Philosophical Anthropology Resource Book PDF

A Resource Book with Introductions, Commentaries, and Primary Readings By Paolo A. Bolaños Fleurdeliz R. Altez-Albela Marc Aldous C. Baccay We lovingly dedicate this book to our children: Fritz, Manu,...

A Resource Book with Introductions, Commentaries, and Primary Readings By Paolo A. Bolaños Fleurdeliz R. Altez-Albela Marc Aldous C. Baccay We lovingly dedicate this book to our children: Fritz, Manu, and Danielle  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this project would have not been possible without the help and guidance of some people and offices. We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to our one and only venerable master, Prof. Dr. Alfredo P. Co, for continuing to inspire and guide us. In more ways than one, Prof. Co has been instrumental in the initial conceptualization of this book. We thank the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Letters, Prof. Dr. Michael Anthony Vasco, who approved our textbook writing load; the Vice-Rector for Academic Affairs, Prof. Dr. Clarita D. Carillo, for granting us our textbook writing load, and to her Executive Assistant, Assoc. Prof. Fylene Uy-Gardiner, for facilitating the review of our original manuscript. We are in deep gratitude to Dr. Jeffry Ocay (Silliman University), Dr. Ryan Urbano (University of San Carlos), and Dr. Mark Calano (Ateneo de Manila University), for patiently reading our original manuscript and for providing us with their honest assessment and constructive criticisms. We also acknowledge the support of our colleagues from the Department of Philosophy of the University of Santo Tomas. They, too, significantly contributed to the improvement of this book. Finally, we would like to express our appreciation for the support and sacrifices of our respective families. Thank you for your comforting presence and overwhelming love. P.A.B. F.R.A. M.A.C.B.  Table of Contents Acknowledgments Introduction: Philosophy and the Study of the Human Being 1 Reading: What is to Philosophize? by Alfredo P. Co 5 Chapter One: On Human Origins 8 Reading: The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell 11 Reading: The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin 14 Chapter Two: Does the Human Being have a Soul? 16 Reading: Phaedo by Plato 22 Reading: Summa Theologiae by St. Thomas Aquinas 27 Reading: Meditations on the First Philosophy by Rene Descartes 29 Reading: The Questions of King Milinda from the Buddhist Scriptures 33 Reading: A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume 36 Chapter Three: The Human Being in the World 41 Reading: Tao Te Ching by Lao Zi 44 Reading: Being and Time by Martin Heidegger 46 Reading: Phenomenology of Perception by Maurice Merleau-Ponty 50 Chapter Four: On Living and Dying 53 Reading: Oneself as Another by Paul Ricoeur 57 Reading: Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre 59 Reading: Being and Time by Martin Heidegger 65 Chapter Five: The Intersubjective Human Being: Ethical, Political, and Sexual 68 Reading: The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle 80 Reading: The Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant 84 Reading: The Doctrine of the Mean by Kong Zi 90 Reading: Totality and Infinity by Emmanuel Levinas 92 Reading: Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes 95 Reading: On the Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau 99 Reading: Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels 102 Reading: The History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault 105 Reading: A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft 109 Reading: The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir 115 Chapter Six: Understanding the Human Being in the Global World 118 Reading: Globalization by George Modelski 123 Reading: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations 127 Reading: Dignitatis Humanae by the Second Vatican Council 130 Reading: The Struggle for Recognition by Axel Honneth 136 Bibliography 139  1 INTRODUCTION Philosophy and the Study of the Human Being This book deals with the philosophical appraisal of the nature of the human being or the human person. A philosophical appraisal of the human person entails inquiring into the universal phenomenon we call “the human being”—his existence, powers, possibilities, and interpersonal relationships. Understanding the human person as a universal phenomenon will, hopefully, lead to a better understanding of human individuality in the context of cultural difference (and belonging) against the backdrop of a growing global world. As such, this book is designed as a core reference for a course on Philosophical Anthropology at the tertiary level. A book on Philosophical Anthropology should be able to present the human person as a being who recognizes the social world—a world of human others and cultural differences—as constitutive of one’s very own subjectivity. The authors believe that this task is best achieved if, as much as possible, perspectives from both East and West, as well as secular and religious, are presented. It is important that a course that discusses the phenomenon of the human being, if it seeks a broader understanding of the human person and his social world, be able to present the relevant themes not only through Western lenses (Greek, German, or French), but also through Eastern lenses, such as, Indian and Chinese—for the latter cultures also contribute profoundly to the philosophical understanding of the being and possibilities of human beings. Moreover, the emergence of what we call the “global world” has forced us to deconstruct our usual, and often dangerously myopic, conceptions of human nature, thereby tearing down cultural walls and radically changing, for the better, our obsolete frameworks about how human beings should live their lives. The tearing down of cultural walls only promotes dialogue, recognition, and a global understanding of how men should live harmoniously together. This must be highlighted by a course on Philosophical Anthropology. Philosophy, Culture, and the Study of the Human Being Nothing is more fascinating to the human being than human existence itself. In this sense, the human being and philosophical inquiry are inextricable. If we take as a truism, Aristotle’s declaration that “philosophy begins in wonder,” then we realize that only via the human being can philosophical inquiry become possible. We can, then, conjecture that there is no philosophy without the wondering human being. Given this, can we also say that there is no human being without philosophy? Or, can we ever become complete human beings without philosophical inquiry? If we are inclined to follow the logical conclusion of this assumption, that being human necessitates philosophical inquiry, then we are required to delve deeper into human nature and we do this philosophically. In this book, we will call the philosophical study of human nature “Philosophical Anthropology.” On another level, however, the philosophical study of human nature will yield various possible answers. Indeed, while we have Western models of philosophical anthropology, we cannot ignore the fact that Eastern models are on a par with, even perhaps surpassing, Western theories of human nature. It is, however, impossible to declare a definitive regional claim for what human nature is, for there are as many theories as there are many cultures. Inasmuch as the human being is a universal phenomenon, no culture has the exclusive right to claim what human nature is supposed to be. As the Filipino philosopher, Alfredo Co, rightly maintains: “Man is a universal  2 phenomenon. He cogitates, contemplates and interprets the same world and yet he comes up with varied opinions regarding it. History has indeed shown us that the diversity of human experiences has created diversified cultures that have brought about distinct interpretations of the world.” Inasmuch as the human being is a universal phenomenon, philosophical inquiry, too, is a universal phenomenon. As a universal phenomenon, however, the mode of inquiry may vary, depending on the culture. As such, philosophical inquiry is cultural as it is universal. According to Co, philosophy has three basic ends evinced by the three great ancient civilizations in the world (Indian, Greek, and Chinese). The Indians are known to ask the question “Who am I?” for they were concerned about the discovery of the true Self. The Greeks asked “Where am I?” for they were the first cosmologists who inquired about the nature of the physical universe. Chinese curiosity, meanwhile, revolved around the question “What am I?” for the ancient Chinese teachings are known for their social, political, and ethical significance. Through the articulations of these three cultures—via their intellectual legacy, literature, and art—we can identify the three basic philosophical concerns of human beings: the psychocentric concern of the Indians, the cosmocentric concern of the Greeks, and the anthropocentric concern of the Chinese. Notice that, despite the peculiar emphasis of each culture, each question presupposes the curiosity of the inquiring individual, the “I”—the human being. One may say, universally, that the human being is concerned about herself, her physical environment, and her relationship with other human beings. With the above, we may also follow Co’s description of how to philosophize: “to philosophize means to theoretically consider all things in a study or reflection.” However, the transference of age-old wisdom requires its inscription in a people’s intellectual legacy, literature, art, language, politics, economics, religion, and social customs—in other words, philosophy is inscribed in culture. “Culture,” according to Alexander Spirkin, “is closely akin to wisdom, or that part of it which is acquired by education. It involves the ability to observe the rule of moderation in everything, and if this moderation must be violated in the name of a new culture, it should also be done in accordance with reason and objective necessity.”1 Culture, in its various forms, is a concrete articulation of what is truly human in human beings. It is in this sense that philosophy may be construed as a cultural expression of humanity; it is in this context that philosophy is understood in its most concrete manifestation. The German term “Bildung” (which literally means “education,” “formation,” or “cultivation”) captures exactly the idea that there is an essential relationship between philosophy and culture. We may borrow from the German philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder a couple of ideas: firstly, that philosophy has a practical goal, namely, the development of humanity and, secondly, that philosophical expressions should be understood within their own socio-historical contexts.2 Another well-known German thinker, G.W.F. Hegel, further develops Herder’s idea of Bildung by arguing that the purpose of the human being is individual self-development and the purpose of humanity is collective self-development.3 Hegel presents a narrative of humanity’s dialectical self- development (Bildungsroman) wherein knowledge is understood as the human beings’ passionate search for truth through a wide variety of concrete experiences. It is because the 1 Alexander Spirkin, Dialectical Materialism, transcribed by Robert Cymbala, in Marxist Internet Archive,. 2 See Johann Gottfried von Herder, Philosophical Writings, trans. by Michael N. Forster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), Part V. 3 See G.W.F. Hegel, Phenomenology of the Spirit, trans. by A.V. Miller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977).  3 struggling search for truth is active and passionate, as opposed to passive, the human being develops a sense of selfhood and community, thereby further developing a complex conception of responsibility towards oneself and others. Matthew Arnold, the British writer, captures this succinctly: “culture being a pursuit of our total perfection by means of getting to know, on all the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world....”4 Culture, therefore, is key in the philosophical study of human nature. For by acknowledging various cultures, we acknowledge the multifaceted character of humanity’s self-expression. It is true that through this approach we reveal not a singular dimension of humanity, but, rather, we reveal a plurality of ways of understanding ourselves, our environment, and our relationship with our fellowmen. Purpose and Design of the Book We believe that the philosophical study of human nature is indispensable for our very own self- understanding. Moreover, we deem such approach as revealing the multifaceted character of human self-expression, exposing us, not to a singular theory of human nature, but to various theories of human nature. We wish to construe this book as a philosophical exploration of various theories of human nature. A philosophical exploration of human nature entails inquiring into the universal phenomenon “the human being.” Such inquiry, however, is by no means simple, as it leads to several specific, yet interrelated, questions about the human being. We may refer to these as the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the human being:  How did humans originate?  What is the ontological nature of the human being?  What is the relationship between the human being and the world?  What are the significances of living and dying?  How does or should the human being relate to her fellow human beings?  How does the human being find herself in the global world? While such FAQs have no definitive answers, we may, nonetheless, find clues from different cultural expressions. Understanding the human being as a universal phenomenon will, hopefully, lead to a better understanding of human individuality in the context of cultural difference (and belonging) against the backdrop of a growing global world. This, we believe, is the overarching purpose of the book. We have designed the book in such a way that we would be able to address the FAQs mentioned above. We have laid out the questions into six separate chapters and included, therein, pertinent primary readings that respond to the specific question of each chapter. Chapter One addresses the question on human origins by looking into two options: the mythical and the scientific. In Chapter Two, we tackle the question on the ontological status of the human being, whether the human being has a soul or not. Meanwhile, Chapter Three features discussions on the relationship between the human being and the world she lives in. Another important philosophical question is about the nature of living and dying, this is addressed in Chapter Four. The longest chapter of the book is Chapter Five, wherein the intersubjective character of the human being is 4 Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 5.  4 explored—exposing the ethical, political, and sexual dimensions of intersubjective relations. Finally, in the last chapter, Chapter Six, we attempt to situate the human being against the backdrop of the global world, engaging with questions on globalization, human rights, human dignity, and social injustice. We hope that through these chapters and with the help of the instructor or course facilitator, we would be able to help the students achieve the following:  An understanding of the human being as a singular ontological reality, as a social reality, and as a cultural reality.  An exposure to various philosophical positions on human nature, highlighting contrasting intellectual and cultural persuasions.  A recognition of the existence of different social or cultural groups and, as such, understand how a person can accept and tolerate differences in socio-cultural behavior. It is hoped that acceptance of differences will result in the recognition and respect of these varying cultural groups. We anticipate that the readers of this book will be primarily instructors/course facilitators and students. We have provided a general introduction for each chapter and a commentary for each position tackled in each chapter. Since this book is primarily intended as a reference resource book for a course in Philosophical Anthropology, each primary reading begins with five key points to guide both the instructor/course facilitator and students. Moreover, at the end of each reading, five questions for further discussion are also provided to encourage dialogical interaction. In order to allow the instructor or course facilitator to apply her own pedagogical style, we refrained from using examples drawn from Philippine experience and we focused our commentaries on the basic arguments of the primary readings. We believe that this approach will allow the instructor or course facilitator to creatively decide on the use of examples drawn from concrete experiences as she sees fit. We are also hoping that this open space will necessitate the involvement of students in the discussion. Readers will also notice that we have tried to be as “gender neutral” or “gender sensitive” as possible. As we deemed fit, instead of using “man,” “mankind,” “he,” “his,” “himself,” we used “the human being,” “humankind,” “humanity,” “people,” “the human person,” “person,” “she,” “her,” and “herself.” Despite this, however, we did not change the usage of “man,” “mankind,” “he,” “his,” “himself,” in the primary texts.  5 Excerpt from The Blooming of a Hundred Flowers: Philosophy of Ancient China (1992) (What is to Philosophize?) Alfredo P. Co Key points: 1. The human being is a universal phenomenon. As such the human being is an important subject in philosophy. 2. Philosophy is a human endeavor that profoundly forms part of human nature. 3. Philosophical expressions are culture-bound; philosophizing is not restricted to the Greeks. 4. Philosophy has three basic questions evinced by the three great civilizations (Indian, Greek, and Chinese): Who am I?; Where am I?; What am I? 5. To philosophize means to theoretically consider all things in a study or reflection. Early attempts to write a universal definition of contemplating their angelic essence. The brutes do not philosophy failed because mankind never shared a philosophize for their sentient level simply cannot allow common idea of what it is. them to do so. Only man can and needs to philosophize Is it valid to define philosophy as the science because of his uncertainties, which manifest themselves of beings, of their ultimate causes or principles as known as doubts. Therefore, we may say that philosophy begins by the light of natural reason? Perhaps so, but then, what and ends with man. We see in the history of ideas, how would happen to existentialism or Indian philosophy? man tried to construct philosophical ideas, and how Existentialism is not interested in the problem of the others tried to destroy them. One system of thought is ultimate principles; neither is Indian philosophy raised and another system of thought refutes it. concerned with the truth arrived at by the light of natural Generally, to philosophize means to reason. Shall we then define philosophy as the theoretically consider all things in a study or reflection. individual’s quest for authentic existence, or as the But philosophizing is a complex process of thought. The search for the ultimate Being by the use of one’s intuitive history of humanity has shown how man has struggled faculty? But what would happen to Chinese philosophy to come up with a genuine, indigenous world-view. whose main interest is to know how man can live in Through the different periods of history, he has used his harmony, unity, peace, prosperity, if in- deed, perpetuity! natural powers to pursue various philosophical ends. I Should philosophy then be defined as a way of life? But see generally three ends, namely: the Knowledge of the then those who believe that it is a way of thought could Absolute Truth; the Knowledge of the Reasoned Truth; easily reject it! and the Knowledge of the Practical Truth or what is also It seems that behind the many definitions, known as the Knowledge of the Art of living. whatever degree of validity each one has, rests a more These different ends were curiously pursued by fundamental question: What is to philosophize? three great civilizations: the Indian, the Greek and the Man is a universal phenomenon. He cogitates, Chinese. The Indians asked the question “Who am I?” contemplates and interprets the same world and yet he The Greeks inquired, “Where am I?” lastly, the Chinese comes up with varied opinions regarding it. History has posited the question “What am I?” The Jews also asked indeed shown us that the diversity of human experiences such significant questions as “Where did I come from?” has created diversified cultures that have brought about and “Where am I going?” But since man’s knowledge of distinct interpretations of the world. his origin and des- tiny cannot be verified, we shall not The complex enterprise of philosophizing has classify these questions as philosophical. In all these been a monopoly of man ab initio. God, being questions, there is the encompassing I, which only omniscient, has no need for either reason or intuition in proves the reflective nature of philosophizing. order to know. He is the Repository of truth and the The Indian philosophical tradition is deeply Fountainhead of wisdom. The angels possess a natural rooted in the question, “Who am I?” For the Indian knowledge of God and know other things by merely forest sages, the Absolute Truth consisted in man’s  6 discovery of the Self. The famous dialogue from the them truth consisted in man’s understanding of the Twelfth Khanda of the Chandogya Upanishad between principles behind the workings of the spatio-temporal Udalaka Aruni and his son Svetaketu depicts quite vividly world and his relationship with it. Thus, we have Thales this intuitive search for the Absolute. claiming that Water was the ultimate World-Stuff; Aruni said; Fetch me from thence a fruit of the Anaximander, declaring it was the Boundless, and nyagrodha tree. formulating his theory of evolution; Anaximenes, Air; Svetaketu replied: “Here is one, Sir.” Heraclitus, Fire; Parmenides, the one; Pythagoras, the “Break it.” limited and the unlimited; Empedocles, earth, Air, Water “It is broken, Sir.” and Fire; and Anaxagoras, Infinitely- Various Seeds. “What do you see there?” They were great cosmologists. “These seeds, almost infinitessimal.” The Greek attachments to the spatio-temporal “Break one of them.” world prompted them to develop a peculiar science “It is broken, Sir.” reflective of such a spirit of inquiry. Thus, the Greeks “What do you see there?” invented the science of logic and epistemology, where “Not anything. Sir.” truth is attained by a successful use of syllogistic The father said: “my son, that subtle essence demonstrations. The clarity of truth rests in the which you do not perceive there, of that very essence philosopher’s ability to define a concept and one’s this great nyagrodha tree exists.” security rests in his ability to insulate himself in these “Believe it, my son. That which is the subtle clearly -and neatly demonstrated discourses of reason. essence, in it all that exists has its self. It is the True. It is For the Greeks, philosophy is the science of the logico- the Self, and thou, o Svetaketu art it.” epistemic truth attained by the use of man’s natural In the same text, the Absolute Truth is revealed reason. as the discovery of the Self that is identical with the spirit The Chinese philosophical enterprise was of the universe. The Atman and Brahman are one. It is based on the question, “What am I?” The Chinese were through this realization that man achieves emancipation interested in the discovery of what it meant to be human from all forms of illusions or Maya. “By the old age of - what man’s potentialities were and how man could live the body, the ether does not age; by the death of the in self-determination, harmony and cohesiveness with body, the ether is not killed. That is the true Brahman. In others, in righteousness and propriety, sincerity and it all desires are contained. It is the Self, free from sin, wisdom, peace and prosperity, so that he might be able free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and to live in perpetuity. The ancient Chinese masters thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, focused their attention on the problem of making man and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine. humane. The question “What am I” is indeed socio- Those who depart from hence without having politico-moral. The anthropocentric slant of the Chinese discovered the Self and those true desires, for them there thinkers made them great social thinkers, political is no freedom in all the worlds. But those who depart thinkers and moral thinkers. No other civilization has from hence, after having discovered the Self and those invested so much of its philosophizing on the problem true desires, for them is freedom in all the worlds.” of attaining the highest moral good within the reach of The highest truth in Brahman can only be men than the Chinese. They have thought out, preached known if man is to consciously withdraw from the world and lived their answers to the problems of practical life of the senses, and methodically suspend the activity of that is the birthmark of their “princely sages.” his reasoning intellect in order to give way to the inner Chinese philosophy attempts to come up with faculty of intuition. The Absolute Truth can only be explanations for the knowledge of practical wisdom attained by the use of his intuitive faculty. Philosophy drawn out of man’s moral growth in life’s experience. for the Indians is the science of the Absolute Truth as The richness of this Truth on the Art of living is known by the use of one’s intuitive power. measured on the basis of how that practical wisdom is In this subtle and mystical search for the able to enrich man as an individual and as an integral part “depth ego,” the Indian sage probed into the ageless, of society. deathless, spiritual identity of man. This psychocentrism Philosophy then for the Chinese is the science is the distinguishing mark of Indian philosophy. But the of practical truth attained by the use of practical reason. Indians were great psychologists. Patanjali of Nyaya Were not the first Chinese masters moral, social and philosophy, Mahavira and Gautama - were they not in fact political philosophers? We have; Kong Zi, Lao Zi, Zhuang great psychologists and spiritual leaders? Zi, Meng Zi, Shang Yang, Xun Zi to name a few. Early Greek philosophical inquiry started with Thus, we have seen that philosophizing, the question “Where am I?” Amazed by the traditionally speaking, could mean: a methodic exercise phenomenon of change, the pre-Socratic cosmologists of the faculty of intuition (with the use of mantra, commenced their philosophical speculation with a concentration or meditation) for the transcendental search for the unifying principle of the universe. For grasp of the Absolute; a methodic exercise of the faculty  7 of reason (with the use of logical paradigm) for the attainment of ontological or epistemic truths; or the methodic exercise of practical reason (based on life’s experience) for the practical ability of man to live in dignity as a moral person. The nobility of traditional philosophizing rests in the thinkers’ sincerity, exhaustiveness and originality in their approach to their philosophical end. Philosophers following these three ancient traditions are nothing but footnotes as far as their end and the use of their faculty are concerned. The 18th and 19th centuries saw the cross- cultural contact among these three ageless traditions. Philosophical works of various cultures were translated and people started to see things from different lights. The initial experience was shattering and even abhorrent. It was not surprising that G.W.F. Hegel failed to see philosophy in the east and with, sardonic pride, declared flatly that philosophy was a monopoly of the West! It was Schopenhauer who saw the wisdom in Indian thought and Leibniz who perceived the superiority of Chinese moral wisdom. Regrettably, Schopenhauer saw the wisdom of Indian thought but failed to experience the light; while Leibniz appreciated the moral Truth of the Art of living but failed to experience its beauty, righteousness, humanity and decorum. Questions for Further Discussion: 1. What is the relationship between philosophy and the study of human nature? 2. What does it mean to say that philosophical expressions are culture-bound? 3. What are the three ancient expressions of philosophy and how are they related to the human person? 4. How are the three ancient expressions of philosophy relevant today? 5. Why is the human being a universal phenomenon?  8 CHAPTER ONE On Human Origins To speculate about the origin of human existence is an unavoidable task in self-reflection. As it seeks for a narrative about how the human being first emerged as a being, it is always reasonably construed as an effective jumpstart to be able to contemplate about human nature. This exploration, however, shall lead to the discovery of numerous accounts that do not promise any necessary factual accuracy since they have been expressed only to depict specific and limited human perspectives. According to Paul Ricoeur, these stories reveal a life that is an unstable mixture of fabulation and actual experience; and it is so because the human being is always in need to organize her life retrospectively. These stories serve as first beginnings to be able to stabilize actual human lives that lead to the discovery of further meaning. Moreover, the details of these accounts of origins should not be taken literally, but instead as cultural means to justify specific human tendencies, powers, and possibilities. Despite the assortment and sometimes even contradicting details, these stories have been legitimized by a specific community and is most likely taken as a way to understand their unique and collective way of looking into human life. We, therefore, consider the inquiry about human origins as one of our primordial tasks in Philosophical Anthropology not just to find out where we came from as a species, but more importantly, to realize why we are the way we are.5 In other words, stories that tell about the human origins shall lead to the contemplation of human cause(s), which marks the real beginning of the philosophic quest about the human being and humanity. At this point, we distinguish an origin from a cause as the former speaks of a life-bound descriptive detail while the latter pertains to a long-kept principle that is discovered by an intellectual activity. Aristotle in the Metaphysics defines the cause as “anything that comes to pass.” Meanwhile, the modern philosopher Immanuel Kant adds to the above definition as he depicts how one arrives at a cause by classifying it as a synthetic a priori judgment. For Kant, a cause is a metaphysical postulate that is gradually found through an intellectual retrospect that progressively abides in time. In other words, it is a principle provided before experience but is, nonetheless, realized in time through a thoughtful experience of life-moments in different ways. These include actual encounters of things by perception and of persons through dialogue, sharing of a specific communal life, and even the acquisition of scientific knowledge through many forms of intellectual activities. Hence, origin and cause are not univocal concepts but will have to share a common thread leading the human being to self-reflection while considering the ambit of time and space, and the need to have an epistemic referential point in thinking about a necessary beginning. Creationism and Evolutionism The quest for human origins necessitates a kind of retrospect that is done either in retelling narratives or inferential products of scientific procedures. And so at this point, we identify in this 5Nina Rosenstand, The Human Condition: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Human Nature (USA: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2002), 32.  9 work two intellectual dispositions that provided the most organized stories and speculations about human origins: Creationism, which is justified by myths, and Evolutionism, which is scientifically supported by the principle of natural selection.6 According to the Romanian mythologist Mircea Eliade (1907-1986), the human tendency to search for one’s beginning, reveals how one thinks about time in a cyclical manner. Unlike the common linear way that considers the horizontal progression of the past which led to the present that is towards the future; Eliade also notes the natural leaning to renew time by telling stories about past events. He demonstrated the common scenario among myths of different cultures where the origin of the world, of life, and of humans elude a time where things were fresh, new and good. Accordingly, this is the time when gods walked on the earth and humans were given magnanimous attributes, humans and animals were often indistinguishable from each other and humans introduced or have learned from the gods the items of food and clothing, the use of fire, and the utmost significance of human reason.7 By saying, in illo tempore (in those days, or once upon a time), the human being acknowledges what people of a specific culture believed about the past. However, the power of in illo tempore wears off. Gods return to their homes, nature dissipates and humanity commits atrocious mistakes. And so to avoid the foreseen gradual destructions, there will be a need to renew time to a fresh start by telling the stories anew. This is accordingly exemplified in the traditional practices and in the time-bound celebrations like the renewal of the year-cycle, anniversaries, and commemoration of events that are significant to the community. Cultures retell their respective stories of origins to help bring back the primordial power that was present “in the old days,” and more often, and they also retell how finite human beings are supported by a higher being, that is oftentimes attributed as the efficient cause of human existence. Eliade’s contextualization of narratives within the bounds of time amplifies how multiple stories of human origins depict the early development of the earth, human life, and the universe as initiated by a supernatural being. As such, it can be said that the stories about the beginning of mankind, originating from ancient belief systems, may be classified under Creationism, a disposition that upholds the involvement of a creative power, or in some cultures a divine entity that placed certain god-like attributes to the human being. This rendered in the human being certain unchanging attributes and purposes that distinguish her as the highest among created beings. With this disposition, it is aptly thinkable that the human being, despite the shared divine attributes, will have to possess a perfection that is lower than one’s creator, and so would be subject to errors, sin, sickness, and death. While creative power is oftentimes attributed to a divine figure of specific religions like Atum of ancient Egypt, Yahweh of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, Brahma of Hinduism, Bumba of the Bantu African tribe, Zeus of the ancient Greeks, Izanagi and Izanami of Shinto and many others, the creationist disposition clearly thrives in belief systems which have been articulated through myths. American mythologist and philosopher Joseph Campbell (1904-1987) provides a humanist significance to these accounts by saying that myths are told to make sense of reality. Despite their varieties, myths commonly reveal how human beings have always been the same as way back then. People today are no different from people of the previous centuries. We are the same kind of people having the same plights, hopes, fears and dreams. We all thrive to 6 It is, however, important to point out that not all theories of evolution recourse to the theory of natural selection. For example, Wilhelm Roux and William Rolph, who both reacted to the Darwinian theory of evolution, argued that evolution is the process of biological expansion, wherein organisms seek to expand through assimilation of things that surround them, for instance, through nutritive intake. 7 Rosenstand, 32.  10 succeed, all jubilant over victories and all grievous over defeats. Accordingly, human woes necessarily lead to the thought of finitude and so the natural resolve to seek the help of gods and spirits. And as such, Campbell also upholds that myths are stories that reveal how humankind is fascinated with bigger beings whom people significantly involve to overcome their respective struggles. Evolutionism, on the other hand, is an intellectual disposition that emerged from the natural sciences. It explains how the human being, as a living organism, is subject to change in behavior through time, because of the natural struggle to adapt and survive. This organic leaning is accordingly ruled by the principle of natural selection which Darwin describes as a change in the genetic composition of populations caused by differences in survival and reproduction. Such change however does not necessarily mean a development or an increase of perfection because even if natural selection is non-random, it does not have any foresight. Darwin elaborates this point in his 1859 work On the Origin of Species through the Four Testable Postulates: 1. Individuals in a population of a given species are variable. 2. Some of this variation is heritable. 3. In every generation, some individuals are more successful at surviving and reproducing than others. 4. Survival and reproduction are not random, but depend upon individual variation, and so thrive through the principle of the “survival of the fittest.” In other words, this intellectual disposition upholds that changes in human features are physiological ways of a specific generation to functionally adjust to the environment. And such indicates the species’ population to grow or become extinct. However, Darwin in his 1871 work, The Descent of Man, reveals that humanity has survived not just because of the power to adapt, but to relate to the environment. In this text, he puts forward the capacity to exceed the principle of natural selection through the human being’s rational and communal powers that can definitely be advanced by habit, learning, institutions, such as, religion. This chapter shall feature one representative per intellectual disposition. The first part which shows how myths and stories of creation depict the human situation are excerpts from Bill Moyer’s interview with Joseph Campbell, published in a book entitled The Power of Myth (1991). The second part, which talks about how humanity exceeds the organic character of evolution and natural selection is an excerpt from the Second Chapter of Charles Darwin’s 1871 work The Descent of Man.  11 Excerpts from The Power of Myth (1991) Joseph Campbell Key points: 1. Myth exceeds the limits of specialized sciences. These narratives rather teach the wisdom (i.e., meaning) of life. 2. Myth is an effective way to explain the nature of things by virtue of their story of origins because its wisdom is in accord with the wisdom of nature and it has a certain sense of mystery that underlies all its forms. 3. Myth serves four functions: the mystical, cosmological, sociological and ethical. 4. Human beings have a natural tendency to seek the help of a higher being. This is evident in narratives where finite human characters ask the intercession of gods and spirits. This further reveals humankind’s fascination with celebrated acts and individuals (i.e., larger than life beings such as heroes, martyrs, saints, etc.) 5. Albeit this longing for salvation, heaven and earth are nonetheless deep within us. Myths depict metaphors that represent our inward wishes, motivations and goals. MOYERS: Take a guess. What do you think the mythology, the stories they're going to hear from you, *** do for them? CAMPBELL: They're stories about the wisdom of life, MOYERS: We have a mythology for the way of the they really are. What we're learning in our schools is not animal powers. We have a mythology for the way of the the wisdom of life. We're learning technologies, we're seeded earth ---- fertility, creation, the mother goddess. getting information. There's a curious reluctance on the And we have a mythology for the celestial lights, for the part of faculties to indicate the life values of their heavens. But in modern times we have moved beyond subjects. In our sciences today ---- and this includes the animal powers, beyond nature and the seeded earth, anthropology, linguistics, the study of religions, and so and the stars no longer interest us except as exotic forth ---- there is a tendency to specialization. And when curiosities and the terrain of space travel. Where are we you know how much a specialist scholar has to know in now in our mythology for the way of man? order to be a competent specialist, you can understand CAMPBELL: We can't have a mythology for a long, this tendency. To study Buddhism, for instance, you long time to come. Things are changing too fast to have to be able to handle not only all the European become mythologized. languages in which the discussions of the Oriental come, MOYERS: How do we live without myths then? particularly French, German, English, and Italian, but CAMPBELL: The individual has to find an aspect of also Sanskrit, Chinese, Japanese, Tibetan, and several myth that relates to his own life. Myth basically serves other languages. Now, this is a tremendous task. Such a four functions. The first is the mystical function ---- that specialist can't also be wondering about the difference is the one I've been speaking about, realizing what a between the Iroquois and Algonquin. wonder the universe is, and what a wonder you are, and Specialization tends to limit the field of experiencing awe before this mystery. Myth opens the problems that the specialist is concerned with. Now, the world to the dimension of.....mystery, to the realization person who isn't a specialist, but a generalist like myself, of the mystery that underlies all forms. If you lose that, sees something over here that he has learned from one you don't have a mythology. If mystery is manifest specialist, something over there that he has learned from through all things, the universe becomes, as it were, a another specialist ---- and neither of them has holy picture. You are always addressing the transcendent considered the problem of why this occurs here and also mystery through the conditions of your actual world. there. So the generalist ---- and that's a derogatory term, The second is a cosmological dimension, the by the way, for academics ---- gets into a range of other dimension with which science is concerned ---- showing problems that are more genuinely human, you might say, you what the shape of the universe is, but showing it in than specifically cultural. such a way that the mystery again comes through. Today  12 we tend to think that scientists have all the answers. But of my being, the unconscious that I have inherited from the great ones tell us, "No, we haven't got all the all that has come before me? answers. We're telling you how it works ---- but what is CAMPBELL: That's right. You've got the same body, it?" You strike a match, what's fire? You can tell me with the same organs and energies, that Cro‐Magnon about oxidation, but that doesn't tell me a thing. man had thirty thousand years ago. Living a human life The third function is the sociological one ---- in New York City or living a human life in the caves, you supporting and validating a certain social order. And go through the same stages of childhood, coming to here's where the myths vary enormously from place to sexual maturity, transformation of the dependency of place. You can have a whole mythology for polygamy, a childhood into the responsibility of manhood or whole mythology for monogamy. Either one's okay. It womanhood, marriage, then failure of the body, gradual depends on where you are. It is this sociological function loss of its powers, and death. You have the same body, of myth that has taken over in our world ----and it is out the same bodily experiences, and so you respond to the of date. same images. For example, a constant image is that of MOYERS: What do you mean? the conflict of the eagle and the serpent. The serpent CAMPBELL: Ethical laws. The laws of life as it should bound to the earth, the eagle in spiritual flight ---- isn't be in the good society. All of Yahweh's pages and pages that conflict something we all experience? And then, and pages of what kind of clothes to wear, how to when the two amalgamate, we get a wonderful dragon, a behave to each other, and so forth, in the first serpent with wings. All over the earth people recognize millennium B.C. these images. Whether I'm reading Polynesian or But there is a fourth function of myth, and this Iroquois or Egyptian myths, the images are the same, is the one that I think everyone must try today to relate and they are talking about the same problems. to ---- and that is the pedagogical function, of how to MOYERS: They just wear different costumes when they live a human lifetime under any circumstances. Myths appear at different times? can teach you that. CAMPBELL: Yes. It's as though the same play were MOYERS: So the old story, so long known and taken from one place to another, and at each place the transmitted through the generations, isn't functioning, local players put on local costumes and enact the same and we have not yet learned a new one? old play. CAMPBELL: The story that we have in the West, so far MOYERS: And these mythic images are carried forward as it is based on the Bible, is based on a view of the from generation to generation, almost unconsciously. universe that belongs to the first millennium B.C. It does CAMPBELL: That's utterly fascinating, because they are not accord with our concept either of the universe or of speaking about the deep mystery of yourself and the dignity of man. It belongs entirely somewhere else. everything else. It is a mysterium, a mystery, tremendum We have today to learn to get back into accord et fascinans ---- tremendous, horrific, because it smashes with the wisdom of nature and realize again our all of your fixed notions of things, and at the same time brotherhood with the animals and with the water and the utterly fascinating, because it's of your own nature and sea. To say that the divinity informs the world and all being. When you start thinking about these things, about things is condemned as pantheism. But pantheism is a the inner mystery, inner life, the eternal life, there aren't misleading word. It suggests that a personal god is too many images for you to use. You begin, on your supposed to inhabit the world, but that is not the idea at own, to have the images that are already present in some all. The idea is trans--‐ theological. It is of an other system of thought. undefinable, inconceivable mystery, thought of as a MOYERS: There was a sense during medieval times of power, that is the source and end and supporting ground reading the world as if the world had messages for you. of all life and being. CAMPBELL: Oh, it certainly does. The myths help you read the messages. They tell you the typical probabilities. *** MOYERS: Give me an example. CAMPBELL: One thing that comes out in myths, for One thing that comes out in myths is that at example, is that at the bottom of the abyss comes the the bottom of the abyss comes the voice of salvation. voice of salvation. The black moment is the moment The black moment is the moment when the real message when the real message of transformation is going to of transformation is going to come. At the darkest come. At the darkest moment comes the light. moment comes the light. MOYERS: Like Roethke's poem, "In a Dark Time, the MOYERS: Someone asked me, "Why are you drawn to Eye Begins to See." You're saying that myths have these myths? What do you see in what Joseph Campbell brought this consciousness to you. is saying?" And I answered, "These myths speak to me CAMPBELL: I live with these myths, and they tell me because they express what I know inside is true." Why is this all the time. This is the problem that can be this so? Why does it seem that these stories tell me what metaphorically understood as identifying with the Christ I know inside is true? Does that come from the ground in you. The Christ in you doesn't die. The Christ in you  13 survives death and resurrects. Or you can identify that with Shiva. I am Shiva ---- this is the great meditation of the yogis in the Himalayas. MOYERS: And heaven, that desired goal of most people, is within us. CAMPBELL: Heaven and hell are within us, and all the gods are within us. This is the great realization of the Upanishads of India in the ninth century B.C. All the gods, all the heavens, all the worlds are within us. They are magnified dreams, and dreams are manifestations in image form of the energies of the body in conflict with each other. That is what myth is. Myth is a manifestation in symbolic images, in metaphorical images, of the energies of the organs of the body in conflict with each other. This organ wants this, that organ wants that. The brain is one of the organs. MOYERS: So when we dream, we are fishing in some vast ocean of mythology that ---- CAMPBELL: ---- that goes down and down and down. You can get all mixed up with complexes, you know, things like that, but really, as the Polynesian saying goes, you are then "standing on a whale fishing for minnows." We are standing on a whale. The ground of being is the ground of our being, and when we simply turn outward, we see all of these little problems here and there. But, if we look inward, we see that we are the source of them all. Questions for Further Discussion: 1. How do myths teach the wisdom of life? 2. How does myth evoke symbols that are significant to human existence? 3. What does man’s natural tendency to seek for salvation tell about human nature? 4. Name and describe the four functions of myth. How would each function contribute to a narrative account of human origins? 5. Among these functions, which has strong philosophic significance?  14 Excerpts from The Descent of Man (1871) Charles Darwin Key points: 1. Evolution is physiologically grounded, moved by the organism’s make and its physical power to adapt in the changing environment. 2. The power of the organism, albeit its physical attributes, is not determined by size. Survival by Natural Selection is a matter of strength. 3. Organisms live in a community where they abide with others symbiotically. One’s needs maybe supplied by others in the same way that one can provide from another organism’s needs. 4. The human being is able to survive and cope through time and its changing circumstance by natural selections, and his rational and communal nature. 5. The human being is distinguished from other species due to one’s capacity to exceed the organic power to adapt, as one rather relates to the world and has the command (dominion) over himself and the other lower species. In this chapter we have seen that as man at the present the great jaws of soldier-ants. With the higher social day is liable, like every other animal, to multiform animals, I am not aware that any structure has been individual differences or slight variations, so no doubt modified solely for the good of the community, though were the early progenitors of man; the variations being some are of secondary service to it. For instance, the formerly induced by the same general causes, and horns of ruminants and the great canine teeth of governed by the same general and complex laws as at baboons appear to have been acquired by the males as present. As all animals tend to multiply beyond their weapons for sexual strife, but they are used in defence means of subsistence, so it must have been with the of the herd or troop. In regard to certain mental powers progenitors of man; and this would inevitably lead to a the case, as we shall see in the fifth chapter, is wholly struggle for existence and to natural selection. The latter different; for these faculties have been chiefly, or even process would be greatly aided by the inherited effects exclusively, gained for the benefit of the community, and of the increased use of parts, and these two processes the individuals thereof have at the same time gained an would incessantly react on each other. It appears, also, advantage indirectly. as we shall hereafter see, that various unimportant It has often been objected to such views as the characters have been acquired by man through sexual foregoing, that man is one of the most helpless and selection. An unexplained residuum of change must be defenceless creatures in the world; and that during his left to the assumed uniform action of those unknown early and less well-developed condition, he would have agencies, which occasionally induce strongly marked and been still more helpless. The Duke of Argyll, for abrupt deviations of structure in our domestic instance, insists... that "the human frame has diverged productions. from the structure of brutes, in the direction of greater Judging from the habits of savages and of the physical helplessness and weakness. That is to say, it is a greater number of the Quadrumana, primeval men, and divergence which of all others it is most impossible to even their ape-like progenitors, probably lived in society. ascribe to mere natural selection." He adduces the naked With strictly social animals, natural selection sometimes and unprotected state of the body, the absence of great acts on the individual, through the preservation of teeth or claws for defence, the small strength and speed variations which are beneficial to the community. A of man, and his slight power of discovering food or of community which includes a large number of well- avoiding danger by smell. To these deficiencies there endowed individuals increases in number, and is might be added one still more serious, namely, that he victorious over other less favoured ones; even although cannot climb quickly, and so escape from enemies. The each separate member gains no advantage over the loss of hair would not have been a great injury to the others of the same community. Associated insects have inhabitants of a warm country. For we know that the thus acquired many remarkable structures, which are of unclothed Fuegians can exist under a wretched climate. little or no service to the individual, such as the pollen- When we compare the defenceless state of man with that collecting apparatus, or the sting of the worker-bee, or of apes, we must remember that the great canine teeth  15 with which the latter are provided, are possessed in their that they might have existed, or even flourished, if they full development by the males alone, and are chiefly used had advanced in intellect, whilst gradually losing their by them for fighting with their rivals; yet the females, brute-like powers, such as that of climbing trees, etc. But which are not thus provided, manage to survive. these ancestors would not have been exposed to any In regard to bodily size or strength, we do not special danger, even if far more helpless and defenceless know whether man is descended from some small than any existing savages, had they inhabited some warm species, like the chimpanzee, or from one as powerful as continent or large island, such as Australia, New Guinea, the gorilla; and, therefore, we cannot say whether man or Borneo, which is now the home of the orang. And has become larger and stronger, or smaller and weaker, natural selection arising from the competition of tribe than his ancestors. We should, however, bear in mind with tribe, in some such large area as one of these, that an animal possessing great size, strength, and together with the inherited effects of habit, would, under ferocity, and which, like the gorilla, could defend itself favourable conditions, have sufficed to raise man to his from all enemies, would not perhaps have become present high position in the organic scale. social: and this would most effectually have checked the acquirement of the higher mental qualities, such as Questions for Further Discussion: sympathy and the love of his fellows. Hence it might have been an immense advantage to man to have sprung 1. How does natural selection teach organisms from some comparatively weak creature. to symbiotically coexist? The small strength and speed of man, his want 2. Is there always a necessary direct correlation of natural weapons, etc., are more than counterbalanced, between size and strength? How did Darwin firstly, by his intellectual powers, through which he has break this presumptuous principle? formed for himself weapons, tools, etc., though still 3. How does the human being conquer his remaining in a barbarous state, and, secondly, by his limited physiological construct to survive? social qualities which lead him to give and receive aid 4. Are animals, social beings too? In what from his fellow-men. No country in the world abounds sense and up to what extent? in a greater degree with dangerous beasts than Southern 5. Did Darwin, in this selection, suggest the Africa; no country presents more fearful physical existence of an evolution of mental powers? hardships than the Arctic regions; yet one of the puniest How? of races, that of the Bushmen, maintains itself in Southern Africa, as do the dwarfed Esquimaux in the Arctic regions. The ancestors of man were, no doubt, inferior in intellect, and probably in social disposition, to the lowest existing savages; but it is quite conceivable  16 CHAPTER TWO Does the Human Being have a Soul? To the question, “does the human being have a soul?,” the usual response would be in the affirmative – for most of us, at least. Justifying our responses is no simple matter, however, as evidenced by the vast literature provided in philosophy. In order to answer the question of whether human beings, indeed, have souls, we must first address a more fundamental question: What is a “soul?” For philosophers and non-philosophers alike, the soul – likewise called mind, psyche, or Self – is the nonphysical and nonmaterial entity through which a person exclusively and directly observes and experiences her thoughts, emotions, desires, and sensations. Furthermore, this entity has neither mass, nor spatial location, or any observable size, shape, or color,8 and is often associated with another entity called the “body,” which is said to possess properties contrary to that of a soul. A body, more specifically, is an entity constituted by matter; it has extension, it can be observed and can be seen by other people, and essentially has attributes that are found in all physical bodies. Throughout the history of philosophy, we have witnessed how any investigation into the nature of the soul necessitates the inclusion of its correlate, the body, and forces an elucidation of the kind of relation that exists between the two. Such question on soul-body relation is what modern and contemporary philosophy has labeled the ‘mind-body problem’9 wherein basic issues are put forward about the two distinct entities of soul and body, namely, whether a valid distinction can be made between the two; whether from a valid distinction we can ask whether there are indeed things or entities to which we can apply such terms, and; whether we can ask what the relation is between soul and body granting that there are things to which they can be applied.10 While numerous philosophers from both Western and Eastern philosophical traditions – some of whom we shall take up in this chapter – addressed the problematic mind-body relation in ways often characterized either by the unity or the duality of these entities, there are generally two theories into which these philosophical responses to the problematic are subsumed: the monistic and the dualistic theories. The former denies that there are two distinct but related things, while the latter acknowledges that the two things are somehow related, and provides an explanation for such relation. Hence, the answer to the question regarding the nature and existence of the soul is no simple matter for it implies taking a stand among any of the subspecies of monism or dualism. Affirmative Responses and Negative Responses It must be noted that these two general categories are not arbitrary theories on human nature designated as a matter of convenience. Rather, it is a byproduct of a philosophical orientation or 8 Manuel Velasquez, Philosophy: A Text with Readings (12th Edition…), 82; Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer- Landau Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy (Wadsworth: USA, 2013), 308. 9 Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy( Wadsworth: USA, 2013), 308. 10 Paul Edwards, Editor in Chief, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 5 (Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc & The Free Press: New York, 1967), 336.  17 worldview – a metaphysical or ontological orientation - so to speak. Hence, the type of metaphysical orientation determines the numerous variations of monistic and dualistic theories on human nature, all of which may fall into any of the following categories: first, that only the soul or mind exists; second, that both soul and body constitute the person, albeit with a special and sometimes peculiar kind of interaction going on between them, and; finally, that there is only bodily existence. For our purposes, we shall be dealing only with the second and third perspectives. Many of those who maintain that the soul exists extend this position to the body as well, while those who hold that only the body exists consider the soul or mind only as an aspect or byproduct of physical states. Nevertheless, both the affirmative and negative responses regarding the soul’s existence converge when it comes to dealing with the implications of their respective positions. For instance, issues concerning personal identity, such as “Who am I?,” “Is there life after death?” arise from both positions. Other important matters like the continuity or unity of the self, the nature of the union between soul and body, the origin and destiny of the soul, and the purpose of human life are corollaries of both the affirmative and negative responses. Affirmative Responses Plato One of the first to delve into the nature of the soul and elaborate on its relationship with the body was Plato. From him comes arguably the most widely known account of a dualistic human nature in the Western tradition. He provides us with the perfect example of how our understanding of the person is molded by metaphysical or ontological presuppositions. His arguments for the immortality of the human soul in the Phaedo are essentially grounded in the Theory of Forms such that, without it, the claim that the immortal soul and the perishable body are two distinct entities becomes untenable. Our selection from the Phaedo, where the arguments for the soul’s immortality are demonstrated, begins with Socrates trying to convince his friends not to be afraid of death. He argues that death – the state of separation of soul and body – is our goal, and that the true philosopher or anyone who lived a moral life has been preparing for this liberating event. The first argument rests on the assumption that all things that exist have opposites, and derive their being from said opposites – as when Socrates says that something smaller came to be from something larger earlier, and, likewise, when a weaker from the stronger, the swifter from the slower. The phenomenon of life and death, according to his line of reasoning is no different. He adds that the relation between the opposites is characterized by two processes of coming to be wherein one causes the other, and the other causes the former. He further adds that this circular cycle is a necessary one and is based on the observation that if the contrary were true, that is, if the process of becoming were linear, then everything that comes to be will be absorbed by its opposite, thus ending the process of coming to be. Another argument for the soul’s immortality is derived from his theory of knowledge in which Plato claims that knowledge simply is a matter of remembering. In his famous example about the ‘idea of equality’ he makes us realize that such an idea does not originate through the act of comparing the concrete things that we see and touch that bring about a likeness to the idea of equality because not only can these things produce different ideas as well to some other person, but more so because these things fall short and can never correspond to the idea of equality itself. He explains that before we ever began to see or touch equal things, we must have already possessed knowledge of the “Equal itself” for us to be able to refer to our sense perceptions being equal.  18 But this prior knowledge presupposes one important truth about the soul: that it already possessed this and other ideas before birth. The last argument in the selection is about the soul’s simplicity – it has no parts. Plato argues that the soul is of the non-composite, indissoluble, and unchanging nature because it alone can grasp ideas which are permanent and are of an unchanging nature. Thus, unlike the body that uses the senses to perceive the many changing, dissoluble, and composite natures like itself, and which disintegrates and is destroyed after sometime, the soul cannot be destroyed since it has no parts to be disintegrated and destroyed. Here, Plato’s reasoning follows the principle that the nature of an operation flows from the nature of the being. Thomas Aquinas Compared to other philosophers who dealt with the nature of the relation between soul and body, Thomas Aquinas’ analysis may be considered somewhat peculiar in that he threads between dualism and monism. The rejection of Platonic dualism, however, is obvious as he emphasizes on the unity of the human person – an idea that corresponds to the Christian doctrine. It must be noted that his main purpose was to analyze and put forward philosophical arguments about the soul-body relation. While he was not concerned with solving what was later dubbed as “mind- body problem,” he was not immune to this philosophical problematic. Thus, while Aquinas’s emphasis on the unity of the body and soul dissociates him from such dualists as Plato and Descartes, his theory about the subsistence of the soul pulls him back to the dualistic tendency he tries to overcome. Aquinas’ analysis of the soul-body relation begins with a discussion of the nature of the soul in Article 1, Question 75. He says that the soul is not, and cannot be a body because of the simple but important fact that if it were, then every bodily thing would be capable of being alive. Furthermore, what distinguishes ‘animate’ from ‘inanimate’ beings is that the former has life. But not all beings have life. Thus, there must be something within “animate” beings – living beings such as plants, animals, and humans – that makes them alive, which the “inanimate” beings do not have. Aquinas, taking the lead from Aristotle’s De Anima, identifies it as the soul. Aquinas’ intention in Article 2, Question 75 of the Summa is to make a rationally tenable explanation about what happens to the human soul after the death of the human being even as divine revelation already makes known that it continues its existence after the body’s death. He begins by pointing to the intellectual operation that emanates from the human soul as something incorporeal. This is because by means of the intellectual operation one can grasp and know the nature of all corporeal things. However, according to Aquinas, this cannot be possible for anything corporeal because their determinate nature would impede the knowledge of anything else. From this also follows that the intellectual operation does not require any bodily organ by which to perform its operations. Drawing from this line of reasoning, Aquinas further says that the human soul via the intellectual operation is also something subsistent. This means that the soul of the human being continues to exist after death. This is possible for the human soul, as incorporeal, has an “operation per se” apart from the body, i.e., it is capable of performing operations in and by itself, without requiring a material body or organ. In the last part of our selection from the Summa, Aquinas addresses the difficulty created in the previous article in which the human soul was capable of existing without the body. He explains that despite a mode of existence independent of the body, the human soul should not be considered as a distinct entity from the body. He gives two reasons: First, it is a mistake to consider the soul as that which constitutes the human being since by definition both the form and  19 the matter belong together in the notion of a particular human being, as well as in the notion of the human being as such; second, inasmuch as it can be said that “whatever performs the operations proper to a thing, is that thing,” the soul alone cannot be the human being, since a human being performs sentient operations, albeit subsumed by the higher intellectual operation, it is nevertheless an operation indispensable to the human being. Hence the human being cannot be soul alone, but the unity of body and soul. Rene Descartes Our treatment of Descartes’ arguments concerning the mind and body relation is taken from the second meditation of his Meditations. He begins his analysis of the distinction between the mind and the body, and, corollarily, of the nature of the human mind, by delving into what is most certainly known by it. By employing the principle that anything susceptible to doubt must be regarded as false, he goes on to doubt the existence of everything – our memory, senses, body, shape, extension, God, and even the self. With regard to the last one, however, Descartes observes that it is not possible to doubt its existence. This is because in convincing oneself that those which preceded the self in the enumeration did not exist presupposes that there is the self which existed that needed to be convinced. That is why even when Descartes hypothesizes the existence of a malicious deceiver that tricks us of our existence, we can never be deceived that we are nothing while thinking that we are something. Thus, Descartes concludes that the proposition “I am, I exist” ought to be true every time we “assert it or think it.” The next problem Descartes wanted to address was the nature of this “I” whose existence he was already certain of. Was it a body with a face, hands, and arms, as well as the whole structure that constituted it, as he was spontaneously and naturally led to believe whenever he thought about it, or a soul, which was responsible for the operations of eating, drinking, moving, as well as perceiving and thinking? It cannot be the former since the malicious deceiver hypothesis already cast in doubt the existence of bodies. As to the soul’s operations of nutrition, movement, and perception, Descartes says their dependence on the body likewise casts a cloud of doubt into their existence. There is, however, one operation whose existence is impervious to doubt: thinking. He claims that for as long as he is thinking, he is certain that he exists. Existence cannot be separated from thinking. Thus, on the question of the kind of thing this “I” is, Descartes’ answer is clear: a thinking thing. He further clarifies that “thinking” subsumes all other operations such as doubting, understanding, affirming, denying, wanting, refusing, as well as imagining, and sensing – for what are these, Descartes explains, but different aspects and activities that are never really distinct from the thinking thing. Negative Responses Buddhism Another discussion from the Eastern tradition is taken from the Buddhist text The Questions of King Milinda, where a conversation takes place between the renowned and wise King Milinda and the monk Nagasena concerning, among other things, the nature of the self in which the first chapter is an illustration of the famous Buddhist doctrine anatta or no-self. This fundamental doctrine opposes the traditional Hindu teaching that an ultimate essential self or soul, known as atman, exists and would continue to exist after bodily death as when it travels from one body to another in the process of reincarnation. For the Buddhist, there is no soul or self in the ultimate  20 sense that is awaiting rebirth. Rather, what is called soul or Self is nothing but a “complex compound of fleeting mental states.”11 At the beginning of the dialogue, Nagasena introduces himself, but then claims that such name is only a “generally understood term, a designation in common use,” and does not denote a “permanent individuality” or unitary substance thought of as Self or soul. On this account his interlocutor, King Milinda, disagrees, and contends that there ought to be an individual who bears such name despite having argued that such an individual could not possibly be the five skandhas – those which constitute the whole bodily and mental states of any being – either in part or in whole, as is commonly held, for otherwise it would make no sense to speak of “merit or demerit” and other characteristics and actions we attribute to an existing individual. After allowing King Milinda state his argument, Nagasena then presents his counterargument via his famous analogy of the chariot. In what resembles a Socratic method, Nagasena gets King Milinda to agree that neither of the chariot’s parts taken singly, nor its parts taken collectively as a mere totality, or anything entirely distinct from the parts could be identified with the chariot itself. The king is further drawn to conclude from the argument that since there is no referent for the name “chariot,” it is a meaningless and empty sound, much like the name Nagasena. In order to free himself from this difficulty, King Milinda explains that by “chariot” we simply “conveniently designate” the poles, axles, wheels, chariot-body, and all that constitute a “chariot.” Herein lies Nagasena’s point successfully proven, and thus proclaims that the human being is analogous to the chariot. For just as “chariot” is an appellation or designation that does not refer to any isolable and identifiable thing, so does the ‘I’ or Self not refer to any objective and distinct entity distinct from the eyes, ears, and all those parts that are supposed to constitute it. David Hume At the center of David Hume’s inquiry about human nature is his theory of ideas, according to which all our ideas – including the idea of the Self – originate from fundamental building blocks called perceptions, which consists of the totality of the contents of our mind. These perceptions are further categorized into “impressions” and “ideas.” The former includes all our sensations, passions, and emotions; the latter are the faint images we have of these impressions when we think and reason. Hence, the burning sensation we experience when we touch a candle flame is a perception, while recalling the burning sensation several minutes later is the idea. From the foregoing, Hume says that there is a relation of dependence between impressions and ideas, such that the impressions from experience are the cause of our ideas. In analyzing the concept of Self, Hume applies the rule derived from his theory of perception that obscure and controversial terms may be clarified and verified by tracing it back its cause: impressions. Thus, Hume says when one doubts the certainty and realness of a term, such as the Self, one need only consider the cardinal rule of his theory regarding perception, and ask the basic question: From what impression could this term be derived? In the following selection from Treatise of Human Nature, Hume subjects the notion of Self to the kind of questioning that is usually applied to controversial terms. What he discovers is that the Self is not what the majority of thinkers during Hume’s time thought of – a unifying, constant, and unchanging thing that is beneath all various experiences and perceptions that we have. Instead, what we encounter when we look inward towards ourselves are “some particular perceptions of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure.” There is never a moment, he adds, that we do not encounter or observe perceptions, which “succeed each other with inconceivable 11 Narada Mahathera, Buddhism in a Nutshell (Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society, 1982), 21.  21 rapidity, and are in perpetual flux and movement.” What is crucial in his description is that all distinct perceptions have distinct existences. The mind, according to his analysis, never has any perception of any real connection among these distinct existences. It is only because of what he calls the uniting principles of the world of ideas – resemblance and causation – coupled with our memory and imagination that we are able to come up with the idea of a unified Self. He concludes that personal identity is mere fiction, and that the Self is nothing but a bundle of perceptions.  22 Excerpts from Phaedo (360 BC) Plato Key points: 1. Death is defined as the state of separation of the soul from the body. The goal of the person is to properly attain this state of liberation. 2. The philosopher seeks death and does so by dissociating himself from the body by avoiding the pleasures and desires that accompany it, and by turning its gaze towards the intelligible and abstract world of ideas. 3. Everything that comes to be must have an opposite which caused it. This natural process of transition and generation necessitates a circular movement. 4. Learning entails a process of remembering ideas derived from a previous existence. The soul, in possessing these ideas, must have already existed before being born. 5. The soul is simple – it has no parts. As such it is of the nature of the non-composite, unchanging, and indissoluble, thus making it immortal. I want to make my argument before you, my judges, evils you were recently enumerating, there would as to why I think that a man who has truly spent his then be much good hope, Socrates, that what you life in philosophy is probably right to be of good say is true; but to believe this requires a good deal cheer in the face of death and to be very hopeful of faith and persuasive argument, to believe that the that after death he will attain the greatest blessings soul still exists after a man has died and that it still yonder. I will try to tell you, Simmias and Cebes, possesses some capability and intelligence. how this may be so. I am afraid that other people What you say is true, Cebes, Socrates said, do not realize that the one aim of those who but what shall we do? Do you want to discuss practice philosophy in the proper manner is to whether this is likely to be true or not? practice for dying and death. Now if this is true, it Personally, said Cebes, I should like to would be strange indeed if they were eager for this hear your opinion on the subject. all their lives and then resent it when what they have I do not think, said Socrates, that anyone wanted and practiced for a long time comes upon who heard me now, not even a comic poet, could them. say that I am babbling and discussing things that do not concern me, so we must examine the question *** thoroughly, if you think we should do so. Let us examine it in some such a manner as this: whether This is my defense, Simmias and Cebes, the souls of men who have died exist in the that I am likely to be right to leave you and my underworld or not. We recall an ancient theory that masters here without resentment or complaint, souls arriving there come from here, and then again believing that there, as here, I shall find good that they arrive here and are born here from the masters and good friends. If my defense is more dead. If that is true, that the living come back from convincing to you than to the Athenian jury, it will the dead, then surely our souls must exist there, for be well. they could not come back if they did not exist, and When Socrates finished, Cebes this is a sufficient proof that these things are so if it intervened: Socrates, he said, everything else you truly appears that the living never come from any said is excellent, I think, but men find it very hard other source than from the dead. If this is not the to believe what you said about the soul. They think case we should need another argument. that after it has left the body it no longer exists Quite so, said Cebes. anywhere, but that it is destroyed and dissolved on the day the man dies, as soon as it leaves the body; *** and that, on leaving it, it is dispersed like breath or smoke, has flown away and gone and is no longer I think, Cebes, said he, that this is very anything anywhere. If indeed it gathered itself definitely the case and that we were not deceived together and existed by itself and escaped those when we agreed on this: coming to life again in truth  23 exists, the living come to be from the dead, and the Thousands indeed, said Simmias. souls of the dead exist. Is this kind of thing not recollection of a Furthermore, Socrates, Cebes rejoined, kind? he said, especially so when one experiences it such is also the case if that theory is true that you about things that one had forgotten, because one are accustomed to mention frequently, that for us had not seen them for some time?-Quite so. learning is no other than recollection. According to Further, he said, can a man seeing the this, we must at some previous time have learned picture of a horse or a lyre recollect a man, or seeing what we now recollect. This is possible only if our a picture of Simmias recollect Cebes?-Certainly. soul existed somewhere before it took on this Or seeing a picture of Simmias, recollect human shape. So according to this theory too, the Simmias himself? – He certainly can. soul is likely to be something immortal. In all these cases the recollection can be Cebes, Simmias interrupted, what are the occasioned by things that are similar, but it can also proofs of this? Remind me, for I do not quite recall be occasioned by things that are dissimilar?-It can. them at the moment. There is one excellent argument, said When the recollection is caused by similar Cebes, namely that when men are interrogated in things, must one not of necessity also experience the right manner, they always give the right answer this: to consider whether the similarity to that which of their own accord, and they could not do this if one recollects is deficient in any respect or they did not possess the knowledge and the right complete?-One must. explanation inside them. Then if one shows them a Consider, he said, whether this is the case: diagram or something else of that kind, this will we say that there is something that is equal. I do not show most dearly that such is the case. mean a stick equal to a stick or a stone to a stone or If this does not convince you, Simmias, anything of that kind, but something else beyond all said Socrates, see whether you agree if we examine these, the Equal itself. Shall we say that this exists it in some such way as this, for do you doubt that or not? what we call learning is recollection? Indeed we shall, by Zeus, said Simmias, It is not that I doubt, said Simmias, but I most definitely. want to experience the very thing we are discussing, And do we know what this is?-Certainly. recollection, and from what Cebes undertook to Whence have we acquired the knowledge say, I am now remembering and am pretty nearly of it? Is it not from the things we mentioned just convinced. Nevertheless, I should like to hear now now, from seeing sticks or stones or some other the way you were intending to explain it. things that are equal we come to think of that other This way, he said. We surely agree that if which is different from them? Or doesn't it seem to anyone recollects anything, he must have known it you to be different? Look at it also this way: do not before. equal stones and sticks sometimes, while remaining Quite so, he said. the same, appear to one to be equal and to another Do we not also agree that when to be unequal?-Certainly they do. knowledge comes to mind in this way, it is But what of the equals themselves? Have recollection? What way do I mean? Like this: when they ever appeared unequal to you, or Equality to a man sees or hears or in some other way perceives be Inequality? one thing and not only knows that thing but also Never, Socrates. thinks of another thing of which the knowledge is These equal things and the Equal itself are not the same but different, are we not right to say therefore not the same? that he recollects the second thing that comes into I do not think they are the same at all, his mind? Socrates. How do you mean? But it is definitely from the equal things, Things such as this: to know a man is though they are different from that Equal, that you surely a different knowledge from knowing a lyre. have derived and grasped the knowledge of Of course. equality? Well, you know what happens to lovers: Very true, Socrates. whenever they see a lyre, a garment or anything else Whether it be like them or unlike them? that their beloved is accustomed to use, they know Certainly. the lyre, and the image of the boy to whom it It makes no difference. As long as the belongs comes into their mind. This is recollection, sight of one thing makes you think of another, just as someone, on seeing Simmias, often recollects whether it be similar or dissimilar, this must of Cebes, and there are thousands of other such necessity be recollection? occurrences. Quite so.  24 Well then, he said, do we experience about the Equal than about the Beautiful itself, the something like this in the case of equal sticks and Good itself, the Just, the Pious and, as I say, about the other equal objects we just mentioned? Do they all those things which we mark with the seal of seem to us to be equal in the same sense as what is "what it is," both when we are putting questions and Equal itself? Is there some deficiency in their being answering them. So we must have acquired such as the Equal, or is there not? knowledge of them all before we were born. A considerable deficiency, he said. That is so. Whenever someone, on seeing something, lf, having acquired this knowledge in each realizes that that which he now sees wants to be like case, we have not forgotten it we remain knowing some other reality but falls short and cannot be like and have knowledge throughout our life, for to that other since it is inferior, do we agree that the know is to acquire knowledge, keep it and not lose one who thinks this must have prior knowledge of it. Do we not call the losing of knowledge that to which he says it is like, but deficiently so? forgetting? Necessarily. Most certainly, Socrates, he said. Well, do we also experience this about the But, I think, if we acquired this knowledge equal objects and the Equal itself, or do we not? before birth, then lost it at birth, and then later by Very definitely. the use of our senses in connection with those We must then possess knowledge of the objects we mentioned, we recovered the knowledge Equal before that time when we first saw the equal we had before, would not what we call learning be objects and realized that all these objects strive to the recovery of our own knowledge, and we are be like the Equal but are deficient in this. right to call this recollection? That is so. Certainly. Then surely we also agree that this conception of ours derives from seeing or touching *** or some other sense perception, and cannot come into our mind in any other way, for all these senses, A man who has knowledge would be able to give an I say, are the same. account of what he knows, or would he not? He must certainly be able to do so, They are the same, Socrates, at any rate in Socrates, he said. respect to that which our a