HUMAN NATURE AND PERSONHOOD

The nature of the human person

• We have been discussing the third level of life, which is human or intellectual life. We have
seen the elements that make up human life: the body, human affectivity (feelings), the
intellect and the will.

• Now we need to see how all these elements come together to constitute the nature of the
person

a) How is human nature made up? The concept of human nature

• The concept of nature comes from the philosophy of Aristotle and of St. Thomas Aquinas.
When Aristotle discusses his teleological doctrine (regarding the end or goal of human life),
he explains that everything that exists has a specific way of being, which is called essence.

 The essence, or way of being, of any given thing is not static; rather, the term indicates an
internal dynamism in the given thing, by which it acts in a particular way to achieve a
goal (telos) that is proper to the natural characteristics of that essence or way of being

o So, for example, a dog will bark in order to attract attention or as a warning of
danger.

 This internal dynamism, or essence of the thing in as much as it is a principle of activity,

is called the nature

o The nature is the way of being of a given thing, in as much as this way of being
brings the thing to act in a particular way; the nature is also known as the principle of
operation of any given thing

• Natural beings (existing things) act spontaneously according to their nature and in this way,
they achieve their fulfilment, that which is proper to them

 A horse, for example, has a particular way of being, or existing, and so may be said to
have a given nature.

 Thanks to his nature, the horse can carry out the activity that is proper to it as a horse; for
example: to run, to gallop, to feed in a particular way, to reproduce in a particular way,
etc.

 In this way, the horse develops itself correctly, and can reach the degree of fulfilment
proper to it due to its way of being, or nature.

• Something similar occurs in the case of the human being. As people, we also have an essence
or nature, a given way of being; for this reason, we need to act in a specific way in order to
achieve the degree of perfection proper to our nature

 Our nature is made up of body and soul, with intellect and will.

1
  There is a special difference between the human being and any other type of being; the
human person is free thanks to the fact that he has intellect and will

 A flower, a dolphin or a rhinoceros, cannot choose their way of behaving and they act
according to certain, specific reference points that are proper to their way of being

 Things are different in man’s case. As he is free, he can invent new ways of behaving, or
he can act against what he thinks he ought to do or he can do it because he wants to, that
is, freely

 This means that the human beings way of acting is guided by morality;

o If the person freely to chooses to act in accordance with his own nature, he will
act in a morally good way and he will also be happy;

o if he does not act according to his nature, he will act in an ethically bad or wrong
way, and he will be miserable because he will be acting against himself, in
opposition to his way of being and what is good for him

Cultural usage

• The term “human nature” corresponds to an experimental fact: that is, the existence of
common elements or features that allow us to ascertain and affirm that we are men or
women. As a result, the term “nature” has important ethical and cultural applications

• It offers a basis which allows us to say that all men are essentially equal: as we all possess
the same nature, we are all essentially equal to each other; there may be important
differences between one person and another, but the deepest part of the person, his nature,
does not change and is identical in each human being

• The concept of human nature allows us to affirm that a universal ethics exists, which is valid
for every man, due to the simple fact that if we have a common nature, then we also have
common ethical principles or requirements;

• The existence of a common human nature also offers a basis for affirming that absolute
moral norms exist that hold for all men; that is, there are actions that a man ought never to
commit and can never be good, because they seriously go against, or are contrary to human
nature

• Finally, the concept of human nature gives a transcendent basis to the human person in that,
although man is free, he does not create or invent his own nature, but rather he receives it as
given, with determined characteristics, along with the gift of life

 Human nature is a given factor with which man finds himself from the beginning
of his existence;

 The fact that nature is something that we are given, and do not give to ourselves,
indicates that there must be some giver who donates nature to us; this “giver” can
be identified as God;

2
  God thus shows himself to be the transcendent and deepest basis of human nature
and the person; we receive our existence in a particular nature or way of being
from the Supreme Being, God Himself

b) What is, who is the person? Possible definition of the person

• There have been and are many definitions of the human person; so we will take a look at
various attempts to do so

Boethius’ definition

• Boethius was a Roman thinker from the 5 th-6th centuries (+ 525): according to him

➢ Persona est natura rationalis individual substantia: person is the individual substance of
a rational nature (Liber de persona et duabus naturis)

• The person is “an individual substance of a rational nature”. This is still probably one of the
best definitions of the person. It highlights the following elements:

➢ Substantiality: the person subsists, continues to exist, in spite of changes around him; the
person is a being that persists, in time

➢ Individuality: the person is a unique and specific type of being ; each person is different
in himself, and is distinct from other persons

➢ Rational nature: a person is a particular type of substance because he has intelligence and
is capable of understanding the world; he is a spiritual being

• Limitations of this definition:

➢ The insistence on the idea of substance; while it underlines the objective existence of the
person, it doesn’t allow for the inner, subjective dimension of the person

➢ Lack of explicit reference to elements that are essential to the concept of person, such as
freedom, conscience, self-awareness, interpersonal relations, the self, etc.

➢ These elements are missing because the philosophical context in which Boethius’
definition was formulated had not yet discovered and developed these notions;

➢ These concepts were developed in the context of modern and contemporary philosophy
and now need to be added on to Boethius’ definition so that it be precise and complete.

Personalism and its description-definitions

• It is not easy to define the person in this day and age because the person is a very complex
reality as the various sciences making new sociological, psychological, anthropological
discoveries show up

➢ Each human being is so different in his personal being that it is difficult to fit the person
into a general definition

3
 ➢ In today’s society, definitions are difficult as everyone understands different things while
using the same terms; so, it is necessary to constantly explain what one means by
freedom, self, etc.

• In this context, personalism aims at offering fairly open ended definitions of a descriptive
nature. These definitions try to describe the essential elements that characterize the personal
being; they do not pretend to be exhaustive; non formal; need for a philosophical context that
explains the various terms with precision

• This has given rise to two main tendencies:

➢ The use of more or less explicit descriptions that express the essential elements of the
person:

 “The person is a spiritual being that is such due to its particular way of subsisting and
its independent being” (Mounier, E., Manifesto al servicio del personalismo, Taurus,
Madrid 1967, pp. 75-76)

 “The person is owner of himself and of the gift of himself” (Lacroix, J., Le
personnalisme, Lyon 1982, p. 27)

➢ Detailed descriptions of the characteristics of the personal being which are obtained by
explaining certain features that characterize the personal being as we shall now see

Phenomenological features of the person

• Substantiality-subsistence: the person is a being who has such a strong existential density that
he remains the same, in spite of changes; the person is always the same even though the
world around him changes and even though he himself changes

➢ This is so because the person exists in and by himself, independently of other creatures,
due to his act of being; that which makes him be and be real

➢ Even though the human being changes internally and externally, even organically, he
continues to be the same person;

➢ This fact of being he himself is deep and decisive, because it means that the person
consistent being who can resist the passing of the days and years; he is even eternal in a
certain sense

➢ This is what we refer to when we speak of the subsistence of the personal being

• Intimacy-subjectivity: That which remains the same when there are changes in the person is
not a “thing”, but rather, a “who”; someone; a very deep reality with great inner richness
which manifests itself and expresses itself through special qualities: sensitivity, feelings,
emotions, self-awareness, etc.

4
 ➢ All these characteristics constitute the person’s subjectivity; that is, that which is proper
and specific to each person, his intimate, inner world, which is different to that of any
other person

➢ This “world” can be manifested, partially, through feelings and actions; but it is also
partly inexpressible because it constitutes the very identity of the person, which cannot be
transferred or communicated

➢ Also, the person understands himself as an autonomous being, aware of himself and
independent; that is, he understands that he is someone, a subject, an “I” who is capable
of making decisions about himself and of presenting himself to the world.

➢ Karol Wojtyla said that the person is someone who “possesses himself” (Wojtyla, K.,
Persona e atto, p. 132).

• A corporeal, special and temporal being: the person has a material and corporeal dimension
also; he is subjectivity and intimacy in a specific, physical and particular body; he is a
“corporeal someone” (Marias, J.,
Persona, Alianza, Madrid 1997, p. 135).

➢ This brings with it many consequences, one of which is the fact that he is not a purely
spiritual being, but rather he can be located in space and time

➢ Space: the person moves within physical, geographical and human space which he needs
in order to live and which conditions him: house, city, country, etc.

➢ Time: the person is not a static being, but rather, he is in constant evolution; he has a life
span which unfolds and which makes him dynamic and capable of having projects

 The person lives in time, with which he is constantly struggling;

 On the one hand, he tries to detain time by keeping memories from the past and
eternalizing the present when it is pleasant and makes him happy
 At the same time, he tries to anticipate (bring forward) the future in order to decide
on his destiny and to exercise that control over himself that characterizes him
 However, death always comes and time runs out although the longing for eternity
which lies within every man, also requires an explanation

• Openness and definition: although the person has his own personal and untransferable life, he
is not a being that is closed in on itself, rather he is open; he needs to transcend (go beyond)
himself in order to develop fully

➢ All men need to go out of themselves and to make themselves a gift to others if they want
to achieve personal fulfillment; he does this through his higher, spiritual faculties

 Affectivity, intellect and freedom

➢ Man relates to the real world at three different levels: with things; interpersonal relations
with other people and with God;

5
 ➢ This relation always works in two directions: reception and influence; man is affected by
the world around him, but at the same time, through his action he can change this world
and transform it according to his desires and needs

➢ This openness does not involve the modification of an undifferentiated being, but rather,
it involves the perfecting of a well defined being with a specific nature

➢ “(The person is) at the same time open and closed. He is closed due to the immanence of
his past in his present through the condensing of his whole history in the present moment
thanks to a general evaluation that, balancing out his conquests and his achievements,
establishes the validity of that which the person has managed to do with himself. He is
open because his present moment opens up to the future, he is filled with an impulse that
places him before himself, because the requirements that move him oblige him to take
new decisions and to dedicate himself ever more to the task in which the person
recognizes himself” (Pareyson, L., Esistenza e persona, p. 181).

• Man and woman: when we speak about the person we do so in an abstract way because, in
reality, there exists two different types of human person (but not one human person as such):
man and woman

➢ There are no abstract human persons, but rather male human persons or female human
persons each of whom offer a wonderful diversity which is full of mystery and
complementarity;

➢ We do not mean by this that man and woman are two different types of being; they are
both essentially equal to each other, but the specific way in which their personal being is
constituted, while being equal in the deepest dimensions, are different in their specific
manifestations

➢ Corporality, sensitivity, psychology, intelligence and affectivity follow different paths in

man and in woman, and in this way they unendingly enrich the world of the personal
being

• These are the main phenomenological characteristics of the human person that distinguish
him from any other type of being