Philosophy
of knowledge, reality, and existence. A
MIDTERM COVERAGE
1.Doing philosophy
2.Methods of philosophizing
3.Human person as embodied spirits
4.Human person in the environment
DOING PHILOSOPHY…
Philosophy Defined
Literally, the term "philosophy" means,
"love of wisdom." The word is derived from
two Greek words philos (love) and sophia
(wisdom). The term was first used by
Pythagoras of Samos, the renowned
mathematician, philosopher and religious
leader. Before Pythagoras, people who
engaged in the activity of thinking were simply
called thinkers. Philosophy originated from
Greece.
Green asserts that Philosophy is the
academic of anything. (Green, 2016) To be
clarified, philosophy is an encompassing
discipline dealing with things in the universe.
It is concerned with the most fundamental
questions of everything: what’s the nature of
reality? What is reality? Even the question
“Who am I?” is philosophical. Fundamental
means basic, primary, first, principal. In that
sense, philosophy aims to ask and answer the
fundamental question of things in order to
arrive at the truth.
The study of the fundamental nature
Before going further, there are two
particular system of philosophical thought.
The study of the theoretical basis of a
particular branch of knowledge or experience.
Philosophy is an activity people undertake
when they seek to understand fundamental
truths about themselves, the world in which
they live, and their relationships to the world
and to each other. (FSU, n.d.) In this regard,
philosophy can be considered as an art. It is a
skill. In the video, Green emphasize the use
of logic in this discipline. Those who study
philosophy are perpetually engaged in asking,
answering, and arguing for their answers to
life’s most basic questions. To make such a
pursuit more systematic academic philosophy
is traditionally divided into major areas of
study.
Philosophy is different from other
sciences (empirical science in that matter).
However, philosophy aids other sciences by
providing them with the fundamental ideas to
which major scientific discoveries, principles
are anchored. To name a few, there was
already a theory of evolution even before
Darwin when Thales asserted that the
universe originated from moist and argued
that the first organisms thrived in water before
the adapted in other environments.
In addition, philosophy and science
are also similar as a body of knowledge
based on the world but differ in approach in
coming up with this knowledge.
What is the Concern of Philosophy?
methods that need to be considered in the
doing philosophy. Firstly, try to understand.
Agreeing to every idea presented in this
course is not necessary. Trying to understand
means questioning the idea of what it is rather
than simply accepting them. Secondly, do a
critical evaluation on the understanding of the
presented idea. It is by challenging one’s own
and other people’s understanding of the world
that one can properly decide on the view
worth having. (Green, 2016) Having said that,
let’s go back to the activity. Would it be
sufficient to say that it is the object after
pointing some qualities viewed from your side?
What if someone views the object from
another angle and pointed out some qualities
that you have never mentioned, would it be
sufficient that you are viewing different objects?
Another example, supposed that you
are interested and are planning to buy the
book Eleven Minutes by Paulo Coelho,
however, you have heard from friends and
have read some reviews that the book is too
vulgar and doesn’t have a good content. Will
you still buy for the book? What makes a
good book? Most of you, if not all, heard of
the quote, “Don’t judge the book by its cover.”
What makes a good book is not simply based
on how attractive the cover looks. Sometimes
the book with a boring cover is the most
interesting and the best to read. Going back
to the question, what makes a good book?
How will you challenge other people’s opinion
with regard to the book? The best way to do
in order to challenge the pre-existing reviews
about it is to read the book yourself and do
your own review of the book’s content.
In answering questions, reasoning
doesn’t leap into something critical in an
instance. It would start from a basic
assumption before it develops into a
comprehensive analysis on the matter of the
question. Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator
and philosopher, asserts that knowledge
would start from a naïve understanding of
reality, then develops into a critical knowledge
of things. (Diaz, n.d.) In this regard, we shall
now, distinguish the difference between a
naïve understanding or more commonly
known as partial perspective and critical
understanding or also known as holistic
perspective.
Holistic perspective – It is an analytical and
critical reflection and assumption reality which
maximizes information and/or established
relevant facts, values and beliefs in order to
look at reality’s bigger picture.
Partial perspective – It is a naïve opinion or
assumption reality that is based on mere
observations, or sense experiences.
For instance, if someone is asked,
“What is love?” Most likely, the person would
answer the by describing love based on his
own experience. Since that person is head
over heels to his/her partner, perhaps his/her
answer would be, “Love is that intense and
deep affection which sticks to someone like a
bubblegum and it makes the person crazy in
removing it.” However, that experience may or
may not be someone else’s experience.
Some would argue that love is pain or love is
a mystery. Those answers, therefore, are
partial perspectives of love. Those answers
coming from individual experiences are not
incorrect. They are parts of a holistic
viewpoint about love. Going back to the
question “what is love?”, the core of the
question is not on the matter of love
experiences but on the nature of the
phenomenon itself. In an attempt to answer
the question in a more wholesome view,
Max Scheler asserted that love is an
irreducible phenomenon that cannot be
identified with striving, desiring, longing. Love
is primarily a spiritual act that is a movement.
Love is that movement wherein every
concrete individual object that possesses
value achieves the highest value compatible
with its nature and ideal vocation; or wherein
it attains the ideal state of value intrinsic to its
nature. (Nota, 2013) In this regard, those
individual assertions on love describe and
elaborate Scheler’s notion of love.
Branches of Philosophy
Philosophy is divided into three majordivisions:
Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Value
Theory. The table below shows the difference
of the three division including the subdivisions
of Value Theory.
Metaphysics
It is the study of the nature of reality or beings
as such which includes what exists in the
world, what it is like, and how it is ordered.
Sample concepts include: time, motion,
change, being, essence, nature, operation,
quality, transcendence, etc.
Epistemology
It is the study of the scope and nature
ofknowledge. It is primarily concerned with
what we can know about the world and how
can we know it and how do we know it.
Sample concepts include: truth, validity,
certitude/certainty, knowing process, idea,
mind, etc.
Value Theory
This frames the way man thinks how he does
things.
Ethics
It studies and evaluates human conduct. It
often concerns what we ought to do and what
it would be best to do. In struggling with this
issue, larger questions about what is good
and right arise.
Sample concepts include: moral, rightness,
human acts, freedom, responsibility,
conscience, etc.
Aesthetics
It is the study of the nature of beauty and of
art.
Sample concepts include: symmetry,
balance, harmony, measure, etc.
 Some books claim that Logic is a
branch of philosophy. However, Aristotle, the
philosopher who made Logic, asserted that
Logic is not philosophy but a tool of
philosophy. It is about proper reasoning,
giving strong arguments guided by some rules
and guidelines in a categorical and
hypothetical argument.
One of the many questions asked in
philosophy is the question of reality. This
question is not only concerning about what is
real and what is not but more into the nature
of reality. Metaphysics, as we have discussed
in the previous module, talks about reality or
beings as such. This branch of Philosophy
deals with the study of fundamental principles
of being. Ontology, on the other hand, is a
branch of Metaphysics which studies about
the existence of being, what is real, and what
is being real and the relation of realities to
other forms of reality. Metaphysics and all its
branches, particularly Ontology, answers,
discusses and attempts to suffice the question
of reality.
Reality refers to the state of existence of
things independent of human consciousness.
Reality is something that exists outside of the
human mind, regardless if the human mind
perceives it or not. Reality is divided into two:
concrete and abstract.
Concrete realities are that which exists
physically and can be experienced as they
are through our sense experience. Examples
of concrete realities are books, chairs, plants,
mug, coffee, and people.
Abstract realities are that which subsist in the
head as an idea. Concrete realities may
represent them but not experience them as
such. Examples are numbers, shapes,
feelings, love.
CERTAINTY
Questions of certainty
How do we know what we know?
Are the things that we know true?
Certainty is another concern that
philosophy is trying to explain and understand.
Certainty refers to a perfect knowledge that is
free from error or doubt. The central issue of
certainty is truth: when does an idea be true?
Where does truth reside? Accordingly, varied
theory of knowledge tried to assert answers
on how truth can be attained. These schools
classified knowledge based on how we obtain
them. Rationalism, a theory of knowledge,
believes that knowledge is a priori, i.e, based
on pure reasoning without the benefit of any
sense experience. Truth can only be known
using our minds alone. To rely truth on what
the senses experience has rooms for error
and deception. As such, only the knowledge
perceived by the mind can be considered true.
On the other hand, Empiricism, another
theory of knowledge, refutes the rationalist’s
claim in arguing that truth is known through
man’s sense experience. Man is surrounded
by truth and it comes to our minds through the
senses. Thus, for the empiricists, knowledge
is a posteriori.
How does an idea come to our minds
passing through the senses? Aristotle
demonstrated the process of knowing which
he calls as ideogenesis.
A criticism was raised with the
assertions made by the two schools of
thought concerning knowledge and truth. It is
indeed that knowledge can be drawn out from
sense experiences and that there are realities
only accessible and are known by the mind
alone. However, these two classifications are
deemed problematic. It is true that
“knowledge starts with experience, however, it
does not follow that it all arises out of
experience.” (Stumpf, 2008) In this regard,
Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher,
conceptualize that apart from the
classifications of knowledge, there are also
classifications of judgment to which our
knowledge is expressed. Judgment, for Kant,
is an operation of thought whereby we
connect a subject and a predicate, where the
predicate qualifies in some way the subject.
Judgments of knowledge are either analytic or
synthetic.
If the predicate is already contained in
the concept of the subject, that judgment is
considered analytic. For instance, a triangle
has three sides and three angles. The
predicate does not create a new idea of the
subject. Thus this notion is analytic. If the
predicate is not necessarily contained in the
subject but adds a new concept to the subject,
then that judgment is considered synthetic.
For instance, the leaves are green. The
concept “leaves” does not necessarily mean
the idea of greenness because there are
leaves that are not green. Thus, other colors
create a new concept of the concept leaves.
According to Kant, all a posteriori knowledge
are synthetic judgments while most of the a
priori knowledge are analytic judgments.
However, there is another form of judgment
that are both innate and experiential. Kant
calls it synthetic a priori. Synthetic judgments
are based on the experience however since a
priori is innate, it creates a new idea to an
existing notion/ideas in the mind. Intuition
plays an important role in the formation of this
judgment for it is the one that synthesizes the
innate idea to that of the experience. For
instance, “That a straight line between two
points is the shortest.” The notion of straight is
completely a priori however shortness is
totally synthetic for there is no exact criterion
for such idea for it to be analytic. Thus, the
judgment is an example of synthetic a priori
judgment.
CAUSALITY
To point out, experience is inseparable from
reason for knowledge are verified either in its
validity or connection with reality.
Questions of causality
What is the ultimate cause of things?
What is our purpose in this world?
To what extent are our choices and
actions considered free?
Causality is one of the pressing topics
in philosophy: the connection of phenomena
one after the other. A cause is defined as the
positive principle from which a thing really
proceeds as regards dependence in the
existence. As what Kant argues contrary to
his predecessor, causality is a synthetic a
priori judgment. It is not just a mere product of
connection of impressions. Causality is
analyzed and is synthesized by examining
events one. With this analysis, the concept of
cause-and-effect relationship is created.
There are four varied types of causes:
material cause, formal cause, efficient cause,
and final cause. Material cause refers to that
of which a thing is made. Formal cause
refers to the specification and definition of
material causes. Efficient cause which is
also known as agent cause is the principle
from which motion/movement/action first flows.
This definition of efficient cause has reference
to the order of execution. Efficient cause is
divided into two sub-classifications namely:
principal cause (the cause which acts by its
own power) and instrumental cause (the
cause which does not act by its own power
but is moved by the principal cuase). Lastly,
there is the final cause which is the principle
for the sake of which a thing is done. Final
cause is also known as the purpose or
intention or end for which a thing is made or
an action is done or performed.
The relationship of cause and effect
in nature operates via determinism (realities
move towards an end accordingly). Every
event is conditioned by a prior event.
However, man as an agent is capable of
governing his own actions compared to how
other beings move. man can alter the
movement towards an end because of his
freedom. In this case, man is called a free
agent. Man is capable of creating options and
making decisions which define his actions.
Man chooses his actions from the lineup of
options who created. As such, man can freely
determine his own life and purpose (self-
determination)
MORALITY
Questions of morality
How should one live his or her life?
What is the right course of action in
the face of problems or dilemmas?
Another significant problem that
Philosophy tackles is the question of morality:
what makes a good action from an evil one?
Is there an objectivity with regard to morality?
Ethics deals with the standards of moral
rectitude of human actions. Human actions
are defined as consciously and voluntarily
performed actions of man. These actions are
done with the intervention of man’s intellect
and will. Thus, these actions are called
personal acts. In contrast to human acts, acts
of man are actions that happen without the
intervention of the intellect and the will.
Ethics seeks to formulate a set of standards
and norms of what is “acceptable”, “correct”,
and “good”. The morality of human actions is
interpreted differently. Some philosophers
based the judgment of morality on the
alignment of human actions to truth and the
dictates of reason and conscience. Some
asserted that moral correctness of an act is
rooted on the categorical imperative in which
we ought to act. Others claimed that the
judgment of morality is based on the quality
and quantity of pleasure that the action affects
to others. At the core of every moral standard
is man who possess inalienable rights rooted
in his freedom and person. The goal of ethics
is lead man to live a happy life in the midst of
others and other socio-political factors.
Development of Philosophy
WESTERN PHILOSOPHY
The study of philosophy involves not
only forming one’s own answers to such
questions, but also seeking to understand the
way in which people have answered such
questions in the past.
Before the rise of thinkers, the Greek
society was highly influenced by the bards.
Bards were storytellers who could tell the
mysteries of the gods and goddesses through
recited songs and poems. (Doorley, 2005)
Two of the famous bards in Greece were
Homer and Hesiod. Both bards assumed that
the world is governed by the gods and
goddesses of Olympus. The diagram below development of Philosophy in ancient Greece.
shows the similarity and difference of these
bards’ divine intervention in the world.
Bottom line, both bards asserted that
the world is highly influenced by the gods.
They direct the lives of men by setting an
order in the universe and that men are judged
and are punished if they commit
insubordination.
The course of history and beliefs
suddenly shifted when man started to explore
man’s reasoning capacity to look for answers
to questions concerning the universe. To
mention, Thales, the first known philosopher
of the West, started to inquire regarding the
origins of the universe by asking the question:
What comprises the nature of things? What
does the universe is made of? These
questions may sound naïve, however, it
slowly tried to eliminate the answer that the
universe came and originated from the gods
and started to search for tangible answers to
suffice the question. From that simple
question, the period of philosophy began.
Thus, philosophy or by that time it was called As philosophy continues to develop,
thinking revolutionized the Greek society different schools of thought with varied
which caused the influence of the bards to perspectives of humanism and other
decline. The table below shows the philosophical topics started to emerge. Here
are some of the schools of thought
established during and after the time Plato
and Aristotle. Most of these schools had
Socratic lineage and stressed on the
attainment of a blessed and virtuous life

Western or Continental philosophy
continues to develop as it progresses until
today. Varied schools rose and developed
various concepts on different themes. Some
them developed existing themes while others
contested. At this point, you are going to
create a Timeline of Thought indicating the
development of Continental Philosophy from
the after the ancient period until the present.
EASTERN / ORIENTAL
PHILOSOPHY
Philosophy flourished in the western
world like wildfire. On the other hand, the
eastern world developed its own philosophical
concepts and inquiries independently. What
made Eastern philosophy to that of Western
though is the emphasis of practicality, moral
living, and in shaping one’s life. (Muehlhauser,
2020) moreover, Oriental thought is closely
linked that some scholars treat some oriental
views more of a religion than of a philosophy.
Ancient Indian Philosophy
Indian philosophy is divided into two
darshana (systems): astika (orthodox) which
is highly influenced by the Vedas: the sacred
book of Hinduism, and nastika (heterodox)
which reject Vedic thought. Each of these
systems is composed of varied schools.
Astika is comprised of Sankhya, Yoga,
Nastika (Heterodox Systems)
Vedanta, Mimamsa, Nyaya, and Vaisheshika.
On the other hand, nastika includes Jainism,
Buddhism, and Lokayata. Unlike Continental
philosophy, Indian philosophy is made up of
ancient texts whose authors and date of
composition were mostly unknown.
Ancient Chinese Philosophy
Take note that most of the Indian
schools agreed to the doctrine of karma
Ancient Chinese Philosophy refers to
(action) and samsara (reincarnation). Karma
the philosophical systems that were
teaches that every action creates a
developed and flourished during the era of the
consequence (the fruit of karma). Meanwhile,
Hundred Schools of Thought when varied
samsara explains that
sages established schools during the Spring
humans have passed from birth to birth from
and Autumn Period (c. 772-476 BCE) and the
eternity. The goal of these systems except
Warring States Period (c. 481-221 BCE).
Lokayata is the liberation of from all forms of
(Mark, 2020) The term Hundred Schools of
suffering and to get out of the reincarnation
Thought is figuratively used to mean “many”.
cycle called moksha (in Buddhism: Nirvana).
There are ten major schools of thought during
the era and they were: Renjia (Confucianism),
Astika (Orthodox Systems) Taojia (Taoism), Fajia (Legalism), Mojia
(Mohism), Mingjia (School of Names),
Yinyangjia (Yin yang School), Xiaoshuojia
(School of Minor Talks), Zonghengjia (School
of Diplomacy), Nongjia (Agriculturalism), and
Zajia (Syncretism).
Apart from the major schools, there
were minor schools which attracted followers
however they were not formally established:
Yangism (Hedonist School), Relativism,
School of Medicine, and Bingjia (School of
Military). For this lesson, we will focus more
on the ten schools and the Military School.
Ten Major Schools and Bingjia
Japanese Philosophy
Japanese has understood philosophy
as a way of engaging reality rather than a
detached method of studying it. (Kasulis,
2019) Japanese thinkers are personally
engaged with reality. They fathom reality by
working within it rather than of the one who
tries to understand it by standing apart. There
are three hallmarks of Japanese philosophy
namely: internal relations, holographic
relations, and assimilation.
Hallmarks of Japanese Philosophy:
1. Internal relations – Japanese thinkers
assume that realities are internally related and
they start their examination at how these
realities internally overlap other than of
considering realities as mere additional. For
instance, Japanese thinkers assume that
even though the body and mind can be
distinguished, they are internally related and
not be treated as separate concepts. The
mind is not fully the mind without the somatic
functions of the body same as the body is not
fully the body without mental operations.
2. Holographic relations – Japanese
thinkers relate the internal relation of realities
to that of a jigsaw puzzle. Each piece of the
puzzle bears the form of the other. In this
regard, the internal relation of realities is
holographic (holo- meaning whole and –graph
meaning inscribed) as each parts contain the
information of the whole and the whole bears
every information of the parts. A clearer
analogy of this concept is the information of
identity in a drop of a person’s blood.
3. Assimilation – Japanese thinkers deal
with opposing views not by refuting the
opposing standpoint but by reaffirming and
assimilating the opposing view to the original
contention. This kind of tactic in philosophical
debate used by the Japanese is likened to
Japanese game of go in which the player wins
the game by encircling the opponent’s stones
until all are captured and none remain. There
are three kinds of processes in assimilation:
allocation, relegation, and hybridization.
 Allocation – Two opposing views are
accepted without major alteration but
conflict is avoided by restricting each to
its own clearly defined disjunctive domain.
Shinto philosophy had been flourishing in
Japan but when Confucianism and
Buddhism came into the country, it
allowed these philosophies to influence
Japanese thought by allocating socio-
political issues to Confucianism while
Buddhism dealt with epistemological and
psychological concerns.
 Relegation – The position of the other is
fully accepted but as an incomplete part
of the whole picture and that the original
theory contained it all along. In this
regard, the opposing view becomes a
part of the original view.
 Hybridization – This process creates or
gives birth to new philosophy. Though its
roots are traceable, it can’t return to its
opposing forms. It leaves neither the
original theory nor its opposing rival
theory intact. Bushido is an example of a
Japanese hybrid philosophy which is
born out of Confucianism, Buddhism and
 Proto-Shinto combined. Later on,
Bushido became an independent and
separate philosophy as it develops.
Five Fountainheads of Japanese
Thought
Basically, Japan, just like the ancient
China, established its own cultural and
philosophical development without foreign
influence. Japanese thought is deeply rooted
in Shintoism. As time progressed, the
Japanese philosophical thought gained
influences from its neighboring countries,
China and Korea. However, Shinto remained
the benchmark of assimilating ideas and
eventually, gave birth to another system.
Japanese philosophy was also
influenced by Western thought which became
the standard of newly established Japanese
universities patterned after Western models.
However, by assimilation, Japanese thinkers
take bits of pieces from Western thought to be
part and to enhance pre-existing philosophical
systems in Japan.
METHODS OF PHILOSOPHIZING
INTRODUCTION:
The truth about reality has been on a
hot seat in the philosophical world since the
day it begun. Various thinkers assumed their
own propositions concerning the topic. As
philosophy developed, thinkers constantly
debunk and develop pre-existing theories of
knowledge. It is easier to validate a judgment
of knowledge. Basing on Immanuel Kant’s
assumption, knowledge is inseparable to
experience and that the mind operates in
order to grasp the truth of the experience. Still,
this issue has maintained its position as one
of the leading controversies in the
philosophical realm.
Even though philosophers grapple on
grasping the truth about truth, they still
provide logical explanations in their
theories. They use varied methods insuring
that their arguments are valid and are leading
to one single proposition.
Similar to Sheldon in the episode
about the Hamburger Postulate, philosophers
use methods in justifying the proposition on
the truth that they want to propose/elaborate.
Using postulates like Sheldon does is one of
them. There are varied ways on how to justify
one’s proposition. In this lesson, we will talk
about some of the common methods
maximized by philosophers in philosophizing.
Here are some of the methods that
philosophers use. These methods are not
only useful in philosophy but are also useful to
life.
1. Systematic Doubt (Methodic Doubt).
Philosophers employ a skeptical attitude in
looking at ideas, events,
or things. Each aspect of the topic in question
is analyzed to determine its validity or
truthfulness. This method was created by
Rene Descartes who incorporated the use of
doubt in his theory of knowledge. Doubting is
the initial step towards investigating for what
is true.
2. Socratic Method. It is a didactic dialogue
of questioning that is expressed in the critical
examination and cross-examination of the
positions of every participant in the dialogue.
This method was formulated by Socrates.
Socrates adhered to the notion that man does
not know new things about the universe. He
knows everything about it however he forgot
them. Thus, the didactic dialogue of Socrates
intends not to convey new truth but only as a
guide in arriving at the truth. Socrates calls
this method Maieutic or “intellectual midwifery.”
The Socratic Method is a way of thinking that
involves three important steps in arriving at
the truth. In the first step, give an initial
definition of a thing or a concept. For
example, a table is a four-legged furniture. In
the second step, look for those
characteristics of the thing that are not
captured in the initial definition. For
example, we may ask the question: “Is the
table a cow?” We raise this question because
if our initial definition of the concept of a table
is based solely on the idea of “four legs,” then
it follows that anything that has four legs can
be called a table. But is a cow really a table
simply because it has four legs? Obviously
not. This question would lead us to the third
step, give additional or new definition of
the thing/reality. Thus, we may say: “A table
is a four-legged furniture, made up of wood
and has a flat surface.”
To put it simply, Socratic method is
analyzing a topic by formulating a series of
questions designed to analyze its various
aspects and examine and clarify a person’s
views on it.
3. Arguments. These are discourses which
prove something (the conclusion) on the basis
of certain facts or propositions (the premises).
It can be expressed either verbally or in
written form. (Jayme, 1994) Arguments
involve premise (propositions used to justify a
conclusion), and conclusion. In every premise,
there is a proposition (meaning of a given
sentence). They need to be formally and
materially correct. Formal correctness refers
to the logical connection among propositions
such that one proposition (the conclusion)
follows necessarily from the other
propositions. Hank Green calls this
connection of necessity as entailment.
(Green, 2016) On the other hand, material
correctness refers to the truth of the
proposition in every premise and the
conclusion. There are two types of arguments:
3.1 Deductive
Arguments. It is a
type of an argument which starts from a
universal truth to a less universal (particular)
truth. Hank Green, in his crash course,
provided a discussion of what deductive
argument is.
Deductive argument can provide clear
answers. It requires a general information to
give a specific conclusion. This argument is
classified into two types: categorical
arguments and hypothetical arguments.
3.1.1 Categorical Arguments. It is an
argument which proceeds from statements
concerning the relationship of the two terms to
a third term, to a conclusion concerning the
relationship of two terms to each other. There
are some basic elements in a categorical
argument that need to be noted:
Minor Term (S) is the subject of the
conclusion. It is either the subject or the
predicate of the minor premise.
Major Term (P) is the predicate of the
conclusion. It is either the subject or predicate
of the major premise.
Middle Term (M) occurs/appears in both
major and minor premises but not in the
conclusion. It is the third term that is
distributed and compared to the two prior
terms.
Major Premise is the proposition containing
the major and middle terms. Minor Premise
is the proposition containing the minor and
middle terms. The conclusion is the
statement being proved. It contains the major
and the minor terms.
In addition, premises in a categorical
argument vary in terms of quantity and
quality. In terms of quantity, it is either
universal or particular. Quantity is determined
by looking at the subject of the premise. In
terms of quality, it is either affirmative or
negative. Quality is determined by looking at
the verb or copula (a term that constitutes the
formal element of the proposition because it
either affirms or denies the subject in relation
to the predicate). (Check the document
attached to this module for the examples of
quantity.)
Eg.
All communists are socialists.
A (quantity: universal | quality: affirmative)
No vegan is a carnivore.
E (quantity: universal | quality: negative)
Some birds are capable of flying.
I (quantity: particular | quality: affirmative)
Some reptiles are not bipedal.
O (quantity: particular | quality: negative)
With regard to entailment of the conclusion, if
one of the premises is negative, the
conclusion should also be negative. Similarly,
if one of the premises is particular, the
conclusion should also be particular. No valid
conclusions can be drawn out from two
negative and two particular premises. (Check
the document attached to this module for the
Rules of a Valid Categorical Syllogism)
3.1.2 Hypothetical Arguments. It is an
argument whose first premise is a sequential
or a hypothetical proposition, one member of
which is affirmed or denied in the second
premise and the other member of which is
consequently affirmed or denied in the
conclusion. In a hypothetical syllogism, at
least the first premise must be a hypothetical
or sequential proposition. The other
propositions may or may not be hypothetical.
Eg.
If man were God, then he would be all-
knowing. (Major premise / Hypothetical
premise)
But man is not all-knowing. (Minor premise)
Therefore, he is not a God. (Conclusion)
The first premise of a hypothetical syllogism is
analogously called the major premise
however, in a strict sense, there is no major
nor minor premise in a hypothetical syllogism
since there is no major nor minor term in it.
There are three distinct kinds of hypothetical
syllogism namely: conditional, disjunctive,
and conjunctive syllogisms. Each of these
kinds has their own set of rules.
A conditional syllogism contains the
conditional proposition of the argument for its
major premise. There are also five kinds of
conditional syllogisms: simple conditional,
reciprocal conditional, biconditional, pure
conditional, and conditional sorites. (Check
the attached document for the other samples)
Eg.
If a being reacts to stimuli, then it is endowed
with senses.
If a being reacts to stimuli, then it is alive.
Ergo, if a being is alive, then it is endowed
with senses
A disjunctive syllogism is an argument in
which the major premise is a disjunctive
(disuniting) proposition and the minor premise
and the conclusion are categorical syllogism.
There are two types of disjunctive syllogisms:
perfect disjunctive syllogism and imperfect
disjunctive syllogism. (Check the attached
document for samples.)
Eg.
This argument is either valid or invalid. (major
premise containing the disjunctive
propositions)
This argument is vaild. (minor premise which
is categorical)
Therefore, it is not invalid. (conclusion which
is also categorical)
The last kind of a hypothetical syllogism is
conjunctive. In a conjunctive syllogism, the
major premise expresses the alternatives that
cannot be true at the same time. Its minor
premise either affirms or denies one of the
alternatives and the conclusion consequently
affirms or denies the other.
Eg.
You cannot be in the Cebu city and, at the
same moment, present in your house in
Carcar.
You are in Carcar.
Therefore, you are not in Cebu City.
3.2 Inductive Argument. It is a type of
arguments which proceed from a sufficient
number of particular instances to a universal
truth. Hank Green also explains this argument
in his crash course.
Inductive argument relies in the
predictability of nature to reveal that future is
likely to resemble the past. Inductive
arguments work in terms of probability:
chances of what’s likely to happen. There are
no definite rules of induction that are
comparable to those of deduction. The validity
of the argument lies on the number of
particular situations to draw out a more likely
true conclusion. There are three kinds of
inductive arguments: complete induction,
incomplete induction, and argument by
analogy.
3.2.1 Complete Induction or Induction by
Complete Enumeration is when a universal
statement is drawn out from the basis of
enumeration of all particular instances that
comprise that certain universal.
Eg. Seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and
touching are all tied up with certain material
organs. But seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling,
and touching constitute all our sense
functions. Thus, every sense function is tied
up with a certain material organ.
3.2.2 Incomplete Induction involves the
passing from the truth of a particular number
of instances to a number of universal truth.
Eg. A gallon of unsaturated water boils at
100°C at STP. Similarly, a glass of water boils
at the same temperature at STP. Therefore,
unsaturated water boils at 100°C at STP
regardless of volume.
3.2.3 Argument by Analogy or
Resemblance concludes from the similarity of
two or more things in one or more aspects to
the similarity of these things in other aspects.
Eg. Three years ago, Mr. Katibayan bought a
TV set of a certain brand and model from a
certain store, and the set has never given him
any trouble at all. So, Mr. Carpio’s newly
bought TV set which is of the same brand and
model and bought from the same store would
also be trouble-free for some time.
4. Occam’s Razor. It is a problem-solving
device used in analyzing possible
explanations regarding phenomenon. The
principle states that among possible
explanations, the one which has the least
assumptions is the most acceptable. This was
made by an English philosopher and
theologian named Willam of Ockham. This
device operates using a reasoning method
called abduction.
Abduction is drawing a conclusion
based on explanation that explains a state of
events, rather than evidence provided by the
premises. Abduction doesn’t give certainty but
is useful way to get through puzzling
situations when evidences from the past are
not present or at hand. It is an inference to the
best explanation. (Green, 2016)
Eg of Occam’s Razor:
Case: The tire on the car is flat.
Possible explanations: The screw stuck in
the tire wall let the air out; Serial tireflatteners
sliced it open with a laser scalpel, creating an
imperceptible hole, then inserted the screw in
another part of the tire to mark their victory.
Between the two possible
explanations, the first one is the most
probable or likely to happen. In this case, the
first one is the most probable one that happen.
However, logicians commented on this device
that the simple is not always the probable
cause or the truth of the incident. Whereas in
abduction, it reasons by identifying possible
explanations until explanations are reduced to
one given the evidence.
Eg of Abduction:
Case: You and your roommate ate some bad
sushi last night.
Both of you woke up with violent stomach
aches.
You and your roommate ate some bad sushi.
(Green, 2016)
Technically, in abduction, there are
several explanations ruled out however, the
explanations are reduced to one like in the
example since there are evidences which
pointed out as the cause of the stomachache.
Abduction doesn’t provide certainty since it
plays with the probable causes. These causes
need to be proven for them to be certain.
5. Thought experiment. These are imagines
scenarios used to illustrate a certain problem
or describe a theory. They are often
communicated in narrative form, frequently
with diagrams. (Brown, 2019) It is important to
look into the connection of the imaginary
scenario to the notion/concept it tries to
describe.
 The trolley problem is one of the
common thought experiments which
discusses talks about moral judgments.
Varied ethical perspectives provide different
solutions to resolve this dilemma. Another
example of thought experiment is the one use
by Green in his crash course when he
discussed about Aristotle’s Principle of the
Golden Mean/Just
Middle.
The Trolley dilemma is one of the many examples of
thought experiments used in Philosophy
These methods are used by
philosophers in order to justify, validate, and
elaborate the truth that they want to propose.
They also useful and helpful in any situation
that requires us to express our points of view
and/or propositions on certain issues, topics,
or even in debates. However, there are times
that our arguments diverted from the topics of
discourse or turned out to be illogical and they
don’t make sense at all. These arguments
that turn out of the topic and are invalid and
illogical are called fallacies.
By proper definition, fallacies are
deceptive arguments that seem to be correct
but are actually incorrect and inconclusive.
They are statements that might sound
reasonable or true but are actually flawed or
dishonest. When readers detect them, these
logical fallacies backfire by making the
audience think the writer is (a) unintelligent or
(b) deceptive. The term is derived from the
Latin word “fallo” which means “I deceive.”
There are varied kinds of fallacies however
the most common committed by interlocutors
(people who engaged in a dialogue, debate,
or conversation) are the following:
1. Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the
argument to antiquity or tradition) also known
as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways Are Best,
Fallacious Appeal to the Past. This is the
familiar argument that some policy, behavior,
or practice is right or acceptable because "it's
always been done that way." This is an
extremely popular fallacy. This sort of
“reasoning” is fallacious because the age of
something does not automatically make it
correct or better than something newer.
Examples:
 The theory that witches and demons causes
disease is far older than the theory that
microorganism diseases. Therefore, the
theory about witches and demons must be
true.
 Sure I believe in God. People have believed
in God for thousands of years so it seems
clear that God must exist. After all, why else
would the belief last so long?
2. Argumentum ad hominem (argument
directed at the person) also Known as: Ad
Hominem Abusive, Personal Attack. This is
the error of attacking the character or motives
of a person who has stated an idea, rather
than the idea itself. Argumentum ad hominem
literally means "argument directed at the man";
there are two varieties. The first is the abusive
form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and
justify your refusal by criticizing the person
who made the statement, then you are guilty
of abusive argumentum ad hominem.
Example:
 You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I
happen to know that you abandoned your wife
and children. (This is a fallacy because the
truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the
virtues of the person asserting it.)
A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is
to reject a proposition based on the fact that it
was also asserted by some other easily
criticized person.
Example:
 Therefore, we should close down the church?
Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you
Circumstantial argumentum ad hominem is
to try and persuade someone to accept a
statement you make, by referring to that
person's particular circumstances. The fallacy
can also be used as an excuse to reject a
particular conclusion.
Example:
 Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to kill
animals for food. I hope you won't argue
otherwise, given that you're quite happy to
wear leather shoes.
 Of course you'd argue that positive
discrimination is a bad thing. You're white.
This particular form of Argumentum
ad Hominem, when you allege that someone
is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish
reasons, is also known as "poisoning the
well." It's not always invalid to refer to the
circumstances of an individual who is making
a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar,
that fact will reduce their credibility as a
witness. It won't, however, prove that their
testimony is false in this case. It also won't
alter the soundness of any logical arguments
they may make.
3. Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument
to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming
something is true simply because it hasn't
been proven false. For example, someone
might argue that global warming is certainly
occurring because nobody has demonstrated
conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove
the global warming theory false is not the
same as proving it true.
Example:
 You cannot prove that God does not exist,
so He does.
4. Argumentum ad misericordiam
(argument or appeal to pity) is a fallacy in
which a person substitutes a claim intended to
create pity for evidence in an argument. This
fallacy should be noted when the argument
relies on appeals to pity to the exclusion of
the other necessary arguments.
Example:
 I should receive an ‘A’ in this class. After all,
if I don’t get an ‘A’ I won’t get the scholarship
that I need to finish my studies.
5. Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to
the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition). This is
the fallacy of trying to prove something by
saying it again and again. But no matter how
many times you repeat something, it will not
become any more or less true than it was in
the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to
state the truth again and again; what is
fallacious is to expect the repetition alone to
substitute for real arguments. Nonetheless,
this is a very popular fallacy, and with good
reason: the more times you say something,
the more likely it is that people will remember
it.
Example:
 Our opponents tell us drugs are wrong,
drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and
again and again. But this argumentum ad
nauseam can't and won't win this debate for
them, because they've given us no
justification for their bald assertions!"
6. Argumentum ad populum (argument or
appeal to people). Using an appeal to popular
assent, often by arousing the feelings and
enthusiasm of the multitude rather than
building an argument. There are three (3)
basic approaches.
a. Bandwagon Approach - This fallacy is the
attempt to prove something by showing how
many people think that it's true. But no matter
how many people believe something, that
doesn't necessarily make it true or right.
Examples:
 At least 70% of all Americans support
restrictions on access to abortions.
 Eighty-five percent (85%) of consumers
purchase Quarko computers rather than
Hyperion; all those people can’t be wrong.
Quarko must make the best computers.
b. Patriotic Approach - This argument
asserts that a certain stance is true or correct
because it is somehow patriotic, and that
those who disagree are somehow unpatriotic.
The best way to spot it is to look for
emotionally charged terms like Americanism,
rugged individualism, motherhood, patriotism,
godless communism, etc.
Example:
 A truly free man will exercise his American
right to drink beer, since beer belongs in this
great country of ours.
c. Snob Approach - This type of argument
doesn’t assert “everybody is doing it,” but
rather that “all the best people are doing it.”
Example:
 Any true intellectual would recognize the
necessity for studying logical fallacies.” (The
implication is that anyone who fails to
recognize the truth of the author’s assertion is
not an intellectual, and thus the reader had
best recognize that necessity.)
7. Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument
or appeal to authority) also known as:
Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of
Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable
Authority, Inappropriate Authority. This sort of
reasoning is fallacious when the person in
question is not an expert. In such cases the
reasoning is flawed because the fact that an
unqualified person makes a claim does not
provide any justification for the claim. The
claim could be true, but the fact that an
unqualified person made the claim does not
provide any rational reason to accept the
claim as true.
Example:
 Beckman eats this cereal every morning
and he is star athlete.
In general, arguments should be
called down for committing argumentum ad
verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an
unqualified source for information about facts
without other (qualified) sources of verification,
or (b) they imply that some policy must be
right simply because so-and-so thought so.
8. Petitio principia (Begging the Question) is
an argument that assumes the truth of the
conclusion to be proven. It may take either of
the following forms:
a. Circulus in probando (Circular argument)
occurs when someone uses what they are
trying to prove as part of the proof of that
thing.
Example:
 Marijuana is illegal in every state in the
nation. And we all know that you shouldn't
violate the law.
Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't
smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke
pot, it is the duty of the government to stop
people from smoking it, which is why
marijuana is illegal!
b. Assumptio non probata (assuming
something without proving) consists in using a
false principle or statement as an
unexpressed premise or at least as a
presumption of the argument.
Example:
 All persons who have killed another must be
sentenced to death. Mr. A has killed another
person.
Therefore: Mr. A must be sentenced to death.
c. Complex question. A complex question is
a question that implicitly assumes something
to be true by its construction, such as "Have
you stopped beating your wife?" A question
like this is fallacious only if the thing
presumed true (in this case, that you beat
your wife) has not been established. In other
words, there exist an assumption behind the
question or statement that has not been
proven.
Example:
 Did your sales increase after you released
your misleading advertisement?
 Did you ever stop to think why my life is
meaningless?
d. Plurium interrogationum (Many
questions). This fallacy occurs when someone
demands a simple (or simplistic) answer to a
complex question.
Example:
 Are higher taxes an impediment to business
or not? Yes or no?
9. False Cause consists in assigning a wrong
cause to a given effect making conclusions on
the basis of superstitious beliefs.
Example:
 He failed in the exam because he took it last
Friday, the 13th of October.
Other forms of this fallacy are:
a. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this,
therefore because of this). This is the familiar
fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation --
i.e., thinking that because two things occur
simultaneously, one must be a cause of the
other. It's a fallacy because it ignores other
factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.
Example:
 Literacy rates have steadily declined since
the advent of television. Clearly television
viewing impedes learning.
b. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (after this,
therefore also this) arguments, or post hoc for
short, assume a faulty causal relationship.
One event following another in time does not
mean that the first event caused the later
event. Writers must be able to prove that one
event caused another event and did not
simply follow in time.
Example:
 Eating five candy bars and drinking two
sodas before a test helps me get better
grades. I did that and got an A on my last test
in history.
10. Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e.,
sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of
making a sweeping statement and expecting
it to be true of every specific case -- in other
words, stereotyping.
Example:
 Women are on average not as strong as
men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore,
women can't pull their weight in a military unit.
11. Slippery slope argument (The Camel's
Nose Fallacy). This argument states that
should one event occur, so will other harmful
events. There is no proof made that the
harmful events are caused by the first event.
Example:
 If we legalize marijuana, then more people
would start to take crack and heroin, and we'd
have to legalize those too. Before long we'd
have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare.
Therefore, we cannot legalize marijuana.
12. Non Sequitur (literally, "It does not follow")
is any argument that does not follow from the
previous statements. Usually what happened
is that the writer leaped from A to B and then
jumped to D, leaving out step C of an
argument she thought through in her head,
but did not put down on paper.
Example:
 Giving up our nuclear arsenal in the 1980s
weakened the United States' military. Giving
up nuclear weaponry also weakened China in
the 1990s. For this reason, it is wrong to try to
outlaw pistols and rifles in the United States
today.
13. Ignoratio elenchi (Ignoring the issue)
referred to as the fallacy of irrelevance or
missing the point. This consists in proving
something other than the point at issue. This
occurs in an argument in which the premises
are not relevant to the conclusion being
proved. The following are the common forms
of this fallacy:
a. Red Herring - This fallacy is committed
when someone introduces irrelevant material
to the issue being discussed, so that
everyone's attention is diverted away from the
points made, towards a different conclusion.
The term red herring is sometimes used
loosely to refer to any kind of diversionary
tactic, such as presenting relatively
unimportant arguments that serves to distract
from more important issues.
Example:
 You may claim that the death penalty is an
ineffective deterrent against crime -- but what
about the victims of crime? How do you think
surviving family members feel when they see
the man who murdered their son kept in
prison at their expense? Is it right that they
should pay for their son's murderer to be fed
and housed?
b. Tu quoque ("you too") - This is the fallacy
of defending an error in one's reasoning by
pointing out that one's opponent has made
the same error. An error is still an error,
regardless of how many people make it. For
example, "They accuse us of making
unjustified assertions. But they asserted a
lot of things, too!"
Example:
 “You're just being randomly abusive." "So?
You've been abusive too."
14. Hasty Generalization consists in making
a generalization on the basis of inadequate
evidence or an insufficient number of
particular cases.
Example
 In both of the murder mysteries I have read,
the District Attorney was the culprit. All
mystery writers like to make lawyers out to be
villains.
Philosophy maximizes varied
techniques in justifying one’s proposition.
Logic, guided by Epistemology in making sure
that every proposition is true, ensures that
every argument is logically validated leading
towards the comprehension of truth. If
arguments became flawed either in truth
value or logical validation, they fall into
becoming one of the fallacies. They tend to
appear sound and correct but are faulty in its
essence.
Human Persons as Embodied Spirits
INTRODUCTION:
Man is at the heart of all philosophical
discussion. In the course of history, many thinkers
grapple on questions about man. The study of
Philosophy of the Human Person has given rise to
various views regarding our role in this world and
how various aspects of existence define us as
persons. Each period of history provided us with a
knowledge that helps us understand our nature as
man better. The present times have given us
numerous and comprehensive knowledge of man.
As Martin Heidegger asserted, “No epoch has had,
as ours, notions so numerous and varied of man.
No epoch has succeeded as ours in presenting its
knowledge about man in such a fascinating and
effective way, or in communicating this knowledge
in so rapid and easy a way. Yet, it is also true that
no epoch has known less than ours what man is.
Never has man assumed so problematic an
appearance as he has in our times.” However,
these amounts of knowledge are still lacking in
understanding man’s true nature. Karl Jaspers
argued that man is a mystery and remains a
mystery. Apart from a being a mystery, man is in
the continues process of becoming.
“Humans are not necessarily humans.”
(Moga, 1995) To be truly human is a goal that
every human being needs to attain. However, this
goal is much harder than one could imagine.
Human existence is filled with so much issues and
challenges that pull man to that full-realization of
being human.
To set terms clearly, the terms man and
person vary in terms of moral implication. Man is a
general term which is commonly used to refer the
entire human race. This term refers to material
beings endowed with rationality. Others
characterized humans as being possessing a
human DNA. However, the term person has a
moral meaning which refers to beings belonging to
a moral community. Persons deserve moral
consideration. (Green, 2016) Hank Green explains
that there are varied theories to which the idea of
personhood is based upon. Some of these
theories are as follows: Genetic Criterion,
Cognitive Criteria, Social Criterion, Sentience
Theory, and the Gradient Theory of Personhood.
What sets the common denominator
of Hank Green in his Crashcourse is the idea
that persons are human beings and to be
human is to be rational. Rationality is a faculty
that sets man apart from the rest of the
animals. Two thinkers from the ancient
Greece laid the foundations of man being
rational. These thinkers were Plato and
Aristotle. These two giants of Western
philosophy differ in their notion of being. Plato
argued that there are two existing worlds that
are totally distinct from each other: the world
of forms and the world of matter. On the other
hand, Aristotle refuted his teacher in saying
that there is only one world that exists and the
two principle coexist in that world as it
appears. What makes these two similar at the
same time is their argument about man as an
embodied spirit and that the goal of human
existence is to live life to the fullest or to
experience the blessed life.
On Plato’s Just Man
Plato began his philosophy of man by
asserting the existence of a soul (the principle
of life) and that the real man is his soul. The
soul, in the beginning, existed in the world of
forms (or the intelligible world) along with the
other forms of reality which is arguably
considered by Plato as the true real entities.
However, the soul committed an error in the
world forms which resulted him to be
punished. He was cast into the world of
matter (the physical world) which is known to
be the world of reflections of entities from the
world of forms, and be trapped in a human
body. For Plato, the mere existence of the
body reminds the soul of his punishment. It is
known to be prison of the soul in the world of
matter.
As a consequence also to the punishment,
the soul who knew everything about the
universe has forgotten every single
knowledge that he knew. Apparently, the soul,
although forgotten everything, has remained
its three parts that enable him to go through
life and eventually to grasp and recall his
knowledge. This paved Plato’s tripartite model
of the soul.
The soul is subdivided into three parts:
reason, spirit, and appetite. Each part of the
soul is attracted towards a principle found in
the world (has to be developed and mastered
in order to a distinctive virtue proper to that
part of the soul. Consequently, Plato entailed
that the mastery of the soul could lead man to
the experience of a happy and blessed life.
Reason is attracted towards truth.
Since truth is found in the real things in the
world of forms, reason then needs to focus in
remembering and relearning the things he
knew before he was cast into the world. By
returning it to the forms, the reason eventually
grasps the ideas of things, thus, has
possessed knowledge. Once the reason has
taken hold of knowledge, the soul
contemplates the ideas and fills itself with
knowledge.
With regard to the spirit, it is attracted
to things that grants the soul the sense of
honor, greatness, and pride. Spirit provides
man the strength to conquer his struggles, to
engage in a competition, and to feel
challenged with difficult circumstances. A fully
developed spirit possesses the virtue of
courage/fortitude.
Lastly, the appetite is directed to
anything that fills the soul with passion,
beauty, and desire. It is because of the
appetite that motivates man to create and
produce. A mature appetite develops the
virtue of temperance: the soul is calm,
composed, and disciplined at the sight of
beauty. Beauty provides tranquility and
magnificence to the soul.
Plato displayed the movement of
these parts of the soul using the allegory of
the chariot. The chariot is maneuvered by the
charioteer and is pulled by two winged horses:
one white and the other black. The white
horse is attracted to grandeur and pride, while
the black horse for beauty and passion. As
the chariot moves, it approaches a beautiful
object along the horizon. The white horse
remains calm and composed at the sight of
beauty, however the black horse turned wild
and savage, and it pulls the entire chariot
towards the object. Eventually, it affected the
behavior of the other horse causing the
chariot in disarray. Plato asserted that it is the
responsibility of the charioteer to control the
two horses and discipline them otherwise the
entire chariot will be destroyed. The
charioteer should pull the horses’ lead ropes
particularly of the black horse. By disciplining
the black horse, it will approach the beautiful
object calmly.
What Plato tried to pull off in the
allegory is that reason should be the soul’s
guide in leading man’s life and in developing
the two parts of the soul. The two parts simply
react when they behold the principles that
they are attracted to however they can’t
distinguish truth in beauty and in honor/good.
Thus true things, for Plato, are always good
and beautiful, however, the beautiful and the
good are not always true. It needs the
judgment of reason to distinguish which one is.
If man allows the other parts of the soul to
direct himself instead of reason, he will fall
into the state of ignorance which, for Plato,
the cause of chaos and evil.
Once the soul possesses the three
virtues after developing the three parts of the
soul, man obtains the highest virtue of all,
according to Plato, which is Justice. Justice is
the virtue that enables man to reasonable in
every situation, constantly contemplating the
ideals of truth, to be courageous in the face of
challenges, and to be patient and modest in
the presence of beauty and the attainment of
desires and passions. Man turns into a Just
Man in this situation after possessing the
three virtues, and only the Just Man can truly
relish what it means to live a happy life.
On Aristotle’s Virtuous Man
Just like Plato, his teacher, Aristotle
adopted the notion that man is the soul
himself. Man’s true self is his soul. However,
Aristotle refuted Plato’s claim about the
illusory attribution of matter particularly of man
by claiming that the human body is part of the
substantial union of man’s being. The human
body is the material principle in the
hylemorphic composition of a human being
having his soul as his substantial form.
Regarding the soul, Aristotle argued
that the soul as a principle of life has three
variations according to how it operates. First,
there is the vegetative soul which is
responsible for nutrition, growth, nourishment,
and development. Another soul variation is
the sensitive/sentient soul which allows the
bodily-spiritual beings to feel and react their
environment and manifest emotions. Finally,
there is also the rational soul which provides
beings the capacity to think, analyze,
comprehend, understand, and apply ideas
into actions. apparently, for Aristotle, each
soul’s operation determines its mortality. If for
instance that soul’s operation is dependent of
the body where it resides, then that soul will
cease its functions when the body dies.
However, if the soul can operate whether the
body is in active or inactive state, that soul
subsists even if the body cease. Among the
three variations of souls, only the rational soul
continues to live in the absence of the body.
A diagram of the Aristotelean model of the
soul. It indicates different terms in the rational
part, yet of similar notion to that of Aristotle’s
theoretike dianoia and praktikon dianotikon.
In contrast to Plato’s tripartite soul,
Aristotle claimed that the human soul has only
two subparts in which the three variations of
the soul are contained: the irrational part
(which is further divided into vegetative and
appetitive) and the rational part (which is also
divided into theoretike dianoia
(theoretical/speculative knowledge) and
praktikon dianotikon (practical wisdom)). By
looking at the Aristotelean model of the soul, it
is evident that man’s nature is composed of
the irrational and the rational aspects of the
soul, yet what sets man above the hierarchy
of the material beings in the world is his
rationality.
Aristotle defined speculative knowledge
enables man to understand and explain
concepts, define terms, to reason out in an
argument and other forms of intellectual
exercise pertaining to scientific reasoning and
contemplation of knowledge. On the other
hand, practical wisdom enables man to apply
and translate into actions the knowledge that
he obtained. Eventually, this aspect of the
rational soul is responsible for deliberating
knowledge into actions.
As far as the irrational part is
concerned, Aristotle asserts that the
vegetative soul operates in a similar way in
humans to that of other vegetative beings like
plants and animals. However, the
sentient/appetitive soul in the human soul
does more than just sensing man’s
environment and feeling his emotions, but it
allows him to desire for things. Accordingly,
Aristotle categorized three classes of desire
namely: epithumia, thumos, and boulesis.
Epithumia is the desire for passion and
pleasure. Anything that makes man pleased
and passionate whether if it is
food, acquiring the latest gadget, sexual
pleasure, or watching a movie is driven by his
epithumia. Thumos is the desire for power,
prestige, honor, and greatness. The desire
that pushes man to engage in competition
and win over it or receive the highest honor or
award in academics or in the company is
driven by thumos. Lastly, boulesis is the
desire for happiness. Anything that gives man
that sense of happiness, either momentary or
lasting is rooted in man’s boulesis.
Aristotle asserted that man is determined
towards happiness not by accident, but it is
according to his nature as human. It is part of
his essence. Being human is akin to the
pursuit of the highest good in all matters
which is his happiness. Aristotle called desire
for a state of happy and blessed life as
eudaimonia. He provided a tip that thequest
for eudaimonia should start within the self and
not outside of man. Since happiness is rooted
in man’s nature, it is therefore logical to start
the search and introspect of what can make
man truly happy before he moves out of
himself.
Aristotle claimed that proper
functioning can help man reach eudaimonia.
Proper functioning emphasizes that
everything has a proper function according to
the nature of beings. As such, a certain being
is good to the extent that it fulfills its function.
For example, if a pencil is created for writing
and produces a legible writing, then it is a
good pencil. If its writing is inscrutable, then it
is a bad pencil.
In relation to this, Aristotle believed
that man, just like other beings, has a fixed
nature, i.e, rational and social. Social nature
implicates that man is a relational being and
that he fulfills his being rational when he
engaged in a relationship with other rational
men in his social group. He further argues
that when man relates, he is caught up in
varied situations which calls him to judge
morally. On the other note, he argued that
man knows what is good and possesses the
ability to choose what is good. Man does not
need to know any set of rules and standards
for him to act morally good. Later, this ability
is named by Thomas Aquinas as conscience
which is the practical judgment of reason
upon an individual act as good as to be
performed and as evil and to be avoided.
Going back to Aristotle, he said, “If
man can simply focus on being good people,
then right actions will simply follow.” Aristotle
claimed that man can do good because his
nature is good itself. In principle, essence
precedes existence. Actions proceeds from
the essence in beings. What man applies in
situations that prompts him to be good are
virtues. Virtue is a set of robust character
traits that once developed will lead to
predictably good behaviour. By utilizing
virtues, man functions according to his good
nature as rational, since virtues are practical
judgments of rationality, and it is honed
through applying them in varied situations in
his social relations.
In its essence, virtues, as a form of a
practical wisdom, varies and adapts to every
situation. Aristotle pointed out that virtue lies
in the middle of two extremes: the deficiency
and the excess of characters. Reason is
naturally fashioned to find the mean in the
situation. He calls the position of virtues
situated in between the two extremes as the
Principle of the Just Middle or the Golden
Mean. In addition, since virtues adapt to
situations, there is not only one exact
application of virtues. Thus, Aristotle
suggested that the best way to learn the
application of these virtues is by observing
people who are experts of applying these
robust character traits in every situation whom
he called as moral exemplars.
Apart from observing and learning the
application of virtues, man needs to
constantly practice it in order to accustom his
nature in performing virtuous acts. In this
regard, Aristotle argued that habituation is
necessary to build and imbue such virtue in
man’s nature, as he said, “Habits defined the
person.” In addition, virtues operate in
accordance with the law of prudence which is
acting in a proper manner, at the proper time,
place, and moment.
If man properly functions himself in
accordance with his nature as rational and
social being by applying virtues in every moral
situation, man reaches of the pinnacle of
humanity which is the virtuous man: an
individual who mastered the art of becoming a
person (true human). Eventually, if man
becomes the virtuous man, he also
experienced the eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is a
Greek word which has no exact translation in
English however in the analysis of Aristotle’s
philosophy regarding the concept, thinkers
define it as the blessed life, the happy life, or
human flourishing. Though Thomas Aquinas
equated the concept of eudaimonia as the
concept of heaven (the union of man with
God/presence of God in the situation),
Aristotle clearly stated that eudaimonistic life
is not a state of total bliss nor the absence of
pain and suffering. By the name itself, it is
called as human flourishing for actualizes his
true self as virtuous acting prudently and
virtuously in all situations. The virtuous man is
an individual who possesses much self-
knowledge.
From the discussions above, it is manifested
that man is a soul in a body. Apart from an
embodied spirit, his nature is determined
towards the full realization of himself and to
experience the life of happiness. Both Plato
and Aristotle claimed that human beings are
not fully human themselves. It is a goal that
they need to achieve in theirlifetime.
Eventually, this concern about the goal of
existence became the concern by most
philosophers in the contemporary period who
objectify the man’s nature and his existence
as proposed by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel.
To set the context properly, person is
also associated to the notions of self and
identity. Self refers to man’s distinctiveness
and uniqueness to other men. Identity refers
to the personality or characteristics proper to
that person who sets him/her apart. These
subjective concepts were lost in the flow of
the crowd that objectifies knowledge and
sets a norm that the group must follow. Søren
Aabye Kierkegaard reacted to these
objectified notions and revolutionized a new
thought which sparked a new era of
philosophical inquiry. Later, another thinker
named Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche flipped
the entire argument of normative structures by
claiming a revaluation of values.
On Søren Kierkegaard’s Subjectivity of
Man
Søren Kierkegaard is known to be the
father of the philosophical movement called
Existentialism. Existentialism, as a the changes made by the spirit of the age as
philosophical movement, is a multifaceted
movement for it tackles every aspect of
human existence: from birth to death and
beyond (for theist existentialists like
Kierkegaard). What is common among
existentialists are the notions that man is a
subject and not just any other object that
sciences can simply objectified in a notion,
that the world is meaningless, but man lives
anyway, and that man is endowed with
freedom to define his own existence.
Existentialism challenged the paradigms
asserted by German idealism that shaped
social structures.
In the case of Kierkegaard, he was
awakened to a society that dictated the ideal
forms of life. There has been existing pre-
fabricated ideas on every aspect of the
universe including human existence and that
man is bound to follow what has been set
before him. This conception of the world was
influenced by the philosophy of Georg
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s notion of the
universal Geist or the absolute thought
which is thought of as culturally distinct
objective patterns of social interaction to be
analysed in terms of the patterns of reciprocal
recognition they embody. (Redding, 2020)
The term Geist can be translated as either
“mind” or “spirit”, but the latter, allowing a
more cultural sense, as in the phrase “spirit of
the age” (“Zeitgeist”). Because of the Geist,
man’s existence is bound to follow the
dictates of the objective patterns of social
interaction before him. He is meant to obey
time progresses. Since it is the geist of the
age, these objective patterns become the
norms and standards that are imposed on the
individual to obey. It is also the principle of
uniformity and consistency
Kierkegaard, however, saw this
mindset problematic for it objectifies man’s
existence which is by nature personal. It tries
to come up with one norm of authenticity of
existence which is impossible because every
individual is unique and distinct from each
other. Man is reduced to an object that
defines history and loses his value as a
subject/individual. He becomes a part of the
crowd governed by the geist of the age. As a
reaction, he argued that to think of existence
is to recognize that man faces personal
choices. Existence is a quality in the
individual which is his conscious participation
in an act. Man decides for who he is and what
he would become in his existence. Existence,
for Kierkegaard, is not simply being present in
the world but being in the world. He freely
decides the life he lives. Thus, existence is
living, and not merely existing. Kierkegaard
added that man is an actor and not a mere
spectator. Only a conscious driver exists and
so, too, only a person who is engaged in
conscious activity of will and choice can be
truly said to exist.

About the objectivity of truth,
Kierkegaard countered by asserting that truth
is subjective. There is no prefabricated truth
out there. The objective truths particularly to
those that refer to human existence are only
objective uncertainties. Although he did not
want to reject either mathematics or science
in their proper uses, he did reject the
assumption that the type of thought
characteristic of science could be successfully
employed when trying to understand human
nature. There is more to human nature and
life that science has not seen yet that are
beyond the things it discovered. Consequently,
Kierkegaard also argued that the truth of
ourselves define our subjectivity. It is what we
are as individuals. It is what we are as
persons. It is not imposed by the society nor
dictated by others but is coming from our own
rational decisions that we make for ourselves.
Since man lives according to the
decision he makes for life, Kierkegaard
argued that life provides man an array of
options which calls him to decide upon. He
claimed then that life is packed with Either-Or
decisions. Life is decided by man from the
choices he faces. However, some of these
choices consist intolerable incompatibilities,
and impossible choices. At some point,
Kierkegaard questioned that the idea of
passion, order, and love can go together in a
passionate marriage. Furthermore,
Kierkegaard expressed an either-or situation
about life and regrets:
Marry and you will regret it. Don’t
marry; you will also regret. Marry or
don’t marry, you’ll regret it either way.
Laugh at the world’s foolishness; you
will regret it. Weep over it; you will
regret that, too. Either one laughs or
weeps at life’s foolishness, he will
regret both.
Eventually, aside from the either-or,
life’s choices are too uncertain. The
knowledge what man knows about these
choices are outweighed by the multitude of
the unknown ideas in them. Since there are
more unknown ideas than known in our
choices, man gains a little understand of how
to apply these choices to life. Kierkegaard
called this notion in his book titled The
Concept of Anxiety as angst. Angest or Angst
is a condition in which man understands how
many choices he faces, and how little
understanding that man can ever have on
how to exercise these choices wisely.
Kierkegaard argued that man’s constant angst
is that unhappiness is written in the script of
life. He said, “It is not possible for anyone to
be absolutely, and in every conceivable way,
completely content, not even for a single half
hour of his life.” Man may feel satisfied
temporarily however, he would long for more
once he is confronted by the monotony of his
life. Thus, Kierkegaard claimed that life is
empty and meaningless because of angst.
On the other note, Kierkegaard
confronted life’s angst with a panacea called
laughter. For him, the only intelligent tactical
response to life’s horror is to laugh defiantly at
it. To laugh at life is not simply to feel pleased
at life’s emptiness and meaninglessness, but
also to challenge man’s subjectivity to make
his life meaningful and worthwhile by making
decisions. Life is meaningless but live anyway,
otherwise, you’ll succumb and destroy
yourself totally.
Mental cultivation is useful because
man decides for something that is meaningful
for himself and for his life with the use of his
rational faculty. However, it is not only the
important or decisive thing in life but also the
development and maturity of personalities. In
connection to this, Kierkegaard highlighted
the distinction between what we are now and
what we ought to be. Thus, there is a
movement from our essence to our existence:
from manhood to personhood.
Kierkegaard identified three stages of the
person’s maturity:
• Aesthetic Stage: The person behaves
according to his impulse and emotions. Thus
the person has no regard for ethical standards
nor religious belief.
• Ethical Stage: The person recognizes and
accepts rules of conduct that reason
formulates. Thus, moral rules give the
person’s life the elements of form and
consistency.
• Religious Stage: The person leaps into the
judgment of faith to be in the presence of the
Divine (God). The person’s relationship with
God is personal.
These stages are interconnected to
each other. Consequently, man cannot reach
the religious stage without understanding and
surpassing his human weaknesses in the
aesthetic stage. In this regard, Kierkegaard
asserted that as man matures he passes
through a series of dialectic in every stage
and is aided by a principle either to remain in
that stage or to grow. Dialectics is a term
used to describe a method of philosophical
argument that involves some sort of
contradictory process between opposing
sides. It is composed of three distinct
concepts: thesis (beginning proposition),
antithesis (a negation of the thesis), and
synthesis (the two conflicting ideas are
reconciled to form a new proposition).
Every stage has an antithesis to the
current human situation. Eventually, when the
person is confronted by the antithesis, man is
faced by an either-or decision, and is also
experiencing the angst. However, man aided
by a principle to reconcile and decide on what
to do: either to remain or grow. According to
Kierkegaard, we need to distinguish between
our capacity for spirituality and sensuousness.
When we realized that we are not mere bodily
but also spirited, this triggers a dialectic
movement in us. The person who is obsessed
with pleasure will eventually be confronted the
meaninglessness of such life and would
ponder on what gives his life a higher purpose
and meaning that could give him order and
consistency than what he is currently doing.
This urge for higher purpose and meaning in
life is called by Kierkegaard as the lure of the
spirit (antithesis of the aesthetic life). In this
antithesis, man is brought to the choice either
to remain in that stage of impulsive and
pleasurable life or to live a life of consistency
and order. He decides using the act of will
(freedom).
In the ethical stage, man has the
attitude of self-sufficiency. He takes firm
stands on moral questions and assumes to
know the good and do the good. For most
parts, Kierkegaard considered moral evil to be
a product of either ignorance or of weakness
of will. The dialectic process begins when he
realizes that he is doing something more
serious than simply following the law or
merely committing mistakes; that he is
involved in a more profound than an
inadequate knowledge of the moral lawwhich
he is incapable of fulfilling. In this situation,
the person will be filled with guilt for his
inadequacy or failure to fulfill the precepts of
the moral law that provided him order and
consistency. Now the person is torn either to
remain ethical and be responsible of his
choices especially when failed to perform his
moral duties or respond to the new
awareness of my finitude/inadequacy and
estrangement of the God’s divinity to whom
man belongs and from whom he must derive
his strength. This assent is not only done by
thinking but by an act of commitment which
Kierkegaard called as the leap of faith. Man
makes a risk in an uncertain situation that
even though he is lacking and finite, he will be
guided by his faith in the God that he relates
personally. Leap of faith is that one would
merely switch off one’s faulty rational faculties
and would jump into the idea of God as the
total solution.
He is convinced that our essential
human nature involves a relation to God, and
our existential condition is a consequence of
our alienation from God. Sensing our
insecurity and finitude, we try to do something
to overcome our finitude and invariably what
we do only aggravates our problem by adding
guilt and despair to our angst. The real
solution, for Kierkegaard, is to relate
ourselves to God, to engage in an intimate
and personal relationship with Him, rather
than to groups of people. Until we do this, our
lives will be full of anxiety.
Kierkegaard’s philosophy can be
summed up in his statement, “Every human
being must be assumed in essential
possession of what essentially belongs to
being human.” This being the case, “the task
of the subjective thinker is to transform
himself into an instrument that clearly and
definitely expresses in existence whatever is
essentially human.” In as far as human life is
concerned, Kierkegaard claimed, “Life is not a
problem to be solved but a reality to be
experienced.” Man can only understand it if
he looks back his life. He may see more of
life’s unhappiness than happiness, but he
needs to realize that it is his conscious
participation to life that he made every
moment meaningful and worthwhile and go
through life’s meaninglessness and emptiness.
He needs to live and renew his life at the
present while being open to the things that will
fall unto him in the future.
On Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche’s
Selbstüberwindung (Self-Overcoming) and
Übermensch (Superman)
Another proponent of existential
movement was the German philosopher
named Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. His
philosophy focused on questions of human
values and on the immediate human
problems concerning human existence. He
began his philosophy by analyzing the current
social situation of his time.
Nineteenth century Europe was
impacted by the rise of mass democracy and
atheism: the former threatened to unleash
torrents of undigested envy; the latter to leave
humans without guidance or morality. Europe
was a symbol of power and security. However,
Nietzsche saw this advancement as the
imminent collapse of the traditional supports
of values. Germany became a great power on
the Continent, and the advances of science
moved the feeling of optimism among peoples.
Nietzsche was dismayed the way his era was
handling culture. Universities were killing the
humanities, turning them into dry academic
exercises rather than using them for what
they were always meant to be: guides to life.
Man becomes machines and objects of
technology and advancement. Nietzsche
prophesied that power politics and bloody
wars were in store for the future. He sensed
an approaching nihilism in the European
society not solely because of military power or
advances of science. He also argued that the
decline of European civilization is also caused
by the beliefs and ideologies of Christianity.
This analysis of European society
urged Nietzsche to make a bold assertion,
“God is dead, He remains dead, and we have
killed Him.” Accordingly, Nietzsche claimed
that the death of God is not something to
cheer about or celebrated. Nietzsche, though
disliked the teachings of religion, said that
religion has helped in a way man to go
through at life’s misery and problems.
However, with the collapse of religion due to
the death of God, man is left with no guidance
and morality. Furthermore, man is reduced to
that specie described in Darwinian evolution
having no difference that sets him apart from
other species. Thus, he argued that there
must be a new norm of morality that is based
purely on the situations of human conditions,
that does not deny the reality of life. In this
regard, Nietzsche claimed that the gap that is
left by religion after the death of God has to
be replaced by aesthetics of which he meant
by culture, art, literature, music, and
philosophy.
Aesthetics is the most promising
alternative, Nietzsche claimed, to religion to
address the question on human values. Only
as an aesthetic phenomenon is human
existence and the world eternally justified. He
magnified the grandeur of Greek tragic
dramas. For him, these plays perfectly
exemplify human conditions, not denying or
falsifying any sort of emotions. Through these
plays, the Greeks were able to learn values
and morality. They even justify the importance
of overcoming of ourselves through its
character development. Such beauty of an art
with a purpose of exemplifying human
conditions are truly remarkable.
In the analysis of aesthetic judgment,
Nietzsche argued that man passes judgment
maximizing his faculties that makes him
human. He named these faculties after to two
Greek gods of mythology: Apollo and
Dionysus. Apollo is known to be the god of of
healing and medicine, of prophecy, and of
music and poetry. On the hand, Dionysus is
the god of wine, of fertility, ritual madness,
religious ecstasy, drunken frenzy, and theatre.
He made use of these names in describing
the two faculties in man. Apollo symbolized
order, restraint, form, and consistency.
Dionysus symbolized the dynamic stream of
life, which knows no restraints or barriers and
defies all limitations. Thus, the Dionysian
principle symbolized humanity’s unity with life
whereby individuality is absorbed in the larger
reality of life force. The Apollonian principle
represents individuation which is the power
that controls and restrains the dynamic
processes of life to create a formed work of
art or a controlled personal character. An
example of this is the claim of a work-life
balance and the necessity of observing such
practice. Being focused with career, work, and
studies with the goal of stability sets man a
sense of purpose, however, if he fills his life
only of these things and not taking breaks to
go on trips or relax in a café with a sip of a
black coffee or go to movie theatres or
museums to appreciate life, he makes his life
boring and unexciting. Breaking the routines
makes life a bit exciting and realigning life to
one’s goal sets life a purpose. It is perfectly
balanced life of Apollo and Dionysus.
Aesthetic judgments and values,
Nietzsche claimed, are combinations of the
two principles. Consequently, life, just like art,
must be lived in accordance with the
Apollonian and Dionysian principles in man.
If man chooses to follow either one of the two
principles, then he makes his life a tragedy.
Birth of tragedy is the creation of art as a
response of the basically healthy element in a
person (Apollo) to the challenge of the
diseased frenzy of the Dionysian. At the same
time, if Dionysian were considered as the only
element in human nature or the dominant
element, man will end up in despair and come
finally to a negative attitude toward life. Man
should not choose either of the two but
chooses to live both. Such formula, Nietzsche
thought, could provide modern culture with a
relevant and workable standard of behavior.
What disqualified religious faith, he believed,
was the essentially life-denying negativity of
Christian ethics.
Using the Apollonian and Dionysian
principles, he started to evaluate the value
system of the times and proposed a
revaluation of values. He began by tracing the
origins of morality and of values and pointed
out that envy played an important part of such
development. Morality, in the ancient times,
was defined by the aristocrats. Because of
aristocrats’ tastes and attachments, good
came synonymous to the values of winning,
smartness, sexiness, richness, and fame.
These values made the aristocrats lived their
lives at peace, however, they became a
discomfort to the slaves who were incapable
of reaching these dreams. The slave,
plebeians/herd wanted to avenge themselves
against the powerful yet lack the practical
means of doing so. So, the herd used guilt.
They engaged in a psychological warfare
against the powerful. According to Nietzsche,
guilt is efficiently in the ideology of Christianity.
Christianity relabelled the values of the
aristocrat as bad and judged the values of
slaves borne out of their helplessness and
insinuation of guilt among the aristocrats as
good.
Envious of what they cannot have,
Christians made the powerful guilty and
insisted that the Kingdom of God belonged to
the weak. Envy, he argued, is part of life. He
used an unusual French term ressentiment
which places emphasis on the humiliation we
experience in the face of what we desire but
we cannot have. Similarly, other emotions like
pain, suffering, fear, and weakness should
also do the same in the process of man’s
becoming. Following the Dionysian principle,
these emotions make us united to humanity
and with man’s Apollonean principle, he takes
advantage of these emotions to rise above
the situation. He calls this motivational drive-
in man as selbstüberwindung (self-
overcoming).
However, Christianity teaches envy as an
indication of evil and man feels ashamed to
have such feeling. Envy should be a guide to
what we really want. In his analysis, it turned
out that the slaves (the Christians) used the
same motivation to destroy. Other emotions of
pain are to be denied or falsified by
Christianity as something to be renounced. In
a similar way, Nietzsche disgusted the
practice of drinking alcohol because, just like
Christianity, alcohol numbs us and separates
us from the emotions that unite us with
humanity. It causes us a transient feeling of
satisfaction that can get fatally in the way of
taking our lives. Nietzsche was obsessed with
the awkward truth of getting valuable things
that hurts.
Eventually, two forms of morality are
formed: master morality and slave morality. In
this master morality, masters define good as
noble in the sense of with a soul of high
calibre: the true determiners of values. They
do not look outside of themselves but pass
judgment upon themselves. They make use of
their envy as a drive towards life itself, to
reach greater heights of existence. This
morality is worthy of self-glorification. Man
should face up to his true desires and put up
a fight to achieve them and only mourn failure
with solemn dignity. They took power in all its
forms and take pleasure in subjecting
themselves to rigor and toughness. As
Nietzsche would say, “What doesn’t kill you
makes you stronger.” Life is only lived by
those who know how to take risks and
challenges life. Be strong enough to face and
stay honest about our own misfortunes.
Meanwhile, slave morality is the
morality followed by the oppressed and the
abused who are uncertain of themselves. This
morality defines good as those qualities that
serve to alleviate the existence of sufferers.
This is the morality of the multitude which
maximizes utility beneficial for the weak and
powerless. This is what Christianity holds.
Such ideology was born out of Roman slaves
who were incapable of getting hold of what
they really wanted. Thus, they made a
philosophy and spirituality that made them
clung on their cowardice. Christianity,
therefore, makes man’s helplessness into
magnanimous virtues and the values of the
masters (aristocrats) shameful. He called the
Christians as the herd (Die Heerde) due to its
influence in the German society which
technically, for him, had been declining in
terms of moral greatness. The herd knows
nothing of the fine impulses of great
accumulations of strength, as something high
or possibly as the standard of all things.
Christians wished to enjoy the real ingredients
of fulfilment but were too incapable of fulfilling
them. They made a hypocritical creed
denouncing what they wanted but were too
weak to fight for them while praising what they
did not want but happened to have.
Inevitably, these two kinds of people,
the masters, and the slaves, co-exist in the
society. There is no problem of them existing
together, however because of the slave’s
envy towards the masters, they fill them with
guilt. Since the slaves are dominating the
masters in this situation, Nietzsche exclaimed
to revaluate all the current values of
thesociety. By revaluation, Nietzsche declared
war on the presently accepted norms and
values. Revaluation must consist in rejecting
the traditional morality in the name of honesty
and accuracy: to not deny nor falsify human
conditions in the guise of Christian values and
societal norms. Stereotyping must be
overthrown. Emotions, either negative or
positive, should not be held back but serves
as a motivational drive. He showed that what
modern people called “good” was not all
virtuous. One of the most mature acts we are
capable of is to admit to the strength of our
envy and the scale of our regret without falling
prey to defensive philosophies of denial in all
their many and ingenious disguises. He
emphasized that moral values must be built
on our true human nature (the Apollonean
and Dionysian principles in us) and our
environment. Apart from these principles in
man, he also focused on the internal
drive/power that allow us to use (to take
advantage) and to exploit (to dominate/to
raise above) our environment which he called
as Will to Power.
The morality that is based on will to
power, Nietzsche argued, is an honest
morality. At some point, exploitation is used in
the struggle to surpass human limitations.
Exploitation, Nietzsche defended, is not
some inherentlydegenerate human action but
a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power,
which is precisely the will to life. The will to
power is a central drive within human nature
to dominate (exploit) one’s environment. Man
needs to go “beyond good and evil”, that is, to
rise above the herd morality of his age. Once
he rises above the circumstance and the
morality of the herd, man sees a new day,
when once again, a true and complete person
would achieve new levels of creative activity
and thereby become the higher type of person.
Nietzsche calls this complete and true person
as the Übermensch (Superman). This new
person does not reject morality but only the
morality of the herd. He properly manages his
Apollonean and Dionysian selves and
creatively maximize his Will to Power to rise
above the circumstances, to dominate his
environment. For the slaves, the Übermensch
is cruel, however, Nietzsche defended this by
saying that almost everything that we know
and consider as “high culture” as emphasized
by the society or by the herd is simply a
spiritualized intensification of cruelty. Cruelty,
he added, is simply the basic expression of
Will to Power which is a natural expression
of strength. But Nietzsche clarified that this
Übermensch is not a totalitarian bully, but
rather his ideal person would have possessed
a balanced unity of Apollonean and Dionysian
elements. He believed that rationality must be
used in the service of life that life must not be
sacrificed for knowledge. The Übermensch,
however, is rare but is the next stage of
human evolution. History is moving not toward
some abstractdeveloped humanity but toward
the emergence of some exceptional people.
The Übermensch is the goal. This person
though rare remains the great ideal desire of
human existence. As Nietzsche said, “Great
things remain for the great for everything rare
for the rare.”