Philo of Man

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON
Dear Students,
This course introduces Senior High School students to the study of
Philosophy of the Human Person as an exploration of the fundamental
questions and issues that have faced humanity throughout history. It aims
to help students of Senior High School better understand themselves and
the world they live in and enable them to navigate through the challenges
of life.
This learning packet contains 4 modules and 7 units which discuss
the meaning and method of doing philosophy in relation to the human
person as an embodied-being-in-the-world-and-the-environment. And, to
show understanding of philosophy in the context of the human person as
free, intersubjective and immersed in society and oriented toward his
impending death. The modules philosophically deals with the questions of
what it means to be a human person and how life ought to be lived.
Sincerely,
Your Teacher
77
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter to the students 1
Module 1
UNIT I
Truth 8
Activity 1 11
Activity 2 12
Activity 3 13
Module 2
UNIT II
Who is Man? 18
Aristotle’s Concept of Man 18
Martin Heidegger’s Being-in-the-world 19
Limitations of Embodied Being 21
Transcending Limitations 23
Supplementary Reading: Transcendence 25
Activity 4 27
Quiz #1 28
Performance Task #1 28
UNIT III
Human Freedom 32
Jean Paul Sartre: Individual Freedom 32
Consequences of our Choices 35
Supplementary Reading: Philosophers’ concept of Human Freedom 37
Obstacles from exercising freedom 38
Activity 5 39
Seatwork #1 41
UNIT IV
Martin Buber’s Relating to Others 47
Supplementary Reading
Pakikipagkapwa ni Martin Bubuer 49
Dialogue 51
Maharlikang Kalapati 52
Huwag Kang Magbago 53
Elements of the Interhuman 53
Activity 6 55
Quiz #2 56
77
Module 3
UNIT V
The Human Person as Anthropocentric 61
The Human Person as Patricentric 61
The Human Person as Hierarchic 62
What now? 62
Supplementary Reading: 8 Principles of Deep Ecology 63
UNIT VI
The Human Person in Society 64
De-commodification of Nature 65
Free-ing Nature 66
Activity 7 68
Quiz #3 69
Module 4
UNIT VII
Martin Heidegger’s Concept of Man and Death 76
Three Aspects of Human Existence 76
Inauthenticity vs. Authenticity 77
Four Fears on Death 77
Activity 8 80
Activity 9 81
Seatwork #2 82
Quiz #4 82
77
INTRODUCTION
In this module, the learner is engaged to have a discourse with Doing Philosophy and its
Methods. Herewith is a discussion on how to have a holistic perspective that can help the
learner grapple with the daily realities of life. Truth in its evasiveness should be faced head on.
The radicality of its nature as aletheia is what makes it more desirable to be understood.
UNIT I
This part of the course/subject helps the learner to understand the meaning and
process of doing philosophy; and to demonstrate various ways of doing philosophy by
engaging him/her to:
 Distinguish a holistic perspective from a partial point of view
 Realize the value of doing philosophy in obtaining a broad perspective on life
 Do a philosophical reflection on a concrete situation from a holistic perspective
 Distinguish opinion from truth
 Realize that the methods of philosophy lead to wisdom and truth
 Evaluate truth from opinions in different situations using the methods of
philosophizing
MODULE 1
The recent COVID19 pandemic has brought to light the importance of the various forms
of media in understanding what is happening locally, nationally, and internationally. These forms
of media are also the venue where people expressed their perspectives towards the
phenomenon that is shaping the so-called “New Normal”.
As a way of starting a discourse on this topic using a recent phenomenon, the diagram
below shows a cyclic relationship between the issue of COVID19 and some forms of media
where news, articles, and perspectives about it circulate.
77
twitter
SMS
(text COVID19 FB
messaging)
TV
In your own ways, kindly answer the following questions by studying the diagram:
1. What kinds of information each form of media help to circulate?
2. How does each one help/hinder one another?
3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each one?
4. Why do people believe/disbelieve what they see/read/hear from these forms of
media?
77
Try to imagine this scenario:

You are in a cave. You are with 10 other people.
All of you are chained in your neck, in your arms, and in your feet.
You can’t move your whole body, except just rolling your eyes.
You have been in this situation ever since you become aware of things.
You are facing a wall of the cave.
Every now and then, you see images on the wall.
These images vary from a dog, a cat, a chicken, a chair, a table, etc.
These are the things that you know all your life.
These things that you see are the things that you named and talk about.
Their names are products of your discussions on the things that you see.
For all intent and purposes, one day, you broke out of the chains.
Now, you can see around.
At your back, you see a fire.
You also see people holding what appears to be a dog - on a stick.
On the ground, there are other things on sticks: cat, chair, table, etc.
You realize that what you have seen on the wall are reflections.
The things you’ve discussed about as real, are not as real as you thought.
You let your gaze roam around the cave once more.
You see an opening, and light coming through the opening.
You become attracted to the light, and walk towards the opening.
You reach it, and you get out of the cave.
Outside, the brightness of the surrounding almost blinded your eyes.
Until, your eyes become accustomed to the light.
You stroll around; then look up.
You realize that the source of the light/brightness is up there.
But you can’t gaze at it as much as you want.
You look around again, and see that there are more things.
More things exist than you thought there are.
You become excited.
You remember the 10 other people with you in the cave.
You turn back, and return to the cave.
With zest, you tell them about what you have discovered.
You tell them that reality is more than what you see in the cave.
But they sneered at you.
They cannot believe what you are saying.
They think you have become crazy.
And now, you want them to forsake their knowledge.
Thus, they come up with a plot – to kill you.
An over-simplified retelling of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.
You can read the full story here: https://web.stanford.edu/class/ihum40/cave.pdf
77
The story of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave can be studied and interpreted in many ways.
For the purpose of this unit, this story is used as a springboard in discussing the contexts of
holistic and partial points of view, as well as truth and opinion. As seen in the story, the human
person can gain knowledge of things through experience, discourse, and consensus.
First, the human person experiences things around him through his senses. An
encounter with “a dog”, is the beginning of an experience with a dog. It’s not necessary that this
dog has to be real, for it to become a meaningful experience because the initial encounter can
be “a mother showing a picture of a dog to her son, or a child hearing the barking of a dog for
the first time,” and yet by means of someone telling the child what a dog is, the child starts to
have a knowledge in this “experience of a dog”.
The question now to be asked is this: Is the knowledge of the child complete and
meaningful?” One may argue that the knowledge of the child depends greatly on what has been
told to him/her by a mother/adult. However, whatever the content of the explanation is, to add to
the completeness and meaningfulness of knowledge is what Michel Foucault termed as
“discourse”.
This means then that getting knowledge from someone is not enough to get the full view
of something: one has to observe how things are, talk with others on how they experience the
same things and/or other things, and what they can say about the things one wants to know. For
the child to have a better knowledge of the dog, s/he may have a conversation with a fellow
child or an older one regarding what dog each one has encountered, what kind of dog, what
color the dog has, what food the dog eats, and others. This shows that an experience of two
human persons of the same thing can have different contexts. Context, thus, is vital in
producing meaning of an experience.
Since context varies from one situation to another, it is
unavoidable to have different encounters and experiences.
But this does not necessarily mean that with differences
come disagreement. Differences may be a source of
DISCOURSE
(AS DEFINED BY
disagreement, but it is also a venue for agreement. M. FOUCAULT)
Disagreements are not all negative, in the same manner that
agreements are not all positive. Disagreements and
agreements widen how someone views things around
Ways of constituting knowledge,
him/her. The child and his/her friend have encountered two together with the social practices,
different kinds of dog: one is “askal”, and the other is a pug. forms of subjectivity and power
The child may argue that a dog is big, skinny, and looks relations which inhere in such
dangerous, while his/her friend would claim that a dog is knowledges and relations between
small, adorable, and cute. With this exchange of them. Discourses are more than
perspectives, we can see that a disagreement between the ways of thinking and producing
two can erupt any moment and lead to a fight, and/or a meaning. (Pinkus, 1996)
“consensus” can be reached, and thus both agree that a
dog can be big, skinny, dangerous, and/or it can be small,
adorable, and cute. In this way, knowledge adds up, and
perspectives widen.
However, with consensus, one needs to be careful so
as not to fall into relativism. Rootedness in reality is still the
name of the game. This means that, what happens/ what is in
reality should not be taken for granted. Like in the story of the
men in the cave, what they perceived as real even if each object “has been just reflected by the
light of the fire” is what they believed to be true: because this is what their
rootedness/situatedness allowed them to experience. And their experiences have been the
framework of their discourse.
77
Another thing to consider with consensus is openness. This openness to novel/new

things/ideas is essential to reach an agreement/disagreement of something. This means that,
one has to understand that what s/he knows is not the sole approach of dealing with reality.
Here comes in the theory that argues for the importance of “context” in any attempt to
understand reality/phenomena: context here would mean the context of the subject (person)
trying to understand, and the context of the object (thing/person/event) being understood. For
instance, in the cave, the 9 other people who were left behind, have the specific area in the
cave where they are at as their context in knowing what reality
is; while the 1 person who got away has the cave (in as far as
he could see), outside the cave and everything he could see,
the sun and its blinding brightness, as his/her contexts of The Socratic
his/her reality. So we can see here that there are two different method, also known
contexts. For them to have a discourse that can result to a as method of
better understanding of reality, both parties have to be open elenchus, elenctic
to the other context/perspective. Failing to do so could result method, or Socratic
to one becoming a threat to the other (as what has transpired
debate, is a form of
in the story), or both a threat to each other.
cooperative
argumentative
TRUTH dialogue between
individuals, based
The truth is out there. Only that, it is something that is on asking and
evasive. Its evasiveness is what makes it more desirable. For answering
instance, you want to know the truth about a person. You do questions to
an extensive research and observation. You find out a lot
stimulate critical
about the person. You think that you already know that
person. Only to be surprised again, and again, about things thinking and to
you don’t think that that person has or possesses. This is the draw out ideas and
nature of truth – it exposes itself, more often than not, in times underlying
when you least expect it. presuppositions.
The dynamic character of truth can be grounded on (http://ear-citizen.eu/,
the human person’s various and rich plethora of experiences. n.d.)
As the experiences of the human person add up, so the mystery behind the truth deepens.
To investigate this mystery, first it has to start with wonder. The curiosity to know lays
out the path towards asking the necessary questions and looking for the answers. This is the
method of philosophy. Socrates has mastered it more than 2000 years ago. He practiced and
taught it to young students during his time, and one of the more famous among these students
was Plato.
The Socratic Method then tells that when one wants to know the truth, the desire to
know the truth is the starting point. From this, one can then formulate the right questions, to
arrive at the answers one wants to know (having the wrong questions can lead to answers
which are different to the ones desired). This practice elicits then the nature of truth which is
dialogical. Truth is not something that is told – it is experienced. This means that one way to
know the truth is to engage a teacher and a student into a dialogue – a question and answer of
sort. Another is to subject what one knows into queries – a dialogue between biases/opinions
and the present context. Also, one can ask questions regarding a recent phenomenon or event
for the purpose of knowing what REALLY happened, instead of just relying on “what the news
says”. One can also subject his/her perspectives/emotions/beliefs to interrogation – it could be a
self-interrogation or a comparison with another perspective. All of these, not to topple the
structure of knowledge, but to know the truth. Thus, truth is experienced.
The goal of a meaningful life is truth. Let us look at the meaning/characteristics of truth.
77
Aletheia (Greek): Truth is non-concealment or manifestation, a disclosure of reality.

Hence, it is the knowledge of things as they are. This refers to the present.
Veritas (Latin) which points to the rigor of speech. Speech must be precise and honest
in a sense that our words correspond to reality they are supposed to describe. There is
exact narration. This refers to the past experiences.
Emunah (Hebrew) which is Amen. This refers not so much to the existence or non-
existence of something but to a person. Truth is understood in terms of confidence. It is
used to describe God as a person who fulfills his promises. This refers to the future.
We experience truth in the present, in the past and in the future. Although we can never
arrive at the absolute truth, or the absolute meaning of life, we can know the truth when it is
revealed to us by the person. The disclosure of things is manifested only in the person’s
revelation of who he/she is in his/her totality.
77
Read the following excerpts; and do the activity that follows.
"Socrates' famous method of refutation--the elenchus--tended to induce the experience of

emptiness in others: an interlocutor would
begin thinking he knew what justice or courage or piety is, and in the course of the
conversation would be reduced to confusion and self-contradiction. For his own part,
Socrates was the ancient Hellenic version of the Cheshire cat, fading away into his own
smile. . . . In short, Socrates had an uncanny gift for bringing others to the brink of anxiety."
(Jonathan Lear, "The Examined Life." The New York Times, October 25, 1998)
"The elenchus is often used in describing the Socratic dialectical method. This model in its
simplest form can be sketched as follows: Socrates lets one of his interlocutors pose a
definition of x, after which Socrates will interrogate the interlocutor up to the point where the
latter has to admit this definition was, indeed, wrong and that he does not know what x is.
This model of the elenchus can indeed be found in some dialogues--I think especially in the
'early' dialogues."
(Gerard Kuperus, "Traveling With Socrates: Dialectic in

the Phaedo and Protagoras." Philosophy in Dialogue: Plato's Many Devices, ed. by Gary Alan
Scott. Northwestern University Press, 2007)
"Socrates is considered one of the founding fathers of Western philosophy but,

problematically for scholars, his thought is preserved only through the accounts of his
students, most notably in Plato's dialogues.
"His most significant contribution to Western thought is the Socratic method
of debate or Method of Elenchus, a dialectical method of questioning, testing and ultimately
improving a hypothesis. Through asking a series of questions, the method sought to show
contradictions in the beliefs of those who posed them and systematically move towards a
hypothesis-free from contradiction. As such, it is a negative method, in that it seeks to identify
and demarcate that which a person does not know, rather than which he does. Socrates
applied this to the testing of moral concepts, such as justice. Plato produced 13 volumes
of Socratic Dialogues, in which Socrates would question a prominent Athenian on moral and
philosophical issues. So often cast as the questioner, it is hard to establish any of Socrates'
own philosophical beliefs. He said his wisdom was an awareness of his own ignorance, and
his statement, 'I know that I know nothing' is often quoted."
(Arifa Akbar, "Arrogance of Socrates Made a Compelling Case for His Death." The
Independent [UK], June 8, 2009)
(Nordquist, 2020)
77
ACTIVITY 1.
Instruction:
1. Choose three (3)/four (4) classmates.
2. You exchange questions and answers regarding the topics in module 1 that seem
to be confusing for you.
3. Try to answer to questions of your classmate/s as best as you can.
4. After answering the questions of your classmate/s, you can ask the others to ask
further questions/to comment on your answers.
5. You can answer the further questions (if any), and/or ask further questions/comment
on their comments on your answers.
After everything is settled, you should have a forum like structure of questions-answers-
comments dynamics.
Indigenous
a farmer Peoples
a TREE
a wooden
a real estate furniture
developer business-owner
The diagram above shows the relationships of the ideas/items/words (and what they
signify) to the central idea found in the middle. Each one has a unique way of relating to the
central idea. In this case, a farmer has a way of looking at a tree, which may not be shared by
77
the furniture business-owner, the real estate developer, and Indigenous Peoples. This is also
true to each person/group of persons as presented in the diagram.
Possible relationship to a tree:
a farmer Indigenous Peoples

- a source of food or - a “sacred” part of
resources (e.g. firewood) nature
a TREE
a real estate developer a wooden furniture

business owner
- a challenge/hindrance
to development - a raw material
We can see here that there are possible ways of how an individual/ group of individuals can
relate to a tree, and it is highly probable that each one is different from the other. Why? A
reason could be, each one’s relationship with a tree is the product of one’s experiences of a
tree.
Basing from the diagram, we have four ways of understanding what a tree is. Now the
question is, what then is the truth about a tree? We engage the four into a discourse, and
consider that each one is as important as the other is. We can now have a possible truth
regarding what a tree is: a tree is an indispensable entity of nature – i.e. it provides (as
source of food and resources (e.g. firewood for the farmer, and a raw material for the business-
owner), it unites peoples (as something sacred), and it [should] spawns creativity (as a
challenge for the real estate developer).
ACTIVITY 2.
From the given example above, following the same diagram, do a similar discourse/come up
with a truth on the following (you can have more than 1 iteration/set of relationships):
a. another iteration of A TREE
b. A POLICE OFFICER
c. QUARANTINE
d. WILDLIFE
e. CLIMATE CHANGE
77
ACTIVITY 3.
Formative Assessment
Instruction:
1. You should have done the activities in the Elaborate Phase.
2. In case you have concerns/clarifications regarding the topics in this module, you can
call/send a message to the contact number provided, following this format:
Name; Grade and Section; Subject; message/concern/clarification
Example:
John Cruz; 12 HUMSS A; Intro to Philo;
message/concern/clarification
3. Since this is a formative assessment, this may not be recorded, but it is necessary
that you do because this can help you in doing the recorded assessments like
quizzes, seatworks, and/or performance tasks.
Basing from the activities in the Elaborate Phase, choose 1 or 2 topics, and expand the
relationships: you can have 3 or more iterations of a topic, for example climate change. From
these sets of relationships, draw out the truths that you can infer. With these truths, create an
essay consisting of 1 or 2 paragraphs highlighting your way of having a discourse with these
truths.
77
NAME:___________________________________
YEAR/SECTION:____________________________
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT
ACTIVITY 3.
77
References.
Abella, R.D. (2016). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. Quezon City, Philippines: C &
E Publishing Co.
De Mello, S.J.,Anthony. (1992). Ang Awit ng Ibon. Quezon City, Philippines: Claretian Publication.
Dy, Jr., M. B. (2001). Philosophy of Man, Selected Readings, 2nd ed.. Makati City, Philippines: Goodwill
Trading Co. Inc.
Gualdo, R. S. (2005). Professional Ethics with Introductory General Ethics. Cabanatuan City, Philippines:
Anahaw Enterprises
Kant, I. (n.d.). http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html. Retrieved from

http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html:
http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html
Mabaquiao, Jr.,N. M. (2017). Making Life Worth Living: An Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human
Person.Quezon City, Philippines: Phoenix Publishing
Maboloc, C. R. (2016). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. Quezon City: The Inteligente
Publisihing, Inc.
Naess, A. (n.d.). The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects. In Broader Concerns:
Thoreau, Deep Ecology, and Ecofeminism (p. 407).
Nordquist, R. (2020, February). www.thoughtco.com. Retrieved from www.thoughtco.com:

https://www.thoughtco.com/elenchus-argumentation-1690637
Placido, D. M. (2016). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person (Reflection Worktext).
Quezon City, Philippines: Wise Ideas Publishing Co.
Pinkus, J. (1996, August). https://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/theory/foucault.htm#:~:text=Discourse%2C

%20as%20defined%20by%20Foucault,of%20thinking%20and%20producing%20meaning. Retrieved from
https://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/theory/foucault.htm#:~:text=Discourse%2C%20as%20defined%20by
%20Foucault,of%20thinking%20and%20producing%20meaning.:https://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/
theory/foucault.htm#:~:text=Discourse%2C%20as%20defined%20by%20Foucault,of%20thinking%20and
%20producing%20meaning
Ramos, C.C. R.(2019). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. 2 nd Ed. Manila Philippines:
Rex book Store, Inc.
Sicat, A. T. (2004). Magpilosopiya, Isang Manual sa Pilosopiya ng Tao. City of San Fernando,Philippines:
CFLF Publishing
Sioco, M.P. G. & Vinzons, I. H. (2016). Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person. Quezon City,
Philippines: Vidal Group, Inc.
77
http://ear-citizen.eu/. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://ear-citizen.eu/:

http://ear-citizen.eu/2019/05/01/socrates/#:~:text=The%20Socratic%20method%2C%20also
%20known,out%20ideas%20and%20underlying%20presuppositions.
http://www.finedictionary.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.finedictionary.com:

http://www.finedictionary.com/anthropocentric.html
https://populationmatters.org. (2020). Retrieved from https://populationmatters.org:

https://populationmatters.org/campaigns/anthropocene?
gclid=EAIaIQobChMI2sS6hMvd6gIVqsEWBR1R1wFbEAAYASAAEgJOGvD_BwE
https://www.lexico.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.lexico.com:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/patricentric
77
INTRODUCTION
This module will discuss the concept of the human being according to Aristotle. The class
will have an insight as to how address the question, “What makes us human?”. It will discuss
the idea of how the human being is said to have two important components – a body and a soul
and the relationship between these two. Then, there is the question about rationality. Is
rationality really that which makes us human? Furthermore, this module will also discuss human
being weaknesses and imperfections of an embodied being, and these limitations may be
addressed. Lastly, the module will talk about the significance of dialogue and relating to others
in a human being’s relationship with others.
UNIT II
MODULE 2
Learning Outcomes:
At the end of the lesson, the learners will be able to:
1. To understand the human person as an embodied spirit;
2. To recognize how the human body imposes limits and possibilities for
transcendence;
3. To evaluate own limitations and the possibilities for their transcendence; and
4. To think twice or thrice for every action.
Motivational Activity: Read the text “Ako ay Ako” below.

Ako ay Ako
Anonymous
Kaya kong itapon o was akin ang hind akma at panatilihin ang mga nakaaakma at
lumikha o kumatha ng mga bago ng mga bago, kapalit ng mga itinapon o winasak. Ako ay
nakakakita, nakaririnig, nakadarama, nakaiisip, nakapagsasalita, at nakagagawa. Ako ay may
kakayahan upang mabuhay at maging malapit sa kapwa. Maging kapaki-pakinabang at
makaimpluwensiya sa mga tao at mga bagay. Ako ay nag nagmamay-ari sa akin, samakatwid
kaya kong pamahalaan ang aking sarili, ako ang aking sarile, ako ay ako, at ako ay okay.
Answer the following questions and submit at the end of this lesson.
1. What do you think is the message of the poem in relation to the human person’s
relationship to a supreme being, his neighbor and his community?
77
2. What role does your body play in describing and expressing who you are?
3. What is the significance of “okay” in the last line?
4. What is the significance of “okay” in the last line?
Introduction: Who is Man?

Since the ancient times, the perennial question on man, as to what he is, was brought
out by the three great philosophers: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. In their respective times,
these philosophers came out with the inquiry on the nature and identity of man. The notion of
man by these philosophers were, in the course of centuries, handed down to and accepted by
philosophers after the birth of Jesus Christ. Among these philosophers are St. Anselm, St.
Augustine, and St. Thomas of Aquinas, among others. They accepted the Greek thinker’s view
that man is composed of body and soul, and incorporated the idea in the Church’s teaching. St.
Augustine for instance held and affirmed that the soul of man is a spiritual substance, wholly
present in every part of his body; that the soul is immortal and the body is subject to death.
Aristotle’s concept of human person

Aristotle was Plato’s most famous student. However, there are a lot of differences in
their philosophies, one of which is how they looked at human beings. Like Plato, Aristotle also
believes that human beings are composed of body and soul. However, it is how the soul is
related to the body that Aristotle differs from Plato. Aristotle considers things as composed of
two co-principles which he calls matter and form. Form is the principle which actualizes a thing
and makes a thing what it is, while matter is viewed as the potentiality to receive the form. In
short, form is viewed as act while matter is viewed as potency. It should always be noted that
matter and form are not complete realities, but only co-principles of a thing (substance). And as
co-principles, matter and form do not exist in themselves separately. So for example, a piece of
paper has matter and form. If we burn the paper, it will turn into ash because the actual paper
has the potency to become ashes. Obviously, a piece of paper is different from its resulting
ashes. This is because the form of a paper is different from the form of an ash. It is matter which
facilitates the change from paper to ash, because it is within the potential of a paper to receive
the form of an actual ash (but not the other way around). Again, there will never be a moment
when matter or form will exist independently of each other because they are only principles and
do not possess existence of their own. In relation to the human being, Aristotle claims that the
form refers to the soul while matter refers to the body. And since matter and form—body and
soul—are co-principles, the soul cannot exist apart from the body. The soul can never be found
existing independently of the body just like the form of paper cannot exist independently of its
matter. Even if the soul is considered as a non-material part of the body, still it cannot have an
independent existence as Plato claims. So if a human being dies, the form of a human being,
i.e. soul, ceases to be and the remaining thing is just the body. And this body no longer holds
77
the form of man, just like the ashes which formerly hold the form of paper. Now we say that the
body holds a new form, that of a cadaver. For Aristotle then, a human being is always a
composite of body and soul. Like Plato, Aristotle also divides the functions of the soul into three:
nutrition, sensation, and intellection. The nutritive function is that which we share with plants,
while the sensitive function is that which we share with other animals. The human soul as an
animating principle is far greater than the animating principle of plants and other animals
because of the higher function of intellection. It is the intellective function which not only
separates us from all other beings, but also defines us as human beings. The concept of
function must be further explained in considering what a human being is. We say that the
goodness of something is tied up with its function. Thus a good knife is a knife that cuts
because it functions as what a knife should be; or a good eye is an eye that clearly sees
because it functions as what an eye should be. So in the case of human being, its good refers to
the practice of his function. However, it is not just the practice of any of its functions; but the
practice of its highest and distinctive function, i.e. the intellective function. A human being who
just practices his nutritive and sensitive functions can hardly be called a human being. Without
the practice of the intellective functions, the quality of being human is always put into questions;
for example, when we evaluate the conditions of people whose daily routine is just to look for
food and survive. We say that their condition is hindi makatao because their lives are limited to
the nutritive and sensitive functions just like any other animal. We also hear of coma patients (or
similar medical cases where the patient is reduced into its nutritive functions) being referred to
as gulay precisely because the sensitive and intellective functions are no longer operative. And
finally, in cases when a human being acts as if he does not have any capacity for reason, as in
the case of murders where the murderer kills his victim similar to a brute killing another brute—
we hear the condemnation hayop sya! These examples are suggestive of the reality which
Aristotle pointed out: the practice of intellective function as essential for being human. It is clear
then for Aristotle that to be a human being means to practice its highest function, and we
therefore say that human beings are rational animals.
EMBODIED SPIRIT
Martin Heidegger’s Being – in – the – World
Martin Heidegger calls the human beings Dasein, a German word which means being there.
This tells us that our very being is to be there, to be in the world – being in the world. So there
exists an interconnection between the world and the human body. Man gives meaning to the
world, and the world gets its meaning from the subjectivity of man. To speak of the world is to
speak of man, as to speak of man is to speak of the world. In this context, man, therefore,
cannot exist without this world; he cannot be separated from it. Heidegger’s starting point allows
us to see the existential import of being in the world in relation to the question of who we are. In
short, being in the world means that we live with things, with other people, and within a
particular place in time.
1. Beings in the world means to be with things. We are encountering things as soon as we
are born: the materials and structures used during our delivery. It would be impossible
for someone to live without any relation to things. And the way we relate to the things
around us is practical. In other words, we seldom look at the things around us as object
of inquiry and investigation but simply things that we use. For example, as I look at the
television, I simply use it to entertain myself. The television allows me to watch my
favorite shows. And I will rarely look at my television as an object that has to be
77
analyzed perhaps only when it malfunctions. We don’t really pay attention to the reality
that the things around us affect the definition of what we are. As being in the world, we
are naturally related to the things around us, which shape the way we see the world and
ultimately contribute to the definition of who we are.
2. Being in the world means to be with other people. Just like the case of things, the
moment we are born, we are already connected with people, our parents. Our being
situated in the world inevitably links us to people and these links are not simple
categories that we use to define relationships, like a mother or a best friend. Rather, this
links is real and informative. We encounter people as familiar. We treat the people who
are familiar to us with concern and we also share their concerns. And just as things
shape who we are, our relationships with other people also shape us. In most cases, the
people around us define who we are. It is true that the people we encounter shape our
identities. For example, we establish our identity through our family. Being in the world,
we shall inevitably live with other people who will eventually play roles in the
determination of who we are.
3. Being in the world means that we are situated in place and time. We are immersed in a
particular culture, language, and social structures. No one can detach himself from
culture, language and social structures. We are born in a particular period that allows us
to see the world within the lens of that period. If we will be given the chance to travel in
time and transport ourselves to Ancient China, perhaps we will be disoriented and will
find it impossible to live there. Temporal distance makes it difficult for us to understand
the perspective of the distant party. We often hear older people start their statement with
“Noong panahon…” to indicate the difference in their temporal situation that made them
look at the world in a certain way. And you will notice that within yourself there will be a
change in perspective and approach as you move within time. The things that make you
happy and contented when you were in your preschool years, like candies, chocolates
and stuffed toys, no longer give you the same satisfaction. This is a clear manifestation
that our being in the world is always in time. And we move with time. The place where
we are situated also plays a big role in shaping who we are. If you are raised in the
province, perhaps near the beach, then this will influence the way you look at the world.
The climate, surroundings, environment all of these will influence us. Being raised in the
Philippines will inevitably shape the way you look at the world. The mere change in
location will immediately tell you how influential your place is when you consider your
world. Just observe the difference in your disposition as you change your location: think
of the mall , the church, your school , your home. You will realize that as you change
your place, you also change your disposition. As being in the world, we always operate
in a particular place; and this will direct the way we see the world. We may attempt to
detach and stand above our place and time, but it is truly impossible to do so. We will
always look at the world according to our place and time. We defined by them. Who we
are is inevitably connected to our being situated in a particular time and place.
Heidegger’s concept of being in the world informs us of the very nature of who
we are, that is, that we are shaped by everything around us. Who we are is not a product
of a distant reflection and theorizing. An embodied subject is someone who is intimately
connected with the world and not some detached inquirer. Our experience tells us that
77
we are related to the world as participating subjects that deal with things and people
every day. And whether we like it or not, this encounter with things and other people
every day contribute to who we are.
Limitations of Embodied Being

1. Facticity. Facticity refers to the things in our lives that are already given. An
embodied subject, whose being is to be in the world, will have its first limitation the
moment it is born. We already mentioned that being in the world means that the
moment we are born, we are already related to people- our parents. We are born in a
particular time and place, and we did not choose them. We were never consulted
about the time of our birth. We were never asked where we would like to be born.
There are a lot of things which are already in and with us when we are born: our
gender, our color, our race, our social status, our genes and others. This is what
Jean Paul Sartre calls facticity. A person born to a poor family will have more
limitations than someone born to a wealthy family. Facticity is not limited to the
givens that we have acquired in our birth. It also refers to all the details that surround
us in the present as being in the world in the here and the now; and tis will include
our environment, our language, our past decisions, our past and present
relationships, and even our future death. All the facts that we currently have are part
of our limitation. This is the reality of an embodied being: that we shall always have
limitations by the facticity of our existence.
2. Spatial – Temporal Being (Finitude). The fact that we are born and that we exist in a
particular place and time already sets limitations on us that maybe considered on
different levels. On the level of temporality, the most obvious limitation is our finitude.
We recognize our mortality and accept that we will not live forever. We have a limited
period of stay ‘in thus world. We will die someday, and that is fact. Moreover, as
temporal beings, we deal with the past, the present, and the future. We shall not
enter into a technical definition of time here but simply consider our actual
experience of the past, the present, and the future. We are younger, we want time to
speed up because our youth prevents us from doing what adults seem to enjoy.
There are so many not yet. You are not yet allowed to eat certain food, drink certain
beverages, watch certain movies, wear particular clothes, and go to certain places.
So the lack of time—in the sense of youth—poses limitations on us. We feel that we
are being restricted by people—our parents for example, when we want to do things.
On closer inspection however, you will realize that it is our being embodied that
prevents us from doing a lot of things—because our body is not yet prepared for
certain activities. On the other hand, those who have an advanced age will also
experience limitations of a different kind. Their advanced age will prevent them from
doing things which they used to do. There are so many no longer for them. They are
no longer allowed to eat certain food, drink certain beverages, go to certain places,
and do particular activities. And just like the youth, they feel that they are being
restricted by people—by their children, for example. On a closer look however, they
will realize that is their being embodied that prevents them from doing a lot of things
—because their body is no longer capable of certain activities. Perhaps a
77
physiological example may easily drive the distinctive limitations of not yet and no
longer. Childbearing clearly limits both the young and the old. A very young girl is not
yet capable of reproduction; and a very old woman is no longer capable of
reproduction. In both instances, it is the body which sets this limitation.
On the level of our being spatial individuals, we are limited by our bodies to be
present in two or more places at the same time. We are set to be at one places at a
time. I cannot be in Manila and in Cebu at the same time because my body does not
allow me to. And I cannot be in Manila this minute, and be in Cebu the next minute.
This one clear limitation is experienced by many Filipino families today who have
relatives serving as overseas workers. How many stories have you heard of children
longing for their parents, or parents longing for their children? This one evident
difficulty is an obvious limitation which all of us can relate to. We don’t have to have
relative overseas to experience this limitation. How many times we have you longed
to be with someone but cannot because you are in different places? And no matter
how much you desire and will to be at some place, you simply cannot. As an
embodied being we are subjected to the physical laws of our universe and simply
admit that we are restricted by our spatial nature.
On the level of understanding, we consider our spatial-temporal situation as

imposing a limit on us as it sets out to be our preconditions of our understanding. In
other words, our being situated in a particular time and place shall prescribe the way
we look at and understand things. Think of our age, culture, and past experiences as
optics that we wear every time we look at the world. No matter how hard we try to
look at the world in an objective manner, our spatial-temporal situation will be there
to taint it. And in the same way, no matter how much we imagine ourselves looking
at something using someone else’s perspective, we cannot do so. We will always
have our own spatial-temporal condition at the backdrop of our understanding. So
our spatial-temporal situation limits us from obtaining a purely objective perspective,
or someone else’s perspective. And this may be a source of problems at times. We
mat think that we understand someone when we put ourselves into their shoes.
However, we need to ask ourselves if we can really set aside our biases and use the
perspective of another person; or if we can really be purely objective.
3. The Body as Intermediary. The body as intermediary is another difficulty that arises
out of an embodied subject. We have established that we are our bodies, but also
more than our bodies. Our body then serves as an intermediary between us and the
physical world. It is because of my body that I experience the world from walking,
running along the beach, hiking in the mountain, going to different places, etc. it is
also because of my body that I experience the world as my world and not the world
of others. I can always imagine myself living as a basketball star; but I really never
know how to play basketball unless I become one myself; but more concretely I can
never be Daniel Padilla and conversely, Daniel Padilla cannot be me. My body then
limits my experience of the world to my world. My body as intermediary limits me in
communicating with other people. Through my body I can communicate using words
or express myself through bodily gestures. This may nose pose limitations
concerning communication and expression. As embodied subject, we cannot, by the
77
use of sheer will, tell other people what we have in mind or what we feel. We have to
make use of words or bodily expression to accomplish this task. Words are often our
instrument to convey what we want to express, be it an idea or an emotion. But we
know that words are limiting. We are constrained by language. When we say “I Love
You” to someone for example— “Do these words accurately express what we feel for
the other person?” “Can words really capture the things that we want to express?”
From experience, we know that we are being limited by our language when we
cannot put into words what we want to express. That is why we sometimes say that
words fail us. In this way, we may say that our body restricts us from fully disclosing
ourselves to other persons.
Transcending Limitations
The presence of several limitations imposed by being an embodied subject may
influence us to think that our life is very restricting. Life becomes difficult because of these
limitations. However, it is also these limitations that make our lives more interesting and
challenging. Let us address each limitation and see how we can overcome them. And perhaps
we will see that there is no need to overcome them.
1. Facticity. Let us consider our facticity first. We cannot simply change our facticity, but
what we can do is change our attitude towards them. At times, we use our facticity as an excuse
for our difficulties and failures. For example, one may claim that he cannot travel abroad
because he was born poor, or that he did not finish school. This is what happens when we let
our facticity define who we are. We treat our facticity as if life has destined us to it, like being
born in a poor family, or being born disabled. What important is to see that we are free to define
who we are and who we are to be. This is what we may call our historicity. Historicity means
that we are history-making creatures, and we are not limited to what nature has initially given
us. We often hear people claim that they did this or that because they have no choice. For
example, a student takes a course in college which his parents decide for him but which he
does not like. Perhaps his parents set a condition that they will finance his education only if he
will conform to their will. The student mat then reasons out that he has no choice but to follow
his parents. But we have to ask was there really an absence of choice? Of course not! What
usually happens is that we dismiss as an option the more challenging path. This is the same
with our facticity. We should not look at them as if they are our fate. Our facticity challenges us
to be creative with our life options. Our task then is to set our possibilities and maximize these
possibilities. This is our facticity. We receive givens when we are born. And it is up to us how we
will make use of those givens. Transcending our facticity is a given possibility.
2. Spatial-Temporal. Our being limited due to spatial concerns also imposes difficulty for us
embodied being because we cannot be at a place where we want to be at an instant. We have
experience loneliness and anxiety as we wait for our bodies to arrive at a place where we want
it to be. However, just like being temporal, we can always look at our spatial character as an
invitation to make the most out of our lives. Since we know that we can only be at one place at a
time, we are invited and challenged to make the most out of that occasion. Sometimes we don’t
realize how beautiful our lives are when everything that we want and need is already which us:
when our parents are living with us, or when we live in a comfortable house. It is true that we
77
often lately appreciate the value of things when it is no longer present. So we are invited to
appreciate what is present in our space. If we are with our loved ones, then make the most out
of that presence. How many times have you encountered the criticism to modern families? —
when a family that is situated in the same place does not relate to one another because
everyone is busy connecting to other people in the World Wide Web. When you are in a
particular place, make the most out of that moment. If you travel for example to a different place,
seize the chance to enjoy the place. Unfortunately, it is the things and people in our immediate
surroundings that we most often neglect. Thus, being reminded of our spatial character invites
us to value the people and things around us.
3. Body as intermediary. Having a body as a way to experience the world is a wonderful

thing. First of all, to think that we don’t directly the world because the body prevents us from
doing so is a way of thinking that uses the dualistic framework of body and soul composition. As
an embodied subject, we directly experience the world. The interesting thing is that we always
experience the as my world; it is limiting on the one hand. On the other hand, however, our
experience of the world as my world becomes a privileged experience. What we experience is
only for us to be experienced. We also established that having a body may prevent us from
disclosing what we really want to express. This then challenges us to be more creative in our
expressions. For example, saying “I love you” to someone may be enough to express what we
feel. But we know in most cases, these words are not enough. And so we are challenged to
make more creative ways of conveying this message to the one we love by not restricting our
means to words. Consequently, having a body hides the thoughts and feelings of a person.
Again, this is only serves as a challenge for us to work on a good relationship with people whom
we want to open up for us. We are taught how to be respectful of one’s concealment. We are
taught to be responsible, to be patient, sensitive, understanding, and a lot of other values.
Moreover, having a body that conceals our emotions also serves as our protection and solace.
There are times that we don’t want everyone to know what we think and feel. Thus, the body as
intermediary may pose some limitations to us; but these limitations serve as our advantage as
well.
77
Supplementary Readings: Transcendence

Literally, transcendence is climbing across, going beyond, or exceeding
the limits. It is the dynamism in the human person; a movement, an
ongoing progress, or one’s horizon or perspective is crossed after
another. Hence, it opens up a new horizon.
Transcendence means that it is not simply the passage or the growing of
age that we consider but more importantly, our human involvement in the
world—relationships. Transcendence is becoming more in a qualitative, a
deepening, in enhancing, or enriching life. (Jurgen Moltmann)
Man is being whose project is to be God i.e. the transcending of every
horizon to be transcended in turn, and that there may be end to this.
Human person is fundamentally the desire to be. The human person
looks at the being that s\he desires. This is the condition or origin of
transcendence. Human reality is surpassing towards what it lacks. Human
reality is by nature an unhappy consciousness, with no possibility of
surpassing the unhappy state. (Jean Paul Sartre)
Transcendence is understood in a transitional form of humanity through
transmission, existence as transcendence, standing out, going out. It is
creating a superman (ubermensch), an intelligent, creative individual who
is capable of living out the ideal person. (Friedrich Nietzsche)
Transcendence is a demand which arises from dissatisfaction with life as
it is. We cannot confine our view to the individual person alone. Human
transcendence is going out to another, to transcendence beyond the
individual level. Transcendence is otherness. Transcendence should go
beyond individual affair. It stresses the importance of the interpersonal or
our fidelity to other persons is itself transcending of the boundaries of the
individual self, and this implies that transcendence can be experienced as
grace as well struggle. (Gabriel Marcel)
77
Transcendence is understood in human history as the shaping of nature

for the sake of persons, by means of human labor. Material formulations
of life should not be neglected. Economic and material factors are the
ultimate determinants of history. Labor, in its ideal state should bring
about creativity and satisfaction which eventually becomes a source of
human dignity, a form of self-affirmation. Our work should symbolize our
human creativity, transcending greedy profit translated in money. (Karl
Marx)
Human being has an innate desire to know. Being is connected with
knowing. Becoming is made dependent upon knowing. Transcendence is
“going beyond”, a matter of asking further questions, a development in
the person’s knowledge as relevant to his\her human development.
(Bernard Lonergan)
The human person is someone who reaches beyond himself or herself
i.e. s\he transcends his\her own nature by exercising her own freedom
responsibly as potentiality which eventually becomes his\her actuality,
then transcends it again. Transcendence is always in the level of
potentiality; transcendence is within becoming and freedom, a continuous
process, a finite or imperfect being towards perfection, which does not
end. Our finitude makes transcendence possible. (Martin Heidegger)
Transcendence is transition. This means that the human person is in a
process of transition towards new forms of existence. The human person
is unfinished and confronts openness in which s\he has still share himself\
herself. That, the human person is not always the same: a new person
emerges. It means there is no way of saying just how far these
possibilities extend. The acknowledgement of these possibilities can be
seen as ground for hope, though admittedly a vulnerable hope. (Henry
Bergson, Hartshorn, Cloots)
Transcending one’s comfort zone is liberating. It challenges us of our
human conditions. To live means to create one’s vision of hoping for
better tomorrow. A.J. Heschel says, “Let us labor under no illusions.
There are no easy solutions for problems that are at the same time
intensely personal and universal, urgent and eternal. “ Georg Santayana
also advices, “ The subject matter of art is life as it actually is, but its
function is to make life better.”
77
ACTIVITY 4.
Transcendence
Direction: Identify some limitations or weaknesses in your life and how these limitations
are addressed (lesson learned in life..).
Weaknesses or limitations Lesson learned in life in transcending the

Weaknesses or limitations
77
77
77
77
UNIT III
Learning Outcomes:
1. To understand the realm of Human Freedom;
2. To realize that all actions have consequences and responsibilities of one’s action;
3. To show situations that demonstrate freedom of choice; and
4. To evaluate and exercise prudence in one’s choices.
Motivational Activity:
1. Concept Mapping: Write your concepts about human freedom. Explain briefly your
concept mapping.
2. When can you say that human persons as an embodied spirit are free and accountable
to their choices and actions?
77
Introduction: Human Freedom

Freedom is a social and political concept which has great significance in how people
participate in society. Human Freedom recognizes the dignity of the individuals or the absence
of coercive constraint. Because freedom is inherently valuable plays a role in human progress, it
is worth measuring carefully. Freedom in a political and social context means the freedom of an
individual from oppression compulsion, or coercion from other persons, an authority figure, or
from society itself. Political freedom consists of two types of liberties. Positive liberty refers to a
person taking control of his or her life and fulfilling one’s potential. Negative liberty is freedom
from external restraint, barriers and other interference from other people.
What makes us free? How does freedom shape our experience?
Freedom in its simplest sense, is the freedom to make choices in life. Philosophers
relate human freedom to the concept of human agency, which refers to the capacity of a person
to act and exert control over his or her behavior. Human freedom is expressed in two ways: free
will – which is the capacity to choose from alternative course of action or decision – and free
action – the freedom to perform an action without any obstacles or hindrances.
The faculties model refers to free will as the use of our mental faculties. It assumes that
we have free will due to our intellect and that each human action is based on rationality and
sound judgment. A student deciding to participate actively in class to improve his or her grades
indicates that he or she uses judgment to implement an action, thus exercising free will.
The hierarchical model argues that free will is based on human wants and desires. An
individual is faced with various wants and desires that need to be met. A person exercises free
will when he or she identifies one desire as acceptable and decides to act on it. A newly-
graduated high school student who decides to pursue either Engineering or Medicine in college
is exercising free will. Should he or she choose Medicine, he or she must want to become a
doctor. His or her subsequent actions to enroll in the college of Medicine and devote his or her
efforts to studies indicate that he or she freely and voluntarily made this decision out of his or
her own free will. The reasons-responsive view believes that man has free will
because he or she Is able to entertain reasons not to enact a certain decisions and act upon
them when the need arises. For example, a person decides to cross the street but sees a car
77
rapidly approaching. He or she exercise free will by choosing not to cross the street and allow
the speeding car to pass.
Jean Paul Sartre: Individual Freedom

Sartre’s philosophy is considered to desire to be a representative of
existentialism (Falikowski,2004). For Sartre. The human person is the desire to be God: the
desire to exist as a being which has its sufficient ground in itself (en sui causa). There are no
guideposts along the road of life. The human person builds the road to the destiny of his
choosing; he is the creator (Srathern,1998).
Sartre’s existentialism stems from the principal, “Existence precedes essence”
- The person, first, exist and encounters himself and surges up in the world, then defines
himself afterward. The person is nothing else but that what he makes of himself.
- The person is provided with a supreme opportunity to give meaning to one’s life. In the
course of giving meaning to one’s life, he fills the world with meaning.
- Freedom is, therefore, the very core and the door authentic existence.
- Authentic existence is realized only in deeds that are committed alone in absolute
freedom and responsibility and which is, therefore, the character of true creation.
- The person is what one has done is doing.

- On the other hand, the human person who tries to escape obligations and strives to be
en-soi (e.g., excuses such as” I was born this way” or “ I grew up in a bad environment ”) is
acting on bad faith ( mauvaise foi).
Sartre emphasized the importance of free individual choice regardless the

power of other people to influence an coerce our desires, beliefs, and decisions. To be human,
to be conscious, is to be free to imagine, free to choose, and be responsible for one’s life.
Evaluating and Exercising Prudence in Choices

For B. F. Skinner, the environment selects which is with similar with natural selection.
We must take into account what the environment does to an organism not only before, but also
after it responds. Skinner (in Yelon, 1996) maintained that behavior is shaped and maintained
by its consequences. Behavior that operates upon the environment to produce consequences
(operant conditioning) can be studied by arranging environments in which specific
consequences are contingent upon it. The second result is practical; the environment can be
manipulated. Yelon (1996) accepted that behavioral psychology is at fault for
having overanalyzed the words “reward” and “punishment.” We might have miscalculated the
effects of the environment in an individual. There should be a balance in our relationship with
others and the environment. In our dealing with our fellow human beings, there is strong and
obvious temptation to blame the environment if they do not conform to our expectations. The
question of freedom arises. Can an individual be free? According, to Skinner, our struggle for
freedom is not due to a will to be free as for Aristotle or Sartre, but to certain behavioral
processes characteristic of the human organism, the chief effect of which is the avoidance of or
escape from “aversive” features of the environment.
The feeling of freedom., according to Skinner, becomes an unreliable guide as soon as
would-be controllers turn to non-aversive measures as they are likely to avoid the problems
raised when the controller escapes or attacks. For example, a skillful parent learns to reward a
77
child for good behavior rather than punish him for bad. Control becomes necessary in the issue
of freedom. Following the adage of John Stuart Mill, “Liberty consists in doing what one
desires,” Skinner stated that when a person wants something, he acts to get it when the
occasion arises. Skinner argued that even though behavior is completely determined, it is better
that a person “feels free” or “believes that he is free.”
The issue is controllability. We cannot change genetic effects by punishment; we can

work only through genetic measures that operate on a much longer time scale. What must be
changed is not a responsibility of autonomous individual but the conditions, environment, or
genetics of which a person’s behavior is a function. Example, as a student was praised by a
teacher who said to him, “Very Good!” for a solution to a problem or for giving the correct
answer to a question.
Skinner thought that the problem is to free human beings not from control but from
certain kinds of control, and it can be solved only if we accept the fact that we depend on the
world around us and we simply change the nature of dependency. Skinner proposed that to
make the social environment as
Freedom (Soren Kierkegaard) free as possible of aversive stimuli,
we do not need to destroy the
environment or escape from it.
FREEDOM IS AN EXPRESSION FOR SELF- What needed, according to
ACTIVATION AND SELF-ACTIVATION IS AN Skinner, is to redesign it.
ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF THE SELF, IT IS A Life is
POTENTIAL FOR SELF-DISCLOSING. full of paradoxes. Nobody could
(Bayolannis, 2000) nor should control it. We have to
be open to life, learn to accept, and
live with paradoxes. Learning with
contradiction is not the same as
living in contradiction. The paradoxes account for the reasons why life cannot be held still.
Defining or conceptualizing insists on regarding one aspects of life at the same time
disregarding the other. In the spirituality of imperfection, we learn to accept that
life, our environment, is both “evil” and “goo.” In recognizing life’s open-endedness, we learn to
be flexible and adaptable. B, F. Skinner believed that morality is a conditioned response
impressed on the child by society. Despite this view, however, creating a static environment
such as a controlled environment is not applicable in the realities of everyday world (Schouten &
Looren de Jong, 2012).
Skinner is right, in pointing out the influence of environment especially in the
socialization of children. Unfortunately, there is an emphasis nowadays in the acquisition of
money, property, and prestige, regardless of values—or lack of those—that children learn.
There should not only be a re-engineering of the environment, but also a total
transformation of how we view our environment beginning with our own orientation. How do we
view life? Is it merely a life concerned with power that, according to Buddha, is the cause of
despair? Or should it be a life of cooperation, vision, and concern with other living beings?
Indeed, the theory of freedom has negative and positive tasks. Our lives should not be
merely controlled by rewards and punishments. As human beings, we are capable of reaching
different levels of heights and ideals. According to Yelon, punishment is an educative measure,
and as such is a means to the formation of motives, which are in part to prevent the wrongdoer
from repeating the act and in part to prevent others from committing a similar act. Analogously,
in the case of reward, we are concerned with incentive (Schouten & de Jong,2012).
However, much more important than the question of when a person is
said to be responsible is that of when he himself feels responsible. Evidently, not merely that it
77
was he who took the steps required for its performance but there must be added awareness that
he did it “of his own initiative.” This feeling is the consciousness of freedom, which is merely the
knowledge of having acted on one’s own desires. “One’s own desires” are those which have
their origin in the regularity of one’s character in the given situation, and are not imposed by an
external power, such as a stimulus. The absence of external power expresses itself in the well-
known feeling that one could also have acted otherwise.
Indeed, the environment plays a significant part in our lives. However, since the Stone
Age, we have proven that we are not completely under its mercy. We have tamed and shall
continue to tame and adapt to the changes in the conditions of the environment. As Plato
believed, the soul of every individual possesses the power of learning the truth and living in a
society that is in accordance to its nature.
We are responsible, whether we admit it or not, for what is in our power to do. Most of
the time, we cannot be sure what it is in our power to do until we attempt to do it. In spite of the
alleged inevitabilities in personal life and history, human effort can determine the direction of
events even though it cannot determine the conditions that make human effort possible.
It is true that we did not choose to be born. It is also true that we choose to keep in
living. It is not true that everything that happens to us is like “being struck down by a dreadful
disease.” To use as an illustration, the treatment and cure of disease would never serve as a
moral paradigm for the whole human situation and would never have begun unless who
believed that somethings that were did not have to be, that they could be different, and that we
could make them different. What we can make different, we are responsible for.
Consequences of our Choices

The twentieth century gave rise to the importance of the individual, the opposite of
medieval thought that was God-centered. For Rand (1996), individual mind is the tool for
economic progress vis-à-vis laissez faire capitalism. Since the mind is important, the sector that
molds it should not be controlled by the government. Similar to Aristotle, Rand believed that
thinking is volitional. A person has the freedom to think or not. Though, for Rand, the majority
belongs to the passive supporters of the status quo who choose not to think.
Individual rights, as espoused by Hobbes and Rousseau, are not merely numbers. Rand
rejected collectivism because of its brute force. Though human beings have rights, there should
also be responsibility. Individual rights were upheld in capitalism, which is the only system that
can uphold and protect them. The principle of individual rights represented the extension of
morality into the social system.
Rand cited the right to keep, to use, and to dispose of material values. Most developed
countries have disposed their toxic wastes to developing countries. Disposing material value
thus, is not only a matter of throwing waste but also projecting where to dump wastes that would
not impinge on the rights of others.
Individualism, as espoused by Rand, is lined in family dependency because Easterners
believe that the individual needs to community and vice versa. The Filipino and the Chinese, for
instance, stress human relationships that emphasize the person is not necessarily an
independent entity. In Filipino’s loob, for instance, the individual is the captain of his own ship on
a sea that is not entirely devoid of uncertainties. Loob touches the daily human aspect of the
Filipinos.
Filipinos embrace family and political parties. For the Filipinos, one does not only fulfill
reasons of the mind but of the heart and personal involvement as well. Whereas Rand upheld
the individual, Filipinos’ loob is essentially an interpersonal and social concept before it is a
private, personal concept.
77
Filipinos look at themselves as holistic from an interior dimension under the principle
harmony. This encompasses the Filipinos’ humanity, personality, theological perspective, and
daily experiences. It aspires harmony interior dimensions stress a being-with-others and
sensitivity to the needs of others that inhibit one’s personal and individual fulfillment.
There is the apprehension on the group-orie be broughnted approach of the Filipino that
might hamper the individual’s initiative and responsibility. It is contented that the individual
should be disciplined from within rather than fear from authority figure. Discipline and
responsibility should be inculcated especially through education.
The Filipino’s loob is the basis of Cristian value of sensitivity to the needs of others and
of gratitude. It encompasses “give and take” relationship among Filipinos. As such, repaying
those who have helped us is a manifestation of utang na loob or debt of gratitude. Loob is
similar with other Eastern views that aspires for harmony (sakop) s and is the common factor
among others, God, and nature. Loob priorities family, relatives, and even nonkinsmen. It
bridges individual differences and is the common factor among human beings.
The concept of Rand’s free individual and the Filipino’s view of the free human being
may have differences but can be overcome. The potential of the Filipino should be able to grow
so that he will be aware of his uniqueness. Children should be brought up to the identity of the
members of the family and simultaneously with that of the nation. Self-sufficiently (kasarinlan)
should recognize human worth and dignity.
Individualism, thus, should not be seen as selfishness but an affirmation of a truly human
self that is the supreme value of human living. To be a free individual is to be responsible not
only for one’s self but also for all. Thus, the individual becomes a free and creative person who
asserts one’s uniqueness.
Kagandahang loob, kabutihang loob, and kalooban are terms that show sharing of one’s
self to others. This is the freedom within loob. Loob puts one in touch with his fellow beings.
Great Filipino values, in fact, are essentially interpersonal. The use of intermediaries or go-
between,s, the values of loyalty, hospitality, pakikisama (camaraderie), and respect for authority
are such values that relate to persons. In short, Filipinos generally believe in the innate
goodnews of the human beings.
Situations that demonstrate freedom of choice

According the Rand, individual freedom should be aligned with economic freedom. The
Filipino “sakop” or harmony can be a helping value to the full development of the Pilipino if he
opens up to embrace the whole Philippine society. However, there are cases where the Filipino
sakop may adversely affect the social and financial status of the one moving up the social
ladder. For instance, the more well-off members of the family share their gains with their
relatives or friends in need.
However, sometimes, the beneficiaries of the monetary assistance (utang or loan) use
the money for non-essentials (e.g., gambling) where there are more important concerns that
should be prioritized (e.g., saving). Hence, because of the Filipino sakop, those who are better
off must inspire the morale of their family members to be more responsible.
Likewise, family members should consider sakop seriously support themselves
financially and socially so as to not squander the help bestowed on them. Moreover, they must
come to realize that their personal worth and dignity are not exterior to themselves; it is found
not in the body of the sakop but in one’s kalooban. If these are fulfilled, the Filipinos shall not
only be better persons but a better nation with a sound economy (Andres, 1994).
A leader or a manager with magandang kalooban is not passive but plays an active role
in economic development. Leaders should not only focus on the impact of job performance but
also treat every individual worker as a person and not as an object. Filipinos can attain a sound
economy through an integrative system as such there is support and help among units of
77
organizations within a company. To make up for the inferiority complex of Filipinos, a good
Filipino leader/manager must encourage fellow Filipinos to believe in themselves so that they
can bounce back as an economic power. Rand support that greater creativity will be achieved if
the government will minimize influence on individuals. Filipinos should take the initiative by
following Rand’s suggestion and adapting individualism in their value system. Individualism will
provide Filipinos an opportunity to be more aware of their capacity to harness fully their
strengths and to commit themselves to life. Individualism reinforces kasarinlan (self-sufficiency)
as such discourages subservience from external control higher than itself.
Kasarinlan promotes entrepreneurship, which minimize foreign control of Filipinos (i.e.,
from the control of monopolies and multinational companies). Other than entrepreneurship,
individualism also prioritizes countryside development, a self-help concept among the country
dwellers which discourages dependence on government loans which would leave the locals to
follow whatever conditions the government sets in a favor of the loan. Furthermore, for Andres
(196), the spirit of self-help is the root of all authentic growth is rural development, which is a
source of national productivity and efficiency.
As a result, entrepreneurship and countryside development economically and politically
emancipate Filipinos from local and foreign intervention. Moreover, Filipinos learn to be self-
sufficient which leads to self-respect and consequently, enhances the Filipinos’ amor propio
(pride and respectability).
Education has its own part to fulfill in giving importance to individual students and in the
promulgation of the concept of individualism. Mounting a continuing education among Filipinos,
education should not shape the students’ mind to be passive. Educators should be aware of the
individual talents of student, the differences in their family background, gifts, and capabilities.
Rand proposed that the main task of education is to teach students how to be trained in theories
and concepts. The students have to be taught eventually of knowledge discovered in the past
so that they will be equipped to acquire further knowledge of their own effort (binswanger, 196).
However, individualism should be tied to social responsibility and should not be just
tayo-tayo or kami-kami. Our own individuality should interact with the individuality of others. In
this light, every Filipino should be given equal chance to cultivate their talents that inevitably
contribute in the development of the society. Further, as individuals who are free, Filipino should
recognize their own brand of uniqueness, instead of copying foreign cultures. Loob does not
only develop the self of an individual but also the welfare of others.
Readings: Philosophers’ Concepts of Human Freedom
Philosophers Freedom of Man

Soren Kierkegaard Freedom is that which enables man to pass from
the aesthetic state to the ethical, and ultimately, to
the religious stage where man makes the leap of
faith which is the highest act of man’s freedom.
Martin Heidegger Freedom is self-transcendence in time, the being-
ahead-of itself of dasein while having been and
77
making present entities in his world.

Jean-Paul Sartre Existence precedes essence. Man exists first and
is freely creating his own essence. Freedom is
absolute.
Merleau- Ponty Freedom is situated, limited and not absolute by
the very fact that we halve our own body.
Gabriel Marcel Freedom is man’s ability to say “yes” to Being
(God), to pass from the realm of Having to that of
Being, the realm of participation. One becomes
free only if he transcends himself and goes out to
others in love, participating in something greater
than himself.
Obstacles from exercising freedom

Human freedom has its limitations. Constraints on free action include external obstacles
such as prohibitions, laws, and other social controls imposed by society. A person can also be
physically prevented from performing an action by disability or sickness, or by coercion exerted
by another person. Other external factors that may restrict free action include the weather,
accidents, or poverty. Constraints on free will include certain methods that cloud a person’s
judgment such as manipulation and brainwashing. People can also be coerced to perform
actions against their will.
Considering these constraints, it is then possible for people to exercise their free will but
are prevented to engage in free action. For example, a family may decide to go on a vacation
but a storm may force them to cancel their plans at the last minute. On the other hand, it is also
possible for a person to freely act without free will regarding his or her actions, as a person
forced to participate in a hazing ritual to gain admission into an organization does not have free
will.
Philosophers also pondered how free will can be exercised in a seemingly deterministic
world. Determinism is a philosophical view that believes that every event in the world is brought
about by underlying causes or factors. If man is indeed free, how can he exercise his free will
and action in a world where events are already determined by outside forces.
Various explanations have been proposed in order to reconcile free will with
determinism. The generally accepted view is that man possesses free will and is able to
exercise it in many situations. An example of free will being exercised in a deterministic scenario
is how people deal with things that are “outside of their control.” For instance, a young person
may struggle with his or her family’s decision to move to a a different place but he or she can
make the choice either to adjust to the situation or resist change. Another example is how
people deal with the tragic news of an impending loss. A person diagnosed with a terminal
illness cannot do anything to reverse his or her situation, but he or she can choose to live out
his or her remaining moments in a dignified, calm manner.
Effective ways to exercise freedom in our life

The concept of moral responsibility is an effective guide in the proper exercise of human
freedom. Moral responsibility refers to a person’s status of deserving praise and reward, or
blame and punishment for an action. Free will is necessary for moral responsibility. Should there
be impediments or constraints to free will, a person is held to not be morally responsible for his
or her actions.
Assuming that almost all of our actions are essentially free, we as persons have to
confront the moral responsibility of our actions. Our good actions, such as helping people in
need or fulfilling our responsibilities, will merit praise and reward. On other hand, should we do
77
actions which run counter to social norms and laws, and cause harm to others, we run the risk
of facing the negative consequences of our action. Christian doctrine establishes that all good,
moral actions will result in rewards such as blessings and salvation, while evil deeds merit
punishment both in this world and in the afterlife.
Control and regulation are necessary elements in the responsible exercise of freedom.
In the face of social situations and moral dilemmas, an individual may consider alternative
choices, refrain from doing his intended action and even act differently from his intended choice.
A person who discourages friends from skipping classes just because “they felt like it: is
exercising freedom with control and regulation. A person who chooses not to join his barkada
who engage in vices such as excessive drinking also shows responsible exercise of freedom.
Our interactions with other people in society is also an important influence in the proper
exercise of freedom. Adopting the concept of “social contract,” we assume that human freedom
can be exercised under certain constraints or limits. Thus our decisions and action should be
done in consideration of the established norms or laws of society, and the general welfare. A
responsible member of society should also uphold not only her own individual rights, but also
the rights and liberties of other people.
ACTIVITY 5
1. Read the essay below and write a short analysis and evaluation of honor crimes
happening in other parts of the world like Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
Relate this to mores and human freedom.
The Philippines is one of the many countries in the world that puts very
high regard for freedom, including the freedom to love another person.
But, what if the value of freedom run I conflict with another value, the
value of honor. What is a person to do? Does he/she follow his/her heart?
Or not?
An article in USA today a few months ago reported an incident in

Pakistan that revealed an apparent discord between having the freedom
to choose and valuing honor. The report showed what happens when a
Pakistani woman chose to follow her freedom to love when doing so
would put a blight in her family’s honor. The woman was punished for it.
She paid for it with her life.
Farzana Parveen was set to marry her distant cousin, as was long
arranged by her family. But, she fell in love with another man and married
him instead. For this act, she was condemned to death for disobeying her
family’s wishes and dishonoring her family. The 25 year lod woman’s
father, brother, and spurned fiancé were among the male relatives who
used bricks and clubs in the so called honor killing. Farzana Parveen was
pronounced dead at a hospital after suffering massive head injuries.
77
Pakistani Rights group, the Aurat Foundation, estimated that about 1000
Pakistani women are killed each year by their families. Reuters writes that
the true figure is probably many times higher because the census is
based only on newspaper accounts of honor killings. Convicted killers are
sometimes released because the law allows the family to forgive the
killer. A News Pakistan writer said that an honor killing is most probably
“the easiest way of killing a woman and avoiding capital punishment at
the same time.”
2. Give an example of a morally significant act that you have done in the past which you
consider as an exercise of your freedom. Explain how, in your exercise of this freedom,
you also considered society’s role in limiting your behavior.
NAME: __________________________________________
YEAR/SECTION: ___________________________________
ACTIVITY 5
1.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
77
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
77
77
77
77
77
UNIT IV
INTERSUBJECTIVITY
Learning Outcomes:
1. To understand the meaning of intersubjectivity
2. To understand the human person as a person for others
3. To put it into practice the true meaning of genuine dialogue in our everyday lives.
Motivational Activity:
Magbigay ng dalawang bagay na
a. May gamit at may halaga
b. May gamit ngunit di mahalaga
c. May halaga ngunit di gamit
d. Walang halaga at walang gamit
1.Ipaliwanag ang mga sagot sa bawat tanong ng isang paragraph.
Pambungad:
Maaari ka bang mabuhay na mag-isa?
Maaari ka bang mamuhay na walang kasama?
Ang buhay ng tao ay masasabing buhay na may kasama. Kahit nga si Adan
nangailangan siya ng Eba upang maging masaya at maligaya di ba? Likas sa tao ang
77
makisama at makipag kapwa. Ang tao ay isang umiiral na may kaagapay sa kanyang paglaki at
pakikipagsapalaran sa mundo, siya ay ay isang tao para sa kapwa.
Martin Buber’s Relating to others (I and You Relationships)

The idea of a self is a product of our relationship with others. Prior to the idea of the self,
the other comes first. The direction of our consciousness is always primarily outward, that is,
directed towards others, and there are only very few moments when our consciousness is
directed to ourselves. We are then aware of others first before being aware of ourselves. For
Buber, the interpersonal is the I – You relations. Buber emphasizes is that life, people, and
experiences are connected to us and we are connected to them. we must nurture, understand,
and develop these connections so that we get to live a full life filled with joy, energy,
entrepreneurship, and creativity.
Martin Buber’s I – thou philosophy is about the human person as a subject, a being
different from things or from objects. The human person experiences one’s wholeness not in the
virtue of his relation to one’s self, but in virtue of one’s relation with another self. In other words,
a person finds meaning and purpose in the world on how and why he relates with the people,
objects, and experiences in the world he belongs to. The human person establishes the world of
mutual sharing of selves. This signifies a person to person, subject to subject relation or
acceptance, sincerity, concern, respect, dialogue, and care. Buber believed that a human does
not exist in isolation and separation from the situations and people around him. Instead, every
man, woman, and child are deeply and extremely connected with each other, he must reach out
to others and understand them.
There are people who treat other people genuinely as persons. This is the I-thou
relationships. They do not and will not reduce the other into either their own self or into the
status of an object. It is in this type of relationship that the other is treated as distinctly other.
The I treats the person as a Thou – as another person who is different from the I; one may
possess a different set of interests, visions, beliefs, value system, and characteristics. This is
the type of relationship is quite difficult because it entails effort. The treatment of the other as an
other requires more from the I. the I has to take a stsnce of openness and sincerity. There is a
77
need for patience, understanding, humility, compassion, and a lot more; and these may become
tedious on the part of the I. That is why the I – Thou type of relationship is a special relationship
which we can never apply to everyone we encounter. It is in this kind of human relations that
genuine sharing of one another takes place. The foundation of this relationship is genuine form
of conversation: a dialogue.
In contrast to the realm of meeting and dialogue, Buber cited the I-It relationship. This I-It
relationship is a person to thing, subject to object that is merely experiencing and using; lacking
directedness and mutually (feeling, and acting). An example of the I-It relationship is the
socioeconomic plight of Filipino women and children. Sexual harassment and oppression are
crimes against women and children that continuously escalate. For example, children are
sexually exploited by foreign tourists with the full knowledge of their parents, in exchange for
cash. The I clearly has bad intent on the other, treating the other as mere It.
Authentic Dialogue accepting others regardless of individual differences

Talking to other persons does not immediately qualify as dialogue. In fact, in many
conversations among people, what really transpire are mere monologues. Consider the I-I type
of relationship. From the categories involved, it obviously cannot be classified as a dialogue.
The I-I relation is basically a speech. It does not require an other for it to proceed. The I never
really hears what the other is saying because it never wants to listen. For the I, the words of the
other are simply sounds that they hear, which are devoid of content, meaning, and value. They
only want to hear themselves talk, and they want others to see the world in their own
perspective. Thus, what results is a monologue. The I-I relationship does not also bear the
character of a dialogue. The I treats the other as an object and therefore sets himself in a
distance from the It. Unlike the I-I relationship, the I-It relationship is open to listening. The I
listens to the other, but precisely as an It, an object that needs to be addressed and understood
as a thing and not a person. Our example of a scholar studying an indigenous tribe for instance
is prepared to listen to the tribesmen. However, the listening is simply part of trying to
understand the object of study, which is similar to the case of the medical practitioner listening
to the history and complains of the patient. However, some I-It relations totally negate the voice
of the other, just like the case of abusive employers. The I in this I-It relations is the only
legitimate voice, and the other is literally reduced into a thing which cannot speak. The
variations of the I-It relationships ultimately fail to have a dialogical relationship. For Buber, it is
only through the I-Thou relationships that dialogues take place. In a dialogue, the I recognizes
the other as a distinct person—as a Thou. It does not reduce the other to the status of an I or It.
Accepting the otherness of the allows us to enter into a dialogue—into an exchange. Because
the other presents itself as a free individual with its own independent consciousness, we wait for
it to reveal itself. We do not control and manipulate the revelation of the other, just as what
happens in I-It relationships. And to achieve this, we enter into a dialogue. When Buber speaks
about a dialogue, has stresses the importance of silence, of listening, of sensitivity. A dialogue
does not always have to be an exchange of words. Dialogical elations are expressed in ways
than the use of words: the exchange of glances, the appropriate pauses, the stroking of hair,
the powerful silence, etc. in some cases, the non-verbal dialogical relations are not only the
more appropriate means of conversation, but also the more profound form of conversation. In
the I-Thou relationship, the other is not considered according to our thoughts. We do not
experience the other as abstract, but as a concrete embodied subject. But this experience of the
embodied subject of the other is not just some physical presence. Being with others in an
elevator for instance, does not fall under I-Thou relationship. My encounter with the other in the
77
I-Thou relationship is personal and I experience the other’s presence as a communion. And so
the main difference between the I-It and the I-Thou relationship is based on this experience of
communion with the other. The I-It relationship constitute to other as a subject who is in
communion with us. The difference does not really rest on the idea that I-It is concerned with
objects, and the I-Thou is concerned with persons; because for Buber, the I-Thou relationship is
the experience of being in communion with the other through dialogue; and here, the other may
not necessarily be a human being. It could be your dog, or a tree, or God. Having said this, we
have to realize that the I-Thou relationship is a privileged type of relationship. We cannot
consider every person we encounter to be related to us an I-Thou manner. This relationship
requires effort, and the aim is never to transform the other into something we want them to be;
but to preserve the otherness of the other, and accept them as they are. Having a dialogical
relationship with someone does not mean that we have to accept everything that the other
claim, or vice-versa. There will always be disagreements, and there will be differences of
perspectives and judgments. However, the point is to understand the other; and understanding
is not equivalent to agreement. Genuine conversation requires genuine listening. The I must
necessarily listen and hear what the other is saying, and must really be open to the difference of
the other. Only then can we have a true I-Thou relationship with someone. Buber claims that he
is not demanding that everyone must have dialogical relationship with everyone. That would be
impossible. He claims not that we are to consider others as Thou; but that we are able to
consider others as Thou. Thus, the I-Thou relationship is a question of who is willing to give
themselves, and who are not; for the I-Thou relation is truly a giving of the self, opening up to
the other, and letting the Thou be immersed with the I.
In summary, For Buber, a life of dialogue is a mutual sharing of our inner selves in the
realm of the interhuman. Between two persons is a mutual awareness of each other as persons
avoiding objectification. Being is presenting what one really is to the other one’s real self.
Personal making entails the affirmation of the other as a person who is unique and has distinct
personality. There is the acceptance of the person, unfolding the other actualizes himself.
1. Supplementary Reading on Pakikipagkapwa ni Matrin Buber

Ayon kay Martin Buber, magkaiba ang “Social” sa “Interhuman”.
Ang “Social” ay pakikisama at ang “Interhuman” ay pakikipagkapwa. Hindi
sapagkat mayroon kang kasama mayroon kang kapwa o kaibigan. Mas
malalim ang kahulugan ng pakikipagkapwa sa pakikisama. Sino ba ng
mga kasama sila ang nakakasama ko sa palengke, sa paaralan, sa
paglalakad, sa jeep, sa negosyo, sa hospital at marami pang lugar. Sino
ba ng aking kapwa? Sila ang aking asawa’t anak, mga matatalik na
kaibigan, mga magulang, mga kamaganak at marami pang tao na may
77
personal at malalim na relasyon sa akin. Hindi lahat ng kasama ay

masasabi kong kapwa. Ngunit lahat ng kapwa ko ay matuturing kasama.
Ang pakikipagkapwa ay isang uring pakikitungo sa tao bilang
isang tao at hindi bilang isang bagay. May iba’t-ibang nibel ang
pakikipagkapwa. May malalim at may mababaw. Posibleng ang uri ng
pagbati ng magkaibigan ay pagmumura, ngunit nandoon mismo ang diwa
ang pakikipagkapwa. Maaaring nagsusuntukan ang dalawang boksingero
sa ring ngunit ito’y isang uring kilos ng pakikipagkapwa sa larangan ng
laro at palakasan. Madaling makisama ngunit mahirap makipagkapwa.
Bakit kaya?
May mga sagabal sa pakikipagkapwa na nagpapahirap sa
pagtupad nito. Ito ang mga sumusunod:
Una, ang pagkukunwari. Maraming mga tao ang kumikilos ayon
sa kagustuhan ng mga nakakarami. Sila’y mga duwag na nakakulong sa
kanilang mascara. Laging iniisip ang sasabihin ng maraming tao. Lahat
ng kilos ay laging pagbabalatkayo.
Ikalawa, ang pagturing sa kapwa bilang bagay. Sila ang mga
taong nakakulong sa sariling pangangailangan. Tinuturing ang kapwa
bilang isang gamit. Mahalaga ang kapwa dahil may silbi ito sa kanilang
personal na pangangailangan.
Ikatlo, ang pamimilit. Sila ang mga taong namimilit ng sariling
pananaw sa kanilang kapwa. Laging gumagamit ng mga propaganda
upang makuha ang pag-iisip ng masa. Halimbawa: ang patalastas ng
alak na kung saan may seksing babae na nakasakay sa kabayo. Ito’y
isang uring pamimilit na tago.
Ano ang mga tulong dito sa mga sagabal sa pakikipagkapwa.
Sa unang sagabal, katapatan ang nararapat na lunas. Ito’y
katapatan sa tunay na pagkatao. Alisin ang mascara at maging Malaya at
tapat sa pagkilos at pag-unawa.
Sa ikalawang sagabal, ang nararapat na sagot ay ang pagtaggap
sa kapwa bilang tao na may sariling pag –iisip, kalooban, pananaw sa
buhay. Kinikilala ang kapwa bilang mahalaga sa kanyang pagkasiya, buo
at natatangi.
Sa ikatlong sagabal, panggalang sa kapwa ang kailangan upang
maisilang ang pakikipagkapwa. Ito’y panggalang sa sariling kakayahan
na makaunawa at makapagdesisyon.
Ang katapatan sa sarili, ang pagbaling sa tao at panggalang sa
kapwa ay ang mga elementong nagbibigay direksyon sa pakikipagkapwa-
tao. Sundin ang mga ito at tayo’y makakaranas ng kaganapan sa buhay-
pakikipagkapwa.
77
DIALOGUE
Isa rin sa mga paraan at elemento ng pakikipagkapwa-tao ay ang
pakikipagkapwa kalooban o tinatawag na dialogue.
Ang makipagkapwa-kalooban ay isang kalikasan ng tao bilang
isang diwang-sumasakatawan. Ito’y “Quantum Satis” (kalikasan) ng tao
na naisilang sa usapan ngunit maaari din maisilang sa katahimikan.
Maraming uri ng usapan. At hindi lahat ng usapan ay dialogue.
Hindi ibig sabihin ng nag-uusap ang dalawang tao, ito’y maituturing natn
na dialogue. Maaring ang mga sumusunod na mga halimbawa bilang
dialogue dahil may usapan na nangyayari.
a. Debate. Maaaring dalawang tao o dalawang partido ang nag-
uusap dito. Ngunit ito’y hindi dialogue dahil ang layunin ng bawat panig
ay kung papaano manalo. At tinuturing ang kaharap bilang isang kaaway
na dapat niyang talunin.
b. Tsismisan. Tunay ngang nag-uusap ang dalawang tsismosa
ngunit hindi natin masasabing dialogue dahil nakakulong sila sa sariling
pananaw, ito ang paninindigan ng isang tsismosa na “alam kong lahat,
hindi niya alam”. Ang basihan ng tsismis ay hindi katiwa-tiwala at laging
nauuwi sa away.
c. Ligawan o “lovers talk”. Ito’y hindi dialogue dahil ang dalawang
nag-uusap ay nakakulong sa kanilang sariling damdamin. Ang likas na
layunin ng nanlilgaw ay magpaimpres at ang liniligawan ay magpa-cute o
magpaganda.
Ang lahat ng nabanggit ay pawang mga Monologue. Dahil laging nauuwi

sa sarili ang direksyon ng pag-uusap. Ang laging mahalaga lang sa pag-
77
uusap ay ang sarili. Heto ang isang kwento na naglalahad ng diwa ng

monologue.
Pamagat: Maharlikang Kalapati

Hango sa Awit ng Ibon ni Anthony De Mello, S.J.
Naging punong ministro sa hari si Nasruddin. Minsan, habang siya’y

gumagala sa palasyo, nakakita siya ng isang maharlikang agila.
Ngayon pa lamang nakakita si Nasruddin ng ganitong klaseng
kalapati, kaya’t kumuha siya ng gunting at ginupit ang mga kuko, ang
mga pakpak at ang tuka ng agila.
“Ngayon mukha ka nang disenteng ibon,” sabi niya “Tiyak na

napapabayaan ka ng iyong tagapag-alaga.”
“Ika’y naiiba, kaya’t mayroong hindi tama sa iyo!”
Ano ang tunay na Dialogue? Ano ang mga saligang kilos nito?
Ang dialogue ay tinuturing isang pagbabaling sa kapwa bilang isang

ikaw. Isang uring pagkilik na tinuturing ang kapwa bilang siya na may
sariling pag-iral, may sariling pananaw, may sariling paninindigan at may
sariling kalooban. Ang tunay na dialogue ay isang pagkabukas ng
kalooban sa kausap o kaharap dahil ang pagkabukas ay ang masasabi
nating pinakamahalagang elemento sangkap nito. Ito’y isang
pakikipagkapwa-kalooban na kadalasan na isinisilang sa usapan, ngunit
maisisilang din naman sa katahimikan, at natutupad sa katahimikan.
Tuwing nagkaroon ng hindi pagkakaunawaan ang mga mag-asawa,
maaaring hindi nila pag-uusapan ang mismong suliranin ngunit maari pa
rin silang magkaroon ng pagkakataon ng magkaintindihan sa
pamamagitan ng pagtatalaban ng kanilang mga mata at kilos na
sumasagisag at nagwiwika ng pagpapatawad at pagkukumbaba. Maaari
din sa pamamagitan ng kanilang mismomg pagmamahal at pag-aaruga
sa kanilang mga anak naisisilang ang pinakamalalim na dialogue. Tunay
77
ngang maaaring maghilom ang isang sugat sa pamamagitan ng

katahimikan. Ito’y isa sa mga pinakamalalim na misteryo na bumabalot
sa ating pagkatao.
Sa totoo lang masasabi nating hindi matutupad ninuman ang

ganap na buhay-dialogue dahil din sa ating makasariling kalikasan
(monologue). Ngunit bilang isang diwang-sumasakatawan,nanalaytay
parin sa atin ang kalikasang makipagkapwa-kalooban. Kaya ang taong
hindi ginagawa ang abot ng kanyang kakayahan ay sinisira ang kanyang
pagkatao dahil para sa kanya hindi pa niya nakikita ang tunay na
kahulugan ng buhay. At hinding-hindi rin niya matutuksan dahil ang
paghahanap ng kahulugan ng buhay ay nakaugat sa pagbaling sa kapwa
bilang isang ikaw.
Heto ang isang katangi-tanging kuwento na magpapahayag ng

diwa ng isang tunay na dialogue.
Huwag Kang Magbago

Hango sa Awit ng Ibon ni Anthony de Mello
Maraming taon na akong neurotiko. Balisa, malungkutin,

makasarili. At lahat ay nagsasabing magbago na ako.
At naghinanakit ako sa kanila. Sumang-ayon ako’t ginustong

magbago. Subalit kahit anong pagtiyatiyaga, hindi ko makayanang
magbago.
Ang talagang nakasakit sa akin ay nang pati ang matalik kong

kaibigan ay hikayatin akong magbago. Kaya’t nawalan ako ng lakas at
pag-asa.
Isang araw sinabi niyang “Huwag kang magbago. Mahal kita

bilang ikaw.”
Naging awit sa aking pandinig ang mga salitang iyon. “Huwag

kang magbago. Huwag kang magbago. Huwag kang magbago. . . Mahal
kita bilang ikaw.”
Huminahon ako. Nabigyang-buhay. At bigla akong nagbago.
Ngayo’y nababatid ko nang hindi talaga ako magbago hangga’t

makatagpo ako ng isang nagmamahal sa akin, magbago man ako o
hindi.
77
2.Supplementary Readings
Elements of the interhuman: Intersubjectivity or Sociality
The Social versus the Interhuman

The Social The Interhuman
-Man lives in a society but his life is -Describes what is going on between and
enclosed and contained as defined by the among persons in a very personalized,
group in which he lives defined by attitudinal and emphatic way.
affiliations namely: religion, culture, -man may not be bound by kinship but he
ideologies, and political group can relate with sympathy.
Being versus Seeming

(two types of human existence)
Being Seeming
-What one reality? -What one wishes to seem
-Impression: ut stands out, lasts and -Impression: fades
spontaneous. -Mask/Image: fake it until you make it but
-What you see is what you get… how long…
-Courage to unfold personality, high self- -Cowardice, ghost-self, lives in fear, very
esteem and confidence. low self-esteem and self confidence
“I – Thou” relationship Versus “I – It” relationship

I – Thou I – It
-The Thou become present to the I with -The “It” is an object to be manipulated,
all unity, uniqueness and idiosyncrasies. controlled, used, to be abused and misused.
There is openness and trust, respect, and
equality. Mutuality of speech
Imposition versus Unfolding

(two basic ways affecting men in their views and attitude in life)
Imposition: Propagandist Unfolding: Educator
-He is driven by self-interest. -The person as a unique individual who is
-He can impose and dispose. and who will be.
-the person is known according to his -The person is a mystery to be
specialization or use. discovered.
-it depersonalizes: one loses himself for -Potential talents arise and are honed.
the sake of the group/power. -There is affirmation from the group’
-Man becomes a means to an end. -He makes suggestions and respects
decisions.
-Man is an end in himself.
77
Genuine Dialogue
- Affirms Being and disowns Seeming
- Affirms Unfolding against Imposition
- Turning to partner takes place in truth
- There is genuine open-communication
- There is a common ground for a win-win situation
- Against Monologue
- Values in genuine dialogue
-respect
-dignity
-openness
-listen
Activity 6
Direction: Write the names of four people with whom you have a genuine relationship. Inside
the spaces provided, write how they have contributed to your growth as a person.
-----------------
----------- ------------
- ME -
----------------
77
77
77
REFERENCES.
E Publishing Co.
Bayolannis, S. J. (2000). The human soul in Soren Kierkegaard's philosophy. Encephalos.
Trading Co. Inc.
Anahaw Enterprises

Publisihing, Inc.
77


CFLF Publishing




77
INTRODUCTION
In this module, you are going to have an experience on the discussion of the
relationships of the human person towards the natural environment and towards society. The
ideas of Arne Naess, Immanuel Kant, Iris Marion Young, and Nancy Fraser, to name a few, will
help deepen the understanding of these relationships. Together with this module are PDF
copies of some essays made by the abovementioned thinkers.
Unit V
This part of the course/subject helps the learner to understand the interplay between
humans and their environments; and the interplay between the individuality of human
beings and their social contexts by engaging him/her to:
 Notice things that are not in their proper place and organize them in an aesthetic way
 Show that care for the environment contributes to health, well-being and sustainable
development
 Demonstrate the virtues of prudence and frugality towards environments
 Recognize how individuals form societies and how individuals are transformed by
societies
 Compare different forms of societies and individualities (eg. Agrarian, industrial and
virtual)
 Explain how human relations are transformed by social systems
ULE 3
77
M
PROTAGORAS
Use a dictionary or any resource that can provide the
meaning/definition of the following terms: “Of all things the Measure is
Man, of the things that are,
a. Anthropocentric that they are; and of the
b. Hierarchic
things that are not, that they
c. Capitalistic
d. Patricentric are not.”
(https://www.ancient.eu,
Let’s have a little brainstorming: n.d.)
1. From the four terms (with the definition/meaning you
have provided), what intrigues you the most?
2. Why does this term catch your interest?
The relationship of the human person and his natural environment is a topic that was not
given the same importance as the human person’s relationship with other essential elements of
his/her development; such as but not limited to: science, religion, technology, education, etc.
The natural environment/earth has been viewed and valued by the human person as
something that “provides resources” (Maboloc, 2016). This perspective has pervaded the
human-nonhuman relationship for millennia; and has been one of the major factors that led the
human person to abuse and exploit the natural world and its nonhuman inhabitants. For
instance, the rate species (animals, plants, insects, etc.) are becoming extinct is one hundred
(100) times faster than they would without human impacts/activities
(https://populationmatters.org, 2020). This particular scenario portrays the impact the human
person has to the natural world. In this kind of relationship, only one gets the benefit: the
human specie.
How did it come to this? Here, lets try to take a quick look at some perspectives that
have, one way or another, contributed to the situation that we are in. One cannot deny the fact
that the human person has been anthropocentric, patricentric, econo-centric, and hierarchic.
The human person as Anthropocentric
77
The word anthropocentric comes from two Greek words “anthropos“ which means man
and “kentron” which means center (http://www.finedictionary.com, n.d.). This etymological
meaning of the word implies that the human person is at the center of everything. Being at the
center, the human person then acts and does things in accordance to what he/she wants or
wills. This is, more often than not, without regard to the welfare of the nonhuman species.
This anthropocentric perspective has become prevalent in human history. The human
person sees himself as the center of the universe, and is the measure of all things, as
Protagoras proclaimed thousands of years ago. Being as the measure, the human person went
on to “name and un-name” things according to how s/he sees them. With this, in the course of
human development, the nonhuman world was relegated to “sources of development”. As a
result therefore, the nonhuman world was used arbitrarily.
The human person as Patricentric

The word patricentric claims its origin from the Latin word pater which means father,
and the Greek word kentron which means center (https://www.lexico.com, n.d.), and thus
patricentric means father-centered. This implies further that not only is the human person
“man-centered”, but more specifically he/she is also “male (father)-centered”.
In addition to the anthropocentric perspective, the patricentric one has made things
worse. In the course of human history, the female specie of human beings gradually went into
the background. For many centuries women had lost their voices, and society was ruled by
men. This particular set-up did not only affect the relationships of persons-to-persons, but had
also extended towards the way the human person viewed the natural environment. Expression
like the phrase “mother nature” has epitomized the perspective that viewed the natural
environment as a “female”. As such, everything that is in “nature”, just as how women were
[mis]treated, was seen then as subservient to the desires of men.
The human person as Hierarchic

In addition to being anthropocentric and patricentric, the human person considered his
specie as the one on top of the hierarchy of species. With this glory, s/he set out to cultivate,
develop, and later on dominate and exploit the nonhuman world. In conjunction with the
perspective of econo-centrism (capital/money centered), the human person has then laid waste
to what was originally a “beautiful” nature/creation. In the name of development [and profit], the
human person “progressed”, while the natural environment “regressed”. The present context of
climate change, carbon emission, global warming, extinction of animal species, localized
deforestation, land acidification are just a few manifestations of the result of how the human
person has related to the natural world. In the same manner, they are now beginning to
become as reminders as to how s/he has dealt with the beauty of nature, and that s/he has
become the beast in this particular relationship.
What now?
It is then imperative that as a specie, the human person has to re-think this particular
relationship. If s/he wishes to continue a beneficiary of what the natural world can give, a
paradigm shift may be what is needed. There are alternative ways on how to start this
paradigm shift. One of which can be found in the tenets of Deep Ecology. Another is the Land
Ethic. Taming the desire for profit and/or caring like a mother can be a good starting point.
77
The ideas encompassed in Deep Ecology are not recent and new. The human person
has known them all along; only that they seemed to have been forgotten or set aside in favor of
more self-serving interests. For instance, Deep Ecology proposes that every living being has
their own respective worth regardless of their functions in the whole natural ecology. A weed is
not just a weed that needs to be taken out or discarded, but rather a weed lives because it has
its worth which may now be tied to whatever function it has. This is in consonance to Aldo
Leopold’s Land Ethic which postulates that the human person needs to care for the land; and
by land he meant not just the “dirt”, but includes everything that is in it. The relationship of man
to another man is one way or another, tied to his relationship with the land. Disrespecting the
land by, for example, cutting off the trees in a specific area without regard to how it affects that
particular ecological system, can have an adverse effect to other people and other living beings
in or near that area.
With this, the human person is now tasked to re-organized what s/he has put into
disarray. This task, however, though has been started, but needs a re-thinking of how the
human person co-exists with everything in the nonhuman world. In this case, what has become
ugly because of the beast, may now become beautiful again, not only for the present, but also
for the future generations.
Supplementary Reading
EIGHT PRINCIPLES OF DEEP ECOLOGY
1. The well-being and flourishing of human

and nonhuman life on Earth have value in
themselves (synonyms: inherent worth,
intrinsic value, inherent value). These
LAND ETHIC
(Aldo Leopold)
values are independent of the usefulness
of the nonhuman world for human
purposes.
AT ITS CORE, THE IDEA OF A
2. Richness and diversity of life forms LAND ETHIC IS SIMPLY
contribute to the realization of these CARING: ABOUT PEOPLE,
values and are also values in themselves. ABOUT LAND, AND ABOUT
STRENGTHENING THE
3. Humans have no right to reduce this RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
richness and diversity except to satisfy THEM.
vital needs.
(Leopold, n.d.)
4. Present human interference with the
nonhuman world is excessive, and the
situation is rapidly worsening.
77
5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a

substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of
nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
6. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect

basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The
resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality

(dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an
increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound
awareness of the difference between big and great.
8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation

directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the
necessary changes.
—Arne Naess and George Sessions (1984) (http://www.deepecology.org,

n.d.)
Unit VI
The Human Person in society
As seen in Unit V of this module, the human person’s relationship with the nonhuman
world has been mostly having the human person being the recipient of benefits. Cross-
reference this with the knowledge you gained in the subject Understanding Culture, Society,
and Politics (UCSP), we can see a difference on how the human person dealt with the
realities of his connections with the human and the nonhuman worlds.
Man forms and is formed by society. As Aristotle once said that “man is a social animal”,
it is certain then that the human person craves for the presence of another man. This means
that sociability, as the nature of man, is at the center of his/her development. Advancements in
the human specie are anchored on the need to enhance this sociability. From a solitary
foraging/hunting/gathering entity; to a group-forming agriculture-based individuals; to an
industry-changing masses; up to the cutting edge discoveries of the utilization of technology –
what is fundamental is the fact of human relations.
However, the question is: how can this relation of man-with-another-man be
characterized?
Going back to module 2, we have seen that the human person as an individual has
freedom, choices, responsibility, limitations, and the capacity for transcendence. With these,
the human person is able to make sense of the realities around him.
One of these realities is the human person’s ties with his/her society. This connection is
not only about forming societies, but also about his/her connections with the other human
beings in the society that s/he makes. This is what makes him/her social. Sociability is about
being able to live with others, and this living is about making the society conducive for his/her
77
development as a human person, as well as, the development of his/her fellow human persons.
Thus, we can say that the human person forms society, and at the same time, is formed by the
same society – precisely because of the way s/he relates with her/his fellow human beings.
How does this relationship would be then? It is about respect. Immanuel Kant, a German
philosopher, in his work What is Enlightenment? stipulated that respect is about knowing what
makes one a human person, and recognizing the same in every human person regardless of
any attributes one has. And what is this that makes one a human person? Kant exclaimed
DARE TO KNOW! (Kant, n.d.). This pronouncement implies the command “use your reason”.
This usage of reason carries in itself the reality that every human person has the capacity to
use his/her OWN reason. Going back to the story of the men in the cave, it is not enough
anymore to be content with what one knows as a result of one’s experiences. One is then
challenged to break out from the chain of ignorance, and explore the world at hand. There are
more things to be known than what one already knows. This is what makes one a human
person – RATIONALITY and the courage to use this reason, to be a human person. Here lies
then the necessity of RESPECT. Respect is given to someone, not because of anything else,
but because of the recognition that the person has rationality. The saying that goes “respect
begets respect” should be seen now from a different context. This means that “I respect you
because I recognize that you are like me – we are rational. As rational beings, we now
have the responsibility to take care of this rationality and to see to it that it develops –
meaning we are responsible now to cultivate/improve/develop our ways of reasoning,
including but not limited to cultivating/improving/developing the factors that help us do
this responsibility, and this embraces not only our culture, society, and politics, but
more importantly our natural environment. “ This is the way the human person forms
society, and is formed by society.
This is further echoed, in one way or another, by some thinkers like Iris Marion Young
and Nancy Fraser, to name a few. Iris Marion Young, in her work, Five (5) Faces of
Oppression, stipulated that oppression can be seen in its five faces, namely: marginalization,
exploitation, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence (Young, 1988). Many
people nowadays may not equate oppression with various injustices done towards others.
Oppression is still seen in its traditional meaning: the exercise of tyranny by a ruling group
(Young, 1988). The absence of such tyrant group eventually means the absence of
oppression. Nonetheless, society at large is laden with injustices/unfair practices. For instance,
discriminatory acts towards members of LGBTQ+ group resonate not only in the socio-political
sector, but also in the other sectors of the society. The passing of the “Anti-Violence Against
Women and their Children (AVAWC) Act into a law in 2004 spells the reality of acts perpetrated
against women and their children. These are just some examples of the realities of injustices
and unfair practices. Now, one may be asking, why do these realities happen? We can say that
one reason why these phenomena exist is the prevalence, still, of the patricentric and
hierarchic perspectives.
The focus should be diverted then to the understanding of oppression as “a structural
phenomena that immobilize or reduce a group” ; and to be in a group/social group means “to
share with others a way of life that defines a person’s identity and by which other people
identify him or her” (Young, 1988). This means then that society as something formed by the
human person is where s/he finds her/his identity; and not the structure that makes her/him
cower in fear of rejection, and/or subtly molds her/him into someone s/he can’t identify with. If
society is to form a human person, then that society should have RESPECT as its core value
that governs every human relations. For Nancy Fraser, not only recognition is important, but
more so, there should be parity of participation (Fraser, 2000).
77
Read the short essays below. After reading the essays, do the activity that follows.
De-Commodification of Nature
Arne Naess in his essay The Deep Ecological Movement: Some

Philosophical Aspects talked about and argued for the importance of an
ecological movement carrying a deep characteristic as vital in
establishing a framework for the “proper” relations of people to their
natural worlds. But why DEEP? Naess alluded that the existing ecological
movement (shallow) is still driven by economic self-interests. For
instance, measures that are taken to combat pollution are centered on its
effect to human health, which for Naess, can be considered as
“superficial and short-ranged” (Naess n.d., 407), rather than on the more
pressing concerns regarding its effects to the life-forms and systems in
the whole biosphere, which by far more exhaustive but also requires more
resources and time. As a result, first and second world countries tend to
“export polluting industries to developing countries” (Naess n.d., 407).
Deep ecology envisions a more eco-centric approach to understanding
the man-ecosystem relations rather than an anthropo-centric one. This
approach is concerned with the ‘willingness to question, and an
appreciation of the importance of questioning, every economic and
political policy [with regard, and in relation to environmental concerns] in
public” (Naess n.d., 409).
Naess outlined the 8 points of deep ecology which do not
necessarily define what it is, but rather portray important concerns and
points regarding what should be done and at the same time functions as
recommendations as to the proper dealings of man to his environment.
Here, he refers to the importance of the ecosphere or the biosphere as a
whole, which can now be viewed as the realm of human and non-human
life which co-exist for the purpose of gearing for the well-being and
flourishing of all. There’s a complex diversity of life-forms from lower,
simpler, more primitive up to the more complex ones, and that regardless
of the level, each one is essential for their own inherent values. Human
interference with the nonhuman world is a given but has to be regulated
with a paradigm-shift of sort, i.e. changes in: policies, ideologies,
economic and political systems, the educational system, and even to the
point of reducing the population of certain places.
The radicality of the points contained in deep ecology is definitely
not favorable to many. However, if one has to really look at it, they are
valid points and points of necessity. The world as we know it today, has
been marred with concerning environmental problems, like pollution,
depletion of resources, climate change, and others. And all these, as
deep ecology wants to point out, stem from the anthropocentric
perspective manifested in the economic-value laden lifestyle and
77
paradigm of existing policies and systems. There is a need then to go

back to earth. To adapt a land ethic (Aldo Leopold) that regards every
element of the land as equally important to the whole biosphere is now a
necessity. The quantifiability of things, both living and non-living should
be transformed into an assessment regarding their inherent values, as
essential parts of a bigger whole. Thus, an “edu-cology” (education on
[deep] ecology) has to be, then, started or sustained, or maximized.
References:
Naess, Arne. "The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical

Aspects." In Broader Concerns: Thoreau, Deep Ecology, and
Ecofeminism, n.d.
Free-ing Nature
Murray Bookchin in his essay What is Social Ecology? laid out the
intricate relation between ecological realities and social realities.
According to him, it is impossible to separate ecological problems from
social problems without misconstruing the sources of the growing
environmental crisis (Bookchin 2007). In this essay, he pointed out that
the current state of global ecology can be traced back vis a vis the
biological evolutionary process. As humans developed more complex
faculties that are used as tools in dealing with the natural (and/or un-
natural) factors that affect the process of their evolution, so too the way
humans have dealt with nature itself changed. The changes can first be
perceived in the shift from being just a “biological entity” (first nature) to
being able to produce a characteristically human social nature of their own, or
in other term, being able to form their own culture (second nature) (Bookchin
2007). As the progressions biologically (first nature) and culturally (second
nature) become more evident, humans have also altered the environment.
The way humans have made changes to the environment speaks of the
way they relate with one another. From gerontocracy to hierarchy which
eventually laid the frameworks (of) for patricentricity, anthropocentricity and
class-based societies, humans have become the dominant specie which “gave
them the authority” to inflict harm on the first nature. The rise of the market with
“consumption” and “capital” as its watchwords, ushered in a paradigm (modern
capitalism) which is “structurally amoral and hence impervious to moral appeals”
(Bookchin 2007). “Profit or loss, growth or death, eat or be eaten” have become
the bywords of the [new] laws/norms that would govern human politics and
relations (Bookchin 2007). The maxim has now become “grow or die” (Bookchin
2007).
This particular framework anchored on an anthropocentrically
hierarchical patricentricity practiced on a class-based society with a modern
capitalism’s structure has en-abled man to dominate the rest of other creatures
and creation. This domination over nature is exacerbated by turpitude or by
moral callousness as profit or loss has become the moral compass. This is what
social ecology is trying to do away with. Social ecology calls for an “appeal not
only for moral regeneration, but above all, social reconstruction along ecological
lines” (Bookchin 2007). This means that the means/ways/paradigms to address
ecological crises lie on man’s ability and responsibility to re-construct his society
in a way that ecology/environment and everything in it is seen not in a
77
hierarchical manner, but rather with an “ethics of complementarity” (Bookchin

2007). Social ecology is about “free-ing nature” from the “centralizing” effect of
capitalism. It is about calling back “citizenship” into the fold of its classical sense,
i.e., “ a lifelong, ethically oriented education in the art of participation in public
affairs” (Bookchin 2007). Its discourse consists of “free-ing nature, municipalism,
complementarity, decentralization, polis democracy”, and its thrust is the
establishment of ecological society: a society that is conscious of ecological
concerns and acts on them.
It is along this line that I find social ecology as “an answer” to the growing
problem of ecological crisis. The paradigm social ecology espouses calls for an
appeal not only to the educated populace, but more so to the ruling hierarchical
classes. It is also safe to say, then, that with social ecology, eco-feminism can
become its partner by helping structure the envisioned society. As Salleh pointed
out, “women…choose to work in small, intimate collectivities, where the
spontaneous flow of communication ‘structures’ the situation” (Salleh 1984).
Thus, with social ecology and eco-feminism, the rapidly mounting problems in the
global environment that affect every living being as well as non-living beings can
be averted, and in eventuality establish a global paradigm of complementarity.
REFERENCES:
Bookchin, Murray. "What is Social Ecology?" In Social Ecology and
Communalism, by Murray Bookchin. Edinburgh: AK Press, 2007.
Salleh, Ariel Kay. "Deeper than Deep Ecology: the Eco-Feminist Connection."
Environmental Ethics, 1984.
Activity 7
Basing from the short essays above and the discussions in units V and VI, answer the
following questions.
1. As a student, what can you do to help others understand and act on the
pressing concerns of the environment?
2. How would you foster “parity of participation” and/or mitigate the realities of
oppression towards other human beings and the environment?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
77
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
77
77
77
77
REFERENCES.
E Publishing Co.
Bookchin, M. (2007). What is Social Ecology? In M. Bookchin, Social Ecology and Communalism.
Edinburgh: AK Press.
Trading Co. Inc.
Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking Recognition. NLR.
Anahaw Enterprises

77
Leopold, A. (n.d.). https://www.aldoleopold.org. Retrieved from https://www.aldoleopold.org:

https://www.aldoleopold.org/about/the-land-ethic/
Publisihing, Inc.


Salleh, A. K. (1984). Deeper than Deep Ecology: the Eco-Feminist Connection. Environmental Ethics.
CFLF Publishing
Young, I. M. (1988). Five Faces of Oppression. The Philosophical Forum.




77
INTRODUCTION
This module will discuss the concept of the human person as a being-towards-death. Man
and his death is something that can be seen from different perspectives. As such, death can be
sees as not something dreadful, but rather as something that is helpful, in one way or another.
This includes a pdf file copy of the The tale of the three brothers by J.K. Rowling,
UNIT VII
This part of the course/subject helps the learner to understand human beings as oriented
towards their impending death by engaging him/her to:
ODULE 4
 Enumerate the objectives he/she really wants to achieve and to define the projects
he/she really wants to do in his/her life
 Reflect on the meaning of his/her own life
77
Read the story “The Tale of the Three Brothers” by J.K. Rowling
(Rowling, 2007).
After reading the story, now, imagine this scenario:
One evening, while having a sip of coffee in your favorite café, a man in a
black coat requested to sit with you, which you obliged. You engaged in a
light conversation about life and you were having an evening of your life.
After which, he suddenly asked you to name a wish that you badly desire,
and that he will grant it (soon after, you realized that the man in a black
coat is death-in-disguise – just like the brothers in the story).
Then, answer the questions that follow:
What is that one wish that you would want? Why would that be your
wish?
In the current situation of our society, watching/reading/listening to the news about the
recent number of COVID19 deaths make many people cower in fear. Why? Perhaps it could be
one or more of the following reasons: fighting an unseen perpetrator makes one realizes his/her
vincibility/helplessness/mortality; one is not yet ready to die; a realization of the fact that one has
still a lot things s/he wants to do in life, and now here comes COVID19 derailing any plans for
the future; the virus has dealt a blow to everyone which brings anyone to where they really are
situated – and a lot is scared to really face their truths; many are scared for the sake and safety
of their love ones; and many more. For some, death is just a passage towards the afterlife: the
true life. For many, death is feared because of the unknown. These are just few of the ways the
human person views death. However, these are not all that that there is about death. Death can
77
be seen from different perspectives, and some views offer an alternative that is worth knowing.
One of which is the ideas of Martin Heidegger.
Martin Heidegger’s Concept of Man and Death

Being is the problem of Heidegger. The main problem of philosophy is being which can
be understood better by discovery. How does Martin Heidegger understand the human person?
Man as a Dasein – is the self-constituting activity because we observe what man does.
We can understand being by understanding “Dasein” (German: Da: there; Sein: being) and the
being of man is “being-there” (Filipino: Nandito ako sa kinatatayuan ko; Nandiyan ka sa
mundo mo). Hence, it is a phenomenological understanding of man, of human existence.
On one hand, man as a being-in-the-world (with hyphen: means that there is
interconnection of one’s existence). Being is alongside with things and this is called concern
(German: sorge; Filipino: Pakialam sa mundo). Man is being-with-others (solicitude) because
man has a bundle of possibilities (Filipino: Maraming mangyayari sa tao). He has the power to
be what he wants to become and the fundamental structure of Dasein is CARE which is the
constancy of the human spirit to realize himself; thus, man is a project unto himself. On the
other hand, man as a being in the world (without hyphen: means there is separation or no
connection) is merely a being alongside with things and talks only about the physical world.
Three aspects of Human Existence

There are three (3) Fundamental aspects of human existence or CARE. First is
‘facticity/factuality’ that refers to the past. What does Heidegger mean by this? The human
person is already a being in the world, alongside entities which s/he encounters. Man is thrown
into the world without consultation – but man has to appropriate the world. “I am given a world
which I have not chosen but at the same time the world is mine, and I cannot do anything
except to claim it as my own. In terms of temporality, I am a part of the past”.
Second is ‘fallenness’ which is the present, man’s submersion in the
preoccupations/distractions of the past. It is the experience of the lack of focus or direction
because s/he is unable to transcend the present. In fallenness s/he simply accept her/his
facticity – lack of transcendence. The implication of this in her/his everyday attitude is that
“there is nothing we can do” (Filipino: Bahala na attitude). Man is like living in the Market
place wherein s/he is just involved in the everyday concerns of the “they-self”.
The “they-self” has no face. Being consumed by the they means having no on-ness:
no identity; one is just floating on others’ perception. One cannot stand up on a certain decision;
has no ‘balls’, and one is not true. One is lost because s/he doesn’t know who s/he is.
Third, ‘human Existence is a possibility or existentiality’ (refers to transcendence, to
the future). Man reaches out beyond himself. He reaches out to the future. He transcends
himself. There is the possibility of self-transcendence and self-projection.
We can make ourselves better. We can appropriate the world as our own. In the end,
man also appropriates his existence. Existence is not simply a given; to a certain extent, it is
also made or chosen. The authority of human existence is the existence I have chosen
specifically shown in the three dimensions.
So what is human existence?
It is integrating my past with my present, integrating my present with my future

possibilities, so that to be authentic means to make choices in light of our past, our present
and our future. Therefore, to be a human being (composite of past, present and future) is to
make choices. Thus, we understand what being is all about.
For Martin Heidegger, man is not only a being-in-the-world but he is also a being-
towards-death. He is not a being-at-an-end but as a being-towards-the-end. It is about
77
possibilities as ends, and man having a plethora of possibilities. Thus, man as having
possibilities, he is in a journey towards these possibilities.
Death is therefore the greatest possibility of man, a ‘not-yet’ which will be. And what
is peculiar in this possibility is that it has the character of no-longer-Dasein, of no-longer-being-
there, and belongs to the particular man, his very own, non-representable. This means, then,
that with death, the human person stands alone, because one’s death is one’s own, and no
other else. For Heidegger, death is the completion of man, because with death, all other
possibilities of man cease to exist.
Inauthenticity vs. Authenticity

On one hand, inauthenticity is the attitude of a “they-self” or “crowd mentality.” Death is
just an event because “everybody dies anyway.” It is a non-acceptance of your greatest
possibility. It is a tranquilized indifference towards one’s finality; so there is the evasion of death.
It is an impassioned freedom towards death.
On the other hand, authenticity is a positive response or attitude. Man faces his death
as his greatest possibility. It is an anticipation of one’s possibility. Death is my own and no one
else; I have and need acceptance of its possibility. I am anxious of my own death-anxiety. This
is angst. With this, the human person anticipates his/her own death, that leads further to the
realization of the need to be “present” in the present, and guided by the experiences of the past.
Owning one’s death is owning one’s life – it is the standing out in the midst of the “they”.
Four Fears on Death

There are four (4) Fears on Death. First is the fear of the process of dying: When
people say that they fear death, it is not really death itself as an end state that they fear, but
rather the physical and psychological process of death. They fear that they suffer terribly. They
fear pain and agony. They fear the torment of letting go and leaving behind everyone and
everything that they love. They even fear the utter solitude that is imposed in dying.
Second is the fear of Punishment: Some people who say that they fear death actually
harbor anxieties about one particular possible set of events that they fear might happen after
their bodily death. It is the fear of what might happen after passing to the world of the dead. Is it
heaven or hell?
Third is the fear of the Unknown: This fear is related to our deep need to feel in control.
When we know what is going on, we have some sense of control over our environment or our
fortunes. However, the unknown allows for no sure plans or reasonable expectations. Will death
be like a sleep? Or falling into a bottomless abyss? Will it be terrifying? Is death the end? Or is
there an after-life? They just do not know and so they fear.
Fourth is the fear of Annihilation: This is the fear of death that gives many
contemporary men night terrors. They find themselves suddenly aware that they will inevitably
face death, and that what they will confront may in fact be the total cessation of conscious
experience, the annihilation of the person they have been, forever. There is no abyss deep
enough or sense of emptiness hollow enough to even close to representing the utter void of
extinction they feel. This evokes a fear that can only be called horror. It is the fear of fears. This
is the ultimate anticipatory agony of which man is capable.
Man as being towards death can either be a Yes to Life or a No to Life depending on our
choices. Example, you can transcend death by saying Yes to Life which is determined when you
are still alive. When I discover others, I discover myself. My life is not authentic if I cannot claim
it as my own. The life I live is my own choice.
77
According to Martin Heidegger, death is certain, indefinite and

unavoidable; it is a dead end. It is the only possession we can call our
own. Nobody can die for us. I only die for myself. We transcend the
medico-scientific fact of death, or merely the fear-of-ceasing-to-be. A.W.
Frank (2002) encourages us to see that death is no enemy; it restores our
sense of the value of living. Illness restores the sense of proportion that is
lost when we take life for granted. To learn about value and proportion, we
need to honor illness, and ultimately to honor death.
Mahatma Gandhi tells us to “live today as if we are to die tomorrow. Learn

as if we are to live forever.” Henry David Thoreau also inspires us to
relate death with life. He says, “I went to the wood because I wished to live
deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not
learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I
have not lived.”
According to Martin Heidegger, death is certain, indefinite and
unavoidable; it is a dead end. It is the only possession we can call our
own. Nobody can die for us. I only die for myself. We transcend the
77
medico-scientific fact of death, or merely the fear-of-ceasing-to-be. A.W.

Frank (2002) encourages us to see that death is no enemy; it restores our
sense of the value of living. Illness restores the sense of proportion that is
lost when we take life for granted. To learn about value and proportion, we
need to honor illness, and ultimately to honor death.
Mahatma Gandhi tells us to “live today as if we are to die tomorrow. Learn

as if we are to live forever.” Henry David Thoreau also inspires us to
relate death with life. He says, “I went to the wood because I wished to live
deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not
learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I
have not lived.”
Activity 8: Let us reflect on the self-enhancing way of life:
What could be the possible implications of the following statements by Og

Mandino, taken from Scroll V (in the Ten Scrolls; The greatest Salesman
in the World) to your life? Reflect and write down your reflection in one or
two sentences for each.
I WILL LIVE THIS DAY AS IF IT IS MY LAST …
1. Bury yesterday
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
2. Live your life ‘today’

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
3. Show gratitude for the gift of life

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
77
4. Value time as priceless; treasure it

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
5. Avoid ‘time killers’ or ‘waiting-for-nothing attitude’

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
6. Serve others as the way of serving yourself

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
7. Excel today for today will never be repeated

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
ACTIVITY 9
ONLY MY DEATH
Direction: To appreciate death and as an appreciation of life, imagine you are in your own
wake before your funeral.
What are people talking about you?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________
Why do you think people are talking about you?
77
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________
Based from what you have written above, reflect on the following questions.
1. How do you assess your life now?

2. What are the things about you that you need to: a) maximize? b) change? Why?
3. How would you want to be remembered? Why?
77
77
77
77
REFERENCES.
E Publishing Co.
Bookchin, M. (2007). What is Social Ecology? In M. Bookchin, Social Ecology and Communalism.
Edinburgh: AK Press.
Trading Co. Inc.
Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking Recognition. NLR.
Anahaw Enterprises

Leopold, A. (n.d.). https://www.aldoleopold.org. Retrieved from https://www.aldoleopold.org:

https://www.aldoleopold.org/about/the-land-ethic/
77
Publisihing, Inc.
Mandino, Og. (1993). The twelfth angel. New York: Fawcett Columbine.


Rowling, J. (2007). Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. UK: Bloomsbury.
Salleh, A. K. (1984). Deeper than Deep Ecology: the Eco-Feminist Connection. Environmental Ethics.
CFLF Publishing
Young, I. M. (1988). Five Faces of Oppression. The Philosophical Forum.




77
Written and Prepared by:
Melvin A. Adora
Wilson M. Llana
77

Philo of Man

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Philo of Man

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philo of Man

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

Try to imagine this scenario:

An over-simplified retelling of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.

You can read the full story here: https://web.stanford.edu/class/ihum40/cave.pdf

Another thing to consider with consensus is openness. This openness to novel/new

Aletheia (Greek): Truth is non-concealment or manifestation, a disclosure of reality.

Read the following excerpts; and do the activity that follows.

"Socrates' famous method of refutation--the elenchus--tended to induce the experience of

(Gerard Kuperus, "Traveling With Socrates: Dialectic in

"Socrates is considered one of the founding fathers of Western philosophy but,

Possible relationship to a tree:

a farmer Indigenous Peoples

a real estate developer a wooden furniture

Kant, I. (n.d.). http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html. Retrieved from

Nordquist, R. (2020, February). www.thoughtco.com. Retrieved from www.thoughtco.com:

Pinkus, J. (1996, August). https://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/theory/foucault.htm#:~:text=Discourse%2C

http://ear-citizen.eu/. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://ear-citizen.eu/:

http://www.finedictionary.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.finedictionary.com:

https://populationmatters.org. (2020). Retrieved from https://populationmatters.org:

https://www.lexico.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.lexico.com:

Motivational Activity: Read the text “Ako ay Ako” below.

Introduction: Who is Man?

Aristotle’s concept of human person

Limitations of Embodied Being

On the level of understanding, we consider our spatial-temporal situation as

3. Body as intermediary. Having a body as a way to experience the world is a wonderful

Supplementary Readings: Transcendence

Transcendence is understood in human history as the shaping of nature

Weaknesses or limitations Lesson learned in life in transcending the

Introduction: Human Freedom

Jean Paul Sartre: Individual Freedom

- The person is what one has done is doing.

Sartre emphasized the importance of free individual choice regardless the

Evaluating and Exercising Prudence in Choices

The issue is controllability. We cannot change genetic effects by punishment; we can

Consequences of our Choices

Situations that demonstrate freedom of choice

Readings: Philosophers’ Concepts of Human Freedom

Philosophers Freedom of Man

making present entities in his world.

Obstacles from exercising freedom

Effective ways to exercise freedom in our life

An article in USA today a few months ago reported an incident in

Martin Buber’s Relating to others (I and You Relationships)

Authentic Dialogue accepting others regardless of individual differences

1. Supplementary Reading on Pakikipagkapwa ni Matrin Buber

personal at malalim na relasyon sa akin. Hindi lahat ng kasama ay

Ang lahat ng nabanggit ay pawang mga Monologue. Dahil laging nauuwi

uusap ay ang sarili. Heto ang isang kwento na naglalahad ng diwa ng

Pamagat: Maharlikang Kalapati

Naging punong ministro sa hari si Nasruddin. Minsan, habang siya’y

“Ngayon mukha ka nang disenteng ibon,” sabi niya “Tiyak na

“Ika’y naiiba, kaya’t mayroong hindi tama sa iyo!”

Ang dialogue ay tinuturing isang pagbabaling sa kapwa bilang isang

ngang maaaring maghilom ang isang sugat sa pamamagitan ng

Sa totoo lang masasabi nating hindi matutupad ninuman ang

Heto ang isang katangi-tanging kuwento na magpapahayag ng