INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL

INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY
OF THE HUMAN PERSON
SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

Compiled / Prepared by:

ANDAMAN S. ALIMAN JR. JOYCE ESTELLE S. FUNGO

ARCHIE C. AREVALO ALDY ROBERT D. GONZALES
JAN GABRIELLE S. BOLLER JERALD V. LERIDA
PRINCESS C. BUCALA NOLLY CHRIS P. LOPEZ
GERALD CARL D. CIELO GARY F. MUSA
JENIEL P. DASIG ANNA LORRAINE N. PAGANA
RONEL DE LOYOLA CHLOE NICOLE D. PIAMONTE
JEFFREY DEYTO JEAN A. SAMONTEZA
OLIVER DUEZA PATRICE JOY S. TABON

DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES AND PHILOSOPHY

Polytechnic University of the Philippines

 COURSE OUTLINE

Course Title : INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

Course Code : SHS 2114
No. of Hours : 80 hours
Credit Unit : 1.0
Course Description : An initiation to the activity and process of Philosophical reflection
as a search for a synoptic vision of life. Topics to be discussed
include the human experiences of embodiment, being in the world
with others and the environment, freedom, intersubjectivity,
sociality, being unto death).

LEARNING OUTCOMES
The student must be able to
✓ Reflect on their daily experiences from holistic point of view
✓ Acquire Critical and Analytical Thinking Skills
✓ Apply their Critical and Analytical Thinking Skills to the affairs of daily life
✓ Become Truthful, Environment – Friendly and Service – Oriented
✓ Actively commit to the development of a more human society

COURSE PLAN
First Grading period: The Meaning of Philosophy in relation to the Human Person as an
embodied being in the world from the perspective of a holistic profound vision of life

Learning Outcomes:
✓ The student should be able to show an understanding of the activity of doing philosophy
of the human person as an embodied being in the world and the environment.
✓ Understanding the meaning and process of doing philosophy of the human person as an
embodied being in the world and the environment as a means towards a holistic
understanding of life

Week Topics Activities Material

1 ✓ Course Orientation / Grading system Orientation Module

✓ Overview Lecture Syllabus

UNIT I – DOING PHILOSOPHY

2 ✓ Definition of Philosophy Lecture / Module
• Etymological (Pythagoras) Discussion Syllabus
• Aristotle Collaborative Task/ LMS
• Karl Jasper Individual Task
✓ Classical Branches of Philosophy
• Metaphysics

1|Introduction to Philosophy (SHS)

 • Theodicy
• Cosmology
• Psychology
• Epistemology
• Logic
• Ethics
• Aesthetics
✓ Distinctive Qualities of a Human
Person
Reading: Allegory of the Cave

UNIT I – DOING PHILOSOPHY

✓ Western Philosophical Approach
(Overview / Brief survey) Lecture /
• Ancient Discussion Module
2 Pre-Socratics Collaborative Task/ Syllabus
Socrates and Plato Individual Task LMS
Aristotle
• Medieval
• Modern
• Post-Modern

UNIT I – DOING PHILOSOPHY

✓ Eastern Philosophical Approach
3 (Overview / Brief survey)
• Indian Philosophy Lecture /
Vedas Discussion Module
Upanishad Collaborative Task/ Syllabus
Orthodox and Heterodox Individual Task LMS
Schools
• Chinese Philosophy
Yin-Yang
Confucianism
Daoism

UNIT II
METHODS OF DOING PHILOSOPHY
✓ Theories of Truth Lecture /
4-5 ✓ Knowledge Discussion Module
• Kinds of Knowledge Collaborative Task/ Syllabus
✓ Conditions of Propositional Individual Task LMS
Knowledge
✓ Gettier Cases

2|Introduction to Philosophy (SHS)

 UNIT III
HUMAN PERSON AS EMBODIED SPIRIT Lecture /
Module
6 ✓ Plato Discussion
Syllabus
✓ Aristotle Collaborative Task/
LMS
✓ St. Augustine Individual Task
✓ St. Thomas Aquinas

UNIT IV
7 HUMAN PERSON AND THE Lecture /
Module
ENVIRONMENT Discussion
Syllabus
✓ Pope Francis’ Laudato Si Collaborative Task/
LMS
✓ Anthropocene Individual Task
✓ Consumerism and the Environment

8 Midterm Assessment / 1st Quarter Examination

Second Grading Period: Human Living

Learning Outcomes:
✓ The learner is able to show an understanding of philosophy within the context of the human
person as free, intersubjective, immersed in society and oriented towards death.
✓ The learner is able to understand that doing philosophy within the context of the human
person as free, intersubjective, immersed in society, and oriented towards their impending
death will lead to a deeper understanding of the human person

UNIT V - HUMAN FREEDOM

✓ John Locke’s notion of Freedom Lecture / Module
9 ✓ Immanuel Kant on Freedom Discussion Syllabus
✓ Jean Paul Sartre’s notion of Collaborative Task/ LMS
Freedom Individual Task

UNIT VI – INTERSUBJECTIVITY Lecture /

✓ Martin Buber’s Concept of I and Discussion Module
10-11 Thou Collaborative Task/ Syllabus
✓ Sartre and Being-for-Others Individual Task LMS
✓ Intersubjectivity and Modern
Society

UNIT VII – SOCIETY Lecture /

12 ✓ Ancient Greeks Discussion Module
✓ Marx and Engels Collaborative Task/ Syllabus
Individual Task LMS

3|Introduction to Philosophy (SHS)

 UNIT VIII Lecture /
Module
13 HUMAN PERSON TOWARDS THEIR Discussion
Syllabus
IMPENDING DEATH Collaborative Task/
LMS
✓ Plato on Death Individual Task
✓ Heidegger on Death
✓ Death and Freedom

14 Final Assessment / 2nd Periodical Examination

*** This Course Outline adheres to the Curriculum Guide set by the Department of Education.
Contents and topics are added by the course instructors / teachers.

4|Introduction to Philosophy (SHS)

SELF-ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Type of Assessment: Essay

Criterion Poor (55) Average (92) Good (100)

The content is not
The content is comprehensive. The
Content and incomplete, the insight Information from The content is
Development is not clear. The other sources did comprehensive and
50 pts content is from other not support the used proper citation.
sources that are not argument. The content is clear.
properly cited. Inconsistent in terms (49-50)
(1-30pts) of purpose and
clarity of the content
(31 -48)
The structure detracts It is not easy to
from the message of follow the The structure /
Organization / the writer – poor organization of organization of thought
Structure transition or flow of thoughts. The is clear and easy to
30pts ideas transition of ideas read
(1-15) needs improvement (19-20)
(16 – 28)
The paper follows
The student did not most of the The paper follows the
Format follow the prescribed guidelines, but prescribed format and
10pts format forgot the number of number of pages
(1-5) pages (9-10)
(6-8)
The paper contains Minimal grammatical Rules of grammar are
Grammar / Syntax numerous grammatical, errors, but the followed. Language is
10pts punctuation and language still lacks clear and precise
spelling errors. clarity (9-10)
(1-5) (6-8)

Outline:

Criterion Points Mark

Content and Development 50 pts
Organization / Structure 30 pts
Format 10 pts
Grammar / Syntax 10 pts
Total 100 pts

5|Introduction to Philosophy (SHS)

SELF-ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Type of Assessment: Group dynamics / Group task
Criterion Poor Satisfactory Very Excellent
(15) (45) Satisfactory (100)
(80)
Student Student often Student Student shares
Insight / Idea comments are share his/her sometimes his/her insights
contribution mostly not insights related share his/her related to the task
50pts related to the to the task insights related and consistently
task (6-20) to the task. moves the
(1-5) (21 – 40) conversation
forward.
(41-50)
Student rarely or Student often Student
Use of never attends or makes effective sometimes
Collaboration makes effective use of makes effective Student makes
time use collaboration collaboration use of effective use of
10pts time with his/ her time with his/her collaboration collaboration time
follows fellows time and and always
(1-2) (3-5) sometimes facilitates the task
facilitates the (9-10)
task
(6-8)
Student is not Student is often Student respects Student respects
Initiative respectful and respectful, and his/her fellow his/her fellow and
20pts has no initiative sometimes has and sometimes sometimes
in his/her own initiative in initiate the initiate the
given task his/her given facilitation of the effective
(1-3) task task facilitation of the
(4-10) (11-16) task
(17-20)
Student Student often Student Student
Participation participates only participates but sometimes consistently
in the task if asked or sometimes participates participates
20pts refuses to needs to be without being effectively without
participate asked asked by his/her being asked by
(1-5) (6-10) fellows his/her fellows
(11-16) (17-20)

Outline:
Criterion Points Mark
Insight / Idea contribution 50
Use of Collaboration time 10
Initiative 20
Participation in the task 20
TOTAL 100

6|Introduction to Philosophy (SHS)

 UNIT I: DOING PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY AND ITS BRANCHES

OVERVIEW

Philosophy is said to be a critical study of fundamental questions to arise in everyday life,

questions such as nature of reality, the possibility of other world, the existence of God,
the purpose of life, freedom, society etc. This unit explores the different perspectives of
what philosophy is and doing philosophy, from the West and the East. This unit also aims
to discuss the distinctive qualities of a human person, which make him/her different from
other beings.

LEARNING OUTCOMES:
The student must be able to
✓ Discuss philosophy and its branches
✓ Distinguish holistic perspective from a partial point of view
✓ Realize the value of doing philosophy in obtaining a broad perspective on life
✓ Do a philosophical reflection on a concrete situation from a holistic perspective

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?

LEXICAL / ETYMOLOGICAL DEFINITION (FOR PYTHAGORAS)

Philosophy came from the Greek word Philia which means Love and Sophia which means
Wisdom. Thus, Philosophy is Love of Wisdom
Philosophy starts through doubt and wonder.”
- Socrates
ARISTOTLE’S DEFINITION
According to Aristotle, in his book Metaphysics, Philosophy is a science which inquires
into the ultimate causes, reasons and principles of all things in the light of Reason alone.

KARL JASPER’S DEFINITION

Philosophy is a discipline in which questions are more important than answers and which
every answer paves the way for another questions.

7|Introduction to Philosophy (SHS)

CLASSICAL BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY
✓ METAPHYSICS
Metaphysics, the first branch of Philosophy, is the “science” that studies “being as
such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It studies the
essence of a thing and ask the fundamental questions in relation to being,
becoming, existence and reality. (Greek word: Meta – beyond, phusika – Physics)
Question:
What do you think is your Telos (purpose)?
Why do you exist?

✓ THEODICY
Theodicy is a classical branch of Philosophy which attempts to answer the
fundamental question in relation to God and the problem of evil. According to
Gottfried Leibniz, Theodicy is an attempt to justify God’s existence in light of the
apparent imperfections of the world. (Greek word: Theo – God)

Question:
Does God exist?

✓ COSMOLOGY
Cosmology is a classical branch of philosophy which attempts to answer the
fundamental questions in relation to universe, creation, origins and evolution. It is
a discipline directed to the philosophical contemplation of the universe as a totality,
and to its conceptual foundations.
Question:
What do you think is the ultimate stuff in which the universe was created?

✓ EPISTEMOLOGY
Epistemology is the study of the nature of human knowledge, justification and the
rationality of belief. (Greek word: Episteme – knowledge. It analyses the nature of
knowledge (how do we know and to what extent?).

Question:
How can you say that you know something?
Where does our knowledge come from – mind or senses?

8|Introduction to Philosophy (SHS)

 ✓ LOGIC
Logic is the art of reasoning. It is primarily concerned with the principles and criteria
of valid inference and demonstration. Logic investigates and classifies the
structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems
of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. (Greek word:
Logos – knowledge)

Question:
Is my belief / argument valid or not?

✓ ETHICS
It is a branch of Philosophy that focuses on human action. Ethics seeks to resolve
questions of morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong,
virtue and vice, justice and crime. (Greek word Ethos – character)
Question:
What is good and evil?
How can I say that an action is bad or evil?

THE HUMAN PERSON

According to Aristotle, what makes a human person different from other beings is that
human person is rational. Human person has reason, morals, and consciousness which
other beings do not have. We are continuously wondering, curious about different things
in life, such as our essence or purpose. Aside from being rational, we are also social
beings for we cannot live alone. We must satisfy certain natural basic necessities in order
to live.

“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not
accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something
that precedes the individual.”
-Aristotle

9|Introduction to Philosophy (SHS)

SOURCES
Abulad. Romualdo E. and Ceniza, Claro R. Introduction to Philosophy (Manila: UST
Publishing House, 2001).
Porras, Joec C. Philosophy of Man, https://www.slideshare.net/AlaizzaAjihil/philosophy-
ofthehuman-person. (accessed, January 04, 2018).
Stumpf, Enoch and Fieser, James. Socrates to Sartre and Beyond, A history of
Philosophy (Eight Edition) (Philippiines: McGraw-Hill Publishing House Inc, 2008).
Tuibeo, Amable G. Introduction to a Philosophy of the Human Person (Manila: Learning
Tree Publishing House Inc, 2016).
William Turner, History of Philosophy, (Boston: The Athenean Press, 1903).
Encyclopedia Britanica, www. https://www.britannica.com. (accessed, January 04,
2018.)
Ethics, http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/socrates.html (accessed, January 04, 2018

10 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 UNIT I: DOING PHILOSOPHY
AN OVERVIEW OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY

LEARNING OUTCOMES:
The student must be able to
✓ Explain the very importance of the philosophies of Ancient Greeks
✓ Determine the historical development of philosophy of the West
✓ Explain the philosophical views of different schools of thought of the West and the
East
✓ Compare and contrast the philosophical views of the West and the East
✓ Relate the current issues and scenarios with various philosophies
✓ Write an analysis on the given topic

PERIODS OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY

THE PRESOCRATICS
Pre-Socratic philosophers were concerned with the cosmos and the nature of things
(Greek – Phusis). Some thinkers were driven by very specific puzzles, and fundamental
questions such as “What is the fundamental stuff that creates the things around them?”
What are things really like?” and “how can we explain the process of Change?”
It has said to be the Milesians (from Miletus which was located at the Aegean sea from
Athens) began their systematic inquiry around 585 BCE. There was no distinction before
between natural science and natural philosophy, as their focus is the nature and how it
changes. Milesians, aside from being a philosopher, were also primitive scientists.

11 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
THE SOPHISTS
The Sophists were paid teachers and intellectuals who taught the oligarchs of Athens
and other Greek cities during the half od 5th BCE. The sophists received payments for
educating the oligarchs. Some oligarchs believed that they could achieve Arete (Virtue
and Excellence) studying under the Sophistry. The sophists attained wealth and fame
while also arousing significant antipathy.
Some of the well-known sophists emerged in Athens were: (1) Protagoras, (2) Gorgias,
(3) Thrasymachus.
For Thrasymachus:
✓ An unjust person is a superior man
✓ Justice is only the advantage of the few
✓ Laws are made by the ruling class / party for its own interest

SOCRATES
✓ The great mentor of Plato.
✓ He was born around 470 BCE and died on 399 BCE. He strongly criticized the
twisted teachings of the sophists especially their view of justice.
✓ He was putted into trial and found guilty of impiety and corrupting the youth. The
verdict of the Athenians for Socrates was death penalty by drinking a poison.
✓ For Socrates, the true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.
✓ The Unexamined Life is not Worth Living. Socrates asserts that one must seek
knowledge and wisdom rather than material and worldly things. One must also
examine his/her own belief and action.
✓ Human person has a rational soul. One should live in accordance to reason.
✓ True happiness is promoted by doing what is right.
✓ We should seek for what is good. However, we fail because of lack of knowledge
as to how to obtain the good. Knowledge is virtue.
✓ Man will obtain wisdom if he is rational, having enough knowledge to understand
the world.
12 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
PLATO
✓ Plato was born in Athens, Greece around 428 BCE.
✓ Great student of Socrates and mentor of Aristotle.
✓ He established his first school outside Athens which he named Akadameia or the
Academy (named after Akademos / Hecademus – a local hero). The meeting
location of Plato’s Academy was originally a public grove near the ancient city of
Athens. The garden had historically been home to many other groups and
activities.

PLATO’S THEORY OF FORMS

✓ Reality does not really exist in the sensible world, in the world where we live (World
of senses) because things in the sensible world are continuously changing and
temporal.
✓ Plato suggest that there are three levels of reality, let say for instance, a table.
There are three kinds of table (1) the idea of a table in the world being which
makes up its reality known by rational man, (2) the sensible and physical chair in
this world constructed by a carpenter and (3) the drawing or painting of a chair
produced by an artist, or a painter in the world of art.

13 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA
One of the dialogues of Plato that deals with the notion of pious / holiness (Socrates asked
Euthyphro to define pious). Despite the fact that the story was applied to the Greek
polytheistic belief, the dilemma (of the story) has significant implications in the modern
monotheistic religions. Still, the story is worthy to be an object of discourse not only in
philosophy but also in theology.

14 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
REFLECTIONS ON EUTHYPHRO
✓ Is universal moral truth possible even without the existence of God?
✓ Is someone/something pious because God wills it to be pious? Are moral
standards dependent on God?
✓ Can human person really know God’s purpose?

PLATO’S CARDINAL VIRTUES

✓ For Plato, the human person has a human soul. The Soul has three components
namely: Reason, Spirit and Appetite.
✓ He based on this three-part conception of the soul on the common experience of
internal confusion and conflict that all humans share
1. There is awareness of a goal or value – Reason
2. There is a drive towards action – the Spirit
3. There is a desire for the things of the body - Appetite

Book IV of the Republic

✓ Cardinal Virtues can be thought only through proper education.
✓ The said Cardinal virtues will guide the people in order to have Justice – in which
all citizens act in accordance to their duty, creating a perfect society - Utopia
✓ The Philosopher King (The ruler must have and be guided with the cardinal
virtues of Wisdom, Courage and Temperance

15 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
PLATO’S PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

ARISTOTLE
✓ Aristotle was born in Chaldice around 384 BCE, a son of physician to the king of
Macedonia. He was also a student of Plato in the Akademia
✓ He established his schooly Lycaeum in 335 BCE, dedicated to Appolo Lyceus (the
wolf-god). The students of Lyceum is called as peripatetics (peripatos), name of
the cloister in which they walked and held their discussions. The lyceum was not
a private group, unlike Plato’s academy. The lectures were always open to the
public and delivered free.
✓ The primary focus of Aristotle’s education was cooperative education and
research. As it has mentioned, the peripatetics walked and observed around their
environment.
✓ One of his notable students was Alexander the Great, who helped him to establish
the first zoo and botanical garden.
THE TELOS ARGUMENT
✓ The word Telos (in ancient Greek) refers to the ultimate end, purpose or function
of a substance.
✓ Everything that exist is substance. To be (being) means a substance as a product
of dynamic process. Thus, Aristotle’s Metaphysics is concerned with Being (that
which exists) and its causes (process in which substances come into being).
✓ Every substance has its Telos – End.

16 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 ✓ TO BE means a SUBTANCE, as a product of a dynamic process. Thus, Aristotle’s
Metaphysics in concerned with Being, (that which exists) and its causes (process
in which substances come into being).

17 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
ARISTOTLE’S NOTION OF CAUSES

THE TELOS ARGUMENT

✓ All objects have a telos.
✓ An object is good when it properly secures its telos.

Given the above, hopefully these steps of the argument are clear so far. At this point,
Aristotle directs his thinking towards human beings specifically.

✓ The telos of a human being is to reason.

✓ The good for a human being is to act in accordance with reason, since he is rational

EUDAEMONIA
(Welfare, Flourishing, Genuine Happiness)
✓ It is a state that all humans should aim for as it is the aim and the very end of
human existence.
✓ Eudaemonia can be achieve through the attainment of a good life.
✓ Eudaemonia is not a psychological state of being happy. It is a genuine state, a
fulfillment.
✓ It is state of flourishing and acting in accordance to one’s true function

18 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
THE VIRTUE CONTINUUM

To be virtuous is to be balanced

LET’S DO THE ACTIVITY!

Write a brief insight on the following:
1. Socrates and the Sophist
2. Thrasymachus view of Justice in relation to current socio-political
condition
3. Is universal moral truth possible even without the existence of God?
4. What makes a human person different from other beings?
5. What is Eudaemonia? How do we achieve it?

SOURCES:
Abulad. Romualdo E. and Ceniza, Claro R. Introduction to Philosophy (Manila: UST
Publishing House 2001).
Ramos, Christine Carmela R. Introduction to Philosophy (Manila: Rex Publishing
House, 2016).
Stumpf, Samuel Enoch and Fieser, James. Socrates to Sartre and Beyond. (Philippines:
McGraw-Hill Publishing House Inc., 2008).
Tuibeo, Amable G. Introduction to a Philosophy of the Human Person (Manila: Learning
Tree Publishing House Inc., 2017).

19 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 UNIT I: DOING PHILOSOPHY
AN OVERVIEW OF EASTERN PHILOSOPHY

LEARNING OUTCOMES:
The students must be able to
✓ Discuss the main philosophical views of the East – Indian and Chinese
✓ Compare and contrast the philosophical vies of the West and the East
✓ Explain the philosophical views of different schools of thought of the West and
the East
✓ Determine the historical development of philosophy of the East
✓ Write an analysis on the given topic

INDIAN PHILOSOPHY
It has said to be that the Hindus started to /philosophize earlier than the Greeks. The
close counterpart of the word “philosophy” in Hindu is Darsana, a Sanskrit word which
means world vision.
Compare to the Ancient Greek Philosophy, which is rational, Indian philosophy has its
emphasis on the intuitive / spiritual aspect of human person. Vedas, a voluminous
collection of Hindu religious text, is the main focus of inquiry. Indian thought has been
concerned with various philosophical problems, such as the nature of the world
(cosmology), the nature of reality (metaphysics), Logic, the nature of knowledge
(Epistemology), ethics and Philosophy of Religion

VEDAS
Vedas, a Sanskrit word which means knowledge. are a large collection of Hindu
religious texts. It is said to be the oldest Sanskrit scriptures of Hinduism. Vedas were
written between 1500 to 500 BCE and were first being transmitted orally from one
generation to another before having it written.

Vedas consists of mythological accounts, poems, hymns, and prayers. It is divided into
4 parts – Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda, and Atharva Veda.

1. Rig Veda – collection of hymns, and mythology

2. Sama Veda – contains hymns about religious rituals
3. Yajur Veda – contains instructions for religious rituals
4. Atharva Veda – consists of spells against diseases, enemies etc.

20 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
UPANISHAD
✓ Upanishad is a large collection of Hindu religious texts, said to be the synthesis
and interpretation of Vedas.
✓ Upanishad is derived from the Sanskrit term Upa which means near and Shad
which means to sit, meaning something like sitting down near.
✓ The name is inspired by the action of sitting at the feet of an enlightened teacher
to engage in a session of spiritual instructions

CHARVAKA
✓ A radical materialist philosophy that claims that matter is the only reality
✓ Matter consists of 4 elements – Fire, Water, Earth and Air
✓ It strongly rejects the notion of an afterworld, karma and liberation, the authority of
the sacred scriptures and the immortality of the self.
✓ Charvaka recognized only the human person’s direct perception (anubhava) as
the foundation of knowledge (pramana).

JAINISM
✓ An ethical philosophy that emphasizes liberation and enlightenment through
denouncing human bodily pleasures and desires.
✓ It emphasizes the purity of the soul as of the main goal of a human person
✓ It is also concerned with the welfare of every being in the universe.
✓ According to Jainism, every being / thing that exists has soul. Each soul is
considered equal and should be treated with respect and compassion
✓ Jains believed in reincarnation and seek to attain an ultimate liberation – which
means escaping the continuous cycle of birth, death, and rebirth so that the
immortal soul lives ever in a state of bliss.
✓ Liberation is achieved by eliminating all Karma from the soul.

21 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
BUDDHISM
✓ A Philosophy and religion developed from the teachings of Buddha (Sanskrit –
Enlightened One).
✓ The teachings of Buddha were orally transmitted by his disciples, prefaced by the
phrase “evam me sutam” (Thus, I have heard).
✓ It emphasizes human suffering, impermanence and the notion of no-self.
✓ Human desires are the cause of all sufferings,
✓ Abstinence is the key to prevent these sufferings.
✓ The practice of Eight-fold path to achieve liberation

THE EIGHT-FOLD PATH

1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

Source:
https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/the-mindfulness-of-the-buddha/

22 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
ORTHODOX SCHOOLS
NIYAYA
✓ A Sanskrit word which means rules, method or judgement
✓ An orthodox (astika) school of Hinduism the focuses on Logic and Epistemology –
the nature of human knowledge.
✓ Liberation is brought about through right knowledge. Nyaya is thus concerned with
the means of right knowledge.
✓ In its metaphysics, Nyaya is allied to the Vaisheshika system, and the two schools
were often combined from about the 10th century. Its principal text is the Nyaya-
sutras, ascribed to Gautama

VAISHESIKA
✓ Derived from the Sanskrit word which means Particular
✓ The Vaisheshika school attempts to identify, inventory, and classify the entities and
their relations that present themselves to human perceptions.

SAMKHYA
✓ Derived from the Sanskrit word which means Enumeration or number
✓ Samkhya asserts that there is a dualism of matter and eternal spirits, which are
originally separated, but in the course of evolution, the eternal spirits identifies itself
with aspects of matter.
✓ Right knowledge consists of the ability of eternal spirits to distinguish itself from
matter.
✓ It has a belief of the existence of a temporal body and a soul, a soul which can
migrate in other temporal body when the original temporal body has perished.

YOGA
✓ Derived from the Sanskrit word Yokta which means to join or union
✓ Yoga holds with Samkhya that the achievement of spiritual liberation (moksha)
occurs when the spirit (purusha) is freed from the bondage of matter (prakriti) that
has resulted from ignorance and illusion.

23 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
MIMAMSA
✓ Sanskrit word which means Reflection or Critical Investigation
✓ One of the six fundamental systems of Indian philosophy which is fundamental to
Vedanta.
✓ The aim of Mimamsa is to give rules for the interpretation of the Vedas, and to
provide a philosophical justification for observance of Vedic rituals.

VEDANTA
✓ Sanskrit word which means Conclusion
✓ Vedanta applies to the Upanishads, which were elaborations / philosophical
explanation of the Vedas
✓ Both Mimamsa and Vedanta are inquiry between the self (atman) and the absolute
/ ultimate reality (Brahman).

CHINESE PHILOSOPHY
YIN-YANG
✓ Yin yang represents the duality of all things in nature.
Balance between the opposites.
✓ The concept of Yin and Yang became popular with the
work of the Chinese school of Yin-yang which
studied philosophy and cosmology in the 3rd century BCE
(School of Naturalist).

✓ The principal proponent of the theory was the cosmologist Zou Yan (or Tsou Yen)
who believed that life went through five phases (wuxing) - fire, water, metal, wood,
earth - which continuously interchanged according to the principle of Yin and Yang.
✓ During ancient times of china, people used astrology, almanac and the method of
five elements (wu hsing) for magic and divination, all laid stress on the connection
supposedly existing between man and nature; they were based on the assumption
that there is a mutual interaction between the way of the nature and the affairs of
men.

24 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
WATCH THIS!
The Hidden Meanings of Yin-Yang (Ted Ed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezmR9Attpyc

CONFUCIANISM
✓ According to Shih Chi (Historical Records), Confcuius (Master Kung) was born in
the state of Lu, somewhere near the present town of Chufuin Shantung (China)
✓ His father, a military soldier in the state of Lu, was died when he was three years
old.
✓ When he was nineteen years old, he got married and during the same time, he
entered in a career in the state of Lu, first being a keeper of grain store and later
then, he became in charge of the public of lands.
✓ Based on Shih Chi, as well, Confucius became the Prime Minister of Lu in 501
BC. He resigned because of his disappointments in the state of Ch’I because of
its negligence on its duty.
✓ Confucianism is described as religion, philosophy a tradition, humanistic religion
or a way of governing oneself.
✓ It emphasized personal and governmental morality, correctness of social
relationships, justice and sincerity.
✓ Human heartedness (the act of being a humane) is also emphasized in
Confucian teaching.
THE FIVE CLASSICS – WU JING (CONFCUCIANISM)
✓ The Five Classics served as the foundation of Confucian teachings. In fact, Wu
Jing, including the four books (Analects, Mencius, Doctrine of Mean and The Great
Learning), were used as the basis of civil service examination in Imperial China.
These classical books were either written or edited by Confucius, the heart of
philosophical teachings of Confucianism (Ju).
I Ching (Book of Changes)
 Book of Changes (I ching) consists of metaphysical, numerical explanation of
change with some sort of ethical insight. The book change sees the cosmos as the
interaction of the Yin and Yang that shows that the universe in organismic unity
and dynamism.

 I Ching also used coins and lines as a method of determining the interaction of the
Yin and yang

25 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
Shi ching (Book of Odes)
 Book of Odes / Poetry (Shi ching) is an ancient collection of Chinese poems and
song. The book shows the relevance of Music and poetry to the life of a human
person. Music and poetry convey the common experience, feelings, emotions and
mutual responsiveness

Shujing (Book of History)

 Book of History (Shujing) is an ancient collection of speeches of the major people
and records of events in ancient times embodies the political visions and focuses
on how a King should govern a state in a humane way,

Li Chi (Book of Rites)

 Book of Rites (Li Chi) describes the traditions, culture and rites of the Chou
dynasty. It also stresses the social responsibility of each citizen such as the
farmers, scholars, artisans and merchants, including the government officials as
well. It is also used for diplomatic relation

Chun Chiu (Book of Autumn and Spring)

 Book of Autumn and Spring (Chun Chiu) is a collection of memory and common
events (written in annals form) in the state of Lu such as accession, marriages,
deaths and funerals of the rulers.

XIAOJING (BOOK OF FILIAL PIETY)

 Book of Filial Piety (Xiaojing) consists of ethical teachings on how to behave or
treat our seniors such as father, an elder brother or a King.

Chapter two (Xiaojing): The Son of Heaven

THE TEACHINGS OF CONFUCIUS

✓ One of the primary aim of Master Kung’s teaching was to nurture, and develop a
person so that this person might be someone who can be useful to the state, rather
than to become scholar who will be part of the certain social class
✓ Confucian teaching had emphasized the importance of Rectification of Names.

26 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 The Great Analects (Lun Yu)
Book XII Chapter XI: The Duke Ching, of Ch’I, asked Confucius about the
government.
Confucius replied, there is government when the prince is prince and the
minister as minister., when the father is father and the son is a son.
✓ Master Kung had emphasized the total virtue of Man (Jen). A true virtuous man is
one that has a genuine nature according to Master Kung,
The Great Analects (Lun Yu)
Book VII, Chapter 17: The Master said, “The Superior (Virtuous) Man is
takes righteousness (i) as his basic principle, practices it with the rules of
correct usage (li); brings it forth with modesty and renders it complete with
sincerity; such as superior man.
✓ The observant of Virtue (Jen) should also observe uprightness (chih). Uprightness
is what comes from within. It is the direct expression of one’s heart. The man of
Jen is a man that knows what is right
The Great Analects (Lun Yu)
Book IV, Chapter 16: The Master said, “The superior man is informed in
what is right (i). The inferior man is in informed in what is profitable.”
✓ Confucian teachings are, in essence, humanistic. Confucian philosophy also
promotes the Five Constant (wu chang), or the Five virtues that must be observed
in order to be the man of Jen (Virtue).

Five Virtues
1. Ren (Benevolence, Humaneness)
2. Yi (Righteousness or justice)
3. Li (Proper rite)
4. Zhi (Knowledge)
5. Xin (Integrity)

DAOISM (LAO TZU)

✓ A record keeper in the court of the central Chinese Zhou Dynasty in the 6th century
B.C., and an older contemporary of Confucius
✓ Lao Tzu is said to have tired of life in the Zhou court as it grew increasingly morally
corrupt. So he left and rode on a water buffalo to the western border of the Chinese
empire.

27 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 ✓ According to the Historical Record (Shih Chi), Daoism started earlier than the other
schools of thought, such as Confucianism. Daoism follow the path of nature and
accept the orderly sequence of nature (Yin-Yang).

✓ The name Daoism / Taoism was first coined by the Han scholars, who used it to
include both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, because their doctrines, although not
identical, were at least agreed in opposing the traditional thought of the institutions
of their time.

✓ The Daoist two fundamental conceptions are the Dao (way) and the Te (Power),
which have the same meaning. Tao Te Chia , the way and the power are the
fundamental concepts that are the basis of the Daoist teachings.

TAO TE CHING
✓ In reality, the Tao Te Ching is likely to be the compilation of the works of many
authors over time. But stories about Lao Tzu and the Tao Te Ching have passed
down through different Chinese philosophical schools for over two thousand years
and have become wondrously embellished in the process.
Tao – Way, Te – Power, Ching - Change

✓ The Tao Te Ching is somewhat like the Bible: it gives instructions (at times vague
and generally open to multiple interpretations) on how to live a good life. It
discusses the “Dao,” or the “way” of the world, which is also the path to virtue,
happiness, and harmony.

When people see things as beautiful,

ugliness is created.
When people see things as good,
evil is created.
Being and non-being produce each other.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low oppose each other.
Fore and aft follow each other.
- Tao Te Ching, 2.
TEACHINGS OF LAO TZU
✓ Lao Tzu wrote, “the great Dao is very even, but people like to take by-ways.” In
Lao Tzu’s view the problem with virtue isn’t that it is difficult or unnatural, but simply
is that we resist the very simple path that might make us most content.

28 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 ✓ We spend so much time rushing from one place to the next in life, but Lao Tzu
reminds us “nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.” It is
particularly important that we remember that certain things—grieving, growing
wiser, developing a new relationship—only happen on their own schedule, like the
changing of leaves in the fall or the blossoming of the bulbs we planted months
ago.

✓ When we are still and patient, we also need to be open. We need to be reminded
to empty ourselves of frivolous thoughts so that we will observe what is really
important. “The usefulness of a pot comes from its emptiness.”

Lao Tzu said: “Empty yourself of everything, let your mind become still.”

✓ Taoism also claims that in order for us to attain naturalness (which is in accordance
with the Tao), one has to identify himself/herself with the Tao by freeing
oneself from selfishness and desire (or inclination on the worldly things) and
appreciation.

Life is a series of natural

and spontaneous changes.
Do not resist them.
That only causes sorrow

LET’S DO THE ACTIVITIES!

Write a brief insight on the following:
1. Differentiate the philosophies of the West and the East
2. What do you think is the importance of Indian philosophy, especially in the
way we perceive man and the world?
3. Do you agree in the Buddhist assertion that human pleasures and desires
are the cause of sufferings?
4. Explain the main assertion of Yin-Yang
5. How can you relate the Confucian concept of Rectification of Names in our
current socio-political set up?
6. Explain the notion of Dao.

29 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
SOURCES:
Fung Yu Lan. A History of Chinese Philosophy Trans. by Derk Bodde (China: Peiping
Henri Vetch. 1937
Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. Indian Philosophy Vol. 1 (London: George Allen & Unwin
LTD., 1913).
Britannica. Indian Philosophy. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Indian-philosophy
(Accessed August 01, 2020).
The Vedas. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldcivilization/chapter/the-
vedas/#:~:text=The%20Vedas%2C%20meaning%20%E2%80%9Cknowledge%2C,BCE
%20(Before%20Common%20Era). (Accessed August 01, 2020).

30 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 UNIT II
METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING

OVERVIEW

Methods of philosophizing consist of the various ways of doing philosophy. In order to

develop sustainable skills for philosophizing, it is essential to lay down a proper
foundation for analytic thinking and argumentation. This lesson is made with the intention
of developing the said skills through a thorough discussion of the epistemic concepts of
truth and knowledge. Below is a short glossary of relevant terminologies as used
throughout this lesson:

• truth – a property of linguistic expressions that connotes the expression’s

correspondence with facts, coherence with other true statements, or pragmatic use
(depending on the theory of truth ascribed to).
• knowledge – justified true belief (with the exclusion of Gettier cases).

LEARNING OUTCOMES:
In accordance with the DepEd-prescribed content standard for methods of philosophizing
(i.e. the learner demonstrates various ways of doing philosophy), the learning outcomes
for the lesson will be as follows.

At the end of the lesson, the learner should be able to:

✓ Distinguish between the various theories of truth.
✓ Determine the conditions of knowledge and its various kinds.
✓ Identify what Gettier cases are and come up with their own case scenarios.

COURSE MATERIAL

• For this lesson, it is recommended that we read up on the various theories of truth,
the different kinds of knowledge, and the conditions of propositional knowledge
primarily through the justified true belief account of knowledge. The discussion flow
would be as follows: Theories of Truth, Kinds of Knowledge, Conditions of
Knowledge, and Gettier Cases.

31 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
CONTENT / DISCUSSION
A. Theories of Truth

Truth is a property attributed to statements that have claims or assertions. Only

propositions can be said to possess truth value. In the field of epistemology, we do not
attribute truth to, let us say, objects because they don’t contain any claim. Whereas
statements with claims can either be true or false. Ideas alone, without assertion, cannot
be attributed with truth value either. Thus, the word ‘God’ is neither true nor false because
it does not have any claim. However, the statement ‘God is perfect’ can have truth value
since it contains a claim.

Truth which resonates in the field of epistemology is to be distinguished from reality

which resonates more in the metaphysical field than it does in the epistemological field.
However, these two fields intersect when we talk about the different theories of truth.
When we talk about the theories of truth, what we are asking essentially is the following
question: What makes truths true? There are several ways to answer this but, in this
lesson, we will be focusing on the two most prominent theories, namely, the
correspondence theory of truth and the coherence theory of truth.

The correspondence theory of truth answers the question as such: what makes
true statements true is their correspondence with reality or with facts. To say that ‘pianos
are stringed instruments’ is true from the correspondence theory, would be to suggest
that their truth lies in the fact that pianos truly are stringed instruments – that outside of
our verbal communication, in actuality, pianos are stringed instruments. What makes true
statements true for this theory is that these statements correspond with the facts. By the
same token, what makes false statements false is that they do not correspond with the
facts, or with what is happening in the world.

The coherence theory of truth, on the other hand, answers the question as such:
what makes true statements true is that they are coherent with other true statements. To
say that ‘pianos are stringed instruments’ is true from the coherence theory, would be to
suggest that it coheres with other sets of true statements such as that ‘stringed
instruments are musical instruments that produce sound through vibration of stretched

32 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
strings,’ and ‘pianos produce sound through vibration of stretched strings.’ In other words,
coherence theory of theory relies on the truth of other statements in order to affirm the
truth of a given statement.

Whether the two theories are mutually exclusive or not is still a subject for
epistemic and metaphysical debates. However, in the practical level where we use these
theories to apply them in our everyday understanding of truth, it is possible for us to
subscribe to one theory in certain cases and another theory in other cases.

B. Knowledge

There are several ways of expressing one’s knowledge of something. Take the
following examples: (i) James knows his piano teacher, (ii) James knows how to play the
piano, (iii) James knows that the piano is a stringed instrument. All examples are cases
of knowledge but where they differ is the kind of knowledge being expressed. What
follows is a discussion of each kind, as well as the different conditions for the third kind,
propositional knowledge.

KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE

In the context of contemporary epistemology, there are essentially three different

types of knowledge, namely, knowledge by acquaintance, competence knowledge, and
propositional knowledge. The first of these kinds, knowledge by acquaintance, is the sort
of knowledge that we normally attribute to our familiarity with something or someone.
Following from Pojman (1995, 2), knowledge by acquaintance comes in the form, “A
person S knows something or someone x (where x is the direct object of the sentence).
We have personal and direct experience with objects in the world, our thoughts, and
sensations.” Thus, when I say that ‘I know you,’ the statement is asserting my familiarity
of – having had personal and direct experience with – the subject ‘you’.

By contrast, competence knowledge, or otherwise called ‘skill knowledge’ is

attributed when a person can be said to possess a certain skill. This often begins with the
phrase ‘S knows how to…,’ and is therefore sometimes called as know-how. This comes
in the following form: “A person S knows how to D (where D stands for an infinitive).”

33 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
(ibid.) Thus, knowing how to ride a bike or knowing how to play a game are good
examples that illustrate competence knowledge.

Finally, there is propositional knowledge, sometimes called ‘descriptive

knowledge’ which is attributed whenever the speaker demonstrates knowledge of a given
statement or proposition. In the words of Pojman (1995, 2), propositional knowledge
comes in the following form: “A person S knows that p (where p is some statement or
proposition).

Conditions of Propositional Knowledge

Philosophers have been grappling with the definition of knowledge for as Early as the
time of Socrates who, in Plato’s Meno, was known to have asked what it is about
knowledge that makes it so special in that we attribute a certain value to it that we don’t
attribute to mere true beliefs. It was at this point that the difference between knowledge
and true belief – that which is a person’s belief that happened to be true – came into
question. This established that we cannot equate knowledge with mere true beliefs. Let’s
say, I believe that the sun rises every morning. It so happened that my belief is true – that
the sun does, in fact, rise ever morning. In epistemic discourses, we do not automatically
consider this knowledge. We want to ask the following question: ‘what made you believe
your belief?’ In the context of our example, we ask what is it that made the speaker believe
that the sun rises every morning? This is where we arrive at the missing condition that
mere true belief does not satisfy but knowledge does. That is, the justification condition.
When combined, we arrive at the notion of knowledge as justified true belief. Note,
however, that the justified true belief account of knowledge applies only to the
propositional kind of knowledge. The condition of knowledge as justified true belief can
be summarized as follows:

Someone S knows that proposition p if and only if:

(1) S believes that p.

(2) p is true.
(3) S is justified in believing p.

34 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 Condition (1) can be considered as the belief condition. In order to assert that
someone knows a proposition, he/she has to believe it in the first place. I cannot say that
I know the sun will rise tomorrow but I don’t believe that it will. Not only does that imply a
contradiction upfront, but it also fails to satisfy the first condition we have of knowing. In
other words, you cannot know a proposition that you do not believe in.

Condition (2) illustrates the truth condition. In order to assert that someone knows
a proposition, the proposition must, in the first place, be true. We cannot have knowledge
of false propositions. Asserting, for example, that ‘I know that triangles have four sides’ is
obviously erroneous given that the speaker claims to know a false proposition.

Condition (3) illustrates the justification condition. This is what distinguishes

knowledge from true belief. If I claim to know something, I should be justified in believing
it. There has to be a strong justification for me to believe it. Good justifications may come
in the form of reliable testimony such as authority or documentation (i.e. credible sources)
or strong perceptive experiences (i.e. having personally witnessed or experienced the
proposition in question). For instance, claiming to know that the sun rises every morning
because the speaker read it thoroughly from a science book may count as a good
justification for his knowledge.

All three conditions should be met in order for knowledge to obtain.

Gettier Cases

Gettier cases are challenges to the justified true belief account of knowledge.
These are cases where all three conditions of knowledge are satisfied and yet, intuitively,
the case does not seem to have obtained knowledge. Below is an excerpt of Gettier case
1 as written by Edmund Gettier (1963, 1), after which the cases were named:

Suppose that Smith and Jones have applied for a certain job. And
suppose that Smith has strong evidence for the following conjunctive
proposition:

(a) Jones is the man who will get the job, and Jones has ten coins in
his pocket.

35 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 Smith's evidence for (a) might be that the president of the company
assured him that Jones would in the end be selected, and that he,
Smith, had counted the coins in Jones's pocket ten minutes ago.
Proposition (a) entails:

(b) The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.

Let us suppose that Smith sees the entailment from (a) to (b), and
accepts (b) on the grounds of (a), for which he has strong evidence. In
this case, Smith is clearly justified in believing that (b) is true. But
imagine, further, that unknown to Smith, he himself, not Jones, will get
the job. And, also, unknown to Smith, he himself has ten coins in his
pocket.

Proposition (b) is then true, though proposition (a), from which Smith
inferred (b), is false. In our example, then, all of the following are true:
(i) (b) is true,
(ii) Smith believes that (b) is true, and
(iii) Smith is justified in believing that (b) is true.

But it is equally clear that Smith does not KNOW that (b) is true; for (b)
is true in virtue of the number of coins in Smith's pocket, while Smith
does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his
belief in (b) on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely
believes to be the man who will get the job.

What is being exemplified in the above case is that, even though Smith believes
the proposition, is justified in believing it, and that the proposition happens to be true,
there does not seem to be knowledge.

36 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
LET’S DO THE ACTIVITY!

1. Between the correspondence and the coherence theory of truth, which is more
preferential for you in terms of your own perspective of truth? Explain in 4-5
sentences.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________.

2. Select a question you prefer to answer among the given options below. In 4-5
sentences, answer your selected question and write it on a sheet of paper or in
this instructional material.
a. In your opinion, what makes justification an important condition for
knowledge?
b. Do you think there is a way out of Gettier cases?
c. Come up with your own Gettier case scenario and explain why it is a Gettier
case.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________.

37 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
SOURCES:

Gettier, Edmund. 1963. Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis 23: 121-3. Reprinted
in Roth and Galis (1970) and Moser (1986).

Mabaquiao, Napoleon. 2017. Making Life Worth Living: An Introduction to The Philosophy
of the Human Person. Phoenix Publishing House, Inc.

Pojman, Louis P. 1995. What Can We Know: An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge.
Wadsworth Publishing Company.

38 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 UNIT III
THE HUMAN PERSON AND THE EMBODIED SPIRIT

OVERVIEW

The word embodiment refers to the state of incarnating and materializing in a visible form.
When we say "embodied spirit", normally our direct understanding is the spirit being
incarnated or materialized. However, this idea does not necessarily mean by the
incarnation of the spirit. Generally, it has to do with the synthesis between physical and
immaterial entities, namely, body and soul. Without the union of body and soul, there is
no such thing as human person.

Transcendence comes from the Latin word transcedere, which literally means "to climb
over, to go beyond, or to surpass." In philosophy, the term transcendence is the primary
ground in which the concept has different connotations that vary upon historical and
cultural contexts. It comprises approaches and systems that explain the basic structures
of being. One of which is ontology—the study in Metaphysics which tells us of what there
is, whether or not a thing exists, such as God, the soul, or more broadly entity. Although
the emphasis of this chapter is not to prove whether such entity exists or not but aims to
present the essential features of Transcendence. These include the topics that will cover
three religious philosophies from Hinduism in the East and Christianity in the West.
Selected proponents as such are Plato, Augustine, and Aquinas.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of this lesson, the student must be able to:

✓ Recognize own limitation and possibilities

✓ Evaluate own limitations and the possibilities for their transcendence
✓ Recognize how the human body imposes limits and possibilities for transcendence
✓ Discuss the notion of the body and soul

39 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
COURSE MATERIAL:

In this chapter, we will begin to focus on the fundamental theme of Introduction to

philosophical anthropology. This theme deals primarily with the understanding of the
human person and its basic constituents in relation to transcendence. One of which is the
idea that human person is the embodiment of the spirit.

Content/Discussion

The key importance of how the human person becomes an embodied spirit is in
relation with Transcendence. Transcendence is an experience in which the physical world
constitutes beyond what appears to us as real and normal. Not only does it show us an
in-depth understanding of what we really are as a unique being endowed with body and
soul, it also enables us to know our possibilities and limitations.

Transcendence is only possible when we grasp that such existence is not something
that is purely material but rather it goes beyond the limit of sense and perception. One of
the factors is when a person inquires the need for something beyond humanly solution
amidst difficult circumstances, particularly in suffering and pain. This experience is what
constitutes from every religion that seeks in the realm of values more than the realm of
facts.

I. Human Person as an Embodied Spirit: The Eastern View

A. Hunduism

To say that a person is not a mere sinful, brute being but regarded as divine is central to
Hinduistic conception of soul. Why divine? Such concept that makes the human nature
ideal is the belief that we are part of Brahman. Brahman is the ultimate reality and the
final cause of the universe. Although Brahman is addressed as "that" which rules the
world, it is perceived as "infinite" which does not change, yet it is the cause of all changes.
In Sanskrit, they call the tiny bits of Brahman as Atman (commonly translated as soul),
the particular and the one which has a personality, embodiment and limited
consciousness. The Atman just like Brahman persists eternally, it neither ceases nor
degenerates. Hindus, just like their disagreements to Brahman, reflects their debates on

40 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
the role of the physical world and the body. Optimists view it as a spectacle that leads the
soul to the Ultimate reality while some see it as an impediment. However, this
confrontation of ideas does not preclude their common ground, i.e. the aim of soul is to
rejoin to its source. Hindus describe it akin to a small drop of water falling into a vast
ocean, there is no distinction of the fallen to where it fell, the one when merged with many
becomes One! How to reunite with the “One"? Hindus emphasize Dharma. It is the duty
inherent on someone's birth, the harmony within the Brahman mirrors the design of their
society and one must be in conformity to his or her social role by doing it with detachment
and steadfastness. One must not be bound with the limits of the world to do their Dharma,
the good and bad effects of Dharma to somebody must be disregarded so the Law of
Karma will judge it as pure and worthy of not experiencing the pains of existence in the
form of rebirth.

Karma is the cosmic law that acts by imposing the effects of past actions to its future.
When one does his or her Dharma genuinely, one will attain Moksha (i.e. liberation) from
Samsara (the vicious cycle of birth and rebirth). If somebody does the opposite by not
doing his or her duty or not doing it genuinely, he or she will be transmigrated to infinity
in all forms of living or non-living entities until he or she finds the purity towards
emancipation. Hindus practice detachment. The soul was unaffected by its physical
bindings; emotions and all of our attachments are merely illusions of the world and our
consciousness, the reason that most cannot attain true knowledge is due to their
inclinations with the world and to themselves. Finding Brahman is difficult and could be
more of a lifetime but a commitment to such is more joyous than an ephemeral
satisfactions of the body, an Atman is comparable to a lotus, a plant that grows even in
the muddy and unclear water, translates to a soul which is a fragment of Brahman,
bounds to regain itself from the world in constant flux and blossoms blissfully as it was
supposed to be.

II. Human Person as an Embodied Spirit: The Western View

A. Plato's Immortality of the Soul

One of the widely read of Plato's dialogues is Phaedo. In this dialogue, much of what has
been discussed is central to the concept of the soul, including its nature and the argument

41 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
from immortality. Although this major theme did not stem from Plato but from his teacher,
Socrates, it occupies a central position of Plato's philosophy. The soul and body,
according to Socrates, are both distinct in dualistic realm in that the soul can be related
to the body as imprisoned in a tomb. Once the soul is separated from the body through
death, it can fulfill its true destiny. The body, on the other hand, is the faculty of which
senses and appetites can hinder the activity of reason in the realm of Becoming. Although
the soul is subject to the desire of the body, its true essence is found in the realm of Being.

In his work Republic, Plato argues that the soul is not only to be viewed as rational
aspect having distinct from the body. He distinguished three aspects of the soul known
as Plato's tripatite soul. Aside from "rational" aspect, the soul possesses an "appetitive"
aspect and a "spirited" aspect. The former is related to the body of which our physical
desire drives us to eat, exhaust, have sex and so forth. The latter, on the other hand, fuels
our action and normally cooperates with the rational aspect which is sought after truth. In
his similar work Phaedrus, Plato represents the soul as a charioteer driving two horses.
One horse is black and brutal and the other white and virtuous. The charioteer is reason,
the primary faculty of the soul. The white horse which obeys reason and the black has to
be forced to obey by the whip.

Although the arguments of Socrates for immortality are not regarded as logical
demonstration, they offer as rational grounds of hope. Socrates's first argument is based
upon the theory of recollection. This view refers to the absolute norms of values and truth
as the source of knowledge. Although they do not exist in the physical world, the soul
must have known them in pre-existing state. The second argument is a distinction
between soul and corporeal things. To prove that the soul is not physical in nature but
spiritual comes from the the notion of Eternal Form as the ideal nature of objects. The
third argument is in response to naturalistic view of the soul in that the soul is not the
product of the body but is independent as having distinct from the quality of its activity.
Now, the fourth argument comes from Plato in which the source or the beginning of motion
is the soul. This, he proves only that if soul is the only source of motion and that motion
is eternal, it follows that the soul continues to exist.

B. Augustine's Superiority of the Soul

42 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
Augustine begins his treatise on the soul with a clear and distinct inquiry concerning the
certainty of human existence. In his late treatise On the Free Choice of the Will, Augustine
challenged Evodius with the question whether he exists or not. If an interlocutor thinks he
is being deceived in this line of question, Augustine responded that such skepticism
toward one's existence proves that the one doubting is capable to think; hence, he who
does not exist cannot be deceived at all, since it is clear that he really does, not until he
proves to be alive. Following by the inquisitor is the question that an interlocutor must
understand what he means by existing and living. If he does understand it, then he is a
rational soul who is distinct from stone and animals. This classification of features such
as existing, living and understanding is grounded on the chains of human person as
rational soul. A stone exists in the realm of facts but neither has it life nor understanding.
An animal, on the other hand, exists and lives but it does not follow that it has a reason.
Such human corpses are granted to prove that they exist but no one would say they are
alive and have understanding. Amongst all three features classified in the human person,
reason is superior as the faculty of the soul.

Augustine's first conception of the soul is grounded on Platonic philosophies. He

proposes that human person is composed of body and soul as distinct and separable
entities. The soul, according to which both Augustine and Plato argued, is more superior
than the body. For such soul as rational should control the passions and sensual desires.
In his early definition of soul, Augustine refers to it as "a rational substance fitted for rule
over a body." This, he believes that it is possible if the soul turns to God who is the
Supreme Good and Supreme Being. In his early Manichean teaching, he is taught to
believe that God and the soul are both material entities in that the soul becomes a
foreigner to its own body after which the portion of God, namely the soul, fell into the
corporeal world. After his readings on Platonic philosophies, he began to change his view
on the soul as mutable in time and immutable in space. Although it has a divine origin,
yet it is not divine itself but is created by God. The body, on the other hand, is subject to
change. Later on, Augustine perceives the problem on Platonic conception that the soul
cannot be affected by body as distinct entity. This, he begins to draw an argument from
Plotinus, a Neo-platonic founder, that the soul-body dualism must be viewed in terms of
power, not of space. He then set forth that human person is a perfect unity of soul and

43 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
body. In his late treatise On Care to Be Had for the Dead, Augustine argues that human
body is grounded on the very nature of being which is ascribed to marriage: caro tua,
coniunx tua – "your body is your wife". Furthermore, Augustine was more fascinated on
the subject of resurrection which he draws his premise that the soul is innate to govern
the body. Nevertheless, he was adamant to insist that that the soul is distinct from the
body as immortal. This, he provides an argument for the immortality of the soul as a
possible condition of human happiness. Yet true happiness, according to Augustine, can
only be acquired in the afterlife through Jesus Christ as a means of God's grace.

C. Aquinas's Conception of the Soul

If Augustine is known for saying that soul and body are but distinct from each other and
that the soul is regarded as superior than the body, Aquinas is much noted for saying that
soul and body are not distinct but one substance. The human person, according to
Aquinas, is not only composed of soul and body as separate entities, they are seen as a
single substance in the sensible world. How did he come up with that idea? Although
much of what has been espoused by Aquinas is found in Aristotle's metaphysics, he was
certain that it has a biblical ground concerning the resurrection of the dead.

To begin with, Aquinas maintains that a soul can be identified with the body in the
realm of experience, not as the body itself but as the action of the body. To say that
something has a soul describes the body as living thing. In his Summa Theologiae,
Aquinas argues for his position that the soul is referred to as "the first principle of life . . .
within our experience." For instance, plants and animals have both souls as they grow
and move. Although they both are living but they only differ from that which plants lack
sensation and animals do not. What humans are distinguished from plants and animals,
however, is the way that only man is capable think and understand. There is a distinction
between understanding and sensation. Understanding can only be described as universal
and sensation in particular. To say that you and I have the same feelings of cold is not
proven to say that I have your feelings of cold since it occurs from different mode of body,
and thereby, they are particular. On the other hand, you and I have the same thoughts.
Since we can both understand that whale is a mammal, and thereby universal. Then, that
means we are more than material entities. Understanding exists as form, not as matter.

44 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
In his Summa Theologiae, Aquinas simply puts it, "the soul is the form of the body." In
other words, the human person is not soul and body as distinct, rather it is an ensouled
body as uniform. For this reason, Aquinas posits that if a person is to live after death, it
must be reunited to the body. It is only possible once the resurrection of the dead would
again take place. Aquinas argues that if there is only my soul, then I do not exist. By this,
he means that the soul is not a substance but a part of a single substance as "substantial
form". What makes a thing as part that which belongs to a whole and provides the thing
with ability that makes that thing what it is, is what we mean by substantial form.
Therefore, the soul of the human person is not the whole person. For the union of body
and soul, according to Aquinas, is a "natural one, and any separation of soul from body
goes against its nature."

LET’S DO THE ACTIVITY!

Provide 50-100 word each question below. Use as a separate sheet, as necessary.
1. What is embodied spirit?
2. How can we distinguish the soul from the body?
3. What are the three Platonic distinct elements of the soul?
4. What is the difference between Eastern and Western view of embodied spirit?
5. How do Augustine and Aquinas differ from the possibility of the resurrection of the
dead?

SOURCES:
Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy Vol 1 and 2 (New York: Doubleday Dell
Publishing Group, Inc., 1950.)
Mabaquiao, Napoleon. Making Life Worth Living: An Introduction to the Philosophy of the
Human Person. (Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House, Inc., 2016)
Ramos, Christine Carmela. Introduction to Philosophy of the Human Person. (Manila: Rex
Publishing, 2016.)
Stumpf, Samuel Enoch and Fieser, James. Socrates to Sartre and Beyond. (Philippines:
McGraw-Hill Publishing House Inc.).

45 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 UNIT IV
THE HUMAN PERSON AND THE ENVIRONMENT

OVERVIEW
Ecological issues confront the survival of humans as well as nonhuman species.
Both scientific and technological advancements in both religious and secular worlds
have generated solutions that are sustainable yet progressive despite criticisms of
their in adverse effects. On the other hand, a look at the development of environmental
philosophy points towards moral expansion and challenges individual perspective in
relation to issues concerning our natural habituation as well as nonhumans such as
animals and the land, to name a few.

In this lesson, we will be discussing the concept of environmental crisis and its
forms. Perspectives and criticisms concerning our view of the environment are
covered in the next part. With the help of diagrams, the reader can easily follow the
logical sequence and coherence of each concepts. In addition, posing questions are
given to provide context and point of reflection to readers. Lastly, you will also be
oriented about some of the key philosophical positions regarding environmental
ethics. A comprehensive survey can be complex but providing a rough sketch of the
basic tenets of each position may be helpful to give an overview to interested readers.
We then challenge you, our readers, to question and to reconsider your thinking and
actions towards the environment and considerably expand your ethical interest as a
response.

LEARNING OUTCOMES:
At the end of the lesson, students are expected to:
✓ identify and discuss disorder in an environment
✓ consider how things are not in their proper place and organize them in an
aesthetic way
✓ show how that care for the environment contributes to health, well-being, and
sustainable development; and
✓ demonstrate the virtues of prudence and frugality towards environments

DISCUSSION

A. The Environmental Crisis

How does our anthropocentric attitude towards nature contribute to

environmental crisis? Does the Judeo-Christian tradition really promote such
attitude? Is environmental crisis solely a religious problem? Is
environmental concern essentially anti-progress?

46 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 Environmental crisis is a term that is used to describe the sum of the
environmental problems that we face today. Key contemporary environmental
problems include the greenhouse effect and global warming, the hole in the
ozone layer, acid rain, and tropical forest clearance. It occurs when changes in
the ecology put the survival of species and population at stake.

One possible cause of the environmental crisis can be physical. It refers to

those causes that can be in principle be studied by the sciences. Thus,
observable and quantifiable, their processes are governed by the deterministic
laws of nature. Physical causes can be either natural or human-induced. Natural
physical causes happen independently of any human intervention which include
earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc. For instance, the most known
Cretaceous/Paleogene (K/T) [66 Mya] mass extinction, which led to the demise
of non-avian dinosaurs was caused by both Deccan volcanism and Chicxulub
asteroid. Human-induced physical causes, on the other hand, happen because
of human intervention affecting processes of nature.

Anthropocentric view values nature because of material or physical

benefits it can provide for humans. Historically, human progress has notably
changed some ecologies.

Human-induced environmental crisis can be driven from our anthropocentric

attitude towards nature.

Anthropocentrism (human-  Thought to Ponder

centered) holds the view that only
Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful and multiply, and
human interests are to be accounted.
Having anthropocentric attitude fill the earth and subdue it; and have
towards nature may lead us to [1] see it dominion over the fish of the sea and over
with its instrumental value or for the birds of the air and over every living
economic gain, [2] place human as its thing that moves upon the earth.”
manager; and [3] view our environment
as an infinite source for utilization.

Lynn White (1967), a medieval scholar, argued that such attitude lies in our
Judeo-Christian idea that man has dominion over nature. Since the Medieval
period, man’s relation to nature profoundly changed; it became exploitative.
Christianity insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends.
For him, science and technology are but an expression of Christian dogma of
man’s mastery over nature.

In response to White, Lewis W. Moncrief (1970), a professor at Michigan

State University, argued that religion is not the only social institution which fueled
our exploitative attitude towards nature. For him, there are other cultural variables
which conditioned such attitude. These include capitalism, democracy,
technology, urbanization, increased population, and an aggressive attitude

47 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 toward nature which sprung from perceiving these resources as inexhaustible.
Despite the fact that religion might have influenced the character of each of these
forces, to attribute it as ‘the historical root’ of such crises is crude. For other
cultures which do not subscribe to Judeo-Christian tradition also display such
attitude and face the same problem. L. W. Moncrief compared his and White’s
models of their arguments as illustrated below:

Judeo-Christian Science and Environmental

tradition technology degradation

Figure 1: Summary of White’s Argument

1. Urbanization
2. Increased
wealth
Judeo-Christian 1. Capitalism 3. Increases Environmental
tradition 2. Democratization population degradation
4. Individual
resource
ownsership

Figure 2: Summary of Moncrief’s Argument

B. Respect and Care for Nature

What belief systems can be used to cultivate respect and care for nature? Can
anthropocentrism be used to do such task? To whom should we ascribe the right
to moral consideration? What are the criteria for a being to be ‘morally
considerable’?

Anthropocentrism: having indirect duty toward nature through stewardship

Since L. White, Christianity’s ecological critics blamed the religion for

cultivating the exploitative attitude of man towards nature. However, Patrick
Dobel, a professor in University of Washington, argued that the arrogance of
human was a product of misreading the Bible. While it may be the case that
human was given dominion over the earth, “this gift does not grant sovereign
control.” The “blame” somehow rings false as these critics tend to extend the link
to the later implication of a secularized technology. Contrary to such ‘misreading,’

48 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 the vast ethical resources of the Judeo-Christian
tradition account for the sacredness and a God-centered
view of environmental ethic. Philosophical
Christian ecologists have a unique assertion of a Terms
reasonable harmony with our world without the
abandonment of our commitment to other members of
Direct duties – having
the earth. In Biblical terms, God has made His covenant obligations to some entities
not only to humans, but also to every living creature
(Gen 1:30) for the use of the future generation. The Indirect duties – having
moral relevance can be found instead by regarding the obligations involving some
earth as an autonomous ethical entity that does not entities
belong to humanity but to God alone.
Moral agent – having the
abilities to make moral
The Judeo-Christian doctrine clearly promotes choices and in return, to be
entrusting the earth as a heritage that directs our held liable
covenanted responsibilities yet predicated with the laws
of nature. In turn, this emphasis to God’s ownership calls Moral patient – lacks pre-
for an attitude of humility and care in dealing with the requisites to make moral
world. The vital pronouncement of the New Testament actions and be held
distills the notion of an activist imperative and what responsible
Dobel calls the ethics of stewardship. With it, the moral
and ecological constraints are respected and adds the Inherent/intrinsic value –
obligation of fair distribution within the framework of the value an entity possesses
in its own right, as an end in-
working relationship with the earth. The point is thus
itself
central to understanding Christian ecology: it calls for
greater responsibility and putting one’s self at the service Instrumental value – the
of others (1 Pet 4:10-11). However, this attitude implies value an entity possesses
that a moral agent only has indirect duties toward because of its usefulness, as
nature, for man has responsibilities, not to the entrusted a means to an end
world, but to its God, who is its owner. To manage the
earth is to have duties involving it. True stewardship Moral consideration –
requires both respect for the trusteeship (God) and [his] taking one’s good into
covenanted imperatives. account whenever it is
affected for better or worse
Utilitarianism: sentient animals as only morally by the actions of moral
considerable agents

“The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can

they talk?’ but, ‘Can they suffer?’”
—Jeremy Bentham

Starting 1975, with the publication of Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation,

ethical concerns about the moral status of nonhuman animals in the sphere of
moral consideration were brought up. He argues that having prejudice (unjustified
bias) based on the species one belongs to is comparable or analogous to social

49 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 injustices like sexism and racism; this discrimination is called speciesism. Such
disregard, for him, has been the basis on why nonhuman animals are not given
equal consideration of interests when moral agents make actions. Its
manifestation can be seen in human practices such as experimentation on them
and consumption of their flesh. The problem of equality mostly revolves around
human, e.g. about how women should be given equal rights like men have, or
how black people should be treated like how white ones are. Liberal movements
against such discriminations exposed the problem by pointing out that equality
does not depend on actual or descriptive qualities like skin color, sex, intelligence,
moral status, and other matters of fact, for it is a prescription of how beings should
be treated, not an assertion of facts. The goal of forwarding an ‘animal’ liberal
movement is to expand the moral consideration of moral agents, not just to his/her
fellow human, but to nonhuman animals as well.

Singer found in Jeremy Bentham’s hedonistic utilitarianism the

characteristic by which such right should be based on—sentience, or the
capacity to experience pain and pleasure. Bentham argues that it is solely
sentience that is the pre-requisite for a being to have an interest. For instance, a
tree does not have any interests because it has no “interest” in pursuing pleasure
and avoiding pain. Hence, to be morally considerable, one must have the capacity
to experience pleasure and pain—the two units a utilitarian measures.

Utilitarianism is an ethical (aggregative) theory that subscribes to two

principles: first, the principle of equality which holds that everyone’s interests
count, and similar interests must be counted as having similar weight or
importance; second, the principle of utility which prescribes one to do that act that
will bring about the best balance of satisfaction over frustration for everyone
affected by the outcome. For Singer, the consumption of a non-sentient animal’s
flesh should be considered immoral for the sum of the pain inflicted upon them is
greater than the sum of the pleasure humans may get from doing so. He
supported this by presenting claims that the consumption of their meat does no
greater benefit than eating alternatives like soybeans, which is not sentient.

In utilitarianism, the value lies on the total sum of the experience of

organisms involved, not on the organism itself. So, if a certain human procedure
involving any sentient animal, including his fellow human, produces no pain or is
“painless,” such act may be justified. To avoid such criticism, in his later
arguments, he added on self-consciousness as a determining factor in which
of the sentient animals should be given preference when necessary. Only
sentient animals which are self-conscious—has desires and preferences to
continue its living and for its future—are more morally significant than those who
are not.

50 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 Biocentrism (Deep Ecology): life-centered system of environmental ethics

Another available outlook in environmental ethics is biocentrism. Its aim

is to extend the moral consideration of moral agents to other members of
community of life, not just from humans to humans. It forwards the view that all
living beings are of equal moral status. According to Paul Taylor’s Biocentric
Egalitarianism, the biocentric outlook on nature has four components. First, just
like other nonhuman beings, humans are members of Earth’s community of life.
Second, sound biological functioning of an organism is dependent on the same
sound biological functioning of others; all members are interconnected and
interdependent. Third, each organism is thought of as a “teleological center of
life,” pursuing its own good in its own way. Lastly, the claim of human to
superiority is groundless and therefore, an irrational basis in our own favor.

Biocentrism, as a philosophical world view, offers moral agents a different

attitude toward nature— “respect for nature.” Such attitude is contrasted against
anthropocentric one in ways that it is an ultimate or direct and moral or
disinterested. It is ultimate in the sense that it is not founded on more fundamental
attitude like, for instance, human interest; moral agents here have direct duties
toward nature. The derivation of these duties sprung from the intrinsic value of
wild living creatures, which means that moral agents should take into account
their good as desirable in itself. It is moral or disinterested in the sense that it is
not based on one’s feelings and dispositions. Unlike respect, love for nature is
not the appropriate attitude for it is grounded on personal interests.

The ethics of “respect for nature” prescribes four (4) rules. This includes (1)
The Rule of Nonmaleficence or the duty not to do harm any entity in natural world
that has inherent worth; (2) The Rule of Noninterference, which requires negative
duties to refrain from restricting an organism’s freedom, and a “hands off” policy
regarding the whole biotic communities; (3) The Rule of Fidelity, which prohibits
human actions that involve deception among animals—to remain faithful to their
assumed trust. One common example of misleading them occurs in fishing
trapping, and hunting; (4) The Rule of Restitutive Justice requires moral agents
to restore the justice between him/her and the moral patient he/she has done
harm to by compensation or reparation.

Ecocentrism: holistic and community-based environmental philosophy

involving the land

In his widely known work on Land Ethic, Aldo Leopold (1887-1947) argued
that we must begin to realize our symbiotic relationship to Earth so that we value
“the land” or biotic community for its own sake. Ecocentrism, as a holistic view,
focuses on ethical consideration of ecological wholes – which refers to
ecosystems and/or species and to the biosphere as a whole. Described our
cooperative mechanisms as symbiotic (or interdependence), Leopold’s main
work the Sand County Almanac contended that our land-relation is still strictly

51 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 economic but does not presuppose any obligation. It is not only the character of
some of the species to lack economic value, but of entire biotic communities. If
some of species fall under non-economic categories, but we highly regard them,
Leopold continues, we tend to create subterfuges to give them economic
importance.

In this regard, Leopold sees the extension of ethics to human environment

as both an evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity. For him, an ethic
serves as a guidance for meeting ecological situations that are intricate to
average individual, possibly a kind of community instinct. It also enlarges the
boundaries of the community to include soil, waters, plants, and animals, or
collectively: the land. The community is said to be the focus of moral significance.

Leopold’s holistic environmental ethics is best expressed in his famous

principle: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and
beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” Land ethic
and its development may pave through a mechanism of operation: “social
approbation for right actions, social disapproval for wrong actions.” Educational
and economic system still seems to impede the evolution of a land ethic. Leopold
suggested that a requisite to ecological comprehension of land is an intensive
study of ecology much more in higher education.

Adding a Darwinian dimension to Leopold’s view was extended by J. Baird

Callicott (b. 1941) in his essay The Conceptual Foundations of the Land Ethic.
For him, the locus of value of ecosystem lies on our natural sentiments towards
it. An ethic is thus based on natural sympathy or sentiments, an ethical view
rooted from eighteenth-century school of Adam Smith and David Hume.

As a defense to land ethic, Callicott provided a conceptual and logical

foundations which rests upon three scientific cornerstones: (1) evolutionary and
(2) ecological biology set in a background of (3) Copernican astronomy. Natural
selection has provided us an affective moral response that has endowed us to
associate ourselves to community membership and identity – where the land is
represented as a biotic community.

As a holistic view, the Land Ethic shifts away from plants, animals, soils and
waters severally to the biotic community collectively. Although mainstream
modern ethical philosophy has taken egoism as point of departure, for Calicott,
following Hume and Darwin, recognizes sentiment as a “natural object” and must
therefore adopt a more publick affection. Here land ethic is grounded on
instinctive feeling – love, sympathy, respect – not in self-conscious calculating
intelligence.

Land ethic provides a well-informed basis by including both fellow members

of the biotic community and the biotic community itself within the purview of
morals. To emphasize this notion, the precepts of the land ethics reflect and

52 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 reinforce the structure of the community to which it is correlative. Human beings,
being equal members of the community, and if community membership is the
criterion of equal moral consideration, then human beings are equally subject to
the same subordination of individual welfare and rights in respect to the good of
the community as a whole.

SUMMARY

Environmental crisis may be attributed to two causes: natural and human-induced.

The former covers calamities brought by earthquakes, volcanic eruption, etc. The latter
includes extinction of some species of flora and fauna due to human activity like poaching.
Our treatment of the natural world is linked to our attitude towards it. Human-induced
environmental crisis is largely seen as caused by our anthropocentric treatment of nature,
which manifests in our view of it as (1) only having instrumental value, and (2) it as being
infinite. Having such attitude may be blamed to religion (Judeo-Christian tradition), as
argued by Lynn White, and/or to other social institutions other than it, as proposed by
Lewis W. Moncrief.

To address the issue we all now face, numerous thinkers respond by offering
different outlooks on how to view and to treat the natural world. Patrick Dobel argues that
if religion is to be blamed for instilling an arrogant attitude to man in relation to nature, it
is because the Bible was ‘misread.’ Instead, he presented how some of the passages
from it, contrary to the belief, promote stewardship, which is a humble attitude. Peter
Singer used utilitarianism to justify his aim to extend the moral consideration to sentient
animals, and among these organisms, those who are self-conscious should be preferred
over the others. Another outlook available in environmental ethics is biocentrism, where
all living organisms are morally considerable. This promotes “respect for nature.” Lastly,
as moral consideration expands to other species and the land, the view of ecocentrism
takes into account a more holistic and community-based criterion to decision concerning
land welfare. The diagram below shows some of the key concepts in this lesson:

53 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 ENVIRONMENTAL
CRISIS

Causes

ATTITUDES
Natural Human-induced TOWARDS
NATURE

Biocentrism Ecocentrism
Anthropocentric Utilitarianism "Respect for "Land Ethic"
attitude (Peter Singer) Nature" (Aldo Leopold and
(Paul Taylor) J. Baird Callicott)

Culture (other
social institutions) Religion
(L.W. Moncrief)

Judeo-Christian

Dominion over the Stewardship

Earth Attitude to Nature
(Lynn White) (P. Dobel)

Figure 3: Environmental Crisis and Attitudes Towards Nature

54 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
LET’S DO THE ACTIVITY!
ANAGRAM. Decode the anagram based on the given clue. Write your answer on
the space provided.

Anagram Clue Answer

1. FLAMEINNOCENCE the duty not to ________________________________

do harm any
entity in
natural world
that has
inherent worth
2. PRATSWEDISH a covenanted ________________________________
imperative
from God to
man involving
nature
3. CREDIT having ________________________________
obligations to
some entities
4. REINDICT having ________________________________
obligations
involving
some entities
5. TENENCIES the capacity to ________________________________
experience
pain and
pleasure
6. MICEPISCES a kind of ________________________________
discrimination
Singer sees
we have
against
nonhuman
animals
7. ICONTIMBERS the life- ________________________________
centered
system of
environmental
ethics
8. AIRMAILINTUITS the ethical ________________________________
theory
espoused by
Peter Singer

55 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 9. CHAMPIONTORRENTS human- ________________________________
centered
outlook
10. LIFETIDY prohibits ________________________________
human actions
that involve
deception
among
animals—to
remain faithful
to their
assumed trust

EVALUATION
Environmental Empathy Map Worksheet

G – Goal: You will be able to demonstrate the virtues of prudence and frugality towards
your environment

R – Role: You are concerned citizens

A – Audience: PUPian community

S – Situation:
1. Create an empathy map of an entity. Fill out each section carefully.
‘Place yourself on the shoes’ of the chosen entity below.
2. Download the worksheet file here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16yy0gkL7zLon5azw6uKb9R4TUZT5fBc
t/view
3. Properly fill out the box first of ‘empathy map ay para kay’ from the top
by selecting one from the following: (a) environmental activist, (b)
ethicist, (c) businessman, (d) polar bear, (e) politician; and/or (f) garbage
collector.
4. You may use some words, phrases, or taglines commonly associated
with the entity.
5. Write your complete name as well as your strand and section on the
upper left side of the worksheet
6. Use your phone camera to take a photo and upload it on our GDrive
folder.
7. Submit on/before the due date.

P – Product: A photo of your empathy map following the format:

1. In .jpeg or .png file format

56 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 2. Filename format: Last Name_Strand&Section (Ex.:
DELACRUZ_STEM11-01)

S – Standards and Criteria for Success: Your answers will be discussed on our next
meeting. Take note of the following guide questions in evaluating your responses:
1. Have I provided an accurate and detailed information?
2. Are my answers without bias or prejudice?
3. Did I answer completely and comprehensively?

SOURCES

Primary Sources

Botzler, Richard and Susan Armstrong, eds. Environmental Ethics: Divergence and
Convergence, 2nd ed. USA: Mc-Graw-Hill, 1998.

Pojman, Louis and Paul Pojman. Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and
Application, 6th ed. USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949.
201-226.

Mabaquiao, Napoleon B. Making Life Worth Living: An Introduction to the

Philosophy of the Human Person. Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing, 2016.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New
York: State University of New York Press, 1999.

Taylor, Paul. Respect for Nature. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1986.

Online Sources

"Environmental crisis. Oxford.

"https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.2011080309575354
(Accessed August 6, 2020.)

57 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 UNIT V
ON HUMAN FREEDOM
OVERVIEW
Freedom is one of the main philosophical problems there is. To define freedom objectively
would be to limit it. But for the sake of the argument, let us start with the notion of freedom
commonly known before we begin to discuss different ideas of freedom in the
philosophical sense of the term. When we encounter the word freedom, the thing that
comes into our minds is the ability to do something without hindrance, or restraint. Now,
the task of philosophy, which also inquires into this idea, would be to know what causes
one to be unfree, or further, is there such a thing as true freedom? To this, we begin to
ask the question of freedom where this material will present four different aspects of it,
namely theological, moral, existential, and social, and as well as one example for each.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

✓ To define freedom and how it affects our actions

✓ To classify different aspects of freedom from another
✓ To help develop the student’s idea on freedom and apply it to their own lives

CONTENT/DISCUSSION

1. THEOLOGICAL FREEDOM

St. Augustine, City of God

There is a paradox in knowing freedom in terms of the relation between God and man.
How will we be able to reconcile the idea that we are free and that there is a God who is
all-powerful, and have everything determined? It seems that if we pick one, it
automatically cancels out the other since both of them cannot be the case at the same
time. Here is where St. Augustine comes into play who believes that a universal causality

58 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
is compatible with human freedom.1 He wanted to do away with the preconceived idea
that if there is a God, human freedom is not possible.

First, Augustine answers the Stoics denying the existence of God to give humans free
will. Here’s a brief idea, the Stoics maintained that all things do not come by necessity.
However, they do not deny that things happen according to destiny; that there is a certain
order of things that are configured by different causes, for nothing happens without a
sufficient cause. What then is their idea on God’s predetermination? If this is so, the Stoics
maintained, it will abstain humans from the obligations and responsibilities of our actions,
since everything has been designed according to some certain universal divine laws.
From this premise, we come to know that the only thing that we can control is how we
can respond to the circumstances that we face – this is what Augustine is against, for he
holds that a human’s free exercise of their own will corresponds to the order of causes
that God has predetermined to maintain his being all-knowing, and humans to be free. In
other words, God already embraces our free will. For one who is not prescient of all future
things is not God.2 Therefore, to maintain its being God that coexists with human freedom,
it is aware that our wills are free but this freedom is known by his foreknowledge. In this
kind of conception, we acknowledge that there is a God and at the same time, we are
responsible for our actions and there is such a thing as consequence; as Augustine writes,
“when we will, we will by free choice, in so saying we both affirm what is true beyond
doubt, and do not still subject our wills thereby to a necessity which destroys liberty. Our
wills, therefore, exist as wills, and do themselves whatever we do by willing, and which
would not be done if we were unwilling” 3 this is later known as Augustine’s compatibilist
theory of the coexistence of an all-knowing God who has everything designed according
to its universal laws and humans endowed with freedom to act according to what they
desire, feel, and need for themselves.

1
Western Philosophy: An Anthology, 308.
2
Ibid., 310.
3
Ibid., 311.

59 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
2. MORAL FREEDOM

Immanuel Kant, Groundwork to the Metaphysic of Morals

Now that we have an idea that there can be freedom in a world that is governed by
universal laws, we can now proceed with the question of how can one act morally. We
previously discussed the laws and principles of the world in terms of a system designed
by the divine, and we can see it mechanically since there are causes and effects. This is
how our minds are designed. It is one of Immanuel Kant’s musings, along with the
existence of God and immortality. For him, our minds can imply that we are both free and
not free. Let us begin with the idea that we are free: that the world has no beginning and
there is no such thing as cause and effect. Here freedom is apparent since everything
can just happen without any cause. For him, this concept is too large for our minds to
comprehend. However, when we think that the world at a certain point in time has a
beginning, and we turn to think of cause and effect, it would be too limited for our minds,
since everything will be subject to mechanical relations of causality. However, if we only
see the world that way, we will learn eventually that we are only products of a certain
cause, thus we are not free. These two initial positions also have implications on our
freedom as human beings in the world, are we just acting because there is a cause that
impels us to respond, or can we act freely devoid of any determination of external factors?

For Kant, the purpose of our minds is specifically to know the world. However, he follows,
it does not end on that. He says that after knowing the world around us, we will come to
terms that we should act practically about it. For him, the latter would fall on the task of
moral philosophy – and with it, freedom becomes a necessity. When we learn that we are
free, we also know that there are duties and responsibilities that we have to uphold if we
are to live with other human beings. Even if we do not know whether we are free or not,
we need to presuppose it for us to make a moral world.

3. EXISTENTIAL FREEDOM

Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness

60 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
Let us look at freedom in a puzzle and try to find its pieces in the context of deterministic
view that of Jean-Paul Sartre in which he said that we, human beings, are condemned to
be free (Being and Nothingness).

What do we mean by determinism?

Determinism can be broken down to three pieces and let’s call this a continuum plenum
which consists of the cause, intention, and the act. When we talk about the 1) cause and
/ or motive it is that which confers meaning upon an act. Our action is the result of a cause
of which gives meaning upon an act but in order for a cause to be a cause, it must be
experienced. This means that the for-itself must recognize its cause or motive. 2) intention
is awareness of a person to his actions. This means that when he does an act
intentionally, he is indeed conscious of his act and the consequences of his action.
However, the motive for an act can only be realized by the end from the standpoint of its
nonexistence. Thus, our decision to act on our motive. 3) Act is the actuality of the realized
(from for-itself which is the conscious self) intention which becomes the driving force of a
cause that leads for a person to act.

“The ultimate meaning of determinism is to establish within us an unbroken continuity of

existence in itself.”4 Meaning to say that the in-itself - including our decision and act are-
conceived as psychic givens in which a motive is a psychic fact. In in-itself, everything is
real and full. Hence, our freedom, from our refusal to recognize it, becomes problematic
in terms of our constitution of recognizing freedom in the human reality because it, in this
sense, our founded freedom, clashes with the nothingness with what it is. Human reality
becomes free because of its privation in the uncertainty of the bridge between the present
and the future. Freedom can only be seen and understood from what it is not; freedom is
the nothingness of being.

Man is condemned to be free is at the core of humans because he carries the weight of
his responsibility to the world and to himself as a way of being. (The term responsibility is
taken as a conscious owing of your actions). This means that you are fully responsible of
your own self and you can not make up excuses (may it be external or internal) for what

4
blackwell anthologies, 323

61 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
has happened to you because you decided and acted on it. This means that you are fully
alone to take on the consequences of your actions; you are alone and you can not depend
on other people to lighten the weight of ones responsibility because you are profoundly
responsible for your choosing (and its consequences) and you, without an excuse
whatsoever, must integrate and engage yourself in any situation you may face. you are
in the constant process of becoming a Being. Hence, you are, in the absolute manner
and without resignation, responsible for yourself as the consequence of our freedom.

LET’S DO THE ACTIVITY

1. Write a reflection paper about the three aspects of freedom as discussed here.

SOURCES

History of Western Philosophy: An Anthology, ed. John Cottingham (Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing, 1996)

Kant, Immanuel. 1781. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited by Marcus Weigelt. Translated
by Friedrich Max Müller. Suffolk: Penguin.

—. 1785. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Translated by H.J. Paton. New York:
HarperCollins.

Gregor, Mary. 1950-. “Kant’s Conception of a “Metaphysic of Morals”.” The Philosophical

Quarterly (Oxford University Press on behalf of the Scots Philosophical Association and
the University of St. Andrews) 10 (40): 238-251.

Philosophy: A Historical Survey with Essential Readings, ed. Samuel Enoch Stumpf &
James Fieser (New York: McGraw Hill Education, 2003)

62 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 UNIT VI
THE HUMAN PERSON AND SOCIETY

OVERVIEW
This lesson will cover the idea of man’s relation with society from ancient Greeks to Marx
and Engels. In addition, this notion of sociality will be contrasted to philosophy as
production of knowledge. Ultimately, the goal of the lesson is to orient the student in the
relationship between his/her individuality – and the whole body of knowledge that
surrounds it – and society, and how they can fully understand themselves and their
society.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
By the end of the lesson, the learner will be able to:
✓ Enumerate the premises of the sociality of man.
✓ Identify the relationship between philosophy as concerned with the production of
knowledge, with society.
✓ Discuss the learnings on sociality of man and the relationship between society and
philosophy by way of writing an essay applying the learnings in assessing their
current realities.

Course Material / Discussion

Within philosophy, the view of Man’s belongingness to a society is more popularly
expressed in an axiom commonly associated with Aristotle: “Man is a social animal.” It is
an axiom that is aimed to recognize man’s nature in sociality in contrast to animality. An
actual writing by Aristotle, he noted that what made humans more of a social animal is
his capability to speech. This speech is not just sounds that makes us express more than
pain or pleasure that any animals would have. We can communicate and this capability
to communicate with speech and language enables us to have a sense of good and evil,
to consider just and unjust and to construct and acknowledge our association with one
another: like our sense of family and state.5
This has lead us to the actual point of Aristotle in more contemporary translations: man
is a political animal. The essence of man for the Greeks has always been to compose
themselves always against the animals into the maintenance of the state, which for
Aristotle, is a creation of nature: state is prior to the individual. And thus, man the political

5
Aristotle. Politics. Trans. C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. p. 4.

63 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
animal is to subject himself to the state to fulfill his essence to depart himself away from
animals.
For the Greeks, there’s really no separation between politics, philosophy and aesthetics.
We can’t really encounter and exchange experiences in the world of matter and the
knowledge from the world of forms if we do not engage with one another. Whether or not
one thinks idealistically or materially wouldn’t matter if these ideas do not even meet to
clash in the first place in the realm of discourses.
This appear in the form of democracy as an ideal form of the state, even with the ancient
Greeks. Only with the Ancient Greece, this does not come without a contradiction. The
very social formation which enabled Ancient Greek’s democracy is founded in the labor
of slaves. Several discourses of ancient philosophers even attempt to justify the existence
of slavery. (Aristotle even made his case of arguing for the existence of a natural slave.)6
With that, the fruition of man in the society is not complete. Can philosophy address this
contradiction? As an ideal, “philosophy begins with a universal thesis regarding the
equality of all minds.” Which means that the possibility of actualizing and realizing
philosophy can only be if all minds are considered equal. However, this sense of equality
can only be possible if the conditions of producing the possibility of this equality is needs
to be struggled against prevailing conditions of exploitation. 7
Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels famously state: “The history of all hitherto existing society
is the history of class struggles.”8 The history of the world has proved less existing in a
well-rounded harmony. The patrician and the plebians of the ancient world, the lord and
the serf of feudalism, the freemen and slaves of the colonial world, the bourgeoisie and
the working class. All are caught in battling against one another: the ruling class want the
state, in its “natural” form be retained; while the oppressed wants to be free. In this sense
of looking at human history as the history of class struggle, we can see also how
philosophy was not able to realize itself in its full potential.
For a discipline that boasts itself for the love of knowledge, of intelligence, it embarrasses
itself if the world that it supposed to operate on is still plagued with oppressiveness that
hinders each and everybody’s intelligent potential to be fulfilled. Looking into Plato’s
notion of forms: it’s true, the world of matter are merely appearances, but encounter with
matter to establish truth to the world of forms is the only way to real knowledge. The
working class create the things we get our knowledge from. Recently, ruling class is
scaring us of a myth of artificial intelligence replacing human labor. But this would be a
bluff and can never see the fruition of true intelligence. Without the emancipation of the
oppressed, the actuality of philosophy that realizes through the equality of all minds, and

6
Aristotle, Politics. p. 7.
7
Reza Negarestani, Intelligence and Spirit. Falmouth & New York: Urbanomic & Sequence Press, 2018., p. 409
8
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party” from Marx/Engels Collected Works Vol. 6.
London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1976. p. 482.

64 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
acts upon the good of all, we will always be left in the truth of our present age: “we are
merely living in the prehistory of intelligence.”9
Our encounters with society are our only well of knowledge. This knowledge maybe about
who we are, what we do, what we want, who our family is, who is our friends, what do we
want to do, what we should be. But a lot of us do not get to ask these questions.
Exploitation is getting any possible goodness from us: from living a good life, thinking of
the best thoughts to leading a good death. Philosophy is impotent if not used by man for
the benefit of each and every one.

LET’S DO THE ACTIVITY

• Considering the learnings on sociality of man and the relationship between society
and philosophy, assess our current society, on any point of reference (whether
cultural, economic or political) by writing an essay.

SOURCES:

Aristotle. Politics. Trans. C.D.C. Reeve. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett Publishing
Company, Inc., 2017.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. "Manifesto of the Communist Party." Marx/Engels
Collected Works. Vol. 6. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1976. 477-519.
Negarestani, Reza. Intelligence and Spirit. Falmouth, UK & New York: Urbanomic &
Sequence Press, 2018

9
Negarestani, Intelligence and Spirit, p. 492.

65 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 UNIT VII
INTERSUBJECTIVITY
OVERVIEW

Intersubjectivity, a term originally coined by the philosopher Edmund Husserl

(1859-1938), is most simply stated as the interchange of thoughts and feelings, both
conscious and unconscious, between two persons or “subjects” as facilitated by empathy.
The term subjective is based on feelings or opinions rather than facts relating to the way
a person experiences something in his or her end. Intersubjectivity is also described as
“relations among human persons which give respect to each other’s personhood”
(Mabaquiao 2016, 141). This can occur in the variety of human relations we have. Such
relationships may include those that we have with family, classmates and peers, teachers,
and colleagues in clubs or organizations that we are part of.

LEARNING OUTCOMES:

At the end of this lesson, students are expected to:

✓ Define Intersubjectivity from various philosophical standpoints
✓ Compare and contrast Buber and Sartre’s viewpoints on Intersubjectivity
✓ Explain how consumerism and technological apparatuses influence human
intersubjective relations
✓ Write a reflection paper on one’s intersubjective experience with others

COURSE MATERIAL
In this lesson, we shall look into some philosophical standpoints concerning
Intersubjectivity and how these may be useful in addressing the major questions
surrounding this topic.

Content/ Discussion

How should we interact with others? This question is a good starting point in
understanding our intersubjective human relations as we inhabit this world. Philosophers
then and now have offered us various approaches in addressing such question. We will
tackle some of those philosophical standpoints on Intersubjectivity throughout this
discussion.

So long as there are human persons whose relationship with others are
interpersonal, there are also those whose relations are not interpersonal. Oftentimes we
treat our fellow humans as persons—with respect—but there are also times when we fail
to do so and treat them as non-persons. How can we then know the difference?

66 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
Buber’s concept of the I and Thou
In his book entitled I and Thou, the philosopher Martin Buber discussed the two
kinds of relationship man has towards his fellow human beings, the things around him
and with God. Buber’s philosophy is centered on the relationship between the self and
others which he radically contrasted with the relationship of the self with objects. This is
what Buber speaks of on how relationships have two kinds, the I-Thou (You) and I-It
relationship. The difference of these two kinds of relationships lies in how man would treat
his fellow human beings and the things around him. I-Thou pertains to the relationship of
man with his fellow human beings, treating the other subject as having rights, dignity and
honor. Humans are therefore a Thou and not an It, because the other way of relating with
others is in the mode of an I-It where people are experienced and treated as objects. The
I-It level of relatedness is where humans are treated not as a subject but as an object or
a thing. I-It is a relation of subject-to-object. For instance, the relation between the human
being and a pencil could thus be described as an I–It relation. Unfortunately in many
relationships, people consider others as mere objects. When this happens, this is also
called a relationship of monologue wherein the other party is considered in the world of
things. This is a one-sided relation, within which the I concentrates upon its own purposes
and concerns and keeps the It at a distance, where it is measured and studied. In this
relatedness, personal commitment does not exist.
In addition, Buber says that the “central features of our ethical, social, and religious
life become unintelligible if we understand human relations and relations to God in terms
of our relations to objects.” There is a need to distinguish the way we relate to our fellow
human beings and to the things around us. It is unintelligible if we treat everything in
similar kind of relationship. If we understand our relationship with our fellow human beings
the same as our relationship with in animate objects then we cease to give them value
and we consider them too as part of the world of objects. Objects are things that we
manipulate and control and thus we cannot apply such kind of relationship with our fellow
human beings. For Buber we respond to the presence and individuality of others in
forming joint human projects rather than seeing others as objects to manipulate. Buber
realized that there is a basic difference between relating to a thing or to an object that I
observe, and to a person or a Thou that address me and to whose address I respond.
There is a difference between the way people usually relate to inanimate things on the
one hand and to living persons on the other. A human person cannot be deduced to the
question of “what” but to a “who.” The I-Thou relationship is not an impersonal one but a
personal one inasmuch as the “I” recognizes the other as a person. Thou is not an object
to be manipulated. In this case, the ‘I” recognizes the other’s needs and rights as a
person.

67 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
Sartre and being-for-others
If Buber provides an explanation on how a subject-to-subject or I-Thou relation is
possible, the 19th century French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre provides a different
viewpoint in understanding our human relations as we are situated in this world. Can we
really treat others as subject, as a Thou, and not merely as means to an end?
Interestingly, Sartre’s view leads us to conclude that it is not.
In his Being and Nothingness, Sartre provides a grounding for recognizing the
important aspects of human existence including regions of being, concrete relations with
others, freedom, and responsibility, among others. To better grasp how we come to
conclude that in Sartre’s perspective, a subject-to-subject relation is not possible, the
principal concept we have to consider is his notion of freedom and how this is fundamental
in our intersubjective human relations. For Sartre, we are “condemned to be free”. This
freedom is not taken in the sense that we ought to be celebrating blissfully for it, but it
pushes us in carrying a responsibility for the choices we freely choose, including the
actions we act on towards and with others. Sartre says, “The essential consequence of
our earlier remarks is that man being condemned to be free carries the weight of the
whole world on his shoulders; he is responsible for the world and for himself as a way of
being” (Sartre 1992, 707).
The inevitability of a human person’s being free entails that when we assert
ourselves as a subject, we can only see others as objects. Because for Sartre, our
encounter with the other implies that first and foremost, there is “the one who looks at
me”. Through the look of a person, the other is inescapably objectified. The one who looks
holds the secret—the prejudice and judgment he or she has towards the other—of the
one being looked at. We cannot avoid reducing the other person as an object.

Intersubjectivity and the modern society

Picturing some of those intersubjective standpoints within the advent of modern
technology, one can say that an I-Thou relationship is in danger. Modern technology
affected our relationships with each other. In many occasions the new technology is not
used to develop relationship but rather it used to manipulate the other. Increasingly the
“It” world is smothering and even obliterating completely the I-Thou relationships. With
the spectacular advances of science and the application of the principles of modern
technology on an almost universal scale, there is growing an alarming tendency to
consider man less and less a human being or a genuine Thou. Buber was concerned of
“the growth of the It-world over time, most especially with the rise of modern science and
technology”.
Internet and social media can be ways to establish relationship, but most people
would use it to control others, destroy their dignity and commit crimes. Take for example
the cases of cyber bullying where many young teenagers had committed suicide because

68 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
of the abuse they received. Cyber pornography treats man as an object to manipulate
and as a being to exploit for pleasure. Human dignity is not respected by people who
conceal themselves by hiding using this technology. They use technology to treat persons
not as thou but as an It, an object of manipulation, control and exploitation. As the
philosopher Herbert Marcuse writes, “the repressive conditions of modern industrial
society, which he held destroyed freedom of the individual and reduced people to the
status of tools.” This action stifles man, degrades him and oppresses him. He is no longer
a person but a commodity to be used and exploited. Man is seen not according to his
dignity and rights but according tohis function, this depersonalizes and dehumanizes him.
Buber argued that such a disregard for the dignity of man is rooted in rejection of the only
valid mode of interpersonal relationship, namely, the I-Thou relationship. When man
ceases to regard his fellow man as a genuine Thou, when he calculatively view him in a
highly impersonal manner as an It, an object to be used and manipulated, then we are
faced with a technomania or technolatry. Man has become a commodity, which is to be
exploited by modern technology, industry and politics. Even in the name of the so called
progress man has been sacrificed as an It, blindly serving the twentieth century modern
world.
Children and teenagers who have the pleasure of owning gadgets and modern
technology apparatuses spend most of their time using them than having a dialogue with
their parents and friends. Oftentimes we may have established an I-Thou relationship with
our material possessions such as gadgets which we may have been treating as
something that has the most value. Concrete human relations may be sacrificed if we
interchanged the values of humans to things.
More to the point, consumerism which attracts people to buy what is new in the
market forces people to work more beyond the usual hours in order to earn more. The
typical example is that many relationships in families are destroyed if not weakened due
to lack of time for dialogue and venue to establish relationships because the parents are
busy working from day to night and no more time for family bonding. The demands of
consumerism demands man to work more and man has been continually exploited for the
sake of so called progress. For the sake of the so called progress human relationship is
being affected. The worst effect of technological domination is when people find
themselves and assert too much importance on the technology itself. According to
Marcuse some people recognize themselves in their commodities; they even find their
soul in their automobiles, hi-fi set, split level home, kitchen equipment. The mechanism
which ties the person to his society has changed and social control is anchored in the
new needs which it has produced. Marcuse is also aware that the relationships among
men are increasingly mediated by the machine process. Marcuse gives an example, “The
average man hardly cares for any living being with the intensity and persistence he shows
for his automobile.
Human relationships in the advanced modern industrial society or in the modern
world of technology is being dehumanized and depersonalized. This depersonalization of

69 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
man leads also to the depersonalization of human relationships. Human relationships are
viewed as a relationship of utility, where we relate and use the other as a means. As a
conclusion, human relationships had been greatly affected due to the depersonalization
and dehumanization of man caused by modern technology.

LET’S DO THE ACTIVITY

I. Provide a five-sentence answer to each question below. Use a separate sheet as

necessary.

1. What is intersubjectivity?
2. How can we properly differentiate an I-It from an I-Thou relationship?
3. Why is a subject-to-subject relation impossible for Sartre?
4. How do consumerism and technological advancement affect our intersubjective
human relations?

II. Write the names of at least four people with whom you consider to be having a genuine
relationship with. Briefly explain how they have contributed to your growth as a person.
1. ___________________
2. ___________________
3. ___________________
4. ___________________

III. Submit a 300-word reflection paper about any of your recent intersubjective
experience with others and show how you can evaluate such experience from the lenses
of any or all of the philosophical standpoints we discussed.

70 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
REFERENCES:

Buber, Martin. 2012. “Elements of the Interhuman” in Philosophy of Man: Selected

Readings 3rd ed. Edited by Manuel B. Dy Jr. Makati City: Katha Publishing Co.,
Inc., 213-222.

Delgado, Antonio. 2020. “Intersubjectivity.”

https://www.slideshare.net/kazekage15/philosophy-of-the-human-person-
intersubjectivity
Date Retrieved: August 2, 2020)

Mabaquiao, Napoleon. 2016. Making Life Worth Living: An Introduction to the Philosophy
of the Human Person. Quezon City: Phoenix Publishing House, Inc.

Salegon, Irvin John. 2020. “Intersubjectivity.”

https://www.slideshare.net/IrvinJohnSalegon/intersubjectivity-82474821
(Date Retrieved: August 2, 2020).

Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1992. “Concrete relations with others” in Being and Nothingness.
Translated by Hazel Barnes. USA: Washington Square Press.

71 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 UNIT VIII
HUMAN PERSON AS ORIENTED TOWARDS THEIR IMPENDING DEATH

OVERVIEW
In this lesson, we will cover the notion of death and its relation to the human person.
Various points will be considered: from physiological, empirical, moral, political and
phenomenological. The aim of this lesson is to provide windows for viewpoints with
which the learner can reflect upon and consider in looking at how he/she will orient
him/herself with the concept.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
By the end of this lesson, the learner will be able to:
✓ Identify the notions of death in consideration with the physiological, empirical
moral, political and phenomenological understanding of it
✓ Enumerate each of the two points of Death that is discussed on each sections
✓ Choose and discuss a notion of how to approach death in a form of an essay

DISCUSSION
Clarification between death and ending
It seems reasonable to say that death is life’s ending, and that a particular death
is the ending of the life of a particular thing the ending of its vital processes. But
complications arise concerning the notion of an ending. (As we will see later, other
complications arise concerning the relationship between ceasing to live and ceasing to
exist.)
A life’s ending is one thing, and its having been ended is another. Socrates’ life
ended – his death occurred – sometime in 399 bce. Thereafter, his life has remained
ended, leaving him dead. Like ‘construction,’ ‘death’ is ambiguous; it may be a process
or the product (or result) of a process. ‘Death’ can refer either to the events whereby a
life ends, or to the condition or state of affairs of its being over. The latter is relatively
straightforward. But let us see if we can get clearer about ‘the events whereby a life ends.’
Many theorists construe the ending of a life, the ending of something’s (capacity for) vital
processes, as a (more or less) momentary event.
An alternative view is that it is a process or sequence of events. Thought of as a
process, a death might be compared to a race or a fall. A race begins when something
begins racing, and ends when it finishes; a fall is initiated when something begins to move
downwards under the influence of gravity, and ends abruptly upon contact with the
surface below; likewise, a death begins when something starts dying and ends when the
dying process is over; for example, a cell’s death might begin when it initiates apoptosis
and end when apoptosis is complete.
The process view supports two claims about death. First, it is not instantaneous.
In dying, our vital processes are progressively extinguished, until finally they are gone, in
72 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
a process that stretches out over a period of time, however brief. The poison Socrates
drank caused him a relatively quick death. It probably induced respiratory paralysis, which
initiated death; after his circulation ceased, the cells in his body would have continued to
metabolize for about 4 to 10 minutes, then the membranes within them would have
ruptured, releasing enzymes that then digested the cells from within, completing the dying
process. Autolysis or self-digestion would have occurred quicker in some organs, such
as his cerebrum, than others, and spread through his body. Socrates did not die instantly;
it took time for his vital processes to cease.
The second claim is that death lacks clear boundaries. In this respect death is like
birth: does a birth begin when the hormone oxytocin initiates contractions? When
contractions begin pushing the fetus? (What if the contractions stop, then resume several
hours later?) When the child begins moving through the birth canal? (What if its progress
ceases for a lengthy interval of time?) Apparently there is no precise time when a birth
begins. The boundaries of death are blurry as well. When Socrates stopped breathing, it
took some time for his blood to cease to carry oxygen to and remove carbon dioxide from
his body’s tissues. It also took some time for his tissues to begin dying, and still more time
for them to be completely dead. It is an indeterminate matter when, in this sequence of
events, Socrates’ death started and ended. However, when some philosophers speak of
‘the ending of a life’ they mean to refer to a (more or less) momentary event. What sort of
event would this be? There are two or three possibilities.
First, ‘death’ might refer to the completion of the dying process – the loss of the
very last of life. I will call this denouement death. Here death is comparable to the end of
a fire: until the last flame is out, the fire is not extinguished; until life is gone, death has
not taken place. In this sense ‘death’ is not at all like ‘race’ or ‘fall’. It would be absurd to
speak a race or fall as occurring only at the very end of the racing or falling process.
Second, ‘death’ might refer to an earlier point in the dying process. Firefighters
might pronounce a fire ‘out’ if they have battled it until it is beyond revival, even if they
know that a few live embers remain beneath well-doused ashes. This way of speaking
suggests that a fire ends when reduced beyond a point of no return, not when completely
extinguished. Perhaps we should also say that an organism dies, not when its vital
processes come completely to an end, but when they reach the point of no return, and
death’s completion is assured, no matter what is done to forestall it. I will call this threshold
death. However, reaching this point in the dying process must be distinguished from an
event that renders death causally necessary, for a condition can guarantee that a creature
will die considerably before it begins to die. One does not die at the moment one’s body
is per fused with a fatal poison that has not yet begun to undermine one’s health, but at
that moment one’s death may well be guaranteed. Of course, even when threshold death
occurs it is likely that much of the dying process has yet to occur.
There may be a third possibility. Many theorists (e.g., Grisez and Boyle 1979,
Bernat, Culver, and Gert 1981, Belshaw forthcoming) say that death occurs when the
various physiological systems of the body irreversibly cease to function as an integrated
whole. I will call this integration death. However, it is hard to see why the loss of integrated
functioning is a significant point in the dying process, unless the idea is that it entails
threshold death. It does seem reasonable to think that integration death entails threshold
death, but threshold death can occur before integration death does. For example,

73 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
irreparable damage to the immune system might bring about threshold death even before
the body’s integrated functioning has ceased. (A puzzle: Is it possible to kill an individual,
say by quickly incinerating or crushing her, after she has reached the point of integration
death or threshold death?)
In its earlier stages – before the point of no return – the dying process can be
reversed. In a cell, apoptosis may be initiated, and then reversed; similarly, an individual
organism’s respiration and heartbeat may stop for a time, and then be resuscitated. In
such cases a cell or an individual was dying, even though the process was interrupted,
and even reversed. The fact that vital processes can decline before completely ending
suggests that the process of dying occurs in degrees, and if the state of death is not just
the final product of the process of dying, but also the intermediate products, then dying
can put us into a state in which we are only partially alive. That is, at one time the dying
process may have just begun, leaving us mostly alive, and at a later time it might be well
under way, leaving us only somewhat alive, and so forth.
Thus death can be a state (being dead) or the process of extinction (dying); it might
also be equated with one of two events during the dying process: threshold death occurs
when the dying process reaches the point of irreversibility, while denouement death
occurs when the dying process completes itself.

Plato on Death

One of the tragic deaths in the history of mankind was the death of Socrates. Men
should mourn for his death – a heroic death – a death worthy of praise by the gods. He
was a great man, who concerned himself with the truth and its message, but men are
jealous – for wisdom and power – and this spelt Socrates’ demise. Death may be a
demise for others, but Socrates deemed this a gift. But why did Socrates deemed death
as a boon rather as a bane?
In the Apology, Socrates was unjustly accused of impiety against the gods and for
corrupting the youth. Though he was fully innocent, he was still convicted and was
sentenced to death. However, this very injustice did not made him fear it. Death –
according to Socrates – does not really matter, for what matters most is the time you have
spent here living, whether you have lived a good or an evil life. And if he should die, he
would die and die again for the truth. For him, the truth always holds, even in the face of
an impending death. The ills of this world may take away our lives but the extent of who
we are cannot be measured by the time spent but by how one lives it. An evil man loses
everything, but a good man does not – death becomes simply a trifle. For a good man
has to take pride in his honorable life and death cannot disgrace him. And by death, he
simply sees this as an opportunity to see the blessed realm of the gods.
As such, the good man never fears death because he knows that only the body dies
and the soul – of which is purified by his good actions – is immortal and thus receives its
reward. The Phaedo testifies to this conception, that a man’s soul is liberated when he
gives his life to the service of the good. The opposite may be said of an evil man: rather
than seeing the blessed realm and the gods in all of their glory, he is punished in Tartarus

74 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
and suffers the worst evils. Nonetheless, the soul has always the opportunity to be
reincarnated and to do the best of its ability to ascend to the highest levels of existence.
To this, Socrates reminds us of the role philosophy has to offer with regard to our death
and the liberation of our souls.
Philosophy, as the love of wisdom, guides our lives so as to purify our souls. It
teaches us that the acquisition of wisdom trains us to be akin to where we came from –
the unchanging, immutable, incorruptible forms or archetypes. In this way, it prepares us
before our death. Philosophy does not seek death simply to annihilate one’s existence, it
anticipates death to make most out of life: it makes us think and evaluate whether our
actions can be worthy of being called alive. Remembering what Socrates said: “the
unexamined life is not worth living.”
As such, examining our situation and preparing for our death becomes the utmost
task of human existence – to fill ourselves with wisdom, engage in the virtuous life and to
be in full service to the Good. For it is in this mode of living that one becomes truly beautiful
– as it is presented in the Symposium: a life concerned not with what is passing away,
the fleeting, the impermanent but with the true, the good and the beautiful. Thus, we must
not fear death, for death is simply a moment of change – it is impermanent. What lies
after death is what is permanent – the blessed realm – if we should be able to make most
out of our lives. The only man who should fear it, is the man of unrighteousness.

Heidegger on Death

Have you ever found yourself thinking about death? Why we’re here and why we’ll
die someday? Or why we can’t live forever? These questions always come around in
some point of our lives and lead us to probe over our mysterious existence. However,
amidst all questions, have we found the right answer?
Martin Heidegger – one of the most influential philosophers of the 20 th century –
provided a phenomenological analysis of death and its significance to existence.
According to him, death is the end of one’s existence. As such, death realizes the totality
of one’s life: if birth is the beginning of existence, death completes the whole picture. That
is to say that, the phenomenon of death belongs to the idea of existence. We cannot be
called existing, if we are not able to die or to reach a point of non-existence.
However, death is something which is “not-yet” and something which has “yet-to-
be.” In this sense, it something that is impending. It has not yet come to be but always is
there, and that which will come to be. Death remains always a possibility for human
existence, a certain possibility. Quoting Heidegger: “Death is the possibility of the
absolute impossibility of Dasein.” As such, we are “Beings-toward-death” or beings which
are finite or mortal. We exist only for a certain period of time and our existence in the
world is only temporary. Trying to do away with death only moves us away from who we
truly are. This trying to move away from death or ‘fearing-death’ is called ‘falling-away.’
We fall-away from our true nature, when we listen to the ‘they’ or the public opinion – they
always trivialize death and take away its significance.

75 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
 For Heidegger, death should not be feared or to be taken as something trivial. It
belongs to our nature as existing beings. To try and escape it – falling and fleeing – makes
us ‘inauthentic.’ This inauthenticity denies us from understanding who and what we are
and covers up the question of our very existence. Only when we understand that we must
‘anticipate’ death is the point where we become ‘authentic.’ The anticipation of death fulfils
the significance of death in our very lives. It puts death at the fore-ground to frame how
we lived through: Is my life worthy of being called “life” or in an explicit sense, am I ready
to die now?
Remember the Latin maxim: “Memento mori.” We must remember death or we
must remember that one day we will die. This existence is borrowed and thus, our lives
are shorter than what we think. This is not to be pessimistic and await the annihilation of
one’s own self. This anticipation is a reminder that we must not simply finish our lives but
to fulfill it: to complete the whole and to face death with full conviction, saying – Death
come to me, for I have fulfilled my life!

Death in relation to the self and the other

From the former sections, we have dealt with the topic of death through the
experience of it by the body (the cessation of the bodily functions, as the first section
states), Plato’s account of Socrates’ heroic facing of death, and Heidegger’s notion of a
Being-unto-death, with death, for him, the culmination of our existence.
Why are we having this conversation? It is safe to assume that young people may
or may not have contemplated about death (conceptual or otherwise), but the initial point
is an orientation to it. As the former section would note to us, death is something that we
always see coming. The very certainty of our lives.
But mostly, dealing with death do not concern the dying at all. But rather, who deals
with it – who endures it, in Heideggerian terms – is the other who witnesses the soul
passing from one’s body. How are we going to go about this? These celebratory notions
of death do not really provide us any point of relief if not injected within the core of our
souls or social practices.
Behind this spectating of one’s death, what mostly rattle us is not the fact that the
person is dead. But rather we do not know what death is for, at least for us, who witness
it. Who needs to endure loss? Death can only be experienced as the death of the other:
we never experience our own, even in the moment of our death.
As much as we consider life of a human person with his body and mind, seems
like we do not really have it in the same manner as with death. If as the former sections
would state, that death – in one way or another – a completion of a life, wouldn’t it be
ideal for us that the body and the mind – or our idea of what does the body represents –
would die simultaneously? It doesn’t seem so, in practice. What happens in our
experience – witnessing – of death is that the death of a body do not seem to kill what
represents the body. In such way, philosopher Gilles Deleuze would note to us that our
experience of death do not really register to us as the witnessing of the inanimate matter,
but rather corresponds to an “empty form of time.” This brings us a problematic: if the
76 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
body is the actuality of the mind, how can one die, if one do not die in a person’s mind?
If those who endured our deaths still remember us after our body dies, do we really ever
die?
At such, the dilemma presents us again, a diverging view of death, but this is
different in the merely empiricist view of the first section. More profound: we find in this
investigation an agreement with Maurice Blanchot, through Deleuze, of the two aspect of
death. First a personal death: one that deals with the I or the ego. The other an impersonal
one: one that does not have anything to do with the I.
These aspects provides us with an explanation of death – the absolute death – in
contrast to Heidegger’s possibility of absolute impossibility. Deleuze would note aside
from the death of the body, there’s a death of the idea that represents the body “in which
the individual was no longer imprisoned within the personal form of the I and the ego.”
Pure, absolute death comes from an impersonal outside: when even the pure form that
is left from the dead body withers. And this death, coming from outside, do not come from
our selves, but from others.

Death and Freedom

As a part of life, if life is lived free, it should follow that even death should be free.
If we believe that we should decide how to live our lives, shouldn’t we also decide how
are we going to die? As it exists now, the life that we are living in right now is far from
what we idealized as livable. However, we can’t decide also for our own deaths.
While we are writing about an optimistic approach to death above (man should not
fear death, according to Socrates; death as the completion of existence in Heidegger),
these would not really be the case if not being considered in our willing. Fictionist Thomas
Ligotti wrote in a long non-fictional philosophical treatise of an ideological problem: all
through our life, we are plagued with the thought that “Being alive is alright” with a
sneering disregard of the opposite. As such, we are left with the option to live through life
only, with the guarantee of freedom to do what we want to do, except our own right to die.
This is a political matter: there seems to be such a structural force that leads to
ideological assertions of the value of our living as most important. Of course, living is
important. But our value of freedom is taken if we decide to die on our own terms.
Common assertion with this thought is that it is suicidal: suicide is political since it
is a criminalization of an act of free will, even most of the time it is assumed that it isn’t.
And of course, this assertion comes also with the fact that most suicides are mere
manifestation of coercion and violence from outside the suicidal self.
We are left with a dilemma, then: is it possible to die on our own terms?
This problem – the impossibility of suicide – was first raised by the philosopher
Emmanuel Levinas. This impossibility that comes from the very foundation between life
and death: in as much life is not built by man, death too. Life happens, and so death: you
can’t assume life in as much that you can’t assume death. Suicide, for most parts, as an
act of human freedom, is an assumption of death of our own, in as much one person can’t

77 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
assume life of his own. Life is built always with the other, something outside of the self.
Death comes from outside the self.
In such way, while living guarantees freedom, dying does not. But there’s a
certainty in death. And our never ending search of absolute freedom would, one way or
another, we would be seeking our own terms of dying.
But we are living not in absolute freedom too. In this sense, a lot of us die outside
of our freedom too, even those who committed suicide.
“If all else fail, I have the power to die!”, William Shakespeare’s Juliet has said. If
we are to see the example of the lovers, Romeo and Juliet, while in their young naïve
self, their deaths are not driven by the self nor by the other exclusively. It’s a death that
comes to bridge the two. It’s a power, enabled by their love, their power to die.
Philosopher Domingo Castro de Guzman extensively written of this concept. In
radical contradistinction against the Heideggerian dasein (the notion of existing with the
endurance of life), de Guzman brought forward a notion of death that comes from a life
does not endure, but a life that struggles and attempts to go against life itself. For de
Guzman, this comes from the power to die: a death that transcends mere causality of
enduring life. There’s only two kinds of dying for de Guzman: either one dies for and as
mere being, like a pig; or one dies for someone / something else other that transcends
mere being. Either to die by yourself, within your own self, for yourself (in anyway, death
by being comes even without dedication to the self); or to die for someone other than
yourself.
The power to die, as dedicated not just for the other, necessarily dedicates itself
to the moral good. A heroic death. A kind of death that provides new essence both to the
meaning of one’s life and one’s death. But then again, this death is not sought: you
already have the power to die, and this power is the power to ensure the good of all: a
power that is impersonal, atemporal because it is beyond us and beyond time. The good
that comes from the maximal freedom of all. An orientation to death that “is a vector of
emancipation against any given state of affairs”; against totalities and exploitation, as
philosopher Reza Negarestani would note. Death will come, for sure, but for life to
become meaningful, we need to ensure each and one other’s good life.
Now, even having a good life is being taken away from us. The condition for a good
life, a condition also for a good body and mind, we can’t even enjoy. To “choose” to die
in this condition only reinforces this very condition. We need to seize our means of living:
our means of good thought and collective care. However, as Negarestani would note:
If seizing the means of collective cognition is no longer on the menu of our
everyday life as even the remotest option for the good of ourselves and others,
then it is perhaps time to seize, by whatever cunning instruments necessary, the
means of our death. (Negarestani, Intelligence and Spirit)
The power to die is the pursuit of the better, the craft of a better life. A guarantor
of absolute freedom, the maximal communism of the Good that dissipates all totalities
and chains that binds us.

78 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )
ACTIVITY/ASSESMENT:
In an essay, answer the following question:
1. Would you choose, if it were possible to know when, where, and how you will die?
What do you think would happen if people knew the exact time and circumstances
of their death?

REFERENCES:
Calano, Mark Joseph, Pasco Marc Oliver and Ramoya Marie Chris, PhD’s. Philosophizing
and Being Human. Quezon City: Sibs Publishing House, Inc. 2016
De Guzman, Domingo C. The Power to Die, The Ontological Difference and the Logic of
Absolute Violence. Manila: Polytechnic University of the Philippines, 2007.
Deleuze, Gilles. Difference and Repetition. Trans. Paul Patton. London & New York:
Continuum, 2001.
Levinas, Emmanuel. Time and the Other. Trans. Richard A. Cohen. Pittsburgh, PA:
Duquesne University Press, 1987.
Luper, Steven. The Philosophy of Death. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2009.
Malpas, Jeff and Robert Solomon, Eds. Death and Philosophy. New York: Routledge,
1998.
Negarestani, Reza. Intelligence and Spirit. Falmouth & New York: Urbanomic &
Sequence Press, 2018.

79 | I n t r o d u c t i o n t o P h i l o s o p h y ( S H S )