The-Philosophical-Perspective-of-the-Self-Learning-Guide.pdf

Unit 1: Lesson 1 Philosophical Perspective of the Self Objectives: At the end of the chapter, the students are expected to: Explain the role of Philosophy in understanding the concept of self Discuss the differ...

Unit 1: Lesson 1 Philosophical Perspective of the Self Objectives: At the end of the chapter, the students are expected to: Explain the role of Philosophy in understanding the concept of self Discuss the different concepts of the self from the philosophical perspective Differentiate the various concepts of the self and identify their similarities. I. Socrates: The Soul is Immortal “Know thyself” is considered to be the cornerstone of Socrates’ philosophy though it is not originally his phrase. It is a motto inscribed on the frontispiece of the Temple of Delphi. This phrase means that we have to live according to our nature. According to Socrates, knowledge is inherent in an individual and that knowledge of oneself can be attained through the Socratic method (dialogue between the soul and itself, or between the student and teacher). He was considered to be the first thinker in recorded history to focus the full power of reason on the human self: who we are, who we should be, and who we will become. He was convinced that in addition to our physical bodies, each person possesses an immortal soul that survives beyond the death of the body. He explored this subject with his friends in the days following his trial and before his sentence of death was executed, a time in his life when the question of immortality no doubt had a special immediacy and significance. For him, reality is dualistic, comprised of two dichotomous realms: 1. changeable, transient, and imperfect (the physical realm--the physical world) 2. unchanging, eternal, immortal (ideal realm--the intellectual essences of the universe: truth, goodness, beauty)  Our bodies belong to the physical realm: they change, they’re imperfect, and they die. Our souls, however, belong to the ideal realm: they are unchanging and immortal, surviving the death of the body. Although a close relationship exists between our souls and our bodies, they are radically different entities. Our souls strive for wisdom and perfection, and reason is the soul’s tool to achieve this exalted state. But as long as the soul is tied to the body, this quest for wisdom is inhibited by the imperfection of the physical realm, as the soul is “dragged by the body into the region of the changeable,” where it “wanders and is confused” in a world that “spins round her, and she is like a drunkard.” But reason is a powerful tool, enabling the soul to free itself from the corrupting imperfection of the physical realm and achieve “communion with the unchanging.” II. Plato: The Soul One of the most prominent thinkers of his time, Plato included in his work the learnings and ideas shared to him by his teacher Socrates. He wrote several literatures that tackles politics, human nature, and established the idea of virtue and intelligence. Plato is historically known to be the father of the academy, a place where learning and sharing of knowledge happens, that later became one of the pillars and basis of what schools and education is structed in the present. Plato generally followed his teacher, Socrates, and the idea of knowing thyself. His notable works includes the allegory of the cave, the apology, and his work on a perfect government and societal system – “The Republic” – where he said that the world can only be led by a Philosopher king, a person who is virtuous as well as intelligent. According to Plato, a person who is a follower of truth and wisdom will not be tempted by vices and will always be just. Plato also believed in the division of person’s body and soul which forms the person as a whole. Aside from the material things and that could be observed and associated with a person, Plato presented the idea that one’s soul is divided into 3 different parts that has different views leading to different behaviors. These parts of the soul are known as the Appetitive, Spirited, and Rational Soul. Plato’s 3 Parts of The Soul 1. Appetitive Soul Plato’s idea of the appetitive soul is the part of the person that is driven by desire and need to satisfy oneself. This satisfaction both involves physical needs and pleasures and desires. As long as the person finds an object or situation good or satisfying, the Appetitive soul can drive the person to lean towards those pleasurable objects and situations.  2. Spirited Soul This part of the soul can be attributed to the courageous part of a person, the one who wants to do something or to right the wrongs that they observe. Spirited soul is very competitive and is very active, his competitiveness drives one to expect positive results and winning. 3. Rational Soul The last part of the soul could be said as the driver of our lives. This is the part that thinks and plan for the future. As the conscious mind it decides what to do, when to do it, and the possible results one could have depending on their actions. III. St. Augustine: Plato and Christianity More than 500 years after Plato died, a Roman Philosopher named Plotinus spearheaded Neoplatonism. Plotinus: fervently committed to his Platonic ideas regarding the imperfection of his physical body, in contrast to the perfection of his eternal soul. Plotinus’ ideas had a profound influence on St. Augustine. St. Augustine integrated the philosophical concepts of Plato with the tenets of Christianity. Augustine was convinced that Platonism and Christianity were natural partners. He enthusiastically adopted Plato’s vision of a bifurcated universe in which “there are two realms, an intelligible realm where truth itself dwells, and this sensible world which we perceive by sight and touch,” but then adapted this metaphysic to Christian beliefs. Thus, Plato’s ultimate reality, the eternal realm of the Forms, became in Augustine’s philosophy a transcendent God. In the same way, Plato’s vision of immortal souls striving to achieve union with this eternal realm through intellectual enlightenment became transformed by Augustine into immortal souls striving to achieve union with God through faith and reason. Like Plato and Plotinus, Augustine believed that the physical body was both radically different from and inferior to its inhabitant, the immortal soul. Early in his philosophical development he describes the body as a “snare” and a “cage” for the soul. He considers the body a “slave” to the soul, and sees their relation as contentious: “The soul makes war with the body.” As his thinking matured, Augustine came to view the body as the “spouse” of the soul, with both attached to one another by a “natural appetite”. The body is united with the soul so that man may be entire and complete. Nevertheless, the body and soul remain irreconcilably divided, the body to die, the soul to live eternally in a transcendent realm of Truth and Beauty. In melding philosophy and religious beliefs together, Augustine has been characterized as Christianity’s first theologian (theos – God; logos – study of) – the study of God. IV. Descartes’s Modern Perspective of the Self Descartes’ approach to understanding the self is different from the aforementioned philosophers. Although he recognizes the importance of the fundamental questions asked by Socrates and the rest, he is more curious about our thinking process. Further, it is not enough for him to use reason but it is more important to understand our reasoning process that we use to come up with a conclusion for if our thinking instrument is flawed, then our conclusions will be likely to be flawed as well. Descartes was an integral part of the scientific revolution, with this, he insisted that it was no longer acceptable to take knowledge without question which was the usual case during the Middle Ages. Descartes was convinced that we should use our thinking abilities to investigate, experiment, analyze, and develop our well- reasoned conclusion supported with proofs. For Descartes, in order to develop a rock-solid foundation of your beliefs, one must be courageous enough to question things instead of accepting them by “faith.” Moreover, one will develop their intellectual abilities and personal courage to achieve one’s full potential. Cogito ergo sum. Descartes’ first principle in his theory of knowledge which means “I think, therefore I am.” He is confident that no rational person will doubt his or her own existence as a conscious, thinking entity—while we are aware of thinking about our self. Being self-conscious in this way is integral to having a personal identity. Conversely, it would be impossible to be self-conscious if we didn’t have a personal identity of which to be conscious. In other words, having a self-identity and being self-conscious are mutually dependent on one another. SELF (THINKING THING) = SELF-IDENTITY ↔ SELF-CONSCIOUS Characteristics of a thinking thing: You understand situations in which you find yourself. You doubt the accuracy of ideas presented to you. You affirm the truth of a statement made about you. You deny an accusation that someone has made. You will yourself to complete a task you have begun. You refuse to follow a command that you consider to be unethical.  You imagine a fulfilling career for yourself. You feel passionate emotions toward another person. In addition, your self-identity is dependent on the fact that you are capable of being aware you are engaging in these mental operations while you are engaged in them. If you are consistently not conscious and unaware of your thinking, reasoning, and perceiving process, then it is impossible for you to have a self-identity, a unique essence, a you. QUESTION: Is our body not part of our self then? For Descartes, your physical body is secondary to your personal identity. One reason for this is that he believes that self exist independently from your body. Though your body is not as central to your self as is your capacity to reflect and think, it clearly plays a role in your self-identity. However, these two dimensions – self as a thinking entity and self as a physical body- of self are distinct from each other. Further, Descartes argues that each can exist and function without the other. Self as Thinking Entity Self as Physical body Nonmaterial Material Immortal Mortal Conscious being Nonthinking entity Independent of Fully governed by physical laws of physical laws of nature Universe QUESTION: How is it possible that the two dimensions of the self can exist without the other? In cases such as physical death, Descartes believes that the soul continues to exist, seeking union with God’s infinite and eternal mind in the spiritual realm. On the other hand, in cases in which people sleep or in comatose, their bodies continue to function even if their minds are not thinking. Although Descartes made a good premise, his view regarding the two different dimensions of self have raised questions from other great thinkers, such as “What is the relationship between the mind and the body?” It is undeniable that our mind and body are connected since our thinking and emotions have a profound effect on many aspects of our physical bodies, and physical events of our bodies have a significant impact on our mental lives. Descartes attempted to answer this by saying that our mind and body have “intermingling” point of  contact through the pineal gland. However, most philosophers agree that Descartes failed in his attempt to create an integrated concept of the body and mind. V. John Locke: The Self is Consciousness Empiricist - view that sense experience is the primary source of all and that only a careful attention to sense experience can enable us to understand the world and achieve accurate conclusions. Locke makes the following points, implicitly asking the question of his readers, “Aren’t these conclusions confirmed by examining your own experiences?” 1. To discover the nature of personal identity, we’re going to have to find out what it means to be a person. 2. A person is a thinking, intelligent being who has the abilities to reason and to reflect. 3. A person is also someone who considers itself to be the same thing in different times and different places. 4. Consciousness—being aware that we are thinking—always accompanies thinking and is an essential part of the thinking process. 5. Consciousness is what makes possible our belief that we are the same identity in different times and different places. For Locke, the essence of the self is its conscious awareness of itself as a thinking, reasoning, reflecting identity. In Locke’s mind, conscious awareness and memory of previous experiences are the keys to understanding the self. In other words, you have a coherent concept of your self as a personal identity because you are aware of your self when you are thinking, feeling, and willing. And you have memories of times when you were aware of your self in the past, in other situations. But, there are many moments when we are not consciously aware of our self when we are thinking, feeling, and willing—we are simply, unreflectively, existing. What’s more, there are many past experiences that we have forgotten or have faulty recollections of. All of which means that during those lapses, when we were not aware of our self, or don’t remember being aware of our self, we can’t be sure if we were the same person, the same substance, the same soul! For Locke, personal identity and the soul or substance in which the personal identity is situated are two very different things. VI. Immanuel Kant: We Construct the Self Kant acknowledges that all knowledge of the world begins with sensations: sounds, shapes, colors, tastes, feels, smells but emphasizes that “our primary experience of the world is not in terms of a disconnected stream of sensations.” Instead, we perceive and experience an organized world of objects, relationships, and ideas, all existing within a fairly stable framework of space and time. Our minds actively sort, organize, relate, and synthesize the fragmented, fluctuating collection of sense data that our sense organs take in. According to Kant, this meaning-constructing activity is precisely what our minds are doing all of the time: taking the raw data of experience and actively synthesizing it into the familiar, orderly, meaningful world in which we live. QUESTION: How do our minds know the best way to construct an intelligible world out of a never-ending avalanche of sensations? We each have fundamental organizing rules or principles built into the architecture of our minds. These dynamic principles naturally order, categorize, organize, and synthesize sense data into the familiar fabric of our lives, bounded by space and time. Impressions Experiences/ Perceived SELF Ideas These organizing rules are a priori in the sense that they precede the sensations of experience and they exist independently of these sensations. We didn’t have to “learn” these a priori ways of organizing and relating the world— they came as software already installed in our intellectual operating systems. We construct our world through these conceptual operations; and, as a result, this is a world of which we can gain insight and knowledge. From Kant’s standpoint, it’s our self that makes experiencing an intelligible world possible because it’s the self that is responsible for synthesizing the discreet data of sense experience into a meaningful whole. Metaphorically, our self is the weaver who, using the loom of the mind, weaves together the fabric of experience into a unified whole so that it becomes my experience, my world, my universe. Without our self to perform this synthesizing function, our experience would be unknowable, a chaotic collection of sensations without coherence or significance. The unity of consciousness is a phrase invented by Kant to describe the fact that the thoughts and perceptions of any given mind are bound together in a unity by being all contained in one consciousness—my consciousness. The self is not a “content” of consciousness but rather the invisible “thread” that ties the contents of consciousness together.