Subject: UNDERSTANDING THE SELF

MIDTERM LESSON
Topic # Topic title Time Duration

1 The Self from Various Philosophical Perspective

2 The Self, Society and Culture
3 The Self as Cognitive Construct
4 The Self in Western and Orient/Eastern Thought

Module 1. THE SELF FROM VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES

Lesson   The Self from Various Philosophical Perspective
1

Learning Objectives:
At the end of this topic, you will be able to:
a.  discuss the different philosophical perspective on the self;
b.  describe and discuss the different notions of the self from the points of view
    of various philosophers across time and place;
c.  examine one’s self against the different philosophical views of self.

OVERVIEW
The history of philosophy is replete with men and women who inquired into the
fundamental nature of the self.  Along with the question of the primary substratum that
defines the multiplicity of things in the world, the inquiry on the self has preoccupied the
earliest thinkers in the history of philosophy: the Greeks.  It was the Greeks who
seriously questioned myths and moved away from them in attempting to understand
reality and respond to perennial questions of curiosity, including the question of self.
The different perspectives and views on the self can be best seen and understood then
by revisiting its prime movers and identify the most important conjectures made by
philosophers from the ancient times to the contemporary period. 
THE SELF FROM VARIOUS PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES

The Avocado versus Artichoke view on the self

 
In a world such as our own, there are two different types of people. The seeking and the
seek-less.  A book called “Roots of Wisdom” describes human beings as avocados and
artichokes. An avocado is a pear-shaped fruit with yellowish skin and a large seed at
the center.  If the avocado seed is planted another avocado plant will grow, which then
produces another avocado, which will lead to a continuous growth of avocados.  The  
artichoke on the other hand is a flower head of a plant.  It is made of layers and after the
last layer is peeled off, nothing is left. The artichoke is nothing but its layers. Since there
is no center, there is no seed that can be used to produce another artichoke or let alone
another generation of artichokes.
 
An example of an avocado point of view is the Christianity
and Judaism traditions. The Bible and Torah claim that we
are humans made as we are, not perfect. But we are made
to love and serve our God. Like the avocado, on the
outside we seem ordinary but in the core, we share a divine
heart. We seek for our creator from our heart, which stands
out the most. The existence of an avocado is not for its
outside but rather for its core.  The same is for Christians
and Jews we believe that what makes you special is that
you’re a creation made in the image of God.
 
An example of the artichoke point of view on life are like saying such as “YOLO” “Carpe
diem” and “We’re gonna die anyway” .  Many people in the world believe that we are
just here as a simple waste of space. They’re mental views
are simply no conduct of what is right or wrong.  There are
no actual rules, but making decision can sometimes
become difficult. Because there is no guidance or source as
center core in their lifestyle. All they know is that, we have
the right to choose, we must always take responsibility for
our choices – either its good or bad. Every person has the
opportunity to determine their own fate. For better or worse.

Similarities and Differences between Avocado and Artichoke Views of Self

According to avocado view, there is always an inner unchanging core in human being
after peeling of the outer skin. This inner self is never changed by life experiences. It
remains to be and it is the one that defines the human nature. According to most
religious view, this is perceived as the soul. On the contrary, artichoke view perceives
human beings as an onion which does not have any core. This demonstrates that
human is changing in nature and their reaction are influenced joy different experiences
at a certain moment. However, due to the power given to human, one can get hold of
the situation and develop a character that does not change despite of the life
challenges. This is what gives artichoke at least one similarity with avocado (Mitchell,
2014).
Socrates and Plato 
The phrase “Know thyself” has not been invented
by Socrates. It is a motto inscribed on the frontispiece
of the Temple of Delphi. This assertion, imperative in the
form, indicates that man must stand and live according
his nature. Man has to look at himself. To find what? By
what means? For Socrates, every man is composed of
body and soul.  This means that every human person is
dualistic, that is, he is composed of two important
aspects of his personhood.  For Socrates, this means all
individuals have an imperfect, impermanent aspect, the
body, while maintaining that there is also a soul that is
perfect and permanent.

Plato Socrates’s student basically took off from his mater

and supported the idea that man is a dual nature of body and
soul.  In addition to what Socrates earlier espoused, Plato
added that there are parts or three components to the soul: 
the rational soul, the spirited soul, and the appetitive soul. In
his magnum opus The Republic (Plato 2000), Plato
emphasizes that justice in the human person can only be
attained if the three parts of the soul are working
harmoniously with one another.  The rational soul forged by
reason and intellect has to govern the affairs of the human
person; the spirited part, which is in charge of emotions,
should be kept at bay; and the appetitive soul in charge of
base desires, like eating, drinking, sleeping, and having
sexual intercourse is controlled as well.  When this ideal
state is attained, the human person’s soul becomes just and
virtuous. 

St. Augustine
St. Augustine was the bishop of Hippo (now Annaba,
Algeria) from 396 to 430. A renowned theologian and
prolific writer, he was also a skilled preacher and rhetorician. He is one of the Latin
Fathers of the Church and, in Roman Catholicism, is formally recognized as a doctor of
the church.  Like most ancient philosophers, Augustine thinks that the human being is a
compound of body and soul and that, within this compound, the soul—conceived as
both the life-giving element and the center of consciousness, perception and thought—
is, or ought to be, the ruling part. The rational soul should control the sensual desires
and passions; it can become wise if it turns to God, who is at the same time the
Supreme Being and the Supreme Good. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, First
published Sep 25, 2019).
Augustine’s view of the human person reflects the entire spirit of the medieval world
when it comes to man.  Following the ancient view of Plato and infusing it with the new
bound doctrine of Christianity. Augustine agreed that man is of a bifurcated nature. 
There is an aspect of man, which dwells in the world, that is imperfect and continuously
yearns to be with the divine while the other is capable of reaching immortality. 
Rene Descartes 
Rene Descartes, Father of Modern Philosophy,
conceived that the human person as having body and a
mind. In his famous treatise, The Meditations of First
Philosophy, Descartes claims that there is so much that
we should doubt.  In fact, he says that much of what we
think and believe, because they are not infallible, may
turn out to be false. One should only believe that which
can pass the test of doubt (Descartes 2008).  If
something is so clear and lucid as not to be even
doubted, then that is the only time when one should
actually buy a proposition. He thinks that the self is a
thinking entity distinct from the body.  His first famous
principle was “Cogito, ergo sum,” which means “ I think,
therefore I am.”  Although the mind and the body are
independent from each other and serve their own function, man must use his own mind
thinking abilities to investigate, analyze, experiment and develop himself.

John Locke 
John Locke was among the most famous philosophers
and political theorists of the 17th century.  He is often
regarded as the founder of a school of thought known
as British Empiricism, and he made foundational
contributions to modern theories of limited, liberal
government.
John Locke holds that personal identity (the self) is a
matter of psychological continuity.  For him, personal
identity is founded on consciousness (memory), and not on the substance of either the
soul or the body. Personal identity is the concept about oneself that evolves over the
course of an individual’s life.  It may include aspects of life that man has no control
over, such as where he grew up or the color of his skin, as well as the choices he
makes, like how he spends his time and what he believes.

David Hume
David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, has a very unique way
of looking at man.  As an empiricist who believes that one
can know only what comes from the senses and
experience.  According to him, the self is nothing else but a
bundle of impressions.  What are impressions?  Impressions
are the basic object of our experience or sensation.  They
therefore form the core of our thoughts.  When one touches
an ice cube, the cold sensation is an impression. 
Impressions therefore are vivid because they are products of
our direct experience with the world.  Ideas, on the other
hand, are copies of impressions. Because of this, they are
not as lively and vivid as our impressions. When one imagines the feeling of being in
love for the first time, that’s still is an idea.
What is the self then? Self, according to Hume, is simply “a bundle or collection of
different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are
in a perpetual flux and movement” (Hume and Steinberg 1992). Men simply want to
believe that there is a unified, coherent self, as soul or mind just like what the previous
philosophers thought.  In a reality, what one thinks as unified self is simply a
combination of all experiences with a particular
person.                                                                                                                               
                                                                              
Immanuel Kant
Thinking of the self as mere combination of impressions
was problematic for Immanuel Kant.  Kant recognizes the
veracity in Hume’s account that everything starts with
perception and sensation of impressions.  However, Kant
thinks that the things that men perceive around them are
not just randomly infused into the human person without
an organizing principle that regulates the relationship of
all these impressions.  For Kant, there is necessarily a
mind that organizes the impressions that men get from
the external world.  Time and space, for example, are
ideas that one cannot find in the world but is built in our
minds.  Kant calls these the apparatus of the mind.
Along with the different apparatus of the mind goes the self.  Without the self, one
cannot organize the different impressions that one gets in relation to his own existence.
Kant therefore suggests that the “self” is an actively engaged intelligence in man that
synthesizes all knowledge and experience.  Thus, the self is not just what gives one his
personality.  It is also the seat of knowledge acquisition for all human persons.

POINTS TO REMEMBER:
Avocado and artichoke point of view on the self. According to avocado view,
there is always an inner unchanging core in human being after peeling of the outer skin.
This inner self is never changed by life experiences. It remains to be and it is the one
that defines the human nature. artichoke view perceives human beings as an onion
which does not have any core. This demonstrates that human is changing in nature and
their reaction are influenced joy different experiences at a certain moment.
 
Socrates: every man is composed of body and soul.  This means that every
human person is dualistic, that is, he is composed of two important aspects of his
personhood.  For Socrates, this means all individuals have an imperfect, impermanent
aspect, the body, while maintaining that there is also a soul that is perfect and
permanent.

Plato: there are parts or three components to the soul:  the rational soul, the
spirited soul, and the appetitive soul. Plato emphasizes that justice in the human person
can only be attained if the three parts of the soul are working harmoniously with one
another.  The rational soul forged by reason and intellect has to govern the affairs of the
human person; the spirited part, which is in charge of emotions, should be kept at bay;
and the appetitive soul in charge of base desires, like eating, drinking, sleeping, and
having sexual intercourse is controlled as well.  

St. Augustine agreed that man is of a bifurcated nature.  There is an aspect of

man, which dwells in the world that is imperfect and continuously yearns to be with the
divine while the other is capable of reaching immortality. 
 
Rene Descartes his first famous principle was “Cogito, ergo sum,” which means
“ I think, therefore I am.” . He thinks that the self is a thinking entity distinct from the
body.

John Locke holds that personal identity (the self) is a matter of psychological
continuity.  For him, personal identity is founded on consciousness (memory), and not
on the substance of either the soul or the body

David Hume believes that one can know only what comes from the senses and
experience.  According to him, the self is nothing else but a bundle of impressions.  

Immanuel Kant thinks that the things that men perceive around them are not
just randomly infused into the human person without an organizing principle that
regulates the relationship of all these impressions.  For Kant, there is necessarily a
mind that organizes the impressions that men get from the external world.  Time and
space, for example, are ideas that one cannot find in the world but is built in our minds. 
Kant calls these the apparatus of the mind.

Lesson 2           The Self, Society, and Culture

Learning Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, you will be able to:
a.  describe and discuss the different ways by which society and culture shape  
     the self;
b.  compare and contrast how the self can be influenced by the different 
     institutions in the society;
c.  illustrate the impact of the different social agents and culture to your “self”.

OVERVIEW
Across time and history, the self has been debated, discussed, and (fruitfully or
otherwise) conceptualized by different thinkers in philosophy.  Eventually with the
advent of the social sciences, it became possible for new ways and paradigms to
reexamine the true nature of the self.  People put a halt on speculative debates on the
relationship between the body and soul, eventually renamed body and mind. The
debate shifted into another locus of discussion.  Given the new ways of knowing and the
growth of the social sciences, it became possible for new approaches of the
examination of the self to come to fore. One of the locus is the relationship between the
self and the external world.
What is the relationship between external reality and the self? In the famous Tarzan
story, the little boy named Tarzan was left in the middle of the forest. Growing up, he
never had an interaction with any other human being but apes and other animals. 
Tarzan grew up acting strangely like apes and unlike human persons. Tarzan became
an animal, in effect. His sole interaction with them made him just like one of them. 
Disappointedly, human person will not develop like human person without intervention. 
This story which was supposed to be based on real life, challenges the long-standing
notion of human persons being special and being a particular kind of being in the
spectrum of living entities.  After all, our “selves” are not special because of the soul
infused into us.  We may be gifted with intellect and the capacity to rationalize things but
at the end of the day, our growth and development and consequentially, our “selves” are
truly products of our interactions with external reality.

The Social Self: George Herbert Mead 

George Herbert Mead, a sociologist from the late 1800s, is well known for his theory of
the social self, which includes the concepts of 'self,' 'me,' and 'I.'
Mead's work focuses on the way in which the self is developed. Mead's theory of the
social self is based on the perspective that the self emerges from social interactions,
such as observing and interacting with others, responding to others' opinions about
oneself, and internalizing external opinions and internal feelings about oneself. The
social aspect of self is an important distinction because other sociologists and
psychologists of Mead's time felt that the self was based on biological factors and
inherited traits. According to Mead, the self is not there from birth, but it is developed
over time from social experiences and activities.

The “I” and the “Me”

One of Mead's most significant contributions to social psychology is his distinction
between the “I” and the “Me.” It's worth emphasizing that while this distinction is utilized
in sociological circles, it is grounded philosophically for Mead. His target, in part, is no
less than the idea of the transcendental ego, especially in its Kantian incarnation. It is
also important to note that the “I” and “Me” are functional distinctions for Mead, not
metaphysical ones. He refers to them as phases of the self (MSS 178, 200), although
he more typically uses the word self to refer to the “Me” (Aboulafia 2016).
The self that arises in relationship to a specific generalized other is referred to as the
“Me.” The “Me” is a cognitive object, which is only known retrospectively, that is, on
reflection. When we act in habitual ways we are not typically self-conscious. We are
engaged in actions at a non-reflective level. However, when we take the perspective of
the generalized other, we are both “watching” and forming a self in relationship to the
system of behaviors that constitute this generalized other. So, for example, if I am
playing second base, I may reflect on my position as a second baseman, but to do so I
have to be able to think of “myself” in relationship to the whole game, namely, the other
actors and the rules of the game. We might refer to this cognitive object as my (second
baseman) baseball self or “Me.” Perhaps a better example might be to think of the self
in relationship to one's family of origin. In this situation, one views oneself from the
perspective of the various sets of behaviors that constitute the family system.

The Self and Culture

How we see ourselves shapes our lives, and is shaped by our cultural context. Self-
perceptions influence, among other things, how we think about the world, our social
relationships, health and lifestyle choices, community engagement, political actions, and
ultimately our own and other people's well-being.

According to Marcel Mauss a French anthropologist, every self has two faces: personne
and moi.  Moi refers to a person’s sense of who he is, his body, and his basic identity;
his biological givenness.  Moi is a person’s basic identity. Personne on the other hand,
is composed of the social concept of what it means to be who he is.   Personne has
much to do with what it means to live in a particular institution, particular family, a
particularly, particular religion, nationality, and how to behave given the expectation and
influences from others. 
Moreover, The researchers Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama  have studied how an
individual’s cultural background affects how they view themselves. People
from individualistic cultures are more likely to have an independent view of themselves
(they see themselves as separate from others, define themselves based on their
personal traits, and see their characteristics as relatively stable and unchanging). On
the other hand, people from collectivistic cultures are more likely to have
an interdependent view of themselves (they see themselves as connected to others,
define themselves in terms of relationships with others, and see their characteristics as
more likely to change across different contexts). people from individualistic cultures are
more likely to mention personal traits when finishing the sentence “I am…”, while people
from collectivistic cultures are more likely to list relationships and group memberships.

POINTS TO REMEMBER:

 George Herbert Mead is known for his theory of the social self, which includes
the concepts of 'self,' 'me,' and 'I.' According to him, that social self is based on
the perspective that the self emerges from social interactions, such as observing
and interacting with others, responding to others' opinions about oneself, and
internalizing external opinions and internal feelings about oneself. 
 According to Marcel Mauss a French anthropologist, every self has two faces:
personne and moi.  Moi refers to a person’s sense of who he is, his body, and his
basic identity; his biological givenness. Personne on the other hand, is composed
of the social concept of what it means to be who he is.   

 individual’s cultural background affects how they view themselves. People

from individualistic cultures are more likely to have an independent view of
themselves while people from collectivistic cultures are more likely to have
an interdependent view of themselves.

Lesson 3           The Self as Cognitive Construct

Learning Objectives:
At the end of the topic, you will be able to:
1.  discuss the idea of psychology about the “self”;
2.  identify the Real self and Ideal Self;
           3.  explain the importance of self-alignment.

 OVERVIEW:
As seen from the previous lesson, every field of study, at least in the social sciences,
have their own research, definition, and conceptualization of self and identity.   Some
are similar while some specific only in their field. Each field also has thousands of
research on self and identity as well as related or synonymous terms.  The trend of the
lessons also seems to define the concept of “self” from a larger context (i.e. culture and
society) down to the individual.  However, it must be pointed out that modern
researchers acknowledge the contributions of each field and this is not some sort of a
nurture vs. nature, society/culture vs. individual/brain, other social sciences vs.
psychology debate.    Psychology may focus on the individual and the cognitive
functions but it does not discount the context and other possible factors that affect the
individual.  
On the other hand, Carl Rogers was a humanistic theorist one of his main ideas about
personality regards self-concept, our thoughts and feelings about ourselves. How would
you respond to the question, “Who am I?” Your answer can show how you see yourself.
If your response is primarily positive, then you tend to feel good about whom you are,
and you see the world as a safe and positive place. If your response is mainly negative,
then you may feel unhappy with who you are. 
   Carl Ransom Rogers was an American psychologist and
among the founders of the humanistic approach to psychology)
believed that for a person to achieve self-actualization they must
be in a state of congruence. This means that self-actualization
occurs when a person's “ideal self” (i.e., who they would like to
be) is congruent with their actual behavior (self-image).

Without these, relationships and healthy personalities will not

develop as they should, much like a tree will not grow without
sunlight and water. Rogers believed that every person could
achieve their goals, wishes, and desires in life. When, or rather if they did so, self-
actualization took place.

This was one of Carl Rogers most important contributions to psychology, and for a
person to reach their potential a number of factors must be satisfied. He believed that
humans have one basic motive, that is the tendency to self-actualize - i.e., to fulfill one's
potential and achieve the highest level of 'human-beingness' we can.

Like a flower that will grow to its full potential if the conditions are right, but which is
constrained by its environment, so people will flourish and reach their potential if their
environment is good enough.

However, unlike a flower, the potential of the individual human is unique, and we are
meant to develop in different ways according to our personality.  Rogers believed that
people are inherently good and creative.

They become destructive only when a poor self-concept or external constraints override
the valuing process.  Carl Rogers believed that for a person to achieve self-actualization
they must be in a state of congruence.

This means that self-actualization occurs when a person’s “ideal self” (i.e., who they
would like to be) is congruent with their actual behavior (self-image).He describes an
individual who is actualizing as a fully functioning person. The main determinant of
whether we will become self-actualized is childhood experience.

Real vs. Ideal Self

In psychology, the real self and the ideal self are terms used to describe personality
domains. The real self is who we actually are. It is how we think, how we feel, look, and
act. The real self can be seen by others, but because we have no way of truly knowing
how others view us, the real self is our self-image.

The ideal self, on the other hand, is how we want to be. It is an idealized image that we
have developed over time, based on what we have learned and experienced. The ideal
self could include components of what our parents have taught us, what we admire in
others, what our society promotes, and what we think is in our best interest.

The Importance of Alignment

If the way that I am (the real self) is aligned with the way that I want to be (the ideal
self), then I will feel a sense of mental well-being or peace of mind. If the way that I am
is not aligned with how I want to be, the incongruence, or lack of alignment, will result in
mental distress or anxiety. The greater the level of incongruence between the ideal self
and real self, the greater the level of resulting distress. 

POINTS TO REMEMBER:

 According to Carl Ransom Rogers that for a person to achieve self-actualization

they must be in a state of congruence. This means that self-actualization occurs
when a person's “ideal self” (i.e., who they would like to be) is congruent with
their actual behavior (self-image). Rogers believed that every person could
achieve their goals, wishes, and desires in life. When, or rather if they did
so, self-actualization took place.
 
 The real self is who we actually are. It is how we think, how we feel, look, and
act.

 The ideal self, on the other hand, is how we want to be. It is an idealized image
that we have developed over time, based on what we have learned and
experienced.

OVERVIEW
Different cultures and varying environment tends to create different perceptions of the
“self” and one of the most common distinctions between cultures and people is the
eastern versus western dichotomy wherein eastern represents Asia and western
represents Europe and Northern America. It must be understood that this distinction and
the countries included was politically colored at the time that aforementioned concept
were accepted and used in the social sciences.   Furthermore, it must be reiterated that
while countries that are closer to each other geographically may share commonalities,
there are also a lot of factors that create differences.  In the Philippines alone, each
region may have a similar or varying perception regarding the “self”.
Have you ever wondered about the differences between Eastern and Western
philosophies?  Apart from geographical locations, these two parts of the world have
differences in their way of life and the approach to life in general.  These ways of living
are not only brought about by topography and physical circumstances that play crucial
factors in living, but also the school of thought that governs the major societies in the
Eastern and Western part of the globe.
Let us take a look first at what “philosophy” is in general and how it affects and makes
differences on Western and Eastern society.  Generally, “philosophy” is universally
defined as “the study of the wisdom or knowledge about the general problems, facts,
and situations connected with human existence, values, reasons, and general reality.”
It seeks reasons, answers, and general explanations to life and its factors.  Thus, if we
talk about philosophy, we talk about a school of thoughts. And if we connect it with our
topic, it differs and comes with the realities, problems, and situations of certain people
like, in this case, the East and the West.
Basically, Western philosophy is referred to as the school of thought from Greek
philosophy that influenced the greater part of Western civilization.  In contrary, the
Eastern philosophy is based mainly in Asia, more specifically the Chinese philosophy. 
 
  Moreover, Western philosophy takes its roots from Rome and Christianity,
specifically Judeo-Christianity. Eastern philosophy, on the other hand, is from
Confucianism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Taoism. Thus is it safe to say that Eastern
philosophy is classical Chinese, while Western philosophy is more Latin in its roots.

The main differences between the school of thought or the philosophies of the East and
West are the West’s Individualism and the East’s Collectivism.  The Eastern philosophy
is drawn much more into groups or society or people’s actions and thoughts as one in
order to find meaning in life as they try to get rid of the false “me” concept and find
meaning in discovering the true “me” in relation to everything around them, or as part of
a bigger scheme. In contrast, the Western civilization is more individualistic, trying to
find the meaning of life here and now with self at the center as it is already given and
part of the divine.

Let us take a deeper look into more of the aspects or problems or issues these two
philosophies try to make sense of. The main principle of the Eastern philosophy is unity.
This cosmological unity is the main point in the journey of life as it goes towards the
eternal realities.  Life is round, and the recurrence with everything around it is important.
Ethics is based on behavior, and dependence is from the inside to the outside.  In order
to be liberated, the inner self must be freed first in accordance to the world around it.

Western philosophy, on the other hand, is based on self-dedication to be of service to

others.  Life is service to God, money, community, and so on.  Due to its Christian
influence, there has to be a beginning and end to find meaning.  Linear as it seems,
Western philosophy is logical, scientific, and rational compared to the East’s concept of
eternal and recurring.

Eastern philosophy also thrives on virtues. This would be explained with the selfless
approach to life.  Satisfaction with what one has is the key. Meanwhile, Western
philosophy focuses on ethics. As individuals, one must do what is supposed to be done
without causing ill to others.  Success is based on how much one walks his path without
hurting others.  Eastern philosophy is also more about the spiritual while Western
philosophy is more of a hands-on style.  The difference is the “I” of the West, and the
“We” of the East, as one focuses on finding truth and meaning.

POINTS TO REMEMBER:
 
 Western philosophy is mainly used in the Western parts of the world, such as in
the European countries, while the Eastern philosophy is prevalent in Asian
countries.
 
 Western philosophy deals with Individualism while Eastern Philosophy is related
to Collectivism.
 
 Both philosophies center on virtues.
 
 Eastern philosophy takes more of a spiritual approach while Western philosophy
is more hands-on.

References:
Alata, et.,al (2018), “Understanding the Self”, Philippine Copyright 2018 by Rex Book
Store, Inc.
Brawner, Dalisay G & Arcega Analiza F. 2018 “Understanding the Self” C & E
Publishing.
Helen Buss Mitchell “Roots of Wisdom: A Tapestry of Philosophical Traditions, Sixth
Edition.
Winnicott, D. W. (1960). “Ego Distortion in Terms of True and False Self,” in The
Maturational Process and the Facilitating Environment: Studies in the Theory of
Emotional Development. New York: International UP Inc., 1965, pp. 140-152.
Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Becker, M., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M. J., Brown, R.,…
Bond, M. H. (2016). Beyond the 'east–west' dichotomy: Global variation in cultural
models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 966–
1000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000175

Lesson 4           The Self in Western and Eastern Thought

Lesson Objectives:
At the end of this topic, you will be able to:
1.  Differentiate the concept of self according to western though against
      eastern/oriental perspective;
 
2.  Explain the concept of self as found in Asian thoughts; and 
 
3.  Create a representation of Filipino self.
 

OVERVIEW
Different cultures and varying environment tends to create different perceptions of the
“self” and one of the most common distinctions between cultures and people is the
eastern versus western dichotomy wherein eastern represents Asia and western
represents Europe and Northern America. It must be understood that this distinction and
the countries included was politically colored at the time that aforementioned concept
were accepted and used in the social sciences.   Furthermore, it must be reiterated that
while countries that are closer to each other geographically may share commonalities,
there are also a lot of factors that create differences.  In the Philippines alone, each
region may have a similar or varying perception regarding the “self”.
 
INTRODUCTIONS
Have you ever wondered about the differences between Eastern and Western
philosophies?  Apart from geographical locations, these two parts of the world have
differences in their way of life and the approach to life in general.  These ways of living
are not only brought about by topography and physical circumstances that play crucial
factors in living, but also the school of thought that governs the major societies in the
Eastern and Western part of the globe.

Let us take a look first at what “philosophy” is in general and how it affects and makes
differences on Western and Eastern society.  Generally, “philosophy” is universally
defined as “the study of the wisdom or knowledge about the general problems, facts,
and situations connected with human existence, values, reasons, and general reality.”
It seeks reasons, answers, and general explanations to life and its factors.  Thus, if we
talk about philosophy, we talk about a school of thoughts. And if we connect it with our
topic, it differs and comes with the realities, problems, and situations of certain people
like, in this case, the East and the West.

Basically, Western philosophy is referred to as the school of thought from Greek

philosophy that influenced the greater part of Western civilization.  In contrary, the
Eastern philosophy is based mainly in Asia, more specifically the Chinese philosophy.
 
  Moreover, Western philosophy takes its roots from Rome and Christianity,
specifically Judeo-Christianity. Eastern philosophy, on the other hand, is from
Confucianism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Taoism. Thus is it safe to say that Eastern
philosophy is classical Chinese, while Western philosophy is more Latin in its roots.

The main differences between the school of thought or the philosophies of the East and
West are the West’s Individualism and the East’s Collectivism.  The Eastern philosophy
is drawn much more into groups or society or people’s actions and thoughts as one in
order to find meaning in life as they try to get rid of the false “me” concept and find
meaning in discovering the true “me” in relation to everything around them, or as part of
a bigger scheme. In contrast, the Western civilization is more individualistic, trying to
find the meaning of life here and now with self at the center as it is already given and
part of the divine.

Let us take a deeper look into more of the aspects or problems or issues these two
philosophies try to make sense of. The main principle of the Eastern philosophy is unity.
This cosmological unity is the main point in the journey of life as it goes towards the
eternal realities.  Life is round, and the recurrence with everything around it is important.
Ethics is based on behavior, and dependence is from the inside to the outside.  In order
to be liberated, the inner self must be freed first in accordance to the world around it.

Western philosophy, on the other hand, is based on self-dedication to be of service to

others.  Life is service to God, money, community, and so on.  Due to its Christian
influence, there has to be a beginning and end to find meaning.  Linear as it seems,
Western philosophy is logical, scientific, and rational compared to the East’s concept of
eternal and recurring.

Eastern philosophy also thrives on virtues. This would be explained with the selfless
approach to life.  Satisfaction with what one has is the key. Meanwhile, Western
philosophy focuses on ethics. As individuals, one must do what is supposed to be done
without causing ill to others.  Success is based on how much one walks his path without
hurting others.  Eastern philosophy is also more about the spiritual while Western
philosophy is more of a hands-on style.  The difference is the “I” of the West, and the
“We” of the East, as one focuses on finding truth and meaning.
 
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
 
 Western philosophy is mainly used in the Western parts of the world, such as in
the European countries, while the Eastern philosophy is prevalent in Asian
countries.
 
 Western philosophy deals with Individualism while Eastern Philosophy is related
to Collectivism.
 
 Both philosophies center on virtues.
 
  Eastern philosophy takes more of a spiritual approach while Western philosophy
is more hands-on.
 
References:
Alata, et.,al (2018), “Understanding the Self”, Philippine Copyright 2018 by Rex Book
Store, Inc.

Brawner, Dalisay G & Arcega Analiza F. 2018 “Understanding the Self” C & E
Publishing.

Helen Buss Mitchell “Roots of Wisdom: A Tapestry of Philosophical Traditions, Sixth

Edition.

Winnicott, D. W. (1960). “Ego Distortion in Terms of True and False Self,” in The
Maturational Process and the Facilitating Environment: Studies in the Theory of
Emotional Development. New York: International UP Inc., 1965, pp. 140-152.
Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Becker, M., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M. J., Brown, R.,…
Bond, M. H. (2016). Beyond the 'east–west' dichotomy: Global variation in cultural
models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 966–
1000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000175

https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/philippine-normal-university/understanding-the-self/lecture-
notes/understanding-the-self/8994419/view

The aspect of myself that made me feel insecure are my skin complexion and being a fat or a chubby
guy, in other words my physical self. I felt insecure about it because when I was a kid, I always get fat
shamed by my neighbors and friends and they're also making fun of my dark brown skin up until now.
They were disgusted by my physical appearance because I always sweat a lot and some of them told me
a joke in a sarcastic way. There are some people that accepts me for who I am, but it really hurts that
there are still people think bad of me because of my physical appearance. Whenever I feel insecure, I
always pretend to be happy. I keep giving good advice and give positive vibes to my friends but I am not
applying it to myself. But nowadays, I'm trying my best to cope up my insecurities and I don't want my
insecurities to ruin my beautiful life. These are my ways on how I cope up with my insecurities: First, I
love to talk to the mirror and keep talking positive things about myself. Second, is fully accepting myself
despite my flaws, imperfections, and limitations because we are not perfect and we're just imperfect
humans. Lastly, I don't want to hear people's rules and standards, I want to live by my own rules and
standards becauseI was born unique. I don't dress or live to impress others. I want to live my life to the
fullest and thank my beautiful family for taking care of me.