Reviewer

Midterms Examination
(Base from the book and from my powerpoint)
 The Etymological Meaning of philosophy
 Philia + Sophia (From the Greek Classical Language)
 Love + Wisdom (English Translation)
 Philosophers gave a distinction between the value of wisdom as a way of life.

 Wisdom is different from knowledge. (Wisdom VS. Knowledge)

 Knowledge is “information gained through experience, reasoning, or acquaintance.”
 Knowledge is bookish
 Wisdom is “the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting.”
 Wisdom is practical knowledge

 Philosophy is always in search for what is true and authentic. The subject will always be towards these two entities.
Philosophy is a way of life, without philosophy we will never find authenticity and truth in this world.

 Asking framework questions

 Rodolf Carnap made a distinction between internal and external questions. The internal questions can be
considered questions inside the framework, for they can be answered using the rules and concepts of the
framework. On the other hand,there are questions that we ask about a framework itself. These questions are
considered external questions.
E.g.
o What are the causes of earthquakes? (Internal)
o What is the nature of causation? (External)

 Scope and limitation of philosophy (Refer to the book for more examples, Pgs. 26-31)
• “Philosophy has a classification” that’s from Mabaquiao
• We get the bases of this classification from a very general description of the kind of activity that philosophy
engages in.
 The Thematical
• This simple intends to differentiate types of questions, that philosophy intends to find a solution in. Under this
group are what are called branches of philosophy and what we shall call disciplinal philosophies.
• How do we know that what we know is true? (Epistemology)
• Can non-being exists? (Metaphysics)
• “Does God exist?” If so, “can He be known?” If He can be known, “how is this knowledge obtained?”
(Theodicy)
• “why does moral concepts change as society changes?” (Ethics)

 The Positional
• This type would differentiate the perspective in which the solution can be. The positional types correspond to
what are called philosophical schools of thought or philosophical views.
• Confuciusnism
• Thomism
• Platonism
• Aristotelianism
 • Heideggerianism

 The Methodological
• This is the choice of process in which the person would want use in solving or answering a question. We call
these philosophies the methodological types; and they correspond to what are sometimes called philosophical
movements, approaches, and traditions.
• Agnosticism
• Empiricism
• Pragmatism
• Modernism
• Idealism

 The Regional
• Technically this is a division of philosophy base on its geographical setting. (cultures, beliefs, understandings,
and philosophies) The geographical types ae generally the philosophies that occur or flourish in certain
regions.
• Western Philosophy
• Easter Philosophy

 The Historical
• This type distinguishes what historical period, during such philosophy came about. Different national
philosophies, especially those under Eastern philosophy, have various ways of dividing the historical periods
of their philosophies.
• Ancient Philosophy
• Medieval Philosophy
• Modern Philosophy
• Contemporary Philosophy
• Post-modern Philosophy

• As noted above, eastern philosophies usually have their own historical divisions. For our purposes let us
briefly examine the historical periods of Indian philosophy.

• Vedic Philosophy
• Epic Philosophy
• Sutra Philosophy

 The importance of philosophy (Why should we study philosophy)

• In Bertrand Russell’s discussion there are two main reasons behind the charge that philosophy is a futile activity.
• The first is indefiniteness of philosophy with regards to the answers that it provides to philosophical questions.
This means that philosophy does not provide final answers to the questions.
• The second is the impracticality of philosophy. This means that the activity of philosophizing would just lead to
nowhere, it wont help us survive in this world.
 When examine it closely and rationally, one would see the essential connection of philosophy to science. Science
give concrete answers that can benefit our way of living in this world. While, philosophy does not give beneficial
answers. Science would deal with a problem that is to a certain extent exact and precise While philosophy would
deal with abstract and subjective questions.
  What people would tend to forget is that most scientific questions did not start out as scientific questions.
Unknowingly they started out as philosophical questions, questions that were thought to be indefinitely
answerable.
 When philosophy deals with the unscientific questions one primary goal is precisely to determine whether such
questions can eventually become scientific whether they could eventually be answered in some definite way.
 Logic (Before we understand the truth, we must possess this skill of logic and critical thinking)

• “Logic is the study of the principles of correct thinking/reasoning.”

• Thus, reasoning is valid if and when the conclusion is necessarily inferred from the premises.
• The premises are the data, pieces of evidence, or grounds that warrant the conclusion.
• The conclusion is the resulting statement that necessarily follows from such and such data given in the
premises.

• Logic does not concern itself with the truth of the premises of nor with the certainty with which premises are
known
• All Visayans are Filipinos. (Major Premise)
• All Cebuanos are Visayans. (Minor Premise)
• Therefore, all Cebuanos are Filipinos (Conclusion)

• The aim of logic is the attainment of truth in both its formal (valid) and material (true) aspects, it follows that
an argument or reasoning is logical if it is valid as well as true.

 The nature of concepts

•We understand the world through our concepts. It is a mental representation, which the mind uses to denote a
class of things, e.g. tree, love, numbers.
• There are three fundamental acts of knowledge.
o Simple Apprehension
o Judgment
o Reasoning
 The bearers of truth
• The things that can be properly said to be true, or to which we can properly attribute the property of truth, are
referred to by philosophers as the “bearers of truth.” They are Beliefs, statements, and sentences.
• In this case sentence is out of the picture, because not all sentences can be either true or false. Most of the time in
logic sentences cannot really prove what is true and valid. Sentences are commonly declarative.
• Statements (propositions) are truth bearers, because they make claims, either in terms of describing the world or
asserting relations of ideas. Since statements are linguistic expressions, statements therefore are the linguistic
expressions of our claims.
 Kinds of truth (I only included here the important kinds, please refer to your book for the missing truths)
• Empirical truth
o It holds that the best way to gain knowledge is to see, hear, touch, or otherwise sense things directly. In
stronger versions, it holds that this is the only kind of knowledge that really counts.
• Rational truth
o That knowledge comes from logic and a certain kind of intuition when we immediately know something
to be true without deduction, such as “I am conscious.” Rationalists hold that the best way to arrive at
certain knowledge is using the mind’s rational abilities.
 • Necessary truth
o A necessary truth is a proposition that could not possibly have been false. This can be expressed by
saying that a necessary truth is a proposition that is true in every possible world. An example of a truth
that many philosophers take to be necessary in this sense is: 2+2 = 4.
• Contingent truth
o A contingent proposition is a proposition that is not necessarily true or necessarily false (i.e., is not the
negation of a necessary truth). This is sometimes expressed by saying that a contingent proposition is one
that is true in some possible worlds and not in others. An example of a contingent proposition is the
proposition that human beings have evolved from other forms of life.
• Objective truth
o OBJECTIVE TRUTH: To say that a statement is “objectively true” means that it is true for people of all
cultures, times, etc., even if they do not know it or recognize it to be true.
• Subjective truth
o SUBJECTIVE TRUTH: To say that something is “subjectively true” means that it is true for the person(s)
making the judgement, even though it may not be true for others.
• Universal truth
o A "Universal Truth" would be a truth that applies to all places and all things. Many use it as "applies to all
people".
• Relative truth
o A “relative truth” would be a truth that applies to particular places and peoples. Many use it as “applies to
only some people”
 Epistemology
• “How do we know?” “How do we know that what we know is true?”
• From the Greek word episteme, which means knowledge or understanding.
• It is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.
 Knowledge and its elements
• Knowledge: a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something which is acquired through
experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.
• Rationalists and Empiricists
• Knowledge is justified belief with three elements
• The knowing subject
• The known object
• The mental act of knowing/the process of knowing
Repeatable experience
• Process of knowing

• Perception from the External Senses

• Unified by the common sense
• Kept in the sensitive memory
•
• Reproduced in phantasm
 • Presented to the intellect
• Draws the universal idea
• Intuition of the first judgment or principles
• Reasoning

 Ways of knowing the truth

• The general method of correspondence, we can know whether a statement/belief is true by examining whether
they correspond to a fact in the world.
• The general method of coherence we can know whether a statement/ belief is true by examining whether they
cohere with the rules of the relevant system.
• The general method of pragmatism, we can know whether a statement/belief is true by examining the
consequences of holding the statement/belief to be true. If holding that the statement or belief to be true results of
beneficial consequences, then it is true.

 Conditions of knowledge
• Knowledge of acquaintance - This signifies familiarity with a person or place.
• E.g
• I know Mr. Asuncion
• I know where is my classroom

• Knowledge of skills - We use the word “know” to signify a person’s capacity for a certain activity
• E.g
• I know how to cook adobo
• I know how to operate a washing machine
• I know how to sleep well

• Knowledge of a fact – this knowledge pertains to situation or event in life that conforms to a fact.
• E.g
• I know that 7:10 is the start of our flag ceremony.
• I know that we don’t have classes tomorrow.

• Knowledge of a justified true belief - This condition of justification is what distinguishes knowledge from an
opinion, and also from a guess. This is also called the tripartite true belief. (Refer to the book for the example, Pg.
66)
Reasoning
• We have learned that we acquire or form ideas (concepts) by apprehending the nature or essence of
things. (by also using our senses)
• Reasoning is a mental process whereby we pass from what we know(known) to what we do not know.
(unknown)
• Reasoning starts from something given or what we know. A sentence can be an inference, because
sentences can be a form of reasoning.
• An inference may be understood as the mental process by which we pass from one or more propositions
to some other propositions consequently related to the former. In short, it is the process of drawing a
conclusion from a premise or a combination of premises. The premise is the given proposition, the
known.
• In general, there are two ways of passing from the known to the unknown, from something given to
something related to the given; hence, the usual division into immediate and mediate inference.
• The immediate inference and the mediate inference.
 o Immediate inference is one in which we pass immediately or directly from a single premise to a
conclusion. (A conclusion is drawn from a single premise.)
o Immediate inference terminates only in a new proposition and not in a new truth
 E.g.
 All Filipinos are Asians.
 E.g
 No Filipinos are Asians.

• Mediate inference is one in which we derive a conclusion from two or more premises taken jointly.
• It is a process of the mind whereby we pass from one proposition to another with the air of a thirds (the
major premise, minor premise, and the conclusion). This is reasoning in the strict sense.
• There are two kinds of mediate inference: deductions and induction.
o In deductive inference, we pass from the universal to the particular.
o In induction, we pass from two or more premises to a conclusion more general than any or all of
the premises together.

• Take note when we use the deductive method of reasoning, we start the argument with a universal claim.
(general to specific)
o E.g
 All humans are mortal.
 Patrick is a human being.
 Therefore, Patrick is mortal.
o E.g
 All men are mortal (premise).
 Socrates is a man (premise)
 Socrates is mortal (conclusion)

• Take note when we use the inductive method of reasoning, we start the argument with a particular claim.
(specific to general)
o E.g.
 Some students are diligent.
 Not all students are male.
 Therefore, not all males are diligent.
o E.g.
 Some bodies of water are abundant with life.
 All rivers are bodies of water.
 Therefore, all rivers are abundant with life.

 Fallacies

• Fallacies are erroneous or false reasoning which has the appearance of truth. It is illogical, misleading, and
captive arguments; it is an error resulting from the violation of any rule of logic.
• Fallacies are two kinds; the formal and the informal.
• Formal fallacies are errors in reasoning due solely to an incorrect form or structure of an argument.
• Informal fallacies, also known as material fallacies, are errors in reasoning due solely to an anomaly or defect
in the content. The informal fallacies are usually psychologically persuasive

 Formal Fallacies

• Fallacies of Definition

o Fallacy of too wide definition

 o This fallacy violates the rule of definition which prescribes that the definition must not be wider than
the one being defined.
 E.g.
 Man is an animal.
o This violation arises when we unduly decrease the connotation of the definition thus widening
denotation.
• Fallacy of too Narrow definition
o This violation arises when we unduly increase the connotation of the definition, thus narrowing its
denotation.
o E.g.
o Man is an irritable rational animal.
• Fallacy of Redundant definition
 Here the definition is redundant because the capability to learn calculus is not essential to
being a man.
 E.g.
 Main is a rational animal capable of learning calculus.
• Fallacy of Circular Definition
• The fallacy violates the rule of definition which prescribe that the one being defined must not be defined by a
synonym.
o E.g.
o A lie is a falsehood.
o Man is a human being.
o A gentleman is a man who is gentle.
• Fallacy of Obscure Definition
o E.g.
o A net is a reticulated fabric decussated to regular intervals, with interstices and intersections.
o A periphrasis is a circumlocutory cycle or oratorical sonorosity.
• Fallacy of Figurative Definition
o This fallacy violates the rule of definition which demands that the definition should be negative. A
definition is supposed to declare what a term means, not what is does not mean.
 E.g.
 A male is one who is not a female.
 A table is furniture that is not a chair.
 Informal Fallacies

• Fallacy of Evading the question

• Argumentum ad hominem (Argument to the man)
o We commit this fallacy when we evade the real issue itself and discuss the personality of our
opponent instead of the question under discussion.
 E.g.
 How can we believe you, you are a call boy?
o In this way, instead of meeting our opponent’s arguments with counter arguments, we ridicule or heap
abuse upon him.
• Argumentum ad populum (Argument to the people)
o We commit this fallacy when we befog or evade the issue by appealing to the passions and
prejudices, likes and dislikes, whims and caprices of the people.
o "The public buys its opinions as it buys its meat, or takes in its milk, on the principle that it is cheaper
to do this than to keep a cow. So it is, but the milk is more likely to be watered."(Samuel Butler, Note
Books)

• Argumentum ad misericordiam (Argument to the sympathy)

o We commit this fallacy when we appeal to pity, mercy, or sympathy. In the process, we ignore the
point at issue and appeal to our instinct to have compassion on the needy, unfortunate, and the
downtrodden. Thus, we obscure the issue by playing on our emotions. An example is the following
plea for mercy killing.
 E.g.
 I really deserve an “A” on this paper, professor. Not only did I study during my
grandmother’s funeral, but I also passed up the heart transplant surgery, even though that was
the first matching donor in 3 years.

• Argument ad crumemam (Argument to the money)

o We commit this fallacy when we appeal to the sense of greed or cupidity of an individual. When
instead of reasoning out of an argument we use money to bribe the opponent to concede.
 E.g.
 “When a jeepney driver bribes a traffic policeman who catches him violating traffic
regulations, he is using the argument to the money.”
• Argument ad Verecundiam (Argument to the traditions or customs)
o This fallacy is committed when we appeal to the sanctity of customs and traditions to justify our
proposition. We ignore the real question and maintain that our contention is valid because tradition
and custom justify it.
 E.g.
 I believe in ghosts because tradition has always attested to the existence of unseen beings.
 Aswangs exist because our grandparents have always believed in their existence.
• Argumentum ad ignorantiam (Argument to the ignorance)
o This fallacy is committed when we ignore the truth or falsity of a particular proposition and simple
asset that it is true or false because the people are ignorant about it.
 E.g.
 You cannot disprove that aswang exist. Therefore, their existence is true. Aswangs actually
exists.
o We assume that a proposition is true because we cannot prove it false. Since we cannot disprove it, it
must be true.
 E.g.
 You cannot prove that God exists. Therefore, there is no God, or you could prove his
existence.
 o We assume that a proposition is false, because we cannot prove it true. Since we cannot prove its
truth, then it must be false.

• Argumentum ad auctoritatem (Argument to authority)

o This fallacy is closely related to the argument to the customs and traditions. We commit this
fallacy when, instead of showing the intrinsic merits of the issue at hand, we appeal to the
authority.
o E.g.
o To cite Albert Einstein, a great physicist, to support one’s view of religion would be a good
example of this fallacy.
o There is God because my professor says so.
• Arguments Ad Baculum (Argument to force)
o We commit this fallacy when we ignore the real issuae at hand and appeal to physical or moral
pressure rather than to reason. We play upon fear, threatening with dire punishment those who
refuse either to follow a policy or to accept our view.
 E.g.
 When a teacher threatens his students with failing mark unless the student gives him a high
rating in a teacher evaluation survey.
• Fallacy of Non Sequitur (it does not follow)
• We commit this fallacy when our conclusion does not necessarily follow from our premises.
o E.g.
o Jose loves Paula because Paula loves Jose.
o Mr. Villa goes to church every Sunday; therefore, he cannot commit graft and corruption.

 The Human Person

• The metaphysical point of view.

• This is concern with both the material and the immaterial aspect of the human person. This also deals with the
question “What is a person?”
• The existential point of view.
• This is concern with the essential features of the human way of life. This also answer the question “Who is a
person?”
• The possibility that humans have a spiritual component gives rise to the question of what essentially makes up a
human person, or which component, the body or the spirit. There are three possible answers.

 Unspirited body view

• The human person is just a body (material) and nothing more.

• This view emphasizes the value of the human person as being solely a material body, nothing more. In this view
the idea of the soul or the spirit is not accepted.
• In this belief the mind-brain identity theory arose.
• In this point of view, they believe that our conception of the soul or spirit is only the brain itself. The
spiritual capacities are only products of the brain nerves’ capacity to transmit energy around the body.

 Disembodied spirit

• The human person is essentially just a spirit. This is also called the disembodied spirit view. This is the belief that
the human person is compose of only a soul, an immaterial entity of the world.

 Plato

• For Plato who is a supporter of the view of the disembodied spirit, he believes that the soul and the body can exist
without the union of each other. The body is the material entity while the soul is the immaterial.
 • For Plato the soul is an absolute entity which has the knowledge of everything, but when the soul was united to
the body it forgot everything.
• Plato believes that the body is the prison of the soul, and for him knowledge is already innate in human beings,
because of the fact that the soul once knows everything.
• How can the soul forget everything when it was said that the soul knows everything?
• To a certain extent we know the fact that the soul is an infinite entity which has no limitation because its
immaterial.
• But the body is only limited to the capacity that the body itself dictates. That is why when the soul was united to
the body the soul was under the limitations of the body itself.

 Rene Descartes

• Descartes has the same view as Plato, it’s just that what he calls the soul “the mind. “
• For Descartes the mind is the consciousness of the body, this is an ability which the body(material) cannot do.
• The body or what he calls “matter” can also be seen in the bodies of plant and animals.
• Descartes was also called the “skeptic” because he doubted everything.
• He was famous for his saying “I think therefore I am.” For him everything can be doubted because none of them
has a consciousness only the mind has the ability to be conscious.

 Embodied spirit

• The human person is the unity of a body and of a soul. This view is also called the embodied spirit.

 Aristotle

• Aristotle a supporter of the idea of the embodied spirit. For him the body is the “matter”, and the soul is the
“form” or the “humanness.”
• If we can recall this is base from the four causes. He is a believer that the soul is the first principle of life.
• The life-giving entity which enables the body to live. A human person has a soul, when we look at the
environment there are living things that are living but has no soul.
• The form of something refers to the natural capacity, ability, or function of something; while its matter refers to
the kind of material that it is made up of. In this sense the soul is the form, while the body is the matter.
• Aristotle was also the one who distinguished the different types of souls.
• Vegetative soul- who is only capable of growing and reproducing in itself, these are the plants.
• Sensitive soul- who is also capable of growing and reproducing in itself. This soul has the capacity of an instinct,
it is geared towards satisfaction or sensation. These is the soul of animals.
• Rational soul- who is also capable of growing and reproducing in itself. The rational soul also has an instinct, but
it also has the capacity for intelligence or critical thinking. Freedom is a manifestation also of a rational soul,
because of its ability to scan options.

 St. Thomas Aquinas

• Aquinas adapted the idea of Aristotle, that the human body and soul are matter and form, respectively, of the
same reality that makes up a human person.
• Aquinas in his work added something. He said that the rational soul is what is not dependent to the body, while
the vegetative and the sentient soul is dependent.
• The soul for Aquinas is immortal, and that a human person is a composition of both body and soul.
• Man is a composite of body and soul – one substance.
• The soul is the vital principle of life.
• Human is superior to animals and plants in that man is able to perform rational activities.
• Human soul is the form, that which makes a human being a human being.
• Human body is the matter, that which enables a human being to undergo change.

 Marks of the mind

  The mind of the person is the essential feature of a human person. We can quickly identify a human person if that
person has consciousness of his own existence.
 There are two levels of approaching or dealing with the questions of mind’s identity.

 The general level which focuses on the distinction between minds from non-minds.
 The particular level focuses on how to distinguish mental states from one another. Here we will discuss the
five properties of the mental; consciousness, subjective quality, intentionality, ontological subjectivity, and
privacy.
 Minds or mental states accordingly, are those which possess their features; while non-minds or non-mental
states are those which do not.

 Consciousness is identified with awareness. How can we know that we are conscious? There are what we call
indicators.
 Cognition (Knowing, believing, understanding, thinking, reasoning)
 Emotions (envy, anger, fear, joy)
 Sensation (Pains, tickles, itches)
 Perception (seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling)
 Quasi-perception (hallucinations, dreaming, imagining)
 Conations (acting, trying, wanting, intending)
 Subjective quality refers to the particular way that an individual person is conscious of his/her own mental states.
 The particular way that we experience pain
 The particular way that we like different foods.
 The particular way that a certain kind of music sounds to a person
 Intentionality is the property of mental states to be about “”something” or to be directed at some objects or events
in the world.
 The same is true of other mental states such as hope, fear, desire, and others. We simply cannot have
these mental states without them being about a certain thing.
 Whether we like it or not, belief, for instance, will be about certain things. In contrast, the intentionality is
derived from or imposed by the inherent intentionality of the minds that create or decide on it.
 Ontological subjectivity it is the property of mental states to exist only is so far as there is a subject. Who has
them or who experience them.
 Mental states, in this regard, cannot exist by its own; for they are dependent on a subject for their
existence.
 There are pains only because there are entities that experience them.
 Belief and fears cannot exist by themselves, for they exist only in so far as there are persons who have
them.
 Ontological subjectivity contrast with ontological objectivity, which is the property of certain things, like
physical objects, to exist by themselves or to exist even without a subject that is conscious of them.
 Privacy is the property of the mental states to be directly known only by the subject or person who has them.
 Among theses five marks of the mental, consciousness is considered the most fundamental for the other marks
can also be regarded as properties of consciousness.

 Being in the world

 The existential approach to a human person

 In this discussion we will examine the philosophy of Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre.

 According to Heidegger, the human person has two fundamental features.

 First, the human person exists in a context, or a situation, in which he/she exist.
 This is where Heidegger’s expression of the being-in-the-world comes in.
 Second, the human person has a self that he/she defines as he/she exists in the world. We are already somebody.

 To determine what is unique about human existence in the world, we need to compare it with the existence of
mere things or objects in some place. How does for instance, “Marks being in a room differ from a table being in
a room??”
 For Heidegger the human persons “Being-in” or existence in the person just happens to be in a relation in space.
In that the human person just happens to be in a particular place.

 Aside from being in space, it is also characterized that by involvement or engagement, which Heidegger refers to
as care (Sorge)

 Heidegger identifies two ways by which a human person gets involved with things in the world. In being involved
with these things, a human person is either being alongside or being with these things.

 In being alongside entities, his/her own involvement has the character of utility. This means that things appear to
the human person as merely as a form of equipment or instrument, or as things that the human person can use
either for hi/her practical purposes.

 On the other hand, in being-with other entities, a human person empathizes with his/her fellow human persons.
Consequently, the totality of entities that a human person’s equipment world, while the totality of entities a human
person is with constitutes the human person’s public world.

 To a certain extent we as human persons will always be with humans and non-humans.

 In sum, a human person exists in the world not just as a matter of location in space, but primarily as involved or
engaged in various things.

 This involvement takes two forms. One is characterized by utility; the other by considerateness.

 Now a very important dimension of a human person’s being-in-the-world is its temporality, referring to the fact
that a humn person’s existence in the world has the dimension of having a past, present, and future. For a clock
this past, present, and future is not connected with each other.

 In contrast, human time or temporality regards the present, past, and future as forming a unity, and hence defines
reality in terms of such unity.

 For human persons, their past future are integrally connected with their present. A human person’s past, called
“facticity” by Heidegger, refers to everything about existence of a human person that can no longer be changed.

 Heidegger describes this aspect of a human person’s existence as the phenomenon on which a human person is
“thrown into the world.”

 A human person’s future, called existentiality by Heidegger, refers to all the possibilities that a human person has
and can choose to have. This includes all the projects that a human person can set for himself/herself to
accomplish in the future.

 Connected to a human person’s existentiality and facticity is a unique phenomenon referred to by Heidegger as a
“thrown possibility.” It is unique for being a “possibility” it belongs to the future, while for being ”thrown” it
belongs to the past.

 Heidegger refers to the present of the human person as “falleness.” It is the state a human person is in when
he/she lives an inauthentic existence, referring to the kind of existence in which a human person is not the one
making the choices for himself/herself.

 Falleness is this only a general description of the state of existence that human persons live in the present. The
implication is that there is a way to free oneself from it and thus live an authentic existence.