Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lecture 3 Man As Embodied Subject
Lecture 3 Man As Embodied Subject
iii.
ii.
Yet not all my answers to this question point solely to may body. They also refer to
something beyond, other than my body.
- When I say I love you:
- I mean that the one loving you is not simply just this body with its particular features
and constitutive elements
- But somebody/someone more than this body: Spirit, My Whole Being, My Will
- In my imagination, wish, thinking (consciousness), I can transcend my body, I am more
than my body.
- I can imagine far from where my body is at the moment; I can imagine myself as
different from my actual body
- My wish always goes beyond the present confines of my body.
- In thinking, I grasp something more my body: e.g. concepts, number
- Therefore, if I want to know myself, I have to look beyond my body, to something
beyond my body.
- This means that though there is an intimate relation between myself/who I am and my
body, I cannot reduce myself, my identity, my humanity, personhood to my body. I am
more than my body
- In effect, I am saying that: I HAVE MY BODY.
- My body is something that I have, and not the totality of who I am.
c.
The body is the matter which the soul determines, which is determined by the
soul.
- There is no man without a body, and just a soul as there is no substance without
matter and just a soul
- There is no man without soul and just a body as there is no substance without
form and just matter
Problem of the Created Character and Immortality of the Soul
- Soul is created by God so is the body
- But unlike the body it is immediately created by God
- This implies that the soul is not necessarily tied to the body; the soul is separable from
the body
- Thus, the hylomorphism of Aristotle could be eliminated.
- How? Revolutionize the metaphysics of Aristotle:
- Matter and form
- Essence and act of existence (esse)
ii.
-
iii.
-
iv.
-
ii.
1.
Primary Reflection
- Nature of primary reflection
- a kind of reflecting in which I place myself outside, separate from what I am
reflecting on. Here, I treat the object of my reflection, the question I am dealing
with as a PROBLEM
- when I reflect on my body on the level of primary reflection, I place or consider
my body outside of or apart from myself.
- The body becomes simply an object which is thrown in front of me so that I
could see clearly (objective, objectification)
- I break the fragile link between I and my body that is constituted by the
word I, my. Consequently, my body is no longer seen as my body but a
body
- A body which is apart from me, detached from me
- I have nothing to do with it
- It has nothing to do with me
- A body which is one body among other bodies, I speak about, treat my
body just like any other bodies
- No special privileges whatsoever
- No uniqueness: this body is mine alone not like any other bodies
- Seen in terms of the common characteristics, features it has with
other bodies.
- Tools used in Primary Reflection
- Analysis: break each of the parts
- Synthesis: study their order, relation with one another
- Conceptualization: come to some clear and fixed ideas regarding the thing in
itself, universal idea of body that applies to all bodies.
- This type of reflection on my body (Primary Reflection) is used in the natural
sciences: e.g.: Anatomy, Physiology, other sciences
- Oftentimes, this is how we simply view our body, my body, especially with the
dominating influence of science on modern society.
- Though there is a particular value in the primary reflection on the body (e.g.:
medicine), yet what is provided by the primary reflection is not the whole truth of
my body, does not exhaust the richness of my body.
- It does not and could not tell me everything I could know about my body
5
2.
iii.
-
It could not account the totality, the richness of the experience, what is given in
my experience of my body as my body
It could not help me come into a closer understanding of the totality of all that
exist, of the inexhaustible richness of a kaleidoscopic world
Secondary Reflection
- Nature of Secondary Reflection:
- A kind of reflection in which I do not separate myself from the object of my
reflection, what I am reflecting on. I treat the object of reflection as a
MYSTERY.
- When I reflect on my body on the level of secondary reflection, I do not
consider myself as apart, separate from my body, or I do not separate myself
from my body:
- The body is thrown beneath the subject, under or as part of the one
reflecting, as part of me (subjective)
- I do not break the fragile link between my body and myself constituted by
the word my, I
- As consequence of this kind of reflection, my body is viewed not just a body, but my
body
- My body is not something from which I could separate myself; it is not
something to which I could indifferent, be radically detached
- I have something to do with it
- It has something to do with me
- My body is my body because it is mine alone, unique
- Not like any other body, my body is mine alone
- Not like any other body, not exactly the same as other bodies.
- Tools used in Secondary Reflection
- Not analysis, synthesis, conceptualization
- But by describing my concrete experience (its unique whole as it is present in
my experience of ) my body, I come to the revelation, unfolding of the total
presence, unique whole identity of my body
The question raised by secondary reflection on my body
is not: WHAT IS THE RELATION OF THE I TO THE BODY?
- Why?
- We only come to this question when we separate I and the body, view them as 2
distinct, separate entities or realities between which determinable relationship
must exist in whatsoever either:
- Parallelism
- Interactionism
- But the body referred to in this question is no longer my body, but an abstract, the
body, viewed on the level of primary reflection rather than on the level of secondary
reflection
Rather: WHAT IS MEANT BY MY IN THE CONCRETE EXPERIENCE OF MY
BODY? WHAT MAKES THE EXPERIENCE OF MY BODY REALLY AN
EXPERIENCE OF MY BODY RATHER THAN AN EXPERIENCE OF JUST ANY
BODY?
- Here I investigate the meaning of the my in my experience of my body
- I try to investigate whatever the my of my experience of my body implies
- My body implies:
- I have my body
- I am my body
- To clarify the meaning of my in the experience of my body is clarify these two
affirmations.
b. I HAVE MY BODY
- the first thing that my clearly implies in the experience of my body is:
- having, ownership, possession
- I have my body, I own my body, I possess my body
- In what sense does I have my body mean? What does it mean to affirm that I have my
body? We could clarify this by:
- First, describing all our experiences of owning, like owning a dog, owning a pen, etc.
- Then, the structure and meaning of owning, having, possessing is unfolded which
applies also to my experience of my body as something I own, I possess, I have
- There are three essential elements unfolded in the different experiences of owning:
CLAIM/RIGHT, RESPONSIBILITY/DUTY, CONTROL.
- And let us how these elements also apply to my experience of my body as something that
I own, possess, have.
i.
Claim/Right
Any sort of possession implies a
CLAIM/RIGHT
I have a claim,
title, a right to whatever I own. E.g. I
have a dog
An instinctive
feeling that it belongs to me
nobody has a
right, title to it except I
It belongs to me
alone; nobody possesses it except I
I acquire the right
either by: buying, discovery, use, or
other means
ii.
I have an
indisputable claim, to my body
An instinctive
feeling that it is mine, that my body
is my own
Nobody has a
right, claim, title to it except I
It belongs to me
alone; nobody possesses it except I
When my body is
owned by another in whatever form
of slavery, I feel that my right is
violated. Yet I still feel that my
body is my own.
I do not simply
acquire this right by: owning, discover,
use or other means
It is already pregiven right, possession.
Responsibility/Duty
Any sort of possession implies
RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY
-
iii.
Control
Any sort of possession implies CONTROL
-
c.
What I own
responds to me
It recognizes me.
E.g. a dog
recognizes me when I call
him; otherwise it is not my dog
It obeys me and
submits to me
I AM MY BODY
- though the analogy/comparison between having/owning a dog and having a body at first
glance seems full and exact such we could say that I have my body, there is limitation in
the analogy
- the analogy has its specious side: the experience that I have my body is not exactly and
fully the same as owning a dog, a pen, a book, etc.
i.
Difference in the Unity/Union/Relation between my body and myself, and between other
things I own and myself.
- between myself and other things I own
- there is a sense of union, unity, relation, e.g. between myself and my dog, shirt, etc.
- when I lose something (e.g., my dog, my pen), I experience some sort of rending
as it were the wholeness/integrity of my body is taken or paralyzed, some part of
me is taken away.
- But the union, unity, relation is not perfect, has some limitation because there is no
identity between them
- No identity of location (spatio-temporal): Where I am is not exactly where the
thing I possess is.
- No identity of history: Its past, present, future are distinct from my past, present
and future
- No identity of being
7
ii.
-
I exist even before what I own exist or what I own exist before I exist
I am not what I own; what I own is not me
The tragedy of all having lies in my own desperate efforts to make
ourselves one with something which nevertheless is not and cannot be
identified with our being.
Unity between myself and my body is sui generis of its own kind, unique.
- There is identity between I and my body:
- Location: where I am, there is my body.
- History: beginning, past, present and future of my existence cannot be separated
from the beginning, past, present and future existence of my body.
- Being:
- My body does not exist independent of me nor I exist apart from my body
- When my body ceases to be, the structure of my experience does not offer
direct means of what I shall still be, what I can still be.
- When body dies, I die.
Difference between how I control my body and how I control other things I own
Things I own as Instruments
- I have control over the things I own as instruments
- Instrument:
- Extension, reinforcing of bodys power, capacity or part of body
- Artificial means of extending, developing, reinforcing a pre-existing power
which must be possessed by the one who uses the instrument
- E.g. of how I control things I own as instruments:
- Simple instrument/machine:
- Knife: extends, reinforces, the power of my hand
- Eyeglasses, telescopes, microscope: extend, reinforce the power of our eyes,
the power of seeing, the capacity to see.
- Complex instrument/machine:
- Extends, reinforces the power, capacity of my body as a complex unity,
capable of organized and complex activity where specific power expresses
its unity
- E.g. car, computer,
My Body: Not an Instrument
- If it were, it would need another body whose power, capacity it extends, reinforces or
develops. This, in turn, needs another body, so on and so forth. This implies an
infinite series or regress of bodies (ad infinitum), making any form of instruments
impossible. Thus, we end up with contradiction, absurdity.
- Rather, my body:
- Material reality which does not need any other body whose power it tries to
extend, develop, reinforce.
- Where does the power/capacity of my body originate, come from? Is the source
purely spiritual, separated, outside of my body?
- I/Subjectivity is the original source, center, subject, and the origin of
initiative which in itself is not determined by anything else except itself
- I/Subjectivity is not separated from or outside of the body
- But there is unity between the I/Subjectivity and my body
- A unity which is sui generis, unconceptualizable, difficult to conceive
in a clear and distinct
- The unity is of a kind that the I/Subjectivity is identified, immersed,
incarnated, present, mediated in my body.
- Thus, I am my body
- The relation between I and my body
- Could not be parallelism nor interactionism
- Both presuppose: separation, absolute non-identification between I and the
Body
- But NON-INSTRUMENTAL COMMUNION.
2.
iii.
Intermediate Relation
when things are related to one another not directly but through another reality (a third
party), they are said to be in an intermediate relation
illustration: XYZ
- immediate relations between X and Y, Y an Z
- intermediate relation between X and Z as they related to one another only through Y
that which mediates/bridges the relationship is what we call as intermediary. In our
illustration above, y is the intermediary.
In this kind of relationship, there is the possibility of encounter and concealment. Thus,
there are always two elements of an intermediary relation
1. ENCOUNTER:
- the intermediary could be the means through which the two parties/realities
involved are related, open up to one another (Z to X, X to Z). When this happens
there is an encounter.
2. CONCEALMENT:
- but the intermediary could also be the means through which two parties/realities
involved are concealed from one another, hide from one another (X hides from Z
through Y, Z hides from X through Y). When this happens, there is concealment.
My body as intermediary between I and other than I (the world and other embodied
subjects)
- since I, my subjectivity is immersed, incarnated in my body but could not be
completely identified with my body, my body becomes an intermediary between me and
those other than me.
- If I were completely identified with my body, my body could not be an intermediary
between I and others but with my body I am immediately related to others. There is no
concealment between and the others. I completely manifest through my body.
- If I were not in any way identified, immersed, incarnated in my body, I could not relate to
any one in any way through my body.
ii.
-
ii.
-
Summary:
- WHO AM I?
- I am an embodied subject: I am my body and I have my body
- As embodies subject, my body is the intermediary between myself and World and other
subjectivity.
- I encounter the world and others through my body; and the world and others encounter
me through my body
- At the same, I am concealed from the world and others through my body; and the world
and other are concealed to me through my body.
B. Temporality-Historicity of the Human Person
Man and His Historical Action by Rainer Reyes
1. Temporality of the Human Person: Human Person as Constituted by His Past, Present and
Future
a. Mans Presence as a Now Presence
- Man as embodied subject is present in the world and the world is present in him
- Man (as present in the world through his body as the intermediary) is present in the world AT
A PARTICULAR TIME AND PLACE (spatio-temporal presence)
- And he is present in the world NOW, AT THIS PLACE.
- The presence of man is a here and now presence: secular presence, secularity of man
- But his presence here and now, his present moment is not separated from the past and future
- Now-presence is not a now-presence which is:
- not intrinsically related to the past and the future
- without the past, and future
- mans nowness is not the nowness of eternity which has no past and future. THE
ETERNAL NOW OF GOD
- Rather, mans nowness/presence is a TEMPORAL NOW because it is related to the past
and future.
10
Summary:
- Temporality:
- is the intersection of the past and future in the now/present
- here and now presence is where the past and future intersect, meet, converge
- the point of intersection, the cross section where the lines of event in the past, present
and future converge
- the inseparability of the past, present and future
- no present without a past and a future
- no future without a present and a past
- no past without a present and a future
2. Historicity of Man
- Man, like other things in this world is a temporal reality
- He is present here and now; his presence is a here and now presence
- And his here and now presence is determined by the past and contains within itself the
possibilities of what he will be and can be in the future
- Thus, there is the intersection of the past, present and future in man, like other things.
- As a cross section of the past, present and future, his past, present and future are
inseparable like all other material things.
- What distinguishes man from other temporal beings?
- Unlike other temporal beings, he alone is a historical being.
- He is a historical being because of his consciousness and freedom/subjectivity.
- Thus, he is unlike any other temporal beings for he has consciousness and freedom with
regard to his temporality.
a. Consciousness
- Unlike other material things, man has consciousness, and more precisely, has selfconsciousness
- Consequently, unlike other temporal realities, he is not simply a cross section of the lines of
events of the past, present, and future,
- but he is a CONSCIOUS CROSS SECTION of the lines of events in the past, present and
future. He is conscious of how the past, present and future events and realities intersect, meet
or are synthesized in him and in others.
- He is conscious of who he is, what he is right now; what he is doing, his dynamics here
and now. He is also conscious of the present realities and dynamics of other things.
- He is conscious of the different events and realities of the past which determine or affect
who he is right now and his present dynamics and activities. He is conscious of the
11
different past realities and events that determine the present realities and dynamism of
other realities.
He is conscious of the future: of things that are still to be realized in him, of his different
possibilities contained in his present reality and dynamism. He is conscious of the future
of other things, of the different possibilities contained in the present reality and
dynamism of other things.
b. Freedom/Subjectivity
- subjectivity:
- original source/center of action, of determination, of initiative
- this source/origin, unlike any other, is transcending (which goes beyond)
- transcends any determination, control, manipulation; it could not be determined
by anything else except itself
- transcends all the qualities, functions, and possibilities and stamps all these with
recognizable sign of uniqueness, and unity
- transcends any form of knowledge.
- a mystery: inexhaustible aspect of the person.
- Because of his subjectivity, man has certain power/capacity to be creative and responsible
(FREEDOM) to his past, present and future
- He can freely determine how his past and future intersect, interpenetrate in the present, in
the here and now. And they intersect in a unique way.
- Unlike other things, he is not simply determined by external forces and realities; his past,
present and future do not intersect simply because of the determination of external forces
and realities.
- Let us how he could be unique, creative and responsible in making his past and future
intersect in his present
- PAST:
- He could grow in his consciousness of the past
- He could attach new meaning and values to it
- He could accept or reject his past
- In this way, the past does not determine him as before or it determines him in a new
way. They determine him in a unique way
- FUTURE:
- He can be creative in his consciousness of his future possibilities
- He has the capacity to realize himself, his possibilities, his future contained in the
present and his future, his possibilities are not simple to be realized by external
forces
- He is the source of determination where from now on the lines of events will come
together in him and in other in a unique way
- He takes the responsibility in realizing his possibilities, and in determining how the
lines of even will come together in him.
- Man, unlike other temporal things, his process of determination by the past and of the future
is not purely evolutionary (i.e. by external, random forces)
Summary:
- human person is a historical being because he is conscious, unique and responsible crosssection of past, present and future events:
- synthesis/cross-section of past, present and future events
- conscious of the this synthesis, cross-section:
- conscious of the determination of the past in the present
- conscious of the possibilities of the future contained in the present
- unique, responsible and creative cross-section
- responsible and creative in his consciousness of the past and future
- responsible and creative in how the past determines the preset
- responsible and creative in how to realized the future.
3. Different Dimensions of Mans Temporality-Historicity
- man: conscious, unique and creative/responsible intersection, synthesis of the past, present
and future events and realities.
- And events and realities are of different levels, kinds or lines:
- Physical
- Interpersonal
- Social
- Historical
- Personal
- The past, present, and future of all these realities and events meet, intersect in man
- Man is where all the boundaries meet. (Dostoyevsky)
- Thus, man has different dimensions, is multi-dimensional. Consequently, we could understand
the historicity of man by taking into account of how man is a conscious, creative and
responsible intersection of past, present and future of these different kinds, levels, dimensions
of events and realities.
12
a. Physical Dimension
- refers to ones body, ones physicality, materiality
i.
1.
2.
3.
ii.
-
iii.
-
iv.
-
2. Interpersonal Dimension
- Who am I is determined in significant extent by the relationships that I have with other
persons
- This network of different relationships with other persons as it constitutes/defines my
personhood, identity is what we call as the INTERPERSONAL DIMENSION.
- This network of relationships consists:
- Family relationship: immediate, remote; by blood, by affinity
- Neighbors
- Peers
- Others
i.
1.
2.
3.
ii.
-
iii.
-
iv.
- to my classmates, peers
- to my neighbor
- to the person next to me
Past:
- the present particular network of relationships that I have (the kind of persons I am
related with and the kind of relationships I have with them) is determined by the past
interpersonal events, i.e. relationship established in the past.
- Juan is my father and I am his son because my father approached my mother,
they became friends, then lovers. And later they got married.
- Pedro became my friend because our parents have been friends even since they
were little children.
Future:
- The present network of relationship contains within itself different possibilities and
limitations for interpersonal relationship (the kind of person I will be related with
and the kind of relationships that I will have)
- Kind of person:
- Because he is my brother, his children will be my nieces and nephews
- Kind of relationship:
- Since he is my father, and I am his son, I could be good son, disobedient
son, a caring son.
Unique Cross-Section of the Past, Present, Future Interpersonal Lines of Events
the past, present, and future lines of interpersonal events intersect or meet in a unique
way in me, constituting me to be a unique person.
- The past physical events are retained in me and determine my present network of
relationships in a unique way
- My present network of relationships has unique shades and tones.
- And my present network of relationships contains a unique set of possibilities and
limitations.
Conscious Cross-Section of the Past, Present, Future Interpersonal Lines of Events
I am and can be conscious/aware:
- Of my present network of interpersonal relationships
- Of the past network of relationships as they determine my present network of
interpersonal relationship
- Of the future possibilities contained in the present network of interpersonal
relationships
- Of the unique intersection of my past, present network of interpersonal relationships
Creative and Responsible Cross-Section of the Past, Present, Future Interpersonal Lines
of Events
- At the present moment with a given network of interpersonal relations, I can be creative
and responsible with my:
- Past Interpersonal Lines of Events. I can be creative and responsible:
- in my understanding of how network of relationship determines my present
network of relationships
- in attaching value and meaning to the past network of interpersonal relations
- in my acceptance or rejection of the past network of interpersonal relations
- Future Interpersonal Lines of Events. I can be creative and responsible:
- in my consciousness of the different possibilities and limitations of my present
network of relations
- Creative and responsible in the realization of the different possibilities:
- I could separate the different lines of future interpersonal events
- I could put together the different lines of future interpersonal events
- Creative and responsible in my acceptance of its limitations.
3. Social Dimension
- Social dimension refers to:
- Social Worldview (Culture):
- Common ways of perceiving, valuing, and behaving that characterize a
particular group of people who live together at a particular place and at a
particular period of time.
- Not simply determined by, derivative from or reducible to individual ways of
perceiving, valuing, and behaving; nor just a product of the interpersonal
relationships.
- Rather, my way of perceiving, valuing and behaving is largely determined by the
society in which I live, is reflective of its worldview, is a manifestation of its
worldview.
- Social Structures: stable pattern of proceeding, operating with regard to:
- Making decisions for the society, for the common good: Political Structure
- Production, Distribution and Consumption of the economic goods: Economic
Structure
14
i.
1.
2.
3.
ii.
-
iii.
-
iv.
Creative and Responsible Cross-Section of Past, Present and Future Lines of Social
Events
- In my present social reality/dimension, I can be creative and responsible with
- - Past Social Lines of Events. I can be creative and responsible:
- in my understanding of how past social events determines the present society
which I live in and which is in me
- in attaching value and meaning to those past social events
- in my acceptance or rejection of the past social events
- Future Social Lines of Events. I can be creative and responsible:
- in my consciousness of the different possibilities and limitations of the present
social reality
- Creative and responsible in the realization of the different possibilities:
- Whether what is good or bad in the society will continue in the future is a
possibility which I could determine, respond and be creative to.
- Creative and responsible in my acceptance of its limitations
4. Historical Dimension
- very much related to societal dimension but a distinct reality, dimension
- refers to our way of perceiving, valuing, behaving that is common to all people or society
(not just to a particular group of people/society) at a particular period of time
- spirit of the time (zeitgeist)
i.
1.
2.
3.
ii.
-
iii.
-
Past
- my present historical dimension is not just product of or determined by my personal,
and interpersonal history, nor could be explained simply by the history of my society.
- It is determined by the entire history of humanity: History of Ancient Civilization,
History of Christianity, History of Islam, History of Modern Science, History of the
Rise of Modern States and Colonization, History of Industrialization, World War I-II,
Neocolonization, Cold War, Post-Cold World War, Information Technology.
Future
- the present historical dimension contains within itself different possibilities and
limitations.
Historical Dimension as Unique Cross-Section
The past, present, and future of the historical dimension intersect in me in a unique way:
- How zeitgeist or spirit of the time determines my present way of perceiving, valuing
and behaving is unique compared to those who also belong to the same time I am
living in.
- The past events of the whole humanity determine my present historical dimension in
a unique way
- The possibilities and unique contained in my present historical dimension are unique
and irrepeatable.
Historical Dimension as Conscious Cross-Section
I can be conscious/aware of:
- Present determination of the zeitgeist on myself
- How past events of humanity determined/shaped time which I am living in and
which is living in me.
- Possibilities contained in the present:
- the unfinished, undisclosed character
- the possibility to change for the better of for the worse
- possibility to ratify or reject
- unique intersection of the past, present and future lines of historical events in me.
iv.
2.
3.
ii.
-
iii.
-
iv.
-
Past
- this set of ideals and how this intersect with my personhood are determined by my
past personal experiences, interpersonal events, social and historical events.
Future
- this set of ideals and how this intersect with my personhood contains within them:
- the possibilities of rejecting or ratifying
- the present set of ideals
- how the set of ideal intersect with my personhood
- the possibilities of leading me to some related ideals and to even higher ideals
and to greater possibilities of integrating more in an authentic way my
personhood and ideals.
My Personal Dimension as Unique Cross-Section
The past, present, and future of my personal dimension intersect in me in a unique way:
- My present set of ideals and how they intersect with my own personhood are unique
- The past events: personal, interpersonal, social, historical and social event determine
in a unique way my present set of ideals and how they intersect with my own
personhood. I have inherited the past ideals of my family, society, my time in a
unique
- The possibilities and limitations offered contained in my present personal dimension
is unique and unrepeatable
My Personal Dimension as Conscious Cross-Section
I could be conscious:
- Of the present set of ideals that I have and how it intersects with my personhood
- Of the inherited ideals I have assimilated from my family, society, time either
consciously or unconsciously, willingly or unwillingly
- Of the possibilities of ratifying or rejecting them, of how they lead me higher or
lower ideals, of integrating them more authentically with my personhood.
My Personal Dimension as Creative and Responsible Cross-Section
In my present social reality/dimension, I can be creative and responsible with
- Past of Personal Dimension. I can be creative and responsible:
- in my consciousness, understanding of how my past personal, interpersonal,
social, historical events determine the present set of ideals that I have and how
they intersect with my own personhood.
- in attaching value and meaning to these past events
- in my acceptance or rejection of these past events
- Future Personal Lines of Events. I can be creative and responsible:
- in my consciousness of the different possibilities and limitations of the present
personal dimension.
- I can be creative and responsible in my consciousness that I can reject or
ratify the present set of ideal and how at present this intersects with my own
personhood.
- I can be creative and responsible in discovering other ideals and other ways
of intersecting my chosen ideals with my own personhood.
- Creative and responsible in the realization of the different possibilities
- Creative and responsible in my acceptance of its limitations.
Summary/Conclusion:
As historical being,
At present, there is already something given, determined within me in my different
dimensions (determined by my past in its different dimensions)
- Facticity
- Sense of Fate, Destiny
- Set of Limitations
But within the given, determined of the present are the different possibilities, the
unfinished, the undecided to which I could be creative and responsible
- Transcendence
- Sense of task, creativity and responsibility
- Set of possibilities
3.Human Labor
Philosophical Implications of Human Labor by Manuel B. Dy, Jr.
Introduction
Context:
1. Social Issues plaguing the country:
- numerous worker strikes
- increasing rate of unemployment
- demands for higher wages
- dichotomy between the white and blue-collared jobs
17
- he is free in the face of his product, not completely identified with his work. Man can make his life
activity itself an object of his will and consciousness. His own life becomes an object for him, his labor
is a free activity.
- Human labor for Marx is a process between man and nature., a metabolism, established, regulated and
controlled by man. he transforms the earth by work, by changing nature, he changes himself. the
development of work, is of man.
2. Development of labor, a process of production. In a strict sense, only man can produce. He uses
instruments and extensions to produce. Work develops as the means are perfected. Civilization be judged
not by what is produced but by the means used.
3. Tools imply division of labor. makes man interdependent with his fellowman. Labor thus leads man to
be social, working for one another. In work, I am a fellowman.
4. Work, provides interconnection in mankinds history. The past leaves behind for use, the present will
do something for the future. through work, we have a common history.
5. Work, an end in itself, a value in itself. Thus against working for the sake of wage and the capitalistic
system that makes work and worker a commodity. Work cant be reduced to a means to live. Man lives in
order to work, for work is the way for man to realize his true humanity.
C. Implications in the History of Work
- History o work indicates a change.
- human nature remain essentially the same, but his understanding on himself develops.
1. primitive man himself and his value as a member of a tribe and the gods the tribe worships.
Work part of sacred nature. He is an outcome of the mechanisms, processes and forces in the cosmos.
2. Greeks look down upon work and contrasts it with the ideal of contemplation. Man may be part
of nature, but rationality differentiates him from the rest, liberates him from the finitude of nature. True
man is free man, free from the servitude to nature.
3. Middle Ages work contrasted with study, with rational activity. It is noble in so far as it reflects
man as a creature of God and member of the Christian community. His dignity lies in his being created in
the image and likeness of God which is found in his rational soul. His duty is to attain his final destiny
union with God, beatific vision.
4. 16th 19th cent. gradual rise of capitalism, man becomes a master and controller of nature. His
dignity, lies on his ability to stand for himself, to acquire mastery over nature and his passions. Man as
subjectivity imprisoned in itself.
5. Marx man is a human natural being a being who treats himself as the present, living species.
He can make the community his object both practically and theoretically. The latter is simply the
abstraction of the practical. His ability to make himself his own object proves the universal and the
freedom of man. Man is man because he can objectify himself through labor. By producing, he
transcends, objectifies himself by means of nature thus asserting his being as a free being. His produce is
his externalization, nature becomes humanized reflecting mans being as man, as species being
creative, free, universal.
Originally, natural is not necessarily human, it becomes, when it assumes a social dimension.
Society the accomplished union of man with nature. Man produces and must produce for the society
with the consciousness of acting as a social being. Only then is the work human and the object, social.
Through his work he relates with other human beings because he produces universally; taking upon
himself whole of nature and humanity. His work is human when it includes the community.
D. Work and Man in the Technological Era
The exaggeration of Marx, dehumanize the worker in the capitalistic system dominating his time.
Now, the age of technocracy of machines and computers, dominating the thinking and behavior
of man. Technology has not just transformed nature, it has forced nature to reveal its secrets. Man does
not just conform to his surroundings, he made the earth become. Before, his needs determine production,
now he creates to stock and creates demand through advertising. Modern work is mastery over nature.
Work is very important that it determines where man is to live it has mobilized man. Problem:
anonymous ties in urban life, identification of the person with his function, drudgery of repetitious
specialized labor, the bureaucracy of institutions functionalization and depersonalization of the person.
Work, not just for realization of man, it threatens to swallow him.
Work and man, as incarnate subjectivity, manifests his freedom, his rationality, not just in work but
also in word. Word, much an embodiment o mans subjectivity as work, but with more total grasp of the
world than work. It can be a corrective for work, e.g. seminars, retreats, tsismis
By his rationality, man transforms nature in order to build up forces of higher purposessurplus
leisure, basis of culture. Not just to have food, clothing, etc. through it we exteriorize ourselves,
manifesting our personalities and culture. We cant work too long, we need to rest and seek leisure or
play, to be just ourselves.
Modern work can be contemplation and culture. All these activities, aims at man himself
expressing and communicating himself. Not the variety of work, the value of work lies in the worker, the
dignity of man as embodies person, free, communicating and one in the diversity of his acts.
19