JESUS, The Suffering

Actiones
nostras,
quaesumus

Son of God
Domine,
aspirando
praeveni et
adiuvando
The Gospel prosequere: ut
cuncta nostra
according to Mark
oratio et operatio
a te semper
incipiat et per te
coepta finiatur.
Per Christum
Dominum
nostrum.
Amen.
Sancte Iohannes
Baptista de La Salle!

Ora pro nobis!

Vivat Iesus in
cordibus nostris,

in
aeternum!
HUMAN FREEDOM
All of us seem to be at
least experientially aware
of freedom in choice.
In fact, it is difficult to comprehend most of human
activities without the immanence of freewill.
“I do this”,
“She thinks that…”
“They choose this”,
“You admit that”
“ I want this…”
“You accept this…”
With just knowing that
we are doing/thinking
something, and that we
are conscious that we
are doing/thinking such,
we can say that there is
in what we think/do an
element of
responsibility we put to
ourselves.
Consequently, we don’t
have anyone than
ourselves to be blamed
or praised because of
our action.
 It has often
been
maintained,
therefore, that
this universal
experience of
freedom
provides the
greatest proof
for its own
existence.
Bago ko pa man gawin ang isang
bagay, alam ko na nasaakin ang
desisyong kung gagawin ko ba ito o
hindi. Sa kalagitnaan ng paggawa ko
ng isang bagay,alam ko rin na ang
pagpapatuloy sa gawaing ito
nakadepende sa akin. Pagkataposay kong
gawin ito, alam ko na ako ang gumawa
nito. Kaya’t masasabi ko na mayroon
akong responsibilidad dito.
 However, it is this primary universal
experience of freedom that has been called
into question by philosophers, theologians,
psychologists, and even historians.
 B.F. Skinner, an extremely influential behavioral psychologist
from Harvard, is one of those who questioned the very
existence of human freedom. He seems to affirm that man is
not free because (a) all present behavior is controlled by
previous behavior and (b) all behavior has motivational causes
which are necessitating causes.

In other words, man is not free because he is determined by

his historicity.
Nevertheless, there are also people who
believed otherwise. One of them was Jean-
Paul Sartre, an existentialist philosopher of
the contemporary period. His position
seems to be one of absolute indeterminism
or total freedom. He believed that man has
no historicity. All he has are future
possibilities the possession of which he
absolutely holds. He is not defined and
determined; he defines and determines
himself.
Abraham Maslow, on the
other hand, seems to
offer a compromise
position. On the one
hand, he agrees that man
has historicity which
colours his identity and
action. On the other
hand, he denies that this
historicity impedes
man’s freedom. Rather, it
gives man opportunities
wherein he can exercise
his freedom. For him,
human freedom is a
structured freedom.
Phenomenological Analysis of
Reflection and Questioning
- All of us have the ability to question, to hesitate, to achieve a
distance from immediate necessity.

Halimbawa, kapag ako’y gutom at may makita akong pagkain, may

kakayahan akong pigilan ang sarili ko na kunin ang pagkaing iyon.
• Therefore at least the immediate objects
before us and the immediate tasks at hand
do not compel or force us.
• I can achieve a distance from the
demanding stimuli of things and I am
able to say something about my
response.
• A second important point is that I can
reflect upon myself. To this extent, I
achieve a distance from myself.
• With this distance I achieved from myself in
self-reflection, I am able to achieve at least
to some extent – self-possession and self-
determination.
• In the distance of self-reflection, I am
able to take myself, my environment,
my needs, and my values and say,
“Wait a second – I do not have to do
that.”
• By the very act of calling something
into question I am liberating myself
from the chains of necessity.
• Questioning, therefore, implies
that the questioner is free.
• And only when I can
possess myself can I
give myself to the life-
project which I, in my
philosophizing, have
formulated.
• Questioning initiates
me into the
formulation of my
own creative project
which is my life.
Freedom, then, entails:
a. achieving a distance in
reflection from blind
necessity.
b. achieving a distance
from myself in self-
reflection.
c. achieving a possession of
myself – self- possession.
d. being able to say
something about myself –
self-determination.
Although the concept of self-
possession is most
fundamental to our
understanding of freedom, a
discussion from the analytic
point of view might be
valuable also. Here we try to
understand more fully the
meaning of the will. We will
try to investigate the nature
of dynamism involved in the
act of choosing
Free Choice: A Metaphysical
Analysis
of the Will
The Will is an intellectual tendency, or a
tendency toward an intellectually known good.
• Anything that can be seen as good might be
an object of my will.
• It is precisely because a thing or action can
be seen as having good aspects that my will
goes out to it or tends toward it.
• It is the “good” quality of the thing by
which the will is drawn or moved.
• We might say, then, that the will is naturally
determined to seek the good; and if I were
ever presented with an absolute good, my will
would certainly be necessitated toward it.
Nevertheless, I also recognize that
the objects of my will are always
concerned with an existential, real
world in which goods are precisely
limited, finite and conditioned.
Therefore, these good things do
not necessitate my will.

Moreover, if I am about to take a

course of action, it is often evident
that a number of possibilities are
presented to me as alternatives.
None of them, however, are
absolutely good.
Since none of the good
things presented to my
consciousness are
absolutely good, and
since there in fact so many
of them that it becomes
impossible for me to
choose them all, therefore,
I have the freedom to
choose which one of them
is what I think would be
best for me.
This is our reasoning:
a. the will is the tendency
toward an intellectually
known good
b. the only object which
could necessitate my will
would be a good that is
unconditional/absolute
c. in many of my choices,
however, that goods from
which I select are all
conditioned, limited and
qualified
d. therefore, freedom of
choice can be operative in
my behaviour
If we are all naturally directed towards the good, then why
is it that some people choose to do evil things?

We never choose evil; it

is precisely the
deliberation upon and
selection of a particular
good among the many
that moral failure occurs.
 Hence, Socrates
was right when he
said; “The root of
evil is ignorance.”

It’s when we do not

know what better
good we must choose
that we are doomed
to be doing evil
things.
 Reflection upon my
experience leads me to
conclude at least initially
that there are forces which
can shape and influence
my present and future
behaviour. Nonetheless,
there are also data that
cannot be ignored which
point to the conclusion
that determining “forces”
do not totally destroy my
ability to take possession
of myself.
 Preliminarily, I might say that I feel free.
This is an important consideration. But
feeling free doesn’t necessarily make it so.
The feeling of freedom does indicate,
however, that such an experience is quite
primary and fundamental to our behaviour.
The Position of
Total Determinism
Main proponent: B.F. Skinner – “The
hypothesis that man is not
free is essential to the
application of the scientific
method to the study of human
behaviour.”
Man is not free since all his thoughts
and actions are determined by his
historicity. For him, man’s behaviour
is shaped and determined
by external forces and
stimuli whether they be
familial or cultural
sanction, verbal or non-
verbal reinforcement, or
complex systems of
reward and punishment.
It appears that individuals
can be programmed like a
machine whose behaviour
is not only predicted, but
controlled.
When I reflect upon this, I see many
levels of my own experience that
construe Skinner’s position:

a. I have genetic, biological, and physical

structures which influence my behaviour.
b. I have environmental structures which
are part of me.
c. I am keenly aware of the external forces
and demands which impinge upon me.

These factors imply that there are levels of my

experience which can be reduced to my
historicity, and therefore can be empirically
investigated and even controlled.
Nevertheless, I also see that
there are levels of my experience
which cannot be reduced to my
historicity. These are:

1. I can make myself aware of my

biological and physical
limitations.
2. I can question my own
environmental structures.
3. I can achieve a distance from
external demands and forces.
These levels of experience are on the
level of free inquiry.

The spheres of historicity and free

inquiry cannot be reduced to each
other nor can they be explained away
by the other. They are complementary
poles of my experience.

Absolute determinism, however,

seems to reduce free inquiry to
historicity.
In conclusion, it would seem that
determinism as a scientific method has a
great deal to offer us in helping us
understand how one’s historicity
influences one’s behaviour. It is an
important level of explanation.

However, as a total explanation of all

human behaviour, it fails to account
for the data of questioning, self-
reflection, and intelligent inquiry;
and it cannot succeed in validating
its own position nor the value of
scientific investigation.
The Case
for
Absolute
Freedom
For Jean-Paul Sartre,
the fullest realization
of one’s manhood is
found in the
recognition that
one’s very activity is
freedom itself.

“I am my freedom.”
Man is actually free and
indeterminate because
there is no God to
conceive man as a
definable essence.

Rather than being an

essence, man is the
structureless
phenomenon of
consciousness in the
world.
For Sartre, existence
precedes essence, and not
the other way around.

I must exist first before I

define myself; not that I am
defined even before I
existed.

Man’s freedom is
overwhelmingly evident to
Sartre because man is able
to detach himself from the
world by his act of
questioning and doubt.
Determinists assume that freedom is
an act that has no cause, the cause
that necessitates someone to act.
They are lead to conclude that since
every act has a cause, then there is
no freedom at all.

Sartre held this assumption

meaningless. “Indeed, the case could
be otherwise, since every action must
be intentional, each action must in
fact have an end, and the end in turn
is referred to a cause.”

“It is the act which decides its ends

and its motives, and the act is the
expression of freedom.”
“Hindi ang pagkakaroon
ng dahilan ang
gumagapos sa iyo
upang magkaroon ng
malayang desisyon.
Datapwat, ang
pagkakaroon mismo ng
dahilan ang
nagpapahiwatig na ikaw
mismo ang may hawak
ng iyong desisyon.”
I am the only source which
decides ends, motives, and
causes – and I point this
only when I am exercising
my freedom.

Basically, structure or
historicity has no control
over my freedom. There is
no structure that defines
me and no system that
governs me. I am free,
absolutely free.
On the one hand,
absolute determinism
denies man’s ability to
question and to
achieve distance from
necessity. On the other
hand, absolute
indeterminism denies
man’s situatedness or
historicity.
Nevertheless, to be a
human person is to be
situated, to have
historicity, and also to
have the ability to
question, to achieve
distance from necessity.
In our consideration
about the question of
freedom, we must take
into account these two
factors.
Structured Freedom: Human Reality
Sartre and Skinner, as we have seen,
concentrate on levels of human reality to the
exclusion of other levels. One realm covers
man’s historicity and given structure; the other
realm covers man’s transcendence in free
questioning.

But the point is that integral human existence

includes both of these realms or levels.

Consequently, if man is free, his freedom will

involve both realms of his experience, and any
interpretation of man must be able to integrate
both realms.
As Maslow said environment is
important in the development of my
potentialities as a man, but
environment does not give them to me.

He agrees with Sartre in that man can

form his own life project, and yet he
nods to Skinner in admitting the
importance of the environment in
helping these potentialities become
actualized.
My own self-possession is not at odds with the
structures in my life. Freedom and structures are
complementaries rather than contradictories.

Even if man were to try to reject all structure, he

would in the very act of rejection tie himself to
the structure of rejection; the self, in order to be
a self, must have some structure to operate at all.
To reject a structure is to assume a structure.

The fact of being human will give rise to

structures, values, and demands which will not
militate against my freedom, but which will
actually make freedom possible and enhance it.
In conclusion we might say:
a. Structures are the offerings of
the human world to which
I come.
b. Structure is also the internal
constitution of being a
man with human
potentialities.
c. My own freely created life
project is also a
structure.
Freedom is operative not as a
force against structure, but as a
force emerging from structure.

Man is neither absolutely free

nor absolutely determined.

Man is freedom within

structure.
 Freedom and Anxiety: Is
freedom a good thing to
have?
In the exercise of freedom we are
definitively and ultimately alone.
Nobody is there to decide for us.
We are the only ones who have the
possession of our freedom. Being
alone in the act of freedom, we
have no one to blame or praise but
ourselves.
The exercise of freedom goes
with the demand of
responsibility.

I have the ultimate responsibility

over my life. Nobody is there to
live my life for me.
Freedom is both beautiful and terrible.
It is a power which hails me, and can
destroy me.
This is the greatest problem with freedom;
it is terrible, but if you take it away, you
take away my meaning, my dignity, and
my creativity.

But all is not bleak with freedom.

A man can know himself.
Consequently, he can possess
himself and his destiny.

However, this destiny and meaning

is directed not only to himself but
most importantly to others.
Man’s meaning is not only to
possess himself freely. Since he is
other-directed, his identity is not
fully achieved until, having
possessed himself, he gives himself
to the other.