Reviewer for Final Examination In

Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person

Name:______________________________________________________________________________

Grade Level, Strand & Section: ________________________________________________________

Lesson 9: Evolution of Societies

Societies all over the world, according to Karl Marx, have undergone the process of evolution and this
evolution has four major stages: the pre-historic, pre-capitalist, capitalist, and the communist. Underlying this
evolution of the societies, according to him, has been the constant struggle between two antagonistic social
classes: the master and the slaves (in the ancient period), the lords and the serfs (in the medieval period), and
the bourgeois and the proletarians (beginning the period of industrialization).

 Prehistory
Marx conceives humans in the prehistoric society as selfless and cooperative beings, possessing no
private property (everything being owned in common), and who went along with each other very well.
People lived by hunting and gathering. There was no need for the people to cultivate the land, as there
was an abundant supply of foods. There was alas no division of labor and, hence, no social classes,
and no war too. People lived in peace and contentment. The prehistoric society was paradise-like
(Tannenbaum and Schultz 2004).
 Precapitalism
The Precapitalistic society was an agricultural society. It has two stages: the period of slavery and the
period of serfdom. The first occurred in the ancient period and the second happened in the medieval
period. The period of slavery was ushered by the development of agriculture. People stated to cultivate
the lands.
 Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic and political system in which economic affairs of the society are managed
and controlled by private individuals.
The capitalist society stated to develop during the industrial revolution. The economic relations brought
about by industrial revolution had given rise to the emergence of the middle class (capitalist) in the
society. As the mode of production (industrialization) required it, those who owned capital (the
capitalists) became economically and politically powerful.
 Communist Society
Communism is a political theory that advocates the abolition of private property. But why should private
property be abolished according to Marx? It should be abolished, according to him because it is the root
cause of all evils in the society. It is the root cause of the never-ending struggle between antagonistic
social classes: the masters and the slaves, the lords and the serfs, and the bourgeois and the
proletarians.

Types of Societies
 Hunting and Gathering Society
This form of society is recognized as the earliest and the simplest; basically, small and composed
mostly of families. They are nomadic, meaning, they kept on transferring from one place to another to
look for food, thus, they do not have permanent houses. Men are tasked to hunt large animals while
women are tasked in the collection of vegetables and other crops.
 Pastoral Society
This form of society is characterized by the raising of animals to supply their food especially in the
regions of the world where vegetable growing is not possible. They also engage in buying and selling of
goods with other groups.
This form of society engages in the growing of plants, fruits and vegetables. In this society, there is
enough food supply. Some members of the society also engage in making crafts and buying and selling
of goods.
 Agricultural Society
This form of society grows rice and other crops. They also began to farm and raise animals for food.
They lived permanently and improved the technology for farming. Money became a form of exchange
for goods and services.
 Feudal Society
It is a form of society in which the ruler or lord owned all the land while the farmers or laborers farmed
it.
 Industrial Society This society used machineries in the production of goods and services. Through
innovations and technological advances, daily activities become easier and the lives of the people
become better.
 Post-Industrial Society Also known as the virtual (computer) society, people use technology and the
Internet to communicate, to engage in business and access different information that can be if used to
deal with daily activities.
 Lesson 10: Intersubjectivity

Intersubjectivity
Intersubjectivity presupposes human being‘s connectivity with other human beings. It means that we share the
same situations wherein we can create shared meanings. These meanings become basis for our collective
actions and beliefs. Nonetheless, these shared meanings do not eliminate our own individuality. Though
shared meanings become channels of collective actions, they do not demand uniformity of expressions of
these actions. Continuous sharing of meaning leads to open communication of myself to the other. The
unveiling of myself to other human beings leads me to a deeper knowledge of myself: self-knowledge towards
the manifestation and realization of my selfhood.
Intersubjectivity is, at its simplest, shared understanding that helps people relate one situation to another.

Human being is a social being

A human being creates his/her world to establish relationship with other created things. He/she has to establish
relationship with the environment for him/her to survive as part of it. Detached from the environment, he/she
cannot survive. Moreover, since he/she is endowed with reason, he/she has to establish relationship with other
human beings. Open communication or vocative situation or dialogue among human beings is an encounter of
unique persons in a concrete context or situations in the community.
As social beings, communication among humans is a necessity. It does not only transform the social context
but also their perspective on existence and its meaning. Since communication is a necessity toward
intersubjectivity, it also becomes a means towards meaningful existence.

Human Being is born and creates himself/herself in social interaction.

The existence of human being is the consequence of social interaction particularly between two unique
individuals. They together strengthen this interaction through constant communication. From such
communication, they establish communion of lives that leads to the establishment of family where the basic
interactions realized. Such communicative interaction becomes a matrix in which each person participates,
adopts, and absorbs the values, system, belief and world-view that pervade and harmonize among the
individual in the social interaction.

Accepting Differences among People

There is a psychological adage that says. ―No two individuals are exactly alike‖ – even twins are not exactly
alike in physical, mental, social, and emotional behavior. Saying it in another way, there exist individual
differences among people in many ways. Imposing others what are alike is an authoritarian way of dealing with
people. It runs

Lesson 11: Intersubjectivity Genuine Dialogue

A. Spontaneity in Dialogue
The self-expression of my being carries a lasting communicative manifestation with the other. On the other, the
other is also dependent upon my existence. Martin Buber comments that in this context interpersonal
relationship arises between ‗myself‘ and the ‗other‘ which leads to the experience of communion of selfhood.
Karl Jaspers supports this claim. He says that human existence ―can come into its own with other existence‖
(Jaspers 1950, 55). Unless human being enters into interpersonal relationship, he/she remains an isolated
entity; thus, he or she cannot become himself/herself.
In the mutual self-manifestation of selfhood, there is a tendency of organizing and planning about the things to
be done and accomplished. There is a tendency of thinking, of how one acts, and what one says to the other or
about the possible result of such dialogue. There is a tendency to think what language to use in the vocative
situation. Such tendencies may lead to the superficiality of communication. One may not really unveil his/her
selfhood to the other.
Spontaneous manifestation or unveiling of one‘s self must be a part of process vocative situation. True
vocative situation or open-communication has an element of epiphany; it has an element of surprise. True and
liberating vocative situation is not planned at all. It is more than words and thoughts. As one manifests his/her
self-being to the other, he/she surprises the other. Emmanuel Levinas believes that this is the reason why an
element of mystery is a vital element in an interpersonal relationship. Spontaneous revelation of one‘s self-
being enriches the other. In such a situation, the other makes a spontaneous response that comes from his/her
self-being which is free from any manipulative tendencies.
Spontaneity reveals the mystery of self-being. Spontaneity leads one towards the experience of one‘s selfhood
and the other‘s selfhood. Genuine dialogue is not to be planned and directed. It must come from the concrete
situations of those who are involved.

B. Overcoming the “I” Centeredness

The communicative manifestation demands surrendering of one‘s self-being to the other. It is letting the other
be the center of the vocative situation. This is a risk that confronts human being in order to experience his/her
own self-being. As he/she experiences his/her self-being in the vocative situation with other, he/she also aims
that the other also experiences his/her own self-being.
In this vocative relation, it involves reciprocal effect. As one finds and realizes his/her self-being in the vocative
situation, the other is also summoned to find and realizes his/her self-being. Leonardo Mercado affirms that
human beings influence each other; both are open to each other. They both experience the meaning and
power of vocative situation toward the realization of their own selfhood. This occurs every time the ―I‖

2
chooses to lose itself in the depth of vocative situation. De-centering the ―I‖ for the other leads to the
unveiling and realization of its selfhood, as the other also unveils and realizes his/her selfhood.
Overcoming the ―I‖ centeredness is not simply a matter of reciprocity. As the one leaves himself/herself as
the center of vocative situation, he/she consider the other as more important than himself/herself. It means that
when a human being gives love to the other, he/she does not expect the other to love him/her the way he/she
does (Timbreza 2008). Human being sees the other with a sense of reverence and awe.

C. Relational Responsibility
Human being is essentially relational. Gabriel Marcel affirms that human is not some disconnected, completely
self-standing being. Other human beings are involved in his/her existence and in the process of realizing
his/her selfhood. This is the expression of human being‘s relational responsibility to the other. Through his/her
active engagement in the vocative situation, he/she finds and realizes his/her selfhood. And through his/her
active engagement, the other also finds and realizes his/her selfhood.
Relational responsibility is concretely expressed through the following: knowledge, respect, care and
confirmation. These elements are means for the participants of the vocative situation to be responsible for
each other. One is responsible for the other. This responsibility is not temporary. It is characterized by
constancy. It comes from the core of self which is its freedom.
Knowledge is a vital aspect for the realization of communicative manifestation between and among the human
beings. As one enters into the depth of relation and unveils his/her self-being, he/she is known. And the
knowledge about the other will serve as an epiphany or a sign of how one responds to the other. Knowledge is
other oriented. It must not be used against the other. Knowledge about the other must not be utilized to control
the other. It is an instrument to be more responsive and responsible for the other.
Respect is a response of acceptance of the whole being of the other, of his/her realities and possibilities, of
his/her individuality and uniqueness (Erich Fromm, Art of Loving). As the ―I‖ accepts the whole of the other,
he/she begins to entrust his/her self-being to the other. In this context of acceptance and trust, both the ―I‖
and the other learn to surrender their individuality and experience the unity of their self-being. But neither the
―I‖ nor the other absorb each other‘s self-being. Each self-being remains in the vocative situation.
Another vital response in the dialogue is care. Erich Fromm posits that this care for another person is an active
concern for the other. Response to the other in the dialogue is not limited to linguistic expressions of caring.
Human being acts every time he/she recognizes the need of the other. This is even extended to the context of
economy. It is not just a sacrifice of time for the other. It is also reaching out, stretching hands to the other for
help.
A more enriching dialogue unfolds every time the ―I‖ confirms the whole being and possibility of the other.
The ―I‖ recognizes the goodness and beauty in the other and that the other also recognizes what you have
recognized as good and beautiful is his/her self-being.

Lesson 12: Intersubjectivity: PWDs

Persons with Disabilities (PWD)

This term (formerly disabled persons) refers to those persons with impairment and obstacles such as physical
barriers and prevailing attitudes that prevent their participation in society. The more obstacles there are the
more disabled a person becomes. Under RA 10524, Persons with disabilities have long-term physical, mental,
intellectual, or sensory impairments. Some people may have more than one form of disability and many, if not
most people, will acquire a disability at some time in their life due to physical injury, disease or aging.
Besides the obvious problem of putting a price tag on the basic human rights for a significant segment of the
population, it turns out that it is actually good economics to ensure that persons with disabilities are able to live
up to their potentials. When there are no obstacles in their way, persons with disabilities can become
employees, entrepreneurs, consumers, taxpayers, along with everybody else.
Persons with disabilities can contribute a wide array of expertise, skills, and talents. While persons with
disabilities face higher unemployment rates than the rest of the population in virtually every country, studies
show that the job performance of persons with disabilities is as good, if not better, than the general population.

High retention rates and less absenteeism have more than offset fears that it is too costly to accommodate the
needs of persons with disabilities add significant cost to employers are overblown. A 2003 survey reported that
employees with disabilities did not require any special accommodation.
The seven types of disabilities mentioned in RA No. 7277 are psychosocial disability, disability due to chronic
illness, learning disability, mental disability, visual disability, orthopedic disability, and communication disability.
They are defined in Department of Health A.O. No.2009-0011 as follows:

Psychosocial Disability — any acquired behavioral, cognitive, emotional, social impairment that limits one or
more activities necessary for effective interpersonal transactions and other civilizing process or activities for
daily living, such as but not limited to deviancy or anti-social behavior.

Chronic Illness — a group of health conditions that last a long time. It may get slowly worse over time or may
become permanent or it may lead to death. It may cause permanent change to the body and it will certainly
affect the person‘s quality of life.

Learning Disability — any disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes (perception,
comprehension, thinking, etc.) involved in understanding or in using spoken or written language.

3
Mental Disability — disability resulting from organic brain syndrome (i.e., mental retardation, acquired lesions
of the central nervous system, or dementia) and/or mental illness (psychotic or non-psychotic disorder).

Visual Disability — impairment of visual functioning even after treatment and/or standard refractive correction,
with visual acuity in the better eye of less than 6/18 for low vision and 3/60 for blind, or a visual field of less
than 10 degrees from the point of fixation. A certain level of visual impairment is defined as legal blindness.
One is legally blind when the best corrected central visual acuity in the better eye is 6/60 or worse or side
vision of 20 degrees or less in the better eye.

Orthopedic Disability — disability in the normal functioning of the joints, muscles or limbs.

Communication Disability — an impairment in the process of speech, language or hearing, further broken
down into two types: (a) Hearing Impairment is a total or partial loss of hearing function which impede the
communication process essential to language, educational, social and/or cultural interaction; and (b) Speech
and Language Impairment means one or more speech/language disorders of voice, articulation, rhythm and/or
the receptive or and expressive processes of language.

People with Disabilities and Less Fortunate in Life but Creative and Talented:

Sudha Chandran is an inspiring woman. When she was only 16 years old, she met with a horrific accident
which resulted in the amputation of her right leg. She is widely known for her accomplishments as a
Bharatanatyam dancer, she also acted in several films like Mayuri and Nache Mayuri. Once she said that
―Once I stepped on the stage, I got my soul back‖.

Stephen Hawking The person whose genius enables him to be named after Albert Einstein was Stephen
Hawking. His works have been ground-breaking, to say the least. ―A Brief History of Time‖ is one of his
famous books. After he became paralyzed, he spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair. His view on life is
evident from his quote ―Life would be tragic if it weren't funny‖.

George Washington If a person who suffered from dyslexia throughout his life can become the first president
of the United States, then no PwD should ever be criticized or deprived of any opportunity as greatness lies
within the soul. George Washington once said, "99% of failures come from people who make excuses."

Van Beethoven The famous German musician‘s hearing became impaired in the later stages of his life. He
succumbed to hearing disability by the age of 44 but this did not stop him from composing brilliant music. One
of his brilliant work, the Moonlight Sonata has composed during this time and also 6 other symphonies. His
passion for music can be seen when he said: ―Music is a higher revelation than philosophy.‖

Nicholas James Vujicic When Nicholas was born, it was found that he had an exceedingly rare disease
called phocomelia. This disorder caused him to be born without his four limbs, also known as Tetra-Amelia
syndrome. This major disability could not stop him from being one of the most famous motivational speakers.
The power in his heart is evident when he says, ―If you can't get a miracle, become one.‖

Lesson 13: Freedom of the Human Person

Before we talk about what freedom is and what it means for a human person to be free, we need to state and
address a view that rejects the claim that a human person is free. This view is called pan-determinism is ―the
view which disregards his/her [human] capacity to take stand toward any conditions whatsoever‖ (Frankl 1984,
154). Specifically, it states that a human person Is not free because his/her decisions. Actions, and behavior
are determined by his/her biological, psychological, and sociological conditions (Frankl 1973) Let us analyze
this claim.

Biological Determinism
For pan-determinism, human genetic make-up plays a big role in human behavior, attitude, and personality.
What humans are and what they will be is determined by their biological make-up. Humans are biologically
pre-disposed to decide, act, or behave in a certain way. Some humans, for example, are naturally calm, kind,
friendly, and sociable; others have the opposite traits. Their biological make-up explains this. Whether they like
it or not, their biological constitution affects the way they decide, act, and behave. They are simply not free
from biological determination. This probably explains why they find it difficult to change their attitude, behavior
and personality no matter how hard they try.

Psychological Determinism
Human actions, according to Freud, are not free. Human actions may appear free, but they are nothing but a
manifestation of the various mental states, which humans are not aware of and have no control. These mental
states, in turn, govern human decisions, actions, and behaviors. To understand this view, let us briefly discuss
Freud‘s concept of the mind.
According to Freud, there are three levels of the mind: the conscious level, the pre-conscious level, and the
unconscious level. The conscious level pertains to a person‘s current awareness. The preconscious level
pertains to the memories and stored knowledge that a person is not currently aware of but can be brought to

4
the present awareness easily by the process of remembering. The unconscious level pertains to those fears,
motives, sexual desires, wishes, urges, needs, and past experiences that a person is not currently aware of
and which cannot be easily brought to the conscious level. Freud likens his concept of the mind to an iceberg.
The conscious level is the tip of the iceberg. The preconscious in in-between the two levels, and the
unconscious level is the seat of the mind, which is concealed, vast, and powerful.

Freedom, for Freud, is an illusion. That is because human decisions, actions, and behaviors are determined by
those instincts, drives, hopes, wishes, and past experiences which humans are not aware of and of which they
have no control.

Sociological Determinism
According to B.F Skinner (1971), there is no autonomous agent in humans that determines their actions.
Human behavior is shaped by external conditions and not by the so-called inner self. Actions that produce
good consequences are reinforced; conversely, actions that yield negative effects have the tendency not to be
repeated. Positive or negative reinforcement (reward or punishment mechanism) is, therefore imperative to
shaping and changing human behavior. The best way to shape and change human behavior is through a
reinforcing environment. If human behavior is determined by its consequences, reinforced if it has pleasant
consequences and not reinforced if it has unpleasant consequences, then it is externally determined. If human
behavior is environmentally determined, then it makes no sense to claim that the person is free, for to claim
that a person is free is to posit an autonomous agent in human person that decides independently of the
consequences of human behavior. Freedom, the based on this view, is an illusion.

While the pan-determinist are correct in pointing this out, according to Viktor Frankl (1973) they are wrong in
claiming that human behavior is nothing except what is pre-determined by these factors. For Frankl (1973),
human freedom does not exist in a vacuum. To be free means to be free from. Freedom always presupposes a
condition or a restriction. Without condition or restriction, there is nothing from which a person can be freed. A
human person, for Frankl, is self-determining. As such, he/she is not reducible to its genetic constitution nor is
he/she just a product of his/her mental states and social conditions. For Frankl, all these condition – biological,
psychological, and social – serve as the springboards of human freedom. (Frankl 1973, 75-76)
Now, having said that a human person has the power to transcend all the factors that condition human
freedom, let us examine the claim of pan-determinism in great detail.

SELF – DETERMINING BEING

Viktor Frankl (1973) says that all persons are biologically, psychologically, and sociologically destined.
Biologically, all persons have individual genetic endowments. Psychologically, they have varying instincts and
drives that are part and parcel of their human nature. And sociologically, they are thrown into different social
conditions of which they have no control. While the pan-determinists are correct in pointing this out, according
to Frankl, they are wrong in claiming that human behavior is nothing except what is pre-determined by these
factors (Frankl 1973, 75)

Against Biological Determinism

If we are nothing more than our biological endowment, how can we explain the triumphs in life of those
persons who suffer from physical disabilities, and failures of those who got what it takes to succeed in life? If
biological determinism is true, then how do we explain also the lives of identical twins, who are said to have the
same genetic make-up but whom turn out to have different attitudes, behaviors, and personalities? Physically
challenged individuals can go far beyond what their biological conditions permit them to do. An example of this
claim is the life of Nick Vujicic, born without arms and legs but the world‘s most popular evangelical and
motivational speaker. Nick‘s life is a powerful testimony against the claim of biological determinism. Given a
positive mental attitude, a human person, just like Nick Vujicic, can transcend his/her physical condition in
order to succeed in life. Certainly, Nick Vujicic‘s life proves the power of human will and determination.

Against Psychological Determinism

Freud says that human freedom is impossible because human behavior is determined by mental states that
human persons have no awareness and control. Freud is correct that there exists mental state such as
instincts and drives, hopes and wishes, past frustrations and successes. These mental states condition human
behavior, indeed. However, it is one thing to say that these mental states condition human behavior; it is
another thing to say that they determine human behavior. To condition does not mean to determine. Instincts
and drives are indeed powerful, which may turn our lives up and down. If we allow these drives and past
experiences to govern our lives, then Freud might actually be correct in saying that human behavior is
psychologically determined. But we know, based on our experiences, that we can control process and direct
out mental states for whatever purposes. Contrary to Freud, Plato says that reason has the power to govern
both our appetite and emotion. Immanuel Kant states that humans may sometimes act according to the dictate
of their desires but they have the capacity to choose what is right. This capacity is a proof of human freedom.
Clearly, psychological states are real but humans have the power to be aware, to process, and to use them to
their advantage rather than being driven by them. This proves, once again, that a human person is free as
opposed to what psychological determinism claims.

Against Sociological Determinism

5
Karl Marx argues that ―it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social
existence that determines their consciousness‖. This means that a person‘s perspectives, attitudes, values,
and beliefs, according to this view, are nothing but a product of his/her social condition.
Frankl negates this idea by saying that while it is true that a person is unavoidably influenced by his/her
environment, the environment does not completely determine his/her behavior. That though some of a
person‘s behaviors are nothing but responses to his/her surroundings, he/she cannot be reduced into a mere
mechanical object completely determined by the outside world.

Freedom
 The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
 Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
 The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved.

Freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint, and the
absence of a despotic government.

Exercise Prudence in Human Freedom

All human persons want to be happy. We want to pursue good in a way that will make us happy. This means
we have to learn how to act well which in turn involves an acquisition of virtue. If that sounds complicated, let
us put it more simply: virtue is about doing the right things, and if we do the right things, we will become happy.
But what is the first thing we need if we want to do the right thing? Well, obviously, we need to know what the
right thing to do is. This is where prudence comes into the picture.
Prudence is the first of the cardinal virtues because it is the ability to look at a concrete situation and know
what ought to be done. It is the ability to make right judgements. Prudence gives us the knowledge of what
must be done when it must be done, and how it must be done. Prudence is not timidity, an avoidance of all
danger, cowardice, lack of initiative, self-preservation, never spending any money, or an excessive focus on
manners.

Lesson 14: Freedom and Responsibility

All Actions Have Consequences

God confronted Eve, ―What is this that you have done?‖ (Gen. 3:13) He also confronted Cain, ―What have
you done?‖ (Genesis 4:10). A person is responsible for any directly willed act. Also, an action can be indirectly
voluntary (from negligence or ignorance).
A person is not responsible for an evil act if he did not will it and did not intend it as a means to an end. For
example, a person might incur death while trying to help another. A person is responsible if he had not avoided
the evil act (as a drunk driver killing someone). As a general rule, all our actions have consequences. This
relationship is as dependable as the ripples created by throwing a pebble into a lake. Consequences can be
either good or bad. Problems arise when we don‘t think about or recognize the consequences of our actions.

A. Freedom Implies Responsibility

In the previous lesson, we stated that a human person is condemned to be free. A human person is not only
free to choose his/her actions, but also, to create meaning in his/her own life. That a human person is nothing
in the beginning and he/she becomes something through his/her actions. It is in his/her actions that he/she
becomes who he/she is. It is through his/her freedom to act that he/she creates and recreates himself/herself.
This is the condition of a human person and it demands much from him/her. In this lesson, we will discuss the
view that freedom, as Sartre (1975) argues, implies responsibility.
Because a human person is free, he/she is responsible not only for himself/herself, but also, for humanity.
First, a person is in-charge of his/her own life. A person is the ―master of his/her fate and the captain of
his/her soul‖ an adage says. A person has no excuse; he/she has to live his/her own life. Proxy is not allowed.
He/she cannot afford to be complacent and irresponsible. He/she has to think for everything in his/her own life.
The world is not a mother‘s womb of comfort and security. It is full of uncertainties and insecurities and the
person has to deal with them alone and without substitute for the rest of his/her life. To be free, then, is to be
responsible for one‘s existence. What a person is and how he/she should exist is his/her responsibility.

B. Freedom is doing what is Good as a Matter of Duty

According to Immanuel Kant, freedom is not an act of doing anything one wants. Doing what one wants is not
freedom; it is slavery to one‘s appetite or emotion. Freedom does not react; it commands.

Freedom is not also doing things because they are beneficial; it is doing things because they ought to be done
(Sandel 2010).
According to Kant, as an autonomous rational being, a person acts freely only if he/she acts for the sake of
duty, which he/she imposes upon himself/herself in accordance with moral laws (Copleston 1994).
Let us dissect this statement. First, there exists a moral law that governs all human persons in the world. This
moral law is universal, that is to say, it applies to all human persons as rational beings regardless of space and
time. This moral law is also absolute in the sense that it requires complete obedience from its subjects.
Second, a human person is a rational being and, as such, he/she should be governed by his/her own reason.
This makes him/her an autonomous being, one who performs actions based on his/her/own will. If this is the
case, then there ought to be no authority over him/her. If a human person does something because he/she is
commanded to do it, then he/she is not doing it as an autonomous being but someone who is governed by an

6
authority. To be autonomous is to be an authority of oneself. To be autonomous is to will one‘s actions freely.
Third, a human person acts freely only if he/she acts for the sake of his/her duty, which is self-imposed but in
accordance with the moral law. As an autonomous being, a human person ought to act in accordance only with
the commands he/she imposes upon himself/herself. As a moral being, a human person has an obligation to
obey the decrees of the moral law. Hence, a human person has two obligations: to obey the dictates of his/her
reason and to obey the decrees of moral law.

Lesson 15: Human Persons as Oriented towards Their Impending Death

The Certainty of Death

We have no personal experiences of death. But we are sure that sooner or later we will die. Our knowledge of
our death may not be experiential, but it is with certainty – perhaps the only certainty we can speak of – that we
will die. We are certain about our death because history attests that no one who had lived in the far past still
exists today. We are also certain about death because science tells us that anything that comes also goes.
That nothing remains the same forever – this is the law of entropy. Finally, we are certain about death because
we have seen people die. We have seen old people die, and young people too. The sick people die as well as
the healthy ones. Some people die in the battlefields, some die in their own homes, and some inside their
mothers‘ wombs. The poor and the rich, the frustrated and the successful are destined to die. Death does not
choose our age, our physical condition, our decision, or our position in life.

Death, it is said, is the greatest equalizer in life. The politicians and the religious cannot aspire for more power
than what are inscribed in their epitaphs. The poor and rich possess no more lands than six feet below the
ground. No one claim supremacy over death. All have to bow down their heads and be ready to face their
ultimate destiny. Everyone dies. It is an ultimate truth, a truth that no one can deny and no one can defy. The
unfortunate thing about this truth, however, is that, it remains to be revealed.

The Uncertainty in Death

Aside from the certainty of death as human event, there is another certainty in death: it is a permanent
cessation of physical life. A dead person does not breathe, his/her blood stops to circulate, his/her organs
cease to function and his/her brain no longer operates. Death, certainly, is that which anything physical in a
human person comes to an end.
If there are two things certain about death, there is one thing uncertain about it and that is, we do not know
whether life continues after death. And so, we ask, does the death of our body mean the death of our life? Or is
there a truth to the promise that there is life after death?

There are two general views of death: the materialist and the spiritual. The materialists believe that a human
person is nothing but a material entity. A human person does not have a spirit or soul. Belief in the existence of
the spirit or soul is considered an illusion. When the body dies, nothing exists after it. Everything in life ends in
death.

There are differing theories constituting the spiritual view about death. Plato‘s concept of life and death has
become the most influential one. According to Plato, a human person is composed of body and soul. In fact, for
him, a human person is a soul in a body. When the body dies, the soul continues to live.

For the Christians, a human person is also composed of body and soul and death ushers the journey of the
soul back to his/her Creator. To die is to be home in Heaven with God. Dying, then, is supposed to be
embraced with a joyful heart.

The Hindus also believe in the existence of the eternal soul. For them, when a human dies the atman (human
soul) is either reincarnated to another being or is reunited with Brahman (The Supreme Being) depending on
his/her state of mind. If a human person had been enlightened before his/her death he/she will be directly
reunited with Brahman. But if he/she was deluded at the time of his/her death he/she will be reincarnated into
other beings until such time that he/she finds enlightenment. Reincarnation, therefore, is both an imprisonment
and an opportunity for enlightenment.

The Buddhists, on the other hand, do not believe in the existence of the permanent soul of the Hindus. They
believe that just like anything in the world a human person is impermanent and hence does not possess any
enduring substance in him/her. For them, to believe in the permanent and eternal soul is a product of
ignorance and ignorance is the root cause of human suffering. We suffer, according to them, because we
believe in the existence of the self (atman) and this belief makes us crave, cling, and be attached to life. But life
will always frustrate our desires for there is no such thing as permanent self. The Buddhists believe that when
we die there in no permanent self that endures. There is nothing left and we should not expect, for it is our
expectation that makes us suffer.

There are surely other views and these views are dependent on culture, religion, education or experiences in
life. No one can say with authority, however, that his/her view is better than that of others. And as there are
many views on death, it only follows that we are not certain what happens after death. And this unfortunate
truth: death is certain and yet it brings us so much uncertainty.
7
 Lesson 16: Attitudes toward Death

Stephen Cave: The Four Stories we tell ourselves about Death

 The story of magical elixir or fountain of youth

Any substance that enables one to stay young forever
 The story of resurrection
The belief that a human body can rise up again after it dies
 The story of soul
The soul will continue exist when the body dies
 The story of legacy
The belief that human person attains immortality in the legacies he created for humanity

The best way to deal with our fear of death is through affirming life itself. For Socrates, we are afraid of death
because we think that death is evil but believing is believing in something that we do not know. In other words,
we are afraid of death not because death is evil but because we think that it is evil – that sort of thinking
according to Socrates is based on ignorance. (For no one know what lies beyond death; we only assume
(hence ignorance) that it is evil.)

A human person, according to Socrates, is soul temporarily residing in the body. The soul is eternal and the
body is temporal. When the body dies the soul is liberated from it and it continues to exist. One must be able to
realize this truth rationally.

Just like Socrates, Gautama Buddha also believes that we are afraid of death because of our ignorance of our
human nature. Because of this ignorance according to him, we crave for life; we cling and attach to it. It is
because of this craving, clinging, and attachment to life that makes us afraid to die and makes us suffer.

One good way to welcome death is to stretch our arms in the same way Jesus did on the cross. Jesus
embraced his death with the last words; ―It is finished. The Bible says that Jesus came to the world to save
humanity. He came to Earth for a mission and He knew His mission would require suffering and ultimately
death.