartre’s argued against this ballyhoo issued by his critics. His existentialism is the very opposite to this blatant criticism. In his very own words, Sartre said: “Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realizes himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is.” Though man has this almost unlimited potentiality, without actualizing or realizing it, that potentiality doesn’t exists. Man must strive for this potential to be realize, in the silence of prayer, which is the same with the famous phrase of Karl Marx: Religion is the opiate of the masses” but in his self-commitment to be what he makes himself. From this we might be prodded to ask, “how does this ground existentialism to be considered as a ‘quietism of despair’ if in its very core elevates man to the pedestal of a creator, who out of his condemnation to be free realizes himself by his own self through his own action? Is Existentialism branded as a ‘quietism of despair’ because Man in his own action realizes himself? It seems that it is the very opposite, and those who criticized Sartre’s philosophy using this line of thought seems to be lost in interpretation. Now that we have clarified that it is not a philosophy of inactivity then it follows that this philosophy is not a ‘contemplative philosophy’ which communists are so enamored to say being dependent on the axiom that it is a ‘quietism of despair’ which we found out as something misinterpreted. If it is not a philosophy of inactivity then it is not a contemplative philosophy, and if it is not a contemplative philosophy then it is not a philosophy out luxury and if it is not philosophy out of luxury then it is not purely a bourgeois undertaking; it is therefore not a bourgeois philosophy.



The third criticism is that it is a philosophy which is pessimistic, but again Sartre countered this argument by stressing the importance of Man’s Freedom in his philosophy. Like the criticism of being a “quietism of despair”, the attribute that this existentialism is the pessimistic is again the very opposite of the detractor’s claim. The idea of Absolute freedom, that we are not molded by determining factors serves as a laxative for what Sartre’s philosophy really is. Man being depicted as a sloven creature in many of the existentialist novels, sharing the same essence of Sartre’s Existentialism, doesn’t point out that the philosophy is pessimistic rather that the individuals being portrayed as weak, slattern and among many other ‘debasing’ attributes is actually exercising their freedom. They are portrayed weak not because they are born weak but because they chose to be weak and they actualize that choice. Man is free, and because he is so, the weak out of his choice of being weak also has the freedom to choose otherwise. It is only a matter of actualization, again through self-commitment, because if it is not realize it ends up merely a dream, something which has no concrete existence. Our freedom and self-commitment are the very counter-claim by that Sartre that his philosophy is not pessimistic, a philosophy that sees existence with no hope, but the very opposite, that his philosophy is optimistic because what man becomes is totally left to his own self. He has freedom to make and shape himself; it is merely a matter of realization.

The fourth reproach argues that Sartre’s philosophy is purely subjective and it tends to progress to an individualistic orientation. But Sartre made a clarification by pointing out that there is no other truth than the indubitable Cogito of Rene Descartes. What is not actualized doesn’t exist, what is probable doesn’t exist. So do we base our truth on probabilities that doesn’t exist in the first place? As the Cogito of Descartes asserts that, what is beyond doubt is the self, the self exists and the self because it is actual must therefore exist. If we are to base our truth to something, then we must base it to what exists, and what exists is ourselves, ergo we must base truth to ourselves thus the explanation why Sartre’s philosophy is Subjective. Subjectivity also upholds the dignity of Man because its approach doesn’t treat or reduce other men as mere objects. It is not a moving towards the spirit of individualism because man as he sees himself see others as well as a factor to his existence. As Sartre said: “Thus, at once, we find ourselves in a world which is, let us say, that of ‘inter-subjectivity.’ It is this world that man has to decide what he is and what others are”

And finally, the answer of Sartre to the reproach made that question the morality of existential ethics, if there are any. Morality is not to be judged according to pre-established doctrines or any a priori, for they don’t exist. Man must therefore choose his morality and by choosing it he is continually making himself. One couldn’t judge a person for the choice he made because for Sartre there is no basis to judge a person’s choice of action. What could only be judged perhaps is the means on how the action is made, on whether it is made out in the name of freedom or not.

There are, what I surmised, the five criticism that Jean-Paul Sartre replied in his short essay, “Existentialism is Humanism” It is clear that there are many who criticize Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy without first inquiring into the philosophy itself. Before any good criticism is possible, one must be able to know very well the subject criticism and it seems though that because Existentialism at that time, as was described by Sartre himself, was in somehow denuded by popular culture of its philosophical depth that it has become a mere fad to the hoi polloi. And it is because of this that paved way to so many uncalled criticisms that may be avoided only if they (critics) have devoted more of their time in understanding his philosophy than reproaching for the sake of something to say. These were the critics that were lost in interpretation, for they were quick to sheathe their intellectual daggers in the hope of murdering an emerging philosophy that was Existentialism.

Based on the Columbine Shooting Incident, this movie starts with a seemingly ordinary highschool day where the viewer is introduced to the secondary characters of no significant end. This apparent ordinary school day ended when two friends came to their highschool and started their shooting spree.

The movie is dragging, too dragging indeed until its later part where the shooting spree began. One wonders what is the plot? or is there really a plot? such questions must be considered to ask the question that illuminates the whole point of the film, Whose fault is it?

One of the best films I've seen. Its a Macedonian film that starts out with a Nietzsche quote: "Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."

Its a sad story, whereby a boy gifted with poetry tried to alleviate himself from family problems and poverty through his studies. All is vain however because everything ended up in a tragedy. Sometimes, we just cant escape our social and cultural environment. No matter how much we try.

A Bertolucci! Bertolucci in his films always intertwine politics and sex, particularly in a marxist perspective; The Dreamers is no different. The setting is in Paris during the late 1960's where Marxism was a fad among the academic circuits and where the new republic saw one of the fiercest student uprisings in its time.
=======================================================

The Dreamers
From Marcy Dermansky

Bernardo Bertolucci's "The Dreamers" is set in Paris in the spring of 1968, a tumultuous time of sexual experimentation and political revolt. The people have taken to the streets, but for attractive, enigmatic twins Isabelle and Theo and their American friend Matthew, the riotous events that will define their lives transpire inside--in the bath tub and on the hard kitchen floor, in bed and beneath the altar of a black and white pin-up of Marilyn Monroe tacked on to Theo's bedroom wall.
The story of three young cinephiles and sexual neophytes coming of age in Paris is captivating material. Based on the novel by Gilbert Adair, Bertolucci tells the story through the eyes of the outsider. Matthew (Michael Pitt), first meets the twins at the locked gates of the Cinematheque Français, where Isabelle (Eva Green) strikes the pose of a movie star while Bertolucci adds documentary footage of Jean-Pierre Léaud with a bull-horn and François Truffaut protesting the forced resignation of Henri Langois.

Michael, Eva, and Theo (Louis Garrel) cocoon themselves in the twin's apartment and test each other through a series of games, acting out favorite scenes from the films that inspire them; in an inspired move of his own, Bertolucci integrates classic scenes seamlessly into the plot: breathless Anna Karina running through the Louvre in Jean-Luc Godard's "Band Of Outsiders" is followed by breathless Eva Green racing the same halls.

==========================================================

Why is the title "The Dreamers"?

If you believe in something, and you remain passive about it, by merely talking about it in coffee shops or in the universities, then you are merely a Dreamer because if you truly believe in it, you'd be out there doing your share for change.
This was shown in the last part of the film where Theo had to do what he had to do, that is, he together with his sister separated themselves from Matthew to join the violent student uprising in Paris.

Just watch the film.

Must i say more? Ayn Rand, is one of the few individuals that has significantly changed my worldview. Her philosophy of Selfishness makes one rethink the principle of altruism in their personal ethical framework, most especially to those who are so immersed into religion preaching altruism as a dogma.

This work is perhaps the Magnum Opus of Rand. It showcases her philosophical system; from her metaphysical principles, objectivist epistemology, selfish ethics, Laissez-faire economics and romantic aesthetics in a story that is longer than Tolkein's entire Trilogy put together. In the story, we meet Rand's protagonist, John Galt, who is not introduced until the third part of the book. Galt serves as the epitome of what Rand considered, the Ideal Man.

The title "Atlas Shrugged" tells us that if the engine of the world stops moving, who happens to be the intellectuals, the entire world stops moving. The book, because of its length, may end-up boring, but the ideas presented are worthy to be pondered on. Also, if Atlas Shrugged is considered to be the book that talks about the entirety of Rand's philosophical system, then its John Galt's famous 100+ page speech in the later part of the book that summarizes Rand's philosophy.

Among other things, Atlas Shrugged, as Ayn Rand's Magnum Opus, is a good starting point in understanding the general theories that revolves around the Individual. This is most particular with Classical liberalism. Although, Rand made it clear that she is not a libertarian, her ideas closely resembles that of classical liberalism which makes it a good starting point for the study on the Individual v. the collective.

Also, as a final note, the novel is adopted into a film trilogy starring Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart.

My fascination of Vatican affairs had led me to read this book by David Yallop, "In God's Name” which he claims was a product of in-depth research and investigation to the mystery surrounding the death of the shortest reigning Pope of Christendom, Pope John Paul I, who was earlier known as Albino Luciani.

The book starts with a brief biography of Albino Luciani when he was a young lad back in the moutain village of Canale d'Agordo in the Veneto Region of Italy. As the book progresses, the reader becomes intimately immersed in Luciani's life, detailing the characteristic of a humble well-loved priest, a fiery intellectual who wrote for his dissertation: " The origin of the soul according to Antonio Rosmini", to being called "the smiling pope" by the media.

Albino Cardinal Luci was an interesting individual who was a blend of different characteristics that makes him stand out among other Church officials during his time. But what is perhaps more interesting is his mysterious death thirty-three days after his election. The book illuminates us, with the most probable case for his death, and none of it supports the official press release of the Vatican which states that the Pope died of Myocardial infarction.

The conspiracy of his death, as the book points out, has to do with six interconnected personalities who had the motive to apply the Italian solution to the Pope who they considered a liability. Cardinal Jean Villot, the then Vatican Secretary of State who was handed out by the Pope a list that shows a total revamp of the Roman Curia, upsetting the balance of Power in the Vatican and whole Christendom; Roberto Calvi, a Buenos Aires banker and Licio Gelli, the head of the P2 Masonic Organization are encountering problems with their business ever since the conclave elected a new pope; Michele Sindonia, a Sicilian Banker, with ties to the Sicilian and New York Mafias feared that the continuing investigation made by the Pope on the Vatican bank might open up the web of corruption that has been plaguing that institution which could all lead back to him; Cardinal John Cody, the Archbishop of one of the biggest and richest Archdiocese in the United States of America was given a message that the Pope has decided to replace him; and Bishop Paul Marcinkus, the head and the plague of the Vatican Bank.

The book explains how these men were connected and why they saw Pope John Paul I a liability in their enterprise. The book presents to us, the probable case of the Pope's death without giving any definite conclusion but leaving a leeway for the reader to judge for himself what to make of the data presented by the book on whether or not to take the book's substance seriously.

At the end, the book presents how and why this conspiracy continues to the next papacy – the Papacy of Pope John Paul II. It even goes further in discussing the continuing conspiracy that requires another book to satisfy its depth. This is a sequel that was just released last month entitled: “The Power and Glory, inside the Dark Heart of John Paul II”

Personally, i found this book to be an interesting read. It takes as truism the idea that the concept of God is a scientific hypothesis, and from that as the point of departure, delves into the argument that the existence of God is highly improbable.

It offers an argument against the existence of God in light of scientific epistemology and uses the Darwinian Perspective of 'natural selection' to attack the the concept of God or more particularly he would call it, the "God hypothesis"

The book debunks the theist claims of, the "God of the Gaps", the Intelligent Design/Creationism, NOMA (non-overlapping Magisteria) and among other things in a very witty albeit profound manner.

I highly recommend this book for those who are "soul-searching" their way to a God. This is not a difficult book to read neither is it something very simple. IF you passed high school, most likely you'd understand the book, granting of course that high school thought you Evolution and probability. It is not boring, actually very witty, and sometimes a bit sarcastic in its remarks, but overall its a great work. You have to be open-minded to read it though, if your not, theist and atheist alike, you wouldn't be able to appreciate the magnanimity of Dawkin's book.