Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
)
…To make a difference in the world we live in, not just by being different but by pursuing the alternative…
…Not just by looking for alternatives but by being the alternative…
That is to earn trust by being trustworthy, to promote respect by being respectful, to discipline oneself by being responsible…
To live in a life when everyday counts and never let the sun to set without making a difference…
Course Description
This course deals with the philosophical issues that confront man in different
fields, like his being an embodied spirit, as a knowing subject, as an ethical
being, as a being who stands before God, as someone who searches meaning in
his life, as a free agent and what his human freedom implies, etc. It deeply
probes, likewise, into how the past and present philosophers tackle these
issues in an effort to better understand man, his place in the society, and his
place in the universe.
As a philosophical course, the approach here is not without the sound, and
sometimes even critical principles of philosophers and how these principles are
tested in the light of modern living. Not only would this course therefore, open
un the mind of the student into new vistas, previously unthought-of, but will
definitely compel the student to reflect by himself and thus, to philosophize in
the process.
Specific Objectives
To acquire an understanding of complexity of the nature of man;
To appraise various philosophical ideas;
To show openness to new and respect for differences of opinion and
orientation;
To enhance one’s personal and spiritual conversion though a strong faith
in God.
:2
Course Outline
:3
Grading System:
Quizzes 20%
Mid Term/ Final Exam 40%
Recitation, Project, and Reports 20%
Attitude 10%
Attendance 10%
100%
:4
Objectives
o Understand what Philosophy is
o Know how the word philosophy was derived
o Know the various important questions philosophy is concerned.
o To understand and own the vision-mission of the institution;
o To recognize the importance of correct reasoning in everyday life;
o To acquire an understanding of various syllogistic forms;
o To pinpoint errors in reasoning;
o To demonstrate intellectual curiosity and respect for evidences in decision
making;
o To manifest an inquiring mind.
:5
WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?
1: What is Philosophy?
2: Approaches and Branches of Philosophy
3: Philosophy, Science and Religion
Philosophy is the love of wisdom (etymologically from the Greek philos meaning
“love,” and sophia, meaning “wisdom”). In the beginning, the term philosophy
was loosely used by Greek thinkers and it conveyed many things. It was
Pythagoras of Samos, a sage and a mystic during the 6th century BC, who
invented the word “philosophy.” “Philosophia” therefore, is the love of wisdom
and philosophers are lovers of wisdom.
The story goes that while Pythagoras was watching the Olympic games inside
an amphitheater, he notices three groups of people. The first group were there
to play games, to win, to compete, to fight in order to win honor, prestige and
fame. Pythagoras called them the “lovers of fame.” The second group of people
went to the Olympic games to make money and gain profit by selling their
goods and wares inside. They were the “lovers of gain.” The third group went
there to watch the games and be thrilled by the events unfolding. Pythagoras
called them the “lovers of spectacle.”
The story does not end here, for after leaving the Olympics, Pythagoras
observed, just as well, that there were still three groups of people in real life.
There were those whose lives were lived solely for the purpose of becoming
famous: LOVERS OF FAME. There were those who live life with one aim, to
become rich and wealthy: LOVERS OF GAIN. But there were also those people
who are just in a minority, who live life not to become rich or famous, but who
live life with one purpose in mind: to understand what life is really all about.
Hence, philosophy is used to denote love of thinking, thinking attitude,
reflective attitude towards life. Philosophers reflect on knowledge, on God, on
life, on death, on what man is and who man is, on right and wrong, on society,
and other questions. Pythagoras called these people, including himself, of
course: LOVERS OF WISDOM.
Pythagoras coined the term “philosophos” in order to differentiate them
from the “sophos.” The sophos during their time were men of great intelligence
but they were so proud as to admit that they alone possess wisdom. The
sophos were traveling teachers, as well. They went to various places teaching
the young rhetoric’s and the skill to debate and argue. Of course, for a pay.
However, they are more interested, not in the Truth, but how to win every
argument they are involved in. So Pythagoras claimed himself not a sophos, not
wise, but only a philosophos a lover of wisdom.
Using a standard dictionary, Philosophy will have to be defined as something
like this: “Philosophy is the study of the ultimate reality, causes and principles
underlying being acquired through the use of human reason alone.” Plato gave
a specific and technical meaning to the term. He defined philosopher as one
:6
You will not learn from me philosophy, but how to philosophize, not
thoughts to repeat, but how to think. Think for yourselves, enquire
for yourselves, stand on your own feet. Dare to think, no matter
where it might lead you. Just dare to think.
:7
Summary:
Philosophy is the love of wisdom (etymologically from the Greek philos
meaning “love,” and sophia, meaning “wisdom”).
Pythagoras of Samos, a sage and a mystic during the 6th century BC,
coined the word philosophy.
Three groups of people who are in the Olympic.
Lovers of Fame: loves to play; to win; to compete; to fight in order to
win with honor. Live to be famous.
Lovers of Gain: loves to make money and gain profit by selling their
goods and wares inside. Live to be rich and wealthy.
Lovers of Spectacle: loves to watch the games and be trilled by the
events unfolding.
Lovers of Wisdom: Live life to understand what life is really all about.
Reflect on knowledge, on God, on life, on death, on what man is and who man
is, on right and wrong, on society and other questions.
Pythagoras doesn’t want to be identified with the Sophos.
These were traveling teachers of great intelligence, but were so
proud and believe that they were alone possessing wisdom. The
Pythagoras
:8
Sophos teach their students, rhetorics and the skills to debate and argue, for a
pay of course. They are not interested in Truth, as long as they win an
argument.
Pythagoras then don’t want to be called Sophos, or wise. He just want to
be known as the lover of wisdom – Philosophos.
“Philosophy is the study of the ultimate reality, causes and principles
underlying being acquired through the use of human reason alone”.
Philosopher:
one whose attention is fixed on reality rather than on appearances.
interested in grasping the essential nature of things.
Philosophy is more of attitude and activity of mind
A creed to live by… to make life coherent and purposive
The most important and practical thing about man is his attitude towards life
and his view of the universe. Thus, it matters whether a man is a pessimist or an
optimist, an empiricist, or a rationalist, a skeptic, or a believer. More than just a
subject, philosophy is an activity.
--G.K. Chesterton
“You will not learn form me Philosophy, how to philosophize, not thoughts to
repeat, but how to think. Think for yourselves, enquire for yourselves, stand on
your own feet. Dare to think, no matter where it might lead you. Just dare to
think.”
--Immanuel Kant.
:9
PHILOSOPHY--ITS APPROACHES,
MAJOR BRANCHES AND FUNCTIONS
Objectives:
Know the various approaches in the study of philosophy
Know the major branches within the subject
Know some important philosophers and place in history.
There are three ways to approach the study of philosophy. And these are:
:10
Contemporary Philosophy – This concerns the late 19th And 20th century
philosophy which generally focused with man and linguistic analysis. The 20th
century philosophy was set for a series of attempts to reform and preserve, and
to alter or abolish, older knowledge systems. It deals with the upheavals
produced by a series of conflicts within philosophical discourse over the basis
of knowledge, with classical certainties overthrown, and new social, economic,
scientific and logical problems.
Summary
Historical Approaches: This is done by dividing philosophy into four major
periods.
Ancient Classical Philosophy—which emphasized a concern with the
ultimate nature of reality and the problems of virtue in a political concept.
Medieval Philosophy—which used philosophy to rationalized Christian
beliefs.
Modern Philosophy—characterized by a separation of reason from faith
and which leads further to the development of science.
Contemporary Philosophy—late 19th and 20th century philosophy
generally concerned with man and linguistic analysis.
:11
Summary
Through a study of individual philosophers –
Critique of Pure Reason --Kant’s
History of Philosophy, Vol. 6, Part II. --Fr. Copleton
Metaphysics and Niconachean Ethics; --Aristotle
Quin Quae Viae (5 Proofs of God’s Existence) --St. Thomas Aquinas
Meditations --Rene Descartes;
Ethics --Spinoza;
Monadology --Leibniz;
Essay Concerning Human Understanding --Locke
Three Dialogues and Principles of Human Knowledge --Berkeley
Principia Ethica-- Moore
Our Knowledge of the External World-- Russel
Being and Time --Heidegger
Beings and Nothingness-- Sartre
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus—Wittgenstein
Below is a list of some philosophers and the major period they belong.
SOCRATES PLATO
ARISTOTLE
:12
Medieval Philosophy
I. St. Augustine (354-430)
II. Boethius (480-524)
III. St. Anselm (1033-1109)
IV. St. Abelard (1079-1142)
V. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Modern Philosophy
I. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
II. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
III. Rene Descartes (1591-1650)
IV. Baruch (Benedict) Espinoza (1632-1677)
V. Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716)
VI. John Locke (1632-1704)
VII. George Berkeley (1685-1753) John Locke
VIII. David Hume (1711-1776)
IX. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
X. George Hegel (1770-1831)
XI. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
XII. Karl Marx (1818-1883)
XIII. Soren Kierkeggard (1813-1855)
XIV. Friedrich Nietzeche (1844-1900)
DESCARTES
Contemporary Philosophy
I. Bertrand Russel (1872-1970)
II. G.E. Moore (1873-1958)
III. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)
IV. Edmund Husserl (1859-1938)
V. Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) MERLEAU-
VI. Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) PONTY
:13
Summary
Approach through philosophical problems
Some philosophers devoted much on just one or two questions while
others tried to provide answers on almost all questions and thus creating a
whole system of philosophy.
Each particular problem or question corresponds to a particular branch
in philosophy.
Seek ye first good things of the mind and the rest will either be supplied or its
loss will not be felt.
--Francis Bacon.
:14
I. The scientific study of the mind and its impact on human behavior
contributes to a great extent in better understanding of human nature.
Philosophy of Man (Anthropology) : Attempts to understand man, as
an individual, knower, free being, loving, being-towards-death, being-
before-God, being-in-the-world.
FUNCTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY
:15
use of philosophy is to use that there are things which we thought we knew
and don’t know. Philosophy is to keep us thinking about things that we may
come to know, and to keep us modestly aware of how much that seems like
knowledge is not knowledge.”
Summary
FUNCTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY
“the unexamined life is not worth living.”—Socrates
(1)In Business, Philosophy inquire what reason can do,
what it cannot do, by way of supporting a particular belief.
(2)Philosophy also frame a picture of the whole universe,
to establish a complete worldview.
I. science is partially unified knowledge while philosophy
is completely unified knowledge-- Herbert Spencer SOCRATES
II. Philosophy has the effort to comprehend the universe
as a whole, not a special department of it.
To know only a part is to have incomplete and distorted view of
things.
(3)The function of philosophy is not to change
the world but to understand it.
III. (4)Philosophy keeps people intellectually modest and
aware that there are no shortcuts to knowledge, what we
believe to be indisputably true may turn out to be untrue.
Basically, Philosophy has 2 reasons (accd. to Bertrand
Russell) BELTRAND
RUSSEL
I. to keep us thinking about things that we may come to
know,
II. to keep us modestly aware of how much that seems like knowledge is
not knowledge.”
It is quite useful to discuss science, religion and philosophy under one heading
in order to articulate their similarities and differences. These topics are directly
related with life. Science is generally held to be opposed to religion because of
its distinct aim and method. Its aim is cognitive and its method is empirical. It
aims to increase our knowledge of nature. This knowledge enables us to exploit
nature for our purposes. The method adopted by science for acquiring this
knowledge is empirical; that is, it is based on human experience. Experience in
science means observation, experimentation and verification. Religion, on the
other hand, is largely a matter of personal faith and belief. It aims at liberating
man from bondage to materialistic life. Thus, science and religion seem to tread
different paths for reaching different goals.
Philosophy is distinct from both science and religion since it does not
entirely rely on observation and analysis for the discovery of truth and neither
is it personal faith. It aims to develop right understanding of life and the world
:16
by critical reflection. Science and philosophy are similar since they are both
cognitive disciplines, while religion and philosophy are similar in concerning
themselves with the nature of man and his destiny.
Further, philosophers act as guide both to scientists and men of religion so
that these contribute to the enrichment of human life. Philosophers have
always been gifted men who looked at things in a detached manner. When
Plato said, “Until philosophers are kings or kings and princes have power and
spirit of philosophy, human society will not cease from evil and sufferings,” he
stressed the importance of philosophy. Philosophy is not opposed to any
branch of knowledge, much less to science and religion. It refers to a way of
thinking, an attitude to life, hence, no aspect of human experience is without
philosophy. Philosophy is mother of all sciences, it is science of sciences, since
the earliest human inquiries were related to philosophical problems. Thus, we
can say that philosophy deals with the fundamentals of life and, hence, is
intimately related with all areas of human existence.
Most human beings are curious. Not, I mean, in the sense that they are
odd, but in the sense that want to find out the world around them and about
their own part in this world. They, therefore, ask questions, they wonder, they
speculate. What they want to find out may be quite simple things: What lies
beyond the range of mountains? How many legs has a fly? Or they may be
rather complicated inquiries: How does grass grow? What is coal made of? Why
do some liquids extinguish flames while others stimulate them? Or they may be
more puzzling inquiries still: What is the purpose of life? What are we here for?
What is the ultimate nature of truth? In what sense, if any, are our wills free?
To the first two questions, the answers may be obtained by going and
seeing, and catching one and counting, respectively. The answers to the next
set of questions will be so easy, but the method will be essentially the same. It
is the method of the scientist, investigating, measuring, experimenting. A
method that may be reasonably summed up in two words: “going and seeing.”
The last set of questions would normally be thought of as philosophical, and it
would not be easy to find answers to them that would commend general
agreement. Some people would say that they are unanswerable. But those who
have tried to answer them in the past have on the whole used the method of
speculation rather than investigation, “sitting and thinking” rather than going
and seeing.
“Leisure,” as Thomas Hobbes remarked, is the mother of philosophy.”
The same relationship, it will be noted as that which proverbially exists
between necessity and invention. (Remember the proverb: Necessity is the
mother of invention.) This should not be taken to imply that philosophers are
not busy people, but that their activity is likely to mental rather than physical.
:17
:18
be kept alive. And we may read further that the physician in charge realizing
that the child’s life could not be other than a grievous burden to himself, to his
parents, and to society, refrained from operating and allowed the child to die.
Then, in letters from readers to the editors of newspapers all over the country,
controversy rages about whether the physician’s action was morally right or
morally wrong. And even if we do not ourselves take active part in them, we too
form opinions of the question.
In such a controversy the participants do not merely state their moral
appraisal of the physician’s course. They also give reasons of one kind or
another to support the validity of their judgment. And if these reasons are in
turn challenged, each participant brings forth considerations he believes
adequate to vindicate the validity of his reasons.
The reasons, and the reasons for the reasons that are thus appealed to
as grounds for endorsing or condemning the physician’s action, constitute a
moral philosophy, or at least a fragment of one. And the mental activity of
searching for those reasons, so editing them as to purge them of the
inconsistencies or exaggerating errors that opponents were able to point out,
constitute philosophizing, or philosophical reflections.
In the main, science and philosophy differ in various respects, namely: object,
scope and method.
1. Object - science’s object of inquiry are tangible, material, observable
and verifiable realities whereas philosophy’s formal object are all intangible
realities such as God, right and wrong, knowledge, etc.
2. Scope - because science’s object are material things, its scope,
too, is limited by its object of study. Whereas philosophy seeks to understand
the “ultimate reality, causes and principles of beings.” Philosophy is, thus,
boundless, without limit.
3. Method - science has its own method of inquiry to find knowledge. It
uses data gathering, observation, hypothesis formulation, test and
measurement, etc. While philosophy is more bent on just speculation.
Religion
:19
tell us that they have discovered so. There are men who claim to have
experienced God—become conscious of something within them. They do not
pride with their religion but rather on their personal relationship with the
knowable God.
Philosophy Science
Sitting and Thinking: Going and Seeing
Leisure is the mother of Investigating, measuring,
Philosophy—Thomas Hobbes experimenting
Mental Activity Physical Activity
Emphasis on Speculation Investigation
Synthetic Interpretation Analytical Description
Criticizes and coordinates ends Observe process and construct
means
Gives wisdom Gives knowledge
Philosophers ask the question, Scientist builds bombs and
when and why we would use bombs. computes its power.
Formal object of philosophy are Science’s objects of inquiring
intangible realities are tangible, material, observable
and verifiable realities.
Scope is ultimate reality, causes Scope is limited in time and
and principles of beings. Boundless space
studies
More of speculation Finding knowledge by use of
data gathering, observation,
hypothesis test and
measurement.
:20
:21
:22
WHAT IS MAN?
:23
:24
Man as a subject is not "He" or "It", but "I". Here man is no longer
considered as a thing or as an object, but as a Self. "I" is not a universal
concept, it cannot be defined. "I" is a singular; yet, although it involves a
material component, it is, unlike the other material singulars, an intelligible
singular. The purely material singulars of our everyday experience can be
known only though sense perception, they can only be denoted, pointed to,
"this table here, that chair there." I know myself in a much more intimate way,
not merely by a sense perception, by a concept or a judgment, but as the
subject of all my perceptions, my concepts, and my Judgments, as the source
of all my conscious activities. The fact that I know myself as the subject or the
source of all my conscious activities explains why although I know myself very
intimately, this knowledge can never be exhausted.
The word "person" is one of the most controversial in the language. Consider
some of the different views expressed about what a person is.
One common thought is that a human being is a person, while members of
other species are not. The reason usually given for this is that our psychology
is more complex than that of animals. But the kind of psychological
complexities thought to qualify someone for being a person vary. Harry
Frankfurt, for instance, has said that matters is having second-order desires.
Animal want things, but people also want to have some desires rather than
others. Daniel Dennett has suggested that having a sense of Justice is
necessary for being a person, “to the extent that justice does not reveal itself in
the dealings and interactions of creatures, to that extent they are not person."
This exclusion of anyone completely unjust may seem to draw the
boundary rather narrowly. At the other extreme, the view has been expressed
in the abortion debate that a newly fertilized human egg is a person. That
debate illustrates the way the concept is often shaped to fit people's values. A
widely held view of the abortion issue is that whether or not a fetus has a right
to life depends on whether it's a person. It is hard to avoid the impression that
participant on both sides of the debate start with an attitude to abortion and
then decide the question of personhood accordingly One philosopher, Michael
Tooley, is open about this. He gives an account of personhood in terms of moral
considerations, which he takes to be prior to the issue of whether or not the
fetus is a person,
:25
Perhaps we should expect these disputes over what a person is. Marcel
Mauss suggested that it is an illusion to see our conception of a person as
static. He thought it originated with tribal social roles, mentioning that
"persona" was the Latin word for a mask. He sketched out an account of how
the conception evolved, through the Roman idea of a person as the bearer of
legal rights (so that slaves were not persons), and through Stoic and Christian
ideas of the person having moral value, to the modem way of thinking of a
person mainly as someone with states of consciousness. Mauss thought our
conception was likely to go on changing. I do not know how far Mauss gives
correct account of these changes. But, like the abortion debate, a story of this
kind illustrates how what people take to be the special features of a person
may vary with other aspect of their outlook.
Being "person" is a concept with boundaries that are blurred or disputed; there
may be no satisfactory single answer to the question, "What is a person?" I
want to suggest that a prime feature of personhood is self-consciousness. A
person is someone who can have thoughts, whose natural expression uses the
word "I". This seems to capture one central strand in our idea of a person. But,
since the concept is disputed, this is a suggested way of using the word, rather
than a claim that it is somehow the "correct" account of it.
On this account, Hume's oyster is not a person. It has not thought "I am
being touched" that rises above an impersonal awareness of a sensation. On
the other hand, being a person does not require any moment of illumination of
the kind Jean Paul Richter had. (Perhaps Richter know that he was standing in
the front door before the flash came to him.) Self-consciousness does require
consciousness and some primitive power of thought. But, provided I-thoughts
can be had, it does not matter whether their acquisition was in a sudden
conscious moment or through slow, unconscious conceptual growth,
You and I both have I thoughts, but those thoughts belong to two different
people because they are not located in the same stream of consciousness. A
certain unity of consciousness is required for being a single person. This is why
it may be less misleading to think of a split brain patient as two people. But
perhaps we should not be too rigid here. In the case of temporary brief
divisions, it may raise fewer problems to think of one person than two. It is
suggested, then, that to be a person is to have a single stream of I-thoughts.
Summary
Man as an Embodied Subject:
:26
:27
:28
The body is intermediary between me and the other, between the other
and me, between his world and me, and between my world and him. From all
of these, we can gather several points:
1. The body is an intermediary.
2. The other is accessible to me through my body.
3. I encounter the other as other through my body.
4. "My" body is not "a" body.
5. My body is not a mere instrument
6. My body is not isolated from me.
7. My body is not the object of "having."
8. The "I" first and foremost is a bodily "I".
All of these imply that there is m me something absolutely central, which
I do not have, which I only am. It is that which has all the rest and is not itself
had; which knows everything in me but is not itself known. For if it were had,
by what would it be had? If known, by what would it be known. IT IS MY EGO,
MY SOUL WITH ITS INTELLECT AND WILL, MY SPIRITUAL SELF, MY
CONSCIOUSNESS, MY ORIGINATING I.
Now, this book shall try to present this inquiry of the human body in
three perspectives, viz.; Finitude, subjectivity, and encounter.
:29
Further, aside from positing the idea on the finitude of the human body
in the context of time, space, and death, the human body is also finite in the
context of its accidental constituents like shape, size, height, weight, color,
among others. These accidental constituents of the human body, however, can
be easily summed up in terms of race, culture, and civilization. It is obviously
true that the Easterner’s bodies are distinctively different from the Westerners’.
In fact the Eastern setting, the “bodies” of the Japanese are “different” from the
“bodies” of the Taiwanese; the “bodies” of the Indonesians are “different” from
the Singaporeans. At any rate, the point that we are trying to drive here is that
man’s shape, height, weight, and color also manifest the limitation of man’s
existence form the standpoint of his body. Thus, it is absurd for a Filipino to
dream of transforming his body to become a German’s body and vice-versa.
:30
these bodily transformations are good in the sense that they mean progress
and development of man’s consciousnes. However, all these scientific bodily
manipulations remain man’s incapability to accept the truth of the finitude of
his body.
In the line with the contention of Merleau-Ponty, Marcel says that the
human body cannot be considered as the object of having. For Marcel, having
a body is totally different form having a house, a table, a chair, a pair of shoes,
etc. these “having”, for Marcel, show the exteriority of their being objects; while
man’s having a body shows the interiority of man himself. This interiority can
be seen in virtue of the fact that man’s body cannot be dislodged from man’s
self-consciousness. Whereas the objects of man’s external having are
disposables, the “object” of man’s “internal having” is not. Marcel, in the end,
is telling that the human body is not disposable as one disposes a house, a
table, a chair, or a pair of shoes, among others.
Further, since the human body is not a thing in the world, it is not
proper that it must be studied as an object of experimentation in physiology
and biology. All these sciences treat of the human body not as a subject-body
but as an object-body. In these sciences, man’s body becomes an object of
observation and experimentation. Besides, these sciences treat the human
body as a mere instrument of their investigations.
:31
world, but the way whereby man makes himself accessible to others. The
human encounter is vested in the embodiment of man's subjectivity.
Since the human encounter cannot occur without the body, the one
embodied subject enters into the other embodied subject. This encounter of
two subjects enable them to unconceal each other's worlds. One's encounter of
another person makes him part of the meaning of the world of this person and
vice-versa. So in a professor's encounter of the world of the students, He
becomes open to their world just as the students are to me.
Summary
Lesson 2: Man as an Embodied Subject
Man and his Body: All (human) actions originate in me and terminate in
me.
That is my body through my body.
I am part of material world, and the material world is part of me.
I have my body
I have whatever I have because of my body. –Gabriel Marcel.
I am also my body—but not I am my body.
My being is not limited only to my body, but extended to my
consciousness and intellect—my spiritual being.
Marcel’s Body:
My body is the reality which I have and am.
This is part of me, and it is me.
My body is the extension of my originating ego in the direction of the
world.
I am connected to the world because of my body.
The body is an intermediary
:32
Man as Knowing:
What is Knowledge?
He who knows not and knows not he knows not; he is a fool, shun him.
He who knows not and knows he knows not; he is ignorant, teach him.
He who knows and knows not he knows; he is asleep, wake him.
He who knows and knows he knows; he is wise, follow him.
Arabian proverb attributed to King Darius,
The Persian.
What can we know? This is one of the philosophical questions and quest
we need to understand. When we perceive an object the mysterious process of
human knowing takes place and we end up having an idea about that object.
What is definite with the process is the interplay between the knower (the
subject or the person) and the known (that object which is perceived or the
object of knowing). This would lead us to different notions that the knower is
the one simply giving the idea towards that object or the object itself creating
an impression to the mind.
:33
To assert that we know something is at the same time to claim that such
idea is true. Thus, a formula that is widely accepted as a general philosophical
definition of knowledge: A JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF”. A claim to knowledge is
successful if: (1) it is believed by someone; (2) that person can produce
concrete evidence to validate his belief; and (3) this justification supports a
claim that actually corresponds with the facts. So a person who correctly
believes a thing to be true without being able to justify his belief cannot be said
to know that thing, since he still will not have sufficient reason to believe
himself to be correct.
We can have beliefs and still lack knowledge if our beliefs are false.
Unfortunately, we can also have true beliefs and still lack knowledge because
we fail to understand how and why a belief is true. Justification involves
finding such an understanding.
Cognitional Structure
Bernard Lonergan
:34
Summary
:35
THEORIES OF KNOWLEDGE
Empiricism
:36
This concept has its objective reference from which knowledge is acquired as
we see, hear, taste, smell and touch it.
John Locke, an English empiricist, is one of the leading proponents of
empiricism. He asserts that the mind at birth is a “tabula rasa”, an empty slate
or blank paper that is devoid of anything on it. It is through experience that we
begin to fill up the ideas in the mind and therefore acquire knowledge about
things. The concept of empiricism clearly negates the Rationalist’s belief on
innate or inborn ideas. Thus, experience is the very source of our knowledge
Rationalism
Rationalism upholds the doctrine that knowledge is inborn and ideas are
innate which is totally against empiricism. The prominent philosopher who
advocated innate idea was Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher. At the moment
of birth, the mind is already furnished with a range of ideas and concepts that
accordingly owes nothing to experience. Inborn knowledge, however, is initially
dormant but with discussions, intellectual dispute, critical thinking and
argument will unfold or unveil the innate ideas that we have.
Skepticism
:37
Summary
Different Theories of Knowledge
Empiricism- all knowledge is derived from experience.
It maintains that at birth the mind is “a white page” or “blank
tablet” tabula raza. (John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Thomas
Hobbes)
Idealism-external world is somehow created by the mind.
Believed that the human mind is already furnished with a range of
ideas or concepts, before it encounter the world.
Material world cannot be independent with the mind.
Skepticism- knowledge is limited, either of the mind (idealism) or
inaccessibility of objects (empiricism)
Knowledge can be sought but can never be found. (David Hume)
As we have learned earlier. Various philosophers have offers what for them is a
good method to acquire knowledge. We can benefit from them by studying
some of these important methods that have some practical value.
:38
:39
is, does not so institute the measure of all things. We must learn to see
objectively, a task that requires us to be alert for occasions when emotion,
feelings and inference are self-deceptive.
Idols of the Cave – if the “idols of the tribe” deceive humankind, each
individual must reckon with his peculiar prejudices, which Bacon called “idols
of the cave”. Here Bacon recalls Plato’s allegory in which people imprisoned in a
cave mistake appearance for reality. Each of us has criticized blind spots.
Bacon recommends that we treat with special suspicion any outlook that gives
us special satisfaction. We tend to believe what we like to believe, but that path
does not lead to knowledge.
Idols of the Marketplace – these are errors that emerge from the words we
use in everyday business, from the association of men with one another. Their
meanings are often vague and ambiguous, but they solidify our impressions
and beliefs nonetheless. “Men converse by means of language; but words are
imposed according t the understanding of the crowd; and there arises from a
had and inept formation of words, a wonderful obstruction to the mind”. Bacon
stresses that, “unless we guard against the ill and unfit choice of words, their
impact cam force and overrule the understanding and throw all into confusion.
Idols of the Theater – these are idols, which have migrated into men’s kind
from the various dogmas of philosophers and also from wrong laws of
demonstration. Many philosophical speculations claim to be true accounts of
reality, but in fact, they are closer to stage plays depicting unreal worlds of
human creation. Specifically, Bacon faults three types of false philosophy.
Exemplified by Aristotle, the first trusts non-empirical inference too much; its
result is sophistry. Although experimental, the second draws from sweeping
conclusions from too little data; its result is psuedoscience. The third mixes
philosophy and religion indiscriminately; its result superstition.
Summary:
Acquisition of Knowledge
o Dialectical Method
Dialogical method or the Socratic Method (Socrates)
Dialectic ( from Greek meaning
To converse, or to discourse
Truth is arrived at by means of this dialectical method of asking
and responding, gradually eliminating the doubtful or
questionable.
o Accurate definitions
o Clear thinking
o Exact analysis
:40
:41
VALIDITY OF KNOWLEDGE
The previous discussions has given us enough idea that man indeed can know
something as exemplified by the different theories of knowledge and the
philosophical ways in acquiring knowledge. As we have defined earlier,
knowledge is a justified true belief. This clearly states that it is not enough to
claim that we have knowledge of certain matters. It further obliges us to
establish justification of those claims we assert. This points out the need for
criteria by which our knowledge can be judged as true or false. Different
criteria such as customs, traditions, consensus of majority can be cited but the
following discussion will deal more on the philosophical criteria in validating
knowledge.
Correspondence theory
This theory holds that true or valid knowledge is what
conforms or corresponds to facts or agrees which objective
reality. This criteria of knowledge recognizes the interplay
between the idea or belief that we claim to know and the facts
themselves. The facts are neither true nor false but it is the
knowledge or claim asserted about them. If I claim and say that BELTRAND
Pedro is tall and it correspond to the objective and factual reality RUSSEL
of Pedro, then it is true; otherwise, it is false. Thus, a valid knowledge is that
which corresponds to reality.
One of the defenders of this theory is Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and
he philosophized that true knowledge is the fact corresponding to the belief.
Mind does not create truth or falsehood. They create beliefs, but when once the
beliefs are created, the mind cannot make them true or false, except in the
special case where they concern future things which are within the power of
person believing, such as catching trains. What makes a belief true is a fact.
Coherence theory
This theory asserts the validity of knowledge if there is consistency. The
knowledge that we claim is counted to be true when it finds harmony or
consistency with other claims or ideas. If it fails to do so, then such claim finds
no truth but falsity. To establish that knowledge is true does not give emphasis
on the interplay between the facts or objective reality, as correspondence
:42
theory would put it. Truth or falsity of the ideas or the judgment we assert
depends on its consistency with other judgments. So far as I make the
judgment that Pedro is a good man is consistent with other judgments that he
is indeed good, such judgments finds it meaning and truth. This coherence
theory is substantiated with the use of Logic for validity of judgments can be
evaluated from the logical relations or consistency of those judgments. Thus,
truth or falsity of the knowledge that we claim to believe is established along
with its coherence or consistency with other claims.
Pragmatic Theory
Pragmatic theory of knowledge claims that true and valid knowledge is
one which is practical or useful. No matter how great an idea is, what concerns
for the pragmatists is how our ideas, beliefs, or knowledge is useful and
beneficial in its own way. Pragmatism considers the relativity of knowledge for
what works in one instance may not be to all. Once knowledge does not lead to
good consequences, knowledge is deemed worthless, hence, false and
unacceptable. True and valid knowledge then is what works. Among the
philosophers with pragmatic views include: William James, John Dewey and
Charles Pierce.
Causal Reasoning
“To know truly is to know by causes”—Francis Bacon
“The cause is the reason why something is the case, and the
search for the cause is the search for a deeper explanation.
Methods of causal reasoning
o Method of Agreement: the circumstances in which alone all
the instances agree, is the cause of the given phenomenon.
o Method of Differences: the circumstances in which alone the
two instances differ, is the cause of the phenomenon.
o Joint Method f Agreement and Differences: If among the
antecedent circumstances there is only one common to all the
positive instances (agreement) and absent from all the negative
instances (differences) there is good reason to believe that the
circumstances is the cause of the effect.
:43
This, however, is not real self-control. The sight of the meat has aroused
in the dog two conflicting tendencies; hunger and fear. The fear is the product
of his experience. Maybe on previous occasion, his grabbing the meat has been
followed by some very disagreeable sensation, like a spank, a whip or any
punishment. The memory of these painful sensations is now associated with
the perception of “meat-on-the-table”.
:44
So the existence of the will cannot be denied. But what is the very nature
of the will? If a will exists, then what is it? What is its object? Let us now turn
to a particular excerpt in John Kavanaugh’s article entitled Human Freedom
for a clearer understanding of what the will really is.
Human Freedom
Free choices: A Metaphysical Analysis of the Will
We might say, the, that the will is naturally determined to seek the good;
and if I were presented with an unmitigated, simple, unqualified good, my will
would certainly be necessitated toward it. With this in mind—that all things are
good in some way and that my will tends spontaneously toward them because
they are somehow good—I recognize nevertheless that my ‘tending’ is always
concerned with an existential, real world in which good are precisely limited,
finite, conditioned, interrelated, and ordered to other goods. If I am about to
undertake a course of action, it is often evident that a number of possibilities—
all of which have good and bad points to recommend and discredit them—are
presented to me as alternatives. Since none of these alternatives ‘goods’ can be
called unconditional or simple goods, and since none of them can exhaust the
total meaning of good in which they all participate, none of them can force my
will to a necessary choice, This is our reasoning:
:45
Amid these reflections, however, we must not forget that we also experience our
freedom as being severely limited and modified at times. As we have seen,
knowledge is of primary importance. We cannot have self-possession if we
never arrive at an understanding of the self and its meaning. We cannot choose
if we are not aware of option of different possibilities, of various alternatives.
We could neither choose nor love that which we do not in some way know. We
might even have experienced people who seemingly never have known
goodness, nobility, kindness or sympathy and consequently were never able to
exercise their freedom with respect to these values. Moreover, there are ample
data that point to the importance of the environment, conditioning,
deprivation, habit, emotion, natural preferences, and one’s own history in the
formation of the projects and choices. All these factors are undeniable, and
they must be weighed with the factors that point to man’s freedom.
:46
and fundamental to our behavior. Second and more important is that there are
levels of human behavior which, upon reflection and analysis, indicate freedom
as self possession and freedom of choice. These levels of behavior, moreover,
are not just feelings. They are the incontrovertible evidence of questioning, self-
reflection, distance, and the awareness of goods-precisely as conditional. If
these actions did not exist, I could not be doing what I am doing right now.
Freedom in general means the absence of resistant. There are different kinds of
restraint and freedom. Physical freedom is the absence of physical restraint.
When a prisoner is released from prison, he is physically free, since he is no
longer restrained by the prison walls. Moral freedom is the absence of moral
restraint, of an obligation, of a law. Thus in this country we are morally free to
criticize the government.
In the whole history of philosophy, a great deal of debate has been done
on whether or not our will is free. In this lesson, we will consider two
arguments demonstrating the freedom of the will.
The judgment of common sense is that there is freedom of the will. That man
on the street is sure that he is free and that his neighbor is free. Only among
the sophisticated does determinism (the doctrine that there is no freedom of
the will) find acceptance, and even among them only in theory, not in practice.
Besides this, we can make a number of observations.
:47
The point is that we are not aware of our power of choosing freely except in the
very act of exercising that power. We are aware of the possible courses of
action; we may know from past experience that when no great difficulties lie in
the way we are capable of choosing any of these courses. But we are not
conscious of our power of free choice as such, except while we are exercising it.
2.2. Indirect Awareness of the freedom of will – Many facts of our daily life, of
which we are clearly aware, can be explained only if are free. We deliberated
before taking a decision, we weigh the reasons for or against it, and we regret
some of our past choices. This surely implies that we should, and by inference
could, have acted differently. We admire, praise and reward virtuous actions
and manifest through our attitude the implicit belief that the person who
performed them was not forced to do so. If Hitler was not acting freely, when he
decreed the wholesale extermination of the Jews, his actions were just one
more natural disaster, and there was no reason for any indignation about it.
:48
If I were determined, I would know nothing about it. Animals are unfree,
and totally unaware of it. In order to be aware of space, I must, in some way,
stand outside space. I can know time only because something in me is above
time. I can speak of determinism only because I am not totally in its grip.
This is a strong argument because the sense of duty and the belief in morality
and moral obligation come naturally to man and even those who deny their
existence in theory live in practice as if they admitted it.
Kant, a major German Philosopher, who claimed that the existence of freedom
was not demonstrated by theoretical reason, nevertheless was conviction from
the fact of duty, which he considered to be immediately evident to the practical
reason.
Among the first principles, which are virtually inborn to the human intellect,
there is at least one that refers to the moral order. “The good must be done and
evil avoided.” This fundamental dictate of conscience, this moral ‘ought’, is
virtually inborn every human mind. It is the basis of all moral obligation and it
implies freedom of the will since obligation is nothing but the necessary of
doing something freely.
No social life is possible without obligations and duties. In our relations with
other people we are aware of certain obligations we have in regard to them, and
we are even aware of their obligations toward us. Therefore we are continually
taking it for granted that man is free.
:49
If these two principles are admitted, the argument from the freedom of the will
it easy to set up:
Man’s freedom does not consist merely in being able to do what he wants
to do. Many Animals can do what they want to do. But is not within their
power to decide what they want to do. Man, on the other hand, is able not only
to do what he wants to do also decide that he wants to do one thing or another.
We must show, therefore, the fact that and the reason why the human
person does not will the things he wills out of necessary; the fact that and the
reason why he will then freely. To explain clearly, we have to proceed in a
number of stages:
The will is a faculty whose object is the good. But the will does not know its
own object, it is not a cognitive faculty; it meets its object through the intellect.
Hence, as soon as the intellect judges: “This is good,” the will is presented with
its object and must necessarily embrace it.
The person judges the goodness of things not arbitrarily about according to a
certain norm or standard. When an object fulfills the requirements of that
standard, it is necessarily called good.
The will is guided by the intellect. The intellect knows being as such, desires
truth as such. The object of the will has the same extension as that of the
intellect which guides it’ it is good as such. The good as such means the perfect
good, without any restriction, imperfection or limitation.
:50
On earth we never meet the perfect good. Many things are good, but they are
not absolutely good, they all have their limitations, their defects.
5. Hence, there is not a single object on earth with regard to which man
is forced to decide. “This is good.” There is not a single object in relation to
which we are not free.
In other words: We are free to will or not will, because we always say: “this is
good but not perfectly good.” Our intellect provides us with the idea of the
perfect good because it is the guide, which our will follows. The relation of the
will to the intellect is analogous to the relation between the engine and the
steering wheel of a car. Movement is initiated by the engine (will) but the
direction of the movement derives from the action of the wheel (intellect).
It follows that our freedom is ultimately based on the immateriality of our will
and our intellect. We are free because we are spirits.
Though some philosophers have argued their own position about freedom, the
other side, which is a contradictory argument, should also be presented, that e.
i. DETERMINISM. Many modern philosophers and psychologists who deny the
freedom of the will are called “determinists” and their system is known as
“determinism.” They claim that in spite of some contrary appearances, man is
forced or “determined” in all his actions.
:51
:52
certain manner but we end up realizing that hereditary factors have something
to do with it. Thus, we do act not because it is an act of free will but because of
the biological factors that make us and determine us to do so.
:53
continued right action. He is punished, again not because he need not have
done wrong, but to help him do right next time. All our instruction, reproof,
and correction of others presupposes they may be determined by such
influences. Thus, the whole outfit of ethical categories may be read in
deterministic terms, and indeed are so read by many ethical thinkers and
writers, beginning with Socrates, who held that right ideas determine right
conduct.
The philosophical doctrine has been given scientific evidential support by the
famous Harvard psychologist, B.F. Skinner. In his book, Walden Two, he
stresses:
:54
“The causes for human action all lie outside the man and that these causes are
necessitating. Man’s behavior is shaped and determined by external forces and
stimuli whether they are familiar or cultural sanction, verbal or non-verbal
reinforcement, or complex system of reward and punishment. I have nothing to
say about the course of action which I will take.”
WHAT IS MAN?
:55
It is often said that in doing so we must treat that man who survives as a
mere animal. “Animal” is a pejorative term, but only because “man” has been
made spuriously honorific. Krutch has argued that whereas the traditional view
supports Hamlet’s exclamation, “How like a god!,” Pavlov, the behavioral
scientist, emphasized “How like a dog!” But that was a step forward. A god is
the archetypal pattern of an explanatory fiction, of a miracle-working mind, of
the metaphysical. Man is such more than a dog, but like a dog he is within
range of a scientific analysis.
:56
Summary
Am I really free?
Feeling free does not necessarily make it so.
There are levels of possession and freedom of choice.
Questioning (will)
Reflection (self-knowledge)
Distance (imagination)
The awareness of goods-precisely as conditional (conscience)
:57
:58
Environmental Determinism:
Man’s behavior is shaped and determined by external forces and stimuli
whether they are familial or cultural sanction. –Walden Two.
Psychological Determinism:
Conditioning man’s behavior trough rewards and punishment.
Introduction
:59
The study of man in relations to God is important because man is the highest
of God’s earthly creatures. And we learn something about the Creator by seeing
what he has created. For only man is said to have been made by God in his
own image and likeness. Thus, a direct clue to the nature of God ought to
emerge from a study of man. To the extent that the copy resembles the original,
we will understand God more completely as a result of our study of the highest
creature.
Images of Man
Man as Machine
Man as an Animal
Another view is that economic forces are what really affect and motivate the
human being. In a sense, this view is an extension of the view that man is an
:60
extension of the view that man is primarily a member of the animal kingdom. It
focuses upon the material dimension of life and its needs.
The Christian view of man dwells on the fact that man is a creature of
God. This means, first, that is to be understood as having originated not
through a chance process of evolution, but through a conscious purposeful act
of God. Thus, there is a reason for man’s existence, a reason which lies in the
intention of the Supreme Being.
Further, the image of God is intrinsic to man. Man would not be human
without it.Hence, man puts his faith in the God who created him. In the words
of St. Augustine, “Lord, you have created us for yourself, oh God, and our soul
is restless until it rests in you!”
In Lesson One we discussed that man originated from God. This explains
that human experiences cannot ignore questions about God. Thus,
philosophers have also tried to answer questions related to God. That branch
of philosophy specifically concerned with this aspect is known as philosophy of
religion.
:61
existence of God,. Thus preparing the way for the claims of revelation. In short,
it is philosophical thinking about religion.
The term used for the main ways of thinking about God are formed
around either from the Greek word theos or its Latin equivalent, deus.
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD
The doctrine of God is the central point for much of Philosophical Theology.
There’s a need for a correct understanding of God. Some people think of God as
a kind of celestial policeman who looks for opportunities to pounce upon erring
:62
and straying persons. The opposite view, that God, is grandfatherly, is also
prevalent. Here God is conceived of as an indulgent, kindly, old gentleman who
would never want to detract from humans enjoyment of life. These and many
other conceptions of God need to be corrected, of our spiritual lives are to have
any real meaning and depth.
Classifications of Attributes
:63
The last system with some modifications will be used in this study. Instead of
natural and moral, however, we use the terms attributes of greatness and
attributes of goodness.
Attributes of Greatness
Spirituality
God is spirit; that is, he is not composed of matter and does not possess
physical nature. One consequence of God’s spirituality is that she does not
have the limitations involved with a physical body. For one thing, he is not
limited to a particular or spatial location. Furthermore, he is not destructible,
as is material nature.
In biblical times, the doctrine of God’s spirituality was a counter to the practice
of idolatry and of nature worship. God, being spirit, could not be presented by
any physical object or likeness.
Personality
Philosophical Theology perceives God as personal. He is an individual being,
with self-consciousness and will, capable of feeling, choosing, and having a
reciprocal relationship with other personal and social beings. Another
dimension of God’s personality is the fact that God has a name. God identifies
himself with Moses as “I Am” or “I Will be.” By this he demonstrates that he is
not an abstract, unknowable being, nor a nameless force but rather it refers to
him as a personal God. Further, an indication of the nature of God is the
activity in which he engages. He is depicted as knowing and communicating
with human persons.
A Living God
God is alive. He is characterized by life. His name “I am” indicates that he is a
living God. Not only does this God have life, but he has a kind of life different
from that of every other living being.. While other beings have their own life in
God, he does not derive his life from any external source. He is never depicted
as having been brought into being. The adjective “eternal” is applied to him
frequently, implying that there never was a time when he did not exist.
Infinity
God is infinite. This means not only that God is unlimited, but that he is
unlimitable. In this respect, God is unlike anything we experience. Even those
things that common sense once told us are infinite or boundless are now seen
to have limits. The ocean once seemed to be an endless source of good, and a
dumping place so vast that it could not be contaminated. Yet we are becoming
:64
aware that its resources and its ability to absorb pollution are both finite. The
infinity of God, however, speaks of a limitless being.
The infinity of God may be thought of from several angles. We think first in
terms of space. Here we have what has traditionally been referred to as
immensity and omnipresence. God is not subject to limitations of space. All
finite objects have a location. They are somewhere. With God, however, the
question of whereness or location is not applicable. God is the one who brought
space (and time) into being. He was before there was space. He cannot be
localized at a particular point.
God is also infinite in relation to time. Time does not apply to God. He was
before time began. The question, How old is God? Is simply inappropriate. He is
no older now than a year ago. He is simply not restricted by the dimension of
time.
God is timeless. He does not grow or develop. There are no variations in his
nature at different points within his existence. He has always been what he is.
Further, the infinity of God may also be considered with respect to objects of
knowledge. His understanding is immeasurable. A further factor, in the light
of this knowledge, is the wisdom of God. Bu this is meant, that God acts in the
light of the facts and in light of correct values. Knowing all things, God knows
what is good.
Constancy
God is described as unchanging. He does not change. The divine constancy
involves several aspects. There is first no quantitative change. God cannot
increase in anything, because he is already perfection. Nor can he decrease, for
if he were too, he would cease to be God. There is no qualitative change. The
nature of God does not undergo modification.
:65
Moral Qualities
1. Holiness
There are basic aspects of God’s holiness. The first is his uniqueness. He
is totally separate from all creation. It speaks of “the otherness of God.” This is
what Louis Berhof called the “majesty-holiness” of God. The other aspect of
God’s holiness is his absolute purity and goodness. This means that he is
untouched and unstained by the evil in this world. God’s moral perfection is
the standard for our moral character and the motivation for religious practice.
The whole moral code follows from his holiness.
2. Righteousness
3. Justice
God administers his kingdom in accordance with his law. That is, he
requires that others conform to it. God’s righteousness is his personal or
individual righteousness. His justice is his official righteousness, his
requirement that other moral agents adhere to the standards as well. God is, in
other words, like a judge who as a private person adheres to the law of society,
and in his official capacity administers that same law, applying others.
The justice of God means he is fair in the administration of his law. He
does show favoritism or partiality.
4. Integrity
:66
a. Genuineness
In a world in which so much is artificial, our God is real. He is what he appears
to be. God is real; he is not fabricated or constructed or imitation, as are
all other claimants to deity.
b. Veracity
Veracity is the second dimension of God’s faithfulness. God represents things
as they really are. Whether he is speaking of himself or part of his creation,
what God is says is the way things really are.
God has appealed to his to his people to be honest in all situations. They are to
be truthful both in what they formally assert and in what they imply.
c. Faithfulness
If God’s genuineness is a matter of his being true and veracity is his telling of
the truth, then his faithfulness mans that he proves true. God keeps all his
promises. This is a function of his unlimited power.
5. Love
When we think in terms of God’s moral attributes, perhaps what comes first to
mind is the cluster of attributes we are here classifying as love. Many regard it
as the basic attribute, the very nature or definition of God: God is love! The
basic dimension of God’s love to us are: 1) benevolence 2) grace 3) mercy.
a. Benevolence
Benevolence is a basic dimension of God’s his we mean the concern of God for
the welfare of those whom he loves. He unselfishly seeks our ultimate welfare.
It is agape, not eros type of love.
b. Grace
Grace is another attribute which is part of the manifold of God’s love. By this
we mean that God deals with his people on the basis of their merit or
worthiness, what they deserve, but simply according to their need; in other
words, he deals with them on the basis of his goodness and generosity.
c. Mercy
God’s mercy is his tender-hearted, loving compassion for his people. It is his
tenderness of heart toward the needy. If grace contemplates man as sinful;,
guilty and condemned; mercy sees him as miserable and needy.
:67
The various arguments for the existence of God can be divided into two types:
the ontological arguments and the cosmological arguments for God’s existence.
In the ontological arguments, they focus attention upon the idea of God and
proceeds to unfold its inner implications. However, in the cosmological
arguments, they start from some general nature of the world around us and
argue that there could not be a world with these particular characteristics
unless there were also the ultimate reality which we call “God”. Let us now
turn to these.
Anselm begins by concentrating the Christian concept of God into the formula”
“a being that which nothing greater can be conceived.” It is clear that by
“greater” Anselm means more perfect, rather than spatially bigger. His
argument can be found in the second chapter of his Proslogion. It runs:
The argument has also several other notable forms, in particular, Rene
Descartes has a similar argument which can be found in his fifth Mediations.
According to Descartes, just as one can have a clear and distinct idea of God.
And as Descartes sees it, the idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect
being. Furthermore, this being can be seen to have “an actual and eternal
existence” just as some number of figures can be seen to have some kind of
character or attribute. His argument run as follows:
“Existence can no more be separated from the essence of God than can its
having its three angles equal to two right angles be separated from the essence
of a rectilinear triangle, or the idea of a mountain from the idea of a valley, and
:68
so there is not any les repugnance to our conceiving a God (tat is, a Being
supremely perfect) to whom existence is lacking (that is to say, to whom a
certain perfection is lacking), than to conceive of a mountain which has not
valley.”
The idea of Rene Descartes here seems to be that from the notion of God one
can deduce his existence. God is supremely perfect and must therefore exist.
COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
St. Thomas Aquinas is well known to have offered five ways to proving divine
existence using the cosmological arguments. The First Way argues from the
fact of motion to a Prime Mover. The Second Way argues form the contingent
being to a First Cause. The Third Way argues form the contingent beings to
Necessary Being. The Fourth Way argues degrees of value to Absolute Value
and the Fifth Way argues form the evidences of purposiveness in nature to a
Divine Designer.
Argument from Motion – the key term in the First Way is “change or in the
Latin of Aquinas, “motus”. The word motus is sometimes translated as
“movement” or “motion” but “change” is perhaps the best English equivalent.
For motus covers what we should normally call change of quality, change of
quantity, change of location or place.
Argument from Cause – the Second Way turns on the notion of causation and
existence. “We never observe, nor ever could,” says Aquinas, “something
causing itself for this would mean that preceded itself, and this is not possible.”
According to the Second Way, then, the mere existence of something requires of
cause. And in that case, says Aquinas, the existence of everything requires a
cause that is not itself caused to exist by anything other than itself. Why?
Because if there is no such cause, then nothing could exist at all, while
obviously some things do exist. He argues:
“Now if you eliminate a cause you also eliminate its effects, so that you cannot
have a last cause nor an intermediate one; unless you have a first cause.
Given therefore no stop in the series of causes, and hence no first cause, there
would be no intermediate causes either, and no last effect, and this would be
an open mistake. One is therefore forces to suppose some first cause, to which
everyone gives a name which is God”.
:69
Argument from the Degrees of Value to Absolute Value – the Fourth Way
recognizes that certain realities can be identified of their own value. But this
concept of value is hierarchical in the sense that one’s degree of value can be
transcended by another. Such as the concept that if there is something or
someone that is good, then there must be better or best. Thus, if there exists a
man who is imperfect, then there must be a higher being that transcends man
who is perfect and recognized with the Highest Value or Absolute Value. This is
only acknowledged to God who is the Absolute Value or the Summum Bonum
(Ultimate Goodness.)
Paley’s analogy of the watch conveys the essence of the argument. Suppose
that while walking in a desert place I see a rock lying on the ground and ask
myself how this object came to exist.
I can properly attribute its presence to chance, meaning to say in this case the
operation of such natural forces as wind, rain, heat, frost and volcanic action.
However, if I see a watch lying on the ground I cannot reasonably account for it
in a similar way. A watch consist of a complex arrangement of wheels, cogs,
axles, springs and balances, all operating of time. It would be illogical to
attribute the formation and assembling of these metal parts into a functioning
machine to the chance operation of such factors as wind and rain. We are,
therefore, obliged to postulate an intelligent mind which is responsible for all
the phenomenon.
:70
We have gone through some arguments for the existence of God and possibly
seen some merits or flaws in these arguments. But the questions we will try to
raise now are: are these arguments really important on the personal level? Are
these essential to our faith-life? In trying to answer these questions, we cannot
but take into the fore the question of what really faith is and its apparent
opposition with reason.
“Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wearing that God exists. Let us estimate
these chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose nothing. Wager, then,
without hesitation that he exists.”
Here, Pascal argues that we ought to be God exists. If we wager our lives that
God exists, we stand to gain eternal salvation if we are right and lose little if we
are wrong. If on the other hand, we wager our lives that there is no God, we
stand to gain little if we are right, but to lose eternal happiness if we are wrong.
In other words, Pascal does not give so much thought in logical demonstration
concerning God’s existence. We only need to bet, to believe that there is a God,
to have faith. We ought to wager that God exists and live accordingly. To do so,
he concords, is not irrational but exactly opposite. In our human situation, it is
not given to us to demonstrate that God exists, and yet an analysis of our
predicament suggests that faith in God is sensible. He believes that, “The heart
has its reasons, which reason does not know.” He goes on to say, “It is the
heart which experiences God not the reason. This is faith: God is felt by the
heart, not by the reason.”
:71
2. James’ Will to Believe – William James argues in his famous essay The Will
to Believe (1897) that the existence or non – existence of God, of which there
can be no conclusive evidence either way, is a matter of great importance that
anyone who so desires has to stake his life upon the God – hypothesis. We are
obliged to bet our lives upon either this or the contrary possibility. He says:
“We cannot escape the issue by remaining skeptical and waiting for more light,
because, although we do avoid error in that way if religion be untrue, we lose
the good, if it is true, just as certainly as if positively choose to disbelieve
“The fruitfulness of a belief or of faith for the moral or religious life is one
thing, and the reality or existence of what is ideated and assumed is another.
There are instances in which a belief that is not true, in the sense of
corresponding with fact, may inspire one with lofty ideals and stimulate one to
strive to be a more worthy person.”
:72
People are, in fact, ultimately concerned about many different things, for
example, their nation, their personal success and status; but these are only
primary concerns, and the elevation of a preliminary concern to the status of
ultimacy is idolatry. Tillich describes ultimate concerns as follows:
“Ultimate concern is the abstract translation of the great commandment: ‘The
Lord, our God is one; and shall love your God with all your heart, and with all
your soul, and with all you mind, and with all your strength.’ The religious
concern is ultimate; it exclude all other concerns from ultimate significance; it
makes them preliminary. The ultimate concern is unconditional, independent
of any conditions of character, desire or circumstances.”
5. Tolstoy’s Power of Life – Count Leo Tolstoy, at one point in his life almost
committed suicide as a result of the senselessness and meaninglessness he
finds in life. In his efforts to find the real meaning of life, he found out that life
can only become meaningful through faith in God. He argues that faith is an
irrational knowledge. But it gives and provides the meaning to life.
It would be best to note that in his search for the meaningfulness of life, he
tried to solicit the help of science and philosophy, for he thought, rational
knowledge might provide the answer for his question concerning life’s meaning.
But in all these efforts, he never succeeded. Let us take a look at an excerpt
from his Confessions.
MY CONFESSION
Leo Tolstoy
The discussion of the vanity of life is not so cunning, and it has been
brought forward long ago, even by the simplest of men, and yet they have lived
and still live. Why do they continue living and never think of doubting the
reasonable of life? …
All irrationality of faith remained the same for me, but I could not help
recognizing that it alone gave to humanity answers to the questions of life, and,
in consequences of them, the possibility of living.
:73
We have spoken of the nature of God’s providence and have noted that it
is universal. God is in control of all that occurs. He has a plan for the entire
universe and all of time, and is at work bringing about that good plan. But a
shadow falls across this comforting doctrine: the problem of evil. We are
dealing here with a problem that has occupied the attention of some of the
greatest minds of the Christian church, intellects of such stature as St.
Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Contemporary philosophers and
:74
theologians as well admit that the problem of evil is one of the most vexing
problems humans face.
The evil that precipitates this dilemma is of two general types: On one
hand, there is what is usually called . . “natural evil.” This is evil that does not
involve human will and acting, but is merely an aspect of nature which seems
to work against man’s welfare. There are destructive forces of nature: storms,
floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, and the like.
These catastrophic occurrences produce large losses of life as well as property.
And much suffering and loss of human lives are caused by diseases such as
cancer, multiple sclerosis, and a host of illnesses.
The other type of evil is termed “moral evil.” These are evils which can be
traced to the choice and action of free moral agents. Here we find war, crime,
cruelty, corruption, class struggles, discrimination, slavery, injustices too
numerable to mention.
:75
Good is to be defined in relationship to the will and being of God. Good is that
glorifies him, fulfills his will, and conforms to his nature.
Third, there is the question of the extent of the evil. We tend to be very
individualistic in our assessment of good and evil. But this is a large and
complex world, and God has many persons to care for. The Saturday downpour
that spoils a family picnic may seem like an evil to me, but be a much greater
good to the farmers whose parched fields need the rains, and ultimately to a
much greater number of people who depend upon the farmers’ crops for food.
What is evil from a narrow perspective may, therefore, be only an
inconvenience and, from a larger frame of reference, a much greater good to a
much larger number.
Thus, it appears likely that a whole host of natural and moral evils may
have resulted from the sin of mankind. We live in the world which God
created, but it is not quite as it was when God finished it, it is now a fallen and
broken world. And part of the evils which we now experience as a result of the
curse of God upon creation.
More serious and more obvious, however, is the effect of the fall in the
promotion of moral evil, that is, evil which is related to human willing and
:76
acting. There is no question that much of the pain and unhappiness of human
beings is the result of moral and natural evils.
Additional reading:
The whole earth, believe me, Philo, is cursed and polluted (said Demea). A
perpetual war is kindled amongst all living creatures. Necessity, hunger, want,
stimulates the strong and courageous: fear, anxiety, terror, agitate the weak
and infirm. The first entrance into life gives anguish to the newborn infant and
to its wretched parent: weakness, impotence, distress, attend such stage of life
and ‘tis at last finished in agony and horror.
Observe too, says Philo, curious artifices of nature, in order to embitter the life
of every living being. The stronger prey upon the weaker, and keep them in
perpetual terror and anxiety. The weaker too, in their turn, often prey upon the
stronger… and molest them without relaxation. Consider that innumerable
race of insects, which either are bred on the body of each animal, or flying
about infix their stings in him. These insects have others still than themselves,
which torment them. And thus on each hand, before and behind, above and
below, every animal is surrounded with enemies, which incessantly seek
misery and destruction.
Man alone, said Demea, assume to be, in part, an exception to this rule. For by
combination in society, he can easily master lions, tigers, and bears and whose
greater strength and agility naturally enable these to prey upon him.
On the contrary, it is here chiefly, cried Philo, hat the uniform and equal
maxims of nature are most apparent. Man, it is true, can, by combinations
surmount all his real enemies, and become master of the whole animal
creations, but does he not immediately raise up to himself imaginary enemies,
the demons of his fancy, who haunt him with superstitious terrors, and blast
every enjoyment in life? His pleasure, as he imagines, becomes, in their eyes, a
crime; his food and repose give them rage and offense; his very sleep and
dreams furnish new materials to anxious fear; and even death, his refuge from
every other ill, presents only the dread of endless and immeasurable woes. Nor
does the wolf molest: more the timid flock, than superstition does the anxious
breast of wretched mortals.
Besides, consider, Demea, this very society, by which we surmount those wild
beats, our natural enemies; what new enemies does it not raise to is? What woe
and misery does it not occasion? Man is the greatest enemy of man.
Oppression, injustices, contempt, violence, sedition, war, treachery, fraud: by
these they mutually torment each other; and they would soon dissolve that
society which they had formed, were it not for the dread of still greater ills,
which must attend their separation?
But though those external insults, said Demea, from animals, from men, from
all the elements, which assault is, from a frightful catalogues of woes, they are
:77
Thus at last they find (such is the greatest of human misery: it reconciles even
contradictions) that they complain, at once, of the shortness of life, and of its
vanity and sorrow.
And is it possible, Cleanthes, said Philo, that after all these reflections, and
infinitely more, which might be suggested, you can still persevere in you
anthropomorphism, and assert the moral attributes of the Deity, his justice,
benevolence, mercy, and rectitude, to be of the same nature with these virtues
in human creatures? His power we allow infinite; whatever he wills is executed:
but neither man nor any other animal is happy: therefore he does not will their
happiness. His wisdom is infinite: he is never mistaken in choosing the means
to any end: but the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity:
therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compose of
human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than
these. In what respect, then do his benevolence and mercy resemble the
benevolence and mercy of men?
Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered.
Is he willing to prevent evil, but notable? Then is he impotent? Is he able but
not willing, then he is malevolent. Is he both able willing? Whence then is
evil?...
:78
Summary
Man and God
Man before God. Man as being with reason as well as with faith.
:79
The God who loves, not for any reason, but love of the person in its
purest.
Holy
Totally other: not my thoughts, not my way… totally his.
Totally not me… totally other.
Ontological Argument
St. Anselm is one of the Christian Church’s original thinkers. He was the
Archbishop of Canterbury.
In his book the Proslogion, he philosophies that God is a being that
which nothing greater can be conceived.
Whatever is the greatest entity or being, one can ever thought of,
which he cannot think of anything greater to which, that would be
god.
Ontologically, we don’t need any evidence from the physical world
just to prove that there is a god. The existence of God can be
thought of, and can be reasoned—can be understood.
Rene Descarte’s Meditation
God is supremely perfect and must therefore exist. Another
ontological argument.
If all of us believed that a triangle has three angles and three sides
even we don’t see one, then the fact that we can think of an idea of
Perfect Being, reasoned that God exists as the supremely perfect
being.
St. Thomas Cosmological Arguments
Five ways of St. Thomas: (Quin Quae Viae) 1.Prime motion, 2.First Cause,
3.Necessary Being, 4.Absolute Value, 5.Divine Designer (purpose)
things are in motion. Time.
If things do change, something makes it change.
Things move because something moved it. The one
that make all things moved and change yet in itself
do not move nor change is God.
God is the Unmoved mover.
Argument from Cause: primera causa (first cause).
ST. THOMAS
:80
:81
One may not be able to convince another why he believe in God, but
anyone who has faith would say they choose to believe in God.
F.R. Tennent’s View—Faith is the willing venture in all discoveries.
For Tennent, faith may not be justified, yet for him it is worth the risk.
Faith always involve risks, but it is only by such risks that human
knowledge is extended.
Paul Tillich’s Ultimate Concern
Ontologically—God is the ground of our own being.
Cosmologically—God is identical with us.
To be ultimately concerned about God is to express our true
relationship to Being.
The ultimate concern is unconditional, independent of any
conditions of character, desire or circumstances.
Leo Tolstoy’ Power of Life
Life can only be meaningful through faith in God.
Faith is the irrational knowledge, yet provides meaning.
My Confession
Irrational knowledge—faith—which made it possible to live.
Where life have been, there faith, ever since humanity existed…
Faith was the knowledge of meaning of human life.
Faith is the power of life… With out faith once cannot live.
:82
But is it a human imperative that a man should find meaning in his existence.
Can man impose a meaning in his existence? Is the meaning of human
existence something to be made or to be found? Can man finds meaningful life
amidst various kinds of crises?
It is in this philosophical questions that Viktor Frankl found meaning in life.
He has proven that man can surpass different kinds of turmoils in life. What
Frankl has shown is that man can develop an ability or skill to handle
whatever pain, be it dire poverty, hardship, suffering, and frustration which
man encounters in life. Exactly, it is his dehumanizing behind-bars
experiences in the Nazi prison camps that prompted him to found logotherapy.
Let us read the following excerpts from the book of Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s
Search For Meaning”…
I doubt whether a doctor can answer this question in general terms. For
the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day, and from hour to
hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather
the specific meaning of a person’s life at a given moment. To put the question
in general terms would be comparable to the question posed to chess
champion: “Tell me, Master, what is the best move in the world?” There simply
is no such thing as the best or even a good move apart from a particular
situation in a game and the particular personality of one’s opponent. The same
holds for human existence. One should not search for an abstract meaning of
life. Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life to carry out a
concrete assignment which demands fulfillment. Therein he cannot be
replaced, nor can his life be repeated. Thus, everyone’s task is as unique as is
his specific opportunity to implement it.
:83
By declaring that man is responsible and must actualize the potential meaning
of his life, I wish to stress that the true meaning of life is to be discovered in the
world rather than within man or his own psyche, as though it were a closed
system. I have termed this constitutive characteristic “ the self-transcendence
of human existence.” It denotes the fact that being human always points, and
is directed, to something, or someone, other than oneself – be it a meaning to
fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself – by
giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love – the more human
he is and the more he actualizes himself. What is called self-actualization is not
an attainable aim at all, for the simple reason that the more one would strive
for it, the more he would miss it. In other words, self-actualization is possible
only as a side-effect of self-transcendence.
Thus far we have shown that the meaning of life always changes, but that it
never ceases to be. According logotherapy, we can discover this meaning in life
in three different ways: (1) by creating a work or doing a deed; (2) by
experiencing something or encountering someone; and (3) by the attitude we
take toward unavoidable suffering. The first, the way of achievement or
:84
Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the inner core of his
personality. No one can become fully aware of the very essence of another
human being unless he loves him. By his love he is enable to see the essential
traits and features in the beloved person; and even more, he sees that which is
potential in him, which is not yet actualized but yet ought to be actualized.
Furthermore, by his love, the loving person enables the beloved person to
actualized these potentialities. By making him aware of what he can be and of
what and how he should become, he makes these potentialities come true.
We must never forget that we may also find meaning in life even when
confronted with a hopeless situation, when facing a fate that cannot be
changed. For what then matters is to bear witness to the uniquely human
potential at its best, which is to transform a personal tragedy into a triumph, to
turn one’s predicament into a human achievement. When we are no longer able
to change a situation – just think of an incurable disease such as inoperable
cancer – we are challenged to change ourselves.
:85
you?” “oh”, “he said,” for her this would have been terrible; how she would have
suffered! “Whereupon I replied, “ You see, Doctor, such a suffering has been
spared her, and it was you who have spared her this suffering – to be sure, at
the price that now you have to survive and mourn her.” He said no word but
shook my hand and calmly left my office. In some way, suffering ceases to be
suffering at the moment it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice.
Of course, this was no therapy in the proper sense since first, his despair was
no disease; and second, I could not change his fate; I could not revive his wife.
But in that moment I did succeed in changing his attitude toward his
unalterable fate in as much as from that time on he could at least see a
meaning in his suffering. It is one of the basic tenets of logotherapy that man’s
main concern as not to gain pleasure or to avoid pain but rather to see a
meaning in his life. That is why man is even ready to suffer, on the condition,
to be sure, that his suffering has meaning…
There are situations in which one is cut off from the opportunity to do one’s
work or to enjoy one’s life; but what never can be ruled out is the
unavoidability of suffering. In accepting this challenge to suffer bravely, life has
a meaning literally to the end. In other words, life’s meaning is an
unconditional one, for it even includes the potential meaning of unavoidable
suffering.
Let me recall that which was perhaps the deepest experience I had in the
concentration camp. The odds of surviving the camp were no more than one in
twenty-eight, as can easily be verified by exact statistics. It did not even seem
possible, let alone probable, that the manuscript of my first book, which I had
hidden in my coat when I arrived at Auschwitz, would ever be rescued. Thus, I
had to undergo and to overcome the loss of my mental child. And now it
seemed as if nothing and no one would survive me; neither a physical nor
mental child of my own! So I found myself confronted with the question
whether under such circumstances my life was ultimately void of any meaning.
Nor yet did I notice that an answer to this question with which I was wrestling
so passionately was already in store for me, and that soon thereafter this
answer would be given to me. This was the case when I had to surrender my
clothes and in turn inherited the worn=out rags of an inmate who had already
been sent to the gas chamber immediately after his arrival at the Auschwitzs
railway station. Instead of the many pages of my manuscript, I found in the
pocket of the newly acquired coat one single page torn out a Hebrew prayer
book, containing the most important Jewish prayer, Shema Ysrael. How
should I have interpreted such a “coincidence” other than as a challenge to lie
my thoughts instead of merely putting them on paper?
A bit later, I remember, it seemed to me that I would die in the near future. In
this critical situation, however, my main concern was different form that of
:86
most of my comrades. Their question was, “Will we survive the camp? For, if
not, all this suffering has no meaning.” The question which beset me was. “Has
all this suffering, this dying around us, a meaning? For a life whose meaning
depends upon such a happenstance – as whether one escapes or not –
ultimately would not be worth living at all.”
So for Frankl, man can find meaning in his existence in a three-fold manner,
namely:
1. By doing a life-project;
2. By experiencing value, particularly in the context of love; and
3. By finding meaning in suffering.
:87
1. Know Man’s human nature and how to find meaning into it.
2. Understand man’s view of work and how through it, man will
find meaningful life.
An individual’s innate desire to know prompts him to search for truth and
meaning. This intellectual search is inevitable insofar as man is always
bewildered by the tremendous paradox of human life. According to Florentino
Timbreza, “to philosophize means to search for meaning, and philosophy is
understood as man’s intellectual search for the ultimate meaning of human
existence.” Indeed, it is precisely because human life is a great problem that
every individual feels the need to search for an answer and this intellectual
quest is known as philosophy.
To search for meaning is to know first the condition of man and how
meaningful are the human nature in the concrete human existence.
:88
Work means any activity of man whereby man exerts physical and/or
other powers in order to make something. By dint of work, man exerts effort for
the purpose of the production of goods. Holistically, work involves the whole
human person. Work, therefore, is not just a mere human activity; it is a
personal human activity. It is the whole person that works and not just man's
hands, feet, eyes, or body. Since man as a person is an embodied subjectivity,
it is the whole man who is involved in work. Glenn, a recognized Catholic
author, has this to say:
All human effort unites in different proportions the activities of the body
(muscular effort), intellect (mental effort), and will (moral effort). And any
human effort, no matter what proportion of muscle, mind, and will will be
nvolved, which tends partially or entirely to the production. , of goods,
utilities, commodities, values... is labor or work.
If work, in the strict sense of the word, involves body, intellect, and will, then,
work is distinctly a human activity. Thus, non-human creatures do not work
since they do not have both intellect and will. They only act in accordance with
their instinct patterned according to God's plan and purpose of His creation. To
this, Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter "On Human Work" says the
following:
Work is one of the characteristics that distinguishes man from the rest of
the creature whose activity for sustaining their lives cannot be called
work. Only man is capable of work, and only man works at the same
time by work bears a particular mark of a person operating within a
community
:89
Man's life is built up everyday. From work it derives its specific “dignity” says
the author of the encyclical letter, “On Human Work.”
Further, work can also be considered as the founding entity of man and
society. It is impossible for man to live and exist if man does not work. St. Paul,
in the Bible, makes it clear: "He who does not work should not eat.” Besides, if
man works, it would be impossible also that his produce is only intended for
his own satisfaction. In this case, work bears within itself a two-fold aspect,
namely: individual or personal and social. It is personal m the sense that the
individual human person exerts his powers for the production of goods. It is
social in the sense that the State will benefit from the produce of man's work.
Besides, the products of human effort will make the common good more
secure.
KINDS OF WORK
Everything that man does which involves the process of producing the
goods and services that mankind needs and desires is work. In this process,
work can be classified into several kinds, to wit: manual, clerical, professional,
management, entrepreneurial, invention, and intellectual.
Manual work is the most common form of work. Almost everybody who is
physically fit to work can engage in this kind of work. Clerical work, more or
less, can be acquired through a specialized clerical course. Professional work
refers to the work which is done by learned individuals who are college
graduates or those who are holding post graduate degrees, e-g- journalist,
businessman, surgeon, lawyer, clergyman, physician, teacher, etc. Work of
management refers to the work which is done by managers, superintendents,
etc. in various industries. Likewise, capital owners also engage in this kind of
work. Work of enterpriser refers to the work which is done by small-scale
business oriented individuals who set to establish their own business. Work of
invention refers to that kind of work which is done by scientists in their
laboratories. This kind of work obviously requires a lot of brains and creativity.
:90
The Bible does not say that man should do nothing except work. In fact,
the Bible even narrates that God "rested" on the seventh day- This implies that
the worker is more important than his work. It is true that after the Fall, work
becomes compulsory to man. Had man remained innocent, work should have
been his delightful concern- After the Fall, man assumes his lot to work so that
he can sustain himself. But this does not mean that man is cursed by God so
that he should do nothing but work.
Suffice it to say that for the Christian, each man is called by God to work
(so that man acts as His co-creator) and that any kind of work is man’s active
service to God, his Creator, his Redeemer, and Sustainer.
SUMMARY
1. Work refers to any activity which man does through which he exerts
physical and/or other efforts in order to produce or to make something.
3. Since work involves not only the human body but also man's intellect
and will/ work is exclusive to man. This is underscored by Pope Paul II in his
encyclical letter titled: “On Human Work".
:91
5. Work is not a curse from God due to human sinfulness since, even if
man did not sin, man is still inclined to work- This is emphasized by both
St.Thomas Aquinas and Pope Leo XIII.
6. Work is the founding entity on man and society; work has a two-fold
aspect, viz.: personal and social.
For the Christian, the worker is more important than work. Work is man's
service to God; it is man's grateful response to God his Creator and Sustainer.
The Christian is not ashamed of the nature of his work because he finds God m
his work. Work is man’s way of glorifying God; it is his gesture of service to
both God and his fellowman.
ALIENATED LABOR
Karl Marx
The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his
production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes a cheaper
commodity the more commodities he produces. The increase in the value of the
world of things is directly proportional to the decrease in the value of human
world. Labor not only produces commodities. It also produces itself and the
worker as a commodity, and indeed in the same proportion as its produces
commodities in general.
This fact simply indicates that the object which labor produces, its product,
stands opposed to it as an alien thing, as a power independent of the producer.
The product of labor is labor embodied and made objective in a thing. It is the
objectification of labor. The realization of labor is its objectification. In the
viewpoint of political economy, this realization of labor appears as the diminution
of worker, objectification as the loss of subservience to the object, and the
appropriation as alienation (Entfremdung), as externalization (Entausserung).
:92
All these consequences follow from the fact that the worker is related to the
product of his labor as to an alien object. For it is clear according to this premise:
The more the workers exert himself, the more powerful becomes the alien
objective world which he fashions against himself, the poorer he and his inner
world become, the less there is that belongs to him. It is the same in religion. The
more man attributes to God, the less he retains himself. The worker puts his life
into the object; then it no longer belongs to him but to the object. The greater this
activity, the poorer is the worker. What the product of his work is, he is not. The
greater this product is, the smaller he is himself. The externalization of the
worker in his product means not only that his work becomes an object, an
external existence, but also that its exist outside him independently, alien, an
autonomous power, opposed to him. The life he has given to the object confronts
his as hostile and alien…
First is the fact that labor is external to the laborer - - that is, it is not part
of his nature - - and that the worker does not affirm himself in his work but
denies himself, feels miserable and unhappy, develops no free physical and
mental energy but mortifies his flesh and ruins his mind. The worker, therefore,
feels at ease only outside work, and during work he is outside himself. He is at
home when he is not working and when he is working he is not at home. His
work, therefore, is not voluntary, but coerced, forced labor. It is not the
satisfaction of a need but only a means to satisfy other needs. Its alien character
is obvious from the fact that as soon as no physical or other pressure exist, labor
is avoided like the plague. External labor, labor in which man is externalized, is
labor of self-sacrifices, of penance. Finally, the external nature of work for the
worker appears in the fact that it is not his own but another person’s, that in
work he does not belong to himself but to someone else. In religion the
spontaneity of human imagination, the spontaneity of human brain and heart,
:93
The result, therefore, is that man ( the worker) feels that he is acting freely only
in his animal functions - - eating, drinking, and procreating, or at most in his
shelter and finery - - while in his human functions he feels only like an animal.
The animalistic becomes the human and the human the animalistic.
1. The need for a classless economic society. Marx claims that as it is, there is
a society of oppressors versus the oppressed, the exploiters versus the
exploited. Hence, the history of class struggle is society.
2. Religion is man’s opium for it only creates a world of illusion for men who
cannot fond his happiness in this world.
3. society should be changed, but philosophizing is inadequate, action is called
for.
4. This action is a form of social revolution led by the proletariat, the
oppressed class. This revolution can be done by the abolishing private
properties.
5. The reason for this that the fundamental form of human work is not
thought but manual labor, the product of which is self- alienation in the
:94
present society, does not belong to the laborer. By the dialectic movement
of the historical process, the way to communism is paved.
6. The capitalist system exploits the workers for the capitalist does not pay the
workers the full value of the commodity he produces. The system itself is
fraudulent, even with the payment of higher wages. The system must be
abolished.
7. Man is not primarily contemplative but active. His activity is in the
production of goods to answer his basic needs. This process goes on and on
as there are always fresh needs to be satisfied. This, of course, involves
social relations among men and contains the whole history as well as the
philosophy of man.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Babor, Eddie R. The Human Person: Not real, but Existing. Quezon
City, C & E Publishing Inc. 2001