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/