Introduction To Philosophy - Final PDF

Unit 1
DIVISIONS/ DISCIPLINES OF PHILOSOPHY

WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON LOGIC AND
ETHICS
1. DIVISION OF PHILOSOPHY
The following are the disciplines or branches of philosophy
Axiology Epistemology
Cosmology Ontology
Metaphysics Theodicy
psychology Logic
1st diagrammatic presentations of philosophical Disciplines
Introduction to Philosophy P a g e 1 | 252

2nd diagrammatic Presentations of philosophical Discipline
The diagram below shows the relevance of philosophical inquiry to

those engaged in the acquisition of scientific and technical skills in our
world today.
The diagram shows also the relevance of the philosophical inquiry

even in physical science, like medicine and engineering and other
areas like economics and commerce etc.
The diagram with a cluster of disciplines here below advances two

convictions of worth in our modern world namely;
 Philosophy as love of wisdom and search for the ultimate foundation

of all things it is MOTHER subject of all other disciplines on higher level
of learning or thought pattern.
 Philosophy was relevant from the times of the Greeks as it is now in

that it was and still is a foundation for a better understanding of any
coherent discipline of learning.

A. AXIOLOGY:
i) Etymological definition
 Axiology comes from two Greek words; “axios” which means “worthy”
and “logos” which means “the study of”
ii) Basic meaning of Axiology

 Axiology means study of values; the investigation of its nature, criteria,
and metaphysical status.
 The analysis of values to determine their meaning, characteristics,
origins, types, criteria, and epistemological status.
1. We can briefly elaborate as follows.

a) Nature of value: is value a fulfillment of desire, a pleasure, a
preference, or simply an interest?
b) Criteria of value: de gustibus non (est) disputandum or do standards
apply?
c) Status of value: how are values related to (scientific) facts? What
ultimate worth, if any, do human values have?
2. Axiology is sub-divided into two main parts.
a) Ethics:
i) Ethics is a general term for what is often described as the "science

(study) of morality". In philosophy, ethical behavior is that which is
"good" or "right." The Western tradition of ethics is sometimes called
moral philosophy. This is one part of value theory (axiology) – the other
part is aesthetics – of the four major branches of philosophy, alongside
metaphysics, epistemology, and logic.

ii) The Term Moral:
The English word moral is derived from Latin words Mores and Moralis.
Both of them are translated from Greek by the famous Roman Orator
Cicero.
The Greek word from which the term Moral is derived from is Ethikos
which means Custom or pertaining to Character.
Ethics is also the study of values in human behavior or the study of
moral problems: e.g.,
(1) the rightness and wrongness of actions,

(2) the kinds of things which are good or desirable, and
(3) blameworthy and praiseworthy actions.
b) Aesthetics
 comes from Greek word aisthetikos, “one who is perceptive of things

through his sensations, feelings, and intuitions”
 the word aesthesis means “primary, rudimentary sensation”
 this is the study of beauty, and of related concepts such as the

sublime, the tragic, the ugly, the humorous, the drab, the pretty.
 The analysis of the values, tastes, attitudes, ands standards involved in

our experience of and judgments about things made by humans or
found in nature which we call beautiful.
Therefore, Aesthetics is the study of value in the arts or the inquiry into
feelings, judgments, or standards of beauty and related concepts.

B. EPISTEMOLOGY
• Epistemology is the science or theory of knowledge. Episteme-
means knowledge, and Logos means
theory/science/study/discussion of.
• This is the branch or discipline of philosophy which investigates the

origin, structure, method and validity of knowledge.
• It responds to questions such as:
 What are the sources and grounds of knowledge?

 What is the scope and extent of knowledge?
 When do we have assurance that we know?
 What is the difference between knowledge and faith?
 What is faith?
 ls faith the will to believe?
 ls faith an expectation based on experience in human knowledge?
 How important is language in knowledge?
 What role do symbols, intuition, and empirical science play in
knowledge?
• The term epistemology seems. to have been used for the first time
by J.F. Ferrier in his institute of Metaphysics (1854), when he
distinguished two branches of philosophy, epistemology and ontology
(which we shall see later).
• Epistemology in another sense is an enquiry into the nature and

ground of experience, belief and knowledge.
• What can we know, and how do we know it? Are the questions
central to philosophy? And knowledge forms the main topic of
epistemology along with other cognitive notions like belief,
understanding, reason, judgment, sensation, imagination, supposing,
guessing, learning and forgetting.

Types of Knowledge from the Point of view of Epistemology
The types of knowledge often occur in pairs
i) a priori (analytic) knowledge
This is knowledge by definition e.g., by definition only, a triangle is a

figure with three sides and three angles It is analytical knowledge.
ii) A posteriori knowledge
This is knowledge (empirical knowledge) based upon (sense)

experience-it is synthetic knowledge.
A priori and Postenori (empirical) knowledge have long been

contrasted on the basis of origins analytical/synthetic distinction is
relevant here. The philosopher Immanuel Kant, argues that is a priori
knowledge is analytic; it risks having no content Kant postulated
synthetic a priori propositions known as Transcendental Arguments or
notions for our course, these are controversial waters which we do not
want to test in our introductory course on philosophy.
Propositional Knowledge
This entails knowing facts e.g. knowing that Nairobi is the capital of
Kenya. This type of knowledge is contrasted with knowing objects
(connected with Nairobi)-what make Nairobi to be the capital of
Kenya.

Knowing How and Knowing That
Gilbert Ryle contrasts Knowing how and knowing that and the
distinction has been widely used in for instance, Ethics and Philosophy
of mind for example moral knowledge might consist in knowing how
to behave and scientific knowledge might consist in knowing the
earth is spherical rather than flat.
C. COSMOLOGY
• Etymological definition, the name comes from two Greek words
namely;
-Kosmos-order, the form or structure of a thing and
-Logos-means study of the ordered universe or harmony of the word,

of the universe-as contrasted with Chaos. The universe here is taken
as a single integrated whole and not chaotic and disorderly.
• It is the study of philosophy which deals with the science of the

universe as a whole-the earth-the globe-
• Cosmology also covers speculations about the cosmos- the world

as an orderly systematic whole.
• It also deals with the nature of cosmos for instance; the possibility of
a form of life existing on the planets is a cosmological question.
• The scientists who navigate around the world in search for

knowledge about it- are called Cosmonouts.

D. ONTOLOGY
• The word Ontology comes from two Greek words namely
Onta-the really existing things, true reality and
Logos-the study of the theory which accounts of.
• Ontology refers to the study of the essential characteristic of being

in itself apart from the study of particular existing things.
• In studying being in its most abstract from it asks questions such as;
what is Being-in-itself?
• What is the nature of being-as Being?
• Ontology is the branch of philosophy which attempts
a) to describe the nature of ultimate being (the one, the absolute,

the perfect eternal form.
b) To show that all things depend upon it or their existence
c) To indicate how this dependence is manifested in reality to
relate.
d) To relate human thoughts and actions to this reality on an
individual and historical bases.
e) That branch of philosophy which asks the question; what does
“to be” to exist mean?
f) Which analysis the variety of meaning (ways) in which things can
be said to be, “Exists”

Ontology is close to meta-physics and Epistemology.
This is the branch of philosophy which deals with speculations

concerning pure being (God) as well as the realm of Human
existence. For instance, the nature of life and death is a concern for
ontology.
E. METAPHYSICS-(Study of things-or beings)

• The term “metaphysics” comes from two Greek words names meta-
“after”, “beyond”, and physikos, “pertaining to nature”, or physis,
“nature,” “natural”
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy which studies the ultimate

reality of things. An attempt to find a true account of reality. It is the
study of the first principles and ultimate problems.
• While drawing up a list of Aristotle’s works around the year 70 AD,

Andronicus of Rhodes named some of his books (Aristotle)
metaphysics, things they came after his physics book.
• The name, however, perfectly fits this field of study; since it seeks the
ultimate cause of the being of things, it has risen above what is
material and sensible and reached out to spiritual realities.
• Metaphysics studies all reality, since everything real has being.
• It is not limited to some type of being, unlike the other branches of

philosophy.
• Thus, the manual object of metaphysics is all reality.
• Since metaphysics studies reality fro the point of view of its being,
the formal object of metaphysics is the being of reality that is, the
being of things3.Study of being Qua being-being as being

Being (ens-in Latin)
• The term being (ens in Latin) denotes everything “that is” It is

something that has (habet) an act of being (esse), and has a specific
manner of being.
• Strictly speaking, God is not a Being, since He is his own-esse or act

of being, and He is not limited to any particular or finite manner of
being.
• Metaphysics studies God as the first cause (ultimate cause) or the

act of being of all things.
Cause and Causality according to Aristotle
In his’ physics and more in his metaphysics, Aristotle has elaborated

his doctrine of causality. In doing so, he is putting into a systematic
and profound form the philosophy of the ultimate cause which
emerged from the pre-Socratic philosophers
According to Aristotle, everything that happens has a cause that

explains its origin, and its end and the manner of its coming to be.
Everything that comes to be is due to a cause.
FOUR CAUSES
• Aristotle distinguishes four types of causes. Each cause can briefly

be defined as follows:
a) Material cause: it is that matter out of which something is made; it

is the intrinsic constitutive element of something (e.g., the wood of the
statue)
b) Formal Cause: it is the form or shape of something; its essence to

be what it is (the shape of the statue)

c) Efficient Cause: it is the being in act who brings about the change
(the sculptor who makes the statue)
d) Final Cause: it is that for the sake of which the change takes place.
It is what constitutes the perfection of the being (in the case of the
statue, this is the purpose for which the statue was made)
Aristotle regards the final cause as the most important of all cause as
all the other cause are ultimately founded on the final cause.
NB: Later on we shall the pre-Socratic philosophers each according to

which cause he elaborated Aristotle systematized his doctrine of
cause coming from these philosophers.
• Cause means:
i) That from which, a thing comes from into being e.g., the bronze is
the cause of statue and the silver is the cause of the saucer.
ii) The form or pattern, i.e. the definition of the essence and the genera
which include this (e.g. the ratio 2:1 and the number in general are
causes of the octave in music.)
iii) That form which the change or the resting from change first begins,

e.g. the adviser is a cause of the action, and the father a cause of the
child.
iv) The end i.e., that for the sake of which a thing is e.g. Health is the
cause of walking.
F. THEODICY
• Etymologically, Theodicy comes from two Greek words namely;

Theos-God Dike-Justice, right, hence theodicy refers to justice
rightness of God.
• It is the study that attempt to justify the ways of God to humanly.
• The attempt to vindicate the goodness and justice of God in

ordaining or allowing moral and eternal evil and human suffering.
• Any coherently organized body of doctrine concerning the nature

of God and his relationship with humans and the universe.
• The systematic attempt present, interprets, and justifies in a

consistent and meaningful way the belief in gods and/or God.
• It is a branch of theology which deals with the study of God from a

natural point of view (not from faith)
• It studies God not only from the point of his existence the pure being
but as the cause of all beings and origin of human life and the end of
the conduct and actions of human being.

G. Psychology
• Etymological definition
Psychology comes from two Greek words, namely
Psyche- Soul, mind, breath, spirit life.
Logos-study of the soul, mind, breath of life, spirit-of a person
• Psyche was used originally to refer to the state of being alive; then
to the principle of life (breath-spirit, soul in all things that cause life.
Psychology is the science that investigates mental states directly. It

uses generally empirical methods to investigate concrete mental
states like joy, fear or obsessions. Psychology investigates the laws that
bind these mental states to each other or with inputs and outputs to
the human organism.
 It also came to refer to the source of conscience and also to

conscience to the world soul.
• It is also called Meta-Psychology.
• Psychology deals with the mind/soul and personality. For instance,

whether dreams can foretell the future is a question for metaphysical
psychology. From psyche-soul/mind and logos-study.

LOGIC
A. Introductory Remark
The great advances made by science and technology and the vast
amount of knowledge accumulating every day are a direct result of
logical thinking. Logic is that branch of learning that tells how human
experiences and speculations are to be evaluated.
Logic lays fairly strict guidelines to evaluate the processes by which

knowledge is obtained.
Further, it helps one in evaluating this knowledge itself.
Logic helps us distinguish the good from the bad.
Superstition is knowledge deduced or obtained without logic, and

speculation is deduction made without proof.
Both of these methods are like castles built on the sea shore. All it takes
is one wave of logic to wash them away, yet people use these flimsy
methods all the time to support their positions or to justify their
behaviors.
On the other hand, science is knowledge obtained by an objective

combination of logic and repetitive experiments.
True logical arguments build upward or outward from a solid

foundation, with each step (called a premise) connected to another.
Compare this to superstition or speculation, which is often, random
and disconnected.
First, a study of logic helps the apologist to think and present his
position objectively and accurately.

Second, a large number of rational objections brought up against the
Bible and the Christian faith stem from logically faulty deductions.
Deduction is a tricky matter, especially when faulty deductions are
the weapon used by the other side.
Unless an apologist has at least some acquaintance with the correct

procedures of deduction and unless he or she is familiar with fallacies
of deduction the apologist will have a difficult time answering
questions raised by the shrewd critic.
In all probability, an unprepared apologist will waste time on a non-

issue, frustrating the sincere inquirer and losing a strong case.
It is quite common these days to witness Christians rising up to answer

the critics but only exposing their own inabilities and frustrations. Many
times the objections raised by the critics are simply dumb, but the lack
of preparation on the Christian's side prompts him to face the criticisms
with equally ignorant answers.
At the same time, many of the more sincere inquirers are frustrated by
all this. They know that the objection doesn't have any substance, but
at the same time they perceive that the answer proposed by the
unprepared person is equally ridiculous. This only adds to their agony.
An apologist who has done his or her homework well, however, will be
in a position to analyze the objections, place them into their
appropriate categories of logical fallacies, and then intelligently and
systematically disprove the opponent’s argument.
This approach is fast, reliable and -- most important -- convincing to

every honest inquirer.

B. Definition of Logic
LOGIC: what is it?
 Logic is the branch of philosophy which treats all forms of thinking in

general and particularly
 Inferences and scientific method. It is the fundamental science of

thought.
 Literary logic is the science or art or reasoning as applied to a

department of knowledge.
 Logical argumentation which is a mode of reasoning is viewed as

good or bad according to its conformity or want of conformity to
logical pertinence or propriety.
 Hence, an argument is logical if, and only if it is in conformity with the

laws of correct reasoning.
 Logic, simply put, is the art of valid reasoning and argumentation

 An argument is either logical (right) or illogical (false)
 Logic studies concepts, proposition (premises) and syllogisms
 The object of study of logic is human knowledge in so for as it respects

reality. We can distinguish three operations on our process of knowing;

1. Simple Apprehension
Simple apprehension is the first and most basic operation of the mind.
Its end result is the concept, such as the concept man or dog.
2. The operation of Judging

It is through this second operation of the mind that we put concepts
together; its end result is called JUDGMENT or proposition (premise)
such as man laughs
3. The operation of Reasoning (Sylogism)

It is through the operation of reasoning by which the mind combines
several judgments or propositions in order to arrive at a previous
unknown judgment; its end result is called syllogism, such as, “He who
breathes is alive, Peter breathes Therefore, he is alive.
- Hence there are three general Darts of Logic; logic of concept, logic
of judgment or of the propositions and logic of reasoning or of
syllogism.
- What is the Central topic of logic? The central topic of logic is valid
reasoning, its systematization and the study of notions relevant to it.
C. Logic and Other Sciences

All branches of learning can be divided into two groups: analytical
and
normative (rule laying).
Analytical sciences deal only with describing and analyzing

information. Normative sciences, however, provide the basic norms
and tools that are necessary for reliable analysis and conclusions.

Physical sciences like Physics, Chemistry and Botany and sociological
sciences like Psychology, sociology, and history etc. are analytical
sciences.
On the other hand, logic and mathematics are normative sciences.

The first category of information needs the second one for validating
and establishing truth.
Consider the widely publicized model of the atom.
Atoms are physical realities while the atomic model is an invisible

mathematical model that tries to represent actual atoms.
The model in itself is only a description of the way an atom might be

made of. One needs logic both to develop the model as well as to
deduce how close it might be to the physical atom.
Or consider the proverbial story of Newton and the falling apple.

Apples have always been falling and everyone accepted it till that
time as a fact of nature. But it is the application of logical thinking that
made Newton deduce what might be happening.
This means that Logic is that branch of learning that deals with
inductions and deductions in every investigation.
Hence Logic can even be called "the science of sciences". Obviously,
no one can ignore the study of logic if he is serious about defending
the Christian faith.

D. Deductive/Inductive Logic
There are two types of logic
i) Deductive Logic
ii) Inductive Logic
Deduction and induction are the two basic approaches used in Logic
to arrive at valid conclusions.
In deduction one arrives at particular statements from general

statements.
Induction on the other hand starts from particulars and advances to

general conclusions, Both approaches are equally valid and
important for sciences.
For the apologist practicing in the modern world, however, deductive

logic is needed more frequently than the inductive counterpart.
A large number of technical terms are required to give a complete

introduction to deductive logic, but in this discussion we will restrict
ourselves to few words very important for the apologist.
The first two terms are: PREMISES and DEDUCTION.
Premises are the informative statements on the basis of which

conclusions (or deductions) are made.
In the correct kind of deductive reasoning, the conclusions follow

necessarily from the information (Premises) that is given.

i) DEDUCTIVE LOGIC
• An argument is deductive if it draws a conclusion from certain

premises/propositions that to deny the conclusion would be to
contradict the premises/proposition.
It is an inference in which a conclusion follows necessarily from one or

more given premises.
• In deductive Logic, one argues from universal to particular

conclusion.
1st Example
1st premise/proposition; “all eats eat rats
2nd “ “ “this is a cat
Conclusion this cat eats rats.
2nd Example
1. No athletes are vegetarians

2. All football players are Athletes.
Conclusion: therefore, no football players are vegetarians

ii) INDUCTIVE LOGIC
In inductive logic, one argues from particular cases to a universal

conclusion
Example: Inductive logic is used by positive or empirical sciences

which tests a number of cases before making a conclusion. Inductive
logic is concerned with the critical investigation of facts it is sometimes
called
Methodology or applied logic.
An argument is inductive in a strict sense if it draws such general

conclusions from such premises directly in a single step.
If this step consists in arguing that because some (or all observed)
maize are rotten, therefore further (or all) observed maize are rotten,
we have simple or enumerative induction.
• There is another type of logic which is called Symbolic Logic which

is mathematical (calculus) and symbolic.
• Symbol from Greek word symbolon which means, a sign by which

one knows or infers a thing; An outside sign representing a hidden
meaning or an abstract ideas-Symbollein- to put together to
compare. And numbers are signs. Hence symbolic logic.

Language
Language comes from signs and symbols thus,

Sign or Symbol= meaning production
Sign/symbols when added produce meaning which is expressed in
language by human.
Algebraic Equation of language
The signifier or symbolizer= production of meaning which is

LANGUAGE
S/s =M
What is more important? The signifier with capital S or the signified with
small s in the meaning of a particular Language.
How can professionals e.g. (Lawyers and politicians ) utilize logic in

their profession.
o
o Politicians and lawyers utilize language and persuasive language in
their careers They are required to persuade their clients through
logical argument and not mere rhetoric.
o Logical argumentation is a mode of reasoning which is viewed as

good or bad according to conformity or want of conformity to logical
pertinence and , and propriety.
o Hence politicians and lawyers worthy of their names should engage

themselves in logical argument which is conformity with the laws of
correct reasoning in order to arrive at truthful and fair conclusion. This
is the only way in which they can maintain their integrity by validly
convincing and empowering people or in case of lawyer validly
winning a case.
o Logic will enable especially a lawyer to show the necessary

connection between the tangible evidence and deductive or
inductive argumentation and conclusion.

o No wonder that both professionals in normal circumstances study
philosophy so that it can open up their minds and engage themselves
in valid reasoning.
o In this also to be noted that both Lawyers and politicians may use
fallacious reasoning in order to win a case or votes. And in some
instances, this illogical argumentation has worked in their favor.
FALLACIES
• Criteria for relevance and ambiguity cannot be made formal

because of the many ways in which an attempted inference may fall.
• When an attempted inference fails because the premises are

irrelevant or ambiguous, we shall describe the argument containing
inference as a FALLACY.
• The purpose of any inference in LOGIC is to establish Truth of a

Conclusion.
• An argument whose attempted inference fails to establish the truth

of its conclusion is a fallacy.
• FALLACIES in LOGIC are incorrect forms of arguments they may

appear to be correct since a fallacy cannot inform us of the truth of
its conclusion, yet can seem correct, its aim must be to cause us to
accept or agree to its conclusion.
We have seen that, while a literal use of words can inform us, the use
of emotive terms can influence our attitude or feelings.
This one way in which an argument may attempt fallaciously to cause
us to accept or agree to its conclusion is through the use of emotive
language.

• Our first criterion of relevance is now the presence of an emotive
appeal in premises. Fallacies of this sort may be called fallacies of
emotive appeal
Such fallacies of appeal are:
o Appeal to force- Argumentum ad Baculum

o Abusive — Argumentinum ad Hominem
o Circumstantial appeal to person’s circumstances- argumentum ad
Hominem
o Appeal to pity- argumentum ad Misericordiam
o Appeal to Ignorance- Argumentum ad Ignoratiam
o Appeal to the public- Argumentum ad populum
o Appeal to Authority- Argumentum ad Vercundium.
• Where fallacies contain threat of harm or punishment, the fallacy is

that of appeal to force
• To attempt to gain assent through reference to lack of evidence is

to commit the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance Argumentum ad
ignorantiam.
• We might not hear that in the legal context; the innocence of the
accused is assumed or affirmed.
Hence, lack of evidence of guilt does not prove innocence but simply
constitutes the failure to prove guilt and the original assumption
stands.
Examples of Fallacy
i) argumentation ad Misericordium (pity)
a) “Passing this course means a great deal to me. it will enable me to

stay in school and make my parents very happy. So I hope you can
see to it that I get a passing grade”

b) “And so, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I know you will find it in
your hearts it dismiss the charges against this man who has had
poverty and misfortune to cope with all his life and who has done his
best even though, like all of us, he has made mistakes” (lawyer of the
defendant.)
c) “If you don’t agree that his conclusion follows from these premises.
I will flunk (fail) you”-(Dean of Students)
ii) Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive)

“The idea of taxing large incomes at a greater rate than small ones is
one of those unfortunate consequences of the ill-fated Ndegwa
Commission. Therefore this bill which is related to the commission must
be defeated).
iii) Arguentum ad Ignorantiam (appeal to Ignorance)

“it is obviously foolish to believe in immorality, since no one has ever
proved that man has a soul that survives death”
iv) Argumentum ad Populum (Public)

When we are urged to believe on the ground that others do so, we
encounter an “appeal to the public”
v) Argumentum ad Vere cundum (appeal to Authority)

The error in fallacious appeal to authority consists in the attempt to
associate something or someone already approved by or with some
claim to authority or conclusion.
E.g. “The president, ministers have agreed that the Harmonized Draft
constitution is good for Kenya and there is no need for any single
amendment change to it. So, you are supposed to say yes to the
draft”
Fallacy comes about because of accident, hasty generalization or

false course. Fallacies of the second type could be due to faulty
selections or fallacies of neglected aspect.
The next two fallacies of relevance we will consider might be called
fallacies of concealed assumption.

Fallacies of Composition and Division
The ambiguity in the fallacies of composition and division concerns
the relations of classes and, properties, or wholes.
Examples fallacy of division, “Kenya is known for its hospitality. You can
be sure you will be welcomed by every mwananchi you meet”
Fallacy of Equivocation
“Kip Keino was a good Athlete. He should make a good politician”.
Fallacy of Composition
-“Surely we can’t trust any organization of which he is a member”.
- “Pele is the best striker in the world. Therefore we expect the Cosmos
(his club) to be the best soccer club in the world”.
NB: Avoid Fallacious Argumentation and conversation.

Notice them when they are made by others and correct them.

Test
Indicate the fallacy committed in each of the following
1. “The army is notoriously inefficient, so we cannot expect major

Kuveu to do an efficient job”.
2. “No mathematician has ever been able to demonstrate the truth

of the famous “last theorem” of format, so it must be false.
3. “You can’t park your car here. I don’t care what the sign says. If you
don’t drive on I will give you a ticket”.
4. “God exists because the Bible tells us so, and we know that what
the Bible tells must be true because it is the revealed word of God”.
5. “America is the wealthiest nation in the world today, so it is absurd

to say that poverty is a problem for America”.
6. “Cooks have been preparing food for generations, so our cook

must be a real expert”.
7. “Since all men are mortal the human race must some day come to
an end”.
8. “There is no point hiring a skilled worker to do the job, because many

who are regarded as skilled workers are no more skilled than anybody
else”.

GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF ETHICS AND
MORAL
i) Ethics in General
When most people think of ethics (or morals), they think of rules for
distinguishing between right and wrong, such as the Golden Rule ("Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you"), a code of
professional conduct like the Hippocratic Oath ("First of all, do no
harm"), a religious creed like the Ten Commandments ("Thou Shall not
kill..."), or a wise aphorisms like the sayings of Confucius. This is the most
common way of defining "ethics": norms for conduct that distinguish
between acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
1. Most people learn ethical norms at home, at school, in church,

or in other social settings. Although most people acquire their sense of
right and wrong during childhood, moral development occurs
throughout life and human beings pass through different stages of
growth as they mature. Ethical norms are so ubiquitous that one might
be tempted to regard them as simple commonsense. On the other
hand, if morality were nothing more than commonsense, then why
are there so many ethical disputes and issues in our society?
2. One plausible explanation of these disagreements is that all

people recognize some common ethical norms but different
individuals interpret, apply, and balance these norms in different ways
in light of their own values and life experiences.
3. Most societies also have legal rules that govern behavior, but ethical
norms tend to be broader and more informal than laws.
 Although most societies use laws to enforce widely accepted moral

standards and ethical and legal rules use similar concepts, it is
important to remember that ethics and law are not the same. An
action may be legal but unethical or illegal but ethical.

 We can also use ethical concepts and principles to criticize, evaluate,
propose, or interpret laws.
 Indeed, in the last century, many social reformers urged citizens to
disobey laws in order to protest what they regarded as immoral or
unjust laws. Peaceful civil disobedience is an ethical way of expressing
political viewpoints.
 Another way of defining 'ethics' focuses on the disciplines that study

standards of conduct, such as philosophy, theology, law, psychology,
or sociology. For example, a "medical ethicist" is someone who studies
ethical standards in medicine. One may also define ethics as a
method, procedure, or perspective for deciding how to act and for
analyzing complex problems and issues.
For instance, in considering a complex issue like global warming, one

may take an economic, ecological, political, or ethical perspective
on the problem.
4. While an economist might examine the cost and benefits of various

policies related to global warming, an environmental ethicist could
examine the ethical values and principles at stake.
5. Many different disciplines, institutions, and professions have norms for

behavior that suit their particular aims and goals. These norms also
help members of the discipline to coordinate their actions or activities
and to establish the public's trust of the discipline. For instance, ethical
norms govern conduct in medicine, law, engineering, and business.
6. Ethical norms also serve the aims or goals of research and apply to
people who conduct scientific research or other scholarly or creative
activities. There is even a specialized discipline, research ethics, which
studies these norms.

ii) ETHICS IN PARTICULAR
1. Ethics is a general term for what is often described as the "science

(study) of morality". In philosophy, ethical behavior is that which is
"good" or "right." The Western tradition of ethics is sometimes called
moral philosophy. This is one part of value theory (axiology) – the other
part is aesthetics – of the four major branches of philosophy, alongside
metaphysics, epistemology, and logic.
2. The Term Moral:

The English word moral is derived from Latin words Mores and Moralis.
Both of them are translated from Greek by the famous Roman Orator
Cicero.
The Greek word from which the term Moral is derived from is Ethikos
which means Custom or pertaining to Character.
a) What does Ethics/Morals Study?

o Ethics and morals study Human acts and not Acts of man
i) Human acts
o Good actions are praiseworthy
o Bad actions are blamable or blameworthy)
ii) Acts of men (reflex actions)

o These are acts which man is not the originator. They are also called
reflex actions
o Man cannot control them e.g. breathing, blood circulation etc
o Man cannot be praised or blamed because of them.

c) Moral Agent
o For a person to be praised or blamed for an action he/she must be a
responsible moral agent.
o Moral agent must have knowledge and freedom in order to be

responsible of the action done
o The people whom we have to excuse from the blame in their actions
are non-responsible moral agents, e.g. the infant, mad people and
the sinile.
o Inanimate beings are not moral agents.
o And to say that action is ethical or moral may mean that it pertains to
the language or fields of morals or that is praiseworthy conduct of
some moral agent
d) Free Will and Free Choice

 Free will is the ability of rational agents to exercise control over their
actions, decisions, or choices.
 Free Choice consists of the mental process of judging the merits of

multiple options and selecting one of them.
 Without freedom of choice, one is not a moral agent and is

therefore not morally responsible of his action. He cannot be blamed
or praised for them.
e) Conscience
 Is the inner voice that speaks to a person, praising or blaming him for
the action done.

 In religion, conscience is seen as the voice of God in a person.
 It is an aptitude, faculty, intuition, or judgment of the intellect, that

distinguishes whether one's prospective actions are right or wrong by
reference to norms (principles and rules) or values.
f) Fundamental Option
 Fundamental option is the basic decision that a person makes,
orienting him towards other persons, including God.
 Other small choices may erode or strengthen the fundamental option.
 There is positive F.O and negative F.O in life.
 Positive F.O builds a person and others. Negative F.O destroys him
because it is egocentric
iii) ETHICAL/MORAL VALUE
a) What does the term value mean in Ethics?

The word value comes from a Latin varele, which means, to have worth,
to be strong.
 Worth; is the quality of a thing which makes it desirable, desired, useful
or an object of interest.
 Of excellence; that which is esteemed, priced or regarded highly, or
as a good.
The opposite of value is disvalue. The opposite of good is negative
good, which is evil.
 Objective value- the view that values are objective in the sense that
they can be supported by careful and consistent rational
argumentation as being the best under the circumstances.

b) Value in Ethical/Moral sense
Three elements are considered essential for the valuation of moral
acts i.e.-to enable the moral agent (person), to make a moral
judgment is rooted in his conscience. They are:-
 The object of the action; by object is meant-the kind of action which

in no way harms or distorts neither the personal nature, nor that of the
other. A being is in order if it does its proper thing, its proper work.
Aristotle said that every being has an End and moves towards that
end according to its mode of being. A human being moves like
human being, and an animal like an animal.
 Intention; refers to the aim of the person performing an action in

pursuit of a natural want. It is what the moral agent intends to achieve
by the use of his operative powers-his aim, or the end of an agent.
 Circumstances
Circumstances can modify the moral evaluation of an act. What,

where, who, how, which, when- of the action and agent.

UNIVERSAL CORE ETHICAL VALUES AND THEIR
IMPLICATION IN BUSINESS
Using core ethical values as the basis for ethical thinking can help
detect situations where we focus so hard on upholding one value that
we sacrifice another — e.g. we are loyal to friends and so do not
always tell the truth about their actions.
Trustworthiness Respect Self-Restraint

Honesty Responsibility Fairness
Integrity Accountability Caring
Reliability Transparency Citizenship
Loyalty Diligence Truthfulness
Perseverance
VIRTUES
i) What is a virtue?
 Virtue is a positive/good action which has been repeated for a long
time by a community or has come through a particular tradition.
 It has stood the test of time in human life and practice.
 Virtues are cross-cutting values, regardless of race, religion or age. The
virtues do not go out of fashion as might happen to blue jeans.
 Good human habits are indispensable to a person who wants self
fulfillment and that of others.
 Human maturity therefore is a state of virtues. It is a situation of a
person who has acquired good habits, is trying to develop them by
exercising them as well as to acquire those that he is lacking.
ii) A virtue as power/faculty

 Virtues can be said to be a power or faculty which has been brought
to perfection. Such a capacity enables a person to do good acts
easily, promptly, gladly and naturally in a habitual or stable Manner.

 The word virtue is related to Latin Vis which means strength; it
empowers a person to carry out proper acts effectively.
 Virtues are important in leadership.
iii) List of Moral Virtues

Meekness The just Self-respect
Courage Liberality Magnificence
Modesty Sincerity Wittiness/wisdom/intelligent
Temperance Friendship Just anger
dignity
iv) St Paul’s list of the fruits of the Spirit can be likened to virtues
i) Love iv) Patience vii) Faithfulness
ii) Joy v) Kindness viii) Gentleness
iii) Peace vi) Generosity ix) Self-control
v) Confucius of China
In the Four Book Of Confucius, four outstanding gifts of
“heaven”(TAO)are given;
o Benevolence (kindness of heart)
o Gentleness (as abiding sign and cultural heritage, benevolence)
o Justice
o Wisdom
vi) The Scriptures emphasize three evangelical Counsels/virtues

(1st Corinthians Chapter 13)
Faith - Hope -Love (charity)

IN LIFE.
i) What is a Vice?
 Absence of due disposition
 A human act which is repeated several vice and becomes like
second nature/habit in a person
 Under each cardinal virtue, there is a vice.
 A vise leads a person away from the goal of human life.
 A vice destroys a person and society.
According to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, virtue is in the middle of
the two extremes (as illustrated in the following chart)
ii) VIRTUES AND CORRESPONDING VICES
VICE (EXCESS) VIRTUE VICE (DEFECT)
o Anger Meekness, Lack of energy of will
o Rashness/boldness Courage, Cowardice
o Shamelessness Modesty Timidity
o Licentiousness Temperance Drunkenness
o Envy just anger -no name-
o Profit (Crematistica) The just Loss
o Wastefulness Liberality Miserliness
o Boastfulness Sincerity Self depreciation
o Flattery Friendship Brusqueness
o Servility Dignity Obstinacy
o Vanity Self-respect Humility
o Extravagance Magnificence Meanness
o Buffoonery(mockery) Wittiness Boorishness
iii) List of vices according to Dante(Italian thinker and literary Artist

They are the ones commonly known in traditional Christianity;
1. Pride or vanity 5. Gluttony
2. Avarice (covetousness, greed) 6. Envy or jealousy
3. Lust 7. Sloth or laziness
4. Wrath or anger

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
What is Political Philosophy?
• Political philosophy is the study of city (town), government, politics,
liberty, justice, property,, rights, law and enforcement of a legal code
by authority.
• What they are, why (or even if) they are needed
• What makes a government legitimate?
• What right and freedom it should protect and why
• What form it should take and why
• What law is,
• What duties citizens owe to a legitimate government if any
• When it may be legitimately overthrown if ever,
2. In a vernacular sense;
The term political philosophy often refers to a general view or specific
ethic, political belief or attitude
about politics that does not necessarily belong to the technical
discipline of philosophy.
3. Political philosophy ;( analytical)

• Can also 1e understood by analyzing it through the general
perspectives of metaphysics, epistemology and axiology thereby
unearthing the authentic reality side
• The knowledge or methodological side the value aspect of politics
4. Three central concerns of political philosophy have been;

• The political economy by which property rights are defined, and
access to capital is regulated.
• The demands of justice in destruction and punishment
• ‘The rules of truth and evidence that determines judgments in the
law.

HISTORY OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
1. Antiquity
a) Western Philosophy
i) It has its origin in ancient Greek society where city states were
experimenting with various form of political arguments including
monarchy, oligarchy and democracy. One of the first extremely
important classical works of political philosophy is Plato the Republic
which was followed by Aristotle POLITICS and NICHOMACHEAN
ETHICS.
ii) Roman political philosophy was influenced by the STOICS, and the
Roman Stateman Cicero who wrote on political philosophy explaining
clearly the main stoic theses.
b) Far East
reference is here made of the independent works of Confucius,
mencus, mozi and the le egalit school in China and the law of Mona
and Chanakya in India. All sought to find means of restoring political
stability ‘they put VIRTUE as the basis of good political leadership and
life. They stressed the need of Discipline in acquiring virtue. These
civilizations had tany similarities with the ancient Greek civilization in
that there was a unified culture divided into vital states.
c) Medieval Christian —Europe Political Philosophy

In medieval Europe political philosophy was shaped by the works of
St. Augustine (city of man and city of God) St Thomas Aquinas division
of law in his summa theologia
i) God’s cosmic law
ii) God’s Scriptural law
iii) Natural law or rules of conduct universally applicable within reason
iv) Human law of specific rules applicable to specific circumstances
Medieval Islam; had a great influence in political philosophy from the

6th century onwards, especially in Arab countries which accepted
Sheila law as coming from Allah God and written in the Quran the
“Holy Book”

Niccolo Machiaveelli; in his influence in Europe
• His book the PRINCE (1511-12) and published in 1532 had a great
influence in Europe.
• Though the work was written for the medici family in Florence (Italy),
Machavelli supported the republic of Florence rather than the
oligarchy of the medici family
• According to machiavelli, good and evil are means used to bring
about an end i.e. the secure and powerful state.
• He did not believe in the divine right of kings. He shows how consent
of a populace is regulated between and among Rulers rather than
simply a naturalistic or theological group of the structure of society.
• He (as later English Thomas Hobbes) beliveral in the inherent
selfishness of the individual
• He strongly supported central power as the only means of
preventing the disintegration of the social order Me never favored a
devolved government that empowers the people at the bottom.
Enlightenment Period; (17th-18th century)-Europe

• The thinkers of the age like Immanuel Kant, Eugene Delacrosis/
liberty leading the people (1830)
Voltaire (France), John Stuart Mill)England and Dante (Italy) lodged a
scatting attack on Heteronous
Powers (rule by another) including

o The Kings
o The Popes (Religious/Church)
o And god (Religion)
They worshiped human REASON and challenged man to be Auto-

nomous-SeIf-rule/rule himself because he is and can determine his
own destiny
of course means Opposition and chaos-for those who were in power.
Contemporary Political Philosophy

-Capitalists-for democracy-Government by the people, for the
people and of the people which focus on undivided freedom and
ownership.
-Communism-rule by the state-Soviet Union-focuses on i.e. ownership
property by the state.
- Socialism-Eccletic philosophy-Accept it abit here and the (Nyerere’s
African socialism-Ujamaa
Test
Analyse and discuss the Kenyan state and the positive and negative
political philosophy (ies) that has (ve) been using it since
decolonization and ushering i

GENERAL RELEVANCE OF PHILOSOPHY
TODAY
"What Can You Do with Philosophy?
What Can You Do Without It!"
1. a) Many students do not understand the importance of philosophy

today and especially in the business world. They think that philosophy
should be convened to those who are studying philosophical studies
if you are becoming philosophers. It is generally seen as irrelevant and
has no value in some universities and especially in some subjects.
b) The purpose of this section is to explain to the students the relevance

of philosophy in all spheres of human life, in the university studies and
indeed in business, art, law and politics. That is why in well known world
universities philosophy is taken as a basic common cause or an
elective to those who are studying most of the programmes including
engineering and physics.
c) Infact at the end of this unit of philosophy the student will understand
that philosophy is the mother of all subjects including chemistry,
engineering, mathematics etc.
Julie Van Camp, one of the contemporary philosophers is convinced

that philosophy is relevant in our modern world for more than before.
She puts conviction in this manner;
The question is not,
"What can you do with philosophy?"
rather,
“The question is "what can you do without it?"
According to her what, philosopher/mathematician, Bertrand Russell's
wrote in his book, Principia Mathematica gives relevance to
philosophy because Julie Van Camp held that saw in Principia
Mathematica as the work which made possible today's computers
because this work developed the groundwork for a digital language.

The work by physicists on lasers was once maligned for being useless.
It took decades for the endless applications and practical value of
laser technology to become clear.
2. Applied and theoretical work (philosophical pursuit)

In order to do good "applied" work we must first do good theoretical
work.
The advances in the applications of philosophy in recent
decades - in medical ethics, business ethics, and so on - are possible
only by building upon solid theoretical work in philosophy.
This dependence of good applied work on theoretical, "pure"

research is true in all disciplines - the sciences, the humanities,
mathematics.
3. Seeming marginalization of philosophy today; a concern

Julie Van Camp who is a philosopher of Art and Law is very concerned
like many philosophers today concern about what appears to be an
increasing marginalization of philosophy as a discipline within the
academy (Elitist fields of study).
She was alarmed, as some of the philosophers were, with the
article in the Los Angeles Times about the job hunting travails of
undergraduate philosophy majors at the University of California, Irvine.
After studying a discipline once considered to be the queen of the
sciences (philosophy) or perhaps, the sovereign - these students were
greeted with laughter upon telling prospective employers their majors.
We all know that philosophy - as with the other humanities disciplines
- is intense training in;
 how to think,
 how to reason,
 how to put together good arguments,
 how to analyze alternatives,
 how to speak and write and think clearly.
Why doesn't the rest of the world understand that? Why don’t the
students of business, engineering, IT, Telecommunication, Pure
Science also understand this in our modern world, do they think that

positive experimental sciences has taken the role of philosophy and
therefore rendering its irrelevant?
Philosophy should not be fenced or sandwiched in by positive

scientists. Just because it ask questions pertaining wisdom, and the
ultimate course of all things while empirical sciences is interested with
what you can make use and bring a difference in people lives like
putting a satellite on the moon, on in the galaxy to facilitate better
communication and communication skills, electronic and print media
(news of the world), making aeroplanes, vehicles, mobile phones etc.
While we agree that positive experimental sciences have developed

humankind in the last two centuries e.g. medicine, farming and
industries, one cannot conclude that philosophical thinking belongs
to the past and has no relevance to mankind today.
The questions of explaining the course of things and their end, the
meaning of life, the importance of moral and ethical behaviour and
what brings man true happiness still persist in our world today. That is
why philosophy is yet to be rediscovered by those who think that it has
been overtaken by empirical sciences
4. The means does not justify the end

It's easy to blame that prospective employer –a serial killer, corrupt
businessman, an economic gangster, a drug baron, a dictator, a
barbarian, a technocrat. But we must ask ourselves how he got that
way - and how so many other citizens got that way.
The fear of some philosophers (which is a positive fear) is that

philosophy will go the way of classics, Greek and Latin. Once at the
heart of a liberal arts education, they now rarely even have the status
of a department, and are not taught at all at many schools and
Universities.
5. Liberal Arts and Positive Sciences
The concern is; an warranted war between empirical sciences and
liberal arts. Professor Wanjohi has written many books on Philosophy
and liberal Arts, he has also written many articles on warranted fear of

these perspectives of study. His conviction is that such a fear should
not exist because liberal Arts has something to give to empirical
sciences and vise versa.
We must not be complacent. Philosophy departments are too easily

merged with religion, history, or worse - amorphous "humanities"
departments. These are tight fiscal times - and we can assume this will
be a permanent fact of life as the state shifts its priorities to building
more prisons at the expense of education.
6. The struggle continues

The responsibility for avoiding the fate of classics lies with those of us in
philosophy. We must ensure that the rest of the academy understands
the importance of what we do as much as we do. This is our
responsibility. How do we meet that responsibility? Philosophy can
enrich all the disciplines at the university, but it is our responsibility to
show them this eternal truth.
7. Philosophy is vital to all especially to Businessmen and Lawyers

We are better qualified than anybody else in the university to teach
aspiring lawyers, and business people, and doctors, and nurses how
to approach ethical problems in their chosen careers. We must not
abdicate that challenge to others who toss around words like "values"
without having the foggiest idea what they are talking about.
8. Philosophy and its roles in the University

aspiring artists and musicians and dancers how to talk about the
nature of art and the meaning of the word "good" as it is used to
evaluate art. We must not abdicate that challenge to others who toss
around words like "philosophy" and "theory" and "values" without
having the foggiest idea what they are talking about.

aspiring scientists and engineers and mathematicians how to think
about the ethical dilemmas they face in their careers and to think

about the nature of the reality they are exploring. We must not
abdicate that challenge.
9. Philosophers should stand their grounds firmly without fear

It is not enough for us to say that our department is listed in the campus
phone books and if somebody has an ethical question, we'll answer
the phone. If we are nothing but a bargain-basement "answer line"
we have abdicated our responsibilities. It is not enough for us to say
that those students can come to us - our courses are listed in the
catalog. Not if we want to avoid the near-extinction of classics and
Latin and Greek.
10. One good example of a man who took the challenge

If we look at the greatest practitioners in all the various specialties in
the academy - art, music, science - we see that they do not sit
complacently in their laboratories and their offices and their rehearsal
halls and wait for the world to come to them. The great composer and
conductor Leonard Bernstein was a tireless salesman for the
importance of the arts in the lives of every citizen. He lobbied
constantly before Congress and state legislatures; he gave generously
of his time to speak on the importance of art education in the schools.
11. Legendary dancer

Jacques d'Amboise, the legendary dancer for George Balanchine,
has extended himself continuously into the public sphere - teaching in
the public schools, lobbying the Congress, constantly speaking out,
reaching out about the importance of art in the lives of ordinary
people. The late and pre-eminently great choreographer Agnes de
Mille did likewise - writing, testifying, lecturing about the art form she
cherished.

12. Scientists-Steven Hawking
In the sciences, think of the enormous public impact of some of our
greatest scientists - the physicist Steven Hawking, the astronomer Carl
Sagan. They ventured out of the academy to show all of us how their
theoretical work enrich all of us.
It is fashionable, it seems, to scoff at so-called public scholars - the

scholars who are interviewed on CNN or who write editorial columns
or write books that real people can understand. This is a short-sighted
death knell for the disciplines we love and care about.
13. Philosophers are the only ones who can return to its rightful place
So this is a plea to all of us in philosophy and in the humanities
generally. If we believe in the importance of what we are doing - and
(every student of philosophy should believe that) - then let us not sit
back and complain that people don't appreciate us. Let us take
responsibility ourselves. Let us reach out to the university and the
community and show them just how much we have to offer them.
The basic points of relevance of philosophy , a modern business

professional in a corporation could gain from those points in his
profession today.
 Because every discipline whether economic, commerce, Law,

technology, information technology must have elements of
argumentation, logical order and clarity, meaning and application
which philosophy studies should embrace philosophy in its courses.
Philosophy can provide and enhance these disciplines with its method
of systematic search and articulation of ideas.
 When a student is well grounded in philosophy he/she will get the skills
of articulating issues in a coherent and a systematic manner. This is
needed especially by students of commerce/business, administration,
marketing and medicine because specialists need to articulate in a
coherent way how their area of study has value to society and the

individual in contemporary work. Counselling is another subject which
has great value in our times and should gain from philosophy.
 Philosophy will help scientists and cause them to present their research
findings to the ordinary person using a language which is well
systematized and logical in such a way that an ordinary person can
appreciate their knowledge and benefit from it.
Test
1. In your considered view explain the role that philosophy and critical
thinking can assist the realization and sustainability of Kenya’s vision
2030 and Millennium Development Goals.
2. a) Discuss the positive and negative aspects of logic and fallacies

in the following professions:
i) Lawyers iii) Scientists
ii) Politicians
iv) Corporate leader/businessmen
v) Lecturers/professors in University teaching
b) Show how logic can be useful in social interactions of students and

the general public in every day life.
3. Explain the following ethical concepts
i) Ethics and morals etymologically
ii) Virtues (giving examples)
iii) Vices (giving examples)
4. Compare and contrast any of the four branches of philosophy
showing their relevance in the modern world which is denominated
by Information and Computer Technology.

Unit 2:
HISTORICAL CRITICAL INTRODUCTION OF
PHILOSOPHY; FROM MYTHICAL CONSCIOUS
OF ANCIENT GREEKS TO CONTEMPORARY
PHILOSOPHY; IMPACT OF DISCIPLINE ON
GEMEINDESCHAFT (COMMUNITY) AND
GESSELLSCHAFT (SOCIETY)
A. HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY:
1. THE FOUR PERIODS/EPOCHS
The history of philosophy is divided into four periods/epochs as follows;

A. Ancient Philosophy-from 600 BC to 600 AD
B. Middle Ages- from 700 AD- 16th Ct BC
C. Modern philosophy from 17th Ct to 19th Century
D. Contemporary philosophy- from 19th Century up to date
2. 1ST PERIOD: ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHY FROM MYTHICAL

CONSCIOUSNESS TO FORMAL PHILOSOPHY
A. PRELIMINARY REMARKS
1. When we look at the earliest writings from around the globe, we find
that various regions had their own speculative traditions- such as those
East Asia, the Indian sub content, the Middle East, and Africa.
2. The story of Western Philosophy begins in a series of Greek islands
and colonies during the Century BC. The Ancient thinkers, called
Sages/or wise men were concerned with such many questions in their
desire to know and explain the world before them. Examples of such
questions are:

• How was the world formed?
• What are things really like?
• How can we explain the process of change in things?
• Is there a world beyond the earthly, one surrounding them?
• Is man unique among the animals?
• What is the ultimate cause of all things?
• What is common in everything? Etc
3. The solutions they gave to these puzzles were shortly thereafter

dubbed “philosophy”, the love of wisdom. Appearance often differs
from reality. There are brute facts of birth, death, growth and decay
coming into being and passing away. These events puzzled the Greek
and they sought explanations.
B.MYTHICAL CONSCIOUSNESS IN HOMER

HESOID’S TIMES

 Earlier, lonia had produced Homer, 700BC, Author of the Iliad and
odyssey. He was a great poet. In these poetic times, Homer describes
the scene of mount Olympus, where the gods pursued lives quite
similar to that of their human counterparts on earth.
 This poetic view of the world also depicted ways in which the gods
intruded into people; affairs. In particular the Homeric gods would
punish the people for their lack of moderation and especially for their
pride or insubordination.
 It is not that homer gods were exceptionally moral beings. Instead,

they were merely stranger than homers and demanded obedience.
They were immoral as human were but humans were worse according
to the Greek mythical consciousness.
 Homer suggests that there is a power called f to which the gods are
subject; and to which everything else must be subordinate.

 It was Hesiod (living the same time with Homer), who altered this
concept of the gods and fate. He thus removed from gods, all
capriciousness and inscribes in them a moral consistency.
 The moral order is still the product of a Zews. He commands the

universe a moral order without any reference to the gods.
Hellas (Greece)
 As it has been proven, the earliest thinkers of Hellas among the Greeks
were poets, the interpreters of traditional Religions
 Myth Makers: like Homer and Hesiod and sometimes prophets like Epi-
menides of Cnossos who purified Athens from pestilence by erecting
alters to unnamed divinities, were renown wise men. Greek
philosophy, as Aristotle later showed started with Thales of Miletes.
C. THE SEVEN ANCIENT PHILOSOPHERS AND

THE QUEST FOR THE ULTIMATE CAUSE
1. THALES FROM MILETUS (624-54 6 BC)-WA

TER
a) Nature of things
Thales asked questions:

- - What is everything made of?
- Or what kind of stuff goes into the composition of things?
By things, he referred to the earth, clouds, oceans etc from time to
time, some of these things change into something else, and yet they
still resemble each other in certain ways.
b) One and the Many

Thales unique contribution to thought was his notion that, inspite of the
differences between things, there is nevertheless a basic similarity
between them all. The many are related to each other by one. He
assumed that some single element, some stuff’, a stuff which
contained its own principle of action or change lay the foundation of
all physical reality is in all things. To him, the one, the stuff water. That
is to say for Thales, water is the cause of all things.
c) His conclusion
Influenced by the traditional myths which derived all things from the
primordial waters and arguing from the fact that germ of animal life is
moist he concluded that water is the sole substance, preserving its
identity through the transformation of bodies. Water is the origin of the
nature of moist things.
d) Thales greatness is raising the question of the nature of the world

universe
This question acts the stage for a new kind and inquiry. With that
starting point, others were to follow with alternative solutions, but
always with Thales problem before them (for Heraclitus 540- 575 BC)
this substance was FIRE.
2. ANAXIMANDER OF MILETUS (610-547 BC)-

BOUNDLESS/INFINITE
a) He was the pupil of Thales. He agreed with Thales that there is some
single stuff out of which everybody comes.
b) Unlike him however, Anaximander said that this basic stuff is neither
water nor any other specific element. Water is only one specific thing
among many other elements.

i) Indefinite or boundless Realm
According to Anaximander, the primary (sit which all specific things
come, is an indefinite or boundless realm. This is indefinite boundless.
The source of things is indeterminate.
ii) Where as actual things are specific, their source is

indeterminate, and whereas things are finite, their original stuff is
infinite or boundless.
iii) Origin of things and human Life

Turning to the origin of human life, Anaximander said that life comes
from the sea and that in the course of time; living things come out of
the sea to dry land. He suggested that people evolved from creature
of a different kind (fishes). He argued followed from the fact that other
creatures are quickly self supporting, where humans alone need
prolonged nursing and that therefore we would not have survived if
this had been our original form. Man was formed within the bodies of
fishes where he developed being ejected as soon as he became
sufficiently large to provide for himself.
3. ANAXIMENES (585-528 BC) -AIR

i) The third and last of the Milesian philosophers was Anaximenes who
was a young associate of Anaximander in answer to question
concerning the composition of natural things but was dissatisfied with
it.
ii) For him, the boundless and infinite had not specific meaning. He
chose to focus upon a defmite substance as Thales did (not
something vague)
iii) Attempting to meditate between Thales and Anaximander, he

designed air as the primary substance from which things come. It is
the root of all things. We live only as we can breath, air holds us
together. Air is spread everywhere although unlike the boundless, it is
specific and tangible material substance that can be identified.

iv) Quality and Quantity
He introduced the import new idea that differences in quality are
caused by differences in quantity.
v) The expansion and contraction of air represent quantities changes,

and these changes accruing in a single substance account for the
variety of different things that we see in the world around us.
Expansion of air causes warming, while condensation cooling and
transformation of air into solids by the way of gradual transients. The
greatest time greeted condensation is to be found in stones.
NB: the greatness of the Milesian school of thought is that they raised
the question about the ultimate nature of things.
4.PYTHAGORAS OF SAMOS (5 72-509) (OF

THE ITALIAN SCHOOL)-NUMBERS
• He was the founder of philosophic society of a religious and political
character which held the rein of government to several cities of
magna Graecie (Southern Italy).
• This school understood that there existed realities of a higher order

than those perceived by the senses.
But it was the study of numbers that he had arrives at the knowledge
of these invisible realities, whose immutable order dominated and
determined the process of becoming and hence forward, he had
understanding only in numbers.
• He taught that numbers by which harmony is related in our senses-

are the soul true reality, and regarded them as the very existence of
things. He was conversant with oriental astromonary.

 And by his fundamental discovery of the relationship between pitch
of sounds and the length of vibrating strings, he reduced to the rigidly

of numerical a phenomenon like sound. He passed from the sign to
the cause and made symbol the principle of reality. Every essence is
a number. The number 4 is not only the essence of Justice but
constitutes the essence of justice.
 Number three constitute Holiness 7, times 8, harmony 5, the union of

the sexes- 10 perfection. Pythagoras was however not able to arrive
at the formal cause-whose full dedication was reserved to Aristotle
alone.
• It is to Pythagoras, as we have noted that we awe the “philosophy”

love of wisdom He said; “Human life can be compared to the public
games, which attract all sorts of men. Some came to complete for
honor and crown of victory, other to trade, others, the noble sort,
solely for the enjoyment of the spectable. Similarly in life, some work
for honor, others for profit, a few for the truth alone, they are the
philosophers”
• He was the first to call the universe cosmos (KO’ 5MOS), which like
Latin mundus, convey the idea of beauty and harmony.
HERACLITUS OF EPHESUS 540 — 475 BC. -

5.
CHANGE
 He was a lonely and proud genius who despised the multitude and
popular region. He advanced from Jonian philosophers and came
out with reality of change or becoming. His vision was so fixed on the
change which things undergo that he declares that change alone is
real.
 All things are in a flux and men are fools to trust in the stability of their
false happiness when they are born, they wish to live and to meet their
doom- or rather to rest- and they leave children behind them to meet
their doom in turn”. We do not touch the same thing twice nor the
twice in the same river.

 The very moment we touch an object it has already ceased to be
what it was before. What exists changes from the very fact of its
existence?
 We step, but not step in the same river; we are and not. Moreover,
contraries must be pronouns identical. The sea is the purest and
impure water good and evil are one.
 Heraclites said that you do not expect the unexpected, you will not
find truth for it is hard to be sought out and difficult.
 Heraclites is therefore the philosopher of evolution and becoming.
6. PERMENIDES 510 BC-BEING

 Born at Elea, the Great Permenides, as Plato called him, was the real
founder of the Eleatic School.
 Transcending the world of sensible phenomena and even that of

mathematical forms or essences and numbers, he attained to what
are things which are kindly and strictly the object of the intellect that
things exist, their being.
 The notion of being thus abstracted impressed Parmenides so

powerfully that it fascinated him. As his contemporary, Heraclites was
a slave of change, Parmenides was a slave being. He had eyes for
one thing alone; what is, and cannot be.
 Being is, non being is not, Permenides was thus the first philosopher
who obstructed and formulated the principle of identity or non-
contradiction, the first principle of all thought.
 And as he contemplated pure being, he perceived that this being is

completely one, absolute immutable eternal without becoming,
incorruptible indivisible, whole and entire in its unity, in everything
equal to itself, infinite and containing in itself every perfection.

 He therefore discovered the attribute of him who is. He however
denied the existence in the universe of change and multiplicity.
Change becoming, as also the diversity of things, are but an allusory
appearance There existed only being, the One.
 It was in defense of Parmenides doctrine of the impossibility of change

that his disciple Zeno of Elea (487) composed his famous argument,
by which he claimed to prove that the very concept of movement is
itself— contradictory.
 Thus, Permenides, reaching the opposite pole to Heraclitus fixed as he

did, once and for all one of the extreme limits of speculation and error
proved that every philosophy of pure being, for the very reason that
it denies that kind of non being, which Aristotle termed potentially,
and which necessarily belongs to everything created, is obliged to
abstract all being and leads therefore to monism or pantheism no less
inevitably than philosophy of becoming.
7. DEMOCRITUS OF ABDERA (470-361 BC)-

Flux
o He attempted to discover the flux of sensible phenomena, a
permanent and unchangeable element. But in his search, he made
use of his imagination.
o Therefore, the only reality he would recognize was something which

though it is inaccessible to the senses, can nevertheless be
apprehended by imagination, namely PURE GEOMETRICAL QUANTITY
as such which is stripped of all qualities (colourless scentless, tasteless
etc). It possessed solely of extension in three dimensions of space.
o Democritus found the explanation of everything in the PLANUM, which

he identified with BEING and the VOID, identified with non entity.

o The Plenum was divided into indivisible parts of extensions (ATOMS),
which were separated one from another, by the void and in a state
of everlasting motion, and differed only in shape, order and position.
o He attributed the order of the universe and the structure of individual
beings, to the blind necessity of chance.
o Democritus introduced into Greek philosophy the doctrine of

ATOMISM and more generally termed mechanical, which raises
geometry to the position of metaphysics, and reduces everything to
extension and motion.
o This doctrine professes to explain the organization of the universe by a

host of fortuitous coincidences.
o In this sense the Parthenon could be explained as a result of throwing
stones one on another during an indefinite term of years.
Test
Question: How did Atomistic idea influence later thinkers, especially
scientists?

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY: THE FOUR
PERIODS/EPOCHS
The history of philosophy is divided into four periods/epochs as follows;
A. Ancient Philosophy-from 600 BC to 600 AD

Main Philosopher-Aristotle-(384-322BC)
His contribution
- He synthesized the efforts of all the pre-Socratic, Socratics, and
platonic philosophers in looking for the ultimate causes of reality (4
causes)
Doctrine of cause
 Aristotle went further and elaborates his doctrine of CAUSE in for ways.
 In his physics and more in his metaphysics, Aristotle has elaborated his
doctrine of causality. According to Aristotle, everything that happens
has a cause that explains its origin, and its end and the manner of its
coming to be. Everything that comes to be is due to a cause.
Four Causes
• Aristotle distinguishes four types of causes. Each cause can briefly
be defined as follows:
a) Material cause: it is that matter out of which something is made; it

is the intrinsic constitutive element of something (e.g., the wood of the
statue)
b) Formal Cause: it is the form or shape of something; its essence to

be what it is (the shape of the statue)
c) Efficient Cause: it is the being in act who brings about the change
(the sculptor who makes the statue)

d) Final Cause: it is that fur the sake of which the change takes place.
It is what constitutes the perfection of the being (in the case of the
 Aristotle regards the final cause as the most important of all cause as
 The notion of the ultimate causes is the concern of the human beings
in all cultures. Even today’s science and technologies is concerned
with the concern of worth which every scholar should ingrain in areas
of specialization.
B. Middle Ages- from 700 AD- 16th Ct BC

One Main Philosopher- Thomas Aquinas
o Bringing/incorporating the Aristotelian thought into the West to serve
his theological purposes (faith and/religion)
o Faith needs real reason in order to be well articulated.
o He also presented five proofs of the existence of God.
o Grace does not destroy nature.
o Thomas also maintained that the grace of God does not destroy
nature in the salvation of man rather, Grace builds on nature of the
human being,, elevating it so that man is able to move towards his
final end that is heaven.

o Here Thomas is utilizing Aristotelian philosophy of the being and its final
end. Aristotle had maintained that every being has an end and it
moves toward the end in order to fulfill itself. Thomas Aquinas made
the church in the West to include philosophy while doing theology.
Infact philosophy was referred to as Achilla Theologia, branch of
theology in the Latin Catholic church.
C. Modern philosophy from 17” Ct to 19th Century

Main Philosopher Immanuel Kant-(1724-
1804)
• A German idealist (in the 18th century) who revolutionalised the
notion of knowledge or epistemology by saying that the human mind
is the one that determines knowledge and not the knowing subject
itself.
• To the questions; how do we know about the world? What is the

nature of the world? Kant said that we must first give a critique of our
faculties.
• He asks, what it is possible for any mind like human mind to know?
Hence his philosophy is often called the critique philosophy or Critique
of Pure reason.
• Kant also tried to derive morality from reason alone, and to

elaborate a notion of the self compatible with our position of free will.
D. Contemporary philosophy- from 19th Century up to date

Main philosopher: Alfred North
Whitehead (1861-1947)
o This period had many schools of thought and founders. We shall
explain the process thought.
o A.N. Whitehead was an Englishman, born in Kent, England in 1861 and
died on 30th Dec 1947.

 His process thought was basically influenced by the collapse of
Newtonian physics and secondly by the Heraclitus, a Greek Ancient
philosopher who argued that things are a flux, and that change is the
basic constituent in all things. One cannot cross the same river twice
because the second time him and the river will have changed
according to Heraclitus.
 The genesis of Whitehead’s process philosophy may be attributed to
his having witnessed the shocking collapse of Newtonian physics, due
mainly to Albert Einstein’s work.
 Indebted as he was to Henri Bergson’s philosophy of change,

Whitehead was also a Platonist who “saw the definite character of
events as due to the “ingression” of timeless entities.”
 His article; Process and Reality is famous for its defense of theism,
although Whitehead’s God differs essentially from the revealed God
of Abrahamic religions who is a changeless infinite substance.
 Whitehead believed the starting point of his philosophy was the fl of

Heraclitus modified and supplemented by the thought of Aristotle’s
notion of being moving towards its own end.
 According to Aristotle and his followers, every being has an end and
moving towards that end.
 Whitehead did not see himself as a process philosopher but believed

he was updating Heraclitus in the light of the mathematics and
mathematical philosophers of his time. The key lecture is reproduced
in Process and Reality.
 Using the concept that “all things flow” as the starting point for a
“metaphysics of ’flux”, which he sees as implicit to various degrees in
the philosophies of John Locke, David Hume and Immanuel Kant (but
not Hegel), Whitehead does not present it as a mutually exclusive
alternative to the “metaphysics of ‘substance’” but as
complementary.

 Process of transforming “alien” entities into “data” for a new
concrescence is termed a “feeling.”
 The community of actual things is an organism but it is not a static

organism. It is an incompletion in process of production.
 Unlike the perennial substance philosophers, Whitehead took a stand

against the changelessness of things. Things change and even the
infinite God changes in the process of being and becoming.
 The process thought as explained by Whitehead was antiquity

requested by many perennial substance philosophers.
SUMMARY AND RELEVANCE OF PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHICAL

THOUGHTS
a) Summary
The genesis or origin of Western philosophical thinking, the issues raised

at the time and their relevance.
• Western Philosophical thinking originated from Greek mythical
consciousness (Homeric Literature and Greek Mythological tales of
Hesiod) to philosophical explanation of reality.
• The first philosophers were from Miletus (Thales, Anaximander and

Anaximenes- 6th C+BCE and Pythagoras from Somos who later
migrated to Greek colony in southern Italy)
• Their main issue was the ultimate constituent of realities. The four
pointed material reality as the final constituents of things thus;
i) Thales- Water
ii) Anaximander- indefinite or boundless realm
iii) Anaxemenes- Air
iv) Pythagoras —Numbers.
The main philosophical issues raised here by these early sages were:

• What is the common element in all things? And what differentiates
them? This is the future question of one and many differentiated
realities (the problem of One and Many philosophy)
• There is also being and beings.
• The other question raised is that of causes which Aristotle will later
raise in his doctrine of this four causes namely:
• Another issue raised was that of being and Change, and multiplicity
of things. This was raise during the debate between Permenendes
(being) and Hieraclitus (change)
Diagrammatic illustration of the four Causes
b) Relevance
- How the answers to the ultimate causes of things by Pre.-Socratic
Philosophers is relevant to the contemporary society
- A philosophical attempt as seen with the Pre-Socratic philosophers

give us, rational beings the tendency and attitude to always question
and look for the foundation of the ultimate cause of realities.
- This include the articulation of foundation of policies in Government,

development and economic, vision, e.g. like vision 2030, millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). We have here actual articulation
foundation.

- The same question also leads us to search for meaning in our various
discoveries or import issues. These issues include allowing G.M.O or
embryonic, cloning etc in our lifestyle while we actually do not
evaluate even what would mean to us and our future
generation/posterity.
- Philosophical disclosure would articulate the ultimate meaning of

such important life issues which come as a result of scientific
development and research.
- The question here is: can man do what he is able to do (in science...)?
This reasoning would be similar to the preoccupation of the Milesan,
lonion and Eliatic philosophers at the beginning of Greek Philosophical
thought.
SOPHISM/ SOPHISTS
1. Sophism: Gk., Sophisma, “skillful act”, “a clever device”, “a sly trick”,

“a captious argument,” a
Quibble” ,”“a FALLACY”
A specious and subtle argument, usually presented as a formal
argument, that is intended to deceive and/or mislead.
2. Sophistes:
Gk ., “a master of one’s craft or art,” one adept at doing (or teaching)
something”. Used synonymously with the Greek word phronimos, “one
who is clever in matters of life,” and with sophos, “a wise man” In
Athens, “sophists” were used specifically to refer to a Sophist (a
professor, a teacher) who taught grammar, Rhetoric, Political affairs,
logic, law, mathematics literary and linguistic analysis. At first the
Sophists were held in high respect. For a variety of reasons they fell into
ill repute and the word Sophists came to mean “a cheat” or “a
quibbler” (or both)

3. Sophistic
a) Used to refer to an argument that is fallaciously subtle and clever
and that is intended to deceive and/or mislead.
b) Sometimes used synonymously with Eristic. Aristotle distinguished
between sophistic and eristic arguments on the basis that sophistic
arguments are engaged in for a fee and eristic arguments merely for
this victory
4. Sophistry
a) Showy in and intentionally fallacious reasoning in order to deceive,
to mislead, to persuade, or to defend a point regardless of its value or
truth.
b) Disputation for the sake of disputation
c) The techniques, teachings, and practices of the Sophists, especially
as they engage in (a) and (b)
5. Sophists:
Itinerant professors (teachers, philosophers) of ancient Greece who
lived during the fourth and fifth centuries BC. Among the most
important names: Protagoras of Abdera (c 481 to c 411 BC), Gorgias
of Leontini (c 485 to c 380 BC), Prodicus of Ceos (probably born before
460 BC, death date unknown but probably after 399 BC), Hippias of
Elis (probably born before 460 BC, death date unknown),, Antiphon of
Athens (c. 480-411 BC), Thrasymachus of Chalcedon (dates unknown
but alive during the time of Socrates.
The Sophists are said to have taught for a fee (which in the opinion of
Socrates was an evil thing to do, since if anyone had something good
and true to teach people he should feel it his duty to communicate it
without pay). They taught a variety of subjects: grammar, rhetoric, the
art of persuasion, the art of defending oneself in court, political affairs,
moral conduct, logic, legal principles, mathematics, natural sciences,
literary criticism, and linguistic analysis. They taught whatever one
wanted to learn. They generally seemed to be interested in teaching
the art of how to improve oneself and succeed in life.

The Sophists fell into ill repute in the eyes of other philosophers. They
were regarded as eloquent but captious and fallacious reasoners, as
adroit at specious reasoning, as logic choppers, as appealing to and
taking advantage of popular trends and wishes for their own
monetary gain, as telling people what they wanted to hear, as
teachers of persuasion and verbal manipulation of others, as being
interested not in the attainment of truth but in how to defend any
argument whatever, as teaching that victory in argumentation at
whatever cost, outwitting opponents, is the sole aim of disputation no
matter how bad the argument, as being able to make the worse
appear the better and the better appears worse.
Some of the main ideas of the Sophists;
a) The relatively of sense perception: The individual is the measure of

all things. Things are as one says they are and see them as being.
b) The relatively of knowledge; Knowledge and truth are relative to

the social, cultural and unique personal predispositions of the
individual. There is no absolute truth.
c) The denial of knowledge of any ultimate reality behind our

sensations; the natural world can only be known in terms of those
sensations that appear to our consciousness. There is no reality such
as a WORLD SOUL or universal mind behind the phenomena as they
appear to and are interpreted by our sensations and perceptions.
d) Empiricism; all knowledge is ultimately based on our direct and

immediate experiences as they occur to us in consciousness.

SOCRATES
 Birth
o Socrates (469-399 BC) was an Athenian citizen who spent his time in
arguments and taught philosophy to the youths, without.
o In reality Socrates waged war against Sophists and opposed them at

every point.
o The Sophists had claimed to know everything and did not pursue the
truth for its own sake.
o Socrates professed Ignorance and taught his hears to seek nothing
but the truth.
o He thus reformed philosophical reasoning and directed it to the truth
which was the goal of ancient thinker before the sophists.
o Socrates composed himself as a gadfly sent to sting the Athenian
awake and lead them to use their reason to examine their
conscience.
o The businesses of Socrates were to make the Athenian think; Sapere
aude, clear to think for yourself and don’t accept things or believes
simply because they are held by others or as a result of a tradition.
2. Starting point of philosophy

o Socrates is considered by many thinkers as the starting point in the
study of philosophical thought.
o This is a cause he raised philosophy from exclusive occupation with

physical matter (Thales and anaxamander etc) like (water, air and fir)
to the study of human nature and human activities which contain a
spiritual element or a higher order altogether than the stars or the
entire universe of matter (see Jack Martian —Introduction to
philosophy)

3. Socratic philosophical Method
Socrates regarded himself as a midwife (Maieutria) using this method
to assist in the birth of ideas already formed and carried
(impregnated) in the mind the nature of human beings
Main features
Some of the main in features in Socrates distinctive use of this method

are the following:
1. A highly critical and analytic discussion leading to an intense self-

examination on the meanings and implications of one’s ideas and on
the other person who is part of a group (members of the group ask
and answer questions and may occasionally take the leading part)
2. It is wrong to accept beliefs, merely on the ground that are

accepted by one’s group, are handed down by tradition, or are part
of a body of knowledge. The only foundation of knowledge is that
which can withstand the scrutiny of rational inquiry.
3. The leader (Socrates) serves as the gadfly. With Socrates’ probing

examination of another person’s beliefs it becomes evident;
a) that the meanings of the concepts being discussed (such as piety,
justice, virtue, good, or courage) are unclear, confused and untrue
b) that these meanings have no rational justification or consistency
c) That the beliefs and conduct based on they lead to irrational thought
and to irrational behaviour.
4. The main person in the conversation (discussion, dialogue) claims

expert knowledge of the subject matter to be discussed.
Socrates asks questions, initially short and simple, to which he prefers

short and simple answers. These answers present a series of
interrelated statements from which Socrates draws absurdities
inconsistencies, and conclusions that are in opposition to the original
confident assertions and that serve to indicate the conceit of the
person who has dogmatically asserted knowledge of the topic being

discussed. (it appears that the result, if not the aim, of Socratic dialetic
is not only to show that the person cannot rationally just in his
knowledge claims, but that he really does not know what he is talking
about, he does not know truth, that he is, if that he will only stop to
admit it, intellectually conceited and overly confident about
something he thinks he knows but really does not)
5. Once the embarrassment is resolved about not having a real grasp

of the concepts being discussed-once humility is established-then the
serious task is undertaken of beginning to philosophically construct an
adequate and acceptable rational foundation for the concept by
means of asking and answering a series of question, and by means of
denying and assenting to ideas as they are presented, until better
knowledge is reached.
6. the principal controlling pattern of this process of question/answer,

denial/acceptance to points as they are brought up is that, the
knowledge obtained must conform to the general categories (forms,
values) of good, s beauty and truth-none of which for Socrates could
ever exist alone.
7. Thus Socratic Method or dialectic is a continuing quest for truth by

constant critical analysis, interrogation, self-examination and further
analysis, questioning, and self-examination.
The concern is to uncover truth no matter how hurtful it might appear

to us in the beginning. Socratic Method is the persistent tendency to
follow aratiQn1 argument thought to its conclusion regardless of what
that conclusion is Of course; the Socratic assumption is that if that
conclusion were completely rational it would conform to the good,
beautiful, and true, since the good, beautiful, and true are truly
rational.

4. His Trial
o Socrates was tried, condemned to death an d executed in 399 BC by
his fellow country men and political leaders
o Because the Athenian government accused him of impiety and of
corrupting the youth of his day.
Accusation
• Bertrand Russell, a German modern philosopher gives the account
of the Athenian charges against Socrates ‘Socrates is an evil-doer and
a curious person, searching for things under the earth and above the
heavens, and making the worse appear the better cause, and
teaching this to others” –especially the youth of Athens) (See B. Russell-
A history of Western Philosophy pg 84)
• Certainly Socrates in that apology is depicted as:-

 A self-confident man who is also different to world success, and with
a strong conviction that clear thinking is the most important requisite
of right living.
 He believed that knowledge is virtue and virtue is happiness.
 Socrates argued that the man who knows nothing is wiser than he who
thinks he knows something or everything. The former will seek
knowledge, while the later will be content, as a result of the will be
ignorant since he did not bother to gain knowledge.
5. Socrates Defence
 The concept of corruption has been understood to mean “warping

people’s lives, especially the young by leading them into evil ways”
 Socrates fell out with the powers of Athens charged with corrupting
the youth. He eloquently defended himself in these bold words;

“Men of Athens, this reputation of mine has resulted from nothing but
a certain wisdom I possess ……Also young men of the richer classes,
who have not much to do, follow me around of their own accord;
they like to hear people cross-examined, and they often imitate me,
proceeding to some cross-examining of their own, there are plenty of
people, as they soon discover who think that they know something
but really know little or nothing and those examined by them, instead
of being angry with themselves, are angry with me “this damned
Socrates ,“they say, villainous misleader of the youth” and should
someone ask them, “why, how does he misleads them?” what evil
does he practice or teach? ‘they do not know and cannot tell, but so
as not to appear to be at a loss, they are ready to make charges
against all philosophers, about how they teach think in the clouds and
under the earth, and have no gods and make the worse argument
appear the better. People who do not like to admit the truth are
opposed as pretending to possess knowledge while knowing nothing
infact”
 Today, progressive thinkers no longer accept that anyone can corrupt

by empowering others (even the youth) with critical thinking and logic
(See Plato, Apology; Selected Dialogue No 23)
 Socrates left no writings of his philosophical works. His philosophy was

preserved by his left pupils, Plato.
 Socrates lived a life which revealed his integrity of character, his
passion for truth and his nobility of mind.
 Like a midwife, Socrates gave birth to pursuit for true ideas or
knowledge of the eternal principles of right conduct, virtues, society,
government and the life of the spirit.
 He was always concerned with the question:
Question: What does it mean for man to be virtuous?”

 Ans: “To be virtuous is to know what is good through critical and
philosophical reflection.
NB: it is important that a student of Socrates be able to:

- explain Socrates philosophical thought

- demonstrate the difficulty of distinguishing; Socrates philosophy from
Plato
- show how the Socratic method of posing questions can be relevant
to today both the classroom and developing projects of other people
PLATO (427-347 BC)

1. Birth
• Plato, the pupil and intellectual heir of Socrates was born in Athens,
Greece in 427 BC.
• After his extensive tour of the Greek empire (he was far as Egypt and
learned greatly from the Egyptians civilization) he returned to his home
town in Athens.
• Plato purchased the estate of a certain man called Academus. This
where he built his school which he named Academia-Academy-
(after Academus)
• His father was of royal descent. HE was expected by his family to take
up a political post but he refused. HE had already come to know how
the mighty can be corrupt, to the extent of executing his teacher and
mentor Socrates
• Plato wanted to reign in intellectual domain of philosophy.
• He was highly educated by his noble family
• He intern was the teacher of Aristotle.
• Plato spent his rime as a philosopher reconstructing Socrates doctrines
and also going beyond it.
2. His Philosophic Task

The philosophic tasks of Plato were to think though and complete the
work begun his master Socrates, Plato therefore offered:
i) A theory of Knowledge (Epistemology
ii) Theory of Conduct (Ethics)
iii) A theory of State (political) science (in his REPUBLIC)
iv) A theory of Universe (Cosmology)
Let us explain them one by one

a) Plato’s Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology)
o He sought to comprehend knowledge in all its phases-physical,
mental and moral-which must come from a complete understanding
of the nature of world.
o He argued that “if knowledge is derived from sense-perception, then
the Sophists are right that there can be genuine knowledge”
o He concluded that sense-perception does not reveal the true reality
of things.
o Genuine knowledge, he argued, is based on reason, not sense-
perception or opinion
o For Plato, if the idea is to have any value as knowledge, something
real must correspond to it.
o This is known as the correspondence theory of truth
o According to his theory, if the objects of our ideas were real our
knowledge would not be genuine knowledge.
o The perceived by our senses is not the true world, its appearance or
illusion
o The true world is changeless and eternal
b) Plato’s Theory of the State (Political Science)

o Plato’s Republic (his book) is based on his ethics and provides for
virtues, the highest good realized in human society.
o The virtue of wisdom
ARISTOTLE (384-322 BC)

1. Preamble (Aristotle-Philosopher per Excellence)
a) His Starting Point

 Many writers on philosophy are in agreement that Aristotle, the
philosopher’s radically different from his predecessors we have thus
discussed namely; Socrates and Plato.
 Why? Because Aristotle distinguished himself in his scholarly
achievement as being the first to write like a professional philosopher.

 How? All his writings are systematic, and unlike Socrates and Plato,
Aristotle has indeed contributed enormously to physical science,
literary criticism, metaphysics, physics and logic.
 And finally, Aristotle attempted to overcome the so called
deficiencies of his teacher, Plato.
b) His Background-His Birth

 Aristotle was born in Meletus (no Athens), Fourteen years after the
death of Socrates: Plato’s teacher.
 His father was a court physician to the king of Macedon.
 Aristotle entered Plato’s academy in Athens at the age of 18.
 Plato himself was 60 years old at that time.
 Aristotle remained in the Academy until Plato’s death.
c) As Tutor Of Alexander the Great

 Later on Aristotle became the tutor of the son of king of Macedon,
a boy aged 13 who later became Alexander the Great.
 About 335BC, Aristotle returned to Athens and founded his school.
 Twelve years later, he was threatened with persecution, so he went
into exile.
 He died in 322 BC
2. His Contribution of in Philosophy

a) Aristotle Theory of Ethics/Morality
 According to Aristotle, the chief good is Happiness. What is
Happiness? For Aristotle, happiness is complete self-realization. It
consists of contemplation of Truth.
 In his moral theory, Aristotle contends that the great good is not
please but virtue which must be made a habit.
 A virtuous soul is a well-ordered soul. It is the right relation which exists
between reason and desire. A rational attitude should be assumed
towards bodily desires or appetites.
 Aristotle maintained that the virtuous must obey or observe the
PRINCIPLE OF THE GOLDEN RULE in conduct. This principle is a law of
moderation, keeping the mean between two extremes.

 Aristotle, virtue is in the middle of the two extremes.
Example
Courage is the mean of:
- Fool hardness (extreme of excess) and
- Cowardice (extreme of deficiency)
 To face a fierce lion with a stake is foolhardiness (an extreme) and
face a rat with several spears, knives etc is coward ness (the other
extreme)
 According to Aristotle the intellectual virtues aim at the attainment of
truth. The means for the attainment of truth are:-
- Art
- Science
- Prudence
- Wisdom
- Initiative, and
- Reason

 Onyango’s critique of Aristotle’s ethics
His question: Aristotle doctrine of the mean provide an accurate
analysis of the concepts of virtues?
 This is because; one could conceptualize virtue which do not lie
between extremes eg:
i) Is there any middle course between keeping a promise and not
keeping? Either one keeps a promise or one does not.
ii) What is the middle course between talking the truth and talking
a lie? Again either on talks the truth when asked about something or
one does not.
 According to Onyango, the two examples illustrate virtues which obey
the Law of Excluded middle which is a variance with Aristotle, principle
of the golden rule.
 If this criticism is correct, argues Onyango, Aristotle’s Principle of
Golden mean is too narrow to do justice to the many different kinds
of virtues man recognizes1.
 But atleast Onyango accepts the principle in general.
 Even with Aristotle’s contribution the issues of human happiness
remains a problem; it had also to be tackled by Hedomists and others
in later years.
b) Aristotle political Philosophy

 According to Aristotle, social life is the goal of the human existence
 The state should produce virtue thereby producing good citizens.
 The constitution of the state must be adapted to the character and
requirements of the people.
 Since individuals differ in ability, Aristotle contends, justice demands
that they be treated according to these differences.
 In other words, for Aristotle, people of equal ability must be treated
equally whereas people of unequal ability must be treated differently.
76
c) Aristotle’s Science
i) Logic
 Science in the strict sense of word is demonstrated knowledge of the
casual reactions of things.
 The science now knows as logic called analytic by Aristotle, is
fundamental to settings out condition to be observed in critical
thinking in search of truth.
 The thrust of Aristotle’s logic is the syllogism. He was the first to
formulate the logical theory of syllogism and deduction.
 Apart from deductive reasoning, Aristotle recognizes inductive
reasoning which involves reasoning from particular sense experience
(things known to us) to the universal and necessary principles involved
in sense experience (only to themselves)
ii) Physics
 According to Aristotle, physics is the science of what the Greeks called
Phusics or physics, a term translated to mean NATURE.
 In this physics, Aristotle discusses the principle of motion in several
senses.
- Biological Senses: The corn is potentially an oak. The corn by nature
changes qualitatively and qualitatively into an oak tree.
- Locomotive Sense: Motion in this sense fulfils what exists potentially
when A moves relatively to B, B moves relatively to A and therefore,
both A and B are in motion with respect to one another.
 For Aristotle, there is no sense in saying either A or B is in motion while
the other is at rest. Therefore Aristotle argues motion in this sense is
RELATIVE.
Unmoved First Mover
 Aristotle’s physics ends with the discussion on unmoved first mover
(God) in connection with the Metaphysics which we shall now turn to
for discussion.
77
iii) Aristotle’s Metaphysics
 The significance of Aristotle’s contribution to knowledge is registered
most when it is understood that Aristotle came at the end of the
creation period in the Greek thought.
 And after his death, it took
 Two thousand years before the world produced any scholar who
could be regarded as his equal in science as well as in philosophy.
 Betrand Russell has observed; “Aristotle, metaphysics, roughly
speaking, may be described a Plato diluted by common sense. He is
difficult because Plato and common sense do not mix easily”
 For Russell, Aristotle is setting forth platonism with a new understanding
iv) Aristotle Contributions

 Aristotle has contributed to the theory of universal which in simple
terms states that:
- there are proper names and there are also adjectives
- there are proper names apply to things or persons each of which is
the only thing or person to which the name refers eg:
Oniango and Kenya are proper names which are unique to particular
individual entities.
 For Aristotle, Universal are concerns with meanings of words, such as
well as adjectives such as white, soft, sweet etc.
 The term universal means that which is of such a nature as to be
predicated of many subjects.
 By particular, or individual, he means that which is not thus
predicated.
v) Aristotle View of Form and Matter

 For Aristotle metaphysics attempts to distinguish between form and
Matter.
 Here we must understand matter in the sense in which it is opposed
to mind eg;
Let us take a marble. The marble is the matter while the round shape
(ball shape) is the form
78
v) Doctrine of the four Causes
 Using the notion of causality brought about by the ancient

philosophers before Socrates, Aristotle in his metaphysics, formulates
his doctrine of four causes
Four Causes
 Aristotle distinguishes four types of causes. Each cause can briefly be
defined as follows:
a) Material cause: it is that matter out of which something is made; it is
the intrinsic constitutive element of something (e.g., the wood of the
statue)
b) Formal Cause: it is the form or shape of something; its essence to be
what it is (the shape of the statue)
c) Efficient Cause: it is the being in act who brings about the change (the
sculptor who makes the statue)
d) Final Cause: it is that for the sake of which the change takes place. It
is what constitutes the perfection of the being (in the case of the
Aristotle regards the final cause as the most important of all cause as
Diagrammatic Representation of the four causes-(with the Examples

of the Statue)
Material Cause (Wood)
Thales and Anaximenes Final Cause
Purpose (most important cause)

Formal Cause
- Permenindes
Shape
The notion of the ultimate
Efficientcauses
Cause (TheisSculptor)
the concern of the human beings
- Pythagoras
in all cultures. Even today’s science and technologies

Hieraclitus
- Plato is concerned
with the concern of worth which every scholar should ingrain in areas
Anaximender
of specialization.
79
What is a cause?
vii) Aristotle views on Theology

- Aristotle teaches that there are three kinds of substance
a) Those that are sensible and perishable
b) Those that are sensible but not perishable
c) Those that are neither perishable nor sensible
- The first kind includes plants and animals
- The second includes the celestial bodies (stars)
- The third includes the rational soul in man and God.
 According to Aristotle’s metaphysics, God is the first cause, that is, the
origin of motion
 God in this respect is the Unmover which is eternal
Influence: this doctrine of Aristotle influenced and shaped the

philosophy and Theology of St Thomas Aquinas in the 12th century
(many years after Aristotle’s death)
Viii) Summary of Aristotle’s Philosophy Its Influence and Relevance

 Aristotle has enormously contributed to specific methodology, logic,
metaphysics, ethics, politics, natural science, physics theology and
critical thinking.
 All these set the grand for later scholarly thinking.
 For instance, circular motion which Aristotle thought of as “natural for
the heavenly bodies” involves continued change in the direction of
motion and therefore requires a force directed towards the centre, as
Isaac Newton (of England-very far from Greece and after many
years) shows later in his law of gravitation.
 In his metaphysics, Aristotle taught that;
- what is a being; ratness; manness, goatness etc
- Every being has an end
- Every being moves towards its own end.
- Whatever moves, does so according to its mode of being. I.e.
o a rat moves according to its ratness
o A goat moves according to its goatness
80
o A man according to its manness
o Human being according to its …..
- every being has a cause
- whatever is caused cannot cause itself; it has to be caused by
something else superior to it.
- In the totality of beings there must be a being which is the cause of all
other being; that is called infinite being-God.
- Being are divided into two finite and infinite
ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD (15 Feb 1861- 30

Dec 1947)
o A.N. Whitehead was an Englishman, born in Kent, England in 1861.
o His process thought was basically influenced by the collapse of

Newtonian physics and secondly by the Heraclitus, a Greek Ancient
philosopher who argued that things are a flux, and that change is the
basic constituent in all things.
Process philosophy
o The genesis of Whitehead's process philosophy may be attributed to
his having witnessed the shocking collapse of Newtonian physics, due
mainly to Albert Einstein's work.
o His metaphysical views emerged in his 1920 The Concept of Nature

and expanded in his 1925 '''Science and the Modern World''', also an
important study in the history of ideas, and the role of science and
mathematics in the rise of Western civilization.
o Indebted as he was to Henri Bergson's philosophy of change,

Whitehead was also a Platonist who "saw the definite character of
events as due to the "ingression" of timeless entities."
81
o In 1927, Whitehead was asked to give the Gifford Lectures at the
University of Edinburgh. These were published in 1929 as Process and
Reality, the book that founded process philosophy, a major
contribution to Western metaphysics.
o In his article on Process and Reality is famous for its defense of theism,
although Whitehead's God differs essentially from the revealed God
of Abrahamic religions.
o Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism gave rise to process theology,

thanks to Hartshorne, John B. Cobb, Jr, and David Ray Griffin.
o Some Christians and Jews find process theology a fruitful way of

understanding God and the universe. Just as the entire universe is in
constant flow and change, God, as source of the universe, is viewed
as growing and changing.
o Whitehead's rejection of mind-body dualism is similar to elements in

traditions such as Buddhism.
On the other hand, many Whitehead scholars read his work as
providing a philosophical foundation for the social liberalism of the
New Liberal movement that was prominent throughout Whitehead's
adult life. Morris wrote that "...there is good reason for claiming that
Whitehead shared the social and political ideals of the new liberals."
Whitehead and Heraclitus
o Whitehead believed the starting point of his philosophy was the flux of
Heraclitus modified and supplemented by the thought of Aristotle.
o Whitehead did not see himself as a process philosopher but believed

he was updating Heraclitus in the light of the mathematics and
mathematical philosophers of his time. The key lecture is reproduced
in Process and Reality.
o Using "all things flow" as the starting point for a "metaphysics of 'flux'",
which he sees as implicit to various degrees in the philosophies of John
82
Locke, David Hume and Immanuel Kant (but not Hegel), Whitehead
does not present it as a mutually exclusive alternative to the
"metaphysics of 'substance'" but as complementary.
o The latter "spatializes the universe" (according to Henri Bergson) but

this is "the shortest route to a clear-cut philosophy" such as the Analytic
Geometry of Descartes. The substance metaphysics is of less interest
to Whitehead.
o Proclaiming that Newton "brusquely ordered fluency back into the

world" with his Theory of Fluxions (the derivatives of differential
calculus) Whitehead launches into an innovative elaboration of
Heraclitus' upward-downward way, relying especially on Aristotle's
theory of act and potency.
o The way becomes the simultaneous occurrence of two processes:

"concrescence" (in place of the upward) and transition (in place of
the downward).
o The former is the unification of "particular existents" into new particular

existents also termed "actual occasions" or "actual entities."
o In this process the final cause of the new unity is predominant.

Transition is the "perishing of the process" (concrescence) in such a
way as to leave the new existent as an "original element" of future new
unities. This latter process is the "vehicle of the efficient causes" and
expresses the "immortal past."
o As in Heraclitus, a concrescence never reaches the unity of its final

cause; hence Whitehead uses the term "presupposed actual
occasions", which are "falsifications." An object therefore is identified
with its concrescence; there is no other.
o The process of transforming "alien" entities into "data" for a new

concrescence is termed a "feeling."
83
o Whitehead thus builds up statements that are scarcely less obscure, if
at all, than those of Heraclitus: "... an actual occasion is a
concrescence affected by a process of feelings."
o In contrast to the becoming of Aristotle, a concrescence never results

in the static act toward which it tends, but it does reach a
"culmination" in which "all indetermination as to the realization of
possibilities has been eliminated." This "evaporation of all
indetermination" is the "satisfaction" of the feeling.
o To explain the passage of the actual moment through time (the

upward-downward way) Whitehead thus resorts to a unique blend of
Heraclitus' flow and Aristotle's act and potency.
o The potency of Aristotle is the substrate in which all possibility resides,

from which comes the actual or determinate and specifically
empowered beings by a process called "to become." Whitehead
refers to the potency under the aegis of the future, or yet to come, as
"reality."
o The reduction of the potential to the actual occurs in two processes:

macroscopic, "the transition from attained actuality to actuality in
attainment" and microscopic (concrescence), the "conversion of
conditions which are merely real into determinate actualities." The
past is "a nexus of actuality", which grows into what is currently the
future. In summary:
o The community of actual things is an organism; but it is not a static

organism. It is an incompletion in process of production.
o Unlike the perennial substance philosophers, Whitehead took a stand

against the changeless of things. Things change even the infinite God
change in the process of being and becoming.
84
B. IMPACT OF PHILOSOPHY IN;
GEMEINDESCRAFT (COMMUNITY) AND
GESSELLSCHAFT (SOCIETY)
The contemporary German sociologist, Georg Tonnies divided people
into two categories;
a) Gemeindeschaft (Community)
These are treats:
o The word Gemeinde is a German word for community. Schaft refers

to a way of life, Gemeindesehaft then refers to the way of life in a
community. According to Tonnies the Gemeindeschaft community
has the following characteristics.
 The members are in the same geographical location, similar climatic
and a common diet, some business or community transactions
 The members share a common history and tradition ethical and
cultural values. They may have a common historical parental figures
explained in a mythical language e.g. the Gikuyu people of Central
Kenya explain their origin from Gikuyu-father figure and Mumbi-
Mother figure etc. Relevance can be made of other tribes.
 The members share common religious belief system and way of
worship, even shunnes which are connected to the “sacred”/the holy.
 They have similar core values (like, honesty, hospitality, leadership,
sacredness of life, institution of marriage, wedding, courage, prayer,
responsibility, confidentiality, following similar rites of passage from
birth, adulthood to death.
 They also have disvalues like, theft, disobedience, dishonest to God,
lack of religious consciousness and expressions in worship, disrespect
to elders, lack of ancestral worship, pouring libations to the elders and
the living dead.
 Knit relationship of their siblings, families, houses, clan and the entire
community. The relationship is that of;
a) Consanguinity- of blood
b) Secondly that of affinity-by marriage
85
 They uphold and impose similar sanctions to transgressors of traditional
values and mores which are engrained the entire Ethics of the
community
 Usually their values are not written. They are passed from one
generation to the other.
 Common wisdom persons or sages, personalities who tapped spiritual
power e.g., sorcerers, witches, medicine men etc.
 They have a common philosophy of explaining and doing things e.g.
according to John S. Mbiti, African Philosophy is summarized in these
words; ‘I am because we are, and because we are, therefore I am”
 That means an individual justifies his existence because the
community in which he is a member is there with him. The individual is
defined by the people around who share the common history, values
and disvalues lithe community rejects him, he is actually dead-and
many such condemned cases start seeking a God in valleys, forests,
mountains or he may just be killed like an animal by the clan.
APPLICATION
i) Most of traditional people, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and

even in Europe, (before the scientific and professional philosophical
idea of individualism}-were basically Gemeindeschaft communities.
ii) Even today, some grouping of people have Gemeindeschaft

qualities e.g. Church Associations, Parishes,
iii) Guilds, clubs clandestine and occult secret communities etc.
iv) In Gemeindeschaft communities (especially traditional ones),

there are some values which have outlived, their usefulness, like FGM
practices, Moranism for the sake of stealing cattle in order to get
wealth for marriage etc. Theft is evil whether found in
Gemeindeschaft or (Gessellschaft modem societies.
86
QUALITIES IN GESSELLSCHAFT (SOCIETY)
These are treats;
 The members come together in order to achieve a common

objectives, goals and targets in order to achieve these targets they
have to follow certain laid down guidelines, policies etc.
 The entry point is recruitment for employment followed by a letter of
appointment stipulating the Terms Of References(TORs)
 Members have an organizational structure which has a chain of
command and job groups.
 Obedience and respect is from top to bottom and not necessarily the
other way round.
 The members report in the morning to do the stipulated duty until 5Pm
when they leave unless these are an emergency.
 All pull together to attain the set goals.
 There is a clear system of emulation per month per year (salaries,
emollients)
 Promotion is the way to climb the ladder. It is based on certificate and
efficient service delivery to the cliental
 There is one who hires and fires. There could also be boards or council
for appeal
 There is a code of Ethics and serious measures are taken when one
infringes it.
 There is supervision and coordination of work.
 There are set deadlines or timelessness to complete a certain job
assignment
 Members are refers to by societal titles, e.g. Sir, Boss, officer, Supervisor,
Secretary, Director, Chairman, CEO etc.
 Once a member leaves the office/or premises of that grouping, most
of the regulations and titles no longer apply e.g. The managers
Secretary could be outside world as Mrs. so and so and relationship
become very different. But inside the workplace, the Boss is always the
boss, even if it is, younger or older etc.
 If the grouping or organization collapses those
Gemeindeschaft/societal policies, respect, titles no longer apply.
87
NB: example of Gemeindeschaft societies are several today-All the
employing bodies are Gemeindeschaft societies, including
government; the chain continues to parastatals, corporations, banks,
institutions like schools and universities etc.
- In a bank foe example, the goals is to get profit which helps the
institution in this market In a University, the goal is to ensure that the
students get quality degrees which are relevant to job market both in
the public and private sector
- In these organizations they will go the best, one who is able to deliver.
- Age is another factor; if one is young and deliver he/she will get
promotion. It is not like the Gemeindeschaft community where
excellence and wisdom are associated with age and eldership.
Diagrammatic presentation of Gemeindeschaft and Gessellschaft

(see next page)
SIX SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS INSTITUTION-COMMON TO ALL
Both Gemeindeschaft community and Gessellschaft society have

SOCIETAL CONSTANTS! or Institutions which make life and working
together possible
These six constants are more pronounced in a society structure of
modem societies although they are still engrained in traditional
communities; These are;
1. Political life-way of governing the members; The leading role
2. Religion- A belief system, way of worship, or prayer sessions by a

certain Religion, denominations etc. giving informal or formal
instructions or education/handling over values or empowering people
by ay of curriculum & co-curriculum activities. (Schools, institutions-
universities)
3. Education- way of giving formal instructions/educations to new

members of community or society.
88
4. Family-way of birthing people in the community through marriage
and family in recruiting for employment through Human resource
office or public commission.
5. Economic-way of sharing goods or resources within the community

or society. This involves trade through money-money is defined as
double coincidence of wants. This leads to economic development
and alleviation of the standard of life. The law of supply and demand,
role of Banks, Business etc.
6. Re-creation- way of spending leisure time-through dances, songs.

In modem societies there are specialized ways of recreation including
games rallies, Athletics etc. which have become great sources of
employment. Mariga of inter milan is a case in point. Mariganism may
change the fortunes of many Kenyan youth who may consider him an
icon in the society world.
SUMMARY
These six societal constraints can be summarized by one word; PREFER

Politics
Religion
Education
Family
Economic life
Recreation/leisure
CONCLUDING REMARK
 There is no grouping between the two which is totally exclusive of the
other. One will find some Gessellschaft qualities communities like,
church associations. Some traditional communities demands of
voting etc. they also use information technologies
 What can be concluded is that both these models have values and
disvalues in communities and peoples respect and sense of belonging
is needed in both.
89
 But of course, when one cluster of values is more pronounced in one
people, then they qualify to be called Gessellschaft or
Gemeindeschaft.
End of chapter 4 Questions

1. History of philosophy is divided into four periods/Epochs. Name these
periods indicating the main philosophers in each period and his
philosophical contribution
2. Explain the ultimate cause of all things (or the basic constituent of
things according to each pre-Socratic thinker.
3. Compare and contrast the philosophical initiatives within the Greek

mythical consciousness with the African sages or wise men and wise
women and how each “philosophy” influenced and informed its own
people and beyond their time and context.
4. Compare and contrast the Gemeindeschaft (community) and

Gessellschaft (society) in the light of present day Kenyan context and
the influence of western, modem way of life, technological
development and information technology. Indicate whether
globalization is the best way forward for the Kenyan society.
5. There is a saying among some historians that when African culture

meets another (superior) culture, the African culture always
concedes. “This is the starting point of aping. Discuss this comment.
90
Unit 3
The Human Person
The being of man is the being that continuously search for truth
and meaning in life. One can find truth but did not achieve its full
meaning while some able to find the meaning but does not end with
truth. A sick man might be able to find the truth behind his illness but
not able to discover why that truth exist. A lost child may realize why
he was lost but still not able to find the right direction. A teacher may
find the meaning of his profession but lacks the awareness of the right
method to teach a child. This continuous searching of man for truth
and meaning allows him to discover many potentialities that are
inherent in him. These potentialities are not only embedded in his soul.
He is born with it and made for it. In seeking he makes himself ‘free’ as
he opens himself to many possibilities. The possibility of failure, success,
truth, lie, pain, joy, betrayal, trust, love and rejection. All these
experiences are essential in the making man to be truly human
because when one finds the truth and meaning of his ‘being’ he is
now more closer to living a life fulfilled. (
91
WHAT MAKES MAN TRULY HUMAN?
Michael D. Moga, S.J.
[From What Makes Man Truly Hunan? A Philosophy of Man and
SocietyMakati City: St. Paul’s Press, 1995, pp. 3-10.]
Human beings are not necessarily human. Such a statement

may sound very puzzling but it is true for two reasons. First of all, it takes
much time and effort for a human being to grow to the point where
his own nature has reached full realization. When born he acts like a
little animal, not yet being fully human. It will take many years of
training and education by his family and society, many years of effort
and struggle on his own part before the fullness of humanity can be
achieved. Until that state of full humanness is attained we cannot say
that he is fully human.
Secondly, it is very possible that an individual human being will

not reach full development at all. We recognize that there are human
beings which fail to possess those basic qualities which are required
for full humanness. Sometimes we use the word “inhuman” to describe
such persons. They may be cruel, insensitive to others, irrational, or
robot-like in their lives and dealings with others. At other times we use
the word “animal” to describe persons who follow their lower instincts
and ignore their consciences, their human dignity and the higher
values of human life. We judge such inhuman people, such “animals,”
to be less than fully human.
That a human being can possibly not be human strikes us as a

puzzling paradox, revealing that man is quite different from all other
living species. Every other living organism very quickly grows to a state
of full development. Very rarely do we encounter a plant or an animal
that is such a “monster” that it does not truly represent its species.
Every acacia tree is necessarily an acacia tree and every dog is

necessarily a dog. Every tree grows to full size in a few years and is
completely a tree, taking nourishment from the soil and the air,
developing new branches and leaves, producing seeds. Most dogs
grow to full size and maturity within a year. From the very beginning
92
ever dog is clearly a dog, breathing, barking and smelling like a dog.
How strange it is that human life is so different from the lives of

trees and dogs! The fullness of humanity not only takes a great deal of
time to reach but often in a significant way it is not reached at all. We
are surrounded on this planet earth with many human beings who
sadly lack very important human traits.
Such a truth challenges each one of us. Am I as an individual

going to realize the full humanness that is possible for me? Will I play a
role in helping other human beings to grow into the humanness that
they are capable of? For the task that confronts me in my life is not
only one of coping with the problems of survival but also one of
achieving a level of life that is truly human. I am challenged in life not
only to survive and to be prosperous but also to be human.
But a question arises. What is this fullness of human life which we

human beings can attain? What are those characteristics that we
should strive to develop? What makes man truly human?
This question is not a new one. In a hidden, implicit way it has

confronted every human being that has ever existed in the history of
man. In the course of human history philosophers have given many
different answers to this question, many different ideals of being
human. We call such ideals “humanisms.” As we study the history of
human cultures we discover many different humanisms which have
inspired and guided those cultures. It is worthwhile to reflect on these
various ideals since they open up to us many rich possibilities of human
life.
The Greek Ideal of Full Development
One very distinctive humanism that arose in the past was that of
the ancient Greeks. The Greeks understood man as a being
composed of many natural potentialities, many possibilities for growth.
They sensed that nature actively guided man to develop those
potentialities, a development that was meant to reach a state of
93
fullness or excellence. In such an understanding of life the fully human
person is one who lives a life of a completely developed human
being.
First of all, human beings have physical potentialities and it is

possible for them to develop their bodies and their bodily skills. Some
of these skills are connected with sports and leisure as they learn to
run, to swim and to dance. Other skills are practical: the ability to type,
the ability to drive a car or to fly a plane, the ability to master crafts
such as carpentry or masonry.
Secondly, human beings have many mental abilities that can be

developed. They can expand their capacities to imagine and to
dream of new possibilities. They can develop their human sensitivity,
becoming more aware of themselves, of other people and of nature.
They can learn to think more logically and to bring rationality more
completely into their lives. They can become expert in one of the
many human sciences. They can become more aware of the
presence of beauty in nature and in the human arts. They can
become more open to the realm of the mysterious and the sacred. In
many different ways the human mind can be developed.
Thirdly, human beings can develop communication skills,

learning how to read and to write and to talk. It may take years to
develop these skills but, once they are mastered, individuals are better
able to function as full human beings. They can express their ideas
clearly and forcefully. They can bring understanding, joy and beauty
to those who read what they write or who listen to what they say.
Fourthly, human beings can develop their social skills in many

different ways. They can become loyal friends, good mothers and
fathers, active members of society. They can become generals in
armies, religious leaders, effective leaders of political communities. As
individuals learn to play their roles in society and make significant
contributions to society, they fulfil some of their social potentialities.
94
The Greeks conceived of nature to be the guide and inspiration
for the development of all of these human possibilities. This
development was pointed toward an ideal, the fullness of human life,
a life of excellence.
Although these examples give us an understanding of human

fulfilment in terms of an individual human being, this Greek ideal was
also meant to be realized on a social level. A human community can
achieve full development. This fullness of social development would
include many elements such as peace, economic prosperity, the rule
of law, active community interaction as well as the full development
of education and the arts.
Thus, from the Greeks we have a clear ideal for human life, the
development of all human potentialities to the level of excellence. It
is a humanism which has inspired and guided many peoples over the
ages.
The Oriental View
A distinctively different understanding of human life is found in

the classical writings of oriental religions, in Hinduism, Confucianism
and Taoism. In these traditions human existence is understood not to
be a matter of living a full life as a separate individual but to be a
matter of living as part of something greater. In these traditions living
wisely as a human being means that an individual finds his true place
in that greater reality and conforms himself to it. In a true sense the
wise man seeks to “lose” himself in that greater reality. From this
“oriental” viewpoint any understanding of human life is primarily an
understanding of a greater reality of which the individual man is a
part. This sense of human life is expressed in different ways in each of
the various oriental traditions.
95
Hinduism conceives the greater reality to be divine and calls it
Brahman or Atman. This divine Brahman is the only thing which is truly
real and everything else is only real to the extent that it is part of
Brahman. Brahman is like a great sea and all the other beings in the
world are just drops of water in that sea. Such drops do not have their
own distinct individual existence but exist as drops of water in a great
sea; they are elements of something greater.
Man’s life is thus conceived by Hinduism to be rooted in a divine

totality, drawing its ultimate truth and reality from this root. Of course,
man can ignore this truth and live superficially, absorbed by the
happenings and ever-changing experiences of his individual
existence. But such a way of living is foolish. A wise man lives in terms
of the basic divine reality of which he is a part. He draws meaning
from Brahman and seeks to lose himself in it.
In a similar way the Chinese tradition

of Confucianism understands the life of man in terms of something
greater. In this case the greater reality is human society. What is really
important in human life is society as it is concretized in family and
friendship and the state. Man’s major concern should be to act in
such a way that these social units are preserved in a traditional and
correct form.
In this philosophy of Confucianism the individual human being is

understood precisely as a part of family, friendship or state. The
purpose of his life is found in his fulfilling of his assigned role in these
various social units. From family and state he has certain clear
obligations which he must endeavor to fulfill. He lives wisely and his life
is truly human to the extent that he fulfills these obligations, and his
family and state prosper.
A third prominent tradition in oriental thought is that of Taoism, a

way of thinking that arose in ancient China. In this tradition the
emphasis is on Tao, a mysterious, all-encompassing reality. Tao is the
source of everything. It is an ultimate power that actively guides
96
everything that exists in the heavens, in the earth and in human life.
Tao is thus a “way” that directs all of these various levels of nature.
As an ultimate reality this Tao is conceived not only to be all-

powerful (guiding the existence of all beings) but also to be wise
(guiding those beings to move in the best possible way). Because of
this the individual human being is wise if he trusts Tao, is sensitive to its
guidance and follows it in his life. He lets go of his own plans and his
own efforts to control his own life and lives with natural spontaneity. By
doing so the wise man’s life becomes the expression of his own
individual desires but of Tao.
Each of these three ways of life (Hinduism, Confucianism and

Taoism) presents a picture of human life as part of something greater.
In each of them a human being is truly human when he loses himself
in that greater reality. To ignore that greater reality is to go astray and
to live a life which is foolish. Such understandings of life present deep
wisdom that has guided the lives of many millions of people for many
centuries.
The Hebrew Understanding
A third quite distinctive understanding of human life is found in

the Hebrew tradition. In this tradition human life is conceived to consist
of a situation where man constantly faces challenges and
expectations and is called upon to respond. In this situation man lives
in a truly human way to the extent that he is sensitive to these
challenges and responds to them in a noble and worthy way.
This Hebrew sense of human life is concretized in the story of the

“father” of all the Jews, Abraham. Abraham was called by Yahweh
and told to take his family and possessions and to go into a far country
where Yahweh would bless him. Abraham was challenged to believe
in this call from God and to carry it out. He responded to Yahweh by
trusting in His word and by fulfilling faithfully what was asked of him. He
achieved greatness in his life by the way that he was faithful,
responding to Yahweh’s call. All believers in the Hebrew tradition
97
understand their lives in terms of this model of Abraham. They see
themselves challenged and “called” by God in all of the happenings
of their lives.
This Hebrew model for understanding human life is not limited to

a situation of religious faith but can be understood in a broader
context. Every human being can see his life as a matter of challenges
where the meaning of that life arises from the way that he responds.
It is evident in life that every individual is constantly confronted by
challenges arising from nature, his family, his friends, his community
and his God. He experiences his life as something more than simply
“being alive,” occupying a place in a quiet situation. Man’s situation
is rather one of being constantly challenged, of facing expectations
at every moment. In life he is never left alone.
The Hebrew tradition thus presents us with an ideal of human life

which is quite distinctive. The ideal human being in this tradition is one
who is first sensitive to the challenges of his situation and who then
responds to those challenges with courage, generosity and fidelity.
Through this sensitivity and this responsiveness a person becomes truly
human.
Other Humanisms
Besides the three humanisms presented above there are many

other ideals of human life which have guided and inspired men and
women through the ages. Let us briefly consider a few of them.
There can be a type of moral humanism. Here the ideal human

life is a full living of morality. This can be found in a life of correctness
where an individual follows exactly all the moral laws of his religion
and society. A slightly different version of this ideal is found in a life
where moral virtues are lived in a full way, virtues such as love,
courage, prudence, patient endurance and loyalty.
98
In such a moral humanism the fully human person is one who is
“good.”
There can be a humanism which emphasizes creativity. The

ideal here is a person who is creative on all levels of his life, in his artistic
productions, in his expression, in his relationships, in his religion, in his
personal growth. Such a fully human person is always open to new life
as he constantly moves into new ways of living. His life is growing, full
of surprises.
For such a humanism of creativity the idea is embodied in an artist.
There can be a religious humanism. Such a humanism would be

based on the understanding that a human being is basically the
image of God. According to this understanding the ideal human life
is achieved when one becomes a full child of God, living fully one’s
relationship to God. This life would include many different things,
including the fulfilling of God’s will in one’s life, setting God as one’s
primary goal, and emphasizing prayer and worship in one’s life.
According to this view a person is fully human when he lives fully as
the image of God.
In such a religious humanism the ideal is the holy person, the saint.
There can be a humanism of love. Human existence is

understood here as basically a matter of relating to other people. The
ideal human life is achieved when a person establishes deep human
relationships with others and lives those relationships fully. One strives,
for example, to be loving friend or a loving mother or father. Included
in this ideal life is a high level of compassion and sensitivity. The ideal
human being must be one who understands what others are
experiencing and who is deeply sensitive to the needs and feelings of
others.
99
The Question
This question (What is the ideal way to live human life?) is not a
mere theoretical problem. In our lives in today’s world we make major
decisions based on our preference for one or other of these
humanisms, one of these ideals of human life. An example of this might
be found in the ideas behind “women’s liberation.” Many modern
women feel that their lives are somewhat empty when their existence
consists merely of being wives and mothers. They want more in their
lives than just the living out of such roles. They seek fulfillment in their
lives, a fulfillment which they find in a career. In such a choice they
are being guided by the Greek ideal for human life.
A student may set aside her career in order to work and to gain money
for the education of her brothers and sisters. The welfare of her family
is more important for her than her own development. In acting this
way she lives in terms of a humanism which gives priority to
commitments and to a larger reality (a social group) and makes
individual development secondary. (There is a similarity to the Hebrew
and Oriental humanisms here.)
Another example of conflict between models is found in the

contemporary emphasis on “involvement.” This emphasis urges young
people to go beyond their concern for their studies and success in
their careers and to commit themselves to some form of social action.
Those who stress such “involvement” are guided by an ideal of human
life which looks beyond human development and fulfillment. This ideal
conceives human life to be fully found in a life of response to the
needs of one’s community. (There is an echo of the Hebrew humanism
here.)
Modern environmentalists urge us to cut back on our efforts for

economic growth and to live in tune with nature, limiting our usage of
natural resources. Such people are guided by a Taoist ideal of human
life where life is understood in terms of conformity with nature and
economic growth is secondary.
100
Some people today choose to step aside from the world and to give
their lives to God in religious or contemplative life. These people
conceive God to be all important and they choose to live in terms of
Him alone. Personal development and human relationships are
conceived to be subordinated to this greater reality. (There is
something similar to Oriental humanism here.)
These examples show us that our ideal of human life has great
influence over the choices that we make in life. We began this
chapter with a simple question: What makes man truly human? It is
clear now that the answer we give to that question will have a great
effect on our lives.
101
Test
Answer the questions.
1. Does being born as a human necessarily make someone human?

2. Is it possible for someone to attain the full development of being
human?
3. How does the Greek understood man? And what is their ideal
human?
4. What is the oriental view towards human?
5. How does the concept of Hinduism, Confucianism and Taoism differ
in their conception of man as being part of a greater reality?
6. How does the Hebrew conceive the understanding of the human life?
7. What is moral humanism?
8. What is the concept of the humanism that emphasizes creativity?
9. Is there such thing as religious humanism?
10. What is the humanism of love?
From the respondents in your interview, pick one person and

analyse how he/she sees humanism through his/her words and
profession. The rubric for this should be as follows
 40% Content
 30% Organization
 20% Insights
 10% Language
Make a PowerPoint presentation of the group's interview and

share it to the class. Include in the presentation the humanism of the
person you analysed for the evaluation activity.
102
Embodied Spirit
The article is a part of the introduction to the book Philosophy of

Man: Selected Readings by Manuel Dy. Here he discussed the
inadequacy of understanding man in a dual thinking through his two
significant faculty. This kind of approach in philosophy is called
Phenomenology.
Man as Embodied Subjectivity

(Excerpt from the Introduction of Philosophy of Man)
by Manuel Dy
Phenomelogists reject as inadequate the definition of man as

“rational animal” or as a “composite of body and soul”. The trouble
with the definition is that they are dualistic; they view man as made
up of two parts: corporeal and spiritual, animality and rationality even
if we lay stress on “composite” or “unity”, we would still face the
dilemma of how two different realities, matter and spirit, can interact
with each other. When pressed further on which reality is more
important, no doubt we would say that rationality stands out as the
unique characteristic of man. And yet our basis for understanding
human nature is his animality, and 'rational' is only a qualifier, an
added dimension to man's animality, thus making man “isang
pinakamagandang hayop sa balat ng lupa – pero hayop pa rin.”
103
This dualistic notion of man with its emphasis on rationality has
led to the so-called two-lives theory and in moral education, the
norms of good conduct in terms of ends and means. Man lives in two
separate worlds, the temporal and the spiritual, but he must not make
a mistake of making the temporal his ultimate end. The earthly city is
only a preparation for the eternal. Reason equips him the judgement
of distinguishing ends and means.
The phenomenologist, on the other hand, sees man as
embodied subjectivity. This is not just a matter of language, for the
language does matter. Language does not just picture reality; it helps
create reality's meaning. Man is foremost a subjectivity, a unique core
or center, source, depth, well-spring of initiative and meaning. Our
term “kalooban” (“kabubut-on” in Visayan, “nakim” in Ilocano, “hsin”
in Chinese) fits the description. Note that the subjectivity is not limited
to rationality but includes the affective, the emotional as well.
Man, however, is not a pure subjectivity but a subjectivity
incarnating itself, “in flesh” so to say. Man's body is not an object-
body, a chunk of matter that is the lodging place of the spirit. The
human body is a subject body, already a meaning-giving existence.
In other words, human interiority always seeks to embody itself in a
body structure or gesture. Embodiment is simply to make incarnate a
meaning which comes from the inner core of man.
How does this holistic view of man then affect our philosophy of
education?
The subject of education is man. Education is the process of
developing man, man the embodied subject. Development now
must be total development. Education cannot be and should not be
simply a conglomeration of discipline each minding its own task of
cultivating a specific part of man. Neither must education look down
upon material development as merely stepping stone to the rational
or the spiritual. We can recall here the mystical insight of the Jesuit
philosopher-scientist,Teilhard de Chadin:
Consciouness manifests itself indubitably in man and
therefore, glimpsed in this one flash of light, it reveals itselfas having
a cosmis extension and consequently as being aureoled by limitless
prolongations in space and time.
A corollary insight to embodiments the notion of language as
104
embodied thought or thinking, not as a replica or clothing of ideas.
Language is the way of thinking of the people itself speaking that
language. If our education is to be relevant, it must be
communicated in the language of the people to whom it is to be
relevant.
Man as Being-in-the-world
As embodied subject, man is a being-in-the-world. The human

body is the link of man with a world. The phenomenologist speaks of
the world or worlds for man, rather than environment. Environment
refers to animals, but the things around man are not simply objects
lying; they from a network of meanings, in and on and around which
man organizes his life. Thus, we speak of the world of a student, of a
teacher, of a farmer, a politician. Man is “in” the world not in the same
sense as the carabao is “in” the field. Both may be in the field but it is
man who gives meaning to the field, the carabao, the sky, the plough.
The world connotes then a dialectic of meaning and structures. The
things around man are structures that articulate a meaning
proceeding from the subjectivity of man. Some given structures
reinforce a meaning, others run counter to it. In any case, to speak of
man is to speak of his world, and vice versa. The phenomenologists
calls this the intentionality of consciousness: consciousness is
consciousness of something other than consciousness. In Visayan, it
means “walay kalibutan (world) kung walay kalibutan
(consciousness)”.
Rather than define man as “rational animal” – to which one of
my students quipped, “so what?” – let us emphasize man’s
situatedness. This point is important when we speak of social change.
No genuine social change is effected without an internal change in
meaning, and no internal meaning can last without an external
structure to reinforce it. The Scholastics like to dwell on cumutative
justice or injustice, but contemporary man is more aware, in a
complex world he lives, of social justice or injustice, of unjust structures.
This is what we educators should address ourselves to with our students
– an awareness of unjust structures, of internal change that need to
be situated, of the need to humanize the world we live in by our work.
105
Test
1. What is the definition for man that the phenomenologists
consider as inadequate?
2. What are the two elements that make the notion of man as
dual?
3. What are the two separate worlds where man is in?
4. How does the phenomenologists look at the notion of man?
What is the Filipino term for it? What other faculties does it include to
see the totality of man?
5. What does “in flesh” means?
6. What does the embodiment make of man?
7. Can this holistic view of man affect the philosophy of education?
How?
Watch
Look for Ze Frank: Are you human? in YouTube
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccIt-qRQBoI) As a class,
participate by answering the questions in the video.
In a small group, make a song about being man. How is it to be

a man? What makes man different from any other species? What
makes you special to be a man? The rubric for the song shall be as
follows:
 40% Content
 30% Musicality
 20% Arrangement
 10% Delivery
Record the song you made and have it uploaded to Facebook.

Invite your friends and relatives to watch and comment on your song.
Take note of the comments and suggestions.
106
Man as Transcendental
My Body
An Essay by Eduardo Jose Calasanz, Philosophy of Man, Selected
Readings
Any philosophy of man is a systematic and holistic attempt to

answer the question of “who am I?” IN our day-to-day life, we may be
so engrossed in our activities that we do not bother anymore to
question what seems clear and obvious to us. The question of “Who
am I?” is such a case. It is surprising to ask this ourselves. At first glance,
isn’t this question so simple? What could be clearer and obvious to us
than the reality of our “I”? But this is only at first glance, from superficial
and uncritical natural attitude. Certain events in our life (like sickness,
failures, death) can awaken us and bring us to the limits of our ordinary
experience. And then, the once-so-simple question deepens, begins
to complicate, and beckons on us: Who am I?
An important aspect in answering this question is the experience

of my body. If I were asked about myself, my answers inescapably
have reference to my body. What are you? Man, because I have a
form, activities, and a body of man. Who are you? I am Juan Santos,
tall, mestizo-looking long-haired, with small ears and a big belly due to
beer drinking (isa pa nga!). where am I? Here, where my body is; look
107
at my body. In these ways, I seem to say I am my body.
But there are times too that I know I am not just my body. I am a
man also because I have an understanding and mind of man. When
I say to my parents, “I love you,” this one loving them is not just this tall-
mestizo-looking-long-haired-with-small-ears-fat-belly-etc.” body of
mine but my whole spirit and will. And it can happen that while my
body is in room B-109, listening to a boring lecture on the theories of
Lobachevski of the poems of Chairil Anwar, I am taking a walk at the
beach, along with my sweetheart, watching the sunset.
On one hand, I recognize an intimate relation of myself with my

body, and thus truly say: I am my body. Yet, on the other hand, I also
know that I cannot reduce my whole humanity to my body. I am also
spirit and will: my body is only something I have: I have my body. What
is the meaning of this paradox?
The Life of Embodied Spirit

Eduardo Jose Calasanz, Philosophy of Man, Selected Readings
We begin our reflection on the experience of my body by

recognizing its paradoxical character. On one hand, I cannot detach
my body from myself; they are not two things that happen by chance
together. Rather, my self is absolute embodied. Likewise, on the other
hand, I cannot reduce my self to my body: I also experience my self
as an I–spirit and will that can never be imprisoned in my flesh and
bones. That is why we can say there are two faces shown in the
experiences of my body: “I have my body” and “I am my body”.
It is very tempting for any erudite person, philosopher or scientist,

to forget this paradox and fix his attention to only one side of the
experience. This precisely is the danger of the primary reflection: our
inquiry becomes clear and distinct but we get farther away from real
experience. The paradox is the experience itself, and this should be
the one described by philosophy by means of secondary relfection.
108
The body as intermediary. I experience myself as being-in-the-
world through my body. My body acts as the intermediary between
the self or subject and the world.
When we use the term intermediary, we refer to one of two

conflicting meaning and Z,” I may mean that because X, Y and Z
encounter or become closer to each other or come to an agreement.
Let us take this example from the story if Macario Pineda titled, “Kung
Baga sa Pamumulaklak.” A young famer named Desto wants to win
the hand of the illustrious young lady named Tesang. However, he
cannot just present himself directly to the lady of his affection to tell
her of his feelings. He first approaches his uncle Mang Tibo who is
kumpare of Tesang’s parents so he can act as an intermediary
between him and Tesang’s parents. Only then do Tesang’s parents
allow Desto to court her. In this situation the intermediary serves as the
“bridge” for the union of the young man and the lady.
On the other hand, I can also mean the opposite. I can say that
because X, Y and Z are separated. Still with the example of courting,
the parents if the girl stand between our affection and prevent our
being sweethearts. In the old films of Virgo Productions, often Lolita
Rodriguez plays the role of the “other woman” who stands between
the beautiful relationship of the couple Eddie Rodriquez and Marlene
Dauden. Here, the intermediary is not a bridge but an obstacle.
Now when I say my body is the intermediary between my self

and the world, I refer to the two meaning of intermediary. On one
hand, because of my body, an encounter and agreement occurs
between my self and the world. In reality, the encounter of the
experience of my self and the experience if the world can only take
place in the experience of my body, I experience the world as my
world and we are familiar to each other. Because of my body, the
chair I am sitting on is hard, the sunset is as red as a rose, the effect of
the lambanog on my empty stomach is strong, the smell of the
Pacwood factory in San Pedro, Laguna, is like hell. Because of my
body, I have an experience of “near” and “far,” and “below” and
109
“up” and “below” and many other relations in space. The world of
man is different from the “world” of the fly because their bodies have
different frameworks. My body is by nature intentional (directed to the
world), and it creates and discovers meaning that I am conscious of
in my existence. Thus, because of my body, the whole universe has
and reveals a meaning for-me-and-for man. Through my body, my
subjectivity is openness to the world and the world is opened to me;
the world fills me and I fill the world.
On the other hand, also because of my body, I experience the

world as separate from me. I am “not-world”, and the world in “not-I”.
In the giving-of-meaning-to-the-world of my body, I also experience
the self as “outside” the world, I am the one who sees, and who gives-
name to this or that. My body shows that I am not simply a thing
among other things in nature. The oneness and wholeness of my body
is different from the oneness and wholeness of the world. If I did not
have this kind of distance from the world, I would become only a thing
without an interiority; and clearly this view is not true to our experience
of life. My body participates in the world but cannot be reduced to it.
The body in intersubjectivity. My body is not only an intermediary

between me and the world but also between me and others. I show
myself to the other and the other also shows himself to me through my
body.
Because of my body, we interrelate with each other in many

ways–in our vision, actions, attitude, in our rituals, signs and speech.
We face each other in anger, tenderness, sadness etc., because we
have a body to present. If the other shows wrinkles in his forehead, he
is indicating dissatisfaction, confusion or disapproval of what I am
saying. The wry and red appearance of my face is my anger; my
fixed-to-the-ground look at my sigh are my loneliness. The child does
not have to disobey parent, a look from the parent is enough to
prevent him. Every part and action of my body says something of
myself and my world. As what the poet says of an alluring young
woman:
110
There’s language in her eye, her cheek, her lip,
Nay, her foot speaks; her wanton spirits look out
At every joint and motive of her body.
The language of my body has its own grammar and rhetoric in

expressing my interiority. If I love Maria, I show this through my kisses,
embrace, holding tenderly her hand, etc., and through exchanges of
rings, daily telephone conversations, weekly visits. I respect my parents
in kissing their hands; I accept a new acquaintances in shaking his
hand. Embodiment is not just an additional or external appearance;
it is the gesture and appearance of what I truly feel inside. I cannot
say I love my brothers and sisters if I do not show this love to them. I
cannot say I respect my parents if my speech to them is not respectful.
My faith is meaningless if I do not realize it in my daily actions in life. In
social life too, the great aspirations of the citizenry need to be
embodied in political, economic, cultural (etc.) framework for these
to have an enduring realization. As the apostle James says, “Whoever
listens to this word but does not put it into practice is like a man who
looks in a mirror and sees himself as he is. He takes a good look at
himself and the goes away and at once forgets what he looks like.”
(James 1, 22-23). The spirit id fulfilled in the actions and deeds of the
body.
However, as we have seen there are two facts to the body as

intermediary. I cannot separate my intersubjectivity from its
embodiment, but I cannot also reduce it to its embodiment. The spirit
needs to be expressed and realized in the body but my body cannot
fully state all of my subjectivity. I may truly love my family even if my
body is far away from them. The fullness of my love for the beloved
cannot be said in exchange of rings or daily telephone conversations.
My subjectivity transcends in expanse and depth its embodiment.
Indeed my body shows myself, but it can also be a mask that hides
what I truly think or feel. I can smile in the company of my friends while
suffer inside of frustration (as they say, “laughing in the outside but
crying in the inside”). The paradox of “I have my body” and “I am my
body” but also applies to my inter-relationship with others.
111
The value of the body. As the appearance and expression of my
subjectivity, my body has a unique value and dignity. It directs me not
only to the world and to others but also to God. St. Paul says in the first
letter to the Corinthians: “You know that your bodies are parts of the
body of Christ. Don’t you know that your body is the temple of the
Holy Spirit, who live in you and who has given to you by God? You do
not belong to yourselves but to you God, he bought you for a price.
So use your bodies for God’s glory.” (1 Corinthians 6, 15-18)
112
Test
Answer the questions.
1. What are the paradoxical character of the embodied character?

2. What does the body as intermediary mean?
3. How does the body become intersubjective?
4. Is there a language of the body? Give an example.
5. What is the value of the body?
EVALUATION:
Look for the video Who am I? in YouTube

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oocunV4JX4w) .
In your journal, write an entry entitled Me and My Body. In your essay,
answer the following questions:
 What are the strengths and weaknesses of being you?
 What are the improvements you want to make in you?
 If you will have a chance to be another who would you be and why?
 How do you love your body?
The rubrics for the essay would be as follows:
 30% Insights
 30% Realization
 20% Coherence
 20% Presentation
113
The Concept of a Person
Dr. Florentino Timbreza (2001, 1) viewed human life as an apparent
absurdity. According to him, a human being is both an animal and
not an animal at the same time. This is because just like the animals, a
human person can also feel. However, unlike the animals, a person is
conscious of his/her own existence and capable of searching for the
meaning of his/her life.
What makes the human person different from any other creature
is that he/she is the only being who has been endowed with the
capacity to reason out and to search for the reason of his/her being
in the world. He /She is the only earthly creature who has the capacity
to ask the question: What is the meaning of my life?
Because of this capability of the human person, different
philosophers gave different views as regards what and who a person
is. John Locke considered a human person as “a thinking intelligent
Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself,
the same thinking thing in different times and places” ( Honderich
1995, 655).
Brute animals may indeed have the capability for certain form
of mental process. A dog, for instance, has the capacity to recognize
its master; while the parrot has the capacity of imitating sounds. Said
114
activities of these animals may require a certain form of mental
process. Nevertheless, this does not guarantee that the dogs and
parrots are already to be considered a intelligent being because they
are still incapable of reflecting on the meaning and purpose of life.
As the human being has been endowed with reason, Immanuel
Kant considers a human person as an autonomous self -regulating will
capable of making moral decisions by and for himself /herself. In this
regard, every person has worth and dignity insofar as they are ends in
themselves and are capable of making their own moral decisions.
Although the human person has worth and dignity, Erich Fromm
still considers a human being as the freak of nature, hence, an
anomaly, because of his self –awareness, reason, and imagination.
Although a human being is an animal, he/she is the only animal who
becomes aware of his/her awareness, reason, and imagination. A
human being may be an animal; however, he/she is the only animal
who becomes aware of his/her awareness and who is capable of
thinking what he/she is thinking (Timbreza, 2).
Because a human person is an intelligent being, he/she therefore
becomes aware of his/her own life. This awareness to his/her life has
led him/her to ask questions:
What sort of thing I am?
Where do I come from?
To where shall I be going?
Why am I in this world?
What am I living for?
What is my future and mu destiny?
What must I do to live well and happy?
Victor Frankl believes that striving to find a meaning of one’s life is the
primary motivational force in a human person. According to him, a
human being is able to live and even to die for the sake of his/her
ideals and values (1984, 121). Frankl added that a human person is
ultimately self – determining, i.e., he/she does not simply exist. Rather,
he/she always decides what his/her existence will be and what
he/she become in the next moment (155).
Because the human person is rational being, he/she is capable
of distinguishing the good from the bad. This is the reason why he
115
orients himself/herself toward the true and the good. Such true and
good become the source of values for a human person. The human
person’s orientation towards the true and the good binds him/her
towards the affirmation of the spiritual freedom and dignity of the
other person; and thereby makes him/her responsible for the welfare
and dignity of the other person as well (Buenaflor, 132).
The human person is the only being in this world that is endowed
with reason. Due to the rationality of the human person, he/she was
able to develop a sense of valuing and loving to the source of
goodness. Due to the rationality of the human person, he/she was
able to develop a sense of valuing and loving to the source of
goodness. Due to the rationality of the human person, he/she is led to
know the importance of searching for the true and the good.
Eventually the search for the true and the good became the very
reason for the human person’s existence.
Inasmush as the good becomes the human person’s reason for
his/her existence, the human person’s conscience, according to Erich
Fromm, enables him/her to know what he ought to do in order to
become himself/herself. Such conscience becomes also the reason
why the human person remains aware of the aims of his/her life, as
well as the norms for the attainment of such aims (Timbreza, 3).
From the point of view of St. Thomas Aquinas, what constitutes
the human person as a moral subject is his/her conscience. He
believed that it is in this conscience that a human person discovers
the moral law. St. Thomas believed that the conscience is the means
116
by which the human person aspires for the good and discovers the
affirmation of the spiritual freedom and dignity of the other person. It
is also responsible of making the human person aware of the welfare
and dignity of the other persons. In this regard, conscience refers to
the totality of the human person, i.e., the absolute structure of the
person. It is the conscience that makes human beings moral persons.
The Human Person as Moral and Spiritual Subject
The capacity of the human person to think has led him/her to

become aware of the distinction between the right from the wrong.
In this regard, he/she therefore becomes a moral person. He/she
becomes aware of his/her actions. And whenever the human being
has committed a wrong deed, he/she will have the desire to make
reparations for such bad deeds.
The human person is considered to be a responsible person.
Deep within his/her conscience, a person discovers the law which
he/she has not laid upon himself/herself but which he/she must obey.
Since a human person is oriented towards the good, he/she is led to
obeying the law, which he/she inscribes into his/her heart. In this
regard, the dignity of the human person lies in observing the law.
117
The capacity of the human person to do good is rooted in his
capability of performing human acts. Human act is defined as the
action that is done with knowledge and full consent of the will. This is
the action that makes the human person fully responsible for what
he/she does. It is an act that proceeds from the deliberate free will of
the human person (Glenn 1965, 3). In this case, a person is doing a
human act if he/she knows what he/she is doing and if he/she is doing
it freely and willingly irrespective of whether the action is good or bad.
The human act is distinguished from the acts of man, which is
defined as those actions that are done in the absence of either
knowledge or will. For instance, a person who for some reason is not
free to choose what would like according to his insight and will, but
has to act against his will, is therefore acting on an act of man.
The action of the human person towards goodness is definitely
an indication that a human person is by nature good. This is because
“God created man in the image of Himself, in the image of God He
created him, male and female He created them (Genesis 1, 27).
Because the human person is created in the image and likeness
of God, there is therefore the transcendental relationship between
the human person’s act itself. A human person will always have the
tendency to act according to his concept of goodness.
However, an action can be considered really good when it is
done in accordance with its God-given nature. In this sense, a human
person is not simply desirous of goodness. Rather, he/she will always
have the tendency to root his/her action from his/her spiritual nature
because the human person is a spiritual being. It is for this reason that
goodness can be considered as something more than having a good
intention. Goodness is rather something grounded in being itself, i.e.,
in the nature of the human person himself/herself. Hence, the human
person’s rational nature will always point towards God as his/her final
destiny and the source of the true happiness.
118
Test
1. What makes a human being a moral person?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
2. A 5- year old kid was stealing a toy. Is his action a human act or an
act of human? In this case, is the boy’s action of stealing a toy morally
justifiable?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
3. How can we obtain the real happiness? Can we really be happy in

this world? Why or why not?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
4. It is said that human beings are by nature good since they are created
in the image and likeness of God. How then can we justify the evil acts
done by the human person’s nature as good?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
119
The Eastern Concept of a Person
The Buddhist Philosophy of a Person
Many people believed that Buddhism is a religion. Others
believed that it is a philosophy of life. However, Buddhism is not only a
religion, nor is it only a philosophy. Rather, Buddhism is both a
philosophy and a religion at the same time. This is because in the East,
. . . religion and philosophy are not seen as separate and
opposed activities. Rather, they are viewed as components of a total
way of life aimed at achieving the greatest possible human perfection
(Koller 1998, 133).
Buddhism is considered as another reform movement or

reaction against the state of Hindu doctrine and practices at the time.
It began as a pure ethic, which rejected the authority of the Vedas
and the Brahamanas, and established a way to human liberation and
salvation solely through human effort and discipline, whish refused any
supernatural revelation or intervention. The known founder of
Buddhism is Siddhartha Gautama.
The Life of Siddhartha Gautama
Siddhartha Gautama (c. 563-483 BCE) was believed to be born

at Lumbini, in the Terai lowlands near the foothills of the Himalayas in
Modern-day Nepal (Law 2007, 230). He was born of the royal family of
the Sakyas and it was known that his family were the leaders of the
clean of the Shalyas. Siddhartha was to be known later as the
Sakyamuni (the sage of sakya tribe), the Bhagavat (the blessed one),
the Tathagata (he who “came in the same way,” i.e., like the buddhas
before him, and the Buddha (the Enlightened One, the Awakened
One, or the One who Knows) ( De Lubac 1954, v).
Anxious that he should not be diverted from his duty, his father
shielded him from ugliness and suffering by keeping him within the
grounds of his palaces. Siddhartha was said to have married at the
age of 16 and had a son named Rahula, which means “fetter” (Law).
120
Later on, according to the story, Siddhartha left the palaces four
times, encountering in turn and old man, a sick man, a corpse, and
finally an ascetic- a shaven-headed man wearing a yellow robe.
These encounters with human suffering and mortality prompted him
to reflect deeply. These four significant things became the turning
point for Siddhartha’s life:
1. From the old man, Siddhartha found out that all of us are liable to
become old. Nobody can really escape from old age.
2. From the sick man, he found out that all of us are liable to become
sick and nobody can be exempted from sickness.
3. From the dead man, Siddhartha realized that like sickness and old
age, death afflicts everyone. Everybody will eventually die when the
proper time comes.
4. Upon seeing the ascetic man looking contented and at peace with
himself because he was in constant search for the means to eliminate
suffering. Siddhartha found out that there is a need to go forth on a
religious quest towards contentment. Siddhartha found out that we
have to free ourselves from the sufferings. He also realized that this can
be one if one will be able to discover a way to eliminate life’s
sufferings.
The four signs became the means for Siddhartha to realize that
life is not entirely beautiful as he knew it to be. Rather, this life is full of
suffering. The realization made Siddhartha desirous of searching for
the means to eliminate suffering. Shortly thereafter, aged 29, he
secretly left his wife and child in search of spiritual understanding
(Law).
For almost seven years, he listened to the teachings of the

different masters of wisdom. He studied meditation techniques and
austerity. But these masters were not able to satisfy his longing for the
true happiness. Engrossed in his lonely meditation, he arrived one day
at the place known eversince as Buddha Gaya, and there, sitting
under a fig tree, he meditated. Suddenly, in the middle of the night,
enlightenment comes. From then on, he became Buddha (De Lubac,
v).
121
After obtaining enlightenment, he began his long career as a
preacher. He then made his important First Sermon, Setting in motion
the wheel of the dharma, at the gates of the city of Benares to an
audience of five monks, who had shown themselves well disposed
towards him.
Eventually, he was able to set up an order to spread his
teachings and spent the rest of his life as wandering preacher, going
from village to village in the Ganges basin. After forty years of
teaching, at the age of about eighty, Siddhartha died, or rather
entered into pari-nirvana, i.e., the perfect Nirvana (Buenaflor, 21).
Shortly after his death, at a gathering of his disciples, senior monks
recited his teachings for the assembly to memorize. Transmitted orally,
they were not recorded in writing for centuries.
The Teachings of Buddha
The teachings of Siddhartha are contained in the canon of the

Sacred Scriptures. These appear in two main forms: the Pali (Chinese
version), and the Sanskrit (Tibetan version). In both, it is made up of
three parts; hence, it is called Tripaka (the Triple Basket). The first part
is the Sutras, an enormous collection of sermons and fables, which
Buddha himself is believed to have uttered. The second part is the
Vinaya, a collection of monastic laws. The third part is the Avhidarma,
a collection of moral and metaphysical treatises (De Lubac).
The Buddhists on a Human Person
The Buddhists believed that a human person in reality was united

originally with the Brahman. However this human person was
accidentally born into this earthly life; thus, acquiring an atman, the
individual self identified with a mortal body at birth. Because of this,
the human person was separated from his/her universal Brahman self.
When the human person became a mortal body, he/she is
made to be subjected to diseases, death and decomposition.
However the Buddhists believed that there is a reincarnation
according to which man, despite death, corruption, and
decomposition of his bodily components, is capable of rebirth and
122
subsequent generation. Nevertheless, the Buddhists made it clear that
the cycle of birth and rebirth, or this so-called reincarnation, should
not be seen as an opportunity; rather, it should be seen as a
punishment. The Buddhists held that the imprisonment of the soul to
the body was actually due to the misdeeds or impurities, or
imperfections, or liabilities incurred by a human person during his/her
earthly life.
Although reincarnation should not be looked upon as an
opportunity, it should not also be considered as totally negative. The
Buddhists believed that birth and rebirth are seen as purificatory
process in order to free the soul from impurities or imperfections. Once
the person has already been purified, the atman will already be
worthy to be reunited with the Brahman and enter Nirvana, the sinless
calm state of mind, the destruction of earthly desires, the absence of
lust, and the cessation of sorrows.
Siddhartha believed that a human person is unhappy in this life
because of the uncontrolled bodily desires. Hence, in order for a
human person to be happy, he/she must liberate himself/herself from
his selfishness, overcome his/her self-desires by self- sacrifice and self-
denial as this will be the only means in order to acquire virtue.
The Fourfold Noble Truths
From the point of view of Buddhists, life here on earth is a

preparation for the attainment of Nirvana. According to them, earthly
life is a purificatory process for the perfection of the human person
and his/her reunion with the Brahman. This idea is based on the main
teachings of Buddha: the Fourfold Noble Truth. This Fourfold Truth is
called noble because it is worthy of assent and respect s it is very
much important in the elimination of life’s sufferings (Koller, 141).
The first of the four truths and the starting point for Buddhism is
that we wake up to the reality of human suffering. The drive in the
Lumbini Park made Siddhartha realize that life is not at all beautiful. He
realized that everything in life is a suffering. Birth is a suffering. Old age
is suffering. Sickness is suffering. Death is suffering. Sorrows and ;pains,
grief and despair are all components of life (Reyes, 10). In this regard,
Siddhartha held that the first truth is that Life is suffering.
123
Life’s suffering involves not only the physical, but the emotional
and mental aspect of life as well. But as a human person, we must all
endure pain, sickness and death. Each of us will at some time suffer
emotional distress and grief. The enlightened Siddhartha did not
mean that life is totally painful. However, since all pleasures are
fleeting, life remains intrinsically dissatisfying. Buddha believed that
everything is in the state of continual flux. But our reluctance to
accept the instability of things produces a sense of frustration and
unease and the cause of desire.
People desire for permanence, both in things and in the self, and
in this way we become slaves to cravings that can never be satisfied.
This, therefore, leads us to the second noble of truth, namely that
suffering involves a chain of causes (Law 230-231). Buddha held that
the source of suffering is the craving desire to satisfy the senses.
Craving is a strong, desperate form of desire that moves a person to
extremes in trying to attain or to avoid something. Siddhartha did not
mean that all desire causes suffering. Rather, it can only become the
cause of suffering when it is already a function of greed and selfishness
(Buenaflor, 22).
Although life is full of suffering, Buddha held that the proper
reaction to the recognition of all our pains is not despair. The third
noble truth tells us that suffering can cease. Inasmuch as suffering
comes from selfishness, in this regard, any action that is motivated by
selfless desires can be the source of moral goodness. This moral
goodness can become the means for the extinction of craving, which
in turn, is the attainment of nirvana, a word that literally means
“extinction.”
Siddhartha taught the four noble truths, which set the details of
how suffering can be cured is that there is a path that leads to the
cessation of suffering. He held that in order to get rid of suffering, every
Buddhist should follow the path to moral action. This path that leads
to the extinction of suffering is simply the Noble Eightfold Path.
The Noble Eightfold Path
The Noble Eightfold Path is the Buddhist guide to life. According

to Buddha, the eightfold path focuses on the elimination of craving
124
and thirst and takes effect the cultivation of wisdom, moral conduct,
and mental discipline.
1. Right view. The Buddhists believed that a person can have a right view
in life when he/she has the understanding or the grasp of the Fourfold
Noble Truths.
2. Right Intention. A person with a right view will be able to think rightly
and will be able to cultivate love and compassion. Hence, right view
should be expressed in the intention to act only out of love and
compassion (Koller, 147).
3. Right speech. The person who has the intention of eliminating suffering
should therefore, avoid all talk that will hurt either him/her or others.
Instead he/she should learn to speak pleasantly and avoid lying,
slander, malice, talk that may bring hatred and jealousy, malicious
gossip, or abusive languages. Therefore, right speech means telling
the truth and using the language meaningfully and rightfully. In a
situation, however, when telling the truth would cause harm to others,
one should rather maintain a “noble silence.”
4. Right action. In order to ensure that one is acting rightly, every
individual person should practice the five precepts, which are binding
to everyone:
a. Thou shall not kill.
b. Thou shall not still.
c. Thou shall not lie.
d. Thou shall not have illicit sexual relations.
e. Thou shall not take intoxicating or alcoholic drinks.
5. Right livelihood. This means that every individual person is required to
have a means of livelihood that is honourable, useful, and helpful
(Kalupahana 1992, 107). Hence, any means of livelihood that involve
drug dealing, using and dealing in weapons, making and using
poisons, killing animals, prostitution, and slavery are to be considered
prohibited and immoral.
6. Right effort. This includes preventing evil abd unwholesome state of
mine from arising, i.e., avoiding any temptation from committing evil
deeds (Buenaflor, 24). In this case, it is important that a human person
should exert greater effort to avoid committing immoral deeds.
Rather, greater effort should be exerted in doing good deeds for the
sake of the others.
125
7. Right concentration. This includes being aware of and attentive to all
of one’s activities. In this manner, inadvertence or lack of attention
can be considered morally unacceptable because everyone should
be mindful of the welfare of the people.
8. Right contemplation. This includes getting rid of all irrelevant thoughts
until we come to the true knowledge, not by reason or logic, but by
intuition or insight (reyes, 13). It is important for a human person to be
always eyeing for the attainment of nirvana. Hence, he/she should be
aware of all he/she actions and see to it that such action will be a
means for him/her to attain the nirvana.
From the point of view of Buddha, it is by following the Eightfold

Noble Path that a person would be able to free himself/herself from
karma, the cycle of birth and rebirth. When the person is already freed
from karma, his/her atman will be reunited with the Brahman. During
such instance, the people will be no more, i.e., he/she will be expiated
in order to be one with the Brahman.
The Buddhists’ Guide to Doing Good
Buddhism believes that every human person is obliged to follow

the ahimsa, the virtue of “not harming.” According to their belief,
every person is enjoined to give proper respect for all living things. In
the teaching of Sakyamuni, it has been elaborated that “any act
which is harmful to others is a sin” (De Lubac, 16).
Ahimsa embodies the whole of the Buddhists’ duty to his/her
neighbour. This includes a number of other obligations, at once
positive and negative, which can be reduced into three essential
virtues, namely: maitre, dana, and karuna.
Maitri can be best understood in English as loving-kindness.
Hence, it is a certain feeling or a certain state of mind, which is
unassuming and gentle, but warm and friendly, and which should be
habitually maintained (Buenaflor, 25).
Maitri can all the more be understood in the story of
Maitrakanyaka. According to the story, Maitrakanyaka was known to
be a good man. But one day, he hit his mother because his mother
objected to his going abroad for business. Because of his fault,
126
Maitrakanyaka was shipwrecked and landed on a place of horror,
where there was a man whose head was being eaten by a red iron
disk. He asked the man how this unfortunate destiny fell unto him. The
man told him that he committed an evil deed and that because of
karma, he should remain in that place until another man, as evil as
himself, arrives.
Maitrakanyaka remembered the misdeeds that he did to his
mother. Immediately, the red iron disk fastened itself onto his head.
But the pain inspired him to utter this sublime prayer “May no one ever
be unfortunate enough to come and take my place here.”
Afterwards, Maitrakanyaka was immediately released from his pains
(De Lubac, 17-18).
Maitri therefore, ia a call for heroism. It is not simply a case of
suppressing hatred like any other passion or desire. It is basically more
than the suppression of hatred as it does not find its fulfilment merely
in any inward feeling, but has to be translated into action.
However, maîtri is not genuine if it does not lead to dana. Dana
means giving, which can be perfected by danaparamita, the
generosity that says, “whatever it may be that you are asked to give,
it means giving it at once.” Danaparamita is more than mere
generosity. Rather, it shows the joy in giving, without asking for any
favor in return to such generosity.
A more perfect dana or giving is karuna. Karuna is helping others
not by simply supplying the others with material aid, but rather raising
the others from misery and introducing them into beatitude. Karuna is
the action that leads to the sanctification of others, i.e., leading the
others into Nirvana. The Buddhists believed that providing the others
with material aid is not enough if it will not lead the others towards
sanctification. Hence, karuna is actually the means by which the
person will not be thinking solely of his/her own sanctification. Rather,
he/she should be mindful of the sanctification of others first before
his/her own.
According to Buddha, “have one passion only – the good of
others. All persons who are unhappy are unhappy from having sought
their own happiness of others. All persons who are happy, are happy
from having sought the happiness of others.” The Buddhists believed
that there are two essential characteristics of a good action:
127
universality and disinterestedness. Buddhism focused not only on the
deliverance of all beings.
In order to be sure that the action is good, one should always
make it a point that his/her action should not just merely bring
happiness to his/her own self. Rather, he/she should see to it that it will
make the others happy; and the happiness of the others will certainly
bring him/her to holiness. Nevertheless, Buddha held that there is
something better than holiness and that is the sanctification of others.
By leading the others towards nirvana, the human person will all more
free himself/herself from suffering.
Although suffering should be overcome, Buddha held that this
suffering is not totally devoid of goodness. For Buddha, suffering helps
a human person realize that there is something good in the human
person’s life struggles. The experience of suffering in one’s life makes
one realize that one should not attach himself/herself from material
possessions. Rather, earthly life, i.e., the life of suffering, should be
considered a preparation, a purificatory process leading to eventual
perfection of the human person and his/her reunion with the Brahman
in nirvana.
Buddhism is generally regarded as a religion of self- denial and
unselfishness. It teaches patience under inquiry and resignation in
misfortune. But inasmuch as life is a suffering, there is a path that leads
to the cessation of suffering. If every human person will only follow the
Eightfold Path, i.e., if the human person follows the life of goodness,
suffering can definitely be overcome. If the human person follows the
Eightfold Path, he will never be reincarnated but will be led instead
nirvana.
128
Test
Make a research on the meaning of charity for the Christians.
Afterwards, analyze the difference between the Christian and the
Buddhist Charity.
Classroom Discussion
1. Is the Buddhism worthy of assent?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
2. Do you think Buddhism is better than your religion? Why or why not?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
129
The Confucian Philosophy of a Person
Chinese philosophy shows the world’s oldest human culture,
undiluted by any external influence. In order to understand the
Chinese philosophy, or the Chinese thought, it is necessary to
determine the main ideas that are to be found throughout the
teachings of the Chinese sages.
According to the Chinese teachings, the highest achievement
of the human person as a human person is to be a sage or a wise
man, and the highest achievement of the wise man is the
identification of the individual with the universe. In line with this highest
achievement of the human person as a human person is the
manifestation of kingliness, a sort of nobility, for one who is wise must
also be of noble spirit; hence, the expression “sageliness within and
kingliness without” (Quito, 77).
In order to understand the Chinese philosophy of person, it is
important to note that the Chinese are a this-world people. If life is
considered by the Buddhist philosophers as a suffering, the Chinese
philosophers believed that life is desirable. Although the Chinese
believed that people may experience suffering in life, they, however,
believed as well that life is a cycle of ups-and-downs. They believed
that if the human person experiences darkness in life, such darkness
will give way to light in the same manner that the cold gives way to
heat, etc.
The Chinese also believed in the coordination of thought and
action. According to them, action must agree with thought. For
instance, if people believed in peace, then there should be no
stockpiling of arms and ammunition; or, if love is considered to be
valuable, then hate should always be avoided. In Chinese philosophy,
emphasis is placed more on harmony and correct thinking which may
help one achieve harmony with life. From among the Chinese
philosophers of persons, it is worthy to consider Confucius.
130
The Life of Confucius
The Chinese sage, Confucius (551-479 BCE) was of aristocratic
descent, but his father was already 70 years old at the time of his birth
and died when he was three, leaving his mother, aged 18, to bring up
the family in comparative poverty (Law, 236). His full name was K’ung
Ch’iu or K’ung Chung-ni. Later on, he was known as K’ung Fu-tzu
(Master Kung) and Latinized as Confucius.
Confucius lived during the decline of the Chou dynasty. During
such a time, the central government had lost power and started to
break down. This led to social disintegration an a widespread
breakdown of morality. As Confucius was growing up, he experienced
poverty, political abuse, and hardships that affected the lives of
ordinary people.
Because there was no central power to govern the society,
China was then divided into warring feudal states, ruled by hereditary
autocratic lords who were always desirous of waging war out of whim
and personal glory. These feudal lords taxed their people oppressively
an imposed on them heavy forced labor.
By the age of 15, Confucius decided to devote his life to
learning, and in 527 BCE, when his mother died, he turned the family
home into a school.
Confucius lived in the province of Lu during a time when there
was political unrest brought about by the warring feudal sates. Aware
of the social and political condition of the time, he was able to see
the need to reform the social and political life and to relieve the
suffering of the common people. He asked for the moral dissoluteness
in the political system of the society, which led him to say that the only
way to obtain moral uprightness was to return to the values of the
past. For thirteen years, he made attempts for political and social
reformation in various states. However, no state seemed to have been
really interested in his ideas (Zhang 1999, 16).
To be able to begin the reform movement, he thought it wise to
educate the people with emphasis on moral education and the
observance of the traditional rites and ceremonies. He taught ancient
classic texts and he began teaching any committed student,
regardless of social standing.
131
His interest in politics led him to join the local government and he
rose to the position of Minister of Justice. Confucius found it obvious
that the problems of the people had originated from the sovereign
power exerted by the authority that had no moral principle and ran
the government solely for the benefit of sovereign luxury. This was the
reason why Confucius urged social reform that would eventually
create a government administered for the benefit of all people.
At the age of 50, Confucius left Lu and embarked on 13 years of
travel in an unsuccessful search for a ruler who would help him put his
political ideas into practice (Law, 236). He wanted to fulfil his dream
of attaining a government that would focus on the welfare of the
people. He believed that the leaders of the society should be of
highest personal and moral integrity, understood the needs of the
people, and will always take into consideration the welfare and
happiness of the people as they did for themselves.
Confucius spent much of his life travelling from one state to
another in order to teach about moral values. He was able to have
many followers from these different states and from different social
classes. He returned to Lu in 484 BCE where he spent his remaining
days teaching while his disciples recorded his ideas for posterity in the
Analects (Lun-Yu). In his old age, he became convinced that there
was no hope of putting his ideas into practice since there seemed to
be no leaders of the state who became interested in his ideas.
Confucius died at around 479 BCE and it was only after his death
that people were able to accept his philosophical ideas and made
his philosophy one of the major schools of thought in China, which
defended an ethical and political ideal that became the dominant
influence in the Chinese way of life.
The Confucian Philosophy
In the Analects, Confucius is portrayed not as an original thinker,

but as a communicator of traditional ideas concerning the proper
manner in which to conduct political life. He advocated a return to
traditional values and methods of government in order to deal with
the social unrest during that time (aw, 237).
132
Confucius regarded the people, wealth and education as the
three essentials of any country. Hence, in order to ensure social reform,
Confucius thought in proper to maintain his humanistic social
philosophy. Because he placed importance on people as one of the
essentials of a country, his philosophy was considered to be
humanistic. Accordingly, he considered humanity as more important
than knowing nature.
Confucius believed that if people would not be able to learn to
control himself, then it would be impossible for humanity to control
nature. In this regard, a human individual should strive to control
himself in order to become a superior individual. The Confucian ideal
of superior individual is one who lives a life of rightness, virtue, and
propriety. He argued that being a gentleman was a question if
conduct and character.
Confucian philosophy is also considered social because of the
belief that the source of human and social values is the human
community. Confucian philosophy is considered as a form of social
humanism (Koller, 253). According to Confucius, a superior individual
will only be able to practice his virtue if he/she is living in a community.
Confucius believed that humans are social beings. Therefore, they
must interact with the society without necessarily surrendering to it,
and the more individual will attempt to change others to conform to
the moral path (Ozmon & Craver 1990, 91).
In this philosophy, Confucius placed emphasis on the
importance of education. However, he believed that building moral
character was more important than merely teaching skills or imparting
information (Ozmon & Craver, 92). For him, learning the proper moral
values is still much important than obtaining factual and knowledge.
For Confucius, the human being is the ultimate source of values
(Buenaflor,30), He regarded the human being as the foundation of
goodness. Accordingly, it was unthinkable for him to have morality
outside of human beings. For him, the source of human goodness and
the foundation of happiness lie within the human being himself.
Confucius greatly believed that the perfection and happiness of
a human being is realized and achieved in social life. Unlike Buddha,
who viewed life as a delusion, a course, and a misery, Confucius
viewed life as a living reality, a blessing, a normal priceless right and
133
opportunity to be with others. He looked at life as a mean wherein
every person would be able to work together in order to attain the
common good, i.e., the happiness, which is the ultimate destiny of all
human beings.
The Human Person
Inashmuch as the human person is a social being, Confucius
pointed out that what makes a human being uniquely human is the
jen (pronounced as ren). What is a jen? The world can actually be
defined in different ways: “virtue,” “love,” “humanity,”
“benevolence,” “true manhood,” “moral character,” “human
goodness” to me only a few (Koller, 253). But the most important
meaning of jen can be human heartedness because the human
heartedness seem to suggest than jen is what makes us human, that
it is a matter of feeling as well as thinking, and that it is the foundation
of all human relationship, From this, we can say that the emphasis of
the Chinese is on the heart, rather than the head, as the central
feature of human nature.
The jen is the ultimate principle of human action; hence, a
human person should not depart from it. It is the focal point of all
virtues since all the other virtues spring from it. In order to express the
fullness of humanity, a human being then should live according to jen,
i.e., in the development of one’s own human heartedness and the
extension of the development human heartedness to others. For
Confucius, a life without jen is not worth living.
According to Tzeng Tzu, one of the followers of Confucius, “the
way of our master is none other than consciousness or otherwise
known by the Chinese as the chung, and altruism, which is otherwise
known as the shu. The chung consist in the careful development and
manifestation of one’s own humanity, while the shu consists in
extending the jen to others.
The way of the chung and shu incorporates the principle of
reciprocity which underlies the famous Golden Rule of Confucius,
namely, “treat others as you wish to be treated” or “do not do unto
others what you do not want them to do unto you.”
From the point of view of Confucius, love and justice always go
together. Love is the very blood and current if life, without which, life
will definitely be useless. Without love, the family and the nation wither
134
away or break apart (Montemayor 1995, 16). Hence, in order to avoid
the breaking away of the family or nation, all human beings should
always practice the jen. Through this, everyone will be able to achieve
the universal peace, harmony, and brotherhood.
In trying to follow the chung and the shu as one performs the jen,
a human being will be able to uphold his dignity as a human being,
and therefore, will be able to live as one universal family of individuals
and people. If every human person will be able to practice chung
and shu, the society will be able to achieve universal peace,
harmony, and brotherhood.
As an individual, the human person will also be able to uphold
his dignity as a human being, and therefore, will be able to live with
the others as one universal family of individuals and peoples bounded
together by love. Hence, according to Confucius, by developing the
jen, a person’s life and conduct can be perfected. When everyone
will be doing this, the society will be transformed, goodness and
peace will overflow and every human being obtain happiness.
The Virtues of Li, Yi, Hsiao, and Cheng-ming
Confucius may have viewed the jen as the ultimate guide to

human action. But jen alone may not be immediately sufficient in
making the human person a better person. Confucius believed that
there is still a need for a more immediate and concrete guide to
actions in everyday life. For him, the guide to action in concrete
situation is the Li, the rule of propriety. The fulfilment of the human
person, he believed, is the achievement of a luxurious life. He believed
that if a person has obtained something in life, then he/she would be
capable of living a decent life.
However, in Book IV. 16 of The Analects, it is written: “a
gentleman takes as much trouble to discover what is right as lesser
men take to discover what will be profitable.” Although Confucius
considered wealth as one of the essentials in any country, he
nevertheless believed that profit should not really be the rule of life.
Accordingly, “there is nothing better than the observance of the rules
of propriety for giving security to the upper class and good
government to the people. Confucius reminded the people that it is
135
the virtuous manner that will constitute the excellence of a
neighbourhood” and not the amount of wealth that one has
obtained (Brash 1999, 49).
Aside from Li, Confucius also upheld the virtue of Yi. If Li is that
which is profitable, Yi would mean righteousness. From the point of
view of Confucius, the hallmark of the true gentleman is the Yi. Yi
means oughtness, rightness, and that which is proper and suitable and
without any thought of oneself and selfish motives. According to
Confucius, every situation involves a Yi and a Li, i.e., that which to be
done independent of consequences and without ulterior motives (yi)
and that which one would like to do in order to gratify himself (li)
(Quinto 1991, 79). According to Confucius,
Riches and honors are what men desire. If they cannot be
obtained in the proper way, they should not be held. Poverty and
baseness are what men dislike. If they cannot be avoided in the
proper way, they should not be avoided . . . the superior man does
not, even for the space of a single meal, act contrary to virtue. In
moments of hates, he cleaves to it. In seasons of danger, he cleaves
to it (The Analects IV.5).
Accordingly, a true gentleman for Confucius is the one who acts

out of yi and never out of li. Confucius calls the man who acts out of li
a small man, because he has not this bigness of heart to forget himself
(Quito, 78). According to Confucius, a human person should not act
only because doing such action would be profitable for him/her.
Confucius held that if a human person would act only because of
people, he/she would continue to crave for more and thereby would
be able to forget others. Hence, a truly wise man for Confucius is the
one who accepts wholeheartedly what life has given him/her,
whether it is sorrow or joy, poverty or riches. Confucius says,
A person of strong moral character who sees an
opportunity for personal gain thinks first about whether it would be
morally right (yi) to do so. Such a person is ready to sacrifice his or her
own life for someone in danger (The Anaclets XIV, 13).
Another virtue that Confucius wished his followers to uphold is the
virtue of Hsiao, or filial piety, the virtue of reverence and respect for
family (Koller, 256). Confucius believed that we have to respect our
136
family because they are the reason for our existence. In showing
reverence to the parents, it is important to protect the body from harm
since the body is from the parents.
However, bodily protection is not sufficient in order to show
gratitude to our parents. In order to really proper respect to them,
everyone should make it a point to do well in life and strive to make
the name of our family known and respected. This can be done by
striving hard in order to obtain a good future.
One of the keys to cultivating the basic human virtues that
Confucius placed emphasis on was that of cheng-ming, or the first
right use of words. This is usually called the rectification of names or
the correct use of language (Koller, 257). This means that when we use
names, it has to properly correspond to reality, i.e., to who and what
we are. Confucius believed that in the government, for instance, the
ruler should act as a ruler and subject as a subject. In the family, the
father should be acting as a father, and the son, a son. Hence, in a
society, a teacher for instance, should be acting as a teacher, and
the student as a student. In other words, one should live according to
how he/she is supposed to act.
According to Confucius, cheng-ming is not just simply choosing
the right words in order to describe things. Rather, it is a matter of
bringing one’s character and actions into agreement with the
normative ideals built into names of fundamental relationships
(Buenaflor, 34). Thence, when people would follow the cheng-ming,
everybody will be able to live in harmony with one another and
thereby produce a better society where citizens will be living happily.
Hence, in order to obtain a good society, every person must first
have the desire to improve oneself. This can be made possible by
living a life according to how a human person is supposed to live.
Therefore, if everybody will be un harmony with the law of his/her
nature as a human being, he/she will be in harmony with the whole
universe; and thereby obtain peace and happiness.
To obtain harmonious relationship in the society, people should
elect a leader who will be the forerunner of moral living. He argued
that the people should select a ruler not by lineage but on their merits.
In other words, the leader should show the genuine devotion of their
subordinates. They should be willing to develop a virtuous character
137
in order that they might earn respect from the people. Leaders should
promote moral education of the people. They should also see to it
that the people have all their material needs in order for them to live
a decent life.
Confucius believed that the government should operate by
appealing to the natural morality of the people. In other words, they
should make the people live by treating others as they would be
treated. Forcing the people to conform is not the purpose of
government, and force is not necessity when those in power
discharge their duties properly. Confucius believed that good
government must foster an internalized respect for appropriate moral
conduct, rather than the fear of punishment. (Law).
Once the government has begun functioning according to how
should be functioning, it is then that the people will live a contented
and a happy life.
138
Test
1. From the point of view of Confucius, how can we show our respect t
our family?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
2. What do you think is the relevance of Confucianism to our present

political and moral situation?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
139
The Taoist Philosophy of a Person
Chinese scholars claimed that Lao Tzu (c. 575BCE) was
bureaucrat in ancient China. Others would, however, claimed that he
was only a legendary figure, for even scholars could not agree as to
the probable date of his birth. Hence, scholars placed his birth
between 600-300 BCE. His personality is attributed only with the writing
of the Tao Te Ching (pronounced as daw dûh jing). The author of Lao
Te Ching attributed to this writing to the name Lao Tzu although this
was said to be not a real name, but a title given to a sage, meaning
Old Master, Old Man, Old Boy, or Old Philosopher (Soccio 2010, 26-27).
According to the legend, Lao Tzu was keeper of the archives of
the Imperial Library of the Zhou Dynasty. It was said that Lao Tzu met
Confucius when he visited the latter in search of wisdom. Lao Tzu is
said to have felt sorry for Confucius and his obsession with man-made
distinctions, such as between right and wrong. Lao Tzu told Confucius
to give up his airs and graces and that his respect for ritual an custom
was misplaced. Confucius is said to have been overawed to Lao Tzu’s
wisdom, likening him to a dragon (Law, 235).
Lao Tzu’s wise counsel attracted many followers. Yet, he refused to
write all his ideas because he did not want his ideas to become a
formal dogma. He was thinking that instead of these teachings
becoming a dogma, they should rather become a natural way to life
with goodness, serenity, and respect. Lao Tzu laid down no rigid code
of behaviour. He believed that a person’s conduct should be
governed by instinct and conscience. Like Confucius, Lao Tzu
believed that “poverty and starvation in the society were cause by
bad rulers, that agreed and avarice caused wars and killings, and that
desires for wealth, power, and glory were brining about the
destruction of the society” (Koller, 268-269). He also believed that
human life is constantly influenced by outside forces. Hence, in order
to acquire truth and freedom, one should practice simplicity.
Lao Tzu wanted his followers to observe and, thereby,
understand the laws of nature. This understanding in the laws of nature
can be the means in order to develop intuition and build up personal
140
power. This power can then be used in order to lead life with love, and
without force (www.lucidcafe.com/library).
Lao Tzu eventually became exasperated with the ways of men.
He was so disgusted with the hypocrisy and decay of his time that he
decided to resign from his position as a bureaucrat to pursue virtue in
a more natural environment. Heading west, Lao Tzu reached the Han-
Ku Pass, where the keeper of the pass recognized the old sage and
said, “you are about to withdraw yourself from sight. I pray you
compose a book for me.” Lao Tzu honoured the man’s request by
producing eighty-one savings known today as the Tao Te Ching.
Next to the Analects of Confucius, Tao Te Ching is the most
influential book in Chinese history. The ancient Chinese text is the
world’s most translated classic next to the bible. Nearly a thousand
commentaries on it have been written in China and Japan alone.
According t the scholars, Tao Te Ching is so cloudy and obscure, so
romantic and poetic, that the reader is free to make it mean anything.
To them, the popularity of Tao Te Ching derives from its lack of clarity,
from its ability to mean all things to people, and form its brevity
(Soccio).
The Toist Philosophy
Unlike Confucianism, which finds the guidelines for morality in

human virtue, Taoism (pronounced as Daoism) finds the guidelines for
human life in nature. If Confucius placed emphasis on human
relationships, Taoism on the other hand placed an emphasis on the
way of nature (Koller, 269).
During the ancient times, Taoism was considered as “the other
way” because during the entire history, it has coexisted alongside the
Confucian tradition, which served as the ethical and religious basis of
the institutions and arrangements of the Chinese empire. Taoism
offered a range of alternatives to the Confucian way of life and point
of view (Berling 1982, 9).
Taoism developed the notion of the Tao (Dao) as the origin of all
creation and the force- unknown-able in its essence but observable
in its manifestations- that lies behind the functioning and changes of
the natural world. He word Tao refers to a path or a way, and in
141
Taoism, it means the source and principle of whatever exists. The
Taoism saw in the Tao and nature the basis of spiritual approach to
living and the means toward the attainment of order and harmony in
nature. Happiness in human life can only be attained by means of the
Tao.
Prior to Taoist principle, the principles of yin and yang were
known. Yin and Yang are the famed cognates of Chinese thought
about nature. Generally speaking, Yin stands for a constellation
located on the north side of a hill and denotes such qualities as shade,
darkness, cold, negativeness, weakness, femaleness, etc. Yang on the
other hand, is located on the south side of a hill and denotes light,
heat, strength, positiveness, maleness, etc. Yin-yang experts regarded
the interaction of these cognates as the as the explanation of all
change in the universe (Blankney 1983, 24).
However, Taoists believed that opposites as dark and light, cold
and warm, non-being and being, and so on, because they are
opposites, could not of their own nature either produce themselves or
interact with each other. A third principle provides the basis and a
context for the interaction if yin and yang was required. The great
contribution of Lao Tzu was his recognition of Tao as the source of both
being and non-being and the function of Tao as the basis for the
interaction of yin and yang.
The Taoist gave importance to the harmony and perfection of
nature. They believed that in order for a human person to find peace
and contentment, each and everyone should follow the Tao or the
Way of nature and they should become one with the Tao. Taoism sees
nature and humanity as a unity and does not see any difference
between the two. Therefore, the principle that should guide life and
regulate the actions of human beings is the same principle that
regulates nature.
Lao Tzu believed that we have to help nature in order to work in
its natural state. This can be done by letting the whole of nature
transform spontaneously.Inashmuch as it is a spontaneous
transformation, therefore, there is no need any more for any action
(Koller). According to the Taoists, the basis of humanity is not for our
own making but it is contained in the being and the function of the
142
totality of the universe. In this case, evil stems primarily from a wrong
view of humanity and the universe (Buenaflor, 35).
The Way of the Human Person
Taoism views the universe and the man as a unity. According to

Chuang Tzu, one of the followers of Lao Tzu,
“In the age of perfect virtue, men lived among the animals and
birds as members of one large family. There were no distinction
between ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’’’ (Hoff, 1992, 20).
Lao Tzu taught his followers that every human person should learn to
act in unity with the whole universe. According to the Taoists, life is
lived well only when people are completely in tune with the whole
universe and when their actions are the action of the universe flowing
through the. If Confucianism concerns itself mostly with human
relation, i.e., with social and political rules and hierarchies, Taoism, on
the other hand, deals primarily with the individual’s relationship to the
world. Its key principles are natural simplicity, effortless action, and
compassion (Hoff, 19).
Lao-Tzu believed that every human being should be living a simple life
and should always be in harmony with nature because this is the Te
(the function) of the Tao. This is the reason why every person should
be able to acquire knowledge because the purpose of knowledge is
to lead a person to a unity with the universe by illuminating the Tao.
Lao-Tzu considered the ideal life to be simple. A simple life here means
that one should have a life that is plain, wherein profit is ignored,
cleverness abandoned, selfishness minimized, and desires reduced.
This is of course contrary to the teachings of Confucius. For instance,
Confucius considered wealth as an essential element of a society. Lao
Tzu, on the other hand, would go otherwise by saying that every
person should be able to live in great simplicity and he/she should not
be desirous of any materials possessions and other desires. Confucius
advocated rites and music so that the desires and emotions might be
developed and regulated, because it is through this that the jen will
be developed. For Lao-Tzu, however, developing the desires and
emotions and regulating it seemed artificial and somehow an
interference to the harmony of nature (Koller, 269).
143
The Wu-Wei Principle
Lao Tzu strongly believed that the source of evilness in the world
is when people act so as to fulfil their desires. This is the reason why Lao
Tzu would not consider the acquisition of material possession as good
because they will just be leading the people to excessive desires.
When every people would have the same desires and such desires will
not be sufficient to everybody, there will be the possibility of conflict
and competition. In this case, the society will be threatened since
there would be nobody to regulate such conflicts unless there will be
the use of power and force.
The reason why acting out of desires leads to evil is that it is
contrary on the Way, since the Tao is always without desires. For Lao
Tzu, the good is accomplished not by action driven by desire, but by
inaction inspired by the simplicity of the Tao. In this case, wu-wei is an
important Taoist concept as it means doing nothing except that
which proceeds freely and spontaneously from one’s own nature
(Koller, 271). For example, the wu-wei of the snake is to crawl.
Therefore, it should not attempt to walk or fly. In attempting to fly, it
would be a forced action on the part of the snake. Consequently, for
people to act so as to fulfil their desires is the way of greed and
corruption. Hence, to live simply without desires is non-action in
accord with their nature. Accordingly, to live a simple life would only
mean living a life free of desires.
Wei wu wei is that principle which is believed to be the key to
Chinese mysticism. It cannot be translated literally and still render its
meaning. Wei is a verb that corresponds to the English do or act. Wu
is a negative expression. Hence, wei wu wei is to be translated as
doing without doing or acting by not acting. Putting this idea
positively, it means to get along as nature does: the world gets
created, living things grow and pass away without any sign of effort
(Blankey, 39). In this chapter thirty-seven of Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu
wrote: “Tao does not do, but nothing is not done.” Lao Tzu had a firm
belief that the Tao does not force or interfere with things, but lets them
work in their own way in order to produce results in a natural way. It
appears therefore that nature is not doing anything and yet,
144
whatever the nature needs to be done is done (Hoff 1982, 70). Lao Tzu
believed that Tao takes n action, and yet there is nothing left undone.
Hence, his idea of no action would actually mean not straining and
contriving to accomplish, but merely letting things be accomplished
in a natural way. For him, if everybody will follow the way of nature,
then there will be no need for harsh laws, conscription, punishment,
and wars.
Lao Tzu believed that in order for the human person to obtain
happiness, one should follow the way of nature. In this regard, in order
to obtain a good society, the leader should be able to lead the
people towards a life of humanity and simplicity. At the same time,
the leader should learn to govern his subordinates as little as possible
by keeping the people to the natural way, and let people go their
own way. He believed that the reason why people are difficult to rule
is because the ruler does too many things. In this regard, the easier
way of governing is to give the people what they want and make the
government conform to the will of the people rather than the try to
force these people to conform to the will of the government
(Buenaflor, 37).
In order to maintain peace and harmony within the society, and
in order for each and every individual human person to attain
happiness, Lao Tzu gave stress on the importance of the virtues of
humility, self-denial, simplicity, patience, and acceptance in the face
of sufferings. Like Buddha, Lao Tzu teaches the people the power of
meekness over evil; of love over hatred; of non-violence over
violence.
The reason for the unhappiness of the people, according to Lao
Tzu was the false pretensions of the people. People always pretend to
be what they are not out of pride, dishonesty, lust, insincerity, and
worldly attachments. But Lao Tzu held that this is not the way of nature
because the way of nature is to accept what the human person truly
is. If the human person would pretend what he/she is not, then he/she
is separating himself/herself from the Tao, which eventually brings the
human person frustrations and sufferings.
Lao Tzu believed that every people should master life. In doing
so, he/she has to know the Tao or the Way. He/she therefore should
listen to the voice within him/her-nthe voice of wisdom and simplicity,
145
the voice that reasons beyond cleverness and knows beyond
knowledge.
For Lao Tzu, the voice of wisdom is not just the power and
property of a few. Rather, this has been given to everyone. Everybody,
according to Lao Tzu, is capable of listening to this voice and
therefore, everyone is given the chance to be able to follow this
voice.
146
Test
Read the article and analyze:
The Vinegar Tasters

We see three men standing around the vat of vinegar. Each has
dipped his finger into the vinegar and tasted it. The expression on
each man’s face shows his individual reaction. Since the painting is
allegorical, we are to understand that these are no ordinary vinegar
tasters, but are instead representative of the “Three Teachings” of
China, and that the vinegar they are sampling represents the Essence
of Life. The three masters are K’ung Fu-tse (Confucius), Buddha, and
Lao-tse , author of the oldest existing book of Taoism. The first has a
sour look on his face, the second wears a bitter expression, but the
third man is smiling.
To K’ung Fu-tse (kung FOOdshuh), life seemed rather sour. He
believed that the present was out of step with the past, and that the
government of man on earth was out of harmony with the Way of
Heaven, the government of the universe. Therefore, he hasized
reverence for the Ancestors, as well as for the ancient rituals and
ceremonies in which the emperor, as the Son of Heaven, acted as
intermediary between limitless heaven and limited earth. . .
To Buddha, the second figure in the painting, life on earth was
bitter, filled with attachments and desires that led to suffering. The
world was seen as a setter of traps, a generator of illusions, a revolving
wheel of pain for all creatures. In order to find peace, the Buddhist
considered it necessary to transcend “the world of dust” and reach
Nirvana, literally a state of “no wind”. . .
To Lao-tse (LAOdshuh), the harmony that naturally existed
between heaven and earth from the early beginning could be found
by anyone at any time, but not by following the rules of the
Confucians. As he stated in his Tao Te Ching, (DAO DEH JEENG), the
“Tao Virtue Book”, earth was in essence a reflection of heaven, run by
147
the sane laws-not by the laws of men. These laws affected not only
the spinning of distant planets, but the activities of the birds in the
forest and the fish in the sea. According to Lao-tse, the more man
interfered with the natural balance produced and governed by the
universal laws, the further away the harmony retreated into the
distance. The more forcing, the more trouble. . .
To Lao-tse, the world was not a setter of traps but a teacher of
valuable lessons.
1. Differentiate Taoism from Buddhism and Confucianism. How did each

of them view life?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
2. In your assessment, which eastern thought could be considered most

applicable in our present society? Discuss your answer.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________
148
The Greek Thinkers’ Concept of a Person
Socrates and His Philosophy of Person
After the Milesians, who busied themselves with providing for an
answer as to the cosmic question “What is the principle of
everything?” and “How can we explain the process of change in
things?” another group of scholars known as the Sophists emerged in
Athens sometime during the 5th century BCE. While the other
philosophers busied themselves with discussing the metaphysical and
cosmological questions, the sophists focused their philosophy on the
study of mankind. The Sophists preoccupied themselves with questions
relating more directly to human behaviour (Stumpf & Fieser, 29). This
preoccupation on the philosophy of the human person was due to
the failure of the different pre-Socratic philosophers to arrive at a
uniform conception of the cosmos.
The Sophists and Socrates
The three most outstanding sophists during that time were

Protagoras, Gorgias and Thrasymachus. They were part of the ground
who had come to Athens either as travelling teachers, or, as in the
case of Hippias of Elis, as ambassador. These men called themselves
sophists, or “intellectuals” because of their claim that they know
everything. The sophists were primarily practical people who became
popular lecturers and the chief source of education.
What made the Sophists famous was their capability of
teaching the art of rhetoric, the art of persuasive speech. This art of
persuasion became politically necessary especially for those who are
aspiring to become statesmen. During that time, the passion of every
Athenian youth was to become an orator because that could be the
means in order for them to attain prestige and power. Consequently,
the sophists were known to be practical people. They realized that
becoming a teacher of rhetoric would eventually be a means for
them to earn money. Hence, they got away from their image as
philosophers in view of their interest to earn money since they were
149
teaching the Athenian youth for a fee. It is for this reason that we can
consider the sophists as the first professional teachers.
Since the sophists looked up at truth as a relative matter, they
were, therefore, charged with teaching the young men of Athens on
how to make a bad case look good or to make the unjust cause
appear to be just. Instead of seeking for knowledge, which should be
the main preoccupation of a philosopher, they instead used
philosophy in lieu with material considerations. It is for this reason why
Plato disparaged the sophists as shopkeepers with spiritual wares
(Stumpf, 31).
Protagoras of Abdera (490-420 BCE)
Protagoras was said to be the oldest and the most influential

among all the sophists who had had come to Athens. He spent most
of his adult life travelling throughout the Greek empire, teaching
everyone for a fee. He was probably the first Greek to earn money in
higher education and he was considered as the most notorious for the
extremely high fees he charged. As a teacher, his audience consisted
mainly of wealthy men from Athens’ social and commercial elite.
Protagoras is known primarily for three claims: (1) the man is the
measure of all things, of the things that are that they are, and of the
things that are not that they are not, (2) that he could amke the worse
argument appear better or the weaker argument appear to be the
stronger, and (3) that one could not tell if the gods existed of not
(http://www.kat.greek.com).
According to Protagoras, knowledge is limited to the persons’
various perceptions. But such perceptions will differ with each person.
Protagoras believed that our knowledge is measured by what we
perceived. And if there is something about each of us that makes us
perceive in different ways, there is no standard for testing whether one
person’s perception is right and another person’s perception is wrong.
This is nonetheless tantamount to saying that everything is true insofar
as somebody else is accepting a fact as true. For Protagoras,
knowledge is therefore relative to each person.
Inasmuch as knowledge is relative to each person, moral
judgments, consequently, are also relative. One’s own conception of
150
goodness may be different from the others’ conception of goodness.
Laws and moral rules, therefore, are based upon convention. Each
society has its own laws and its own moral rules. Therefore, no one can
say that these laws by which we can judge whether such laws are true
and the others are wrong. This philosophy is otherwise known as moral
relativism (Buenaflor, 62).
Nevertheless, Protagoras did not say that every individual could
decide on what is moral. Instead, he took the conservative position
that the state makes the laws and that these laws should be
accepted by everyone because they are as good as any that can
be made. Hence, in the interest of a peaceful and orderly society,
people then should respect and uphold the costums, laws, and moral
rules, which their tradition has carefully nurtured. In this case,
Protagoras believed that the young should be educated to accept
and support the tradition of their society, not because this traditions
true but because it makes possible a stable society.
Gorgias (483-378 BCE)
Gorgias was born in 483 BCE in Leontini, Sicily. He was a Greek

sophist and a rhetorician known as “the Nihilst”
(http://www.utm.edu/research/iep). In 427, he came to Athens as an
ambassador of his native city in order to implore ais against the
Syracusans. As ge was delivering his speech in order to persuade the
government of Athens to provide support to his native town, the
delivery style of his speaking excited general admiration.
Gorgias declined to assume the name of sophist. He rather
preferred to be called a rhetorician. He professed not to teach virtue,
but the art of persuasion. In other words, what he was aiming at was
on how to give his disciples such absolute readiness in speaking. He
survived Socrates, who died in 399 BCE, and ended his days at Larissa
in Thessaly in his hundred and fifth year.
While Protagoras said that everything is true and that truth is
relative to persons and circumstances. Gorgias denied that there ia
any truth at all. His position can be summed up in three propositions:
(1) nothing exists; (2) if anything existed, it could not be known; and
151
(3) if anything did exist, and could be known, it could not be
communicated.
As regards the idea that nothing exists, Gorgia followed the
philosophy of Zeno of Elea, who said that every existing being could
have irreconcilable contradictions. However, Zeno here did not seek
for contradictions in things just for the sake of contradictions; rather,
this is in order to support the positive thesis of Parmenides that only
being exists, and the becoming is not at all possible because
everything that becomes is already what it is. hence, Parmenides
believed that change is merely an illusion. This is because he believed
that the entire universe consists of one thing, which never changes,
has no parts, and can never be destroyed (Stumpf 2005, 18).
Parmenides also argued that we must reject any contention
that something is not. This is because we will not be able to
conceptualize anything that does not exist. Consequently, we
observe that things come into existence and eventually go out of
existence. Hence, before a tree comes into existence, it must not exist
first. After its existence, it will die and decompose and hence, it will not
exist again. Here we begin and end with the impossible contention
that something is not. If we accept this contention, then we will be in
a great contradiction since it is impossible to conceptualize anything
that does not exist. Hence, how can we know that the tree does not
exist before it comes into existence? Logically, we are forced to reject
this process of change. Hence, change is merely an illusion.
From this, Gorgias held that everything is selfi-contradictory.
Hence, for him, nothing exists. Such view is called epistemological
nihilism (Kolak 1997, 66). Here, he also made use of the famous
argument of Parmenides regarding the origin of being.
Gorgias believed that if anything is, it must have had a
beginning. From the point of view of Gorgias, a thing cannot arise
from a non-being because nothing can arise from nothing. Because
if something arises from nothing, then we can say that nothing exists.
In this regard, if anything exists, it cannot be known. Inasmuch as
sense- impressions differ in different people, and even in the same
person, the object as it is in itself cannot be known. For this reason,
Gorgias held that a human person is incapable of knowing anything
at all. For this reason, Gorgias would not agree with the idea that a
152
human person is a rational being, because he/she will not be able to
know anything in the first place.
Thrasymachus, the Authoritarian
Thrasymachus was the thinker whom Plato presented in his

Republic as the sophist who said that justice is whatever suits the
strongest (Warmington & Rouse 1984, 118). According to
Thrasymachus, injustice is to be preferred to the life of justice. He did
not look upon injustice as a defect of character. Rather, he
considered injustice as some sort of a virtue. For him, the unjust person
is more superior in character and intelligence than the just person
(Stumpf, 33).
According to Thrasymachus, justice is pursued by the
simpletons and such justice leads to weakness. This is the reason why
according to him, the unjust person is more superior in character and
intelligence because they are able to manipulate the simpletons. He
held that people should therefore be aggressive in pursuing their own
interests in virtually unlimited form of self-assertion.
Justice, says Thrasymachus, is the interest of the stronger.
Because truth becomes a prerogative of the strongest, Thrasymachus
believed that might is right (Stumpf). This view is also known as
epistemological authoritarianism (Kolak, 67). Consequently, injustice is
virtuous and justice is vicicious. Justice is everywhere at the mercy of
injustice, which is relieved not because men fear to do it but because
they fear to suffer it. For this case, Thrasymachus reduced morality into
power, leading truth and ethics into a nihilistic attitude.
The view of the three aforementioned sophists led Socrates to
focus his concern on the logical inconsistencies of the sophists. From
these, he wished to rebuild some notion of truth and establish some
firm foundation for moral judgments, which will also serve as the basis
for Socrates’ view of a human person.
153
The Life of Socrates
Socrates was born in Athens in 470 or 469 BCE, in the fourth year
of the 77th Olympiad on the sixth day of the month of Thargelion (de
Botton 2000, 14). He lived during the era that has been called the
Golden Age of Athens. Socrates was the son of Sophronicus, a
sculptor and Phaenarete, a midwife. He referred to Daealus, the
traditional founder of sculpting and stone-masonry to be his ancestor.
Although he did not become a political candidate, Socrates
was nevertheless very much involved in city affairs as a thinker and as
a teacher, for which he was able to gain reputation for (Hakim 1982,
25). As a young man, he served in the army against Sparta in the
Peloponnesian War but otherwise remained in Athens, where he
married Xanthippe, who was of notoriously foul temper (when asked
why he had married her, he replied that horse-trainer needed to
practice on the most spirited animals) (de Botton).
Socrates spent much time in the public places of Athens
conversing with friends. The people greatly appreciate his wisdom
that during his time, he was even considered the most intelligent man
in Athens. But only a few would appreciate his looks. He is described
as short, bearded and bald, and having an ugly, pug-like face
variously likened by his acquaintances to the head of a crab, a satyr,
or grostesque. His nose was flat, his lips large, and his prominent
swollen eyes sat beneath a pair of unruly brows. He was shabbily
dressed, always barefoot, physically tough, and with a record of
courage in battle.
Socrates was considered by many of his contemporaries to be
a sophist because of is tricky arguments. However, inasmuch as he
supported the highest ideals of education, unlike the sophists who
were teaching for money, Socrates could not be considered a
sophist. This was because he considered teaching to be his vocation
and he was doing this not for a fee but only for the sake of
disseminating knowledge to the Athenian youth. In fact, Socrates
himself was disgusted with the sophists’ abandonment of the pure and
disinterested search for truth. Socrates did not consider himself a
sophist because unlike the sophists, he was on a continuous search for
higher wisdom.
154
Socrates never tried to teach everybody directly. Instead, he
would just engage in conversations with everybody-old and young,
high and low, rich and poor,- and tried to bring into the open by his
questions the inconsistencies on the people’s opinions and actions. His
activity rested on two unshakeable premises
(http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GREECE/SOCRATES.HTM):
1. The principle that no persons should participate nor do wrong, even
indirectly, in any wrongdoing; and
2. The conviction that nobody who really lnow what is good and right
could act against him.
Socrates was always conscious of his vocation, which he
considered to be a divine mission. He did not allow himself to be
distracted by domestic preoccupations and political interests. He did
not become an ideal husband and he forgot his domestic duties out
of his extreme in philosophy. However, the education that he was
imparting led to general malcontent and to popular hostility as well
as personal enmity against him.
His teachings called the attention of the political government.
The majority of Athenian popular assembly demand death without
trial for the admirals of the intellectual aristocracy, who opposed the
popular tyranny, and the reactionary elements. Socrates, who on that
day happened to be the president of the assembly (an office
changing daily), was accused by the poet Meletus, the politician
Anytus, and the orator Lycon of two charges: (1) corrupting the youth,
(2) denying the national gods and introducing new gods in their stead
(de Botton, 27).
During the trial, there were 500 citizens in the jury. The
prosecution began by asking them to consider that the philosopher
standing before them was a dishonest man. Socrates treated the
whole matters with contempt. His defense consisted in narrating the
facts of his pat life and in insisting on the reality of his mission from God
and his determination to discharge it, even at the cost of his life. He
claimed that his pursuit of philosophy had been motivated by a simple
desire to improve the lives of Athenians:
I tried to persuade each of you not to think more of
practical advantages than of his mental and moral well-being (de
Botton, 28).
155
He was determined that the judges should give a direct verdict
on the issue without evasion. But he was claiming that his commitment
to philosophy would be very deep that he would be unable to give
up the activity even if the jury would be making it the condition for his
acquittal. Socrates said during the trial:
I shall go on saying in my usual way, ‘My very good
friend, you are an Athenian and belong to a city which is the greatest
and most famous in the world for its wisdom and strength. Are you not
ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money
as possible, and similarly with reputation and honor, and give no
attention or thought to truth and understanding and the perfection of
your soul?’ and should any of you dispute that, and profess that he
does care about such things, i won’t let him go straight away nor
leave him, but will question and examine and put him to the test. . . I
shall do this to everyone I meet, young or old, foreigner, or fellow
citizen (28-29).
The jury gave their verdict. After brief deliberation, 220 decided
Socrates was not guilty, wile 280 said he was. Because the result was
too close, they had to wait for another day to make another
judgment. It has to be noted that the jurors on the benches of the
Court of the Heliasts were no experts. They included an unusual
number of the old and the war-wounded, who looked the jury work
as an easy source of additional income. The salary was three obols a
day, less than a manual laborers,’ but helpful if one was sixty-three
and bored at home. The only qualifications were citizenship, a sound
mind, and an absence of debts-though soundness of mind was not
judged by Socratic criteria, more the ability to walk in a straight line
and produce one’s name when asked. Members of the jury fell asleep
during trials, rarely had experience of similar cases or relevant laws,
and were given no guidance on how to reach verdicts.
Socrates’ own jury was arrived with violent prejudices. They had
been influenced by Aristophanes’ caricature of Socrates which
depicted Socrates as the main reason why Athens lost in the
Pelopponnesian War against the Spartan-persian alliance.
Socrates understood that he had no chance. He lacked even
the time to make a case. Defendants had only minutes to address a
jury, until the water had run from one jar to another in the court clock.
156
The jurors, who were just a collection of the aged and one-legged,
were never listening to the defendant’s speech but instead, were just
waiting for the water to run from one jar to another.
Socrates might have renounced his philosophy and saved his
life. Even after he had been found guilty, he could have escaped the
death penalty, but wasted the opportunity through intransigence. His
last speech was:
If you put me to death, you will not easily find anyone
to take my place. The fact is, if I may put the point in a somewhat
comical way, that I have been literally attached by God to our city,
as though it were a large thoroughbred horse which because of its
great size in inclined to be lazy and needs the stimulation of gadfly. . .
If you take my advice you will spare my life. I suspect, however, that
before long you will awake from young drowsing, and in your
annoyance you will take Anytus’s advice and finish me off with a
single slap; and then you will go on sleeping (de Botto, 37).
When the magistrate called for a second verdict, 360 members

of the jury voted for the philosopher to be put to death. The jurors went
home; the condemned man was escorted to prison. On the last day
of his life, he was visited by his wife Xanthippe and his little boy in her
arms as well as by his friend in philosophy. After bathing, he said
goodbye to his wife and three sons. Then he allowed the instructions
in drinking the hemlock and walking around until his legs felt heavy.
He then lay down on his back and covered himself up. He removed
the cover for a moment and said: “Criton, we owe a cock to
Asclepios, pay it without fail (Rouse, 1984, 521). He covered his body
again, and a moment later, he died. It was the year 399 BCE, the
seventy-first of Socrates’ life.
The Death of Socrates
The Philosophy of Socrates
Socrates wrote nothing. Most of what we know about him was

handed down to us and preserved by three of his famous younger
contemporaries: Aristophanes, Plato, and Xenophon. Through his
disciples, we were able to know the main preoccupation of Socrates
in philosophizing. With Socrates, the central problem of philosophy
157
shifted from cosmology to the formulation of a rule of life, to the
“practical use of reason.”
The main feature of the philosophy of Socrates is his thought on
ethical wisdom-the recognition of he fundamental importance of the
ethical life of the human person and of doing good as the basic
principle of human activity (Hakim 1987, 27). His focal point of Socratic
thought was the personal , i.e., of what a virtuous person might be, or
what it was that could rightly be called wisdom. His most persistent
command was known “know thyself.” The significance of Socrates of
his command is underscored by the fact that he stressed its
importance to his life and mission during his Apology. Facing the end
of a long life, Socrates uttered one of the most famous statements in
the history of philosophy: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” By
this he meant, among other things, that a life devoid of philosophical
speculation is hardly a human life, i.e., it is incomplete and it is not fully
functioning or lacks of virtue or excellence (Soccio, 115).
For Socrates, the essence of humanness is the human psyche.
This psyche is understood by Socrates as a combination of what we
think as the mind and the soul: consciousness, the capacity to reason,
and the ability to reflect, known as reflective thinking. Socrates upheld
the idea that an unexamined life is a life that takes the psyche for
granted. Consequently, an examined life is lived in conscious
awareness of human condition; it is not merely spent in an uncritical
attempt to satisfy various needs and desires (116).
According to Socrates, when one learns how to examine his/her
life, he/she will be able to distinguish the good from the bad. In doing
so, the human person will be able to understand what good really is.
the philosophy of Socrates focused on the idea that “to know the
good is to do the good.” It was also his belief that “knowledge is
virtue” (Stumpf & Fieser, 37).
Socrates upheld that virtue is knowledge and happiness can
only be attained if a person possesses knowledge. Knowledge, such
as knowledge of courage, piety, or justice, by its very nature flows
immediately into active, practical life so that a person is morally
compelled to become courageous, pious, or just. Hence, knowledge
leads the human person to become virtuous, and if he/she does not
158
become virtuous, then it must be that he/she does not know. In this
case, one can say that the human person is not becoming wise.
Socrates argued that knowledge is inborn. For this reason, virtue
is to be considered also as a natural endowment and not an artificial
convention or habit of action to be acquired by education; although
it may be possible that this virtue can be taught (Buenaflor, 41). If in
case vitue can be taught, it is not a kind of education that will seem
like introducing something new to the mind. Rather, it is a form of
education that will seem to be some kind of awakening in the mind
the seeds of good deeds.
Socrates believed that a human person is already capable of
doing the good because goodness is already innate in him/her. It is
just that the person needs to be awakened in order for him/her to
realize that his/her nature is calling him/her to do the good. To be
awakened, for Socrates, would mean that a person has to attain
knowledge. And to attain knowledge, the surest way would be
through the practice of disciplined conversation, acting as an
intellectual midwife (Stumpf, 37). This is what is known as the dialectic
method, the process of dialogue where everybody participates into
the conversation in order to clarify one’s ideas. Socrates considered
this method as intellectual midwifery because he believed that by
progressively clarifying incomplete or wrong beliefs, on could induce
truth out of anyone. This is because the soul of each human person
has the capacity of knowing.
Socratic Concept of the Human Soul
Socrates created the concept of the psyche, which for him is the
capacity for intelligence and character, the conscious personality of
a human being as mentioned earlier, it is both considered as the mind
and the soul. Socrates believed that what makes the human person
act is this psyche or the human soul. The activity if this soul is to know
and therefore to direct our behaviour in our day to day living.
As a person, every human being will have the responsibility to
take good care of the soul in order to make this soul as good as
possible. According to Socrates, those who have the proper care of
159
their soul in mind will conduct their behaviour in accordance with their
knowledge of the true moral values.
Every person has to see to it that his/her action should be leading
towards goodness. In this regard, Socrates pointed out that every
person has to examine all his/her deeds in view of goodness because
no person has ever indulged or committed an evil act knowingly. In
other words, wrong doing is, for Socrates always involuntary and it is
always a product of ignorance (Stumpf & Fieser, 41).
Socretes strongly believed that evil is the result of ignorance, i.e.,
it is the result of a human being’s imitation and lack of present
knowledge. This is the reason why Socrates believed that it is
necessary for the human person to develop his/her knowledge and
examine his/her life. Socrates believed that it is only through the
examination of one’s life that one will be able to know where he/she
is leading his/her life towards. In the contemplation of his/her action,
a human person is led to perform the goodness in his/her mind.
Inasmuch as a human person has been endowed with goodness,
he/she should therefore see to it that this goodness in his/her mind has
to be placed into action.
Socrates strongly upheld that knowledge should not be
theoretical or speculative. Instead, it should be made practical. In
other words, knowledge should be put into action. From the point of
view of Socrates, the knowledge that is left into the mind of the knower
will be of no value when it is not put into right living. In this regard, a
human person must not only know the rules of right living. Rather,
he/she should live them.
Consequently, every human person is aiming to obtain
happiness. Socrates held that in order to obtain happiness, a human
person has to be virtuous. And in order to be virtuous, one should fulfil
one’s own function. Since a human person has the desire for
happiness, he/she therefore should choose an action that will surely
lead himself/herself towards happiness. As a human being, happiness
can only be attained if a person possesses knowledge instead of
possessing bodily pleasures and adornment.
During a conversation with Socrates, Polus, a well-known
teacher of rhetoric visiting Athens from Sicily, argued that that the
happiness of a human person lies in being a dictator, because
160
dictatorship would enable one to act as one pleased, to throw
enemies in prison, confiscate their property, and execute them.
Socrates listened politely, and then answered with a series of
logical arguments that happiness lay in doing good. However, Polus
continued arguing that dictators were often revered by huge
numbers of people. He mentioned Archelaus the king of Macedon,
who had murdered his uncle, his cousin and a seven-year-old
legitimate heir and yet continued to enjoy great public support in
Athens.
Socrates courteously admitted that it might be very easy to find
people who liked Archelaus, and harder to find anyone to support the
view that doing good brought one to happiness. But Socrates was
trying to say that it does not matter anymore whether a lot of people
would accept this view or not. What Socrates was trying to point out
is that true respectability stems not from the will of the majority but
from proper reasoning. He held that people should not be intimidated
by bad thinking, even if it issues from the lips of teachers of rhetoric,
might generals, and well-dressed aristocrats.
Socrates was claiming that we should not care much about
what the populace will say of us, but about what the expert on
matters of justice and injustice will say (de Botton, 33-34). Instead, we
should bear in mind that the validity of an idea or action is determined
not by whether it is widely believed or widely reviled but by whether it
obeys the rule of logic. It is not because an argument is denounced
by a majority that it is wrong, nor for those drawn to heroic defiance,
that it is right. Instead of listening to the dictates of public opinion, we
should rather strive to listen always to the dictates of reason (42).
161
Test
1. How did the philosophy of Socrates affect the Athenian youth during
his lifetime?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________
2. How did the Athenians respond to the philosophy of Socrates?

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
162
Socrates and His Philosophy of Person
The philosopher to produce a substantial body of work that has

survived is Plato. Together with his student, Aristotle, Plato had been
the most important influence on Western philosophy. He was the
famous among Socrates’ pupils.
Plato was born in 428/427 BCE into a noble Athenian family, two
years after the death of Pericles, the great architect of Athenian
democracy. Athens was fighting Sparta in the Peloponnesian Wars,
which lasted more than twenty years (Soccio, 137).
According to Diogenes, Plato’s parents were Ariston and
Perictione. Both sides of the family claimed to trace their ancestry
back to Poseidon. Diogenes believed that Plato’s birth was the result
of Ariston’s rape of Perictione, although the testimony of Diogenes
could be notoriously unreliable. When Plato’s father died, his mother
married her uncle, Pyrilampes, with whom she had another son,
Antiphon.
Plato’s actual given name was apparently Aristocles, after his
grandfather. The name “Plato” seemed to have started as a
nickname for platos, meaning “broad.” This name was perhaps given
to him by his wrestling teacher for his physique, or for the breadth of
his style, or even the breadth of his forehead (Hakim, 52). Although the
name Aristocles was still given as Plato’s name on one of the two
epitaphs on his tomb, history knows him as Plato.
Plato came from a family that was educated, aristocratic, and
politically influential. He was related to those involved in the
aristocratic rule of the Thirty Tyrants (404-403 BCE). These thirty tyrants
were the group of nobles supported by the conquering Spartans and
who overthrew democracy and ruled Athens. This is the same Thirty
that Socrates resisted when he was ordered to condemn and execute
Leon Salamis in violation of the Athenian constitution. He was
supposed to be entering into the field of politics but Socrates had
influenced him and developed in him a great enthusiasm for
philosophy.
163
If his background did not predispose him to a dislike of Athenian
democracy, the trial and execution of his teacher, Socrates, in 399
BCE certainly did. Plato, then aged 30, left Athens and travelled,
possibly in Egypt, and later in Sicily, where it is likely that he
encountered Pythagorean philosophy (Law, 245). When he was
about forty years old, and after his period of travel, reflection, and
writing, he founded a school just outside Athens, which became
known as the Academy, a center for the advancement of wisdom
and a training ground for philosophers (Hondcrich, 683). Under Plato’s
direction, the Academy also adapted scientific and mathematical
innovations linking fifth century BC Pythagorean mathematics with
Egyptian geometry and Alexandrian arithmetic.
The chief aim of the Academy was to pursue scientific
knowledge through original research. Plato founded the Academy on
the principle that students should learn to criticize and think for
themselves, rather than simply accept the views of their teachers. It
was for this reason that the Academy was considered as the first
university. Many of the finest intellects in he classical world were
schooled at the Academy, including Aristotle.
Plato twice visited Sicily again to tutor Prince Dionysius in the
hope of producing a philosopher-ruler, but with no great success. He
put mathematics into the center of his curriculum because he
believes that the best preparation for the future leaders is the
disinterested pursuit of truth or scientific knowledge (Stumpf, 46-47).
Unlike his beloved mentor Socrates, who wrote nothing, Plato
was a prolific writer. He produced more than two dozen dialogues
that cover nearly every topic. It was for this reason that the
philosopher Alfred North Whitehead was able to call the entire history
of Western philosophy as only “a series of footnotes to Plato” (Kolak).
While still active in the Academy, Plato died in 348/347 BCE at the age
of 80.
The development of the Philosophy of Plato
Plato was greatly influenced by the political situation of the time.

He was discouraged by Socrates’ fate, i.e., by the jury at Socrates’
trial, whom he considered irrational and dangerous. He believed that
164
the jury, who represented the common citizenry, was swayed by
sophistic appeals to emotion, not by reason. He was also discouraged
by the behaviour of the Thirty Aristocrats, who were cruel, self-
centered, and greedy. Plato saw that neither the aristocracy nor the
common citizenry was capable of superior rule.
Plato concluded that most people are unfit by training and
ability to make the difficult and necessary decisions that would result
in a just society. He believed that the average persons lack wisdom
and self-restraint. As Plato saw things, most people make emotional
responses based on desire and sentiment, rather than on rational
considerations stemming from an objective view of what is genuinely
good for the individual and society. What happened to Socrates was,
for Plato, a manifestation that the people’s lack of knowledge will
bring failure to determine the truth. The trial and death of Socrates
showed Plato what happens when “justice” is detached from wisdom
and self-restraint and reduced to a majority vote (Soccio, 138).
Socrates’ death, the revolt of the Thirty, the abuses of the
sophists, and other factors convinced Plato that a corrupt state
produces corrupt citizens. He therefore attempted to develop a
theory of knowledge that could refute sophistic scepticism and moral
relativism. Plato understood that before he could provide satisfactory
answer to ethical, social, political, and other philosophical questions,
he must first tackle the problem of knowledge.
Plato concluded that the solution to the basic problem of
knowledge lay in acknowledgement that both Heraclitus and
Parmenides were partially correct in their efforts to characterize
reality. Plato’s great influence stems from the manner in which he
brought all the diverse philosophic concerns into a unified system of
thought including the reconciliation of the views of Heraclitus and
Parmenides (Soccio, 140).
Plato’s View on the Multiplicity of Things
One of the first problems of the early Greeks during Plato’s time
was on the unity and multiplicity of things. Hence, one of the ongoing
dialogues that Plato conducted with his students was related to the
traditional questions of being and becoming- the search for the
165
permanent element in things, which are subject, as they all are, to
change. This was actually a continuation of the Socratic search for
the essence of things (Hakim, 53).
Plato was aware that different philosophers provided different
views as regards this problem of the one and the many. Parmenides
believed that the whole of reality consists of a changeless, single
reality, the One. Parmenides believed that since reality is changeless,
hence, change is just merely an illusion. However, Heraclitus
described reality as always changing. He believed that everything is
in constant change and that the only thing that is not changing in this
world is change (Stumpf, 44).
In this two issues, Plato leaned toward the permanent of
Parminedes and put emphasis on the being rather than on the
becoming. Plato held that changing things are not really as important
as the permanent things. Hence, the changing things occupy a lower
rank in the hierarchy of the real. These changing things were held by
Plato as not really real. The becoming can never have the same value
as the being (Hakim, 53).
The Allegory of the Cave
The distinction between changing and unchanging has been

best explained in the famous allegory of the cave, a parable which
summarizes a number of Plato’s main doctrine. According to Plato,
we have to imagine an underground cave with no light except for the
fire that emits its light over a low mid-wall to the end-wall of the cave.
When figures and shapes of all sorts are moved along the mid-wall,
their shadows are reflected on the end-wall, as though it was a
screen. Between the end-wall and the mid-wall lies the group of
people, who since childhood have been chained like prisoners so that
they continually face the end-wall. The only thing that these chained
people can see are their own shadows and those of the objects that
move along the mid-wall behind them. Moreso, the sounds they hear
are only those echoes of the real sound. According to Plato, human
beings are imprisoned in the world of opinion, i.e., in the world of
matter. Hence, they became too blind to see and too deaf to hear
the logos of the higher world. In this case, people became incapable
166
of attaining knowledge. Plato believed that the real knowledge is only
the knowledge of the eternal and higher world. Indeed, the distinction
made by Parmenides receives ardent support from Plato, i.e., the
more our grasp of things tends towards the unchanging, the more
rightly it has to be called knowledge, and true knowledge is
knowledge of the eternal. Inasmuch as people are imprisoned in the
world of opinion, they became too blind to see the real knowledge of
the higher world.
Plato saw that most of humanity dwells in the darkness of the
cave. They have oriented their thoughts around the world of shadows.
Hence, it is the function of education to lead the people out of the
cave into the world of light (Stumpf, 50). Indeed, the prisoner of the
cave has to run his whole body around in order that his eyes may see
the light instead of darkness. In this case, it is also necessary for the
entire soul to turn away from the deceptive world of change and
appetite that causes a blindness of the soul. Hence, there is a need
for a conversation, i.e., a complete turning around from the world of
appearance to the world of reality (Cavalier 1990, 120). Education will
therefore help a human person to turn his/her gaze towards the
direction that he/she ought to turn and fix his/her eyes on the
unchanging real world, which is more superior than the ever changing
sensible world.
Plato’s Concept of a Human Person
Plato’s explanation on the superiority of the permanent also

gave an important explanation on another problem: that of the
relationship between the soul and the body. Plato believed that the
human person is composed of a body and a soul. The body of a
human person is subject to change and impermanence.
Nevertheless, since the human person has the capacity to know the
unchanging and the permanent, part of him/her should therefore be
permanent as well since “no one gives what he does not have.” In
other words, whatever knows the permanent must itself be permanent
in some way; whatever knows the essences must itself somehow be
an essence. Since the human person is capable of knowing the
permanent and the essences of things, then part of him/her should
167
also be permanent. This part of the human person that helps him/her
to know the permanent is his/her soul.
Strictly speaking, Plato believed that the soul is not just a part of
the human person; rather, it is the whole of the human person. By
nature, the human person is soul only (Hakim, 56). There was a time
that the soul pre-existed in the world of forms. But after the fall of man,
the soul was exiled to the material world, and thus, imprisoned in the
body. However, this idea of the pre-existence of the human soul is not
original of Plato for it was propounded earlier by Pythagoras and
Empedocles.
Plato considered the soul to be composed of three distinct
faculties, the three levels of knowledge and desire. These three levels
are:
1. Sensation or (aesthesis). This is the lowest level of the soul, which is
ordered to the cloudy reflections of the ideal forms in sensible things.
On this level of sensation, there is a corresponding sense desire, the
epithumia, which seeks satisfaction in the ever-changing and thus,
formless, endlessly frustrating material things.
2. Opinion or (doxa). This is the second level of the soul that is in itself not
free from error but is sufficient for ordinary practical matters such as
the hypothetical sciences and the government of communal life. This
level is higher than the aesthesis because this is the step by which the
soul may be led to the aspiration of the ideal world when it is properly
controlled. The corresponding desire is spirit or (thumos), which is a
kind of spontaneous tendency towards everything beautiful and
good.
3. Mind or Intellect or (nous). This is the immoral part of the soul, which
gives man the capacity for truth and wisdom. Its corresponding desire
is the will or the (boule), which is the soul’s tendency towards the
Good (Reyes 1989, 32-33).
When living in this world of matter, the human person becomes
forgetful of the real world, i.e., the world of ideas of his previous
existence. Inasmuch as the soul is imprisoned in the body, the soul finds
itself dragged down toward a life of mere sense and physical
pleasure. However, the tendency of the soul is to yearn for that which
is beyond. This yearning is due to the soul’s connaturality with the
Good, i.e., its being of the same nature with that of the world of forms,
168
and its pre-existence in the world of ideas. It is because of this
idea that Plato considers the life of man in this material world as a
spiritual journey that is really a return to the soul’s roots and beginnings.
In this regard, the mind or the intellect has to overrule the soul so that
man will always have the yearning for the world of forms. According
to Plato:
“In man, everything also

depends on the soul, but the things of the soul itself depend on
wisdom, if it is to be good; and so by this argument, the helpful would
be wisdom-and we say virtue is helpful” (Warmington & Rouse
[trans.] 1984, 54).
The greatest function of the rational soul is to search for the real
meaning of human existence. It is the role of reason to discover the
true world and thereby direct the passions to objects of love that are
capable of producing true pleasure and true happiness.
Unhappiness and the general disorder of the human soul are the
result of man’s confusing appearance with reality. This confusion
occurs when the sensation or aesthesis overcomes the intellect or
nous. Hence, Plato believed that moral evil is the result of ignorance
(Stumpf, 60-61). This is when the irrational part of the soul takes over
and thus, leading the rational part to forget its real goal, i.e., the
search for the real world, which is the world of permanence or the
world of forms.
169
The Concept of Morality
Plato believed that morality is achievable when reason

overcomes the appetites and the stimuli of the body. Reason should
take control over the irrational parts of the self. Only knowledge can
produce virtue because it is ignorance or false knowledge that has
produced evil. People always think that whatever they do will in some
way give them pleasure because some good things will come from
these actions. However, for Plato, this is a false knowledge or a kind of
ignorance that people should overcome if he/she wants to become
a moral person. In this case, each human being should search for true
knowledge; and for Plato, in order to obtain true knowledge, each
individual should have to be aware that he/she is in a state of
ignorance and hence, has to search his/her way back towards the
state of knowledge.
Plato believes that knowledge is innate since man has already
pre-existed in the world of forms. Hence, the soul’s sojourn in the
material world serves as the occasion for it to reminisce, i.e., to recall
the ideal forms and thereby to develop the desire to go back once
more to the world of ideas. Plato, therefore, placed great importance
to contemplation. For Plato, contemplation is the means by which the
mind will be in communion with the world of forms and the way by
which the human person will be freed from the world of matter.
Contemplation is the way by which the human person will be able to
remember the perfect knowledge of all things. And when the human
person has already recalled the truth, he/she will therefore be led to
knowing and appreciating the good by living a good life.
Good life therefore is the life of inner harmony with the real world.
Plato believed that goodness and virtue were intimately connected
with the mode of behaviour that produced well-being and harmony.
For him, harmony could only be achieved if the parts of the soul were
fulfilling its function. For instance, if reason were doing its function of
leading the human person towards the real world, then this reason
would therefore be in harmony with nature. Hence, virtue could only
be attained when each part of the soul is fulfilling its own function, i.e.,
170
when the lower parts of the soul would be subjected to the
sovereignty of the rational element.
Plato argued that a reciprocal relationship exists between the
individual and the kind of society he or she lives in. That means that a
certain kind of society produces a certain kind of individual, an certain
kind of individuals produce certain kinds of societies. In fact, Plato
thought the relationship between the two was so close that a clear
understanding of the just (ideal) society would yield a clear
understanding of the just (healthy) individual. In the republic, he refers
to a society as the individual writ large. The republic is consequently a
study of Plato’s ideal society and, by extension, a study of types of
individuals.
In his republic, Plato revealed his idea of a good life. According
to him, a good life can be lived only in a good society because no
one can live a truly good life in an irrational, imbalanced society. Nor
can one live a truly good life without having some social activities,
obligations, and concerns.
From the point of view of Plato, a society exists because no
individual in self-sufficient. In this regard, the society should provide the
people in meeting the three basic needs: (1) nourishing needs (food,
shelter, clothing); (2) protection needs (military, police); (3) ordering
needs (leadership and government). These needs are best met by
members of the three corresponding classes of people: (1) workers
(farmers, bankers, drivers); (2) warriors (police officers, firefighters); (3)
guardians (philosopher-king) (Soccio, 156).
From the point of view of Plato, an ideal state is that which is just
to its subordinates. However, a state is just when it functions fully. He
held that an unjust state is dysfunctional, i.e., it fails to meet some
essential need. He held that only when all classes of people are
virtuous according to their natures is the state whole, healthy,
balanced, and just. According to Plato (Soccio),
The good life is nothing more-or less- that each individual
functioning well according to his or her nature, in a state that is well-
ordered and wisely ruled.
For Plato, injustice originates from imbalance in a society. He
believed that when the society will not be functioning properly, then
injustices will surely occur. Some imbalance always results when one
171
part of the state tries to fulfil the function of another part. Justice,
happiness, and the good life are interrelated functional results of
order. Because the essence of a thing determines its proper order,
function, and proper care, only those who have seen the Forms and
seen the Good know that this essence is for the state or for individuals
(Soccio).
Inasmuch as philosophers are leading their life towards wisdom,
they are, therefore, capable of unveiling the higher degree of
knowledge, which is actually the higher degree of virtue. In this case,
the society will finally be led towards knowledge, i.e., into an
understanding of justice and love if it will be ruled by a philosopher-
king. According to Plato:
“Unless either philosophers become kings in our states or those
whom we call our kings and rulers take to the pursuit of philosophy
seriously and adequately, and there is a conjunction of these two
things, political power and philosophical intelligence. . .there can be
no cessation of troubles for our states, nor, I fancy, for the human race
either” (Post 1925, 72).
172
Test
1. What is the importance of education in our life?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
2. Can education make us a better person morally and spiritually

speaking?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
173
Aristotle’s Concept of a Person
Aristotle was born in 384 BCE in Stagira, a Greek colony of Thrase in

Northern Greece. He had connections with the royal family of
Macedonia because his father, by the name of Nicomachus, was
acting as physician to King Amuntas II of Macedonia. What little we
know of him comes primarily through Diogenes Laertius’ compilation
of the lives of ancient philosophers (Soccio, 168).
Aristotle must have learned basic anatomy and dissection from his
father. His parents died when he was young. After the death of his
parents, his education was directed by Proxenus of Atarneus.
(http://www.library.thinkquest.org./13394/angielsk/ancient.html?tqski
p1=1). At the age of 17, Aristotle was sent to Athens to study at Plato’s
Academy where he remained for nearly twenty years as a student
and as a teacher until Plato’s death in 348/347 BCE (Law, 248).
At the Academy, Aristotle earned a reputation as the mind and
the reader of the school (Stumpf & Fieser, 75). Diogenes Laertius says
that on one occasion when Plato read aloud a difficult treatise about
the soul, Aristotle “was the only person who sat it out, while all the rest
rose up and went away” (Soccio, 169). Accordingly, Plato is supposed
to have remarked that his Academy consisted f two parts: the body
of his students and the brain of Aristotle. Although Aristotle disagreed
with Plato on important philosophical matter, he built an altar to Plato
at his teacher’s death (Soccio). This was because his experience at
the Academy was an exercise in friendship as well as in learning, for
Plato was, to him, not only a revered philosopher but also a friend
(Hakim, 73).
Upon the death of Plato, Aristotle was expecting that he would
be the next master of the Academy. But the trustees of the Academy
picked a native Athenian instead, because they saw Aristotle as a
“foreigner” and possibly because of his opposition with some of
Plato’s doctrines (Law). The trustees picked Speussipus to be Plato’s
successor. For this reason, Aristotle left Athens and stayed for three
years in Assos, a city of troad (Hoderich, 53). In 344 BCE, his friendship
with Hermias, ruler of the city and a former fellow student at the
174
Academy, led to Aristotle’s marriage to Pythias, the ruler’s niece and
adopted daughter. Pythias had a large dowry but Aristotle had
happily invested on this marriage. Later on, Pythias bore Aristotle a
daughter.
In the same year, Aristotle’s life was disrupted because his
political benefactor offended the King of Persia. Shortly, Aristotle and
Pythias fled to the island of Lesbos. Hermeias was crucified by the
Persian King. While on Lesbos, Aristotle studied natural history, and
Pythias died in giving birth to their daughter. Aristotle never forgot
Pythias and asked that her bones be buried with him. Aristotle later
lived with a woman named Herpyllis. Their long, happy relationship
produced Aristotle’s son Nicomachus, to whom he dedicated the
Nicomachean Ethics (Soccio, 169-170).
At about 343 BCE, Aristotle was invited by King Philip of Macedon
to train his thirteen year old son Alexander, later known as Alexander,
the Great. It was said that as a boy, Alexander was wild and crude,
but Aristotle was able to instill into the mind of Alexander respect for
knowledge and science. Alexander was grateful for the education he
receive from Aristotle that later on, upon the start of his military
campaign, he supplied his master with the financial means to form a
library and to assemble a museum of natural history with which
Aristotle enriched his school.
In 340 BCE, Philip sent Aristotle back to Aristotle’s hometown of
Stagira, so that he could write code of laws in order to restore the
community, which had been disrupted by a war. In 344 BCE, when
Aristotle was 49 years old, he returned to Athens where he founded
his own school of philosophy, possibly from the money of Alexander.
Aristotle dedicated his school to the god Apollo Lyceus. Hence, he
named his school Lyceum, which he built at the very spot that was
mentioned by Plato as the favourite haunt of Socrates (Hakim, 74).
At the lyceum, the pattern of the Academy was duplicated-a
close community, friendly, intent on learning, given to much dialogue
particularly while strolling along the garden path, the peripatos. It was
for this method of teaching that Aristotle’s students were called
Peripatetics (Hakim). During his days in the Lyceum, Aristotle is also said
to have formed the first great library by collecting hundreds of
175
manuscripts, maps, and specimens, which he used as illustrations
during the lectures.
The students of Lyceum tended to be from the middle class,
where as the students of Plato’s Academy were more aristocratic. For
a short while the two schools were bitter rivals, but as each
concentrated on its own particular interests, this rivalry died down. The
Academy stressed mathematics and “pure” understanding, while
Aristotle’s students collected anthropological studies of barbarian
cultures, chronologies of various wars and games, the organs and
living habits of animals, the nature and locations of plants, and so
on(Soccio).
When Alexander the Great died in 323 BCE, a strong anti-
Macedonian feeling arose in Athens. Like Socrates, Aristotle was also
charged of impiety. Because of this, he left Athens so that according
to him, he did not want the Athenians to sin twice against philosophy
(Hakim). He fled to Chalcis, his mother native city, where he died in
322 BCE of a digestive disease of long standing.
Aristotle was known to be the man who had created the first
important library, tutored the greatest ruler of the ancient world,
invented logic, and shaped the thinking of an entire culture (Soccio,
171). In his last will, he expressed sensitive human qualities by providing
his relatives adequately, preventing his slaves from being sold and
providing the some of his slaves should be emancipated (Stumpf, 78).
The Philosophy of Aristotle
Aristotle was deeply influenced by Plato but was suspicious of

other worldly elements in his teacher’s thinking, and in particular the
view that knowledge of the world cannot be accessed via the senses.
Aristotle saw dangers in Plato’s rationalistic idealism.
After Plato’s effort to give a discussion on the concept of
change, Aristotle took his turn in facing the problem of the changing
and the changeless. According to Aristotle, a thing would undergo
change only insofar as the nature of such thing permits it to be such,
i.e., there must be a principle within such a thing to allow for the
change. Although the principle vary according to the kind of change
involved, in general, they can be referred to as the principle of
176
actuality and the principle of potentiality (Hakim, 79) or simply act and
potency. The act is the perfection of a being while the potency is the
capability of a being to attain another perfection.
In a physical thing, Aristotle calls this principle form, which
signifies the act; and matter, which signifies the potency or the
capacity of the matter to obtain another act. This teaching is called
the hylomorphic doctrine. Aristotle believed that a matter has its
actually in a being precisely because it is determined by form, as the
actualizing principle, to be this particular individual. Because of this
idea, Aristotle is sometimes called the “father of science” because he
was the first Western thinker of record to provide an adequate analysis
of a process of change based on the claim that form is inseparable
from matter.
Aristotle and His Philosophy of the Human Person
In applying this principle to a human person, Aristotle got away

from the concept of Plato. According to Aristotle, a human being is
composed of a body and a soul. But unlike Plato, Aristotle believed
that the soul and the body are not separate entities in a human
person. Rather, they are correlative constituents of one being. A
human being is neither body alone nor soul alone; but a single
substance composed of both the body and the soul.
According to Aristotle, the soul forms the entelechy, the definite
form of the body (Stumpf, 91). Without the body, the soul will not be
called a human person. Consequently, without the soul, the body will
not be called a human person as well. Aristotle considered the body
and the soul to be forming on substance.
For Plato, the soul and the body are two separate entities.
Hence, Plato could speak of the pre-existence of the soul and the
immorality of the individual soul. Aristotle, however, tied the soul and
the body so closely together that according to him, with the death of
the body, the soul will also die with it, inasmuch a Plato believed that
the soul has pre-existence, he could describe learning as the process
of recollection. On the other hand, Aristotle believed that human
mind is a tabula rasa or a blank sheet.
177
The Function of the Human Person
Although the human person is composed of a body and a soul,

he/she however possesses a very distinguishing attribute: reason. This
reason elevates a human person above any other creature because
it is this reason that makes a human person resembles the Supreme
Reason, who rules and guides the destinies of individuals and nations
and leads all things to their proper ends. Inasmuch as Aristotle is
speaking of the proper end of things, his philosophy is considered to
be teleological. The term teleological comes from the Greek word
telos, which means end or purpose.
It is the belief of Aristotle that every action of the human person
is aiming toward an end. There, he distinguished between two types
of ends: the instrumental and the intrinsic end. The instrumental end is
that whish is done as means for other ends, while the intrinsic end is
that which is done for its own sake. For example, when the pencil-
maker has already finished making a pencil, he has already achieved
his end of making a pencil. In this case, the pencil-maker has already
achieved its intrinsic end. However, the pencil can be a means for a
poet to be able to write his compositions. The end of the pencil-maker,
in this case, became the means for the writer to achieve his own end.
Therefore, the pencil became only an instrumental end in order for a
poet to be able to achieve his own intrinsic end, i.e., to write a
composition (Buenaflor, 50).
Through this idea, Aristotle tied the word good to special function
of a thing. For instance, we consider a pencil to be good if it is
functioning as a pencil. Moreover, as regards one’s profession, a
teacher can only be considered a good teacher if and only if he or
she is functioning as a teacher. However, it does not follow that a
person is considered to be considered a good person if he/she
becomes a good teacher. Aristotle believed instead that a human
person could only be considered a good person if and only if he/she
functioning as a human person. In this case, everyone must be able
to discover first the distinctive function of every one in order to obtain
goodness. But what then is the function or purpose of the human
person?
178
Aristotle believed that humanity has a distinctive mode of
activity. Such distinctive mode of humanity is based on its nature.
Aristotle believed that the end of the human person is not merely to
exist because that will make him/her to be of no difference from the
plants and the animals. According to Aristotle, the function of the
human person is an activity of the human soul, which follows or implies
a rational principle. In this case, the human good turns out to be the
activity of the soul in accordance with virtue.
Aristotle held that the soul is the form of the body. As such, the
soul refers to the totality of the human person. Because the soul is the
capacity for the human person for scientific thought as well the
understanding of the true nature of things, the real person therefore is
his/her soul, and the fundamental activity of this soul is reason. A
human person is therefore considered as a rational being who
participates in the Supreme Reason, not merely in the sense of being
governed by the Logos, which the whole world is, but in the sense that
human person has within him/her a capacity for immanent activity.
Inasmuch as the human person is a rational being, his activity as a
rational being starts from within and terminates in a purpose, which
remains within him/her.
In this regard, the end or function of the human person must
have something to do with his/her specific activity. For Aristotle, the
end or function of the human person could only be the immanent
activity of a reason brought to its fullest extent, namely, the moral
virtues within the framework of the communal life of the Polis and the
Act of Contemplation.
A Morally Virtuous Act
Aristotle strongly upheld that every human person is naturally

seeking towards the attainment of happiness. The word Aristotle used
that is so often translated as “happiness” is eudaimonia (Soccio, 185).
Eudaimonia implies being really alive rather than just existing: fully
aware, vital, alert. This is more than being free of cares or worries.
Rather it implies exhilaration-great suffering and great joy, great
passions. It implies a full life, not a pinched, restricted one.
179
For Aristotle, happiness should not be connected with pleasure.
According to him, a life devoted solely to pleasure is a life fit only for
cattle. He said that pleasure is not the goal of life; nor is the acquisition
of wealth. He also rejected fame and public success as leading to
eudaimonia because he believed that the more self-sufficient we are,
the happier we are; and the famous are less self-sufficient than most:
they need bodyguards, managers, financial advisers, etc. Aristotle
held that there is greater peace of mind, security, and satisfaction in
knowing that I can provide for my own needs than there is in
depending on others. The highest and fullest happiness, according to
Aristotle, comes from a life of reason and contemplation-not a life of
inactivity or imbalance but a rationally ordered life in which
intellectual, physical, and social needs are all met under the
governance of reason and moderation (Soccio, 186). According to
Aristotle, a reasonable person does not avoid life. Rather, he/she
engages in it fully.
From the point of view of Aristotle, one can live a full life if he/she
would be living with the society. He held that a rich and full life is a
social life. For Aristotle, no man would choose to live without friends.
He said that human being are political (social) creatures designed by
nature to live with the others (Soccio). Hence, all the actions of the
human person can be adjudged as good or bad depending on the
goodness or badness of its effect on others.
A human action must always aim at its proper end. Every person
aims for pleasure, wealth, and honor. But none of these ends, through
they have value, can occupy the place of the ultimate good for
which every people should aim. In this case, the question will be: what
is that particular action that will lead the human person to this ultimate
happiness?
For Aristotle, from the objective point of view, a morally virtuous
act consists of a measured activity, following the rule of the Just
Middle or the metosis, i.e., “neither deficient nor excessive.”
According to Aristotle, any action that is done or indulged excessively
or insufficiently would go out of bounds and would become
unreasonable and improper to the nature of the human being (Reyes,
38). Therefore, over-activity and complete inactivity are ruled out by
reason as reprehensible, and even injurious to the human person’s
180
well-being. For instance, over-eating is not good because it results to
indigestion. However, eating too little or not eating at all injures the
health. Therefore, we have to avoid the two extremes, i.e., too much
and too little. Instead, every person should act according to the
Golden Mean.
The action that is coming from the just middle is ruled by reason,
which orders the desires and passion into a harmonious whole.
Subjectively, virtue is an activity that proceeds from certain proper
dispositions. In this case, a virtuous act is that which proceeds from a
habitual state or disposition acquired through constant practice,
where the doing of the virtuous act has become a kind of second
nature on the part of the human person. Such action has been done
firmly and surely, without fail or without any doubt or hesitation. An
action done, after going through agonizing doubts and temptations,
is a sign that a human person has not acquired mastery over his/her
unruly desires and passions.
Furthermore, a virtuous act is that which proceeds from the right
intention. This means that the action is desired solely for its own sake.
In this regard, a moral virtue is a rationally measured activity following
the rule of the just middle, motivated by right intention and
proceeding from a permanent disposition acquired through habitual
action. However, the definition here of a virtuous act is not yet
complete since we will still be left with questions like: where can we
find the norm of the just middle? What is the norm for right intention?
In doing a particular action, what kind of disposition will be needed in
order to perform such an activity?
An Action which Proceeds from Contemplation
For Aristotle, in order for the human to be sure that his/her action
is done in permanent disposition, it should be done in the act of
contemplation. Performing such activity is said to be related to the
moral virtues. This is because whenever an action is performed based
on contemplation, such action is said to be becoming from phronesis
or the practical wisdom , which provides the insight to the truth about
the intrinsic worth and excellence and beauty or goodness or kalon
of the action to be done.
181
As an action, the phronesis is the practical intellect that properly
decides to act. It takes the appropriate means in the situation in view
of the intended goal and takes command in one’s desires and
passion. In this case, practical wisdom is the proper activity and virtue
of the practical intellect by which the human person, as the source of
action, is the union of desire and thought.
In applying the phronesis, Aristotle, like Plato, viewed the
communal life of the polis as the proper place for the exercise of the
moral virtue. In fact, it is the very life of moral virtues and thus, the polis
constitutes one of the ends of the human person. In which case,
Aristotle’s view on life can be likened to Confucius’ view that life is a
blessing because it is an opportunity to be with the community where
happiness really abounds.
Inasmuch as the human person has a function to fulfil, his life
constitutes being one with the community. For Aristotle, happiness is
the product of our action based on our distinctive nature. It is the fruit
of a virtuous living, the constant and proper exercise of reason all of
man’s actions and endeavours. In this case, it is proper to assume that
a virtuous act is acting according to our highest nature based on a
contemplative activity. Aristotle believed that an action based on
contemplation is the best action because nt only is reason the best
thing in us, but the objects of reason are also the best knowable
objects. Contemplation, for Aristotle, is therefore to engage in the
highest, most perfect type of reflection, the way it is in God (noesis
noeseos) (Reyes, 41).
182
Test
1. Trace some influences of Plato in the Philosophy of Aristotle.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________
2. How did Aristotle go away from the philosophy of Plato?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________
183
Epicurus and His Concept of Human
Goodness
It is the nature of the human person to be always searching for

happiness. However, different philosophers who would connect
happiness with pleasure. To this belong the hedonists.
The Hedonist Philosophy
Hedonism is the general term for any philosophy that says that
pleasure is good and pain is evil. The followers of this philosophy look
at the happy life in terms of having the most possible pleasure and the
least possible pain. From the point of view of the hedonists, the pursuit
of pleasure is our birthright. The great follower, and probably the
founder of this philosophy is believed to be Aristippus (c. 430-450 BCE).
Aristippus lived in the town of Cyrene on the Coast of North
Africa in what is now Libya. Cyrene was founded by Greek colonists
on the edge of a plateau near the Mediterranean coast. The soil and
climate made the area rich in flowers, fruits, and lavish vegetation.
When Aristippus was born, Cyrene was a prosperous city, noted for its
marble temples, magnificent Public Square, and the luxurious homes
of its wealthiest citizens.
Aristippus was a friendly and clever man who was fond on any
kind of pleasures. While attending Olympic Games, Aristippus heard
bout Socrates, which led the former to rush to Athens in order to meet
Socrates and eventually became his follower. Later on, Aristippus
began his teaching career and started collecting very high fees,
shortly thereafter, he opened a school of philosophy in Cyrene where
he built his doctrine known as the Cyrenaic hedonism (Soccio, 198).
For Aristippus, life is basically a search for pleasure. He
considered pleasure as always good-regardless of its source.
Inasmuch as all people seek pleasure, whether they are aware of it or
not, hence, it should be considered as the basis of goodness. He
believed that life can be discerned by observing our actual
behaviour. In doing so, people will always be led to the fact that the
184
meaning of life is pleasure. And because pleasure is the natural goal
of all life, we should try to have as much intense, sensual pleasure as
we can.
Inasmuch as sensual pleasures are more intense than mental or
emotional pleasures, Aristippus held that they are the best of all. In this
regard, he held that physical pleasure is the best to all other things as
it makes life more exciting, dynamic, and worth living. And because
the pleasure of the present is much more desirable that the pleasure
of the future, then it is better to desire for the pleasure of the present
for the future might not even come. Hence, they followed the
principle: “Eat, drink, and be merry today, for tomorrow you may die.”
From this, Aristippus held that whatever pleases the person most at the
moment is the highest good there can be (Soccio, 199). He thereby
advised the people that they should be happy at all costs.
The Epicurean Philosophy
Epicurus is one of the major philosophers in the Hellenistic period.

He was born on the verdant island of Samos, a city of Asia Minor
around 341 BCE, seven years after Plato’s death and when Aristotle
was 42 years old. Although he was born in Samos, he was nevertheless
an Athenian citizen because his father, who was a school teacher,
had moved to Samos as an Athenian colonist.
Epicurus took early to philosophy, travelling from the age of
fourteen to hear lessons from the Platonist Pamphilus and the atomic
Philosopher Nausiphanes (de Botton, 50). But he found he could not
agree with much of what they taught that later on, he decided to
have his own philosophy. When he was eighteen years old, he ent to
Athens in order to complete the two years military service required of
Athenian males. Alexander the Great had just died, and the
Athenians, who had resented his rule, revolted against the regent he
had imposed on them. It took less than a year for this revolt to be
stopped, but Epiricus drew an important lesson from it: political
activities and ambitions are pointless.
Epicurus stayed in Athens for a time and studied with the
followers of both Plato and Aristotle; although he rejected the
philosophy of both Plato and Aristotle. Epicurus refered to himself as
185
self-taught and never acknowledged any philosophical teacher or
master. However, during his teenage years, he was exposed to the
writings of Democritus, through Nausiphanes, whose ideas about
nature had a permanent influence upon his own philosophy (Stumpf
and Fieser, 104).
When the Athenians where driven out of Samos, Epicurus went
to Asia Minor to become a teacher in several schools there. He then
founded his first philosophical school in Mytilene and Lampsacus,
before moving to Athens around 306 BCE. In Athens, Epicurus founded
a school which he called the Garden. This school provided a serene
retreat from the social, political, and even philosophical turmoil of
Athens. It became known for good living and pleasant socializing, as
well as for its philosophy.
One of the distinguishing features of the Garden was that it
welcomed everyone. It was one of the very few places in Greece
where women were allowed and encouraged to interact with men
as equal. Epicurus also made no distinctions based on social status or
race. He accepted all who came to learn: prostitutes, housewives,
slave’s aristocrats. His favourite pupil was his own slave, Mysis. Epicurus
took as his mistress a courtesan, which during that time was a kind of
prostitute, named Leontium. Under his nurturing influence, Leontium
wrote several books (Soccio, 200).
The residents, i.e., the students of the Garden put Epicurus’
teachings into practice. Because of the influence of Epicurus’
philosophy, the school ranked with Plato’s Academy, Aristotle’s
Lyceum, and Zeno’s Stoa as one of the influential schools of ancient
times. In this school, Epicurus attracted his close friends, who were
attached to him in deep affection and to each other by the love of
cultivated conversation (Stumpf & Fieser).
Epicurus died of kidney stones around 271 or 270 BCE but his
philosophy survived his death that it even spread to Rome.
Epicureanism flourished as a philosophical movement although it
went into decline with the rise of Christianity.
186
The Epicurean Concept of God, the Creator, and His Creatures
Epicurus was a practical philosopher. For him, philosophy is
important because it may help the human person to free himself from
ignorance and superstitions. Philosophy, according to him, should not
be looked up as simply a mere acquisition of knowledge. Rather, he
considered philosophy as the medicine of the soul. This is because
ideas are capable of controlling and developing one’s life.
To Epicurus, the chief aim of human life is pleasure. What made
him turn to the pleasure principle was due to the idea he inherited
from Democritus. According to Democritus, God did not create
everything. Hence, human behaviour should not be based upon
obedience to the principle coming from God but only to the result of
a purposeless and random event. From this idea of Democritus,
Epicurus eventually concluded that every existing thing is made up of
small eternal atoms. These atoms are indestructible. In this case, if God
is real and He is existing, Epicurus held that therefore, he too must be
made up of this material being called atoms. Hence, human beings
are not part of a created or purposeful order caused or ruled by God.
Rather, people are only accidental products of the collision of atoms
just like any other beings (Stumpf, 103).
The main aim of Epicurus in his philosophizing was on how to
banish from people the fear of the gods, which for him would be
preventive of the peoples’ acquisition of happiness. For Epicurus, we
do not have to worry about ideas regarding punishments from God.
He insisted instead that occurrences like earthquakes and lightning
can be explained entirely in terms of atoms; and this is not due to the
will of the gods.
Inasmuch as philosophy is a denial of Divine Providence,
Epicureanism was often charge as a godless philosophy. However the
Epicureans denied these allegations. He said that there are gods but
these gods are quite different from the popular conception of gods.
These gods are blessed and happy beings who are definitely unaware
of our existence as they are living eternally. For Epicurus, the gods
function mainly as ethical ideals, whose lives we can strive to emulate,
but whose wrath we need not fear.
187
Through his philosophy, Epicurus believed that he was able to
liberate humanity from the fear of God and from the fear of death.
Inasmuch as God did not have the control over nature nor over
human destiny, He would not therefore be able to intrude in the affairs
of the people. In this case, death should not also bother anyone
because only a living person would have the feeling of either pleasure
or pain. This feeling of pleasure or pain would not be felt anymore after
our death (Curtis, 1981, 103).
The Duty of the Human Person

Epicurus’ philosophy is a form of egoistic hedonism. This is
because he believed that the only thing that is important in life is one’s
own pleasure. For him, neither life nor death is good or bad in itself.
Only the quality of our pleasures or pains is important. This idea is
actually a major departure from Aristippus’ emphasis on intensity, i.e.,
on the quantity of pleasure. For Epicurus, rather than seek to have the
most of anything, including the longest possible life span, the wise and
sophisticated Epicurean chooses to have the finest.
According to him, all those things that the human person will find
to be valuable are valuable because it gives a sense of pleasure to
the human person. However, his view on pleasure is somehow
sophisticated because he still recommended a virtuous and
moderately ascetic life as the best means to securing pleasure.
A lot of people during the time of Epicurus and even during our
own time had mistakenly associated the Epicurean philosophy with
expensive tastes, exotic food and drink, elegant clothing, and a life
devoted to the pursuit of such pleasures. However, for Epicurus, the
highest pleasures are intellect, and the greatest good is peace of
mind, not intense or exquisite physical pleasure.
Epicurus believed that human beings have the power and the
duty to regulate one’s own desires. Every individual human being can
control his/her own life. This is because every human being is capable
of reasoning, and hence, capable of distinguishing the good from the
bad. In this case, Epicurus upheld that pleasure is the standard of
goodness. This is because human beings have the capacity to always
desire for pleasure. Inasmuch as every human being finds pleasure to
188
be good, hence, pleasure becomes the gauge in determining the
goodness of human action.
Types of Pleasure
Although pleasure is the gauge for the goodness of human
action, Epicurus upheld that there are different kinds of pleasures that
would guide the people to the happiest life. According to Epicurus,
the first kind of pleasure is that which is both natural and necessary.
Example of this kind of pleasure is food. There is also the kind of
pleasure which is natural but not necessary. Example of this kind of
pleasure is sex. Although sex is natural, however, a human being will
still be able to survive even without sex. The third kind of pleasure is
that which is neither natural nor necessary. Example of this kind of
pleasure is a luxurious life or a popular life (Timbreza 2000, 84).
According to Epicurus, what leads to real happiness is not the
sensual pleasure as those mentioned above. Rather, Epicurus held
that real happiness could be obtained by means of those activities
that will free the human being from the troubles of the mind and from
the physical pain. Epicurus held that a pleasant life does not mean
continuous eating and drinking, or gaining all the luxuries in life. What
leads to a real pleasant life is the austere reasoning that will aid man
to the true realization of the meaning of life and the avoidance of the
greatest disturbance of the spirit brought about by mere opinion.
Epicurus, however, did not mean that we should prevent our
bodies from its pleasures and from its luxuries. He was just saying that
there were types of bodily pleasures that could never be satisfied. If
people would go on aiming for these kinds of pleasures, it would mean
that these people could never obtain satisfaction. If we would always
aim for money, for instance; we would always be led to continuous
dissatisfaction. Epicurus believed that some people wanted to be
famous because they thought that this would make their lives safe
and secure. Indeed, if fame were to bring safety and security, it is
good and right to be famous. However, if a famous life brings more
trouble than an obscure life, it is foolish to want what is actually bad
for us.
189
Epicurus would want his followers to aspire for things that will
bring happiness but only with a minimum desire. He believed that
nature is requiring our body in order to receive easily the satisfaction
that we needed. In other words, when the needs of the human body
are already satisfied, then the person’s physical nature will be
balanced. Moreover, aside from consuming only a little of what the
human person desires, he/she will therefore need only a little. Hence,
the human person will easily be satisfied.
It is important that people should determine the minimum desire,
which nature is requiring the body. It is important that people should
be able to easily determine what it is that will satisfy him/her. When
the needs of the human body are satisfied, it is only then that the
nature’s physical nature will be balanced. Moreover, aside from
consuming only a little of what the human person desires, he/she will
therefore need only a little of his/her needs. In this regard, he/she will
easily be satisfied.
The Self-centered Moral Philosophy

The concern of Epicurus was the individual pleasures and not the
pleasures of the human society. Hence, his teachings can be rightfully
called the self-centered moral philosophy. The concern of such
philosophy is the attainment of pleasure of the self. According to
Epicurus, the height of pleasure is the freedom from all pains and the
getting rid of all discomforts in both the body and the mind. Such pains
and discomforts maybe experienced when one would focus his
concern on the happiness of the others which can be detrimental to
one’s self. Hence, Epicurus focused his concern on the pleasure of the
self; wherein, if such pleasure is present, all pains of both the mind and
the body will be absent.
According to Epicurus, if the things that will bring pleasure to
every person free them from troubled mind, i.e., from the fear of God,
from the fear of death, and from the fear of pain, then they will be
considered as already living a good life. If such freedom from troubled
minds teaches the person how to rationally manage his/her desires,
then he/she has reached already the height of pleasure and the end
of all evil.
Epicurus held that the aim of life is the attainment of pleasure, the pursuit of
which brought happiness- the final goal of every person. According to Epicurus,
190
pleasure can be obtained personally by self- control, i.e., by the mastery and
limitation of desires as far as possible to those that were strictly necessary.
However, Epicurus added that pleasure also implies limitation of social
relationships, i.e., by refusal to be involved in family, religious, or political affairs.
Epicurus believed that good life could not be found from one’s service to fellow
human beings. Rather, it is to be found only in a pleasant and decent company
of intellectually fascinating friends. In this case, if there is a need for a civil society,
its only function is to punish any individual who will inflict pain upon others.
Epicurus held that society was not a natural phenomenon. Rather, it is a
deliberate creation aimed at bringing into order the society and the environment.
For Epicurus, the presence of law, the provision of punishment and the
preservation of order could augment pleasure. In this case, unlike Plato and
Aristotle, who believed that the leader of the society should be a philosopher,
Epicurus held instead that philosophers should not engage themselves in any
political affairs. According to him, instead of aiming for the creation of a good
society, philosophers should instead find means in order to avoid pain. Just as
philosophers should seek to detach themselves from the tyranny of exotic foods,
so also should they seek to detach themselves from the entanglements with other
people and particularly with poor people, whose needs and problems are
abundant. Therefore, in order to obtain a moral life, the followers of Epicurus
instead follow these eight counsels as the basic guide to Epicurean living:
1. Do not fear God;
2. Do not worry about death;
3. Do not fear pain;
4. Live a simple life;
5. Pursue pleasure wisely;
6. Make friends and be a good friend;
7. Be honest in your business and private life; and
8. Avoid fame and political ambition.
According to Epicureans, by following the eight counsels, one will be able to
avoid physical pain and mental troubles. When this happens, the human being
will then be capable of obtaining a good and meaningful life.
191
Test
Watch the movie “Life is Beautiful.” Relate the said movie with the
philosophy of Epicurus. Then, answer the following questions:
1. Is life really beautiful? When can we consider life as beautiful?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
2. How can we obtain happiness in our present life?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
192
The Stoic Concept of Happiness
The Stoics were also admirers of the strong character of Socrates.
They were also of the belief that excessive desires may lead the
person to depression and therefore, to unhappiness. What influenced
them from developing this philosophy was because of the philosophy
of Cynicism, the philosophy which despised the widespread
hedoniam and hypocricsy in Athens.
The Origin of the Stoic Philosophy
Cynicism was a philosophical school which revolted against the

rigidly ordered philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. It was said to have
been founded by Antisthenes, who took Socrates as a model for the
Stoics. It was said the Antisthenes had to walk almost five miles every
day to hear Socrates (Soccio, 202).
Impressed by the lifestyle of Socrates, Antisthenes sought to
follow both the life and philosophy of Socrates. Socrates’ disdain for
fashion, his ragged, functional clothing, lack of shoes, and ability to
not sleep or eat for long periods, physical toughness, and forthright
honesty made a tremendous impression on the young Cynic.
After the death of Socrates, Antisthenes founded a school called
the Cynosarges (The Silver Dog). The term Cynic is the Greek word for
dog. Later on, Diogenes was labelled as the cynic because it was said
that he lived like a dog, i.e., he was unwashed and rough-looking,
scrounging for food, and refusing to follow the conventional
standards of dress and behaviour.
Because Antisthenes attended some lectures of Gorgias, and
because he stayed so close to Socrates, he was greatly influenced by
the stinging attacks on such sophistic values as power, prestige,
wealth, and clever deception.
The Cynics believed that the very essence of civilization is
corrupt: Manners are hypocritical and phony; material wealth
weakens people, making them physically and morally soft; the desire
for success and power produces dishonesty and dependency;
flattery, fashion, and convention destroy the individual and make him
193
or her vulnerable to the whims of fortune. And, as the tragic death of
Socrates underscored, not even the wisest person can control other
people of external events (Soccio).
Form the point of view of the cynics, happiness could not be
obtained by means of pleasure. They believed that luxury always
brings complications and eventually to great frustrations. Hence,
pleasure should not be sought of if one will be aiming for happiness.
They held instead that happiness can come from self discipline,
rational control of all desires and appetites, and minimal contact with
conventional society.
Few Cynics exhibited the moral or intellectual virtues of
Antisthenes or Diogenes, however, and eventually Cynicism fell into
disrepute. Later Cynics were hostile, arrogant individuals who
despised everyone else and hated the society in which they lived.
The Stoic Philosophers
Zeno of Citium (c. 334-262 BCE)

Zeno of Citium was the known founder of the philosophy known
as Stoicism. This Zeno of Citium must be distinguished from the earlier
pre-Socratic philosopher by the name of Zeno of Elea. Whereas Zeno
of Elea was an associate of Parmenides and admired by Aristotle as
the inventor of philosophical dialectic (Buenaflor 2004, 26), Zeno of
Citium was the founder of the Hellenistic school of Stoic philosophy.
Zeno of Citium was born in 344 BCE. He was originally a
Phoenician who came to Athens as a young man in order to study
philosophy. He studied under the Cynic philosopher Crates. In order
to help his pupil overcome his attachment to social convention,
Crates publicly embarrassed Zeno by smashing a pot he was carrying,
so covering him with lentils. Although this may not be good at first
glance, through such kind of experiences, Zeno was able to inherit the
Cynics’ distrust of social niceties, which he regarded as irrational, and
founded the Stoic school of philosophy, named after the potico, or
what they called the painted porch (stoa poikile) in Greek-where he
used to have lectures; hence, the name Stoicism.
As a youth, Zeno was inspired by the ethical teachings and
particularly by the courageous death of Socrates. Due to the fate of
194
Socrates, the followers of Stoicism were able to realize the immoralities
of the people of Athens; hence, they placed tremendous emphasis
on the morality of the human person. The Stoics had given importance
to all the three divisions of philosophy formulated by Aristotle’s
Lyceum, namely, logic, physics, and ethics (Stumpf & Fieser, 106).
However, logic and physics were taken by the Stoics as just a way in
order to justify the precepts of ethics.
Stoicism is essentially a system of ethics, which, however, is
guided by logic as theory of method, and rests upon physics as its
foundation. Briefly, their notion of morality is stern, involving a life in
accordance with nature and controlled by virtue. The Stoics believed
that both pain and pleasure, poverty and luxury, sickness and health,
were supposed to be equally unimportant. Because of the Stoics’
emphasis on the ethical life of the people, Zeno lived an ascetic life,
as befitting his philosophy. Although he wrote a utopia in the Republic,
none of his works has survived. It is said that having fallen and broken
a toe, Zeno took this as a sign that he was being called to death, and
strangled himself (Law, 252). Zeno’s teachings can be best
understood upon reconstructing from the later Stoics whom he
influenced.
Epictetus, the sage slave (c.50-130 CE)
Although the Stoic school was founded in Greece, it flourished in

Rome. Through Alexander the Great, Greece was able to conquer
the Persian Empire. It was for this reason that Greece was able to
establish its power over a large area of the Near East and Egypt.
Eventually, Greek culture became more sophisticated and
cosmopolitan; absorbing ideas and customs from the cultures it
conquered. As the Greek empire expanded, the importance of
individual city- states such as Athens and Sparta diminished, and
people identified themselves as part of a larger, more international
community.
When Alexander died, his empire began to fall apart. By the
middle of the second century BCE, Rome had destroyed what was
left of Alexander’s kingdom and annexed Greece as a Roman
195
province called Achaia. By 100 BCE, Rome had controlled the entire
Mediterranean area.
The Romans were not particularly interested in abstract,
speculative thinking. Pragmatic and religiously tolerant, they
borrowed heavily from Greek culture, including philosophy. Given
their interest in establishing social order, the Romans were especially
attracted to the Stoics’ emphasis on duty and self-control.
One of the most philosophically influential Stoic was a Roman
slave by the name of Epictetus. Inasmuch as a slave’s life is not his
own, Epictetus was able to reflect on the major issue of Stoicism:
controlling what we can and accepting what is beyond our control.
No much is known about Epictetus’ life except that his mother
was a slave living in Hierapolis. It was said that he was brought to Rome
as the slave of a former slave named Epaphroditus, who must be
Nero’s administrative secretary. Probably due to his unusual abilities,
Epaphroditus sent Epictetus to study with Musonius Rufus, the most
powerful Stoic since the days of Zeno (Soccio, 206).
From the Stoic, he developed the idea that he could be bought
or sold, pampered or tortured, at his owner’s whim. As a slave, he was
always reminded that what happened to him had no bearing on his
own wishes or behaviour. As a slave, the only absolute control
Epictetus had was over his own reaction to what happened. His motto
was “bear and forbear.”
There was a time that Epictetus was badly tortured because of
the mistake of another slave. The punishment accorded to him
became the reason why he limped for the rest of his life because his
broken leg did not heal properly. According to the story, his leg was
being twisted as a punishment. He reminded his master that a person’s
leg was likely to break under such torture. Epaphroditus ignored this,
and when his leg finally broke, Epictetus said “See, It’s just as I told
you.” He later said, “I was never more free than when I was on the
rack.” He had learned that he could control his attitude, but that fate
controlled his life (Soccio).
Epictetus was given freedom sometime after Nero’s death in the
year 68 CE. Later on, he became a well known teacher.
The Stoic Emperor, Marcus Aurelius (121-180CE)
196
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus lived his life surrounded with
commotion, deception, and croeds. He impressed Emperor Hadrian
that he advised Marcus’ uncle Aurelius Antoninus (more commonly
known as Antoninus Pius) to adopt Marcus. When Marcus was forty,
Antoninus Pius, then emperor, appointed Marcus heir over Pus’ other
adopted son, Lucius Verus.
When Pius died in 161, Marcus generously named his stepbrother
Verus the co-emperor against the wishes of the senate- but got little
help from Verus. All the serious work of governing was done by Marcus.
During the time of his emperorship, he was obliged to contend
with flatterers, liars, and enemies. He was regularly dragged away
from Rome to deal with uprisings and barbarian invasions along the
frontiers. He was betrayed by a trusted general and spent the last
years of his life away from home on a difficult military campaign. He
suffered through the deaths of four of his five sons, and he even
endured unsubstantiated rumors that his wife took many lovers in his
absence and his sole surviving son was not his own.
Although he lived his life in the midst of lies and betrayals, Marcus
was loved by many Romans for his kindness and mercy. He refused to
turn away from his incompetent stepbrother, choosing instead to
carryout both their duties until Verus died in 169, after which Marcus
ruled alone. He convince the senate to pardon the family of the
traitorous general when other emperors would have destroyed it.
Instead of taking revenge against those people who had been
accused to be his wife’s lovers, he recommended them to be
promoted as this could be for the good of Rome.
Marcus combined classical philosophy with a spiritual quality
that foreshadowed the Christian-influenced Scholasticism of the
Middle Ages. He was also one of the kindest, wisest, and most virtuous
philosophers.
197
Unit 4
FREEDOM OF THE HUMAN PERSSONPERSON
Freedom.
Freedom is the major theme of Berdyaev's philosophy. He has often
been called the philosopher of freedom, and once, a s paradoxically
as it may sound, even "the prisoner of freedom". Berdyaev never in his
life experienced any kind of authority, not in his family, not in school,
not even in religious life. He always fought for his independence,
which to him meant independence of the spirit and thought.
Berdyaev dedicated all his life to creating and perfecting the
philosophy of freedom.
His fundamental idea is that freedom precedes existence, which puts

the concept of freedom on the highest metaphysical level.
Berdyaev's freedom is tied very closely with his religious beliefs. He
states that God is present only in freedom and acts only through
freedom. Berdyaev makes a clear distinction between his concept of
freedom and the traditional philosophical and theological idea of
free will. His freedom has a much more general meaning.
"Freedom is my independence and the defining of my self from the

inside, and freedom is my creative force, not the choice between the
good and evil that I am faced with, but my creation of good and evil.
The situation of choice itself can cause the feeling of oppression,
indecisiveness, or even the feeling of absence of freedom. The
liberation comes, when the choice is made, and I move along my
creative path."
From this passage we see that Berdyaev talks about something

greater than the freedom of choice. The fixed options to choose from,
and the actual idea of being faced with a choice still imposes certain
198
limitations on the individual, and, therefore, the free will is not the
absolute freedom of Berdyaev's philosophy.
Also, in this quote freedom is related to creativity, another major

concept in Berdyaev's world. Once again the idea of creativity has a
much broader meaning for him. It is an attempt to reach something
higher than our material everyday reality, to exceed the limitations
that the material world imposes on us. Berdyaev's creativity means
creating something completely new, something that has not existed
before. It is a way to express the freedom, a way to make the material
world more like the spiritual world within us. This concept requires
special attention, and it will be discussed later, in further detail.
Because of this obsession with personal freedom Berdyaev was often

called an individualist. He, on the other hand, called himself a
personalist. "Freedom is not individualism. That is a superstition.
Freedom is outside the idea of individualism. Freedom is not turning
inward and isolation, freedom is turning outward and creativity, a way
t o discover the universe inside oneself."4 Berdyaev did not say that a
n individual was more important than the universe, but rather that an
individual was the universe.
Very interesting is Berdyaev's view on Truth, in terms of freedom. He

radically rejected the truth that is imposed on him as an object, or as
"reality". He only accepted truth that is known through freedom. In this
case he talks about two freedoms, the freedom through which the
truth is known, and the freedom which is brought by the truth. Knowing
the truth through freedom means that it is not accepted as something
that exists separately from the mind, but rather freely absorbing it and
making it a part of the mind. This absorbed truth, in turn, expands the
horizons of the mind or, in other words, brings new freedom. In this
notion Berdyaev fought against any kind of dogma or orthodoxy,
whether political, or religious, or any other. He saw orthodoxy as an
authority of an organized society over a free individual, over the free
spirit of a person, something that he could never accept.
199
This idea of freedom was the reason for the fact that Berdyaev moved
away from Marxism, and was opposed to communism. He understood
that there were tendencies to reject freedom among the
revolutionary intelligentsia. Berdyaev saw that socialism could
develop into different forms. It could bring liberation, but it could also
create a totalitarian society.
These tendencies were actually a logical development.

Revolutionaries wanted to overthrow the existing regime, and take
control of the country. This was impossible without an organization with
strong leadership, every member of which would fight for the
common goal. Complete freedom, advocated by Berdyaev, would
definitely weaken such an organization.
In every period of his life Berdyaev felt the lack of freedom in society.
He felt it in the aristocratic world of his youth, in the world of
revolutionaries, in the world of the church, and in world of Russian
emigres after the revolution. All those groups of people of which
Berdyaev was a part at some point in time rejected individual
freedom in the name of their beliefs. He generalized that by saying
that "every society that had been organized in the past or is being
organized now is hostile toward freedom and tends to reject human
individuality. ... The democratic age is an age of the petty bourgeois,
and it is not likely to produce strong individuals."
Creativity.
As I have already mentioned, the second most important concept of
Berdyaev's philosophy is Creativity. Just as Freedom, the first most
important concept, creativity is rooted in Berdyaev's religious ideas.
God created man in his own image, and God is a creator. Therefore
man's purpose is to create. Berdyaev also finds references to creativity
in the New Testament, such as the parable of the seed falling on good
soil and producing fruits, and the parable of the talents that are used
profitably.
200
The nature of creativeness according to Berdyaev is nothing more
than "the making of something new that had not existed before"6. It is
creating something out of nothing, just as God created the world out
of emptiness. This sounds paradoxical, since all the creative arts that
we know always use something as a raw material to change and
reshape it to create something new. Strictly speaking, creativity in the
familiar, everyday sense, does not really involve making something
new, but merely reshaping and rearranging existing things. Berdyaev,
however, has a way to resolve this contradiction:
"The creative act of a man requires matter, it cannot be without the

material reality, it does not occur in an emptiness, in a vacuum. But
the creative act of a man cannot be completely determined by the
material which is given by the world; in it there is newness that is not
determined by the outside world. This is the element of freedom that
comes into any real creative act. This is the mystery of creativity. In this
sense, creativity is creation from nothing.
Once again, Berdyaev gives the concept of creativity a meaning

much deeper than the conventional definition. He separates it into
two basic parts: the creative idea, or creative conception, and the
material realization of the idea. It is hard to describe this notion any
better than Berdyaev does himself: "Creativeness has two different
aspects and we describe it differently according to whether we dwell
upon one or the other. It has an inner and an outer aspect. There is
the primary creative act in which man stands as it were face to face
with God, and there is the secondary creative act in which he faces
other men and the world."
Berdyaev makes a clear distinction between these two aspects. An

artistic conception is not the same as its realization. In fact it is the
conception that perfectly, without any adjusting, fits Berdyaev's
definition of creativity. It is a pure new idea, it comes from nowhere,
and it does not need any "raw material". It is something that is, indeed,
created out of nothing.
201
This, of course, goes back to the concept of freedom. Ideas have no
restrictions. They come freely to one's mind. In a way, one can say that
an idea is freedom. Therefore the conception is the element of
freedom in creativity. The realization of a creative idea, on the other
hand, brings it down to earth, imposes the limitations of the material
world on it.
"There is always a tragic discrepancy between the burning heat of the

creative fire in which the artistic image is conceived, and the cold of
its formal realization. Every book, picture, statue, good work, social
institution is an instance of this cooling down of the original flame....
This is the tragedy of human creativeness and its limitation. Its results
are a terrible condemnation of it."
The two aspects of creativity are very closely related to Berdyaev's

notion of subjectivity and the process of objectification. The primary,
inner part of creativeness is certainly very subjective. It is an idea that
originates and exists in one's mind, an idea that cannot exist outside
the mind, and which cannot be perceived or judged by anyone else.
Once the idea is realized, i. e. the statue is built or the book is written,
it becomes objective. It is now a part of the material world, separated
from the mind. It exists by itself. It is also less perfect than the idea that
it originated from, just as a translation of a book into another language
is always less perfect than the original. Something always gets lost.
Berdyaev does not seem to consider the idea that it might also be the
case that something is gained in this process of objectification. For
example the Russian translation of Shakespearean Julius Caesar,
unlike the original, actually rhymes, which might be considered a n
improvement. But apparently this argument would not convince
Berdyaev. He simply cannot see how a free idea could be improved
by being confined to the three dimensions of the material world.
Besides, the point he makes, the distinction between creative
conception and realization, would still be valid.
202
Sometimes the gap between the idea and its realization is so wide,
that the creation actually has a life of its own, completely different
from what the creator had intended. An interesting example of that is
The Sea-Wolf, a novel by Jack London. He intended it to be an
argument against individualism, but the critics and the public saw it
as quite the opposite. He portrayed the individualistic character so
well, that everybody thought it was an argument to support
individualism. This example shows the tragic, and, at the same time,
comic implication of the two phases of creativity .
This dual nature of creativity can also be related to Gregory Bateson's

metaphor of map and territory. He stated that we could never get to
the territory, that we could only perceive the representations of
representations, and so on, but not the things themselves. By this
metaphor, Berdyaev sees the creative conception as the territory and
the creative product as the map, the representation. If Bateson's
model is applied to creative imagination, rather than simple
perception, the conclusion is reversed. From Berdyaev's creativity it
follows that our ideas, the creative images in our minds, are not the
representations of things, but rather the things themselves (at least
those created by man) are representations of our ideas.
Berdyaev talks extensively about a creative act which is

accompanied by creative ecstasy. This brings something new to his
philosophy, namely emotion. This is a concept that puts his philosophy
on a different plane from the one occupied by the classical systems
of Descartes and Kant, who principally recognized the intellectual
side of human perception, while practically dismissing the emotional
side.
At the same time, despite the different approach, there is a direct link
to those systems. In a dry, objective logic of Descartes, Berdyaev sees
something very subjective and very human: "There can be no doubt
that Descartes arrived at his cogito through an emotional experience,
that he must have made his discovery in an ecstasy of an emotional
kind. The fact that he exercised his intellect to achieve this result is no
evidence of its exclusive use; for, at that particular moment, his powers
203
of reflection were colored with intense emotion.'' In this case
Descartes sees himself as a pure mind, a thinking machine, while
Berdyaev perceives him as a person with feelings and emotions.
Descartes considers emotions an imperfection, while Berdyaev notes
that a person is incomplete, and hence even more imperfect, without
them.
Berdyaev cannot accept the idea that knowledge can exist without
emotions. Emotions are an integral part of human nature, and
therefore not a single aspect of life can be without them. " Intuition is
not only intellectual, but also emotional. The world is not a thought, as
philosophers who dedicated their lives to thought think. The world is
passion and passionate emotion. " Despite all the differences
Berdyaev's ideas can in some sense be called a continuation of Kant's
and Descartes'. A better way would be for us to say that Berdyaev
sees things in a different light and adds a new dimension to them.
Much like Einstein's relativity did not dismiss the classical mechanics,
but rather broadened its scope to include phenomena that were not
accounted for previously.
Subjectivity and Objectification.

An important question that arises in almost any philosophical
discussion is the problem of Subjectivity and Objectivity. Berdyaev's
view on this question is very clear: "Can philosophy be anything but
personal and subjective? ... Philosophy cannot help being personal
even when it aspires to be objective. Every true philosophy bears the
stamp of its author's personality.'' This idea bears the mark of
Berdyaev's anthropocentrism which is the basis of his views. He firmly
believes that it is impossible to separate the person from his thoughts
and knowledge, that they cannot exist by themselves.
204
With this approach he rejects Descartes' view of a pure idea, which is
examined by itself, without taking into account the person who
actually has this idea. He also opposes the notion of a pure subject,
which is represented by Kant's transcendental consciousness and
Hegel's universal spirit. The reason for this opposition is their lack of the
human element. Berdyaev says that this approach depersonalizes
philosophy, moves its focus away from man, as knowing subject, and
makes knowledge a separate entity. On the other hand, he notes that
even the philosophers who claim to be completely objective still have
their personalities imprinted in their work. It is impossible for a human
being to be absolutely free from all personal and emotional
influences. A good example of that is Berdyaev's interpretation of
Descartes' cogito, which was mentioned earlier.
An argument against Berdyaev's anthropocentrism would be that it

may lead to egotism, to confining one's thoughts to oneself, to self-
imprisonment. Berdyaev, however, makes a distinction between
egocentricity, which he calls "the Original Sin", and which usually leads
precisely to that, and personality. It is personality that he considers to
be the main subject of philosophical discussion. He defines personality
as "the image of the living and integral man, who thinks in terms of
personal and human philosophy. This man i s inseparable from the
philosophy...'' This is why Berdyaev calls himself a personalist, rather
than an individualist, whose characteristic is egocentricity.
This distinction, however, is hard to grasp. Egocentricity and

personality both have the person, the "integral man" in their focal
points. In both cases the man cannot be isolated from hi s philosophy,
from his thoughts. The difference is that the philosophy of an
egocentric individualist is directed toward himself. The philosophy of
a personalist, while having the person at its center, is turned toward
the outside world. This world is perceived, by filtering it through the
person's consciousness, and making it a part of his inner world, just as
in order to completely understand a poem one should memorize it
first.
In his investigation of subjectivity and objectivity, Berdyaev puts the
main emphasis on the process of objectification. According to his
205
philosophy all knowledge is subjective when it originates. It can be
triggered or influenced by an external event or experience, but the
knowledge itself comes from within. Before this event can be
comprehended or known, the person has to make it a part of himself,
his inner world.
Then objectification occurs. It is a process, in which a subject

becomes an object. It seems logical to distinguish between three
different kinds of objectification: rational, moral and aesthetic.
Rational objectification takes place when a person acquires a sense
of self, when he separates himself from the surrounding world. By this
he also in some sense separates from himself, he now has the ability
to look at himself from the outside, so to speak. He can judge his
actions as if they were someone else's, and, therefore, treat himself as
an object. In words of Berdyaev, "objectification is above all
exteriorization, the alienation of spirit from itself" To summarize this
concept we can say that rational objectification is the process in
which a person sees himself as an object, rather than a knowing
subject.
Moral objectification occurs when other people are treated a s

objects. Even the words with which we refer to individuals or groups of
people, such as "population", "labor force", "human resources",
"average citizen", reduce them to mere objects that can be
manipulated and dismissed, or thrown away, if not needed any
longer.
Aesthetic objectification deals with creativity. The best illustration of it

is the realization of a creative conception into a creative product,
which has already been described in detail. Something that is
subjective, that exists only in man's inner world, becomes a
materialized object.
Interestingly, Berdyaev does not really make this distinction between

the three kinds of objectification. It seems that he is most concerned
with the moral aspect, which to him means, first of all, the suppression
206
of personal freedom. "Whenever a human being is used as a means
rather than as an end, objectification occurs.'' This does not mean that
he restricts his concept of objectification only to its moral part. On the
contrary, he expands it to include the other two as well, but instead
of distinguishing the tree aspects he emphasizes the links between
them, the underlying unity of them.
To Berdyaev objectification is a process of dehumanization and

depersonalization, which reduces man, the subject, to an object, a
thing. It brings man from the world of freedom down to the world of
necessity. "Objectification is a symbolical description of the fallen
state of a world in which man finds himself subservient to necessity
and disunion. To Berdyaev the spiritual world within us, the world of
freedom, is much higher, much more perfect than the material world
outside, the world in which we are bound by necessity. Objectification
is the process that confines man to this imperfect, restrictive, "fallen"
world.
This process, moral objectification in particular, is so imbedded into our

way of thinking, into our daily lives that often we are not even able to
realize it. Objectification becomes a part of people's nature. They
impose on themselves the limitations of the rules, standards, and
customs, necessity, and convenience. Knowledge is also in many
cases imposed on people instead of coming from within. They simply
accept what they are given, without feeling it thoroughly, without
making it an integral part of themselves, and hence without fully
comprehending it. This is an instance of people treating themselves as
objects, and it is also an example of a link between moral and rational
objectification .
It is very unusual for Berdyaev that he actually gives us a formal

systematic analyses of the main characteristics of objectification:
1) The estrangement of the object from the subject.
207
2) The absorption of the unrepeatably individual and personal in what
is common and impersonally universal.
3) The rule of necessity, of determination from without, the crushing of

freedom and the concealment of it.
4) Adjustment to the grandiose mien of the world of history, to the

average man, and the socialization of man and his opinions which
destroys distinctive character.
As an antidote to Objectification Berdyaev proposes "communion in

sympathy and love, and the overcoming of strangement;
personalism and the expression of the individual and personal
character of each existence; a transition to the realm of freedom and
determination from within, with victory over enslaving necessity; and
the predominance of quality over quantity, of creativeness over
adaptation."
The only problem with this solution is that it requires a utopian society,
a community of free thinkers. It is also not clear how it is possible to
completely free man from necessity. It is even more difficult to free
man from the slavery of desire for material wealth. We, after all, are
still material three dimensional beings, with needs of shelter and
nourishment, and a desire for a better life, which for most of us
associates with material possessions. Although most people crave for
freedom, it is rarely the pure spiritual freedom that Berdyaev writes
about.
Berdyaev's idea is similar to the utopian communism. The difference is

that the latter does not require such high degree of the personal
freedom, and perhaps because of that was at least attempted to be
practically implemented. There were, and still are, small groups of "the
Old Believers", and also some other religious sects, that formed small
communities, usually in the remote parts of the country. They seemed
to have at least some of the characteristics that, according to
Berdyaev, could stop objectification, but unlike communism, their
208
influence never spread over any region of a reasonable size, let alone
the entire country .
A good way to summarize Berdyaev's idea of objectification, one of

the key points of his philosophy, is to present a quote from Self-
cognition, his philosophical autobiography. It clearly states his opinion
on objectivity, subjectivity, and reality:
I do not believe in the stability and integrity of so called "objective"

world, the world of nature and history. Objective reality does not exist,
it is a mere illusion of mind; what exists is the objectification of reality,
that is created by a certain direction of the spirit. Objectified world is
not the genuine real world, it is only a state of the genuine real world,
which can be changed. The object is a creation of the subject. Only
the subject is existential, and only through subject the reality can be
cognized.
Ethics.
Just as most philosophers, Berdyaev attempted to create a system of
ethical values. As one might expect by now, he gives the concept a
meaning much deeper than conventional. "Ethics occupies a central
place in philosophy because it is concerned with sin, with the origin of
good and evil and with moral valuations. And since these problems
have a universal significance, the sphere of ethics is wider than is
generally supposed. It deals with meaning and value and its province
is the world in which the distinction between good and evil is drawn,
evaluations are made and meaning is sought."
Although Berdyaev was greatly influenced by Kant, he disagreed with

him on the question of the nature of ethics. He did not believe that
ethical values could be a priori. "The basis of ethics is moral
experience, which, indeed, is the basis of philosophy as a whole. A
dialectic which does not rest upon any moral experience is simply an
intellectual game."
209
The central problem of ethics is that of good and evil. In his
investigation of this aspect Berdyaev does not look for the origin of
good or evil, but rather for the origin of this distinction itself. This
approach is different from the one he took in discussing another pair
of contradictory concepts, namely subjectivity and objectivity. There
he clearly stated his belief in the superiority of one over the other.
Here, on the other hand, instead of choosing one over the other he
doubts the validity of the distinction itself and tries to go beyond it to
free himself of its limitations.
Before he actually starts the investigation he asks a series of questions:

"How does the distinction itself come about? How can the good be
the criterion of it, when the good comes to be only after the distinction
has been made?" As I mentioned, these questions indicate a strong
doubt of the validity, of the fundamental nature of the distinction, and
lead to a logical conclusion. "The highest value lies beyond good and
evil." At this point Berdyaev notes the difficulty that he is faced with.
When he says that what is beyond good and evil is "higher" than what
is on this side, he makes another distinction that is essentially the same
as that between good and evil. The only real difference is that terms
"high" and "low" are used instead. This puts him right back to the
starting point.
Berdyaev finds a way out of this dilemma by stating that "The world is
not the ultimate reality but only a phase of it, a phase in which being
is alienated from itself and everything is expressed by symbols." This
idea goes back to objectification One way in which we objectify the
world is by creating symbols. Berdyaev mentions the example of
symbols "father", "son", and "birth" that are used to describe God in
Christianity. These words are terms from the material world that cannot
actually describe God, who is beyond our world, but we nevertheless
use them, because there is nothing else at our disposal. This is a way
to bring God down to earth, a way to comprehend him, at least to
the extent that it is possible.
210
Similarly, we use "good" and "evil" or "high" and "low" to try to describe
the ultimate reality that is beyond this distinction. "That which in reality
is not separate assumes in our fallen world the form of division. In reality
there is neither "high" nor "low", but the symbol of "height" does give us
some insight into the nature of reality." This is similar to the view of
modern physics on the nature of light. Sometimes it behaves like a
particle, sometimes it behaves like a wave. The most commonly
accepted explanation of this phenomenon is that in reality light is
neither a particle nor a wave. It is just the way we mentally perceive
it, the analogies we make, that let us talk about its particle-like or
wave-like characteristics. "That which in reality is not separate assumes
in our fallen world the form of division."
Ethics for Berdyaev is inseparable from freedom. "The very existence

of moral life with its distinctions and valuations presupposes freedom.
Hence ethics is a philosophy of freedom." At the same time he
criticizes the idea of the "free will", which has always been a popular
subject of philosophical, ethical, and theological discussions.
According to Berdyaev, free will can actually be a source of
enslavement, because it forces man to choose between good and
evil. The point that freedom of choice, or, more exactly, the choice
itself, may suppress one's freedom has been discussed in detail earlier.
One of the aspects of ethics which Berdyaev emphasizes is the ethics
of the law, of which the free will is an integral par. His opinion on the
question of free will reflects his view on ethics of the law in general. To
Berdyaev law is, first of all, a way in which society controls an
individual. According to him, the freedom of choice that the law gives
is outweighed by the restrictions it imposes.
Berdyaev also notes that "morality in our world implies the dualism of
good and evil". In other words this means that morality, the ethics of
the law, stays symbolic, unable to brake away from the limitations of
the dualism, unable to reach Berdyaev's ultimate reality that lies
beyond good and evil. He also points out that the law, whose purpose
is to eliminate sin, does not accomplish its task. "Law denounces sin,
limits it, but cannot conquer it." As an alternative to the law Berdyaev,
a deeply religious man, proposes the divine grace. "St. Paul lays
211
particular stress on deliverance from the power of the law. 'Ye are not
under the law, but under grace.' ... 'Christ is become of no effect unto
you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from
grace.'" However, these ideas of St. Paul were not fully realized in
Christianity. Official Church definitely bears the sign of formalism,
legalism, and even rationalism. As Berdyaev says: "Even grace
received a legalistic interpretation."
The reason for this tendency, that, according to Berdyaev, corrupts

Christianity is hidden in the foundation of the human society. Law is
the backbone of the society, and it is imbedded in every aspect of
social life, including the Church. This dominance over the individual is
certainly unacceptable for Berdyaev.
The ethics of law can never be personal and individual, it never

penetrates into the intimate depths of personal moral life, experience
and struggle... The ethics of law is both very human and well adapted
to human needs and standards, and extremely inhuman and pitiless
towards the human personality, its individual destiny and intimate life.
This leads to another kind of ethics discussed by Berdyaev, the ethics
of redemption. Redemption is a concept which is more emotional
than intellectual, and so is Berdyaev's discussion of it. Even the
necessity of redemption is explained from an emotional point of view:
"The thirst for redemption is the longing to be reconciled to God, and
it is the only way to conquer atheism inspired by the presence of pain
and evil in the world. Redemption is the meeting with the suffering and
sacrificial God..." The reason for this emotional tone of the discussion
is the fact that redemption is free from the limitations of the law. In
some ways it even defies logic, which sometimes causes Berdyaev's
discourse to loose its coherence. He tends to repeat and restate his
ideas, Redemption means a revolutionary change in moral
valuations, a revaluation of all values."
The third type of ethics that Berdyaev discusses is the ethics of

creativity. From his point of view it is in conflict with the ethics of the
law but it complements the ethics of redemption. Law is first and
foremost a set of rules, and rules simply do not apply to creativity. On
212
the contrary, creativity defies rules and standards. Usually the most
remarkable artistic creations and scientific discoveries go beyond the
accepted systems of rules. "The ethics of creativeness differs from the
ethics of law first of all because every moral task is for it absolutely
individual and creative." Creativity emphasizes individuality and
personality, while law suppresses them with conformity and formalism.
The values of the law are static, they are designed to last a long period
of time unchanged. Creativity, on the other hand, is a process of
creating values. These values are dynamic, they are constantly being
created by individuals . The ethics of creativity provides the
unrestricted freedom which is absent in the ethics of the law.
apparently trying to put them in a more logical and orderly fashion .
This absence of limitations is the key point for Berdyaev. It is what puts
the ethics of redemption above the ethics of law, because it means
freedom. "Redemption means, first and foremost, liberation. The
Redeemer is the Liberator. The law does not free from slavery.
Freedom is creative energy, the possibility of building up new realities.

The ethics of law knows nothing of that freedom. It does not know that
good is being created, that in every individual and unrepeatable
moral act new good that had never existed before is brought into
being by the moral agent whose invention it is... Man is not a passive
executor of the laws... Man is a creator and an inventor.
The main similarity between the ethics of creativity and that of

redemption is the idea of man being in the center. The difference is
that it is concerned with values rather than with salvation. Instead of
engaging in the struggle between good and evil the objective of
creativity is to create values, or, in a way, to create good.
To Berdyaev the ethics of creativity is even higher than the ethics of

redemption. It does not have the fear of punishment by eternal
suffering or the hope of salvation, which can be considered the
limiting factors in the Christian ethics of redemption. Creativity "opens
a way to a pure disinterested morality, since every kind of fear distorts
213
moral experience and activity. ... nothing which is done out of fear,
whether it be of temporal or of eternal torments, has any moral value."
The ethics of creativity seems to be the closest system to Berdyaev's

goal, escaping the bounds of the distinction between good ad evil.
Creative conception is a purely spiritual event, which lies beyond all
material limitations. Creative ethics does not require t h e concepts of
punishment and reward, which are born out of material world, and
which are the basis of the ethics of law, and even the ethics of
redemption. Creative process is a reward in itself, because man has
an inherent desire to create, because it gives a meaning to life. The
absence of creativity, on the other hand, is the worst punishment,
because it makes life empty and worthless.
Religion.
All his life Berdyaev was a deeply religious man. He was never satisfied
with sinful and unstable material world. He was looking for something
better, something eternal. Religion provided this eternal and perfect
world, the world of God. As I mentioned many times earlier, Berdyaev's
views on philosophy and life in general can be traced back to his
religious beliefs. His idea of freedom comes from the belief in God,
who created the world out of freedom, and who gave freedom to
humans. His idea of creativity comes from the idea of God, the
creator. His idea of objectification is based on the idea of the ultimate
unobjectified spiritual reality, which is the world of God.’
Berdyaev was an Orthodox Christian, even though he felt a great

antipathy toward the official Church. Orthodox Christianity is a major
part of Russian culture, and despite the fact that Berdyaev was
skeptical toward traditions, which he saw as a suppression of his
freedom, he could not escape its influence. This religion also
corresponds to the inner nature of Berdyaev: it puts a great emphasis
on man, it provides a high degree of freedom, and it is more mystical,
more spiritual, than many other versions of Christianity.
214
Berdyaev chooses Christianity because of its idea of Jesus, the man-
God. One of the major points in Berdyaev's philosophy is that in order
to know something, a person must make it a part of himself. The idea
of God being a man serves this purpose. God is brought down to
earth, he becomes understandable. Man can now understand the
feelings of God, because they are similar to his own, and they can be
made a part of him.
This, however, creates a problem that is avoided by Berdyaev. If God

is brought down to earth, than he becomes a part of the material
world. The process of objectification, which Berdyaev despises, takes
place. The difference between God, the spirit, and man-God is the
same as between a creative conception and a creative product.
Something has to be lost when God becomes a part of sinful and
fallen material world. Berdyaev, however, does not even address this
problem.
The question that is discussed by Berdyaev is the problem of evil in the

world. For centuries theologians attempted to justify the existence of
evil in the world ruled by just, omniscient, and omnipotent God.
Berdyaev does not try to do this. Instead he rebels against this entire
approach. "We must completely abandon the rationalistic idea that
God is the king of the world, that He rules the world of nature, the
world of phenomena... God rules in the kingdom of freedom, not in
the kingdom of necessity, in spirit, not in the deterministic nature."
His idea is once again that the world that we live in is merely a phase
of the ultimate spiritual reality, the "kingdom of freedom". According
to Berdyaev, evil and suffering exist in this objectified world because
it is not ruled by God. The way to overcome the evil is through
redemption and creativity which is a pathway to the "kingdom of
freedom". Although Berdyaev does not state it, this idea may provide
a solution to the problem of man-God being the objectified "version"
of God. Since God does not rule the material world, he had to come
there in the form of Jesus, he had to become a part of it to save man
from sin and evil.
215
The point in Christianity that is contradictory to Berdyaev's philosophy
is the idea of the eternal torments in hell. It also contradicts one of the
major ideas of Christianity itself, that states that Jesus came to save
and not to judge. Christian love, which to Berdyaev is identical to
freedom, becomes limited by the fear of punishment. He explains this
contradiction by saying that the concept of fear was necessary at the
early stages of Christianity, because people were not mentally and
psychologically ready to accept the idea of unconditional love. Later,
however, the concept of punishment corrupted the church, made it
a social institution rather than a spiritual one. The ethics of redemption,
originally preached by Christianity, was replaced with the ethics of
law. This created formalism, legalization, and rationalization of the
official Church, which is the main reason for Berdyaev's opposition to
it.
216
Unit 5 –
INTERSUBJECTIVITY
What is Intersubjectivity?
“Ding-Dong, Descartes is dead!” Or so seem to ring the bells. Frankly,
I think the admonished philosopher has been overburdened, carrying
the full weight of a philosophical travesty for which he is only partly to
blame. Indeed, long before he published the famous “Je pense donc
je suis” in Discourse on Method (1637), a phrase better known in its
Latin translation “Cogito ergo sum” from Principles of Philosophy
(1644), mind/body dualism had long ruled the roost. At least since
Plato’s time, the idea that the source of goodness, beauty, and truth
was immaterial and that these things were, at best, poorly mimicked
in their real world manifestations, mind/body dualism had become
dogma…literally. Platonic notions that divested the body and,
indeed, the physical world of its goodness formed the central pillar of
Christian theology. So by Descartes’ time, everyone knew full well that
217
the important things about themselves resided in an immaterial soul
while much of the unsavory, wicked, and debased could be located
in the body. The separation of mind and body, spirit and matter, the
eternal and the ephemeral, had become truisms by the time
Descartes wrote his treatises. But nowadays you would think it was he
alone who made such a philosophical mess of things. Anyway, to
begin a discussion of “intersubjectivity” it is important to understand
the foundations of mind/body dualism in order to appreciate the
antiquity of the world view that elicits our discussion here.
Why “inter?” Why “subjectivity?” A number of contemporary

philosophers and psychologists would have you believe that your
subjectivity, that personal consciousness wherein you entertain your
desires for nicer shoes and different politicians, is a human universal—
somehow derivative of that marvelous one percent of DNA that
genetically distinguishes us from chimpanzees. I am not so sure.
As a cognitive anthropologist I have had a chance to look over some

of the literature regarding notions of mind, self, and identity in different
cultures. Like most anthropologists, I basically affirm the “psychic unity
of mankind,” that is, the notion that people everywhere and always
possess the same mental capacities. In other words, the blue I see
when looking up at the sky and the tenderness I feel when embracing
a loved one is essentially the same experience that my Aurignacian
ancestors had in Ice Age Europe and that my present-day cousins
have in Tierra del Fuego and the rainforests of Borneo. The latest
research indicates that subtle aspects of perception may vary (there
are color blind people after all) but human beings are pretty much
the same biological creatures wherever they live, both now and in our
species’ primordial past.
Nevertheless, there are fascinating differences in a whole range of

perceptual and cognitive skills due to particularities of development
and education. An expert hunter who has spent hours trailing his
game sees, hears, smells, and feels things I would not even know were
possible to perceive. In short, experience matters. Education,
socialization, development, all these things go into the molding of an
218
incredibly plastic nervous system to permit a kaleidoscopic array of
human experience; because of this, some feel utter despair when
witnessing an eclipse, trapeze artists can fly through the air, twirl like
gyroscopes, and grasp batons at just the right moment, and
composers can create music that will bring tears to your eyes. It may
even be the case that those fundamental ideas about subjectivity
and sense of self are not so stable or universal.
There has long been a debate about “egocentric” versus

“sociocentric” identity types across cultures. In broad strokes, scholars
have claimed that numerous Asian cultures promote a deeply
collective sense of self; one is motivated to behave well in order to
promote “the family’s” honor and feels bereft if the family name is
tarnished by a heedless uncle. This is understood to be quite different
than American attitudes about individualism; after all, one must
“make his mark” and “prove himself” by “going it alone.” And those
increasingly ubiquitous disclaimers about avoiding judgment of
anyone based on “race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex,
age, marital status, disability, or sexual orientation”
is just another way of saying, “you are your own person in this world,
backgrounds be damned!” No doubt the realities are endlessly
messier than these neat divisions but it is easy enough to
acknowledge the idea that some settings train people to “be”
219
collectivistic while others presume it natural (and eminently
preferable, our “God-given democratic right”) to be a “rugged
individual.” But if you acknowledge the idea that people may
fundamentally do what they do, feel what they feel, and think what
they think according to different axes of self-other conception; well
then, we’ve started to go down that rabbit hole together.
But back to “inter” and “subjectivity.” Actually, it’s best to reverse the
terms. We’ll start with subjectivity. As is often the case in Western
philosophical frameworks, one term implies its opposite. To properly
define subjectivity you have to contrast it with objectivity. So, at once,
a division has gone right down the center of the world: there is one’s
internal experience, all those petty desires and beliefs about things,
and there is the “real world,” the world of objects, all those things out
there made of wood, concrete, and polyurethane. If this sounds
familiar it’s because we’ve already gotten back to that mind/body
dualism that has turned Descartes into a dirty word. There is the world
of the subject (and there can only be one subject because how can
you experience anyone else’s mind?) and there is the world of
objects. One is the source of feelings and bad poetry, the other the
source of material, all that stuff which subjects use to build boats and
bridges.
Subjectivity, according to dualists, is one of two basic types of being

while objects made out of matter are an entirely different kind of
being. Thus, my mind exists in one dimension of reality—the mental
world—while my body, which can stretch out to make contact with
other things, belongs to a different world altogether. Unfortunately,
we threaten to run ourselves aground if we start to complicate this
picture with that awful prefix, “inter-.” Because if there is a
fundamental chasm between subjects and objects then we’re going
to have a lot of trouble trying to make sense of “intersubjectivity”
because, guess what, one person’s subjectivity is another person’s
object. Once you’ve established this subject/object dualism it
becomes rather difficult to bridge your experience to anyone else’s.
How do I really know you’re not just in my head?
220
I’ve had dreams, after all, and those experiences have proven
perfectly attendant conversational partners to be imaginary. Are you
starting to feel a bit claustrophobic? I know I did when I first thought
about this stuff.
How do we build a bridge so that there is an “inter” to our

“subjectivity?” Within this dualistic framework, words become rather
important because they end up being one of the few ways we have
to send up smoke signals from our solitary pillars and recognize that
other people exist by deciphering those puffs of smoke off in the
distance. If this sounds a bit ridiculous, it really isn’t. It is pretty much
the standard way that linguistic meaning was understood to work for
quite some time. Human communication is all about the transmission
and reception of relatively arbitrary codes we call languages. What
you refer to as a “tree,” the next person calls “Baum” and someone
else calls “árbol.” How do we ever learn to decipher the meaning of
the odd puffs of air that we sculpt in our mouths? Growing up in a
given culture, we learn that the code word for those pointy things in
the yard is “tree,” the code word for that feeling you have when a
puppy licks your face is “happy,” and so on. According to the dualists
then, pretty much the only way we make sense of each other and the
world we may or may not experience in similar ways is by using these
arbitrarily coded messages. And though they seem to work pretty well
for the most part, everyone also knows how hard it is to really get
someone to understand what you’re talking about: “Good lord, how
can you be a Republican, a Democrat, an Anarchist? Don’t you just
know how wrong that is, like I do? I could sit here and talk to you all
day (provided my emotions are kept in check) but you’ll still walk
away thinking you’re right and I’m wrong.” And then there’s always
the male/female disconnect. It would seem that no matter how
clearly a male might explain himself to his wife (and we all know that
his idea of “fully explaining himself” is some quantity of poorly chosen
words between a phrase and a couple of sentences), she will be left
feeling unappreciated and probably a bit hurt while he will feel
nothing but confusion as he stomps off to pound a beer or punch a
221
wall. So language has some pretty basic limitations that we forget
about until we find ourselves stymied by a “misunderstanding” and
realize just how isolated we anchorites are, alone on our pillars forever
separate from the world. Is the term “intersubjectivity” anything more
than a bad joke?
Snap! All that came before was mere staging and preparation for a
quick sleight-of-hand: dualism is an illusion, there is only
intersubjectivity. Moreover, because there is only intersubjectivity, the
idea of “intering” subjectivity does not make sense, for subjectivity
itself is the final demonstration that human experience is never, in fact,
personal; it is always mediated by culture and “the world;” it is always
shared.
What? Intersubjectivity is a bad joke but not because we find

ourselves at a loss to really experience it, as our Western-
PlatonicChristian-Cartesian heritage would have us believe, but
because it is amusing that we could ever convince ourselves that the
separation of mind and body, of individual and society, was actually
possible. Imagine a stalwart ant—two paces behind the ant in front
of him, two paces in front of the ant behind him, locked into a vividly
demarcated chemical trail for which his sensory apparatus is perfectly
attuned, at work in his daily activities, cutting leaves with his brethren,
carrying them back in lockstep with the others to their underground
colony— thinking to himself, “why doesn’t everyone recognize how
particularly well I do what I do,” adrift in the existential quandary,
“…and why am I so alone?” Just because we can have an
experience, it does not follow that it is our personal experience.
In fact, I am beginning to think that the only way we can
experience something is precisely because it is our experience, that is,
the kind of experience we can conceive because of what we’ve
heard, read about, or seen on TV. Truly personal experiences, those
vague, uneasy states of mind which are both ineffable and inchoate,
are not properly experiences. We simply don’t know what to do with
them because we don’t have the frames, models, or schemas to
make them comprehensible and communicable. Of course, most
experience is not like this, most of the time we know our own minds
222
and we feel ways that we’ve felt before and that we can talk to others
about. In short, most of what we experience is a shared and sharable
experience.
When an “A” on an exam or a compliment on the haircut we just

received makes us feel a certain way, it is neither because our DNA
programmed us to feel this particular response to these particular
stimuli, nor is it the first or last time in the history of the universe that
someone has felt or will feel an abdominal flutter because of an
arbitrary marking on an assessment or for exhibiting an appearance
that others have determined to be attractive at that place and
moment in history.
Interfaces and intersubjectivity imply illusory barriers to experience,

illusory because there is no separation between individual and society
or person and environment. Rather, to experience something
personally has everything to do with the gating of attention to permit
experience to flow from that whole of which we are always a part to
that part which we can experience individually, that is, in our
organism. And even here the laws of physiology are not so fixed or
biologically-determined as some would have us believe; after all, one
man’s pain is another’s perverse pleasure. A day of labor for one
person elicits pure boredom while the same labor for another
produces sheer exultation. These variations are not due to physical
differences but to experiential frames as well as culturallymediated
expectations and values. Human experience, like water, comes into
and out of our bodies but is never really ours to hold on to and possess.
Even personal memories are less the “possession” of experience than
the traces of those rivulets, streams, and torrents that have flowed into
and out of us.
What are the sources of our intersubjectivity, our shared experience?

Human beings are the recipients of bodies that are millions of years in
the making. Again, we all possess pretty much the same sensory
organs, spinal columns, and adrenal glands. Because of the bodies
we share, much of the phenomenal world will be experienced in a
predictably similar way. If I tell you that the UV spectrum is quite vivid
223
today or complain about the loudness of pollens rustling across the
ground or note how the smell of those people who walked by last
week still lingers in the air, you’ll wonder if I’ve lost my mind. We all
know that the set of experiences we can have fall within relatively
fixed parameters. So the bodies we possess are a crucial foundation
of our shared world.
And the environments we inherit are just as important as our biological

endowment. Human environments are engineered environments.
The social worlds we are born into and the physical worlds that we
inhabit exhibit artificial and technological features that extend back
to the origin of our species. For instance, the dog nestled beside me
is not a natural creature; in fact, Chico the chihuahua is basically a
wolf that has come to maturity retaining most of the characteristics of
his fetal stage of development. This process has created a very
strange wolf indeed! Our ancestors, unintentionally at first but later
accelerated through selective breeding, have carved out a set of
biological tools from the raw stuff of Canis lupus just as surely as they
knapped flint to form hatchets and arrowheads. All those of us now
alive who enjoy delightful relationships with tail-wagging wolf pups, do
so only because our ancestors behaved certain ways vis-à-vis this
other species over tens of thousands of years.
Moreover, because human beings have so much experience with

dogs, we can now conceive and express a range of ideas and
employ a set of metaphors that would be impossible otherwise. So
when Odysseus’ ill-treated hound Argos, enfeebled by a life of want
after his master’s departure to Troy, is the first to recognize him back
in Ithaca all those years later, pricking up his ears and wagging his tail
just before expiring, we are left with a powerful sense of canine loyalty
and offered an expression of interspecies’ affection that warms the
heart. Keep in mind, too, that this was a Mycenaean tale from Bronze
Age Greece, yet we moderns understand exactly what is meant by
Homer’s word-image. And ever since, we’ve only amplified the
conceptual importance that our historically deep experience with
dogs has permitted: bitch, “let loose the dogs of war!,” leash, “a dog’s
life,” Lassie, “I bet you’re all bark and no bite,” “keep your nose to the
224
ground,” “filthy dogs!,” dog collar, “I’ve got his scent now,” “she
lapped up all the attention,” “put a muzzle on that guy!,” and so on.
These things are meaningful, or more to the point—these things
produce meaning—because we’ve inherited engineered
environments millennia in the making.
Whatever the reason, and it may have something to do with the

historical inertia of that dualist legacy, it is only now that researchers
are beginning to appreciate just how deeply intertwined our
experiences are with the built worlds wherein we dwell. Many of the
cognitive feats for which the human brain receives sole credit are at
least as dependent upon specialized tools and the cultural practices
that have instructed us in their proper usage as any particular neural
circuitry. Mathematicians, painters, and architects appreciate how
much of their “thinking” comes about on canvas and paper. Remove
those varied media, take away the assortment of brushes and pens,
keep the children illiterate, and we simply could not have an
advanced level of physics, art, or construction. However vivid an
image might seem in the mind’s eye, all the requisite details only
come into high resolution once the interrelated dimensions are
properly scaled on graph paper or the colors stippled into contrast on
canvas.
225
When we can envision a building or an artwork in our imaginations, it
is usually the reverse trajectory that we imagine it to be. In other
words, we rarely have vivid imagery in our minds first that we
subsequently project into the world; rather, we usually have the real
world representations that we study with such ardor that we can later
reproduce them subjectively, to some extent, in our minds. In fact, it
is this “reverse trajectory” that dominates most of human cognition.
Because of our dualist prejudices, we credit our individual minds with
more than their fair share. Language, values, every art and science,
come from “out there” into our heads rather than vice-versa.
Everything that is now in the head was first outside of it.
If this all sounds too strident, it probably is, and it is probably still hinged
on a dualistic ontology in too many ways to name. The relationships
between “individual” minds and our shared worlds are more likely to
be explained through a language of coordination, entrainment,
synchronization, coupling, and so forth. Perhaps once we get down
the road a ways, we’ll be able to get over the linguistic hindrances of
the past so that we can accurately discuss process and function when
we talk about ourselves and the worlds we help to construct.
226
Unit 6
HUMAN PERSONS AS ORIENTED TOWARDS
THEIR IMPENDING DEATH
Facts About Death

—Hebrews 9:27
"It is appointed for men once to die, and after this the
judgment" (Hebrews 9:27) which tells us five facts about death...
Knowing these facts helps us understand and prepare for death. We
break this text up into five portions, each of which implies a
certain fact about death.
227
1 "It is appointed..." —Death is Unavoidable
In the phrase "It is appointed for men once to die..." we find our first
fact, that death is unavoidable.
When Hebrews 9:27 says, that death "is appointed", it might be stating
the obvious, yet most people live as if death is unlikely!
We have birth control, but not death control. It is inevitable that "the
silver cord is loosed and we fly away" (Ecclesiastes 12:6 Psalms 90:9-
10). Such language as that, is usually reserved for funerals, yet it
expresses a fact of everyday life: All of us, sooner or later, must keep
a personal, unavoidable, appointment with death.
2 "For men..." —You Are No Exception

In the phrase "It is appointed for for men once to die..." we find our
second fact, that you are no exception.
When Hebrews 9:27 says "it is appointed for men once to die...", it
does so generically, with no sense of gender. In other
words "men" here stands for all humankind —man, whether male or
female.
You could replace the word "men" with your own name, because the
scripture applies to you individually as well as to mankind in general.
Nevertheless, as we said before, most people live their lives as if they

were exceptions to the rule of death!
Unless the second coming of Jesus Christ occurs in your lifetime, you
personally cannot be excepted from death. In all of human history,
the Bible tells of only two exceptions. One was Enoch (Genesis 5:23-
24). The other was Elijah (2Kings 2:1,11). [Compare John 21:17-23]
Anyway, were you to escape death only to face judgment, the stale
cliche might find fresh meaning: "out of the fryingpan into the fire".
228
3 "...once to die..." —You Only Die Once.
In the words "it is appointed for men once to die..." we have our third
fact, that you only die once.
When Hebrews 9:27 says, "once" it brings home the fact that you don't
get a second chance at life and death. It's a one-off.
When people say, "You only die once!" they usually mean that you
might as well be reckless. But surely, since we live and die but once,
we should make of our life what we were meant to make of it. Surely
we should not waste our one life, but live it as pilgrims in this
world (1Peter 2:11-12,James 4:13-17).
The words "once to die" contradict the theory of re-incarnation (that

we live successive earthly lives). The statement, "You must be born
again" is no support for re-incarnation. Jesus made it clear that the
rebirth of which he spoke was spiritual not physical (John 3:1-21).
4 "...and after this..." —Death is Not the End

In the words "...and after this comes judgment" we have our fourth
fact, that death is not the end.
When Hebrews 9:27 says, "after this" it puts life and death into
perspective, and supplies the wonderful hope in what otherwise
would be a fatalistic and depressing statement.
An old wireless advertisement used to say, "Death is so permanent!"

But in one sense death is not permanent at all. There is something after
death. This is why Christians speak of death as a "sleep" because it is a
temporary state (John 11:11 1Thessalonians 4:13-18).
For those who seek and follow Jesus, there lies beyond death "an
inheritance imperishable... reserved in heaven" (1Peter 1:3-9).
229
5 "...the Judgment" —Death is Your Destiny’s
Door
In the words "and after this the Judgment" we find our fifth fact, that
death is your destiny’s door.
There is no second chance after death. Hebrews 9:27 is telling us

precisely what there is after death -- "the judgment". But those "in
Christ" need not fear. "There is no condemnation to those who are in
Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). How do you get "into Christ"? By faith and
by baptism (Galatians 3:26-29).
Those who refuse or neglect that, are counted as ungodly, irreligious,

and unprepared. They have everything to fear (John 5:28-29Matthew
25:31-46).
Conclusion
It is appointed for men once to die and after this the judgment. Death
is appointed, and you are no exception. You only die once, and
death is not the end; it is your destiny’s door.
Three Deaths of the Soul

—Two bad, one good
When we think or speak of “death”, it is usually physical death that we

have in mind. The Bible also speaks of three other deaths.
Physical death is one of the portals of the soul. We suffer this death,
because we are made of dust, just like our progenitor Adam who "was
of the earth, made of dust" (1Corinthians 15:47).
God said to Adam, "You will return to the ground, because from it you
were taken, for you are dust, and to dust you shall return" (Genesis
3:19).
230
Being procreated from Adam, we share his earthy nature, and follow
him back to the dust. This will continue until the return of the second
Adam, Jesus Christ. He will abolish physical death (1Corinthians 15:26).
The other three deaths in the Bible are states of the soul, not of the
body. In this lesson, we focus on these three spiritual deaths.
1 Death In Sin
Paul says, "I was once alive... then sin sprang to life, and I
died"(Romans 7:9). When Paul says, "I died" he was obviously not in the
grave. His physical body had not died.
Yet Paul had died a death of some kind because he said, "I died." He
explains: "Through Adam sin entered the world, and through sin death
passed to all men because all sinned" (Romans 5:12).
It is a timeless principle that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans

6:23).God says to all, just as he said to Adam, "In the day you sin, you
shall die" (Genesis 2:17).
You will be "dead in your trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1). These
verses do not tell people, "Because you sin, you will die someday."
Adam was not told, "If you sin, you will die someday" but rather "In the
day that you sin you will surely die."
The first day that one sins is the day that one dies. This is not referring
to physical death, but to something far worse —being "alienated from
the life of God" (Ephesians 4:18).
Unless the sinner is "born again of water and the Spirit" (John
3:3,5,Romans 6:3-5), and brought back to spiritual life, there will
follow another spiritual death...
231
2 Eternal Death
In a vision, John saw portrayed the judgment day of mankind before
the saints enter the new eternal world. Both wicked and righteous
were resurrected and judged. Anyone not found written in the book
of life was thrown into a lake of fire. "This is the second
death" (Revelation 20:12-15).
Jesus had earlier said that those who overcome the tribulations of the
Christian way, "will not be hurt at all by the second death" (Revelation
2:11).
This vision teaches us that in the great eternal scheme of things,

physical death is of little account because this physical "death and
Hades were cast into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:14).
Physical death is merely a portal through which the soul passes into
Hades. Hades is a temporary state, because there is going to be a
resurrection of all the dead (John 5:28-29).
So the death that we can avoid, and must avoid, is not physical death
and the wait in Hades, but rather eternal death represented in the
vision as a lake of fire. This death (we usually call it hell) is most to be
feared, for it is the very opposite of eternal life (Matthew 25:41,46).
3 Death To Sin
The third spiritual death that we now consider, is the good death that
solves the other two spiritual deaths. Paul tells Christians, "Consider
yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God" (Romans 6:11).
This is the reversal of being dead in sin and alienated from the life
of God. Death to sin is death of the sinful self. "We have been buried
with Christ through baptism into death" (Romans 6:4).
232
Baptism, obviously, does not bring us into physical death, eternal
death, or death in sin. So the death we are "baptized into" is
something else. Paul explains that when we go "through baptism into
death... our old self is crucified with Christ" (Romans 6:6).
We are baptized therefore into the death of Jesus Christ crucified, in

order that we might be completely dead to sin and born again to
new life.
This death to sin brings us back into the life of God --from which we
were cut off when we died in sin. "I have been crucified with Christ,
nevertheless I live... by faith in the Son of God who loved me, and
gave himself for me" (Galatians 2:20).
Have you died this good death? Are you now "dead to sin and alive
to God"(Romans 6:11)?
233
The Meaning and Value of Death
Phenomenologically, death is nonbeing. The essential nature of life
entails activity, purpose, and making order from disorder. Death is the
antithesis of life. Nonlife is inactive, and despite its stillness, death is
chaos. Life generates its own meaning. In contrast, on its face death
appears devoid of meaning and value.
Because philosophically I cannot know anything with certainty about
death, I must accept that death itself may (or may not) be
meaningless. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the fact of death
profoundly understand death is inherently frustrating and can provoke
considerable anxiety. Indeed a number of psychologists, including
Freud, have considered death to be the root source of all human
anxiety. It is interesting, however, that it is equally frustrating, although
less anxiety provoking to contemplate nonexistence before one’s
conception and birth than after one’s death.2 It may not be the
absence of one’s being that causes emotional pain, but the loss of
having been. The anguish of anticipated loss of relationships to others
and the world is not evoked by contemplating people and the world
before birth.
The human capacity to conceptualize time and, therefore, to

conceptualize the future underlies the meaning of death.2 We can
only speculate on other species’ understanding and orientation
toward death. Ethological observations reveal that animals flee from
perceived threats to life instinctively, although these instincts can be
overridden in special circumstances— impacts our understanding—
and experience—of meaning in life. Although it remains unknowable,
death’s relationship to life is essential and as profound as the
relationship of darkness to light. Death need not illuminate life, it is
sufficient for death to provide the background against which the light
of life is seen. It is from this perspective, both clinically and
philosophically, that the question: “What is the meaning and value of
death?” becomes relevant and approachable.
234
Inquiry into the meaning and value of death can be approached
from cultural, individual, and communal perspectives.
DEATH AND THE MEANING OF INDIVIDUAL

LIFE
If death represents ultimate ego annihilation, it is no wonder that
people have an aversion to thinking and talking about death.
Thanatologist Herman Feifel quotes seventeenth century French writer
and moralist, La Rouchefoucauld, “One can no more look steadily at
death than at the sun.”1 Contemplating nonbeing is a Gordian knot
and attempting to dare we say, for “a higher purpose”?—such as the
defense of young offspring.
Although lower animals may not be able to conceptualize the
meaning of death, it seems humans have no choice but to try.
Anthropologists have long posited that humans are inherently
“meaning makers.” Biologic evidence for an innate drive to make
meaning include split-brain experiments with people born without
connections between the two cerebral hemispheres or who have had
the corpus callosum of their brains severed to control epilepsy.
Presented with disparate images shown to the right and left halves of
their visual cortices, such individuals reflexively strive to interpret and
explain the unrelated images as a meaningful whole.
Particularly when a problem cannot be overcome, it is a trait of
human nature, individually and culturally, to assign it a meaning.
Faced with the ultimate problem and unalterable fact that life ends,
human beings impulsively strive to recognize some meaning in death.
Awareness of death confronts us with questions that go to the very

nature of existence. What is the nature of life? Is there continued
existence beyond life? Does life have meaning? What is the meaning
of my own life? These questions, asked in an infinite variety of ways,
are part of the human confrontation with death. Such questions
define our place in the world and our relationship to others. They hold
profound relevance to human life—individuals and collectively, as
families, communities, and societies. A society’s and culture’s
235
orientation toward the meaning of life and death underpin moral
values and ethical norms of behavior.
Although inquiry of this nature is familiar to philosophers and

theologians, most people actively avoid the subject of death.
However, even for the least introspective among us, the everpresent
fact of mortality constantly threatens to wake us from the dream of
life.3 When sudden death, serious injury, or terminal illness strikes our
family or circle of friends, the foundation of our world is shaken. From
the moment an individual is diagnosed with a incurable illness, death
becomes the alarm that will not stop ringing. Even during remissions or
times of relative health, its distant ring can be heard.
The intrusion of death forces us to look at the things we want most to

avoid. Hitherto philosophical issues that seemed abstract and
avoidable acquire concrete relevance and immediacy. Existential
concepts such as the “aloneness” of each individual in the universe
become all too real when faced with the approaching and inevitable
loss of everyone we know and love. The person living with progressive
illness directly experiences the profound implications that issues of
meaning and value of life hold for the way we live, individually and
collectively.
CULTURE AND THE MEANING AND VALUE OF

DEATH
Our cultural and individual orientations toward death are intimately
interwoven. We are at once a product of our culture and a
participant in its ongoing evolution. It is well recognized that denial, or
perhaps more accurately, suppression are psychological defense
mechanisms that mark the orientation of Western culture toward
death.4 The culture tends to avoid serious consideration of death and
avoidance behavior is readily documented.
Even when confronted with unsettling news of the death of someone

they have known, contemporary Westerners typically avoid questions
that search for some meaning in death. Instead, in a manner that
236
deflects deeper inquiry, typically people seek to ascribe a reason for
the specific death. We hear people ask, “Was he a smoker?” or, “Was
she wearing her seat belt?” as if in assigning an explanation for an
individual’s demise, one’s distance from death can be preserved. On
the surface, the numerous examples of violent deaths in
contemporary films, computer games, and other types of pop culture
might seem inconsistent with this cultural trait. However, such
fascination with violence and gory death more likely represents an
array of defense mechanisms such as reaction-formation or
desensitization than any sort of mature effort to incorporate death
within our individual psychological or collective cultural makeup.
If avoidance of death is so deeply rooted in our individual psyches
and culture, it may be presumed that a world without death would
represent a Utopia. Kastenbaum5 conducted a simple, but intriguing
experiment that suggests otherwise. In a two-phase written survey, 214
university students enrolled in a course on death-related topics were
asked to express their feelings about living in a world without aging
and death concisely. The assignment was given prior to any readings
or course work. Initial responses were 88% clearly positive. Typical
written comments were, “You bet! Does it start now?” and “I love it!
This makes my day!” Students were then given a written homework
assignment with specific instructions to consider and list (1) “the
effects a world without death would have on other people and
society in general,” and (2) “the effects a world without death would
have on the way you live and experience your own life.”
The initial survey question was then repeated. The result was a
dramatic reversal of frequencies with 82% giving negative responses
and 18% positive. Expressed concerns about the absence of death on
society clustered around issues of overcrowding, mandatory birth
control, loss of rules governing human relationships, the conservative
influence of massive numbers of elderly, the potential for economic
systems to falter (“Kids wouldn’t get their inheritances ... ”) and the
erosion of religious beliefs. Worrisome impacts on individuals’ lives
included, loss of ambition, loss of meaning, loss of heaven, and less
need to be responsible. Under the category, “loss of meaning,”
Kastenbaum5 reports the following quotes as characteristic: “I just
cannot think of myself going on and on, and things not coming to an
237
end. I’d have to ask myself what life is all about, and I don’t know that
I can answer that question.” “I have a real hard time imagining what
it would be like to live in this kind of life. To be honest, I don’t know
what life would mean to me if I knew it was just going to go on and on
... ”5
Of course, the implications of this thought experiment are limited. Two
hundred fourteen university students who elect to take a course on
death and dying do not constitute a representative sample of the
human population. Still, the consistency and dramatic reversal of
responses warrants consideration. Perhaps, as theologians,
philosophers and poets have long suggested, life without death
would be so monotonous and devoid of intensity, pathos and joy as
to render the human condition meaningless. Indeed, it is not
necessary to say that death gives life meaning to note that death may
be necessary for life to have meaning.
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT THROUGH

CONFRONTATION WITH DEATH
Rich empiric evidence from the biographic and medical literature has
established that an individual’s confrontation with death can serve as
a stimulus for personal growth.6–14 In an essay written about a year
after his diagnosis of esophageal cancer Dr. Bill Bartholome
eloquently described his own personal adjustment to living with the
knowledge of death’s approach.
It’s been little over a year now since I discovered I have a fatal
disease. In trying to explain to family and friends what having this
period of time has meant to me, I have found it helpful to characterize
it as a gift. . . . It has allowed me time to prepare my family for a future
in which I will not be physically present to them. It has given me the
opportunity of tying up all the loose ends that our lives all have. I have
been provided the opportunity of reconnecting with those who have
taught me, who have shared their lives with me, who have touched
my life. I have been able to reconnect with those from whom I had
238
become estranged over the years, to apologize for past wrongs, to
seek forgiveness for past failings.
But even more than all these, this gift has provided me the opportunity
of discovering what it is like to live in the light of death, to live with
death sitting on my shoulder. It has had a powerful effect on me, my
perspective on the world and my priorities ... I like the person I am
becoming more than I have ever liked myself before. There is a kind
of spontaneity and life. To be honest, I don’t know what life would
mean to me if I knew it was just going to go on and on ... ”
Of course, the implications of this thought experiment are limited. Two

hundred fourteen university students who elect to take a course on
death and dying do not constitute a representative sample of the
human population. Still, the consistency and dramatic reversal of
responses warrants consideration. Perhaps, as theologians,
philosophers and poets have long suggested, life without death
would be so monotonous and devoid of intensity, pathos and joy as
to render the human condition meaningless. Indeed, it is not
necessary to say that death gives life meaning to note that death may
be necessary for life to have meaning.
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT THROUGH

CONFRONTATION WITH DEATH
Rich empiric evidence from the biographic and medical literature has
established that an individual’s confrontation with death can serve as
a stimulus for personal growth.6–14 In an essay written about a year
after his diagnosis of esophageal cancer Dr. Bill Bartholome
eloquently described his own personal adjustment to living with the
knowledge of death’s approach.
It’s been little over a year now since I discovered I have a fatal
disease. In trying to explain to family and friends what having this
period of time has meant to me, I have found it helpful to characterize
it as a gift. . . . It has allowed me time to prepare my family for a future
in which I will not be physically present to them. It has given me the
239
opportunity of tying up all the loose ends that our lives all have. I have
been provided the opportunity of reconnecting with those who have
taught me, who have shared their lives with me, who have touched
my life. I have been able to reconnect with those from whom I had
become estranged over the years, to apologize for past wrongs, to
seek forgiveness for past failings.
But even more than all these, this gift has provided me the opportunity
of discovering what it is like to live in the light of death, to live with
death sitting on my shoulder. It has had a powerful effect on me, my
perspective on the world and my priorities ... I like the person I am
becoming more than I have ever liked myself before. There is a kind
of spontaneity and In clinical evaluation and end-of-life research, I
rely on a working definition for spirituality comprised of three themes:
response to mystery, connection to something larger than oneself
which endures into an open-ended future, and an experienced
source of meaning. Religion and spirituality are distant constructs. In
the context of the present inquiry, religion may be considered a subset
of spirituality. Religion refers to a coherent set of beliefs, values,
eschatology, knowledge, techniques, rituals, customs, and practices
toward fostering a sense of connection and meaning and a way of
dealing with the mystery of existence. Religions often involve specific
beliefs related to a deity or supreme being, but this is not a
requirement. Religion is a principal way through which human beings
have reached out to one another—in community and across
generations—to provide guidance and support in confronting death.
Not surprisingly, people who have a religious faith often find it provides
a deep well of strength and source of comfort in dealing with illness,
caregiving, death, and grief.
Existentialism arose in reaction to theistic religion. A contemporary

dictionary defines existentialism as, “A philosophy that emphasizes the
uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or
indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and
stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of
one’s acts.”20 It might well be presumed that existentialism and
spirituality are opposites, mutually exclusive ways of approaching
240
reality. In fact, an existential perspective may not obviate spirituality—
and even religion in the broadest sense. Recent advances within
physical and theoretical sciences, including chaos theory, suggest
that within the haphazardness of reality there may be an underlying
pervasive order. Even if there is no master plan, the intricacy of
patterns and “laws” of mathematics, astrophysics, quantum
mechanics, and molecular biology reveal a subtle, esthetic
intelligence within the very fabric of physical reality.
Approached from the most coldly rational perspective, one cannot

escape the implications of death on the meaning of life as individuals
and, more particularly, life in relation to others. Earth is but a speck of
rock hurdling through space. The circumference of the earth is 24,901
miles at its widest point, fewer miles than many of us drive each year.
All of us are but tiny creatures, living precariously on its surface, held
by the mysterious happenstance of gravity, hurtling through deep
space on this speck of rock, with only a thin blanket of air to warm and
protect us from the frigid ravages of the Milky Way’s galactic void.
Whether or not there is an active or watchful deity, human beings are
still faced with the reality of living on this earth. The strictest, least
sentimental existentialists, while decrying any notion of meaning within
the puny, insignificant human condition, is nevertheless faced with the
predicament of living together, for whatever time we each have. An
overarching question remains, “What are we going to do about it?”
DEATH AND THE MEANING OF COMMUNITY

The impact of death on human life extends beyond the fact of our
individual mortality. For although human beings are individuals alone,
each person also exists in relationship to others. Individuals do not live
in isolation, but instead in families and communities. In common with
most mammals, human beings are communal animals; we are
inherently connected. Even the strictest of hermits depends on others
for necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter from the elements,
but at very least for emergency services at times of true crisis and from
protection against others who might prey on them.
241
Indeed, humanness may have no meaning out of context of our
connection to one another. This is not merely a philosophical assertion.
There is ample evidence for a biologic basis for relationship and love—
both in terms of a need for love and a drive toward it. In fact, empiric
data suggest that human interaction, including physical touch, is
essential for primate development—and human well-being.
One etiology of pediatric failure-to-thrive syndrome—a condition

associated with high mortality because of secondary malnutrition and
infection and with universal developmental delay—is the deficiency
of human touch and caring interaction. The naturally occurring
experiment of foundling homes provided stark empiric evidence that
even with adequate nutrition, shelter, and support for bodily functions,
humans can become ill and die from a deficiency in human touch at
critical developmental stages.22 The wellknown studies by Harlow and
Mears23 demonstrated a similar syndrome in juvenile primates
engendered by absence of a responsive mother.
Here again, death informs our understanding of human life. Our

shared mortality poses fundamental questions of our relationship to
one another and our essential responsibilities one to another.
Bartholome’s observation that, “Clinging to each other here, against
the dark beyond, is what makes us human,” may be literally true.15
Perhaps, in addition to our opposable thumbs, 46 chromosomes or
specie specific genome it is how we are with another in the face of
death—including how we care for another—that confers our
humanity.
The presence of people with advanced, incurable illness who are

experiencing physical distress, disability, and physical dependence in
the process of dying confronts communities with the need to respond
in some fashion. What services should communities and society as a
whole extend to people who are dying? How, and how much, should
individuals and their families pay for such services? Are certain
services so basic that they must be available for all? Should the
availability of other services be based solely on one’s ability to pay?
What responsibilities do we have to those who are dying: our family
242
members, friends, neighbors, and those we do not know? What
responsibilities do we have as individuals, and collectively as a
society? And what, if any, responsibilities do the dying—all of us—
have to those we leave behind? A culture’s orientation toward these
questions underpins moral values and ethical norms of behavior.
In a 1978 article entitled, “The Ethics of Terminal Care,” Harold
Vanderpool asserted:
These four fundamental features of human worth—respect for the

individual, inclusion in community, concern for the body, and
considerations of a broader purpose— are offered as ethical
guidelines for terminal care.
Ethicist Laurie Zoloth-Dorfman has written:
Cleaving to another, recognizing that the other is the bone of the

bone and the flesh of the flesh that is given in common, locating the
mutual body as the site of the moral gesture is fundamental to ethical
reflection ... it requires a radical rethinking of all that occurs to the
other. All of the yearning, all of the loss, is in fact, my loss. This
responsibility for the narratives great and small, for the dreams of the
other, for the temptations of the other, for the responsibility of the
other, creates a mutual commandedness. The encounter is intensely
personal. The death of the other, the illness of the other, her
vulnerability, is your own.
What Zoloth-Dorfman is describing here is a covenantal relationship of

people within community. That each of us will die is inevitable. What
has come to be miraculous is to die in fellowship. The vision she offers
is one in which people are being born into the welcoming arms of
community—and dying from the reluctant arms of community.
243
RESPONSIBILITY IN THE MEANING AND VALUE
OF COMMUNITY
What is the fundamental responsibility of communities, or society, to
its members as death approaches? If one accepts that any
responsibility exists at all, it is most generally, a responsibility to care.
The barest essential components of human care at the end of life
would seem to be the following: The provision of shelter from the
elements. In essence, we say to the other, “We will keep you warm
and dry.” The provision of hygiene. “We will keep you clean.”
Assistance with elimination. We say, “We will help you with your bowel
and bladder function.” The offering of food and drink and assistance
with eating. “We will always offer you something and help you to eat
and drink.” The keeping of company, no abandonment. “We will be
with you. You will not have to go through this time in your life entirely
alone.” Efforts directed at symptom management, the alleviation of
suffering. “We will do whatever we can, with as much skill and
expertise as available, to lessen your discomfort.”
THE MEANING AND VALUE OF DEATH IN

CLINICAL PRACTICE
Instead of distributing collective ownership for these basic obligations

and discharging them in a proportional fashion, modern society
delegated almost exclusive responsibility for care for its dying
members to the clinical professions. The conscious motivation was, of
course, to provide the best care possible. It is, however, also true that
professionalization has served as a mechanism by which society has
manifest its cultural avoidance of death. One result of assigning
official responsibility for care of the most ill, infirm elderly, and dying
people to doctors, nurses, and hospitals and nursing homes has been
to distance society’s members from these potent reminders of our
own inevitable illness, infirmity, physical dependence, and death. In
244
medicalizing care for “the dying,” individuals with advanced and
incurable illness are objectified and an inherently messy process is
sanitized. This transformation finds symbolic expression in the
traditional white coats and uniforms that distinguish and separate
doctors and nurses from patients and in the ubiquitous rubber gloves
of postmodern medicine. After death, the person officially becomes
a corpse and, in many places by law, the body is sent to a mortuary.
Recognition of serious existing deficiencies in end-of-life care and the
ongoing debate over proposals to legalize physician-assisted suicide
have included harsh criticism of doctors for reinforcing patients’
denial of death. Although some degree of criticism is warranted,
contemporary clinicians have been placed in an awkward, and in
some circumstances, untenable position vis-à-vis death. Physicians,
particularly, have been assigned a shamanesque role within society
as cultural defender against death. Doctors are trained to do battle
with death; selection processes at all stages of medical training favor
warrior traits. This is particularly true for specialties most likely to
encounter dying patients such as surgery, emergency medicine,
internal medicine and its subspecialties, and critical care.
Medical training is concentrated in hospitals, which in our secular

society symbolize temples of death denial. Within them are the
sanctum sanctori of death denial, the operating rooms, emergency
departments, and intensive care units in which the most powerful and
prestigious medical specialists, such as surgeons, cardiologists,
pulmonologists, oncologists, and intensivists, perform the rituals of life-
prolongation. They do so wearing special garb and communicating
with one another in esoteric language. In these places an unrelenting
opposition toward death is modeled and rewarded. Medical
students, interns, and residents learn early on that straight talk of death
is interpreted as weakness, equated to a student giving up, or not
having the wherewithal to know what to do next.
Until quite recently, physicians who worked in hospice and palliative

care risked subtle ostracism within the medical profession for seeking
to care for dying patients, as if the proximity to death tainted the
individual clinician. When hospice was first introduced in the United
245
States, it was considered to be within the domain of nursing. (As with
all nursing, hospice was considered to be “women’s work,”
undoubtedly a factor that contributed to its diminished status within
the culture of medicine.) In the early 1980s, while attending an
emergency medicine conference, I mentioned in passing that I
worked as a part-time medical director for a hospice program to a
group of physician colleagues. One of the group reacted by abruptly
taking a step back and asked, “Why would a doctor do that?” His
expression conveyed how distasteful and unseemly the notion was for
him. Of course, things have changed and palliative and end-of-life
care have begun to enter the mainstream of medicine.
Over the past 20 years society in general, and the caring professions
in particular, have begun to culturally acknowledge and integrate an
acceptance of life’s end. Fueled by the aging of the baby-boom
generation and the infirmity of their parents and by documented,
widespread deficiencies in care27 and in the midst of the assisted
suicide debate, society has begun asking a second layer of questions:
What value is there in the last phase of life? Can there be any
meaning and value in the process of dying? Can there be value in
grieving? Can there be value in caring for people as they die?
The disciplines of hospice and palliative care continue to make critical

contributions to this process of social and cultural maturation. It is, of
course, proper for the caring professions to shoulder the technical
components of society’s fundamental responsibilities toward its
members as they die. Clear communication, ethical decision making,
meticulous, competent, and when necessary, intensive management
of symptoms are basic standards and reasonable expectations for
care.
Physicians and nurses cannot not guarantee that all symptoms will be
fully controlled, nor that every person will die well. But on behalf of
society, clinicians can commit to doing whatever is necessary to
alleviate physical distress. We can commit to not giving up, to never
abandoning patients. Whatever else we cannot do, we can commit
to be present for another, this is the ground substance of human
246
responsiveness. Whether or not society acknowledges a responsibility
to provide organ transplantation, experimental chemotherapy or
even physician-assisted suicide, we can acknowledge a social
responsibility to provide the basic elements of human care and honor
an inalienable human right to die accompanied, in relative comfort,
and in a clean, dry bed.
MEANING MAKING: A GENERATIVE

PERSPECTIVE ON MEANING AND VALUE
WITHIN CLINICAL PRACTICE
To this point we have approached the subject of the meaning and

value of death from the perspective of exploration, observation, and
description. A complementary, equally valid approach exists.
Because meaning and value are subjective human constructs, it is
reasonable to consider whether meaning and value can be
consciously, deliberately created.
Within a generative orientation toward meaning and value, notions

of social and clinical responsibility to others are expanded. As beings
in relationship to one another, human beings’ response abilities
extend beyond the barest obligations of meeting the physical or basic
emotional needs of dying people. We also possess the freedom and
human capacity of responding in creative, even loving ways to
people who are dying, engaged in caregiving or in grief. The
discharge of social responsibility is, ultimately, about our inability—
and willingness—to respond to one another. For example, we have
the capacity to bear witness, metaphorically saying to the other, “We
will bear witness to your pain and your sorrows, your disappointments,
and your triumphs. We will listen to the stories of your life and will
remember the story of your passing.” Bearing witness may not be an
obligation in the same sense as other fundamental components of
end-of-life care. However, it offers the potential for creating or
strengthening relationships between individuals that are of profound
value to the people involved.
247
Life review and the soliciting, telling, and receiving of persons’ stories
is another tangible example of components of care that extend
beyond attending to basic biologic and emotional needs.
Anthropologists suggest that peoples’ stories play an important role in
knitting the fabric of human community. The letters that concentration
camp victims, passengers in planes headed for crash landings and,
recently, the note to family from a doomed Russian naval officer
trapped in the submarine Kursk, all give evidence of the importance
of narratives in the human response to death.29 Telling the story of a
loved one’s dying, and receiving the story of another, can both be
creative acts. In telling personal stories of life’s end people honor
loved ones who have died and renew, refresh and sometimes reframe
cherished connections. In receiving a story as inherently intimate as
the dying of a lover, grandparent, parent, sibling, close friend, or child,
new connections are made and each person’s community expands.
LOVING CARE AT LIFE’S END AND ITS

CONTRIBUTION TO MEANING AND VALUE
Human love is quite possibly the most creative response to the

terrifying and awe-inspiring mystery of life. The loving connection
between two people creates something new in the world, something
of inherent meaning and value to the people involved. Clinical care
must be medically and technically competent. However, there is no
reason to be found in law or ethics that prevents care from also being
tender and loving. Beyond shelter, company, and competent
symptom management, people can be cared for in a manner that
treats them as one would treat an honored guest. Skillful clinicians can
offer counseling for people who wish to reconcile strained or broken
relationships before they die. Palliative care can encompass
anticipatory guidance to facilitate bringing significant relationships to
“completion” in the sense that people feel that there is nothing left
unsaid. In providing care that assists people in strengthening
connections with others, we can foster the creating of meaning and
value.
248
I am not the first to suggest that the word “community” has properties
more akin to a verb than a noun. The very nature of community has
to do not only with some shared history and traits, but also with a
mutual sense of belonging and in actions that reflect the recognition
of some degree of shared “stake” in life. Community does not merely
occur, it is created.
Recently, I had the opportunity of spending a day at Oregon State

Penitentiary with 18 prison hospice volunteers, several of whom are
convicted murderers. Each of these men have already been in prison
for 5 to 10 years and described having “hit bottom” with depression
during their early years of confinement. Each are facing long
sentences and a number of them are “lifers.” As inmates they have
little dignity and few rights. There is no material advantage to an
inmate to participate in the hospice program. They do so without
compensation and must maintain their regular 40-hour per week job.
The training takes long hours and is emotionally charged. One after
another, as they told their unique stories, these men expressed that
being a hospice volunteer adds value and meaning to their lives. I felt
like I was peering into the equivalent of J.B. Haldane’s “primordial
soup” in which life was being formed. In this instance community, as
in prison hospice programs around the country, we are witnessing
creation of community at its most rudimentary, fundamental level.
Organized community-based efforts focused on improving end-of-life
care and social support have begun to emerge. In my adopted home
town of Missoula, Montana, we are engaged in a longterm
community-based research and demonstration project to study and
improve the quality of life’s end. We are exploring what it means to
be living “in community” rather than merely “in proximity” with one
another with regard to the experiences of dying, caregiving, grief,
and loss. And our community is not alone. Indeed, an increasing
number of communities in the United States and Canada are
communicating and collaborating in development of similar
community-wide efforts.
The clinical professions—and the disciplines of hospice and palliative

care in particular—have leadership roles to play in the continued
249
maturation of our contemporary society and Western culture’s
response to death. Care can be provided in a way that
acknowledges the full range of human experience and potential
within the people we serve, including peoples’ capacity to adapt
and grow—individually and together—through the very end of life. It
is possible to declare that people inherently have dignity. We need
only act in a manner that honors the dignity of each person’s unique
being to make the declaration come true.
There are profound advantages to clinicians and those they serve in
this process. By providing care that is not only competent but
genuinely loving, we invest even the most mundane aspects of
clinical work with meaning and value. In so doing we can contribute
to a sense of meaning and value in the lives of the people we serve.
RENEWAL AND PRACTICE OF RITUALS AS

CREATIVE CULTURAL AND SOCIAL RESPONSES
TO DEATH
Discussion of making of meaning in face of the apparent chaos of
death would be incomplete without considering the role of rituals.
Every religion, as well as every ethnic and regional culture,
encompasses traditions, customs, and rituals in response to death.
Since the early stages of the scientific revolution, public attitudes
adherence with traditional customs and rituals surrounding death has
steadily eroded. There has been a tendency to view such rituals as
superstitious or somehow primitive.
There is now evidence that this trend is beginning to reverse.

Organized, informal vigils within neighborhoods surrounding the
impending death of a beloved individual may include prayers,
singing, and placing luminaria along the person’s front walk. It has
become fairly common for hospice and palliative care programs to
offer music as a means of soothing and honoring a dying person.
Although traditional funerals and formal religious services may be on
the wane, memorial services remain well attended. In addition to
offering a chance for people to grieve together, contemporary
250
memorials are often lively celebrations of the deceased individual,
encompassing photographs and videos of the person along with
music and readings that held meaning for the deceased or hold
meaning for friends and family. It is possible to see that renewed
interest and spontaneous generation of new ritual forms as a
sophisticated, well-considered effort to respond to the tragedy of
death by making meaning, investing shared time and activity with
meaning.
CONCLUSION
Death is central to the meaning and value of human life as

experienced by individuals and by communities. Death does not give
meaning to life, but does provide the backdrop against which life is
lived.
Fundamental responsibilities of human beings toward one another are

defined by the need to respond to the facts of illness and death and
contribute to the meaning and value of individual and communal life.
Acting on behalf of society, the clinical professions bear critical
responsibilities for caring for those who are dying and bereaved.
However, overreliance on professionals as a means of denying or
distancing ourselves from death and grief can diminish the fullness
and richness of living and erode the experience of meaning and
value in our lives.
Beyond acknowledging and honoring basic obligations, individuals,

families and communities have the capacity to respond to the
ultimate problem of death in a creative manner including the
performance of rituals that reflect and advance values of human
worth, dignity, and enduring connection. The clinical professions can
lead by setting standards for excellence and by providing care that is
not only competent but unabashedly loving. In so doing meaning and
value is created by direct intention.
251
Bibliography.
Aristotle of Miletus Nicomachean Ethics, Bxx, Penguin, Harmands
worth or other edition
Berdyaev, Nikolai. Self-cognition. Moscow: "Kniga", 1991.
Berdyaev, Nikolai. The Destiny of Man. New York: Harper & Row,
Publishers, Inc., 1960.
Berdyaev, Nikolai. The Russian Idea. Boston: Beacon Press, 1962.
Berdyaev, Nikolai. Solitude and Socitey. London: G. Bles: The
Centenary Press, 1947
Berdyaev, Nikolai. The Beginning and the End. New York: Harper, 1957.
Berdyaev, Nikolai. Dream and Reality. New York: Macmillan, 1950.
Betrand Russell ; A history of Western Philosophy (simon and Schuster
N.Y, 1945 pg 157-207
Lowrie, Donald A. Rebellious Prophet. Westport, Connecticut:
Fredrick copleston S.J; A History of Philosophy; Greece and Rome,
Doubleday, N.Y 1966, pg 1-20
Greenwood Press, Publishers, 1960.
Nucho, Fuad. Berdyaev's Philosophy. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd,
1967.
Other Recent Books on or about Aristotle.
252

Introduction To Philosophy - Final PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Introduction To Philosophy - Final PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Unit 1

DIVISIONS/ DISCIPLINES OF PHILOSOPHY

The following are the disciplines or branches of philosophy

1st diagrammatic presentations of philosophical Disciplines

Introduction to Philosophy P a g e 1 | 252

The diagram below shows the relevance of philosophical inquiry to

The diagram shows also the relevance of the philosophical inquiry

The diagram with a cluster of disciplines here below advances two

 Philosophy as love of wisdom and search for the ultimate foundation

 Philosophy was relevant from the times of the Greeks as it is now in

Introduction to Philosophy P a g e 2 | 252

ii) Basic meaning of Axiology

1. We can briefly elaborate as follows.

2. Axiology is sub-divided into two main parts.

i) Ethics is a general term for what is often described as the "science

Introduction to Philosophy P a g e 3 | 252

(1) the rightness and wrongness of actions,

 comes from Greek word aisthetikos, “one who is perceptive of things

 the word aesthesis means “primary, rudimentary sensation”

 this is the study of beauty, and of related concepts such as the

 The analysis of the values, tastes, attitudes, ands standards involved in

Introduction to Philosophy P a g e 4 | 252

• This is the branch or discipline of philosophy which investigates the

• It responds to questions such as:

 What are the sources and grounds of knowledge?

• Epistemology in another sense is an enquiry into the nature and

Introduction to Philosophy P a g e 5 | 252

The types of knowledge often occur in pairs

i) a priori (analytic) knowledge

This is knowledge by definition e.g., by definition only, a triangle is a

ii) A posteriori knowledge

This is knowledge (empirical knowledge) based upon (sense)

A priori and Postenori (empirical) knowledge have long been

Introduction to Philosophy P a g e 6 | 252

-Kosmos-order, the form or structure of a thing and

-Logos-means study of the ordered universe or harmony of the word,

• It is the study of philosophy which deals with the science of the

• Cosmology also covers speculations about the cosmos- the world

• The scientists who navigate around the world in search for

Introduction to Philosophy P a g e 7 | 252

Onta-the really existing things, true reality and

Logos-the study of the theory which accounts of.

• Ontology refers to the study of the essential characteristic of being

• What is the nature of being-as Being?

• Ontology is the branch of philosophy which attempts

a) to describe the nature of ultimate being (the one, the absolute,

Introduction to Philosophy P a g e 8 | 252

This is the branch of philosophy which deals with speculations

E. METAPHYSICS-(Study of things-or beings)

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy which studies the ultimate

• While drawing up a list of Aristotle’s works around the year 70 AD,

• Metaphysics studies all reality, since everything real has being.

• It is not limited to some type of being, unlike the other branches of

• Thus, the manual object of metaphysics is all reality.

Introduction to Philosophy P a g e 9 | 252

• The term being (ens in Latin) denotes everything “that is” It is

• Strictly speaking, God is not a Being, since He is his own-esse or act

• Metaphysics studies God as the first cause (ultimate cause) or the

Cause and Causality according to Aristotle

In his’ physics and more in his metaphysics, Aristotle has elaborated

According to Aristotle, everything that happens has a cause that

• Aristotle distinguishes four types of causes. Each cause can briefly

a) Material cause: it is that matter out of which something is made; it