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:
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.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
