PHILO 102: Philosophy of the Human Person (MR. JOEL C.

PORRAS)

Some Themes of philosophy of Man

1. Man as Embodied Subjectivity

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

2. Man as Being-in-the-world
As embodied subject, man is a being-in-the-world. The human body is the link of man with the world. The
phenomenologist speaks of world or worlds for man, rather than environment. Environment refers to animals,
but the things around man are not simply objects lying; they form a network of meanings, in and on and around
which man organizes his life. Thus we speak of the world of a student, of a teacher,of a farmer, a politician. Man
is “in” the world not in the same sense as the carabao is “in’ the field. Both may be in the field but it is man who
gives meaning to the field, the carabao, the sky, the plough. The world connotes the a dialect of meaning and
structures. The things around man are structures that articulate a meaning proceeding from the subjectivity of
man. Some given structures reinforce a meaning , others run counter to it. In any case, to speak o man is to
speak if his world., and vice versa. The phenomenologist call this the intentionality of consciousness. In visayan,
it means “walay kalibutan(world) kung walay kalibutan (consiuosness).”
Rather than define man as “rational animal” to which one of my students quipped, “so what”? let us
emphasize man’s situatedness. This point is important when we speak of social change. No genuine social
change is effected without an internal change in meaning, and no internal meaning can last without an external

Philosophy of the Human Person Page 1

structure to reinforce it. The scholastics like dwell on cumutative justice or injustice, but contemporary man is
more aware, in a complex world he lives, of social justice or injustice, of unjust structures. This is what we
educators should address ourselves to with our students an awareness of unjust structures, of internal change
that need to be situated,of the need to humanize the world we live in by our work.
How concrete is our philosophy of education? Are we addressing ourselves to the specific world or worlds of
our students? What meaning or meanings do we want our students to see? What structures do we provide to
reinforce this meaning? The textbooks, the extra or co-curricular activities, do they support, form the structure
of our philosophy of education?

3. Man as Being-with; the Inter human and the Social

The world of man, of course, is not just the world of things but also the world of fellowman. Here the
phenomenologist speaks of two dimensions, the interpersonal and the social, the neighbor and the socius ( Paul
Ricoeur).
The Interhuman is the I-thou relationship between persons that the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber
emphasizes in contrast to the I-it relationship. It is the relationship of dialogue in contrast to monologue.
Genuine dialogue begins when one passes beyond the world of seeming and enters into communication with
the other by becoming aware of his totality. Monologue or I-it happens when one stays in the world of seeming,
of impressions, and treats the other as an object, as something that fills his need of the moment. The influence
that one has on the other in dialogue is one of unfolding, where as in monologue, an imposition.
Education, true education, if its to be different from propaganda, is such an unfolding.”educare” means “to
lead out”, to bring out in the other, the student, a certain disposition of him to see for himself the true, good
and beautiful. Buber , an educator himself, is known to have influenced the noted theologian of liberation Paolo
Freire. In his Pedagogy of the oppressed, Freire differentiates two methods of teaching: the banking method and
the dialogical method. In the banking method, the teacher deposit ideas and information to his student and
during the exam, withdraws them, “ walang interes ” . in dialogical , the teacher teaches by learning from his
students, the students learn by teaching. The teacher acts, like Socrates, as a gadfly, bringing out the true, good,
and beautiful as it exist uniquely in each. Education of this type liberates, whereas imposition fossilizes.
That man is social is an old adage. Aristolte characterizes man as by nature,” a political animal”. Yet, in
Aristolte’s times, the slaves were not allowed to participate in the polis. Education was limited to the free man
(woman excluded) to prepare him for an active life in the already established democratic state.
Phenomenology adheres too to the social of man. Where lies the difference? Phenomenology does not limit
society to only one class of man. The social is not something that one enters into by contract to achieve some
common aim, as Rousseau would have it. The social within each man: man does not only live in society, society
lives in him. The things he uses in daily life presuppose contact with fellowman. Language attests to the social
nature of man. Even the individual himself is a product of a social contact. The act of contemplation is itself a
social act.
The social, however, is not given once and for all to man. Society is not static but dynamic. It is borne out of
the historicity that is man. Man as embodied subjectivity temporalizes; in a given situation, he carves a meaning
from his past in view of some project in the future. The past, present and future is not his alone but shared with
fellowman. We speak thus of man as a cultural being, as belonging to a particular way of thinking, relating,
doing about the world in terms of natural and human resources, economics and politics, due to a shared past,
present and future.
What bearing does the social consciousness have on philosophy of education? Clearly, our education cannot
be based simply on ultimate ends, on absolute, eternal truths, as the perrenialist school conceive of it. Neither
can we be simply content with a general formulation of educational objective as preparing the student to
become good citizens in a democracy. As Isaac Berkson says, a philosophy of education must be predicated on a
clearly formulated conception of a way of life in a definite society. And “democracy” has to be made clear. What
do we mean by it in the present era. After all, the universal truth exists in the particular.

4. Man as Persons and his crowning activity is Love which presupposes Justice
For the phenomenologist, the inal aim of education, formal or informal is becoming a persons, “ Madaling
maging tao, mahirap magpakatao” . “Person” is the task of becoming oneself. Th individuality of man is one that
he has to become freely and consciously in time, in the world. In what does thistask consist? It consist in
intergration, in becoming whole , in unifying his diverse activities of speaking, thinking, willing and feeling. How
can he achieve this self-possesion? By directing all these activities towards an objective value or realm of
objective values, objective because they are valuable in themselves. Mere relative values cannot intergrate man
because they are derive their worth fro man himself. What beings posses inherent worth? Man in his
uniqueness and irreducibility is an objective value. Thus, the phenomenologist sees the meaning to the Christian

Philosophy of the Human Person Page 2

paradox: man gains himself by giving himself to others. I become a person only by committing myself to other
persons, and this commitment is what the contemporary thinkers call the fundamental option of love. In the
words of the Chinese philosophers. It is becoming ‘a sage within and a king without” like the tree- the deeper
the roots, the wider the branches reach out, and vice versa.
The commitment of love however, presuppose justice, the true foundation of any social order. Love as the
enhancement of the other’s person requires giving to the other his due, his basic dignity as a person. Love is the
maximum of justice, justice the minimum of love. The demand o justice cannot be divorced from the existential
relationship of man and fellowman, and that is why truth as a value is important. To do justice is to live the light
of truth, to stand witness to it. No genuine social order can last if it establishes itself in deception and
manipulation of people’s minds.
Phenomenological ethics is predominantly axiological or value-ethics. The phenomenologist Max Scheller
stresses the point that values are objects of intentional feeling which is different from feeling-states. Values are
reasons of the heart, not of the mind. They are not imparted by a communication of minds but by a meeting of
persons, in concrete, by models or exemplars.
How to do these insights affect our philosophy of education?
First, we can no longer conceive of educational objectives in terms of personal developments or self-
realization with no end beyond itself. A philosophy of education must include social aims: self-realization is no
longer possible apart from socialization.
Second, socialization, though contextual, is not value-free. Our contemporary social scientists have
pressed on us the insight that no science or discipline is completely devoid of value-orientation. Our educational
policies must aim at specific personal and social values: of justice, love, honesty.
Thirdly, as educators we need to realize that total development is not just the education of the mind but
also of the heart, and we can educate the heart only by being exemplars of what we teach. The bearer of moral
values is the person himself.
Let us conclude this introduction by this summation: Personalization and socialization are but two sides
of a single process in education, in life. This is the central message of Christianity and of other religions. For the
Christian, personal salvation is itself primarily a social act. In the words of Christ,
‘Come, enter and possess the Kingdom that has been ready for you since the world was made. For when
I was hungry, you gave me food; when thirsty, you gave me drink; when I was a stranger, you took me into your
home, when naked you clothed me; when I was ill you came to my help; when in prison, you visited me.’

Philosophy of the Human Person Page 3