You are on page 1of 90

Philosophy of man ppt.

part 1 Presentation Transcript

1. PHILOSOPHY of MAN A. Definition of Philosophy Before defining Philosophy define first what is
definition. The term Definition is derived from the Latin word de-fenire meaning to state the limits
of to enclose within the limits of or to enclose within limits. A thing can be limited by unfolding its
nature, or by getting its meaning or by laying hold of what includes and extends.

2. Two classifications of Definition: A. Nominal: (Nominales latin) meaning having reference to a


name. A nominal definition is defined or limited according to its term or name. So both etymological
and vernacular nominal definitions limit a thing from the standpoint of its name or term. thinking.)

3. Two kinds of Nominal Definition: 1. Etymological nominal definition limits a thing or term by
taking its derivation( e.g. Latin word de-fenire) 2. Vernacular nominal definition limits a thing or term
by taking into account its exclusive meaning (e.g. Logic is the science of correct thinking and reasoning)

4. B. Real Definition- (from the Latin word realis meaning having reference to a thing or reality.)
Real Definition- defines a thing by considering the thing per se. Classification of Real Definition: 1.
Intrinsic real definition-limit a thing according to its essence and contingency or accident. If it limits a
thing according to its accidents (those characteristics or parts that may belong to a thing but are not
necessary to the essence of a things) it is called descriptive definition.

5. An essential Definition- limits a thing or term according to its genus, i.e. Man is an animal. In this
case man is defined or limited in the context of his animality., i.e. Man is not a plant but an animal.
Besides an essential definition can also limit a thing in terms of its species, i.e. Man is a rational
animal. Here, rationality or rational animal is exclusive to man. A Descriptive Definition limits a thing
according to its attributes or properties (those natural necessities of a thing that are not part of its
essence) e.g. Man is a smiling being.

6. Extrinsic definition- limits a thing according to its origin, or cause or finality( purpose), i.e.Death
(cause) is the separation of the soul from the body, or God(origin) is the creator of man., or A
ballpen is an instrument for writing (purpose).

7. Definition A. Nominal 1.Etymological 2.Vernacular B. Real 1. Intrinsic a. Essential i. Genus ii.


Species b. Descriptive i. Properties ii. Accidents 2. Extrinsic a. Origin b. Origin c. purpose

8. Different Nominal Definition Greek words Philein meaning love or friendship and sophia
meaning wisdom. Literally , Philosophy means Love of wisdom. But what is love and what is
wisdom. As a drive, love always seeks unity with the object, it desires to possess its object. On the other
hand, wisdom means the good exercise or application of knowledge. Truth is the ultimate object of
knowledge. Hence truth is being shown and practice by a man of wisdom. To philosophize, therefore, is
to be in a quest, or to have the desire towards living the truth. Chinese- Philosophy means Zhe-xue or
che shueh known as Zhe-means wisdom; Xue- means study. For the Chinese. Philosophy is the
translation of words into action or the application of theory into practice

9. Thus, Chinese Philosophy-is the translation of words into action or the application of theory into
practice. Hindus Philosophy is Darsana. Darsana- means seeing, seeing not only through the eyes, but
through the whole being of the one that sees. In other words the Philosophy of the Hindus- means seeing
the whole of reality through a total advertence and involvement of the looker. Vernacular definition of
Philosophy. Philosophy-is the science that investigates all things in their ultimate causes, reasons, and

principles through reason alone. Philosophy is the love of wisdom or the quest for truth. It is the
truth that explains that which is referred to as philosophy.

10. Real Definition of Philosophy Philosophy- is the science that investigates all things in their
ultimate causes, reasons, ad principles through human reason alone. Critical thinking- founded on
reason, experience, reflection, intuition, meditation, imagination and speculation which also embraces
questioning, analyzing, criticizing, synthesizing, evaluating and judging.

11. The Origin of Philosophy Miletus where Philosophy originated Thales the first acclaimed
philosopher. He wondered earlier than Pythagoras also a philosopher in 6th century. The origin of
Philosophy is wonder. Philosophy starts with wonder that is why it is the cause of philosophy. Thaleswas the first man who questioned or wondered. Wonder is expressed in a question. When question arise,
reasoning through experience, intuition, meditation, imagination and speculation start to work. This is
why philosophizing always involves questioning, analyzing, criticizing, synthesizing, evaluating, and
judging. The spark of wonder is the dynamic force that leads to the progressive motion of the act of
philosophizing.

12. Purpose of Philosophy: Enables us to understand ourselves better. Helps us understand others, our
fellowmen Helps us understand other ways of thinking Helps us understand the world and our place
and role in it. Helps us understand the significance, meaning, value, and finality of human life. Helps
us know and undertsand God in his nature, essence activities and attributes.

13. Division of Philosophy General - Ontology Metaphysics Special Philosophy Epistemology Logic
Ethics Cosmology Theodicy Psychology

14. Four Disciplines of Philosophy 1. Metaphysics- science that studies all beings in so far as they are
beings. a. General - Ontology- a metaphysical study of all realities in so far as they exist. b. Special: i.
Cosmology metaphysical science which studies the nature of the world. ii. Theodicy studies the
nature, operations and attributes of God. iii. Psychology studies of mans nature as being endowed with
reason and intellect. 2.Epistemology- investigates knowledge and truth,

15. 3. Logic- the study of correct thinking and reasoning 4. Ethics- the study on the morality of human
actions or Moral Philosophy. Philosophy of Man- a course that delves into the origin of human life, the
nature of human life, and the reality of human existence. Philosophy of man is ones desire to know who
and what man is. Thus, Philosophy of man , asks a crucial question about himself and gradually answers
the question himself. In general the Philosophy of man is a course that deals with man, man is the
superstar in Philosophy of man

16. II. MAN IN THE CONTEXT OF HIS NATURE Man is a being, a creature, whose destiny is to live
in two worlds, viz. the spiritual and physical or material world. Man is destined to live in the spiritual
world because he summoned by God to live with Him in His kingdom; and man is destined to live I n
the physical world since he is part of the world and, besides, he lives among entities in the world, viz,
plants minerals, animals, etc.

17. Man is basically a being, a creature, whose destiny is to live in two world., viz. : the spiritual and
the physical or material world. Man is destined to live in spiritual world because he is summoned by
God to live with Him in his Kingdom; and man is destined to live in the world since he is a part of the
world and besides, he lives among entities in this world., viz. plant. Animals, minerals ,etc. Man is the
only recipients of a substantial unity of a material body and spiritual soul. Human = refers to anything
exclusively pertinent to man. Nature = from Latin word natus means born or nature which

means to be born or being born. Nature- is the ultimate operation of reality. Human Nature refers
to anything exclusively human which man intrinsically possesses right at his birth. Human can be
characterized as universal and static. Universal pertains to all born humans and static because it remains
as it is in every man from birth(womb) to death (tomb).

18. Three fold-level of Human Nature 1. Somatic level refers to the body substance, constitution, or
stuff of man and secondarily to the bodily structure and color of man which are conditioned by mans
culture and environment. 2. Behavioral level refers to the mode of acting of every man. 3. Attitudinal
Level refers to the mental reaction of man to a given stimulus. Attitudes can grow or stunted. Lies at
the heart of every mans uniqueness, this level caters to individual attitudes toward life. Human nature
changes only in terms of its accidental constituents, i.e. the growth of the human body, the change or
development of ones attitude, and the change of behavior which appropriate to the human milieu.

19. Philosophy of Man Human nature: an overview People may differ in many aspects. They
may differ In size, color of skin, race, socioeconomic status, and many more. Despite these differences,
they are all beings with divergent concepts and views about human nature. PRE-SOCRATIC VIEWS OF
MAN Thales- Man has 80% water in his brain and 70% water in his body , or a man has a water
stuff. Anaximenes- Man is a human body with a condensed air and a rarefied human soul.
Heraclitus- Man has fire stuff in him in the form of heat. Anaximander Man is a human being that
has evolved from animals of another species which are lower than his.

20. Philosophy of Man Pythagoras- Man is a dipartite of body and soul . That a soul is immortal,
divine, and is subjected to metempsychosis. Protagoras or the sophists- Man is the measure of all
things, of all things, that they are, and of things that are not that they are not. SOCRATIC PERIOD 1.
Socrates- the acclaimed greatest philosopher in the Western civilization. He defined Man is a being
who thinks and wills. He put more emphasis on the attitudinal level of human nature since he give
more value to the human soul rather then the body. He agued that human soul be nurtured properly
through the acquisition of knowledge, wisdom, and virtue. He emphasizes the moral sphere of the
attitudinal level of human nature. Man for him should discover truth , truth about good life, for it is in
knowing the good life that man can act correctly. That mans attitude towards life should be oriented
towards knowledge. For it is in knowledge that man can properly translate such knowledge into really
living a good life.

21. If man contends himself with knowledge and virtue he is a man of wisdom or considered a wise
man. He who is a wise man who has disciplined his soul to know what is right and does what he knows
to be right in the actual situation. Knowledge is the ultimate criterion of action in man. The dictum of
Socrates is Knowing- what- is- rightmeans- doing- what- is- right. Socrates tells more the ignorance of
the knowledge of the right and good life enable man to do evil deeds. Man does evil deeds due to
ignorance. 2. PLATO- define Man is a soul using a body. because the nature of man is seen in the
metaphysical dichotomy between body and soul. For Plato the body is material, it cannot live and move
apart from the soul; it is mutable and destructible. The soul is immaterial, it can exist apart from the
body. The soul is a substance because it exists and can exists independently . Plato has a conviction that
the soul exists prior to the body.

22. In Platos view there are three parts of soul: Human Body Head Chest Stomach Levels of Human
Soul Rational Level Spiritual Level Appetitive Level 1. The Rational Part is located in the head ,
especially in the brain. It is in this part where the soul enable to think, to reflect, to draw conclusions.
This is the most important and the highest part of the soul. This distinguishes man from the brutes. 2.
The Spiritual part is in the chest. It is here that the soul experience abomination and anger. 3. The
Appetitive part in the abdomen where man drives to experience hunger, thirst, and other physical
aspects. Man can control his appetite and self-assertion of spirit through reason. Plato believes that

Reason controls both Spirit and Appetitie. When this happens man will have a well-balanced personality.
He declares that the appetitive and spiritual parts are subjected to death; they are mortals. Only the
rational part is immortal. This gives birth to the conception that idea is eternal and immortal since it is
rooted in reason. The emphasis of Plato on human nature in the light of reason.

23. 3. ARISTOTLE Aristotle maintains that there is no dichotomy between mans body and mans soul.
Body and soul are in a state of unity. In this unity the soul acts as the perfect realization of the body
while the body is the material entity which has a potentiality of life. The body has no life. It can only
possess life when it is united with the soul. Aristotle speaks of Man as a single essence composed of
body and soul. Mans body matter and mans soul form. That is why he speaks of soul as the bodys
perfect realization because form for him is the perfect realization of matter. Soul is the principle in life;
it causes the body to live. The body is matter to the soul and the soul form to the body.. Body and soul ,
therefore are inseparable. They constitute man as a whole. According to Aristotle there are three Kinds
of soul: ___________________________________________ Grades of being Man Animals /Brutes
Plants/ Vegetation Kinds of Soul Rational Sensitive Vegetative

24. 1. Vegetative the lowest type of soul which is found in all living things, Plants, specifically possess
this type of soul. It is capable of following functions: It feeds itself, it grows and it reproduces. 2.
Sensitive soul exists in animals. It feeds, it grows, and it reproduces, and it has feelings(particularly
pain and pleasure because it has developed a nervous system) 3. Rational- it exists only in man. It ranks
highest than vegetative and sensitive because because it assumes the functions of them and it is capable
of thinking, reasoning and willing. Man is higher than the brutes, animals and plants. Man is capable of
thinking and judging aside from sensing and growing. Aristotles view of human nature is seen in the
argument of matter and the form of man. Man is essentially body and soul. Aristotle rejects the idea of
Plato on the dichotomy of the soul and the body and the preexistence of the soul prior to the body. No
won der the Christian doctrines are patterned after Thomistic lines of thinking are more Aristotelian than
Platonic. But Aristotle , like Plato advocates Reason as mans highest faculty because Reason
distinguishes man from other form of life-possessing like plants and brutes.

Aristotle & Stoics - Issue Of Soul (Philosophy Of Man) Presentation


Transcript

1. His father was physician to the king of Macedonia. When he was 7, he went to study at Platos
Academy. Student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. Aristotle founded the Lyceum, a
school of learning based in Athens, Greece.

2. Aristotles dictum of man:

3. - A material entity which has a potential for life. acts as the perfect realization of the body

4. Body can posses life when it is united with the soul

5. According to Aristotle man is a single essencecomposed of:

6. Aristotle's distinction between MATTER and FORM: Form = cat Matter = Fur Body and soul are
inseparable.

7. Vegetative Sensitive Rational

8. Vegetative It feeds itself It grows It reproduces Sensitive It feeds itself It grows It reproduce It has
feelings Rational

9. Zeno of Citium (344262 BC) Chrysippus of Soli (279 - 206 BC)Lucius Annaeus Seneca (often
known simply as Seneca) (ca. 4 BC 65 AD) Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (121
180)Antisthenes (445 BC 365 BC)

10. Seven Parts Five Senses Power of Speech Power of Production

11. Emotions are movements againts nature. Human nature is part of a determined universe.

12. Why should man conform himself with nature? Why should man be virtous? Why should man
submit himself to Gods will?

13. A Virtous man always strives to possess peace of mind - Gods ways are not mans.

14. Man Organism Organs Vegetative Soul Vegetative Organism Sensient Soul Sensient Organism
Rational Soul Rational Organism Issue of Soul

1. Philosophy of the Human Person JOEL C. PORRAS FACULTY ATENEO DE ZAMBOANGA


UNIVERSITY

2.
o To philosophize is to wonder about life

o About love and loneliness


o Birth and death
o About Truth, Beauty and Freedom
o To philosophize is to explore Life
o By asking painful Questions

3. When Man is confronted with Mystery, or with Something whose causes are still unknown, he
wonders why. Such for Socrates, was the beginning of Wisdom.
o In the Theaetetus, Socrates says :
o Wonder is the feeling of a Philosopher, and
o Philosophy begins in Wonder.
o ( Plato, Theaetetus, 155 B. Benjamin Jewett in vol. 7of Great Books, p. 519 )

4. The Experience of Wonder


o This willingness to stand in a relaxed receptivity before an object involves a certain reverence,
epistemological humility and willingness to appreciate out of such admiration grows gratitude
and the impulse to celebrate, or possibly even to worship.

5. What does it mean then to wonder?


o To wonder means to realize that there is something strange behind the things that we ordinarily
perceive. To wonder is to notice something extraordinary in the ordinary things we see.
o ( For the love of Wisdom by Chris John-Terry, An explanation of the meaning and purpose of
Philosophy )

6.
o Philosophy is for those who are willing to be disturbed with a creative disturbance
Philosophy is for those who still have the capacity to WONDER.
o ( Philosophy an introduction to the Art of Wondering by James L. Christian, prelude. )

7.
o Philosopher can be best describe as one who loves truth in its deepest meaning. This is in
keeping with the literal meaning of the word Philosophy as love of wisdom. The study of
Philosophy is a continual encounter, a dialogue carried on in search of truth wherever it maybe
found . Philosophy can be termed as an inquiry which seeks to encompass the whole of reality by
understanding its most basic causes and principle in so far as these are acceptable to reason and
experience. It is characterized as beginning in wonder and ends in mystery .

o ( Reflections on Man by Jesse Mann et al. P2-4 )

8.
o Philosophy of man is an overview on the nature, activities and destiny of man. It attempts to
asses his place in and his relationship to the world. Through such an overview, an understanding
of what man is and who he is will emerge. In some respect, Philosophy of man constitutes a
metaphysics of man, for it is a probe of the deepest causes and meaning of man.
o ( Reflections on Man by Jesse Mann et. al p.13)

9.
o Some Themes of Philosophy of Man:
o Man as Embodied Subjectivity.
o Man as Being-in-the-World
o Man as being-with: The interhuman and the Social
o Man as Person and his crowning activity is love which presupposes Justice.

10.
o Some Insights from these Themes in our Philosophy of Education
o A Philosophy of Education must include social aims.
o Our Educational Policies must aim at specific personal and social values: of justice, love,
honesty.
o Total development is not just education of the mind but also of the heart and we educate the heart
by being exemplars.

11. What Does it mean to Philosophize?


o 1.0 We shall not begin with a definition of Philosophy. Philosophy is easier to do than to define.

1.1 At this stage, it is safe to say that we associate philosophy with thinking.

1.2 Crucial element in thinking is insight.

o 2.0 Insight is seeing with the mind. E.g. insight into a joke.

12.
o 2.1 Two things to be considered regarding

o insight:
o a. the insight itself
o b. what do I do with insight
o 2.2 I can analyze the insight., but if I am merely enjoying the joke, analysis can kill my
enjoyment, but if I am to the joke to others, analysis can deepen and clarify the original insight
and help in the effective delivery.

13.
o 3.0 Another example: death of a grandfather at 110 years old. I listen to the story of my
o grandfather in his youth, think of myself as full of high spirits, dashing, popular, but
o high spirits are not inexhaustible. Insight: Generations of men start life full of vigor,
o then wither away and die after they have given life to their own sons.
o 3.1 Homer made a metaphor of this insight: As the generations of leaves, so the
o generations of men.

14.

3.2 Metaphor sharpens the insight and fixes it in the mind.

3.3 Also, one portion of reality casts light on another: by contemplating the fall and return
of leaves, we understand also the rhythm of the generations of men.

o 4.0 Another example: number 4 can be analyzed into 2+2=4 or 1+1+1+1=4.

4.1 How did we gain an insight into 4? By counting, e.g. cars, abstracting the common
and prescinding from the individual characteristics car.

4.2 Abstraction is one of the tools for analysis of insights. An abstract thought is a
concept. An analysis by abstraction is a conceptual analysis.

4.3 My insight into the generations of men can be analyzed conceptually, but note that
conceptual analysis can desiccate an insight: the throbbing, tumultuous generations of
men become an abstract fund of energy and high spirits. It is then necessary to return to
the original insight.

15.

16. 5.0 Summary:

5.1 Insight is seeing with the mind: only you can do it. I cannot see it for you but I can
help you see it.

5.2 There are many ways of doing with insight. Some insights are so deep they cannot be
exhausted.

5.3 It takes insight to do something with insight, like the metaphor of Homer.

5.4 Insight brings us to the very heart of reality, and reality is so deep and unfathomable.

17. Why do we Philosophize?


o 1.0 Philosophy is an activity rooted on lived experience.

1.1 Experience is the life of the self: dynamic inter-relation of self and the others, be it
things, human being, the environment, the world grasped not objectively but from within.

1.2 Self is the I conscious of itself, present to itself.

1.3 Presence to itself entails also presence to other, the not I.

o 2.0 This relatedness of the self to the other is characterized by tension, disequilibrium,
disharmony, incoherence.
o 3.0 Tension calls for Inquiry, Questioning, Search.

18.
o 4.0 Philosophy is an activity rooted on lived experience.

4.1 Experience is the life of the self: dynamic inter-relation of self and the others, be it
things, human being, the environment, the world grasped not objectively but from within.

4.2 Self is the I conscious of itself, present to itself.

4.3 Presence to itself entails also presence to other, the not I.

o 5.0 This relatedness of the self to the other is characterized by tension, disequilibrium,
disharmony, incoherence.
o 6.0 Tension calls for Inquiry, Questioning, Search.

19. C. Beginnings of Philosophizing (When do we begin to Philosophize?)


o 1.0 Wonder: For Plato, the poet and the Philosopher are alike in that both begin from
o wonder.
o 2.0 Doubt can also impel man to ask Philosophical Questions. Descartes Philosophy started
from doubting the existence of everything. Adolescents also doubt their identity.

o 3.0 Limit Situations are inescapable realities which cannot be change but only acknowledged e.g.
failure, death of a beloved. We may not be able to control them but we can control our response
to them through reflection. They provide opportunities and challenges for us to make life
meaningful. (existentialists)
o 4.0 Metaphysical Uneasiness is to be unsure of ones center ( Gabriel Marcel) equivalent to
Soren Keirkegaards Angst.

20.
o 5.0 Metaphysical Uneasiness is contrasted with Curiosity. To be curious is to start from a fixed
external objects ( outside of me) which I have a vague idea of. Metaphysical Uneasiness is
beyond the physical (external ) but more of internal.
o 6.0 Curiosity tends to become metaphysical uneasiness as the object becomes part of me.
o 7.0 Philosophizing here begins from the inner restlessness which is linked to the drive of
fullness.
o 8.0 Philosophical Questions ultimately can be reduced to question of WHO AM I?

21.

6.1 Philosophical Inquiry is inquiry into the Coherence, Sense of human life as totality, as
a whole, Comprehensive reality and ultimate (final) value. E.g. I have a terminal case of
stomach cancer; I am given only three months to live, so I ask What is the meaning of
my Life?

o 7.0 Sens de la Vie: Sens can mean the direction of a river, the texture of a cloth, the opening
of a door, the meaning of a word. Likewise, my life can have a direction, texture, opening
(possibilities), meaning.

22. D. Philosophical Approaches to the study of Man


o 1.0 Ancient Greek : Cosmocentric Approach

1.1 The Greek were concerned with the Nature and Order of the Universe.

1.2 Man was part of the cosmos, a microcosm. So like the Universe, Man is made up of
Matter (body) and Form (soul).

1.3 Man must maintain the balance and unity with the cosmos.

o 2.0 Medieval ( Christian era: St. Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas ) Theocentric Approach

23.

2.1 Man is understood as from the point of view of God, as a creature of God, made in
His image and likeness, and therefore the apex of His creation.

o 3.0 Modern ( Descartes, Kant) Anthropocentric Approach

3.1 Man is now understood in his own terms, but basically on reason, thus rationalistic.

o 4.0 Contemporary Philosophies arose as a reaction against Hegel.

4.1 One reaction is Marx who criticized Hegels geist, spirit, mind and brought out his
dialectical materialism.

4.2 Another reaction is Soren Kierkegaard who was against the system of Hegel and
emphasized the individual and his direct relationship with God. Kierkegaard led the
existentialist movement which became popular after the two world wars.

24. E. Existentialism
o 1.0 The father of Existentialism is a Danish Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard ( 1813-1855 )
o 1.1 Three events in Kierkegaards life influence his philosophy:
o a. unhappy childhood, strict upbringing by his father
o b. break-up with the woman he loved
o c. quarrel with a university professor
o 1.2 These events and his criticism of the rationalistic Hegelian system led him to emphsize the
individual and feelings.

25.

1.3 The aim of Kierkegaard is to awaken his people to the true meaning of Christianity.

1.4 Two ways to achieve his aim: a. the direct confrontation ( which is risky ) b. indirect:
to start from where the people are and lead them to the truth.

o 1.4.1. example 1: two ways to help a friend who fell in a ditch.( a ) direct: pull him out from
above which he may refuse or he may bring you down. ( b ) indirect: to jump into the ditch with
him and lead him up.

26.
o 1.4.2 example2 : two ways to help a jilted friend: a ) direct: tell him to forget the woman because
there are other women, in which case he may avoid you. b ) indirect: sympathize and share the
hurt with him and gradually lead him to the realization that its not the end of the world.
o 1.5. Kierkegaard chose the indirect way and saw himself as another Socrates: The indirect way is
the Socratic Method.

27.

o 1.6. Kierkegaard started from where the people were, the aesthetic stage, the stage of pleasure, so
he wrote his first aesthetic works.
o 1.7. The next stage is the ethical stage, the stage of morality
o ( of good and evil )
o with reason as the standard.
o 1.8 The highest stage is the religious, where the individual stands in direct
o immediate relation ( no intermediary ) with God.
o 1.8.1 Here, because God is infinite and man is finite, the individual is alone, in angst, in fear and
trembling.

28.

1.8.2 What comes here is faith, the individuals belief in God, going beyond
reason.

1.8.3 The favorite example of Kierkegaard here is Abraham who was asked by
God to sacrifice his son Isaac (by his wife Sarah) to test his faith. The command
was between God and Abraham alone, cannot be mediated by others (Sarah would
not understand it), and to apply the ethical would be a murder .

29.
o 2.0 Existentialism is not a philosophical system but a movement, because existentialists are
against systems.

2.1 There are many different existentialist philosophies, but in general they can be
grouped into two camps: Theistic (those who believe in God) and Atheistic (those who do
not believe in God.

30. Martin Heidegger ( he is in-between the two camps because he refuses to talk about God)
o Theistic
o Soren Kierkegaard
o Karl Jaspers
o Gabriel Marcel
o Atheistic
o Albert Camus
o Jean Paul Sartre

o Maurice Merleau Ponty

31.

2.2 In spite of their divergence, there are common features of existentialist philosophies
to label them as existentialist.

2.3 First, existentialist emphasize man as an actor in contrast to man as spectator.

2..3.1 Many existentialists used literature like drama, novel, short story, to convey
this idea.

2.4 Second, existentialists emphasize man as subject, in contrast to man as object.

2.4.1 Being as Object is not simply being-as-known but known in a certain way:
conceptually, abstractly, scientifically, its content does not depend on the knower.
It is the given, pure datum, impersonal, all surface, no depth, can be defined,
circumscribed.

2.4.1 Being as Subject is the original center, source of initiative, inexhaustible.


The I which transcends all determinations, unique, the self, in plenitude,
attainable only in the very act by which it affirms itself.

2.4.2 Man is both Subject and Object, as can be shown in reflexive acts (e.g I
brush myself, I wash myself, I slap myself) where there is the object-me(changing
and divisible) and the subject-I (permanent and indivisible).

2.4.3 The existentialists, however, while not denying the reality of man as object,
emphasize the Subjectivity of man, of man as unique, irreducible, irreplaceable,
unrepeatable being. E.g. as a passenger in a crowded bus, I am treated like a
baggage, but I am more than that.

2.4.5 The subjective must not be confused with subjectivism or being


subjectivistic.

2.4.6 The subjective merely affirms the importance of man as origin of meaning
(in contrast to the emphasis of ancient & medieval periods on truth)

32.

33.

o e.g. God , not the object proven but God-for-me.


o e.g. values both objective and subjective (value-for-me )
o 2.5 Thirdly, existentialists stress mans existence, man as situatedness, which takes on different
meaning for each existentialist.

2.5.1 for Kierkegaard, existence is to be directly related to God in fear and


trembling.

2.5.2 For Heidegger, existence is Dasein , There-being, being thrown into the
world as self-project.

2.5.3 For Jaspers, to exist is not only to determine ones own being horizontally
but also vertically, to realize oneself before God.

2.5.4 For Marcel, esse est co-esse, to exist is to co-exist, to participate in the life
of the other.

2.5.5 For Sartre, to exist is to be free.

2.5.6 For Merleau-Ponty, to exist is to give meaning.

2.5.7 For Camus, to exist is to live in absurdity.

34.

35.

2.6 Fourthly, existentialists stress on freedom which means differently for each
existentialist.

2.6.1 For Kierkegaard, to be free is to move from aesthetic stage to ethical to


religious.

2.6.2 For Heidegger, to be free is to transcend oneself in time.

2.6.3 For Sartre, to be free is to be absolutely determine of oneself without God.

2.6.4 For Marcel, to be free is to say yes to Being, to pass from having to being
in love.

36.

2.7 Fifth, Existentialists propagate authentic existence versus inauthentic existence.

2.7.1 Inauthentic existence is living the impersonal they in the crowd, in bad
faith (half conscious, unreflective)e.g. Detranger of Camus, functionalized man
of Marcel, monologue of Buber.

2.7.2 Authentic existence is free, personal commitment to a project, cause, truth,


value. To live authentically is to be response-able .

2.8 All existentialists make use of the PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD which does
not explain deductively or inductively but simply describes the experience of man as he
actually lives it.

37. I. PHENOMENOLOGY
o 1. Traditional study of philosophy begins with logic, then metaphysics, then cosmology and ends
with philosophical psychology or philosophical anthropology (philosophy of man)

1.1 Man defined by traditional scholastic philosophy as rational animal, a composite of


body of soul.

1.1.1 Under the aspect of body, man is like any other animal, a substance, mortal,
limited by time and space.

1.1.2 Under the aspect of soul, man is rational, free, immortal.

1.1.3 The soul is deduced from the behavior of man to think and decide.

38.
o 2. Our critique of the traditional definition of man is that (a) it is dualistic; ( b) it looks at man
more as an object, an animal; (c) it proceeds from external to internal.
o 3. The phenomenological approach, on the other hand, is: (a) holistic;
o (b) It describes man from what is properly human; (c) proceeds from internal to
o external.
o 4. Phenomenology was started by Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) whose aim was to arrive at
philosophy as a rigorous science
o 4.1 By philosophy as a rigorous science Husserl meant presuppositionless philosophy , a
philosophy with the least number of presuppositions.

39.
o 4.2.1 Unlike Descartes, Husserl was dissatisfied with the sciences of his time because they start
with a complex presuppositions.
o 4.3.2 In particular, he was reacting against the naturalistic psychology which treats mental
activity as causally conditioned by events of nature, in terms of S-R relationship (stimulusreaction). Presupposition here is that man is a mechanistic animal.
o 5. So, Husserl wanted philosophy to be science of ultimate grounds where the
presuppositions are so basic and primary that they cannot be reduced further.
o 6. How does one arrive at Philosophy? By transcending the natural attitude.

40.

6.1 The natural attitude is the scientific attitude which was predominant in Husserls time
and carried to the extreme to become scientistic.

6.2 The scientific attitude observes things, expresses their workings in singular
judgments, then by induction and deduction, arrives at concrete result.

o 7. But this attitude contains a lot of assumptions:


o 7.1 It assumes that there is no need to ask how we know.
o 7.2 It assumes that the world (object) is out there, existing and explainable in objective laws,
while man the subject is pure consciousness, clear to itself able to know the world as it is.
o 7.3 It takes for granted the world-totality.

41.
o 8. In short, the natural attitude looks at reality as things, a fact world .
o 8.1The way of knowing in the natural attitude is fragmented, partial, fixed, clear, precise,
manipulative, and there is no room for mystery. It was moving away from the heart of reality.
o 9. So, the motto for Husserl and the Phenomenologists was back to things themselves !
o 9.1 By back to things Themselves Husserl meant the entire field of original experience.

42.
o 9.2 The ultimate root of philosophy was not to be found in a concept, nor in a principle, not in
Cogito.
o 9.3 Phenomenology attempts to go back to the phenomenon, to that which presents itself to man,
to see things as they really are, independent of any prejudice. Thus phenomenology is the
Logos of the Phenomenon.

43. IMPORTANT STEPS IN THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD

44. EPOCHE
o Epoche literally means bracketing which Husserl borrowed from Mathematics and applied to
the natural attitude.
o What I bracket in the Epoche is my natural attitude towards the object I am investigating, my
prejudice, my clear and conceptual knowledge of it that is unquestioned.
o When I bracket, I do not deny nor affirm but simply hold in abeyance: I suspend judgment on it.
o Epoche is important in order to see the world with new eyes and to return to the original
experience from where our conceptual natural attitude was derived.

45. EIDETIC REDUCTION


o Eidetic Reduction is one of the important reductions in the phenomenological method.

o Reduction is another mathematical term to refer to the procedure by which we are placed in
the transcendental sphere the sphere in which we can see things as they really are,independent
of any prejudice.
o Eidetic is derived from eidos which means essence. In eidetic reduction I reduce the
experience to its essence.

46. EIDETIC REDUCTION


o I arrive at the essence of the experience by starting out with an individual example, then finding
out what changes can be made without ceasing to be what it is. That which I cannot change
without making the object cease to be the thing it is, is the invariant, the eidos of the experience

47. EIDETIC REDUCTION


o For example, I am doing a phenomenology of Love. I start bracketing my biases on love. Then I
reduce the object love to the phenomenon of love. In eidetic reduction, I begin with an example
of a relationship of love between two people. I change their age, race, social status and all these
do not matter in love. What is it that I cannot change? Perhaps, the unconditional giving of self to
the other as he is. This then forms part of the essence of Love.

48. Phenomenological Transcendental Reduction


o Phenomenological Transcendental Reduction reduces the experience further to the very activity
of my consciousness , to my loving, my seeing, my hearing ..etc.
o Here I now become conscious of the subject, the I who must decide on the validity of the
object.
o I now become aware of the subjective aspects of the object when I inquire into the beliefs,
feelings, desires which shape the experience.
o The object is seen in relation to the subject and the subject in relation to the object.

49. Phenomenological Transcendental Reduction


o In our example of love, maybe I see the essence of love as giving of oneself to the other because
of my perspective as a lover. If I take the perspective of the beloved, maybe the essence is more
receiving than giving. If I take the perspective of a religious, maybe love is seen as activity of
God.

50. It is the Phenomenological Transcendental Reduction that Edmund Husserl came up with the main
insight of Phenomenology : Intentionality of consciousness

51. Intentionality of consciousness means that consciousness is intentional, that consciousness is always
consciousness of something other than consciousness itself. There is no object without a subject, and no
subject without an object. The subject-of-the-object is called noesis ; the object-for-the-subject is called
noema. There is no world without man, and no man without a world.

52. Gabriel Marcel uses a Phenomenological Method less technical than Husserl. He calls it Secondary
Reflection

53. Primary Reflection


o The kind of reflection in which I place myself outside the thing I am inquiring on. An
o ob-jectum ( thrown infront ). It has nothing top do with my self nor I have anything to do
with it.

54. Secondary Reflection


o The kind of reflection in which I recognize that I am part of the thing I am investigating , and
therefore , my discussion is sub-jective (thrown beneath ). I have something to do with it
and It has something to do with me. Because I participate in the thing, I cannot tear it apart into a
clear and fixed ideas; I have to describe and bring to light its unique wholeness in my concrete
experience.

55. Human Nature


o Man as Intermediary
o as being in the world
o as being at the world
o Man as Intersubjectivity
o as being through others
o as being with others
o as being for others
o Man as a Self Project
o Man as being unto death
o Man as being unto God

56. Three Basic Orientation of Ones Existence


o World
o Others
o God

o I exist as Sentio Ergo Sum ( I feel therefore I am ) is the indubitable touchtone of ones
existence, it must be taken as indissoluble unity: the I cannot be separated from the exist,
pertaining essentially to sense experience.

57.
o Marcel invokes an image, that of a child coming up to him with shining eyes, saying: Here I
am! What a Luck!. The statement of the child cannot be separated from its act of existing. This is
in the word exist or existere which in Latin means to stand out, or to manifest . The
indubitable touchtone of ones existence is linked to kind of exclamatory awareness of oneself,
as in the expression of the child ( the leaps , the cries..etc.

58.
o The immediacy of self awareness in the case of the ADULTS maybe restrained, crusted over by
habits, compartmentalized life: it is pretty certain, in fact, that we are are tending to become
bureaucrats not only with our outward behaviors but in our relation with ourselves, and because
of bureaucracy we interpose thicker and thicker screens between ourselves and existence .

59.
o This feeling that makes known my experience is what Marcel calls: SYMPATHETIC
MEDIATION
o The experience is what Marcel calls: NON-INTRUMENTAL COMMUNION
o If we want to be faithful to the experience, we need to use concept that points to this feeling:
DIRECTIONAL CONCEPTS
o The whole process can be fulfilled only if we inter into SECONDARY REFLECTION and
humbly returned to the experienced reality of ordinary life.

60. Reflection is rooted inexperience, but there are two kinds: Primary and secondary. Primary
Reflection breaks the unity of experience and is the foundation of scientific knowledge. This is
equivalent to the Natural Attitude in Husserl. Secondary Reflection recuperates the unity of original
experience. It does not go against the data of primary reflection but refuses to accept it as final.

61. Example#1: Who am I? Primary Reflection: I am so and so,born on this day, in such a place,
with height and weightetc.. items on the I.D. card. Secondary Reflection: I am more than the items
above.. I enter into my inner core. Example#2: My Body Primary Reflection: a body is like other
bodies.., detached from the I , the body examined by a doctor, studied by medical students, or the
body sold by the prostitute. Secondary Reflection : I am my body, I feel the pain when my dentist pulls
my tooth. I feel a terrible feeling when I sell my body( prostitute).

62. SUMMARY
o Phenomenology as a Method is a method in which the relation between the investigator and the
investigated object is considered to belong essentially to the object itself.

o In cases where the object of investigation is Human Being , phenomenology becomes the
Method in which all relevant items of research are exclusively considered only with regard to the
totality of Human Being .

63. MAN AS LIBERTY ( FREEDOM)


o I. Two extreme positions on the issue on Human Freedom:
o B.F. Skinner: Man is Absolutely determined.
o Jean Paul Sartre: Man is Absolutely Free.
o II. Middle position: Phenomenology of
o Freedom of Maurice Merleou-Ponty/Abraham Maslow
o III. Freedom and Person: Gabriel Marcel.

64. Two Types of Freedom: Pier Fransen; Jose A. Cruz S.J.


o Freedom of Choice
o Fundamental Options
o Freedom and Responsibility:
o Robert Johann S.J.
o Freedom and Justice

65. B.F. SKINNER: MAN IS ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED


o We begin our Phenomenology description of Freedom by using EPOCHE, bracketing two
extreme positions on freedom: Absolute Determinism and absolute Freedom.
o The behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner holds that man is absolutely determined.
o 1. Mans behavior is shaped and determined (caused) by external forces and stimuli:
o a. Genetic, biological and physical structure.
o b. Environmental structures: culture, national and ecclesiastical ( Church )
o c. External forces and demands

66.
o Our behavior, being conditioned by these factors, is manipulable: man can be programmed like
machine. e.g. governmental, educational and propagandistic techniques.

o Against Skinner, we hold that there other levels of experience which cannot be explained by or
reduced to external factors and stimuli, such as:
o 1. I can make myself aware of my biological and physical limitations,
o 2. I can question my own environmental structures, revolt or validate them.
o 3. I can achieve a distance from external demands and forces: hesitate, reflect, deliberate and
challenge them.

67. There are difficulties with Absolute Determinism:


o 1. Explaining away self-questioning and self- reflection is doing self- questioning and selfreflection.
o 2. Not all causal motives are necessitating causes because the goods that we face and
o the motives we use are limited, conditioned and mixed.
o 3. If the feeling of freedom is rejected, then no basic human experience is trustworthy, which
would lead to total skepticism and inaction.

68.
o 4. If the statement man is absolutely determined is true, then the statement is also determined,
and the opposite man is absolutely free would also be determined, and so, there would be no
truth value anymore to the statement.
o 5. If Human Beings are manipulable like machines, there would be no problem in making the
society just.

69. JEAN PAUL SARTRE: ABSOLUTE FREEDOM


o Jean Paul Sartre, in His early stage, holds that man is absolutely Free.
o In His essay Existentialism is Humanism, Sartre discusses his position by stating that with
man, Existence precedes essence ( He develops absolute freedom in metaphysical terms in his
book Being and Nothingness)

70.
o Man first exists and then creates his own essence.
o There is no pre-existing essence that man has to conform when he exists.
o There is no God, because if there is God, He would be a creator and essence would exist first
before existence, thus man would be determined.
o Man is what he is not (yet), and he is not what he is because he can be what he wants to be.

71.
o Man cannot be free in some things only and not free in others; he is absolutely free or not at all.
o 1. Objection: to Sartre: How can you say I am absolutely free when I am not free to be born in
such in such a place, parents, , day.etc.
o 2. Answer of Sartre: You can Always live as if you were not born in such and such a place,
parents, day.etc.

72.
o 2. Objection to Sartre: How can you say I am absolutely free when I cannot climb a big rock or
pass through it? So I am limited.
o 2. Answer of Sartre: The rock is the obstacle to your freedom only because you freely want to
climb or pass through it.

73.
o For Sartre: Freedom is a negation, a negating power of consciousness.
o In interpersonal relationship, this means reducing the other person to an object, described as:
SARTREAN STARE.
o The other person, because he is also free, also reduces me to an object. So for Sartre: HELL IS
OTHER PEOPLE ( from the Play NO EXIT )

74. Structured Freedom Abraham Maslow


o If man is free, his freedom involves both realms: historicity/given structure and transcendence in
free questioning
o Freedom and structures are complementaries than contradictories
o Structure is fundamental to all human growth, evolution and process
o Structures are the offerings of the human world to which I come: historicity,environment, etc.

75. Continue.
o Structure is also the internal constitution of being a man with human potentialities: basis for my
being a questioning self.
o My own freely created life project is also a structure, that is the structure of being a man
o Freedom is operative on all levels: operative not as a force against structure but as a force
emerging from structure and merging with structure inorder to further actualize human potentials

76. Continue
o Man, therefore is neither absolutely free nor absolutely determined
o Man is freedom within structure
o Final words on freedom
o The problem is not proving the freedom of the will but rather it is in accepting its true meaning
and consequences

77. Continue
o In the exercise of freedom, we are definitely a and ultimately alone: As Sartre says we are
condemned to be free.
o Only we can possess ourselves: No one else can do it for us.
o Our choices are irrevocable, since the present moment is never repeated. We cannot undo what
we have chosen.
o We can only summon ourselves to manage making new choices

78. Continue
o I must freely create a life-project which is myself
o I alone am accountable
o Freedom is both terrible and beautiful: a two-edged sword
o With freedom, he can make choices but creates anxiety and uncertainty( terrible)
o With freedom he can know himself and be in control of his destiny(beautiful)

79. Continue
o However his destiny and meaning is other-oriented, open in his potentialities to know and love
o As a result, mans meaning is not only to possess himself freely
o His identity is not fully achieved until, having possessed himself, he gives himself to the other.

80. MAURICE MERLEAU-PONTY: SITUATED FREEDOM


o Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his last chapter of the phenomenology of perception, criticizes
Sartrean Absolute Freedom and holds the middle position of structure freedom.

o For Merleau-Ponty, if freedom is absolute, always and everywhere present, then freedom is
impossible and nowhere.
o There would be no distinction between freedom and unfreedom. E.g. The slave in chains is just
then as free as the one who revolts and breaks his chains. We are free when we control our
situation as well as we are powerless.

81.
o Such freedom as Sartres cannot embody itself in any form of existence, because once freedom
has realized something, we have to say at once that it lies outside its so-called embodiments.
o In such kind of freedom, it is difficult to speak of choice, because choice implies value, and
seeing values is impossible from the standpoint of a freedom which transcends all situations.

82.
o For Merleau-Ponty, our freedom is SITUATED FREEDOM.
o Freedom is interwoven with a field of existence. Our choices are not made from absolute zero,
but from this field of meanings.
o Outside myself, there is no limit to my freedom, but in myself, there are limits.

83.
o We have to make distinction between :
o 1.Explicit Intention: I plan to climb the mountain
o 2. General Intention: Whether I plan to climb the mountain or not, it appears high to me.
o Underneath me is a Natural I, which does not give up earthly situation and from which is based
my plans.
o In so far as I have hands, feet, body I bear intentions which do not depend on my freedom but
which I find myself in.

84.
o I find myself in a world of meanings. E.g. I cannot structure the data of perception in arbitrary
fashion, like: habits, tiredness; historical situation.
o It is true that I can change habits or I transcend Facticity, but I can only do so from these
standpoints.
o A good example of situated freedom is a revolution: it is neither purely determined nor
completely free.

85. GABRIEL MARCEL: FREEDOM AND THE PERSON

o Gabriel Marcel understands freedom in relation to PERSON.


o The Person is characterized by DISPONSABILITY, AVAILABILITY, in contrast to the EGO
which is closed.
o Out in existence as an EGO, having freedom and grow to BEING a Person.
o Marcels Philosophy can be systematized in terms of HAVING and BEING: having and being
are two realms of life.

86.
o HAVING pertains to things, external to me, and therefore autonomous (independent of me)
o 1. Things do not commune with me, are not capable of participation, closed and opaque,
quantifiable and exhaustible.
o 2 . The life of Having therefore is a life of instrumental relationship.
o 3. Having is the realm of problem. A problem is something to be solved but apart of me, the
subject.
o 4. Having is also applicable not only to things but also to ideas, fellowman, faith. I can have my
ideas, posses other people, have my religion. Here I treat my ideas, other people, religion as my
possessions, not open for sharing with others.

87.
o BEING, on the other hand, pertains to person, open to others, able to participate, creative, nonconceptualizable, a plenitude.
o 1. The life of BEING is the life of communion.
o 2. The realm of BEING is the realm of MYSTERY. A mystery is a problem that encroaches on
the subject, that is part of me.
o 3. BEING is also applicable not only to persons but also to things (art), ideas, faith. I am my
painting; I am my ideas, I am my faith. Here my art, ideas, religion are part of me which I can
share to others.

88.
o FREEDOM for Marcel belongs to the realm of BEING, because freedom is not distinct from us,
not a possession. Freedom is a mystery not a problem.
o 1. A thing possessed may be used or neglected by the owner without losing its character, but with
freedom, when I deny, abused or betray it, it loses its character as freedom.

o 2. Freedom then, as belonging to the realm of Being, freedom breaks the confines of having to
affirm my being which is essentially openness, participation, creative belonging with other
beings and with fullness of BEING ITSELF.

89.
o Man is gifted with freedom ( freedom as fact ), and that is why he experiences a lack, but which
is really an exigency of BEING.
o 1. In an answer to this appeal of BEING, man either fulfills or betray his freedom.
o 2. To fulfill freedom is to affirm, to be in communion with others, with BEING.
o 3. Therefore, freedom as a fact points to freedom as VALUE. I am free in order to become free
(freedom as achievement), to become fully a person.

90. TWO KINDS OF FREEDOM


o 1. FREEDOM OF CHOICE (Horizontal Freedom)
o 2. FUNDAMENTAL OPTIONS (Vertical Freedom)
o 1.1 Our first and commonly understood experience of freedom is the ability to choose, goods,
e.g. I choose to study instead of watching a movie, I choose to buy a cheap pair of shoes instead
of an expensive one, because I am supporting my siblings education.

91.
o But if we reflect deeper, our choice implies a prior or may lead to a preference of VALUES.
When I choose to study instead of playing, I value learning more than pleasure. When I choose to
buy a cheap pair of shoes, I value helping my sister/brother more than my comfort.
o 2.1 This Freedom is called FUNDAMENTAL OPTIONS, because it is our general direction or
orientation in life, it reflects our value in life.
o 2.2 It is called VERTICAL FREEDOM, because values form a hierarchy; some values are higher
than others.
o 2.3 For the German Phenomenologist Max Scheler, preferring and realizing Higher Values is
LOVE, and preferring and realizing lower values is hatred or egoism.

92.
o In the ultimate analysis, there are Two Fundamental Options: LOVE and EGOISM.
o 1. It is LOVE which makes me a PERSON, which makes me truly FREE.
o 2. FREEDOM OF CHOICE and FUNDAMENTAL OPTIONS are interrelated: Our Choices
shape our Fundamental Options, and our Fundamental Options is exercised and concretized in
our particular choices.

93. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY


o These Two Types of Freedom can be seen in the corollary of Freedom which is
RESPONSIBILITY. Responsibility is the other side of Freedom.
o Just as there are two kinds of Freedom, there are also two meanings of Responsibility.
o 1. The First Meaning of Responsibility corresponds to the First Type of Freedom, Free Choice ,
namely ACCOUNTABILITY.

94.
o I am accountable for an action that is free, whose source is the I, I acted on my own, I decided
on my own. I am free from external constraints.
o Being Responsible, Accountable for my action, however, does not necessarily make me a
responsible person. Here we encounter a second meaning of responsibility corresponding to the
second type of freedom: RESPONSE-ABILITY.

95.
o RESPONSE-ABILITY means the ability to give an account, the ability to justify my action as
truly responsive to the objective demands of the situation.
o 1. A response that meets the objective demands of the situation is a response that meets the
demand of JUSTICE.
o 2. A responsible action then from a RESPONSE-ABLE person requires putting the Other in the
forefront in place of myself. I am free from internal constraints, like egoism and whims
(arbitrariness).
o 3. Greater Freedom then is not just being able to do what I want to do but being able to do and
wanting to do what the situation objectively (versus subjectively) oblige me to do.

96. FREEDOM AND JUSTICE


o The relation between FREEDOM and JUSTICE can be seen when we take into consideration the
network of relationships with FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS and the goods intended by Freedom.
o JUSTICE is giving what is due to the other.
o When we choose goods (things, money, political poweretc.), we must consider that they are
finite and exhaustible, and that the other also needs them.
o Absolute Love for finite goods leads to corruption, in the object and in the subject.

97.
o If the Human Being is to keep his Freedom, He must assess the real needs with respect to what is
available around his world and the equally real needs of his fellowman.

o This requires an objective order of Values, like balancing measurement, LIBRA.


o What is due to the other is all that he needs to preserve and enhance his dignity as a Human
Being.
o We are obligated to give to the other what the other needs to enhance his Dignity.
o His Dignity includes His Being and becoming Free.

98.
o But we are obliged to give only what we can give within the limited matrix of possibilities.
o Freedom then conditions Justice, and Justice is a condition of Freedom.
o Freedom conditions justice, because giving what is due to the other means allowing him to use
his talents to fulfill his Humanity, giving him Freedom. So, to violate the Freedom of the other is
to deny him Justice.
o Justice is a condition of freedom, because I can only use my Freedom for the promotion of
Justice, of what is due to the Human Being. In the exercise of my Freedom, I must observe
Justice so that the resources of fellow Human Beings and the World of nature are not exhausted
and totally lost, otherwise there will be no more goods to choose from.

99.
o This relationship of Freedom and Justice is applicable to society.
o In a society, there must be a balance of Freedom and Justice.
o This means that there must be structural order in society such that higher Values are not
subordinated to lower values.
o The social structure must be such that exchange of economic goods and distribution of political
power is geared towards enhancement of the Human Being.

100.
o The practical norm to follow for that ideal is : to each according to his needs
o ( Acts 2:45 ).. from each according to his means ( Acts 11:29 ).
o In case of conflict between Freedom and Justice, the use of Violence must be avoided. Instead
structure for deliberations are needed. People must be able to participate is Dialogue to settle
their differences.

101. INTERSUBJECTIVITY ( MAN AND FELLOWMAN )


o I. DIALOGUE

o The noted Jewish Philosopher on dialogue, Martin Buber, makes a distinction between the
HUMAN and INTERHUMAN.
o 1.1 The Social is the life of the group of people bound together by common experiences and
reactions; in short, a group existence.

102. Continue
o 1.2 The Interhuman is the life between persons, the interpersonal, the life of dialogue, The ITHOU.
o 1.3 For example, Buber joins a procession for the sake of a comrade (social ), then suddenly he
sees someone in the caf he had befriended a day before ( Interhuman ).
o 1.4. The Interhuman can happen to persons with opposing views, like a boxer in the boxing
match.

103. Continue
o I-THOU ( dialogue ) is to be distinguished from I-IT ( monologue )
o 2.1One way of distinguishing dialogue from monologue is to describe the obstacles to dialogue
which would be the characteristics of monologue.
o We must note first that our life with other persons is in reality never pure dialogue nor pure
monologue but a mixture. It is the question of which predominates

104. Continue
o 3.1 The first obstacle to dialogue isSEEMING, in contrast to BEING.
o 3.1.1 Seeming proceeds from what one wishes to seem. I approach the other from what I want to
impress on the other.
o 3.1.2 The look of seeming is made-up, artificial.
o 3.1.3 Being proceeds from what one really is. I approach the other from what I really am, not
wanting to impress on the other.

105. Continue
o 3.1.4 The look of Being is spontaneous, without reserve, natural.
o 3.1.5The Seeming that is an obstacle to dialogue must be distinguished from the Genuine
Seeming of an actor who is playing a role and of a lad who imitates a heroic model.

106. Continue
o 3.1.6 Seeming that attacks the I-THOU is a lie in relation to existence, not a lie in relation to
particular facts.

o 3.1.7 For example: Two men , Peter and Paul, whose lives are dominated by seeming:
o Peter as he wants to appear to Paul, Paul as He wants to appear to Peter,
o Peter as he actually appear to Paul, Paul as he actually appears peter,
o Peter as He appears to Himself, Paul as He appears to himself.
o Six appearances and two bodily bei ngs!!!

107. Continue
o 3.1.8 In I-THOU, persons communicate to each other as they are, in Truth.
o 3.1.9 Objection to Buber: Is it not natural for man to seem.
o Answer of Buber: No, what is natural for man is to seek confirmation of his being, a
o yes from the other for who he is, but this is difficult and so he resorts to seeming
o because seeming is easier.
o 3.2 The second obstacle to dialogue is speechifying, in contrast to personal making present.

108. Continue
o 3.2.1 Speechifying is talking past one another. For Sartre, this is the impassable walls between
partners in conversation. Most conversations today are really monologues.
o 3.2.2In dialogue, on the other hand, I personally make present the other as the very one he is, I
become aware of Him, that he is different from me, unique, maybe even with opposing views.

109. Continue
o 3.2.3 To be aware of a person is different from becoming aware of a thing or animal. It is to
perceive his wholeness, determined by spirit. It is to perceive his dynamic center.
o 3.2.4 In our time, we have the following tendencies that make dialogue difficult:
o Analytical: We break the person into parts.
o Reductive: We reduce the richness of a person to a schema, structure, concept..
o Deriving: We derive the person from a formula..
o Thus: the Mystery of a Person is Leveled down.

110. Continue

o 3.3. The third obstacle to dialogue is IMPOSITION, in contrast to UNFOLDING.


o 3.3.1 Imposition is interaction between persons, they influence one another. But there are two
basic ways to influence another: Imposition and Unfolding.
o 3.3.2 Imposition is dictating my own opinion, attitude, myself on the other.

111. Continue
o 3.3.3 Unfolding, on the other hand, is finding in the other the disposition towards what I myself
recognized as true good and beautiful. If it is true, good and beautiful, it must also be alive in the
other person in his own unique way. All I have to do in dialogue is to bring him to see it for
himself.

112. Continue
o 3.3.4 A typical example of imposition is the propagandist. The propagandist is not concerned
with the unique person he wants to influence but with certain qualities of the person that he can
manipulate and exploit to win the other to his side. He is concerned simply with more members,
more followers. Political methods are mostly winning power over the other by depersonalizing
him.

113. Continue
o 3.3.5 A Typical example of unfolding is the Educator. The Educator cares for his students as
unique, singular, individual. He sees each as capable of freely actualizing himself. What is right
is established in each as a seed in a unique personal way. He does not impose.
o 3.3.6 The educator trust in the efficacy of what is right. The propagandist does not believe in the
efficacy of his cause, so he must use special methods like the media.

114. Continue
o 3.3.7 This idea of Buber has influenced a Theologian of Liberation, Paolo Friere, who wrote the
Pedagogy of the oppressed. According to him there are two ways of teaching:
o banking Method: a teacher deposits information in his students minds and he withdraws it
during examinations.

115. Continue
o Dialogical Methods: the teacher teaches by learning from his students their unique situation, and
from there, he unfolds what is right. Both the teacher and students are responsible to what is true,
good and beautiful.
o To summarize, genuine dialogue is turning to the partner in all truth.

116. Continue

o 4.1 To turn to the other in all truth also means imagining the real, accepting the wholeness of the
other, including his real potentialities and the truth of what he cannot say.
o 4.2 To confirm the other does not mean approval. Even if I disagree with him, I can accept him
as my partner in genuine dialogue; I affirm him as a person.

117. Continue
o 4.3 Further, for genuine dialogue to arise, every participant must bring himself to it. He must be
willing to say what is really in his mind about the subject matter.
o 4.3.1 This is different from unreserved speech, where I just talk and talk.
o 4.4.2 Silence can also be dialogue. Words sometimes are the source of misunderstanding (Zen
Buddhism)

118. LOVE Introductory Note: There are many kinds of Love ( Love of Friendship, Marital Love..etc.).
Our Phenomenology of Love here is not a description of a particular kind of Love but of love in general
between persons

119. We begin our phenomenology of love by first using epoche, braketing the popular notion of Love as
a pleasant sensation, as something one falls into . 1. According to Erich Fromn in his book, The Art
of Loving , Love is an art that requires knowledge and effort. 2. Erich Fromn cites three reasons for this
wrong popular notion of Love as Falling in Love.

120. 3.The first reason is that now a days the problem is stressed on being loved rather than on
loving. Note the proliferation of books on how to win friends and influence people, how to be
attractive. 4.The second reason is that nowadays the problem is focused on the object rather than the
Faculty. Nowadays people think that to love is easy but finding the right person to love or be loved is
difficult. So love is reduced to sales and follow the fad of the times.

121. 5.The third reason is the confusion between the initial state of falling-in-love and the permanent
state of being-in-love.

122. 6.The experience of love starts from the experience of Loneliness 6.1. Loneliness is one of the
basic experience of the human being because of self awareness.

123.
o 7. Thrown out of the situation which was definite and secure into a situation which is indefinite,
uncertain, open, the human being experiences separation. 8. This experience of separation is
painful and is the source of shame, guilt and anxiety. 9. There is then the deep need in man to
overcome loneliness and to find at-onement.

124. 9. Some answers to this problem are the following: A. Orgiastic States: trance induced by drugs,
rituals, sexual orgasm, alcohol etc. The characteristic of this states are: violent, intense, involving the
total personality, but transitory and periodical. They are addictive

125.

o B. Conformity with groups: joining a party or organization. The characteristics of these groups
are calm, routine dictated. In our society today, we equate equality with sameness rather than
oneness where differences are respected
o C. Creative Activity: a productive work which I plan, produce and see the result, which is
difficult nowadays.

126. 10. All the above are not interpersonal. 11. Love is the answer of Loneliness, but Love can be
immature. 12.Immature love is symbiotic union where the persons lose their individuality. The following
are immature forms of Love: A. Biological: the pregnant mother and the fetus: both live together.

127.
o B. Psychic: two bodies are independent but the same attachment psychologically. C. Passive:
masochism. The masochist submits himself to another. D. Active: sadism. The sadist is
dependent on the submissiveness of the masochist.

128. 13. Loneliness ends when the loving encounter begins, when the person finds or is found by
another. 14. The loving encounter is a meeting of persons. 15. The meeting of persons involves an IThou communication. 16. This meeting of persons happens when two persons are free to be themselves
yet choose to share themselves.

129. 18. This meeting of persons is not simply a bumping into each other, nor an exchange of pleasant
remarks, although this can be an embodiments of a deeper meaning. 19. This meeting of persons can
happen in groups of common commitments although social groups can impose roles.

130.
o 20. The loving encounter presupposes the appeal of the other to my subjectivity. 21. The appeal
of the other is embodied in a word, gesture or glance. 22.The appeal of the other is an invitation
to transcend myself, to break away from my occupation with the self.

131. 23. I can ignore the causal remark of the other as a sign for the meeting. 24. My self-centeredness
makes it difficult for me to understand the others appeal to me. 25. I need more than eyes to see the
reality of the other, to see his goodness and value.

132. 26. I need an attitude that has broken away from self preoccupation. If I am absorbed in myself, I
will not understand the others appeal but will just excuse myself. 27.I must get out of the role I am
accustomed to play in my daily life to understand the others appeal.

133.
o 28. What is the appeal of the other? It is not the corporeal or spiritual attractive qualities of the
other.
o 29. Qualities can only give rise to enamoredness, a desire to be with the other, but love is the
firm will to be for the other.

134. 30. Once the qualities ceases to be attractive, then love ceases. 31. Also, the person is more than his
facticity. 32. The appeal is not any explicit request, because the other may go away dissatisfied, because
my heart was not in fulfillment of his request. 33. The others appeal is HIMSELF.

135. 34. The call of the other is his subjectivity: be with me, participate in my subjectivity. The other
person is himself a request. 35. The appeal of the other makes it possible for me to liberate myself from
myself. 36. The appeal reveals to me an entirely new dimension of existence: that myself realization
maybe a destiny-for-you. Because of you , I understand the meaninglessness of my egoism.

136. 37. What is my reply to the others appeal? It is not the outpouring of my qualities to the other. 38.
Compatibility of Qualities is not necessary in love. 39. Neither is my reply the satisfaction of his request
or desire. 40. Sometimes refusal to grant his request or desire maybe the way of loving him if granting it
will do him harm.

137. 41 . My reply of the others appeal is MYSELF. 42. As a subject, the other is free to give meaning
and new dimension to his life. 43. His appeal then to me is an invitation to will his subjectivity, to
consent to his freedom, to accept, support and share it.

138.
o 44. My reply then is willing the others free self realization, his destiny, his happiness. It is like
saying: I want you become what you want to be . I want you to realize your happiness freely.
45. This reply is effective. 46. Love is not only saying but doing, since the other person is not a
disembodied subject, to love him implies that I will his bodily being, that I care for his body, his
world, his total well being.

139. 47. Willing the happiness of the other implies I have an awareness, a personal knowledge of his
destiny. 48.1 Love is not only saying but doing, since the other person is not a disembodied subject, to
love him implies that I will his bodily being, that I care for his body, his world, his total well being.

140. 49. My Love will open possibilities for him but also close others, those that will hamper his self
realization. 50. I can be mistaken in what I think will make other happy or I may impose own concept of
happiness so Love requires RESPECT for the OTHERNESS of the other. 51. This respect the other
necessitates PATIENCE, because the rhythm of growth of the other maybe different from mine.

141. 52. Patience is harmonizing my rhythm with the others, like melody or an orchestra. 53. Is love
concerned only with the other and not at all myself? No, because in love I am concerned also with
myself. 54. This does not mean to be loved but in the sense that in love, I place the limitless trust in the
other, thus delivering myself to Him.

142. 55. This TRUST, this defenselessness, is a CALL upon the love of the beloved, to accept my offer
of myself. 56. The appeal of the lover to the beloved is not to will to draw advantage from the affection
for the other. 57. The appeal of the lover to the beloved is not compelling, dominating or possessing the
other. Love wants the others freedom in that the other himself choose this safe way and avoid that
dangerous path.

143. 58. There is indeed that element of SACRIFICE in loving the other which is often (mis)understood
as loss of self. 59. I renounce motive of promoting myself, abandoning my egoism. 60. But this does not
mean loss of self. On the contrary, in loving the other I need to love myself, and in loving the other I
come to fulfill myself. 61. I need to love myself first in loving the other because in loving I offer myself

as a GIFT to the other, so the gift has to be valuable to me first, otherwise I am giving a garbage to the
other.

144. 62. This loving myself takes the form of being-loved: I am loved by the other. 63. I come to fulfill
myself in loving the other because when my gift of self is accepted, the value is confirmed by the
beloved, and I experience the joy of giving in the process I also receive. 64. Thus, there exist in loving
the other the desire to be loved in return. But this desire is never a motive in loving the other.

145. The primary motive in LOVE is the YOU-FOR-WHOM-I-CARE. 65. The you is not the he or
she I talk about. 66. The you is not just another self. ( not just a rose among the roses Little
Prince) 67. The you is discovered by the lover himself, not with the eyes nor with the mind but with the
heart.(It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eyes Little
Prince.) I love you because you are beautiful and lovable, and you are beautiful and lovable because
you are you.

146. 68. Since the you is another subjectivity, He is free to accept or reject my offer of self. Love is a
risk. 69. What if the other does not reciprocate my love? 70. The rejection of the beloved can be a test of
how authentic my love is. 71. If I persist in loving the other in spite of the pain, then my love is truly
selfless. 72. The experience of rejection can be an opportunity for me to examine myself, for selfreparation, for emptying myself , allowing room for development.

147. 73. when love is reciprocated, love becomes fruitful, Love becomes creative. 74. Loving although it
presupposes knowing, it is different from knowing. 75. In knowing I let reality be, but in loving I will
the others free self realization, I somehow make the other be. 76. In any encounter, there is a
making of the other: e.g. the teacher makes the student a student; the student makes the teacher a
teacher.

148. 77. In loving encounter, the making of the other is not causalistic because love involves two
freedoms. 78. To understand the creativity of love, let us do a phenomenology of being-loved. 79. When
I am loved, I experience a feeling of joy and sense of security. 80. I feel joy because I am accepted as
myself and a value to the lover. I feel free to be just myself and what I can become. 81. I feel secure
because the other participates in my subjectivitry, I no longer walk alone in the world.

149. 82. So, What is created in love is we. 83. Together with the we is also a new-worldour
world, one world. My life is monotonous, he said, I hunt chickens; men hunt me. All chickens are just
alike. And , in consequence, I am a little bored. But if you tame me, it will be as if the sun came to shine
in my life. I shall know the sound of a step that will be different from all others. Other steps send me
hurrying back underneath the ground

150. Yours will call me, like music, out of burrow. And then look: you see the grain-fields down yonder?
I do not eat bread. Wheat is of no use to me. The wheat-fields have nothing to say to me. And that is sad.
But you have the hair that is the color of gold. Think how wonderful that will be when you have tamed
me! The grain, which is also golden, will bring me back the thought of you. And I shall love to listen to
the wind in the wheat. The Fox to the Little Prince

151. 84. Again, the creative influence of the lover is not causalistic because the beloved must freely
accept the offer of the lover. 85. Only when the beloved says yes will the love becomes fruitful,: e.g.
the teachers love is fruitful only when student accepts freely the education. 86. The we created in love
is a union of persons and their worlds. Therefore, they do not lose their identities. 87. In the union of
things, the elements lose their identities.

152. 88. In love, a paradox exists: The I becomes more an I and the YOU becomes more of
Himself. 89. We can clarify and deepen this paradox in love by describing the nature of love as a Gift
of Self. 90. A gift is something I cause another to posses which hitherto I posses myself, a giver. 91.
The other has no strict right to own the gift.

153. 92. The giving is disinterested, unconditional: There is no string attached to the giving. I do not
givein order to get something in return; otherwise the giving is an exchange or selling. 93. In love, the
giving is not a giving up in the sense of being deprived of something because the self is not a thing that
when given no longer belongs to the giver but to the given. 94 Nor the giving in love coming from a
marketing character because I do not give in order to get something in return.

154. 95. The giving in love is also not of the virtuous character. I dot give in order to feel good. 96. Why
do I give myself in love? Because I expereince a certain bounty, richness, value in me. 97. I can express
this disinterested giving of self to the other as other in the giving of sex, material things. But when I
do so, the thing becomes unique because it has become a concrete but limited embodiment of myself.

155. 98. To give myself means to give my will, my ideas, my feelings, my experiences to the other--- all
that is alive in me. 99. Why do I love this particular other? Because you are lovable, you are lovable
because you are you. 100. The value of the other is his being unique self. Therefore, since every person
is unique, everyone is lovable.

156. 101. If I am capable of loving this particular person for what he is, I am also capable of loving the
others for what they are. 102. From this nature of Love as disinterested giving of oneself to the other as
other, we can derive other essential characteristics of love.

157. 103. Love is Historical because the other is a concrete particular person with history. 104. I do not
love abstract Humanity, but concrete persons. 105. I do not love ideal persons, nor do I love in order to
change or improve the other. e.g the friends of Jesus, His Apostles, were not ideal people.

158.
o 106. We always associate the person we love with concrete places, things, events: like songs, e.g.
In the Gospel of St. John, The old St John recounts his first meeting with Jesus and ends that
account with It was about four oclock in the afternoon(John1:39)

159. When friendship is breaking down, we want to reconcile, we recall the the things we did together:
You are beautiful, but you are empty, he went on. One could not die for you. To be sure, an ordinary
passer-by would think that my rose looked just youthe rose that belongs to me. But in herself alone
she is more important than the hundrds of you other roses: because it is she that I have watered; Because
it is she that I have sheltered behind the screen; because it is for her that I have killed the
caterpillars(except the two or three that we saved to become butterflies); because it is she that I have
listened to, when she grumbled, or boasted, or even sometimes when she said nothing. Because she is
my rose. The Little Prince in passing by a garden of roses.

160. 107. In Love, I do not surrender my liberty to the other, I do not become a slave to the other. The
wifes submission to her husband is done in freedom in recognition of his position in the family. 108.
Rather, in Love two freedoms become one and each becomes more free.

161.

o 109. The union of several freedoms in love results in a community, which is different from a
society. In community, persons are free to be themselves.
o 110. Persons are Equal in Love because persons are free.
o 111. The equality in love is the equality of being, not of having.

162. 112. Love is Total because the person in love is indivisible. I do not say, you are my friend only
insofar as you are my colleague. 113. Love is Eternal because love is not given only for a limited
period of time. 114. Love is Sacred because persons in love are valuable in themselves.

163. MAX SCHELERS PENOMENOLOGY OF LOVE


o The most important sphere in a human beings life is the heart.
o The heart is the core and the essence.
o The heart is destined to love; the human person is destined to love.
o Loving is the most fundamental act of the human person.
o Loving is the primordial act.
o The human being is first and foremost a being who loves

164. WHAT LOVE IS NOT


o Love is not benevolence.
o When one loves, it is not necessary that one seeks the material benefit of its object.
o When loving non-persons, for example, one does not need to be benevolent to the object of the
loving act. E.g. Loving God, nature, art, career.

165.
o Loving persons, on the other hand, coupled with benevolence implies condescension and
distance.
o Benevolence makes an effort towards the well-being of the other, to realize something in the
other.
o Love exerts no effort to do something in the object loved.
o Love is not a fellow feeling
o Fellow feeling is value blind.

166.

o O can fellow feel for a person we do not love e.g. one can fellow feel for a persons joy over his
or his rivals misfortune but when one loves, one would see that this is not in line with ones
higher possibilities of being.
o Love is not a feeling.
o Feeling is passive-rweceptive and reactive.
o Malebranche: we do not necessarily love a fruit that gives the feeling of pleasure?

167.
o Even if love is not a fellow feeling, one fellow feels for a person when one loves that person.
o Fellow feeling is founded on love.
o Fellow feeling varies in the measure and depth of love.
o Love is not the same as feeling states.
o Feeling state change, love endures.
o Love does not alter.

168.
o Love is the cause of feeling states, not feeling states causing love.
o There is no such thing as falling out of love.
o One does not love for limited periods of time.
o Love is not the same as preference and rejection of values (values apprehension or judgments)

169.
o One can feel something of positive value without loving the object possessing that value e.e.
Respect for a person- respect is directed towards a value of a person that we respect.
o Respect necessitates a value judgment which entails a certain detachment; this absent in love.
o Love is not directed towards a value but to objects possessing that value.

170.
o Preference and rejection as value apprehension are founded on love.
o Love is a movement-higher values can flash forth and be preferred.

o Love is a primitive and immediate mode of emotional response to the core of persons and
objects.
o One does not apprehend a value first and then love.

171.
o It is possible for a person and object to fulfill our preconceived preferred values but we still do
not love them.
o But the valuations that we give are never enough for justifying our love.
o Most people find it unreasonable to apply conceptual categories of valuations to the objects that
we love e.g. Judging a loved ones letter because of the style and grammar.

172.
o Love is not blind.
o Misconception because of the primitiveness of love and the adequacy reasons.
o Love has an evidence of its own which is not strictly judged by reason
o Scheler says: Love sees something other in values, high or low, than that which the eye of
reason can discern.

173.
o The beloved has its own worth. The beloved is reason enough for the lover.
o Blaise Paschal says: The heart itself has its own reasons which reason itself does not know.
o Love is not relative to the polar-coordinates of myself and the other
o Love is not a social disposition like altruism.

174.
o One can love oneself genuinely without falling into egoism but one cannot fellow feel for
oneself.
o Scheler says: Love does not first become what it is by virtue of its exponents, their objects or
their possible effects and results.

175. THE ESSENCE OF LOVE


o Love (and hatred) as acts cannot be defined but only exhibited.
o Hatred is not the opposite of love, indifference is.

o Hatred is a disorder of the heart, a movement to the direction.


o Hatred looks for the existence of a lower valueand to the removal of very possibility of a
higher value.

176.
o Love is an act and a movement of intention.
o From a given value in an object, its higher value is visualized.
o This vision of a higher value is the essence of love.
o Love is not a reaction to a value already felt, nor a search for the value already given in an object
or person.

177.
o Upon seeing that the value is real in the object, one moves in intention to higher values.
o One can be aware of the positive values in an object without loving the object.
o Love is creative.
o It sets up an idealized paradigm of value for the objector person loved.

178.
o This idealized paradigm of value is not an imposition; it is implicit in the object or person loved .
o This paradigm of value is neither a creation or an enhancement of values.
o The creativity of love brings into appearance the higher possibilities of value in the beloved.

179.
o This paradigm of value is true and real in the object loved, they only wait confirmation.
o Karl Jaspers says: In love, we do not discover values, we discover that everything is lovable.
o Love relates to what has value rather to value itself.
o Love is not limited to human beings.
o One can love nature, vocation, God.

180.
o Love is an intentional movement from a lower to a higher value of the object love.

o Love is basically a movement.


o Love at first sight is not real love. Real love moves to the higher possibilities of value in the
object.
o Intentional is not the same as purposeful, motivational or striving towards a goal.

181.
o Intentional means directional in the phenomenological sense.
o Phenomenological Intentionality- consciousness is consciousness of, loving is loving something
or someone.
o Love is concerned with the existence or non-existence of higher values.
o Without indifference, love can become an attitude of constantly prospecting, as it were, for new
and higher values in the object.

182.
o Prospecting for higher values can be due to unsatisfied love.
o Without indifference, love can be misunderstood as an attempt to raise the value of the object
loved, to improve the beloved and help the beloved acquire a higher value.

183.
o A desire for improvement implies a pedagogic attitude I love you because I want to make you
into a better person.
o A desire for improvement necessitates making necessitates making a distinction between what a
person is now and what he or she should be. Love does not make this distinction.

184.
o Scheler says: Love itself in the course of its own movement, brings about the continuous
emergence of ever higher values in the object- just as if it was streaming out from the object of
its own accord, without any sort of exertion on the part of the lover.

185. THREE MISUNDERSTANDING OF LOVE


o When one loves, one does not seek for new values in the object loved.
o When love opens ones eyes to a higher values in the object loved, it is a consequence of love not
because of a seeking.
o An active seeking indicates an absence of love.

186.
o Genuine love is loving a person for all that he or she is, including the weaknesses and even
during disillusionment.
o Higher values are not given beforehand as an ideal to be looked for in the object loved; they
are disclosed and discovered in the very movement of love.
o Love is an occasion for promoting higher values like educating a person.

187.
o Love does not desire to change the beloved.
o A desire to change the beloved is rooted in a love that is conditional.
o Example of unconditional love:

Mary Magdalene ( not thou shalt not sin no more; promise me this and I will love thee
and forgive thy sins BUT go, and sin no more.)

The Prodigal Son

188.
o We love being as they are.
o Love does not create higher values in the beloved.
o Creating higher values is a projection of ones values into the other.
o It is due to a failure to free oneself from being partial to ones own ideas, feelings, interests, in
short from egoism.

189.
o Love is that movement wherein every concrete individual object that possesses values achieves
the highest value compatible to its nature and ideal vocation; or wherein it attains the ideal state
of value intrinsic to its nature

190. LOVE AND MORAL VALUES


o Love includes the moral value of goodness.
o Love of nature and love of art also involve moral value.
o They contribute to the perfection of person.
o They are spiritual acts.

o There is no such thing as love of goodness.

191.
o Love of goodness is Pharisaism: loving people because they are good.
o Loving people not because of concern, but because of the desire to appear good.
o Love has the value of goodness.
o A person moral goodness is determined according to the measure of his or her love.
o It is in the movement from lower to higher values that goodness appears as values.

192. HIERARCHY OF VALUES


o What are values?
o Values precede feeling state.
o Values are the foundation of feeling states and their completion.
o Values do not exist only because they are felt.
o In feeling a value, the value is given as distinct from the act of it being felt.

193.
o Values have an a-priori character.
o Values are not goods. Goods are carriers of value. Goods change, a value does not change. E.g.
the value of friendship is still a value even if a friend is being unfaithful.
o Values are independent of our striving. E.g. The value of health.
o There is a hierarchy of values.
o This hierarchy also has an a-priori character.

194.
o There are positive and negative values. A value cannot be both positive and negative.
o SENSORY VALUES.
o Agreeable, pleasant versus disagreeable, unpleasant.
o Values that are objects of sensory feelings (corresponding to subjective states of pleasure and
pain).

o VITAL VALUES

195.
o Values connected with general wellbeing.
o Feelings of health and sickness, ageing, exhaustion.
o Vital values are irreducible to the pleasant or unpleasant values.
o SPIRITUAL VALUES
o Independent of the body and environment.
o Values of the beautiful and the ugly, aesthetic values.

196.
o Values of the just and the unjust.
o Values of pure knowledge.
o Spiritual values are linked with the feeling state of spiritual joy.
o Holy and the Unholy.
o Values of the holy are independent of the things, objects and persons held to be holy at different
times.
o Values of the holy are higher than spiritual values, vital values are higher than sensory values.

197.
o The movement of Love commences only at the level of spiritual value.
o WHEN IS A VALUE HIGHER?
o A value is higher if it endures: Loving not just today or tomorrow.
o A value is higher if it is less divisible: value of bread versus the value of work of art.
o A value is higher if it generates and finds other values: Value of Life.

198.
o Spiritual value: Life has value because there are spiritual values.
o Depth of contentment or fulfillment: Sensory Values compel one to search for more enjoyment.

o A value is higher if it is not relative to the organism experiencing it: Spiritual Love does not
depend on physical characteristics versus sensory values.

199.
o Moral Values of good and evil refer to the bringing about of values into existence.
o Only person can do good and evil.
o Moral Tenor of a person: directness of willing a higher value.
o MOVEMENT TO HIGHER VALUES IS A MOVEMENT OF LOVE AND DOING GOOD.

Philosophy of the human person(final) Presentation Transcript

1. Philosophy of the Human Person Robert A. Mayonila FACULTY ATENEO DE ZAMBOANGA


UNIVERSITY

2. The Anatomy of Wonder By Sam Keen


o To philosophize is to wonder about life
o About love and loneliness
o Birth and death
o About Truth, Beauty and Freedom
o To philosophize is to explore Life
o By asking painful Questions

3. When Man is confronted with Mystery, or with Something whose causes are still unknown, he
wonders why. Such for Socrates, was the beginning of Wisdom.
o In the Theaetetus, Socrates says :
o Wonder is the feeling of a Philosopher, and
o Philosophy begins in Wonder.
o ( Plato, Theaetetus, 155 B. Benjamin Jewett in vol. 7of Great Books, p. 519 )

4. The Anatomy of Wonder


o I. Sam Keen in Chapter I of his book The Apology of Wonder, outlines the Anatomy of Wonder
and illustrates how it is like or unlike awe, curiosity, reverence and other related experiences and
its role towards authentic life.

5. II. The Objects of Wonder


o 1. Ontologic Wonder
o The primal source of wonder is not the object but the fact that something exists rather than
nothing. With considerable shock, the mind is sometimes jarred into the realization that there is
no necessary reason for the existence of the world or anything in it. As Wittgenstein has said. it
is not how things are in the world that is Mystical, but that it exists.

6. Ontologic wonder continue


o It is this primal or ontologic wonder that philosophers have traditionally thought of as the
wellspring of mans quest for an explanation of his place under the sun. When the brute

givenness of reality is experienced in wonder, certainties give way to the questions which, so
long as wonder remains, Man can never receive final answer.

7. 2. Mundane Wonder
o A second type of wonder which is elicited primarily by what a thing is rather than it existence (it
is). In such encounters, the structures and meaning of the object rather than its bare existence are
the occasions for wonder. There could be no adequate catalogue of the objects that produce such
mundane wonder: a loved person, beautiful stone, a miraculous event, and so on

8. 3.The sensational
o Most frequently, mundane wonder is evoked by encountering something novel and sensational. If
we take common linguistic usage that wonder had to do primarily with objects or events of a
prodigious nature. We speak frequently of the wonders of nature or the wonders of science .

9. III. The Formal Characteristics of the objects of Wonder


o 1. Contingency
o The philosophical term contingency most accurately describes one characteristic of objects as
they are given to us in wonder. As used here, contingency means that in raw experience the
object we apprehend in wonder comes to us without bearing its own explanation. Why it is,
perhaps even what it is, is not immediately obvious. In less philosophical but more modern
terminology, wonder-events are happenings, revelatory occurrences which appear, as if by
chance, bearing some new meaning (value, promise ) which cannot immediately be integrated
into the past pattern of understanding and explanation.

10. 2 . Mystery
o The more intimately known and ardently loved place, thing or person is, the more mysterious it
is, because it is so homogenized into psychological fabric of the knower, that the knower and the
known form one reality.
o By understanding the positive relationship between mystery and knowledge, we see the fallacy
of the romantic notion that an increase of knowledge leads to an eclipse of wonder. Knowledge
destroys mystery and wonder only when it is used hostilely to reduce the dimensions of meaning
in an object to those that can be manipulated and controlled.

11. 3. Presence
o The other, which we encounter in wonder, is a presence rather than an object. In a wondering
encounter, the initiative is with the object. The manner in which we are grasped by something
that strikes us as wonderful is very unlike the way in which we grasped an object by abstraction,
analysis, and categorization. In the wondering encounter, the subject is primarily passive, while
in the analytical relationship, he is active.

12. Presence continue

o One of the chief characteristics of an encounter between persons is that significant meeting takes
place only when each party gives of himself. Persons are, in our experience, are beings who can
give and withhold knowledge of themselves. Some knowledge of :objects has the same quality
of interchange. In wonder something gives itself to us. in wonder we are presented with a gift
of meaning.

13. IV. Subjective Aspects of the Experience of Wonder


o The Stimulus as Experienced
o a. Surprise
o Wonder begins with the element of surprise. The now almost obsolete word, wonderstruck
suggests that wonder breaks into consciousness with dramatic suddenness that produces
amazement or astonishment. Because of the suddenness with which it appears, wonder reduces
us momentarily to silence the language and categories we customarily use to deal with the
experience are inadequate to the encounter, and hence we are initially immobilized and
dumfounded. We are silent before some new dimension of meaning which is being revealed.

14. b. Puzzlement
o When something explodes into awareness and shatters our ordinary categories of understanding,
it quite naturally creates mental and emotional dis-ease and puzzlement at the same time a new
meaning is revealed, new questions begin to emerge.

15. d. Ambivalence
o The ambivalence connected with wonder is structurally the same as that associated with the
experience of the holy. The idea of the holy, Rodolf Otto showed that the holy is always
experienced as once Tremendum et Fascinosum as awful, fearful, threateningly powerful, and
at the same time fascinating, desirable, promising and compelling. Wonder partakes of this same
ambiguity.
o Insofar as it disrupts our proven ways of coping with the world, it is menacing; insofar as it
offers the promise of renewing novelty, it is desirable and fascinatingwe may describe the
heart of the experience of wonder as an awful-promising surprise.

16. d. Admiration
o Reality as it is given to us in wonder, is not only a shock and surprise, but it is a pleasant
surprise. It present itself to us as something having dignity, worth, meaning or value which calls
for admiration and appreciation.
o In wonder we experience the other as inexhaustible, as the locus of meanings which are only
revealed as we cease to be dominated by the impulse to utilize and posses the other and learn to
rejoice in its presence. To wonder is die to the self, to cease imposing categories and to surrender
the self to the object. Such a risk is taken only because there is the promise of a resurrection of
meaning.

17. 2. Response to the Stimulus

o a. Curiosity and Explanation


o The first response moves from puzzlement to curiosity to a search for explanation, although
wonder begins in silence, it does not remain forever dumb. As the shock of astonishment wears
away, the mind begins to search for some way to dispel the dis-ease. Puzzlement gives way to
curiosity and the search for an explanation begins. This quest begins with the formation of
questions.

18. Continue
o There are continues line of development from puzzlement to curiosity to reasoning to scientific
investigation Kant said the essence of science was putting nature on the rack and forcing
her to answer the questions we desire to have answered by designing experiments to yield
knowledge that cannot be gained by observation or contemplation. The object of Scientific
thought is not a presence, a thou or a mystery, but a problem to be solved creative scientist, the
abstractions and explanations which arise out of desire to understand and control the world do
not prevent a return to the object in a spirit of wonder. Investigations need not to destroy respect
for the object being studied. Indeed, for the creative thinker, wonder and humility grow in
proportion to knowledge. Abstraction is used to deepen knowledge of the concrete, and thus
there is a continuing dialectic between investigation and admiration.

19. b. Contemplation and Celebration


o Contemplation is no less a mode of thought or reason than scientific investigation. However, it
does differ in both structure and intent. The chief characteristic of contemplation is its receptive
passivity. This passivity is not to be confused with inertness or languor, but is, rather, the calm
and disciplined effort of thought to be open to the uniqueness and novelty of its object.

20. Continue
o This willingness to stand in a relaxed receptivity before an object involves a certain reverence,
epistemological humility and willingness to appreciate out of such admiration grows gratitude
and the impulse to celebrate, or possibly even to worship.

21. What does it mean then to wonder?


o To wonder means to realize that there is something strange behind the things that we ordinarily
perceive. To wonder is to notice something extraordinary in the ordinary things we see.
o ( For the love of Wisdom by Chris John-Terry, An explanation of the meaning and purpose of
Philosophy )

22. Continue
o Philosophy is for those who are willing to be disturbed with a creative disturbance
Philosophy is for those who still have the capacity to WONDER.
o ( Philosophy an introduction to the Art of Wondering by James L. Christian, prelude. )

23. Continue

o Philosopher can be best described as one who loves truth in its deepest meaning. This is in
keeping with the literal meaning of the word Philosophy as love of wisdom. The study of
Philosophy is a continual encounter, a dialogue carried on in search of truth wherever it maybe
found. Philosophy can be termed as an inquiry which seeks to encompass the whole of reality by
understanding its most basic causes and principle in so far as these are acceptable to reason and
experience. It is characterized as beginning in wonder and ends in mystery .
o ( Reflections on Man by Jesse Mann et al. P2-4 )

24. Continue
o Philosophy of man is an overview on the nature, activities and destiny of man. It attempts to
asses his place in and his relationship to the world. Through such an overview, an understanding
of what man is and who he is will emerge. In some respect, Philosophy of man constitutes a
metaphysics of man, for it is a probe of the deepest causes and meaning of man.
o ( Reflections on Man by Jesse Mann et. al p.13)

25. What Does it mean to Philosophize?


o 1.0 We shall not begin with a definition of Philosophy. Philosophy is easier to do than to define.

1.1 At this stage, it is safe to say that we associate philosophy with thinking.

1.2 Crucial element in thinking is insight.

o 2.0 Insight is seeing with the mind. E.g. insight into a joke.

26.
o 2.1 Two things to be considered regarding
o insight:
o a. the insight itself
o b. what do I do with insight
o 2.2 I can analyze the insight., but if I am merely enjoying the joke, analysis can kill my
enjoyment, but if I am to the joke to others, analysis can deepen and clarify the original insight
and help in the effective delivery.

27.
o 3.0 Another example: death of a grandfather at 110 years old. I listen to the story of my
o grandfather in his youth, think of myself as full of high spirits, dashing, popular, but
o high spirits are not inexhaustible. Insight: Generations of men start life full of vigor,

o then wither away and die after they have given life to their own sons.
o 3.1 Homer made a metaphor of this insight: As the generations of leaves, so the
o generations of men.

28.

3.2 Metaphor sharpens the insight and fixes it in the mind.

3.3 Also, one portion of reality casts light on another: by contemplating the fall and return
of leaves, we understand also the rhythm of the generations of men.

o 4.0 Another example: number 4 can be analyzed into 2+2=4 or 1+1+1+1=4.

4.1 How did we gain an insight into 4? By counting, e.g. cars, abstracting the common
and prescinding from the individual characteristics car.

4.2 Abstraction is one of the tools for analysis of insights. An abstract thought is a
concept. An analysis by abstraction is a conceptual analysis.

4.3 My insight into the generations of men can be analyzed conceptually, but note that
conceptual analysis can desiccate an insight: the throbbing, tumultuous generations of
men become an abstract fund of energy and high spirits. It is then necessary to return to
the original insight.

29.

30. 5.0 Summary:

5.1 Insight is seeing with the mind: only you can do it. I cannot see it for you but I can
help you see it.

5.2 There are many ways of doing with insight. Some insights are so deep they cannot be
exhausted.

5.3 It takes insight to do something with insight, like the metaphor of Homer.

5.4 Insight brings us to the very heart of reality, and reality is so deep and unfathomable.

31. Why do we Philosophize?


o 1.0 Philosophy is an activity rooted on lived experience.

1.1 Experience is the life of the self: dynamic inter-relation of self and the others, be it
things, human being, the environment, the world grasped not objectively but from within.

1.2 Self is the I conscious of itself, present to itself.

1.3 Presence to itself entails also presence to other, the not I.

o 2.0 This relatedness of the self to the other is characterized by tension, disequilibrium,
disharmony, incoherence.
o 3.0 Tension calls for Inquiry, Questioning, Search.

32.
o 4.0 Philosophy is an activity rooted on lived experience.

4.1 Experience is the life of the self: dynamic inter-relation of self and the others, be it
things, human being, the environment, the world grasped not objectively but from within.

4.2 Self is the I conscious of itself, present to itself.

4.3 Presence to itself entails also presence to other, the not I.

o 5.0 This relatedness of the self to the other is characterized by tension, disequilibrium,
disharmony, incoherence.
o 6.0 Tension calls for Inquiry, Questioning, Search.

33. C. Beginnings of Philosophizing (When do we begin to Philosophize?)


o 1.0 Wonder: For Plato, the poet and the Philosopher are alike in that both begin from
o wonder.
o 2.0 Doubt can also impel man to ask Philosophical Questions. Descartes Philosophy started
from doubting the existence of everything. Adolescents also doubt their identity.
o 3.0 Limit Situations are inescapable realities which cannot be change but only acknowledged e.g.
failure, death of a beloved. We may not be able to control them but we can control our response
to them through reflection. They provide opportunities and challenges for us to make life
meaningful. (existentialists)
o 4.0 Metaphysical Uneasiness is to be unsure of ones center ( Gabriel Marcel) equivalent to
Soren Keirkegaards Angst.

34.
o 5.0 Metaphysical Uneasiness is contrasted with Curiosity. To be curious is to start from a fixed
external objects ( outside of me) which I have a vague idea of. Metaphysical Uneasiness is
beyond the physical (external ) but more of internal.
o 6.0 Curiosity tends to become metaphysical uneasiness as the object becomes part of me.
o 7.0 Philosophizing here begins from the inner restlessness which is linked to the drive of
fullness.

o 8.0 Philosophical Questions ultimately can be reduced to question of WHO AM I?

35.

6.1 Philosophical Inquiry is inquiry into the Coherence, Sense of human life as totality, as
a whole, Comprehensive reality and ultimate (final) value. E.g. I have a terminal case of
stomach cancer; I am given only three months to live, so I ask What is the meaning of
my Life?

o 7.0 Sens de la Vie: Sens can mean the direction of a river, the texture of a cloth, the opening
of a door, the meaning of a word. Likewise, my life can have a direction, texture, opening
(possibilities), meaning.

36. D. Philosophical Approaches to the study of Man


o 1.0 Ancient Greek : Cosmocentric Approach

1.1 The Greek were concerned with the Nature and Order of the Universe.

1.2 Man was part of the cosmos, a microcosm. So like the Universe, Man is made up of
Matter (body) and Form (soul).

1.3 Man must maintain the balance and unity with the cosmos.

o 2.0 Medieval ( Christian era: St. Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas ) Theocentric Approach

2.1 Man is understood as from the point of view of God, as a creature of God, made in
His image and likeness, and therefore the apex of His creation.

37.
o 3.0 Modern ( Descartes, Kant) Anthropocentric Approach

3.1 Man is now understood in his own terms, but basically on reason, thus rationalistic.

o 4.0 Contemporary Philosophies arose as a reaction against Hegel.

4.1 One reaction is Marx who criticized Hegels geist, spirit, mind and brought out his
dialectical materialism.

4.2 Another reaction is Soren Kierkegaard who was against the system of Hegel and
emphasized the individual and his direct relationship with God. Kierkegaard led the
existentialist movement which became popular after the two world wars.

38. E. Existentialism
o 1.0 The father of Existentialism is a Danish Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard ( 1813-1855 )
o 1.1 Three events in Kierkegaards life influence his philosophy:

o a. unhappy childhood, strict upbringing by his father


o b. break-up with the woman he loved
o c. quarrel with a university professor
o 1.2 These events and his criticism of the rationalistic Hegelian system led him to emphsize the
individual and feelings.

39.

1.3 The aim of Kierkegaard is to awaken his people to the true meaning of Christianity.

1.4 Two ways to achieve his aim: a. the direct confrontation ( which is risky ) b. indirect:
to start from where the people are and lead them to the truth.

o 1.4.1. example 1: two ways to help a friend who fell in a ditch.( a ) direct: pull him out from
above which he may refuse or he may bring you down. ( b ) indirect: to jump into the ditch with
him and lead him up.

40.
o 1.4.2 example2 : two ways to help a jilted friend: a ) direct: tell him to forget the woman because
there are other women, in which case he may avoid you. b ) indirect: sympathize and share the
hurt with him and gradually lead him to the realization that its not the end of the world.
o 1.5. Kierkegaard chose the indirect way and saw himself as another Socrates: The indirect way is
the Socratic Method.

41.
o 1.6. Kierkegaard started from where the people were, the aesthetic stage, the stage of pleasure, so
he wrote his first aesthetic works.
o 1.7. The next stage is the ethical stage, the stage of morality
o ( of good and evil )
o with reason as the standard.
o 1.8 The highest stage is the religious, where the individual stands in direct
o immediate relation ( no intermediary ) with God.
o 1.8.1 Here, because God is infinite and man is finite, the individual is alone, in angst, in fear and
trembling.

42.

1.8.2 What comes here is faith, the individuals belief in God, going beyond
reason.

1.8.3 The favorite example of Kierkegaard here is Abraham who was asked by
God to sacrifice his son Isaac (by his wife Sarah) to test his faith. The command
was between God and Abraham alone, cannot be mediated by others (Sarah would
not understand it), and to apply the ethical would be a murder .

43.
o 2.0 Existentialism is not a philosophical system but a movement, because existentialists are
against systems.

2.1 There are many different existentialist philosophies, but in general they can be
grouped into two camps: Theistic (those who believe in God) and Atheistic (those who do
not believe in God.

44. Martin Heidegger ( he is in-between the two camps because he refuses to talk about God)
o Theistic
o Soren Kierkegaard
o Karl Jaspers
o Gabriel Marcel
o Atheistic
o Albert Camus
o Jean Paul Sartre
o Maurice Merleau Ponty

45.

2.2 In spite of their divergence, there are common features of existentialist philosophies
to label them as existentialist.

2.3 First, existentialist emphasize man as an actor in contrast to man as spectator.

2..3.1 Many existentialists used literature like drama, novel, short story, to convey
this idea.

2.4 Second, existentialists emphasize man as subject, in contrast to man as object.

2.4.1 Being as Object is not simply being-as-known but known in a certain way:
conceptually, abstractly, scientifically, its content does not depend on the knower.

It is the given, pure datum, impersonal, all surface, no depth, can be defined,
circumscribed.

46.

2.4.1 Being as Subject is the original center, source of initiative, inexhaustible.


The I which transcends all determinations, unique, the self, in plenitude,
attainable only in the very act by which it affirms itself.

2.4.2 Man is both Subject and Object, as can be shown in reflexive acts (e.g I
brush myself, I wash myself, I slap myself) where there is the object-me(changing
and divisible) and the subject-I (permanent and indivisible).

2.4.3 The existentialists, however, while not denying the reality of man as object,
emphasize the Subjectivity of man, of man as unique, irreducible, irreplaceable,
unrepeatable being. E.g. as a passenger in a crowded bus, I am treated like a
baggage, but I am more than that.

2.4.5 The subjective must not be confused with subjectivism or being


subjectivistic.

2.4.6 The subjective merely affirms the importance of man as origin of meaning
(in contrast to the emphasis of ancient & medieval periods on truth)

47.

o e.g. God , not the object proven but God-for-me.


o e.g. values both objective and subjective (value-for-me )
o 2.5 Thirdly, existentialists stress mans existence, man as situatedness, which takes on different
meaning for each existentialist.

2.5.1 for Kierkegaard, existence is to be directly related to God in fear and


trembling.

2.5.2 For Heidegger, existence is Dasein , There-being, being thrown into the
world as self-project.

2.5.3 For Jaspers, to exist is not only to determine ones own being horizontally
but also vertically, to realize oneself before God.

2.5.4 For Marcel, esse est co-esse, to exist is to co-exist, to participate in the life
of the other.

2.5.5 For Sartre, to exist is to be free.

2.5.6 For Merleau-Ponty, to exist is to give meaning.

48.

49.

2.6 Fourthly, existentialists stress on freedom which means differently for each
existentialist.

2.6.1 For Kierkegaard, to be free is to move from aesthetic stage to ethical to


religious.

2.6.2 For Heidegger, to be free is to transcend oneself in time.

2.6.3 For Sartre, to be free is to be absolutely determine of oneself without God.

2.6.4 For Marcel, to be free is to say yes to Being, to pass from having to being
in love.

50.

2.5.7 For Camus, to exist is to live in absurdity.

2.7 Fifth, Existentialists propagate authentic existence versus inauthentic existence.

2.7.1 Inauthentic existence is living the impersonal they in the crowd, in bad
faith (half conscious, unreflective)e.g. Detranger of Camus, functionalized man
of Marcel, monologue of Buber.

2.7.2 Authentic existence is free, personal commitment to a project, cause, truth,


value. To live authentically is to be response-able .

2.8 All existentialists make use of the PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD which does
not explain deductively or inductively but simply describes the experience of man as he
actually lives it.

51. I. PHENOMENOLOGY
o 1. Traditional study of philosophy begins with logic, then metaphysics, then cosmology and ends
with philosophical psychology or philosophical anthropology (philosophy of man)

52.

1.1 Man defined by traditional scholastic philosophy as rational animal, a composite of


body of soul.

1.1.1 Under the aspect of body, man is like any other animal, a substance, mortal,
limited by time and space.

1.1.2 Under the aspect of soul, man is rational, free, immortal.

1.1.3 The soul is deduced from the behavior of man to think and decide.

o 2. Our critique of the traditional definition of man is that (a) it is dualistic; ( b) it looks at man
more as an object, an animal; (c) it proceeds from external to internal.
o 3. The phenomenological approach, on the other hand, is: (a) holistic;
o (b) It describes man from what is properly human; (c) proceeds from internal to
o external.
o 4. Phenomenology was started by Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) whose aim was to arrive at
philosophy as a rigorous science
o 4.1 By philosophy as a rigorous science Husserl meant presuppositionless philosophy , a
philosophy with the least number of presuppositions.

53.
o 4.2.1 Unlike Descartes, Husserl was dissatisfied with the sciences of his time because they start
with a complex presuppositions.
o 4.3.2 In particular, he was reacting against the naturalistic psychology which treats mental
activity as causally conditioned by events of nature, in terms of S-R relationship (stimulusreaction). Presupposition here is that man is a mechanistic animal.
o 5. So, Husserl wanted philosophy to be science of ultimate grounds where the
presuppositions are so basic and primary that they cannot be reduced further.
o 6. How does one arrive at Philosophy? By transcending the natural attitude.

54.

6.1 The natural attitude is the scientific attitude which was predominant in Husserls time
and carried to the extreme to become scientistic.

6.2 The scientific attitude observes things, expresses their workings in singular
judgments, then by induction and deduction, arrives at concrete result.

o 7. But this attitude contains a lot of assumptions:


o 7.1 It assumes that there is no need to ask how we know.
o 7.2 It assumes that the world (object) is out there, existing and explainable in objective laws,
while man the subject is pure consciousness, clear to itself able to know the world as it is.
o 7.3 It takes for granted the world-totality.

55.
o 8. In short, the natural attitude looks at reality as things, a fact world .

o 8.1The way of knowing in the natural attitude is fragmented, partial, fixed, clear, precise,
manipulative, and there is no room for mystery. It was moving away from the heart of reality.
o 9. So, the motto for Husserl and the Phenomenologists was back to things themselves !
o 9.1 By back to things Themselves Husserl meant the entire field of original experience.

56.
o 9.2 The ultimate root of philosophy was not to be found in a concept, nor in a principle, not in
Cogito.
o 9.3 Phenomenology attempts to go back to the phenomenon, to that which presents itself to man,
to see things as they really are, independent of any prejudice. Thus phenomenology is the
Logos of the Phenomenon.

57. IMPORTANT STEPS IN THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL METHOD

58. EPOCHE
o Epoche literally means bracketing which Husserl borrowed from Mathematics and applied to
the natural attitude.
o What I bracket in the Epoche is my natural attitude towards the object I am investigating, my
prejudice, my clear and conceptual knowledge of it that is unquestioned.
o When I bracket, I do not deny nor affirm but simply hold in abeyance: I suspend judgment on it.
o Epoche is important in order to see the world with new eyes and to return to the original
experience from where our conceptual natural attitude was derived.

59. EIDETIC REDUCTION


o Eidetic Reduction is one of the important reductions in the phenomenological method.
o Reduction is another mathematical term to refer to the procedure by which we are placed in
the transcendental sphere the sphere in which we can see things as they really are,independent
of any prejudice.
o Eidetic is derived from eidos which means essence. In eidetic reduction I reduce the
experience to its essence.

60. EIDETIC REDUCTION


o I arrive at the essence of the experience by starting out with an individual example, then finding
out what changes can be made without ceasing to be what it is. That which I cannot change
without making the object cease to be the thing it is, is the invariant, the eidos of the experience

61. EIDETIC REDUCTION

o For example, I am doing a phenomenology of Love. I start bracketing my biases on love. Then I
reduce the object love to the phenomenon of love. In eidetic reduction, I begin with an example
of a relationship of love between two people. I change their age, race, social status and all these
do not matter in love. What is it that I cannot change? Perhaps, the unconditional giving of self to
the other as he is. This then forms part of the essence of Love.

62. Phenomenological Transcendental Reduction


o Phenomenological Transcendental Reduction reduces the experience further to the very activity
of my consciousness , to my loving, my seeing, my hearing ..etc.
o Here I now become conscious of the subject, the I who must decide on the validity of the
object.
o I now become aware of the subjective aspects of the object when I inquire into the beliefs,
feelings, desires which shape the experience.
o The object is seen in relation to the subject and the subject in relation to the object.

63. Phenomenological Transcendental Reduction


o In our example of love, maybe I see the essence of love as giving of oneself to the other because
of my perspective as a lover. If I take the perspective of the beloved, maybe the essence is more
receiving than giving. If I take the perspective of a religious, maybe love is seen as activity of
God.

64. It is the Phenomenological Transcendental Reduction that Edmund Husserl came up with the main
insight of Phenomenology : Intentionality of consciousness

65. Intentionality of consciousness means that consciousness is intentional, that consciousness is always
consciousness of something other than consciousness itself. There is no object without a subject, and no
subject without an object. The subject-of-the-object is called noesis ; the object-for-the-subject is called
noema. There is no world without man, and no man without a world.

66. Gabriel Marcel uses a Phenomenological Method less technical than Husserl. He calls it Secondary
Reflection

67. Primary Reflection


o The kind of reflection in which I place myself outside the thing I am inquiring on. An
o ob-jectum ( thrown infront ). It has nothing top do with my self nor I have anything to do
with it.

68. Secondary Reflection


o The kind of reflection in which I recognize that I am part of the thing I am investigating , and
therefore , my discussion is sub-jective (thrown beneath ). I have something to do with it
and It has something to do with me. Because I participate in the thing, I cannot tear it apart into a

clear and fixed ideas; I have to describe and bring to light its unique wholeness in my concrete
experience.

69. Human Nature


o Man as Intermediary
o as being in the world
o as being at the world
o Man as Intersubjectivity
o as being through others
o as being with others
o as being for others
o Man as a Self Project
o Man as being unto death
o Man as being unto God

70. Three Basic Orientation of Ones Existence


o World
o Others
o God
o I exist as Sentio Ergo Sum ( I feel therefore I am ) is the indubitable touchtone of ones
existence, it must be taken as indissoluble unity: the I cannot be separated from the exist,
pertaining essentially to sense experience.

71.
o Marcel invokes an image, that of a child coming up to him with shining eyes, saying: Here I
am! What a Luck!. The statement of the child cannot be separated from its act of existing. This is
in the word exist or existere which in Latin means to stand out, or to manifest . The
indubitable touchtone of ones existence is linked to kind of exclamatory awareness of oneself,
as in the expression of the child ( the leaps , the cries..etc.

72.
o The immediacy of self awareness in the case of the ADULTS maybe restrained, crusted over by
habits, compartmentalized life: it is pretty certain, in fact, that we are are tending to become

bureaucrats not only with our outward behaviors but in our relation with ourselves, and because
of bureaucracy we interpose thicker and thicker screens between ourselves and existence .

73.
o This feeling that makes known my experience is what Marcel calls: SYMPATHETIC
MEDIATION
o The experience is what Marcel calls: NON-INTRUMENTAL COMMUNION
o If we want to be faithful to the experience, we need to use concept that points to this feeling:
DIRECTIONAL CONCEPTS
o The whole process can be fulfilled only if we inter into SECONDARY REFLECTION and
humbly returned to the experienced reality of ordinary life.

74. Reflection is rooted inexperience, but there are two kinds: Primary and secondary. Primary
Reflection breaks the unity of experience and is the foundation of scientific knowledge. This is
equivalent to the Natural Attitude in Husserl. Secondary Reflection recuperates the unity of original
experience. It does not go against the data of primary reflection but refuses to accept it as final.

75. Example#1: Who am I? Primary Reflection: I am so and so,born on this day, in such a place,
with height and weightetc.. items on the I.D. card. Secondary Reflection: I am more than the items
above.. I enter into my inner core. Example#2: My Body Primary Reflection: a body is like other
bodies.., detached from the I , the body examined by a doctor, studied by medical students, or the
body sold by the prostitute. Secondary Reflection : I am my body, I feel the pain when my dentist pulls
my tooth. I feel a terrible feeling when I sell my body( prostitute).

76. SUMMARY
o Phenomenology as a Method is a method in which the relation between the investigator and the
investigated object is considered to belong essentially to the object itself.
o In cases where the object of investigation is Human Being , phenomenology becomes the
Method in which all relevant items of research are exclusively considered only with regard to the
totality of Human Being .

77. MAN AS LIBERTY ( FREEDOM)


o I. Two extreme positions on the issue on Human Freedom:
o B.F. Skinner: Man is Absolutely determined.
o Jean Paul Sartre: Man is Absolutely Free.
o II. Middle position: Phenomenology of
o Freedom of Maurice Merleou-Ponty/Abraham Maslow
o III. Freedom and Person: Gabriel Marcel.

78. Two Types of Freedom: Pier Fransen; Jose A. Cruz S.J.


o Freedom of Choice
o Fundamental Options
o Freedom and Responsibility:
o Robert Johann S.J.
o Freedom and Justice

79. B.F. SKINNER: MAN IS ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED


o We begin our Phenomenology description of Freedom by using EPOCHE, bracketing two
extreme positions on freedom: Absolute Determinism and absolute Freedom.
o The behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner holds that man is absolutely determined.
o 1. Mans behavior is shaped and determined (caused) by external forces and stimuli:
o a. Genetic, biological and physical structure.
o b. Environmental structures: culture, national and ecclesiastical ( Church )
o c. External forces and demands

80.
o Our behavior, being conditioned by these factors, is manipulable: man can be programmed like
machine. e.g. governmental, educational and propagandistic techniques.
o Against Skinner, we hold that there other levels of experience which cannot be explained by or
reduced to external factors and stimuli, such as:
o 1. I can make myself aware of my biological and physical limitations,
o 2. I can question my own environmental structures, revolt or validate them.
o 3. I can achieve a distance from external demands and forces: hesitate, reflect, deliberate and
challenge them.

81. There are difficulties with Absolute Determinism:


o 1. Explaining away self-questioning and self- reflection is doing self- questioning and selfreflection.
o 2. Not all causal motives are necessitating causes because the goods that we face and

o the motives we use are limited, conditioned and mixed.


o 3. If the feeling of freedom is rejected, then no basic human experience is trustworthy, which
would lead to total skepticism and inaction.

82.
o 4. If the statement man is absolutely determined is true, then the statement is also determined,
and the opposite man is absolutely free would also be determined, and so, there would be no
truth value anymore to the statement.
o 5. If Human Beings are manipulable like machines, there would be no problem in making the
society just.

83. JEAN PAUL SARTRE: ABSOLUTE FREEDOM


o Jean Paul Sartre, in His early stage, holds that man is absolutely Free.
o In His essay Existentialism is Humanism, Sartre discusses his position by stating that with
man, Existence precedes essence ( He develops absolute freedom in metaphysical terms in his
book Being and Nothingness)

84.
o Man first exists and then creates his own essence.
o There is no pre-existing essence that man has to conform when he exists.
o There is no God, because if there is God, He would be a creator and essence would exist first
before existence, thus man would be determined.
o Man is what he is not (yet), and he is not what he is because he can be what he wants to be.

85.
o Man cannot be free in some things only and not free in others; he is absolutely free or not at all.
o 1. Objection: to Sartre: How can you say I am absolutely free when I am not free to be born in
such in such a place, parents, , day.etc.
o 2. Answer of Sartre: You can Always live as if you were not born in such and such a place,
parents, day.etc.

86.
o 2. Objection to Sartre: How can you say I am absolutely free when I cannot climb a big rock or
pass through it? So I am limited.
o 2. Answer of Sartre: The rock is the obstacle to your freedom only because you freely want to
climb or pass through it.

87.
o For Sartre: Freedom is a negation, a negating power of consciousness.
o In interpersonal relationship, this means reducing the other person to an object, described as:
SARTREAN STARE.
o The other person, because he is also free, also reduces me to an object. So for Sartre: HELL IS
OTHER PEOPLE ( from the Play NO EXIT )

88. Structured Freedom Abraham Maslow


o If man is free, his freedom involves both realms: historicity/given structure and transcendence in
free questioning
o Freedom and structures are complementaries than contradictories
o Structure is fundamental to all human growth, evolution and process
o Structures are the offerings of the human world to which I come: historicity,environment, etc.

89. Continue.
o Structure is also the internal constitution of being a man with human potentialities: basis for my
being a questioning self.
o My own freely created life project is also a structure, that is the structure of being a man
o Freedom is operative on all levels: operative not as a force against structure but as a force
emerging from structure and merging with structure inorder to further actualize human potentials

90. Continue
o Man, therefore is neither absolutely free nor absolutely determined
o Man is freedom within structure
o Final words on freedom
o The problem is not proving the freedom of the will but rather it is in accepting its true meaning
and consequences

91. Continue
o In the exercise of freedom, we are definitely a and ultimately alone: As Sartre says we are
condemned to be free.
o Only we can possess ourselves: No one else can do it for us.

o Our choices are irrevocable, since the present moment is never repeated. We cannot undo what
we have chosen.
o We can only summon ourselves to manage making new choices

92. Continue
o I must freely create a life-project which is myself
o I alone am accountable
o Freedom is both terrible and beautiful: a two-edged sword
o With freedom, he can make choices but creates anxiety and uncertainty( terrible)
o With freedom he can know himself and be in control of his destiny(beautiful)

93. Continue
o However his destiny and meaning is other-oriented, open in his potentialities to know and love
o As a result, mans meaning is not only to possess himself freely
o His identity is not fully achieved until, having possessed himself, he gives himself to the other.

94. MAURICE MERLEAU-PONTY: SITUATED FREEDOM


o Maurice Merleau-Ponty in his last chapter of the phenomenology of perception, criticizes
Sartrean Absolute Freedom and holds the middle position of structure freedom.
o For Merleau-Ponty, if freedom is absolute, always and everywhere present, then freedom is
impossible and nowhere.
o There would be no distinction between freedom and unfreedom. E.g. The slave in chains is just
then as free as the one who revolts and breaks his chains. We are free when we control our
situation as well as we are powerless.

95.
o Such freedom as Sartres cannot embody itself in any form of existence, because once freedom
has realized something, we have to say at once that it lies outside its so-called embodiments.
o In such kind of freedom, it is difficult to speak of choice, because choice implies value, and
seeing values is impossible from the standpoint of a freedom which transcends all situations.

96.
o For Merleau-Ponty, our freedom is SITUATED FREEDOM.

o Freedom is interwoven with a field of existence. Our choices are not made from absolute zero,
but from this field of meanings.
o Outside myself, there is no limit to my freedom, but in myself, there are limits.

97.
o We have to make distinction between :
o 1.Explicit Intention: I plan to climb the mountain
o 2. General Intention: Whether I plan to climb the mountain or not, it appears high to me.
o Underneath me is a Natural I, which does not give up earthly situation and from which is based
my plans.
o In so far as I have hands, feet, body I bear intentions which do not depend on my freedom but
which I find myself in.

98.
o I find myself in a world of meanings. E.g. I cannot structure the data of perception in arbitrary
fashion, like: habits, tiredness; historical situation.
o It is true that I can change habits or I transcend Facticity, but I can only do so from these
standpoints.
o A good example of situated freedom is a revolution: it is neither purely determined nor
completely free.

99. GABRIEL MARCEL: FREEDOM AND THE PERSON


o Gabriel Marcel understands freedom in relation to PERSON.
o The Person is characterized by DISPONSABILITY, AVAILABILITY, in contrast to the EGO
which is closed.
o Out in existence as an EGO, having freedom and grow to BEING a Person.
o Marcels Philosophy can be systematized in terms of HAVING and BEING: having and being
are two realms of life.

100.
o HAVING pertains to things, external to me, and therefore autonomous (independent of me)
o 1. Things do not commune with me, are not capable of participation, closed and opaque,
quantifiable and exhaustible.
o 2 . The life of Having therefore is a life of instrumental relationship.

o 3. Having is the realm of problem. A problem is something to be solved but apart of me, the
subject.
o 4. Having is also applicable not only to things but also to ideas, fellowman, faith. I can have my
ideas, posses other people, have my religion. Here I treat my ideas, other people, religion as my
possessions, not open for sharing with others.

101.
o BEING, on the other hand, pertains to person, open to others, able to participate, creative, nonconceptualizable, a plenitude.
o 1. The life of BEING is the life of communion.
o 2. The realm of BEING is the realm of MYSTERY. A mystery is a problem that encroaches on
the subject, that is part of me.
o 3. BEING is also applicable not only to persons but also to things (art), ideas, faith. I am my
painting; I am my ideas, I am my faith. Here my art, ideas, religion are part of me which I can
share to others.

102.
o FREEDOM for Marcel belongs to the realm of BEING, because freedom is not distinct from us,
not a possession. Freedom is a mystery not a problem.
o 1. A thing possessed may be used or neglected by the owner without losing its character, but with
freedom, when I deny, abused or betray it, it loses its character as freedom.
o 2. Freedom then, as belonging to the realm of Being, freedom breaks the confines of having to
affirm my being which is essentially openness, participation, creative belonging with other
beings and with fullness of BEING ITSELF.

103.
o Man is gifted with freedom ( freedom as fact ), and that is why he experiences a lack, but which
is really an exigency of BEING.
o 1. In an answer to this appeal of BEING, man either fulfills or betray his freedom.
o 2. To fulfill freedom is to affirm, to be in communion with others, with BEING.
o 3. Therefore, freedom as a fact points to freedom as VALUE. I am free in order to become free
(freedom as achievement), to become fully a person.

104. TWO KINDS OF FREEDOM


o 1. FREEDOM OF CHOICE (Horizontal Freedom)
o 2. FUNDAMENTAL OPTIONS (Vertical Freedom)

o 1.1 Our first and commonly understood experience of freedom is the ability to choose, goods,
e.g. I choose to study instead of watching a movie, I choose to buy a cheap pair of shoes instead
of an expensive one, because I am supporting my siblings education.

105.
o But if we reflect deeper, our choice implies a prior or may lead to a preference of VALUES.
When I choose to study instead of playing, I value learning more than pleasure. When I choose to
buy a cheap pair of shoes, I value helping my sister/brother more than my comfort.
o 2.1 This Freedom is called FUNDAMENTAL OPTIONS, because it is our general direction or
orientation in life, it reflects our value in life.
o 2.2 It is called VERTICAL FREEDOM, because values form a hierarchy; some values are higher
than others.
o 2.3 For the German Phenomenologist Max Scheler, preferring and realizing Higher Values is
LOVE, and preferring and realizing lower values is hatred or egoism.

106.
o In the ultimate analysis, there are Two Fundamental Options: LOVE and EGOISM.
o 1. It is LOVE which makes me a PERSON, which makes me truly FREE.
o 2. FREEDOM OF CHOICE and FUNDAMENTAL OPTIONS are interrelated: Our Choices
shape our Fundamental Options, and our Fundamental Options is exercised and concretized in
our particular choices.

107. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY


o These Two Types of Freedom can be seen in the corollary of Freedom which is
RESPONSIBILITY. Responsibility is the other side of Freedom.
o Just as there are two kinds of Freedom, there are also two meanings of Responsibility.
o 1. The First Meaning of Responsibility corresponds to the First Type of Freedom, Free Choice ,
namely ACCOUNTABILITY.

108.
o I am accountable for an action that is free, whose source is the I, I acted on my own, I decided
on my own. I am free from external constraints.
o Being Responsible, Accountable for my action, however, does not necessarily make me a
responsible person. Here we encounter a second meaning of responsibility corresponding to the
second type of freedom: RESPONSE-ABILITY.

109.

o RESPONSE-ABILITY means the ability to give an account, the ability to justify my action as
truly responsive to the objective demands of the situation.
o 1. A response that meets the objective demands of the situation is a response that meets the
demand of JUSTICE.
o 2. A responsible action then from a RESPONSE-ABLE person requires putting the Other in the
forefront in place of myself. I am free from internal constraints, like egoism and whims
(arbitrariness).
o 3. Greater Freedom then is not just being able to do what I want to do but being able to do and
wanting to do what the situation objectively (versus subjectively) oblige me to do.

110. FREEDOM AND JUSTICE


o The relation between FREEDOM and JUSTICE can be seen when we take into consideration the
network of relationships with FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS and the goods intended by Freedom.
o JUSTICE is giving what is due to the other.
o When we choose goods (things, money, political poweretc.), we must consider that they are
finite and exhaustible, and that the other also needs them.
o Absolute Love for finite goods leads to corruption, in the object and in the subject.

111.
o If the Human Being is to keep his Freedom, He must assess the real needs with respect to what is
available around his world and the equally real needs of his fellowman.
o This requires an objective order of Values, like balancing measurement, LIBRA.
o What is due to the other is all that he needs to preserve and enhance his dignity as a Human
Being.
o We are obligated to give to the other what the other needs to enhance his Dignity.
o His Dignity includes His Being and becoming Free.

112.
o But we are obliged to give only what we can give within the limited matrix of possibilities.
o Freedom then conditions Justice, and Justice is a condition of Freedom.
o Freedom conditions justice, because giving what is due to the other means allowing him to use
his talents to fulfill his Humanity, giving him Freedom. So, to violate the Freedom of the other is
to deny him Justice.

o Justice is a condition of freedom, because I can only use my Freedom for the promotion of
Justice, of what is due to the Human Being. In the exercise of my Freedom, I must observe
Justice so that the resources of fellow Human Beings and the World of nature are not exhausted
and totally lost, otherwise there will be no more goods to choose from.

113.
o This relationship of Freedom and Justice is applicable to society.
o In a society, there must be a balance of Freedom and Justice.
o This means that there must be structural order in society such that higher Values are not
subordinated to lower values.
o The social structure must be such that exchange of economic goods and distribution of political
power is geared towards enhancement of the Human Being.

114.
o The practical norm to follow for that ideal is : to each according to his needs
o ( Acts 2:45 ).. from each according to his means ( Acts 11:29 ).
o In case of conflict between Freedom and Justice, the use of Violence must be avoided. Instead
structure for deliberations are needed. People must be able to participate is Dialogue to settle
their differences.

115. INTERSUBJECTIVITY ( MAN AND FELLOWMAN )


o I. DIALOGUE
o The noted Jewish Philosopher on dialogue, Martin Buber, makes a distinction between the
HUMAN and INTERHUMAN.
o 1.1 The Social is the life of the group of people bound together by common experiences and
reactions; in short, a group existence.

116. Continue
o 1.2 The Interhuman is the life between persons, the interpersonal, the life of dialogue, The ITHOU.
o 1.3 For example, Buber joins a procession for the sake of a comrade (social ), then suddenly he
sees someone in the caf he had befriended a day before ( Interhuman ).
o 1.4. The Interhuman can happen to persons with opposing views, like a boxer in the boxing
match.

117. Continue

o I-THOU ( dialogue ) is to be distinguished from I-IT ( monologue )


o 2.1One way of distinguishing dialogue from monologue is to describe the obstacles to dialogue
which would be the characteristics of monologue.
o We must note first that our life with other persons is in reality never pure dialogue nor pure
monologue but a mixture. It is the question of which predominates

118. Continue
o 3.1 The first obstacle to dialogue isSEEMING, in contrast to BEING.
o 3.1.1 Seeming proceeds from what one wishes to seem. I approach the other from what I want to
impress on the other.
o 3.1.2 The look of seeming is made-up, artificial.
o 3.1.3 Being proceeds from what one really is. I approach the other from what I really am, not
wanting to impress on the other.

119. Continue
o 3.1.4 The look of Being is spontaneous, without reserve, natural.
o 3.1.5The Seeming that is an obstacle to dialogue must be distinguished from the Genuine
Seeming of an actor who is playing a role and of a lad who imitates a heroic model.

120. Continue
o 3.1.6 Seeming that attacks the I-THOU is a lie in relation to existence, not a lie in relation to
particular facts.
o 3.1.7 For example: Two men , Peter and Paul, whose lives are dominated by seeming:
o Peter as he wants to appear to Paul, Paul as He wants to appear to Peter,
o Peter as he actually appear to Paul, Paul as he actually appears peter,
o Peter as He appears to Himself, Paul as He appears to himself.
o Six appearances and two bodily bei ngs!!!

121. Continue
o 3.1.8 In I-THOU, persons communicate to each other as they are, in Truth.
o 3.1.9 Objection to Buber: Is it not natural for man to seem.
o Answer of Buber: No, what is natural for man is to seek confirmation of his being, a

o yes from the other for who he is, but this is difficult and so he resorts to seeming
o because seeming is easier.
o 3.2 The second obstacle to dialogue is speechifying, in contrast to personal making present.

122. Continue
o 3.2.1 Speechifying is talking past one another. For Sartre, this is the impassable walls between
partners in conversation. Most conversations today are really monologues.
o 3.2.2In dialogue, on the other hand, I personally make present the other as the very one he is, I
become aware of Him, that he is different from me, unique, maybe even with opposing views.

123. Continue
o 3.2.3 To be aware of a person is different from becoming aware of a thing or animal. It is to
perceive his wholeness, determined by spirit. It is to perceive his dynamic center.
o 3.2.4 In our time, we have the following tendencies that make dialogue difficult:
o Analytical: We break the person into parts.
o Reductive: We reduce the richness of a person to a schema, structure, concept..
o Deriving: We derive the person from a formula..
o Thus: the Mystery of a Person is Leveled down.

124. Continue
o 3.3. The third obstacle to dialogue is IMPOSITION, in contrast to UNFOLDING.
o 3.3.1 Imposition is interaction between persons, they influence one another. But there are two
basic ways to influence another: Imposition and Unfolding.
o 3.3.2 Imposition is dictating my own opinion, attitude, myself on the other.

125. Continue
o 3.3.3 Unfolding, on the other hand, is finding in the other the disposition towards what I myself
recognized as true good and beautiful. If it is true, good and beautiful, it must also be alive in the
other person in his own unique way. All I have to do in dialogue is to bring him to see it for
himself.

126. Continue
o 3.3.4 A typical example of imposition is the propagandist. The propagandist is not concerned
with the unique person he wants to influence but with certain qualities of the person that he can
manipulate and exploit to win the other to his side. He is concerned simply with more members,

more followers. Political methods are mostly winning power over the other by depersonalizing
him.

127. Continue
o 3.3.5 A Typical example of unfolding is the Educator. The Educator cares for his students as
unique, singular, individual. He sees each as capable of freely actualizing himself. What is right
is established in each as a seed in a unique personal way. He does not impose.
o 3.3.6 The educator trust in the efficacy of what is right. The propagandist does not believe in the
efficacy of his cause, so he must use special methods like the media.

128. Continue
o 3.3.7 This idea of Buber has influenced a Theologian of Liberation, Paolo Friere, who wrote the
Pedagogy of the oppressed. According to him there are two ways of teaching:
o banking Method: a teacher deposits information in his students minds and he withdraws it
during examinations.

129. Continue
o Dialogical Methods: the teacher teaches by learning from his students their unique situation, and
from there, he unfolds what is right. Both the teacher and students are responsible to what is true,
good and beautiful.
o To summarize, genuine dialogue is turning to the partner in all truth.

130. Continue
o 4.1 To turn to the other in all truth also means imagining the real, accepting the wholeness of the
other, including his real potentialities and the truth of what he cannot say.
o 4.2 To confirm the other does not mean approval. Even if I disagree with him, I can accept him
as my partner in genuine dialogue; I affirm him as a person.

131. Continue
o 4.3 Further, for genuine dialogue to arise, every participant must bring himself to it. He must be
willing to say what is really in his mind about the subject matter.
o 4.3.1 This is different from unreserved speech, where I just talk and talk.
o 4.4.2 Silence can also be dialogue. Words sometimes are the source of misunderstanding (Zen
Buddhism)

132. LOVE Introductory Note: There are many kinds of Love ( Love of Friendship, Marital Love..etc.).
Our Phenomenology of Love here is not a description of a particular kind of Love but of love in general
between persons

133. We begin our phenomenology of love by first using epoche, braketing the popular notion of Love
as a pleasant sensation, as something one falls into . 1. According to Erich Fromn in his book, The
Art of Loving , Love is an art that requires knowledge and effort. 2. Erich Fromn cites three reasons for
this wrong popular notion of Love as Falling in Love.

134. 3.The first reason is that now a days the problem is stressed on being loved rather than on
loving. Note the proliferation of books on how to win friends and influence people, how to be
attractive. 4.The second reason is that nowadays the problem is focused on the object rather than the
Faculty. Nowadays people think that to love is easy but finding the right person to love or be loved is
difficult. So love is reduced to sales and follow the fad of the times.

135. 5.The third reason is the confusion between the initial state of falling-in-love and the permanent
state of being-in-love.

136. 6.The experience of love starts from the experience of Loneliness 6.1. Loneliness is one of the
basic experience of the human being because of self awareness.

137.
o 7. Thrown out of the situation which was definite and secure into a situation which is indefinite,
uncertain, open, the human being experiences separation. 8. This experience of separation is
painful and is the source of shame, guilt and anxiety. 9. There is then the deep need in man to
overcome loneliness and to find at-onement.

138. 9. Some answers to this problem are the following: A. Orgiastic States: trance induced by drugs,
rituals, sexual orgasm, alcohol etc. The characteristic of this states are: violent, intense, involving the
total personality, but transitory and periodical. They are addictive

139.
o B. Conformity with groups: joining a party or organization. The characteristics of these groups
are calm, routine dictated. In our society today, we equate equality with sameness rather than
oneness where differences are respected
o C. Creative Activity: a productive work which I plan, produce and see the result, which is
difficult nowadays.

140. 10. All the above are not interpersonal. 11. Love is the answer of Loneliness, but Love can be
immature. 12.Immature love is symbiotic union where the persons lose their individuality. The following
are immature forms of Love: A. Biological: the pregnant mother and the fetus: both live together.

141.
o B. Psychic: two bodies are independent but the same attachment psychologically. C. Passive:
masochism. The masochist submits himself to another. D. Active: sadism. The sadist is
dependent on the submissiveness of the masochist.

142. 13. Loneliness ends when the loving encounter begins, when the person finds or is found by
another. 14. The loving encounter is a meeting of persons. 15. The meeting of persons involves an I-

Thou communication. 16. This meeting of persons happens when two persons are free to be themselves
yet choose to share themselves.

143. 18. This meeting of persons is not simply a bumping into each other, nor an exchange of pleasant
remarks, although this can be an embodiments of a deeper meaning. 19. This meeting of persons can
happen in groups of common commitments although social groups can impose roles.

144.
o 20. The loving encounter presupposes the appeal of the other to my subjectivity. 21. The appeal
of the other is embodied in a word, gesture or glance. 22.The appeal of the other is an invitation
to transcend myself, to break away from my occupation with the self.

145. 23. I can ignore the causal remark of the other as a sign for the meeting. 24. My self-centeredness
makes it difficult for me to understand the others appeal to me. 25. I need more than eyes to see the
reality of the other, to see his goodness and value.

146. 26. I need an attitude that has broken away from self preoccupation. If I am absorbed in myself, I
will not understand the others appeal but will just excuse myself. 27.I must get out of the role I am
accustomed to play in my daily life to understand the others appeal.

147.
o 28. What is the appeal of the other? It is not the corporeal or spiritual attractive qualities of the
other.
o 29. Qualities can only give rise to enamoredness, a desire to be with the other, but love is the
firm will to be for the other.

148. 30. Once the qualities ceases to be attractive, then love ceases. 31. Also, the person is more than his
facticity. 32. The appeal is not any explicit request, because the other may go away dissatisfied, because
my heart was not in fulfillment of his request. 33. The others appeal is HIMSELF.

149. 34. The call of the other is his subjectivity: be with me, participate in my subjectivity. The other
person is himself a request. 35. The appeal of the other makes it possible for me to liberate myself from
myself. 36. The appeal reveals to me an entirely new dimension of existence: that myself realization
maybe a destiny-for-you. Because of you , I understand the meaninglessness of my egoism.

150. 37. What is my reply to the others appeal? It is not the outpouring of my qualities to the other. 38.
Compatibility of Qualities is not necessary in love. 39. Neither is my reply the satisfaction of his request
or desire. 40. Sometimes refusal to grant his request or desire maybe the way of loving him if granting it
will do him harm.

151. 41 . My reply of the others appeal is MYSELF. 42. As a subject, the other is free to give meaning
and new dimension to his life. 43. His appeal then to me is an invitation to will his subjectivity, to
consent to his freedom, to accept, support and share it.

152.

o 44. My reply then is willing the others free self realization, his destiny, his happiness. It is like
saying: I want you become what you want to be . I want you to realize your happiness freely.
45. This reply is effective. 46. Love is not only saying but doing, since the other person is not a
disembodied subject, to love him implies that I will his bodily being, that I care for his body, his
world, his total well being.

153. 47. Willing the happiness of the other implies I have an awareness, a personal knowledge of his
destiny. 48.1 Love is not only saying but doing, since the other person is not a disembodied subject, to
love him implies that I will his bodily being, that I care for his body, his world, his total well being.

154. 49. My Love will open possibilities for him but also close others, those that will hamper his self
realization. 50. I can be mistaken in what I think will make other happy or I may impose own concept of
happiness so Love requires RESPECT for the OTHERNESS of the other. 51. This respect the other
necessitates PATIENCE, because the rhythm of growth of the other maybe different from mine.

155. 52. Patience is harmonizing my rhythm with the others, like melody or an orchestra. 53. Is love
concerned only with the other and not at all myself? No, because in love I am concerned also with
myself. 54. This does not mean to be loved but in the sense that in love, I place the limitless trust in the
other, thus delivering myself to Him.

156. 55. This TRUST, this defenselessness, is a CALL upon the love of the beloved, to accept my offer
of myself. 56. The appeal of the lover to the beloved is not to will to draw advantage from the affection
for the other. 57. The appeal of the lover to the beloved is not compelling, dominating or possessing the
other. Love wants the others freedom in that the other himself choose this safe way and avoid that
dangerous path.

157. 58. There is indeed that element of SACRIFICE in loving the other which is often (mis)understood
as loss of self. 59. I renounce motive of promoting myself, abandoning my egoism. 60. But this does not
mean loss of self. On the contrary, in loving the other I need to love myself, and in loving the other I
come to fulfill myself. 61. I need to love myself first in loving the other because in loving I offer myself
as a GIFT to the other, so the gift has to be valuable to me first, otherwise I am giving a garbage to the
other.

158. 62. This loving myself takes the form of being-loved: I am loved by the other. 63. I come to fulfill
myself in loving the other because when my gift of self is accepted, the value is confirmed by the
beloved, and I experience the joy of giving in the process I also receive. 64. Thus, there exist in loving
the other the desire to be loved in return. But this desire is never a motive in loving the other.

159. The primary motive in LOVE is the YOU-FOR-WHOM-I-CARE. 65. The you is not the he or
she I talk about. 66. The you is not just another self. ( not just a rose among the roses Little
Prince) 67. The you is discovered by the lover himself, not with the eyes nor with the mind but with the
heart.(It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eyes Little
Prince.) I love you because you are beautiful and lovable, and you are beautiful and lovable because
you are you.

160. 68. Since the you is another subjectivity, He is free to accept or reject my offer of self. Love is a
risk. 69. What if the other does not reciprocate my love? 70. The rejection of the beloved can be a test of
how authentic my love is. 71. If I persist in loving the other in spite of the pain, then my love is truly
selfless. 72. The experience of rejection can be an opportunity for me to examine myself, for selfreparation, for emptying myself , allowing room for development.

161. 73. when love is reciprocated, love becomes fruitful, Love becomes creative. 74. Loving although it
presupposes knowing, it is different from knowing. 75. In knowing I let reality be, but in loving I will
the others free self realization, I somehow make the other be. 76. In any encounter, there is a
making of the other: e.g. the teacher makes the student a student; the student makes the teacher a
teacher.

162. 77. In loving encounter, the making of the other is not causalistic because love involves two
freedoms. 78. To understand the creativity of love, let us do a phenomenology of being-loved. 79. When
I am loved, I experience a feeling of joy and sense of security. 80. I feel joy because I am accepted as
myself and a value to the lover. I feel free to be just myself and what I can become. 81. I feel secure
because the other participates in my subjectivitry, I no longer walk alone in the world.

163. 82. So, What is created in love is we. 83. Together with the we is also a new-worldour
world, one world. My life is monotonous, he said, I hunt chickens; men hunt me. All chickens are just
alike. And , in consequence, I am a little bored. But if you tame me, it will be as if the sun came to shine
in my life. I shall know the sound of a step that will be different from all others. Other steps send me
hurrying back underneath the ground

164. Yours will call me, like music, out of burrow. And then look: you see the grain-fields down yonder?
I do not eat bread. Wheat is of no use to me. The wheat-fields have nothing to say to me. And that is sad.
But you have the hair that is the color of gold. Think how wonderful that will be when you have tamed
me! The grain, which is also golden, will bring me back the thought of you. And I shall love to listen to
the wind in the wheat. The Fox to the Little Prince

165. 84. Again, the creative influence of the lover is not causalistic because the beloved must freely
accept the offer of the lover. 85. Only when the beloved says yes will the love becomes fruitful,: e.g.
the teachers love is fruitful only when student accepts freely the education. 86. The we created in love
is a union of persons and their worlds. Therefore, they do not lose their identities. 87. In the union of
things, the elements lose their identities.

166. 88. In love, a paradox exists: The I becomes more an I and the YOU becomes more of
Himself. 89. We can clarify and deepen this paradox in love by describing the nature of love as a Gift
of Self. 90. A gift is something I cause another to posses which hitherto I posses myself, a giver. 91.
The other has no strict right to own the gift.

167. 92. The giving is disinterested, unconditional: There is no string attached to the giving. I do not
givein order to get something in return; otherwise the giving is an exchange or selling. 93. In love, the
giving is not a giving up in the sense of being deprived of something because the self is not a thing that
when given no longer belongs to the giver but to the given. 94 Nor the giving in love coming from a
marketing character because I do not give in order to get something in return.

168. 95. The giving in love is also not of the virtuous character. I dot give in order to feel good. 96. Why
do I give myself in love? Because I expereince a certain bounty, richness, value in me. 97. I can express
this disinterested giving of self to the other as other in the giving of sex, material things. But when I
do so, the thing becomes unique because it has become a concrete but limited embodiment of myself.

169. 98. To give myself means to give my will, my ideas, my feelings, my experiences to the other--- all
that is alive in me. 99. Why do I love this particular other? Because you are lovable, you are lovable
because you are you. 100. The value of the other is his being unique self. Therefore, since every person
is unique, everyone is lovable.

170. 101. If I am capable of loving this particular person for what he is, I am also capable of loving the
others for what they are. 102. From this nature of Love as disinterested giving of oneself to the other as
other, we can derive other essential characteristics of love.

171. 103. Love is Historical because the other is a concrete particular person with history. 104. I do not
love abstract Humanity, but concrete persons. 105. I do not love ideal persons, nor do I love in order to
change or improve the other. e.g the friends of Jesus, His Apostles, were not ideal people.

172.
o 106. We always associate the person we love with concrete places, things, events: like songs, e.g.
In the Gospel of St. John, The old St John recounts his first meeting with Jesus and ends that
account with It was about four oclock in the afternoon(John1:39)

173. When friendship is breaking down, we want to reconcile, we recall the the things we did together:
You are beautiful, but you are empty, he went on. One could not die for you. To be sure, an ordinary
passer-by would think that my rose looked just youthe rose that belongs to me. But in herself alone
she is more important than the hundrds of you other roses: because it is she that I have watered; Because
it is she that I have sheltered behind the screen; because it is for her that I have killed the
caterpillars(except the two or three that we saved to become butterflies); because it is she that I have
listened to, when she grumbled, or boasted, or even sometimes when she said nothing. Because she is
my rose. The Little Prince in passing by a garden of roses.

174. 107. In Love, I do not surrender my liberty to the other, I do not become a slave to the other. The
wifes submission to her husband is done in freedom in recognition of his position in the family. 108.
Rather, in Love two freedoms become one and each becomes more free.

175.
o 109. The union of several freedoms in love results in a community, which is different from a
society. In community, persons are free to be themselves.
o 110. Persons are Equal in Love because persons are free.
o 111. The equality in love is the equality of being, not of having.

176. 112. Love is Total because the person in love is indivisible. I do not say, you are my friend only
insofar as you are my colleague. 113. Love is Eternal because love is not given only for a limited
period of time. 114. Love is Sacred because persons in love are valuable in themselves.

177. MAX SCHELERS PENOMENOLOGY OF LOVE


o The most important sphere in a human beings life is the heart.
o The heart is the core and the essence.
o The heart is destined to love; the human person is destined to love.
o Loving is the most fundamental act of the human person.

o Loving is the primordial act.


o The human being is first and foremost a being who loves

178. WHAT LOVE IS NOT


o Love is not benevolence.
o When one loves, it is not necessary that one seeks the material benefit of its object.
o When loving non-persons, for example, one does not need to be benevolent to the object of the
loving act. E.g. Loving God, nature, art, career.

179.
o Loving persons, on the other hand, coupled with benevolence implies condescension and
distance.
o Benevolence makes an effort towards the well-being of the other, to realize something in the
other.
o Love exerts no effort to do something in the object loved.
o Love is not a fellow feeling
o Fellow feeling is value blind.

180.
o O can fellow feel for a person we do not love e.g. one can fellow feel for a persons joy over his
or his rivals misfortune but when one loves, one would see that this is not in line with ones
higher possibilities of being.
o Love is not a feeling.
o Feeling is passive-rweceptive and reactive.
o Malebranche: we do not necessarily love a fruit that gives the feeling of pleasure?

181.
o Even if love is not a fellow feeling, one fellow feels for a person when one loves that person.
o Fellow feeling is founded on love.
o Fellow feeling varies in the measure and depth of love.
o Love is not the same as feeling states.

o Feeling state change, love endures.


o Love does not alter.

182.
o Love is the cause of feeling states, not feeling states causing love.
o There is no such thing as falling out of love.
o One does not love for limited periods of time.
o Love is not the same as preference and rejection of values (values apprehension or judgments)

183.
o One can feel something of positive value without loving the object possessing that value e.e.
Respect for a person- respect is directed towards a value of a person that we respect.
o Respect necessitates a value judgment which entails a certain detachment; this absent in love.
o Love is not directed towards a value but to objects possessing that value.

184.
o Preference and rejection as value apprehension are founded on love.
o Love is a movement-higher values can flash forth and be preferred.
o Love is a primitive and immediate mode of emotional response to the core of persons and
objects.
o One does not apprehend a value first and then love.

185.
o It is possible for a person and object to fulfill our preconceived preferred values but we still do
not love them.
o But the valuations that we give are never enough for justifying our love.
o Most people find it unreasonable to apply conceptual categories of valuations to the objects that
we love e.g. Judging a loved ones letter because of the style and grammar.

186.
o Love is not blind.
o Misconception because of the primitiveness of love and the adequacy reasons.

o Love has an evidence of its own which is not strictly judged by reason
o Scheler says: Love sees something other in values, high or low, than that which the eye of
reason can discern.

187.
o The beloved has its own worth. The beloved is reason enough for the lover.
o Blaise Paschal says: The heart itself has its own reasons which reason itself does not know.
o Love is not relative to the polar-coordinates of myself and the other
o Love is not a social disposition like altruism.

188.
o One can love oneself genuinely without falling into egoism but one cannot fellow feel for
oneself.
o Scheler says: Love does not first become what it is by virtue of its exponents, their objects or
their possible effects and results.

189. THE ESSENCE OF LOVE


o Love (and hatred) as acts cannot be defined but only exhibited.
o Hatred is not the opposite of love, indifference is.
o Hatred is a disorder of the heart, a movement to the direction.
o Hatred looks for the existence of a lower valueand to the removal of very possibility of a
higher value.

190.
o Love is an act and a movement of intention.
o From a given value in an object, its higher value is visualized.
o This vision of a higher value is the essence of love.
o Love is not a reaction to a value already felt, nor a search for the value already given in an object
or person.

191.
o Upon seeing that the value is real in the object, one moves in intention to higher values.

o One can be aware of the positive values in an object without loving the object.
o Love is creative.
o It sets up an idealized paradigm of value for the objector person loved.

192.
o This idealized paradigm of value is not an imposition; it is implicit in the object or person loved .
o This paradigm of value is neither a creation or an enhancement of values.
o The creativity of love brings into appearance the higher possibilities of value in the beloved.

193.
o This paradigm of value is true and real in the object loved, they only wait confirmation.
o Karl Jaspers says: In love, we do not discover values, we discover that everything is lovable.
o Love relates to what has value rather to value itself.
o Love is not limited to human beings.
o One can love nature, vocation, God.

194.
o Love is an intentional movement from a lower to a higher value of the object love.
o Love is basically a movement.
o Love at first sight is not real love. Real love moves to the higher possibilities of value in the
object.
o Intentional is not the same as purposeful, motivational or striving towards a goal.

195.
o Intentional means directional in the phenomenological sense.
o Phenomenological Intentionality- consciousness is consciousness of, loving is loving something
or someone.
o Love is concerned with the existence or non-existence of higher values.
o Without indifference, love can become an attitude of constantly prospecting, as it were, for new
and higher values in the object.

196.
o Prospecting for higher values can be due to unsatisfied love.
o Without indifference, love can be misunderstood as an attempt to raise the value of the object
loved, to improve the beloved and help the beloved acquire a higher value.

197.
o A desire for improvement implies a pedagogic attitude I love you because I want to make you
into a better person.
o A desire for improvement necessitates making necessitates making a distinction between what a
person is now and what he or she should be. Love does not make this distinction.

198.
o Scheler says: Love itself in the course of its own movement, brings about the continuous
emergence of ever higher values in the object- just as if it was streaming out from the object of
its own accord, without any sort of exertion on the part of the lover.

199. THREE MISUNDERSTANDING OF LOVE


o When one loves, one does not seek for new values in the object loved.
o When love opens ones eyes to a higher values in the object loved, it is a consequence of love not
because of a seeking.
o An active seeking indicates an absence of love.

200.
o Genuine love is loving a person for all that he or she is, including the weaknesses and even
during disillusionment.
o Higher values are not given beforehand as an ideal to be looked for in the object loved; they
are disclosed and discovered in the very movement of love.
o Love is an occasion for promoting higher values like educating a person.

201.
o Love does not desire to change the beloved.
o A desire to change the beloved is rooted in a love that is conditional.
o Example of unconditional love:

Mary Magdalene ( not thou shalt not sin no more; promise me this and I will love thee
and forgive thy sins BUT go, and sin no more.)

The Prodigal Son

202.
o We love being as they are.
o Love does not create higher values in the beloved.
o Creating higher values is a projection of ones values into the other.
o It is due to a failure to free oneself from being partial to ones own ideas, feelings, interests, in
short from egoism.

203.
o Love is that movement wherein every concrete individual object that possesses values achieves
the highest value compatible to its nature and ideal vocation; or wherein it attains the ideal state
of value intrinsic to its nature

204. LOVE AND MORAL VALUES


o Love includes the moral value of goodness.
o Love of nature and love of art also involve moral value.
o They contribute to the perfection of person.
o They are spiritual acts.
o There is no such thing as love of goodness.

205.
o Love of goodness is Pharisaism: loving people because they are good.
o Loving people not because of concern, but because of the desire to appear good.
o Love has the value of goodness.
o A person moral goodness is determined according to the measure of his or her love.
o It is in the movement from lower to higher values that goodness appears as values.

206. HIERARCHY OF VALUES


o What are values?

o Values precede feeling state.


o Values are the foundation of feeling states and their completion.
o Values do not exist only because they are felt.
o In feeling a value, the value is given as distinct from the act of it being felt.

207.
o Values have an a-priori character.
o Values are not goods. Goods are carriers of value. Goods change, a value does not change. E.g.
the value of friendship is still a value even if a friend is being unfaithful.
o Values are independent of our striving. E.g. The value of health.
o There is a hierarchy of values.
o This hierarchy also has an a-priori character.

208.
o There are positive and negative values. A value cannot be both positive and negative.
o SENSORY VALUES.
o Agreeable, pleasant versus disagreeable, unpleasant.
o Values that are objects of sensory feelings (corresponding to subjective states of pleasure and
pain).
o VITAL VALUES

209.
o Values connected with general wellbeing.
o Feelings of health and sickness, ageing, exhaustion.
o Vital values are irreducible to the pleasant or unpleasant values.
o SPIRITUAL VALUES
o Independent of the body and environment.
o Values of the beautiful and the ugly, aesthetic values.

210.

o Values of the just and the unjust.


o Values of pure knowledge.
o Spiritual values are linked with the feeling state of spiritual joy.
o Holy and the Unholy.
o Values of the holy are independent of the things, objects and persons held to be holy at different
times.
o Values of the holy are higher than spiritual values, vital values are higher than sensory values.

211.
o The movement of Love commences only at the level of spiritual value.
o WHEN IS A VALUE HIGHER?
o A value is higher if it endures: Loving not just today or tomorrow.
o A value is higher if it is less divisible: value of bread versus the value of work of art.
o A value is higher if it generates and finds other values: Value of Life.

212.
o Spiritual value: Life has value because there are spiritual values.
o Depth of contentment or fulfillment: Sensory Values compel one to search for more enjoyment.
o A value is higher if it is not relative to the organism experiencing it: Spiritual Love does not
depend on physical characteristics versus sensory values.

213.
o Moral Values of good and evil refer to the bringing about of values into existence.
o Only person can do good and evil.
o Moral Tenor of a person: directness of willing a higher value.
o MOVEMENT TO HIGHER VALUES IS A MOVEMENT OF LOVE AND DOING GOOD.

The branches of philosophy pdf Document Transcript

1. PHILOSOPHY The Study of the fundamental nauture of existence, of man, and of mans relationship
to existence. The Theoretical Foundation of Philosophy Metaphysics The Theory of Reality The Study
of Existence as Such Alternative #1 Alternative #2 Where Am I? In an incomprehensibly chaotic
universe. In a universe which is ruled by natural laws. It is stable, firm, absolute and knowable. It is a
realm of inexplicable miracles unpredictable and unknowable. The things I see around me are real and
The things I see around me are only an illusion exist independent of any observer. created in my own
mind. Things are what they are and can not be Things can be changed by a mere act of my wished to be
otherwise. consciousness. Things are the object of my consciousness. Things are the subject of my
consciousness. Epistemology The Study of the Theory of Knowledge Alternative #1 How do I Know

Alternative #2 What I Know? Man acquires knowledge by a sudden Man acquires knowledge by a
process of revelation from a supernatural power. reason. Reason is a faculty fed by innate ideas that
Reason is a faculty that identifies and were implanted in mans mind before he was integrates the
material provided by mans born. senses. Mans knowledge consists of automatic instincts Mans
knowledge is gained and held in and is held as vague emotional responses to conceptual form.
mysterious events. Reason is competent to perceive reality. Man possesses a cognitive faculty that is
Man can know reality with certainty at the superior to reason. current level of his knowledge. Man can
know nothing with certainty and must live in perpetual doubt of his consciousness. Page 2 From
Philosophy, Who Needs it Page 1 of 2 Ayn Rand

2. Page 1 The Technology of Philosophy Applies only to Man to his character, actions, values, and
relationship to all existence. Ethics (Morality) The Theory of Moral Values Defines a code of values to
guide mans choices and actions that determine the course of his life. Alternative #1 What should I Do?
Alternative #2 What is good or evil for man and why? Commit to avoiding suffering. Commit to a
quest for joy. Hold self-fulfillment as the goal of mans life. Hold self-renunciation as the goal of mans
life. Man should pursue his own values. Man should place the interests of others above his own. Man
should seek his own happiness. Man should serve and sacrifice for others. The moral is the understood
and the chosen. The moral is the imposed and the obeyed. Politics and Economics The Theory of Legal
Rights and Government which defines the principles of a proper social system Alternative #1 Alternative
#2 How should I treat other men? Protect the rights of the individual. Subjugate the individual to the
state. Create a free government that protects its Create a totalitarian government that enslaves citizens
from aggressors and from injustice. some men for the use of other men. Establish the system of
Capitalism. Establish the system of Collectivism. Aesthetics The Theory of the Nature of Art Alternative
#1 How do I refuel mens Alternative #2 spirit and consciousness? Produce inspiring works of art.
Produce boring naturalistic works of art. Depict men becoming the best they can Depict men accepting
whatever fate determines possibly be. to be their lot in life. Show the greatness possible to men. Show
the smallness of men. Celebrate the thrill of discovery. Bemoan the mystery of the unknowable. Page 2
of 2

3. Definition of Personal Philosophy (Method 1) A consious, rational, disciplined process of thought and
scrupulously logical deliberation. Result #1 Result #2 A non-contradictory integration of Emotions that
can be identified and that your observations, experiences, make sense based on your values. knowledge
and convictions. Definition of Personal Philosophy (Method 2) Let your subconscious accumulate a junk
heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans,
unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance. Result #1 Result #2 A stupifying mash
integrated by your Everything that you think and feel will subconscious into a kind of mongrel be a dark
mystery to you. philosophy. Page 3 From Philosophy, Who Needs it Ayn Rand

4. Choose Your Values What is crucial to my life? Virtues: Rationality Controlling Values: Includes
Values such as: Independence Reason Work Life Honesty Purpose Love Life Social Life Integrity Self
Esteem Home Life Spirituality Justice Productiveness Pride The Ultimate Value Page Of Mans Life 5
Fundamental Principles: Take Goal Directed Action Rationally validated Know what you love most and
Clearly understood what to do with your finite life. Voluntarily accepted What excites and interests me
and ignites my soul? Use Objective Reality Discover ideas about: Use your Judgment to: to: What to
pursue in life. Decide how to apportion Help determine the level of The means required to your time and
energy. rationality and metaphysical achieve your values. Organize your time, effort appropriateness of
your How to rank your and lifestyle around the choices. values. hierarchy of your values. Achieve
Survival and Happiness From Ayn Rands Normative Ethics On This Earth Tara Smith, Phd. Page 4

5. Page 4 The Ruling Values (1) Reason, (2) Purpose, (3) Self-Esteem) 6 - Productiveness Diagram
From Nathaniel Brandens 2 - Independence Six Pillars of Self Esteem 1 - Rationality 3 - Honesty 5 -

Justice 4 - Integrity Philosophy of Objectivism 7 Pride From Ayn Rands The Seven Objective Virtues
Required To gain and keep Ones Values 1) Rationality: The primary virtue: the recognition of objective
reality, commitment to its perception, 5) Justice: The recognition of the fact that you cannot and the
acceptance of reason as a mans only fake the character of men. A man of justice earns what judge of
values and guide to knowledge and he receives and neither gives nor takes the undeserved. action. He
does not work except in exchange for something of value. He does not give his love, friendship, or
esteem 2) Independence: The acceptance of ones except in trade for the pleasure he receives from the
intellectual responsibility for ones own existence. virtues of individuals he respects. Love, friendship
and It requires that a man form his own judgments and esteem, as moral tributes, are caused and must be
that he support himself by the work of his own earned. mind. 3) Honesty: The selfish refusal to seek
values by 6) Productiveness: The virtue of creating material faking reality. It recognizes that the unreal
can values is the art of translating ones thoughts and goals have no value. One should tell the truth that
is into reality; a constant process of acquiring knowledge relevant to his relationship to the person with
and shaping matter to fit ones purpose, of translating an whom he is dealing. idea into physical form. 7)
Pride: The recognition of the fact that you are your 4) Integrity: The refusal to permit a breach own
highest value that of any achievements open to between thought and action. It acknowledges the you,
the one that makes all others possible is the fact that man is an indivisible, integrated entity of creation
of your own character- that you are a being of mind and body. self-made soul. Page 5