THE PROBLEMS IN PHILOSOPHY

OF MAN

Philosophy of Man has two main problems,

namely:

The nature of man

What is man?
Who is man?

Condition of being human

What is the state or condition of being human?
Why does man exist?
How does man exist?

THE MEANING OF HUMAN

NATURE
According
to
the
postmodern
philosophers, it is good to say that we really
do not know anything at all. Like Socrates
humble one-liner: What I know is that I do not
know.
According to philosophers, there is
nothing wrong if measures and efforts to adapt
those well-defended and well-established
thoughts about the meaning of human nature
and many other issues are done and pursued.

Here, Classic understanding of Nature as

the ultimate principle of operation of a given
reality.
Classic view of man dictates that the
nature of man is to think, to feel and do or act
only those that are inherent in his nature.
Human Nature is characterized as:

Universal
Static

Approaches of behaviour (Psychologists)

Cognitive refers to knowledge or

understanding or the mental dimension of
human existence

Affective refers to the emotional or the

dimension or the feeling part of man.

Psychomotor pertains to action

Mans experience of existing and living

as man is the indispensable ground where
man can discover the meaning of his
existence.
In sum, human condition means
realizing the state of being human and
finding the meaning of existence as man.
(The term meaning means sense, purpose,
and direction of human life.

MAN: A BEING-IN-THEWORLD
Man is being-in-the-World; he
is not a being-in-an-environment.
An environment is only true to
animals, not to man. Man has a
world, not an environment. Man is
not bound to an environment; he is
open to the world.

What is the meaning of the term world?

World is derived from the Anglo-Saxon
words: weor and old. The former means
man while the latter means age.
The world, as such is as old as man; earth
is older than man. Which concept is true? Is
there a world without man and vice-versa?

The Views of Natural

Scientists
To the natural scientists (i.e., physicist,
biologists, etc.), it is always possible to talk of
a manless world. For the rationalists, the world
is an object to be known, it is governed by a
system of laws; it is a place where man lives.
For the materialists, the world is the totality of
all material entities which are the results of
processes and forces. Both rationalists and
materialists views of the world clearly show
that there is world apart from man and it is
only a mere place where man lives.

What are the implications of the meaning of the world in relation to

man?

The man is a subject.

That as a subject, man exists, and therefore, is conscious of his

existence that it is an existence-in-the-world.

That man as a subject means that man considers the things which
surround him not as a mere object but as a networks of meanings.

That man establishes meanings to things which surround him by

way of his being at-home in the world which he arranges for
himself; and

That as man arranges a world for himself, he actively takes his

task as the builder, gardener, and guardian of the world.

MAN: A PERSON-WHO-ALWAYSEXISTS-WITH-OTHERS-IN-THEWORLD

Historical Data of Personalism

Personalism,
as
a
philosophical
movement, was founded by Borden
Parker Browne and was developed later
by Max Scheler, Emmanuel Mounier,
Henri Bergson, and Martin Buber. As a
philosophical movement, personalism is
a study of man as a person.

The Meaning of Man as a Person

Since personalism takes man as its main concern, it rejects
the legalistic connotation of the term person, as that
which refers to anything or any reality which is endowed
with rights since this definition treats of person both in the
context of things, establishments, or institutions, and
human beings. Thus, in personalism the term person is
solely attributed to man inasmuch as it requires freedom
and rationality as defined by Beothius.
Man as a person, then means that man is unique; that
man is a who; that man is a subject; and that man is a self.

Man as a Person-Who-Always-Exists-with-Others-in-the-World
By virtue of the fact that man as a person is unique, a who, a
subject, and a self, man is never alone in his existence in the
world; man has that indelible trademark of his being-with:
existence in the world.
Since man is a person, his being-with existence should not
be confused with a being-for kind of existence. Being-for is
the opposite of being-with in the sense that the latter is
heading to a direction of treating man a person. Thus, in mans
intersubjectivity, man is called to treat his fellowman as a
person; this is made possible only in the context of mans
being-with existence.

Mans being-with-others can be viewed from to

standpoints, viz.:
General Standpoint Mans being-with-others as a
person is mans intrinsic being-with to both things
and mans fellow human persons.
Specific Standpoint Mans being-with-others as a
person is mans irrefutable being-with his
fellowman only because in the specific sphere,
mans being-with is treated in the existential
perspective. Because things do not exist, man alone
has the capacity to co-exist with his fellow human
persons.

Mans co-existence or intersubjectivity, in

the one hand, does not require a learning
process or experience since mans being-with
is a priori and intrinsic in his being a person. On
the other hand, mans being-with-others
requires a learning process in the context of the
quality or mode of mans being-with since
human relatedness is not immediately given
but needs to be established.

Three Levels of Human Relations or

Intersubjectivity

I-It level of Relationship human relatedness

capsulizes, more or less, the being-for existence
of man and not mans being-with existence. I does
not treat the other as a person.

I-He/She Level of Relationship Is not an impersonal

relationship but a personal one inasmuch as the I
considers and recognizes the other as a person.

I-Thou Level of Relationship This relationship

happens when the I and the Thou are bound
together in the context of love.

MAN: A BODY, HIS BODY

It is impossible to talk of human
existence apart from the human body
The human body is mans expression
of his presence in himself, in the world,
and his fellow human person.

The Human Body as

Finitude
The human body refers to the
finitude of man in the sense that
human bodily existence is limited
by space, time, and death.
Besides, the human body is also
limited in terms of its accidental
constituents.

The Human Body as

Subjectivity
The human body refers to mans
embodied subjectivity; mans body is infused
in his subjectivity. Thus, the human body is
not a thing to be used or exploited because it
is a subject-body. As a subject-body, it cannot
be the object of having, since the human
body cannot and never be disposed of, unless
when it is treated as an object. The embodied
subjectivity of man refers to the whole man as
rational, affective, and emotional.

The Human Body as a Gesture of

Encounter

The human body is not an

instrument of mans encounter
of things and persons in the
world; it is mans expression
with himself as an embodied
subjectivity.

MAN: THE ACTOR

Man and Action

Action is proper only to man; animals do not act but only move.
Action entails intellect, knowledge, freedom, voluntariness, and
responsibility
The nature of man makes man the only being of action. As
rational, man possesses intellect so that he can know the nature
of the act, whether it is good or bad. As a being who is endowed
with freedom, man knows that he has the choice whether to
perform or not to perform a particular action. Man acts
according to his intellect and will (an expression of freedom) and
is responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Moral Assumptions
The following assumptions are drawn in order to
elucidate the inherent capacity of man in the context
of reason and freedom:

As rational and free, man knows that there are

actions that are right or wrong, and good or bad.
As rational and free, man knows that there are
actions that he is not obliged to do;
As rational and free, man knows that he is
responsible for his actions; and
As rational and free, man knows that wrong actions
are punishable and right actions are rewardable