Husserl’s Phenomenology: Methods of Philosophizing

In Part 1 of this series of posts, I have presented a review of Gerry and Rhiza’s Chapter on the
Methods of Philosophizing in the book titled Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.
The review, however, focused only on the section Socratic Method. In this post, I will focus on
Husserl’s phenomenology, that is, the phenomenological method of philosophizing the Husserlian
tradition.

Gerry and Rhiza begins their discussion on the phenomenological method of philosophizing with a
brief historical background of the topic. According to Gerry and Rhiza, phenomenology was originally
a form of critique on the Cartesian Methodic Doubt. As we know, Rene Descartes, the acclaimed
Father of Modern Philosophy, initiated the philosophical revolution in modernity by offering a method
of philosophizing that seeks to ground knowledge on the most universal and self-evident truth: “that I
exist and that the I that exists is essentially a thinking I ― the cogito.” This is a variation of the
famous Cartesian dictum: Cogito Ergo Sum (I think; therefore, I am). The idea here is that Descartes
employed the Methodic Doubt in his search for certainty by systematically doubting everything at
first. But in the process of doubting everything, there is one thing that Descartes cannot doubt, that
he is doubting. Now, if he is doubting, then he must be thinking. Therefore, if he is thinking, then he
must be existing because the act of thinking presupposes the existence of the one that thinks. Thus,
with the discovery of the self, of the I that thinks, Descartes concluded that certainty can be attained.

Unlike Descartes who systematically doubted the certitude of the world outside of the self (ego) as
his starting point in attaining certainty, Edmund Husserl affirmed the existence of a world outside of
the self. And for Husserl (the forerunner of modern phenomenology), the thinking I is always
conscious of this world. It is for this reason that Husserl accuses Descartes of failing to properly
understand the nature of “consciousness,” which is always a consciousness of something other than
itself. According to Gerry and Rhiza, this is the starting point of Husserl’s phenomenological
investigation.

In order for us to fully understand phenomenology as a method of philosophizing, we need to define

phenomenology first. And so, what is phenomenolobri

nomenology
Phenomenology comes from the two Greek words phainomenon, which means “appearance,”
and logos, which means “reason” or “study.” Hence, etymologically speaking, phenomenology
means “study of phenomenon.” The term phenomenon means anything that exists of which the mind
is conscious. A “book” is a concrete example of a phenomenon. A book is there existing materially,
and the mind is conscious of it. However, phenomenology is formally defined as the investigation of
the essence or the nature of material things or things that appear to us.

It is important to note that Husserl did not invent phenomenology out of a vacuum.

The context here is that realism and idealism had reached an impasse toward the end of the
nineteenth century regarding that status of the knower and the thing known. As is well known, the
realists argue for the independence of the “object” of knowledge, while the idealists argue for the
primary of the “subject,” that is, the knower. It is in view of this impasse that Husserl offered his
phenomenology as a way out. But instead of making a philosophical speculation of the nature of
reality, Husserl argued for the need for philosophy to turn to a pure description of the “what is,” of the
thing as it appears to us. Thus the famous Husserlian motto: “back to the things themselves.”
In Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy, William Barrett writes: “For Husserl,
phenomenology was a discipline that attempts to describe what is given to us in experience without
obscuring preconceptions or hypothetical speculations.”

With this note, let me now briefly sketch Husserl’s notion of phenomenology as a method of
philosophizing. Please note that I will not discuss in great detail Husserl’s model of phenomenology
as our concern here is just to know the nature and dynamics of phenomenology as a method of
philosophizing. For a detailed discussion on the nature and dynamics of Husserl’s model of
phenomenology, see Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The Phenomenological Reduction,”

Again, phenomenology for Husserl is a discipline that attempts to describe (or understand) what is
given to us in experience. In other words, phenomenology for Husserl provides an account of how
things (phenomena) appear to our awareness or, ultimately, how the world appears to us in terms of
our subjective experience of it. That is why, according to Gerry and Rhiza, phenomenology deals
primarily with the determination of the nature and structure of human conscious experience.
Indeed, phenomenology is about reflecting upon our everyday immediate or lived experiences
in order to gain some understanding of its underlying order, coherence, and structure.

To begin with, within Husserl’s model of phenomenology (which is called pure phenomenology, in
contradistinction to the existential phenomenology of his followers, such as Martin Heidegger,
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Jean-Paul Sartre) is the idea that we normally view reality from the
vantage point of what Husserl calls “The Natural Attitude.” For Husserl, this natural attitude toward
things suggests that people conduct their life with the common natural belief that the reality that
they inhabit is fundamentally separable from their subjective experience of it. In other words,
for those people with a natural attitude, the world is out there relative to their experience of it.

In contrast to this natural attitude, Husserl claims that it is possible for people to adopt
a phenomenological attitude, wherein they suspend or “bracket” their belief and natural attitude,
and eventually recognize that it is just a natural attitude―that the knowledge that they gained from
this attitude is not real or true knowledge. This act of bracketing, which is also called epoche, allows
people to turn their attention on the ongoing activity of their consciousness to which their experience
of reality or things is ultimately constituted.

According to Husserl, the overall act of employing epoche, that is, suspending or bracketing all
preconceived notions and prejudices about a particular phenomenon under study―and then record,
identify, and then put to one side―in order for us to gain an understanding of the true nature of
reality, is called phenomenological reduction. According to Richard Schmitt, it is called
“phenomenological” because it transforms the world into a phenomenon, and it is called “reduction”
because it leads us back to the source of the meaning and existence of the experienced world.

According to Frogstuff (see Bracketing and Phenomenological Reduction), “The concept

[of epoche or bracketing] can be better understood in terms of the phenomenological activity it is
supposed to make possible: the ‘unpacking’ of phenomena, or, in other words, systematically
peeling away their symbolic meanings like layers of an onion until only the thing itself as meant and
experienced remains. Thus, one’s subjective perception of the bracketed phenomenon is examined
and analyzed in its purity.”

It must be noted, however, that in phenomenological reduction, the mind does not make up features
of reality that everything must conform to. On the contrary, objects in the world (phenomena) already
have some kind of structure or unity, and these objective meaningful features of the things
(phenomena) are disclosed to us in our experience by means of the interpretations we can give to
them. In this way, our mind can be viewed as active because it can create interpretations of our
experience in meaningful ways. However, it must be remembered that there is already something
meaningful in the objects (phenomena) themselves which can provide confirmation of or
contradiction to that interpretation.

Now, with phenomenological reduction, people are able to have a shift in perspective. And it is
important to note that this basic shift in perspective as a result of the employment of
phenomenological reduction enables us to assume a phenomenological attitude toward our
experience. According to some scholars, this can produce some surprising insights into the
fundamental nature of things. In other words, with phenomenological reduction, one is able to get at
the pure phenomena from a user’s point of view. Put differently, through phenomenological
reduction, we are able to know and understand the essence or meaning of things as they appear to
us.

Let us take “man” as a phenomenon and apply a phenomenological reduction to it in order for us to
know the essence of man.

The Natural Attitude may say: “Man is a rational animal.” Here, man is simply perceived as an
animal that thinks.

But from the standpoint of a Phenomenological Attitude, the nature of man or the understanding of
man depends on how one experiences man. Thus, with a phenomenological attitude, man can be
viewed as a being that possesses freedom or a being that escapes definition. Here, man is more
than a thinking animal. This means that the meaning of man can vary considerably depending on the
way in which we view man, whether from the vantage point of a natural attitude or from a
phenomenological attitude.

There are some techniques of doing phenomenology, of the way to go about exploring our
consciousness of reality. One way of doing this is to undertake what Husserl calls Eidetic
Reduction. By the way, for Husserl, eidetic reduction is a second reduction, which follows the
moment we have turned our reflective awareness toward experience by employing the
phenomenological reduction. In fact, eidetic reduction is a way of understanding the essence of
some experience. This precisely what Husserl calls the movement from fact to essence.

In must be noted that for Husserl, epoche has two fundamental moments, namely: 1) the reduction
to the sphere of immanence and 2) the movement from fact to essence. The first moment involves a
suspension of the natural attitude and placing in abeyance all beliefs in the transcendental world. It
is important to note that Husserl did not use the term “transcendental” in the mystical sense, for
example, the way it is used in the phrase “transcendent God.” In order for us to understand Husserl’s
use of the word ‘transcendent” or “transcendental,” let us posit this word vis-à-vis the term
“materiality.” In Husserlian phenomenology, materiality could mean the physical existence of things,
such as tables, chairs, books, trees, cars and the like. On the other hand, transcendental
phenomena are those phenomena that have transcended their materiality, such as feelings,
thoughts, experiences, memories, and the like. It is for this reason that Husserl’s philosophy is
“transcendental” because it is concerned with the conditions of possibility that make an experience
possible. Indeed, thoughts, memories, experiences and feelings serve as the conditions of possibility
that make an experience possible. The second moment, sometimes called eidetic reduction,
involves a shift to consider things not as realities but as instances of idealities, that is, as pure
possibilities rather than actualities. In this way, objects are no longer conceived as material things,
but as essences―that is, meanings, categories, ideal types, and laws.

Let me give an example in order to drive my point clearly.

We may ask the question: “What is a table?”

Here, it is important to remember, according to some scholars on Husserl, that what Husserl is
after is a special moment in the inquirer’s reflective awareness, a special moment which Husserl
calls intuition. Husserl distinguishes between perception and intuition. In perception, a person may
perceive and be conscious of the fact that she perceives an object, but without understanding its
meaning and essence. Intuition, on the other hand, is an insight into the nature and meaning of
something through the experience of that something. Now, according to Husserl, eidetic
reduction helps bring about an intuition into something as essence by employing a method knows
as Imaginary Variation.

In imaginary variation, the inquirer varies all the possible attributes of an experience as a way of
exploring what is truly necessary for it to be what it is. Thus, in the question “what is a table,” we may
raise the following points:

1. A table has four legs;

2. A table is made up of wood;
3. A table has a flat surface;
4. A table is rectangular in shape;
5. A table is used primarily for dining or putting things on it.

Or we may ask the following, as a way of varying all possible attributes of an experience:

1. Would it still be a table if it has no legs?

2. Would it still be a table if it has no flat surface?
3. Would it still be a table if it is not made up of wood?
4. Would it still be a table if it is not rectangular in shape?
5. Would it still be a table if it is not used for dining or putting things on it?

Eventually, according to Husserl, this kind of explanation helps the inquirer reach or attain a special
moment of intuition about her experience of the table. Thus, she may say: “A table is a four-legged
furniture, made up of wood, has a flat surface, rectangular in shape, and is used primarily for
dining or putting things on it.” This is what makes a table “a table.” Indeed, this is the nature of the
phenomenon (table in this case) as it appears to us, that is, as we experienced it. According to some
scholars, this is a kind of “Aha” moment in which the inquirer realizes the overall essential nature
of the experience. This is exactly what is meant by the dictum: “back to the things themselves” as
that which characterizes Husserl’s project. It must be noted, however, that Husserl’s famous dictum
“back to the things themselves” meant “the things as we experienced them rather than take them
for granted.”

Finally, some of the implications as a result of doing pure phenomenology is the realization
that consciousness is intentional. For Husserl, consciousness is understood as fundamentally
intentional. This means that consciousness as an act is always a consciousness “of” or “about”
something. Thus, consciousness in Husserlian phenomenology is not directed toward itself, but
toward phenomena in the world. It follows, therefore, that any form of thinking is based ultimately on
“phenomena in the world.” For this reason, consciousness or thinking is just secondary to the lived
experience of phenomena as they show themselves. This explains why for Husserl, the world
of immediate or lived experience takes precedence over the objectified world of natural sciences.

In the phenomenological parlance, intentionality denotes two things. First, the intentionality of
consciousness means that consciousness is always an act of doing something. Thus,
consciousness is an activity. This is what is meant when Husserl said that to be conscious is to
experience an act of knowing (noesis) in which the subject is aware of an object. And second,
intentionality of consciousness means that consciousness is always referential, that is,
consciousness is always pointing or referring to something. That is also what is meant when Husserl
said that a conscious act is an act of awareness in which the subject is presented with an object
(noema).

Let’s take, for example, the act of thinking about the definition of a table.

Thinking about the definition of a table involves actual thinking (noises). At the same time, it involves
a referent, that is, a table (noema). At the end of it all, for Husserl, consciousness is not like a box
that contains some perceptions. On the contrary, consciousness is an active ongoing referential
process.

Philosophy Thesis Sample

Methods of Philosophizing
Introduction

The history of philosophy is marked by the struggle for the search of the right method. There are as
many methods as there are philosophers who want to provide an exhaustive account of the matter
they hold in question, although only few among them agree with each other’s presuppositions. From
the ancient period down to the present, philosophers have engaged into an open ended-debate
arguing about the possibility of a unified philosophical method. To get a grasp of their discussion,
this chapter presents the commonly held significant philosophical methods with their main
proponents and fundamental claims. More specifically, this chapter explicates four main methods of
philosophy, namely, the Socratic, phenomenological, hermeneutical, and the analytic one. In broad
outline, the Socratic method is characterized with a method of questioning that forms as a guide to
students in conducting the proper procedure to knowing the truth. Meanwhile, the phenomenological
method is identified with the attempt of recovering the primordial meaningfulness in the human
experience by means of suspending our commonly held prejudices about an aspect of our
experiences. Further, the hermeneutic method offers an artistic way of engaging philosophical
interpretations through a clarification of how the meaning of one’s being as a human person is
revealed. Last is the analytic method, which is concerned with the determination of language as
expressing “the state of affairs” in the world. Here, language is “the picture of reality.”

The Socratic Method

Even without writing his own treatises in philosophy, the philosopher Socrates remains to be one of
the most influential and enigmatic thinkers in the history of philosophy in general. Despite our limited
and often disputed knowledge of him through the secondary sources from Aristophanes, Xenophon,
and Plato, Socrates’s inscrutable character and the subtlety of his teaching has “changed how
philosophy itself was to be conceived” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). His death in the
“hands of the Athenian Democracy” has paved the way for the realization of a revolutionary method
of thinking that seeks to liberate the mind from the constraints of dogmatism (Ibid.) Socrates
engaged in a “didactic dialogue” of questioning that is expressed in the critical examination and
cross-examination of the positions of every participant to the conversation. This didactic dialogue
intends not to convey new truth but only as guide to arriving at the truth (Nelson, 1965, pp. 269-316).
The method is later known as “the Socratic method of questioning.”
In the Socratic method, the instructor ceases to be the absolute fount of truth for he becomes simply
part of the entire didactic dialogue of free individuals thinking for their own. In this manner the
classroom becomes the arena of freedom to think, where each one thinks for what she thinks to be
correct until a “universal truth” is derived from the particular claims laid down in the dialogue. In this
kind of engagement, the students are made responsible for their own thinking in the dialogue. Here,
they are no longer passive recipients of knowledge for in this method they are the active
interlocutors with the task of attaining truth.

Intellectual Midwifery

Socrates’ didactic dialogue is characterized with its non-insistence of presupposing new truths.
What Socrates does is help facilitate the delivery of truth straight from the innate conceptions of the
individual he is discussing with. This he pertinently calls an “intellectual midwifery.” This helps in
making clear all our assertions of our assumed knowledge of things. The dialectic of questionings –
by way of this kind of midwifery – intends ultimately to guide the students to further qualify their
presuppositions in order for them to arrive at a truth that is clear and free from all doubts. This is
realized by allowing the students to qualify their truth-claims as they engage in the didactic dialogue,
that is to lead them to think deeper and assert what they hold to be true. This manifests when
Socrates in the Apologyengages himself in various dialogues with the learned men of Athens hoping
to lead them to admit of their ignorance. But the opposite happened, for instead of freeing
themselves from their ignorance of knowing nothing, these learned Athenians accused Socrates
instead of the crimes which the latter never committed.

Socrates’ teaching ultimately begins with the acknowledgment of one’s ignorance over many things.
This is magnified with the persistent claim of his ignorance, that he is sure that he knows nothing.
That even with the proclamation of the oracle, him being the wisest, Socrates took it rather as a
quest for verifying its truthfulness. He neither admitted nor proclaimed himself to be the wisest for
he knew in himself that his knowledge of things is but limited and imperfect. His method of teaching
is unconventional for it was not marked with a precise system. Accordingly,

Socrates constructed no system. Time and again he admitted his not-knowing. He met every
assertion with an invitation to seek the ground of its truth. As the Apology shows, he questioned and
examined and cross-examined … his fellow citizens, not to convey a new truth to them in a manner
of an instructor but only to point out the path along which it might be found (Nelson, 1965, pp. 269-
316).

Socrates denied being a teacher to anyone, for he sees himself not as someone who instructs the
people about the truth but rather as someone who is also in the business of finding it. He begins the
task of searching for the truth by examining his own self, in recollecting about what the Oracle told
about him being a wise man. Socrates thus says:

So I asked myself, on behalf of the oracle, whether I should prefer to be as I am, with neither wisdom
nor their ignorance, or to have both. The answer I gave to myself and the oracle was that it was to
my advantage to be as I am (Plato, 22e).

What Socrates is trying to say is that knowing oneself is the first step to knowing the truth. This self
knowledge should lead one to dispel all forms of dogmatism, of assuming to be knowledgeable when
in fact one knows nothing (Plato, 2000, p. 23d). Moreover, the necessity of knowing oneself is
insisted by Socrates for the reason that “the unexamined life is not worth living for man” (Plato, 2000,
p. 37e). For Socrates knowledge begins the moment one admits her ignorance, that is, of realizing
that “[her] wisdom is worthless” (Plato, 2000, p. 23b). It is under such presupposition that one will
truly seek to acquire true wisdom. Such is made possible by inquiring into the nature of truth.
Socrates realized this with his incessant questioning that is intended not to posit new truths but
simply to ask whether the wisdom of the people is truly the wisdom of the philosopher. That is,
whether the wisdom they profess to possess is truly just. For Socrates true wisdom is attained with
one’s humble recognition of one’s limitations and one’s love for justice. A philosopher for Socrates is
someone who loves wisdom. She is the one who “discusses virtue everyday” (Plato, 2000, p. 37e)
and who constantly embraces the thought of her being ignorant.

Learned Ignorance

In the Apology Socrates is depicted to be defending himself against the accusations of Meletus and
Anytus in front of the Athenian crowd. Here Socrates discusses how he is not guilty of the
accusations thrown at him. Socrates, being an exceptional teacher, was accused of corrupting the
youth, treason and, and atheism. Of course, none of these charges was true in so far as Socrates’
conduct to the public were seen by his students. Anyway, he begins his defense by distinguishing
himself from those persons who freely refer themselves as accomplished speakers, the so-called
Sophists, despite that they know nothing about the craft and says nothing about the truth. For
Socrates, the real accomplished speaker is “the man who speaks the truth” (Plato, 2000, p. 17b).
Furthermore, Socrates pointed out that his wisdom is not the conventional wisdom of those
individuals who are considered learned, because for his wisdom is human (Plato, 2000, p. 18e) and
is derived from an incessant self-reflection that led him to realize his ignorance over things. Socrates
explicates thus:

I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he
knows something when he does not know, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I now, so I
am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know (Plato,
2000, p. 21d).

The above text already encloses Socrates’ teaching, in insisting the necessity of admitting one’s
ignorance rather than insisting an assumed knowledge. To claim that one knows even though such
knowledge may not necessarily be the truth is shameful and unjust. What one must do is simply
admit that one knows nothing so that he can open herself for wisdom. True philosophical wisdom is
attained by freely engaging oneself into the rigor of philosophizing, to stay in the problem, to ask
questions until truth is attained and the problems are solved. Socrates in wanting to understand what
the oracle of the god of Delphi set forth by questioning people who were referred to as wisest, for he
knows in himself that he is not wise (Plato, 2000, p. 21b). But as Socrates recounted, all those men
in politics, art, and literature, who were considered to be wisest and masters of their crafts, were
found empty of anything about truth. That is, “they have been proved to lay claim to knowledge when
they know nothing “(Plato, 2000, p. 23d). What is being expressed above is what is sometimes
referred to as the “paradox of the learned ignorance”. It is paradoxical for it presupposes the
necessity of realizing one’s ignorance in order for one to attain absolute knowledge. Socrates was
aware of this paradox with his insistence of having to know nothing despite of the gods calling him
the wisest. For him, wisdom primarily springs from realizing that “this man among you, mortals, is
wisest who…understands that his wisdom is worthless” (Plato, 2000, p. 23b).

Furthermore, what is prevalent in the entire discussion above is a kind of method that is introduced
by Socrates in his didactic dialogue. Here, the “intellectual midwifery” is at work, a method that
entails not to insist on inculcating knowledge to students but rather simply guides them to arrive at
certain truths. In this method the students are no longer passive recipients of knowledge. They are
the ones who will think for themselves what truths they think are relevant to their lives. The Socratic
instructor only facilitates the dialogue while motivating the students to keep on thinking.

The Phenomenological Method

Phenomenology in its origin takes the form of a critique against the claims of the Cartesian Methodic
Doubt. Rene Descartes, who is considered as the Father of Modern philosophy, initiated the
philosophical revolution in modernity with his establishment of a method that seeks to ground all of
our truth-claims upon the most universal and self-evident certitude. For Descartes, there is one
obvious certitude: “that I exist and that the I that exists is essentially a thinking I – the cogito” (Ariel,
1998, pp. 30-31). “I think; therefore, I am.” And it is on this certitude that Edmund Husserl, known to
be the founder of the modern phenomenological movement, embraces the same Cartesian
assumption. However, unlike Descartes who doubted the certitude of the world outside the cogito,
Husserl begins his assumptions with an existing world outside of and for which the thinking I is
always conscious. Husserl explicates that Descartes has failed to ground knowledge on a firm
footing. It is because the cogito lacks the proper understanding of the world, placing itself absolutely
isolated from it. It is for this reason that Husserl would claim that Descartes had not understood the
nature of consciousness, which is always conscious of something other than itself. From here,
Husserl’s phenomenological investigation is born.

The Substance of Phenomenology

What is phenomenology? Phenomenology, in general, is identified with the rigorous study of our
conscious experience. It deals primarily with the determination of the nature and structure of human
conscious experience, which may come in the following guises, namely, the experiences of
perceiving, listening, looking, remembering, feeling, acting, and so on. For Husserl, the conscious
experiences refer to the human being’s aware reception of the world and of his own reception of the
world. The former is known as a “transcendental” kind of consciousness, while the latter, “reflexive.”
The expressions, “I am listening to a sad song.”, “I am drinking coffee while looking at the beautiful
flower in the garden.”, “I am reading this text.”, “I am actually thinking of writing a book.”, “I am in
love.”, are some of our conscious experiencing of the world. Phenomenology, then, “takes its start in
the fundamental problem of describing accurately and completely the essential features of our
everyday lived experience” (Solomon, 2002, p. 112). The I that thinks of the world, in general, is the
substance of every phenomenological engagement.

Phenomenology and Everyday Lived Experiences

The central project of the study of phenomenology is the rigorous determination of the nature of our
conscious experiences. What this means is that phenomenology is ultimately directed upon bringing
into light the primordial meaningfulness of our everyday-lived experiences. The insistence on the
necessity of recovering the essential aspects of our lived-experiences springs from the fact that we
have forgotten their being that we have become so much engrossed with our natural ways of dealing
with the world. Being in the world and experiencing it entails that the world is something that is
outside of us and not just a mere product of our mental exercises. The recognition of the world as an
object of experience leads us to think of ways to present a detailed exposition of how something so
foreign to us appears in the mind not only as mental representations but also as an actual object of
complete dimensionality and form.

Edmund Husserl begins his project of phenomenology by inquiring how our linguistic utterances and
judgments – though are purely mental in structures – direct us to objects existent in the world.
Judgments such as, “I hear the sound of birds singing on top of the tree”; “I see a beautiful woman
walking towards my way”; I know that today is Sunday”; and “I am drinking coffee from my mug while
seated on my old wooden chair.” are some examples of linguistic utterances whose objects we are
conscious of. Such is made possible for, as Husserl argues, our everyday lived experiences are
intentional and perspectival. What this means is, objects present to us in perception under specific
spatiotemporal condition. What I am aware of when I say “The book of Edmund Husserl on
the Ideas is difficult to read.” is not just an idea of the book. For what I am immediately conscious of
is the objective book present here and now with all its properties, shape, position, color, and all the
necessary conditions that would render the experience of the book possible.

Husserl gives special emphasis on the “importance of perception” for he sees it as the principle upon
which all of our other experiences of the world are grounded. Thus, he writes “[perception is that]
primal experience from which all other experiencing acts derive a major part of their grounding force”
(Idea, p. 82). This is so because he conceives “perception as the paradigmatic kind of experience”
(Solomon, 200, p. 117.) What this means is that perception –of any object – is the beginning of all of
our experiences of the world. Perception is “intentional.” And that human consciousness is always
conscious of something other than itself (Ibid., p. 118). For instance, while I am writing a few
sentences right now, I am likewise aware of the presence of my favorite coffee mug adjacent to the
screen of my laptop. My awareness of my present condition implies that I am able to accommodate
a string of actions that lead to unity of experience. The objects on my table constitutes for a lived
experience of which I too am aware. I too some extent am both aware of the objects of my
consciousness and of my being conscious of this experience. In most cases, my awareness of
something appears to be one-sided, although it does not happen that way all the time. Husserl says,

The object is not really given, it is not given wholly and entirely as that which is itself is. It is only
given “from the front”, only “perspectivally foreshortened and projected,” etc … [T]he elements of
the invisible rear side, the interior, and so on, … are not themselves part of the intuitive … content of
the percept (Ibid., p. 118).

What the above-cited text from Husserl’s “Logical Investigations” means is that whenever we
become conscious of certain objects, the image that is derived from such awareness is never the
entirety of the object. What comes into the mind is it’s shadow. In the case of me being conscious of
my book, my perception of the book is only limited to its front side; so that, the other sides, the back
and the inside of the book are hidden viewed from an angle. I see the book from a perspective
whose other sides are not immediately perceived. My perception of what I assert to be a book of the
“Idea” is different from my perception of the façade of the book. For in perceiving it, I am aware that
it is something of a three-dimensional object present in the here and now to which my
consciousness intends. This is so because for Husserl “objects transcend their intentional state”
(Ibid., p. 121). What we think of while being conscious of them are not just mere representations but
actual objects whose hidden parts are hypothesize. In our becoming aware of the things in the world,
what we experience of them are their perspectival aspect and never their intuited representations.
The book that you are reading is perceived under specific spatio-temporal conditions, what you see
is only this page as you are reading but not the entire book. To see is to consider an aspect of it to
be true, but it remains that other aspects remain hidden too.

The Phenomenological Reduction

We learned above that the main project of phenomenology in general is the determination of the
nature of our conscious lived experiences. It is concerned primarily of recovering the primordial
meaningfulness of life, which is tinted by our “natural attitude toward the world” (Maboloc, 2014, p.
3). This project of allowing the truthfulness of human experience to reveal itself is made possible by
the phenomenological method of “epoche”. “Epoche or [bracketing] refers to the phenomenological
reduction of our experience” (Ibid.). This is the process of suspending our prejudices to our natural
encounter with the world, in order to allow the essential meanings of our lived experiences to reveal
themselves in their purest sense. “Phenomenological reduction as an eidetic project attempts to lay
bare the essential and general features of that world as a set of essential meanings” (David, 4).
Taking for instance our experience of what a book is in reality is primarily expressed in our being
conscious of it. The book being perceived to be a transcendental object is dematerialized; its
material constitutions, its qualities and dimensionalities are set aside, thus paving the way for the
essential aspect of the book to be seen. The book in the process of the eidetic reduction is reduced
into the state of a pure mental phenomenon. In the end, what exists in our mind is of course not the
actual book but a reduced form of it, that is, the very essence of the book. And Husserl calls it, the
“intentional inexistence.” A thing exists in the mind, but not as an actual thing, but as an idea.

Martin Heidegger and the Hermeneutical Method

Hermeneutics in general is identified as the philosophical art of interpretation. It is an art because is

proceeds with a free genius act of dealing with the original meaning of the text, recreating the textual
meaning which lays bare for open interpretation. This is made possible by the recognition that texts
do have their own proper temporal context. They are objects embedded with specific world-views.
Hermeneutics as the art of interpretation, then, takes a circular movement that comes from a
primordial form of understanding that is derived not from our fore structures of understanding but
rather from the things themselves (Heidegger, 2008, p. 153). What this means is that in order for a
conscious understanding to occur in interpretation, the interpreter must take into consideration the
“alterity” of the text. The interpreter must now consider that the text one reads may present different
directions for emphasis. In other words, the text that one reads may give a variety of meanings to a
variety of readers.

According to Martin Heidegger (2008), this multi-dimensional opening to the meaning of the text is
possible because of the capacity of the reader to situate text according to the context of his own life.
The human person then, which Heidegger calls “Dasein” sees life as a text to be analyze, hence to
interpret. For Dasein, life is a text that needs an interpretation. But the kind of interpretation is
anchored on the need to know its meaning, that is the Being of life. And for Heidegger (2008), this
Being of life (the meaning of man’s being-in-the-world) has already been forgotten, especially by
philosophers who seem to reduce the meaning of life (Being) into a mere spate of ideas. Thus, in his
main work, Being and Time, Heidegger raises the need for a reinterpretation of meaning, of Being,
by not anymore following the errors of the past philosophers. Here, he starts with the human
individual herself as the legitimate starting point of what Heidegger frames as “the interpretation of
the meaning of Being.”

Dasein’s Self-Understanding in Time

It has been said that Heidegger’s main problematic in Being and Time is the recovery of the
meaning of Being.[1] For him, the meaning of Being is “forgotten.” In the past, Being was conceived
as most universal, indefinable and self-evident thing. This led to a sheer reduction of Being into a
mere concept. Yet to simply conceptualize Being is to “enframe” it into the structure of particular
things which are its sheer representations, that is to reduce one’s encounter with reality into mere
ideas. Because of this, the meaning of Being is lost in our interaction through language. Being is lost
in the way we conceptualize things in speech. Our articulation of how things really mean to us is
blurred most of the time by the pre-existing ideas we inherited from people around us by way of
linguistic exchange. And yet it is in language that the real meaning of Being reveals back to us.
Therefore, for Heidegger, “language is the house of Being”.

The task of recovering the meaning of Being is realized the moment we ask about it. And the only
being who questions its very own Being is, according to Heidegger, the human person who he calls
“Dasein.” Being then reveals itself to Dasein. But such revelation happens only under the horizon of
“time”. Time then constitutes an important dimension of the human person because only along time
can she understand the meaning of her life. Only within the horizon of time can a human individual
understand the meaning of the things and people who surround her. The understanding of one’s life
happens in time, and after her lifetime nothing awaits for the human person. In short, the meaning of
the Being of one’s life can only be interpreted within the horizon of “historicity.”

Historicity, for Heidegger (2008), entails the horizon into which every Dasein is thrown into. It refers
to the state of existence that every human being is born and is comporting herself with. Being in the
world, every human individual determines herself with the situations she finds herself in. Her modes
of actions and understanding are in a sense identified by the very world she is living. Thus, in order
to better comprehend the meaning of one’s life one must not simply discard the importance of one’s
embodiment. For the human person is not just in the world, she is also engaged with it and is
determined by the world. This brings us to the realization of the nature of life as “factical”: the human
person simply exists. The facticity of life entails Dasein’sstruggle for authenticity.

Being already in the world that tends to mold us, our project therefore is to liberate ourselves from
the “enframing” structure of our “everydayness”. This brings us to what Heidegger identifies as the
“Hermeneutics of Facticity.” The hermeneutics of facticity entails the revaluation of our conscious
presuppositions of things as detached from the very structure of “everydayness”. True understanding
of the meaning of our life therefore is not all about emptying one’s biases about the world. Rather
understanding is identified with one’s openness to her very world. This is so because for Heidegger
(2008), understanding is a mode of being in the world, of living and acting in one’s world.
Understanding the meaning of one’s life therefore demands that one be open to the different ways
that life manifests itself. Hence, the understanding of the Being of one’s life remains a private task.
Only I can understand my life fully well because it appears to me in such a peculiarly special
manner.

Hermeneutics of Facticity and Aletheia

The historical understanding of oneself is the project of every human person. It entails not merely of
her being knowledgeable of things as objects of conscious experience but also of her being situated
in an embodied existence as “being-in-the-world.” Her knowledge of things is always identified with
the situations she finds herself in, that is, in the experience of her facticity. In her being constantly
stretched between being true and being untrue, the human person fulfills her task of uncovering the
lost meaning of Being. Such is made manifest in the experience of what Heidegger (2008) calls
“aletheia” or the revelation of the meaning of Being to the human person.

Heidegger explicates that the rigor of phenomenology rests not simply in laying the essential aspects
of experience as pure intentional states, for one cannot detach one’s understanding or feelings from
the situation one finds herself into. Understanding is always worldly, that is, it is always determined
by how one conducts herself with the world she is in. Truth―or aletheia―for Heidegger takes the
form of “making manifest that which is in some sense lies hidden” (Heidegger, 1927, p. 33). Truth is
the revelation of what is concealed by our prejudices of things. Being human, one is always in the
danger of “falling.” To succumb to errors for our comportment to the world presupposes that we err.
Aletheia happens as a form of liberation and aid from our state of facticity. Being-in-the-world, the
human person is in constant possibility of falling back to the state of untruthfulness. Being engrossed
with her everydayness, she tends to forget the primary reason of why she exists and begins to be
complaisant thereby losing her authenticity. To be truthful in everything we do is the mark of an
authentic human person. Thus the revelation of truth is the realization of the Being of the human
person along time.
The Analytic Method

Analytic philosophy in principle is directed upon either solving or decimating the problems of
philosophy in general. It seeks to ground the debate on the diversified problems of philosophy under
the right determination of the nature of language. Analytic philosophers think that philosophical
problems came about as a consequence of metaphysics’ insistence on the meanings of
transcendental concepts such as God, soul, spirit and the like, without having to determine the
truthfulness of such claim on the basis of empirical methods. Analytic philosophy tends to provide an
accurate presentation on the nature of language in order to solve the problems set by philosophy. It
centers its approach in qualifying the limitations of language. Language being a picture of reality is
limited upon the determination of the world since what can be spoken about is only the world. The
world of objects is the only realm where language finds its meaning. So that outside of the world
there is nothing that can be talked about. Analytic philosophy further explains the nature of language
by identifying logical statements with their atomic parts and elements. It shows how language is
related to what is real in the sensible terms. So that other-worldly talks through metaphysical
statements are to be identified as proving nothing and hence nonsensical.

Language as Truth-Functional

Language, for most of the logical atomists, is truth-functional. It means that the truth-value of a
proposition is determined by the truth-value of its constituent parts. The statement, “The red roses
are in the garden.” is an example of a compound logical statement. Its truth-value is determined by
the truth-value of its constituent propositional parts, namely, that “there are red roses” and that
“these red roses are in the garden,” or that “there are roses in the garden” and “theses roses are
red.” Both cases remain tautologies however. But this is beside the point. The point is both instances
of the same compound statement are truth functions of the original statement (Sharma, 2007, p. 71).
The necessity of breaking into its atomic parts a compound statement springs from the fact that in
breaking a compound statement into its logical connectives the sense is ultimately made clear. In
other words, for the logical atomists, propositions are statements of facts. And these statements of
facts point to the state of affairs of things in the world. Hence, statements make sense only when
they are statements of facts. Outside of the world there is nothing to talk about. So that statements
such as, “Angels are spirits.”, “The soul is a substance.”, and the likes are nonsensical because they
do not point to a state of affairs. They do not have objective empirical equivalences. For language to
be meaningful, it must picture that which is real. For language, Wittgenstein argues, is a picture of
reality.

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

The philosophical method that is introduced by Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is

a logical method that is centered on the analysis of the structural meaning of language in reference
to the world. It is an analysis on the proper determination of the meaning of our linguistic
expressions, their truthfulness and falsity and how they relate to us a world that is real. Wittgenstein
(1974) explicates thus:

The correct method of philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be
said, i.e., propositions of natural science―i.e., something that has nothing to do with
philosophy―and then, whatever someone wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to
him that he had failed to give meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be
satisfying to the other person―he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him
philosophy―this method would be only strictly correct one (pp. 73-74).
For Wittgenstein (1974), the meaningfulness of propositions rests in their picturing realities, that is,
their being a picture of the state of affairs. This is because for him “The world is all that is the
case”(pp. 73-74). What this means is, for Wittgenstein (1974), “the world is the totality of facts” (pp.
73-74). It has been said that in order for language to make sense, it must picture reality. The world
being the totality of facts is the realm where we find sense in our linguistic expressions. Propositions
such as “The car is red”, “The flowers in the garden are beautiful”, “The house across the street is
old and dilapidated” are some linguistic expressions that find their sense in their picturing the facts
of the world. Those are statements of facts. What can be thought of as utterances that are
meaningful are statements of the world? As Wittgenstein (1974) emphatically asserts, the limits of
our language are the limits of our world. And since the world is all that can be talked about,
propositions that are outside of it are necessarily non-sense.

Wittgenstein (1974) further elucidates the differences between facts and objects. “Objects are
simple” (pp. 73-73). They are that which constitute reality. The world is a constitution of objects. So,
the statement, “The roses are red.” is a statement of fact that is constituted by objects. The logical
configurations and arrangements of objects result then to the formulation of meaningful statements.
Facts therefore are the resulting states of affairs in the logical configurations of objects. Propositions
are statements of facts. They relate to us what is the world being a picture of reality. This is because
for Wittgenstein (1974) “A picture is a fact” (pp. 73-74). A picture is a model of that contains all the
necessary atomic elements for it to be a true picture of the object presented. Language in this regard
is a picturing, since it presents to us an objectivity that is coming from the states of affairs derived
from the configurations of objects in the world.

Moreover, for Wittgenstein, propositions are statements that either affirm or deny something. A
proposition is true if it affirms what is the case and false if it does otherwise. Statement such as “The
car is red” is a statement of a fact. It relates to us a reality, which is a car whose color is red.
However, sometimes it too refers to a non-fact, hence “false proposition”. Either way the proposition
makes sense because it can be verified as either true or false. While statement such as “The stone
car is flying” is a statement of contradiction for it does not relate to us what is the case of a car.
Wittgenstein (1974) further discusses the differences between elementary propositions and complex
propositions. The former, on the one hand, presupposes a logical statement that is constituted by an
atomic fact, which cannot be broken down into meaningful statements. Propositions such as, “The
rose is beautiful”, “The dog is barking”, “The car is broken” are some examples of elementary
propositions. The latter, on the other hand, presupposes a combination of two or more elementary
propositions connected by logical connectives. Statements such as “The books in the shelf are old
and dusted”, “The house is beautiful and huge”, “The table is brown and circular” are some
examples of complex propositions which can be broken down into their atomic propositions. The
truth-value of such complex propositions is identified by the truth-value of its constitutive
propositions. This determination of the truth-value of the compound by its element facts is what is
referred to as the truth function of logical statements. Propositions are statements of facts. They
relay to us what is the case. Every proposition makes sense inasmuch as it allows us to picture the
world. Thus, Wittgenstein (1974) emphatically asserts that, “Whereof one cannot speak, one must
pass over into silence” (pp. 73-74).

Conclusion

This chapter, thus far, ably presents the four main methods of philosophy: the Socratic,
phenomenological, hermeneutic, and analytical methods. As discussed above the Socratic Method
is characterized with a method of dialectical questioning that serves as a guide for students to arrive
at the right procedure of knowing the truth. Socrates insists on the recognition of once ignorance and
to know oneself in order for her to be truly wise. While, the phenomenological method helps recover
the primordial meaningfulness of life, that is, the eidetic aspects of our everyday lived-experiences,
which is actualized by suspending our natural ways of dealing with the world.

Furthermore, the hermeneutic method is characterized with the determination of language as the
medium for the revealing of truth. The revealing of truth in language is made possible the moment
we take into account the diversified worlds where each Dasein is thrown in. Lastly, the analytic
Method is identified with the determination of language as expressing the state of affairs of the
world. Language is the picture of reality. Analytic philosophy centers its approach in determining the
limits of language. Language being a picture of reality is limited upon the determination of the world
since what can be spoken about is only the world.

[1] In the “Being and Time” the term “being” is expressed in two ways. There is the capital “B” and a
small “b”. The former expresses the Hiedegger’s notion of “Sein” –Being– which is the grounding
principle of everything. The Being qua Being. While the latter expresses what Heidegger refers to as
“Seiende” that is, the realities in general.

John Stuart Mill On Liberty

By P. Simbajon

“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he
is justly accountable to them for the injury.” ― John Stuart
Mill

Politics is never my cup of tea. Never was, never will be. For some reason, I find it
challenging to discuss any matters related to the topic. It may be due to the probability that I’m
biased on what my beliefs is towards Politics because I have this mantra that “if the means is
righteous and beneficial for me and the society, then the government is efficient and effective in
doing its job.” Simply put it that if the government is doing its job very well then it is doing what they
are paid to do. On the other hand, I always encounter this Latin phrase “Vox Populi, Vox Dei(the
voice of the people is the voice of God), inscribed in our local Capitol buildings on my way home.
This particular statement makes me pause, think and analyze for a while then made me ask this
question, “is it the government that makes the people or is it the people making the
government?” Quite a realization moment for me since what the majority sees and believes
nowadays is quite a confusing mix up. An existential dilemma that requires a thorough analysis for it
to be understood and the questions to be answered in a firm, truthful and substantial manner.

To guide me in this political journey in clearing the air out for the question, I will be using the
philosophical influence and political aspect of John Stuart Mill and his respective book, On Liberty.
Before we proceed to the main event, let me introduce first the philosopher involved. John Stuart
Mill(born May 20, 1806—died May 8, 1873), was a British philosopher, political economist, civil
servant and exponent of Utilitarianism. He is considered as one of the most influential and the most
intellectual figures in the 19thcentury. His contributions involve certain ideas for economics,
epistemology, logic, psychology and philosophy. Though, his lasting influence has been through
classical liberalism and his conception of liberty justifying the freedom of the individual in opposition
to unlimited state and social control. Having known the philosopher behind the concept, let’s now
discuss in details of the ideologies so that we can answer the question posted above.

Law is placed to establish peace and order in the society. Without it, the society that we are
living in will be in chaos and everything that we worked hard for would turn into dust. Law is our
guiding principle in doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong. Having that idea, would it be wise
if we approach it subjectively or would it be advantageous if it is objective? First off, I don’t
necessarily agree to the adage that says, an individual can’t move on to the future if he/she is still
chained to the past. What I believe in is that, an individual can move on to the future by learning the
mistakes of the past. The statements mentioned implies that what we have created in the present
and in the future is a by product of what we have thought and imagined in the past. Of course, by
continuous experimentation, we get to avoid the errors in the process thus perfecting the material of
our own thinking. Having this line of thinking, can we can safely presume that the laws that we have
now is a product of what we had experienced before. I can say that it is a collated kind of individual
experiences that makes up what we call a societal law. What is good for one should be good to
many.

A flourished society ensures that law is established to maintain harmony and stability for its
constituents. Societies evolved from time to time and so does the rules that we have to follow. For
obvious reasons, majority of the old laws may or may not be applicable to the evolved societies
nowadays. The old laws become obsolete wherein there is no meaning and essence in its
application. These laws need to be modified and changed depending on what or when the situation
calls for it. By having said that, it is imperative that the rules that we follow should be utilized for the
greater good of all. If it doesn’t then what good is that law for in the first place. The question posed
by Mill is that, with the evolution of rules in our society, what is the nature and limits of the power
which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual?

By the word itself “power”, it is defined as the ability to do something or act in a particular
way, especially as a faculty or quality. In addition, it is the capacity or ability to direct or influence the
behavior of others or the course of events. This simply gives us an idea that power itself is
something that we should never play with especially if we don’t know how to use it. Wielding such
power will either bring prosperity to the region or if it is mismanaged, then it would cause destruction
and chaos. Majority of the societies now have well grounded, firm and established laws that is
guiding their respective regions. We can see that through the progress and development of its
workforce, income, infrastructures and international relations. Is it really how the things are
supposedly be measured, or it should be, power entails good governance which produces happy
and contented constituents working to make the region be developed and transformed into a 1stworld
country? Now that is quite a challenge so to say.

To answer the questions posed on the statements above, it is imperative that we have to
understand the historical approach on how to deal with Mill’s On Liberty. As mentioned, societies
evolved from time to time based on the different circumstances of time. One thing I noticed about
Mills’ writing of On Libertyis that, he started out pointing the distinction between the old and the new
threats to liberty. The old threat is identified in traditional societies wherein it is ruled by one
(monarchy) or a few (aristocracy) and the worry in this threat is if the rulers are politically
unaccountable to the governed, they will rule in their own interests, rather than the interests of the
governed. The kind of threat wherein the seat of power thinks selfishly of themselves rather that
what their constituents will gain. On the other hand, the new threat to liberty is running in the shadow
of what we call democracy. The tyranny, not of the one or the few, but of the majority. The kind of
threat that normally instigates, initializes and starts people power rebellion. This implies that society
can tyrannize without using any political means. Public opinion can be more stifling to individuality
and dissent than any law could be. With the new threat, I would suggest that there should be
protection for people against the prevailing public opinions and the tendency of the society to impose
its values and interest on others.

Having mentioned the threat to liberty, Mill emphasized on “one very simple principle” of
liberalism. And to quote “…as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual
in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used to be physical force in the form of
legal penalties or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole end for which
mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of
their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

With the ideologies laid down for society, law, power and development, we can now clearly
state the it is the individual who directs the course of time and action. The individual (he/she) is the
one responsible enough to hold power, observe, enact and implement the law in order for
development to push through. Will this realization be enough in having a firm and substantial
answers to the questions posed above? I don’t think so, since we are still missing quite a few items
for this to stand ground. Let’s talk about “Liberty” now. Liberty is defined as the state of being free
within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or
political views. Philosophically, this means that it is a person’s freedom from control by fate or
necessity. On Mills’ account though, he defines it as “the nature and limits of the power of which can
be legitimately exercised by society over the individual.” It is worth noting as well that liberty is one of
the leading essential of well- being and we as individuals must take positive steps for ensure that our
respective liberty is not destroyed.

On Libertyestablished the notion of power and liberty quite clearly. Although there is quite a
contention on its ideas wherein, I asked myself this question, who exercises power over the
individual?Though it is not a difficult question to answer but I was amazed to a fact that the answer is
not only limited to one but there are two answers to the said question. First answer will be that of the
“government”. The established/ ruling government dictates the mandates that they find fit for the
society to flourish. This answer evolved and progressed since there was a point where men wanted
their leaders to be their servants and reflect their interest and will. It was thought that it was not
necessary to limit this new kind of power since the government is accountable to the people. It was
that it consciously grew its realization that the government is run by people with the power to be
exercised over those without power.

The second answer is the “customs, beliefs, opinions and attitudes” accepted by the majority
(tyranny of the majority). This particular majority is the primary manufacturer of conformity. Simply
put it that whatever everybody wants is what the individual should follow. Mill believes in the ethic of
utilitarianism in that the state and individuals ought to be judged by their ability and action to promote
“the greatest happiness for the greatest number” of people. Attaining the utmost social good involves
forfeiting certain individuals and sacrificing their happiness because happiness of a majority is
greater than the happiness of a few individuals.

Come to think of it, if someone or something will exercise their power over the individual then it
would mean that your actions will be limited to the wishes of those who are exercising their power?
Is it logical to think that our liberty and freedom will be in close quarters? Answering the two
questions means that we agree on the concepts of “government” and the “tyranny of the majority”.
What we need to take account of is the means on how these two concepts destroy/limit freedom and
liberty. First of is “government’, as mentioned above that they dictate the mandates thus imposing
the rules is their forte. This particular “government” maintains and holds their power and legalized
their force within a certain area to coerce certain individuals. If ever the rules and dictates will not be
met and followed, that individual faces certain punishment of imprisonment or worse, death. The
second, the “tyranny of the majority”, holds the fact that whatever is good for everyone is also good
for the individual. This is the part wherein the society is following the mantra of “majority
rules”. Backing this mantra up, Mill suggested in his work and I quote, “social tyranny is far more
formidable that a combined or many kinds of political oppression”. You may be wondering why the
second concept is quite worst than the first one is because of the fact that government punishes
those who disobeyed the rule and that’s it. You committed a crime thus you should be punished.
However, on the second concept, if you failed to follow the stigma of the society, then you will be an
outcast and that crime of disobedience will seep into to the deeper details of your life and a haunting
kind of experience of soul enslavement.

We have just witnessed that there are two forms of certain power that limits our capabilities to be
free and liberated. Is it really what John Stuart Mill is telling us or is there something more than what
meets the eye? Well, for Mill, we as individuals shouldn’t think that we are completely free to do
anything our heart’s desire would be without any form of restraints. I think that if there is a limitless
liberty and freedom, one thing is certain that we are no more than beasts of the wild. Mill thought of a
society that respects the actions of the individual at the same time issue an appropriate exercise of
power where it sees it to be. According to the book On Liberty, there are two limits of liberty, namely,
Other-Regarding Actions and Self-Regarding Actions. Other-Regarding action is the actions that
directly affects other individuals which is considered as the legitimate power of society over the
individual. On the other hand, Self-Regarding Action is the actions which directly affect the individual
performing the action and this disallows the government or society to act. In other words, the
individual here is not accountable to society for his actions as it doesn’t concern the majority but to
him/her as an individual alone. Having these two limitations, I can say that we are civilized in one
way or another since we are not really doing anything that we please right away. Even though it
concerns the society, or it only concerns us, we are still conscious of the fact that there are indeed
limitations.

Since we are aware of the limitations that we have for liberty, another dilemma that we have to look
at is that, are we able to hold our freedom of opinion and expression? Mill propose that “the freedom
to entertain a wide variety of ideas and to express those ideas without fear of punishment was not
only crucial to the healthy development of individuals but also of society at large.” Yes, there is a
limitation either from the individual or from the society as a whole but the freedom to give opinion
and express it shouldn’t be as frightful and fearful task to do. Although I don’t really agree to the
sentiment that whatever I say, be it truthful or not, is a subjective task to do. I mean, it should be
filtered and supported by the truth before it even spreads out. That would be the danger of too much
tyranny of the majority. If the majority is giving wrong information and their excuse is that ‘I’m free to
say and express it’ then what good would society be in the first place. This is the part where society
should act in filtering what needs to be said out loud since not everybody is capable of
understanding what the message is all about. Although, it is undeniable that there are really things
that society is trying to suppress the truth since it is not on their favor. This only shows the unfair
relation of the society and the individual. We are kept in the dark for the things that we ought to see
in the light.

Given that this is reality and it is happening wherever we go, how do we deal with our own
individuality? Are we just the passive kinds of individual or should we practice being more proactive?
For John Stuart Mill, what is essential to social progress is the cultivation of our individuality. This
means to say that before a society can stand, its building blocks should be firm and truthful
individuals. Thus, Mill conceptualized the Liberty of thought and Liberty of action. These two
concepts are combined to give rise to the freedom to cultivate one’s individuality, the freedom to be
unique and eccentric. Being unique and eccentric would mean that there shouldn’t be any
attachment to the government or even to the majority. There shouldn’t be any reliance and
attachments to those two if we want to understand, comprehend and grow our very own individuality.
To quote Mill, he said “As it is useful that while mankind is imperfect there should be different
opinions, so it is that there should be different experiments of living… and that the worth of different
modes of life should be proved practically, when anyone thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short,
that in things which do not primarily concern other individuality should assert itself. Where not the
person’s own character but the traditions or customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is
wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of
individual and social progress.” This growth and cultivation of one’s individuality will involve the
practice of “non-conformity” since there would be no attachment to anything alike and this would
break certain customs in the way of living and thinking. Quite selfish in a way but if the goal is growth
then we should accept the reality that that’s how things should done from this point forward.

As I’ve read the book, I’ve realized that there are power, liberty, limitation and individuality existing in
the society regardless if we like it or not in an individualistic sense or in a collective way. The
question now is “When can the government legitimately restrict your freedom by imposing and
enforcing laws?” John Stuart Mill holds the key to answering that. This involves the last item that I
really find interesting about his On Liberty. This concept is all about the “Harm” principle. You may
think of an idea that is really grandiose and out of this world, yet the meaning is quite down to earth.
This simply means that “If your action harms somebody else then the government can legitimately
step and try to stop you from doing it or punish you when you do. But only if it harms someone else –
if the only person you’re harming is yourself, then the law should have nothing to say”. The meaning
is quite literal and simple to be understood. For example, drinking, if you drink yourself to death,
that’s fine. That’s your call. But the moment you get behind the wheel of a car, that’s when the law
kicks in, because you will start endangering somebody else. This tells us that the “harm” principle is
the motivation, or the driving force of each law being passed on and enacted to. And if it is indeed
the force, then there are some loopholes that will make the law quite sneaky and interesting to play
with.

Having mentioned that it is the motivation of the law and together with that are the loopholes that
makes it sneaky, then we should take a look at the exceptions. There’s always an exception to every
rule and nothing is really absolute when it comes to the rules. Mill is talking about when the
government can step legitimately in and restrict your liberties and thinks that so long as you’re only
harming yourself the law should stay out of it. To quote Mill “It is perhaps hardly necessary to say
that this doctrine is meant to apply ‘only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties.’ We are
not speaking of children or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of
manhood or womanhood. Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by “other”
must be protected against their actions as well as against external injury. For the same reason, we
may leave out of consideration those backward states of society in which “the race itself may be
considered as in its nonage.” What Mill is trying to tell us is that for the exception to work, we have to
make sure of what audience will the law be impacted on since the law is not really applicable to the
general public. This means that the personal liberty and law enacted is only applicable to those
persons who are matured in their human faculties which connotes that it is for adults only or more
specific “civilized” adults according to Mill.

To sum it all up, John Stuart Mills On Libertytells us how people can best understand and
learn about their own opinions and activities from accepting challenging and opposing opinions from
the government or from the society. One can only faithfully understand their opinion by defending
it. Also, On Liberty“the importance, to man and society, of a large variety in types of character, and
of giving full freedom to human nature to expand itself in innumerable and conflicting directions.”
Having time coercion is acceptable and that happens when a person’s behavior harms other
people–otherwise, society should treat diversity with respect. Lastly, 1. the individual is not
accountable to society for his actions insofar as these concerned the interest of no person but
himself which means that society has no legitimate function in telling me what I can and can’t do as
long as this just concerns me. 2. Society’s involvement for such actions are prejudicial to the interest
of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishment.
This leads us to the realization that if I do something to hurt somebody else then that could be a
problem and that is something where society legitimately can step in and say no you can’t do that,
we are going to punish you. With this ideal society of civilized adults, it is a sure way to secure our
growth and development, individually or collectively which will give an edge to create new markets
comprised of free, able and obedient citizens. This clearly means that it is the people who is making
the government and not the other way around.
 Sample Essay Exam in Existentialism
Philo 57: Existentialism

Student #02

Question 1

You have a friend who is young, dumb and broke. He lost her family as well as all her properties in
the war in Marawi. Thus, she has nothing left but her absolutely meaningless life. Because she
couldn’t take the absurd situation anymore, she jumped from a 4-storey building, but fortunately
survived with broken limbs. Now, you visited her in the hospital, and in your conversation with her
you learned that she found life even more useless. You learned as well that she was so determined
to end her life, and will definitely do it when she has the chance. How would you convince your friend
that life remains beautiful and meaningful despite all the absurdities it harbors using Camus’s model
of existential philosophy? Be as thorough as possible.

Question 2

You have successfully convinced your suicidal friend that life remains beautiful and meaningful
despite all the absurdities it harbors using Camus’s model of existential philosophy. However, she
fell in the trap of narrowly interpreting Camus. Convinced that life is beautiful and meaningful, she
indulged in purely aesthetic pursuits. In fact, she reveled with friends all the time and slept with any
guys she liked. In short, she became a hedonist. Using Kierkegaard’s model of existential
philosophy, how would you convince your friend that the life she is living now is not truly meaningful?
Be as thorough as possible.

Question 3

Your friend seems to have been convinced that the aesthetic life she has been pursuing is not
enough. Indeed, she realized that she needs to pursue higher ideals in life. However, at the back of
her mind, she thought that your constant act of giving her advices is, in one way or another, an
encroachment on her freedom. She now thought that you just pester her constantly, believing that
she has absolute freedom, that she can do whatever she wants to do. Explain to your friend that her
conception of absolute freedom is wrong using Sartre’s notion of absolute freedom. Be as through
as possible.

Question 4

Congratulations! You have successfully explained to your friend that her take on absolute freedom is
a misguided one. And because she was amazed by your brilliance, she wants to become like you, a
person with a fully developed rational mind. She eventually enrolled in BA Philosophy at Silliman
University. Now, in one of her classes with Dr. Phillip Togado, she learned that “death” is the
ultimate basis of a meaningful existence. Therefore, she thought that had she successfully
committed suicide before, she could have attained a meaningful life. She now believes that you just
fooled her all this time. Obviously, she has misinterpreted Heidegger’s notion of death as the
ultimate basis of a meaningful existence. Explain to your friend the way in which death, according to
Heidegger, is the ultimate basis of a meaningful existence. Be as thorough as possible.

Answer to Question 1:

I believe that one of the most important things a suicidal person needs is someone who can
understand her pain and sorrow. Hence, during this moment of grim, I think that what my friend
needs most is someone who can see the world through her own perspective. Thus, simply being
there and empathizing for her is simply not enough, instead, I will be there for her and make her feel
that she is understood, that I am suffering just as much as her because of her pain, and that I
completely understand why in that moment she resorted to suicide. By making her feel that she is
not alone, perhaps I can make her value my opinions and listen to any pieces of advice I can impart
unto her. Now, let us suppose that she does indeed trusts and listens to me wholeheartedly. Here, I
could now probably insinuate insights, following Camus, on the absurdity of life. Given that she
already perceives her life as absurd and meaningless, one of my tasks is to make her understand
that she is not alone in living a meaningless existence. In fact, I will even empower her by saying
that I completely agree with her – that life is truly meaningless and absurd. Of course, my intention is
not to encourage her in her quest for the termination of her life but only to let her see the reality of
existence. Here, I will tell her that life is absurd not only for her but for everybody. That there are
instances where we will lose our family and can do nothing about it. I will tell her that life is truly a
struggle, that every single day we are facing a battle we cannot win. We are like Sisyphus,
condemned to a life of burden and hopelessness. However, I will convince her that even though life,
in a recurring loop, is like pushing a boulder up a hill only to see it fall down again, that doesn’t mean
that we should give up and resort to suicide. I will tell her that life is not about getting that boulder up
the hill, instead, life is pushing that boulder over and over again and finding small pockets of joy and
satisfaction in the process. Surely, I am not trying to convert my friend into a life of masochism. What
I am trying to make her understand is that life as we know it is full of suffering and pain but the only
solution we got is to fully accept the reality of life with unflinching and courageous acceptance.
Further, even how overwhelming life becomes, the only solution is to continue living with strength
and defiance to never allow that reality to destroy our lives.

Answer to Question 2:

First and foremost, having in mind that this woman was suicidal, perhaps the least I can do is to
make her feel special and not judge her about how she lives her life in fear of her relapsing into
suicidal if I intervene bluntly. Here, I will first tell her how genuinely happy I am for her improvement.
Given her present state of existence, it is indeed a huge improvement from being suicidal into
someone who enjoys the pleasures of life, however superficial that may appear to be. Hence, I will
make her feel how astonished I am of her strength in turning her life around. I will try to be as excited
as she is in her pursuits of sensory satisfaction. I will make her understand that we truly need the
simple pleasures that this world offers. However, I will also make her understand, slowly and slowly,
that there is more to life than just being an aesthete. Indeed, I will try to make her see that the
pursuit of aesthetic pleasure is something that cannot be quenched. That once you have something,
you just want more and more. Hence, I will introduce her to a life that is far more satisfying than
chasing sensory pleasures. In doing this, I will try to make her see the present condition of our
society and the world in general. I will make her see the injustice and the oppression people suffer
on a day to day basis. And, of course, I will try to remind her of the horrors she faced in Marawi. All
this is done with the intention of allowing her to realize that there is more to life than just living it for
yourself; instead, life is also about living for others. Therefore, my focus will be on encouraging her
to live her life for the betterment of the world. It may be through giving back to the needy, joining
movements concerning suicide, or it may simply be encouraging her to do good deeds and be kind
to everybody. In this way, the world may truly become a better place because of the positive impact
she has in her community. Hopefully, once she does these acts, it may serve as confirmation for her
that this kind of life is indeed more satisfying than the one she had before.

Answer to Question 3:

First and foremost, I will assure her that my constant act of giving advice is not an encroachment on
her freedom but my way of showing concern and love for her. I will allow her to understand that the
inputs I impart unto her are not direct prescriptions on how she should live her life but merely as
open-ended suggestions wherein I let her see different sides of life to aid her in critically assessing
the life she is living. In the process, I am affirming her absolute freedom in the sense that she is free
to choose and do whatever she deemed fitting. However, she apparently took my advice at face
value and now she believes that she is free to do whatever she wanted. In this instance, I will explain
to her that we are indeed free but this freedom is subsumed under our responsibilities as human
beings. In other words, freedom does not mean the power to choose and do whatever we wanted to
do as if we do not belong to a concrete context; instead, freedom entails responsibility in the sense
that whatever we choose to do, we are also creating an image of what we think man ought to be.
With this, I can hopefully allow my friend to realize that technically she is free to do whatever she
wanted but she must be responsible enough because the very choices she makes does not only
define her but defines the entirety of man.

Answer to Question 4:

To fulfill this task, I believe it is first necessary to make my friend understand the context which
prompted Heidegger to proclaim death as the ultimate basis of reality. To begin with, an elucidation
of the notion of inauthenticity shall be made. As is well known, as Dasein is thrown into the world,
she also falls into an inauthentic existence, that is, succumbing one’s creative and critical capabilities
to the crowd or the world. In other words, Dasein has lost the capability “to be” or “to become”
because she has allowed the world to prescribe the path for her. Hence, Heidegger calls for Dasein
to own her existence and to live authentically, that is, having the consciousness of what it means “to
be”. Here, Heidegger adds that angst, which mobilizes other categories such as death, is a very
important experience for Dasein to realize her own most possibilities. Indeed, the anxiety Dasein has
of her finiteness has the potential to make Dasein realize that she should live an authentic existence,
that is, realizing her potentialities and possibilities. Therefore, actually dying, for instance suicide,
does not confer to the individual a meaningful existence; rather, the realization that life is finite urges
Dasein to live life not through the dictates of the world but through his own-most capabilities.

aul Sartre
by Ryan Calica

Introduction

When I first encountered Sartre in my undergrad years, I was already fascinated and impressed by
his philosophy. To my fond affection to his thoughts, I made a simple critique of him. It sounded like
a presentation of the limits of freedom. I titled it, “Slave of Freedom: A Critique on Sartre’s
Philosophy of Freedom”. What has been a simple critique to me back then has become now a
compliment to my whole understanding of Sartre. His understanding of man is so profound that in
my life, I have strongly held it. I think, a lot of people in our country should be “evangelize” by his
philosophy even those who call themselves evangelizers. To them, Sartre could be a good
instrument to put flesh their messages. Let me start this work with the man: Jean-Paul Sartre.

The Man

The man behind the popular existentialism we have today was a simple and tireless seeker of
wisdom. He is most appreciated in the history of philosophy for the following contribution:

1. His catchphrase “existence precedes essence” that underlies a philosophy of

individualism;
2. His declaration that man is “condemned to be free”;
 3. For his insistence that each individual take upon his own shoulders the full responsibility
for everything he is and does;
4. For rejecting the concept of human nature and in its place the establishment of a
“universal human condition”;
5. For being a moral philosopher who refuses to clarify any criterion for making moral
judgments;
6. For his insistence that life finds meaning, not through intellect and analysis, but by being
lived;
7. For defining the purpose of each and every human life as a gradual escape from self-
deception and a progressive movement toward authenticity.[1]

Sartre was born in 1905 in Paris. His father is Jean-Batiste, a naval officer. His mother is Anne-Marie
Schweitzer. His father died when he was still a child. Consequently, his grandfather has raised him.
He finished his high school in Lycée Henri IV in Paris. After two years of preparation, he gained
entrance to the prestigious Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris. He has exhibited at an early age a
precocious gift for literary expression. While at Ecole Normale, he was attracted to philosophy by
Henri Bergson. Bergson’s Time and Free Will (1889) left him, “bowled over”. In Ecole Normale
Supérieure, when from 1924 to 1929 he came into contact with Raymond Aron, Simone de
Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and other notables. He passed the ‘agregation’ on the second
attempt when he adapted the approach the institution required.

As a seeker of wisdom, he was not afraid to change his mind. The years he spent his life was a
gradual progress of changing and improving his ideas and beliefs. He said, “I think against myself.”
Sartre was a great borrower and synthesizer. His early years were influenced by Descartes, Hegel,
Husserl, and Heidegger. Later, his ethical ideas were from Kant and Marx. Sartre’s originality
consisted in his creation of new syntheses from reinterpreted borrowed ideas and offered a new
solution to traditional philosophical problems. Simone de Beauvoir, his life-long companion, said
something about him, “For me, a philosopher is someone like Spinoza, Hegel or like Sartre:
someone who builds a great system and not simply someone who loves philosophy… and can use
in its essays, etc., but it is someone who truly constructs a philosophy. And that I did not do.”[2]
Sartre had a strong relationship with Beauvoir but they never got married. Their loyalty and love took
the span of 51 years.

Sartre lived simply and with few possessions. He only lived in a small apartment on the Left Bank in
Paris. He was involved in a lot of political activity and he loved to travel. He died on April 15, 1980, at
the age of 74 due to declining health and visual impairment. His life was a testimony of his
philosophy and he had a remarkable impact on his nation and to the whole world. The thousands of
people who attended his funeral is a testimony of his influence and lived-philosophy.

Sartre’s Existentialism

Among the existentialist philosophers, Sartre was the one who had really professed such title as an
existentialist. His brand of existentialism generally states that the first principle of existentialism is:
“Existence precedes essence.” Chronologically, to precede means to occur before or predate and
logically, it means, a necessary condition for or a prerequisite for. When applied to man: man is
without any determined essence or attributes. His essence or attributes is still to be made upon his
existence.[3] Sartre said, “Man simply is… Man is nothing else but that which he makes of
himself.”[4] Upon discussing existence and essence, let us first clarify the two terms. When we say,
something exists, it is to say that it is and when it is about the essence of something, it is to
say what it is. ‘Existence’ means the independent reality of physical objects.

Consciousness: Being-for-itself and Being-in-itself

This idea of existence can be further understood if we put to mind Sartre’s idea of the two modes of
being: (being)-in-itself (en soi) and the (being)-for-itself (pour soi). The being-in-itself is the
unconscious being. It is the world of inert particular objects – the material things; it is a dumb world
without cause or meaning. The in-itself is an object which “has no connection to any human concept,
standard, expectation or intention”[3] Moreover, it is superfluous; no reason for existence. The being-
for-itself, on the other hand, is the conscious being. It is the self, the human being with his
consciousness.

The in-itself “exists in a fully determinate and non-relational way. This fully characterizes its
transcendence of the conscious experience.”[4] The in-itself is fixed in its attributes and is “already
done”. In contrast with the in-itself, the for-itself exists in an indeterminate and relational way. It lacks
identity with itself.[5] This is because consciousness is always a consciousness “of something”; and
thus, always in relation to something. The clue to the nature of the for-itself is freedom. Since it is
free, man’s consciousness is undetermined, ever-changing and growing.

Let us move further to the understanding of consciousness and the self or the ego. “Correlatively,
consciousness would be divided into the consciousness of ego and consciousness of the world.”[6]
Consciousness, because of the division, may be considered as a for-itself by the fact that it is always
a consciousness of something and an in-itself by the virtue of its givenness as such in the world.
With the unity of conscious activity, the ego or the self is formed. The ego is not given but produced
by consciousness. For example, when I am conscious of a house, I am directly conscious of it, and
am not myself an object of consciousness. What model does Sartre propose for our understanding
of self-consciousness and the production of the ego through conscious activity? Sartre introduced a
pre-reflective level of consciousness and reflective level. An example of pre-reflective consciousness
is the seeing of a house. This type of consciousness is directed to a transcendent object, a mere
seeing. This does not involve my focussing upon it. The ego is not involved in a conscious relation to
the object. For Sartre, this pre-reflective consciousness is thus impersonal: there is no place for an ‘I’
at this level.[7] Moreover:

“Importantly, Sartre insists that self-consciousness is involved in any such state of consciousness: it
is the consciousness this state has of itself. This accounts for the phenomenology of ‘seeing’, which
is such that the subject is clearly aware of her pre-reflective consciousness of the house. This
awareness does not have an ego as its object, but it is rather the awareness that there is an act of
‘seeing’. Reflective consciousness is the type of state of consciousness involved in my looking at a
house. For Sartre, the cogito emerges as a result of consciousness’s being directed upon the pre-
reflectively conscious. In so doing, reflective consciousness takes the pre-reflectively conscious as
being mine. It thus reveals an ego insofar as an ‘I’ is brought into focus: the pre-reflective
consciousness which is objectified is viewed as mine. This ‘I’ is the correlate of the unity that I
impose upon the pre-reflective states of consciousness through my reflection upon them.”[8]

The pre-reflective level stresses on the mere seeing of an object; an impersonal act so
spontaneously done by self-consciousness. If the consciousness focuses on the pre-reflective act,
an example would be the act of seeing, the consciousness acts on the reflective level. The ego or
“the self is constructed by reflective consciousness.”[9]

In Nausea, a novel in diary form about a fictional historian named Antoine Roquentin, Sartre
explained the distinction of the being-in-itself and being-for-itself. Roquentin discovered the things he
perceives exist – the things are present independently and apart from his consciousness. He
realized that the objects are being-in-itself. “…being is. Being is in-itself. Being is what it is.”[10]

Our typical idea of artefact is what the object is “for”, or means to our ends. As a result, we barely
attend to them. What Roquentin discovered as existing things are just the bare things without any
connection to him. “To exist is simply to be there; what exists appears, lets itself be encountered, but
you can never deduce it.”[11] Existence cannot be reduced to the essence.[12] Things appear in
their nakedness and richness. The discovery oppresses him and gives him a physical nausea.
Nausea, in the novel, is a special kind of consciousness with characteristics different from the
nausea (stomach upset) in ways that it is experienced as a “revelation of overabundance,
contingency and absurdity”[13] yet at the same time, similar in ways that it is experienced with a
feeling of disgust, repugnance, and exhaustion. Sooner, in the experience of Roquentin, he realized
he is an existing thing too. He discovered his own existence and found it to be contingent.
Contingent means that something exists but it is possible that it should not have existed; it is not
necessary. Sartre explained, “From the fact that something is it does not logically follow that it
necessarily is.”[14] Roquentin felt disgusted with his existence and his contingency. He said, “I too
was a superfluous… I hadn’t any right to exist; I had appeared by chance… I existed like a stone, a
plant, a microbe…”[15]

Existence is inherently meaningless and pointless but brutally oppressive and present. Essence is
an illusion. It is nothing but a product of language and concepts. The world is divided linguistically
and conceptually by imposing an organising framework upon it.[16] Existing things being what they
are depend on the fragile contingencies of human language and face the unsolved problem of
induction.[17] Existing things cannot just be classified according to labels of language for these are
as they are. Man as existing cannot also be labelled. His being a for-itself allows him to escape any
definite definition and classification. This I shall elaborate more on the latter part.

To say then that man’s existence precedes his essence means: he was not created to serve a pre-
existing purpose. For human beings “…there is no predetermined human essence and there is no
human nature fixed in advance of human existence.”[18] Human beings exist first, and thereby
acquired his essence through his actions. We have no essence and it is only in the totality of our
choices that we define ourselves.

On the contrary, to the being of the human beings, Sartre used the paper knife as an example of
essence preceding existence. The manufacturer of the knife conceived first the idea of the object
before it has come to be: how it would look like and its sole purpose. The idea is necessary in order
for the conceived object to fit in into its purpose and the external reality. The ‘what’ of the object
precedes the ‘is’.[19] Artifact such as paper knife serves a pre-existing purpose before it has come to
be.

Sartre, in addition, distinguished naturally occurring objects from human beings and artefacts. These
objects like stones and trees have their existence and essence in coincidence – temporal property of
two things happening at the same time. Sartre said, “They are and they are what they
aresimultaneous. Their being and their being that they are are mutually dependent.”[20] Sartre,
however, did not focus on this reality, in relation to the precedence of existence to essence and vice
versa.

For Sartre, man cannot be likened to a paper knife which served a pre-existing purpose according to
the mind of the artisan. If essence precedes existence, man would be treated similarly to a knife
which would serve a purpose according to the mind of a maker, of a creator, and more appropriately,
of God. For Sartre, there is no God who would conceive of an essence for man, no Divine Mind, no
blueprints. Existence is only but proper for individual man and essence refers to nothing. “Essence is
one of those words that has been hallowed by time but, when pushed for meaning, is found to be
empirically empty.”[21] Essence is an illusion.

God’s non-existence logically implies that humanity is an unfinished product. A person is his own
project. Man defines himself. The classical definition of man which is rooted in theological
assumption is already invalid. Man is a being “which is what it is not and is not what it is.”[22] Man
simply is. He begins with: “he is nothing” – not yet classified as something. Before the labels, he is
unclassified, barely naked. He begins to define himself by choosing his own labels.[23] God’s
removal means that man is free. There is no determinism, no guidelines and no standards on how
man should think, feel and behave. Man is now in the position to define himself and create his future.

The Human Condition

Since there is no God to create an unchanged essence and because man is never the same since
he constantly changes himself, there cannot also be a human nature. However, Sartre proposed that
there is a universal human condition. It consists of:

“All the limitations which a priori define man’s fundamental situation in the universe. It involves
objective realities that are invariable for all human beings; it is also subjective because they are lived
and are nothing if a man does not live them. The human condition is marked by life-destroying
vulnerabilities such as suffering, death, loneliness, meaninglessness, and alienation; it is also
marked by fundamental desires shared by all human beings.”[26]

Moreover, Sartre said, “By discovering myself in the act of conscious thought, I discover the
condition of all people. We are in a world of intersubjectivity.”[27] We are always with other persons
and all our actions affect others and others affect us as well. What one purposes may be the same
as the other or otherwise. In this human condition, one cannot just act according to his whims
because what one chooses or does affect others. “I am always obliged to act in a situation – that is,
in relation to other people – and consequently, my actions must not be capricious, since I must take
responsibility for all my actions.”[28] Man is free and his actions in every situation are always related
to others since he lives in an intersubjective world.

Freedom and Responsibility

The first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of himself as he is and places
the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon his shoulder.”[29] The opposition to Sartre’s
existentialism is that it is highly subjective – that we can do whatever we wish to become and do
because we are free. However, Sartre would like to emphasize the dignity of man compared to a
stone or table. He said, “What gives me dignity is the possession of a subjective life, meaning I am
something that moves toward a future and am conscious that I am doing so.”[30] The consequence
of existing before having an essence he held “is not that we create ourselves but that responsibility
for existence rests squarely on each individual.”[31] Moreover, this responsibility is not just for
himself but for the whole mankind. What he does in himself affects the whole humanity. He is tied up
to the human race as a member and actor who can change the course of human history. Man is
always called to choose in every situation and every situation implies other persons; hence, man’s
responsibility for his action is not just enclosed to himself but also to others. Man is not just a stone
or table for these things cannot be responsible. If essence precedes existence, man cannot be held
responsible for what he is and does. This is the consequence of his freedom.

Anguish

Human beings experience their freedom as anguish: anguish of being and anguish of freedom. The
anguish of being comes with the awareness that the world and human life are meaningless. Without
God, existence has no ultimate meaning. It is just is. Anguish of freedom comes with the inevitability
of making a choice and his choice determines the course of his life and the life of others. Man
experiences anguish when he realises that he is not just responsible for himself but for the whole
mankind. According to Sartre, “…anguish, he means the apprehension, anxiety and sense of burden
we experience when are confronted with the inescapability of making a choice that will change the
course of our lives.”[32] Man is not just responsible for himself but for others and rest of mankind.
Sartre phrased this idea that “…one ought always to ask oneself what happens if everyone did as
one is doing”.[33] Although he said that one is not always considering this question, but we ought to
ask ourselves such question. When a person acts, one should always think and consider that
everyone else in the world watches how that person initiates his actions. Sartre said, “Everything
happens to every man as though the whole human race had its eyes fixed upon what he is doing
and regulated its conduct accordingly.”[34] Anguish is the very condition of our action, “for action
presupposes that there is a plurality of possibilities, and in choosing one of these, they realize that it
has value only because it is chosen.”[35] Sartre gives the example of a military leader who needs to
decide on an urgent matter in a battle. The leader is confronted with choices of: letting his
subordinate soldier die under his command or the civilians of his nation to whom the soldiers ought
to serve. The anguish is felt at the moment of deciding what to risk. Upon anguish, there is this kind
of feeling that says, “I don’t want to decide on this matter” or the feeling that one would refuse to
decide on a certain matter. But ironically, the leader cannot escape the decision making. There is the
inevitability of deciding and so the leader decides in or with anguish. When Sartre said that “man is
freedom and he is condemned to be free, because he is not free not to be free” there is that sense of
anguish in freedom. We are condemned because we didn’t choose to be but find ourselves existing,
“thrown into the world, yet free because as soon as we are conscious of ourselves, we are
responsible for everything we do.”[36]

Flight and Bad Faith

With anguish, man responses with flight. Man wants to flee away from his freedom. This fleeing is in
the form of self-deception or bad faith (mauvaise foi). He denies his freedom and uses fate,
mysterious forces, passion or heredity to account for his actions. Bad faith is the act of hiding
something from myself. “Bad faith is difficult to understand because we can hide something from
ourselves only if we know what we are hiding.”[37] If this is man’s belief, he reduces himself to
“never being anything but what he is.”[38] In bad faith, man treats himself as a being-in-itself;
denying his being-for-itself. Living in bad faith is to live a lie. Sartre says, “…consciousness, instead
of directing its negation outward, turns it towards itself. This attitude… is bad faith”[39] It is a lie to
oneself. What does it mean to lie? Sartre answers, “The essence of lie is implied in fact that the liar
actually is in complete possession of the truth which he is hiding.”[40] The liar is half victim of his lie.
The one practicing bad faith is “hiding a displeasing truth or presenting as truth a pleasing
untruth.”[41] Sartre believes that most men live in bad faith; a constant lie and denial of one’s
freedom and the responsibility that accompanies it.

Abandonment

Another inescapable feeling that comes with freedom and human condition is abandonment.[42]
This is a state of being thrown in the world without our own willing. Man’s facticity. He finds himself
already in the world without any clear purpose. This throwness implies that man decides his being.
The absence of God entails that man be made to account for his actions. “God does not exist, and
that is necessary to draw the consequences of his absence right to the end.”[43] Man is left alone to
ground his action. The existentialist believes that we shall not consider God as the ultimate source of
morality but there is such thing as ‘good’ even without Him conceiving it. “Our sense of
abandonment is a curious consequence of the fact that everything is indeed permitted, and as a
result we are forlorn, for we cannot find anything on which we can rely, either within or outside
ourselves. We are without any excuses.”[44] Sartre gives the example of his student who was
confronted by choosing between two important matters in his life: going to England to join the Free
French Forces or staying near his mother and help her to live. The student was faced with two
moralities: morality of sympathy and morality of wider scope (Christian or Kantian). His student in
confusion said, “Values are uncertain, they too abstract to determine the particular… nothing
remains but to trust in our instinct”.[45]Furthermore, from the student’s reflection, he supposed, “In
the end, it is the feeling that counts; the direction in which it is really pushing me is the one I ought to
choose.”[46] Sartre argues that feelings are formed by the deeds one does. It cannot be a guide for
an action. If the student would ask an advice from a priest, the advice would reflect the person of
priest, which would likely bias the Church’s doctrine or ethics. If the student would ask an advice to a
professor, the same applies, the beliefs of the teacher would reflect in the advice. From the two
advices, it would still be up to the student what to choose. The choice would still be his in relation to
the commitment he gave to the advice. Thus, burden or responsibility still falls on him. Abandonment
implies “…that we ourselves decide our being. And with this abandonment goes anguish”.[47 In
abandonment, there is no more God to blame for man’s actions, but only himself. He is left alone is
decide his being, his life. That is why, in abandonment, Sartre suggests that we invent and create
values. Since there is no more God to set a standard for action, man should invent values. In the
absence of God, everything is permitted and thus a new morality can be fashioned by man for man.
Sartre says that values are subjective.

Despair

Another universal experience essential to human condition according to Sartre is the feeling of
despair. This is the feeling of being limited within the scope of our wills. “It is produced by the fact
that we must live by the probabilities and without certainties. I cannot know for sure where my
actions will lead.”[48] “…we limit ourselves to a reliance upon that which is within our wills, or within
the sum of probabilities which render our action feasible.”[49] This limitation is an account of our
facticity or being thrown in the world. We didn’t choose to be in certain body, in a certain family, in a
certain environment. Thus, we are given as such. The feeling that accompanies our freedom and its
limitedness as given by facticity leaves us with the feeling of despair. “We cannot expect more from
our existence than the finite probabilities it possesses.”[50] We are just finite beings and we are
limited. “Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realises himself, he
is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is.”[51] It is in our
actions that we make our realities. If I am a cheater, I make myself a cheater. It is not just a
consequence of my incapacitated mind or my poor memory. I am a cheater because I made myself
a cheater by my actions. But it is not also to say that if I am a cheater once or twice in the
examination, I am definitively a cheater, that I am nothing else but what I have lived. On the contrary,
“…man is no other than a series of undertakings, that he is the sum, the organisation, the set of
relations that constitute these undertakings.”[52] Man is the sum of his actions and purposes. It is in
death that one can truly define a person. When the creative power of man ceases in death, man
becomes fixed and definable. But as long as man is alive, he is ever changing, undefinable.

Authentic Life

Sartre’s brand of existentialism doesn’t just end in the articulating man’s existence. He poses a
challenge for us and calls it a project. Sartre said, “Existentialism must be lived to be really sincere.
To live as an existentialist means to be ready to pay for this view and not merely to lay it down in the
book.”[53]

In order to better understand Sartre’s notion of authentic life, let us further qualify his understanding
of freedom. For him, man is always free and has an unlimited freedom. But man’s freedom is limited
by physical and social constraints. To this, Sartre agrees because man as a being-for-itself is also
given in facticity. Man’s freedom is not in contradiction with his physical and social givenness,
because freedom is not defined as an ability to act. “Freedom is rather to be understood as
characteristic of the nature of consciousness, i.e. as spontaneity.”[54] To manifest this freedom is to
make choices. An authentic life or to be truly an authentic human being; thus, for Sartre, “consists in
choosing in a way which reflects the nature of the for-itself as both transcendence and facticity.”[55]
When one recognizes his being a being-for-itself and consequently acts on it through his conscious
actions, one is said to have an authentic life. This implies that each moment of one’s life, he takes
hold of his freedom, responsible for his action and constantly inventing and creating himself as he
ought to be. If one has come to the point that he would believe that he is already done and says,
“This is the fix-me or this is what I have made of myself and this is enough”, one may still be living in
bad faith. Man’s essence is his constant effort to make himself for there is no static essence
according to Sartre. An authentic life is living a life conscious of one’s power to choose every
moment of one’s life and these choice projects to man his own virgin future.

Comments

Man is a paradox. For according to Sartre, man is free but he is not free not to be free. Man is
enslaved by his own freedom.

As an avid follower of Sartre, I would like to give my affirmation and few comments on his existential
philosophy. Man as a being-for-itself; as freedom, means that man is enslaved by his own being. He
is a project ever developing and changing. He can never be so fixed and done unless he dies. This
power in man has been a strength for some and a weakness to many. This I have said in affirmation
of Sartre’s observation that a lot of people live in bad faith and that life even is a constant escape
from bad faith. In my observations, a lot of people say as an excuse this phrase, “(I’m sorry/ what
can I do?) I have no choice…” although this may still be categorized to some contexts, generally, I
find it as an escape to one’s freedom and responsibility. Politicians and government officials are
good on this matter. This is not to generalize but to give some concrete examples of people living in
bad faith. Often, their excuse for corruption is the most abused phrase, “I have no choice…” The
system is often the object of blame and not the individual choice or submission to the system. As
they say, they were swallowed by the system. I cannot judge the real score about such issue but the
bottom line is: they live in bad faith. A lot of students on the same account live in bad faith. When
they cheat, fail to meet a requirement or act inappropriately, they would often act as if they were
moved by some mystical force such as fate or instinct. Others would blame their parents or peers;
some, their life condition, e.g. poverty. Most of them would reason out many alibis instead of
admitting their shortcoming and finding ways on how to make up. Another example is: when a young
lady unwantedly gets pregnant, the usual alibi is accident. The weight of the consequence is not truly
directed to the person acting in such hasty manner but some indefinite entity behind the term
“accident.” As a consequence, there are already a lot of pregnant women, urged by their partner,
their family or friends or themselves, would succumb to abortion for what had happened is a mere
accident. There are indeed a number of people living in bad faith and they are a bit inexhaustible.
Sartre’s observation truly makes sense and illustrates our normal attitude towards life. A lot of
people don’t realize their freedom and power it holds to change the course of one’s life.

Just a few weeks I have a critique of Sartre on some of his notions but as I have continued to read
him, some of these queries were clarified. However, there remain some questions to which I am
going to raise in this paper. I have often asked and held, back then and until now, that freedom, the
one Sartre was referring to[56] is only for those who realize or know that they have such. A person
has freedom if he is aware that he is free. If a person does not know that he is free, then he is not
free at all. Freedom makes sense only for those who have owned it. That is why, in my observation,
there are a lot of people who live in bad faith for they are not aware of their freedom. To qualify this
statement further, a lot of people take their freedom superficially. They are aware that they are free
but not to the extent of what their freedom can do for them. In Sartre’s technical jargon: these people
treat themselves as a being-in-itself.

My contention may sound problematic for how can I account for the freedom of others who are not,
as I say, aware that they are free. Or to move further, are there people who are not aware that they
are free?

Let me begin with my observation in the case of infants, toddler, and children. At this age or stages
of human life, freedom is not yet realized. So on behalf of the child, the parents stand as alter-
freedom. The parents decide on behalf of the child. I don’t know where to account child’s movement.
Could it be from the child’s instincts or any physiological process? Could mental driven act as part of
the natural order? Or could it be freedom in its earliest manifestation? Or simply the spontaneous act
of consciousness as what Sartre would like to define? Are knowledge and/or knowledge of freedom
relative to freedom itself? These questions I shall leave as such for I have not yet found an answer
for them.

Another case is for those people who seem to act blindly. Can I say that they are not free or they just
live in bad faith? Probably, they just live in bad faith. The problem of physical givenness and the
environment with which one is born cannot be chosen. This is addressed by Sartre in man’s facticity
or throwness in the world. He didn’t choose it but found himself in that particular body and particular
space and time. Sartre also clarified the limits of freedom to one’s own capacity. For instance, if I
stout man wants to become a PBA player, his height becomes his own limitation but he is still free to
wish and dream. His freedom is only contained in situations and contexts wherein the act would be
probable and feasible. Freedom is not defined as the ability to act, but as a spontaneous movement
of consciousness as a being-for-itself. My queries and would be critique were already clarified.

In my personal life, I strongly agree with Sartre when he said, “We are what we choose to be.” Our
choices make us what and who we are. Since every moment we are given an opportunity to choose
what to be, we are always in constant flux. As for me, I cannot be judged as a definite this or that for
I am a project in the making, a life of constant progress and movement and a product to be finished
yet.

Lastly, although I agree with Sartre’s notions of man and his freedom, I don’t fully rely on his
philosophy Sartre. Man is a paradox and more so, he is a mystery. Man cannot be fully understood.
In application to my being as a man, I have long searched myself: strenuously and comprehensively
but found the discovery inadequate.[57] There is more to man; more to me than what all of the
thinkers in the world have ever thought. Sartre, in this regard, is also right for man cannot be
defined; man always projects himself in the nothingness called future. However, this does not mean
that I don’t have any idea or principle to base my knowledge of man, of myself. Clearly, I believe that
all these are not yet enough because there is still more to man, more to myself.

Conclusion

To conclude, man is an existing being. He is a being-for-itself, a conscious and free being. He has
no predetermined future and he has no human nature. However, he has a universal human
condition. He makes his own future and defines himself through his actions. Man is free. Man is
freedom; he is the embodiment of freedom. With freedom, comes responsibility for his actions for it
affect him and the whole humanity. The inescapability of freedom and the burden of responsibility
given in his being thrown in the world gives him the feeling anguish. From this constant anguish, he
withdraws or flees. This attempt to escape freedom is self-deception or bad faith. To live in bad faith
means to account that human nature or a kind of determinism is responsible for man’s actions. Man
lives in bad faith when he tries to escape or hide from himself the truth that he is free and
accountable for his actions. Another feeling that arises with freedom and human condition is
abandonment. Man finds himself accountable for his action because there is no more God to blame
for or account for his action. Despair is the last feeling that accompanies man’s freedom. It is when
ma realizes that he is limited only to his own givenness. The sum of his actions makes him who he
is. Sartre calls for an authentic life knowing that we are in constant struggle against bad faith. To live
an authentic life or to be an authentic human is simply to recognize that one is a being-for-itself; a
being who is free and responsible and thus, a being who constantly creates and recreates his being.

Heidegger’s Existential Philosophy: Key Concepts

In this post, I will briefly sketch the key concepts of Martin Heidegger’s existential philosophy.
However, it must be noted that Heidegger is a huge philosopher and difficult to understand. Thus, I
will only present the key concepts of his existential philosophy.

To begin with, it is important to note that Heidegger offers a new conception of philosophy, which,
according to some scholars, such as Werner Marx, aims ultimately to attain a “second beginning” at
this late stage (20th century) of human development. Thus, Heidegger’s effort must be seen as
composing in a new different way the question concerning the “Essence of Being”, and, at one with
this, articulating the “Essence of Man”. It appears therefore that Heidegger’s main intention in
rekindling the question concerning the “Essence of Being” is to really articulate the essence and
meaning of being human.

Why the “second beginning” of philosophy and the task of composing anew the “Essence of Being”
and the “Essence of Man”?

For Heidegger, this question has long been stalemated and yet the question of Being, that is, the
Essence of Being and the Essence of Man, remains the original question. Indeed, it is the “first”
question concerning the meaning of our own Being (that is, the meaning of being human) vis-à-vis
the meaning of Being (that is, Being in general or the entirety of Nature).

The attempt to rekindle the question of Being implies for Heidegger not only a “going back” (that is,
remembering) to the original question and appropriating what this serious question itself had
revealed to human beings (Dasein), but also a “going back” to those thinkers who first raised the
question concerning the Being of beings, that is, the pre-Socratics. In other words, for Heidegger, if
we want to understand the essence of Being, then we need to revisit the pre-Socratic philosophers
and know what they said about “Being”.

As is well known, the pre-Socratics were the first to raise the question concerning the Essence of
Being and of Man. Thus, they were referred to as the “first philosophers”. With this, they were said to
have set the “first beginning” of philosophy.

We must note, however, that the term “pre-Socratics” does not refer only to the set of philosophers
from Thales to the Sophists (for example, Protagoras, Gorgias, and Thracymachus), but also to
the philomythoi (that is, the lovers of myth, like Hesiod and Homer), as Aristotle would call them.
Thus, in this context, philosophy could be said to have begun with the philomythoi and the pre-
Socratics. Let me briefly explain the difference between the philomythoi and the Pre-Socratics’ way
of philosophizing.

On the one hand, the philomythoiaddressed the question concerning Being through their mythical
songs. According to Werner Marx, through the mythical songs of the philomythoi, the great and
terrifying powers that formed and ruled the cosmos came to light and shone forth in the brilliance of
the beautiful and the terror of the numinous. In other words, the philomythoi explained the meaning
of Being (that is, the entirety of Nature) through mythical songs and poems.

If it helps, we have to remember that the ancient people (the philomythoi and the Pre-Socratics in
this case) found the cosmos or Nature to be mysterious. For example, it’s difficult for the ancient
people to make sense of darkness, lightning, the four seasons, the, and the like. But as records
show, they attempted to explain the mysteriousness of these phenomena, and, in doing so,
the philomythoi used their mythical songs and poems. Concrete example to this is the Genesis (the
first part of the Bible). As we know, the authors of the Genesis explained the origin and development
of the world through myth.

It is interesting to note that during this time, “myth” is the best available method in explaining the
mysteriousness of the world.
It is also important to note that in and through the simplicity and immediacy of the speech (saying
and singing) of the philomythoi, a whole meaningful order arose out of the darkness that had
shrouded all-that-is (Being). In other words, it is through their mythical songs and poems that
the philomythoiwas able to make sense of the mysteriousness of the world.

Lastly, the philomythoi in awe and wonder felt themselves as simply servants or instruments or and
voices of the powers about which they sang. In other words, the philomythoi believed that they were
simply “recipients” of thoughts or knowledge, that they did not invent thoughts; instead, thoughts or
knowledge were simply revealed to them. As we can see later, this is the basis of Heidegger’s
famous line “we do not come to thoughts; thoughts come to us”.

The pre-Socratics, on the other hand, addressed the question concerning Being through reason.
Hence, it was with the pre-Socratics that reason was first used in in thinking of the mysteriousness of
the world. For Heidegger, the thinking of the pre-Socratics was simple, immediate, and poetic (that
is, creative). Hence, for Heidegger, the thinking of the pre-Socratics is a thinking of and toward that
which enables, empowers, and forms all-that-is, that is, the thinking of and toward the logos or
underlying principle of the world.

Like the philomythoi, the pre-Socratic thinkers felt themselves as servants, instruments, and voices
of that power they deserved most―that is, of Nous, the light-giving Reason.

Blessed with Nous (light-giving Reason), the pre-Socratic thinkers were gifted with noises, that is,
the capacity to apprehend intuitively and, thereby, to bring the meaning of Reason into the fullness
of its light. And through these elucidations, the cosmos become more lucid.

Now, it must be noted that the pre-Socratics did not try to elucidate the various meanings of all the
many “particular beings”. Instead, they tried to understand the meaning of Being holistically. Hence,
the pre-Socratics most of all attempted to understand the entirety of Nature through the conception
of the phenomenal elementary powers of Nature―the elements of water, fire, air, and earth. And in
doing so, the pre-Socratics attempted to let emerge that which held all these elements together and
empowered them: namely, physis―that is, the natureness of Nature.

For the pre-Socratics, physis is the great unifying mother and is conceived as Eon or “to einai”, that
is, Being or “to be”. This is because the way physis unfolds itself was seen by the pre-Socratics as
the way Being unfolds itself, or the way Being allows the physei onta, the natural beings, to “be” or
“not be”. In this way, physis is understood as that which allows Being to make itself appear, but in
the act of “appearing” Being passes again into darkness of their past. Again, as we can see later,
this is the basis of Heidegger’s famous claim that the moment Being reveals itself, it automatically
withdraws itself.

Indeed, in their “philosophizing poems”, the pre-Socratics elucidated poetically a certain “Essence of
Being”, and at one with the Essence of Being, the Essence of Man was poetically composed as that
natural being that can think the Essence of Being. Put differently, as Martin Heidegger sees it,
through the thinking of the pre-Socratics we are therefore able to make sense of the mysteriousness
of Nature; and part of this understanding is the realization that indeed man (which Heidegger
calls Dasein) has the capability of understanding reality.

The discussion above indeed provides the context of Heidegger’s existential philosophy and the
reason why Heidegger appropriated the “thinking” of the pre-Socratics in making sense of the
meaning of Being. As Werner Marx writes:

“It is therefore not surprising to find in analyzing the writings of Heidegger that his new conception of
philosophy seems to demand that the self-understanding of the philosopher be changed to the kind
of self-understanding which the pre-Socratics had, that is, that the new philosopher feel himself
again as intermediary, instrument, and voice and the style of philosophizing again become simple,
immediate, and poetic like the singing and thinking of the pre-Socratics. And finally,

Heidegger―as the first thinkers did―now sees the foremost task or subject matter of philosophy not
as the explanation of the meaning of “particular beings”, but as the elucidation, articulation, and
poetic composition of a new Essence of Being, and thereby of a new Essence of Man”. See Werner
Marx, Heidegger and the Tradition (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1971).

The Metaphysics of Heidegger

At this point, I need to briefly present the key intuition of Heidegger’s brand of metaphysics because
we cannot fully understand Heidegger’s existential philosophy without understanding the key
intuition of his metaphysics.

It must be noted that Martin Heidegger rejects the whole enterprise of “metaphysics” in the traditional
sense of this word where it indicates something eternal, infinite, and perfect. Heidegger’s
metaphysics is a “finite metaphysics of finiteness”.

What Heidegger calls metaphysics, therefore, is bound up with the structure of man’s finite existence
in the world. And so Heidegger proposes to understand man’s being in particular and Being in
general within the horizon of Time. Thus, the idea of going beyond Time and coming back to Time
(i.e., Transcendence) is a misunderstanding of Heidegger. Transcendence for Heidegger is
Transcendence within immanence, that is to say, Transcendence within Time.

Again, the point of Heidegger’s metaphysics is that the meaning of Being in general and the
meaning of man’s existence should be understood in the context of time. There is no outside of time
for Heidegger. And this is one of the proper angles in understanding Heidegger’s existential
philosophy.

Thus, for Heidegger, man (Dasein) transcends itself, but not toward a perfect Being (like God of
Kierkegaard and Jaspers). Man transcends itself toward its own world, and nothing else. We can
fully understand this concept once we have understood the key concepts of Heidegger’s existential
philosophy.

Key Concepts in Heidegger’s Existential Philosophy

1) Facticity and Deliverance

The result of Heidegger’s inquiry into the meaning of Being (that is, existential phenomenology) is
that Dasein is being-there-in-the-world and that it has come to be in the world through
“deliverance”―“thrownness,” to use Heidegger’s word. As Heidegger says, Dasein is “thrown” into
the world and that being-in-the-world is a “thrownness”.

Heidegger writes:

“This characteristic of Dasein’sBeing – this ‘that it is’ – is veiled in its ‘whence’ and ‘whither’, yet
disclosed in itself all the more unveiledly; we call it the ‘thrownness’ of this entity into its ‘there’;
indeed, it is thrown in such a way that, as Being-in-the-world, it is the ‘there’. The expression
‘thrownness’ is meant to suggest the facticity of its being delivered over.”

For Heidegger, this “thrownness” into the world necessarily implies that Dasein always exists with
other entities in the world and, hence, as a being with-others-in-the-world, Dasein is entirely
submerged in the immediate care and concern of the everyday world into which it is thrown.
Evidently, being with-others-in-the-world suggests that the existence of Dasein in the world is an
existence with the “they” (das Man) or the anonymous anyone. Thus, when Heidegger says
that Dasein is submerged in the immediate care and concern of the everyday world into which it is
thrown, this means that Dasein is constantly related to other human beings in the form of concern
and care.

As a thrown being, Dasein is not simply extant (vorhanden or present-at-hand) like a stone,
nor Dasein is determined by an alien purpose (zuhanden or ready-to-hand) like a hammer which is
what it is as something “to hammer with” and which only man can handle.

In contradistinction from these two other ways of being, the merely extant (vorhanden) and the
functional being (zuhanden), man (Dasein) has the privilege of being in such a way that he is thrust
upon himself, and yet owns his own existence. And unlike all other beings, man is so constituted that
through most of his actions, he stands in some awareness of his being, of “that and how he is”. This
means that man (Dasein) is conscious not only of the things around him, but also of his own
existence.

For this reason, almost all of man’s act is an act in some awareness of the Essence of Being. In
other words, for Heidegger, the awareness of one’s being (that is, self-consciousness) is also at the
same time an awareness of the Essence of Being (or Essence of Reality). In fact, Heidegger
believes that man is so constituted that he is “open” not only for his own Being (the character and
meanings of his own existing) but also for the Being of other human and non-human “particular
beings”.

2) Overtness and World:

The idea that man (Dasein) is open to the Essence of Being (i.e., his own Being and the Being of
other beings) gives way to the concept of “overtness” as one of the conditions of the possibility of
truly existing as a human being.

But what is “overtness” and how does man make himself open to the Essence of Being?

Heidegger understands “overtness” as “consciousness”, but he avoids using the term not only
because of its Cartesian implications, but because it prevents us from realizing that each individual
lucidity or overtness is part and parcel of a wide and general overtness, of an elementary sort of
Truth. Thus, “overtness” as consciousness simply refers to the “manifestness” of Being or things.
Thus, for Heidegger, this “overtness” is an a priori condition for any so-called subject-object
relationships.

Thus, for Heidegger, no subject could refer itself to an object, no act of experiential knowledge about
an object could take place, and no statement or judgment could be arrived at about an object, if such
prior statement of manifestness had not come about, embracing both subject and object.

Now, again, how does man make himself open to the Essence of Being?

First, we need to note that for Heidegger man (Dasein) is gifted with understanding, mood,
and speech. But for Heidegger, these gifts are not gifts from someone, say, God. In fact, Heidegger
hardly believes in God. Heidegger simply calls these gifts as “existential givens”. They were there
the moment man was born.

According to Heidegger, in and through these existential givens, man discloses or illuminates
himself. This is because, with these existential givens, man (Dasein) can understand, feel (mood),
and articulate (speech). Hence, through these existential givens, overtness is brought into the fore,
and man (Dasein) is able to understand himself and the things around him.
Lastly, with overtness, it is therefore possible for man (Dasein) to become truly himself, to truly exist
as a human being.

In addition to overtness, Heidegger introduced the concept of “world” as another important condition
of the “possibility” of truly existing as a human being.

For Heidegger, “world” refers to that which constitutes the unity of significances, that is, the context
of meanings in which man moves. Thus, “world” for Heidegger is not a blind mass of things (or the
totality of nature), but an existential structure that defines or constitutes man’s way of Being. Put
simply, “world” for Heidegger could refer to a socio-cultural “context” upon which man draws
meaning or that which shapes one’s behavior. For example, consider the phrase “The Germans’ way
of doing things” or “The Americans’ way of doing things”. For sure, the Germans or the Americans
have their specific way of doing things because they have been defined by their own context. Hence,
it is unnatural for the Germans to do the Americans way of doing things because they it’s outside of
their own context.

For Heidegger, man refers to this context of intersubjective meanings because he is always already
within and amidst “beings” and moves around them with ease and familiarity.

Thus, for Heidegger, it is in and through the “world” that man projects and charts his own life for
pragmatic reasons, but does so within this context of meanings and always guided by it.

In this sense, we can infer that man is determined by “world” and, therefore, on this ground alone, it
is quite wrong to assert that Heidegger has conceived of a man as “sovereign” or a self-creator.

Now, the two notions of “overtness” and “world” constitute man as an entity that stands in an intimate
and immediate awareness of Being in its character and meanings. Only when “overtness” and
“world” occur can all-that-is (Essence of Being) and particular beings (ontic) be encountered as “be-
ings”. It is only through “overtness” and “world” therefore that the “unconcealment of Being” becomes
possible.

3) The Problem of Authenticity and Inauthenticity

In the previous discussion, we learned that through “overtness” and “world” man can gain a high
degree of understanding of itself and the things around him, and, thereby, experience his true Being,
that of others and of his things.

However, man in his everyday life fails to realize that his mood, understanding and speech are
“necessary ways of Being”. This is due to the fact that man’s thrownness into the world implies
deliverance or “fallenness”.

Man’s failure to realize that his mood, understanding and speechare “necessary ways of Being”
suggests that man is “lost” in the world. For Heidegger, this “lostness”or “fallenness” in the world
means that it is now the world that prescribes the path for man of which he succumbed
(surrendered) his creative abilities to worldly things. This is exactly characterizes Heidegger’s notion
of “inauthenticity” or an inauthentic or meaningless existence.

Hence, inauthenticity for Heidegger means being not free because we let others (das Man) decide
for ourselves. Indeed, inauthenticity means not owning one’s own existence.

Now, in order for man (Dasein) to be authentic, therefore, it has to own its existence again, that it
has to regain its existence that is lost in the “they”. And for Heidegger, this implies that Dasein has to
gain somehow full awareness of the significance of what it means “to be”, of what it means to be a
self with others and objects in the world.
If inauthenticity is understood as the fallenness of Dasein into the “world”, and if authenticity means
full awareness of what it means to be a self with others and objects in the world, then this implies a
“becoming” or the realization of Dasein’s possibilities. For Heidegger, such realization
of Dasein’s possibilities occurs through the experience of angst which mobilizes other key
categories, such as, death, conscience, and decidedness.

Heidegger understands angst as the authentic sensibility that discloses Dasein’s finite existence in
the world. This disclosure allows Dasein to understand itself as a finite being thrown toward its own-
most possibility, which is death. Through death, understood as the paradoxical possibility of no-
longer-being-able-to-be-there, Dasein is thrown back onto its own resources. This movement then
discloses Dasein as an individual self thrown into the world, whose task in the world is to exist as
itself, that is to say, to be authentic. For Heidegger, therefore, death is the ultimate basis of
authenticity.

For Heidegger, the categories of conscience and decidedness answer the question concerning the
possibility of authentic existence. Heidegger understands conscience as the inner voice
within Dasein itself that calls Dasein to “come back to itself and seize the authentic possibility of truly
being itself”. Conscience appears to be an “ought” on the part of Dasein to own his existence
again. Once Dasein heeds the call of conscience, decidedness ensues. Authenticity, therefore, as
the full awareness of the significance of what it means to be a self also means an “awareness of
one’s own-most possibilities and the firm resolve to realize them in the future.” Authenticity is thus
tied to one’s possibilities and to possible future ways of being. For Heidegger, this makes manifest
the “temporal” axis of existential phenomenology─Dasein is in the present, indebted to the past, and
oriented toward the future (death). Indeed, the threefold structure of care turns out to be also the
structure of existence: the human being is a being in time.

However, for Heidegger, authenticity requires a kind of mood, understanding, and speechthat are
attuned to the Essence of Being, and this is possible in the “thinking of the philosopher”. And man
as Dasein and as thinker will realize that his thinking is a way of Being, that the Essence of Being
unfolds in it, and that he is therefore a necessary instrument, that he is needed for the articulation of
the Essence of Being.

Heidegger, however, believes that Aristotle and the philosophers after him failed to think about the
Essence of Being because they had only articulated the meaning of “particular beings”. Because of
this, Heidegger believes, philosophers hitherto could not realize themselves as Dasein, as authentic
beings.

This is precisely the reason why Heidegger calls for a second beginning of philosophy. And for
Heidegger, this is the new task of philosophy: to think of Being holistically.

But what is the character of this new philosophizing?

Heidegger calls this andenken, which means a thinking “toward and of”, and in this sense a
“remembering” kind of thinking―remembering because the moment Being reveals itself, it
automatically withdraws itself.

But toward what and of what? In other words, what is the subject matter of this kind of thinking?

According to Heidegger, man should think toward and of the Essence of Being and of the Essence
of Man. This is what we meant attuning oneself to Being. And as we already know, it is only when
we attuned ourselves to Being that we become ready of the unconcealment of Being and our
eventual appropriation of that which is unconcealed by Being. As Heidegger formulates it: “Being
commands and directs the thinker”, or “Being claims the thinking of the thinker so that it thereby may
conceal itself in its truth”. This is what Heidegger calls “essential or meditative thinking” as opposed
to “calculative or scientific thinking”.

On a final note, it must be remembered that Heidegger did not pretend to have solved the problem of
Being. Toward the end of his magnum opus Being and Time, Heidegger says explicitly that its only
purpose is to rekindle the question of Being and to bring into motion what has become stalemated.
In fact, Heidegger concludes this work not with ready-made answers, but with a series of open
questions.