MODULE IN

INTRODUCTION TO
PHILOSOPHY
OF THE HUMAN PERSON
2121

1
CONTENT
OF
THE
SUBJECT

2
 What is Philosophy? At its simplest, philosophy or philosophie, meaning “the love
of wisdom” is the study of knowledge, or “thinking about thinking.”

As used originally by the ancient Greeks, the term "philosophy" meant the pursuit
of knowledge for its own sake, and comprised ALL areas of speculative thought,
including the arts, sciences and religion.

Philosophical questions (unlike those of the sciences) are

usually foundational and abstract in nature. Philosophy is done primarily
through reflection and does not tend to rely on experiment, although the methods
used to study it may be analogous to those used in the study of the natural sciences.

In common usage, it sometimes carries the sense of unproductive or frivolous

musings, but over the centuries it has produced some of the most important
original thought, and its contribution to politics, sociology, mathematics, science
and literature has been inestimable. Although the study of philosophy may not
yield "the meaning of life, the universe and everything", many philosophers believe
that it is important that each of us examines such questions and even that
an unexamined life is not worth living. It also provides a good way of learning to
think more clearly about a wide range of issues, and its methods of analyzing
arguments can be useful in a variety of situations in other areas of life.

FIVE BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY

1. Metaphysics (the true nature of reality)

2. Epistemology (the true nature of knowledge and belief)
3. Politics (how humans function within a society)
4. Ethics (values and decision making process)
5. Aesthetics (the nature of beauty and art)

3
 Truth vs. Opinion

Logic in general refers to the inner organization of people's activity, the way we
act. However, subjectively, we often discover our logicality through explicit
statements concerning the different aspects of our attitudes to the world and other
people. Such judgements do not necessarily stress the logical side of activity;
however, every single judgement necessarily contains a logical component as well.
In this respect, any human activity at all can also be made into a logical form.

The hierarchical nature of human activity assumes a hierarchy of attitudes, with the
corresponding levels of judgement. On the most basic, syncretic level, judgement
takes the form of opinion, a very common type of immediate reflection closely
intertwined with people's everyday life, their personal experience. On the next
stage, reflection grows in a separate activity, detached from its cultural basis, the
activity we reflect upon. One could consider that self-contained development of
reflection as a cultural representation of the ideal side of consciousness; in this
sense, this level could be referred to as spirituality. Of course, spirituality develops
its inner hierarchy as well. The distinct (qualitatively different) levels of this
hierarchy are not arbitrary, they reflect real cultural structures.

When opinions grow into people's spirituality, they retain their syncretic character,
the inseparability from the common practical decision. Such decisions do not need
any further justification; they become socially fixed as beliefs. However, on the
level of spirituality, there is no more immediate practical background, and
therefore assorted beliefs tend to support each other forming all kinds of
conglomerates, complexes, constellations… Under certain social conditions, such
organized beliefs can form the core of a religious system.

A more developed kind of spirituality is already aware of the difference between

people's judgment and the actual ways of the world; this critical self-assessment
could be characterized as analytical reflection, and its principal levels (stages of
development) are known as aesthetic, logical and ethic judgment in the specific
sense, currently institutionalized in art, science and philosophy as cultural
4
phenomena.

Aesthetic judgment usually takes the form of a (personal, subjective) view. Of

course, the subjective character of a view does not mean that it belongs to a
particular individual; there are different layers of the subject, including various
groups, classes, nations or even the humanity as a whole, so that a collective entity
may objectively play the role of an agent of activity and hence develop all kinds of
collective judgements.

Views are not as rigid as beliefs; they can be intentionally combined or altered,
thus allowing people to mentally try the available choices before it comes to a
practical decision. However, this apparent arbitrariness is always limited and
culturally bound, intrinsically depending on the historical circumstances and the
fundamental trends of economic and social development. As people are not yet
fully aware of what is yet to come, the arts may occasionally express quite
unexpected ideas, thus becoming their first explicit formulation.

On the next level, in science, the very rules of developing views become
interrelated and standardized; as soon as a view is culturally accepted as compliant
with such formal criteria, it acquires the status of truth. Science is a huge machine
for producing truths: it takes the products of all the other levels of reflection and
puts them in the same methodological frame. In this sense, science is twice
analytical: first, it makes us observe ourselves from a distance, and second, it
opposes the ways of expression to the results of observation. As the accent is
shifted from the content to its form, there is a risk of producing spurious truths
devoid of any practical significance. It may seem that mere adherence to the
scientific method is enough to come to a kind of knowledge; one cannot
distinguish truth from delusion within science, one needs to always try formal
results against the practical needs. In particular, the very scientific method cannot
develop into a science and be true on its own. The norms of analytical reasoning
are culturally depended, they depend on the current level of material production
and the corresponding power of reflection. There are no “absolute” or “eternal”
truths (just like there is no eternal beauty, or universal moral). Scientists pretend to
go beyond mere opinions, and they are right as long as it concerns the difference
between an individual opinion and a practically established procedure that can be
taught and learned. However, in the hierarchy of the subject, this difference
becomes relative: a scientific truth is normally a kind of collective opinion, but
some individuals (or smaller groups) may be ahead of time (the current level of
cultural development) and represent new modes of scientific judgement that are to
eventually extend the already established paradigms. Scientific rigor is based on

5
social acceptance (institutionalization) of certain modes of activity, which makes
science much more conservative than art or philosophy. That is why scientific
revolutions are usually more painful and often tragic.

Moving still higher in the hierarchy of reflection, people become aware of the
origin of their views and truths and thus develop the ability to consciously control
them, which takes the form of conviction, a kind of judgement considering the
practical importance of anything, its historical scope, from its origin to the
inevitable expiration. Convictions regulate the choice of other forms of reflection,
as well as the transformation of abstract ideas into real activity. It is here that the
very idea of a unique, all-comprising and integral world enters the minds; we try to
abandon the primitive anthropocentric position in be honest with ourselves,
admitting that the humanity is only a part of the infinite Universe, possibly not the
best, but objectively necessary for the whole. This attitude could be
called ethical in a wide sense, since it is concerned with the development of
conscious behavior, incorporating all kinds of available regulators: moral norms,
ideals, beauty and truth, ideological stand etc.

In the hierarchy of judgement, one cannot isolate one level from another. There is
no sense in preferring one kind of reflection and despising the rest; they always go
together and are readily convertible to each other. Breaking this integrity means
spiritual degradation, inability of conscious attitude to the world and, as a
consequence, impossibility of inner development. In this broken hierarchy, one
form of judgement is undistinguishable from another, they all degrade to the most
primitive state, with scientific truths becoming mere beliefs, or opinions.
Normally, every individual act of judgment will stress a specific attitude, retaining
the others in the background, ordered by their relevance to the topic in a
hierarchical structure.

People's communication makes the partners compare their individual hierarchies of

judgement and merge them into a synthetic whole that could serve as a common
platform for joint activity. This does not always happen in an automatic manner;
quite often, such personal pictures of the world require a special activity to reveal
their intrinsic commonality determined by the partners' belonging to the same
culture. A poorly cultivated person would fail to perceive the hierarchy of the
other's attitudes, trying to plant one's own vision of the world in the other's head.
This leads to tensions and conflicts that can be easily avoided provided everybody
accepts mental diversity as an objective precondition for communication and learns
to observe the apparent differences as superficial and formal, while the very fact of
communication indicates that any individual positions are culturally comparable

6
and present the complementary aspects of the whole.

PHILOSOPHY OF REALITY

COSMOLOGY- philosophy of cosmology or philosophy of cosmos is a

discipline directed to the philosophical contemplation of the universe as a totality,
and to its conceptual foundations.
PSYCHOLOGY- instead of studying a whole like philosophy, seeks to isolate
individual variables of human behavior. Therefore, psychological theories
consider our biology. One example is the study of our brain chemistry.

RELIGION is the philosophical study of the meaning and nature of religion. It

includes the analyses of religious concepts, beliefs, terms, arguments, and
practices of religious adherents. The scope of much of the work done
in philosophy of religion has been limited to the various theistic religions.

THEODICY is often based on a prior natural theology, which attempts to prove

the existence of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God's existence remains
probable after the problem of evil is posed by giving a justification for God's
permitting evil to happen.

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, also known as political theory, is the study of

topics such as politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law, and the enforcement
of laws by authority: what they are, if they are needed, what makes a government
legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect, what form it should take, ...

HOLISTIC: “incorporating the concept of holism or the idea that the whole is
more than merely the sum of its parts, in theory or practice” (Dictionary.com)
holism: (In philosophy) the theory that whole entities, as fundamental components
of reality, have an existence other than as the mere sum of their parts

7
Major Philosophers & Their Big Ideas

Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)

Thomas Aquinas was a 13th century Dominican friar, theologian and Doctor of the
Church, born in what is known today as the Lazio region of Italy. His most
important contribution to Western thought is the concept of natural theology
(sometimes referred to as Thomism in tribute to his influence). This belief system
holds that the existence of God is verified through reason and rational explanation,
as opposed to through scripture or religious experience. This ontological approach
is among the central premises underpinning modern Catholic philosophy and
liturgy. His writings, and Aquinas himself, are still considered among the
preeminent models for Catholic priesthood. His ideas also remain central to
theological debate, discourse, and modes of worship.

Aristotle (384–322 BCE)

Aristotle is among the most important and influential thinkers and teachers in
human history, often considered — alongside his mentor, Plato — to be a father of
Western Philosophy.” Born in the northern part of ancient Greece, his writings and
ideas on metaphysics, ethics, knowledge, and methodological inquiry are at the
very root of human thought. Most philosophers who followed — both those who
echoed and those who opposed his ideas — owed a direct debt to his wide-ranging
influence. Aristotle’s enormous impact was a consequence both of the breadth of
his writing and his personal reach during his lifetime.

Confucius (551–479 BCE)

Chinese teacher, writer, and philosopher Confucius viewed himself as a channel
for the theological ideas and values of the imperial dynasties that came before him.
With an emphasis on family and social harmony, Confucius advocated for a way of

8
life that reflected a spiritual and religious tradition, but which was also distinctly
humanist and even secularist. Confucius — thought to be a contemporary of Taoist
progenitor Lao-Tzu — had a profound impact on the development of Eastern legal
customs and the emergence of a scholarly ruling class. Confucianism would
engage in historic push-pull with the philosophies of Buddhism and Taoism,
experiencing ebbs and flows in influence, its high points coming during the Han
(206 BCE–220 CE), Tang (618–907 CE), and Song (960–1296 CE) Dynasties. As
Buddhism became the dominant spiritual force in China, Confucianism declined in
practice. However, it remains a foundational philosophy underlying Asian and
Chinese attitudes toward scholarly, legal, and professional pursuits.

René Descartes (1596–1650)

A French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist, Descartes was born in France
but spent 20 years of his life in the Dutch Republic. As a member of the Dutch
States Army, then as the Prince of Orange and subsequently as Stadtholder (a
position of national leadership in the Dutch Republic), Descartes wielded
considerable intellectual influence over the period known as the Dutch Golden
Age. He often distinguished himself by refuting or attempting to undo the ideas of
those that came before him.

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 82)

A Boston-born writer, philosopher, and poet, Ralph Waldo Emerson is the father of
the transcendentalist movement. This was a distinctly American philosophical
orientation that rejected the pressures imposed by society, materialism, and
organized religion in favor of the ideals of individualism, freedom, and a personal
emphasis on the soul’s relationship with the surrounding natural world. Though not
explicitly a “naturalist” himself, Emerson’s ideals were taken up by this 20th
century movement. He was also seen as a key figure in the American romantic
movement.

9
 The Human Person and the Environment

This essay is important for the students to understand the dynamic interplay
between the human person and her environment. It will enable them to become
aware of their relationship and its concomitant responsibilities toward their
environment. It also presents the pressing environmental issues in our society and
their impact on the lives of human persons. Moreover, it presents different
philosophical views on the environment that will help the students understand their
role in the preservation and conservation of natural resources. Lastly, this essay
will enable the students to become aware of the different environmental risks and,
thus, lead them to formulate some alternatives that aimed at the protection and
conservation of the environment.
With this, the essay will then lead the students to acquire the four learning
competencies, namely, the ability to: 1) Notice disorder in the environment; 2)
Notice things that are not in their proper place and organize them in an aesthetic
way; 3) Show that care for the environment contributes to health, well-being and
sustainable development; and 4) Demonstrate the virtues of prudence and frugality
towards the environment.
These four competencies can be realized by doing the following: first, by
discussing the different environmental risks that we are facing globally; and
second, by presenting some philosophical views on the environment for the
learners to be able to make sense more meaningfully of the phenomenon under
investigation.
Discussion and Analysis
Heraclitus, a Western philosopher in the ancient period once argued that the world
is in constant change. For him, the world involves an ongoing process governed by
the law of change (“Heraclitus,” 1995). This simply means that everything in this

10
world is continuously flowing and moving in some respect. As we can see, the
same principle holds true to our environment. Many of us may not notice it, but our
environment undergoes an unending process of transformation. This is manifested
by the rapid growth and developments in our society, which have made our lives
easy and more convenient. Take, for instance, the creation of mobile phones and
electronic gadgets, infrastructure projects, building of tall edifice and
establishments, concreting of farm to market roads, creation of cellular phones and
mobile gadgets, production of cars and other vehicles. Indeed, these things gave us
leisure and allowed us to do things easier. Thus, at first glance, this constant
change, as Heraclitus views it, works for the benefit of humanity.
Various rapid changes continue in the advent of economic globalization. For
example, as I have already hinted above, for over a decade we have seen the rising
of tall buildings and business establishments, the booming real estate businesses
and the growing numbers of food chains, coffee shops and entertainments hubs in
the urban areas. These developments prove how far we have gone through in
improving and developing our life as human persons. Yet along these
developments are the different environmental issues that pose a threat to our lives
as human persons. It is then important that we have to be aware of these
environmental risks, their causes and their harmful effects to us so that we will be
able to address these issues properly. Let me now briefly discuss the common
environmental problems that have seriously impacted our lives as human beings.
Here, I will specifically show that these environmental issues stemmed from our
careless decisions and actions towards our environment. These environmental
problems include air pollution, water pollution, acid rain, climate change,
deforestation, depletion of natural resources, depletion of ozone layer, waste
pollution, acidification and increase in sea/ocean temperature, and overpopulation.
Different Environmental Problems and their Impacts on Human Lives
Let me begin with air pollution. Air pollution refers to the contamination of the air
in the atmosphere, which is primarily caused by harmful gases and toxins released
from the smoke of the industrial factories and the combustion of fossil fuels from
our private cars and vehicles, public transportations facilities, and agricultural
machineries (Veetil, 2012). Moreover, the burning of fossil fuels like petroleum
and coal products from our power plants, the use of insecticides, pesticides and
fertilizers, the release of gases from the household cleaning products and the
emissions from gas stoves contribute to air pollution (Veetil, 2012).
Indeed, air pollution has harmful effects on our health, especially to children. In
fact, according to the World Health Organization (2017), over three billions of

11
people all over the world are exposed to household air pollution due to the use of
solid fuels, such as charcoals, paper and dried leaves. Based on the WHO data, air
pollution causes approximately 600,000 deaths in children under five years old
annually. Air pollution also increases the risk of respiratory infections, asthma,
adverse neonatal conditions and congenital abnormalities (World Health
Organization, 2017). According to the WHO, most of these illnesses are acquired
from household air pollution (for example, exposure to smoke from cook stoves),
ambient air pollution and second-hand tobacco smoke. For these reasons, the WHO
considers air pollution as one of the leading causes of peoples’ death globally.
Water Pollution is another environmental problem that is caused by oil spill, acid
rain and other hazardous chemicals that mixed with water (SEPA, 2012).
According to the World Health Organization (2017), contamination in waters
causes various diseases in human persons, particularly to children. Furthermore,
the WHO (2017) noted that diarrhea, which is caused by the use of unsafe water,
improper hygiene and poor sanitation, is one of the main contributors to the death
rate of children all over the world.
Acid rain is also considered as one of the common environmental problems we are
facing today. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(US-EPA), acid rain occurs when the harmful gases like nitrogen oxides and sulfur
oxides are released into the atmosphere through burning of fossil fuels and
combustion of vehicle engines. When it rains, these harmful gases mixed with
rainwater droplets which cause heavy damage to plants, animals and humans (US-
EPA, 2017).
Moreover, climate change is one of the most trending or mostly discussed
environmental issues today. Climate change refers to an increase in the average
global temperatures. The excessive increase of greenhouse gases, like carbon
dioxide, contributes largely in climate change. According to NASA’s Earth
Observatory, different human activities have caused imbalance in the natural cycle
of the greenhouse effects as well as disastrous and deadly calamities, such as
extreme cold winters, heavy rains, stronger storms and El Nino and La Nina
phenomena. It is believed that climate change is caused by human activity and its
consequences are harmful to humans as well as to nature (Joshua Reichert, 2009).
According to Greenpeace (2007), an independent international organization
campaigning for environmental protection and preservation, climate change is
triggered by global warming, which is usually unnoticeable in our daily lives.
However, according to the report of Greenpeace (2007), we will know that climate
change takes place when some species are slowly becoming extinct, as well as the

12
increase in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow
and ice, recurrence of stronger typhoons, increase in level of rain precipitation and
the steady rise of sea levels. In fact, in 2009, the National Geographic has recorded
the melting of Antarctic ice and the recession of Arctic glaciers at speed much
faster than scientists have predicted in the past years (Glick, 2006). Likewise, the
World Meteorological Organization report in 2007 has recorded the year 2005 as
one of the warmest years since the 1980s, followed by years 1998, 2002, 2003 and
2004; while the 1990s was recorded as the hottest decade in history (Climate
Central, 2016). However, in December 2014, the National Ocean and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) National Climate Data Center noted that the year 2014
was the warmest year ever recorded in history (State of the Climate: Global
Analysis for Annual, 2014). NOAA noted that since 1880, global temperatures
have warmed significantly.
Another most obvious problem in our environment lately is Deforestation. This
environmental problem refers to the cutting of trees for agricultural, industrial,
housing or urban use. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (2015), a total of 129 million hectares of forest have been lost since
1990. Now, deforestation created by humans contributes to various environmental
risks that become harmful to humans, animals and other living creatures. In
particular, it creates climate imbalance, soil erosion, extinction of wildlife animals,
flashfloods, and increases global warming. In the Philippines, most of the landslide
prone areas now have history of deforestation.
The constant Depletion of natural resources is another environmental risk that we
are facing lately. As we all know, natural resources are very important for the
survival and welfare of all living beings, especially humans. In fact, we are so
much dependent on the resources we have found in nature. However, because of
the society’s advancements brought about by social and cultural revolutions,
increase in global population, high consumption of resources, as well as
modernization and economic globalization activities, our natural resources are
depleting little by little. If this problem continues, it would threaten the survival of
the next generation. Thus, there is a need for us to be economical and at the same
responsible in taking advantage of our natural resources.
The Depletion of our Ozone Layer is also a seemingly unnoticed environmental
problem. Yet, experts have noted that the depletion of the ozone layer is one of the
most serious problems that our planet earth is facing today. It is said that
Hydrochlofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are the
major chemicals that contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer (US-EPA,
2017). HCFCs and VOCs are commonly found in the emission of vehicles,
13
industrial by-products, aerosols and refrigerants mostly used in our households.
HCFCs and VOCs stay in the atmosphere for a longer period of time and have a
very high warming effect. Because of their severe warming effect, HCFCs and
VOCs cause damage to the ozone layer (US-EPA, 2017).
Another serious environmental problem that continues to haunt as today is Waste
Pollution. Waste pollution is common in urban and densely populated areas. These
wastes are usually in solid form which cause land, air and water pollutions if not
properly disposed. Some experts agree that the increase in quantity of solid waste
is due to overpopulation, lack of education on waste management and
technological advancement. Because of this, mismanagement of waste or improper
waste disposal causes hazards to human and non-human health as well as in our
environment. In fact, most of the epidemic outbreaks such as dengue, malaria,
diarrhea and other airborne diseases in our society are mainly caused by waste
pollution.
Another unnoticed environmental problem we have today are the Acidification
and Increase in Sea/Ocean Temperature. The rapid increase in sea level and
ocean temperature are attributed to climate change and global warming because of
the melting of sea-ice and land-based glaciers. Also, the acidification of sea waters,
according to experts on marine ecosystem, was credited to excessive amount of
carbon dioxide (CO2) component in the ocean (Greenpeace Report, 2013). Carbon
dioxide is produced by human, animals and the burning of fossil fuels. The
increase in the acidity of our sea waters and higher sea levels poses a danger to the
livelihood and lives of the large number of people living in the coastal areas. This
is because those who are living in the coastal areas will be vulnerable to storm
surge and tsunami. Moreover, the acidification of our waters resulted in the
depletion of marine resources and destruction of marine ecosystem.
Lastly, it is worthwhile to consider here the problem of Overpopulation. We can
say that most of the environmental risks mentioned above have both direct and
indirect connection to overpopulation. As of today, there are around 7 billion
people living on the planet, and experts said that these numbers will balloon to
between 8 and 11 billion by 2050 and up to 15 billion by 2100 (“Causes of Human
Overpopulation”, 2013). The explosion in global population is partly caused by
early marriages, lack of knowledge in birth control and family planning methods,
and social pressures. Obviously, the problem of overpopulation may give way to
the rise of other environment problems, such as pollution, depletion of natural
resources, shortages of clean water, fuel and food.

14
The above discussion proved that environmental problems pose a serious threat in
our day to day lives. As we can see, these environmental risks have caused
respiratory illnesses, cancer, congenital abnormalities and other deadly diseases to
both adults and children globally. Moreover, these environmental problems have
resulted in the extinction of land and marine resources. They also poisoned our
food and water supplies, as well as caused erosions and flashfloods, loss of billions
of properties, and deaths of thousands to millions of people all over the world. In
particular, the Philippines, which is considered as a developing country, has
experienced the ill effects of these environmental problems. Since the 1990s, we
have encountered damaging catastrophes that left thousands of families homeless.
These environmental problems have also damaged billions of properties, destroyed
infrastructure, agricultural and livelihood facilities, and killed thousands of Filipino
people.
Despite all these horrible experiences, many Filipinos are still unaware of their
responsibilities to their environment and, thus, continue to practice the habit of
throwing garbage elsewhere, burning plastic materials, smoke belching and what-
nots. Now, given all of these, how do we meaningfully relate to our environment
then? In the succeeding section, I will discuss some philosophical thoughts that
will help provide a deeper understanding of our relationship to the environment.
Philosophical Approaches to Ecology
Before I proceed to the different philosophical approaches to ecology, let me
qualify the use of ecology in this section. Here, I have adopted the meaning of the
word “ecology”, which was coined by Ernst Haeckel. According to Haeckel
(1866), ecology refers to the scientific analysis of the interaction between animals,
plants and their inorganic environment. Put simply, ecology deals with the balance
of nature. Since nature includes human persons, ecology also encompasses the
study of the human person’s role in her environment. Thus, I find ecology as the
most appropriate term to use here rather than environment. Further, among the
ecological theories, I will only discuss deep ecology, social ecology and
transpersonal ecology because I am convinced that these ecological theories can
help us easily understand our relationship to their environment. Let me now briefly
discuss these three important ecological theories.
Let me start with deep ecology. Deep ecology was coined by Arne Naess and his
colleagues Sigmund Kvaloy and Nils Faarlund in 1973. According to Naess
(1973), deep ecology affirms the principle that all things in the world have their
intrinsic value. This means that no matter how small or big the things that surround
us, they possess some kind of intrinsic value which is important in creating balance

15
in nature. For this reason, Naess proposed that each one of us should recognize the
value of all the things that surround us so that we are able to live in harmony with
our environment.
Moreover, Naess’s deep ecology strongly rejects the anthropocentric view, which
subscribes to the idea that humans are the most important species on the planet
and, thus, they have superiority over nature. Hence, for the adherents of deep
ecology, humans need to see the environment and all living things not as means for
survival, but as “partners” or co-equals in the preservation life. For the deep
ecologists, this is how humans ought to show their respect and love for the
environment.
The deep ecologists therefore urge humans to develop themselves into “ecological
selves”. According to Bill Devall (1988), a deep ecologist himself, an ecological
self is one that is mature, sensitive and caring towards the environment. However,
Devall (1988) noted that we cannot attain an ecological self if we see ourselves as
detached from our environment. Thus, for Devall (1988), it is only when we
realized that we are deeply dependent on the environment and nature that we are
able to appreciate the value of all living things that surround us.
Indeed, as we can see in the above discussion, deep ecology provides us with the
idea that our environment is an integral part to our existence. It is an undeniable
fact that we are too much dependent on our natural resources for our daily
subsistence. This simply means that if our natural resources are exhausted, human
life might also perish. Thus, the deep ecologists suggest that each of us should
develop an ecological self.
Another philosophical approach to the study of the environment is social ecology.
Social ecology as a theory was developed by Murray Bookchin, who is an
American anarchist and environmentalist. According to Bookchin (1982), social
ecology provides an analysis of the patterns and forms of interrelationships
between the human person and her environment. For Devall and Sessions (2002),
Bookchin’s model of social ecology stems from the organismic tradition of
Western philosophy that started with Heraclitus and then developed into the
evolutionary dialectic of Aristotle and Hegel, and the social critical approaches of
the Frankfurt School. According to Steven Best (1998), social ecology is
considered as the most powerful and comprehensive environmental philosophy
ever developed since it offers a powerful alternative to liberalism, Marxism,
postmodern and ecological theories like ecofeminism and deep ecology. Best
(1998) argues that Bookchin’s theory of social ecology seeks to unify the study of

16
natural and social worlds. Indeed, it is a theory that views human beings, society
and the natural worlds as complimentary partners of evolution.
According to Bookchin, as cited in Best (1998, p. 334-353), social ecology claims
that all environmental problems that we are experiencing at present are social
problems which are rooted in the disharmony of relationship between human
beings and nature, where human beings have controlled nature for their own
personal interests. For Bookchin, these pressing environmental crises are brought
about by irrational, anti-ecological, and profit-driven capitalist society (Best, 1998,
p. 337). Following Bookchin, Best argues further that the problems on global
warming, climate change, depletion of natural resources, among others, emerge
because of human beings’ long history of dominating each other and colonizing the
social and natural worlds for power and profit (Best, 1998, p. 336).
Since these environmental problems have social causes, the task of social ecology,
therefore, is to provide a clear picture of the interplay or interrelationship between
humans and their environment, through a careful analysis of the social and natural
relationships. Bookchin believes that humans should live in harmony with their
environment because the latter is essential in order for the former to survive. As we
can see, plants, animals, soil, trees and other living and non-living things in our
surroundings provide us with our basic needs, such as food, shelter and clothing.
Thus, for Bookchin, all abuses that we inflict on, for example, plants, animals,
marine resources and soil, will ultimately return to us or even creates more danger
in our lives. For instance, any serious disorders in the land or in plants and animals
eventually produce illness in the human body (Bookchin, 1982). Thus, Bookchin
(1982) offers a philosophical alternative that serves as a normative guide to address
these ecological issues. Bookchin (1982) calls this as the “ethics of
complementarity”, which suggests the notion of mutual dependence and
cooperation between humans and the environment, and the important idea that
human beings and other social institutions must be respectful and responsible
towards the environment. According to Bookchin, the realization of this ideal
necessarily results in the emergence of an ecological society—a model of social
organization characterized by interdependence and cooperation between and
among members of the society.
As we can see in the above discussion, social ecology taught us that environmental
problems are primarily caused by human negligence. Furthermore, the social
ecologists believe that our actions towards the environment have a direct impact on
our lives. In this context, we can say that the different deadly catastrophes that we
have recently experienced were products of our irrational decisions and
irresponsible actions towards our environment. Thus, social ecology suggests that
17
we have to be mindful of our actions toward the environment and actively take part
in preserving and protecting our natural resource. In this way, we can say that we
are in perfect harmony with our environment.
Lastly, let me briefly discuss transpersonal ecology as another important
philosophical approach to the study of the environment. This ecological theory was
developed by Warwick Fox in 1990. Here, Fox attempted to develop further the
concept of deep ecology. In doing so, Fox borrows the main concept of deep
ecology that humans and the environment are partners or co-equals in the
preservation of life. But unlike Naess’s model of deep ecology, which uses
axiological or value theory, Fox’s transpersonal ecology employs psychological
approaches in analyzing the relationship between humans and the environment.
Transpersonal ecology explains the tripartite aspects of human self which gives us
the theoretical basis of our attitude towards our environment. As suggested by the
transpersonal ecologists, we have to understand not just the importance of the
environment to us, but our role in the life’s cycle. In that way, we are able to
anchor our decisions and actions in accordance to moral norms and to natural laws.
Fox (1990) introduced the idea that the human self can be categorized into three,
namely, a desiring-impulsive self, normative-judgmental self, and a rationalizing-
deciding self. According to Fox (1990), the desiring-impulsive self wants, and
always desires, to acquire things in a short period of time without considering the
needs of others. On the other hand, the normative-judgmental self behaves in
accordance to social norms and social expectations. Lastly, the rationalizing-
deciding self always makes decisions and actions based on reasons (Fox, 1995).
Fox argues that with these three categories, the self is able to do the following.
First, the desiring-impulsive self enables us to desire for maximum exploitation of
the natural resources. This explains why some of us are more concerned with
gaining more profit out of the natural resources without considering the interest of
other people. Second, the normative-judgmental self enables us to recognize the
existence of reality-imposed constraints and obey certain moral demands of the
society. Contrary to the desiring-impulsive self, the normative-judgment self
exhibits our characteristic of being frugal in using our natural resources. And third,
the rationalizing-deciding self enables us to rationalize our actions toward the
environment. This aspect of the self allows us to consider the pros and cons of our
actions (Fox, 1995).
Fox and other transpersonal ecologists also believed that our decisions and actions
are very important in our relationship to the environment. In most cases, when we
make decisions, we are just thinking of something that will benefit us or those

18
things that will help make our lives better. Because of this, we tend to disobey
social norms and disrespect the interests of other people and our environment. As a
result, our actions cause disharmony in our community and to environment. For
this reason, transpersonal ecologists suggest that we have to uphold a transpersonal
self, that is a self that overcomes the desiring-impulsive or selfish character and
turns itself into an ethical and rational self. This is a type of self that is conscious
of its responsibility in protecting and preserving her environment (Stavely &
McNamara, 1992).
Now, these three philosophical approaches to ecology allow us to have a closer
look at the interrelatedness of the human person and her environment. These
approaches indeed have pointed out the importance of harmony between the
human person and the environment. In order to maintain this harmony, the human
person has to treat the environment as a partner in the preservation of life, that is to
say, the human person has to appreciate the value of all things in her surrounding,
rather than just treat them as means for her to survive. Lastly, the three
philosophical approaches to ecology have shown to us the relevance of our actions
and decisions to our environment. They have affirmed that whatever actions we do
to our environment, either good or bad, have corresponding consequences. In fact,
the environmental crises that we are experiencing at present are somewhat the
products of our own wrongdoings. Thus, it is important that we observe prudence
in appropriating our limited resources and that we have to protect and preserve our
environment for the betterment of humans and society.
Conclusion
As we can see, the different environmental problems that we are facing today have
something to do with our irresponsible actions towards the environment. For
instance, as presented above, the deadly catastrophes that we have experienced
lately in our country, like the strong storms, soil erosions and flashfloods, have
somehow resulted from our act of abusing and exploiting our environment. For this
reason, the deep ecologists urged us to develop an ecological self, which allows us
to treat our environment as a partner in the preservation of life. It is also for this
same reason that the adherents of social ecology call us to protect and preserve our
environment. Lastly, the adherents of transpersonal ecology responded to the said
problem by urging human persons to consider the common good when
appropriating our natural resources. Truly, this is how we show care for the
environment and at the same time contribute to health, well-being and sustainable
development. If we do this, then we can say that we also have organized things in
the environment in an aesthetic way.

19
FACTS AND OPINIONS

FACTS AND OPINIONS

A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. If I say "fire is hot,"
I don't care how great your reasoning skills are, if you touch fire your skin will
burn (and don't give me that "but people can walk on hot coals!" bull. There's a
difference between the transfer of heat through conduction and training one's body
to deal with the agonizing pain of said conduction). Now when I say this, I am not
speaking a truth, I am speaking a fact. If you say "fire is not hot," you are not lying,
you are incorrect. Facts are concrete realities that no amount of reasoning will
change. When one acknowledges a fact, they are doing just that. Facts are not
discovered, facts are not created, facts are simply acknowledged.

A truth on the other hand, is almost the opposite. Truths are those things that are
not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered, or created. If I say "God exists,"
and I possess strong reasoning for the affirmative of that statement, then God really
does exist, that is a reality. However, if another individual possesses strong
reasoning for the negative, and because of this reasoning they believe that God
does not exist, then that is also a reality. If we were to debate our ideologies, and
my reasoning appeared stronger than theirs, they may choose to adopt my belief
that God does exist. If they do, then the existence of God is just as true as the
nonexistence of God which they believed a week ago. Truths, as opposed to fact,
are much more fluid and malleable than their empirical counterparts.

DOUBT METHOD: Reflecting to yourself.

20
 The Human Person as an Embodied Spirit

One of the dominant themes in the course Introduction to the Philosophy of the
Human Person is the idea that the human person is an embodied spirit. But first of
all, we need to define terms here because, as it appears, the meaning of the concept
“embodied spirit” is not directly clear to students who do not have a strong
background and orientation in philosophy. So, what do we exactly mean by
“embodied spirit”?
The most direct connotation that comes to mind when we say something is
“embodied” is that it is being materialized or incarnated. Hence, when we say
“embodied spirit”, we normally thought of a spirit being incarnated. However, the
idea of the human person as an “embodied spirit” does not necessarily refer to the
incarnation or materialization of spirit as an immaterial entity. The embodiment of
the spirit in the context of Christian philosophy (as is well known, the concept of
the embodied spirit is specific to Christian philosophy) specifically refers to the
inseparable union of body and soul. Thus, when we say “embodied spirit” we mean
that the body is not separate from the soul, just as the soul is not separate from the
body.
HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY: From the “I” to the “Other”
. “The law of I” • is a thinking that starts from myself, goes out to the other, and
returns to myself.
. “The Law of the Other” • is a thinking that moves from the I to the other without
returning to the I. The Autonomy of the Self • the act of preservation that describes
itself as a being – the going out of being from the “self” to the “other” but return to
the “self” again. The Heteronomy of the Other • what is most important is not the
self/ego but the neighboring/other. • there is ethical responsibility for the “other,”
that the “other” must not be taken for granted anymore. • always consider the
ethical responsibility of the “self” to the “other,” for the “other” Man as “Capable
Human Being”: • Man has the capacity to tell a story in order to ascertain that there

21
are things in life left undone. • The narrative of our life must use the capacity of
both to understand its hidden possibilities Narrative Identity • -the dynamic way of
interpreting identity • -The hermeneutics of the self- a transition from man’s servile
way 3 things to be highlighted in our life in quest of the narrative • Not to see life
as something routinary| mechanical • To find its meaning again and again • To
accept things in life as they are, but one should go beyond

HUMAN PERSON IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT

THE HUMAN PERSON IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT

Traditional anthropocentric views would consider human beings as the center of

moral consideration. This could be traced from the Judeo-Christian tradition where
human beings were given "dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of
the air and every living thing that moves upon the earth" (Genesis 1:26-39)

HUMANS: ANTHROPOCENTRISM

On the other hand, the instrumental value if it is considered as a means toward

achieving a certain end, thus it is worth depends on whether it was succesful in
bringing about the particular purpose or end that is supposed to serve.
Among these candidates are: human, non-humans, including higher forms of
animals, all living organims to include plants, and holistic entities or communities
like ecosystems.
Distinction Between Intrinsic and Instrumental Value
Different and contrasting views from various philosophers and ethistics have given
importance or attached a moral value from a wide range of candidates.
Their main concern is to justify why their chosen candidate should be given moral
understanding or should be attributed moral consideration in the field of
environmental ethics.
This criterion of moral consideration or standing has been the center of debates in
environmental ethics. This could be summarized in the diagram emphasizing
different levels of attribution of moral consideration.
The problems about the environment have been too obvious to ignore by scholars
and philosophers. As early as 1949, Aldo Leopold, who was an American
conservationist and forester by profession, published an article entitled A Sand
Country Almanac (1949), which emphasized the importance of the adoption of a
22
 land ethic giving importance to land as an entiry that should be given due respect
and love.

Introduction

The main question is: what is exactly the freedom and to prove if we are or not,
trying to justify the “strong and internal feeling” (Descartes) that we have of being
free and which is found in every man.

To define freedom, it is sufficient to give an adequate description:

 At the biological level, freedom is identified with a healthy body. The patient, on
the contrary, feels prisoner of his own body
 At a higher level, freedom is identified with the spontaneity of tendencies. Man is
free when he can fulfill his desires (Epicurus). But some trends are harmful and we
are naturally fighting against them. Spontaneity, therefore, can not consist in
allowing oneself to be in love with one’s passions.
 At the level of consciousness, freedom is defined by the possibility of choosing.
For there to be choice, one needs several motives, several possibilities of action.
The choice may be impossible when all the reasons are worth (buridan donkey). In
this case, the action is freedom of indifference.
In the fullest sense, freedom is a voluntary realization, justified by the greatest
number of motives. Because our action is then not only the expression of a
personal choice, but of a choice capable of justifying itself rationally in the eyes of
all. After Plato and Spinoza, Kant has given full scope to the rationalism of
freedom: action is free when consciousness is determined “against” sensible
desires, according to a rational principle.

Freedom is not really what we do, but how we do it. Freedom is an attitude, that of
the man who recognizes himself in his life, who approves the history of the world
and events. This is why freedom often consists in “changing one’s desires rather
than the order of the world” (Descartes). It is to such a conception (that of the
23
Stoics) that the moderns (Sartre, Kierkegaard) have returned; man becomes free
when he substitutes an active attitude for a situation undergone, when he takes
sides with the events of his time: in short, freedom is proved by realizing oneself,
when man realizes his destiny by working instead of suffering it.

Lesson on freedom

“When we are self-sufficient, we come to possess the inestimable good of

freedom” (Epicurus)
Faced with freedom, the idea of destiny, of determinism, of fatality (fatum) is
opposed as synonymous with an inexorable sequence of causes and effects that can
not be extracted. The illustration of this fatum: Oedipus who does not escape the
oracle of Delphi: he actually killed his father and married his mother.

Originally abandoned by its biological parents to remove the ominous omen,

Oedipus is raised by adoptive parents. Adult, he leaves, quarrels with a man and
kills him (he does not know that he has just killed his biological father). Then
Oedipus will give the right answer to the sphinx, will be received triumphantly in
the city he has just liberated from the domination of the sphinx: he then becomes
king by marrying the queen (unaware that the queen is his biological mother): from
their union will be born Antigone … Once he learns the truth, he blows his eyes
and wanders begging.

Freedom: a wrenching away from fatality, a tearing away from the law of nature, a
tearing away from determinism …

Freedom: the power to choose

Epictetus: “You are master of my carcass; take it, you have no power over me ”

Descartes: “The freedom of our will knows itself without proof, by the only
experience we have”

Paul Valéry: “Freedom is one of those hateful words that are worth more than
meaning”

24
Rousseau: “Freedom is less about doing one’s will than about being subjected to
that of others; it still consists in not submitting the will of others to ours “.

The notion of freedom can be understood as synonymous with a total absence of

constraints, obstacles to the desires of each and their realization. Freedom would
then be synonymous with “license”. Now, to say yes to all that one may desire also
the manifestation of a lack of freedom, of alienation, to be a slave of one’s
passions.

Freedom presupposes constraints, limits, prohibitions because freedom is also that

of others. But freedom presupposes limits, what are they?

It involves a difficult game between the singular and the individual. Does not
freedom for all presuppose a limit for everyone’s freedom?

Is freedom an illusion?

Determinism: Is freedom only an illusion?

The free will is only an illusion.

Text of Spinoza, P.401: “ethics”

“Appetites”: tension towards something. Men think themselves free because they
do not know the causes that determine them. They think they are free when their
inclination for something remains slight. This lightness suggests that we can
choose freely to follow or not to follow our impulses by counteracting them, if
necessary, by another impulse. However, to observe our choices, it is clear that we
sometimes do the test of remorse, regret … We understand then that sometimes,
knowing the best, we make the choice of the worst. So, freedom is an illusion
because if the subject is conscious about his actions he remains ignorant as to the
reasons that push him to act as well: I know only the effect of the appetite but I do
not know the origin of this appetite. These are body affections.

Man possesses self-consciousness: he is conscious of wanting and thinks that he

desires freely. He thinks that the will is free and has power over the body. But this
belief is a mistake.

25
At Spinoza, freedom does not go without saying, it is not impossible to acquire. To
access freedom, man must determine himself to act and think. To do this, he must
apply to his reason, decide what is good and useful. When his reason determines
his action, then submission to the passions is reduced, diminished.

If freedom is not self-evident, the fact remains that determinism is not a biological
fatality from which we can not escape. If it is not original, it is that freedom is
something to acquire, a state to be realized.

Freedom: something that must be conquered by the spirit

Kant: the critique of pure reason (full summary)

All that is produced in the world has two origins

Nature as origin
Freedom as origin
Nature: the laws of nature: determinism: the causal relation: relation of cause and
effect: the same causes produce the same effects. The animal is determined by its
nature, it can not act otherwise than as its nature requires it.
Freedom: to create something by oneself and for oneself: to be at the origin and the
consequence of what is produced: therefore not to be subjected to anything but
oneself.
In the eighteenth century, atheism appears and develops, but if the idea of a creator
God disappears, the man remains read from a concept (as can be the paper cutter).
It is defined by its essence.
Freedom: an idea produced by reason but to which no object exists in the
experience. Freedom: it is practical, it is an action in the world. It can not be
proved, it can only be proved. It implies the notions of moral responsibility, of
ethics so that life in community is possible.
With Sartre’s thought and existentialism, we remove the idea of God and that of
the concept to define man. Therefore, there is 1) existence, 2) essence: man is not
originally determined, there is no inevitability. He exists and exists means that he
is the creator of his existence: man is and becomes what he does with him, that is
to say, he becomes the acts he performs and that he he has chosen freely since he is
not determined by any kind. He is absolutely free. But this freedom implies the
following phenomenon: since he is free, his choices are too, so he is responsible
for what he is facing himself and facing others.

26
Existentialism means that man is the creator of his own existence. But this freedom
has a price: the responsibility: if the man is free, he is responsible for his actions,
his choices. This therefore imposes the question of ethics, of duty, of the limit not
to be crossed. So freedom and ethics go together: to be free is to be absolutely
responsible for what we are from what we do.

Individual freedom and collective freedom. Freedom: a practical postulate

that makes it possible to set up the moral idea. Freedom: the ability to self-
determine.

Text of Kant P.405: “the critique of the practical reason” (summary)

“Autonomy”: that which depends only on oneself, by oneself. Which is subject to

nothing but himself. The opposite of autonomy: heteronomy. Pure Reason, the will
that determines the moral law is certainly a maxim that imposes itself on the
subject but transcends the simple individuality of the self because valid for all
subjects (so the law is universal).
“Heteronomy”: that which is imposed by an external will, an external constraint.
The desire is changeable, it belongs to the contingent, it is of the order of volition
and not of the will. The free will: the one by which reason determines itself. And
the reason is the intellectual faculty which produces the categorical imperative
which itself leads to duty and morality. To be free is to act in relation to a law
which one has given oneself from the use of reason, imperatively and not
according to the laws of nature and its small sensibility. Freedom: the autonomy of
the will and this is the moral law.
If this definition of freedom as something to be conquered proceeds from an ability
to be determined by the moral law, this freedom implies ethical and legal limits. Is
not freedom political, civil? Civil liberty implies the loss of natural liberty by the
introduction of laws, prohibitions that limit the expression of “selfish”,
“egotistical” individuality in favour of a collective, civil freedom.

Political freedom: it implies the notion of “laws”, “duty”, “constraints” for

everyone so that everyone can live with everyone.
Before being a metaphysical question, freedom is above all a political question:
before being individual, freedom is collective. How can we be free together?

27
The opposition between natural freedom and civil liberty: the social contract
as what allows the passage from one to the other.

Rousseau’s text: P.408: “From the social contract”

“Freedom consists not so much in doing one’s will as in not being subjected to that
of others; it still consists in not submitting the will of others to ours “.
Rousseau explains the transition from natural freedom to civil liberty.

Natural freedom: that which consists in doing all that one desires (without laws,
without constraints …) it is without limit: the man answers only to his instincts.
We then speak of a state of nature. The state of nature is a working hypothesis for
thinking man below and prior to all life in society. In this state of nature, only force
is the limit, only power is authoritative. Desire, instinct, appetites guide and push
man to act according to his instinct. Men are by nature slaves of their passions.
Special interests make them in an incessant struggle. The only law that reigns: the
law of the strongest. All is violence and chaos.
Civil liberty: an ordered freedom, legislated by laws that make natural freedom that
is only violence replaced by a freedom in which peace is possible between all
because limited by laws. It is justice, law, and legality that define what can be done
and prohibited in civil society. Man is no longer in instinct but in reason: the
general interest outweighs the particular interest.
The passage from 1) to 2): a loss because men can not do all they want but also a
gain because they developed their intellectual faculties and mainly the reason and
the law on the moral plane and on the legal plan. This passage between natural and
civil liberty is done by a contract, that is to say the acceptance by all men to get rid
of their unlimited and violent natural freedom for the benefit of limited civil
liberty. but pacified.
Only citizenship is not self-evident. In ancient Greece, women, non-Greeks,
children and slaves were excluded from citizenship. By definition, the slave is one
who is at the service of a master. His freedom is denied, he is only an instrument.
One can therefore wonder if, in spite of everything, the fact of not being able to
enjoy the civil liberty deprives of any form of freedom. Is there not a metaphysical
freedom, an intellectual freedom that would allow the subject to be beyond irons,
beyond the physical chaining, thus a freedom that would proceed from thought.

28
Aristotle: “Politics”

The slave: “the slave himself is a kind of animated property and any man in the
service of others is therefore an instrument that acts as an instrument”.
By definition, the slave is one whose will is alienated at the will of another. It’s
one thing, it’s not considered a subject, like one capable of self-determination. It is
only an instrument whose will does not have to manifest itself.

However, Aristotle also affirms the following: If nature has produced slaves
because their cops are robust, it has produced men who are physically weaker but
intellectually capable of realizing their spirit as free men. that: “Yet the opposite
frequently happens too; slaves have bodies of free men, and men free from the
souls of slaves “.

Could not freedom be metaphysical?

To answer this, it is enough to think of Epictetus: former slave manhandled by his
master. According to Epictetus, freedom is that of thought. And in front of her the
tyrant is without power. But can metaphysical freedom do without expression, or
atrophy if it can not be said? Can a freedom persist if it remains in silence?

Arendt: “the crisis in culture”

Arendt explains that metaphysical freedom is not first but second. Above all,
freedom is political, as in ancient Greece, freedom was political, it was defined by
citizenship. Without political freedom, no freedom can be manifested, it can not be
worldly, that is to say, to assert oneself in the world, to become objective, to
become objectified.
The objectification of freedom therefore appears necessary because what is a
freedom that has no place to tell itself, no place to be realized? Does not the
freedom to develop have to confront others? In contact with others, ideas clash,
develop …

A freedom forced to remain silent, a freedom that can not act does it end up dying?
Freedom in acting effectively implies the very meaning of freedom: the
responsibility of e that one faces the freedom of others, the freedom that is the
other.

29
KINDS OF FREEDOM

PHYSICAL FREEDOM- FREEDOM TO CHOOSE TO GO ANYWHERE.

PSYCHOLOGICAL FREEDOM- Psychological freedom is freedom from

identifying with anything. Psychological freedom is when you are a being and
neither a doing nor a knowing.

MORAL FREEDOM- the freedom to choose a set of moral values and to live
your life in accordance with those values. An example of moral freedom is a
person choosing to live his or her life bound by an adherence to virtues such as
honesty, loyalty, forgiveness and self-discipline.

ELEMENTS OF FREEDOM

VOLUNTARY- VOLUNTARY ACTION (FREE WILL)

RESPONSIBILITIES: ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS

30
Intersubjectivity, in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, is the
psychological relation between people. It is usually used in contrast
to solipsistic individual experience, emphasizing our inherently social being.
Definition

"Intersubjectivity" a term coined by social scientists as a short-hand description for

a variety of human interactions. For example, social psychologists Alex Gillespie
and Flora Cornish list at least six definitions of intersubjectivity (and other
disciplines have additional definitions).[1]
"Intersubjectivity" has been used in social science to refer to agreement. There is
"intersubjectivity" between people if they agree on a given set of meanings or a
definition of the situation. Similarly, Thomas Scheff defines "intersubjectivity" as
"the sharing of subjective states by two or more individuals."[2]
"Intersubjectivity" also has been used to refer to the common-sense, shared
meanings constructed by people in their interactions with each other and used as an
everyday resource to interpret the meaning of elements of social and cultural life.
If people share common sense, then they share a definition of the situation.[3]
The term has also been used to refer to shared (or partially shared) divergences of
meaning. Self-presentation, lying, practical jokes, and social emotions, for
example, all entail not a shared definition of the situation but partially shared
divergences of meaning. Someone who is telling a lie is engaged in an
intersubjective act because they are working with two different definitions of the
situation. Lying is thus genuinely intersubjective (in the sense of operating
between two subjective definitions of reality).
"Intersubjectivity" can also be understood as the process of so-called psychological
energy moving between two or more subjects. In a room where someone is lying
on their deathbed, for example, the room can appear enveloped in a shroud of
gloom for people interacting with the dying person. The psychological weight of

31
one subject comes to bear on the minds of others depending on how they react to it,
thereby creating an intersubjective experience that, without multiple
consciousnesses interacting with each other, would be otherwise strictly
solitary. Love is a prime example of intersubjectivity that implies a shared feeling
of care and affection, among others.
Among the early authors who explored this conception in psychoanalysis, in an
explicit or implicit way, were Heinz Kohut, Robert Stolorow, George E.
Atwood, Jessica Benjamin in the United States, and Silvia Montefoschi in Italy.
Psychoanalyst Jessica Benjamin, in The Bonds of Love, writes, "The concept of
intersubjectivity has its origins in the social theory of Jürgen Habermas (1970),
who used the expression 'the intersubjectivity of mutual understanding' to
designate an individual capacity and a social domain."[4]
Philosophy

Contemporarily, intersubjectivity is a major topic in both the analytic and

the continental traditions of philosophy. Intersubjectivity is considered crucial not
only at the relational level but also at the epistemological and even
metaphysical levels. For example, intersubjectivity is postulated as playing a
role in establishing the truth of propositions, and constituting the so-called
objectivity of objects.

32
HUMAN PERSON IN SOCIETY

Types of Society: Tribal, Agrarian and Industrial Society

1. Tribal Society:
Before we examine the structure and features of tribal society, it would be relevant
to understand the meaning of the word “Tribe” as used in Sociology. According to
George Peter Murdock, tribe is a social group in which there are many clans,
nomadic bands, villages or other sub-groups which usually have a definite
geographical area, a separate language, a singular and distinct culture and either a
common political organisation or at least a feeling of common determination
against the strangers.

Agrarian Society:
Societies are classified on the basis of dominant types of economic activity into
agrarian and industrial societies. In an agrarian society the dominant type of
economic activity is agricultural whereas in an industrial society factory
production is the dominant type of economic activity. Only in the past century and
a half has the world known industrial society. Even today, from two-third to three-
fourths of the world’s people live in agrarian or peasant societies

Industrial Society:
A very important factor in the history of society has been the Industrial
Revolution which has brought about far-reaching consequences in the structure
of societies. Prior to the Industrial Revolution most workers secured their own
raw materials and owned their own tools.

33
They worked under their own roofs on their own time, and determined both the
quality and quantity of what they produced and sold the finished product to the
consumer. The worker took pride in his product and he used to establish his
reputation as a man who had made the best product. He lived a life of simplicity
controlled by traditional community mores. His children saw his father working
on the product, helped him and gradually learnt the job the father was doing.

This social structure began to change with the beginning of Industrial

Revolution. An entrepreneur, an individualist capitalist came in and took over
some of the operations. He was an intelligent, ambitious man and established a
factory. He secured the raw materials, gauged the market, and took workers
from under their own roofs to produce things in his factory.

He took the produce and sold it. In this process the worker came to be separated
from the means of production. He now owned neither the raw material, nor the
tools, nor the building nor the product. He was now a labour. Factory
production, fixed capital and free labour were the characteristics of this
revolution.

As a result of this economic revolution, several important alterations occurred in

the social structure and a new type of society called industrial society was born.

34
HUMAN PERSON IN THEIR IMPENDING DEATH

The Definition of Death

First published Fri Oct 26, 2007; substantive revision Tue Aug 9, 2016

The philosophical investigation of human death has focused on two overarching

questions: (1) What is human death? and (2) How can we determine that it has
occurred? The first question is ontological or conceptual. An answer to this
question will consist of a definition (or conceptualization). Examples include death
as the irreversible cessation of organismic functioning and human death as the
irreversible loss of personhood. The second question is epistemological. A
complete answer to this question will furnish both a general standard (or criterion)
for determining that death has occurred and specific clinical tests to show whether
the standard has been met in a given case. Examples of standards for human death
are the traditional cardiopulmonary standard and the whole-brain standard.
Insofar as clinical tests are primarily a medical concern, the present entry will not
address them.
The philosophical issues concerning the correct definition and standard for human
death are closely connected to other questions. How does the death of human
beings relate to the death of other living things? Is human death simply an instance
of organismic death, ultimately a matter of biology? If not, on what basis should it
be defined? Whatever the answers to these questions, does death or at least human
death have an essence—either de re or de dicto—entailing necessary and jointly
sufficient conditions? Or do the varieties of death reveal only “family
resemblance” relations? Are life and death exhaustive categories of those things
that are ever animated, or do some individuals fall into an ontological neutral zone
between life and death? Finally, how do our deaths relate, conceptually, to our
essence and identity as human persons?

35
For the most part, such questions did not clamor for public attention until well into
the twentieth century. (For historical background, see Pernick 1999 and Capron
1999, 120–124.) Sufficient destruction of the brain, including the brainstem,
ensured respiratory failure leading quickly to terminal cardiac arrest. Conversely,
prolonged cardiopulmonary failure inevitably led to total, irreversible loss of brain
function. With the invention of mechanical respirators in the 1950s, however, it
became possible for a previously lethal extent of brain damage to coexist with
continued cardiopulmonary functioning, sustaining the functioning of other organs.
Was such a patient alive or dead? The widespread dissemination in the 1960s of
such technologies as mechanical respirators and defibrillators to restore cardiac
function highlighted the possibility of separating cardiopulmonary and
neurological functioning. Quite rapidly the questions of what constituted human
death and how we could determine its occurrence had emerged as issues both
philosophically rich and urgent.
Various practical concerns provided further impetus for addressing these issues.
(Reflecting these concerns is a landmark 1968 report published by a Harvard
Medical School committee led by physician Henry Beecher (Ad Hoc Committee of
the Harvard Medical School 1968).) Soaring medical expenditures provoked
concerns about prolonged, possibly futile treatment of patients who presented some
but not all of the traditionally recognized indicators of death. Certainly, it would be
permissible to discontinue life-supports if these patients were dead. Concurrent
interest in the evolving techniques of organ transplantation motivated physicians
not to delay unnecessarily in determining that a patient had died. Removing vital
organs as quickly as possible would improve the prospect of saving lives. But
removing vital organs of living patients would cause their deaths, violating both
laws against homicide and the widely accepted moral principle prohibiting the
intentional killing of innocent human beings (see the entry on doing vs. allowing
harm). To be sure, there were—as there are now—individuals who held that
procuring organs from, thereby killing, irreversibly unconscious patients who had
consented to donate is a legitimate exception to this moral principle (see the entry
on voluntary euthanasia), but this judgment strikes many as a radical departure
from common morality. In any event, in view of concerns about the possibility of
killing in the course of organ procurement, physicians wanted clear legal guidance
for determining when someone had died.
The remainder of this entry takes a dialectical form, focusing primarily on ideas
and arguments rather than on history and individuals. It begins with an approach
that nearly achieved consensus status after these issues came under the spotlight in
the twentieth century: the whole-brain approach. (Most of what are here referred
to as “approaches” include a standard and a corresponding definition of death; a

36
few offer more radical suggestions for how to understand human death.) The
discussion proceeds, in turn, to the higher-brain approach, to an
updated cardiopulmonary approach, and to several more radical approaches. The
discussion of each approach examines its chief assertions, its answers to questions
identified above, leading arguments in its favor, and its chief difficulties. The entry
as a whole is intended to identify the main philosophical issues connected with the
definition and determination of human death, leading approaches that have been
developed to address these issues, and principal strengths and difficulties of these
visions viewed as competitors.
The meaning of life, or the answer to the question: "What is the meaning of
life?", pertains to the significance of living or existence in general. Many other
related questions include: "Why are we here?", "What is life all about?", or "What
is the purpose of existence?" There have been a large number of proposed answers
to these questions from many different cultural and ideological backgrounds. The
search for life's meaning has produced much philosophical, scientific, theological,
and metaphysical speculation throughout history. Different people and cultures
believe different things for the answer to this question.
The meaning of life as we perceive it is derived from philosophical and religious
contemplation of, and scientific inquiries about existence, social
ties, consciousness, and happiness. Many other issues are also involved, such
as symbolic meaning, ontology, value, purpose, ethics, good and evil, free will,
the existence of one or multiple gods, conceptions of God, the soul, and
the afterlife. Scientific contributions focus primarily on describing
related empirical facts about the universe, exploring the context and parameters
concerning the "how" of life. Science also studies and can provide
recommendations for the pursuit of well-being and a related conception of
morality. An alternative, humanistic approach poses the question, "What is the
meaning of my life

37
REFERENCES

https://www.philosophybasics.com/general_whatis.html?fbclid=IwAR3__VOid87EG4npyM9IVc1ReLAGF
vZNocIVWDVHuQHst6kY4qqX08VLYWU

https://www.metaphysics-for-life.com/branches-of-
philosophy.html?fbclid=IwAR1sr5g3fatsl1PhuFXvz0faVfF4yJuPHm35MDQbqYO0B-E0mg8vM41U00U

https://prezi.com/4hz943agtdfz/the-human-person-in-their-
environment/?fbclid=IwAR1nvielTEQQ_LDClZBed2iwaRYOSw24KC39nzi6Dq869cpetZB6GdGYkk4

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-herkimer-sociology-1/chapter/types-of-
societies/?fbclid=IwAR2Y5VCpX_nXrSSPFcvCgDOSVBJ9OpD3F-3rjHNKfmTYLS-Ku39kFAlekbg

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/culture-and-societies/material-and-nonmaterial-
culture

https://www.cliffsnotes.com › study-guides › sociology › culture-and-societies

https://study.com › academy › lesson › perceptions-of-culture-ideal-culture-a...

https://www.alleydog.com › glossary › definition › term=Ideal+Culture+

38
https://www.trumanlibrary.gov › education › three-branches-of-government

https://study.com › academy › types-of-societies-in-sociology-lesson-quiz

REFLECTION

QUINTERO ROSE ANN.

As an HUMSS student who enjoys topic about mind, I really enjoy learning
about Philosophy. It tackles about our role here in this world, as a human
person. And as a human person, we all have purpose on this world. I learned
that Philosophy is not just about ‘sayings’ it’s about how that sayings is
applicable to our life and how we apply it, especially.

Before, I thought studying philosophy is hard, but when you really enjoy the
subject, nothing is hard. When you are learning, you’ll be able to enjoy even
though it’s hard to understand. And when you’re really enjoying the subjects,
like me, I noticed that everything we have learned are applicable and really
happening in real life. The topics that are discussed made me wonder more
about us, human. It made me more curious and wanting for more
information.

As a student who wants to be a psychologist, I really enjoyed this subject. I

will continue learn more be more curious and I will continue to satisfy my
curiosity about human person, and their minds. Because studying philosophy
is like studying human’s head in their society.

39
I reflect that this subject, philosophy, is enjoyable to learn, especially if you’re
a person who enjoy learning about the world, humans and their mind.

DOCUMENTATION

40