SOUTHERNSIDE MONTESSORI SCHOOL

Camella Homes 4 Poblacion, Muntinlupa City

School Year: 2022 – 2023 Date: October 3 – 14, 2022

Level: Grade Eleven (11) Subject Area: Philosophy of Man
Grading Period: Second Quarter Teacher: Mr. Jefferson N. Trias, LPT

NOTES # 1: THE EMBODIED SUBJECT

I. THE CONCEPT OF A HUMAN BEING

PLATO
 The TASK of ANSWERING the QUESTION, “WHAT IS HUMAN BEING?” seemed to be NATURAL
DIRECTION of INQUIRY of the ANCIENT GREEK THINKERS as WESTERN PHILOSOPHY started.
 The ANCIENT GREEKS, particularly the PRE-SOCRATICS, were CONCERNED about the ORIGINS of
the COSMOS.
 They were looking for the FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENT that makes our WORLD WHAT IT IS. In other
words, they were looking for the ESSENTIAL WHAT-NESS of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
 Discovering this FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENT was the ULTIMATE GOAL of PHILOSOPHERS.
 This ATTEMPT to look for WHAT-NESS extends to every PARTICULAR REALITY which leads THINKERS
to look for the ESSENTIAL CHARACTERS OF THINGS which make those THINGS WHAT THEY ARE.
 Another IMPORTANT IDEA in PLATO’S CONCEPT of a HUMAN BEING is the SOUL’S DIVISION into
THREE PARTS: REASONING, SPIRITEDNESS, and APPETITES.
 This DIVISION was a RESULT of a CONVERSATION in PLATO’S THE REPUBLIC, where the
CHARACTERS decided that the IDEAL SOCIETY is made up of THREE TYPES OF CITIZENS:
WORKERS, SOLDIERS, and RULERS.
 The IDEA here is that the SOCIETY is SIMPLY an ENLARGED PERSON.

The RULER’S COUNTERPART in the HUMAN BODY is the HEAD, which symbolizes the REASONING PART. The
SOLDIER’S COUNTERPART is the CHEST, which symbolizes the SPIRITED PART. And the WORKER’S
COUNTERPART is the STOMACH, which symbolizes the APPETITIVE PART.
These PARTS and their FUNCTIONS have their CORRESPONDING VIRTUES: WISDOM for REASONING,
COURAGE for SPIRITEDNESS, and MODERATION for APPETITES.

 For PLATO, the IDEAL RELATIONSHIP among the PARTS is for the REASONING PART to RULE OVER
the APPETITIVE and the SPIRITED PART.
 PLATO’S IDEA of a GOOD LIFE is a LIFE RULED BY REASON.
 As the RATIONAL PART knows WHAT IS GOOD, it must be able to CONTROL and DIRECT its
APPETITIVE and SPIRITED PARTS.
ARISTOTLE
 ARISTOTLE was PLATO’S MOST FAMOUS STUDENT.
 However, there are a LOT OF DIFFERENCES in their PHILOSOPHIES, one of which is how they
looked at HUMAN BEINGS.
 Like PLATO, ARISTOTLE also believes that HUMAN BEINGS are COMPOSED of BODY and SOUL.
 However, it is how the SOUL is related to the BODY that ARISTOTLE differs from PLATO.
 ARISTOTLE considers THINGS (SUBSTANCES) as COMPOSED OF TWO CO-PRINCIPLES which he calls
MATTER (BODY) and FORM (SOUL).
 FORM is the PRINCIPLE which ACTUALIZES a THING and MAKES a THING WHAT IT IS, while MATTER
is VIEWED as the POTENTIALITY to receive the FORM.
 In short, FORM is VIEWED as ACT while MATTER is VIEWED as POTENCY.
 It should always be noted that MATTER and FORM are not COMPLETE REALITIES, but only CO-
PRINCIPLES of a THING (SUBSTANCE). And as CO-PRINCIPLES, MATTER and FORM do not exists in
themselves separately…
 For ARISTOTLE, a HUMAN BEING is always a COMPOSITE of BODY and SOUL.
 Like PLATO, ARISTOTLE also divides the FUNCTIONS OF THE SOUL into THREE: NUTRITION,
SENSATION, and INTELLECTION.
 The NUTRITIVE FUNCTION is that which we share with PLANTS, while the SENSITIVE FUNCTION is
that which we share with other ANIMALS. The HUMAN SOUL as an ANIMATING PRINCIPLE is FAR
 GREATER than the ANIMATING PRINCIPLE OF PLANTS AND OTHER ANIMALS because of the
HIGHER FUNCTION OF INTELLECTION.
 It is the INTELLECTIVE FUNCTION which not only separates us from ALL OTHER BEINGS, but also
DEFINES us as HUMAN BEINGS.
 The CONCEPT OF FUNCTIONS must be further explained in considering what a HUMAN BEING is…
we say that the GOODNESS OF SOMETHING is TIED UP with ITS FUNCTION.
 So in the case of HUMAN BEING, its GOOD refers to the PRACTICE of HIS FUNCTION.
 However, it is not just the PRACTICE of any of ITS FUNCTIONS; but the PRACTICE of ITS HIGHEST
and DISTINCTIVE FUNCTIONS, i.e. the INTELLECTIVE FUNCTION.
 It is CLEAR that for ARISTOTLE, that to be HUMAN BEING means to PRACTICE ITS HIGHEST
FUNCTION, and we therefore say that HUMAN BEINGS are RATIONAL ANIMALS.
DESCARTES
 Both PLATO and ARISTOTLE consider HUMAN BEINGS as having TWO ELEMENTS: BODY and SOUL.
 The PROBLEM now seems to be FOCUSED on how the BODY IS RELATED TO THE SOUL.
 PLATO makes the GAP between BODY and SOUL more PRONOUNCED.
 ARISTOTLE tries to dissolve the GAP.
 FRENCH PHILOSOPHER RENE DESCARTES, widened the GAP between the BODY and the SOUL
even more as he sets out to prove that the ONLY THING in this WORLD which cannot be
doubted is the EXISTENCE of the THINKING SELF.
 In the MEDIATIONS ON FIRST PHILOSOPHY, DESCARTES argues for the REAL DISTINCTION between
the BODY and the SOUL.
 DESCARTES argued that we should doubt EVERYTHING that is delivered to us by our SENSES. He
also argued that CERTAINTY does not GUARANTEE TRUTH.
 The ONLY THING which he can’t doubt was that he doubts, which is a FORM OF THINKING.
 He may doubt his BODILY EXISTENCE because he can be deceived by his SENSES. But he
cannot doubt his THINKING because THINKING requires a SUBJECT – THE THINKER. And the
more he rejects HIS EXISTENCE, the more he becomes certain that he exist.
 Thus, he establishes HIS OWN REALITY with the FAMOUS LINE: “I THINK, THEREFORE, I AM.” The
SUBJECT “I” however, of this CLAIM does not refer to MAN, or to RATIONAL ANIMAL.
 DESCARTES did not prove the EXISTENCE OF MAN when he PRONOUNCED “I THINK, THEREFORE, I
AM” because MAN or RATIONAL ANIMAL is a VAGUE CONCEPT.
 The “I”, which DESCARTES established as INDUBITABLY EXISTING, is SIMPLY a THING THAT THINKS.
 For DESCARTES, the EXISTENCE of the SOUL (i.e. THE THINKING THING) is more DISTINCT and CLEAR
than the EXISTENCE of the BODY, leaving us with the IDEA that MAN is MORE CERTAIN of the
EXISTENCE OF SOUL than the EXISTENCE OF HIS BODY.
 At the END OF HIS MEDITATIONS, DESCARTES ultimately proved the EXISTENCE OF HIS OWN BODY
and ALL EXTERNAL THINGS as well.

The VIEW of PLATO, ARISTOTLE, and DESCARTES are not the only EXISTING VIEWS of HUMAN BEINGS
for sure. Nevertheless, they represent the DOMINANT VIEWS: HUMAN BEINGS as COMPOSITE of BODY and
SOUL, and as having an ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS of RATIONALITY. The DUALISTIC VIEW of MAN
considers MAN as having TWO ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS: a BODY and a SOUL. And in this DUALISTIC
PERSPECTIVE, it is the SOUL which gets the UPPER HAND while the BODY is treated with dislike for REASONS
like “SOURCE OF ERROR”, RESTRICTING, CORRUPTIBLE, etc. The ESSENTIALIST PERSPECTIVE, on the other
hand, CLAIMS that there must be an ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS that a BEING MUST POSSESS for it to be
called as SUCH. And in the CASE of HUMAN BEINGS, it is RATIONALITY.

II. AN EMBODIED SUBJECT

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY REFLECTION
 The FRENCH EXISTENTIALIST GABRIEL MARCEL considers TWO WAYS OF REFLECTION, which he
calls PRIMARY and SECONDARY REFLECTIONS.
 A REFLECTIVE ACTIVITY is a CONSEQUENCE of a DISTURBANCE in the CHAIN of OUR DAILY
ROUTINE.
 It is what an EXISTENTIALIST calls EXISTENTIAL BREAK that SHAKES us and FORCES us to pause and
think about what had happened.
 PRIMARY REFLECTION occurs when we inquire about THINGS in a DISTANT and OBJECTIVE
MANNER.
 This LEVEL OF REFLECTION will proceed with an INVESTIGATION of the PROBLEM at hand that
will not involve the SUBJECT making the INQUIRY.
  Most of our INQUIRIES will make use of PRIMARY REFLECTION, especially those done in the
FIELD OF THE SCIENCES.
 SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY aims for OBJECTIVITY and therefore sets the OBJECT OF THE STUDY in a
DISTANCE. Thus, the INQUIRER sets HIMSELF apart from the OBJECT OF HIS STUDY.
 On the other hand, the OTHER TYPE OF REFLECTION which MARCEL calls SECONDARY
REFLECTION, cannot occur without involving the INQUIRER into HIS INQUIRY.
 SECONDARY REFLECTION inevitably links the INQUIRER to the SUBJECT of HIS INQUIRY.
 This CASE is an EXAMPLE of an INQUIRY wherein you CANNOT DETACH yourself from the
QUESTION. And the INQUIRER is forced to FACE HIMSELF.
 Both PRIMARY and SECONDARY REFLECTIONS stem out of an EXISTENTIAL BREAK – a
DISTURBANCE in our DAILY ROUTINE.
 Both REFLECTIONS are IMPORTANT and they are not about PETTY THINGS for the INQUIRER.
 A REFLECTION is EXERCISED because it is worthwhile for the INQUIRER.
 The DIFFERENCE is that PRIMARY REFLECTION has the CHARACTER OF DETACHMENT in terms of
the INQUIRING SUBJECT in RELATION to the OBJECT OF INQUIRY, while SECONDARY REFLECTION
cannot proceed without involving the INQUIRER HIMSELF in the INQUIRY.
 It should be NOTED, however, that ADDRESSING PERSONAL INQUIRIES does not automatically
translate into SECONDARY REFLECTION.
GABRIEL MARCEL’S EMBODIMENT

MARCEL developed his POSITION by introducing a number of IMPORTANT PHILOSOPHICAL

DISTINCTIONS for which he became well known. Among them is that between BEING and HAVING, which
was CENTRAL to his THOUGHT. The DISTINCTION applies to a NUMBER OF AREAS IN LIFE, including the
EXPERIENCE OF HUMAN EMBODIMENT, the NATURE OF INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONS, and the NATURE OF THE
HUMAN PERSON. MARCEL argued that PEOPLE’S RELATIONSHIPS to their own bodies is not one of typical
“OWNERSHIP,” and so the fact of HUMAN EMBODIMENT presents a difficulty for any PHILOSOPHY, such as
CARTESIANISM, that wishes to place the FACT OF EMBODIMENT IN DOUBT. It is thus incorrect to understand
EMBODIMENT in terms of OWNERSHIP, or to say that people “POSSESS” their BODIES as INSTRUMENTS; it is
more accurate to say instead that “I AM MY BODY,” by which MARCEL meant that one cannot look upon
ONE’S BODY as an OBJECT or as a PROBLEM to be solved, because the LOGICAL DETACHMENT that is
required to do so cannot be achieved. Indeed, as soon as I consider my body as an object, it ceases to be
“MY BODY,” because the NATURE OF CONCEPTUAL thought requires DETACHMENT FROM THE OBJECT UNDER
ANALYSIS. Nor, however, can I regard my BODILY EXPERIENCES as the SUM TOTAL OF MY LIFE.

MARTIN HEIDEGGER’S BEING-IN-THE-WORLD

For HEIDEGGER, the HUMAN SUBJECT had to be reconceived in an altogether new way, as
“BEING-IN-THE-WORLD.” Because this NOTION represented the very opposite of the CARTESIAN “THING THAT
THINKS,” the IDEA OF CONSCIOUSNESS as representing the MIND’S INTERNAL AWARENESS of its own states
had to be dropped. With it went the ASSUMPTION that SPECIFIC MENTAL STATES were needed to MEDIATE
the RELATION OF THE MIND TO EVERYTHING OUTSIDE IT. The HUMAN SUBJECT was not a MIND that was
capable only of representing the world to itself and whose linkage with its body was merely
a contingent one. According to HEIDEGGER, HUMAN BEING should instead be conceived as DASEIN, a
COMMON GERMAN word usually translated in English as “EXISTENCE” but which also literally means “BEING
THERE.” By using it as a REPLACEMENT FOR “CONSCIOUSNESS” AND “MIND,” HEIDEGGER intended to suggest
that a HUMAN BEING is in the WORLD in the MODE OF “UNCOVERING” and is thus disclosing other ENTITIES as
well as ITSELF. DASEIN is, in other words, the “THERE”—or the LOCUS—of BEING and thus the METAPHORICAL
PLACE where ENTITIES “SHOW THEMSELVES” as WHAT THEY ARE. Instead of being sealed off within a specially
designed compartment within a HUMAN BEING, the FUNCTIONS that have been misdescribed as “MENTAL”
now become the DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN EXISTENCE.

III. LIMITATION AND TRANSCENDENCE

FACTICITY
 An EMBODIED SUBJECT, whose BEING is to be in the WORLD, will have its FIRST LIMITATION the
moment it is born.
 There are LOT OF THINGS which are already in and with us when we are born: our GENDER,
our COLOR, our RACE, our SOCIAL STATUS, our GENES, and OTHERS.
 FACTICITY refers to the THINGS IN OUR LIVES that are ALREADY GIVEN. (JEAN-PAUL SARTRE)
 FACTICITY also refers to all the DETAILS that surround us in the PRESENT as BEING-IN-THE-WORLD
in the HERE and the NOW.
 SPATIAL-TEMPORAL BEING
 The fact that we are born and that we exist in a PARTICULAR PLACE and TIME already sets
LIMITATIONS on us that may be considered on DIFFERENT LEVELS:
 On the LEVEL OF TEMPORALITY, the most OBVIOUS LIMITATIONS is our FINITUDE.
 On the LEVEL OF OUR BEING SPATIAL INDIVIDUALS, we are LIMITED by our BODIES to be
present in TWO or MORE PLACES at the same time.
 On the LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING, we consider our SPATIAL-TEMPORAL SITUATION as
IMPOSING a LIMIT on us as it sets out to be our PRECONDITIONS of our UNDERSTANDING.
THE BODY AS INTERMEDIARY
 The BODY as INTERMEDIARY is another DIFFICULTY that arises out of an EMBODIED SUBJECT.
 We have established that we are our BODIES, but also MORE THAN OUR BODIES.
 Our BODY then serves as an INTERMEDIARY between us and the PHYSICAL WORLD… It is
because of my BODY that I experience the WORLD from a PARTICULAR BODILY STANDPOINT.
TRANSCENDING LIMITATIONS
 Facticity
 Spatial-Temporal Being
 The Body As Intermediary

 VOCABULARY:
1. Cosmos 5. Corruptible 9. Rational 13. Intermediary
2. Cadaver 6. Reflections 10. Dynamics 14. Disposition
3. Function 7. Inquiry 11. Finitude 15. Pervasive
4. Restricting 8. Objective 12. Spatial

PREPARED BY: MR: JEFFERSON NAVARRO TRIAS, LPT.