At Nakalimutan Ang Diyos
Wudz
Dito Ba Sa Mundo Ano ang tunay na
kailangan
Ang magpakasarap at magkamit ng
kayamanan
Anumang kayamanan na akala mo'y walang
hangganan
Darating ang panahon yan ay iyong iiwan
Sobrang kapangyarihan sobrang kayamanan
sobrang katakawan
Ilan sa mga mamamayan ang nagsisigawan
mga ganid! Mga ganid!
Maraming nagpapanggap na makabayan
Gamit ang salitang kalayaan
Ang demokrasya at kalayaan
Ay nakasalalay sa ating kakayahan
Na pigilin at kontrolin ang pagnanasa at
mga gawain
Eh ano bang gusto mo na magpapasaya sa
iyo
Ito ba ang karangyaan sa pamumuhay
Malaking bahay, Magarang kotse,
Maraming Pera
Magandang asawa, May mga anak,
magandang damit
Masarap na pagkain sikat na sikat kasi may
Kinakausap lang Kita kapag ako'y
nangangailangan
Baka may kakilala Ka na pwede kong utangan
Kasi alam Mo na sa tong-its talo ako
Pwede bang bigyan ako kahit anim na numero?
Kinakausap lang Kita kapag ako'y
nangangailangan
Sana'y may artista na maka-date man lamang
Okay lang sa akin kahit na si Joyce Jimenez
Sana ako'y pumogi, pumuti at maging flawless
Kinakausap lang Kita kapag nangangailangan
Noong ako'y binasted ng aking nililigawan
Problemado po ako at wala 'kong pang-inom
pangalan
Pero nakalimutan ang diyos
Sobrang kapangyarihan sobrang kayamanan
sobrang katakawan
Ilan sa mga mamamayan ang nagsisigawan
mga ganid! Mga ganid!
Maraming nagpapanggap na makabayan
Gamit ang salitang kalayaan
Ang demokrasya at kalayaan
Ay nakasalalay sa ating kakayahan
Na pigilin at kontrolin ang pagnanasa at
mga gawain
Eh ano bang gusto mo na magpapasaya sa
iyo
Ito ba ang karangyaan sa pamumuhay
Malaking bahay, Magarang kotse,
Maraming Pera
Magandang asawa, May mga anak,
magandang damit
Masarap na pagkain sikat na sikat kasi may
pangalan
Pero nakalimutan ang diyos
BASSILYO –
LORD PATAWAD
ang hina ko Sa'yo, yun ang hinala ko noon
Kinakausap lang Kita kapag ako'y
nangangailangan
Ang aking iniisip puro pan-sarili lamang
at kapag may mabigat na problema at seryoso
Doon ko lang naaalala ang pangalan Mo
CHORUS
Lord, patawad
Pagkat ako'y makasalanan
Makasalanang nilalang
Lord, patawad
Pagkat ako'y makasalanan
Makasalanang nilalang
Ako'y nagsisimba kapag gusto ko lang
'Pag may bagong damit na ipagyayabang
'Pag may bagong biling mahal na pabango
Kapag bago ang shoes o kaya ang relo
Ako'y nagsisimba kapag gusto ko lang
Pag may jowa akong makakalampungan
Kapag may mga bebot na ang gaganda
Kapag merong baklitang nakakatawa
Ako'y nagsisimba kapag gusto ko lang
'Pag andyan ang tropa't nagkayayaan
hahanap ako ng mapagtitripan
Pagkatapos ng misa ay aabangan
CHORUS
Lord, patawad
Pagkat ako'y makasalanan
Makasalanang nilalang
Lord, patawad
Pagkat ako'y makasalanan
Makasalanang nilalang
Akala ko dati ay kaya ko na
Kaya ko nang mabuhay mag-isa
Ang daming trabaho, babae't pera
'Pag ako'y sagana 'di Kita kilala
Naalala Kita noong ako'y nakulong
Parang bubuyog, bulong ng bulong
'Pag may kamalasan sa 'king nangyari
Ikaw lang nang Ikaw aking sinisisi
Kapag merong debate, sinong magaling?
Sinong matuwid sino ang nagsinungaling?
Ako'y naiiling at mistulang sanggol
'Di man lamang Kita kayang ipagtanggol
SINOSOLO KO LANG ANG BIGAY MONG
BLESSING!
Kumanta ako dapat ay bayad din
Bakit nga ba Sa'yo ay wala akong time
Pa'no kung Ikaw na ang mawalan sa akin ng
time?
Lord, patawad
Lo-o-o-o,o-o-o
Lord...
Lord, Lord, Lord, patawad
Lo-o-o-o,o-o-o
Lord...
Sa puso ko'y lagi Siyang kumakatok
'Di ko binuksan, 'di ko pinapasok
Tuktok ng bundok na Kanyang inakyat
Tignan ko pa lang ako ay nilagnat
Dapat ako ang ipako sa cross
Dapat ako ay siyang nanlilimos
Nag-awad ng tawad sa ating Ama
Ngunit masama pa ang pinadama
Dadadadadadadadadada
Puro ako salita at dada
Sa biyaya ako'y naaatat
Pero kahit kailan 'di nagpasalamat
Nagduda ako sa kakayahan Mo
'Di ako nararapat Sa'yo
Masyado akong mapagmalaki
Pero kahit kailan, hindi Ka nag-higanti
Lo-ord, patawad
Lo-o-o-o,o-o-o
Lord...
Pagkat ako'y makasalanan
Makasalanang nilalang
Lord, Lord, Lord, patawad
Lo-o-o-o,o-o-o
Lord...
Pagkat ako'y makasalanan
Makasalanang nilalang
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) was a German philosopher known for his atheism and
pessimism—in fact he is the most prominent pessimist in the entire western philosophical
tradition. Schopenhauer’s most influential work, The World As Will and Representation,
examines the role of humanity’s main motivation, which Schopenhauer called will. His analysis
led him to the conclusion that emotional, physical, and sexual desires cause suffering and can
never be fulfilled; consequently, he favored a lifestyle of negating desires, similar to the
teachings of Buddhism and Vedanta. Schopenhauer influenced many thinkers
including Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Einstein, and Freud.

In “On the Sufferings of the World” (1851), Schopenhauer boldly claims: “Unless suffering is the
direct and immediate object of life, our existence must entirely fail of its aim.”[i] In other
words, suffering and misfortune are the general rule in life, not the exception. Contradicting
what many philosophers had stated previously, Schopenhauer argued that evil is a real thing,
with good being the lack of evil. We can see this by considering that happiness or satisfaction
always imply some state of pain or unhappiness being brought to an end; and by the fact that
pleasure is not generally as pleasant as we expect, while pain much worse than imagined. To
those who claim that pleasure outweighs pain or that the two balance out, he asks us “to
compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is engaged in eating the
other.”[ii]And he quickly follows with another powerful image: “We are like lambs in the field,
disporting themselves under the eye of the butcher, who choose out first one and then another
for his prey. So it is that in our good days we are all unconscious of the evil Fate may have in
store for us—sickness, poverty, mutilation, loss of sight or reason.”[iii]

Schopenhauer continues by offering multiple ideas and images meant to bring the reality of
human suffering to the fore: a) that time marches on and we cannot stop it—it stops only when
we are bored; b) that we spend most of life working, worrying, suffering, and yet even if all our
wishes were fulfilled, we would then either be bored or desire suicide; c) in youth we have high
hopes, but that is because we don’t consider what is really in store for us—life, aging, and
death; (Of aging Schopenhauer says: “It is bad today, and it will be worse tomorrow; and so on
till the worst of all.”[iv]); d) it would be much better if the earth was lifeless like the moon; life
interrupts the “blessed calm” of non-existence; f) if two persons who were friends in youth met
in old age, they would feel disappointed in life merely by the sight of each other; they will
remember when life promised so much, in youth, and yet delivered so little; g) “If children were
brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to
exist?”[v] Schopenhauer argues that we should not impose the burden of existence on children.
Of his pessimism he says:

I shall be told … that my philosophy is comfortless—because I speak the truth; and people
preferred to be assured that everything the Lord has made is good. Go to the priests, then, and
leave the philosophers in peace … do not ask us to accommodate our doctrines to the lessons
you have been taught. That is what those rascals of sham philosophers will do for you. Ask
them for any doctrine you please, and you will get it.[vi]
Schopenhauer also argues that non-human animals are happier than human beings since
happiness is basically freedom from pain. The essence of this argument is that the bottom line
for both human and non-human animals is pleasure and pain which has as it basis the desire for
food, shelter, sex, and the like. We are more sensitive to both pleasure and pain than non-
human animals, but we also have much greater passion and emotion regarding their desires.
This passion results from our ability to reflect upon the past and future, leaving us susceptible
to both ecstasy and despair. We try to increase our happiness with various forms of luxury as
well as desiring honor, other persons praise, and intellectual pleasures. But all of these
pleasures are accompanied by the constant increased desire and the threat of boredom, a pain
unknown to the brutes. Thought, in particular, creates a vast amount of passion, but in the end,
all of our struggles are for the same things that non-human animals try to attain—pleasure and
pain. But humans, unlike animals, are haunted by the constant specter of death, a realization
which ultimately tips the scale in favor of being a brute. Furthermore, non-human animals are
more content with mere existence, with the present moment, than are we who constantly
anticipate future joys and sorrows.

And yet animals suffer. What is the point of all their suffering? You cannot claim that it builds
their souls or results from their free will. The only justified conclusion is “that the will to live,
which underlies the whole world of phenomena, must, in their case satisfy its cravings by
feeding upon itself.”[vii] Schopenhauer argues that this state of affairs—pointless evil—is
consistent with the Hindu notion that Brahma created the world by a mistake, or with the
Buddhist idea that the world resulted from a disturbance of the calm of nirvana, or even with
the Greek notion of the world and gods resulting from fate. But the Christian idea that a god
was happy with the creation of all this misery is unacceptable. Two things make it impossible
for any rational person to believe the world was created by an omniscient, omnipotent, and
omnibenevolent being: 1) the pervasiveness of evil; and 2) imperfection of human beings. Evil is
an indictment of such a creator, but since there is no creator it is really an indictment of reality
and of ourselves.

Schopenhauer continues: “If you want a safe compass to guide you through life, and to banish
all doubt as to the right way of looking at it, you cannot do better than accustom yourself to
regard this world as a penitentiary, a sort of penal colony.”[viii]He claims this is the view of
Origen, Empedocles, Pythagoras, Cicero, as well as Brahmanism and Buddhism. Human life is so
full of misery that if there are invisible spirits they must have become human to atone for their
crimes.

If you accustom yourself to this view of life you will regulate your expectations accordingly, and
cease to look upon all its disagreeable incidents … as anything unusual or irregular; nay, you will
find everything is as it should be, in a world

where each of us pays the penalty of existence in [their] own particular way.[ix]
Ironically there is a benefit to this view of life; we no longer need to look upon the foibles of our
fellow men with surprise or

indignation. Instead, we ought to realize that these are our faults too, the faults of all humanity
and reality. This should lead to pity for our fellow sufferers in life. Thinking of the world as a
place of suffering where we all suffer together reminds us of “the tolerance, patience, regard,
and love of neighbor, of which everyone stands in need, and which, therefore, every [person]
owes to [their] fellows.”[x]

Summary – Schopenhauer thinks life, both individually and as a whole, is meaningless, primarily
because of the fact of suffering. It would be better if there was nothing. Given this situation, the
best we can do is to extend mercy to our fellow sufferers.

I think Schopenhauer’s philosophical insights are generally underrated by philosophers, which is

in large part due to their supposed pessimism. They should be considered as a clarion call to
look at life more realistically and improve it. Seen thus, his philosophy is not so pessimistic after
all.

Schopenhauer is correct that suffering is real; philosophers who think it merely a privation of
good are deceiving themselves. If we bring pain or evil to an end we experience happiness—
surely this suggests that suffering is real. There is also something intuitive about the idea that
the pleasure we look forward to often disappoints, whereas pain is often unendurable. How
often have you looked forward to something whose reality disappointed? In Schopenhauer’s
graphic image the pleasure of eating does not compare with the horror of being eaten.
However, this comparison is unfair, since we eat many times and can only be eaten once—
naturally the pleasure of a single time meal cannot compare favorably to the terror of being
eaten. A better comparison would be a lifetime of eating versus one moment of being eaten.
We can certainly imagine that one would opt for multiple culinary pleasures in exchange for
being quickly eaten at some later time.

Schopenhauer’s idea that we are like lambs waiting to be slaughtered is an even more powerful
image. We are sympathetic to the lambs, cows, and pigs as they await their fates, but ours is
not much different. We typically wait longer for our death, and the field in which we are fenced
may be larger and more interesting, but our end will be similar, even worse if we linger and
suffer at the end of life. Just like the animals awaiting slaughter we too cannot escape. Surely
there is some sense in which our impending death steals from the joy of life. We are all
terminal, all in differing stages of the disease of aging which afflicts us. And this basic idea holds
together his many images and ideas. We cannot stop time; we worry; we slowly realize many of
our dreams will never be realized; and we recognize that each day we will grow older and more
feeble, leading to an inevitable outcome. It may have been better if we had never existed at all.
It is this consciousness of suffering and death which makes human life worse than animal life,
according to Schopenhauer. Yet this argument is not quite convincing, inasmuch as that same
consciousness provides benefits for us as compared to non-human animals. So Schopenhauer’s
argument is not completely convincing. Still, although he has not established that the life of the
brute is better than that of the human, he has shown something quite powerful—it is not
obvious that human-animal life is better than non-human animal life. This is no small
achievement and ought to be taken seriously. If this argument is correct, then humans should
change their own nature if possible—by using their emerging technologies.
Schopenhauer is also correct that non-human animal suffering is hard to reconcile with
Christian theism, as generations of Christian apologists have discovered. Moreover, his Stoical
response to the evils of the world is commendable, as is his call for tolerance for the foibles of
our fellow travelers. In the end, Schopenhauer is right: the sufferings of the world count
strongly against its meaningfulness, even if not definitively so.