Summary Of Chapters 5-8 - Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person PDF

Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person Chapter 5: Human Person’s Freedom A. What is Freedom? The most common understanding of freedom is the absence of restraints or free to do whatever he wants. But is this the exact definition of freedom? For example, you caught...

Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person Chapter 5: Human Person’s Freedom A. What is Freedom? The most common understanding of freedom is the absence of restraints or free to do whatever he wants. But is this the exact definition of freedom? For example, you caught your classmate took your money from your wallet without your permission. And your classmate said to you, “leave me alone; I have the freedom to do so since I am free.” Is his or her actions base on his freedom? Can you let your classmate leave without facing the consequences of his or her action? Let us first understand the word freedom. Freedom, it is sufficient to give an adequate description: First, “at the biological level, freedom is identified with a healthy body. The patient, on the contrary, feels prisoner of his own body. Second, at a higher level, freedom is identified with the spontaneity of tendencies. Man is free when he can fulfil his desires (Epicurus). But some trends are harmful and we are naturally fighting against them. Spontaneity, therefore, cannot consist in allowing oneself to be in love with one’s passions. Third, at the level of consciousness, freedom is defined by the possibility of choosing. For there to be a choice, one needs several motives, several possibilities of action. The choice may be impossible when all the reasons are worth it (Buridan donkey). In this case, the action is freedom of indifference.” (I Hope, 2018) B. FREEDOM AND ITS LIMITATION Freedom is not absolute. You cannot do whatever you want to do especially when it hurts others already with your actions. Remember, all actions and choices you conclude them with corresponding effects on the person, others and the environment. When such actions hurt or harm yourself and the others, then the action should be stopped. Thus, as the saying goes, “a person’s freedom ends where another man’s freedom begins.” You are free to do whatever you want to do. You are free to shout at the top of your voice or to sing karaoke throughout the night. If you disturb your classmate who are studying your lessons at the moment or your neighbor who are sleeping already, then, that’s the time you need to shut up your mouth. “Freedom is the most precious treasure that human beings have. It is our responsibility to 1 respect it, enjoy it, and prevent anyone from stealing it from us.” We all have the right to keep it and take care of it. So then, how dare you even think that you have the right to take even the slightest ounce of freedom from your neighbor? (Your freedom ends, 2016) As a free human being, “he is responsible not only to his self but to the community. To be free means to be responsible of one’s existence”. (Amizola et al., 2016) The people around you can support you but it is always you who are going to decide. “A person is free but freedom does not mean a license to do anything he or she wants. A person is free but he or she does not exist alone.” This is the reason why man’s freedom is limited. He cannot just do anything that he likes to do. He needs to think the other individual. “I am condemned to be free.” -Jean-Paul Sartre C. FREEDOM AND CHOICE Our capacity to choose is as precious as our lives. Living a life where you are deprived of your freedom is not living at all. It is worse than being put into jail. Hence, according to Sartre, “it is through choice that man lives an authentic human life.” “If men cannot choose (Deterministic Principle), then this seems to reduce the value and dignity of man, because it shows that man cannot make the situations around. When a man cannot choose, he tends to believe that he cannot be made responsible for the choices he makes because his actions are not from a deliberate act of choice but a causal connection between events beyond his control. (Caraan, 2016) “The act of choosing or the ability to choose is valuable because it gives the human person the reason the make deliberate actions out of motives that reveal his autonomy as an individual.” (Caraan, 2016) “If a person can choose, then that person can be held responsible over the consequences of his actions. Hence, the person becomes prudent with the choices he makes.” (Caraan, 2016) In making a choice, we need to consider lots of things and the action is done, the result of the actions, the consequence after the act is done. “Existence precedes essence” -Jean-Paul Sartre D. CONSEQUENCE AND RESPONSIBILITY We are a fan of pointing the blame to others every time we do wrong. When our teacher caught us copying our classmates’ assignment, we sometimes blame our classmates for letting us copy their answers. The common words we often heard is “ikaw man gud”. It is a clear manifestation that we are not yet matured. A mature and responsible person owned whatever might be the consequences of his actions. 2  Always remember this. Our freedom affects others. Our decisions affect other people’s lives whether we are aware of these effects or not. The consequences of our choices affect not only us, but everyone else that is directly or indirectly involved in the context of our decision. (Sibs) For example, Mario decided to cut his class knowing that he played a vital role in his presentation that day. Since he is not around, the teacher gives everyone a low grade because they failed to present. With his decision, others were affected. Whether we like or not, our decision is always accompanied with consequence. This consequence may be good or bad depending on the different factors, the doer’s intention, how the action is done and the result. We always don’t have the full control of things. We exert lots of effort to make sure that everything will go according to our plan but there are times we failed. There are different factors that can affect the result; things that we don’t have the power over it. However, whatever might be the consequences of our action, we are liable if we do it voluntarily, with our knowledge and consent. “We should always remember that while we enjoy the freedom that we have right now, we should not forget that in all the decision we make it is always accompanied with accountability and commitment.” E. IMPORTANCE OF PRUDENCE IN ALL CHOICES Everything that happened cannot be changed and undone. So, before making decisions think a thousand times for us not to regret. “To evaluate and exercise prudence in choices means to be careful before completely making up one’s mind about an important decision. It is to avoid making a big mistake that may result in an unmanageable problem. Most of these include choices that could have lifelong consequences.” (Fuertes, J, n.d) In making a wise choice: first, “one should determine the ugly effect to avoid the greater risks and second, make it sure that all available options have been criticized and thought carefully.” (I Hope, 2018) 3 Chapter 6: Intersubjective Human Relations Intersubjectivity and Authentic Dialogue In this part of the module, you can read the topic about Intersubjectivity, which is based on the Philosophy of the Face by Emmanuel Levinas and authentic dialogue according to the Philosophy of Martin Buber. Specifically, this topic is subdivided into four (4) subtopics. First part is the introduction. Second part is all about acceptance of the face of the person as basic requirement of Intersubjectivity. Third part talks about ethical responsibility as a manifestation of a relationship without imposition. Finally, it is about authentic dialogue or communication that accepts others without prejudice and discrimination. A. Introduction Human person, in his/her effort to survive, lives with different facets of relationship. As a rational and emotional, at the same time, he/she has to balance his/her dealings with others, including the mother nature. Balancing one’s needs and the needs of others demands serious practice yet the reward becomes the major source life’s meaning. Indeed, it is rewarding when one’s self and others are being treated equally. “It is the source of personal joy, and comfort which becomes the experience of intersubjectivity. The notion of intersubjectivity revolves on the act of a person for the good of the other. It goes beyond space and time, status and position in life” (Maboloc, 2016, p. 103). As intersubjectivity requires one to accept the other person unconditionally, the human face reflects the real needs of a person. According to Emmanuel Levinas, (Totality and Infinity, 1961. p. 85), “the best way to treat the face of the person is through ethics. The face, as naked and destitute, should not be dealt phenomenologically or experientially due to the fact that only ethics can value the presentation of a day to day experience of the other person, while phenomenology or experience describes the physical appearance of the face.” Born with Jewish parents, Emmanuel Levinas was born in Lithuania in 1906. His experience with World War I includes migration of his family. And his memories of 1917 revolution immerges with his father's bookshop in Kovno. As a Jew, he acquired the highest spiritual level in Lithuania. He was considered as the 18th century Talmudist of genius (Hand, 1989, p.1). 4  B. Acceptance of the Face of the Other Person Intersubjectivity requires a phenomenological encounter with the face of the other person. Phenomenology, according to Large (2015, p.4) is understood as “philosophical requirement to go back to its origins and beginnings. It is experiential, which becomes the foundation of his/her world experience. This philosophical requirement becomes possible through subjectivity.” Man/ woman has to necessarily claim his/her own subjectivity, i.e. he/she has to manifest him/herself to other person as a human being. The manifestation of the other is through the human face, particularly through the eyes. It is seeing through the eyes that one can determine his/her relationship with the other person. Levinas defines “the term 'face' as a reality in which one presents his/her notion of the person. The distance (physical or relational) between the two faces should not hinder the very need of the other person. However, it should create a relationship that is anchored on a judgement of finitude and a commandment.” (Hand, 1989, p.5). Oftentimes, looking through the eyes of a person, e.g. Person with Disability (PWD), makes one either sympathetic or indifferent. Neither, the physical appearance of the person makes him/her pitiful and unacceptable. Nor, it makes one nonchalant to his/her situation. On one hand, to pity a person, e.g. person with disability, implies a judgment that he/she has no bright future at all. It is like putting a person in box that makes him/her limited. On the other hand, being indifferent is just like killing a person by not helping. Seeing the face of the other, “there is a sign of his/her right to exist, and an ethical call: 'You shall not kill.' Upon seeing a person (pitiful or not) calls for closeness to his/her human essence, and of the world. It means going beyond physical relationship and realizes one’s relationship with the Supreme Being in a person who is unworthy of acceptance” (Hand, 1989, p.5). C. Ethical Responsibility Without Imposing on Others The face of the other person puts one in a superior position. Whereby the superior person has the capability to dominate, a superior person’s problem often his/her domineering tendency and to impose what he/she thinks as limitations and possibilities. In the case of a Person with Disability (PWD), it becomes so easy to determine his/her limitations and possibilities. However, it does not help him/her when judgments are imposed to him/her. According to Levinas, “the face of the other person unfolds the reality that he/she is different from the rest. The face is supposedly naked because it is open for endless possibilities (infinite). The possibility (infinite) of the face of the person hides in the physical or external appearance. It stops the superior 5 person from dominant but allows him/her to find transcendence, and responsibility for the other person” (Hand, 1989, p.5). Transcendence implies equality in treating oneself and the other self, which means that neither the latter is inferior nor the former is superior. Indeed, that is being responsible without imposing on others. Responsibility (Levinas, 1961, pp.95-96) is the foundation and necessary subjectivity structure, which is intertwined with ethics. It is understood as an ethical concern without imposing oneself on others. It is not just as simply as being able to respond to one’s need. Instead, it sets a fix reminder that proximity (physical or relational) does not guarantee imposition. D. Authentic Dialogue with the Other Person Authentic dialogue becomes possible when people relate with one another as a community of persons. Martin Buber talks of “I-Thou” and “I-It” relationships. He presents people’s attitudes interacting with one another (I-Thou) and person relating to objects (I-It). He argues that these two attitudes show the social situation and the ‘world of Thou’ and the ‘world of It’. Only through person to person (I-Thou) relationship that authentic dialogue can be achieved (Smith, 1986, p. vi). One of the types of communication, according to Buber, is genuine or authentic dialogue, which arises when the speaker and the listener actively participates, and think of each other in their midst to establish a mutual relationship. This genuine or authentic dialogue naturally happens when both persons are open to the possibilities brought about by human spirit. It breaks the common, and familiar scenario in communicating with others. However, authentic dialogue implies extra ordinary communication and interaction with one another. The other person is perceived to be different e.g., Persons with Disability (PWD) or even those who belong to the underprivileged of the society (Arett, 1986, p.19). The authentic dialogue, as implicated by Martin Buber, begins with the ‘I”. Yet, it is not enough. The “We” in dialogue must also be activated for building a community of persons. This “We” unites the “I” and the “Thou”, the self and the other self, the person and the situation in which each person is available to the other. The essential “We,” as it unifies the person with others, points to the essential “Thou” whom being considered as the underprivileged in the society. The “We” is the members of a community, who have realized their full responsibility without bias and prejudice (Smith, 1986, pp.158-159). Authentic dialogue is described as a type of communication that demands new outlook from a perspective after trusting the other person. Indeed, trusting someone takes some time especially a person character and background are unknown and questionable. Yet, Buber explains how the sacrifices of some people can invite the “We” of community. He believes that 6 sacrifice is necessary for a healthy community relationship. He denies sacrifice for the sake of martyrdom. For him, sacrifice answers the call of depressing situation that demands time and energy. (Smith, 1986, pp.160-16). Chapter 7: Human Person in Society Society is an organized group of people whose members interact freely and have a common territory and culture. It also refers to companionship How or friendly do individuals association formwith societies? others, an alliance, a community, or a union. Individuals form societies by coming together to fulfill basic needs like survival, protection, and cooperation. Through shared cultural practices, economic systems, governance, and religious beliefs, these groups evolve into organized societies. Examples from history, like the barangay system in the Philippines, ancient Mesopotamian city-states, and Inca civilization, illustrate how individuals create structured communities that grow more complex over time. Formation of Early Philippine Societies In the Philippines, the barangay system is a prime example of how individuals formed societies. The barangay was a small community led by a datu (chieftain) and was typically organized around kinship or territorial lines. Here’s how these societies formed: Cooperation and Leadership: Early Filipinos gathered in coastal and riverine areas where they could access food and trade. They organized into barangays, with leaders (datus) providing governance and protection. Specialization and Trade: As some barangays were located near trade routes, individuals began to specialize in trading, fishing, or farming. The surplus of goods facilitated trade with neighboring barangays and foreign traders (e.g., Chinese, Malays, Arabs). Social Norms and Customs: Barangays developed their own customs, laws (such as the customary laws or "batasan"), and rituals, which regulated behavior, marriage, and property rights. These norms helped maintain order within the community. Religion and Beliefs: Early barangay societies were animistic, worshipping spirits and deities associated with nature. These 7  religious beliefs helped bind the community together through shared rituals and ceremonies. How do societies transform individuals? Societies transform individuals by shaping their beliefs, behaviors, values, and identities through socialization, institutions, norms, and cultural expectations. While individuals retain some agency, the influence of society is profound, molding how people think, act, and perceive themselves in relation to the larger collective. The interaction between individuals and society is dynamic, as societies change individuals, and individuals, in turn, influence the evolution of societies. Society transforms human relations in various ways: 1. Society shapes us through social values, which are actions or ideals that are considered important by society. For instance, values such as respect for others, obedience to the law, concern for others and cooperation are vital to maintaining an orderly society. A society that upholds positive social values will influence its members to uphold these positive values. On the other hand, a society that is defined by negative values will, in turn, produce individuals who embody these negative values. 2. Today’s modern society enables various people from diverse backgrounds and societies to interact and establish close ties. For instance, in our family, we may relate more closely to our parents, siblings, and relatives. In school, we may communicate with our teachers, classmates and friends. In the church, we may interact with the priests, pastors and church goers. 3. Virtual societies have transformed human relations as improved communication technologies make people from faraway places interact closely with each other. For instance, an oversees working Filipino communicates with his family in Davao Region through the internet or video conferencing. 8  4. Emergence of industrial societies transformed human relations through interactions on family and community ties, and interactions in the workplace. For instance, an employee in a government agency discusses his output of the day to his immediate supervisor. Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau were among the most prominent social theorists who tackled human society’s origins. To fully understand society’s real character, they imagined humans as living in a so-called “natural state” removed from modernity and civilization. How will you describe the Social Contract Theory? Social Contract Theory : ✔ Explanation or justification of a relationship between the individual and the larger society or government. ✔ Demonstrate why members of a society would rationally find at their best interests to comply with their society’s principles and regulations. ✔ Refers to contracts between a nation and its citizens. Consent to such contracts is meant to occur tacitly, or implicitly, by virtue of being a citizen of the state. ✔ Human reason is the key element in social contract theories. The underlying view of human nature includes that we are rational beings and can understand why and how regulations and principles in society make life better. Given that humans are rational, the contract itself needs to express what a rational person would agree to. Philosopher Social Contract Theory He argued that in a state of nature, life would be "nasty, brutish, and short," so people agree sunsigns.org to surrender some freedoms to a sovereign Thomas Hobbes authority in exchange for security. 9  British Philosopher 1588-1679 Locke believed that people have natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and that governments exist to protect these rights. If the government fails, the people have the right to overthrow it. etc.usf.edu John Locke British Philosopher 1632-1704 Rousseau viewed the social contract as a way for individuals to come together and form a collective "general will" to promote the common good, rather than being ruled by a dreamstime.com monarch. Jean-Jacques Rousseau Swiss Philosopher 1712-1778 Social contract theory suggests that individuals agree to form a society and establish governance in exchange for the protection of certain rights. Social Contract Theory in the Philippine Context: 1. The 1987 Philippine Constitution After the fall of the Marcos dictatorship in 1986 through the People Power Revolution, the new government led by Corazon Aquino enacted the 1987 Constitution. This document serves as a modern social contract between the Filipino people and the state. It outlines the structure of government, the rights of citizens, and the responsibilities of both the government and the governed. Example: Article III of the 1987 Constitution (Bill of Rights) reflects Locke’s ideas, ensuring the protection of fundamental human rights such as life, liberty, and property. Citizens expect the government to uphold these rights, while agreeing to follow laws and participate in 2. Bayanihan Spirit and Community Action The Filipino concept of bayanihan reflects a social contract within communities, where individuals contribute to the welfare of others, 10  expecting mutual aid in return. This is a form of social contract at a grassroots level. Example: During natural disasters like typhoons, Filipinos engage in mutual assistance to rebuild homes, provide food, and help those in need. In return, the community expects a supportive government response to mitigate risks and facilitate recovery. Chapter 8: Death and the Meaning of Life Life and Death in Question Joseph Campbell, in his book the Power of Myth, once said, “Life has no meaning. Each of us has a meaning and we bring it to life. It is a waste to be asking the question when you are the answer.” This idea of his is very humanist in its perspective. It puts man in the control of providing meaning to one’s own existence. Just by this quotation alone independent of its context, we might understand it as something egoistic or individualistic in its approach of constructing an understanding of life. The idea of life becomes relativistic in a sense. Though this affirms on what Campbell would like to say, the author opines that seeking the meaning of life is not what we are tending towards to. It is all about seeking an experience to be alive. It is an experience that resonates with our innermost being, our reality. This means that life is all about the here and now. It is not about the yesterday and the future, nor the eternity that we thought we are to be with. He calls this experience of the here and now as eternity. It is within this eternity that one’s existential condition will realize its possibility of one’s own truth and being. To speculate further on what life is, religions would always have a special place on the table. In fact, the palatability of its ideology has influenced so many people especially in understanding the world and one’s place in the world. While most religions believe in the Absolute Deity, the faithful are taught that life’s meaning is found in one’s relationship with the Absolute or God and one’s relationship with others. This idea reflects the vertical (man to God) and the horizontal (man to others) bond of man. Such relationship implies ethical conditions such as following the commandments and other statutes and precepts as pronounced by the church. Within the bounds of one’s existential condition, Martin Heidegger thought about the fundamental questions of existence. According to him, “existence is a way of understanding what constitutes his own existence.” One might find this idea parallel with Joseph Campbell. However, the quotation is a reaction to philosophers who thought of inexistence as something abstract and against reality. Existence for this great thinker, therefore, is the awareness of one’s continuous self-awareness. 11  Furthermore, Heidegger opines that the human person realizes himself by being-in-the-world. It is by being-in-the-world that man discovers his full potential, his possibilities. This only means that man is an unfinished project. He calls this as the “not yet” which is the nothingness of human existence. Nothingness, however, does refer to man’s possibilities which are only realized in the world. The world, then, is the place where fulfillment of one’s being is realized with no finality. Finality is only possible in death. It is in death that we become complete. Thus, it is the fulfillment of man’s being. Jean-Paul Sartre, a known postmodern philosopher, negates the idea that life’s meaning can better be grasped in one’s relationship with God. He believes that to be good is not dependent on following the commandments. For him, to be good is to choose to be good. If we are to be good by following God’s precepts, then, man is not good at all, not free. Therefore, man is what he makes of himself following his existential principle “existence precedes essence.” What does this mean? To say, we are the one creating our own essence means we are the one’s creating a meaning to our own lives. Freedom is, thus, an important concept in Sartre’s speculation on living an authentic existence. In fact, it is considered as the core and the portal to authentic existence as this makes us truly human. With all these, the human person is always confronted with all life’s realities like death of which the question arises about life. These realities might be too daunting for man to bear making some of them at a loss to live life to the fullest. Happiness is what we seek and this is what we thought to bring us to the fullest extent. Yet, happiness in the secular context is only limited to what is pleasurable, a selfish and egoistic view of life. This is critical. What is, then, to live? What is to die? Life and Man’s Condition It is an illusory to say that death can be avoided. Death is an inescapable reality though incomprehensible when asked why we die. Of course, such question goes beyond the scientific parlance. The question is something beyond the phusis (physical world), transcendental in a sense. Yet, the world seems to depict that to evade death is possible. For some, furthermore, to escape and eradicate the reality of death in one’s consciousness is to “live” life with all the pleasures and enticements the world could offer. However, to live and believe in this illusion is to believe in the immortality of life. Do you believe in this notion? We know for certain of the existence of death because of others. It is when others die that we are aware that it exists. It is in the death of others that we are reminded of life’s temporality and that we are called to be fruitful with 12 how our lives should be lived. Instead, however, of being aware of these inevitabilities, at times man falls in delusion. Man tends to depart from life’s true purpose and succumbs to vices and other worldly pleasures as if incarcerated in the mundane desires. Most often than not, this affects man’s relationship with his/her friends and family and squandering the value of oneself and others. How can this distended thought be resolved? Acceptance of life’s impending death is the only way for man to realize the value and true meaning of one’s existence. It is in acceptance that one will be able to see the value of oneself and others. Living in this state would imply that one has lived a life with purpose, a meaningful life so to speak. It is from this value that we can decide better on what is good for ones’ self and others. And most important, it is in acceptance that we rise above the fear of death that inflicts suffering within us. Thus, human freedom is possible out of the limiting conditions of man. God and Man It is said that man is the apex of God’s creation as we are created in His image and likeness. Yet, our existence is not somewhat God-like. It is not eternal though we seek prolongation for life to sustain. The human person is vulnerable to many illnesses that weaken life to thrive. This means that we are hooked into life’s condition of temporality, of finitude. While we mentioned in the previous section that acceptance is important to realize the true purpose of one’s existence, such value also helps us see what is beyond recognizing our relationship with God. Faith tells us that death is the portal to be one with the Absolute. It tells us also that man owes his life from God. These ideas imply the recognition of God’s magnificence and magnanimity. It also implies God’s control over his creation. Yet, fixing our thoughts on to these might put our understanding on a very deterministic character of the Absolute. Meaning, the human person has to understand that God’s control does not remove man’s freedom to live according to what one wills. That is why, on the other hand, we see the call of God, based on the reality of death, to live our lives with a sense of purpose. However, would we really be united with the Creator? Faith leaders would tell us assurances of being united with the Absolute based on the scriptures and other sources. Indeed, it takes a fortified faith to be certain of this unity amidst and with all life’s condition prior to the situation of death. To base in the real sense of the picture, the question would somewhat be a review of how life is lived – the sinning, the reconciliation, the treasured relationship, and the love given. Hence, death becomes the definitive test that everyone shall be confronting. References: 13 Corpuz, Brenda B. Et al: Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person, Lorimar Publishing Inc. 2016. Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person – Grade 12 Alternative Delivery Mode, 2020. 14