ang scorpion at ang palaka

ang kuwentong ito ay nanggaling sa isang hindi kilalang manunulat. isa ito sa pinakapaborito kong kwento.

isang araw humihingi ng tulong ang scorpion sa isang palaka.

scorpion: kaibigan, pwede mo ba akong matulungan na maka tawid d’yan sa kabila ng sapa?
palaka: pwede kang sumakay sa likod ko, pero papa’no ako makakatiyak na hindi mo ‘ko papatayin n’yang panusok mo?
scorpion: pag ginamit ko sa’yo ‘to, malalason ka.. pareho tayong malulunod.

nagtiwala ang palaka at pumayag s’yang sumampa sa likod n’ya ang scorpion.
masaya silang nagkukuwentuhan habang tumatawid sa sapa ng biglang nakaramdam si palaka ng matulis na bagay na tumusok sa likod n’ya kasabay ng dahan dahan na pamamanhid ng buo n’yang katawan.

at habang unti unti silang lumulubog na dalawa..

palaka:
akala ko ba hindi mo ‘ko lalasunin?
scorpion: pinilit ko .. pero natural ko ‘yun.

May-akda: Jon Cabron

mapanganib, nakakasakit.

24 thoughts on “ang scorpion at ang palaka”

    1. for me, i subscribe to Sartre when he says “existence precedes essence”. Man has intrinsically no nature. We come into his world not because we chose to and we are fated to determine what we will be. We exist first and determine our essence by means of choice. We are entirely responsible not only for who we are but for who we want to be. Sometimes, we fail to realize our essence mainly because we tend to conform with what is expected of us or we contort our being to how others view us. We lack the moral courage to shape ourselves into the “I” that we want to purport ourselves to be therefore we think by external circumstances.

      1. (let scorpion = man not just by gender but by specie)
        couldn’t agree more… man has to be man by choice. nature gives him no automatic guarantee of the efficacy of his mental effort. the process of thoughts or actions is not automatic nor “instinctive” nor involuntary. man has to initiate it, to sustain it and bear responsibility for it’s results. he has to discover how to tell what is true and false and how to correct his own errors; he has to discover how to validate his own concepts, conclusion, and knowledge. he has to discover the rules of thoughts, the laws of logic. as i have mentioned, again, i repeat and reiterate, NATURE gives him no automatic guarantee of the efficacy of his mental effort. everything he needs or desires has to be learned, discovered and produced by himself; by his own choice, effort and mind.

        bow.

  1. Kabisado ko to by heart. Ito ang ginamit na excuse ng isang lalake sa kin 10 years ago kung bakit hindi pwedeng maging kami. Nature nya daw maging babaero kaya kahit mahal nya ko hindi nya ko papatusin dahil ayaw nya kong masaktan. Taena! Marunong ka pa sa kin! Pakshet! O sya maghahanap na lang ako ng katulad kong palaka!!!😦 😐

  2. goddess at damdam, sige gawin nating cbox ito… magandang topic ito…

    Sri Krishna, once preached (though I’m not a Hindu) about the two types of opposite sides inherent in Man — the daivic and the asuric – the divine and the demonic, respectively. The divine qualities causes liberation while the demonic qualities causes bondage. So our instinct may tell us one thing, but our conscience tells us otherwise.

    So ano ang laws of logic na binanggit ni damdam? This could be the result of both the divine and demonic. Logic is not learned, however. It may be relative, but I beg to disagree that it is learned – because it is culminated. We have to remember that not all logical things are right, and not all illogical things are wrong.

    The scorpion may have seemed to try to act against his nature, yes. But his instinct overshadowed his conscience. BUT ANIMALS do not have this inherent conscience (okay, this may be subject to debates), do they?

    Kaya’t dito papasok ang pagiging TAO. Ang kakayahang kumilos sa labas ng saklaw ng natural na kalinangan. The scorpion may have naturally acted foolishly that will obviously cause his demise, but a man may inadvertently act foolishly that will subsequently cause his demise.

    *sinapian lang ako sa pagcomment. pasensya na po…*

    1. i agree… man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness. man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer. man has the power to his choice, whether he will choose the right values or not. free to make wrong choices too, but (usually) not free to succeed with it. that makes us different from animals. animals life consists of series of cycles, repeated over and over ie breeding their young, storing food. they cannot integrate its entire lifespan. mans life is continuos whole, for “right and wrong”, every day, year decades blah blah… he can alter his choices he is free to change the direction of his course and alter them again anytime he wants. as ayn rand said, no sensations, percepts, urges or “instincts” can do it; only a mind can. its a choice. at hala spamming na ako.. peace tayo cabron. masarap lang pag usapan ang entry mo.

      1. Man is nothing else than his plan. He exists only to the extent that he fulfills himself. He is therefore nothing else than the ensemble of his acts, nothing else than his life. Essentialy, what we will be is what we choose.

        According to the Socratic Paradox, people act immorally, but they do not do so deliberately. Everyone seeks what is most serviceable to himself. If you know what is good, you will always act in a way to achieve it. If you act in such a way that is opposite of this, then you are regarded as ignorant. But up to what extent can ignorance be used as an excuse? Again, LV, this is subject to another (probably, much longer) debate.

        at pasensya na din po! kasi tong si damdam at LV!!

  3. this I’ve got to say to the scorpion….

    you may have that (nature) as an excuse but your choice and decision defines you. so succumbing to that lame excuse makes you…… YES!!! :nod: a loser…let me reiterate a LOSER in ALL CAPS… :no:

  4. para ito sa mga nagpapakiusap at nagpapaawa na maipasok sa trabaho tapos pag naipasok na sa trabaho, susulutin yung position ng taong tumulong sa kanila para magkatrabaho uli.

    ano ba dapat gawin sa mga ganito?

  5. gah.

    bakit may philosophy discussion dito. anyway. babasahin ko mamaya yung comments. wala akong alam sa ganyan ganyan bagsak ako sa philo nung 1st year kasi lagi akong late. pero isa lang ang masasabi ko.

    que ber.

    natural lang.😉

  6. sa may bahay ang aming bati merry xmas na malwalhati!!! Mamamasko po!!!!!

    wala munang diet-diet.. let go and let’s eat!!!!
    wala munang galit-galit… forgive and forget!!!!
    wala munang malungkot… sit back, relax and enjoy..

    dahil Birthday ni Papa Jesus!!!

    HAPPY BIRTHDAY BJ (baby jesus)!!!
    cheers;p-glesy the great

  7. kung hindi ako nagkakamali, may napanood akong movie na ito ang kwento. parang ang bida eh si forest whitaker. tapos may kaloveteam siyang transvestite pala. at ang sabi nya…
    “I can’t help it. It’s my ney-chahh!”
    crying game yata ang title.

    bloghopping. God bless and merry christmas!

Mag-iwan ng Tugon

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Palitan )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Palitan )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Palitan )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Palitan )

Connecting to %s