INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE

HUMAN PERSON

ACTIVITY 1: CHECK FOR UNDERSTANDING

In the western perspective, what is the most effective way to philosophize? How
about in the eastern perspective? (1-page)

Western philosophy has influenced and been influenced by Western religion,

science, mathematics, and politics over the ages. Indeed, the term "philosophy" was
formerly used to all intellectual pursuits, and the natural sciences (physics,
astronomy, and biology) were still referred to as parts of "natural philosophy" as late
as the 17th century.
It has also affected (and been influenced by) the Abrahamic religions' beliefs (Jewish
philosophy, Christian philosophy, and Islamic philosophy).
Some observers argue that Western civilization attempts to uncover and prove "the
truth," but Eastern society takes the truth as given and is more concerned with
establishing a balance. Individual rights are valued more in the West, whereas social
responsibility is valued more in the East.

When we talk about Eastern Philosophy, we're talking about the philosophies of
southern and eastern Asia, and one of the most prominent themes is Hindu influence
through Buddhism. There is plenty of classical Indian philosophy and religion before
Buddhism, such as the Vedas, and there is plenty of classical Chinese philosophy
before Buddhism arrived in China; Confucius may have lived around the same time
as the Buddha, but classical Confucianism is essentially pre-Buddhist because it
arose before Buddhism arrived in China. Buddhism, on the other hand, spread from
India to Southeast Asia, China, Korea, and Japan, among other locations, and had a
significant impact on the philosophical traditions it encountered. As a result, Hindu
influence may be found in many of the region's ideas, with Buddhism being a
heterodox school of Hinduism.
ACTIVITY 2: APPLICATION
Read on the debates between the Catholic Church and the State on the RH Law
(Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012) Is the debate a case
of two different approaches to viewing truth? Explain. (1-page)

The institutional Church's severe antagonism to RH supporters who are Roman

Catholics has had a profound impact on not only their advocacy but also their
personal views. Accounts from Catholic RH advocates reflect the difficulties they
experience as a result of criticism from their families, friends, and coworkers. After
appearing on a morning show and discussing emergency contraception and other
artificial family planning options, one RH supporter was abandoned by her mother,
who labeled her adopted, and given the quiet treatment. Others chose not to speak
up because their children attend Catholic schools. So-called pro-life groups have
stigmatized and referred to RH proponents as devils and Satans. Conservative
columnists in major newspapers label RH supporters as "doing the devil's work" and
push C4RH members to leave the church if they do not agree with the church leaders'
position on RH.
For decades, the Catholic Church has remained staunchly opposed to the
Reproductive Health Bill. Even though it has already been signed into law, the
church continues to resist it. One of the reasons the church opposes this rule is that
it is considered "anti-life." The reproductive health law promotes the use of
"contraception" and encourages the widespread distribution of sex education,
particularly among young people. Proponents of this law claim that it will address
the issue of rising teen pregnancy rates and overpopulation. Most of us see nothing
wrong with it. After all, adolescent pregnancy is becoming a social issue, and
pollution is not good for a developing country like the Philippines. Nonetheless,
regardless of what we believe, the church sees immorality and corruption in the use
of contraception, and they would not support it. They offer a better solution to the
challenges of teen pregnancy and overpopulation that is morally acceptable.
JOURNAL ENTRY:
Write a 1-page reflection paper by answering these questions:

How do you feel about knowing that there is no single method in arriving at truths?
- It must be appropriate to not have a possible instance for getting at truths. If
it does, the truth must be biased because it only focuses on one side of one's
definition of truth or a personal truth's story.
I believe that each person has his or her own version of the truth. This allows
for the respect of our individualities or personal identities, as well as the
comprehension of whatever our truth is.
Having multiple means for getting at truths creates a sense of freedom since
it allows for greater openness and broader perspectives, which would cater to
a deeper understanding and more meaningful perspectives.
Do you feel uncomfortable? Or does it give you a sense of freedom? Why?
- I'm not bothered by the fact that there is no single way to discover the truth.
Instead, it offers me a sense of freedom since the truth will set us free. Truth,
after all, is not one-sided. To say whether anything is real or false, you must
see both sides of the story.