EXERCISE #1

“The Meaning Of Philosophy”

Defining philosophy is as difficult as trying to define love. The word philosophy is not much help.
Philosophy is a combination of two Greek words, philein sophia, meaning lover of wisdom. In ancient
times a lover of wisdom could be related to any area where intelligence was expressed. This could be in
business, politics, human relations, or carpentry and other skills. Philosophy had a "wholeness" approach
to life in antiquity. In contrast to this, some modern definitions restrict philosophy to what can be known
by science or the analysis of language.

In today's world there is a popular use of the word philosophy. Philosophy is a term applied to almost any
area of life. Some questions may express this general attitude: what is your philosophy of business?
banking? driving a car? or your philosophy of the use of money? If this popular misuse of the word were
to prevail, one may admit that anyone who thinks seriously about any subject is a philosopher. If we do
this, we are ignoring the academic disciplines, or study of philosophy. If this very general definition is
accepted, everyone becomes a philosopher. It becomes true, paradoxically, that when everyone is a
philosopher, no one is a philosopher. This becomes so loose a definition that philosophy becomes
meaningless as a definition. If this definition prevailed, it would mean that a philosopher is anyone who
says he is a philosopher. Because of this inadequacy it becomes apparent that we have to look elsewhere
for a definition of philosophy.

Because the original meaning of the word, philosophy, does not give us much for specific content, we
will turn to descriptive definitions. A descriptive definition of philosophy is that it seeks to describe its
functions, goals, and reasons for existence. In the following pages a number of these definitions will be
set forth and examined.

EXERCISE #2
“Why Study Philosophy”
Philosophy makes a central contribution to the educational enterprise through its demands upon
intellectual activity. Education in philosophy involves becoming aware of major figures and
developments in the history of philosophy, learning up-to-date techniques and accepted answers to
philosophical questions, and learning critical, interpretive, and evaluative skills that, in the overall scheme
of things, may be considered to be of greatest value.

Graduates of the philosophy program at James Madison University are expected to have come to terms
with difficult texts dealing with advanced philosophical arguments. These readings are often quite diverse
in method and content. Further, a variety of written work is part of the philosophy student's assignments,
and it is expected that these assignments be carefully composed and thoughtfully addressed. Finally,
informed discussion is essential to philosophy and philosophical education. This verbal interaction is
expected to occur as a routine part of course offerings.

Much of what is learned in philosophy can be applied in virtually any endeavor. This is both because
philosophy touches so many subjects and, especially, because many of its methods can be used in any
field.

The study of philosophy helps us to enhance our ability to solve problems, our communication skills, our
persuasive powers, and our writing skills. Below is a description of how philosophy helps us develop
these various important skills.

EXERCISE #3
“Theories in Philosophy”
Aristotle - the golden mean. Moral behavior is the mean between two extremes - at one end is excess, at
the other deficiency. Find a moderate position between those two extremes, and you will be acting
morally.
Social contract, in political philosophy, an actual or hypothetical compact, or agreement, between the
ruled and their rulers, defining the rights and duties of each. In primeval times, according to the theory,
individuals were born into an anarchic state of nature, which was happy or unhappy according to the
particular version. They then, by exercising natural reason, formed a society (and a government) by
means of a contract among themselves.

Soul and Body are two words that are looked upon as one and the same, but philosophically speaking
there is a difference between them in terms of their nature. Soul is indestructible. On the other hand, the
body is destructible. This is the main difference between soul and body. Though there are differences
between soul and body one simple fact remains true. Soul and body are very much bound together. A soul
needs a place to stay. This place to stay is a body. Once the body in which the soul stays comes to any
harm and dies or simply succumbs to a natural death, the soul moves away and finds another body. Many
religions such as Christianity and Hinduism believe in this concept of the soul. Both religions attribute
great value to the soul. So, let us see what we can know more about soul and body.

What is Body?

Body is the physical structure made of flesh, bones, and blood. This structure of a human being normally
has different parts such as head, neck, trunk, arms, legs, hands and feet. Body is tangible. You can burn a
body by fire, blow it away by a strong wind, wet is using water or cut it into pieces using a weapon as a
knife or a sword because a body is tangible. We even can eliminate the body if we want to. That shows
that body is not eternal. In other words, the body is not permanent. Even if a body does not suffer such
harm as to make an individual die, a body comes with an expiration date. Even without any harm, the
body slowly decays over time and once the right time comes, death follows eliminating the functioning
capacity of a body. As a result once the body losses the life, body can be cremated or buried as according
to the practice of the respective religion of the person that has met with death. The body’s journey ends
with death. So, the body is not subjected to the theory of reincarnation.

EXERCISE #4
“The Philosophies of the philosophers”
Aristotle is among the most important and influential thinkers and teachers in human history, often
considered — alongside his mentor, Plato — to be a father of Western Philosophy.” Born in the northern
part of ancient Greece, his writings and ideas on metaphysics, ethics, knowledge, and methodological
inquiry are at the very root of human thought. Most philosophers who followed — both those who echoed
and those who opposed his ideas — owed a direct debt to his wide-ranging influence. Aristotle’s
enormous impact was a consequence both of the breadth of his writing and his personal reach during his
lifetime

Chinese teacher, writer, and philosopher Confucius viewed himself as a channel for the theological ideas
and values of the imperial dynasties that came before him. With an emphasis on family and social
harmony, Confucius advocated for a way of life that reflected a spiritual and religious tradition, but which
was also distinctly humanist and even secularist. Confucius — thought to be a contemporary of Taoist
progenitor Lao-Tzu — had a profound impact on the development of Eastern legal customs and the
emergence of a scholarly ruling class. Confucianism would engage in historic push-pull with the
philosophies of Buddhism and Taoism, experiencing ebbs and flows in influence, its high points coming
during the Han (206 BCE–220 CE), Tang (618–907 CE), and Song (960–1296 CE) Dynasties. As
Buddhism became the dominant spiritual force in China, Confucianism declined in practice. However, it
remains a foundational philosophy underlying Asian and Chinese attitudes toward scholarly, legal, and
professional pursuits.

Lao-Tzu’s Big Ideas

Espoused awareness of the self through meditation;

Disputed conventional wisdom as inherently biased, and urged followers of the Tao to find natural
balance between the body, senses, and desires;

Urged individuals to achieve a state of wu wei, freedom from desire, an early staple tenet of Buddhist
tradition thereafter.

EXERCISE #5
“The Meaning of the Human Person”
This course investigates fundamental questions regarding the nature, value, and capacities of the human
person and serves also as an introduction to the discipline and subject matter of philosophy. Specifically,
we will discuss the idea of what it is to be human, what it is to be an individual, and what it is to be the
same individual over time; the phenomenon of human knowing and the nature of mind; the possibility of
immortality and the relationship between soul or mind and body; the opposition between freedom and
determinism; and the significance of the social dimension of human existence. Throughout the course,
students will cultivate their critical reading, writing, and thinking skills, and they will establish a basis for
discerning the ethical significance of these foundational questions concerning knowledge, existence, and
human nature.

EXERCISE #6
“The Concept of the Human Person”
To conceptualize the nature of the human person one must begin to formulate a method of inquiry which
can utilize the concept of value as its beginning point. The questions to be answered are not only what is
the human person but who is the human person. The concept of value distinguishes the person from all
other created beings. It is the dignity of the human person which sets each of us apart. The thought of
Pope John Paul II, conceived as a Christian humanism and based on St. Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine on
values, begins with the irrepeatability and irreplaceability of each person’s unique existence. These
qualities can be revealed only in and through love as love is the fundamental ground of personal
existence. For it is only the human person as a being which must fulfill itself by its own acts of loving
which reveals the fundamental nature of dignity. It is of consequence that the integral development of the
human person is not accessible to positivistic methods of inquiry. What is called for is a way to describe,
through experience but within the purposeful context and ultimate end which gives meaning to life. The
questions which reveal purposeful choice in terms of self-determining or self-mastery, the acts whereby a
person not only becomes somebody for others but becomes someone to self, reveals the double nature of
self-determination. This means that by directing one’s own self, a person’s human will is somehow
endowed with transcendent perspectives. One becomes one’s choices and when the deepest root of
transcendent choice arises as a choice of self, it must be based upon the ultimate questions which a person
can ask of one’s own self, of the divine.

EXERCISE #7
“The Human Person and Learning To Be”
Each
individ
ual has
an
attitud
e
toward
life,
childre
n,
politic
s,
learnin
g, and
previo
us
person
al
experi
ences
that
inform
s and
shapes
their
set of
beliefs
.
Althou
gh you
may
not be
consci
ous of
it, this
set of
beliefs
, or
person
al
philos
ophy,
inform
s how
you
live,
work,
and
interac
t with
others.
What
you
believ
e is
directl
y
reflect
ed in
both
your
teachi
ng
and
learnin
g
proces
ses.
PHIL
OSO
PHY
OF
EDU
CAT
ION
 PHIL
OSOPH
Y OF
EDUC
ATION
is the
philoso
phical
study of
educati
on and
its
proble
ms.
 For
the
Greeks,
"philos
ophy"
meant
"love of
wisdom
,“
 Philo
sophers
of
educati
on
study
the
proble
ms of
educati
on from
a
philoso
phical
perspec
tive.
 Epist
emolog
y (the
theory
of
knowle
dge),
philoso
phy
of
languag
e,
ethics,
social
or
political
philoso
phy,
philoso
phy of
science
….
 Each individual has an attitude toward life, children, politics, learning, and previous personal experiences
that informs and shapes their set of beliefs. Although you may not be conscious of it, this set of beliefs, or
personal philosophy, informs how you live, work, and interact with others. What you believe is directly
reflected in both your teaching and learning processes.

 PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION is the philosophical study of education and its problems.

 For the Greeks, "philosophy" meant "love of wisdom,“

 Philosophers of education study the problems of education from a philosophical perspective.

 Epistemology (the theory of knowledge), philosophy of language, ethics, social or political

philosophy, philosophy of science….

EXERCISE #8
“The Human Person and Love”
Augustine states continuously that he was not yet in love, but was in love with love. This statement
doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t believe that someone can be in love with something, if he or she
doesn’t understand what love is. “I was not yet in love, but I was in love with love, and from the very
depth of my need hated myself for not more keenly feeling the need.” (pg. 35) How can Augustine hate
himself if he doesn’t know what loves feel like? I think a lot of Augustine’s statements about love are
interesting. Augustine has some very good points about love, but he contradicts himself also. Is Augustine
saying he wasn’t in love or he doesn’t understand love? Both of these statements make me wonder how
can he be in love with love, if he isn’t in love. After stating this, Augustine continues to support his
statement by talking about friendship. Is the friendship Augustine mentions lustful or sincerely about
love? “Thus I polluted the stream of friendship with the filth of unclean desire and sullied its limpidity
with the hell of lust.” (pg. 35) Obviously Augustine is letting the idea of love turn straight to lust. He talks
about unclean desires, but he says he wants to be clean and courtly. Maybe Augustine has the wrong idea
about love. Love is when you care deeply about someone and will do anything for them. Thinking about
sexual desires and physical attractions are defining lustful ideas. Is Augustine talking about different
kinds of love? Augustine states that he wants to be forgiven for the corruption of his soul so he can love
God again. He also states whatever pleases you, you should love Him who created it. “If material things
please you then praise God for them, but turn back your love upon Him who made them.” (pg. 60) He
continues this thought by saying we should love God for he created the world and without God we
wouldn’t be able to love anything in this world. He also states that God made the world and didn’t leave.
So is Augustine implying that if someone makes something and abandons it, that he or she shouldn’t be
loved? I think Augustine is implying that only those who create something and stay around should be
loved. I agree with Augustine about this. If God would of created the world and left, I would of thought
he created the world by mistake. By sticking around or admitting to creating the world, I feel as if God is
able and willing to deal with whatever circumstances that may come His way.

It is evident that not all are able to labor at learning and for that reason Christ has given a short law.
Everyone can know this law and no one may be excused from observing it because of ignorance. This is
the law of divine love. As scripture says, The Lord will quickly execute sentence upon the earth. 

This law should be the standard for all human actions. In the case of products of human manufacture,
each product is considered right and good when it conforms to a standard. So also each human act is
considered right and virtuous when it conforms to the standard of divine love. But when a human act does
not conform to the standard of love, then it is not right, nor good, nor perfect. 

This law of divine love accomplishes in a person four things that are much to be desired. First, it is the
cause of one’s spiritual life. For it is evident that by the very nature of the action what is loved is in the
one who loves. Therefore whoever loves God possesses God in himself; for scripture says, Whoever
remains in love remains in God and God in him. It is the nature of love to transform the lover into the
object loved. And so if we love God, we ourselves become divinized; for again, Whoever is joined to God
becomes one spirit with him. Augustine adds, “As the soul is the life of the body, so God is the life of the
soul.” Thus the soul acts virtuously and perfectly when she acts through charity, and through charity God
lives in her; indeed, without charity she cannot act; for scripture says, Whoever does not love, remains in
death. If a person possesses all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but lacks charity, that person has no life. For it
matters not whether one has the grace of tongues, or the gift of faith, or any other gift such as prophecy;
these do not bring life without charity. Even if a dead body should be adorned with gold and precious
jewels, it nevertheless remains dead. 

EXERCISE #9
“The Human Person and the Social Groups”
Social groups are defined by boundaries. Cultural sociologists define symbolic boundaries as “conceptual
distinctions made by social actors…that separate people into groups and generate feelings of similarity
and group membership. ” In-groups, or social groups to which an individual feels he or she belongs as a
member, and out-groups, or groups with which an individual does not identify, would be impossible
without symbolic boundaries.

People may form opinions or judge their own behaviors against those of a reference group (a group used
as a standard for self‐appraisals). Parishioners at a particular church, for instance, may evaluate
themselves by the standards of a denomination, and then feel good about adhering to those standards.
Such positive self‐evaluation reflects the normative effect that a reference group has on its own members,
as well as those who compare themselves to the group. Still, reference groups can have a comparison
effect on self‐evaluations. If most parishioners shine in their spiritual accomplishments, then the others
will probably compare themselves to them. Consequently, the “not‐so‐spiritual” parishioners may form a
negative self‐appraisal for not feeling “up to par.” Thus, reference groups can exert a powerful influence
on behavior and attitudes.

EXERCISE #10
“The Human Person and the Environment”
There are many different definitions and perceptions as to what an environment is, but the simplest is “the
surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates” and “the natural world,
as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity.”

How Humans Impact the Environment

Like all living things human beings are an integral part of the environment, and because of this they are
subjected to the control and restraints that the environment implies. Change is a natural phenomenon that
occurs within the environment and is an essential part of it, this is because the environment has been
created in such a manner that it can under normal circumstances; the environment is adequately dynamic
enough to accommodate these changes. Therefore there are some environments that experiences continual
change and adjustments, this is referred to as a dynamic equilibrium.

However there are times when the level of change is so great, that it exceeds the ability for the
environment to adapt to it which leads to environmental disruption. These large levels of environmental
change sometimes occur naturally, however as the human race has evolved they have become the main
cause behind the environmental change, disruption and deterioration. Alongside this evolution and
development of humans, other factors such as society’s attitude towards the environment and its
mechanics have assisted in this affect.

Due to the modern technology based society, there is an abundance of knowledge and information
available, but there are limitations in terms of the amount of change the environment can facilitate.
Because of this available information it has become common knowledge to most, that the earth’s
resources i.e. minerals and commodities which society depends on such as air, water, soil, vegetation and
animals which are believed to be part of the natural environment are finite.

However these resources have managed to survive throughout the years through efficient recycling
system which is a natural manifestation of the environment in order to maintain stability. Unfortunately
these recycling processes have been consciously and unconsciously disrupted by human activities such as
the disruption if the carbon cycle, which has had an impact on global warming. Another example is the
disruption of the sulphur cycle, which is related to the cause of acid rain, and water shortages and water
pollution.

EXERCISE #11
“The Human Person and Freedom”
The concept of the person and the concept of freedom each has a long and complex history with roots in
Classical culture, Judaism, and early of Christianity. Both concepts underwent a radical transformation in
conjunction with the emergence of modern individualism, which, although deeply indebted to (and
arguably inconceivable without) both, has ultimately succeeded in appropriating both to its own purposes.
Indeed, today the radical individualism of our postmodern culture has so fully colonized both as to erase
their older and independent meanings. The broad contours of this trajectory merit attention, but since no
brief account could capture the complexity, please grant me your indulgence for what must, perforce, be a
crude simplification. The main import of the early invocations of person and freedom lay in the attention
they drew to the claims—and responsibilities—of a singular consciousness within the context of a
discursive or imaginative universe that preeminently emphasized the claims and responsibilities of the
collectivity. In such a system, specific persons figured as articulations of the whole, without which their
existence would have had no meaning and—under most conditions—without which they could not have
existed at all. our modern conception of the individual as the center and origin of consciousness and
sovereignty was literally unthinkable.1 In this context, the related notions of personhood and freedom
preeminently evoked the ability of the individual consciousness to resist or withstand the (illegitimate)
dominance of the collectivity. For Christians specifically, they legitimated and sanctified resistance to
persecution, sanctifying that resistance as fidelity to Christ. Even for Christians, however, personhood and
freedom primarily signified the person’s commitment to live in accordance with Christian precepts and to
bear witness to that faith. The freedom of the Christian that they defended did not represent a political
challenge to the authority of the secular order (“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s ...), but a
spiritual challenge to secular authorities that presumed to dictate religious conviction. With the spread of
Christianity throughout Europe, the assumption emerged that ruler and subjects would share one faith,
initially that French and British kings like the Holy Roman Emperors, would share and support the
Catholic faith of their subjects, and subsequently, following the Protestant Reformation, that the faith of
subjects would follow that of their monarch. The inescapable intertwining of religion and politics fortified
the idea that the freedom of the Christian might require resistance to illegitimate authority, and Protestant
theology restated in more radical form idea that the conscience—and the consciousness—of the person
constituted the primary locus of faith.

EXERCISE #12
“The Human Person and Society”
God did not create man as a “solitary being,” but wanted him to be a “social being” (cf. Gen 1:27; 2:18-
20, 23). Life in society is not something “added-on” for the human person; it stems from an important
dimension intrinsic to human nature. Human beings can grow and attain their calling in life only in union
with others.1 The social nature of the human person is even more evident in the light of faith, since there
is a certain likeness between the intimate life of the Holy Trinity and the communion that should be
established among mankind; all men and women have been redeemed by Christ and are called to share in
the same end.2 Revelation teaches us that human relationships should be marked by a deep
gratuitousness, since in our neighbor we see, more than an equal, the living image of God, and we have to
be ready to give ourselves fully, even to the ultimate extreme, for each one.3 Therefore each person “is
called to exist ‘for’ others, to become a gift.”4 Existing “for” others entails much more than just “co-
existing” with them: it means serving them and loving them. Human freedom “can wither in an ivory-
tower isolation brought on by an over indulgence in the good things of life.”5 A personal and collective
effort is needed to develop social relationships correctly: “The social nature of human beings does not
automatically lead to communion among persons, to the gift of self. Because of pride and selfishness,
man discovers in himself the seeds of asocial behavior, impulses leading him to close himself within his
own individuality and to dominate his neighbor.”6 The person’s social nature is not limited to political
and commercial aspects; the relationships based on the most deeply human aspects of the person,
especially the spiritual ones, are much more important for the correct building up of society.7 Therefore
the real possibility of constructing a society worthy of the human person depends on the interior growth
of men and women. It is free human acts that build up a society, the social nature of the human being
finds expression in the setting up of a variety of associations aimed at attaining distinct goals: “A society
is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of
them” (Catechism, 1880). Many different human goals exist, as well as bonds that unite people: love,
ethnicity, language, country, culture, etc. Therefore human relationships entail a wide mosaic of
institutions and associations: the family, city, state, international community, etc. Certain societies, such
and the family and state, correspond more directly to human nature and therefore are necessary. Others
correspond to people’s free initiative, and are intrinsic to what could be termed human “socialization.”
This “socialization” expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the
sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities, and help develop the human qualities of
each person (cf. Catechism, 1882). The close tie between the person and life in society explains the
enormous influence of society on the development of each person, and the harm that is done to the human
person by living in a defectively organized society. The way people behave depends, to some extent, on
the way society is organized, which exerts a cultural influence on people. While never reducing the
human being to an anonymous element in society,9 it is good to remember that the integral development
of the human person and social progress mutually influence one another.10 No opposition exists between
the personal dimension and the social dimension of the human being. Rather these two dimensions are
intimately united and are strengthened in union with one another.
 EXERCISE #13
“The Human Person and God”
The idea of god that we have appears to be a combination of ideas from the oldest time of the Judaic
tradition combining with ideas of the Greeks for the spread of the idea of the Jewish god by the Christians
to the Greeks and Romans. The god of the Jews is described as a powerful and mean spirited god . The
god of the Jews would order entire towns, almost all living humans on the planet to be killed. The deity
of Plato and Aristotle, Greek philosophers, came to be seen as a spiritual and all perfect being. So the
ideas of the early Christians combined features of the two traditions with some ideas of the Zoroastrians
from Middle Eastern lands (Persia). Christianity is then characterized as Hellenized Hebraism! This
means that the ideas of the Greeks (Hellenes, saviors of Helen of Troy) are placed over and combined
with the ideas of the Hebrews.

In any exploration into what many people regard as the characteristics or properties associated with G-O-
D, some would reflect on their ideas and perhaps notice a thing or two about them. For one, some of the
qualities of the deity in combination produce a problem or two, as with EVIL. For another, ideas people
have of the deity are very interesting when you consider the implications of those qualities.

Now for those who believe in the GOD of the Judeo-Christian –Islamic tradition they must believe in a
single being with characteristics of being: SUPREME, ALL POWERFUL, ALL GOOD, ALL PERFECT,
ALL KNOWING, ETERNAL etc… Why must they? Well, because they have no choice either they
believe in the GOD of those traditions or else they make up their own ideas and they are then actually
moving out of those traditions and are giving good example of the post modern relativistic, subjectivist
tradition of the Twentieth Century. The religions of the West have very clear ideas about the DEITY they
have at the center of their beliefs. These religions have doctrines and dogma that the faithful must accept.
Now there are many people who think they are in the Judeo –Christian-Islamic tradition but in actuality
are not because they have redefined their religions to suit their personal preferences. Even so, the idea of
a SUPREME BEING that most people have is beset with problems not the least of which is the
PROBLEM of EVIL. This problem comes about as a result of combining ideas of a deity found in the
Hebrew Tradition with the ideas of perfection found in the works of the Greeks (Plato and Aristotle). The
concept of G-O-D in Western religions results in some perplexing ideas. Here is one more problem with
the concept of the deity beside that of EVIL. Why would a perfect and supreme being create a universe?
If it was for any reason then the being would be incomplete and not yet fulfilled and thus less than
perfect. If it were for no reason other than fun, entertainment, play… then that raises another set of
questions. For those who alter their idea of the G-O-D to suit themselves and make the deity into
something other than the classic idea of the Western religions, well they can avoid some of the problems
but their G-O-D is not the GOD of Abraham and Moses as reported in the BIBLE.. They who have their
own idea of G-O-D and insist that they have a right to do so would also be in violation of the first
commandment that the God of the Western religions presented to Moses. The post modernists with their
personal ideas of their own personal god have placed their god before the GOD of Abraham and Moses
and Jesus and Mohammed. It is popular but certainly not orthodox. It is so popular that most who
perform the substitution are unaware that they are holding ideas concerning the nature of god that would
have had them condemned as heretics in prior centuries.

Another problem with the deity being ALL PERFECT is that the being would need to possess all
perfections and if freedom is a perfection or a good thing as opposed to its opposite being not god then
the deity that is all perfect would also need to be free and yet it cannot be free as it is not free to be or do
anything that is less than perfect or the very best possible. As it cannot be free it is NOT ALL PERFECT.

God, in monotheistic thought, is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of
faith. God is usually conceived as being omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing),
omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) as well as having an eternal and necessary
existence.

EXERCISE #14
“The Human Person in Existentialism”
Being is. Being is in-itself. Being is what it is." Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre is one of the most
important philosophers of all time. Despite his work garnering considerable flak over the years, his
theories on existentialism and freedom cement his place among the most influential Western philosophers
of the 20th-century and beyond. he philosophical career of Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) focuses, in its
first phase, upon the construction of a philosophy of existence known as existentialism. Sartre’s early
works are characterized by a development of classic phenomenology, but his reflection diverges from
Husserl’s on methodology, the conception of the self, and an interest in ethics. These points of divergence
are the cornerstones of Sartre’s existential phenomenology, whose purpose is to understand human
existence rather than the world as such. Adopting and adapting the methods of phenomenology, Sartre
sets out to develop an ontological account of what it is to be human. The main features of this ontology
are the groundlessness and radical freedom which characterize the human condition. These are contrasted
with the unproblematic being of the world of things. Sartre’s substantial literary output adds dramatic
expression to the always unstable co-existence of facts and freedom in an indifferent world. Sartre’s
ontology is explained in his philosophical masterpiece, Being and Nothingness, where he defines two
types of reality which lie beyond our conscious experience: the being of the object of consciousness and
that of consciousness itself. The object of consciousness exists as “in-itself,” that is, in an independent
and non-relational way. However, consciousness is always consciousness “of something,” so it is defined
in relation to something else, and it is not possible to grasp it within a conscious experience: it exists as
“for-itself.” An essential feature of consciousness is its negative power, by which we can experience
“nothingness.” This power is also at work within the self, where it creates an intrinsic lack of self-
identity. So the unity of the self is understood as a task for the for-itself rather than as a given.

EXERCISE #15
“The Importance of Ethics to Man’s Existence”
Ethics is a requirement for human life. It is our means of deciding a course of action. Without it, our
actions would be random and aimless. To the degree which a rational ethical standard is taken, we are
able to correctly organize our goals and actions to accomplish our most important values. Ethics is a
requirement for human life. It is our means of deciding a course of action. Without it, our actions would
be random and aimless. There would be no way to work towards a goal because there would be no way to
pick up between a limitless numbers of goals. Even with an ethical standard, we may be unable to pursue
our goals with the possibility of a success. To the degree which a rational ethical standard is taken, we are
able to correctly organize our goals and actions to accomplish our most important values. Any flaws in
our ethics will reduce our ability to be successful in our endeavors.

The alien from planet Tralfamadore comes to earth and the alien wants to conquer earth, and as an
earthling, I will stop the alien and teach the right and wrong of human endeavors here on earth. And teach
the alien that ethics is important to people I will explain to the alien the importance of ethics and the
ethics to the human person. First is the importance of ethics. Each person here on earth has a standard
and the happiness which makes them livable. This is the ultimate standard of value, the goal in which an
ethical man must always aim. It is arrived at by an examination of man`s nature and recognizing his
peculiar situations, but the day choices we make constantly. It must include our relations to others, and
recognize their importance not only to the physical survival, but to the well-being and happiness. It must
recognize that our lives are an end themselves, and that sacrifice is not only necessary, but destructive.

EXERCISE #16
“The Essential Elements of Human Acts”
The term human act has a fixed technical meaning. It means an act (thought, word, deed, desire,
omission) performed by a human being when he is responsible; when he knows what he is doing and
wills to do it. An act is perfectly human when it is done with full knowledge and full consent of the will,
and with full and unhampered freedom of choice. If the act is hampered in any way, it is less perfectly
human; if it is done without knowledge or consent it is not a human act at all. An act done by a human
being but without knowledge and consent is called an act of a person but not a human act. In the
terminology of classical realistic philosophy, a human act is actus humanus; an act of a person is actus
hominis.

The essential elements of a human act are three: knowledge, freedom, actual choice.

(1) Knowledge: A person is not responsible for an act done in ignorance, unless the ignorance is the
person's own fault, and is therefore willed (vincible ignorance), in which case he has knowledge that he is
in ignorance and ought to dispel it. Thus, in one way or another, knowledge is necessary for responsible
human activity.

(2) Freedom: A person is not responsible for an act over which he has no control, unless he deliberately
surrenders such control by running into conditions and circumstances which rob him of liberty. Thus, in
one way or another, freedom is necessary for every human act.
(3) Actual choice or voluntariness: A person is not responsible for an act which he does not will, unless
he wills to give up his self-control (as a man does, for instance, in allowing himself to be hypnotized, or
by deliberately becoming intoxicated). Thus, in one way or another, voluntariness or actual choice enters
into every human act.

Now, a human act is a willed act. It proceeds from the will, following the knowledge and judgment of the
mind or intellect. Since what refers to the freewill is usually described as moral, a human act is a moral
act. Since the will is free, a human act is a free act. A human act comes from the will directly or
indirectly. When the act itself is the choice of the will, it comes directly from the will and is said to be
willed in se or in itself. When the act comes indirectly from the will, inasmuch as the will chooses rather
what causes or occasions the act than the act itself, it is said to be willed in its cause or in causa. Thus a
man who wills to become intoxicated, wills it directly or in se; a man who does not wish to become
intoxicated, but who seeks entertainment where, as experience tells him, he is almost sure to become
intoxicated, wills the intoxication indirectly or in causa. This distinction of direct and indirect willing (or
direct and indirect voluntariness) raises a notable issue, and we have here two of the most important
principles (that is, fundamental guiding truths) in all ethics.

EXERCISE #17
“Reason and Conscience of Man”
Reason is the capacity of consciously making sense of things, applying logic, and adapting or justifying
practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. It is closely associated with such
characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally
considered to be a distinguishing ability possessed by humans. Reason is sometimes referred to as
rationality. Reasoning is associated with the acts of thinking and cognition, and involves using one's
intellect. The field of logic studies the ways in which humans can use formal reasoning to produce
logically valid arguments. Reasoning may be subdivided into forms of logical reasoning, such as:
deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning. Aristotle drew a distinction between
logical discursive reasoning (reason proper), and intuitive reasoning, in which the reasoning process
through intuition—however valid—may tend toward the personal and the subjectively opaque. In some
social and political settings logical and intuitive modes of reasoning may clash, while in other contexts
intuition and formal reason are seen as complementary rather than adversarial. For example, in
mathematics, intuition is often necessary for the creative processes involved with arriving at a formal
proof, arguably the most difficult of formal reasoning tasks.

In contrast to the use of "reason" as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration given which either
explains or justifies events, phenomena, or behavior. Reasons justify decisions, reasons support
explanations of natural phenomena; reasons can be given to explain the actions (conduct) of individuals.
Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason, e.g. which
cognitive and neural processes are engaged, and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people
draw. The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled
computationally. Animal psychology considers the question of whether animals other than humans can
reason.
The terms "logic" or "logical" are sometimes used as if they were identical with the term "reason" or with
the concept of being "rational", or sometimes logic is seen as the most pure or the defining form of
reason. For example in modern economics, rational choice is assumed to equate to logically consistent
choice. Reason and logic can however be thought of as distinct, although logic is one important aspect of
reason. Author Douglas Hofstadter, in Gödel, Escher, Bach, characterizes the distinction in this way.
Logic is done inside a system while reason is done outside the system by such methods as skipping steps,
working backward, drawing diagrams, looking at examples, or seeing what happens if you change the
rules of the system.

EXERCISE #18
“The Nature, Characteristics and Destiny of Man”
In Human Nature, the first volume of The Nature and Destiny of Man, Reinhold Niebuhr surveys human
history from Plato to modern times, focusing on political, religious, and philosophical movements and
theories, highlighting human beings’ efforts to understand themselves and to craft their own destiny.
From ancient civilizations through the Renaissance and Romanticism up to modern culture, the
intellectual leaders in each era defined human nature with a historical bias and sought to remedy social
evils with limited insight. The ancient Greeks, principally Plato, held that each human consisted of a soul,
body, and spirit. Human beings’ ability to reason, it was argued, distinguishes them from all other animals
on earth. Humans are the only self-conscious animal, able to stand outside themselves or see themselves
as objects in nature. They also can manipulate history, within certain limits, because they are able to
choose how to act. As creatures who live in and are bound by time, people’s lives are a linear, measurable
flow. Their spirits also give them a kind of perpendicular existence.

Through transcendence, humans can know God, whose image resides naturally in human nature, giving
humans some idea as to the nature of God. A view of God’s relation to humans is contained in the ideas
of religious and secular thinkers up to modern times and turns on the notion that humans have the power
to transcend their finiteness either with their reason or with their faith in and relation to God. Religious
and philosophical thought from the ancient Greeks to the modern theorists is concerned primarily with the
relation of reason, spirit, and nature. The naturalistic view sees humans as creatures bound to nature, and
therefore having vitalistic impulses, and bound to God through their spirits. Each of the major intellectual
movements, classical, Renaissance, Romantic, and modern, emphasized one or the other of these
conceptions of humankind or conceived a blend of both. Renaissance thinkers celebrated humankind’s
mastery over nature through the powers of the human mind and emphasized the importance.

EXERCISE #19
“The Human Person and the Self”
As a treatment of the meaning of human nature, the course considers the human person as physical being,
as knower, as responsible agent, as a person in relation to other persons, to society, to God, and to the
end, or purpose, of human life.
This article asserts the need to distinguish among “individual,” “self,” and “person” as biologistic,
psychologistic, and sociologistic modes of conceptualizing human beings. The concepts differentiate
individual as member of the human kind, self as locus of experience, and person as agent‐in‐society. The
author follows out various descriptive and analytical implications. Ethnographic examples are used to
illustrate and clarify points relevant to single‐case studies and comparativist work. Within a particular
local scheme, concepts of individual, self, and person are interrelated, sometimes hierarchically so. The
article briefly takes up issues following from the double nature of these concepts as “native” categories
and outsiders' analytical constructs. It is held that adopting as analytically central any one mode of
conceptualizing human beings has consequences for the analyst's view of culture and/or social structure.

EXERCISE #20
“The Human Person and Knowledge”
I am intrigued by the phrase “knowledge from a human point of view”. It raises delicate questions.
Human beings have known many things about the world for a long time. And we continue to learn more
and more every day. And whatever we human beings come to know is of course known from a human
point of view. There is no other point of view from which human beings could know anything. So one
way to understand the phrase “knowledge from a human point of view” is to take it simply to refer to
human knowledge: everything human beings know. That amounts by now to a huge and truly impressive
body of knowledge. Of course, that body of knowledge constantly changes, as new things are learned and
others are abandoned as not true and so never known. We can speak more cautiously of what is known by
human beings at a certain time, or during a certain period. And of course that can change too.

But the phrase “knowledge from a human point of view” also speaks of a way of knowing things: from
“the human point of view” through which the knowledge is gained. That “point of view” is obviously not
simply a position in space and time: the total region of the universe occupied at some time by human
beings, for instance. “Knowledge from a human point of view” presumably means knowledge gained by
human means: through the exercise of distinctively human sensory and intellectual capacities. In asking
how human beings know things by those means we are asking in effect how, given what human beings
are like, and what the world they live in is like, human beings have come to know the things they know.
The question is completely general, not only about institutionally-organized knowledge in the form of
sciences. Science is part of it, of course, but the question is how human beings, with their needs and
desires, their natural talents, common sense, rituals and lore, languages, interests, traditions, institutions,
and practices come to know all the things they know. How has all the knowledge we think there is in the
world come to be? We know at least that it has all been acquired “from a human point of view”. And,
being human, we ask the question ourselves, unavoidably, from “a human point of view”. Since human
knowledge is what is in question, part of the knowledge each of us is interested in is our own knowledge.
Each of us is asking, “from a human point of view”, how each of us knows the things we know “from a
human point of view”. Can we really get a satisfactory understanding of human knowledge in that way?
We can seem to be presented with a puzzle because each of us is at the same time both the subject and the
object of our investigation. It is we, as agents, who want to understand how certain inhabitants of the
world – we human beings – know the things we know about the world “from a human, viz. our, point of
view”.
 EXERCISE #21
“In Search of the Meaning of Man”
“Man” seems to have been quite a neglected subject in the history of Western philosophy; more attention
has been paid to God and universe than to man. Though there are many reputable histories of the specific
branches of philosophy; and even of some of its special subjects such as logic ethics, aesthetics, politics,
law and history, a “history of the philosophy of man” has yet to be written and even vet to be conceived.
True “man” has sometimes been discussed as a part of this or that theory or system in ethics, politics or
education, but such subsidiary discussions by their very nature remain controlled by the requirements and
presuppositions of a particular theory or system.

All this strikes rather ironical in view of the fact that, to the great Socrates; first of the founders of
Western philosophy, the central theme of philosophy was not the world, but man. Socrates’ deep concern
for the well-being of man makes him look like a prophet moving amongst the Greeks. In the celebrated
Platonic Dialogue; the Apology, Socrates is reported to have gone to God, only to be graced with a
special message for his fellow men. This Divine message exhorted the Athenians to “ take the greatest
possible care of their souls and not to ruin their lives by letting the care of the body and of the
“possessions” take precedence over the good of the soul. Nay, they must make their souls as good as
possible, making them like God”.

Socrates is, however, better known to us for his detailed and meticulous analyses of the moral qualities of
man; such as justice, goodness, courage, temperance and so on. But what is more important for us to note
here is the woeful fact that nowhere in ‘all the twenty-eight platonic Dialogues, we find Socrates giving
as a definition of man. Perhaps even for Socrates, man was too much of a mystery, and a veritable riddle
to be comprehended through a philosophical definition. Both Plato and Aristotle, after Socrates, ventured
to give us definitions of man; but these definitions, with due deference to these two great masters,
unfortunately, are no longer tenable on empirical grounds. Plato’s definition of man as a political animal,
perhaps, reflects only the intensely political atmosphere of the city-states of his days

EXERCISE #22
“The Relationship Between Ethics and Family”
Family ethics can be crucial in situations such as this one. When a crisis, such as making a major medical
decision, arises within a family, an ethical lens emerges that provides a blueprint for behavior. How
family members talk and react to another is guided by that lens. If that lens is cloudy the more uncertain
and stressful those conversations will be. If the lens is clear, a better family dynamic will result.
Investigations into family dynamics show that families who have positive interactions surrounding
medical decisions usually have a solution prior to finding themselves in a predicament. These families
talk about potential decisions that may have to be made, discuss the reasons why they should do this or
that, and consider the implications of their actions. Slowly working through the intricacies of the issue
allows each family member's voice to be heard. Everyone feels part of the solution. Waiting for a
calamity to occur before expressing concerns results in unsupportive and difficult communication
between family members at a time when cool heads and cooperation are essential. Scholars have shown
that supportive families talk about issues and come to a decision together. These families also talk about
the decision in such a way that it shows the affection and commitment they have for one another and the
family unit.

Self-disclosure between spouses is not the only type of disclosure within a family. Consider the
communication dynamics between teenagers and parents. Teenagers sometimes lie about where they will
be, who they are with, and what activities they are involved in. Parents judge children's behavior on
perceived integrity or trustworthiness. Children, being a bit less sophisticated, may view parents as unfair
and try to focus the conversation elsewhere, especially when there are other siblings. “How come he can
do that and I can't?”This type of perceived inconsistency needs explanation; otherwise, children will feel
less favored or will reinforce the perceived unfairness as fact. Explaining behavior increases mutual
understanding and appreciation of another's perspective, so parents should seize any opportunity to
explain why they behave as they do or why they expect children to behave a certain way. Explanations
are ethical lessons. Routine communicative moments, such as putting away groceries, chatting over
dinner, or watching TV, are excellent opportunities for parents to talk about their ethical values with their
children. When parents talk about what happened at work that day, children learn to process information
about work. These types of interactions help children create mental models for work, authority, and
family communication. Family conversations—whether implicit or explicit--help shape children's views
the world and how they behave in it.

EXERCISE #23
“The Relationship Between Ethics and Sexuality”
Many modern systems of ethics hold that sexual activity is morally permissible only if all participants
consent. Sexual ethics also considers whether a person is capable of giving consent and what sort of acts
they can properly consent to. In western countries, the legal concept of "informed consent" often sets the
public standards on this issue. Children, the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill, animals, prisoners,
and people under the influence of drugs like alcohol might be considered in certain situations as lacking
an ability to give informed consent. In the United States, Maouloud Baby v. State is a state court case
ruling that a person can withdraw sexual consent and that continuing sexual activity in the absence of
consent may constitute rape. Also, if infected with a sexually transmitted disease, it is important that one
notifies the partner before sexual contact
Sexual acts which are illegal, and often considered unethical, because of the absence of consent
include rape and molestation. Enthusiastic consent, as expressed in the slogan "Yes means yes," rather
than marriage, is typically the focus of liberal sexual ethics Under that view passivity, not saying "No," is
not consent. An individual can give consent for one act of sexual activity, however, it does not condone
proceeding into other acts of sexual activity without reestablishing consent.
The concept of consent being the primary arbiter of sexual ethics and morality has drawn criticism from
both feminist and religious philosophies. Religious criticisms argue that relying on consent alone to
determine morality ignores other intrinsic moral factors, while feminist criticisms argue that consent is
too broad and does not always account for disproportionate power dynamics.
 EXERCISE #24
“The Relationship Between Ethics and Pre-Marital Sex”
Philosophers since at least Plato have discussed sex as it raises a number of interesting philosophical
questions. Sex is about relationships and interactions between people and consequently it seems to be a
moral issue. Anyone that believes that sex is not a moral issue should ask themselves whether they think
rape or paedophilia is morally wrong. However, when we move past such clear-cut cases, the issues
become more subtle and complex. We considered a number of philosophical theories which give very
different views. The Natural Law Theorist uses the idea of function and goal to ground a “conservative”
view of sex. The Kantian also uses the idea of autonomy and respect for a person to ground a
conservative view of sex, with a splash of pessimism about the unbefitting nature of sexual desire thrown
in for good measure. Utilitarianism and Virtue Theory are less pessimistic and, as with their views on the
other issues we have looked at in this book, more open to see what arises in different situations.

Kant thinks that sex is morally permissible within the context of a heterosexual, lifelong, and
monogamous marriage. Any sexual act outside these contexts — homosexuality, masturbation, adultery,
premarital sex — is morally wrong. His reasons for thinking this are very complex, not least because his
writing on the subject, like just about all of his writing, is incredibly dense, but broadly speaking, his
views on sex are based on his Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative act in such a way that
you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a
means, but always at the same time as an end.
Kant, like St. Augustine (354–430) and sometimes Freud, is what Alan Soble (1947–) calls a
sexual pessimist (Plato and many modern philosophers would be counted as sexual optimists). The broad
feeling amongst the pessimists is that our sexual desires and impulses, and acting upon those impulses,
are undignified. The sexual part of our nature is unbefitting to how humans should behave and threatens
our proper moral life.
For Kant, sexual desire is the only impulse in us that takes the body of another human as the  object of
indulgence. Kant says regarding sexual appetite:

Because sexuality is not an inclination which one human being has for another as such, but is an
inclination for the sex of another, it is a principle of the degradation of human nature, in that it gives rise
to the preference of one sex to the other, and to the dishonoring of that sex through the satisfaction of
desire.
So if this is his general pessimistic view of sex how does that relate to a view on ethics? As it stands it
looks like any sexual desire or act is going to be morally wrong, but if that is the case, then that means
that for Kant the continued existence of the human race is evidence of immoral behavior! That is surely
wrong. Well, for Kant, the only reason it is not wrong is the role of marriage.
In the context of marriage, and only in marriage, Kant thinks that sex and sexual desire is more than
simply treating another merely as a means to an end. But why?
First we must understand what Kant means by marriage:

[Marriage] is an agreement between two persons by which they grant each other equal reciprocal rights,
each of them undertaking to surrender the whole of their person to the other with a complete right of
disposal over it.
 EXERCISE #25
“The Human Person: A Being For Death”
CHRISTIANITY ON DEATH *Death is the end of life and the beginning of the next. *The Church calls
death a “mystery.” It recognizes man’s natural reluctant to die and the pain of separation of body and
soul. *The Church teaches that God created man with his end in view: eternal life with Him. And this is
possible because of Christ’s sacrifice on calvary. CHRISTIANITY ON DEATH For the Christian who
has lived in grace, death is a time of faith, of love, and of hope… MARXISM ON DEATH *Does not
sees death as more than a biological event. Death is not important for man is nothing more than a “being
generically determined.” And this is the way of all atheists. EXISTENTIALISM ON DEATH *Faces
death squarely. *Death is one of life’s boundary situations, thus, inevitable and, thus, the authentic
attitude is to accept it and to find out its significance. EXISTENTIALISM ON DEATH *Heidegger calls
a man a “being-for-death.” *To Heidegger, there is a vagueness in the notion of death, and this he
attributes to “confusing existence with being there.” *The existentialists accept man as finite, his life
having an ending. RECAPITULATION ON THE MEANING OF DEATH Death - is a typically human
event, not just a biological occurrence. It is a separating of body and soul, but it is not just the body that
dies, it is the whole man.

DEATH: AS NECESSITY AND AS LIBERTY *According to Geffre, death is a necessity and liberty. It
is also a release from pain and suffering. *As liberty, Geffre says there is the final option theory that is a
very plausible explanation. DEATH: AS NECESSITY AND AS LIBERTY *This is an affirmation once
again of the great moment of death. Once you cross its threshold, there is no turning back. You step into
unending suffering or eternal peace and love.
 OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION (OBE)

1. How did I learn after the discussion of the lesson?

 I learned about how can I understand myself, and to know more of myself.
2. How well did I learn?
 I learned a lot
3. What can I do after learning the subject matter?
 I will share my knowledge and apply it to myself
4. What is the benefit of studying the subject matter?
 Gain a better understanding and insight into the different perspective
5. What is the value of learning this kind of knowledge to my character and attitude?
 I found a concise, simple to answer to my question about myself and also change my perspective of life.
6. What is the contribution of the University to community and to the well being of its people?
 They will be a guide of a student like me to how can I pursuit of peace, love and happiness.
7. What is the contribution of the University to business and industry?
 They give me hope to become a better person
8. Are the graduates of the University employable?
 Yes! They are well educated
I LOVE MYSELF

Today I am choosing to love myself. I am pushing aside the negative thoughts. I am brushing away my so
called flaws. Today I am putting on my rose colored glasses, in the hopes that they will one day become
permanent, and no longer a temporary fix. Today I am choosing to love myself because I have nothing to
lose and everything to gain. When I put myself down, I only miss out on moments of joy and happiness.
When I put myself down, I hide my value away from myself – I shield my body in pity. I hurt too much.
When I choose to love myself, I have everything to gain because I will be open and free, not tied back or
hidden away by my own self-constructed limitations. Today I am choosing to love myself because not
loving myself is exhausting. When my brain feeds my mind and body hurtful insults and negative words,
my desire to live and to grow is smothered. My body is tired. My mind is worn out. My hopes and goals
are washed away. These harmful words dim my sparkle and hide my heart in the shadows. Hate is a much
heavier load than love. Today I am choosing to love myself because I have found peace in the realization
that not everyone will love me. Not everyone will like me. But how they feel is a reflection of them, not
of me. We are all different souls, and we all find connection with different people. I now see that my own
self-love and validation is more powerful than validation from others. And when I choose to love myself,
the right people will come into my little corner of the world. Today I am choosing to love myself because
when I love myself, my heart shines brighter. I flourish when I do what I love. The hesitance in my step
weakens. I stand a little bit taller; I hold my head up higher. With love in my heart, I have more
confidence and grace in my step. I notice the red flowers I walk past. I feel the sun shining on my arms. I
am more present. I shine with the sun. Today I am choosing to love myself because I need someone to
lean on. I need to know that I can be at home in my own body. I need to know that I am coming home to
myself, and that is enough. That is plenty. I am choosing to love this comforting home. Today I am
choosing to love myself because I want to love others purely. I want to love others with no jealousy and
no envy. I want to love others uniquely, with strength and bravery. I want to admire others without
wishing I were more like them. I want to be able to give compliments freely and genuinely, with deep
honesty. Today I am choosing to love myself so that I can in turn be a better friend. When I love myself, I
have more room in my heart to care for the hearts of my loved ones. I have more to offer to others – more
to give. When I love myself, I have a greater capacity for love Today I choose to love myself because
there is no need for hate. The world already has enough negative energy. What the world truly needs is
more kindness…more vulnerability. Self-love is an act or pure compassion. It nurtures positive vibes that
shine and sparkle throughout the universe.
SELF TALK
Self-talk is the way we communicate with ourselves. Our self-talk can help cheer us on, motivate us, and
make us feel great both about ourselves and the world. However, it can also be negative and self-
defeating.

Sometimes I think we don’t like ourselves very much. At least that’s the way it sounds when you hear
people having conversations where they are telling others things like “I’m so stupid” or “I’m such an
idiot”. I even catch myself doing it sometimes, especially when I’ve done something that really was pretty
silly. The thing is, even though we usually do like ourselves just fine, we don’t always think about what
we say and how it will affect not only our moods, but how other people perceive us too. The more times
you tell yourself you’re stupid or an idiot or fat or ugly or any of those negative thoughts that put you
down, the easier it becomes for your subconscious mind to believe them. When that happens, no matter
what your conscious mind thinks, it’s the negative image you present to the rest of the world. And that
can have a devastating effect on your health and your wealth, as well as your self-image.