Carpe Diem! (Seize the day!

)
…To make a difference in the world we live in, not just by being different but by pursuing the alternative…
…Not just by looking for alternatives but by being the alternative…
That is to earn trust by being trustworthy, to promote respect by being respectful, to discipline oneself by being responsible…
To live in a life when everyday counts and never let the sun to set without making a difference…

Humanities 2: Philosophy of Man

Course Description
This course deals with the philosophical issues that confront man in different
fields, like his being an embodied spirit, as a knowing subject, as an ethical
being, as a being who stands before God, as someone who searches meaning in
his life, as a free agent and what his human freedom implies, etc. It deeply
probes, likewise, into how the past and present philosophers tackle these
issues in an effort to better understand man, his place in the society, and his
place in the universe.

As a philosophical course, the approach here is not without the sound, and
sometimes even critical principles of philosophers and how these principles are
tested in the light of modern living. Not only would this course therefore, open
un the mind of the student into new vistas, previously unthought-of, but will
definitely compel the student to reflect by himself and thus, to philosophize in
the process.

General Course Objectives

1. To understand and own the vision-mission of the institution;
2. To understand the unique nature of man not only as a rational animal
(tradition view) but more importantly as a person capable of self-
realization through his openness to other person and to an Absolute
Person:
3. To augment his appreciation on human values such as dignity of person,
truth, justice, freedom, labor, love and service to others and faith;
4. To critically analyze and intelligently discuss various philosophical
problems.

Specific Objectives
 To acquire an understanding of complexity of the nature of man;
 To appraise various philosophical ideas;
 To show openness to new and respect for differences of opinion and
orientation;
 To enhance one’s personal and spiritual conversion though a strong faith
in God.


  :2

Course Outline

Week No. Lecture Topics Sub-Topics

1 I. Introduction a. Vision-Mission and Goals of
PLV
b. University Policies, Rules and
Regulations
c. Course Description
d. Grading System
e. Course Outline
2 II. What is Philosophy a. Definition
b. Nature
c. History and Approaches
3 d. Difference between Wisdom,
Understanding and
Knowledge
e. Eastern and Western
Philosophy.
4 III. Plato’s Republic
5 IV. Who am I (Embodied a. Am I My Body?
Subject) b. Do I have a Body?
6 IX. What can I know? a. Can I know the External
(Epistemology-knowing) World?
b. Can I know myself?
7 c. How can I acquire
Knowledge?
d. What does Truth mean?
8 Midterm Examination
9 VII. What should I do? a. Am I free to act? –Sarte
(Freedom)
10 VIII. Do I have Rights and Social
Responsibilities?
11 IX. Man as Loving Being (Social
Philosophy)
12
13 X. What may I hope for?
14 XI. God a. Does God exist?
b. Faith (Theodicy, Philosophy
of Religion)
15 XII. Evil and Suffering a. How should I deal with Evil?
b. How should I deal with
Suffering
16. XIII. Death a. How should I deal with
Death?


  :3

17 XIV. Can life make sense?

Reading: 3 Paragraphs,
Excerpts from different
Philosophers.
18 Final Examinations

Grading System:

Quizzes 20%
Mid Term/ Final Exam 40%
Recitation, Project, and Reports 20%
Attitude 10%
Attendance 10%
100%


  :4

Humanities 2: Philosophy of Man

Human Being, Being Human
Introduction:

 “Man is the measure of all things” -Protagoras, (a

contemporary of Socrates)
 emphasized the importance of human existence
 “The proper object of philosophical inquiry is man and
it is by undertaking the analysis of the human
situations and problems that philosophy may be
able to address.”
 Alexander Pope, an English poet
 Philosophy of Man is a holistic philosophical
approach to understand the human person better
by considering all the important and significant
aspects related to him.
 It is the study of ultimate reality, causes and
principles underlying being, acquired through the
use of human reason alone.
 Philosophy is an activity. Philosophizing is more
important than Philosophy.

o Specifically designed to develop critical thinking in students through an

analysis of arguments and other syllogistic forms. Although a
considerable amount of time is given to deduction, a significant portion
of the course is also allotted to inductive reasoning. Emphasis is also
given in pinpointing the most common errors or fallacies in everyday
reasoning.
o The examination of some of the general principles for distinguishing
sound from unsound arguments.
o The study of principles governing good argument

 Objectives
o Understand what Philosophy is
o Know how the word philosophy was derived
o Know the various important questions philosophy is concerned.
o To understand and own the vision-mission of the institution;
o To recognize the importance of correct reasoning in everyday life;
o To acquire an understanding of various syllogistic forms;
o To pinpoint errors in reasoning;
o To demonstrate intellectual curiosity and respect for evidences in decision
making;
o To manifest an inquiring mind.


  :5

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?

1: What is Philosophy?
2: Approaches and Branches of Philosophy
3: Philosophy, Science and Religion

Philosophy is the love of wisdom (etymologically from the Greek philos meaning
“love,” and sophia, meaning “wisdom”). In the beginning, the term philosophy
was loosely used by Greek thinkers and it conveyed many things. It was
Pythagoras of Samos, a sage and a mystic during the 6th century BC, who
invented the word “philosophy.” “Philosophia” therefore, is the love of wisdom
and philosophers are lovers of wisdom.
The story goes that while Pythagoras was watching the Olympic games inside
an amphitheater, he notices three groups of people. The first group were there
to play games, to win, to compete, to fight in order to win honor, prestige and
fame. Pythagoras called them the “lovers of fame.” The second group of people
went to the Olympic games to make money and gain profit by selling their
goods and wares inside. They were the “lovers of gain.” The third group went
there to watch the games and be thrilled by the events unfolding. Pythagoras
called them the “lovers of spectacle.”
The story does not end here, for after leaving the Olympics, Pythagoras
observed, just as well, that there were still three groups of people in real life.
There were those whose lives were lived solely for the purpose of becoming
famous: LOVERS OF FAME. There were those who live life with one aim, to
become rich and wealthy: LOVERS OF GAIN. But there were also those people
who are just in a minority, who live life not to become rich or famous, but who
live life with one purpose in mind: to understand what life is really all about.
Hence, philosophy is used to denote love of thinking, thinking attitude,
reflective attitude towards life. Philosophers reflect on knowledge, on God, on
life, on death, on what man is and who man is, on right and wrong, on society,
and other questions. Pythagoras called these people, including himself, of
course: LOVERS OF WISDOM.
Pythagoras coined the term “philosophos” in order to differentiate them
from the “sophos.” The sophos during their time were men of great intelligence
but they were so proud as to admit that they alone possess wisdom. The
sophos were traveling teachers, as well. They went to various places teaching
the young rhetoric’s and the skill to debate and argue. Of course, for a pay.
However, they are more interested, not in the Truth, but how to win every
argument they are involved in. So Pythagoras claimed himself not a sophos, not
wise, but only a philosophos a lover of wisdom.
Using a standard dictionary, Philosophy will have to be defined as something
like this: “Philosophy is the study of the ultimate reality, causes and principles
underlying being acquired through the use of human reason alone.” Plato gave
a specific and technical meaning to the term. He defined philosopher as one


  :6

whose attention is fixed on reality rather than on appearances. A philosopher is

interested in grasping the essential nature of things. For instance, a
philosopher was leisurely walking inside the university campus. He passed by
an untilled garden. He saw a small flower, plucked it out and then made a
philosophical reflection. He said, “Little flower, I plucked you out from an
obscure garden. Little flower, I am holding you in my hand. Little flower, if I
can understand your roots, your stem, your leaves, your petals—and all in all—
then I can understand life and if I can understand life then I can understand
God.”
Thus, philosophy is defined as a reflective and reasoned attempt to infer the
character and content of the universe taken in its totality. We may say, then,
that philosophy is, “a resolute and persistent attempt to understand and
appreciate the universe as a whole.”
Philosophy is basically an attitude and activity of the human mind. To
have a guiding attitude towards life is to have a philosophy, since the principles
which a man consciously or unconsciously adopts determines his thinking and
actions in dealing with the practical issues of human existence. The impulse to
philosophize is motivated by the desire to adopt for oneself and for others a
creed to live by. The aim of such an attempt is to make our lives coherent and
purposive. There is no sense in philosophizing unless it affects our attitude to
life and its attendant problems. G.K. Chesterton, the noted English writer, said
that the most important and practical thing about man is his attitude towards
life and his view of the universe. Thus, it matters whether a man is a pessimist
or an optimist, an empiricist, or a rationalist, a skeptic, or a believer. More
than just a subject, philosophy is an activity. There is nothing new about the
idea that the activity of philosophizing is more important than the subject,
philosophy. Some two hundred years ago, the great German philosopher,
Immanuel Kant, told his pupils:

You will not learn from me philosophy, but how to philosophize, not
thoughts to repeat, but how to think. Think for yourselves, enquire
for yourselves, stand on your own feet. Dare to think, no matter
where it might lead you. Just dare to think.

Philosophy refers to a way of living and thinking. In this sense, every

man has a philosophy. A man’s way of thinking, his attitude, beliefs and
opinions constitute his philosophy. Our happiness, peace of mind and style of
living depends upon our way of thinking or the philosophy of our life. In a
general sense, when we speak of a man’s philosophy, we simply mean the sum
of his beliefs. His beliefs refer to those all viewpoints which guide his thinking
and actions about life and the world. Different men have different kinds of
philosophies. In the words of Fichte, the 19th century German idealist, “the
kind of philosophy a man adopts depends on the kind of man he is.”
In India, we are told, that philosophy is traditionally called Darshana
implying thereby insight into the real nature and essence of things. In Platonic
sense, a philosopher is a man of wisdom. A wise man has a clear


  :7

understanding of the distinction between reality and appearances. Man is not

like other animals. He is a rational being and lives in the organized life of
society. He has ideals and purposes besides responsibilities towards others.
Therefore, it is essential for him to know the distinction between real and
unreal, between right and wrong, between knowledge and opinion. A
philosopher is a guide to humanity. He is one who apprehends the essence or
reality of the world; the one who is able to grasp the eternal and immutable.
At this point, it is necessary to spell out the subject matter of philosophy.
What is philosophy constituted of? The history of philosophy shows that
philosophers have discussed a great variety of questions. It is very difficult to
provide a general description which includes all these questions. However, we
can roughly indicate the main questions with which philosophers have been
concerned with. Generally, philosophers are interested in questions like:
1. Is there a God? What reasons are there to believe in God? Can we prove
or disprove God’s existence? (Philosophy of Religion or Philosophical Theology)
2. What is knowledge? Can we know? What is it to know? How can we
know? (Epistemology or Theory of Knowledge)
3. What is man? Who is man? Is man only his body or is man his soul?
(Philosophical Psychology)
4. Are we free? Are our actions already determined? Do we have a free will?
(Metaphysics and Ethics)
5. What is right? What is wrong? (Ethics or Moral Philosophy)
6. What is beauty? (Aesthetics or Philosophy of Art)
7. What is the good life? What is happiness?
8. Does life make sense? What is the meaning of life?

Summary:
 Philosophy is the love of wisdom (etymologically from the Greek philos
meaning “love,” and sophia, meaning “wisdom”).

 Pythagoras of Samos, a sage and a mystic during the 6th century BC,
coined the word philosophy.
 Three groups of people who are in the Olympic.
 Lovers of Fame: loves to play; to win; to compete; to fight in order to
win with honor. Live to be famous.
 Lovers of Gain: loves to make money and gain profit by selling their
goods and wares inside. Live to be rich and wealthy.
 Lovers of Spectacle: loves to watch the games and be trilled by the
events unfolding.
 Lovers of Wisdom: Live life to understand what life is really all about.
Reflect on knowledge, on God, on life, on death, on what man is and who man
is, on right and wrong, on society and other questions.
 Pythagoras doesn’t want to be identified with the Sophos.
These were traveling teachers of great intelligence, but were so
proud and believe that they were alone possessing wisdom. The



Pythagoras
  :8

Sophos teach their students, rhetorics and the skills to debate and argue, for a
pay of course. They are not interested in Truth, as long as they win an
argument.
 Pythagoras then don’t want to be called Sophos, or wise. He just want to
be known as the lover of wisdom – Philosophos.
 “Philosophy is the study of the ultimate reality, causes and principles
underlying being acquired through the use of human reason alone”.
 Philosopher:
 one whose attention is fixed on reality rather than on appearances.
 interested in grasping the essential nature of things.
 Philosophy is more of attitude and activity of mind
 A creed to live by… to make life coherent and purposive

 The most important and practical thing about man is his attitude towards life
and his view of the universe. Thus, it matters whether a man is a pessimist or an
optimist, an empiricist, or a rationalist, a skeptic, or a believer. More than just a
subject, philosophy is an activity.
 --G.K. Chesterton

 “You will not learn form me Philosophy, how to philosophize, not thoughts to
repeat, but how to think. Think for yourselves, enquire for yourselves, stand on
your own feet. Dare to think, no matter where it might lead you. Just dare to
think.”
 --Immanuel Kant.

 Philosophy refers to a way of living and thinking

 thinking, his attitude, beliefs and opinions constitute his philosophy.
 sum of his beliefs
 “the kind of philosophy a man adopts depends on the kind of man he is.”
 --Fichte
 Darshana- Indian Philosophy
 real nature and essence of things

 Philosopher is a man of wisdom.

 A wise man has a clear understanding of the distinction between reality
and appearances.—Platonic Philosophy
 rational being and lives in the organized life
 ideals and purposes besides responsibilities
 A philosopher is a guide to humanity, apprehends the essence

 General Questions in Philosophy:

 Philosophy of Religion:
 Is there a God?
 What reasons are there to believe in God?
 Can we prove or disprove God’s existence?


  :9

 Epistemology or Theory of Knowledge:

 What is knowledge?
 Can we know?
 What is it to know?
 How can we know?
 Metaphysics and Ethics:
 Are we free?
 Are our actions already determined? Do we have free will?
 Ethics or Moral Philosophy:
 What is right? What is wrong?
 Philosophy of Art or Aesthetics:
 What is beauty?
 Philosophical Psychology or Philosophy of Man or Anthropology:
 What is man? Who is man?
 Is man only his body or is man his soul?
 What is a good life? What is happiness?
 Does life make sense?
 What is the meaning of life?

PHILOSOPHY--ITS APPROACHES,
MAJOR BRANCHES AND FUNCTIONS

 Objectives:
 Know the various approaches in the study of philosophy
 Know the major branches within the subject
 Know some important philosophers and place in history.

There are three ways to approach the study of philosophy. And these are:

1. Historical Approach – This is done by dividing philosophy into four

major periods, namely:

Ancient Classical Philosophy – The philosophical period emphasized a

concern with the ultimate nature of reality and the problem of virtue in a
political context. This period was the era of the Greek philosophers who
ventured and dealt on cosmological problems in their philosophical endeavor.
This cosmological problem paved the way to ensue philosophical answer of
what basically constitutes the world. Thales is of the Greek philosophers who
gave us the philosophical perspective that all is water or water is what
constitutes the cosmos (world). The concern later gradually shifted into political
discussion. Socrates, however, transformed the Greek philosophy which was
later infiltrated by the Sophists who claimed to know the truth which could
uplift man’s condition but merely argued to convince people just for a pay.


  :10

Medieval Philosophy – This philosophical period used philosophy to

rationalize Christian beliefs. This was also known as the limelight of Christian
philosophy which was geared in a theocentric perspective. It focused on
asserting the reality of God and the proofs or arguments that proves his
existence. St. Thomas Aquinas is one of the leading proponents of this
philosophical period who argued that everything that exists has its cause and
the first cause that could explain everything is God, the first cause.

Modern Philosophy – This period in philosophy is characterized by a

separation of reason from faith and which eventually led to the development of
science. This was the starting point already where philosophers imbibed a
systematic and empirical perspective in their philosophical discourse.

Contemporary Philosophy – This concerns the late 19th And 20th century
philosophy which generally focused with man and linguistic analysis. The 20th
century philosophy was set for a series of attempts to reform and preserve, and
to alter or abolish, older knowledge systems. It deals with the upheavals
produced by a series of conflicts within philosophical discourse over the basis
of knowledge, with classical certainties overthrown, and new social, economic,
scientific and logical problems.

Summary
 Historical Approaches: This is done by dividing philosophy into four major
periods.
 Ancient Classical Philosophy—which emphasized a concern with the
ultimate nature of reality and the problems of virtue in a political concept.
 Medieval Philosophy—which used philosophy to rationalized Christian
beliefs.
 Modern Philosophy—characterized by a separation of reason from faith
and which leads further to the development of science.
 Contemporary Philosophy—late 19th and 20th century philosophy
generally concerned with man and linguistic analysis.


  :11

2. Through a study of individual philosophers – In this approach, one

has to study the ideas and thoughts of these philosophers by going through
their major works and writings. Their ideas and opinions are all expressed in
the books that they have written. However, to understand clearly the major
writings of our philosophers, it is advisable to consult and read some
commentaries or secondary materials. For example, to understand Kant’s
Critique of Pure Reason is an exercise in futility if you do not supplement it with
Fr. Copleton’s History of Philosophy, Vol. 6, Part II. Philosophy is the main
subject of Plato; or Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Niconachean Ethics; of large
parts of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus and William of
Ockham; of the Meditations of Rene Descartes; of the Ethics of Spinoza; of the
Monadology of Leibniz; of Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding; of
Berkeley’s Three Dialogues and Principles of Human Knowledge; of Kant’s
Critique of Pure Reason; and finally, in the present century, of Moore’s own
Principia Ethica; of Russel’s Our Knowledge of the External World; of Heidegger’s
Being and Time; of Sartre’s Beings and Nothingness; and of Wittgenstein’s
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. These are some of the major writings of some
major philosophers.

Summary
 Through a study of individual philosophers –
 Critique of Pure Reason --Kant’s
 History of Philosophy, Vol. 6, Part II. --Fr. Copleton
 Metaphysics and Niconachean Ethics; --Aristotle
 Quin Quae Viae (5 Proofs of God’s Existence) --St. Thomas Aquinas
 Meditations --Rene Descartes;
 Ethics --Spinoza;
 Monadology --Leibniz;
 Essay Concerning Human Understanding --Locke
 Three Dialogues and Principles of Human Knowledge --Berkeley
 Principia Ethica-- Moore
 Our Knowledge of the External World-- Russel
 Being and Time --Heidegger
 Beings and Nothingness-- Sartre
 Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus—Wittgenstein

 Below is a list of some philosophers and the major period they belong.

 Ancient Classical Philosophy

I. Socrates- (c. 470-399 BC)
II. Plato- (c. 428-348)
III. Aristotle (c. 384-322 BC)

SOCRATES PLATO
ARISTOTLE


  :12

 Medieval Philosophy
I. St. Augustine (354-430)
II. Boethius (480-524)
III. St. Anselm (1033-1109)
IV. St. Abelard (1079-1142)
V. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

 Modern Philosophy
I. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
II. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
III. Rene Descartes (1591-1650)
IV. Baruch (Benedict) Espinoza (1632-1677)
V. Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716)
VI. John Locke (1632-1704)
VII. George Berkeley (1685-1753) John Locke
VIII. David Hume (1711-1776)
IX. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
X. George Hegel (1770-1831)
XI. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
XII. Karl Marx (1818-1883)
XIII. Soren Kierkeggard (1813-1855)
XIV. Friedrich Nietzeche (1844-1900)
DESCARTES

 Contemporary Philosophy
I. Bertrand Russel (1872-1970)
II. G.E. Moore (1873-1958)
III. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)
IV. Edmund Husserl (1859-1938)
V. Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) MERLEAU-
VI. Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) PONTY

VII. Jean-Paul Sarte (1905-1980)

VIII. Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961)

3. Approach through philosophical problems – Philosophers are

philosophers because a great deal of life was spent on philosophizing on major
philosophical problems. The questions listed in the last part of Lesson 1 are
just some of the philosophical questions in which philosophers have concerned
themselves with. Some philosophers devoted much on just one or two
questions while others tried to provide answers on almost all questions and
thus creating a whole system of philosophy. Each particular problem or
question corresponds to a particular branch in philosophy. These are the
approaches to a study of philosophy. And in this course, we will combine the
three approaches in order to get a clear picture of the subject.


  :13

Needless to say, in our study of philosophy we cannot but become philosophers

ourselves. For we all are philosophers as long as we are open to every possible
idea, questioning and inquisitive and ever full of wonder.
“To be a philosopher,” said Henry David Theoreau, “is not merely to have subtle
thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live,
according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and
trust.” Francis Bacon admonishes us, “Seek ye first the good things of the mind
and the rest will either be supplied or its loss will not be felt. ”Truth will not
make us rich, but it will make us free!

Summary
 Approach through philosophical problems
 Some philosophers devoted much on just one or two questions while
others tried to provide answers on almost all questions and thus creating a
whole system of philosophy.
 Each particular problem or question corresponds to a particular branch
in philosophy.

To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a

school, but to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity,
independence, magnanimity and trust.”
--Henry David Thoreau

Seek ye first good things of the mind and the rest will either be supplied or its
loss will not be felt.
--Francis Bacon.

 MAJOR BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY

 Metaphysics: a branch of philosophy concerned with ultimate nature of

existence. Study of ultimate reality.
I. The first philosophy
II. Ontology: study of beings, of existence
III. Cosmology: study of the universe, its creation and evolution.
 Philosophical Theology (Theodicy or Philosophy of Religion): the
study of God and his creation.

 Epistemology: investigates the nature of knowledge and the process of

knowing, knowledge and the process of knowing
 Ethics: Philosophy of right conduct, correct doing and decision making.
I. Moral Philosophy
 Logic: Philosophy of correct thinking, reasoning and validity of
arguments.
 Aesthetics (Art appreciation): Philosophy of beauty and art.
 Psychology started as an inseparable branch of philosophy.


  :14

I. The scientific study of the mind and its impact on human behavior
contributes to a great extent in better understanding of human nature.
 Philosophy of Man (Anthropology) : Attempts to understand man, as
an individual, knower, free being, loving, being-towards-death, being-
before-God, being-in-the-world.

 We are all philosophers as long as we are open to every possible idea,

questioning and inquisitive and ever full of wonder.

 Truth will not make us rich, but it will make us free.

FUNCTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy undertakes a critical examination of the grounds on which beliefs

are held. A large part of the business of philosophy is to inquire what reason
can do, what it cannot do, by way of supporting a particular belief. As human
beings, endowed with reason, we cannot prevent ourselves from thinking about
the frame and principles, the destiny of our lives. The right use of reason
brings us nearer to the truth. Philosophy itself is founded upon a belief
expressed long ago by Socrates that “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

Another function of philosophy is to frame a picture of the whole universe, to

establish a complete worldview. This function distinguishes it from the sciences
which concentrate on a particular aspect of Nature. According to the British
evolutionary philosopher, Herbert Spencer, science is partially unified
knowledge while philosophy is completely unified knowledge. Philosophy is
defined as the effort to comprehend the universe as a whole, not a special
department of it. To know only a part is to have incomplete and distorted view
of things.
The function of philosophy is not to change the world but to understand it. In
the context of the contemporary world and its problems, philosophy is very
relevant because it helps us to realize that there are very important questions
which science cannot answer, and that scientific knowledge is not sufficient.
Further, philosophy keeps people intellectually modest and aware that there
are no shortcuts to knowledge, what we believe to be indisputably true may
turn out to be untrue.
In discussing the aim of philosophy, it is quite relevant to quote the great
British philosopher Bertrand Russell, “I think philosophy has two uses. One of
them is to keep alive speculations about things that are not yet amenable to
scientific knowledge, after all, scientific knowledge covers a very small part of
the things that interest mankind and ought to interest them. There are a great
many things of immense interest about which science, at present rate, knows
little and I don’t want people’s people imaginations to be limited and enclosed
within what can be now known. I think I enlarge your imaginative view of the
world in the hypothetical real and it is one of the uses of philosophy. Another


  :15

use of philosophy is to use that there are things which we thought we knew
and don’t know. Philosophy is to keep us thinking about things that we may
come to know, and to keep us modestly aware of how much that seems like
knowledge is not knowledge.”

Summary

 FUNCTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY
 “the unexamined life is not worth living.”—Socrates
 (1)In Business, Philosophy inquire what reason can do,
what it cannot do, by way of supporting a particular belief.
 (2)Philosophy also frame a picture of the whole universe,
to establish a complete worldview.
I. science is partially unified knowledge while philosophy
is completely unified knowledge-- Herbert Spencer SOCRATES
II. Philosophy has the effort to comprehend the universe
as a whole, not a special department of it.
 To know only a part is to have incomplete and distorted view of
things.
 (3)The function of philosophy is not to change
the world but to understand it.
III. (4)Philosophy keeps people intellectually modest and
aware that there are no shortcuts to knowledge, what we
believe to be indisputably true may turn out to be untrue.
 Basically, Philosophy has 2 reasons (accd. to Bertrand
Russell) BELTRAND
RUSSEL
I. to keep us thinking about things that we may come to
know,
II. to keep us modestly aware of how much that seems like knowledge is
not knowledge.”

It is quite useful to discuss science, religion and philosophy under one heading
in order to articulate their similarities and differences. These topics are directly
related with life. Science is generally held to be opposed to religion because of
its distinct aim and method. Its aim is cognitive and its method is empirical. It
aims to increase our knowledge of nature. This knowledge enables us to exploit
nature for our purposes. The method adopted by science for acquiring this
knowledge is empirical; that is, it is based on human experience. Experience in
science means observation, experimentation and verification. Religion, on the
other hand, is largely a matter of personal faith and belief. It aims at liberating
man from bondage to materialistic life. Thus, science and religion seem to tread
different paths for reaching different goals.
Philosophy is distinct from both science and religion since it does not
entirely rely on observation and analysis for the discovery of truth and neither
is it personal faith. It aims to develop right understanding of life and the world


  :16

by critical reflection. Science and philosophy are similar since they are both
cognitive disciplines, while religion and philosophy are similar in concerning
themselves with the nature of man and his destiny.
Further, philosophers act as guide both to scientists and men of religion so
that these contribute to the enrichment of human life. Philosophers have
always been gifted men who looked at things in a detached manner. When
Plato said, “Until philosophers are kings or kings and princes have power and
spirit of philosophy, human society will not cease from evil and sufferings,” he
stressed the importance of philosophy. Philosophy is not opposed to any
branch of knowledge, much less to science and religion. It refers to a way of
thinking, an attitude to life, hence, no aspect of human experience is without
philosophy. Philosophy is mother of all sciences, it is science of sciences, since
the earliest human inquiries were related to philosophical problems. Thus, we
can say that philosophy deals with the fundamentals of life and, hence, is
intimately related with all areas of human existence.

Now we can discuss these topics separately.

Philosophy and Science

Most human beings are curious. Not, I mean, in the sense that they are
odd, but in the sense that want to find out the world around them and about
their own part in this world. They, therefore, ask questions, they wonder, they
speculate. What they want to find out may be quite simple things: What lies
beyond the range of mountains? How many legs has a fly? Or they may be
rather complicated inquiries: How does grass grow? What is coal made of? Why
do some liquids extinguish flames while others stimulate them? Or they may be
more puzzling inquiries still: What is the purpose of life? What are we here for?
What is the ultimate nature of truth? In what sense, if any, are our wills free?
To the first two questions, the answers may be obtained by going and
seeing, and catching one and counting, respectively. The answers to the next
set of questions will be so easy, but the method will be essentially the same. It
is the method of the scientist, investigating, measuring, experimenting. A
method that may be reasonably summed up in two words: “going and seeing.”
The last set of questions would normally be thought of as philosophical, and it
would not be easy to find answers to them that would commend general
agreement. Some people would say that they are unanswerable. But those who
have tried to answer them in the past have on the whole used the method of
speculation rather than investigation, “sitting and thinking” rather than going
and seeing.
“Leisure,” as Thomas Hobbes remarked, is the mother of philosophy.”
The same relationship, it will be noted as that which proverbially exists
between necessity and invention. (Remember the proverb: Necessity is the
mother of invention.) This should not be taken to imply that philosophers are
not busy people, but that their activity is likely to mental rather than physical.


  :17

It would be a misleading oversimplification, however, to identify science

with investigating or “going and seeing” and philosophy with speculation or
“sitting and thinking.” The scientist who is investigating the world around him
will certainly do some sitting and thinking about the results of his inquiries.
The philosopher, who is speculating about the nature of truth, though he may
not do much going, is likely to do a certain amount of seeing. He must have
some data for reflection.
Nevertheless, it is on the whole true that for science the emphasis has
been on investigation, and for philosophers on speculation, and philosophers
have often been criticized for this reason.
Science is analytical description, philosophy is synthetic interpretation.
Science resolves the whole into parts, the organism into organs, the obscure
into the known. It does not inquire into the values and ideal possibilities of
things, nor into their total final significance. It concerns itself into the nature
and processes of things as they are. But the philosopher is not content to
describe the fact; he/she wishes to ascertain its relation to experience in
general, and thus to get at its meaning and is worth; he combines things in
interpretive synthesis; he/she ties to put together things which the inquisitive
scientist has analytically taken apart. To observe processes and to construct
means is science; to critique and coordinate ends in philosophy. Science gives
us knowledge, but only philosophy can give us wisdom.
Science is very important. The fruits of scientific research have in many
cases turned out to be applicable to the solution of concrete practical problems;
and in civilized countries these practical applications have immeasurably
improved the material conditions of human life. That science has put into the
hands of man power undreamed of before over the processes of nature, and
enabled him to utilize her forces for attainment of his purposes, so today
evident to everybody, and accounts for the enormous prestige science now
enjoys.
On the other hand, the fact is now becoming all too evident that the
ledger of scientific progress has a debit as well as a credit side. The power that
scientific knowledge brings has, indeed, made possible the cure or prevention
of many diseases; it has provided new and highly efficient means of production,
communication, and transportation; and it has given man all the convenient
gadgets on which he is today so dependent. But at the same time it has
complicated his life, robbed it in large measure of the joy of craftsmanship,
multiplied its needs, and brought it new diseases and perils. The natural
sciences and the might they have brought to man are in themselves wholly
neutral as regards values; they lend themselves equally to the efficient
implementation of good and evil purposes.
Philosophical reflection is not an activity indulged only by specialists
called philosophers who allegedly live in architectural monstrosities known as
ivory towers. Just each of us at times engages casually all of us on certain
occasions spontaneously occupy ourselves with philosophical questions.
We may, for example, read in the newspapers of a child born hopelessly
malformed and defective, but who, if operated upon at once, might nonetheless


  :18

be kept alive. And we may read further that the physician in charge realizing
that the child’s life could not be other than a grievous burden to himself, to his
parents, and to society, refrained from operating and allowed the child to die.
Then, in letters from readers to the editors of newspapers all over the country,
controversy rages about whether the physician’s action was morally right or
morally wrong. And even if we do not ourselves take active part in them, we too
form opinions of the question.
In such a controversy the participants do not merely state their moral
appraisal of the physician’s course. They also give reasons of one kind or
another to support the validity of their judgment. And if these reasons are in
turn challenged, each participant brings forth considerations he believes
adequate to vindicate the validity of his reasons.
The reasons, and the reasons for the reasons that are thus appealed to
as grounds for endorsing or condemning the physician’s action, constitute a
moral philosophy, or at least a fragment of one. And the mental activity of
searching for those reasons, so editing them as to purge them of the
inconsistencies or exaggerating errors that opponents were able to point out,
constitute philosophizing, or philosophical reflections.

In the main, science and philosophy differ in various respects, namely: object,
scope and method.
1. Object - science’s object of inquiry are tangible, material, observable
and verifiable realities whereas philosophy’s formal object are all intangible
realities such as God, right and wrong, knowledge, etc.
2. Scope - because science’s object are material things, its scope,
too, is limited by its object of study. Whereas philosophy seeks to understand
the “ultimate reality, causes and principles of beings.” Philosophy is, thus,
boundless, without limit.
3. Method - science has its own method of inquiry to find knowledge. It
uses data gathering, observation, hypothesis formulation, test and
measurement, etc. While philosophy is more bent on just speculation.
Religion

We don’t have to dwell on this aspect lengthily considering that a

separate topic about “Man and God” will be discussed in the latter part of this
manual. We have to touch on religion in general terms.
Coming to religion, it is generally identified rituals, with practices of one
kind or another, with taboos and inhibitions and restraints of various kinds.
Mostly religion implies belief in God. Perhaps religion started with fear but the
idea of God came from wonder and awe. Religion also means worship in one
way or another, and in such acts of worship the believer humbles himself,
surrenders to the God of his belief. In religion there is something that cannot
be explained. It can also be interpreted as understanding based on perception
with oneself. Religion proclaims that behind all this phenomena, the world of
nature and man, there is the reality called God. Thus, religion is not just based
on faith, it is based on the fact that men who have discovered God come and


  :19

tell us that they have discovered so. There are men who claim to have
experienced God—become conscious of something within them. They do not
pride with their religion but rather on their personal relationship with the
knowable God.

Science and Philosophy

Philosophy Science
 Sitting and Thinking:  Going and Seeing
 Leisure is the mother of  Investigating, measuring,
Philosophy—Thomas Hobbes experimenting
 Mental Activity  Physical Activity
 Emphasis on Speculation  Investigation
 Synthetic Interpretation  Analytical Description
 Criticizes and coordinates ends  Observe process and construct
means
 Gives wisdom  Gives knowledge
 Philosophers ask the question,  Scientist builds bombs and
when and why we would use bombs. computes its power.
 Formal object of philosophy are  Science’s objects of inquiring
intangible realities are tangible, material, observable
and verifiable realities.
 Scope is ultimate reality, causes  Scope is limited in time and
and principles of beings. Boundless space
studies
 More of speculation  Finding knowledge by use of
data gathering, observation,
hypothesis test and
measurement.

Ten Commandments of Philosophy

I. Allow the spirit of wonder to flourish in your breast

 Philosophy begins in Wonder
 Do not stifle childlike curiosity
II. Doubt everything unsupported by evidence until the evidence convinces you of
its truth.
 reasonably cautious,
 moderate skeptic,
 suspicious of those who claim to have the truth
 Doubt is the soul’s purgative
 “The masses fear the intellectual, but it is stupidity that they should fear, if
they only realized how dangerous it really is.”-- Johann Goethe (1749-1832)
III. Love the truth
 Philosophy is the eternal search for truth


  :20

IV. Divide and conquer

 This is the analytic method.
V. Collect and construct
 The important thing is to have a coherent, well-founded, tightly reasoned set
of beliefs that can withstand the opposition.
VI. Conjecture and refute
 Seek bold hypotheses and seek disconfirmations of your favorite positions-
Karl Popper
 “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. If he is
equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so
much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either
opinion.”—J.S. Mill
VII. Revise and rebuild
 be grateful to those who correct you
 Principle of fallibilism, the thesis that we are very likely incorrect in many of
our beliefs and have a tendency toward self-deception when considering
objections to our position.
VIII. Seek simplicity
 Prefer the simple explanation to the more complex, all things being equal.
IX. Live the Truth
 Appropriate your ideas in a personal way
 “Here is a definition of (subjective) truth: holding fast to an objective
uncertainty in a appropriation process of the most passionate inwardness is
the truth, the highest available for an existing individual.”- Kierkegaard
X. Live the Good
 Let moral Truth transform your life so that you shine like a jewel glowing in
its own light amidst the darkness of ignorance


  :21

Wisdom by Alfred North Whitehead

The fading of ideals is sad evidence of the defeat of human

endeavor. In the schools of antiquity philosophers aspired to
impart wisdom, in modern colleges our humbler aim is to
teach subjects. The drop from the divine wisdom, which was
the goal of the ancients, to textbook knowledge of subjects,
which is achieved by the moderns, marks an educational
failure, sustained through the ages. I am not maintaining
that through the practice of education the ancients were Alfred North
Whitehead
more successful than ourselves. You have only to read
Lucian, and to note his satiric dramatizations of the pretentions of
philosophers, to see that in this respect the ancients can boast over us no
superiority. My point is that, at the dawn of our European civilization, men
started with the full ideals which should inspire education, and that gradually
our ideal has sunk to square with our patience.
Thought knowledge is one chief aim of intellectual education, there is
another ingredient, vaguer but greater, and more dominating in its importance.
The ancients called it “wisdom.” You cannot be wise without some basis of
knowledge; but you may easily acquire knowledge and remain bare of wisdom.
Now wisdom is the way in which knowledge is held. It concerns the
handling of knowledge, its selection for the determination of relevant issues, its
employment to add value to our immediate experience. This mastery of
knowledge, which is wisdom, is the most intimate freedom obtainable. The
ancients saw clearly—more clearly than we do—the necessity for dominating
knowledge by wisdom. But, in the pursuit of wisdom in the region of practical
education, they erred sadly. To put the matter simply, their popular practice
assumed that wisdom could be imparted to the young by procuring
philosophers to spout at them. Hence, the drop of shady philosophers in the
schools of ancient Greece. The only avenue towards wisdom is by freedom in
the presence of knowledge. But the only avenue towards knowledge is by
discipline in the acquirement of ordered fact.
The importance of knowledge lies in its use, in our active mastery of it,
that is to say, it lies in wisdom. It is a convention to speak of mere knowledge
apart from wisdom, as of itself imparting a peculiar dignity to its possessor. I
do not share in this reverence for knowledge as such. It all depends on who has
the knowledge and what he does with it. That knowledge which adds greatness
to character is knowledge so handled to transform every phase of immediate
experience.
In a sense, knowledge shrinks as wisdom grows; for details are
swallowed up in principles. The details of knowledge which are important will
be picked up ad hoc in each avocation of life, but the habit of the active
utilization of well-understood principles is the final possession of wisdom.


  :22

 Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding, what’s the difference

 Knowledge is one chief aim of intellectual education

 You cannot be wise without some basis in knowledge, but you may easily
acquire knowledge and remain bare of wisdom
 Wisdom is the way which knowledge is held – mastery of knowledge.
 The importance of knowledge lies in its use.
 It all depends on who has the knowledge and what he does with (it).
 In a sense, knowledge shrinks as wisdom grows, for details are
swallowed up by principles.
 The active utilization of well-understood principles is the final possession
of wisdom.

WHAT IS MAN?

According to classical definition, man is a rational animal. Man is defined as

an integral organism comprising within his being – vegetative, sensory and
rational life. Man is, at one and the same time, a material and spiritual being.
Man is a corporeal reality, endowed with life of the soul, whose superior activity
has as its formal object transcendental value, being and the good. Man is a
creature made by God (efficient cause) according to His image and likeness; to
know, love and serve Him and to share His everlasting glory (final cause). Man
is primarily a person, harmonizing all his faculties into a unified whole, created
to the image and likeness of God, has an immortal soul and destined for
everlasting life with God.
Man is a vegetative, sentient and rational organism.
a) As a vegetative organism, man, like the plants, is subject to nutrition,
growth and reproduction.
b) As a sentient being, man, like the animals, has sense – knowledge and
appetency.
c) As a rational being, man, unlike any other creature on earth, has
rationality which implies cognitive and appetitive powers.
Man is also an animal but unlike them, he, alone, possesses these
characteristic features: the ability to think and reason, to organize things in
order to accomplish ends such as the whole world of arts and crafts,
manufacturing and industry. Only man has oral and written language which
enables him to communicate and preserve ideas. He, alone, establishes
permanent institutions corresponding to his own nature, such as family, civil
society, law, etc. Man is open to the world, not limited to any particular
environment for his experience and behavior. Lastly, he is endowed with the
most universal human phenomenon religion or the worship of God.
Man is a vegetant soul. As a vegetant soul, man is a vegetant organism. As a
vegetant organism, man is like plants. Plants have soul because they have life.
Because they have life, plants feed, grow, and propagate themselves. Feeding,
growing, and progating arte basic activities of life. That is why plants have soul


  :23

which is vegetative. Like plants, man also is a vegetative organism. The

animals are the possessors of a sensient soul. A sensient soul is higher than a
vegetative soul. Being higher than vegetative does not mean that the sensient
soul enables also a body to feed itself. Grow, and reproduce. However, it
develops a nervous system that allows the senses in the body to function. So,
what makes a sensient soul higher than vegetative soul is that the latter is
incapable of sensation, because it does not have a nervous system, while the
former has nervous system. Through its nervous system, a sensient soul
allows its beholder to experience pain and pleasure because it has feelings.
This is true to animals and brutes. Any brutes is a possessor of a sensient
soul. In this context . man is like brutes. Man is also a sensient organism.
Man shares his sensient soul in common with the brutes. The only difference is
that whereas the brutes are only capable of feelings (i.e. feeling of pain and
pleasure). Man is capable, not only of feelings, but also of emotions – because
man is also a possessor of the highest grade of soul called rational.
A person is an individual being. An individual being is a being which is
one in itself and distinct from all other beings. All real beings are individuals;
general entities exist only in the mind. A person is an individual possessing a
spiritual nature. What do we mean by a spiritual nature? Spiritual means
immaterial. A spirit exists not only in itself (it is a substance), and for itself (it
is self-conscious), but also by itself (it posits itself). Spirit is essentially self-
knowledge, self-volition, self-consciousness, self-position. It is EGO, or I.
The “I” is open to the whole of reality. It opens up into the infinite. Its
capacity is unlimited. The human intellect is capable of knowing reality. The
human will too strives towards the good. The human will is free because it
strives towards the good. The "I" is essentially self-conscious. Consciousnesses
the core of being. Every being is conscious, each according to its degree.
Consciousness men as active self-identity. The "I" is essentially active self-
identity. This takes the forms of self-affirmation. I am I. This is the most
fundamental affirmation, to which all other affirmations owe their servitude.
When we speak of man as object, we do not simply mean man as an
object of knowledge or study. That he is such an object is self-evident;
otherwise nothing whatsoever could be said concerning him. By man as an
object is meant, more precisely, man considered from the outside (objectum -
to throw in front), as an individual belonging to a certain species. Man as an
object has a definition which contains a genus (animal) and a specific
difference (rational. Likewise the person as an object can be defined; it is an
individual possessing a spiritual nature. We know man and the person
objectively by means of universal concepts. When we consider them in that
way, we disregard the fact that man speaks of himself as "I", Man or the person
considered as an object is never "I", but only "He" (the person) or "It" (the
human nature).


  :24

Man as a subject is not "He" or "It", but "I". Here man is no longer
considered as a thing or as an object, but as a Self. "I" is not a universal
concept, it cannot be defined. "I" is a singular; yet, although it involves a
material component, it is, unlike the other material singulars, an intelligible
singular. The purely material singulars of our everyday experience can be
known only though sense perception, they can only be denoted, pointed to,
"this table here, that chair there." I know myself in a much more intimate way,
not merely by a sense perception, by a concept or a judgment, but as the
subject of all my perceptions, my concepts, and my Judgments, as the source
of all my conscious activities. The fact that I know myself as the subject or the
source of all my conscious activities explains why although I know myself very
intimately, this knowledge can never be exhausted.

To further reinforce this concept of man as a subject, let us turn to Jonathan

Glover's article entitled "Persons and Consciousness" which is found in his
book, I: The Philosophy and Psychology of Personal Identity.

Persons and Self-Consciousness

Jonathan Glover

The word "person" is one of the most controversial in the language. Consider
some of the different views expressed about what a person is.
One common thought is that a human being is a person, while members of
other species are not. The reason usually given for this is that our psychology
is more complex than that of animals. But the kind of psychological
complexities thought to qualify someone for being a person vary. Harry
Frankfurt, for instance, has said that matters is having second-order desires.
Animal want things, but people also want to have some desires rather than
others. Daniel Dennett has suggested that having a sense of Justice is
necessary for being a person, “to the extent that justice does not reveal itself in
the dealings and interactions of creatures, to that extent they are not person."
This exclusion of anyone completely unjust may seem to draw the
boundary rather narrowly. At the other extreme, the view has been expressed
in the abortion debate that a newly fertilized human egg is a person. That
debate illustrates the way the concept is often shaped to fit people's values. A
widely held view of the abortion issue is that whether or not a fetus has a right
to life depends on whether it's a person. It is hard to avoid the impression that
participant on both sides of the debate start with an attitude to abortion and
then decide the question of personhood accordingly One philosopher, Michael
Tooley, is open about this. He gives an account of personhood in terms of moral
considerations, which he takes to be prior to the issue of whether or not the
fetus is a person,


  :25

Perhaps we should expect these disputes over what a person is. Marcel
Mauss suggested that it is an illusion to see our conception of a person as
static. He thought it originated with tribal social roles, mentioning that
"persona" was the Latin word for a mask. He sketched out an account of how
the conception evolved, through the Roman idea of a person as the bearer of
legal rights (so that slaves were not persons), and through Stoic and Christian
ideas of the person having moral value, to the modem way of thinking of a
person mainly as someone with states of consciousness. Mauss thought our
conception was likely to go on changing. I do not know how far Mauss gives
correct account of these changes. But, like the abortion debate, a story of this
kind illustrates how what people take to be the special features of a person
may vary with other aspect of their outlook.
Being "person" is a concept with boundaries that are blurred or disputed; there
may be no satisfactory single answer to the question, "What is a person?" I
want to suggest that a prime feature of personhood is self-consciousness. A
person is someone who can have thoughts, whose natural expression uses the
word "I". This seems to capture one central strand in our idea of a person. But,
since the concept is disputed, this is a suggested way of using the word, rather
than a claim that it is somehow the "correct" account of it.
On this account, Hume's oyster is not a person. It has not thought "I am
being touched" that rises above an impersonal awareness of a sensation. On
the other hand, being a person does not require any moment of illumination of
the kind Jean Paul Richter had. (Perhaps Richter know that he was standing in
the front door before the flash came to him.) Self-consciousness does require
consciousness and some primitive power of thought. But, provided I-thoughts
can be had, it does not matter whether their acquisition was in a sudden
conscious moment or through slow, unconscious conceptual growth,
You and I both have I thoughts, but those thoughts belong to two different
people because they are not located in the same stream of consciousness. A
certain unity of consciousness is required for being a single person. This is why
it may be less misleading to think of a split brain patient as two people. But
perhaps we should not be too rigid here. In the case of temporary brief
divisions, it may raise fewer problems to think of one person than two. It is
suggested, then, that to be a person is to have a single stream of I-thoughts.

Summary
Man as an Embodied Subject:

Man as subject—the person of I, as a self who is the source of all his

actions and decisions.
Man and his Body—man as an embodied subject.


  :26

 Lesson 1: Man as Subject

 A person is an individual being.
 In itself, distinct from other beings. All real beings are individuals.
 Individual possessing spiritual nature—immaterial,
 in itself: substance
 for itself: self-conscious
 by itself: posits itself
 A person is a conscious I.
 The human intellect is capable of knowing the reality, strives towards
the good.
 The I is essentially self-conscious: Self- identity
 Consciousness is the core of being.
 Man as object: Man considered from outside. (Objectum: to throw in
front)
 Being an object, man has his definitions which contains the genus
(animal) and a specific difference (rational)
 Man as I: a person- a subject – a meaning maker.
 Man as He: (sometimes denoted to It)—is a object, a body- a receiver
of other’s consciousness.
 Person and Self-Consciousness (Jonathan Glover)
 Person: only the human beings are considered person, while other
species are not.
 Has second order desire—Harry Frankfurt
 Has sense of justice—Daniel Dennett
 Has moral considerations—Michael Tooley
 Persona (Latin for Mask),
 The prime feature of personhood is self-consciousness.
 Self-consciousness does require consciousness and some primitive
power of thought.
 Consciousness is always consciousness of something.

MAN AND HIS BODY

I refer to myself in a variety of contexts- I say, for instance: "I wash

myself, I weigh myself, I examine myself in the mirror, I try to improve myself, I
know myself.” In each of these expressions the subject is the same. The object
also seems to remain the same throughout; however, when our references
become more specific, we note that the objects are different, "I wash my face, I
weigh my body, I examine my appearance, I try to improve my character, I
know myself." Nevertheless, although the subject uses different organs or
faculties in performing these actions, we do not say, "My hands wash my face,
my eyes examine my appearance," though we might say, "I wash my face with


  :27

my hands, I examine my appearance with my eyes," I am a unity insofar as 1

perform an act.
Although all these objects of my actions are different, they all belong to
me; they all are, to a certain extent, I. I refer to my face- my body, my
appearance. All these actions originate in me and terminate in me. Yet, they
are not entirely in me; they involve something which is not strictly I.
I perform these actions upon myself; yet the performing I and the I on
which these actions are performed are not quite the same reality; otherwise
there would be no resistance and no difficulty. There is in me, besides the
performing, originating I, besides the I as subject, something which is not
entirely I; some not-I. But every material not-I belongs to the world, is part of
the world. Hence part of me is both I and the world. That is my body. Through
my body I am part of the material world, and the material world is a part of me.
There are certain things which I am, other which I have, others still
which in a certain sense I am, and in another sense I have. I am a person, I
have a dog. But what about my body? Shall I say, "I have my body" or "I am
my body"? I must say both, I must correct one Statement by means of the
other.

At first glance it seems as if I could say, "I have a body."

But, as Gabriel Marcels explains, if we are to be exact, we
should say, "I have whatever I have because of my body." Having
a body is the prerequisite, the indispensable condition, of all
having. Since my body itself is for me a condition of all "having,"
I cannot truthfully say that "I have my body."
Why then should I not say that I am my body? This
assertion is incorrect if the intention is to identify my whole
GABRIEL
being with my body. It is correct if it is taken as meaning that I MARCEL
am also my body.
There is a difference between what I merely have and what I merely am.
Gabriel Some objects lie on the surface of my being. I have them more than I am they
— for instance, my hair, my fingernails. Others are very near the core of my
being; I am they more than I have them — for instance, my feelings, my
imagination, and my memory. Between these extremes lie my heart, my eyes,
my face, my body.

As Marcel would put it:

"My body is the reality which I have and am. Better, it is the totality of all
realities which I do not have in the absolute sense, because I am they, and
those, which I am not absolutely because I have them."My body is the
extension of my 'originating' ego in the direction of the "world". It is the bridge
which connects the ego with the "worldly" things and beings. It is the
continuation of my subjectivity in the realm of objects."


  :28

The body is intermediary between me and the other, between the other
and me, between his world and me, and between my world and him. From all
of these, we can gather several points:
1. The body is an intermediary.
2. The other is accessible to me through my body.
3. I encounter the other as other through my body.
4. "My" body is not "a" body.
5. My body is not a mere instrument
6. My body is not isolated from me.
7. My body is not the object of "having."
8. The "I" first and foremost is a bodily "I".
All of these imply that there is m me something absolutely central, which
I do not have, which I only am. It is that which has all the rest and is not itself
had; which knows everything in me but is not itself known. For if it were had,
by what would it be had? If known, by what would it be known. IT IS MY EGO,
MY SOUL WITH ITS INTELLECT AND WILL, MY SPIRITUAL SELF, MY
CONSCIOUSNESS, MY ORIGINATING I.

MAN: A BODY/ HIS BODY

It is impossible to talk of human existence which is detached from a

bodily existence, for human existence always implies a bodily existence. Man’s
body is basically man’s expression of his presence to his fellowman in the
world. Man’s body, therefore, is the immediate datum which gives man a
primary consciousness of his own existence. In this case, not just have a body,
but man is a body. In fact, man is his body.

As previously mentioned, human nature has inseparable levels which are

somatic, behavioral, and attitudinal. In view of the inseparability of these
levels, the discussion on man as a body should not be misunderstood as an
inquiry which is exclusive only in the somatic level of human nature, for if this
were the case, the purpose of investigating man as a whole will be defeated.
Besides, this inquiry should not also be misunderstood as a mere inquiry of the
human body for the same will happen, i.e.-, a fragmented and a dichotomized
understanding of man as body and soul. In virtue of the Christian view that
man is holistically body and soul, a discussion on man as a body cannot be
dissociated from the acceptance of the view that man is body only in reference
to the soul. In other words, the purpose here in studying man as a body is to
discuss the whole human person with an emphasis on the body.

Now, this book shall try to present this inquiry of the human body in
three perspectives, viz.; Finitude, subjectivity, and encounter.


  :29

The Human Body as Finitude

Human existence as a bodily existence is a finite existence. Man’s bodily

existence is finite since man’s thrownness in a body explains the limitation of
man. Man, obviously, has many limitations; one of them can primarily be
located in the human body. This, man’s existence in the body proves the
finitude of man since man’s presence in the world is primarily a physical
presence. Through his body, man is thrown in the world. And this thrownness
limits man in terms of time, space, and eternal (bodily) existence since man is a
being towards death.

In the context of its limitation, man’s bodily existence is an existence in

time in a two-fold dimension. First, man’s bodily existence is confined to a
particular beginning (birth) and an inevitable end (death). Second, man’s
bodily existence cannot occur in two places at the same time. At a particular
time, man is situated in a concrete place and not simultaneously in another
place. Thus, once man is “here,” man cannot be “there” at the same time. In a
word, through his body, man’s existence is limited and incomplete.

Further, aside from positing the idea on the finitude of the human body
in the context of time, space, and death, the human body is also finite in the
context of its accidental constituents like shape, size, height, weight, color,
among others. These accidental constituents of the human body, however, can
be easily summed up in terms of race, culture, and civilization. It is obviously
true that the Easterner’s bodies are distinctively different from the Westerners’.
In fact the Eastern setting, the “bodies” of the Japanese are “different” from the
“bodies” of the Taiwanese; the “bodies” of the Indonesians are “different” from
the Singaporeans. At any rate, the point that we are trying to drive here is that
man’s shape, height, weight, and color also manifest the limitation of man’s
existence form the standpoint of his body. Thus, it is absurd for a Filipino to
dream of transforming his body to become a German’s body and vice-versa.

Man and His Condition

Today, in the advent of the advancement of science and technology, the

human body suffers s lot of manipulation. There is what is called the
scientific transformation of the human body. We heard a lot about cloning,
about different fomrs of “lifts” like “face lift”, bust lift”, nose lifts”, etc. about
surgeries like surgical virginity, vaginal repair, bust reduction, bust
expantion, sex transplant, cloning, penis enlarger, penis extender, likewise so
much has been heard about exercises that would magically add an inch or so
to one’s height, and do on and so forth. To consider the goodness of badness
of these bodily manipulations, however, annot be drawn in Philosohy of Man
or Philosophy of the human person since such an undertaking falls undr
Ethics or Moral Philosophy. Despite saying this, one can still insist that all


  :30

these bodily transformations are good in the sense that they mean progress
and development of man’s consciousnes. However, all these scientific bodily
manipulations remain man’s incapability to accept the truth of the finitude of
his body.

The Human Body as Subjectivity

The human body cannot be dissociated form man as a

subject. Man’s body is not anyone else’s body, because it is
embedded in man’s personhood or subjectivity. Man’s body is,
therefore, infused in the subjectivity of man; man is his body. In
other words, I am my body; my body is inseparably identified to
me. And my body permeates the whole being in me. Since man
is a subject and since man’s body is infused in his subjectivity, it MERLEAU-
necessarily follows that man’s body is not reducible to become an PONTY
object body but a subject body. This is clearly emphasized by
Merleau-Ponty.

In the line with the contention of Merleau-Ponty, Marcel says that the
human body cannot be considered as the object of having. For Marcel, having
a body is totally different form having a house, a table, a chair, a pair of shoes,
etc. these “having”, for Marcel, show the exteriority of their being objects; while
man’s having a body shows the interiority of man himself. This interiority can
be seen in virtue of the fact that man’s body cannot be dislodged from man’s
self-consciousness. Whereas the objects of man’s external having are
disposables, the “object” of man’s “internal having” is not. Marcel, in the end,
is telling that the human body is not disposable as one disposes a house, a
table, a chair, or a pair of shoes, among others.
Further, since the human body is not a thing in the world, it is not
proper that it must be studied as an object of experimentation in physiology
and biology. All these sciences treat of the human body not as a subject-body
but as an object-body. In these sciences, man’s body becomes an object of
observation and experimentation. Besides, these sciences treat the human
body as a mere instrument of their investigations.

Because the human body is not an instrument but an expression of

human existence, then, the human body as subjectivity refers to the wholeness
of man. Thus, the embodied subjectivity includes the rational, affective, and
emotional dimensions of a human person.

The Human Body as a Gesture of Encounter

The human body is not an instrument of man's encounter of others—
both entities and persons—but as an expression of man as a conscious self.
Thus, man's body is not a medium of his encounter of other beings in the


  :31

world, but the way whereby man makes himself accessible to others. The
human encounter is vested in the embodiment of man's subjectivity.
Since the human encounter cannot occur without the body, the one
embodied subject enters into the other embodied subject. This encounter of
two subjects enable them to unconceal each other's worlds. One's encounter of
another person makes him part of the meaning of the world of this person and
vice-versa. So in a professor's encounter of the world of the students, He
becomes open to their world just as the students are to me.

This can only happen, however, when such an encounter is really an

authentic one.

In the discussion of the human person's relatedness, an I-It, an I-

He/she, and an I-Thou relationships were discussed. Of these degrees of
relationship, it is the 1-Thou that fits in an authentic human encounter. The
reason behind this is that in the I-Thou relationship, there is a personal
encounter between two embodied subjects in virtue of their mutual openness
and unconcealment of each other's embodied subjectivity. Yes, it is true that in
the concrete human encounter, a person may not conceal himself or may
inhibit himself to be transparent to the other; or still, a person may hide his
true self to the other. But all these encounters can only happen when the
encounter is cursory, the one which normally occur in the I-It and I-He/she
relationships. However, it must be reiterated that it is in the I-Thou
relationship where the authentic human encounter happens.

Summary
 Lesson 2: Man as an Embodied Subject
 Man and his Body: All (human) actions originate in me and terminate in
me.
 That is my body through my body.
 I am part of material world, and the material world is part of me.
 I have my body
 I have whatever I have because of my body. –Gabriel Marcel.
 I am also my body—but not I am my body.
 My being is not limited only to my body, but extended to my
consciousness and intellect—my spiritual being.
 Marcel’s Body:
 My body is the reality which I have and am.
 This is part of me, and it is me.
 My body is the extension of my originating ego in the direction of the
world.
 I am connected to the world because of my body.
 The body is an intermediary


  :32

 The other is accessible to me through my body.

 I encounter the other as other through my body.
 “My” body is not “a” body.
 My body is not merely instrument.
 My body is not isolated from me.
 My body is not the object of “having”.
 The “I” first and foremost is a bodily “I”.
 My person is,
 My ego
 My soul with its intellect and will
 My spiritual self
 My consciousness
 My originating I.

Man as Knowing:

What is Knowledge?

He who knows not and knows not he knows not; he is a fool, shun him.
He who knows not and knows he knows not; he is ignorant, teach him.
He who knows and knows not he knows; he is asleep, wake him.
He who knows and knows he knows; he is wise, follow him.
Arabian proverb attributed to King Darius,
The Persian.

What can we know? This is one of the philosophical questions and quest
we need to understand. When we perceive an object the mysterious process of
human knowing takes place and we end up having an idea about that object.
What is definite with the process is the interplay between the knower (the
subject or the person) and the known (that object which is perceived or the
object of knowing). This would lead us to different notions that the knower is
the one simply giving the idea towards that object or the object itself creating
an impression to the mind.

The term "epistemology" is based on the Greek words "επιστήμη or episteme"

(knowledge or science) and "λόγος or logos" (account/explanation).
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that focuses on the study of knowledge
and seeks to answer the questions and problems concerning human knowing.
It inquires into the very nature of knowledge, the questions of what and how
can we know, and the justification or truth of the knowledge that we have.
Thus, this philosophical venture does not only require us to understand what
we know but likewise to establish the truth or validity of such knowledge we
assert.


  :33

To assert that we know something is at the same time to claim that such
idea is true. Thus, a formula that is widely accepted as a general philosophical
definition of knowledge: A JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF”. A claim to knowledge is
successful if: (1) it is believed by someone; (2) that person can produce
concrete evidence to validate his belief; and (3) this justification supports a
claim that actually corresponds with the facts. So a person who correctly
believes a thing to be true without being able to justify his belief cannot be said
to know that thing, since he still will not have sufficient reason to believe
himself to be correct.

We can have beliefs and still lack knowledge if our beliefs are false.
Unfortunately, we can also have true beliefs and still lack knowledge because
we fail to understand how and why a belief is true. Justification involves
finding such an understanding.

The questions concerning knowledge and human knowing have been

perennial problems of philosophy. Different philosophers have provided
different answers to these questions. Needless to say, we cannot hope to
comprehend these difficult questions in a few paragraphs.

The following reading from Bernard Lonergan’s Cognitional Structure

tries to pinpoint important elements involved in human knowing. I think this
reading can be a springboard for a better comprehension of what knowledge is
and what it is not.

Cognitional Structure
Bernard Lonergan

Human knowing involves many district and irreducible activities: seeing

hearing, smelling, touching, tasting, inquiring, imagining, understanding,
conceiving, reflecting, weighing the evidence and judging.

No one of these activities, alone by itself, may be named human knowing.

An act of ocular vision may be perfect as ocular vision; yet if it occurs without
any accompanying glimmer of understanding, it is mere gaping; and mere
gaping is just stupidity. As merely seeing is not human knowing, so for the
same reason, is just stupidity. As merely seeing is not human knowing, so for
the same reason, merely hearing, merely smelling, merely touching, merely
tasting may be parts, potential components of human knowing, but they are
not human knowing itself.

What is true sense is no less true of understanding. Without the prior

presentations of sense, there is nothing for a man to understand; and when
there is nothing to understand, there is no occurrence of understanding.


  :34

Moreover, the combination of the operations of sense and understanding does

not suffice for human knowing. There must be added judging. To omit
judgment is quite literally silly; it is only by judgment that there emerges a
distinction between fact and fiction.

Nor can one place human knowing in judging to the exclusion of

experience and understanding. To pass judgment on what one does not
understand is not human understanding, but human arrogance. To pass
judgment independently of all experience is to set fact aside.

Human knowing, then, is not experience alone, not understanding alone;

not judgment alone; it is not a combination of only experience and judgment,
or of only understanding and judgment; finally, it is not something totally apart
from experience, understanding and judgment. One has to regard an instance
of human knowing not as this or that operation, but as a whole whose parts
are operations. It is a structure and indeed, a materially dynamic structure.

But human knowing is also formally dynamic. It is self-assembling. Self-

constituting. It puts itself together, one part summoning fort the next, till the
whole is reached. And this occurs not with blindness of natural process, but
consciously, intelligently, and rationally. Experience stimulates inquiry, and
inquiry is intelligence bringing itself to act; it leads from experience through
imagination to insight; and from insight to the concepts that combine in single
objects both what has been gasped by insight and what in experience and
imagination is relevant to insight. In turn, concepts stimulate reflection, and
reflection is the conscious experience of rationality; it marshals the evidence
and weighs it either to judge or else to doubt or to renew inquiry.

Such in briefest outline is what is meant by saying that human knowing

is a dynamic structure.

Summary

 Lesson 1: Knowledge and Human Knowing

 Between these material modifications and the immaterial act of
knowledge there is the abyss. Our act of knowledge sometimes bridges that
abyss.
 Epistemology is what philosophers call the study of questions about
knowledge and knowing.
 The philosophical definition of Knowledge is Justified True belief.
 It is believed by someone
 That the person can produce concrete evidence to validate his belief
 This justification supports a claim that actually corresponds with the
facts.


  :35

 Bernard Lonergan’s Cognitive Structure

 Experiencing (Simple Apprehension)
 Seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, tasting
 Inquiring
 imaging
 Understanding
 Conceiving
 Reflecting
 Weighing the evidence, and
 Judging
 Note:
 Experience with out understanding is stupidity
 There is no understanding without experience
 Judging without understanding is arrogance.
 Experience and understanding without judgment is silly.
 Judgment draws the line between facts and fictions.
 Knowledge is a product of experiencing, understanding and judging
altogether.
 Knowledge is a structure and, indeed, a materially dynamic
structure. And also formally dynamic.
o Self-assembling, self-constituting.
 Experience, then …
 Inquiry, intelligence brings itself to act then…
 Imagination, then…
 Insight, then…
 Concept, then …
 Reflection, then…
 Conscious exigency of rationality, then
 Judge whether right, to inquire again.

THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE

Empiricism

A philosophical doctrine advocating that true

knowledge comes from experience, that is a posterioi, or
postexperential. Empiricists are assured only by their own
experience, which agrees with the saying, “to see is to
believe.” Experience in this sense may come from our
personal encounter with the external world be it personal or
vicarious or may come from internal sensations such feeling
and thinking or external sensations which gives importance
on the senses. This gives us the notion that whatever
knowledge we acquire and we have is simply based from one’s own experience.


  :36

This concept has its objective reference from which knowledge is acquired as
we see, hear, taste, smell and touch it.
John Locke, an English empiricist, is one of the leading proponents of
empiricism. He asserts that the mind at birth is a “tabula rasa”, an empty slate
or blank paper that is devoid of anything on it. It is through experience that we
begin to fill up the ideas in the mind and therefore acquire knowledge about
things. The concept of empiricism clearly negates the Rationalist’s belief on
innate or inborn ideas. Thus, experience is the very source of our knowledge

Rationalism

An epistemological view claiming that true knowledge is

acquired through reason and not experience. Rationalists
believe that knowledge is primarily acquired by a priori or
preexperience processes or is innate—e.g., in the form of
concepts not derived from experience. The relevant theoretical
processes often go by the name "intuition”. Rationalists claim
that, we know what we have thought and the mind has the
ability to discover truth by itself. We do not learn things but
PLATO
simply remember what they already know. It attempts to
account for all objects in nature and experiences as representations of the
mind. Knowledge then is intellectual rather that sensory.

Rationalism upholds the doctrine that knowledge is inborn and ideas are
innate which is totally against empiricism. The prominent philosopher who
advocated innate idea was Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher. At the moment
of birth, the mind is already furnished with a range of ideas and concepts that
accordingly owes nothing to experience. Inborn knowledge, however, is initially
dormant but with discussions, intellectual dispute, critical thinking and
argument will unfold or unveil the innate ideas that we have.

Skepticism

The theory of knowledge upholding that knowledge is

limited and that we cannot be completely certain of what we
know. Skepticism questions the limitations of the mind to
process the things that we perceive, thus, giving us uncertain
knowledge. There is likewise the inaccessibility of object that
our senses perceive because our senses can be deceived and
therefore unreliable. Though this theory asserts the limitation
of knowledge, it does not preclude us to seek for knowledge but
DESCARTES
rather motivates us to further seek for the certainty of the
knowledge we acquire, be it from the senses or the mind. Descartes and Hume
are some of the philosophers who adhere to this kind of philosophy.


  :37

Summary
 Different Theories of Knowledge
 Empiricism- all knowledge is derived from experience.
 It maintains that at birth the mind is “a white page” or “blank
tablet” tabula raza. (John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Thomas
Hobbes)
 Idealism-external world is somehow created by the mind.
 Believed that the human mind is already furnished with a range of
ideas or concepts, before it encounter the world.
 Material world cannot be independent with the mind.
 Skepticism- knowledge is limited, either of the mind (idealism) or
inaccessibility of objects (empiricism)
 Knowledge can be sought but can never be found. (David Hume)

As we have learned earlier. Various philosophers have offers what for them is a
good method to acquire knowledge. We can benefit from them by studying
some of these important methods that have some practical value.

1. DIALECTICAL METHOD – also known as the dialogical

method” or the “Socratic Method”. The term “dialectic” is derived
from a Socrates himself who would usually converse or argue
with others, questioning them and their assumptions Specifically
in this method, two interlocutors took turns in questioning and
answering. Truth is arrived at by means of this dialectical
method of asking and responding, gradually elimination the
doubtful or questionable. SOCRATES
Socrates was known to have argued a great deal with men of his
time, uncovering assumptions and questioning certainties. In men discoursed
too readily of justice, he asked them – “What is it?” he demanded from them
accurate definitions, clear thinking and exact analysis.

2. SYLLOGISTIC OR LOGICAL METHOD – this method

is attributed to Aristotle, the founder of Logic. By a combination
of agreement and disagreement between three terms, a
conclusion is reached. If two terms or parties separately agree
with a third term or party, then the two terms agree with each
other. Aristotle exhausted all the possible combinations and
formulated laws to govern these combinations. This method
clarified and dispelled all doubt regarding the relationship of any ARISTOTLE
three terms.


  :38

3. THOMISTIC METHOD – used by St. Thomas Aquinas.

The method neatly presents the problem to be solved in the
form of a question, then proceeds to put its objections,
seemingly to support the positive or negative answer, and then
goes to the body of the argument always introduced by “I
answer that…” and caps the whole method by answering the
objections it had put up, thus demolishing all doubt and all
opposition. ST. THOMAS

4. THE METHODIC DOUBT – this method that Rene

Descartes advocates is an analytical one, which emphasizes the
necessity of trying to isolate the simple, and then, but only
then, trying to build the complex on its basis. The aim is to
arrive at certainly. Moreover, this is put forward not just as a
method for philosophy but as a quite general method which all
pursuit of knowledge should follow. In his First Meditation he DESCARTES
states that we should doubt all that we know because, first,
they come from our senses which can be mistaken or can deceive us, and
second, these can be just the result of a dream or mere hallucination.

Descartes sets out four important rules to clear thinking:

To accept nothing as true which I did not clearly recognize it to be so.
To divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as
possible.
To carry on reflection in an order beginning with objects that are the most
simple and easiest to understand, in order to rise little by little, or by degrees,
to knowledge of the most complex.
To be thorough and general as to certain of having omitted nothing.

5. FRANCIS BACON’S RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT –

“Go to the facts themselves for everything” – that was Bacon’s
way to acquire knowledge. To proceed to a systematic empirical
study, Bacon launched his reconstruction project by
enumerating “Four Classes of Idols” which be set man’s mind
and which must be debunked. These idols of the mind are
counterproductive habits of thought that deserve to be swept
FRANCIS BACON
away if we are to acquire knowledge. An idol, as Bacon uses the
word, is a picture taken for a reality, a thought mistaken for a thing. These
idols are the cause of human error. They are, namely:

Idols of the Tribe – fallacies or errors natural to humanity in general. We

tend to think, for example, that sense perception gives is direct and truthful
access to reality. Bacon stressed that this assumption must be criticized
because we too easily overlook the fact that out “seeing” does not necessarily
show us things as they really are. Human sense experience, essential though it


  :39

is, does not so institute the measure of all things. We must learn to see
objectively, a task that requires us to be alert for occasions when emotion,
feelings and inference are self-deceptive.

Idols of the Cave – if the “idols of the tribe” deceive humankind, each
individual must reckon with his peculiar prejudices, which Bacon called “idols
of the cave”. Here Bacon recalls Plato’s allegory in which people imprisoned in a
cave mistake appearance for reality. Each of us has criticized blind spots.
Bacon recommends that we treat with special suspicion any outlook that gives
us special satisfaction. We tend to believe what we like to believe, but that path
does not lead to knowledge.

Idols of the Marketplace – these are errors that emerge from the words we
use in everyday business, from the association of men with one another. Their
meanings are often vague and ambiguous, but they solidify our impressions
and beliefs nonetheless. “Men converse by means of language; but words are
imposed according t the understanding of the crowd; and there arises from a
had and inept formation of words, a wonderful obstruction to the mind”. Bacon
stresses that, “unless we guard against the ill and unfit choice of words, their
impact cam force and overrule the understanding and throw all into confusion.

Idols of the Theater – these are idols, which have migrated into men’s kind
from the various dogmas of philosophers and also from wrong laws of
demonstration. Many philosophical speculations claim to be true accounts of
reality, but in fact, they are closer to stage plays depicting unreal worlds of
human creation. Specifically, Bacon faults three types of false philosophy.
Exemplified by Aristotle, the first trusts non-empirical inference too much; its
result is sophistry. Although experimental, the second draws from sweeping
conclusions from too little data; its result is psuedoscience. The third mixes
philosophy and religion indiscriminately; its result superstition.

Summary:
 Acquisition of Knowledge
o Dialectical Method
 Dialogical method or the Socratic Method (Socrates)
 Dialectic ( from Greek meaning
 To converse, or to discourse
 Truth is arrived at by means of this dialectical method of asking
and responding, gradually eliminating the doubtful or
questionable.
o Accurate definitions
o Clear thinking
o Exact analysis


  :40

o Syllogistic or Logical Methods

 Attributed to Aristotle—the founder of Logic
 By combinations of agreement and disagreement between three
terms, a conclusion is reached.
 Thesis + antithesis = synthesis
o Thomistic Method
 Problem (Is man an animal or not)
 Objection (Man is mobile like all animals but he is also rational)
 Argument (I answer that… man is a rational animal)
o The Methodic Doubt (Rene Descartes)
 Form simple to complex that is based from the simplest.
 Initially, all that we know are doubtful, whether because our
senses are fooling us, or we are just dreaming or hallucinating.
o To accept nothing as true, which I did not clearly recognize it to
be so.
 It is not true, until it really is true.
o To divide each of the difficulties under examination into as
many parts as possible.
 Divide and conquer…
o Carry on reflection from the simplest to the most complex.
 First things first.
o To be thorough and general as to be certain of having omitted
nothing.
 Did I get them all, did I get it right, is there anything left?
o Francis Bacon’s Reconstruction Project
 Knowledge is Power!
 Go to the facts themselves for everything.
 Systematic Empirical Study
 Idol: picture taken for a reality, a thought mistaken for a thing.
These idols are the cause of human error.
o Idols of the Tribe
 Fallacies or errors of humanity in general.
 The deception of the senses. Opinionated truth.
o Idols of the Cave
 The trouble of prejudices, criticized blind spot.
 Limitations of untrained minds.
 We tend to believe what we like to believe.
o Idols of the Marketplace
 Errors of the words. The problem with miscommunications.
 Unless we guard against the ill and unfit choice of words,
their impact can force and overrule the understanding and
throw all into confusion.
o Idols of the Theater
 Idols migrated into men’s minds from various dogmas of
philosophers and also form wrong laws of demonstrations.


  :41

 The tendency to believe on something wonderful, because it

was said wonderfully by a wonderful person.
 Sophistry- too much reasoning, too much reflection or too
much non-empirical inference.
 Pseudoscience- sweeping conclusions from too little data.
 Superstition- indiscriminate mixed of philosophy and
religion.

VALIDITY OF KNOWLEDGE

The previous discussions has given us enough idea that man indeed can know
something as exemplified by the different theories of knowledge and the
philosophical ways in acquiring knowledge. As we have defined earlier,
knowledge is a justified true belief. This clearly states that it is not enough to
claim that we have knowledge of certain matters. It further obliges us to
establish justification of those claims we assert. This points out the need for
criteria by which our knowledge can be judged as true or false. Different
criteria such as customs, traditions, consensus of majority can be cited but the
following discussion will deal more on the philosophical criteria in validating
knowledge.

Correspondence theory
This theory holds that true or valid knowledge is what
conforms or corresponds to facts or agrees which objective
reality. This criteria of knowledge recognizes the interplay
between the idea or belief that we claim to know and the facts
themselves. The facts are neither true nor false but it is the
knowledge or claim asserted about them. If I claim and say that BELTRAND
Pedro is tall and it correspond to the objective and factual reality RUSSEL
of Pedro, then it is true; otherwise, it is false. Thus, a valid knowledge is that
which corresponds to reality.
One of the defenders of this theory is Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and
he philosophized that true knowledge is the fact corresponding to the belief.
Mind does not create truth or falsehood. They create beliefs, but when once the
beliefs are created, the mind cannot make them true or false, except in the
special case where they concern future things which are within the power of
person believing, such as catching trains. What makes a belief true is a fact.

Coherence theory
This theory asserts the validity of knowledge if there is consistency. The
knowledge that we claim is counted to be true when it finds harmony or
consistency with other claims or ideas. If it fails to do so, then such claim finds
no truth but falsity. To establish that knowledge is true does not give emphasis
on the interplay between the facts or objective reality, as correspondence


  :42

theory would put it. Truth or falsity of the ideas or the judgment we assert
depends on its consistency with other judgments. So far as I make the
judgment that Pedro is a good man is consistent with other judgments that he
is indeed good, such judgments finds it meaning and truth. This coherence
theory is substantiated with the use of Logic for validity of judgments can be
evaluated from the logical relations or consistency of those judgments. Thus,
truth or falsity of the knowledge that we claim to believe is established along
with its coherence or consistency with other claims.

Pragmatic Theory
Pragmatic theory of knowledge claims that true and valid knowledge is
one which is practical or useful. No matter how great an idea is, what concerns
for the pragmatists is how our ideas, beliefs, or knowledge is useful and
beneficial in its own way. Pragmatism considers the relativity of knowledge for
what works in one instance may not be to all. Once knowledge does not lead to
good consequences, knowledge is deemed worthless, hence, false and
unacceptable. True and valid knowledge then is what works. Among the
philosophers with pragmatic views include: William James, John Dewey and
Charles Pierce.

 Causal Reasoning
 “To know truly is to know by causes”—Francis Bacon
 “The cause is the reason why something is the case, and the
search for the cause is the search for a deeper explanation.
 Methods of causal reasoning
o Method of Agreement: the circumstances in which alone all
the instances agree, is the cause of the given phenomenon.
o Method of Differences: the circumstances in which alone the
two instances differ, is the cause of the phenomenon.
o Joint Method f Agreement and Differences: If among the
antecedent circumstances there is only one common to all the
positive instances (agreement) and absent from all the negative
instances (differences) there is good reason to believe that the
circumstances is the cause of the effect.

 Hypothesis-Making and Testing:

 Hypothesis is an educated guess or a possible tentative
explanation for a particular phenomenon or event.
 Hypothesis illuminates the facts while the facts support the
hypothesis.
 Qualities of good hypothesis
o Testability: the capacity to past test. A statement is testable if
on its basis prediction can be made about the future.


  :43

It commits itself on the what will be observed under given

conditions.
o Likelihood: coherence with well-founded scientific principles
with the relative frequency of the type of thing set forth in the
hypothesis.
o Simplicity: the briefer description or posits fewer entities.
 Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

MAN AND FREEDOM

The will, in philosophy and psychology, is a term used to describe the

faculty of mind that is alleged to stimulate motivation of purposeful
activity. The concept has been variously interpreted by philosophers, some
accepting the will as a personal faculty or function (for example, Plato,
Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes and Kant) and other seeing it as the externalized
result of the interaction of conflicting elements (for example, Spinoza, Leibniz,
and Hume). Still others describe the will as the manifestation of personality (for
example, Hobbes, Nietzsche, and Schopenhauer). The reality of individual will
is denied altogether by the doctrine of determinism. Modern psychology
considers the concept of the will as unscientific (as in Skinner) and has looked
to other factors such as unconscious motivation or psychological influence to
explain human actions.

However, the existence of the will can be demonstrated philosophically

and confirmed by data derived from everyday experience. For example, every
act of real self-control is an implicit manifestation of the will. In such an act we
are conscious of the fact that some tendency in us is held in check by a higher
tendency. That higher tendency is the will.

Against this argument the following objection can be raised. Animals

also exercise self-control. Thus a hungry but well-trained dog will not take the
meat he sees on the table.

This, however, is not real self-control. The sight of the meat has aroused
in the dog two conflicting tendencies; hunger and fear. The fear is the product
of his experience. Maybe on previous occasion, his grabbing the meat has been
followed by some very disagreeable sensation, like a spank, a whip or any
punishment. The memory of these painful sensations is now associated with
the perception of “meat-on-the-table”.

Another empirical confirmation of the existence of the will derives from

the fact that we sometimes will an object which is repulsive to our body and
sense tendencies; for instance, when we swallow a bitter medicine, or submit to
a painful operation or tooth extraction. In all these cases we are not attracted
by a material, sensible good but some good presented by our intellect.


  :44

Another proof for the existence of the will is the phenomenon of

voluntary attention. Voluntary attention is distinct from spontaneous attention.
Spontaneous attention is present in animals; it is the concentration of the
senses and of the mind on some object which appeals to one of the lower
drives. In voluntary attention we concentrate our senses and our mind on some
object which does not spontaneously interest us. We concentrate because we
want to concentrate, and we want to concentrate because our intellect tells us
that it is good to concentrate. Compare the attention you pay to an interesting
movie with that given to a dull but important lecture.

So the existence of the will cannot be denied. But what is the very nature
of the will? If a will exists, then what is it? What is its object? Let us now turn
to a particular excerpt in John Kavanaugh’s article entitled Human Freedom
for a clearer understanding of what the will really is.

Human Freedom
Free choices: A Metaphysical Analysis of the Will

The Will is an intellectual tendency, or a tendency toward an

intellectually known good. It is different from sense an appetite in that it is not
“chained down” by the immediacy of the sensed object. I know not only this
object as good, but I know all objects, all subjects, all that is, us good in some
respect—at least insofar as it exists. Anything then, because it can be seen as
good, might be the object of my will—whether it is a good steak, a good person,
a good feeling, or a good action. It is precisely because a thing or action can be
seen as having good aspects that my will goes to it or ends toward it. The very
reason that I find myself having a tendency toward an object in the first place
is because I sense it or know it as having good things about it. It is the “good”
quality of the thing by which the will is drawn or moved.

We might say, the, that the will is naturally determined to seek the good;
and if I were presented with an unmitigated, simple, unqualified good, my will
would certainly be necessitated toward it. With this in mind—that all things are
good in some way and that my will tends spontaneously toward them because
they are somehow good—I recognize nevertheless that my ‘tending’ is always
concerned with an existential, real world in which good are precisely limited,
finite, conditioned, interrelated, and ordered to other goods. If I am about to
undertake a course of action, it is often evident that a number of possibilities—
all of which have good and bad points to recommend and discredit them—are
presented to me as alternatives. Since none of these alternatives ‘goods’ can be
called unconditional or simple goods, and since none of them can exhaust the
total meaning of good in which they all participate, none of them can force my
will to a necessary choice, This is our reasoning:


  :45

a. the will is a tendency toward an intellectually known good; thus it is

precisely the ‘good’ aspect of the object which attracts my will,
b. the only object which could necessitate my will would be a good that is
unconditionally good in an unqualified sense;
c. in many of my choices, however, the goods from which I select as the
“the good for me in this decision” are all conditioned, limited and
qualified;
d. therefore freedom of choice can be operative in my behavior.

We might note that if there should be a case in which a particular good

appeared to be absolute—due to lack of knowledge or an excess of fear and
emotion- then freedom of choice would be inoperable, Similarly we might ask
ourselves: if the will tends toward the known good all the time, does that mean
we never choose evil? If we reflect upon moments of deliberation and choice, it
becomes rather clear that this is not the case. It is precisely in deliberation
upon and selection of a particular good among many-in relation to our
knowledge of who we are and what our potentialities may be—that moral
failure occurs. I can freely choose a particular good-for-me-now which I
consciously know is not in continuity with my identity and potentialities.

Amid these reflections, however, we must not forget that we also experience our
freedom as being severely limited and modified at times. As we have seen,
knowledge is of primary importance. We cannot have self-possession if we
never arrive at an understanding of the self and its meaning. We cannot choose
if we are not aware of option of different possibilities, of various alternatives.
We could neither choose nor love that which we do not in some way know. We
might even have experienced people who seemingly never have known
goodness, nobility, kindness or sympathy and consequently were never able to
exercise their freedom with respect to these values. Moreover, there are ample
data that point to the importance of the environment, conditioning,
deprivation, habit, emotion, natural preferences, and one’s own history in the
formation of the projects and choices. All these factors are undeniable, and
they must be weighed with the factors that point to man’s freedom.

Consequently, reflection upon my experience leads me to conclude at least

initially the there are forces which can shape and influence my present and
future behavior. 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. As long as I can question, as long as I can
achieve a distance from my environment and from immediate needs, and as
long as I can know various values and goods as limited and conditional, I can
take hold of my life and my situation and I can say something about it.

In conclusion I might say, first, that I feel free. This is an important

consideration. But feeling free does not necessarily make it so. The feeling of
freedom does not indicate, however, that such an experience is quite primary


  :46

and fundamental to our behavior. Second and more important is that there are
levels of human behavior which, upon reflection and analysis, indicate freedom
as self possession and freedom of choice. These levels of behavior, moreover,
are not just feelings. They are the incontrovertible evidence of questioning, self-
reflection, distance, and the awareness of goods-precisely as conditional. If
these actions did not exist, I could not be doing what I am doing right now.

Freedom in general means the absence of resistant. There are different kinds of
restraint and freedom. Physical freedom is the absence of physical restraint.
When a prisoner is released from prison, he is physically free, since he is no
longer restrained by the prison walls. Moral freedom is the absence of moral
restraint, of an obligation, of a law. Thus in this country we are morally free to
criticize the government.

Psychological freedom is the absence of psychological restraint. Psychological

restraint consist in drives which force a subject to perform them. Thus a
hungry, untrained dog is forced by its hunger to eat the food, which is set
before it, a scared cat cannot help running away. These animals are not forced
into their actions by any external power or moral obligation; they possess no
psychological freedom. A hungry man, on the contrary, can still refrain from
taking food, and a soldier frightened by heavy bombardment can choose to stay
at his post. Men possess psychological freedom.

Psychological freedom is also called freedom of choice, since it allows the

free subject to choose between different courses of action. It has been defined
as that attribute of the will whereby it can act or not act (freedom of exercise),
can act in this way or in that way (freedom of specification).

In the whole history of philosophy, a great deal of debate has been done
on whether or not our will is free. In this lesson, we will consider two
arguments demonstrating the freedom of the will.

1. ARGUMENT FROM COMMON CONSENT – the great majority of men

believe that their will is free. This conviction is of the utmost practical
importance for the whole of human life. Therefore, if there is order in the world,
the majority of mankind cannot be wrong in this belief. Hence, the will is free.

The judgment of common sense is that there is freedom of the will. That man
on the street is sure that he is free and that his neighbor is free. Only among
the sophisticated does determinism (the doctrine that there is no freedom of
the will) find acceptance, and even among them only in theory, not in practice.
Besides this, we can make a number of observations.

a. If all those studied the question theoretically arrived at deterministic

positions, we should indeed have to follow them, But even among
professional philosophers the majority uphold that the will is free.


  :47

b. Whether one professes determinism or the freedom of the will ha a

great practical influence on life. Why should a man try to control
himself if he is convinced that cannot do it anyway?
c. Far from shunning moral effort, great numbers of determinists make
a consistent effort to be decent and honest persons. It is difficult to
see how there is no contradiction between the doctrines they profess
and the kind of life they try to lead.

2. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ARGUMENT – we have said that most people

naturally hold that the will is free. Why do they cling to that conviction?
Because they are directly and indirectly aware of their freedom in the very act
of making a free decision; they are indirectly aware of its because of the many
instances of the behavior which can only be explained by admitting the
freedom of the will.

Direct awareness of the freedom of our decisions: In this argument we claim

that at the very moment in which we are exercising our freedom we are aware
of it. We do not claim, on the other hand, that we are directly aware of being
able to choose freely before the choices is made or after it has been made.

The point is that we are not aware of our power of choosing freely except in the
very act of exercising that power. We are aware of the possible courses of
action; we may know from past experience that when no great difficulties lie in
the way we are capable of choosing any of these courses. But we are not
conscious of our power of free choice as such, except while we are exercising it.

Once we have reached a decision, we continue to have the impression that,

although we have chosen A, we could as well have selected B or C. Therefore,
we do not claim that we have an awareness of our freedom of choice before
exercising it or after having exercised it. But we possess that awareness while
we are choosing, while we are deciding to take A rather than B. At that moment
we are conscious that we are selecting A without coercion, without constant;
we feel that we are not being impelled by blind impulses that we are not being
manipulated like a puppet.

2.2. Indirect Awareness of the freedom of will – Many facts of our daily life, of
which we are clearly aware, can be explained only if are free. We deliberated
before taking a decision, we weigh the reasons for or against it, and we regret
some of our past choices. This surely implies that we should, and by inference
could, have acted differently. We admire, praise and reward virtuous actions
and manifest through our attitude the implicit belief that the person who
performed them was not forced to do so. If Hitler was not acting freely, when he
decreed the wholesale extermination of the Jews, his actions were just one
more natural disaster, and there was no reason for any indignation about it.


  :48

In most countries, the administration of justice is based on a belief in the

freedom of at least some human actions. Most courts try to find out the degree
of deliberation (that is, of freedom) with which a crime was committed. And the
punishment is generally proportional to the degree of freedom. If man is not
free, there is no reason for punishing a “first degree murder” more severely
than the killing of a pedestrian in an automobile accident.

If I were determined, I would know nothing about it. Animals are unfree,
and totally unaware of it. In order to be aware of space, I must, in some way,
stand outside space. I can know time only because something in me is above
time. I can speak of determinism only because I am not totally in its grip.

1. THE ETHICAL ARGUMENT – If there is no freedom, there is no moral

responsibility no virtue, no merit, no moral obligation, no duty, no morality.
The necessary connection between freedom and the spiritual realities is quite
obvious and is demonstrated in Ethics.

This is a strong argument because the sense of duty and the belief in morality
and moral obligation come naturally to man and even those who deny their
existence in theory live in practice as if they admitted it.

Kant, a major German Philosopher, who claimed that the existence of freedom
was not demonstrated by theoretical reason, nevertheless was conviction from
the fact of duty, which he considered to be immediately evident to the practical
reason.

Among the first principles, which are virtually inborn to the human intellect,
there is at least one that refers to the moral order. “The good must be done and
evil avoided.” This fundamental dictate of conscience, this moral ‘ought’, is
virtually inborn every human mind. It is the basis of all moral obligation and it
implies freedom of the will since obligation is nothing but the necessary of
doing something freely.

No social life is possible without obligations and duties. In our relations with
other people we are aware of certain obligations we have in regard to them, and
we are even aware of their obligations toward us. Therefore we are continually
taking it for granted that man is free.

2. THE PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT – This argument can be presented in a

philosophical context. It presupposes the two following philosophical
statements:

Every kind of knowledge evokes a corresponding kind of striving. This

follows from the fact that knowledge and striving are the two fundamental
functions or aspects of being.


  :49

Immaterial striving is free at least in this sense that it is not determined

from outside. Determinism derives from matter.

If these two principles are admitted, the argument from the freedom of the will
it easy to set up:

There is in man an immaterial kind of knowledge. Hence, there must also be

him an immaterial kind if striving. And since immaterial striving is free, there
is in man a free kind of activity, which is called the will. Still the question
remains. “Why the human will is free?”

Why the human will is free?

Man’s freedom does not consist merely in being able to do what he wants
to do. Many Animals can do what they want to do. But is not within their
power to decide what they want to do. Man, on the other hand, is able not only
to do what he wants to do also decide that he wants to do one thing or another.

We must show, therefore, the fact that and the reason why the human
person does not will the things he wills out of necessary; the fact that and the
reason why he will then freely. To explain clearly, we have to proceed in a
number of stages:

1. Man wills a thing necessarily as soon as he decided:“This is good.”

The will is a faculty whose object is the good. But the will does not know its
own object, it is not a cognitive faculty; it meets its object through the intellect.
Hence, as soon as the intellect judges: “This is good,” the will is presented with
its object and must necessarily embrace it.

2. Man decides necessarily that a thing is good when it conforms to his

standard of goodness.

The person judges the goodness of things not arbitrarily about according to a
certain norm or standard. When an object fulfills the requirements of that
standard, it is necessarily called good.

3. Man’s standard of goodness is “goodness as such.”

The will is guided by the intellect. The intellect knows being as such, desires
truth as such. The object of the will has the same extension as that of the
intellect which guides it’ it is good as such. The good as such means the perfect
good, without any restriction, imperfection or limitation.


  :50

4. No object on earth comes up to man’s standard of goodness.

On earth we never meet the perfect good. Many things are good, but they are
not absolutely good, they all have their limitations, their defects.

5. Hence, there is not a single object on earth with regard to which man
is forced to decide. “This is good.” There is not a single object in relation to
which we are not free.

In other words: We are free to will or not will, because we always say: “this is
good but not perfectly good.” Our intellect provides us with the idea of the
perfect good because it is the guide, which our will follows. The relation of the
will to the intellect is analogous to the relation between the engine and the
steering wheel of a car. Movement is initiated by the engine (will) but the
direction of the movement derives from the action of the wheel (intellect).

It follows that our freedom is ultimately based on the immateriality of our will
and our intellect. We are free because we are spirits.

ARGUMENTS FOR DETERMINISM

Though some philosophers have argued their own position about freedom, the
other side, which is a contradictory argument, should also be presented, that e.
i. DETERMINISM. Many modern philosophers and psychologists who deny the
freedom of the will are called “determinists” and their system is known as
“determinism.” They claim that in spite of some contrary appearances, man is
forced or “determined” in all his actions.

Determinism is the philosophical concept that every event, including human

cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an
unbroken chain of prior occurrences or by number of forces which compel us
to act as we do. Like the some of the natural laws of science which have the
form: If X occurs then Y occurs. If a patient is sick, there must be a reason for
such condition to happen which certainly explains everything. Thus, if we
know the initial condition (X occurs) and the law (If X then Y) we can
explain/predict the occurrence of Y. Determinism is the contention that all
physical (and mental) events and experiences of man in the universe can be
incorporated under such laws. This is NOT the view that we can actually
predict everything. Our ignorance of facts is enormous and we certainly do not
know all the laws and statistical regularities which describe such events and
experiences that we have. Thus if something occurred, there must be a reason
for it and such reason itself is the argument being emphasized and highlighted
by the determinism.


  :51

In its toughest argument, Hard Determinism is the theory that because

Determinism is true, no one is free; no one has free will (or choice) and no one
truly acts freely. Determinism, as a philosophical doctrine, is absolutely
contradictory to the belief that there is such a thing as freedom of the will.
Determinism asserts that “there is no free will, that we do things, not because
we decide to do these, but because these were determined to us by a number of
forces which compelled us to act as we do.” We could not have done otherwise.
We cannot do these things we did.
In an argumentative or syllogistic form, philosophers who advocate
determinism would put it this way:
1. Determinism is true: all events are caused.
2. Therefore, all human desires and choices are caused.
3. For an action to be free it would have to be the result of a choice,
desire or act of will which had no cause. That is, free WILL means that
the Will or choosing "mechanism" initiates the action.
4. Therefore there can be no free choices or free will.
According to the Hard Determinists, freedom is present when a free act
or choice would be one which is uncaused, or happened independent of causes,
or completely disconnected from preceding events. The "Will" or person doing
the choosing and acting would have to be a primum mobile (first mover), a new
beginning, or an original creative source of activity. But, this cannot be, it is
argued, since surely actions are caused by wants and desires, wants and
desires flow from our character, and our character is formed by environment
and heredity. Thus, every actions or events have sources which are external to
us and are not within our control; a proof itself for determinism and not of
freedom.
All materialists and sensists are necessarily determinists. For them man
is a purely material being. But matters is perfectly determined and possess no
freedom. When we know a material system perfectly, we can foresee and
predict all further activities. Thus an astronomer predicts with great accuracy
all future eclipses. The volcanologist can predict with a certain degree of
accuracy when and where an earthquake will happen. The materialist claim
that if we knew the material system called “MAN” perfectly, and if we are aware
of all the influences working on him, we should be able to predict all his future
activities; we could write his biography on the day of his birth.
Determinism can be seen in different forms or arguments. The following
arguments will portray the general perspectives whithin a deterministic view of
life.

1. The Argument from Biology

Biological determinism maintains that physiological factors exert a compelling

influence in man’s life. We do what we do because of the kind of body we have
inherited from our parents, because we are born that way. The biological
determinists emphasize especially the role of the endocrine glands and the
genes in determining our conduct. We may sometimes wonder that we act in a


  :52

certain manner but we end up realizing that hereditary factors have something
to do with it. Thus, we do act not because it is an act of free will but because of
the biological factors that make us and determine us to do so.

2. The Law of Causation

The arguments from of determinism make it evident that it is anchored with
the law of causation. The law of causation is one which no man would care to
deny; it simply and undeniably asserts that every effect has its cause. No one
indeed can think otherwise. Causation, in fact, as Kant showed, is one of the
ways in which we must think; it is, as he says, an a priori form of thought; we
did not learn from experience to think causally, but rather by thinking causally
we help to constitute experience. Man’s decision or actions then do have their
causal explanation but such cause is of physical or material aspect and not of
non-physical or immaterial, the free will, which the concept of freedom asserts

3. The Argument from Science's Philosophy of Nature

A philosophy of nature is a general theory explanatory of all the occurrences of
nature. Now the ideal of scientific explanation in physics, chemistry, biology,
physiology, and everywhere is mechanical. Events do not happen because
anybody or any will wants them to happen; they happen because they have to
happen; they happen because they must. And it is the business of science to
find this necessary connection between the occurrences of nature. The
universe, by this hypothesis, whole and part, is governed by the action of
mechanical law. The reign of law is universal. Man is a very small creature
upon a small earth, which is itself a comparatively small planet in one of the
smaller solar systems of an indefinitely large number of solar systems which
partially fill infinite space. The universe is a physical mechanism in which law
rules, and man is but a least part of this universal machine. How then can he
do otherwise than he does do? A single free-will act would introduce caprice,
whim, chance, into a universe whose actions are so mechanically determined
that an omniscient observer of the present could predict infallibly all futurity.
Thus, man is so called bound and determined to act by his own nature to act
and is not free.

4. The Argument from Ethics

The interests of ethics, of such matters as duty, obligation, conscience, reward,
and blame, are peculiarly bound up with the doctrine of freedom, in the eyes of
many. Yet there is also an argument from ethics for determinism. It runs as
follows: a man's character determines his acts, he is responsible, for the act is
his own; he committed it because, being the man he could not have done
otherwise. If his act were an effect of free will, no one could count upon him, he
would be an irresponsible agent. Just because he is bound by his character, he
is dependable. If his acts are good, he is to be congratulated on his character,
not praised overmuch; if his acts are bad, he is to be pitied for his character,
not blamed overmuch. He is rewarded, not because he could have done
otherwise, but as a tribute to the stability of his character and as a stimulus to


  :53

continued right action. He is punished, again not because he need not have
done wrong, but to help him do right next time. All our instruction, reproof,
and correction of others presupposes they may be determined by such
influences. Thus, the whole outfit of ethical categories may be read in
deterministic terms, and indeed are so read by many ethical thinkers and
writers, beginning with Socrates, who held that right ideas determine right
conduct.

5. The Argument from Theology

The argument from theology for determinism runs somewhat as follows: God is
omniscient, He therefore knows what I am going to do, there is therefore
nothing for me to do except what He knows I am going to do, there is
consequently but one reality, not two possibilities awaiting me in the future;
therefore I am not free to do otherwise than I must do when the time comes.
Thus the doctrine of the foreknowledge of God is held to exclude the freedom of
man's choice. But to deny that God has foreknowledge would be derogatory to
His dignity.

6. The Argument from Psycho-social

Psycho-social determinists emphasize a combination of psychological and
social factors as explaining human conduct. On the psychological side, they
point to the different drives and tendencies which impel the individual; on the
social side, to the continual pressure of the environment – words, customs,
fashions, propaganda, but most of all in education, in particular, education
during the first few years of life “. Man as part of the social group is not freely
deciding but merely following.

The psychologist determinists insist upon the compulsive influence of the

motives and presented to our mind, asserting that when two motives are
opposed to each other, the stronger necessarily prevails. In this view, the will is
like a balance, which necessarily tips toward the heavier weight. Thus, our will
necessarily chooses the greater good and follows the stronger motive.
Let us expand our discussion on the psycho-social type of determinism for this
is the popular kind of determinism today. We assume that the actions of people
will be explicable in terms of the circumstances or context in which they are
performed, and in terms of the character or nature of the actors and the
purposes that they have in mind. Their actions we should certainly sat are
determined by them, but their characters, their purposes, their circumstances,
are the products of their heredity, their education, their environment, the
whole of their HISTORY.

The philosophical doctrine has been given scientific evidential support by the
famous Harvard psychologist, B.F. Skinner. In his book, Walden Two, he
stresses:


  :54

“The causes for human action all lie outside the man and that these causes are
necessitating. Man’s behavior is shaped and determined by external forces and
stimuli whether they are familiar or cultural sanction, verbal or non-verbal
reinforcement, or complex system of reward and punishment. I have nothing to
say about the course of action which I will take.”

In another part of Walden Two, he says

“Give me the specifications and I’ll give you the man. Let us control the lives of
our children and see what can make of them.”

Skinner did not these pronouncements without any scientific support.

The power of conditioning has been recognized. The stimulus-response model
of Pavlov is generally regarded among scientist as very convincing.
Reinforcements, both positive and negative, can shape an individual or group
reaction. Forms of reward and punishments have already been adapted for
their utility. In other words, this phenomenon of behavior control is occurring
right now in our society by means of governmental, educational and
propagandistic control techniques, through in a less systematic manner.

To summarize, it would be good touch on John Kavanaugh’s reflection of

his own experience, which correspond to Skinner’s position in Walden Two and
Science and Human Behavior. Kavanaugh enumerates:

a. I have genetic, biological and physical structures, which influence my

behavior. They are part of the total me which is involved in choosing.

b. I have environmental structures, which are part of me – my early life

and psychological development, the culture, national and ecclesiastical
framework that I find myself situated in.

c. I am keenly aware of external forces and demands, which impinge

upon me, sometimes-creating needs even valves.

Before we and our discussion of determinism, it would be best to study a

particular except in B.F. Skinner’s book entitled Beyond Freedom and Dignity.
Let us take a look at the last chapter of this book:

WHAT IS MAN?

As a science of behavior adopts the strategy of physics and biology the

autonomous agent to the environment—the environment in which the species
evolved and in which the behavior of the individual is shaped and maintained,
replaces which behavior has traditionally been an attribute. That a man’s
behavior owes something to antecedent events and that the environment is a
more promising point of attack then mans himself has long been recognized. It
was Robert Owen, according to Trevelyan, who first clearly grasped and taught


  :55

that environment makes character and that environment is under human

control or, as Gilbert Saldea wrote, “that man is a creature of circumstance,
that if you changed the environments of thirty little Hottentots and thirty little
aristocratic English children. The aristocratic would become Hottentots, for all
practical purposes, and the Hottentots little conservatives.”

………Autonomous man is a devise used to explain what we cannot explain in

any other way. He has been constructed from our ignorance, and as our
understanding increases, the very stuff of which he is composed vanishes.
Science does not dehumanize man, and it must do so if it is to prevent the
abolition of the human species. To man as man we readily say good riddance.
Only be dispossessing him can we turn from the inferred to the observed, from
the miraculous to the natural, from the inaccessible to the manipulable.

It is often said that in doing so we must treat that man who survives as a
mere animal. “Animal” is a pejorative term, but only because “man” has been
made spuriously honorific. Krutch has argued that whereas the traditional view
supports Hamlet’s exclamation, “How like a god!,” Pavlov, the behavioral
scientist, emphasized “How like a dog!” But that was a step forward. A god is
the archetypal pattern of an explanatory fiction, of a miracle-working mind, of
the metaphysical. Man is such more than a dog, but like a dog he is within
range of a scientific analysis.

……….Man is not made into a machine by analyzing his behavior in

mechanical terms. Early theories of behavior, as we have seen, represented
man as a push-pull automation, close to the nineteenth century notion of a
machine, but progress has been made. Man is a machine in the sense that he
is a complex system behaving, in lawful ways, but the complexity is
extraordinary. His capacities to adjust to contingencies of reinforcement will
perhaps be eventually simulated by machines, but this has not yet been done,
and the living system thus simulated will remain unique in other ways.

………Is man then “abolished”? Certainly not as a species or as an individual

achiever. It is the autonomous inner man who is abolished, and that is a step
forward. But does not man then become merely a victim or passive observer of
what is happening to him? He is indeed controlled by his environment, but we
must remember hat it is an environment largely of his own making. The
evolution of a culture is a gigantic exercise in self-control. It is often said that a
scientific view of man leads to wounded vanity, a sense of hopelessness, and
nostalgia. But no theory changes what is a theory about; man remains what he
has always been. And a new theory may change what can be done with its
subject matter. A scientific view of man offers exciting possibilities. We have
not yet seen what can make of man.


  :56

Summary

The Will: Its Existence and Nature

 What is the Will?
 The faculty of the mind that is alleged to stimulate motivation of
purposeful activity.
 A personal faculty or function
 Externalized result of the interaction of conflicting elements.
 Manifestation of personality
 Does man really have will? We have because…
 The higher tendency is the will
 We can sometimes will an object which is repulsive to our body and
sense tendencies.
 Voluntary attention

The Human Freedom Free Choice: A Metaphysical Analysis of the Will by

John Kavanaugh
 The will is an intellectual tendency, or tendency toward an intellectually
known good.
 It is the good quality of thing by which the will is drawn or moved.
 The will is naturally determined to seek the good.
 The will tends to look for good, :. Good is attractive for the will.
 Only the unconditionally good in an unqualified sense can necessitate
my will.
 In decision making, the goods around us are limited and conditional.
 Therefore freedom of choice can be operative in my behavior… so I
make a choice according to what I think is good.
 Given the fact that our will tends to look for good, and freedom is the
capacity to choose among the many goods… If ever, we are pressed in a
situation where these is no choice, due to fear or lack of understanding
does this mean our freedom is limited?
 Moral failure: when we choose what we thought is good, but not
necessarily good.
 Knowledge is of primary importance in choosing the real good.
 As long as I can question,… as long as I can know various values and
goods as limited and conditional, I can take hold of my life and my
situation and I can say something about it.

 Am I really free?
 Feeling free does not necessarily make it so.
 There are levels of possession and freedom of choice.
 Questioning (will)
 Reflection (self-knowledge)
 Distance (imagination)
 The awareness of goods-precisely as conditional (conscience)


  :57

What does it mean to be free?

 Absence of restraint.
 Physical freedom: absence of physical restraint.
 Moral freedom: absence of moral restraint, obligation or law.
 Psychological freedom: absence psychological restraint like drives and
urges.
 Also known as the freedom of choice.
 Freedom of exercise: given a choice on what to do.
 Freedom of specification: given a choice on how to do what.

Does our WILL really free?

 Argument from common consent: The judgment of common sense.
 Everybody believes that the will is free.
 Why should a man tries to control himself if he is convinced that he
can’t.
 Psychological Argument: the very fact one can make a free decision
(choosing what to believe) is a proof that the will is free.
 Direct awareness of the freedom of our decisions:
 I know I can choose as I am choosing.
 And still, I am aware I can make a choice even before choosing.
 Indirect Awareness of the freedom of the will:
 I know I am free, after I made the choice.
 Ethical Argument: Freedom is free to choose what is good and to avoid evil.
 Freedom = moral obligation.
 Choose by Practical Reason by Immanuel Kant.
 Philosophical Argument:
 Knowledge evokes a corresponding kind of striving.
 Immaterial striving is free.

Why do we have free will?

 It is not just doing what one wants to do, it is more on knowing why one
wants to do it anyway.
 I will… because it’s good.
 For goodness sake it is good.
 Goodness is goodness as such, no imperfections, no limits.
 On earth there is no perfect good.
 This is good… but not perfectly good. … thus I can change my mind and
choose another.
 We are free because we are spirits.

Do you believe in destiny?

 Biological Determinism:
 We do what we do because of the kind of body we have inherited from
our parents. (Genetic Determinism-It is your grandparents’ fault)


  :58

 Environmental Determinism:
 Man’s behavior is shaped and determined by external forces and stimuli
whether they are familial or cultural sanction. –Walden Two.
 Psychological Determinism:
 Conditioning man’s behavior trough rewards and punishment.

Determining your own Destiny

 They are part of the total me which is involved in choosing. (The power of the
will—to choose)
 I have environmental structures…that I find myself situated in. (The power
of self-awareness)
 I am keenly aware of external forces and demands which impinge upon me,
sometimes creating needs even values. (The power of imagination and
conscience.)

Beyond Freedom and Destiny—What is Man?

 Man is a creature of circumstance, that if you changed the environments of
thirty little Hottentots and little Aristocratic English children, for all practical
purposes, the aristocratic would become Hottentots, for all practical purposes
and the Hottentots little concervatives.—Gilbert Saldea
 Autonomous man has device used to explain what we cannot explain in any
other way.
 Man—according to Hamlet: How like a god… according to Pavlov: How like a
dog…
 Man is a machine in the sense that he is a complex system behaving, in
lawful ways, but the complexity is extraordinary.
 Man is controlled by environment—an environment largely of his own
making.
 The evolution of culture is a gigantic exercise in self-control: Re-scripting
your destiny.

MAN AND GOD

Introduction

In the previous modules we studied “Man as an Embodied

Subject,” “Man as Knowing” and “Man and Freedom.” This module we have to
study “Man and God”—the essence of man in relations to his Maker. A
philosopher was strolling inside a university campus. He passed by an untilled
garden and picked up a flower. He said, “Little flower, I plucked you out from
an obscure garden. Little flower, I am holding you in my hand. Little flower, if I
can understand your roots, your stem, your petals—and all in all—then I can
understand man and if I can understand man . . . then I can understand God.”


  :59

The study of man in relations to God is important because man is the highest
of God’s earthly creatures. And we learn something about the Creator by seeing
what he has created. For only man is said to have been made by God in his
own image and likeness. Thus, a direct clue to the nature of God ought to
emerge from a study of man. To the extent that the copy resembles the original,
we will understand God more completely as a result of our study of the highest
creature.

THE STUDY OF MAN

Images of Man

Man as Machine

One prevalent perspective on the human is in terms of what he is able to

do. The employer, for example, is interested in the human being’s strength and
energy, the skills and capabilities possessed. On this basis, the employer
“rents” the employee for a certain number of hours. That humans are
sometimes regarded as machines is particularly evident when automation
results in a worker being displaced from a job.
In this approach, persons are basically regarded as things, as means to
ends rather than ends in themselves. They are of value as long as they are
useful.

Man as an Animal

Another view sees man primarily as a member of the animal kingdom as

a derivation from some of the higher forms. He has come into being through
the same sort of process as all have other animals, an will have similar end.

This view of man is perhaps most fully developed in behavioristic

psychology. Here human motivation is understood primarily in terms of
biological drives. Knowledge of man is gained not though introspection, but
experimentation upon animals.

Man as a Sexual Being

Sigmund Freud regarded sexuality as the basic framework of man. In a

world in which sex was not openly discussed or even mentioned in polite
circles, Freud developed a whole theory of personality around human sexuality.

Man as an Economic Being

Another view is that economic forces are what really affect and motivate the
human being. In a sense, this view is an extension of the view that man is an


  :60

extension of the view that man is primarily a member of the animal kingdom. It
focuses upon the material dimension of life and its needs.

Man as a Pawn of the Universe

Among certain existentialists, particularly, but also in a broader segment

of society, we find the idea that man is at the mercy of forces in the world
which control his destiny but have no real concern for him. These are seen as
blind forces, forces of chance in many cases. Sometimes they personal forces,
but even then they are forces over which man has no control, and upon which
he has no influence, such as political superpowers.

Man as a Free Being

The approach which emphasizes the freedom of man, his ability to

choose, sees the human will as the essence of the personality. This basic
approach is often evident in conservative political and social views. Here
freedom from restraint is the most important issue, for it permits man to
realize his essential nature. The role of government is simply to ensure a stable
environment in which such freedom can be exercised.

The Christian View of Man

The Christian view of man dwells on the fact that man is a creature of
God. This means, first, that is to be understood as having originated not
through a chance process of evolution, but through a conscious purposeful act
of God. Thus, there is a reason for man’s existence, a reason which lies in the
intention of the Supreme Being.

Further, the image of God is intrinsic to man. Man would not be human
without it.Hence, man puts his faith in the God who created him. In the words
of St. Augustine, “Lord, you have created us for yourself, oh God, and our soul
is restless until it rests in you!”

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: BASIC CONCEPTS

In Lesson One we discussed that man originated from God. This explains
that human experiences cannot ignore questions about God. Thus,
philosophers have also tried to answer questions related to God. That branch
of philosophy specifically concerned with this aspect is known as philosophy of
religion.

What is philosophy of religion? Until recently it was generally

understood to mean religious philosophizing in the sense of the philosophical
defense of religious convictions. Its program is to demonstrate rationally the


  :61

existence of God,. Thus preparing the way for the claims of revelation. In short,
it is philosophical thinking about religion.

Philosophy of religion is not an organ of religious teaching. It need not be

undertaken from a religious standpoint at all. It studies the concept and
propositions of theology and reasoning of theologians and analyzes concepts
such as God, holy, salvation, worship, creation, eternal life, miracle, etc. It also
tries to determine the nature of religious utterances in comparison with those
of everyday life.

Our primary task at this point, however, is to clarify the Jewish-

Christian concept of God, seeking a philosophical understanding of its various
aspects.

The term used for the main ways of thinking about God are formed
around either from the Greek word theos or its Latin equivalent, deus.

1. Atheism (Greek a – without or no; theos - God) a belief that there is no

God of any kind.
2. Agnosticism (Greek a – without or no; gnostic – knowledge) – the belief
that we do not have sufficient reasons or knowledge either to affirm or
deny the existence of God.
3. Skepticism (Greek skepto – to doubt) simply means to doubt the existence
of God.
4. Daism – refers to the idea of an “absentee” God who long ago set the
universe into motion and has hereafter left it alone.
5. Theism – belief in God
6. Polytheism (Greek poly – many; theos – God) the belief among primitive
people and reaching its classic expression n Ancient Greence and Rome,
that there are multitude of personal gods, each holding sway a different
department of life.
7. Pantheism – Greek pan – all; theos – God) is the belief, perhaps, most
impressively expounded by some of the poets, that God is identical with
nature or with the world as a whole.
8. Monotheism – (Greek mono – one; theos – God) – the belief that there is
but one God, who is personal and moral and who seeks a total and
unqualified response from his human creatures.

ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

The doctrine of God is the central point for much of Philosophical Theology.
There’s a need for a correct understanding of God. Some people think of God as
a kind of celestial policeman who looks for opportunities to pounce upon erring


  :62

and straying persons. The opposite view, that God, is grandfatherly, is also
prevalent. Here God is conceived of as an indulgent, kindly, old gentleman who
would never want to detract from humans enjoyment of life. These and many
other conceptions of God need to be corrected, of our spiritual lives are to have
any real meaning and depth.

The study of God’s nature should be seen as a means to a more

accurate understanding of him and hence a closer personal relationship with
God. When we speak of the attributes of God we are referring to those qualities
of God which constitute what he is. They are the very characteristics of his
nature. The attributes are permanent qualities. They are essentials and
inherent dimensions of his very nature. Divine attributes, according to
Aristotelian conception, are inseparable from the being and essence of God.

Classifications of Attributes

1. Communicable attributes. They are those qualities of God of which at

least a partial counterpart can be found in his human creations. Example, love,
which, while infinite in God, can be found in man. The incommunicable
attributes, on the other hand, are those unique qualities for which no
counterpart can be found in humans. One example of this is omnipresence of
God. God is everywhere simultaneously. Even with jet and rocket travel, man is
incapable of being everywhere simultaneously.

2. A second pair of categories is the immanent or intransitive and the

emanant and transitive qualities. The former are those which remain within
God’s own nature. His spirituality is an example. Emanant or transitive
attributes are those which go out from and operate outside the nature of God,
affecting the creation. God’s mercy is a transitive attribute. It makes no sense
to think or speak of God’s mercy apart from the created beings to whom he
shows mercy.

3. Closely related to the immediately preceding classification and sometimes

combined with it is the distinction between absolute and relative qualities.
The absolute attributes of God are those which he has in himself. He has
always possessed these qualities independently of the objects of his creation.
The relative attributes on the other hand are those which are manifested
through his relationship to other subjects and inanimate objects. Infinity is an
absolute attribute; eternity and omnipresence are relative attributes
representing the relationship of his unlimited nature to the finite objects of his
creation.

4. Our final classification is that of natural and moral attributes. The

moral attributes are those which in the human context would relate to the
concept of rightness (as opposed to wrongness). Holiness, love, mercy, and


  :63

faithfulness are examples. Natural attributes are the non-moral superlatives of

God, such his knowledge and power.

The last system with some modifications will be used in this study. Instead of
natural and moral, however, we use the terms attributes of greatness and
attributes of goodness.

Attributes of Greatness

Spirituality
God is spirit; that is, he is not composed of matter and does not possess
physical nature. One consequence of God’s spirituality is that she does not
have the limitations involved with a physical body. For one thing, he is not
limited to a particular or spatial location. Furthermore, he is not destructible,
as is material nature.
In biblical times, the doctrine of God’s spirituality was a counter to the practice
of idolatry and of nature worship. God, being spirit, could not be presented by
any physical object or likeness.

Personality
Philosophical Theology perceives God as personal. He is an individual being,
with self-consciousness and will, capable of feeling, choosing, and having a
reciprocal relationship with other personal and social beings. Another
dimension of God’s personality is the fact that God has a name. God identifies
himself with Moses as “I Am” or “I Will be.” By this he demonstrates that he is
not an abstract, unknowable being, nor a nameless force but rather it refers to
him as a personal God. Further, an indication of the nature of God is the
activity in which he engages. He is depicted as knowing and communicating
with human persons.

A Living God
God is alive. He is characterized by life. His name “I am” indicates that he is a
living God. Not only does this God have life, but he has a kind of life different
from that of every other living being.. While other beings have their own life in
God, he does not derive his life from any external source. He is never depicted
as having been brought into being. The adjective “eternal” is applied to him
frequently, implying that there never was a time when he did not exist.

Infinity
God is infinite. This means not only that God is unlimited, but that he is
unlimitable. In this respect, God is unlike anything we experience. Even those
things that common sense once told us are infinite or boundless are now seen
to have limits. The ocean once seemed to be an endless source of good, and a
dumping place so vast that it could not be contaminated. Yet we are becoming


  :64

aware that its resources and its ability to absorb pollution are both finite. The
infinity of God, however, speaks of a limitless being.

The infinity of God may be thought of from several angles. We think first in
terms of space. Here we have what has traditionally been referred to as
immensity and omnipresence. God is not subject to limitations of space. All
finite objects have a location. They are somewhere. With God, however, the
question of whereness or location is not applicable. God is the one who brought
space (and time) into being. He was before there was space. He cannot be
localized at a particular point.

God is also infinite in relation to time. Time does not apply to God. He was
before time began. The question, How old is God? Is simply inappropriate. He is
no older now than a year ago. He is simply not restricted by the dimension of
time.

God is timeless. He does not grow or develop. There are no variations in his
nature at different points within his existence. He has always been what he is.

Further, the infinity of God may also be considered with respect to objects of
knowledge. His understanding is immeasurable. A further factor, in the light
of this knowledge, is the wisdom of God. Bu this is meant, that God acts in the
light of the facts and in light of correct values. Knowing all things, God knows
what is good.

Finally, God’s infinity may also be considered in relationship to what is

traditionally referred to as the omnipotence of God. By this we mean, God is
powerful. God is able to do all things which are proper objects of his power.
What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.

There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God.

He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of. He can
do only those things which are objects of his power. Thus, he cannot do the
logically absurd or contradictory. He cannot make square circles or triangles
with four corners.

Constancy
God is described as unchanging. He does not change. The divine constancy
involves several aspects. There is first no quantitative change. God cannot
increase in anything, because he is already perfection. Nor can he decrease, for
if he were too, he would cease to be God. There is no qualitative change. The
nature of God does not undergo modification.


  :65

Moral Qualities

If the Attributes of Greatness we studied in the preceding lesson were

God’s only attributes, he might be conceivably be an immoral or amoral being,
exercising his power and knowledge in a capricious even cruel fashion. But
what we are dealing is a good God, one who can be trusted and loved. He has
attributes of goodness as well as greatness. In this lesson, we will consider his
moral qualities, that is, the characteristics of God as a moral being. For
convenient study, we will classify his basic moral attributes as purity, integrity
and love.

1. Holiness

There are basic aspects of God’s holiness. The first is his uniqueness. He
is totally separate from all creation. It speaks of “the otherness of God.” This is
what Louis Berhof called the “majesty-holiness” of God. The other aspect of
God’s holiness is his absolute purity and goodness. This means that he is
untouched and unstained by the evil in this world. God’s moral perfection is
the standard for our moral character and the motivation for religious practice.
The whole moral code follows from his holiness.

2. Righteousness

The second dimension of God’s moral purity is his righteousness. This, as it

were, the holiness of God applied to his relationships to other beings. The
righteousness of God means, first of all, that the law of God, being a true
expression of his nature, is as perfect and righteous as he is.

3. Justice

God administers his kingdom in accordance with his law. That is, he
requires that others conform to it. God’s righteousness is his personal or
individual righteousness. His justice is his official righteousness, his
requirement that other moral agents adhere to the standards as well. God is, in
other words, like a judge who as a private person adheres to the law of society,
and in his official capacity administers that same law, applying others.
The justice of God means he is fair in the administration of his law. He
does show favoritism or partiality.

4. Integrity

The cluster of attributes which we are here classifying as integrity relates to

the matter of truth. There are three dimensions of truthfulness; 1)
genuineness—being true; 2) veracity—telling the truth; and faithfulness—
proving true.


  :66

a. Genuineness
In a world in which so much is artificial, our God is real. He is what he appears
to be. God is real; he is not fabricated or constructed or imitation, as are
all other claimants to deity.

b. Veracity
Veracity is the second dimension of God’s faithfulness. God represents things
as they really are. Whether he is speaking of himself or part of his creation,
what God is says is the way things really are.

God has appealed to his to his people to be honest in all situations. They are to
be truthful both in what they formally assert and in what they imply.

c. Faithfulness
If God’s genuineness is a matter of his being true and veracity is his telling of
the truth, then his faithfulness mans that he proves true. God keeps all his
promises. This is a function of his unlimited power.

5. Love

When we think in terms of God’s moral attributes, perhaps what comes first to
mind is the cluster of attributes we are here classifying as love. Many regard it
as the basic attribute, the very nature or definition of God: God is love! The
basic dimension of God’s love to us are: 1) benevolence 2) grace 3) mercy.

a. Benevolence

Benevolence is a basic dimension of God’s his we mean the concern of God for
the welfare of those whom he loves. He unselfishly seeks our ultimate welfare.
It is agape, not eros type of love.

b. Grace

Grace is another attribute which is part of the manifold of God’s love. By this
we mean that God deals with his people on the basis of their merit or
worthiness, what they deserve, but simply according to their need; in other
words, he deals with them on the basis of his goodness and generosity.

c. Mercy

God’s mercy is his tender-hearted, loving compassion for his people. It is his
tenderness of heart toward the needy. If grace contemplates man as sinful;,
guilty and condemned; mercy sees him as miserable and needy.


  :67

ARGUMENTS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE

The various arguments for the existence of God can be divided into two types:
the ontological arguments and the cosmological arguments for God’s existence.
In the ontological arguments, they focus attention upon the idea of God and
proceeds to unfold its inner implications. However, in the cosmological
arguments, they start from some general nature of the world around us and
argue that there could not be a world with these particular characteristics
unless there were also the ultimate reality which we call “God”. Let us now
turn to these.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT – the ontological argument for the existence of

God was first developed by St. Anselm, one of the Christian Church’s most
original thinker and the greatest theologian ever to have been Archbishop of
Canterbury.

Anselm begins by concentrating the Christian concept of God into the formula”
“a being that which nothing greater can be conceived.” It is clear that by
“greater” Anselm means more perfect, rather than spatially bigger. His
argument can be found in the second chapter of his Proslogion. It runs:

Therefore, if that than which a greater cannot be thought is in the

understanding alone, this same thing than which a greater cannot be thought
is that than which a greater can be thought. But obviously this is impossible.
Without doubt, therefore, there exists, Both in the understanding and in
reality, something than which greater cannot be thought.” Anselm
distinguishes between something, x, existing in the mind only and its existing
in reality as well. If the most perfect conceivable being existed only in the
mind, we should then have the contradiction that is possible to conceive of a
yet more perfect being namely, the same being existing in reality, as
well as in the mind. Therefore, the most perfect conceivable being must exist
in reality, as well as in the mind.

The argument has also several other notable forms, in particular, Rene
Descartes has a similar argument which can be found in his fifth Mediations.
According to Descartes, just as one can have a clear and distinct idea of God.
And as Descartes sees it, the idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect
being. Furthermore, this being can be seen to have “an actual and eternal
existence” just as some number of figures can be seen to have some kind of
character or attribute. His argument run as follows:

“Existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than can its
having its three angles equal to two right angles be separated from the essence
of a rectilinear triangle, or the idea of a mountain from the idea of a valley, and


  :68

so there is not any les repugnance to our conceiving a God (tat is, a Being
supremely perfect) to whom existence is lacking (that is to say, to whom a
certain perfection is lacking), than to conceive of a mountain which has not
valley.”

The idea of Rene Descartes here seems to be that from the notion of God one
can deduce his existence. God is supremely perfect and must therefore exist.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

St. Thomas Aquinas is well known to have offered five ways to proving divine
existence using the cosmological arguments. The First Way argues from the
fact of motion to a Prime Mover. The Second Way argues form the contingent
being to a First Cause. The Third Way argues form the contingent beings to
Necessary Being. The Fourth Way argues degrees of value to Absolute Value
and the Fifth Way argues form the evidences of purposiveness in nature to a
Divine Designer.

Argument from Motion – the key term in the First Way is “change or in the
Latin of Aquinas, “motus”. The word motus is sometimes translated as
“movement” or “motion” but “change” is perhaps the best English equivalent.
For motus covers what we should normally call change of quality, change of
quantity, change of location or place.

Argument from Cause – the Second Way turns on the notion of causation and
existence. “We never observe, nor ever could,” says Aquinas, “something
causing itself for this would mean that preceded itself, and this is not possible.”
According to the Second Way, then, the mere existence of something requires of
cause. And in that case, says Aquinas, the existence of everything requires a
cause that is not itself caused to exist by anything other than itself. Why?
Because if there is no such cause, then nothing could exist at all, while
obviously some things do exist. He argues:

“Now if you eliminate a cause you also eliminate its effects, so that you cannot
have a last cause nor an intermediate one; unless you have a first cause.
Given therefore no stop in the series of causes, and hence no first cause, there
would be no intermediate causes either, and no last effect, and this would be
an open mistake. One is therefore forces to suppose some first cause, to which
everyone gives a name which is God”.

Argument from Contingency of Beings – According to the Second Way, God

exists because the present existence of things depends on the present existence
of an uncaused cause. The Third Way includes this suggestion, but it begins
differently from the Second Way. According to the Third Way, some things
come into existence and pass out of it. Some things, in other words, are


  :69

generated and corruptible. In Aquinas’ view, however, if everything were like

this, then would now have come a time when nothing existed at all, not all
things are generated and corruptible. Some are therefore ungenerated and
incorruptible, in Aquinas’ terminology, there are necessary beings.

In other words, everything in the world about us is contingent – that is to say,

it is true of each item that is might not have existed at all or might have existed
differently. The proof of this is that there was a time when it did not exist at
all. The existence of this page is contingent upon the prior activities of
lumberjacks, transport workers, paper manufacturers, printer, author, and
others. Everything points beyond itself to other things. Argues Aquinas, “If
everything were contingent, there must have been a time when nothing existed.
In this case, nothing could ever have come to exist for there would have been
no casual agency. Since there are things in existence, there must be
something which is not contingent, which is necessary, which cannot exist,
and this being we call God.”

Argument from the Degrees of Value to Absolute Value – the Fourth Way
recognizes that certain realities can be identified of their own value. But this
concept of value is hierarchical in the sense that one’s degree of value can be
transcended by another. Such as the concept that if there is something or
someone that is good, then there must be better or best. Thus, if there exists a
man who is imperfect, then there must be a higher being that transcends man
who is perfect and recognized with the Highest Value or Absolute Value. This is
only acknowledged to God who is the Absolute Value or the Summum Bonum
(Ultimate Goodness.)

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (OR TELEOLOGICAL)– This argument which is

the Fifth Way of St. Thomas Aquinas has always been the most popular of the
theistic arguments. Perhaps the most famous exposition of the argument from
the design is that of William Paley (1743 – 1805).

Paley’s analogy of the watch conveys the essence of the argument. Suppose
that while walking in a desert place I see a rock lying on the ground and ask
myself how this object came to exist.

I can properly attribute its presence to chance, meaning to say in this case the
operation of such natural forces as wind, rain, heat, frost and volcanic action.
However, if I see a watch lying on the ground I cannot reasonably account for it
in a similar way. A watch consist of a complex arrangement of wheels, cogs,
axles, springs and balances, all operating of time. It would be illogical to
attribute the formation and assembling of these metal parts into a functioning
machine to the chance operation of such factors as wind and rain. We are,
therefore, obliged to postulate an intelligent mind which is responsible for all
the phenomenon.


  :70

Paley argues that the natural world is a complex a mechanism, and as

manifestly designed, a super intelligent Designer responsible for it. This great
Designer or architect is what we call “God”.

FAITH AND REASON

We have gone through some arguments for the existence of God and possibly
seen some merits or flaws in these arguments. But the questions we will try to
raise now are: are these arguments really important on the personal level? Are
these essential to our faith-life? In trying to answer these questions, we cannot
but take into the fore the question of what really faith is and its apparent
opposition with reason.

The opinion that religious faith as the acceptance of certain beliefs by a

deliberate act of will are those of 17th century French thinkers Blaise Pascal
and Teminetennent,

1. Pascal’s Wager – Pascal’s best known contribution to philosophy is called

“Pascal’s Wager.” In this section of his Pennees, he speaks about the search for
God. For Pascal, that search is the quest for the meaning of life, because God
provides the hope that we can be redeemed from misery and death. According
to him, this search for God revolves around the idea of a wager, a bet. Thus he
said:

“Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wearing that God exists. Let us estimate
these chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose nothing. Wager, then,
without hesitation that he exists.”

Here, Pascal argues that we ought to be God exists. If we wager our lives that
God exists, we stand to gain eternal salvation if we are right and lose little if we
are wrong. If on the other hand, we wager our lives that there is no God, we
stand to gain little if we are right, but to lose eternal happiness if we are wrong.

In other words, Pascal does not give so much thought in logical demonstration
concerning God’s existence. We only need to bet, to believe that there is a God,
to have faith. We ought to wager that God exists and live accordingly. To do so,
he concords, is not irrational but exactly opposite. In our human situation, it is
not given to us to demonstrate that God exists, and yet an analysis of our
predicament suggests that faith in God is sensible. He believes that, “The heart
has its reasons, which reason does not know.” He goes on to say, “It is the
heart which experiences God not the reason. This is faith: God is felt by the
heart, not by the reason.”


  :71

2. James’ Will to Believe – William James argues in his famous essay The Will
to Believe (1897) that the existence or non – existence of God, of which there
can be no conclusive evidence either way, is a matter of great importance that
anyone who so desires has to stake his life upon the God – hypothesis. We are
obliged to bet our lives upon either this or the contrary possibility. He says:

“We cannot escape the issue by remaining skeptical and waiting for more light,
because, although we do avoid error in that way if religion be untrue, we lose
the good, if it is true, just as certainly as if positively choose to disbelieve

“If there is a personal God, our unwillingness to proceed on the supposition

that he is real may make it impossible for us to be accepted by him.”

3. Tennent’s View – A more recent philosophical theologian, F.R. Tennent

identifies faith with he element of willing venture in all discovery. Tennent
freely allows that there can be no general guarantee hat faith will be justified.
He says, “Hopeful experimenting has not produced the machine capable of
perpetual motion, and Columbus steered with confidence for Utopia, he would
not have found it. “ Faith always involves risks, but it is only by such risks that
human knowledge. He continued:

“The fruitfulness of a belief or of faith for the moral or religious life is one
thing, and the reality or existence of what is ideated and assumed is another.
There are instances in which a belief that is not true, in the sense of
corresponding with fact, may inspire one with lofty ideals and stimulate one to
strive to be a more worthy person.”

4. Tillich’s “Ultimate Concern” – Another philosopher, Paul Tillich, offered

his ideas on the subject. He contrasts two types of philosophy of religion, which
he describes as ontological and cosmological. The latter ( which is associated
with Aquinas ) thinks of God as being “ out there,” to be reached only at the
end of a long and hazardous process of reasoning; to find it him is to meet a
Stranger. For the ontological approach, which Tillich associated with Augustine
and Anselm, God is already present to us as the Ground of our own being. He
is identical with us; yet at the same time he infinitely transcends us. God is not
an other, an object which we may know or fail to know, but Being- itself, by
which we participate by the very fact of existing. To be ultimately concerned
about God is to express our true relationship to Being.

Tillich teaches that “Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned.”

Our ultimate concern is that which determines our being or not-being, not in
the sense of physical existence, but in the sense of”…the reality, the structure,
the meaning, and aim of existence.”


  :72

People are, in fact, ultimately concerned about many different things, for
example, their nation, their personal success and status; but these are only
primary concerns, and the elevation of a preliminary concern to the status of
ultimacy is idolatry. Tillich describes ultimate concerns as follows:
“Ultimate concern is the abstract translation of the great commandment: ‘The
Lord, our God is one; and shall love your God with all your heart, and with all
your soul, and with all you mind, and with all your strength.’ The religious
concern is ultimate; it exclude all other concerns from ultimate significance; it
makes them preliminary. The ultimate concern is unconditional, independent
of any conditions of character, desire or circumstances.”

5. Tolstoy’s Power of Life – Count Leo Tolstoy, at one point in his life almost
committed suicide as a result of the senselessness and meaninglessness he
finds in life. In his efforts to find the real meaning of life, he found out that life
can only become meaningful through faith in God. He argues that faith is an
irrational knowledge. But it gives and provides the meaning to life.

It would be best to note that in his search for the meaningfulness of life, he
tried to solicit the help of science and philosophy, for he thought, rational
knowledge might provide the answer for his question concerning life’s meaning.
But in all these efforts, he never succeeded. Let us take a look at an excerpt
from his Confessions.

MY CONFESSION
Leo Tolstoy

Life is a meaningless evil – that was incontestable, I said to myself. But I

still lived, still live, and all humanity has lived. How is that possible? Why does
it live, since it can refuse to live? Is it possible Schopenhauer and I alone are so
wise as to have comprehended the meaninglessness and evil of life?

The discussion of the vanity of life is not so cunning, and it has been
brought forward long ago, even by the simplest of men, and yet they have lived
and still live. Why do they continue living and never think of doubting the
reasonable of life? …

Thus, outside the rational knowledge, which had to me appeared as the

only one, I was inevitably led to recognize that all living humanity had a certain
other irrational knowledge, faith, which made it possible to live?

All irrationality of faith remained the same for me, but I could not help
recognizing that it alone gave to humanity answers to the questions of life, and,
in consequences of them, the possibility of living.


  :73

The rational knowledge brought me to the recognition that life was

meaningless – my life stopped, and I wanted to destroy myself. When I looked
around at people, at all humanity. I saw that people lived and asserted that
they knew the meaning of life. I looked back at myself: I lived so long as I knew
the meaning of life. As to other people, so even to me, did faith give the
meaning of life and the possibility of living.

Looking again at the people of other countries, contemporaries of mine

and those passed away, i saw again the same. Where life had been, there faith,
ever since humanity existed, had given the possibility of living and the chief
features of faith were everywhere one and the same.

…Consequently, in faith alone we find the meaning and possibility of life.

What, the, was faith? I UNDERSTAND THAT FAITH WAS NOT MERELY AN
EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOY SEEN, AND SO FORTH, NOT REVELATION (that
is only the description of one of the symptoms of faith), NOT THE RELATION
OF MAN TO MAN, NOT MERELY AB\N AGREEMENT WITH WHAT A MAN WAS
TOLD, AS FAITH WAS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD – THAT FAITH WAS THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE MEANING OF HUMAN LIFE. IN CONSEQUENCE OF
WHICH MAN DID NOT DESTROY HIMSELF, BUT LIVED. FAITH IS THE
POWER OF LIFE. IF A MAN LIVES, HE BELIEVES IN SOMETHING.IF HE DID
NOT BELIEVE THAT HE OUGHT TO LIVE FOR SOME PURPOSES, HE WOULD
NOT LIVE IF HE DOES NOT SEE AND UNDERSTAND THE PHANTASM OF
THE FINITE. IF HE BELIEVES IN THAT FINITE, HE MUST BELIEVE IN THE
INFINITE. WITHOUT FAITH ONE CANNOT LIVE.

EVIL IN GOD’S WORLD: A SPECIAL PROBLEM

Epicurus unanswered questions; “Is God willing to prevent evil,

but not able? then is he impotent. Is God able but not willing? then is he
malevolent. Is God both able and willing, whence then is evil!”

The Nature of the Problem

We have spoken of the nature of God’s providence and have noted that it
is universal. God is in control of all that occurs. He has a plan for the entire
universe and all of time, and is at work bringing about that good plan. But a
shadow falls across this comforting doctrine: the problem of evil. We are
dealing here with a problem that has occupied the attention of some of the
greatest minds of the Christian church, intellects of such stature as St.
Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Contemporary philosophers and


  :74

theologians as well admit that the problem of evil is one of the most vexing
problems humans face.

The evil that precipitates this dilemma is of two general types: On one
hand, there is what is usually called . . “natural evil.” This is evil that does not
involve human will and acting, but is merely an aspect of nature which seems
to work against man’s welfare. There are destructive forces of nature: storms,
floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, and the like.
These catastrophic occurrences produce large losses of life as well as property.
And much suffering and loss of human lives are caused by diseases such as
cancer, multiple sclerosis, and a host of illnesses.

The other type of evil is termed “moral evil.” These are evils which can be
traced to the choice and action of free moral agents. Here we find war, crime,
cruelty, corruption, class struggles, discrimination, slavery, injustices too
numerable to mention.

Themes for Dealing With the Problem of Evil

Admittedly, a total solution to the problem of evil is beyond human

ability. So what we will do here it to present several themes which in
combination will help us deal with the problem. These themes will be
consistent with the basic tenets of philosophical theology.

Evil as a Necessary Accompaniment of the Creation of Man. Archbishop

Desmond Tutu of South Africa used to say: “God created us for freedom. God
insists that we have to be human and to be human is to be free!” Man would
not be man if he did not have free will. This has given rise to the argument that
God cannot create a genuinely free being and at the same time guarantee that
this being will always do exactly what God desires of him. If man is to be truly
human, he must have the ability to desire to have and do things some of which
will not be what God wants man to have and to do. Apparently, God felt that,
for reasons which were evident to him but which we can only partly
understand, it was better to make human beings than androids. And evil was a
necessary accompaniment of God’s good plan to make man fully human and
free.

A Reevaluation of What Constitutes Good and Evil. Some of what we

term good and evil may not be that. It is, therefore, necessary to take a hard
look at what constitutes good and evil. We are inclined to identify good with
whatever is pleasant to us at the present and evil, with what is personally
unpleasant, uncomfortable or disturbing. Yet, Philosophical Theology seems to
see things somewhat differently.

First, we will briefly consider the divine dimension. Good is not to be

defined in terms of what brings personal pleasure to man in a direct fashion.


  :75

Good is to be defined in relationship to the will and being of God. Good is that
glorifies him, fulfills his will, and conforms to his nature.

In considering the divine dimension, we must also take note of the

superior knowledge and wisdom of God. Even in regard to my own welfare, I
may not be the best judge of what is good and what is evil. My judgment is
often fallible. It may seem good to me to eat sweet, sticky candy. But to my
dentist, it may seem quite different. It may seem good and thrilling to a child to
use a match as his/her plaything, but to his/her parents using a match as a
playing is entirely different and dangerous matter.

Second, we must consider the dimension of time or duration. Some of

the evils which we experience are actually very disturbing on a short-term
basis, but in the long term work a much larger good. The pain of the dentist’s
drill and the suffering of post-surgical recovery may seem quite severe evils,
but they are in actuality rather small in light of the long-range effects that flow
from them. Philosophical Theology encourages us to evaluate our present and
temporary sufferings and the seeming evils that befall us sub specie aeternitatis
(in the light of eternity).

Third, there is the question of the extent of the evil. We tend to be very
individualistic in our assessment of good and evil. But this is a large and
complex world, and God has many persons to care for. The Saturday downpour
that spoils a family picnic may seem like an evil to me, but be a much greater
good to the farmers whose parched fields need the rains, and ultimately to a
much greater number of people who depend upon the farmers’ crops for food.
What is evil from a narrow perspective may, therefore, be only an
inconvenience and, from a larger frame of reference, a much greater good to a
much larger number.

Evil in General as the Result of Sin in General. One cardinal doctrine of

philosophical theology is the fact of racial sin. By this we do not mean the sin
of race against race but rather the fact that the entire human race has sinned
and is now sinful. Philosophical Theology terms this as “The Fall”—man’s first
sin, a radical change took place in the whole universe. In its head, Adam, the
entire human race violated God’s will and fell from the state of innocence in
which God had created mankind.

Thus, it appears likely that a whole host of natural and moral evils may
have resulted from the sin of mankind. We live in the world which God
created, but it is not quite as it was when God finished it, it is now a fallen and
broken world. And part of the evils which we now experience as a result of the
curse of God upon creation.
More serious and more obvious, however, is the effect of the fall in the
promotion of moral evil, that is, evil which is related to human willing and


  :76

acting. There is no question that much of the pain and unhappiness of human
beings is the result of moral and natural evils.

Additional reading:

EVIL by David Hume (1711 – 1776)

The whole earth, believe me, Philo, is cursed and polluted (said Demea). A
perpetual war is kindled amongst all living creatures. Necessity, hunger, want,
stimulates the strong and courageous: fear, anxiety, terror, agitate the weak
and infirm. The first entrance into life gives anguish to the newborn infant and
to its wretched parent: weakness, impotence, distress, attend such stage of life
and ‘tis at last finished in agony and horror.
Observe too, says Philo, curious artifices of nature, in order to embitter the life
of every living being. The stronger prey upon the weaker, and keep them in
perpetual terror and anxiety. The weaker too, in their turn, often prey upon the
stronger… and molest them without relaxation. Consider that innumerable
race of insects, which either are bred on the body of each animal, or flying
about infix their stings in him. These insects have others still than themselves,
which torment them. And thus on each hand, before and behind, above and
below, every animal is surrounded with enemies, which incessantly seek
misery and destruction.
Man alone, said Demea, assume to be, in part, an exception to this rule. For by
combination in society, he can easily master lions, tigers, and bears and whose
greater strength and agility naturally enable these to prey upon him.
On the contrary, it is here chiefly, cried Philo, hat the uniform and equal
maxims of nature are most apparent. Man, it is true, can, by combinations
surmount all his real enemies, and become master of the whole animal
creations, but does he not immediately raise up to himself imaginary enemies,
the demons of his fancy, who haunt him with superstitious terrors, and blast
every enjoyment in life? His pleasure, as he imagines, becomes, in their eyes, a
crime; his food and repose give them rage and offense; his very sleep and
dreams furnish new materials to anxious fear; and even death, his refuge from
every other ill, presents only the dread of endless and immeasurable woes. Nor
does the wolf molest: more the timid flock, than superstition does the anxious
breast of wretched mortals.
Besides, consider, Demea, this very society, by which we surmount those wild
beats, our natural enemies; what new enemies does it not raise to is? What woe
and misery does it not occasion? Man is the greatest enemy of man.
Oppression, injustices, contempt, violence, sedition, war, treachery, fraud: by
these they mutually torment each other; and they would soon dissolve that
society which they had formed, were it not for the dread of still greater ills,
which must attend their separation?
But though those external insults, said Demea, from animals, from men, from
all the elements, which assault is, from a frightful catalogues of woes, they are


  :77

nothing in comparison of these which arise within ourselves, from distempered

condition of our mind and body. How many lie under the lingering torment of
diseases?... the disorders of the mind…though more secret, are not perhaps
less dismal and vexatious. Remorse, shame, anguish, rage, disappointment,
anxiety, fear, dejection, despair; who has ever passed through life without cruel
inroads from these tormentors? How many have scarcely every felt better
sensations? Labor and poverty, so abhorred by everyone, are the certain lot of
the far greater number; and those few privileged persons, who enjoy ease and
opulence, never reach contempt or true felicity. All the goods in life united
would not make a very happy man: but all the ills united would make a wretch
indeed; and anyone of them almost (and who can possess all), is sufficient to
render life ineligible.
Were a stranger to drop, on a sudden, into this world, I would show him, as a
specimen of its ill, a hospital full of diseases, a prison crowded with malefactors
and debtors, a field of battle, strewed with carcasses, a fleet floundering in the
ocean, a nation languishing under tyranny, famine, or pestilence. To turn the
gay side of life to him, and give him a notion of its pleasures, whither should I
conduct him? To a ball, to an opera, to court? He might justly think that I was
just showing him a diversity of distress and sorrow…
Ask yourself, ask any of your acquaintances, whether they would live over
again the last ten or twenty years of their lives. No! but the next twenty, they
say, will be better:

And from the drags of life, hope to receive

What the first sprightly running could not give.

Thus at last they find (such is the greatest of human misery: it reconciles even
contradictions) that they complain, at once, of the shortness of life, and of its
vanity and sorrow.
And is it possible, Cleanthes, said Philo, that after all these reflections, and
infinitely more, which might be suggested, you can still persevere in you
anthropomorphism, and assert the moral attributes of the Deity, his justice,
benevolence, mercy, and rectitude, to be of the same nature with these virtues
in human creatures? His power we allow infinite; whatever he wills is executed:
but neither man nor any other animal is happy: therefore he does not will their
happiness. His wisdom is infinite: he is never mistaken in choosing the means
to any end: but the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity:
therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compose of
human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than
these. In what respect, then do his benevolence and mercy resemble the
benevolence and mercy of men?
Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered.
Is he willing to prevent evil, but notable? Then is he impotent? Is he able but
not willing, then he is malevolent. Is he both able willing? Whence then is
evil?...


  :78

Summary
Man and God

Man before God. Man as being with reason as well as with faith.

Lesson 1: Philosophy of Religion: Basic Concept

 Is there a god? What is a god anyway?
 Human experience cannot ignore questions concerning God. It is not
important if one is a believer or not. The questions always find its way
into human curiosity.
 Philosophy of Religion: the branch of philosophy that specifically
concerns with the aspect of God.
 Again, Philo. of Religion is not limited to a believer nor religious
people.
 Its program is to demonstrate rationally the existence of God.
 It is a philosophical thinking about religion.
 It studies the concept and propositions of theology and reasoning of
theologians and analyzes concepts such as God, holy, salvations,
worship, creation, eternal life, miracle, etc.
 For the purpose of our study we will deal more on the Jewish-Christian
concept of God, seeking a philosophical understanding of its various
aspects.
 God— Latin: theos,/ Deus
 Atheism: (not-God-ism) denies God’s existence
 Agnosticism (not-know-ism) neither denies nor agrees due to the
absence of sufficient reasons. don’t know, don’t care.
 Skepticism: doubting God’s existence.
 Daism: absentee God, there was a God, but now, he’s gone.
 Theism: Believing in God
 Monotheism: Believing only in one God.
 Polytheism: Believing in many gods.
 Pantheism: (God-is-all-ism) God is identical with nature.

 What makes God a god? Jewish-Christian important and essential

attributes of God.
 Infinite, Unlimited and Self-existent
 Without end, cannot be exhausted.
 Eternal, no beginning neither end, absolutely independent.
 Creator
 Creation ex nihilo: creation out of nothing. The very source of
existence is the existence without source.
 Personal
 The God of I, not it: me and You, the higher you.
 Loving God
 God is love, Agape () unconditional love


  :79

 The God who loves, not for any reason, but love of the person in its
purest.
 Holy
 Totally other: not my thoughts, not my way… totally his.
 Totally not me… totally other.

Lesson 2: Arguments for God’s Existence

 Arguments for God’s existence, can be
 Ontological ( onto-essence)
 Purely philosophical: Focusing on its essence and inner implication of
God’s existence.
 Discussion on the idea of God, how one can think of a god.
 Cosmological ( cosmos- world)
 Arguments that starts from the world around, through evidences.
Things present in the world speak and point to the existence of a god.

 Ontological Argument
 St. Anselm is one of the Christian Church’s original thinkers. He was the
Archbishop of Canterbury.
 In his book the Proslogion, he philosophies that God is a being that
which nothing greater can be conceived.
 Whatever is the greatest entity or being, one can ever thought of,
which he cannot think of anything greater to which, that would be
god.
 Ontologically, we don’t need any evidence from the physical world
just to prove that there is a god. The existence of God can be
thought of, and can be reasoned—can be understood.
 Rene Descarte’s Meditation
 God is supremely perfect and must therefore exist. Another
ontological argument.
 If all of us believed that a triangle has three angles and three sides
even we don’t see one, then the fact that we can think of an idea of
Perfect Being, reasoned that God exists as the supremely perfect
being.
 St. Thomas Cosmological Arguments
 Five ways of St. Thomas: (Quin Quae Viae) 1.Prime motion, 2.First Cause,
3.Necessary Being, 4.Absolute Value, 5.Divine Designer (purpose)
 things are in motion. Time.
 If things do change, something makes it change.
Things move because something moved it. The one
that make all things moved and change yet in itself
do not move nor change is God.
 God is the Unmoved mover.
 Argument from Cause: primera causa (first cause).

ST. THOMAS


  :80

 Everything exist was caused to exist. Beings are beings because of

cause, which in effect be a cause of another existence. Things are
series of cause and effect.
 God is the first cause that started the continuous cycle of cause
and effect.
 God is the Uncaused cause.
 Argument from contingency of Beings.
 God is the necessary Being. From cause and effect, God now is the
reason of reasons.
 Things in this world have certain purpose or necessity of existence,
yet God don’t have any purpose other than to exist.
 His existence is the purpose of his existence. Because it is from his
existence that all else exist.
 If God ceased to exist, everything else will lose its existence.
Therefore God should exist, --it is his purpose.
 William Palley’s Teleological Argument: The Design.
 Stemming from the above argument, things don’t only exist for a certain
purpose. Palley added that; everything—its existence and purpose—exist
in a specific design connected with other existence.
 The world is a very complex mechanism where everything that exist in it
were designed to serve a purpose—Something or Someone must have
designed it this way.
 God is the Great Designer, the architect—the programmer.

Lesson 3: Faith and Reason

 Faith – the acceptance of certain beliefs by a deliberate act of will.
 Pascal’s Wager—The search for God is a quest for the meaning of life. (as
quoted from his essay Pennees)
 God provides the hope, it is better to bet our life hoping that there is
God, than to bet our life believing that there is none.
 Betting our life in God, then when we die we learned that there is
no God, and then we lose nothing. Any way there is no God, no life
after death, no more—The end.
 Betting our life that there is no God, then when we die, we found
out that He is there, alive. We lose a lot, we end up suffering,
regretting for not preparing for the life after death—Endless
remorse.
 Pascal’s faith in God is sensible:
 The hearth has its reasons, which reason does not know.
 It is the heart which experiences God not the reason.
 This is Faith—God is felt by the heart, not by the reason.
 William James’ The Will to Believe
 …we lose the good, if it is true, just as certainly as if we positively
choose to believe.


  :81

 One may not be able to convince another why he believe in God, but
anyone who has faith would say they choose to believe in God.
 F.R. Tennent’s View—Faith is the willing venture in all discoveries.
 For Tennent, faith may not be justified, yet for him it is worth the risk.
 Faith always involve risks, but it is only by such risks that human
knowledge is extended.
 Paul Tillich’s Ultimate Concern
 Ontologically—God is the ground of our own being.
 Cosmologically—God is identical with us.
 To be ultimately concerned about God is to express our true
relationship to Being.
 The ultimate concern is unconditional, independent of any
conditions of character, desire or circumstances.
 Leo Tolstoy’ Power of Life
 Life can only be meaningful through faith in God.
 Faith is the irrational knowledge, yet provides meaning.
 My Confession
 Irrational knowledge—faith—which made it possible to live.
 Where life have been, there faith, ever since humanity existed…
 Faith was the knowledge of meaning of human life.
 Faith is the power of life… With out faith once cannot live.

 David Hume’s EVIL

 Every animal is surrounded with enemies…
 Man is the greatest enemy of man…
 Evil is the absence of Good.
 If God is willing he can prevent evil, if God is all-powerful he can stop
evil, but why there is evil?
 His wisdom is infinite; he is never mistaken in choosing the mean to
any end.

MAN AND THE MEANING OF LIFE

After studying this lesson, you should be able to:

1. Know the fact that man faced a lot of struggles in life.

2. Understand how man can use these struggles on his quest for the real
meaning of human existence.

 MAN: HIS QUEST FOR MEANING

The task in this portion of the manual is not to show the human existence as
such is meaningful; instead, it is to show the fact of the man quest towards
finding and realizing the meaning of human existence.


  :82

But is it a human imperative that a man should find meaning in his existence.
Can man impose a meaning in his existence? Is the meaning of human
existence something to be made or to be found? Can man finds meaningful life
amidst various kinds of crises?
It is in this philosophical questions that Viktor Frankl found meaning in life.
He has proven that man can surpass different kinds of turmoils in life. What
Frankl has shown is that man can develop an ability or skill to handle
whatever pain, be it dire poverty, hardship, suffering, and frustration which
man encounters in life. Exactly, it is his dehumanizing behind-bars
experiences in the Nazi prison camps that prompted him to found logotherapy.
Let us read the following excerpts from the book of Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s
Search For Meaning”…

Excerpts from MAN’S SEARCH FOR MEANING

Viktor Frankl

The Meaning of Life

I doubt whether a doctor can answer this question in general terms. For
the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day, and from hour to
hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather
the specific meaning of a person’s life at a given moment. To put the question
in general terms would be comparable to the question posed to chess
champion: “Tell me, Master, what is the best move in the world?” There simply
is no such thing as the best or even a good move apart from a particular
situation in a game and the particular personality of one’s opponent. The same
holds for human existence. One should not search for an abstract meaning of
life. Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life to carry out a
concrete assignment which demands fulfillment. Therein he cannot be
replaced, nor can his life be repeated. Thus, everyone’s task is as unique as is
his specific opportunity to implement it.

As each situation in life represents a challenge to man and presents

problem for him to solve, the question of the meaning of life may actually be
reserved. Ultimately, man should not ask what meaning of his life is, but rather
he must recognize that it is HE who is asked. In a word, each man is
questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life;
to life he can only respond by being responsible. Thus, logotherapy sees in
responsibleness the very essence of human existence.

The Essence of Existence

This emphasis on responsibleness is reflected in the categorical

imperative of logotherapy, which is: “LIVE AS IF YOU WERE LIVING FOR THE
SECOND TIME AND AS IF YOU HAD ACTED THE FIRST TIME AS WRONGLY


  :83

AS YOU ARE ABOUT TO ACT NOW!”. It seems to me that there is nothing

which would stimulate a man’s sense of responsibleness more than this
maxim, which invites him to imagine first that the present is past, and second,
that the past may yet to be changed and amended. Such a precept confronts
him with life’s finiteness as well as the finality of what makes out of both his
life and himself.

Logotherapy tries to make the patient fully aware of his own

responsibleness: therefore, it must leave to him the option for what, to what,
on to whom he understands himself to be responsible. That is why a
logotherapist is the least tempted of all psychotherapist to impose value
judgments on his patients, for he will never permit the patient to pass to the
doctor the responsibility of judging.

It is therefore up to the patient to decide whether he should interpret his life

task as being responsible to society or to his own conscience. There are people,
however who do not interpret their own lives merely in terms of a task assigned
to them but also in terms of the taskmaster who has assigned it to them.

Logotherapy is neither teaching nor preaching. It is far remoed from logical

reasoning as it is from moral exhortation. To put it figuratively, the role played
by a logotherapist is that of an eye specialist rather than that of a painter. A
painter tries to convey to us a picture of the world as he sees it; an
ophthalmologist tries to enable us to see the world as it really is. The
logotherapist’s role consist of widening and broadening the visual field of the
patient so that the spectrum of potential meaning becomes conscious and
visible to him.

By declaring that man is responsible and must actualize the potential meaning
of his life, I wish to stress that the true meaning of life is to be discovered in the
world rather than within man or his own psyche, as though it were a closed
system. I have termed this constitutive characteristic “ the self-transcendence
of human existence.” It denotes the fact that being human always points, and
is directed, to something, or someone, other than oneself – be it a meaning to
fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself – by
giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love – the more human
he is and the more he actualizes himself. What is called self-actualization is not
an attainable aim at all, for the simple reason that the more one would strive
for it, the more he would miss it. In other words, self-actualization is possible
only as a side-effect of self-transcendence.

Thus far we have shown that the meaning of life always changes, but that it
never ceases to be. According logotherapy, we can discover this meaning in life
in three different ways: (1) by creating a work or doing a deed; (2) by
experiencing something or encountering someone; and (3) by the attitude we
take toward unavoidable suffering. The first, the way of achievement or


  :84

accomplishment, is quite obvious. The second and third need further

elaboration.

The second way of finding a meaning in life is by experiencing something- -

such as goodness, truth and beauty - - by experiencing nature and culture or,
last but not the least, by experiencing another n human being in his very
uniqueness - - by loving him.

The Meaning of Love

Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the inner core of his
personality. No one can become fully aware of the very essence of another
human being unless he loves him. By his love he is enable to see the essential
traits and features in the beloved person; and even more, he sees that which is
potential in him, which is not yet actualized but yet ought to be actualized.
Furthermore, by his love, the loving person enables the beloved person to
actualized these potentialities. By making him aware of what he can be and of
what and how he should become, he makes these potentialities come true.

In logotherapy, love is not interpreted as a mere epiphenomenon of sexual dries

and instincts in the sense of a so-called sublimation. Love is a primary a
phenomenon as sex. Normally, sex is a mode of expression for love. Sex is
justified, even sanctified, as soon as, but only as long as, it is vehicle of love.
Thus love is not understood as mere side-effect of sex; rather, sex is a way of
expressing the experience of that ultimate togetherness which is called love.

The third way of finding a meaning in life is by suffering.

The Meaning of Suffering

We must never forget that we may also find meaning in life even when
confronted with a hopeless situation, when facing a fate that cannot be
changed. For what then matters is to bear witness to the uniquely human
potential at its best, which is to transform a personal tragedy into a triumph, to
turn one’s predicament into a human achievement. When we are no longer able
to change a situation – just think of an incurable disease such as inoperable
cancer – we are challenged to change ourselves.

Let me cite a clear-cut example: Once, elderly general practitioner consulted

me because if his severe depression. He could not overcome the loss of his wife
who have died two years ago and whom he had loved above all else. Now, how
could I help him? What should I tell him? Well, I refrained from telling him
anything bit instead confronted him with the question, “What would have
happened, Doctor, if you had died first and your wife would have had to survive


  :85

you?” “oh”, “he said,” for her this would have been terrible; how she would have
suffered! “Whereupon I replied, “ You see, Doctor, such a suffering has been
spared her, and it was you who have spared her this suffering – to be sure, at
the price that now you have to survive and mourn her.” He said no word but
shook my hand and calmly left my office. In some way, suffering ceases to be
suffering at the moment it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice.

Of course, this was no therapy in the proper sense since first, his despair was
no disease; and second, I could not change his fate; I could not revive his wife.
But in that moment I did succeed in changing his attitude toward his
unalterable fate in as much as from that time on he could at least see a
meaning in his suffering. It is one of the basic tenets of logotherapy that man’s
main concern as not to gain pleasure or to avoid pain but rather to see a
meaning in his life. That is why man is even ready to suffer, on the condition,
to be sure, that his suffering has meaning…

There are situations in which one is cut off from the opportunity to do one’s
work or to enjoy one’s life; but what never can be ruled out is the
unavoidability of suffering. In accepting this challenge to suffer bravely, life has
a meaning literally to the end. In other words, life’s meaning is an
unconditional one, for it even includes the potential meaning of unavoidable
suffering.

Let me recall that which was perhaps the deepest experience I had in the
concentration camp. The odds of surviving the camp were no more than one in
twenty-eight, as can easily be verified by exact statistics. It did not even seem
possible, let alone probable, that the manuscript of my first book, which I had
hidden in my coat when I arrived at Auschwitz, would ever be rescued. Thus, I
had to undergo and to overcome the loss of my mental child. And now it
seemed as if nothing and no one would survive me; neither a physical nor
mental child of my own! So I found myself confronted with the question
whether under such circumstances my life was ultimately void of any meaning.

Nor yet did I notice that an answer to this question with which I was wrestling
so passionately was already in store for me, and that soon thereafter this
answer would be given to me. This was the case when I had to surrender my
clothes and in turn inherited the worn=out rags of an inmate who had already
been sent to the gas chamber immediately after his arrival at the Auschwitzs
railway station. Instead of the many pages of my manuscript, I found in the
pocket of the newly acquired coat one single page torn out a Hebrew prayer
book, containing the most important Jewish prayer, Shema Ysrael. How
should I have interpreted such a “coincidence” other than as a challenge to lie
my thoughts instead of merely putting them on paper?

A bit later, I remember, it seemed to me that I would die in the near future. In
this critical situation, however, my main concern was different form that of


  :86

most of my comrades. Their question was, “Will we survive the camp? For, if
not, all this suffering has no meaning.” The question which beset me was. “Has
all this suffering, this dying around us, a meaning? For a life whose meaning
depends upon such a happenstance – as whether one escapes or not –
ultimately would not be worth living at all.”

So for Frankl, man can find meaning in his existence in a three-fold manner,
namely:
1. By doing a life-project;
2. By experiencing value, particularly in the context of love; and
3. By finding meaning in suffering.


  :87

MAN IN RELATION TO HIS WORK

After studying this lesson, you should be able to:

1. Know Man’s human nature and how to find meaning into it.
2. Understand man’s view of work and how through it, man will
find meaningful life.

An individual’s innate desire to know prompts him to search for truth and
meaning. This intellectual search is inevitable insofar as man is always
bewildered by the tremendous paradox of human life. According to Florentino
Timbreza, “to philosophize means to search for meaning, and philosophy is
understood as man’s intellectual search for the ultimate meaning of human
existence.” Indeed, it is precisely because human life is a great problem that
every individual feels the need to search for an answer and this intellectual
quest is known as philosophy.

To search for meaning is to know first the condition of man and how
meaningful are the human nature in the concrete human existence.

Human condition we mean; It encloses the somatic, behavioral, and attitudinal

levels of human nature. In other words, human condition absorbs and
embraces the totality of human nature.

Secondly, By human condition is meant the state of being human. If this is

expressed in a form of a question it shall posit the question “ how is it to be
human/” The “how” to be human presupposes the state of being human.
Thus, to talk of human condition is to consider how man exist and lives
distinctively as a human being.
Thirdly, If man has a distinctive way of existing and living how does man
realize this? Human condition requires not only an understanding of the state
of being human, but also of the meaning of being human.
Man should encounter the sense, purpose, and direction of being human so
that man’s existence could have meaning. Otherwise, human existence will
become nothing else but a mere absurdity.

MAN: THE WORKER

On account of man as the shepherd of being, the builder of the world,

and the gardener of the world, man, in the Christian perspective, is also called
God's co-creator of the world. It is in view of man as the worker that all these
are realized.


  :88

Work is one of the basic aspects of the human person's being-with-

others-in-the-world. Through work, the network of human relatedness is well-
expressed. Thus, man works in order to supply his needs and the heeds of
mankind. We cannot deny the social implications of work inasmuch as
everything which man does always bears an inherent social character.
But what is the meaning of work? What are its kinds? And what are its
Christian implications?

THE MEANING OF WORK

Work means any activity of man whereby man exerts physical and/or
other powers in order to make something. By dint of work, man exerts effort for
the purpose of the production of goods. Holistically, work involves the whole
human person. Work, therefore, is not just a mere human activity; it is a
personal human activity. It is the whole person that works and not just man's
hands, feet, eyes, or body. Since man as a person is an embodied subjectivity,
it is the whole man who is involved in work. Glenn, a recognized Catholic
author, has this to say:

All human effort unites in different proportions the activities of the body
(muscular effort), intellect (mental effort), and will (moral effort). And any
human effort, no matter what proportion of muscle, mind, and will will be
nvolved, which tends partially or entirely to the production. , of goods,
utilities, commodities, values... is labor or work.

If work, in the strict sense of the word, involves body, intellect, and will, then,
work is distinctly a human activity. Thus, non-human creatures do not work
since they do not have both intellect and will. They only act in accordance with
their instinct patterned according to God's plan and purpose of His creation. To
this, Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter "On Human Work" says the
following:

Work is one of the characteristics that distinguishes man from the rest of
the creature whose activity for sustaining their lives cannot be called
work. Only man is capable of work, and only man works at the same
time by work bears a particular mark of a person operating within a
community

As a distinctly personal human activity, work identifies man in his

dignity. Through work, man establishes a sense of superiority over and above
other creatures, since, through it, man produces his own food. Man works in
order for him to live. Work then is a basic dimension of human existence.


  :89

Man's life is built up everyday. From work it derives its specific “dignity” says
the author of the encyclical letter, “On Human Work.”

Aside from considering work as something which specifies human

dignity, work can also be understood as a sacred call from God. It is not true
that work originates as God's punishment to man's first parents so that labor
is treated of as a consequence of sin. This means that even if man did not sin,
he would still be inclined to work. According to Pope Leo XI11: "Man, even
before the fall, was not destined to be wholly idle, Likewise, St. Thomas
Aquinas argues that man has a natural inclination towards work. God, through
work, invites man to be His co-creator. Indeed, by his work, man becomes
God's co-creator. Thus, it is in the spectrum of Christian belief that man has to
work hard in order for him to be really God's co-creator as he paints and
beautifies the world.

Further, work can also be considered as the founding entity of man and
society. It is impossible for man to live and exist if man does not work. St. Paul,
in the Bible, makes it clear: "He who does not work should not eat.” Besides, if
man works, it would be impossible also that his produce is only intended for
his own satisfaction. In this case, work bears within itself a two-fold aspect,
namely: individual or personal and social. It is personal m the sense that the
individual human person exerts his powers for the production of goods. It is
social in the sense that the State will benefit from the produce of man's work.
Besides, the products of human effort will make the common good more
secure.

KINDS OF WORK

Everything that man does which involves the process of producing the
goods and services that mankind needs and desires is work. In this process,
work can be classified into several kinds, to wit: manual, clerical, professional,
management, entrepreneurial, invention, and intellectual.

Manual work is the most common form of work. Almost everybody who is
physically fit to work can engage in this kind of work. Clerical work, more or
less, can be acquired through a specialized clerical course. Professional work
refers to the work which is done by learned individuals who are college
graduates or those who are holding post graduate degrees, e-g- journalist,
businessman, surgeon, lawyer, clergyman, physician, teacher, etc. Work of
management refers to the work which is done by managers, superintendents,
etc. in various industries. Likewise, capital owners also engage in this kind of
work. Work of enterpriser refers to the work which is done by small-scale
business oriented individuals who set to establish their own business. Work of
invention refers to that kind of work which is done by scientists in their
laboratories. This kind of work obviously requires a lot of brains and creativity.


  :90

Intellectual work is usually attributed to the thinkers who are labeled as

scholars, philosophers, including scientists.

CHRISTIAN IMPLICATIONS OF WORK

The Bible does not say that man should do nothing except work. In fact,
the Bible even narrates that God "rested" on the seventh day- This implies that
the worker is more important than his work. It is true that after the Fall, work
becomes compulsory to man. Had man remained innocent, work should have
been his delightful concern- After the Fall, man assumes his lot to work so that
he can sustain himself. But this does not mean that man is cursed by God so
that he should do nothing but work.

It is a fundamental fact that the human person, who is the worker, is

more important than his work. When work is overemphasized than the worker,
the worker would find his work meaningless. It is man's sense of responsibility
that makes work meaningful. And man can only find an authentic sense of
responsibility when his work is always intertwined with his belief in God.

To the Christian, work is performed as a service to God. It is the attitude

of the Christian that work is his grateful response to God who is the Creator
and Sustainer of his life. The Christian is not ashamed of his work since the
nature of his work is not important because for him what is important is his
linkage to God in his work. In this light, the Christian believes that through his
work, he glorifies God. Work, then, for the Christian is service both to God and
to man.

Suffice it to say that for the Christian, each man is called by God to work
(so that man acts as His co-creator) and that any kind of work is man’s active
service to God, his Creator, his Redeemer, and Sustainer.

SUMMARY

1. Work refers to any activity which man does through which he exerts
physical and/or other efforts in order to produce or to make something.

2. Work involves the whole human person since man is an embodied

subjectivity; the self or the whole man/ therefore/ cannot be dichotomized from
work.

3. Since work involves not only the human body but also man's intellect
and will/ work is exclusive to man. This is underscored by Pope Paul II in his
encyclical letter titled: “On Human Work".


  :91

4. Through work, man establishes his dignity. Through work man

produces his own food and thereby makes himself superior over other
creatures which cannot, on their own accord, produce their own food.

5. Work is not a curse from God due to human sinfulness since, even if
man did not sin, man is still inclined to work- This is emphasized by both
St.Thomas Aquinas and Pope Leo XIII.

6. Work is the founding entity on man and society; work has a two-fold
aspect, viz.: personal and social.

7. There are several kinds of work, to wit: manual, clerical, professional,

management, enterpriser, invention, and intellectual.

For the Christian, the worker is more important than work. Work is man's
service to God; it is man's grateful response to God his Creator and Sustainer.
The Christian is not ashamed of the nature of his work because he finds God m
his work. Work is man’s way of glorifying God; it is his gesture of service to
both God and his fellowman.

ALIENATED LABOR
Karl Marx

The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his
production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes a cheaper
commodity the more commodities he produces. The increase in the value of the
world of things is directly proportional to the decrease in the value of human
world. Labor not only produces commodities. It also produces itself and the
worker as a commodity, and indeed in the same proportion as its produces
commodities in general.

This fact simply indicates that the object which labor produces, its product,
stands opposed to it as an alien thing, as a power independent of the producer.
The product of labor is labor embodied and made objective in a thing. It is the
objectification of labor. The realization of labor is its objectification. In the
viewpoint of political economy, this realization of labor appears as the diminution
of worker, objectification as the loss of subservience to the object, and the
appropriation as alienation (Entfremdung), as externalization (Entausserung).

So much the realization of labor appear as diminution that worker is

diminished to the point of starvation. So much does objectification appear as loss
of the object that the worker robbed of the most essential objects that not only of
life but also of work. Indeed, work itself becomes a thing of which he can take
possession only with the greatest effort and with the most unpredictable


  :92

interruptions. So much does the appropriation of the object appear as alienation

that the more objects the worker produces, the fewer he can own and more he
falls under the domination of his product, of capital.

All these consequences follow from the fact that the worker is related to the
product of his labor as to an alien object. For it is clear according to this premise:
The more the workers exert himself, the more powerful becomes the alien
objective world which he fashions against himself, the poorer he and his inner
world become, the less there is that belongs to him. It is the same in religion. The
more man attributes to God, the less he retains himself. The worker puts his life
into the object; then it no longer belongs to him but to the object. The greater this
activity, the poorer is the worker. What the product of his work is, he is not. The
greater this product is, the smaller he is himself. The externalization of the
worker in his product means not only that his work becomes an object, an
external existence, but also that its exist outside him independently, alien, an
autonomous power, opposed to him. The life he has given to the object confronts
his as hostile and alien…

Up to now we have considered the alienation, the externalization of the

worker only from one side: his relationship to the products of his labor. But
alienation is shown not only in the result but also in the process of production, in
the producing activity itself. How could the worker stand in an alien relationship
to the product of his creativity if he did not alienate himself from himself in the
very act of production? After all, the product is only the resume of activity, of
production. If the product of work is externalization: production itself must be
active externalization, externalization of activity. Only alienation- -and
externalization in the activity of labor itself - - is summarized in the alienation of
the object of labor.

What constitutes the externalization of labor?

First is the fact that labor is external to the laborer - - that is, it is not part
of his nature - - and that the worker does not affirm himself in his work but
denies himself, feels miserable and unhappy, develops no free physical and
mental energy but mortifies his flesh and ruins his mind. The worker, therefore,
feels at ease only outside work, and during work he is outside himself. He is at
home when he is not working and when he is working he is not at home. His
work, therefore, is not voluntary, but coerced, forced labor. It is not the
satisfaction of a need but only a means to satisfy other needs. Its alien character
is obvious from the fact that as soon as no physical or other pressure exist, labor
is avoided like the plague. External labor, labor in which man is externalized, is
labor of self-sacrifices, of penance. Finally, the external nature of work for the
worker appears in the fact that it is not his own but another person’s, that in
work he does not belong to himself but to someone else. In religion the
spontaneity of human imagination, the spontaneity of human brain and heart,


  :93

acts independently of the individual as an alien, divine or devilish activity. It

belongs to another. It is the loss of his own self.

The result, therefore, is that man ( the worker) feels that he is acting freely only
in his animal functions - - eating, drinking, and procreating, or at most in his
shelter and finery - - while in his human functions he feels only like an animal.
The animalistic becomes the human and the human the animalistic.

To be sure, eating, drinking and procreating are genuine human functions.

In abstraction, however, and separated from the remaining sphere of human of
human activities and turned into final and sol ends, they are animal functions.

We have considered labor, the act of alienation of practical human activity,

in two Aspects: (1) the relationship of the worker to the product of labor as an
alien object dominating him. This relationship is at the sane time the relationship
to the sensuous external world, to natural objects as an alien world hostile to
him: (2) the relationship of labor to the act of production in labor. This
relationship is that of the worker to his own activity as alien and not belonging
to him, activity as passivity, power as weakness, procreation as emasculation,
the worker’s own physical and spiritual energy, his personal life - - for what else
is life but activity - as an activity turned against him, independent of him, and
not belonging to him. SELF-ALIENATION, as against the alienation of the object,
stated above.

A direct consequences of man’s alienation from the product of his work,

from his life activity, and from his species-existence, is the ALIENATION OF MAN
FROM MAN. When man confronts himself, he confronts other men. What holds
true of man’s relationship to his work, to the product of his work, and to himself,
also holds true of man’s relationship to other men, to their labor, and the object of
their labor.

Summary of Marx Ideas Related to Work

1. The need for a classless economic society. Marx claims that as it is, there is
a society of oppressors versus the oppressed, the exploiters versus the
exploited. Hence, the history of class struggle is society.
2. Religion is man’s opium for it only creates a world of illusion for men who
cannot fond his happiness in this world.
3. society should be changed, but philosophizing is inadequate, action is called
for.
4. This action is a form of social revolution led by the proletariat, the
oppressed class. This revolution can be done by the abolishing private
properties.
5. The reason for this that the fundamental form of human work is not
thought but manual labor, the product of which is self- alienation in the


  :94

present society, does not belong to the laborer. By the dialectic movement
of the historical process, the way to communism is paved.
6. The capitalist system exploits the workers for the capitalist does not pay the
workers the full value of the commodity he produces. The system itself is
fraudulent, even with the payment of higher wages. The system must be
abolished.
7. Man is not primarily contemplative but active. His activity is in the
production of goods to answer his basic needs. This process goes on and on
as there are always fresh needs to be satisfied. This, of course, involves
social relations among men and contains the whole history as well as the
philosophy of man.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Babor, Eddie R. The Human Person: Not real, but Existing. Quezon
City, C & E Publishing Inc. 2001

Bali, Dev Raj. Introduction to Philosophy. Sterling Publication. New

Delhi. 1998.

Cedeño, Lourdes R. So God Created Man. Quezon City, Katha

Publishing House Co. Inc. 2003

Cruz, Corazon L. The Philosophy of Man. 3rd ed. Mandaluyong City,

National Bookstore. 2004

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Baker Book House, Grand

Rapids, Michigan.1998

Garle, William James. Introduction to Philosophy. Mc Graw-Hill, Inc.,

New York,U.S.A. 1992

Honer, et. al. Philosophy: Issues and Options. Wadsworth Publishing

Company.1999

Tubo, Dennis V. Philosophy of Man: Existential-Phenomenological

Approach. rev. ed. Mandaluyong City, National Bookstore, 2006

Westphal, Jonathan. Philosophical Propositions. New York, 1998

Determinism - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.htm.@Yahoo.com

Freedom and Determinism.htm.@Yahoo.com

