Introduction to Philosophy

Truth presupposes a perspective and a context

Six Blind men by John Godfrey Saxe
Philosophy means love of Wisdom; philo means love
Philosophy the academic study of anything
Philosophy tackles this kind of questions
• What’s the meaning of life?
 Why do innocent people suffer?
 Does God exist?
• Is everything a matter of opinion?
• What is happiness?
• What is knowledge?
 How do you know what is real?
 How do you verify knowledge or reality?
 Explore how philosophers, scientists, and theologians attempt to answer these questions

MEANING OF PHILOSOPHY
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge,
values, reason, mind, and language.
Philosophy is the rational attempt to formulate, understand, and answer fundamental questions.

Philosophy is a persistent effort of both ordinary and persistent people to make life as intelligible and meaningful as
possible. – Branold

Philosophy is as old as mankind. It might be commonly understood as a ‘way of life’, a ‘way of seeing thing’, or a
‘disposition of a person of how he or she understands and experiences the world.’ Etymologically, the work
‘philosophy” came from the Greek word ‘philien’ which means ‘to love’, and ‘sophia’ which means ‘wisdom.’ Hence,
the word philosophy means “love of wisdom.

NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY
Historically, the birthplace of philosophy is Miletus, and the first philosophers are considered Milesians or lonian
thinkers such as Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes. Pythagoras (c.580-c. 500 BCE) regarded to be the first
person to coined the term philosophy which he means as "friend of wisdom", and Thales (640-547 BCE), one of the
Milesian thinkers, can be regarded as the first philosopher, or the father of western philosophy, since he used reason to
explain the events happening in the world,

Thales - "Arche"
 Unifying Principle
 Source of Motion
 Source of Life
 Dimension of Intelligence

NATURE OF PHILOSOPHY
In other words, the main tool or method in doing philosophy is reason by way of logical reasoning and valid
argumentation.

MEANING OF PHILOSOPHY
• It starts from ‘wonder’ then asking “question”
• It is generally ‘search for meaning’
• It has been regarded as the ‘totality of human knowledge’
MEANING OF PHILOSOPHY
• Wisdom is different from Knowledge: knowledge is the "know-what-to-know-how of thing"; while
wisdom already contains the "know-what of thing" and focused on the know-why-to-know-how of thing".

Epochs of Philosophy
Ancient Period: philosophy is characterized as Cosmocentric
• Ancient period of philosophy ranges from 5th century BCE until the late 2nd century AD. It can be
customarily divided into Pre-Socratic and Socratic, being Socrates as the one of the most significant and
influential philosophers of this period. During the Pre-Socratic, the main philosophical question being
raised during this period is "what is the basic stuff which the world is made of As such, philosophical
discourses are motivated by cosmological problem. Ancient period is identified as cosmocentric period of
philosophy.

Medieval Period: philosophy is characterized as Theocentric

• The medieval period covers the years from 5th century AD to 15th century AD. This is also known as
the middle ages or the Christian medieval ages. The basic character of this period is the dominance of
Christianity-its teachings and doctrines. As a consequence, philosophy acquires religious influences. The
philosophical question is centered about nature of God and His existence. Reason and faith go together in
philosophical discourses and arguments. Philosophy in this period caters theological questions.
Philosophy is identified with theology. As such, this period of philosophy is regards as theocentric period
of philosophy

Modern Period: philosophy is characterized as ‘Ideocentric

• Modern period begins from the 16th century AD to early 19th century. It is identified with the rise of
scientific investigation and the rapid development in science and technology. There is a rehabilitation of
philosophical discourse regarding the nature of human knowledge, the capacity and limitation of human
understanding. There is also the revival of the free speculative thinking about the content and certitude of
human knowledge. Philosophical question is geared towards the problem of certainty of knowledge if
(scientific) knowledge claims to provide factual and exact knowledge. Philosophical discourse dddresses
now an epistemological problem. As such, this epochcan be also called epistemocentric period of
philosophy.

Contemporary Period: philosophy is characterized as Anthropocentric

• Contemporary period covers from the 19th century up to present time. This period of philosophy can be
customarily divided into two traditions: the Continental Tradition and the Analytic Tradition. On one
hand, the main philosophical question in the continental tradition is the meaning of human existence in
the world with others and the dignity of human person. The philosophical discourse is focused on how
every individual human person would live an authentic life. On the other hand, the analytic tradition deals
with the logical structure of language as it represents the world or reality. Philosophical discourses are
focused on clarifying linguistic utterance and the meaning of such utterance as perceived by the mind as
well as the nature of the mind itself. Some metaphysical issues such identity, time, determinism, free will,
causality are also discussed in analytic tradition.

MAJOR BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY

1. Metaphysics-philosophical study of ultimate nature of reality. Metaphysics is also known as
ontology. It comes from two Greek words “meta” which means beyond and “physika” which
means physical, thus, etymologically, metaphysics means beyond physical. This branch of
philosophy deals with the question of the nature of reality as well as the fundamental features of
existence and properties. Metaphysics is traditionally referred to as the First Philosophy (by
Aristotle) since it studies the first and the ultimate cause of reality. Ontology is the metaphysical
study of being as being. The term ‘being’ refers to anything that exists-actual and possible.
2. Epistemology-philosophical study of knowledge. Epistemology comes from the two Greek
words "episteme" and "logos" which mean study of knowledge. It deals with the nature, scope,
criteria, limit, and possibility of human knowledge. It also investigates the origin, structure,
methods, certainty, and integrity of knowledge. Its philosophical question revolves on the issue of
the 'know that' or "knowledge that", and the 'know how' or the "knowledge how".
3. Logic – science and art of correct and critical thinking. Logic deals with critical and correct
inferential reasoning. It investigates and establishes the criteria, principle, method, and process of
 valid and sound arguments and demonstrations. Modern logic has made use of symbol to
demonstrate logical arguments, also known as mathematical logic.
4. Ethics-philosophical study of moral judgments. Generally, ethics is the philosophical study of
moral judgment. It also deals with the values and beliefs in human behavior as well as moral
issues and problems. It investigates the rightness and wrongness of an action, and identifies the
actions which are good and, desirable. More discussion will be given in module two.
5. Aesthetics-philosophical study of art and value judgments about art and beauty. Aesthetics
analyzes, and consequently, evaluates the nature of beauty-specifically the composition of what is
called beautiful. It also includes the investigation of the metaphysical quality of beauty including
its subjective perspective and objective structure. Common philosophical articulation of beauty
may refer to proportionality and simplicity.

4 MAJOR PARTS OF PHILOSOPHY

• Ancient Philosophy
• Medieval Philosophy
• Modern Philosophy
• Contemporary Philosophy

Ancient Philosophy
• This is considered as the start of philosophy initiated by the Greek Philosophers.
• The central idea of this age of philosophy talks about the first principle of the world.
• The main question: What is the cause of the world?
• Man is seen as connected to the world.

Thales
• Water is the cause of all things.
Maxim: The most difficult thing in life is to know yourself.

Anaximander
• Apeiron, which means the infinite and the unlimited, is the first principle of all things. Through heat and
cold, all things evolved.

The Apeiron is neither water nor any other one of the things called elements, but the Infinite is something
of a different nature. From which came all the heavens and the worlds in them—Anaximander of Miletus
(611-547 BC)

Maxim: The source from which existing things derive their existence is also that to which they return at
their destruction-Anaximander.

Anaximenes of Miletus
• Air is the cause of all things.
• “The Earth IS flat, being borne upon air, and similarly the sun, moon and the other heavenly bodies,
which are ALL fiery, ride upon the air through their flatness.”- Anaximenes Of Miletus

MATERIALISM AND MATERIALIST PHILOSOPHERS

• Materialism is the philosophical belief/view- point that all of reality is made up of physical components.
• According to philosophical materialists, EVERYTHING in the universe is made up of physical parts,
even things like the mind and consciousness.
• Therefore, materialists believe that consciousness is a result of the brain and not an immaterial soul or
spirit.
 Pythagoras - He believed that everything is bounded by number.
 Heraclitus - Everything changes and it is compared to fire.
“You cannot step into the same river twice.”—Heraclitus
 Empedocles - Water, air, fire and earth is the principle of all things. Through hate and love,
everything evolves.

ANCIENT PHILOSOPHERS
• Protagoras – For him, “man is the measure of all things.”
• Socrates His famous line is to “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
• Plato – He believes in reincarnation. It is through learning that we remember the things we know in the
past.

MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY
• This is the age of philosophy wherein the Christian God is considered as the origin and cause of all
things.
• This epoch talks about the existence and attributes of God.
• This have seen man as anchored to God.

 St. Augustine
He has this doctrine of Divine Illumination wherein man is aided by God in knowing
Him.

Medieval Philosophers
• St. Thomas Aquinas - he has this Five ways to know God’s existence:
- Motion
- Cause
- Necessity
- Perfection
- Governance of the World
• St. Bonaventure - For him, the end of philosophy should always be theology. In that case, the
end of our philosophical inquisitions is God.
• St. Anselm - God is the most perfect of all.

Thomas Aquinas and the five ways: proofs of God’s existence

 The Proof from Motion
 We observe motion all around us. Whatever is in motion now was at rest until moved by
something else, and that by something else, and so on. But if there were an infinite series
of movers, all waiting to be moved by something else, then actual motion could never
have started, and there would be no motion now. But there is motion now. So there must
be a First Mover which is itself unmoved. This First Mover we call God.

 The Proof from Efficient Cause.

 Everything in the world has its efficient cause-its maker—and that maker has its maker,
and so on. The coffee table was made by the carpenter, the carpenter by his or her
parents, and on and on. But if there were just an infinite series of such makers, the series
could never have got started, and therefore be nothing now But there is something
everything there is! So there must have been a First Maker, that was not itself made, and
that First Maker we call God.

 The Proof From Necessity

 Nothing comes from nothing, so in that case there would be nothing now! But there is
something now-the world and everything in it-so there must be at least one necessary
being. This Necessary Being we call God.

 The Proof From Degrees Of Perfection.

 We all evaluate things and people in terms of their being more or less perfectly true,
good, noble and so on. We have certain standards of how things and people should be.
But we would have no such standards unless there were some being that is perfect in
every way, something that is the truest, noblest, and best. That Most Perfect Being we
call God.
 Also called Argument from Gradation. (Since all existent things can be compared to such
qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely Good
Being.)

 The Proof From Design

  As we look at the world around us, and ourselves, we see ample evidence of design—the
bird’s wing, designed for the purpose of flight; the human ear, designed for the purpose
of hearing, the natural environment, designed to support life; and on and on. If there is
design, there must be a designer. That Designer we call God.

MODERN PHILOSOPHY
• This is the age of philosophy that centers its inquisitions to man.
• Man is seen as the center of everything.

Modern Philosophers
 Niccolo Machiavelli – He believed that the “end justifies the means.”
“Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far
safer to be feared than loved”. ― Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
Maxim: “The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men
he has around him.”

 Aldous Huxley
“The end cannot justify the means, for the simple and obvious reason that the means
employed determine the nature of the ends produced.”

Thomas Hobbes
Social Contract Theory
• A social contract is an act by which individuals agree to form a government
• According to social contract theory, governments are established by the people who combine to achieve
some goal
• Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were social contract theorists
• They hypothesized the existence of a state of nature prior to any government

“I think; therefore I am”—Descartes

Modern Philosophers
• John Locke - For him, our minds, when we are born are totally empty and it is only through sense
experience that we acquire knowledge.

Tabula Rasa
An absence of preconceived ideas or predetermined goals. A clean slate. The human mind,
especially at birth, in its blank or empty state before exposure to outside impressions or social
constructs.

• George Berkely. For him, the existence of things lies on man's sense-experience of it.
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

• David Hume - Man cannot know the cause of things or in other words it is impossible for man to know
God for he cannot sense the connection of God and man.

TOPIC: Meaning of truth and opinion

Meaning of Truth
In various epoch of philosophy, philosophers offer arguments and explanation regarding the
nature and meaning of truth. The question of truth belongs to the branch of Epistemology, which
later becomes a constitutive topic in the area of pragmatism, philosophical logic and philosophy
of language.

Generally, there are three philosophical theories that explain the nature of truth: correspondence
theory, the coherence theory and pragmatic theory.

 Correspondence Theory of Truth

Although the correspondence theory of truth originated from Aristotle (385BC- 323BC)
and St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), nevertheless, many of the 19th and 20th century
 philosophers contributed in the crystallization of this theory. This theory states that
something is said to be true if it corresponds to what is really there in reality that is, a
fact. In other words, truth exists if what is in the mind of the person corresponds to what
is really there in real life. For instance, if I am thinking that James knows how to sing,
and James can actually sing, then what I am thinking is truth.

 Coherence Theory of Truth

The development of coherence theory of truth is often associated with George Edward
Moore (1873-1958) and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) in the analytic tradition of
philosophy. According to this theory, the truth of a proposition or statement consists of
its consistency with some sets of propositions. For instance, if the statement: “Geefe, is
the wife of James is said to be true, there must be some other statements to which this
statement is coherent such as, there is a woman whose name is Geniafe, there is man
whose name James, and these man and woman are married, so that the statement
“Geniefe is the wife of James” is said to be true.

 Pragmatic Theory of Truth

The development of pragmatic theory of truth is attributed to American pragmatist such
as Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) and William James (1842-1910). According to
this theory, truth is anything that satisfactory and useful to believe. In other words, a
word, concept or action in said to be true if it works satisfactory in a practical condition
or situation; and the meaning of a word or concept is said to be true if it has practical
consequences (cf Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914], William James [1842-1910]: John
Dewey [1859-1952]).

Finally, the opposite of truth can be termed as fallacy. Fallacy is a deceiving statement or
argument in a form of good argumentation, Fallacy comes from the Latin

TOPIC: General Methodologies In Philosophizing

In the context of philosophical investigation, method means the logical process by which information is
systematically acquired. Here, information may refer to variety of specified details from events,
propositions, experiences, arguments, issues, problems, evidences, and questions comprising knowledge
of sets of knowledge. In simple logical- critical thinking the general methods of thinking include
deduction, induction, reduction or abduction.

In other words, these general methods in philosophy are better understood as process of thinking by
which we are able to arrive in an explanation about certain issue, idea or phenomenon.

 Method of Deduction
By deduction, our process of thinking is from general to specific; from known to
knowing the unknown: from most evident to justify the less evident; from necessary and
certain in which something is inferred is also necessary and certain.
 Method of Induction
By induction, our process of thinking is from particular to universal; from specific to
general: from several known facts a general statement is derived. In the same manner,
you can use induction if the several particular details of information are immediately
present, from which you can derive general information.
 Method of Reduction
By reduction, our process of thinking in reducing towards simplicity or simplest form: to
reduce into most valid statement; reduce to most logically sound proposition. In terms of
the details of information, when the details are so abundant, which may already causing
confusion in selecting the appropriate and sufficient information, you may resort to
reduction wherein the various details are reduced into their most evident and concise
details of information.
 Method of Abduction
By abduction, our process of thinking is through determining the most sufficient
antecedent of a consequence; determining the sufficient and valid cause of the effect or
occurrence. Here, some details of information are given already and immediately
 accessible and comprehensible; what is left is to determine the source of validity or
certainty of such information.

Any of these general methods can be used in “extracting truth” from the primary and secondary
philosophical texts, as well as in “explicating information” in your own philosophical reflection. Indeed,
philosophies of philosophers are difficult to digest intellectually, probably because of the style of writing,
or the used of words, or the structure of statements, or the profundity of ideas themselves.

TOPIC: Laws Of Logic As Guidelines In Attaining Truth

The laws of thought or the laws of logic enable us to use our chosen method properly and appropriately
when constructing philosophical arguments or in distinguishing truth from falsity or opinion:

 Law of Contradiction – this law states that it is impossible for a statement or argument to be true
or false at the same time in the same manner at a given instance.
 Law of Identified and Excluded Middle – this law states that if two concepts (arguments or
statements) are identical to a third concept (argument of statement), then these two concepts
(arguments or statements) are identical with each other.
 Law of Identity- this law states that if an argument is true, then it is really true – following the
principle of general and transcendental metaphysics of reality that is-“whatever is, is” or
“everything is what it is”.
 Law of Causation – this law states that every cause has its own effect, and every effect has its
own cause. The law of causation is generally manifested in the progressive order of nature, as
well as in the laws of nature.
 Law of All (Dictum de Omni)- this law states what is true or affirmed in a logical whole may also
be distributively true or affirmed to its logical members; but what is false or denied in logical
members is not necessarily false or denied to the logical whole.
 Law of None (Dictum de Nullo)- this law states that what is false or denied in a logical whole
may also be distributively false or denied in its logical members; but what is true or affirmed in
the logical members is not necessarily true or affirmed in the logical whole.

TOPIC: Theories of truth

In knowing the truth or falsity of a statement, we generally use the following Theories of Truth:
1. The Correspondence theory of Truth:
The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that what we believe or say is true if it corresponds to the
way things actually are based on the facts. It argues that an idea that correspond with reality is true while
an idea, which does not correspond to reality is false. For example, if I say, “The sky is blue” then I
looked outside and saw that it is indeed blue, then my statement is true. On the other hand, if I say, “Pigs
have wings” and then I checked a pig and it does not have wings, then my statement is false. In general,
statements of beliefs, propositions, and ideas are capable being true or false.

However, according the Eubulides, a student of the Megara school of philosophy, “the correspondence
theory of truth leaves us in the lurch when

We are confronted with statements such as “I am lying” or “What I am saying here is false.” These are
statements and therefore, are capable of being true or false. But if they are true because they correspond
with reality, then any preceding statement or proposition must be false. Conversely, if these statements
are false because they do not agree with reality, then any preceding statement or proposition must be true.
Thus, no matter what we say about the truth or falsehood of these statements, we immediately contradict
ourselves.”

This does not mean that the Correspondence Theory of Truth is wrong or useless and, to be perfectly
honest, it is difficult to give up such an intuitively obvious idea that truth must match reality.
Nevertheless, the above criticisms should indicate that it probably is not a comprehensive explanation of
the nature of truth.
Arguably, it is a fair description of what truth should be, but it may not be an adequate description of how
truth actually “works” in human minds and social situations (Cline, 2007).

Austin Cline argues, it is important to note here that “truth” is not a property of “facts.” This may seem
odd at first, but a distinction must be made between facts and beliefs. A fact is some set of circumstances
in the world while a belief is an opinion about what those facts are. A fact cannot be either true or false
because it simply the way the world is. A belief, however, is capable of being true or false because it may
or may not accurately describe the world.

TOPIC: The Human As An Embodied Spirit

Key Terms
Man – the general term commonly used to refer to the entire human race
Human – refers to man as a species
Human being- used to distinguish man from other animals
Person – refers to a human being granted recognition of certain rights, protection, responsibilities, and
dignity above all. It is the totality of an individual, possessing awareness, self-determination, and the
capacity to interact with others and with himself/herself.
Personhood – refers to the state of being a person.
Human nature — refers to the characteristics (like thinking, feeling and acting) that distinguish humans
from all other creatures. These traits are considered to form the essence of humanity, and without them,
an individual may not be considered a human person.
 Plato believes that the body and soul are separable. (death scenario)

If Plato made a distinct separation of the nature of soul and body, Aristotle has the same notion of human
person as composed of soul and body, that although distinct from one another yet inseparable insofar as
the notion human person is concerned. This means that the soul and the body are two aspects of the same
person, which unlike Plato who identify person to the soul solely, and the body as imprisonment of this
soul. For Aristotle, human person is the entire body and soul.

The term soul is the English translation of the Greek word psyche. And for Aristotle, the general
definition of the soul involves the concept of life. Thus, the soul for Aristotle is the principle of life. This
suggests, therefore, that anything that has life has a soul.

• The kind of soul that is found in plants, according to Aristotle, is called vegetative, while those found in
animals and humans are called sensitive and rational souls respectively.

• According to Aristotle, plants have souls because they possess the three basic requirements for
something to be called a "living being", that is, the capacity to grow, reproduce, and feed itself. However,
plants do not share the higher levels of soul; although they grow, reproduce, and feed themselves, plants
are not capable of feeling and thinking.

• Animals have sensitive souls also grow, reproduce, and feed themselves; but unlike vegetative souls,
sensitive souls are capable of sensation but not capable of thinking as rational souls.

• Humans have rational souls- grow, reproduce, feed themselves, and feel; but unlike the sensitive souls,
rational souls are capable of thinking. According to Aristotle, this highest level of soul is present only in
humans.

TOPIC: Hylomorphism: Human Person as composite of Body and Soul

If Plato made a distinct separation of the nature of soul and body, Aristotle has the same notion of
human person as composed of soul and body, that although distinct from one another yet inseparable
insofar as the notion human person is concerned. This means that the soul and the body are two aspects of
the same person, which unlike Plato who identified person to the soul solely, and the body as
imprisonment
of this soul. For Aristotle, human person is the entire body and soul

Moreover, Aristotle explains the relation of the soul to the body in terms of hylomorphic
doctrine:
matter and form. To elaborate this doctrine, he asserts that man is a substance, that is, a being with
independent existence. Man’s existence is composed of matter and form. Matter is the principle of
potentiality and the form is principle of actuality. These two principles are inseparable in substance.
Putting
this in the context of human person, the soul is the form of human person which give the person the actual
perfection of being a person, and the body is the matter which give the person the potential perfection of
being a person. The soul gives “form” of a human person to the body which is “matter.”

Human Person According to Aristotle

Hence, for Aristotle, a body without soul cannot be rightfully called a human person, so as the soul
without a body is not a human person. This Aristotle’s concept of intrinsic relation of the soul to the body
asserts that:
● The soul and body are mutually dependent;
● The soul actualizes the potentialities of the body; and
● The body supplies potentialities for the soul’s actualization

Implication of Aristotle’s Notion of Human Person

These explain certain human conditions in the world, for instance:
● A person comes to know the world through his or her senses. The mind which is a property of the
soul forms ideas about the world from his or her sense data; and
● A person performs concrete action (property of body) guided by will and reason (property of soul)
toward certain purpose or end.

TOPIC: Dualism: Distinction between Body and Soul

Plato and Aristotle have provided suitable philosophical explanation of the relationship of the body
and soul. However, the problem regarding this issue still remain bewildering during the period of Rene
Descartes who addressed the issue in a more critical way, a kind of radical dualism between the body and
the soul.

The philosophical venture of Rene Descartes (1596-1650) is to come up with a clear and distinct idea
of anything that exists, including the problem concerning the relation of body and soul and their
existence.
Like the Greek ancient philosophers, Descartes believed that human person is composed of body and
soul,
or in his terminology – mind and body.

In the Sixth Meditation, Descartes used the argument about the existence of bodies and the material world
to eliminate the “dream problem.” According to him, the essence of material bodies is their extension in a
given region of space. From this, he concluded that individual bodies are merely mode of the any
extended things – having shape, size, and dimension and occupying space. On the other hand, the dream
problem can be simply described the knower might be in the state of dreaming while knowing something
and therefore, what the knower knows are not the truth.

Cartesian Analysis of the Body

His argument is derived from the supposition that the divinely-given human faculties – i.e.
understanding and will – are designed for some specific purposes. His argument has three distinct stages:
● First, since the understanding conceives of material things through its comprehension of geometrical
form – such as shape, size and dimension, so it must at least be possible for things of this sort to
exist.
● Second, since the imagination is directed to some image of material bodies and of the ways in which
these material bodies are changing, it is probable that these things really exist.
● Finally, since the faculty of sense perception has the ability to receive images of physical objects to
produce ideas in my mind about some external source outside my control, it is certain that such
objects must truly exist.

The above argument is offered to prove the existence of the body. But the question is how the body is
related to the mind and how these two entities interact with one another?

Human Person according to Descartes

Descartes says that it is appropriate to consider human nature as a whole; considering that human
person is a “res cogitans” or a “thinking thing” – having the faculties of understanding and will. But, he
argued that mind and body are two distinct entities different in their essences, properties, and features.
This is also known as the Cartesian Dualism. To prove this distinction, he has two explanations:
● First, he explains that we can think of the body and the mind independently; so the two are not
dependent from one another when we are thinking about them. They can be thought of separately
and without reference to each other.
● Second, he explains that the body is geometrically defined in region of space and it is possible to
divide infinitely. But the mind can only be conceived as single, unitary, and indivisible entity with
different faculties and operations.

However, this explanation of Descartes makes it difficult to understand how the mind interacts with the
body. For him, it is the “volition” or choice of the mind to cause movement in the body. But definitely, he
emphasized, there is no direct connection between the mind and the body. He denies that the mind (or the
soul) resides in the body as the pilot or captain or “charioteer.”

Implication of Cartesian Dualism

Nevertheless, this Cartesian dualism offers at most two advantages:
● It provides proof on the essential state of immortality of the human mind or soul, which cannot be
substantially affected by death; and
● The distinction of mind from body offers scientific investigation to study the physical world in a
mechanistic explanation.

TOPIC: Embodied Subjectivity: I Am my Body and I Have my Body

Although Cartesian dualism of body and soul has explains the immortality of the soul, Maurice
Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961) disagreed that there are only though substance – soul and body, and these
two
are interacting in a certain manner.

He explains that there is a “third dialectic” – which is the human order – can be termed as culture,
which synthesizes the body and soul as one existing entity, a human person. Having just two substances
interacting in a particular manner does not explain the existence of human person in reality. It disrupts the
unity in the world. According to him, this unity is the unity of perceived objects.

Given his notion of unity as unity of perceived objects in Structures of Behavior and Phenomenology
of Perception (1962), Merleau-Ponty made use the perception as the starting point in his inquiry regarding
the relation of a person to his/her body.

Merleau-Ponty’s view on Human Body

By perception, he refers to experience of something intentionally, that is, an experience directed
toward something. How then the person through perception recognizes the relation of his/her body to
himself/herself? Ponty argues that,
● Perception is a process by which the “external world” is somehow imprinted in the subject’s
consciousness through recognizing certain information or data from this external world;
● By perception as well, one makes to recognize his/her own body as a gateway or “openness” to the
world in which a person experiences and understands the external world; and
● Thus, perception is the person’s disposition affected by the “body” - not a body as a piece or part of
the physical world, but as a body which the person lived, a living body.
Human Person according to Merleau-Ponty
In his Phenomenology of Perception, Ponty (1962:440) writes, “Insofar as I have hands, feet; a body,
I sustain around me intentions which are not dependent on my decisions and which affect my
surroundings
in a way that I do not choose.” This means that
● “I have my body” insofar as my body is a part of the external world; and
● “I am my body” insofar as I do my activity in the world through my body.
In this sense, a human person can be conceived as an “embodied subjectivity” – a ‘subject’ doing
‘activity’
through his/her body, while performing such activity in a given ‘culture’, which Merleau-Ponty argues as
the ‘synthesizer’, that directs the activity of the person in a meaningful living.

TOPIC: Feminine Body: Expression and Means

Recent development in philosophical thinking has emerged from the point of view of women. This
philosophy or “movement” is known as “Feminism” or Feminist Philosophy. Just like any philosophical
movement such as empiricism, rationalism, existentialism, etc., feminist philosophy also tackles different
issues in ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, theology, and environmental philosophy, etc. Feminist
philosophers provide different approaches or point of views to which different philosophical issues are
addressed with strong emphasis on the place of woman in the entire scheme of intellectual venture.

One of the most tackled issues of feminist philosophers, such as Simone de Beauvoir, Donna
Haraway, Judith Butler, Lucy Irigaray, Susan Bordo, Sharon Bong and others, is the issue about the body
– that is, the woman’s body.

Traditional view on Woman’s Body

In their initial formulation of feminist view of the body, feminist thinkers reject Aristotle’s notion of
female body as “congenitally disabled or deformed” male body. Aristotle views female as mutilated male,
a
damaged male. As such, for a long period of human history, particularly the male-dominated and male-
oriented societies in the world, women are considered second class citizen with limited rights,
opportunities
and privileges compared to their male counterpart who have the fullness of rights, opportunities, and
privileges in society.

 Woman as Second Class

The main reason for this categorization of women as second class members of society is due
to woman’s inborn physical and biological statures and capacities. This means that,
 Woman’s body is weak, soft, and fragile; man’s body is strong, hard, and sturdy, and
 Man’s body superior; woman’s body inferior.

Woman’s Body as Nature and Beyond Nature

However, Simone de Beauvoir, the most influential feminist thinker of the 20th century said in her
book ‘The Second Sex’, “a woman is one who is not born, but made.” This statement gives a strong
emphasis
on:
● The capacity of woman to become a woman, and not simply born as a woman. Being born as a
woman implies that woman – the woman’s body in particular–resembles the nature.
● As the nature nourishes and gives life to other things in the world, so as the woman’s body gives and
nourishes life of other living thing – a baby, for instance.
● However, not all women desires to look into their bodies the same as nature – just mere giving or
nourishing life, since they believe that their bodies can do more than just like nature, not mere
subservient to “nature’s will”. They have choices, and their bodies could be the most eloquent
expression and means of their choices as human persons.

Woman’s Body as Expression and Mean

Here, some feminist thinkers believe that their bodies are more than just chunks of nature, but a
concrete expression of themselves as women, without referring to the existence males. This means that,
● Female bodies are distinct and clear expression that they exist independently from males; and
● As such, their bodies are the concrete expression of their femininity – “being a woman as such,” and
not a “disabled or deformed man’s body.”
Accordingly, in rejecting the nature’s aspect of the body, some feminist thinkers assert that their
bodies are not for reproduction alone or just for nourishing function, although they do not totality deny
the
importance of these functions.
The main point here is that woman’s body can be a vital mean for other purposes not only exclusive
for reproduction function. Their bodies can be a means for:
● Exercising sociopolitical rights and responsibilities; and
● Investing in socioeconomic opportunities toward progress and development, which have been
controlled by male-oriented societies.
TOPIC: Human Person Is A Soul, Not A Body
Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” explains the nature and origin of reality. For him, there are two kinds of
world: the World of Forms’ and the World of Matters. On one hand, the World of Forms is said to be
permanent. This permanency entails that anything that it contains are unchanging, superior and real. On
the other hand, the World of Matters is just a ‘copy’ of the World of Forms, and therefore, anything that it
contains is changing, impermanent, inferior, and unreal. For instance, the chair that we see inside this
room is a copy of the real and actual chair in the world of forms.

Human Person according to Plato

Given this paradigm, Plato’s notion of human person is of dualist position. He asserts that real man lives
in the world of forms. In the original status of man in the World Of Forms, man is a soul, and the body
belongs to the World of Matters. This explains why:
• The soul is conceived as superior and unchanging while the body is inferior and changing.

Now, the question is how the soul relates and interacts with the body? According to Plato:
• The soul is imprisoned in the body, so that the original status of the soul has become limited.

It is not clear why the soul is imprisoned in the body, but Plato explains that the soul is the “charioteer of
the body- that is the soul controls the body. However, there are times in which the soul cannot control the
body which results to error or evil because of the body’s material inclination; and as the body suffers
from its errors, the soul suffers all the more.

Liberation of the Soul from the imprisonment in the body

However, Plato argues that to be imprisoned inside body is a mere accident, that is, the soul will be
eventually freed from the errors committed by the body through:
 Acquisition of knowledge of the soul’s original status through education, and
 Through the process of death in which the body dies and the soul return to its original status,
wherein the effects of bodily evils will no longer harm the soul

Implication of Plato’s Notion of Human Person

These explanations of Plato have several implications:
 The essence of the person is his or her soul;
 The soul is more important than the body; Soul is perfect and the body is imperfect,
 The body makes the soul imperfect; and The soul gives life to the body.

Moreover, these implications explain certain human conditions in the world, for instance:
 Religious teachings especially Christian moral teachings give emphasis on the purification of the
soul and denial of the material body;
 Because of the imprisonment, the soul loses much of its original knowledge, the “embodied
soul”- the person has to be educated to reclaim his or her original status of perfection –
knowledge stays in the soul and not in the body, and
 As the body dies, the soul returns to its original form to embrace again the “Light of Truth.”

TOPIC: Relation Of Human Person With The Environment

Human Person: Part and Whole of the Environment
With regards to relationship of human person and environment, such relationship can be viewed in terms
of human person as a part or whole.
 Human Person As a part of the environment;
 A person shares all the material elements with the rest of the members of the
environment.
 Through his or her body; a person is able to interact with the environment
 The body is the direct connection of a person with his environment. This connection is being
recognized by the person through his consciousness, which is the unifying agent that draws the person
towards nature.

The nature is the natural environment by which the person lives and finds acquaintance, and
which makes the person recognizes his belongingness with it.
 Human Person As the whole of environment:
 Each person mirrors or reflects the goodness, perfection, and beauty of his environment.
 How the systematic structures of body systems affects the same way the systematic
organic structure of natural environment
Human consciousness reflects the organic perfection of the nature, which is giving meaning to itself and
the rest of the members of environment. Finally, the self-creativity of nature is being found in the
individual creativity of each person, which transforms the various elements of nature into a beautiful
man-made creation.

Human Person: Master and Victim of the Environment

Furthermore, the interaction of person and environment can be viewed in terms of master and
victim.

 Human Person as the Master of Environment

 The person has the control of natural and human resources of environment.
 Being the master of natural resources, people can determine to which purpose the
natural resources are for
In this sense, the person is the active agent and the environment is the passive agent of the interaction.
The power to determine the purpose is either for the benefit of one or for the benefit of the many. This
power, however, makes the person prone to exploitation that is, being inconsiderate to the future effect of
such power and determination

On the other hand, being the master of human resources, persons can organize other people to achieve
definite and determinate purpose. Human person, in other words, can be the captain of the ship (natural
resources) and the captain of the crew (human resources). However, the problem arises when the
preservation of authority and power are put into question. Greediness is the root of evil in human relation,
resulting to abuse and misuse of these resources for selfish interest.

TOPIC: Responsibility Of Human Person Towards The Environment

Environmental Ethics
Prudence and frugality towards the environment is better done through becoming responsible
towards the environment Understanding our way of dealing with environment makes us better enjoy our
existence with and along the environment. This is manifested in our understanding of the Environmental
Ethics

 Characteristics of Environmental Ethics

The following are some of the general features, but not limited to, of an Environmental Ethics:
1) Environmental Ethics must be anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-classist, anti-naturist and opposed to any "-
ism" which presupposes act of domination.
2) Environmental Ethics as contextualist ethic is one which sees ethical discourse and practice as
emerging voice of people located in different historical circumstances.
3) Environmental Ethics must be structurally pluralistic rather than unitary or reductionistic in its
approach
4) Environmental Ethics reconceives ethical theory as theory in process which will change over time.
5) Environmental Ethics is in away inclusiveness, since it is contextualist, structurally pluralistic and is
"in-process".
6) Environmental Ethics does not assume any objective point of view, since in the contemporary culture
there really is no point of view..
7) Environmental Ethics provides a central place for values typically unnoticed such as values of care,
love, friendship, and appropriate trust.

 Instrumental Value and Intrinsic Value of Environment

One of the central problems regarding environmental ethics is to determine the value of the person in
relation to the value of environment. The problem of intrinsic value and the instrumental value becomes
the center of environmental ethics. The basic issue here is manner the human person should treat the
environment whether as means - that is, the instrumental value of the environment, or as an end- that is,
the intrinsic value of the environment

 Anthropocentrism: Human Dignity and Rights Nonhuman Beings as related to Environment

Another issue being discussed in environmental ethics is regarding human dignity in relation to the rights
of nonhuman beings (animals). The current ethical standard of society favors human dignity as the
reference of social actions and social justice. However, some animal rights advocates may entertain
certain leverage on pursuing certain rights of animals in terms of conservation even in the expense of
some human concerns or interests-that is, they favor animals rights against human progress as regards to
consumption, utilization and preservation of environment.

 Deep Ecology: Every Living Thing has Equal Right

Finally, the issue of right is also highlighted by Arne Nooss (1912-2009) among all living things.
According to him, all living things has right to exist. This contention is quite radical since it may underlie
the seemingly absolute and priority status of human dignity. However, deep ecology has rightfully
addressed the environmental concerns regarding sustainability- that is, environment should allow to
flourish and reach its ultimate purpose without the intervention of human beings.

I. ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Environment philosophy in the discipline that studies the moral relationship of human beings with the
environment and its non-human contents. Philosophers believe that the human person has the ability to
change the environment to suit his purposes. This means that as human person, we interact not only with
our fellow human beings, but also with other living and non-living elements in our environment.
Humankind is a part of the world, and we significantly affect our environment in the same way that
changes in our environment affect us (Ramos, 2015)

Let’s take a look on these three views of philosophical environment.

1. Anthropocentrism – focuses on the significant role of humankind in the world and considers
nature as the means by which humans are able to meet their needs and survive. This view believes
that humans are the most important species on the planet and they are free to transform nature and
use its resources.
2. Biocentrism – believes that humans are not the only significant species on the planet, and that all
other organisms have inherent value and should be protected. This view advocates ethical
treatment of animals.
3. Ecocentrism-places great value on ecosystems and biological communities. This view believes
that humankind is a part of a greater biological system or community and that we have a
significant role as stewards or guardians of nature. This view promotes the idea that order and
balance in nature brings about stability and beauty. The influence of humanity on the
environment can be best understood if we consider the individual person as a dynamic source of
change within his particular environment.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL AESTHETICS
A philosophical view that believes in maintaining order in the environment will bring out the natural
beauty of surroundings and contribute to the well-being of the people and other organisms living in it
(Endriga, 2017).
 III. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
According to the World Commission on Environment and Development. sustainable development defines
as: "Development that meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." To put it simply,
the idea of sustainable development is any environmental. economic and social advances can be realized
within the carrying capacity of earth's natural resources. (Sioco & Vinzona, 2016) It is reconciling human
activities and economic advances while protecting our environment. Sustainable development upholds on
the following principles:

PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABILITY
 Environmental Integrity means that any human activities or economic advances should not
unduly disrupt the environment and human communities located in the area. The environment
should not be drastically impacted by human activities (Abella, 2016).
 Economic efficiency. This is to ensure that there is minimum to zero waste in using our natural
resources (Abella, 2016).
 Equity it refers to conserving our natural resources so that the future generations will still be able
to use it (Abella, 2016).

The influence of humanity on the environment can be best understood if we consider the individual as a
dynamic source of change within his/her particular environment. There are theories that can explain how
the humanity address environmental problem. These theories offers ways to value care, conservation, and
preservation of nature and humanity.

IV. PRUDENCE AND FRUGALITY

How can one lessen the waste he/she is making? How can one be more efficient and more responsible in
using natural resources? These questions can be answered by observing prudence and frugality towards
the environment. Prudence and frugality are two of the many virtues that can help us in addressing
various environmental problems and solving the challenges these problems have created.

Prudence is the capacity to direct and discipline one’s activities and behavior using reason. It is the
behavior that is cautious and, as much as possible, keeps away from any risks. Prudence is considered as
the first and most vital among the four cardinal virtues, which include justice, fortitude, and temperance.
According to Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), a truly righteous person embodies
the value of prudence since it controls one’s overindulgences and as such is vital for a certain society. As
St. Thomas Aquinas argued, prudence is not purely an individual virtue, but concerns the social
dimension too. It means that prudence favors not only the private good of a certain person, but also the
common good. Now, the question is: Is prudence applicable to the challenges that the various
environmental problems have brought? Well, aside from being an individual virtue, prudence is also
considered as an ecological virtue since it implies the acknowledgement of human finiteness, both moral
and physical. Human finiteness is indivisible from the physical environment, which means that we,
vulnerable beings, depend on a no less fragile and vulnerable natural world, the ultimate source of human
well-being and economic prosperity, Prudence can help us become wiser, more responsible in terms of
using our natural resources and, most importantly, become more appreciative of nature’s essential value.

On the other hand, frugality is the quality of being thrifty. It is the careful supervision of one's resources.
Frugality, aside from prudence, is another fundamental value that can help us develop a sense of right and
wrong and attain whatever we want in life. Moreover, it is a virtue that can guide us in making choices in
life and receiving the most value out of those decisions. Commonly, when we talk about frugality, we are
talking about the cautious management of material resources, especially money. A frugal person always
invests time to think carefully just to save a lot of money and, therefore, uses far less money compare to
an affluent person. However, frugality can be used in a wider way to practically everything in our lives. It
can be considered as one of the most important parts when it comes to carrying on our responsibilities to
our community and the world. Now, the question is: How can frugality help in solving environmental
problems? Well, one of the main benefits of being a frugal person is that it is environmentally friendly.
When someone is being frugal in using natural resources like electricity and water, this person is putting
lesser damage on our natural environment. Furthermore, a frugal person usually lives out the idea of
"reduce, reuse, recycle" just to minimize expenses. Yet, this same idea also minimizes overall
environmental impact. Frugality, just like prudence, plays a big role in protecting our environment. It
finds a great deal of value in lessening one's use of natural resources and, at the same time, getting as
much value as possible out of the resources that we are using.