The Classical Views of the Self

As mentioned above, we need to bracket in abeyance or temporarily our biases, prejudgments of the self.  This is done by elucidating some existing knowledge or theories of the self.  In the history of philosophy, here are some important philosophers for consideration:(1) Plato, (2) Aristotle, (3) St Augustine, (4) St Thomas Aquinas, and (5) Rene Descartes.  

Plato and Aristotle have a cosmocentric perspective.  In cosmocentrism, the whole cosmos --including man is governed by logos.  This is evident in the philosophical thought of Plato and Aristotle.  For Plato (428/427 – 348/347 BC), man is his soul (the rational part of the soul).  Soul is the essence of humanity and the source of all his activities (Calasanz cited in Dy, 2001).  In Phaedrus, Plato gives this metaphor: the soul is a charioteer of two-winged horses.  One is sensible and flies high to the heavens to reach the light of truth and goodness.  The other comes from a bad breed and because of neglect and sinfulness, had lost its wings and fallen to earth to assume human form.  With this metaphor, Plato gives us a clearer picture of the tripartite structure of the soul, namely: rational, spirited, and appetitive part.  The rational part is the charioteer.  The spirited part is the sensible one.  The appetitive part comes from a bad breed.  Each has its own proper function: rational has a natural attachment to knowledge and wisdom guiding the lower parts; spirited has a natural attachment to honor and, more generally, to recognition and esteem by others; and appetitive concerns with anything pleasurable like food, money, sex, etc.  The rational part is identified with the mind; spirited with the heart, and appetitive with genitals or belly.  Each part is also identified with the different classes of people in society: rational with philosophers/kings who have the natural affinity with wisdom and virtue of justice; spirited with soldiers/ auxiliaries who have the virtue of courage and the ally of reason; appetitive with merchants who value the virtue of temperance (Lorenz, 2009; Kerns, 2013; Pavo, 2012).  In Phaedo, “surely the soul can best reflect when it is free of all distractions such as hearing or sight or pain or pleasure of any kind –that is, when it ignores the body and becomes as far as possible independent, avoiding all physical contacts and associations as much as it can, in its search for reality.”  In this context, Plato implies that the rational part of the soul serves as the governing principle of the whole of human person.   Read more on Plato's rational psychology [click].

For the discussion of Aristotle's view of man, click.
For the discussion of St Augustine's view of man, click.
For the discussion of St Thomas's view of man, click.
For the discussion of Descartes's view of man, click.

Unit III: Man as Embodied Subjectivity

Overview of the Lesson:

As shown in the previous unit, the right method (phenomenology) in doing philosophical reflection can lead us into a deeper insight of reality, particularly the reality of the self.  Phenomenology will lead us back “to the things in themselves,” to the very nature of the self or personhood as experienced.  It’s undeniably true that if we have no experience of something like loving, we will not have any insight of such thing or experience.  “Insight” comes from experience but it needs the right method of doing reflection to extract it from experience.

In this Unit, we will apply phenomenological reflection to the question, Who am I?  In treating the question phenomenologically, basically, we ask, What is the meaning of life as lived or as experienced?  On this assumption, we need to bracket what we already know of who we are such as the theories, assumptions of the self.  We'll go "back to the things in themselves," "back to how the self is lived or is experienced."



Introduction:

Husserl never treated the question, Who am I? at some length.  Marcel did.  In his article, Primary and Secondary Reflection: The Existential Fulcrum, Marcel applied primary and secondary reflection to a series of questions, as follows: (1) Who am I? (2) Do I exist? and (3) What is an embodiment?  In this unit, we will present Marcel's treatment of the question, Who am I?  In the presentation, we will be discussing at some length the phenomenological methods of Marcel, his answers to the question, Who am I? as well.

But we need to faithfully observe Husserl's idea of epoche.  By epoche, we will hold temporarily our biases, assumptions, presumptions, prejudgments regarding the question, Who am I?  By applying epoche, we will be able to "see with new eyes" our lived experience of the self.  This is what Husserl calls "phenomenological seeing."  In this regard, we will also treat some classical views about the self before discussing Marcel's treatment.  Towards the end, we will unpack some implications of man as embodied subjectivity.


Lesson Contents:

1. Classical views of the self [click]
2. Phenomenological View of the self [click]
3. Man as an Embodied Subject [click]

Pre-test: [click] (Before you proceed, check your prior knowledge on this topic.)

Motivational Activity: [click] Marcel pointed out that "I am my body."  My body is inseparably one with the "I" or the subject.  This activity enhances students' ability to view oneself holistically (wholistically).

*********************************************************************************

Chapter Quiz: Covers all topics above.  (Assigned in Google Classroom.)

References:  [click]

Phenomenological Methods

Phenomenology, in its literal sense, is a study of phenomenon.  Phenomenon refers to "that which appears," in contrast to noumenon, which refers to "that which does not appear."  Phenomenalists like Husserl believe that what we can directly know is "that which appears" to us.  It's hard to know something "which does not appear to us."  For example, if you are looking at a house what you can directly know is the facade of the house --that is, of course, if you are standing in front of the house.  In your current position, you will not know the parts of the house, which are hidden like what is inside the house or what is at the back of it.  Unlike Kant who claims that we can't know the noumenon, Husserl claims the opposite --we can know the noumenon (or the eidos of the experience).  To do so, we need to follow the steps in phenomenological reflection.  For more discussion, click for this article, Husserl's Phenomenological Methods (Jumawan, 2017).

Gabriel Marcel, a French philosopher, also devices two levels of reflection: primary and secondary reflection.  In his article, Primary and Secondary Reflection: An Existential Fulcrum, Marcel (cited in Dy, 2001) simply defines primary reflection as one which "dissolves the unity of experience," whereas secondary reflection as one which "recuperates the unity of experience."  There is not much elaboration of their meaning but Marcel illustrates the application of each level of reflection by giving a few examples.  This will be treated at some length in the next chapter.

A. Basic Concepts Defined

Introduction

       “Unexamined life is not worth living,” said Socrates.  Self-knowledge is the main purpose why we want to know ourselves because it serves as guides to live a life with a purpose.  However, one problem in knowing ourselves is “how.”  To ask the question, “how” concerns of its method –that is, how can we arrive at the answers of “Who am I?”  Aside from this problem, some other problems are to be treated, as follows: (1) What is the appropriate approach or method we can employ to find meaning from our experience? and (2) Can we fully know ourselves like holding an apple in the palm?  These questions are regarded as epistemological, which has to do with both method and truth.  In epistemology, the method in arriving at true knowledge is as necessary as the true knowledge itself.

1)     FACT & PROPOSITION

Fact refers to something that has really occurred or is occurring or is actually the case.  It is external or something “outside” of the person perceiving it.  For example, it is a fact –the actual case, that the sun at 12 noon is hot.  Even if no one cares about this fact, it is really and actually the case that the sun at 12 noon is hot –of course, under the clear skies. Now, if one is going to put this fact into words, it becomes a statement of fact, say, “The sun at 12 noon is hot.”   This statement of fact is verifiable. 

Proposition refers to a statement of facts that may be asserted or denied (Copi & Cohen, 2005).  Let me cite some common examples: (1) The table is green, (2) The classroom is painted, (3) The earth is spherical in form, (4) That girl is beautiful, and (5) The sun at 12 noon is hot.  These are statements of facts.  If any of these statements of facts contains an element of assertion or denial, then it is already a proposition.  There are two important characteristics of a proposition, as follows: (1) It can be true or false; and (2) It is expressed in a sentence.  But, not all sentences are propositions.  There are sentences such as exclamatory, imperative and interrogative sentences, which do not contain any assertion or denial of a proposition.  Thus, all propositions are sentences --declarative sentences, in particular. 

2)     BELIEF, OPINION & KNOWLEDGE

        Belief refers to a firm assent of a proposition or a firmly held conviction.  Based on its definition, belief is somehow subjective –in terms of how much one is convinced of what he proposes like “It is raining in Saudi Arabia.”  But, if one has a firm conviction (belief) of this proposition, “It is raining in Saudi Arabia,” it does not necessarily follow that he has enough evidence to have such belief.  It is "most likely true" that he has such firm conviction of the proposition because somebody has told him so.  So, belief is still subjective, may not be fortified by sufficient evidence.  As shown below, belief is not yet knowledge.  Knowledge is a form of belief, which is justified and true.

        Belief includes the qualitative and quantitative forms of the representations of facts. For example, “The table is brown.”  Its qualitative form is the brown-ness of the table and its quantitative form is at least referring to a single table.

       There are two types of belief: (1) factual belief and (2) religious belief.  Factual belief is a firm conviction of a proposition established by facts.  Religious belief, on the other hand, is a firm conviction of a proposition established by faith (not by facts).

        Whereas belief is a matter of conviction, attitude is a matter of taste about a certain fact.  Like belief, attitude is subjective.  For example, I believe that Anne is taller than May since Anne stands 5 feet and 5 inches whereas May is only about 5 feet and 3 inches.  But, with a matter of attitude, I don’t like girls who are taller than I.  When I say, I don’t like tall girls, I’m expressing my attitude (or my like and dislike) towards tall girls.  So, attitude is a matter of personal taste to a certain fact like tall girls.

Opinion (Greek word: doxa), on the other hand, is “an obligation to withhold assent due to lack of sufficient evidence” (Descartes cited in Caraan, 2016).  When we say, “withholding assent,” we mean we put to doubt a certain proposition due to lack of evidence.  For example, we claim that “the major cause of family break-up is the third party of either spouse” is still an opinion because it is inconclusive to say such due to insufficient evidence.  To gather evidence to support such claim, one may conduct a research study in a certain city like Dumaguete.  If our findings in Dumaguete City support our claim that the major cause of family break-up is the third party of either spouse, such findings are not yet enough if we are talking about family break-up in the whole Negros Oriental. So, opinion does not contain any firm conviction (or belief). 

Knowledge (Greek word: episteme) is a “justified true belief,” Plato defines.  Knowledge is a belief, not a matter of attitude, which is justified and true.  For Plato, there are three conditions of knowledge, namely: (1) belief –in the sense that one has firm assent or conviction in what he claims as true; (2) true –in the sense that what he claims is what is really, actually the case; and (3) justified –in the sense that what he claims can no longer be refuted by other counter-evidence.  For Aristotle, a proposition is true, “if, of what is the case, it says what is the case, or if, of what is not the case, it says that it is not the case.”  It is a sort of “semantic definition” of truth, according to Alfred Tarski. 

       There are three theories of truth, namely: Correspondence theory, Coherence theory and Pragmatic theory.  Correspondence theory claims that a proposition is true if it corresponds to the reality or actual state of affairs.  Aristotle's definition of truth is one of this sort.  The coherence theory claims that a proposition is true if it "coheres" with other propositions.  For example, "pigs are unclean," according to the Muslim belief.  This proposition is true merely in the context of Muslim religion.  Lastly, the pragmatic theory holds that what is true is what works in a certain situation.  Effectivity of knowledge is the basis of the truth of a proposition (Abella, 2016). 

"Do you know yourself like holding an apple in the palm?"

Finally, what is the difference between knowledge and wisdom?  Knowing the distinction between knowledge and wisdom is crucial in our quest for who we are.  Most often than not, a knowledgeable person pretends he/she knows everything.  He/she who pretends he/she knows himself better has the tendency to have too much self-confidence.  He/she becomes a braggart.  He/she doesn’t know how to humble himself.  To know ourselves is really important.  Socrates once said, “Unexamined life is not worth living.”  Yet, we need to accept the fact that we cannot know ourselves fully or “as clear as holding an apple in the hand.”  To realize such is actually the beginning of wisdom.

Wisdom, in Socratic sense, is simply knowing of one thing with certainty –that is, we don’t know.  In the Apology, Socrates said, “O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name as an illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing.”  

         To be wise is to accept our ignorance.  It doesn't, however, mean that we have to give up our desire to know or give up our knowledge and end up in skepticism, or we claim that knowledge is untenable –meaning, knowledge is impossible.  Yet, to be wise like Socrates is to engage in dialogue with other seekers for truth.  

         In attaining wisdom, there is a need for emptying.  The Taoist considers an empty cup more useful than a full one.  An old adage goes, "deep water is silent; shallow water creates much noise."  This means simplicity and humility (Elgin 2009 cited in Ramos, 2016).  To be “intellectually empty” means that one has still a sense of wonder.  With sense of wonder, one asks questions and keeps on asking questions.  To know oneself is a life-long journey.  (Related article: Knowledge and Wisdom [click]).

Source: https://www.google.com.ph/search?safe=strict&hl=en-PH

What is Philosophy?

Introduction

Philosophy defies any definition since it is a “mental activity” afforded to all rational beings.  Ludwig Wittgenstein (1974 cited in Mabaquiao, 2016) describes philosophy as "an activity (mental) and not a body of doctrine."  It is rather helpful to do philosophy rather than define it.  One important way of doing philosophy is to play with one’s insight.  Insight is an act of seeing with the mind (Ferriols cited in Dy, 2001).  In the history of philosophy, philosophers have been active in the search for new insights to answer the demands and signs of the times.  Though different philosophers make conflicting insights, it’s undeniable that “insightful” activity is true to all human beings.  It is a way of distinguishing ourselves from brute animals.  Reflective thought is a distinctive characteristic of human beings, which most animals don’t have.  With our reflective thought, we are able “to see” something in the mind using concepts or ideas.  And these concepts or ideas mirror the reality we are dealing with at present.

Gabriel Marcel (1970) claims that reflective thought is rooted in one’s experience.  It is inseparably one with life.  It goes without saying that each one of us is capable of doing reflection –whether a student, a businessman, a parent, or a doctor, so long as you stop and reflect on your experience.  But, this is easier said than done.  Why?  Because to reflect means that we need ample time to do it, which many of us, if not all, don't have.  Nowadays, to spend ample time to reflect remains a challenging task.  We live in a fast-paced society.  This fast-paced society demands much of our time to work.  Thus, our busy time wouldn't allow us to spend ample time to reflect.  We will have a thorough discussion on this idea below.  (Related article: Knowledge and Wisdom [click]).

Definitions of Philosophy

Before discussing insight as a way of doing philosophy, let me offer some definitions of philosophy.  This is intended for clarity and convenience as we embark to answer the question, How to do philosophy?  

      In a literal sense, philosophy means “love of wisdom” –derived from two Greek words, philo, meaning “to love” and sophia, meaning “wisdom.”  Pythagoras is said to be the first to coin the word, philosophers.  He differentiated three classes of people who attended the Olympic games: (1) the lovers of gains, who sell their wares during the occasion; (2) the lovers of honor, those who compete; and (3) the lovers of wisdom (philosophers), those spectators who pursued knowledge or wisdom pertinent to the events (Caraan, 2016).

        In technical sense, philosophy is "a search for the ultimate principle of all things that exist in aid of natural reason."  Under these definitions, any philosophical inquiry is characterized by the following:

1. Love of wisdom.  Based on its etymology, what motivates philosophers to pursue knowledge or wisdom is love.  This love springs from the "inner drive to know all that there is to know" in each and every one of us.  This drive to know is innate in all of us.  All we have to do is to recognize this inner drive to know (Clarke, 2002).  Once we imbibe this drive to know, it turns into a "love or passion" of wisdom, which is always characterized by madness, more or less, similar to a romantic love.  Thus, a philosopher never stops unless he satisfies his desire to know.  However, to convince oneself to imbibe this drive to know is never easy since he/she has to wonder, to always ask questions and further his questioning.  If he/she makes questioning a habit, then he/she has the germ of philosophizing –the love of Sophia.  Take, for example, the case of Thales.  Thales is known to be the first philosopher recorded in the history of philosophy.  He loved to know the heavenly bodies.  Because of this obsession, he watched intently the skies but failed to watch his steps, and fell into a well (IEP, 2020).  A servant who saw him falling into a well laughed at him.  Thales' account is a good example of the "love of sophia," which resulted in getting ridiculed.  
2. Ultimate Principle.  Philosophical inquiry aims for the highest principles of all things that exist.  In this sense, philosophy is considered the highest form of inquiry because it tries to seek for one unifying principle wherein the whole of reality is viewed as one meaningful whole (Jumawan, 2017).  It is like seeing the whole forest rather than looking at the individual trees.  In the classical tradition of the Greeks, philosophizing is a god-like activity.  It is believed that the gods and goddesses dwelt in Mt. Olympus.  Dwelling on top of Mt Olympus is an ideal place for the gods and goddesses to contemplate, to philosophize on the affairs of the mortals (human beings).  As a god-like activity, philosophizing is taking a higher perspective and have the vision of the whole of reality.  Thales, for example, claimed that water is the primordial element or the one ultimate principle.  With this idea of water, every explanation of the origin of all things that exist and the beginning of all forms of life is attributed to water.  For Thales, life and all its forms begin in water.  NASA has sent rover missions on Mars.  The aim of the missions is to “search for and characterize a wide range of rocks and soils that hold clues to past water activity on Mars” (https://mars.nasa.gov/). NASA scientists believe that if water exists on Mars, it is highly possible that other forms of life exist there and humanity can live there in the near future.  Imagine a person named Thales, who lived about 600 B.C., also thought the same –“Life and all its various forms begin in water.”
3. Natural Reason.  Philosophizing is a search for an ultimate principle aided only by reasoning.  Before philosophy came into practice, Greeks relied on myths to explain human and natural phenomena.  For example, earthquakes, lightning, typhoons, tidal waves, etc. were attributed to the activities of gods and goddesses.  Without any resort to mythical explanations, philosophers tried to understand the world based purely on reasoning.  Thales, for example, relied on rational demonstration to attribute the origin of everything –even any form of life, to water.  By logical reasoning, he might have thought that the element of water has properties to transform into other material objects.  By empirical observation, we know how water transforms into gas or transforms into solid such as ice.  Yet, Thales went far in concluding that water is the principle that was, is and will be.  It doesn’t change substantially yet change only accidentally.  On the contrary, the Jews established their identity as a group of people in a strong belief in one eternal God.  The Greeks never had this kind of faith.  Their faith is entirely based on human capacity to understand the world and all things therein (Jumawan, 2017).

Related articles: (1) What is Philosophy?  [click] (2) Is There Any Filipino Philosophy? [click]  

SPUD VISION STATEMENT

St Paul University Dumaguete, committed to the formation of integrated persons, will become the center of excellence in Catholic Education dedicated to building a just and humane society.

Based on its characteristics, philosophy cannot be only found in every individual person but also in an institution like St Paul University Dumaguete.  The Vision Statement of the school clearly states its philosophy about the human person –that is, each human person is multi-dimensional or multi-faceted.  What is meant by multi-dimensional individual?  He/she is a person who has different aspects of life, namely: intellectual, moral, religious, social, political, physical, and emotional.  The very vision of the school, then, is to have the formation of every student to become a well-rounded individual (integrated person).  It can be seen in all activities of the university like the celebration of the Eucharist for the spiritual aspect, classes for the academic aspect, intramural games for physical, and so on.  St Paul University Dumaguete strives to create avenues for students to grow holistically.  It is not forming students to become “intellectual giants but emotional or spiritual dwarves.”

Introduction to the Philosophy of Human Person

Introduction to the Course:

Dear Students,

Welcome to the world of philosophy!  Philosophy may sound strange to you.  But, philosophy –as a rational activity, is part of us, or shall I say, it's in us.  Each of us is capable of philosophizing.  It is my ardent hope that you will find your comfort in doing philosophy as I invite all of you to the world of philosophizing.

This online workbook is intended for neophytes in philosophy.  I make sure that this workbook is not overloaded with highly technical terms in philosophy yet without sacrificing the original, deep insights of individual philosophers. 

Philosophy of Human Person is all about yourself.  For the whole semester, this course will help you understand yourself better and deeper.  Thus, it is necessary to ask two major questions: (1) Who am I? and (2) How to become human?   The first two lessons will help you answer the former, Who am I?   The remaining lessons are designed to help you answer the latter, How to become human?  The primary objective to study this course, Philosophy of Man, is to know thyself (yourself).  “Unexamined life is not worth living,” Socrates said.

Good luck!  Make your study in Philosophy of Human Person fruitful.



Table of Contents:

Unit I: Doing Philosophy [click]

Unit II: Methods of Philosophizing [click]

Unit III: Man as Subjectivity [click]

Unit IV: Man and His Environment [click]

Unit V: Man as Being-in-the-World [click]

Unit VI: Man as Being-with-Others [click]

Unit VII: Man and His Death [click]

Unit VII: Man and the Absolute [click]

Each Unit contains its lesson contents.  Just press [click] to view the introduction and contents of the unit.  And each lesson has also its links, just press [click] to view content.

If you get lost in the middle of your search, get back to the Table of Contents and begin again by pressing [click] of the unit you are currently reading.

When Do We Philosophize?

This question pertains to the starting points of philosophizing.  In any human endeavor, the point of departure is necessary since it is where you lay your compass for direction or where you are heading into.  In the history of philosophy, philosophers have defined their points of departure in philosophizing, as follows:

1. Wonder – For Plato, the sense of wonder is what makes poets and philosophers alike.  Wonder brings us to see ordinary things extraordinary.  Most of the time, we treat things or persons for granted –an attitude that hinders us to become open to new possibilities of knowing such objects or persons in our experience.  With wonder, we bear an attitude of a child, who ventures asking questions and is willing to learn from asking questions.
2. Doubt – For Rene Descartes, known as the Father of Modern Philosophy, doubting everything is the best starting point in doing philosophy.  It’s like building a building from ground zero –meaning, you need to clear the ground from everything that stands in it, i.e. old structures, before you start building a new one.
3. Limit Situations are inescapable realities that cannot be changed but only acknowledged like death of loved ones.  These are realities that are out of our control.  But, our reactions to these realities are still within our control.  Thus, in every limit situation, it is best to strike the balance within, and not be totally losing control of it.
4. Metaphysical Uneasiness is to be unsure of one’s life, which is equivalent to Angst of Soren Kierkegaard.  Metaphysical uneasiness is different from curiosity.  To be curious is to start from a fixed external object (outside of me) which I have a vague idea of.  Metaphysical uneasiness is beyond the physical, the external, and is more internal.  Philosophizing here begins from the inner restlessness which is linked to the drive for fullness.  In the words of St. Augustine, “my heart is restless unless it rests in Thee, O God.”

B. The Philosophical Perspectives of Human Person

  

As presented above, self-knowledge is the main goal of our quest for life's meaning but we need wisdom for us to realize that we can't fully know ourselves like holding an apple in the palm.  In this section, the four philosophical perspectives of human beings are presented, as follows: cosmocentric, theocentric, anthropocentric, and existential.  This section also introduces the right perspectives in viewing at life, namely: theocentric and existential, and the right method in doing philosophical reflection, which is phenomenological.  The phenomenological method is a right blend with theocentric and existential perspectives.  With theocentrism, reflection is leading us nowhere as it is grounded in faith in God.  With existentialism, reflection is very rooted in lived experience –thus, not highly speculative.

A perspective refers to the basic assumption or point of view (outlook) of the people living in a particular period of history, which somehow applies not only to the reality of the self but other realities as well.  It is shaped by the cultural beliefs and practices of the people and may change through time because of some social movements that impacted the lives of the people.  Once embedded in the group-life of the people, this perspective serves as the matrix of the conceptual and linguistic frameworks of the people.  Hence, every aspect of life and the whole of reality is understood within this conceptual-linguistic framework (Potter, 1994).  In this section, the philosophical perspectives of human being prevalent in a particular period of history are treated, as follows:

1. Cosmocentric Perspective - This is prevalent in ancient Greek civilization roughly around 6th BC to 4 AD (Pavo, 2012).  One basic assumption of ancient Greeks is that the whole of the universe is in order.  This order is natural --not pre-arranged by a transcendent Being or God.  It is manifest in the whole of reality --the macrocosm, and in the level of each human person --the microcosm.  And, since everything is in order, there must be a principle or law (in Greek word, logos) governing its order (Dy, 2001).  In the whole of reality, this logos (or principle) appears as the physical laws governing the movements of heavenly bodies and other matters.  In the level of each human being, this logos appears as the reason (or rational soul) governing the whole of the person.  On this score, we will understand the great systems of thought of ancient Greek philosophers.  Plato, for example, believed that the World of Ideas is the principle or law of everything that exists.  It is the World of Ideas, which is real and immutable.  The material world we live in is merely a copy of such world.  It is also in this world that true knowledge comes from.  Reason is the only faculty of human being which can have access to that world.  Anything we know from this material world is not real but may give us an occasion to recall the true knowledge from the World of Ideas.  In short, with Plato's idea of World of Ideas, everything is given an explanation or is placed in one meaningful vision of the whole of reality.
2. Theocentric Perspective - This is prevalent in Medieval period roughly about 400 AD to 1500 AD (Pavo, 2012).  From its etymology (Greek: theo --meaning, God), this perspective is God-centered.  During this period, Christian thinkers borrowed much of the Hellenic philosophy --especially the belief of the natural order of reality.  However, they added the idea that this order is pre-determined by God because it is God who created everything including human beings.  Since God is omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful), He must have created the whole universe intelligently.  Thus, the natural order is already in the mind of God even before the creation of the universe.  This perspective or outlook also applies to other realities like the self and society.  For example, the self (human being) is created by God; can only achieve its fulfillment in the heavenly paradise prepared to each and every one of us by God.  But before we can enter the gates of heaven, we have to live our lives according to His will.  Likewise, society is created by God.  The kings (leaders) are ordained by God and have to discern His Will for the good of his people.
3. Anthropocentric Perspective - This is prevalent in Modern period roughly about 16th to 19th cent (Pavo, 2012).  Etymologically, this perspective is "man-centered" (from Greek word, anthropo --meaning, man).  There are a lot of factors why there was a shift from theocentric to anthropocentric perspective during this period.  One significant factor was the rise of industrial cities.  Cities become commercial districts, which promote individual concern for money and material needs.  In philosophy, the shift was mainly attributed to new scientific discoveries, which refuted some long-held beliefs of the Church.  For example, Copernicus refuted the geocentric system; Galileo refuted the common belief that the moon is a perfect sphere.  These factors led many modern thinkers to suspend judgments unless otherwise proven by hard evidence.  Rene Descartes --known as the Father of Modern Philosophy, promoted doubting to be the fulcrum of knowledge.  His doubting is methodic because it systematically doubts everything that there is to doubt.  Nothing is impervious to doubt except doubting itself --meaning, everything can be doubted except doubting itself.  As a result, Descartes has come to a conclusion that what anyone can surely or certainly claim to be true is the "thinking I" (cogito) and the bodies that extend the thinking power.  He further concludes, "I think therefore I am" (In Latin, Cogito ergo sum.)  In a word, the essence of human existence is "thinking."  There are two implications of this philosophy: (1) my existence (at present or in the future) can be programmed by my own design --according to how I should live my life, and (2) my knowledge of things and persons is constituted by "thinking."  Eventually, the center of the scheme of things shifts to "man" --thus, anthropocentric perspective.
4. Existential Perspective - This is prevalent among thinkers in contemporary times roughly about 19th century onwards (Pavo, 2012).  Dy (2001) cited that existentialism is a reaction to the over-emphasis of reason by modern philosophers.  Soren Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher, is generally considered as the Father of Existentialism.  There are two camps of existentialist thinkers: theistic and atheistic.  Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Jaspers, and Gabriel Marcel belong in the theistic camp, whereas Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty in the atheistic camp.  Martin Heidegger refuses to be labeled as theist or atheist since the reality of God is beyond his phenomenological inquiry (Dy, 2001).  As a reaction to modern philosophy, existentialism makes emphasis on the existential ground of human beings, not on the "thinking power."  In reality, every human being exists first before he is even able to think.  Thus, one's thinking is influenced by the way he exists or lives.  The danger of the Cartesian dictum, Cogito ergo sum, is as follows: (1) it misleads us to think that what would essentially define us as human beings is "thinking," and (2) eventually, it leads us to forget our own very existence.  Let me cite an example.  A father of two children is working hard because he "thinks" that it is only in working hard that he can provide the basic needs and better future for his two children.  But, in the process, he might be too busy working and may neglect the presence of his children by not giving them attention, love and care.  Thus, he fails to be a good father; he is a good supporter though.

         At this juncture, we need to elucidate why theocentric and existential perspectives are somehow helpful in our quest for who we are.  The question is, "Is it possible to combine the two perspectives?"  The answer is "Yes, very possible!"  Here's some evidence to support our answer.  First, Kierkegaard --the Father of Existentialism was a Christian.  Second, there are a number of existentialist thinkers, who are still zealous in defending our Christian faith like Marcel.  

         Why Theocentric Perspective?  To answer this question, let me give you another article entitled, Human Life as an Imago Dei [click].  In summary of this article, the theocentric perspective tells us that human life is not merely physical but also spiritual.  This sense of spirituality elevates our human nature to a higher dimension, which is a "little less than God" --an image of God. 

         Why Existential Perspective?  The emphasis of existential perspective is one's existence and in finding meaning of it.  Perhaps, we ask the question, why the term, existence is given emphasis anew by existentialist thinkers?  In the history of philosophy, the tendency of philosophers is to speculate of an ideal existence apart from our existence in this world.  Plato, for example, claims that our existence in this world is an illusion (not real) because our real and ideal existence is in the World of Forms.  In this world, we are like cave-dwellers wishing to go out from the dark world (cave) and live in an open space where the sun reigns.  This is somehow the same doctrine we get from Church --Catholic Church in particular.  Like Plato, we believe that our existence in this world is temporary and less important; we wish to enter the gates of heaven when we die.  The key to the gates of heaven is doing good deeds on earth.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with this belief.  The only problem is that, most often than not, we tend to neglect our very own existence on earth and direct our concern or attention to our existence after death or say, in Heaven.  In so doing, it is as if we can only find the meaning of our human existence somewhere else (Heaven), and not on earth.  Thus, life (or, experience) doesn't have any value.  It doesn't bear any meaning.  The meaning of our human existence is found somewhere in Heaven or World of Ideas.  However, St. Thomas Aquinas has this wisdom in saying, one's self-fulfillment can be achieved on earth but the final and ultimate fulfillment in life is achieved in Heaven.  In a word, our human existence will give us a sense of self-fulfillment (meaning) yet our ultimate/final fulfillment is in Heaven.  

         Life's meaning and purpose is found in our present existence.  It is found in the way we live; found in our very existence on earth.  But, there's always a danger in this affirmation.  Human existence is always associated with uncertainties.  We are uncertain where we really come from, God or apes, or World of Ideas, or Nirvana?  We are uncertain in all aspects of our life like what we all experience in COVID 19 pandemic.  With the threat of COVID 19, employment becomes uncertain, food supply becomes uncertain, health becomes uncertain, the economy becomes unstable, political control becomes uncertain, even our own life becomes uncertain (we don't know when and if we are infected).  With all these uncertainties, we become anxious or have this feeling of angst (Kierkegaard) or metaphysical uneasiness.  What I am saying is that our human existence is dark and gloomy.  This is what leads Kierkegaard (1987) to identify the "innocent smile of a child as grief or deep sorrow," or Albert Camus (1955) to claim life as absurd.  The danger is to evade this dark and gloomy human existence and flight to some heights like Heaven or Nirvana.  The challenge posed by existentialist thinkers to us is to imbibe or embrace this dark and gloomy reality of human existence.  It is only in embracing this dark and gloomy existence that we find our human existence meaningful.

        But, this poses another challenge.  Experience alone is blind; reflection is needed to find meaning lurking in our experience.  Read the related article, Experience and Reflection, click.  In conclusion, phenomenological reflection is the right blend with existential perspective.

Why Do We Philosophize?

Philosophy as insight is rooted in lived experience.  It is inseparably one with life.  Most of the time, our life-experiences will cause us to pause for a moment to think or reflect.  So, what is experience?

Experience is the dynamic interrelation of the self and the other –be it things, human beings, the environment, the world, grasped not objectively but from within (Johann, 2001).  In Cebuano dialect, two words, namely: kaagi and kasinatian, are more or less the appropriate counterparts of the word, experience.  The root word of kaagi is agi, meaning “you happen to pass by or to have an acquaintance of the person or object.”  On the other hand, kasinatian has root in sinati, meaning “you have a sense of familiarity.”  In analysis, these two words imply that when talking about experience, one has a sense of “acquaintance or familiarity” of the object or person in his/her experience.  This sense of acquaintance or familiarity with others (non-self) is the outcome of this dynamic interrelation, or what we “technically” call experience.  It entails further that the self is conscious of itself and conscious of others (non-self).

However, our experience is characterized by tension, disequilibrium, disharmony, or incoherence.  Let’s take, for example, our love experience.  We cannot say that our love experience is always a smooth sailing one.  Time will really come when rough waters will test our relationship like misunderstanding, break-ups, and so on.  This condition calls for an inquiry, questioning, or search.  Depending on the level of experience, there are three levels of inquiry: (a) common sense, (b) scientific, and (c) philosophical.  Common sense is the generally accepted set of regulative meanings and procedures applied to particular circumstances.  Scientific inquiry is concerned with a particular need, treats the world as a means in order to achieve a concrete end.  Philosophical inquiry is an inquiry into the coherence, sense of human life as a totality, as a whole, comprehensive reality and ultimate/ final value (Johann, 2001).

Significance of Philosophy in Modern Times

“Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder.” – Socrates

At its core, philosophy is characterized by having a sense of wonder embedded in the way a person utilizes his insight –the ability to see intelligibly with the mind.  With sense of wonder, one is going to develop critical and reflective thinking.

Critical and reflective thinking becomes more and more difficult to do these days.  We live in a fast-paced society.  We run after every tick of the clock to beat deadlines and achieve things or goals on our set dates.  “Time is gold,” as the saying goes.  The speed by which we pace and live our lives today is very unwelcoming to any form of reflection (Sioco & Vinzons, 2016).  We are much preoccupied with individual achievements.  We forget to ask basic existential questions such as “Who am I?” or “What is the meaning of life?”

Moreover, our society is often labeled as “information” and “technological.”  With modern gadgets like cell phones, tablets connected in the World Wide Web, the volume of available information and entertainment on the internet and mass media consume most of our waking life.  Eventually, we become a passive recipient of information.  We don’t process such information because of “information overload” –the information we get from the net is too much for us to think critically and reflectively. 

The modern information-technological world deadens our sense of wonder.  Without any sense of wonder, we lose any sense of what is exactly life meant to be.

Insight: A Way of Philosophizing

As mentioned above, it is rather helpful to do philosophy rather than define it.  Doing philosophy is a good introduction to the course, Introduction to the Philosophy of Human Person.  To do so is not giving injustice to those great philosophers who were able to produce great systems of thought --now known (or, misconstrued) as Philosophy.  Also, the students deserve to know these systems of thought.  However, at the beginning of the course, it is better to let students be familiar with the business of doing philosophy.  In doing so, it's like "teaching them how to fish and not giving them fish."  This is, I think, the main objective of this course: for students to learn how to do philosophy and not give them all the systems of thought in the history of philosophy.  To give students all about philosophy is impractical because it's impossible for them to digest them all in one semester.  What is practical is for students to learn how to do philosophy.  

Ferriols (2001) suggests that playing with one's in-sight is a way of doing philosophy.  Take note: it's not the only way but one of the ways of doing philosophy.  At this stage, it is safe to associate insight with thinking.  As rational beings, we all have the capacity to think.  The crucial element of thinking is insight, which is a kind of see-ing with the mind (Ferriols, 2001).  The act of seeing with the mind is entirely different from seeing using the eyesight.  These acts of the eyesight and of the mind are cumulative, though.  As Aristotle would claim, nothing enters the mind without passing through the senses.  Aside from the eyesight, other senses like hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting provide the sensible to the act of understanding.  From the sensible, conceptualization (or the act of understanding) is able to "see something" intelligibly using a "concept" or an "idea" the external reality as represented by the sensible (Potter, 1994).  This is the stage of the whole process of knowing, which we call "in-sight."  The role of "concept or idea" is very important in playing with insight because this concept mirrors the external reality.  In other words, it is only with this "concept or idea" that a knower is able to understand (or see intelligibly) the external reality.  In deeper analysis, insight is not simply seeing with the mind but seeing intelligibly with the mind.  The act of seeing intelligibly with the mind is the challenging part in playing with one's insight.  However, there are two ways to counter this challenge: conceptual analysis and metaphor.  Conceptual analysis is an analysis by abstraction.  It helps clarify the "concept."  As mentioned above, the concept "mirrors" the external reality as represented by the sensible.  Analysis by abstraction sharpens the focus of the concept to have an "exact mirroring" of the external reality.   Metaphor, on the other hand, is made by comparing two things.  For example, Homer made a metaphor of this insight: “As the generation of leaves, so the generation of men” (Ferriols, 2001).  One portion of reality (leaves) casts light on another (men).  By contemplating the fall and return of leaves, we also understand the rhythm of the generation of men.

In summary, insight is a kind of seeing "intelligibly" with the mind.  You alone can do it.  Nobody can do it for you; I can help you see the insight though.  Some insights are so deep that they cannot be exhausted.  It takes another insight to understand another insight, like the metaphor of Homer.  Insight brings us to the very heart of reality –the reality is deep and unfathomable.

Class Activities: Philosophy can best be exercised when one is playing with insight.  Insightful activities can happen in many different ways.  Let the students engage in these activities to elicit insights from them, as follows:

1. Picture Analysis [click]
2. Song Analysis [click]
3. Analysis of philosophical insight [click]

REFERENCES

BOOKS and E-BOOKS:

1. Abella, Roberto D. (2016).  Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.  Quezon City: C&E Publishing, Inc.
2. Calasanz, Eduardo Jose E. (2001) My Body.  Philosophy of Man: Selected Readings ed. by Manuel Dy Jr.  Makati City: Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. 
3. Caraan, Aleli M.  (2016).  Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person.  Makati, Philippines: Diwa Learning Systems Inc.
4. Clarke, Norris (2002).  The Central Problem of Metaphysics.  ed.by Nemesio Que.  Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
5. Camus, Albert (1955).  The Myth of Sisyphus and other Essays.  trans. by Justin O’Brien.  Paris 
6. Copi, Irving and Cohen, Carl. (2005)  Introduction to Logic.  12^th ed.  Pearson Education, INC.
7. Corpuz, Brenda B; Corpuz, Ruben A; Corpuz-Paclibar; Maria Lovelyn; & Paclibar, Socrates O. (2016) Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.  Quezon City: Lorimar Publishing Inc.
8. Descartes, Rene (2002).  Meditations of First Philosophy.  http://www.blackmask.com
9. Dy, Manuel B. Jr. (2001).  Philosophy of Man: Selected Readings.  2nd ed.  Makati, Philippines: Goodwill Trading Trading Co., Inc.
10. Husserl, Edmund (1980).  Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology. 7th ed.  The Hague: MARTINUS NIJHOFF PUBLISHERS.
11. Kierkegaard, Soren (1987).  Either/or. ed & trans by Howard Hong & Edna Hong.  New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
12. Mabaquiao, Napoleon B. Jr. (2016).  Making Life Worth Living: An Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.  Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House, Inc.
13. Pavo, Raymundo R. (2012).  Philosophy of Man: On Being Human.  2nd ed. Manila: Educational Publishing House.
14. Potter, Vincent (1994).  On Understanding Understanding.  New York: Fordham University Press.
15. Ramos, Christine Carmela R. (2016).  Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.  Manila, Philippines: Rex Book Store.
16. DK Publishing.  (2011).  The Philosophy Books.  New York: Dorling Kindersley Limited.
17. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2016). Bioethics Core Curriculum, Sector for Social and Human Sciences. Paris, France

ARTICLES:

1. Kerns, Loren (2013).  Platonic and Stoic Passions in Philo of Alexandria.  George Fox Evangelical Seminary. 

WEBSITES:

1.  Alcaras, Vincent (2016).  Lessons from the Great Moth.  Retrieved on April 20, 2020 at https://vincentalcarasauthor.com/2016/10/06/great-emperor-moth/
2. Lorenz, Hendrick (2009).  Ancient Theories of Soul.  Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  Retrieved on May 6, 2020 at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/ 
3. Jumawan, Roel (2017).  Socrates' Philosophical Mission.  Retrieved on April 2, 2020, at http://roeljumawan.blogspot.com/2017/03/socrates-philosophical-mission.html 
4. Thales of Miletus.  Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource.  Retrieved on April 2, 2020, at https://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/#SH8f
5. Mars Exploration Program.  Retrieved on April 3, 2020 at https://mars.nasa.gov/