Skip to main content

Being Single

On a friend's article


Hi, Cecile!

How have you been? I hope all is well with you. I miss our class so much!

Your recent piece in “FOURTyFIED” (yes, of course, I’m a follower) caught my attention and got me thinking—especially about your question at the end, on who has more integrity among those who stay single, those who divorce their wives or those who have extramarital affairs. I hope you don’t mind me sharing some thoughts that, I have to declare straightaway, neither come from an expert on such matters nor someone who has “moral authority.”

If by integrity we mean having sound “moral” or “ethical” principles, or in short, being fair and honest, we certainly cannot call the man who cheats on his wife or partner as having integrity. Now this does not necessarily mean that such a man is “bad” or “evil” (as Nietzsche says we live in a time beyond both good and evil); let’s say that at the very least cheaters are just weak: weak to avoid temptations and unable to keep it in their pants, or, what perhaps may be more serious and at the root of the aforementioned symptoms, weak to hold onto one’s word, decision, or promise.

Wanting to have the best of both worlds, those who carry on affairs end up living in neither, remaining stuck in the limbo of indecision. In this sense, he who cheats need not willingly or intentionally want to become dishonest—though he is, objectively, by the actions he carries out, no doubt—but his lack of integrity comes from the weakness of being unable to come to a decision that settles everything. And, as your friend correctly said, everything is a matter of decision. This then disqualifies the cheater from having integrity because of his indecision.

So how about those who decide to stay single, and those who decide to divorce for “valid” reasons, because that supposedly would be more honest than cheating?

On the latter, you can easily suspect that such a man is rationalizing. That it is better to “cut clean and cut your losses” by divorce amounts to saying that since I won’t be able to love you for long, I won’t love you at all; or since I would most likely cheat on you, I won’t ask for a commitment; or since I won’t be able to keep a promise, I won’t promise anymore. I’m sorry but this seems like faulty logic—a violation not against the logic of the mind (or reason) but of the heart (or love).

Not to be idealistic or “mushy” (I’m young, or so I believe, so pardon this again), but this precisely is the wager of love: that I really do not know what will happen in the future—we may find out that we are exact opposites or have “innumerable differences” (but loving a copy of yourself amounts to loving yourself—narcissism—and would really be boring)—but, and this is the point, I decide now and for all times that I will love you and hence be honest with you and keep my promise.

The paradox of love is that it is both certain and uncertain; it does not hold the future in its hands but it already stakes it and offers it through a resounding decision, as in a vow which two people in marriage say to each other or which the religious dedicate to God (no difference here).

Of course, we may misjudge things and do find out later on that some of our decisions were really mistakes (we rushed things, didn’t know she was engaged or psychotic, etc.) but this does not diminish one’s ability to love faithfully and honestly—with integrity.

In the end, perhaps the one who divorces is no different from the cheater; he cheats himself of a possible love by being unable to decide to love faithfully again.

About those who stay single? If they remain single by choice (for whatever reason), then we finally have here someone who has made a decision and is able to hold onto it. But need he be called a man of integrity? Not necessarily. For his decision comes from apathy.

And I do not know who is sorriest—the indecisive but passionate cheater, the mistaken divorcer who just hasn’t forgiven himself, or the indifferent though supposedly happy single man.

All the best to you and take care.

Very Much Single,


Popular posts from this blog

The Fields of Amorsolo

The first National Artist in Philippine history, referred to warmly as the “Grand Old Man of Philippine Art,” Fernando Amorsolo (1892–1972) still stands today as a looming figure in Philippine art responsible for being one of the artists who helped define what we up to now visually imagine as essentially Filipino. The images of rural life, of golden fields below clear blue, blue skies; the smiles of farmers which diminish their weariness as they plant, harvest, and winnow rice;most especially the iconic figure of the Filipina maiden working in the fields—the beloved dalagang bukid--; these, I believe, even after generations of Filipino painters since Amorsolo, have remained in our hearts and memory. Amorsolo did what great masters do for their country: bestow upon it its own icons, represent its native beauty, that is, to give its people and lands an identity and a face. There are, however, as many intentions for art as there are works of art. And these intentions will always remain in…

[Payapang Daigdig]

Written by Pat Nogoy, S.J.

Payapang Daigdig Felipe de Leon, Sr. 
Ang gabi'y payapa Lahat ay tahimik  Pati mga tala      Sa bughaw na langit 

Kay hinhin ng hangin Waring umiibig          Sa kapayapaan          Ng buong daigdig     
Payapang panahon    Ay diwa ng buhay Biyaya ng Diyos       Sa sangkatauhan
Ang gabi'y payapa Lahat ay tahimik Pati mga tala Sa bughaw na langit  
Pati mga tala           Sa bughaw na langit

The gift delivers Being/being Jean Luc Marion

There is something about the night.
The blanket of darkness hovering the other half of the day sparks ambivalence. Everything is the same in darkness—fear, joy, pain, triumph, doubt, glory, sorrow. Identities recede unto the vast anonymity. There is a pervading anxiety where existence slips into nothingness. One is never certain what to make out of darkness; maybe that is why the night shakes us because we never know. One cannot avoid imagining a something that is greater, higher, mightier, (even sinister) that lurks (hence the power of ghos…

Without Why (The Rose) II

Lifetime is a child at play; moving pieces in a game.
Kingship belongs to the child.

Heraclitus, Fragment 52

The child at play never asks itself why it plays. The child just plays; and if it could, it will play as long as possible, it will play throughout its life. See its delight and witness its smile.

If it would never go hungry or if the sun would never set it too will never leave its playmates and playthings. Time flies at play because it stops or suspends time. Time -- as we grownups only know too well -- is the culprit for order, schedules and priorities; yet for the child, there is no time, there is only bottomless play. It is we who impose that this or that should be done at this or that time. We stop the absurd and supposedly endless play ("He does nothing but play") because we insist that discipline, order and priorities be instilled in the child at an early age ("He needs to learn other things beside playing"). So that the child will become like us one da…