PDEV 1013 (Understanding the Self)

WEEK 1

Learning At the end of this module, you are expected to:

Outcomes: expound in writing on a given philosophy relating to the understanding of the ‘self
 share in bullet form three (3) things you have learned about yourself for this first two weeks
in relation to the things discussed in this module

Instructors note:
You will encounter pop-up questions as you go through this module. I want you to pause and reflect
for a moment then write your answers in a sheet of paper.

Introduction:
If somebody asks your friend - who is ______ (you), how would you like your friend to answer that
question about you?
There are a lot of questions with answers available in the internet and questions we could easily answer
without even surfing the net or asking other people. There are questions categorized as easy and questions
categorized as hard. But there are also questions that seem easy but turns out to be difficult to
answer. One of which is “Who Am I?”
You may have encountered this question before and even tried to answer and reflect on it but this time,
you are going go deeper in finding a more accurate answer to this question.

The Greeks even had the Maxim, “Know thyself” and Prins (2014) mentions that:
You could think of it (know thyself) in terms of limitations, of understanding your various strengths and
weaknesses; what you are capable of and what you are not. You can look at it in terms of mortality, in
knowing and accepting that as a human you are not immortal and will die. You may see it in terms of
knowing your place, in your family, work, and social networks. You may interpret “know thyself” as
Socrates did, as a process of questioning and testing one’s most fundamental beliefs.
Now one of the ways for you to get to know more of yourself is to understand that you don’t. it is
important to have that humility to recognize your ignorance and acknowledge the things that you know
and things that you don’t know about yourself. You have to accept that it is not that easy to have that
understanding of who you are. Sometimes you know, sometimes not, sometimes you know a lot,
sometimes you know few. You’re not as skillful as you think. You are flawed. Maybe you don’t know
yourself as well as you think. But it’s hard to get low enough to understand how deeply it is the case that
you are ignorant about who you are and ignorant about who you could be. And so, the discovery of that is
some reward for the horror of determining who you actually are.
What are my strongest desires? What is it that I’ve been wanting to do? What interests me? What
am I lazy about? What am I and am I not willing to do? What do I think is good and bad? What do I
congratulate myself for accomplishing and what do I really care about? These are just some incredibly
complicated questions and you may not know the answers to them yet or not even sure of the answers
that you have. Basically, this is the start until eventually, you will come to know more of your potentials.
You will discover a little bit more about your potentials as you discover who you are. It’s actually
something that strengthens you because the first thing that a realization like that can in fact produce is the
 ambition to incorporate the dangerousness into a higher-order personality and that can make you
implacable. That can make you say no when you need to say no. That can make you someone who won’t
avoid necessary conflict. And so that’s unbelievably useful. And so that is one of the potentials you might
discover.
Challenging yourself could also be one of the ways in which you could discover yourself. Take a bit
of a look at yourself and think about what’s not so good that you could improve that you should improve
by your own standards and that you would improve. And set yourself a little goal.
Throughout this semester, I want you to watch what you say how you act and even how you look at
yourself and you listen closely to those. You try to get to know more of yourself deeply and try to piece
them all out together and arrive with a more accurate answer to the question, “Who am I?” as we go
through the different topics on this module.
LESSON PROPER:
Good day everyone! For the first two weeks, we are going to discuss the self from various
Philosophical perspectives. In this subject, we are going to use different lenses or different fields in
understanding the self. That would be philosophical down to the digital self (please refer to your course
outline). So basically, we are going to take a look at the self from different disciplines but we will begin by
looking at the perspective of philosophy.
PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE SELF
Many philosophers grappled to understand the meaning of human life. They have attempted to
answer the question “who am I?” and most of their views have influenced the way we look at our lives
today. They have different notions of the self from the points of view of the various philosophers across
time and place.
Let’s begin with Socrates. Now let us begin by tapping the inner philosopher in you. I want you to try to
answer the following question about the SELF:

1. What is your definition of self?

2. Are we souls, bodies, or fragments of someone else’s imagination?
3. Are we just minds or a combination of mind and body
4. Is there a life after death?
5. 5. Am I a man of freewill, or my existence is predetermined?

“Know thyself”
This is an ancient greeting of the highly civilized Greeks. It was believed that the temple gods greet
the people with this salutation as they enter the holy sanctuary. To know thyself is first an imperative and
then a requirement. It is imperative to know the limits of the self so that one knows what one is capable of
doing and what one is not. The real meaning of knowing thyself is a requirement for self-moderation,
prudence, good judgment, and excellence of the soul. (Ortiz de Landazuri,2014).

SOCRATES
“The ultimate wisdom comes from knowing oneself”

The first philosopher that we are going to talk about in this module is Socrates. The other
philosophers focused on answering questions about the universe, science, mathematics, and gravity.
Socrates on the other hand was one of the first one who was concerned with the problem of the self. So,
he asked questions about our existence and what does it mean when we say the word self. He is the first
philosopher who ever engaged in a systematic questioning of the self and according to him, the true task
of the philosopher is to know oneself.

How does Socrates view the self?

In Socrates' idea, he believed in a dualistic approach to understanding the self. He believed that every
human person is composed of two important aspects of his personhood:

1. Body which refers to the imperfect, impermanent aspect that is vulnerable to basic emotions and
actions, whereas
2. Soul refers to the perfect and permanent aspect that controls the body and prevents it from falling
into fallacy and inadequate behavior. Therefore, the “soul” in the context of ancient philosophers
refers to the mind and should not be viewed from the vantage point of Christianity which is a religious
conception of the soul.
It is safe to assume that the SOUL for Socrates is the intellectual and moral personality of humans. The
soul is the responsible agent in knowing and acting rightly or wrongly
Famous quotes of Socrates:
 “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
Through this statement, Socrates believed that we should know how to question our existence or to reflect
on it. We have to engage ourselves in talking about things that are beyond what we see. We should
question ideas because, for him, a life must be examined. We should reflect on the meaning of life, even
on the meaning of death. Just like a plant needs fertilizer, water and sunlight for it to grow healthier and
more radiant. When you try to make sense of your existence or your experiences throughout life, that
enriches your personhood thus make your life a life worth living. To be human means using our highly
developed faculty of thought for if we don’t think, then we are no different from animals who simply eat,
sleep and procreate. So, in order for us to discover our true self, we have to turn inward in search of self-
knowledge.

THE EXAMINED LIFE: 7 QUESTIONS

But what does the statement “unexamined life is not worth living” mean for us today? In order to
facilitate our reflection, I want you to read the following questions provided by Taibbi (2018) and reflect on
your answers:

1. How is my life going?

On an average day, is it good enough that you want to live it over? If you had to pick one emotion
to describe your overall state of mind, your everyday mood, what would it be?

2. When I look over the past 6 months, year, what have I learned from my mistakes?
Successfully running your life is a process of elimination where mistakes are opportunities to learn a
lesson so you don’t make the same mistakes again.

3. What is my one conflict?

 Everyone is essentially grabbling with one core issue that your life is trying to resolve, one problem
that your life is circling around. When you look back over past 5, 10, 20 years and the problems
you've faced, is there something that links them all together? If you were to see your past played
out as movie, what would the title of that movie be?

4. Does my life reflect my values?

Take some time to consider and write down what your values may be — defining what is important
in life and what it means to you to be a good human being. The next part is evaluating whether
there is a gap between your values and the way they are reflected in your everyday life.

5. Do I have integrity?
Integrity comes from the Latin, integritas, meaning unified, whole. Do you think that what you
believe and what you present to others are the same? Is there a gap between them? What do you
need to do to bring them back in line?

6. Has my vision of the future changed?

Have your current priorities and goals changed since the last time you checked in? Time to upgrade
who you are and what you want?

7. What do you need to change in the next 6 months, next year, to make your life better, be who you
want to be, have the future you envision?
Begin to think in terms of concrete behavioral change — bad habits you want to give up, new ones
to develop, parts of your personality that have been pushed to the sideline of your life that you
want to reclaim or expand. It's time to come up with a plan to begin this process.

Taibbi, R. (2018), The Examined Life: 7 Questions, Psychology Today,

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fixing-families/201806/the-examined-life-7-questions

 “I know that I do not know”

Socrates observed that the only true wisdom that man possesses is knowing that he knows nothing. Only in
recognizing your ignorance can a person truly know oneself. The individual person can have a meaningful
and happy life only if he becomes virtuous and knows the value of himself that can be achieved through
incessant soul-searching or “Introspection”, a method of carefully examining one’s thoughts and emotions
to gain self-knowledge.
The worst that can happen to anyone is to live but die inside wherein he distinguishes the
“Examined life” as having the wisdom to distinguish right from wrong. Only those who have at least
achieved self-moderation and distinguished what is good from bad are capable of condemning those who
are pretentious to be knowing themselves when the fact is contrary.

The famous Socratic dictum:

“Knowing what is right is doing what is right”
Once the person knows her SELF, she may then learn how to take care of it. Finally, one’s true self
according to Socrates should not be identified with what one owns, with one’s social status, reputation and
even with one’s body. For him, it is the state of the SOUL, that is, the person's inner being that determines
the quality of one’s life. So it is not the fame, money, elegant clothes, nice car or high-tech gadgets that
makes life meaningful but it is the KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM, and VIRTUE. The true self for Socrates is one
that lived in accordance with these three. The true self is the virtuous self.

TRIVIA minute…
Socrates never wrote a book and most of the things we know about him came from Xenophon and his
prized student-Plato. This is also the reason why it is sometimes difficult to differentiate Socrates’ idea
from Plato’s

PLATO
If we are ever to have pure knowledge of anything, we must get rid of the body
and contemplate things by themselves with the soul by itself (Phaedo 66a)

This time, let’s talk about the perspectives of Plato, a student of Socrates. He founded the Academy which
is the prototype of today’s universities. The universities nowadays are designed after the Academy
founded by Plato.
He believed that human beings are composed of two things:
1. Body- what we see in the material world which is not the real self but only a replica of our
true Self. This is the reason why it is constantly changing- getting older, changing shape, etc. On the other
hand,
2. Soul- it is the true self -the permanent, unchanging self. The soul exists before birth and
leaves room for the possibility that it might survive bodily death. We continue to exist even in the absence
of our bodies because we are Souls only. Source: Kreis, S (2000)
Plato stated that the Soul or the ‘psyche’ comprised of three elements:
1. The appetitive soul
So basically, this involves our pleasurable desires such as those which provide us physical pleasure and
physiological comfort. It is in charge of effortless craving required to stay alive like eating, drinking,
sleeping, and having sex that is only intended for married couples and must be controlled as well.
2. The spirited soul
This denotes the part within us that is agitated most of the time. It is in charge of basic emotions such as
love, anger, and empathy. This means that it is a part of psyche or mind that is excited when given
challenges, or fights back when agitated, or fights for justice when unjust practices are evident. In a way,
for example, this is the hot-blooded part of the psyche. It is the area within us that enjoys triumph, honor,
greatness, and affirmation.
3. The rational soul also known as “reason” is forged by reason and intellect, has to govern the affairs of
the human person. It is the conscious awareness that thinks, meditates, weighs choices, and assesses
situations in our lives. This side is rational and logical as it chooses only the best for us.
Plato believed in the existence of the Nous- the conscious awareness of the self. It is the superpower that
controls the affairs of the self. One has to develop the nous and fill it with the understanding of the limits
of the self, and the correct ethical standards. He also emphasizes that justice in the human person can only
be attained if the three parts of the soul are working harmoniously with one another. He
conceptualized Psyche as the core of the self that is composed of three elements mentioned above.

Pop-up Question #1 How would you describe the relation of your Self to your body?
 To enrich these three ideas of Plato, we take as an example, your college life. You want to hang out
with your friends, spend time on your computer games, eat your favorite food, and do thrilling activities
that will excite the whole gang. These satisfy the appetitive element of the psyche. However, when
professors throw challenging tasks and assignments that would require tremendous amount of time and
effort, the spirited psyche kicks in to face the challenges head-on. All these are going on because the mind
or the nous is orchestrating these pursuits according to the quality of the nous a person has. In other
words, in order to have a good life, one has to develop the nous, and fill it with the understanding of the
limits of the self, and the correct ethical standards.

END OF WEEK 1

ST. AUGUSTINE
“You have made us for yourself, o Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds rest in You.”

Taking his cue from the two worlds of Plato, he now differentiated what is the real world and the
temporary world. According to him, (AD 426) our world (world of materials) is not our final home but just a
temporary home where we are just passing through. Our real world is found in the world where God is.
So basically, the perspective of Saint Augustine is greatly influenced by Plato. The only thing that is
different is that St. Augustine also thinks that this world is a material world and that there is another type
of world where we would like to live in because that is the world where God is and that is the ideal world
so we should strive to be reunited with God so that we could live in that world.
Only God is fully real-as the unchanging, permanent being and he sees God as the ultimate expression of
LOVE. (City of God, Books XIXXII)
He believed that the development of the self is achieved through self-presentation and self-realization.
Following the ancient view of Plato and infusing it with the newfound doctrine of Christianity, Augustine
agreed that man is of a bifurcated (split/branched) nature:

1. Body dwells in the world and is imperfect and continuously yearns to be with the Divine; is bound to die on
earth and the
2. Soul is capable of reaching immortality; anticipate living eternally in a realm of spiritual bliss in communion
with God. The goal of every human person is to attain this communion and bliss with the Divine by living
his life on earth in virtue
The body is bound to die on earth and the soul is to anticipate living eternally in a realm of spiritual
bliss in communion with God. Human beings alone, without God, are bound to fail. Augustine argues that
the soul must be a reality because of its capacity to reason (freewill). He believed that we are eternal and
the body is not. The soul is immortal because God created them and intended them to be immortal. It
bears the very image of God.
This only means that for him, man’s end goal is happiness. Only in God can man attain true and
eternal happiness, made possible in his contemplation of the truth and divine wisdom that refers to God
himself.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

“Experiencing that something exists doesn’t tell us what it is.”
 A lot of philosophers believed that a man is composed of a body and a soul. According to St. Aquinas, our
two parts are the matter and the form. So basically, that is his own version of the body and the soul.
1. Matter comes from the Greek word “hyle” which means the common stuff that makes up everything in the
universe that includes man's body while
2. Form comes from the Greek word “morphe” which means the essence of a substance or thing that makes
it what it is. In the case of the human person, the body is something that he shares even with animals;
what makes a human person a human person is his soul, his essence.
It only means that the cells in man’s body for example are more or less akin to the cells of any other
living, organic being in the world. The body of the human may be similar to animals or objects, but what
makes a human person a human person and not a dog, or tiger for example is his soul, his essence. For him,
we don’t encounter ourselves as isolated minds or selves, but always an agent interacting with our
environment. Therefore, the soul is what animates the body, it is what makes us humans.

RENE DESCARTES
“Cogito, Ergo Sum”- I thing therefore I am

So we are moving to Descartes’ perspective and he is very famous for his quote, “I think therefore I
am.” He deviated from theocentric philosophies before him. He is the father of Modern Philosophy, a
rationalist (a person who bases her opinions and actions on reason and knowledge, not beliefs).
In his famous treatise, The Meditations of First Philosophy, he claims that there is so much that we should
doubt. His quest for self-discovery was by his methodic doubt.
He claimed that we cannot really on our senses because our sense perceptions can often deceive us and so
he started to doubt everything about our existence, our world. That is why he also endorsed the
term “HYPERBOLICAL DOUBT”- a method of reasoning that stated that though he may doubt, he cannot
doubt that he exists. Does this mean that there is no SELF?
So how did Descartes prove our existence?
But then he realized, that the only thing that one cannot doubt is the existence of the self for even if one
doubts oneself, that only proves that there is a doubting self, a thing that thinks and therefore, that cannot
be doubted.
“Cogito, ergo Sum” translated as, “I think therefore I am” or “I doubt therefore I exist.” The discovery of
the cogito revolutionizes the way we view ourselves and the world around us. He said that the mere fact
that I can doubt is the evidence that I exist. The Act of thinking about the self, of being conscious, is in
itself proof that there is a self. Basically, he is one of the reasons why we question a lot of things about
existence and he will tell you that your ability to question things is proof that you are existing. Human
rationality, therefore, is the primary condition in the existence of the self. This includes the need for
reason in order to evaluate our thoughts and actions.

The self, then, is also a combination of two distinct entities:

1. Cogito refers to the thing that thinks, which is the mind the
2. Extenza refers to the extension of the mind, which is the body.
In Descartes's view, the body is nothing else but a machine that is attached to the mind; it is the mind that
makes a man a man.

TRIVIA minute…
Rene Descartes was hired to tutor Queen Christina of Sweden but soon after, he died of pneumonia
because his health couldn’t take the 5 am start of lesson required by the queen.

JOHN LOCKE
“Tabula Rasa”
John Locke introduced the concept of tabula rasa which is the belief that the mind is a 'blank slate' at birth
where everyday experiences contribute to the pile of knowledge that is put forth on that empty space and
we are formed and develop from our own experiences with the environment.
Experience is an important requirement. Personal identity is a matter of psychological continuity. It means
that it is not in the brain, but in the consciousness.
Arguing against both the Augustinian view of man as originally sinful and the Cartesian position,
which holds that man innately knows basic logical propositions, Locke posits an “empty” mind, a tabula
rasa, which is shaped by experience, and sensations and reflections being the two sources of all our ideas.
Self- is compared to an empty space where everyday experiences contribute to the pile of knowledge that
is put forth on that empty space

TRIVIA minute... He is known as the “Father of Classical Liberalism” because of his contribution to the
formation of human rights.

Pop-up question #2: Do you agree with Locke? If such is the case, what will happen to your existence when
we forget what we have been doing three days ago?

DAVID HUME
“The ego is a fictional idea”

David Hume continued in the empiricist tradition of John Locke, believing that the source of all genuine
knowledge is our direct sense experience. In Locke’s view, yourself is not tied to any particular body or
substance, and it only exists in other times and places because of our memory of those experiences. Using
the same empiricist principles as Locke, Hume ends up with an even more startling conclusion—if we
carefully examine our sense experience through the process of introspection, we discover that there is no
self! How is this possible? From Hume’s perspective, this astonishing belief is the only possible conclusion
consistent with an honest and objective examination of our experience.
According to Hume, if we carefully examine the contents of our experience, we find that there are only two
distinct entities, “impressions” and “ideas”:
 IMPRESSIONS—Impressions are the basic sensations of our experience, the elemental data of our
minds: pain, pleasure, heat, cold, happiness, grief, fear, exhilaration, and so on. These impressions are
“lively” and “vivid.”
 “Bundles of temporary impressions” examples: name, height, affiliations, skills, achievements, and the
like. (Temporary and non-persisting). He harshly claimed that there is no Self. He quoted: “Self is simply
a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeeded each other with an inconceivable
rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement."
 IDEAS—Ideas are copies of impressions, and as a result, they are less “lively” and “vivid.” Ideas
include thoughts and images that are built up from our primary impressions through a variety of
relationships, but because they are derivative copies of impressions they are once removed from
reality.
So, impressions are those things we perceive through our senses as we experience them. Like when I see
the sky, and my sense of sight tells me I am looking at a blue sky. That is now my impression. On the other
hand, ideas are those things that we create in our minds even though we are no longer experiencing them.
For example, even when I’m already inside my room and can no longer see the sky, I can still think of the
idea of the sky and might even combine that idea with another idea.
If we examine these basic data of our experience, we see that they form a fleeting or changing stream of
sensations in our mind and that nowhere among them is the sensation of a “constant and invariable” self
that exists as a unified identity over the course of our lives.

Pop-up question #3: Do you agree with Hume that if we look at what is happening in our minds, we will
not be able to find a permanent self? In light of Hume’s answer, how shall we respond when somebody
tells us, please don’t change?

IMMANUEL KANT
“It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with
experience.”

Kant recognizes the veracity of Hume's account that everything starts with perception and
sensation of impressions; however, he believes that the things that men perceive around them are not just
randomly infused into the human person without an organizing principle that regulates the relationship of
these impressions.
For him, there is necessarily a mind that organizes the impressions that men get from the external world
(e.g., time and space are ideas that one cannot find in the world but are built in our minds). Kant calls this
the apparatuses of the mind.
Along with the apparatuses of the mind goes the "self". Without the self, one cannot organize the different
impressions that one gets in relation to his own existence.

Kant, therefore, suggests that it is an actively engaged intelligence in man that synthesizes all
knowledge and experience. Thus, the self is not just what gives one his personality; in addition, it is also the
seat of knowledge acquisition for all human persons. Our rationality makes sense of the perceptions we
have in our experiences. He also believes that perception does not belong to the world, but to the self.

It only means that our rationality unifies and makes sense of the perceptions we have in our
experiences and make sensible ideas about ourselves and the world. For example, we have the capacity to
solve the problem of the ability of our self to perceive the world.
The self is always transcendental.
 It explains that being or the self is not in the body, it is outside the body and even outside the
qualities of the body-meaning transcendent

SIGMUND FREUD
“Early childhood experiences that create high levels of anxiety are repressed into unconscious, where
they may influence behavior, emotions, and attitudes for years.”

The psyche is structured into three parts (i.e., tripartite), the id, ego, and superego, all developing at
different stages in our lives (also known as three layers of the self). These are systems, not parts of the
brain, or in any way physical.
The id is the source of our bodily needs, wants, desires and impulses. He
believed that the id acts according to the “pleasure principle” – the psychic
force that motivates the tendency to seek immediate gratification of any
impulse.

ID It remains infantile in its function throughout a person’s life and does not
change with time or experience, as it is not in touch with the external world.
(Pleasure Principle)
It is not affected by reality, logic, or the everyday world, as it operates within
the unconscious part of the mind. It operates on the pleasure principle which is
the idea that every wishful impulse should be satisfied immediately, regardless
of the consequences. When the id achieves its demands, we experience
pleasure when it is denied we experience ‘unpleasure’ or tension.

Freud called it the rational part of our mind. He said that “the ego represents
what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id, which
contains the passions.”
EGO
Like the id, the ego seeks pleasure and avoids pain, but unlike the id, the ego is
(Reality Principle) the decision-making component of personality, it operates according to the
reality principle, working out realistic ways of satisfying the id’s demands. The
ego considers social realities and norms, etiquette, and rules in deciding how
to behave.

It refers to the incorporation of the values and morals of society which are
learned from one's parents and others. Its function is to control the id's
impulses, especially those which society forbids, such as sex and aggression
It also has the function of persuading the ego to turn to moralistic goals rather
SUPEREGO
than simply realistic ones and to strive for perfection.
(Moral and Idealistic
According to Freud, the superego can be thought of as a type of conscience
Principle)
that punishes misbehavior with feelings of guilt,” working in contradiction to
the id.
Freud believes that this part of human beings is not inborn and that human
beings do not develop the superego part of their mind until the age of five.

TRIVIA minute…
It is claimed that one of the proofs for the unconscious is what we call ‘slip of the tongue. This happens
when instead of saying Shaun, we blurted out Paolo. This, means that subconsciously, we are thinking of
Paolo.
 GILBERT RYLE
“The self is the way we behave”

For him, what truly matters is the behavior that a person manifests in his day-to-day life. Mind is not
separated from the body (contradict with Descartes’ dualism).
The mind is not distinct from the body. The mind is not distinct from the body but rather refers to
certain aspects of our bodies. Suppose that your parents went to your and ask you to tour them around.
You show them the library, the rooms, the However, they look disappointed and so you ask them what is
wrong. They answer that they ask you to tour them around the university, instead you show them the
library, rooms, etc. They do not realize that the term university refers to the whole thing and not one
specific building.
This is how Descartes made the category a mistake. Like the university, the concept of mind expresses the
entire system of thoughts, emotions, actions, and so on that make up the human self (Ryle, 1949). The
mind is not like a specific, separate entity but is certainly a part of our body. The only way by which we can
know how the mind is working is through the behavior of the person, hence we can only know a person
through how a man behaves, their tendencies and reactions in certain circumstances.
This only means that all manifestation in physical activities or behavior for example is the dispositions of
the self, the basis of the statement; “I act therefore I am” or “You are what you do”.

PAUL AND PATRICIA CHURCHLAND

“Our behavior appears to have its basic cause in neural activity”

Paul and Patricia Churchland promoted the position called “eliminative materialism” which brings
forth neuroscience into the fore of understanding the self. It simply means that Philosophy and Psychology
have failed to provide a satisfactory position in understanding the self. They tossed aside the concept of
dualism and the brain and adhered to materialism - the belief that nothing but matter exists, if it cannot be
recognized by the senses, then it is akin to a fairytale in his identity theory, the minds are identical to a
particular brain state our mind and individuality are based upon unique neurological assemblies of one
type of brain function.
According to Churchland, “Our behavior appears to have its basic cause in neural
activity..." NEUROBIOLOGY- as the Churchland’s wanted to predict, when people wanted to ask what is
going on with themselves, they might as well go for an MRI scan or CT scan to understand the present
condition of the brain and how it currently works.
Let’s take the idea that why should we believe in a mind when science is proving that mental health is
connected to the physical brain? For example, depression is strongly linked to brain chemicals gone wrong.
Yes, some people still say things like, 'She's lost her mind.' However, neuroscience says, No, it's a physical
problem and we aim to fix it.

MERLEAU-PONTY
“The world and I are within one another”
Adding to this, Churchland challenges the concept of the mind by using the misfortune of traumatic brain
injury. With this, for example, eliminative materialism asks 'if the mind is the seat of self, why does brain
injury alter a person's personality?' If the mind was a real separate entity, wouldn't it retain a person's
sense of self despite damage to a physical organ? Since brain damage alters a person's personality,
Churchland asserts that the concept of self originates in the physical brain, not an invented mind.
A phenomenologist who asserts that the mind-body bifurcation is a futile endeavor and an invalid problem.
Unlike Ryle who simply denies the "self," he instead believed that the mind and body are intertwined that
they cannot be separated from one another.
For him, the living body, his thoughts, emotions, and experiences are all one. He proposes treating
perception as a causal process. It means that our perceptions are caused by the intricate experiences of
the self, and processed intellectually while distinguishing truthful perceptions from illusory. Therefore, the
self is taken as a phenomenon of the world. He also believes that perception does not belong to the world,
but to the self.

END OF WEEK 2

MODULE 2: SOCIOLOGICAL AND ANTHROPOGICAL PERSPPECTIVES OF THE SELF

“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either
beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who
either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake
of society, is either a beast or a god. ” ― Aristotle, Politics
We often hear the quotation: Man is a social animal, but what does it mean?
No human person can live alone. In order to survive, he must be able to satisfy certain natural basic
needs. In order to effectively do this, he must enter into a relationship with his fellowmen in order to
create mutual dependence. Mutual dependence is said to begin between an embryo and the mother and
continues ‘till his last breath – from womb to tomb as they say. The need can be physical, socio-emotional,
mental, or financial even, and many others. Let’s take your dependence from your parents as an example.
For now, you may be dependent in your parents in terms of food, shelter, finances or may be in terms of
emotional support. It may not seem apparent, but your parents also gain something from you like when
you are able to help in the household chores, a sense of purpose even! There is mutuality.

What is sociology?
The American Sociological Association defines sociology as:
…the study of social life, social change, and the social causes and consequences of human behavior.
Sociologists investigate the structure of groups, organizations, and societies, and how people interact
within these contexts
From a sociological perspective, the self is a relatively stable set of perceptions of who we are in
relation to ourselves, others, and to social systems that shaped through interaction with other people
(Crossman, 2018). When asked to introduce ourselves, we would often say traits such being thrifty,
altruistic, generous, fun to be with, competitive, quiet, shy, frank and so on. These traits, although unique
for a particular individual and are psychological in a sense, can be understood in a sociological perspective.
When someone says he is generous, he is actually describing himself in relation to other people. What he
means to say is that he is liberal in giving what he has to other people. The same also applies when
someone says he is quiet or shy, for one cannot say he has no basis for comparison. Thus, a person is said
to be shy because, unlike other people, he may have the tendency to be hesitant in approaching or
mingling with other people.

The Self as Product of Modern Society

Because of modernization, there is said to be the “destruction of the traditional way of life” that
has “delocalized” the self (Mannheim, 1950). The self has been “dislocated and deracinated” (David, 2004).
This means to say that modernization has disrupted and disturbed the conventions on how people live or
has isolated us from our native or customary culture. What seemed to be the usual way of doing things are
now being consistently modified to adapt to the changing needs and possibilities that modernization has
brought. People are now presented, not only with the traditional way of doing this within their culture, but
also to the culture of others from societies. The stability of one's self-identity is no longer anchored on pre-
given tradition-bound definition of the self - it is now freely chosen (David, 2004)
Let’s take the traditional wardrobe as an example. We would think that traditional Filipinos would wear
rather conservative but ornate and embroidered rich outfit but today, options are almost unlimited. We are
influence, not only by the US, Spanish, and Japanese culture (as with colonial period) but also by the culture
of Koreans, Thais, and Chinese among others. We see a rise of concept stores and online shops that offers
numerous varieties of outfits. We are no longer duty-bound to wear conventional outfits even when we are
invited to attend weddings or other celebrations!
However, more choices often do not equate to a better or a meaningful life. Sometimes it often
results to decision paralysis and even decreased satisfaction (Schwartz, 2004). In this sense, the ability to
choose who we want to be no longer liberates but debilitates. Simmel (1971) tells us that the struggle for
one’s individuality is only possible in modern society where religio-theological traditions are gradually
replaced by rational and scientific calculations; and the intimate personal affiliations are replaced by
exceedingly impersonal associations brought about by urbanized way of life.
How many “friends” do you have? You would probably think of the number of friends you have accepted or
invited on Facebook or the number of people you have in all the group chats you have in messenger… but
how many friends do you really have? Modernization has allowed us to communicate with people in
numerous ways. Then, you can only meet a friend in person or maybe through phone and you can only
expect to be able to deepen your relationship by physically hanging out or by sending out a snail-mail.
Today, connecting with some people you know is almost always possible at any time of the day and
anywhere you are. Although this can be beneficial for many, we cannot discount the fact that this
possibility has also changed how we value our relationships. We have formed more impersonal
relationships than meaningful ones. Some have been pre-occupied in gaining more “followers” with hopes
of improving their esteem – a misconception on how we put worth or recognize the value of our selves.
Something to think about: How you think modernization changed the way courtship is being done? Do you
think it has improved or worsened?
The delocalized self poses the following problems:
1. The newfound freedom threatens the very authenticity of the self
As we consistently create ourselves from the limitless possibilities and options, we ask
ourselves the question: Is this really me? Is this what I want?
2. Alienation
Derived from Marx, alienation refers to an “unhappy condition” and is the the process whereby the worker
is made to feel foreign to the products of his/her own labor.
Purdue University (2002) explains that
In capitalism, the worker is exploited insofar as he does not work to create a product that he then
sells to a real person; instead, the proletariat works in order to live, in order to obtain the very
means of life, which he can only achieve by selling his labor to a capitalist for a wage (as if his labor
were itself a property that can be bought and sold). The worker is alienated from his/her product
precisely because s/he no longer owns that product, which now belongs to the capitalist who has
purchased the proletariat's labor-power in exchange for exclusive ownership over the proletariat's
products and all profit accrued by the sale of those products.
3. Objectification of the body
In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person as an object or a thing (Arluke, 1988). As
presented in the essay Life in the Medicalized Society:
“These days, nothing strikes more fear in me than a doctor who no longer looks at patients as total
human beings, but from the narrow prism of specialization, sees only disembodied hearts, lungs,
livers or kidneys”.
4. Dehumanization of the self
The birth of modern society allows infinite possibilities for self-cultivation but it also simultaneously
suggests dehumanization of the self. In Herbert Kelman's work on dehumanization, humanness has two
features:
 "identity" (i.e., a perception of the person "as an individual, independent and distinguishable
from others, capable of making choices") and
 "community" (i.e., a perception of the person as "part of an interconnected network of
individuals who care for each other").
When a target's agency and embeddedness in a community are denied, they no longer elicit compassion or
other moral responses.
Solution: For the individual to discover the “true” and “authentic” part of himself/herself to realize his/her
potentials, there is a need to abolish repressive social constraints. What does being authentic mean then?
Brené Brown in her book: The Gifts of Imperfection states that “Authenticity is the daily practice of letting
go of who we think we are supposed to be and embracing who we actually are.” Choosing authenticity
means:
 cultivating the ability to be imperfect
 allowing ourselves to be vulnerable, and
 setting boundaries.
The concept of social constraints enters when society sets its own standards on how you should
look, behave and sometimes even feel. Being authentic means letting go of these standards to follow your
passion regardless of who you disappoint and how you may be perceived by others. “When we are being
authentic, we are being vulnerable; we are showing all parts of us, the good with the bad. When we do this,
we allow for more intimate and honest relationships, and we allow for true acceptance and unconditional
love.( The Center for Growth)”
Self as Necessary Fiction
Some modern philosophers do not believe that the self is a solid or metaphysical entity having a
continuous identity given that there is nothing in the self that persists or endures through time. For
instance, it possible for individuals to remember something they have not experienced or the possibility
the individuals have the tendency to acquire amnesia and experience psychological disorientation due to
brain injury.
Self for Nietzsche is the sum of individual’s action, thoughts and feelings and is nothing more than a
metaphor –a representation of something abstract. Nietzsche contends that all belief systems are
‘necessary fictions.’ Necessary fictions are beliefs that cannot be proven to be true and sometimes can be
proven false, but are, nonetheless, necessary to sustain life. They are fictions because they cannot be
proven. They are necessary because without them we would be rudderless in a world of chaos. Thus, they
are convictions that satisfy the need for stability.
Tenbusch (2015) states that necessary fictions
….are necessary because people need some sense of certainty in a world of constant change.
Necessary fictions create meaning out of the chaos of lived experiences. They are formulations
about what feelings and behaviors mean at a given time. One’s experiences can be organized into a
coherent and inclusive story, but that story cannot be proven. Hence it is illusory and temporary.

Did you know that the quote “That which does not kill us makes us stronger” is associated with Nietzsche?

Post-Modern view of the Self

The self is a narrative, a text written and rewritten. The self is a story and therefore dynamic, bound
to change every now and then. Self in post modernity is complicated by electronic mediated virtual
interaction of cyber self in cyberspace. This means that our identity is now created not merely by our
physical interaction with other people but is complicated our interactions in the digital world.
Nicola Green states:
"Every little piece of information that you post on the internet - the messages you write,
the website you visit, the files you download, the e-mail addresses you contact, the books, tapes, CDs,
and airplane tickets you order on the Internet, and the credit card numbers you give - all become the raw
data from which someone out there can piece together an identity, a virtual version of who you are."
This is called digital footprints. Your digital footprint is the “data that’s created through your
activities and communication online. This can include more passive activities, such as if a website collects
your IP address, as well as more active digital activities, such as sharing images on social media”
(Athanasiadis, 2018)
The following are manifestations of the self in post modernity:
1. Information technology “dislocates” the self, thus, the self is said to be “digitalized” in cyberspace
We are not able to present and express ourselves online.
2. Global migration produced multicultural identities
It has produced a mixture of cultures that may be a combination of country of origin and the
new country where one resides. We can expect for example a Filipino migrant who is living in
Canada combine the staple food, rice, or a variety of pansit with other cuisines there.
3. Post-modern selves are “protean selves”
 A protean self refers to a “mutable form of human personality that changes fluidly from
situation to situation (IGI Global)”. *
*In other resources such as that of David (2004), it is also called “pluralized” self. This implies that because
post-modernity, we are able to create different versions of our selves particularly if we are dealing with
various social media sites. For example, if you have a Twitter or Instagram account, you would probably
agree that what you post in those accounts are quite different in Facebook. The same concept can be
likened to what Anderson (1997) mentioned as multiphrenia.

Rewriting the Self as an Artistic Creation

One thing is needful. -- To "give style" to one’s character-- a great and rare art! It is practiced by those who
survey all the strengths and weaknesses of their nature and then fit them into an artistic plan until every
one of them appears as art and reason and even weaknesses delight the eye. Here a large mass of second
nature has been added; there a piece of original nature has been removed -- both times through long
practice and daily work at it. Here the ugly that could not be removed is concealed; there it has been
reinterpreted and made sublime… -Nietzsche, Gay Science
Nietzsche contends that the unity of the self is not pre-given but accomplished through conscious
effort. Individuals therefore must fashion, care for and cultivate themselves in order to transform self
through beautiful work of art.
Concealing the “ugly” does not refer to rewriting the narrative (as that would be impossible) but
rather redescribing one’s self by reinterpreting the past. For example, one might have experienced having
a failing grade in his academic history. This event might be used by someone to describe himself as a
student, probably thinking that he might not be able to do well in schooling particularly in a certain
program to a point that he/she would label him/herself as inferior to his colleagues. But one might also get
the idea that the failure was the event, a turning point that have led him to where is right now –say a
wake-up call to pursue something that he is passionate about. Life is about creating ourself even if it means
re-interpreting our experiences. As Nietzsche would put it: There are no facts, only interpretations.

Self-Creation and Collective Identity

The self is a "body moving in space" and time (Kempen, 1998). The self is unthinkable apart from its
physical body. It is through the body that the self takes different spatial positions and expressions in social
interaction. This implies that an individual's identity is largely associated with its position in space and its
corresponding historical dimension. Simply put, the identity is influenced by the community from it
belongs and its collective memory. Collective memory refers to the shared pool of memories, knowledge
and information of a social group that is significantly associated with the group's identity. (Roediger and
Abel, 2015)
What we mean to say here is that an essential aspect of self-creation is formed within “imagined
communities”. Imagined communities is a term coined by Benedict Anderson (1983) Anderson famously
defines the nation as imagined “because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of
their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their
communion” (p. 6). The nation is defined as a community because “regardless of the actual inequality and
exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship” (p.
7). “Therefore, the concept of imagined community assumes that nations, national identities, and
nationalism are socially constructed; “imagined” in this context then does not mean false, but instead
points to the socio-cognitive element in the construction of the nation (Jones, 2007)” It is an idea that is
being recognized by a group of people paving the way for its existence.
MEAD’S THEORY OF THE SELF
According to Mead, the self emerges from social interaction. This lies contradictory to the argument
of biological determinism “because it holds that the self is neither initially there at birth nor necessarily at
the beginning of a social interaction, but is constructed, and re-constructed in the process of social
experience and activity” (Villafuerte, etal 2018). This means to say, Mead contends that the self is not
inborn and that the self is developed as one ages and accumulate more experiences.
In the perspective of Mead, Victor had not developed normally according to his age. He had not
developed his “self” because of his isolation from the world. It was also mentioned in the article because of
Victor’s isolation, there was already a lack of proper care, emotional stimulation, and
education that hindered his social progress and delayed their mental development.

Three Stages of Development according to Mead

The self is learned during childhood which comes in three stages of development:

As our self gradually develops, we internalize the expectations of more and more people. Our ability to
take the role of others eventually extends to being able to take the role of “the group as a
whole.” Existence of the community, therefore, comes before individual consciousness.

Phases of Self according to Mead

For Mead, all human experience internal conversation. This conversation involves
the I and me which he called the phases of self.
The “me” refer the organized set of attitudes and expectation of others which one assumes. It
represents learned behaviors, attitudes and expectations of others and society that arouse from the social
interactions of the individual. It is the socialized aspect of the individual. Because of this, the “me” is said to
be the mechanism by which community exercises control over the conduct of its individual members.
The “I” is the response to the “me” or the person’s individuality. It is the active, spontaneous,
creative part of the self. It is the part of you that’s acting being spontaneous and doing things on your own.
Because of this the “I” is said to be the subject while the “me” is the object. Object
Let’s try to relate it to grammar. As a basic rule: The subject is the person or thing doing something.
The object is having something done to it.(IELTS) In formulating sentences, we usually use the term “I”
when we are the doer of the action and use “me” when we are the receiver. We say I like you, to mean that
“I” is the doer of the action like. We do not say me likes you. We say “You like me”, to mean that “me” is the
receiver of the action like. In the context of Mead, the “me” is the object? Object of what? Receiver of what?
The receiver of norms society, thus it is the me that adheres to the expectations of other people.
Let’s suppose that you would like to watch your favourite series in Netflix but you have other
assessments due in the said week. The “me” is that aspect of you that would tell you to read your lesson
and answer the learning tasks given by your teacher. These are the expectations of society from you given
your role as a student. Your “I” is that aspect of you that will tell what you will do.
Remember: “The action of the 'I' is revealed only in the action itself; specific prediction of the action of 'I' is not
possible. The individual is determined to respond but the specific character of the response is not fully determined.
The individual's response are conditioned but not determined by the situation in which he acts(SociologyGuide)”

Cooley's Looking Glass Self

The concept of looking-glass self-states that part of how we see ourselves comes from our
perception of how others see us (Cooley, 1902). Charles Horton Cooley contends proposed that the self is
developed as a result of perceptions of other people’s opinion. “People are the way they are at least partly
because of other people’s reactions to them and to what they do. They are constantly picking up feedback
and incorporating it into their sense of self (Corpuz, Estoque and Tabotabo (2019). For instance, if parents
praise a child for being diligent in terms of doing his or her chores, then the child might think that he is
responsible.
It generally involves three processes:

This implies that our view of our selves comes from the contemplation of personal qualities and
impressions of how others perceive us. This means that we are not what others think we are, it is what
we believe others see us. REMEMBER:
 Development of the self does not depend on accurate evaluations.
 Although the self-concept begins in childhood, its development is an ongoing, lifelong process
There are certain things we have to watch out for that are related to this concept.

Labeling Bias
The labeling bias occurs when we are labeled, and others’ views and expectations of us are affected
by that labeling (Fox & Stinnett, 1996). Labeling can be beneficial or detrimental.
A typical example of labelling bias is when a teacher perceives a certain class, say Class A, as a
“bunch of troublemakers”. When this happens, the teacher’s behaviour towards the students in that
certain class changes and may be made to think that any behavior (even those that are neutral) may be
misinterpreted as a result of their misdemeanour. A likely scenario can also be seen if a teacher will view
one her classes, Class B, as a “model class”. Let’s imagine a situation: A student got absent one day in both
classes. The teacher might think that the one who got absent in Class A is uninterested with schooling, not
motivated and more likely wont be successful in life. The student in Class B might make the teacher think
that the child might not be feeling well or have some sort of a problem. As you can see from this example,
the teacher’s perception affected her attitude towards his or her student.
Because of labelling bias, people’s behavior or reaction towards us also change. This is called self-fulfilling
prophecy. A self-fulfilling prophecy is a belief that comes true because we are acting as if it is already true.
For example, a student might think that he will not be able to do well in an examination.
Since he already has this expectation, the student might not review since he might think
that his efforts will all go to waste. When the examination results were released, he
found himself getting a failing score.
If we are repeatedly labelled and evaluated by others, then self-labeling may occur. Self-
labeling happens when we adopt what others’ labels explicitly into our self-concept. The
effects of this self-labeling on our self-esteem appear to depend very much on the
nature of the labels. Labels used in relation to diagnosis of psychological disorders can be detrimental to
people who then internalize them. A particular study (Moses, 2009) found that adolescents who self-
labelled according to diagnoses they had received were found to have higher levels of self-stigma in their
self-concepts along with higher levels of depression compared with those who described their challenges
in non-psychological terms.
For this part, I think it’s important to be guided by the words of Yehuda Berg:
“Words are singularly the most powerful force available to humanity. We can choose to use this force
constructively with words of encouragement, or destructively using words of despair. Words have energy
and power with the ability to help, to heal, to hinder, to hurt, to harm, to humiliate and to humble.”

SOCIAL COMPARISON THEORY

We constantly evaluate ourselves, and others, in domains like attractiveness, intelligence, skills and
success through social comparison. Social comparison theory is the idea that individuals determine their
own social and personal worth based on how they stack up against others (Psychology Today) These
comparisons can be with people who we know and interact with or even those whom we read about or
watch on television or online. However, the most meaningful comparisons we make tend to be with those
we see as similar to ourselves (Festinger, 1954.) “Later research has shown that people who regularly
compare themselves to others may find motivation to improve, but may also experience feelings of deep
dissatisfaction, guilt, or remorse, and engage in destructive behaviors like lying or disordered eating
(PsychologyToday)”

THE BENEFITS OF COMPARISON

When individuals compare themselves to others as a way of measuring their personal development or to
motivate themselves to improve and, in the process, develop a more positive self-image, comparisons can
be beneficial. It takes discipline, however, to avoid the pitfalls of negative comparison. In large part, how
we react to comparisons depends on who we compare ourselves to: When we just want to feel better
about ourselves, we tend to engage in comparisons to people worse off than we are, although this can
become an unhealthy habit. When we want to improve, though, we may compare ourselves to people
roughly similar to us but higher achieving in one trait or another.

How can comparison help you?

Social comparison can be highly beneficial when people use social networks to push themselves. In a study,
friendly competition was highly effective in pushing people to exercise more, as peers pushed each other
to keep up and do more. In such a "social ratchet effect," each person’s activity generates more activity
among others. Social networks in which people simply offered each other positive encouragement were far
less helpful.
Is it better to compare yourself to those doing better or worse than you are?
People generally engage in either upward or downward comparisons. In upward comparisons, we compare
ourselves with those we believe are better than us in some way; in downward comparisons, we do the
opposite. Research, unsurprisingly, finds that downward comparisons make us feel better about ourselves,
but that there are dangers to each approach—insecurity and jealousy, or overconfidence and arrogance.

Can envy ever be a positive emotion?

Envy is usually an unpleasant feeling that can lead to brooding, resentment, or even violence. Some
psychologists, however, have suggested that people can experience “benign” envy, in which they use
envious feelings as motivation to improve themselves. Benign envy could lead someone, for example, to
try to emulate the best qualities of a person who has what they want.

THE DANGERS OF COMPARISON

Theodore Roosevelt called comparison “the thief of joy,” and he may have been right. Social comparison
can motivate people to improve, but it can also promote judgmental, biased, and overly competitive or
superior attitudes. Most people have the social skills and impulse control to keep their standards for social
comparison to themselves, and not to act on any envy or resentment spurred by comparison-making. But
their true feelings may manifest in other ways.

Why can comparisons make people feel bad?

Comparisons are likelier to make us feel bad when we make the error of only comparing ourselves to
paragons of certain traits. For example, many people believe they have a less active social life than others.
But when making such comparisons, people tend to compare themselves only to the most social people
they know. Understanding this bias can help us make more realistic and motivating comparisons.

Is social media harmful to self-esteem?

Constantly checking social-media feeds full of images from parties, concerts, or other aspirational events
can diminish self-esteem and contribute to depression. But some studies have found that such risks
primarily affect those high in the trait of neuroticism, and others suggest that social-media use can
reinforce self-esteem; for example, when people review their own images of good times with friends.

How can I stop comparing myself to others?

To be less vulnerable to painful comparisons, notice the people or events that prompt the behavior.
Commit to being deeply grateful for what’s good in your own life. And remember that the human
propensity to want what others have is such a waste of time, unless what you see and “covet” in another is
something of deep worth, such as their generosity or kindness.