Three Perspectives on the

Human Person
by

Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg

From Heraclitus’ fragments we learn a little of the deep roots of

our modern subjectivism when he informs us that “the sun is the
width of a human foot.” By the myopic proverb, “man is the
measure of all things,” we have abandoned common sense, the
right use of reason, and that highest way of knowing, revelation.
Revelation, followed by infused understanding, gifted to a soul
prepared by the cultivated habits of moral and intellectual virtue
is considered mythic superstition by the modern teacher. We
have elected instead to believe that the sun is the width of the
human foot by the stupidity of self-reference and arrogance of
false self-esteem. In the cognitive shift to attribute to ourselves
the status of the gods, the faculties of the intellect and will–the
only two safeguards against self-deification–are marginalized to
the point of exile. By the artificial lights of technological progress
we enslave our hearts and minds to that insatiable tyrant: the
appetites, operating by the laws of empirical science in an
increasing darkness we ironically call the “Enlightenment.”
Lost in the devolution of human learning and knowing are the
questions, “Who am I?” “What does it mean to be a human
person?” The mind molders are likely to tell you that we are at
liberty to create ourselves and you will get a different answer
from everyone you ask. But if we can recover the universal truths
about being, we will see that there are really only three possible
perspectives on the human person in terms of his place in the
cosmos: from the materialist standpoint, from the outlook of the
human mind, and finally from the vantage point of the human
heart. We inevitably incorporate all three at least to some degree
because these three perspectives connote the three universal
aspects of the human person: the belly, head, and heart. We try
in vain to eliminate the head and the heart, but our only real
choices concerning them is what weight we give to each one.
The Scientific View of Man

It is a most evident fact that we are physical/material beings.

With our five senses we confirm by every second of our
existence that we operate materially in this world, hemmed in by
the limits of time and space. The scientific view of man considers
the human condition in all its purely material phenomena. It
reductively assumes that the inductive method of reasoning,
aided by the scientific method and interpreted by the five senses,
constitutes the “best” way of knowing “real” things. Aristotle
pointed out that “all learning begins in the senses,” and there is
nothing wrong with beginning with the scientific perspective; it is
problematic, however, if we end with it.
There is a madness in this age of progressive thought that would
have us believe that, as a result of the rapid technological
advancement, we will eventually be able explain all reality by
empirical means. The scientific view of man is a usurper in this
scientistic age. Notions of God and creation are increasingly
considered superstitious. Philosophy has been reduced to
material terms, and now even morality is becoming secularized.
Many elements in the scientific view of man are factually correct,
but this view comprises a most base understanding of man.
Taken by itself, it becomes a deadly reduction of the reality of
human existence. It must necessarily see humans as means to
be used, not as ends to be loved. It can allow for humans to be
manipulated, used, and eliminated if deemed necessary. We are
rational creatures, so the scientific view subordinates reason to
serve science, not the other way around. We must go beyond
the merely material to examine how the gift of our intellect
provides insight into the human condition not afforded by the
material sciences.
The Philosophical View of Man
To understand man in a philosophical way necessitates a
discussion of the proper meanings of the words “person” and
“nature.” When talking about human beings, we cannot mention
a “nature” without mentioning a “person” connected to it. The first
important thing to notice is that it is the person who possesses
the nature and not the other way around. Though the pop
psychologists would beg to differ, a nature does not possess a
person. Nature answers the question of what we are, and person
answers the question of who we are. All beings have natures,
and when we ask what a being is, we are asking about its
nature. However, not every being is a person, but only rational
beings are persons. Let us define the person as a being
possessed of consciousness, self-awareness, an intellect, and a
will. These facts allude to a wide range of intellectual and moral
implications nonexistent in beings which are not persons.
Frank Sheed explains in Theology and Sanity that by our natures
we discover what we are. “It follows that by our nature we do
what we do for every being acts according to what it is.” By these
facts we discover another distinction between nature and person.
By our natures we do many things: speak, love, sing, and
breathe. A dog, by his nature, can do only one of those, and a
stone by its nature can do none. So nature is not only what we
are, but the source of what we can do. Even though it is by our
natures that we see what kinds of things we are capable of
doing, it is not our natures that decide to do them; it is the person
that decides to do them. As Frank Sheed summarizes “the
person is that which does the actions, the nature is that by virtue
of which the actions are done, or better, that from which the
actions are drawn.”
The philosophical view of man implies that we are moral as well
as intellectual beings. It provides the framework to discover the
nature of human excellence embodied by the perennial virtues
towards which all men of good will tend. The philosophical view
of man ought to subsume and guide the scientific view of man for
it can anchor the material notions of man in the universal truths
about the nature of being. This in turn allows for the discovery of
the objective standard concerning virtue and vice available to all
human souls who earnestly seek. There is much truth goodness
and beauty in this view of man, but it is not the complete view.
One may come up short if he stops with a philosophical view of
man and ignores the role of the Author of Life.
The Theological View of Man
The fullest and most comprehensive view of man is the
theological view. The theological view considers the substance,
origin, and end of the human person. It is revealed truth that man
is made in the image and likeness of God and at the same time
of material. In Genesis 2:7 we learn that “the Lord God formed
man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and man became a living being.” We are made of
material but infused with immaterial life and the gifted image of
God Himself by way of the intellect and will.
The theological view of man explains his origin in a way opposite
that of the scientific view of man–which considers that man
evolved by accident, as a kind of sophisticated ape. The
theological view asserts that God created man on purpose with
divine intentionality as an ineffable act of love. Man is a creature
created by God in His created universe. Every single thing in
existence is created by God except God Himself; He is the
uncreated Creator.

St. Thomas Aquinas

In learning what we are and about our divine origins, we are
compelled to discover the ends of man intended by our Creator.
Man, like every other created thing, tends towards its natural
end. Since all that God created is good, and man is created
good, all created things properly end in giving glory to God.
Man’s specific end is intended to be in eternal beatitude. As St.
Thomas Aquinas succinctly put it, “to possess God in full in the
beatific vision is to have our powers fully realized, fully perfected,
and to find them at rest, in perfect happiness for all eternity face
to face with God.”
The Three Perspectives Combined
Being made in the image and likeness of God takes into account
the fullness of the human person by considering the relationship
between the immaterial faculties of the soul and the material
realities of physical being. In learning of our substance, origin,
and final end, we encounter the empirical realities at the lowest
level and the philosophical realities on the ascent to the highest
view of man, the Theological. We can discover the truth about
these three aspects of the human person and gain invaluable
assistance from the philosophical view of man in a support role
for understanding the theological view of man. In a similar way,
the scientific view of man has the potential to be of service to
both the philosophical and the theological view of man if it is
properly understood as the servant, not the master.
We desperately need to recover a proper understanding of the
human person. As John Henry Cardinal Newman would
recommend to us, we ought to “rebuild the Jewish Temple and to
plant anew the groves of Academus.” This is to say that we
ought to see man in his supernatural glory by the fountainhead of
theological truth in Jerusalem and to embrace the heights of
natural man emanating from the fountainhead of philosophical
truth in Athens. Newman goes on to explain that sacred and
profane learning are “dependent on each other, correlative and
mutually complementary, how faith operates by means of
reason, and reason is directed and corrected by faith.” All this
can be confirmed by certain elements of empirical science, but
never led by it. If we can get the three views of man in their
proper orders and give them their proper weights, we can see
that the three views are meant to be complementary and of
service to one another. A recovery of an authentic understanding
of the true nature of the human person is vital. In fact, the
survival of Western Civilization depends upon it.