Pre-Socratic: Vitalistic &

Mechanistic Views about the Self

The idea of a philosophical self cannot begin without a cursory discourse on related
thoughts, such as the soul, mind, and the concept of essence.
Even before the time of well-known philosopher Socrates, philosophers have already tried
to understand and explain the essence of things. Some of them were Thales and Democritus.

1. THALES of Miletus (624-546 BCE) - Vitalistic View

He asserted that all things were animated and living, therefore suggesting life as the core component of the
essence of things. His position holds the germinal characteristic of the vitalistic view or essence of life, the
idea that living things possess a life principle—the soul.

According to this view, the soul is separate and distinct from the physical constituents it is made of as a unit
since the physical characteristics alone cannot fully explain the activities that living things are able to do
(Watson, 1978). In short, objects need to have something different inside them, a “prime mover,” to explain
their seemingly autonomous actions.
 2. DEMOCRITUS (460-370 BCE) - Mechanistic View

He held the opposite view called the mechanistic position - that the physical characteristics of
matter are more than enough to explain the characteristic activity of living things. He introduced
the idea of the existence of atoms that were in constant motion and interaction and that were the
main source of all phenomena.

According to him, movement was inherent in living things and no need for a prime mover, a soul, or
a vitalistic principle in order to move (Freeman, 1948).

Before we continue further, let us try to understand some concepts that seemingly surface
in their views as these are also components of later philosophers' views.
First, the concept of essence is said to be described as the "thingness of a thing" whereby it
provides for the possible composition of an object creating its distinct set of characteristics.
Second, the soul, is believed by ancient Greeks as the source of consciousness and thus the
essence of life. However, note that this concept has no religious connotation. Lastly, the
concept of mind was also introduced referring to the expressions of the soul or the
collective name of the distinct functions of the soul, such as thinking, feeling, remembering,
and awareness.
More importantly, the ideas presented by Thales' vitalistic view and Democritus'
mechanistic views are prevalent schools of thought until the present. The vitalistic view of
life, believe that the soul or mind is what makes the person possess a self and experience its
more personal equivalent description, the I. A mechanistic view of self, however, equates it
in varied ways and will be discussed in succeeding sections.
Classical Philosophers' Views
About the Self
Philosophy as we know it stems much from the thoughts shared by classical philosophers
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Their views have been widely accepted by those who came
after them that much of our understanding about the world is rooted from them. So how do
these philosophers view the self?

1. SOCRATES (470–399 BCE)

“An unexamined life is not worth living.”
He asserts the necessity in examining one’s own life as a condition for its worth. The statement
above suggests that one’s life is made richer and more meaningful when it is put into perspective
through self-reflection. When a person begins to see one’s strengths, weaknesses, needs, and
longings as they are, one is enabled to engage in purposeful action.
Socrates introduced the concept of psyche, Greek for soul, being one’s central identity that makes
one unique where one’s thoughts, wishes, dreams, and aspirations are generated. He connected
the idea of consciousness, as experienced by the self, to the soul and added that the path to
happiness is what the soul (true self) seeks, but it can only be achieved by living a virtuous life filled
with wisdom and self-reflection and by choosing to do what is right and just.

2. PLATO (428-347 BCE)

Known as Socrates' student, he discussed the concept of essence where he expounded on Forms
and Phenomena. The former is permanent and eternal while the latter is constantly changing (e.g.,
the chair's form or function is constant being independent from the phenomena where it may be
designed differently in terms of shapes and sizes). For him, a person’s soul (life’s essence or form)
is the instrument upon which individuals comprehend forms.
Put simply, knowledge is already within the self, and we could understand the world around us
through reason and thoughtful introspection. This view reinforces the examination of one’s own
life because self-examination leads to a better understanding not only of the self but also of the
world.
Adhering to the vitalistic perspective, he describes the soul as unitary to emphasize its vital
principle. Also, he holds a dual view of the soul; that is, it has rational and irrational aspects. He
points out that humans have both reason and a “wild beast” deep inside of them that needs to be
controlled. Lastly, the soul has a tripartite structure that consists of reason, spirit, and appetite.
Plato distinguishes between the highly manageable self (spirited) and the unruly self (appetite) of
the human’s irrational side.
3. ARISTOTLE (384–322 BCE)
He adheres to a vitalistic principle of the soul or psyche that makes matter alive. Therefore, having
a soul means being alive, and only living things have a soul. The soul distinguishes the living and
nonliving but does not exactly define the difference between the thinking and the non-thinking
beings.
This student of Plato contradicts his mentors view that Form exists separately and eternally. He
argues that a particular object has a form that is inseparable from it (note the small letter f). Thus,
there is no form without matter and vice versa. This is known as hylomorphism, the philosophical
theory that states that things are composed of both matter and form (Chaffee, 2016). Following
this line of thinking, the body and the psyche cannot exist without the other.
Through Aristotelian lens, the self is inseparable from the body. It can be said that the body is the
conditio sine qua non (condition without which) of the experiencing self, meaning without the
body, the self cannot experience; without the body, there is no self to experience in the first place.
Aristotle expounds further that the functions of the psyche can be divided in several ways. A
commonly used division includes three functions, namely, nutritive psyche, sensitive psyche, and
rational psyche; and it behaves in a hierarchical fashion (Randall, 1960). At the base of the
hierarchy is the nutritive psyche. This is what is observed in plants involving basic nourishment
and reproduction. Next, the sensitive psyche is for all animals. It includes locomotion and
perception. The rational psyche, the highest of the three, is for human beings. It refers to the
capacity for reason as well as all other functions.

These three ancient Greek philosophers have shared a number of valuable ideas about the
self. It is noteworthy to point out that while Socrates and Plato have more or less the same
views on self, Aristotle had somehow a different perspective. Nonetheless, these views
center on the Socratic thought of "Know thyself."
Neoplatonism and Religious Views
about the Self
Neoplatonism is a school of thought often linked to religious thinking as this is said to have
influenced the views of various world religions. Plotinus and St. Augustine were influenced
by these ideas stemming from Plato.

1. PLOTINUS (204–270 CE)

He is the founder of Neoplatonism asserting that the soul is but a prisoner of the body. For this
reason, he pushed for the freeing of the person from this bondage and to move towards perfection.
This is made possible because, although the soul and body are united, they are not necessarily
fused or combined.
Plotinus’s position opened the way for the self to endeavor for higher undertakings, meaning
pursuing a life guided by values and virtues that sometimes-run-in conflict with what others
consider as worldly concerns. In other words, between nourishment for the soul and demands of
the flesh, the soul “. . . shall overcome.” This is possible for him because of his ardent belief in the
superiority of the soul over the body.
He posited three activities of the soul: perception, reflection, and contemplation. In perceiving we
direct consciousness to an object. Reflection implies that the consciousness is split into subject and
object or occasions wherein we are conscious of ourselves, sensing and perceiving. In
contemplation there is no subject and object; the soul is believed to transcend the ever changing
and impermanent and to enter into the unchanging and eternal. Said differently, we have a self
that perceives as well as a self that reflects or a self that sees itself perceiving.

2. ST. AUGUSTINE (354 – 430 CE)

Considered as one of the greatest Christian philosophers of all time, he believed that the soul is
given primacy over the body. Like Plato and Plotinus, St. Augustine shared the view that the soul
is not only different from the body, but it is also superior to it. As a Christian philosopher, he
asserted the need for the soul to achieve unity with God through faith as well as reason (Chaffee,
2016).
One interesting assertion by St. Augustine about the soul’s quest for heaven is the need to have
‘contempt of the self.’ The self in this context represents the mundane and worldly demands and
not what is represented by the soul that is capable of higher aspirations and unity with God. The
soul needs to go through several steps with the end goal of freeing itself from the demands of self
(Watson, 1978; Augustine, 2013).
On the other hand, another religious view about the self-stemmed not from Neoplatonism,
but from the thoughts of Aristotle. St. Thomas Aquinas emphasized the synthesis of faith
and reason.

1. ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225–1274 CE)

He rose to prominence in his contributions to philosophy and religion. Unlike Plato's view that
Forms are independent from the physical world thus belonging to the realm of eternal and
permanent, he subscribed to Aristotle's idea that they cannot be separated from the physical
objects since they are both form and matter.
He argued that all living things possess a soul. For human beings, the person emerges from the
body and the soul. In other words, the person is both body and soul. Aquinas does not adhere to
the idea that the soul is imprisoned in an imperfect body or that it is inside the body as a kind of
punishment. He paved the way in harmonizing bodily and soulful needs or desires in the same way
as he reconciled faith and reason, which made him one of the key persons in the history of
philosophy and thought.

Clearly, the views of the classical philosophers greatly influenced how succeeding
philosophers shaped their views.
Modern Philosophical Views About
the Self
As you have noticed so far, throughout the centuries, the view of the self has evolved with
more and more philosophers banking on previous perspectives and expounding on them or
deviating from them at some point. Now, we continue on with those individuals who
provided more ideas about the self, which are closer to how we view it these days. These
are our modern philosophers:

1. RENÉ DESCARTES (1596–1650 CE)

Considered as the father of modern philosophy, he focused more on understanding the thought
process in answering the questions and asserted the need to doubt all things one has been taught
without question as a crucial condition in arriving at clear and reasonable conclusions. This allows
the person to create a solid foundation for ideas held about the world and about the self.
Descartes puts primacy to one’s capacity to think. Doubt holds practical value. A person is likely
in a better position to be critical and to analyze as well as to search more information to resolve
the doubt. Cogito ergo sum (“I think therefore I am”) constitutes the first principle of Descartes’s
knowledge philosophy. By this, he meant the certainty of one’s existence because of the ability to
think and be conscious. For this reason, “I think therefore I am” is central to Descartes’s idea of self.
Being conscious of self is the key to why one holds a personal identity and a sense of selfhood.
Without the ability to be conscious of self or to be aware of self, one cannot gain any idea of
personal identity; in other words, one cannot have a sense of self (Chaffee, 2016). He asserted that
a person can have a clear and distinct concept about the thinking self or the essential self and the
body, suggesting an indication of Platonic and Neoplatonic influence.

2. JOHN LOCKE (1632–1704 CE)

He is an empiricist for positing the primacy of sense experience in acquiring knowledge and that
only through careful focus on sense experience, one can judge the accuracy of our conclusions
(Chaffee, 2016).
Locke argued that understanding the self begins with understanding what is meant to be a person,
an individual who can reason and reflect. It entails being conscious or aware that he or she is
thinking. This kind of experiencing allows one to form a self-identity. In other words, the self exists
because the individual is conscious of it.
3. DAVID HUME (1711–1776 CE)
He is an avid empiricist too. However, he disagrees with the idea of a continuing identity, hence
arguing for an extreme view of self; that is, there is no self. Hume hypothesizes that after a person
examines sense experience, the individual will arrive at the conclusion of the absence of the self.
For him, impressions are the basic constituents of an experience upon which ideas are derived.
They are more vivid than ideas since ideas are just derivatives and copies of impressions; therefore,
ideas are farther from reality than what comes as impressions. However, no impressions persist
for they are always in constant motion and flux. He then concluded that because one cannot find
a self in these changing sensations, perhaps the self does not exist (Chaffee, 2016).

4. IMMANUEL KANT (1724–1824 CE)

Deemed as one of the greatest thinkers of modern philosophy, Kant worked to synthesize what
seemingly were different perspectives in the acquisition of knowledge: experience and reason
(Chaffee, 2016).
His view of self is a response to Hume’s position of the absence of self. He acknowledges the role
that sensory experience plays in knowing about the world. However, instead of maintaining
Hume’s position that the experiences are disjoint fleeting sensations, Kant argues that the
organized and connected experiences of the world are fairly stable. These experiences, therefore,
are not just a series of fragmented sensations or impressions. All happen as interrelated
experiences, and in the middle of the comprehension and understanding is the concept of a
conscious self.
Kant stated that the mind is constantly at work in organizing and putting order and coherent
meaning to information that the person receives through the senses. The individual seems to have
a set of rules on putting order to what he or she experiences and is capable of organizing
fragmented and totally unrelated pictures in such a way that they make sense and create a
coherent story. The rules are said to be present before experienced sensations; thus, they are a
priori knowledge.
Kant posited that the self makes a person’s sensory experience understandable and meaningful. It
is the organizing entity, the weaver, the music conductor, or the architect that puts it all together,
thereby making the individual’s sensory experiences whole, recognizable, meaningful, and
connected.
A human being’s unified experience makes the person identify a distinct and unique encounter
such that he or she can readily claim something from own individualized experience. This is what
Kant called "unity of consciousness", an integration of one’s thoughts and perceptions in a unified
conscious stream creating a highly personal unique experience of the world.
Kant gave the self-back to us after it was unceremoniously rejected by Hume. Also, his position
explains why the same scene or figure in the environment produces different views from people,
hence fortifying the view of individuality and uniqueness in each person.
5. SIGMUND FREUD (1856–1939)
He had a different perspective from that of the other philosophers who posited the centrality of
consciousness in the discussion of self. According to Freud, the mind is made up of three mental
states. First, the conscious is that which one is aware of, including thoughts, feelings, intentions,
and perceptions, at any given moment in time.
Second, the unconscious refers to the mental states that one is not aware of at any given moment.
It is not easily accessible to conscious experience except with much effort (e.g., psychoanalytic
therapy). Third, the preconscious refers to material that may not be accessible to one’s conscious
experience at the moment, but it can easily be retrieved to consciousness.
Freud asserts the primacy of the unconscious in explaining one’s behavior, while the conscious
mind plays a lesser role. The unconscious is composed of thoughts, feeling, and intentions that
dominate the self, although inaccessible to the conscious mind.
A person’s sense of self then is quite limited for it is only made up of what he or she is conscious of;
it is predominantly composed of and motivated by forces that are beyond his or her
awareness. With this, he was one of the first psychologists to look into the study of personality: the
dynamic organization of all that is psychological and physical about the person, which in turn
determines the person’s unique adjustment to the environment. In a sense, personality refers to
how the self is manifested.
Freud identified three structures of personality. First, the id is composed of raw urges, instincts,
and desires that are reprehensible and offensive to come into consciousness. Second, the ego is the
seat of consciousness and deals with our external world. Finally, the superego is the
representative of society in our personality, holding our values and morals.
The id operates via the pleasure principle, which is to seek pleasure and avoid pain. The ego
operates on the reality principle ascertaining that something is real or unreal, while the superego
operates in the morality principle (Feist & Feist, 2008).
Freud’s personality structures and mental states are meshed with one another. The id is thought
to be buried deep within the unconscious, while the ego cuts across the unconscious, preconscious,
and conscious. The superego, on the other hand, is mostly situated in the conscious zone (Nye,
1981).
Like many philosophers before him, Freud still treats the mind as separate from the body.
However, he relegates the role of conscious awareness as second only to unconscious mental
states in terms of importance in what makes up the mind.
6. KURT GOLDSTEIN (1878–1965 CE)
A leading proponent of organismic theory is this German neuropsychiatrist who worked with
brain-injured soldiers during World War I.
The organismic theory holds that the organism is already an organized system from the very start
and that each component cannot be abstracted from the whole in order to understand it.
Therefore, the theory requires no organizer in the background to put coherence to the different
elements.
There is no need to identify a ghost in the machine that puts all sensations, perceptions, and
emotions together. In short, the organism is in itself the self. Goldstein calls the same self that is in
constant pursuit of actualizing inherent potentialities as self-actualization or self-
realization. The organismic/holistic view became the springboard of the ideas and writings of
Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers.

Even the modern philosophers have opposing views in understanding the self as you have
noticed. Nonetheless, you get to see how and why, depending on the school of thought that
we adhere to, we get to understand why we at present look at ourselves and react to similar
experiences very differently.

With all these discussions about philosophical perspectives about the self, with whose
views do you subscribe to?
Sociological & Anthropological Self
According to George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), how individuals see themselves is based
on their interaction with the society. In contrast to the philosophical understanding of the
self, which is more directed to a conscious self, the anthropological and sociological
perspectives look into the external world, particularly culture and society as factors
influencing self-identity.

Anthropology of self
- one learns about how culture, which continues to evolve, contributes to the
development of self-identity.
Sociology of self
- one learns about the perception of others and the modern society, both of which
shape one’s self-identity.
The Self in the Anthropological
Process
The self reflects how adapting to social environments increases the chances of human
survival. This evolutionary process involves how one’s identity is established. The elements
of culture are efficient tools for harmonious social interactions and coexistence.

What is culture?
Culture
- a system of shared beliefs, values, customs, behaviors, and artifacts that are
transmitted from generation to generation through learning and that the members
of society use to cope with their world and with one another (Bates & Plog, 1990).
- learned, shared, symbolic, integrated, and adaptive (Tylor, 1871).
- instrumental in ensuring human survival through promoting cooperation and
imposing punishment or social sanctions for those who violate social rules
- plays a significant role in transmitting traditions and practices and in recognizing
behaviors and innovations that greatly contribute to the betterment of society.
Note: Thus, identities are multifaceted products of cultural adaptation. They are shaped by
not only individual perceptions of the self, but also what ancestors transmitted through
generations and the learnings shared in a social environment.

- AN ONGOING EVENT.
- COMPLEX.
- A CONSTANTLY EVOLVING PROCESS.
- adapts to the social and environmental pressures through time and ensures its transmission
to succeeding generations.
- bind people and ensure their survival.

Note: The social sanctions imposed in one’s culture are a way to ensure that the cultural values are
being practiced.

Enculturation
- one learns about culture from birth and makes use of it in interacting with others.

Note: They have beliefs and values that their family members encourage; they observe family
customs; and they show behaviors that are acceptable not only to their elders but also to other
people like their peers.
Cultural symbols
- have the same meaning for people in a group or community.
- They may be verbal or nonverbal behaviors, sounds, objects, or images.

Note: As individuals interact with one another, symbols are produced and learned, and they
become significant.

Elements of Culture
- ideas, experiences, events, facilitate its survival and transmission from generation
to generation.
For instance, the Filipino culture is family-oriented and religious and the dynamics of these
two encourage the preservation of the Filipino identity.

Human ancestors
- formed groups to ensure survival.
- gave utmost importance to cooperation, which eventually reflected in various
cultures.
In an anthropological process, individuals identify with a group. Eventually, each one puts an
effort to establish a self-identity. Culture, in general, has a large influence on the self. Feelings,
thoughts, and behaviors are reflections of the culture that encompass others within the
environment.

The moment one is born, one is influenced by the cultural traditions and practices of
parents who are also largely influenced by the broader cultural environment. One learns
from culture how to feel, think, and act. The more one immerses in the social environment,
the more one learns and is influenced by the culture. Because culture is efficiently
transmitted through interaction with groups, one’s own identity is largely connected to the
group that shares the same culture.
The Self in the Sociological Process
Social interactions form a huge part of how one establishes an identity. The self is a two-
way feedback.

American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929) suggested that individuals see
themselves through their interaction with others. A person sees oneself in the feelings,
thoughts, and actions of others.
In the words of George Herbert Mead (Mead & Morris, 1935), “the self is social.” Members
of the society learn and show behaviors that the society deems proper and acceptable.

Norms
- expectations of what should and what should not be done in different social
situations

Four types of norms (Andersen &Taylor,2009).

 Folkways - refer to day-to-day behaviors that people show in social situations
like praying before meals.
 Mores - are norms that pertain to morality. Violations of such result in social
sanctions like being frowned upon or scolded for disrespecting elders.
 Taboos - are more stringent than mores such that mentioning or engaging in such
behaviors can elicit extreme negative reaction from others in the society like
incest being practiced in some cultural minority groups.
 Laws - are written expectations on how an individual should behave in social
situations. This type of norm is enforced by an authority in society.

In general, seeing the self through interactions with others and the socially expected feelings,
thoughts, and behaviors are sociological factors that influence self- identity.

In contrast to the anthropological influence on self-identity, the sociological understanding

of the self focuses on how societal expectations influence identity. Thus, one is influenced
not just by the people and culture in one’s proximity, but also by the people and culture that
are apart from one’s immediate environment due to technological advancements
exponentially reaching almost all corners of the world.
Globalization
- the process of the technology-aided widespread of social capital and information
across the globe (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 2000), has influenced how
one establishes self-identity.

Information explosion [American sociologist Orrin Edgar Klapp (1915–1997)]

- massive amounts of information available and readily accessible in different forms
of media, including radio, television, and the Web.
- This phenomenon influences not only one’s view of the world, but also how one
views the self in relation to others.
One learns about how others from different countries construe themselves through his or her
exposure in social media. In turn, such constant exposure to the web influences how one construes
oneself.

The most influential innovation in the 21st century is the Internet and how it changes the
process of socialization through the social media applications. Such innovation forces one’s
culture to adapt and even change. This is referred to as the adaptive culture (Ogburn,
1966). Even one’s feelings and thoughts are influenced by the social media.

In general, the increasing and encompassing social world is largely influential on the self.
The self is the product not only of how one establishes it but also of one’s interaction; it is
not only with proximate people and culture, but also with the globalized world. However,
the self has free will in a sociological process, and it is capable of deliberation becoming in
charge of establishing his/her self-identity.

Knowing more about one’s identity requires self-reflection. Interestingly, being in a place
with a different culture activates one’s self-reflection and imagination about the self. In a
country or place where the culture is different from one’s own, one experiences culture
shock, a stressful response when individuals experience the ways of a new culture other
than theirs and are pressured to adapt to such new ways. However, such experience can
become fruitful if it is used as an opportunity to examine one’s self in a deeper level.