Assumption Antipolo

School Year 2021-2022

PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

GRADE 11
LEARNING PACKET 1
FIRST SEMESTER

C.N.______
NAME_______________________________________ SECTION_______ DATE_____________

Philosophy as Love of Wisdom

The Meaning of Philosophy

The word philosophy can actually be traced to two Greek words: philein (noun philia),
a verb which means “to love” and sophia, a noun which means “wisdom”. Philosophy is
thus understood as love of wisdom. Anyone who engages in philosophy is aiming to attain
wisdom.

What is wisdom?

Wisdom is certainly not the same as intelligence. Intelligence is the capacity to

understand, but wisdom is a virtue that allows one to look at things according to their true
worth and real value.

Someone who is intelligent may be able to understand easily the lessons and
answers the questions in an exam. But a wise person is one who knows what ultimately
matters in life. It is understandable why elderly people are usually regarded as wise.
Wisdom is supposed to come with age. People who have lived for a good number of years
would have already been privileged to have a more or less comprehensive view of what
human life is all about. In some way, they know what is really important in life.

Philosophy is likewise helping us to acquire such a comprehensive view. It does this

by leading us beyond the here and now, beyond the particularities of the present moment.
Accordingly, it helps us to be wise because it enables us to see what really matters in our
existence.

Comprehensive, Ultimate, and Rational

In its aspiration to offer the ultimate explanation, philosophy as inevitably led to

account for just about anything. Hence, through centuries, various branches of philosophy
emerged – from the philosophy of being to political philosophy to environmental
philosophy, and so forth.

Compared to all other disciplines, it seems philosophy has the widest scope. It aims
to study everything or all beings. Its subject matter is usually referred to as being because
being can refer to just about anything.

Philosophy seeks the ultimate and most fundamental explanation. In order to do so,
it needs to look at the bigger picture. For philosophy does not and will not settle for
anything less than the most basic, the most fundamental, the most exhaustive, and most
complete account of things and realities – be that human existence, ethical questions, issues
about human cognition or any other matter.

For example, in regard to human life, philosophy will not be satisfied with the
biological account of human birth, growth, and demise. Biology can explain human
conception in terms of the processes of fertilization, pregnancy, and ultimately birth. But
1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 1 of 34
philosophy goes beyond that. It asks why in the first place there is such an entity as a
human being or what is the point or sense of human life and existence if ultimately it would
simply end in its death.

Because of this, philosophy uses not only the method of observation and the tools
that allow it to gather data but also the process of reasoning by which we go beyond what
the data explicitly evidence and exhibit.

What emotions, feelings, and our external senses bring to our awareness is varied
and is not always the case. For instance, any kind of food may appeal to your palate if you
are starving. But in normal circumstances, or if you are full, you might hardly have an
appetite for it,

But why reason? What is so distinctive with reason that philosophy uses it as a
primary tool? Reason enables us to find out what is true and valid, not only in the here and
now, but always and everywhere. Unlike emotions and sense functions, reason is able to
judge what is universally true.

Answer the following questions.

1. What do you think will make your life worth living?

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

2. Among the people you know, whom would you consider wise? Why?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCE:
Nuncio, R. V., Aranilla, M., Dumag Nazario, M. B., Marinay, I. T., Felicilda, M., Peracullo, J., & Morales-
Nuncio, E. (2019). Human horizon: Philosophy of the human person. Anvil Publishing.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 2 of 34

C.N.______
NAME_______________________________________ SECTION_______ DATE_____________

LEARNING PACKET 2
Philosophy, Science, and Arts

The Connection of Philosophy to Science

The connection between science and philosophy has endured for thousands of years.
In present-day conditions, it has not only been preserved but is also growing substantially
stronger. The scale of the scientific work and the social significance of research have
acquired huge proportions. For example, philosophy and physics were at first organically
interconnected, particularly in the work of Galileo, Descartes, Kepler, Newton, Lomonosov,
Mendeleyev, and Einstein, and generally in the work of all scientists with a broad outlook.

At one time it was commonly held that philosophy was the science of sciences, their
supreme ruler. Today physics is regarded as the queen of sciences. Both views contain a
certain measure of truth. Physics with its tradition, the specific objects of study, and the vast
range of exact methods of observation and experiment exert an exceptionally fruitful
influence on all or nearly all spheres of knowledge.

Philosophy may be called the "science of sciences" probably in the sense that it is, in
effect, the self-awareness of the sciences and the source from which all the sciences draw
their worldview and methodological principles, which in the course of centuries have been
honed down into concise forms.

Philosophy is a quest for knowledge, and one can have knowledge of all things.
Philosophy, therefore, is concerned with all things. It is also a science. There is a
methodology and a technique to philosophy, it is based on logic and reason and critical
analysis of problems, both practical and hypothetical. Even the scientific method comes
from the precepts of classical philosophy. Thus, philosophy is the science of all things.

The Relation of Philosophy to Arts

Philosophy, science, and art differ principally according to their subject matter and
the means by which they reflect, transform and express it. In a certain sense, art, like
philosophy, reflects reality in its relation to man and depicts man, his spiritual world, and
the relations between individuals in their interaction with the world.

Does not the artistic principle in philosophical thought deserve the attention of, and
do credit to, the thinking mind, and vice versa? In a certain generalized sense, the true
philosopher is like the poet. He, too, must possess the aesthetic gift of free-associative
thinking in integral images. And in general, one cannot achieve true perfection of creative
thought in any field without developing the ability to perceive reality from the aesthetic
standpoint. Without this precious intellectual prism through which people view the world
everything that goes beyond the empirical description of facts, beyond formulae and graphs
may look dim and indistinct.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 3 of 34

 In short, the great men of theory were by no means dry rationalists. They were gifted
with an aesthetic appreciation of the world. And no wonder, for art is a powerful catalyst
for such abilities as the power of imagination, keen intuition and the knack of association,
abilities needed by both scientists and philosophers.

A considerable number of philosophical works have been written in poetic and

artistic form. Actually, they are not poetry, but philosophical thoughts expressed as poetry.
Many brilliant works of philosophy are created in such fine language that they read like
great works of both science and art.

Summarize your learning by completing the statements.

Philosophy is a science ____________

_________________________
_________________________

Aristotle – Greek philosopher and scientist

Philosophy is an art ________________

____________________________
____________________________

Friedrich Nietzsche – German philosopher,

cultural critic, composer, poet, and
philologist

REFERENCE:
Spirkin, A. (1983). Dialectical materialism. Philosophy and Science.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch01-s04.html
Spirkin, A. (1983). Dialectical materialism. Philosophy and Arts.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch01-s05.html

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 4 of 34

C.N.______
NAME_______________________________________ SECTION_______ DATE_____________

LEARNING PACKET 3
Christian Philosophy

Christian philosophy is not an easy topic to sum up in just a few words. In many
ways, it is a wellspring from which most western philosophy in the last 2000 years or so has
drawn from. The earliest Christian Philosopher was probably Justin Martyr, however, even
the New Testament creates its own philosophical landscapes drawing on themes from the
Hebrew Scriptures, and other ancient near eastern traditions. As time went on many
Christian thinkers began to incorporate philosophical ideas into their theological reflections,
this project was perhaps most notably undertaken by Origen who attempted to synthesize
Neo-Platonism with Christianity and was very influential in reframing the intellectual
imagination of Christianity into platonic categories.

In the west, the two most important philosophers are probably St. Augustine and St.
Thomas Aquinas. St. Augustine helped cement many of the philosophical elements that
have underscored the western theological tradition found in both Catholicism and
Protestantism. St. Thomas Aquinas helped bring a new level of clarity and precision to
scholastic thought and cemented a revived Aristotelian philosophical interest in the West
into the platonic and Hebraic elements of Christian philosophy.

In the east, the most influential thinkers are probably the Cappadocian fathers, John
Chrysostum, and Gregory Palamas. The Cappadocian fathers are Basil the Great, Basil’s
younger brother Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. All of these thinkers bring
their own contributions to Christian philosophy and help define a more eastern
philosophical emphasis. This philosophy maintains a more platonic vocabulary and
emphasizes participation in God’s life a bit more than western philosophy.

Much of Christian philosophy is characteristically theological. Philosophy is even

called the handmaiden of theology in many Christian circles. Because of this, it is important
to understand that frequently in Christian philosophy when dealing with God
philosophical terminology will be used. But only in an attempt to point toward an aspect of
God which are understood as beyond the capability of philosophy to address. This will
often result in theology that is inherently paradoxical. For example, in the Catholic
Eucharistic understanding, the substance is changed but the accidents remain the same, that
is, the bread and wine remain as is (the accidents such as the color, texture, etc. remain the
same) but their substance is changed. Thus, it is called trans-substantiation (trans-beyond,
thus, beyond substance). In the creed, Christ and the Father share one ousía although they
have distinct hypostases (Understand this from general to particular – a human being is the
ousia and Peter or Paul is the hypostasis). These kinds of formulations employ philosophical
categories to try to explain how God has revealed himself in Christ. In situations like these
Christ is the starting point and philosophy only provides the language that is used to
articulate the revelation in a way that can be grasped.

Philosophy serves as the handmaiden of religion. Philosophy was always ready to

show the reasonableness of religious teachings.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 5 of 34

 Question Response

The Latin fides quaerens

intellectum means “faith
seeking understanding.” Write
a question with regard to your
Christian/Catholic faith.

Philosophy of the Human Person

Philosophy begins with a sense of wonder. Human being wonders at God, the
world, and his/her very being. Among the ancient Greek thinkers, philosophy was mainly
a wonder at the cosmic realities around them. However, in medieval times, the focus of
philosophy was shifted to God. But with the Renaissance and Reformation that ushered in
the next phase of philosophical thinking, and more especially with the philosophy of
Descartes, the main object of philosophy became human being. This does not mean that
early philosophers were unaware of the importance of appreciating the human person. In
fact, we find Socrates and few other thinkers attempted at understanding human person.
With the rise of experimental sciences in modern times, human person has become the
primary and exclusive object of many disciplines like psychology, psychoanalysis,
sociology, anthropology, political science, etc. Nowadays even in theology, there is an
anthropological trend. However, the approach and object of the Philosophy of Human
Person are quite different from these sciences.

Philosophy of Human Person could be roughly understood as an attempt to unify

disparate ways of understanding the behavior of humans as both creatures of their social
environments and creators of their own values. Although the majority of philosophers
throughout the history of philosophy can be said to have a distinctive ‘anthropology’ that
undergirds their thought, Philosophy of Human Person itself, as a specific discipline in
philosophy, arose within the later modern period as an outgrowth from developing
methods in philosophy, such as phenomenology and existentialism. The former, which
draws its energy from methodical reflection on human experience (first-person perspective)
as from the philosopher's own personal experience, naturally aided the emergence of
philosophical explorations of human nature and the human condition. The latter, with its
major concern on interpersonal relationships and the ontology involved during these
relationships, also helped in the growth of Philosophy of Human Person.

Philosophy of Human Person can be defined as the science of human beings which
interprets the data of experience in the light of metaphysical principles. It has two
sources, namely, the data of experience supplied mainly by everyday experience, which is
confirmed by experimental sciences and the metaphysical principles supplied by ontology
or by metaphysics. Thus, Philosophy of Human Person is a combination of science and
metaphysics.

Again, we can consider Philosophy of Human Person as that branch of philosophy

which concerns itself with trying to respond to those deepest and perennial questions about
human beings - questions that have plagued humans ever since history began. Here, our
attempt is to respond to these issues, and not answer them. For, the word ‘answer’ seems to
imply more or less complete and thorough rejoinder to the matter, an exhaustive conclusion
1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 6 of 34
‘once-and-for-all.’ But we must remember that we are dealing with human being who is a
mystery to be understood more and more than a problem to be solved once and for all. We
cannot demand a conclusive, authoritative answer but only a response.

To know who and

what human person
is

To delve into the Philosophy of To gain knowledge

nature and reality of the Human about the value of
human existence Person human nature

To give broader
perspective in
understanding
oneself, others, & God

Write an important philosophical question about the human person inside the box.
Respond to the question in 2-3 sentences.

Example: What is the most important thing in life? Why?

For me, the most important is my family. It is where everything about me
began and a big part of who I am today is shaped by my family.

REFERENCE:
Ignou The People’s University (n.d.). Unit 1 Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person.
http://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/38475/1/Unit-1.pdf

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 7 of 34

C.N.______
NAME_______________________________________ SECTION_______ DATE_____________

LEARNING PACKET 4
Determining the Truth
Philosophy

One of the skills to be developed of a philosopher is to distinguish ideas that can be

truth or opinion. One has been trained to be a critic who questions out of curiosity and who
reasons to find out the truth. There is always the, “Yes I agree, but…”

What makes the statement of these ancient philosophers different from yours? Why
is it that when Rene Descartes says, “I think, therefore, I exist,” it would be taken as more
than opinion, or when they talk about morality, there is an authority there, whereas you can
also give your standard of morality but it does not seem to be believable as theirs? Why is it
that their words would be taken closer to truth, but yours would be more of merely a belief,
hence you are just giving an opinion.

The Power of Belief

What then is the difference between opinion and the truth? How do you know that
something is the truth and that you not just believing a mere opinion? The distinction
between the two is important. It is all part of our quest for knowledge. Both are grounded
in our beliefs.

Reflect and answer:

Whenever people tell you something about yourself, do you think they are
merely stating their opinion? How do you know it is just opinion?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

Anton Chekhov says, “Man is what he believes.”

We are shaped by what we believe. We live our lives according to our beliefs.
Waking up, we rely on our beliefs to help us go through the day. For example, “I believe
that today is Thursday and I have an appointment with the dentist. I will prepare myself
based on that belief. I open the door and have faith that the door will open and that I can
walk past that door to go to the other side.” Wars have been fought and lives have been lost
because of beliefs. We walk through life having a certain kind of faith that what we “know”
and what we believe is based on truth. Belief is so powerful that it can revolutionize an
entire system of thinking and living. Take for example the belief in creation and in
evolution. One’s way of living will be affected by what one believes in either of the two.

If we are what we believe, do we not owe it to ourselves then that we make sure our
belief is anchored on truth?

Merely An Opinion

Opinion is said to be personal and closely related to the concept of belief. It is more
of an expression of what one believes is the real world. Opinion is “a view or judgment
formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.” If such is the case,
we can now see that sometimes, people are directing their actions based on some unverified
ideas.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 8 of 34

 A student asked to be excused from class because she had a gall bladder problem.

What I cannot use the

happened? bathroom at night.

Why can’t Nobody wants to go to

you? the bathroom with me.

Because there is a
Why do you need
ghost there.
somebody to go
with you?
No. I have
Have you ever never seen it.
seen it?
Not one.
Has anybody
seen it?
I just know.
How do you know
there is a ghost?

In this case, the student cannot do what she needed to do because of her
imagination. Sometimes, our opinions are based on our imagination or illusion. Plato’s
“Allegory of the Cave” illustrates this. According to Plato, men can be easily deceived by
just assuming that everything they see around them is real. If no further search for truth is
done (or if nobody dares to go outside the cave), then ignorance of reality will be present.
People inside the cave thought that the shadows they are seeing are the reality.

What if it is us who live inside the cave? What if some truths we live by are merely
illusions and that some truths we hold on to are merely opinions? It takes courage to face
reality and it takes confidence to find the truth through honest and diligent inquiry. They
say that the truth shall set us free. But the way to truth might be saddled with pain.
However, truth is important to everyone, to every thinker. In fact, truth is the point of all
thinking.

Distinguishing Truth, Fact, and Opinion

Fact, on one hand, is a statement that can be checked and backed up with evidence.
It is often used in conjunction with research and study. Truth, on the other hand, is
something that has actual and proven existence scientifically and spiritually regardless of
one’s opinion. It is a proposition believed to be the absolute reality.

Consider the case of a delinquent student. Many teachers dislike the student for her
slackness – absences in a class, missing projects, and constant failure in exams. It is a fact
that this student is indeed lazy, for many pieces of evidence support the said statement.
However, in a sense, this cannot also be the truth. The student could be experiencing
challenges at home, difficulties in coping with studies and stress, or having a personality
disorder that makes her delinquent in class. Therefore, the fact that the student is lazy may
or may not be the truth at all.

Opinion is a judgment based on personal convictions, emotions, beliefs, or views. It

may or may not be factual, truthful, or false.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 9 of 34

 The question then is: How can we know that it is the truth? Philosophers formulated
several theories to understand truth.

Reflect and Answer

Have you ever shared a story or any information from the internet without verifying if it is correct or
not? Was there a time when you found out that what you shared was not true? What did you do?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCE:
Magbanua, N.A. (2017). Foundations of philosophy. Brilliant Creations Publishing, Inc.
Nuncio, R. V., Aranilla, M., Dumag Nazario, M. B., Marinay, I. T., Felicilda, M., Peracullo, J., & Morales-
Nuncio, E. (2019). Human horizon: Philosophy of the human person. Anvil Publishing, Inc.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 10 of 34

C.N.______
NAME_______________________________________ SECTION_______ DATE_____________

LEARNING PACKET 5
Theories of Truth

The Correspondence Theory

It is an ancient concept that dates back even to the time of Plato. It states that
something is true if it corresponds to reality or the actual state of affairs. This theory
assumes a direct relationship between an idea and reality and that a statement can be taken
as “fact”. A statement is true if what it contends relates to what is real. Truth, therefore,
corresponds to facts.

For example, the statement “birds can fly” is true because in reality birds can really
fly. That “a dog barks” is also true. The statement “cats can bark”, however, is false because
cats do not bark; only dogs do.

Whenever we look up definitions in the dictionary, we accept these definitions

primarily because of correspondence. We expect that objects and concepts are defined as
they are in real life.

Think and Answer

Analyze the news headlines using the Correspondence Theory.

Manananggal Terrorizes Manila Man Gives Birth to Twins

Are these headlines believable? Why do you think so?

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

The Coherence Theory

It proposes that something is true if it makes sense when placed in a certain situation
or context. Based on this perspective, there is a possibility that there will be varied “truths”
from different perspectives. An idea or statement is true because it makes sense in its own
context, and it has a certain degree of consistency which renders it truthful. It shows that a
belief is true if and only if it is a part of coherent belief systems. For example, one could
show a certain proof by using an accepted formula for a certain mathematical problem.

The sum of half of six and ten is thirteen.

½ (6) + 10 = 13
3 + 10 = 13
13 = 13

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 11 of 34

 Another example is, if you would make a statement that: That which is blue is not
colored. By mere analysis of the definition of terms within the statement, it is false because
the predicate colored is contained in the subject blue, which is an example of color. In other
words, the truth or falsity of the claim being made is already found in the linguistic system
that is being used.

Think and Answer

Analyze the statement using the Coherence Theory.

Pope Francis says abortion is acceptable practice for Catholics.

What makes you think this statement is unreliable or untrue?

_____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

The Constructivist Theory

It holds that knowledge is shaped by social forces and influenced by culture and
history. What is true, or what a person considers true, is shaped by his society and culture.
In other words, it holds that truth (and knowledge as a whole) is a social construct of
humanity. This perspective also claims that it is possible for knowledge and truth to
change, given that what is true may be influenced by historical developments and social
struggles.

For example, societies view marriage in different ways. In some societies, marriage is
a highly important social institution. It is not merely a union of individuals but a merging
of families. This is the constructivist truth about marriage that these societies uphold and is
reflected in their laws and traditions.

The Consensus Theory

This theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might
come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. This theory is different from the
constructivist view because it does not take into account any other influence other than an
individual person’s opinion. Cultural currents and economic wealth do not help determine
truth, only the individual minds. Consensus is also used to determine the truth of scientific
claims, where experts must agree on a certain phenomenon before it can be established as
true.
For example, according to the International Astronomical Union, the organization
charged with naming all celestial bodies and deciding on their statuses, Pluto is still not an
official planet in our solar system. This decision was controversial, and a number of
astronomers voiced their opposition. At present, much debate among astronomers takes
place regarding Pluto’s new designation.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 12 of 34

 Think and Answer

Answer the questions using the Constructivist and Consensus Theories.

What ideas in Philippine society and politics have undergone significant changes
over the past few decades? What brought about these changes?
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

The Pragmatist Theory

It holds that a proposition is true if it can be put into practice or is useful in real life.
It also believes that ideas should be continually tested to confirm their validity. The
scientific method, where experiments are designed to test hypotheses or confirm
conclusions, is an example of a pragmatic approach.

For William James, “Ideas (which themselves are but parts of our experience)
become true just insofar as they help us to get into satisfactory relations with other parts of
our experience. Truth in our ideas means their power to ‘work’”. The key thing for James
and pragmatism is that of an idea “working”. For example, if an astringent like Eskinol
makes your skin less oily and eventually takes away your pimples, it must be working.
Then it is “true” for you. In Filipino we say, “Pag gumagana, totoo” (If it works, it is true.).

Think and Answer

Answer the question using the Pragmatist Theory.

Have you ever used practical means to figure out the truth about something? Give an
example.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Aside from the theories presented, there are other means by which a person can
determine the truth. One is by looking into the error in reasoning (judgment). There are
times when a person utters arguments that deceive and prove nothing. These arguments
somehow could sound convincing in order to shape other’s opinion and deliver flawed
judgment and reason. These arguments are called fallacies. Some examples are found
below.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 13 of 34

 Fallacy Definition Example
Attacking the person instead “You are irritatingly ugly,
Ad hominem of the argument that is why you cannot be
promoted.”
Telling the hearer that “You have to pass this text
something bad will happen message to 10 people or else
Appeal to force
to him/her if he/she does you will receive bad luck.”
not accept the argument
Urging the hearer to accept “I cannot take the exam. You
the argument based on an have to consider, my dog
Appeal to pity
appeal to emotions, just died.”
sympathy, etc.
Urging the hearer to accept a “Everybody wants him to be
Appeal to popular opinion position because a majority the president; we should
of the people hold to it support him too.”
Assuming the thing that you “I have the right to free
Begging the question are trying to prove is true speech, therefore you cannot
stop me from talking.”
Assuming that what is true “These cases of robberies
for a part is true for the have convinced me that the
Fallacy of composition
whole place has become a den of
thieves and criminals.”
Assuming that what is true “You come from a family of
for the whole is true for its doctors and intellectuals.
Fallacy of division
parts Surely you can do better in
this course!”
Using the same term in an Human beings have hands;
argument but giving the the clock has hands.
Fallacy of equivocation particular word a different He is drinking from the
meaning each time pitcher of water; he is a
baseball pitcher.

Think and Answer

Cite one exammple of fallacious statement from different media (e.g., commercials,
magazines, social media, etc.). Identify the fallacy being referred to by the statement.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES:
Abella, R.D. (2016). Introduction to the philosophy of the human person for senior high school. C&E
Publishing.
Magbanua, N.A. (2017). Foundations of philosophy. Brilliant Creations Publishing.
Ramos, C.C.R. (2019). Introduction to the philosophy of the human person (2nd ed.). Rex Bookstore.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 14 of 34

C.N.______
NAME_______________________________________ SECTION_______ DATE_____________

LEARNING PACKET 6
The Pre-Socratic Philosophers

The ancient Greek philosophers were cosmologists. Cosmology is defined as the

branch of philosophy which studies the nature of the world and of the universe. They were
busy looking for the basic stuff that makes up the world; thus, they focused their attention
upon nature. This basic stuff is considered the basic principle, the ultimate reality that
composed the world. It is in their cosmological ideas that we can extract some of their
thoughts and insights on human nature. The ancient Greek philosophers engaged in a
philosophical inquiry asking the origin of all things and that includes man. The Greek
philosophers ground man’s nature and existence in the world. They validly argue that what
the world constitutes, man also possesses. In other words, the stuff that constitutes the
world is also the same stuff that constitutes man.

The birthplace of philosophy was the seaport town of Miletus, on the western shores
of Ionia in Asia Minor. The first philosophers were called Ionians or Milesians. The first
philosophers were primitive scientists whose theory focused on taking nature and the
world around them as the basic stuff. It is a fact of the history of thought that science and
philosophy were the same things in the beginning and only later did various specific
disciplines separate themselves from philosophy, medicine being the first to do so.

Thales (624-546 BCE)

Thales is known to be the first philosopher. By birth, Thales is a Phoenician but he went to
Miletus, Ionia to practice philosophy. It is with this that he was considered a Greek
philosopher. Thales considered water, the basic stuff. His philosophy was
centered on the doctrine that “water” is the origin of all things. Thales was
aware that water is just one of the many candidates for the basic stuff of the
universe, he knew there were other substances such as solid, air fire, gases, and
others. The principle of all things is water; all comes from water, and to water all returns.
This finding of Thales was later validated by modern science, even today students are
taught that the human brain contains 75% water and the human blood is 83% water. Thales
was perhaps the first philosopher to ask questions about the structure and nature of the
cosmos as a whole. He maintained that the earth rests on water, like a log floating in a
stream. But earth and its inhabitants did not just rest on water: in some sense, so Thales
believed, they were all made out of water. Even in antiquity, people conjecture the grounds
for this belief: was it because all animals and plants need water, or because the seeds of
everything are moist? Because of his theory about the cosmos, Thales was called by later
writers a physicist or philosopher of nature (‘phusis’ is the Greek word for ‘nature’).

Anaximenes (550-526 BCE)

If Thales considered water as the basic stuff of the universe, Anaximenes

preferred air to water. His philosophy is centered on the doctrine that “air” is
the source of all things. He believes that water, earth, and fire are all products of air. Air
according to Anaximenes undergoes two processes namely, condensation and rarefaction.
When air is condensed it becomes wind, then cloud, when still more condensed it becomes
water, then earth then stone. Condensation is the source of cold. By rarefaction air becomes

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 15 of 34

thin, it becomes fire. Given Anaximenes’ argument on air we can say that man is air. Taken
from the paradigm of man as a body and soul it can be argued that the body is condensed
air and the soul is rarefied air. So, based on the traditional belief when death comes and the
soul separates from the body, the cadaver (corpse) is necessarily cold, since the heat
principle (the soul) that animates it is gone. Anaximenes contend that air is the principle of
life. In fact, he says that the soul is composed of air. Anaximenes provides a crude example
of appealing to a simple experiment: if one blows on one’s hand with the mouth relaxed,
the air is hot; if one blows with pursed lips, the air is cold.

Xenophanes (570-478 BCE)

Xenophanes’s philosophy was centered on the doctrine that earth is the

fundamental element of the universe. “All things come from earth and in earth
all things end.” The soil in the ground is a manifestation of earth. Everything we eat comes
from earth; the food that we will digest and convert into muscle, bone, blood, and other
body parts is grown in and draws nutrients from the soil. The earth and man’s body are
one.

Anaximander (610-546 BCE)

Anaximander was said to have been the first person to construct a map of the
world. He believed that there was one material stuff out of which everything in
the cosmos came and into which everything returned in the end. Probably thinking that
every ordinary material element could be destroyed by its opposite, he took the single
cosmic stuff to be something boundless or indeterminate (apeiron in Greek). The apeiron
is eternal and encompasses all the opposites. Anaximander was an early proponent of
evolution. Coming to the origin of human life, Anaximander said that all life comes from
the sea and that in the course of time; living things came out of the sea to dry land. He
suggested that humanity evolved from creatures of different kinds, using as his argument
the fact that other creatures are quickly self-supporting, whereas humans alone need
prolonged nursing and that, therefore, humanity would not have survived if this had been
its original form.

Heraclitus (540-480 BCE)

Some Greek Philosophers also believe that the world is changing. This idea is
well defended by Heraclitus. The logos is the blanket principle of change. With
this idea, he maintains that all things or that everything is in constant change. His popular
dictum was: “You can’t step twice in the same river.” Change for him is a permanent
reality. Everything will be changed, and it is only change that cannot be changed. This
explains that nothing is the same now as it was before, and nothing today will be the same
tomorrow.

In Heraclitus’ cosmology fire has the role which water had in Thales and air had in
Anaximenes. The world is an ever-burning fire: all things come from fire and go into fire;
“all things are exchangeable for fire, as goods are for gold and gold for goods.” There is a
downward path, whereby fire turns to water and an upward path, whereby earth turns to
water, water to air, and air to fire. Heraclitus believed that fire makes the basic stuff. The
process of becoming or change finds its origin in fire. It is the origin of all matter. So, what
has fire to do with man? Evidently, the 37 degrees Celsius temperature of the human body

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 16 of 34

provides us with the clue that man is grounded in the world. Thus, if the world is fire, man,
too, has fire in him in the form of heat.

Pythagoras (570-495 BCE) and the Pythagoreans

The Pythagoreans – the name of the followers of Pythagoras were convinced that
man is a dipartite of body and soul. They are the first to approach man in this
perspective. The Pythagoreans are the true pioneers of the paradigm of man as body and
soul. According to the Pythagoreans, the human soul is immortal and divine, they believe
that the soul has fallen, and that is to say, imprisoned in the body. The “imprisonment” is
not to last forever since there is a sure possibility for the soul’s release from its entrapment
in the body.

Pythagoras taught the doctrine of the transmigration of souls: human beings had
souls which were separable from their bodies, and at death, a person’s soul might migrate
into another kind of animal. For this reason, he taught his disciples to abstain from meat;
once, it is said, he stopped a man whipping a puppy, because he has recognized in its
whimper the voice of a dear dead friend. He believed that the soul, having migrated into
different kinds of animals in succession, was eventually reincarnated as a human being. He
himself claimed to remember having been, some centuries earlier, a hero at the siege of
Troy. The doctrine of the transmigration of souls was called in Greek ‘metempsychosis’.

Summarize each philosopher’s principle about the nature of the human person by filling
in the table below.

Pre-Socratic Philosopher Principle about the Human Person

1. Thales

2. Anaximenes

3. Xenophanes

4. Anaximander

5. Heraclitus

6. Pythagoras

REFERENCE:
Buckingham, W., Burnham, D., Hill, C., King, P.J., Marenbon, J., & Weeks, M. (2011). The philosophy book.
Dorling Kindersely Limited.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 17 of 34

C.N.______
NAME_______________________________________ SECTION_______ DATE_____________

LEARNING PACKET 7
The Socratic Philosophers: The Greek Triumvirate

Socrates (469-399 BCE)

Socrates was acclaimed as the greatest philosopher in Western civilization.

The definition of Socrates of man seems to put more emphasis on the
attitudinal level of human nature since he gives more value to the human soul rather than
the body. Socrates created the conception of the soul, the psyche. For him the soul is not
any particular faculty, nor was it any special kind of substance, but was rather the capacity
for intelligence and character; it was a person’s personality. Socrates identified the soul
with the normal powers of intelligence and character instead of as some ghostly substance.
The soul was the structure of personality. The activity of the soul is to know. He argues
that the human soul should be nurtured properly through its acquisition of knowledge,
wisdom, and virtue.

For Socrates man should discover the truth, the truth about good life, for it is in
knowing the good life that man can act correctly. According to Socrates, knowledge, and
virtue are not distinct from each other. For one to do good one must have first and foremost
known the good. Knowing what is right means doing what is right. For according to
Socrates moral knowledge and virtue were one and the same thing. Hence, if one fails to do
that which one knows about, it follows that the claimant of this knowledge does not
actually know that which he claims he knows at all. So, if one knows cheating, telling lies,
stealing, killing, adultery, and the like are bad acts but one performs them anyway, it
clearly shows that one is deeply ignorant. Someone who really knew what it was right to do
could not do wrong; if anyone did what was wrong, it must be because he did not know
what was right. No one goes wrong on purpose, since everyone wants to lead a good life
and thus be happy. Those who do wrong unintentionally are in need of instruction, not
punishment. For Socrates, the main source of evil is ignorance.

Some philosophers comment that the ignorance which Socrates refers to is not the
act itself but its ability to produce happiness. Wrongdoing is the inaccurate estimate
modes of behavior. It is the inaccurate expectation that certain kinds of things or pleasures
will produce happiness. Wrongdoing, then, is the product of ignorance simply because it is
done with the hope that it will do what it cannot do. Ignorance consists in not knowing
that certain behavior cannot produce happiness. And it requires knowledge to be able to
distinguish what appears to give happiness and what really does. Socrates denied that
people deliberately did evil acts because they knew them to be evil. When people commit
evil acts, said Socrates, they always do them thinking that they are good in some way. Even
when one chooses pain, one does so with the expectation that this pain will lead to virtue.

Plato (427-347 BCE)

Plato was a student of Socrates. There were yet no established schools that
existed before in ancient Greece. Socrates favorite schoolhouse was the marketplace –
despite the fact that he was no vendor of any commodities, except ideas. Plato founded a
school in Athens which he called Academy. Notably, Plato called this school in honor of the
Greek hero Academus. Plato fashioned his philosophy in a metaphysical foundation by
1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 18 of 34
weaving his thoughts on the kinds of world. This “two-world theory” of Plato points out
the division of the world. According to him, there are two kinds of world, namely, the Ideal
World (Intelligible world) and the SensibleWorld (World of Matter). The Ideal world is the
world of idea. For Plato, the ideal world is the ultimate reality since ideas and forms are
eternal and immutable. He uses form (eidos) synonymously with idea (which is also
derived from the verb idein). Hence, Plato’s Theory of Ideas is also called the Theory of
Forms. Plato concludes that the ideal world is the real world, the true world of reality. On
the other hand, the sensible world is a world of becoming; it is a world of constant change.

For example, the "Form" or "Idea" of a horse is intelligible, abstract, and applies to all
horses; this Form never changes, even though horses vary wildly among themselves. An
individual horse is a physical, changing object that can easily cease to be a horse; the Form
of a horse, or "horseness," never changes. The sensible world, therefore, is just a poor
reflection, copy, duplicate, or shadow of the ideal world.

It is in this two-world view or “two-world theory” of Plato where we can glean his
insights on human nature. The nature of man lies in the dichotomy of body and soul. In
other words, body and soul are two different aspects of man. The human soul belongs to
the ideal world. The human body belongs to the sensible world. For Plato, the body is
material; it cannot live and move apart from the soul; it is mutable and destructible. The
soul on the other hand can exist apart from the body it is immutable and indestructible.
Plato views the superiority of the human soul over the human body. Hence, the real man
for Plato is his soul and not his body.

The human body is considered by Plato as a prison cell. The soul is temporarily
incarcerated in the body. Plato believed that the soul existed prior to the body. The body is
the temporary residence of the human soul. Plato concludes that man is a soul using a
body. At the time of death, the human body as material will decompose while the human
soul will survive. This affirms Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul. In Plato’s
view, the soul has three parts, namely the rational, appetitive, and spiritual parts. Because
man is a soul using a body, the three parts of the soul each have their place in the body.
1. Appetitive Part – part of the soul that drives man to experience thirst, hunger,
and other physical wants. It is the seat of physical pleasures. It seeks power,
wealth, and even sexual satisfaction. It is located in the stomach.
2. Spiritual Part – part of the soul that makes man assert abomination and anger.
It is the seat of emotions (i.e. anger, fear, hatred, jealousy). It is located in the
chest.
3. Rational Part – it is the seat of reasoning. It is the rational part of the soul that
enables man to think, to reflect, to draw conclusions, and to analyze. This part of
the soul is located in the head. For Plato, this part of the soul is the most
important and the highest. It naturally desires to acquire knowledge and
wisdom. It is this part that rules over the other parts and not to be overruled. It
is this part that specifically distinguishes man from the brutes. Man can control
his appetite and self- assertion of spirit through reason.

For example, when the person is very hungry and yet, he does not eat the available
food because he knows or doubts that it has poison. Plato contends that there is something
in the mind of the person that leads him to crave food and another thing that prohibits him
from eating the poisoned food. The principle that drives the person to eat the food is what
he calls the appetite while that principle which forbids the person to eat the available food
because it is poisoned, is reason.
1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 19 of 34
 Another example is a man who is so angry with another person who insulted him.
Out of anger, he surely would be driven to kill his enemy but does not actually do so
because he knows that if he does so, he will be imprisoned. With the same reasoning, he
argues that it is the spirit in man that makes the person angry with his enemy, yet his anger
is curbed by reason.

A self-controlled person is a person who knows how to balance things and is

therefore dominated by the rational part. Reason for Plato controls both spirit and appetite.
When this happens man will have a well-balanced personality. An aggressive person is a
person who asserts himself in all situations in life and is therefore dominated by the spirited
part. A greedy person is a person who seeks to acquire possessions is therefore dominated
by the appetitive part.

Plato declares that the spiritual and appetitive parts are subjected to death; they are
mortals. Only the rational part of the soul is immortal. This literally gives birth to the
concept that an idea is immortal since it is rooted in reason. This means further that when
a man dies, his soul will not go hungry or angry, because passion and appetite die with the
body, yet, whatever the soul knows, it continues to know what it knows since an idea or
knowledge is intrinsically incapable of death. The universal concept of the human soul or
reason is eternal and will continue to exist. It will not die with the death of the person.

Aristotle (384-322 BCE)

If Plato has his academy, Aristotle has his Lyceum. It is in this school where
Aristotle gathered his disciples who sat at his feet. The most acclaimed
statement of Aristotle on man says: Man is a rational animal. Unlike Plato, Aristotle
maintains that there is no dichotomy between man’s body and soul. Body and soul are in
a state of unity. For Aristotle man’s body and soul are substantially united. This means that
in Aristotelian thought, there is no soulless body and bodiless soul. Simply put, where
there is body there is soul, and vice versa. The soul acts as the perfect or full realization of
the body while the body is a material entity which has a potentiality for life. The body per
se has no life. The body can only possess life when it is united with the soul. Soul is the
principle of life; it causes the body to live. The body is matter to the soul and the soul form
to the body. Body and soul, therefore, are inseparable. They constitute man as a whole.

For Aristotle it is not only human beings which have a soul, or psyche; all living
beings have one, from daisies and mollusks upwards. A soul is simply a principle of life:
it is the source of the characteristic activities of living beings. Different living beings have
different abilities: plants can grow and reproduce, but cannot move or feel; animals
perceive, and feel pleasure and pain; some but not all animals can move around; some very
special animals, namely human beings, can also think and understand. Different kinds of
souls are diversified by these different activities in which they find expression. The most
general definition which Aristotle gives of a soul is that it is the form of an organic body.
Aristotle’s concept of the kinds of soul:

1. Vegetative Soul – is the lowest type of soul which is found in all living things.
Plants specifically possess this type of soul. It is capable of the following
functions: It feeds (nutrition) itself, it grows (growth), and it reproduces
(reproduction). Man is a vegetant soul, a vegetant organism. As vegetant
organisms, human beings are like plants simply because they have life and they
feed, grow and reproduce themselves.
1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 20 of 34
 2. Sensitive Soul – exists in animals. The functions of the sensitive soul are: It feeds
itself, it grows, it reproduces, and it has feelings (particularly of pain and
pleasure). It refers to the function or the power of sensation in addition to the
power of vegetation. Sensitive soul develops a nervous system that allows the
senses in the body to function. What makes a sensitive soul higher than a
vegetant soul is that the latter is incapable of sensation because it does not have a
nervous system, while the former has a nervous system. Through the nervous
system, it allows its beholder to experience pain or pleasure because it has
feelings.

3. Rational Soul – exists only in man. The rational soul ranks the highest of all
kinds of souls because it assumes the functions of the vegetative and sensitive
souls. Besides, it is capable of thinking, reasoning, and willing. Man, therefore,
who is in possession of the rational soul is higher than the brutes, animals, and
plants. Aside from thinking and judging, man is capable of sensing and growing.
Only man can reason, think, and encompasses two other souls and that which
makes him the highest. Because man is rational, he has intellect and will.

In sum, Aristotle’s view of human nature is seen in his argument on the matter and
form in man. Man is essentially body and soul.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 21 of 34

Answer the three-circle Venn diagram that illustrates the understanding of the
triumvirate’s philosophy of the human person.

Socrates

Plato
Aristotle

B A

REFERENCE:
Buckingham, W., Burnham, D., Hill, C., King, P.J., MArenbon, J., & Weeks, M. (2011). The philosophy book.
Dorling Kindersely Limited.
Caraan, A. M. (2016). Introduction to philosophy of the human person. Diwa Learning Systems.
Sioco, M.P.G., & Vinzons, I.H. (2016). Introduction to the philosophy of the human person. Vibal Group.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 22 of 34

C.N.______
NAME_______________________________________ SECTION_______ DATE_____________

LEARNING PACKET 8
The Human Person according to Rene Descartes and Karl Marx

The Human Person as a “Thinking Thing”

Rene Descartes asserted that the human person is a thinking thing. Consider the
following passage:
On the one hand, I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in so far as I am simply a
thinking, non-extended thing [that is, a mind], and on the other hand, I have a distinct idea of
body, in so far as this is simply an extended, non-thinking thing. And accordingly, it is certain
that I am really distinct from my body, and can exist without it. – Rene Descartes

In the passage, Descartes asserts that the mind is a thinking thing – distinct and
unextended; and the body is a nonthinking thing – distinct and extended; and that his
reality is how he is distinct from the body, and he can exist without it. Descartes’ assertion
is a philosophical perspective which believes that the nature of man is pure mind. This
perspective states that there is a clear and distinct idea of a consciousness that through the
mind, one thinks of the self-existing without extensions.

However, even though Descartes stated that there is a distinct idea of the body, he
asserted that he can exist without this simple nonthinking thing – that human nature is
pure mind and having a body is an accident. This assertion presents the idea that you can
have recognition of what you are through thinking alone. The guarantee is the qualification
that your idea of yourself is clear and distinct.

There is a great difference between the mind and the body, inasmuch as the body is by
its very nature always divisible, while the mind is utterly indivisible. For when I consider the
mind, or myself in so far as I am merely a thinking thing, I am unable to distinguish any parts
within myself; I understand myself to be something quite single and complete….By contrast,
there is no corporeal or extended thing that I can think of which in my thought I cannot easily
divide into parts; and this very fact makes me understand that it is divisible. This one argument
would be enough to show me that the mind is completely different from the body…. – Rene
Descartes, Meditation VI

In the given passage, Descartes claims that the mind is indivisible, while the body
is divisible into parts. What does the claim imply about the nature of humanity? As a
thinking mind, it is clear that as you doubt your existence as a singular self, you will always
arrive at a distinct idea that, you are, indeed, one self because the mind is indivisible. On
the contrary, if the self is a body, Descartes claims that since it is divisible, it has parts.
Hence, when you think about yourself, you might be even confused of your nature because
two different parts may both exist but of different nature.

Now if the mind and body are of two different natures, how is it possible that they
are able to interact? On one hand, the mind as indivisible may have an idea of a body with
parts, but will the body with its parts be able to grasp the idea of the undivided mind? If
such is the case, then perhaps, it is, indeed the very nature of man – a thinking, unextended
mind.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 23 of 34

 Think and Answer

How is Descartes’ view of the human person similar with Plato’s?

_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________

Karl Marx’s View of Human Nature

Originally interested in the law, Karl Marx shifted his attention to philosophy. The
focus of his work was on economics and politics.

As becomes clear in the brief selection from the Contribution, Marx’s perspective on
human nature is fundamentally anti-dualist. This anti-dualism is a product of Marx’s
metaphysical and ontological thoughts, which go by the label of Historical Materialism.
There are two aspects of this view: 1) metaphysical materialism (everything is matter,
everything is caused by material processes); and 2) the economic structures of society
condition the ideas and forms of life exhibited by its citizens. Thus, unlike Descartes, for
whom our being as minds is independent of (and ultimately more significant than) our
being as bodies, for Marx, human beings are fundamentally material creatures
determined by material forces. “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their
being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”

This helps us understand why Marx believes that the traditional starting point of
economics and political theory is faulty. Rather than start with human beings defined as
consciousness or spirit, we have to begin with, “…the physical organization of these
individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature,” the recognition that life
determines consciousness. The alternative view (that consciousness determines life) is the
“Ideology” which Marx is targeting. Though we can, looking back, identify a number of
features that distinguish humans from animals, what marks this difference is that humans
produce, make things, determine the shape of their lives by producing the goods by and
through which they live.

On the basis of this analysis, Marx offers a very different theory of human nature
than that of Descartes. The key to his account is the recognition that in labor (work) human
beings make the material they work with part of themselves, transforming nature into an
extension of themselves. Labor is thus a form of self-knowledge (homo faber). You come
to know yourself by experiencing the results of your own labor. In experiencing the product
of your labor, you are aware of it and yourself. This self-identification in objectification is
history revealing himself to us, not only through the material results of our work, but
through all of our creations: art, law, religion, technology, society itself. In all of these
endeavors, we externalize ourselves and, in the process, become more self- consciously
human.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 24 of 34

 When Marx examines the history of the development of human social forms, he
finds that there is an intimate connection between the division of labor and property. In the
Ideology, we get a developmental account of this connection, from “tribal ownership”
through “communal” and "feudal" up to (implicitly) the form that ownership takes in the
modern era: “capitalist”. He insists that “we have to grasp the essential connection between
private property, greed, and the separation of labor, capital and landed property…"What
we find in this connection the key concept of Marx’s diagnosis: estrangement or alienation.

Marx's assumption that humans are Homo Faber together with his analysis of the
inevitable alienation resulting from private ownership of the means of production, serve as
a basis from which Marx criticizes private ownership of property. Private property is not
only the source of this alienation, it is also the necessary consequence of alienated labor, of
the external relation of the workers to nature and to themselves. And this notion of freedom
is what any Marxist humanist ultimately desires.

Private property sets up a negative feedback situation. The only property owned by
workers is what they buy with their wages, so they don't own anything that they’ve had a
direct hand in producing. However, the need for further possessions generates the need for
more wages, and thus more alienated labor. This results in increasing greed: “Man becomes
ever poorer as man, his need for money becomes ever greater if he wants to overpower
hostile being.” His strategy for curing alienation was radical: to eliminate labor within the
capitalist system, the wage system, and private property, that is, to institute communism.

Fill in the Venn diagram to compare and contrast Descartes’ and Marx’s philosophies of
the human person.

Rene Descartes Karl Marx

REFERENCE:
Buckingham, W., Burnham, D., Hill, C., King, P.J., MArenbon, J., & Weeks, M. (2011). The philosophy book.
Dorling Kindersely Limited.
Caraan, A. M. (2016). Introduction to philosophy of the human person. Diwa Learning Systems.
SocialistWorker.org. (2012, October 9). Marx’s view of the human nature.
https://socialistworker.org/2012/10/09/marxs-view-of-human-nature

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 25 of 34

C.N.______
NAME_______________________________________ SECTION_______ DATE_____________

LEARNING PACKET 9
The Human Person according to Jean Paul Sartre

Jean Paul Sartre’s Existence Precedes Essence

The approach of philosophers to the question of what it is to be human and what

makes us so distinct from all other types of being is to assume that there is such thing as
human nature or essence of what it is to be human. It assumes that there is a universal
essence of what it is to be human and that this essence can be found in every single human.
According to this view, all human beings, regardless of their circumstances, possess the
same fundamental qualities.

For Sartre, however, thinking about human nature in this way risks missing what is
most important about human beings, and that is our freedom. For him, there is no
preordained plan that makes us the kind of beings that we are. We are not made for any
particular purpose. We exist, but not because of our purpose or essence; our existence
precedes our essence.

Defining Ourselves

This is where we begin to see the connection between Sartre’s claim that “existence
precedes essence” and his atheism. Sartre points out that religious approaches to the
question of human nature often work by means of an analogy with human craftmanship –
that human nature in the mind of God is analogous to the nature of the paper-knife in the
mind of the craftsman who makes it. In claiming that existence comes before essence, Sartre
is setting out a position that he believes is more consistent with atheism. There is no
universal, fixed human nature, he declares, because no God exists to ordain such a nature.
But he claims that we are the kinds of beings who are compelled to assign a purpose to our
lives. With no divine to prescribe that purpose, we must define ourselves.

Defining ourselves, however, is not just a matter of being able to say what we are as
human beings. Instead, it is a matter of shaping ourselves into whatever kind of being we
choose to become. This is what makes us different from all other kinds of being – we can
become whatever we choose to make of ourselves. A rock is simply a rock, a mouse is
simply a mouse. But human beings possess the ability to actively shape themselves.

Freedom

Because Sartre’s philosophy releases us from the constraint of a human nature that is
preordained, it is also one of freedom. We are free to choose how to shape ourselves,
although we do have to accept some limitations.

Sartre wants us to break free of habitual ways of thinking, telling us to face up to the
implications of living in a world in which nothing is preordained. To avoid falling into
unconscious patterns of behavior, he believes we must continually face up to choices about
how to act.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 26 of 34

Responsible freedom
By making choices, we are also creating a template for how we think a human life
ought to be. If I decide to become a philosopher, then I am not just deciding for myself. I am
implicitly saying that being a philosopher is a worthwhile activity. This means that freedom
is the greatest responsibility of all. We are not just responsible for the impact that our
choices have upon ourselves, but also for their impact on the whole of humankind. And,
with no external principles or rules to justify our actions, we have no excuses to hide behind
for the choices that we make. For this reason, Sartre declares that we are “condemned to be
free.” Yet despite bearing responsibility for the impact of our actions upon others, we are
able to choose to exercise sole control over how we fashion our world and ourselves.

When we make There is no God.

something, we do so for
a purpose.

The purpose (or essence) We are not made by God.

of a made thing comes
before its existence.

We are not made for any purpose.

We have to create
…so our existence our purpose for
precedes our ourselves.
essence

Think and Answer

Analyze the statements of Jean Paul Sartre.
What we do, how we act in our life, determines our apparent "qualities." Our act
defines us.

How do these statements influence your choices and the way you live your life at
present?
_____________________________________________________________________
These statements influences my choices and the way I live my life at present in a sense that it’s telling me that my actions

are a big constituent of my personality and myself as a whole. If I choose my decisions with bad intentions, this will
_____________________________________________________________________
affect my person as a whole and how people will perceive me, which is why it is imperative for me to act judicious and sapient.
_____________________________________________________________________

REFERENCE:
Buckingham, W., Burnham, D., Hill, C., King, P.J., MArenbon, J., & Weeks, M. (2011). The philosophy book.
Dorling Kindersely Limited.
Caraan, A. M. (2016). Introduction to philosophy of the human person. Diwa Learning Systems.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 27 of 34

C.N.______
NAME_______________________________________ SECTION_______ DATE_____________

LEARNING PACKET 10
Edmund Husserl and Phenomenology

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is the philosophical study of the structures of experience and

consciousness. As a philosophical movement, it was founded in the early years of the 20th
century by Edmund Husserl. Husserl argued that phenomenology did not deny the
existence of the real world, but sought instead to clarify the sense of this world. Even if
objects are no longer present, you can always “play up” their existence in your mind. There
are “intellectual sediments” that seem not to change over time, and these form a kind of
“constitution” that makes you understand the objects that you intentionally perceive.
Husserl believes that the essence of every object can be thought of, investigated, and
understood, more than the usual way of understanding it.

Phenomenological Method

“Back to the things themselves” is employed in phenomenology because through the

years that we have been accustomed to seeing and understanding things, we do not
investigate anymore its original essence. Husserl calls it bracketing
away/suspending/disconnecting. It seeks to momentarily reduce, effectively erase the
world of speculation by returning the subject to their primordial experience of the matter
(back to the things themselves), whether the object of inquiry is a feeling, an idea, or a
perception. Bracketing (epoche) is the act of suspending judgment about the natural world.
It is the systematic removal, one by one (as if peeling the onion), of the non-essential
aspects, the symbolic meanings, and contexts in order to get to the core, leaving only the
essence of what constitutes the thing. Thus, one’s subjective perception is the truest form of
experience one can have in perceiving it. This allows one to examine phenomena as they are
originally given to consciousness. It involves setting aside the question of real existence, as
well as questions about its physical nature; these questions are left to the natural sciences.

There are two cognitive attitudes that we usually employ: (1) the natural attitude,
when we are comfortable with the things we already know, and (2) the transcendental
attitude when we try our best to direct our consciousness to investigate the essence of every
phenomenon. In all of these, we are trying to use our inner sensibility, trying to understand
that there is something more than what we see and know, that in our exhaustive effort to
think, we can arrive at the truth of every phenomenon, or simply put, in every experience
of objects (anything seen, physically or mentally), because we are subjects ourselves who
are conscious of what is going on.

Phenomenology is useful for a person who wants to understand human experience

and find meaning to this such as consciously perceiving the world, remembering a past
event, imagining a future event, thinking an occurrent thought, or feeling sad or happy,
thirsty or in pain, and so forth.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 28 of 34

Using CLOSER, fill in the table on the views of Sartre and Husserl about the human
person.

One Specific
Philosopher Concept Learned Relevance
Example
Jean Paul Sartre Our existence precedes our A surgeon and a murderer, Based on Sartre’s
human essence, humans have both struck bodies open with perspective, our actions
the ability to shape sharp tools. As such, the define us. We are free to
themselves, and we are not action is the same, however, choose, however, we
just responsible for the impact the intention behind the act is must accept limitations and
that our choices make, but what separates the saviour exercise sole control
also the impact on the whole from the killer. over our actions and
of humankind. intentions.

Edmund Husserl It is imperative that through the Phenomenology in Healthcare

As previously stated by Husserl,
Phenomenology is useful for a
phenomenological method, we person who wants to understand
must assimilate human human experience and find its
experience, phenomenas and core meaning to what constitutes
investigate the deepest and this. Phenomenology can be
original essence of what respectively applied to the first
constitutes the thing. person experience of a particular
illness in order to accentuate that
certain experience and provides
health care professionals a more
in-depth understanding of the
illness and the experiences it
comes with.

REFERENCE:
Camiloza, L.G., Garnace, E.B., Mazo, R.M., & Perez, E.D. (2016). Philosophy of the human person. Phoenix
Publisihing House.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 29 of 34

C.N.______
NAME_______________________________________ SECTION_______ DATE_____________

LEARNING PACKET 11
The Human Person in Hinduism, Buddhism,
Taoism, and Confucianism

Hinduism

At the heart of Hinduism lies the idea of human beings’ quest for absolute truth, so
that one’s soul and the Brahman or Atman (Absolute Soul) might become one. According to
Hinduism, human beings have a dual nature: one is the spiritual and immortal essence
(soul); the other one is the empirical life and its traits. Between the two natures, however, it
is maintained that the soul is ultimately real. The existence of the body, in fact, is
considered nothing more than an illusion and even an obstacle to an individual’s
realization of one’s real self. The soul of the person is a true reality, while the body is only
temporary and ultimately an illusion to be discarded so that the soul can freely return to
Atman – the Hindu god of all.

Human beings can ultimately become one with this higher reality, but only if they
change how they see and behave in the world. Specifically, the Upanishads hold that
people must renounce the trappings of the world and embark on a life of asceticism.

In this way, they can train themselves to disregard the things of the material world,
which only lead to grasping and attachments, and thus the creation of karma. If one
meditates on the true nature of the self (the atman), one can realize that everything that one
thinks of as the self, as "I," is in fact no different than Brahman. One can thus learn to be in
the world in such a way that one is not attached, and thereby not creating karma (although
still acting). When one dies, one is free of karma, and thus not reborn; instead, this person is
release from samsara. This is moksha, which literally means "release," but which really
refers to ultimate salvation, union with Brahman.

To attain this state of karma-less being, one must, through meditation and intense
philosophical analysis, develop the proper knowledge of the true nature of the self. This
path, as most clearly laid out in the Upanishads, is known as the jnana marga, the path of
knowledge. The next path is the bhakti marga, the path of devotion. The highest and most
effective form of religious activity is absolute devotion. The last path is to follow the path of
action, to do one’s duty, dharma, as defined by his caste.

Buddhism

Dependent origination, or dependent arising, is a formulation that is central to

Buddhist philosophy. It is depicted as a wheel in the Bhavacakra, or Wheel of Life and
Death.

The Wheel of Life and Death is a depiction of the universe where all beings reside,
but it is also the universe of each individual as he or she faces samsara. It is a map of the
way that rebirth arises, of how human realities arise out of mental states. The cycle of
dependent origination represents a human life cycle, but it can also represent cycles within
a lifetime, such as the life cycle of an addiction, a relationship, a job, and so forth. The cycle

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 30 of 34

of dependent origination can be brought to an end at any point in the cycle, although
ignorance is typically the place to begin.

Rebirth begins with ignorance and is sparked by one of the three poisons. Ignorance
gives rise to volition, which gives rise to consciousness. Consciousness gives rise to a body
(name and form), which gives rise to the six senses. The six senses lead to contact, which
leads to sensations, which lead to desire. Desire gives rise to clinging, which leads to
becoming. Becoming leads to birth, which gives rise to old age and death. Birth in this case
is the creation of a set of predispositions that will structure one's volition in the next cycle.

Just as suffering arises from the cycle of dependent origination, salvation can arise
from understanding the causes of suffering, or, put it another way, from eliminating the
ignorance that has prevented recognition of the causes.

It is not necessary to interpret this cycle in terms of past lives. All humans experience
cycles through which their identities are formed. For example, one may go to school and
start a profession; one could fall in love and get married, or one might have children and
become parents. Any cycle of this kind creates a sense of personal identity, and any
negative cycle can be broken. Where problems arise, according to Buddhism, is when one
begins to think of these characteristics of one's life as permanent and unchanging, as the
whole of one's identity.

What is the purpose of life in Buddhism? There is no single answer to that question.
If life is samsara, then the purpose is to escape from it. For some, life's purpose may be to
recognize the true nature of existence and become enlightened, or to burn off karma in
order to avoid future rebirths. For others, the purpose of life might be to accumulate merit
so that one can be born to a better life next time, or perhaps someday to become
a bodhisattva. For still others, the purpose of life is simply to follow the eightfold path.

In Zen Buddhism, the purpose of life is simply to live. All life is sacred; everything
partakes of the nature of the Buddha, so one need only realize this to find meaning in one's
life, and enlightenment.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 31 of 34

What is the essence of the human person from the Hindu and Buddhist perspective?
Compare and contrast their philosophies using the Venn diagram.

Hindu Buddhist

REFERENCE:
Ramos, C.C.R. (2019). Introduction to the philosophy of the human person (2nd ed.). Rex Bookstore.

Daoism (Taoism)

According to the earliest Taoist texts, when human nature is aligned with the rest of
nature, order and harmony are the results. From this perspective, the purpose of self-
cultivation is to return to a mode of existence that is natural but has been obscured by social
conditioning. Repeating certain actions, such as physical exercises, is a way of training the
body so that it is free to react in a spontaneous, natural way. It is similar to the experience
of practicing one's shots in basketball and then making a clutch basket in the big game —
the preparation through repetition makes it possible to act, at a certain moment, without
thinking, in pure spontaneity (zi-ran). That spontaneity is the mode of being that is
experienced fully, at all times, only by the immortals. For most people, however, including
the laity and many of the Taoshi, the goal is less lofty: to experience a long and healthy life.

Humans can deviate from the natural order. When they do so, they bring
destruction upon themselves and those around them. Confucian scholars were criticized in
the Taode jing for imposing rules and social expectations. According to Taode jing, social
mores and threats of punishment cause more harm than good, as they are methods of
forcing appropriate behavior rather than allowing it to occur spontaneously and naturally.

1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 32 of 34

 Instead, the only way to encourage appropriate behavior is by modeling it. If a ruler
is a person of impeccable character, those he leads would naturally follow. But how is the
ruler to become the ideal role model, thus insuring harmony for his empire? As an 8th-
century Taoist master said to a Tang emperor, "Who governs his body, governs the
country." Self-cultivation practices were common among the Chinese nobility. The types of
practices have varied widely, from simple reflection and self-examination — being
"watchful over oneself when alone" (The Doctrine of the Mean) — to, on the opposite end of
the spectrum, taking elixirs in hopes of becoming an immortal.

Concepts of human nature in Taoism are thus intimately connected with the body.
Because of its body sciences and experimentation with diet and chemistry, Taoism had a
great influence on the development of traditional Chinese medicine. According to Taoist
principles, illness can be viewed as a lack of alignment, or harmony, within the body. For
example, an imbalance of yin and yang within the body can prevent qi from flowing freely,
which, in turn, causes pain and physical illness. Acupuncture is based on adjusting the
flow of qi as it moves through the meridians of the body.

These ways of thinking are grounded in a fundamental premise of Chinese thought:

that there are correlations or correspondences between every level of existence. According
to correlative thinking, what goes on inside the body of the emperor will naturally affect the
weather, for example, or determine the result of war, as the body of the emperor is the body
of the empire.

From this perspective, an individual's body is also the body of the world. The world
inside one's body, the world on earth, and the world of the heavenly realms are all
interconnected. What happens in one affects the others, and one can effect change in one by
acting in another. Thus the purpose of existence, for everyone, is to improve oneself —
physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually — for the benefit of all.

Confucianism

Confucian scholars have long debated essential human nature without reaching
agreement as to its fundamental characteristics. Most agree, however, that the purpose of
existence is to reach one's highest potential as a human being. Through a rigorous process
of self-cultivation that lasts a lifetime, one may eventually become a "perfected person."

The dependence of Tian upon human agents to put its will into practice helps
account for Confucians' insistence on moral, political, and social activism. The relentless
quest for virtue begins with the most basic human activities, such as the mindful direction
of one's sight, hearing, speech, and action:

Do not look at, do not listen to, do not speak of, do not do whatever is contrary to ritual
propriety (Lunyu 12:1).

In the Lunyu, two types of persons are opposed to one another -- not in terms of
basic potential (for, in 17:2, Kongzi says all human beings are alike at birth), but in terms of
developed potential. These are the junzi (literally, "lord's son" or "gentleman," but often
translated as "profound person") and the xiaoren ("small person"):

The profound person understands what is moral. The small person understands what is
profitable (Lunyu 4:16).
1st Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person Page 33 of 34
 The junzi is the person who always manifests the quality of ren (co-humanity) in his
person and the displays the quality of yi (righteousness) in his actions (Lunyu 4:5).
A xiaoren, then, is merely a human being who has not learned to put ren into practice; all
human beings potentially may become junzi. The character for ren is composed of two
graphic elements, one representing a human being and the other representing the number
two. One may think of ren as meaning "how two people should treat one another."

Confucianism claims that human nature (renxing) is good. Renxing (human nature)
is congenitally disposed toward ren, but requires cultivation through li (ritual) as well as
yoga-like disciplines related to one's qi (vital energy), and may be stunted (although never
destroyed) through neglect or negative environmental influence. The basic assertion is that
"everyone has a heart-mind which feels for others". As evidence, he makes two appeals: to
experience and to reason.

Thus, Confucianism makes an assertion about human beings -- all have a heart-mind
that feels for others and qualifies this assertion with appeals to common experience and
logical argument. It goes further and identifies the four basic qualities of the heart-mind
(sympathy, shame, deference, judgment) not only as distinguishing characteristics of
human beings -- what makes a human being really "human" -- but also as the "sprouts"
(duan) of the four cardinal virtues.

For Confucianism, what makes us human is our feelings of commiseration for

others' suffering; what makes us virtuous – or junzi is our development of this inner
potential. There is no sharp conflict between "nature" and "nurture"; biology and culture are
co-dependent upon one another in the development of the virtues.

Compare and contrast the views on the human person of Daoism and Confucianism.

How are they alike? How are they different?

Daoism Confucianism
____________________________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________
____________________________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________

____________________________________________
____________________________________________

____________________________________________

REFERENCE:
Richey, J. (n.d.). Patheos: Religion library Confucianism. Human Nature and the Purpose of
Existence. https://www.patheos.com/library/confucianism/beliefs/human-nature-and-the-purpose-
of-existence
Patheos: Religion library Taoism. Human Nature and the Purpose of Existence.
https://www.patheos.com/library/taoism/beliefs/human-nature-and-the-purpose-of existence

reina ♡ 08052021
1 Quarter | Philosophy of the Human Person
st Page 34 of 34