Republic of the Philippines

Laguna State Polytechnic University

Province of Laguna
GRADUATE STUDIES AND APPLIED RESEARCH

NAME: Agawin, Jann Arlie P.

COURSE: MaEd – Social Science
SUBJECT: Soc.Sci. 204 – Social Philosophy
INSTRUCTOR: Dr. Ray Samuel G. Grecalda ASC
DATE: July 8, 2018

WRITTEN REPORT

CHAPTER 15
The Nature of Social Man
“While shrimp may jump off the river, yet it will never leave the water”
A Japanese Maxim

Man is an object when we view him as object of knowledge as an object of study. The
genus of man is “animal” and the specific difference is “rational”. By use of universal concepts
or definitions, which manifest the comprehension of an idea, we therefore define man as
“rational animal” or even an “embodied consciousness”.

When we study man as an object, we just look at him in terms of his human nature. This
kind of thing is what the scholastics or the essentialists have done in their analysis of man.
This is a kind of ontological approach, which suffers from certain limitations. As a subject,
man is an “I” and not an “it” or “he”. We, therefore, have to view the human person as a self.
This “I” cannot be put in the universal concept because it is singular. It is completely unique.

The shortcomings of objective definition is that it is dualistic: man is said to be made up

of two parts: corporeal and spiritual, animality and rationality, body and soul. All of that
results in a situation where man is viewed as “isang pinakadakila, pinakamakapangyarihan,
at pinakamagandang hayop sa balat ng lupa- ngunit siya ay hayop parin.”

This is a dualistic conception of man. Obviously this common sense belief has brought
forth the so-called “Two-lives Theory” or “Split Level” mentality and in moral education, the
norm of good conduct in terms of ends and means. Therefore, man lives in two separate
worlds, the temporal and the spiritual, but he must not make the mistake of making the
temporal his ultimate end.
 On the other hand, the phenomenologist perceives man as an embodied subjectively. He
is also viewed as a spirit in matter, an incarnate spirit. The term “kalooban” carries the
concept so very clearly. Note that subjectivity is not limited to rationality but includes the
affective, or the emotional domain also.

The Nature of Man as a Being-in-the-World and not just a Being-of-the-World

Man is “in” the world not in the same sense as the carabao is “in” the field. Both may be
in the field but it is man who gives meaning to the rice, the tiller, the field, the carabao, the
sky, and the plough. We can say then that to speak of man is to speak of the world, and vice
versa. It is only man who can say, “This is a world”. The lower forms of animals like the brutes
cannot do that.

Rather than defining man as “rational animal” we have to stress man’s situatedness. No
real social change is actualized without an internal change in meaning and of the heart, and
no internal meaning can last without an external structure to reinforce it. This is what
educators should address ourselves to with our student- an awareness of unjust structures,
of internal change that need to be situated, of the need to humanize the world we live in by
our work. World must be supplemented with work, with action.

The Nature of Man as a Being-Thrown-into-the-World-Others

It should be emphasized that the interhuman is the “I-thou” relationship between person
that is in contrast with the “I-it” relationship. It is the relationship present in dialogue on
contrast to monologue.

Genuine dialogue happens when one stays in the world of seeming and enters into
communication with the other by becoming aware of his totality. Monologue or I-it happens
when one stays in the world of seeming, of impressions, and treats the other as an object, as
something that fills his need of the moment.

Thus, the phenomenologist sees the meaning to the Christian paradox: man gains himself
by giving himself to others. This commitment is what contemporary thinkers call fundamental
option of love.

Love and Justice in Social Philosophy

The ultimate value of love always presupposes justice. And justice is the true foundation
of any social order. Love, which is the enhancement of the other’s person, requires giving to
the other more than what is his due, his basic dignity as a person. It is often stated that love
is the maximum of justice and justice is the minimum of love.

Review Question

1. Explain briefly the following:

Man as an object
Man as a subject
Man as an embodied consciousness
Man as situatedness
Man as a being –with-others

2. What is the relevance of our social philosophy today? Our philosophy of education?

CHAPTER 16

Ibn Sina (Anglicized into Avicenna -980-1037 A.D.)

As a Socio-Political Philosopher: Implications for the Philippine
Socio-Political Milieu

“Just as the dimensions of a tree are not measured by the size of the seed, so it is with
consequences.”
 The World of Islam comprises the middle belt of the world. Strategically, it etches itself
from the beaches of Dakar on the westernmost extension of the African continent to the
Atlantic, to the Far-Eastern islands of Indonesia in the Pacific, including the Philippines’
southern part.

It is within this broad spectrum but with a unified perspective that Ibn Sina is presented
as a doctor, as a scientist, as a mathematician, as a poet, and most importantly, as a
philosopher. The works of the man, exceeding 250 pieces, if we take all his short treatises and
letters into account, range over nearly every subject known to the then contemporary world.
He is regarded as “the commentators of commentators.”

He is the celebrated physician and interpreter of Aristotle and the most distinguished
Arabian philosopher of the period. His most famous works includes “The Canon of Medicine”
and “The Book of Remedy” which is the longest encyclopedia of knowledge ever written by
one man. Ibn Sina’s intellectual gigantism constructed the most authoritative example of the
early Muslim philosophical system.

He is also one of the philosophers who had great impact on Muslim educational thought
from the ancient times to the modern times, as great a heritage as that left by Plato, Aristotle,
and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Western world. It was then that he wrote a book entitled, The
Book of Politics concerning Public Management, and Household Management.

Ibn Sina’s Views on Knowledge

Before making any categorization of knowledge or wisdom, Ibn Sina first of all defined the
aim, which is to discover the reality of the things according to the human ability. It must be
immediately pointed out that the existence of some of these things whose existence do not
depend on our choice and action. On the other hand, political system and moral behavior do
depend on our action and choice. We are able to choose the political system or moral
behavior, which we prefer.

Finding its parallel in Aristotle, Ibn Sina claims that the aims of theoretical philosophy have
been defined as the movement toward the perfections of the soul by knowing as such or the
occurrence of the positive belief of the thing.

Ibn Sina proceeded to divide theoretical philosophy into three kinds of science according
to the degrees of their involvement with matter and motion or their independence of them.
These divisions are:

● Natural Sciences, which are called the lowest sciences;

● Mathematical sciences which he called middle sciences;
 ● Theological or metaphysical, that is accordance to their abstraction and
independence from matter. This is the highest science.

Ibn Sina’s practical philosophy was essentially divided into three branches of knowledge.
These include:

1. Ethics, which is concerned with the management of human behavior as an individual or the
purity of himself.

2. The Household Management or the pragmatics of man as a member of a family, which is

focused on the relation of man to his wife, his children, and his maids, as well as the
management of livelihood and family income.

3. The Public Management or the pragmatics of man as a member of a community, which is

concerned with the politics of a city, a state, as well as a community of states.

Ibn Sina added the concept of Shari’ah, which plays a very important role in his practical
philosophy. He said, “All these can only be implemented as a whole with critical thinking and
in details with the guidance of God’s Shari’ah.” In other words, the “intellect” and
“Revelation” are merely two faces of the same coin.

Ibn Sina added a branch of knowledge in political science called the existence of
prophethood and man’s desire to achieve the welfare and goodness of mankind. The prophet
gets the order, permission, and revelation from God and is the maker of rules and justice for
mankind who called and ordered mankind to obey rules and practice justice.

Ibn Sina’s Socio-Politics

Ibn Sina was fully conscious of the Islamic belief of the relationship connecting God and
the universe. Besides he always attempted to demonstrate the contingent nature of the
whole created before the Creator and thus to remain faithfully to a principle which is
fundamental to the Islamic point of view.

Still a second view that seems to be brewing up is that Ibn Sina was extending every
painstaking effort to defend the Islamic tenets from the Jewish and Christian religious
authorities who were defending the tenets of their own faith while at the same time attacking
those of Islam by appealing to arguments drawn from Aristotelian logic and philosophy of
which Muslims were ignorant.

Conclusions and Implications for the Philippine Milieu

 If a deeper analysis is put into writings of Ibn Sina, it could all be summarized into one
single word and the word is siyasah (politics).

Man must always start with the self. And it has been mentioned that the most difficult of
all journeys is the journey inwards. In both his ethics and politics, he commanded that he who
will be guiding others should, first of all, guide himself, as his self is the closest and the
honorable thing to him and, which he is most concerned about. Undeniably, he, is who able
to guide himself properly, will be able to manage a city, or a state. With regards the virtuous
man, Ibn Sina postulates three psychological forces:
VICES
VIRTUES
● The passionate forces
Purity, Contentment, Generosity
● The angry forces
Courage, Patience, Forbearance,
Tolerance
● The thinking forces
Wisdom, Eloquence, Intelligence,
Originality, Discretion, Honesty
Compassion, Modesty,
Determination, Keeping Promise,
Humbleness, Justice

Review Question

1. Give the significance of Ibn Sina’s social and political philosophy.

2. Do you think his philosophy will work today in the Philippines?