John Ronel L.

Joven
BET-1B

PLATO
In my opinion, Plato’s perspective on the idea of “self” is actually best represented in his
theory/explanation of the “psyche.” Rather than use the word “self,” he had what some academics
call a tripartite theory of the soul. He constructed a taxonomy of spirit/logic-reason/appetite as
categories in which people in essence respond to or seek life. I am oversimplifying here, for the sake
of brevity. But, in Plato’s Republic, you dig much more deeply into his thinking. So, the self,
according to Plato, in answer to your question, are the three coexistent aspects of the soul, from
which you can understand your own desires and behaviors. For instance, if one were to say
something like, “I can’t believe I did that. That’s just not me. I found myself randomly hooking up
with the person I just met on the bus ride home. And when I left, I felt like it was really out of
character. I wasn’t being myself.” In Plato’s view, that person may have been acting like themselves,
though not working from the logical/reasoning aspect of self, but out of the appetite, the lust the
carnal hunger the passionate part of one’s self.
Others have followed Plato’s logic in the development of psychological theory and other
philosophical thinking. Freud is one the more obvious examples, with id/ego/super ego. In Plato’s
version of self, the spirit is the part of the self/soul that regulates the appetitive and is the source of
emotions like anger and other moods. In regulating various appetitive passions, the spirited region is
expressed because of either denial or acquiescence to the carnal/temporal/appetitive. These are
examples from memory, and there are much more thorough treatises of Plato’s work. But this is a
solid cursory breakdown.
 SOCRATES
Socrates believed that the “self” exists in two parts. One part is the physical, tangible aspect
of us. This is the part that is mortal and can be/is constantly changing. Earth also belongs to this
physical realm that our bodies belong in, because just as us in terms of physicality, the Earth is
constantly being modified.

The second part is the soul, which he believed to be immortal. The soul is the part that is
unvarying across all realms (it is unchanging while it is attached to your body and thus in the
physical realm, but is also unmodified once you die and your soul leaves the body to travel to the
ideal realm).

To expand on this slightly, Socrates believed that when we are in the physical realm, we are
alive and our body and soul are attached, therefore making both parts of our “self” present in the
physical realm. When we die however, our body stays in the physical realm while our soul travels to
the ideal realm, therefore making our soul immortal.

Later on, Plato (arguably Socrates’ most famous disciple) went on to not only preserve, but
expand upon the thinking of his teacher. Descartes later on came along and voiced a more modern
outlook regarding the same principles. Please do keep in mind that we have no real proof whether
these findings are truly belonging to Socrates, because most of what we know about Socrates is
through the writings and recordings of his work that Plato made.
 ARISTOTLE
Aristotle's philosophical speculation of self exists as a process of hylomorphism in which self
holds two realms of existence the physical realm which is the human body substance holding tight to
the body substance physical functions, however, not of necessity quantumly constant, and, the
metaphysical realm, which for Aristotle existed as the entelechy vital force, or, soul, of the self's
ability to actually exist itself.

The self is "soul" force pro formed into a conscious awareness of itself developing, of
necessity, multitudes of qualities of metaphysical mental awareness’s. Physically the self assumes
earthly reality practical and pragmatic earthly reality functions such as sense experience, which sense
experience, lacking conscious awareness (not yet discovering self/soul), form into sense perceptions,
sense impressions, and sense opinions of earthly reality, which, not of self/soul necessity, tell truth.
Psychologically and intellectually earthly reality self-moves into cognitive/self/soul psychological
disequilibrium and psychological dissatisfaction. Only human Mind Life (soul) absolutely, of
necessity, innately "a priori" knows truth. Physical earthly reality never knows truth because of the
multitudes of sense perceptions, sense impressions, sense opinions of earthly reality that never agree.
Metaphysical human Mind Life (soul), of self/soul existence necessity, absolutely everlastingly
knows truth. Self is soul. Soul is self. In conscious awareness order to come to know self, human
must come to recognize and to realize human Mind Life (soul) absolute everlasting truth.
 JOHN LOCKE
Locke’s major political analysis in Second Treatise of Government argues for individual
natural rights, limited government, separation of powers, and the right of people to overthrow a
failed leader. One of his most debated political philosophies from that writing is that of property,
which was regarded as the foundation of classical liberalism. His theory tried to emphasize the
importance of individual rights and limiting state authority. Locke’s concept of private property
was not always accepted and still creates controversial discussions. He places the right to
property on the same level as the right to life and liberty. Locke described property as a claim to
ownership of something. He divided the term ‘property’ into two parts: common and private. The
type most-discussed in class was his theory of private property, in which he explained that God
gave the world and everything in it was for humans to use. The earth can be used for our own
survival and benefit. However, he posits the questions of how one can attain private property
when everything on earth is supposed for be for common use? Explaining the answer to this
question was most difficult because he had to justify why some people lost the right to property
that used to be common. For individual, private property to be attainable, there must be a means
for people to appropriate the things around them. Locke starts his explanation by proposing the
idea of ‘property of person,’ meaning that each person owns his or her own body and all of the
labor they perform. Therefore, when individual people offer their own labor and their own
property to a ‘foreign’ good, that thing becomes their own property. In his essay, Locke says
“everyman has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor
of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he
removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with,
and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.”
Locke then places a limit on this way of obtaining property: a person can only
obtain property this way if they can use it reasonably, implying that one should only take as
much as one can reasonably use or take advantage of. He sets the rules that a person can only
acquire land for building a house or farm if they aren’t wasting property. That wasted propertied
could be left for common use or someone else could have the opportunity to acquire it. His
reason for identifying this limit is because “Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or
destroy.” In Alan Wolfe’s chapter one of The Future of Liberalism, he explains Locke’s opinion
that “in the beginning, all the world was America.” He believes the interpretation is a “claim that
freedom and equality would become forces too powerful to resist.” This idea became a very
significant element of liberalism, even to this day. This quotation is often used to introduce the
question of how property rights are established, however Locke was elaborating on the use of
trade in a world of obtaining property. Because John Locke’s theory of private property is
controversial, it is simple to point out weaknesses in the argument. The first, and possibly the
most obvious, weakness is questioning the idea of taking over common property. If this is
acceptable, the theory suggests that taking the property would worsen the situation of others.
Another issue that labor cannot be a clear deciding factor in claiming ownership to anything you
desire, because there have to be boundaries.
 There is, however, an inherent strength to Locke’s entire argument; there’s a reason the
theory has been so influential. He is yet another great philosopher that believes in putting the
rights of the individual before the rights of the state. Locke's treatment of property is generally
thought to be amongst his most important contributions in political thought, but it is also one of
the aspects of his thought that has been most heavily criticized. As discussed throughout this
essay, his ideas could still be considered relevant, but perhaps not in today’s society. Our society
would need a deeper understanding of Locke’s ideas and suggestions in order to take them on.
 AQUINAS
Aquinas perspective about “self” is when he discovered that happiness can only be found in
knowledge of God, and no other worldly good or pleasure can truly provide us with the ultimate
good we seek. Also, he said that the individual soul possessed intellect or knowledge, we are
capable of right acting and right living because of virtues laws. Aquinas believes in five ways or
arguments about God.
The First Way: God, the Prime Mover
The first and most manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to
our senses that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by
another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved;
whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act.
The Second Way: God, the First Cause
The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we
find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible)
in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause in itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which
is impossible.
The Third Way: God, the Necessary Being
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature
things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to be
corrupted, and consequently, it is possible for them to be or not to be.
The Fourth Way: God, the Absolute Being
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are
some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But more or less are predicated of
different things according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the
maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is
hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and
consequently, something which is most being, for those things that are greatest in truth are
greatest in being.
The Fifth Way: God, the Grand Designer
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things lack
knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or
nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.
 SIMUND FREUD
Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of personality argues that human behavior is the
result of the interactions among three component parts of the mind: the id, ego, and superego. This
theory, known as Freud’s structural theory of personality, places great emphasis on the role of
unconscious psychological conflicts in shaping behavior and personality. Dynamic interactions
among these fundamental parts of the mind are thought to progress through five distinct
psychosexual stages of development. Over the last century, however, Freud’s ideas have since
been met with criticism, in part because of his singular focus on sexuality as the main driver of
human personality development.

According to Freud, our personality develops from the interactions among what he
proposed as the three fundamental structures of the human mind: the id, ego, and superego.
Conflicts among these three structures, and our efforts to find balance among what each of them
“desires,” determines how we behave and approach the world. What balance we strike in any given
situation determines how we will resolve the conflict between two overarching behavioral
tendencies: our biological aggressive and pleasure-seeking drives vs. our socialized internal
control over those drives.

The id, the most primitive of the three structures, is concerned with instant gratification of
basic physical needs and urges. It operates entirely unconsciously (outside of conscious thought).
For example, if your id walked past a stranger eating ice cream, it would most likely take the ice
cream for itself. It doesn’t know, or care, that it is rude to take something belonging to someone
else; it would care only that you wanted the ice cream.

The superego is concerned with social rules and morals—similar to what many people call
their” conscience” or their “moral compass.” It develops as a child learns what their culture
considers right and wrong. If your superego walked past the same stranger, it would not take their
ice cream because it would know that that would be rude. However, if both your id and your
superego were involved, and your id was strong enough to override your superego’s concern, you
would still take the ice cream, but afterward you would most likely feel guilt and shame over your
actions.

The Ego, in contrast to the instinctual id and the moral superego, the ego is the rational, pragmatic
part of our personality. It is less primitive than the id and is partly conscious and partly
unconscious. It’s what Freud considered to be the “self,” and its job is to balance the demands of
the id and superego in the practical context of reality. So, if you walked past the stranger with ice
cream one more time, your ego would mediate the conflict between your id (“I want that ice cream
right now”) and superego (“It’s wrong to take someone else’s ice cream”) and decide to go buy
your own ice cream. While this may mean you have to wait 10 more minutes, which would
frustrate your id, your ego decides to make that sacrifice as part of the compromise– satisfying
your desire for ice cream while also avoiding an unpleasant social situation and potential feelings
of shame. Freud believed that the id, ego, and superego are in constant conflict and that adult
personality and behavior are rooted in the results of these internal struggles throughout childhood.
He believed that a person who has a strong ego has a healthy personality and that
imbalances in this system can lead to neurosis (what we now think of as anxiety and depression)
and unhealthy behaviors.
In his singular emphasis on the structure of the human mind, Freud paid little to no attention to the
impact of environment, sociology, or culture. His theories were highly focused on pathology and
largely ignored “normal,” healthy functioning. He has also been criticized for his myopic view of
human sexuality to the exclusion of other important factors.
Many critics point out that Freud’s theories are not supported by any empirical
(experimental) data. In fact, as researchers began to take a more scientific look at his ideas, they
found that several were unable to be supported: in order for a theory to be scientifically valid, it
must be possible to disprove (“falsify”) it with experimental evidence, and many of Freud’s notions
are not falsifiable.
Feminists and modern critics have been particularly critical of many of Freud’s theories,
pointing out that the assumptions and approaches of psychoanalytic theory are profoundly
patriarchal (male-dominated), anti-feminist, and misogynistic (anti-woman). Karen Horney, a
psychologist who followed Freud, saw the mainstream Freudian approach as having a foundation
of “masculine narcissism.” Feminist Betty Friedan referred to Freud’s concept of “penis envy” as
a purely social bias typical of the Victorian era and showed how the concept played a key role in
discrediting alternative notions of femininity in the early to mid-twentieth century.
 WESTERN THOUGHT VS ORIENTAL
THOUGHT

Eastern philosophy can seem, in contrast, exotic and romanticized to the western mind
even become “Orientalized” because the base cultural assumptions require (dare I say) a re-
orientation from early axioms and building blocks, for the western student. So, for the western
student the east seems superior, until as a mature scholar he or she can examine native traditions
in a new perspective as truly human, not parochial western, having learned what is global in
philosophical thought. And it is similar for the eastern student with one variation: western
philosophy is the imperial philosophy of dominant scientific/capitalist culture. So, it is never the
same to return to your philosophy, denigrated by the dominant culture.

This does not make western philosophy better, any more than it made the British Empire
better than its colonies, when it held so many in dominance. Britain considered this, and
presented it as natural law; the colonies, including our main Quora countries of origin of India
and the US, both disagreed, in their times. ;) It is always the unconscious assumption of a
dominant culture that their cultural artifacts are superior, and that “going native” is attractive but
to be avoided, it seems.

But I believe that philosophers, east and west, and theologians, struggle to describe subtle
problems of human experience that are basic to all humans in all cultures. Whether you describe
this as reality, God, the dharma, god head — it is as though we are seeing a nearly perfectly
transparent gem, and the great teachers of every tradition shine a beam of light on one face of
this barely translucent gem. By examining enough of these beams of light, we can eventually
intuit something of its vast geometry and beauty. And that is a path of a life worth living.

The similarities between eastern and western philosophy are greater than
any differences cited by modern-day writers and lecturers on the topic. The most often
cited difference is that western philosophy is 'fragmentary' while eastern philosophy is 'holistic'.
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.

For my own opinion Western philosophy and Oriental philosophy contribute differently to human
life. Western thought has shown that science is intersubjective, value-free, and involves a. spirit of critical
thinking. Oriental philosophy focuses upon the problem of human. finitude and the notion of wisdom.
Meanwhile Western philosophy refers to the philosophical thought and work of the Western world.
Historically, the term refers to the philosophical thinking of Western culture, beginning with the ancient
Greek philosophy of the pre-Socratics.
 WHAT HAPPENS DURING LEARNING
As we learn something new, cells that send and receive information about the task become more and more
efficient. It takes less effort for them to signal the next cell about what's going on. In a sense, the neurons become
wired together. Each and every time we learn something new our brain forms new connections and neurons and
makes existing neural pathways stronger or weaker.

Dendrites in your neurons get signals from other dendrites, and the signals travel along the axon, which
connects them to other neurons and dendrites. Learning anything new. On a physiological level, learning new things
is good for your brain. Additionally, learning new skills stimulates neurons in the brain, which forms more neural
pathways and allows electrical impulses to travel faster across them. The combination of these two things helps you
learn better.
 THE SELF AS A PRODUCT OF SOCIETY

Nowadays, self-identity is important for an individual to understand the self within

him. The basic idea about self-development is that, “The self is not present at birth, rather,
it develops while growing through social experiences”. There are theories and concepts
describing how self develops for us to understand the self and others. According to the
theory of Mead and Cooley, the self is not dependent on biological predisposition; rather,
it is a product of social interaction. It means that; relating to the basic idea, self is not
present at birth or it doesn’t come from our parents or ancestor’s trait. But it is a product
of social interaction. Base on my experience, my father has short tempered as well as my
brother, but I, I can manage my temper and stay calm. I think I developed this trait through
interaction with people with good temper like my friends around me.
Another idea from Cooley, about the looking glass. For example, based on my
experience, I’m always with my parents before and I have viewed myself as a mirror of
them. Like being good, being wise, and determined to live a life are some traits I like the
most that they have. Next is the theory of the social self. The I and the me. “I” is the
response to “me”, which is the active side of the self that represent the spontaneous and
unique traits of an individual. While the “me” is the social self. Me is the internalization of
roles which derive from such symbolic processes as linguistic interaction. The I and the
me have dynamic relationship with one another and once it has reunited, the self can attain
its full development. So, I can say that the “I” is my response to the the social side of myself
which is the “me”. For example, from socialization, i learned that the attitude that I must
apply to one environment should be strong, therefor the “I” of myself will respond to allow
myself to show the attitude that I must show. It is clear that the relationship of these two
will result in the development of the self.
Another concept according to Gerry Lanuza about our modern society that we have
freedom in choosing our self-identity. While in the postmodern societies, our self-identity
continuously changes due to the demands of multitude of social context, new information
technologies, and globalization. It means that we can freely choose what identity we want
to have for self-cultivation but there are some problems that may arise. For instance, the
limitation of close interaction if we choose not to socialize because that’s the identity we
developed.
Another concept from a sociologist Jean Baudrillard, individual achieve self-
identity through prestige symbols and we consume goods that will give us a feeling of
goodness instead of choosing our needs. It’s one of the major problems about self-identity
in our postmodern society because we tend to compare the social class we have from other
people just to feel good. We keep on finding more because we can never be satisfied in
life. In my opinion, this is the reason why many people are doing crime just to afford
something they want. Also, I’ve noticed that in today’s world, most of the dreams of many
people are; to have prestige car, house, million dollar or in short to become rich. But we
definitely forgot what’s the real reason of our life. Unfortunately, most of us forgot who
really we are as a human being because they were blinded by golds.
 Individualistic vs. Collective Self
Individualistic Cultures: ‘The squeaky wheel gets the grease’ Individualistic cultures, such as
North American and Western European countries, are characterized by a cultural perspective that
emphasizes the uniqueness of the individual’s personal characteristics, needs, and motives as the focal
point of predicting and understanding the individual’s actions. In contrast to collectivistic cultures,
individualistic cultures place more emphasis on the expression and satisfaction of the individual’s needs
than on conformity to public norms. These cultures are sometimes described as ‘complex’ societies
because people have considerable societal flexibility to join many different groups and exercise a wide
range of choices in the expression of various social roles. For example, in American society, although
parents might have certain expectations of their children to go to college, the children are relatively free to
choose a major that reflects their personal needs and interests. Due to their emphasis on the expression of
the needs and desires of the individual, such complex, individualistic cultures illustrate the proverb ‘the
squeaky wheel gets the grease’.

Collectivistic Cultures: ‘The nail that stands out gets pounded down’ In contrast to
individualistic cultures, collectivistic cultures such as Japan, India, and China tend to be characterized by
a cultural perspective that places less emphasis on the uniqueness of the individual’s personal
characteristics as the focal point of predicting and understanding the individual’s actions. Instead, such
cultures place more of an emphasis on the person’s identification with a group, such as family, country,
occupation, or caste, and the expectations, duties, and roles associated with being a member of a group as
the primary source for understanding the individual (Benet-Martínez & Oishi, 2008). These cultures
appear as ‘tight’ societies because of the high expectations they place on people to conform to societal
values, roles, and norms. For example, even though she may not like studying economics, a young
Japanese college student may pursue a career as an economist to fulfill the wishes of the elder members of
her family. Due to their restrictive nature, such tight, collectivistic cultures illustrate the proverb ‘the nail
that stands out gets pounded down’.