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).

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