Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Human
MOTIVATION:
1. As human, how do we recognize own limitations and possibilities?
2. What does it mean to be human?
3. What is being human and human being?
PRE-READING:
Interview
In a small group, find out the difference between the opinion of young and old people about the
question “What makes man truly human?” Ask them the elements or things that make up for one to
belong in the specie called man. What is the essence of man? And how do you act as human?
BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE:
The being of man is the being that continuously search for truth and meaning in life. One can
find truth but did not achieve its full meaning while some able to find the meaning but does not end
with truth. A sick man might be able to find the truth behind his illness but not able to discover why
that truth exist. A lost child may realize why he was lost but still not able to find the right direction. A
teacher may find the meaning of his profession but lacks the awareness of the right method to teach a
child. This continuous searching of man for truth and meaning allows him to discover many
potentialities that are inherent in him. These potentialities are not only embedded in his soul. He is born
with it and made for it. In seeking he makes himself ‘free’ as he opens himself to many possibilities.
The possibility of failure, success, truth, lie, pain, joy, betrayal, trust, love and rejection. All these
experiences are essential in the making man to be truly human because when one finds the truth and
meaning of his ‘being’ he is now more closer to living a life fulfilled. (Rico D. Blando,
https://www.academia.edu/4285804/what_makes_man_truly_human)
Human beings are not necessarily human. Such a statement may sound very
puzzling but it is true for two reasons. First of all, it takes much time and
effort for a human being to grow to the point where his own nature has
reached full realization. When born he acts like a little animal, not yet being
fully human. It will take many years of training and education by his family
and society, many years of effort and struggle on his own part before the
fullness of humanity can be achieved. Until that state of full humanness is
attained we cannot say that he is fully human.
Secondly, it is very possible that an individual human being will not reach
full development at all. We recognize that there are human beings which fail
to possess those basic qualities which are required for full humanness.
Sometimes we use the word “inhuman” to describe such persons. They may
be cruel, insensitive to others, irrational, or robot-like in their lives and
dealings with others. At other times we use the word “animal” to describe
persons who follow their lower instincts and ignore their consciences, their
human dignity and the higher values of human life. We judge such inhuman
people, such “animals,” to be less than fully human.
Every acacia tree is necessarily an acacia tree and every dog is necessarily a
dog. Every tree grows to full size in a few years and is completely a tree,
taking nourishment from the soil and the air, developing new branches and
leaves, producing seeds. Most dogs grow to full size and maturity within a
year. From the very beginning ever dog is clearly a dog, breathing, barking
and smelling like a dog.
How strange it is that human life is so different from the lives of trees and
dogs! The fullness of humanity not only takes a great deal of time to reach
but often in a significant way it is not reached at all. We are surrounded on
this planet earth with many human beings who sadly lack very important
human traits.
But a question arises. What is this fullness of human life which we human
beings can attain? What are those characteristics that we should strive to
develop? What makes man truly human?
This question is not a new one. In a hidden, implicit way it has confronted
every human being that has ever existed in the history of man. In the course
of human history philosophers have given many different answers to this
question, many different ideals of being human. We call such ideals
“humanisms.” As we study the history of human cultures we discover many
different humanisms which have inspired and guided those cultures. It is
worthwhile to reflect on these various ideals since they open up to us many
rich possibilities of human life.
One very distinctive humanism that arose in the past was that of the ancient
Greeks. The Greeks understood man as a being composed of many natural
potentialities, many possibilities for growth. They sensed that nature actively
guided man to develop those potentialities, a development that was meant
to reach a state of fullness or excellence. In such an understanding of life the
fully human person is one who lives a life of a completely developed human
being.
First of all, human beings have physical potentialities and it is possible for
them to develop their bodies and their bodily skills. Some of these skills are
connected with sports and leisure as they learn to run, to swim and to dance.
Other skills are practical: the ability to type, the ability to drive a car or to fly
a plane, the ability to master crafts such as carpentry or masonry.
Secondly, human beings have many mental abilities that can be developed.
They can expand their capacities to imagine and to dream of new
possibilities. They can develop their human sensitivity, becoming more
aware of themselves, of other people and of nature. They can learn to think
more logically and to bring rationality more completely into their lives. They
can become expert in one of the many human sciences. They can become
more aware of the presence of beauty in nature and in the human arts. They
can become more open to the realm of the mysterious and the sacred. In
many different ways the human mind can be developed.
Fourthly, human beings can develop their social skills in many different
ways. They can become loyal friends, good mothers and fathers, active
members of society. They can become generals in armies, religious leaders,
effective leaders of political communities. As individuals learn to play their
roles in society and make significant contributions to society, they fulfil some
of their social potentialities.
The Greeks conceived of nature to be the guide and inspiration for the
development of all of these human possibilities. This development was
pointed toward an ideal, the fullness of human life, a life of excellence.
Thus, from the Greeks we have a clear ideal for human life, the development
of all human potentialities to the level of excellence. It is a humanism which
has inspired and guided many peoples over the ages.
This Hebrew sense of human life is concretized in the story of the “father” of
all the Jews, Abraham. Abraham was called by Yahweh and told to take his
family and possessions and to go into a far country where Yahweh would
bless him. Abraham was challenged to believe in this call from God and to
carry it out. He responded to Yahweh by trusting in His word and by fulfilling
faithfully what was asked of him. He achieved greatness in his life by the
way that he was faithful, responding to Yahweh’s call. All believers in the
Hebrew tradition understand their lives in terms of this model of Abraham.
They see themselves challenged and “called” by God in all of the
happenings of their lives.
This Hebrew model for understanding human life is not limited to a situation
of religious faith but can be understood in a broader context. Every human
being can see his life as a matter of challenges where the meaning of that
life arises from the way that he responds. It is evident in life that every
individual is constantly confronted by challenges arising from nature, his
family, his friends, his community and his God. He experiences his life as
something more than simply “being alive,” occupying a place in a quiet
situation. Man’s situation is rather one of being constantly challenged, of
facing expectations at every moment. In life he is never left alone.
The Hebrew tradition thus presents us with an ideal of human life which is
quite distinctive. The ideal human being in this tradition is one who is first
sensitive to the challenges of his situation and who then responds to those
challenges with courage, generosity and fidelity. Through this sensitivity and
this responsiveness a person becomes truly human.
Other Humanisms
Besides the three humanisms presented above there are many other ideals
of human life which have guided and inspired men and women through the
ages. Let us briefly consider a few of them.
There can be a type of moral humanism. Here the ideal human life is a full
living of morality. This can be found in a life of correctness where an
individual follows exactly all the moral laws of his religion and society. A
slightly different version of this ideal is found in a life where moral virtues
are lived in a full way, virtues such as love, courage, prudence, patient
endurance and loyalty.
In such a moral humanism the fully human person is one who is “good.”
In such a religious humanism the ideal is the holy person, the saint.
GUIDE QUESTIONS:
1. Does being born as a human necessarily make someone human?
2. Is it possible for someone to attain the full development of being human?
3. How does the Greek understood man? And what is their ideal human?
4. What is the oriental view towards human?
5. How does the concept of Hinduism, Confucianism and Taoism differ in their conception of man
as being part of a greater reality?
6. How does the Hebrew conceive the understanding of the human life?
7. What is moral humanism?
8. What is the concept of the humanism that emphasizes creativity?
9. Is there such thing as religious humanism?
10. What is the humanism of love?
AFTER READING:
The Question
This question (What is the ideal way to live human life?) is not a mere
theoretical problem. In our lives in today’s world we make major decisions
based on our preference for one or other of these humanisms, one of these
ideals of human life. An example of this might be found in the ideas behind
“women’s liberation.” Many modern women feel that their lives are
somewhat empty when their existence consists merely of being wives and
mothers. They want more in their lives than just the living out of such roles.
They seek fulfillment in their lives, a fulfillment which they find in a career. In
such a choice they are being guided by the Greek ideal for human life.
A student may set aside her career in order to work and to gain money for
the education of her brothers and sisters. The welfare of her family is more
important for her than her own development. In acting this way she lives in
terms of a humanism which gives priority to commitments and to a larger
reality (a social group) and makes individual development secondary. (There
is a similarity to the Hebrew and Oriental humanisms here.)
Some people today choose to step aside from the world and to give their
lives to God in religious or contemplative life. These people conceive God to
be all important and they choose to live in terms of Him alone. Personal
development and human relationships are conceived to be subordinated to
this greater reality. (There is something similar to Oriental humanism here.)
These examples show us that our ideal of human life has great influence
over the choices that we make in life. We began this chapter with a simple
question: What makes man truly human? It is clear now that the answer we
give to that question will have a great effect on our lives.
EVALUATION:
From the respondents in your interview, pick one person and analyse how he/she sees
humanism through his/her words and profession. The rubric for this should be as follows
• 40% Content
• 30% Organization
• 20% Insights
• 10% Language
ENRICHMENT:
Make a PowerPoint presentation of the group's interview and share it to the class. Include in the
presentation the humanism of the person you analysed for the evaluation activity.
MOTIVATION:
1. Why is it that the dualistic definition of man as rational animal is inadequate?
2. What is “kalooban” have to do with the definition of man?
3. How can we evaluate our own limitations and the possibilities for transcendence?
PRE-READING
Look for the songs Tao by and Tao lang by Loonie featuring Quest. Make five comparisons on
how they look at man through their lyrics.
2. 2.
3. 3.
4. 4
5. 5
BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
The article is a part of the introduction to the book Philosophy of Man: Selected Readings by
Manuel Dy. Here he discussed the inadequacy of understanding man in a dual thinking through his two
significant faculty. This kind of approach in philosophy is called Phenomenology.
Man as Being-in-the-world
As embodied subject, man is a being-in-the-world. The human body is the link of man with a
world. The phenomenologist speaks of the world or worlds for man, rather than environment.
Environment refers to animals, but the things around man are not simply objects lying; they from a
network of meanings, in and on and around which man organizes his life. Thus, we speak of the world
of a student, of a teacher, of a farmer, a politician. 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 field, the
carabao, the sky, the plough. The world connotes then a dialectic of meaning and structures. The things
around man are structures that articulate a meaning proceeding from the subjectivity of man. Some
given structures reinforce a meaning, others run counter to it. In any case, to speak of man is to speak
of his world, and vice versa. The phenomenologists calls this the intentionality of consciousness:
consciousness is consciousness of something other than consciousness. In Visayan, it means “walay
kalibutan (world) kung walay kalibutan (consciousness)”.
Rather than define man as “rational animal” – to which one of my students quipped, “so what?”
– let us emphasize man’s situatedness. This point is important when we speak of social change. No
genuine social change is effected without an internal change in meaning, and no internal meaning can
last without an external structure to reinforce it. The Scholastics like to dwell on cumutative justice or
injustice, but contemporary man is more aware, in a complex world he lives, of social justice or
injustice, of unjust structures. This is what we educators should address ourselves to with our students
– 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.
GUIDE QUESTIONS:
1. What is the definition for man that the phenomenologists consider as inadequate?
2. What are the two elements that make the notion of man as dual?
3. What are the two separate worlds where man is in?
4. How does the phenomenologists look at the notion of man? What is the Filipino term for it?
What other faculties does it include to see the totality of man?
5. What does “in flesh” means?
6. What does the embodiment make of man?
7. Can this holistic view of man affect the philosophy of education? How?
AFTER READING:
Look for Ze Frank: Are you human? in YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccIt-
qRQBoI) As a class, participate by answering the questions in the video.
EVALUATION:
In a small group, make a song about being man. How is it to be a man? What makes man
different from any other species? What makes you special to be a man? The rubric for the song shall be
as follows:
• 40% Content
• 30% Musicality
• 20% Arrangement
• 10% Delivery
ENRICHMENT:
Record the song you made and have it uploaded to Facebook. Invite your friends and relatives
to watch and comment on your song. Take note of the comments and suggestions.
MODULE 3:
Man as Transcendental
MOTIVATION:
PRE-READING:
Look for the Video entitled Philosophy – Montaigne (https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=WLAtXWaz76o&list=PLwxNMb28XmpfEr2zNKQfU97eyEs70krSb&index=8). Take note of the
positive and negative views of Michel De Montaigne on human.
Positive Negative
BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE:
My Body
An Essay by Eduardo Jose Calasanz, Philosophy of Man, Selected Readings
Any philosophy of man is a systematic and holistic attempt to answer the question of “who am
I?” IN our day-to-day life, we may be so engrossed in our activities that we do not bother anymore to
question what seems clear and obvious to us. The question of “Who am I?” is such a case. It is
surprising to ask this ourselves. At first glance, isn’t this question so simple? What could be clearer and
obvious to us than the reality of our “I”? But this is only at first glance, from superficial and uncritical
natural attitude. Certain events in our life (like sickness, failures, death) can awaken us and bring us to
the limits of our ordinary experience. And then, the once-so-simple question deepens, begins to
complicate, and beckons on us: Who am I?
An important aspect in answering this question is the experience of my body. If I were asked
about myself, my answers inescapably have reference to my body. What are you? Man, because I have
a form, activities, and a body of man. Who are you? I am Juan Santos, tall, mestizo-looking long-
haired, with small ears and a big belly due to beer drinking (isa pa nga!). where am I? Here, where my
body is; look at my body. In these ways, I seem to say I am my body.
But there are times too that I know I am not just my body. I am a man also because I have an
understanding and mind of man. When I say to my parents, “I love you,” this one loving them is not
just this tall-mestizo-looking-long-haired-with-small-ears-fat-belly-etc.” body of mine but my whole
spirit and will. And it can happen that while my body is in room B-109, listening to a boring lecture on
the theories of Lobachevski of the poems of Chairil Anwar, I am taking a walk at the beach, along with
my sweetheart, watching the sunset.
On one hand, I recognize an intimate relation of myself with my body, and thus truly say: I am
my body. Yet, on the other hand, I also know that I cannot reduce my whole humanity to my body. I am
also spirit and will: my body is only something I have: I have my body. What is the meaning of this
paradox?
READING:
The Life of Embodied Spirit
Eduardo Jose Calasanz, Philosophy of Man, Selected Readings
We begin our reflection on the experience of my body by recognizing its paradoxical character.
On one hand, I cannot detach my body from myself; they are not two things that happen by chance
together. Rather, my self is absolute embodied. Likewise, on the other hand, I cannot reduce my self to
my body: I also experience my self as an I–spirit and will that can never be imprisoned in my flesh and
bones. That is why we can say there are two faces shown in the experiences of my body: “I have my
body” and “I am my body”.
It is very tempting for any erudite person, philosopher or scientist, to forget this paradox and fix
his attention to only one side of the experience. This precisely is the danger of the primary reflection:
our inquiry becomes clear and distinct but we get farther away from real experience. The paradox is the
experience itself, and this should be the one described by philosophy by means of secondary relfection.
When we use the term intermediary, we refer to one of two conflicting meaning and Z,” I may
mean that because X, Y and Z encounter or become closer to each other or come to an agreement. Let
us take this example from the story if Macario Pineda titled, “Kung Baga sa Pamumulaklak.” A young
famer named Desto wants to win the hand of the illustrious young lady named Tesang. However, he
cannot just present himself directly to the lady of his affection to tell her of his feelings. He first
approaches his uncle Mang Tibo who is kumpare of Tesang’s parents so he can act as an intermediary
between him and Tesang’s parents. Only then do Tesang’s parents allow Desto to court her. In this
situation the intermediary serves as the “bridge” for the union of the young man and the lady.
On the other hand, I can also mean the opposite. I can say that because X, Y and Z are
separated. Still with the example of courting, the parents if the girl stand between our affection and
prevent our being sweethearts. In the old films of Virgo Productions, often Lolita Rodriguez plays the
role of the “other woman” who stands between the beautiful relationship of the couple Eddie Rodriquez
and Marlene Dauden. Here, the intermediary is not a bridge but an obstacle.
Now when I say my body is the intermediary between my self and the world, I refer to the two
meaning of intermediary. On one hand, because of my body, an encounter and agreement occurs
between my self and the world. In reality, the encounter of the experience of my self and the experience
if the world can only take place in the experience of my body, I experience the world as my world and
we are familiar to each other. Because of my body, the chair I am sitting on is hard, the sunset is as red
as a rose, the effect of the lambanog on my empty stomach is strong, the smell of the Pacwood factory
in San Pedro, Laguna, is like hell. Because of my body, I have an experience of “near” and “far,” and
“below” and “up” and “below” and many other relations in space. The world of man is different from
the “world” of the fly because their bodies have different frameworks. My body is by nature intentional
(directed to the world), and it creates and discovers meaning that I am conscious of in my existence.
Thus, because of my body, the whole universe has and reveals a meaning for-me-and-for man. Through
my body, my subjectivity is openness to the world and the world is opened to me; the world fills me
and I fill the world.
On the other hand, also because of my body, I experience the world as separate from me. I am
“not-world”, and the world in “not-I”. In the giving-of-meaning-to-the-world of my body, I also
experience the self as “outside” the world, I am the one who sees, and who gives-name to this or that.
My body shows that I am not simply a thing among other things in nature. The oneness and wholeness
of my body is different from the oneness and wholeness of the world. If I did not have this kind of
distance from the world, I would become only a thing without an interiority; and clearly this view is
not true to our experience of life. My body participates in the world but cannot be reduced to it.
The body in intersubjectivity. My body is not only an intermediary between me and the world
but also between me and others. I show myself to the other and the other also shows himself to me
through my body.
Because of my body, we interrelate with each other in many ways–in our vision, actions,
attitude, in our rituals, signs and speech. We face each other in anger, tenderness, sadness etc., because
we have a body to present. If the other shows wrinkles in his forehead, he is indicating dissatisfaction,
confusion or disapproval of what I am saying. The wry and red appearance of my face is my anger; my
fixed-to-the-ground look at my sigh are my loneliness. The child does not have to disobey parent, a
look from the parent is enough to prevent him. Every part and action of my body says something of
myself and my world. As what the poet says of an alluring young woman:
The language of my body has its own grammar and rhetoric in expressing my interiority. If I
love Maria, I show this through my kisses, embrace, holding tenderly her hand, etc., and through
exchanges of rings, daily telephone conversations, weekly visits. I respect my parents in kissing their
hands; I accept a new acquaintances in shaking his hand. Embodiment is not just an additional or
external appearance; it is the gesture and appearance of what I truly feel inside. I cannot say I love my
brothers and sisters if I do not show this love to them. I cannot say I respect my parents if my speech to
them is not respectful. My faith is meaningless if I do not realize it in my daily actions in life. In social
life too, the great aspirations of the citizenry need to be embodied in political, economic, cultural (etc.)
framework for these to have an enduring realization. As the apostle James says, “Whoever listens to
this word but does not put it into practice is like a man who looks in a mirror and sees himself as he is.
He takes a good look at himself and the goes away and at once forgets what he looks like.” (James 1,
22-23). The spirit id fulfilled in the actions and deeds of the body.
However, as we have seen there are two facts to the body as intermediary. I cannot separate my
intersubjectivity from its embodiment, but I cannot also reduce it to its embodiment. The spirit needs to
be expressed and realized in the body but my body cannot fully state all of my subjectivity. I may truly
love my family even if my body is far away from them. The fullness of my love for the beloved cannot
be said in exchange of rings or daily telephone conversations. My subjectivity transcends in expanse
and depth its embodiment. Indeed my body shows myself, but it can also be a mask that hides what I
truly think or feel. I can smile in the company of my friends while suffer inside of frustration (as they
say, “laughing in the outside but crying in the inside”). The paradox of “I have my body” and “I am my
body” but also applies to my inter-relationship with others.
The value of the body. As the appearance and expression of my subjectivity, my body has a
unique value and dignity. It directs me not only to the world and to others but also to God. St. Paul says
in the first letter to the Corinthians: “You know that your bodies are parts of the body of Christ. Don’t
you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who live in you and who has given to you by
God? You do not belong to yourselves but to you God, he bought you for a price. So use your bodies
for God’s glory.” (1 Corinthians 6, 15-18)
GUIDE QUESTIONS
EVALUATION:
30% Insights
30% Realization
20% Coherence
20% Presentation