Lesson 1.
1 Distinguish a holistic perspective from a partial point • An ancient Greek city of Miletus in the western coast of what is
of view
The meaning of Philosophy
Philosophy is the science that by the natural light of reason studies
the first causes or the highest principles of all things. It derives from
the first word “Phil” and Sophia, which means Love of Wisdom.
As a science:
Biology- life, Chemistry- composition, chemical
properties of a substance Psychology- mental behavior,
Anthropology-human person, Sociology- society,
Theology- GOD
In understanding the first causes of all things, four things must be
considered
1. Science is a systematized body of knowledge that is based
on the study of facts and existence.
2. Natural light of reason- is the natural capacity to think the
unaided reason or the human reason alone.
3. STUDY of all things- concerns, human being, its society,
the religion, the language, God, plants among all other
concern
4. First cause or highest principle- the principle that
recognizes the existence of something proceeds in the
manner whatsoever.
4.1 Principle of Identity- Everything is its own being and
not being is not being (it is the fact of being one and the
same) (Self-Personal)
4.2 Principle of Non-contradiction- it is impossible for a
thing to be and not to be at the same time, and at the same
respect.
According to Aristotle, first philosophy deal with ontology
and first principles. Says; without the principle of non-
contradiction, we could not know anything that we do not
know. We will not be able to distinguish between what a
thing is.
Example:
a. A human being from a rabbit what it is like
b. A pale or white
The principle of non-contradiction is a principle of
scientific inquiry, reasoning, and communication that we
cannot do without.
4.3 Principle of Excluded Middle- A thing is either is or is
not, everything must be either be or not be between beings
and not being, there is no middle ground This means that a
statement is either true or false.
Think of it as claiming thot there is no middle ground between being
true and being false. Every statement has to be one or the other.
That’s why it is called the low of excluded middle ground between
truth and falsity.
4.4 Principle of Sufficient Reason- Nothing exist without a
sufficient reason for its being and existence. Is a powerful and
controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must
have a reason or a cause.
 Explains the nature of existence
The perspective that every aspect of life has a basis that justifies
its existence.
Doing Philosophy is looking at a reality from a holistic perspective
and not from a partial point of view. Distinguish holistic perspective
from a partial point of view.
1.2 Recognizes Human Activities that Emanated from Deliberate
Reflection
ORIGIN OF PHILOSOPHY
• GREECE is the birthplace of Philosophy in the West
now TURKEY that gave birth to philosophy
• THALES as FATHER of PHILOSOPHY in the western
civilization. He lived between 624 and 546 BCE a contemporary of
the Lydian king Croesus and the statesman Solon (Stumpf and
Fiester, 2008)
What mode THALES a philosopher?
 His desire to know the ultimate stuff that makes up
different things we perceived.
Distinguishes its Branches of Philosophy
1. Metaphysics
2. Ethics
3. Epistemology
4. Logic
5. Aesthetics
1. Metaphysics: it is this study of every reality, seeking its ultimate
case in absolute sense and diverse manner of “being” of things.
Metaphysics in Greek means “beyond physics”.
Physics- deals with the law that govern the physical world (such as
gravity or the properties of waves).
“Beyond physics” the nature and origin of reality itself, the immortal
soul, and the existence of a supreme being.
Refers to the theoretical developments needed to explain the
deficiencies of the standard model. Such as the inability to explain
the fundamental parameters of the standard model.
Example of Mathematical Framework:
As these theories tend to reproduce the entirely current phenomena,
they question of which of the theory is right one, or at least the “Best
step” towards a theory of Everything, can only be settle via
experiments and is one of the active areas of RESEARCH IN BOTH
THERETHICAL and EXPERIMENTAL
According to Aristotle: Metaphysic is the “First Philosophy”
• It is the most universal science because all reality is the object of
this study.
• The most fundamental science
• Studies the most basic, most radical perfection as being or being as
such.
• Studies about “being” of things
• Discover “laws of being” w/c are valid for all reality.
• Spiritual being w/c bear a reference to being in all its aspects, due to
their intellect and will
• Ultimately reaches to GOD as our First cause of the “being of all
things
2. ETHICS:
• As the technology of philosophy. It provides human beings with a
“code of values to guide man’s choices and actions.
• Study how human acts are directed towards man’s purpose or end.
• The choices and actions that determine the course of a life (Rand,
1964)
• It is concerned with the values man ought to pursue, the
interrelationship of those values and the means to obtain them
(virtue).
• Ethics is concerned with the good for human beings.
• If we apply ethics in a social contest, it becomes politics.
2 MORAL PHILOSOPHY: basic principle regarding the
morality of action a. General Ethics-basic
principles regarding the morality of human acts.
b. Social Ethics studies the common good of society,
 (Studies the right and wrong in human endeavors).
Importance:
 It is a requirement for human life.
 It is our means of deciding a course of action, w/o it, our
actions would be random and aimless.
 We can correctly organize our goals and actions to
accomplish our most important values.
3. EPISTEMOLOGY:
• Is the study of science and studies the method of acquiring
knowledge. It answers the question, “HOW DO WE KNOW?”
• It encompasses the nature of concepts, the development of
concepts, the validity of the senses, logical reasoning, as well as
thoughts, ideas, memories, emotions and all the things mental.
• It is concerned with how our minds are related to reality, and
whether these relationships are valid or invalid.
Importance:
 Epistemology is the explanation of how we think.
 It requires order to be able to determine the true from the
false by determining a proper method of evaluation.
 It is needed to use and obtain knowledge of the world
around us.
 We would have no reason to believe that our thinking was
productive or correct, as opposed to random images
flashing before our mind.
 We would not be able to distinguish truth from error.
4. LOGIC:
• Is the philosophical study of science and art of correct inferential
thinking, it studies concepts, propositions, and syllogisms. Ex: all
dogs are animals
• Correct reasoning
• Pertains to all subjects, since people can reason about anything they
can think about
Importance:
 Logic provides the basis for reasoning in different sciences.
It manifests whether arguments are valid or not.
 Knowledge of logic can help facilitate correct thinking or
identify the wrong conclusion.
 Understanding of rules for correct argumentation and the
validity of the argument.
Key elements of logic
• Argument techniques used in legal reasoning and geometrical
truth
• Universally valid proposition or statements
• The study of fallacy
Example: when it is raining the ground is wet
5. AESTHETIC:
• Studies the nature of art. It is concerned with the nature and
objective judgement of beauty.
• Deals with the nature of arts, beauty, and taste, with the creation
and appreciation of beauty. It is a critical reflection on arts, culture,
and nature.
• Concerned with nature of arts and the concepts in terms of which
individual works of art are interpreted and evaluated
Importance of aesthetics:
 To explain and interpret significant sensory experiences.
 Fascination with an aesthetic object.
Examples: landscapes, sunsets, humans and works of art.
EPISTEMOLOGY
WHAT IS EPISTEMOLOGY?
There is no one correct definition of epistemology. The one that I’m
going to use came from the philosopher Ayn Rand:
“Epistemology is a science devoted to the discovery of the
proper method of acquiring and validating knowledge”
(Rand 1990).
The purpose of epistemology therefore is two-fold:
1. To show how we can acquire knowledge.
2. To give us a method of demonstrating whether the
knowledge we acquired is really knowledge (i.e., true).
Since knowledge plays a central role in epistemology let us
briefly described its nature.
THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE
According to Ayn Rand knowledge is a “mental grasp of reality
reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason
based on perceptual observation” (Rand 1990).
When you know something (be it the behavior of your friend, the
movement of the planets, or the origin of civilizations) you
understand its nature. You identify what it is. And it stays with you.
Knowledge in a retained form of awareness (Binswanger 2014).
So how do you acquire knowledge? Miss Rand’s definition gives us
two ways: First, we can acquire knowledge using our senses seeing,
hearing, tasting, feeling, smelling. How do you know that the table is
brown? Because you see it. How do you know that fire is hot?
Because you feel it. This method of acquiring knowledge is called
empiricism and it has many adherents in the history of philosophy
such as John Locke, George Berkley, David Hume.
The Empiricists (John Locke, George Barkley, and David)
Second, we can acquire knowledge by thinking with the use of our
minds (what philosophers call the rational faculty). This is what
rationalism advocates. (Some well-known rationalists in history are
Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinos and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz)
The Rationalists are (Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinos and
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz)
However thinking is just half of the story of knowing (in fact the
second half). The reason is that thinking involves content. To think is
to think of something. You cannot think about nothing. This is where
sense perception enters the picture by feeding our minds with data
coming from the outside world so that we can have something to
think about.
ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE
First part of epistemology: the process of acquiring knowledge.
1. Reality
To know is to know something. This “something” is what
philosophers call reality, existence, being. Let us employ the term
existence. Existence is everything there is (another name for it is the
Universe [Peikoff 1990]). It includes everything we perceive
(animals, plants, human beings, inanimate objects) and everything
inside our heads (e.g., our thoughts and emotions) which represents
our inner world.
Existence is really all there is to know. If nothing exists knowledge is
impossible.
2. Perception
Our first and only contact with reality is through our senses.
Knowledge begins with perceptual knowledge. At first the senses
give us knowledge of things or entities (what Aristotle calls primary
substance): dog, cat, chair, table, man. Later we became aware not
only of things but certain aspects of things like qualities (blue, hard,
smooth), quantities (seven inches or six pounds), relationships (in
front of, son of even actions (jumping. Running, flying). These so-
called Aristotelian categories cannot be separated from the entities
that have it. Red for example cannot be separated from red objects;
walking cannot be separated from the person that walks, etc.
3. Concept
After we perceive things, we began to notice that some of the things
we perceive are similar to other things. For example, we see three
individuals let’s call them Juan, Pablo and Pedro who may have
nothing in common at first glance. But when we compare them with
another entity. A dog for example, suddenly their differences become
insignificant. Their big difference to a dog highlights their similarity
to one another (Binswanger 2014)
We therefore grouped them into one class or group, named the group
(“man” or “human being”) and define what that group is to give it
identity (Peikoff 1990). We now have a concept which according to
one dictionary means “an abstract or generic idea generalized from
particular instances” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
The first concepts we formed are concepts of things like dog, cat,
man, house, car. These elementary concepts are called first level
concepts (Rand 1990). From these first level concepts we can form
higher level concepts through a process which Rand calls
“abstraction from abstractions” (Rand1990).
Let us describe the two types of abstraction from abstractions: wider
generalizations (or simply widenings) and subdivisions (or
narrowings) (Binswanger 2014):
Wider generalization is the process of forming wider and wider
concepts. For example, from Juan, Pedro and Pablo we can form the
concept “man”. Then from man, dog, cat, monkey we can form a
higher and wider concept “animal”. And from plant and animal we
can form a still higher and wider concept “living organism”. As we
go up to these progressive widenings our knowledge increases.
Subdivisions consist of identifying finer and finer distinctions. For
example, “man” is a first level concept that we can subdivide
according to profession (doctor, entertainer, fireman, teacher), or race
(Asian, Caucasian [white), black), or gender (man, woman, lesbian,
gay), or nationality (Filipino, Chinese, American) among other
things. As we go down these progressive narrowing’s our knowledge
of things subsumed under a concept increases.
The result of this progressive widenings and narrowing’s is a
hierarchy (or levels) of concepts whose based is sense perception. As
we move further from the perceptual base knowledge becomes more
abstract and as we move closer to the perceptual level knowledge
becomes more concrete.
4. Proposition
When we use concepts in order to classify or describe an “existent” (a
particular that exist be it an object, a person, an action or event, etc.)
(Rand 1990) we use what philosophers call a proposition
(Binswanger 2014). A proposition is a statement that expresses either
an assertion or a denial (Capi, 2002) that an existent belongs to a
class or possess certain attribute.
Proposition is usually expressed in a declarative sentence. When I
say, for example, that “Men are mortals” I am making an assertion of
men which are affirmative in nature (thus the statement is an
affirmative proposition). When I make an opposite claim however,
“Men are not mortals” I am denying something about men and thus
my statement is negative in nature (thus the proposition is called a
negative proposition)
An affirmative proposition therefore has the following structure: “S is
P” (where S is the subject, P is the predicate and “is” is the copula
stating the logical relationship of S and P). While the negative
proposition has the structure “S is not P” (“is not” is the copula
expressing denial).
Notice that statements like “Men are mortals”, “Angels are not
demons”, and “Saints are not sinners” can either be true or false.
“Truth and falsity are called the two possible truth values of the
statement” (Hurley 2011). (Later were going to explore the nature of
truth).
5. Inference
How do we demonstrate that the statement is true? By providing an
argument. According to Hurley an argument “is a group of
statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to
provide support for, or reason to believe one of the others (the
conclusion) (Hurley 2011). To clarify this definition let’s give an
example using the famous Socratic argument:
All men are mortals
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Here we have three related statements (or propositions). The last
statement beginning with the word “therefore” is what we call a
conclusion. A conclusion is a statement that we want to prove. The
first two statements are what we call premises (singular form:
premise). A premise provides justification, evidence, and proof to the
conclusion.
An argument expresses a reasoning process which logicians call
inference (Hurley 2011).
Arguments however is not the only form of inference but logicians
usually used “argument” and “inference” interchangeably.
THE NATURE OF TRUTH
Now that we know how we know, it’s time to see whether the
knowledge we acquired is “really” knowledge i.e., is true. This is the
second part of epistemology: validating one’s knowledge.
The first step in validating one’s knowledge is to ask oneself the
following question: “How did 1 arrive at this belief, by what steps?”
(Binswanger 2014). Thus, you have to retrace the steps you took to
acquire the knowledge, “reverse engineer” the process (Binswanger
2014). This is what Dr. Peikoff calls reduction (Peikoff 1990). One
will therefore realize that the steps you took to acquire knowledge
(perception-concept-proposition-inference) are the same steps needed
to validate knowledge (but in reverse order). Thus, what the ancient
pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus said is true when applied to
epistemology: “the way up (knowledge acquisition] is the way down
[knowledge validation]” (quoted by Dr. Binswanger 2014).
If we perform the process of reduction, we will realize that all true
knowledge rest ultimately on sense perception. “A belief is true if it
can be justified or proven through the use of one’s senses” (Abella
2016). Consider the following statements (Abella 2016):
I am alive.
I have a body.
I can breathe.
You can only validate the above statements if you observed yourself
using your senses. Feel your body. Are you breathing? Feel your
pulse. Observe your body. Is it moving? These and countless
examples provided by your senses proved that you’re alive (Abella
2016).
Not all statements however can be validated directly by the senses.
Some beliefs or ideas need a “multi-step process of validation called
proof (Binswanger 2014). Nevertheless, proof rests ultimately on
sense perception.
Statements based on sense perception are factual and if we based our
beliefs on such facts our beliefs are true (Abella 2016).
For example, the belief that human beings have the right to life rests
on the following claim:
1. Human beings are rational animals.
2. Animals (including human beings) are living organisms.
And of course, the fact that we are alive can be demonstrated
perceptually as shown above.
A third way to determine if the statement is true is through a
consensus (Abella 2016). If the majority agrees that a statement is
true then it is true. However, there are certain limitations to this
approach. Far too many times in history false ideas became popular
which ultimately leads to disaster. For example, the vast majority of
Germans during the time of Adolph Hitler believed that Jews are
racially inferior. This is obviously false supported by a pseudo
biological science of the Nazi. The result of this false consensus is
the extermination of millions of Jews in many parts of Europe.
A fourth way to determine whether a statement is true is to test it by
means of action (Abella, 2016). For example, you want to know if a
person is friendly. Well, the best way to find out is
To approach the person. Thus, the famous Nike injunction of “Just do
it” is applicable in this Situation.
TRUTH VS OPINION
Identifying truth however can sometimes be tricky. The reason is that
there are times when we strongly held an idea that we feel “deep
down” to be true. For example, religious people strongly believed
that there is life after death. Some people who embraced democracy
may passionately embraced the idea that the majority is always right.
Or on a more personal level you may feel strongly that your sister is
“selfish”.
However, we must not confuse strongly held beliefs with truth. Truth
is knowledge validated and when we say validated, we mean they are
based on the facts of reality.
You must understand dear student that the facts of reality are
independent of your thoughts, feelings or preferences (Ayn Rand
calls this the primacy of existence [Rand 1982]). That is the
characteristic of truth. For example, the statement “Jose Rizal died in
1896” is true. You may not like that statement or deny it strongly.
That does not change the fact that the statement is true because it is
based on what really happened in the past. There are many sources
that can validate the truth of that statement if one cared to look.
However, when you say that “Jose Rizal is the greatest man who ever
lived” you are stating your preference and not facts. This is an
opinion. Now it is true that there are many facts about Rizal but that
statement is asserting something that is beyond what the facts state.
That statement represents not facts but your interpretation of facts
which may reveal your biases.
To summarize an opinion has the following characteristics:
1. Based on emotions
2. Open to interpretation
3. Cannot be confirmed
4. Inherently biased
While truth is:
1. Based on the facts of reality
2. Can be confirmed with other sources
3. Independent of one’s interpretation, preferences and biases
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,
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.
2. The Coherence Theory of Truth:
It has already been established that the Correspondence Theory
assumes that a belief is true when we are able to confirm it with
reality. In other words, by simply checking if the statement or belief
agrees with the way things really are, we can know the truth.
However, as Austin Cline argues, this manner of determining the
truth is rather odd and simplistic.
Cline said that a belief can be an inaccurate description of reality that
may also fit in with a larger, complex system of further inaccurate
descriptions of reality. Thus, by relying on the Correspondence
Theory, that inaccurate belief will still be called “truth” even though
it does not actually describe actual state of things. So how do we
resolve this problem?
In order to know the truth of a statement, it must be tested as part of a
larger set of ideas. Statements cannot be sufficiently evaluated in
isolation. For example, if you pick up a ball and drop it accidentally,
the action cannot be simply explained by our belief in the law of
gravity which can be verified but also by a host of other factors that
may have something to do with the incident, such as the accuracy of
our visual perception.
For Cline, only when statements are tested as part of a larger system
of complex ideas, then one might conclude that the statement is
“true”. By testing this set of complex ideas against reality, then one
can as certain whether the statement is “true” or “false”.
Consequently, by using this method, we establish that the statement
“coheres” with the larger system. In a sense, the Coherence Theory is
similar to the Correspondence Theory since both evaluates statements
based on their agreement with reality. The difference lies in the
method where the former involves a larger system while the latter
relies on single evidence of fact.
As a result, Coherence Theories have often been rejected for lacking
justification in their application to other areas of truth, especially in
statements or claims about the natural world, empirical data in
general, and assertions about practical matters of psychology and
society, especially when they are used without support from the other
major theories of truth.
Coherence theories represent the ideas of rationalist philosophers
such as Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Georg Wilhelm
Friedrich Hegel and the British philosopher F.H Bradley. Moreover,
this method had its resurgence in the ideas of several proponents of
logical positivism, notably Otto Neurath and Carl Hempel.
3. The Pragmatist Theory of Truth:
The Pragramatic Theory of Truth states that a belief/statement is true
if it has a useful (pragmatic) application in the world. If it does not,
then it is not true. In addition, we can know whether a
belief/statement is true by examining the consequence of holding or
accepting the statement/belief to be true. For example, there are some
people who think that there are “ghosts” or “vampires” because they
find it useful in explaining unusual phenomena and in dealing with
fears (Mabaquiao, 2016). So, if we are going to use the word “truth”,
we define it as that which is most useful to us.
However, there are objections against this theory of truth. For Austin
Cline, truth that is based on what works is very ambiguous. What
happens when a belief works in one sense but fails in another?
Suppose a belief that one will succeed may give a person the
psychological strength needed to accomplish a great deal but, in the
end, he fails in his ultimate goal. Was his belief “true”?
In this sense, Cline argues that when a belief works, it is more
appropriate to call it useful rather than “true”. A belief that is useful
is not necessarily true and in normal conversations, people do not
typically use the word “true” to mean “useful”.
To illustrate, the statement “It is useful to believe that my spouse is
faithful” does not at all mean the same as “It is true that my spouse is
faithful.” Granted that true beliefs are also usually the ones that are
useful, but it is not usually the case. As Nietzsche argued, sometimes
untruth may be more useful than truth.
THE HUMAN PERSON AS AN EMBODIED SPIRIT
Today’s journey will help us identify and understand the Human
Person as an Embodied Sprit has something to do with defining Man,
Human, Human Being, Person, Personhood and Human Nature
(Abella, 2016).
Man
By definition, it is generally and commonly defined to
represent the entire human race.
Human
A term used to refer for various classifications and species.
For a living man, human is under the classification of
Mammalia.
Human Being
A term used to separate man from other Human
Classifications like animals.
Person
Refers to an individual who possess self-awareness, self-
determination, rational mind, and the capacity to interact
with other and with himself/herself.
Personhood
A general term refers to the state of being a person with
unique, sacred and ethical status within him/herself.
Human Nature
A general term refers to the deepest and natural behavior of
a person that distinguish human from animals. A collective
trait that formed and considered the very essence of
humanity. Nobody can be considered man without human
nature.
What is Human Person?
From the definition provided above, the human and the person,
respectively, are defined with classified origin of species and persons
with birth rights. Human person is someone with an exact origin of
his/her classification. From the biblical perspective, we came from
Adam and Eve. For Science, we came from an Ape under the Class:
Mamallia.
Human person from time after time learned how to live beyond what
was traditional through the various human evolutions from Hominid
to Homo Sapiens or the Modern Man people learn the concept of
power, politics and economics. These reasons served as basis which
led to a more structured political and economic system. Thus, rights
of an individual is considered. A human person is typically with a
body which is tangible and has three components composed of
SOUL, MIND and SPIRIT. Also, he or she is entitled and granted
rights and privileges by the state which he or she legally belong.
There are two general kinds to distinguish a human person: The
Cognitive Self and the Physical Self. The Cognitive Self (something
within and cannot be physically seen) is the essential components of
a human persons that deals with THE WHAT OF A PERSON which
includes human persons’ belief, desire, dreams, and intentions. The
other is one is the Physical Self (something can be seen in his/her
physical appearance) which deals with the essential features of the
human way of life or THE WHO OF A PERSON which includes
his/her body type. Strength and appearances
What is Embodied Spirit?
Embodied spirit is an animating core living within each of us. It is
known to be the driving force behind what we actually think, do and
say. It is indeed the reflections of our total being by which our
sensations lead to our human feelings, emotions and decision. The
usual and known connotation that comes to our mind when we hear
the word “embodied” is always materialized or became flesh (with
physical form). Thus, when we say “embodied spirit”, we normally
believed and conclude of a spirit becoming flesh.
In the context and views of Christian philosophy, the embodiment of
the spirit particularly refers to the inseparable union of human body
and soul. Inseparable which also means the body and soul work
together at all times. Hence, we can safely say that “embodied spirit
that the body is not separate from the soul, just as the soul is not
separate from the body.
What is Human Person as Embodied Spirit?
Early stage of Covid-19, “mahirap maging mahirap Though it is true
that poverty is not just personal but also structural, as an individual
person you know that you can do something to change the situation.
This power in your ability to surpass your limits. This is the
definition of Transcendence. You are able to transcend your limit
through your physical and mental abilities. (Abello, 2016)
Religion and philosophy teaches human beings tis overcome our
limits. In technological parlance, humans can upgrade themselves.
Take for example, Buddhism, Buddha realized that all people suffer.
Maybe in your case you just accept your own suffering as part of life
but not for Buddha. This reality ignited his curiosity to examine and
understand the word suffering. He left his royal life in the palace and
spent his life for 6 years in the wilderness to find answers for his
questions. And when he sat under the Tree of Enlightenment for 40
days, voila he finds the answers. The Four Noble Truths and
Eightfold Paths. For example, “The Eightfold Path of Buddhism
shown below:
As an embodied spirit human beings demonstrate these following
qualities (Abella, 2016):
1. “Self- awareness refers to person having a clear perception
of oneself, including his or her thoughts, emotions, identity,
and actions (Abella, 2016). It is the ability of one’s
consciousness to look inward thus discovering the presence
of a self.
The self in the subject that thinks, feels and acts. It is your I
amness (Wilber 2006). The self enables a person to
experience an inner world of dreams. Thoughts,
imagination, fantasy (Abella, 2016). Thus, the self
represents man’s interiority (loob in Filipino).
2. A human person is able to connect and interact with
another person, an animal or an inanimate object. We call
this externality. So even though human beings have
interiority they are not trapped inside their beads. They are
able to go beyond their limited selves and embrace others.
3. We are not determined by others. Because we have
interiority; we can direct the course of our own life. This is
what we call self-determination which is “the capability of
persons to make choices and decisions based on their own
preferences, monitor and regulate their actions, and be goal
oriented and self-directed” (Abella 2016) Thus human
beings are free. However, since our actions are based on
our decisions, we have to realized that every decision has a
consequence(s). There are some actions that are good
because they lead to good consequences and some actions
are bad because they lead to bad consequences. The result
of our freedom in morality which is “the goodness or
badness of an act” (Abella 2016)
4. Finally, a human person has an inherent value and
importance. This is what we call dignity. That is why no
 amount of money can equal the value of a human life. This
is also the reason why individual rights are absolute (Rand
1964). The American Founding Fathers called rights as
“inalienable” because it cannot be separated from our
humanity. If we are stripped off of our rights we are
stripped of our humanity. That is why slaves (who have no
rights) are not being treated as human.
Human Transcendence
St. Thomas Aquinas, a philosopher and one of the greatest theologian
in the Catholic Church in the 13th century, said that “of all creatures,
human beings have the unique power to change themselves and
things for the better.” (Ramos, 2016). We have encountered persons
who complain of any given situations or accept the reality or status in
life as God-given thing. We heard a man sighing on TV during the
Early stage of Covid-19, “mahirap maging mahirap Though it is true
that poverty is not just personal but also structural, as an individual
person you know that you can do something to change the situation.
This power in your ability to surpass your limits. This is the
definition of Transcendence. You are able to transcend your limit
through your physical and mental abilities. (Abello, 2016)
Religion and philosophy teaches human beings tis overcome our
limits. In technological parlance, humans can upgrade themselves.
Take for example, Buddhism, Buddha realized that all people suffer.
Maybe in your case you just accept your own suffering as part of life
but not for Buddha. This reality ignited his curiosity to examine and
understand the word suffering. He left his royal life in the palace and
spent his life for 6 years in the wilderness to find answers for his
questions. And when he sat under the Tree of Enlightenment for 40
days, voila he finds the answers. The Four Noble Truths and
Eightfold Paths. For example, “The Eightfold Path of Buddhism
shown below:
1. Right view- a correct understanding of the nature of things,
specifically the Four Noble Truths;
2. Right intention- eliminating thoughts of attachment,
detestation, and harmful intent,
3. Right speech- abstaining from verbal offenses such as
lying, divisive speech, unforgiving speech, and irrational
speech,
4. Right action- refraining from physical offenses such as
murdering, thieving, and sexual misbehavior.
5. Right livelihood- evading trades that directly or indirectly
damage others, such as trading slaves, weapons, animals
for butchery, intoxicants, or poisons,
6. Right effort- forsaking undesirable states of mind that have
already arisen, preventing undesirable states that have yet
to arise, and sustaining positive states that have already
arisen.
7. Right concentration- single-mindedness.
8. Right mindfulness- consciousness of body, feelings,
thought, and phenomena.
If you notice this is a universal principle being taught not just by
Buddhism? These are the values what human person needs to
succeed. These are examples of the power mentioned by St. Thomas
to change ourselves. If you can do the eightfold path even if you are
not a Buddhist, you can transform yourselves from your present
situation and transcend to what you desire you would be Just believe
in yourselves. As the Star Struck of GMA7 adheres: Dream, Believe
and Survive.
THE HUMAN PERSON IN THE ENVIRONMENT
Have you ever wondered what happens to the things you throw
away? Did you ever think of the effects of these things on our
surroundings? If not, it is time for you to reflect. As the popular
saying goes, “what goes around comes around,” it tells us that for
every action there will be effects to it. Blocked drainage, wastewater
flooding. Diseases, and different kinds of pollution are some of the
consequences we are experiencing because many people show no
concern for our environment. Aside from the loads of waste that we
are creating, inefficient and negligent use of natural resources like
electricity and water are also major problems we are facing right
now.
Human beings as a steward has to show care for the environment and
not destroy it. The earth’s future is our responsibility, so let’s find out
how to take care of it.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHY
Environment philosophy is 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.
People may treat environment as source of raw materials to be used
in any way he pleases and as something that envelops and surround
him thus, have a unique relationship with it. This means that people
can help solve environmental issues and problems. We can apply our
philosophical investigation aesthetically in appreciate our nature. But
how can we aesthetically organize the place that are not in order?
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).
ANCIENT THINKERS (Mabaquiao, 2016)
Anaximander
 According to his “Creation-Destruction”, the sketch of the
genesisof the world (cosmology). The evolution of the
world begins with the generation of opposites in a certain
region Nature. Nature is indeterminate- boundless in the
 sense boundaries between the warm and or the moist and
dry regions are originally present within.
Pythagoras
 He described the universe embodiment nature’s harmony,
living of order. And beauty. He sees our relationship with
the universe involving biophilia (love of that no other
living things) and cosmophilia (love of other living beings
MODERN THINKERS (Wang, 2017)
Immanuel Kant
 “The orderliness of nature and the harmony of nature with
our faculties guide us toward a deeper religious
perspective”
Herbert Marcuse
 “Human have power over nature.”
George Herbert Mead
 “Man have duties and responsibilities in nature
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 & Vinsons, 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 offer ways to value care, conservation, and preservation of
nature and humanity.
IV. THEORIES IN RADICAL ECOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY
Deep ecology
Arne Naess, proponent of Deep ecology, assumes that all
living things possess equal value and intrinsic worth
regardless of their usefulness or utility to other beings. This
is experiencing ourselves as part of the living earth and
finding our role in protecting the planet. It highlights the
shifting away of approaches to environment from
anthropocentrism to ecocentrism (Sioco and Vinzons,
2016).
Social Ecology
Murray Bookchin, proponent of social ecology, believes
that ecological problems can be traced to social problems.
Societies that are structured around hierarchies as well as
economic classes use their authority to dominate natural
resources and exploit the environment for profit and self-
interest. (Sioco and Vinzons, 2016).
Ecofeminism
It assumes that male-centered view of nature is the root
cause of ecological problems. To address environmental
problems humanity has to remove the superior vs. inferior
in human relations. Ecofeminism also believes that a
society that tolerates the oppression of women is directly
linked with its tendency to tolerate the abuse of the
environment and the degradation of nature. It also features
the existing patriarchal and capitalist systems in our society
as social and economic exploitative to the detrimental of
women and nature. This theory benefits the social and
political agenda of both female and nature. (Sioco and
Vinzons, 2016).
V. 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.
HUMAN ACTIONS VS ACTS OF MAN
An act that is performed only by a human being and thus is
proper to man. Not every act that a human being does is a
distinctively human act. Some acts that human beings do are
performed also by animals, e.g., vegetative acts and acts of
perception and emotion. When a human being does such acts, they
are called acts of man but not human acts. Acts of man are actions
shared by humans and other animals while human acts refer to the
appropriate actions of human beings. What makes an act performed
by a human being distinctively a human act is that it is voluntary, that
is, an act in some way under the control or direction of the will,
which is proper to man. One can therefore identify the human activity
with the voluntary act. A voluntary act continues either by the will
like an act of love or choice- or from another human power that may
be motivated by the will, either by an act of intellect or by the sense
of reasoning or emotion; even a gesture commanded by the will can
be a voluntary act.
Aristotle’s Distinction of Voluntary and Involuntary Actions
Voluntary Actions – these are acts originating from the
individual performing the act using knowledge about the
situations of the act.
1. Classifications of Voluntary Actions
A. Voluntary - actions are performed from will and
reason.
B. Related to Compulsion – it is considered as
mixed of voluntary and involuntary. It is more
voluntary if the desire and choice has been
performed and involuntary if it has considered
preferences or alternatives. Example: You are
asked to perform a crime and your options are;
either you do it and your family survives or you
don’t do it but they will be murdered.
A. Intellectual Choice – This is a choice which is deliberately
selected based on a moral standpoint. Basically, they are normative
answers about what we ought to do from a moral system that we
uphold and its moral principles. These normative answers would take
into consideration the behavior which the society will accept. For
example, when you are to decide in a moral issue, you can try to give
intellectual choice as a normative answer. Here you are simply
assuming because you are not, as it were, facing that actual moral
situation described in the dilemma. In this case, the answers that you
are inclined to give are prescriptive in this imaginary and
hypothetical situation.
B. Practical Choice – a choice which is borne out of psychological
and emotional considerations. Unlike the previously discussed type
of choice, practical choices are made when confronted with the actual
situation, and usually affected by psychological aspect of the person
embroiled in the moral situation or dilemma. For instance,
psychological and emotional stress and lack of time to deliberate
during an actual moral situation may affect a person’s moral decision
in that situation. A person may be ao engulfed by emotions that he
may sometimes fail to make the right choice. Likewise, stress could
make a person’s practical choice inconsistent with his intellectual
choice.

2. Involuntary Actions- are acts done under a force or

coercion. Ignorance where the doer failed to understand the
effect and feels sorry on the result.

Classifications of Involuntary Actions

A. Under Compulsion- circumstances which are beyond the control

of the agent and contributes none to the action Example: A person
was kidnapped, hence impossible to Traits.

B. Through Ignorance of Particular Circumstances. Example man

steals and ignorant of the law, arrow or gun shot by mistake.

HUMAN FREEDOM AND OBLIGATION

According to John Mothershead, freedom and obligation are two

indispensable conditions for morality to occur. Freedom is
understood to be present when one is choosing a course of action, and
he or she is taking full responsibility for consequence of his actions.
Importantly, this is anchored to the individual’s moral and rational
capacity to discern what is right and wrong

In several meta-ethical traditions obligation usually follows or

arrives from freedom. Freedom can be said to be present if the human
person is free in making choices in the realm of morality- that is, in
making choices with regards to determining what is the right thing to
do in situations and circumstances in his own life. This can be
summarized in our Filipino saying, “Buntot mo, hila mo!” It is taking
full responsibility for your actions and being obliged to do so. Hence,
an action is not in the full extent of morality if a person does
something while his or her freedom and rationality is altered or
modified This event can happen if the person’s environment highly
affects his Judgement.

When was the last time you see yourself escaping from the
consequences of your actions? When was the last time you hide from
the problems brought about by your irresponsible actions? We have
the tendency to blame others for their choice of a course of action. At
present times, several marriages-most especially in the Philippines-
are being brought to different courts of law to be annulled. What is
the main reason for this? Atty. Jim Lopez in one of his books says
that most of the marriages which are tried in civil courts are sagas of
unending throwing of blame and accusations between two lovers.
Which can be simply be solved had one of the parties make himself
accountable for a problem which sit between them.

INTELLECTUAL CHOICE VS PRACTICAL CHOICE