UNIT 1:

THE SELF FROM

VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES

“Who Am I?”
1 PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE

INTRODUCTION
We might have been overwhelmed by the new environment that we are in today being in
college. There are so many things to adjust to in a big school. The systems sometimes are
completely different from what we are used to in the Senior High School. Intellectual discourses,
academic requirements, course demands and healthy competitions are present in all corners of the
campus. There are also institutional systems that are sometimes totally new to us. Amidst this
challenging adjustment we are often pinned with questions unfortunately not all are answered. We
want to explore the boundless horizon, we want to tell the world about something very important
but we feel so powerless to do so. All these confusions bring about existential questions that we
may want to explore.
In this module, we shall once and for all get in touch with ourselves. Let u go back to those
hanging questions that you almost wanted to forget. We will spend time to reflect on the issue that
we think are important to us. To aid us in this endeavor we will seek the wisdom of Philosophers
like Socrates, Plato, Augustine, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Freud, Ryle, Churchland and
Merleau-Ponty. They have all braved to answer the question “Who Am I?” way ahead of us. We
learn with them as we also attempt to answer the same questions.

OBJECTIVES:
At the end of this module, you are expected to:
a. Articulate the various Philosophical views about the self;
b. Examine one’s thoughts and experiences according to the Philosophical views of the self
c. Propose and answer to the question “Who Am I?”
 Many Philosophers grappled to understand the meaning of human life. They have attempted
to answer the question “Who Am I? and most of their views have influenced the way we look at
our lives today.

SOCRATES, PLATO, AUGUSTINE

The dictum “Know thy Self” as we hear today is an ancient greeting of the highly civilized
Greeks. It was believed that the temple Gods greet the people with this salutation as they enter the
holy sanctuary. The ancient Greek Philosophers manifested to the people their various
interpretations of the greeting. In the onset, the greeting may seem to be epistemological. Knowing
oneself is only about measurable facts that pertain to the self such as age, height, color, blood type
or cholesterol level but the philosophers insisted that knowing oneself is more than just the basic
fact to know thy self is first an imperative and then requirement. It is imperative to know the
limits of the self so that one knows what one is capable of doing and what one is not. The real
meaning of knowing thy self, then, is a requirement for self-moderation, prudence, good
judgement, excellence of the soul (Ortiz De Landazuri, 2014).

The original Greek expression γνῶθι σεαυτόν claimed to have a very rich content that is
almost indistinguishable in the English Language. The expression is almost interchangeably
translated as “Know thyself” or “Self-control” this means that the greeting is not only an
imperative of self-knowledge but is also a requirement that one has to have self -moderation.
Anything that is excessive is not good thus it is just prudent to strike the balance of things. Too
much power might lead to abuse; too many friends might decrease the quality of relationships; too
many problems may bring about depression; too much knowledge might make one think as in the
ancient ruler that there is nothing else to know about, and so on. It is just wise then to put oneself
in moderation so that one is capable of self-control and self-judgement.

The prudence and judgement aspects of knowing thyself are already extensions from self-
knowledge to ethics. The expression is an ethical requirement to be wise in choosing moderation,
and to be able to make good judgements in the desiring what is good and avoiding that which will
only bring harm. Moderation in the expression of love for sweethearts, for example, will bring the
best of the other in the course of their loving companionship. Once a partner is only overpowered
and subjugated by the other, then there will never be prudence and good judgement in the
relationship. The ethics in knowing thyself is very important because such will bring the person to
the excellence of the soul. For the ancient Greeks, the soul is the essence of the person. Like any
other loving relationships, one must be able to bring about the excellence of the soul of the other
as a result of such relationship. To know thyself, therefore is to examine whether we have achieved
moderation, have prudently what is good, and have brought about excellence of the soul.
To be able to demonstrate this, Socrates proposed a
very emphatic philosophy. In Plato’s Apology sec.
38-A Socrates narrates;
... And if again I say that to talk everyday
about virtue and the other things about which you
hear me talking and examining myself and others is
the greatest good to man, and that the unexamined life
is not worth living, you will believe me still less. This
is as I say, gentlemen, but it is not easy to convince
you. Besides, I am not accustomed to think that I
deserve anything bad. If I had money, I would have to
post a fine...
Here Socrates insisted that, “The unexamined life is not worth living”. This is perhaps the
most satisfying philosophical assertion that Socrates claimed in order to protect human beings
from the shallowness of living their lives. An examined life is a life that is duty bound to develop
self-knowledge and a self-dignified with values and integrity. Not only that; living a good life
means having the wisdom to distinguish what is right from wrong. Socrates further argued that the
unexamined life is no better off than animal life.
When we become readily contented with the information we received from the social media
for example, and submit to how virtual reality defines life, develop needs and wants, classify
morality, delineate universal values, and mystify human reason, we are not better off than the dogs
who become contented by the crumbs provided by their masters.
Insisting on the examined life, Socrates maintained that only those who have at least
achieved self-moderation and distinguished what is good from bad, in this case- Socrates referred
to the life of the Philosophers, are capable of condemning those who are pretentious to be knowing
themselves when the fact is contrary. In his account of Socrates’ claim, Plato writes;

Only a self-controlled man, then will know himself and will

be capable of looking to see what he actually knows and
what he doesn’t know. By the same token only a self-
controlled man will be capable on examining others to see
what a person knows and think he knows. (Assuming that
he does have knowledge), and whether there are things
which he thinks he knows, but doesn’t really. And no one
else is capable of doing this.
 Here in fact Socrates wanted to tell the law makers the community leaders those who
claimed to be learned, especially his accusers to recognize their ignorance. What hinders these
experts in seeing reality is the belief that they already know everything. Such a belief will eliminate
altogether the desire for self-moderation and ethical prudence. Then, Socrates rightly pronounced
that “I know what I do not know.” This perhaps is what makes Socrates the wisest among
Philosophers. For Socrates, only in the recognition of one’s ignorance that a person can truly know
oneself.
Influenced by the wise pronouncements of Socrates, Plato proposed his own philosophy of
the self. He started on the examination of the self as a unique experience. The experience will
eventually better understand the core of the self which he called the Psyche.

For Plato, the Psyche is composed of three elements. These are the Appetitive, Spirited and the
Mind.
1. The Appetitive element of the Psyche include one’s desires, pleasures, physical
satisfactions, comforts, etc.
2. The Spirited element is part of the Psyche that is excited when given challenges, or
fights back when agitated, or fights for justice when unjust practices are evident. In a
way this is the hot-blooded part of the Psyche.
3. The mind, however, is what Plato considers the as the most superior of all the elements.
He refers to this element as the nous which means the conscious awareness of the self. The
nous is the super power that controls the affairs of the self. It decides analyzes, things
ahead, proposes what is best, and rationally controls both the appetitive and spirited
elements of the psyche.
Another concrete example of a highly self-controlled nous is the life of St. Augustine. He hailed
from Tagaste, Africa in 354 B.C. He succumbed two vices and pleasures of the world. Augustine
was unsettled and restlessly searched for the meaning of his life until his conversion with
Christianity. In his confessions he pronounced; You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our
heart is restless until it finds rests in you.
Augustine returned to his homeland and
embrace an ascetic life. He dedicated his Christian
life to the pursuit of contemplative ideals. He
practiced extreme self-denial and self-mortification.
Later he was elected as bishop of Hippo. He fought
bravely the errors of his time through his sermons
and many writings, he died in 430 B.C. and later was
declined doctor of the church. The development of
the self for St. Augustine is achieved through self-
presentation and self-realization. He was not afraid
to accept to himself and tell the people about his
sinfulness. However, the realization of the wasted
self is achieved through his conversation to the faith.
Thus, his journey toward the understanding of the
self was centered on his religious convictions and
beliefs.

This could be true to all religions when Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu believers (or
any other traditional or indigenous religion) struggle between the pleasures of the body and the
demands of the soul in pursuit of ultimate happiness of the self, one must be able to recognize the
love of that supreme being or the divine and morally or ethically respond to that love. To St.
Augustine man’s end goal is happiness. Only in God can men attain true and eternal happiness,
made possible in his contemplation of the truth and the divine wisdom. i.e. God himself.
Christianity is the full and true philosophy. It is the full revelation of the true God. Human beings
alone, without God, are bound to fail.

DESCARTES, LOCKE, HUME AND KANT

Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, deviated from theocentric philosophies
on the years before him. He was in fact able to redress the question concerning the self in a very
different rational method. He started his quest of discovering the self by his methodic doubt.
In his Mediations on First Philosophy, Descartes, claimed that we cannot really rely on
our senses because our sense perceptions can often deceive us. There are many times when we
hear something when in fact there is nothing, and that we are deceived by our sense of hearing.
There are also times when we see someone or something in the peripheries of our eyes when in
fact there is nothing that resembles with what we thought we saw. This will be true to our sense of
smell, touch, hearing and so on. Therefore, Descartes refused to believe in the certainty of his sense
perceptions and started to doubt everything.
Everything must be subjected to doubt. Our existence, our religion, our world, our God,
our special someone, even our instructor or professor. There will never be certain in this world as
long as it passes our senses. Further Descartes, cannot even distinguish between the events in his
dream and in reality. He claimed that when dreaming, it felt so real that even our heartbeat,
breathing, and feelings are just so comparable to the real events. When we dream about our crush,
we feel the intensity of the dream that we would wake up frustrated realizing that it was only a
dream. Likewise, when the dream about our most dreaded experience in life, we would wake up
happy after realizing that it was only a dream.

Here, Descartes stated that to doubt whether the events he experiences at the moment are only
products of his dreams and therefore illusions. He started to doubt about every reality that he had
been accepting as true and only illusionary creations of an evil genius who designed all these false
impressions in the world. Eventually Descartes is left nothing but his doubt.
Nonetheless, this same doubt redeemed him from slumber. He claimed that since he could
no longer doubt that he is doubting, therefore there should be a level of certitude that there must
be someone who is doubting-that is him. Then he said “Cogito, ergo Sum.” This is translated as
“I think therefore I am” or “I doubt therefore I exist.” Only after the certitude of the “doubting
I” can all the other existence (e.g. God, the universe, things, events, etc.) become certain.
Descartes’ discovery of the cogito revolutionizes the way we view ourselves and the world
around us. It has also dramatically changed the way we evaluate ourselves. The primary condition,
therefore of the existence of the self, at least according to Descartes, is human rationality. Simply
put, we need reason in order to evaluate our thoughts and actions. We need reason to live fully the
demands, challenges and call for our religion. We need reason in order to establish firm
foundations for universal truth and morals. We need reason in order to exist and to continue to
survive the generations to come by protecting our environment. We need reason in order to protect
ourselves from being savage to one another. We need reason in order to build and live out our
peace.
Contrary to the primary reason as proposed by Descartes, one British philosopher and
politician, John Locke, suggested another way of looking at the self. Locke opposed the idea that
only reason is the source of knowledge of the self. His proposition is that the self is comparable
to an empty space where every day experiences contribute to the pile of knowledge that is put
forth on that empty space. Experience, therefore is an important requirement in order to have
sense data which, through the process of reflection and analysis, eventually becomes sense
perception.
These sense data are further categorized by Locke according to primary qualities such as
numbers, solidity, figure, motion, among others and also secondary qualities such as color, odor,
temperature and all other elements that are distinguishable by the subjective individual. Sense
perception becomes possible when all these qualities are put together in the faculty of the mind.
It has to be noted that the validity of sense perception is very subjective. Perception is
changing from one individual to another. For example, when one reads a text message:
“Congratulations! You won 1M pesos in an online lottery.” from an unknown number, one text
receiver may hastily reply in excitement and elation while the other text receiver may just totally
ignore it as a hoax or even treat it as a virus! Perception therefore, is very subjective to Locke.
This provides the most lenient leeway for every individual to be independent in self-
examination, self-management and self-control. The individual person, for Locke is not only
capable of learning from experience but also skillful enough to process different perceptions from
various experiences to form a more complex idea. These ideas then will become keys to understand
complex realities about the self and the world.
Challenging the position of John Locke, David Hume, a Scottish philosopher and historian
put forward his skeptical take on the ideas forming the identity of the self. Hume claimed that
there cannot be a persisting idea of the self. While Hume agreed that all ideas are derived from
impressions, problematically, it follows that the idea of the self is also derived from impressions.
However, impressions are subjective, temporary, provisional, prejudicial and even skewed –and
therefore cannot be persisting.
In as much as we wanted to be persistent, constant and stable with our knowledge about
ourselves, Hume asserted that this is just impossible. As long as we derive our knowledge from
impressions, there will never be the “self.” This means that for Hume, all we know about ourselves
are just bundles of temporary impressions. Perhaps this supports the difficulty of answering the
question “Who am I?” because what we can readily answer are impressions such as name, height,
color of hair, affiliations, skills, achievements and the like. All these are temporary and non-
persisting. In fact, Hume harshly claimed that there is no self.
Hume could have made us all agnostic about our knowledge of the self and be content with
whatever fragmented idea at least we have about ourselves had it not by the rescue efforts of
Immanuel Kant. Kant is a Prussian metaphysicist who synthesized the rationalist view of
Descartes and the empiricist views of Locke and Hume. His new proposition maintained that the
self is always transcendental. In fact, he calls his philosophy the Transcendental Unity of
Apperception.

His theory explains that being the self is not

in the body, it is outside the body and even
outside the qualities of the body-meaning
transcendent. For Kant, ideas are perceived
by the self, and they are connecting the self
and the world. The similarity of ideas between
individuals is made possible because, for
Kant, we all have sensory apparatus by which
we derive our ideas. This means that we need
not reject our ideas, unlike Hume, no matter
how temporary and non-persistent they are
because there is unity in ideas.

Kant further argues that even if we eliminate everything, or in the case of Descartes, doubt
everything, there will still be space and time that will remain in us. These are categories that cannot
be outside of the self and they help provide perception of the self, Perception here does not belong
to the world; it belongs to the self through its temporal-spatial faculty. Rightly, Kant is able to
claim that all things in the world are in themselves and part of it belongs to the self. This is possible
because the mind possesses the order and the unity of all raw sensations. In other words, the thing
in-itself cannot provide the idea but it is only the spatial- temporal faculty of the self that makes
the idea sensible.
In short, Kant is only saying that our rationality unifies and makes sense the
perceptions we have in our experiences and make sensible ideas about ourselves and the
world. This ingenious synthesis saved the empirical theories of the sciences and the rational
justification innate ideas. Kant also solved the problem of the ability of the self to perceive the
world.

FREUD, RYLE, CHURCHLAND and MERLEAU-PONTY

Just as the philosophers celebrate the “unity” of the self as achieved by Kant, the
Psychologist Sigmund Freud lamented the victory and insisted on the complexity of the self,
Freud, refusing to take the self or subject as technical terms, regarded the self as the “I” that
ordinarily constitute both the mental and physical actions. So, we can say “I run”, “I eat”, “I
decide”, “I feel the tingling sensation” or “I refuse to cheat because it is wrong.” Admittedly, the
question “Who am I” will not provide a victorious unified answer but a complicated diverse feature
of moral judgements, inner sensations, bodily movements and perceptions. The “I” will never be
the same and it will continue to change overtime. In other words, Freud sees the “I” as a product
of multiple interacting processes, systems and schemes. To demonstrate this, Freud proposed
two models: The Topographical and structural models (Watson, 2014).
Topographical Model. According to Freud’s concept of hysteria, the individual person
may both know and do not know certain things at the same time. We may say, for example, that
we know the disadvantage and perils of missing classes without any reason, but we are not really
sure why we still do it anyway. We are certain about the many wrongs that may be brought about
by premarital sex, i.e. early pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, ruined relationships and
depression, but we never understand why there is this something somewhere inside us that makes
many of us do what we know is wrong.
Structural Model. Similar to the disintegration of the self in Topographical Model, Freud’s
Structural Model will also represent the self in three different agencies:

1. The ID is known as the primitive or instinctive component.

2. Ego is described by Freud as that part of the id which has been modified by the direct
influence of the external world.
3. The superego synthesizes the morals, values and systems in society in order to
function as the control outpost of the instinctive desires of the id (McLeod 2007)

We often equate the ego as the self, the subject or the “I.” However, Freud does not readily
approve this equation because while the three agencies are distinct from one another, oftentimes,
the ego is not able to control the instincts of the id, and cannot even manipulate the thoughts of the
superego. This even leaves the ego as only a marginal and impotent agency of the mind- not the
ideal philosophical self or soul that we want to figure out, Freud remarked that it is even the id-
this devil, instinctual, unthoughtful, fearless and primitive agency of the mind- that is the core of
our being (Freud, 2011).

The sensationalization of the self as unifying agent and a powerful command center of the
other agencies simply do not exist in Freud’s Structural Model. Although the ego initiates the
command, it simply lacks the power to control and put limits to the rage of the id. Moreover, the
ego will only content itself with the very limited information revealed by the vast databank of
information in the unconscious. The ego owns a scanty knowledge about the unconscious which
oftentimes are incomplete and inaccurate.

Let us take the hypothetical example of a child who is born in a happy, loving and affluent
family. He is well provided by his well-mannered parents who are respected professionals in their
fields. The family never misses the Sunday ritual of going to mass. He is raised with plenty of time
to work and play and study. He is sent to an expensive private school until he found himself kicked
out by the school because of drug addiction and cutting classes. He steals the family fortune to
afford his vices. He destroyed the many lives of his friends. He disrespects his parents and siblings
and accuse them of not loving him. He ended up broke, wasted, imprisoned and a menace to the
society. Now we ask: where is the self? How can we understand the “I” in this example? What is
in the self that was not able to control the piles of self-destructive activities of the child? What is
in the experiences of the child that made him deviant of the otherwise ideal upbringing? How can
we know? Freud claims that there is nothing else above the “I” that will consolidate the three
agencies. There is only the plurality of these antagonistic and independent agencies.

In an attempt to offer an explanation to some behaviors that are difficult to justify by reason,
Gilbert Ryle, a British philosopher, proposed that his positive view in his “Concept of the mind.”
It started as a stem critique of Descartes’ dualism of the mind and body. Ryle said that the thinking
“I” will never be found because it is just “a ghost in the machine.” It means he finds the
philosophy of Descartes totally absurd. The mind is never separate from the body. He proposed
that physical actions or behaviors are dispositions of the self. These dispositions are derived from
our inner private experiences. In other words, we will only be able to understand the self-based
from the external manifestation-behaviors, expressions, language, desire and the like. The mind
therefore is nothing but a disposition of the self.

Ryle continued that the mind will depend on how words are being told and expressed
and delivered. In a way, he demystified the operations of the mind because the operations of the
mind are simply manifested by the dispositions of knowing and believing. To illustrate this
position, we take the visitor on a tour around the city. We bring him to the city hall, to the park, to
the known schools, to big malls, to beautiful gardens, to night life venues, to the known landmarks
and to your house. After the tour, your visitor will ask: Where is the City? All those parks and
malls and places consist the city. This same observation is true to the disposition of the mind. All
the manifestations in physical activities or behavior are the dispositions of the self, the basis of the
statement;

“I act therefore I am” or “You are what you do”.

Bringing the argument, a little further, couple Paul and Patricia Churchland promoted the
position they called the “eliminative materialism” which brings forth neuroscience into the fore
of understanding the self. For centuries, the main concern of philosophy and even psychology is
the understanding the state of the self, and still they failed to provide satisfactory position in the
understanding of the self. For Churchlands, these philosophical and psychological directions will
eventually be abandoned only to be replaced by a more acceptable trend in neuroscience that
provides explanation on how the brain works.

This position is a direct attack against the folk psychology. Eliminative Materialism sees the
failure of folk psychology in explaining basic concepts such as sleep, learning, mental illness and
the like. Given the length of time that these sciences have investigated these concepts and yet there
is no definitive explanation offered to understand the mind that is tantamount to “explanatory
poverty” (Weed, 2018). It is not remotely impossible that folk psychology will be replaced by
neurobiology. As the Churchlands wanted to predict when people wanted to ask what is going on
with themselves, they might as well go for MRI scan or CT scan to understand the present
condition of the brain and how it currently works.

Interestingly, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, a French philosopher, seemed to support the emerging

trends in understanding the self. His philosophy, the Phenomenology of Perception draws heavily
from the contemporary research Gestalt Psychology and neurology. He developed a kind of
phenomenological rhythm that will explain the perception of the self. The rhythm involves the
three dimensions. First is the empiricist take on perception, followed by the idealist-intellectual
alternative, and lastly, the synthesis of both positions.

On the onset, Merleau-Ponty rejected classical empiricism because it eliminates the

indeterminate complexities of experience that may have an effect on perception. In the same way,
he also rejected the idealist-intellectual position because it will only falsify perception based on
one’s biases and prejudices. What Merleau-Ponty proposes is treating perception as a causal
process. It simply means that our perceptions are caused by the intricate experiences of the self,
and processed intellectually while distinguishing truthful perceptions from illusory. Therefore, the
self is taken as a phenomenon of the whole-a Gestalt understanding of perceptual analysis.

SUMMARY

In closing, this section discussed the philosophical perspective of understanding the self
through historical approach. In the ancient medieval times, we have identified the self as the
perfection of the soul. To achieve this requires self-examination and self-control. In the modern
period, understanding the self is recognized in the dialectic synthesis between rationalism and
empiricism. Contemporary philosophy takes a wide variety of theories in understanding the self.
REFERENCES:
Villafuerte, S.L., Quillope, Al, Tunac, Rudjane, Borja, Estela. (2018). Understanding the Self.
NIEME Publishing House, Co. Ltd.,Cubao, Quezon City.

A. Gines, e. a. (2003). General Psychology A Textbook for College Students. Manila: Rex Book
Store.

Aguirre, Monce, Dy. (2011).Introduction to Psychology. Mutya Publishing House.Manila.

American Psychological Association. (2008). Answers to your questions: For a better

understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality. Washington, DC:

Atkinson, R. (2000). Hilgard's Introduction to Psychology. Harcourt Brace College

Publishers.

A. P. A. (2005)Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders:4thed.Revised (DSM-IV-

R)USA: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.

Baumeister, R., & Bushman, B. (2011). "The Self." Social Psychology and Human Nature. 2nd
ed. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Brown, J.D., & Marshall, M.A. (2006). The three faces of self-esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.),
Self-esteem: Issues and Answers. New York:Psychology Press.

Crocker, J., & Park, L.E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem, Psychological Bulletin, 130,
392-414.

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C.T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108,593-
623.

Feist,J., Feist, G., & Roberts, T., (2013). Theories of Personality, Eight Edition. McGraw-Hill
Education, New York.

Feldman, Robert S. Understanding Psychology, 6/e. University of Massachusetts, Amherst

(Course textbook)

Gaerlan, Limpingco, Tria. (2000)General Psychology. Ken Incorporated.Manila. Global Views

on Morality - Premarital Sex. PewResearch Global Attitudes Project. 15 Apr 2014.

Gripaldo, R., ed. (2005).Filipino Cultural Traits, The Council for Research in Values and
Philosophy. USA.

Hall, C., Lindzey, G., Loehlin, J., & Manosevitz, M. (1997). Introduction to Theories of
Personality. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Huffaker, David. (2004). Gender Similarities and Differences in Online Identity and
Language Use among Teenage Bloggers.

Hurlock, E. 2001. Developmental Psychology. A Life Span Approach. Mc Graw Hill, Inc.
USA
Kahayon, Aquino. (2000)General Psychology, Manila

Klein, J., (1994). Our Need for Others and its Roots in Infancy.London. p. 230. RetrievedJune
19, 2018, from http://psychology_of_self.htm

Marwick, A. (2013). “Online Identity.” In Hartley, J., Burgess, J. & Bruns, A. (eds), Companion to
New Media Dynamics. Blackwell Companions to Cultural Studies. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp.
355-364.

Myers, David. (2002) Exploring Psychology. USA: Worth Publishers

Santrock, John.(2000). Psychology.Higher Education Publishing. USA

Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Oleszkiewicz, A., Frackowiak, T., Huk, A., & Pisanski, K.
(2015). Selfie posting behaviors are associated with narcissism among men. Personality and
Individual Differences, 85, 123-127.

Teh, Lota and Ma. Elizabeth J. Macapagal. (2007).General Psychology for Filipino College
Students. QC: ADMU Press (Course textbook)

Toma, C. L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Self-affirmation underlies Facebook use. Personality And
Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(3), 321-331. doi:10.1177/0146167212474694

Tria, G.E, J.E. Gaerlan and D.A. Limpingco, 2012. General Psychology 6e. KEN, INC., Quezon
City Philippines

Tsiaras, A. 2006.The Invision Guide to Sexual Health, First Edition. Harper Collins Publishers,
New York, pp. 2-8

Villafuerte, S.L. Learning Modules in Psychology. 2013. ISBN 978-971-92250-7-2. Legazpi City,
Philippines

Weiser, E. B. (2015). # Me: Narcissism and its facets as predictors of selfie-posting frequency.
Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 477-481.

Zulueta, F. (2011). Abnormal Psychology. Mandaluyong: National Book Store.