LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1. To realize that the human person is free and all actions

have consequences
2. To appreciate and exercise prudence in one’s choices
3. To show situations that demonstrate freedom of choice
and the consequences of their choices
4. To become a responsible and authentic person in the
exercise of freedom
56 Freedom of the Human Person

INTRODUCTION

When the COVID-19 pandemic affected your

hometown, you most probably experienced several
quarantine measures. You are prohibited from moving
anywhere you like. You are obliged to wear your facemask.
And you have to physically distance yourself from others to
stop the spread of the virus.
In the scenario above, are you free? Do you know the
consequences of your actions whenever you choose to do
something during the quarantine period? How responsible
are you in your choice of action?
Generally, people want to exercise their freedom.
Nobody likes to be forced to do things, be imprisoned in an
unwanted place, or be stuck in a miserable situation.
However, when we think about freedom deeply, we realize
there are problems with its nature that we are not aware of.
The classic problem of freedom is whether there is
freedom or not. This is the controversy between freedom and
determinism. Some people believe that we are free, while
others believe that our behavior is predetermined. That is to
say, our past actions predict our future behavior.
Determinism rejects the idea of freedom because, according
to this theory, human behavior is determined by many
factors, such as history, socio-economic context, and
physiological makeup, among others.
There is also another problem with freedom. If we
assume that human beings have freedom, is it limited or
absolute? Some people gladly embrace the idea that a human
person can do anything he/she wants to do, while others
believe that there are certain limitations on what humans can
do. When we are in a situation where we cannot do the things
we want, we seem to think that freedom is limited. There are
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 57

many other issues concerning the concept of freedom, but

one thing is certain: freedom is essential in a human person.

DISCUSSION

FREEDOM

As a human person, freedom is vital to human existence.

Aside from reason, what distinguishes human beings from
animals is freedom. Birds and other wild creatures are said
to be free, but do they choose what they do? When dogs poop
on the street, it is nonsense to question their 'responsibility'
because they do not have the same freedom and
responsibility humans have. Indeed, only human beings have
the capacity to choose, to be free from and to be free for.
In this chapter, we’ll draw some ideas of freedom from
Jean-Paul Sartre. One of his famous maxims is that “man is
condemned to be free.” For him, the concept of freedom is
ontological. That is to say, it focuses on the study of being.
The human person for Sartre has no essence or intrinsic
nature. Rather, he creates his/her own essence. In short, the
human person is freedom.
Freedom is the very being of the human person (as
being-for-itself), and "to be free" does not mean "to obtain
what one has wished" but rather "by oneself to determine
oneself to wish" (Sartre, 1965). This means that a person
cannot escape from freedom. He cannot choose not to be free
because not choosing is even a choice. Not doing anything
is actually choosing to do something, and that is doing
nothing. For example, when you enroll yourself in college,
you were faced with many choices of degree programs.
Perhaps your parents or friends told you what course to take.
Later on, when you found out that you do not like your
chosen course, you may say that it was not your choice in the
first place and claim that others pressured you. What you are
58 Freedom of the Human Person

trying to say is that you were not free during the time of
decision-making.
For Sartre, even when somebody tells you what program
to take, you cannot deny that it is you who chose the degree
program in the end. In short, you are free what to choose. In
this case, what you chose for yourself was the choice of your
parents or friends.
Is the freedom of the human person limited? For Sartre,
the limitation of freedom is a product of our being conscious
of things; it is our choice of limitation. For example, when
you go to a mall which is located in a city that is very far
from your place, you may think that you are not free to go
there because you do not have money or you are busy with
your studies. The limitation that you think does not limit
freedom itself. Why? It is because you are still the one who
chooses that limitation. In other words, you decide to limit
yourself with those factors and that very fact means that you
are free to choose in any way. You think that those factors
can hinder you from going there. Even so, you still cannot
deny that you choose to think that way. Most often, we stop
thinking and creating possibilities, so we immediately say
that we are not free. Why do people say that poverty is not a
hindrance to success? And why do people blame poverty for
being unsuccessful? There are unlimited choices for the
person to think, but what limits is the thought of limiting our
actions.
Taylor Carman (2019) explains the example of Sartre in
a situation where the person is seemingly confronted with an
obstacle. When a person climbs up the mountain and
encounters a boulder, that person would see it as an obstacle
and perhaps say that the mountain is not climbable.
However, the obstacle in front of the person is only a
limitation as far as the person's goal is concerned, that is, to
climb up the mountain. For another person who may also
encounter the same boulder and who does not have the same
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 59

goal of climbing the mountain, he/she may see the boulder

as an ugly thing, but not an obstacle. In this case, the seeming
limitation of freedom is an outward expression of freedom,
that is, the person's choosing of goal in climbing the
mountain. Freedom is still present in that situation where you
can see that the person still chooses how he/she sees the
boulder. Of course, the boulder becomes either an obstacle
or anything else because the person has chosen a certain
goal.
For instance, in the case of fatigue or any physiological
challenges, fatigue is not a choice. The choice lies in what
the person does with it. How? When the person stops
walking, stopping is the choice but not the natural
occurrence of the physiological fatigue. However, one has to
note that fatigue can also be the consequence of a pre-choice.
That is to say, it is only a result of what has been chosen
before, such as taking a walk or climbing the mountain with
the given physical condition.
The only thing that the person cannot be free is not being
free. Not choosing is still choosing. This sounds paradoxical.
In that case, is it acceptable to do whatever one wants? Well,
whatever you do, you are free. Does this mean that one can
take an enemy's life? This question sounds alarming,
especially when the justification is that the said enemy is a
criminal. In this case, is the person still free to do the act?
There is no denial of freedom here. However, being free also
means being responsible. We should never forget the
concept of responsibility when talking about freedom.

RESPONSIBILITY

When people talk about freedom, what is being

emphasized is how a person is free. However, for Sartre,
when there is freedom, there is responsibility. We have
established that the person is freedom, and that is, he/she
60 Freedom of the Human Person

cannot escape from freedom, he/she cannot do away with

responsibility. The absolute responsibility of the person is
freedom itself.
Sartre defines responsibility as the "consciousness (of)
being the incontestable author of an event or an object
(Sartre, 1993). When a person is free, the person is also
responsible. Whatever the person chooses, he/she is the
author of the choice. For instance, Laura stays at home
because she does not want to get infected with the virus.
Laura's choice to stay is a manifestation that she is free. Is
she free when, in fact, there is a policy to stay at home? Of
course, she is free because she chooses to stay or to follow
the policy. She is the author now of her choice to stay at
home. In other words, her responsibility is her free choice. If
she owns her choice and does not deny that she truly is free
to make such a decision, she is responsible.
To understand the concept of responsibility is to
recognize freedom. For this reason, Sartre argues that the
person is condemned to be free. He explains that when a
person chooses, he/she chooses himself/herself because, as
implied earlier, the choices make the person what he/she is.
Sartre adds that when "man chooses his own self, we mean
that every one of us does likewise; but we also mean that he
also chooses all men in making this choice." Everyone
wants to choose the good, not evil, which cannot be good
without being good for all. This means therefore that the
person consequently carries the load of the world. Sartre
says,

Furthermore, this absolute responsibility is not

resignation; it is simply the logical requirement of
the consequences of freedom. What happens to me
happens through me, and I can neither affect myself
with it nor revolt against it nor resign myself to it.
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 61

Moreover, everything that happens to me is mine.

(Sartre, 1965)

Responsibility is being the owner of one's choice. Many

clamor for freedom or demand that they should be given
absolute freedom. However, we forget that being free comes
with responsibility. Some people, however, disown their
freedom, thereby neglecting their responsibility. They forget
that their choices have consequences.

AUTHENTICITY

Before we explain the meaning of authenticity, let us

first understand what bad faith (or to be irresponsible)
means. For Sartre, bad faith is a self-deception. It is the
denial of one's freedom. When you chose your college
course, and later on, deny that you chose it and instead
accuse your parents or friends of choosing it for you, you are
in denial of your freedom. In his explanation of bad faith,
David Weberman (2011) notes:

It is worth noting that bad faith, as described by

Sartre, is not an uncommon occurrence. How often
do we deny or overlook the fact we are not truly
trapped by circumstances but are indeed much more
free than we are inclined to believe and more
responsible for our lives than we might like to
admit? And how often do we deny or fail to
appreciate that many of the unpleasant things in our
lives are simply beyond our control?

It is often easier for us to deny what we do than to claim

our own choice, especially when the consequences are not in
our favor. Blaming other people for the misery we choose
(or for the consequence of our choice) is a manifestation of
62 Freedom of the Human Person

irresponsibility because it deceives us that our freedom has

nothing to do with it. We forget that our circumstance is also
the product of our free choice. Again, responsibility is about
owning our choices, and the consequences of our choice are
covered in that responsibility. When we believe that the
action we choose is the only choice we have, we are being
inauthentic.
Authenticity refers to being honest with oneself, which
is, being truly free. To be authentic is to project what a
person is in relation to his/her own choosing, rather than
trying to be somebody else other than what he/she is. This
also means that when being true to oneself, he/she accepts
the responsibility of freedom. The person is conscious of the
choices and actions, and so he/she cannot deny the
consequences. He/she becomes what he/she is according to
his/her own choosing – that is the consequence of his/her
freedom – and so he/she creates the meaning of his/her
human life. Facing the consequences means being authentic
because the person does not escape from his responsibilities.
When you copy your classmate's assignment because
you think the task is hard, and when your teacher catches and
reprimands you, you immediately defend yourself by saying
that you have no choice during that time. Saying that you are
left with no choice is bad faith, which means you are not true
to yourself. You could have other options other than copying
from your classmate. In this case, you are not authentic since
you deny the other possible choices that you could have
taken. People tend to blame the situation they are in. This
'blame game' does not show one's authenticity and
responsibility.

FREEDOM AND CONSEQUENCES

It must be clear now that because of freedom, the

consequences of our actions are inevitable. Let us look at the
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 63

situation at the beginning, where you experience the

quarantine protocols due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Staying at home to avoid getting infected with the virus is a
matter of choice. As a human person who is freedom, one
may look at the situation as something that limits his/her
choices. However, looking at the quarantine protocols as a
hindrance shows that the person is not limited in interpreting
the protocols. This only means that even during the
pandemic period, the person is still free (ontologically).
Besides staying at home, one can also enumerate many
activities he/she can do at home. Of course, violating the
protocols could be one option. Nevertheless, when one
violates the rules as a matter of free choice, he/she cannot
escape from the responsibility of the consequences.
Moreover, when he/she excuses himself/herself by telling
the authorities that he/she has no choice left, he/she is guilty
of denying his/her freedom. So, what should the person do?
First of all, the person has to commit himself to a certain
goal. What is his/her direction? What is his/her choice of
action? From there, the person can evaluate the possible
choices that he/she may take to reach that goal. Anything the
person chooses becomes part of the self. Secondly, choosing
oneself is also choosing all human persons. When one
chooses, he chooses his/her world, and that world includes
other people and the environment. Lastly, the consequences
of the choice are inevitable. The fact that all other human
beings are freedoms, they also react or choose from the result
of your choosing. One must always be ready to face what
lies ahead, which means he/she has to be responsible for
his/her choices.
The freedom of the human is paradoxically a gift and a
burden at the same time. It is a gift because it makes us what
we are, but it is also a burden because it makes us anxious
for not escaping freedom and responsibility.
64 Freedom of the Human Person

CONCLUSION

There can be no doubt that freedom is crucial in a human

person. Despite the philosophical debates on freedom, it
remains vital in human life. Freedom always goes with
responsibility. No matter how free the person is, he/she must
be responsible for his/her freedom. Then, born with freedom
and responsibility, a human person may become an authentic
human being, a true person who consciously chooses his/her
action and courageously face the consequences. Therefore,
individual freedom involves the world and freedom of other
individuals, and that leads us to the idea of intersubjectivity.

ASSESSMENT

Read and understand carefully the tasks below. Follow the

tasks mindfully.

A
1. Set your goal in life. You may choose your goal as a
student, as a child, or just as a human person.
2. List down five (5) concrete actions that will help you reach
your chosen goal.
3. For each concrete action, list down all possible
consequences. The more list of consequences, the better.
4. In at least one paragraph, explain how you will face all the
challenges of the consequences.

B
1. Choose one person whom you think is successful in life
amidst a difficult challenge.
2. Ask permission to interview the person and record your
interview. Inquire what the successful person has done to
overcome the challenges and achieve his/her goal.
3. Write your report in a dialogue format.
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 65

4. Next to the written dialogue, write your reflection based

on the interview in relation to the freedom of the human
person.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. To understand that intersubjectivity requires accepting
differences and not imposing things on others
2. To appreciate the talents of persons with disabilities and
those from the underprivileged sectors of society
3. To realize that engaging in an authentic dialogue requires
accepting others even if they are different from one’s self
4. To realize that the other has a self of his own, therefore a
subject
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 67

INTRODUCTION

Do you agree that before helping others, one should help

oneself first? When we help others, are we not helping
ourselves too? Meanwhile, can a person live alone, or is
“being alone” only an idea?
In this Chapter, we will try to acquaint ourselves with
the idea of intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity deals with the
human person as a subject in relation to an other. You will
be introduced to some philosophers who emphasized the
idea of the "subject" as a being who recognizes the other.
The "other" here refers to the other person, such as a
neighbor, stranger, or simply another subject than the self.
However, the other does not only pertain to a human being.
It could refer to other beings, inanimate or animate, such as
animals, plants, or the environment.
Furthermore, as we familiarize ourselves with the
different ideas of intersubjectivity, it is best also to prepare
ourselves to become the subject in question since
intersubjectivity does not only point to the other but also, and
most importantly, to the "self" that recognizes it. In other
words, the self in relation to the other is also a pivotal topic
for a better understanding of the other.
Here are the three philosophers with their central ideas:
Paul Ricoeur’s “Oneself as Another-Selfhood”, Martin
Buber’s “I and Thou”, and Emmanuel Levinas’ “Philosophy
of the Other.”

PAUL RICOEUR

Man is this plural and collective unity in which the unity of

destination and the differences of destinies are to be
understood through each other (Ricoeur, 1986)
68 Intersubjectivity

Ricoeur’s complete name is Jean-Paul Gustave Ricoeur.

He was born on February 27, 1913, at Valence, France and
he died on May 20, 2005, at Châtenay-Malabry. He is a
French philosopher and historian who studied various
linguistic and psychoanalytic theories of interpretation. Even
a glimpse of Ricoeur's life, one could sense the breadth of
his philosophy, particularly his contribution to Hermeneutics
or the art of interpretation.
How is the philosophy of Ricoeur connected to the
concept of intersubjectivity? Ricoeur accentuated the idea of
a “text”. He said that the world now becomes discoverable,
not behind the text but in front of the text, then the work
unfolds, discovers, and reveals. He continues that for one to
understand is to understand oneself in front of a text. In other
words, the text is necessary for the development of the self
and paves the way to discover the world. Through
hermeneutics, one can be a better version of himself. The
realization of the development of the self presupposes that a
reader of a text will realize to be a good and responsible
person, not only for himself but for others (Ricoeur, 2008).
Ricoeur may not have seemed to be so sympathetic
concerning the “other” in his works. Still, Ricoeur has
underlined the idea of the self in his book Oneself as
Another. For him, if one stretches out the idea of the self or
self-hood, one cannot exclude the idea of the other.
Consequently, oneself implies such an ostensible event that
one cannot be thought of without the other. In other words,
oneself has its title as a self because of the other. This
thought is not a comparison between the self and the other,
rather this is an illustration of the subject and intersubject
that, there is an implication that oneself is similar to another
or oneself since being other (Ricoeur, 1994).
As mentioned above, something cannot be called a self
without the other. This scenario does not necessarily demand
a comparison nor a competition between the two. The reality
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 69

of the self and the other does not compromise each other’s
representativeness. Ricoeur’s idea of the self brought
Descartes’ famous dictum “I think, therefore, I am” into the
limelight. Rene Descartes is a philosopher who lived during
the Scientific Revolution, the era of rapid advances in the
sciences. He is best known for his "Methodic doubt" and the
concept of the "Cogito". Since we are employing Descartes
here, it is best to know some of his essential works in
philosophy, i.e., the "thinking being" and the self. For
Descartes, man can doubt everything except the self. Using
doubt as a standpoint, one can attain knowledge and
certainty. When talking about the self, "I think, therefore, I
am" means that man is a thinking being, and that a thinking
being exists (Ricoeur, 1994).
Even in one of Descartes' seminal works, Meditations,
it has been written in first-person to emphasize that it is his
journey, the self's journey. Descartes lived his philosophy of
the self, and in this manner, the reader of his work is brought
to a meditation and reflection. The book reminds us of
Socrates' way of philosophizing, which leads the interlocutor
to a better understanding of things. The purpose of
discussing Descartes' ideas here is to emphasize the
importance of the self. If one knows the self well,
understands the self, then the act of reaching out for others
is not a farfetched reality (Ricoeur, 1994).
Taking into account the subject-self paves the way for
understanding the idea of the other. The self is present
because the other presupposes as a being that also recognizes
not only oneself but also the self of the other human persons.
Thus, to realize the existence of the self serves as an impetus
for reaching out to others. The self does not necessarily
mirror the other; rather it recognizes that the other also has a
self of its own.
This kind of realization broadens the horizon of not only
having a solipsistic point of view of survival. One has also
70 Intersubjectivity

to learn to take care of the self to take care of the self of the
other. Selfishness can be a temporary phase may lead one to
become a selfless human being the moment he/she realizes
the other.

MARTIN BUBER

The content and relation of these two worlds is the theme of

I and Thou. The other person, the Thou, is shown to be a
reality – that is- it is given to me, but it is not bounded by me.
(Martin Buber, 1923)

Martin Buber was born on February 8, 1878, and died on

June 13, 1965. He is a prolific writer, author, scholar, and
political activist. His works were mostly written in German
and Hebrew, like the Jewish mysticism to social philosophy,
biblical studies, and phenomenology.
Among his many works, the most celebrated and
influential is the I and Thou (1923). This book provides us
with his ideas concerning intersubjectivity. Buber
differentiates the "I and It" and the "I and Thou." The I-It
relationship points to the existence of the self and its relation
to an other, which is not necessarily a human being, e.g.,
plants, animals, and objects. On the other hand, the I-Thou
relationship points to the existence of the self and its relation
to an other entity that has a human self, that is, another
human being, or simply the "other". This I-Thou relationship
presupposes that each participant is concerned for each other
and each person turns fully and equally towards the other
with openness and ethical engagement. It is important to
know that this kind of relationship is characterized by
dialogue and by "total-presentness". For Buber, honoring the
other not because of its usefulness is of paramount priority
and importance (Buber, 2012).
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 71

Buber maintains the importance of the relationship of

person to person. The assumption here is that one's existence
is situated and enclosed, thus contained in a group existence.
This existence is heightened by the act of dialogue, leading
to the realization of total-presentness. Moreover, it is said
that the I and Thou relationship presupposes the silver lining
in every difficult situation. For example, a woman who
washes dishes for a living is reflected as a strong
independent woman or a mother who is optimistic that her
family can survive despite the difficulties that life could
possibly offer (Friedman & Buber, 1967).
The philosophy of dialogue pours much concern on
wholeness, decision, presentness, and uniqueness. These
boil down to the question of the authenticity of the self or
authentic existence. For Buber, one becomes a person by
engaging or entering into a relationship with a Thou.

“One cannot be human at all except in the I-Thou

relation. But it is quite possible to be human without
being fully human, to fall short of realizing what we
might, of authenticating one's own humanity, and
that is where the normative grows imperceptibly out
of the descriptive. Valuing is the growing point of
human existence because we live in the present
pointed toward the future, aware of possibilities,
having to make decisions between "better" and
"worse," having to create our own future through
our response to the day-by-day address of
existence” (Friedman & Buber, 1967).

To know how to address human existence vis-à-vis the

self's existence is the key to achieving the state of being fully
human. If the self is only at the play of discovering his own
existence, he might fall short in becoming fully human.
However, if the self engages with others and enters into an
72 Intersubjectivity

I-Thou relationship, becoming fully human becomes a

reality. The pursuit of becoming truly human is attained in
the I and Thou relationship.

EMMANUEL LÉVINAS

To approach the Other in conversation is to welcome his

expression, in which at each instant he overflows the idea a
thought would carry away from it. Therefore, it is to receive
from the Other beyond the capacity of the I, which means
exactly: to have the idea of infinity. But this also means: to
be taught (Emmanuel Levinas, 1979).

Emmanuel Levinas was born December 30, 1905,

Kaunas, Lithuania and died on December 25, 1995, in Paris,
France). He is a Lithuanian-born French philosopher
renowned for his powerful critique of ontology's
preeminence in the history of Western philosophy (Huxley,
2002).
For Levinas, “Ethics is the first philosophy because it is
only by acknowledging the command in the ‘face’ of the
other that we can account for the sensitivity to the normative
distinctions that structure intentional content.” (Crowell,
2015). Thus, the human person is intentionally directed to
the world; and in the face of the other, he/she does not find
superiority over the other. Ethics calls for a vivid and wide
scope of responsibility towards the other.
This idea of intersubjectivity presupposes the equality
and inclusiveness of every individual. For instance, in a
classroom setting where most armchairs are designed only
for a right-handed person, being responsible for the other
presupposes that the left-handed students will also be
provided with armchairs that are purposefully built for them.
This way, these students will not feel outcasted from the
majority. Also, those malls and parking lots where ramps for
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 73

wheelchairs intended for Persons with disabilities are

provided to demonstrate such responsibility for the other.
These examples show that the other's concern and
responsibility are expressed not only in words but, most
importantly, translated into concrete actions.
For Levinas, one should go out of the self and see the
vulnerable in the face of the other. He challenges the notion
of the idealistic transcendental “ego” as man's ultimate goal.
For him, one should not focus on the question of being's
essence, but rather which responsibility has it awoken to. He
continues that this is no longer considered as justification,
rather construed as an ethical response to the other (J. Cohen,
2012).
Levinas encourages to go out from the self and opens
one's heart and mind to see the face of the vulnerable other.
This means that recognizing the sense of responsibility is the
paramount priority in engaging oneself with the other. If one
sees a homeless, he/she should think of giving alms.
Although some may believe that there are people who do not
deserve to be helped, especially if these individuals have
wronged and caused them pain, these kinds of situation
require sincerity to be responsible for others. In other words,
being responsible is taking care for the others.
This “other” that we have been discussing is not limited
to the other person. The other does not only mean the alterity
of the self or as the other person, but also those who are weak
and vulnerable whose existence is interconnected with the
environment. Levinas asserts that “the Other's ‘exteriority’
does not consist in the difference between my appearance-
systems and his or hers, but in the Other's ability to call me
(normatively) into question: ‘The presence of the Other is
equivalent to this calling into question of my joyous
possession of the world” (Boorse, 2008).
The self's task is no longer centered on the development
of the self, because the other, in one way or another, affirms
74 Intersubjectivity

the selfless self. It cannot be emphasized enough that the self

may still want to attain its perfection, but not at the other's
expense.

CONCLUSION

Intersubjectivity includes fundamentally the ideas of the

self and the other. For Ricoeur, as he employed Rene
Descartes in elucidating the concept of the self and other
reiterates, one should learn how to develop oneself before
one reaches out for the other. It is safe to say that, self-care
is the stepping stone for taking care of others. For Buber, he
distinguished the "I and It" and "I and Thou". The former (I-
It) presupposes the interaction of the self with different
things but having a self. In contrast, the latter (I-Thou)
connotes the "other" and must enter into a relationship with
others because reaching out for others leads to becoming a
full human being. For Ricoeur, self-preservation seems to be
our task, but on the contrary, for Levinas, we should go out
of ourselves to see the vulnerable in the face of the other.
The responsibility towards the other is the key concept of his
philosophy.
The philosophy of Ricoeur, Buber, and Levinas
prepares the human person for society as he goes out of his
comfort zones. The next chapter will broaden our
understanding of the subject-the human person as part of a
bigger picture called society.
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 75

ASSESSMENT

Explain in your own words your understanding of the

following lines of the philosophers.

1. Man is this plural and collective unity in which the unity

of destination and the differences of destinies are to be
understood through each other (Paul Ricoeur).
2. The content and relation of these two worlds is the theme
of I and Thou. The other person, the Thou, is shown to be
a reality – that is- it is given to me, but it is not bounded
by me (Martin Buber).
3. To approach the Other in conversation is to welcome his
expression, in which at each instant he overflows the idea
a thought would carry away from it. It is therefore to
receive from the Other beyond the capacity of the I, which
means exactly: to have the idea of infinity. But this also
means: to be taught (Emmanuel Levinas).
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. To understand the concept of society according to its
characterizations in different moments of history
2. To learn the characteristics that make human persons as
social beings
3. To reflect on the importance of harmoniously relating
with others, particularly from people from the local
fishing and farming communities
4. To show respect for the others regardless of their
gender, race, social status and beliefs
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 77

INTRODUCTION

The human person is a being who does not exist only

for itself or (himself or herself) but a being that is naturally
destined to relate with others in society. Though the human
person has the freedom to do otherwise, there is that natural
penchant to be drawn to be with others. This tendency of the
human person has been documented through the course of
history. Nevertheless, the history of humankind has also
manifested many atrocities between and among human
persons. This chapter is designed to make students realize
that for the human person to fully actualize himself/herself
fully, it is more advantageous for them to live harmoniously
with others as they live in the midst of society. Self-
actualization does not mean the destruction of others but
rather a process of immersing oneself with others to make
each one better, happy and contented members of society.
Drawing inspiration from the experiences of people from the
margins, the fisherfolks and farmers, this chapter aims to
make students realize that as they live in a society, they also
have roles to play to actualize themselves fully to live a life
worth living together with others in their respective
communities.

DISCUSSION

There is an old saying that says, "No Man is an Island."

This statement may be questionable to some since there are
individuals who chose to distance themselves from others.
However, human beings always tend to relate with other
groups and individuals, which constitute what is referred to
as a society. Society refers to individuals' voluntary
association for common ends, especially an organized
group working together or periodically meeting because of
common interests, beliefs, or profession. “A society is a
78 The Human Person in the Society

group of interacting individuals sharing the same territory

and participating in a culture,’ and thus, “a society is any
organisation that enables people to carry on a common
life” (Lund, 1979).

PLATO’S CONCEPT OF SOCIETY

Plato has argued that societies are invariably formed for

a particular purpose. Individual human beings are not self-
sufficient; no one working alone can acquire all of the
genuine necessities of life. In order to resolve this difficulty,
human beings gather together into communities for the
mutual achievement of their common goals. This succeeds
because people can work more efficiently if they specialize
in the practice of a specific craft: I make all of the shoes; you
grow all of the vegetables; she does all of the carpentry, etc.
Thus, Plato held that separation of functions and
specialization of labor are the keys to establishing a
worthwhile society (Martin, 2017).
Plato envisions that a society should be divided into
three social classes, namely, a) the producing class, which
includes the farmers, merchants and laborers/workers, b) the
soldier class, which comprises the warriors, and c) the ruling
class, which includes philosopher-thinkers as well as rulers
and kings who are selected to lead the entire society.

COMTE’S THREE STAGES OF A GLOBAL SOCIETY

In the modern period, the sociologist Auguste Comte,

like Plato, also places differentiating factors in the concept
of society. But unlike Plato, who divided society into three
social classes, Comte argues that there are different stages of
the development of a global society. The first and earliest
stage is called the theological stage. Starting at the very
beginning of human beings and social groups, Comte
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 79

believes that in this stage, people viewed the world and the
events in that world as a direct expression of the will of
various gods. In other words, ancient people believed that
everything around them was a sign of active gods
influencing their lives. For example, ancient people actually
believed that planets were gods in the sky, looking down on
Earth. Even the sun was part of the world of the gods; ancient
Greeks believed the sun was one wheel on the massive
chariot steered by Apollo. If something bad happened, like
when a community experienced bad weather or
an earthquake, people in the theological stage would explain
that such an event was a result of god’s anger to the people.
In short, the theological stage meant that people used
supernatural or divine explanations to understand society
and the world (Comte's 3 Stages of Society & Theory of
Positivism, 2013). This is one of the reasons why ancient
people built temples and churches. They were intended to
honor the Supreme Being whom people perceived as
"Greater than themselves".
Comte's second stage of society is called
the metaphysical stage. Comte argues that this stage started
around the Middle Ages in Europe, or somewhere around the
1300s. In the metaphysical stage of society, people viewed
the world and events as natural reflections of human
tendencies. People in this stage still believed in divine
powers or gods, but they believed that these beings were
more abstract and less directly involved in what happens
daily. Instead, problems in the world were due to defects in
humanity. An example of a kind of thinking in this stage was
the belief that the planets were physical objects in space but
that they influenced people's lives via astrology. The idea
here was that societies still believed in some supernatural or
magical aspects of life, but they were also rooted in the
concrete parts of life (ibid.).
80 The Human Person in the Society

The third stage of society refers to the positive stage.

This stage is when the mind stops searching for the causes
of phenomena and realizes that laws exist to govern human
behavior, which can be explained using reason and
observation, both of which are used to study the social world.
This stage relies on science, rational thought, and empirical
laws. Comte believes that sociology is "the science that
[comes] after all the others; and as the final science, it must
assume the task of coordinating the development of the
whole of knowledge because it organizes all of human
behaviour" (Delaney, 2003).
There have been a variety of views that attempt to define
the essence of a society. Yet, of all these different views,
there is one common entity that is involved in the idea –
human beings. When one thinks of society, the idea cannot
stand without humans being involved since we are, after all,
social beings.

THE HUMAN PERSON AS A SOCIAL BEING

Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, writes, “Man is a

social animal. He who lives without society is either a
beast or God” (Jowett, 1885). Every human being is
presumably social and always has the penchant for relating
to others. As humans connect with each other, such relation
is accompanied by responsibility. An example is the parable
of the Good Samaritan. This story captures human beings'
imagination on who their neighbors are or the extent to
which they are responsible. Here is a scripture passage from
Luke 10: 25-37.

Just then, a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’

he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ He
said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do
you read there?’ He answered, ‘You shall love the
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 81

Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your
soul, and with all your strength, and with all your
mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’ And, he said
to him, 'You have given the right answer; do this,
and you will live.'

But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, ‘And

who is my neighbor?’ Jesus replied, ‘A man was
going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into
the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him,
and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by
chance, a priest was going down that road; and
when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
So, likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and
saw him, passed by on the other side. But a
Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when
he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him
and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and
wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal,
brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The
next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the
innkeeper, and said, “Take care of him; and when I
come back, I will repay you whatever more you
spend.” Which of these three, do you think, was a
neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the
robbers?’ He said, ‘The one who showed him
mercy.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’

The parable speaks a lot concerning human beings’

relationship with others in any given society. Since humans
are moral subjects, their social nature entails an obligation to
the other. Humans play a vital role in the world and the
unfolding of this world depends upon the meaning that
humans bring into it.
82 The Human Person in the Society

In relation to the story of the Good Samaritan, it can be

noted that before he comes to the rescue of the robbed man,
two others, a priest and a Levite, happened to pass by and
have opted not to save him. It should be noted that Jewish
culture, at that time, looked at dead bodies as unclean.
Hence, a person who touched an unclean body would also
himself become unclean. The priest and the Levite,
presuming that the robbed man was dying, did not take the
risk of helping him, probably afraid that he would die in the
process.
The priest and the Levite could not be blamed for their
actions towards the 'half-dead man' since their society
expects them to avoid getting in contact with unclean objects
like dead bodies and corpses. The act of the Good Samaritan,
on the other hand, is a response based on his nature as a
moral subject. In other words, the Good Samaritan
transcended his society's expectations and did what was
expected of him as a moral person.

BEING FOR OTHERS IN THE LOCAL CONTEXT

The notion of "being for others" can be observed in the

local context, particularly among the fishing and farming
communities in Baybay City, Leyte. For instance, the
members of the fishing community at Sitio Lapawon,
Barangay Santo Rosario demonstrate this through their
notion and practice of Gugma sa Isig ka Tawo. This concept
is understood in connection with pagtambayayong, pagpa-
ambit, and pagsinabtanay. In a fishing community where
homes are built very close to each other, the essence of
“being for others” through good interpersonal relations are
very crucial in achieving, maintaining, and sustaining peace
among people living in the same community.
Gugma sa isig ka tawo translates in English as “love for
others”. The fisherfolks express this in a variety of ways in
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 83

relation to their way of life. Since fisherfolks get their source

of livelihood from the sea, their expression of gugma sa isig
ka tawo is concretely manifested in helping and supporting
each other in earning their keep amidst the uncertainties of
what the seas would bring them. Fisherfolks feel assured that
their neighbors are also looking after their own welfare. This
brings peace among fisherfolks since the love present among
them could easily be reciprocated. After all, fisherfolks live
in a close-knit community where everybody knows
everybody. They are a family of people whose common goal
is to live life side by side with the sea. With the presence of
that common goal, the spirit of oneness would eventually
develop which eventually leads to the development of love
for others (Fernandez, 2017).
Among the fisherfolks, pagtambayayong is
synonymous to peace. Pagtambayayong para gaan signifies
the community members’ willingness to extend a helping
hand to a neighbor in need, most especially in times of
distress. In Sitio Lapawon, this manifests in the community’s
collective efforts to put to ground the small fishing boats
from the sea during southwest monsoon wind seasons
(habagat) to ensure that everybody is evacuated from their
homes. It also manifests in their collective effort to rescue
and save a fellow fisherman whose fishing boat capsized in
the open sea during a fishing venture. These actions show
their concern for their fellow human beings, consequently
bringing peace to the community (Fernandez, 2017).
Pagtambayayong is also related to pag-unong sa mga
lisod nga pananahon, which likewise signifies peace. The
community in Sitio Lapawon would do this by standing for
each other in times of dire need. For instance, during
typhoons, every member of the community has to see to it
that no one is left behind during evacuations. During fires
and other disasters, the community members would see to it
that no one will leave unless the concerned person or family
84 The Human Person in the Society

has already received enough help. This brings strength to the

relationship among community members. With this, an
atmosphere of peace prevails in the community (Fernandez,
2017).
Finally, pagsinabtanay among neighbors is a key factor
in attaining peace within the community. Pagsinabtanay
presupposes the existence of an atmosphere where people
manifest a willingness to understand and respect others.
With pagsinabtanay, disturbances to the ambiance of peace
within the community are avoided. This is also achieved by
sharing one's graces and blessings with one another. This is
a manifestation of pagpa-ambit. It nurtures a sense of
connectedness with each other, which greatly contributes to
peace in their community. (Fernandez, 2017).
Moving forward, gugma sa isig ka tawo is also observed
among farmers through their practices of pagtambayayong,
pagsinabtanay, and pagpa-ambit.
For farmers, pagtambayayong means the spirit of
collectively helping each other to make a certain task a little
bit lighter. It takes the form of their willingness to help a
neighbor in his or her task, like harvesting of coconuts,
preparing the field for planting, and transporting copra to the
buying stations. Also, pagtambayayong expresses the
attitude of reciprocating to others what one has done to them
by helping others in their work the moment they need help
from neighbors. It also promotes camaraderie among
farmers and develops good interpersonal relations among
members of the same community. For this reason, bonds
among farmers are strengthened and the attitude to look after
the welfare of each community member is developed. This
leads to the ambiance of peace in the community since
pagtambayaong builds up the spirit of oneness among
farmers (Fernandez, 2017).
For farmers, pagtambayayong is closely connected to
pagpa-ambit. This is the act of sharing what one has to
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 85

others. In a farming community, where members are not

materially affluent, acts of sharing naturally strengthen the
bond among community members. Its essence is not so much
on the value of the thing shared, but rather on their
willingness to share what they have to a neighbor. As Lilia
Silongan would put it: “naa ang gugma ug kalinaw sa pakig-
ambit sa mga grasya nga nadawat” (there is love and peace
in the act sharing of the graces one received) (Silongan,
2015). It is natural for farmers to think of pagpa-ambit as
synonymous with peace since it manifests acts of giving,
which also translates to the essence of giving oneself to
others (Fernandez, 2017).
Finally, “being for others” is also expressed in
pagsinabtanay. This is an attitude demonstrating
understanding for each other. It is accompanied by a person's
capacity for tolerance, enabling him/her to weigh things out
before making a decision or an action. This brings peace to
the community since each member tries understand each
other and evaluate things according to their merits. Indeed,
pagtambayayong and pagpa-ambit are concrete expressions
of being for others.

CONCLUSION

This chapter concludes that the human person is an

integral part of the development of a society. Though some
opted to cut themselves out from others, man is basically a
social being. The concept of the human person as a social
being has been confirmed from ancient thinkers until
contemporary times. Yet, human beings relate to each other
in a variety of ways. Hence, this chapter also concludes that
social relations are more understood in a given context.
Thus, in the thrust to enable students of the course on the
Philosophy of the Human Person to appreciate and
understand the importance of good inter-personal relations
86 The Human Person in the Society

with others, it would be beneficial to look at people's

experiences within the bounds of the community that they
are living in. In sum, the people in the communities taken
into consideration look at the notion of pagtambayayong
(collaboration with others in work) pagpa-ambit (sharing
what one has with others) and pagsinabtanay (understanding
each other). In sum, this is referred to as gugma sa isig ka
tawo (love for others), which the holy scriptures refer to as
the highest among all the virtues. In concluding this chapter,
it might be beneficial for students to read a verse from 1
Corinthians Chapter 13. This could inspire them to relate
with others with love for them to attain peace in their
respective families and communities.

ASSESSMENT

1. Express your view/opinion on the saying “No Man is an

Island”. Expound your answer.
2. In Auguste Comte’s Stages of society, do you agree that
the present society is now in the “positive stage”? Defend
your answer.
3. For Paul Ricoeur, man is a being whose being is social
for man lives and exists with and for the others. Man is
a moral subject. As such, his social nature implies an
obligation to the other. How do you personally
understand this passage? Expound your answer.
4. Upon reading the context on how the fishermen of Sitio
Lapawon, Barangay Santor Rosario interact with each
other in their community, what is your take on this
context in relation to the lesson on “the human person in
society”? Expound your answer.
5. Make a short reflection on 1 Corinthians Chapter 13 that
is found in the conclusion of this chapter. In your
reflection, relate the message of this bible chapter to the
lesson on “The Human Person in Society”.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. To recognize the meaning of life
2. To explain the meaning of life under cultural consideration
3. To define the projects he/she wants to do in his/her life
4. To reflect on the meaning of his/her own life
88 The Human Person as Oriented Towards Impending Death

INTRODUCTION

Death is a topic that does not get the interest of many

people. It connotes an inner feeling of fear, pain, grief,
sadness, anxiety, and sympathy. As much as people would
not want to speak about it, yet death comes along the way.
In other words, it is inevitable not to talk about death, for it
is part of the cycle of life. None is certain yet as to what
happens to the human person after death. But at least, the
scriptures give an assurance that there is eternal life.
There have been many cases of near-death experiences.
Some believe in their stories, some others do not, while some
remain skeptical. It is normal to always doubt something
unusual. To start the topic on death, read the story below and
let you be the judge.

..there is a story about a Cebuana, Laura D.

Banzon, who was clinically dead for one hour and
then came back to life. The writer, Charisse Ursal,
described the extraordinary incident in the January
19, 2013 issue of the Inquirer. The 87-year-old
Banzon recounted that when she was 26, she was
afflicted with acute pneumonia and brought to the
Sacred Heart Hospital in Cebu in 1952. Two days
later, she was dead. An hour after she was declared
clinically dead, she came back to life. Her
physician, Dr. Dayday Borbon, considered it a
miracle because her patient recovered from her
ailment and didn't suffer any side effects, although
her heart stopped beating for 60 minutes.
While “dead,” she found herself outside her
lifeless body lying on the bed, while her family
started crying. Then she saw a narrow bright road
which she followed. She then heard a man’s voice
telling her to sit beside him. She described the man
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 89

as “tall with deep-set brown eyes, wearing a snowy

robe with a blue-green shroud.”
The man told her it was not her time yet and she
had to go back, escorted by an angel. “The
experience strengthened Banzon’s faith, especially
in the Holy Child Jesus,” concluded the story.
(Licuaco, 2013)

This is not the first time that we encounter such story.

The question lies in whether we believe in such. Despite that,
this is one way of realizing that death is indeed part of the
human person's journey. Death is the possibility of man, a
“not yet” which will be. (Dy, 2001) Hence, it is outstripped.
How open are we to accept death as part of life’s
possibilities? If death is a reality, why waste making the
most of our lives? These are some of the questions that we
can reflect on when we discuss death. This chapter aims to
make us recognize that death is part of life’s journey.

DISCUSSION

Most Filipinos are not much open to talk about death.

Some are not comfortable listening to someone who makes
jokes or fun about it. But death is an inevitable reality;
everyone cannot escape from it. In this time of pandemic,
everyone is trying to keep themselves safe from the virus. Of
course, who would want to get infected with this deadly
virus attacking the world? The question is, why should we
be afraid if we are certain and confident that our immune
system is strong? There are varying reasons why people are
afraid of being infected.
In most cases, such fear is associated with the reality of
death. If one gets the virus, probably death follows. The
statistical reports of positive cases cause fear and anxiety.
90 The Human Person as Oriented Towards Impending Death

This is a normal reaction, for everyone is afraid of being

infected, and worst, encounter death.
This virus does not only cause the death of the mortal
body; it also stops many business establishments from
operating. Workers are laid off from work; hence, they
would not be able to support their families. Small-time
workers like those jeepney drivers, sidewalk vendors, street
vendors, carpenters, and many others are very much
affected. Despite the risks, many are forced to go out of their
home to find a living.
This pandemic has brought fear and anxiety to our
society. Such fear arises not only from the imminent
possibility of death from the virus, but also from the
inevitable effects of the governmental measures to prevent
its spread, such as lockdown. Indeed, many lives,
particularly the poor, have been materially and
psychologically affected by the pandemic.

THE MEANING OF LIFE

Is there a universal meaning of life? Is the meaning of

life dependent on the person maneuvering his wheel?
Observe the well-known aphorisms or mottos concerning
life. Do they provide an answer to the question of the
meaning of life? For example, a motto says: "It is better to
die on a rocky river than to see my love in the hands of
another." How does this motto speak of the meaning of life?
It probably means that the lover could not bear the pain of
seeing his/her love has someone else. This can be true in the
experience of lovers.
How about the maxim that says, “Do not do unto others,
what you do not want others to do unto you.” This is
common wisdom in the Confucian tradition. Moreover,
another maxim states, “the early bird catches the worm”,
which is a very common saying. Do these sayings speak of
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 91

the meaning of life? Others might say yes, and others no.
These mottos in life do not provide a concrete meaning of
what life is. Rather, they provide clues, insights, and
suggestions about what one must do to attain a meaningful
life. The assumption here is that there is no universal
definition of what life is, and no single statement can capture
life’s meaning.

HEIDEGGER AND THE NOTION OF BEING-TOWARDS-DEATH

To understand the meaning of life, let us look at its

limitations determined by the reality and experience of
death. One notable philosopher who made a great
contribution to the discussion of death is Martin Heidegger.
Heidegger is known for his book Being and Time. This book
introduces a unique perspective on the daily experiences of
the human person. Humans, Heidegger argues, should live
with authenticity. This authenticity means Dasein's
understanding of the world to something that exists and
potentially does not exist.
What makes this interesting is that Heidegger does not
speak about the afterlife. Contrary to the story at the
beginning of this chapter, none can speak of what life is after
the cessation of breath. From birth, man is expected to live
his life to the fullest as he journeys towards his death. This
is what Heidegger means by being-towards-an-end. Being-
at-an-end is that which is a non-existent human being.
Dasein is what Heidegger refers to as the Human
Person. To hone his/her potentials, the human person has to
be in the world, for he/she has the power to be with it. To be
in the world means involvement with other things and being
with others. In this way, the human person is able to actualize
his/her potentials and possibilities of existence (Dy, 2001).
For example, for a person to become a teacher, one should
exert all his/her efforts to realize such ambition. However,
92 The Human Person as Oriented Towards Impending Death

efforts will be useless without the use of other things like

attending school, complying with school requirements,
school materials, gadgets, and many others. All these other
existences are necessary for the person to realize his
potentials. However, the potentials of the human person
while living in this world are never exhausted.
As the human person continues his/her journey in this
world his/her ambitions never cease. This is part of his/her
life’s cycle. For instance, you aim to finish your studies to
get a job; once you get a job, you travel and support your
family, buy your wants, get married, buy a house, have
children, buy family needs, send your children to school,
your children become successful, you get old, then you
expire. With the attainment of one ambition or goal, another
one awaits. With all these ambitions and possibilities, care is
the fundamental element of Dasein. This is what impending
death means. It is not something that happens to man.
Heidegger also wants to make clear the word impending.
“Impending” is not something that one expects like
expecting a family member to go home from abroad, or a
friend visiting your house, or waiting for your girlfriend to
arrive at your rendezvous. For if so, then death is something
of an objective experience. We may have an idea of what
death is, but we do not know what it is like. Impending is
something distinct only to the individual man. This death is
ownmost. Authentic living is a necessary response to man's
awareness of facing the possibility of his death. This
possibility does not mean actualizing and calculating it, for
it forfeits the very purpose of his potentiality. For example,
since the person could no longer bear the pain of depression
or that the world is already against him/her, he/she willingly
takes his/her life. This is not what Heidegger suggests
because calculating death would mean that it only comes to
older people, and young ones still have a long life to
experience. Nonetheless, this possibility is about
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 93

anticipating that man comes close to death to understand the

possibility of the measureless impossibility of existence (Dy,
2001).

HISTORY, CONTEXT AND EXISTENCE

One way of looking at the meaning of life is from the

lens of history. History is the witness of all human activities.
Life has a historical character, for it is time-bound. The kind
of life in different generations are very different from each
other. That is why people cannot help but compare the
experiences they have had. People born in their era would
always prefer to say that their time was better than the other.
Looking at life from the lens of history signifies
meaning as an external causal attribute. That is to say,
meaning is dependent on external conditions, which also
does not have an inherent quality. The values and definitions
that history offers to humans are dependent on the outside
variables and other societal relationships. Culture, for
instance, is always affected by the change of time. Some
values that were accepted in the past decades have changed.
Some norms that were not acceptable in the past are now
accepted and seem to be ordinary.
Meanwhile, the meaning of life can be viewed
according to context. This means that life has an intrinsic
value which depends on the location. This objectivity of
experience has exclusivity. That is why the experience of
one person is different from another even if they live in the
same location. We may be living in the same world, but it is
absurd to think that your experiences in Baybay are the same
experiences of another person who lives in Ormoc. A
person's experience from the province is not the same as the
kind of life in highly urbanized areas.
The reason why we differ in experiences is because of
the life-context. They differ in language, social value, and
94 The Human Person as Oriented Towards Impending Death

many other things that make their respective lives distinct

from each other. Indeed, different contexts cause different
ways of viewing the meaning of life.
Moreover, the meaning of life can be interpreted based
on one's existence. This implies that life has significance and
purpose. The choices made by the human person is geared
towards a certain goal. The choice one makes should always
be authentic because that is what defines him. According to
existentialist philosophers, the human person is the master
of his/her self. His/her choices define his/her humanness.
Existentialists like Jean Paul-Sartre and Martin
Heidegger thought a lot about living an authentic life. This
kind of life entails the exercise of freedom. Humans have the
freedom to make choices for themselves. In this sense, death
allows the person to be aware of himself/herself and makes
him/her responsible for his/her actions (Harris, 1972). They
also emphasized that each person has a unique way of
valuing, interpreting, and viewing what makes life
meaningful. For example, an artist would aim to produce a
masterpiece that could add meaning to his/her life. It may be
said that his/her masterpiece creates a sense of fulfillment.
There are cases in which certain people or groups share the
same aspirations, but this does not deny the fact that the
meaning of life for each of them differs because of the
existential situation one finds and one wants to be in.

CONCLUSION

In sum, we can say that the meaning of life does not have
one definition. It does have a lot of variables before one can
define it. It can be seen either objectively and subjectively,
depending on the person defining it. The way things appear
around us varies. Likewise, the way individuals experience
things also varies. It is noteworthy that as we try to learn the
 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person 95

meaning of life, we have to be conscious of its varied

manifestations and expressions.
Looking at these approaches in understanding the
meaning of life does not imply that each is independent of
the other. Rather, combining these themes provide a more
concrete and clearer understanding of life. The meaning of
life is not only exclusive to history, context, or existence.
However, combining these approaches makes us gain a
wider perspective of what life is. We may not arrive at a
single or universal definition of the meaning of life, but what
is certain is that the process of searching for the meaning of
life is a philosophical adventure.

ASSESSMENT

Answer the following questions:

1. What is your personal definition of life? How do you

appreciate life?
2. Will a person feel regret if there is no death?
3. Express your view and opinion on this statement: “A man
who knows death, also knows life. The converse is true,
too: the man who is forgetful of death, is forgetful of life
also.” – Ladislaus Borros, S.J.
 GLOSSARY

Anticipation – In Heidegger’s term, it is the possibility of

comprehending one’s uttermost and ownmost potentiality – the
possibility of authentic existence. It is in contrast with expectation
which means the waiting for actualization.
Anti-thesis – It is a thesis that opposes another thesis.
Anthropocentric – It is an approach that is centered on man as the
most significant being in the world.
Authenticity – It is the integrity of the person to be true to what
he/she is. It is the fulfillment of one's freedom and responsibility
for making choices.
Bad faith – It is a concept of Jean-Paul Sartre that refers to the denial
of one’s freedom in a situation.
Being-at-an-end – It is a term used by Heidegger to refer to non-
existent human; it does not mean death.
Being-towards-an-end – It is a term used by Heidegger to signify
what an existing human person can be; the person is a possibility.
Correspondence theory – It is a theory of truth which proposes that
truth is found in the conformity between the intellect and the
object outside the mind.
Cosmology – a study on the origin of the world and the universe.
Determinism – It is a belief that human behavior can be determined
and, therefore, be predicted.
Dialectical method – It is a philosophical method that draws a new
idea (synthesis) from the opposing sides – between the thesis and
anti-thesis.
Dichotomy – is defined as a sharp division of things or ideas into two
contradictory parts; e.g., body and soul.
Eidetic reduction – It is a process in the phenomenological method
that focuses on finding the essence of a thing/reality. It is in this
process that the person finds a meaningful experience of a thing.
Epoché – It is a process in the phenomenological method that puts
the biases aside to focus on the essential elements.
Existentialism – is a belief that man's choices define his existence.
Fact – It is a claim that is founded on evidence. A fact also refers to
real things.
Free for – It is a distinctive feature of freedom that refers to the
person's natural choices, such as the freedom to live, to be free
and to own something. It refers to the natural rights of the person.
 Glossary 97

Free from – It is a distinctive feature of freedom that emphasizes the

liberation of the person from anything that disables him/her to be
free. It focuses on the transition from being imprisoned by a thing
or circumstance to being out of the imprisonment of such thing or
circumstance.
Freedom – It is a vital feature of the human person that enables
him/her to make choices. For Sartre, it is the human person.
Hermeneutics – It is a philosophical method that focuses on the true
interpretation of something.
Methodic Doubt – Cartesian doubt, which means to doubt things that
can be doubted.
Objective – It describes a claim or statement that is based on the
things outside the mind.
Ontological – It comes from the word ontology, which focuses on
the study of being, e.g., human being.
Opinion – It is a personal claim, a belief, or a stand that expresses
the thoughts of the person.
Phenomenological method – It is a philosophical method that uses
the experiences to draw an essential conclusion.
Socratic method – It a philosophical method developed by Socrates
to arrive at a certain knowledge through asking questions in a
form of a dialogue.
Subjective – It describes a claim or statement based on a personal
thought or an individual's perspective.
Synthesis – It is a new thesis that results from the conflict between
the thesis and anti-thesis.
Theocentric - centered on the existence of God
Thesis – It is a claim, a proposition, a reality, an idea or any belief
that is present at hand.
Transcendence - going beyond one's limitation
Truth – It is a claim that is universal, undisputed, verified through
facts, and transcendent.
Wisdom – It is a virtue that encompasses all knowledge.