Lesson 1: Philosophical Perspective

For the audio-visual material of this topic, Philosophical & Science, on Youtube channel, click.

Overview of the Lesson:

In the history of philosophy, philosophers aimed at pinning down a definite answer to the question, what is man?  At the outset, each philosopher came out with different answers or philosophies of man.  This part presents the different philosophies of man, which are categorized as Dualism, Holism, Pluralism, Mechanistic and Post-Modern Views.  These philosophical labels will not do justice to the elaborate systems of thought of every philosopher though.  For purposes of giving a holistic and comprehensive view of the self from a philosophical perspective, we will treat those labels as a heuristic device used to give us a clearer picture of the self according to various philosophies.  Socrates as a model of wisdom is included in the discussion because, in our quest for self-knowledge, it is necessary to always remind ourselves that to know oneself is not knowing clearly as holding an apple in the palm.

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

Course Outcome 1: Students are able to articulate a holistic, comprehensive view of self.

Performance Tasks: Activity 1: My Ideal Man/Woman [click].  Plato claimed that man/woman is one who is "ideal."  To contextualize Plato's ideal man/woman, students are asked to conduct a mini-research from among their friends about their ideal man/woman.  Activity 2: What is The Essence of Man? [click].  Descartes claimed that man is essentially a "thinking thing."  In this activity, students will ask the same question, What is the essence of man?  If man is stripped of everything such as his family, his degree earned, his limbs, and so on, what is left of him as his essence?  This is intended for a group presentation.  If it is not possible, this activity is omitted.

Lesson Contents:

1. Socrates: The Model of Wisdom
2. Dualism: Plato, St. Augustine & Rene Descartes
3. Mitigated Dualism: Aristotle & St Thomas Aquinas
4. Holism: Gabriel Marcel
5. Pluralism: David Hume
6. Post-modern View: Richard Rorty
7. Mechanistic View: Paul Churchland

SOCRATES: The Model of Wisdom

As we begin to understand the self, we need to know the difference between knowledge and wisdom.  As mentioned above, self-knowledge is the main goal of this course.  The danger, however, in knowing the self is that one has the tendency to become self-centered.  In other words, a person who pretends he knows himself better may gain too much self-confidence.  With much self-confidence, he might become arrogant.  Socrates once reminded his fellow intellectuals during his times that being wise is to accept one's ignorance.  It is also good to remind ourselves that knowing oneself is not as clear as holding an apple in the palm.  For more discussion, read related articles: (1) Basic Concepts Defined [click] and (2) Knowledge and Wisdom [click].

Dualism

It is a philosophical belief which claims that man is composed of a material body and immaterial soul.  This belief is propounded by Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes.  There are two kinds of dualism: absolute and mitigated.  The sort of dualism espoused by Plato, St. Augustine, and Descartes is somehow absolute, whereas the one espoused by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas is somehow mitigated.  It is absolute because for Plato the two principles, body and soul, are distinct and separable.  One principle is less important (the material body) than the other (the immaterial soul).  For Plato, the essence of man is his soul.  So, the immaterial soul is more important than the material body.  In fact, the material body is like an imprisonment, which hinders the soul to go back to its real place, the World of Ideas.  On the other hand, it is mitigated since the two principles (body and soul) are distinct but inseparable.  Man's existence is not merely his soul but must be a composite of body and soul.  If the soul separates from the body, then man ceases to exist.  That is why, in death, man ceases to exist because it is in death that the soul separates from the body.  For Aristotle, however, when the soul separates from the body, that is the end of man.  There is no life after death.

Let's have a thorough discussion of each philosopher.

1. 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].
2. For more discussion on St. Augustine's philosophy, [click].
3. For more discussion on Cartesian philosophy, [click].
4. For more discussion on Aristotle's philosophy, [click].
5. For more discussion on St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy, [click].

Holism

A philosophical belief which claims that man is primarily a subjectivity enfleshed in the human form.  This is propounded by Gabriel Marcel.  For Marcel, the body is "me."  The "subject/I" is inseparably one with the body.  For more discussion, [click].

Pluralism

A philosophical belief which claims that self is simply a mental construct, or "an idea or concept."  If it is an idea, then there is no reality of it.  For Hume, the self is the outcome of an "association of simple ideas" from impressions of our daily life.

David Hume is an English philosopher.  He is considered an empiricist and at the same time a skeptic.  An empiricist is one who believes that the source of knowledge is experience --impression, in particular.  On the contrary, a rationalist is one who believes that the source of knowledge is reason, not experience/impression.  A skeptic is one who believes that we cannot be certain of anything.  As an empiricist, Hume claims that we know nothing but ideas.  We can't know directly the external object like the table in front of us because such extended material table will not enter into the mind.  Rather, we have an impression of the table; this impression produces idea.  This idea is a mental representation of the table, which is what we directly know.  There are two types of ideas: primary and secondary.  The primary idea comes from the impression.  Impression is the lively copy of the external object perceived through any of the senses.  For example, if you tap the table, your impression, maybe, is that it is hard.  This impression of the "hardness" of the table, which is the primary idea, is the real source of knowledge.  Any other idea you may have associated with that impression is simply a secondary idea.  For example, you associate the idea of "pain" from the hardness of the table, then this idea is a secondary idea, which is no longer the source of knowledge.  This is where Hume begins his skepticism.  As a skeptic, he believes that what is real is the impression and any idea associated with the "first impression" is simply a product of association of ideas.

When applied to the self, what is real about me is my own impression.  For example, in one occasion, I had the impression that I'm tall.  In other occasion, I got another impression that I am shy.  Now, for Hume, what is real about me is the series of impressions I have of myself like being tall and being shy.  If I will come to believe that there is a self associated with those impressions, then I am mistaken.  Self is non-existent.  There is no reality of it.  It is simply a product of association of ideas.  Another important thing is that I could have multiple impressions about myself.  Thus, I could have multiple selves --a pluralistic view of self.

Post-modern View of the Self

Post-modernism shares a similar view with Hume.  Self is a mental construct --thus not real.  What seems to be the reality of self is simply created by language.

Richard Rorty is an American philosopher.  He is considered as a staunched proponent of Neo-pragmatism.  There are two types of pragmatism: Classical and Neo-pragmatism.  Classical pragmatism, which is propounded by John Dewey, William James, among others, claims that "what is true is what works in a certain situation."  The criterion, then, of knowledge is how it is effective in a certain situation.  Neo-pragmatism claims a similar view with the classical.  But, for Neo-pragmatists like Rorty, the criterion of knowledge is not only that it is effective but also that this idea is something conventional.  On this basis, Rorty shares a similar view with Hume.  People, most often than not, agree on what is best for them.  The idea of self is conventional (agreed upon by a number of people).  For Rorty, we don't mistake the idea of self with something found in the inner part of us.  "There is nothing deep down within us."  We need to constantly create or invent a "word," which would best describe our individual selves.  And, this word must be our "social hope" for the betterment of each individual and the whole of humanity.

Mechanistic View of the Self

A philosophical belief which claims that man is like a machine.  All of his actions (overt or covert) are products of a natural mechanism of the human body just like the bodies of other living organisms.  "Many people believed that the heart was somehow what made us human.  And it turned out it was just a pump made of meat," said Paul Churchland.  "The same is true about realizing that when we're conscious, when we make decisions, when we go to sleep, when we get angry, when we're fearful, these are just functions of the physical brain," he added.  There is nothing special in man.  Man is simply part of nature, whose internal processes like thinking, meditating, etc. are all natural processes.  In neurological science, the human brain works because of neural circuitry.  This circuitry is an electrical signal caused or transferred by chemical reactions in the brain.  In other words, the chemicals or the fluids inside the human brain are the ones responsible for all mental activities, which many thinkers/ philosophers have mistaken as something special in man.

Paul Churchland is a Canadian philosopher.  His philosophical thought is not actually new.  In ancient Greece, philosophers before Socrates (pre-Socratic philosophers) --Thales, in particular, also believed that man came to exist as part of the natural evolution of nature.  In modern times, Charles Darwin made a similar view by proposing the very controversial doctrine of evolutionism.  

Enrichment Exercises: [click]  

Chapter Quiz:  Quiz 1 [click] covers the lessons of Socrates, Plato, St. Augustine, & Rene Descartes. Quiz 2 [click] covers the rest of the philosophers.

References: [click]

Chapter 1: Different Perspectives of Self

For the audio-visual material of this topic, Philosophy & Science, on Youtube channel, click.

Overview of the Chapter:

This chapter presents the different perspectives of the self, namely: philosophical, psychological, sociological, and anthropological perspectives.  It primarily aims to achieve the first course outcome: articulate a holistic and comprehensive view of the self.  It is said that adolescence is the most turbulent stage of life for every individual.  It is when each one meets a major crisis about his/her identity --known as an identity crisis.  With this outcome, the students may be well disposed to manage and care for themselves in their adolescent life and their life in the future.

Lesson Contents:

1. Lesson 1: Philosophical Perspective [click]
2. Lesson 2: Psychological Perspective [click]
3. Lesson 3: Sociological Perspective [click]
4. Lesson 4: Anthropological Perspective 

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

Motivational Activity: For students to achieve the first course outcome, To articulate a holistic, comprehensive view of the self, students are required to do the following activities: Activity 1: Who am I?; Activity 2: Who do others say I am?; and Activity 3: Enriched Answer to the Question, Who am I?  In Activity 1 [click], students are going to answer the question, Who am I? using a metaphor.  They need to have an initial answer to the question as they journey to understand their individual selves deeper for the whole semester/summer.  Their answers will serve as a guide in every step on their way to life's journey and may serve as a basis for developing an informed answer by making use of the different perspectives after discussing Chapter 1.  In Activity 2 [click], the students are requested to ask their friends (at least 3) who they are to them.  In Activity 3 [click], students are asked to revisit their initial answers and enrich them using one or two theories/philosophies of self.  This can only be done after the discussion of Chapter 1.

Introduction:

Philosophy is known as the "mother of all sciences."  Before sciences became an independent discipline, philosophy was the first discipline taught in the West --ancient Greece in particular.  The different branches of science sprouted from this philosophical discipline. 

The branches of philosophy are divided into two approaches: systematic and historical.  Under systematic philosophy, the following subjects are included: (1) Philosophy of Man, (2) Epistemology, (3) Metaphysics, (4) Philosophy of Religion or Theodicy, (5) Social Philosophy, and (6) Philosophy of Science.  Under historical philosophy, the following subjects are included: (1) Ancient or Greek Philosophy, (2) Medieval Philosophy, (3) Modern Philosophy, and (4) Contemporary Philosophy.  Like philosophy, the branches of science are divided into two: natural and social.  Natural sciences include the following: Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Astronomy, and so on.  Social sciences include the following: Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, History, Political Science, and so on.

For more discussion about philosophy, read What is Philosophy? [click].

Understanding The Self

For the audio-visual material of the Orientation of the course, Understanding the Self, on Youtube channel, click.

Starting Academic Year 2018-2019, college students are taking eight courses of the General Education Curriculum, namely: Understanding the Self, Contemporary World, Purposive Communication, Art Appreciation, Ethics, Readings in Philippine History, Mathematics in the Modern World, and Science & Technology and Society.  Understanding the Self (UTS) “introduces major theories of personalities (or the self) –its nature, development and dynamics” from different perspectives such as philosophical, psychological, sociological, and anthropological perspectives, “as well as those forces and factors that lead to the formation of the self and identity”.  It also “provides an experiential learning so as to ground these theories and perspectives in students’ concerns and issues relating to their personal self and identity” [CMO20, 2013].  Based on this course description, the following course contents are crafted:

1. Different Perspectives of the Self [click]
2. Unpacking the Self [click]
3. Managing and Caring for the Self [click]

These are the three major topics to discuss the whole semester/summer.  Hopefully, these topics will give you a glimmer of hope in your journey to understand your individual selves deeper.  The main objective in studying this course is “knowing thyself,” as Socrates would say.  Self-knowledge will give you a sense of direction.  If you live life with a sense of direction, you will find some sense of fulfillment in life.  If there is fulfillment, you have lived your life with meaning.  You haven't ended up hanging yourself because of desperation, of failures, of stress, etc.  At most, you are happy in life.

Since our journey is to understand the self, it is helpful for us to ask the question, Who am I?  This question is more personal than asking, What is the Self?  But, why we need to ask such question?

In modern times, the self is a fleeting reality.  By fleeting, I mean that the reality of the self is unstable like a feather drifting in the wind.  As the wind blows in that direction, the feather also goes.  If that is the reality of the self, there is nothing definite about it.  There is no exact definition of it.  There is no exact word for it.  There's no sense of talking who I am.  If that is so, we will encounter a lot of problems in living our lives.  For example, because of social media, we are in trouble in asking, “Who am I in FB, or What kind of self I am going to show in FB against Who am I offline?  An instructor may find himself in trouble with this question, Who am I in front of my students as a professional against Who am I in front of my students as a lover?  A student may find herself in dilemma in front of her handsome professor, Who am I as a student against Who am I as an admirer?  A nurse may find himself in trouble working in other countries, Who am I in a place where majority are tall and dark?  These are only some of the instances where one realizes that self is a fleeting reality.  The problem is, I can be this self in this particular situation and be another self in another situation.  With this dilemma, we ask once more, Who am I?

So, you have the whole semester or summer to answer the question.  I hope you make your study fruitful and meaningful.

Thank you.

Sir Roel


Before you proceed, consider the following important notes:

1. You can begin to view the contents of each chapter by pressing [click] above.  All contents, activities, quizzes of each chapter are linked to the different pages of this platform.  Just press [click] above to view them.  If you get lost in the middle of your search, please go back to this page, which is found in MS teams chatbox.  And, begin again by pressing the [click] above of the chapter you're currently reading.
2. In response to the need of having blended learning amidst this COVID 19 pandemic, this online workbook, or whatever we can call this, is of great help.  You can make use of this workbook "inside or outside" the classroom, or make use of this "online or offline."  Enjoy using this online workbook.
3. Classroom discussion is not encouraged at frequent times.  In lieu of it, we will be using MS Teams for our online discussion.

Unit IV: Man and His Environment

As shown in the previous chapter, man is an embodied subjectivity.  The subject/ I of man, which is the source of meaning and initiatives, is enfleshed in the human body.  Thus, man's existence is not necessarily "thinking" but a bodily existence.  And, this bodily existence always reminds him of his natural affinity (relationship) with the environment and all other forms of life.

In this chapter, we will discuss the historical account of how and when human beings exploit the environment to advance human progress.  Primitive men were at the mercy of the powers of nature.  The natural powers, which were then unknown such as lightning, strong winds, heavy rains, etc. were known to be supernatural which they can't control.  To survive from these natural powers, primitive men sought to appease the gods and goddesses who were deemed to be behind these powers through magic and rituals.  The ancient Greeks tried to understand these natural powers, but not to become masters of them.  Modern men gained the confidence to become masters of nature.  For more discussion, click (part 1), click (part 2).

As mentioned above, with the paradigm of modern men, the environment becomes at the mercy of man's thinking power.  With our experiences of calamities brought about by global warming, we’ve now come to realize how much abuses we’ve done to Mother Earth.  And, there is an urgent need to attend to the call to care once more of our environment.  To realize this we need to have another paradigm shift.  In her book, Resurgence of the Real, Spretnak (1997 cited in Mabaquiao, 2016) identifies the following values and beliefs that promote the exploitation of people and environment:

1. Homo Economicus - The belief that man's well-being is primarily economic.  If the economic well-being is satisfied such as food, shelter, clothes, ect., the well-being of the whole person is satisfied or will attain a certain sense of self-realization.
2. Progressivism - The belief that the human condition will gradually improve through economic abundance.  At the outset, exploitation of nature is done for more economic gains and comfort.
3. Industrialism - The belief that mass production and rationally-designed institutions and programs are the best way to perfect human society and achieve the abundance needed to sustain human consumption.
4. Consumerism - The belief that man's well-being is achieved by consuming a lot.

In all, environmental degradation is mostly caused by human activities.  Thus, there is a need for each and every one of us to be conscientious (ethically) of our human actions of which the environment is directly affected.  UNESCO (2016) points out three basic principles of environmental ethics, as follows: (1) respect for nature, (2) environmental justice, and (3) intergenerational justice.

1. Respect for nature.  The prosperity of human beings depends on the prosperity of nature.  Human beings are part of nature.  They have therefore the duty to conserve and protect the integrity of the ecosystem and its biodiversity.
2. Environmental justice.  The environmental benefits and burdens should be equally distributed.
3. Intergenerational justice.  Every generation should leave the following generation an equal opportunity to live a happy life, and should therefore bequeath a healthy earth.

However, economic development for all human beings including those in future generations is necessary.  UNESCO envisions a new kind of human development --that is, a sustainable development.  Based on the report of World Commission on Environment and Development (1987 cited in Core Curriculum, 2016), sustainable development is defined as "development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs."  2002 Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (cited in Core Curriculum, 2016) adopts a new ethic of conservation and stewardship, which focuses on: (a) measures to curb global climate change (reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases), (b) conservation and management of all types of forests, (c) better use of water resources, (d) intensified cooperation to reduce the number and effects of natural and man-made disasters, (e) fundamental change in the lives of the affluent, and (f) equitable access to resources.  

Lastly, UNESCO poses this challenge to all nations: "the needs of the poor are central in sustainable development."

References: click

Man As Embodied Subjectivity

Before unpacking the implications of "embodied subjectivity," let us unlock first the meaning of each word.  The word, subject, is synonymous with the I.  I is a first-person pronoun used as a substitute for a noun in the nominative case (or, as a subject of a sentence).  Like, for example, "I am handsome," "I am a student," "I am intelligent," and so on and on.  As a subject of a sentence, the term, I, is the source of actions and predications.  The term, "embodied," serves as a modifier of the subjectivity.  Thus, embodied subjectivity means that this subject or "I" is given the human form or enfleshed in the human body.  As embodied subjectivity, man's existence is structured by this bodily or physical existence. 

Now, let's unpack some implications of man as "embodied subjectivity."  Dy (2001) suggests that embodied subjectivity is, first and foremost, a "well-spring of meanings and initiatives."  As mentioned above, all actions such as running, talking, sitting, etc. are initiated by the subject; all predicates like handsome, tall, fair complexion, etc. are ascribed to the subject.  Thus, the "I" stands as the subject having all the potentials of what he wants to be.  Traditionally, man is defined as a "rational animal," or a "thinking thing."  The problem with this definition is that man is essentially a thinking or rational being.  With this definition, man is deemed to think, think, think, think...  But, this is not always what a person or any of us does.  As a subject, man thinks, feels, gets angry, gets in love, is running, is talking, is smiling... and so and so forth.  So, thinking is only one of his mental activities.  In essence, man is a subject, which is a never-ending source of actions and predications --thus, also a source of meaning and initiatives.  It should be clear, however, that this never-ending wellspring (subjectivity) is structured by its physical conditions.  By itself, it's structureless, though.  Structureless --in the sense that nothing can control what man wants to do, what he wants to be.  But, because he is an embodied subject, all his activities like thinking, feeling, imagining, and actions like talking, running, smiling are conditioned (or structured) by his physical conditions.  In this context, it is also safe to conclude that all of his actions and activities (or external) are an embodiment of what is within (the internal).

Secondly, man as embodied subjectivity is part of his immediate environment --be it, social or natural environment.  Natural environment refers to his surroundings, the earth as a whole.  Social environment refers to the people surrounding him --his immediate family members, the community he is living in, the church he belongs, the economic and political institutions he belongs to.  All of this consists of man's being-in-the-world, his being-with-others, and his being in relation to the Absolute.  These topics will be treated in the proceeding chapters.

Phenomenological View of the Self

As shown above, the classical view is dualistic --a composition of body and soul.  Dy (2001) opines that dualism begets a two-lives theory.  On the one hand, there is a bodily or worldly life.  There is an other-worldly (spiritual) life, on the other.  Most often, one side of life is made emphasis over the other.  Plato, for instance, has given emphasis on the other-worldly life in the World of Ideas and viewed this material world as a dark world of ignorance.  Aristotle has given importance to the rationality of man, which led him to believe that there is no other purpose for man to exist except being rational.  Man is a rational animal, Aristotle said.  Being rational is the sweetest term we ascribe to man but man is still an animal.  Ang tao ang pinakamagandang hayop sa lupa peru hayop pa rin (Dy, 2001).  We can conclude that this classical definition of man is inadequate.  Let's venture another definition --a phenomenological one.

At this juncture, we will present Marcel's treatment of the question, Who am I? using primary and secondary reflection.  In his article, Primary and Secondary Reflection: The Existential Fulcrum, Marcel emphasizes that reflection is very rooted in lived experiences.  It is a way of transcending from one stage of life to another --a higher stage of life. As said earlier, Marcel did not elaborate the definition of primary and secondary reflection.  Primary reflection "dissolves the unity of experience" whereas secondary reflection "recuperates the unity of experience."  Calasanz (cited in Dy, 2001) notes that primary reflection is most likely similar to scientific investigation in that the object of reflection is "thrown in front" of the knower to be investigated.  This is necessary for scientific investigation because science aims at the objective knowledge.  Secondary reflection, on the other hand, is philosophical in that it dissipates the distinction between the object of reflection and subject who reflects.  In other words, the object becomes the subject (noema); the subject becomes the object (noesis).

Who am I?

Using primary reflection, Marcel notes that we can answer the question by providing information about ourselves like answering a bio-data.  In filling-up a bio-data, we provide our names, addresses, sex, and so on.  And, these bits of information should be true and correct.  Otherwise, if the information is not true nor correct, we will be liable in court.  However, upon taking another look (secondary reflection) on this true and correct information, one could have some silly or awkward feeling.  For example, Pedro is a gay.  If he fills in the item on SEX, then, of course, he has to choose MALE, not FEMALE.  Because he is a gay, the word MALE somehow sounds silly or awkward to him.  But, even how he feels awkward about it, he has to choose MALE.  Otherwise, he can be liable in court.  On this ground, Marcel notes that in using secondary reflection, there is another sense of talking who I am.  Besides those bits of information about myself, I am another "somebody."  And, this "somebody" is the "I" or the "subject."  Hence, Marcel treats the next question, Do I exist?

Do I exist?

Does my subject (or the I) exist?  Marcel notes that Descartes' meditation of his existence is derived from his own thinking.  Let us remember that Rene Descartes starts his meditation by doubting everything that there is to doubt.  In systematically doubting everything, he is able to come to a conclusion that there is one thing which becomes indubitable (that cannot be doubted) --that is, doubting itself.  In a word, he can no longer put to doubt his own doubting because if he doubts his own doubting, he proves that he exists.  Cogito ergo sum (I think [doubt] therefore I exist), Descartes concludes.  For Descartes, the "I" or the "subject" exists primarily as a thinking thing.  In deeper analysis, this Cartesian cogito can exist by itself --in solitary existence.  For Marcel, this Cartesian meditation of existence (sum) is merely possible in the level of primary reflection.  Upon taking another look (secondary reflection), I realize I exist not because I think but I exist in relation to others.  In other words, my existence is not made in isolation but I know I exist because there is somebody else who exists.  Why it is so?  That is because of my body.

My Body

How do  I regard my body?  In the primary level of reflection, one can say, "I have my body."  To say I have my body is just like saying I have or own my watch.  But, there is a spatial difference between owning a body and owning a watch because my body goes wherever I go but my watch won't.  However, upon taking another look (secondary reflection), one shall say, "I am my body."  My body is inseparably one with the "I" or the subject.  My body is "me."  For clarity, let's take the case of a prostitute.  In the primary level, the prostitute can say, "I can sell my body because this is mine."  Since this body is mine, I have the right and responsibility for it.  Nobody can dictate what I want to do with what I own.  On this basis, she's correct.  But, upon taking another look (secondary reflection), what she is selling is not simply what she owns but she "herself."  In selling her body, she sells herself because "she is her body."  And, selling herself is selling her dignity.  In this illustration, it's clear that "my body is me."  In the words of Marcel, "I am my body."  But, Marcel is also aware that we cannot totally reduce the "I" or "subject" to crass materialism.  The "I" remains a fount of meaning and initiatives --thus, a subject.

From a phenomenological perspective, man is no longer viewed as a composite of body and soul (dualistic) but viewed holistically.  Man is an "embodied subject."

Descartes' View of the Self

Rene Descartes, a French philosopher, is generally known as the Father of Modern Philosophy.  For Descartes, man is essentially cogito (I think or the thinking thing).  In essence, man is a thinking being.  Again, as discussed above, Descartes seems to suggest that man's thinking is essentially his existence.  Without it, he's nothing.  Though, some scholars would suggest that man's existence is only derived from thinking.  With this pronouncement, Descartes is making a demarcation between the thinking self and the body as the res extensa (extended thing).  

At first glance, the body is viewed simply as an instrument of the power of thinking.  As an instrument, it extends the power of the mind.  The body is like a machine; the mind is like its ghost, or say, the body is to a ship; mind to its captain.  Gilbert Ryle, a British philosopher, describes this mind-body dualism as the doctrine of the "ghost in the machine."  Ryle defines this doctrine as the "mental and physical activity occur simultaneously but separately" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine).  For example, if a person thinks (mental activity) he is running, then he is really or actually running (physical activity).  But his mental and physical activities are separate --meaning, there is no necessary connection between what he thinks he's doing and the action done out of his thinking.

However, Descartes also admits that mind-body relation is not as simple as that.  We can not say that the relationship between the body and soul is like that of the captain and his ship.  If the ship meets a collision, it is only the ship that is damaged or “hurt” but not the captain who simply observes the damage.  But when my body is hurt, I do not just observe the incident; I am involved.  In his several writings, he admits that the body and soul of man is a real unity.  Yet this unity cannot be known and discussed in philosophy due to its inherent ambiguity (Dy, 2001).