Freedom of the Human Person PDF

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 fr...

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.  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 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”. 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.