INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN
PERSON
CHAPTER 1: DOING PHILOSOPHY
LESSON 1: THE NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY
• The mother of discipline out of which the other
sciences emerge. (Mater Scientarum)
• During ancient times in Greek Ionia, before the
emergence of Philosophy as a discipline, any
investigations regarding the nature of things
would be labeled as “Phusis” (nature).
PHUSIS
- During ancient times in Greek Ionia, before the
emergence of Philosophy as a discipline, any
investigations regarding the nature of things
would be labeled as “Phusis” (nature).
• It means that there is no distinction
between science, philosophy, and
religion.
• Thus, any investigation regarding the
nature of things in general falls under
PHUSIS.
THALES
- Started to diverge from the mythological tradition
and sought to answer questions like:
• What is the underlying substance
that reality is made of?
• How do things come to be, change
and pass away?
• Is there something that remains
amidst all these changes?
- With this inquiry, Thales emerged the beginning
of Western Philosophy.
- The underlying substance that reality is made of
must be water.
3 CHARACTERISTICS OF A PHILOSOPHICAL
QUESTION (According to Isaiah Berlin)
1. These questions are often BROAD and
GENERAL.
2. There is no single methodology in answering
these questions.
3. These questions seem to have no practical
utility. (Trivial)
THE TASK OF PHILOSOPHY
- To ask many general questions that led towards
the development of a particular science.
- It is in the discipline of philosophy where the
framework of these sciences have been
subjected to constant criticisms and questioning
which, in turn, led to the refinement of their
methodology.
- After this rigorous process of constant
refinement and criticisms, this would enable
that young emerging discipline to stand on
its own.
PHILOSOPHY AS THE SECOND-ORDER INQUIRY
- Philosophy could be considered as a metadiscipline that transcends and crosses over
different areas of disciplines.
“SCIENCE OF SCIENCES”
- What Philosophy was referred to as at one time,
as the supreme ruler of all sciences.
- In addition, Physics is regarded as the “QUEEN
OF SCIENCES”
“Philosophy is vision.” According to Friedrich
Waismann, an Australian Philosopher.
LESSON 2: THE BEGINNINGS OF DOING
PHILOSOPHY
ANCIENT GREECE: THE PRE-SOCRATICS
• The 3 Milesians:
o Thales
o Anaximander
o Anaximenes
The story of Philosophy started with the triumvirate the 3
Milesians. This first group of philosophers are the first
thinkers who gave us a non-mythological account of the
nature of reality and the universe without the aid of
instruments, by merely using their rational faculty
together with their ability to observe and speculate.
They were the first ones who tried to give a unifying
and coherent explanation of the nature of reality.
They gave the doctrine of “Hylozoist”.
1. THALES
- The most popular among the three.
- The Father of Western Philosophy and was
regarded as one of the Seven Sages of Ancient
Greece.
2. ANAXIMANDER
- Student of Thales
3. ANAXIMENES
- Student of Anaximander.
1. THALES (650 B.C.)
- The fundamental substance or primary
constituent of reality is WATER.
- First philosopher to assume the world is FLAT.
• Such that you will fall when you reach
the end of the horizon.
- He was also a Mathematician.
- He was also considered an Astronomer
because he was credited to have successfully
PREDICTED AN ECLIPSE.
2. ANAXIMANDER (610-540 B.C.)
- The fundamental substance of reality is the
INFINITE or the APEIRON.
- Believed that the world is CYLINDRICAL and
SUSPENDED IN SPACE.
- First Philosopher to attempt to draw a map.
-
THE APEIRON
Has no precise characteristics or attributes.
It is ageless, eternal, and encompasses all the
worlds.
3. ANAXIMENES (588-524 B.C.)
- The fundamental substance of reality is AIR.
-
Like Thales he went back to the flat earth
theory, but unlike Thales who did not give an
exact shape of the earth.
The Earth and other heavenly bodies are:
• SAUCERS
§ Flat and round.
OTHER PRE-SOCRATES PHILOSOPHERS
4. PYTHAGORAS (531 B.C.)
- The primary constituent of reality is NUMBERS.
• Anything can be explained through
numbers.
- “Philosophy is a way of life.”
- Philosophy and religion are connected and
merged into one.
- Considered philosophy and mathematics as
good for the purification of the soul.
• He gave importance to the
contemplative life for this cathartic
process of purification.
- First pre-Socratic philosopher to use the term
“LOGOS” for his Cosmology by trying to
explain the nature of the universe through
rational thought.
5. HERACLITUS (500 B.C.)
- The only permanent thing is CHANGE.
- He is known for the mystical nature of
philosophy, especially his idea about “change”
- He viewed the world as always changing which
is likened to an ever-living fire.
- This world is the same for all, no one of
gods, or human has made; but it was ever, is
now and ever shall be, an ever living fire,
with measures of its kindling and measures
going out,” he said.
6. PARMENIDES (450 B.C.)
- Only things that is permanent in this world is
BEING.
• In contradiction to Heraclitus’s idea of
change.
- Known as the leader of the “Eleatic School”
from Elea in Southern Italy.
- Change for him is merely an illusion.
-
THE BEING
Reality is made up of one continuous object or
plenum called being.
Amidst this illusion of change, there is
something indestructible, immovable complete
and without beginning or end.
His idea that reality is being had inspired
phenomenology and existentialism in their
notion of being.
There is no such thing as change and motion.
7. EMPEDOCLES (494-433 B.C.)
- He is the proponent of the notion that reality is
made up of the four elements namely:
• Earth
• Air
• Fire
• Water
8. ANAXAGORAS (480 B.C.)
- Believed that there is not just one element that
reality is made of.
• There are as many seeds or element as
there are kinds of things.
- Matter is “infinitely divisible”.
• Whenever you divide matter each
separate part will contain elements of
everything else.
• The pie analogy.
-
NOUS (MIND)
Conceived of as external but is infinite and is
self-ruled and according to him “has the greatest
strength and power over all things”.
Another important contribution of Anaxagoras.
“All things have a portion of everything, while
nous is infinite and is self-ruled and is mixed
with nothing, but it is alone, itself by itself… it
has knowledge about all things.”
9. ZENO OF ELEA (490 B.C.)
- Reiterate that the reality is BEING.
- A student and a loyal follower of Parmenides,
that’s why.
- He has 4 arguments against motion, but in
these four, there are two main ideas that are
being proposed.
A. ACHILLES AND THE TORTOISE
- If a matter is infinitely divisible as Anaxagoras
claimed, the race course could be divided into
an infinite number of points between Achilles
and the tortoise (using DIALECTICS).
• DIALECTICS
§ The process of taking up the
hypothesis or argument of your
opponents as if you agree with
it and deduce contradictory
consequences from it.
§ Used by politicians.
B. ARROW PARADOX
- The arrow in flight is at rest.
- If matter is finite divisible, then at any given
point that you locate the arrow, it occupies a
certain portion of space where it is situated.
10. LEUCIPPUS & DEMOCRITUS
- Reality is made of the ultimate substance called
ATOMS.
- Atoms are indivisible and inseparable, must be
the ultimate constituent of matter.
• This concept was later accepted by
scientific community and proven upon
discovery of the microscope as a tool for
examining matter.
EASTERN VS. WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
WEST
Veered from mythological
tradition.
Makes heavy use of logic,
reason and categorization.
EAST
No Dichotomy between
world and man as a
human being.
Philosophy and Religion
are one.
Breaks down ideas and
tends to focus on parts
(West).
Philosophy is a way of life.
WHAT REALITY IS MADE UP OF ACCORDING TO
PHILOSOPHERS:
Philosopher
THALES
ANAXIMANDER
ANAXIMENES
PYTHAGORAS
HERACLITUS
PARMENIDES
EMPEDOCLES
ANAXAGORAS
ZENO OF ELEA
LEUCIPPUS
DEMOCRITUS
Substance
&
Water
Infinite / The Apeiron
Air
Numbers
Change
Being / No Change
Earth, Air, Water, Fire
Infinitely Divisible
Being / No Change
Atoms
APPROACHES IN DOING PHILOSOPHY
1. ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY (CRITICAL)
- According to Broad has two fundamental tasks:
A. The analysis and definition of our
fundamental concepts.
B. The clear and resolute criticisms of our
beliefs.
Ex: Bats fly! / Bats are mammals that fly!
NUANCES
- We take for granted that we understand, what is
being said.
- Misuse of concepts.
Q: WHICH COMES FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE
EGG?
• Let us apply analytical philosophy:
• We could has two answers which are both right.
1. Chicken because it is needed before
hatching an egg.
2. Egg before it can grow as a full-grown
chicken.
• Others may have alternative answers
like
• Chicken because of the
alphabetical arrangement of the
letters.
• Biblical answer tracing Noah’s
Ark where he brought in full
grown animal pairs including the
chicken.
• The list of possible answers
given above is not exhaustive.
How do we use analytical philosophy in order to
resolve the problem stated?
• First: The analysis and definition of our
fundamental concepts.
• We need to recognize that this is not a
disagreement in fact. (Our disagreement
is not based on how facts actually
stand.)
• The contentious here is verbal
disagreement for the use of the phrase
“coming first”.
•
• “What do you mean by that?”
Using this as a guide: the phrase “coming first”
could be associated with several meaning like:
1. From the reproductive standpoint = chicken
2. Developmental stage = egg
Thus, no quarrel with the answer the chicken or the
egg. With analytical philosophy the concepts that
we take for granted we can easily resolve the issue.
2. SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY
(METAPHYSICS)
- tries to find an underlying explanation or general
principle that could explain reality in its entirety.
- As Broad would put it:
“Speculative Philosophy aims to reach some
general conclusions as to the nature of the
universe; and as to our position and
prospects in it. It is an attempt to think
synoptically of all the facts – the results
might be trivial but the process will remind
us of the extreme complexity of the world.”
-
ABSTRACTION
the process of extracting a unifying explanation
from the multiplicity of the things around.
by trying to abstract the essence of the
particular things that exist, they try to give and
offer a coherent explanation about the nature
and reality and its underlying substance.
REDUCTION AND HOLISTIC PHILOSOPHY
1. REDUCTIONIST PHILOSOPHY
- Understanding complex ideas by reducing them
to their parts or individual constituents.
- It holds the notion of a classical Newtonian
assumption that a complex system is nothing
but just a sum of its parts and that everything in
it can be reduced to individual properties.
- Reductionist approach is analogous to the level
of organization in science in which an organism
can be broken down into organ system, organ,
tissue and cell.
2. HOLISTIC PHILOSOPHY
- Holistic Philosophy works on the assumption
that properties in a given system cannot be
broken down by its component parts alone, but,
rather the system as a whole entity decides how
the individual parts behave.
- Holism is the idea that something can be more
than the sum of its parts: more specifically it
refers to the concept of reality.
- Aristotle in Metaphysics stated that “The whole
is more than the sum of its parts.”
- Fundamental Assumption: “The properties of
the parts contribute to the understanding of
the whole. However, the properties of the
part can only be fully understood through
the dynamics of the whole.”
- Thus, the primary focus of holism is the
relationship between the parts or its
interconnectedness and interactions.
•
•
•
HOLISM IN PHILOSOPHY
Refers to any kind of doctrine that gives priority
to the whole over its parts.
Refutes the necessity to divide the functions of
separate parts to the overall mechanism of the
whole.
Also its key characteristics is the concept of a
certain fundamental truth of any particular
experience.
It suggest that a mental state can be identified
only in terms of its relations with others.
Ø
Unfortunately, thinking like this often leads to a life
of missed opportunities and mediocrity because
you’d never realize how much more of reality
actually existed outside the “cave”.
l
Ø
The person who escaped the cave:
This represents the small handful of people who
dare to think and act in a different way from the
crowd.
They don’t have an imagined “shadow” reality
because they have stepped outside their comfort
zone into the “sunshine” to uncover the true reality
of life.
These people live a life of limitless possibilities and
often change the course of history (think of Martin
Luther King, Steve Jobs, who went beyond the
common and changed the course of history.)
It is not because they’re better than everyone else
that they’ve “escaped the cave”, it’s simply because
they’ve made a decision to consistently step
outside their comfort zone, face their fears and
think in a unique way.
Ø
2 MAIN TYPES OF HOLISM
Ø
1. EPISTEMOLOGICAL HOLISM
(CONFIRMATION HOLISM)
- Claims a scientific theory cannot be tested
individually, since testing a single theory would
always depend on other established theories
and hypothesis.
2. SEMANTIC HOLISM
- Every word has meaning only in relation to other
words, sentences or the language in which it is
used.
PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE
- Suggests that a certain part of language, a term
or a complete sentence, can only be understood
through its relations to a larger segment of
language or possible the entire language.
Ø
l
Ø
Ø
l
KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM, AND OPINION
PLATO’S METAPHYSICAL SYSTEM
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Philosophy is Wisdom
The Platonic Philosophy will add further that
knowledge is wisdom and virtue is knowledge.
According to Plato, “Everything that we see in this
world is nothing but a secondary copy of idea in
what he called the World of Forms and Ideas.”
THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE BY PLATO
He described prisoners inside a cave, where they
are chained facing a wall since birth. Behind and
above the prisoners are people carrying objects
along a road and beyond this road is a burning fire.
The burning fire would cast the shadows of the
people with their objects to the wall in front of the
prisoners. Consequently, the prisoners could see
only the images or shadows cast by these objects.
The best way to learn from Plato’s Allegory of the
Cave is to think of the people trapped in the
cave as majority of people in the world.
The cave people believed that the shadows they
saw were the “truth”, just like majority of the world
who believe in the pursue shadows based on
money, education, fame, love and so on.
Ø (Additional Note: Meaning they were
deceived to think they were seeing the
whole picture when in fact, all is nothing but
an illusion or only a portion of things.)
These are general ideas and social norms that
we’ve been told to stick to from childhood because
of the majority consensus.
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
l
Ø
Ø
Ø
How can you escape this “cave”?
The key life lesson from Plato’s Allegory of the
Cave is to question every assumption you have
about reality you call “real”.
This is a very powerful way to develop the skill of
thinking for yourself and discovering your own
unique solutions to any problem.
With the argument of the imprisonment of the
soul in the body Plato claims that:
“Knowledge is remembrance.”
It was a matter of remembering knowledge that you
had before in order to be able to pursue goodness
and the good life.
Plato forwarded the idea of “DUALISM” between
mind and body.
The pursuit if knowledge is connected with wisdom.
Thus with this concept according to Plato, “virtue
is knowledge” and “knowlegde is wisdom”
Under Platonic Philosophy:
“Knowledge is equivalent to virtue and wisdom.”
Plato’s ethics and morality are embedded in his
metaphysical system as the quest for Good life.
“Knowledge is a matter of knowing and
remembering goodness, and once somebody knew,
he would automatically become virtous because he
would immediately do what is good. This constitute
the attainment of wisdom”
World of Forms
World of Appearances
Intelligible Realm
Knowledge (episteme)
A
B
Intelligence Mathematical
(noesis)
Reasoning
(dianola)
PURE
IDEAS
Forms
(eidos)
Philosophy
SOME
IDEAS
Mathematical
Forms
Geometry
Visible Realm
Opinion (doxa)
C
D
Beliefs
Illusion
(pistil)
(eikasia)
OBJECTS
IMAGES
Animals
ManMade
Items
Shadows
and
Reflections
Close to Truth and Reality
Further from Truth and Reality
•
THE DIVIDED LINE OF KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION
SENSIBLE WORLD
• known through the use of our senses paving the
basis for opinion.
INTELLIGIBLE WORLD
•
is known through the use of the intellect paving
the basis for knowledge.
2 DIVISIONS OF OPINION
1. ILLUSION / IMAGINATION (eikasia)
• Lowest type of opinion.
• This is represented by the shadow seen by the
prisoners.
• It also includes second hand information that we
accept without further investigation or search for
any evidence.
• Among the objects in this illusory realm would
be poetry and works of art like painting.
2. BELIEF / CONVICTION (pistis)
• Our commonsensical view about the world.
• Includes one’s commonsensical notion of
morality, which should not be the basis for real
knowledge.
• This is what many of us would be familiar with,
the so-called practical knowledge.
• Compared with illusion, belief is a bit clearer and
is based on a more grounded basis of looking at
the physical world.
Plato: “The real objective is the search for
knowledge.”
2 LEVELS OF KNOWLEDGE
1. REASON / NOESIS
• Using the intellect.
• Is higher than Dianoia because it deals with the
GRASPING oof complete of perfect forms and
ideas, especially the idea of the good in the
world of forms and ideas.
• A direct apprehension of the transcendent
objects of knowledge in the other world or
dimension, NOT in this physical world.
• The knowledge is not dependent on the physical
world or the world of senses.
According to Socrates: “An unexamined life is not worth
living.”
• This passage is meant to emphasize the
importance of contemplation or the philosophical
life in order to remember the perfect
knowledge that the soul knew before it
joined the body.
• Living is just the body trying to remember
knowledge.
• Before achieving full or complete knowledge,
the person has to go through the process of
recognizing his own ignorance or aporia.
•
This recognition and realization of one’s
limitations and ignorance will help the soul gain
noetic insights and enlightenment.
This is the only time that one could be prepared
for true knowledge using the “eye of the mind”
which is the soul or intellect.
2. UNDERSTANDING / DIANOIA
• Using scientific, mathematical, or abstract
hypothesis.
• This has to do with the lower type of knowledge,
which is associated with mathematics, abstract
or scientific understanding.
• Relies on some assumptions, hypothesis and
imagery from physical or sensible world.
• In certain extent, dianoia is still dependent on
the sensible world for an explanation and
representation of its assumptions and images,
but the process of understanding itself, or
dianoia is operating not at the level of the
sensible/physical world, but in the abstract and
mathematical level.
THE SOCRATIC METHOD: AN EXERCISE IN
DIALECTICS BY SOCRATES
The Socratic method is an example of
method of dialectics.
In Plato’s early dialogues where Socrates
was the main character, like Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno,
and other, this method has proven to be very effective in
exposing the views of his opponent.
Socrates gained the ire of the Sophist (the wise only) by
showing the absurdity of their ideas through dialectics.
• Socrates and Plato disagree with their teaching, in
general; especially on their promoting the relativity of
morality and their asking for fee in particular.
• Thus resulted to the disagreement of the
two parties. Some of the sophist in Plato’s
dialogue were:
o Protagoras - Man is justice / righteous.
o Gorgias - Virtue is not one but many.
o Thrasmachus – Justice or righteous is the
interest of the stronger party.
What is certain though is that Socrates had
influenced Plato in the development of his
philosophical ideas. The Socratic influence is evident
in the early and middle dialogues of Plato, including his
opus, The Republic.
THE REPUBLIC – Opus of Plato, heavily influenced by
Socrates.
It was only on the later dialogue that Plato started to
develop his own philosophical ideas independent of
the Socratic influence.
METHOD OF SYSTEMATIC DOUBT: AN EXERCISE
IN SKEPTICISM BY RENE DESCARTES
RENE DESCARTES
• Believed that knowledge can proceed or start
from very few premises or stating point.
• Once one is certain about what these starting
points of knowledge are, he can expand it.
• Descartes saw the structure of knowledge as
an inverted pyramid = where a few premises are
the starting point.
• The indubitable premises are logically true and
non-sensical to doubt because the moment that
you doubt them, you would contradict yourself.
(Principle of Non-Contradiction).
• This clear and distinct ideas which Descartes
considered as the starting points of knowledge are:
THE 3 INDUBITABLE PREMISES OF KNOWLEDGE
• Self
• God
• Material Objects
• These 3 could be discovered using the
method of systematic doubt. – They are considered as
substances, where through the use of the
transcendental faculty of reason, one would be able to
gain knowledge of, without having to rely on experience
as a source of knowledge.
METHOD OF SYSTEMATIC DOUBT
• To start with the method of systematic doubt:
• It consists of doubting everything that can be
doubted until you arrived at clear and distinct
ideas which are non-sensical to doubt.
• For something to be accepted as one of the
starting points or premises of knowledge an idea
must be clear and distinct.
• Descartes believed that one of the logically
certain premises is the existence of the self.
• He began his proof for the existence of the
self by doubting everything that can be
doubted.
• Even if you doubt everything that can be doubted, (e.g.
you can doubt your parents, if they are really your
parents; your brothers and sisters if you are really
related by blood; or even the existence of things in the
other room, if nobody is there to perceive them; etc
as Descartes argues that you can even doubt your own
doubt!) With this WE CAN STILL BE SURE AND
CERTAIN ABOUT ONE THING, THAT YOU ARE
DOUBTING.
IN SUMMARY:
Doubting is a form of thinking – Thinking could not
happen in a vacuum. There must be an owner of these
thoughts. Therefore, thinking implies that you exist as a
substance. You would be contradicting yourself if you
doubt that you exist, at the very moment that you are
doubting. As a result, the self exists at the very act of
doubting- which is a form of thinking.
“When we doubt, we cannot doubt that we doubt.”
Thus, “Cogito, ergo, sum.” (I think, therefore, I am.)
• Moreover, the existence of the self as a substance is
independent of the body. The self as a substance exists
at its own nature and has an independent existence. It
exist on its own without being dependent on the
existence of the body. Thus, according to Descartes:
“He could imagine himself existing without the body,
but he could not imagine himself without the mind.”
He then went on to use the method of systematic
doubt to prove the two other indubitable premises of
knowledge, the existence of God and material objects,
as infallible knowledge of substances guaranteed by
the faculty of reason.
THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE
THE STAGES OF APPREHENSION
There are actually three major stages in the
apprehension of a concept before knowledge becomes
possible:
1. Perception
2. Abstraction
3. Judgement
1. PERCEPTION
The first stage which involves an activity that does
not make a different from animals. (Animals also
perceived their surroundings including the things around
them.)
TWO TYPES OF PERCEPTION
A. External Perception
B. Internal Perception
2. ABSTRACTION
Abstraction is the second stage that distinguishes us
from animals.
• It is the act of perceiving the objects
intellectually, without affirming or denying anything
concerning it.
• It involves the use of the intellect where we
grasp what is universal among the different
particulars that we have observed from
perception.
• The result of this process of abstraction or
apprehension is called concepts.
3. JUDGEMENT
The third stage in order to complete the act of the
mind.
• It in this stage that we make knowledge claim
because we are to take 2 concepts and out
them together in order to make a
statement/proposition that could be the
agreement / disagreement of the two concepts.
IN ESSENCE,
1. Perception = Just perception. No difference
from animals as they also perceive.
2. Abstraction = We are set apart from animals
because we perceive objects
INTELLECTUALLY. We make concepts out of
this process.
3. Judgement – We make knowledge claim.
SENTENCES AND STATEMENTS
• The concepts that we put together are
expressed using sentences.
• We are familiar with the 5 types of
sentences:
• Declarative (express a statement)
• Interrogative (ask a question)
• Imperative (issue a command)
• Expletive (issue a wish)
• Exclamatory (express surprise)
In Philosophy, we use DECLARATIVE in making claims.
• Philosophers have considered it a necessary tool of
analysis to classify two meaningful types of statements
based on two sources that could be accepted and
verified.
2 TYPES OF MEANINGFUL STATEMENTS
ACCORDING TO DAVID HUME
Based on the concept of David Hume in his “Skeptical
Doubts Concerning the Operations of the
Understanding, he gave two types of meaningful
statements:
A. Analytical Statements
B. Empirical Statements
A. ANALYTICAL STATEMENTS
• The truth or falsity of the knowledge claim being made
by an analytical statement could be found within the
statement itself.
Meaning, you do not have to go outside the
statement to search whether the claim is true or
false.
Example: A Bachelor is an unmarried male of
marriageable age.
• One does know immediately upon examining
of the key terms contained within the statement
because the statement given is a definition of a
bachelor.
B. EMPIRICAL STATEMENTS
• Its truth or falsity depend on the state of affairs
being claimed.
• Its truth or falsity rest on its correspondence with
facts or with the current state of affairs being claimed.
Example: The sky is blue.
• Its truth or falsity depends on additional information or
claim being made.
• Its truth or falsity of statement would now depend on
whether or not the state of affair being described
actually obtains at the moment.
TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE
• From the distinction established by Hume this leads to
the traditional distinction of two general types of
knowledge.
A. Formal Knowledge
B. Empirical Knowledge
A. FORMAL KNOWLEDGE
• Corresponds to the knowledge in the formal
sciences whose main concern is the validation
of their knowledge claims within the formal
system in their respective discipline.
• It is characterized by the consistency of the
system being used.
•
Therefore it is not depended on the
accumulation of empirical data but they are
concerned with the structure or validity of their
sciences within formal deductive framework that
governs them.
B. EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE
• Empirical statements use the faculty of
experience and sense perception in order to
establish their knowledge claims.
• Also takes emphasis and makes use of the data
or the content from experience and its
correspondence with the state of affairs to
establish the truth /falsity of their knowledge
claims from these empirical sciences.
• EMPIRICAL SCIENCE - Gives information about
what the world is.
IN SUMMARY:
• The two general classifications of knowledge in the
sciences belong to two different paradigms:
• EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE gives emphasis on
the criterion of verification.
• FORMAL KNOWLEDGE gives emphasis on the
validity or coherence within the system being
employed.
KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH
THEORIES OF TRUTH
The main question that should be considered here is:
“When does one claim that his/her knowledge claim
has the element of truth or falsity?”
The answer to this question will be based on three
familiar theories of truth:
1. COHERENCE
2. CORRESPONDENCE
3. PRAGMATIC
1. COHERENCE THEORY OF TRUTH
- This has to do with the well-formed formula adopted in
the field of the formal sciences like mathematics,
logic, trigonometry, geometry, or linguistic systems
where definitions are considered as tautologies.
• COHERENCE – deals with the consistency of
the truth of statements being claimed within the
system that is being used or employed.
For example, one could show a certain proof by using
an accepted or well-formed formula for a certain
mathematical problem.
On the other hand, one could show the unacceptable or
falsity of a certain statement if it could be shown that
there are logical, mathematical, or even definitional
inconsistencies within the system that is being adopted.
It is a matter of the faculty of reason to discover the
inconsistencies and formal truths. It is responsible for
the formal types of knowledge that we accept. It is of
course assumed that man’s rationality is universal.
2. CORRENSPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH
- This has to do with the correspondence of knowledge
claims being made with the state of affairs (in other
words, SITUATIONS) in the world.
- Different philosophers would have different
interpretation of what this state of affairs should be, for
the reason that they have different inclinations.
- Suffice it to say that no matter what their version or
answers to what is given as the state of affairs in the
word may be, correspondence theory assumes that
there is something given outside, in the realm of sense
experience that we perceive as an objective reality.
- Correspondence theory would have sense of
perception or experience as its source of knowledge.
- Our perception becomes the basis for verifying
something as true or false about the world.
because you were able to receive and enjoy the good or
the practical cash value of your belief. But, as you grow
older, you would realize that you have outgrown the idea
of believing in Santa Claus, perhaps after the age of
seven and you are not anymore given his gifts, what
was good and practical before may not be anymore
today.
• This is the gist of pragmatic theory of truth. A good
number of people could be considered as pragmatist
since one always has to consider the question, “If I do
this, what is in it for me?”
• Once examined the choices or alternatives one would
take the consideration the good and practical
consequences before making a decision.
This criterion of verification was emphasized by Alfred
Jules Ayer, in his book entitled “Language, Truth and
Logic” where he defined clearly the limits of empirical
statements as only those that are empirically verifiable
through experience.
SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
• There are two accepted sources of knowledge, reason
and experience. This has been accepted as mainstream
since these two sources have undergone scrutiny from
scholars in the different fields.
• There is however a third source of knowledge called
intuition mainly used by moral philosophers claiming to
have discovered the source of knowledge for moral
goodness, where they use the faculty of intuition.
• If something is not empirically verifiable then, they
may be considered as meaningless utterances.
• For Ayer, ethical concepts are “pseudo” (not genuine)
concepts because they could not be subjected to the
process of verification. Thus, they do not have cognitive
meaning but only emotive meaning, where your purpose
is to express your feelings and emotions and to
evince/evoke the same feelings and emotions from
others.
• Unfortunately, the logical positivist, narrowed down the
realm of knowledge by rejecting a wide range of ethical,
value, aesthetic and even religious statements and
concepts which they considered to contain only emotive
meaning.
• Hence, evaluate or normative ethical statements are
cognitively meaningless because they do not contain
any assertion that is verifiable.
3. PRAGMATIC THEORY OF TRUTH
• Pragmatism is a philosophical viewpoint associated
with an American Philosopher and doctor of medicine
named William James.
• He asserts that truth is based on the good or practical
consequences of an idea. “Grant an idea to be true,
what concrete difference will it being true make in
anyone’s actual life?”
Hence; the nature of knowledge is pragmatic. James
construed both the process of validation and verification
as tantamount to the good or practical consequences
that the belief in an idea would bring.
• He further stated that, “The truth of an idea is not a
stagnant property inherent in it. Truth happens to an
idea” – “The truth, to put it briefly, is only the expedition
in the way of our thinking, just as the right is only the
expedient in the way of our behaving.”
To put an emphasis on this point: let us take an
example:
Example: The idea in believing in Santa Claus.
• Of course, many children believe in the idea that Santa
Claus is true. Remember when you were young, and
you would try to stay awake until the wee hours of the
morning in order to catch Santa putting your Christmas
gifts inside your Christmas socks? Those were the days
when you truly believed in Santa Claus’s existence,
SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE
1. Knowledge
2. Experience
3. Intuition (Mainly used by moral philosophers.)
1. FACULTY OF REASON
• Is construed here as an analytic faculty that is
able to determine the truth of analytic
statements. Therefore, the truth of knowledge
claims made in the formal sciences use the
faculty of reason following the framework of
coherence within the given system.
• It is to say that the analytic faculty of reason as
a legitimate source is confined to the ability of a
human being to perform his rational functions
including the act of thinking and analysis.
• Thus, when one analyzes an analytical
statement like “a triangle is a closed plane figure
bounded by three sides” one would be able to
determine whether the statement is true orfalse
using reason as an analytical faculty by
employing the coherence theory of truth.
2. FACULTY OF EXPERIENCE
• This is also called the faculty of sense
perception.
• It has to do with the 5 senses including sensory
extending devices for the purpose of verifying
our empirical claims and as a result, leading to
empirical knowledge.
• Thus, it uses correspondence theory of truth in
verifying the truth of these empirical statements.
3. FACULTY OF INTUITION
• Considered as the third source of knowledge.
• deals with the immediate /direct recognition of
self-evident truths. (Sometimes called tacit
knowledge).
TACIT
understood or implied without being
stated.
GEORGE EDWARD MOORE
o The proponent of intuitionism in Ethics.
o In his article “Pricipia Ethics”, he
appealed to the faculty of intuition for
the direct or immediate knowledge of
the idea of goodness.
o He assumed that one should be directly
acquainted with his object of
knowledge.
Ex: Knowledge of color yellow = no amount of
description of the color yellow to someone who is color
blind will suffice for him to have a knowledge of yellow.
o
EVALUATING OPINIONS
• Distinquishing between facts and opinions
requires attention and scrutiny, because it is
indeed a challenge to weed out opinion based
on one’s biases and subjective views from facts
based on accurate and objective information.
• Never accept the truth of any statements or
beliefs unless there is adequate evidence for it.
• Ergo. Before believing or embracing the truth of
any statements, opinion, or belief we must go
through a certain process of checking them out.
• This requires that we have the epistemic
obligation to subject them to the most
appropriate manner or method of scrutiny.
• In examining opinions and beliefs, it is important
to avoid dogmatism.
THE EMBODIED SPIRIT
THE CONCEPT OF A HUMAN BEING
PLATO
• Going back to Plato’s division of the worlds – the world
of ideas and the world of senses.
• To understand his concept of human being, Plato
considers the world of ideas as the world of perfections.
• It is in this world of ideas where eternal truths resides.
• The things in our physical world (world of senses) on
the other hand, are not real.
• The books, chairs, dogs, and mountains that we
encounter in our world are not actually real but mere
imitations of the real. It is the idea of the book, chair,
dog, mountain that is real.
• Ex: Everyone has an idea of a dog, and when we
compare one dog from other dogs, we realize that they
are different, but we still recognize them as dogs
because of our idea of a dog.
• Our idea of a dog is thus far superior in reality than the
dog that we see in the streets.
• The real dog is in Plato’s world of ideas – the idea dog.
• For Plato, a human being is composed of body and
soul, but argues that the human is essentially his soul.
• Prior to human being’s existence in this physical world
(senses) the soul is residing in the world of ideas, so
that the original condition of human beings is that of a
soul.
• And as we acquire bodies during birth in the physical
world we are subjected to different kinds of limitations,
including forgetfulness of the truths that we have
encountered in the world of ideas.
• Because of our bodies we are inhibited from grasping
truths.
Consequently, Plato looks at the body with contempt
because it is the source of our errors. The body together
with everything in the world of the senses is therefore
considered as having less or even no value at all.
The body prevents us from knowing reality and we often
submit to its limitations, as when we trust more our
senses than our reason and eventually realize that we
were deceived by our senses. Plato even considers the
body as a prison of the soul, which prompts him to set
the ideal of liberating the soul from the body.
The soul is immortal while the body is mortal, so when
we die, our body will decay but our soul will return to the
world of ideas. Thus, a human being is essentially his
soul.
PLATO’S CONCEPT OF A HUMAN BEING IS THE
SOUL’S DIVISION INTO THREE PARTS:
• Reasoning
• Spiritedness
• Appetite.
THE IDEAL SOCIETY IS MADE UP OF 3 TYPES OF
CITIZENS
• Rulers (Counterpart in the body: the HEAD;
symbolizes the reasoning part.)
• Soldiers (Counterpart in the body: the CHEST;
symbolizes the spirited part.)
• Worker (Counterpart in the body: the
STOMACH; symbolizes the appetitive part.)
• These parts and their function have a corresponding
virtue: wisdom for reason, courage for spiritedness, and
moderation for appetite.
PLATO’S ANALOGY OF THE STATE TO THE
INDIVIDUAL
State
Individual
Function
Virtue
Ruler
Head
Rational
Wisdom
Soldiers
Chest
Spirited
Courage
Workers
Stomach
Appetitive
Moderation /
Temperance
ARISTOTLE
• Like PLATO, Aristotle also believes that the human
beings are composed of body and soul. However, it is
how the soul is related to the body that Aristotle differ
from Plato.
TWO CO-PRINCIPLES OF THINGS ACCORDING TO
ARISTOTLE
1. FORM
• the principle which actualizes a thing and makes
a thing what it is.
2. MATTER
• viewed as potency.
Matter and form are not complete realities, but only coprinciples of a thing (substance). As co-principles,
matter and form do not exist in themselves separately.
Example: A piece of paper has matter and form. If we
burn the paper, it will turn into ash because the actual
paper has the potency to become ashes. Obviously, a
piece of paper is different from its resulting ashes. This
is because the form of a paper is different from the form
of an ash.
• It is matter which facilitates the change from paper to
ash, because it is within the potential of a paper to
receive the form of an actual ash.
• Aristotle claims that the form refers to the soul while
matter refers to the body.
• Since matter and form (body-soul) are co- principles,
the soul cannot exist apart from the body.
• The soul can never be found existing independently of
the body. Even if the soul is considered as a nonmaterial part of the body, still it cannot have an
independent existing as Plato claims.
• So, if a human being dies, t6he form of the human
being i.e. soul ceases to be and the remaining
thing is just a body. And this body no longer holds the
form of a man, now we say that body holds a new form
that of a cadaver.
• For Aristotle then, a human being is always, a
composite of body and soul.
• Aristotle also divides the function of the soul into three:
nutrition, sensation, intellection.
• The nutritive function is that which we share with
plants.
• Sensitive function is that which we share with other
animals
• The human soul as an animating principle is far greater
than the animating principles of plants
and other animals because of the higher function of the
intellect.
• It is the intellective function which not only separates
us from all other beings, but also defines
us as human beings.
• We say that the goodness of something is tied up with
its function. A good knife is a knife that cuts because it
functions as what a knife should be; or a good eye is
an eye that clearly sees because it functions as what an
eye should be.
• In a case of a human being, its good refers to the
practice of his function, however it is not just
the practice of any of its functions; but the practice of its
highest and distinctive functions i.e. the intellective
function. A human being who just practices his nutritive
and sensitive functions can hardly be called a human
being.
• It is clear then for Aristotle pointed out: the practice of
intellective function as essential for being
human.
• It is clear then for aristotle that to be human being
means to practice its highest function, and we therefore
say that human beings are rational animals.
RENE DESCARTES
- He argues for the real distinction between the body
and the soul, he began with doubting everything that
had previously been considered as knowledge.
- Claiming that the senses are the source of previously
established knowledge, and that the senses are not
reliable.
- Descartes argued that we should doubt everything that
is delivered to us by our senses, but how can we doubt
something which is already obviously real, like when we
look at our classmates, or talk to our teacher, or hold
this book?
- Does it still make sense to ask whether they are real?
² Descartes will answer: Yes. It should still be asked
whether what our senses deliver to us are actually
real even if they seem to be certain, because
certainty does not guarantee truth.
GABRIEL MARCEL: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
REFLECTION
Gabriel Marcel, a French existentialist, considers two
ways of reflection, which he calls primary and secondary
reflections.
- A reflective activity is a consequence of a
disturbance in the chain of our daily routine.
- It is what an existentialist calls existential break
that shakes us to pause and think about what had
happened. Reflection, however, is rooted in life, and
Marcel is going to illustrate this point by means of
concrete examples.
EXAMPLE OF PRIMARY REFLECTION
I put my hands, let us say in my pocket to take my
cellphone out. I discover that my cellphone is not there;
but it ought to be there; normally my cellphone is in my
pocket. I experience a slight shock. There has been a
small break in the chain of my everyday habits (between
the act of putting my hand in my pocket and that taking
out my cellphone). The break I feel is something out of
the way; it arrest my attention, to a great or a less
degree, according to the importance I attach to my
cellphone; the notion that a valuable object may be loss
arises in my mind, and this notion is not a mere notion
but also a feeling of disquiet.I call in reflection to help
me… but let us be careful here not to fall into the errors
of an out-to-date psychology which isolated one faculty
of the mind from another. It is very clear in the example I
have chosen, and in every similar examples that
reflection is nothing other than attention, in this case
where attention is directed towards this small break in
the daily chain of habit.
To reflect in this kind of case, is to ask oneself how such
break can have occurred. But there is no place here for
the kind of purely abstract speculation which, of its very
nature, can have no practical outcome; what I have to
do is to go back in time until I recall the moment when
the cellphone was last in my possession. I remember let
us say, having looked at my messages just after
breakfast; therefore at that moment everything was still
all right. Between then and now something must have
happened to the cellphone. My mental processes are
rather like – there is no avoiding the comparison – the
action of a plumber who is trying to trace a leak. Was
there perhaps a hole in my pocket? I look at my pocket
and discover that there is no hole. I continue with my
task of alert recapitulation. Say that I succeed in
recalling the fact that there was a moment when I put
the cellphone down on the table; I shall go, of course to
see whether it is still on the table; and there, let us say,
the cellphone still is.
Reflection has carried out its task, and the problem is
solved… let us notice, however, even in the connection
with this almost childishly simple example that I have
made a mental effort because something real,
something valuable, was at stake.
•
•
•
Reflection is never exercise on things that are
not worth the trouble of reflecting about. And
from another point of view, let us notice that
reflection in this case was a personal act, and
an act which nobody else would have been able
to undertake in my place or in my behalf.
The act of reflection is linked to living personal
experience, and it is important to understand the
nature of this link.
To all appearances, it is necessary that the
living personal experience should bump into
some sort of obstacle.
In the example of losing a cellphone. Some points to
note here are:
1. Reflection comes after a certain break in the daily
routine of life.
2. Reflection is called for because something valuable
is at stake.
3. Reflection is a personal act; nobody can reflect for
me.
4. Reflection is linked to personal experience like a
plumber.
EXAMPLE OF SECONDARY REFLECTION
Secondary Reflection cannot occur without involving the
inquirer into his inquiry.
Ex: You are waiting for a friend – Friend A, whom you
are supposed to meet, say at 9 am. And it is almost 10
am when Friend A arrived and very apologetic about
being late. You are also annoyed because this
happened a number of times already. You are upset that
you even reached a point in asking why you are still
friends with this person who does not respect your time.
At that moment you were resolved to stay away from
Friend A. The following week, you are to meet another
friend – Friend B, say 9 am. Unfortunately, you did not
foresee the traffic caused by a big rally. So you arrived
thirty minutes late. You tried to explain about the heavy
traffic but you noticed a skeptical look on Friend B’s
face. As the day ends, you are force to reflect on your
experience. You asked yourself if you were fair in
judging Friend A, who was late a number of times. You
were forced to reflect on your own actions and recalled
the instances that you were also late.This is a form of
secondary reflection.
Secondary reflection inevitably links the inquirer to the
subject of his inquiry. You cannot detach yourself from
the question. The one raising the inquiry is intricately
involved with the question. And the inquirer is forced to
face himself.
Both primary and secondary reflection stem out of an
existential break – a disturbance in our daily routine.
Both reflections are important and they are not about
petty things for the inquirer. A reflection is exercise
because it is worthwhile for the inquirer.
The difference is that primary reflection has the
character of detachment in terms of the inquiring subject
in relation to the object of inquiry,While secondary
reflection cannot proceed without involving the inquirer
himself in the inquiry.
It should be noted however, that addressing personal
inquiries does not automatically translate into secondary
reflection. The question, “Who am I?” for example can
be address using both primary and secondary reflection.
GABRIEL MARCEL’S EMBODIMENT
- Primary reflection is the level of inquiry by a lot of
philosophers concerning the issue of being human.
- Philosophers have inquired about human beings in a
detached manner.
- Marcel believes that this traditional essentialist and
dualistic manner of thinking is proper to scientific inquiry
but not to philosophical inquiry.
- The solution of traditional inquiry about what a human
being is, will always yield an abstract answer because
the process is either inductive or deductive or both.
- When a philosopher considers the problem of the
relationship of the body and the soul for instance, it was
not about his own body or soul, but simply a body and a
soul.
- This dualistic way of addressing the problem detached
the inquirer from his own situation as a being with body.
- This dualism creates a tension between the body and
soul; between the rational and the animal.
- Most of the theories concerning human beings looked
at the body with disfavor. And we are somewhat taught
to loathe it or to be vigilant about it.
- But we have to ask: is it not the body – our body, the
most fundamental source of our daily experience as
human beings?
Marcel, therefore:
- In answering the question about the human being, one
can not simply discard the body as what Descartes and
most philosophers did.
- When I inquire about who am I, I start with the
existential fact that I have a body. My body is obviously
different from a rock and other inanimate object.
- My body is different from my cat and other animals.
And I am different from other human beings because I
have a certain look, smile, a way of speaking, of
walking, etc.
That is why in many cases, we are defined by our
distinctive body features; and we are usually identified
through our faces as in the case of identification card.
- To ask about human beings is to ask about myself:
“ Who am I?”
- Who we are is obviously linked to our body. However,
not everything that we are is our body.
- Our experience tells us that we have operations that go
beyond the body.
Ex: When I imagine the beach as the summer break
approaches – my body is inside the classroom but my
consciousness is on the beach.
- There are other different things that point to our
existence as more than just bodies, like experiencing
emotions
of fear, love, anger, jealousy, etc.
Ex: When we get angry at someone, we don’t get angry
at just the body of someone but at the person. Or when
we love someone, we don’t love just the body of
someone, but the person. What we are then is more
than a body.
What does it mean to have a body?
Ø Having a body implies ownership.
Ø Marcel made an analogy of the ownership of our
body to that of owning a dog.
Ø If I own a dog, I can call it my dog. And to be
able to make a claim that a particular dog is my
dog, there must be a specific set of relations
that exhibit this ownership.
Ø In a negative way, I can say that this dog is
mine if nobody makes a claim that the dog is
theirs and not mine.
Ø In a positive way, I can say that the dog is really
my dog if it is living with me; if I am responsible
for its well-being; and if the dog recognizes and
obeys me.
Ø These same conditions of ownership may be
applied to our bodies.
Ø First of all, the claim to my body as mine is
indisputable. Nobody can claim ownership to my
body other than myself.
Ø I own my body because I live with my body and
no one else. I am responsible for the well-being
of my body; for it will be unusual for someone
owning something to destroy his own property.
And my body is mine because it obeys me,
which means I can control my body
- Marcel admits that there may be certain limitations to
the analogy of my dog to my body, especially the idea
that the dog is still something external and detached to
me, while my body is not and can never be detached
from myself.
- However, the important component in this analogy
according to Marcel is the idea of ownership – the
experience of the ownership does not simply refer to
mere possession.
Ex: Mr. X bought a dog. He claims that he owns the dog
and he possesses its appropriate papers. However, it
is not Mr. X who feeds it but his maids. And even if the
dogs live in his house, it does not recognize Mr. X as its
master because it is always in the company of the
maids.
In this case can Mr. X really call the dog his dog?
Perhaps not.
- Thus, in a similar fashion, owning a body does not
merely mean possessing a body; rather it means a
special way of treating the body, not just a mere body
but as my body.
- And owning a body entails certain conditions and
responsibilities toward it – just as owning a dog entails
certain conditions and responsibilities.
- As an embodied being therefore, I cannot simply
dismiss my body in my inquiry concerning who I am.
- Even if I include my body as part of my inquiry, I
cannot treat it as a mere body.
- My body shall always be the starting point. I cannot
separate myself from my body and it will be very
unnatural to proceed with an inquiry about myself
without regard for my own body.
- And whenever I encounter abstract answers about the
question of what human beings are, I am not adding
anything to my knowledge of who I am.
- The embodied subject necessarily faces his own self,
through his body, whenever he inquires about what
being human means.
A SUMMARY OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
REFLECTION: THE EXISTENTIAL FULCRUM
• It shows us the turning point of our experiences from
mere occurrences to part of our being. Through his
system, which he calls primary and secondary
reflection, one is able to look deeper into his own
experience in an attempt to draw something more
meaningful and helpful to him or understand the true
essence of his experience. it is comparable to taking
apart an engine of a car in order to diagnose its
problem, then later returning the engine into its original
state while gaining insight on its problems. for marcel
experience and reflection are one. Therefore,
experience without reflection is mere occurrence and
only becomes experience when reflected upon.
• His method starts when a phenomenon that breaks the
daily calmness of an individual occurs. This experience
calls for reflection. our immediate consciousness of what
happens is our primary reflection. We must further break
this down in order to come up with a deeper
understanding. From this point, we reconstruct the
experience while integrating what we have discovered
from it, thus a transcendence of knowledge through
reflection on experience. This is our secondary reflection
or a reflection upon our reflection. through this process,
we become aware of our awareness. we experience
exclamatory awareness. this is when we feel truly alive.
in order for man to exist, he must coexist. This means
that man cannot be alone because he needs an external
object to reassure or confirm his existence. man has to
find his purpose outside himself.
• Primary and secondary reflection serves as a means
for man to discover himself through the experiences that
other people share with him. although, this method is not
to be limited to man-to-man experience alone, it finds its
most essential value in such situations. man is only
aware of his awareness through the help of other
humans who seek to be aware of their awareness as
well. thus, it becomes an essentiality to reflect on one’s
reflection. I would like to coin the term critical reflection
for this matter. critical reflection becomes the fulcrum of
existentialism because it ultimately leads to the
question, who am I? This is the most important question
an existing man must ask himself.
MARTIN HEIDEGGER: BEING-IN-THE-WORLD
Martin Heidegger calls human beings:
‘Dasein’, a German word which literally means “being
there.”
This tells us that our very being is to be there, to be in
the world – being-in-the-world. “To be in the world”
means that our experiences are always situated in our
world. We cannot detach ourselves from our situations
and we will always look and understand the world
according to our being-in-the-world.
Heidegger’s starting point allows us to see the
existential import of being-in-the-world in relation to the
question of who we are.
- Who am I can never be dislodged from my concrete
situation which includes the things and people around
me, my culture, my language, & everything that is
present in my situation.
BEING-IN-THE-WORLD MEANS THAT WE LIVE WITH
THINGS, WITH OTHERS, AND WITHIN A
PARTICULAR PLACE AND TIME.
We are already encountering things as soon as we are
born. (The materials and structures used during our
delivery.) It would be impossible for to live without any
relation to things. Even if you decide to isolate yourself
and live alone in the mountains, you are still related to
things: trees, rocks, birds, the sun and everything that is
present in the mountains.
The way we relate ourselves to others is practical. In
other words, we seldom look at the things around us as
objects of inquiry and investigation, but simply as
things that we use.
Ex: As I look at the television, I simply use it to entertain
myself. The television allows me to watch my favorite
shows. And I rarely look at my television as an object
that has to be analyzed – perhaps only when it
malfunction.
We don’t really pay attention to the reality that the things
around us affect the definition of who we are. As
embodied subjects, our bodies have a direct and
concrete relation to the things around us, which
ultimately influences who we are.
Ex: Let us take a farmer, a chemist, a fire fighter and a
swimmer – they will have different notions of water
because of the role water plays in their lives precisely
because of their different situations in life that allow
them practical encounter with things: being-in-the-world
perhaps:
Ø The farmer will consider water as livelihood,
Ø The chemist will look at water as a composite of
elements
Ø The fire fighter will look at water as a life-saver
Ø And the swimmer will see water as a playground
Our bodies come into contact with things and shape the
way we looked at the world. This is the reason why we
prescribe different meanings to the things around us.
Being-in-the-world also means to be with other people.
Just like things the moment we are born, we are already
connected with people – our parents, primarily.
Our being situated in the world inevitably links us to
people. And these links are not simple categories that
we use to define relationship, these links are real and
transformative, and just as we encounter things as
practical, we also encounter people as familiar. We don’t
approach and relate with our friends as if we don’t know
them. We treat the people who are familiar to us with
concern and we also share their concerns.
Ex: When a friend is involved in a heated argument, we
get involved as well; as opposed to seeing a stranger
involved in an argument.
Ø And just as things shape who we are, our
relationships with other people also shape us.
Ø In most cases, the people around us define who
we are.
Ø It is true that the people we encounter shape our
identities. -Being-in-the-world , means that we
shall inevitably live with other people who will
eventually play roles in the determination of who
we are.
Ø And the concept of being an authentic person
becomes an issue when we look at how we are
influenced by others and how we influence
others.
BEING-IN-THE-WORLD MEANS THAT WE ARE
SITUATED IN PLACE AND TIME
• We are immersed in a particular culture,
language, and social structures. = no one can
detach himself from culture, language, and
social structure.
• We are born in a particular era that allows us
to see the world within the lens of that era. If
we will be given the chance to travel in time and
transport ourselves to Ancient Greece, perhaps
we will be disoriented and will find it impossible
to live there.
- Temporal distance makes it difficult for us to
understand the perspective of the distant party.
- We often hear older people start their statement with
“noong panahon…” to indicate the difference in their
temporal situation that made them look at the world in a
certain way.
And you will notice that within yourself, there will be
a change in perspective and approach as you
move within time.
- The things that make you happy and contented when
you were in the pre-school years, like candies and stuff
toys, no longer give you the same satisfaction.
This is clear manifestation that our being-in-theworld is always in time and we move with time.
- The place where we are situated also shape a big role
in shaping who we are.
- (If you are raised in the province perhaps near the
beach, then this will influence the way you look at the
world.)
- The climate, surroundings, environment – all of these
will influence us.
- Being raised in the Philippines will inevitably shape the
way you look at the world. Even if you decide to be
objective and unbiased and drop your being a Filipino,
you will eventually realize that you cannot remove your
Filipino lens.
- The mere change in location will immediately tell you
how influential your place is when you consider your
world.
- Just observed the difference in your disposition as you
change your location: think of the mall, the church,
your school, your home.
- You will realize that as you change your place, you will
change your disposition.
- As being-in-the-world we always operate in a particular
place; and this will direct the way we see the world.
- We may attempt to detach and stand above our place
and time, but it is truly impossible to do so.
- We will always look at the world according to our place
and time.
-We are defined by them.
-Who we are is inevitably connected to our being
situated in a particular place and time.
Heidegger’s concept of being-in-the-world informs
us of the very nature of who we are, that is, that we
are shaped by everything around us.
Who we are is not a product of a distant reflection and
theorizing. An embodied subject is someone who is
intimately connected with the world and not some
detached inquirer. Our experience tells us that we are
related to the world as participating subjects that deal
with things and people every day. Whether we like it or
not, this encounter with things and other people
everyday contribute to who we are.
JEAN PAUL SARTRE:
LIMITATIONS AND TRANSCENDENCE
An embodied subject, whose being is to be in the world,
will have its first limitations the moment it is born. We
already said that being-in-the-world means that the
moment we are born, we are already related to people
– our parents. This is our first limitation.
We did not choose our parents, we are born in a
particular time and place, and we did not choose them.
There are a lot of things which are already in and with us
when we are born:
Our gender, our color, our race, our social
status, our genes, and others.
This is what Jean Paul Sartre calls FACTICITY.
FACTICITY
- It refers to the things in our lives that are already given.
- A person who was born without legs or deaf, or blind,
will have more limitations than most of us.
- A person born to a poor family will have more
limitations than someone born to a wealthy family.
- Facticity is not limited to the givens that we have
acquired in our birth, it also refers to all the details that
surround us in the present as being-in-the-world in the
here and now; This include our environment, our
language, our past decisions, our past and present
relationships, and even
our future death.
-All the facts that we currently have are part of our
limitations.
Ex: If I only know how to speak Filipino and English,
then that hinders me from talking to, say a Chinese who
only knows Mandarin.
-If we look at every aspect of who we are right now here
and now, we will realize that our being-in-the-world
imposes practically countless limitations on us.
-And this is the reality of an embodied being: that we
shall always have limitations by the FACTICITY of our
existence.
SPATIAL-TEMPORAL BEING
-The fact that we are born and that we exist in a
particular place and time already sets limitations on us
that may be considered on different level.
- On the level of TEMPORALITY, the most obvious
limitation is our, FINITUDE.
We recognize our mortality and accept that we will not
live forever. We have a limited period of stay in this
world. We will die someday, and that is a fact.Moreover,
as temporal being we deal with the past, the present,
and the future. When we are younger, we want time to
speed up because our youth prevents us from doing
what adults seem to enjoy. There are so many not yets:
(You are not allowed to eat certain food, drink certain
beverages, watch certain movies, wear particular cloths,
and go to certain places.)
So, the lack of time – in the sense of youth – poses
limitations on us. We feel that we are being restricted by
people – our parents for example, when we want to do
things. On a closer inspection, however you will realize
that it is our being embodied that prevents us from doing
a lot of things – because our body is not yet prepared for
certain activities. On the other hand, those who have an
advanced age will also experience limitations of a
different kind.
Their advanced age will prevent them from doing things
which they used to do. There are so many no longer
for them. They are no longer allowed to eat certain food,
drink certain beverages, go to certain places, and do
particular activities. And just like the youth, they feel that
they are being restricted by people – by their parents.
On the closer look however, they will realize that it is
their being embodied that prevent them from doing a lot
of things.
Perhaps, a physiological example may easily drive the
distinctive limitations of not yet and no longer. Child
bearing clearly limits both the young and the old. A very
young girl is not yet capable of reproduction; and a very
old woman is no longer capable of reproduction.In both
instances, it is the body which sets this limitationings.
On the level of our being SPATIAL individuals – we are
limited by our bodies to be present in two or more
places at the same time. We are set to be at one place
at a time. I can not be in Manila and in Cebu at the same
time because my body does not allow me to. And I
cannot be in Manila this time, and be in Cebu the next
minute. This one clear limitation is experienced by many
Filipino families today who have relatives serving as
overseas workers. (How many stories have you heard of
children longing for their parents or parents longing for
their children?)
How many times have you longed to be with someone
but cannot because you are in different places? And no
matter how much you desire and will to be at some
place, you simply cannot. As an embodied being, we are
subjected to the physical laws of our universe and
simply admit that we are restricted by our spatial nature.
On the level of understanding, we consider our spatialtemporal situations as imposing a limit on us as it sets
out to be our preconditions of our understanding. In
other words, our being situated in a particular time and
place shall prescribe the way we look at and
understand things. Think of our age, culture, and past
experiences as optics that we wear every time we look
at the world. No matter how hard we try to look at the
world in an objective manner, our spatial-temporal
situation will be there to taint it.
And in the same way, no matter how much we imagine
ourselves looking at something using someone else’s
perspective, we cannot do so. We will always have our
own spatial-temporal conditions at the backdrop of our
understanding.We may think that we understand
someone when we put ourselves into their shoes –
however, we need to ask ourselves if we can really set
aside our biases and use the perspective of another
person; or if we can really be purely objective.
THE BODY AS INTERMEDIARY
The body as intermediary is another difficulty that arises
out of an embodied subject. We have established that
we are our bodies, but also more than our bodies. Our
body then serves as an intermediary between us and
the physical world. It is because of my body I
experience the world from a particular bodily standpoint.
(From a lying standpoint along the shore of a beach, or
from a sitting standpoint beside the window of a plane,
etc.)
It is also because of my body that I experience the world
as my world and not the world of others. I can always
imagine myself living as a rock star; but I will never
really know how it is to be a rock star unless I become
one myself (I more concretely I can never be Johnny
Depp and conversely, Johnny Depp can never be me.)
My body then limits my experience of the world to my
world. -Furthermore, my body as intermediary limits me
in communicating with other people, through my body I
can communicate using words or express myself
through bodily gestures. This may now post limitations
concerning communication and expression. As my
embodied subject, we cannot by the use of sheer will,
tell other people what we have in mind or what
we feel. We have to make use of words or bodily
expressions to accomplish this task. Words are often our
instruments to convey what we want to express, be it an
idea or an emotion. But words are limiting, we are
constrained by language. When I say, “I love you”, “do
these words accurately express what I feel for the other
person?” Can words really capture the things that we
want to express?
From experience, we know that we are being limited by
our language when we cannot, put into words what we
want to express. That is why we sometimes say that
words fail us. In this way, we may say that our body
restricts us from fully disclosing ourselves to other
persons. When we communicate with others, we most
likely want other people to understand us fully and that
is why we wish for full disclosure of our thoughts and
feelings. However, there are also times when we wish to
hide ourselves from others, we don’t want the other
person to see what we are really thinking and feeling.
In this case, the body is like a veil that covers the reality
of a person. How do we know if someone is telling the
truth? How do we know if someone’s bodily expressions
are consistent with his actual disposition?
Thus, our bodies set a limitation for understanding one
another because on one hand, it may never fully
disclose what we would like to express; and on the other
hand, it hides certain thoughts and feelings.
The body as intermediary, allows us to experience the
world in a limited manner, and we can only say that our
world will always be a world according to my body.
TRANSCENDING LIMITATION
The presence of limitations impose by being as
embodied subject may influence us to think that our life
is very restricting. Life becomes difficult because of
these limitations. However, it is also this limitations that
make our lives more interesting and challenging.
Let us address each limitations and see how we can
overcome them.
1. FACTICITY: HOW TO ADDRESS
We cannot simply truly change our facticity, but what we
can do is change our attitude towards them. At times,
we use our facticity as an excuse for our difficulties and
failures.
Ex: One may claim that he cannot travel abroad
because he is poor or did not finished school.
This is what happens when we let our facticity define
who we are. We treat our facticity as if life has destined
us to it. What is important is to see that we are free to
define who we are and who we are to be. (this is what
we call historicity.)
HISTORICITY
- Means that we are history-making creatures and we
are not limited to what nature has initially given
us.
Our facticity challenges us to be creative with our life
options. Our task then is set out our possibilities and
maximize these possibilities. We receive certain givens
when we are born, and it is up to us how we will make
use of those given. Transcending our facticity is a given
possibility.
2. SPATIAL – TEMPORAL: HOW TO ADDRESS?
- Our being limited due to our being temporal is
something which bothers a lot of people. We are
concerned about the future and/or the past that is why
we never appreciate the present.
Blaise Pascal puts it “The present is never our goal:
the past and present are our means: the future
alone is our goal. Thus, we never live but we hope to
live; and as we are always hoping to be happy, it
is inevitable that we will never be so.”
Why do we want to hastily achieve or have something
which is not yet? Why do we hold on to or lament on
something which is no longer? What if we give the
present its due worth and simply appreciate it?
Our being limited due to special concerns also imposes
difficulty for us embodied beings because we can not
be at a place where we want to be at an instant. We
have to experience loneliness and anxiety as we wait for
our bodies to arrive at a place where we want it to be.
However, just like being temporal, we can always look at
our spatial character as an invitation to make the
most out of our life. Thus, being reminded of our spatial
character invites us to value the people and things
around us.
3. BODY AS INTERMEDIARY: HOW TO ADDRESS
Having a body which links us to the world appears to be
a source of limitation because we can never directly
and fully experience the world. However, having a body
as a way to experience the world is a wonderful thing.
The interesting thing is that we will always experience
the world as my world and this becomes a privileged
experience. This then challenges us to be more creative
in our expressions.
Ex: Saying “I love you,” to someone may not be enough
to express what we feel. Thus, we are challenged to
make more creative ways of conveying this message to
the one we love by not restricting our means to words. We also said that having a body consequently hides our
feelings and thoughts, again this only serves as a
challenge for us to work on a good relationship with
people.
THELAES